[HN Gopher] CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]
Author : dvrp
Score : 84 points
Date : 2025-12-29 03:16 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cia.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cia.gov)
| meindnoch wrote:
| TLDR? Goat-staring is real?
| Xmd5a wrote:
| There is a regain of interest in these topics. See what's
| happening here: https://www.reddit.com/r/GATEresearch/
| krapp wrote:
| "real" in that the program existed and research was done? Yes.
|
| "real" in that remote viewing and psychic powers actually
| exist? No.
|
| The CIA researched a ton of "mind-control" techniques under
| MKULTRA too but that doesn't mean they can control your mind.
|
| The government has programs to research UFOs but that doesn't
| mean aliens are buzzing our skies and kidnapping our cattle.
|
| I think what we're really seeing here is just money laundering
| and confirmation bias.
| DANmode wrote:
| > that doesn't mean they can control your mind.
|
| If the attacker has physical access, assume your system is
| not safe.
| hosh wrote:
| > TLDR? Goat-staring is real?
|
| The movie was based on the work of a journalist investigating
| the topic and wrote a non-fiction book on the subject.
| kubb wrote:
| It's hard to believe that so recently, "serious" people would
| fund research of literal mumbo jumbo. By all means, the 90s was a
| different time epistemologically.
|
| We aren't immune to this today, far from it, though the hoaxes
| have become way more believable in my assessment.
| exe34 wrote:
| > By all means, the 90s was a different time epistemologically
|
| We're in an age when vaccines are treated as the enemy and the
| us health secretary believes paracetamol causes autism.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| The Tylenol thing is one of the least crazy things he has
| believed in, at least it had some initial studies suggesting
| it. There's no science at all in most of his beliefs.
| willis936 wrote:
| The CIA has been this way since basically its inception. It's
| where a bunch of lead-lined brains are given unreasonable
| budgets and discretion.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Science_and_Tec...
| firesteelrain wrote:
| It appears this was actually authorized by Congress.
|
| " In the FY 1991 Defense Authorization Act, the Defense
| Intelligence Agency (DIA) was identified as executive agent
| for initiating a new program to investigate
| parapsychological/ anomalous phenomena. A funding level of $2
| million was authorized for DIA to undertake specific research
| and other activities relative to this activity. Objectives of
| this authorization were to enable a systematic and
| scientifically sound approach to the R&D effort, to permit
| wider and more systematic review of potential intelligence
| applications, and to assess foreign developments in this
| area."
|
| It was taken serious enough to be funded for two decades
| starting in the 70s. Eventually it was terminated when the
| strategic pressure eased.
|
| AIR was commissioned to look at the research and says in this
| [1]
|
| "A three-component program involving basic research,
| operations, and foreign assessment has been in place for some
| time... beginning in the 1970s, it has conducted a program
| intended to investigate the application of one paranormal
| phenomenon -- remote viewing, or the ability to describe
| locations one has not visited."
|
| "The AIR review found that remote viewing produced occasional
| hits that were statistically better than chance, but it
| remains unclear whether the observed effects can
| unambiguously be attributed to paranormal phenomena, and the
| laboratory conditions under which effects were seen do not
| generalize to real intelligence problems. The information
| provided by remote viewing was judged vague and ambiguous,
| making it difficult or impossible for the technique to yield
| information of sufficient quality and accuracy for actionable
| intelligence."
|
| 1. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-
| RDP96-00791R0002001...
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > A funding level of $2 million was authorized
|
| In government terms that's pretty small. I guess even if
| there's a low chance of working, the payoff if it did would
| be huge.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| I agree. $2million is small. Where I work, I am regularly
| given budgets well over that to buy software or hardware.
| lagniappe wrote:
| At the time, 2 million was an appreciable sum. Maybe not
| to a government, but that wasn't chump change back then
| the way it is now.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| That is true. I didn't take into account inflation.
| lagniappe wrote:
| Sadly, I don't think any of us did or do.
| drpepper42 wrote:
| Yeah pretty much this unfortunately. Imagine some person
| tasked and genuinely interested in helping the united states
| but they do it all with subterfuge which backfires more than
| it helps anything. Such a person must experience a lot of
| cognitive dissonance and would generally be susceptible to
| conspiracy theories such as this which only reinforces the
| cycle of meddling.
| namanyayg wrote:
| How do we know if something is "mumbo jumbo" until we actually
| check and verify it?
| kubb wrote:
| I see you're interested in epistemology yourself. You should
| study it.
| antonvs wrote:
| I'm not sure it's changed that much. Look at the work around
| the em drive. Or fusion power for that matter. I'm not saying
| we shouldn't be researching fusion, but all the fusion
| "startups" are essentially jokes, or more charitably, monuments
| to the unwarranted hubris of investment capital.
| ifh-hn wrote:
| The benefits of hindsight. I'm sure in 30 odd years someone
| will be making the same comments about our current hoaxes.
| kubb wrote:
| And we will have new hoaxes by then.
|
| The embarrassing part is that we can identify many of them
| already, before the historical consensus catches on.
| MangoToupe wrote:
| That's the whole thing about consensus tho, it's hardly
| embarrassing
| Teever wrote:
| Do you have any examples of these easily identifiable
| contemporary hoaxes?
| kubb wrote:
| Are there any areas in which you'd feel attacked if I
| poined out a hoax?
| Teever wrote:
| Not at all.
|
| I enjoy the subject of conspiracies and hoaxes without
| holding a strong personal affinity towards any particular
| one.
| kubb wrote:
| Cool, the low hanging fruit then:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
| _pr...
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| It's perfectly rational to allocate a bit of money towards
| investigating unlikely phenomenon. In this case, it started
| around the 70s and it was believed that the Soviet Union was
| also doing research into paranormal effects, so even if people
| were skeptical it seems prudent to allocate funds and research
| if there's anything there.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Congratulations, you're the new head of the Department of War.
| It's Day 1 in your new role.
|
| An admiral walks in and sits down and tells you that he'd like
| some money to research some unidentified aircraft that are
| buzzing US Navy pilots. Shaped like "tic tacs", that seem to
| defy physical laws - they accelerate incredibly fast and seem
| to be able to move between air and water without damaging their
| structure, even at high-speed. They've been caught on camera
| multiple times, and pilots don't know what to make of them.
|
| You ask what is this "mumbo jumbo", and whether he is
| "serious". He points out to you that if these aircraft are
| Russian or Chinese in origin, given there is no defence against
| them, they pose a major threat to national security and your
| refusal to take them seriously will not bode well for you in
| the annals of time if they do turn out to be a threat.
|
| You agree to funding a small program to research further.
|
| Then an Army General walks in. He wants $2m for a program to
| research "remote viewing" and "psychokinesis". You sit in awe
| as he explains: multiple independent laboratories have been
| able to conduct experiments that show Extra-Sensory Perception,
| Remote Viewing and Psychokinesis may be real despite not being
| explained by any current physical model. There is intelligence
| to suggest that Chinese and Russian militaries are investing in
| these techniques and the US military is not able to defend
| against them if they're real and exploited by adversaries, or
| for the USA to exploit them either, because they have no
| understanding of them.
|
| You hand wave it away as "mumbo jumbo" and state this is not
| the work of "serious people". You demand a physical model to
| explain it before you invest.
|
| You are reminded that there is no single physical model that
| explains the entirety of how an aircraft wing works, or how
| anaesthetics work, and that the only way such models are
| created is through scientific investigation. If after spending
| the $2m they're able to show such claims are baseless, that is
| a null result that has value in that it shows the Russians and
| Chinese are also not a threat to US National Security.
|
| You are reminded that such techniques may pose a major threat
| to national security and your refusal to take them seriously
| will not bode well for you in the annals of time if they do
| turn out to be a threat.
|
| You agree to funding a small program to research further.
|
| And on it goes. It's Occam's razor - if you commit to the
| scientific method, you have to commit to it. If you are
| concerned there is a science and technology that others have
| and you don't, you need to figure out if there is value in you
| being able to obtain that science or technology, even if it
| sounds like "mumbo jumbo" today.
|
| These weren't idiots, they weren't corrupt, they were asking
| for tiny slithers of money to figure out if Western
| Civilisation was about to collapse into the hands of a few
| people who asked more questions.
| dwroberts wrote:
| Another element that is ignored in all of this is: How much of
| this is really intended to be genuine research? The CIA is an
| intelligence agency, and misdirection is part of counter-
| intelligence.
|
| Putting legitimate resources into a phony cause could be an
| effective way of leading an enemy astray, if you know they are
| intercepting or replicating the same research you're doing (or
| if you happen to " leak " details to them).
| franky47 wrote:
| Disappointing they didn't have their research facility in
| Cheyenne Mountain.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Probably for the best, that place is dealing with weird alien
| phenomena like every week.
| noworld wrote:
| 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
| namanyayg wrote:
| What does the first pdf mean?
|
| (And does it remind anyone else of an ee cummings poem or is it
| just me)
| finalarbiter wrote:
| 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.
| noworld wrote:
| 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.
| FuturisticLover wrote:
| Yeah, Remote Viewing should be a real-time event. This is
| Precognition.
| therobots927 wrote:
| Why does it need to be real- time? If rv is possible then
| it's naive to assume that time is somehow "special" vs
| 3D. It's possible that time is not unfolding linearly,
| that is only an illusion. "Remote" could involve
| accessing information from along the time dimension.
| FuturisticLover wrote:
| I guess that makes sense. My tiny brain is still
| processing all the information. Thinking beyond 3D or
| space/time is impossible for me.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Long ago I was told of looking at a timeline so that time
| "travels" from left to right is the _normal_ view, but
| now rotate that timeline so that it appears as a dot to
| you. You now see all events of the timeline, but without
| reference to "when" they happened. Lots of scifi plots
| are also described as such
| therobots927 wrote:
| Think about a maze drawn on a piece of paper. Because
| we're in 3D you can see all of the maze at once but if
| you were a 2D entity inside the maze you would only see
| the walls / entrances / exits directly in front or behind
| you. Now imagine drawing a line from the entrance to the
| exit - that's 2D + a time dimension. Now make it a 3D
| maze and an entity existing outside of spacetime would be
| able to see all events happening at once in 3D.
| squigz wrote:
| How many of these 'remote viewing' sessions didn't bear any
| similarities to anything?
|
| If you throw a bunch of stuff at a wall, some of it is
| going to stick. Especially when it appears to be random
| words that can be applicable to millions of situations.
| an0malous wrote:
| > Using the standards applied to any other area of
| science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has
| been well established. The statistical results of the
| studies examined are far beyond what is ex- pected by
| chance. Arguments that these results could be due to
| methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly
| refuted. Effects of a magnitude similar to those found in
| government sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been
| replicated at a number of laboratories around the world.
| Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of
| flaws or fraud.
|
| From Jessica Utts, who was the president of the American
| Statistical Association and asked to review the Stanford
| Research Institute psychic programs (including Star
| Gate).
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333228024_An_Ass
| ess...
| someothherguyy wrote:
| That says 2019, but it was published in 1995:
|
| https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf
|
| This goes into way more detail and covers Utts's work.
|
| https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/images/mumford.pdf
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts
| squigz wrote:
| > Using the standards applied to any other area of
| science
|
| Assuming this is true, I have to wonder why it would be
| that the science community apparently places a higher
| burden of proof on this sort of research, and whether
| that higher standard has been earned or not.
| the_af wrote:
| > _If you throw a bunch of stuff at a wall, some of it is
| going to stick. Especially when it appears to be random
| words that can be applicable to millions of situations._
|
| Indeed. I'm amazed so many HN regulars are surprised by
| this. It's how horoscopes work, we've known this for
| centuries now.
|
| Have people forgotten the scientific method, the
| standards of proof, etc?
| akatechis wrote:
| > the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially
| strange
|
| It's only strange if you believe the CIA released notes
| from their super-secret psychic program rather than the
| more plausible explanation that this is disinformation that
| was backdated for a boost of prestige.
| noworld wrote:
| Can you give me some evidence that this document was
| backdated? I'm not saying the government isn't shady AF,
| but I just wonder what's behind the immediate jump to
| "this has to be BS" rather than keeping an open mind.
| the_af wrote:
| Extraordinary claims (that RV is a real phenomenon)
| require extraordinary evidence. The null hypothesis is
| the default position, it requires no extraordinary
| evidence; the opposite does.
|
| This is scientific method 101. Let's not pretend we're
| not familiar with it just because some dodgy CIA document
| surfaced.
| noworld wrote:
| Ah, since the claim contradicts materialism, you get to
| make up a scenario, present no evidence, then put the
| burden on the other side. Got it.
|
| There's literally extraordinary evidence in the PDF, you
| just don't like it.
| the_af wrote:
| I didn't make up any scenario. RV is the made up
| scenario.
|
| If you want to reject the scientific method go ahead, but
| you won't find much sympathy here.
| perfmode wrote:
| Interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.
| FuturisticLover wrote:
| This is so shocking, considering the similarities.
|
| Reality is indeed stranger than fiction.
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I don't think there's a "guarantee" that it wasn't backdated,
| but there isn't any evidence of that either.
| the_af wrote:
| Since backdating would be one of the ways to fake this, the
| onus lies in those that claim the prediction was legit.
|
| That's how evidence works for extraordinary claims. Alas,
| scientific rigor is a harsh master.
| anthk wrote:
| https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp...
|
| More info:
|
| http://shpenkov.com/pdf/microleptonsEng.pdf
| mberning wrote:
| I am amazed that people take Hal Puthoff at his word that he has
| worked on all these secret projects for decades even though he
| cannot describe in definitive terms what the actual outcomes of
| those programs were. But he is able to talk about them for hours
| in the vaguest terms possible. How is that even possible. I mean
| I worked for an aerospace company for 5 years and could go into
| great and boring detail about what I did while I was there. But
| all these people supposedly worked on things much more exotic and
| can't remember anything. This is the greatest psyop of all time.
| tiku wrote:
| Also it would be very easy to proof that it really works.
| Instead they remain vague. They remind me of the dropship sales
| boys, that mainly sell courses on how to dropship instead of
| dropshipping themselves.
|
| If you find a believer they will worship you with no hard
| questions.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| > I am amazed that people take Hal Puthoff at his word that he
| has worked on all these secret projects for decades even though
| he cannot describe in definitive terms what the actual outcomes
| of those programs were.
|
| This is one hundred perfect my view on this, and things are
| more than suspicious when suddenly being asked to get into the
| weeds on some technical aspect these guys start citing national
| security to keep things vague.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| No surprise here. The geniuses at the CIA failed to anticipate
| the fall of the Soviet Union, ignored the warning signs about
| 9/11, and falsely claimed there were "weapons of mass
| destruction" in Iraq during the American invasion in 2003.
| Apparently the so-called intelligence agency was busy with
| important research on "telepathy," "psychokinesis" and other
| "para-psychological phenomena."
| logicchains wrote:
| >falsely claimed there were "weapons of mass destruction" in
| Iraq during the American invasion in 2003
|
| This was due to malice not ignorance/incompetence.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| Well in that case, the CIA is not merely stupid and
| incompetent, it's deliberately evil. How many innocent
| civilians were slaughtered in Iraq during the American
| occupation?
| m4ck_ wrote:
| I mean yeah, that's the Americas in general since Europeans
| first put eyes on it. ~500 years of brutality and slaughter
| in pursuit of profit. We're gonna do it again in Venezuela
| and probably Denmark/Greenland. C'est la vie
| stuffn wrote:
| Ah yes, the quintessential noble savage fallacy.
|
| Before the evil Europeans set their greedy eyes on the
| new world there was peace, love, and ecstasy every single
| day. Once the evil Europeans did evil European things the
| Americas were corrupted for profit and greed. Now the
| Venezuelans who live in peace and love will be colonized
| by European descendents, just like natives before.
| freejazz wrote:
| > Before the evil Europeans set their greedy eyes on the
| new world there was peace, love, and ecstasy every single
| day.
|
| That's reading a lot into the other post.
| therobots927 wrote:
| Evil and apparently experimenting with magic. Sounds like a
| recipe for a good time.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I thought the story was the CIA and other intelligence said
| there are not wmds, but the bush whitehouse said there were
| anyhow and invaded all the same.
| diogenes_atx wrote:
| A Google search using the terms "did the CIA claim there were
| weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003?" yields the
| following information:
|
| The CIA and the Bush administration claimed Iraq possessed
| Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in 2003, building the case
| for invasion on assertions that Saddam Hussein had active WMD
| programs and failed to comply with UN resolutions, though
| these claims proved to be incorrect after the invasion found
| no stockpiles, leading to later acknowledgments of
| intelligence failures...
|
| CIA's Role: The CIA provided assessments, including
| classified estimates, stating high confidence in Iraq's
| possession of biological and chemical weapons, which formed
| the basis for public statements by officials...
|
| Intelligence Failures: Investigations later confirmed that
| the intelligence community was "simply wrong" in its
| assessments, highlighting failures in analysis and sourcing,
| despite intelligence professionals believing their
| information at the time...
|
| In summary, the CIA and U.S. government did assert the
| presence of WMDs, but these claims were later disproven,
| revealing significant flaws in the intelligence used to
| justify the war.
| cushychicken wrote:
| It's only dumb if it doesn't work.
|
| If it works... well, congratulations. You now have an edge that
| no one else knows about.
| sxp wrote:
| For those who want to consider the mundane explanation about
| remote viewing: remember that humans can still be surprised by
| the birthday paradox and other synchronicities that occur when
| sampling data at large scale. So across thousands of sessions,
| the weak coincidences documented by the Stargate project are
| expected.
|
| For those who want a skeptical & cynical view: if remote viewing
| works, it would be part of the standard strategy of every hedge
| fund. Remember that theses are groups who pay millions for
| millisecond advantages in information. And you only need an
| ~51-55% success rate to make a killing in HFT (vs a 50% success
| rate from a coinflip). The fact that hedge funds don't have
| remote viewers on staff is evidence against RV providing utility
| greater than an RNG.
|
| And for curious people who want to try a scientific approach, I
| suggest joining https://www.social-rv.com/ which is collecting
| data about RV and trying to make the experiment ironclad via
| blockchain authentication of predictions.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Or certain knowledge is just not available for anyone. No
| matter how much power and money you have. There are a lot of
| areas that are buried underneath technology, while it is an
| innate ability to certain individuals. Most people do not
| really understand how their gadgets work or what they are
| capable of beyond what is advertised....
| pmontra wrote:
| Hedge funds? Yes but before than that, armies would use RV to
| get targets, secrets, etc. There are plenty of wars around the
| world and a lot of money involved.
| bfuller wrote:
| What would be the price of revealing this information
| advantage?
| sxp wrote:
| There have been hedge funds and other investment groups that
| claim to use RV. (At least according to Google and pro-RV
| books.) They also claim to be able to beat the market. Based
| on those anecdotes, I think any hedge fund that thinks they
| can use RV will publicly brag about it to get more investors.
|
| None of these groups can replicate their results beyond the
| initial claims. This is strong evidence that positive results
| in RV are just due to selection bias, specifically
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias. If those
| investment groups could actually replicate their results,
| they would still be major names and others would be actively
| trying to copy them since it should only take a couple of
| millions of dollars to find capable RV candidates.
|
| The non-skeptical view is that if people try to predict the
| stock market via RV, they will interfere with the future and
| their prediction ability will decrease. But when weighing
| this hypothesis against the hypothesis that RV is just
| selection bias, the latter wins due to Occam's Razor.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The issue with remote viewing as the CIA understood it was not
| that it didn't work. By all means there are documents that
| indicated it did work. The difficulty however was that the
| training program was unreliable and insufficient to establish a
| reliable pipeline to competency like other military skills.
| the_af wrote:
| The "difficulty" with remote viewing is nonsense
| pseudoscience and crackpottery.
|
| It absolutely does not work. Not "unreliably", but not work
| at all.
|
| This reminds me of that one time on HN when someone tried to
| convince me that ritual witchcraft (I think they called it
| blood magic) on servers was a real thing, necessary to make
| them work, and my dismissal was typical of narrow minded
| people.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| I would be supportive of blood magic if it made things work
| lol
| fumeux_fume wrote:
| Just go to wikipedia for the mundane explanation: data leakage
| to the judges of poorly designed experiments. Absolutely zero
| reproducibility.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/808/
| jjk166 wrote:
| > For those who want a skeptical & cynical view: if remote
| viewing works, it would be part of the standard strategy of
| every hedge fund.
|
| Please don't use the efficient capitalism argument. By that
| logic, if polio vaccines worked then why didn't 1940s pharma
| companies sell polio vaccines back when people were getting
| polio?
|
| Remote viewing is bunk, but not because hedge funds in their
| omniscience have determined it to be unprofitable.
| someothherguyy wrote:
| https://centerforinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads...
| escanda wrote:
| I am from Spain and know some agents. Those are also known events
| under the freemasonry term umbrella.
|
| I have seen, after writing through Tor to a known intelligence
| agency, a ministry of a cabinet through my inner eye, or whatever
| you may call it.
|
| Black and white video so to speak. I was even threatened by a
| twice loaded gun so I could go away to my own businesses in that
| affair.
|
| I can talk without being in the same room with a lot of cni
| agents, and interestingly, this is not a known fact of the
| intelligence community outside it.
|
| I can even receive and transmit figures using my mind alone.
| Tested with a CIA agent. Greets to the spy museum series.
|
| I would predict in the past, a year ago or so, a future event
| seen as it was filmed. Also diverted pathways in the past: if I
| could have went into the foreign legion I could be dead at the
| time and my mother could had defenestrated herself after being
| noticed by two officers: movie style too.
|
| Sometimes I have listened to people thoughts, small phrases
| without them noticing.
|
| Disclaimer: I am not on any agency payroll at this time.
| sph wrote:
| Given that you yourself have admitted you have schizophrenia in
| a recent comment, I find it hard to give much weight to your
| "paranormal" experiences. Confirmation bias affects all, those
| that can hear voices and those that can't. I hope you
| understand.
| escanda wrote:
| I understand you might be 19 years old and you might not yet
| understand fully what surrounds you. Better you don't.
| t1234s wrote:
| This is an excellent book that cover how wild this project was
| (website has incorrect url slug):
| https://www.anniejacobsen.com/operation-paperclip-1
| CactusBlue wrote:
| Also (potentially) related?:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_LLC
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Related:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgwLSuF8vXg
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-29 23:01 UTC)