"The Weird Desk"?

Aviary discussion and topics

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Gary » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:57 pm

Daz, in addition to Paul Smith's book, I suggest a review of Jim Schnabel's book (the one that caused all of the concerns as noted in the STAR GATE files, by Ed May in particular). Schnabel writes about Pandolfi's effort to get inside the program.

James: you are missing the point. According to the files, members of the Intelligence Committees in Congress, et. resulted in an official Congressional Mandate to declassify paranormal programs against the wishes of many at DIA, et al -- with a stated purpose of cooperative research with researchers from the former Soviet Untion (FSU). This, in fact, did take place following STAR GATE (post 1995) and some of the cooperative activity was facilitated over the Internet and at Joe Firmage's organizations (ISSO, etc.). Some of the activity was reported to have worried NASA, resulting in an investigation by a NASA Special Agent. Among those players were Jack Sarfatti and Creon Levit of NASA AMES, in addition to numerous foreign scientists.

See this from San Francisco Chronicles SF GATE site:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... SS8796.dtl

An upcoming private meeting between Silicon Valley high-tech executives, NASA scientists and a high-profile UFO enthusiast has sparked an investigation by a government agency.

Special Agent Keith Tate, an investigator with the Long Beach branch of NASA's Office of Inspector General, has been calling Silicon Valley sources, including The Examiner, seeking information about a planned Tuesday meeting between research scientists and Silicon Valley high-tech executives.

At that meeting, first reported by The Examiner, attendees, including scientists from the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, will discuss propulsion technologies.

"We're trying to determine if any proprietary information will be talked about at that meeting," said Tate. "We're very concerned about this."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1BmfsMfEX
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:03 pm

Gary,

Gary wrote:Richard Dell who is developing nuclear fusion propulsion...

“The Arlington Institute and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin introduced me to Dr. Miley, about four years ago this March. I am truly grateful to the principals of both of these Institutes and I confess that I owe them a debt of gratitude more than I could possible ever repay.”

P.T. Barnum was right…

[for those who don’t know, the IASA is Hal Puthoff’s “academic” front]

Do you have a reason for posting this other than a vested interest in promoting Scammers Inc’s latest con?

Before you answer that, you have some business to attend to in another thread first. Assuming that doesn’t seal your fate here at RU given that strictly speaking it already should have, you have an authenticity issue in this thread that needs to be addressed before you answer that too.

Be aware that nothing less than your best effort to resolve these outstanding issues with something resembling intellectual honesty on your part will be acceptable at this point.

Thank you,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Gary » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:08 pm

Btw, in case anyone may have missed this point, this is the 'Secret' Mars Mission revealed last year by Laura Bradshaw Mahon Eisenhower, daughter of Obama Energy Secretary Chu nuclear consultant Susan Eisenhower:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/richar ... clear.html

And quoting from the interview:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/richar ... clear.html

Question: Tell us about how you became involved with Dr. Miley

Answer: Several years back I was a Program Manager for a small, family owned company. While I worked there I became very interested in developing an Advanced Aerospace Research Center and began to make contact with a variety of physicists, technologists and foundations. The Arlington Institute and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin introduced me to Dr. Miley, about four years ago this March. I am truly grateful to the principals of both of these Institutes and I confess that I owe them a debt of gratitude more than I could possible ever repay.


Now those who might be somewhat conspiratorial by nature might point to Miley's association with Franklin Meade of the USAF (same person responsible for Eric Davis' USAF teleportation study) and STAIF (Paul Murad et al) -- STAIF, where agents from Ft. Meade are alleged to have recruited a fellow Internet journalist as an operative.

But then, I'm NOT a conspiratorialist like some of the RU3. ;-)
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Gary » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:18 pm

Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:36 pm

Goodbye Gary...

[Gary’s ban is now permanent due to repeated failures to respond to moderation]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:45 pm

dazdude wrote:
James Carlson wrote:These documents were really bugging me, for some reason, so I decided to take a closer look at http://www.starpod.org/Slideshow/1011251ss.htm where they were sourced from.

The documents are real - I have a copy form the CIA - these documents are in the Star Gate FOIA archives. There is no reason to believe they were faked and put into the archives.

That’s not what’s in question. Can you please post the rest of the document that Gary only posted excerpts from at the above link? I’m trying to understand why that portion was marked SECRET and by who.

dazdude wrote:...you are making assumptions that just are not correct and people who were there at the time have accurately recorded what actually happened with all the political, legal and inter agency wrangles over the remote viewing unit.

It appears you neglected to mention the reason the original CIA program…

STAR GATE [Controlled Remote Viewing]
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

The initial research program, called SCANATE [scan by coordinate] was funded by CIA beginning in 1970. Remote viewing research began in 1972 at the Stanford Research Institute [SRI] in Menlo Park, CA. This work was conducted by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, once with the NSA and at the time a Scientologist. The effort initially focused on a few "gifted individuals" such as New York artist Ingo Swann, an OT Level VII Scientologist. Many of the SRI "empaths" were from the Church of Scientology.

Was picked up and canceled by the Army…

In 1984 the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council evaluated the remote viewing program for the Army Research Institute. The results were unfavorable.

When Army funding ended in late 1985, the unit was redesignated SUN STREAK and transferred to DIA's Scientific and Technical Intelligence Directorate, with the office code DT-S.

Under the auspices of the DIA, the program transitioned to Science Applications International Corporation [SAIC] in 1991 and was renamed STAR GATE. The project, changed from a SAP (Special Access Program) to a LIMDIS (limited dissemination) program…

Do you have a copy of that evaluation?

dazdude wrote:Hundred of thousands of trial of 30 years have shown an effect that cannot be explained or that isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial - what more proof is needed? Even at the conclusion of the Star Gate program in the AIR report both the pro and negative analysts agreed there was an effect.

We’ve been over this before, that’s not true and highly misleading…

An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications
Michael D. Mumford, PhD, Andrew M. Rose, PhD, David A. Goslin, PhD
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf

In evaluating the various laboratory studies conducted to date, the reviewers reached the following conclusions:

  • A statistically significant laboratory effort has been demonstrated in the sense that hits occur more often than chance.
  • It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it impossible to identify their independent effects.
  • Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if, indeed, it exists at all.

Never mind proof, there’s no evidence.

dazdude wrote:Do you seriously believe that it wasn't proved to have worked and that the measures to get funding were faked or ignored for this 23+ year period, year on year.

Yes. The best evidence it doesn’t work comes from the actual users…

[emphasis of original emphasis mine]

Chapter Four: Evaluating Utility in Intelligence Operations

[…]

Interview Findings

The second component of the operational evaluation was the interviews conducted with the various parties who had direct involvement in the remote viewing program in various intelligence operations. A detailed description of the procedures used in interviewing program participants and the results obtained in individual interviews is presented in Appendix C; here, we briefly summarize the interview procedures before turning to the principal findings which they generated.

Structured interviews were conducted with the three principal types of program participants: recent users of the remote viewing service, the remote viewers themselves, and the Program Manager.

[…]

Interview Results: End Users. The interviews conducted with representatives of end user groups were particularly noteworthy: these interviews directly examined the accuracy and utility of the information being provided by the remote viewers and provided user assessments of the operational value of the viewings.

As can be seen in the individual interview reports (Appendix C), initial interest in the potential uses of remote viewing was linked to contact with the Program Manager.

[…]

With regard to the information provided in each report, five general observations emerged across all interviews:

  • The information provided in the reports was stated in broad, vague terms.
  • The reports were most likely to prove accurate with regard to general stereotypical characteristics of the situation. Such results might be attributable to the background information available to the viewers.
  • The reports were most likely to prove inaccurate with regard to concrete specifics of the task. For example, the reports often were not consistent with key known facts nor did they provide information about the unique features of a location.
  • A large amount of irrelevant and often inaccurate information was contained in the reports, thus making them difficult to apply without substantial interpretive effort.
  • The reports independently provided by different remote viewers displayed many inconsistencies.
Because the viewings were not consistent with each other, because inaccuracies were observed, and because the information lacked the specificity needed for intelligence operations, the viewings were never used as a primary source of evidence in making decisions. In fact, even the most favorable of the user groups found the information inadequate for operational decisions. Instead, it was used to fill in background information on people that could not be readily obtained through available assets. All of the users noted that viewings should only be considered as providing supplemental information, and should be judiciously interpreted if used at all.

Caveat emptor...
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby chrLz » Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:38 pm

IMNSHO, the whole remote viewing thing, just like clairvoyance and similar claims, is all based on charlatans (many of whom may genuinely believe they are not..) combined with incredibly bad 'science'. And then add in the desperate desire for there to be something to it - no-one would argue such abilities wouldn't be incredibly useful, so testing and experimentation is somewhat justified...

Sadly, usually that testing and experimentation comes from 'researchers' with limited experience in the process required to properly set up tests, and whose continuing employment depends on them occasionally getting 'valid' results... So... (read between the lines..)

I have yet to see any fully detailed examples of the experiments that produced the alleged positive results, indeed all the reports give the same proviso - that the tests did include (or may have included) serious biases and other flaws. And as for the examples given of current 'investigations' by pseudo-self-appointed-research-organisations that are often nothing more than some idiot with a website.. they are so awful it is nothing more than a joke.

I would challenge the true believers - show us an unambiguous test and all the details of how it was set up and all the results supposedly showing a positive. And I/we shall look at it in some agonising detail..

If you cannot do that, are you claiming that every person with the 'ability' is somehow spotted and 'abducted' by the CIA/FBI/insert favorite scary organisation..? :lol: Is there not one single non-gov't-controlled remote viewer/medium/clairvoyant/whatever, that is out there who has submitted to proper testing? Now we all know about the tricks - 'cold reading' and so on. And I think many of those on this forum know how NOT to set up tests, and can pick up flaws from a mile away (myself modestly included.

So... WHERE IS IT? Where's the one (yes, all you need is one..) solidly proven example of these abilities? Doris Stokes? Uri Geller? ...sigh...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby James Carlson » Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:02 am

dazdude wrote:The documents are real - I have a copy form the CIA - these documents are in the Star Gate FOIA archives. There is no reason to believe they were faked and put into the archives.

I'm not interested in this issue at all -- I think I made that very clear. I'm more than willing to accept your expertise on the matter, and if you say they are actual documents, I see no reason not to believe you. However, I stand by the assertions I made above that the documents don't prove anything except an interest by intelligence services that reached no conclusions and went nowhere, and was ultimately dropped for that reason. There are a number of qualifications for classified materials that are not included in the documents we were pointed to above, and their absence caught my eye. they give the appearance of improperly classifed materials -- and they do. If you want to check the requirements for classified materials, do so, but I've worked with such materials for many years on a management level, and I know exactly what's required and what one should expect to see, and some of these requirements are clearly missing from the documents above.

As for your "Hundred of thousands of trial of 30 years have shown an effect that cannot be explained or that isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial," if you truly believe that, [Mod Edit]. And as I pointed out above, your 23+ years of classification is a result of automated maintenance of classification, not any real necessity for the classification, and not a indication of value. It is a common effect of the rules enacted by President Reagan -- and that's all it is. The fact that 89,000 pages were declassified in one fell swoop is absolute proof of that. As for your comments about funding, it's very easy to obtain funding in every intelligence organization -- this isn't new, and it doesn't mean the funding is going towards worthwhile causes. Take a look someday at some of the revelations coming out of the Office of the Inspector General since 1989 -- and that's just for Department of Justice. They are one of the few government offices that are actively recruiting people for employment and have done so every year, because the demand for auditors is so high.

This is an example of just a couple things they've got on their website: "Since 2001, the Division has issued more than 100 internal audit reports on Department of Justice programs and activities. Those reports have made more than 2,200 recommendations for management improvements, have questioned program and activity costs amounting to more than $130 million, and have identified more than $35 million in funds that could be put to better use."

And more: "As one of the premier federal inspector general offices, the Department of Justice OIG conducts audits, evaluations, reviews, and investigations of some of the federal government’s highest profile and most important agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAO). Each year, our office identifies millions of dollars in wasted funds; makes recommendations to save millions of dollars more; issues audit, inspection, and special reports that contain important findings; and conducts hundreds of investigations that lead to arrests, administrative actions, and criminal prosecutions."

The CIA and other similar intelligence groups don't have to worry about funding at this level so much, because a lot of it isn't reported. Having something funded for 23 years is EASY for them. It certainly doesn't indicate that the programs being funded are worth funding -- it means nothing except somebody filled out some paperwork on time. For God's sake, employees of intelligence organizations weren't even told that reporting wasted funds under their own fraud, waste and abuse guidelines was not a violation of security protocols until 1998. Before then, even if the employee reasonably believed that classified information evidenced a violation of any law, a false statement to Congress on an issue of material fact, gross mismanagement, or wasting of funds, an abuse of authority, or a
substantial danger to public health or safety, they were nonetheless given the impression that reporting it to higher authority was illegal. Before 1998, not even the CIA Inspector General had the authority to subpoena records and other documentary information necessary to prove fraud, waste and abuse. Not even Jimmy Carter's ethics-based instructions prevented the waste of so many millions of dollars on crap programs like the one you're trying to substantiate, and that was the most significant attempt to try and change what was basically a black hole for wasted funds since World War II. You make these ridiculous statements that prove only how little you really understand about the issues involved, and you expect people to believe you? That's a little too much, isn't it? I may as well copy out all of Nostradamus' nonsense poetry in the original old French and throw darts at it, for all the good your overtures are making. 23 years of funding is nothing -- but the failure of every intelligence organization associated with this crap to justify the expense is very significant. They couldn't do it -- they couldn't even come close. That's how we get 89,000 pages of crap tossed into the public whirlpool of folktales and cheap science fiction novels governed more by imagination and Illuminati conspiracy morons than anything even approaching known facts. For chrissake, the intelligence community wasted billions of dollars trying to prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and you think because they spent a few million dollars on psychic bozos, it proves there's something worth looking at twice? You should read "The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture". This book exposes the CIA as a place to get rich, with billions of taxpayer dollars wasted or stolen in espionage programs that produce nothing. Good God, man, do a little research -- intelligence isn't infallible, and the institution itself often works against the determination of fact.

Here are few more titles that I can guaractee are worth more than your X-Files garbage:

"Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA" discusses how risk-taking, daring and creativity are discouraged in the CIA, bureaucratic concerns are given precedence, senior leadership is lacking and morale has been sapped by crippling purges and witch hunts. He advocates replacing everything, because they're so screwed up.

"Operation Dark Heart: Spycraft and Special Ops on the Frontlines of Afghanistan -- and the Path to Victory" discusses how, prior to 2001, the author was working on an operation that uncovered some of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the attacks, although the government blocked attempts to act upon the information. He saw the same sort of thing happen again in Afghanistan, when red tape and inept intelligence policies hindered efforts to fight the Taliban. This book calls for an examination of a bloated bureaucracy governing intelligence that is in desperate need of retooling. He also advocates replacement.

In "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism", the author discusses in some detail the "decrepit dysfunctionality of the clandestine service". He witnessed the rise of terrorism first hand and the CIA’s inadequate response to it, leading to the attacks of September 11, 2001. I'm sure he's fascinated by the claims of ESP idiots that all of it had been predicted years earlier by psychic spies. He discusses how non-psychic spies were also aware of its build-up, and how the CIA still got the response wrong.

As for your claims that "I myself constantly prove month in and month out in blind and public demonstrations that there is an effect and one that can be consistent - you argument is just not informed, the mountain of available evidence and millions of trials prove an RV effect. Small but an effect." Bull***t. I'm pleased to see that [Mod Edit] are still making claims that not one of you has been able to prove. I don't accept it as true, because you're either lying or you're suffering under a crippling delusion. Get some help, pal. You need it.

One more thing: why is it people like you always present as evidence matters or incidents none of you can prove or reproduce? It's as bad as the UFO fanatics saying "I know what I saw, and you can't tell me I didn't see it, because you weren't there." It's meaningless testimony and chatter offered up by fools and the mentally deranged that's expected to convince the rest of the world -- well it doesn't, because people are stupid, people don't know what they saw, and people are ignorant to a great extent of the rest of the world around them. That's why so many innocent people get sent to prison every friggin' year. As for your claims, either prove something or grow up; right now you're stuck in meaningless rout spitting in the wind that tells the rest of the world you're living in a fictional universe. How do I know this? Because you're trying to convince me it's real using 89,000 pages of junk mail that was declassified as useless and without apparent justification to maintain. You claim that "the mountain of available evidence and millions of trials prove an RV effect", but you apparently can't convince anybody but the sadly deluded that you're an honest man. If it's real, why can't the intelligence services get anything right? Why didn't any of [Mod Edit] say something before 9/11 that could actually be used?

Don't bother answering -- I already know.

Here's a recommendation: predict when the next UFO shows up so someone can get a decent video of it, and tell a few dozen skeptics so they can stand around and watch it when it comes by. You do that, and I promise you heads will turn and folks will change their mind and support your mission. Until then, you're just another noisemaker who stayed too late at the party.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Rule 1, trimmed quote
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby James Carlson » Sun Jan 23, 2011 1:22 am

Gary wrote:James: you are missing the point. According to the files, members of the Intelligence Committees in Congress, et. resulted in an official Congressional Mandate to declassify paranormal programs against the wishes of many at DIA, et al -- with a stated purpose of cooperative research with researchers from the former Soviet Untion (FSU). This, in fact, did take place following STAR GATE (post 1995) and some of the cooperative activity was facilitated over the Internet and at Joe Firmage's organizations (ISSO, etc.). Some of the activity was reported to have worried NASA, resulting in an investigation by a NASA Special Agent. Among those players were Jack Sarfatti and Creon Levit of NASA AMES, in addition to numerous foreign scientists.

No, you're missing the point. Intelligence agencies always protect classified material, and that protection is not a measurement of value. Forced declas procedures are necessary -- otherwise very little would be voluntarily declassified. If an originating agency can't justify classification, it is often forcibly declassified. That's a result of the system President Reagan instituted. How often does this need to be explained to you? If it was forcibly declassified, the originating agency was unable to justify further maintenance. And that means the materials were very likely garbage; they aren't worth maintaining in any classified archive. It's basically worthless. And when 89,000 are declassified at one time, that indicates the entire program could not be justified for maintenance. It should now be considered a case for waste, fraud, and abuse.

As for "Special Agent Keith Tate, an investigator with the Long Beach branch of NASA's Office of Inspector General", you should realize that NASA's Office of Inspector General is their office in charge of ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse, so of course they're "very concerned about this." It's their job to be very concerned about it. The discussion of "proprietary information" is very often used as an excuse to pay for such events, or to pay for the attendance of government personnel at such events, so they don't have to do so for themselves. It doesn't mean UFOs are real, or should be considered a matter of fact and not speculation. You people always use government interest as a basis for a consideration of fact, and it's a ridiculous exercise in futility. Government interest can mean anything from an interest in possible tax law violations to a consideration of adjacent psychological influences for a medical archive. It doesn't mean UFOs are buzzing the local airport.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: trimmed quote
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Puppetburglar » Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:11 am

Well! The crack in the clouds turned out to be the eye of the hurricane! For a concerted response, I must review the last page again. Gentleman, this is more than mere entertainment. Cheers.
God is a comedian performing for an audience too afraid to laugh

Voltaire
User avatar
Puppetburglar
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:17 am

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby dazdude » Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:17 am

Daz, in addition to Paul Smith's book, I suggest a review of Jim Schnabel's book (the one that caused all of the concerns as noted in the STAR GATE files, by Ed May in particular). Schnabel writes about Pandolfi's effort to get inside the program.


I have read this book and before Pauls it was one of the best on the history of the military Rv program but it does have alot of very big errors.

That’s not what’s in question. Can you please post the rest of the document that Gary only posted excerpts from at the above link? I’m trying to understand why that portion was marked SECRET and by who.


The documents don't detail WHO made them secret. Every document to do with this program was limited access or secret even cover sheets and media reports.

Do you have a copy of that evaluation?

Yes i have and have read pretty much all of the 89,000 documents and have them databased so can read inside all the docs for individual words, or phrases, etc.


dazdude wrote:Hundred of thousands of trial of 30 years have shown an effect that cannot be explained or that isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial - what more proof is needed? Even at the conclusion of the Star Gate program in the AIR report both the pro and negative analysts agreed there was an effect.

We’ve been over this before, that’s not true and highly misleading…

No its not - i have documents detailing Millions of trials examined under meta analysis by independent studies details an effect - the evidence when looked at is unshakable.

Never mind proof, there’s no evidence.


Really?
and studies like this?
In 1988 SRI (Stanford research institute) created a study as part of its 23 year Remote Viewing program for the U.S military and INTEL services this study was called:
META-ANALYSIS OF FORCED-CHOICE PRECOGNITION EXPERIMENTS
By: EDWIN C. MAY (SRI)
CHARLES HONORTON, DIANE B. FERRARI, GEORGE HANSEN, (Psychophysical Research Laboratories)
Psychophysical. Research Laboratories (PRL) were contracted to conduct a meta-analysis of the forced-choice precognition literature.
In statistics, a meta-analysis combines the results of several studies that address a set of related research hypotheses. The general aim of a meta-analysis is to more powerfully estimate the true "effect size" as opposed to a smaller "effect size" derived in a single study under a given single set of assumptions and conditions.
(Description Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis )

The SRI contracted study looked at:
Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments published in low English-language parapsychology journals between 1935 and 1987. The database includes 309 studies reported by 62 senior authors. Nearly 2 million individual trials were contributed by more than 50,000 subjects.
The exhaustive study concludes:
"Our meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments confirms low the existence of a small but statistically highly significant precognition effect. Most importantly, the effect appears to be replicable; significant confirmations are reported by two dozen investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations.


chrlz said:
IMNSHO, the whole remote viewing thing, just like clairvoyance and similar claims, is all based on charlatans (many of whom may genuinely believe they are not..) combined with incredibly bad 'science'. And then add in the desperate desire for there to be something to it - no-one would argue such abilities wouldn't be incredibly useful, so testing and experimentation is somewhat justified...


No its not - although like any field there are a few charletans. I for example have for years produced BLIND public examples of remote viewing and did produce BLIND remoet viewing for the sceptical paracast radio show.

I have yet to see any fully detailed examples of the experiments that produced the alleged positive results


I would challenge the true believers - show us an unambiguous test and all the details of how it was set up and all the results supposedly showing a positive. And I/we shall look at it in some agonising detail..


Been there, done that - over and over YAWN! If millions of trial done under blind laboratory conditions cant persuade you, even when reviewed by scientist and shown to have an effect - then nothing will?
Then you clearly have not looked at the millions of blind trial that are available.

James said:
see no reason not to believe you. However, I stand by the assertions I made above that the documents don't prove anything except an interest by intelligence services that reached no conclusions and went nowhere, and was ultimately dropped for that reason.


AI agree partly right - I wrote an article for Ryans Top secret writers on why Star Gate was actually closed it wasn't fully because on no intelligence value, but this was a part of the situation.

There are a number of qualifications for classified materials that are not included in the documents we were pointed to above, and their absence caught my eye.


There are at least 30-40,0000 documents that still remain top secret and not released.

If you want to check the requirements for classified materials, do so, but I've worked with such materials for many years on a management level, and I know exactly what's required and what one should expect to see, and some of these requirements are clearly missing from the documents above.

Maybe - but the documents still come form the CIA, who collated them form all over the place including SRI, SAIC, DOD, ARMY, AIrforce, and many other labs,intel agencies (DIA, NSA) and branches of the army etc. I'm sure this is the route of the variances you describe the rv unit was not used much by the CIA.

As for your "Hundred of thousands of trial of 30 years have shown an effect that cannot be explained or that isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial,

Actually the figure is in the miollions and the tests were all looked at for flaws - even the AIR report that sealed the fate of the Star Gate program showed an effect and both reviewers said that they found no flaws in the science.

As for your comments about funding, it's very easy to obtain funding in every intelligence organization -- this isn't new, and it doesn't mean the funding is going towards worthwhile causes. Take a look someday at some of the revelations coming out of the Office of the Inspector General since 1989 -- and that's just for Department of Justice. They are one of the few government offices that are actively recruiting people for employment and have done so every year, because the demand for auditors is so high.


Your talking rubbish, The Rv program under its many names have scientific oversight and also congressional oversight every year for over 23 years - if it didn't perform it wouldn't get funding for the next year. Now they had funding problems and squabbles over ownership etc, but year on year it achieve funding and approval of both the scientific oversight and congressional oversight committees - the documents are there to show this.

The CIA and other similar intelligence groups don't have to worry about funding at this level so much, because a lot of it isn't reported. Having something funded for 23 years is EASY for them.

The CIA had very little to do with the RV program and its funding.

Here are few more titles that I can guaractee are worth more than your X-Files garbage:


Irrelevant because the CIA was NOT the main funder of the military Rv program? It just happened to be the clearing house for the end of the program. The CIA part is actually wrong when people discuss the Star Gate program. See my history page for the funders of the program.
Last edited by dazdude on Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:12 am

dazdude wrote:The documents don't detail WHO made them secret. Every document to do with this program was limited access or secret even coversheets.

Apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re being deliberately evasive. Tell us what you see on the first page of this document from your own site…

http://www.remoteviewed.com/blogdocs/James%20Randi.pdf

You vouched for the authenticity of the excerpts Gary posted. Either post your copy of the entire document they were taken from or retract the claim.

dazdude wrote:Yes i have and have read pretty much all of the 89,000 documents and have them databased so can read inside all the docs for individual words, or phrases, etc.

Then why didn’t you mention that unfavorable review of the Army program in 1984 by the NRC and claim that “political, legal and inter agency wrangles” were the only problems? You read it, what did it say the problems were? How were they resolved by the DIA effort? Why don’t you post it for all the world to see?

dazdude wrote:No its not - i have documents detailing Millions of trials examined under meta analysis by independent studies details an effect - the evidence when looked at is unshakable.

It appears you’re being deliberately evasive again. Please present your evidence that proves the effect “isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial” or retract the claim.

Really?

Really.

dazdude wrote:and studies like this?

Irrelevant. As the AIR report found and you continue to ignore, a meta-analysis of results obtained using potentially flawed protocols is still potentially flawed…

Given the fact you’re not a millionaire, I’d say that’s proof the protocols are flawed or you simply don’t have any special abilities.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby dazdude » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:19 pm

Access Denied,
Apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re being deliberately evasive. Tell us what you see on the first page of this document from your own site…


I'm doing nothing of the sort - there are 89,000 pages in the archives form all over the world - some have markings and declassification marks, etc, etc on them some dont.

Then why didn’t you mention that unfavorable review of the Army program in 1984 by the NRC and claim that “political, legal and inter agency wrangles” were the only problems? You read it, what did it say the problems were? How were they resolved by the DIA effort? Why don’t you post it for all the world to see?


LOL do I have to do all your research for you - do you want me to post the entire 89,000 documents online for you and everyone to evaluate. Sceptics already post every scrap of conflicting evidnece they can find to bolster their claims - I,approach form the other side do so with the documents I find that show an effect and it being used for intel purposes to great effect. isnt this part of the debate we are having?

Are there documents and studies that say negative things about the psi research and rv program in the files - yes of course - this has never be said otherwise - constantly we have the AIR report thrown in our face saying it proves that Rv doesn't work - but Im not your bitch, my life's goal is not to provide every piece of info you shout for to you - these are publicially available files - build your own defence do some research , read some books.

It appears you’re being deliberately evasive again. Please present your evidence that proves the effect “isn't a flaw in the set-up of the trial” or retract the claim.


No I'm not deliberately doing anything, I posted a quote the the name of the doc in a previous post above that one and i supplied the full document to Top Secret Writers and the source in this article for you to find. I wrote my replay at past 1.00am in the morning or a very long day of work - Im sorry if it doesn't include references to everything you require but then again your posts don't contain references and links to all yours either.

Given the fact you’re not a millionaire, I’d say that’s proof the protocols are flawed or you simply don’t have any special abilities.


LOL what does being a millionaire have to do with anything?
Second how would you know if I were a millionaire or not?

Generally I never use my intuitive ability for serious money making -on occasion I have won money with rv skills - examples with the winning bet slips of these predictive best are all presented on my website.
It just goes to show the crazy attitude and rabid comments this subject generates when your claim against me and all of the field of remote viewing hinges on you saying 'if im not a millionaire from it - it doesn't exist' - which to be honest is a very stupid comment.

Here is that doc Gary posted tht you want in full - There are alot of normal admin documents, notes, etc, etc in the files -this looks like one of these. here you go: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/CIA_R ... 002000.pdf
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby chrLz » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:52 pm

dazdude wrote:i have documents detailing Millions of trials examined under meta analysis by independent studies details an effect - the evidence when looked at is unshakable.

So let's cut to the chase - POST your very best example - the unshakablest one... So far I've only seen vague hand-waving, nothing that is fully documented. Why is that?

chrlz said:
IMNSHO, the whole remote viewing thing, just like clairvoyance and similar claims, is all based on charlatans (many of whom may genuinely believe they are not..) combined with incredibly bad 'science'. And then add in the desperate desire for there to be something to it - no-one would argue such abilities wouldn't be incredibly useful, so testing and experimentation is somewhat justified...

No its not - although like any field there are a few charletans. I for example have for years produced BLIND public examples of remote viewing and did produce BLIND remoet viewing for the sceptical paracast radio show.

So please post ONE example here (again - the best one), and include all the methodology and controls that were applied. (I'm sorry, but an example you posted earlier was simply a bad joke. I'm happy to tear it apart and explain why, but frankly I am hoping you have something better. So here's your chance...)

Been there, done that - over and over YAWN!

I'm sorry, but smart comments like that don't cut it.

If millions of trial done under blind laboratory conditions cant persuade you, even when reviewed by scientist and shown to have an effect - then nothing will?
Then you clearly have not looked at the millions of blind trial that are available.

That's three times you have claimed 'millions' in that post... How many millions exactly, and how did you count them and decide that they were properly conducted? And do you actually understand what BLIND means when we are talking about science methodology? How something like this might be 'proven' beyond reasonable doubt? I suspect you do not...

This really is the worst kind of handwaving. Be SPECIFIC. Post your best evidence - in full, and not via links to your website. Pick the very best one, the one that is incontrovertible, in your opinion, and that includes all the proper controls that would be expected of a properly conducted test/experiment/trial. And we'll go through it and perhaps point out where your enthusiasm is a little unwarranted, or alternatively concede that you have proven your point. Surely that would be worthwhile - you only have to pass a few basic tests to prove something, and those tests are in no way unreasonable...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: "The Weird Desk"?

Postby Access Denied » Tue Jan 25, 2011 7:18 am

dazdude wrote:…but Im not your bitch…

Sure you are, you just don’t know it yet… :)

I already know what the NRC study found, I just wanted confirmation that you were aware of it and chose to cover it up and exclude it from your “Remote Viewing History Map”.

Hint: Don’t be surprised if people dismiss you as a fraud because of things like this. It certainly doesn’t help the “cause” or your credibility.

dazdude wrote:No I'm not deliberately doing anything…

Fine, perhaps you misunderstood the nature of the evidence I was asking for. I was asking for your evidence that the protocols and methods used in any “study” conducted to date aren’t flawed.

Hint: You can’t because the evidence doesn’t exist. If you don’t understand why, just ask.

dazdude wrote:LOL what does being a millionaire have to do with anything?

Who Wants to Be A Millionaire for Psychics
http://www.dribbleglass.com/millionaire ... aire21.htm

dazdude wrote:Second how would you know if I were a millionaire or not?

Easy, I’m psychic. :D

dazdude wrote:Here is that doc Gary posted tht you want in full - There are alot of normal admin documents, notes, etc, etc in the files -this looks like one of these. here you go: http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/CIA_R ... 002000.pdf

Thank you, I appreciate it. Although that wasn’t what I asked for, I find it interesting that Gary left the last two pages out of his “official history”. That said, with this I believe you have fulfilled your obligation to back up your claim of authenticity so you’re under no obligation to provide the rest of the document it's from (note the references to TAB A, B, and so on) or at the very least, the first page, however I certainly would appreciate it if it’s not too much trouble.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to The Aviary

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron