It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“reportedly participated in MILABS operations — black operations by rogue military-intelligence units that stalk, harrass, terrorize, kidnap, drug, gang-rape and mind-rape innocent civilians, using hypnotic mind-control programming to implant a false post-hypnotic ‘memory’ that the episode was an “alien abduction.”"
In the typical remote viewing experiment in the laboratory, a remote viewer is asked
to visualize a place, location, or object being viewed by a "beacon" or sender. A judge then
examines the viewer's report and. determines if this report matches the target or, alternatively,
a set of decoys. In most recent laboratory experiments reviewed for the present evaluation,
National Geographic photographs provided the target pool. If the viewer's reports match the
target, as opposed to the decoys, a hit is said to have occurred. Alternatively, aecuracy of a
set of remote viewing reports is assessed by rank-ordering the similarity of each remote
viewing report to each photograph in the target set (usually five photographs). A better-than-
chance score is presumed to represent the occurrence of the paranormal phenomenon of
remote viewing, since the remote viewers had not seen the photographs they had described (or
did not know which photographs had been randomly selected for a particular remote viewing
In evaluating the various laboratory studies conducted to date, the reviewers reached
the following conclusions:
• A statistically significant laboratory effort has been demonstrated in the sense that
hits occur more often than chance.
• It is unclear whether the observed effects can unambiguously be attributed to the
paranormal ability of the remote viewers as opposed to characteristics of the judges
or of the target or some other characteristic of the methods used. Use of the same
remote viewers, the same judge, and the same target photographs makes it
impossible to identify their independent effects.
• Evidence has not been provided that clearly demonstrates that the causes of hits
are due to the operation of paranormal phenomena; the laboratory experiments
have not identified the origins or nature of the remote viewing phenomenon, if,
indeed, it exists at all.
• The conditions under which the remote viewing phenomenon is observed in
laboratory settings do not apply in intelligence gathering situations. For example,
viewers cannot be provided with feedback and targets may not display the
characteristics needed to produce hits.
• The end users indicated that, although some accuracy was observed with regard to
broad background characteristics, the remote viewing reports failed to produce the
concrete, specific information valued in intelligence gathering.
• The information provided was inconsistent, inaccurate with regard to specifics, and
required substantial subjective interpretation.
• In no case had the information provided ever been used to guide intelligence
operations. Thus, remote viewing failed to produce actionable intelligence.