f Approved For Releas 00/08/07 : cin RP96 07 ROO Hy Rapot ORD! FY 79 Catret SUMMARY OF KNOWN REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENTS The following very brief summaries describe those remote viewing experiments, or series of experiments, published (or submitted for publication) to date. Details of these experiments or demonstrations 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 significant, conclusive overall result. Nonetheless, the following may be of use and is presented in that context. A eritical, detailed evaluation of all such studies will be contained in the forthcoming Systemetrics, Inc. report on the subject. I. 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, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, pp. 46-48. A team of 12 persons rotated roles in direct viewing of 12 targets. 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 the target. The subject, with the experimenter, tape recorded target descriptions. The experimenter prompted the subject as necessary to obtain greater target detail. Three blind judges matched the transcripts to each target as they visited the targets. One judge was told to select the single best transcript for each target; the other two judges rated each transcript in (1) its similarity to the target, and (2) their confidence in the 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 four 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. Approved For Release 2000/08 7 . me pm Et Nea Le Dlnntchtira Virninia 240860
“Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6 II, Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, Bb. J. Multiple subject and long distant precognitive remote viewing of geographical locations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, IEEE, 19-21 September 1977, Washington, D.C., pp- 512-516. Two experiments were conducted, the first requiring seven subjects to predict where the experimenter would be 35 minutes in the future, the second where the experimenter would be 23 to 24 hours in the future, and 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 < .005, 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 2, One subject described location of experimenter, on five successive days and 23-24 hours in advance. Subject in 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 Dumne, 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, 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 < 107% 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<6x 1077, Authors surprised at results, attribute them to care in reinforcing subjects, feedback, etc. Authors state that group-subject’ research in this area can clearly have positive results. 1 Vv. Karnes, E. W. and Susman, E. P. Remote viewing: A response bias interpretation. Denver: Metropolitan State College, unpublished manuscript. Authoys used a signal detection experimental procedure with 90 subjects in an experimental group and 25 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 18 (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 fs 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, 64, 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 transcripts/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 7 Nea
Approved Fer Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250015-6 he Six subjects responded, giving a total of 33 descriptions of the 10 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 10 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 of