top | item 46420268

(no title)

noworld | 2 months ago

I always thought this was interesting.

May 15, 1987: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R0017000...

May 17, 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

discuss

order

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7|2 months ago

There just as much completely unrelated to the incident in that as there is related.

Also, what guarantee is there that whomever created that document didn't just date it two days prior to acquire more funding for doing spooky things?

noworld|2 months ago

I don't think there's a "guarantee" that it wasn't backdated, but there isn't any evidence of that either.

FuturisticLover|2 months ago

This is so shocking, considering the similarities.

Reality is indeed stranger than fiction.

perfmode|2 months ago

Interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.

namanyayg|2 months ago

What does the first pdf mean?

(And does it remind anyone else of an ee cummings poem or is it just me)

noworld|2 months ago

The first PDF is the record of a remote viewing session from 2 days before the USS Stark incident, and it is eerily similar to the incident. The feelings and "atmosphere" (can't think of a better word for it) sound like what you might expect on a ship being attacked by a random missile.

For example:

1. The drawing on p. 7 looks like the superstructure of a warship.

2. The next few pages might describe what it feels like to wonder if your ship is actually under missile attack.

3. On page 10 it records "aircraft--large, multiengined; distant; orbiting; distraction controlled, directed. 'Under orders.'" This USNI article has a little more detail on the AWACS plane detecting the incoming attack: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/j...

There are other similarities, but the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange.

finalarbiter|2 months ago

The first PDF is the results/notes of someone attempting remote viewing. Given the dates, I agree with the above poster that the similarities are impressive.