The Star Gate Archives Volume 1

...

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.

I suppose that in the early stages they were experimenting with different methods, because they could not have known what worked the best. Only later on could they conclude that less information is better.

It kind of goes against logic. One thinks that you should be helped by a bit of information, but that is not true. Anything that you are told beforehand, or can anticipate, works as an obstacle to be overcome. It is not quite the same thing if you "unblind" yourself during a session, that is, if you think you have figured out what the target is. It can always be wrong.

I suppose that in the early stages they were experimenting with different methods, because they could not have known what worked the best. Only later on could they conclude that less information is better.

It's hard to know how to assess this claim. I spent some of yesterday looking through session notes from various years to see if this actually happened, but couldn't draw any solid conclusions. The lack of full transcripts in the final three years was an issue, but I found non-blind sessions being run right up to the year it was closed. I couldn't tell is this was more or less than in previous years, though.

One thinks that you should be helped by a bit of information, but that is not true.

I think it does. A lot of the most famous examples of "operational" remote viewing successes (namely, the crane in Semipalatinsk, a jet crashed near Lynchburg, the Typhoon Submarine sessions, searching for Dozier and hostages held in Iran and the Lebanon, the Abrams M-1 tank, the Stealth Bomber, and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory) were conducted under less-than-blind conditions, so it seemed to have helped then.

...


I think it does. A lot of the most famous examples of "operational" remote viewing successes (namely, the crane in Semipalatinsk, a jet crashed near Lynchburg, the Typhoon Submarine sessions, searching for Dozier and hostages held in Iran and the Lebanon, the Abrams M-1 tank, the Stealth Bomber, and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory) were conducted under less-than-blind conditions, so it seemed to have helped then.

I clarify. It does not help the RV process to be front-loaded with information, it gets in the way. A trained and disciplined viewer can deal with it. But if you are informed on what the target is then it might appear as if you hit the target better.

If everyone involved knows to some extent what the target is about then their minds will cooperate around that thing.

There are many aspects involved in RV, not only the core "blind" viewing, but also mind to mind interaction, telepathy, anticipations, and imagination. To reduce the influences from other stuff, that is uncontrolled and unknown, the viewers and the monitors should be kept in the dark. 

A Remote viewer can not really be "blind" to the target as long as he connects to it, and when he does he also connects to the tasker's intent. It is not always clear how much the taskers did know beforehand, what they thought about the target, and what they preferred the outcome to be.

Well, that's the theory, but it's not necessarily what happens in practice. I've often seen claims of operational remote viewing success with the insistence that both viewer and monitor had no idea about the target, but the original documents tell a different story.

It is true that we can not trust folks involved in RV any more than we can trust others.
Why should we. It is meant to be scientific, so there is no need for any faith or trust.
Then again, science is generally very questionable.

The best way to do RV is to do it yourself.

I disagree with your first point. I think the declassified documents are complete enough and reliable enough that anyone should be able to read them and draw their own conclusions about the US government's remote viewing project.

The SPR has published online a fairly detailed review of the book, by Nemo C. Morck:
https://www.spr.ac.uk/book-review/star-g...-c-may-and

ersby has now posted a review of the book on his blog, concluding that it's a valuable work but not an impartial one, as the records included were written partly in order to secure further funding for the project:
http://ersby.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-revi...ume-1.html

That's right. 

And if anyone's interested, a blog post I wrote some time ago about the Charlie Jordan case that was covered on CBS a couple of months ago got a reply from Angela Ford herself. I did reply, but unfortunately after several weeks, so I think she's probably already forgotten about it.

http://ersby.blogspot.com/2018/04/projec...-case.html

This is not my bag but I'm posting it anyway as some posters and commenters might find it interesting. Hopefully.

 https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/...0016-5.pdf

EDIT : Not sure either if this is exactly the right place for it. Admin feel free to do whatever you want with it, either remove it, delete it or whatever.....