DOC 10 // THE READING ROOM
Read the record yourself.
Declassified archives, reviews of the U.S. government remote-viewing program — supportive and skeptical — foundational and peer-reviewed papers, the presentiment and precognition literature, protocol documents, institutes, key figures, and the statistical methods rv.studio scores you with. Every test we run on your results is named here, so you can check the arithmetic rather than take our word for it. Read both sides. These are starting points, not authority.
Name
Type
One-line
Source
CIA STARGATE Collection (declassified)
Primary archive
The CIA's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Electronic Reading Room collection of declassified documents from the U.S. government remote viewing program (1970s–1995).
An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program (AIR report, 1995)
Government report
The 1995 American Institutes for Research review (Mumford, Rose & Goslin; with the Utts and Hyman appendices) that informed STARGATE's closure and declassification.
Targ & Puthoff, “Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding” (Nature, 1974)
Peer-reviewed paper
The foundational remote-viewing paper from SRI (Stanford Research Institute), published in Nature, vol. 251, pp. 602–607; widely cited alongside subsequent methodology critiques.
Utts, “An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning” (1996)
Government-commissioned review
Statistician Jessica Utts' analysis, prepared for the 1995 government evaluation, concluding the statistical effects in the remote-viewing data from SRI and SAIC (the program's two research contractors) exceed chance. Ray Hyman's companion appendix reached the opposite conclusion on the same data, and the AIR review overall did not endorse operational use. Hosted on her UC Irvine faculty page.
Mossbridge, Tressoldi & Utts, “Predictive Physiological Anticipation…” (Frontiers in Psychology, 2012)
Peer-reviewed meta-analysis
A meta-analysis of 26 “presentiment” experiments across 7 independent laboratories, reporting a small aggregate effect in which physiological responses appear to shift before a randomly chosen stimulus. Critics attribute the effect partly to publication bias and analytic flexibility, and pre-registered replications have been mixed.
Bem, “Feeling the Future” (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011)
Peer-reviewed paper
Daryl Bem's nine-experiment report of apparent precognitive effects — a landmark precisely because its main results failed to replicate (Ritchie, Wiseman & French 2012; Galak et al. 2012). That failure helped trigger psychology's replication crisis and the move to pre-registration. Included as the cautionary case, not as supporting evidence. Publisher (APA) PDF.
Cardeña, “The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review” (American Psychologist, 2018)
Peer-reviewed review
A review in the American Psychological Association's flagship journal arguing the cumulative experimental evidence for psi (the umbrella term for phenomena like remote viewing and precognition) is not readily explained by study quality, fraud, or selective reporting. It drew published skeptical rebuttals (e.g., Reber & Alcock) — read it alongside the critiques.
Targ, Katra, Brown & Wiegand, “Viewing the Future: A Pilot Study with an Error-Detecting Protocol” (Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1995)
ARV study
An early associative-remote-viewing (ARV) precognition study that built redundancy into the protocol to catch errors — the methodological ancestor of rv.studio's predict board, where each possible outcome of a future event is assigned its own image and the reading is judged against those images before the result is known.
“Associative Remote Viewing Projects: Assessing Rater Reliability and Factors Affecting Successful Predictions”
ARV study
An analysis of operational ARV prediction projects: how reliably independent judges score readings, and which factors track successful predictions — directly relevant to honest scoring and the analyst's role.
Dean Radin — research & books
Key figure / researcher
Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and author of meta-analytic work on presentiment and precognition; his site archives papers and books on the experimental evidence.
Dean Radin — Psi Encyclopedia (SPR) biography
Reference / biography
The Society for Psychical Research's biographical and research overview of Radin's experimental program, with citations to the underlying studies.
International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA)
Institute / association
A 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership association providing education, research, and community focused on remote viewing; hosts an annual conference.
The Monroe Institute
Institute
A nonprofit research and education organization for the exploration of human consciousness, founded by Robert Monroe.
Russell Targ
Key figure
Physicist and co-founder of the SRI remote-viewing research program; his ESP Research site archives papers, books, and talks.
Harold E. (Hal) Puthoff
Key figure
Physicist who co-led the SRI remote-viewing program with Targ; biographical and publication references.
Ingo Swann
Key figure
Artist and viewer credited with coining “remote viewing” (1971) and later developing the Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) protocol at SRI.
Joseph (Joe) McMoneagle
Key figure / viewer
The U.S. Army program's first operational remote viewer — “Remote Viewer No. 1” — and an author on the practice.
Edwin C. May
Key figure / researcher
Physicist and the project director of the STARGATE program in its later years; later founded the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. Biography via the Society for Psychical Research's Psi Encyclopedia.
Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) Technology, 1981–1983 (declassified report)
Protocol document
Declassified SRI International report (H. E. Puthoff, with Ingo Swann as consultant) in the CIA reading room documenting the coordinate/stage CRV protocol.
PEAR — “Precognitive Remote Perception” program (Psi Encyclopedia, SPR)
Reference / lab program
The Society for Psychical Research's overview of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab, whose remote-viewing program was named Remote Perception — later Precognitive Remote Perception — and modeled perception as a long checklist of yes/no descriptors about the target rather than a single image. The clearest institutional precedent for the word “perception.”
PEAR / ICRL — Remote Perception publications archive
Primary archive / papers
The PEAR lab's own publications list (via ICRL), including the “Precognitive Remote Perception” technical reports and the Journal of Scientific Exploration replication papers (Dunne & Jahn). Source documents for the multi-descriptor perception model.
Coordinate Remote Viewing Training Manual (Swann / Puthoff lineage)
Protocol document
The CRV training manual documenting the staged sensory model: Stage 2 sweeps textures, temperatures, colors, light, smells, tastes and sounds; Stage 3 adds dimensionals (size, shape, volume, mass); Stage 4 records aesthetic and emotional impact and flags analytic overlay (AOL). The basis for treating perception as arriving through many sensory channels rather than as pictures alone.
CRV Stage 2 — sensory data (RVIS / rviewer.com)
Reference / method
A plain-language exposition of CRV Stage 2, enumerating the sensory categories a viewer records — colors and qualities of light, smells, textures, tastes, sounds, temperature, and energetics — and the drill of generating sensory-response words across every channel. Useful for explaining the multi-sensory capture model to newcomers.
“Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Abilities” — Targ & Puthoff
Foundational book
The SRI researchers' first-person account of the early remote-viewing experiments (orig. 1977).
“Limitless Mind” — Russell Targ
Book
Targ's accessible overview of remote-viewing protocol and the research record; practitioner-friendly.
“Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate” — Paul H. Smith
Book / memoir
A trained military CRV viewer's inside account of the Star Gate program and the CRV methodology.
Brier score (calibration scoring)
Reference / method
A standard method for scoring probabilistic predictions — designed so that, across many forecasts, the best score comes from reporting your honest confidence — used to measure how well stated confidence matches observed accuracy.
Calibration (statistics)
Reference / method
The statistical notion that forecast probabilities should match observed frequencies (e.g. events assigned 30% occur about 30% of the time) — the basis of a reliability curve.
Binomial test
Reference / method
The standard test for whether a count of successes out of a fixed number of attempts departs from a known chance rate — the basis of the “Margin” and “Luck odds” figures on your accuracy table, where the chance rate is one over the number of images on the panel.
Multiple comparisons problem
Reference / method
Why testing several things at once makes a striking-looking result more likely by luck alone — and therefore why a table showing six rows must set a stricter bar than a table showing one. The reason rv.studio corrects across every row it displays.
Holm–Bonferroni method
Reference / method
The specific correction rv.studio applies across the rows on your accuracy table. It is uniformly more powerful than a plain Bonferroni correction and requires no assumption that the rows are independent.
Remote viewing (overview, incl. associative remote viewing)
Reference / method
Encyclopedic overview of remote viewing and its protocols, including associative remote viewing, which links a blind session to a future two-outcome event by assigning each possible outcome its own image.
Farsight Institute
Contemporary practitioner
A contemporary remote-viewing research and education organization founded in 1995, distinct from the historical SRI/STARGATE research lineage.
Non-affiliation & non-endorsement
rv.studio is not partnered with, sponsored by, or a sponsor of any party listed or implied on this site. The resources above — declassified archives, institutes, associations, authors, books, and papers — are provided solely as references for independent study. Their inclusion does not imply any affiliation, partnership, or endorsement in either direction. All names, trademarks, and works belong to their respective owners.