EARLY RESEARCH
U.S.-funded investigations explored whether people could describe distant or hidden targets without ordinary sensory access.
AkashicLIBRARY · Declassified Archives · v0.1.0
REMOTE
VIEWING
Authentic archive. Contested phenomenon. Unreliable operational record.
A provenance-led guide to the Stargate lineage, session material, evaluation and the distance between an intriguing impression and usable evidence.
The declassified files establish that U.S. agencies investigated remote viewing. They do not establish a consistently reliable non-sensory information channel.
MKULTRA concerned behavioural modification, drugs, hypnosis and related experimentation. Stargate followed a separate remote-viewing lineage. No verified document makes “psychic spies” an MKULTRA result.
For AkashicNET, “Stargate” is an unusually resonant programme name. The resonance is cultural and interpretive: a codename does not demonstrate a literal portal, cosmic archive or validated psychic mechanism.
Programme lineage
Follow the names.
Keep the dates attached.
AkashicNET v0.17.0 · Evidence Intelligence Beta · PUBLISHED PRE-RELEASE →CHANGING PROGRAMME NAMES
The lineage included Grill Flame, Center Lane and Sun Streak, with shifting agencies, methods and operational aims.
STAR GATE
Activities were consolidated under the Stargate name before the programme was transferred for final review.
EVALUATION & CLOSURE
The AIR review found laboratory anomalies debated by its evaluators but no demonstrated reliable operational intelligence value.
Five analytical layers
A transcript is not
a confirmed target.
ARCHIVE FACT
A document exists, has an identifier, date, provenance and stated institutional context.
SESSION CONTENT
A viewer reported impressions. These perceptions are claims recorded in a session, not verified facts.
TARGET COMPARISON
Apparent correspondences and misses require the complete target pool, judging method and timing—not selected highlights.
SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT
Study design, blinding, leakage controls, statistics, replication and disagreement among evaluators.
OPERATIONAL VALUE
Whether information was specific, timely, independently accurate and useful enough to affect an intelligence decision.
Why evaluation is difficult
Count the misses.
Control the match.
- 01Vague descriptions can fit many targets after the fact.
- 02Hits are memorable; misses and abandoned sessions are easily omitted.
- 03Judges may receive contextual cues or choose from a restricted target set.
- 04Statistical deviation does not automatically produce actionable intelligence.
- 05Declassification proves a programme existed, not that its central hypothesis was validated.
1995 evidence profile
Interesting signals.
Insufficient reliability.
The commissioned evaluation included disagreement about how to interpret experimental results. The decisive operational finding was narrower: the material had not demonstrated adequate specificity, consistency and value for intelligence use.
AkashicNET status: archive established; some research findings contested; reliable anomalous information transfer unconfirmed; operational usefulness not demonstrated.
No credible public record currently verifies a post-1995 Stargate successor. Absence from public records is not proof that none exists, but it cannot support a positive claim.
Primary-source pathways · AIR versions
Keep the draft.
Cite the final clearly.
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) produced two distinct versions. CIA identifiers record archival custody, not authorship or scientific endorsement.
22 September 1995 · Draft
An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Research and Operational Applications
Prepared by AIR. The cover marks this as a draft and notes a corrected page sequence. A full comparison with the final has not been completed.
CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5Read draft · Black Vault mirror ↗
Original CIA locator ↗ · redirected to the general Reading Room at recheck.
29 September 1995 · Final · SG-AIR-1995
An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications
Michael D. Mumford, Andrew M. Rose and David A. Goslin, AIR. This is the final evaluation used for the reviewer and operational references below.
CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4Read final · Black Vault mirror ↗ · National Security Archive copy ↗
Original CIA PDF locator ↗ · redirected to the general Reading Room at recheck.
Access rechecked 19 October 2026 (UTC): readable text/OCR was available through the linked mirrors and Utts’s author site. Mirror pagination differs; page links below refer to the Black Vault final file. No official-to-mirror byte comparison or complete visual authentication is claimed. These are dated retrieval results, not a guarantee of access from every browser.
Original CIA collection search · Historical collection locator · CIA Reading Room. The collection locators redirect to the general archive, not a retrieved STARGATE record. The CIA’s 2021 retrospective supplies programme context, not an experimental result.
Separate attributions
Two reviewers.
A separate operational question.
Jessica Utts · 1 September 1995
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning. Utts judged psychic functioning established on statistical grounds and recommended studying how it works. This is her expert interpretation, not an independent replication or a statement of scientific consensus.
Read the author-hosted assessment ↗ · AIR Review 1 · file p. 32 ↗
Indexed as SG-UTTS-1995; associated archival ID CIA-RDP96-00791R000200070001-9. The author copy retains its copyright notice.
Ray Hyman · 11 September 1995
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena. Hyman accepted statistical departures from chance in the reviewed SAIC work and methodological improvements, but did not accept paranormal causation as established. He challenged whether similar average effects across programmes demonstrated a consistent phenomenon.
Read AIR Review 2 · file p. 73 ↗
Indexed as SG-HYMAN-1995 within the AIR final, CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4. No standalone archival identifier has been verified.
AIR’s discussion · file pp. 113–114 ↗ separates agreement on statistical findings from disagreement about their cause. These contributions assess shared evidence; they are not two new experiments.
Operational evaluation: AIR found the material it evaluated insufficiently specific, consistent and actionable for intelligence use, and recommended discontinuing that use. This programme judgement is distinct from the disputed interpretation of laboratory findings. Executive summary · printed E-4–E-5, file pp. 9–10 ↗.
STARGATE source index · 18 October 2026
Trace each record.
Keep its limits visible.
The merged register contains eight metadata entries: six historical document records and two separately attributed AIR reviewer contributions. The AIR final and its reviewers appear above; the other five document records are linked below. These are not eight independent experiments. The SRI reports overlap, and alternate copies do not provide independent corroboration.
| Record and date | Attribution and context | Archival identifier and access |
|---|---|---|
| SG-SRI-1974-P3 · 1974-10-31 Perceptual Augmentation Techniques, Progress Report No. 3 | Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ Investigator progress report; mixed experimental and exploratory protocols. Feedback exercises are not blind validation. | CIA-RDP96-00791R000100430001-0 |
| SG-SRI-1975-P2 · 1975-12-01 Perceptual Augmentation Techniques, Part Two: Research Report | Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ Part Two research report; overlaps the earlier SRI programme. Trial and judging-item counts differ in one series; raw data were not audited here. | CIA-RDP96-00791R000100410001-2 |
| SG-SNYDER-1979-P2 · 1979-06-01 Summary and Critical Evaluation of Research in Remote Viewing | Harry L. Snyder and Arlene G. Snyder Final Part 2, RV-79-1: a historical methodological assessment, not a new experiment. Only selected passages were reviewed. | CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 |
| SG-JCS-1981 · 1981-02-11 Grill Flame Evaluation (U) | Joint Staff; individual signatory unresolved Operational evaluation against later debrief information. Retrospective matching and possible media/intelligence contamination limit interpretation. | CIA-RDP96-00788R001000340002-3 |
| SG-DIA-1993 · 1993-12-03 Feedback on STAR GATE Projects 93-210-0 and 93-212-0 (S) | DIA/PAG-TA; personal author redacted Operational tasking and feedback bundle. Customer feedback is not a controlled experiment; redactions and unreadable handwritten ratings remain unresolved. | CIA-RDP96-00789R002600180010-4 |
The operational examples concern different periods and cases: the 1981 Joint Staff assessment was unfavourable; the 1993 DIA memorandum recorded favourable customer feedback. Neither retrospective judgement is a controlled effect estimate or a programme-wide success rate.
Read the merged index and review limits ↗ · Structured metadata ↗ · Original access and scope audit ↗ · This page’s access recheck ↗
Review boundary: selected text/OCR passages were examined. Complete scan authentication, draft/final reconciliation, raw-data analysis and independent specialist review remain pending. The alternate SRI 1975 manifestation and Snyder’s earlier draft remain unmerged in the index. No complete STARGATE archive or four-volume book review is claimed. Declassification does not establish paranormal information transfer or clear republication rights; no source scans or full texts are imported here.
This is a source-reference correction. The index’s REVIEW_REQUIRED status, unresolved scientific questions and closed evidence/model-promotion gates remain unchanged. For the existing conference discussion, continue to the TSC2026 STARGATE research companion →.
Discernment preserves wonder
Explore the possibility.
Do not manufacture certainty.
Declassified records deserve serious study. So do blinding, base rates, full-session accounting, independent replication and the difference between resonance and prediction.
Source access and correction history · 28 September 2026
These are dated retrieval observations. An unavailable source is not evidence that its claims are false.
28 September observation: Redirects to the generic Reading Room; this is an archive entry point, not a retrieved programme or document record. Original identifier retained.
Original: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/search/site/stargate
Observed destination: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/
28 September observation: Redirects to the generic Reading Room; this is an archive entry point, not a retrieved programme or document record. Original identifier retained.
Original: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5
Observed destination: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/
28 September observation: Redirects to the generic Reading Room; this is an archive entry point, not a retrieved programme or document record. Original identifier retained.
Original: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/
Download original URLs, retrieval results and citation context