Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100130001-8
The subject described
the above material essentially without
feedback or
radio
contact.
As
a single narrative,
he
told of
first
seeing blackness
which he identified
as
an asphalt parking
lot behind
the experimenter,
and
told
that
there was
a blue building nearby.
When
this was
confirmed,
the
subject went
on
to describe
a white footpath
through grass
and
entry
into
a depressed area.
The subject
then asked
if
the area was
a
fountain,
which was
confirmed.
This latter performance
is
indicative
of
the most
successful perceptions
that we have
seen from
this
subject.
We stress again
that
this particular series,
involving
as
it
does mid-experiment questioning and feedback,
is
to be considered
a
training series
to provide subject
and experimenter alike means whereby
various aspects
of
the phenomena may be examined in detail.
Never theless
,
sufficient descriptive elements were given before feedback to indicate
unambiguously
a functioning ability.
For a summary
of pre-feedback
identifications,
see Table
1.
Since these experiments were carried out
with monitoring of physiological correlates,
it was established
that
such monitoring
is not intrusive.
Real-time observation of
the remote site under conditions
of
real-time subject interrogation leads
to
the following best-effort
qualitative interpretation:
Remote viewing generally does not provide
^ lnte S rated visual impression of an entire scene
in
the sense
of direct "
*
visual observation.
Rather,
the subject provides an overall impressionistic
Gestalt
together with individual salient elements,
a response similar
to
ained under conditions of
tachistoscopic viewing.
Remote viewing
however,
generally
(for experienced subjects)
at
a level sufficient
Permit discrimination among known alternatives
on
the part
of
an
analyst.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-ftDP96-00787R000100130001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100130001-8
TABLE
SUMMARY OF REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS
WITH MID-EXPERIMENT QUESTIONING AND FEEDBACK
Target Location
1.
Embankment with bridge and stream
2.
Iridescent purple flower bed
surrounded by bright green
hedge
3.
foot
tall cylindrical wooden
kiosk with
a brown metal roof
4.
Zigzag water channel with
ccncri
sides
5.
Large oak
tree next
to brick
enclosure
6.
100
foot wooden radar
tower
7.
Blue building and circular
fountain
Subject Description Before
Any Feedback Given
Hill with vegetation at
top only
Iridescent blues
and greens,
like
feathers
Grey tower with
a brown
roof
Strong
zigzag shape
Large chestnut
tree
and non-
functional brick wall.
Stone wall
taller
than experimenter
Blue building and circular fountain
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP98-00787R000100130001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100130001-8
(b)
Variable Feedback Study
In
this
second series
of eight experiments,
the variable manip-
ulated was
the
type
of
feedback
that was given
to
the subject.
The
feedback covered
the range
(a)
immediate feedback via walkie-talkie
as
before,
(b)
subject
taken
to
the remote site after
the experiment,
(c)
no
feedback given whatsoever.
In
this
latter case
the subject was not
even
told whether or not she was
correct.
One aspect
of
the examination of
the effect
of
feedback was
to
test
a hypothesis
proposed by Dr.
Gerald Feinberg who had witnessed some
of
our early remote viewing experiments. A paper
of his
entitled,
"Precognition-
Remembrance of Things Future",
is
included
as Appendix
A.
His
theory,
briefly stated,
proposed
that since
the subject eventually
gets
to
perceive directly
the target location with
this
normal senses,
he might
in principle gain access
to
that information by reading hi3
own mind
precognitively
.
The physical basis
for
this would be
the electromagnetic
advanced potential wave carrying his
future memory backward
in
time,
thus
allowing
it
to be "remembered" before
it
took place.
Although
this
summary does not
do justice
to
the
theory,
it
is
clear
that
the way
to
test such
a theory
is
to withhold data entirely from the subject
as
to
the nature of
the
target
location.
With
the
two goals
of
testing the Feinberg hypothesis
and measuring
the overall effects
of
feedback,
we arranged
that walkie-talkie feedback,
delayed
(post-experiment)
feedback and no— feedback experiments were
ran-
domly intermixed.
The protocol
for ail experiments
involved
one
of
the
experimenters
leaving
the subject with
the other
experimenter
in
the
SRI laboratory.
The
traveling experimenter would be allowed fifteen
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP9fe-00787R000100130001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100130001-8
minutes
to arrive at his
target
location.
He would
then
pay close attention
to his surroundings
for ten minutes,
after which he would return
to
SRI.
In
the first
five experiments,
H.P.
was
the outbound experimenter,
in
the
last
three experiments
the experimenter
roles were reversed with
R.T.
as
the outbound experimenter.
The entire set
of experiments were carried
out with Subject
S-4.
1)
The formal courtyard
of SRI's
International Building,
about
x
meters surrounded
on four
sides by two-story concrete buildings,
served
as
the
first
target.
In
the center of
the courtyard
is
a presently inactive
fountain and small
trees planted
in rows.
During
the experiment,
the
outbound
experimenter
(H.P.)
stood
in that fountain.
There was
no mid-
test
feedback,
only post-experiment
feedback.
The main descriptive elements
of
the subject pertained
to
a formal
garden with
a little dry fountain in
the middle.
Other elements
that
the subject described were
a wrought iron fence,
a trough leading
to
the
fountain,
and
the experimenter climbing steps.
In addition
to
the above
correct descriptions,
the subject
also described
a blue sign and
railroad
tracks behind
a fence.
These latter elements
are not present
at
the site.
The
formal garden ambience
is
clearly
a correct gestalt
of
the place
and would allow for easy discrimination from
the other
target
locations
that
follow.
Except
for
the
two incorrect data noted above,
the
rest
of
the description was basically coherent
and accurate.
2)
The
target
location was
a 30-foot
long
trailer used by
SRI
to
house
its mobile radio transmitter.
Puthoff walked
back and
forth
outside
this
stainless
steel
trailer, for
the
ten minutes
of
the experiment.
In
our estimation
the subject gave
a nondefinitive set
of
impressions
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RD^96-00787R000100130001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000100130001-8
which were
too general
to be considered
as
specifically related
to
the
designated
target.
No feedback was given either during our
following
the experiment.
3)
A bicycle shed behind
SRI's building
30,
brightly
lit by sun
shining on translucent white plastic walls,
comprised
the
third
target.
The outbound experimenter
(H.P.)
sat
on a bicycle.
The subject’s main description detailed how brilliantly
the place
was
lit with no shade.
The descriptions which followed dealt with con-
verging metal spokes.
Her impression was
that
the metal spokes divided
the space
of
a circular area rimmed by some other material.
She submitted
a drawing showing
a stick figure representing
the experimenter
(H.P.)
standing
on one of
the spokes
of an eight spoked wheel,
about
a man's
height
in diameter.
Since
the
content
of her
ten minute description dealt
with
the elements brightness and metal spokes,
the inaccuracy
is
to be
found
in the scale of
the description,
and
of course her omission
of
the
fact
that
the spoked wheel belonged
to
a bicycle.
As
in
the previous
experiment,
no feedback was provided
to
the subject
either during
or
following
the experiment.
4)
The fourth
target was
a wooden bulletin board kiosk,
used
earlier
as
a
target,
about half
a mile from
SRI.
It
Is
a cylinder about
fifteen
feet high with
a conical roof having
a three foot overhang.
Mid-test
communication via walkie-talkie permitted questions
to be asked by
the
remote experimenter,
and post-experiment feedback was
also given.
As
in experiment
two,
nothing
in the subject's description would
allow one
to identify
the
target.
Feelings
of anxiety were expressed
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-F£)P96-00787R000100130001-8