Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 “SCRE of methodology are missing, items which might cause skepticism on the part of nonbelievers. Specifically, these are: (1) Characteristics, backgrounds, experience of subjects are not given. Why did one subject receive two trials and the other six? How were targets assigned to each aubject? (2) No information is given regarding the contents of specific targets in the target pool, nor of the 10 used on any given trial, We do not know how similar or different the pool targets are, nor do we know how similar or different are the targets in any trial subset. of 10. (3) We are not told if targets are sampled with replacement, nor if any target is used more than once. (4) The observer. remaining with the subject is not described other than to say the observer “had no knowledge of the target location." We do not know if this observer coached the subject, knew anything about the experiment, was one of the authors, or merely served as a guard. (5) The 10 target envelopes were selected by "another experimenter," presumably Bisaha. How were they "randomly" selected? Why by the experimenter? If the observer with the subject was also Bisaha, there exist other possible communication channels, both normal and paranormal. (6) Who was the person who selected the target pool? What were the criteria employed? Did he have any communication with subjects and judges? All these are unanswered. (7). How did the target person select “at random" the target designating slip of paper? (8) No apparent feedback wag given to either subject. It seems that all trials were completed before transcripts were presented to the judges. 200 Approved For Release 2000/0QM@MGTA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Siege? 6 -00787R000100260003-2 No mention is made of subjects visiting targets or being debriefed by the target person. Further, no mention is made as to the scheduling of trials: — over how many days, how many per day, per week, etc. | (9) “Judges were asked to rank order the transcripts on the basis of the photographs and target person's notes only, although they did visit the targets.. This is totally unclear. If they performed the ranking before visiting the targets, then why should they bother to visit the eight targets? Tf they visited the targets before performing the ranking, how could they completely disregard the visual (non-photographic) information obtained at the target site? Inadequate detail is presented on both procedure and rationale. (10) The authors state that "the highest rank given any transcript was three." Presumably, they mean the highest rank given any correct transcript, not merely any transcript, for the Morris procedure requires all eight transcripts to be force ranked from 1 to 8. While this may be a poor choice of phrasing by the authors, it is disconcerting if it indicates a misapplication of the Morris procedure and therefore biased results. That is, if the judges scored each transcript from 1 to 8, but did not use all 8 ranks per target (over the 8 transcripts), rather scoring each transcript tndependently on a 1 to 8 scale, then the sum of ranks could easily be much less than the forced sum of 36 per target (1 + 3 +3... + 8). Because no data are presented, and because this one results sentence is unclear, the conclusions should be viewed cautiously. (11) If the outbound person drives randomly for 20 minutes, then selects. a target, and times her arrival at the target for 15 minutes later, there are some impossible-to-reach targets unless she deliberately drives - toward the (unknown) target. That is, targets are within a 30-minute radius. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : IA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 | SRE
L Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SEGRE Assume a target is 30 minutes due east of the campus, but the target person drives due west for 20 minutes. She cannot then turn 180 degrees and arrive at the 50-minute distant target:in 15 minutes. In fact, if the target is 30 minutes from campus, the only way she can arrive there in 15 minutes is to drive nearly toward the target for the 20 minutes before she learns the location of the target. The random likelihood of her being within 15 minutes of such targets is clearly small. Assuming that no ttme is required for the target person to park her car and walk to the target, then the approximate probability of her being within a 15-minute radius of the target located anywhere in the 30-minute radius target area is: _ m5)? | (30) 0.25. (3) Since parking/walking time is nonzero, it seems improbable that the target person kept the assigned schedule for each target. The impact of this procedural question on the results is unclear, but quite unsettling. Summary. This experiment is described very briefly and incompletely, causing one to be skeptical of its having a careful methodological base. Nevertheless, the results are impressive, in view of both the statistical significance and the precognitive nature of the procedure. D, Dunne, B. J. and Bisaha, J. P. Multiple channels in precognitive remote viewing. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1977. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1978, 146-151. 202 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
OO Ee een eneeneeeneeeaeneetietiee Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : GRAB BaG-00787R000100260003-2 Purpose. The stated purpose of thig research is to replicate their previous experimental procedures with the additional "variable" of testing two subjects simultaneously, In actuality, this paper presents the same Chicago-area experiment reported at the 1977 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Soctety. [See B above.] In fact, the paper is essentially a verbatim version of the earlier paper in spite of the later copyright. Conclusions. The conclusions drawn by the authors are the same as in the previous report of this research. In addition, ‘they acknowledge that "the procedure followed for target selection does not exclude the possibility . of experimenter clairvoyance in choosing the number which yielded a target which best matched the subjects’ descriptions, presenting a difficulty in specifically demonstrating the locus of the psi process." (p. 150) The authors suggest that "the rankings for each transcript against the pool of targets be made by a separate judge to control further for independence in the ranking process." (p. 150) "The positive results obtained from the various experiments ... attempted to date indicate that the overall protocol of this experimental design is generally a useful and effective tool for additional research into the nature of non-ordinary information transfer in ‘ordinary’ people." (p. 151) Crttical Evaluation. This experiment is a second reporting of. an earlier publication; thus, the same criticisms apply. In addition, comments appear appropriate on a couple discussion points presented by the authors, and described above, . 203 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2. acre
rr Eee Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : mapa eee 0787 ROOO TOO 2G00092 “First, the problem of target selection is a real problem. Selection by the experimenter can be a source of contaminating clairvoyant effects, as indicated above. However, selection of a neutral third person, who in turn selects the target numbers (or targets), is subject to the same criticism, only one step removed; i.e., the experimenter clairvoyantly selects the neutral individual because this neutral individual is more likely to (will?) select the right target, etc. At first blush, this appears to be an insoluble problem. Second, the discussion regarding independent judges rankings is another example of careless prose. The authors recommend that a separate judge should be used for each transcript against the pool of targets. That is, under the recommended procedure, a judge would take oné transcript and rank order all targets against it, rather than the present convention of ranking all transcripts against a single target. While the statistical algorithm will be equally valid, it would appear that memory and order effects might serve to reduce the judges' abilities because they would necessarily have to visit the targets sequentially, rather than compare all transcripts "simultaneously" as in the more conventional protocol. Last, the conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the protocol is highly suspect because of the previously defined travel time problem. If targets are really randomly selected five minutes after the subject ends his/her response, and if the target person really drives randomly for 20 minutes to arrive at a point 15 minutes from the target, then the target person can reach less than one~fourth of the potential target locations in the allotted time. This hardly appears to be an acceptable protocol, and it is doubtful that it can be (was) followed for each trial. Approved For Release 2000/08/18* CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
——?, a a Approved For Release 2000/08/10 SRE Oo Or ETRODO TOO 2B 0 008-2 Summary. This experiment ig suspect for the reasons cited previously following its earlier publication. The additional discussion of the results . presentéd by the authors in this iteration of the paper does nothing to dispel those suspicions. E. Hastings, A. C. and Hurt, D. B. A confirmatory remote viewing experiment in a group setting. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1976, October, 1544-1545, Purpose. The purpose of this experiment was to obtain more experimental data on remote viewing performance. The research was stimulated by the earlier SRI studies. Experimental Design, Thirty-six subjects generated information about a single (unknown ) target. They then had the six possible targets described to them and "voted" for the target they thought to be the site based. upon their individual responses. Subjects, Thirty-six persons, male and female, served as subjects. They were "mostly professional", and met one evening (8:30 PM) with the understanding that an experiment in ESP would be conducted. No further information about the subjects is given. Experimenter., Arthur Hastings. Target Persons. David Hurt and one person selected from the group of subjects. The selection procedure was not described. Judges. The subjects themselves voted as the judging procedure. No other judges were involved. Equipment. Notes and drawings were made by all subjects. No equipment was involved. Approved For Release 2000/08/10? CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 es) ine iaaadnaemiaaae Targets. Six targets were chosen by the -experimenters prior to conduct of the experiment. The subsequently selected target was a playground area with a log structure in a nearby park. The other five target locations were (1) a children's play tunnel, (2) an orchard of flowering trees, (3) a bar and restaurant, (4) an ice cream parlor, and (5) a post office building. The target locations were chosen to provide wide variation in indoor/outdoor locations and dominant mood. Procedures. The targets' names were written on cards which were sealed in envelopes and randomly numbered. No one knew the number of any target Location. In the presence of the 36 person group, one envelope was randomly selected by throwing a die. Hurt and one person from the group then left with the sealed envelope. They opened the envelope in Hurt's car and drove to the target site, timing their arrival to be exactly 10 minutes after their departure. They "observed and interacted with the location" for 10 minutes, then returned to the group. For the 10 minutes the target persons were at the target, the group members “attempted to generate information about the target site, making notes and/or drawings of their impressions." Following this 10-minute period, but before the return of the target persons,’ the subjects were allowed to compare notes. Then, Hastings named the six locations in the target pool and described them briefly. (He knew the targets in the pool, but not which one was selected.) The subjects then "voted" on which target was the one selected. | The target persons returned a short while after the vote was taken, handed over their envelope, and reported the target to be the playground area. Approved For Release 2000/08/16" CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 he
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0 sdefappipres-00787R000100260003-2 Data Analysts. Analysis wads by a t-test, comparing the obtained number correct with that expected (6) from the null hypothesis. With 6 targets and 36 subjects, 6 correct "votes" would be expected by chance. | Regulte. Twenty of the 36 subjects voted for the correct site. The authors state that a "t-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 107." | Conetustons. The experimenters report "astonishment" by the success of the subjects. The subjects reported correctly such elements as swings, trees, park lights, sand, and the log structure. ‘Two subjects correctly reported images of the target team taking off their shoes. One subject drew a circle and wrote "playground" in it;. the nonauthor target person "reported that at the location she had drawn a circle in the sand and had written 'playground' in it." One subject reported the correct name of the park. Other subjects correctly reported objects seen From the target site, but not part of it, such as "the. jungle gym, swings, lighted windows of houses surrounding the park, a soft drink can or the ground." The authors attribute the effectiveness of the experiment to the way it was conducted. Three conditions seem to help: "(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, ' Instructions and thoughts; and (3) Receiving feedback as soon as possible.' to the subjects and procedures during the experiment emphasized these principles. (Descriptions of the pertinent techniques are given.) The authors also recommend the following improvements on their procedure. (1) In addition to having the ‘subjects estimate the correct target from Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : &9A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 opt ian
ee Approved For Release aa SERRE | O78 7RODO NOOR G0 00S-2 their responses, also have outside judges estimate the target from the subjects’ responses. (2) The target pool should be made up by someone not at the experiment. (3) Clarify whether the coaches (half of each pair of subjects) should vote on the basis of their "viewer's" information or with consideration for information they themselves have generated. (Coaches voted in this experiment with undefined criteria; coaches' votes were not separately noted.) Critical Evaluation. While the results are highly positive, several methodological questions arise which indicate uncertainty or poor reporting detail. (1) The original subject pool had 36 people, male and female. How many of each? When one person (how chosen?) left with Hurt, presumably there were only 35 left. Yet, the remaining subjects worked in pairs and 36 votes were cast before the target persona returned. How is this possible? Was Hastings also one of the coaches (subjects, voters?) in addition to directing the experiment? (2) How could the experimenters select the targets, put the target cards in envelopes, and randomly number the envelopes without knowing the number of each target, assuming one of them really wanted to know a given target's number? They should have had a disassociated person do this. (3) Who rolled the die to select the target? How? | (4) At 8:30 PM in March it was dark outside. Was the playground lighted? If not, how could the target persons sce to move about, write "playground" in the sand, etce.? A daytime experiment might appear more logical. (5) Statistically, the null hypothesis predicts chance success (assuming as subject independence!) of 36/6 = 6. The authors state that they used a Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : 244-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 daha a
a a a _ Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 one-tailed t-test to obtain a Z score. This is inappropriate: a small mn sample ¢ does not yield a normal distribution Z or standard score. The - t-test was developed to account for the nonnormal distribution caused by small sample sizes, typically less than 30. While similar, ¢ and Z are not — equivalent. ~ Using the binomial distribution, one can calculate the Z score for the obtained result: . oni 7 = (@ + .5) - WP _ 13.50 _ 6.037. (4) = VEG 2.236 - Evaluating this Z-score by the known unit normal distribution, we obtain a probability of occurrence under the null hypothesis of P w 10°. = However , tt should be noted that the large sample Z-score approximation to the binomial distribution is valid for 1 > 25 and P approximately equal - to Q@ = L- P. As the disparity between P and @ increases, ” must become - larger for the approximation to be usefully close. A good rule of thumb (Siegel, 1956) for this approximation ig that mPQ must at least equal 9. - In this experiment “Pq = 36(1/6) (5/6) = 5. | Thus, it is most appropriate to evaluate the results by the binomial _ distribution. -~ If P is the probability of occurrence of an event, and that event occurs x times out of opportunities, then the probability density function is: _ r@) = Cy a - pr, 7 (5) - The cumulative probability of the obtained result plus all more extreme ~ results is the value of interest to us. For this experiment, we have am Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CiA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ~ pie
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 OcsGiaefR@P96-00787R000100260003-2 “n= 36, ~ = 20, and P = 1/6. We wish to find the probability of obtaining 20 or more correct responses. That is, we wish to know: Prob. (20 < x < 36) = £(k). . (6) The probability of obtaining exactly 20 correct is 1.08 x 10°’, while the probability of obtaining 20 or more correct is 1.24 x 107! Thus, the exact binomial probability of 1.24 x 1077 is slightly less than the authors’ quoted probability of 6 x 10°’. While the difference is unimportant numerically, the statistical selection and incorrectness of definitions lead to concern for the authors! appreciation of experimental methodology. Summary. The obtained results are fairly impressive, in spite of the methodological questions and inappropriate statistical techniques. F. Jahn, R. G. Psychic process, energy transfer, and things that go bump in the night. Princeton Alumt Monthly, December 4, 1978, pp. S-1 to S-12. Jahn, a noted researcher on advanced space propulsion systems and Dean of the Princeton University Engineering School, has had a recent interest in psychic phenomena. This publication ig essentially the talk delivered at Princeton on that subject in April 1/7, 1978. An edited transcript of the tape of that lecture is also available, but not for quotation, reproduction, orf publication. The studies of Jahn, in collaboration with Carol curry, a Princeton student, consisted of a variety of demonstrations and experiments in remote Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : 4A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 SL BRRP 96 -00787R000100260003-2 _yiewing, psychokinesis, and modeling of psychic phenomena. Most of the "controlled" experimentation is in the psychokinesis areas; since that is beyond the immediate interests of this report, it shall be disregarded, The remote viewing demonstrations took place early in their studies. Since the reported details are sparse, we shall not present them in the experimental format used for other publications, but rather summarize them in the narrative style used by the author. Stimulated by the Puthof£ and Targ (1976) IEEE paper, Jahn and Curry alternated as target person and subject in demonstration experiments with the target person/subject locations being Brookhaven, Long Island/Princeton; Princeton/Pompano Beach, Florida; northern New Jersey/Princeton; Stanford University ‘Chapel/SRI; Holiday Inn, Palo Alto/SRI; and perhaps others. In each case, there are significant similarities between the target person's. sketch of the target area and the subject's sketch. Often things in the sketches are reversed left-and-right; often there is similarity in numerosity of elements, such as time in minutes and number of dismountings of a horse; usually there is commonality of commonplace things such as trees, sky, arches, horses, etc. While the similarities are striking, some of the results suffer from ‘the "grass is green, sky is blue" criticism. Since no independent, uninformed judges were used for comparisons and no a priori response criteria were given, these results can only be considered as demonstrations, not as true experiments. Further, the paper can be criticized on other grounds. The author states (p. S-3) that: "We have tried this type of experiment many other - times with many other people. Almost always there is some correlation between Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0.: Gt DP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 laboratory at the University of Califorgia; Santa Barbara." The reference given to Schmidt's interaction with Curry is dated 1970, while the Morris reference is dated 1978. Clearly, Curry was involved in psi activity well before she walked into Jahn's office in the spring of 1977, and her interest went beyond her "saturation" with electrical engineering and computer science. In summary, the results of these incompletely presented demonstrations ' are interesting and perhaps provocative, but the lack of details on the methodologies, procedures, and results preclude this paper from serious discussion in this report. Hence, it will not be discussed further nor includéd in subsequent analyses. a G. Karnes, E. W. and Susman, E. P. Remote viewing: A response bias interpretation, Unpublished manuscript, Metropolitan State College, Denver, Colorado, 1978. Purpose. The authors attempted to extend the SRI protocol by applying three. major modifications within the framework of a signal detection experiment. These modifications are: (1) The subjective nature of the subject's responses (and the necessity of using uninformed judges to rate the accuracy of the responses) was eliminated. Subjects' accuracies of perception were measured by their ability to visually identify color photographs of target locations. This procedure permitted the direct measurement of inaccuracies as well as accuracies of perception. (2) A control group was used to provide a baseline measure of chance remote viewing. The logic here is that, if the subject knows the target person will be at. one of X locations, the probability of chance selection - 213 . Approved For Release 2000/09eaRRPFTRDP96-00787R000100260003.2
i Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 “SEGRE of the correct target may not be xt, due to response biases. The chance level should be determined empirically. (3) For efficiency, multiple (unselected volunteer) subjects were used. Experimental Design. In the experimental group, the target person was randomly selected from the subject pool and sent to one of nine target locations. The subjects in the laboratory had photographic booklets of 18 sites, including the actual target. | In the control group, the target person was also randomly chosen, but was sent to a location not contained in the photographic booklet. Both the subjects and the target person were unaware of this fact, however, believing that the location to which the target person was sent was actually in the booklet. Thus, the control group provided a baseline for chance guessing and response bias against which the experimental group's responses could be compared. | Subjects. The subjects were 115 volunteer college students drawn from introductory psychology classes. They were told the experiment dealt with ESP, and that the experimenters were particularly interested in subjects who possessed ESP capabilities or who were interested in having their ESP capabilities measured. Experimenters. The authors served as experimenters. Target Persons. For each group, one of the volunteer subjects was selected to be a target person by his/her blindly drawing a blue poker chip from a bag of otherwise red poker chips, with the number of chips equal to the number of subjects plus target person. Judges. No judges were necessary as responses were objectively evaluated. 214 Approved For Release mae t. CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 | “SESREF Equipment. Four color prints were made of each site, each from one of four distinct vantage points. The four prints of each site were mounted on an 8-1/2. x 11-inch cardboard. The nine target and nine "noise" site photograph sets were designated A through R, and placed in a test booklet. They were not identified by name, location, or whether each was "noise" or "target." "Envelopes containing the four photographs of a target site and a map showing the route to and location of the target sites were prepared for use by the senders." No mention is made of how Many such targets or "noise" sites were prepared in this fashion. Subjects used a response sheet that had blank spaces next to the 18 site letter designations. They were instructed to select one or more sites as possible locations for the target person and to rate their confidence of each selection according to five categories: "1) I am very certain that this fs the correct location 2) I have a large amount of confidence that this is the correct location 3) I have a moderate amount of. confidence that this is the correct “Location 4) I have a small amount of confidence that this is the correct location 5) <A possible site, but I have practically no confidence in its being the correct location." Targets. Twenty architectural sites in and around downtown Denver were selected. The experimenters selected these sites on the basis of architectural uniqueness, visual distinctiveness, and being within an Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2G1IA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : ic ad laa aaaaaaal easy 20-minute walk from the subjects’ location. The nine target sites were: (1) a Catholic church interior, (2) a downtown college campus library interior, (3) the interior of a large self~ service Liquor store, (4) a low income multiunit federal housing project, (5) a street of remodeled historical houses, (6) a walkway in a redeveloped commercial downtown area (Larimer Square), (7) an outdoor amphitheater (Greek theater rotunda), (8) a small outdoor park area containing water fountains and waterfalls (Skyline Park), and (9) the front entrance to -the State Capitol Building. The nine "noise" sites included three distinctly different college classrooms (a lecture hall, an experimental psychology laboratory, and a typing/business machine laboratory), a restaurant interior, a college bookstore interior, three distinctly different pedestrain malls, and an indoor swimming pool. The two control condition sites (to which target persons were sent, but photographs of which did not appear in the subjects' booklets) were (1) the front entrance to a large auditorium (Currigan Hall) and a heliopad at the rear of Currigan Hall. The basis of assignment of each of these 20 sites to one of the stimulus groups is given by the authors as "architecturally different and visually distinctive." The targets were chosen on this basis, the "noise" and contrel group sites were the remaining sites after the targets were selected, Procedure. The sequence of the 11 target sites (9 experimental group targets and 2. control group sites) was determined by a table of random numbers. Subjects were assigned to these conditions on the basis of their appearance for the various sessions of the experiment. Ninety subjects Approved For Release 2000/08/102€1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Lior,
en Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 served in the experimental group (10 subjects per target) and 25 subjects served for the two control group targets. Subjects, upon reporting for the experiment, were read a typed set of introductory explanations and instructions, which were identical for all 115 subjects. The nonuniqueness of the remote viewing ability was stressed to permit subjects to feel "safe to explore the possibility of paranormal perception. Subjects were told that the- target person would be sent to a site within a 20-minute walk and remain at the site for 10 minutes. During the time the target person was at the site, they "should concentrate on communicating ... . by trying to receive impressions of the physical surroundings of the [target person]." Subjects were asked to observe confidentiality about the experiment and not to discuss it with others. The target person was dispatched alone and was instructed to view the site from the four camera positions during the 10-minute period, trying "to communicate his/her, impressions of the site in ESP fashion ...." The target person returned the envelope to the author's office upon returning. Subjects were "told that 'remote viewing’ skill probably varies among individuals as does any other human skill and, if they received no impressions of the [target person's] location, they should guess at least one target site and rate the confidence of their guess(es)." Subjects were individually isolated in offices, were toid to familiarize themselves with the 18 target sites, were informed when the 10-minute "sending" period began and ended, and were instructed to put all materials aside and to concentrate on receiving impressions of the target person's -location during the "sending" period. Approved For Release 2000/08/1021 CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 aeener
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ps ig eiacadnaemiaae Data Analyeis. Analysis of data was based on t-tests of proportions of responses falling in various categories. Resulte. Table 15 indicates the responses of the 90 experimental group Subjects. Note that these 90 subjects made a total of 409 selection résponses, of which 24 were "hits" and 385 were "false alarms." The 1211 no selection responses are broken down into 66 "misses" (no response to the correct target) and 1145 "correct rejections" (no response to a nontarget). ‘The associated probabilities aye also tabled. The proportion of correct selections is 24/409 = .0587. “Chance is 1/18 = 0555. “The control group data provide a basis for estimating if this a prtort chance value of .0555 is valid. The 25 control group subjects made a total of 160 selections, 85 (53%) to the 9 target sites and 75 (47%) to the 9 "noise" sites. The difference was not significant, ¢ = 1.22, p > .10. Thus, the a prtort chance probability of .0555 is retained as the null hypothesis value. A binomial test comparing the obtained .0587 with .0555 yields a p-value of .395, as reported by the authors. [We calculate .34 by the exact binomial, and .43 by the Z approximation for large NW; in either case, the difference is not significant.] Thus, there is no evidence for a group averaged remote viewing capability. Using signal detection theory, the authors calculate d' to be 0.033, which indicates a very weak remote viewing signal strength. However, to attach meaning to this measure, the proportions of hits (.2667) and false alarms (.2516) should be significantly different, and they were not (i = .35, p > .10). The mean confidence rating for correct selections was 3.208, while the mean confidence rating for incorrect selections (misses) was 3.297. The Approved For Release 2000/08/10 25GIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 aes a
7 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 “SEGRE TABLE 15. KARNES AND SUSMAN (1978) RESULTS FROM EXPERIMENTAL GROUP RESPONSE z SELECTION NO SELECTION TARGET ' STIMULUS FALSE ALARMS = 385 CORRECT REJECTIONS = 1145 NOISE ; 385 _ _ 1145 409 ; 1211 ; 1620 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 218I|A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : edge 8 RODOTOOROOOOS difference, while in the logical direction, was not significant (t = -0.35, p > .30). Receivers (24) who obtained hits rated these hits with a mean confidence of 3.208. The same receivers rated their false alarms 3.607. The difference, while again in the logical direction, was not significant (¢ = -1.38, p > .10). Confidence ratings attached to selections (guesses). of the nine target sites were compared to confidence ratings for the nine "noise" sites. The mean for the target sites was 3.44, and the mean for the "noise" sites was 3.60. The difference was not significant (¢ = 0.61, p > .10), but the direction of the difference suggests greater confidence for target sites. Conelusions. While none of the statistical analyses provided clear support for the existence of a remote viewing ability, all the differences in means were in the direction predicted by the existence of remote viewing. Critical Evaluation. This experiment is of particular interest because the authors have attempted to apply rigorous scientific method to the problem area. Controls were attempted for (1) response bias and (2) response criterion lack of definition, by use of a forced multiple choice procedure. The results clearly do not support a remote viewing hypothesis; nontheless, several of the statistical measures are in the "right" direction for RV support, although not nearly statistically significant. This paper has been submitted to at least one refereed journal for publication consideration and was rejected as being inappropriate in content. Apparently, it has also been circulated informally among other investigators because Puthoff and Targ at SRI received a copy and wrote to Karnes and Susman with a critical evaluation of the research. Puthoff was kind enough to provide us. with a copy of his letter, some of the elements of which are Approved For Release 2000/08/10 21A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ulin
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 SGREPS6-00787R000100260003-2 contained in the following evaluation (and referenced accordingly). First, the targets were apparently selected on the basis of their distinctiveness, thus following accepted guidelines of other investigators. The sequence of target selection ("random") is not well described, nor is the person doing the selection. Since clairvoyance on the part of the experimenters must always be admitted as a possibility, the use of a "blind" third person for target selection would be desirable. Second, 25 subjects served in the two control group sessions. While a minor point, why an odd number? How were they split between the two groups? Details are Lacking here. Third, subjects viewed the 18 target photo sets before their efforts at remote viewing and selected their responses subsequently to each potential target. Puthoff, in his letter to the authors, suggest that this very procedure virtually precludes success. He states that the most fundamental finding of the SRI work is that "analytical functioning is inimical to paranormal perception; therefore, paranormal perception will tend toward null in direct proportion to analytical knowledge about target possibilities." That is, knowledge of the target population essentially blocked success because analytical functioning was included in the protocol. Puthoff feels that the Karnes and Susman protocol "tn prinetple could not speak to the remote viewing phenomenon as we [Puthoff and Targ] understand it, since it did not duplicate the most important requirement: free response to unknown targets as opposed to forced-choice response to known targets." While Puthoff indicates analytical function to be detrimental to paranormal performance, he has also landed subjects who, for example, define by name their. targets (e.g., Hoover Tower). This allegation is somewhat Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2%41A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ——
- Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CRE ERERSS -00787R000100260003-2 inconsistent. Clearly, if a subject offers a specific response (E.8+5 Hoover Tower) he is either right. or wrong. Inappropriate response interpretation by a practiced judge is thus precluded! This is an extremely important point. If RV takes place best (only?) under free~response conditions, then’ a conservative scientific method approach with no opportunity for response criterion errors seems incompatible. Stated another way, response interpretation and evaluation by some judges will likely be necessary and objective evaluatton of responses seems tmpossible. While Puthoff£ and Targ have certainly attempted to devise methodologies which circumvent this constraint, their methodologies thus remain foreign and unacceptable to a segment of the scientific community for this reason, | Fourth, Puthofé suggests that a MpLind" judge is best, and that the subject himself is the worst judge. The experimenter is also considered to be a poor judge. Yet, Bisaha and Dunne (1977a) found excellent, long distance results using both target person and subject as judges. This contention is clearly not supported by other investigators, and may not be a valid criticism of the Karnes and Susman paper. Fifth, the subjects in the Karnes and Susman experiment received no feedback regarding their response accuracy. Puthoff feels feedback is critical to paranormal functioning. However, if a subject makes only one response (participates in only one experiment) then the feedback appears quite irrelevant as it cannot change the already completed response and no future responses will be made. In addition, Puthoff and Targ have often stated that paranormal ability is likely to be at its greatest strength on the first trial with a given subject and decline thereafter. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ?<2IA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Cee &. 0978 7RO00100260008-2 Sixth, Puthoff claims multiple (simul taneous) subject experiments do not work well. Yet other experimenters have obtained successful results with simultaneous subjects (e.g., Hastings and Hurt, 1976; Vallee, Hastings, and Askevold, 1976; Whitson, Bogart, Palmer, and Tart, 1976). In fact, taken together, there appear to be more "positive" cases of paranormal functioning with multiple subjects than there are "negative" cases, Seventh, the control condition for response bias consisted of sending the target person to a place not, on the 18-target list. To the extent that the target person's.actual location has some elements in common with a real target, that real target may be selected by the forced choice procedure. As Puthoff very cogently points out, this is not a true control condition but "rather a measure of the correlation between the target sites actually visited in the control condition and the sites to be visited in the experimental condition." Unfortunately, the outbound experimenter cannot be sent "nowhere". Summary. This experiment clearly produced statistically nonsignificant results, although several of the comparisons were in the "right" direction. The experiment is the closest (of which we are aware) to classical behavioral science methodology and control. Yet, it has been validly criticized as violating some of the currently accepted. principles of RV functioning held dear by currently successful investigators. It appears to be an interesting step in the direction of rigorous scientific methodology. Such approaches are warranted and needed; yet they should not be taken as a refutation of results obtained by less conventional investigators active in the area. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2231A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SPAR
Approved For Release rane ee DO7BTROOOTO0280008-2 H. Rauscher, E. A., Weissmann, G., Sarfatti, J., and Sirag, 5.~P. Remote perception of natural scenes, shielded against ordinary perception. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1976, pp. 41-45. Purpose. The authors! stated purposes were (1) to confirm the existence of paranormal perception in the description of remote natural scenes shielded against ordinary perception, and (2) to replicate recent experiments of Puthoff and Targ. a | ELapertmental, Destgn. One subject viewed eight different targets, one per day, over a period of two weeks. Subject. The subject was a female music student at the University of California, Berkeley, "who had no particular interest in ESP, although she was open-minded and curious." She was not paid for her participation. Expertmenter. G, Weissman monitored the subject. Target Person. J. Sarfatti selected and visited the targets. Judges. Five judges were selected by either Rauscher or Sirag. No mention is made of characteristics of the judges. Equipment. A tape recorder recorded all the subject's verbal descriptions. She also made sketches. Targets. Ten natural target locations in the San Francisco Bay area were selected by Sarfatti. Each was chosen -to be distinct in appearance and at least 300 meters from all other targets. Each target was described by a single phrase, assigned a number. between 0 and 9, and this target list was kept by Sarfatti. Discussion of the list with anyone was strictly forbidden. Neither the subject nor the experimenter had any knowledge of Approved For Release 2000/08/1022€1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 St
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 BbegP96-00787R000100260003-2 the target pool, or even in which city they were located. Procedure, The target person, experimenter, and subject met at a "test location" one hour before the experiment, The target person and. subject were in eye contact for 10 minutes, to establish a feeling of Yapport. The experimenter monitored the conversation to be sure that no site information was divulged to the subject. After 10 minutes, the target person left the test location alone, got into his car, and randomly selected a site number by putting a "random" ten-digit number in an HP=35 calculator, pressing the square root key | twice, and reading the resulting third digit from the left. Targets were used without replacement; hence, this process was repeated if it resulted in a target which had been previously selected, The target person then drove to the target location, and spent 40 minutes within 5 meters of the target vantage point, concentrating on the surroundings. "This involved seeing and attempting to get a feel for the gestalt of the target location." Driving time to the target is not stated, nor is the timing for the subject to respond to the target. The experimenter gave the subject encouragement by asking questions about impressions the subject might be receiving about the location of the _target person. After 40 minutes, the viewing session was ended by the target person telephoning the experimenter to divulge the target location, and to permit feedback to the subject by having the subject go to the site. This feedback was delayed for the first two sessions. (Length of delay and reason for delay were not stated.) Each of the five judges received transcripts of the tapes, the subject's drawings, the target persons list of target sites, a map, and a set of Approved For Release 2000/08/10’ CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 —QEARE
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 aGPRREF96-00787R000100260003-2 Polaroid photographs of the target sites. The photographs were made by either Rauscher or Sirag, who were unaware of the correct target-session matchings. Judges matched the transcripts with the target locations (presumably using the photographs, not by visiting the sites, although neither is specifically stated). For each target site, they recorded a first, second, and third choice of transcript, and also gave a percentage weight to. each choice to indicate the likelihood of its being a first choice. Judges were instructed "to rate each transcript-site correlation independently of the other sites. ‘Thus the same transcript selected as first choice for one site could also be first choice for any other site." Judges were instructed “not to interact with one another, with the subject, with the target. person, or with the experimenter. Data ‘Analysis. Values were assigned to target choices on a 3, 2, 1 (first, second, third choice) basis. The five judges' choices were pooled for each session. "If the correct target was among the top four targets chosen by. the pooled judges, this was counted as a hit with a chance probability of one-half." : Regults. There were four hits: sessions 3, 4, 6, and 7. "This was clearly not a significant result. We ignored the weightings assigned by the judges as they did not seem to change our analysis significantly." In spite of the lack of significance, the authors believed that “only a high degree of coincidence could account for some of the correlations between the actual target and the subject's descriptions." Specifically, the first target closely resembled the second session response, and the second target "secmed to be related to" the third session response. Note Approved For Release 2000/08/10 284A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 | SEohee
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 Oc SRAREPPCS -00787R000100260003-2 that: no. feedback occurred after the first session. Her street address -knowledge of the first target was in fact erroneous in nature. She was also not taken to the second target site until after the third session. Conelustons. Authors were impressed by subjective similarities between targets and responses, although results were not statistically significant. They believe the design could be improved by the following: (1) Immediate feedback, and sessions spaced not more than a day apart, to facilitate learning and avoid. target "flashbacks." | (2) Selection of targets which are as peculiar and different as possible. (3) Encouraging subject to give just "primary impressions" and avoid trying to recognize exact target. (4) Note "frame of mind or mood" of the subject and correlate that with performance. | (5) More elaborate techniques for putting the subject at ease, including sensory deprivation. (6) Variation in the experiment, such as a precognition paradigm or using simple objects or pictures. Critical Evaluation. This experiment was poorly conducted in many respects, and thereby presented several "opportunities" to obtain negative results. While this was the first attempt at remote viewing research by the authors, it nevertheless exhibits several sources of behavioral science naive methodology. The use of a single, inexperienced subject was an initial risk. ' Although some authors claim that all people have some paranormal ability, this particular subject had not previously demonstrated such ability, nor did she necessarily believe she had the ability. Approved For Release 2000/08/10 -38TA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 © Saigpiaastagm?e-00787RO00700260003-2 While careful target population control was observed, the statistical techniques could: have been better. First, the judges should have vistted the targete rather than view the photographs. Polaroid pictures are hardly wide-angle photographs, and more information might have led to better selection. Indeed, the sample responses so suggest. Second, ranking only three choices is not consonant with the Morris (1972) procedure used by Putho£f and Targ. Forced ranking of all target responses could lead to a different conclusion if the results were "close." Last, the inconsistent use of feedback, comments on "frame of mind", desire to use sensory deprivation, and the like sound like amateur armchair psychology. of the "what if?" variety. The authors might benefit substantially from the advice of someone more deeply trained in behavioral research methodology. Summary « This experiment is not of particular importance due to its several methodological flaws. Its results are neither conclusive nor a critical test of the paranormal phenomenon. I. Solfvin, G., Roll, W. G., and Krieger, J. Meditation and ESP: Remote viewing. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1977. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1978, pp. 151-157. Purpose. This experiment was done in the context of a series of experiments exploring meditation and ESP in group situations. The purposes of this particular experiment were to (1) explore the "Liking-disliking" aspects of the psi production and (2) make the psi process exciting for this secondary school junior-sentor age group to maximize the possibility | Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CiA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 Sarit ame
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Cla.RB96-00787R000100260003-2 of positive results. Accordingly, as remote viewing situation was chosen in which one of the students would leave the classroom to visit a randomly selected location in Durham, N.C., while his classmates meditated. Experimental Destgn. The class was instructed in Eno meditation by W. G. Roll for two class sessions. Then several personality tests were administered, among them a scale measuring their like-dislike for other students in the class. Then, for six apparently successive class days, one student went with G. Solfvin to a randomly selected target. The remaining students (subjects) meditated and attempted to select the correct target from a set of four. Subjects. The subjects were 11 males and 5 females in a junior-senior class at Durham Academy, a private school in Durham, N.C. The experimenters indicate the students to be highly interested and motivated throughout the experiment. Experimenter. Apparently the experimenter remaining with the subjects was W. G. Roll. | | Target Persons. Each day a student was randomly selected from the class to accompany G. Solfvin to the target. The student target person was known to the subjects and was instructed what he/she might do at the target location. Judges. ‘No judges were needed as the subjects voted on the target. Equtpment. Nothing of note. Targets. Twenty-eight targets were selected and photographed prior to the beginning of the class. Seven pools were formed, each containing four dissimilar locations. None of the targets is listed, named, or described in the paper. Procedure. Each experimental session lasted about one hour. The Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : 2PA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 ed
Approved For Release 2000/08/10  bebipaiae> 6-00787R000100260003-2 wee! student target. person was randomly (procedure not specified) selected and left the room with Solfvin. The subjects "would meditate for about 20 minutes and then attempt to experience what the target person was experiencing for another 5 minutes." ‘Each subject then completed a questionnaire dealing with the quality of his/her meditation and indicated how emotionally close or friendly he/she felt (on a # to 9 scale) about that day's target person. They were then shown photos and instruction sheets of the four possible target locations, in random order, and asked to rank them “according to their own impressions of where" the target person visited. The instruction sheets gave the target person the name and address of the target location, directions to drive there from the school, and what to do at the target. The instructions and target photos were in identical envelopes. The target person selected one of the four randomly after arriving at the car. Solfvin and the target person did not return to the classroom until the subjects had turned: in their responses. No mention is made of daily or other feedback to the subjects, although it is reasonable to assume that daily feedback may have occurred. It would be unreasonable to assume that the target person would not tell his class- mates of the target location. Data Analysis. A majority vote was used to determine the group response. The mode was used to break target ties based upon the mean vote. Subgroups of the subjects were formed based upon how they rated the target person (liked, disliked) and how the target person ranked them (liked by, moderate, disliked by). "For the former we calculated the median rating from all the [subjects] for all six days. This was used as a cut-off point to assign the [subjects] to the 'liking' or 'disliking' subgroups. We then Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ?G1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 SAR ee.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 " Gabaiieps®-00787R000100260008-2 applied the majority vote procedure ae to the target responses of these subgroups." "From the [target person] ranking of his 15 classmates we categorized “ranks 1 to 5 as ‘liked by [target person],' ranks 6 to 10 as 'moderate' and ranks 11 to 15 as 'disliked ....' The majority vote procedure was also applied to target responses of each of these subgroups for each day." The sum-of-ranks statistic for preferentially ranked data, developed by Solfvin and Kelly, was applied to examine for individuals achteving significant responses. No reference is given for this test. Results. "No significant psi scoring was evident in the group majority vote rankings. This was also true.of the majority vote rankings of the various subgroupings--liked [target person], disliked [target person], liked by [target person], moderate, disliked by [target person]. The target rankings of these subgroupings did not differ significantly for one another nor from the rankings of the entire group." "None of the [subjects] showed significant psi scoring, although several of them showed tendencies towards psi-hitting ...." Conelustons. The authors plan to use the like-~dislike concept in future: psi research, feeling that the résults are suggestive and warrant future evaluation. They recognize no group remote viewing positive results were demonstrated in this experiment. ; Critical Evaluation. Clearly, no positive remote viewing was demonstrated. Possible reasons are the following. (1) Inadequate assurances were given to the subjects to encourage a remote viewing experience. (2) The use of a forced-choice response may block the remote viewing Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2301A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2 See
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : GEARS -00787R000100260003-2 be shown. In addition, a subject should not be told what kinds of elements or aspects are to be used in their description of the target, but rather to describe the perception of the target as accurately as possible. Lf an experimenter is present during the actual transcription, a pre-set list of innocuous questions might be used. These should be used only. if the subject seems to be totally unable to continue describing any aspect of the target. fi. Target Persons If one or more target, persons are used, the number of these should be specified in advance and then remain constant. It is understandable that they must be known to the subject. However, this does not mean that they must be present at the site from which the viewing takes place. Since the subject does not "track" the target person prior to the start of the: experiment, every effort should be made to keep the subject and target person at a maximimal physical distance before, during, and after an experiment. This is easily accomplished if the targets are located at a physical distance, such as in another city. The target person should receive the target from a person totally unconnected. with the experiment and unfamiliar to the experimenter. This person would not know the contents of the target pool and would select, on a predefined random basis, one envelope from the target pool. This person would relay the target envelope to the target person at a predesig- nated location distant from the location of the target pool and the target. An experiment would begin at a predesignated hour on predesignated days, the number of which would also be preset, for both individual subjects as well as for the total experiment. Approved For Release 2000/08/10~° -RDP96-00787R000100260003-2