Historical Case Studies of U.S. Government Disinformation: Remote Viewing and Project Star Gate (1970s–1995)
The Disinformation Series
Star Gate was first proposed by physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the early 1970s as a classified initiative investigating extrasensory perception (ESP), specifically Remote Viewing, for intelligence purposes. Remote Viewing involves individuals attempting to perceive and describe geographically distant or otherwise concealed targets without relying on conventional sensory input.60 Early experiments, documented in declassified CIA files, entailed remote viewers accurately describing remote targets under controlled conditions, prompting government interest in further exploration of the phenomenon.61
The program was funded initially by the CIA and later transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Over two decades, Star Gate attracted millions of dollars in government funding and intermittent operational use in Cold War intelligence activities, suggesting a sustained, cautious institutional interest in non-conventional means of information gathering. However, the Pentagon has denied early reports of the deployment of Remote Viewing.62
Despite successes, including instances where Remote Viewers reportedly provided actionable intelligence on Soviet military installations and located missing aircraft, Project Star Gate was characterized by internal controversy and external skepticism.63 In 1995, amid broader post-Cold War reassessments of classified programs, the CIA commissioned an external review by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to evaluate the project’s efficacy. The review, conducted by Jessica Utts and Ray Hyman, produced divided conclusions: Utts concluded that statistical evidence supported the viability of Remote Viewing, while Hyman found the operational utility insufficient.64 The government’s public narrative emphasized the negative findings, framing Remote Viewing as unreliable and unworthy of continued investment.
The termination of Project Star Gate followed a familiar pattern observed in earlier classified research programs: selective disclosure of unfavorable results, minimization of successes, and the stigmatization of unconventional lines of inquiry. In this respect, Star Gate’s closure and public framing operated as a deliberate disinformation strategy to delegitimize research that posed challenges to established scientific and institutional paradigms. The selective presentation of evidence ensured that Remote Viewing would be dismissed as pseudoscience in public discourse, discouraging independent scientific inquiry into the broader questions about human consciousness and non-local perception.
The suppression of Project Star Gate, particularly Remote Viewing, parallels the critical treatment of UAP and NHI-related research. Both fields explore phenomena that, if validated, would require substantial revisions to existing scientific frameworks and threaten entrenched models of knowledge and power. In both cases, government agencies invested significant resources to repudiate the research when exposure became unavoidable publicly. Moreover, the themes of perception, cognition, and consciousness central to Remote Viewing investigations reemerge in theories regarding UAP phenomena, particularly those suggesting psychical interactions with observers or anomalous cognitive effects reported by witnesses.
60 Puthoff, Harld E. and Targ, Russell. “Perceptual Augmentation Techniques: Part I.” Stanford Research Institute, October 1, 1973.
61 Puthoff, Harld E. and Targ, Russell. “Perceptual Augmentation Techniques: Part II.” Stanford Research Institute, December 1, 1975.
62 Broad, William J. “Pentagon is Said to Focus on ESP for Wartime Use.” The New York Times, January 10, 1984.
63 Booth, William. “Up Close & Personal With a Remote Viewer.” The Washington Post, December 4, 1995.
64 Mumford, PhD., Michael D., Andrew M. Rose, PhD, and David Golsin, PhD. “An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications.” American Institutes for Research. Washington, D.C. September 29, 1995.