Jump to content

Forget Asymmetric Warfare! Ready for Transcendent Warfare?


Recommended Posts

This was a new one to me and turned up while researching something else for my next magazine article. The referenced paper was written by a then SEAL commander while at the Marine War College(!) and raises a host of thought-provoking issues. Given where he was when he wrote this, the SEAL officer had big brass ones. Haven't seen anything close to this since Colonel Jim Channon was pushing his "warrior monk" soldiers and associated First Earth Battalion many years back.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/18354

The actual military academic paper is in a link at the bottom of the article about it. Said paper contains information on the successes of the Remote Viewing program I'd never seen before, some simply astounding, and I've read a stack of books on the topic.

Thought briefly about posting it to the CMSF Marine Module thread, but just didn't have the heart to do that to the unsuspecting.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JK-

Do you listen to Coast to Coast AM at all? Isn't the whole RV thing with Maj. Ed Dames almost a running joke on that program? As he and his team of remote viewers have never had a success with any of the things they said they were going to RV on the show?

I recall hearing George Noory on the air commenting on the validity of RV and how he may drop RV from the show as they had never delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

easy-v,

From what I've seen, Ed Dames was Johnny come lately to RV, didn't view operationally himself, and has a long history of over claiming on the success rates for RV. That said, it doesn't invalidate the technique. If you didn't read the linked paper in the American Chronicle article, I highly recommend you do so. I further commend to your attention Schnabel's REMOTE VIEWING, which is a very good history of the programs. Haven't read the newer ones by Jim Marrs or the two recent books by Joe MacMoneagle, so can't comment on those.

RV successfully located a downed Soviet aircraft when all other means had failed, RV successfully described many specific details of General Dozier's environment (the guy kidnapped and held by the Red Brigade), RV by MacMoneagle himself (one of the original batch of RVers) described the peculiar layout, construction details, and size of the monstrous Typhoon SSBN--before anyone ever had any imagery of it (hotly debated because of sail position relative to launch SLBM tubes), RV successfully identified internal structure of Chinese nuclear device and fact it hadn't detonated properly. These are just a few of its successes in thousands of operational taskings. You might also be interested to know that RV revealed the presence of the unknown at the time submerged Cleopatra palace complex off of Alexandria, but it took years before divers were able to verify the ground truth.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stalin's Organist,

Start with this, since it provides a decent summary. Pay particular attention to what the Deep Quest RVers accomplished in terms of target, target nature, location specificity, unusual target traits, date of sinking, etc. Notice that this wreck was previously unknown. The portion of the site on the Early SRI Phase lists a bunch on intel related RV successes, albeit addressing them in a minimalist way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

Here's a Wiki on Stargate specifically, listing a number of operational successes. The real pros of RV, like Joe MacMoneagle, will flat out tell you that RV gets you the right answers, on average, about 65% of the time, the right answers being defined as all the EEIs (Essential Elements of Information) complete and accurate. RV is subject to some unusual problems conventional intel means aren't, such as having the RVer perceive either what was at the scene before, or what will be there later, as being there now. This problem became apparent in assessing hits and misses for the much earlier SRI program, in which it became apparent the RVers were accurately reporting information on where targets actually would be later or wound up because they didn't get to the planned test site because of traffic, vehicle breakdowns and what not. Bear in mind, though, that RV was never done operationally until all other avenues had been exhausted, and when it delivered the goods, they were staggering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

This site appears to have actual declassified military RV session files. Don't know whether you've ever done classified work, but if you haven't, the gobbledegook translates as SECRET NO FOREIGN LIMITED DISTRIBUTION, thus while so classified was solely for American use (no British, Canadians, Australians, or New Zealanders, either, since otherwise it would read "SECRET NOFORN (REL UK/CA/AU/NZ)," REL standing for Releasable to) and highly restricted at that. Deliberately left three usual letters out of the (now interrupted) URL to conform to BFC's reg.

http://www.remoteviewed. /remote_viewing_history_military.htm

And here's The Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual, the same one used operationally.

http://www.firedocs. /remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/

You may be interested to know that this was eventually done away with for operational viewing because it was found the RVers were unconsciously imposing their global knowledge as an overlay on their information. This biased the results. The best RV work was done double blind, meaning neither the RVer or the session leader knew what the target was. URL surgery here, too.

This is a tiny sample of what's available online. Here's the site of the man who started it all, artist and psychic Ingo Swann. One last bit of URL surgery.

http://www.biomindsuperpowers. /Pages/Superpowers.html

This should give you something to chew on, but there's a stack of books which would really help. MacMoneagle's got one where you can teach yourself how to RV. Recommend you not indulge your military history bent in this way until you've done less upsetting topics. Believe it was Pat Price who found himself smack in the middle of Little Big Horn during a training exercise and found it traumatic, as did someone else who unhappily drew Gettysburg.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My RV skills are 100% in determining that this is a load of hooie.

Now, I can imagine something and guess something and be right based on human behavioral base lines, and then say "I see X doing Y at Z time."

Anyone ever with 'Judgmental Bastard' on the Tonight Show? He does a good job of divining a lot of info from a person walking down the street, but it is nothing more than good attention to detail and not clairvoyance.

A lot of SWAG can be made to look like ESP/RV.

All the 'Evidence' presented on this is hearsay in a self feeding loop. A pile of anecdotes is not data, and calling it 'data' does not make it so.

Let me try some RV:

John Kettler is going to Lampoon me and defend his sources as 'the top of their field' and possesing 'shocking, earth shattering info' that I cannot possibly comprehend, and that my dis agreeing with him is not worth paying attention too as I am a confirmed rude anti-tinfoiler, or somefink like that.

How'd I do?

Oh, and Mr, Kettler, this being a new board with a fresh start, can you please avoid being nasty with me as you obliquely did in the Troll thread?

I promise to be a good boy :)

===============

When I wargame, I have an easy time imagining myself in a situation, and it can seem very real too me, but that does not mean I have done some time warp with my brain.

When I was learning CM, I would imagine all kinds of hull down positions while driving or in my yard or out for a walk, and could 'see' tanks and troops scurrying about, but I assure you, I had not left the place and time I was really in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kettler,

According to Joe's book Mind Trek: Exploring Consciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing by Joseph McMoneagle, Hampton Roads, Publishing Co., Inc., 1997, p 216

"I would be surprised if my percentage of "direct hits" were better than 20-25 percent. Also, if I reviewed those projects which I know fell within the percentage of "hits" (20 percentile), they would probably range from 5 to 95 percent correct information."

And he said/worte this in 2006:

""Now, I’ve been doing RV for over thirty years and I’ve done tens of thousands of remote viewings of somewhat demanding importance, under incredible stress. In all of those RVs, I’ve experienced perhaps twelve or fifteen Ah-has, so that’s how rare they are. If you have a great deal of expectation for them they usually won’t occur; they usually happen when you least expect them."

That looks to me like it is much less than the 65% you stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12-15 out of tens of thousands?

That's some frequency - well within 'chance', and indicative of nothing.

Mr. McMoneagle is self impressed with fantastic childhood memory recall, but that is not unique;

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/05/07/miraculous.memory/

I know a lady like this; a college friend of my wife. She is married; the poor guy :)

BTW, I did just watch the guy on this show: National Geographic Channel Naked Science program "Telepathy".

Amazing bunch of correlation - after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

easy-v,

Ingo Swann is the man, but Ed Dames, for all his self-promotional genius, never worked operational RV targets as an RVer. He was a monitor. He never completed the full RV training.

Wilhammer,

I see you've returned to the lists. If you live under a bridge and like to eat goats, you might just be a troll. Other than that, no comment!

As for your argument about ease in prediction, I should point out the product of the session that characterized what we know as the Typhoon SSBN was wildly against the views of the time. The naval analysts, who could see only a giant construction building and some of what went in same, couldn't believe the size, the construction methods, the size of the missile battery, and they definitely weren't buying the missile section in front of the sail argument. And the matter remained highly sensitive even after we could see the monster from satellites cued by RV (RVer predicted the rollout, and we had our overhead assets in place). Indeed, a bitter war was fought in the Intelligence Community over whether or not to release the technical rendering of the Typhoon that eventually graced the cover of the first edition of Soviet Military Power, for fear it would compromise Sources & Methods.

Dogface,

Since you've got the book, and I don't, I defer to you. I think I conflated two memories and came up with something way off target. My apologies! The larger point still stands, though. Ed Dames is grossly overstating even the mistakenly high success rate I gave for RV.

The ah-has that MacMoneagle refers to are those sessions in which everything just flowed, resulting in what some have described as an eight-martini lunch, so overwhelming were the RVing experience and so phenomenal the analytical take, not to mention what it took to calm down afterwards. I'm not an RVer, but in the Graduate Lecture Series for Silva Mind Control, I had similar experiences when projecting my awareness into people who had agreed to be thus viewed. Am talking perceiving the world through their eyes, feeling it as they feel it, with your projected consciousness limited by the state of their body. The monitors had detailed data on the person being viewed, and the task was to describe what you sensed. You were told whether you hit, missed, or the answer was unknown. I correctly described the person's physical appearance, being in a wheelchair, being full of self-loathing (felt like I was immersed in acid), acute myopia, limitations on being able to raise legs (turns out, she had more metal in her than Evel Knievel, the result of degenerative bone disease), limitations on neck mobility, etc. Hit after hit after hit! Not only did I weep, but you could hear my classmates sobbing as they waited their turn to do what I was doing, on a different subject, naturally. Profound doesn't even come close! I did what I could to help here with her various problems, then returned to my own body--shattered, elated, overwhelmed, and with a whole new level of awareness of others.

People,

Has anyone here but me actually read the Transcendent Warfare paper I mentioned in the beginning?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, transcendent warfare reflects Zen-like qualities that elude definition thereby making the above challenge more difficult. Non-linear/multidimensional and abstract/metaphysical are tentative terms that convey this concept, however, ascribing to a pat definition may in fact signal inability to comprehend the concept altogether," Bremseth wrote.

I thought the summary of the last couple of lines quite illuminating when I read it - couldn't see any reason to disagree with the idea that there's no ability to comprehend the concept - things that dont' exist are often like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Affentitten,

Good One!

Wilhammer,

I knew full well you were on the boards, having seen a number of your posts. I was referring, though, to your direct confrontations of me.

Stalin's Organist,

If there's nothing to this, then please explain how, inter alia, the Russian bomber was found in Africa, after every other U.S. intel means failed and the RVers were tasked to locate it? How is it RVers found, characterized and provided specific detail regarding that wreck in the Deep Quest investigation?

A technique doesn't have to work all the time in order for it to have operational use. No more than the brief period of zero IR contrast that's part of the diurnal cycle when looking at, say, a bridge (temporarily making it FLIR invisible) with FLIR negates the overall extraordinary tactical leverage afforded by that technology. From where I sit, all I have to do is produce a single valid exception to your "it's all hooey" argument, whereupon your model of reality has to undergo fundamental reevaluation. Nor, given the terms of the debate as you keep structuring it, does it even have to be an RV example. Rupert Sheldrake had done some 571 trials of telephone caller ID precognition. The way the trials were set up, the call was taken in the home and could only be one of four people, all close to the call recipient (family member, dear friend, etc). Rigorous controls were in place to prevent cheating, so you'd expect, over that many trials, 1 in 4 would be guessed correctly, for a statistical result of 25% correct guesses. Wrong! Try 40%. Your model of reality can't explain that, but there it is.

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/exptests_abs.html

Here's an account of one such experiment videotaped and broadcast on British television.

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/Nolan.pdf

The University of Amsterdam did its own study, and while not as good as Sheldrake's results, for reasons offered in the paper, the results supported Sheldrake's argument and experimental outcomes. If independent replication of a psi phenomenon is the sine qua non for you of its existence, then it's time for you to massively reevaluate your views on what is possible.

http://www.metapsychique.org/Who-s-calling-at-this-hour-Local.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's nothing to this, then please explain how, inter alia, the Russian bomber was found in Africa, after every other U.S. intel means failed and the RVers were tasked to locate it? How is it RVers found, characterized and provided specific detail regarding that wreck in the Deep Quest investigation?

Guesswork fits the bill as well as any supernatural explaination

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. Shelldrake.

SHELDRAKE’S BACK

One of the most popular woo-woo beliefs is the phenomenon of receiving a telephone call from someone shortly after thinking about them. The fact is that the average person thinks about dozens of persons every hour and only notices this miracle when one of those persons calls within a certain period. All other persons – the vast majority who did not call, are – quite understandably – quickly forgotten about. This explains the delusion adequately, but is not usually brought into the discussion.

Now a scientist says he has proof of what he calls “telephone telepathy,” but would be more correctly designated as intuition or anticipation – if it were a proven phenomenon. There is no indication of telepathy here. Rupert Sheldrake, who we’ve referred to here on SWIFT previously, had his research funded – for some reason – by the Trinity College, Cambridge. He conducted experiments that proved, he said, that such precognition exists for telephone calls and even for e-mails.

Each person in the Sheldrake trials was asked to provide researchers with the names and phone numbers of four relatives or friends. These persons were then called at random and told to call the subject, who tried to identify the caller before answering the phone. "The hit rate,” Sheldrake reported, “was 45 percent, well above the 25 percent you would have expected. The odds against this being a chance effect are 1,000 billion to one," he told an astonished audience at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, known as the “British Association,” or BA. Technically, it’s a charity which exists to advance the public understanding, accessibility, and accountability of the sciences and engineering.

Sheldrake also said that he’d found the same result with people being asked to name one of four people sending them an e-mail, before it had arrived at their computer, and he wants to do experiments to see if the phenomenon also works for mobile phone text messages!

There’s a problem here. The sample size was small on both trials, just 63 people for the controlled telephone experiment and 50 for the email, and only four of the subjects were actually filmed in the phone study and five in the email. This gives cause for some skepticism. In addition, until a completed paper has been thoroughly vetted, the actual protocol will need to be viewed with some doubt, as well.

Mark my words – next will be tom-toms, then ouija boards, followed by smoke signals… Sheldrake is the perennial new-farce originator of parapsychology.

Reader Matt Hovde of Chicago commented sagely on this:

Upon this news hitting the media – and it was snapped up everywhere – a huge cry of dismay went up from more sober academics:

Lord Robert Winston, a former British Association president, said: "I know of no serious properly done studies which make me feel that this is anything other than nonsense." Oxford Professor Peter Atkins said: "Work in this field is a complete waste of time. Although it is politically incorrect to dismiss ideas out of hand, in this case there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan's fantasy. It is extraordinary that the BA should consider [these subjects] worth a platform." Which “charlatans” Atkins referred to, he did not specify. As expected, our friend Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist from Hertfordshire University, said: "It is the principle that is important. If the issue were race and intelligence, and you had three people saying one race are less intelligent than another, that would be outrageous. If there is not a consensus within science, then any panel like this should be balanced. It would be interesting to see what happens if Sheldrake tries to re-run the experiment in collaboration with a more skeptical researcher." Perhaps Richard was applying for the job. I can imagine no better volunteer.

A Royal Society spokesman said: "The Scientific and Medical Network, which is organizing this session, lies far from the scientific mainstream, and the list of speakers reflects this. Modern science is based on a rigorous evidence-based process involving experiment and observation. The results and interpretations should always be exposed to robust peer review."

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...