The Star Gate Archives Volume 1

But it's certainly a useful reference book. Oddly, somethings are censored in this book that aren't censored in the CIA released documents and vice versa.

It would be odd if it didn't.

Classification of material is agency-driven, what one agency would consider sensitive, another would yawn over. Yet they, literally, could be working across the hall from each other. Then you have the agencies with agendae unfavorable to other agencies. They purposefully 'leak' data that in injurious. Including inter-agency squabbles.

I can't say exactly, I though it was comonly accepted that some of this information was used by the US military, or that it lead them to corroborate the information and then use that.

Only a few times that I know of. Not enough for Puthoff to suddenly find himself unable to keep up with the workload.

So are you implying that those circumstances basically invalidated the potential remote viewing hit in some way?

David

Yes.

Only a few times that I know of. Not enough for Puthoff to suddenly find himself unable to keep up with the workload.


Yes.

Why the reluctance to elaborate - can't you tell us what actually happened.

David

DaveB

Not wanting to answer on his behalf, but ersby does have a blog where he has discussed some of these cases in depth:
http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/search/label...%20Viewing

Why the reluctance to elaborate - can't you tell us what actually happened.

David

No reluctance, but you have to understand that I can't go into huge amounts of detail in every post. If you want to know more, you just have to ask. 

The three examples of the intelligence services using remote viewing data that I know of are:

Searching for a crashed Soviet plane in Zaire. These were two SRI psychics whose notes were used to locate an area of interest. Apparently, soon after starting to search there, the search party met local people who directed them to the crash site.

The kidnapping of General Dozier in Italy. Remote viewers' session notes were given to the Italian police, with the psychic nature of their source not revealed. The Italian authorities acted on this, causing great embarrassment as an innocent family's house was raided. More details here...

http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/kidn...1.html?m=0

The third occasion was for another hostage: William Buckley. The CIA asked for the remote viewers to supply support for their search. The feedback was positive, but Buckley was never found and died in captivity.

There is also the story of Keith Harary predicting the release of Richard Queen during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In some versions of the story, USAF planes were sent to pick up Queen based on Harary's testimony, but I can't find any evidence of that - Richard Queen was sent home on a commercial airline.

DaveB

Not wanting to answer on his behalf, but ersby does have a blog where he has discussed some of these cases in depth:
http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/search/label...%20Viewing

Cheers for this.

No reluctance, but you have to understand that I can't go into huge amounts of detail in every post. If you want to know more, you just have to ask. 

The three examples of the intelligence services using remote viewing data that I know of are:

Searching for a crashed Soviet plane in Zaire. These were two SRI psychics whose notes were used to locate an area of interest. Apparently, soon after starting to search there, the search party met local people who directed them to the crash site.

That sounds like an unconditional success to me (assuming the crash location was roughly as predited). In real life cases such as this, there is almost bound to be a feedback component at some point in the saga!

The kidnapping of General Dozier in Italy. Remote viewers' session notes were given to the Italian police, with the psychic nature of their source not revealed. The Italian authorities acted on this, causing great embarrassment as an innocent family's house was raided. More details here...

http://ersby.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/kidn...1.html?m=0

Well I would have thought the only possible way to use psychic information to deal with crime, would be to use it to focus an investigation. Was the remote viewing information in this case right or wrong?

The third occasion was for another hostage: William Buckley. The CIA asked for the remote viewers to supply support for their search. The feedback was positive, but Buckley was never found and died in captivity.

I am not sure what you mean be "feedback was positive". Did the RV information actually pinpoint the area in which he was being held captive?

There is also the story of Keith Harary predicting the release of Richard Queen during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In some versions of the story, USAF planes were sent to pick up Queen based on Harary's testimony, but I can't find any evidence of that - Richard Queen was sent home on a commercial airline.

Well surely the important question from our point of view, is whether the RV information was accurate.

David

That sounds like an unconditional success to me

I didn't say it wasn't. No details about what was actually said, but certainly this appears to be a definite hit.

Well I would have thought the only possible way to use psychic information to deal with crime, would be to use it to focus an investigation. Was the remote viewing information in this case right or wrong?

It was wrong.

I am not sure what you mean be "feedback was positive". Did the RV information actually pinpoint the area in which he was being held captive?

The report in question, written by SRI, reads "With regard to the overall concept of operational RV tasking, remote viewing by SRI and SRI-trained client personnel has, in many cases, provided useful descriptions of, for example, East-Bloc targets that are of interest to the intelligence community. Evaluation of the results by appropriate intelligence community specialists indicates that, by this process, RVers have been able to generate useful data that have been corroborated by other intelligence assets."

https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP96-00...00530024-9

As I re-read this I realised that, although this is in a report about William Buckley, the paragraph refers to "the overall concept of operational RV tasking" and not to the Buckley sessions specifically, so I withdraw the claim that feedback for this case was positive (not saying it wasn't, just that we can't say for sure that it was).

Was the information accurate? They didn't find Buckley, so that has to count against it.

Well surely the important question from our point of view, is whether the RV information was accurate.

David

Was the RV information accurate and is the information about the RV information accurate. Those are the two important questions. With regards to the Richard Queen session, there's no reference to it in the declassified documents so it is hard to know exactly what was said and I have learned that in assessing the success of the remote viewing project, access to contemporary documents is vital.

The report in question, written by SRI, reads "With regard to the overall concept of operational RV tasking, remote viewing by SRI and SRI-trained client personnel has, in many cases, provided useful descriptions of, for example, East-Bloc targets that are of interest to the intelligence community. Evaluation of the results by appropriate intelligence community specialists indicates that, by this process, RVers have been able to generate useful data that have been corroborated by other intelligence assets."

https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP96-00...00530024-9

OK - so if I read this right, there is definitely an effect going on here. Now bearing in mind that RVers explicitly ask for an absolute minimum of information to do their viewing, that seems pretty amazing to me!

I am reminded to an RV of the next president of the US. The study was done in 2015, and those engaged in the study didn't even know what they were meant to view. What came out was a pretty accurate portrayal of DT - he had achieved his ambition, but felt he had to watch his back every step of the way!

David

OK - so if I read this right, there is definitely an effect going on here. 

Well, this is an SRI report on SRI work. As I said before, even these cannot be taken at face value: some access to the original documentation is essential. Reports of operational successes were often exaggerated by SRI, SAIC and INSCOM (I have examples on my blog if you’re interested).

An example of such an exaggeration would be...

Now bearing in mind that RVers explicitly ask for an absolute minimum of information to do their viewing, 

This is a claim often repeated by those connected or supportive of the remote viewing project, but it isn’t backed up by the original documentation. The interviewer was often not blind to the target and, since many targets would be worked over a number of sessions, there’d be opportunities for the viewer to become less-than-blind to the target nature, too, either through picking up on how the interviewer guides the session or due to using different targeting material for different sessions. In a few cases, the viewer would simply be told what the target was.