Talk:Stargate Project/Archive 1

Sources? Bias?

Yeah, what is this horse manure? There are several assertions of a *scientific* nature, not historic ones, that have no support WHATSOEVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.69.109 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The dispute might benefit from a link to the actual FOIA documents. I spent months setting up an easy to use and hyperlinked annotated index of the 20 yrs of research. Having seen the documents, comments saying there is no basis strike me as uninformed. The link to the archives is at www.stargate-interactive.com. Even the FAQ page there might be valuable for your discussion. Belief ought not have a thing to do with the historical fact of this research and those who wish to look at the research from the project period can find it in the FOIA documents. 71.242.55.141 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Tamra

Where is all this information coming from, if not the sources listed at the end of the article? Seems like this is primarily non-peer-reviewed information, into which bias has been added to make the technique seem more factual than the lack of quality information suggests. Indeed, the authors of those sources cite... their own work to prove their own points.

Also, I added the npov tag because there are history edits that specifically added bias to the page.

Chieftain 01:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read The Men Who Stare at Goats ? Read any of Joe McMoneagles work? Read Buchanan's book? If not, I don't quite see the point. This may surprise you, but in history, much of the information cited and from which history derives, is in the form of personal eyewitness accounts of events. This is called a primary source. What historians do is sift these, take what is known, and weed out the misinformation, to provide e a balanced narrative. You misunderstand the nature of history, if you think it can be boiled down to a series of repeatable, peer reviewed, statistically significant experiments. If you want to flag any part of the text, I'll set out where the information comes from. But line by line referencing makes for pretty dull reading and is not accepted practice in any history department I ever worked at........... Timharwoodx 10:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem was largely fixed since the time I flagged it by the addition of sources beyond... www.biomindsuperpowers.com. I have no problem with history and historical methods--though patronization is unappreciated. I wasn't looking for experiments, as such, but something better than a purely internet sourcelist on what is otherwise a somewhat esoteric and easily manipulated topic. I definitely think the work you've done, Tim, is well put together. I'm going to remove the tag, since the article seems to be better referenced now. Chieftain 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just used to multiple rounds of arguments about whether RV should be in the WIKI. All these sorts of things have been up for deletion several times over. My point has always been the government admits it spent millions of dollars on it, multiple biographies have emerged, clearly Stargate was a real project, run by real people, and such is covered under 'history.' I tried to focus what I wrote on the persons, background, rather than making claims for the accuracy of what was undertaken. If the article said RV was proved to be 80% accurate under Stargate, I would agree that would be grounds for dispute about the neutrality. Timharwoodx 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chieftain

It behooves anyone writing an earnest attempt to describe a purported paranormal phenomenon to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism. Regrettably, I see little of that here. Contrast the content and writing style of this article with other ones on wikipedia for, say, the Philadelphia Experiment or Mesoamerican crystalline skulls. - MF

I'm marking the "Key project personnel" section as NPOV, because of this passage: "Dean Radin, a well respected PSI researcher who has held positions at top universities (and who also holds a doctoral degree in this field of study) has confirmed both his participation in the project, and the positive results that were uncovered. You can read about this further in his recently released book Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. The meta-analysis of over 50 years of psi research have proved well beyond chance (and the best efforts by some to desperately seek out excuses to refute the results) that psi is a measured, studied, scientific phenomenon." It pitches Radin's book, and states -- without any justification -- that psi is "measured" and "scientific". 67.101.2.18 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed stupid heinous comment above. Sangwyn (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Sangwyn

"Reading the Enemy's Mind" is filed under GENERAL FICTION on the parent publisher's (MacMillan's) site[1]. Since when is it okay to cite science fiction as sources to explain real events? In short, why is this nonsense in Wikipedia? Jeremystalked _talk 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

because there is an actual study done by the US government and this was the study? Or do you not believe in FOIA and believe in whatever Wiseman or his children tell you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.108.135 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

EXTREME BIAS: The article as found in August, 2013 seems to have been rewritten by someone attempting to discredit metaphysics. Whether metaphysics exist is unimportant; what is important is the topic, like any other, needs to be presented in an objective manner. The second sentence under background cements this bias: "Despite the dubious origins of much data". This comes after the first sentence with is filled with 'weasel words': sketchy. poorly, mostly, rumor, innuendo. The last sentence in the Background uses "claimed". These present clear bias against the topic, and the bias continues from there. I recommend deletion of the entire topic due to NPOV. Sixit (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Category change

Categories were changed in accordance with the recent Arbitration decision on the paranormal, specifically Adequate framing and Cultural artifacts, though other sections may apply. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Are they all kosher under Wikipedia guidelines? We allow Youtube as a reliable source? And at least one of the references (22) is a dead link.Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Project and Paul H. Smith's personal correspondence with Kazuba

Why do you believe a book or a recorded interview tells you the truth? Just because it is in black and white? It is a question of probabilities, research and motive. The study of history is not a study of what really happened. It just doesn't work that way. It is the question of objectivity. Did Paul H. Smith have something to gain by giving me his side of the story? Should the outside testimony of one who has written an autobiographial account, Reading the Enemy's Mind : America's Psychic Espionage Program by Paul H. Smith, Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2005 and been interviewed many times about the the Star Gate Project have value? All the material is on my user discussion page for any one to see. And of course, you can check with Paul H. Smith yourself if you so desire. You see I really have a passionate curiosity. Sometimes getting a fuller picture requires getting answers to the questions maybe no one else has asked. (I seem to have a knack for that.) Is the desire to want to learn more wrong? Is this information give to me personally from Paul H. Smith invalid? It means nothing? What pleases you? Is there a right way and a wrong of collecting data? What are your boundaries? What are my boundaries? What are the boundaries for the Wikipedia and perhaps truth? The ancient "story" goes every document that passed through the gates of Alexandria was copied and preserved in its great library. Should Wikipedia do less? Kazuba (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter. See WP:Source The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Participant and Contributor Speaks Out

Under the umbrella banner of "Project Stargate" there were quite a number of experiments and tecniques that were processed for their "applicatioin effectiveness". The coined name of remote viewing is one of a number of protocols utilized under The Stargate Program.

Prior to Project Stargate, remote viewing and other related psychical research disiplines have existed for many decades. Under The Stargate Program, many of these disiplines were "brought together" to verify and identify those psychical disiplines that could be accepted under the scope of science... this was done, and is now accepted scientific fact. Though I profess, a small role in The Stargate Program, my participation, contrbution, and data is on record and speaks for itself. So, what are we talking about... The horse before the cart or the cart before the horse??? Aedwardmoch (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)A Edward Moch Aedwardmoch (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Early "Forgotton" Pioneer of Parapsychology

In the recent re-recognition of forgotton pioneer, Dr. Rufus Osgood Mason, many of his contributions, theories and publications also speak in volumes, pushing the concepts back to the mid-1800's where early disiplines of "The Astral Sciences" (ie:remote viewing, OOBE, astral projection, etc.). Dr. Mason's contributions would play a "Key" building block in the research and development of remote viewing and related psychical and medical disiplines. So lets get real "Wiki", I'm here to assist within the scope of my knowledge of this subject. Aedwardmoch (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)A Edward MochAedwardmoch (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly dubious

This is not a neutral article - it's largely written from the perspective of "true believers", with exclusion of majority-view criticism. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry- which majority would that be? CSICOP members? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the OP meant by majority, but the scientific consensus is that remote viewing as described by this article is not possible. I think that it would be a good idea for the article to more clearly represent the quite limited acceptance of the claims here. Bhimaji (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

In my professional opinion, you are going to find "True Believers" on all sides of an issue. In most cases both are wrong They tend to select, choose and/or dismiss most of the true core of the issue at hand. In my accepting and defending most of the legit portions of what we call remote viewing is one thing... but under the stargate program, I have some reservations on how "some" but not all of the various results were acheived. I have encounterd both ends of "True Believers". Of what we call remote viewing that was accepted by science, and what other parts or portions of what we call remote viewing was not. That other portion of what we call remote viewing is still accepted under the scope of parapsychology and psychical reserach. So, In my opinion I see no conflict, except in my critical POV toward those that wish to exploit, abuse, and distort the subject and issues from both sides.

Aedwardmoch (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus that RV is not possible. That, as with any other scientific consensus, would require a clear consensus per discussion in peer-reviewed journals etc., and I don't think we have that. What we can say is that it is not accepted by the scientific community outside parapsychology, and I think it is not fully accepted within parapsychology. We can also say that a government report and various skeptics said there wasn't evidence. The govt report, I think, had members of CSICOP on it. Anyway, as RV is Clairvoyance, and a large portion of people accept it, I don't see a sourcable majority. However, likely the article does need more discussion of critical opinions and sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What specifically would the journals have to discuss for you to consider them acceptable? RV requires a fusion of multiple non-accepted ideas. I've read many, many ideas for non-light based remote sensing - near and far IR, millimeter wave, X-Ray, etc. etc. I'm not a scientist in that field, but if I were a gambler, I'd wager you could demonstrate that there was a consensus that you can't detect the identity of a person on the other side of our planet (I say our planet because I'm explicitly ruling out a person that far away in space or an empty planet) using any sensing apparatus. I give that as one example; Will you find a lot of peer-reviewed journal articles that cover RV end to end? I doubt it. But the individual claims needed for RV to be possible should be pretty easy - once you define which sort of RV you are talking about, of course. Determining the contents of a box in front of you is quite different from determining the location of a named individual on the other side of the planet. Bhimaji (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a participant, I think the primary article is or should be "Stargate" and secondary on how well and/or poorly they were able to utilize the subject of remote viewing. There were as many as "14" labs researching on the subject (which also includes the SRI Lab), with as many similar and different results. To focus only on how Targ and Puthoff approached it, is a bias and possible distorted consesus. Though some labs broke through with convincing results, other labs were marginal and/or poor in their results. "Scientific repeatability" was done, which is why most aspects of remote viewing has been accepted under the scope of science. Going back to the lab experiments at SRI, there were somes flaws in some of the experiments... that's normal in trial and error? So don't base your conclusions on just SRI... they were not the only one's dealing with "RV" as we know it? When "The Stargate Documents" were released, they only released about 80% of the data to the public... the other 20% is still "classified". So, what of that 20% of The Stargate Program dealing with remote viewing are they still holding back... If "full disclosure" as of this date is still not available, then something of remote viewing must be legit and/or real?

Aedwardmoch (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps...or maybe the target they were using was itself secret and/or embarrassing. If they were trying to RV the location of the President's nuclear authorization codes because somebody misplaced them...they might like to keep that classified. Or, for example, they had intelligence information about a facility, or about where somebody was going to be and they were using RV to confirm it. They may not want to acknowledge what they knew or when they knew it.

That's always one of the challenges of dealing with military information. They keep so much stuff secret that it's hard to tell when there is something genuinely "interesting" or when something mundane happened next to something interesting. I think that's what happens with some of the UFO sightings - the sighting happened while they were, say, moving some nuclear materials around or some plane they didn't want to talk about or whatever else. Bhimaji (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Axi VanJoui

This name has replaced the individual, Remote Viewer, "Keith Harary" whose original name was "Stuart Blue Harary" in the main article. Is "Axi VanJoui" a new entry, or was this an edit error? Aedwardmoch (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Stuart Blue Harary changed his name to Keith Harary in 1982. http://www.answers.com/topic/keith-harary Kazuba (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published manual as reference

For reference 32. ^ Remote Viewing - Defense Intelligence Agency Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual (CRV Manual). This is a self-published web site with no third-party reliable sources to say that this had anything to do with the Defense Intelligence Agency. The only other references in that paragraph are books also by Paul H. Smith. AndroidCat (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A. Edward Moch

Aedwardmoch, you need to cite something as a source for this. I realize that you might have personal knowledge of A. Edward Moch that you're sure of, but how can anyone else verify what you know without some source or cite? Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of the key policies of Wikipedia, from which many other policies and guidelines extend. AndroidCat (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information

If you are going to write an article about Project Stargate, you must include everyone who has been involved in the Project. You have left out two very important players. These two individuals are Russel Targ and Dr. Harold Putoff. They where major players in Project Stargate and worked at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) as well. I would suggest you include them if you want the article to be complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donvizz7th (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theory

It seems fairly clear that this is a conspiracy theory blown far, far out of proportion, and is in desperate need of a clean-up per WP:FRINGE. It seems to be claiming "paranormal" events as scientific fact and has made no reference to any mainstream sources. The article requires a complete overhaul. I've added a POV tag, and request assistance in making this article more neutral and better characterising it as a fringe conspiracy theory. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would very much agree. I think a good start would be a thorough evaluation of the existing sources used. A lot of the claims made herein are stated as factual. I think we need to figure what's the verifiable truth, what's a fringe claim, and what's outright made up. The article should neutrally discuss the project, who started it, who participated, etc. Right now it's a pretty thinly veiled advocacy piece trying to make it seem it actually worked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

While the article could use a more critical tone your portrayal of this as a "fringe conspiracy theory" is hardly an objective view itself. This was a real government project with a verifiable budget and serious researchers were involved with it. What's in question is whether or not the project proved the phenomenon to standards of the scientific method- your label is usually reserved for questioning the very existence of something. Batvette (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this stuff is a bunch of BS. But the project did exist and it used real tax money. >:[ 70.120.93.186 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bad Link

This link, in the referances section, does not resolve to the suggested target. Remote Viewing - Defense Intelligence Agency Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual (CRV Manual) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous paragraph

I have removed this paragraph from the "The Stargate Project" section: "As with all intelligence information, intelligence gathered by remote viewing must be verified by other sources. Remote-viewing information could not stand alone. (According to Ray Hyman in the AIR report, if Ed May's conclusions are correct remote viewers were right 20% of the time and wrong 80% of the time.)" It has many problems.

Its first clause, "as with all... by other sources," is an unsourced truism that contributes nothing to the article. The second sentence is an unsourced truism that contributes nothing to the article. The parenthetical section about Ray Hyman is largely irrelevant: either the sourced information is true in which case it should be stated and sourced appropriately, or it is false in which case it does not belong in the article. Two of the sentences in this paragraph are useless to the article, and the third one needs an extensive rewrite. That is why I am trying to remove it. 76.118.23.91 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Subject "Stargate Project" must be revisited

Dear Wiki,

I am always pleased to find any information on any topic on your site, however, what your writer has here is completely biased and suggests that the work of many scientists and masters in this field was all for nothing, including their findings which were usually "dead on". I believe in later years of the project the well-trained remote viewers had left and were replaced by a few flaky individuals, but the entire program, from Grill Flame to Stargate should never be treated with such lack of respect and research as it has been here. It is possible for you to write an unbiased account without making the government vulnerable. In fact, the real information on the subject may be declassified by now, but at least make an attempt to help guide those who may look up the subject on your site.

Respectfully,

Curie Ose (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Goofy writing

I deleted this whole section:

In addition to his participation in remote viewing experiments, Price believed that aliens had established four underground bases on Earth. He offered reports on these locations to Harold E. Puthoff, formerly of SRI International, the principal scientific investigator for Project SCANATE.

For a time he worked alongside/in competition with Ingo Swann.

The reason I deleted is that "foreign national|aliens" and "covert|underground" seem like someone's playing a comedy routine here, not an article, and the "multiple1" reference leaves me to try to slog through six different sources trying to figure out what the hell they're snarkily referring to, if anything. Maybe there's something worth mentioning in this, but I'm not chasing after it. I also deleted the "alongside/in competition with" Ingo Swann because by listing both of them the section demonstrates "alongside", and I'm not sure if the / is supposed to mean "and" or "and/or", so there's no clear assertion they were competitors. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Methodology section removed

This section was removed because it was all sourced to a single fringe book - Paul Smith (2005). Reading the Enemy's Mind: Inside Star Gate: America's Psychic Espionage Program - this was undue weight and page numbers were not even given. If you can find reliable secondary sources for that content then feel free to re-create the section. Goblin Face (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He was a member of the program, which makes him not a fringe source at all about what the program did. Whether or not we think they worked, there is nothing at all implausible about these things described. Wnt (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You can use the book (it's already on the article for a claim) but not undue weight i.e. mass material sourced to it which cannot be verified by reliable secondary sources. Feel free to put the methodology section back in but only if it can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Goblin Face (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"In "Extended Remote Viewing" (ERV) the viewer attempted to enter a hypnagogic state by relaxation exercises on a bed in a soundproofed, windowless room, during which he was to aim to access a photo in a sealed envelope and describe the scene it depicted in real time." What other sources other than Paul's book can back this claim up? This definitely is a fringe claim and I can't find any other books that mention this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In about 30 seconds using Google I found [2]. But that's not really even the issue. The issue is that a source from inside Stargate talking about what Stargate did isn't "fringe". Sure, if we say psi works then we can balance various sources about that point based on their mainstream-ness, but as to how they did it, there should be no reason to exclude their own statements. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The full citation to that link is James Lee. (2008) Remote viewing as applied to futures studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75: 142-53. If you want to add this in then do. Regarding Paul's book I am not saying it can't be used at all but there are some fringe claims that he has made that needed to be verified by other reliable secondary sources. I would like to get some other thoughts on this from other users. Goblin Face (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see above, the Paul Smith book has already been discussed by User:Kazuba and User:Dougweller, perhaps they have some opinions on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Smith's book is published by Forge Books. As their blog says,[3] they publish "SF, Fantasy, Horror, Paranormal Romance, Mystery, Thriller & Suspense, and other speculative fiction". An interview with the publisher[4] states " Over time the portion of non-SF "mainstream" titles at Tor grew, to a point where, by 1993, they made up more than half the list. As a result a new imprint, Forge Books, was established in order to better market these titles." How can we use a book published by a publisher of SF, Fantasy, Horror, Paranormal Romance, Mystery, Thriller & Suspense, and other speculative fiction as a source? Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, with this new information I agree that Paul's book is not a reliable source. I will give Wnt a few days to try and find reliable references for the content he added, if not it should be removed. Goblin Face (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear: the way I hit on this source was that it came up when I searched for all the names that Targ listed on his talk page when I asked who was involved with the program. The person who wrote it actually knew who was there, or at least agrees with Targ about it. The usual emphasis of the publisher is of no particular interest to me; it is association fallacy. I gave a source backing up the methodology listed before; given that such a spot check was passed, I see no reason to disbelieve the rest. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I might as well bring this to a head right away: the Federation of American Scientists also used Paul's book as a major source for the data about all the various code names. Are you going to declare FAS pseudo-scientists also? Wnt (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)