disinfozone/The_Info_Web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2026-10-05 15:03:22

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
disinfo.zone 2026-10-05 15:03:22 -04:00
parent 0dfba89cf6
commit 58557056f7
No known key found for this signature in database
54 changed files with 1141 additions and 436 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
10 - PEOPLE/(H-M)/Edwin May.md
View file

@ -36,11 +36,11 @@ In 1991, SRI withdrew from the remote viewing research contract. May negotiated
When the CIA, which had taken custody of the program from the DIA in 1995 at the direction of Congress, contracted the American Institutes for Research in June 1995 to evaluate it ([[1995 AIR evaluation of Star Gate]]), May, as principal investigator, was asked "to list those studies which he believes provide the strongest evidence" and every unique study since the 1988 [[National Research Council]] report. His memorandum of July 25, 1995, listed ten SAIC experiments, among them "Entropy II" (90 trials, effect size 0.550, p = 9.1 × 10^-8), "ERD AC Behavior" (70 trials, 0.303), "Remote observation" (48 trials, 0.361), and "AC with binary coding" (40 trials, −0.067). [[Jessica Utts]] took them, with the 1988 analysis of the SRI database, as establishing that "psychic functioning has been well established"; [[Ray Hyman]] agreed the effects were "too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes" but held that ten experiments from one laboratory could not establish a phenomenon. May told the panel that "approximately 20 percent of the information supplied by a viewer is accurate," and AIR noted that throughout the experiments "only one judge, apparently the Principal Investigator, was used in assessing matches." The report of September 29, 1995, recommended against continuing the operational program. May's commentary in the *Journal of Parapsychology* the next year described the review as the result of "a Congressionally Directed Activity" and gave the report's public release as November 28, 1995.[^1]
The CIA's chronology of the transfer records for February 28, 1995: "CIA met with DIA principal investigator at SAIC, Dr. Ed May. All-day technical exchange." An ORD memorandum for the record of April 20, 1995, its author redacted, states that "Ed May of SAIC called this morning and volunteered to send me unsolicited information he had obtained from a 'remote viewer' named 'Joe' relating to the [[Oklahoma City bombing|Oklahoma City Bombing]]," that ORD had no means of "tasking or disseminating this type of information," that May asked for a law-enforcement contact and, told to send it to his former contracting officer's representative at DIA, "said they didn't get along"; given an FBI number that evening, "he asked if this would be a 'cold call' because he didn't want to sound like a 'lunatic,'" and "agreed reluctantly" to call. The Director of Research and Development's covering memorandum to the [[Counterterrorist Center]] the same day: "We attach no credibility to this information, and currently have no way to evaluate it. We have asked Dr. Ed May of SAIC to forward this information to you directly. Please direct any questions regarding how the information was acquired to Dr. May. He has been the primary contract investigator in this area, and we have not completed our evaluation of his past efforts."[^900]
The CIA's chronology of the transfer records for February 28, 1995: "CIA met with DIA principal investigator at SAIC, Dr. Ed May. All-day technical exchange." An ORD memorandum for the record of April 20, 1995, its author redacted, states that "Ed May of SAIC called this morning and volunteered to send me unsolicited information he had obtained from a 'remote viewer' named 'Joe' relating to the [[Oklahoma City bombing|Oklahoma City Bombing]]," that ORD had no means of "tasking or disseminating this type of information," that May asked for a law-enforcement contact and, told to send it to his former contracting officer's representative at DIA, "said they didn't get along"; given an FBI number that evening, "he asked if this would be a 'cold call' because he didn't want to sound like a 'lunatic,'" and "agreed reluctantly" to call. The Director of Research and Development's covering memorandum to the [[Counterterrorist Center]] the same day: "We attach no credibility to this information, and currently have no way to evaluate it. We have asked Dr. Ed May of SAIC to forward this information to you directly. Please direct any questions regarding how the information was acquired to Dr. May. He has been the primary contract investigator in this area, and we have not completed our evaluation of his past efforts."[^2]
### The 1996 Commentary
May "was asked by the CIA to provide administrative support, technical documents, and briefings on an as-needed basis for the review," under a small contract to SAIC, from which he resigned on November 28, 1995, the day the report was released. His commentary in the *Journal of Parapsychology* argued that "there is compelling evidence that the CIA set the outcome with regard to intelligence usage before the evaluation had begun," by "limiting the research and operations data sets to exclude positive findings, by purposefully not interviewing historically significant participants, by ignoring previous extensive Department of Defense program reviews, and by using the questionable National Research Council's investigation of parapsychology as the starting point." He noted that AIR's president, [[David Goslin]], had also overseen the NRC's 1988 report; that of the seventeen members of the SRI and SAIC oversight committees and review board "only one was contacted by the CIA"; that his memorandum of June 6, 1995, "the existence of anomalous mental phenomena cannot be statistically determined from the results of a single laboratory," was "ignored by fiat"; and that a Senate staff member told him the CIA's briefing to Congress gave eight bullet points to Hyman's conclusions and four to Utts's. He quoted Jessica Utts's letter of December 19, 1995: "I was explicitly asked by AIR staff NOT to mention the NRC report in my review!" and "we were shown very little of the 'operational' remote-viewing work"; and [[Robert Rosenthal]] on the NRC's 1988 request that he omit his ganzfeld section, "censorship did not occur." He quoted [[Joe McMoneagle]]'s 1984 Legion of Merit citation, "more than 200 missions, addressing over 150 essential elements of information," reported "at the highest echelons," and traced a line from ARPA's George Lawrence and Hyman being refused access at SRI in 1974, through Lawrence's commissioning of the NRC study in 1985, to Goslin's AIR review. Of the program's last years: a 1993 attempt to move it to the CIA "found no willing recipient," the last DIA officer "had little knowledge of the program," and "the program was in shambles." "I am forced to conclude that either the AIR investigators were not competent to conduct a proper review of such a complex program, a view to which I do not subscribe, or they knew exactly what they were doing: They wanted to demonstrate that AC lacked usefulness for intelligence operations. They did so by construction rather than by careful analysis." On *Nightline* that November he said: "I think about 15% of our data, over 1500 separate remote viewing trials, are of such a quality that you might think they were sketched," and, after [[Robert Gates]] said the work was "better done on the outside": "I couldn't agree with Director Gates more."[^2]
May "was asked by the CIA to provide administrative support, technical documents, and briefings on an as-needed basis for the review," under a small contract to SAIC, from which he resigned on November 28, 1995, the day the report was released. His commentary in the *Journal of Parapsychology* argued that "there is compelling evidence that the CIA set the outcome with regard to intelligence usage before the evaluation had begun," by "limiting the research and operations data sets to exclude positive findings, by purposefully not interviewing historically significant participants, by ignoring previous extensive Department of Defense program reviews, and by using the questionable National Research Council's investigation of parapsychology as the starting point." He noted that AIR's president, [[David Goslin]], had also overseen the NRC's 1988 report; that of the seventeen members of the SRI and SAIC oversight committees and review board "only one was contacted by the CIA"; that his memorandum of June 6, 1995, "the existence of anomalous mental phenomena cannot be statistically determined from the results of a single laboratory," was "ignored by fiat"; and that a Senate staff member told him the CIA's briefing to Congress gave eight bullet points to Hyman's conclusions and four to Utts's. He quoted Jessica Utts's letter of December 19, 1995: "I was explicitly asked by AIR staff NOT to mention the NRC report in my review!" and "we were shown very little of the 'operational' remote-viewing work"; and [[Robert Rosenthal]] on the NRC's 1988 request that he omit his ganzfeld section, "censorship did not occur." He quoted [[Joe McMoneagle]]'s 1984 Legion of Merit citation, "more than 200 missions, addressing over 150 essential elements of information," reported "at the highest echelons," and traced a line from ARPA's George Lawrence and Hyman being refused access at SRI in 1974, through Lawrence's commissioning of the NRC study in 1985, to Goslin's AIR review. Of the program's last years: a 1993 attempt to move it to the CIA "found no willing recipient," the last DIA officer "had little knowledge of the program," and "the program was in shambles." "I am forced to conclude that either the AIR investigators were not competent to conduct a proper review of such a complex program, a view to which I do not subscribe, or they knew exactly what they were doing: They wanted to demonstrate that AC lacked usefulness for intelligence operations. They did so by construction rather than by careful analysis." On *Nightline* that November he said: "I think about 15% of our data, over 1500 separate remote viewing trials, are of such a quality that you might think they were sketched," and, after [[Robert Gates]] said the work was "better done on the outside": "I couldn't agree with Director Gates more."[^3]
### Post-STARGATE Research
@ -51,5 +51,5 @@ May continued to serve as a consultant on anomalous cognition research for acade
### Footnotes
[^1]: Mumford, Michael D., Andrew M. Rose, and David A. Goslin. *An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications.* American Institutes for Research, September 29, 1995, pp. 2-3, 3-18, 3-67, 5-2. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB438/docs/doc_57.pdf May, Edwin C. "The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STAR GATE Program: A Commentary," *Journal of Parapsychology,* vol. 60, no. 1, 1996, pp. 3-23, abstract only.
[^2]: May, Edwin C. "The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STAR GATE Program: A Commentary," *Journal of Parapsychology,* vol. 60, no. 1, March 1996, pp. 3-23. The letter of December 19, 1995, is printed at pp. 15-17 as Utts's reply to May's e-mail of December 17, checked against the page images. "Psychic Spies: Cold War Whimsy or Secret Weapon?," ABC News *Nightline,* November 28, 1995, Radio TV Reports transcript for the CIA Public Affairs Staff, CIA-RDP99-01448R000402140001-7, read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room.
[^900]: "Star Gate Transfer Chronology: 1995," memorandum for the record, undated, CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190017-9. Read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room STARGATE collection. Memorandum for the record and memorandum for CTC from the Director, Research and Development, "Star Gate Program Issues," April 20, 1995, CIA-RDP96-00791R000100030036-6. Read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room STARGATE collection.
[^2]: "Star Gate Transfer Chronology: 1995," memorandum for the record, undated, CIA-RDP96-00791R000200190017-9. Read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room STARGATE collection. Memorandum for the record and memorandum for CTC from the Director, Research and Development, "Star Gate Program Issues," April 20, 1995, CIA-RDP96-00791R000100030036-6. Read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room STARGATE collection.
[^3]: May, Edwin C. "The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STAR GATE Program: A Commentary," *Journal of Parapsychology,* vol. 60, no. 1, March 1996, pp. 3-23. The letter of December 19, 1995, is printed at pp. 15-17 as Utts's reply to May's e-mail of December 17, checked against the page images. "Psychic Spies: Cold War Whimsy or Secret Weapon?," ABC News *Nightline,* November 28, 1995, Radio TV Reports transcript for the CIA Public Affairs Staff, CIA-RDP99-01448R000402140001-7, read in the archive.org mirror of the CIA FOIA Reading Room.