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.
The PDF mentions a ship and some sort of unexpected catastrophe (in vague surrounding, horoscope-like terms) but it also mentions "high-powered lasers", Bikini atoll, H-bombs, and the drawings of the alleged ship superstructure look nothing like those of the USS Stark (some of the notes mention a "flight deck" like an aircraft carrier's; while the USS Stark does have a flight deck this is a mostly irrelevant detail about this class of ships). Plus this was done for the CIA, so unsurprisingly any "viewing" would be primed to refer to military hardware and events; imagine if they mentioned McDonald's, ice-cream, and an upcoming football match.
If you exclude H-Bomb, high powered laser, disregard the shapes don't match the USS Stark, and fixate on the coincidences -- pattern-matching, something the human brain has evolved for survival -- of course the similarities will seem impressive. This is "cold reading 101", a known trick. The average tarot reader knows how to do this.
Interestingly, we don't know of any other predictions that widely missed the mark. So if predictions 1 to 10 were made, most wildly inaccurate, but one of them vaguely/partially resembles something that happened some days after, that's not convincing to demonstrate anything but a random result. Let's say another prediction stated "calm waters, US dominance, safe passage, successful mission, happy sailors". How would we assess the accuracy of the predictive method?
the_af|2 months ago
If you exclude H-Bomb, high powered laser, disregard the shapes don't match the USS Stark, and fixate on the coincidences -- pattern-matching, something the human brain has evolved for survival -- of course the similarities will seem impressive. This is "cold reading 101", a known trick. The average tarot reader knows how to do this.
Interestingly, we don't know of any other predictions that widely missed the mark. So if predictions 1 to 10 were made, most wildly inaccurate, but one of them vaguely/partially resembles something that happened some days after, that's not convincing to demonstrate anything but a random result. Let's say another prediction stated "calm waters, US dominance, safe passage, successful mission, happy sailors". How would we assess the accuracy of the predictive method?