Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

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

#21

Post by xerocole »

causality0 wrote: post #20
xerocole wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless they’re an even bigger shit show. Mobs of extortionists, networks in the tens of thousands, mostly bumbletard screwballs. A few elite who are as their gods.

Power is more easily developed by condemned men serving decades to life in prisons than smart successful savvy persons who live a prosperous life. They themselves are mostly pyramid schemes of extortion (these days, I am assured it was not always so.)

The things these do for fun and for profit cannot be paid for with money or be accomplished by anyone in their right minds.

You know how Americans and power are, always taking things too far, without regard for consequences.

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

#22

Post by dh77l »

xerocole wrote: post #21
causality0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Unless they’re an even bigger shit show. Mobs of extortionists, networks in the tens of thousands, mostly bumbletard screwballs. A few elite who are as their gods. Power is more easily developed by condemned men serving decades to life in prisons than smart successful savvy persons who live a prosperous life. They themselves are mostly pyramid schemes of extortion (these days, I am assured it was not always so.) The…

Look at Animal domestication - see neoteny in domestic animals for eg - is a manipulative process too. People do use those techniques on each other and at mass scale via communication/advertising/marketing. Yet there are regulations and red lines and people regularly get throw in jail.

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

#23

Post by kimi »

api wrote: post #9
kimi wrote: 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,…

Yes - the fact is that with the same attitude it would be very hard to have *any* kind of science, because if the default answer is "it must be wrong because it's impossible. so did you control X and Y? no? you see, you are a fraud". If it was applied to Newton's law, I fear they would still be debating the weight and color of the famous apple.

(not taking a position on the contents here, just on the social process).

I personally find parapsychology very interesting - and it's worth reading about, worst case consider it well-build scientific SF. It asks a lot of interesting questions: how do you study something where the scientist is directly entangled? how do you study something where you may have an actively hostile field of research? see e.g. https://books.google.ch/books/about/The_Trickster_and_the_Pa... who was written by Hansen on leaving the field....

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

#24

Post by api »

kimi wrote: post #23
api wrote: 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,…

Yes - the fact is that with the same attitude it would be very hard to have *any* kind of science, because if the default answer is "it must be wrong because it's impossible. so did you control X and Y? no? you see, you are a fraud". If it was applied to Newton's law, I fear they would still be debating the weight and color of the famous apple. (not taking a position on the contents here, just on the social process).…

Decent counterpoint, and I am aware that there are some anomalous results in the field that do not appear to be fraud or just bad design.

There’s two reasons most people dismiss this stuff. Well three really but the third is less scientific.

(1) There does not seem to be a way to reliably isolate, repeat, or amplify the phenomenon. Something always at the edge of detection that can never be pinned down is often indicative of error or a hypothesis that’s off the mark.

(2) We cannot possibly imagine a natural mechanism that would explain this stuff without a lot of very soft SF hand waving. Entanglement does not transfer information. The brain only consumes an average of about 30-40 watts of power, so it’s not firing particle beams. The human body does not emit EM or RF to any meaningful degree and is pretty non-responsive to it. Some of the results are so weird that you’d have to posit actual magic or the universe being a simulation or some wholly absolutely unknown realm of physics.

The last less scientific reason is:

(3) There have been a lot of fakes in this field and historically it’s associated with cults, occult weirdos, religious nuts, etc. These are people scientists generally scoff at with some legitimate reason.

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

#27

Post by kimi »

api wrote: post #24
kimi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - the fact is that with the same attitude it would be very hard to have *any* kind of science, because if the default answer is "it must be wrong because it's impossible. so did you control X and Y? no? you see, you are a fraud". If it was applied to Newton's law, I fear they would still be debating the weight and color of the famous apple. (not taking a position on the contents here, just on the social process).…

Decent counterpoint, and I am aware that there are some anomalous results in the field that do not appear to be fraud or just bad design. There’s two reasons most people dismiss this stuff. Well three really but the third is less scientific. (1) There does not seem to be a way to reliably isolate, repeat, or amplify the phenomenon. Something always at the edge of detection that can never be pinned down is often indic…

About (1), that's what Rhine did his whole life. Of course, it's all "debunked" - at the end you either trust what he did or think he was a fraud.

About (2), I don't think it is really relevant, as long as there is (1). My main doubt here is: if there is a way to obtain some advantage out of it, why isn't evolution using this extensively? life is usually pretty good at exploring all possible paths. But maybe it does, and once we "see" it, it is everywhere.

For point (3), someone suggests this is structural, and that liminality/trickster effects are the very thing we are talking about. Thence (1). If you are interested, I suggest checking out the book on Trickster - and also Jacques Vallee's "Messengers of deception".

Personally, I'm not sure what to make of all this, but it is very fascinating.

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

#28

Post by novia »

The entire time the remote viewing program was funded, the United States was actually remotely viewing their enemies and any location of interest they wanted, from space, with photos [1]. This was only recently declassified.

Funding the remote viewing program allowed the United States to bait other nation-states into funding their own paychic bullshit units, while being able to be completely misunderstood if anyone ever compromised their communications and heard them talking about "remote viewing." It also allowed for parallel construction, as another commentor in this thread mentioned.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon

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

#29

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

kimi wrote: 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've look into this subject at some length, the bar does appear very, very high indeed. If all that is claimed were indeed true (and I suspect it is) then current 'science' is barking up the wrong tree.
Post reply on HN