This is the last in a series Oper­a­tion Star Gate: U.S Intel­li­gence and Psy­chic Spies writ­ten by D. Trull, the Enigma Edi­tor of ParaScope.com. This is very excit­ing — unex­plained evi­dence (but explained by remote view­ing, of course). The next post how­ever, has some­thing very spe­cial for you — find out soon! (Hint — You can use to to reach your own conclusions!)

4. Unex­plained Anec­do­tal Evidence

Even though the experts hired by the Amer­i­can Insti­tutes for Research rec­om­mended that con­tin­u­a­tion of the Star Gate pro­gram was not jus­ti­fied, they both agreed that cer­tain of the test results seemed unex­plain­able by con­ven­tional sci­ence. Actual remote view­ing may have been demonstrated.

It is dif­fi­cult to judge the anom­alies that Utts and Hyman pro­claim, because the AIR report reveals very lit­tle of the exact con­tent of the tests: that is, actual bea­cons’ images paired with cor­re­spond­ing view­ers’ descrip­tions. Instead, the report pri­mar­ily offers obtuse bar graphs and spread­sheets of numer­i­cal test scores as evidence.

One “suc­cess” that is described in anec­do­tal detail involved two sep­a­rate remote view­ers who reported the loca­tion of a secret under­ground instal­la­tion. Given only the “coor­di­nates of the site” located in West Vir­ginia, the sub­jects described the sur­round­ing land­scape and a gov­ern­ment base hid­den beneath.

The report does not name it as such, but this site would appear to be the infa­mous “Mount Weather” instal­la­tion, also known as the West­ern Vir­ginia Office of Con­trolled Con­flict Oper­a­tions, run by the Fed­eral Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency (FEMA).

Mount Weather report­edly houses a com­plete dupli­cate of the Fed­eral gov­ern­ment, secretly wait­ing on stand-by to run the United States in the event of a national cat­a­stro­phe or dec­la­ra­tion of mar­tial law. One of the remote view­ers went so far as to name code­words and per­son­nel asso­ci­ated with the base, and his accu­racy was high enough to spark a full inves­ti­ga­tion into any pos­si­ble leak for this clas­si­fied information.

Hyman points out that these remote view­ers may have been rely­ing on fore­knowl­edge of the Mount Weather facil­ity rather than psy­chic pow­ers. Con­sid­er­ing that this par­tic­u­lar test sup­plied the loca­tion up front, and that the major­ity of the remote view­ers who par­tic­i­pated were gov­ern­ment employ­ees, the pos­si­bil­ity is a rea­son­able one.

A third remote viewer iden­ti­fied the exis­tence of a rail-mounted gantry crane in the then-Soviet city of Semi­palatinsk. Despite the uncanny accu­racy of the descrip­tion, the offi­cial who ana­lyzed this viewer deemed his test results unsuc­cess­ful, since the bulk of his obser­va­tions were erroneous.

Another anec­do­tal report, appear­ing only in a cen­sored doc­u­ment given as an appen­dix, describes appar­ent suc­cesses in the remote view­ing of North Korea. View­ers iden­ti­fied pos­si­ble rail tun­nels lead­ing into the Repub­lic of Korea. Unlike the oth­ers, this par­tic­u­lar case appears to go beyond mere test­ing to attempt dis­cern­ing infor­ma­tion which the U.S. gov­ern­ment does not already possess.

The doc­u­ment states, “the indi­ca­tor regard­ing rail line cam­ou­flage is extremely impor­tant since it pro­vides a pos­si­ble answer to the con­tro­versy over rail line activ­ity south [dele­tion] where rails allegedly no longer exist.”

Of the pool of remote view­ers stud­ied, six were judged to per­form at a level sig­nif­i­cantly higher than the rest. The report pro­vides no fur­ther specifics about these six and what they “saw,” but both expert review­ers man­aged to use their exis­tence to sup­port their viewpoints.

Utts argues that since the same test­ing meth­ods were used in every case, all results should have been equal; since some view­ers were able to dis­tin­guish them­selves from the rest, their abil­i­ties must there­fore be valid. Hyman, on the other hand, points out that sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods used in the study can per­mit the few high scor­ers to over­shadow the wild inac­cu­ra­cies of other viewers.

Sub­jects scored much higher on “free response” tests, in which they described a tar­get in their own words, than they did on “forced choice” tests, which involved select­ing the cor­rect tar­get out of a list. Addi­tion­ally, the suc­cesses of tests con­ducted with­out a dis­tant per­son act­ing as a bea­con raised the ques­tion of whether a bea­con is nec­es­sary at all.

In another test, mean­while, inter­ac­tion between two dis­tant minds pro­duced a strik­ing and unex­pected result. Remote obser­va­tion exper­i­ments, which mea­sured whether a per­son can affect the body chem­istry of another merely by look­ing at the per­son, yielded markedly more pos­i­tive results when the two sub­jects were of the oppo­site sex.

One could inter­pret these find­ings as evi­dence that remote view­ing is a potent, organic abil­ity that func­tions inde­pen­dently of for­mal trap­pings and exter­nal assis­tance. Maybe it is an unrec­og­nized aspect of the human con­di­tion that influ­ences our every­day com­mu­ni­ca­tion and behav­ior patterns.

Who knows — maybe this prop­erty that the CIA attempted to use for the pur­poses of war could even be a com­po­nent of human sex­ual dynam­ics: the most com­plex intel­li­gence oper­a­tion of all.

You can access this arti­cle here.…
© Copy­right 1998 ParaS­cope, Inc. writ­ten by D. Trull, Enigma Edi­tor, ParaScope.com