Slashdot Mirror


Soviet Union Spent $1 Billion On "Psychotronic" Arms Race With the US

KentuckyFC writes "During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union battled on many fronts to demonstrate their superior technical and scientific achievements. While the race to put a human in space and then on the Moon is famous, a much less well-known battlefront was the unconventional science of parapsychology, or psychotronics as the Soviets called it. Now a new review of unconventional research in the Soviet Union reveals the scale of this work for the first time and the cost: as much as $1 billion. The Soviets had programs studying how "human energy" could influence other objects and how this energy could be generated independently of humans using a device called 'cerpan'. The Soviets also had a mind control program similar to the CIA's infamous MKULTRA project. Interestingly, the Soviets included non-local physics in this work, such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect in which an electromagnetic field can influence a particle confined to region where the field strength is zero. And they built a number of devices that exploited the effect, although research in this area appears to have ended in 2003."

230 comments

  1. we knew that already by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    didn't we?

    1. Re:we knew that already by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 2

      Well... while we may redicule the notion, perhaps... some of the things they did marginally worked? (e.g. is it 100% bullshit or 99.999% bullshit?, and what exactly could that 0.001% be?)

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:we knew that already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't we?

      Yeah, pretty much.
      http://www.amazon.com/Psychic-Discoveries-Behind-Iron-Curtain/dp/0553135961

    3. Re:we knew that already by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      yup

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:we knew that already by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you run 20 bullshit double blind experiments, 10 of them are going to show positive correlation to the hypothesis, and 1 will show improbably high correlation. Far more still if your testers have any unconscious control over the data.

    5. Re: we knew that already by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      It was in that "Indiana Jones" like movie Lucas and Speilberg made a few years back.

    6. Re:we knew that already by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      How do you know the researchers who fail to find psi evidence don't have unconscious control over the data?

  2. In Soviet Russia by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Funny

    When man stare at goat man have heart attack.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But in Soviet Russia, goats stare at you.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by Warbothong · · Score: 2

      "Psychic" phenonema are just statistical errors which cause feedback in our cognitive biases. In other words:

      In Soviet Russia, behaviour of objects controls psychic's mind!

      In fact, the more effort goes into researching psychic powers, the more evidence we have in favour of mind control; ie. many respected scientists, despite always finding results to the contrary, can be convinced to keep looking for psychic powers!

      Of course, in the West we do the majority of our mind control research under the term "marketing", which itself is a great example of mind control: "Don't worry, it's only marketing!"

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      When man stare at goat man have heart attack.

      Are you sure they didn't stare at something the name of which begins with "goat"?

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing#US_government-funded_research:

      Utts maintained that there had been a statistically significant positive effect,[19] with some subjects scoring 5%–15% above chance.[5]

      From the second source cited, http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.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.

    5. Re:In Soviet Russia by fatphil · · Score: 1

      You've covered it from a charitable perspective, but there are other cases to cover. How about:

      "Psychic" phenonema are just statistical or experimental errors which cause feedback in our cognitive biases, or deliberate fabrications.

      Just for reference, if you want some fun coffee-table reading not un-related to your comments, I'm enjoying Prof. Richard Wiseman's /Quirkology/ presently. Despite the lack of coffee-table in my loo.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia by smaddox · · Score: 2

      Exactly what fraction of the subjects scored 5-15% above chance?

      Do you see where I'm going with this? Because it should be obvious.

      We have a fairly deep understanding of basic physics, but less understanding of psychology. Nonetheless, we do know that psychology is applied biology, chemistry, and fundamentally physics. So if you want to propose some psychic effect like imprinting thoughts on a photographic film, you better provide a reasonable physical (physics-based) mechanism. As far as I am aware, no one has provided any such reasonable mechanism. Until someone does so, I will treat any claims of imprinting thoughts on photographic film as unreasonable.

      Note: This line of logic does not apply for all phenomenon, and it is not fool-proof. It is, however, correct for all but 1 case in 10^9.

    7. Re: In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a matter if chance there would definitely be a few people who end up scoring above average on most of tests conducted, a similar would be there towards downward side also

    8. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you better provide a reasonable physical (physics-based) mechanism

      They proposed a physical explanation involving the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and then set about testing it. People who jump on articles like this and the post above it with hysterical cries of 'oh noes, pseudoscience!!1!' without actually reading or considering the facts involved are just the same as the religious nutbags who go on about bearded men in the sky. I am not saying their experiments proved anything or that anything useful was learned at all, but that is irrelevant.

    9. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Xenu is watching!

    10. Re:In Soviet Russia by Modern+Primate · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, we do know that psychology is applied biology, chemistry, and fundamentally physics.

      Right. And art is applied paint.

    11. Re:In Soviet Russia by Optali · · Score: 1

      "In fact, the more effort goes into researching psychic powers, the more evidence we have in favour of mind control"

      That's a very well known issue with basic statistics: The reduction of standard error with the increase in the number of samples.
        I saw this in a very basic "for-dummies" level introductory statistics course, so basic it's thought to marketing people... but yet some "scientists" fall time and time again in this fault.

      When not directly screwing up with their numbers like assuming that a variable is independent when in fact it's not or providing tampered data.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    12. Re:In Soviet Russia by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, I read it. It basically says there only is a slight significant effect, the suggest stopping with the experiments and point at a few possible flaws in the design of the experiments. I pointed out a few more such as the limited population, the absence of control group, the fact that some of the "effects" the experiments were designed to test were unknown and not understood and the fact that many of them involved a strong subjective component.

      Add a bit of "good will" and a dash of wishful thinking and I really wonder why the scores are so low.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    13. Re:In Soviet Russia by eriqk · · Score: 1

      I'm a sculptor, you insensitive clod.

  3. Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We didn't put a man on the Moon because of some silly international cock-waving contest, we did it because of the species and because we needed to invent computers. The only reason you have a computer to read my comment is because of space.

    1. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by M1FCJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Poppycock - computers were already a major thing - in UK even bakeries had started installing them in 1951. You Americans need to learn the computing history all over again.

    2. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by amalcolm · · Score: 0

      You put a man on the moon so you could use the rocket technology in ballistic missiles

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    3. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I know, I was just paraphrasing what I call "Space Nutters". There are people who really DO think that way, and are very earnest about it. To me, the fact that these people don't use the computers they keep talking about to learn actual history is very funny.

      These same people also keep talking about all these "benefits" that space technology brings to a society, but when I point out that Russia beat America most of the time no one seems eager to move there. That is also very funny to me.

      WWII was the biggest impetus for technology in the 20th century, THEN we went into space.

    4. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It wasn't really a race at all. The USSR didn't make a massive effort to get there first; they were more interested in space stations. It was hard for their head of space exploration to get funding for moon missions, so they couldn't just brute force the problem like America did.

      It's like the missile gap race - pretty much all in America's mind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah we invented computers because of Internet.

    6. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually most of the interest was in ICBMs. The rest was propaganda. Then satellites became useful but even for that a Moon rocket was just too big.

    7. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thought that was why we invented cats?

    8. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who mods this off-topic troll up? Apparently the nutters he is so paranoid about are such a threat, he has to invent his own posts because they don't post that garbage themselves, and every time acts surprised people actually call him out for it being stupid. At least people who think they are the last sane person on the planet usually actually disagree with the majority...

    9. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was a race. It is quite well known that the USSR build several rockets designed for moon launches (hence why they put a rover on the moon), but support dwindled after the U.S. landed humans, and the USSR refocused its efforts on space stations and abandoned their landing craft after the fact.

      The difference between the USSR and the US was that NASA acted in public, while the USSR performed all development and launches in secret, so that they could publicize the successes and hide the failures. This strategy allowed them to save face whenever their program was inferior to their competitor.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    10. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Oh look Quantum Apostrophe's back to shit all over space exploration in favor of life extension, a technology that our species isn't nearly mature enough to handle yet.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    11. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look Quantum Apostrophe's back to shit all over space exploration in favor of life extension, a technology that our species isn't nearly mature enough to handle yet.

      Well, without life extension, we won't reach other solar systems alive - our life span is placing a hard limit on our space exploration.

    12. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look someone's so insecure he soils his britches when someone dares to question the Holy Orthodoxy of Space. No one mentioned life extension. All I see is people agreeing with reality. You seem to have a problem with reality?

    13. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The USSR didn't make a massive effort to get there first

      The soviet's N-1 Moon rocket was actually pretty massive, about twice as wide and 25% taller than America's Saturn-V, with 32 or so engines just in the 1st stage. It was a scary big monster of a rocket. The problem is russians did not have an adequte, small form factor digital computer for controls and Korolev was already dead at that time, leaving noone to debug the N-1 design. In contrast, USA still had von Braun and the ex-Avro people and also possessed a lot of computer power.

    14. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're telling me you never saw someone claiming that we only have computers because of space? Or how all these magical "spinoffs" are only possible because we launched a metal box into space? And that we could never get the same result by just giving the money directly to scientists? No no, it has to filter through the magical NASA bureaucracy? Because space and sci-fi?

      And the same people never offer to move to India or China if they really believe their own skewed world-view?

    15. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were publicized after success. They weren't shown on live TV or announced to the world ahead of time. Sputnik was first announced after it had already completed an orbit.

    16. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Quila · · Score: 1

      We also just chucked money at NASA and said "Make it happen." The Soviets had rocket experts with their own bureaus and their own goals competing for funding and support from the Kremlin. For example, Korolev vs. Chelomei.

    17. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The irony is the US succeeded with a socialist approach and the Russians failed with a competitive approach. Too bad neither country learned the real important lesson from this.

    18. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by sjames · · Score: 2

      In other word, the Soviet union went with a market based approach and so got an early victory followed by a bunch of in-fighting while the U.S. went with central planning and so got the last laugh but then got mired in a bureaucratic tar pit.

      The world is a funny place.

    19. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Quila · · Score: 2

      I think an important aspect in the US is that the politicians told NASA to go for it and then stepped aside (at least until after the first couple moon shots), while the politicians were micromanaging all the way through the Soviet program.

    20. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "Actually most of the interest was in ICBMs."

      Sorry, no. Separate tasks, separate methods. You can look up all the basics of the history easily with a few searches.

      Early on there was a divergence in engineering. The commonalities were more in ablatives, control circuitry (later ICs and chips, then CPUs., guidance, and even in these, the needs diverged enough that so did those techs after a while.

      While the U.S. Mercury and Gemini programs used re-built man-rated (and the IRBM, Redstone, for sub-orbital) ICBMs (Atlas and the several Titan and Titan II configurations) - because that's all we had with the necessary boost - missile development went to solid fuel (more stable for storage, very little prep for launch beyond enabling some squibs and verifying target co-ords); all the later man-rated boosters were liquid-fueled - lots of prep time, but they could be defueled and re-spotted, aborted, throttled and, later on, restarted. That decision, IIRC, was made by Ike very early on.

      Further the throw weights and flight profiles were quite different, requiring substantially different designs. The space race was what it was, and it wasn't anything to do with warhead delivery. (I'm not counting FOBS; that was mutually outlawed about as swiftly as the basic capability was demonstrated. Nor do I count the armed Soviet recon stations - even they admitted it was not one of their better ideas, however nifty they were.)

    21. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by lennier · · Score: 1

      WWII was the biggest impetus for technology in the 20th century, THEN we went into space./quote>

      And most of "space" was ICBMs: the launch vehicles people don't talk about in case they wake up. But Atlas launched Mercury, and the Minuteman guidance computer predated the Apollo computer. It was a happy accident that hardware not designed to kill millions could also be put on top of the same rockets, but everything after 'destroy Moscow' - including TV and weather satellites - was a spinoff.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Not really.
      USSR managed to leave impression of being ahead only when US tried to do it without that nazi scientist, von Braun.
      When he was brought back into rocket programs, there was no race any more.
      Soviets matched Saturn V only in 80th.

    23. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by sjames · · Score: 1

      Infighting is intrinsic to the market approach.

    24. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Weather satellites are not a "spin off" from "destroy Moscow", accurate weather forecasts are very important to military planners. The fact that it's useful to the public is a secondary consideration. TV and phone satellites are paid for by corporations not governments.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Quila · · Score: 1

      A market approach would have individuals producing their product, and seeing which one the market accepted. The Soviets largely went on which bureau chief had the most political pull in the Politburo.

    26. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sounds like american telecoms and aerospace to me.

    27. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      From http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the_semiconductor_revolution_m:

      NASA, deep into planning for the Apollo Project, needed advanced circuits for the Saturn rocket's onboard guidance computer. Microchips promised unparalleled computing power at a small size, but they were unproven in the marketplace and had never been produced on a large scale. Nonetheless, Eldon Hall, a NASA official, decided to take a risk on the promising new technology. Soon, private companies were churning out massive amounts of purpose-built Apollo Guidance Computer microchips. In fact, NASA bought so many that manufacturers were able to achieve huge improvements in the production process - so much so, in fact, that the price of the Apollo microchip fell from $1000 per unit to between $20 and $30 per unit in the span of a couple years.

    28. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true Free Market Fetishist. In fact, govt procurement fueled the nascent microchip industry in the 1960s.

    29. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      What was the market for space launches? It was purely government funded. The market approach is far too short-sighted for such a disruptive endeavor as developing spacecraft.

    30. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever even looked at a list of Soviet space probes or launches? They only named and numbered successful launches, and the unsuccessful ones were typically not known to the public until years or decades later. Any modern list of their launches is a mess of internal launch numbers and successful named ones, or in a few cases ones that get numbered retrospectively when they became public.

    31. Re: Whoah whoah whoah by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Russian moon rocket effort was half hearted. They were more interested in the ability to lift heavy military hardware into orbit, and it just so happened that they could do moon missions with it as well.

      The design was more generic and scalable. The Saturn IV was designed to do one thing only. The Russians didn't have an equivalent of the Gemini or Apollo programmes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So let me see if I understand correctly. Transistors, invented by the private sector for communication purposes were later integrated by other private companies because of curiosity and cost reduction. Then NASA picked an integrated circuit already being made by a company, but NASA "took a risk"? And the fact that the ICs were needed for missiles and jet fighters? Nah. It was NASA.

      How about the fact the IC they picked was already obsolete by the time they went to the Moon? Who made it obsolete?

      See what I mean by Space Nutters being delusional at best, dishonest at worst revisionists?

    33. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      R-7, the Soyuz rocket, was developed as an ICBM. It put Gagarin and Leonov in space. Its successors still launch satellites today and service the ISS. It is true that in time liquid fuel rockets were perceived as unusable for military purposes because of the needs to refuel or store them for a long time. But when R-7 was developed the other nuclear bomb delivery mechanism was a strategic bomber. The time to prep, launch and strike was even larger than that of R-7. So it was revolutionary at the time.

      The Soviet Union had issues at first in miniaturizing their warheads so they needed to go for much larger rockets. This caused the decision to push for large hypergolic liquid rockets like R-36 or Proton. Proton BTW was used to launch segments of the ISS and is another rocket still in service today. With time the warheads were miniaturized plus, as Korolev has said himself in the past, hypergolics were replaced by solids in the Soviet Union. A major boost to that happening, besides the launch times, was the Nedelin disaster. The circumstances surrounding the Soviet and US rocket programs are fairly different. All programs both for ICBMs and space launch were controlled by Usinov and the military and he often preferred dual use technologies at that time.

    34. Re:Whoah whoah whoah by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Correct. Understood. Thanks for the history; I'd known bits and pieces, but nothing like the fine picture you describe. Hypergolics are just plain strange - neat, but strange; finding stuff that you can use the word "stable" about in the same acreage was a big challenge. Solids are handy for military - only thing extra needed is an abort package. I was saddened when I learned about Nedelin; I was also amazed that so many had parked themselves so close to the pad.

      Even after all these years, with the military, civilian, commercial uses, thinking on some of the things involved in the doing - no matter how straightforward the engineering - gives me pause and wonderment. I remember watching the live TV of the Vanguard launch attempts. Ouch.

      If you've not heard of it, and if you want, track down the pdf "Ignition" - it's a history of fuels research in the U.S. covering the critical twenty years by a fellow who was right in the thick of it. It's fascinating reading even if one hasn't the chemistry to follow all of it. The guy writes well and has a sense of humor like a fine dry martini.

      Dunno, man, sitting atop great gobs of propellant that's _supposed_ to burn at a controlled rate but has the potential for going boom - the folks that do that.... I fergit who it was, one of the Seven, while waiting through yet another hold, said something about how all the gee-whiz machinery he was sitting atop had been built by the lowest bidder. Capcom had kittens.

  4. this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by buddyglass · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess this goes to show you don't need religion to believe in nutty pseudoscience.

    1. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you know it's nutty pseudoscience before you perform the experiments? It seems to me that performing the experiments and testing hypotheses is science, but dismissing an idea as nutty without performing an experiment is pseudoscience. It's belief without evidence that makes something pseudoscience, even if it's believing an idea is nutty.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a $1 billion cash flow that I can leverage for personal gain, and I'll "believe" in anything you want.

      (I hope I'm not stating the obvious -- that the goal wasn't science OR pseudo-science, but merely profit.)

    3. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well said. Many people seem to think that everything has been discovered.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by buddyglass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right. NASA should totally fund an expedition to disprove the existence of the magical pink unicorn that many people have theorized lives on the dark side of the moon. Point being: yes, experiment, but sometimes even the decision to pursue a particular avenue of investigation is questionable.

    5. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by teslabox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ingo Swann has a nice little website about his involvement with the US Remote Viewing program. I saw the man speak in Las Vegas twice - 2004 and 2006 (I think I personally drove him into retirement - he is now deceased). The first time was just a Q&A, the second he had prepared some remarks. The program was started as a threat analysis - "the soviets are spending all this money on psychic spying, tee hee har har what a bunch of fucking idiots. BUT WHAT IF IT WORKS?" So they had to create a program to evaluate the possibility that information can be obtained bioinformatically - through the aether, so to speak.

      Mr. Swann said that he did not do public remote viewing "demonstrations", and only ever worked with scientists.

      It seems to me that performing the experiments and testing hypotheses is science, but dismissing an idea as nutty without performing an experiment is pseudoscience. It's belief without evidence that makes something pseudoscience, even if it's believing an idea is nutty.

      Mr. Swann said that because the spooks hated the remote viewing program, they had to get positive results right from the start. It lasted for over 20 years, and was killed as soon as possible when the Soviet Union broke up.

    6. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by SlashdotWanker · · Score: 1

      You're right. NASA should totally fund an expedition to disprove the existence of the magical pink unicorn that many people have theorized lives on the dark side of the moon.

      You're absolutely right. If NASA happens to be going around the dark side of the moon with a satellite and then fails to detect said magical pink unicorn beyond a reasonable doubt, then continuing to believe it is ridiculous. Remember that it wasn't so long ago that everyone "knew" the world was flat and you were a whackjob if you believed any differently.

    7. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, well, we've learned a lot about neurology, biochemistry, and physics that suggests none of these psychic phenomena could have a first principles explanation without invoking some kind of unmeasurable "energy" production, transmission, and reception, controlled in some invisible but nevertheless conscious manner. Yes, something we can't measure and can't explain may nevertheless be real, but with our improved understanding of the basic principles, it's moved so far off into the realm of unlikely that it's difficult to justify the experiments. We don't have resources to pursue every idea at it's optimal level of funding, so we need to prioritize somehow.

    8. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if NASA weren't already going there, would it be worth spending a couple billion to investigate the pink unicorn? Probably not. That's what the soviets did.

    9. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Testing alone isn't science. Formulating a solid hypothesis and testing conditions, as well as correctly analysing the results is just as important.

      Making a conveniently mysterious black box, which operates with conveniently undetectable magical waves, and then using political influence to prevent other researchers from validating your claims is not science.

    10. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that proving a negative is very hard. Satellite technology could have EASILY missed the unicorn. They live under the surface and only emerge for brief periods of time. The problem is that we need to have a reasonable theory BEFORE we do the experiments, and follow where the data leads us. We should not investigate unreasonable theories, without any empirical support, as the data is then going to be utterly without context and meaning.

    11. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is; "We aren't JUST burning the witch, first we burn her and THEN see if she floats using the best equipment, scales to determine specific gravity, and measuring the water mass lost from the container, thus proving she is either a dead witch, or unfortunate collateral damage from our 'war on terror'. We aren't monsters after all, this is for science."

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    12. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good points. But I would counter that we don't understand what consciousness really is. And we know that simply observing an experiment can change the outcome. We don't know why that is either, AFAIK. Further, we know that one's mental state can affect one's health and/or physiology. So it seems that consciousness and attention can have effects in the physical world, the mechanism of which we cannot explain.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Suggesting that such research is too much of a long shot to fund is fair enough. The problem is the derision heaped upon even the suggestion of such research.

      Of course, the various psycho-ceramics misusing scientific terminology in frankly odd ways treating all of this as if it was already proven don't help.

    14. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by psithurism · · Score: 1

      Hi soviet budget committee,

      We've spent a $100,000,000 so far on extensive experiments and still failed to discover an invisible, undetectable, force that no one's ever seen before. Why don't you invest 10x more in this theory? We can't do these experiments for any less, this force is reeeeaaaaallly hard to find: it has never been observed, has no basis in anything we know about reality or existing science and has failed to show up despite extensive testing worldwide.

      What else are you going to do with $900,000,000? Feed your starving populace after you decided that the other non-pseudo-science idea that abusing crops made them more fruitful than watering and fertilizing them properly, which no-one had ever observed working before and all experiments to demonstrate it failed?

      I hear that we may be competing with the space race guys who are trying to find a certain tea-pot in orbit between us and Mars. I must say that our force is way more real than that tea-pot even though our research will be more expensive to pursue.

      Thanks,
      Dr. Totallynotanutjob

      P.S. Some say we must have some sort of mind control over the budget committee to keep getting these funds, but we just smile and let them meditate on their own statements. I'm sure you'll give us the extra money.

    15. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a human, I personally would consider 2200 years "long ago". Columbus was considered a whackjob not because he thought the world was round, but because he believed the world's circumference to be small enough that it would be convenient to reach India by sailing west. The educated community at the time knew the Earth's radius and circumference with less than 2% error, but Columbus argued it was 30% smaller!

      There is a hypothesis that Columbus knew the real values very well, but needed the India story (guaranteed trade profits) in order to raise money from gullible royalty (the queen of Spain, not the king who knew better) while he was actually searching for what we know as America. The exploits of Norsemen landing in "Vinland" a few hundred years earlier were semi-known at the time as the Icelandic sagas were preserved by the catholic church. Columbus is alleged to have visited Iceland several years before his voyage to Americas, so he could have been exposed to the stories.

    16. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yup. We don't know what consciousness is (although we putter with operational definitions) nor how it arises. For that matter we don't exactly have a great handle on un-consciousness, either - talk to an anesthesiologist sometime. The phenomenon of hypnosis is an odd one, too.

      Don't know means don't know. That some phenomena exist or are said to exist outside of what we know, and know well enough to explain, can be an interesting grey area ripe for exploration. When over the course of millenia there is a significant weight of attestation, that might be a clue that something unknown may well be happening. But un-knowing also does not justify leaping to unfounded belief, either.

      (That said, and I maybe shouldn't even mention it, but way back when I experienced - well, three mutally- experienced would be closer to it - a few things for which I can as yet find no scientific explanation. All three are mentioned by kind in some of the very old surviving writings, but I never learned Sanskrit. ;-) In one instance their were third-party witnesses at both ends to something happening, nature indeterminate. In the other two cases, both I and the other person knew something happened and let it go at that, making no further claims on belief about any particular this and that.)

      Meanwhile I tend to go with science, while trying to keep a mind open enough to avoid bigotry and reined in enough so it doesn't all leak away.

    17. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Soldrinero · · Score: 4, Informative

      we know that simply observing an experiment can change the outcome. We don't know why that is either, AFAIK ... So it seems that consciousness and attention can have effects in the physical world, the mechanism of which we cannot explain.

      We most certainly *do* know why observation affects an experiment. It's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in action - if you make a measurement of the state of a system, that variable is known to some degree of precision. Its conjugate variable is thus made uncertain to a degree prescribed by the uncertainty principle. This has nothing to do with consciousness or a living observer.

      A simple double-slit experiment works because of the uncertainty in the position of the particle. The wavefunction interferes with itself as it comes out of both slits and affects the possible positions it can be observed at on the detector. If you measure whether the particle passes through one of the slits, it's position is no longer uncertain, the wavefunction changes, and the experiment reflects that. This is well-understood quantum mechanics, although the popular press likes to pretend we don't know anything about it. And yes, IAAP (I am a physicist).

      --
      I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
    18. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they shouldn't waste money looking for a pink unicorn on the moon. The magical moon unicorn is dark blue.

    19. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Many millenia of observations shows that the earth is generally flat.

      Similarly, many millenia of observations also show that there may be such things as extrasensory perception, ability to affect the physical world with the mind, and so forth.

      The difference between those two example is not that one was disproven while the other remains an open question. Both are based on observations by humans, who as a species are prone to bias, self deception, and credulity. How is a personal experience where you can't explain what happened significant compared to trained researchers who could not explain how Uri Geller bent spoons with his mind?

    20. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We could have just sent out misinformation that led the Soviets to erroneously believe we were spending millions on the program, causing them to also increase their budget, meanwhile we actually use the money for something else like science education.

    21. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I've experiments to run.
      There is research to be done.
      On the people who are still alive.

    22. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Alan Turing believed in esp. From http://www.abelard.org/turpap/turpap.php#the_argument_from_extra-sensory_perception:

      I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extra-sensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz. telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psycho-kinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one's ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies. The idea that our bodies move simply according to the known laws of physics, together with some others not yet discovered but somewhat similar, would be one of the first to go.

      This argument is to my mind quite a strong one. One can say in reply that many scientific theories seem to remain workable in practice, in spite of clashing with E.S.P.; that in fact one can get along very nicely if one forgets about it. This is rather cold comfort, and one fears that thinking is just the kind of phenomenon where E.S.P. may be especially relevant.

    23. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      There's magic all over in science. Dark energy, dark matter weren't predicted and don't have explanations. Entanglement was predicted as a reductio ad absurdum to cast doubt on quantum mechanics, but was later observed contrary to Einstein's expectations; and seems to involve "conveniently undetectable magical waves".

      As for political influence, consider Feynman in Cargo Cult Science:

      Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

      Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that...

    24. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      It is easy for us to ridicule Descartes* now, but we should
      remember Berry Campbell's criterion: the greatness of a man's
      contribution can be measured by how long he has held up progress.
      Half a millennium is surely world class!
      --Joseph Bogen
      (*for propounding dualism)

      Your post reeks of such dualism.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    25. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > We most certainly *do* know why observation affects an experiment. It's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in action

      You apparenty do not understand the question "why?"
      All you've done is put a name to the effect in some contexts.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    26. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > dismissing an idea as nutty without performing an experiment is pseudoscience

      Dismissing an idea that has no proposed, or even imaginable, mechanism, and which if it or its mechanism was true would lead to the contradiction of well known and well trusted science is a good thing. (Evolution and fixing corner cases is not contradiction - e.g. Special Relativity does not contradict Newtonian mechanics, it supports it for the cases where we most often use Newtonian mechanics (which is why we still use Newtonian mechanics for those cases).)

      Almost all the greatest breakthroughs have had putative explanations which are not immediately dismissable right from their earliest incarnations. Quantum mechanics was probably the spookiest, but I'm not familiar enough with its history to even find an example there. The Ultraviolet Catastrophe certainly pointed towards something (discrete energy levels) that immediately had a literally tangible analogue.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    27. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by evultrole · · Score: 1

      How do you know it's nutty pseudoscience before you perform the experiments?

      At what point during the ~3.5 Billion year evolution from single cell organisms to modern humans could psychic abilities have suddenly sprung into being? What mechanism would allow animal cells to suddenly become magic? Studies are not necessary, because a basic understanding of biology and physics makes it immediately obvious that the very idea of psychic powers is absurd. Self replicating chemicals don't suddenly gain powers over the rest of nature by being self replicating.

      You are suggesting that we can't dismiss anything, no matter how absurd, without first coming up with some sort of test to demonstrate that the absurd idea is absurd, and that is not only extremely resource intensive, but completely unnecessary and ridiculous. I would suggest that you need a better understanding of the natural world.

    28. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Einstein left his wife and kids to go fuck his cousin.

      Doesn't mean that everyone needs to do that to be considered smart.

    29. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Because it's personal experience. Because I'm not Uri Geller (nice scam, gotta admire his chutzpah; he made some money, met some chicks, and had more than his fifteen-minute share). Because I make no claims to anything beyond mentioning having had some experiences (which, by the by, I did not describe; they're private, and will remain so) that had physiological effects; I can conceive no tests nor posit useful explanation for those experiences. Wheat from chaff and all but there is an accumulation of reports of several phenomena going back beyond the Vedas (or Rigas or Upanishads - I fergit the proper terminology) but reported therein and elsewhere. Some appear to be nigh universal. Kinda like where there's smoke there's fire; but it does not do to confuse smoke with fog.

      Way I see it, world is flat is a straw man or something. We've known, or had the info available to informed minds, or any simple observer with the opportunity to see it, for at least a good 2,500 years or so in writing (and who knows how long before) that the world is indeed spherical - ship's masts and Earth shadow on Moon, or just plain stadiametry. World is flat is a myth we were taught as part of the Christopher Columbus gig, and a religious "truth" decreed by some bishops or whatnot.

      Being unable to explain something is not of itself grounds for dismissal of a thing, an observation, or an experience. I'll give some straw back - it wasn't until within the past century that we could sneak up on an adequate explanation for seeing the daytime sky as blue.

      I remember when quantum tunneling was only implied by the maths. Over time there were enough observations of something happening and shaving with Occam left few choices for what was going on; experiments were devised based on developments in observational technique. Now that weird effect is taken for granted because we found a way to get a handle on forces formerly inaccessible. Right now we're looking for gravity waves and better hints of dark matter. Oh, and toss some entanglement into the salad of "spooky stuff".

      More on point, while you might be able to work up a description of consciousness in action, could you provide me an explanation of its cause and how it works? Can you detect whatever it is and measure it? So far as I know, that has not yet been done, yet most of us accept that it is a real thing if for no other reason than that's all that we have to even allow us to talk about it or any other thing in Universe. For all I know it'll be shown to be an algorithmic matrix of spin states attendant protein-protein ion exchange in the brain as a whole (how's that for hand-waving?), or an expression of the various force fields involved by Universe thinking itself with each individual brain acting as a focus locus. Right now brain science is birthing as the new rocket science, and we haven't any Chinese firecrackers let alone a Robert Goddard. I do keep an eye on Douglas Hofstadter, tho.

      "....who as a species are prone to bias, self deception, and credulity" Oh, my, yes, indeed. But I prefer taking it as one individual at a time and building up rather than the other way 'round. By the same lights, we have people who look around and see neat and interesting things and try to find what they are; to describe, measure, test, reproduce results, and continually try to disprove and refine operational truths as the living process of science.

      In a way, a good scientist is like a well-disciplined mentally adept three-year old: "Wow, man, what's that?" And onward to how does it work and why does it work that way and not some other way. And for everything neatly catalogued and placed on the shelf, dusting them off from time to time, looking anew, and questioning. To me, this is the magic.

      We have it that Universe in finite but has no edge. We also have it that Universe is infinite but closed. Wtf? What little I know is that it is chock-full of wonder. It makes for awe, and humility. I'll go with that, with science as companion. YMMV.

    30. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      trained researchers who could not explain how Uri Geller bent spoons with his mind?

      Easy: he didn't. Randi proved that Geller was performing rudimentary slight-of-hand tricks.

    31. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      If you could define "pink unicorn" in a scientifically rigorous sense, then investigating its existence would indeed make sense. But you can't.
      Similarly, if a given "psychic phenomenon" were defined rigorously, it should rightly be investigated also.
      Problem is, psychic phenomena have been investigated rigorously, and have always failed,
      in the sense that even though individual experiments may have shown some interesting results,
      the overall confidence level remains marginal at best.

    32. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      When all we really need to do is compare her mass to that of a duck.

    33. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, the experiments were performed. And in a time when ESP had the favours of public and governments and scepticism was at it's lowest.
      Being the best part of it that you didn't even need huge resources to investigate it: A few guys with "special powers" or without, a bunch of stacks of Zener cards, optionally a random number generator and place to relax and if you feel very generous an EEG. No particle accelerators needed, not even microscopes.

      The potential future value was enormous, eventually as big as atomic energy or computers while the initial investment was negligible. And it was hip too: there were many universities with studies in ESP in Britain, France and the rest of the developed Capitalist countries and the Eastern Block. Why not? It was potentially beneficial and it didn't cost a dime.

      Had they managed to produce any result none of these projects would have stopped. But they were. And recall that we are talking about two separate worlds, the Capitalist and the Soviet blocks, meaning that they were not influenced by each other and the possibilities of success would have meant a strategic advantage of capital importance. Just imagine what a successful application of Remote Viewers would have meant in terms of savings compared to spy-planes and satellites.

      But, not one single project, neither the secret ones, the public funded ones or the private ones have yielded ANY positive result AT ALL.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    34. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      What has consciousness to do with ESP?

      And we know that simply observing an experiment can change the outcome

      This is as vague as saying that "Einstein said that everything is relative".

      What are you talking about, the "Observer effect" ? or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
      And if you are talking about the latter: There are several explanations to it but none involve any mechanisms that could be related to consciousness, being able to view anything far beyond, reading the mind of others or knowing in advance what will happen in the future. In fact certain interpretation of this same principle make precognition rather improbable...

      Furthermore, the relation of "mental state" and health / physiology is not related to any "ESPing" or "Psy-Energy-Prana-Karma-Hurling" but on known physical effects that just are related in a complicated way.
      For instance: Is a depression causing you a bad general health or is a deficit in nutrients and ergo a bad general health causing you a depression? Recall that most of our moods depend on chemical balances and extremely complex mixes of hormones, neurotransmitters etc. Yes, it's complcaited, but neither ESP nor "misterious".

      There is finally no single effect of consciousness and much less of "attention" that has an effect on the physical world that we do not know. If you knew of any please enlighten me.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    35. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Can you provide a single example of ESP that is still "open to question" in 2013?
      We already have had the opportunity to read the 2 last significant studies on this regard and we have had several decades of studies on the matter and the results have been as clear as Cold Fusion.

      And I would kindly recall you that while "humans" are prone to bias, our instruments are NOT, neither are mathematics nor statistics, yes you can produce wrong results but any can question them and this is not relative nor prone to bias.

      And BTW, "trained researchers" are perfectly able to explain how Geller bent spoons or how Dynamo levitates people, it's called "illusionism".

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    36. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      I remember when quantum tunneling was only implied by the maths

      Well, I don't think you will remember because this was during the beginning of the XX century, before the transistor.

      And you yourself have writing it there "...implied by the maths"

      Well, there are no maths implying anything ESP-ish, none.

      Your argumentation is actually only that there are things that YOU personally can't explain because YOU personally have not enough information about them, but this doesn't mean that other people do not know them either... or can make a quick search in Google (it's almost 2014, recall?)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    37. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Dismissing an idea without proofing it is pseudo-science... BUT, it that's exactly what they did, proof it. Again and again, US and USSR and the British and teh French and the German and the Argentinians. Universities did it, private persons did it, the Army did it, the Navy did it, the CIA did it, the KGB did it.

      The results were negative, end of the story.

      What else do you want to proof? Start over again?
      Yes, now we have EM Scanners but, what are we supposed to proof (again)? How a bunch of guys fail to give any positive results in predicting a deck of Zener cards? How they fail beyond the reasonable in finding out what others think? How they utterly fail in "seeing" remotely what's on another part of the world?

      Proofing what has already been disproven is not pseudoscience, it's just utterly stupid.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    38. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      The big problem is that the "magic" that you cite have a more or less sound theoretical and mathematical backing a, it's far from just uttering the word "Dark Energy" and the go happily meditating.

      Both concepts are also there to explain phenomena that are measurable, and not just the result of inferential statistics.

      While none of the ESP has any mathematics backing or any serious theory behind it. And to make matters worse the experiments used to prove them are mostly extremely subjective tests prone to type I errors. And yet even adding a good amount of good will they failed.

      I have no idea why many still try to recycle these things. It's like trying to recycle Cold Fusion. I wasn't because there were no studies, it wasn't because they were against public opinion, much to the contrary: Most religious people would have LOVED it as it would have proven (or at least increased the possibilities of a transcendent spirit/soul). And people, even scientists, WANTED to believe, it was chick and hip.

      It's just that there is nothing else that can be tested, period, end of the story. Just like Ether or Caloric, ESP does not exist.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    39. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      AAah, I see you cited Lysenko!

      I was going to do it to as it is an excellent example ;)

      And of course... what can somebody do with $100.000.000 except honestly investing it in mediums, a deck of Zener cards and a few dice to generate randomness? Oh, of course, these Zener cards that my cousin Mikhael prints are very good and the best suited to concentrate the unknown energy and that's why they cost $10.000 a deck. And no, there is no relationship between me and the mediums, I swear that I don't know them, despite the fact that we all shar the same surnames and come from the same small village in Ukraine.

      P.D.: Please do not forget the crate of Vodka and the strippers, they are fundamental parts of the experiment.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    40. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Quantum mechanics started as an attempt of explaining a problem in classical physics: Black body radiation curves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation it therefore fits very nicely into your argument.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    41. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Optali · · Score: 1

      More than an argument to authority this proves my point that ESP was not considered a nut idea back then but a perfectly sensible one.
      Implying that there were no reserves whatsoever on studying it and funding research.

      Just that despite the good will and all the money spent the research's results were that there was no proof that ESP existed. So, what's wrong? What else do you need? Get it etched in stone slabs and delivered via heli to some guy in Sinai after setting a bush on fire?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    42. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Of course he's a fake. Why do so many people read that and think I don't know it? Don't they teach irony in school these days?

    43. Re:this article doesn't have enough posts yet... by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Ok, I remember when I first read on qt.... you're right, I'm not quite that old. I think it might serve to make the point, tho. I never meant to say, and don't think I did, that "the maths" imply anything about ESP; how you got that I canna fathom. It seemed to me a simple way to illustrate that over the years a variety of things formerly un-explainable become so, by way of suggesting the possibility only that such might apply to some things we don't now know or understand. It seemed clear enough, but obviously not sufficient.

      Even in my approaching enfeeblement I do know what year it is, but thank you for the information. I've read a fair amount over the years, pre- and post-search engine, on the topic and related stuff. I think that I'm sufficiently aware of the distinction and body of info available (enough, anyway, maybe two or three hundred books covering the ground, to be able to follow on to more sources should I care to revisit all that) apart from my personal experience. I dropped a personal tidbit and figured that would be OK. How it got to some scrum has taken me by surprise. It was in no wise meant to be some examination of the field, fer Chrissakes.

      Of course my "argumentation" is personal. That's all I ever said it was. Unless you want to hold my poor attempt at illustration against me forever, that is.

  5. Seems reasonable enough. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    We cannot permit an imaginary weapons gap!

    1. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by andyjb · · Score: 1

      Its a pity this stuff doesn't work though - it would have made the recent NSA leaks a lot harder to prove - and much easier to suppress!

    2. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if the entire MKULTRA project was a scam meant to cause the USSR to waste resources to close this imaginary weapons gap? A few "top secret" documents leaked here; a few rumours there; Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia. It's perfect.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be the only programme with that objective. Makes sense to me.

    4. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big risk of a diversion campaign like that is if the imaginary technology turns out to be real... then we've just inspired our enemies to perfect it, while we've wasted our time.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by durrr · · Score: 1

      Akira - based on a real story.
      Doesn't seem too appealing to me.

    6. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much resources did it get them to waste though? Even at a total cost of a billion dollars, that seems like a drop in the bucket compared to other things. And even if it only cost one dollar for us to get them to waist a billion dollars, I'm not sure how useful that would be if it could only be done once. Considering we've wasted more on that research ourselves, either it wasn't an attempt to get them to waste money, or whoever came up with the idea horribly overestimated the Soviets' response.

    7. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      MKULTRA wasn't about imaginary weapons, but about real methods to manipulate behaviour through (for example) chemical agents. It's well documented and scientifically grounded; it's hard to imagine how it would inspire anyone to perform psi research.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That could make sense but that's not what happened, or the declassified papers would detail what they were doing to make the Soviets think they were running these experiments, rather than experiment reports on their attempts to kill goats by staring at them. There is some precedent here (See: Area 51 dummy planes).

      If anything it would have had to work the other way - I remember from a documentary that the Americans only got into all this woo-woo stuff because they found out that the Russians were doing it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps more importantly, given the areas of strength and weakness in the Soviet economy, what resources did it get them to waste?

      Team USSR could probably afforded to have the million conscripts who scored lowest on physical fitness staring at playing cards and trying to develop psychic powers through sheer force of will for years without much trouble. Something that consumed a resource that needed to be imported in exchange for hard currency, though, or a project that represented a nontrivial slice of domestic productivity? That was a race that they weren't able to win even with regard to real weapons, so any nonsense they could be conned into would just make things even harder for them.

    10. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5? Why do we only ever hear about Seal Team 6's exploits?

      Turns out it's exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a ploy to make the Soviets think the Americans had more going on than they did by skipping straight to 6.

    11. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It works on the same principle as the old "release three pigs numbered 1, 2, and 4 into the school" prank, except with highly-trained special forces units.

    12. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      While I've gotten modded as Funny, the strange thing is, I actually wasn't kidding, and what I said was factual. At the time that the team was created, there was only one other team. The commander jumped straight to six in order to confuse the Soviets regarding how many teams the Americans had.

    13. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Sorry, brain fart, there were two other teams at the time that six was created, so it was technically the third team.

    14. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5? Why do we only ever hear about Seal Team 6's exploits?

      Turns out it's exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a ploy to make the Soviets think the Americans had more going on than they did by skipping straight to 6.

      Why not attribute the exploits to all "six" teams, rather than having a conspicuous gap from 1 to 5?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if the entire MKULTRA project was a scam meant to cause the USSR to waste resources to close this imaginary weapons gap? A few "top secret" documents leaked here; a few rumours there; Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia. It's perfect.

      That's actually what Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program was. It drove them nuts and we didn't even have to build anything.

    16. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Financial resources aren't the only factor. There are officers, spies and double agents, secure facilities that could be better used for other projects, communications bottlenecks.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Because then the exploits of the 'other teams' are hidden, furthering the illusion.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    18. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I think the idea was that the Soviets would become aware of the team and its name during its initial six-month training time, so they didn't have any exploits to attribute to other teams at the time.

      Also, I misspoke earlier: there were actually two other teams at the time (east and west coast, though they're considered "regular" SEAL teams, which I guess aren't as special?).

    19. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Actually I did hear the "Star Wars" project relating to satellites that can shoot down enemy ICBMs was an imaginary project. The US even had sci-fi authors come up with ideas and then made it seem to the US public as well as the USSR that we were working on those. It helped to bankrupt the USSR as they were spending money on these futuristic weapon systems while we were not.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    20. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much resources did it get them to waste though? Even at a total cost of a billion dollars, that seems like a drop in the bucket compared to other things. And even if it only cost one dollar for us to get them to waist a billion dollars, I'm not sure how useful that would be if it could only be done once. Considering we've wasted more on that research ourselves, either it wasn't an attempt to get them to waste money, or whoever came up with the idea horribly overestimated the Soviets' response.

      The value would be less in getting them to waste the capital and more in getting them to accept the oportunity cost.

      Every scientist that's studying psychic weapons is not studying real weapons.

      That said I doubt it was this kind of misdirection. It's important to remember that US universities studied these phenomenon as well. And that prior to rigorous study, there was no reason to suspect that people couldn't do those things (after all there are countless unsubstantiated claims that people can). It was also hard to device good tests for psychic capability when the premise is that the abilities are rare and poorly understood even by their practitioners.

      really I'm more surprised it took into the 2000's before the Russians gave up, than that both governments were willing to toss some of their large defense budget towards something that probably would dead end but might result in psychic assassins.

    21. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5? Why do we only ever hear about Seal Team 6's exploits?

      Turns out it's exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a ploy to make the Soviets think the Americans had more going on than they did by skipping straight to 6.

      Why not attribute the exploits to all "six" teams, rather than having a conspicuous gap from 1 to 5?

      The core concept goes like this:

      If they hear about 6 teams (when only 1 exists), they'll just think we have 6 teams and continue trusting their intelligence people. This makes them think we're stronger than we are but it's a quantifiable increase that's only useful if the difference is enough to deter an attack.

      If we can convince them we have 6 teams but their intelligence people can only find evidence of 1 of them, than we have put them in a position where they have to wonder what else we might have that they don't know about. This makes it harder for them to call our bluff because they can't just plan to face 6 teams and decide to send 7 of their own, they have to plan on the assumption that we have the ability to hide arbitrary assets from them.

    22. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > That said I doubt it was this kind of misdirection. It's important to remember that US universities
      > studied these phenomenon as well

      Not only that but.... the people who hold the purse strings and decided who gets appointed where (and thus gets to decide who gets hired and heads what else) elected based on their ability to smile and convince local people they were better than some other cheesehead with a smile.

      Let us not forget there have been psychic advisors to high level officials, even the president. There is really no reason to think that these efforts were not, on some level, genuine

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    23. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to these folks whose lives were ruined by the Nazi "doctors" working for the CIA.

      http://www.rense.com/general69/mind.htm

      just google things like: electro shock mkultra
      to find tons of stories that will move any decent human.

      One lady in Canada was given electroshock by her CIA "doctor" every day for months trying to erase her memories and personality to re-program her. She originally sought help for postpartum depression.

      CIA, FBI, NSA, police in general, etc. are all a bunch of sadistic fuckers who should be eliminated. And, would be eliminated by any decent society. These folks should be in prison, not in positions of power.

    24. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      That's actually what Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" program was. It drove them nuts and we didn't even have to build anything.

      Except that we *did* built a crapton of stuff, most of which never worked (aside from the obvious "it worked" part about funneling billions to defense contractors).

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    25. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The value would be less in getting them to waste the capital and more in getting them to accept the oportunity cost.

      Every scientist that's studying psychic weapons is not studying real weapons.

      It is quite possible that this helped them more than harmed them, depending on how scientists were selected for the program. If it was random, and involved otherwise typical scientists working on the project that via some luck got results or interests from higher ups to keep the program going, then there would be a cost to their resource pool. If they were unlucky, and some brilliant scientist in some other field had a personal deep interest in the stuff, moving that scientist away from what they were good and useful at, then it is really costly. But if the project was a magnet for scientists with nothing better to work on, or had a culture of attracting scientists that were less than honest because that was necessary to keep the program going... then it could be a benefit, a honeypot for researchers that could clog up other programs.

      Regardless, relative to all of the other R&D that the countries did over the years, the dent would have been very small.

    26. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey did you hear? Firefox 26 is out!

    27. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The big risk of a diversion campaign like that is if the imaginary technology turns out to be real... then we've just inspired our enemies to perfect it, while we've wasted our time.

      Like I said: "Common sense says no, but there's always a nagging little doubt in the back of the mind to drive the necessary paranoia."

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    28. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Very little was actually built; just enough to make the thing seem legit.

      See here:

      http://rt.com/politics/russian-chief-star-wars-762/

    29. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      MKULTRA (an umbrella term anyway) encompassed a whole lot more that the woo-woo stuff. There were experiments done with various mind-affecting chemicals on both witting and un-witting test subjects, for instance. The full (well, as full as they're likely to have been - I don't recall if there's still stuff in the pipeline awaiting future declass) disclosures, starting with the Church committee hearings, make for some fascinating reading. I think there've been a couple rounds of materials released since then as well.

      Given the amount of time and money spent on real-world things in an earnest effort to find ways and means tends to preclude at least some of the efforts from being in the full-on scam category, I should think.

    30. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There's a certain amount of evidence that ordinary people put in positions of power (i.e., where their actions don't have personal adverse consequences) will over time, and not that much time, turn into sadistic bastards. Not all of them, by the way. Only about, IIRC, 1/3 of them. But that's far too many.

      The only conclusion I've been able to come to is that societies need to be so designed that with greater power comes greater consequences for the misuse of that power. But in all of history I haven't found such a thing. Only rumors of it. (Like "Somewhere in Asia there's the fabulous kindom run by the most Christian monarch, Prester John, who...".)
      Perhaps India came close to that with their famous Buddhist Emperor, Ashoka, but that also seems largely mythical. One of the closest, most reliable, examples I can think of is Count Dracula (i.e. Vlad the impaler). He was a homocidal maniac, but it is reported that during his reign (paraphrase:)"A virgin with a bag full of gold could ride across the country without guards, and without fear of molestation." Not exactly the kind of government that one would like...but his subordinates were unwilling to do anything that might offend him.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    31. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      "Did you ever wonder why we never hear about Seal Teams 1-5?"

      No. I was reading about them thirty and more years ago. For that matter, a friend I met in late '60s served in the teams in mid-'60s in Vietnam. It was 6 that for years was the quiet one, with portions of its funding, tasking, and operations off the books.

      If your knowledge of things comes from what you casually come across on TV and don't bother to look up, then maybe that explains your question. If for some strange reason you don't think the Sovs didn't know about publicly announced operational military units or know how to look in the goddam phone book, then I don't know what.

      Meanwhile, try: http://www.sealswcc.com/navy-seals-frequently-asked-questions-faq.html or goto Wikipedia.

    32. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I corrected myself almost immediately after making that comment. Just look back a few comments.

    33. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Not imaginary. Look stuff up, maybe. Read. Inform yourself past "Actually I did hear..." The Sovs had their own various programs contemporaneous with "Star Wars" as well, don't forget. There's also the crude rubric: you can break trail and give their spies something to do; you can stay abreast and hope for a balance of offense and defense; or you can learn from the other's mistakes, save time and money, give our spies something to do, and hope the other guy doesn't steal a march on you.

      There was a boatload of basic and applied research in lasers, radar, discrimination, targeting, guidance, kill methods, and all the software to do all this stuff, to name a few. Some were apparent dead ends, more were not feasible due to limitations of materials or efficient controlled point energy sources; a fair amount of all that knowledge and some of the tech went into current weapons systems and some things found application in the civilian sector.

      Can the claim be made, with whatever validity, that we outspent the Sovs? Sure. Did we piss all that money away? No. How to divvy up the gains and losses on those expenditures, that's another matter, and I suspect nothing more than maybe good approximation can be made. If you want to go full-bore St. Reagan, then how do you amortize current expenditures against projected ones in light of what price/benefit of the Wall coming down? Gives the bean counters something to do, and provides much fodder for think tanks and near-term historians.

      Then there's a longer view. Some think it was close to a coin toss whether we or the Sovs tanked first. The religious economists will vehemently disagree but there's is nothing particularly long-term magical about capitalism per se so far as I can figure. After Clancy, "War is robbery writ large." then maybe capitalism is feudalism on a grand scale. I don't know. I stick with Mill and Fuller with a sprinkling of Galbraith (he writes nice and has interesting thoughts) and read a little bit here and there.

    34. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Part of the diversion campaign would be to hire a few true believers and have them spend a small amount of the money on what they think is legitimate research. Then if something does turn out to be true then those guys should have been able to make some progress, enough progress to warrant additional budget. If it turns out to be false then those true believers are just decoys.

    35. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I don't think opportunity cost works like that. Did science suffer because Newton spent a lot of his time on alchemy? Or was Newton's alchemical researches part of the way he thought about the world, and so contributed to his advancements to science?

    36. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      prior to rigorous study, there was no reason to suspect that people couldn't do those things (after all there are countless unsubstantiated claims that people can).

      You mean like the fact that it was absurd? There had never been a demonstrated case of psychics which were real, people like Houdini had been debunking these people for ages, decades before any of this research. Universities researched these things for the same reason that psychologists research many things now: People believe in magic. Doesn't make magic real, and doesn't mean we have no reason to suspect that it's all a sham. There is every reason to suspect that these unsubstantiated claims are purposeful frauds or incredibly illogical people.

    37. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Sorry, man, timing was off and I missed it until after I had posted - then forgot on top of it. Congrats on your own catch - takes an honest intellect for that - and thanks for the reminder.

      Don't know if you followed that link, btw, but it's makes for some quick and interesting reading. The guys I've met over the years have been in the main some very quietly impressive individuals and I'm happy to be able to call a few of them friends.

      And you were right, in the respect that the "media" fastened on to the 6 thing like a piglet to a magic-milk teat. Does great for ratings while letting them claim professional reportage. Gah.

    38. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      No worries. I earned a response like that by firing off my post before I should have, and most people don't look for followup comments like the ones I had here, since they aren't all of that common (even with me).

      I just now followed the link, and it really does have some interesting info. It also gave me an excuse to look up some information about the requirements, since I had some lingering questions in the back of my head. Back over a decade ago, I considered joining the Navy as an option to help pay for college, and the recruiter had me take a computerized exam that covered basic math, reading comprehension, etc.. I remember scoring a 99, which the recruiter got excited about and said was a perfect score, but I could never remember which exam it was. I thought the test was the ASVAB, but every description of it I saw described sections that I know I didn't take, not to mention that a perfect score would not be a 99. Turns out, I may have just taken the subset of the test that's for the AFQT score, since I remember the test covering exactly those sections, and the AFQT score maxes out at 99, which would explain why the recruiter suddenly got a lot more aggressive in trying to recruit me.

      But back to your link, it really was an interesting read. Lots of good info in a very easy to read format. Sounds like they're inundated with loads of folks who want in but really have no business ever applying, so they've had to make a page like that to help cull those folks. The page also quashes my not-really-a-dream of joining, since I'm too old and have eyesight that's too poor (oh, and some of those pesky physical activity things too...). Oh well.

    39. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by Optali · · Score: 1

      From what I know it's not such a strange idea and if perfectly fits into the field of counter-information.
      I have read that the Soviets were real experts. I can actually still remember small scientific articles on magazines and newspapers claiming Soviet scientists to have discovered anything from dead rays to cold fusion... these articles were said to have been "planted" by the Soviets for several purposes, one of them trying to led the Western powers to waste money on useless research.

      This hypothesis has in fact been a quite popular one and it make a lot of sense too.

      And you can also recall the whole UFO thingy which after de-classifying the documents showed that the whole alien fairytale was encouraged by the Air Force as a measure of counter-intelligence quite convenient to cover up some secret projects like a giant surveillance balloon or (then) ultra-modern airplanes including an atomic powered one... yes, I agree, the balloon (Project Mogul) isn't quite as sexy as hot alien chicks from Venus but back then there were no spy sats and a huge helium filled condom packet with telemetry was the closed you could get back then to find out if Ivan had had a bad day and decided to press the Red Button.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    40. Re:Seems reasonable enough. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Sorry for delay - meat life intervened.

      One thing I've long wanted - bigger screens (that I can afford, like that will ever happen) and good rez with small dot-pitch (or whatever they call it these days) so's one could have a thread expanded farther out, even put a copy or another thread right next to it, and still have room for a third whatever. Especially I'd like that capability for email. Having the software, wherever it lives, deliver all that is another story.

      Yeah, I remember the AFQT from high school; I know many of my friends took it. I was tempted to take it if for no other reason than curiosity but had already gotten word that I'd been accepted for an Army-funded Merit, so there was no immediate need (depending on future grades and draft status, of course - this was back in '65). Anyway, sounds like what you took.

      I'm glad you followed the link. Makes one feel better about making a suggestion when now and then someone takes you up on it. Yeah, interesting page, nicely laid out, covers all the basics and then some for constituting a solid, useful FAQ. There are some links there, and other sites. For some of the background, if your interest takes you there, there are a few worthwhile histories or memoirs that I found from the '70s-'80s - don't know how many are still in print. (I note that unless one lives in a good-sized city that used book stores are getting scarce. My town of now ~60k has none, down from three twenty years ago.) Richard Marcinko in "Rogue Warrior" has some good bits and pieces of how things started and the early days; if you find this stuff of interest there are some really good other books.

      What I liked about the site was not only did it maybe serve to cull, as you say, but works for the idly curious as well as those who might qualify and want to dive in (right-o, that's a cheap pun).

      Cheers.

  6. perfect example of govt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    waste of money - kill all politicians and gut public-sector pigs

  7. sounds like the money wasn't all wasted by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The program sounds like it had a nutty origin (like the analogous U.S. programs), but from this part:

    Interestingly, the Soviets included non-local physics in this work, such as the Aharonov-Bohm effect in which an electromagnetic field can influence a particle confined to region where the field strength is zero. And they built a number of devices that exploited the effect, although research in this area appears to have ended in 2003.

    That sounds like legitimate physics research. Research into the principle of locality is unlikely to produce a mind-controlled teleportation beam, but it has yielded a better understanding of quantum mechanics.

  8. Old News. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That commercial you watched last night where the screen changed so often your eyes couldn't focus on it, the deep voice talking with music playing at the same beats per minute as the desired heart rate the advertiser wants, displayed on a screen at 30hz, usually starting off with either a motherly women or a crowd of people looking at you.

    MKUltra started that research. Want to learn mind control, go get a masters in motion video or advertising; what they teach is textbook psychological warfare with a domestic application.

    Funny thing; once you know it's going on, it doesn't work anymore.

    1. Re:Old News. by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny thing; once you know it's going on, it doesn't work anymore.

      Heh... sure...

      Even if you're aware of a particularly obvious technique, the more subtle ones will still usually get you while you're focused on the big one. You'll notice the flashing video or the music beats, but you won't notice the smiling background or the distorted echo. You'll probably even be so proud of yourself for recognizing the manipulation that you'll let your guard down for the other techniques.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:Old News. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the black and white picture and the 20Hz tone (lowsy attempt to instill fear via infrasound) when showing how horrible the alternatives to the product are.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Old News. by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Ah, jeez, guys, I didn't need to be reminded of this stuff. Does it count that I haven't had a TV in seven years?

    4. Re:Old News. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing; once you know it's going on, it doesn't work anymore.

      That may seem to be the case, but there are some things that simply can not be stopped that easily. See this interesting piece (from the BBC) for an auditory illusion that will work whether you attempt to suppress it or not. Or just look up the McGurk Effect. That itself is likely not that useful, but any manipulator of the public worth their paycheck and security clearance would seek out these small things that we seem to be physically programmed to do and exploit them.

  9. Slashdot affect by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    I always wonder why articles like this are posted on slashdot. I mean, it's simply not reasonable to convey this ideology on a tech-savvy website just to have everyone point out that it's silly pseudoscience.

    The general population of this type of website is going to bash anyone that agrees that spending a billion dollars on pseudoscience is "worth it", regardless of what the government has concluded. I seriously doubt that they started off like, "Ok guys, we're going to try this silly stuff out. Let's start with.... a billion dollars, and go from there." Then later once they have spent the money, "Ok guys, that was a waste of money. Let's all pack up and try to forget how silly we all were." Surely spending that kind of money on such a project had some merit, or it wouldn't have cost so much. Now, whether or not they proved that telepathy or anything like that exists is debatable. Perhaps they did find some interesting facts about the realms beyond the physical, but couldn't "make use" of it in any way that they were originally shooting for. Perhaps a lot of that research soon moved to another focus other than war strategies.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Slashdot affect by MrLizard · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Surely spending that kind of money on such a project had some merit, or it wouldn't have cost so much"

      You've never studied history or held a job at a corporation, have you? Spending millions, billions, trillions on meritless projects is what any entity large enough to have that kind of money *does*. Constantly. Continuously. All the time.

      The division I work(ed) for was just bought by another company, because they wanted to integrate our software and acquired expertise. The buyer, having spent this money, announced all employees would need to re-apply for their existing jobs, which is only a little silly, and also all relocate, which is a LOT silly, since all of us worked remotely, and many of us couldn't relocate even if we wanted to. So, pretty much, they just lost all the accumulated knowledge they just paid for, and what they've got is tens of thousands of lines of mostly undocumented code that's virtually impossible to maintain or understand without spending months stepping through it. (It was developed over a decade by dozens of transient programmers, and in-line documentation varies from "sparse" to "actually false".)

      Multiply that little bit of stupidity by tens of thousands of corporations and hundreds of world governments, and you have the world we live in.

    2. Re:Slashdot affect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wonder why articles like this are posted on slashdot.

      For the "In Soviet Russia" jokes.

    3. Re:Slashdot affect by Junta · · Score: 1

      While there are scenarios like you describe where decent business acumen would have been able to foresee a likely erosion of value, I think the basic point is you don't always know it's going to be a failure until the money is spent.

      Here, USSR had very little in-house scientific data to go on to be *sure* this was a dead end. If it had turned out not to be a dead end, that would have been very much worth the investment. This is actually what people should be embracing in scientific disciplines, willingness to expend at least some resources on scientific exploration when the result is far from guaranteed.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  10. Tinfoil by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

    This should set the tinfoil hat brigade off screeching like demented howler monkeys.

  11. I know what this is ... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    .... early research on Quantum Physics.... before it was labeled such.

  12. Ohhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So there's where the strain mk ultra got its name!!

  13. Actually there are a lot that we still don't know by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There were "stories" of similar programs run by the CIA back then (and perhaps they are still doing it right now, as we speak), and I saw a documentary back in the 1980's of a soviet man who could sort of "imprint" what he thinks onto a film/negative.

    Someone showed the guy a picture (a building) and then he hold a camera and then focus his "energy" into it, and then they took out the negative to develop and the picture that came out was blurry but still you could make out a "shape" of that building.

    I am a science nerd, but still things like that really fascinate me to no end.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  14. Psychotron by peter.kingsbury · · Score: 1

    Assassin in stealth
    Assailant from Hell
    Impervious to damage
    Computer on board
    Engaged in war
    Non-stop combatant
    Maybe not a mutant, maybe a man
    Part bionic
    And organic
    Not a cyborg
    Call him Psychotron
    Burning inside
    Godspeed in glide
    Battle plan running
    A killing machine
    Just downright mean
    And forever gunning
    Maybe not a mutant, maybe a man
    Target to destroy
    Arms in employ
    Full assault fire threat
    Sensors indicate
    You will terminate
    Life systems disconnect
    Psychotron

    1. Re:Psychotron by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Burma shave?

      (Man, I don't remember that one.)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  15. It's an "ology"! by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 0

    For "unconventional science" read "mumbo jumbo". Parapsychology does not qualify as science, unconventional or otherwise. It only qualifies as quackery and bullshit.

    1. Re:It's an "ology"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Biology and geology are not real sciences either, with all their hereditary nonsense and goofy crystals. Bunch of charlatans and nutters if you ask me.

    2. Re:It's an "ology"! by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For "unconventional science" read "mumbo jumbo". Parapsychology does not qualify as science, unconventional or otherwise. It only qualifies as quackery and bullshit.

      Because it's been rebuked by research. Conducting that research, however, is what science is all about: test claims to see if they're correct.

      Heck, you could do parapsychology research today and, as long as it's properly conducted, it would be science. It's unlike such experiment would do more than confirm what's already known, but that doesn't make it "mumbo jumbo".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:It's an "ology"! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 2

      Heck, you could do parapsychology research today and, as long as it's properly conducted, it would be science.

      No, it really wouldn't. Science only concerns itself with non-supernatural/non-metaphysical claims, and there's a reason for that. If you're willing to entertain anything more than that then you're dealing with quasi-claims for which no amount of evidence can be used to substantiate or disprove them.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    4. Re:It's an "ology"! by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 2

      Parapsychology theories have been given every chance. They've been tested under proper laboratory conditions according to the scientific method. They've been tested again and again, over and over, given far more chances than any ordinary scientist might expect to be given. The tests were scientific, and the theories failed those tests.

      Hanging on to disproven theories is what makes parapsychology a non-science. The -ology suffix is just a desperate attempt to associate with proven laws of nature. Science is right to give crazy ideas a chance, but also right to shun them when they are emphatically shown to be wrong.

      And when the pseudo-scientists persist in dressing up their mumbo-jumbo, quackery, and bullshit as respectable ideas as, you can forgive the real scientists for getting a little bit cross.

    5. Re:It's an "ology"! by Stainless_Steel_Mous · · Score: 3
      Your statement is a bit too harsh.

      Parapsychology has a lot of problems from a reproducible experiment POV, but many of them are due to a complete lack of theory as to how a possible mechanism for a given extra-sensory phenomenon might work. Without a working theory, how do you develop an experiment to test it?

      Couple of examples to illustrate the difficulties:

      I am an ancient experimenter. I have lots of black rocks. One or two of the black rocks attract one another, but the vast majority do not. (the ones that do are lodestones, natural magnets) I publish a paper saying that some black rocks attract one another. Other experimenters get black rocks and cannot reproduce my experiment. Jamius Randius says I'm a fake, and even when I demonstrate black rocks that attract one another, says I am a huckster. An investigating committee bangs my black rocks together, making them lose their magnetism, so even I cannot make them attract anymore. I lose my patron, and rocks that attract one another is branded pseudo-science.

      Other experimenters try this out with other black rocks, but so few have successful results that future researchers need to depend on meta-analysis of thousands of experiments to get possibly statistically meaningful results. Statistics is hard, so the research descends into sniping about statistical techniques. (See http://therandomtexan.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-5/ for recent discussions about how p values are too loose across many disciplines.)

      Second example closer to home in parapsychology. There are thought experiments proposing that all ESP related phenomena like remote viewing or telepathy may just be specific cases of precognition, since validating experimental results involves knowing the outcome at some point in the future.

      Last idea: Since parapsychological phenomena (whether 'real' or not) involve people and effects at a distance, how to ensure the experimenter is not having an effect on the experiment. This is one idea behind the 'sheep/goat' effect in parapsychology (other explanation is that all sheep are cheating and all goats are honest experimenters)

      it's a really interesting field that rewards study, just in terms of figuring out how to create good experiments in such a vacuum. Govt. research and specifically application to gathering intelligence has always been saddled with extremely low reproducibility but occasional spectacular successes.

    6. Re:It's an "ology"! by claytongulick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it really would. At one point just about every major piece of technology and science we have today would have been considered supernatural/metaphysical. Given the abundance of anecdotal evidence of "parapsychological" effects, it is completely reasonable to perform controlled experiments in order to evaluate whether those effects can be reproduced. That is the very nature of science.

      It is also completely reasonable and scientific to periodically continue to perform those experiments as our tools and understanding grow, and to continue to ensure that the earlier falsification was justified and correct.

      . If you're willing to entertain anything more than that then you're dealing with quasi-claims for which no amount of evidence can be used to substantiate or disprove them.

      String theory?

      --
      Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
    7. Re:It's an "ology"! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. Experimenting to try to gather evidence to support and explain phenomena reportedly observed by people throughout history is mumbo jumbo whereas stating that research in a particular subject is unjustified because we know everything, the subject seems ridiculous and we can assert that it can't be empirically measured is science? Okay. I suppose you believe in immutable "scientific facts" too? I guess I used to believe in the tooth fairy.....

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    8. Re:It's an "ology"! by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 1

      String theory?

      Here's why string theory is different from crackpot hokum such as parapsychology:

      • - Nobody is claiming ST has passed any complete scientific test. Parapsychology proponents put forward their claims as reality.
      • - ST is compatible with known facts. Parapsychology is not.
      • - ST is interesting because it might help current research to find the way forward. Parapsychology is disconnected from all scientific knowledge.

      One should keep an open mind, but not gaping. Life is short, and we have to be critical. If we spent all our time re-testing already discredited theories we would have wasted our lives.

    9. Re:It's an "ology"! by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 1

      If you are a good scientist, then you will easily prove the specific claim "some black rocks attract one another". You will repeat the experiment, thereby showing that particular rocks consistently attract one another in controlled conditions. You will lend those rocks to other experimenters to test, proving beyond all doubt that certain rocks behave as you say. Then you will get on the cover of Prehistoric Nature magazine, and be given funding to find out why certain black rocks are special. Other researchers will scour the earth searching for more special black rocks, and reference your paper every time they succeed or fail. Eventually you will become a respected become professor in the department of black rocks.

      Parapsychology fails because it cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method. Until it can offer a prediction which (a) differs from existing knowledge, and (b) can be tested in a reproducible experiment it is, by definition, not science. Science being the only method we have for establishing whether a claim is trustworthy, ologies which can't meet the requirements of science must be labelled untrustworthy.

    10. Re:It's an "ology"! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      I never said, nor do I believe, that we know everything. Most of the claims I hear that the phenomenon can't be empirically measured comes more from believers in the para-sciences when one of their beliefs is put into doubt from a scientific investigation.

      When you're saying something is "supernatural" you're saying it's beyond nature and beyond our understanding. But if that's the case then there's nothing really we can test, is there? And when you can find some claim you can test empirically then you're saying that it is both physical and can be understood as a natural phenomenon. And if it doesn't pan out the way you want, you have to learn to respect the results.

      This para-scientific crap has been tested and re-tested for a long long time, and we still see nothing more than can be explained by wishful thinking and the usual statistical blips you'd always see from a set of data.

      The real world is way too cool to abandon what is for we hope to be. Time to stop wasting our time with this pointless shit.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    11. Re:It's an "ology"! by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      Conducting that research, however, is what science is all about: test claims to see if they're correct.

      No. They spent a billion dollars on it. They were clutching at shadows after the lights were turned on.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    12. Re:It's an "ology"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum Theory was considered quackery in it's time - even Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance", or, "God does not play dice with the universe."

      Now we know He definitely fucking *does*.

      So, science does not only concern itself with "non-supernatural/non-metaphysical claims."

    13. Re:It's an "ology"! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No, it really wouldn't. Science only concerns itself with non-supernatural/non-metaphysical claims, and there's a reason for that.

      Yes, it really would. "I can read your mind" or "I can move objects with my mind" or "I can predict which side the coin lands" are testable claims, and are thus in the realm of science.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:It's an "ology"! by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1

      Quantum Theory sure did appear to be wacky at the time by many, but since it was always based on testable predictions for which to understand nature it was at no point considered metaphysical or supernatural.

      Maybe the closest things in science right now to metaphysics are the multiple interpretations if quantum mechanics. These are more frameworks to try and visualize how it works behind the scenes for lack of anything better. But I think most physicists take the "shut up and calculate" perspective instead of considering such things too much.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
  16. We need a new currency symbol by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One to indicate whether the dollar amount is inflation adjusted or not. I Imagine a $ with an arrow hat on the | So it's an up arrow and an S. That will work for talking about historical figures in current day.

    There is another problem though that is wanting to work backward, either by date or rate. So I would suggest the arrowed $, number and a divisor $14.7m/3.5 this would indicate to divide 14.7 by 3.5 to get the original dollar amount.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  17. hymenology never more ologized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like deceptology isn't #1 with the WMD on credit corepirate nazi numerologist genociders?

  18. Just a game by photosonic · · Score: 1

    I always though that there was serious interest in this on both sides, but the US went...WTF and just kept up the show so the Soviets would go bust spending big bucks in a race to keep up. Looks like it worked.

    --
    Find a job you love, and never work a day in your life.
  19. Re:Actually there are a lot that we still don't kn by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Someone showed the guy a picture (a building) and then he hold a camera and then focus his "energy" into it, and then they took out the negative to develop and the picture that came out was blurry but still you could make out a "shape" of that building.

    Paging Mr. Randi, Mr. James Randi you have a phone call on the wooscam line.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  20. we can't allow a mineshaft gap! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Are you sure you're not thinking of Ted Serios? I don't think he was a Soviet, in fact WP states he was from Chicago.

    I wasn't aware nensha was a thing beyond Ted. Hey, you learn something every day.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:we can't allow a mineshaft gap! by sjames · · Score: 2

      He may mean the Soviet version. Looked just like him except he had a beard.

      That was quite common during the cold war.

  21. Nothing compared to what the US is spending today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  22. It might be time to reconsider... by Simulant · · Score: 2

    ... the wisdom of putting our most paranoid citizens into our intelligence & defense agencies.

    1. Re:It might be time to reconsider... by ulatekh · · Score: 1

      What should we do with them, then?

      --
      "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  23. How do you know? by hughbar · · Score: 1

    That the research has ended? Maybe that's what they've made you believe using a late-model cerpan? Cue Twilight Zone music etc. etc. etc.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  24. Brion Gysin, thou art confirmed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you driven a fnord lately?

    Also, was project CARET actually a hoax?
    And while we're on the topic of long-shot wacky ideas, has anyone heard anything from Charles Cosimano lately?

  25. Psychic research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found a youtube vid on a procedure used for remote viewing created by the military. There was a test at the end. Surprisingly it worked. Forget the group but they were private consultants who had helped engineer the program.

  26. "Uncoventional Science" by MrLizard · · Score: 1

    So, "unconventional science" is how you say "farkin' bullshit" in Russian. Got it.

    It would not surprise me if these "studies" were due to CIA influence to trick the Soviets into wasting their money and effort.

    1. Re:"Uncoventional Science" by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      If they keep testing ideas and don't falsify results it is still science, even if everything proves false or the ideas are crazy. There are an infinite number of things to test and while it saves a lot of resources to make educated guesses on what to test, sometimes the crazy stuff yields results... which is likely the main excuse to waste time in fringe areas that don't get attention because 'it's crazy.'

      Of course, if the topic being explored is idiotic they are only going to have negative test results and that doesn't provide much in the way of guidance for future tests.

      Science is done by humans, so you have the same issues as anywhere else-- systems where somebody's job is connected to signs of progress...

  27. Re:Nothing compared to what the US is spending tod by MrLizard · · Score: 2

    Yes, but are we doing it by having people sit and wish really, really, hard? There's wasting money in the normal way, and there's wasting money in amazingly stupid ways, even when you consider the "normal way" includes $600.00 hammers and the like. It takes a truly unique and special brand of stupid to waste money in a way that's ridiculous even by the accepted standards of governments world-wide.

  28. Just Do It by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Not Courtney Brown or the Farsight Institute by any chance? Weren't they the ones that got Ti and Bo all hopped up about the aliens riding comet Hale-Bopp coming to beam them up?

    Crackpots and their interesting theories are kind of a guilty pleasure of mine.
    Like the guys that thought LSD would make a dandy truth serum. I heard they threw great parties^W^W did some interesting research.

    Back to the Soviet angle, they also researched the LIDA machine, which was supposedly an electronic sleep inducer.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  29. Lets look at the record oops whats this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MKULTRA records were destroyed. How many other programs are like that?

  30. The reality of psychotronic weapons today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

            http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/10176

            I feel like saying a bunch of bad words at the posts here. But why bother, your not worth being my TARGET.

  31. Not Just In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I saw a goat man, I would have a heart attack too.

  32. Whereas in the US by Pirulo · · Score: 2

    We do it with the media

  33. mind reading by deodiaus2 · · Score: 2

    However we are current pursuing efforts at mind reading and using minds to control devices using a feedback device which measures activity in regions of the brain. 50 years ago, this would have been considered bunk, so there obviously has been some progress.

    1. Re:mind reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the years and money spent on trying to read minds is a waste.
      This is how mind reading works:
      Once a girl friend becomes a wife... she knows, some-how she always knows !
      She knows what the guy is thinking, and she knows what he's going to think weeks in advance !
      Scary stuff !

  34. All those who believe ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    .. in telekinesis, please raise my hand.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:All those who believe ... by frog_strat · · Score: 1

      How do you raise your own hand ? How does a thought move an arm ? Or does some other force raise your arm ?

  35. This is a real thing -- I should know by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    I was given the power to move objects with my mind, and then some agency remotely removed my memory and ability from a bunker deep in the ground. They left me a broken man with only a vague notion of my manufactured past and a vivid imagination, but no ability to write a script that the ScyFy would carry -- when clearly, I can improve upon the "Fire-breathing Snake, but not a Dragon you NOOB!" and "Golem from a Simpson's Plot"

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  36. arms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about legs? I know, bad joke

  37. past-tense? by Marquis231 · · Score: 2

    What baffles me is that while the existence of an arms race between the USSR and the United States during the cold war is common knowledge a lot of people seem to think the 'race' is now over and that intelligence agencies such as the C.I.A don't continue their infamous work.

  38. Re:Actually there are a lot that we still don't kn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by "sort of" I assume you mean "not"

  39. cheap by chelunick · · Score: 1

    I know it might sound a lot but there are indications US military spent that ammout on a a few toilet seats and a hammer

  40. If they won... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

    If they won, we wouldn't really know, would we?

  41. NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain Link by strstr · · Score: 1

    Psychotronic energy is just a spectrum of electromagnetism, a frequency at which the nervous system of living organisms operares at.

    There is psychotronic frequency in the low Hz range, which is right below AM radio.

    In the United States, only the NSA and maybe those with ties to them can operate in this band. And there is a whole weapons system, complete with patents, designed to intercept, interpret, and alter the mind, or psychotronic energy. They call this technology NSA Remote Neural Monitoring and Electronic Brain Link, ala a remote brain computer interface. Another popular term for it is synthetic telepathy.

    The US government has been warrantlessly using this technology to spy on Americans, world leaders, and to communicate covertly with one another, and to attack and target people they want to set up and frame. They can, with this system, spy on people under cover of buildings, to see what the targets see, hear, think, feel, dream, and all memory and thought can be monitored. They can also use directed energy to remotely stimulate nerves, beaming sound, video, dreams, sensation, motor control commands, and more directly into the minds of targets.

    This information is closely tied to the NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice revelations from 2006, where he claims to have targeted journalists, lawyers, senators, judges, generals, admirals, and more with warrantless surveillance at Signals Intelligence. He did this with space (high tech) capability and other methods (low tech, wiretaps, telephone/internet monitoring). He believes there is no system or signal not being monitored, and they are illegally gathering the content of communications, not just metadata.

    Link to article, complete with videos of Russell Tice discussing this on Abby Martin, and MSNBC, and patents: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html

    More articles on psychotronic weapons: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#links

    My website, http://www.obamasweapon.com/ covers my story on how I was warrantlessly spied on, set up, and targeted with this technology during a major US Department of Justice investigation that started in 2006.

    My story in this PDF on how I was tortured and set up: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Reporter_on_Torture_complaint_9-9-2013-p1.pdf

    Repeat on part of the article:

    Is the NSA Conducting Electronic Warfare On Americans?

    Jonas Holmes May 19, 2006 CHRONICLE ARTICLE

    Russ Tice, former NSA intelligence officer and current Whistleblower, was to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. Apparently the testimony, Mr. Tice wanted to give, makes General Hayden’s phone surveillance program look like very small potatoes. Mr. Tice’s testimony is expected to reveal further illegal activity overseen by General Michael Hayden which even loyal and patriotic NSA employees view as unlawful. I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. IT’S PRETTY HARD TO BELIEVE, Tice said. I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now. According to Mr. Tice, what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. What in the world could Russ Tice be talking about! To figure it out let us take a look at Russ Tice’s work at the NSA.

    According to the Washington Times and numerous other sources, Mr. Tice worked on special access programs related to electronic intelligence gathering while working for the NSA and DIA, where he took part in space systems communications, non-communications signals, electronic warfare, satellite con

  42. seems legit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    finally, you guys made it here.


    Whatever happened to Elanor White (raven1)? Or Philip Taylor Kramer for that matter?

    1. Re:seems legit... by strstr · · Score: 1

      I don't know either of those people. They probably predate me, and I have no connection to the targeted individual movement other than my advocacy for them and using some of the resources they have made available about this problem.

  43. Re:NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool story, bro. Do you know what the theoretical maximum bandwidth of a 50Hz signal is, and how it compares to the bandwidth required for even the simplest low-quality audio feed, let alone video?

  44. wait but pink unicorns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait but pink unicorns DO exist on the other side of the moon...

  45. Re:NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain L by strstr · · Score: 1

    There are actually billions of evoked potentials in the brain and body, one for each neuron. It is theorized that the bandwidth might be about 32 to 64 bits per monitored neuron, per half second up to 4 seconds. It just depends on how fast the neuron turns on and off, and what data must be stored about it's signal and the range.

    There's a guy who calculated it out to monitoring 10,000 neurons per person, and it would only take 1 gigabit per second to monitor 10,000 people that way. This is using a slightly different formula, as explained in the Physics of Synthetic Telepathy, Can a Satellite Read Your Thoughts artices on my website. I believe it actually uses 32 to 64 times that calculation, though.

    When the signals of each neuron are pieced back together, whether from brain or organ nerves, video and audio and other information can be inferred.

  46. Well, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What actually happened was that after WWII the Soviets got the MANUFACTURING engineers and the US got the DESIGN engineers, so the Soviets go up first but we more quickly developed better designs.

  47. Re:NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain L by strstr · · Score: 1

    Here's a list of some satellites that might be involved or used to target people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_Launches

    NROL-39 was just launched by the National Reconnaissance Office, and has been making rounds in the media because of the controversy of domestic surveillance right now, and their logo which is on the side of the satellite, featuring an octopus straddling planet earth and the text "nothing is beyond our reach". I'd like to add, there is no joke about that message and it is quite literal, as they can even physically tap and tamper with your brain and genitals remotely with these things. No joke.

  48. Actually, not. by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Remember that it wasn't so long ago that everyone "knew" the world was flat and you were a whackjob if you believed any differently

    Ancient Greeks had already calculated the Earth's radius. In medieval Europe, educated people knew the Earth was round.
    Columbus did *not* face resistance because people thought the Earth was flat. He faced resistance because people correctly pointed that the Earth was about 40000km in circunference and that his ships could not reach Asia by traveling West. Columbus based his expedition on faulty calculations.

    Columbus was lucky that America was in the way.

    1. Re:Actually, not. by Optali · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      And he got sponsorship from the Spanish crown because they understood what his aim was: To navigate to East Asia. And these guys were far from being the brightest, mind you.

      Even the Roman had it as an established fact. And anybody who has lived at the sea has a direct experience of the earth's curvature.

      This is a nice example in regard to the main topic of this article on how (in good faith) many are trying to argument on assumptions that they thing are common while they happen to be be exactly the contrary (such as the uncertainty principle, for instance).

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  49. I am a strange loop by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    So it seems that consciousness and attention can have effects in the physical world

    Of course it can, what do you think is controlling my arms as I scratch my arse? It has other names, spirit, soul, mind, etc. There's a reason scientists and philosophers alike call consciousness "The hard problem", it all boils down to the fact that you can never fully understand yourself. You are not separate from the rest of the universe, you and the universe are one (or as Sagan put it) "We are the part of the universe that observes itself", and by extension that implies we can never fully understand the universe. I don't know about anyone else but like Feynman "I'm ok with that, I'm not afraid of not knowing, I find it more interesting".

    Having said that the world is full of scammers who use very clever magic tricks to separate the gullible from their wallets. The "clever" part is that they know enough about the human mind to be able to distract it from what's really happening. Of course there are others who truly believe they have special powers but they always turn out to be mistaken when put to the test.

    To summarise: Wake me up when James Randi pays out on his million dollar challenge.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:I am a strange loop by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      How do you know James Randi doesn't have special powers that he uses to negate evidence of ESP?

    2. Re:I am a strange loop by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Set up a blinded experiment where the absense or presence of a malicious Randi would be measurable if your claim is true (as some experiments would fail, others succeed). If the proposer of the original effect can reliably detect a malicious Randi from his fail/success results, then you'd have a result.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  50. Re:Actually there are a lot that we still don't kn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the problem with skeptics. They assume, making an ass out of u and me.

  51. Of course it was a race - to one-up Sputnik by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The first space race was about satellites, and the US lost; the reason for the moon was partly because it was a sufficiently big project to make up for having lost the first round. The real technical driver on both sides was ICBMs, but a lot of ego got dragged along as well.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  52. Thank heaven for nutjobs...they're distracting by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Parapsychology proponents put forward their claims as reality.

    Not all proponents...but just enough to give them most of them a bad name. Such people are "useful idiots". They give parapsychology a bad name with people who desperately want to believe such things are B.S. (a case of confirmation bias). This allows the real practitioners to do what they do, without drawing undue attention to themselves. An ideal state of affairs for them, really. And your skepticism lets them get away with it.

    "Science" can't study parapsychology, because science believes that reality is something that's outside of us, and can be objectively observed and measured. Instead, the scientists are simply observing and measuring the aspects of subjective reality that we all agree upon. There's some value in that — no doubt, science has been a good thing for our species, and has produced all sorts of advancements — but it's not going to lead to the ultimate truths. Those exist within us. Science needs to realize that the right question to ask is "who is asking the question", and then it might get somewhere with parapsychology.

    I have some hope that quantum physics will be the conduit for leading science out of its "objective reality" bias, but it's still too early to tell.

    In the meantime, keep in mind that science has a terrible track record of claiming that something is impossible.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  53. Re:NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain L by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of a South Park episode...25% of the population is retarded, and needs to believe in an all-powerful government.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
  54. Re:NSA Remote Neural Monitoring/Electronic Brain L by strstr · · Score: 1

    Well, in all seriousness, 90% of the population is retarded, and all of society is being controlled and manipulated into being mindless consumerists who are incapable to defend themselves from the other 10%, ie those in power. Even slashdot'ers are in the 90% who apparently think serious shit like this is just a big joke...

  55. Ponzi/Pyramid scams by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Every Institute (business/politics/religion/globalization/capitalism) is masquerading itself into Ponzi/Pyramid scams.

  56. The Scientific Truth ??? about the Psychic. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    First of all a simple question with a difficult answer is the psychic real? Some parts look real, some look very unlikely, and some look just about impossible.
    One of the first problems is in separating truth from the rubbish and noise, no subject in the world is more subject to bunk and charlatans.

    However there are several ways of really testing the psychic and from what I've seen it passes most of them. Its just that the real thing looks so different from the fake that its hard to recognize. It is such a small and subtle interaction that it is very hard to observe or isolate or study outside the person.

    There is another little problem, nothing that science can do is more hated by religion than the study of the psychic. A lot of old military scientific research into the psychic is suppressed because it is deeply anti-religious. If you understand the psychic then you can quantify God and reduce it to factors and equations and answers. Do this and the answer comes back that there is/was probably a 'God', but A its existence ends / ended at the beginning of the universe, B it is literally the energy of the Big Bang, C in our terms it is mindless, D it is utterly ruthless -very like evolution, E it looks nothing like the Christian or any other human God.
    This 'God' is a force that seeks increasing order (in physics terms), physically it is a quantum 'energy field' with an FTL causality. It jumps backwards and forwards in time creating an evolutionary cycle that eventually creates our universe. The real problem for religious people comes when this is applied to the real world - ie do almost anything which depends on an FTL causality- and you are effectively playing with the creation and use of God as a machine.

    Study and dissect FTL models of physics and it becomes clear that certain parts of the psychic are described pretty precisely. It is clear that (if it exists) the 'psychic' is very delicate and is very easily disrupted, and behaves exactly like a quantum state. (A quantum state and an FTL causality are basically identical.) This means that it is virtually impossible to properly scientifically observe psychic phenomena because it is virtually impossible to completely isolate observers from an experiment.
    Ironically we all almost certainly observe psychic phenomena every day because they are deeply embedded in many aspects of brain operation, and for instance play a pretty dominant role in human psychology or in 'real time' operations like sight or speech or movement. The place where these psychic phenomena (or 'quantum element') would play the most important role is in brain development - and this is already close to being fully provable. A basic experiment requires a way of disrupting the quantum field during gestation which should disrupt an animals development. (designing a way of doing this isn't so simple though - a vacuum or faraday cage can disrupt a direct field but)

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  57. Proper experiments by danhaas · · Score: 1

    Hey, what do you think of this?

    http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

    Most of what I read there seems proper science.

  58. I saved this a bit early and the editing is ... by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    I saved this a bit early and the editing is a real mess, sorry... : (

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  59. Science has disproven the materialists' hypothesis by teslabox · · Score: 1

    ... but materialism is seductive to certain people, so the religion lives on.

    I heard a saying just yesterday: 'it's easier to fool people, than to convince them that they've been fooled'. This was supposedly said by Mark Twain...

    Rupert Sheldrake has a nice Tedx talk - good enough to get banned from Ted's youtube channel by the materialists who run Ted.