Approved For Relea3^2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787TO00200080008-6
#
:-&izLV-,±
:
...
the
site,
used here for illustrative purposos
only;
rather,
tlioy procoedod to each of the tar-
get locations according
to a list.
As in tho original series with Price,
the
results of
this nine-experiment series were sub-
mitted for independent judging on
a blind basis
by
an SRI
research analyst not otherwise asso-
ciated with
the research.
According
to
the
judging procedure previously outlined
in the
section,
"judging of Results,"
the judge ranked
each target location on a scale of
1 to 9
(best
to worst match)
on the basis
of the narratives
and drawings submitted by the subject.
The sum
of
ranks assigned to the target-associated
transcripts was statistically significant at
p = 1.8
X 10~6
.
This included five direct hits
and four second ranks
as shown in Table
2 along
with the
locations
of
the nine experiments
in
this
set.
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF RANKINGS ASSIGNED TO
TRANSCRIPTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH TARGET
IOCAT ION FOR LEARNER SUBJECT HAMMID
Target Location
Distance
(km)
Rank
of
Associated
Transcript
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
j
I
Pedestrian overpass,
Palo Alto
5.0
Total sum of ranks
(p=l ,8X10~6
)
In comparing the results of
the Hammid and
Price experiments, we observe
a difference
in
the subjects'
styles that evidently affected
the
pattern of results.
The descriptions from Price
were usually more detailed than those of Hammid
and
thus
led to more
first-place matches— tha
i
is,
direct hits
in tho rank order judging.
At
the same
time,
his striving for detail produce
erroneous analytical
interpretations
that re-
sulted
in two distinct mismatches.
On the
other hand,
the more
restrained narratives
of
Mrs.
Hammid resulted
in fewer first-place
matches,
but none
fell below second place.
S\-
a comparison of results docs not indicate
that
one subject necessarily has more paranormal
pe
ception than the other,
but rather shows
the
effects
in this
type of judging procedure due
a difference
in
tyle.
Experiments with Unselccted Subjects
After more
than a year of following
the
experimental protocol described above and ob-
serving that even inexperienced subjects ob-
tained results better than expected,
we began
series of experiments
to explore further
whether individuals other than so-called "psy-
chics"
could demonstrate
the remote viewing
ability.
To test this
idea,
we initiated an
extensive series of experiments using unseleci
ed subjects and
local
targets
in the Bay Area,
We had no particular reason to believe
that
these additional subjects possessed paranormal
perceptual ability.
These experiments served
a twofold pur-
pose.
First they provided an opportunity
to
obtain data that indicate
the level of profi-
ciency that can be expected from unselected
volunteers.
Second,
they served
to dispel
co:
cerns about the possibility of deception.
Fo
example, many scientists from the government
and elsewhere have visited our laboratory to
decide whether their particular departments
should be concerned with paranormal research.
Their requests generally focus
on
a desne to
"see something psychic,"
and we had been will
ing
to demonstrate the remote viewing protoco
with one of our subjects.
However, when an
Individual observes
a successful experiment
demonstrated with another person as subject,
inevitably occurs
to him that perhaps chicane
is somehow involved.
We have found that the
most effective way to settle this
issue
is
to
have
the doubter become the subject,
thereby
providing him with personal experience
as
a
basis for evaluating our experimental protocc
and reported results.
Consequently,
we have
discontinued demonstration experiments.
In-
stead,
we ask
the visitor
to become a subject
so that he can personally evaluate what he
ex
periences and sees.
After the experiment,
he
is
then taken to the target site where he
car
determine firsthand if
it corresponds
to whal
he has visualized during the experiment.
We
have
found that the actual experience as
a
si
ject of successful remote viewing
is by far
more
instructive
than observation of what
soa
one else has done.
The following results
-5-
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080008-6
Approved For Releas«*2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787^00200080008-6
7C
FIGURE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, INNER QUADRANGLE — TARGET; SKETCHES PRODUCED BY
SUBJECT INEXPERIENCED AT REMOTE VIEWING
obtained with
the
last two visitors who agreed
to act
as subjects provide specific examples.
The first was an electrical engineer who
was
interested
in evaluating our work.
We ex-
plained
to him that the only demonstration we
were prepared
to offer was
the experience
that
he himself might have
in being
a remote viewing
subject.
His first
target location (determined by
the standard random protocol)
turned out to be
a locale known as
the Baylands Nature Preserve.
Our visitor described and drew a long wooden
walkway and indicated the presence of extensive
gardens,
an accurate depiction of
the target
site.
However,
he also described seeing
a
building,
that
is not at
the target site.
This
sort of superposition of erroneous
imagery on
otherwise accurate descriptions
is a common
occurrence and
is
the principal source of noise
to be overcome
if remote viewing
is
to become
a
useful
tool.
I
I
- 6-
The next day we carried out a second ex-
periment with this
visitor.
This
time
the
ran-
domly-determined target was
the
inner quadrang!
at Stanford University.
Our subject described
courtyard and made
the
two drawings shown in
Figure
3.
Almost every element
, of his drawing:
corresponds
to the actual arrangement at the
location of
the remote experimenters.
These
r*
sponses are among
the most accuTate and detail*
that we have ever seen.
This
target had never
been used before,
and the visitor indicated th
he had never been
to the Stanford Campus befor
nor had he ever seen a photograph of this
location.
A second result,
typical
of what we have
come
to expect from the remote viewing protoco
was obtained with our most recent visitor/voiu
teer,
a physics professor who was skeptical
of
our reported results.
This man had been lectu
ing on the West Coast and came
to SRI
to learn
firsthand of our research.
In addition
to hea
ing our description of
the protocol,
he was
al
invited to participate
as
the subject
in an ex
periment so that he could personally evaluate
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080008-6
Approved For Releassrf001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787^0p0200080008-6
tho experimental aspocts of
the remote viewing
channel.
Tho target chosen by random protocol was
White Plaza at Stanford University,
the second
time
in four years
that this particular site
came up for experimental use.
The subject gave
an excellent description of the plaza and the
surrounding buildings and produced
the drawing
shown
in Figure
4.
In addition,
he also cor-
rectly described the motion of
the outbound ex-
perimenter who circled the fountain in
a clock-
wise direction as shown in the subject's
drawing.
The results obtained with these two men are
not isolated examples selected from many unsuc-
cessful trials.
Rather,
they are simply the
most recent examples
of visitor first-time
cases,
and are typical
of what we have come
to
expect from any serious attempt at remote
viewing.
LONG-DISTANCE EXPERIMENTS WITH TELECONFERENCING
After establishing
a data base of over 50
experiments with local targets
(sites within a
few miles), we undertook an experimental series
designed to determine whether an increase
in
subject-target separation
to transcontinental
distances would degrade
the quality or accuracy
of perception.
As
a secondary goal,
we were
interested
in the real-time data rate;
e.g.,
de-
termining the extent to which
a remote viewing
subject can track the real-time activities
arid
movements of
a known individual
in a distant
city.
The only communication between the out-
bound experimenter (e.g.,
in New York City)
and
a subject
in the SRI Laboratory
(Menlo Park,
California) was by means of the ARPA computer
net.
Access to the computer by the traveling
experimenter was by means of
a portable terminal
carried from point to point.
Following are
the results obtained
in this
series,
which consists
of five experiments to
date.
New York-Califomia Experiments
f
Remove Viewing
at White
Plaza
Stanford
University
FIGURE
FIRST EXPERIMENT WITH VISITING
PHYSICS PROFESSOR:
"THERE ARE
WIDE STEPS RUNNING THE
ENTIRE
WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE....
I
SE!
AN OVAL POOL
IN FRONT OF THE
STEPS AS
I MOVE
RACK.... AND
THERE COULD BE A SMALL
STRUCTURE
IN THE MIDDLE OF
IT
LIKE A CROSS-SHAPED
OBJECT....
ON THE GROUND
I
STILL SEE SOM
KIND OF QUADRILATERAL."
The protocol for this experiment allowed
the subject at SRI
in California and the experi-
menter in New York City to communicate via the
conversational TAIK mode available on the ARPA
computer net.
The subject and the experimenter
at SRI
agreed
(via computer teleconferencing)
to
begin an experiment one-half hour
later.
The
purpose of
the computer
in this experiment was
to provide time- and date-stamped permanent
records of all communications between the vari-
ous parties
involved
in
the experiment.
These
data can be read
in real
time by any authorized
person entering the SRI-AI Tenex
(MSG)
system.
After logging off the computer,
the out-
bound experimenter would use
a random number
generator to determine which of six locations
in New York City would constitute
the target
tc
be visited
in this experiment.
Neither the sue
ject nor
the experimenter at SRI knew the con-
tents of
the
target
list that was compiled
jus!
before
the experiment.
Having selected a
targ,
location by the random protocol,
the experiment
er would proceed directly to the site and rema
i
there for fifteen minutes.
One-half hour after breaking computer
links,
the subject would begin to type
impres-
-7-
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080008-6
Approved For Relea$fi,2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787§p00200080008-6
*£?&» rt.-Tsu-A#
-
*$...&,.,\f \ *
m 1 i'Hf*
into
a special computer file established
ior
this
pui'pose.
When the New York City experimenter re-
turned to his hotel
from his
target
site,
he
would make use of
a limited-access
file to enter,
his description of
the place he actually visit-
ed.
He would
then return
to the executive
level
of
the computer,
and await the appearance of
the
SRI experimenters who could then (and only
then)
link terminals.
At that time both files would
be printed out on both terminals and the subject
and the experimenter would each learn what the
other had written.
Two subjects,
both
in California,
partici-
pated simultaneously
in this experiment with
the first of
two New York City
targets.
The
first of
the
two New York City targets was
Grant's Tomb.
Both subjects independently pro-
vided computer-stored records
of
their impres-
sions,
and one made
the sketch shown
in Fig-
ure
5.
(The five possible targets
in addition
to Grant's Tomb were
a railroad bridge,
the 20-
story New York University law library,
the
fountain in Washington Square Park,
the Colum-
bia University subway station,
and
the 72nd
Street boat basin.
The targets were chosen to
be dissimilar,
and thus differentiable,
by po-
tential judges.)
The first subject,
an SRI systems analyst,
said in his opening paragraph:
"Outdoors,
large
open area,
standing on and then off asphalt
(rough material),
dark for
a path.
A white
building,
like
a ticket booth.
Wooden struc-
ture,
is white
in color,
and has an arched look
about
it.
There
is
a large shade
tree close to
Russ
(outbound experimenter)."
The second subject,
a medical student
closeted
in a separate SRI
location,
began with:
'I thought of
a high place with
a view.
I saw a
tree on your left.
A brick plaza seemed to be
in front of
a building you were entering.
I
could not clearly identify
the activity.
A
restaurant?
A museum?
A bookstore?
You had
coins
in the palm of your hand,
maybe giving
some to Nicky (son of outbound experimenter)."
The coins were in fact used to purchase the
postcard from which Figure
5 was made,
and they
^ere given to
the experimenter's son who made
the purchase.
Both subjects then went on for
an additional paragraph to describe details of
the activities they imagined to be going on in-
side
the building they saw,
details that were
partly correct, partly incorrect.
In the second experiment,
the target,
again
chosen by random protocol,
was
the fountain in
Washington Square Park.
One subject partici-
pated.
She produced an exceptionally accurate
transcript.
The photos and
the subject’s draw-
ing of
the fountain are shown in Figure
6.
The
Grant's Tomb
Target
in New York
City
FIGURE
COAST-TO-COAST REMOTE VIEWING
EXPERIMENT.
SUBJECT DESCRIBED
"OUTDOORS, LARGE OPEN
AREA....
SHADE
TREES.... WHITE BUILDING
WITH ARCHES."
subject began her printout with the following:
The first
image
I got at about the first minut
was of
a cement depression—as
if
a dry fountai
with
a cement post in the center or inside.
There seemed to be pigeons off
to the right,
flying around the surface out of
the depres-
sion ... At one point
I
thought you were open
ing
a cellophane bag ..."
(The experimenter
had
in fact bought ice cream during
the experi-
mental period,)
There was also a rectangular
wooden frame,
a window frame,
but
I wasn't sure
if
it was on a building,
or a similar structure
with
a different purpose."
(A possible corre-
lation from a functional viewpoint
to
the Wash-
ington Square Arch through which the outbound
experimenters viewed the fountain toward
the
er
of
the experimental period.)
"All
in all
I
thought you were at Riverside Park ..."
(In-
correct analysis.)
An SRI scientist,
familiar
-8
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080008-6