Approved For Release 2000/08/ LEA RERDP96-00787R000100260003-2 three ate 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 be dealt with here. One should note, however, that they conducted a series of five precognition experiments between the U. 5. 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 prtort 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 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : GAAESS-00787R000100260003-2 remote viewing channel." This ig supported by the following experiments. Subjects Hy and I participated in twenty letter-guessing trials, H, in her Los Angeles home and I 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 20 trials) to obtain p < .05, and > 3 at p < .OL, 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 8, and Hy were asked to draw what they saw posted a few laboratories away. Puthoff then blindly estimated the lettera based on these drawings. 5S, was correct 1 on 2 of 2 trials, while H, was correct on 1 of 3 trials. The probability of S, being correct, by chance, on both trials is 1 p = .0015; the probability of Hy being correct on 1 of 3 trials is p = .0043; the combined results of 3 or more correct out of 5 trials is significant at p= 5.36 x 1074 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 173 Approved For Release 700 een CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release oooaht : BT 0p96-00787R000100260003-2 this protocol by having the judging done on a veal 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 L, are shown in Table 10. The authors state that the "probability of > k successes inn trials is obtained by table lookup of the probability of a normal distribution value b> ce -2- Bycnsrey?. . (2) It is perhaps worth noting that. the ¢ distribution is not a normal (2) 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 2. Pi ae = 0.36) was high enough to sustain a significant result for the total data set even if the subject ran 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-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Caen aaa a A _ Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : —E - TABLE 10. RESULTS OF SUBJECT 1, ON RANDOM STIMULUS ~ GENERATOR EXPERIMENT ~ TARGET NUMBER OF ‘NUMBER » ‘| EXPERIMENT LETTERS TRIALS, n OF HITS, t P ~ 1  ABIO- 200 64 2.20 0.014 9 “cpeg 100 Ad 4.27 1.07 x 107 “ 3 _EHLT 100. 31 1.27 0.102 4  KWYZ 100 28 0.58 0,28 =a 500 167 4.29 < 10> _ a - wf t>k- "A - 4 /@an/i6)", for p = 1/4 _ j and k is number of hits on m trials. - = = ow - = | a= ; . Approved For Release 2000/08/10'/ CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ereprz
and 2800 trials, respectively, with mean percent hits of .305 (p = 2x 10°~) Approved For Release 2000/08 dM ERED P96-00787R000100260003-2 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 Se. 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, 79 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 6 and .2957 (p < 107°). "These results indicated that the ESP machine can gerve 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 priort probability of 0.25; i.e., the generator is indeed random. As will be discussed later, this assumption is questionable. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : &1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 20008 e pate ra DP96-00787R000100260003-2 Critteal 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 < .O1. 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 62 = 13.34, af = 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 ary other successful subject followed this strategy. Neither is there any evidence they did not. A Approved For Release 2000/08/1 017 CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 aR iata
Approved For Release 2000/08/169ERRIN® P96 -00787R000100260003-2 TABLE 11. NONIDENTICAL TRANSITION FREQUENCIES IN FOUR-STATE GENERATOR NEXT STATE CURRENT STATE "YELLOW GREEN BLUE RED Yellow (YX) ~ 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 ¥/R 790 787 G/B | 773 796 G/R 863 852 B/R 773 © 803 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 .SEARPAPP96-00787R000100260003-2 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 10 s duration in front of the sender; the receiver's EEG was recorded at occipital location 0, with a bandpass of 1 to 120 Hz. The photostimulator operated at three frequencies: 0 (mo 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 36 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 flashés/s power was between the 0 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 2000/08/10. CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Sea ae
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 SEA RER IS 00787R000100260003-2 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 1%|A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release menaedae ~~" = -Remededaaadnaeaiaeads Ill. 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 tn Parapsychology » 2978. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 46-48. Purpose. The purpose of this experiment is to repeat the general SRI procedure, with modifications considered appropriate by the authors. Experimental Destgn. 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 : 1BPA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 eT ee
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 =SUMAIP 96-00787R000100260003-2 . 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. farget 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-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ie
4 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 RRR RE 96-00787R000100260003-2 ete 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 Analysts. The 12 tapes were trariscribed 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 12 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 12 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 12 targets; the other judge rated the correct transcript above the mean on 3 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 12 targets. "There was an insignificant but suggestive decline in results from the first six sessions to the last gix." Thus, results were decidedly negative. No evidence for remote viewing was obtained. Approved For Release oo TR cya-e0P96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 a f 2 oe Conelustons. 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. | (Ll) 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 o00/sthe Hea. RDP96.00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 (6) Did target person visit target alone? How was this verified? Did target person concentrate on "transmitting" to subject? Because target person can reasonably be considered a skeptic, these questions can be highly pertinent to the obtained negative results. (7) Nature of feedback to the subjects is not described. If inadequate, it could lead to deterioration in performance over trials. While this deterioration is suggested by authors, the nature of the statistical test is not given. (8) -No quantitative data (Z-scores, signs, rating scores, rankings) are given. While results are considered negative, data could be of interest to other researchers. Summary. In summary, this experiment produced negative results. However, it has sufficient methodological insufficiencies to question the completeness of the procedure. Were the results positive, numerous methodological problems would cause us to question the validity of the results. The same questions should apply to acceptance of the negative results. B. Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J. Multiple subject and long distance remote viewing of geographical locations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernettes and Soctety, IEEE, 19-21 September 1977, Washington, D.C., 512-516. Purpose. The first experiment tested the abilities of pairs of subjects simultaneously to predict where the experimenter would be in the future. The second experiment required the subject to predict, 23 to 24 hours in advance, where the experimenter would be over 5,000 miles away. These two experiments are described separately below. | 186 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 afl ER ita
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 asgeiBaRPP96-00787R000100260003-2 Eaperiment One Reperimental Design. Seven subjects were tested (in four different subject. pairs) on seven targets in the Chicago area, for a total of 14 subject transcripts. No effort appears to have been made to randomly or logically pair the subjects. For the seven target encounters, the indicated subject pairs, by subject number, were: (4,5), (10,9), (4,5), (6,7), (5,4), (6,8), and (7,6). The transcripts were randomly divided into two sets (A and B) for scoring. The first member of each pair. of subjects had his/her transcript assigned to Set A, the second to Set B. Subjects. Subjects were volunteers, two males and seven females, ranging in age from 24 to 37. Subjects knew each other, but were unrelated by blood or marriage. Experimenter(s): No mention is made of the identity of the experimenters; they are probably the authors. Target Person. This is one of the experimenters (female), identity not given otherwise. | Judges. These were "six persons, not otherwise affiliated with the experiment." No further information is given. Equipment. Subjects' responses were tape recorded; no other equipment is mentioned. Target locations were photographed by the target person. Targets. “The seven targets were randomly selected from the "target pool of over one hundred locations in the city and suburbs of Chicago, previously compiled and sealed [in envelopes] by an individual who had no other association with the experiment." The contents of the envelopes (target pool) were unknown to either experimenter or subjects. Approved For Release 2000/08/10  G7A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
a a_i smn smauaacaaaaasaaaaasamaaaasaaaaaaaaacaaamaaaaaaasaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaaaamaaasasaaacaamaaaaaaaaamaamsia Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 -_ aran wi Procedure. Experimenter explained nature of the experiment to subjects before the trials began, and they were told they would have sufficient time = to relax, become comfortable, and allow their minds to become as blank as possible. ‘They were then instructed to visualize where the experimenter ™ _ would be between 35 and 50 minutes after the trial began. They were asked -_ to describe whatever images or thoughts they had, during that 15-minute period, into a tape recorder, and to nake any sketches if they wished. They = were asked not. to try to define specifically or identify their impressions, but to describe them generally with as much detail as possible, "even if ~ the images appeared to make no sense or have no continuity." Subjects =~ within pairs were to have no communication with each other during the trial. In four trials (undefined), subjects were in separate rooms on different - floors of the same building. In the other three trials, they were approximately 10 niles apart. ~ “When subjects began generating their descriptions, an experimenter left - the area with ten envelopes which had been randomly selected from the target ‘pool of over one hundred locations .... Driving continuously for 20 minutes ~ with no particular direction, or until five minutes after the subjects had completed their descriptions, the experimenter then blindly selected a = number from one to ten from an enclosed container holding ten numbered and ~ folded sheets of paper, counted down to the chosen number of envelopes, opened the envelope and proceeded to the location indicated on the enclosed - card, arriving at the target 15 minutes later, or 35 minutes after the subjects started recording their descriptions. The experimenter remained ™ at the target for 15 minutes, photographed the location and made notes as ~ to her impressions of the site, then returned to the point of origin .... ad Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : @#A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Typed unedited transcripts were made of the subjects' recorded responses and attached to any associated drawings which a subject may have made." No mention is made of feedback to the subjects. Data Analysis. The 14 transcripts were divided into two sets, A and B. Set A consisted of the subjects 4, 10, 4, 6, 5, 6, and 7, while Set B consisted of 5, 9, 5, 7, 4, 8, and 6. Two judges blind ranked Set A transcripts against the target photographs and notes; two other judges blind ranked Set B transcripts against the same photographs and notes; and two final judges blind ranked Set A transcripts against Set B transcripts. Each set of rankings was on a 1 to 7 basis, with all transcripts force ranked against each target. Morris' (1972) method of evaluation of preferentially matched free- response material was used. (This method is described and evaluated in Appendix A of this report.) Results are given in Table 12 As seen there, all four judges successfully match the transcripts to the targets (p < .01). Further, the two judges comparing Set A with Set B transcripts had sums of ranks of 12 and 14, respectively, which are also statistically significant (p < .005), as indicated in Table 13. Of the total of 42 rankings made, 17 were direct hits. (Chance level is 1/7 x 42 = 6.) "The degree of accuracy varied among subjects, as did the specific details of the target." Transcript excerpts are given for Plaza del Lago and the NWRR Station. Conelustons. Results from Experiment One are clearly positive. All judges were able. to compare transcripts to the seven targets well beyond chance probabilities. Approved For Release 2000/08/1018C€1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 eee
Approved For Release 2000/08/1Q - Gi ggRDP96-00787R000100260003-2 TABLE 12. RESULTS OF EXPERIMENT ONE OF BISAHA AND DUNNE (1977) RANKS ASSIGNED SUBJECTS SET A SET B TARGET A -B JUDGE 1 JUDGE 2 JUDGE 3 JUDGE 4 Plaza del Lago 74 5 1 5 4 2 Wrigley Field . 10 9 1 1 3 2 Techny Mission 4 5 3 1 1 , 3 Lindheimer Obs. 6 7 2 3 L 3 Madonna del Strada 5 4A 3 1 2 2 NWRR Station 6 8 2 1 3 1 Grant Park Bandshell 7 6 | 3 L 1 2 Sum of Ranks , 15 13 15 15 Associated p-value < .01 < .005 < .01 < 01 ee Natl A Att A A I EP A tt Approved For Release 2000/08/10 “Cla-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 TABLE 13. SET A VS. SET B RANKINGS FROM BISAHA AND DUNNE (1977) 4 RANKS ASSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGE 3 JUDGE 6 Plaza del Lago 1 1 Wrigley Field 2 | 2 Tethny Mission , : 2 2 Lindheimer Obs. 1 1 ' Madonna del Strada 2 3 NWRR Station . 3 4 Grant Park Bandshell | 1 1 Sum of Ranks 12 14 Associated p-value < .001 < 005 . 191 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
mma OO LL a ee aa Rennes seseteessessnassssmnheiuen Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 woe Kapertment Two Experimental Design. Five. trials were conducted, over a five-day consecutive period, with the subject in the midwestern U.S. and the tarpet person in Eastern Europe. Subject responded between 8:30 and 8:45 AM (CDT), while target person was at target location between 3:00 and 3:15 PM (local time) 23-1/2 to 24-1/2 hours later. Distances were 5087 to 5284 miles. Subject. No description or mention is made of subject, selection procedure, or his/her experience, Leperimenter. No mention is made of any experimenter located with the ‘subject. Presumably the timing and protocol were previously established, requiring no experimenter to be present during the trials. Target Person. Probably this-is the senior author, although such was not stated explicitly. Judges. The subject, the target person, and a third person, who had no connection with the experiment, served as judges. | Equipment. A tape recorder was used to record subject's target _ descriptions. No other equipment or subject location is mentioned. : Targets. Five locations where the target person happened to be at the predetermined times served as targets. No mention is made of how such locations were chosen. Procedure. At the preset times the subject described the target. person's location, 23-1/2 to 24-1/2 hours in advance, Descriptions were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed. | The target person concentrated on his surroundings, took a photograph, and wrote brief target descriptions during the preset time periods. Upon his return, target person presented the five photographs and brief descriptions 192 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 a ts
cc a mensesenesaenistaoe M0: . 400260003-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000 pp 10: oA in random order to the subject for matching. Subject gave the target person copies of the transcribed descriptions, also in random order, for target person to blind match against the targets. Also, a (third) judge blind ranked the photographs against the subjects' descriptions. hesulte. Following Morris' (1972) procedure (Appendix A), the results are shown in Table 14. All three sets of ranks produced a result beyond chance significance, Transcript excerpts from the Danube River and Exhibition of Economic Achievement targets show meaningful’ commonality between descriptions and targets. | Conelustons. Distance and time appear to pose no barrier to the ef fective- ness of the RV channel. Critteal Evaluatton. The methodology can be easily criticized on several mechanical issues. First, the pairings of subjects were odd in Experiment One: S,, and Ss. served three times each, always paired together; Se served three times, paired twice with S53 S, served twice; and Sg» 89> and S40 served once each. This does not appear logical by any system of a prtort planning. If experience in this type of task is pertinent to performance, then confounding surely hag occurred. Secondly, some subjects were watched during the trials, while others were not. No mention is made of how, by whom, why not all, etc. This inconsistency also contaminates the results. Thitd, judges were presumably naive. Instructions to judges are not given. Fourth, inconsistent locations of the subjects further confound the results. Are some locations better than others? Did subjects communicate telepathically between themselves? Did they do so only at given distances? Approved For Release 2000/08/10? CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SECnE
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CVA RSC00787R000100260003-2 In certain locations? The fact that the results are significant statistically and the assertion by the authors that "the reports of the subjects in each pair differed enough to make it obvious that »». the perceptions reflected individual differences" do not rule out such intersubject communication. If such communication existed, it was possibly inconsistent across subject pairs due to the various circumstances of the trials. Fifth, were the targets really located randomly in the Chicago area? If the target ‘person drove continuously for 20 minutes with no particular direction, opened the envelope, and then had only 15 minutes to get to the target, the radial distance from the starting point had to be somewhat constrained due to Chicago size and traffic density. These constraints are not. mentioned. While the Experiment One excerpts appear very accurate, the judges' responses are not that impressive for the targets for which excerpts are printed (means of 3 and 1.75, respectively), not as good, on the average, as that for all targets combined (mean rank = 2,07). Thus, one must conclude that (1) all transcripts had elements pertinent to these targets, or (2) the judges were not particularly accurate in the use of specific transcript information. Since the judges behaved well above chance, (2) is illogical and one must admit that transcript element commonality (1) is a distinct possibility. (This will be discussed in Section III as part of the response criterion problem.) An interesting question is whether the mean rankings, by target, for Sets A and B are correlated with the mean agreement rankings, by target, as given in Table 12. If a positive correlation exists, one might logically conclude that targets which lead to better remote viewing (Table 12) can also be judged more reliably (Table 13. A product-moment correlation Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : €1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 r OF bn
| 6. 0003-2 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Chapfapeoa6.00787R00010026 between the mean ranks, by target, in Tables 12 and 13 was calculated; its value is - .51 (p > .05). While not statistically significant, the negative correlation casts some doubt as to the logical and consistent intertarget differences. The methodology in Experiment Two is very poorly described or controlled. No mention is made of the following: (1) Who was the subject, his/her experience, how chosen, etc.? (2) Where was the subject during each trial, with whom, etc.? Why was only one subject used? (3) Who was the target person? Did the subject or anyone else know anything of his itinerary? Did the subject know anything about his particular tourism interests? (4) Use of target person and subject as judges is unusual. Why not employ more than one "naive" judge? This second experiment is much too loosely reported. Summary. While the results of both these experiments are impressive and statistically significant, the methodology has several shortcomings, at least as reported. More detailed reporting of procedural steps, subject assignments and selections, and the like would produce greater confidence on the part of the reader. In. their introduction, the authors state that "over twenty laboratory experiments have been conducted in our lab with more than ten subjects involving the precognitive protocol" and that positive results have been obtained for each subject. This paper describes 12 trials, using eight subjects. The next reported experiment (Bisaha and Dunne, 1977b) used eight trials and two subjects. These sum to exactly twenty trials and ten subjects, assuming the subjects are all different, which cannot be determined Approved For Release 2000/08/10 18&/A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 epee
Approved For Release 2000/08/10. : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 from the reports, If the authors have performed "over twenty experiments" using "more than ten subjects" the remaining data are unknown to us. It should be noted that subjects in Experiment One are numbered 8, through S19? and the subject in Experiment Two is not numbered. The two subjects in Bisaha and Dunne (1977b) are similarly not numbered. Cc, Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J. Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago area: A replication of the Stanford experiment, In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. .L. Morris (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1976. Metuchen, Neds: The Scarecrow Press, 1977, 84-86, Purpose. The purposes of this research were (1) to investigate the ability of untrained persons to perceive and describe remote sites before the target locations have been determined, thus replicating the SRI experiments, and (2) to explore conditions of spatial and temporal separation between subjects and target persons. Experimental Design. Two. subjects received a total of eight trials, six for one subject and two for the other. Subjects were to describe the target prior to target visit by target pérson. Subjects. Two volunteer female college students served ag subjects. No other information is given. aperimenter. Experimenter was not specifically identified, but text suggests it was J. P. Bisaha. farget Person. One of the "experimenters ," apparently B. J. Dunne. Judges. The three judges were persons "not otherwise connected with the experiment." No additional information is piven. Approved For Release 2000/08/162’CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : “ari © 0078 7RODOTO02SNNNS-2 Equipment. The only apparent equipments are a tape recorder and camera. Sketches were made by subjects on paper. largets. The target pool contained over 100 sites in the Chicago area or suburban area lying within a radius of a 30-minute drive from Mundelein College. Specific targets (eight) used in this experiment are not defined. Procedure. The subject was told about the nature of the experiment, the procedure to be followed, and asked to relax, become comfortable, and "let her mind -become blank." At that point she was to try to visualize the location where the experimenter would be 35 minutes later. She had 15 minutes to describe the location aloud into the tape recorder and to make Sketches of her image of the target location. She-was advised not to attempt to define or identify specifically what she saw, but to offer only general descriptions and impressions. She remained in a closed room with an observer who had no knowledge of the target location. The target person left the college at the same time the subject began her description. The target person carried 10 envelopes, each of which held a card designating a particular target location. The 10 envelopes were randomly selected by “another experimenter" from the target pool which "had been compiled by a person who had no other affiliation with the experiment and who was the only person familiar with the contents of the envelopes." The target person drove continuously for 20. minutes, or until 5 minutes after the subject had completed her response. Then, the target person selected “at random" a number from 1 to 10 from an enclosed container holding 10 identically folded sheets of paper. While still driving, the experimenter counted down to that number in the pile of target envelopes and proceeded to the target location on the enclosed card in the designated Approved For Release 2000/08/16-2°CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 aaa
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SECRET envelope, timing her arrival to be 15 minutes later, or 35 minutes after the subject began her response. The target person remained at the site 15 minutes, photographed the Location, and made notes as to her impression of the site. She then returned to the college. Typed, unedited transcripts of the subjects! responses were attached to any associated drawings made by the subjects. ‘Data Analysis. Vhe eight transcripts, labeled only A through H, were given to the judges in random order. Judges were also given, in random order, the photographs and notes taken by the target person at each site. Bach judge was asked to blind rank order the transcripts with each location. The judges were also taken to visit the target locations, but were asked to rank order only in terms of the photographs. The authors do not state whether these target site visits occurred before or after the rank order procedure was completed. Morris' method of analysis was applied to the sum of the ranks for each target. Results. The sums of the ranks were 12, 12, and 15 for the three judges. Two judges each had five direct hits out of eight targets. The third judge had four direct hits. "The highest rank given any transcript was three." The results for the two judges having a sum of 12 are significant at p< 1074; the result for the third judge is significant at p < .0005. Coneluston. The authors conclude that the results support the existence of "perceptual and communication chamels which lie beyond the senses as they are currently defined.” Critical Evaluation. This paper is presented as a "research brief" and is necessarily limited in detail; nevertheless, several critical items 199 Approved For Release 2000/0 SERRE PPPRDP96-00787R000100260003-2