Talk:Remote viewing

It's not undue to discuss remote viewing, per WP:UNDUE text, in the remote viewing article.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

Carter's info is WP:NOTABLE and highly cited, the perfect canidate for the content of WP:FRINGE articles as described by actually reading WP:UNDUE.

Reverting. Jmancthree (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Notability is an irrelevant policy here, since it is about whether or not to delete whole articles, not about putting content into an existing article. This has been discussed at this talk page and consensus so far has been to exclude it - see the discussion section immediately above this one. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and as clarified by the WP:UNDUE text, WP:FRINGE content is limited to WP:FRINGE articles which this one is. Jmancthree (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Carter's brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important information to be featured or it wouldn't have generated so much discussion in this very TALK page; and it's correctly limited to this WP:FRINGE article, as per WP:UNDUE text Jmancthree (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring all the content of the above discussion to edit war will not work. That something gets a long discussion in talk is not somehow evidence that we have to include it - consensus does not belong to whomever can filibuster the longest. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You've made no argument for the exclusion of the text. I've have, twice. The text in question is the exact candidate that WP:UNDUE highlights as allowed in WP:FRINGE articles.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

What is your argument against this? Otherwise, if you have none, then the text will simply be included. Jmancthree (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

My argument can be found in the above talk section, which I have already pointed you to - twice. We don't have to repeat everything just because you opened a new section heading. then the text will simply be included Edit warring will only get your account blocked and/or the article locked down. As the person seeking to include content, the WP:ONUS is on you to gather consensus support before proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It is already covered at Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit). We don't need it on this article as well, nor do we need WP:UNDUE expansion with reams of redundant quotes. MrOllie (talk) 0

The text in question is not featured in that article. And as has been explained to you - three times; WP:UNDUE explicitely greenlights this text.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

Text will be reverted tomorrow if there is no further argument. Jmancthree (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

That article absolutely does cover the Carter briefing, and it does so in a properly written and cited way - without all the primary sources and the excessive quoting. In fact it is already covered by this article - what you're doing is trying to force in a second, redundant mention of the same events. UNDUE does not mandate that we include anything as you are suggesting here, let alone that we include it twice. I'll remind you that no one is required to respond on your timelines or in ways that personally WP:SATISFY. Edit warring is a good way to get yourself blocked - and promising to edit war as you have just done is usually considered an aggravating factor. MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You're correct about UNDUE doesn't mean you can include the kitchen sink but the reasoning you give,

"excessive quoting."

is merely personal taste.

Moving past whether UNDUE covers the text in question, as you moved on from that argument to the new argument that it's excessive. Given the evidence that this text has been argued for inclusion by many, it cannot be excluded on the basis of your personal distaste for the text. It falls within UNDUE, as you've tacitly admitted. And there is no more reason not to include it. Jmancthree (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

One more time - It's already included in the article. You're trying to include it again. We do not need to write about the same event twice. MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie - it's a revert, how can excluded text already be included in the body text?

What you seem to be saying is "It's already in the text according to my personal preference of how much the event should be discussed."

That has never been, and never will be a reason to exclude text on Wikipedia. Jmancthree (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the whole article before you start trying to edit it or revert war. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

"It's already included in the article."

It's seems that you are somehow unaware of the text we are discussing so I'll provide it for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remote_viewing&diff=1313947270&oldid=1313945823

That information features nowhere in the article, and there is no valid reason for its exclusion.

It's clear to anyone who reads this thread that you're blocking on your own personal WP:SATISFACTION which is not a valid reason to block a text.

It's you who is in danger of moderation action if you attempt to revert tomorrow. It cannot be clearer. Jmancthree (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

One more time - We do not need to write about the same event twice. It is clear to anyone who reads this thread that you haven't actually looked at the article you're editing. You should absolutely report me for 'moderation action' right now, because I am not motivated by empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

We do not need to write about the same event twice

One: It doesn't? (It explains the notable Carter situation.)

Two: It's explicitly greenlighted. (You aren't even arguing this point anymore)

You're blocking on personal WP:SATISFACTION. YOU think that it talks too much about carter, but clearly, given this TALK page, people want this text. And you've given no reason for its exclusion. Jmancthree (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is 'greenlighted' - just declaring victory will not work, either. That you do not like my reason does not mean that I did not give one. And, again - you should get that 'moderation action' going. There's no reason to discuss with someone who makes empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Carter's brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important information to be featured or it wouldn't have generated so much discussion in this very TALK page <--This is completely fallacious reasoning. Talk page discussions do not "unambiguously" make some information important. That's ridiculous. VdSV9•♫ 13:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I forgot to quote the WP:UNDUE article for a fourth time, without any push back and even tacit admittance of the fact via you making an alternative argument when you realized the text squarely met the requirements.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the Flat Earth).

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_%22get_the_point%22

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise.

Jmancthree (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

No one has admitted anything - tacitly or otherwise, and 'push back' is obvious. It would be convienent if you could put words in other people's mouths like that and declare that actually they agree with your points, but the world doesn't work like that. Get the mods, already. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather just get you to agree to the edit but you're literally giving me nothing to argue against. You've said "We do not need to write about the same event twice" which is factually untrue about the text that will be included, and you seem intent on not expanding on your point of view. How it can be the case that the text that is not included, is actually already included??? What would be the purpose of this thread if the text was ACTUALLY already included???

It's fine if you're intent on not wanting to resolve this (I guess), even thought I really, really would rather you did rather than it being resolved by moderators tomorrow as there is no need for them, if you simply explain how the text in question is already somehow included in the article. Jmancthree (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

is factually untrue about the text that will be included - seriously, read the article again. It is absolutely already covered. That you have not done this robs you of any crediblity you might be able to gather - well, if the empty threats about 'moderators' hadn't already done so. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely already covered.

To your personal SATISFACTION, as I've said this entire time, but not to those who want this text featured.

And since there is no other reason than your personal taste, it will be put back tomorrow, and if you revert, I'll contact the moderators to resolve. (As I said I would when I brought them up earlier and not, right this instant as YOU want of me and falsely ascribed to me). Jmancthree (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I probably won't have to revert you, because someone else will. But either way you could contact these 'moderators' now if you're so sure they will support you. But you won't do that, and I doubt you will tomorrow either - that is the nature of empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edits these changes were meant to "revert" to. Similar WP:UNDUE changes were discussed here. Per WP:FRINGE, we can't cobble together anecdotes to create undue weight in the article that intentionally undermines the mainstream scientific position. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I must say, this discussion was a little bit difficult to follow as it seemed to take exception of the exclusion of President Carter experience on 2 articles where as that info was already clearly included in both. Since, it looks like we are talking more about what level of details would be undue, I agree with MrOllie and LuckyLouie that the current text is more than enough to cover that topic. I see no reason to have 3 paragraphs with small details, that would be WP:UNDUE. --McSly (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:UNDUE, the remote viewing article is where remote viewing can be discussed, especially with such a notable event such as the Carter situation is.

You can't go one sentence in the article without the mainstream scientific position being re-iterated. Which is fine.

But the exclusion reason of this text to all three of you (McSly, MrOllie, LuckyLouie) is that the text is too long, which is a comment on its notability and a question of personal SATISFACTION. It's not a valid reason for its exclusion; Especially when we see that it's equally wanted by many people, highly notable, and within the UNDUE guidelines. The mainstream position is not put in question because one notable event is talked about. Jmancthree (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

the exclusion reason of this text to all three of you (McSly, MrOllie, LuckyLouie) is that the text is too long.<---No, that's not the reason. Read what I wrote above: "Per WP:FRINGE, we can't cobble together anecdotes to create undue weight in the article that intentionally undermines the mainstream scientific position". The three sentences that are in the article now summarize the Carter anecdote without claiming RV worked or that Carter believed RV worked. That's the difference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The mainstream position is not put in question because one notable event is discussed. The text's inclusion discusses a notable event, rather then mentioning in passing.

An event being discussed instead of mentioned is not an exclusion criteria.

The weight of the article does not change. The article still follows mainstream scientific position. The section right after the Carter section would immediately give the mainstream scientific position on remote viewing leaving the reader with no Question of what it is. Jmancthree (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what is and is not an 'exclusion criteria' - we all get to decide that for ourselves. You also don't get to simply decide that the reasoning of others is 'invalid' and then edit war. You need consensus support to proceed. That means convincing people to support you. Telling others that their thoughts are invalid and then edit warring will not accomplish that. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, the material Jmancthree has been attempting to edit war in is an anecdote about a "psychic" or "a sensitive" or "a parapyschologist" during the Carter administration. I don't see anything that identifies it with remote viewing, the topic of our article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay how do we resolve this?

I claim there is no reason for the exclusion of this text besides the personal taste of you three.

And you say it can be excluded because you three don't want the text.

Who decides whether something goes into the article when the text of a notable event follows the guidelines and is being rejected on personal taste, that the notable event is being discussed too much? Jmancthree (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Who decides whether something goes into the article when the text of a notable event follows the guidelines and is being rejected on personal taste, that the notable event is being discussed too much?

That's quite a Loaded question. But in general, there is no single person who decides anything on Wikipedia. We function on WP:CONSENSUS-based decision making. There are some dispute resolution processes, but they're really just formalized versions of what we're already doing - discussing on a talk page. There is no person or persons who are in charge of making content decisions. MrOllie (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

But you don't have consensus. You temporarily have more "shooters" to revert at this moment. But given the amount of people on the above thread who want the inclusion of this text, it's our side who holds the majority position, or another way to say it, the WP:CONSENSUS position to include the text. Jmancthree (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You need consensus to change the article. You cannot reverse that burden onto folks who are in favor of the status quo. Consensus is also not a majority vote and thinking of things in terms of 'sides' is unhelpful, see WP:BATTLEGROUND. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This needs not be resolved by who has more shooters. Merely read the article from start to finish with the text in question included and ask yourself if the scientific position is compromised.

It simply is not. There is no reason to revert. Jmancthree (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I should also mention that I strongly disagree that your edit represents the 'majority position'. Also, you don't get to tell others if they have a reason to revert or not. Kindly respect the opinions of others. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but your position on this text, to say it kindly, is looking extremely personal, and not subject to change. Every argument you've tried to levy for the texts' exclusion is not Wikipedia policy. It's a matter of taste.

So in the end, you are intent on making it a war of shooters, of majorities and minorities. It's the only language you are willing to use, and discuss, because your reverts are not justified and you don't even attempt to ground them on policy.

The Carter situation is important, and it does NOT change the nature of the article to discuss it. If you feel it does, what would you see changed about it?

If it's mere existence, is too much, I need you to say that. Jmancthree (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I reject your inaccurate characterization of my comments here. If you need a refresher on what I've actually said, please scroll up a bit and re-read. I decline to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree the Carter story is important, but looking over the additional details you want added, I don't really think they'd help the reader much. We have two primary documents that support what Carter already said in RSes -- but they're just retelling the same exact story we cover by citing GQ. Why do we want to mention all three retellings? As a general rule, we have to be VERY careful using Primary sources. For example, you assume (as do I) that the Air Force document is about the Zaire plane crash -- but we don't actually have a RSes for that. It could be different incidents for all know. It's tempting to just be lazy and say "Oh, they're the same thing" but that's exactly why we have to be SO careful not to introduce SYNTH/OR by using primary sources without a RS using them that way first. Ideally, all this information might best fit an article about the actual crash itself, but despite really looking into the story, I still don't know who was supposed to be in the plane that crashed in Zaire. Feoffer (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Are there FRIND sources that explicitly tie the Carter anecdotes to the topic of remote viewing? The stories attribute an unidentified random "psychic", "clairvoyant", "sensitive", etc. and not part of any structured discipline or government funded program such as Stargate. It may be WP:OR to conclude the person was a remote viewer and connected to a remote viewing program, and if so, the anecdote may be better situated at Jimmy Carter. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It was tasked as part of Grill Flame (Stargate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project_(U.S._Army_unit)

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article131827589.html

So it is one of the most notable remote viewing cases. Jmancthree (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Source says ...details of the search for the plane are blacked out in CIA documents, but Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time, might have been alluding to it in an interview he gave 12 years ago. “We had a plane go down in the Central African Republic — a twin-engine plane, small plane. And we couldn’t find it,” even with satellite photography, Carter said “So the director of the CIA came and told me that he had contacted a woman in California that claimed to have supernatural capabilities. The source guesses that Carter "might have been" alluding to Stargate, it doesn't confirm any connection to Stargate, and it frames it as a story told to Carter about some woman in California (I thought they were supposed to be in Fort Meade, MD) who claimed to have supernatural powers. So we still need a source that explicitly connects the anecdote to remote viewing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The main source for the claim it was a remote viewing and part of Grill Flame would be, first: And in the fall of 1979, Grill Flame abruptly went from theory to practice when the six were put to work looking for a missing U.S. Navy plane.

And a source to double verify the information given by the news source, (from page 3 near the bottom.) In September 1979, ACSI tasked INSCOM to locate a missing NAVY aircraft. The only information provided was a picture of the type aircraft missing and the names of the crew. Where the aircraft was operating was not disclosed. On 4 September 1979, The first operational remote viewing session took place. In this initial session, the remote viewer placed the aircraft to within 15 miles of where it was actually located.

INSCOM was under GRILL FLAME, per the first line of the report.

The primary source is the news report, not the FBI report (that's just to double confirm). Jmancthree (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It would make sense to exclude if it was a clairvoyant (which is not the same as remote viewing.) But everything seems to indicate that it was Stargate, and the method was remote viewing. Jmancthree (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Break out CIA section

That a psychic program would be funded for 20 years on a year-to-year basis is the most astonishing part of this article.

I want to take a pass at writing a section after Early background, which breaks out the CIA information into its own section focusing on how it came to be, how it worked, and the reason it was eventually ended (The CIA Report).

No sense in working on it if it won't be merged. Does anyone have a problem with that?

Early Background will be re-written to only focus up to RSI, and Decline and termination would be merged with this new section.

Jmancthree (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The CIA material has already been broken out - into the Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit) article, which you linked above. We do not need two articles covering the same material. MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It would've just been a semi-minor section touch up, but alright Jmancthree (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Clear Bias in Article

In the very Summary section is the claim that there is "No Scientific evidence." (citing a half dozen skeptical/critical sources. Simply put this is not the case, and makes the mistake of only citing sources that agree with the opinion of the article's author, e.g confirmation bias. I am not disputing the credentials or weight of the skeptics' claims, but it is unfair and unruly to exclude the the numerous credible sources that show that there is indeed evidence. Perhaps the authors of this article made the mistake of believing that contested evidence or inconclusive evidence is equivelant to a lack of evidence. However, there is no lack of evidence. Disputed as it may be by certain sections of the scientific community, numerous US Gov. and privately funded institutions have studied this subject, and in many cases have found a greater than random chance observable ability. After all, the department of Defense found it useful enough to continue their relevant programs for several decades. To say they did this with a sum Zero of evidence would be truly baseless. Further, if the qualification for "no evidence" are the disputations of the existing evidence by a handful of relevant experts, many of the commonly agreed upon scientific concepts we share would be lumped in a pile of "no evidenciary basis." What would be clearly better as the summary statement would seem, "The evidence for this phenomenon is much disputed, and discussions on the subject remain contentious, with opponents and advocates yet to draw a firm conclusion." Followed by citations from the works of proponents and skeptics alike. There is no great lack of credentials amlng the proponents to suggest their works are lacking in value or expertise.

WP:IMPARTIAL

Will 99.43.218.102 (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

If you have any actual, secondary, reliable sources that support your claims (please read the Wikipedia policy about reliable sources by clicking here), and which you believe are being actively excluded in an unfair and unruly (?) manner, please present them here. Really - present them here, on this Talk page, for other editors to review. I am unaware of such sources, and would like to read them. If those sources truly are reliable I have no doubt whatsoever that a consensus will be reached here to include their content in the article. But also understand that if your claims are not, or can not be, directly supported by any reliable, secondary sources, that content will not be included. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Ill provide two links relating to an evaluation of the studies performed for the CIA, co-authored by profs. Jessica Utts (statistician) and Ray Hyman (psychologist). Utts takes the opinion that statistically the phenomenon posed is real, while Hyman takes the position that while unconvinced, the statistical data alone is cause for further study. These evaluations qualify as a secondary source as they are not directly taking part in the original study, but rather were conducting a later review of both methodology and results. This source provides direct evidence, for the purpose of this argument, that the point of whether remote viewing is "real" is in fact a contended one, not only discussed by "Fringe" groups/individuals. The purpose of my providing this source is not to prove one way or the other that the phenomenon is real, but to demonstrate a variance in scientific opinion that the article does not currently demonstrate. That is to say, to amend the clear bias in the article.

https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf

-Will 99.43.218.102 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Taking the statistical data at face value, yes, that would be the case.

However, there are good reasons for not taking the data at face value.

The obvious flaw in the data did not become apparent until skeptics reviewed the tapes. So: it's not the methodology which was flawed, but how that methodology was implemented in real life.

There is a difference between the methodology and what really happened. So, the data reflects what really happened, not the methodology. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Utts takes the opinion that statistically the phenomenon posed is real, while Hyman takes the position that while unconvinced, the statistical data alone is cause for further study. That is already represented in the article text. But we can't summarize an entire topic based on one quote from one evaluation of one study. That would be ignoring the greater context of Hyman's extended remarks and the many mainstream evaluations which have unambiguously characterized RV as pseudoscience. So yes, Wikipedia is biased toward the mainstream view, which is why we don't give equal validity to mainstream and fringe views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Being a no-doubt-about-it parapsychologist, anything published by, or involving, Utts in this topic area is going to be a hard sell per WP:FRIND. In your first post here you wrote about the numerous credible sources that support your desired content. Please share with us here those other, numerous sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2026

Subject: Proposal to expand Lead and add "Overview of Research and Protocols" section for completeness and NPOV

Large LLM text paste

Hello fellow editors, I would like to propose a neutral, well-referenced rewrite of the lead and a new sub-section detailing the specific historical protocols and meta-analyses associated with the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and SAIC eras of the Stargate Project. The current version of the article leans heavily toward a brief dismissal, which unintentionally leaves out the comprehensive historical context of why the U.S. government funded this research for over two decades. To satisfy WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View), an encyclopedia article should not just state that a topic is classified as a pseudoscience, but should also comprehensively explain the methodology, the specific arguments of the principal investigators, and the declassified historical record. My proposed draft (below) adheres strictly to core Wikipedia core content policies:

  1. WP:V (Verifiability): Every single point—including the specific double-blind parameters, rank-order statistics, and the independent meta-analysis by Jessica Utts—is backed by authoritative, verifiable citations (including peer-reviewed journals like Nature, Proceedings of the IEEE, and declassified CIA documents).
  2. WP:FRINGE: The text does not validate remote viewing as an absolute physical fact. Instead, it accurately attributes the claims to the early researchers and parapsychologists, while maintaining the clear, objective fact that the mainstream scientific consensus rejects it due to a lack of a physical mechanism and universal replication.
  3. Completeness: It provides readers with the actual structural mechanics of the experiments (the roles of the viewer, beacon, interviewer, and judge), which is crucial academic context currently missing from the page.

By adding this context, we move the page from a simple summary of scientific denial to a complete, robust historical archive of the actual Stargate program. Please review the proposed markup below. I welcome your constructive feedback on how we can integrate this to improve the article’s depth and neutrality. The following is my lead rewrite proposal followed by new sub-section "Overview of Research and Protocols" proposal:

Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen subject, purportedly sensing with the mind. While the mainstream scientific and academic communities classify remote viewing as a pseudoscience due to the absence of a known physical mechanism, the original Stanford Research Institute (SRI) researchers, alongside independent statisticians, strongly contest this status. They argue that the phenomenon was demonstrated using highly strict laboratory protocols, yielding repeatable, statistically significant results well above the baseline of random chance.

A remote viewer is expected to provide descriptive information about an object, event, person, or location hidden from physical view and separated at some distance. Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, parapsychology researchers at SRI, are generally credited with coining the term "remote viewing" to distinguish it from the closely related concept of clairvoyance. According to Targ, the term was first suggested by artist and researcher Ingo Swann in December 1971 during an experiment at the American Society for Psychical Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.S.1984 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Overview of Research and Protocols

During the Cold War, the United States government funded a series of secret research projects and operational intelligence applications, later consolidated under the codename Stargate Project. Investigating agencies sought to determine whether remote viewing could be utilized as a reliable espionage tool against foreign adversaries, such as the Soviet Union.

Experimental Protocols

To prevent fraud, environmental cueing, and subjective researcher bias, SRI researchers developed strict laboratory protocols, which were later codified into formal experimental standards:

• Double-Blind Separation: Experiments required complete separation between four independent roles. The viewer remained isolated in a closed laboratory environment. The outbound "beacon" team traveled to a target site selected at random only after leaving the lab. The interviewer present with the viewer had no knowledge of the target pool, preventing leading questions. Finally, independent judges analyzed the transcripts without knowing which target corresponded to which session.
• Target Pools and Randomization: Targets were selected from a pre-established pool of diverse locations within a set driving radius. The specific target for a session was determined immediately prior to departure using a technological random number generator.
• Rank-Order Evaluation: Transcripts and sketches were evaluated post-series using a mathematical blind-matching procedure. An independent judge ranked a randomized group of transcripts against the actual target sites. These ranks were cross-referenced against a polynomial probability distribution to compute exact p-values, determining whether the results exceeded statistical chance (p ≤ 0.05).

Reported Results and Meta-Analyses

Proponents of the research highlight several notable outcomes and analyses generated during the program's tenure at SRI and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC):

• Statistical Evaluations: Following the program's termination in 1995, a comprehensive statistical meta-analysis was conducted by University of California, Davis statistician Jessica Utts. Utts concluded that the laboratory results across decades of research demonstrated consistent, repeatable, and highly significant anomalous effects that could not be accounted for by chance, showing a combined probability against chance of approximately one in ten billion.
• Physical Invariance: Multiple trials reported that the accuracy of remote viewing was not diminished by geographic distance or physical barriers. This included successful sessions conducted while viewers were placed within electromagnetically shielded Faraday cages or submerged in submersibles.
• Operational Claims: Declassified files document specific operational military applications where viewers reportedly located missing or classified foreign assets before official reconnaissance methods could. Notable examples include pinpointing the crash site of a downed Soviet Tu-95 bomber in Africa and detailing structural components of a restricted Soviet nuclear weapons facility at Semipalatinsk.

Scientific Consensus and Criticism

The consensus within the mainstream scientific community remains skeptical. Psychologists and critics, such as Ray Hyman and David Marks, identified methodological weaknesses in the early SRI series. They argued that early experimental setups left room for subtle chronological cues or sensory "leakage" in the viewer transcripts, which could have compromised the integrity of the independent judges' match-making process.

While parapsychologists argue that subsequent SAIC experiments completely eliminated these flaws while retaining identical, homogeneous statistical effect sizes, mainstream science rejects the phenomenon. Because the observed effects lack a verified physical mechanism to explain information transfer across time and space, and because the results lack 100% on-demand reproducibility under universal laboratory conditions, the subject remains excluded from standard scientific paradigms. ~2026-29630-42 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Please see WP:LLM. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Remote Viewing: Lead-Rewrite [Please see "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2026 (2)" for the initial proposal, and see "Overview of Research and Protocols" (of which there are two copies: both of which are identical duplicates) for the new proposed sub-section also mentioned in "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2026 (2)". My apologies for the unneeded doubles. See "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2026 (2)" for the initial proposal which explains this, so you know what this is and also what "Overview of Research and Protocols" is].

Large LLM text paste

Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen subject, purportedly sensing with the mind. While the mainstream scientific and academic communities classify remote viewing as a pseudoscience due to the absence of a known physical mechanism, the original Stanford Research Institute (SRI) researchers, alongside independent statisticians, strongly contest this status. They argue that the phenomenon was demonstrated using highly strict laboratory protocols, yielding repeatable, statistically significant results well above the baseline of random chance.

A remote viewer is expected to provide descriptive information about an object, event, person, or location hidden from physical view and separated at some distance. Physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff, parapsychology researchers at SRI, are generally credited with coining the term "remote viewing" to distinguish it from the closely related concept of clairvoyance. According to Targ, the term was first suggested by artist and researcher Ingo Swann in December 1971 during an experiment at the American Society for Psychical Research.

Overview of Research and Protocols

During the Cold War, the United States government funded a series of secret research projects and operational intelligence applications, later consolidated under the codename Stargate Project. Investigating agencies sought to determine whether remote viewing could be utilized as a reliable espionage tool against foreign adversaries, such as the Soviet Union.

Experimental Protocols

To prevent fraud, environmental cueing, and subjective researcher bias, SRI researchers developed strict laboratory protocols, which were later codified into formal experimental standards:

• Double-Blind Separation: Experiments required complete separation between four independent roles. The viewer remained isolated in a closed laboratory environment. The outbound "beacon" team traveled to a target site selected at random only after leaving the lab. The interviewer present with the viewer had no knowledge of the target pool, preventing leading questions. Finally, independent judges analyzed the transcripts without knowing which target corresponded to which session.
• Target Pools and Randomization: Targets were selected from a pre-established pool of diverse locations within a set driving radius. The specific target for a session was determined immediately prior to departure using a technological random number generator.
• Rank-Order Evaluation: Transcripts and sketches were evaluated post-series using a mathematical blind-matching procedure. An independent judge ranked a randomized group of transcripts against the actual target sites. These ranks were cross-referenced against a polynomial probability distribution to compute exact p-values, determining whether the results exceeded statistical chance (p ≤ 0.05).

Reported Results and Meta-Analyses

Proponents of the research highlight several notable outcomes and analyses generated during the program's tenure at SRI and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC):

• Statistical Evaluations: Following the program's termination in 1995, a comprehensive statistical meta-analysis was conducted by University of California, Davis statistician Jessica Utts. Utts concluded that the laboratory results across decades of research demonstrated consistent, repeatable, and highly significant anomalous effects that could not be accounted for by chance, showing a combined probability against chance of approximately one in ten billion.
• Physical Invariance: Multiple trials reported that the accuracy of remote viewing was not diminished by geographic distance or physical barriers. This included successful sessions conducted while viewers were placed within electromagnetically shielded Faraday cages or submerged in submersibles.
• Operational Claims: Declassified files document specific operational military applications where viewers reportedly located missing or classified foreign assets before official reconnaissance methods could. Notable examples include pinpointing the crash site of a downed Soviet Tu-95 bomber in Africa and detailing structural components of a restricted Soviet nuclear weapons facility at Semipalatinsk.

Scientific Consensus and Criticism

The consensus within the mainstream scientific community remains skeptical. Psychologists and critics, such as Ray Hyman and David Marks, identified methodological weaknesses in the early SRI series. They argued that early experimental setups left room for subtle chronological cues or sensory "leakage" in the viewer transcripts, which could have compromised the integrity of the independent judges' match-making process.

While parapsychologists argue that subsequent SAIC experiments completely eliminated these flaws while retaining identical, homogeneous statistical effect sizes, mainstream science rejects the phenomenon. Because the observed effects lack a verified physical mechanism to explain information transfer across time and space, and because the results lack 100% on-demand reproducibility under universal laboratory conditions, the subject remains excluded from standard scientific paradigms. Craig.S.1984 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Please see WP:LLM. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)