The “STARGATE Project”: The CIA Psychic Spies

“Our mission – that is, the mission for INSCOM Center Lane Program’s remote viewing project number 8404 – was to help find Buckley [William Francis Buckley, station chief for the CIA in Beirut Lebanon] before it was too late. The CIA officer was kidnapped on March 16, 1984. Our tasking arrived on March 20th. Over the next few weeks 12 remote viewing sessions were worked. The majority were performed by the two most experienced viewers in the unit at the time, Joe McMoneagle and Tom McNear. By the time Project 8404 was finished, a number of detailed remote viewing results of unknown accuracy were produced. Sadly, all this work was to no avail. Buckley was never rescued, and died in captivity on June 3 1985.”

Paul H. Smith

rv_lockerbiebomb

Project SUN STREAK — n°: 5269: Location of the ‘Lockerbie bomb’

The Stargate Project was the code name for a secret U.S. Army unit established in 1978 at Fort Meade, Maryland, by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and SRI International (a California contractor) to investigate the potential for psychic phenomena in military and domestic intelligence applications. Follow us on Twitter: @Intel_Today

The STARGATE PROJECT

The Project, and its precursors and sister projects, went by various code names — GONDOLA WISH, GRILL FLAME, CENTER LANE, SUN STREAK, SCANATE — until 1991 when they were consolidated and rechristened as “Stargate Project”.

Stargate Project work primarily involved remote viewing, the purported ability to psychically “see” events, sites, or information from a great distance. The project was overseen until 1987 by Lt. Frederick Holmes “Skip” Atwater, an aide and “psychic head-hunter” to Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, and later president of the Monroe Institute. The unit was small-scale, comprising about 15 to 20 individuals, and was run out of “an old, leaky wooden barracks”.

The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague, included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues. The program was featured in the 2004 book and 2009 film entitled The Men Who Stare at Goats, although never mentions it by name. [WIKIPEDIA]

REMOTE VIEWING

Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target, purportedly using extrasensory perception (ESP) or “sensing with mind”.

Remote Viewing experiments have historically been criticized for lack of proper controls and repeatability. There is no credible evidence that remote viewing exists, and the topic of remote viewing is generally regarded as pseudoscience.

RELATED POST: MK-ULTRA in Popular Culture

A Measure of Last Resort

Ingo Douglas Swann helped develop the process of remote viewing at the Stanford Research Institute in experiments that caught the attention of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Swann is commonly credited with proposing the idea of controlled remote viewing, a process in which viewers would view a location given nothing but its geographical coordinates, which was developed and tested by Puthoff and Targ with CIA funding.

According to Swann,

the CIA was not just simply interested in investigating this phenomenon. They were interested into the possibility of its use in the intelligence world.

In its heyday, this project has research laboratories and 14 units throughout the U.S. and at least 22 remote viewers who worked to provide intelligence.

The project is considered as a last resort in the American intelligence community and the “viewers” will only be assigned if all other efforts have been tried and failed.

Project SUN STREAK — n°: 5269 (Pan Am 103)

The mission of Project n° 5269 was to identify the location of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. This ‘Remote Viewing’ project concluded that the bomb was sitting on the floor of the luggage container.

Forensic work on the Lockerbie bomb location

There can be no doubt that “Remote Viewing” is pseudo science. But some ‘scientists’ have managed ‘forensic works’ that appear not much better.

The forensic work on the Pan Am 103 disaster appears to be a case in point.

RELATED POST: The French DST: Yves Bonnet & Lockerbie

RELATED POST: CIA Asset Dr Richard Fuisz : TEREX & Lockerbie

RELATED POST: Ambassador Andrew Ivy Killgore (1919-2016): Lockerbie Trial Was a Cover-Up

On the very first page of his forensic notes (December 27 1988), Dr Hayes concluded from the location of the “pitting” that the locus of the explosion was well above and on the “right side” of the outboard pallet frame. (He estimated the angle was about 45°.)

page1

Some time later, Dr Hayes concluded that the “Primary luggage” had been sitting directly on the floor of the container.

And the final report concluded that the “Primary Luggage” was actually on the second layer, as possibly indicated in the following picture.

suitcases

In the final analysis, the locus had moved to the “left side” of the same pallet frame and 25 cm above the floor level!

RELATED POST: Lockerbie: The Metamorphosis

dm141-p031

A Mystery

Perhaps, it should not be too surprising that the CIA requested help from the STARGATE team in order to locate Buckley. Indeed, while considering a rescue operation, the Agency even bought a blueprint of the sewage system belonging to a part of Beirut that does not have any…. (Would you like to participate in a rescue op based on this kind of ‘Intel’?) So indeed, in this case, STARGATE was a measure of last resort.

But why on earth would the CIA rely on ‘remote viewers’ to locate the position of the ‘Lockerbie bomb’?

1995 Stargate Psychic Spies (NightLine)

Remote Viewing brief history (narrated by Joe Mcmoneagle)

 

REFERENCES

Background to the CIA Star Gate files

Remote Viewing Information & Resources

When Remote Viewing Fails: The “Pat Paulsen” Case — Paul H. Smith

Buckley STARGATE Documents:

William Francis Buckley
Kidnapped from Beirut residence 16th March, 1984
INSCOM Center Lane Program’s remote viewing project number 8404
Project: Francis
Case Ref: 8404
Remote Viewers: Joe McMoneagle and Tom McNear

Tasking arrived 20th March, 1984 [4 days after kidnap].
First remote viewing session 9:30 am 21st March, 1984 at Centre Lane facility.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900540001-3.pdf

SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Interview Summary – HU-1069/8404/01 (U)
1. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) On 21 [0930] March 1984, source #01 was interviewed
by monitor #66 concerning the location of an individual identified as
William F. Buckley. The project 8404 sponsor had provided a
photograph of Buckley.Cover sheet dated 3rd July 1984 of remote viewing session 21st March 1984
Remote viewing session pages 2-16
Agent file report pages 12 & 13
Summary – hostage abducted by 3 or 4 assailants with force from vehicle outside residence. Vehicle was larger compact car but smaller than American type car. It had four doors and black colour. Hostage held not more than one mile from kidnap location. Government type buildings. 3 floors, hostage held in windowless room of one wing. Outside building had an arch and drive through entrance. Reddish colour with wrought iron gates etc etc etc
Sketch drawings provided.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900560001-1.pdf

SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Interview Summary – HU-1071/8404/63 (U)
1. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) On 28 [0940] March 1984, source #63 was
interviewed by monitor #66 in an attempt to verify the suspected
location of an individual identified as William F. Buckley. The
project 8404 sponsor had provided an overhead photograph of the suspect building,
a map of the area, and a photograph of Buckley.

Cover sheet dated 5th July 1984 of remote viewing session 28th March 1984
Remote viewing session pages 2-22
Agent file report page 23
Summary – hostage held in top right hand corner of tower like structure from photograph provided.
Sketch drawings provided.https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900570001-0.pdf

SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Interview Summary – HU-1072/8404/63 (U)
1. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) On 29 [0810 March 1984, source #63 was
interviewed by monitor #66 in an attempt to verify the suspected
location of an individual identified as William F. Buckley. The
project 8404 sponsor had provided an overhead photograph of the suspect building,

a map of the area, and a photograph of Buckley.

Cover sheet dated 6th July 1984 of remote viewing session 29th March 1984
Remote viewing session pages 2-26
Agent file report page 27
Summary – hostage likely in large atrium building with dark halls, official offices / classrooms, roads and trees outside. Hostage likely in Mosque from photograph provided.
Sketch drawings provided.Same day;
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900580001-9.pdf

SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Interview Summary – HU-1073/8404/01 (U)
1. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) On 29 [0930] March 1984, source #01 was
interviewed by monitor #66 in an attempt to verify the suspected
location of an individual identified as William F. Buckley. The
project 8404 sponsor had provided an overhead photograph of the suspected building,
a map of the area, and a photograph of Buckley.
Cover sheet dated 6th July 1984 of remote viewing session 29th March 1984
Remote viewing session pages 2-10
Agent file report page 11
Summary – hostage likely in cluster of buildings with step roofs and inner courtyards. Buildings were grey / tan in colour with rough stucco finish, possible training area. Hostage regularly given drugs in left arm to keep him “in a fog”.
Sketch drawings provided.https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900590001-8.pdf

SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Interview Summary – HU-1074/8404/63 (U)
1. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) On 15 [1507] April 1984, source #63 was
interviewed by monitor #66 in an attempt to verify a suspected
location of an individual identified as William F. Buckley. The
project 8404 sponsor suspected that Buckley might be in Baalbek, Lebanon.

The sponsor had provided a photograph of Buckley.

2. (S/CL-3/NOFORN)For this interview source was initially shown the photograph of Buckley and asked to describe his perceptions of Buckley’s location. After his initial impressions were objectified, source was directed describe sites surrounding what he perceived as Buckley’s location. No other identifying data was provided to source at the time of the interview. Source had, however, became aware Buckley was a kidnap victim. All other intelligence information was withheld from source for use as feedback and cuing during possible subsequent interviews. After the interview, resection map analysis was done by the monitor in an attempt to determine Buckley’s location.

Cover sheet dated 10th July 1984 of remote viewing session 15th April 1984
Remote viewing session pages 2-17
Agent file report page 18
Summary – Approx 21 miles north-northwest of hostage there are mountains. Approx 47 miles north-northeast there is an airfield and a lake.  Approx 35 miles south-southeast there is flat land with many white buildings, possibly a city.
Sketch drawings provided.
Agent notes: Using resection techniques, map analysis of Source’s information yields Baalbek as SUBJECT’s location.
This entry was posted in CIA, DIA, Lockerbie, STARGATE, Yves Bonnet and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s