Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
of water
for
the
subject.
Therefore,
in several
cases even correct
images may not help
in
the conservative differential matching procedure
used.
According
to
the
judge,
the most
successful procedure was
a
careful
element by element comparison
that tested
each transcript against
every target and used
the
transcript descriptions
and drawings
as
argu-
ments
for
or against assigning
the
transcript
to
a particular
target.
In
most
cases,
this
resulted
in either
a clear conclusion or at
least
a
ranking
of probable matches;
these matches were
subjected
to
the
statis-
tical analyses presented
in
this paper.
2.
Summary
In
summary,
we do not yet have an understanding
of
the nature
of
the
information-bearing signal
that a sub j ect perceives during remote view-
ing.
The
subjects
commonly report
that
they perceive
the
signal visually
as
though they were
looking at
the object
or place
from
a position
in
its
immediate neighborhood.
Furthermore,
the
subjects
perceptual viewpoint
has mobility
in that
they can
shift
their point
of view
so as
to describe
elements
of
a
scene
that would not be visible
to an observer merely
standing at ground
level
and describing what he
sees.
(In particular,
a
subject often correctly describes
elements not visible
to
the
target
demarcation
team).
Finally,
motion
is
seldom
reported;
in
fact
moving objects often are unseen even when nearby
static objects
are
correctly
identified.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
A comparison of
the results
of
remote viewing
(a
so-called
f ree-response
task)
with
results
of
forced-choice
tasks,
such
as
the
selec-
tion of one of four choices generated by a random number generator
[ 58 ]
, reveals
the
following
findings.
From
a statistical
viewpoint,
a subject
is more
likely
to describe, with sufficient accuracy
to permit blind matching,
a
remote
site
chosen at random
than he
is
to select correctly one
of
four
random numbers.
Our experience with
these phenomena
leads
us
to consider
that
this
difference
in
task performance may stem from fundamental
signal-
tornoise considerations.
Two principal
sources
of noise
in
the system
apparently are memory and
imagination,
both of which
can give
rise
to
mental
pictures
of
greater clarity than
the
target
to
be perceived.
In
thp
random number
task,
a subject
can create
a perfect mental
picture
of
each
of
the
four possible outputs
in his
own imagination and
then attempt
to obtain
the
correct answer by
a mental matching operation.
The
same
is
true
for card guessing experiments.
On
the other hand,
the
subject
in
remote viewing
is apparently more
likely
to approach
the
task with
a
blank mind
as
he attempts
to
perceive
pictorial
information
from remote
locations
about which he may have
no
stored mental
data.
Finally,
we observe
that most
of
the
correct
information
that
subjects
relate
to
us
is
of
a nonanalytic nature pertaining
to
shape,
form,
color,
and material
rather
than
to
function
or
name.
In consul tat ion
with
Dr.
Robert Ornstein of
the Langley-Por ter Neuropsychiatric
Institute,
San Francisco,
and with
Dr.
Ralph Kiernan of
the Department
of Neurology,
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Stanford University Medical Center,
Stanford,
California,
we have
formed
the
tentative hypothesis
that paranormal
functioning may
involve
special-
ization characteristic
of
the brain’s right hemisphere.
This possibility
is
derived
from
a variety
of evidence
from clinical
and neurosurgical
sources which
indicate
that
the
two hemispheres
of
the human brain are
specialized
for different cognitive
functions.
The
left hemisphere
is
predominantly active
in verbal
and other analytical
functioning and
the
right hemisphere
predominates
in spatial
and other holistic processing
[59 ] s [ 60].
Further research
is necessary
to elucidate
the relationship
between right hemispheric
function and paranormal
abilities.
Nonetheless,
we
can
say at
this
point
that
the remote viewing results
of
the
group of sub-
jects at SRI have characteristics in common with more familiar performances that
require right hemispheric
function.
The
similarities
include
the highly
schematicized drawings
of objects
in
a
room or
of remote
scenes.
Verbal
identification of
these drawings
is
often highly
inaccurate and
the draw-
ings
themselves
are
frequently left-right
reversed relative
to
the
target
configuration.
Further,
written material
generally
is
not
cognized.
These
characteristics have been seen
in
left brain-injured patients
and
in
callosal-sec tioned patients.
As
a result of
the above
considerations,
we have
learned
to
urge our subjects
simply
to describe what
they
see
as
opposed
to what
they think
they are
looking at.
We have learned
that
their unanalyzed
perceptions
are almost always
a better
guide
to
the
true
target
than
their
interpretations
of
the perceived
data.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
IV
CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING TIME
If
the authors may be
forgiven
a personal note,
we wish
to express
that
this
section deals with observations
that we have been reluctant
to
publish because
of their striking apparent incompatibility with existing
concepts.
The motivating
factor
for presenting
the
data
at
this
time
is
the
ethical consideration
that
theorists endeavoring
to develop models
for paranormal
functioning should be apprised
of
all
the observable
data
if their efforts
to
arrive at
a comprehensive and correct description
are
to
be
successful.
During the course
of
the experimentation in remote viewing
(Section
III),
subjects occasionally volunteered
the information that
they had
been thinking about
their forthcoming participation in a remote viewing
experiment and had an image come
to
them as
to what
the
target
location
was
to
be.
On these occasions,
the information was
given only
to
the
experimenter remaining at
SRI with
the
subject
and was unknown
to
the
outbound experimenter until completion of
the
experiment.
Two
of
these
contributions were among
the most accurate descriptions
turned in during
those experiments.
Since
the
target
location had not
yet been selected
when
the
subject communicated his perceptions
about
the
target,
we
found
the data difficult
to contend with.
We offer
these spontaneous occurrences not as proof of precognitive
perception,
but
rather
as
the motivation that
led us
to
do
further work
in
this
field.
On
the basis
of this
firsthand evidence,
together with
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
the
copious
literature describing years
of precognition experiments
carried out in various other
laboratories,
we decided
to determine
whether
a subject could perform
a perceptual
task
that required both
spatial
and
temporal remote viewing.
It
is well-known and recently has been widely discussed
that nothing
in
the
fundamental
laws
of physics
forbids
the apparent
transmission of
information
from the
future
to
the present
(discussed
further
in Sec-
tion V).
Furthermore,
there
is
a general dictum that "in physical
law,
everything
that
is
not
forbidden,
is
required
[61]."
With
this
in
mind,
we
set
out
to conduct very well-controlled experiments
to determine
whether we could deliberately design and execute experiments
for
the
sole purpose
of observing precognition under laboratory conditions.
The experimental protocol was
identical
to
that
followed in previous
remote viewing experiments with but one exception.
The exception was
that
the subject was
required
to describe
the remote
location during
a
15-minute period beginning
20 minutes
before
the
target was
selected and
35 minutes before
the outbound experimenter was
to
arrive
at
the
target
location.
In detail,
as
shown in Table
9,
each day at
ten o'clock one
of
the
experimenters would
leave
SRI
with
a stack of
ten sealed
envelopes from
a
larger pool and randomized daily,
containing
traveling instructions
that had been prepared,
but
that were unknown
to
the
two experimenters
remaining with
the
subject.
The
subject
for
this
experiment was
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6