Approved For Release 2000/08/10
6-00787R0001 00260003-2
Sixth
,
Puthoff
claims multiple
(simultaneous)
subject experiments
do not work well.
Yet other experimenters have obtained successful results
with simultaneous subjects
(e.g., Hastings
and Hurt,
1976;
Vallee, Hastings,
and Askevold ,
1976;
Whitson,
Bogart,
Palmer,
and Tart,
1976).
In fact,
taken together,
there appear
to be more "positive"
cases
of paranormal
functioning with multiple subjects
than there are "negative"
cases.
Seventh,
the control condition for response bias consisted of
sending
the
target person
to
a place
not. on the 18-target
list.
To the extent
that
the
target person's
actual location has some elemeirts
in common with
a real
target,
that real target may be selected by
the forced choice procedure.
As Puthoff very cogently points
out,
this
is not
a
true control condition
but
"rather
a measure of
the correlation between
the
target
sites actually
visited
in the control condition and
the sites
to be visited in
the
experimental condition. "
Unfortunately,
the outbound experimenter cannot
be
sent
"nowhere".
Summary
.
This experiment clearly produced statistically nonsignificant
results,
although several
of
the comparisons were in
the "right" direction.
The experiment
is
the closest
(of which we are aware)
to classical behavioral
science methodology and control.
Yet,
it has been validly criticized as
violating some of the currently accepted principles
of RV functioning held
dear by currently successful investigators.
It appears
to be
an interesting
step
in the direction of rigorous
scientific methodology.
Such approaches
are warranted and needed;
yet they should not be taken as
a refutation of
results
obtained by less conventional investigators active in the area.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ?£lA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
:
_(^.RQE96-00787R0001 00260003-2
II.
Rauscher,
E.
A.,
Weissmann,
G.
, Sarfatti,
J.
,
and
Sirag,
S.-P.
Remote
perception of natural scenes,
shielded against ordinary perception.
In J
.
D.
Morris,
W.
G.
Roll,
and
R.
L.
Morris
(Ed.), Research in
Parapsychology
1975.
Metuchen,
N.J.:
The Scarecrow Press,
1976,
pp.
41-45.
Purpose.
The authors'
stated purposes were
(1)
to confirm the existence
of paranormal perception in the description of remote natural scenes
shielded
against ordinary perception,
and
(2)
to replicate recent experiments
of
Puthoff
and Targ.
Experimental. Design.
One subject viewed eight different
targets,
one
per
day,
over a period
of
two weeks.
Subject.
The subject was
a female music student
at
the University
of
California,
Berkeley,
"who had no particular interest
in ESP,
although she
was open-minded and curious."
She was not paid for her participation.
Experimenter.
G.
Weissman monitored
the
subject.
Target Person..
J.
Sarfatti selected and visited
the
targets.
Judges.
Five judges were selected by either Rauscher
or Sirag.
No
mention is made of characteristics
of
the judges.
Equipment.
A tape recorder recorded all
the subject's verbal descriptions
She also made sketches.
Targets.
Ten natural target locations
in the San Francisco Bay area
were selected by Sarfatti.
Each was chosen
to be distinct
in appearance
and
at least
300 meters from all other
targets.
Each target was described by
a single phrase,
assigned
a number between
0 and
9,
and
this
target
list
was kept by Sarfatti.
Discussion of
the list with anyone was strictly
forbidden.
Neither
the subject nor
the experimenter had any knowledge
of
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
:2fclA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
VLUlvCl
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: filfoJ&QP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
oumfcl
the
target pool,
or even in which city they were
located.
Procedure.
The target person,
experimenter,
and subject met
at
a
"test location"
one hour before
the experiment
.
The
target person and
subject were
in eye contact
for
10 minutes,
to establish a feeling
of
rapport.
The experimenter monitored
the conversation
to be sure
that no
site information was divulged
to
the subject.
After
10 minutes,
the target person left
the
test location alone,
got
into his
car,
and randomly selected
a site number by putting
a "random"
ten-digit number
in an HP-35 calculator,
pressing
the square
root key
twice,
and reading the resulting third digit from the
left.
Targets were
used without replacement;
hence,
this process was repeated
if
it resulted
in
a target which had been previously selected,
The target person then drove
to the target location,
and spent
minutes within
5 meters
of the target vantage point,
concentrating
on the
surroundings.
"This involved seeing and attempting
to get
a feel
for
the
gestalt
of
the
target location."
Driving
time
to
the
target
is not
stated,
nor
is
the
timing for
the subject
to respond
to
the
target.
The experimenter gave
the subject encouragement by asking questions
about impressions
the subject might be receiving about
the location of
the
target person.
After 40 minutes,
the viewing session was ended by
the
target person telephoning
the experimenter
to divulge
the target location,
and
to permit feedback
to
the subject by having
the subject
go
to
the site.
This feedback was delayed
for
the
first
two
sessions.
(Length of delay and
reason for delay were not stated.)
Each of
the
five judges received transcripts
of
the
tapes,
the
subject's
drawings,
the
target persons list
of
target sites,
a map,
and
a set
of
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
:
2fclA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-SEGitLT-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 JMJUM396-00787R0001 00260003-2
JIMLI
Polaroid photographs
of
the
target
sites.
The photographs were made by
either Rauscher
or Sirag,
who were unaware
of
the correct target-session
matchings.
Judges matched
the transcripts with the target locations
(presumably
using the photographs,
not by visiting
the sites,
although neither
is
specifically stated).
For each target
site,
they recorded
a first,
second,
and
third choice of
transcript,
and also gave
a percentage weight
to each
choice
to
indicate
the
likelihood
of
its being
a first
choice.
Judges were
instructed "to rate each transcript-site correlation independently
of
the
other
sites.
Thus
the
same transcript selected
as
first choice
for one
site could
also be
first choice
for any other site."
Judges were
instructed
not
to
interact with one another, with
the subject, with
the
target person,
or with the experimenter.
Data Analysi-s.
Values were assigned
to target choices on
a
3,
2,
(first,
second,
third choice)
basis.
The five judges'
choices were pooled
for each session.
"If
the correct
target was among
the
top
four targets
chosen by
the pooled judges,
this was counted
as
a hit with a chance
probability
of one-half."
Results.
There were
four hits:
sessions
3,
4,
6,
and
7.
"This was
clearly not
a significant result.
We ignored the weightings assigned by
the judges
as
they did not seem
to change our analysis significantly."
In spite of
the lack of significance,
the authors believed that "only
a high degree
of
coincidence could account for some of
the correlations
between
the actual target and
the subject's descriptions."
Specifically,
the first target closely resembled
the second session response,
and
the
second target "seemed
to be related
to"
the third session response.
Note
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :^fA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0j^gj|j|G^-00787R0001 00260003-2
that no feedback occurred after
the
first
session.
Her street address
knowledge
of
the
first
target was
in fact erroneous
in nature.
She was
also not taken
to the second
target site until after
the third session.
Conclusions.
Authors were impressed by subjective similarities between
targets
and responses,
although results were not statistically significant.
They believe the design could be improved by
the following:
(1)
Immediate feedback,
and sessions spaced not more than a day apart,
to facilitate learning and
avoid, target
"flashbacks."
(2)
Selection of
targets which are
as peculiar and different
as possible
(3)
Encouraging subject
to give just "primary
impressions"
and avoid
trying
to recognize exact
target.
(4)
Note "frame of mind
or mood"
of
the subject
and correlate
that
with performance
(5)
More elaborate techniques
for putting the subject
at ease,
including
sensory deprivation.
(6)
Variation in the experiment,
such as
a precognition paradigm or
using simple objects
or pictures.
Critical Evaluation.
This experiment was poorly conducted
in many
respects,
and thereby presented several "opportunities"
to obtain negative
results.
While
this was
the first attempt at remote viewing research by
the authors,
it nevertheless exhibits several sources
of behavioral science
naive methodology.
The use
of
a single,
inexperienced subject was an initial risk.
Although some authors claim
that
all people have some paranormal ability
,
this particular subject had not previously demonstrated such ability,
nor
did
she necessarily believe she had
the ability.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :WA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
196-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
TurnCT
Wlille careful target population control was
observed,
the statistical
techniques
could have been better.
First,
the judges should have v^s^-ted
the
targets rather than view the photographs.
Polaroid pictures are hardly
wide-angle photographs,
and more information might have
led
to better
selection.
Indeed,
the sample responses
so
suggest.
Second,
ranking only
three choices
is not consonant with the Morris
(1972)
procedure used by
Puthoff and Targ.
Forced ranking of all target responses
could
lead
to
a different conclusion
if
the results were "close."
Last,
the inconsistent
use
of
feedback,
comments on "frame of mind
,
desire
to use sensory deprivation,
and
the like sound like amateur armchair
psychology of
the "what
if?" variety.
The authors might benefit substantially
from the advice of someone more deeply trained in behavioral research
methodology
.
Summary.
This
experiment
is not
of particular importance due
to
its
several methodological
flaws.
Its results are neither conclusive nor
a
critical
test
of
the paranormal phenomenon.
I.
Solfvin,
G.,
Roll,
W.
G.,
and Krieger,
J.
Meditation and ESP:
Remote viewing.
In W.
G.
Roll
(Ed.), Research in Parapsychology,
1977.
Metuchen,
N. J.
:
The Scarecrow Press,
1978,
pp.
151-157.
Purpose.
This experiment was done in the context
of
a series
of
experiments exploring meditation and ESP
in group situations.
The purposes
of
tills particular experiment were
to
(1)
explore
the "liking-disliking
aspects
of
the psi production and
(2) make
the psi process exciting for
this
secondary school junior-senior
age group
to maximize
the possibility
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: HlA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CLA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
oP”
of positive results.
Accordingly,
as remote viewing situation was chosen
in which one
of the students
would, leave the classroom to visit
a randomly
selected location in Durham,
N.C., while his classmates meditated.
Experimental Design.
The class was
instructed
in Eno meditation by
W.
G.
Roll for
two class
sessions.
Then several personality
tests were
administered,
among them a scale measuring their like-dislike
for other
students
in the class.
Then,
for six apparently successive class days,
one
student went with
G.
Solfvin to
a randomly selected
target.
The remaining
students
(subjects) meditated and attempted
to select
the
correct target
from a set
of
four.
Subjects.
The subjects were
11 males and
females
in
a junior-senior
class
at Durham Academy,
a private school
in Durham,
N.C.
The experimenters
indicate
the students
to be highly interested and motivated throughout
the
experiment.
Experimenter.
Apparently
the experimenter remaining with the subjects
was
W.
G.
Roll.
Target Persons.
Each day
a student was randomly selected from the
class
to accompany
G.
Solfvin to the
target.
The student target person was known
to the subjects and was instructed what he/she might do
at
the
target location
Judges.
No judges were needed
as
the subjects voted on the
target.
Equipment.
Nothing of note.
Targets.
Twenty-eight targets were selected and photographed prior
to
the beginning of
the
class.
Seven pools were formed,
each containing four
dissimilar locations.
None of
the
targets
is
listed,
named,
or described
in the paper.
Procedure.
Each experimental session lasted about one hour.
The
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :32PA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
student
target person was randomly
(procedure not specified)
selected and
left
the room with Solfvin.
The subjects "would meditate for about
minutes and then attempt
to experience what
the
target person was experiencing
for another
5 minutes."
Each subject then completed
a questionnaire dealing
with the quality
of his/her meditation and indicated how emotionally close
or friendly he/she felt
(on
a
to
scale)
about
that day's
target person.
They were then shown photos
and instruction sheets
of
the four possible
target locations,
in random order,
and asked
to
rank them "according
to
their own impressions
of where"
the target person visited.
The instruction sheets gave
the
target person the name and address
of
the
target location,
directions
to drive
there
from the school,
and what
to
do
at
the target.
The instructions and
target photos were
in identical
envelopes.
The target person selected one
of
the four randomly after
arriving at
the
car.
Solfvin and the target person did not return
to
the
classroom until the subjects had turned
in their responses.
No mention
is made of daily or other feedback
to
the subjects,
although
it
is reasonable
to assume that daily feedback may have occurred.
It would
be unreasonable
to assume
that
the target person would not
tell his class-
mates
of
the target location.
Data Analysis.
A majority vote was used
to determine
the group response.
The
mode, was used
to break target
ties based upon
the mean vote.
Subgroups of
the subjects were formed based upon how they rated
the
target person
(liked,
disliked)
and how the target person ranked them
(liked
by,
moderate,
disliked
by).
"For
the former we calculated
the median rating
from
all. the
[subjects]
for all six days.
This was used
as
a cut-off point
to assign the
[subjects]
to the
'liking'
or
'disliking'
subgroups.
We
then
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 ?SlA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
-9»
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: C^gg0g6-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
applied
the majority vote procedure
...
to
the
target responses
of
these
subgroups
.
"From the
[target person]
ranking
of his
classmates we categorized
ranks
to
as
'liked by
[target person],'
ranks
to
10 as
'moderate'
and ranks 11
to
as
'disliked
....'
The majority vote procedure was
also applied
to target responses
of each
of
these subgroups
for each day."
The sum-of-ranks statistic
for preferentially ranked data, developed
by Solfvin and Kelly,
was applied
to examine
for individuals achieving
significant responses.
No reference
is given for
this
test.
Results.
"No significant psi scoring was evident
in
the
group majority
vote rankings.
This was
also
true
of
the majority vote rankings
of
the
various subgroupings—liked
[target person],
disliked
[target person],
liked
by
[target person], moderate,
disliked by
[target person].
The target
rankings
of these subgroupings did not differ significantly for one another
nor from the rankings
of
the entire group."
"None of
the
[subjects]
showed significant psi scoring,
although several
of them showed tendencies
towards psi-hitting
. ..."
Conclusions .
The authors plan to use
the like-dislike concept
in future
psi research,
feeling that
the results
are suggestive and warrant future
evaluation.
They recognize no group remote viewing positive results were
demonstrated
in this experiment.
Critical Evaluation.
Clearly,
no positive remote viewing was demonstrated*
Possible reasons are the
following.
(1)
Inadequate assurances were given
to
the subjects
to encourage
a
remote viewing experience.
(2)
The use
of
a forced-choice response may block
the remote viewing
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 230MA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
6-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
:
phenomenon.
See
the Puthoff criticism of
the Karnes
and
Susmati paper;
the same applies here.
(3)
Inadequate
or no feedback may have taken place after each
trial,
thereby permitting
trace responses/impressions from one
target
to contaminate
the next.
Summary.
The methodology
is again somewhat different from the Puthoff
and Targ approach.
These differences,
should
a true remote viewing capability
exist, may have suppressed
it
in. this experiment.
Clearly,
however,
no
strong remote viewing results were obtained
in this
study.
J.
Tart,
C.
T.
Psi.
New York:
E.
P.
Dutton,
1977,
Chapter
8.
In this book, which deals with
the author's
twenty years
of psi research,
Chapter
is devoted
to
a discussion of three remote viewing experiments.
The
first
two were previously published and are described below
(Whitson,
et al.
,
1976).
The third,
apparently unpublished elsewhere,
is described
here.
Purpose.
The author was
impressed by the procedures
and results
of
the Hastings and Hurt
(1976)
experiment,
and attempted
to replicate
the
experiment during the conduct
of his
two-day workshop on consciousness and
extrasensory perception for
the professional
staff
of
the Nebraska Psychiatric
Institute.
Experimental Design.
Workshop participants were
formed
into 25
teams
to
remote view one randomly selected
target
site.
Subjects.
The subjects were
the staff of
the
Institute who attended
the workshop.
Originally
there were 25
teams,
each consisting
of
a coach
and
a viewer.
Some participants had
to leave early, however,
and
25 viewers,
Approved For Release 2000/08/JO f6lA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
fO8/J0
: CIA-RDP
- iTrrirT