Talk:Apport (paranormal)

Verb and noun?

The lead describes the word as the action of transferring the object while several of the sources speak of the word as referring to the transported object itself. This kind of ambiguity is not all that unusual, but the lead should probably mention both usages.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like it should be "apportation" (like "teleportation" is "to teleport something", this is "to apport something") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.67.24 (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen dictionary definitions that explain apport (in the context of spiritualist medium beliefs) as the action of bringing the thing, and also the thing produced. So it would not be unreasonable to make this clear in the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that seems unclear to me: Is apportation meant to be the action of transfering existing object or is it meant to be materialisation of previously non existing object? It is confusing because you speak of "the thing produced" while in case of it being concerned with transference it should rather be "the thing transfered" If i understand it corectly, apportation is meant to be synonymous with teleportation in parapsychological context. Now accroding to wikipedia, teleportation is simply the hypothetical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. Yet in science fiction the teleportation is often conceptualized as meaning indirect transeference consisting in destroying the object in one place and transfering its information to traget place where the object is reproduced from different material. Now I could understand how one can get to the ambiguity of aportation by being inspired by various ideas of teleportation. But since claims about aportation usually lacks such sci-fi aspirations i would suppose that claims about the transfered thng being "produced" or "reproduced" would be less often even tho i could still understand wh they could get used to describe the appereance of thing in one place seemingly out of nowhere. I mean I could still understand that the witness culd for example describe the apportation as sudden materialisation of the object. But I suppose the apportation is meant to aply only to cases where there is some claim for the thing previously existing in some other place, be it place in our universe or anywhere else. 37.48.16.242 (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"To produce" also has the meaning of "to bring forward", not only "to create". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ve just put up an interesting comment on this topic. Would you care to share your thoughts upon my comment? Carl.chaldecott (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What?… what, what? 2A02:C7C:D554:2C00:7DE2:7B4A:D312:3D61 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

CIA Document named “controlled offensive behaviour”

This document describes how many high class and high ranking people in our notable history have been witnesses to this very phenomenon. Although, this is not of a ghost as you may think, instead it is a method of obtaining documents even objects from the opposition that may well be beneficial to the party partaking in the apport process. In other words, this process is merely called “abduction via apports”.

This document is mainly a document in reference to telepathic communications and the ability to manipulate an opposing threat via telepathic means, but it does reference this subject in a great detail.

Quoted is one article from this document…

“SECTION III -THE APPORT TECHNIQUE.

1. (U) The following discussion on apports and astral projection is not intended to be an endorsement for Its scientific verification or even Its existence. However, reputable scientists in the USSR and the US are keenly interested in this phenomenon. Areas that appear to have potential must be discussed, even if only briefly.

2. (FOUO) According to Welk (87), a costly weakness in our intelligence system, to a large extent, is an inability to use effectively the resources of the science of parapsychology (there are some definite indicators that the Sovlets realize the potential of "ps" which will be reported later in this section). Whenever parapsychology is mentioned, most people are likely to think of ESP. However, there are other types of parapsychological phenomena which are Just, as Important militarily as ESP.

Welk claims, based on many Soviet sources, that the so-called "apport" technique is likely to meet valuable intelligence needs. When fully developed, this technique would make possible the abduction of actual objects Including documents) In enemy territory and their transfer to friendly territory. Objects abducted are known as "apports”.

They could be retured to the point of origin without the enemy becoming aware of this temporary abduction.

3. (U)< Some of the world's most eminent scientists from the late 1800's and early 1900's have claimed to have witnessed apport phenomena.

These include Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), British chemist and physicist, discoverer of the element thallium and former president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (88);

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), British naturalist and co-discoverer, with Charles Darwin, of the theory of evolution (89);

Johann K.P. Zoellner (1834-1882), professor of physical astronomy.

4. (U) In the discussion of such an esoteric subject as apports, It Is deemed sufficient to relate only one experience claimed to have occurred to Sir William Crookes. The interested reader can consult the non-cited bibliography for further references.

The following account is taken from pp. 87 and 88 of reference 88:

"Class IX. The Appearance of Hands, either Self-luminous or Visible by Ordinary Light.

“I (William Crookes) will here give no instances in which the phenomenon has occurred in darkness, but will simply select a few of the numerous Instances in which I have seen the hands in the light”.

“.....i have more than once seen, first an object move, then a luminous cloud appear to form about it, and lastly, the cloud condense into shape and become a perfectly formed hand.... It is not always a were form, but sometimes appears perfectly life-like and graceful, the fingers moving and the flesh apparently as human as that of any in the room. At the wrist, or arm, it becomes hazy, and fades off Into a luminous cloud. To the touch, the hand sometimes appears icy cold and dead, at other times warm and life-like, grasping my own with the firm pressure of an old friend. I have retained one of these hands in my own, firmly resolved not to let it escape. There was no struggle or effort made to get loose, but it gradually seemed to resolve itself into vapor and faded in that manner from my grasp”. Carl.chaldecott (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "CIA document" you are saying this is from, but bear in mind the US funded studies of paranormal stuff and eventually "concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The reference to this document is called… “ ST-CS-01-169-73

DEFENSE INTELLIGENGE AGENCY.

CONTROLLED

OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR USSR.

PREPARED BY USA ARMY.

OFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICE”.

what is the reference for the document you have mentioned? 82.16.37.221 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Literally thousands of documents exist in relation to the Stargate Project and similar failed government funded studies. Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Failed ? Why do you say failed when many have been successful. Such as project sun streak, project number: CRV TNG 217, that referred to an object related to war. There are many… not to mention the documentation that covers the howitzer device. 2A02:C7C:D554:2C00:438:53F4:7699:C031 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please bare in mind that I am not your average guy just bringing up topics of conspiracies. My name is Chaldecott for a reason, I would not ruing my credibility due to false claims. Im also a philosopher and I do indeed gather full factual information on any topic before I press forward into any conversation, otherwise there would be no point in the topic being a conversation in the first place. 2A02:C7C:D554:2C00:438:53F4:7699:C031 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a chatroom. We are not interested in who you are. The question was Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? and you have not addressed it. If the answer is "no", you should do whatever you are doing somewhere else. If it is "yes", you need reliable sources. Which excludes documents from spies and other non-science sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Googling reveals this document is from Stargate Project files [1]. Read the Wikipedia Stargate Project article to see why the program was discontinued. And no, we can't use archival WP:PRIMARY sources like this to cite content for Wikipedia, it would be WP:OR without commentary from reliable independentWP:SECONDARY sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

When did i suggest it was a chat room? The topic of apports lakes information regarding studies made within this topic. I provided studies. 2A02:C7C:D554:2C00:7DE2:7B4A:D312:3D61 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You are using it as a chatroom when you are talking about stuff unrelated to article improvement, such as whether your name has a reason or what your job is.

The article will not become better by heaping mentions of bad studies done by gullible people on it, no matter whether those gullible people were employed as biologists like Wallace, as physicists like Crookes or as secret service agents like that guy who WRITES IN CAPS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)