As regards the Stanford Research Institute, I found that some information that was declassified in the 1990's under the Freedom of Information Act. The results of the research and the CIA's involvement in the project are now in the public domain. I copied some information below with a link.
The SRI obtained demonstrable results even with CIA agents. Pat Price was a Scientologist who did early research with the SRI and died in similar circumstances as those in which Quentin died. A cause of death was never determined, but that's not the point of this thread. Ingo Swann was also associated with Scientology. Pat Price and Ingo Swann had much natural ability that was later developed in various ways.
I'm a little disappointed that nobody took any shots at Thelma Moss's research at UCLA. She got some great results that could be replicated. Some of these are covered in her book, "The Probability of the Impossible."
A good IQ test does not rely entirely on language or acquired education. Mensa's battery of tests for IQ includes components of symbolic logic requiring no language and a verbal component that is not read. Some of the ex-Scientologists and Scientologists might want to invest a few bucks to do the Mensa testing to see how accomplished they in fact are in handling basic intelligence. But Mensa only tests for the 98 percentile and some of the finer requirements are for the 99 and 99.5 percentile. I'd like to see the results of the 99.5 percentile of problem solvers among Scientologists.
One of the good things about the high IQ groups is that whether I agree with the views of members, I know that I'm talking to someone who has achieved some basic problem solving and intelligence. On a forum like this one knows only that the members have at least a casual acquaintance with Scientology, but that means nothing in terms of real abilities.
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html
During the eight-month pilot study of remote viewing the effort gradually evolved from the remote viewing of symbols and objects in envelopes and boxes, to the remote viewing of local target sites in the San Francisco Bay area, demarked by outbound experimenters sent to the site under strict protocols devised to prevent artifactual results. Later judging of the results were similarly handled by double-blind protocols designed to foil artifactual matching. Since these results have been presented in detail elsewhere, both in the scientific literature [6-8] and in popular book format [9], I direct the interested reader to these sources. To summarize, over the years the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories [10-14], has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise, such as the talented Hella Hammid. As a separate issue, however, most convincing to our early program monitors were the results now to be described, generated under their own control.
First, during the collection of data for a formal remote viewing series targeting indoor laboratory apparatus and outdoor locations (a series eventually published in toto in the Proc. IEEE [7]), the CIA contract monitors, ever watchful for possible chicanery, participated as remote viewers themselves in order to critique the protocols. In this role three separate viewers, designated visitors V1 - V3 in the IEEE paper, contributed seven of the 55 viewings, several of striking quality. Reference to the IEEE paper for a comparison of descriptions/drawings to pictures of the associated targets, generated by the contract monitors in their own viewings, leaves little doubt as to why the contract monitors came to the conclusion that there was something to remote viewing (see, for example, Figure 1 herein). As summarized in the Executive Summary of the now-released Final Report [2] of the second year of the program, "The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions (that is, generated target descriptions of sufficiently high quality to permit blind matching of descriptions to targets by independent judges)." What happened next, however, made even these results pale in comparison.
