[jolincost]

Unequivocally yes.

You can try it yourself, there's subreddits for it where you can learn much more.

For CIA documentation, search FOIA reading room for "PROJECT CENTER LANE"

Here's a quote from a special access program briefing transcript[1]:

Over 85% of our operational missions have produced accurate target information. Even more significant, approximately 50% of the 700 missions produced usable intelligence.

Note that 50% is not "no better than chance" because the data produced are not binary selections, but things that other intelligence sources give, such as structure layouts, facility purposes, machine blueprints, site and personnel locations.

The FOIA documentation is overwhelming in its confirmation of this as an intelligence sensor on par with other sources, which leads me to believe that the AIR report (which you can also search for online) was partially disinfo designed to soften the blow of releasing that this is possible, and I'm quite sure that government and corporate use of psi continues to this day. Perhaps the FOIA release was also part of a limited hangout designed to yield some control over the narrative and provide a pretext for dismissal to protect ongoing classified programs.

Here's a MS Strategic Intelligence thesis from the Defense Intelligence College that gives a good overview:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R0026002...

[1]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0017003...

[bill_mon]

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. Wikipedia also tells me that "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 and 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."

I'm not really qualified to read through CIA papers. People who are seem to not agree with you.

If remote viewing works, wouldn't all major companies have departments full of viewers spying on competitors?

I'll note that the James Randi prize has not been won.

[jolincost]

So...there's conflicting reports? What are you going to do? I guess you'll have to think and decide for yourself. That's not too much to ask is it?

[bill_mon]

There are conflicting reports about every little thing.

I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing.

Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.

If remote viewing was possible, why are we not seeing the results?

That's me thinking, like you asked for. On the other hand, I don't see any actual evidence from you. Do you have any?

[jolincost]

It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?

[bill_mon]

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is?

Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

[jolincost]

I've already found out. If you haven't, I guess you'll need to do more. Seems there's more opinions on RV than arithmetic.