[noworld]

The first PDF is the record of a remote viewing session from 2 days before the USS Stark incident, and it is eerily similar to the incident. The feelings and "atmosphere" (can't think of a better word for it) sound like what you might expect on a ship being attacked by a random missile.

For example:

1. The drawing on p. 7 looks like the superstructure of a warship.

2. The next few pages might describe what it feels like to wonder if your ship is actually under missile attack.

3. On page 10 it records "aircraft--large, multiengined; distant; orbiting; distraction controlled, directed. 'Under orders.'" This USNI article has a little more detail on the AWACS plane detecting the incoming attack: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/j...

There are other similarities, but the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange.

[squigz]

How many of these 'remote viewing' sessions didn't bear any similarities to anything?

If you throw a bunch of stuff at a wall, some of it is going to stick. Especially when it appears to be random words that can be applicable to millions of situations.

[an0malous]

> Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is ex- pected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of a magnitude similar to those found in government sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories around the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

From Jessica Utts, who was the president of the American Statistical Association and asked to review the Stanford Research Institute psychic programs (including Star Gate).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333228024_An_Assess...

[squigz]

> Using the standards applied to any other area of science

Assuming this is true, I have to wonder why it would be that the science community apparently places a higher burden of proof on this sort of research, and whether that higher standard has been earned or not.

[the_af]

Ray Hyman, the other member of the review panel with Jessica Utts, disagreed with her conclusions ("the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."). Utts also seems to be involved in parapsychology organizations, which is pseudoscience -- I hope you won't dispute this much -- so I'd rule out her opinion as fringe, and not in any way the mainstream scientific opinion on RV.

RV is pseudoscience, you won't find scientific support for it, or anyone able to reproduce its purported results under controlled conditions.

The Amazing Randi probably had a challenge about RV that no con artist was able to win.

Edit: wait, it's even worse. Utts was completely biased and compromised:

> The psychologist David Marks noted that because Utts had published papers with [Edwin] May [a parapsychologist who took over Project Stargate in '85] "she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation."

So she was completely biased and wasn't independent of the leadership of Stargate! She had vested interests in it being "real", she was invested on RV and parapsychology!

[someothherguyy]

That says 2019, but it was published in 1995:

https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

This goes into way more detail and covers Utts's work.

https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/images/mumford.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts

[the_af]

> If you throw a bunch of stuff at a wall, some of it is going to stick. Especially when it appears to be random words that can be applicable to millions of situations.

Indeed. I'm amazed so many HN regulars are surprised by this. It's how horoscopes work, we've known this for centuries now.

Have people forgotten the scientific method, the standards of proof, etc?

[akatechis]

> the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange

It's only strange if you believe the CIA released notes from their super-secret psychic program rather than the more plausible explanation that this is disinformation that was backdated for a boost of prestige.

[noworld]

Can you give me some evidence that this document was backdated? I'm not saying the government isn't shady AF, but I just wonder what's behind the immediate jump to "this has to be BS" rather than keeping an open mind.

[the_af]

Extraordinary claims (that RV is a real phenomenon) require extraordinary evidence. The null hypothesis is the default position, it requires no extraordinary evidence; the opposite does.

This is scientific method 101. Let's not pretend we're not familiar with it just because some dodgy CIA document surfaced.

[noworld]

Ah, since the claim contradicts materialism, you get to make up a scenario, present no evidence, then put the burden on the other side. Got it.

There's literally extraordinary evidence in the PDF, you just don't like it.

[the_af]

I didn't make up any scenario. RV is the made up scenario.

If you want to reject the scientific method go ahead, but you won't find much sympathy here.

[olyjohn]

You call that extraordinary evidence? Looks pretty vague to me.

"Ship. Round thing. Structure. Water. Propeller."

Give me a break. Reads like the typical psychic scammers.

[__patchbit__]

A spicily prepared `false flag' operation dead drop will do the time travel trick especially given the CIA is being outgamed on all the dimensions.

[buildsjets]

Always nice to stumble across your posts. Any progress on the jailbreak?

[FuturisticLover]

Yeah, Remote Viewing should be a real-time event. This is Precognition.

[therobots927]

Why does it need to be real- time? If rv is possible then it’s naive to assume that time is somehow “special” vs 3D. It’s possible that time is not unfolding linearly, that is only an illusion. “Remote” could involve accessing information from along the time dimension.

[FuturisticLover]

I guess that makes sense. My tiny brain is still processing all the information. Thinking beyond 3D or space/time is impossible for me.

[dylan604]

Long ago I was told of looking at a timeline so that time "travels" from left to right is the normal view, but now rotate that timeline so that it appears as a dot to you. You now see all events of the timeline, but without reference to "when" they happened. Lots of scifi plots are also described as such

[therobots927]

Think about a maze drawn on a piece of paper. Because we’re in 3D you can see all of the maze at once but if you were a 2D entity inside the maze you would only see the walls / entrances / exits directly in front or behind you. Now imagine drawing a line from the entrance to the exit - that’s 2D + a time dimension. Now make it a 3D maze and an entity existing outside of spacetime would be able to see all events happening at once in 3D.