vroceenbRREQYSM For Release 2001/03/26 : The authors followed the protocol, with some modifications, estab- lished by Puthoff and Targ in their SRI remote viewing experiments. Prior to the mecting of the group, and unknown to them, we selected six target sites, wrote their names on cards, and sealed them in en- velopes. These were randomly numbered, so no one, including us, knew the number of any target location. The group consisted of 36 people, men and women, mostly pro- fessional, who met with the understanding that an experiment in ESP would be conducted. At the time of the experiment (8:30 PM, March 16), and in the presence of the group, one envelope was randomly selected by throwing a die. D. H. and a companion who was sclected from the group then left with the sealed envelope. They opened the envelope in D. H.’s car and drove to the target site, timing their travel to arrive exactly ten minutes after their departure. At the site they ob- served and interacted with the location for ten minutes, then returned to the group mecting place. During the time the remote team was at the target, the members of the group attempted to generate information about the target site, making notes and or drawings of their impressions. At the end of this ten minute period, but before the return of the remote team and still ignorant of the target location, the participants were allowed to com- plete their notes. Then A. H., who had directed the group procedure, named the six locations in the target pool and described them briefly. (A. H. knew the target sites in the pool, but not which one was ran- domly chosen.) The participants were asked to infer what the target was, based on the information they had generated during the target period. Of the 36 participants, 20 “voted” for one site, a playground area with a log structure in a nearby park. The remote team returned a short while after the vote was taken, handed over their envelope, and reported that the playground area was indeed the target location. Statistically, chance expectation (a null distribution) would allot six votes out of 36 to cach of the six locations in the target pool. A f-test (one tailed) for the 20 votes actually given to the correct target gives a Z score of 5,22, with a probability of less than 6 X 1077, We do not wish to be blasé; frankly, we were astonished by the high level of success of the participants. The target was a circular play area, filled with sand, and containing a log structure with chains hanging from it and a slide on one side. The remote team climbed up the structure, stood on the platform, slid down, and took off their shoes in the sand. There were swings next to the play arca, and a jungle gym alongside the sidewalk. Perceptions of the participants in the group included mental pictures of swings, trees, park lights, sand, and the log structure (seen as logs, vertical columns, a balcony, etc.}). Two participants reported images of the remote team taking off their shoes. Onc participant drew a circle and wrote “playground” in it; D. H.’s companion reported that at the location she had drawn a circle in the sand and had written “play- ground” in it. One participant reported the correct name of the park. Other descriptions included items outside the immediate area but which the travelers had observed: the jungle gym, swings, lighted windows of houses surrounding the park, a soft drink can on the ground. The other five target locations were a children’s play tunnel into which the remote team was to crawl, an orchard of flowering trees, a busy bar and restaurant, an ice cream parlor, and a post office building. In studying the SRI remote viewing results we concluded that the target locations should vary widcly along certain dimensions, particularly indoor/outdoor locations and dominant mood, and the sites in the pool were chosen to be three indoor and three outdoor locations, with cach location distinct in mood from the others. We think that the effectiveness of the experiment was partly due to the way we conducted it. We began by commenting that success in re- mote viewing seems to be helped by three conditions: 1) Accepting that remote viewing is possible and agreeing that you can do it; 2) Turning your attention away from external perceptions and to inner pictures, experiences, and thoughts; and 3) Recciving fecdback as soon as possible. Regarding the first condition, we stated that remote viewing appeared to be a latent ability that could be developed, and that everyone who agreed to do remote viewing under the SRI conditions had succeeded. We asked everyone in the group to give themselves permission to have “ESP” or remote viewing ability. We then held a brief group discussion on reluctance and resistance to this ability, hoping in this way to relicve emotional blocks or intellectual rejection. For those who had hesita- tions, we suggested that they give themselves permission for the limited time and place of this experiment. Regarding the allocation of attention, we used quict periods in which the Parc sat with their cyes closed in silence, and became aware CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q300080007-7 1545 of inner images and thoughts. We had a practice period of one-two minutes before the experiment to facilitate this mode of attention. To generate information about the remote target, we advised the participants to clear their minds and “request” information about the location, then to observe what information came. We commented that they might expect it to be in the form of pictures, images, moods, and other perceptions. They were instructed not to be judgmental, i.e., not to edit, reject, or ignore impressions, but to remember and report as much as they could, even if fragmentary or apparently nonsensical. They were not to interpret what they perceived. We hoped these in- structions would facilitate an openness to internal impressions that would enable the remote viewing information to emerge above the noise Jevel of the usual thinking, judging, and interpreting. Tor the actual remote viewing procedure we asked participants to form into pairs, with one person acting as percipient (viewer) and the other acting as a coach. During the first five minutes of the target period both remained silent, cyes closed. Then the percipient, still with eyes closed, reported his or her information to the coach, who wrote down all the description. Near the end of the ten minute target period the coach could ask general questions, such as, “Is the location indoors or outdoors? Are there other people present?” Coaches were primarily intended to support and assist the viewer, but they could also try remote description themselves if they wished. Our earlier statistics were based on total votes for target sites, combining viewers and coaches. We did not record the two groups separately, though apparently most coaches’ votes agreed with their partner. If we assumed that only viewers voted, and cast 10 out of 18 votes for the correct target, the Z score would be reduced to 4.43, giving a probability score of 6 X 1075. With the large number of persons, it was necessary to go through the schedule as a group, rather than having individuals set their own pace. It was important to have one person to conduct the experiment, announce quict periods, times of viewing, and keep the proceedings relaxed within the protocol. Feedback was provided on the return of the remote team, who de- scribed where they were, details of the location, and their activities. The group asked them questions to check their remote viewing descrip- tions, and many participants later went to the target site to view it directly. The remote team made written notes and drawings of what they did, and in the future we would suggest tape recording and - Polaroid photographs to add to the immediate feedback given to the viewers. We would also note some improvements that could be made in our procedure. In the results we relicd on the vicwer’s own judgment to identify the correct target; it would be better to have the remote view- ing descriptions also judged by outside referees. The target pool should be made up by someone not at the experiment. ‘And we would want to clarify whether the coaches should vote on the basis of their viewer’s information or with consideration for information they themsclves have generated. In conclusion the results of this test indicate that remote viewing did occur under controlled conditions in a group setting. We believe this justifies further exploration of this mode of information transfer. Comments on “A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research” Comments! by R. A. McConnell? The contribution of Puthoff and Targ in their paper? scems to me to be two-fold. _ For a long time the enigma of extrasensory perception has been needing the pressure of fresh minds with broad backgrounds. In bring- ing to bear the viewpoint of engineering science, these authors have em- phasized informational, quantum mechanical, and thermodynamic aspects of the research that have been largely ignored by most of those who call themselves parapsy chologists. ' Manuscript received May 6, 1976. 2R. A. McConnell is with the Life Sciences Department, University of Eittsbureh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. al E, Puthoftf and R. Targ, Proe. IEEE, vol. 64, pp. 329-354, Mar. Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
1546 Secondly, they have developed a new and promising procedure called “remote viewing,” which may bring us closer to the ideal of an experiment “repeatable by prescription.” In a paper reporting a particular sct of experiments the authors could not hope to convey the full scope of the existing literature. Their references, although well chosen for their purpose, do not provide a busy, sceptical engineer with many tocholds into the critical literature. Some of their experimental references are primarily of historical inter- est because there is no satisfying way to assess credibility from a dis- tance in time. They cite several modern papers of good quality, but the reader has no way of spotting these from among others that are important for conceptual exposition but fail to meet the highest stan- dards of evidentiality. In connection with a course that I teach to natural science univer- sity students, I have prepared an annotated. “evidential bibliography of - parapsychology” and a companion “sociological bibliography” (dealing with the taboo against parapsychology). I shall be glad to send a copy4 of each to any reader who wonders how best to try to resolve feelings of uncertainty engendered by the findings of the Puthoff and Targ paper. Comments5 by William A. Harris® You have opened Pandora’s box by publishing the paper by Put- hoff and Targ,! and I assume you will have to publish a considerable number of discussions as a consequence. I personally would like to comment on two examples used in the above paper. 1) Subject Hella Hammid (S4) had initially demonstrated apparent noncognitive communication (pp. 334 and 336). A possible scenario: S4 unconsiously identifies one of the envelopes at approximately 10:00 and causes the target- experimenter to override the TI-55 and select the chosen card. No misdirection is implied. S4 directs the future instead of predicting it. : 2) S4 described a part of a drill press not visible to the experi- menter (p. 346) lending credence to the possibility that she could have “seen” the contents of a scaled envelope. Invocation of “advanced potentials” as an explanation is subject to the criticism of too-close identification of a model with reality (see Slepian’s paper “On Band- _ width,” in the same issue). Comments’ by C. A. Muses® In connection with the article on parapsychology by Puthoff and Targ,! there is a historical anecdote, furnishing some relevant lessons on electronics vis-d-vis the mooted subject of “psi.” When Puthoff visited my math lab and stayed overnight at my home some four years ago, I pointed out to him among other things that while retarded electromagnetic field potentials furnished the Lorentz transformations, the mathematically equally admissible advanced po- tentials were being neglected, and I gave him the J ulius Stratton refer- ence which he cited in your issue mentioned above. However, Puthoff rushed into print too soon, forgetting that I had also told him that whatever use they were, advanced potentials could have no bearing whatsoever on precognition. Yet that they do was the main and really only electronic point of his and Targ’s article (pp. 349- 350). ‘ The reason they do not is very simple. If one studies Maxwellian potential theory one soon learns that the time-advance in the case of advanced potentials amounts to r/c, where r is the distance between event and observer. The maximum distance between any two points on earth is one circumference of the planet or about 25 000 miles. Even with this distance the time advance of any “precognition” on this basis could be at best less than 0.0001 second! Since any precognition worthy of the name must antedate the event precognized by at least 15 minutes, it is clear that advanced potential theory’s ability to explain precognition fails by a factor of about a million. We can only conclude that either Puthoff and Targ have not read their Maxwell lately, or clse that they had so much desire to explain precognition in print that they sort of forgot their physics in their enthusiasm. 4+His offer may be accepted by a postcard to him at the above address. 5 Manuscript received March 25, 1976. éw., A. Harris is a retired engineer formerly with the RCA Corpor- ation. 7 Manuscript received April 6, 1976. 8C_ A. Muses is with the Research Centre for Mathematics and Mor- phology, Santa Barbara, CA 93108. a Approved For Release 2007/03/26 : CIA-RDPYBGO787RU0Q260080007-7 As to the telepathy (remote viewing) experiments, similar proce- dures, with even better results in graphic form, were performed and published by the French engineer René Warcollier in the 1920's and 1930°s. Warcollicr, who anticipated the Puthoff-Targ findings by decades, is unfortunately omitted by them from their long list of “references.” On all counts, then, this letter of rectification is due your readers, with a kudo to that one engineer of yours who cannily distrusted that particular piece. : Comments? by Sid Deutsch'® Publication of the paper on extrasensory perception by Puthoff and Targ! shows that, in addition to a shortage of electrical power, we are now suffering from a shortage of editorial restraint (scanning the issue, p. 291). This diversion into parapsychology was tolerable in a day when energy and paper were plentiful, but today man lives more and more by bread alone. It is immoral to devote 24 percent of the techni- cal content of the March 1976 PROCEEDINGS to the dignification of ESP when, ironically, the March 1976 Spectrum! bemoans the shaky financial state of the IEEE and is softening us up for an increase in dues. Martin ‘Gardner recently exposed the weaknesses in the Puthoff- Targ ESP research.12 He showed that the small amount of statistical “evidence” for ESP can be accounted for by bias on the part of the human experimenters. When one substitutes computer score-keeping for the human brain, the statistical evidence vanishes. But one cannot disprove the existence of ESP, and most people (including engineers and scientists) have an emotional need for this sort of thing. We can confidently expect, therefore, that ESP research will be one of our permanent acquisitions. One can understand how the NASA personnel could approve $80 000 of public funds for an ESP project.12 At the very least it paid for some equipment that Stanford Research Institute could eventually employ in the public interest. One can only regret that the creativity of some obviously intelligent and skilled engineers and scientists was not directed into more socially useful channels. There are several scientific arguments against ESP. First, with our present-day sophisticated equipment, we cannot detect any forces beyond the four fundamental forces of physics—gravitational, electro- magnetic, the “weak” force, and the “strong” force. Second, we under- stand quite well the gross operation of an individual neuron, and no one seriously proposes that there is anything here but electrochemical phe- nomena. Briefly and approximately, a neuron fires, or generates a narrow 100-mV pulse, when the algebraic summation of incoming stimuli or their equivalents exceeds 20 mV. The firing rate generally has a strong noiselike component, but this can be traced to thermal noise (around 60 wV for a myelinated fiber), to the fact that there are many inputs (sometimes as many as 100 000), and not to extrasensory ectoplasm. The human brain contains some 100-billion neurons. With 100- billion neurons one can do research in ESP, and even write irate letters to the Editor. But the logical conclusion is that the future state of the human brain (and of everything else, for that matter) is predetermined by the present state of the universe. The behavior of the brain is stereo- typed in the sense that two or more identical brains, given identical initial conditions, would yield identical outputs at f= O+. In other word, “free will” is an illusion. From another viewpoint, the computer of today was encoded in the genetic potential of the DNA molecule of its designers 40 years ago. The DNA molecule is synthesized out of only four nucleotide bases (abbreviated A, C, G, and T) each of which is a relatively simple as- semblage of atoms. Except for identical twins, each of us is the devel- opmental result of a chemically unique DNA molecule. The informa- tion content of the DNA molecule—10-million bits based on subsequent protein structures!3 —must be equal to or greater than that needed to “construct” the newborn infant. At what point, as the child develops, ° Manuscript received May 4, 1976. 19S. Deutsch is with the Rutgers Medical School and Rutgers Uni- versity, Piscataway, NJ 08854. VE Rubinstein, “IEEE: another AMA?” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 13, pp. 64-69, Mar. 1976. Also, same issue, E. Rubinstein, “Pres. Dillard on the budget,” pp. 70-73. 12M, Gardner, “Mathematical games,” Scientific American, vol. 233, pp. 114-118, Oct 1975. Also, “Letters,” Scientific American, vol. 234, pp. 6-8, Jan. 1976. 13g. Deutsch, Models of the Nervous System. New York: Wiley, 1967, p. 57. . Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7 + sags aheekalinaatmeraiiatienran See ona et ae ona ci
pe doce ip po egg UP RR 1 foengerm bt mmr seats neoprene sia proceeDAPLONed For Release 2904/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q200080007-7 do “free will” and ESP enter the picture? And why, if all men are created approximately equal, are some of them blessed with ESP while others are doomed to a more mundane existence? It is difficult to contemplate a beautiful mathematical result, or the intricacies of a computer, and believe that it is all the predeter- mined outcome of ensembles of 100-billion neurons that are interacting with each other and with the environment. As a consequence, the IEEE has more than its share of egocentrics. To most of us the world is still flat, we reside at the center of an admiring universe, and the brain is greater than the sum of its 100-billion parts. The great Laplace, on the other hand, more humble than most of us, preached determinism. Today, when we know so much more, quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle are routinely invoked to prove that free will docs, indeed, exist. The latter assertion is based ona distortion of the uncer- tainty. principle. The principle does nor state that the small-scale move- ments of an individual electron do not obey, say, /= ma; it only implies that the human experimenter, regardless of how sophisticated his measurements and apparatus become, cannot determine precisely the state of the electron. In any event, quantum mechanics is of negli- gible significance at the millivolt levels at which a neuron operates. The writing of this letter, and the decision as to whether or not it will be published, are all predetermined. If it is published, it will be fascinating to read the predetermined comments of readers who are convinced, without the slightest uncertainty, that they are writing let- ters out of their own free will. My point is that whatever they write, once it is published, ad to be published that way. Comments'4 by James L. Calkins'5 Puthoff and Targ have undertaken a series of potentially significant studies! utilizing what appears to be appropriate techniques taken from the scientist’s arsenal of objective methodologies, many of which the authors have previously distinguished themsclves using in research in the natural sciences. It is certainly an understatement to say that such a controversial topic as ESP requires extraordinarily precise and careful methods, especially well suited to exclude the basis for all those nagging criticisms often irreverently hurled at the parapsychologist—fraud, in- adaquate controls, imprecise and imcomplete reporting of essentials and details in their studies, improper statistics, and, especially, the presence of numerous confounding variables. Indeed, the authors themselves apparently set out to achieve this goal, what they refer to as their “principle responsibility—to resolve under unambiguous conditions the basic issue of whether or not this class of paranormal perception phe- nomenon exists” (pp. 334-335). Unfortunately, the model for their study follows the traditional stratagems of the parapsychologists in the United States and Europe, rather than the method they no doubt other- wise use in their non-behavioral research (and I might add that is largely followed in experimental psychology). As we shall indicate, the conse- quence of this is that they must necessarily fall far short in fulfilling their stated “principle responsibility.”” It is the essence of the experimental method—in contrast to natural- istic observation, the survey technique, correlational procedures, field studies, and so on, to in fact create the conditions necessary for ‘unam- biguous” resolution of fundamental questions since only this method permits manipulation and control of potentially confounding variables by the eminently sensible method of varying the critical factors under study, and systematically observing their effects upon other selected and measurable variables while holding potentially confounding vari- ables under tight control via such techniques as randomization, con- stancy, counterbalancing, matching, etc. The manipulated variables are called independent variables (IV's), and the variables sensitive to the effects of the IV are called dependent variables (DV’s). This has been expressed quite eloquently by Ebbinghaus!6 in his incorporation of this experimental method into his researches into human memory, a successful effort which went far in illustrating in 1885 the power of this method in scientifically understanding human behavior, including I might pointedly add, the study of human perception: We all knew of what this method consists: an attempt is made to keep constant the mass of conditions which have proven them- selves causally connected with a certain result; one of these con- ditions is isolated from the rest and varied in a way that can be numerically described; then the accompanying change on the side of the effect is ascertained by measurement or computation. 14 Manuscript received May 3, 1976; revised June 22, 1976. 157 1. Calkins is with the Department of Psychology and Sociol- ogy, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 16H, Ebbinghaus, Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psy- chology. New York: Dover Publications, 1964 (original: 1885). 1547 The simplest and most unambiguous experiments, therefore, are those employing but a single IV and a single DV, and, in the funda- mental situation in which an effort is being made to demonstrate the sheer existence of a phenomenon (as in the present study, without in- quiring further into its composition and contingencies), the two basic values or levels or variates of the IV may be simply designated the “experimental” (i.e., the factor appears—opcrationally defined—in some amount) and “control” condition (ic., the factor actually empirically appears as a “zero” level, something on the order of a “placebo” con- dition in a drug study). Unfortunately, in the present study, the basic procedure described was carricd out with all the subjects (six in number for Section HI studies through subsection “D,” two more in subsection “E,” and five more in subsection “I; we limit our critique to the more detailed accounts given in subsections A-D rather than the very eketchy mate- rial in subsections E and F, although all these studies used essentially the same procedure and varies mainly on the basis of subject char- acteristics). That is, all the subjects were administered, as it were, the same basic treatment condition, and were thus all part of the same “clairvoyant” or “remote-viewing” group, consisting essentially in the S’s making an effort to somehow envision a remote target. There did not appear to be, therefore, any variations of this critical factor, as Ebbinghaus and experimental logic requires. Actually, all we know of the instructions to the S, so critical in determining the operational definition of this variable (not to mention making the study replicable!) is that the “remote-viewing subject was asked to describe his impressions of the target site into a tape recorder and to make any drawings he thought appropriate (p. 335),” since the authors do not give us the actual instructions. Unfortunately, there are also fundamental problems in the very def- inition of the DV, at the heart of which is confusion over the nature of the so-called “target.” Specifically, the judge fora given S’s perfor- mance for a given “target” was successively driven to each geographical location previously visited by the peripetetic E's. Since we do not know precisely what aspects of the geographical location constituted a “target” in the original “experiment”? when the demarcation team was present, and since it is even more ambiguous now what the judge was viewing, as well as what he was supposed to be looking at while he re- viewed the S’s packages of 9 descriptions, we seem in this procedure, therefore, to actually be dealing with at least three recognizably distinct categories of “targets”: one is constituted by the perceptions of the demarcation team; a second by the perceptions of the judges; and a third by direct physical aspects of some geographical location (photo- graphs are used in the report and labelled ‘‘target” to further compli- cate target specification—e.g., their T'ig. 4). It is difficult to evaluate how potentially dissimilar these various “targets” were in the absence of clarifying and detailed accounts of the specific instructions to the teams and to the judge. Since these judgements define the essence of a “hit,” the fundamental datum of the DV-in this report, we are led logically to doubt the validity of this DV and suspect it is also very un- reliable (no reliability measures are presented to reassure us on this point). To summarize our concerns with the DV, we may say, first, it ap- pears to need considerable specification, a detailed operational defini- tion; second, its reliability should be ascertained, and doubt that it is inherently very unreliable removed; third, it should be used for deter- mining experimental condition (“clairvoyance”) hit rates in the match- ing task, as well as for appropriate control conditions’ (e.g., “No clair- voyance,” “No clairvoyance and no demarcation team,” and so on) hit rates, so that an appropriate statistic based on the net differences in “hit rates’ could be tested for the degree to which this difference mea- sure is statistically significant. This latter point reminds us to comment on the essential experi- mental invalidity of this parapsychological tactic of comparing their so-called “experimental data” to some hypothetical ‘‘chance” level in the absence of experimental empirical control conditions, This point is perhaps most clearly illustrated in the psychokinetic (“mind over mat- ter”) literature. In those studies, classically championed by Rhine some years age !7 (c.g., 1947), and reviewed up to 1962 in an excellent re- port by Girden!8, a tumbler might toss out onto a table some 600 dice; the S being eviuated for his alleged “‘psychic”’ skills makes some effort to mentally or “psychically” influence eacli die and have, say, as many 5’s turn up as he can. A tabulation is made, and it is found that, say, '7), B. Rhine, The Reach of the Mind, New York: W. Sloane Asso- ciates, 1966. 18% Girden, A Review of Psychokinesis (PK), Psychol. Bull., vol. 59, pp. 353-388, 1962. . Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
1548 435 5s. have indecd turned up—a startling result, indecd, especially when it is considered that only 100 should have so turned up by “chance,” as dictated by purely theoretical (not experimental) con- siderations. The problem with this interpretation is the same as that in the present ‘“semote-viewing” study. This “chance level” is a theoreti- cal, mathematical abstract model of the behavior of 600 ideal dice, not necessarily related to the dice actually being used in the study at all, not to mention to the procedures and physical conditions operating in actually using and tossing them. An empirical control condition is necessary to obtain this standard for comparison, one representing the behavior of actual, physically existent and manipulated concrete dice used in the study and accounting for such potentially confounding vari- ables influencing the throw such as non-horizontal tables, leaded dice, etc. This control condition would exactly duplicate the experimental condition, save only for the omission of some critical factor under study in the experiment—such as psychokinesis, or, in the present in- stance, “remote viewing.” We mus? run a non-PK or nonremote view- ing condition! How could this be accomplished? For objective experimental pur- poses, “remote viewing” may be operationally defined either by spec- ifying instructions to 4 subject concerning his potential task of envision- ing, distant objects, or by controlling the very existence of a target to be secn “remotely” (or any other way for that matter). Therefore, each of these procedural details can serve as an IV ina well-controlied 2-factor design. For the “target” IV, we would seem to need only the two basic levels of this IV, namely, a condition in which a remote tar- get is available for alledged “remote viewing,” hypothetically facilitated in some inscrutable fashion by a “demarcation team” actively observing the target according to explicit, replicable directions, and a condition in which no such remote target or team exists. The former instance would theoretically permit clairvoyance to operate (if it exists), since one’s reported imagery could be matched or compared to the actual selected target; the latter control condition would not, since there would be no selected target to sec clairvoyantly or otherwise. Furthermore, on the basis of an operational definition of “remote- viewing” in terms of the instructions to S establishing his remote- viewing task (our second IV), we can proceed to require him to draw pictures or verbally describe anything he can imagine, but in the experi- mental condition further telling him to attempt to view a remote target. Procedurally, this would mean we begin by creating a large pool of nearby geographical sites to function as potential “targets” (this is an attempt to perserve the authors’ procedures wherever feasible, since it would hardly otherwise be very advisable to use such complex stimuli as these targets in preference to simpler, ideally quantifiable “targets’’), and then randomly assign targets to the 4 cells of our 2 by 2 factorial experimental design until, say, each cell as five (5) targets. As for the sequence to be followed in actually running S’s through these different treatment combinations, a simple randomized arrange- ment would suffice. Later, the judge can in random sequence consider one cell of descriptions and targets after the other, until all four cells have been “matched,” where naturally the judge is not informed of the treatment combination condition. Hit rates are determined, for ex- ample, and then appropriate statistical tests for simple effects, main ef- fects and possible interactions determined. It may be true, as the. parapsychologists claim, that ESP is real and represents a great latent power of the human mind, one day to emerge in full recognition by science as another momentous step in the evolu- tion of man and his mind; but its truth remains to be demonstrated through use of the experimental method, and until it is, in the same way as Ohm’s Law or Pavlov’s conditioned reflex paradigm, parapsy- chologists ought not consider psychologists and other scientists and engineers calcified conservatives blindly refusing to sec the obvious “fact” that ESP, etc., exists, because the parapsychologists themselves, just as in the present study, scem to virtually intentionally avoid using the only techniques which in the long run will prove persuasive to the scientific community, and those are objective experimental procedures, even through it may appear such a convincing logic exists. by virtue of the use of scientific jargon, description of scientific equipment, mathe- matical and information theory models, and so on. Indeed, the perseverance of belief in ESP, and the reinforcement it does and will continue to receive from such publications as evaluated in this present critique, indicates to this writer that we are dealing more with a social movement or cult than with a future discipline in empiri- cal science as Hoffer might put it (1964).19 19, Hoffer, The True Believer. New York: New American Li- brary, 1964 (original: 1951). Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : acre PROCEEDINGS OF TH" [EEE, OCTOBER 1976 Approved For Release 2904/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q200080007-7 Replies?® by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ*! To begin, we appreciate the remarks by McConnell, and we are grateful to him for his offer to make available annotated bibliographies on paranormal studies, including the sociological issucs. As researchers publishing in the field, we learned early that sociological factors appear to play an especially significant role in this field, both in carrying out research and in disseminating results.2? In response to the comments of Harris, we too have considered the possibility that an alternative explanation for apparent successful pre- cognition in our experiment could involve a concatenation of telepathy, remote viewing, and remote psychokinesis. Although there is no evi- dence to rule out such a possibility, we prefer the simpler explanation as a working hypothesis. The idea of subject-caused paranormal events leading to apparent precognition, although within the realm of pos- sibility, would scem to be less viable, if one is to give credence to any of the more dramatic cases in the anecdotal literature (disaster predic- tion, etc.). Harris’ comment that the “advanced potential” hypothesis may be too parochial is well taken. We cited it only as a possibility that exists within the present scientific framework, and which we think should be examined before ad hoc theories are introduced. However, the objection to advanced potentials raised by Musés (pre- cognitive “advantage” ‘restricted to once nanosecond-per-foot) is over- come if one considers not just plane waves propagating at the velocity of light, but rather traveling-wave interferograms (i.e., slowly moving standing wave patterns). In this case information propagates at the velocity of the interference pattern in the wake of the passing waves, rather than at the velocity of the waves themselves. The group velocity of a signal would under these conditions be slower than the phase veloc- - ity e, thus allowing for a longer precognition time interval.23 We wish to emphasize again that we are not putting this forward as the explana- tion for precognition, but rather only as an example that modern theory does not absolutely forbid such modeling, as shown in our Stratton reference.24 In passing, one of the authors (HP) does ac- knowledge the conversation on this topic referred to by Dr. Musés, but must point out that the original source of this concept in our work lies in an earlier paper published by one of the authors (RT).25 With regard to the Warcollier reference pointed out by Muses, we are familiar with Warcollier’s work in remote picture drawing,2® which is similar to the more easily available material in the book by Upton Sinclair (with preface by Einstein), Mental Radio:27 we are not famil iar, however, with any work by Warcollier in our format (remote view- ing of natural targets). For the latter a good carly reference we have come across since publication of our paper is a chapter by Sir Oliver Lodge in An Outline of Science, 28 Deutsch’s first argument against ESP (“with our present-day sophis- ticated equipment, we cannot detect any forces beyond the four funda- mental forces of physics . . .”) indicates that, at least with regard to our paper, he has missed one of our major points—that it is not necessary to go outside of present-day physics in order to begin. to model so- called paranormal perception. His comments on brain functioning, neuronal firing, and the uncertainty principle, although not directed toward our paper per se, nonetheless inspire us to point out that the leading neurophysiologists of our time have taken a position directly counter to that of Deutsch. For example, the eminent neurophysiolo- gist, John C. Eccles, in discussing a neurophysiological hypothesis of will in his book Facing Reality, comments at length on the possibility of neuronal firing patterns being controlled by quantum processes at the level of the uncertainty principle.29 Be that as it may, it would 20 Manuscript received June 30, 1976. 217he authors are with the Electronics and Bioengineering Labo- ratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA 94025. 22 Hicentennial Conference on America in the Information Age, sponsored by the American Society for Information Science; Panel on “Science and unexplained phenomena,” Washington, D.C., Apr. 12-14, 1976, 73. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, “Psychic research and modern phys- ics,” in_E. D. Mitchell’s Psychic Exploration—A Challenge to Science, J. White, Ed., New York: Putnam’s 1974, ch, 22. 247. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1941. 25R. Targ, “Precognition and everyday life: A physical model,” in Proc, 15th Int. Conf. Parapsychology (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Aug. 1972. . 26%. Warcollier, Mind-to-Mind, New 1948. 27, Sinclair, Mental Radio. New York: Collier Books, 1971. 28sir Oliver Lodge, “Psychic science,” in The Outline of Science, J. A. Thompson, Ed. New York: Putnam’s, 1922. h 97. C. Eccles, Facing Reality, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1970, ch. 8. York: Creative Age Press, CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7 poss emai nh enn nem a
a estat gr eminent a tthe bt, rroceeban@vadsFor Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q200080007-7. appear to us that the “free-will-versus-determinism” issue is separate from and irrelevant to the ESP issue, since even in a deterministic uni- verse there is no strong argument against the occurrence of a com- pletely predetermined event that, because of its characteristics, would be considered “paranormal.” With regard to Deutsch’s trust in the Martin Gardner attempt to “expose the weaknesses” of our research with a random number gener- ator, such trust is misplaced. Our rebuttal to Gardner points out that Gardner’s major criticism of our experiments was based on his miscon- ception of the manner in which data were collected by an automated system.29 In Calkins’ letter we find a detailed presentation of the elements of an experiment, definitions of independent and dependent variables (IV’s and DV’s); a detailed description of a particular factorial experi- mental design standardly used in certain specialized studies (e.g., drug/ placebo treatment of animals), and so on; all of which, taken in proper context, we have no quarrel with. Unfortunately, intertwined with this discourse is the claim that since our experimental design differs from the paradigm he advocates, we have failed to follow accepted method- ology (as he narrowly interprets it) in experimental psychology. He would have the reader believe that, as a consequence, our experimental and control conditions, and our Iv’s and DV’s were ill-defined, and per- force our results necessarily ambiguous. Although on the surface his criticism might appear to be both sophisticated and substantive, careful examination of his remarks point by point reveals a basic misinterpre- tation of our experiment, and also a basic misunderstanding of the roles that different experimental paradigms play in eliciting data of interest in complex and subtle behavioral experimentation. As a result we find his evaluation inaccurate and his conclusions invalid. To handle the general argument first, obviously there is no single research strategy or experimental design that can be applied in cook- book fashion to all research issues. The designs available within the arsenal of experimental psychologists range from naturalistic observa- tions, through systematic assessment with controlled stimuli, and fi- nally to experimental manipulation.3! The key distinctions among the strategies involve the degree of experimental control that is exer- cised, and the amount of artificiality or bias that is introduced. Each strategy has an appropriate function, application, strength, and short- coming, and, as Scott and Wertheimer point out, “any particular pro- ject may well combine features of each strategy.”3! At an early stage of research, the investigator must find procedures that will minimize ambiguity by controlling unwanted influences, while avoiding the rigidity, artificiality, masking, and biasing effects that pre- mature overrefinement of procedures might introduce. It would be in our opinion premature and imprudent, for example, during the initial stages of an investigation when much remains unknown about the mechanisms and factors involved, to follow Calkins’ suggestion to specify precisely on which stimuli within a target area a subject or judge is to concentrate. As Scott and Wertheimer caution, “experi- mental manipulation may provide such refined control over the situa- tion in which a relationship is established that the generality of the results becomes questionable. Precision of control is not the only con- sideration in designing a research project. Generality and applicability of the conclusions are others... The problem facing the investigator is to find an appropriate compromise that will afford control over certain unwanted influences, while at the same time adequately representing the complex interplay of circumstances he is trying to find out about.” In the design of our remote-viewing protocol, we took into account the advice of Anderson as given in his discussion of what he calls a “natural experiment.”32 “In the early stages of research .., it is good strategy to observe the operations of variables in their natural settings to obtain some estimate of the relative importance of these variables.” We therefore incorporated into our overall strategy certain elements of a “natural experiment” such as the use of targets defined by the “nat- ural” process of site visitation by a demarcation team with unspecified instructions, and the use of “free-response” questioning. In keeping with accepted methodology in experimental psychology we emphasized rigid control over variables that might have introduced bias into our results. For instance, double-blind protocol was used in all procedures involving the generzation and presentation of the stimuli 30R, Targ and H. Puthoff, Letters, Scientific American, vol. 234, Jan, 1976. Siw, A. Scott and M. Wertheimer, Introduction to Psychological Resgarch. New York: Wiley, 1962, pp. 69-77. , B. F. Anderson, The Psychology Experiment. An Introduction to the Scientific Method, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1971. pp. 36-41. (target site visitations by demarcation team); the analysis of responses (S-generated transcripts and drawings) was carried out by a judge blind as to the correct stimulus-response pairs. A series of independent variables (IV’s) that Calkins chooses to ignore (target-site characteristics such as distance, elevation, presence or absence of water, etc.) were manipulated by random selection, and a well-defined DV was obtained from the judged accuracy of 85 oral and graphic description of target location as represented by rank-order number. Among other things the precise time of stimulus presentation was controlled and S’s were uni- formly instructed to provide a detailed description, by word and draw- ing, of their impression of the target area. In short, precise experi- mental control was used where appropriate to eliminate ambiguous conditions, independent variables were systematically manipulated and presented under suitably controlled conditions, and measurement was made of the effects of the changed stimuli. Thus, the vital elements of an experiment as defined in experimental psychology were present. (For definitions of the elements of an experiment, see footnotes.2!~37) There is insufficient space to answer in detail each of the specific criticisms made in Calkin’s’: comments (for example, the effort to in- validate our statistical procedure by erroneous extrapolation of the biased-die fallacy). However, a few important points need to be made. 1) Calkins suggests that the two-factor design he advocates is a superior experimental design, in part because of the introduction of control conditions such as: (i) there is an experimental target demar- cated by the target team as in our usual experimental condition, but S is told to think of “anything he can imagine” (his “‘do-not-remote- view” condition), and (ii) there is no target, but Sis asked to carry out a remote viewing anyway. In the first case S’s might imagine remote scenes, might focus on close relatives or friends, doodle or simply think of anything at random. It is not at all clear that a meaningful compari- son can be made between the output of this exercise and a genuine ef- fort at remote viewing. This would be similar to comparing apples with an entire fruit stand. Tor case (Gi) it is not clear how the absence of a target would be generated. How, for example, does one effectively send a target team ‘nowhere’? If there is a target team, the members must be somewhere, and thereby would provide some basis for remote viewing. (Our best effort in this direction [p. 340, Table IV, 2nd target site] was to lock the target team up in a shielded room, instead of send- ing them out to an outdoor target.) If, on the other hand, there is no designated target team, this situation is so dissimilar to the putative remote-viewing situation under study that S responses would be open to scrious question with regard to the basis for making meaningful comparisons. In sum, Professor Calkins has not shown how his ap- proach is better, if indeed it is as acceptable as that which was used. It would scem, rather, that the recommended approach would intro- duce more ambiguity into the experimental design than it would re- solve, making the results extremely difficult to interpret. One must not abjure common sense in an effort to follow a particular favorite procedure which might recommend itself theoretically. 2) Perhaps the most valid criticism in Calkins’ comments, center on our not detailing information about the seliability of the judging pro- cess. Although the data are contained within the paper, clarification is in order. ; As indicated in Sections A and B, pp. 335-338, two judging proce- dures were used. In the first, panels of 5 independent judges analyzed the first and second experiments. From this one could obtain the re- liability of rankings by several judges (inter-rater agreement) as mea- sured by the coefficient of concordance W. However, in the present study a judgment consisted of the matching of descriptive transcripts and drawings to actual sites, and therefore the accuracy of matching provides an empirical measure of judge reliability. The best judge ob- tained seven matches out of nine cases in the first experiment, five out of nine in the second, setting at least an empirical standard for quality of judging. This procedure amounted to a pre-testing of potential judge reliability. A sixth judge was then obtained who independently rank-order judged the same two experiments. Since he also indepen- 3341, B. English and A. C. English, A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytic Terms. New York: McKay, 1958, 348 J, Underwood, Experimental Psychology, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1966. 35D. T. Campbell and J.C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experi- mental Designs for Research, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1963. 36G. McCain and E, M. Segal, The Game of Science, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole 1969. 37.4, Chapanis, Research Techniques in Human Engineering. Balti- more, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1959. Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
« 1550 ~ PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, OCTOBER 1976 A pproved For Release 2004/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q200080007-7 dently obtained the same 7 and 5 direct matches as the best j at least had a measure that indicated that with regard to the data gener- ated in our first two experiments, the better judges were in accord; indicating a high degree of reliability, inter- and intra-judge. This sixth judge was therefore used for all the subsequent judging in the paper, ‘and thus the rank-order judging of all the experiments in the paper was carried out by a single judge whose degree of reliability was estimated on the basis of a comparison with the results of judging panels. The authors do recognize, however, that the analysis of free-response mate- rial is difficult at best and further work is being pursued in the hope that subjective judging procedures can be replaced altogether by a more quantified form of content analysis. ' With regard to Calkins’ closing remarks on cultism versus empirical science, it is our understanding that the key distinction between the two is that cultism consists of belief, in the absence of observation or experimentation, whereas those who follow the emirical method can be found in the laboratory formulating hypotheses and designing and car- rying out experiments. It would appear to us that it is those who carry out experiments and report results (see other replication studies, this issue), rather than many of their critics, who are true to the canons of empirical science. Preliminary Experiments in Group “Remote Viewing” THOMAS W. WHITSON, DAVID N, BOGART, JOHN PALMER, AND CHARLES T. TART Abstract—In preliminary research designed to test the “remote view- ing” paradigm of Puthoff and Targ, two university art classes drew their impressions of an unknown, randomly determined location. Based on the drawings, independent judges attempted to select the correct loca- tions from among ten slides. The results (P = 0.03), although not con- clusive, were encouraging, The experimental findings of Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) suggest that it is possible to obtain descriptive information about remote locations through an unidentified perceptual channel. Here we report two preliminary experiments per- formed at the University of California, Davis, to check on the validity of “remote viewing.” We wanted to test the hypothesis that “remote viewing” of natural objects may be a latent and widely distributed ability. We used stu- dents in a university art course as percipients. None of them were known to possess extraordinary psychic abilities and none reported hav- ing prior experience in describing unknown remote locations. The per- cipients were practiced art students quite willing to draw and describe their visual images. Unlike the experiments at SRI, this study was a group experiment, i.c., all percipients present simultaneously. The percipicnts produced their drawings individually, with no discussion between one another. For the first experiment, thirty target tocations 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. A color slide of cach site was scaled in an envelope together with traveling instructions from the university to the location pictured. Before meeting with the class, Fl (Whitson) randomized the envelopes while E2 (Bogart) was not present. The experimenters decided to introduce the nature of the experiment at the beginning of the class and then carry out the procedutes after the percipients had been drawing for two hours. We felt that the percip- ients’ visual imagery would be more activated at this time than at the beginning of class. On arriving, the experimenters introduced. themselves and the experi- ment to the percipients. They described the studies performed at SRI and emphasized that the earlier experiments suggested “remote view- ing’ might be a widely distributed perceptual ability. They then in- formed the percipients of the procedures that were to be followed two hours later, ie., that £2 would travel to a remote location and view the site for fifteen minutes. Upon leaving, £2 selected one of the envelopes Manuscript received March 25, 1976. The authors are with the Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. ANGEL BANJO BEAN POLE BIKES BIKE TUNNEL* DIRT MOUNDS LOGS ORGAN PALM TREE TRACTOR Number of Drawings ~ 27 #ACTUAL TARGET SITE TABLE If ANGEL BANJO BEAN POLE BIKES* BIKE TUNNEL DIRT MOUNDS LOGS ORGAN PALM TREE TRACTOR Number of Drawings ~ 14 “ACTUAL TARGET SITE from the randomized target pool, without telling E1 what it was, and traveled to the chosen site. £1 returned to the art class to be present while the percipients attempted to visualize the remote location that E2 was viewing. The experimenters had synchronized the fifteen minute interval so that #2 and the percipicnts were “viewing” at the same time. After the percipients had attempted “remote viewing,” they were asked by E1 to produce a drawing of the images that corresponded to the re- mote site. £1 then collected the drawings and told the percipients the results would be discussed at a later class meeting. E2 returned to a designated room, removed the slides from the enve- lopes, and randomized them a second time with target slide included. E1 was not present at the time the target site envelope was selected or rerandomized. £1 then proceeded with the method of evaluation, but being ignorant of the target identity he could not bias the results. The judge for the first experiment was an employee of the UC. Davis art department. He was asked to match a first and second choice of the ten possible target slides to each drawing. At the time of the judging, he was not aware that it was an ESP experiment. Using an overhead projector, the ten slides were projected on a screen simultaneously. The judge could then readily distinguish the differences in each location and make the decision for each drawing. After the judging £2 revealed the target site to everyone concerned. The results of the judging were as follows (Table I), with first and second choices counted as hits, a procedure decided upon before the analysis. Although we were not able to apply a formal statistical test to this single session, we nevertheless were impressed that the correct target received almost twice as many matches as the next most frequently chosen slide (11 versus 6). On the other hand, we were aware that if, by chance alone, the selected remote location happened to mect a pre- dominant drawing bias in the percipients, the results would be atfti- factually inflated. Therefore we conducted a second remote viewing experiment, with mixed motivation. Partly we wanted to see if we could again obtain positive results, partly we wanted to sce if images of tunnels (the target in Experiment One) occurred frequently when it was not the target. Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7 ant ehh men on nll et
eh Pom cee lana mca arma ee EPO POON 4 + A PROCEEDI Experiment Two used essentially the same procedure as Experiment One except that a new art class and a new judge, a graduate student in the art department, were used. The bike tunnel was precluded as a pos- sible target, although it was included in the judging pool. Finally, £1 noted before the data were analyzed that this class seemed less inter- ested and involved in the experiment than did the first class. Table HI gives the results. Tunnel-like images that would be matched with the slide of the bike tunnel were quite rare, so we consider the possibility of artifactual in- flation of the results of Experiment One to be unlikely. The results of the second experiment were not as impressive as those of the first al- though the target slide did receive the third highest number of matches out of ten. Of all possible target pairs in both sessions combined, the total number of matches assigned to the actual target pair was the third highest of the 90 possible pairs, This is associated with a one-tailed probability of 0.033. These initial experimental excursions into the investigation of “‘re- mote viewing” offer modest support to Puthoff and Targ’s results. Given the theoretical significance of the phenomenon, we intend to do further studies. Remote Viewing Experiments Through Computer Conferencing JACQUES VALLEE, ARTHUR C. HASTINGS, AND GERALD ASKEVOLD Abstract~A series of remote viewing experiments were run with 12 participants who communicated through a computer conferencing net- work, These participants, who were located in various regions of the United States and Canada, used portable terminals in their homes and offices to provide typed descriptions of 10 mineral samples. These samples were divided into an open series and a double-blind series. A panel of five judges was asked to match the remote viewing descriptions against the mineral samples by a percentage scoring system. The cor- rect target sample was correctly identified in 8 out of 33 cases; this represents more than double the pure chance expectation. Two experi- enced users provided 20 transcripts for which the probability of achiev- ing the observed distribution of the percentage score by chance was 0.04. These results confirm earlier reports of successful remote viewing ex- periments while extending them to cases in which participants were thousands of miles away from each other and in which the targets were mineral. samples of potential economic significance, with control of communications provided by a computer network. In a recent article,! Puthoff and Targ have stated the case for the existence in humans of the ability to perceive objects and scenes at a distance through an apparently unknown information channel. In this note, we report a series of experiments that appear to confirm their work while extending it to cases in which the participants were several thousand miles away from each other, with control of sensory condi- tions automatically and unobtrusively provided by the medium of communication, and in which the targets were mineral samples of po- tential economic significance. The experiments were conducted via a computer teleconferencing sys- tem, which has been described elsewhere.2 This system is implemented on a computer network and allows cach participant to type 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). Twelve persons, in New York, Florida, Que- bec, and California, were supplied with computer terminals in their homes or offices. The conference was sponsored by a communications company, and participants made their personal time available for the project on a voluntary basis. Manuscript received May 5, 1976. 9400: authors are with the Institute for the Future, Menlo Park, CA S. ‘H, E. Puthoff and R. Targ, “A Perceptual channet for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspectives and recent re- search,” Proc. JEEE, vol. 64, no. 3, Mar. 1976. 2 See, in particular, the articles “Network conferencing,” Datamation, May 1974, and “The Computer conference, An altered state of com- munication?,” The Futurist, June 1975. proved.For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R - 00Q200080007-7 1551 PANEL SELECTION AND SCORES REMOTE DESCRIPTION AMONG THE 10 POSSIOLE TARGETS +r Ath Match + Best 2nd “YT Match 3rd Match (©){50) F (52) c (10) F (55) G (60) G (80) Open/ Blind z o Open Open Blind Open Blind Blind Blind Blind Open Open c (20) BE (48) J (50) k (50) SW On auntwee ~po- wr Prom? Yrnueryyvrn e-ogggamA C (20) o (17) Open W (20) Open Open Blind Blind Blind Open Open Open Open J (30) F (10) (F) (90) O° (120) ¢ (100) K (20) 0) 4) 6) Por er PE e>rer muvnwouroere coeonantremam— L (2 Oe i) —L | (0) | Go ba te R.B. RB. AH. J.B. RB. AN. AH. RB. AH, IS. Open Blind Blind Blind Open Open Open Open Open Open J (10) F (5) @)(22) BrTOCORRXe Fig. 1. Total panel results for each remote description (correct matches are circled). The primary purpose of the experiments was to test “remote viewing” under the altered state of communication enabled by computer teleconferencing—in which participants are individually isolated, com- municating with each other only in the printed mode, but often in real time. We further wished to confirm that the use of the teleconferenc- ing system would supply accurate and unobtrusive recording of the data and would prevent collusion or subliminal cuing to a degree not found in most parapsychological experiments. Over the period of 14 June to 8 July 1975, the participants discussed current issues in psychic research. The formal experiments lasted five days, from 29 June to 3 July, and were conducted as follows: Ten mineral samples selected from geological collections were assigned a label and enclosed in sealed envelopes. The specimens were the rare mineral bastnosite, a vein filling of galena and quartz, opal, gold ore, halite, cinnabar, magnetite, realgar, barite, and cobaltite. The partici- pants were told only that the targets were mineral samples from North America. Five of the samples were enclosed in larger envelopes and randomly labeled “Sunday” through “Thursday” to compose a “double-blind” pool. The other samples constituted an “open” pool. Each day at 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, a geolo- gist 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 view- ing 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. This 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 ina description of the sample 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. Upon completion of the experiments, we had obtained 33 descrip- tions of the ten samples from six people. Thirteen of these descriptions were under double blind conditions and 20 under open conditions, Four specimens had been run under both conditions. Inspection showed what appeared to be successful descriptions of several samples, but in order to objectively evaluate the accuracy of the remote viewing descriptions, we asked outside judges to match the 33 descriptions against the mineral samples. Five judges who had no prior knowledge of the correct pairings (a sociologist, an editor, a physicist, a secretary, and a librarian) were given transcripts of the descriptions Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
a "i582 PROCEEDINGS OF THF IEEE, OCTOBER 1976 Approved For Release 2901/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00Q200080007-7 (without time, date, or author identification) and the geological speci- mens. Their instructions were to assign one or more specimens to cach description. We consider the method of judging to be a critical factor. While Puthoff and Targ used a ranking system, we used a percentage scoring system. Each specimen assigned to a given description was al- lotted 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 specimens. We then totaled all five judges’ assignments for each description to find which specimens scored the highest for each description, The results are shown in the accompanying table. The corrrect target sample was assigned the highest score (that is, “correctly” identified) in 8 out of 33 cases on the basis of the remote viewing description. This frequency is more than double a pure chance expectation of 3.3 and would occur less than once in 100 trials by chance. For a more detailed analysis, which accounted for the distribu- tion of percentages among several targets for each description, the per- centage scores were computer processed with the Statistical Package for the social sciences. A one-tailed T-test was used to determine the probability that the assigned percentage scores for correct and incor- xect targets were due to chance. For all 33 transcripts, the probability of achieving the observed distribution of the percentage scores by chance was 0.08. For transcripts provided by participants I. §. from New York and R. B. from Orlando, Florida (9 and 11 transcripts, re- spectively), the T-test indicated a 0.04 probability score. Following are some descriptions of the target specimens taken from the remote viewing transcripts: Target F was halite, which is NaCl (salt). It consisted of two, al- most transparent, intergrown crystals. Transcript #18 said, “orystal, crystal ball, glass, crystal, clear crystal... formed by dripping and evaporation .. . acquired by mining but found quite near surface ... Northern Nevada.” (Actual origin was Southern Nevada.) Transcript #17 referred to supersaturated salt solu- tions, and Transcript #3 said, “white thing like a coral... will crumble if treated hard... more than one part... it grew.” Target D contained blue-green and milky-white opal clusters in a brown pyramidal silica rock. Transcript #25 said, in part, “Why do I keep getting GREENS? I see a medium size green . wedge ... flecked with brown rock color ...I don’t see a pure Book Reviews The following reviews were selected from those recently published in various IEEE TRANSACTIONS and Group/ Society Newsletters. They are reprinted here to make them conveniently available to the many readers who otherwise might not have ready access to them. Each review is fol- lowed by an identification of its original source. Design of Systems and Circuits for Maximum Reliability or Maximum Production Yield-P. W. Becker and F. Jensen (Lyngby, Denmark: Polyteknisk Forlag, 1974, 347 pp., $16.00). Reviewed by Harold K. Knudsen, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. The main thrust of this exceptional book is the development of methods of computer-aided design which results in circuits and systems of maximum drift reliability or maximum production yield. The book has an excellent exposition. The authors express themselves with candor and give a full and nonpedantic development of their material. The material is presented at a level which assumes a modest knowledge of probability theory (¢.g., conditional probability, continuous density functions, functions of random variables, ctc.). This book would be suitable for a graduate level course, of for self-study in computer-aided design and reliability. The main body of the text develops fundamental reliability concepts, the formulation of suitable mathematical models, and optimization methods. This material is applied in the design of example circuits of reasonable complexity. green emerald crystal... it is flecked and connected to a coarse rock edging ... It looks to me like it was poured, a heavy liquid green plastic (the green becoming blue-green at the edges of the sample), and if it is fractured it would be in one clean smooth break of glassine purity.” About two-thirds of the transcripts contained descriptive elements that corresponded with the correct target specimen, but often these were mixed with noncorresponding elements, and it was not possible to reduce the information to a coherent single identification. The char- acteristics most often identified correctly were the color of the sample, the shape, relative weight, presence of crystals, type of material (e.g., metallic), and geological formation process (e.g., volcanic). Attempts to specify location were usually in error as were descriptions of the size of the samples and their exact substance. We do not know if these pat- terns are due to the participants or to the nature of the information transfer process. We suggest that further studies should select targets that are easily discriminated (i.e., widely different) along these “most perceived” characteristics. We were encouraged by these results. Accurate and significant re- mote perception occurred under test conditions that placed the most successful participants 2500 M away from the targets. Also of interest is the result that the double blind conditions provided equally correct descriptions, suggesting that the ability under study also functions on information not known to others. The computer conference system allowed control of the test conditions, with complete recording of all messages among participants. - The fact that several of the specimens were composite and contained mixed materials made this an especially complex (though realistic) test situation, perhaps more demanding than the conditions that prevailed in the SRI studies, at least for non-geologists. Our results tend to vali- date Puthoff and Tazg’s experiments and indicate that remote viewing techniques are deserving of further attention. The conference and experiments were made possible by Mr. A. Katz of Deer Communications, Inc., San Francisco. We also express our gratitude to Messrs. Hudson and Wilson for their assistance in carrying out and analyzing the experiments. Our special thanks go to the five judges: Ms. Amara, Ms. Chula, Dr. Johansen, Dr. Lipinski, and Ms. Spangler. The reliability concepts which are defined and/or developed include: the definition of. the reliability function, properties of the reliability function, combinational reliability, and system reliability as a function of time; chapters on design and philosophy, the rule of preliminary design in model formulation, feasible solutions, the development of a mathematical model of yield or of drift reliability, and methods for computing the probability of system or circuit success. The chapter on optimization reviews methods for searching for unconstrained maxima and for formulating performance indices which lead to feasible solutions. Finally, circuit examples consisting of one-transistor and three-transistor amplifiers are used to illustrate the methods which were developed. The appendices provide valuable extensions to the text materials. There is also an extensive bibliography. This preliminary cdition, although excellent in exposition and con- tent, does have some azcas in which it could be improved. There is no concluding chapter as a summary of the methods developed and esti- mates for the costs of applying these methods to more. complex sys- tems. A few exercises are scattercd throughout the book; but these are insufficient for self-instruction, or for a class, unless supplemented by the instructor. Finally, the equations occasionally contain symbols which are not adequately defined in the text (e.g., Py on p. 46). The above shortcomings in the preliminary edition detract very little from the overall book which is an excellent tutorial presentation of the techniques of reliability optimization in the design phase of circuits and systems. Reprinted from the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society Newsletter, February 1976. Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
Reha ~ PROCEEDINGS LETTERS dissertation, ETS. Ing Telecomunicacion, Madrid, 1973. 13] S. Yoshizawa, “Some properties of randomly connected networks of neuron-like elements with refractory period,” Kybernetik, vol. 16, pp. 173~182, 1974. 8. "Amari, ¢ ‘A method of statistical neurodynamics,” Kybernetik,’ val, 14, PP. 201-215, 1974 Comments on “A Perceptual Channel for Information . Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research” LEON D. HARMON There are many ways in which to comment upon the above paper.! I imagine that Procegpincs readers will provide a fine variety of feed- back. My own reaction, however, is very simple. if one takes the trouble to categorize roughly the contents of this ramble, the sequence looks like this: Number of Topic Pages 1) Introduction 1 2) Informal anecdotal assertions ly 3) Historical background 34 4) Main study: Introduction, procedures, 3 controls 4 5) Results, gratuitous editorial comments, 1 anecdotal procedure citation 5 6) Informal presentations and discussions of further experiments 10 7) Analysis . 13 8) Raw data transcript , 1 ‘ww’ 9) Bibliography 14 The central issue in a deeply controversial and highly suspect topic such as telepathy, clairvoyance, time reversal, etc., is whether ane is prepared to accept as true what is offered in evidence. Notice that in the rough categorization of the article’s contents, above, only three- quarters of one page (p. 335) in a 26 page paper is concerned with the critical issue of rigorous experimental protocols and controls. And much of that stim section is cursory and anecdotal. We can keep our eyes on the ball by examining solely the relevant three paragraphs on page 335 of the Puthoff and Targ paper (par. 3, 4, 5). All the rest—background, anecdotes, drawings, discussion, and other (less formal) experiments, delightful as they may be—can be set aside while we peer closely at what must ultimately supply reasonable satisfaction regarding credibility. The signal-to-noise ratio of this article improves markedly when 26 pages of meander are replaced by three paragraphs of explicit rela- tively formal description of experimental procedure. We are told the following. 1) The experiment was double blind. 2) The “transmission” experimenters were given “target” locations and proceeded to the target while the “reception” experimenter was kept ignorant of the target. 3) Experimenters were with the “transmitting” subject at all times during the “transmission.” 4) An experimenter was with the “receiving” during data taking. subject at all times The entire business now hinges on the reader’s accepting on-faith that no information was transmitted conventionally at any time from, say, the transmission experimenters to the receiving experimenter or to the subject. But no controls are cited; no safeguards are described; no neutral watchdogs are mentioned. WM nuscript received March 15, 1976, The author is with the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 4410 ' Hf. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. WEEE, vol. 4, pp. 329-354, Mar. 1976. ~ Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7 ‘weet - 1259 Further, this was net a true double-blind experiment as claimed, since at least one af the researchers had a prior] knowledge of the pre- sumed occult data. We are asked to believe that no conceivable com- munication. channel existed between “transmitter” and “receiver” other than by some exotic attenuationless seemingly magica] informa- tion propagation. I feel certain that your readers can conceive of many possible alter- native conventional channels. Both electronics engineers and magicians, . for example, will be at no loss to suggest many. It is comforting to know that the Editor and Reviewers of the PROCEEDINGS recommended publication of this preposterous ma: terial. At least they are open-minded—which is a good thing. But then, too much open-mindedness is a hole in the head. Reply? by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ® We would like to comment on the points raised in Harmon’s letter in response to our article. In his introductory remarks, Harmon makes a reference to “less for- mal” experiments. It is important to state at the outset that there were no such experiments. In every experimental series, from the Costa Rica pilot study to the verification study with visiting government scientists, and tesolution study with technology targets, a rigid formal protocol was followed. This. required that the experimenter with the subject always be kept ignorant of the chosen target and that the analysis (judging) of the experiment be done in a blind fashion by an individual who did not know which response was associated with which target. Harmon suggests that the reader. of our paper must accept on faith that there was no conventional communication channel from the target site to the subject, since “no controls are cited, no safeguards are de- - scribed, no neutral watchdogs are mentioned.” In fact, if Harmon will examine p. 335, he will find that the entire experiment had multiple controls, safeguards, and watchdogs every step along the way. With regard to control over target selection at the beginning of the experiment: - Before the experimental series began, the Director of the In- formation Science and Engineering Division, not otherwise associated with the experiment, established. the set of locations as the target pool which remained Known only to him. The target locations were printed on cards sealed in envelopes and kept in the SRI Division office safe. They were available only with the personal assistance of the Division Director who issued a single random-number selected target card that constituted the traveling orders for that experiment .... The experimenter remaining with the subject at SRI was kept ignorant of both the particular target and the target pool so as to eliminate the possibility of cueing, overt or subliminal... . When it came to the departure of the target team, an experimenter plus one to three “watchdogs” assigned by SRI management were handed the travel orders, left SRI, got into an automobile, opened the orders, and then proceeded to the site indicated. As stated in the! paper, “The target demarcation team, consisting of two to four SRI experimenters, then proceeded by automobile directly to the target without any communication with the subject or experimenter remain- ing behind.” We find it remarkable for Harmon to read that the target. demarcation team consisted of two to four experimenters, and yet argue that perhaps they were not vigilant with regard to the possibility that one of their members might try to communicate back ta the sub- ject. In addition, numerous of these experiments were observed by visiting government scientists, outside consultants, SRI management, etc. The roles of the two main experimenters were often reversed as to who remained with the subject and who accompanied the outbound team. The composition of the outbound team was changed, and many times did not include either of the main experimenters. In short, as stated on p. 335: At all times, we and others responsible for the overall program took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional. To ensure evaluations independent of belief structures of both experimenters and judges, all experiments were carried out under a protocol ... in which target selection at the beginning of ex- 2 Manuscript received April 9, 1976. 7H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ are with The Electronics and Bioengineer- ing Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
« 12607 ad periments and blind judging of results at the end of experiments were handled independently of the researchers engaged in carry- ing out the experiments. Harmon goes on to comment that “this was not a true double-blind experiment as claimed, since at least one of the researchers had @ priori knowledge of the presumed octult data.” This isin error. Neither the experimenter with the subject nor the judge who evaluated the data, the two individuals in principle capable of affecting the outcome, had any knowledge of the true correspondences, and thus the experiment was double blind. The fact that experimenters sent to the target site knew where they were is irrelevant, since they did not have any oppor- tunity to interact with subjects or judges. With regard to the mechanisms involved in remote viewing, Harmon states, “We are asked to believe that no conceivable communication channel existed between ‘transmitter’ and ‘receiver’ other than by some exotic attenuationless seemingly magical information propagation.” We wish to indicate to Harmon that the two mechanisms discussed by the authors, extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic propaga- tion and quantum correlation, though they may seem exotic and mag- ical to him, are well understood phenomena in the engineering and scientific community, both theoretically and experimentally. Finally, as we indicated in some detail on pp. 340-343, the watchdog aspect was carried to the extreme, by having visiting government scien- tists who were interested in observing our experimental protocols be subjects themselves in an effort to detect whether chicanery was in- volved. In the process of trying to account for their own good results on the basis of other than paranormal functioning, they expressed con- cern that perhaps the.experimenter might be cueing them subliminally. This was countered by eliminating the inbound experimenter and hav- . ing the visitor remain alone in the lab throughout the dusation of the experiment. They then conjectured that perhaps after the experiment they were being taken to a place that sounded like their description, even though that may not have been the place where the outbound experimenters had gone. This was countered by having the outbound experimenters make a tape while at the site and turning it over to the subject-critic at the same time that he turned over his own tape de- scribing the remote scene. In such fashion every criticism was met. . Thus, although Harmon suggests that “both electronics engineers and magicians” will be at no loss to suggest many possible alternative con- ventional channels, we find that, to the contrary, both electronics engineers and professional magicians, who have consulted on this project have in fact not found any viable alternative to fault the SRI experiments.. We therefore consider it important to continue data collection and to encourage others to do likewise. Further Comments* by Leon D. Harmon I was delighted to see the nature of Puthoff and Targ’s response to my letter. The only rebuttal needed is to invite the reader to examine the article and both letters with care and. then to judge whether or not my criticisms were responded to. A similar example of nonresponsive obfuscation by these gentlemen cee found on pages 6 and 8 of Scientific American for February 1976. ; I tried on two separate occasions to get permission from them to visit and see for myself, preferably with a neutral but hard-nosed observa- tion team of my choice. The requests were met with point-blank re- fual. Tch! - ; further Reply® by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ We agree with Harmon that. it is very desirable that interested readers ‘examine with care the article and letters to which he refers, and come to their own conclusions with regard to the points he raises. We. understand Harmon’s desire to visit SRI to “see for himself” ex- - periments in progress. As we are sure Harmon can appreciate, he is one of more than fifty who have made similar requests in the past year. We have therefore out of necessity limited such observation to contract , monitors and their consultants, potential sponsors, and researchers in- volved in serious attempts at replication of aur work. « “Manuscript received April 15, 1976. * Manuscript received April 21, 1976. Approved For Releasg.g901/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787RQQ0200080007y2usr 1976 If Harmon is genuinely interested in determining whether the experi- ment works as reported, we would suggest that he try the experiment himself under his own conditions as many others have done. Such inde- pendent observations are much to be preferred, if for no other reason than on the issue that an experiment that is not replicable from lab to lab would be more of an art than a science. However, as we have in- dicated in our response to Harmon’s first letter, it is the robustness and independence of environment or subject that characterizes this particu- lat experiment. Therefore, although a demonstration at SRI would be satisfying io Mr. Harmon and to those who know and trust him, we think it would be a mistake for the field. That kind of experiment is basically to provide testimony, but science goes forward on the basis of independent experimentation and replication, not testimony. Adaptive Monopulse Beamforming LLOYD J. GRIFFITHS Abstract—A. new receive-array adaptive beamformer configuration is presented. The array output signal consists of the difference between a conventionally weighted beam and an adaptive beam that is constrained to have a spatial null in the direction of interest. Adaptation then pro- vides minimum total array output power. Adaptive receiving arrays have been extensively discussed in the literature [1]~-[4] and have been shown to provide significant interfer- ence rejection properties. In most of these systems, the arrival direc- tion and/or temporal properties of the signal of interest are assumed to be known a priori. If the specification of these properties is inaccurate, the actual desired signal may be treated as interference by the adaptive beamformer and thus may be rejected to some degree by the processor. For this reason, practical adaptive beamformers are generally operated in parallel with a conventionally formed array output which has fixed prespecified mainlobe and sidelobe characteristics. Comparisons be- tween the adapted and conventional outputs can then be conducted to ensure that the desired signal-to-noise and interference ratio is indeed being enhanced by the adaptive beamformer. . The array processor suggested in this letter incorporates a conven- tionally weighted beam as an integral part of the total beamforming _ structure, as depicted in Fig. 1. In this figure, Z is used to denote the K-dimensional vector of received array-element signals and G isa fixed ptefilter, which ensures that the system is steered in the direction of interest. Thus G is either a set of bulk time delays (for broad-band sys- tems) or a network of phase shifters (for narrow-band arrays), which ensures that the desired signal portion of the K-dimensional vector X is in phase at all components. Equivalently, for a digital beamformer, X(k) = s(k)1 + NK) (1) where s(x) is the kth sample of the desired signal, 1 is a constant vector of ones, and N(x) is the sampled vector of noise and interference terms. The adapted beam output signal y4 (Kk) is formed using a system of tapped delay lines, one for each received component, as discussed in [1]-[3]. For a system with L taps per delay line, y, (k) may be ex- pressed as — Eel ; yak) = > XT 1 Wank) (2) 120 where T denotes transpose and W4)(k) is the /th column of delay-line coefficients employed at the kth sampling instant. A conventional out- put yc(k) is formed using a vector of fixed coefficients Wc, which are applied to the input data after a suitable delay, corresponding to the midpoint of the delay lines in the adaptive processor. Thus . yok) = xX7TK~ nn) We - (3) even. where n = (L~ 1)/2 when L is odd and n = £/2 or (£/2)~- 1 when L is Manuscript received January 19, 1976. : . The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Univer- sity of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80302. | Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
ASS Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R@@0200080007-7 A PERCEPTUAL CHANNEL FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER OVER KILOMETER DISTANCES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND RECENT RESEARCH H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ Copyright © 1976 by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Annals No. 603PR004 Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7