I have no idea. However, if you expect national intelligence agencies to only be interested in stuff that has been shown empirically, then I have some very bad news for you (to take one of the _funnier_ examples, the CIA spent nearly 20 years researching "psychic remote viewing", ie magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project).
That said, you'd expect that this would work (the double-whammy disruption, that is, not the magician-spies).
Take the "Guccifer 2.0" example, for instance. "Guccifer 2.0", that is the Russian military intelligence agency, stole and leaked emails from the DNC, causing political disruption. It was then revealed, in pretty short succession, that Trump lackey Roger Stone had been in communication with "Guccifer 2.0", and that "Guccifer 2.0" was a GRU officer. This caused further political disruption, and didn't obviously cost Russia anything, so, really, why would they _not_ reveal it?
And it does seem to be a trend; it's not like this is the only example of Russia saying "we totally deny these claims [wink]".
Stargate: wow! With that kind of return on investment on $20 M, psychic readings for $10 a pop sound like a bargain in comparison. At worst, the readers are good at reading some signals hiding in plain sight and prompting some self reflection.
rsynnott|3 years ago
I have no idea. However, if you expect national intelligence agencies to only be interested in stuff that has been shown empirically, then I have some very bad news for you (to take one of the _funnier_ examples, the CIA spent nearly 20 years researching "psychic remote viewing", ie magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project).
That said, you'd expect that this would work (the double-whammy disruption, that is, not the magician-spies).
Take the "Guccifer 2.0" example, for instance. "Guccifer 2.0", that is the Russian military intelligence agency, stole and leaked emails from the DNC, causing political disruption. It was then revealed, in pretty short succession, that Trump lackey Roger Stone had been in communication with "Guccifer 2.0", and that "Guccifer 2.0" was a GRU officer. This caused further political disruption, and didn't obviously cost Russia anything, so, really, why would they _not_ reveal it?
And it does seem to be a trend; it's not like this is the only example of Russia saying "we totally deny these claims [wink]".
anon400232|3 years ago
Stargate: wow! With that kind of return on investment on $20 M, psychic readings for $10 a pop sound like a bargain in comparison. At worst, the readers are good at reading some signals hiding in plain sight and prompting some self reflection.