Hm, I wouldn't say RV is controversial - only possibly in the sense that heliocentrism was controversial in the 15th and 16th centuries: i.e., to the folks who had not been exposed to the data showing the Earth orbits the Sun. Specifically tho, this sentiment and similar in other comments, are common misrepresentations or misconceptions. Here are the key stats from the same ("Stargate") document archives - by 1983:
85% of 700 RV missions gave accurate target information.
50% of 700 RV missions produced usable intelligence.
In summary, over the past 5 years INSCOM has conducted 89 collection projects for a number of different US government agencies. Our successes must be examined from two perspectives. (Chart change) Over 85% of our operational missions have produced accurate target information. Even more significant, approximately 50% of the 700 missions produced usable intelligence.
Page 8,
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700330003-6.pdf
More facts: Hal Puthoff has suggested in a recent interview with Eric Weinstein and Jesse Michels that the RV programs were not discontinued when declassified in 1995, but rather "went dark" (became unacknowledged special access programs). The "debunking" report accompanying the 1995 declassification was most likely ritual cover for this.
Since we're talking about secret military and CIA projects, a fun thing that the "Stargate SG-1" TV series (about a secret military project) did at one point was to have a plot arc around a conspiracy theorist character, who was going to expose the project. So, to placate the conspiracy theorist, and discredit public chatter that was getting too close to the truth, the military in the TV series... commissioned a cheesy military sci-fi TV series, based on the truth of the actual military sci-fi TV series.
"Wormhole X-treme": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT-Vf_x4Dc4
They even did a faux behind-the-scenes piece for it, within the TV series universe (which then broke the fourth wall, to reference the entire real-world franchise): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0hW0A43n3Y
In addition, there's a remote viewing subreddit which holds regular practices and encourages you to post results: https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing
And IRVA (intl. association) has a pretty good scientific bibliography if that floats your boat: https://www.irva.org/library/bibliography
The CIA declassified all information, and while the 70s documents show clear interest and weird results, reading it in chronological order is very interesting as you can feel desillusions set in as experimental protocols hardens and results prove irreproducible.
It was not a "CIA project" - it was a US Army unit; the name "STAR GATE" is merely the final public program name for a bunch of related programs; collectively, their intelligence missions served government customers including the special forces, CIA, NSA, DIA, NRO, etc.
- They didn't "declassify everything", there's lots of redactions and more documents;
- it wasn't "scrapped after not showing anything despite some participants claiming it did", RV has a very high success rate (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42584264), and Stargate became an unacknowledged program - these are facts despite some unhinged internet commenters seemingly having an issue with it; and
- "reading it in chronological order" - you don't see disillusion or non-reproducible results, you see 25 years in a row of renewed funding on the back of quality intelligence product continued being ordered by government customers.
I wonder, with all the ways you went wrong, did you have to try very hard to make that up?
It also didn't "explore parasciences: telepathy, twin telepathy" as if that was the main thing - Stargate mostly researched, developed and practiced remote viewing. Which you can try too, which probably would be a good idea, so maybe you come up with more accurate stuff than you did here. Head to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing/ and learn something before you talk next time. Good idea, right? Hahaha!
The interviews are fairly well done in my opinion.