Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION IN REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS:
II
Marks and Kammann in a recent
letter
to Nature * report
failure
in
their attempt
to replicate our experiments
in "remote viewing,"
the
ability of certain individuals
to access and describe,
by means
of
mental processes,
information blocked from ordinary perception by
2-4
distance
or
shielding.
In order
to account
for
the discrepancy
between their failure and our reported
success,
they hypothesize that
the apparent success
in our
experiments may be an artifact
of statements
in the subject
transcripts which provide extraneous
cues useful
to
judges attempting to blind match transcripts
to target
sites.
Marks
and Kammann argue post hoc
that examples from the transcripts of our
first published experiment--a nine-trial
series with subject Price
--
support
their hypothesis.
Generalizing to the rest
of our work they
then conclude that
the remote viewing phenomenon
is as yet unconfirmed.
We present here and
in the following letter by Tart,
evidence
demonstrating that
their conjecture
is
invalid
for
our work
in general,
and
for the Price series
in particular.
For
the Price series we
include a rigorous
test of their hypothesis,
which we show to be false.
Background .
At the beginning of an experiment,
one experimenter
is closeted with a subject
to await an agreed-upon start
time.
A
second experimenter
is
then
sent,
by random-number access
to a
previously prepared target
pool,
to a target
location
in the
San Francisco Bay Area
(~ 250 square km).
During a predetermined
30-min viewing period the subject
is asked
to render drawings and
describe
into a tape recorder his
impressions of the target site being
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
visited by the outbound experimenter.
The experimenter remaining with
the subject
is kept
ignorant
of both the particular target and
the contents of the target
pool,
and
is
therefore free
to question
the
subject
to clarify his descriptions without
fear
of cueing,
overt
or
subliminal.
Following
a series
of such experiments
over
a several-day period,
the data are given
to independent
judges
for various
forms
of blind
analysis
such as correlation of target/ transcript descriptors,
blind
matching,
etc.
In
the blind-matching procedure,
which provides an
overall estimate of target/transcript correlations,
a judge attempts
to blind-match transcripts
to target
sites,
putatively
on
the basis
of information in the transcripts derived via
the remote-viewing
channel.
For
this matching process,
extraneous cues
that might be helpful
to a judge must be absent from the judging package.
Although
in the
Price series
in question we took certain precautions
to ensure that
the judging package was
cue- free
(light
editing of transcript preambles,
randomization procedures),
Marks and Kammann assert that
the process
was not carried
far
enough.
Indeed,
they hypothesize that certain
phrases
that were not edited out
of the transcripts
(e.g.,
"second
place of the day")
are solely responsible for the target/transcr ipt
matchings,
and that "the successful identification of target
sites by
judges
is
impossible"
in the absence of such phrases.
Rejudging .
To
test
the Marks -Kammann hypothesis rigorously,
the nine-transcript series
in question was turned over
to an independent
research psychologist^
for rejudging on the basis of the criteria
implied by the Marks-Kammann criticism.
He set himself
the task of
going over
the transcripts
carefully,
removing all phrases
suggested as
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
potential cues by Marks and Kammann,
and editing the transcripts
still
further,
removing any additional phrases
for which even the most remote
post hoc cue argument could be made.
He then arranged
to have
the
series rejudged by an independent qualified judge
who was completely
unfamiliar with
this
study.
The materials
turned over
to
the judge
consisted
of the newly edited transcripts presented
in random order,
and
the
list
of target
sites,
also
in random order
(different from
both the transcript random order and from the order of original
target
usage).
The judge was
instructed
to provide,
on a blind
basis,
a
detailed content analysis
of target/transcript correlations,
which
required
that she visit each target site and rate transcripts
to targets
on a scale of 0-100 for all possible combinations.
These data also
yield
the conventional overall measure of target/transcript correlations
by indicating the best transcript description from the set
of nine
for
each
target.
Results .
The result of the blind matching of transcripts
to target
sites
in the rejudging was
that
seven of
the nine were correctly
matched,
the same results obtained by the best
two of
the previous
six
1,2
^
judges.
The appropriate statistic
for
this overall matching result
is derived assuming non-independent assignment
of transcripts
to
target
sites
(as
in guessing the order
of a random sequence of
the digits
zero through nine,
each used once);^
the result
(seven out of nine
correctly matched)
is significant at
p <
10~^.
The more detailed
matrix of target/transcript rating correlations can be analyzed by the
g
Pratt-Birge method;
the result obtained by this analysis
is significant
_9
at
p < 10
.
(For details,
see accompanying
letter by
Tart. )
The
greater significance obtained by the latter,
more sensitive measure of
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
target/transcript correlations reflects
the following fact:
The judge
found
that,
with the exception of two transcripts
that did not appear
to correspond
to any site,
the remaining seven transcripts
each showed
high correlation to one
(correct)
site and
low correlation
to the
others.
Therefore,
on
the basis
of an independently conducted empirical
test,
we can reject as
invalid
the Marks-Kammann conjecture that
success
in our first-published study on remote viewing might
be
attributable
to cueing artifacts rather than to transcript/target
correlations.
Discussion .
To place
the preceding arguments
in proper perspective,
we first draw attention to the
fact
that
the Marks-Kammann critique
did not address
the quality of the remote-viewing descriptions in the
transcripts per
se,
but was
instead limited
to criticism of a particular
judging procedure used
to evaluate those descriptions.
With regard
to
the descriptions
themselves,
we note that
in the nine- transcript
series
in question,
when the target was a boat marina
the subject
gave a
consistent narrative
that began with "What
I'm looking at
is
a little
boat
jetty or boat dock along the bay.
It
is
in a direction about
like that
(pointing)
from here.
Yeah,
I see
the little boats,
some
motor
launch
(sic),
some little sailing ships...."
For
a
landmark
Hoover Tower
site,
the subject
summarized his impressions as "The area--
I have a place--seems
like
it would be Hoover
Tower."
For
a recreational
swimming pool site with
a
75'
X
100'
rectangular pool and a
110'
diameter circular pool,
the subject made a drawing
of
the target area
as centered about
two pools
of water,
which he dimensioned as
a
60'
X
89'
rectangular pool and
a
120'
diameter circular pool;
and
so
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
forth.
Furthermore,
as pointed out
above,
blind content
analysis
of
the transcripts,
which provides a sensitive measure
of
t^ie degree of
target/ transcript correspondences,
confirms
objectively
the subjective impression of above-chance correspondences
that
one
infers
from examples
such as
the above.
With data of
this quality we would
argue that
it
is not surprising
that empirical test
failed
to confirm
the cueing-artifact hypothesis
put
forward by Marks and
Kammann,
but
rather confirmed
that
the target/transcript matches
in our
first remote-
viewing study are
to be attributed
(as originally interpreted)
to
the
quality of
the subject's descriptions
themselves.
Secondly,
we note
that
in our extensive replication studies,
which
also yielded significant results,
the Marks-Kammann criticisms
do not
apply
in principle.
Target
lists and transcripts were separately
randomized,
and
transcripts were carefully checked prior
to judging
to ensure absence of any phrasing
for which
even
a weak post hoc potential-
cue argument could
be made.
Finally,
where Marks and Kammann report
failure
in their attempt
to replicate our remote-viewing results,
there are other
laboratories
9-13
who,
following our
procedures,
have reported success.
We will
have
to await disclosure of the Marks-Kammann protocols
to determine
whether
failure on their part can be traced
to differences
in procedure.
Given
(1)
the failure
(by empirical
test)
of the Marks-Kammann
cueing-artifact hypothesis
to account
for
the success
of our
first-
published remote-viewing
study,
(2)
the
level
of significance of
detailed content analysis
of
that
study,
(3)
the inapplicability of
their hypothesis
to our
later replication studies,
and
(4)
the
continuing successful replication of this work
in our own and other
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5