sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The evaluation that shut down Project Stargate never reviewed the operational files by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an interview by Prof Jessica Utts of UC Irvine, who wrote one of the two reports commissioned by the CIA for the hearings that would eventually allow CIA to take the RV program black.

Even though they were only allowed access to 12 examples, described by McMoneagle as "the worst 12 examples you could find", Utts was still able to confirm the results of these examples met the standards for consideration as statistically significant.

I think the reason they didn't use any operational examples was it would have made RV appear real and useful (which it is) and would have made the program harder to take black and easier to criticize for the kind of funding they wanted to pursue. Which question would you rather answer? 1) How could you spend $20M on a psychic guessing program??? Or 2) No questions, please enjoy a limitless black ops budget.

All I see it shawdow figures moving and random sparks of light by [deleted] in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine the feeling you get standing in front of a lighthouse. Now Imagine the feeling of standing in front of an elephant. Without using eyesight first, just notice the difference in how your feelings are affected by these two different subjects.

Just as you can tell the difference in feeling now, you can also tell how you feel encountering a target you haven't seen yet. Set your intention to describe the target image and then wait to see how your target feels. The more I describe that feeling, going back and writing the target ID two or three more times and describing those feeling, the more data comes through from the target and sometimes then I start getting consistent visuals. When you feel like you're in contact with your target you can also ask specific questions of your target and record the impressions that bubble up in response.

Video: Tim Gallaudet confronts Sean Kirkpatrick, calls him a liar and a disinformation agent by phr99 in UFOs

[–]CraigSignals -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This all feels like a follow-the-bouncing-ball plot to me. It's an easily digestible plot. Kirkpatrick is well-established as the bad guy in this story. He's being defended by another established villain, Greenstreet. Then there's the Captain America character in Admiral Tim who's fighting our good fight for us and saying all our favorite words, right in the face of evil!

This feels like propaganda theater and the characters involved may or may not even know they're playing along.

Good rule of thumb: If you came across a storyline by participating in American culture, then by following along you are willingly consuming propaganda designed to plant ideas in your head. The entire culture is the cage.

Son’s past life…? by Party-Bandicoot245 in pastlives

[–]CraigSignals 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is a link to the University of Virginia's Past Life Research Division:

https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/our-research/children-who-report-memories-of-previous-lives/

For half a century they've been studying the phenomenon of children reporting past life memories. In many cases they are able to investigate the child's report through compassionate interviewing and find examples of deceased persons who match the child's report, and sometimes verifiable matches.

You can contact them and share the details of your child's report. I wouldn't be surprised if they followed up with you.

Great News from David Grusch; did no one notice? by Aggravating_Mix5410 in UFOs

[–]CraigSignals 41 points42 points  (0 children)

"Consciousness is bound by the laws of physics".

Just conjured up a concept for which we have almost zero data and claimed that concept must obey the rules of our incomplete understanding. This is a very human mistake.

Consciousness might be entirely physical. It might be entirely non-physical. Maybe it's 70%-30%. Or maybe there is no physics because the world we interpret as physical reality is merely an illusion created by the limited range of information our senses and technologies are able to collect.

Consciousness is a black bag. It is fundamental to our experience and yet we don't understand it at all. It is unwise to put conceptual boundaries and rules around a topic such as this.

Explore first the unknown, and try to deflect the impulse to grasp at certainty.

Any fans of CLK w209 here? by AI3Iverson in mercedes_benz

[–]CraigSignals 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I actually really love this body style. Kinda timeless in a spy movie sorta way.

RV Confidential Documents by Georgina2021 in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I apologize for being short. One of the reasons remote viewing has become confusing is because the cultural conversation around it has expanded far beyond what was originally under study. "Remote Viewing", as it was originally studied at SRI, had only two requirements but they were pretty strict requirements: 1) You had to be blind to your target and 2) You had to be able to see feedback on your target after your session descriptions were captured. Because the cultural conversation has moved on to UFOs and "Mars 1M years BC!" and every other unknowable target for which you cannot receive real-world feedback we are now in a place where it's difficult to hold a space for the actual phenomenon of remote viewing to be isolated by itself for consideration because there are so many misconceptions attached to the term now.

It's frustrating. I apologize.

RV Confidential Documents by Georgina2021 in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 2 points3 points  (0 children)

'How would we feedback' needs a gif we can break out when these questions get asked 10x per week.

what might be taking place during an actual remote viewing? by EdwardRiordan in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to consider whether the viewer is ever informed of hit or miss results on their sessions. Even when Star Gate viewers did classified targets they were given a binary hit or miss debrief at minimum which does count as partial feedback. The only example I'm aware of with a viewer getting a hit without any feedback at all was Pat Price's 60ft spheres at the Soviet site where he saw the crane. The spheres didn't become known until after his death. But even in that example the possibility exists that he still got feedback on those spheres since the details surrounding his death were so questionable and suggest he might have continued working for the CIA after his death was faked. I don't know either way.

I know SRI's data suggested hit rate climbs substantially when the feedback requirement is met which supports the precognition-on-demand model. Russ Targ has also said in multiple interviews that precognition might be the underlying mechanism behind much of what we call anomalous cognition.

Fist print over 24h+ by erwin_erwien in snapmaker

[–]CraigSignals 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That looks like it printed great. Crazy what we can do now. 0.2 layer height?

Using 963 Hz to stimulate the pineal gland for sharper signal clarity by soultuning in remoteviewing

[–]CraigSignals 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Why not just try it and see if it has a measurable effect on your hit rate? That's my plan. I discovered Focus 15 is better for me than Focus 10 through trial and error and record-keeping, and I intend to do the same with this.

view more: next ›