IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Wiki is still wacky | Main | Waking up is hard to do »

Comments

Nice post, Michael; a very fascinating area of study.

There is a link at the same site: http://www.stargate-interactive.com/news/puthoff-targ-may-and-swann-summarize-the-research/
That nicely demonstrates the quality of the information obtained via remote viewing for those unfamiliar with the project.

The download at the above link should make it clear that some very good results were obtained by paranormal means. Unless, of course, the researchers were lying (oh Ray).

Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that Puthoff, Targ, et al would be lying to the DoD/DIA about matters of national security.

Hyman complains that the secrecy of the project hindered his ability to assess it. I'm sure that's true. I am willing to bet that his clearance was not high enough to really come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of the program operationally. Stating that the program was never used operationally smells, to me, like a typical intelligence op.s cover. Hyman wouldn't know this and wouldn't care if it helped him dismiss the paranormal.

As for the de-funding of Stagate, my thoughts are as follows:
1. A cover (i.e. the program has been operationalized under some other name and is highly classified)
2. The Dod de-fund all kinds of programs and weapons systems all the time. De-funding doesn't mean the program or system didn't work. It could mean that some new sexier (hopefully better in some way) thing or method has been moved to the forefront.
3. At the time Stargate was ostensibly de-funded *all* HUMINT was de-emphasized (HUMINT being intelligence gathered by humans in human ways, often, but not always about other humans and their mindsets and activities - think spies, double agents). Lots of new wiz bang electronic gizmos were coming on line, including satellite tech and it was thought these were more reliable than humans with all of their foibles and inconsistencies. Some in the DIA have come to publicly express regret over the loss of HUMINT capabilities. It was the new paradigm that has persisted to this day. So I am not surprised that something potentially embarrassing and completely contrary to technology,like Stargate, would be on the chopping block in the first round of cuts.
4. There is much rumor, in the military, that remote viewing is being used in operations today (who knows?).

Finally, when bureaucracies want to do something, the decision is made behind closed doors ahead of time. The official inquiry, with the panels of experts is just a dog and pony show with the experts carefully chosen to provide the necessary opinion to back the already made decision.

There is a reference in Victor Zammit's site and several other sites on the Web about President Carter confirming CIA remote viewing project. Does anyone know if that was the same Star Gate project? If so, was the project operational at that point?

It was the same project, but I think the incident was more of a test than an indication that the program was truly operational. See the heading "Official Statements/Perspectives" at this link:

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

Interesting comments. It makes sense to me that the military would not fund it if it wasn't consistently producing results they could use. I can't imagine they spend so long funding it purely to investigate whether psi existed or not.

Great post!

It is a big deal that Hyman recognized the evidence and its meaning as much as he did.

One of the favorite things for skeptics of all stripes to do is shriek, "There is NO EVIDENCE!" This, of course, is a lie. In the case of the paranormal, it is, to put it mildly, an egregious lie. Of course, the actual meaning is, "There is no evidence to which we give credence," but its purpose is to indoctrinate people who are new to the topic and give them the impression that there is nothing to take seriously in the first place.

Hyman's words can be used against such a dishonest approach. If data recognized as statistically significant by a major skeptic doesn't count as "evidence," then I'm not sure what is.

Also, Hyman doesn't indicate what the possible errors could be, as if they don't exist because the test results are so stringent.

I agree with you, Matt. I think the whole "There is no evidence" phrase is another way of saying "I don't want there to be any evidence".

I was looking up old posts when I noticed this one from last year. I see that you gave a link from Hal Puthoff's (one of the physicist's who organised it) interview in Bio-mind in which he told the outcome of experiments showing results were well above chance. Heres his lecture outlining the experiments mentioned, and the results if people haven' seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAfH1utUSM

Quite long- over and hour, but worth watching.

By all accounts the US has sent out denials it was successful to a) give the illusion to Russia and others powers that they hadn't made inroads that way and received covert information, and b) the general public don't realise that this is achievable and perhaps misuse it e.g.- to spy on businesses. Or come to understand such powers are known to be a part of normal processing.

I have read that Ingo Swann was told privately that they would denounce PSI publicly to prevent its use. Cheers Lyn.

The comments to this entry are closed.