Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
from the
reports.
If
the authors have performed
"over
twenty experiments
using
more
than ten subjects"
the remaining data are unknown
to
us.
It
should be noted
that subjects
in Experiment One are numbered
S 4
through
S
and the subject
in Experiment Two
is not numbered.
The
two subjects
in
Bisaha and Dunne
(1977b)
are similarly not numbered.
C.
Bisaha,
J.
P.
and Dunne,
B.
J.
Precognitive remote viewing in
the Chicago area:
A replication of
the Stanford
experiment.
In
J.
D. Morris,
W.
G.
Roll,
and
R.
L.
Morris
(Ed.), Research in
Parapsychology ,
1976.
Metuchen,
N.J.
:
The Scarecrow Press,
1977
,
84-86.
Purpose.
The purposes
of
this research were
(1)
to investigate
the
ability
of untrained persons
to perceive and describe remote sites before
the
target locations have been determined,
thus replicating
the
SRI
experiments,
and
(2)
to explore conditions
of spatial and temporal
separation between subjects and
target persons.
Experimental Design.
Two- subjects received
a total
of eight
trials,
six for
one subject
and
two
for
the other.
Subjects were
to describe
the
target prior
to
target visit by target person.
Subjects.
Two volunteer female college students served as subjects.
No other information
is given.
Experimenter.
Experimenter was not specifically identified,
but
text
suggests
it was
J.
P.
Bisaha.
Target Person.
One of the "experimenters," apparently
B.
J.
Dunne.
Judges.
The
three judges were persons
"not otherwise connected with
the experiment."
No additional information
is given.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 (^ 7CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: C14^DR86-00787R0001 00260003-2
Eqmpment.
The only apparent equipments
are
a tape recorder and
camera.
Sketches were made by subjects
on paper.
Targets.
The target pool contained over
100 sites
in the Chicago area
suburban area lying within a radius
of
a 30-minute drive from Mundelein
College.
Specific targets
(eight)
used
in this experiment are not defined.
Procedure.
The subject was
told about
the nature
of
the experiment ^
procedure
to be
followed,
and asked
to relax,
become comfortable,
and
"let her mind .become blank."
At
that point
she was
to try
to visualize
the
location where
the experimenter would be
35 minutes
later.
She had
minutes
to describe
the location aloud into
the
tape recorder and
to make
sketches
of her
image of
the target
location.
She was advised not
to
attempt
to define
or identify specifically what
she
saw,
but
to offer only
general descriptions and impressions.
She remained
in
a closed room with
an observer who had no knowledge of
the
target location.
The
target person left
the college
at
the same
time
the subject began
her description.
The
target person carried
10 envelopes,
each
of which held
a card designating a particular target location.
The
10 envelopes were
randomly selected by "another experimenter" from the target pool which
had been compiled by
a person who had no other affiliation with
the
experiment and who was
the only person familiar with
the contents
of
the
envelopes."
The
target person drove continuously
for
20 minutes,
or until
minutes after
the subject had completed her response.
Then,
the
target
person selected
"at
random"
a number from
to
10 from an enclosed
container
holding 10 identically folded sheets
of paper.
While
still driving,
the
experimenter counted down
to
that number
in
the pile
of target envelopes
and proceeded
to
the target location on the enclosed card
in
the designated
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 (J98CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-PTAUfT
vtOTTW1*
envelope,
timing her arrival
to be
15 minutes
later,
or
35 minutes after
the subject began her response.
The
target person remained at
the
site
minutes,
photographed
the location,
and made notes
as
to her impression
of
the site.
She then returned
to the college.
Typed, unedited transcripts
of
the subjects'
responses were attached
to any associated drawings made by the subjects.
Data Analysis.
The eight
transcripts,
labeled only A through
H, were
given
to
the judges
in random order.
Judges were also
given,
in random
order,
the photographs and notes taken by
the
target person at each site.
Each judge was asked
to blind rank order
the transcripts with each location.
The judges were also taken
to visit
the
target locations,
but were
asked
to rank order only in terms
of
the photographs.
The authors do not
state whether
these target site visits occurred before or after the
rank
order procedure was
completed.
Morris'
method of analysis was applied
to
the sum of
the ranks for each
target
.
Results.
The sums of
the ranks were
12,
12,
and
for
the
three judges.
Two judges each had five direct hits out
of eight
targets.
The
third judge
had
four direct hits.
"The highest rank given any transcript was three."
The results
for
the
two judges having
a sum of
are significant
at
p
<
^
;
the result
for
the third judge
is significant
at p
<
.0005.
Conclusion.
The authors
conclude
that
the results support
the existence
of "perceptual and communication channels which lie beyond
the senses
as
they are currently defined."
Critical Evaluation.
This paper
is presented
as
a "research brief"
and
is necessarily limited
in detail; nevertheless,
several critical items
199
'
Approved For Release 2OOO/q^|0|^p-RDP96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ATftnPT
vLunu
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 subject?
(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 was given
to either subject.
It
seems
that
all trials were completed before
transcripts were presented
to
the judges.
200
Approved For Release 2000/fl|^j|^BPF?DP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: flMtf^96-00787R0001 00260003-2
olUiylT
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?
If
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
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
to
8,
but did not use all
8 ranks per target
(over
the
8 transcripts),
rather scoring each transcript -independently on a
to
8 scale,
then
the
sum of ranks
could easily be much less
than
the forced sum of
36 per target
(1+2+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
di'ives
toward the
(unknown)
target.
That
is,
targets are within
a 30-minute radius.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: ©1A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ornmT
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
minutes
of such targets
is clearly small.
Assuming that no time
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:
ir (15)
p
=
V -
- = 0.25.
tt(30)
( 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 t
1977.
Metuchen,
N.J.
:
The Scarecrow Press,
1978,
146-151.
202
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: 4jfgj(pj^-00787R0001 00260003-2
Purpose.
The stated purpose
of
this 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
Society.
[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)
Critical 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-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
^rfmTL
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^^DP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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 one
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 2000/08/1#^ CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: _fiUWB&P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
utmtbf
Summary.
This experiment
is
suspect for
the reasons cited previously
following
its
earlier publication.
The additional discussion of
the results
presented 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 2000/08/1 &P*
5 CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^sBDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
uulllrn
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
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 2000/08/1
(?CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
QCORCT”
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0 j£LfcgftP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
mKhlI
Data Analysis.
Analysis wls 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.
Results.
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 10' 7 ."
Conolusions
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,
and thoughts;
and
(3)
Receiving feedback as
soon as possible."
Instructions
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
: ©1A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0^CJAaDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
•TftwIuT
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
left.
Yet,
the remaining subjects worked
in pairs
and
36 votes were
cast before the target persons
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
see
to move about, write "playground"
in
the
sand,
etc.?
A daytime experiment might appear more
logical.
(5)
Statistically,
the null hypothesis predicts chance success
(assuming
subject
independence!)
of
36/6
=
6.
The authors state
that
they used
a
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: £1A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
»rnnrf
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ijnjnCL
“uLlmM
one-tailed i-test
to obtain
a
Z
score.
This
is inappropriate:
a small
sample
t does not yield
a normal distribution
Z
or standard
score.
The
i-test was developed
to account
for
the nonnormal distribution caused by
small sample sizes,
typically less
than
30.
While similar,
t and
Z are not
equivalent
.
Using
the binomial distribution,
one can calculate
the
Z score
for
the
obtained result:
z
- 5 )
6.037.
<*)
sm
Evaluating
this Z-score by
the known unit normal distribution, we obtain a
probability of occurrence under
the null hypothesis
of P ^ 10
However,
it should be noted that
the large sample Z-score approximation
to
the binomial distribution is valid
for n
>
25 and P approximately equal
to Q a
-
P.
As
the disparity between P and Q increases, n must become
larger
for the approximation
to be usefully
close.
A good rule of
thumb
(Siegel,
1956)
for
this approximation
is
that nPQ must
at
least equal
9.
In this experiment nPQ = 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 n opportunities,
then the probability density function
is:
The cumulative probability of
the obtained result plus all more extreme
results
is
the value
of interest
to
us.
For
this experiment,
we have
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: SfA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
flumCi
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0^|GjAHgBP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
oluivEi
n
=>
36, X =
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)
=
£
f (k)
"
”
k =
The probability of obtaining exactly
20 correct
is
1.08 x
, while
the
-7
probability of obtaining
or more correct
is
1.24 x
.
Thus,
the exact binomial probability of
1.24 x
is slightly less
than
the authors’
quoted probability of
x 10
_7
.
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 Alumni 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
is essentially the talk delivered
at Princeton on
that subject
in April
17,
1978.
An edited transcript
of
the
tape
of
that lecture
is also available,
but not
for quotation,
reproduction,
or 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
: &A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ^^^|P96-00787R0001 00260003-2
viewing,
psychokinesis,
and modeling of psychic phenomena.
Most
of
the
"controlled" experimentation
is
in the psychokinesis
area;
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 Puthoff 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 demountings
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 2000/08/10 L(li^gDP96-00787R000100260003 :2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
flrnnrT
-ramcr
laboratory
at
the University ©f California,
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
included
in subsequent analyses.
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 2000/0^^^^RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
of
the correct
target may not be X
,
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
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.
Approved For Release 2000
214
CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
PTftnrT
uluiTli
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
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
is
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."
lavgets
.
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 2SIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CI^^^6-00787R0001 00260003-2
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
control 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 2000/08/1 0^IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
rr
nrAhrr
utunuT
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 wpre 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
told
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 2000/08/1 021PIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
prnnrg
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :CJAjBDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
VtOntr
Data Analysis.
Analysis
of data was based on t-tests
of proportions
of responses falling
in various
categories.
Results.
Table 15
indicates
the responses
of
the
90 experimental group
subjects.
Note that these
90 subjects made
a total of
409 selection responses
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
ape 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 priori
chance value of
.0555
is valid.
The
25 control group subjects made
a total
of
160 selections,
(53%)
to
the
9 target
sites
and
(47%)
to
the
"noise"
sites.
The difference was not significant,
t
-
1.22, p
>
.10.
Thus,
the a priori 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
N',
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
(t
-
.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 230IA-RDP96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
JJMnnr
utumT
TABLE 15.
KARNES AND SUSMAN
(1978)
RESULTS FROM EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
STIMULUS
RESPONSE
E
TARGET
NOISE
SELECTION
NO SELECTION
HITS
=
ph - i
- 2667
p
—
.
a
0*587
CS
409
MISSES
=
P
= — =
7 333
M
FALSE ALARMS
=
385
CORRECT
385
PFA
=
1530
=
- 2516
REJECTIONS
=
1145
i
1145
_ imJ
_
y/g/
CR
1530
1530
409
1211
1620
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: qA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
"TOfnfrr
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
(t
- -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
(t
= 0.61, p
>
.10),
but
the
direction of
the difference suggests greater confidence for target sites.
Conclusions.
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 2f2>IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
nrimriL-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^SEBRDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
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
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 "in principle 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 ?^IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-SEORCT
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: C*£lB3m6-00787R0001 00260003-2
«JLUUU
inconsistent.
Clearly,
if
a subject offers
a specific response
(e.g.,
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 evaluation of responses seems
impossible
.
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,
Puthoff suggests
that
a "blind" 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 ?©IA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
wrnnrT