Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
rashore

CIA explored use of psychic in Lockerbie bomb

105 posts in this topic

Quote

DECLASSIFIED documents have revealed the CIA wanted to see if a psychic could replicate key aspects of the Lockerbie bombing.

Some 13 million pages of files were released online last week for the first time, including CIA interest in Edinburgh paranormal research.

Now it has emerged the 930,000 files also include asking a subject to describe a photo of the reconstructed baggage carrier that held the plane’s bomb.

“Filed under special access required”, the notes are headed: “Warning notice: Intelligence sources and methods involved.”

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15056851.CIA_explored_use_of_psychic_in_Lockerbie_bombing_probe/

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoooaa, that psychic was bang on the money, such a detailed and specific analysis!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that a lot of the psychic material that has been "covered-up" was covered-up not so much out of any particular need for security, but more of a "Jesus, I can't believe we did something this silly. Hide it and hope no one finds out, 'cause we will never hear the end of it!"

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, if one considers the physics phenom known as entanglement, perhaps "remote viewing" is at least worthy of some consideration.

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pallidin said:

Well, if one considers the physics phenom known as entanglement, perhaps "remote viewing" is at least worthy of some consideration.

That would be quantum entanglement not cognitive entanglement.<_<

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That would be quantum entanglement not cognitive entanglement.<_<

Are they not potentially similar, given the quantum nature of everything?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

Are they not potentially similar, given the quantum nature of everything?

We are not a quantum system. Unless they can prove that our brains are somehow a quantum computer and that still doesn't make remote viewing and other psychic abilities real. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

We are not a quantum system. Unless they can prove that our brains are somehow a quantum computer and that still doesn't make remote viewing and other psychic abilities real. 

Well, we are a quantum system by default of Reality; the most intimate foundations which are, clearly, quantum.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

Macro-reality does not, and can not, exist without the underlying quantum.

That's a known given. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I just say you're right will you be happy and continue in your confirmation bias? Will you? Because that what any further discussion about this subject will turn into. Believers will always latch onto "Quantum Woo" in order to satisfy their beliefs. 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

Come on. Just toss in some Deepak Chopra stuff for added pizzazz.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pallidin said:

What?

Macro-reality does not, and can not, exist without the underlying quantum.

That's a known given. 

The error you are making is in the fundamental definition (it's also the reason why you are using "quantum woo", instead of actual quantum science).

Entanglement is not a particular affect or behavior, as such, but more a way of classification (although it isn't actually that, either; quantum physics is tough!)  All that it means is that you are isolating a set by nature of not being able to distinguish it from anything else.

In other words, if you have a bunch of dogs that always sit pointing due West, you would describe that set of dogs as quantumly entangled (not a areal term).  That they are "entangled" doesn't mean anything other than they are dogs who sit pointing West.  You can't tell the difference between these dogs and any other dogs, other than these dogs sit pointing West.  That is all that entanglement is; a commonly shared characteristic that differentiates otherwise identical particles (and not, that is not a complete or even a working definition that contains enough data to be useful).

"Entanglement" does not imply some sort of communication between the particles, no more than one bag of marbles implies communication between the marbles just because they all happen to be round.

The bigger problem, though, is in the fallacy of composition, where some property of one part is assumed to be true for the whole.  Even if there was some form of communication between quanta, there is no reason to believe that property would be reflected in the macro world.  Remember that when we talk about psychic powers, we are talking about things that, at their most minuscule, could only ever go down to the state of the individual neuron (and even that would be pushing it).  Even a neuron is incredibly macro when compared to something that is so small it meets the Planc Constant.  Quanta are so small that the quantum world, for all intents and purposes, is a complete alternate reality from our own.  It may well be that particles in the quantum world communicate with each other as easily as we do, but what they do and how they would affect us is on par with the final cutscene in the original Men-in-Black movie (which came out 20 years ago...feel old yet?)

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anomalous cognition (such as remote viewing) is something I consider statistically proven to exist by controlled experiments. However, it is certainly not clear-cut, perfect and reliable. I can see the government using these techniques to get ideas to be then explored by regular methods.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Not many people know that, in Britain, when a fixed wing Aircraft crashes the RAF is responsible for its security and recovery, the AR&TF* (it was AS&TF** at that time) or crash and Smash, had to coordinate the recovery, I was posted to that flight six months after Lockerbie and five after the M1 disaster....there were a lot of ****ed up young men there when I was posted in, PTSD is not confined to War.

* Aircraft Recovery and Transport Flight

** Aircraft Salvage and Transport Flight

Edited by seanjo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On Friday, February 03, 2017 at 10:38 AM, aquatus1 said:

The error you are making is in the fundamental definition (it's also the reason why you are using "quantum woo", instead of actual quantum science).

Entanglement is not a particular affect or behavior, as such, but more a way of classification (although it isn't actually that, either; quantum physics is tough!)  All that it means is that you are isolating a set by nature of not being able to distinguish it from anything else.

In other words, if you have a bunch of dogs that always sit pointing due West, you would describe that set of dogs as quantumly entangled (not a areal term).  That they are "entangled" doesn't mean anything other than they are dogs who sit pointing West.  You can't tell the difference between these dogs and any other dogs, other than these dogs sit pointing West.  That is all that entanglement is; a commonly shared characteristic that differentiates otherwise identical particles (and not, that is not a complete or even a working definition that contains enough data to be useful).

"Entanglement" does not imply some sort of communication between the particles, no more than one bag of marbles implies communication between the marbles just because they all happen to be round.

The bigger problem, though, is in the fallacy of composition, where some property of one part is assumed to be true for the whole.  Even if there was some form of communication between quanta, there is no reason to believe that property would be reflected in the macro world.  Remember that when we talk about psychic powers, we are talking about things that, at their most minuscule, could only ever go down to the state of the individual neuron (and even that would be pushing it).  Even a neuron is incredibly macro when compared to something that is so small it meets the Planc Constant.  Quanta are so small that the quantum world, for all intents and purposes, is a complete alternate reality from our own.  It may well be that particles in the quantum world communicate with each other as easily as we do, but what they do and how they would affect us is on par with the final cutscene in the original Men-in-Black movie (which came out 20 years ago...feel old yet?)

 

None of that dispenses the well-known established fact that the underlying nature of reality is completely quantum.

As such, the beautiful nature of everyday existence is entirely dependent on the bizarre nature of quantum reality.

Thus, we have the "paranormal" potential, well within the boundaries of quantum uncertainty and probability.

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pallidin said:

None of that dispenses the well-known established fact that the underlying nature of reality is completely quantum.

As such, the beautiful nature of everyday existence is entirely dependent on the bizarre nature of quantum reality.

Thus, we have the "paranormal"

Are you trying to use quantum mechanics as a way of validating psychic powers, the supernatural, and paranormal? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Are you trying to use quantum mechanics as a way of validating psychic powers, the supernatural, and paranormal? 

I validate nothing.

However, I do recognize a potential correlation between the quantum and the paranormal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

27 minutes ago, pallidin said:

I validate nothing.

However, I do recognize a potential correlation between the quantum and the paranormal.

No no no you've got to dig deeper. Let's scale this up to a macro level. Does your house have power? I'm assuming yes. So technically it doesn't have power. Why? Because you can not observe the electrical energy running through the power lines. Is there food in your fridge? I'm assuming yes. But technically it's empty. Because you can't observe it without opening it. You've got a Schrodinger fridge. 

If you want to get a bit more into it. Let's say that you're lost at sea, in a boat with nothing. No matter how hard you focus your thoughts food doesn't magically appear does it. Also you don't exist to the rest of the world. Right now you do not exist to me, yet I see the results of your actions without observing you. But nothing should exist because you don't exist. Same for me. I don't exist to you except in the results of my time and energy (through a post).  But this post shouldn't exist because you didn't observe me typing it.

Edited by XenoFish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize that the cat "thought experiment" was simply to illustrate the absurdity of certain ways of thinking.

It was never meant to be taken seriously.

You do realize that, yes?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, pallidin said:

You do realize that the cat "thought experiment" was simply to illustrate the absurdity of certain ways of thinking.

It was never meant to be taken seriously.

You do realize that, yes?

 

 

Of course but those who constantly want to claim anything that's supernatural and/or paranormal doesn't. It's typically Quantum + any metaphysical term. So you can't run to the quantum excuse every time something spooky happens. The word quantum has been heavily abused by people like Deepak Chopra or anyone trying to sell the law of attraction to people, because it makes their concepts seem valid all because of a few misunderstood quotes. 

https://worldofweirdthings.com/the-science-terminology-abuse-top-five-44cc3ab7e77#.vsvvpizhj

The problem people have with us skeptics is we look for answers not for anything that'll satisfy some cognitive bias.

Edited by XenoFish
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my "understanding" that a "bridge" between quantum reality and macroscopic reality currently is not found.

Yet, it must exist.

Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, pallidin said:

It is my "understanding" that a "bridge" between quantum reality and macroscopic reality currently is not found.

Yet, it must exist.

Your thoughts?

There is your answers. Look for answers, but do not make them up. You think there is a bridge. That's fine. But building one on assumptions is dangerous. Look for the connections and always be skeptical of them. Keep searching. That's all any of us can do.:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, that connection between the bizarre quantum and the, uh, boring macro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Indeed, that connection between the bizarre quantum and the, uh, boring macro.

I honestly don't understand your mentality. I don't understand what magical thinking gives you. But, "Meh.":hmm:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

No no no you've got to dig deeper. Let's scale this up to a macro level. Does your house have power? I'm assuming yes. So technically it doesn't have power. Why? Because you can not observe the electrical energy running through the power lines. Is there food in your fridge? I'm assuming yes. But technically it's empty. Because you can't observe it without opening it. You've got a Schrodinger fridge. 

If you want to get a bit more into it. Let's say that you're lost at sea, in a boat with nothing. No matter how hard you focus your thoughts food doesn't magically appear does it. Also you don't exist to the rest of the world. Right now you do not exist to me, yet I see the results of your actions without observing you. But nothing should exist because you don't exist. Same for me. I don't exist to you except in the results of my time and energy (through a post).  But this post shouldn't exist because you didn't observe me typing it.

Xeno, that has to be one of the better descriptions of failure to follow through on a concept that i have seen in a long time.  Palladin, you can't just theorize that the properties of one part (especially something as unique and separate as quantum physics) is connected to something in the macro world, but then completely ignore all the properties that define that one part.  Like Xeno pointed out, part and parcel of being subject to the Planck Constant are all the Uncertainty items that he pointed out.  However, those properties only exist as part of the quantum world.  They literally define the difference between the quantum world and our macro world.  You can't pluck one sole aspect of it, such as entanglement, assign it properties that have not yet been proven (such as communication), and then say it will retain all those same properties if placed in a completely alternate reality.  That's sci-fi, not science.  Quantum woo, not quantum physics.

Quantum physics is absurd when seen from the perspective of our macro world.  It really is no surprise that the attempt to describe it in the most absurd way possible ended up being a curiously adequate way of describing it.

When all is said and done, you are not really using quantum physics to make a connection.  You are just...well, you are just kind of saying "Magic does it".  "Magic", in the sense of "any technology sufficiently advanced yadda yadda".  You aren't really proposing a logical connection or a correlation (understandably, because quantum physics is absurdly difficult to understand), but more of a symbolic one.  In the same way that a tribe creates wooden replicas of airplanes in the hopes of summoning an actual airplane, you invoke a sorta, similar-ish, kind-of behavior, in the hopes that it could have a connection with what you would like to see appear.

And there might well be a connection.  But, as things stand right now, there is literally nothing to indicate this might be the case.  Keep in mind that, when you get to the level of the quantum realm, there is no longer people.  There is no longer brains, neurons.  At the quantum level, there is literally no difference between the particles that make up the body, the sweat, the water vapor, the oxygen, or any of the other things we can actually see in the macro realm.  The quantum realm is essentially little more than mathematical formulas.  Some of these mathematical formulas seem to relate to each other in a reliable manner; they are entangled.  You are talking about the communication of complex data through this relation, but putting aside how we have no idea what this relation is or implies, even if they were communicating data in the same way you are thinking when you think about communicating data (which is a pretty huge stretch), that their communication would affect you in any particular way...well, that would be like Will Smith's consumption of the hot dog affecting the roll of the alien marble.  The gap between the quantum world and the macro world...is just too ridiculously, absurdly, unimaginably, huge.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.