Remote Viewing Part 3

For decades, the U.S. government told the public that UFOs didn’t exist, or at least that there was nothing unusual worth serious attention. That position wasn’t just passive silence. People who reported sightings often paid a price.

Pilots, both military and commercial, had strong reasons to keep quiet. Reporting something unexplained could trigger questions about judgment or mental fitness, things that could directly affect a pilot’s ability to fly. In some cases, careers were impacted. Even when they weren’t, the stigma was real.

It wasn’t just pilots. Police officers, radar operators, and other trained observers also reported sightings. Many of these individuals were used to dealing with real-world events under pressure, yet their reports were often dismissed or ridiculed. Instead of being treated as credible witnesses, they were frequently ignored.

This pattern goes back even further. During World War II, pilots on both sides reported mysterious glowing objects flying alongside their aircraft. These were called “foo fighters.” Each side assumed the objects were advanced weapons from the other. In reality, neither side claimed them. The phenomenon was observed, documented, and left unexplained.

Despite this long history, the public message remained the same: nothing significant was happening.

Then, years later, the narrative shifted. The United States Department of Defense acknowledged that unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) are real and warrant investigation. What had once been dismissed is now openly discussed.

That shift matters. It shows that official statements can change, not necessarily because the phenomenon changed, but because what was acknowledged changed.

So here’s the question: if the government was willing to downplay, dismiss, and in some cases discredit people over UFOs, why should we automatically accept its conclusions about the STARGATE program?

In the 1990s, the Central Intelligence Agency shut it down, stating that remote viewing didn’t produce useful intelligence. The explanation was straightforward: the results were vague, inconsistent, and not actionable. An outside group, the American Institutes for Research, supported that conclusion.

On paper, the case looks closed.

Remember, with UFOs, the issue wasn’t a lack of information or observation; it was how the people who reported sightings were handled. There was active dismissal, public ridicule, and pressure on witnesses. The disinformation campaign shaped how the subject was perceived for decades.

I feel it’s reasonable to ask whether the same dynamic could apply to Remote Viewing (STARGATE)

There’s also an important detail that often gets overlooked: not everything from the STARGATE program was released. Some participants have claimed that the most successful sessions were never declassified, and that the public only saw weaker or less convincing material. If that’s true, then the official conclusion may be based on incomplete information.

From a practical standpoint, that wouldn’t be surprising. Intelligence agencies don’t publicize capabilities that might be useful. If something worked, even occasionally, it would likely be treated as sensitive and kept under tighter control. There’s even a mindset within classified environments that suggests if something proves valuable, it doesn’t become more visible, it disappears into deeper secrecy.

There are also practical reasons for publicly ending a program while continuing related work elsewhere. It can reduce scrutiny, avoid controversy, protect methods, or simply allow the work to be reorganized under a different name. These kinds of transitions are not unusual in highly classified environments.

When you step back, the pattern feels familiar.

With UFOs, there was public denial, witness discrediting, and eventually partial disclosure. With STARGATE, there was public dismissal, claims of failure, and only a limited release of information.

That doesn’t prove the program continued. But it does raise a reasonable question.

In the end, you’re left with two possibilities. One is the official version: the program failed, it was shut down, and there’s nothing more to it. The other is that some results were accurate, the most compelling data remains classified, and the program may have continued in a different form.

The history of UFO secrecy has changed how many people view government statements. It showed that information can be withheld for decades, that narratives can be shaped, and that credible people can be dismissed to protect sensitive programs.

None of this proves that remote viewing worked.

But it does lead to a fair question:

If the government was willing to mislead the public about one controversial subject, while trained observers were ignored or ridiculed, why assume it's telling the truth about remote viewing programs?