CPYRCAPProved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5 3.3. Bio-PK Effect on Electrical Properties of Plants A group of researchers in Moscow, affiliated to the Inter- national Academy of Human Potential and headed by biophysicist Dr. Yuri S. Dolin, has been conducting numerous experiments in which electrophysiological activity of plants was chosen as a target system (Dolin et al., 1992; Dolin, Davydov, Lemeshko, et al., 1993). The methodology and results of some of these tests are included in a paper that is scheduled for presentation at this convention and is published in this volume (Dolin, Davydov, Morozova, & Shumov, 1993). Therefore, without discussing this study in detail (since details can be found in the published study, we would like to point out that the controls seem to be adequate and statistically significant results have been obtained in both experimental series: one involving an operator's effect on a single plant, and another involving an operator's purposeful effect on one of two plants randomly selected in advance. This is one of the most promising groups in Russia that is actively involved in experimental studies in the field of parapsychology, and we intend to continue our cooperation with these researchers. 3.4. Other Attempts at "Distant Influence" on Plants Elvira V. Morozova from the Russian Agricultural Academy, together with her associates, carried out several series of experiments which involved human influence on plant’ seeds (Morozova, et al., 1989, 1991). The researchers used wheat, bean, cucumber, pea and other seeds. The seeds were soaked for 12 to 14 hours in water, after which a test batch was tirradiated" by an operator for three minutes. The control and the test batches were allowed to germinate in identical conditions, and after 5 to 15 days the germination of the seeds was inspected and the length of the roots and sprouts was measured. The influence reportedly resulted in an increase in germination of the seeds. In one experimental series with five different operators, the wheat seed germination was 142%, 123%, 132%, 135%, and 178%, as compared to the germination of control seeds. In other tests, operators were reportedly capable of stimulating or retarding plant growth, as well as causing two sprouts to grow from one wheat seed. According to the authors, this phenomenon was observed spontaneously in one of 967 control seeds, but in one or two seeds from every 10 to 15 seeds subjected to operator's effect. In experiments with kidney beans, sprouts of the seeds subjected to an operator's influence had an additional number of leaves. With control seeds, in one series from 38 control seeds, one sprout had this effect while from 10 test seeds four sprouts had it; in another series, from 31 control plants, four sprouts had the effect while from 32 test plants, 14 sprouts had it. In many of these tests, seeds were placed in a grounded metal box, wrapped in black paper. Furthermore, a glass vessel with Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R CPYRGHT 003000490001-5 water was placed between the experimenter's hand and the seeds in order to remove the infrared radiation of the hand. The effects of other screens (made of aluminum, copper, leather, and glass) were studied as well. In all the tests the results appeared not to depend on the material of the screen. These tests seem to be well-controlled, but there insufficient data for detailed calculations. We recommend caution in that plant systems are particularly problematic bio-PK targets. 3.5. "Distant Influence" on Electricity-Generating Fish Gurtovoy and Parkhomov (1991, 1992) attempted a bio-PK study in which they monitored the electric response of electricity- generating fish (Gnathonemus Petersii) to operators! attempts to "slow down" the fish. This was a replication of a earlier study by Protasov and his associates (Protasov, et al., 1981) conducted in the late 1970s at the Research Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Clinical Ecology in Moscow and published in a major Soviet scientific journal. The dependent variable in these tests was the time interval between electric pulses emitted by the fish. In the preliminary series (screening) with unselected subjects, six of 31 trials were successful (> 3 standard deviations), Pp < 3 x 10712, In the subsequent formal experiment, eight subjects performed 25 trials, 21 being successful, p < 3 & 10728, In these tests, operators started working at random moments of time. The tests were conducted with the purpose of "calming down" the fish; thus, the shifts that occurred were in the direction of an increase in the pulse intervals. At the same time, as Gurtovoy and Parkhomov pointed out, it is known that the electric fish primarily responds to changes in its environment (e.g., a change of temperature, lighting, magnetic field or to sound) with a decrease in the pulse intervals. Still, although the controls as described by Gurtovoy and Parkhomov (1991, 1992) seem to be adequate, we believe more caution is necessary in working with biological systems which are highly reactive to changes in their environment. 3.6. "Distant Influence" on the Eating Behavior of White Mice Dr. Sergei V. Speransky, whom one of us (LF) has known for over 20 years, holds a Ph.D. in Biology and is a specialist in toxicology with a long-term interest in parapsychology. As a biologist, he has always been interested in studying ESP in animals and using animals as biological detectors of human "distant influence." In the 1970s, he conducted tests on "anomalous" commu- nication between two groups of white mice (Speransky, 1983, 1990). The current study that Speransky shared with us during our trip was conducted in collaboration with Leonid M. Porvin, a specialist in electronic engineering, who, according to Speransky, Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5
CPYFernved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5 (the last was in the group of nine mice), respectively. While other operators worked at relatively small distances (meters from the mice), the operator who turned out to be the most successful affected mice located in Moscow from the town of Yalta in the Crimea, at a distance of about 800 miles. In January 1993, 15 mice from 39 in the test group were still alive as compared to zero in the control group. In the third series, nine out of 10 animals in one test subgroup and all 10 in another subgroup survived, as compared to three mice in the control group. The researchers in Moscow plan to replicate the experiment. Kommuecrso Mbuuert (11T.) wo oO — = qe ° > ~ — a fie] + Se ° = CeRHNYUAUANIDMOS bs) 10 »=615 Time after irradiation (days) Puc.l. Diéens memueh nocne) YY ~- oGaysenns (900 pax.), nomseprumxca eBTOR. |eCKOMY encTBHIO SHosueprorepan l= xourpoms; 2 - H.[.banamosa; 3. - O.F Bopncorneicras 4 - M.B.@atexun Goicranunonno); 5 - H.H.Eoxasces. Fig. 3.1. The mortality rate of mice after gamma-irradiation of 900 rad in control and with attempted preventive bio-Pk effect. (1) control; (2) operator N. G. Balashov; (3) 0. G. Boriso- glebskaya; (4) M. B. Fatkin (long-distance); (5) N.I. Pokazeyev. 3.8. “Mental Interference" into Another Person's Thinking Process Anatoly Arlashin of the Bioinformation Laboratory at A. S. Popov Society for Radio Engineering, Electronics, and Communica- |tions in Moscow conducted an experiment in which trained sensitives were asked to "interfere" at a distance into another (sensory- Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5
cpyreprroved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5 isolated) person's mental process. Forty-four college students (average age 21 years) were invited to participate as subjects. They knew neither the focus of the laboratory's activities, nor the real purpose of the test. Each subject was asked to solve six mathematical problems which consisted in multiplying a two-digit number by another two-digit number without the help of pen and paper, with closed eyes. Problems 4, 5, and 6 consisted of multiplying the same numbers as problems 1, 2, and 3, but because the numbers were reversed, the subjects did not notice that these subsets were identical (this, however, may be a drawback of the experiment). The mental “interference" group consisted of sensitives trained in mental imagery techniques. Prior to the beginning of the test, each subject was invited to come to the room where the "interference" group was located. The subjects were led to believe that this was done in order to ask them some formal questions, but actually it: was done to give the members of the "interference" group the opportunity to see the subjects they would be asked to affect mentally. In attempting the "interference," the sensitives imagined mentally "hombarding" the subject when he was engaged in a mental calculation task, by a continuous stream of numbers as well as "sending" the subjects emotions of panic, uncertainty, and a lack of self-confidence. During the test, the "interference" group and the subject were located in different rooms, with another room located between the two. Before the actual test, each subject was asked to solve an additional math problem to Nenter" the working mode. Unknowingly to the subjects, they were divided into four groups: (1) a group. subjected to "mental interference" when they were solving the first three (1-3) problems; (2) a group subjected to "mental inter- ference" when they were solving the last three (4-6) problems; (3) a group subjected to "mental interference" when they were solving problems 2, 4, 6; and (4) a control group not subjected to "mental interference" at any time. The results were as follows: when "mental interference" was used when the subjects were working on problems 1-3, there was a statistically significant increase in the time spent by the subjects to solve the problems (42.7%, p < 0.001). The "inter- ference" of two experienced sensitives, Karl Nikolayev and Ludmila Korabelnikova, was more effective, increasing the time of calcula- tion by 71.6%. However, if the "interference" was applied when the subjects were working on problems 4-6, their calculation time decreased by 21% (p < 0.01). This is consistent with literature data on effects of sensory interference on performance of any mental task: when a person starts concentrating on a task, any distraction usually impedes his/her performance to a certain degree, but if the person is further ahead in executing the task he or she responds to distractions by increasing concentration. If the "mental interference" was applied interchangingly when the subject was working on problems 2, 4, and 6, there was no significant effect. 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003000490001-5