Approved For Release 2000/08/10 jDlfifiK!P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
21 coaches,
and
20 intact
teams provided responses.
No other details are
known about
the subjects.
Experimenter*.
Charles Tart.
Target Persons.
Marjorie Hook-Gegoud
(workshop organizer)
and her
husband.
Judges.
Subjects judged their own responses
in
a forced-choice fashion.
Equipment.
"About
sixty" slides
of possible target
sites were provided
to Tart by Hook-Gegoud prior
to his arrival
in Omaha.
Notes
and drawings
were made by subjects.
Targets.
Tart
(alone)
selected six slides from the
that he
"felt
were visually quite distinct."
He then sealed each slide,
"along with
a
set
of instructions
that
I made up
then and
there, on appropriate things
that
could be done
to interact with the site,
in an opaque envelope."
No mention
is made
of where
these
selected
slides were stored or what was done with
the nonselected target
slides.
Procedure.
The participants were
instructed on psychological procedures
for eliciting psi for remote viewing,
and then divided
into two-person teams
(assignment procedure
is undefined).
The coach's main functions were
to take
notes
of
the viewer's
imagery,
ask questions
to help elaborate imagery,
and
so
on.
[Tart
then conducted
a general ESP
test
in the workshop room
to
get
their psi talents
to operate.
Using color slides
of
four classical
paintings,
he was quite successful.
Hastings
(later)
served as
a blind
judge
of
the results and correctly matched
24 of
the
28 responses
to
the
correct
target
slide.
The target slide,
chosen deliberately by Tart
(The
Sacrament of the Last Supper3
by Dali)
was used successfully
in the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
:
2£WrDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
HSKmui
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
i f0(i(|ltB^O6-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
Malmonidcs
studies, with which both Tart and Hastings were
familiar!
This
experiment
is considered
too confounded
in methodology
to be critically
discussed here;
it
is mentioned only because
it was part
of
the "warm up"
procedure.]
The
target persons left with all six envelopes
and used
an HP-25
calculator
with
a random-number generating program
to select
a target by a number between
1 and
as
the last digit.
(They had "to push
the
[Generate]
button many
times before
they got
a number between
1 and
6."
How many
times
is not
stated.)
They then got
into
their
car and started
to drive
away,
opened
the
target envelope,
and were
to arrive
at
the
target
in 20 minutes,
at which
time
the. subjects would
try
to remote view.
After all drawings and notes were collected,
the envelopes were opened
and all six target
slides were projected
for
the subjects
to
see.
Each
team voted separately,
as
did each viewer and each coach.
Voting instructions
were not
given,
although
the word "ranking"
is used in the
text.
The
"Combined first and second choice responses
for each site" are presented.
After all votes were tabulated,
the
target persons returned
to brief
the
subjects.
Data Analysis .
No statistical analysis
of
the data
is presented
(or
warranted)
.
Results.
The results are given in Table 16.
Clearly,
the results do
not confirm the existence
of remote viewing.
However,
the author offers
a
strong explanation
for
the results,
as
follows:
When Iloolc~Gegoud returned,
she
immediately apologized
for "messing up"
the experiment.
The HP-25 give
a room in the
art museum as
the
target.
Her
husband stated
the
art museum was closed
that day, which they verified by
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
;
3dlA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-gfanrr
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0j£UyipP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
^nlwln^
TABLE 16.
TART’S
(1977)
RESULTS
TARGET SITES
VIEWERS
COACHES
TEAMS
MORTUARY
MUSEUM
CHURCH
(TARGET)
WOOLWORTH’S
BOOKSTORE
PRINTSHOP
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0 23GIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
pritnnr _
Approved For Release 2000/08/1^g|gjJg^P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
telephoning
the museum.
They
then selected
the next target envelope,
the
church, which they got
to on time.
Hook-Gegoud,
throughout the experiment,
had hoped
the mortuary would be
selected as
the target due
to
the fact
that
a close friend had died
a few
days earlier and that his funeral was
taking place
that afternoon at
a
different mortuary.
She had wanted
to attend
the
funeral but
chose
to
participate in the experiment
instead.
Conclusions.
The author believes
the experiment was
a "failure"
in
terms
of
the
subjects’
votes.
"Yet,
the viewers'
choices showed
a clear
preponderance
of
first
and second choices
for
the mortuary
(the
target site
that
the principal agent had strongly wanted
to go
to),
a second-place vote
for
the room in the art museum
(where
the agents had been supposed to go),
and
a third-place vote for
the church
(the site
they had actually visited).
The coaches'
separate votes
and
the
team votes also showed
a preference for
the mortuary, with the room in the art museum and
the church also getting a
very high number of votes."
Tart believes
the results
to demonstrate psi,
but points
out
that we
do not know the
limits
of psi.
That
is,
"we
cannot assume that
the
experimenter
is independent
of
the experiment."
In this
case,
the
target
person's desires would appear
to influence
the outcome as much as
the target
person’s
actions.
Critical Evaluation.
This experiment clearly shows negative statistical
results.
Interpreted objectively and scientifically,
it does not support
the remote viewing hypothesis.
The author's post hoc explanation, while plausible,
is untestable.
It remains
interesting speculation.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0^tjA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 4UfeftBP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
If one assumes
that
the
target person’s desires and knowledge can
influence
the results,
and further
that
the experimenter’s desires and
knowledge can also do
so,
then this experiment
is strong evidence for
a
true double blind protocol,
one
in which both the target person and
the
experimenter are unaware of:
(1)
the
target pool and any element
therein,
(2)
the constraints on the
target pool,
(3)
any possible nonselected
targets,
(4)
any previous experiments
involving
the subjects,
and
(5)
any hypothesized results expected from the experiment.
These are difficult
criteria
to meet.
They will be discussed
in
a
subsequent
section
of
this report.
Sumnary .
The negative results,
coupled with
the post hoc theorizing,
make this experiment
of little value in confirming
the existence
of remote
viewing.
However,
the lessons
learned from the methodology and results can
be
important'.
K.
Vallee,
J.,
Hastings,
A.
C.,
and Askevold,
G.
Remote viewing
experiments through computer conferencing.
Proceedings of the IEEE ,
October 1976,
pp.
1551-1552.
Purpose.
The purpose
of
this research
is
to extend
the work of Puthoff
and Targ
"to cases
in which
the participants were several thousand miles
from each other,
with control of sensory conditions automatically and
unobtrusively provided by
the medium of communication
...",
the computer
network.
Approved For Release 2000/08/
CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Experimental Design.
Twelve persons had individual computer terminals
and attempted
to describe
ten mineral samples held
in
a geologist's hand,
one per day
at
a prespecified
time.
Five of
the
10 samples were enclosed
in larger envelopes and labeled
a "double-blind" pool.
Because all persons
were not
logged onto
the computer each day,
a total of
33 descriptions were
contributed by six persons
for
the
10 samples.
Thirteen
of
the descriptions
were "double blind"
and
the remaining
20 were "open."
Subjects.
.Twelve persons served
a.s
subjects.
They were
in New York,
Florida,
Quebec,
and California.
Each was supplied
a computer terminal for
his/her home or office.
They all volunteered
to participate.
Nothing
is
known of
the subjects;
however,
the
four excerpted transcripts
in the paper
indicate
some geological knowledge by at least
two subjects.
Of
the
transcripts,
11 were contributed by "author"
A.
H.
In the published
table,
the word "author" presumably means
subject,
although
it
is
interesting
to
note
the similarity of initials
to one
of
the authors
of
the paper.
Experimenter.
Messrs.
Hudson and Wilson are thanked
for
"carrying
out and analyzing the experiments."
They are not otherwise described.
The
role
of the authors
in this research
is undefined.
Target Person.
"A geologist" sitting at his home terminal selected
the sample
(target)
each day.
He
is not otherwise identified
or described.
Judges.
These were five persons who had no prior knowledge of
the
correct pairings;
they are identified
as
a sociologist,
an editor,
a
physicist.,
a secretary,
and
a librarian.
In no particular order,
the
following persons are
(later
in
the paper)
thanked
for serving
as judges:
Ms.
Amara,
Ms.
Chula,
Dr.
Johansen,
Dr.
Lipinski,
and Ms.
Spangler.
Approved For Release 20
CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
m.i
Approved For Release 2000/08/10|yQjAfftDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Equipment.
Each subject had
a portable computer terminal
in his/her
home or office,
linked
to
a computer teleconferencing system.
Participants
could
type
in comments
at any time.
"All comments are immediately printed
by
the computer on the terminals
of any participants who are currently logged
in
(or are stored
for later retrieval)
No mention
is made
of whether
or
not each subject's response was printed immediately on all other
terminals.
The security
of
the input
information,
the nature of
the system software
logic,
and other pertinent details are absent from the paper.
Targets.
Ten mineral samples were selected from "geological collections.
The samples were "the rare mineral bastnosite,
a vein filling
of galena and
quartz,
opal,
gold ore,
halite,
cinnabar, magnetite,
realgar,
barite,
and
cobaltite.
Subjects were told only that
the targets were mineral samples
from North America.
The manner
of select and
the person doing
the selection
are not described
at
all,
nor
is
the storage place
of the samples.
Procedure.
"Each day at
7:30 AM and
7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
a
geologist
sitting
at his home terminal
took one of
the envelopes from the
open pool,
extracted
the
sample,
and held
it
in his hand.
Anyone logged
into
the conference
at
that
time
could volunteer
a remote viewing description.
Such descriptions were recorded and printed by the computer with a date and
time
stamp.
After all descriptions were
in,
the geologist entered
a brief
description of
the specimen
to provide feedback for
the participants.
The
sample was
then removed from the open pool.
"Similarly,
each morning
the envelope
for
the day was
taken from the
double blind pool and placed
at
a designated office location where
it was
a target
for remote viewing for eight hours.
Anyone logging into the
conference during
that time could type
in
a description of
the sample
239
Approved For Release 200Q£QaW:XIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
J&LuttU
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0raa|i8C>P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
OLlmU
contained
in that envelope.
At
the end of
the day,
the envelope was taken
to
the geologist, who added the
sample
to
the open pool.
No feedback was
given for
the double blind targets."
Thirteen of
the 33 responses were double blind,
and 20 were open.
Four
of
the
targets were run under both open and double blind conditions.
(Which targets led
to responses under each condition
is not indicated in
the paper.)
The five judges were given transcripts
of
the responses
(without
time,
date,
or subject identification)
and
the geological specimens.
They were
instructed
to assign one or more
specimens
to each response.
"Each specimen
assigned
to
a given
[response] was allotted
a percentage score which
reflected
the judge's certainty of
the
'match.'
The
total of
100 percent
could be divided among any or none
of
the
[targets].
We
then totaled all
five judges'
assignments
for each
[response]
to
find which
[targets]
scored
the highest for each
[response]."
Data Analysis.
The data were analyzed
two ways.
First,
the likelihood
that
the correct
target received
the highest
score by chance was calculated.
Second,,
the percentage scores were evaluated by a one-tailed T
[sic]
test
"to determine
the probability that
the assigned percentage scores
for correct
and incorrect
targets were due
to chance."
Results.
The results are shown in Table
17.
The correct target was
assigned the highest
score in
8 out
of
33 responses.
These were
the
following responses, with subject's initials
and target given in parentheses:
(I. S. ,F)
;
(R.B. ,D)
;
(R.B.,I);
(I.S.,H);
(I.S..F);
(R.B.,J);
(R.B. ,D);
and
(A.H. ,D)
Tme
correct
target was assigned
the highest score
in
8 of
33 cases.
Since
chance
is
3.3
cases,
the outcome
is stated by the authors
to be
pproved For Release 2000/08/W
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
#&r||go
TlCunu
A| 3proved For Release 2000/08/JUSUS£RDP96-00787R0001 0026000:
OLUIILI
TABLE 17.
RESULTS OF VALLEE,
et at.
(1976)
RESPOI
OPEN
(0)
fSE
BLIND
(B)
SUBJECT
BEST
2ND
SCORES
3RD
4TH
5TH
TARGET
I.S.
J (134)
F(60)
C (50)
G(44)
D(30)
C
A.H.
A(100)
1(6.0)
F ( 5 2
)
H(50)
C(45)
C
B
I.S.
F(212)
G(50)
C(10)
D (io)
H(10)
F
I.S.
J(100)
E(76)
F(55)
K(30)
A(10)
G
B
A.H.
K(70)
H(62)
G(60)
D
B
R. B
.
D(284)
J(10)
D
b'
R.T.
A(205)
1(90)
G(80)
D
B
I.S.
1(210)
J(40)
D
A.H.
11(150)
F(70)
3 (50)
C (20)
I
I.S.
D (50)
3 (50)
K(50)
E(48)
C (30)
I
R.B
.
1(208)
D (30)
C (20)
H(20)
I
A.H.
F(45)
.E (20)
D(17)
E
R.B.
F(188)
E
B
R.B.
K(110)
D(56)
J (30)
H
B
A.H.
A(180)
D(10)
F(10)
H
B
I.S.
H(166)
H
R.B.
D (100)
F (90)
F
I.S.
F(246)
D(120)
1(20)
F
I.S.
G(104)
C(100)
J (84)
J
A.H.
F (30)
K(20)
D(6)
J
R.B.
J (56)
1(50)
D(30)
A(10)
C(10)
J
B
R.B.
H(62)
K
B
A.H.
D (52)
G(10)
3(10)
K
B
J.B.
C (40)
D(14)
K
R.B.
D(72)
J(10)
D
A.V.
J(8Q)
D(25)
D
A.H.
D (55)
E(5)
F ( 5 )
.
K(2)
D
R.B.
D(126)
II
A.H.
D (222)
F(10)
H
.
I.S.
J (58)
C (30)
11(22)
A (10)
1(10)
H
B
A.H.
11(32)
E(30)
G(10)
1(6)
A
B
R.B.
C (130)
G(124)
A
o
R.B.
1(60)
D(16)
3(15)
K(6)
A
Approved For Release 2000/08/^: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-qrpnrr
Approved For Release 2000/08/1TlS^^BP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
significant
at p
<
.01.
For verification,
one can calculate
the level
of
significance,
using
the binomial:
p
(n
>
8)
=
-
[
E
(
)
(0.1) n
(0.9) 33_n
]
(7)
n
=
=
.0041
Thus p
is
just slightly better
than
.01.
For
the analysis
of percentage scores,
the authors use
a one-tailed T-te-st
to compare assigned percentage
scores
for correct
vs.
incorrect targets.
They
report
a p-value of
0.08;
the value
of T
is not reported.
They also state
that
the individual p-values
for subjects
I.S.
and R.B.
were equal
to
0.04.
Conclusions.
The authors conclude
that
"about two-thirds
of
the
[responses]
contained descriptive elements
that corresponded with the
correct target
specimen,
but often these were mixed with noncorresponding elements
...."
Authors were encouraged by
the "accurate and significant remote perception
[up
to]
...
2500 miles away from the targets,
...
[and]
that
the double
blind conditions provided equally correct descriptions
.
.
.
.
Critical Evaluation.
This
experiment can be criticized on several
methodological grounds,
including at least
the
following:
(1)
Selection of the subjects,
their backgrounds,
their knowledge of
remote viewing phenomena,
and the like are all unknown.
(2)
Did
they have communication with one another or with anyone else
regarding
the experiment?
Since
the teleconferencing system was available
to them at all times,
such communication
is
certainly possible.
(3)
Who selected
the
targets?
Are
they
a representative "random"
Approved For Release 2000/08/W: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-SEW-
Approved For Release 2000/08/t^^|^RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
sample of North American minerals?
Who else knew of
the target pool?
Where/
how were
they stored during
the experiment?
If the observers
could remotely
view the double blind targets
in envelopes
over
the distances
involved,
it
seems reasonable
that
they could remotely view both open and double blind
targets at all times.
(4)
The original five open targets were used once each;
the original
five double blind targets were used
twice each,
once double blind and once
open,
with
the double blind viewing
first.
This confounding
of
frequency
of usage with
the double blind vs.
open variable limits
the sampling assumptions
of
the data.
Secondly,
the experimental analysis
of
the data can be
criticized
as
follows:
(1)
Subject
I.S. was correct
three times,
subject R.B.
four
times,
and
subject A.H.
once,
out
of
10 subjects.
This allocation
of
the
eight best
match correct responses seems somewhat extreme.
For any given subject,
the
likelihood
of being correct
can be evaluated.
For subject R.B., who contributed 11 responses
(of
the
33),
the likelihood
of being correct,
by chance,
four or more times
is:
p
(n
>
4)
=
-
[
£
n
=
< „)
(o.D n
(0 . 9 )
11 n
]
(8
)
=
.0028.
For subject
I.S.
,
the similar probability
is:
p
(n
>
3)
=
-
[
£
(
)
(0.1f
n
=
(0 . 9 )
9 ”]
(9
)
=
.0083.
Approved For Release 2000/08/W: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Q_h6JA»ftDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Tumcr
Subject A.H.
responded
times,
and was correct
once.
With an a priori
probability of
1/10,
little can be said for his performance, whether an author
or not!
Note,
however,
that these three persons
contributed
11 +
9 + 10
=
of
the
transcripts.
Subject R.T.
contributed
1,
subject J.B.
contributed
1,
and subject A.V.
contributed
1,
for a total
of
33.
Clearly,
the overall
positive results are due entirely
to subjects
R.B.
and
I.S.
(2)
The authors
indicate
that
8 correct out of
is significant
at
p
<
.01,
yet
the binomial calculation yields
a value
of p =
.004.
The authors
do not state
the
test by which they calculated
the p-value;
it would have
been more scientific had
they done
so.
(3)
The selection of
the £-test
for correct
t>s.
incorrect scores
is
awkward.
The authors
are not very explicit which correct
and incorrect scores
they used,
nor what value
of
t was obtained.
One might reasonably assume
that
the
correct matches
in Table
17 were used,
and compared with the
remaining
scores.
If
so,
this should be evaluated by
a non-correlated
score t-test,
even though
the scores are clearly not independent.
Nevertheless
following this approach:
t -
3.36,
df =
100.
(10)
The exact p-value for
t
- 3.36, df - 100
is
.0011.
The authors report
a p
~
.08, but do not
indicate their basis of calculation.
For subject
I. .S.,
using
the same approach,
t =
2.98,
df -
32.
(11)
The exact p-value for subject
I.S.
is
.0055.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1^ CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Tsccno
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 VtWW#5P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Similarly,
for subject
R.B.
,
t
=
2.83,
df =25,
p
=
.009.
(12)
All
of
the above p-values are two-tailed,
but clearly very significant.
It
is unclear
to use what
t calculation the authors could have used
to
obtain p
-
.08
for
the entire experiment data set.
The only other plausible
possibility
is
to obtain a mean correct score and
a mean incorrect score
for each subject
(N =
6)
,
and
to analyze
the difference between
these means
by
a paired-score
t statistic.
This analysis yields
a mean,
across subjects,
score of
56.17
for correct responses
. and 64.17
for incorrect responses.
While
the difference of
8.00
is not statistically significant
{t
=
-0.25,
df =
5,
p
=
.19),
it
is interesting
to note
that
the scores were generally higher
for
incorrect responses!
Summary.
This experiment
is
interestiixg in
that
it uses
a different
task and different methodology.
However,
the lack of procedural detail,
coupled with the imprecise and inexact statistical analyses,
cause us
to
have
less
than complete faith in the results.
Like many other experiments,
it would be quite impressive
if
the reporting were more detailed and
the
methodology cleaner.
As
it
is,
it can only be considered suggestive of
the existence
of long distance remote viewing.
L.
Whitson,
T;
W.
,
Bogart,
D.
N.,
Palmer,
J.,
and Tart,
C.
T.
Preliminary
experiments
in group "remote viewing"
.
Proceedings of the IEEE
October
1976,
pp.
1550-1551.
Purpose .
The purposes were
to check on the validity of remote viewing,
as reported by Puthoff
and Targ,
and
to
test
such in
a group experiment.
Approved For Release 2000/0
A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1jtaifflArf*DP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Experiment One
Experimental Design.
Students
in an art class remotely viewed
one
target site and attempted
to select
it
from a set
of
10 presented
in color
slide
form.
Subjects.
Twenty-seven students
in an art class
at
the University
of
California,
Davis.
Experimenter.
T.
Whitson.
Target Person.
D.
Bogart.
.
Judge.
An employee of
the university art department
served
as judge.
No other information is given.
Equipment.
Sketching materials and color slides
of
the
targets were
used.
Slides were made by Whitson and Bogart.
Targets.
"Thirty target locations were selected by
the experimenters,
all within
ten minutes driving time from the Davis
campus.
Of
these thirty,
ten locations clearly differentiated from each other by visual criteria were
chosen as
the
target
pool.
A few examples
of
the
target pool are:
a palm
tree,
a Hammond organ,
a bike underpass
tunnel,
and
a gravestone statue of
an angel.
Procedure.
A color slide
of each site was sealed
in an envelope together
with traveling instructions from the university to
the site.
The experimenter
randomized
the envelopes while the target person was not present.
The experimenter introduced
the nature of
the experiment
at
the beginning
of
the
class period and conducted the experiment after
the
class had been
drawing for
two hours,
reasoning that
the subjects’
visual imagery would be
more activated at
this
time.
The experimenters described
the SRI studies
and emphasized
to
the subjects
that remote viewing might be
a widely distributed perceptual ability.
Approved For Release 2000^^ CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/ifl^ttjB^DP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 rerandomized 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 priori
probability of
a hit,
P,
is
1/10.
Then,
there are
11 hits
out
of
the
matches,
and:
p
(n
>
11)
-
-
[
S
(
)
(0.1)”
(0.9)
53-”]
n =
\
(13)
. 0053
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1j^gg»P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE
18.
EXPERIMENTS ONE AND TWO
(IN PARENTHESES)
RESULTS
TARGET
FIRST CHOICE
SECOND CHOICE*
TOTAL
ANGEL
(0)
(0)
(0)
BANJO
(3)
(3)
(6)
BEAN POLE
(1)
(2)
(3)
BIKES
(TARGET,
2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
BIKE TUNNEL
(TARGET,
1)
(1)
(0)
(1)
DIRT MOUNDS
(0)
(2)
(2)
LOGS
(2)
(1)
(3)
ORGAN
(4)
(4)
(8)
PALM TREE
(0)
(0)
(0)
TRACTOR
(0)
(1)
(1)
*One second choice not given
in Experiment
One.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 &4?CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
jjmdM
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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.
Experimenter.
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.
Table 18
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/Q^jMJ4-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
wL<LJII!LI
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
of
the
90 possible pairs.
This
is asscciateS with
a one-tailed probability
of 0.033."
Conclusions .
The authors conclude
that
the results offer modest support
to Puthoff
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
(first experiment) +
(second experiment)
=
15 correct
is
the
third highest
total.
However,
the first highest
total would be
11 +
=
19,
while
the
second highest
total would be
11 +
=
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,
p
(ft
>
4)
[
E
n
-
(
2 ®)
( 0 . 1)”
( 0
. 9) 28 n
]
(14)
=
.14211.
This result
is
clearly not significant by any statistical criterion.
Similarly, were the decision made a priori
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
p
(ft
>
15)
-
-
[
E
ft
(0.1)”
(0.9) 81-n
]
(15)
ft =
=
.006.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0^IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ftPflnTT
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
:
-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 Psi,
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 2000l08li
cRDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
.fljymnr
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ClSRBRRT00787R0001 00260003-2
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 Q^to®B96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ^ggp6-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 III.
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 other 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 2X3IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ss^Sr
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: aWjRfifi96-00787R0001 00260003-2
toSIvCi
The use
of
this rebuttal method by Puthoff,
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
XI.
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 tt5^^RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 pgg(|]jg|fa P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
drawings,
clay models)
are
included unedited
in
the data
package
to be judged and
evaluated.
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.
Cueing
C3:
The study could involve naivete
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 2000/08;
IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^§0(|gjie6-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
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 naivete
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
is
"blind"
to
the subjects,
the
data per
se,
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
in
a 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 if a subject were
to be given a
list of possible
target sites beforehand and encouraged to familiarise 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
: S&-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 jGWjRgP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 sub-pool
of
targets was also selected
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 025CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA^j^-00787R0001 00260003-2
from
the larger pool;
thus,
this selection process may have eliminated
the possibility of more
than one
type
of
target appearing.
Target Generality
C6:
Transcripts generated by subjects are
so general as
to match
anything.
("Sky
is blue,
grass
is
green.")
R6:
Judging protocol involves differential matching.
Therefore,
true but general statements
do not help
a judge
to preferen-
tially assign
a transcript
to one site as opposed
to another.
Comment:
Again,
this
is
a valid response for statistically judged
targets
but not
for many others
(e.g.,
Washington Square versus Yankee Stadium).
It should be clear
that many transcripts,
in fact, match many
targets;
i.e.,
the channel
is noisy.
Why
then
(and how)
can
so many excellent
responses occur?
"Read-In" Matches
C7:
Given
a transcript and
a
target,
a judge can "read
in" matches.
R?
-
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.
Comment:
"Read-in"
can occur
for
targets not judged statistically,
as was
often
the case.
Experimenter cues
in
the transcript can be helpful here.
Such experimenter
cueing,
or
the possibility
thereof,
must be eliminated
by protocol
revision.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
25£IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CUfiEfeRffi -00787R0001 00260003-2
Inadequate Handling of Judging Materials
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 Hoc 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 Andres airfield photograph taken after
the
judging?
Why
do aspect angles of photographs always coincide with the
direction from which
the subject "views"
the
target?
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
2?tlA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ftPABPf
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^gg^Jj|96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 260IA-RDP96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ClfiEM®6-00787R0001 00260003-2
ULUIILI
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 »
n.
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 et at.
should not know
the size
of
the
target pool.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 02bCIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
rrinniT-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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
include what aspects
of
the
target are
to be viewed,
e.g.%
the fountain in a plaza,
and from what viewpoint.
Hie 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 at.
B„
Investigator
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.
In a 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 2000/08/1 0^66lA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: €$jj0f£f96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
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,
successful
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 Andres airport.
(One must
wonder why
h.e wasn't used again in view of
this highly accurate response!)
D,
Experimenters
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.
No previous results should
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 026£|A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2