Approved For Release 2000/08/LREGRERDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ‘ When the experiment began, the target person selected one of the envelopes, did not tell the experimenter what it was, traveled to the target, and viewed it for 15 minutes. The subjects simultaneously "viewed" the target and attempted to produce a "drawing of the images that corresponded to the remote site." The experimenter collected the drawings and told the subjects the results would be discussed at a later class meeting. The target person returned, removed the remaining nine slides from the envelopes, and verandomized them with the target slide included. The experimenter was not present at this time. The judge was asked to match a first and second choice of the 10 possible target slides to each drawing, as all 10 slides were projected simultaneously. After the judging was done, the target person "revealed the target site to everyone concerned." [It is unclear whether this included the subjects. ] Data Analysts. First and second choices were counted as hits, a "procedure decided upon before the analysis." The data are presented in Table 18. Results. Authors “were not able to apply a formal statistical test to this single session ....'' However, they were impressed that the correct target received almost twice as many correct matches (11) as the next most selected (6) target. A binomial test can be applied, if one assumes that the a prtort probability of a hit, P, is 1/10. Then, there are 11 hits out of the 53 matches, and: 53 p(m>dyet-f & Cy (.1)” (0.997%) (13) n= 11 . = .0053. Approved For Release eee CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/ {sb BRE ROP96-00787R000100260003-2 TABLE 18. EXPERIMENTS ONE AND TWO (IN PARENTHESES) RESULTS | TARGET FIRST CHOICE SECOND CHOICE* TOTAL ANGEL 1 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0) BANJO 1 (3) 4 (3) 5 (6) BEAN POLE 3 (1) | 2 (2) 5 (3) BIKES (TARGET, 2) 3 (3) 3 (1) 6 (4). BIKE TUNNEL (TARGET, 1) 5 (1) 6 (0) 11 (1) . DIRT MOUNDS 3 (0) 2 (2) 5 (2) LOGS 4 (2) 0 (1) 4 (3) ORGAN 3 (4) 2 (4) 5 (8) PALM TREE 1 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0) TRACTOR . 3 (0) 1 (1) 4 (1) *One second choice not given in Experiment One. - Approved For Release 2000/08/10" CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SEAR
a a ee Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Thus, assuming no drawing bias on the part of the subjects, these results are statistically significant at the p < .01 level of confidence. Experiment Two Purpose. If, by chance alone, the target selected in the first experiment happened to meet a predominant drawing bias of the subjects, the results would be artifactually inflated. Thus, the second experiment was a replication of the first, and was also intended to see if images of tunnels (the first experiment target) occurred frequent when the target was not a tunnel. Experimental Design. Same as first experiment. Subjects. Fourteen different students in a different art class. Expertmenter. Same as Experiment One, Target Person. Same as Experiment One. Judge. A graduate student in the art department. Equipment. Same as Experiment One. Targets. Same as in Experiment One, except that the tunnel was precluded as the target. | Procedure. Same as in Experiment One, but Whitson noted before the data were analyzed that "this class seemed less interested and involved in the experiment than did the first class." Data Analysis. No separate analysis was run on this experiment. However, the combined data are analyzed, as follows. Results. Table18 also indicates the results of this experiment, which appear to be not as good as in the first experiment. The authors conclude _ that “of all possible target pairs in both sessions combined, the total number of matches assigned to the actual target pair was the third highest Approved For Release 2000/@@#GGR9L4-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 of the 90 possible pairs. This is a SEERE with a one-tailed probability of 0.033." — Conelusions. The authors conclude that the results offer modest support to Puthof£ and Targ's results and that they intend to do further experiments. Critical Evaluation. The statistical analysis given by the authors is somewhat unusual. Apparently, they determined that the total number of possible pairings (permutations) of the targets in the two experiments is 90, and that the 11 (first experiment) + 4 (second experiment) = 15 correct is the third highest total. However, the first highest total would be 11 + 8 = 19, while the second highest total would be 11 +6 = 17. In each of these cases, plus the third (actual) case, the 11 comes from the first experiment and the second component from the second experiment. Given that the first experiment was already conducted, one can Look at the results of the second experiment by the binomial theorem as was done above for the first experiment. Then, 28-n 2 28 n p(m>4+=l-[ f oe) (0.1) (0.9) ] (14) tt -L421i. This result is clearly not significant by any statistical criterion. Similarly, were the decision made a prtort to combine the two experiments, then the binomial can be used to evaluate the combined number of hits (15) out of the total "matches" (81), to obtain 8 p@>isy=1-f 2 Oy c.1)" 99% as) Approved For Release 2000/08/10 1sG1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CLRBBRNEFe-00787R000100260003-2 This calculation, while laborious, would appear valid if the decision were in fact made prior to the conduct of the’ first experiment to combine the data of both experiments. Clearly, such a decision was not made as the authors so indicate in the purpose of conducting the second experiment. Thus , any combination of the data from both studies, after noting that the first produced positive results, has dubious validity. In his book Pst, Tart (1977) describes these experiments in essentially the same form as in the previously published (and copyrighted) papers. In evaluating the first experiment, Tart states "That [the result] seems quite significant statistically. I say 'seems' because there are some technical problems involved in exactly what assumptions are valid for making a statistical test; for that reason, we did not make a formal evaluation, although it would have been extremely significant" (p. 166). His problem is that of response bias, for example, if the Davis art students drew tunnels frequently. Of course, this response bias is inherent in the procedure but could be considered eliminated, over many experiments, by random target selection. Following the second experiment, Tart (1977) concludes "It is statistically legitimate to combine the results of the two experiments for an overall evaluation, and we did so" (p. 168). If the first experiment suffered from response bias, and therefore null hypothesis chance probability estimate inaccuracies, combining the data of the second experiment with those of the first would not give the first set of experimental data instant respectability! It would appear that either the authors (or editors) are statistically naive, or that the authors have combined the data in a form to result in a positive verification of remote viewing. As such, the results must be taken most cautiously. Approved For Release 2000/08/4 Bist. RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CTRARF 00787R000100260003-2 Summary. This paper is but another example of nonconventional analysis of paranormal experimental results. The statistical analysis causes the reader to be skeptical of the other parts of the experiment. Otherwise, the methodology, tersely presented as it is, seems consonant with that of Puthoff and Targ. Approved For Release 2000/08/1 ceiiingss-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CHAIR 6-00787R000100260003-2 IV. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CRITICISMS Sections II and III of this report have summarized all pertinent known research. The SRI work summarized and critiqued in detail in Section II was clearly given more attention than the assorted papers in Section Lil. Two reasons exist for this differential attention. First, SRI researchers Puthoff and Targ have done more research, received more funding and attention, published more, and generally advanced the research concepts more than have the othor investigators. Other experimenters have used their basic protocol, with occasional additions and deletions. In a word, they ‘are the reigning experts. Secondly, other publications, with the exception of the well written manuscript by Karnes and Susman, lack sufficient detail to perform'a critically detailed evaluation. (The SRI work is not reported in sufficient detail either, but the multiple reporting provides more information than that provided by other investigators.) Because a great amount of attention has been drawn by the SRI work, Puthoff and Targ have also received their share of criticism. To combat this criticism, Puthoff has published a one page summary entitled "Potential Criticisms and Responses." It is well done, although our preceding evaluations tend to disagree with some of his "responses." Since it serves as a good summary of research philosophy, that paper is used in this Section of our report as a "straw man" for overall evaluation of the SRI methodology. Each potential criticism (Cl through C9) is repeated below, along with Puthoff's responses (R1 through R9) and our pertinent comments. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2GIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10  SepRapes-00787R000100260003-2 The use of this rebuttal method by Puthofé, however, does tend to draw attention away from other areas of potential criticism as it makes it appear as if these are the only methodological areas of potential criticism. Such is not the case, as has been hopefully demonstrated in Section II. The potential criticisms and responses, on the other hand, are sufficiently important to warrant separate discussion here. Experiment Selection Cl: The.experiments discussed could be selected out of a larger pool of experiments of which many are of poor quality. Rl: Selection of experiments for reporting does not take place; every experiment is entered as performed on a master log and is included in the statistical evaluations. Comment: Reported experiments, sketches, and the like are clearly and understandably selected. There is no room in journal or open literature reports for the 7000+ experiments run with Swann, nor for all experiments conducted with other subjects. Unfortunately, as we have amply demonstrated “in Section II, many of the other experiments are not reported, even in summary. form, anywhere. Further, statistical analyses are not given for some experiments, and contain overlap for other series of experiments, This criticism appears valid to us. Data Seleetion C2: Data for the reported experiments could be edited to show only the matching elements, the nonmatching elements being discarded. R2: Data associated with a given experiment remain unedited; all experiments are tape recorded and all data (tape transcripts, Approved For Release 2000/08/1 “ee
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0GRERSP96-00787R000100260003-2 drawings, clay models) are included unedited in the data package to be judged and cvaluated. Comment: There is inconsistency, although sometimes minor, in the parallel publication of the same quoted transcripts. Presumably, judging cues are edited out (see Appendix B). This has not been done consistently. This criticism is at least partially valid. It is also unclear as to how many viewings are allowed both prior to and following an experiment. From one publication, it appears that all transcripts are given to the judge, Although all data may be given to the judges, other readers and audiences are given selected data. Cuetng . C3: The study could involve naiveté in protocol that permits various forms of cueing, intentional or unintentional. R3: The use of double-blind protocols ensures that none of the persons in contact with the subject is aware of either the particular target or target pool; similarly, no one in contact with a judge is aware of the target-list/subject-output correspondence. For example, judges are not taken to target sites by a knowledgeable persons, but rather proceed to the target sites, unaccompanied, on the basis of written instructions generated without knowledge of subject output. Comment: We have shown above that the questions and comments offered by the experimenter could easily serve as perceived or subliminal (shaping) cues. Similarly, we have shown that, in some experiments, the experimenter does know something about the target pool or has helped to select it. Approved For Release 2000 EERE ROPSE-00787RO001O0250005-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : <efie(@thite 6 -00787R000100260003-2 Other concerns about judging procedures and available information have already been raised. | ‘The authors use the term "double-blind" frequently. Yet, they are quite naive as to the behavioral science meaning of this term, a naiveté which is apparent throughout their publications. Traditionally, "double- blind" refers to an experimenter who collects the data and who is "blind" to the purpose, theory, and potential nature of the results of the experiment, Similarly, the investigator ig "blind" to the subjects, the data per sé, and the data recording, reduction, and analysis. Thus, the experimenter has little influence on the results because he theoretically does not know what should be obtained, while the investigator is suffi- ciently blind to the direct subject contact and data so that he cannot - influence the results. They are both "blind" in a sense, thus "double- blind." The word clearly does not apply in either the traditional, nor in a meaningful, sense to the SRI protocol. Educated Guess C4: A subject may be able to guess as to which sites ina given area are likely to be chosen as targets, and may have familiarized himself with the locations. R4: In the statistical judging procedure used, no advantage could be gained even tf a subject were to be given a list of posstble target sites beforehand and encouraged to familiarize himself with the locations. Even in such an extreme hypothetical case (no such procedure was ever used) where a subject could not help but render a set of perfect descriptions of target sites, Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : G1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
| Approved For Release 2000/08/10 RRP RS S-00787R000100260003-2 he still has the basic statistical problem of generating blind the correct target/description pair sequence upon which the statistical evaluation is based. Comment: The response is quite correct for the statistical evaluation series. “However, demonstration experiments, such as Grant's Tomb, Superdome, Washington Square, Ohio Caves, West Virginia Site, and all foreign sites are not subject to statistical evaluation. Previous comments have pointed out problems in the results for these targets. Thus, the criticism is at least partially valid. Target Limitations C5: If a subject is given feedback after an experiment that | today's target was a fountain, he knows that the following target is unlikely to be a fountain, since targets are chosen for unique differentiable qualities. R5: The target pool in use (> 100 target sites) contains several fountains, several buildings, several parks, etc., and therefore. the content of a given target, determined by random entry into the target pool, is essentially independent of the contents of other targets. Comment: Much has already been said about the local target pool, target selection, etc. This criticism is at least partially valid. - As has been discussed earlier, the target pool did not seem to be ‘established prior to the beginning of all the experiments and subjects did not have, say, two fountains, with the exception of two targets which appeared once for two subjects. <A subpool of targets was also sélected Approved For Release 2000/08/13 CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CURRIN 00787R000100260003-2 from the larger pool; thus, this selection process may have eliminated the possibility of more than one type of target appearing. Target Generaltty Cé: R6:. Comment: Transcripts generated by subjects are so general as to match anything. ("Sky is blue, grass is green.") Judging protocol involves differential matching. Therefore, true but general statements do not help a judge to preferen- tiatly assign a transcript to one site as opposed to another. Again, this is a valid response for statistically judged targets, but not for many others (e.g., Washington. Square versus Yankee Stadium) . It should i.e., the responses "Read-In" C7: R?: Comment! often the be clear that many transcripts, in fact, match many targets; channel is noisy. Why then (and how) can so many excellent occur? Matches — Given a transcript and a target, a judge can “read in" matches. Differential matching on a blind basis allows matches to be "read in" equally for non-corresponding as well as corresponding target/transcript pairs, and therefore provides no differential advantage. "Read-in" can occur for targets not judged statistically, as was case. Experimenter cues in the transcript can be helpful here. Such experimenter cucing, or the possibility thereof, must be eliminated by protocol revision. Approved For Release 2000/08/102s €IA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Clap PRB -00787R000100260003-2 “Inadequate Handling of Judging Matertals C8: Preparation of judging materials (transcript typing). may provide opportunity for a "leak," or perhaps degradation of typing ribbon may provide artifactual information as to ‘order of experiments. R8: Transcript typing is carried out in a random order by individuals kept blind to the key; one-time ribbons are used. Comment: Typing cues are not nearly as important as transcript content and judge's prior knowledge. How does the tape get from the experimental room to the typist? The typed transcript from the typist to the judges? How are both stored? Other "security" problems seem more important than does the typewriter ribbon. Post Hoe Photography C9: Photographs used to illustrate remote viewing results are taken after completion of the experiments, and therefore suffer from the fallacy of post hoc matching. R9: All blind judging, matching, and statistical evaluation of the ‘results (which is where the scientific issues are decided) are completed before photographs are taken; judges do not have access to photographs during their analysis, and therefore judges cannot be cued into correspondences observed post hoc. Comment: We have pointed out several temporal and content problems with photographs. Was the San Andrés airfield photograph taken af ter the judging? Why do aspect angles of photographs always coincide with the direction from which the subject "views" the target? Approved For Release 2000/08/102° CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ALIS.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : SREGRPPS-00787R000100260003-2 The authors have "in five years of self- and other criticism, not found a way to fault either the experimental protocols or the conclusions derived therefrom.'' We do not agree, and we believe Section II amply documents numerous such faults. ‘The next section offers guidelines, within the general SRI approach, to improve this protocol and eliminate or reduce many of the criticisms. | Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2@IA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10: GISEBREPS-00787R000100260003-2 V. RECOMMENDED RESEARCH IMPROVEMENTS Lengthy, careful study would be required to develop a safe, perhaps foolproof: protocol. Experience with this general type of research would be required to refine the protocol further, to render it acceptable to the behavioral science research community. Such is beyond our scope and responsibility in this report, and perhaps beyond our capability. Rather, we offer the following suggestions for improvement in the experimental protocol used generally by Puthoff and Targ (and others). We believe that these improvements, when used in the context of a “local area" series of experiments, will yield valid results which can be used to address questions of channel capacity, phenomenon existence, learning rates, and the like. Thus, the suggested improvements are classified by experimental operation, much as is the SRI protocol (Appendix B). A, Target Pool Selection 'As suggested in Appendix B, to carry out a series of n experiments, the target pool should be >> ”. The target pool should be selected prior to the experiment and should contain distinctive targets. Once distinctive targets are chosen, however, there should be other similar targets selected, such as several fountains. These should have specific, individual details so that a general fountain description will not apply very well. Most important, the target pool should be selected by someone not involved with the experiment and unknown to the experimenters, investigators, subjects, or judges. Further, the experimenters ef al. should not know the size of. the target pool. Approved For Release 2000/08/102,CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Ideally, the targets and their locations should be totally unfamiliar to the experimenters, investigators, subjects, and judges. For example, the targets could be selected in and the experiments conducted in a city . totally unfamiliar to the above individuals. In this manner, cueing and reading-in are less likely. Each target should be listed on a separate card and should includé what aspects of the target are to be viewed, e.g. the fountain in a plaza, and from what viewpoint. The particular distinguishing aspects should also be noted as well as unique, meaningful behavior of a target person for that specific target. The description should then be enclosed in an opaque envelope and sealed. The envelopes should then be thoroughly randomized. - No numbering system is necessary. The targets should be stored in a safe or container inaccessible to the experimenters, investigators, subjects, and judges. Further, the location of the safe or container should be unknown to the experimenters et al. Be Investtgator This is the person or persons who designs the experiments and is familiar with the literature. He does not collect data, select targets, prepare transcripts, analyze data, or in any way interact with elements of the experiment in a manner by which he might deliberately or unintentionally affect the experiment or its outcome. Ina word, he remains "hands off." C, Subjects Subjects can be experienced or inexperienced, as the purposes of the experiment dictate. As long as subjects remain totally uninvolved in other aspects of the experiments, their characteristics are less important. Approved For Release 2000/08/102°€1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : &QRARPHSS-00787R000100260003-2 They should not serve also as experimenters, judges, coauthors, and target persons. Further, they should not be close friends of the experimenters, investigators, or judges. With such a lack of personal familiarity, idiosyncratic behavior by the subjects or investigators is less likely to serve as a useful cue to the judge, | It is assumed that an intelligence application of remote viewing would, necessarily and desirably, use the same subject (s) repeatedly. Thus, succéssful subjects should logically serve consistently in that capacity. However, while in a research mode, when the information channel is being quantified, care must be taken to avoid artifactual results due to data contamination from subject /experimenter communication. The Lack of repeated use of Targ as a subject is thus supported, even though he provided an excellent response to the San Andrés airport. (One must wonder why he wasn't used again in view of this highly accurate response!) D, kapertmenters Although we fail to see the need for an experimenter to be present ‘during the actual transcription, if one is used, this person must be totally unfamiliar with the target pool, selection procedure, target person, and as many of the other details of the experiment as possible. A defined procedure should be established to make the subject feel at ease, and assure him/her that remote viewing is acceptable. Although it would appear unnecessary to repeat this procedure with experienced subjects, in order to keep this portion of the experiment standardized, it would be best to repeat these instructions. Wo previous results should Approved For Release 2000/08/1026 CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 -@5Anit.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 The tape recordings and sketches or models should be dated, sealed, and immediately forwarded to an independent person totally unrelated to the experiment and unfamiliar with all persons thus far associated with the experiment. This individual should hold all data until the judging procedure is complete. This person will also type and edit the tapes, eliminating all references to previous targets, including any experimenter's question, should they not conform to the criteria for experimenter's questions. A target description should be included with the packet. H. Judges and Judging Effort should be placed on the development of objective judging criteria, perhaps measured by an item count or content analysis, semantic content, or other techniques better known to psycholinguists. Type/token ratio approaches might be modified to meet these needs. In any case, objective criteria for the judging procedure would greatly reduce the subjective element in this phase of the experiment. Several judges should be chosen who are unfamiliar with the experiment and unknown to those who have participated thus far. While they may be selected on the basis of certain personal attributes (e.8., artistic ability, intelligence, sponsor representatives), they should have no professional interest in the research. That is, they should not be magicians, consultants to the project, coauthors, fellow researchers, etc. Each judge should proceed to each target location, ordered randomly with the edited tape, associated drawings or models, and the target description card. No judge should be given a list of the targets. Each judge should proceed to the targets in a different random order. At each target, the judge should rank all transcripts against that target, as Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : GIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CHE RFes-00787R000100260002- 2 of response criteria, in that there is always some degree of interpreta- tion of what a subject says,. the increased use of judges seems beneficial and logical. J. Target Coordtnates If scanning by geographical coordinates is to be used, the coordinates must be selected by an unimpeachable person not otherwise connected with the experiment or familiar with other persons related to the experiment. The coordinates should describe a variety of targets so that a subject may not try to guess a particular type, some of which should describe innocuous ‘sites. Preferably these should also vary in geographical location such that a subject could not memorize detailed maps of any given geographical area. A possible approach is selection, by random number, of a large (> 5000) list of worldwide targets of interest. The coordinates should be transmitted just prior to the viewing time. No maps and no feedback during the experiment should be allowed. Again, there appears to be no need For an experimenter to be present, The subject should complete his viewing in a pre-set time period and only one viewing should be allowed. Details of the viewing should be relayed tmedtately via a secure computer network or other similar form of communication. Sketches should be dated, notarized by time, and mailed immediately... Again, if feedback is used, only the- subject should be given feedback. Kk. Reporting A major problem with research in this field is the incomplete, inexact, erroneous, and duplicate reporting. .AlZ experimental details, Approved For Release 2000/08/10*°&|A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 a ted eiaeadnaemiaaae responses, instructions, transcripts, etc. » must be reported, however lengthy and laborious the task might be.. Only in this manner will the "loyal opposition" be able to satisfy their desire for facts and reanalysis. Only then will they have left only a malfeasance or dishonesty criticism. L. Application to Intelligence Systems Research conducted and reported to date has a number of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and methodological weaknesses sufficient to cause concern over its validity. If all results are accepted without question, on balanee the Fidelity of the remote viewing channel appears to be of limited intelligence value, However, that conclusion may be totally premature due to the insufficient methodologies used. To assess validly the value of the remote viewing channel for operational use, much more careful research is required, perferably by several laboratories following the same protocols with detailed documentation. It would be particularly desirable to have different researchers (i.e., laboratories) conduct experiments with the same experienced subjects (e.g., Swann or Hammid) . In this manner, the reliability of the remote viewing channel can be assessed, with a "known capability" subject, yet satisfy the demands. of the "loyal opposition" by having replication of the research by an independent research team using the same protocol. 269 — . Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 oi
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 “ SRERNBS -00787R000100260003-2 REFERENCES 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, 1975. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 46-48, Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J. Multiple subject and long distance remote viewing of geographical locations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Soctety, IEEE, 1977, 512-516, (a) 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, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1977, 84-86. (b) | Dunne, B. J. and Bisaha, J. P. Multiple channels in precognitive remote viewing. In W. G. Roll (Hd.), Research tn Parapsychology, 1977. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1978, 146-151, Gardner, M. Mathematical games. Setentifie American, October 1975, 114-118. Hastings, A. C. Mental processing of ESP imagery: Theoretical considera- tions. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research tn Parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 187-190. Jahn, R. G. Psychic process, energy transfer, and things that go bump .in the night. Princeton Alum? Monthly, 4 December 1978, S-1 to S-12, Karnes, E. W. and Susman, E. P, Remote viewing: A response bias interpretation. Unpublished manuscript, Metropolitan State College, Denver, CO, 1978. May, E., Targ, R., and Puthoff, H. Possible EEG correlates to remote stimuli under conditions of sensory shielding. In Proceedings, IREEF Hlectro/77, Special Session on State of the Art in Psychic Research. IEEE, 1977, SS/3, 1-5. Mitchell, E. D. Psychie exploration. ‘New York: Putnam, 1974. Morris, R, L.. An exact method for evaluating preferentially matched free- response material. Journal of the American Soctety for Psychical Research, 1972, 66, 401-407. Puthoff£, ll. E, Progress Report #1 on SRI Project 3183, 12 March 1974. Puthoff, I. E. Progress Report #2 on SRI Project 3182, 24 April 1974. Approved For Release 2000/08/16 ?°CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
weal Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ABEBRPPOS-00787R000100260003-2 = Puthoff, H. E. Progress Report #3 on SRL Project 3183, August 1974, Puthoff, H. E. and Targ, R. PK experiments with Uri Geller and Ingo Swann. InW. G. Roll, R. L. Morris, and J. D. Morris (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1973. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1974, 125-128, Puthoff, H. and Targ, R. Remote viewing of natural targets. In J. dD. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research tn Parapsychotogy, 1974, Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1975, 30-32. (a) Puthoff, H. and Targ, R. Physics, entropy, and psychokinesis. In Proceedings, International Conference on Quantum Phystes and Para- psychology. ‘New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1975, 127-144. (b) Puthoff, H. and Targ, R. Final report: Perceptual Augmentation Techniques - (U). SRI Project 3183. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, 1 Decenber 1975, (SECRET) (c) Puthoff, WU. and Targ, R. Precognitive remote viewing. In J.D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (fid.), Research tn Parapsychology, 1976. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 37-40. (a) Puthoff, U. and Tare, R. A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research, Proceedings of. the IEEE, 1976, 64, 329-354,. (b) Puthoff, H. -and Targ, R. Direct perception of remote geographical locations. In Proceedings, IEEE Electro/?7, Special Session on State of the Art in Psychic Research, IEEE, 1977, SS/2, 1-16. Puthoff, H., Targ, R., and May, E. Advanced threat technique assessment(U).. Report on Project 5309. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, July 1977 (SECRET). Puthoff, H., Targ, R., and May, E. Psychoenergetic research: Suggested approaches. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 1 May 1978. Rauscher, E. A., Weissmann, G., Sarfatti, J., and Sirag, S.-P. Remote perception of natural scenes, shielded against ordinary perception. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research tn Parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, 41-45.: Siegel, Ss. Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Solfvin,-G., Roll, W. G., and Krieger, J. Meditation and ESP: Remote viewing. . In W. G. Roll. (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1977. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1978, 151-157, Swann, I. fo kiss earth good-bye. New York: Hawthorne Books, 1975, Targ, R. Precognition in everyday life: A physical model. In W. G. Roll, R. L. Morris, and J. D. Morris (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1972. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1973, 49-51. 271 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :<@}i@RBRe6-00787R000100260003-2 Targ, R. Precognition in everyday life: A physical model. Proceedings, international Conference of Parapsychology and the Sciences. New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1974, 251-258, — Targ, R. and Cole, P. Use of an automated stimulus generator to teach extrasensory perception. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research tn Parapsychology, 1974. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1975, 27-29, Targ, R., Cole, P., and Puthoff, H. E: Development of techniques to enhance man/machine communication. SRI Technical Report, August 1974. Referenced in M, Gardner, Mathamatical Games, Setenttfie Amertean, October 1975, p. 114, Targ, R. and Hurt, D. Learning, clairvoyance and precognition with an _extrasensory teaching machine. Parapsychology Review, 1972, 3, July 9-11, Targ, R., May, E., Puthoff, H., Galin, D., and Ornstein, R. Sensing of remote EM sources (Physiological correlates). Technical Report on Project 4540. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, April 1978. Targ, R: and Puthoff, H. E. ESP experiments with Uri Geller. In W. G. Roll, R. L. Morris, and J. D. Morris (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1973, Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1974, 57-60. (a). Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. Information transmission under conditions of | sensory shielding. Wature, 1974, 261, 602-607. (b) Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. Remote viewing of natural targets. In Proceedings, Internattonal Conference on @uantum Phystes and Para- psychology. New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1975, 151-170, Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. E, Replication sutdy of the remote viewing of natural targets. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), hesearch in Parapsychology, 1975, Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow “Press, 1976, 33-37. (a) Targ, -R. and Puthoff, H. Reply to Martin Gardner. Setenttifte Amertean, January 1976 (letters). (b) Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. E., Mind-Reach: Setentists look at psychic abtitty. New York: Delacorte Press, 1977. Targ, R., Puthoff, Hy, and May, E. State of the art in remote viewing _8tudies at SRI, In Proceedings, International Conference on Cyber- nettes and Soetety, IBEE, 1977, 519-529. Tart, C. T. Pet. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1977. Approved For Release 2000/08/10/2. CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 | a qe:
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ge EREPS6-00787R000100260003-2 Vallee, J., Hastings, A. C., and Askevold, G. Remote viewing experiments through computer conferencing. Proeeedings of the IFEEF, 1976, 1551-1552. White, R. A. Surveys in parapsychology: Review of the literature, with updated bibltographtes. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1976. Whitson, T. W., Bogart, D. N., Palmer, J., and Tart, C. T. Preliminary experiments in group "remote viewing." Proceedings of the IEEE, 1976, 1550-1551. Wortz, E. C., Bauer, A. J., Blackwelder, R. F., Ferkens, J. W., and Saur, A. J. Novel biophysical information transfer mechanisms (NBIT). AirResearch Technical Document 76-13197, 14 January 1976. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
ana Te Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : COERRF 6 -00787R000100260003-2 APPENDIX A. SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF MORRIS' (1972) FREE-RESPONSE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE Several techniques have been devised to permit evaluation of the correspondence between stimuli (i.e., targets) and responses (i.e., transcripts) to estimate the extent to which any given ‘transcript is descriptive of any given target. Previous researchers have derived parametric statistical techniques for such, based upon the likelihood that a given number of matches of transcripts to targets would occur by chance. Others have developed rating or confidence scales to analyze such data. Most of these tests assume independence of matehing (i.e. sampling with replacement) although Stuart (1942) devised a critical ratio test to handle those cases in which the judge's ratings or responses were not completely independent. This independency problem is exemplified’ by Stuart's example of a tendency for a judge to avoid assigning any transcript a ranking of one for more than one target. If a judge has ranked Transcript A number one for Target A’, Transcript B number one for Target B', Transcript C number one for Target C', and there are four targets and transcripts, then he is unlikely -to rank anything other than Transcript D number one for Target Dd’. While parametric tests have been devised to handle such dependencies, they are distribution based and have a small error in them, an error which becomes larger as WV becomes small. | Morris (1972) offers a general formula for calculating the exact probability of a given sum (or less) of ranks for the preferential matching approach. © Ile also provides a table for representative situation calculations. 2/4 Approved For Release eee ete
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : ClARERRBI00787R000100260003-2 and the the The - the Assume the procedure whereby there are four targets (A' through D') four transcripts (A through D) which must be blindly matched, and that four transcripts must be ranked one through four for each target. ‘Then correct ranks, summed across all four targets, can vary from 4 to 16. data matrix is shown in Table Al. Following the procedural requirements, sum in each target column is 1+2+3+4 10. The diagonal (underlined) scores are the only ones used in the calculation of the summed ranks; thus, the sum of ranks in this example is 6. Im general, if there are n targets | 5 (and ” transcripts), the sum of ranks can vary fromm ton , with an expected: value under the null hypothesis of (l+2+... +n). TABLE Al. EXAMPLE OF PREFERENTIAL RANKS MATRIX TRANSCRIPTS A B In general, let iva) tt = it = il = | ae Ww TARGETS B! les the number of transcripts, ‘the number of targets, and c' D' 3 2 1 3 2 4 4 1 the obtained sum of the diagonal ranks, = zero and all positive integers not excceding (gs - n/N. | . 075 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
ed Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 oy | . 3 1 ° N Qo mt ~ We -1 P{<s) == z a. (-L)” ¢,) ¢ ) Wooten h=0 4 a- 4 8- Nn : —y 8 Ff 7) n} Gi - mg. - 1)! pt gg SP GeO? GING ~~ WP O For the example in.Table Al, this equation is equal to: ; 6 ; . 1 : g A! (t_- 4% - 1)! Prob. (< 8) = ae CD" Gar twp NG. aT DP = (1 + 4 + 10) 256 = 0.059. (84) - When values of & and 8 become large, the calculations become laborious, although not complex. Morris (1972) has calculated the critical values of 8 for one-tailed p values ranging from 0.20 to 107", assuming that NV =n. Té n #N, the above equation (3) must be calculated, as it must for exact probability values or NV > 12. For the example given in Table Al, Morris' table gives a value of »05 <p «< ,10, which agrees with the obtained exact p value. The method is statistically sound, although ‘the Morris (1972) tabled values do not permit exact p~value determination. The diligent researcher would undoubtedly choose to perform the precise calculations by using equation (A3). 277 ; Approved For Release 2000/0 BA ee pakb P96-00787R000100260003-2