ia a. Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8: iiag7s1 R000100440001-9 sort of information as to the length of time is would take to return: 'We also agreed to call again at 3:00 Pm EDT to obtain Subject 4's impressions and to provide feedback as to the actual target." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 523) fe "A second subject (S,) working by himself at SRI, who had agreed in advance to participate in the same experiment by time and date, was less successful with the cavern target." (Targ, at al., 1977, p. 523) This subject is also referred to as G, in another publication (Puthoff, et al., L 1977a) and omitted from the third. (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b) We If the experiment was done on the spur of the moment, after arrival, hence necessitating a call to S,3 Mee both SRI experimenters, while visiting in Ohio, agreed to take part La", how, at the same time, could a date and time be pre-set with another subject? "A seqpnd subject... had agreed in advance ... by date and time ...." (Puthoft, | et al., 1978, p.. 523). A quick look at a standard road map of Qhio reveals that both the Ohio Caverns and the Air Force Museum are noted in red lettering in the | | Springfield/Dayton area. There are few othexr!places of interest shown. "This subject erroneously interpreted early ilkpressions as associated with a museum. As a result the majority of his twanscript, although containing some correct elements, reflects. primarily an incorrect analytical interpretation ‘and cannot be said to constitute evidence fox| paranormal functioning." (Targ, i et al., 1977, p. 523) Ww In the transcript itself several images are presented: " ».» something to do with underground caves or mines or dey shafts +e. nuclear or some very far out and possibly secret installation,... corridors ... whole under- ground city ... arbor-like shaft ...." (tard) et al., 1977, p. 523) These ’ images are described in more detail: "... some electric humming ... inner Approved For Release 2003/04/18" DP96-00791R000100440001-9
. ; ef OSD fas, Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA- dads ky 791R000100440001-9 throbbing“... man helped nature vee vines (wisteria) growing in arch ... darker earth ... cool moist passage see bank of elevators ... a very man-made steel wall ... shaft-like inverted silo vss! brightly lit ...." (Targ, et al., ; | 1977, p. 523) & | Targ, Puthoff, and May state: "As if (4s) often the case, one observes that the basic gestalt of the target site te cognized and even experienced -- e.g., the underground caves aspect, while specifics are misinterpreted — @.2., the labeling of the location as a nuclear ihstallation.” (Targ, et al., 1977, p- 525) Enough elements are included in the description that it could apply to either type of target, and therefore be called successful. The image presented actually might apply to an imagined perception of an underground installation, rather than a cave. & The final two experiments in this series were carried out between New Orleans and California, one in each direction. "The first experiment in this series involved Subject S, in New Orleans viewing activities of a group of three people known to the subject, at a location in a Palo Alto/Menlo Park area 2000 miles away." (Targ, et al., 1977, p- 525) The title under the corresponding picture reads: "REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT - NEW ORLEANS TO PALO ALTO, 30 OCTOBER 1976."" (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 527) However, in the other publication, the following is stated: "During an extensive cross-country trip. we arranged to conduct two experiments between New Orleans and Menlo Park, California, one each way .... For the first experiment (subject in Menlo Park) veel and "the most recent ... involved a subject. in New Orleans ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) Which did come first? The picture corresponding to this target is labelled: "LONG DISTANCE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT - SRI, MENLO PARK, TO LOUISIANA A Approved For Release 2003/04/18 1h a-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 “tenors R000100440001-9 SUPER DOME. SUBJECT DESCRIBED LARGE CIRCULAR BUILDING 31 OCTOBER 1976." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 12) The picture of the other target, used in the Louisiana to Palo Alto experiment is dated: “NEW ORLEANS TO PALO ALTO, 30 OCTOBER 1976." Therefore, although the pictures in both publications are labelled with the same dates, the text indicates both of these experiments as the first. eL | The experiments " ... were carried out with the two subjects who had participated in the New York-California experiments." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p- 11) In the earlier publication there are no direct references to subject's identity other than by gender: "... the subject. in Menlo Park would tape record his impressions .... He also expressed feelings -..." (Puthof£ and: Targ, 1977b, p. 11) "The most recent experiment in this series involved a subject in New Orleans viewing activities of a group of three people known to her, at a location in the Palo Alto/Menlo Park area ... She reported ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) The other publication is more specific: tt "The first experiment involved S_ in New Orleans ..." and "During this time, 7 Se in Menlo Park ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 526) Ss, identified earlier as Susan, "The second subject, a medical student well (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) (and as 85) apparently was taken on "... an extensive cross~country trip ,..' (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) so that she could participate in this one experiment. This subject, although serving in the New York City experiments, did not participate in the Ohio experiment. A Subject Se» who earlier was "the first subject, an SRI systems analyst oe and Gy participated in one of the two New York City targets (Grant's Tomb) and the Ohio experiment as '... A second subject (S,) working by himself at SRI .... (larg, et al., 1977, p. 525) If he is used at this time asa subject and 1 io Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ; 96-00791R000100440001-9 bd
Approved For Release 2003/04) FoesiaeR AP 96-00791 R000100440001-9 participated in the Ohio experiment, why didn't he participate in the second New York experiment? (A | The targets for these two experiments were chosen in the following manner: "The target chosen by randomized | entry into a New Orleans guidebook list was the Louisiana Super Dome." (Puthoff and Tare, 1977b, p. 11) The selection of the targets is made on the following basis: "The methodology with regard to target selection again was designed to eliminate possible cueing paths. Targets were determined either by random-number generator entry into a previously prepared target list unknown to subject and experimenters ...." (Puthoff, et at., 1977, p. 521) & In these experiments, the target selection, by another person and maintained unknown to the experimenters in accordance with the standardized protocol (Appendix B),; was done quite differently. Apparently the division director stopped handling the target pool sometime during the local series as the following is stated: "The target team ig assigned their target location by an independent experimenter ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 519) since this is in reference to the earlier work with Price and Hammid., The independent experimenter, also called monitor ',.. then obtains sealed traveling orders from a monitor ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p-'519) In the opening paragraph of Cole! s transcript the following ia reported: "... PHYLLIS COLE Ig THE REMOTE VIEWER, AND RUSS TARG IS THE MONITOR tee” (Mind-Reach, p. 104) Ig Targ now the monitor, target selector, and experimenter? Kn 5. made two drawings of the Super Dome. (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 12) One is a front view and the other an aerial view. The handwriting on the aerial view looks similar to that on the San Andres, Columbia airport drawing. (Mind-Reach, p- 12) Although we profess no expertise in this area, a comparison 163 Approved For Release 2003/Q4R388 a RDP96- 00791R000100440001 -9
~ NL Ta ae enna anita. Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ORE ro R000100440001-9 might be in order. Note the words "grage" and "cement". The subject's quoted descriptions vary within both publications. Under the drawings and pictures, the following appears: ""A ROUND GOLD RIM AROUND A SUNKEN DEPRESSION" ... ‘IN THE SURFACE OF THE DEPRESSION THERE IS: SOME KIND OF FAKE CHINA FLOWERS. IT'S LIKE A BONSAI TREE MUSHROOMING (OUT OF THE SURFACE.'". This is quoted in the text as: “Her principal impression was ofa ' ‘overhang of a building over their heads . -. also a round gold rim around a sunken. depression." The target, a bank building is shown in Figure LO. Principal features of the target include a dramatic building overhang and a a rectangular concrete depression with a: ‘fountain in which the water comes out of a circular gold rim. The subject also reported 'some kind of fake china Flowers mushrooming out of the depression.' There were four orange lamps mounted -on the gold rim." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) The pictures used to depict this target are two close-ups, one shot from the side showing the two experimenters throwing something and showing only the lower portion of the building. The pool is apparently off to one side so that only one upper corner appears. The other photo is a close-up of the fountain within the pool and what appears to be a circular metal piece that contains the jet-type, water outlets and four spot lights beneath the metal piece, The pool is tiled. & "Finally, she reported 'there was'a projectile coming toward David (one of the outbound experimenters). Like a ball or frisbee, as if Elizabeth (another experimenter) has tossed him a ball.' Actually the experimenters had found a paper airplane lying on the ground and had thrown it back and forth for some period of time. In fact, the photo of the site taken at the time of the experiment shows the airplane between them. ‘This is one of the Approved For Release 2003/04 p@®-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1  SRAGARIF96-00791.000100440001-9 few times that a remote viewing! subject has perceived rapid motion at the target site." (Puthoff and rere, 1977b, p. 11) Ww "pg: All blind judging, matching, and statistical evaluation of the results (which is where the scientific issues are decided) are completed before photographs are taken, ...." (Targ, ¢¢ al., 1977, p- 528) «a "In short, at all times, we and others yesponsible 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 experiments and judging of results at the end of the experiments were handled independently of the researchers engaged in carrying out the experiments. In five years of self— and other-criticism, we have not found a way to fault either the experimental protocols or the conclusions derived therefrom." (Targ, et al., 1977, PP 528-529) We Yet, two of the experimenters at this target site were "David" and "Elizabeth". Puthoff and Targ acknowledge her contribution in a footnote: ‘We wish to acknowledge the technical contributions of Elizabeth A. Rauscher, a consultant on leave from Lawrence berkeley Laboratory, who has done extensive research on physical theories relevant to psi furictioning; in particular, work on multidimensional geometrics." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 13) She is also mentioned in another publication: "The extradimensional hypothesis is based on the ideas of Targ, Puthoff, and May (SRI), G. Feinburg (Columbia University), and E. Rauscher (University of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) -.+." (Puthoff, et ah s 1978, p. 19) Rauscher, et al. (1976) also report an experiment in venote viewing which will be deseribed- Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : & aaa bi 0791R000100440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 q-00791R000100440001-9 later. The experiment showed negative results. Although the results were negative, the subject apparently described the previous day's target on the following day in at least three sessions... "The first target showed a strong resemblence to the subject's descriptions during the second session and the second target seemed to be related to the subject's descriptions during the third session.” (p. 43) 7 y ~ ? This same type of reporting can be seen ta the description for Visitor D L In his drawing, he includes the building he had seen the day before. "He also described seeing a ‘building that is not at, the target site, This ; | sort of superposition of erroneous imagery on|otherwise accurate descriptions is a common occurrence ...." (Puthoff and Tate, 1977b, p. 8 O& If this is a common occurrence, how easy it would be to use those (previous day's) transcripts as the transcript for the |(current day's) target. The transcripts are randomized and handed to a judge. The order in which the experiments are run has been misreported in several cases. Swann's Palo Alto City Hall is listed as the first target but is actually his second as he refers to "miniature golf course from yesterday?" on his drawing. (Mind-Reach) . The same reversal is seen in the reporting of Elgin's first two transcripts. The BART station is reported as his second target in one publication (Targ and Puthof£, 1975) and as hits first in Mind- Reach (p. 80). Price mentions the marina in his seventh transcript of Allied Arts and the marina is the fourth target, although it appears to be quite vivid to him. "They don't feel as far away. I'd say that it is about - not half the distance they were to the marina ...." (uind-Reach, p. 65) To carry over a feeling after the use of two other targets is quite remarkable. ( L166 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-ROP-96-00791R000100440001-9