PUTHOFF A!AprnnAmm
20001 -4
TARGET—TENNIS COURTS
Fig. 6.
Subject Elgin (S2) drawings in response to tennis court target.
subject.
It was a demonstration experiment for a government
visitor who had heard of our work and wanted to evaluate our
experimental protocol.
In the laboratory, the subject, holding a bearing compass at
arm’s length, began the experiment by indicating the direction
of the target demarcation team correctly to within 5°.
(In all
four experiments with this subject, he has always been within
10° of the correct direction in this angular assessment.)
The
subject then generated a 15-min tape-recorded description and
the drawings shown in Fig. 6.
In
discussing
the
drawings,
Elgin
indicated
that
he
was
uncertain
as
to the
action, but had
the impression
that
the
demarcation team was located
at a museum (known
to him)
in a particular park.
In
fact, the target was
a tennis court lo-
cated
in that park about 90 m from
the indicated museum.
Once again, we note the characteristic (discussed earlier) of a
resemblance between
the
target
site
and
certain
gestalt
ele-
ments
of
the
subject’s
response,
especially
in regard to
the
drawings, coupled
with
incomplete or erroneous analysis of
the significances.
Nonetheless, when rank ordering transcripts
through
8 at the
site, the judge ranked this transcript as
2.
This example illustrates a continuing observation that most of
the
correct information related to us by subjects is of a non-
analytic nature pertaining to shape, form, color, and material
rather than to function or name.
experiments, he
dictates two
lists for us
to record.
One
list
contains objects that he “sees,” but does not think are located
at
the remote
scene.
A second
list contains objects that he
thinks are at the scene.
In our evaluation, he has made much
progress
in
this
most
essential
ability
to
separate memory
and imagination from paranormal inputs.
This
is the key to
bringing the remote-viewing channel to fruition with regard to
its potential usefulness.
The quality of transcript that can be generated by this pro-
cess
is evident from the results of our most recent experiment
with Swann.
The target location chosen by the usual double-
blind protocol was the Palo Alto City Hall. Swann described a
tall building with vertical columns and “set in” windows.
His
sketch,
together with the photograph of the
site,
is shown in
Fig.
7.
He
said
there was a fountain, “but
I don’t hear it.”
At
the time the
target team was
at
the City Hall during the
experiment,
the fountain was not running.
He also made an
effort to draw a replica of the designs in the pavement in front
of the
building, and correctly
indicated the number of trees
(four) in the sketch.
For the entire series of eight, four each from S2 and S3, the
numerical
evaluation ‘based on
blind
rank
ordering of tran-
scripts
at each
site was
significant
at p = 3.8 X
and
in-
cluded three direct hits and three second ranks for the target-
associated transcripts (see Table IV).
A second example from this group, generated by S3 (Swann),
.
.
r
Swann, he has been studying the problem of separating the ex-
out with learner subjects S 5 and S6, a man and woman on the
-
in
this
case,
taken
as
a
Approved For ££1)^^000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-OO789Rp»91W!>t20O®W^ MARCH 1976
t\uk
cjLu>^te
thus
A. <Jj4uut.
.
uu-?»< **
Ow» w*iW
t*4uF lad
0^*vt-
SsttoaM*
\&*H> «Ai\.
ZJ4
V
M
v
Cx*fi
WUtf
gu
o ^
TABLE IV
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated
with Each Target Location for Experienced Subjects Elgin (S2)
I
and Swann (S3)
TarRet
Location
BART Station
(
f
I
Transit
System),
Fremont
16.
Shielded
roots.
j SRI, Menlo Park
0.1
Tennis court,
Palo Alto
3,4
Golf course
bridge,
Stanford
3.4
City Hall,
Pal o Alto
2.0
Miniature golf
| course,
Menlo
Park
3.0
Kiosk
In
park,
| Menlo Park
0.3
Bay lands Katurp
Preserve,
Palo Alto
6.4
Tdtal
sum of
ranks
Rank of
Associated
Tranacrl.pt
(p-J.axlO" 4
}
TABLE V
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Transcripts Associated
Subject
Tarket
Location
Distance
(km)
Rank of
Associated
S5
Pedestrian overpaas,
Palo Alto
5.0
S3
Railroad
trestle bridge,
Palo Alto
1.3
S5
Windmill,
Po^tola Valley
a.
55,
S6
White
Plaza,
Stanford
(2)
3.8
S6
Airport,
Palo Alto
5.5
Kioak
in
Par^c,
Menlo
Park
0.3
Boathouse,
Stanford
Total
sum
<|>f
ranks
4.0
(p-0.08,
NS)
Fig. 7.
Subject Swann (S3) response to City Hall target.
group, did not differ significantly from chance. For the series
of eight (judged as a group of seven since one target came up
twice, once for each subject), the numerical evaluation based
on
blind rank
ordering
of
transcripts
at each
site was non-
significant at p = 0.08, even though there were two direct hits
and two second ranks out of the seven (see Table V).
One of the direct hits, which occurred with subject S6 in her
first experiment, provides an example of the “first-time effect”
that has been rigorously explored and is well-known to experi-
menters
in
the
field
[57].
The
outbound
experimenter
obtained, by random protocol from
the pool, a target blind
to
the experimenter with the subject; as is our standard pro-
matician in'tne computer science laboratory who had no pre-
vious experience
in Remote viewing, began to describe a large
square with a fountain.
Four minutes into
the experiment,
she recognized the location and correctly identified it by name
(see Fig.
8).
(It should be noted that in the area from which
the
target
locations
were
drawn
there
are
other
fountains
as
well, some of whjch were
in
the
target
pool.)
As an ex-
ample of the style
<j>f the narratives generated during remote
viewing with inexperienced subjects and of the part played by
the experimenter regaining with the subject
in such
a
case,
we have included th^ entire unedited text of this experiment
as Appendix B.
E. Normal and Paranormal: Use of Unselected Subjects in
Remote Viewing
After more than a year of following the experimental pro-
tocol described above and observing that even inexperienced
subjects generated results better than expected, we initiated a
series
of experiments to explore
further whether individuals
other than putative
'‘psychics” can demonstrate the remote-
viewing
ability.
To
test
this idea, we have a continuing pro-
gram to carry out additional experiments of the outdoor type
with new subjects whom we have no a priori reason to believe
have paranormal perceptual ability. To date we have collected
data from
five experiments with two individuals in this cate-
gory:
a man
and
a woman who were
visiting government
scientists interested in observing our experimental protocols.
The motivation for these particular experiments was twofold.
*Hicate the level of
proficiency that can ibe expected from unselected volunteers.
PUTHOFF AN!
341
Fig. 8. Subject (S6) drawing of White Plaza, Stanford University.
Sub-
ject drew what she called “curvy benches” and then announced cor-
rectly that the place was “White Plaza at Stanford.”
Second, when an individual observes a successful demonstra-
tion experiment involving another person as subject,
it inevi-
tably occurs to him
that perhaps chicanery
is involved.
We
have found the most effective way to settle this issue for the
observer
is to have the individual himself act as a subject so as
to
obtain
personal
experience
against
which
our
reported
result; can be evaluated.
The
first visitor (VI) was invited to participate as a subject
in a three-experiment series.
All three experiments contained
elements
descriptive
of the
associated
target
locations; the
quality
of response
increased
with
practice.
The
third
re-
the
dra
^to^b
analytic interpretation of the target object as a cupola,
.
.
RESPONSES OF VISITING
Fig. 9.
Subject (VI) drawing of merry-go-round target.
CPYRdN¥)roved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0
P
(f§TOfi^(!)
>6f-
H4
,EEE ’ MARCH
1 976
TECHNOLOGY SERIES
TYPEWRITER TARGET
-
cl »f
tU
2. f+js£±
-
Im-L& <r+ TL# ^mJLi
.
-ii/ bU
j/#t uxo -
HU
/WflU
V—-4^
iL
u'wwC
SUBJECT SWANN
(S3) RESPONSE
SUBJECT HAiyiMID
(S4) RESPONSE
Fig. 10.
Drawings of a typewriter target by two subjects.
The second visitor [V2]
participated
as a subject in two ex-
periments.
In
his
first experiment, he generated one of the
higher
signal-to-noise
results we
have
observed.
He
began
his narrative, ‘There
is a red A-frame building and next to
it
is
a
large yellow
thing
[a
tree-Editor]
.
Now
further
left
there
is another A-shape.
It looks
like a swing-set, but
it
is
pushed down
in
a
gully so
I can’t see the swings.”
[All cor-
rect.]
He then went on to describe a lock on the front door
that
he
said
“looks
like
it’s made
of laminated
steel,
so
it
must be a Master lock.”
[Also correct.]
For the
series of five— three from the first subject and two
from
the
second— the
numerical
evaluation
based on
blind
rank ordering of the transcripts at each site was significant at
p = 0.017 and included three direct hits and one second rank
{OTtheMppfW&*P&rK&&a$b'2!<mrO9l08
: CIA-
Distribution of Rankini
Each Target Loc
TABLE VI
fcs Assigned to Transcripts Associated with
:ation for Visitor Subjects VI and V2
Sub )ecc —
rget Locedon
Distance
(km)
Rank of
Aeeociated
Tranacr iDt
VI
!
Bridge over
screen,
Menlo
Perk
0.3
VI
Baylands Netur e
Preserve,
Palo Alto
6.4
VI
Merry-go-round
,
Pelo Alto
3.4
V2
Windmill,
Porto le Velley
8.5
V2
Apartment
swim aing
pool,
Mountain View
9.1
Total
sum of rank*
1DP9(I-OO789R0O31 001 20001 4
(par0,017)
PUTHOFF AiAp^RQy^jB^u^lMSi9E2Q0JOffl8^Qi8ATQIAnREM?0i6-OO789fJ9$^^^^OOO1-4
343
TARGET LOCATION:
XEROX MACHINE
(TECHNOLOGY SERIES)
TO ADD INTEREST TO TARGET
LOCATION EXPERIMENTER WITH
HIS HEAD BEING XEROXED
(2)
Fig.
11.
Drawings by three subjects (S2, S3, and V3)
for Xerox machine target.
When asked to describe the square at upper left of response on
the right, subject (V3) said, “There was this predominant light source which might have been a window, and a working surface which might have
been the
sill,
or
a working surface
or
desk.’
Earlier the subject had said, “I have the feeling that there
is something silhouetted against the
window.”
Observations
with
unselected
subjects
such
as
those
de-
scribed above indicate that remote viewing may be a latent and
widely distributed perceptual ability.
F.
Technology Series: Short-Range Remote Viewing
Because remote viewing
is
a perceptual
ability, we
consid-
ered
it important to obtain data on
its resolution capabilities.
To accomplish
this, we turned
to
the use of indoor techno-
logical targets.
Twelve experiments were carried out with five different sub-
jects, two of whom were visiting government scientists. They
were
told
that
one
of
the experimenters would
be
sent by
random protocol to a laboratory within the SRI complex and
that he would
interact
with
the equipment or apparatus
at
that location.
It was further explained that the experimenter
remaining with the subject was, as usual, kept ignorant of the
contents of the target pool to prevent cueing during question-
ing.
(Unknown to subjects, targets in the pool were used with
replacement
; one of the goals of this particular experiment was
to
obtain multiple responses to
a given
target to
investigate
whether correlation of a number of subject responses would
provide enhancement of the
signal-to-noise
ratio.)
The sub-
ject
was
asked
to
describe
the
target
both
verbally
(tape
recorded) and by means of drawings during a time-synchronized
15-min
interval
in which
the outbound
experimenter
inter-
acted
in,
an
appropriate manner
with the equipment
in
the
target area.
In the
twelve experiments, seven
targets were used:
a
drill
press, Xerox
machine, video
terminal,
chart
recorder,
four-
state
random
number
generator,
machine
shop,
and
type-
writer.
Three
of
these were used
twice
(drill
press,
video
terminal,
three times in our random selection procedure.
Comparisons of the targets and subject drawings for three of
the
multiple-response
cases (the
typewriter, Xerox machine,
and video terminal) are shown in Figs.
10,
11, and
12.
As
is
apparent
from
these
illustrations
alone,
the
experiments
provide
circumstantial
evidence
for
an
information
channel
of useful
bit
rate.
This includes experiments
in which visit-
ing
government
scientists
participated
as
subjects
(Xerox
machine
and
video
terminal)
to
observe
the
protocol.
In
general,
it appears that use of multiple-subject responses to
a
single
target
provides
better
signal-to-noise
ratio than
target
identification by a single individual.
This conclusion
is borne
out by the judging described below.
Given
that
in
general
the
drawings
constitute
the
most
accurate portion of a subject’s description, in the first judging
procedure
a judge was asked simply to blind match only the
drawings (i.e., without tape transcripts) to the targets. Multiple-
subject responses to a given target were stapled together, and
thus
seven
subject-drawing
response
packets
were
to
be
matched to the seven different targets for which drawings were
made.
The judge did not have access to our photographs of
the
target
locations, used
for
illustration purposes only, but
rather proceeded to each of the target locations by list.
While
standing at each target location, the judge was required to rank
order the seven subject- drawing response packets (presented in
random order) on
a scale
to 7 (best to worst match).
For
seven targets, the sum of ranks could range from 7 to 49. The
sum
in
this
case, which included
direct hit and 4 second
ranks out of the 7 (see Table VII) was
18, a result significant
at p = 0.036.
In
the second more
detailed
effort
at evaluation, a visiting
scientist
selected
at random one of the
12 data packages
(a
2flQ0blri4ted
it for in-
dependent analysis to an engineer with a request for an
esti-
Approved ForO^^SyEOOO/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-OO789ROa84<WM>2<J0©>f-4* E IEEE - MARCH 197
TARGET:
VIDEO MONITOR FOR TEXT EDITING (TECHNOLOGY SERIES)
dj—
oiH wlJt
'y—laou
(©j
a
a
M3
®
-
i
i
Fig. 12.
Drawing by two subjects of a video monitor target,
(a) Subject (S4) drawing of “box! with light coming out of it
.
.
. painted flat blac*
and in the middle of the room.”
(b) Second subject (V2) saw a computer terminallwith relay racks in the background.
TABLE VII
Distribution of Rankings Assigned to Subject
Drawings Associated with Each Target Location
Drill
press
Xerox machine
Video
terminal
Chare recorder
Random number generator
Machine
shop
Typewriter
Total
sum of
ranks
(p-0.036)
mate as to what was being described. The analyst, blind as to
the
target and
given
only
the
subject’s taped
narrative and
drawing
(Fig.
13), was
able,
from
the
subject’s description
alone,
to
correctly classify the target as a "man-sized vertical
boring machine.”
G, Summary ofRemote Viewing Results
1) Discussion
The
descriptions
supplied
by
the
subjects
in the experiments involving remote viewing of natural targets
or
laboratory
apparatus,
although
containing
inaccuracies,
were sufficiently accurate to permit the judges to differentiate
TABLE VIII
ISummary: Remote Viewing
3.8
x
10"
1.8
x
10' 6
0.08
(NS)
0.017
With natural
targets
(experienced)]
52 and
S3
(experienced)
(learner)
55 and
S6
( learners)
VI and
V2
( learners/vt si tors)
With
technology
targets
S2,
S3,
S4 #
V2,
]V3
tabulation of the
Statistical evaluations of these fifty-one ex-
periments with niiije subjects is presented in Table VIII.
The
overall
result,
evaluated
conservatively
on
the
basis
of
a
judging procedure that ignores transcript quality beyond that
necessary to rank qrder the data packets (vastly underestimat-
ing
the
statisticalj significance
of
individual
descriptions),
clearly
indicates
the
presence
of an information channel of
useful
bit
rate.
Furthermore,
it
appears
that the principal
difference
between
experienced
subjects and
inexperienced
volunteers
is not tqat the latter never exhibit the faculty, but
rather that their results are simply less reliable, more sporadic.
Nevertheless,
as described
earlier, individual
transcripts from
the inexperienced £roup of subjects number among some of
the
best
obtained.
!
Such observations indicate a hypothesis
"“‘'fr d‘s"ib“Md
puthoi f AiAp^^ve^ffloruReteia8^2®O0^©8^08^T©hAuR©P96-OO7S(9RIS(S
J1I)O1 20001 -4
34 5
*
Fig. 13.
Subject (S4) drawing of
drill
press showing belt drive, stool,
and a “vertical graph that goes up and down,”
Thus the primary achievement of the SRI program was the
elicitation
of
high-quality
remote
viewing from
individuals
who
agreed
to
act
as subjects.
Criticism of this claim could
in
principle
be
put
forward on the
basis of three potential
flaws.
1) The study
could involve
naivete
in protocol that
permits various forms of cueing, intentional or unintentional.
2) The experiments discussed could be selected out of a larger
pool
of experiments
of which many
are of poorer quality.
3) Data for the reported experiments could be edited to show
only
the matching elements, the nonmatching elements being
discarded.
All three criticisms, however, are invalid.
First, with regard
to cueing, the use of double-blind protocols ensures that none
of the persons in contact with the subject can be aware of the
target.
Second, selection of experiments for reporting did not
take place; every experiment was entered
as performed on a
master log and
is included in the statistical evaluations.
Third,
data
associated with
a given experiment remain unedited; all
In
the process of judging—attempting to match transcripts
against
targets
on
the
basis
of
the
information
in
the
transcripts-some
patterns
and
regularities
in
the
transcript
descriptions became evident,
particularly regarding individual
styles
in remote viewing and
in the perceptual form
of the
descriptions
given
by
the
subjects.
These patterns and
the
judging procedure are discussed below.
a)
Styles
of
response:
The
fifty-one
transcripts
were
taken
from
nine
different
subjects.
Comparing
the
tran-
scripts of one subject with those of another revealed that each
pattern
tended
to
focus
on
certain
aspects
of
the remote
target complex
and
to
exclude
others, so
that each had an
individual pattern of response, like a signature.
Subject
S3,
for example,
frequently responded with topo-
graphical descriptions, maps, and architectural features of the
target locations.
Subject S2 often focused on the behavior of
the remote experimenter or the sequence of actions he carried
out
at
the
target.
The
transcripts of subject S4, more than
those of other subjects, had descriptions of the feel of the lo-
cation,
and
experiential
or
sensory
gestalts-for
example,
light/dark
elements
in
the
scene
and
indoor/outdoor
and
enclosed/open
distinctions.
Prominent features of Si’s tran-
scripts were detailed
descriptions of what the
target persons
were concretely experiencing,
seeing, or doing-for example,
standing on asphalty blacktop overlooking water; looking
at
a purple iris.
The
range
of any individual subject’s responses was wide.
Anyone might draw a map or describe the mood of the remote
experimenter,
but
the
consistency
of each
subject’s
overall
approach
suggests
that
just
as
individual
descriptions
of
a
directly viewed scene would
differ,
so these
differences
also
occur in rent ote -viewing processes.
b) Nature of the description:
The concrete descriptions
that appear most commonly
in transcripts are at the level of
subunits of the
overall scene.
For example, when the target
was
a Xerox copy machine,
the
responses
included
(S2)
a
rolling object (the moving
light)
or
dials and
a cover that
is
lifted (S3), but the machine as a whole was not identified by
name or function.
In
a few
transcripts,
the
subjects correctly
identified and
named
the
target.
In the
case of
a computer terminal, the
subject (V2) apparently perceived
the terminal and the relay
racks
behind
it.
In
the case of
targets which were Hoover
Tower and White Plaza, the subjects (SI and S6, respectively)
seemed
to
identify
the
locations
through
analysis
of
their
initial images of the elements of the target.
There were also occasional incorrect identifications.
Gestalts
were
incorrectly named;
for example, swimming pools in a
park were identified as water storage tanks at a water filtration
plqnt (SI).
The most common perceptual level was thus an intermediate
one-the individual elements and items that make up the
tar-,
get.
This
is suggestive of a scanning process that takes sample
perceptions from within the overall environment.
When the subjects tried to make sense out of these fragmen-
tary
impressions,
they
often
resorted
to metaphors or con-
structed an image with a kind of perceptual inference.
From
a feeling of the target as an “august” and “solemn” building,
a subject (S4)
said
it might be a library; it was a church. A
pedestrian overpass above a freeway was described as a conduit
(S4). A rapid transit station, elevated above the countryside.
346
CPYR
PROCEEDINGSJ3F.THE IEEE, MARCH 197
(
2SJ1Id
fiXa »] tflffiliMifil
lilifWiM«IE !
tion:
similarly,
this occurs
in other parapsychological experi-
ments.
These observations are compatible with the hypotheses
that information received
in
a putative remote-viewing mode
is processed piecemeal in pattern form (consistent with a low
bit
rate
process,
but
not
necessarily
requiring
it); and
the
errors
arise in
the processes of attempted integration of the
data into larger patterns directed toward verbal labeling.
When
the
subjects augmented
the
verbal
transcripts
with
drawings or sketches, these often expressed the target elements
more accurately than the verbal descriptions.
Thus the draw-
ings
tended
to
correspond
to
the
targets more
clearly
and
precisely than the words of the transcript.
The descriptions given by the subjects sometimes went be-
yond what the remote experimenter experienced, at least con-
sciously.
For example, one subject (S4) described and drew
a belt drive at the top of a drill press that was invisible even to
the
remote
experimenter who
was
operating
the
machine;
another
subject
(SI)
described
a number
of
items
behind
shrubbery and thus not visible to members of the demarcation
team at the site.
Curiously, objects
in motion at the remote site were rarely
mentioned in the transcript.
For example, trains crossing the
railroad
trestle
target were not described, though the remote
experimenter stood very close to them.
Also in a few cases, the subject descriptions were inaccurate
regarding size of structures. A
20-ft courtyard separating two
buildings was described
as 200
ft wide, and a small shed was
expanded to a barn-like structure.
c)
Blind judging of transcripts:
The judging procedure
entailed
examining
the
transcripts
for
a
given experimental
series and attempting to match
the
transcripts with
the cor-
rect
targets on
the
basis of their correspondences.
The tran-
scripts varied from coherent and accurate descriptions to mix-
tures of correspondences and noncorrespondences.
Since the
judge did not know a priori which elements of the descriptions
were correct or incorrect, the task was complicated, and tran-
scripts often seemed plausibly to match more than one target.
A confounding
factor in
these
studies
is that some target lo-
cations have
similarities that seem alike at some level of per-
ception.
For example,
a radio telescope
at the top of a
hill,
the observation deck of a tower, and a jetty on the edge of a
bay
all match
a transcript description of “looking out over a
long distance.” A lake, a fountain, and a creek may all result
in
an image of water for the
subject.
Therefore,
in
several
cases,
even correct images may not help
in
the conservative
differential matching procedure used.
According to the judge, the most successful procedure was a
careful element-by-element comparison that tested each tran-
script against every target and used the transcript descriptions
and drawings
as arguments for or against
assigning the
tran-
script
to
a particular
target.
In most
cases,
this resulted
in
either
a
clear conclusion
or
at
least
a ranking
of probable
matches;
these
matches
were
subjected
to
the
statistical
analyses presented in this paper.
2) Summary:
In summary, we do not yet have an under-
standing of the nature of the information-bearing signal that a
subject perceives during remote viewing.
The subjects com-
monly report
that they perceive the signal visually as though
they were looking at the object or place from a position in its
immediate
neighborhood.
Furthermore,
the
subjects*
per-
ceptual viewpoint
has
mobility
in
that
they can
shift
their
point of view so as to describe elements of a scene that would
not
be
visible to ah observer merely standing at ground
levei
and describing wh|t he
sees.
(In
particular,
a subject often
correctly describes elements not visible to the target demarca-
tion
team.)
Finally,
motion
is
seldom
reported;
in
fact,
moving
objects
of^en
are
unseen
even when
nearby
static
objects are correctly identified.
A comparison
ofj the results of remote viewing (a so-called
free-response task) with results of forced-choice tasks, such as
the
selection of oi^e of four choices generated by
a random
number generator
[ j 8]
, reveals the following findings.
From a
statistical viewpoint,
a subject
is more likely to describe, with
sufficient
accuracy
to
permit
blind matching,
a remote
site
chosen
at random
:han he
is
to
select correctly one of four
random numbers.
Qur experience with these phenomena leads
us
to consider
that] this
difference
in
task performance may
stem
from
fundamental
signal-to-noise considerations.
Two
principal sources
of] noise in the system apparently are mem-
ory
and
imaginatioji, both of which can give
rise
to mental
pictures of greater cjlarity than the target to be perceived.
In
the random numbed task, a subject can create a perfect mental
picture of each of ipe four possible outputs in his own imagi-
nation and
then atjempt
to obtain the correct answer by
a
mental matching operation. The same is true for card guessing
experiments.
On thp other hand, the subject in remote view-
ing
is
apparently
mjore
likely
to
approach
the
task
with
a
blank mind
as he ajtempts to perceive
pictorial information
from remote
locations about which he may have no stored
mental data.
Finally, we
observe
that most
of the correct information
that subjects relate
tjo us is of a nonanaiytic nature pertaining
to shape, form,
coloj-, and material rather than to function or
name.
In consuitatioh with Dr. Robert Ornstein of the Langley-
Porter Neuropsychiatjric Institute, San Francisco, CA, and with
Dr. Ralph Kieman
ojf the Department of Neurology, Stanford
University
Medical
Center,
Stanford,
CA, we have
formed
the
tentative
hypothesis
that
paranormal
functioning may
involve
specialization
characteristic of the brain’s right hemi-
sibijity
is
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-
sphere.
This possibility
is derived from a variety of evidence
from clinical and neurosurgical sources which indicate that the
two hemispheres of the human brain
are
specialized
for dif-
ferent
cognitive
functions.
The
left hemisphere
is predomi-
nantly active in verba| and other analytical functioning and the
right
hemisphere predominates
in
spatial and
other
holistic
processing
[59],
[6p].
Further
research
is
necessary
to
elucidate
the
relationship between right hemisphere function
and
paranormal
abilities.
Nonetheless, we
can
say
at
this
point that the remote-viewing results of the group of subjects
at
SRI have
characteristics
in common
with more
familiar
performances
that
require
right
hemispheric
function.
The
similarities include
the highly schematicized drawings of ob-
jects
in a room or of remote scenes.
Verbal identification of
these
drawings
is
often
highly
inaccurate
and
the drawings
themselves
are
frequently
left-right
reversed
relative
to
the
target
configuration.
Further,
written material generally
is
not
cognized.
These
characteristics have
been
seen
in
left
brain-injured patients and in callosal-sectioned patients.
As
a
result of the above considerations, we have learned to
urge our subjects simply to describe what they see as opposed
to what they think they are looking at. We have learned that
their unanalyzed perceptions are almost always a better guide
to the true
target
tha,n their interpretations of the perceived
data.
RDP96-00789R0031 001 20001 -4
CPYRGHT
puTHOFF AjfiqDiMtcsve£kfs>fiRel(easeE2OO0/08«5®4T©)|iAT:R©f?96-OO789ROO31 001 20001 -4
IV. Considerations Concerning Time
If the authors may be forgiven a personal note, we wish to
express that this section deals with observations that we have
been reluctant to publish because of their striking apparent in-
compatibility with existing concepts.
The motivating factor
for presenting the data at this time is the ethical consideration
that theorists endeavoring to develop models for paranormal
functioning
j should be apprised of
all the observable data
if
their efforts to arrive at a comprehensive and correct descrip-
tion are to be successful.
During the course of the experimentation in remote viewing
(Section
III),
subjects occasionally volunteered
the informa-
tion that they had been thinking about their forthcoming par-
ticipation
in a remote-viewing experiment and had an image
come to them
as to what the target location was to be.
On
these occasions, the information was given only to the experi-
menter remaining at SRI with the subject and was unknown to
the outbound
experimenter
until
completion of the experi-
ment.
Two
of
these
contributions were among
the
most
accurate
descriptions
turned
in
during
those
experiments.
Since
the target location had not yet been selected when the
subject communicated
his
perceptions about
the
target, we
found the data difficult to contend with.
We offer ihese spontaneous occurrences not as proof of pre-
cognitive perception, but rather as the motivation that led us
to do further work in this field. On the basis of this firsthand
evidence, together with the copious literature describing years
of precognition experiments carried out in various other labo-
ratories, we decided to determine whether a subject could per-
form a perceptual task that required both spatial and temporal
remote viewing.
It
is well known and recently has been widely discussed that
nothing in the fundamental laws of physics forbids the appar-
ent transmission of information from the future to the present
(discussed further in Section V).
Furthermore, there is a gen-
eral dictum that “in physical law, everything that is not forbid-
den,
is required”
[61 ].
With this in mind, we set out to con-
duct
very well-controlled experiments
to determine whether
we could deliberately design and execute experiments for the
sole
purpose
of
observing
precognition
under
laboratory
conditions.
The experimental protocol was identical to that followed in
previous remote-viewing experiments with but one exception.
The exception was
that the subject was required to describe
the remote location during a 15-min period beginning 20 min
before the target was selected and 35 min before the outbound
experimenter was to arrive at the target location.
In detail, as shown in Table IX, each day at ten o'clock one
of
the experimenters would
leave. SRI
with
a stack of ten
sealed envelopes from a larger pool and randomized daily, con-
taining traveling instructions that had been prepared, but that
were unknown to the two experimenters remaining with the
subject.
The subject for
this experiment was Hella Hammid
(S4) who participated in the nine-experiment series replicating
the original Price work described earlier. The traveling experi-
menter was to drive continuously from 10:00 until 10:30 be-
fore selecting his destination with a random number generator.
(The motivation
for continuous motion was our observation
that objects and persons in rapid motion are not generally seen
in the remote-viewing mode of perception, and we wished the
traveler to be a poor target until he reached his target site.)
At
the end of 3App«'€fviecbi>oireF%e4ea6ec000@^&8l@0i:-
TABLE IX
Experimental Protocol: Precognitive Remote Viewing
=
Time
Schedule
Experiments r/Subj ect Activity
10:00
Outbound experimenter
leaves with
10 envelopes
(containing
target
locations)
and
random number
generator;
begins half-hour drive
;
10:10
Experimenters remaining with
subject
in
the
laboratory
elicit
from subject
a description of where outbound
experimenter will
be
from 10:45-11:00
10:25
Subject response completed,
at which
time
laboratory part
of experiment
is over
10:30
Outbound experimenter obtains
random number
from a random
number generator,
counts down
to associated envelope,
and
proceeds
to target
location Indicated
;
10:45
Outbound experimenter remains
at
target
location
for
15 minutes
(10:45-11:00)
Fig. 14.
Subject Hammid (S4) described “some kind of congealing tar,
Or maybe an area of condensed lava
.
.
. that has oozed out to fill up
some kind of boundaries.”
ated
a random
digit from 0 to
9 with a Texas Instruments
SR-51
random number
generator;
while
still
in
motion, he
counted down
that number of envelopes and proceeded
di-
rectly to the target location so as to arrive there by 10:45. He
remained
at
the
target
site
until
11:00, at which time he re-
turned to the laboratory, showed his chosen target name to a
security guard, and entered the experimental room.
During the same period, the protocol in the laboratory was
as follows.
At 10:10, the subject was asked to begin a descrip-
tion of the place to which the experimenter would go 35 min
hence.
The subject then generated a tape-recorded description
and
associated drawings from 10:10 to 10:25, at which time
her part
in the experiment was ended.
Her description was
thus entirely concluded 5 min before the beginning of the tar-
get selection procedure.
Four such experiments were carried out.
Each of them ap-
peared
to be successful, an evaluation
later verified
in blind
judging without error by three judges.
We
will briefly sum-
marize the four experiments below.
The
first
target, the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, consisted en-
tirely of mud flats because of an extremely low tide (see Fig.
14).
Appropriately,
the entire transcript of the subject per-
tained to “some kind of congealing tar, or maybe an area of
condensed
lava.
It looks like the whole area is covered with
some kind of wrinkled elephant skin that has oozed out to fill
up some
kind
of boundaries where
(the outbound
experi-
menter)
is standing.”
Because of the lack of water, the dock
where the remote experimenter was standing was in fact rest-
CIA-ROR®e»-007®9ROO31 001 20001 -4