Love your work @neilstrauss.
I can definitely understand the original comment of your editor, that it sounds like you believe it, but I'd suggest instead that it was because the way you write makes the reader want to believe it.
Very compelling - definitely had me google'ing a couple of times to fact check when I was thinking "this can't possibly be true".
Though I'll admit there's still a certain part of me that believes the follow-up ("let me know if you’d like a second article explaining how you can try to 'remote view' yourself.") article is a piece on how easily journalists can lead us to believe things that aren't true :D
Thanks, @rossdcurrie. Another way to think about it is: what's true is that these things happened. What's unknown is how and why they happened.
I want more on this subject! The seminar-thing raises a lot of doubts, or at least hackles....I'd like to hear more on the success rate of the govt pgrm. The evidence is only what the people you spoke with claim to be true. But I guess a lot of that would be classified? I(d like to hear more about your experiments with friends. Great stuff, thanks.