主题：remote viewer and FBI psychic investigator -- simplyred

The experimental research conducted as part of the current program does not unambiguously support the interpretation of the results in terms of a paranormal phenomenon.

Failure to provide evidence that independent judges arrive at similar conclusions makes it difficult to unambiguously determine whether the observed effects can be attributed to the remote viewers' (paranormal) ability, to the ability of the judge to interpret ambiguous information, or to the combination or interaction of the viewers and the judge. Furthermore, given the Principal Investigator's familiarity with the viewers, the target set, and the experimental procedures, it is possible that subtle, unintentional factors may have influenced the results obtained in these studies. Thus, until it can be shown that independent judges agree, and similar effects are obtained in studies using independent judges, it cannot be said that adequate evidence has been provided for existence of the remote viewing phenomenon.

Our conclusion is that at this juncture it would be premature to assume that we have a convincing demonstration of a paranormal phenomenon. In fact, until a plausible causal mechanism has been identified, and competing explanations carefully investigated, we cannot interpret the set of anomalous observations localized to one laboratory with one set of methods. Given these observations, and the methodological problems noted above, we must conclude that:

Adequate experimental and theoretical evidence for the existence of remote viewing as a parapsychological phenomenon has not been provided by the research component of current program. A significant change in focus and methods would be necessary to justify additional laboratory research within the current program.

This is not to say definitively that paranormal phenomena do not exist. At some point in time, adequate evidence might be provided for the existence of remote viewing. With this point in mind, we considered the potential applications of remote viewing in intelligence gathering.

The first consideration involves the conditions under which remote viewing occurs and if those conditions constrain its application for intelligence purposes. Prior research suggests that distance is not a constraint and, indeed, that a sender or "beacon" may not be necessary. However, other characteristics of intelligence gathering indicate that remote viewing is of little value. Intelligence operations do not provide targets of a fixed bandwidth; rather, targets and target types are highly variable. Moreover, the apparent necessity for feedback to the remote viewers would preclude its use in intelligence gathering operations. Finally, intelligence information is most valuable if it is concrete and specific, and reliably interpretable. Unfortunately, the research conducted to date indicates that the remote viewing phenomenon fails to meet those preconditions. Therefore, we conclude that:

Remote viewing, as exemplified by the efforts in the current program, has not been shown to have value in intelligence operations.

This point was also graphically illustrated in the user interviews, where it was found that remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for "actionable" intelligence operations -- that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result. If a phenomenon does not contribute to intelligence operations, it is difficult to see what justification exists for its continued application. This is particularly true in the case of remote viewing, where a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports.

Particularly troublesome from the perspective of the application of paranormal phenomena is the fact that the remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with known background cues. While this was appropriate in that situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomenon independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume. Give these observations, it is difficult to argue that available evidence justifies application of remote viewing in intelligence operations.

In summary, two clear-out conclusion emerge from our examination of the operational component of the current program. First, as stated above, evidence for the operational value of remote viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts. Second, it is unlikely that remote viewing -- as currently understood -- even if its existence can be unequivocally demonstrated, will prove of any use in intelligence gathering due to the conditions and constraints applying in intelligence operations and the suspected characteristics of the phenomenon. We conclude that:

Continued support for the operational component of the current program is not justified.