Clairvoyance Evidence: What the Records Show—and Where They Stop
What can the surviving record still certify about laboratory clairvoyance evidence, and where does it stop before it can certify outcomes?
The materials in this packet preserve a narrow, citable trail: specific declassified documents, specific library records, and specific peer-reviewed framing.
- CIA FOIA Reading Room collection titled STARGATE
- Declassified overview: primary focus on anomalous phenomena
- Assessment caution: precognition hard to rule out in tests
- Duke Libraries: Parapsychology Laboratory began at Duke in 1930
- PLOS ONE: three preregistered exact replications described as unsuccessful
These points mark the stable edge of what this packet can certify without importing missing datasets, missing evaluations, or external commentary.
CIA FOIA Electronic Reading Room: the STARGATE collection landing page
A user reaches the CIA FOIA Electronic Reading Room and opens a collection page labeled STARGATE.
The page functions as an official container, not a single report. It presents a pathway into declassified material rather than a summarized conclusion.
The administrative act preserved here is public hosting: the CIA makes a named collection accessible through its Reading Room interface.
From this page, the record allows navigation to individual PDFs. Each PDF is a separate object, and the portal does not merge them into one finding.
Nothing on the landing page, by itself, certifies which experiments worked, which failed, or how performance was measured across time.
The only stable claim at this step is that the CIA provides a publicly accessible, declassified collection under this title.[1]
This portal can certify the existence of a bounded CIA archive container, but it does not certify outcomes. The next question is which specific documents inside it carry evaluative findings.
A declassified overview defines scope, not success
A CIA declassified PDF titled STAR GATE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW contains a scope statement in the program document’s own terms.
The overview states that its primary focus was on ‘anomalous phenomena’ including parapsychological and related biophysical interactions.
This wording stabilizes what the document says the program addressed, but it does not stabilize what any test demonstrated. The next unresolved step is to locate dated evaluations or final reviews that speak in outcome language.[2]
An internal assessment warns that alternative explanations stay in play
A declassified CIA assessment explicitly warns about a specific interpretive problem inside telepathy or clairvoyance-style experiments.
The assessment cautions that ruling out precognition as an alternative explanation can be difficult when experiments attempt to test telepathy or clairvoyance.
That caution does not certify that precognition is present, but it does certify a methodological constraint the assessment itself places on interpretation. The unresolved question becomes what controls and reporting were used in any particular protocol.[3]
A CIA document names ESP testing methods and validity as the topic
A declassified CIA document is titled Study of Some ESP Testing Methods and Their Validity, which makes methods and validity an explicit subject in the archive.
From the title alone, the record can certify that the document is framed around how ESP tests are done and how their validity is treated as a concern.
This packet does not include the underlying trial-by-trial datasets for specific protocols, so it cannot certify hit rates or effect sizes. The next question is which primary reports or tables the methods discussion points toward.[4]
Duke’s 1930 origin claim anchors an institutional starting point
Duke University Libraries’ exhibit states that the Parapsychology Laboratory began at Duke in 1930.
The same exhibit statement attributes the start to an invitation: William McDougall invited J. B. and Louisa Rhine to Durham.
This provides a dated institutional marker and named actors for the lab’s beginning, but it does not provide the lab’s full experimental record in this packet. The next unresolved step is to retrieve the original studies or archived lab materials that document protocols and full results.[5]
ESP/Zener cards survive as an artifact, not as a result summary
Duke University Libraries hosts an object record for ESP/Zener cards associated with historical ESP testing practices.
As an artifact record, it can certify that these cards exist in the archive and that they are tied to ESP testing practice as preserved by the library.
The object record does not, by itself, certify what any card-testing series found, because the packet does not include the associated trial logs or published result tables. The next unresolved question is which specific studies used this material and how they reported outcomes.[6]
A preregistered replication report draws a hard boundary around one claim type
A peer-reviewed PLOS ONE paper reports three preregistered independent attempts to exactly replicate an experiment described as retroactive facilitation of recall.
The paper characterizes these as unsuccessful replication attempts.
This certifies a documented replication constraint for that specific experimental claim category, but it does not certify a general conclusion about all remote viewing tests or all psychic predictions. The next unresolved question is how replication patterns look across other protocols not included here.[7]
An umbrella review maps a secondary literature range, while withholding its numbers here
An umbrella review hosted on Lund University Libraries’ journal platform states an aim narrower than it can appear on first read.
Its declared aim is to assess results of meta-analyses on anomalous cognition conducted between 1989 and 2021.
Because this packet does not validate the underlying meta-analyses and included studies, the article cannot safely import the umbrella review’s quantitative conclusions. The next unresolved step is to retrieve the cited meta-analyses and check their inclusion criteria and reporting limits.[8]
What the record can certify about clairvoyance evidence, and why it stops here
The surviving record in this packet can certify that a CIA FOIA Reading Room collection exists under the title STARGATE, and that specific declassified documents address scope and assessment language.
It can also certify that a CIA assessment warns about difficulty ruling out precognition as an alternative explanation in telepathy or clairvoyance testing contexts.
It can certify an institutional timeline marker at Duke in 1930 and the existence of an ESP/Zener card object record, plus a peer-reviewed preregistered replication report described as unsuccessful.
Certification stops at outcomes because the STARGATE portal is only a container, the packet lacks primary trial-by-trial datasets for specific protocols, and the umbrella review is secondary synthesis without its validated underlying studies here.
The open question from the beginning remains bounded: what specific dated evaluations, datasets, and protocol records exist inside these archives that would allow outcome claims without overreach.[1]
FAQs (Decoded)
Is the STARGATE collection itself evidence that clairvoyance was demonstrated?
No. In this packet, the collection can certify public access to declassified material under a named container, but not program outcomes. Source: CIA, FOIA Electronic Reading Room STARGATE collection.
What does the declassified overview actually lock down?
It locks down a scope statement: the document says the primary focus was on anomalous phenomena, including parapsychological and related biophysical interactions. Source: CIA, u003cemu003eSTAR GATE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEWu003c/emu003e.
Why does the assessment’s precognition caution matter for clairvoyance evidence?
Because it certifies a methodological constraint inside the record: telepathy or clairvoyance tests can be hard to interpret if precognition cannot be ruled out as an alternative explanation. Source: CIA, u003cemu003eAn Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioningu003c/emu003e.
Do the Duke materials prove successful ESP performance?
No. They certify an institutional origin claim for a lab and the existence of a testing artifact record, but this packet does not include full protocols or result tables. Source: Duke University Libraries, exhibit and object records.
What does the PLOS ONE replication paper certify, and what does it not?
It certifies that three preregistered independent exact replication attempts are reported and characterized as unsuccessful, but it does not certify a general conclusion about all psychic or anomalous cognition claims. Source: PLOS ONE, replication report.
Why can the umbrella review only be used for scope here?
Because this packet does not include the underlying meta-analyses and included studies needed to safely carry over quantitative conclusions beyond the review’s stated aim and date range. Source: Lund University Libraries journal platform, umbrella review.
For more documented institutional records and methodological case studies, explore the paranormal records archive, the psychic phenomena case files, the stargate remote viewing files, and the telepathy experiment records.
Sources Consulted
- CIA, FOIA Electronic Reading Room STARGATE collection landing page. cia.gov, accessed 2025-02-17
- CIA, STAR GATE PROJECT: AN OVERVIEW. cia.gov, accessed 2025-02-10
- CIA, An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning. cia.gov, accessed 2025-02-03
- CIA, Study of Some ESP Testing Methods and Their Validity. cia.gov, accessed 2025-01-27
- Duke University Libraries, exhibit record on early parapsychology at Duke. library.duke.edu, accessed 2025-01-20
- Duke University Libraries, object record for ESP/Zener cards. exhibits.library.duke.edu, accessed 2025-01-13
- PLOS ONE, replication report page. journals.plos.org, accessed 2025-01-06
- Lund University Libraries journal platform, umbrella review page. journals.lub.lu.se, accessed 2024-12-30
A Living Archive
This project is never complete. History is a fluid signal, often distorted by those who record it. We are constantly updating these files as new information is declassified or discovered.
