History book
A balanced chronology for people who want the whole story: early psychical research, SRI, government program names, Gateway, CIA declassification, the AIR evaluation, critiques, and how GRV turns the lessons into practice records.
Timeline eras
9
Program names
6
Primary archives
CIA + SPR
Evidence stance
Disputed
Entry 1
1882
Psychical research foundation
The Society for Psychical Research gave telepathy, apparitions, mediumship, and anomalous cognition a formal research home before the phrase remote viewing existed.
The history starts before the CIA. Remote viewing inherits older questions about blind perception, evidence, fraud control, and witness testimony.
Entry 2
1960s-1970s
Laboratory and counterculture convergence
Interest in hypnosis, altered states, meditation, ESP, and anomalous cognition moved through universities, private labs, military funders, and popular culture.
A serious guide has to separate laboratory protocol from cultural excitement.
Entry 3
1972
SRI-era remote viewing begins
Official CIA public history describes agency-supported remote-viewing research beginning in the early 1970s, with SRI becoming the best-known early site.
Blind target handling, sensory shielding, and role separation became the core design questions.
Entry 4
1974
Nature publication
The 1974 Nature paper became a central historical reference for proponents and critics. Its value today is partly evidentiary and partly methodological: it shows the control problems later protocols had to address.
Every modern practice site should treat timestamped locks, cue control, target pools, and independent judging as product requirements.
Entry 5
Late 1970s-1980s
Program expansion
Program labels such as Grill Flame, Center Lane, Sun Streak, and Star Gate appear across the historical literature and declassified archive summaries.
The names are historically important, but they should not be used as proof language.
Entry 6
1983
Gateway archive record
The Gateway Process assessment is not the same as a remote-viewing scoring paper, but it matters because it connects altered-state training, Monroe-style audio practice, and government archive lore.
Gateway belongs beside remote viewing in the guide, but it needs a separate evidence category.
Entry 7
1995
AIR evaluation
The AIR/CIA evaluation remains the central balanced source: Jessica Utts read the lab statistics more favorably, Ray Hyman emphasized methodological and replication problems, and operational intelligence usefulness was not strong enough to continue.
GRV should present remote viewing as historically important, interesting to practice, and scientifically disputed.
Entry 8
2000s-2010s
Archive and meta-analysis era
CIA archive collections, free-response meta-analyses, critiques, and open-science discussions made the field easier to inspect and harder to summarize in slogans.
A modern site should make source quality visible and let users compare supportive and critical readings.
Entry 9
2020s
Public practice networks
The useful future is not secretive proof rhetoric. It is open target records, target IDs, delayed feedback, clear controls, transparent ledgers, and respectful debate.
GRV can be the place where history, practice, source literacy, and public scoring meet.
Stanford Research Institute, the early laboratory setting most associated with Targ, Puthoff, and the 1970s remote-viewing literature.
One of the historical program names appearing in summaries of U.S. government remote-viewing work.
A later program label in the remote-viewing lineage, often discussed alongside military intelligence involvement.
Another program-era name that appears before the Star Gate consolidation in public summaries.
The best-known public label for the consolidated remote-viewing program and CIA Reading Room collection.
A related altered-state/Gateway Process archive subject, not the same thing as a scored remote-viewing protocol.
The field has real archives, real publications, real participants, and some reported statistical results that have kept interest alive. It also has a practice culture that many users find personally meaningful.
The same history contains cue-leakage worries, small samples, judging flexibility, replication disputes, and weak operational usefulness. Those objections are not side notes; they are part of the public record.
