Within Stargate
What Did the Lab Tests Actually Show?
The later review treated SAIC's documented experiments differently from earlier SRI work because methods and records mattered.
On this page
- Early SRI experiments and later criticism
- Why SAIC studies became central in 1995
- Statistical effects versus paranormal proof
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The laboratory evidence behind the U.S. government’s remote-viewing programme did not stand or fall on dramatic operational anecdotes. Instead, the central question became whether carefully controlled experiments at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and later Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) demonstrated a genuine, repeatable phenomenon. By the time the CIA commissioned an independent review in 1995, the emphasis had shifted away from early headline-grabbing experiments and towards the more rigorously documented SAIC studies. The review concluded that the laboratory data contained statistically unusual findings, but it did not accept that these findings established paranormal perception or justified intelligence use. That distinction—between statistical anomalies and proof of psychic functioning—became the defining issue in evaluating the Stargate programme.[CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMUtts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this rev…
What changed between the early SRI work and the later SAIC studies?
The earliest SRI experiments, beginning in the 1970s under researchers Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ, sought to test whether participants could describe distant locations or concealed targets under blinded conditions. These studies introduced the term “remote viewing” and attempted to separate claimed psychic perception from traditional clairvoyance by using structured target selection and independent judging.
Although some experiments appeared to produce above-chance matches between descriptions and targets, critics argued that many early studies left room for ordinary explanations. Questions were raised about sensory leakage, inadequate blinding, insufficient documentation of randomisation procedures, and the possibility that judges could infer correct answers from subtle cues rather than paranormal information. Later analyses also criticised incomplete reporting of experimental protocols, making independent evaluation difficult.[Wikipedia]WikipediaParapsychology research at SRIParapsychology research at SRI
Rather than relying heavily on these early experiments, the 1995 review concentrated on the most recent research conducted at SAIC between 1992 and 1994. According to reviewer Ray Hyman, these experiments represented the programme’s strongest methodological work because they were designed specifically to address many criticisms directed at the earlier SRI research.[ResearchGate]researchgate.netEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote…
Why the SAIC experiments became central in 1995
The American Institutes for Research (AIR), working for the CIA, asked statistician Jessica Utts and psychologist Ray Hyman to evaluate decades of laboratory research. Although they reviewed the broader programme, both paid particular attention to approximately ten recent SAIC experiments because these had better documentation and stronger experimental controls than much of the earlier work.[ResearchGate]researchgate.netEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote…
Several methodological improvements distinguished the SAIC studies:
- greater use of computer-assisted random target selection;
- clearer separation between experimenters, viewers and judges;
- improved documentation of experimental procedures;
- attempts to eliminate known sources of cueing identified in previous critiques;
- prospective protocols rather than reconstructions after testing.
These improvements mattered because critics of SRI had long argued that even small opportunities for information leakage could create apparently impressive results. If positive findings survived under tighter controls, they would deserve more serious scientific consideration.[CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMUtts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this rev…
Importantly, even sceptical reviewer Ray Hyman acknowledged that the SAIC experiments appeared substantially better controlled than many earlier remote-viewing studies and that their statistical effects could not simply be dismissed as obvious experimental mistakes. His disagreement lay not in whether unusual statistics existed, but in what those statistics demonstrated.[ResearchGate]researchgate.netEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote…
Statistical effects versus paranormal proof
The central disagreement in the 1995 review was interpretive rather than numerical.
Jessica Utts concluded that the accumulated laboratory evidence showed statistically significant effects that were too consistent across experiments to be explained by chance alone. From her perspective, repeated successful outcomes under increasingly controlled conditions justified accepting that some anomalous information-transfer process had been demonstrated experimentally, even if its mechanism remained unknown.[CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMUtts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this rev…
Ray Hyman accepted that the statistical findings deserved attention but rejected the conclusion that they established psychic functioning. His objections included several related concerns:
- statistical significance does not identify the cause of an effect;
- independent laboratories had not yet produced sufficiently convincing replications;
- subtle methodological artefacts could still remain undiscovered;
- extraordinary claims required stronger evidential standards than unusual statistical outcomes alone.
Hyman therefore argued that the SAIC results justified further scientific investigation rather than acceptance of paranormal perception as an established fact.[ResearchGate+2Wikipedia]researchgate.netEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote…
This disagreement illustrates an important principle in experimental science. Demonstrating that results differ from chance is only one step. Researchers must also eliminate conventional explanations, establish reliable replication by independent groups, and show that the phenomenon behaves predictably under varying conditions before broad scientific acceptance follows.
Why laboratory success did not translate into intelligence value
The AIR review deliberately separated two questions:
- Did laboratory experiments produce statistically unusual results?
- Did remote viewing provide useful operational intelligence?[cia.gov]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWINGEvidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operati…
The reviewers concluded that these were not the same question.
Laboratory experiments involved carefully defined targets, controlled judging procedures and immediate feedback—conditions that helped researchers evaluate statistical performance. Intelligence operations, however, involved unknown targets, uncertain ground truth, delayed or absent feedback, and reports requiring extensive interpretation.
The review found that although some laboratory experiments showed statistically significant deviations from chance, operational reports typically produced broad, ambiguous descriptions rather than specific, actionable intelligence. Intelligence evaluators interviewed during the review judged the reports inconsistent, difficult to verify and insufficiently reliable for operational decision-making. The review also found no documented case in which remote-viewing information had directly guided successful intelligence operations.[CIA+2www.slideshare.net]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWINGEvidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operati…
What the reviewed laboratory evidence ultimately showed
The legacy of the SRI and SAIC experiments is more nuanced than either enthusiastic advocates or outright dismissals often suggest.
The early SRI work established experimental paradigms that attracted government funding but also accumulated substantial methodological criticism. The later SAIC programme attempted to answer those criticisms through stronger experimental controls and more systematic documentation. Those improvements explain why the 1995 evaluation relied much more heavily on SAIC than on the earliest SRI studies.[ResearchGate]researchgate.netEvaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote…
The reviewers ultimately agreed on several important points:
- the strongest evidence came from the later SAIC laboratory experiments rather than the earliest SRI work;
- the laboratory findings contained statistically interesting effects that warranted careful examination;
- the evidence did not demonstrate operational intelligence usefulness;
- the available data did not persuade the reviewing agency that remote viewing had been established as a reliable intelligence capability.[CIA+2CIA]cia.govAN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMUtts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this rev…
As a result, the laboratory record became neither a clear validation nor a simple debunking. Instead, it remains an example of how methodological quality, statistical interpretation and standards of proof can lead qualified reviewers examining the same dataset to reach different conclusions about what, if anything, the experiments actually demonstrated.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to What Did the Lab Tests Actually Show?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Limitless Mind
First published 2004. Subjects: Remote viewing (Parapsychology), Extrasensory perception, Spiritual life, Peace of mind.
Mind-Reach
First published 2005. Subjects: Consciousness, Parapsychology, Case studies.
Phenomena
First published 2017. Subjects: Military research, Parapsychology, Extrasensory perception, Psychokinesis, History.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5.pdf
Source snippet
AN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMUtts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent reports based on their review. In this rev...
2.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180006-4.pdf
Source snippet
AN EVALUATION OF REMOTE VIEWINGEvidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits are due to the operati...
3.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Parapsychology research at SRI
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI
4.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Remote viewing
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
5.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267978941Evaluation_of_Program_on%27Anomalous_Mental_Phenomena%27
Source snippet
Evaluation of Program on 'Anomalous Mental Phenomena'Jessica Utts and I were commissioned to evaluate the research on remote...
6.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Ray Hyman
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hyman
7.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Jessica Utts
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts
8.
Source: slideshare.net
Link:https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/an-evaluation-of-remote-viewing-research-and-applications-air1995pdf/257460594
Source snippet
Evaluation of Remote Viewing, Research and...The review consisted of evaluating past laboratory research on remote viewing and interview...
9.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5
Source snippet
AN EVALUATION OF THE REMOTE VIEWING PROGRAMA three-component program involving basic research, operations, and [foreign assessment]({{ 'foreign-watch/' | relative_url }}) has bee...
Additional References
10.
Source: rviewer.com
Link:https://rviewer.com/a-review-of-the-cia-air-report-on-the-star-gate-remote-viewing-program/bologna-on-wry-bread-part-1-of-a-review-of-an-evaluation-of-remote-viewing-research-and-applications/
Source snippet
Utts and Hyman agreed that the experimental portion of STAR GATE indicated some sort of phenomenon existed, but...Read more...
11.
Source: reddit.com
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/comments/1b1g7ge/do_these_common_rejections_to_remote_viewing_hold/
Source snippet
r factors, since the experiments he saw were overseen by Ed May...Read more...
12.
Source: metabunk.org
Link:https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-remote-viewing-is-a-scientifically-proven-technique-that-utilizes-a-natural-human-ability-to-enable-access-to-hidden-information.13057/page-3
Source snippet
Claim: Remote Viewing is a Scientifically Proven...Jul 24, 2023 — My report argues that Professor Utts' conclusion is premature, to say...
13.
Source: alice.id.tue.nl
Link:https://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/mumford-rose-goslin-1995.pdf
Source snippet
An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and...by MD Mumford · 1995 · Cited by 75 — Utts and Hyman were asked to prepare independent re...
14.
Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275521/
Source snippet
Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA...by Á Escolà‐Gascón · 2023 · Cited by 10 — Reports on the declassified SRI and SAIC experiments were...
15.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Dr. Edwin May, Psychic Research (Remote Viewing, Telekinesis)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m66dX1NQ9k4
Source snippet
Dr. Edwin May, Psychic Theories ([Precognition]({{ 'precognition/' | relative_url }}), Remote Viewing)...
16.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrwAiU2g5RU
Source snippet
Dr. Edwin May, Psychic Research (Remote Viewing, Telekinesis)...
17.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Scientific and Spiritual Implications of Psychic Abilities
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgyYms376Mg
Source snippet
Precognition with Russell Targ...
18.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Precognition with Russell Targ
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdhkuPLJYNA
Source snippet
Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation...
19.
Source: ics.uci.edu
Link:https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/may.pdf
Source snippet
So even though Hyman had access to this group, he was denied access...Read more...
Topic Tree