Introduction It is often hard to tell the fanaticism of the true believer from the paranoia of the serious experimenter, as each side feeds upon the other’s obstinate insistence. No researcher on psychic abilities can expect to be free of this situation, and certainly the authors of the present book were not immune to misrepresentations by both the credulous and the stubbomly unconvinced. The SRI research not only displays the elegance characteristic of physical experimentation and theory, but the experimenters have also used an imaginative approach to the human aspects of their problem. Where too many experimenters have put their “subjects” through long, dull, repetitive performances—during which whatever psychic capacities they had first displayed eventually deteriorated— Targ and Puthoff have realized that boring experiments are un- productive for learners, and resented by sensitives with developed psychic powers. Furthermore, where much of existing research has treated the human participants as either “subjects” (usually thought of as human substitutes for rats persuaded to run a maze) or im- postors or self-deluded oddities, Targ and Puthoff have treated both their apprentice learners and experienced sensitives as collaborators and persons whose views were to be respected. It is unique here that the subjects were considered as partners in research. And Puthoff and Targ have been richly rewarded and have gained new insights into the complicated and delicate processes involved in “remote viewing.” In addition to the “remote viewing,” in which the participants "were most successful in picturing by drawing rather than by verbally describing and interpreting the nature of the “target” areas, the authors present a few cases of precognition—correct viewing of the target area before it is known to the observer who is later to be directed there by randomly chosen instructions. These are the cases which raise the most interesting questions both for the contempo- tary state of theory in physics, and for the way in which precognition may be expected to function in everyday life. If there is precognition of a future event, such as a train wreck, can death in the wreck be avoided by not taking the train, even though the wreck stilk accurs? Stated succinctly, does precognition add up to greater freedqm of the will, or to a new prescription for despair? There seems little Approved For Release 2003/09/1 xX Introduction treason to believe that human beings could live with the certain knowledge of disasters which they would have no power to prevent. . This issue is not yet faced by the experimenters, but will, I under- stand, be on their future agenda. A second issue, which will undoubtedly be picked up by the sensa- tionalist press, and which flows from the accounts of Soviet interest in mind influencing from a distance, is the prevalence of fantasies surrounding spying and being spied upon. “Could the enemy read the President’s mind?” as one newspaper account put it. But such fantasies of omnipotence or total vulnerability to inimical forces have been continuously fed and exaggerated for over a quarter century by the science fiction in which many dilemmas are solved not by science, but by ESP. These fictions represent easy solutions, most likely unreal and certainly regressive and unchallenging in -.. Tature. Thirdly, these experiments are concerned with the ability of par- ticipants to penetrate shielding when both participants are willing to do so. But it may prove quite possible that this channel could be as successfully blocked as it can be successfully opened. Experiments which demonstrate that. there is a counterpart to the cooperation: between the observer at the target and the observer in the shielded laboratory, in which a trained observer at the target blocks the channel, would go a long way to avert all the suggestions that one’s mind can be “read,” creating the strange paranoia that, in this ‘postwar world of nuclear threat, is inevitably exacerbated in the minds of the public, in the press, and even by fellow scientists. Finally, I think it is important to realize that if a certain psi phe- nomenon can be studied by scientific methods and one or more of _ its mechanisms involved can be related to existing scientific theory, ’ this does not necessarily lead to a reductionist demolition of the _ essence of the phenomenon. Explaining the behavior of great artists -in terms of childhood trauma, order of birth, or congenital excess - of a hormone may advance our knowledge of biological functions “far more than it explains a great work of art. Those who wish to -.télate the human condition to some transcendent power in the * universe should be better, not worse, off by an increased knowledge | : isms. Science is not simply a device for 6: ClAgRD PSS -SOTETREBSBOGBAUUREE™ Ponce © not simply
Introduction explaining away events and capacities hitherto thought to be God- given. Because science expands one type of knowledge, it need not denigrate another. All great scientists have understood this. But those who hold a slavish belief in “scientific facts” and who do not understand the glorious uncertainties of modern science are likely - to come to small conclusions that are as trivializing as reducing “remote viewing” to repetitious “readings” of a pack of cards. As I understand contemporary trends in physical science, there is increasing recognition of vast unknown arcas which science may explore and assist in ordering, but to which it may never provide. anything like complete answers. Such explorations, however, should greatly expand our present paradigms. —M.M.
THE STAR FEBRUARY 4,197 PAGE 4 STAR reporter Charles Brown and myself this week tested an ainazing new teach-your- self-ESP technique and found that it can work. ‘The method, called remote viewing, was cvolved by two re- spect scientists, Dr. Russel arg and Dr. Harold Puthoff of the Sanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, Calif. , They say that remote viewing enables a person to describe re- mote “target locations — un- known to them — simply by sit-., ting in a quiet room with eyes closed, watching images forming in their mind. By Star reporter Meredith Chaplin The two scientists say the tech- nique has been successtully tested by psychic Uri Geller and New York artist Ingo Swann. ‘Their work has also been ‘praised by famed anthropologist Dr. Margar- et Mead. This week the STAR decided to put it to the test. While 1 sat in a dimly-lit room. reporter Brown left our office in midtown Manhat- tan, telling no one where he was going. At a pre-arranged time I re- laxed and closed my eyes, as in- | a. 1 structed in the remote viewing technique. IT could see treetops marking: the edge of an expanse, with buildings beyond them. It was only later that J discov- ered that Charles was looking at a similar scene. He had taken a eab to Columbia University, and got out at 116th. Street. Hé walked east on Liéth to Morningside Drive and found himself at the top of a wooded slope, looking over bare treetops. There were apart- ment buildings beyond. He then walked back along M6th Street, looking at the apart- ment buildings on the south side of the street. They were Victorian brick and concrete structures, seven stories high. Back in THE STAR office, 1 could see gingerbread-like old buildings, not too tall. Charles crossed Amsterdam Av- . enue, and proceeded toward Col- umbia University's old library, a squarish building topped by a shallow dome. Leading down from it were steps. To the right was a round foun- i fae bo eb snes iat A tain, to the left an old Gothic style ¥ church. In the most remarkable asso- ciations of the whole experiment, I visualized a round roof, like the top of a carousel, a round shape, like a pond, and steps or a narrow ramp. . I found that the major problem with the experiment was that I tried to associate the images with. an area 1 knew. I had never been to the area of Manhattan where Charles was,. and I thought he-was seeing Cen- tral Park. . The things I did see seemed free-floating, without any scale or surroundings. Scientists Targ and Puthoff say that remote viewing has also been successfully tested by Richard Bach, author of Jonathon Livings- ton Seagull. Bach tells in the book how he watched a ‘surreal television pic- ture” in his mind of another per- son at a secret location several blocks away. His description was close to the reality. eaveremar eter ie wee ee (AEs AND A POND’ + ‘E COULD SEE A ROUND ROOF -* Above is the sketch “> reporter Meredith *3 Chaplin made of her image. At left is the old library at New York's Columbia University. ‘| SAW TREETOPS, OLD BUILDINGS’ At left is her sketch of trees and buildings. staffer Charles Brown stood. Below is spot where HERE is huw to teach yourself the remote viewing technique, put forward by Dr. Harold Puth- off and Dr. Russel Targ: ‘Determine if you fect any re- sistance to the idea of psychic fiinctioning, or the belief that you can describe a scene beyond “your normal senses. Hay some- one in authority said it-was im- possible. or nonsense? Repeat these questions until you feel comfortably convinced. even though you may suspect that the suspension of disbelief is only temporary. Ask a friend to pick a location — preferably unknown to you — and tell the friend to be there at a particular time, and to re- main there for 15 minutes. The person at the target site must pay attention to where he is. and observe. At the same time, you, the subject, should be in a quiet. perhaps dimiy-lit place where you are comfortable. Sit up and remain alert. About one minute before the time the experiment is tv begin, relax and calm your thoughts. It is not necessary to do more than this: no special routine or meditation is needed. Now try to describe the target location — to yourself or to an- other friend. Describe the menta! images that seem to be associat- ed with the target arca, Just re- late the basic colors, shapes and feclings. It is essential to avoid ‘trying to name the place.’ Try sketching the images that come to mind. Be willing to draw what pops into your mind, even thougn you don't know what it is that the drawings rep- resent. You should visit the remote target as soon as possible after the end of the 15 minute interval allotted for remote viewing. In this way, feedback takes place while the images are stil fresh in your mind, and you cun make an internal comparison that wilt be useful in future experiments AFTER trying this experiment. do you think you can da “remote viewing?" Tell THE STAR of our experience. $1 for every elter published Write: Remote Viewing, The Star, 720 Third Av- enue, New York, N.Y. 10017. Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500240025-6