At the Amazon link you provide, BBdM gives the full citation for the CIA report, among others:
Stanley Feder, “Factions and Policon: New Ways to Analyze Politics,” in H. Bradford Westerfield, ed. Inside CIA’s Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency’s Internal journal, 1955-1992 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995)
It does not mention BBdM by name, but is about Policon, which I believe is the original name of his company.
I have not read the report and don’t know if it supports him, but I think it’s pretty common for people’s lack of interest in such reports to create the illusion that they have been fabricated so difficulty finding them on the web isn’t much evidence.
ETA: the other articles he mentions: a follow-up by Feder (gated) and an academic review (ungated).
ETA: I have still not read the report, but I should say that first page says exactly what he says it says: 90% accuracy, standard CIA methods also 90% accuracy, but his predictions are more precise.
At the Amazon link you provide, BBdM gives the full citation for the CIA report, among others:
Stanley Feder, “Factions and Policon: New Ways to Analyze Politics,” in H. Bradford Westerfield, ed. Inside CIA’s Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency’s Internal journal, 1955-1992 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995)
It does not mention BBdM by name, but is about Policon, which I believe is the original name of his company.
I have not read the report and don’t know if it supports him, but I think it’s pretty common for people’s lack of interest in such reports to create the illusion that they have been fabricated so difficulty finding them on the web isn’t much evidence.
ETA: the other articles he mentions: a follow-up by Feder (gated) and an academic review (ungated).
ETA: I have still not read the report, but I should say that first page says exactly what he says it says: 90% accuracy, standard CIA methods also 90% accuracy, but his predictions are more precise.