What Did the 1995 Review Actually Examine?

Introduction

The 1995 review by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) is often described as a simple verdict on whether remote viewing “worked”. That description misses the central purpose of the exercise. AIR was not asked merely to judge paranormal claims. It was commissioned to determine whether nearly two decades of government-sponsored remote-viewing research had produced an intelligence capability that justified continued funding and operational use. To answer that question, the review examined two separate but connected bodies of evidence: the scientific research programme and the operational history of the Stargate project. It also drew on interviews with the people who managed, used and performed remote-viewing tasks, alongside documentary records of intelligence applications. The resulting evaluation became the administrative basis for ending the programme because it assessed both scientific credibility and practical utility rather than treating them as the same question.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

Why the Senate asked for an outside evaluation

The immediate trigger for the review was not a new scientific breakthrough but a change in programme oversight. In 1995, responsibility for the Stargate programme moved from the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) to the CIA under congressional direction. Before deciding whether the programme should continue, the CIA commissioned AIR to conduct an independent assessment of both its research record and its operational value.[CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMDuring. Star Gate's history, DIA pursued three basic program objectives: "Operations," usin…

AIR’s role was deliberately broader than that of a laboratory peer reviewer. The evaluation plan asked whether the accumulated evidence showed a statistically significant effect, whether any effect could reasonably be interpreted as paranormal, whether the phenomenon was understood well enough to support practical use, and whether the research justified intelligence applications. These questions meant the review addressed science, methodology, implementation and policy simultaneously rather than issuing a simple yes-or-no judgement on remote viewing itself.[scribd.com]scribd.comCIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 | PDFDrs. Utts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this review…

The review panel also reflected this structure. Statistician Jessica Utts and psychologist Ray Hyman were invited specifically because they represented contrasting interpretations of parapsychological evidence. Rather than forcing consensus, AIR asked each expert to produce an independent assessment before comparing areas of agreement and disagreement through a structured review process.[scribd.com]scribd.comCIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 | PDFDrs. Utts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this review…

The research and operations tracks in the review

AIR separated its work into two complementary investigations.

The first examined the experimental research carried out over many years at organisations including Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and later Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Rather than reviewing every historical experiment equally, the panel concentrated particular attention on the more recent SAIC studies because they were generally regarded as methodologically stronger than earlier work. These studies were evaluated alongside previous literature and earlier government reviews to determine whether the reported statistical effects were convincing.[ResearchGate]researchgate.netResearch Gate Evaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental PhenomenaEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'January 1, 1995 — PDF | Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate…Published: January 1, 1995

The second investigation examined operational use. This distinction is frequently overlooked in popular accounts but was central to AIR’s mandate. The review considered how remote viewing had actually been employed within intelligence work, how requests were generated, what products were delivered to customers, and whether those products influenced real decisions or produced useful intelligence outcomes.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

Importantly, AIR did not assume that statistically unusual laboratory findings would automatically translate into operational effectiveness. The evaluation explicitly treated those as separate questions requiring different forms of evidence.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

How AIR gathered operational evidence

The operational review relied on considerably more than archived reports.

According to AIR’s evaluation plan, investigators conducted interviews during July and August 1995 with:

AIR interviewed seven end users, three remote viewers and the incumbent programme manager. The reviewers intentionally focused on personnel involved during the programme’s final period because recent activities could be checked against surviving documentation more reliably than recollections from the 1970s or early 1980s.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

The interview sample also covered different operational contexts. End users came from organisations involved in activities such as counter-intelligence, counter-narcotics and search-and-rescue, allowing AIR to compare experiences across several kinds of operational task rather than relying on a single success story or failure.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

These interviews were combined with documentary evidence, including operational records and examples of remote-viewing products. AIR therefore evaluated not only what participants believed about the programme but also whether those beliefs matched documented performance.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

What evidence mattered most to decision-makers

Although public discussion often concentrates on the disagreement between Utts and Hyman over laboratory statistics, the operational portion of AIR’s work addressed the question that mattered most to intelligence managers: whether remote viewing generated dependable, actionable information.

The review found little evidence that operational products had contributed information of sufficient quality, consistency or uniqueness to justify continued intelligence use. Even where some individual cases appeared impressive, the available record did not demonstrate a reliable capability that decision-makers could incorporate into normal intelligence processes.[CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMDuring. Star Gate's history, DIA pursued three basic program objectives: "Operations," usin…

The reviewers also considered the difficulty of evaluating anecdotal “hits”. Individual striking examples could not easily establish operational value because intelligence work requires repeatable performance across many cases rather than isolated successes. AIR therefore placed greater weight on sustained usefulness than on memorable stories.[National Security Archive]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

This emphasis explains why debates over laboratory evidence did not determine the programme’s fate. Utts concluded that the experimental record supported the existence of a genuine anomalous effect, while Hyman argued that methodological uncertainties and insufficient independent replication made that conclusion premature. Yet both perspectives still had to confront the separate question of operational utility, where the documented record proved far less persuasive.[ResearchGate+2scribd.com]researchgate.netResearch Gate Evaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental PhenomenaEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'January 1, 1995 — PDF | Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate…Published: January 1, 1995

Why the review became the administrative turning point

AIR’s evaluation mattered because it reframed the discussion from scientific possibility to government implementation. Intelligence agencies do not fund programmes simply because an effect appears statistically interesting; they fund capabilities that consistently improve decision-making.

By reviewing research claims, interviewing users and practitioners, examining operational records and assessing practical outcomes together, AIR produced a policy-oriented evaluation rather than a purely scientific review. Its findings gave the CIA a documented basis for concluding that, regardless of continuing debate over laboratory anomalies, the Stargate programme had not demonstrated sufficient operational value to warrant continuation. That implementation-focused assessment—not simply a vote on whether remote viewing was “real”—became the decisive administrative step before the programme was ended.[National Security Archive+2CIA]nsarchive2.gwu.eduNational Security ArchiveAn Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and…March 13, 2015 — by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 76 — Informati…Published: March 13, 2015

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What Did the 1995 Review Actually Examine?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The conscious universe

By Unknown author

Summarizes laboratory findings discussed in reviews.

See on Amazon

Book

The Stargate chronicles

By Joseph McMoneagle

First published 2002. Subjects: Remote viewing (Parapsychology), Psychics.

See on Amazon

Book

Remote viewing secrets

By Joseph McMoneagle

First published 2000. Subjects: Remote viewing (Parapsychology), Parapsychology, Prophecies (occultism), Astral projection.

See on Amazon

Book

Parapsychology

By Etzel Cardeña, John Palmer et al.

First published 2015. Subjects: Parapsychology.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The conscious universeThe Stargate chroniclesRemote viewing secrets

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Example eBay listing

Famous Skull skeleton Embroidered Iron On Sew Patch Biker badge message jacket

SearcheBay.co.uk: DIA patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

RED STAR EMBROIDERED PATCH 7-8CM Dia (3-1/4" Dia)

SearcheBay.co.uk: DIA patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Military Army Navy RAF woven 80mm dia circle patch badge Op Herrick banner Telic

SearcheBay.co.uk: DIA patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

ADVENTURE AWAITS Embroidered Patch Round Iron/sew On Biker Badge Jeans 7cm dia

SearcheBay.co.uk: DIA patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

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

2. Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/1031977086/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5

3. Source: researchgate.net
Title: Research Gate Evaluation of Program on ‘Anomalous Mental Phenomena’
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267978941Evaluation_of_Program_on%27Anomalous_Mental_Phenomena%27

Published: January 1, 1995

4. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4.pdf

5. Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R003100290002-5.pdf

6. Source: nsarchive2.gwu.edu
Link:https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB438/docs/doc_57.pdf

Published: March 13, 2015

7. Source: citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Link:https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?doi=e9cfe0dc15343b8b463514598b93ae843659f5d4&repid=rep1&type=pdf&utm=

Additional References

8. Source: academia.edu
Link:https://www.academia.edu/95285973/The_Star_Gate_Operational_Remote_Viewing_Program_A_Human_Intelligence_HUMINT_Collection_Platform

9. Source: govinfo.gov
Title: Central Intelligence Agency: Observations on GAO Access
Link:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-975T/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-975T.htm

10. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ1dy7dG0M4

11. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/AskImtinan/posts/project-stargate-the-cias-search-for-tabut-e-sakinahin-1972-the-cia-secretly-fun/1575907587435890/

12. Source: greydynamics.com
Link:https://greydynamics.com/intelligence-past-the-tangible-world-cias-stargate-project/

13. Source: Wikipedia
Title: Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project_%28U.S._Army_unit%29

14. Source: youtube.com
Title: Did the CIA Train Psychic Spies? | Stargate Project
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F5lH0SOqs0

15. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275521/

16. Source: youtube.com
Title: Stargate’s Gatekeeper: DIA & Remote Viewing with Dale E. Graff
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRAsTmT_nQo

17. Source: archives.library.rice.edu
Title: archival objects
Link:https://archives.library.rice.edu/repositories/2/archival_objects/329954