Approved For Release 2003/04/1.&
- CIA-|RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
-QLIJRLr
Targ's employment history.
[The latter
is likely because
of
the close
relationship
the experimenters had with the
subjects.]
$
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Bevatron ,
Berkeley,
California
In this case,
the experimenter with the subject
"(1)
knew only
the
name and general function of
the
target,
(2)
did not have any detailed
information about what was
inside
the target building,
and
(3)
took every
conceivable precaution
to prevent cueing or leading
the subject."
The
subject,
H^, was probably Hella Hammid.
5?
The description was quite
good, with the sketch and model very
close.
The authors conclude that
"(1)
remote viewing on the basis
of coordinates
is
at
least
as effective as remote viewing on the basis
of an outbound
experimenter
at
the
site,
and
(2)
subjects not
technologically oriented can
nevertheless produce meaningful descriptions
of
technological installations.
(Puthoff,
Targ,
and May,
1977
,
p.
73)
S"
Real-Time Targetting,
Utah and China Lake,
California
Five Minuteman and Poseidon static test
firings were kept blind
to SRI
personnel until all five firings were completed.
Coordinates were given
to
subjects
I
(in Menlo Park)
and
(in Los Angeles).
I
]L participated
in
all five targets,
in
two.
^
The results
included recognition of
go and no-go conditions,
timing to
within ten seconds,
and descriptions
of
the events
as "drawn-out muffled
roars" which "raised dust clouds"
and involved "glowing melted materials.
'
They were judged
to be excellent and to constitute a significant breakthrough
with regard
to real-time data collection.
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1977,
p.
75) j.
Approved For Release 2003/04/i a JJAJRDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
ArftftFTL
Approved For Release 2003/W|^^^f^DP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Sponsor-Designated USSR Target Sites
Two Soviet
Sites
(A and
B)
were passed by coordinate
to subjects
1^ and
E
Subject
1^ gave apparently valid responses
of major structures such
as
airfield
and buildings.
When asked
to
search general area
for airfield,
subject E1 also provided sketch of runways and buildings.
Subject
I
correctly described Site
B
as
a town and barren area.
The authors conclude that
the subjects’
responses were valid and were
not "simply geared
to match the expectations
of
the experimenters
.
•
•
or
what may reasonably be expected
to be correct
....
[Rather,
the response]
describes
the area appropriate
to the coordinates even though
it may run
counter even
to
the subject's own expectations."
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1977)
Ten additional sites were scanned by subjects E^ and
1^.
The experimenter
was kept blind
to the target.
The data were partially verified.
The authors
state that
the results "constitute
a useful supplementary data collection
technology."
(Puthoff,
et at .
,
1977,
94-95) ^
Critical Evaluation
At
this point, we present
a critical evaluation of
the methodologies
used for the training mode targets,
the Virginia site,
and
the
Island site.
Evaluation of
the methodology and results
of
the remaining targets,
U.S.
and
foreign, will be delayed until later
in Section
Il
?
simply because
the
methodologies are similar and were largely developed
in close chronological
sequence.
Abstract targeting
(Project
SCANATE) began as
a result
of
Swann’s
consideration of abstract thought versus
linear thought during
the period
of early experimentation at Stanford Research Institute.
"I decided
thought
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
f-pnit
~
—©conn
Approved For Release 2003
&rnnrr.-
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
itself
constituted
a threshold somewhat on the nature
I was searching for,
especially abstract
thought
as contrasted
to linear thought.
If this were
true,
then the physical targets arbitrarily and endlessly utilized by
contemporary parapsychology were
the worst possible kinds
of
targets.
This
would naturally be
the case since
the psychic entity could not relate
to
unknown physical
targets very well
in the absence of
a mental or
thinking
access
to them
....
The problem immediately arose
as
to what constituted
an abstract
target.
This worried me for some time until
I realized
that
abstract targets were lying around all over
the place
in the form of anything
that
in itself referred
to thought before
it referred
to physical things.
These are words, mathematical symbols,
understanding,
intuition,
...
but
refer
to nonphysical
things
....
The abstraction of
the coordinate sufficed
to provide orientation for
the psychic probe
...
to locate by transcendental
means
the place
to which the coordinate referred and thence
to inspect
it
and describe what was
there
....
This
idea,
of course, was totally foreign
to even the brilliant thinkers
...
at Stanford Research Institute
....
However,
due
to their initial lack of enthusiasm for this
irrational approach,
and because we had not yet understood
the precision of
the abstract ability,
the coordinates were rather loosely put together."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
107-109)
"...
many of the coordinates were simple,
merely seeking
to ascertain
if
the
coordinate related
to ocean, mountain,
desert,
and
so forth."
(p.
110)
M.
These coordinates were apparently
taken off rather general maps with
little resolution since a discussion ensued over Swann's response
as
to
the
correctness
to
the Lake Victoria coordinates.
At
that
time,
"...
we went
out
to
a book store
to purchase The Times Atlas
of
the World
... ."
(p.
110)
This
target appears,
one might note,
in Run
10,
the
last run of targets
to
Approved For Release 2003/0^L&ya£RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04l|OTjffi^pP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
be used.
Thus,
the logic and sequence
of
these events appear
to conflict.
In Mind Reach,
Targ and Puthoff
(1977)
agree to compile
a list
of
ten
coordinate pairs,
latitude and longitude"
...
since
it was just
a game^-an
interlude from our scientific experimentation,
we simply consulted
a map
....
On a later
day,
we ran through another series
of
ten pairs
.
.
.
the phenomenon
we were observing with Ingo was
interesting enough
to take ten
breaks
altogether,
yielding
a total of 100 descriptions,
one for each coordinate
pair."
(pp.
27.-28)
However,
in writing the
technical report on Project Scanate,
the
game
was presented somewhat differently.
"As
a result of
the experimentation
carried out on what might be termed micro-abilities,
Swann expressed the
opinion that the insights obtained had strengthened a macro-ability which
had been researched prior
to his joining the SRI program;
namely,
the ability
to view remote locations.
In order
to
test
the above assertion,
SRI researchers
set
up
a series
of experimental protocols
on
a gradient
scale
of
increasing
difficulty
....
For
the first experiment,
considered
to be
a training mode,
100 target
on the earth's surface,
ten per day
for
ten days,
were chosen
at
random
...
under carefully controlled experimental conditions
....
(PP*
l- 2)
What appeared
to be purposeful to Swann became, variously,
a game and serious
experimentation
to Puthoff and Targ. ^
Puthoff and Targ quantify the results of
this experiment
"...
since,
...
a)
an individual could,
in principle,
obtain good results on the basis
of
memory,
and b)
given the hypothesis
of extraordinary functioning an individual
could,
in principle,
obtain the data subliminally
for an experimenter who
knows
the target location."
(p.
2)
Swann,
on the contrary,
comments
in
his book,
"...
evidence mounted
to indicate that psi-ability was undergoing
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
SECRET-
Approved For Release 200£/ryi||gnMr£j2pP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
some sort
of
a learning process,
reflected
iiji a rising curve of both
accuracies and increasing descriptions
of
the site."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
110)
W,
However,
a calculation of
the linear relationship between
the number
of hits
and trial blocks yields
a product-moment correlation of
0.20, which
predicts only 4.2%
of
the variation in hits over trial blocks.
This
correlation
is not statistically significant
(p
>
.05),
indicating no
justifiable conclusion of learning over
the trial blocks. ^
As
indicated above,
these
successes
led to following,
more rigorous
experiments which required Swann to provide details
that would not be
available on a map.
Several items are important
in evaluating
those results.
Virginia site ,
Subject:
Swann.
It
is
interesting
to note
the possible
clues given
to the subject at
the time the coordinates were introduced:
"...
a skeptical colleague of ours
on the East Coast
..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1977,
p.
2)
Although
it
is not clear as
to what preceded
the introduction
of the coordinates
to
the subject,
Swann's
initial description
is
an
extremely general one.
It was not until
the
second, reading on
the following
day
that any real detail
is
included
in his description,
such as "Cliffs
to
the
east
...
a circular building
...
a former Nike base
.
.
.
something under-
ground
"
This,
however,
is reported
in Mind Reach as
a single reading.
)
Swann also states:
"This
is about as
far
as
I can go without feedback,
and perhaps guidance as
to what was wanted.
There
is something strange
about
this
area,
but
since
I don't know particularly what
to look for
within
the scope
of
this cloudy ability,
it
is extremely difficult
to make
decisions
on what
is
there and what
is not."
(Project SCANATE Report,
pp.
4-5)
This comment
is made during his second reading.
If Swann can
see
, why does
he need guidance
as
to what
to look for?
(?)
Approved For Release 2003/04/
CunCr
-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/WF
-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
In addition,
Puthoff and Targ did not quote their own sources
accurately.
"There's
a circular building
(a tower?)
..."
(SCANATE,
p.
4)
and
There
s
a
circular building,
perhaps
a tower
...."
(Mi>nd Reach ,
p.
2)
These may
appear
as minor points until another more obyious discrepancy occurs relating
to Pat Price's appearance
as
a subject.
"As
a back-up
test,
the coordinates
were given
to
a second subject who appears
to possess similar ability
in
casual testing
"
(SCANATE Report,
p.
5)
"It began with
a phone call
from Lake
Tahoe.
...
I've been following what you fellows are doing
so
I
thought
I'd
call
to
let you know that
I have similar abilities
On an
impulse,
I read off
to him the coordinates
of
the East Coast
site that Swann
was
targeting
"
{Mind Reach,
pp.
46-47)
Virginia site 3
Subject:
Price.
Again,
one finds
the
same discrepancy
in the reporting
of Price's viewing
as
is
found with Swann.
Ihe entire
viewing
is reported
as
a single viewing in one source,
{Mind Reach,
pp.
47-48)
,
rather
than the
two readings
that Price actually supplies.
One wonders how
Price knew about
the work going on at
SRI with Swann since
it was just
a
"game".
There was certainly sufficient
time for contact
to be made between
Swann and Price,
assuming that
they knew each other or had common associates.
It
is alleged,
although unverified by
the authors,
that Price had once worked
for the organization that had control over
that particular site and therefore
might have had access
to
the reported information.
Approximately three weeks
later,
a second
set
of coordinates was given
to
Swann,
those of Kerguelen Island.
Kerguelen Island3
Subject:
Swann.
Two readings were allowed again.
His
first impressions were of an island which was verified almost immediately
by the experimenter although no maps were permitted.
"My initial response
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
^jjwjrr
iJLuIvtF
Approved For Release 2003/OflJmmBP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
is that
it's an island, maybe
a mountain sticking up through cloud cover
(experimenter checks,
gives positive feedback)."
(SCANATE Report,
p.
8) $
Swann verifies
this
in his book, but with
a different twist:
"Well,
said
the experimenter present,
I think that
is wrong.
I checked
the
target just
before we began,
and it
is
in the middle of
the ocean."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
112)
Swann also relates:
"...
it was seen that
. the coordinate referred almost
exactly
to
the 1,600-foot mountains rising out
of
the eastern end
of Kerguelen
Island."
(p.
ia.2)
1^
His directions,
however,
seem to get reversed when he
draws his map
the following day as he then places
the mountains
in the west.^/*
In comparing his descriptions
of his map, we again find another discrepancy
in reporting:
"If
I look to
the west,
hills;
to
the north flatlands
and,
I
think,
airstrip
and ocean in the distance;
to
the east,
rolling bumpy grass-
lands with bumps;
to
the south
is— I can't see anything
to
the south
....
May be
a lighthouse
(on tip?)
...
I lacked
...."
(SCANATE Report,
p.
9) ^
The other accounting:
"If
I look to the west, hills;
to
the north flatlands,
and
I think,
airstrip and ocean
in
the distance
to the east;
can't see any-
thing in the south
... maybe
a lighthouse.
I lacked courage
...."
(Mind Reach,
pp.
32-33)
It
is
interesting
to note what appears
to be
two different
types
of
handwriting on the first detailed map Swann drew of
the airport strip and
buildings,
although the authors
do not profess
to being handwriting experts
("maybe
6'
long,
like gas storage tanks").
SECTION
1.
DETAIL
(SCANATE Report).
Note
the different "r's" and "s's".
A comparison with the airport drawing,
drawn by one of the experimenters during
the Costa Rica experiments, might
K.
be in order.
(Mind Reach,
p.
12)
Note also that
this
is referred
to
as
Experiment
(SCANATE Report)
although this number has been removed from
$
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
irrnrr-
Approved For Release 2003/0^ig||^fRDP96- 00791 R0001 00440001 -9
the same drawing
in Mind Reach
(p.
32).
After Puthoff and Targ describe the Kerguelen Island site in Mind Reach,
they qualify the results by stating that prior knowledge could have been
possible.
Therefore,
another experiment was performed
in which no prior
knowledge was available.
"No such criticism could be leveled
at
the
following
type
of experiment
... A target
site on the East Coast
.
.
. ."
(Mind Reach,
p.
33)
leading
the reader
to believe that this
target came after Kerguelen
Island.
Although they have stated
the date and have stated that
this was
the first experiment
of many,
the reader can easily be led
to believe that
Kerguelen Island came before
the East Coast
site,
unless
the reader returns
to the earlier description in the early pages
of
the book.
(Mind Reach,
pp.
1-4)
In general,
the Kerguelen Island and Virginia site results are impressive
until one carefully considers
the timing,
and
the notion that
each subject
could have
obtained
the impressive detailed information during
the day
that
n
ensued between the first and second readings.
*
Similarly,
inconsistent and conflicting detail reporting cause
the
careful reader
to be
at least
slightly suspicious.
However,
these are
early attempts
in the research program,
and
the investigators were perhaps
feeling their way.
Judgement about these particular experiments
is not
critical.
The later experiments are the ones designed
to improve
the
methodology and verify
the existence
of
a remote-viewing ability.
t\
B.
Long Distance Remote Viewing by Target Person Cueing.
A number
of studies have been conducted at
SRI
(and elsewhere)
to evaluate
the abilities
of
subjects
to describe remote
target sites
identified only
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CU\-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003 OTnnL— 6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
by
the presence at
the
target of
a known individual
or
group of
individuals
("target persons")
,
Costa Rica Experiment
Puthoff 's itinerary
for a one-week trip was known to
the subjects
(Price
and Hammid)
, who described his location each day at 1330
PDT..
Puthoff kept
a detailed record of his location and activities,
including photographs.
jj-T
(Hammid)
contributed five daily responses,
of which "two were
in
excellent agreement,
two had elements
in common but were not clear correspon-
dences,
and one was clearly a miss."
(August
1974 Progress Report,
p.
5) ^
Nothing specific
is offered
in
this progress report on S^'s responses.
However,
in Mind Reach,
the authors indicate further "excellent correspondences"
for
targets
such as "poolside relaxation,
a tropical forest
at
the base of
a
truncated volcano,
a hotel room,
and
so on."
(p.
13)
The picture presented most frequently to exemplify the success
of
this
experiment
is
that
of
the airport
in San Andres
,
Columbia
,
and
the related
sketch by Targ, who "filled
in" on
that day because one
of
the subjects
(S^)
was absent.
Upon his return,
Puthoff attempted
to, blind match the twelve responses
to the seven target locations.
He correctly matched five of
the twelve
responses,
a result "significant at odds of
50:1."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1977,
p.
13)
Assuming independence of the responses
and events,
one can verify this
probability estimate with
the binomial distribution,
asking the probability
of obtaining
5 or more correct matches
out of
12, when the a priori chance
probability
is
1/12.
Thus,
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 20
i*rnnrT_
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
p(n>5)=l-[
£
n -
1 n
^ n )K 12
}
12 -n
(' 12
;
( 1 )
=
.00026
That
is,
under
the above assumptions,
the probability of
this occurrence by
chance
is
.00026;
or,
the odds
are better
than 3000:1!
Continental U.S.
Experiments
Based upon the various local remote viewing experimental results,
the
Project SCANATE results,
and
the Costa Rica results,
it was decided
to
explore
the accuracy of long-distance remote viewing for U.S.
targets
demarcated by
a target person.
Puthoff,
Targ,
and May
(1977)
described
the
results
of experiments with five such targets.
These experiments are also
reported by Targ,
Puthoff,
and May
(1978).
They all followed
the same general
procedure.
5"
The DARPA computer teleconferencing network was used
to coordinate
experimental
timing,
and
to provide time/date stamped permanent records
of
all communications.
With this
system inputs
at one location can be
read out
in real
time at another location. S
After logging off
the computer,
the target person used
a random number
generator
to determine which of
six locations
in the
target area would
constitute
the
target.
Neither
the subject nor the experimenter knew the
contents of
the target
list, which was compiled after
the target person
logged
off.
The target person selected
the
target,
proceeded directly
to
the
target,
arriving there
30 minutes after logging off,
and remained at
the
target
site for
15 minutes.
J
Approved For Release 200
-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04^g|^tDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
The subject,
at
the beginning of start
time, would begin
to type his
impressions
into
a special computer
file established
for
this purpose.
When
the target person returned from the target
site,
he entered his
description of
the site into
a limited-access
file.
"He would then return
to
the executive level
of
the computer,
and await
the appearance
of
the
SRI
experimenters
and subject who could then
(and only
then)
link the
[target
location]
and Menlo Park terminals.
At
that
time both files would be printed
out on both terminals
(and at
a third location
if desired
for example,
at
the sponsor facility),
and
the subject and the outbound experimenter would
each learn what
the other had written."
(Puthoff,
Targ,
and May,
1977)
The
results are summarized below by
target. ^
Grant's Tomb
(New York City).
Both subjects
S
(probably
Swann)
and
(an SRI systems
analyst) were located in California,
and made independent
responses.
One subject
(unspecified)
drew a sketch.
[These subjects are
renumbered
S..
and
S Q
,
but still unnamed
in the
1978 report.]
The selected
target was Grant's
tomb.
Other targets
in the pool were a railroad bridge,
the 20-story NYU law library,
the fountain
in Washington Square Park,
the
Columbia University subway station,
and
the
72 n
Street boat basin. J
Responses deemed correct by
were "outdoors,
large open area
...,
white building,
...
arched look
...»
large shade tree close
to Russ.
Responses by
S^^ included "tree on your left
...
in front
of
a building
you were entering
...
looking
at coins
in palm of your hand,
maybe giving
some
to Nicky
(son of
target person)."
These responses are essentially correct;
other details were correct,
and some clearly incorrect.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
sgrfjrjrr
Approved For Release 2003/04/ tSET:i
KDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Washington Square Fountain.
Subject
was accurate
in description of
column,
pigeons,
dry fountain pool,
cement steps,
rounded edge
of
top
of
depression.
Drawing also appeared fairly accurate.
jT
An SRI scientist,
familiar with New York City but blind
to
the
target,
identified
the
target correctly on reading twenty lines
of printout
as
it
emerged from the
terminal.
^
An admittedly crude content analysis
of
the responses
of subject
S^
indicates
that about
66%
of
the transcripts
is
accurate.
If matched against
the other
target sites,
only 37%
of
the transcripts would apply.
"Although
crude,
this analysis strongly suggests
a method
for further single transcript
analysis
to be carried out by professional linguists."
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1977,
p.
46) 5
Ohio Caves 3
Springfield3
Ohio.
The target person,
under sponsor observation,
telephoned subject H^'in New York City that
the target person was somewhere
between New York and
SRI,
and would shortly be taken
to
a target
site.
The
experiment was
set
to begin at 2:00 PM EDT,iwith the target person to call
at
3:00 PM
to obtain the impressions
of
and to provide feedback.
The cave depths
are about
150
feet,
and
the
cave
is entered through a
small building having a long flight of
steep stairs.
The response included
"underground
caves
or mines
...
deep shafts
...
darker,
cool, moist earth-
smelling passages."
These are considered quite accurate.
A second,
less experienced subject
(G^)
at SRI also served
as
a subject.
His
transcript
contained
some correct elements,
but he believed
the
target
to be
a museum.
No paranormal functioning was concluded from his
transcript. S
Northern California Bank Plaza.
Subject
S^ was
in New Orleans, while
the target was
in Palo Alto.
The subject correctly reported "overhang
of
a
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: QA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ta,:XJAJRDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
building over their heads
...
also
a round gold rim around
a sunken depression."
He also reported "there was
a projectile .coming toward
[the
target person].
Like
a ball
or frisbee
...."
Actually,
they had tossed
a paper airplane
back and forth several
times.
This appears
to be
a rare instance of
a
subject reporting rapid motion. 5
Louisiana Superdomej
New Orleans.
Subject
in Menlo Park described
this
target
as
"a large circular building with a white dome."
The sketches
are considered close.
Subject saw rings,
Seats
,
inside lighting color,
nearby freeway,
parking lot,
newness.
The
target was selected randomly from
a New Orleans guide book list.
)
Puthoff,
et
at.
(1977,
pp.
57-58)
conclude
that "Taken overall,
the
results
.
.
.
are of roughly the same accuracy with regard
to site descriptions
as
those obtained in local remote-viewing experiments.
The descriptions not
only contain correct information beyond th^t expected by chance,
but also
show remarkable detail and resolution.
Furthermore,
real-time activities
are observed and correctly described
in
a number
of instances
....
Any
application
of paranormal functioning need not,
to first order,
consider
distance as
a barrier."
Critical Evaluation
A critical evaluation of these results
and methodologies
is
contained
at
the end
of Section
II because of
the chronological proximity of
the
experiments and
the methodological similarities.
C.
Local Targets with Target Person Cueipg
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIAJRDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/047tCuiviT
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
A very large portion of
the SRI work has dealt with
a somewhat standard-
ized procedure
in which a target person goes
to
a nearby,
randomly selected
target
at
a designated
time.
The subject
then describes
the
target site in
as much detail
as possible.
In
the following sections, we summarize
these
"local" experiments by related categories.
Since
these studies
form the most
quantitatively judged experimentation,
they are probably the most important
studies for
the purposes
of method evaluation and improvement.
Training with Feedback
Puthoff
(1974,
August Progress Report)
describes
a series
of
local
experiments which were designed
to give immediate data
to
the experimenters.
While these are clearly "pilot" experiments
in the
traditional experimental
sense,
they are also described and discussed elsewhere
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975;
Targ and Puthoff,
1977)
and therefore warrant
inclusion here. ?
In
this series,
the subject and experimenter remain in a laboratory at
SRI, while
the
target person leaves
the area and proceeds
to
a remote location
of his
choosing.
The
target person and
the experimenter
are
in two-way radio
communication by "walkie-talkie"
to provide
the experimenter with real-time
data and
to give the subject immediate feedback.
Thus,
this serves
as
a
training technique for
the naive subject
in
_ particular
,
permitting
the subject
to "learn
to separate real from imagined images."
(Puthoff,
1974,
p.
9) $
Transcripts
of "representative" experiments indicate queries and
responses between the experimenter and
target person.
Puthoff
(1974)
reports
that one experiment
of
this
type was carried out
with
S^,
one with
S^,
two with
S^,
and
five with
S^.
(We believe
these
subjects
to be Price,
Elgin,
Swann,
and
llammid
,
respectively.)
"A number of
Approved For Release 2003/04/
,-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
ArftijEL
. ijLusiLI
v f
descriptions were essentially free
of
error and with no feedback other
than
verification following
the remote viewer's description."
(p.
12)
^
In one such experiment,
"...
Swann gave
a description of Hal walking
across some blacktop,
stopping
in front
of
a blue building,
and then walking
into
a depression
....
Now you really have
to have
a very high level of
confidence
in your perceptions
...
to say that somebody stopped near
a blue
building.
The probability
of encountering a blue building
is about
the
same
as
a purple
cow-,
but Harold in fact did stop
in front of
a blue building on
his way
to
the depression."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
pp.
172-173)
Demonstration of Ability
Successful results
in the above feedback experiments and
the long-distance
trials with Swann led
to the formulation of
a protocol for better controlled
experiments
to be conducted
in the San Francisco Bay area.
This standard
protocol
is
taken,
as
follows,
from the August
1974 SRI Progress Report
(Puthoff,
1974). $
"This experiment consists
of
a series
of double-blind
tests involving
local targets
in the San Francisco Bay area which can be documented by
independent judging.
Target locations within thirty minutes driving time
from SRI are randomly chosen from
a list of
targets kept blind
to subject
and experimenters and used without replacement. $
"To begin an experiment,
an experimenter
is closeted with a subject at
SRI
to wait
30 minutes
to begin a narrative description of
the remote location.
A second experimenter
[target person]
obtains
a target location from the
target pool and proceeds directly
to
the
target without communicating with
the subject
or experimenter remaining behind.
The second experimenter remains
Approved For Release 2003/($M«£IA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/|TMyggflp96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
at
the
target
site for an agreed-upon thirty-minute period following
the
thirty minutes allotted for travel.
During the observation period,
the
remote viewing subject
is asked
to describe his impressions
of
the
target
site into
a tape recorder.
A comparison
is made when the experimenter
[target person]
returns.
"Following
a series
of nine experiments,
the results are subjected
to
independent judging on
a blind basis by five SRI scientists not otherwise
associated with- the research.
The judges
are asked
to blind match locations,
independently visited,
against
typed manuscripts
of tape-recorded narratives
of
the remote viewer.
A given narrative can be assigned
to more
than one
target
location.
A correct match requires
that
a transcript
of
a given date
be associated with
the target
of
that date.
Probability calculations
are on
the basis
of
the a priori probability of
the obtained series
of matches by
chance,
conservatively assuming assignment without replacement on the part
of
the judges."
(pp.
18-19)
$
Elaboration of
this protocol
is given in Appendix B,
an unpublished 1977
communication from Puthoff
to a sponsor.
Comments on this protocol,
as
written and executed,
are offered throughout this section
of
the report
m the context of critical evaluation.
Other comments
are contained in
Sections
IV and
V.
T
Results from these experiments have been reported
in various progress
reports,
technical reports,
and open literature publications.
They are
summarized below by subject.
An overview of
the ranking
of each subject's
transcript,
by
target,
is presented
in Table
4,
along with summary statistics
following
the procedure of Morris
(1972)
,
as summarized
in Appendix A and
Appendix
B.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
I
I
I
-O’
Ill
i
ll
ft
il
l
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-0O791R0ff01 00440001 -9
*
SECRET
^ ?
TABLE
4.
SRI RESULTS,
BAY AREA TARGETS.
Tabled values are ranks assigned by judges.
*
TARGETS
S^
PRICE
S
.
:
HAMMID
S
:
SWANN
S 2
:
ELGIN
S
•
PEASE
:
COLE
D
V
V
HOOVER TOWER
BAYLANDS PRESERVE
P.V.
TELESCOPE
R.C. MARINA
PREEMONT TOLL PLAZA
DRIVE-IN THEATRE
ARTS /CRAFTS PLAZA
CATHOLIC CHURCH
SWIMMING POOL COMPLEX
METHODIST CHURCH
NESS AUDITORIUM
MERRY-GO-ROUND
i
PARKING GARAGE
SRI COURTYARD
BICYCLE SHED
‘
'
RR BRIDGE
PUMPKIN PATCH
PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS
CITY HALL
MINIATURE GOLF COURSE
KIOSK
BART STATION
SRI SHIELDED ROOM
TENNIS COURTS
GOLF COURSE BRIDGE
WINDMILL
WHITE PLAZA
-e 1*
AIRPORT
BOATHOUSE
BRIDGE OVER STREAM
SWIMMING POOL
REPORTED p-VALUE:
2.9 x 10~ 5
1.8 x 10-6
3.8 x 10
0.08
0.017
CALCULATED p-VALUE:
2.95 x 10~5
1.84 x 10
-6
3.83 x 10-4
0.08
0.018
*:
JOINT TARGET
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/04
flan
rv
r4 RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Subject S £.•
Price.
This
subject,
a former California police commissioner
and
city councilman,
"indicated the functioning of
a remote perceptual ability.
A Hoover Tower target,
for example, was recognized and named by name.
Nonetheless,
in general,
the descriptions -contained inaccuracies
as well as correct
statements."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976,
p.
335)
Of
the nine targets viewed by Price,
an SRI research analyst who served
as judge correctly matched seven
t'o
the correct
transcript,
as indicated in
Table
4.
The authors
conclude that
this
result
is
significant at p
= 2.9 x
by exact calculation,
using Morris’
(1972)
procedure.
Our calculations verify
-5
-5
this p-value
at
2.95 x 10
In Experiments
[targets]
3,
4,
6,
7,
8,
and
9, Price was secured
in
a
double-walled copper-screen Faraday cage, which provides
120 dB of attenuation
for RF radiation over
a range of
15 KHz
to
1 GHz.
For magnetic fields,
the
attenuation
is
68 dB at
15 KHz and decreases
to
3 dB
at
60 Hz.
The authors
conclude that
this shielding does not reduce the subject's remote viewing
performance,
a conclusion which appears quite valid based upon the rankings
of Table
4.
Subject S^:
Hammid.
This subject was
a professional photographer selected
for her successful performance
in an earlier EEG experiment.
She had no previous
experience with apparent paranormal functioning.
Judging of her
transcripts resulted
in five direct hits and
a p-value
of
1.8 x 10~ 6
(Table
4)
. VA
While
the naive SRI analyst
served
as
the judge
for both Price and
Hammid manuscripts,
a panel
of five SRI
scientists was used
as backup judges,
each independently following
the same Morris
(1972)
procedure.
Under the
null hypothesis
of random matching, each judge would be expected
to obtain
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
Aw
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
one correct match out
of nine.
‘For
the Price transcripts,
the backup judges
obtained
7,
6,
5,
3,
and
3 correct, while they obtained
5,
3,
3,
2,
and
for
the Hammid transcripts.
It
is worth noting that none
of
the backup
judges,
for either subject,
did better than the naive "chosen" judge.
A
t-test comparing
the backup judges'
number correct against
the
chosen judges
score results
in
a
it of 4.34, with a p-val-ue of 0.0019,
two-tailed.
Thus,
the likelihood
of the chosen judge being selected randomly from the same
population as
the five
(or perhaps
ten)
backup judges
is
less
than one
in
five hundred.
Stated another way,
the chosen judge did significantly better,
at odds
of 500:1,
than the backup judges.
No reason for this difference
(or
acknowledgement
of
its existence)
. is given by
the authors. (A
In Targ and Puthoff
(1975)
,
the distribution of
the matching responses
by
the five backup judges
for Price's
transcripts are given.
As
reported,
•*
the number of correct matches
is highly significant although judge
C matched
three different transcripts
to
the Baylands Nature Preserve target and no
transcript
to either
the Bridge Toll Plaza or
the Swimming Pool Complex in
in Rinconada Park.
No explanation
is given although
the judges
"were asked
to find
a narrative which they would consider
the best match for each of
the
places they visited."
(p.
154)
Subjects S^
(Swann) and S^
(Elgin).
Subjects
S
2 and
S
are considered
to
be experienced subjects.
Their individual results and
the combined probability
of their
8 transcripts being ranked as well by chance are shown in Table
4.
Again,
as with Price and Hammid,
the results are highly significant
(p
= 3.8 x
^)
.
Apparently no backup judges were used for
these
subjects.
L-f
iSubjects S r
(Pease) and S„
(Cole).
These
two subjects were on the SRI
o
professional staff,
and were
selected
to balance out
this
series
of experiments
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
gM IET
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
)P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
S^,
S^,
and
were considered experienced subjects with previous paranormal
accomplishments, while
S^,
S,.
,
and
were "learners."
Similarly,
and
were female, while the others were male.b\
The results
for
S r
and
S,.
are
indicated
in Table
4 also.
One target,
5 6.
the Stanford White Plaza,
"came up"
for both subjects,
so
the
two transcripts
were judged together.
[How this
target
"came up" that way,
or why
it was not
replaced,
is not mentioned.
Note
that,
in
the original protocol statement,
targets were to-be sampled without replacement
(Puthoff,
1974, August Progress
Report);
yet,
clearly this target was sampled with replacement.
Note also
that
the double transcript provided more potential information for
that
target
than for any other
in this
series.
It was correctly judged,] S
As indicated in Table
4,
the results for these subjects,
taken together,
failed
to reach statistical significance,
p
=
.08.
Subjects
Vj' and
V^.
Five experiments were done with these
two visitors,
as indicated
in Table
4.
The' reason for these studies
is
that "After more
than
a year of following the experimental protocol described above and
observing
that even inexperienced subjects
generated results better
than
expected, we
initiated
a series
of experiments
to explore further whether
individuals other
than' putative
'psychics'
can demonstrate
the remote-viewing
ability.
To test this
idea, we have
a continuing program to carry out
additional experiments
of
the outdoor
type with new subjects whom we have no
a priori reason to believe have paranormal perceptual ability."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976,
p.
340) H
For V^,
the quality
of response was judged
to increase with practice.
His response
to
this
target,
the Merry-Go-Round ? was considered
to be
a close
match.
(It was judged
correctly.,
as
shown in Table
4.
It was
also used
previously with
S^.)
Approved For Release 2003/1
A-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04A18^QJjRgP9^0791R0001 00440001 -9
Subject
was
considered
to generate one of
the higher signal-to-noise
responses obtained,
on his first attempt.
(This
target,
the windmill,
had
been previously used for
S
.
It was judged correctly for subject V^.)
The results for
and
combined were statistically significant,
p
- 0.017
(actually 0.018
as we calculate
it).
The authors conclude
that observations with unselected
(inexperienced)
subjects such
as
and
indicate that remote viewing may be
a latent and
widely distributed ability.
It
is
this result and assertion that has
led
other researchers
to use inexperienced subjects,
provide them encouragement,
and obtain seemingly positive results,
as will be seen in Section III
of
this report.
Preoognitive Experiments
Puthoff and Targ
(1976a)
noted that subjects "occasionally volunteered
the information
that
they had been thinking about
their forthcoming
.
.
.
experiment and had had an image come
to them as
to what
the
target location
was
to be.
(p.
37)
Hella Hammid
(S^)
was selected
as
a subject
to test
this
ability,
largely because she had been successful on precognitive trials with
the four-choice random number generator,
as will be described below.
^ ^
In this
series,
Hammid described
the remote location during
a 15-minute
period beginning
20 minutes before the
target was selected and
35 minutes
before
the target person was
to arrive
at
the
target
site.
Other elements
of
the
SRI protocol were essentially unchanged,
The four
targets,
none used
in previous research with her, were
(1)
the
Palo Alto Yacht Harbor,
(2)
a fountain at Stanford University Hospital,
(3)
a children’s
swing
in
a small park,
and
(4)
the Palo Alto City Hall.
(Target
(4) was used with subject
S^.)
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
\
-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/W$|5||j||!p96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
The. four transcripts were blind matched
to
the four locations by three
SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the experiment.
"The
three judges each matched the target data
to
the response data without error.
The majority vote
of
the judges
thus yielded four out
of
a possible four hits:
P
=
(4!)
^ =
.042."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976a,
p.
40)
No particular explanation
is offered for
the excellent results,
Technology Targets
These
12 experiments were conducted
to obtain data on
the "resolution"
of remote viewing ability.
Five different subjects were used.
Three were
previous subjects
(S2,
S^,
S^) while
two
(V^,
V^) were visiting government
scientists.
—
The target person was sent
to a laboratory within the SRI
complex and,
once
there,
interacted with the equipment
or apparatus
at that location.
The experimenter was ignorant of
the target pool,
the size
of which
is
unspecified.
Targets were sampled with replacement.
(Since
three targets
were used
twice,
and one three
times,
it seems likely that
the pool contained
only
targets.)
(a.
Subjective analyses
of
the responses by
the authors are stated
to
provide "circumstantial, evidence for an information channel of useful bit
rate."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
343)
The authors believed
that the drawings
constitute
the most accurate
portion of a subject’s description.
Thus,
in
the first judging procedure
with these data,
a judge was asked simply
to rank only
the drawings
(without
tape transcripts)
to
the targets.
Multiple-subject responses were stapled
together.
The results are given in Table
5, with the analysis following
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/f?^^^^BlPb6-00791R0001 00440001 -9
TABLE
5.
RESULTS FROM TECHNOLOGY TARGETS, PUTHOFF AND TARG
(1976b)
SUBJECT
TARGET
RANK
s
,
S
Drill Press
S 2
,
S
’ V
Xerox Machine
.
S4’
V
Video Terminal
S
Chart Recorder
V
Random Number
<Generator
S
Machine
Shop
S 3>
S
Typewriter
_2
Sum of Ranks
p
= 0.036
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
In a second evaluation,
a visiting scientist randomly selected
the drill
press data package,
sight unseen,
and submitted
it
for independent analysis
to an engineer,
asking
for
an' estimate
of what was described.
The answer
was "a man-sized vertical boring machine."
Note
this target was not perfectly
matched,
even though the description seems reasonable by this second analysis.
In Targ and Puthoff
(1976),
the authors also describe
these experiments.
They indicate
the same procedure,
rationale,
and subjects.
They further state
that seven targets were used:
"drill press,
computer-driven flight simulator
(Link trainer),
Xerox machine, video terminal,
chart recorder,
ESP teaching
machine
(random number generator),
and typewriter.
Three
of
these were used
twice
(drill press,
video terminal,
and typewriter),
and one
(Xerox machine)
came up
three times
in our random selection procedure.
Blind matching without
replacement
of subject response packets
(tape transcripts plus drawings)
and
targets resulted
in four matches out
of
the
12,
a result significant
at P
.015
(pp.
36-37)
Two discrepancies
in these reportings
of
the
same data should be noted.
First,
the complete machine shop target in Puthoff and Targ
(1976b),
Puthoff
and Targ
(1975c),
and Targ and Puthoff
(1977)
has become
a Link trainer in
Targ and Puthoff
(1976).
Second,
the matching without transcripts
(p
= 0.036)
became more significant
(p = 0.015) when transcripts were added
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1976)
although
the detailed results are not presented
in
that report.
It
is unclear why
the results, including transcripts , which were presented
in
August,
1975
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976), were not presented
in later publications
of
1976 and 1977.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
MET
Approved For Release 2003/04*AEflJMBtlE96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
uUMLI
Critical Evaluation:
Local Targets
"The observation of such unexpectedly high-quality descriptions early
in our program is what provided
the motivation for
the large-scale three-year
SRI study of remote viewing under secure double-blind conditions
(i.e.,
target
unknown
to experimenters
as well
as subjects)."
The
"...
early experiments were useful
in establishing
the existence
of remote viewing
as
a real phenomenon, but were unsatisfactory
as
a
vehicle
for investigating the phenomenon from a scientific standpoint.
What was
needed was
a protocol involving local targets
that
...
[would]
...
eliminate
the possibility of target acquisition by ordinary means
....
Finally,
a
random target selection procedure and a blind judging
(matching)
of results
would have
to be handled independent of
the researchers
carrying out
the
experiments.
Such procedures would have
to be meticulously developed and
rigorously followed
to safeguard against charges of naivete
in protocol
which might permit cueing
or, worse,
charges
of fraud and collusion
....
After considerable discussion within SRI and consultation with interested
scientists outside
SRI, we designed an experimental protocol that promised
to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by
the belief structures
of either
the experimenters
or' the judges."
(Targ and Puthoff, Mind, Reach,
1977,
pp.
34-35)
The protocol developed
to meet
these guidelines was
then applied
to
the experiments conducted with local San Francisco Bay area targets.
This
protocol,
its
consistency of application,
and
its possible flaws
then
constitute
the fundamental bases
of evaluation of
the SRI research.
In
the following pages we examine
these bases
in detail, by components
of
the
Approved For Release 2003/1
cRDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04tt4M8§Si)^6-00791R0001 00440001 -9
ULUH5.il
protocol,
beginning with subjects,
and progressing through order of
experimentation,
experimenters,
target persons
("outbound experimenters"),
target pool,
target selection,
subject orientation,
experimenter behavior
,
target person behavior,
and judging.
Subjects.
Although Puthoff and Targ had originally planned
to use
three types
of subjects—gifted,
learners and controls— time restrictions
limited them
to
the use of only two
of these categories—gifted and learners.
A third category was added later—unselected volunteers.
The criteria for
the selection of
the gifted versus
the learners were
as
follows:
(1)
"Gifted":
"Three experimental paradigms were chosen
to act
as
screening
tests on the basis
that
these
tests had been useful
for such
purposes prior
to
this program
(in the sense
that certain apparently gifted
individuals
did exceedingly well on at least one
of
the
tests, whereas
the
results
of unselected volunteers did not differ significantly from chance
expectation).
The tests are
(a)
remote viewing
of natural targets,
(b)
reproduction of
simple line drawings hidden from the
subject but viewed by
an experimenter,
and
(c)
determination of
the state of
a four-state electronic
random stimulus generator
....
For
the purpose
of screening,
the criteria
as
to what constitutes
a paranormal result was chosen arbitrarily,
viz:
For
the purpose
of
screening
a result
is
to be paranormal
if
the a pvtox^i
probability for
the occurrence
of
the result by chance,
under
the null
hypothesis,
is p
<
(Sp.1 Progress Report,
August
1974,
pp
,
14-16)
Three subjects were chosen:
Pat Price, Duane Elgin and Ingo
Swann.
Pat Price (S^
:
This subject was
chosen on the basis
of his remote
viewing ability:
"...
the caller was
a businessman and
a former police
commissioner
at Burbank
I
(H.P.)
had met briefly
a few years earlier."
Approved For Release 2003/04^5
CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ««iIffii)£[^0791R000 10044000 1-9
(Mind Reach,
p.
47)
"... who felt he used his remote viewing ability
in
his everyday life and
in his past work as
a police commissioner."
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1976,
p.
34),
and who
"...
came
to us with a reported history of
spontaneous remote viewing experiences."
(Targ,
Puthoff,
and May,
1978,
—
p.
519)
In another reference,
it
is stated quite differently:
"...
two of our
subjects
(H.H.
and P.P.)
had not considered themselves
to have an usual
ability before -their participation in these experiments."
(Targ and Puthoff
1975,
p.
151)
Puthoff and Targ also
state:
"Furthermore, Price was not
a
professional psychic, which opened up
the prospect
that perhaps
there were
many individuals potentially capable of remote viewing."
(Mind Reach,
1977
,
p.
56)
Price,
however,
despite the conflicting statements
above, was selected
on the basis
of his
"...
ability
to describe correctly buildings,
docks
..."
which "...
indicated the functioning
of
a remote perceptual ability."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
Although Puthoff and Targ feel that Price
shows evidence
of remote perceptual ability
they also
indicate:
"it was
clear
to us
as we went along that
the results being generated were
of
superior quality
...."
{Mind Reach ,
p.
56)
Does
this
imply that prior
results were not superior?
L\
Duane Elgin (S^
:
This subject was
selected on the basis
of his work
with the four-state random stimulus generator.
Some confusion,
however,
seems
to exist
as
to whether or not he was actually screened on the basis
of the NASA screening study:
"...
we decided
to extend our investigations
to include the
two outstanding
(ordinary)
subjects who had been uncovered
in a broad-based screening experiment including
147 volunteer subjects.
Approved For Release 2003/04a^£lAsRDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA
fife,791R00010044000 1-9
The subjects for
this experiment were an SRI scientist,
Mr.
D.E.,
and
a
professional photographer,
Ms. JH.H."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155)
Puthoff and Targ further
state:
"Mr.
Elgin from Stanford Research Institute
is
the one who worked with the teaching machine through
the entire year.
He maintained high scores,
in both
the pre-test
and
the post-test,
at
a
level of
^
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
173)
In a different publication,
discussing
the
same study:
"In
the
exploratory and screening phases
of
the experiment,
a total of
147 subjects,
we identified six subjects who had
a postive slope significant
at
the
P
.01
level or better
....
Excluding these six subjects, we found
that
the slopes
of
the remaining 141 subjects appeared
to be normally distributed
....
It
should be noted that
two subjects
(not among the
six who showed learning)
had significantly high scores over
their total testing period.
One had
a
mean run score of 30.50 over 1400
trials,
an occurrence with a binomial
£
probability
of
2 x
.
The other had
a mean run score of
29.57 over
2800
trials with a binomial probability
of
less than 10
.
(Targ and Cole,
1975,
pp.
28-29)
Could one of
these subjects be Elgin?
"Elgin simply began by scoring high at
the beginning of
the experiment
and continued at the same rate throughout"
(Mind Reach,
1977,
pp.
27-28)
,
so
he
cannot be considered
to be one
of
the subjects who showed learning.
"Of
the
147 volunteer subjects,
six were identified whose learning performance
was
significant at
the 0.01 level or better
In our report we took
these preliminary findings
to indicate
that there
is evidence for paranormal
functioning from our work with
the ESP teaching machine.
This evidence
includes one subject who achieved scores at
the p
<
level of significance
in his
2800 trials."
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/0 *“8EtiB[T
nn6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
y
J-y
/
,
p
. iu;
jllicsc
In another source,
two subjects'
results
are reported
for
the exploratory
phase
of
the NASA study.
"Subject
2 had
a mean score
of
30.50 over 1400
trials and had
a learning curve of
.714."
(Gardner,
1975,
p.
115)
These
two subjects, however,
are not
SRI employees,
Following the exploratory phase,
eleven subjects were retested with
the
addition
of
a teletype
to record the results.
Results
fell
to chance under
these conditions.
Additional work then continued with six subjects:
"Only
one subject was
able
to replicate his original performance.
Over 2500 trials
-4
his mean score of
27.88 had
a binomial probability
of
4.19 x 10
.
At his
request,
this subject was permitted
a few clearly demarcated daily practice
sessions."
(Targ and Cole,
1975,
p.
29)
This, however,
does not yet qualify Elgin as
"...
the policy research
— 6
analyst who was
a high scoring subject p
<
"
on the basis
that he
supposedly
is not one
of
the
two subjects used
in
the exploratory phase
and other than those
two subjects,
none have results meeting that criterion.
The remote viewing subjects were also asked
to work with
the random
stimulus
generator.
In discussing these experiments,
"we asked Elgin
to
participate
in another replication experiment.
This
time
the mechanical
recording device was removed altogether,
but at
the price of being under
continuous surveillance by an experimenter who would record the scores after
each twenty-five trial run
....
Elgin was permitted
'freebie'
practice
....
Elgin did regain
a high scoring rate
.
.
.
this
time significant
at odds
2,000:1
. ..."
(Mind Reach,
p.
128)
And
"At
a later
time,
subject
S
2 was
asked
to repeat
the entire experiment,
and he was able
to replicate
_4
successfully a high meaning score
(27.88/100 trial average p
= 4.8 x 10
(Sponsor memo)
Although Puthoff and Targ show inconsistency
in their
59.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18^wumTr
-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
reporting
of
the results,
Elgin has been identified
as
the
same subject
reported
in the other source
. IX
Why,
however,
do Targ and Cole neglect
to include what
is reported
as
earlier work with Elgin:
"Data was collected from subjects
-
S
fi
....
For
the six subjects,
only one
(S
)
scored significantly above chance.
For
the 2500
trials
that subject averaged
29.36 hits/ 100
trials
.
.
.
p =
3 x 10
(Sponsor memo)
Why
is Elgin's replication study reported as his
third:
"Elgin did regain a high scoring rate during
this
third experiment,
this
time significant
at
odds
of 2,000:1
...."
(Mind,-Reach
,
1970,
p.
128)
Elgin,
it should be recalled, worked with the teaching machine for over
a
year,
beginning,
therefore,
during the summer
of
1973.
Was Elgin one
of
the subjects discussed
in the exploratory phase
of
the NASA study?
It
should be noted that Puthoff and Targ comment:
"We had a more
difficult
time finding
a
third subject
to go with Pat and Ingo."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
70)
despite
the
fact
that one
of
the screening criteria was
the determina-
tion of
the state of
a four-state electronic random stimulus generator
especially
since "In our report, we took these findings
to indicate
that
there
is
evidence
for paranormal functioning with the ESP teaching machine.
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
180)
t\
Ingo Swann (S^
:
Swann apparently was selected on
the basis
of
his
remote viewing capabilities:
"We have found
two individuals
— Swann was
the first
- capable of
such a high degree
of remote viewing
(Mind-Reaoh ,
p.
56),
although
this
is somewhat qualified elsewhere:
"...
subject
is
tentatively classed
as gifted
in remote viewing
...."
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974)
This,
however,
is not what was first reported:
"...
to three
subjects screened in other programs
as being gifted
in the area of paranormal
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
prjiQjIt
Approved For Release 2003/04/18?SG6»ftfc00791 R0001 00440001 -9
perception.
They are Mr.
Patrick H.
Price,
screened
for remote viewing
ability,
Mrs. Hella Hammid,
screened for EEG correlates
to remote stimuli,
and Mr,
Duane Elgin,
screened
for high scoring response
to
a random target
generator."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/3/74,
p.
3)
One wonders why Puthoff
and Targ changed their minds concerning their subjects,
and Swann
is
included as "gifted"
and Hammid becomes
a "learner".
^
(2)
"Learners":
Originally,
Puthoff and Targ had planned
to use
three
categories
of subjects:
gifted,
learners,
and controls.
Due
to
time
restrictions,
they decided
to combine
the learner and control groups since
"...
the distinction between learners
and controls was arbitrary
in
comparison between these categories and that
of gifted subjects
(SRI Progress
Report,
August
1974,
p.
17),
gifted subjects having been defined
as having
done well on the random stimulus generator,
the line drawing tests,
or
in
remote viewing.
The criterion, however,
is represented
a little differently
elsewhere:
"The a pri-ovi dichotomy between gifted and learners was based
on the experienced group having been successful
in other studies
conducted
before this program and
the learners group being inexperienced with regard
to paranormal preception."
(Puthoff and Tprg,
1976b,
p.
335)
This criterion
is even further defined:
"Since we could pot pretest our subjects without
violating
the intention of
the experiments,
our criterion for selection of
inexperienced participants was simply to choose intelligent,
cheery,
agreeable
people with whom we would enjoy working."
(Mi-nd~Reaoh ,
p.
70)
Hella Hammid,
Marshall Pease,
and Phyllis Cole were chosen.
Hella Hammid
(S^)
:
Hammid
is
classified as
a learner despite
the
fact
that
"She was selected
...
on the basis
of her successful performance
as
a
percipient
in the EEG experiment
"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336)
Approved For Release 2003/04/
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2OO3/O4/1Wgjg$0f||j£g6-OO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
"...
three subjects
screened
in other programs
as
being gifted
in the area
of paranormal perception
...
Mrs. Hella Hammid
..."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
p.
3)^and,
"... we decided
to extend our investigations
to include
two outstanding
(ordinary)
subjects who had been uncovered in
a broad-based
screening experiment
...
Mr.
D.E.,
and
...
Ms.
H.H."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155) K
Although Hammid had been successful in the EEG program,
she
is
reported
to have
"...
no strong feelings about
the likelihood
of her ability
...."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336)
One must also
take into account
that
though she undoubtedly fit
the description of being cheerful,
intelligent,
and agreeable,
she was also
a friend:
"I
(R.T.)
had known Hella for more
than
a dozen years
"
{Mind~Reaoh t
p.
73)
Having known Hammid
for more
thaix
a dozen years,
speculation leads one
to wonder
if Hammid
is
the
"she"
that was such a successful subject
in his earlier work with the ESP teaching
machine.
Ia-
Marshall Pease
(S
)
:
Little
is known about
this
subject other
than
he
is a member
of the SRI professional staff.
(L,
Phyllis Cole
(S
&
)
:
This subject
is also with SRI,
a mathematician in
the computer science laboratory.
As will be seen later,
Cole
is not only
a subject,
but also an experimenter. LA'
From the above,
it
is apparent
that
the second test
to be used
for
screening of subjects was never used.
Under
lb.
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974),
experimentation is reported in progress.
The only other known
line drawing experiments are those conducted with Geller
.
One
is
led
to
speculate
that
the furor caused by Puthoff and Targ's reports
of their
early work with Geller led Puthoff
and Targ
to eliminate
this subject.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8?®EvnEY3°-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Reports
on
the Geller work
also, show inconsistencies.
(3)
Unselected volunteers
(V^,
V £
)
:
"Our observation that apparently
everyone can experience remote viewing was
a particularly hard—won
truth
which emerged from our efforts
to handle
the following problem
.
.
.
no matter
how miraculous
the result
of an ESP demonstration,
an observer often tries
to discount
it
as
a lucky day,
or
is convinced later by a skeptical colleague
that he
is mistaken,
deceived,
or
both
....
Fortunately, we evolved
a simple
way
to
remedy, the mistake-or-deceptioh problem:
by
a frontal assault.
In
a word,
the only way
to be sure
that an observer has seen something psychic
is
to have him do
it himself—
...."
(Mind~Reaoh,
p.
6)
Hence,
our
skeptical government scientist agreed
to be
a subject
in a series
of
three
of
our
standard remote viewing experiments."
(Mind-Reaeh ,
1977,
p.
6)
and
"Many scientists from the government and elsewhere have visited
....
Our
second visitor
...."
(Mind-Reach ,
1977,
p.
88)
Order of Experimentation.
Prior
to
the actual demonstration-of-ability
experiments, mock experiments
to facilitate learning are performed.
These
consist of
the subject
in the laboratory attempting
to remote view while
the
target person, with
the use of
a walkie-talkie connection with
the
laboratory
bound experimenter provides
immediate feedback of
the target
to
the
subject.
Since
it
is difficult
at
times
to separate
the order
in which a subject
is used in these
two types
of experiments, both types will be dealt with
at
the
same
time.
Each subject will be discussed separately.
L*>\
(1)
Pat Price (S^
:
Price’s series
of nine experiments was
the
first
to be completed from all reports
in the publications dealing with remote
viewing
of
local targets.
It
is reported
that one mock experiment was
carried out with
this
subject although no details are given.
(SRI Progress
JjrgnrT
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 r^l5!l9HPW-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Report, August
1974)
(2)
Duane Elgin
(S
)
:
One might logically assume
that subjects were
run in numerical order.
Experimentation apparently was underway
following
the Price series:
"Experimentation
is
in progress with subjects
2 and
4,
two transcripts having been obtained from each
to date.
(SRI Progress
Report,
August
1974)
In addition,
in August
1974,
it was reported:
"Based
on the results
of
the Price experiments, we decided
to extend our
investi-
gations
to include
the
two outstanding ordinary subjects
The subjects
for this experiment were
... Mr.
D.
E,
...
and Ms.
ll.H
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156)
U-*
Confusion exists,
however, when one finds;
"Having completed
22 remote
viewing experiments
...
9 each with Pat and Hella,
and four with Ingo
...
we therefore decided
to do four experiments with each of
the remaining
subjects
...."
(Mind-Reach,, p.
80)
u.
Confusion also exists when
it
is reported;
"In Duane's
first
try,
the
outbound experimenters were sent
.
,
,
to
the Bay Area Rapid
(BART)
Station
.
,
(Mind-Reach,
p,
80), when in another
source,
it
is reported
that of
the four
experiments conducted with Elgin and Hammid,
the first
of which
is Hammid
si
"In
the second experiment,
the experimenter
(Phyllis
Cole)
was
led by
the
throw of
a die
to
a shielded room
..."
and "In a third trial,
the experi-
menters
... went
to
the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART)
Station
....
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1975,
pp.
156-158).
In all publications,
BART
is
listed
as Elgin's
first experiment,
the shielded room second. tA-
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8-^f0R|fpoO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
(3)
Ingo Swann
(S^)
Swann,
the originator
of
the entire experiment
and whose remote viewing abilities have been so successful prior
to
the
remote viewing of local targets,
apparently
is not used until later
in the
series.
Although referred
to
as
the first subject
in one publication:
"...
a second subject
in the remote viewing program,
Mr.
Pat Price
..."
(SRI
<S
Progress Report,
3/12/74,
p.
14),
Swann somehow becomes
S 3>
Although
it
is stated "Having completed twenty-two remote-viewing
experiments-nine each with Pat and Hella,
and four with Ingo
...
(Mind-
Reach ,
p.
80),
it
is otherwise reported.
Having completed
a series of
remote viewing experiments
...
9 each with experienced
S^
(Price)
and
S^
(Hammid)
,
additional replication experiments,
four with each
S, were carried
out
...
S
(Elgin)
and
S
(Swann)."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
338)
At
the
time Elgin's experiments are reported
in Targ and Puthoff
(1975)
,
Swann
is not mentioned.
In addition,
Swann's drawing
of Palo Alto City
Hall
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
Figure
7,
p.
340)
is dated
"13 November
1974.
Puthoff
and Targ verify this:
"the quality of transcript
that
can be
generated
...
is most
evident from the results
of
our most recent experiment
with
Swann.
The
target location chosen
... was
the Palo Alto City Hall."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
339)
k*
This experiment
incidentally
is
listed
first
in all publications,
even
though on his drawing of
this target "miniature. golf course from yesterday?
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
340),
appears
and
the miniature golf course
appears
as
the second listed target.^
Swann,
however,
ends his stay at
SRI
in August
1973:
The end
of
the
summer brought
to an end our eight month program with Ingo Swann.
He had
not only introduced us
to paranormal functioning of
a caliber we had not
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
•IfLU'wJ
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: ClfeftfiWBfr-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
expected,
but
also defined the role
of co-worker and contributor."
(Mind-
Reash,
p.
45)
tv
By March of
1974,
Swann was
in New York City:
"...
after Swann had
returned
to New York City,
he and Sherman carried out
a similar experiment
to probe mercury
.
.
.
the experiment was
carried out on the evening of March
11,
1974
... with Swann in New York
"
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
211)
(a*
He
is
also
in New York on September
27,
1974 for
the abacus/clock
experiment:
"As
a demonstration for
a group
of interested scientists outside
SRI, we were challenged
to arrive unannounced in New York City and
to invite
Swann over
to our hotel room
....
Today
is Friday,
September
26,
1974."
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
38-39)
Did he return
to do his
series
of experiments,
one
of which
is
dated. November
13,
1974?
And
the "miniature golf course from
yesterday?"
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
38)
If he returns,
then there
is quite
a lapse between his mock experiments
and his actual demonstration-of-ability
tests,
since his mock experiments
are reported
at
the same time as
the first
two experiments with Elgin and
Harnmid.
"We have done some experiments with walkie-talkies subsequent
to
this whole
series we have described here
..."
(the Price series).
"...
where we wanted
to give the subject direct
feedback
to help him learn
....
In our most recent data, with this
subject and with Swann, Harold has been
going
to high strangeness
areas
...."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
172)
*
Yet,
as has been stated earlier,
it
is reported that his
series
of
four experiments were completed after Price and Harnmid and that his mock
experiments were reported
in an August
1974 publication along with Elgin
and
Harnmid' s
first
two experiments.
In addition,
"To complete
the series,
four experiments were carried out with learner subjects
S,.
and
S^.
....
66 .
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/-J£*gAJtt»96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
oCCIlfr
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
339)”
Cole's first transcript
is dated October
7,
1974
(iMind-Reach
,
p.
104)
and Swann's
13 November
1974.
Confusing?
In addition,
it
is also stated that only
two mock experiments were
carried
out with Swann
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974)
and yet
it
is
reported:
"...
in
the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able
to
do one right after
the other
. ..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
177)
S'
Hella Hammid
(S^)
:
Some confusion revolves around one particular
target
"the actual target building was
a fifteen-foot-high model
of
a little
red school house
at
a local miniature golf course
..."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
75)
although
it
is also placed
In Redwood City
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156).
In March
1974,. the following was reported:
"a preliminary remote viewing
experiment was carried out
....
The
subject's response was
that
she saw a
red clapboard structure with
a steeple
....
Based on
this
result,
a series
of remote viewing experiments under strict protocols
are planned with this
subject."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74)
In August
1974,
this same "preliminary remote viewing experiment"
is
reported
as being a demonstration-of-ability experiment,
and was reported
with Elgin's
first
two experiments:
"The following gives
a summary
of
the
four experiments done with the two ordinary subjects from
the screening
study.
In the first experiment,
H.H.
described
a
...
red, wooden building
with
a pointed roof
...
the building where
the experimenter,
Dr.
Puthoff,
stood was
a 4.5-meter-high caricature
of
a schoolhouse and miniature golf-
. ..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156)
U-
Later,
this same target
is described quite differently:
"In this
particular experiment, Hella made her maiden voyage
into remote viewing
while standing on the roof
of our engineering building.
Our walkie-talkie,
Approved For Release 2003/Q4/1J
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/l^B||^pBW6-00791R0001 00440001 -9
unlike remote viewing,
doesn't operate through walls
...
the tape recording
of Hella's
first mock experiment beings:
...
HELLA:
I
see a little house
with red,
overlapping boards.
It has white
trim and
a very pointed roof.
But
the whole thing
feels
fake,
like
a movie set."
(Mind-Reach
,
pp.
74-75) t\_
Note also
the discrepancy
in. reporting
a tape-recorded experiment:
"...
H.H.
described
...
red, wooden building with
a pointed roof.
The
building was
further described as being made with
.
.
.
overlapping boards and
has
a white
trim.
Furthermore,
she
said
the
... building
is empty,
as
though
nothing
is
going on inside.
And
the whole place
seems artificial like
a
movie set."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156) ^
It
is also interesting
to note
that
the walkie-talkie does,
in fact,
operate through walls:
"the subject and
two experimenters
(one of whom was
R.T.)
are
in
a first-floor laboratory in building
at
SRI
...
H.P.
and
R.T.
are
in two-way radio communication via walkie-talkie
...."
(SRI Progress
Report,
3/12/74)
In addition,
if walkie-talkies
are being used and these
mock experiments
are for training purposes only, why tape-record
them?
(5)
Marshall Pease
(S 5
)
:
From all
that
is known,
this subject was
apparently tested toward
the end of
the
series.
"To complete
the series,
four experiments each were carried out with learner subjects
S^ and
S^
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
339)
No mock experiments are reported
for this
sub j ect
•
(6)
Phyllis
Cole
(Sg)
:
This
subject also
is
tested near
the end of
the
series.
"To complete
the series,
four experiments were carried out
with each of
the
two learner subjects
.
.
.
Marshall Pease
and Phyllis
Cole.
CMind-Reach ,
p.
84)
Although this
is
the way
it
is stated
in the
text,
Phyllis Cole's first experiment
is
actually run prior
to
that
of Swann's
Approved For Release 2003/Q4/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
(Palo Alto City Hall
(11/13/74)
miniature} golf course,
11/12/74)
although
there
is
j^ic^sistentl^r^arding this
.
•
"Following
is
the unedited
transcript
of
the first experiment with an SRI volunteer,
Phyllis Cole
....
Today
is
Monday,
October
...."
(6,
p.
104)
(7)
Unselected volunteers
(V^,
V^)
:
"After more
than a year
of
following
the experimental protocol
...
and observing that even inexperienced
subjects
generated results better
than expected, we initiated
a series
of
experiments
to -explore further whether individuals other
than putative
psychics
can demonstrate the remote viewing ability."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
340)
Ov
It
is worthwhile
to stop and consider the use
of
the word "putative"
meaning commonly accepted
or supposed,
reputed,
assumed
to exist
or
to
have existed,
applied
to individuals who are also considered "learners".
It should be noted that the use
of
this word
is removed from other publications.
The other element
to be noted
is
that
if these experiments with unselected
volunteers began more than a year after inexperienced subjects generated
better
than expected results,
then the inexperienced subjects were tested
prior
to November
1973.
The third target
for V
is dated November
8, 1974.
0Mind-Reach ,
Figure
2,
p.
9)
If Puthoff and Targ actually began using
unselected subjects
one year after
the inexperienced subjects were
tested,
why weren't their data published?
Price's data are not published until
October
1974 although
it had been submitted
. for publication on March
11,
1974.
See Targ and Puthoff,
1974
(p.
607).
The experiments,
five
in number are
conducted with
"...
a man and
a woman
..."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
pp.
340-
341)
although these
two people are both ref erred. to
as being male
in other
publications
.
Approved For Release 2003/]
CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04wfcf^fnflP
"The
first visitor's responses were excellent
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
88)
A series
of
three remote viewing experiments were carried
out.
In
the
first experiment, Hal was
sent
to stand
on a bridge over
a stream in Burgess
Park
...
a second experiment
...
Bay lands Nature Preserve
....
He also
described
....
After we played the tape made by
the subject,
and he learned
...
he told us
...
for
the
third experiment
....
The subject knew where we
had been,
and we had his description
...
his
third
...
the traveling orders
brought
us
to
a merry-go-round
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
7-9)
t\
"Our second visitor gave one of
the best results we have ever observed
in his first experiment.
He began his narrative ,' There
is
a red A-frame
building
, ,.l,"
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
88)
The
target
for this experiment was
a
windmill, which was followed by an apartment swimming pool.
(Mind-Reach
,
Table
9,
p.
89)
However,
these visitors are later reported
as being V
2 and
V^,
even though the targets correspond.
It
is also interesting
to note that in 1977,
Puthoff and Targ report:
"We have carried out more
than one hundred experiments
of
this
sort, most
of them successful,
as determined by independent judging."
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
9-10)
If
so,
one might assume
that
these total results would be published.
As
of
this writing, we cannot account
for 100 such experiments
. V\
Experimenters.
"...
we set up
a research program to test
the remote
viewing hypothesis under rigidly controlled scientific conditions."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
334)
"The protocol was
to closet
the subject with
an
experimenter
. ..."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976 b,
p.
335)
This was borne out
in other publications:
"one E would remain at
SRI with
the subject
..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155)
and
"As
in all our other work,
one
E
remained with
the
S
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976a,
p.
36)
Approved For Release 2003;
RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/^«
jOAbBDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
experimenter
in two
of Elgin’s other experiments.
Ca,
(b) Ha;mmid
?
Pease:
Windmill
The rational for
this
can be found
in
Pease’s drawing in which he writes:
"Hal and Hella sitting.
(Mind Reach,
Figure
17,
p.
87)
In the precognition series with Hammid
,
it
is interesting
to note:
We
even brought in a professional engineering consultant
(David Hurt)
to
independently observe and record
the events.
How unbiased can this "profes-
sional consultant" be
if he has worked closely with Russell Targ
(Targ and
Hurt,
1972)
and
is reported by the authors
to be
a colleague
of
theirs:
"Following
is one such example that involved one of
the authors
(R.T.)
and
our colleague David Hurt who works with us on many experimental projects."
(Mind-Reach. ,
p.
197)
(A.
Target Fool.
(a)
Preparation of
target pool:
"(Before the experimental series began,
the Director
of
the Information Science and Engineering Division, not other-
wise associated with the experiment
,
established
the set of locations
as
the
target pool
...)"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
[Before going further,
one might stop
to ask
if
there were any specific directions given
to the
director before he established this pool.
Obviously some were needed
if
Puthoff and Targ were
to have the kinds
of targets they felt they were going
to need.]
(b)
Size of target pool:
"The target pool consisted
of more than 100
target locations chosen from a target-rich environment
...."
(Puthoff
and
Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
The targets apparently were spread over
a wide area:
"...
the target team could be going anywhere from the Golden Gate Bridge
to
the San Jose airport,
an area covering several hundred square miles."
(Mind-
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/(MMfiOME9DP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
<
uLUJfLIp'
Reach ,
p.
7)
and another description:
"He asked me
to describe where
a
man was
...
who was now somewhere 300 square miles
in some direction
...."
QMind-Reach ,
Foreword,
xxiv)
This
is stated somewhat differently
in another
publication:
"...
a remote site chosen at random from hundreds
of nearby
targets
in the San Francisco Bay area
"
.(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
pp.
151-152) U
One assumes
that
the entire
target pool has been constructed prior
to
the beginning
of
the entire series
of experiments.
However,
in their early
rendition of
the Nature article,
they state:
"The
set
of
targets were chosen
from a target-rich environment by asking the selector
to use his judgment
in
providing a set
of nine target locations."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74)
The number of locations increases by the time the paper
is actually published.
"In the experiments,
a set of twelve target locations had been chosen from
a target-rich environment
(More than 100 of
the type used
in the experimental
series prior
to the experimental series
.
.
.
by
the Director of
the Information
Science and Engineering Division."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1974,
p.
605)
Although
Puthoff and Targ believe:
"...
we designed an experimental protocol that
promised
to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by
the belief
structures
of either the experimenters
or the judges." and
they also believed
that:
"No loose thread could be permitted
..."
CMind-Reach ,
p.
35)
a change
has been made in the number
of targets
in the pool used
for Price
as well
as
the establishment of
a larger target pool. f
In reporting the first four experiments run with Elgin and Hammid which
are reported
to have followed
the Price series,
the list
of
targets
included
those
that had apparently been used with Price either
as demonstration of
ability
or
as demonstration experiments.
Although they qualify the list
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
PTgnTT
Approved For Release 2003/Q44JAr^aDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
with "among others",
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155)
one does wonder how
large
the pool really was
at
this
time.
The other
three
targets
that are
used are
the BART Station,
the shielded room at
SRI,
and
the "schoolhouse"
on the miniature golf course which
is reported
as
the
target
in
(1)
a
preliminary remote viewing experiment ,
(2)
a mock experiment,
and
(3)
a
demons tration-of-ability experiment.
The question also arises
as
to why
those particular targets
come
to mind?
The experimenter had obviously been
talking publicly about
these experiments since
the publication
is
in
a
proceedings
of
a meeting,
but the demonstration targets were not discussed
in the paper.
l\
It should be noted that Price's early targets are labelled quite
differently in early publications than they are
in later ones.
The
target
"Rinconada Park"
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
Table
1,
p.
54;
Targ and Puthoff,
1974,
p.
606;
SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74 ,
Table
2,
p.
17)
later
is
changed
to "Swimming Pool complex"
in a 1976 publication where,
for
the
first
time,
his drawing and the related city map appear.
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336; Mind-Reach,
p.
54)
Many of Geller's drawings are included
in the
early publication,
so why did they choose not
to use a drawing that
is such
a good representation of the target, especially since they viewed
the
experimental series
as a "...
large-scale three-year SRI study of remote
viewing
...?"
.
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
34)
(c)
Types
of target:
"...
a list
of outdoor targets
...
should be
prepared
in advance by an experimenter who will not
interact with the subject
or experiment after that.
The targets
should be chosen
to be distinctive,
but not necessarily distinct from each other;
that
is,
rather than a
collection
of nondescript
street corners
one should select bridges,
towers.
Approved For Release aAP^|i^|»«A-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
- nmr
^JCunTr
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
fountains,
gardens,
plazas,
etc
On
the other hand,
once having chosen
a fountain-type target,
there should be several fountain targets;
for
a
bridge target,
several bridge
targets,
etc.,
so you avoid
the subject
strategy
of
I had a tower yesterday,
so
it
can’t be
a tower today."
(SRI
Protocol,
Appendix
B,
p.
1)
As
far
as
the variety
of target
is
concerned,
the actual targets
that were used meet
the above criterion with one exception.
The use
of
the "Shielded Room" does not meet
the outdoor criterion
although Puthof-f and Targ refer
to
the use of
this
target
as
one
of being
"nowhere"
(Puthoff private communication
to Karnes and
Susman)
:
"Our best
effort
at sending an experimenter nowhere consisted of our locking him inside
a shielded room instead of sending him to an expected outdoor site."
If
the target
is
considered
to be "nowhere",
it certainly does not meet any
of
the
criteria.
The question also arises
as
to whether or not these criteria were ever
given
to
the director since:
"The
set
of targets was chosen from a target-
rich environment by asking
the selector
to use his judgment
...."
Obviously,
there must have been some kind
of direction given
if
they were
to have
the
kinds
of
targets
they
felt
they were going
to need.
These directions are
unspecified and
the protocol
in which the target pool selection
is specified
was apparently written after March 1976:
"With regard
to replication
of
our standard remote viewing protocols,
the basic outline
is
as given in
our tutorial paper,
'A Perceptual Channel for
Information Transfer over
Kilometer Distances:
Historical Perspective and Recent Research,’
...
March 1976."
There are no specific criteria given in
this publication
except
for
the number
in the pool,
driving time from SRI,
and
a mention of
"natural"
targets
in
the "Summary"
section.
Approved For Release 2003,
RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
w--
Approved For Release 2003/04fl®S8liffit>P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
(d)
Distance
of
targets:
As has been discussed above,
the
target
team could be going anywhere from the Golden Gate Bridge
to
the
San Jose
airport,
an area covering several hundred square miles
...
(Mind Reach ,
p.
7),
although this
is qualified
far more in
technical
and
recent publicati
"the target pool consists
of more
than 100 target locations chosen from
a
target-rich environment."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1977b,
p.
21)
An examination
of
the distances
of
the targets reveals
that only two targets are listed
at any large distance.
BART Station at
10.0 miles
and
the
Bridge Toll
Plaza at
8.76 miles.
A quick calculation reveals
that
if
the
furthest
target
is used,
the total area covered
is
314 square miles.
Excluding
these
two
targets,
the remainder all fall within
a 100.4
square-mile area.
Listed by subject,
the average target distance was:
Price
3.89 mi
Elgin:
3.57 mi
Swann
1.81 mi
Hammid
1.48 mi
Pease
2.89 mi
Cole
2.11 mi
V
.
V
:
V
3.42 mi
With
the exception of
the marina,
Redwood City,
all targets that were
used
lay
in
a semi-circle south of JSRI^
Although there
is little information given,
it
is
interesting to note
that both Price and Elgin used some form of
a geographical system during
their remote viewing.
Price,
in
the unedited transcript
of
the Allied Arts
and Crafts Plaza,
begins his transcript
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
63-68)
by scanning
quadrants:
"Why don't
I start scanning by quadrant using
this
as
the center
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003TB^Q|gp-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
point.
Twelve
to three,
six
to nine
It
also appears
that Price and
Targ are using some sort
of reference:
"this
is an arbor area
...
the
center part doesn't seem to have it-this part
in here
....
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
77)
It appears
that Price
is making
a drawing.
Perhaps he
is
also
making a map when he states:
"Yeah,
I got them out about this
far-it
s
not
far away-I'd say in this direction over here
...
and it seems
to be on
a line just about in that direction but just
a hair more
rather than a
direct line from here
.
.
.
they seem to be just slightly more
to
the
left
of
that
line
. ..."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
65)
It
is also interesting
to note
that
although Price
is scanning the quadrants and he begins logically he next
goes
to
the opposite quadrant:
"Twelve
to
three,
six
to nine
....
He
does
this twice before he includes nine
to twelve,
despite
the fact that
he states:
"...
but
I'll go on in the rest and look
...."
He never does
mention scanning three
to
six.
(A*
Elgin also uses
a system:
"Duane held
a bearing compass
at arm's
length,
and began the experiment by indicating the direction of
the target demarcation
team
to within
5 degrees.
(In all four experiments with Elgin,
he was always
correct within ten degrees
of
the correction direction.)"
(Mind-Reach,
p.
82)
If Elgin
is able
to do this, who
is
the subject referred
to
in the
following:
"In two remote viewing experiments,
the second
of which was clearly correct
from a descriptive standpoint,
an effort was made
to determine whether
in
driving
the subject around the area
it would be possible
to determine
the
location of
the target team by triangulation with a bearing compass?
(SRI
Progress Report,
August
1974)
Although "the triangulation lines were
essentially uncorrelated with each other and with
the target location,
and
therefore provided
a null result,"
(SRI Progress Report,
August 1974), ^
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
nriWfftm
^yrntl
Approved For Release 2003/04/1^M»«gP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
were
these
two experiments included
as
demons tration-of-ability experiments?
Table
6 shows
individual
ta-rgets listed by distance from SRI.
The
precognitive targets are listed separately since
these
targets were not
used previously although:
"the experimental protocol for precognitive
remote viewing
...
was identical
"
{Mind-Reach,
p.
Ill)
In examining Table
6,
it can be seen that several targets fall
the same
distance from SRI
as
others,
and
it
is
to those that
the discussion will. be
directed
first..
Targets
at
2.11 mi.:
Palo Alto.
The
targets listed at
this distance
are "Swimming Pool Complex",
"Merry-go-round",
and "Tennis Courts".
As has
been noted earlier, what must be the "Swimming Pool Complex"
is
first listed
as "Rinconada Park."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
Table
1,
p.
54;
Targ and
^
Puthoff,
1974,
p.
606;
SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
Table
2,
p.
17)
It
is
not until 1976
that
this
target
is
called "Swimming Pool Complex" and
is
then accompanied by Price's drawing and a city map.
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336)
Price's sketch and
the map show a variety of activities, physically
close
to one another:
tennis courts,
swimming pool,
picnic
area,
and
a
playground.
For reference,
Informap,
Palo Alto,
prepared and distributed
by the Palo Alto Chamber
of Commerce,
1979,
and
a street map
of
the cities
of San Mateo County,
published by
the Redwood
City,
San Mateo County Chamber
of Commerce,
1976, were obtained.
A description of Rinconada Park can be
found on the first listed map, which shows
that
a junior museum is also
located
in
the same park.
An elementary school also appears
to be located
in that same vicinity.
Since most elementary schools have playgrounds,
it
is
safe
to assume that this one does also or uses
the nearby park facilities.
Price's description:
"...
subject
...
described
a park-like area containing 4^
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
ftrnjjEt
Apprd/ed ForWelease 2003/04/18
I
I
I
CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
ft
TABLE
6.
DISTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL BAY AREA TARGETS FROM SRI
DISTANCE.
SUBJECTS
TARGET
*:iles
KILOMETERS
RANK
S 1
S 2
S
S
S
S
V1
V
Bike shed, Menlo Park
0.06
0.1
Y
X
Shielded room,
SRI,
Menlo. Park
0.06
0.1
Ness Auditorium, Menlo Park
0.12
0.2
X
X
SRI International Courtyard, Menlo Park 0.12
0.2
Kiosk in park, Menlo Park
0.19
0.3
3,5
X
X
X
Bridge over stream, Menlo Park
0.19
0.3
Railroad trestle bridge,
Palo Alto
0.81
1.3.
2,6
»
X
X
X
..
V
Pumpkin patch, Menlo Park
U . 81
1.3
Methodist Church,
Palo Alto
1.18
1.9
X
Arts and Crafts Plaza, Menlo Park
1 . 18
1.9
'
A
J
,
City Hall,
Palo Alto
: 1.24
2.0
|
X
*
•
Miniature golf course, Menlo Park
1.86
3.0
X
Swimming pool complex, Palo Alto
2.11
3.4
q
A
i
X
X
X
Merry-go-round ,
PslIo Alto
Z
• 11
o
A
?
x
Tennis
courts,
Palo Alto
2.11
J
• 4
Y
Hoover Tower,
Stanford
2.11
.
Y
Golf course bridge,
Stanford
2.11
3.4
z
' White Plaza,
Stanford
2.36
3.8
X
X
Boathouse,
Stanford
2.48
4.0
X
Pedestrian overpass,
Palo Alto
3.11
5.0
2,3
X
X
Drive-in theater,
Palo Alto
3.17
5.1
X
'
Approved For Release 2003/04/g-:^|^DP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
TABLE
6.
DISTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL BAY AREA TARGETS FROM SRI
(continued)
DISTANCE
,
SUBJ1:cts
TARGET
MILES
KILOMETERS
RANK
S 1
V
S
S
4.
s
!n
Airport, Palo Alto
3.42
5.5
Radio telescope,
Portola Valley
Baylands Nature Preserve
3.98
3.98
6.4
6.4
1,3,2
X
X
X
Marina,
Redwood City
4.22
6.8
X
Parking garage, Mountain View
5.03
8.1
!
.1
X
Catholic Church,
Portola Valley
5.28
8.5
8.5
o
X
•
-
X
Windmill, Portola Valley
5.28
Z 9 ±
Apartment swimming pool, Mountain View
5.65
9.1
Bridge toll plaza,
Fremont
9.01
14.5
X
•
BART Station
(Transit System)
,
Fremont 10.00
- —
*
16.1
X
—
Approved For Release 2003/^2lS iMlA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release
.-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
two pools
of water
..."
(Targ,
Puthoff,
and May,
1978,
p.
519)
appears
to
apply
to this
area.
Elgin's
target
is "Tennis Court ."
"...
Elgin indicated
that he was
uncertain
as
to
the action,
but had the impression that
the demarcation team
was located at
a museum
(known
to him)
in a particular park.
In fact,
the
target was
a tennis
court located
in that park only 90 m from the indicated
museum."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
339)
The tennis
courts are also
located
in close proximity
to
the
swimming pool.
In such
a
target-rich
environment", why do Puthoff
and Targ choose
to use elements within
a general,
but what appears
to be rather limited,
area when they usually
do not
do
so
otherwise?
Is
the subject's
ability
to
"see"
so well
defined
that
the
subject
is able
to distinguish one specific area from another when other
targets might well be within the target person's
scope
of vision?
"Furthermore,
the
subjects'
perceptual viewpoint has mobility
so
that
they can shift
their
point
of view so as
to describe elements
of
a scene
that would not be
visible
to an observer merely standing at ground level and describing what
he sees.
(In particular,
a subject often correctly describes elements not
visible
to
the experimenter.)"
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336)
A*.
Yet,
later
in that same year and in reply
to Calkin's comments on their
basic experimental design,
Puthoff and Targ reply:
"It would be
in our
opinion premature and imprudent,
for example,
during the initial stages
of an investigation when much remains unknown about
the mechanisms and
factors
involved,
to follow Calkin's suggestion
to specify precisely on
what stimuli within a target area a subject or judge
is
to concentrate."
{IEEE Proceedings Letters,
October
1976,
p.
1549)
tK
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: gA-R£)P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Thus, we have conflicting opinions regarding
the degree
to which the
subject can focus upon and separate elements
in the
(wide)
target
area.
The "merry-go-round" used with Hammid
and
might also be considered
in the
same way
as
the tennis
courts.
It
is interesting
to note
that
...
a
merry-go-round or
a playground,
about
four miles south of
SRI"
{Mind-Reach ,
p.
9)
is listed elsewhere and
in the same reference
as being 2.11 mi distant.
Targets
at 0.19 mi.
In examining other
targets,
the "Kiosk in Park
and "Bridge over
Stream" may also be physically close
to one another,
especially since the park,
according
to
the reference maps
is even smaller
than Rinconada Park.
Other than an early reference to this
target:
'Hal
was sent
to stand on a bridge over
a stream in Burgess Park
..."
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
7),
the name
of
the park is not used again.
No other parts appear
to
be located at
this distance from SRI.
(e)
Reporting
of
targets:
A church target has been noted
in early
publications, but
this target was listed only
as "church"
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
Table
2,
p.
606;
SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
Table
2,
p.
17),
and
was not changed until later publications
to:
"Catholic Church, Portola Valley.
If Puthoff
and Targ had planned
a long-term study
of remote viewing,
if
the target pool had been constructed prior
to
the beginning of
the total
series
of experiments,
and
if several churches were
in the
target pool
so
as
to meet their criteria
(Table
4) why was this church not labelled
specifically from the beginning.
It also should be noted that
the
list
of
targets
from which the first
two experiments with Elgin and Hammid were chosen
(a total
of
four which included one long-distance
target)
listed Palo Alto
Methodist Church,
"among others"
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156)
and with
the exception of
the
three local targets actually used with Elgin and Hammid
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04*gpg|Jll£JftP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
from a pool of
six,
consisted entirely of
those used with Price either
as
demonstration experiments
{Mind-Reach
,
p.
57)
for visitors
or
as demons tration-
of-ability experiments.
BART Station
(Transit System),
Fremont.
This
target appears
to be
located
in two different
cities:
"...
the Bay Area Rapid Transit station
in
Fremont
..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156)
whereas
the
title under
the
picture depicting
the
target
is "BART station at Union City,
California,
used
as
a remote-viewing target
. ..."
(p.
159)
This
is also evident
in
Mind-Reach.
A San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit Guide issued by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
1976,
shows BART stations
at both
Union City and Fremont.
Tennis
Courts.
Elgin's target of "tennis
court"
is
also
a demons tration-
of-ability experiment:
"this was
a demonstration experiment
for a visitor
who had heard of
our work and wanted
to evaluate our experimental protocol.
The target
location in this case was
a tennis
court
3.4 km south
of
SRI.
{Mind-Reach,
p.
82)
Why was Elgin's
target included
as
one
of his
four
demonstration-of-ability experiments whereas Price's
are not:
"Price's
rough and ready approach made him ideally suited
to
the demonstration type
experiment
that we were continually tasked with early
in our program.
In
one demonstration for
a potential sponsor,
our standard protocol sent us
to
a building
in the hills behind
the Stanford campus
...
an Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory
...
a beer garden housed
in
a century old building
.
.
.
{Mind-Reach,
p.
57)
l\
(f)
Target
security:
"When
the
target
list
is made,
each target
location should be written on a card and placed in an envelope,
the envelopes
randomized and
then numbered so
as
to lose all track of
a key.
These
should
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04^|g|^aB96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
be stored in
a secure safe or similar container."
(SRI Protocol, Appendix
B,
p.
1)
If
the purpose
is
to lose track of
the order of
the
targets, why
is
it necessary
to number
the
targets after they have been randomized?
Numbering provides
a new key.
If one target
is used at
a time,
a record
could be kept after the target
is used.
Within any series,
the
targets
were not replaced
so that
the use
of numbers seems superfluous.
Targets
once used
for
a series
can then be replaced,
re-randomized and used again in
a similar manner.
In addition,
the protocol
for selection of
the target pool
was not followed,
but rather pools
of
targets were selected,
and then
randomized.
Who selects
the
target pool
is also unclear.
Ca_
Despite their proclaimed double-blind conditions,
there
is
a possibility
that leakage could occur.
Where were the targets kept once
they had been
selected?
Apparently,
two or more experiments were not run on the same day.
Were specific
targets
chosen to form the pool?
Table
4 reveals multiple
use of several targets.
In addition,
the
target pool was not unknown,
despite
their statement:
"the experimenter remaining with the subject was kept
ignorant
of both
the
particular
target and target pool
so as
to eliminate
the possibility
of
cueing
"
(Mind-Reach,
p.
335)
The
target pool
is known since:
(1)
Remote viewing results are shown
to
the subject prior
to an
experiment:
"Before the experiment,
the subject should be shown some
previous remote viewing results
...."
(Protocol, Appendix B,
p.
1)
(2)
"An informal comparison was then made when the demarcation team
returned,
and
the subject was taken
to
the
site
to provide feedback."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
The experimenter does not
leave and
is
included
in the feedback:
"When the outbound experimenter returns,
the
Approved For Release 2003/0^dAi^A-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04^
sJSSjfwr*
inbound experimenters and subject should proceed
to the target
for feedback.
(Appendix
B,' p.
1)
and
(3)
Subjects are also used
as experimenters.
(g)
Selection of targets from
the pool.
"... we designed an experimental
protocol
that promised
to be foolproof
and which could not be influenced by
the belief structures
of either
the experimenters
or
the judges.
No
loose
thread could be permitted."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
35)
"The target locations were
printed on cards sealed
in envelopes and kept
in the
SRI Division office
safe.
They were available only with the personal assistance of
the Division Director
who issued
a single random-number selected target card that constituted the
traveling orders
for that experiment."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
From this
statement in their tutorial paper,
it
is apparent
that
single
target
selection by the director was considered
to be
the protocol
for
this
element
of
the experiment.
As has been discussed earlier,
this
single
target was
selected from a pool of "greater than 100"
targets,
although
it has been shown that
in Price's series
only nine or
twelve targets
comprised
the pool.
(/^
A closer examination of
the literature reveals
that more inconsistencies
appear.
With Elgin and Hanvmid,
in
their first
four experimental sessions,
two
each,
it
is reported:
"The traveling experimenter, who had
a list
of
six San Francisco Bay area locations
that could be reached
in no more than ^
30 minutes driving
time,
then cast
a die
"
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155)
Not only does
the experimenter do his own randomizing, but
in
addition,
he makes
the selection.
The target pool consists of only six
targets rather than the
100,
of which four will be used.
As has been stated
previously,
one of those four experiments was reported
in three different
ways
.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 a^^0^JB86-OO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8jgfAKJEafc00791R0001 00440001 -9
In another publication,
a different number
of targets are selected
for
this smaller pool:
"Ten sites known
to
the subject are
to be visited
in random sequence
...
the subject must
then make
a choice
as
to which site
is being visited
"
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
p.
1)
Still another
publication reports
:
"... we carried out
a nine-experiment
series which
replicated
the Price work
...."
(Mind-Reaeh
,
p.
48)
"Before
the series
began,
a set of target locations was chosen randomly from a larger pool
....
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
35)
How many targets were selected
for
the
pool—nine?
Twelve?
Six?
Ten?
As
for the selection:
"...
a set
of
target locations was chosen randomly
...
by a person not otherwise connected
with the experiment."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
35)
Once
the experiments
were under way,
how was each target selected?
Another example:
"The experimental protocol for precognitive remote
viewing experiments with Hella Hammid was
identical
to
that followed
in
the remote viewing experiments described
in Chapters
2,
3,
and
...
one
of
the experimenters would leave SRI with a stack of
ten sealed envelopes
.
.
generated
a random digit
from 0
to nine by
a means
of
a Texas
Instruments
SR-51 random number generator."
(Mind-Reaeh,
p.
111-113)
In this publication,
it
is also reported:
"...
a random target procedure would have
to be
handled independent
of
the researchers carrying out
the experiments."
(Mind-Reaeh,
p.
35)
"In our standard protocol,
... we picked up our
traveling orders
from the division director, who chose one
at random from
his
safe
..."
(Mind-Reaeh,
p.
48);
and "A target
location from
a set
of traveling
orders previously prepared and randomized by
the Director
...."
(Mind-Reaeh,
p.
35)
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
?
f-
0791 R0001 00440001 -9
In a later publication:
"The target
team is assigned their
target
location by an independent experimenter who has generated
a list
of
targets
within
a 30-minute driving
time" and "the target
team obtains sealed traveling
orders from a monitor who has previously prepared
such a set
"
(Targ,
Puthoff,
and May,
1978,
p.
1)
“ ^
Because
of
the varying manner in which the experimental series
are
reported,
it
is difficult
to determine precisely how many
(and which)
targets
were in
the pool and subsequently sampled
for each subject.
The multiple
reporting
(Table
2)
of most experiments, however,
permits
an attempt
at
this
determination, which
is summarized
in Table
7.
As
indicated here,
the sample
size drawn rarely exceeds
that used.
If,
as
is
the
case,
the
total pool
is
not »
the sample size,
then through repetitive exposure
(via subject
"feedback")
the experimenters gradually
(quickly?)
become familiar with
-
the contents
of
the
target pool.
(h)
Types
of
targets used.
Since
the
targets used with any one subject
are "...
used without replacement
..."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1974,
p.
605),
it
is
clear
that
the same target cannot come up
twice within an
individ^aJ-
series.
Therefore,
it
is logical
to examine the targets within each series
of experiments
as
to
their similarities
and differences.
In the
series used with Price,
a similar target could have possibly
come up
if
the target pool had been established prior
to
the entire
series
and
if
similar targets were
included in the pool.
However,
it appears
that
this was not done:
"The set
of
targets was
chosen from a target-rich
environment by asking
the selector
to use his judgment
in providing a set
of nine locations
.
.
. which were clearly differentiated from each other and
within 30 minutes driving time from SRI."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
p.
15)
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CJA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
I
I
I
I
I
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
SECRET
TABLE
7.
TARGET SAMPLE SIZE, PROM WHICH TARGETS USED WERE DRAWN FOR EACH SUBJECT
SUBJECT
POOL SIZE DRAWN
FOR EXPERIMENTAL SERIES
NUMBER OF TARGETS USED
REFERENCE
SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74
Elgin, Hammid
Haramid
(2 per subject)
Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
155
Targ and Puthoff-,
1976,
p.
34;
Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336,
Mind -Reach ,
p .
Swann
Mind-Reach ,
p.
Elgin
Pease
presumably this sample sire was drawn from the larger, main target pool of
"over 100 targets," but
see discussion.
"Based upon "original" protocol used with Price.
Approved For Release 2003/04
-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 &: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Although
it appears
that
a pool of more than 100 targets had not been
constructed prior
to
the Price series,
other
(additional)
targets are used
following
this
series.
How were they selected?
In their protocol they state:
"The targets should be chosen
to be distinctive but not necessarily distinct
from one another
....
On the other hand,
once having chosen a fountain-type
target
there should be several fountain-type targets;
...”
(Appendix
B,
p.
1)
that
is,
targets should also have
a degree of
similarity.
Is
there
a way
that
such a pool could be constructed
so that
a subject
could most easily
distinguish,
say,
the predestrian overpass
from the railroad trestle bridge?
Perhaps
the concepts
in information theory should be
considered.
Puthoff
and Targ are quite familiar with the work of
Dr.
Milan Ryzl
and had indicated
that Dr.
Ryzl was willing
to work with them.
(SRI Progress
report,
3/12/74)
They have used his
technique
of working with subjects:
"His
primary contribution was
a decision
to interact with
the
subject
as
a person,
to
try
to build up his confidence and ability.
His protocol depended
on^
working with rather
than running his
subjects."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
332)
After discussing some of Ryzl's work,
Puthoff and Targ continue.
"...
the information channel
is imperfect,
containing noise along with
the
signal.
When considering how best
to use such
a channel,
one
is
led to the
communication theory concept
of
the introduction of redundancy
as
a means
of
coding
a message
to combat
the effects
of
a noisy channel
[30]."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
They further
state,
although they are relating
this
to Ryzl’s work:
"...
it is even possible
to use
such a
(noisy)
channel
for error-free transmission of information if
sufficient redundancy coding
is used
[30],
[31].
Following
is
a general procedure that we have used
successfully for signal enhancement.
We shall assume that
the
'message
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
consists
of
a stream of binary digits
(0,1)
of
equal probability
One
efficient coding scheme for such a channel
is obtained by application of
a
sequential sampling procedure of
the
type used
in production-line quality
control
[80].
The adaptation of
such
a procedure to paranormal communication
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
351)
Puthoff and Targ propose
to use
this
type
of coding procedure in the judging
of
targets
in
a more objective
manner.
They state:
"...
it would appear that
at
least
five recurrent
target attributes are frequently sensed correctly by our subjects."
(Puthoff,
Targ,
and May,
1978,
p.
11)
They propose
the use
of
the
following attributes:
inside/outside;
subdued lighting/bright lighting; wet/dry;
passive/active;
man-made/natural.
(Puthoff,
Targ,
and May,
1978,
Table
3,
p.
11)
Could
targets also be chosen under
a similar set of attributes
to which such
elements
as elevation/no elevation,
shape,
geographical location,
and
distance could be added?
^
If one examines targets with these
types
of criteria
in mind, how would
the selection of targets within any one series
appear?
Are targets more
than just fountains, bridges, plazas,
and
so forth?
Although
a great deal of information
is not given about
the targets,
certain elements are quite apparent:
wet/dry;
elevated/flat;
open/enclosed;
shapes
(square,
circular,
etc.);
and active/passive.
See Table
8,
Elgin’s
and Swann's targets
could be assigned quite easily into these
various
categories.
It
is
interesting
to note
that Puthoff and Targ remark:
"The
transcripts
of subject
S
» more
than those
of
other subjects,
had
descriptions
of
the
feel of
the location,
and experiential
or sensory
gestalts-f or
example,
light/dark elements
...
indoor/outdoor ,
and enclosed/
open distinctions."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
345)
They also comment
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
L
i
t
*
*
fc
i
t
I
I
l
l
l
I
I
I
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
SECRET
TABLE
8.
ELGIN
(S 2
) /SWANN
(S
)
TARGETS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
Target Attributes
Target
(Subject)
Elevated-
Flat
Wet-Dry
Enclosed-
Open
•
Light-
Dark
Passive-
Active
1.
BART Station
(S 2 )
E
D
L
A
2.
Shielded Room
(S
)
E
D
E
D
P
3.
Tennis Court
(S 2
)
F
D
L
A
4.
Golf Course Bridge
(S^)
E
-
-
-
P
5. Palo Alto City Hall
(S 3
)
E
W
o
L
A
6. Miniature Golf Course
(S^?
F
D
L
A
7.
Kiosk in Park
(S^)
F
D
E
D
P
8.
Baylands Nature Preserve
(s 3
)
F
W
L
A
NOTE:
Blanks are left where
there
is not sufficient information on which
to base an attribute.
These attributes are merely suggestive,
however,
since
the actual target may be other
than the
elements actually described,
such as Palo Alto City Hall in which the building could also be used
rather than
the fountain,
as
is seen in Hammid's precognition series in which a fountain is not
mentioned
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
348).
Approved For Release 2003/0
[-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/0441i^^^|P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
on each individual's specific way of describing
a target,
although they
relate
this
to post-experimental analysis:
"Comparing the transcripts
of
one subject with those of another revealed
that each pattern tended
to
focus
on certain aspects
of
the remote target complex and
to exclude others,
so
that each had an individual pattern of response,
the consistency
of each
subject's overall approach suggests
that just as individual descriptions
of a directly viewed scene would differ,
so these differences
also occur
in
remote-viewing processes."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
345)
lA-^
Assume
then,
that
the target pool consists not of randomly selected,
distinct
targets,
but rather of targets differing uniquely on combinations
of several attributes
or dimensions
(e.g.,
tall/flat,
dry /wet)
.
If each
of these attributes has
two states,
and
if
there were six such attributes,
then the number
of unique
targets which could be defined, without confusion,
would be
2 6
=
64.
At least six such attributes have been noted,
and less
than
targets in the bay area have been used.
One should then ask if
targets were really selected on
the basis
of
these attributes,
dimensions which a traditional experimental psychologist
might
call "independent variables."
The answer may be provided directly
in
the following.
In Puthoff and Targ's reply
to Calkins'
comments concerning their
experimental design,
they state:
"In keeping with accepted methodology
in experimental psychology we emphasized rigid control over variables that
might have introduced bias into our results
A series
of
independent
variables
(IV' s)
that Calkins chooses
to ignore
(target site characteristics
such as distance,
elevation, presence or absence
of water,
etc.) were
manipulated by random selection
"
(Proceedings of the IEEE ,
October 1976
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
^TCunTT
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Letters,
p.
1549)
But,
they go on to say:
"In short,
precise experimental control was
used where appropriate
to eliminate ambiguous conditions,
independent
variables were systematically manipulated
"
(P
•
1549 )
Puthoff
and
Targ do
then use
a "coding"
system with which they describe their
targets
and
these are then "...
systematically manipulated
. ..."
Were
these targets selected
so
that the target attributes
(to which
subjects are most sensitive)
define
a unique target for each attribute
combination?
Perhaps
so,
and this raises no experimental problem as
long
as
there
is no "leakage"
of any target attribute information by nonparanormal
means
to the subject while
(or before)
he
is viewing
the target.
We then
turn to
the question of how such leakage might occur.
Targets are often familiar
to
the subjects as all
of
them resided m
the area during their experimentation:
"...
ten sites known
to
the
subject
...."
(SRI Progress Report,
4/24/74,
p.
1)
However,
even though
the
subjects may be totally familiar with the
targets, how does
this help
them
distinguish one target from another during
a demonstration-of-ability
experiment?
A feasible solution lies
in the use
of
feedback.
Puthoff and Targ uses feedback in numerous situations,
extensive
enough
to cause one scientist
(Feinburg)
to comment:
"...
And from what
you
told me about
the remote viewing of
the Bay area, plus what
I saw when
I visited you,
it seems
to me all
of those exchanges
involve an extreme
amount
of
feedback to
the subject
at the end
of
a run.
That
is,
from what
I recall, when you came back you told the subject,
'We were here, we saw
this
and
this.’
In fact,
sometimes you even then took the subject
to
those
places."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p-
177)
,
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
f rfiner*
Approved For Release 2003/0^^
f
896-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
From the beginning,
Swann and Price were given some feedback:
"In
the case of
the coordinates, Price was given very limited feedback,
as
to
the overall nature of his correctness."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
174)
In fact,
Swann feels:
"This
is
as
far
as
I can go with out feedback,
and
perhaps guidance
as
to what
is wanted."
(Project SCANATE Report,
pp.
4-5)
Swann also received feedback on the other site discussed in this
same
reference before making
a second transcript
a day later.
$
Puthoff
arid Targ also use feedback prior
to
the actual demonstration-
of-ability
tests.
"Before beginning a formal experiment
... with Hella,
we
set
up
an orientation series
of mock experiments using
a walkie-talkie
link as
a method
of providing
a comfortable transition into
the
type of
experiment we wished
to conduct.,,.
In these mock experiments
...
the
subject
is asked
to describe simultaneously what
the remote experimenter
is
looking at."
{Mind-Reach,
p.
74)
It
is difficult
to reconcile
this
with:
"Since we could not pretest our subjects without violating the
intention of
the experiments,
our criterion for selection of inexperienced
participants was simply
to choose intelligent,
cheery,
agreeable people
...."
{Mind -Reach ,
p
.
70)
These mock experiments were carried out with at least four subjects.
The number
of
such experiments actually performed has been reported
in
various ways
for Hammid.
Targ does state:
"It would be particularly easy
to do
in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to do
a number
of experiments,
one right
after another."
{Mind Reach,
p.
177) ^
In addition,
a great deal of information could be gathered from a
particular
site during the time the demarcation team
is
at
the
site.
Subjects
also were used as experimenters
and, hence, were
at
target
sites during an
Approved For Release 2003/04/p, ^IA|RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
U
Approved For Release 2003/04^|
CLU
JMRDP
IVLJ
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
actual experiment.
Clearly,
by
a variety of
these processes,
subjects
(and experimenters)
built up
a gradual familiarity with elements
of
the target pool.
In Puthoff’s letter
(of
28 March 1978)
to Karnes
and Susman concerning
their experiment, he states:
"Your subjects did not receive immediate
feedback
as
to
the correct site
(since they were kept blind
to judge).
In fact,
looked at from a pedagogical point
of view they received post-
experiment noisy feedback in which they viewed several pictures,
only one
set
of which pertained
to
the
site.
We have found remote viewing
to be
extremely sensitive
to the feedback parameters.
For example, we recently
completed a series
of
7 experiments
to examine
this specifically:
3 with
feedback,
3 without feedback,
1 with feedback.
The first
three and
the
last one were perfect hits
(as determined by
a binary coding system which
is completely objective) while
the three without
feedback were complete
misses."
In a recent publication they also state:
"In past programs we
have conducted
two series
of experiments with experienced remote viewing
subjects
to determine
the effects
of withholding feedback.
Both
of
these
series failed
to give a single successful outcome in the no-feedback
conditions.
This result offers strong evidence that feedback is
an essential
element
for successful remote viewing, whether
the reasons be psychological
or physical."
(Puthoff,
Targ,
and May,
1978,
p..
13)
Ca.
If
a "no feedback" condition occurs
for an experiment,
it
occurs
following the viewing and response.
Does
this mean,
therefore,
that
the
subject does not respond
to the following target correctly?
If
so,
could
it be that he has no way
of knowing what
type
of target
or targets have
been used previously,
and what has been eliminated from the
target pool?
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-pDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Taking an extremely skeptical position,
could
it also mean that
the
(inadvertent?,
subliminal?)
cues available
to him during
the experiment
cannot be decoded?
u-
Could a subject learn to differeniate various
types
of
targets using
some
sort
of
a system?
Swann worked with experimenters
at
the ASPR:
"The
routine
of
these experiments ran over some fourteen months."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
104)
He states:
"the entire battery of experiments, however, was
exceedingly meaningful as
a learning procedure since
the extrasensory
perception was seen
to increase both in scope and accuracy as
the experimenta-
tion increased."
(Swann,
1975,
pp.
104-105)
"Initially
a five-digit number
was used
as
a target
...
but Swann was unable
to identify unmistakably any
five-digit number
....
So these experiments used an open-topped box near
the ceiling with randomly selected objects
in
it,
thus requiring only
(A
easier figure-ground discriminations."
(Mitchell,
1974,
p.
365)
Swann, who refers
to himself
in the third person
in his book,
comments:
"By now
the
subject was used
to
the attitudes at
the ASPR."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
6)
This statement
is made in January
1972,
apparently after quite
a
period
of experimentation.
Had he also been able
to learn what kinds
of
targets
the experimenters used,
i.e.,
simple figure-ground discriminations?
Out
of
the experiments
run over fourteen months,
only
"...
eight sessions
considered impeachable from an experimental point would be submitted
for
independent judging.
The judge correctly identified all eight drawn responses
with
the correct
target
...
this seemed
a good beginning."
C—
Following one experimental session in January 1972,
Swann comments:
"To him,
all argumentation,
speculation,
and hypothesis
aside,
it had been
an important day
.
If
the results
of
the experiment were unclear
to
the
Approved For Release 2003/04/
;iA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
researchers,
they were good enough
to convince him of one important under-
standing.
"Yes,
yes,
he breathed,
dipping into
the stale air
of
the subway
system.
It
is possible!
It can be done!"
(Swann,
1975,
p.
8)
He further
states:
"Before
I was invited
to
SRI,
as
the experiments
in which
I
became involved progressed,
it seemed more likely that all one had
to do
in terms
of awareness was
to approximate
(by
a process yet unknown
to physics)
whatever
it Was one wished
to perceive
....
I was reasonably convinced that,
until one consciously can do this-that
is,
duplicate in terms
of awareness
what
it
is
one wishes
to perceive paranormally-all will be black and remain
black.
The
tendency of memory to present
to consciousness
a
'picture'
of
whatever
is being recalled seemed close
to this
idea, but memory
in most
cases appeared
to be under only
a quasi-consciousness-control system,
if
not completely automatic."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
51)
U—
Swann contacts
SRI and after numerous phone conversations with Puthoff,
(Swann,
1975,
p.
56)
is invited
to
SRI
for preliminary experimentation
about which he comments:
"...
it was possible for me
to
go
to SRI
to
'poke
around'
in association with Puthoff with the results
of
this initial
exploration contributing hopefully
to the future establishment
of
a larger
opportunity."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
56)
Swann then begins experimentation at SRI and initiates
the geographical
coordinate experiment, based on the rationale that:
"...
the psychic being
would have
to reduce' into
the conditions
of
the physical universe in order
to perceive
them,
even through sensory mechanisms
....
The psychic entity
would have
to think
'down'
into things physical and not
upward
from things
physical into transcending situations
....
The psychic entity could not
relate
to unknown physical targets very well
in the absence
of
a mental
or
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
jjjrmjrT
Approved For Release 2003/04A^gpgj^^W6-00791R0001 00440001 -9
thinking access
to
them."
(Swann,
1975.,
pp.
107—108)
l*~-
There,
during experimentation using geographical coordinates Swann
states:
"But
as
the experiment was run over several days,
evidence mounted
that
the psi-ability was undergoing some sort of learning pattern,
reflected
in a rising curve of both accuracies and increasing descriptions
of
the
site.."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
110)
He comments:
"There,
during an eight-month concentrated effort,
some
7,000 exterior perception trials were conducted,
yielding an extraordinary
amount
of data."
(Few of
these 7,000 trials have been published!)
"Once
more the learning pattern became visible in almost all cases.
The perception
of
any given set
of targets actually began
to improve through enforced use
of the unknown ability.
This
led,
of
course,
toward
the establishment
of
a trial hypothesis
that
the ability
is accessible because
it exhibits
a
learning pattern,
and therefore conforms
to
the general idea
that abilities
improve through practice."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
106)
At
SRI,
the following picture of Swann
is reported:
"This experimental
effort was characteristic of
Ingo's professional approach,
his enthusiasm
for an involvement
in research.
As others who have worked with Swann know,
however,
his contributions
to paranormal research are not confined
to his
role
as
subject.
He also
is very articulate about his subjective experience,
and slips easily into
the role of co-researcher investigating
the underlying
laws
of
the phenomena
....
He left with us an unmistakable sense
of
the
breadth and
the scope
of
the human side of
the research to which we were
now committed."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
43)
In Swann's report
to Puthoff and Targ,
about
the problems
of remote
viewing,
from which they take several excerpts,
the following seem pertinent
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 £ i CUURDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ^gJg|jj2p96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
"Several breakthroughs were needed
to uncover
the remote viewing possibil-
ities
If breakthroughs have tended
to expose such ability,
subsequent
quantitative analysis has
also established
the existence
of
certain qualita-
tive problems
that need
to be resolved
....
For various reasons
as described
below,
the emergence
of erroneous data in subjects'
responses
to given targets
has been given the working name of
'analytical overlay'
.... W
"Accumulated responses
from subjects'
attempts
to view distant targets
indicates
that
-the target often
is
actually viewed, but
in some way
the
target also acts
as
a prompter
for
the spontaneous appearance
of
seemingly
irrelevant data.
This
is especially obvious when the subjects'
drawing
of
the target
is by observation specifically applicable
to
the
target,
but his
interpretations,
either verbally or
in the form of mental image pictures,
is
far from the mark
....
"...
It
seems relevant
to hypothesis,
then,
that the subject
is perceiving
the
target
at some level of awareness
to prompt logical mental processing
in
the subject.
The subject's
response therefore usually includes not
only
descriptors relevant
to
the
target,
but
also other details coming out
of
the logical analytical comparison doubtlessly going on as he tries
to
'recognize'
the target."
(Mind-Reaoh ,
pp.
41-42)
It
is
apparent
that
subjects can learn, but how can
a subject,
assuming
that a target could be broken down into some sort
of elemental system,
learn
to respond?
In the Garrett report,
the authors state:
"In terms
of remote viewing
as described by Puthoff and Targ
(Reference
3-7)
,
the methodology
of
sequential analysis
can be
a useful tool for both training and analyzing
viewed results.
In this
context,
the technique could initially be used
as
Approved For Release 2003/04MPilltoe>96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/041
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
a means
of analyzing data obtained
in
a training session.
This would involve
a sender at
a site
that was sending one item of information at
a time
(e.g.,
tree).
After
the receiver
in the laboratory had made a decision,
he would
be informed of
the correctness
of his decision so that training would occur.
The sender would then be instructed
to proceed
to
the next
item of
the
message."
(Wortz,
at.,
1976,
Section
3,
p.
5)
„
?
Isn't
this
the technique that Puthoff
and Targ use
in their mock experiment
except
that
they use specific elements
at any given site,
rather than a binary
digit?
The following provides just
such a partial example:
"the capital
letters signify walkie-talkie communication:
R.T.
:
It
is now 12:35.
S-4:
...
very strong diagonal
. ,.
like a zigzag that goes
this way,
vertically.
R.T.:
S-4 's FIRST IMPRESSION
IS
OF A VERY STRONG DIAGONAL ZIGZAG
THAT'S GOING VERTICALLY,
OVER.
(Talking on walkie-talkie
to H.P
.
)
H.P.:
THERE
IS A STRONG ZIGZAG AT MY PLACE,
BUT
IT
IS NOT VERTICAL
BUT RATHER HORIZONTAL;
BUT IF SHE IS LOOKING FROM THE AIR,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
OVER,
R.T.
:
Can you tell what
the
zigzag
is attached
to?
Whether it's
part
of
a building or a fence on the ground?"
(SRI Progress
Report,
August
1974,
p.
9)
The session continues with one element after another discussed.
Recall
that
"...
we
set
up an orientation series of mock experiments
using
a walkie-talkie link as
a method of providing a comfortable transition
into the
type
of experiment we wished
to conduct."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
74)
1/\J
100
Approved For Release 2OO3/O4/^hgjAsg0B06-OO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/W^|||j|^96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Could
these mock experiments not
only help
the subject
to visualize
the
site mentally,
but also help
the subject learn how
to respond?
Or how to
respond
(perhaps subliminally)
to experimenter "prompts"?
If
it
can be assumed that this kind of learning could occur , how would
a subject
in the laboratory be able
to describe
the proper
target?
In their
protocol,
Puthoff
and Targ state:
"Before
the experiment begins,
the
subject
should be shown some previous remote viewing results
....
(Appendix B,
p.
1)
Could these results
in any way be related
to
the actual target?
In his letter
to Karnes and Susman, Puthoff points
out:
"...
the remote
scene often appears
to trigger associate memory,
so
that when the target
is,
e.g.,
a bridge over
a stream,
the subject gets an image of
a bridge over
a stream,
but not necessarily
the same one
(an actual case
the
subject
in
our California lab had an overwhelming image of
a bridge over
a stream known
to him
...
which he knew couldn’t be the local California target, which was
a different bridge over
a different
stream)
.
This associate memory overlap
makes
it more difficult for the subject than for
a blind judge
"
(p-
2 )
W.
G.
Roll
in
(White,
1976.)
writes:
"It has
long been known that
certain conditions facilitate
learning.
These are described
in
the
'laws
of learning.’
The best known are
the laws
of recency,
frequency,
and
vividness
(or intensity).
In other words,
recent events,
all other conditions
being equal,
are more likely
to be remembered
than events
in the remote past..
If
the memory theory of ESP
is
correct, we expect ESP responses
to be
expressed
in terms
of memory traces
that are recent,
frequent,
and vivid.
In other words,
ESP stimuli are likely
to
trigger memory traces
that are
already prepared
to
’fire’
...."
(p.
355)
L\.
Approved For Release 2003/04/ta
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
In Price's
transcript of the Allied Arts and Crafts Plaza,
he comments
part way through his viewing:
"Right now Bart
is trying
to point something
out
that
is basically
the significance
of 'the whole place.
It's like
that
key
thing,
well,
if you'd mentioned
a salt pile
I'd have blown my
lid.
Well,
this has a significance that's just about comparable
to
that.
I'm screening
it out."
And later:
"There's something about
the windmill that
I was going
to. look at.
Wasn't
that what you were
...."
Price’s
first mention of
a
windmill
is shortly followed by a question from the experimenter:
"What are
the boundaries of the place they're at?"
{Mind-Reach,
pp.
63-68)
Is
some
sort
of
a "key" given that could trigger- the subject's memory?
Roll later states;
"Since memory
traces
are
the products
of sensory
perceptions and other familiar psychological processes,
introspectively
,
they reflect these rather than the ESP stimulus
that provokes
them."
(White,
1976,
p.
363) U.
"If
a memory trace
is aroused
in the course of normal perceptual or
introspective activities,
it may,
in turn arouse other memory traces which
are associated with
it but unrelated
to
the situation at hand.”
(p.
356)
"If we distinguish between the learning,
retention,
remembering,
and
forgetting aspects
of memory,
the ESP response
can be described as an
instance of remembering something
that
the organism learnt in the course
of
its past sensory experiences
or other familiar activities.
This part of
the ESP process
is an ordinary psychological process
or biological one.
It
is only because there
is evidence that the evoked memories are relevant
to
some actual event which
the person could not have known about by sensory
or rational means
that we are dealing with a parapsychological phenomenon."
( P .
374)
Li
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: TEj/\-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2OO3/O4tidUEflBfiftB06-OO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
Assuming,
therefore,
some sort
of "triggering" process occurs either
in terms
of
the introduction of previous remote viewing results,
or
some
other sort
of
a "key",
as seen in Price’s transcript,
are there other ways
in which
a subject can be "triggered"?
/a---
Their protocol for
the experimenter states:
"It
is best
that
the inbound
experimenter not push the subject
to say a lot
...
if
the subject tends toward
being analytical
...
the experimenter must gently lead
the subject into
description,
not analysis.
(You don't have
to tell me what
it
is,
just
describe what you see.)
This
is
the most important and difficult
task of
the inbound experimenter.
(s—
"It
is also useful
for
the inbound experimenter
to
'surprise'
the
subject with new viewpoints
....
The shifting of viewpoint also obviates
the problem of
the subject spending
the entire
time giving
the meticulous
detail on
a single blade of
grass or piece of
concrete, which even
if
true,
will be
of no help
to
the judge."
(SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74,
p.
3)
$
It
is
interesting
to note some of
the experimenter's questions
in Price's
transcript
of
the Allied Arts
and Crafts Plaza after Price has scanned by
quadrant and has mentioned an arbor,
trees,
dirt path,
fountain,
and red
brick walkway:
What kind
of place
is
the arbor
in?
Is
it
in a field out
in the open?
...
Tell me about
the town and country aspect.
In what way
does
it remind you of town and country?
...
Town and country means
to me a
covered walkway
....
What do you find
the boundaries of
the place they're
at?
...
The quadrant you had
them in
is basically
the northeast quadran
If you look down on the place from above,
can you get any feeling for
the-
is there any overall layout or plan?
... What would you say
is. the interest
to this place?
What's special about
this place?
...
Was Hal doing anything
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04F^gj|gpDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
besides walking along
- was
there any activity
for Hal
to do?"
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
63-68)
It
is
also interesting
to note the use
of
time
in this
transcript:
"One
forty.
This
is remote viewing experiment
...
we expect
the travelers
to be
at their place
in about
ten minutes.
It's one-fifty-eight.
Our travelers
should be near
to arriving."
0Mind-Reach
,
p.
63)
Experiments
are
to
start
at
set
times,
prearranged before the target persons leave for
their destination
"Together
they agree on a time
for
the subject description to start
(e.g.,
30 minutes hence— the length of
time required for getting
to the further
target
in the pool
...)."
(Appendix B,
p.
2)
Why then does Targ call out
the time
so frequently.
It
is interesting
to note that
the
target
is
1.9 km
away from SRI and Targ calls out the
time at
1:58,
two minutes before
the
hour
.
Also, within the same general quadrant are Burgess Park,
Stanford
Arboretum,
Stanford Stadium,
Stanford golf
course, White Plaza,
and
the
Stanford campus which has architecture similar
to that of
the
target.
In
his
transcript, Price refers
to
"...
an arbor
...",
"...
dirt path
...",
"...
fountain-...",
"...
Town and Country Mall
...",
"...
outdoor park
"... windmill
...",
"...
stadium structure
...",
"...
arboretum
...
,
"...
miniature golf
course
...",
"...
small pool of water
...",
"...
corner
of
a golf course
...",
and
"...
small building
...",
"...
single story
building
...
pitched roof
...
four poles supporting
it
...."
The targets
used with
this subject
are distinct,
are not used with replacement,
and
have been selected out
of
a pool of nine.
In addition,
subjects do think
about their upcoming experiments
and therefore,
a process
of elimination by
this one subject
can possibly occur.
104
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
nrilQCSff
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
orrjnnr
It
is interesting to note Elgin’s description of
the BART station:
"...
a simple,
heavy,
solid building with a unique function in
.
.
.
relatively
natural surroundings.
In his further description,
D.E.
said
(correctly)
’they are standing at
a metal railing looking out over the scene.
They
are
high enough up
so they can see some buildings down below.'
...
He sensed
some ambiquity
as
to whether
the experimenters were inside a building or not.
’I have the sense they’re outside,
though,
but they’re near
a building
Feels like
it has
sort
of
one
function.
One primary function.’"
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1975,
p.
158)
This description
is
general enough
to apply
to many
targets such as Hoover Tower,
the radio telescope, Palo Alto City Hall,
and
the
churches,
among others.
S
Misreporting of
the order
of experimentation
(see above)
eliminates
the
possibility
of knowing in what order targets are actually used,
so
a "triggering"
analysis based on order
is not
feasible.
An examination for
the possibility of "triggering"
is possible only
in
the only other unedited transcript presented
in all publications.
In Phyllis
Cole’s unedited transcript,
the use
of
time,
as was
seen
in Price’s
transcript,
also appears.
The target
for Cole
in this experiment
is
3.8 km from SRI and
Targ states the time
4 mins after
the subject has begun. ^
Cole makes
the following statement
at
the beginning
of
the viewing:
The
first thing
that
came
to mind was some sort
of
a large,
square kind
of
a shape.
Like Hal was
in front of
it.
It was
a
...
not
a building or something,
it was
a square.
I don’t know
if
it was
a window,
but something like that
so
that
the bottom line
of
it was not
at
the ground.
About where his waist was,
at
least.
That’s what
it
seemed
to me.
It seems outdoors
somehow,
tree.
Wind-Reach,
pp.
104-106)
At this point,
Cole’s description
is extremely
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA4RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/u«6£GilEfaw6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
general-a shape and
its possible position.
All targets are outdoor
targets
and the area has many
trees.
This description was followed by
a question
by the experimenter:
"Does Hal seem to be looking at
that square?"
Within
the
first
four minutes
of
the experiment,
the experimenter
asks
three questions,
the one stated above
as well
as:
"Can you tell
if
it
is
on the ground or
vertical?
.
.
.
Can you move into where he
is standing and
try
to
see what
is looking at?"
In their protocol,
they state:
"It
is best
that
the
inbound
experimenter not push the subject
to say
a
lot,
but act as
if
they have all
the time in
the world;
otherwise,
a subject may tend
to embroider descriptions
just
to be saying something
to please the experimenter."
(Appendix B,
p.
3)
If
this
is
the
case, why did Targ ask three questions within four minutes?
Why then does he state:
"It
is
twenty-four minutes
after eleven.
Can you
change your point
of view and move about
the scene
so you can get
a bigger
picture
of what's there?"
Cole then mentions
a courtyard,
followed by
mentioning White Plaza although she feels
"...
that
is misleading.
I have
the sense
...
that
its
a small area
...."
The experimenter’s questions
continue
as
follows:
"What
is
that?
...
Are
there any buildings?
You
described
a kind of courtyard.
Uusually at
| such places
there should be
a
building,
large or small,
that the courtyard
is
about.
Look at
the end or
the sides
of
the courtyard.
Is
there anything
to be
seen?
...
Do you have
any better
idea of what your square was
that you saw at
the outset?
...
Does
it seem part
of
the scene?
...
What
kinds
of
trees
do you see in
this place?
...
New trees rather
than old trees?
...
Is
there anything,
interesting about
the pavement?
...
You sew some benches.
Do you want
to
tell me about
them?
...
What do you thinkJHal
is doing while he
is
there?"
In a period
of
less
than
15 min:
"We expect
this experiment
to start
at
Approved For Release 2003/04/18;;
)P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/lfff«-W$96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
twenty minutes after eleven
....
It's eleven thirty-three.
He's just
probably getting ready
to come back."
The experimenter has asked fourteen
questions.
It
is
interesting
to note that Cole
uses; the past tense
in the early
part of
this viewing:
"The thing
that came
to mind was
...
like Hal was
...
it was
...
that's what
it seemed
to me
...
about where his waist was
...."
She then changes
to the present
tense shortly after Targ’s
first question. ^
If
a subject
is actually able
to perceive
a remote scene, why does
the
experimenter feel the need
to "prod"
the subject? (/-
It appears plausible
then,
that
the
(unique?)
target attributes can be
elicited by several sources:
(1)
leading or probing questions from the
experimenter,
clearly content-oriented and perhaps containing
(e.g.
,
time
of day)
cues;
(2) memory trace elements from immediately preceding targets,
verifiable only by knowing the true order
of target exposure
to each subject;
and
(3)
demonstration trials with feedback,
or selective reinforcement
of
particular classes
of target attributes pertinent to
the categorizations
of
the targets
in the pool.
Clearly,
the subjects are encouraged
to respond
with as much perceptual information about
the target
as possible.
The
"proof
of
the pudding"
then lies
in the judging process,
Subject Orientation.
"...
one of our primary tasks
as researchers
is
to provide an environment in which the subject
feels
safe
to explore the
possibility
of paranormal perception
....
All we provide
is
a quiet,
relaxing
place
to work,
an assurance
to
the subject that the ability
is natural and
not unique,
and finally we give them the assurance that
it
is possible
to
be successful,
permissible
to fail,
and fun
to
try
at any rate."
Qtind-Reaoh,
p.
74)
K-'
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 'flC:!
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 200370flH5£^Jf£lpL)P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
The subject,
experimenter,
and
target person(s) meet prior
to
the
experimental session:
"Yeah,
I
can see Bart
in his red shirt and what
looks
like' a grey paisley tie-I didn’t really look at
that when he was down there.
The red shirt,
I did."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
63)
Obviously,
in other
cases where
the subject has been the experimenter,
the relationship between them is
close.
Margaret Mead,
in her introduction to Mind-Reach states,
"Furthermore, where
much of existing research has treated
the human participants
as either
’subjects
...
or
imposters
or self-deluded a^diti^>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."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
xx)
This
type
of
treatment
toward
the subject was carried
to
the point
that
Swann had much
of
the original responsibility
for
the experiments.
"These ESP experiments
are
a trivialization of my abilities.
I want
to look at something more
interesting than what
is
in the next room
....
I did some experiments
at
the ASPR in which
I moved my viewpoint
to some remote location and described
what was
there.
That was
fun to do,
and the studies were statistically
significant."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
27)
"The cumulative results
of
these
experiments were not
to be collected
for several months.
When they were
complete,
eight sessions
considered unimpeachable
from an experimental
point
of view would be submitted
for independent judging."
(Swann,
1975,
pp.
7-8)
"The routine
of
these experiments ran over some fourteen months
altogether
...."
(Swann,
1975,
p.
104)
Swann, however, has been reported
to have been "bored
to
tears" by
the increasingly tedious
and monotonous
108
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/0^^§^j
ipgr 96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
procedure during his eighteen months work at
|the ASPR.
U—
Arthur Hastings,
SRI consultant,
uses
a pre-session procedure
that Tart
describes
as:
"Hastings went through
a sophisticated psychological procedure
(to be described
at length in a future publication)
to
get
the percipients
to allow themselves
to use psi
....
I was particularly impressed by
the
sophisticated psychological procedures
that Hastings had used
...
so he and
1 discussed them at
length,
and
I worked out
1 a protocol
for incorporating
them into my workshop
...."
Tart conducted
a general workshop on
the psi
phenomenon,
including the widespread success
of
the SRI studies.
"Then
I
gave instructions
on psychological procedures
for eliciting psi for remote
viewing
...
to give the teams
a chance
to practice relaxing, visualizing,
and trying
to get their psi talents
to operate.
I then conducted
a GESP
test
in which the task was
to try
to get impressions
of a color slide that
was sealed
in a double,
opaque envelope in my pocket
...."
(Tart,
1977
,
p.
171)
Similarly,
Puthoff
and Targ suggest:
"Before
the experiment,
the subject
should be shown some previous remote viewing results with one goal in mind
to
get across
the idea that one should,
as best
as possible,
report raw
perception rather than analysis
...."
(Appendix B,
p.
1)
Why do they
advocate the actual display
of real data?
Why isn't
a verbal description
adequate?
Why
is
this necessary when subjects have been used previously
and should know the procedure?
Does
the process,
as suggested above, help
to instill
in memory the target attribute "language"
for subsequent use
during experiments? K
Experimenter behavior .
"The goal of the inbound experimenter
is
to
make
it
'safe'
for
the subject
to experience remote viewing,
this
typically
includes
a low-key pep talk as
to how remote viewing appears
to be
a natural,
109
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
,T®3
CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -
rr
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 1 8^,filfeppf?96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
not abnormal,
function,
that many people have done
it successfully,
and
always
the reminder
to eschew analysis
and simply render raw impressions.'
(Appendix B,
pp.
2-3)
The experimenter
also arranges
to have lights
subdued,
pen,
paper,
and tape recorder and most importantly,
during
the actual
transcription:
"It
is best that
the
inbound, experimenter not push
the
subject
to say
a lot
....
If
the subject tends towards being analytical
...
the experimenter must gently lead the subject into description,
not analysis.
It
is also useful
...
to
'surprise'
the subject with new viewpoints
...
encourage
the subject
to sketch
....
He may do
so throughout,
or wait until
the
last
five minutes
if
intermittent drawing would distract his
concentration.
(Appendix B,
p.
3)
Experimenter behavior may be even more defined
if Hastings'
procedures
are followed.
The procedure used for transcribing
the remote viewing session would
also be
the responsibility
of
the experimenter.
Again,
there appears
to
be no set procedure despite the claim of
an
"...
extremely tight protocol
...."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
37)
"Our
skeptical government visitor agreed
to be
a subject
in a series of three
of our standard remote viewing experiments.
A tape
recorder was started and the subject and experimenters identified themselves.
A couple of sentences giving the time and the date,
along with an announcement
that the experimenter
"... would be at
the site
in a half hour."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
6)
One
of
two transcripts available which
is
"...
the entire unedited
text
of one
of
the better narratives
...."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
153)
-S'
reads:
"ONE FORTY.
THIS
IS REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENT WITH PAT PRICE
...."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
63)
No mention
of
a
date, which
is included
in Cole
s
transcript.
"TODAY
IS MONDAY,
OCTOBER SEVENTH.
IT
IS ELEVEN O’CLOCK AND
110
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
HjSuiuX
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
THIS
IS REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT WITH RUSS .TARG , PHYLLIS COLE AND HAL
PUTHOFF
....
IT
IS JUST ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES AFTER ELEVEN , AND HAL SHOULD
BE AT HIS TARGET LOCATION BY NOW."
(Mind-Reach
,
pp.
104-105)
The latter also includes
a set experimental time and then the starting
time of
the experiment.
Price's transcript,
however,
reads:
"One forty
...
I expect our visitors
to be
at
their place in about
ten minutes
"
(One
fifty)
"...
It's one-fifty-eight.
Our travelers should be near
to arriving
at
the place."
• {Mind-Reach,
p.
63)
Why the repeated use
of
time?
(s-
The strange use of
time can also be
se|en in Cole's
transcript where,
despite "It
is best
that
the inbound experimenter not push the subject
to
say
a
lot,
but act
as
if they have all the
time
in the world
"
(Appendix
B,
p.
3)
Targ
says:
"It
is just
about twenty minutes after eleven and Hal
should be at his target location by now
It
is
twenty-four minutes
after eleven
.
.
. ."
{Mind-Reach
,
p.
105) ^
Note also
the way in which
the
time
is
stated:
"Twenty minutes
after
...
twenty minutes after
...
twenty-four minutes
after
...
eleven thirty
{Mind-Reach,
p.
106)
Targ states
time
in the Price transcript:
"One forty
...
one fifty-eight
...
two thirty
"
{Mind-Reach,
p.
68)
Another example can be seen with
the abacus/clock target where description
of
the experimenter's actions precedes
the date of the experiment.
Hal and
I have brought
a present
for you.
We wandered around
...
and bought
an
object
...
of
the type that one
interacts with
Hal will use
it
for
its normal purpose.
Today
is Friday,
September
26,
1974
...."
{Mind-Reach,
p.
39)
(Jf
Still another example
is
seen when Richard Bach visits
:
"Hal should
be there in three minutes
...
it
is eleven o'clock on Tuesday,
July -18,^
1975
"
{Mind-Reach,
xxiii)
Although Puthoff
and Targ state:
"Finally,
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 $i£IA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
y.
A|BdES6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
UIU.I
one sunny day
in April 1975, Richard flew his small plane into San Francisco
...he was ready
to visit
our lab and see what we were up
to
....
We decided
to use our newfound successful protocol and asked our visitor
to be
the
subject
...
the target was
a church
...."
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
91-92)
(A*—
It
is
also interesting
to note that the experiment starting time
is
not preset although Puthoff
and Targ state:
"The experimental protocol for
precognitive remote viewing experiments with Hella Hammid was identical
to
that followed ih the remote viewing experiments
...
each day at ten o’clock,
one of
the experimenters would leave SRI
. ..."
(Mind-Reach
,
pp.
111-112)
Yet,
reply
to Calkins'
comments concerning their experimental design,
Puthoff and Targ state:
"Among other
things,
the precise time
of
stimulus
presentation was controlled
...."
CProceedings of the IEEE ,
October
1976,
Letters,
p.
1549)
In the Price series,
the viewing time was
a 30-minute period and after
was reduced
to a 15-minute period for Hella Hammid:
"The first subject was
allowed
30 minutes
for his description but
it was
found he fatigued and
had little comment after the first
15 minutes.
The viewing procedure was
therefore reduced
to
15 minutes
for
S 2
-
Sg."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
Perhaps
this accounts
for
the return
of
the target team at 2:30
after
the session had started
at
2:00:
"It's one fifty-eight.
Our
travelers
should be near
to arriving"
...
"two thirty.
Shall we
go downstairs
and
see how they're doing?"
(Mind-Reaeh ,
pp.
63-68)
Uho actually fatigued
is not quite clear since
it
is also stated:
"Second,
the remote viewing periods were reduced from 30
to
15 minutes
since
Hammid was observed
to tire."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
35)
112
Approved For Release 2003/q^8r^JB^DP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
iinmrr
Target -person behavior.
"At
the start
of an experimental session,
the
inbound and outbound experimenters and the subject should rendezvous
for
a
relaxed informal chat
in the laboratory setting
(the outbound experimenter
or experimenters must not know the target site at
this
time)
....
The ou
bound experimenter then leaves
the
lab,
uses a random number generating
procedure
to obtain a number,
obtains
the
so; numbered envelope
(preferably
kept by another person)
and leaves
...
opens
the envelope
to determine
the
target,
and proceeds
to that location
...
come upon
the
target location at
exactly
the starting time so his view of
it
is
fresh
at experiment beginning.
He then simply pays attention to the environment and does not
let his mind
wander
(especially to another
target)
....
It appears not
to matter how many
people comprise
the outbound team, provided
they don't
1)
just pay attention
to each other
or
2)
scatter about.
At
the end
of
the agreed-upon target
viewing
time they return
to
the lab."
(Appendix
B,
p.
2)
In relation
to
the acquisition of
the target,
and
the randomization procedure,
the behavior
of
the target person obviously has varied from series
to
series.
This
has
been discussed previously and will not be dealt with again.
Another area that also showed inconsistency,
not only in procedure,
but
in reporting, was the
time actually spent at
the
target.
"The first
subject was allowed
30 minutes
for his description but
it was
found he
fatigued and had little comment after
the first
15 minutes.
The viewing
procedure was
therefore reduced
to
15 minutes
for
S
- S^"
(Puthoff
and
Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
However,
in another source,
it
is
stated:
"Second,
the remote viewing periods were reduced from 30
to
15 minutes,
since
in the
mock-experiment
training series Mrs.
Hammid was observed
to tire when viewing
was extended beyond the shorter period."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
35,
113
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
g»ris2|j£36^
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Mind-Reach,
pp.
75-76)
And yet earlier, Hammid was run through one after
another:
"...
in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to
do
a number
of experiments,
one right after
the other."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
P
.
177)
Several other questions arise,
however,
as
to what
the experimenter
actually does when he /she or
they arrive at
the target.
Again,
Tart implies
there may be more,
assuming
that Hastings, having shared his procedure with
Tart:
"Our consultant,
Dr.
Arthur Hastings
"
(Mind-Reach,
p.
101)
Tart
comments:
"I then sealed each slide,
along with a set
of instructions
that
I made up
then and there on appropriate things
that
could be done to
interact with
the site
...."
(Tart,
1970,
p.
170)
Price,
in the Allied
Arts transcript
states:
"Right now Bart
is
trying to point something out
that
is basically
the significance
of
the whole place
Hal and Bart
are
talking about something and he's pointing
at something and
it
seems
to me
that he's pointing over
to what
I'd call
a windmill
or
something
that
looks
like
a windmill
...."
(Mind-Reach,
pp.
65-66)
(Apparently remote viewing
also
includes remote hearing also!)
It
is obvious
that "people paying
attention
to each other" did not distract Price from his description,
so
what evidence
is
there
that
this personal attention should not occur?
What
evidence
is
there that experimenters should not scatter about?
One whole area that remains undisclosed
is
that
of determining what
it
is
that
the experimenters actually knew.
Are there instructions
given
as
to what elements,
say of Rinconada Park,
are
to be viewed?
Or of
the
marina?
Or
of
the playground?
As has been discussed earlier,
the earlier
descriptions of
some targets causes some question as
to when they became
specific elements,
say, within a larger target.
Are maps drawn?
Are
tapes
114
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1^JjnEJBP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
normally made!
Are specific actions required!
At best,
the lack of planned
activity,
andltts subsequent documentation,
of
the target persons provid
an opportunity for redefinition of
the "target" and free "interpretation"
by the judge. £»\_
Judging.
Prior
to
the judging procedure:
"First,
an experimenter not
involved
in judging must read the transcripts
and delete from them any
reference
to dates
or previous
targets,
so
that
a judge could not order
the
transcripts chronologically,
or determine that
a given transcript can't be
the boathouse. because
the subject mentions
in the transcript
that what he
is
looking at reminds him of
the boathouse which was
the previous day's
target."
(Appendix B,
p.
4) U.
As has been noted earlier,
this protocol was written after their tutorial
paper.
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b)
This
time relationship
is verified
in
this
latter publication:
"The
subjects'
response packets, which contained
the nine typed unedited transcripts
of
the narratives along with any
associated drawings
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
335)
and
"...
a
panel
of
five additional judges
...
were asked simply
to blind match
the
unedited typed transcripts and associated drawings
...."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
338)
The latter quotation
is
in reference
to
the judging procedure
used with Hammid so one assumes
that
it was used with the remaining subjects.
Therefore,
during the actual judging procedure, unedited transcripts are
apparently used. u
Judging procedure.
"...
the transcripts with their associated drawings
are labeled
in random order and given
to
the judge
...
while
a list
of
the
target
cards,
also in a
(different)
numbered random order
is
given
to
the
judge.
His job,
then
(is)
to go
to a target location
(physically),
read
115
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8ft i€M*ftPP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
through all the manuscripts,
and order them best
to worst match
He
then proceeds
to
the
second target
site
and reorders
the same set
of
transcripts
again,
best through worst match,
and so
forth.
The judge
is
to
do
this exercise
in a replacement sense;
that
is, even though he may have assigned
a given
transcript
as best match
to
a given target,
he may find
at another
target
that
it
is
the best match
to that one also.
' Even though he knows
logically
that
it couldn't
go
to both, we find that judges
in fact have no hesitation
in using
a transcript
twice in first place, 'simply because
they aren’t sure
as
to which one
it does
in fact belong,
and they want
to insure
the best
possibility
of not missing
a potential match.
Based on this we feel
xt
is
more appropriate
to use statistics based bn replacement."
(Appendix B,
p.
4)
The Price series
is judged by
this method.
In examining
the results
of
the judging,
some interesting facts
appear:
(1)
although
45 selections
are shown,
all judges did not match all targets;
( 2 ) when the bridge toll
plaza was visited,
no matchings are shown for Judge
C nor are any shown for
the same judge
for Rinconada Park;
(3)
Judge
C uses
three transcripts
on
a
—
single
target,
Baylands,
so that
if
"Cs" are counted,
it appears
as
if he
responded
times;
(4)
Judge D never chooses any transcripts other than
those
of
the first five targets;
and
(5)
Judge E uses all transcripts but
one.
On these bases,
one could meaningfully question the appropriateness
of
the statistical assumptions and conclusions.
However,
the number
of
matchings is quite impressive.
The strength or weakness
of
this experimental
series
is dependent on factors other than the strange judging results.
This
is
the only form of judging that
Is used
in describing the Price results
in early publications.
(Targ and Puthoff,
1974;
SRI Progress Reports, March
and August
1974;
Targ and Puthoff,
1975)
Their conclusion is:
"By plurality
116
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
ftrnnrT
WLUllLr
vote,
six of
the nine descriptions and locations were correctly matched.
Under the null hypothesis
(no remote viewing and
a random selection of
descriptions without replacement)
,
this outcome has
the a priori probability
of p
= 5.6 x 10 \
since,
among all possible permutations
of
the
integers
one through nine,
the probability
of
six or more being in their natural
position in
the
list has
that value."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1974,
p.
606)
<-
No matter how dramatic
the
above statistic
is,
it
still does not meet
their
previously stated criterion that
an event cannot be considered paranormal
— A
unless p
<
.
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974)
Why change criteria
here?
Why
is
it,
in 1976,
that Puthoff and Targ state:
"As
in the original
series with Price,
the results
of
the nine-experiment series were submitted
for independent judging on a blind basis by an SRI research analyst
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
pp.
337-338)
"And
as back up judging procedure,
a panel
of five additional SRI scientists
...
.
were asked simply
to blind
match
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
336)
This
change in procedure
is
first seen in a 1975 publication in which
Hammid’s replication series
is first reported.
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976)
It
is
supposedly instituted:
"To obtain a more conventional and generally
accepted evaluation of
the accuracy of
the remote viewing experiment,
the
experimental results were subjected
to independent judging on
a blind basis
by
a single judge who visited each location in turn.
...
the judge was
required
to blind rank order
the nine packets on a scale from
to
(best
to worst match."
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974,
p.
36)
* &
The logic for
this change
is also based on the belief
that one judge
was
as good
as
the best
of five judges.
In their reply
to Calkins'
comments,
117
Approved For Release 2003tf§mjjfmDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04^g^^pDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Puthoff and Targ state:
"As indicated
in Sections A &
B,
pp.
335-338,
two
judging procedures were used.
In the
first, panels
of
five independent
judges analyzed
the
first
and second experiments.
From this
one could
obtain the reliability of rankings by several judges
(inter-rater agreement)
as measured by
the coefficient
of concordance
W.
However,
in
the present
study a judgment consisted of the matching of descriptive transcripts and
drawings
to actual sites,
and therefore the accuracy of matching provides
an empirical measure of judge reliability.
The best judge obtained seven
matches out
of nine cases
in the
first experiment,
five out
of nine
in
the
second, setting
at
least an empirical standard
for quality judging.
This
procedure amounted
to
a pretesting of potential judge reliability.
A sixth
judge was
then obtained who independently rank-order judged
the
same
two
experiments.
Since he also independently obtained
the same
and
5 direct
matches
as
the best judge,
we
at least had
a measure, that indicated
that,
with regard
to
the data generated
in our first
two experiments,
the better
judges were
in accord,
indicating a high degree
of reliability,
inter- and
intra-judge.
This
sixth judge was
therefore used
for all
the subsequent
judging
in the paper
...."
(Px’ooeedings of the IEEE,
October
1976,
pp.
1549
1550)
(A
i
If
they chose their judge on the basis
of
the above and used only that
one judge
for
the rest
of
the series,
they were certainly maximizing
the
results by using the "better" judge who provided higher rankings.
More
will be
said later about
this particular judge.
However,
the single judge's results are not used until their tutorial
paper was submitted for publication in July 1974.
Perhaps Puthoff and Targ
chose to use
the second procedure of ranking since Hammid's results also
118
Approved For Release 2003/1
iRDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/w
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
would not have reached their statistical criterion of p
<
^
By plurality
vote
of
the
five judges,
Price's was p = 5.6 x 10
^ with
7,
6,
5,
3,
and
matches whereas Hammid's were poorer:
5,
3,
3,
2,
and
2.
'
Note
also,
of
course,
the calculation reported above in the summary of
the
research,
indicating
that
the
"five additional judges" performed signifi-
cantly poorer than the
first selected judge.
Is
this
a valid reason for
a. posteriori- changing
to
a plurality vote?
Although
the ranking procedure does not appear until
1975, Puthoff
and
Targ make
it appear as
if
it were
the only method used throughout
the series.
"Working alone,
the analyst visited each target location and in a blind
fashion rated Pat's answers
on
a scale of
to
(best
to worst match),"
and
"As
a back-up procedure,
a panel of five additional SRI scientists
... were
asked to blind match
...."
(Mind~Reaoh ,
pp
.
54-55)
Who does
the judging?
The
five judges are only referred
to as being
SRI scientists not associated with the experiment.
The single judge
is
also SRI associated,
a research analyst,
although the judge
is
only referred
to earlier
as being
"a judge."
(SRI Progress Report, August
1974,
p.
36) r
In Mind-Reaah,
Puthoff and Targ relate:
"In the process
of judging-
attempting
to match transcripts against
targets
on the basis
of
the information
in the transcripts-some patterns
and regularities
in the transcript descriptions
became evident.
Our consultant,
Dr.
Arthur Hastings, pointed out
to us
that
each person tended
to
focus on certain aspects
of
the remote target complex
and
to exclude others,
so that each had an individual pattern of response,
.like
a signature."
('Mind-Reach
,
p.
101)
Hastings'
paper on "Mental Processing
of ESP
Imagery:
Theoretical
Considerations"
at The Eighteenth Annual Convention of
the Parapsychological
.
119
Approved For Release 2003/047;
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: Q1A-JRBR26-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
oLCRET
Convention,
1975,
dealt
"... with responses
that appear
as mental images
to
the mind's
eye of
the percipient, who
then draws
or describes
them.
(Hastings,
1976,
p.
187)
Hastings
is
also thanked
in one publication:
"We express our sincere
thanks also
to Earle Jones,
Bonnar
Cox,
and Dr.
Arthur Hastings, SRI
....
4,
p.
353 although he
is
later thanked
in Mind-Reach.
as
a consultant
:
"...
the authors have greatly benefited from many discussions with
.
.
.
SRI
consultant
Dr.
Arthur Hastings."'
{Mind-Reach ,
viii)
Thus, Hastings
is an SRI employee, perhaps an SRI scientist,
certainly
a consultant,
and also
a coauthor.
In addition, we understand
(R.
Hyman,
personal communication)
that he
is
a professional magician and
the
sole
judge used
in the latter SRI local target studies and a consultant and judge
for another organization in the Southwest U.S.
currently conducting remote
viewing
studies.
Should
the above be
as accurate
as we believe
it
to be,
significant changes are needed
in future judging procedures and judge
selection. ^
Once
the judge has
the target
list
and
transcripts,
he proceeds
to each
target
location.
With the exception of one publication,
there are no details
as
to what kind of
instructions
the judge
is given.
In that one publication,
it
is
stated:
"While standing at
a specific location,
the judge was required
to blind rank order the nine packets
"
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974
p.
36)
Since
this
statement
is made
in reference
to
the Hammid series,
it
can be surmised that
it was also
followed
foir
the rest
of
the experiments.
If
this
is
the case, bias must also be
a factor
in this element
of
the
judging since
the experimenters are aware
of
the subject's description,
and
can send
a judge
to
the area in which a correspondence might be seen.
In
120
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8tfr«AiflPP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
-SffitlT
the description of.Hammid's
target,
the pedestrian overpass, Puthoff
and
Targ relate:
"She went on
to explain
that
if you stand where
they are
standing you will see something like
this,
and drew a series
of nested
squares.
As
it
turned out,
a judge standing where she indicated would have
had
a view closely resembling what
she had drawn."
(SRI Progress Report,
August 1974,
p.
35)
Her earlier part
of
the description,
...
a kind of
trough up
in the
air
...
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976)
certainly could have also described
the railroad trestle bridge.
The key,
therefore,
to identification then
becomes
the "nested squares".
Was
a judge
sent
to
this
location?
Note
again that
this
is
the
first drawing.
Why do Puthoff
and Targ choose
to
use only one?
If
the correlation was
so
good, why was
it only given
a ranking
of
2?
Note also
the accurate reporting:
"...
she saw a kind
of
trou Sh UP
in
the air
..." which later becomes
"...
the
subject said
that
she saw
a
kind
of diagonal trough up
in
the air
"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
4)
Calkins,
in his
comments,
raises
an excellent point:
"Unfortunately,
there are also fundamental problems
in
the very definition of
the DV
[dependent variable]
...
at
the heart of which
is confusion over the nature
of
the so-called
'target'.
Specifically,
the judge
for
a given S's
performance
for
a given
'target'
was successively driven
to each geographical
location previously visited by
the peripatetic
E's.
Since we do not know
precisely what aspects
of
the geographical location constituted
a
'target'
in the original
’experiment'
when the demarcation team was present,
and
since
it
is even more ambiguous now what
the judge was viewing,
as well as
what he was supposed to be looking
at while he reviewed
the
S's packets
of
9 descriptions, we seem in this procedure,
therefore,
to actually be dealing
with at
least
three recognizably distinct categories
of
targets
.
one
is
121
Approved For Release 2003/04|l8£OElgyp96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/0i
BBflfc00791 R0001 00440001 -9
v
-
constituted by
the perceptions
of
the demarcation team;
a second by
the
perceptions of the judges;
and
a third by direct physical aspects
of
some
geographical location."
(.Proceedings of the IEEE,
October
1976,
p.
1547)
Although "while standing at
a specific location,
the judge was required
to blind rank order
..."
(SRI Progress Report,
August
1974,
p.
36),
the
reply to Calkins'
comments on their basic experimental design
(which has
been quoted before)
is highly applicable here also:
"It would be
in our
opinion premature and imprudent,
for example,
during the
initial stages
of
an investigation when much remains unknown about
the mechanisms and factors
involved,
to follow Calkins'
suggestion to specify precisely on what
stimuli within a target area a subject
or a judge
is
to concentrate."
(Proceedings of the IEEE,
October
1976,
p.
1549)
ly(
Another area in which bias
can occur
is
in the judge's desire
to have
the experiment
show positive results.
Puthoff
and Targ relate concerning
the matching procedure:
"Even though he kndws logically
it couldn't
go
to both,, we find that judges
in fact have no hesitation in using
a transcript
twice
in first place,
simply because they aren't sure as
to which one
it
does
in
fact belong,
and they want
to insure the best possibility of not
missing
a potential match.
Based on
thiq. we
feel
it
is more appropriate
to use statistics based on replacement."
(Appendix B,
p.
4)
If this
is
true
for
the matching procedure
in which five judges are involved,
it would
also seem likely that
a single judge might behave
the
same way.
1*
In addition,
another type
of subjectiveness
can bias
the results,
of reading
in more correspondence than may actually be
there.
This kind
of
subjectiveness
can most easily be illustrated with the
following example
although this experiment was used as
a demonstration experiment.
Following
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:'-WP
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
their paper,
although this
target was not presented,
a round table discussion
ensued
in which the Alpine Inn beer garden was brought up. ^
"Feinburg:
What happened
is
that
the people who had been at
this place
came back,
and then they drove Price, myself,
and some others back to
the
place they had been before.
When we got
the^e
, we looked around and compared
some
of
the
things Pat had said
Concerning the historical plate. Price maid something was
there which
sounded a little bit like what actually was
fhere.
But
then,
one of
the
people who went there afterwards,
said,
Oh,
took, here's something that
looks
a little bit
like what he said there was.
After that, everybody
crowded
around,
saying yes, yes,
that's the historical marker."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1975b,
p.
178)
When a forced ranking method
is used,
this subjectiveness necessarily
must enter in since
the judge
(1)
knows
that a transcript must match each
target;
and
(2)
can increase the actual rank given by "reading"
in
more
correspondence
than
is
actually, there. "
This bias
is evident when Puthoff
and Targ state;
"Several descriptions yielded significantly correct data
pertaining
to and descriptive of
the target location."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1974,
p.
605) " ^
If only "several" descriptions yielded correct data,- why were
so many
ranked
so highly?
They also
state:
"The transcripts varied from coherent
and accurate descriptions to mixtures of correspondences
and noncorrespondence
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
g.
346)
How does
the judge go about
this ranking
procedure?
There appears to be
some question as
to whether all the transcripts
in
a given series are judged at
the
same
time:
"Pollowing
a series of several
Approved For Release 2003/041
-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
experiments ,
all
of
the
subjects’
unlabeled response packets,
... were
presented
to
the judge in random order."
0Mind-Reach
,
p.
36)
Could
it
be
that all the transcripts are not rated
at
the
same time?
The use
of
the word "several" could suggest just
that. H
Regardless of
the number
of
transcripts involved,
although
it would
make the task much simplier and result
in a greater probability of making
correct matches,
the judge found the following method
the best.
"According
to the judge,
the most successful procedure was
a careful
element-by-element comparison that tested each transcript against every
target and used the transcript descriptions and drawings
as
arguments
for
and against assigning the transcript
to
a particular target.
(Puthoff and
Targ,
1976b,
p.
346)
Some transcripts were obviously matched easily,
such
as White Plaza
and Hoover Tower which were named correctly.
"...
seems
like
it would be Hoover Tower.
We sat there finding
it difficult
to believe
that he had actually identified
the target by name."
(AEnd-Reach,
p.
50)
t*.
"One of
the direct hits, which occurred with Phyllis Cole
in her first
experiment
...
she recognized the location as White Plaza
....
QHnd-Reaah ,
p.
86)
Swann,
in his drawing of Palo Alto City Hall,
lists
"the miniature
golf course from yesterday?"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
340)
and Price
mentions the "marina" used prior
to
the
target he
is describing:
the Allied
Arts and Crafts Plaza:
"...
not half
the distance they were
to the marina
...."
He also mentions distance:
"...
feels
like
a mile
to
a mile and
a half
...."
oMind-Reach
,
pp.
63-68)
Since these are
the only available unedited transcripts
and only eight drawings are shown from a total
of
43 experiments,
it
is
difficult
to
go into greater detail about other uses
of
cueing within these
sources.
Approved For Release 2003/04/l&i
Saar
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1^1
J0791R0001 00440001 -9
In the Elgin/Swann series,
once Palo Alto City Hall
is matched,
the
only remaining
"...
simple/heavy,
solid building with a unique function
..."
is
the BART station.
Therefore,
a judge
can,' by the process
of elimination
reduce the number
of transcripts
from the series he
is judging.
Since he
has
a list prior
to
the actual judging, he doesn't necessarily rank each
transcript without prior knowledge as
to what
the other
target locations
are.
He
can,
therefore,
actually match each transcript
to
the
target rather
than rank
it
.
{/-
Other possible cueing may
take place.
Names
of experimenters
are included
in some of
the drawings and
if
the names of
the experimenters are included
in the pre-viewing description of
the experiment
as
they have been for Price's
and Cole's unedited transcripts,
"...
the travelers
to the remote location
are
..."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
63)
and ”...
and this
is
a remote viewing, experiment
with
..."
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
106),
these references would also provide cues.
In the drawing by Elgin,
he has labelled his figures
"11" and "P"
(p.
83)
and Pease has noted in his drawing "Hal and Bella sitting."
(Mind-Reach , U,
p.
87)
The questions
that the experimenters use during an experiment may
provide even more cues.
The use of such questions
as: "What kind
of place
is
the arbor
in
.
.
.
tell me about town and country
...
town and country
means
to me a covered walkway
.
.
. what would you say
is
the interest
to
this place!
What's special about this place!"
(Mind-Reach,
PP-
63-67)
Provide a few examples from the Allied Arts transcript where questions
might be helpful
to
the judge,
Most importantly,
a subject
is not encouraged
to name the
target,
although when the names are correct,
they are lauded:
"We sat there
Approved For Release 2003/0
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 a££fiQ£|bj96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
finding
it difficult
to believe that ho had actually identified the target
by name.
Although this feat was no more spectacular than his original
experiment,
this one had
to be confronted at close range."
Wind-Reaah, ^
p.
50)
Puthoff
and Targ state:
"We often observe essentially correct
descriptions
of basic elements and patterns coupled with complete or
erroneous analysis
of function."
(Targ, et al.
,
1977
,
pp.
519-520)
If,
however,
judging were
to be based on the analysis
of function, how many
transcripts would be correct?
"An
'august'
and
'solemn'
building," was
called
a church and "a pedestrain overpass above
a freeway" was described
as
a conduit
(S^)
.
A rapid transit station,
elevated above the countryside,
was associated with an observatory
(S 2
> ."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
345)
Obviously,
a judge would have to call them incorrect.
The use of
a less
demanding criterion,
one of
"...
individual elements and
Items
that make
up
the target."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
345)
allows
a subject
to
Us
learn a given set of responses
that can be applied to any target within
that specific set
of
targets,
such
as fountains and bridges,
so that
a
judge can judge them on a less demanding and
less precise basis.
Puthoff and Targ conclude,
among other points
that
...
most
of
correct information that subjects relate
is of nonanalytic nature pertaining
to shape,
form,
color,
and material rather than
to function or name."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
350)
Subjects are,
in fact, encouraged to
describe
a target
in these terms;
"they need to
'get
it’
that
a rounded
piece
of blue metal
is just that,
and they shouldn't
try
to figure out
whether
it
is
a car fender before they say anything."
(Appendix B,
p.
2)
lAw
in describing mock experiments, Targ related as an example of
a mock
experiment:
"She’ll say,
I
see an elliptical brick structure surrounded
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8 ,;XLA£pP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18^iflOFT
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
with green, with irridescent blue flowers
inside.
Harold will
say,
y
again what the color
is,
and she’ll say, Peacock blue.
And he'll say,
the brick planter
is
there with
the surround of green,
but
it’s magenta.
She'll say, well,
I must be looking someplace else, because
the flowers
I see are blue.
Then he'll go on
to some other place."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
172)
The emphasis
is placed on these details during
the mock
experiments;
in this particular
case,
the emphasis
is on color.
It
is interesting to note that Puthoff,
Targ,
and May have carried out
training experiments
that not only involved shape, but also
color.
We
have in our laboratory carried out
a series
bf
communication experiments
involving
the transmission,
from one laboratory
to another,
of
simple shapes.
(e.g.,
T,
0,
A), which also were of different colors
for each shape.
With
the hypothesis
that
a similar gradient
is
followed
in the development of
paranormal perception
...,
(that of learning
to discriminate
first black
and white,
followed by red,
green,
yellow,
blue,
brown,
and other colors).
...
subjects were asked
to differentiate among simple remote color card
targets
first
on the dichotomy dull/bright,
then with
regard
to shape,
and
only finally with regard
to color
....
Numerous data were gathered with
two subjects who were experienced remote viewers.
Analysis
of
the data,
which shows learning in both cases, provides initial support
for
the
hypothesis
that progress
in paranormal perception can be made on the basis
of
training drills designed from what
is known about ordinary perception.
(Puthoff, etal.,
1978,
pp.
30-31)
These data,
however, have not been
published.
in relation to the above study and the use
of mock experiments in which
training occurs,
it
is interesting to note the following:
In comparing
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
iurnnTTr"
Approved For Release 2003704
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
ITella' s results with Pat's,
we observe a difference in style which evidently
affected the pattern of results.'
Pat's descriptions were in general more
detailed than Hello's,
leading
to more
first- place matches
...
he also got
two clear misses where the striving for detail resulted in erroneous analytical
interpretations.
Hells,
on the other hand, preferring
to be more cautious,
got
fewer
first place matches but did not
find
any
of her descriptions falling
into less than second place."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
79)
"The transcripts
of
subject
S 4
, more than those of other subjects,
had descriptions
of
the feel
of
the location,
and experiential or sensory gestalts-for example,
light/
dark elements in the scene and Indoor/outdoor and enclosed/open distinctions."
(Puthoff
and Tar g,
1976b,
p.
345)
Targ, Puthoff,
and May
(1978)
conclude:
"Of
the six studies,
involving
remote viewing of natural targets or laboratory apparatus,
five reached
statistical significance.
The overall results, evaluated conservatively
on the basis
of
a judging procedure that ignored transcript quality beyond
that necessary
to rank order
the data packets
(vastly underestimating the
,
individual descriptions),
clearly indicates
statistical significance
of individual
the presence of an information channel
of useful bit
rate.
-'S
If,
as they state,
the procedure ignored transcript quality
"...
(vastly
under-estimating
the statistical significance)
...",
it also was beneficial:
"Pat’s descriptions were in general more detailed
...
leading
to more first
place matches,
that
is,
direct hits
in the rank order judging, but he also
got
two clear misses
...",
(.Mind-Reach ,
p.
79),
i.e.
,
rankings of
3 and
6.
"...
the analyst visited each target location and in
a blind fashion rated
Pat's answers on a scale of
to
(best
to worst match)."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
54)
Ca
128
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18^
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
"For the purpose of screening a result
is
to be considered paranormal
if the a priori probability for
the occurrence of
the result by
under
the null hypothesis,
is p
<
lO'
6 ."
(SRI Progress Report, August
1974,
p .
16) -5
If
this
is
the criterion for "screening",
is
there some reason it should
be changed for
the experiments
themselves?
Of
the
five, only
S 4
s results
came close to the statistical criterion:
p a 1.8 x
.
No other statistical
criteria are ever mentioned , with the exception of the screening criterion
in one publication.
Rather,
general statements are made:
"therefore,
in
carrying out our proposed program, we would have
to concentrate on what we
considered
to be our primary responsibility:
to resolve under unambiguous
conditions
the basic issue of whether or not
this class
of paranormal
perception phenomenon exists."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
35)
L\
Finally, Puthoff
and Tare state:
"The descriptions supplied by
the
subjects
in
the experiments involving remote viewing of natural targets or
laboratory apparatus,
although containing inaccuracies, were sufficiently
accurate
to permit
the judges
to differentiate among the various
targets
to the degree Indicated."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
344)
Is this
what
is needed?
It seems
a much more proscribed judging procedure and
response criterion are required.
As will be
seen in Section III, when
these requirements are met,
results
tend
to be negative.
K.
Technology Targets.
The results
of
the technology series
of targets
were
first presented in 1975.
At that
time,
it was
stated:
"Having
completed
two sets of remote viewing experiments under controlled conditions,
we set out to try
to determine some of
the properties of the information
channel.
To accomplish this we turned
to
the use
of indoor technological
Approved For Release 2003/04^^Q%RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2OO3/O4H^^0j^^P96-OO791ROOO1 00440001 -9
targets."
(Targ and Puthoff
. ,1976,
P-
36)
The subjects
for
this
series
were
S
,
S 3>
Vy Vy
If
this
series was actually carried out following
the series with Price and Hammid,
and V
2 and V
participate,
the demonstration
of-ability experiments
for other subjects with local targets must have come
after November
8,
1974.
V^s
third
target
is dated and signed by Puthoff.
{Mind-Reach,
p.
9)
One assumes
that V 2 was run following Vr
However,
Cole
s
transcript
of White Plaza
is dated October seventh
{Mind-Reach,
p.
104)
so
some confusion -appears.
Twelve experimental sessions
are reported, although in the publication,
it appears- that
the experimenters had planned on a larger series since they
state:
"Twelve experimental sessions have been completed
to date,
involving
a total of
five subjects."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
36)
Of
a total
of
twelve transcripts,
Swann produced
four and Hammid five. U'~
The target pool
is reported
as being
"...
anything from office equipment
to machinery or an experimental set-up."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
36)
The
list included
a:
"...
computer-driven flight simulator (Link
trainer)
..."
(p.
36) which
is changed later
to:
"...
and,
in one case,
an entire machine
shop."
(Mind-Reach,
p.
94)
The remaining targets are the same in all
publications.
The subject
is told:
"...
one
of
the experimenters would
be sent to
a laboratory within the SRI complex and that he would interact
with the equipment or apparatus."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
36)
l\
With the discussion of
this group
of targets,
eight drawings are
included.
Out
of
a
total of
twelve experiments,
although only eight drawings
are used for the series
of
forty-three experiments
in which natural and
man-made targets are used.
The drawings
are grouped together according
to
the target used
and Puthoff and Targ have provided
a photograph for each
drawing.
IA*
Approved For Release 2003/04/iaMJfflA|RpP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
The drawings
for
the Xerox machine illustrate
a table with
a figure
in front .of
it with the notation "rolling along table".
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
343)
Above this,
the entire Xerox machine
is pictured.
The
next drawing looks like a squat fire plug sitting on a table with a wire
attached,
and has
the notation:
"it turns?
dark brown or maroon".
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
343)
and must be either
the second drawing or second
target,
since
it
is noted
as
2.
Por
this,
Puthoff and Targ show a close up
of
the
counter with
its
two knobs.
The third drawing shows
a square with semi-circle
on the bottom of
the square with what appears
to be a light bulb-shaped
object
in front and
to
the side
a rectangular shaped
item.
These drawings
interestingly enough are labelled
1,
2,
and
4.
The subject related.
...
'I have the feeling
that there
is something silhouetted against
the window
'There
is
this predominant light source which might have been a window,
and
a working surface which might have been the
sill,
or
a working surface
or
desk.'"
Puthoff and Targ relate these
two comments, however,
in reverse
order:
"Earlier
the subject said
....'
Pictured above these drawings
of
which one
is missing,
is
the caption:
To add interest
to target location
experimenter with his head being xeroxed.'"
In their "Potential Criticism
and Responses" section,
Puthoff refers
to
the use
of photography as
a
possible
criticism.
His response
is
that:
"All blind judging, matching
and statistical evaluation of the results
(which
is where the scientific
issues are decided)
are completed before photographs
are taken;
judges do
not have access
to photographs during their analysis,
and therefore judges
cannot be cued
into correspondences observed post hoc.'
(Targ,
et al.,
1977,
p.
528) ^
131
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: gA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/AapCLAjRDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
The judging
of
the targets
is reported
in different publications
in
various ways.
The first presentation states:
"Blind matching without
replacement
of subject response packets
...
and targets resulted
in four
matches out
of
the
12,
a result significant at p *
.015."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
37)
In this reporting,
therefore,
each individual transcript was
matched separately.
In another publication,
the judging procedure was
as
follows:
"...
in the first judging procedure a judge was asked simply
to
blind match
...-to
the target.
Multiple-subject responses
..."
therefore,
only seven
this
time,
"... were stapled
together,
and thus seven
...
response packets were
to be matched
....
Wljiile standing at each
target
location,
the judge was required
to rank order
the seven subject-drawing
response packets
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
343)
k'
1'-
Not
only has the judging procedure changed,
but also
the number
of
packets used.
Instead
of judging on a one-to-one basis,
the
subjects
response packets
for any given target are stapled
together.
To confuse
the issue further,
in the earlier study,
the judge was given:
"...
subject
response packets
(tape transcripts plus drawings)
...
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
37) whereas
later,
only drawings are use^:
"...
in the
first judging
procedure a judge was asked simply
to blind! match only the drawings
(i.e.
,
without tape transcripts)
. ..."
(Puthoff apd Targ,
1976b,
p.
343)
i
"In a second more detailed effort at evaluation,
a visiting scientist
selected
at random one of
the
12 data packages
(a drill press equipment),
sight unseen and submitted
it
for independent analysis
to
an engineer with
a request for an estimate as
to what was
being described.
The analyst,
blind as
to the
target and given only
the subject's
taped narrative and
drawing
(Figure
13)
was
able,
from the subject's description alone,
to
Approved For Release 2003/044l£E2C|ajSlP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
onroF
correctly classify
the
target
as
a man-sized vertical boring machine."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
pp.
343-344)
The remaining publication that gives
aijiy detail concerning
this
series
of targets
reports:
"Given that
in general [the drawings constitute
the most
accurate portion of
a subject's description^
in the first judging procedure
a judge was asked simply
to blind match only
the drawings
(i.e., without
tape
transcripts)
to
the
targets.
Multiple subject responses on a given
target were stapled together,
arid
thus seven subject-drawing response packets
were
to be matched
....
The response packets
(judged on a scale of
to
"
(Mind-Reach
,
pp.
96-97)
One assumes
that
the authors meant
to
use "ranked" rather than "matched"
in describing
this well-used procedure.
"The result was significant
at odds
of 28:1."
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
97)
The
second judging procedure
is also described in this reference,
(a.
In summary
of
the technology series, we
can. conclude several
things.
First,
the inconsistency of
the target
set
(simulator vs.
machine
shop)
r
'
'
i
is
a source of
inaccurate reporting
at best.
Second,
the
loosely changing
judging procedure
is
a source of
concern.
Third,
the
unequal
trials spread
over
the four subjects
is clearly a case of
.1 ess-than-ideal behavioral
research practice.
For these reasons,
it
i;s doubtful that
the series
provided any indication of
the
"properties"; of
the remote viewing information
channel,
nor do the authors refer back
to that stated purpose
in any of
their
discussion of
the results.
This series
of experiments
therefore seems
to
add little
to
their existing data base.
Unseleated Visitors.
"After more than a year of following
the
experimental protocol
.
.
.
and observing that even inexperienced subjects
got better
than expected results, we began
‘a series
of experiments
to
133
Approved For Release 2003^gJ^jJmDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CJA=J
00791 R0001 00440001 -9
explore further whether Individuals other than so-called
'psychics'
could
demonstrate the remote viewing ability.
To test
this
idea,
we have
a
continuing program to carry out additional experiments using local
targets
in the Bay area with subjects who we have ho particular reason
to believe they
have paranormal perception."
(Mind Reach,
pp.
87-88)
In Mind-Reach,
following a description of
the experiments with V^,
Puthoff and Targ state:
"We have carried out more than one hundred experiments
of
this
type, most
of
them successful,
as determined by independent judging.
The majority of our subjects have not been
'psychics';
at least
they didn't
think of themselves
that way when they started."
(Mind-Reach ,
pp.
9-10)
t\.
In another publication the figures
are rather different:
"In over
laboratory experiments
that now include work with more than a dozen subjects,
..."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
1)
although later, within the
same publication
they also state:
"...
we initiated an extensive series
of experiments
using unselected subjects and local targets
in the Bay area
...."
(p.
5)
If
this series
is
as successful as claimed,
not
to mention being
—
"extensive", where
are the data from these experiments.
It would seem
</
logical that Puthoff
and Targ would be eager
to publish these
results,
especially since they typically appear
to publish their results shortly
after conducting
the experiments.
(See Table
1.)
As
of
the publication of Mind Reach
in 1977,
the only
two unselected
subjects reported are
and
who are included in the remote viewing
of
local target statistics.
is included as
a subject
for
the
technology
series.
The only remaining subject
is Richard Bach,
from whom they desire
funding.
"Desperate times call
for desperate measures.
I had read Jonathan
Livingston Seagull,
and also
the interview with its author,
Richard Bach
...
134
Approved For Release 2003Jft4id&g^IA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
^njnrr
*sumtr
propelled by Bach's Idea that
’the seagull
that
flies
the highest sees
the
furthest,'
we called Richard Bach himself
to see
if he could pump new blood
into our project."
(Mind-Reach ,
p.
90)
The dates
that Bach actually visits are reported differently:
"...
one
sunny day
in April 1975,
Richard flew his small plane into San Francisco
airport
and called
to say that he was ready
to visit our
lab and see what
we were up
to."
(Mi-nd~Reaoh ,
p.
91)
Bach,
in the Forward of Mind-Reaah,
states
in describing what appears
to be his
first experiment:
"Somehow
I
hadn't expected
it
to be human.
I had expected
...
and then the beginning
of the experiment:
It
is eleven o'clock on Tuesday,
July
18,
1975.
This
is
a remote viewing experiment with Richard Bach
. ..."
(p.
xxiii)
No other unselected subjects
are mentioned until April 1977,
at which
time they describe
three experiments with two visitors.
"The following
results obtained with the
last
two visitors who agreed
to act
as subjects
provide specific examples."
(Futhoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
6)
One of
the
drawings
is dated
5 May
76.
i/-*
Also reported
in July 1977
are three other experiments.
These,
however
use
a variety of subjects,
identified by initials:
(an SRI research
engineer),
H^,
1^,
and R^ in addition to D^,. whose experiments are the same
as those that were reported
in April
1977.
can be eliminated since he
was used in the long-distance remote-viewing experiments between New York
City and California and New Orleans-California and 1^
is
an experienced
subject.
Therefore,
of
the
total group,
there have been four unselected
subjects used
in five
experiments from 1976
on.
The targets
that are used are
the
following:
Methodist Church,
Stanford
University Inner Quadrangle featuring Memorial Church,
Baylands Nature
135
Approved For Release 20g^p^^R-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
—dSTPrirr
Approved For Release 2003/047W^®»P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Preserve,
a swimming pool complex,
Hyatt House Hotel,
and White Plaza.
Jahn
(1978) mentions
two targets
that were used while he and his
co-worker Carol
Curry were
at
SRI:
the local Holiday Inn swimming pool,
and
the Stanford
Chapel.
Another recent target used with
is
the Vallombrosa Chapel,
and
with experienced
1^,
the Golden Pavillion Restaurant.
The
targets appear
to
fall into
two general categories:
chapels
or churches,
and water-related
targets. u
Subject
D^- has
two experiments and
it
is interesting
to note that
this
subject
includes
in his transcript
of Baylands Nature Preserve a description
of
a building he had visited
the day before.
(The occurrence of prior
images
within a transcript were discussed previously.)
The description in another
publication fails
to state
that
the building was seen the day before:
"However,
he also described seeing
a building that
is not
at
the
target
site.
This
sort
of super position of erroneous
imagery on otherwise accurate descriptions
is
a common occurrence
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p .
6)
Subject D^'s second target
is
the Inner Quadrangle,
Stanford University.
The
two associated drawings depict
a courtyard.
Although both drawings are
different,
one wonders why the second was drawn since they essentially do
not differ all that much.
Both contain the same elements:
a tall structure
to the left and a
porch running from this large structure
to form an
"L".
At
the back,
a street
is shown and a wall.
Both also indicate glass windows
and green plants
as being
in the large structure, poles
in front of
it,
and a lot
or patio
in the center of
the square formed by building,
porch,
and
street.
In one,
there
is
a partial completion of
the square labeled
"stores";
in the other,
a short run of
steps.
The word "emporium" also
appears
on one though it
is pointing
to some large buildings outside
the
136
Approved For Release 20a3/6iMlc^-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8^L^jg|96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
square.
The pictures above the drawings show an aerial view of
the quadrangle
and a close-up
of Memorial Church.
In another publication,
the
target
is
called
the dormitory quadrangle and
the above reference
is
to Memorial Church.
The drawings
first of all do not indicate
a quadrangle,
for both indicate
a
street on one side.
In addition,
the "store"
image
is quite obvious
if one
reads
the writing and
if the target were Memorial Church,
its pointed roof
is
not apparent
in
the drawings.
Yet,
Puthoff and Targ state:
"Almost every
element
of his drawings correspond
to
the actual arrangement
at
the
location
of
the remote experimenters.
These responses are among
the most accurate
and detailed that we have ever seen."
(1977b,
p.
6)
Once again,
unless
a
reader examines
the elements
carefully,
they can be led into seeing correspondences
that do not appear
to be
there. lA*
The other visitor's
target was White Plaza,
"...
the second time in four
years
that
this particular site came
up
for experimental use."
(Mind-Reach
,
p.
7)
If
this
is
the
case,
then Cole and Elgin had
to have had
the same
target
at
the
same time.
Could other subjects have been run simultaneously
also?
As will be seen in the following section,
two subjects
are used
in
the long-distance series,
l/w
As will be seen in experiments dealing with long-distance remote viewing,
emphasis
is placed on one subject's transcripts and not on the second's.
In
the case
of White Plaza,
Cole's transcript was given a rank of
1,
and
although judged with Pease's
as
a single transcript,
it basically eliminated
a fourth target
for Pease
as no ranking
is used
for his.
Obviously,
the
better transcript was used for judging by permitting
it
to overshadow the
poorer
one.
(We muse what results could be obtained
if all targets were
simultaneously viewed by several subjects,
only one
of whom somehow produced
137
Approved For Release 20
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/jSMglE>P96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
an "excellent" transcript,
aiid
the judges received all transcripts
of each
target stapled together.)
Two subjects
are also run simultaneously in some of
the remaining
experiments with unselected subjects.
1-^
(experienced)
and
are run
together
for
the Hyatt House,
and
and
for
the swimming pool complex,
Mt.
View,
previously used with V
»
In other experiments involving alphabet
letters
and letter-guessing,
H^,
1^,
and
S-^ are used simultaneously.
H^
participates
in- both.
S-j^
is used
in the long-distance experiments.
The protocol for all these experiments
is
the same used
for
the local
remote-viewing experiments.
It has been seen in the previous section that
adherence
to protocol has been less
than consistent despite
"... maintaining
scientific rigor
"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
4)
This
is also seen
in the following section.
L\
Critical Evaluation:
Long Distance Targets with Target Person
The first experiment
in the long-distance remote viewing series with
the use of
a target person
is
the Costa Rica series.
The procedure
is
not
stated other
than:
"The experiment called for Dr.
Puthoff
to keep
a detailed
record
of his
location and activities,
including photographs,
each day at
1330 PDT
..." while he
...
spent
a week traveling through Costa Rica on a
combination business/pleasure trip."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
5)
The
subjects did not know of his
itinerary.
Two presentations
of
this material were made
in the general time frame
of August
1974.
One of
the publications
states:
"Subjects
1 and
participated in
a long-distance experiment."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1976,
p.
5)
In the other,
only Hammid
,
is
reported:
"...
one subject
(II. H.)
participated
138
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/0^^^^RD^96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
This page intentionally left
blank)..
Approved For Release 2003/04118? LCIArftSEfl^l0791 R0001 00440001 -9