It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Remote Viewing of Mars (source: CIA)

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

To be honest, I don't know enough about remote view to believe or not believe. But if this experiment was real, and the fact that the remote viewer had no clue that it was mars , then that is very impressive.




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Apparently the CIA did all kind's of test's on candidate's as they searched for men with psychic potential to put into there program which went far beyond remote viewing.
There was a comedy film based on the very early attempt's called "The Men Who Stare At Goats", it was called this because of one of there programs which was to try to find psychic assassins, men who could will an animal in this case a goat or by default a person to die simply by concentrating on them so this also probably inspired the horror movie Scanners, the CIA felt they had to proceed with this avenue of research as there were strong rumors that the Soviet Union was doing the exact same thing.

The Remote Viewing or as it is more accurately called Clairvoyance aspect only came about as a side angle but became there most successful endeavor and the most successful subject (that we know of) was one Major Ed Dames but of course it could all simply have been a smoke screen to throw the Soviets off the scent of something far more technological in nature?.

This program was actually called the STARGATE PROJECT
en.wikipedia.org...

In essence Remote viewing requires a subject whom is clairvoyant or has a high psychic ability as shown in car guessing tests and other tests, this subjet is then told only the very minimal information just like the card tests were they had to guess the pattern on the card and out of perhaps hundreds of subjects they eventually whittled them down to just a very small few promising subjects.
They tried to enhance this by using sensory deprivation tanks as well but it was just as you outlined, the subject was given a target location or not even told that but given an envelope with a set or co-ordinates upon it which they did not even read and then asked to go there in there mind and explain there impressions or what came to there mind on the target location, often remember not even knowing the target location as it was inside a sealed envelope.
One subject had a consistant high level of success and his psychic spying behind the Iron Curtain during the cold war was so accurate that he was according to the public story at least awarded medals for his valuable intelligence gathering, that person was one Ed Dames.

But Remember this as the CIA and there business in pursuit of there agenda which ostensibly is the security of the US consists of smoke and mirrors, cloak and dagger often even after the fact so even on this subject we are unlikely to ever know the full and real truth.

As such how much stead can we really put in the storys of remote viewing and if it is real how does it really work.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: iTruthSeeker
Buddy its a beautiful concept(Remote Viewing) but completely unprovable to date, hence the lack of conclusive evidence to support the topic.
Certainly requires further study under laboratory conditions although i think it has been done somewhat already, with no conclusive proof materializing.

I'm so pleased to see someone at ATS actually interested in legitimate science!

Both of your statements are odd though, given that neither would be thought accurate by many familiar with the science of this inquiry.

For others: while funding has been profoundly limited, there is now well over a century of psychical research. And it's been 40 years since the USA started certain experimental studies, some of which later became military or science programs, some of which later were retroactively collectively called 'the star gate program' (note: not all of them. I think they did this to frustrate FOIA requests and shuffle any such requests into that bucket instead.) -- and this initial funding was based allegedly on the USSR having spent a lot of funds on this study not just briefly but year after year, prior to that, so it goes back quite a bit.

Remote Viewing as a science-used term for psi work was coined in 1971 and was used from there on as statistically it had done better than most any other study of 'types of psi' approach (e.g. card-guessing). In 77-78 the gov't even began an intelligence unit for it. In the early to mid 80s an experimental 'training' program began related to psi, and those subjects got dropped into a new version of the unit when funding changed. Most the persons who've gone public related to this topic came from that group or those who worked with them.

Aside from the many people who make claims in this topic -- those loudest and boldest inevitably are either clearly working disinfo/ strategicDeception or just a little off-center -- that's the media, you know, but we're talking science here, so, there are several pretty well known science papers that are the cornerstones of this topic I'm sure you're familiar with. I'm curious what you think for instance of the 1991 article in Statistical Science, and its commentaries and response, that compared a meta-analysis of psychical research with one done on a medical trial and compared the results and response. Do you think that despite having a stronger result than a medical trial stopped to give the control group the medicine, the effect was seen as so clear that it would be unethical not to, that viewing within a science context still has something to continue re-re-re-re-reproving? What specifically would you suggest in terms of controls or measurable parameters?

I notice you used the term "conclusive proof" -- not everything has this, even plenty of scientific theories and models accepted as valid in the mainstream. And there are some sciences or measures which are by their nature either indirect, or have a fuzz of exactitude, or are difficult to get specifics on for feedback. Sometimes you define something -- or preclude ever learning anything about it -- by insisting it must use certain tools or meet certain goals that it might not work well with or might rarely apply to, because our understanding of just what something is or how it works is still not fully clear. Is there something you would change about the way formal research protocols are developed, whether for direct or associative viewing?

Best regards,
RC
edit on 16-2-2017 by RedCairo because: typo



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I just finished the book Cosmic Voyage and it was a great read to me. Inspiring in many ways also. It could all be false but honestly it does just "feel right" deep down in ways. If I remember correctly, a lot of the content seems to correlate with the RA material and also the Hidden Hand stuff as far as the overall picture. But I will continue to dig further on the subject because it is fascinating, even if fiction.



posted on Feb, 20 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

As a starting roadmap for ATSers...

Probably the best book on the subject from an outsider, albeit it does sort of miss half the info but what it has is good, is REMOTE VIEWERS by Jim Schnabel.

MIND TREK by Joseph McMoneagle (tip: after ch1 it's a much faster read, I found the foreward and ch1 kinda slow) is I think the nicest intro by someone inside. He's the only guy part of that program start to finish and who worked both science and intell through it (and humorously, as a cool ref, Viewer #001). He's The Man of that field for hands-on viewing which I think the first book will make evident. (Also he's been featured on nearly every major media in the country and many other countries as well, including a dozen shows with the Japanese version of the FBI for finding long (like up to decades long) lost persons.) It includes guidelines for how to go about trying it yourself under the right conditions.

Early books about it from before the STAR GATE program was retroactively collected and named and made public, include MIND REACH by Puthoff and Targ (two of the physicists from the start/early ~half of the program).

Ingo Swann is also featured greatly in Schnabel's book; he was the lab psychic in '71 ASPR of the trials that ended up being named 'remote viewing,' and the first exploratory trials that brought later larger funding; and in the 80s he creatively compiled what he intended as a 'training methodology' for viewing which is most of what you hear about in the glossy commercialized RV world (profit and power/expertise by former U.S. intelligence agents, so like UFOlogy, be wary). Ingo was a brilliant guy, great artist, helluva viewer, and he's got lots of books, from an old one I liked best "To Kiss Earth Goodbye" which was his autobiography and described "how" he viewed (nothing like his later training method, which makes sense as he was 'training non-psychics' to his mind), to lots of later books he self-published and I think are being affordably published again from his estate. You can find them on his website (ingoswann.com) but the best material there for hands-on viewers is the 'database' of essays he wrote about viewing.

Some neat example stuff on Associative Remote Viewing (a specific tasking protocol used for RV sometimes) you can find at remote-viewing.com by Greg K, lots of little sketch examples of his real sessions, he was a wildly successful stock broker who retired very young, and was using RV to see if it could be consistent enough to make money with. (He didn't finish the trials which were tons of work, but he did make money. That info's on the site.) He went on to set a few world records in human-powered speed sports so I think his interests moved on.

There are plenty of 'target' sources around the web for the art, and a couple sources of 'free' instruction in someone's format or methodology. A method is not required. RV is a science-based protocol, of which the viewer's method is one of many components, and that is arbitrary to the study or project design or viewer's pref. RV's definition however is that it is "free-response" psi with a few no-brainer rules in place. An outline with explanation of an RV protocol: RV PROTOCOL This one small page is really the key to everything else. Wrap your brain around it and the 'why' (ask if you've questions) and a lot of the rest of the topic will fall into place in you.

Don't let competitive advertising/info confuse you, when they refer to 'the protocols' they usually mean 'the steps of a method.' That's what they mean because it's what they sell (or sell themselves as expert on). The scientists mean the science protocol (a set of rules or steps, which can include a method, or parts of one, or not) when they talk about it. There was a big disinfo/strategic deception effort, as well as some tragically same-result though probably well intentioned efforts, from the mid-90s on, so the field's like the bangkok market, keep salt in your pocket and your wallet close to your chest. :-)

For social stuff, the 'social media' world has taken over leaving most forums kinda in the dust unless they have a lot of commercial sales or cult followings propping them up (in 'psychic' areas there is usually plenty of both), some still have activity but not the traffic they used to. There's one that's open field-wide (many things in the field are specific to a commercial 'training' source or paradigm-set, but this one is 'by viewers, for viewers' and open to any/all) TKR Remote Viewing Project you can usually ask any question there and (eventually) someone will answer you, sometimes people with a variety of perspectives. Or read the archives, lots of great info archived there. The more active social stuff is usually only "sort of" RV (and often a very vague/light version of it) and a lot of "woo woo psi" and "new age or cool stuff in the news" combined, but fun for those into that stuff -- search facebook on the RV term and you'll find several.

A nice archive of materials field-wide is www.remoteviewed.com..., which also has a target collection for use. The guy who runs it also offers free CRV training on the forum linked above if someone shows interest. The earliest public RV site (mid-90s) still has at least half its archives up at www.firedocs.com... and last but not least, the coolest media magazine for the topic is www.eightmartinis.com... which you can buy in print but download free online and it has a history/archive available.

Remote Viewing for critical thinkers (as opposed to the rest of planet earth but I like to think people at ATS are more often thinkers) is properly understood not as just psi or just someone's particular method for psi (Silva had one of the first 'psychic methods' to hit the commercial bigtime in the 60s 70s, and as Ingo Swann has written about, there's been zillions of 'em), because those things, both the art and the effort to structure it, have been around since the dawn of time, but as psi efforts done "within" the science-based protocol which is what is fairly 'new' -- what they gradually worked out in the 70s (and better perfected in the 80s and early 90s) to get the so-far best statistics ever on it, and a functional process worked out for actually applying it (in that case in intelligence situations).

The only truly hard thing about doing RV is first, not screwing up the protocol rules. They exist to 'clean up' the process and serve the viewer. Second, the cognitive dissonance that kicks in if someone has some natural inclination for it can be severe and is very... destabilizing, let's say. (Yes, even for very grounded, practical people. The question isn't who is destabilized by having their fundamental psychological models of time, space, reality, and identify messed with, everyone is, and the better they are and the cleaner their protocol the moreso in some respects because it's real and not stuff their subconscious knows is an 'out' -- but rather, who is capable of the 'adaptive adjustment' to the cycles of it. People who have any history of psychological instability should not do this.) For some free hands-on trying/seeing, try TKR at the Dojo Psi.

Hope that helps.
RC

edit on 20-2-2017 by RedCairo because: typo



new topics

top topics
 
41
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join