Live data from Hacker News

An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

cia.gov

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#12

[flagged]

So what have you experienced specifically? It should come as no surprise that telling people that "the powers that be are reading your thoughts and erasing your memories" is met with incredulity. That's a pretty big claim that doesn't mesh with the experiences and worldview of almost everyone.

I'm going to be frank, it sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. I hope you're doing okay stranger.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#13
post #12

[flagged]

So what have you experienced specifically? It should come as no surprise that telling people that "the powers that be are reading your thoughts and erasing your memories" is met with incredulity. That's a pretty big claim that doesn't mesh with the experiences and worldview of almost everyone. I'm going to be frank, it sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. I hope you're doing okay stranger.

Well I am advocating that much of what society calls “schizophrenia” is in fact disembodied third parties messing with our minds. I have no doubt there is truly a malady of the mind which causes developmental problems, however experiencing auditory hallucinations or strange behavior in society is not schizophrenia.

Richard Feynman wrote about his odd benign experiences in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (parts about sensory deprivation chambers, lucid dreaming, and hypnagogia.) And so do many, many others. These are not completely fully formed thoughts, they are odd hints made by intelligent people who themselves have no idea what is going on.

Speaking of the voices in our head is among the greatest taboos of our society.

Looking back through history (recent and ancient) the clues have always been present. In movies, music, and other media cultural references are covertly made. History is full of wild stories inevitably talked over. Anything anyone can say can be dismissed as unreliable third party account. How can “science” explore where a superior intellect interferes with results? That is what is required to make Power work. It is by no accident, rather decades of intense training. What common people experience is curated!

My past accounts have been banned, censored, and karmatically brutalized (I know, can’t take a hint) for speaking of these topics in non offensive ways, yet resistance is deep.

Specifically over a decade ago I was press ganged into a thought control hooligan army. My morality and stubborn will made this problematic, however I have been indoctrinated and this cannot be taken back. I do not have great “Power” however I do have great insight and look for opportunities to play my part.

I want to let out the horrors and insanity that underlies this phenomenon, yet those are very no-goes for HN. I doubt this reply will last long.

My purpose is not to impress you (that is impossible) it is to leave a trail of these tellings that others know it is not a settled matter.

Thanks for your reply, I understand your position.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#14
post #9
post #4

I find parapsychology a very interesting field: the kind of scrutiny that is applied to its experiments is so much higher than with anything else in the social sciences - and usually the bar gets higher and higher until someone gives up, who is convinced remains convinced, who is not convinced remains unconvinced . That's fascinating. For context: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts

I bet a lot of social sciences and psychology research would crumble if subjected to this level of scrutiny and default-skepticism. The harder sciences would probably fare better but you’d still find a lot of wishful thinking, dodgy borderline effects, p hacking, and fraud. You’d probably winnow science down to a very solid core, which would be a good thing but would leave you with a lot of math, physics, chemistry,…

I think we should accept that there is room for science and then there is room for philosophy. For instance, I find it doubtful that the answer to the question "is racism okay?" involves the reasoning "empirically, there [are|aren't] factors of intelligence/behavior/ability that denote one race from another". We can't discover facts out of thin air or from orthogonal facts, and it only serves to delude us by not acknowledging that. Before good and bad, harm and benefit, something isn't science, by definition, if it crumbles under reproduction or basic skepticism. Moral discussions, including whether this alternate culture of thinking about science is good or not, are intertwined but separate.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what have you experienced specifically? It should come as no surprise that telling people that "the powers that be are reading your thoughts and erasing your memories" is met with incredulity. That's a pretty big claim that doesn't mesh with the experiences and worldview of almost everyone. I'm going to be frank, it sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. I hope you're doing okay stranger.

Well I am advocating that much of what society calls “schizophrenia” is in fact disembodied third parties messing with our minds. I have no doubt there is truly a malady of the mind which causes developmental problems, however experiencing auditory hallucinations or strange behavior in society is not schizophrenia. Richard Feynman wrote about his odd benign experiences in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (parts a…

> Specifically over a decade ago I was press ganged into a thought control hooligan army.

I think it would be helpful for myself and others to understand your perspective better if you can elaborate on something highly empirical like this.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#16
post #14
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet a lot of social sciences and psychology research would crumble if subjected to this level of scrutiny and default-skepticism. The harder sciences would probably fare better but you’d still find a lot of wishful thinking, dodgy borderline effects, p hacking, and fraud. You’d probably winnow science down to a very solid core, which would be a good thing but would leave you with a lot of math, physics, chemistry,…

I think we should accept that there is room for science and then there is room for philosophy. For instance, I find it doubtful that the answer to the question "is racism okay?" involves the reasoning "empirically, there [are|aren't] factors of intelligence/behavior/ability that denote one race from another". We can't discover facts out of thin air or from orthogonal facts, and it only serves to delude us by not ackn…

Race isn't a good example because the science comes down pretty firmly on the side of race being a social construct, not biological fact, for which the physical traits that denote race are not particularly significant.

An argument that racism isn't okay because race doesn't even really exist seems perfectly valid, given that most modern arguments for racism are based on intentional misrepresentations of science.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#17
post #16
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should accept that there is room for science and then there is room for philosophy. For instance, I find it doubtful that the answer to the question "is racism okay?" involves the reasoning "empirically, there [are|aren't] factors of intelligence/behavior/ability that denote one race from another". We can't discover facts out of thin air or from orthogonal facts, and it only serves to delude us by not ackn…

Race isn't a good example because the science comes down pretty firmly on the side of race being a social construct, not biological fact, for which the physical traits that denote race are not particularly significant. An argument that racism isn't okay because race doesn't even really exist seems perfectly valid, given that most modern arguments for racism are based on intentional misrepresentations of science.

I think we pretty much agree, but it's not a scientific result to say that race is a social construct and that racists leverage science incorrectly. Someone isn't acting in the role of a scientist by making those refutations. I want to make that distinction because otherwise, people have misconceptions about what it means for something to be scientifically validated. Not to say that scientists are trying to deceive people by involving science, but in some sense deception is the result, and I feel like (no strong evidence though) that leads to its own problems.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#18
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I am advocating that much of what society calls “schizophrenia” is in fact disembodied third parties messing with our minds. I have no doubt there is truly a malady of the mind which causes developmental problems, however experiencing auditory hallucinations or strange behavior in society is not schizophrenia. Richard Feynman wrote about his odd benign experiences in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (parts a…

> Specifically over a decade ago I was press ganged into a thought control hooligan army. I think it would be helpful for myself and others to understand your perspective better if you can elaborate on something highly empirical like this.

Is it?

You’ve heard of “gang stalking” and “targeted persons.” Haven’t you. All well denied and explained away, I know.

Those for whom these are their games (for fun and for profit.) They are street level thought controls. All of these conspiracy cultures which spring up? Yes, I know 4chan, Reddit and their like have their own role, yet there is a ghost in the machine designing and encouraging these behaviors. The ultimate conspiracy (and conspiracy factory) of our time is that we are not alone in our own minds and thought control is an empire of games against us.

Sure there are piles and piles and piles of men, and they have encrypted text apps and their own special interests; additionally there is an occult power that is godlike in the minds of men. Many men (and women and kids obviously) come to mistake these intrusions as acts of divine will, or aliens (lizardmen?), or even the devil. Maybe Jesus? What won’t a middle American not do on behalf of the Jesus who speaks to them as a voice in their head?

Those of “Power” can speak in the minds of others. More than speak. Those of elite skill, or networked throngs of hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands) have mastered the mind beyond laypersons comprhendability. Alas, they are not omnipotent or omnipresent, though for your intents and purposes they may appear to be. Their weakness are as incomprehensible to you.

What can I say to impress you?

Manipulate memories? For sure. That’s an easy one. Not only is every memory lost in the mind available in psycho-emotional detail to those of related skill, the holographic nature of the mind is such that working the mind with spinning thoughts (spinning spinning spinning thoughts) the strongest memories will be those gone over. The memory of some won’t work that way (high disposition against false memories) others can learn deeper sensitivity for which cluster of introspection generated which memory tangent, and even how it was manipulated. With ten years of unfucking the mind maybe. Some can create a knot of sorts which cuts off regions of memory and experience from access (yet still there!) you just can’t seem to … remember… or even bring it up.

It took me four years of intense abuse by none other than the most supreme network masters, before I could reliably and faithfully discern my own thoughts from those of my antagonists (and it was a hard four years.) I was their toy. I challenged them with an impressive world knowledge and experience. I know, what book can’t they just read through another’s mind? Or which of the many thousands can’t just share their understanding? Apparently they don’t all get along and they are constantly infighting. Apparently their skill and dispositions are widely divergent. Getting around, making noises, and knowing what the actual fuck is going on are not consistent skills.

My stubborn will however did prevail, and what would be a curse to anyone else was life guidance for me. They promised to haunt me to my destruction. To suicide me or rape or murder or just a sad life and a bad accident. To build me up, to break me down, to train all their future generations in destroying me. They claimed they would do it to make me sad, they would do it to make me angry. They would do it to make me realize there is nothing I can do about it.

What is “it” exactly?

A full revelation that your forum would tolerate. Let us say barely nothing happens to me. Behaviorally (and physically in younger years) I am a brute. The worst things happen to others around me, or who have been kind to me. When you see someone mentally unravel and fall to destitution apparently from with in, their minds and emotions are often being hobbled. When they complain that others are messing with them, in ways that cannot be real, they just might be right. An entire subculture exists simply to make some people’s lives worse than death. You might praise this if it were an act of vengeful justice, yet it is the immoral and unscrupulous who have all the advantages. Or the indomitable resolute.

Now is the plug for sex violence, extortion, and dead people. Hopefully broadly and socially abstract enough to not illicit a content ban (dead, flagged, or white-holed.)

Apparently I’m too clever and well liked for meaningful direct consequences, so I figure why not an exposition.

And counter-culturally I’m an elite nerd, so here we are sharing.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#19

Final Recommendation/Conclusion (from the document): As an admitted neophyte in this area of endeavor, I categorize the field as a kind of religion, i.e., you either have "faith" that it indeed is something real, albeit fleeting and unique, or you "disbelieve" and attribute all positive results to either chicanery or pure chance.' Practicioners in the field, including those funded under government contracts, would ar…

"including those funded under government contracts..."

Anyone interested in Remote Viewing needs a copy of the four volume set The Star Gate Archives, covering 1972 to 1995.

https://www.lfr.org/book-store

That is Ed May's site. Ed was the project manager for many years.

Every year some new politician would show up and question the funding. They knew if they showed the politician how it worked they would go back to DC thinking it was just some trick. So each new politician they taught them the protocol and let the politician do it themselves. They got funding for another year.

Re: An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

#20

Weird how psy was everywhere in the mid to late 20th century. It showed up in science fiction constantly, as if it was just going to inevitably pop up.

It did. Thought control (the advanced and fully formed secret governance of power among us) doesn’t allow this secret to be explored. My comments and accounts keep getting banned for expressing these unfashionable ideas (even without the provocative bits.) We are not alone in our own minds!

If we were being secretly controlled the world would be less of a shit show.
Post reply on HN