,1
Approved For Release 2000/08
T
i
f
T
r
f
r
-00789R003200200001 -4
Table 3 shows the results for 19,675 trials collected at SRI since
lv>
*
*
effect size
is consistent with the early results of Rhine
(
d
= 0.052).
In
fiscal years
one of the viewers from group G1 was able to increase the effect size by a factor of 10
•-
'
'
'0
p < 0.00015, d =
0.51),
meeting Cohen's
definition
of a
strong
effect.
While
i;> v
.
significant improvement with this viewer during the three years, the number of formal
v
.
small, and thus interpretation
is difficult.
recommends
that
a
forced-choice
investigation
be
conm u
. >v
determine
if such strong effects can be observed in other viewers.
U\e
°S8,
"as
" as
to
15.
(U) Conducting an RV Experiment
formal
experimentation
has
been
conducted
to
examine
M l*ll
parameters that enhance remote viewing.
SRI does not use any formal induction technum,.
•Mt*|
the
sessions are conducted
in a
businesslike atmosphere
with the
viewer and moniim
.'“ting
upright and opposite each other across a table.
Since the overall effect size
(
d
= 0.385)
for group G1 meets Cohen's definition of a medium-sized effect, these session conditions
.” Mm
appear to hinder the phenomenon.
16.
(U) Countermeasures
WW, The
first
step
in
investigating
countermeasures
for
remote
viewing
(
examine whether
it
is possible to shield against psychoenergetic intrusion.
As was
discu*.-.,
,|
Section V.-C.-10, E&M shielding does not appear to be effective.
; .To provide an effective shield or a useful physical countermeasure,
u
, I(|(
be determined whether psychoenergetic phenomena
interact with
the physical
world,
n,
,
I
remote action studies conducted at SRI, most of the studies have not demonstrated any evi.t,
,,
of psychoenergetic interaction with the physical world.
Two exceptions are worthy of discussion.
In a study conducted in FY
l •»
involving random number generators,
the
significant
results were consistent with the
hi-.(,,n ,
database of such experiments.
Later,
it was shown that these results are not due to a
pi M
.
(i
(
interaction, but rather due to precognition. 14
During FY
1975,
a striking anomaly was observed when one of the
vi,
.,
from group GI attempted to influence a shielded magnetometer.
The device was perturb<-.i
,,,
significant manner, but no other experiments were conducted that showed similar non-siao
n.
(
results.
Approved For Release 2000/08
-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 20001081}
Q0789R003200200001 -4
In an exPerimem designed to replicate claims made in the People's Republic
of China, SRI determined the degree to which pulses from a photomultiplier tube correlated with
the quality of remote viewing.
While strong evidence for remote viewing was seen, no significant
correlations with the tube output were observed.
_
-At thls time ’ there
,s no evidence that psychoenergetic phenomena can be
shielded against nor effectively countermeasured.
Approved For Release 2000/0§/08
£IA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/0,
6-00789R003200200001 -4
REFERENCES (U)
1.
Zimbardo,
P., Psychology and Life,
12th Ed.,
Scott, Foresman and Company, Boston,
MA. p. 54 (1988) UNCLASSIFIED.
2.
Rosenthal,
R., Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research, Applied Social Research
Methods Series, Vol.
6, Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, CA (1982) UNCLASSIFIED.
3.
Light,
R.
J.
and
D.
B.
Pillemer, Summing
Up,
The
Science of Reviewing
Research,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1984) UNCLASSIFIED.
4.
Hedges, L. V. and
I. Olkin. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press. Inc.,
New York. NY (1985) UNCLASSIFIED.
5.
Feingold, A., “Matching for Attractiveness in Romantic Partners and Same-Sex Friends:
A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Critique,” Psych. Bull., Vol.
104, No.
2, pp. 226-235
(1988) UNCLASSIFIED.
6.
Cohen,
J., Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,
(rev.
ed.) Academic
Press, New York, NY (1977) UNCLASSIFIED.
7.
Targ, E., R. Targ, and O. Lichtarge, “Realtime Clairvoyance: A Study of Remote Viewing
Without Feedback." The Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 28th Annual
Convention,
Tufts
University,
Medford,
MA,
pp.
335-342
(August
1985)
UNCLASSIFIED.
8.
Honorton,
C.,
D.
B.
Ferrari,
and
G.
Hansen,
“Meta-Analysis
of
Forced-Choice
Precognition
Experiments,”
Psychophysical
Research
Laboratories’
Technical
Report
(1989) UNCLASSIFIED.
9.
May,
E.
C.,
R. Targ, and H.
E.
Puthoff,
“Possible EEG Correlates to Remote Stimuli
Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding,” Proceedings of Electron Professional Program
of the IEEE,
Special Session on the State of the Art
in Psychic Research, New York
(April
1977) UNCLASSIFIED.
10.
May,
E. C., W. W. Luke, and T.
J.
Frivold, “Neurophysiological Correlates to Remote
Viewing (U),” SRI International, Menlo Park, CA,
Final Report—Objective
D, Task
1,
Project 1291 (December 1988)4^|^m^
11.
Private communication.
12.
Kogan,
I.
M.,
“Is Telepathy
Possible?"
Radio
Eng.,
Vol.
21,
P.
(January
1966)
UNCLASSIFIED.
13.
Puthoff,
H.
E.
and
R.
Targ, “A
Perceptual Channel
for
Information
Transfer Over
Kilometer
Distances:
Historical
Perspective and Recent Research,”
Proceedings of the
IEEE, Vol.
64, No.
3, pp. 329-354 (March 1976) UNCLASSIFIED.
14.
May,
E.
C.,
D.
I.
Radin,
G.
S.
Hubbard,
B.
S.
Humphrey, and
J.
M.
Utts,
“PSI
Experiments
with
Random
Number
Generators:
An
Informational
Model,"
SRI
International,
Menlo
Park,
CA,
Final
Report
Project
8067
(October
1985)
UNCLASSIFIED.
15.
Honorton,
C.,
“Error Some
Place!," Journal of Communication,
pp.
103-116
(Winter
1975) UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 2000/1
: GJA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 200
DP96-00789R003200200001 -4
(U)
Thus, the groups of interest were ranked as ERUa > ERA8 - EB.U3 > IRA5
when predicting overall performance and were ranked as the reverse of this when predicting
the significance of the learning within the experiment.
3.
(U)
Results of Predictions: Correlations Between RV Performance and PAS
Profiling
(U)
Table 5 shows the PAS predictions for overall RV performance as measured
against actual performance—i.e., each trainee’s performance as measured by an effect size
estimate (Pearson’s
r)3 derived from the figure of merit analysis4 p-values.
An effect size
estimate
is used to normalize for number of sessions.
Table 5
^PAS PREDICTION VS. ACTUAL VIEWER PERFORMANCE
Actual Viewer
PAS Prediction
IPerformance
Viewer
ID
Viewer
Effect
Number of
Profile
Prediction
Comments
ID
Size
(r)
Sessions
(n)
739
ERUa
best
739
*
0.170
210
ERA8
best
very
137
0.110
928
ERU8
best
V
/
L, close
i
*n
928*
0.082
ranking
512
IRA5
best
512*
-0.131
891
IRA5
best
U'
450
-0.139
450
IRU4
middle
307
-0.159
137
ERU5
middle
might
do well
210
-0.220
=
in IDS,
307
EFU5
worst
J
but not
in RV
891
-0.267
176
EFU6
worst
clearly the
bottom
176*
-0.279
* PAS prediction coincides with the viewer's actual rank.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RQR96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/1
96-00789R003200200001 -4
(U)
While the rank order correlation contrasting the top
five and bottom four
performers does not achieve
statistical significance,
it
is encouraging that the PAS correctly
idendfied two out of the three best performers.
The failure to identify Viewer 137
is easily
attributed to lack of prior experience with ERU5 viewers.
Thus, the results tend more to
confirm than to disconfirm the FY 1984 PAS study.
(U)
Table 6 shows the PAS predictions for evidence of RV learning as measured
against actual evidence for learning—i.e., each trainee's learning-slope effect size as derived
from the figure of merit slope p-values.
Table 6
(U)
The PAS predictions concerning viewer learning are largely unsuccessful.
When the PAS predictions were forwarded to the SRI COTR, however, they were caveated
- 18 -
Approved For Release 20j&0^/08
: CIA-IRDP96-00789R003200200001-4