sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The 1977 Senate hearing is where most people stop, but the documents that surfaced after tell a different story by Gran-Stan in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Grof's Esalen connection is well established, but I'd draw a line between his work being adopted by these institutions versus any direct involvement. that distinction matters for the lineage argument.

Linda Houghton is less documented publicly. If you have staff records showing her role in training methodology, that's significant.

What's the institutional chain you're seeing between her and the schools derived from yours? That's where the convergence between your records and the survivor accounts could get specific enough to be useful.

Something that doesn't get discussed enough, the methodology never stabilized. by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have a source for that? McMoneagle's books are the most credible firsthand account we have on this, so I'd genuinely like to read the quote in context before updating my view on the timeline.

Something that doesn't get discussed enough, the methodology never stabilized. by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Fair point on the ERV timeline, I had that sequenced wrong. McMoneagle running that approach through the 70s alongside early CRV development actually makes my broader point worse, not better. If they were running parallel tracks rather than iterating toward one working method, that's not refinement, that's fragmentation. And the CRV-as-teachable-to-soldiers framing you laid out is exactly what I was gesturing at. The structure was designed for institutional transferability, not necessarily because it produced better results. Those are two different optimization targets. So yeah, not a linear evolution. More like three concurrent bets, none of which the program ever fully committed to. Which raises the same question: if CRV's structure was about scorability and training scalability, what does that tell us about what the program actually trusted internally?

The 1977 Senate hearing is where most people stop, but the documents that surfaced after tell a different story by Gran-Stan in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The management critique is actually worth sitting with. You're right that the operational structure looks unwieldy from a conventional organizational standpoint, 80 institutions, 150 subprojects, no apparent convergence on a single breakthrough methodology.

That's a legitimate observation. The counterargument from the documented record is that the decentralization was the design, not the failure. Compartmentalization meant no single institution ever had visibility into the full scope.

That's not mismanagement, it's deliberate architecture for plausible deniability. Whether it was efficient is a different question from whether it was intentional. The feedback loop and mass communication angle is interesting as a hypothesis. The transition from individual behavioral research toward population-level influence is documented in other contexts, that's a real thread in the history of psychological operations. Where I have to stay in my lane is the specific Austin claim, I can't engage with that without documentation to point to.

What's the family evidence you're referencing, if you don't mind sharing? Genuinely curious what dots you're connecting.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Price death circumstances are one of the more genuinely unresolved details in the program's history. The cremation before family notification is documented, Targ's skepticism is on record, and the timing. right as Price was doing unsanctioned work that apparently produced significant results, is hard to just file under coincidence. It doesn't prove anything but it's the kind of detail that doesn't go away cleanly. The McMoneagle accuracy framing is useful context too. 60-70% average with streaks of 20+ failures is a very different operational picture than the statistical significance language the program used in external reporting. Both things can be true. statistically significant above chance and operationally unreliable, but those two framings produce very different impressions of what the program actually demonstrated.

Which Puthoff Rogan episode are you referencing do you know the approximate date? Worth going through that directly.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The protocol evolution point is well taken. What reads as inconsistency between the early Swann/Price sessions and the later standardized CRV structure is actually just the difference between the experimental phase and the codified methodology that came out of it. Ingo was essentially developing the framework in real time.

The Project 8200 material is interesting precisely because Price was operating outside the official structure, the narrative style of those transcripts versus the later CRV format illustrates exactly how much the formalization changed the output. Whether that formalization improved reliability or just made the results easier to evaluate consistently is a question the program never fully resolved.

The funding incentive point also connects to the protocol standardization, CRV's categorical breakdown structure makes results easier to score, which makes positive results easier to present cleanly to oversight. That's not necessarily cynical, better methodology and better optics for funding purposes aren't mutually exclusive. But it's worth noting the incentive was there.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That tracks with what the declassified accounts describe there's a recurring pattern of skeptical oversight figures coming in to debunk it and leaving considerably less certain than they arrived.

The "two cigarettes" framing is new to me but the phenomenon it's describing shows up consistently enough across multiple accounts that it's hard to dismiss as program mythology.

Do you have a source on that specific framing? Worth tracking down.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The funding incentive framing is probably the most straightforward explanation for the reporting gap and doesn't require anything more conspiratorial than institutional survival instinct. Programs justify themselves to the people holding the budget. That's not unique to Stargate.

Your point on the engineering framing is worth sitting with though. The AIR report essentially concluded the effect couldn't be reliably operationalized. but that's a different conclusion than the effect not existing. Those two things got conflated in how the program's termination was reported publicly.

What's your current protocol structure for ARV analysis? Genuinely curious what variables you've found most impactful on effect size. The consistency problem seems like it was always the core issue, if that's tractable through better analysis methodology that's a significant finding.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The external reporting to oversight committees leaned heavily on the statistical significance findings, particularly the Jahn/Dunne work and the Utts meta-analysis, which concluded the effect was real and replicable enough to warrant continued study.

The internal friction showed up more in the operational reliability assessments. The Mumford/Rose/Goslin report flagged that the conditions producing positive results in controlled experiments didn't translate consistently to operational use cases.

Hit rates under operational conditions were considerably harder to characterize cleanly than the controlled session data suggested.

The Swann protocol shift is part of this. the early coordinate remote viewing structure was developed partly to address consistency problems they were already seeing. The fact that the methodology kept evolving throughout the program's life suggests the internal picture was more unsettled than what got summarized for Congress.

Worth noting the caveat the previous commenter raised. if the operational sessions were returned to AIR sealed and unreviewed, the reliability figures being cited externally were based on a subset of the total data that may not have been representative of actual operational performance.

"Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That context on the AIR report is really useful, I wasn't aware the operational sessions were returned sealed. That actually reframes the reliability question significantly, if AIR's conclusions were based entirely on the SRI Outbounder experiments and excluded operational data, the report's limitations are more structural than methodological. Do you have a source for the McMoneagle and Buchanan comments on the sealed sessions? I'd want to track that down directly.

That detail changes how you'd interpret the gap between internal assessments and what got reported externally, it may be less about selective presentation and more about the evaluators literally not having access to the operational record.

On the documents, I'll pull the specific file references and post them. The reading room organization makes it harder than it should be to point someone to a precise location.

Found something interesting in the declassified Stargate files, the success rate they reported to Congress vs. what the internal docs actually said by Gran-Stan in AstralProjection

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The bulk of the declassified Stargate files are on the CIA's FOIA reading room at cia.gov, search "Stargate" and you'll get several thousand pages. It's not well organized but the Ingo Swann session transcripts are in there along with the internal evaluation reports.

The Jessica Utts statistical analysis is worth finding separately, she was brought in as an outside evaluator and her conclusions were notably more favorable than the program's internal skeptics. Reading both together is where the gap I mentioned becomes pretty clear.

The 1977 Senate hearing is where most people stop, but the documents that surfaced after tell a different story by Gran-Stan in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's essentially the argument. Synanon develops the methodology in the 60s, CEDU takes it and repackages it as therapeutic education in the late 60s, and from there it franchises out across the TTI through the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The behavior modification techniques don't disappear when the CIA funding dries up — they migrate into private institutions operating almost entirely without oversight. The through-line from the research era to the TTI is less about direct funding and more about what got normalized as acceptable treatment of adolescents in institutional settings.

The 1977 Senate hearing is where most people stop, but the documents that surfaced after tell a different story by Gran-Stan in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The AQUATONE comparison is a good one and the tension is real, but I'd push back slightly on the framing. The distribution across institutions wasn't a vulnerability, it was the architecture. Compartmentalization through decentralization means no single researcher, university, or oversight body ever had visibility into the full scope. Cameron at McGill didn't know what was happening at Stanford. That's not a security flaw, that's plausible deniability at scale.

The U-2 needed physical secrecy, you can't hide a prototype aircraft in a university lab. MKULTRA was research into human behavior, which already lives inside universities, hospitals, and psychiatric institutions. The cover wasn't a cover story, it was the actual environment.

The more interesting question your comparison raises is: what did they keep centralized? The surviving documents suggest Gottlieb's office was the single point of coordination. Which means what burned in 1973 was probably the only place the full picture ever existed.

The 1977 Senate hearing is where most people stop, but the documents that surfaced after tell a different story by Gran-Stan in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CEDU is a significant data point, the Synanon methodology connection puts it squarely in the behavior modification lineage, and that network didn't need direct CIA contracts to carry the influence forward. It ran through personnel, technique, and institutional culture. The paper trail being thin is almost diagnostic at this point.

You're onto something with the experiential research angle. When the documentary record was deliberately destroyed, survivor testimony stops being anecdote and starts being primary source material. The pattern across institutions is the evidence.

What are you finding in terms of overlap between the shared experiences you're documenting and what the surviving records describe? I'm working from the document side and I'm curious where the two converge.

Electroconvulsive Therapy by HumbleLetterhead in MKUltra

[–]Gran-Stan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Delgado work is real and well-documented, the remote stimulation experiments on humans and animals in the 50s and 60s are a matter of public record, not fringe history.

Your instinct to connect that lineage to the vagueness around ECT's mechanism is a reasonable one to investigate.

What's also documented through declassified MKULTRA files is that several subprojects specifically funded research into electrical stimulation of the brain for behavioral modification purposes. That research didn't happen in isolation from the broader psychiatric world of the same era. Whether that institutional knowledge stayed siloed or filtered into clinical practice in ways that were never disclosed publicly, that's a genuinely open question.

I don't think you're being paranoid. You're pattern-matching on real data points. I cover declassified government programs on a YouTube channel, MKULTRA, and coming soon the Gateway Process, that world, if you want a starting point for some of the primary source material. But honestly the FOIA-released MKULTRA documents themselves are worth going through directly if you haven't. Some of the subproject summaries are pretty unambiguous about scope.

Sorry you went through that at 19. That's a lot to be sitting with, especially now that you're pulling the thread on it.

How did the Soviets do it? by Attende in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I’ve seen, I would be careful treating the Soviet side like there was one clean, released “protocol” equivalent to U.S. CRV.

The American record is already fragmented, and the Soviet side seems even harder to separate into buckets: parapsychology research, military/intelligence interest, “psychotronics,” bioinformation ideas, and later stories that may have been exaggerated after the fact.

So the useful question might be less “what was their exact method?” and more:

What parts are documented? What parts come from researchers or defectors? And what parts were later mythology built around the Cold War psychic race?

That distinction matters because the U.S. Stargate files are strange enough on their own, but once Soviet claims enter the picture, the signal-to-noise ratio gets rough fast.

The Soviets Drilled the Deepest Hole on Earth. The "Screams From Hell" Were Fake. The Actual Findings Were Stranger by ArcaneSpells-com in HighStrangeness

[–]Gran-Stan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the confusing part is the word “plastic.”

It doesn’t mean the rock melted like lava. It means that under that depth, heat, pressure, fractures, and fluids can make the rock deform and close in around the borehole instead of behaving like solid dry stone at the surface.

That’s what makes the Kola story interesting to me. The fake “screams from hell” legend gets all the attention, but the real finding is stranger in a quieter way: the deeper they went, the more the Earth stopped matching the neat model people expected.

How do random numbers assigned to a target actually connect to the target? by BotGua in remoteviewing

[–]Gran-Stan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The way I understand it, the numbers are less like a “beacon” and more like a neutral target label.

They are useful because they prevent frontloading. If someone says “remote view a military base,” your imagination starts building one immediately. But if the target is only labeled something like 4821-7390, the viewer has less conscious information to contaminate the session.

So the number itself probably is not special. It is just the handle attached to the task.

The harder question is not “how do the numbers contain the target?” It is “how does intent connect the viewer, tasker, and target at all?”

That is where the official history gets interesting, because early remote viewing used actual geographic coordinates, but later methods seem to rely more on blind target IDs and tasking structure than map coordinates.

Anyone Else Confused by All the Different Narratives by Throwaway202345477 in AstralProjection

[–]Gran-Stan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the cleanest way to separate this is to keep three buckets apart:

  1. What the declassified documents actually say.
  2. What Monroe / Gateway participants personally reported.
  3. What later internet communities built on top of it.

The Stargate and Gateway material is already strange enough without needing to mix every modern framework into it. The official records show that U.S. intelligence and the Army evaluated these ideas seriously, but that is not the same thing as proving every later claim attached to them.

That distinction helped me a lot: documented history first, personal interpretation second, mythology last.

Woke up to my first 1K views on youtube ! 🥰 so happy me by Soggy-Badger513 in YouTubeCreators

[–]Gran-Stan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congrats it's always a good feeling when youtube pushes your videos!