? Approved For Releas
(00/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00^IQg$)lUI
Owrrft
SUMMARY OF KNOWN REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENTS
The following very brief summaries describe
those remote view ng
experiments,
or series of experiments, published
(or submitted
for
publication)
to date.
Details
of
these experiments or demons tratio
are clearly omitted; methodological problems exist
in many
of
them
technique and experimental control vary considerably,
and the small
number
of such reports probably does not lead
to any significan
,
conclusive overall result.
Nonetheless,
the following may ^
of use
and
is presented
in that context.
A critical, detailed evaluation of
all such studies will be contained in the forthcoming Systemetrics,
Inc.
report on the subject.
Allen,
S.,
Green,
P.,
Rucker,
K.
,
Cohen,
R.
,
Go°^’
'C *»
-
Morris,
R.
L.
A remote viewing study using a modified version °
the
SRI procedure.
In J.
D.
Morris,
W.
G.
Roll,
and
R.
L. Morris
(Ed.), Research in parapsychology.,. 1975
.
Metuchen,
N.
.
.
Scarecrow Press,
1976,
pp.
46-48.
The
A team of
12 persons rotated roles in direct viewing of
12 targe
s.
Each team member served as experimenter,
subject,
and target person for
4 targets
of
the
12.
The
12 targets were sampled, without replacement,
from a pool of
30.
For each target,
one author
(RLM)
selected the target,
gave
the
envelope
to
the target person, who arrived
at
the target
30 minutes
later and remained
there for
15 minutes,
taking notes on ^target.
The subject, with the experimenter,
tape recorded
tar;get description
.
The experimenter prompted
the subject
as necessary
to
o 7
c
.
g.
target detail.
Three blind judges matched the transcripts
to each target
as
they
visited
the targets.
One judge was told
to select the sin81®
transcript for each target;
the other
two judges rated each transcript
in
(1)
its similarity
to
the target,
and
(2)
their confidence
in ti
ratings.
Results were nonsignificant.
The judge who used the matching
procedure got one hit , which
is exactly chance performance
.
_
The other
two judges rated the correct transcripts above the mean rating on fo
and three targets,
respectively, where six would be chance.
This
study used different scoring techniques and procedures than
the more successful studies, which may be pertinent.
^
i
O D hr>L'cht irn
\/irnin?a 24060
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
II.
Bisaha,
J.
P.
and Dunne,
B.
J.
Multiple subject and
long distant
precognitive remote viewing of geographical locations.
In
Proceedings
of
the International Conference .onJgybe^ney^san^
Society ,
IEEE,
19-21 September 1977, Washington,
D.C.,
pp.
512-510.
Two experiments were conducted,
the first requiring seven subjects
to predict where the experimenter would be
35 minutes in the
future,
t
e
second where
the experimenter would be 23
to
24 hours
in the future,
an
over 5000 miles
away.
Experiment
1.
Subjects worked in pairs, with each member of pair
responding
to each of seven targets.
Response
(tape recordings and
drawings)
from one member of each pair randomly assigned
to Group
A,
the other
to Group B.
Experimenter visited targets, made photographs,
took notes.
Target randomly chosen from set of 10 targets by random
number.
Pool of targets and 10 packets per trial selected by other
person not associated with the experiment.
Two judges blind ranked Group A responses against targets
;
two
other judges blind ranked Group B responses;
two additional judges
blind ranked Group A responses against Group B responses.
Morris'
(1972)
statistical procedure was used
to evaluate results.
For Group A,
each judge matched responses successfully
(p
<
.00j,
each
judge).
For Group
B,
each judge also matched responses successfully
(p
<
.01 each).
The
last two judges compared Group A and Group
B
responses successfully
(p
<
.002 each).
Seventeen direct hits were
made of
the 42
total matches.
Experiment
.
One subject described location of experimenter,
on five successive days and 23-24 hours in advance.
Subject m Chicago,
experimenter in Eastern Europe.
Upon return of
the experimenter,
responses were matched against
targets by
(1)
subject,
(2)
experimenter,
and
(3)
third person.
Resulting rank orderings were significant
(p <'.025 for subject
and experimenter, p
<
.05
for third person).
Results are interpreted
to support existence of remote viewing
abilities independent
of distance and
time.
III.
Bisaha,
J.
P.
and Dunne,
B.
J.
Precognitive remote viewing
in
the Chicago area:
A replication of
the Stanford experimen
.
In J.
D.
Morris,
W.
G.
Roll,
and
R.
L. Morris
(Ed.), Research
in Parapsychology,
1976 .
Metuchen,
N.
J.:
The Scarecrow Press,
1977,
pp.
84-86.
Using same procedure as
in
(II),
two subjects were used
(6 trials
for one subject,
two
for the other)
to describe target location of
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
- 2-
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
experimenter
35 minutes
in advance.
The eight responses were compared
to photographs and notes
taken at
the target by an experimenter.
All
three judges successfully matched targets
to responses, p
<
for
two judges,
and p
<
.0005 for the
third.
Two judges had five direct
hits
out
of eight
targets;
the
third judge had
four direct hits.
Targets,
responses,
and other details
(such as subjects
and
their
selection process)
are not given in the paper.
IV.
Hastings,
A.
C.
and Hurt,
D.
B.
A confirmatory remote viewing
experiment
in a group
setting.
Proceedings of
the IEEE,
1976,
October,
1544-1545.
Thirty-six subjects described,
individually,
a randomly selected
target
(of
a pool of six selected by
the experimenters)
.
After writing
their responses,
they compared notes
and voted for the target, being
then informed
of
the six targets in the pool.
Of
the
36 subjects,
20 voted for the correct target,
t
=> 5.22,
p
<
6 x 10“ 7
.
Authors surprised at results,
attribute them to care in reinforcing
subjects,
feedback,
etc.
Authors
state that group-subjecf research in
this area can clearly have positive results.
V.
Karnes,
E.
W.
and Susman,
E.
P.
Remote viewing:
A response
bias
interpretation.
Denver:
Metropolitan State College,
unpublished manuscript.
Authors used
a signal detection experimental procedure with 90
subjects
in an experimental group
and
subjects
in
a control group
to provide
a baseline for guessing or response bias.
Receiver-sender pairs were randomly selected,
and
senders sent
to one of nine target locations.
Receivers viewed booklets
of
(color)
pictured sites,
one of which was correct
target.
In control
group,
the target was not among the 18
in the booklet from which the
receivers had
to select the target.
Results indicate that control group behaved at chance
,
selecting
target sites and "noise"
sites equally often;
thus,
no significant
response bias existed.
Experimental subjects obtained
24 hits
of
409
selections,
for hit rate of
0.0586.
Chance
is 1/18 =
.0555.
Difference
is not significant
(p =
.395).
Authors conclude there
is no evidence for existence of remote
viewing ability
in this experiment.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
- 3 -
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
VI.
Puthoff,
H.
E.
and Targ,
R.
A.
Various experiments published in
technical reports.
Proceedings of
the IEEE
(1976,
j64,
329-354),
Nature
(1974,
251 ,
602-607),
and elsewhere.
These experiments have used local and long-distance remote viewing
protocols
in which
the subject describes and/or sketches either
the
location of an "outbound" experimenter or a geographical coordinate
pair.
Experiments have been conducted successfully with approximately
10 subjects,
some practiced and a couple naive.
Statistics for
local
experiments follow procedures of Morris
(1972).
This laboratory has had key role in developing methodology,
attempting
to quantify channel of such communication,
and offering
rationale
for successful vs.
unsuccessful results.
Experiments are
far too varied and numerous
to summarize here.
Results are nearly
always positive and impressive,
as reported.
VII.
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 in Parapsychology,
1975 .
Metuchen,
N.
J.:
The
Scarecrow Press
,
1976,
pp.
41-45.
One subject remotely viewed eight different
targets known only
to
one
of
the experimenters, who visited
the sites
at specified
times.
Each target
(of pool of
10)
randomly selected without replacement.
Subject's responses were
tape recorded;
she also made sketches.
Feed-
back provided
to subject immediately thereafter.
Five judges matched transeripts/sketches with photographs
of sites
For each
site,
each judge recorded first,
second,
and third transcript
choice,
and gave percentage weighting
to each choice "to indicate
likelihood
of
its being a first choice."
Results were determined
to be nonsignificant, but experimenters
felt some noticeable correlations between actual targets and subjects'
descriptions.
Absence of positive results as described
in terms of
delayed feedback, which authors believed
to be a methodological error.
VIII.
Vallee,
J.
, Hastings,
A.
C.,
and Askevold,
G.
Remote viewing
experiments through computer conferencing.
Proceedings
of
the
IEEE ,
October 1976,
1551-1552.
~
~
’ “
Twelve subjects,
situated at computer terminals
in New York,
Florida,
California,
and Quebec,
indicated their selection of a
mineral sample taken from an envelope
at
a preselected
time.
In
addition,
"double blind"
targets were also remotely viewed
as a
preselected
time period.
(Double blind targets were not removed
from their envelope,
and no feedback was provided
to subjects.)
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-007,87R000500250015-6
Six subjects responded,
giving
a total of
33 descriptions
of
the
samples.
Thirteen of
the descriptions were under
the double blind
conditions,
and
20 under "open" conditions.
Four specimens
(targets)
were run under both conditions.
Five outside judges matched
the
33 descriptions against
the
targets,
instructed
to assign one
or more targets
to each description.
Judges
also allocated 100 percentage points among all specimens
to
indicate their "certainty."
Results show eight
of
33 targets correctly identified by summing
certainty percentages across judges
(p
<
.01).
Chance
is
3.3 of
33.
Two subjects,
submitting
9 and 11 transcripts, respectively,
did.
better than others
(p =
.04).
Double blind targets were viewed as successfully as open targets.
IX.
Whitson,
T.
W.
,
Bogart,
D.
N., Palmer,
J.,
and Tart,
C.
T.
Preliminary experiments
in group "remote viewing."
Proceedings
of
the IEEE , October 1976,
1550-1551.
Students
in a university art class were subjects.
Experimenters
selected
10 targets from pool of
30, with color slide of each and
travelling instructions in a sealed envelope.
Subjects sketched target
while experimenter visited target
(selected randomly from 10 envelopes)
Outbound experimenter returned, removed and randomized all
ten
slides,
including target
slide.
Judge was asked
to match first and
second choice of
10 slides
to each subject's drawing.
Five first
choices
(of
27) were correct,
and six second choices
(of
26) were
correct.
No statistics were applied
to these results.
A second experiment was conducted,
in a similar fashion,
to
check against possible response bias.
In this experiment,
the correct
target was
the first choice on
3 of
14 drawings and the second choice
on
1 of
14 drawings.
Authors conclude p
-
.033 for combined results but statistical
evaluation not
clear.
SGFOIA3
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6