Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
rrpnrT -
TjCWCr
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART
I.
INTRODUCTION
*
*
*
Background
Purpose
’
Approach .......
II.
SUMMARY OF SRI STUDIES
A.
Project
SCANATE:
Long Distance Remote Viewing by
Geographical Coordinates
Virginia Site
Urals
Site
Island Site
Project Atlas
Site
.
.
.
Sylvania Laser Laboratory
Berkeley Laboratory Bevatron
Utah and China Lake
USSR Sites
Critical Evaluation
B.
Long Distance Remote Viewing by Target Person Cueing
.
.
.
Costa Rica
Continental U.S
C.
Local Targets with Target Person Cueing
Training with Feedback
Demonstration Of Ability
Precognitive Experiments
Technology Targets
.
Critical Evaluation,
Local Targets
Critical Evaluation,
Long Distance Targets
PART
Critical Evaluation, Remaining Long Distance Targets
with Coordinates
D.
Alphabet Letter Experiments
E.
Random Stimulus Generator Experiments Critical
Evaluation
F.
EEG Experiments
G.
Summary
of
SRI
Studies
Positive Characteristics
'
Negative Characteristics
.....
138
167
172
174
179
180
180
181
III.
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF NON-SRI REMOTE-VIEWING
EXPERIMENTS
’
*
'
*
.
’
’
*
*
A.
Allen,
Green,
Rucker,
Cohen,
Goolsby,
and Morris
(,19/6,)
B.
Bisaha and Dunne
(1977a)
C.
Bisaha and Dunne
(1977b)
D.
Dunne and Bisaha
(1978)
.
182
.
182
.
186
.
' 197
.
202
nrftnrT-
•wrenrr
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: GIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Qgggf^|toP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
E.
Hastings and Hurt
(1976)
205
F.
Jahn
(1978)
.
210
G.
Karnes and Susman
(1978)
.
.
.
213
H.
Rauscher, Weissmann,
Sarfatti,
and Sirag
(1976)
224
I.
Solfvin,
Roll,
and Krieger
(1978)
228
J.
Tart
(1977)
.
232
K.
Vallee, Hastings,
and Askevold
237
L.
Whitson,
Bogart,
Palmer,
and Tart
245
IV.
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CRITICISMS
253
V.
RECOMMENDED RESEARCH IMPROVEMENTS
261
REFERENCES
270
APPENDIX A.
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF MORRIS'
(1972)
FREE-
RESPONSE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
.
.
.
.
.
...
274
APPENDIX
B.
REMOTE VIEWING PROTOCOL
282
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
; CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Cl^g|^jrpP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
In Rauscher we seem to have another case
(like Hastings)
of an
experimenter /target person/consultant/author.
It
is difficult
to maintain
acceptance
of
a "double-blind" protocol under
these circumstances.
As with
the series of experiments dealing with local targets,
there
is
a large number of methodological questions raised about
the long-distance
with-target-person experiments.
Critical Evaluation:
Remaining Long Distance Targets with Coordinates
The remote-viewing experiments involving coordinates rather
than a
target person will be discussed under
two categories,
U.S.
and foreign.
These experiments
are limited
in number and are discussed in one
publication.
(Puthoff,
et
al.
,
1977a)
Two
of
the three experiments,
those
of
the Sylvania Laser Lab,
Mt.
View,
California,
and
the Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory Bevatron,
Berkeley,
California,
could easily involve cueing,
Targ, who selected
the coordinates,
had also worked for Sylvania.
After
five years
of research effort
together,
it
is difficult
to believe
that
some sort
of information did not flow between the
two experimenters,
and
therefore,
this
target
can hardly be considered "double-blind."
No statement
is made
as
to whether
the subject,
1^,
an experienced remote viewer and
likely one
of
the six early remote-viewers,
co-researcher,
and experimenter
has ever been
to the target
.
The second target,
the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Bevatron,
is also
a choice related
to one of
the experimenters,
Elizabeth Rauscher, who well
may have knowledge
of
this
target.
It
is stated
that
the experimenter
with subject,
H^,
did have prior knowledge
of
the target.
The experimenter
knew the name and general function of the building and although supposedly
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
prflnrr
taking precautions
to prevent cueing,
leading questions have been used
before and could have been used here also.
The choice of experimenters
is
obviously poor
since,
besides Rauscher,
there are at least
four more involved
in the research:
Hurt,
Targ, Puthoff
,
and May.
Cole may also still be
involved
.
The description of
the third
target,
that of the Minuteman and Poseidon
Static Test Firings includes statements such as
"'...
drawn-out muffled roars'
which
'raised dust
clouds'
and
involved
'glowing melted materials'
"
(p.
75)
could also apply
to what
could be observed from a distant viewing.
With
as
many people involved in the project and with knowledge of
the
coordinates,
it would not be difficult
to have an observer near
the spot
to report
the
actual time of
the firings.
Two subjects are involved in this experiment,
Ij_
Menlo Park who participated
in all five experiments and
in L.A.
who
participated
in
two.
Why did
11^ only participate in two?
Previously, more than one reading has been allowed
in both
the local
and long-distance experiments and
the same questions apply
to
these experiments,
such
as:
Was
there any form of
feedback given
to
the subject
at any time
during
the experiment?
What
time period elapsed between first and second
readings?
The foreign targets
are an R&D
test
facility and some Russian sites.
Of
the foreign targets,
the R&D
test facility also appears
to have had
many readings.
This
target,
however,
is identified
to
the experimenters not
only by coordinates but also
as being an R&D test facility.
Two clues
are
already available
to the experimenters.
It
is difficult
to estimate how
much could be guessed
(or
cued
to
the subject)
knowing
the sponsor.
168
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: a^ROB96-00787R00Q1 00260003-2
Price
is
the subject for
this experiment.
"Figure
1 shows
the
level
of detail for a sample early effort at drawing
a gantry crane he observed
(SRI Progress Report, August
1974,
p.
3)
Price seems
to have been a fairly
decent artist
if his sketch
of
the swimming pool complex is any indication
of his ability.
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
54)
Why then the need,
in an early drawing,
for such a precise rule-drawn sketch?
Was
the drawing really his
first?
The remaining experiments are Russian-based targets and appear
to be
grouped around Moscow.
This
in itself
is an advantage since only
this area
would need
to be covered with finely detailed maps.
Two subjects participate:
I
and E^,
a new subject apparently since
this letter designation has not
been used earlier.
The experimenters passed the coordinates
to
1^, which are
of
a population
center.
The
subject,
however, described
a dam and an airfield.
When these
descriptions
do not match the aotual coordinates,
1^ requests
an overview
of
the area which now does include
the airfield,
thus making his description
appear correct.
In effect,
attention
is drawn away from the non-corresponding
elements
and drawn to those that do correspond much as
a magician does
in
his
routine.
The use of pictures,
although for thd reader's
sake,
and
the
use
of
standing at specific spots
for judging,
quoting only certain elements
of
a transcript,
are also ways
in which this
same diversion-of-attention
procedure seems
to be used.
That this
type
of behavior
is used
is not
unremarkable considering that Targ was an accomplished amateur magician.
"Magic
tricks
fall into two general categories which
I will call
'sleights
and
'illusions.'
Sleight-of-hand
tricks are simply misdirections
of
the
observer's attention by the performer.
In magic,
as
in psychic research,
attention
is everything
....
However,
attention will not help you keep
169
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
J&L&nrx
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 (^j^RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
track
of
the other form of
trick,
an illusion
....
An illusion,
.
.
.
,
is
any trick in which the observer
is invited
.to greatly underestimate
the
amount
of preparation necessary
to create
the
’effect.'
...
This preparation
may have begun the moment
the magician learned
that on a particular day
in
the next month he will have
a meeting with a given person who just might ask
to be shown some magic.
And with
a month to prepare
for
a meeting,
a
magician can do anything
.
A magician will spend
that kind of
time
to prepare
a single
trick,- because that's what he does
for
a living."
(Mind-Reach
,
pp.
139-140)
In the same experiment,
is
told
to search
the general coordinate
area,
specifically for an airfield.
If these instructions were given,
they must
have been given following
1^' s request
for an overview of
the area or both
were cued
to
look for
such.
The second site was one
of no special interest containing
a town within
a barren area.
Reference
to an Atlas
indicates
this quite easily.
Puthoff,
Targ,
and May
(1977)
conclude
that this experiment
"...
provided an opportunity
to verify that
(1)
the subject's output
is not simply geared
to match the
expectations
of
the experimenters
...."
[Do they really mean the "expectation
of
the experimenters"
or should they say, what
is expected from those
designating the
target?]
"...
(2)
the subject does not simply conjure up what may reasonably be
expected
to be correct
...."
[Here,
again why should
the subject "expect"
anything?]
"...
and in fact describes
the area appropriate
to
the coordinates
even though
it may run counter even
to
the subject's own expectations."
As has been stated previously,
any knowledge
of
this area would provide
the information that
the subject describes.
However,
the subject may have
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 <H°CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 a^njA;gDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
utimtr
been very surprised at
this
set
of coordinates.
The remaining experiment
is
a ten-site scan about which the above comments
can also apply.
The one site mentioned
is
also centered around Moscow and
a
general description of
the site could be obtained from a map.
Since the more
specific elements have not been verified
to us,
it
is difficult
to discuss
this series
further.
Puthoff , Targ,
and May use
four other studies
as verification of
their
remote-viewing 'studies.
In Mind-Reach ,
they state:
In the fall of
1974,
we had already concluded most
of
the experiments described thus
far.
Our
work was going well.
Other laboratories were beginning
to replicate our
remote viewing experiments."
(p
.
90)
The first study using their protocol
is
that
of Rauscher,
et at.
,
reported in August
1975.
As has been stated
earlier,
this author becomes
a consultant and experimenter
for
the SRI
team.
This study,
however,
did not show significant results.
In March 1976,
IEEE issused
a formal call
for papers:
"We would
encourage others to repeat their
experiments and
to report their results,
whether
they be positive or negative."
(p.
291)
As has been shown earlier, Hastings,
also involved
in
the
SRI studies,
and Hurt,
also involved,
run their experiment in early March
(See Table 1.),
although these results are not published until October
1976.
Whitson,
Bogart,
Palmer,
and Tart's paper
is also received in late March.
Tart has also
been involved
in the remote viewing studies:
"...
the authors have benefited
greatly from their many discussions with
...
Dr.
Charles Tart
"
(Mind-
Reach,
p.
viii)
Vallee,
Hastings,
and Askevold's paper
is received
in early
May.
Hastings
is also Involved
in this
study in addition
to being a co-
researclier with Tart
in another study.
(Tart,
1977,
p.
165)
Of
these,
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ^A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/l£mMmp
ULUIIIU
96-00787R0001 00260003-2
three are used
to "verify" their data.
The remaining study
is
that
of Bisaha
and Dunne,
and
is not reported until August
1976.
Their first study actually
deals with precognition.
Their second study
is
an extension of
the precognition
work and was reported in September
1977.
These experiments are discussed
in
the following section so will not he dealt with here.
One should note,
however,
that
they
conducted
a series
of
five precognition experiments between the
U.
S.
and Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R. while one of
the experimenters was
in
Eastern Europe in August
1976,
although
their other experiments
are confined
to the Chicago
area.
In conclusion,
the comments made
in reference
to
the judging
of transcripts
for
the local remote viewing series seem applicable here.
"Since
the judge
did not know a priori which elements
of
the descriptions were correct
or
incorrect,
the task was
complicated,
and transcripts often seemed plausibly
to match more than one target.
A confounding factor
in these studies
is
that some target locations have similarities
that seem alike at
some level
of
perception
...
a radio telescope at
the
top
of
a hill,
the observation deck
of
a tower,
and
a jetty on the edge of
a bay all match a transcript description
of
'looking out over a long distance.’
...
According
to
the judge,
the most
successful procedure was
a careful element-by-element comparison that tested
each transcript against every target
"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
346)
D.
Alphabet Letter Experiments
As
a result
of previous research,
Puthoff
and Targ
(1977)
concluded
that
"The problem in the forced-choice matching experiments,
as opposed
to
the
free-response
task,
is
that
the subject’s stored mental images are available
to him from his memory,
and constitute an important source
of
’noise’
in
the
172
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: fiMsflDfl96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ulUITli
remote viewing channel."
This
is supported by the following experiments.
Subjects H
and
I 1 participated in twenty letter-guessing
trials, H1
in her Los Angeles home and
1^ in his New York City home.
One
letter target
was posted each day in the SRI laboratory.
Subjects were
to attempt
to
identify the letter.
The results are not given in the 1977
technical report,
although the authors state that
the results were "not
found
to depart from
chance expectation."
Since
>
2 correct would be required
(of
trials)
to obtain p
<
.05,
and
>
at p
<
.01, we must assume
that neither subject
hit on more than one target,
assuming further
that
the
20 targets were
sampled with replacement from a full alphabet
of
26.
Very incomplete
reporting
of
this experiment makes
an analysis
of
the results quite
tenuous.
In a second alphabet remote viewing experiment,
subjects
S 1 and
were asked
to draw what they saw posted a few laboratories
away.
Puthoff
then blindly estimated
the letters based on these drawings.
S 1 was
correct
on
of
trials, while
was
correct on 1
of
3 trials.
The probability of
being correct,
by chance,
on both trials
is
p
=
.0015;
the probability of H
being correct on
1 of
trials
is p =
.0043;
the combined results
of
or more correct out
of
trials
is significant
at
p
= 5.36 x 10“ 4 by the binomial theorem,
as reported by the authors.
Thus,
the obtained results clearly exceed chance expectations
for each subject,
and for
the combined data.
The authors conclude that "This suggests
that
the way
to Increase
the
analytical capability
to include written material
is
to arrange to separate
the perception from the analysis,
to encourage
the subject
to describe only
his
or her perception,
and
to follow up by having
a different person do the
final analysis on
a blind basis."
It
seems
that improvement can be made on
nujrjp
Approved For Release 2000/08/t3?Sa^RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
this protocol by having the judging done on a real blind
(or double-blind)
basis,
that
is, by having
the judge otherwise naive about
the experiment.
Puthoff did the judging
in this experiment.
E.
Random Stimulus Generator Experiments
A four-state random generator was designed
to evaluate how well subjects
could learn to guess which of
four letters would next appear on
a display.
This experiment- is discussed
in Puthoff and Targ
(1977)
and
in Targ and
Puthoff
(1977)
.
The data for four experiments with subject
1^ are shown in Table
10.
The authors state that the "probability of
>
k successes
in n trials
is
obtained by table lookup
of
the probability of
a normal distribution value
*
>
(7:
- | - |) / (3n /1 6 )1/2
.
(2)
It
is perhaps worth noting that the
t distribution is not
a normal
(s)
distribution,
and that experiments
3 and
4 had results which did not exceed
chance.
While
the overall results are clearly significant,
the subject
s
ability deteriorated over
the four experiments.
In fact,
the high hit rate
on experiments
1 and
(Phlt - 0.36) was high enough
to sustain a significant
result
for
the total data set even
if
the subject van another 700 trials
at exactly chance
(P = 0.25)
performance.
Thus,
the decision to stop after
experiment
4 seems
to be one of good strategy.
While the conversion from the obtained number
of hits
to
a
t value
is
unreferenced,
one can also verify
the results by either
a critical ratio
174
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :CIA-g£P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE
10.
RESULTS OF SUBJECT ^ ON RANDOM STIMULUS
GENERATOR EXPERIMENT
EXPERIMENT
TARGET
LETTERS
NUMBER OF
TRIALS, n
NUMBER
OF HITS, H
P
ABIO
200
2.20
0.014
,
-5
CDGQ
100
4.27
1.07 x 10
. EHLT
100
1.27
. 102
KWYZ
100
0.58
0.28
-5
500
167
4.29
<10
t>_
(k - \
- |)/(3n/16) 1/2
,
for. p - 1/4
and k
is number
of hits on n trials
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
L?blA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
onjnnr
Approved For Release 2000/08jUAOS||fifipP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
JLUIILI
equivalent
(Siegel,
1956)
or by
the exact binomial.
Recalculation of
the
p-values by the binomial for
the four experiments yields 0.010,
1.09 x 10
,
0.069,
and 0.930,
respectively.
Thus,
experiments
1 and
2 remain statistically
significant, while experiments
3 and
4 remain nonsignificant.
By the exact
binomial,
the total of
167 hits of 500 trials
is
also significant, p
= 0.00001.
The authors conclude
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1977,
p.
33)
that
"...
the
results obtained
in
the remote-viewing and machine approaches
to reading
remote alphabet, characters do indicate a potential
for developing acceptable
levels
of reliability
in reading
text
for operational purposes.
Further
study
is required
to determine whether this reliability can be achieved with
a reasonable effort."
In
a previous experiment with the random stimulus generator,
the six
remote viewing subjects
(S^ through
S^,
presumably) were tested.
Only Elgin
(S^,)
showed performance greater
than chance
(Targ and Puthoff,
1977
,
p.
129).
In another,
NASA-funded,
study,
145 volunteer subjects were
tested,
adults and
66 children.
Of these,
six subjects had a significantly positive
slope
(p
<
.01)
over an undisclosed set of
trials.
(Targ and Cole,
1975,
p.
28)
Two other subjects had significantly beyond chance scores over 1400
and 2800 trials,
respectively, with mean percent hits
of
.305
(p
=
2 x 10
)
and
. 2957
(p
<
10-6
)
.
"These results indicated
that
the ESP machine can
serve
as
a suitable screening device for those with ESP ability."
(Targ and
Cole,
1975,
p.
29)
Unfortunately,
the above results are predicated upon a
true a pviovi probability
of
0.25;
i.e.,
the generator
is
indeed random.
As will be discussed later,
this assumption
is questionable.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Q
:
76lA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1^v€J|jRDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Critical Evaluation
The authors conducted
a reasonable evaluation of
the statistical random-
ness of
the four-state generator.
Without question,
the
zero and first-order
probabilities
of occurrence are within random chance fluctuation.
A separate analysis was
conducted by
the sponsor,
and reported
in an
internal memorandum.
The results
of this analysis
are quite interesting.
Table 11 gives
the numbers
of nonidentical transition frequencies,
i.e.,
the next-to-be-generated color,
following
the present
color.
These sequences
of
pairs of nonidentical colors,
both forward and backward,
are shown in
the
lower half of Table
11.
The forward and backward pair frequencies are all within random bound
expectations.
However,
one would also expect no correlation between the
forward and backward pair frequencies.
That
is,
the likelihood
of
a given
color following any other color should be unrelated to
the reverse order
of
occurrences of those pairs.
Such
is not
the case,
for
the correlation between
the
two columns
of pairwise
frequencies
in this table
is r = 0.93, p
<
.01.
The mean forward frequency
(788)
across all pairs does not differ significantly
from the mean backward frequency
(798).
Combining the forward and backward frequencies
,
the differences among
the six transition frequencies are statistically significant
(x
=13.34,
df -
5,
p = 0.02).
Thus,
a successful strategy that could be adopted
to
exceed chance
is:
"When green press
red, when red press green,
and otherwise
use
'pass'
button as much as possible."
This strategy will increase
the
hit score
and,
given enough trials, yield a significant result.
There
is no evidence
that Elgin,
or any other successful subject
followed this
strategy.
Neither
is there any evidence
they did not.
A
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0VCIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Pftnrr
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 fl 9[j(M[fPP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE
11.
NONIDENTICAL TRANSITION FREQUENCIES
IN FOUR-STATE GENERATOR
NEXT STATE
CURRENT STATE
YELLOW
GREEN
BLUE
RED
Yellow
(Y)
-
764
765
790
Green
(G)
777
-
773
863
Blue
(B)
776
796
-
773
Red
(R)
787
852
803
-
TRANSITION PAIR FREQUENCIES
FORWARD
BACKWARD
Y/G
764
777
Y/B
765
776
Y/R
790
787
G/B
773
796
G/R
863
852
B/R
773
803
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 oYiblA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
pnyjCL
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 q,g|30jJgpP96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
careful analysis
on successful subject's sequences would be Interesting.
In
any event,
the lack of accessibility
(and
time
to analyze)
the actual data,
coupled with the above critical analysis,
appears
to be
ample justification
to question the validity of
the reported positive results.
F.
EEG Experiments
Targ and Puthoff
(1974)
described an experiment
"undertaken
to determine
whether
a physiological measure Such as EEG activity could be used as an
indicator
of information transmission between an isolated subject and
a
remote stimulus."
(p.
606)
Sender and receiver pairs were used, with visual and electromagnetic
shielding between them.
A photostimulator was activated
for
s duration
in front
of the sender;
the receiver's EEG was recorded
at occipital location
with a bandpass
of
to 120 Hz.
The photostimulator operated
at
three
z
frequencies:
(no
flashes),
6 flashes per second,
and
16 flashes per second,
randomly intermixed.
No EEG driving was noted in any of
the six volunteer subjects;
however,
one subject
(Hammid)
showed a consistent alpha frequency blocking effect.
Data from seven sets of
trials each were then collected from this subject
on three separate days.
Fourier analysis
of
the spectra showed reduced power at
16 flashes/s
in the 9~11 Hz region,
as
compared
to the
0 flash/s
(control)
condition.
The
6 flashes/s power was between the
and
16 flashes/s levels.
The
average power and peak power were both significantly less
at
16 flashes/s
than at
0 flash/s
(p
< 0.04 and p
<
0.03,
respectively).
The
6 flashes/s
power values, while
in the "right" direction, did not differ significantly
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 (f
:
9CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
jjrwirr
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ^jAf»»P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
3.
The demonstrated remote viewing ability appears
to be insensitive
to time and distance.
4.
Real-time, movement-containing activities
can apparently be seen
through
this ability.
5.
Untrained subjects
can demonstrate this ability and improve with
practice,
often providing information as valid
as
that
of known "sensitives.
6.
The remote viewing channel
is quite noisy.
Concepts
of information
theory pertinent
to S/N improvement appear
to apply
to this channel
as well.
Negative Characteristics
1.
Research reports are of behavioral data,
yet are not presented with
sufficient,
rigorous experimental detail appropriate
to behavioral science
publications and acceptable
to behavioral scientists.
2.
Conflicting,
inaccurate reporting of experimental "facts"
detracts
from the acceptability of
the results.
3.
Methodological weaknesses
in the local target and long-distance U.S
target procedures provide alternate
(i.e.,
nonparanormal)
possibilities
of
explanation.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ^IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 lCLAsBI)
otlmCr
III.
DESCRIPTION AND CRITICAL EVALUATION OF NON-SRI REMOTE-VIEWING
EXPERIMENTS
In this
section of
the report we describe
the
non-SRI published
(and
in
one case unpublished)
remote-viewing experiments.
Although
the reporting
format differs greatly among these experiments,
an effort
is made to present
each experiment
in the same format
to permit direct
comparison of experimental
methods and results.
Following
. the description of each experiment,
a critical evaluation of
the methodology
is presented.
Features
of
the experiment which are considered
to be
of good scientific technique are pointed
out.
Similarly, weaknesses
of
the methodology are also
indicated.
Following
the philosophy that
such
research,
to be universally accepted, must be totally free
of
critical
methodological
flaws
(or possibilities
thereof)
,
emphasis
is deliberately
placed upon known or potential "soft"
spots
in
the methodologies.
A.
Allen,
S.,
Green,
P.
,
Rucker,
K.
,
Cohen,
R.
,
Goolsby,
C.,
and
Morris,
R.
L.
A remote viewing study using a modified version
of
the SRI procedure.
In
J.
D. Morris,
W.
G.
Roll,
and
R.
L.
Morris
(Ed.), Research in Parapsychology 3
1975.
Metuchen,
N.J.:
The Scarecrow Press,
1976,
46-48.
PiArpose.
The purpose
of
this experiment
is
to repeat
the general SRI
procedure, with modifications considered appropriate by
the authors.
Experimental design.
Twelve remote-viewing sessions were run by a
three-person group.
Each member of
the group was subject
(receiver)
for
four
sessions,
target person for
four sessions,
and experimenter for
four
sessions.
Twelve targets were used, without sampling replacement.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :]S1A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ocnorT _
’ tk
iP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
lUT
Subjects.
All three subjects were
students
in
a research methods
class.
The subjects had been conducting critical assessments
of
a variety
of
(presumably related)
experimental procedures.
Experimenters.
Same as
subjects,
see experimental design.
Target Persons.
Same as subjects,
see experimental design.
Judges.
Indicated
to be
"blind";
no additional information given.
Equipment.
Subject performed
in
a University of California,
Santa
Barbara experimental room and recorded all verbal responses
on
a tape
recorder.
No additional information
is given on the room or
the
tape recorder.
Targets.
Twelve targets
"were drawn from a population of
30 varied
locations
(indoors and outdoors) within a half-hour drive of
the UCSB campus.
No location was used twice."
No additional information is given on any
of
the
targets,
such as what
they were,
how similar
or different
to one another,
who chose
the population,
etc.
Procedure.
At
the beginning of each session,
the three-person group
met
in
a UCSB experimental room.
Roles were assigned
to each person and
watches were synchronized.
The target person then left
the others and
obtained from
R.
L.
Morris
a "randomly selected target location concealed
inside an envelope."
The target person then went
to the assigned location,
timing his arrival
to be half an hour after leaving the subject and experimenter.
He remained
there
for
15 minutes,
observing
the physical surroundings and
taking notes.
He then left
the target
to return
to
the experimental room.
Experimenter and subject relaxed
in experimental room until target
person was
to arrive
at
target.
Then,
experimenter
turned
on
tape recorder
and recorded verbal, viewing responses
of subject.
Experimenter "occasionally"
183
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ^|QtiR^96-00787R0001 00260003-2
uumPr
sought clarification of
a subject's statement
or asked for more detail.
Tape recording ended after
15 minutes,
or when target person left
target.
Target person gave subject verbal feedback upon his return.
Data Analysis.
The
tapes were transcribed and given
to
3 judges
along with target locations.
One judge "chose
to use
a matching method
in which he visited each location and matched
it with
a transcript which
most resembled
it.
The same transcript
could be chosen for more
than one
location."
The other
two judges
"used
a rating method which permitted quantification.
Each of the .12 transcripts was rated
in terms
of
its similarity
to each
of
the
locations
as
the judges visited each location.
A six-inch line was
marked
to indicate between "no correspondence"
and "complete correspondence."
Confidence ratings were also obtained but not analyzed
at
time of reporting.
Means
and standard deviations
of ratings,
across
the
transcripts,
were calculated
for each target for each
of
the latter
two judges.
Rating
for correct
transcript was determined,
in
Z-score,
for each
target.
Results.
Judge who used matching method got one hit
out of
twelve,
which
is
chance performance.
Of
the other
two judges,
one rated
the correct transcript above
the
mean on
4 of
targets;
the other judge rated
the correct transcript above
the mean on
of
the
12.
Six would be chance performance.
Interjudge
agreement
of
sign
(above or below mean) was very good, with such agreement
on 11
of
targets.
"There was
an insignificant but suggestive decline
in results
from the
first six sessions
to
the last six."
Thus,
results were decidedly negative.
No evidence for remote viewing
was obtained.
Approved For Release 20oS®l?igyA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
orpnnr
r
Cone lusions .
Although results were negative,
authors note
three
differences from SRI procedures.
(1)
Subjects were students critically
evaluating research methods,
and
"may
thus have found
it hard
to maintain
the mind-set
of complete confidence
that appears
to be a vital part
of
the
SRI procedure."
(2)
Data were gathered
in. a preset
finite
time period,
and "later sessions had
a more hurried aspect
to them."
(3)
Feedback was
limited
to verbal feedback by
target person;
subjects did not visit
target
locations.
Critical Evaluation.
Several procedural weaknesses,
or
loci of
criticism,
can be noted
in
this
research.
(1)
No rationale
is given for departure from the
SRI procedures,
although
these departures are used
to "explain"
the negative results.
Thus,
the
experiment should not be considered
a critical test of
the SRI procedure.
(2)
Subjects
(and therefore target persons
and experimenters)
could
clearly
be negatively biased toward existence
of RV capability.
(3)
No indication
is given of order
of each subject serving as
subject,
experimenter,
target person.
This
could be critical.
For example,
if
target
person or experimenter concluded that previous sessions
led
to negative
results,
then their performance as subject could be adversely affected
through nonbelief
or low motivation.
(4)
No information given
as
to instructions
to judges, why they were
permitted to use different judging procedures, who they were,
etc.
(5)
Targets were undefined,
no indication of target similarity was
given,
and nature of
target population was unspecified.
Further,
it
is
not known who selected
(and therefore knew)
target population.
Finally,
it
is not known
if
any subject had previously seen any target
location.
Approved For Release 2000/0
A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2