Back in 1995 and early 1996 I published* a four-part review of the study released by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) allegedly examining whether the mental skill known as remote viewing should continue to be pursued as a funded program of the US government. The AIR had been commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in response to the US Congress directing the Agency to accept ownership of the remote viewing program, by then known under the code name of “Star Gate” (sometimes mis-written as “Stargate”) from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which wanted to divest itself of the program.
The AIR’s purported conclusion was that remote viewing was of no use, leading to the further conclusion that Star Gate should be disbanded and all government work on remote viewing should be discontinued.
Sadly, those of us who actually knew anything about the Star Gate program realized that the report was a poorly-executed hatchet job, aimed at justifying the CIA’s intention to get rid of the program, a decision it evidently had made even before ever being given control of it. My review uncovered the fallacies, obfuscation, and general dishonesty of the AIR report. Unfortunately, since the Star Gate program had been disbanded the month before the AIR review had begun, it was too late to make any difference.
Part One, “Bologna on Wry Bread,” covers the operational intelligence portion of the program. Part Two, “A Second Helping,” points out that the research reviewed by the AIR was inadequate as a basis for a fair assessment of remote viewing. Part Three, “Scraps and Crumbs,” examines the AIR’s faulty evaluation of that research. Part Four, “Addendums and Corrections,” has additional notes and corrections.
“Bologna on Wry Bread,“ Part 1 of a review of AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
“A Second Helping,” Part 2 of a review of AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
“Scraps and Crumbs,” Part 3 of a review of AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
“Addendums and Corrections,” Part 4 of a review of AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWING: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
*NOTE: I published this review on the Internet via a third party under the pseudonym “Mr. X,” since I was still on active duty with the Army at the time.