Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE
13. SET A VS.
SET
B RANKINGS FROM BISAHA AND DUNNE
(1977)
RANKS ASSIGNED
TRANSCRIPT OF
JUDGE
JUDGE
Plaza del Lago
Wrigley Field
Techny Mission
L indhe imer Ob s
.
Madonna del Strada
NWRR Station
Grant Park Bandshell
Sum of Ranks
Associated p-value
<
.001
<
.005
191
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
jrnnnr
Experiment Two
Experimental Design.
Five
trials were conducted,
over
a five-day
consecutive period, with
the subject in the midwestern U.S.
and
the
target
person
in Eastern Europe.
Subject responded between 8:30 and
8:45 AM
(CDT)
,
while target person was
at target location between 3:00 and 3:15 PM
(local
time)
23-1/2
to
24-1/2 hours latet.
Distances were 5087
to 5284 miles.
Subject.
No description or mention is made of subject,
selection
procedure,
or
l)is/her experience.
Experimenter.
No mention
is made
of any experimenter located with
the
subject.
Presumably the
timing and protocol were previously established,
requiring no experimenter
to be present during
the
trials.
Target Person.
Probably this
is
the senior author,
although such was
not
stated explicitly.
Judges.
The subject,
the
target person,
and
a third person, who had
no connection with
the experiment,
served as judges.
hquipmenb.
A tape recorder was used
to record subject's
target
descriptions.
No other equipment or subject location
is mentioned.
Targets.
Five locations where
the
target person happened
to be at
the predetermined
times served as
targets.
No mention
is made
of how such
locations were chosen.
Procedure.
At
the preset
times
the subject described
the
target person's
location,
23-1/2
to
24-1/2 hours
in advance.
Descriptions were tape recorded
and subsequently transcribed.
Ihe
target person concentrated on his
surroundings,
took a photograph,
and wrote brief
target descriptions during
the preset
time periods.
Upon
his return,
target person presented
the five photographs and brief descriptions
192
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
uwmfP
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
in random order
to
the subject
for matching.
Subject gave
the
target person
copies of
the transcribed descriptions,
also
in random order,
for target
person
to blind match against
the targets.
Also,
a
(third)
judge blind
ranked the photographs
against
the subjects'
descriptions.
Results.
Following Morris'
(1972) procedure
(Appendix A),
the
results
are shown
in Table
14.
All
three sets
of
ranks produced
a result beyond
chance significance.
Transcript excerpts from the Danube River and Exhibition
of Economic Achievement
targets
' show meaningful commonality between descriptions
and targets.
Conclusions
.
Distance and time appear
to pose no barrier
to
the effective-
ness
of
the RV channel.
Critical Evaluation.
The methodology can be easily criticized on several
mechanical issues.
First,
the pairings
of subjects were odd
in Experiment
One:
and
S
served
three
times
each,
always paired
together;
served
three
times,
paired twice with
S
?
;
S
? served
twice;
and
Sg
,
Sg
,
and
s
served once each.
This does not appear logical by any system of a priori
planning.
If experience
in this
type of task
is pertinent
to performance,
then confounding
surely has occurred
.
Secondly,
some subjects were watched during the
trials, while others
were not.
No mention is made of how,
by whom, why not all,
etc.
This
inconsistency also contaminates
the results
.
Third ,
judges were presumably naive.
Instructions
to judges are not
given.
Fourth,
inconsistent locations
of
the subjects further confound
the
results.
Are some locations better than others?
Did subjects communicate
telepathically between themselves?
Did they do
so only at given distances?
Approved For Release 2000/08/1^? CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
f»rnnrr_
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CI4fiBjHHr00787R0001 00260003-2
^jCOTICF
In certain locations?
The fact
that
the. results are significant
statistically
and
the assertion by
the authors
that
"the reports
of
the subjects
in each
pair differed enough
to make
it obvious
that
.
.
.
the perceptions reflected
individual differences" do not rule out
such intersubject communication.
If
such communication existed,
it was possibly inconsistent across subject
pairs due
to
the various
circumstances
of
the
trials.
Fifth, were
the
targets really located randomly
in the Chicago area?
If
the
target person drove continuously for 20 minutes with no particular
direction,
opened
the envelope,
and then had only
15 minutes
to get
to
the
target,
the radial distance from the starting point had
to be somewhat
constrained due
to Chicago size and
traffic density.
These constraints are
not mentioned.
While
the Experiment One excerpts appear very accurate,
the judges'
responses are not
that impressive for
the targets for which excerpts
are
printed
(means
of
3 and 1.75,
respectively),
not
as
good,
on the average,
as
that
for all targets combined
(mean rank
=>
2.07).
Thus,
one must
conclude
that
(1)
all transcripts had elements pertinent
to
these targets,
or
(2)
the judges were not particularly accurate in the use
of specific transcript
information.
Since
the judges behaved well above chance,
(2)
is illogical
and one must admit
that transcript element commonality
(1)
is
a distinct
possibility.
(This will be discussed
in Section III
as part
of
the response
criterion problem.)
An interesting question is whether the mean rankings,
by
target,
for
Sets A and
B are correlated with the mean agreement rankings, by target,
as given in Table
12'.
If
a positive correlation exists,
one might logically
conclude
that
targets which lead
to better remote viewing
(Table
12)
can
also be judged more reliably
(Table
13.
A product-moment correlation
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ©IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CKflaDRQfiJ00787R0001 00260003-2
HTCOTilT^
between the mean ranks,
by
target,
in Tables
12 and
13 was calculated;
its
value
is
-
.51
(p
>
.05).
While not statistically significant,
the negative
correlation casts some doubt as
to
the logical and consistent
intertarget
differences
.
The methodology in Experiment Two
is very poorly described
or controlled.
No mention
is made of
the following:
(1)
Who was
the subject,
his/her experience,
how chosen,
etc.?
(2)
Where was
the subject during each
trial, with whom,
etc.?
Why was only one subject
used?
(3)
Who was
the
target person?
Did
the subject
or anyone else
know anything
of his
itinerary?
Did
the subject know anything about his
particular tourism interests?
(4)
Use
of target person and subject as judges
is unusual.
Why
not employ more than one
"naive" judge?
This second experiment
is much
too loosely reported.
owimary.
While
the
results
of both
these experiments
are impressive
and statistically significant,
the methodology has
several shortcomings,
at
least
as reported.
More detailed reporting of procedural steps,
subject
assignments and selections,
and the like would produce greater confidence
on the part of
the reader.
In their introduction,
the authors
state
that
"over twenty laboratory
experiments have been conducted
in our lab with more than ten subjects
involving
the precognitive protocol" and
that positive results have been
obtained
for each subject.
This paper describes
trials,
using eight
subjects.
The next reported experiment
(Bisalia and Dunne,
1977b)
used
eight
trials and
two subjects.
These
sum to exactly
twenty
trials
and
ten
subjects,
assuming
the subjects are all different, which cannot be determined
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :i$HA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2