puTHOFtAfiWQxe^: Ft<aifi£te'tesaec2Oi0iMl8^ i[Q*fttRDiaa640<w6®PK)Oi 100010002-8
337
PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS TARGET
Fig, 4.
Subject Hammid (S4) drawing, described as “some kind qf diagonal trough up in the air.”
TABLE
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts
Associated with Each Target Location for Experienced
Subject Price (Si)
Target Location
Distance
(km)
Rank of
Associated
Transcript
Hoover Tower,
Stanford
3.4
Baylands Nature Preserve,
Palo Alto
6.4
Radio
telescope,
Portola Valley
6.4
Marina,
Redwood City
6.8
Bridge
toll plaza, Fremont
14.5
Drive-in theater,
Palo Alto
5.1
Arts and Crafts
Plaza, Menlo Park
1.9
Catholic Church,
Portola Valley
8.5
Swimming pool complex,
Palo Alto
3.4
Total
sum of ranks
(p=2. 9xl(T B
)
who
felt that he used his remote-viewing ability in his every-
day life.
In comparison with the latter two, many people are more
influenced
by
their
environment
and
are
reluctant
under
public scrutiny to attempt activities that are generally thought
to be impossible.
Society often provides inhibition and nega-
tive
feedback
to
the
individual who might
otherwise have
explored his own nonregular perceptual ability. We
all share
an
historical
tradition of
“the
stoning of prophets and the
burning of witches” and, in more modern times, the hospitaliza-
tion of those who claim to perceive things that the majority do
not
admit
to
seeing.
Therefore, in addition to maintaining
scientific
rigor, one of our primary tasks as researchers is to
provide
an environment
in which
the
subject
feels
safe
to
explore the possibility of paranormal perception.
With a new
subject, we also try to stress the nonuniqueness of the ability
because from our experience paranormal functioning appears
to be a latent
ability that
all subjects can articulate to some
degree.
Because of Mrs. Hammid’s
artistic background, she was ca-
pable of drawing and describing visual images that she could
not identify in any cognitive or analytic sense. When the target
demarcation
team
went
to
a
target
location which was
a
pedestrian overpass, the subject
said
that she saw “a kind of
trough up
in the
air,” which she indicated in the upper part
of her drawing in Fig.
4.
She went on to explain,
“If you
stand where
they
are
standing you
will
see something like
this,” indicating the nested squares at the bottom of Fig. 4.
As
it turned out, a judge standing where she indicated would
have a view closely resembling what she had drawn, as can be
seen from the accompanying photographs of the target loca-
tion.
It needs to be emphasized, however, that judges did not
have
access
to our photographs of the
site,
used here
for
illustrative purposes only, but rather they proceeded to each
of the target locations by list.
In
another
experiment,
the
subject
described
seeing “an
open barnlike structure with a pitched roof.”
She
also saw
a “kind of slatted side to the structure making light and dark
bars on
the
wall.”
Her drawing and
a photograph of the
associated bicycle shed
target are shown in Fig.
5.
(Subjects
are encouraged to make drawings of anything they visualize
and associate with the remote location because drawings they
make ar-e in general more accurate than their verbal description.)
As in the
original
series with Price, the results of the nine-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
PROCEEDING;
ROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, MARCH 1976
Fig. 5.
Subject Hammid (S4) response to bicycle shed target described as an open “barn-like building” with “slats
on the sides” and a “pitched roof.”
Again,
as
a backup judging procedure, a panel of five addi-
tional
judges
not
otherwise
associated
with
the
research
were
asked
simply
to
blind match the unedited typed
tran-
scripts and associated drawings generated by the remote viewer,
against
the
nine
target
locations which
they independently
visited
in
turn.
A correct match consisted of a transcript of
a
given
date
being matched to the
target of that
date.
In-
stead
of
the expected number of
match
each per judge,
the number
of
correct matches obtained by the
five judges
was
5, 3, 3,
2, and
2, respectively.
Thus, rather than the ex-
pected
total number of 5
correct matches from the judges,
15 such matches were obtained.
C.
Subjects S2 and S3: Experienced
Having completed a series of
1 8 remote-viewing experiments,
each
with
experienced
subject SI
(Price) and learner S4
(Hammid), additional replication experiments, four with each
subject, were carried out with experienced subjects S 2 (Elgin)
experiment
series were submitted for independent judging on
and S3 (Swann) and learners S5 and S6. To place the judging
a blind basis by an SRI research analyst not otherwise associ-
on
a basis comparable to that used with SI and S4, the four
ated with the research.
While at each target location, visited
transcripts each of experienced subjects S2 and S3 were com-
in turn, the judge was required
to
blind rank order the nine
bined into a group of eight for rank order judging to be corn-
unedited typed
manuscripts
of the tape-recorded
narratives,
pared
with
the
similarly
combined
results
of
the
learners
along with any
associated
drawings generated by the remote
S5 and S 6.
viewer, on
a scale
1 to 9 (best to worst match).
The sum of
The series with S2 (Elgin, an SRI research analyst) provided
ranks assigned to the target-associated transcripts in this case
a further example of the dichotomy between verbal and draw-
was
13, a result significant at p = 1.8 X
6 by exact calcula-
ing responses.
(As with medical literature, case histories often
tion (see Table
I and discussion), and included five direct hits
are more illuminating than the summary of results.)
The ex-
and four second ranks (Table III).
periment
described
here was
the
third conducted with
this
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
TABLE III
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated
with Each Target Location for Learner Subject Hammid (S4)
Target Location
Distance
Rank of
Associated
Methodist Church,
Palo Alto
1.9
Ness Auditorium,
Menlo Park
0.2
Merry-go-round,
Palo Alto
3.4
Parking garage, Mountain View
8.1
SRI
International Courtyard, Menlo
Park
0.2
Bicycle
shed, Menlo Park
0.1
Railroad
trestle bridge,
Palo Alto
1.3
Pumpkin patch,
Menlo Park
1.3
Pedestrian overpass,
Palo Alto
Total
sum
of ranks
5.0
(p=l. 8xl0” 8
)
puTHOFi^eftrexi&
1 00010002-8
339
Fig. 6.
Subject Elgin (S2) drawings in response to tennis court target.
subject.
It was a demonstration experiment for a government
visitor who had heard of our work and wanted to evaluate our
experimental protocol.
In the laboratory, the subject, holding a bearing compass at
arm’s length, began the experiment by indicating the direction
of the target demarcation team correctly to within 5°
.
(In all
four experiments with this subject, he has always been within
10° of the correct direction in this angular assessment.)
The
subject then generated a 15-min tape-recorded description and
the drawings shown in Fig. 6.
In
discussing
the
drawings,
Elgin
indicated
that
he
was
uncertain
as
to the action, but had the impression that the
demarcation team was located
at a museum (known to him)
in a particular park.
In fact, the target was a tennis court lo-
cated in that park about 90 m from the indicated museum.
Once
again, we note the characteristic (discussed earlier) of a
resemblance between the
target
site
and certain gestalt
ele-
ments
of the
subject’s response,
especially in regard to the
drawings, coupled
with incomplete or erroneous
analysis of
the significances.
Nonetheless, when rank ordering transcripts
1 through 8
at the site, the judge ranked this transcript as
2.
This example illustrates a continuing observation that most of
the correct information related to us by subjects is of a non-
analytic nature pertaining to shape, form, color, and material
rather than to function or name.
A second example from this group, generated by S3 (Swann),
indicates the
level of proficiency that can be attained with
practice.
In the two years since we first started working with
Swann, he has been studying the problem of separating the ex-
ternal
signal
from
the
internal
noise.
In our most
recent
experiments, he dictates two
lists for us to record.
One
list
contains objects that he “sees,” but does not think are located
at the remote scene.
A second
list contains objects that he
thinks are at the scene.
In our evaluation, he has made much
progress
in
this
most
essential
ability
to
separate memory
and imagination from paranormal inputs.
This
is the key to
bringing the remote-viewing channel to fruition with regard to
its potential usefulness.
The quality of transcript that can be generated by this pro-
cess is evident from the results of our most recent experiment
with Swann.
The target location chosen by the usual double-
blind protocol was the Palo Alto City Hall. Swann des6ribed a
tall building with vertical columns and “set in” windows.
His
sketch, together with the photograph of the site, is shown in
Fig.
7.
He
said
there was a fountain, “but
I don’t hear it.”
At the time the target team was at the City Hall during the
experiment, the fountain was not running.
He also made an
effort to draw a replica of the designs in the pavement in front
of the building, and correctly indicated the number of trees
(four) in the sketch.
For the entire series of eight, four each from S2 and S3, the
numerical
evaluation
based on
blind rank
ordering of tran-
scripts at each
site was significant
at p = 3.8 X
10"4
and
in-
cluded three direct hits and three second ranks for the target-
associated transcripts (see Table IV).
D.
Subjects S5 and S6: Learners
To complete the series, four experiments each were carried
out with learner subjects S5 and S6, a man and woman on the
SRI
professional
staff.
The
results in
this case, taken
as a
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, MARCH 1976
* »**•<*«.
'
$*•»**
jf/W'
SkUXmA.
otojy.
t04o«/wv
I
<**y
\
o
lOo
c>
y--
Fig. 7.
Subject Swann (S3) response to City Hall target.
TABLE IV
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated
with Each Target Location for Experienced Subjects Elgin (S2)
and Swann (S3)
Target
Location
Distance
(km)
Rank of
Associated
Transcript
S2
BART
Station
(Transit
System),
Fremont
16.1
S2
Shielded
room,
SRI, Menlo Park
0.1
S2
Tennis
court,
Palo Alto
3.4
S2
Golf course
bridge,
Stanford
3.4
S3
City Hall,
Palo Alto
2.0
S3
Miniature golf course,
Menlo
Park
3.0
S3
Kiosk
in
park,
Menlo Park
0.3
S3
Baylands Nature
Preeerve,
Palo Alto
6.4
Tdtal
sum .of
ranks
(P-3.8X10" 4
)
TABLE V
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated
with Each Target Location for Learner Subjects S5 and S6
Sublect
Target
Location
Distance
(km)
Rank
of
Associated
Transcript
S5
Pedestrian overpass,
Palo Alto
5.0
S5
Railroad
trestle bridge,
Palo Alto
1.3
S5
Windmill,
Portola
Valley
8.5
S5,
S6
White
Plaza,
Stanford
(2)
3.8
S6
Airport,
Palo Alto
5.5
S6
Kiosk
in
Park,
Menlo
Park
0.3
S6
Boathouse,
Stanford
Total
Bum
of
ranks
4.0
(p=0. 08,
NS)
vious experience in remote viewing, began to describe a large
square with a fountain.
Four minutes into the experiment,
she recognized the location and correctly identified it by name
(see Fig. 8).
(It should be noted that in the area from which
the
target
locations
were
drawn
there
are
other
fountains
as
well, some of which were in the target pool.)
As an ex-
ample of the style of the narratives generated during remote
viewing with inexperienced subjects and of the part played by
the experimenter remaining with the subject in such a case,
we have included the entire unedited text of this experiment
as Appendix B.
E. Normal and Paranormal: Use of Unselected Subjects in
Remote Viewing
group, did not differ significantly from chance. For the series
of eight (judged as a group of seven since one target came up
twice, once for each subject), the numerical evaluation based
on
blind rank
ordering
of
transcripts at each
site was non-
significant at p = 0.08, even though there were two direct hits
and two second ranks out of the seven (see Table V).
One of the direct hits, which occurred with subject S6 in her
first experiment, provides an example of the “first-time effect”
that has been rigorously explored and is well-known to experi-
menters
in
the
field
[57],
The
outbound
experimenter
obtained, by random protocol from the pool,
a
target blind
to the experimenter with the subject, as
is our standard pro-
cedure, and proceeded to the location.
The subject, a mathe-
matician in the computer science laboratory who had no pre-
After more than a year of following the experimental pro-
tocol described above and observing that even inexperienced
subjects generated results better than expected, we initiated a
series of experiments to explore further whether individuals
other than putative “psychics” can demonstrate the remote-
viewing
ability.
To
test
this idea, we have a continuing pro-
gram to carry out additional experiments of the outdoor type
with new subjects whom we have no a priori reason to believe
have paranormal perceptual ability. To date we have collected
data from
five experiments with two individuals in this cate-
gory:
a man
and
a woman who were
visiting government
scientists interested in observing our experimental protocols.
The motivation for these particular experiments was twofold.
First, the experiments provide data that indicate the level of
proficiency
that can be expected from unselected volunteers.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
Fig. 8.
Subject (S6) drawing of White Plaza, Stanford University. Sub-
ject drew what she called “curvy benches” and then announced cor-
rectly that the place was “White Plaza at Stanford.”
Second, when an individual observes a successful demonstra-
tion experiment involving another person as subject,
it inevi-
tably occurs to him that perhaps chicanery
is involved. We
have found the most effective way to settle this issue for the
observer is to have the individual himself act as a subject so as
to
obtain
personal
experience
against
which
our
reported
results can be evaluated.
The
first visitor (VI) was invited to participate as a subject
in a three-experiment series.
All three experiments contained
elements
descriptive
of the
associated
target
locations; the
quality
of response
increased
with
practice.
The
third
re-
sponse
is shown in Fig. 9, where again the pattern elements in
the drawing appeared to be a closer match than the subject’s
analytic interpretation of the target object as a cupola.
•ftf
\fitu)
RESPONSES OF VISITING
SCIENTIST SUBJECT
Fig. 9.
Subject (VI) drawing of merry-go-round target.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
342
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: ClA-RDPOe-OOySSROOl^^^, THE IEEE> MARCH 1976
TECHNOLOGY SERIES
TYPEWRITER TARGET
to ***£»«
<M¥>
o* ~L+f> c^
aS‘
~
a Rtiftluwji cU. 2
-
(v4u£l 0+ iLf
,
S4i 6^
jCrt imeko - U«*^
ins
m<4 U wakC
SUBJECT SWANN
(S3) RESPONSE
SUBJECT HAMMID
(S4) RESPONSE
Fig. 10.
Drawings of a typewriter target by two subjects.
The second visitor [V2]
participated as a subject in two ex-
periments.
In his
first experiment, he generated one of the
higher
signal-to-noise
results we have
observed.
He began
his narrative, “There
is a red A-frame building and next to it
is
a
large yellow
thing
[a
tree—Editor]
.
Now
further
left
there
is another A-shape.
It looks like
a swing-set, but
it
is
pushed down
in a gully so
I can’t see the swings.”
[All cor-
rect.]
He then went on to describe a lock on the front door
that he
said
“looks
like
it’s made
of laminated
steel, so
it
must be a Master lock.”
[Also correct.]
For the
series of five—three from the first subject and two
from
the
second— the
numerical
evaluation based on
blind
rank ordering of the transcripts at each site was significant at
p = 0.017 and included three direct hits and one second rank
for the target-associated transcripts. (See Table VI.)
TABLE VI
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated with
Each Target Location for Visitor Subjects VI and V2
Sub 1 ect
Target Location
Distance
(km)
Rank of
Associated
Transcript
VI
Bridge over
stream,
Menlo Park
0.3
VL
Baylands Nature Preserve,
Palo Alto
6.4
VI
Merry-go-round,
Palo Alto
3.4
V2
Windmill,
Portola
Valley
8.5
V2
Apartment
swimming pool,
Mountain View
9.1
Total
sum of ranks
(p=0.017)
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
PUTHOFF
343
TARGET LOCATION:
XEROX MACHINE
(TECHNOLOGY SERIES)
TO ADD INTEREST TO TARGET
LOCATION EXPERIMENTER WITH
HIS HEAD BEING XEROXED
<a>
Fig. 11.
Drawings by three subjects (S2, S3, and V3) for Xerox machine target.
When asked to describe the square at upper left of response on
the right, subject (V3) said, “There was this predominant light source which might have been a window, and a working surface which might have
been the
sill, or a working surface
or desk.”
Earlier the subject had said, “I have the feeling that there
is something silhouetted against the
window.”
Observations
with
unselected
subjects
such
as
those
de-
scribed above indicate that remote viewing may be a latent and
widely distributed perceptual ability.
F.
Technology Series: Short-Range Remote Viewing
Because remote viewing
is
a perceptual
ability, we consid-
ered
it important to obtain data on its resolution capabilities.
To accomplish
this, we turned to the use of indoor techno-
logical targets.
Twelve experiments were carried out with five different sub-
jects, two of whom were visiting government scientists. They
were
told
that one
of the experimenters would be
sent by
random protocol to a laboratory within the SRI complex and
that he would
interact
with the equipment or apparatus
at
that location.
It was further explained that the experimenter
remaining with the subject was, as usual, kept ignorant of the
contents of the target pool to prevent cueing during question-
ing.
(Unknown to subjects, targets in the pool were used with
replacement; one of the goals of this particular experiment was
to
obtain multiple responses to
a given
target to investigate
whether correlation of a number of subject responses would
provide enhancement of the
signal-to-noise
ratio.)
The sub-
ject
was
asked
to
describe
the
target
both
verbally
(tape
recorded) and by means of drawings during a time-synchronized
15-min
interval
in which
the outbound experimenter inter-
acted
in
an
appropriate manner with the equipment in the
target area.
In the twelve experiments, seven targets were used:
a drill
press, Xerox
machine, video
terminal,
chart
recorder,
four-
state random number
generator,
machine
shop,
and
type-
writer.
Three
of these were used
twice
(drill
press, video
terminal, and typewriter) and one (Xerox machine) came up
three times in our random selection procedure.
Comparisons of the targets and subject drawings for three of
the
multiple-response
cases (the typewriter, Xerox machine,
and video terminal) are shown in Figs.
10, 11, and
12.
As is
apparent
from
these
illustrations
alone,
the
experiments
provide
circumstantial evidence
for an
information
channel
of useful
bit
rate.
This includes experiments
in which visit-
ing
government
scientists
participated
as
subjects
(Xerox
machine
and
video
terminal)
to
observe
the protocol.
In
general,
it appears that use of multiple-subject responses to a
single
target
provides
better
signal-to-noise
ratio than
target
identification by a single individual.
This conclusion
is borne
out by the judging described below.
Given
that
in
general
the
drawings
constitute
the
most
accurate portion of a subject’s description, in the first judging
procedure
a judge was asked simply to blind match only the
drawings (i.e., without tape transcripts) to the targets. Multiple-
subject responses to a given target were stapled together, and
thus
seven
subject- drawing
response
packets
were
to
be
matched to the seven different targets for which drawings were
made.
The judge did not have access to our photographs of
the
target locations, used for illustration purposes only, but
rather proceeded to each of the target locations by list. While
standing at each target location, the judge was required to rank
order the seven subject- drawing response packets (presented in
random order) on
a scale
1 to 7 (best to worst match).
For
seven targets, the sum of ranks could range from 7 to 49. The
sum
in
this
case, which included
direct
hit and 4 second
ranks out of the 7 (see Table VII) was 18, a result significant
at p = 0.036.
In the second more detailed effort
at evaluation, a visiting
scientist selected
at random one of the
12 data packages (a
drill press experiment), sight unseen and submitted
it for in-
dependent analysis to an engineer with a request for an esti-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
344
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, MARCH 1976
TARGET:
VIDEO MONITOR FOR TEXT EDITING (TECHNOLOGY SERIES)
(a)
(b)
Fig, 12.
Drawing by two subjects of a video monitor target,
(a) Subject (S4) drawing of “box with light coming out of it
.
.
. painted flat black
and in the middle of the room.”
(b) Second subject (V2) saw a computer terminal with relay racks in the background.
TABLE VII
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Subject
Drawings Associated with Each Target Location
Subject
Target
Rank of
Associated
Drawings
S3,
S4
Drill press
S2,
S3,
V3
Xerox machine
S4,
V2
Video terminal
S3
Chart recorder
S4
Random number generator
S4
Machine
shop
S3,
S4
Typewriter
Total
sum of ranks
(p=0, 036)
mate as to what was being described. The analyst, blind as to
the
target and
given
only
the
subject’s taped narrative and
drawing
(Fig.
13), was
able, from
the
subject’s description
alone, to correctly classify the target as a “man-sized vertical
boring machine.”
G. Summary of Remote Viewing Results
1) Discussion:
The
descriptions
supplied by
the
subjects
in the experiments involving remote viewing of natural targets
or
laboratory
apparatus,
although
containing
inaccuracies,
were sufficiently accurate to permit the judges to differentiate
among various
targets to the degree indicated.
A summary
TABLE VIII
Summary: Remote Viewing
Subject
Number of
Experiments
BffflmfW'll
With natural targets
Si
(experienced)
2.9
X
10' 5
S2 and
S3
(experienced)
3.8
X
10' 4
S4
(learner)
1.8
X
10' 6
S5 and
S6
(learners)
0.08
(NS)
Vl and
V2
(learners/visitors)
0.017
With
technology
targets
S2,
S3,
S4,
V2,
V3
0.036
tabulation of the
statistical evaluations of these fifty-one ex-
periments with nine subjects is presented in Table VIII.
The
overall
result,
evaluated
conservatively
on
the
basis
of
a
judging procedure that ignores transcript quality beyond that
necessary to rank order the data packets (vastly underestimat-
ing
the
statistical
significance
of
individual
descriptions),
clearly
indicates the
presence
of an information channel of
useful
bit
rate.
Furthermore,
it
appears
that the principal
difference
between
experienced
subjects and
inexperienced
volunteers
is not that the latter never exhibit the faculty, but
rather that their results are simply less reliable, more sporadic.
Nevertheless, as described
earlier, individual
transcripts from
the inexperienced group of subjects number among some of
the
best
obtained.
Such observations indicate a hypothesis
that remote viewing may be
a latent and widely
distributed
perceptual ability.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8
345
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CI^^P96^a&Rp0 11 0001 0002-8
PUTHOFF AND TARG: PERCEPTUAL CHANNEL FOk INTOTOTAllON^raANSFEK
TARGET: DRILL PRESS
Fig. 13.
Subject (S4) drawing of
drill press showing belt drive, stool,
and a “vertical graph that goes up and down.”
Thus the primary achievement of the SRI program was the
elicitation
of
high-quality
remote
viewing from
individuals
who agreed to
act
as
subjects.
Criticism of this claim could
in
principle be .put
forward on the basis of three potential
flaws.
1) The study could involve naivete
in protocol that
permits various forms of cueing, intentional or unintentional.
2) The experiments discussed could be selected out of a larger
pool
of experiments
of which many
are of poorer quality.
3) Data for the reported experiments could be edited to show
only
the matching elements, the nonmatching elements being
discarded.
All three criticisms, however, are invalid.
First, with regard
to cueing, the use of double-blind protocols ensures that none
of the persons in contact with the subject can be aware of the
target.
Second, selection of experiments for reporting did not
take place; every experiment was entered
as performed on a
master log and
is included in the statistical evaluations.
Third,
data associated with
a given experiment remain unedited; all
experiments are tape recorded and
all data are included un-
edited in the data package to be judged and evaluated.
In the process of judging— attempting to match
transcripts
against
targets
on
the
basis
of
the
information
in
the
transcripts—some
patterns
and
regularities
in
the
transcript
descriptions became evident,
particularly regarding individual
styles
in remote viewing and in the perceptual form of the
descriptions
given by
the
subjects.
These patterns and the
judging procedure are discussed below.
a)
Styles
of
response:
The
fifty-one
transcripts
were
taken
from
nine
different
subjects.
Comparing
the
tran-
scripts of one subject with those of another revealed that each
pattern
tended
to
focus
on
certain
aspects
of the remote
target complex
and
to
exclude
others, so that each had an
individual pattern of response, like a signature.
Subject
S3,
for example,
frequently responded with topo-
graphical descriptions, maps, and architectural features of the
target locations.
Subject S2 often focused on the behavior of
the remote experimenter or the sequence of actions he carried
out
at
the
target.
The
transcripts of subject S4, more than
those of other subjects, had descriptions of the feel of the lo-
cation,
and
experiential
or
sensory
gestalts—for
example,
light/dark
elements
in
the
scene
and
indoor/outdoor
and
enclosed/open distinctions.
Prominent features of SI
s tran-
scripts were detailed descriptions of what the
target persons
were concretely experiencing,
seeing, or doing-for example,
standing on asphalty blacktop overlooking water; looking
at
a purple iris.
The
range
of any individual subject’s responses was wide.
Anyone might draw a map or describe the mood of the remote
experimenter,
but
the
consistency
of each
subject’s
overall
approach
suggests
that
just
as
individual
descriptions
of
a
directly viewed scene would
differ,
so these
differences also
occur in remote-viewing processes.
b) Nature of the description:
The concrete descriptions
that appear most commonly
in transcripts are at the level of
subunits of the overall scene.
For example, when the target
was
a Xerox copy machine,
the responses included
(S2)
a
rolling object (the moving
light)
or
dials and a cover that
is
lifted (S3), but the machine as a whole was not identified by
name or function.
In
a few
transcripts,
the
subjects correctly
identified and
named
the
target.
In the case of a computer terminal, the
subject (V2) apparently perceived the terminal and the relay
racks behind
it.
In the case of targets which were Hoover
Tower and White Plaza, the subjects (SI and S6, respectively)
seemed
to
identify
the
locations through
analysis
of
their
initial images of the elements of the target.
There were also occasional incorrect identifications.
Gestalts
were
incorrectly named;
for example, swimming pools
in a
park were identified as water storage tanks at a water filtration
plant (SI).
The most common perceptual level was thus an intermediate
one— the individual elements and items that make up the tar-
get.
This is suggestive of a scanning process that takes sample
perceptions from within the overall environment.
When the subjects tried to make sense out of these fragmen-
tary
impressions,
they
often
resorted
to metaphors or con-
structed an image with a kind of perceptual inference.
From
a feeling of the target as an “august” and “solemn” building,
a subject (S4)
said
it might be a library; it was a church. A
pedestrian overpass above a freeway was described as a conduit
(S4). A rapid transit station, elevated above the countryside,
was
associated with
an
observatory
(S2).
These
responses
seem to be the result of attempts to process partial informa-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 10001 0002-8