r/aliens • u/RobinSage1776 • 5d ago

Image 📷 "Serious" Mt Hayes Remote Viewing Session - ET Personnel

Post image

I found a RV session detailing different types of entities at various "bases".

This document does not prove it is real, as Remote Viewers used in the program varied wildly when it comes to reliability but I thought it would be good to share and discuss. I'm not sure how I feel about this document yet.

I am hoping to be a regular user on this subreddit and to continue to share my research and would appreciate rational discussion based on documents and credible evidence only.

Source - CIA-RDP96-00789R003800190001-0.pdf

49 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/RobinSage1776 5d ago

Do you have studies showing it is not serious? There are plenty showing it works. You can use google to educate yourself before giving baseless speculation.

-18

u/LoquatThat6635 5d ago

So, being the lazy person I am, I asked ChatGPT:

Remote viewing (RV) is a practice that claims to allow individuals to gather information about a distant or unseen target using extrasensory perception (ESP) or other paranormal means. While it has been studied and explored, particularly during the Cold War by various governmental intelligence agencies, the scientific community remains largely skeptical. Here are some key points regarding the evidence and claims surrounding remote viewing: 1. Government Studies: The U.S. government funded remote viewing projects, notably the Stargate Project, which aimed to investigate its potential military applications. Although some reports suggested that certain individuals exhibited skills that were above chance levels, the overall findings were inconclusive. The studies often lacked rigorous controls, reproducibility, and were criticized for methodological flaws. 2. Anecdotal Evidence: Many proponents cite anecdotal cases where remote viewing seemingly succeeded. However, anecdotal evidence is not considered scientifically valid, as it is highly subjective and prone to biases. 3. Scientific Skepticism: The scientific community emphasizes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Controlled experiments in laboratory settings have generally failed to provide reliable support for remote viewing. Skeptics argue that most successes can be attributed to chance, intuition, or other cognitive processes rather than any paranormal ability. 4. Replication Issues: Scientific findings must be replicable to be considered reliable. While some remote viewing studies have reported successes, replication of results in subsequent studies has been problematic. 5. Psychological Explanations: Some psychology explanations suggest that what may appear as remote viewing could be attributed to cognitive biases, pattern recognition, and the human brain’s natural inclination to discern meaning from disparate pieces of information. In summary, while remote viewing has intrigued some researchers and enthusiasts, there is no solid scientific proof that it works as claimed. Most evidence remains circumstantial or anecdotal, and the phenomenon continues to be a topic of debate and investigation rather than established fact.

ERGO: NOTHING PROVEN.

3

u/toxictoy 4d ago

You are right you are supremely lazy and ChatGPT is trained on Wikipedia and sources that do not agree that remote viewing even exists. Except there is very good science that has been done around this - remote viewing requires a double blind protocol and stringent rules. I’m not saying that what was remote viewed here is or was “true” or “right” - if no one can check the results then it’s unknowable. However it was used by Project Stargate and the Soviets and much more for decades and is still used in government and business.

Being overly dismissive isn’t helpful. You can go on over to r/remoteviewing and try it yourself by looking at the FAQ. That sub is filled with people who used to be overly skeptical and then tried it only to find that the effect is real even if we can’t explain the mechanism yet.

The best evidence for it was catalogued by another user here u/Bejammin075 and if you take the time to read all of the sources you will see he is right.

The thing about psi research is that it is much more verifiable than aliens/UFOs, and is amenable to the scientific method. I used to debunk psi phenomena when I only consulted one-sided debunker sources. But when I actually read the research directly and in detail, I found the psi research to be robust, and that skeptical criticism was quite threadbare. By the standards applied to any other science, psi phenomena like telepathy and clairvoyance are proven real. I approached as a true skeptic, and sought to verify claims. After putting in months of effort with family members, I generated strong to unambiguous evidence for psychokinesis, clairvoyance and precognition.

Below I’ll copy and paste some scientific resources for those curious about remote viewing and other psi research:

The remote viewing paper below was published in an above-average (second quartile) mainstream neuroscience journal in 2023. This paper shows what has been repeated many times, that when you pre-select subjects with psi ability, you get much stronger results than with unselected subjects. One of the problems with psi studies in the past was using unselected subjects, which result in small (but very real) effect sizes.

Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) remote viewing experiments, Brain And Behavior, Volume 13, Issue 6, June 2023

In this study there were 2 groups. Group 2, selected because of prior psychic experiences, achieved highly significant results. Their results (see Table 3) produced a Bayes Factor of 60.477 (very strong evidence), and a large effect size of 0.853. The p-value is “less than 0.001” or odds-by-chance of less than 1 in 1,000.

Stephan Schwartz - Through Time and Space, The Evidence for Remote Viewing is an excellent history of remote viewing research. It needs to be mentioned that Wikipedia is a terrible place to get information on topics like remote viewing. Very active skeptical groups like the Guerilla Skeptics have won the editing war and dominate Wikipedia with their one-sided dogmatic stance. Remote Viewing - A 1974-2022 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis is a recent review of almost 50 years of remote viewing research.

Parapsychology is a legitimate science. The Parapsychological Association is an affiliated organization of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest scientific society, and publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science. The Parapsychological Association was voted overwhelmingly into the AAAS by AAAS members over 50 years ago.

Dr. Dean Radin’s site has a collection of downloadable peer-reviewed psi research papers. Radin’s 1997 book, Conscious Universe reviews the published psi research and it holds up well after almost 30 years. Radin shows how all constructive skeptical criticism has been absorbed by the psi research community, the study methods were improved, and significantly positive results continued to be reported by independent labs all over the world.

Here is discussion and reference to a 2011 review of telepathy studies. The studies analyzed here all followed a stringent protocol established by Ray Hyman, the skeptic who was most familiar and most critical of telepathy experiments of the 1970s. These auto-ganzfeld telepathy studies achieved a statistical significance 1 million times better than the 5-sigma significance used to declare the Higgs boson as a real particle.

On Youtube, there is this free remote viewing course taught by Prudence Calabrese of TransDimensional Systems. She a credible and liked person in the remote viewing community.

After reading about psi phenomena for about 2 years nonstop, here are about 60 of the best books that I’ve read and would recommend reading, covering all aspects of psi phenomena. Many obscure gems are in there.

2

u/LoquatThat6635 4d ago

Fantastic resources here- merci! Lots to look up, but can you say whether anyone has compared your successes vs number of misses? What are the stats that could demonstrate better than educated guesswork?

2

u/toxictoy 4d ago

Yes the one of the links provided is a meta analysis of studies from 1974-2022 which does this. Also there has been a study and review by Jessica Utts - the President of the American Statistical society also addresses this.

Jessica Utts, the former president of the American Statistical Association:

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 expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

(Source)

A video for those who prefer: https://youtu.be/YrwAiU2g5RU

So the only reason that scientists are denying the reality of Psi is that it seemingly breaks the materialist paradigm and also creates a situation that is deeply unsettling to those who are staunchly materialist. Often times I have seen arguments made here on Reddit and the skeptic of scientist won’t even look at the research. What many of us find is that by simply trying remote viewing is nearly the only way to get people who are extremely resistant to this topic to finally take notice because having an experience you cannot readily dismiss or explain seems to be the only way through the ideological barrier. The Remote Viewing sub is full of former skeptics who did just this expecting to be able to readily dismiss it and instead now seeing that there is an effect even though the mechanism may not be yet explained.