08 i L ££. E 6h i | i a | i Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 LURE TABLE 6. DISTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL BAY AREA TARGETS FROM SRI (continued) DISTANCE . SUBJECTS TARGET . MILES | KILOMETERS | RANK S 1 Airport, Palo Alto 3.42 5.5 2 . Radio telescope, Portola Valley 3.98 6.4 2 x Baylands Nature Preserve 3.98 6.4 1,3,2| X Marina, Redwood City 4.22 6.8 | 1 x Parking garage, Mountain View 5.03 8.1 2 Catholic Church, Portola Valley 5.28 8.5 3 x Windmill, Portola Valley 5.28 8.5 2,1 Apartment swimming pool, Mountain View 5.65 9.1 . j. 3 Bridge toll plaza, Fremont 9.01] 14.5 6 | xX BART Station (Transit System), Fremont 10.00 16.1 1 Cran re Approved For Release 2003/04L18 IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release ee : — 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) && 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) wW 81 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 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 vy might also be considered in the same way as the tennis courts. It is interesting to note that 12 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. w& (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 thts 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 | 82 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 a aon
Approved For Release 2003/04 RARE? 96-00791R000100440001-9 from a pool of six, consisted entirely of those used with Price either as demonstration experiments (Mind-Reach, p. 57) for visitors or as demonstration- 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 Gity and Fremont. wv | Tennis Courts. Elgin's target of "tennis court" is also a demonstration- 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 weal (Mind-Reach, p. 57) ln (£)° 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 . 83 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0 aude fitietRa 96-00791R000100440001-9 be stored in a secure safe or eimilar 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. 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. Ww 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 wee" (Protocol, Appendix B, p- L) (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 84 Approved For Release 200s OME pcip ROP86-00791 R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/19; -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 inbound experimenters and subject should proceed to the target for feedback." (Appendix B, p. 1) and n~ | (3) subjects are also used as experimenters. (2) 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 Noreater than 100" targets, although it has been shown that in Price's series only nine or twelve targets comprised the pool. Y A closer examination of the literature reveals that more inconsistencies appear. With Elgin and Hammid, 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, ae 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 zoosioa man ssg96 00791 R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 20081041" ALR Raa! 79" R000100440001-9 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-Reach, 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 ae 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 4 ... one of the experimenters would leave SRI with a stack of ten sealed envelopes ... generated a random digit from 0 to nine bya means of a Texas Instruments SR-51 random number generator." (Mind-Reach, 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.” (tind-Reach , 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-Reach, p. 48); and "A target location from a set of traveling orders previously prepared and randomized by the Director ...." (Mind-Reach, p- 35) 86 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
\ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 oR FRR iRee=00791000100440001-9 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 wee" (Targ, Putho££, and May, 1978, p. 1) ~ 9 . 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 "Geedback") 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 7 are "... used without replacement ..." (Targ and Puthoff, 1974, p. 605), it ‘is clear that the same target cannot come up twice within an individual 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) ) 87 - Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
88 ry t it ry . i | i | i i. | | Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 SECRET TABLE 7. TARGET SAMPLE SIZE, FROM WHICH TARGETS USED WERE DRAWN FOR EACH SUBJECT POOL SIZE DRAWN SUBJECT FOR EXPERIMENTAL SERIES! NUMBER OF TARGETS USED . REFERENCE Price 9 9 SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74 Elgin, Hammid 6 4 (2 per subject) Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p- 157 * Hammid 9? 9 Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p- 343 : Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336; Mind-Reach, p. 75 Swann 9° . 4 | Mind-Reach, p. 36 Elgin ; . 9? 2 Pease 92 4 Cole 9? 4 a toresumably this sample size.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 2003044BGRIA-RDP26-00791 R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 é -GIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 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. Puthof£ 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: "iis 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." (Puthof£ and Targ, 1976b, wr 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 tf 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 ‘ts used [30], [31]. Following is a general procedure that we have used successfully for signal enhancement. We shall assume that the '‘message' | 89 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
pe ee ’ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 inal o i consists of a stream of binary digits (0,1) of equal probability .... One efficient coding scheme for such a channel ig obtained by application of a = sequential sampling procedure of the type used in production-Line quality ‘ois control [80]. The adaptation of such a procedure to paranormal communication ....') (Puthof£f 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." (Putho£E, ws Targ, and May, 1978, p. 11) They propose the use of the following attributes: inside/outside; subdued lighting/bright lighting; wet/dry; passive/active; a 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? W 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, a . | 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: ™ “Phe transcripts of subject Sys more than those of other subjects, had | descriptions of the feel of the location, and experiential or sensory _ gestalts-for example, light /dark elements ... tndoor/outdoor, and enclosed/ - open distinctions." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) They also comment - 90 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 _ enti
a T6 i i i i i i i. i LE i i a i i i Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 SECRET TABLE 8. ELGIN (S,) /SWANN (S.) TARGETS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS Target Attributes aa Elevated- Enclosed- . Light- Passive-— Target (Subject) Flat Wet-Dry Open Dark Active 1. BART Station (S,) E | D 0 L A 2. Shielded Room (S.) E D E D P 3. Tennis Court (S,) F a) 6) L A ica) 4 | I td 4, Golf Course Bridge (S,) 5. Palo Alto City Hall (S.) E W 8) L A 6. Miniature Golf Course (83) F D 8) L A 7. Kiosk in Park (84) F D E D P 8. Baylands Nature Preserve F W ¢) L A ($3) 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 2003/04ME, AEA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0444aS60NRTEs-00791R000100440001-9 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) [DR 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° = 64. At least six such attributes have been noted, and less than 64 targets in the bay area have been used. VW 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, Appr 92 pproved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/13 pep 9¢-00791 R000100440001-9 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 cea” (p. 1549) Puthoff and Targ do then use a "coding" system with which they describe their targets -and these are then "... systematteally manipulated ...." Qu 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. A Targets are often familiar to the subjects as all of them resided in the area during their experimentation: " . ten sites known to the subject ~.e." (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 Ss experiment? A feasible solution lies in the use of feedback. Puthof£ 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 Puthof£, 1975, p- 177) — °e 93 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04, IRB ?6-00791 R000100440001-9 ; ia 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 and 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." (tind-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 eee (Mind-Reach, p. 70) WL 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) tA 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 94 aviea DP96-00791R000100440001-9 Approved For Release 2003/04/41.
Approved For Release 2003/04 ETRRIREP 96-00791 R000100440001-9 N 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 get 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) TN Tf 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? 95 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : GIAGROP96-00791R000100440001-8
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 raiteh DP96-00791R000100440001-9 - Taking an extremely skeptical position, could it also mean that the - (inadvertent?, subliminal?) cues available to him during the experiment cannot be decoded? Oa 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 easier figure-ground disctiminations." (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, Lees, 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." ( 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 96 Approved For Release 2003/04/18,,.ClIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 we] a
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 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) kK 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) ML 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 97 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 ‘ ala
Approved For Release 2003/04 SEAR pre s-00791R000100440001-9 de . thinking access to them." (Swann, 1975, pp. 107-108) Ww 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) fw He comments: “There, during an eight-month concentrated effort, some 7,000 extertor 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) LW 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 paranornal 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) lA In Swann's report to Puthoff and Targ, about the problems of remote viewing, from which they take several excerpts, the following seem pertinent: | 98 | Approved For Release 7003 OAAE nGipgerP2s-o07e1R000 00440001
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 pe R000100440001-9 “several breakthroughs were needed to uncover the remote viewing possibil- ities .... Lf 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 wees 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’ .... ie "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 .... BL " ) Tt 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-Reach, pp. 41-42) LX 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 99 Approved For Release 2003/040R BR Bipa@r 26-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04=raseypapies-00791R000100440001-9 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, et al., 1976, Section 3, p-. 5) ON . ¢ Isn't this the technique that Puthof£ and Targ use in their mock experiments 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. 5-4: ».. 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 HORTZONTAL;: BUT IF SHE IS LOOKING FROM THE ATR, 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) WW Approved For Release 2003/04/48 -.Gikics 6-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04) reg E ARES 96-00791 R000100440001-9 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"? AL 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? LAL 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 eon’ (Cp. 2) Mw 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’ ...."  (. 355) a Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 at
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ei laa R000100440001-9 In Price's transcript of the Allied Arte 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? “Ww 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) AO "Tf 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) KK Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ga BIA ROPEE-0070 R000100440001-9
FIPUTITTUISNOIITUTIITST Approved For Release 2003/0 AddilfefeiR ia 6 -00791R000100440001-9 cd - 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"? PO ; 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. Qa. | oad "Tt ig 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) Ss = tt 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 ina field out - ; in the open? ... Tell me about the town and country aspect. In what way az does it remind you of town and country? ... Town and country means to mea covered walkway .... What do you find the boundaries of the place they're - at? ... The quadrant you had them in is basically the northeast quadrant? ... LE 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 a Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 - =e
Approved For Release 2003/04 ARIEROP96-00791R000100440001-9 besides walking along - was there any activity for Hal to do?" (ténd-Reach, pp. 63-68) kA Tt 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. " (Mind- 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. Ww 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 wey " ., stadium structure ...",; mo, arboretum ...", " . miniature golf course ...", "... small pool of water ...", " .,. corner of a golf course at, and "... small building a, " .. single story building ... pitched roof -++ four poles supporting it .... The targets used with this subject are diatiuct, 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-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 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. $ 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. ad 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." (Mind-Reach, pp. 104-106) At this point, Cole's description is extremely L~_/ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 =etGhiabes
re a Approved For Release 2003/ RFE ERDS 6-00791 R000100440001-9 _ - 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 he 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) oni 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 Maes that is misleading. I have a 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 saw some benches. Do you want to tell me about them? ... What do you think Hal is doing while he is. there?" os In a period of less than 15 min: "We expect this experiment to start at = Approved For Release 2003/04/18 .. P96-00791R000100440001-9
. =n ‘Approved For Release 2003/04/ se 96-00791 RO000100440001-9 twenty minutes after eleven .... It's eleven thirty-three. He's just probably getting ready to come back." The experimenter has asked fourteen questions. L“ | 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. oa If a subject is actually able to perceive a remote scene, why does the . experimenter feel the need to "prod" the subject? oma | 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 subjects 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. Wx subject Ortentatton. "... 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." (ind-Reach , p. 74) & il Approved For Release 2003/04/48¢-(t4 BDP96-00791R000100440001-9
eset emma SAO Approved For Release 2003/08 a DP96-00791R000100440001-9 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 fGiies ars 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." (tind-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-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9
P96-00791R000100440001-9 _ procedure during his eighteen months work at ithe ASPR. LO 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 pereipients to allow themselves to use psi wees IL was particularly impressed by the - sophisticated psychological procedures that Hastings had used ... so he and I discussed them at length, and I worked out'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 TI a? gave instructions on psychological procedures for eliciting psi for remote on 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) UL ™ Similarly, Puthoff and Targ suggest: "Before the experiment, the subject i 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? ON 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 remotle viewing appears to be a natural, ed 109
Approved For Release 20031041 Fg 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: "Tt ig best that the inbound experimenter not push the subject. to say a lot .... If the subject tends towards being analytical wee the experimenter must gently lead the subject into description, not analysis. | It is also useful ... to ‘surprise’ the subject with new viewpoints vee 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) Za_ 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 veel (ind-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: NONE 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-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0 tNefe 90079" R000100440001-9 THIS IS REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT WITH RUSS TARG, PHYLLIS COLE AND HAL PUTHOFF .... TIT IS JUST ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES AFTER ELEVEN, AND HAL SHOULD BE AT HIS TARGET LOCATION BY NOW." (Mind-Reach, pp. 104-105) ta. 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? (~ The strange use of time can also be seen 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 .... Tt is twenty-four minutes after eleven ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 105) | a Note also the way in which the time is stated: "“TIwenty minutes after vee twenty minutes after ... twenty-four minutes after ... eleven thirty-three veel (Mind-Reach, p. 106) Targ states time in the Price transcript: "One forty eae one fifty-eight _.. two thirty ...." (Méind-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,. Still another example is seen when Richard Bach visits: "Hal shoyld be there in three minutes ... it is eleven o'clock on Tuesday, suly 18, 1975 ...." (Mind-Reach, xxiii) Although Puthoff and Targ state: "Finally, Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ¢ CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ‘=e R000100440001-9 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 aa" (Mind-Reach, pp. 91-92) | 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 in the remote viewing experiments ... each day at ten o'clock, one of the experimenters would leave SRI..." " (tind-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 .:.." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976, Letters, p» 1549) US | 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, —~ gs..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, 6 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 néar to arriving" ... “two thirty. Shall we go downstairs and see how they're doing?" (Mind-Reach, pp- 63-68) AL Who actually fatigued is not quite clear since it ts ‘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 a: inal R000100440001-9 ©
‘Rireniemnseenpeemrepenencairenaineniate haan Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ; CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 ~ - 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 out- bound experimenter then leaves the lab, uses a random number generating a] 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) we. 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 im 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. LA ™ Another area that also showed inconsistency, not only in procedure, but in reporting, was the time actually spent at the target. "The first ; i 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 8, - See" (Puthof£ and La ~ 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» 353 7 wal 113 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
iniccnceenenneneeeniemtreatnatenaieeminamcenaeenaat einen Approved For Release 2003/04/1 i R000100440001-9 all 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 ..ae'' (Mind-Reach, p. 101) = tart comments: "TI 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 per) 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 ol 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? ve «a 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 wns descriptions of some targets causes some question as to when they became pow specific elements, say, within a larger target. Are maps drawn? Are tapes ~- 114 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 —_ ad CH
‘apparently used. kK Approved For Release 2003/0 eee 26-0079" R000100440001-9 normally made? Are specific actions required? At best, the lack of planned activity, andfits subsequent documentation, of the target persons provides an opportunity for redefinition of the "target" and free "interpretation" by the judge. A_ 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) LA . 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 ~™ 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 ina (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-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 cr age) A
Approved For Release eee O45 aaa R000100440001 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 it is more appropriate to use statistics based on replacement." (Appendix B, p.- 4) Ww 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" axe counted, it appears as if he _ responded 9 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 7s 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. (Tare and Puthoff, 1974; SRI Progress Reports, March S and August 1974; Targ and Puthoff, 1975) Their conclusion is: “By plurality 116 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 , =e8fiiia
Approved For Release 2003/04/18.: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 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 priort probability of p= 5.6 x 107", 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 unless p < 10°°, (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 veal (Puthof£ 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) lw This change in procedure is first seen in a 1975 publication in which Hamid" 8 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 1 to 9 (best to worst match." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 36) -S 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 2003iégpippDpPeRDP96-00791R000100440001-9 - 5
. Approved For Release 2003/04/48 , -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 ——piee . ‘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 rellability of rankings by several judges (inter-rater agreement) as measured by the coefficient of concordance 17. 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 7 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 wag therefore used for all the subsequent judging in the paper ...." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976, pp. 1549- isso.) LW 4 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 Approved For Release 2003/Qddi@*MtAERDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/ UR ARIaREOP 26-0791 R000100440001-9 would not have reached their statistical criterion of p < 107°, By plurality vote of the five judges, Price's was p = 5.6 x 1074 with.7, 6, 5, 3, and 3 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 postertort changing to a plurality vote? g 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 1 to 9 (best to worst match)," and "As a back-up procedure, a panel of five additional SRI scientists ... were asked to blind match wees" (Mind-Reach, pp- 54-55) a 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) 5S” In Mind-Reach, 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 -Reaeh, p. 101) PT Hastings' paper on "Mental Processing of ESP Imagery: Theoretical Considerations" at The Eighteenth Annual. Convention of the Parapsychological 119 P96-00791R000100440001-9 Approved For Release 2003/04/:
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 “eee R000100440001-9 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) iw 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: “si. the authors have greatly benefited from many discussions with ... SRI consultant Dr. Arthur Hastings." (Wind-Reach, viii) oe 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 isa 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. bv 3 Once the judge has the target list and txanscripts, 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 for the rest of the experiments. Lf 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-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 eh
Approved For Release meee =: eae R000100440001-9 t 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 Mnested 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 22 Note also the accurate reporting: aes she saw a kind of trough 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) a 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 ‘earget!. 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 "cargets': one is ; 121 Approved For Release 2003/0448 96-00791R000100440001-9
eee _ Approved For Release 2003/ Oude AR iaiaiten0 0791R000100440001-9 at = 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) AL ~ Although "while standing at a specific ‘location, the judge was required to blind rank order ..." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 36), the a -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) y - Another area in which bias can occur ig in the judge's desire to have the experiment show positive results. Puthof and Targ relate concerning ™ the matching procedure: "Even though he knows logically it couldn't go od to both,. we find that judges 3 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 thig we feel it is more appropriate ™ to use statistics based on replacement." (Appendix B, p- 4) If this is ms 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. U ~ In addition, another type of subjectiveness can bias the results, that of reading in more correspondence than may actually be there. This kind of ™ subjectiveness can most easily be illustrated with the following example a although this experiment was used as a demonstration experiment. Following ~ 122 | Approved For Release 2003)04f Fagg Pos co7o1RoDor0044o001-9 - .
Pann A . pproved For Release 2003/04/1 Sane S 00791 R000100440001-9 _ ad 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 bad 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 theme, we looked around and compared ia some of the things Pat had said .... ca Concerning the historical plate, Price: gid something was there which - sounded a little bit like what actually was ‘chere. 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 ai crowded around, saying yes, yes, that's the historical marker." (Puthoff and Targ, 1975b, p+ 178) Ww - When a forced ranking method is used, this subjectiveness necessarily a must’ enter in since the judge (1) knows that a transcript must match each _ target; and (2) can increase the actual rank given by “yeading" in "more im 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) ~ 5 | - 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 noncorrespondences." - (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 346) How does the judge go about this ranking procedure? | | wad There appears to be some question as to whether all the transcripts in ma a given series are judged at the same time: “Following a series of several -_ | | (123 _ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : - 04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
a Approved For Release 2003/04 GLEE IaeS-00791 R000100440001-9 © - experiments, all of the subjects’ unlabeled response packets, ... were presented to the judge in random order." (Mind-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 chat. U . 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 =i 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." (Mind-Reach, p- 50) Ww aad “One of the direct hits, which occurred with Phyllis Cole in her first experiment ... she recognized the location as White Plaza ....'' (Mind-Reach, - p- 86) Swann, in his drawing of Palo Alto City Hall, lists "the miniature » golf course from yesterday?" (Puthoff and Tag, 1976b, p. 340) and Price | mentions the: "marina" used prior to the target he is describing: the Allied aia Arts and Crafts Plaza: ma, not half the distance they were to the marina vee He also mentions distance: "feels like a mile to a mile and a half ...." - (Mind-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. (A 124 al Approved For Release eens". aaa R000100440001-9 _ |
enn a Approved For Release 2003/04) GRR sis°07 91 R0001 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 oe = 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 tank each oi 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. .¥We | 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: ma, the travelers to the remote location a are ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 63) and "oy. and this is a remote viewing. experiment with ...' (Mind-Reach, p- 104), these references would also provide cues. ™ In the drawing by Elgin, he has labelled his figures "H" and "pp" (p. 83) 7 and Pease has noted in his drawing "Hal and Hella sitting." (Mind-Reach, OL p. 87) al 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. UL - Most importantly, a subject is not encouraged to name the target, ~ although when the names are correct, they are lauded: "We sat there _ 125 Approved For Release 2003/0 P96-00791R000100440001-9
a eUTOTTUSONIT OOOO Approved For Release 2003/0 . . 7 , 41" dale Rfitia9 6 -00791R000100440001-9 oe finding it difficult to believe that he had actually jdentified the target by name. Although this feat was no more spectacular than his original experiment, this one had to be confronted at close range." (Mind-Reach, © - | p. 50) Puthofé and Targ state: "We often observe essentially correct descriptions of basic elements and patterns coupled with complete or =i erroneous analysis of function." (Targ, et al., 1977, pp. 519-520) TE, n— 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,)." (Puthoff£ and Targ, 1976b, pP- 345) UAL Obviously, a judge would have to call them incorrect. The use of a less - demanding criterion, one of oa individual elements and items that make up the target." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p-. 345) allows a subject to bv - 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 the “correct information that subjects relate is of nonanalytic nature pertaining ™ to shape, form, color, and material rather than to function or name." si (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) WwW ™ In describing mock experiments, Targ related as an example of a mock ~ experiment: "She'll say, I see an elliptical brick structure surrounded _ 126 Approved For Release 2003/04/18, ght AiR DP96-00791R0001 00440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 Sees es-00791 R000100440001-9 with green, with irridescent blue flowers inside. Harold will say, Say 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'L1l go on to some other place." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 172) The emphasis ig placed on these details during the mock experiments; in this particular case, the emphasis is on color. (A tt is intéresting 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 of 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." (Putho££, et al., 1978, pp- 30-31) These data, however, have not been —~ Ss 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 127 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 “yen
Approved For Release soosioa eA Be.s-00791 R000100440001-9 Hella'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 Hella's, leading to more first: place matches ... he also got two clear misses where the striving for detail resulted in erroneous analytical interpretations. Hella, on the other hand, preferring, to be more cautious, got fower 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 Sy? 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 Targ, 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 statistical significance of individual descriptions), clearly indicates the presence of an information channel of useful bit rate.""">_ 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 soe leading to more first place matches, that is, direct hits in the rank order judging, but he also got two clear misses oe", (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 1 to 9 (best to worst match) ." (Mind-Reach p. 54) W 128 Approved For Release 2003/04) 6 ARFAFRP 96-00791R000100440001-9
Fann Approved For Release 2003/04/1 amma s-00791R000100440001-9 | “For the purpose of screening a result is to be considered paranormal if the a priori probability for the occurrence of the result by chance, “ under the null hypothesis, is p < 107° "(SRI Progress Report, August 1974, If this is the criterion for "screening", is there some reason it should P| . be changed for the experiments themselves? © Of the five, only 8,8 results came close to the statistical criterion: P & 1.8 x 10 “6, 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 nl 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) ray | Finally, Puthoff and Targ state: ''The descriptions supplied by the subjects in the experiments involving remote viewing of natural targets or ani 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 aa ; response criterion are required. As will be seen in Section IIT, when “<a these requirements are met, results tend to be negative. A Technology Targets. The results of the technology series of targets a 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 ~ | . 129 Approved For Release mah Guigsroe.0079 R000100440001-9 oa — 7
Ten | Approved For Release 2003/04 REHRIEP 96-00791 R000100440001-9 —_ ’ and - targets." (Targ and Puthoff, .1976, p- 36) The subjects for this series were Sy, 53> Si. Vos V3. If this series was actually carried out following “= the series with Price and. Hammid, and Vv, 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£. a (Mind-Reach, p. 9) One assumes that V. was run following V,- However, Cole's transcript of White Plaza is dated October seventh (Mind-Reach, p- 104) so - some confusion appears. fA ~ 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 putho£e, 1976, p- 36) Of a total of = twelve transcripts, Swann produced four and Hammid five. A ~ The target pool is reported as being "... anything from office equipment to machinery or an experimental set-up." (Targ and Puthof£, 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 hé would interact os with the equipment or apparatus." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p- 36) NY 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 <i the target used and Puthoff and Targ have provided a photograph for each drawing... A = ao 130 , Approved For Release 200310 Meme P96-00791 ROO001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2005 ane R000100440001-9 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. For this, Puthoff and Targ show a close up of the counter with its two knobs. Thé 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: "Nae ‘Ihave 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. is 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) IN 131 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : _ee R000100440001-9
Approved For Release eee a: Saaaa R000100440001-9 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."  (Yarg 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. Yultiple-subject responses ..." therefore, only seven this time, "oo, were stapled together, and thus seven bes . response packets were to be matched .... While standing at each target location, the judge was required to rank cider the seven subject-drawing response packets -eee' (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343) Ww 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 used: " ., in the first judging procedure a judge was asked simply to blind! match only the drawings (i.e., without tape. transcripts) a” (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343) UL "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, i . “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 132 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 anh
Approved For Release 2003/04Ks RAR EE? 96-00791R000100440001-9 correctly classify the target as a man-sized vertical boring machine." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, pp. 343-344) we The remaining publication that gives any detail concerning this series of targete réports: "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, and thus seven subject-drawing response packets were to be. matched .... The response packets (judged on a scale of 1 to Tee” (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. tv In summary of the technology series, we can conclude several things. First, the inconsistency of the target set (simulator vs. machine shop) 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 clear] e of less- ~ideal Loral research practice. For these reasons, it is 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. A Unselected 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 200302 BRN IeRDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 <a R000100440001-9 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 no particular reason to believe they have paranormal perception." (Mind Reach, pp. 87-88) (woe | In Mind-Reaeh, following a description of the experiments with Vi> Puthoff and Targ state: "We have carried out more than one hundred experiments of this type, most of them succéssful, as determined by independent judging. The majority of our cubjects have not been 'psychics'; at least they didn't think of themselves that way when they started." (Mind-Reach, pp. 9-10) tA In another publication the figures are rather different: "In over 70 laboratory experiments that now include work with more than a dozen subjects, «+. (Puthoff£ and Targ, 1977b, p. 1) although later, within the same publication tt 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 vy and V., who are included in the remote viewing of local target statistics. V. is included as a subject for the technology 3 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 ae anal R000100440001-9 oad
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 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: me, 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." (Mind-Reach, p. 91) Bach, in the Forward of Mind-Reach, 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) ho 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." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 6) One of the drawings is dated 5 May 76. tre - Also reported in July 1977 are three other experiments. These, however, use a variety of subjects, identified by initials: Gy (an SRI research engineer), Hh» I> and R in addition to D,» whose experiments-are the same 1 as those that were reported in April 1977. G, can be eliminated since he 1 was used in the long-distance remote-viewing experiments between New York City and California and New Orleans-California and I, is an experienced subject. Therefore, of the total group, there have béen four unselected - subjects used in five experiments from 1976 on. On . The targets that are used are the following: Methodist Church, Stanford University Inner Quadrangle featuring Memorial Church, Baylands Nature 135 - Approved For Release 200RU RR -RPss-00791R000100440001-9 ‘a
Approved For Release 2003/04 Seer 96-0791 R000100440001-9 Preserve, a swimming pool complex, Hyatt Hotise 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 Gy is the Vallombrosa Chapel, and with experienced q,, the Golden Pavillion Restaurant. The targets appear to fall into two general categories: chapels or churches, and water-related targets, (Ae 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) nal 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, anda 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 2993 /2D ET cia-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ‘sh R000100440001-9 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, W The other visitor's target was White Plaza, "2. 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. Ww 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 | RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
, Approved For Release 2003/0446 BEBOP 96-00791R000100440001-9 an "excellent" transcript, and the judges received all transcripts of each target stapled together.) Ww Two subjects are also run simultaneously in some of the remaining experiments with unselected subjects. q (experienced) and Ry are run together for the Hyatt House, and Hy and q, for the swimming pool complex, “Mt. View, previously used with V,: In other experiments involving alphabet letters and letter-guessing, Hy; Ty» and Sy are used simultaneously. HL participates in both. 54 is used in the long-distance experiments. LA 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. MW Critical Bvaluation: 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 4 participated in a long-distance experiment." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 5) In the other, only Hammid, S, ig reported: "... one subject (H.H.) participated 138 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 ¥) rant Bf
enc Approved For Release 2003/04 -RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 This page intentionally left blank. ; Approved For Release a ree R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CMGRARFng79172000100440001-9 in a long-distance experiment. In this experiment one of the experimenters (Dr. Puthoff) spent a week traveling chrough' Central America on a combination business/pleasure trip." (Targ and Puthof£, 1975, p. 158) Prior to actually discussing the’ results of three local remote-viewing experiments with Elgin and Hammid, the targets are listed. Included‘in this list is moe and (as a special long-distance task) a vacation resort in Costa Rica." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 1536) — 9 Both publications agree on the number of responses that were made by Hammid although apparently on one day no experiments were Tun. There are six responses listed for Price: "Six daily responses were obtained from Subject 1, five from subject 4" (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p- 5) (A "yy. on one occasion when the test subjdct was unavailable, an experimenter volunteered a drawing of an image he obtained at the beginning of one of the daily experiments. (The target for that day was an airport, an unexpected target associated with a side excursion at midpoint of the week's activity.)" (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 6) This experimenter is later referred to in other publications as an SRI researcher and subject. "Three subjects participated in a long-distance experiment ..." (Puthoff£ and Targ, 1976b, p- 330) and "... one response from an SRI researcher, ..-+" (Mind-Reach, p. 11) Im one of the first publications, however, it becomes vA~ clear as to who this subject ig: "... one of the authors (R.T.) volunteered a) a drawing .... The target for that day was an airport ..-. (Targ and Puthof£, 1975, p- 160) Puthoff's week, however, has lengthened into "... (Dr. Puthoff) spent ten days ...."" (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p- 330) “The drawing of the airport ig seen in four references. The comparison 140 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 |
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 | between drawing and target is good? "the match was good ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, Pp. 160; SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p- 6) In another 4 publication, it is reported: "The sole discrepancy was that the subject's drawing showed a Quonset-hut type of building in place of the rectangular structure ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 13) oN ; Later, it is stated: "l.. we present an illustrative example generated in an early pilot experiment. As will be clear from our later discussion, this is not a 'best-ever' example, but rather a typical sample of the level of proficiency that can be reached and that we have come to expect in our research." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p- 330) § . In looking at the various publications in which this drawing is presented, two interesting aspects appear. The labels describing the drawing read as follows: “sketch produced by subject from San Andres, Columbia, airport used as a remote viewing target." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 162) Note: This $ is also stated in similar fashion again below the label in lower-case format with the addition of "Figure 6". The same label reappears in (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 8) However, the label is changed in the. other publications to: "Figure 1. Airport in San Andres, Columbia, used as a remote-viewing target, along with sketch produced by subject in California" (PuthofE£ and Targ, 1976b, 330) and "sketch produced by subject with San Andres, Columbia, airport used as remote viewing target." (Mind-Reach, p. 12) Another interesting part of this drawing is the date: “Friday, 4/12/73". llowever , April 12, 1973 was a Thursday, and experimentation had not even begun as of yet. (See Table 1.) Although we are not handwriting experts, the handwriting on this drawing appears similar to some of the handwriting on Swann's first drawing of 141 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA2R 0791R000100440001-9
nUIIaTITOTSUUUPTIIITI Approved For Release 2003/047F#QSARMRps 96-00791R000100440001-9 Kerguelen Island, specifically that which wag noted earlier as appearing different from the other writing. “Although Hammid was also asked to supply drawings: "),. the subject was asked to supply a drawing and written description” , none appear for this subject and only descriptions are referred to thereafter: "Twelve daily descriptions were collected eae (Puthof£ and Targ, 1976b, p. 330) However, "the third subject who submitted the single vesponse supplied a drawing for a day in the middle of the series." (Puthof££ and Targ, 1976b, p- 330) LA The use of pictures with the airport drawing is also unusual. In three of the publications, there are close-up shots of the terminal and airstrip. In Mind-Reach, however, they have used an aerial view taken either before or after the experiment was conducted: "... Hal ... at the time of the experiment had just disembarked from a plane ...." (pp. 12-13) W. Where was the drawing made? Was it drawn by Russell Targ? When was it made? How does it happen that the vantage point of the subject's sketch corresponds so well to the (previously taken?) photograph of the airport from an airplane window either during approach or takeoff from a mile or so off the end of the ‘runway? L£ one were nerely going to document one 's presence, at the airport at a given time, and to describe the nature of the | airport, wouldn't a picture of the terminal) from ground level be more likely? The perspective correspondence appears too close to be coincidental. ; Hammid's responses are reported: "Two were in excellent agreement, two had elements in common but were not clear correspondences, and one was clearly a miss." (Targ and Puthoff£, 1975, p. 158) In another publication it is reported after the airport drawing is discussed: "The remaining submissions in this experiment provided further examples of excellent 142 | Approved For Release o0s/oepeeeeee 26-00791R000100440001-9
bE Approved For Release 2003/04/18 SEARS" R000100440001-9 correspondences between target and resporise. (A target period of poolside relaxation was identified; a drive through a tropical forest at the base of a truncated volcano was described as a drive through a jungle below a large bare table mountain; a hotel room target description including rug color was correct; and so on." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, >. 331) There is no mention of any of Price's descriptions. The total publication of Hammid's "excellent" résponses consists of "... larger bare table mountain, jungle below, dark cool moist atmosphere ... and ... picture of Dr. Puthoff sitting in a beach chair by a pool ...." (larg and Puthof£, 1975, p. 158) These RY are the only quoted descriptions or general descriptions provided from a total of five transcripts, or from 75 minutes of Hammid's viewing time. That is, we are exposed to only a small sample of her responses, especially considering their reputed excellent nature. The second set of experiments in the long-distance remote viewing series with the: use of a target person was presented at two separate IEEE conferences. The first, "Direct Perception of Remote Geographical Locations," was presented at Electro/77, April 1977. The second, "state of the Art in Remote Viewing Studies at SRI," was presented in August 1977. Vi Although the papers deal in detail with the long-distance targets, they also give a description of the previous experiments in the remote viewing of local targets. The presentation is somewhat different, however, in these two papers, in that a new terminology) appears for Electro/77. Though i) both papers state that the terminology is used as . a neutral descriptive term free from prior associations and bias as to mechanisms," (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 1; Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1978, p. 519), "remote viewing” is now called "remote sensing". —™ 4 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9
ORE Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 a ol In the introduction of the Electro/77 paper they state: "In over 70 ‘laboratory experiments that now include work with more than a dozen subjects" - and "here, throughout research spanning a five-year period, we have worked wi with new and untrained subjects so to avoid reliance on the availability of a very limited number of special subjects. Remote perceptual abilities i“ have been developed in several individuals eee” (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p- lL) The paper then gives a description of the general protocol used with - local targets, followed by a brief resume of the Price and Hammid series. lA - Other than the tables showing targets, distances, and associated rankings fot both Price and Hammid, there is no mention of the rest of _ the remote viewing series and no data base ig ever given. Experiments with unselected subjects are then covered: "... we initiated an extensive series = of experiments using unselected subjects and local targets." fA ~ In the sécond paper, “remote sensing" (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 1) is again called "remote viewing." (Targ, Puthofé,. and May, 1977, p. 519) = Targets, however, are now at < 20 km and they specifically refer to a data base: "... our previously established data base of over 50 local (< 20 km) ~ experiments ....' (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1977, p- 519) As was noted earlier, the farthest target in the series was 16.1 km away. The experimental ~ ont . protocol is discussed, followed by a description of the Price series, the im Hammid series, and a summary table of all the results of remote viewing of local targets. This section is followed by the long-distance targets. . A -~ The long-distance experiments were apparently carried out whenever one of the experimenters went on a trip. Those between Menlo Park and New York ™ City are dated July 1976, and the two conducted between New Orleans and on california in October 1976. The remaining transcript is undated. ad 144 Approved For Release 2003/04¢ DP96-00791R000100440001-9 - + - *
nee ne a Om Lp Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 . rad ¥ In the first two experiments,. tHose held between Menlo Park and | ; New York City, with the subject in.C4lifornia; "... the DARPA computer teleconferencing net was used for response recording, time recording, and post-experiment feedback....", as noted previously. Puthoff and Targ include the computer file printout in their publication and state: ‘These experiments provide an elegant demonstration of the utility of the teleconferencing process as a|secure data recording system to provide real-time monitoring of long-distanc¢ remote-viewing experiments." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1977, p. 523) An @¢xamination of the transcript from the first experiment in which the target)|was Grant's Tomb reveals several interest- ing aspects. At the top is listed: ‘message number , date, time, and "FROM: TARG" followed by "SUBJECT: S,'s REPORT" and) then "TO: TARG". The transcript then begins with "RUSSEL-". At the end of the transcript the following: "ARUSSELL IS THAT YOU? HI, THAT WAS 57, AND WE WERE IN THE 'MSG' STILL, L THINK THAT IT MAY ABORT!" thy "TO TARG" me "PROM TARG'? Why the need to identify the subject? "The subject (supervised) and the experimenter on the east coast agreed ... to begin the experiment ...." (Targ, Puthofé, and May, 1977, rp 5) WwW The only time the two experimenters are ‘linked is following the target person's return to the hotel where he "... awaited the appearance of the SRI experimenters and subject who could then and only then link the New York and Menlo Park terminal" at which time "... both files were printed out on both terminals ...." If this is the case, silty then does the experimenter in California say: "ARUSSELL IS THAT YOU?" ‘The message is the first so apparently the talk communications are not to be on the file. Did the experimenter forget? nw 145 Approved For Release cri : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
- Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 te a The experiment also typed: “WE WERE IN-THE MSG STILL, I THINK THAT IT MAY ABORT." Note the use of the word "were". What is going to abort? The experiment? Why might it abort? WwW The description in the transcript seems consistent until the following: "THEN DAVID SNAPPED HIS FINGER - I SAW A BASKETBALL VERY CLEAR TACTILE SENSATION FROM A SOMEWHAT TEXTURED GLOBE - ALSO, ON ANOTHER - THE COLOR RED NOT SHARPLY DEFINED - LIQUID OR FLOWING MATERIAL OR NICKY RACING AROUND IN A RED SHOIRT ANOTHER SNAP AND D ASKED FOR THE NAME OF THE PLAVCE — I WAS THINKING 'BAR' BUT I THREW THAT OUT AS OLD AND SAW THE LETTERS 'CH' WITCH I COMPLETED AS 'CHILE' OR ‘oHEL' -- ALSO ANOTHER SNAP AND THE NAME OF THE THIRD PERSON - JOE JOHN OR GERRY - IS IT GARY? ...." Why the snaps? Can the subject hear or see the target person snapping his fingers or is the experimenter with the subject doing so and for what purpose? The subject appears to respond in either case with a fresh image. Puthoff and Targ state in Mind-Reach: OM, motion is in general not perceived; in fact, moving objects often are unseen even when nearby static objects are correctly identified." (Mind-Reach, p. 102) They also state this in another publication: "Curiously, objects in motion were rarely mentioned." . (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 346) lA Two other facets of the transcript are interesting. The transcript begins with "RUSSEL- I THOUGHT OF A HIGH PLACE WITH A VIEW - DETAILS INCLUDED 3 MIN BEFORE V [a line is skipped] LTEWING.'" What details are included three minutes before viewing? In what are they included? fx Tn the middle of the transcript the subject reports: "ALSO THE SURFACE WITH SOMETHING VERTICAL ABOVE ~ SOMETHING REFLECTING METAL PIPEX OF AN ORGAN (THE ONE I DIDN'T VIEW LAST TIME) ...." When did this "last 146 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
| Approved For Release emma ss (5 aes R000100440001-9 time" happen? This is the first experiment in the series. we Targ, Puthoff£ and May state; ‘As an example of the style of narrative generated by a subject during computer teleconferencing experiment, we include the entire unedited computer-logged text of S's response to the 7 ; Grant's Tomb target in Figure 3." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1977, p. 521) [r. However, there are two blank lines in the transcript and although the message appears coherent, the number of characters the computer indicates to be in the file is 1678. A count reveals only 1660 including spacing and carriage returns. Has something been deleted? Has the computer made a counting error? U The following appears in the Electro/77 proceedings: "I thought of a high place with a view. I saw a tree on your left. A brick plaza seemed to be in front of a building you were entering. I could not clearly identify the activity. A restaurant? A museum? A bookstore? You had coins in the ‘palm of your hand, maybe giving some to Nicky (son of outbound experimenter). The. coins were in fact used to purchase the postcard from which Figure 5 was made, and they were given to the experimenter's son who made the purchase. Both subjects then went on for an additional paragraph to describe details of the activities they imagined to be going on inside the building they saw, details that were partly correct, partly incorrect." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) As | Within the above direct quote of the subject's transcript, the following was deleted: "RUSSEL ... DETAILS INCLUDED THREE MINUTES BEFORE VIEWING vee I SAW A TREE ON YOUR LEFT IN A BRICK PLAZA - IT SEEMED TO BE IN FRONT OF H WRONG BUTTON - BUILDING YOU WERE ENTERING" has become "A brick plaza seemed to be in front of a building you were entering." The entire section concerning an elevator is deleted and the following is then picked up: 147 10, ‘> CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001 -9 Approved For Release 200;
Approved For Release 2003/04/ eee es-00791 R000100440001-9 ras ™ "TI COULD NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE ACTIVITY, A RESTAURANT? A MUSEUM? A BOOKSTORE?" “AT ONE TIME I HAD THE FEELING you WERE LOOKING AT COINS IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND ..." becomes "YOU HAD COINS IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND ...." The ... details of the activities they imagined to be going on inside the building ..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) mist be in reference to the snapping of the fingers and the images described after each snap as well as the subject's reference to the "... METAL PIPEX OF AN ORGAN (THE ONE I DIDN'T VIEW LAST TIME) ...."U- | | "Two subjects, both in California, participated simultaneously in this experiment with the first of two New York City targets ...-» Both subjects independently provided computer-stored records....."' (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p.- 8) Although Puthoff and Targ relate some details of the first subject's transcript, little is really said. This subject is referred to as: "The first subject, an SRI systems analyst .... "The second subject a medical student ..." provided the transcript that has been described above. However, dn the later publication, this subject has become "so" and the first subject is "S.": "Subject S,, an SRI system's analyst ..." and "Subject 5._, closeted 3 j 3 y ysi j 7 in a separate SRI location, began with: I thought of a high place with a "view ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 521) w In beginning the description of the second target, Washington Square, this subjéct, Sos is referred to as a female... "One subject participated. She produced an exceptionally accurate transcript -ee. She began her printout with. the following: 'The first image L got at about the first minute was | of a cement depression ....'" (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) Her transcript is included: | ",.. we include the entire unedited computer-logged text of the Washington Square experiment below (Figure 7)."  (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, 148 Approved For Release 2002 ER eis RDP 96-0791 R000100440001-9
wal Approved For er | . pp! Release 2003/04, AE RREBDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 p. 9) In this transcript, the “SUBJECT: SUSANS REPORT ..." is used. However, in the other publication the following appears? "One subject, 875 participated ....' The subject began his printout with the following: "The first image I got at about the first minute was of a cement ‘depression sees (Targ, et al.,- 1977, p. 522) Why the change of gender? The ‘transcripts are identical, except in the latter publication” "SUSAN" has ijeen deleted and "s_'s" s" has been typed in. we Oe | These same two subjects are referred to an a third publication as Gy» an SRI systems analyst, and 81° (Puthoff, Tare, and May, 1977a) Therefore, the first subject is Sg> now Gy> and the seegnd subject is Ss Susan and now The target and pool of targets for these experiments are chosen in the following manner: “After logging off the computer the outbound experimenter would use a random number generator to deterijine which of six locations in be visited in this experiment. New York City would constitute the target to; Neither the subject nor the experimenter at ($RI knew the contents of the target list that was compiled just before en experiment. Having selected a target location by the random protocol, the experimenter would proceed directly to the site and remain there for Eipecn minutes. (Puthof£ and Targ, 1977b, p..7) If this is the case, the varget list would have to have been compiled rather rapidly since "At the previausly agreed-upon start time ‘(one half-hour after preaking computer Linkd) the subject typed impressions wee (Targ, et at., 1977, P- 521) This meant that the target person would have to prepare é a list, make a- selection, and still) get to the chosen target within half an hour. The Washington Square transcript was begun at "1354 -PDT" and therefore was at the beginning of the rush ‘hour (4:54 PM) in New York City. 149 _. Approved For Release. 2003/04/43 3: P96-00791R000100440001-9
OO a a a ae ee neta enmteiee Approved For Release 2003/04/18 SeGRGRET.00791R000100440001-9 (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 524) This flurry of activity and travel within 30 minutes seems implausible. : Or do Puthoff and Targ mean before both the experiments began? ‘Targets were determined either by random-number. generator entry into a previously prepared target list ....." (Targ, et al., 197, p. 521) If the target list is prepared prior to each experiment and not, before the series of experiments, why is it stated: The five possible rargetp in addition to Grant's Tomb were a railroad bridge, the 20-story New York University law library, the . fountain in Washington Square Park, the Colubbta University subway station, and the 72nd Street basin ..."2 (Puthof£ and Targ, 1977», p. 8) The same list of targets is used for both experiments and, therefore, < cannot be tt Moe compiled after logging off ..." in both |cases. iu ‘It is ‘interesting to note that the targdts fall into three general areas: the New York University law campus is at Washington Square; Grant's Tomb and the Columbia University subway station lie between 116th and 125th Street; and the 72nd Street Boat Basin is located at. the southwestern end of Riverside _ Park,approximately midway between the other two sets of targets. The location of the railroad bridge is unspecified. The epcond target, Washington Square fountain, is in the opposite direction from the first. W "The . targets were chosen to be dissimilar and therefore, differentiable, by potential judges." If targets were chosen: so carefully, it would seem as if this might take more time than that allowed in the one-half hour between logging off and arriving at the target, in one case at rush hour. The choice of dissimilar targets does not meet the previous protocol for target selection that was used in the local remote viewing series in which similar, but distinct | ' targets were ‘used. in 150 Approved For Release 2003/08. 6B ifeRDP96-00791R000100440001-9
4 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CARRE Oo7e1RoootonaAon01 The’ second target, Washington Square fountain, was viewed by only one subject, S The transcript is included in both publications. (Targ, et al., ;° 1977, p. 524; Puthoff and Tare, 1977b) The gubject, however, is not finished after the first transcription is made: "Ina more detailed tape recording made after the experiment, but before any feedback, the subject described ‘cement steps going into the depression, Like a stadium, and the rounded edge of the top of the depression as you go up to! ground level.' . These descriptions are not only correct, but also show remarkable detail." Why does the subject ' make a more detailed second recording? If . subject is viewing a target, and sees these details why aren't these details included in the original printout? What serves as the indicator of the target location after the experiment; i.e., after the target person has left the target? {~ Although they do not appear on the transcript, apparently the experimenter with the subject does ask questions of the gubject during the transcription: ".,. only declarative statements spontaneously generated by the subject, or responses to direct questions are used for the quantitative analysis." (Targ . et al., 1977, p. 522) Although the experimenter with the subject does not know the target list: "Neither the subject nor the experimenter at SRI knew the target list cael (Targ et al. , 1977, p. 522) What kinds of questions does the experimenter ask? U In the transcript, (Targ et al., 1977, p. 524; Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p-. 10) the sujbect states: “THE FIRST IMAGE I GOT AT ABOUT THE FIRST MINUTE WAS OF A CEMENT DEPRESSION - AS IF A DRY FOUNTAIN - WITH A CEMENT POST IN TILE CENTER OR INSIDE. THERE SEEMED TO BE PLGHONS OFF TO THE RIGHT, _ FLYING AROUND THE SURFACE OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. I PHEN I SAW AS IF - LEIE IN THE DISTANCE A REAL STADIUM WITH GRASS IN THE CENTER AND PERHAPS STADIUM LIGHTS. 151 ‘Approved For Release 2003/04 NER 26-0791 R000100440001-9
ire — Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : Sige 00791000100440001-3 OTHER IMAGES WERE A ROW OF HOUSES/APICKET FENCE - SOME VERTICAL UNITS WITH JAGGED TOPS. THEN A FLUTED/GROOVED VERTICAL COLUMN, BUT I COULDN'T SENSE WAHT IT WAS RELATED TO." Note that the subject transcribes in the past tense as was seen for a short time in Cole's transcript of White Plaza. (Mind- Reach) It then appears that later the subject has a second image: “AGAIN YOU WERE IN A DEPRESSED AREA WITH CEMENT SIDES, LOOKING OUT ONTO THE SURFACE OUTSIDE. THE CEMENT SIDES ARE NOT STRAIGHT, BUT SLOPING, ALMOST S-SHAPED. .«.- THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING REALLY SPECIAL INSIDE, JUST A SEPARATION BETWEEN TEWO TWO SIMILAR AREAS." At the beginning of the transcript, the subject has mentioned the cement depression "THE FIRST IMAGE I GOT AT ABOUT THE FIRST MINUTE WAS A CEMENT DEPRESSION J" and ge goes on to describe the dry fountain. This apparently must be another image or an answer to a question from the experimenter. wn The subject is also quite familiar with New York City: "ALSO A CLEAR FEELING OF THE HEAVY, WORN METAL BAR ON THE TOP OF TYPICAL NYC OR ANY CITY FENCES .... ALL IN ALL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN RIVERSIDE PARK NEAR A TRACK AND PLAY AREA, OCCASIONALLY LOOKING uP AT THE 'ROCK AND LEAF' CLIFFS LEADING UP TO THE DRIVE. AFTER I HAD THOUGHT THAT AND FIT IT IN T WITH OTHER IMAGES RECEIVED SO FAR, IT KIND OF STUCK, AND I POSSIBLY GENERATED MORE PARK SCENES. THE STADIUM/ FOUNTAIN IMAGES WERE THE FIRST AND THUS THE LEAST BJLASED .AS ‘TO PARK MEMORIES." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 524) Is there a fountain in Riverside Park that might possibly fit this description? w | The entire transcript, in this case, is in the past tense. When does a subject make the transcription? “(one-half hour after breaking computer links) the subject typed impressions into a special computer file veel (larg, et al., 1977, P- 521) If a subject is using a tape-recorder, then 152 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : a R000100440001-9
| Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : oe R000100440001-9 the transcription can be made as the subject views the target. "When the agreed upon experimental time arrives, the inbound experimenter simply asks the subject to ‘describe what impressions come to mind with regard to where the outbound experimenter is.' Most subjects prefer to close their eyes, but they should simply do what comes naturally .... Since we think that remote viewing is a difficult. task, like perceiving a subliminal stimulus, we think it takes. the full attentive powers of the subject. Therefore, the environment, procedures, etc., should be as natural and comfortable’ as possible so that as little attention as possible is on anything other than the job at hand." Wow docs a subject’ transcribe on a typewriter at the beginning of the experiment and still keep their "full attentive powers” on the viewing itself? It is stated: "In our remote viewing experiments, the final output is typically a tape recording and a written transcript, in which the subject relates his perceptions and experiences with respect to the remote site that he is attempting to describe. It is becoming apparent — to us, as experimenters, that some portions of a subject's output are more reliable than others." (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1978, p. 18) No mention of a written transcript has been made before in the publications to the best o£ our knowledge. When are these written transcripts made? Before or after feedback from the experimenters or from the site itself, if such a procedure was used during the remote viewing of local sites? "After the target demarcation team returns to SRI, the impressions obtained from the subject are compared with the actual observations of the team. Finally, following the experiment, the subject is taken to the. site so that he may obtain direct feedback." (Puthof£ and Targ, 1977b, p. 2) When does the subject, during the long-distance experiments actually transcribe? The use of the 153 Approved For Release 200 mR P96 00791 R000100440001-9
ET ee ree ee a a eR ete terrae R000100440001-9 past tense indicates that an image is seen and then the transcription made. Does the subject hop’ back and forth from viewing to transcription: "AGAIN YOU WERE IN A DEPRESSED AREA"... "AT ONE POINT" ... "LATER" 5... "I POSSIBLY GENERATED MORE PARK SCENES" or do the subjects. have a series of images and then transcribe, the memory of what they saw. Since Puthof£ and Targ state: "Two principal sources of noise in the system apparently are memory. and imagination, both of which can give rise to mental pictures of greater ‘clarity than the target to be perceived." (Puthote and Targ, 1976b, p. 306), one questions why this technique would be encouraged. L— It is perhaps pertinent to note that Puthoff, Targ, and May are familiar with work relating to subliminal cueing. This is referred to in relation to training: "We have in our laboratory carried out a series of 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 .... The communications series was designed to determine whether a gradient series of perception tasks that mimic the known development of ordinary perception would be useful in the deve lopment of paranormal perception. The decision’ to follow such a protocol was derived from data indicating that the laws of paranormal perception are congruent with, rather than skew to, the laws that. govern ordinary perception, especially under conditions of subliminal perception. The particular question examined was whether a specific perceptual orientation process known to hold in ordinary perception of color, would hold in the case of paranormal perception .... 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 154 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 poi a) ike
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIAARD 6-00791R000100440001-9 made on the basis of training drills designed from what is known about ordinary perception. The purpose of this kind of training is the development of excellent and reliable paranormal perception of analytic and other alphanumeric types of target material." (Puthoff, et al., 1978, pp. 30-31) This series apparently must have been carried out prior to the publication of their "Protocol." 5 - 7 At the end of the transcript, the subject states: "I SURE DO LIKR THE TELETYPE. IT CAN BECOME AN OBSESSIVE PASTTIME, I SEE). This is followed by: "THAT WAS MESSAGE 6." (varg, et al., 1977, p. 524) It appears that other messages have been placed in these special files. The first experiment is labelled "message 1," Since the experimental time was set prior to the message 1 transcript, any communication in the TALK mode is not numbered as a message file. We are never told the contents of messages 2, 3, 4, and 51 & "In attempting to derive a quantitative analysis estimate of the amount of valid data in'a transcript, we have made a detailed analysis of the previous two transcripts generated by a single subject during the long-distance experiments: between Menlo Park, California, and New York City .... Each transcript. typed by the subject into a computer file was edited to retain only declarative statements spontaneously generated by the subject, or responses to direct questions. These statements were collected in groups called concepts +++. Each concept was assigned a rating ranging from 0 to 10, depending on the analyst's subjective impression ..." ("We. performed four comparative analyses ..--") "J.. as to whether the concept had no correspondence (a rank of 0) or complete correspondence (a rank of 10) with the target. -.. If the subject had five references to a condition that could be defined as shady, these would be combined in the concept 'shady'." Approved For Release 2003/0 gi DP96-00791R000100440001-9
- Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : * ee (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 522) (VK In their Table 4 (Targ, et al., 1977, >. 526), the chosen concepts from the transcription are Listed with the correspondences. After combining the scores from both transcripts, they state: "From these means we would estimate that approximately 66% of this one subject's response constitutes an accurate description of the target site, whereas if the data are matched against other target sites, only 374 of the response would typically apply. Although crude, this subjective analysis serves ag a first step in suggesting a method for further single transcript analysis." (Targ, et al., 1977, pp. 522-523) A In Table 9 the same subject's descriptions are listed, with our rankings | of correspondences to Yankee Stadium. (This "target" is relatively close to Grant's Tomb.) The subject's mention of a "real! stadium was the basis for this choice. Certainly the Yankee Stadium bears a good similarity to the responses made to the Washington Square target by So. Does the statement that "... 1£ the data are matched against other target sites, only 374 of the response would typically apply." (Targ, e¢ al., 1977, p. 522) really seem that impressive? The score for Yankee Stadium is estimated at 69%, roughly the same as that for the "correct" target. Once again, careful consideration of a definitive response accuracy criterion seems warranted. LA In examining the listed correspondences of this transcript, several additional questions arise. If the fountain is operating, how can the experimenters be in it? If they are speaking of a depressed area outside it, how can a rank of 10 be given to being in an area with cement sides that aren't ‘straight, but sloping'? The outside of the entire area appears to be a curb. If the subject igs able to see the houses, why is there no Approved For Release 2003/04/18 . ; F-00791R000100440001-9
i i i. EL. | Lj t f tt: k. £ t | i Approved For Release 2003/0@/48, mGIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 in Vik baw 14. TABLE 9. CONTENT ANALYSIS TO YANKEE STADIUM TARGET CHARACTERISTIC Cement depression You are in depressed area with cement sides Sides are sloping almost S-shaped A dry fountain Cement post in center . Pigeons off to the right You were feeding popcorn to pigeons . Stadium with grass and lights SUBJECT'S RESPONSE SCORE "a cement depression": 10 ‘you were in a depressed 10 area with cement sides' "cement sides are not 10. straight, but sloping almost S~shaped' ‘a dry fountain' 8 "stadium/fountain images the first' ‘with a cement post in 7 the center or inside’ ‘nothing special inside’ "seemed to be pigeons off 8 to the right, flying around the surface out of the depression' "you feeding popcorn to 3 pigeons' 'in the distance a ‘real’ 3 stadium with grass in the center' ‘perhaps stadium lights’ 'stadium/fountain images the first' - CORRESPONDENCE We were in cement depression _ Exactly Exactly Operating fountain Cement post plus large pipe Pigeons were in the park nearby Others were Scale factor Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 # TO YANKEE STADIUM SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF S'S RESPONSES TO WASHINGTON SQUARE TARGET, AND COMPARATIVE CORRESPONDENCE Exactly Exactly Yes Stadium, no fountain Partial ' Yes; pigeons all over NYC Others were Exactly SCORE 10 10 10
8ST On 11. 12. 13. 16. TARGET CHARACTERISTIC Rows of houses, picket fence Heavy worn metal Separation between two different areas You were opening a cellophane bag Rectangular wooden frame ... ona ‘building Riverside Park, tracks and play area i | | E i a i. i EL i i i i Approved For Release 2003/04/1 Prnelas P96-00791R000100440001-9 TABLE 9. (continued) CORRESPONDENCE . SUBJECT'S RESPONSE SCORE CORRESPONDENCE TO YANKEE STADIUM SCORE "a row of houses/a 9 Houses with iron fences Yes, nearby 6 picket fence! ‘a clear feeling of _ 7 Copper posts in fountain Yes, bpar/railings 9 the heavy, worn metal : bar on the top of typical NYC or any city fences "separation between 6 In and out of fountain Yes, field and 10 tweo two similar , seating areas areas’ "you were opening a 10 Yes Yes 10 cellophane bag’ "looking out onto the surface outside’ ‘rectangular wooden 5. Gould be the arch Could be related | 5 frame, a window frame' ' to basic structure ‘wasn’t sure if it was on a building, or a similar structure with different purpose’ ‘you were in Riverside 3 Play area nearby Partial - track and 4 Park near a track and play area correct play area' "more park scenes' "looking up at ‘rock and leaf' cliffs' mean = 6.8 mean = 6.9 Approved For Release 2003/04/4¥t:\dth- RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ -00791R000100440001-9 mention of the arch which greatly dominates the area? Similar confusions and questions arise with the Ohio caves target. "A third long-distance remote-viewing experiment was carried out under the control of an independent, skeptical scientist. In this case, both SRI experimenters, while visiting in Ohio, agreed to take part in a remote-viewing experiment in which our host would select the target." w "Under the observation of our challenger, we telephoned subject S, in New York City and obtained the subject's agreement to participate in a long-distance remote viewing experiment. The subject was told only that we were located somewhwere between New York City and our California laboratory and that shortly we would be taken to a target that we would like to have described." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 523) This subject is also referred to as Hy in another publication (Puthoff, et al., 1977a) and by name in the other. (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b) Ww | As 5, had been residing in New York and 5, apparently in California, one wonders why 8 is used for this experiment if she was on vacation in New York City. Did this trip relate to the trip during which the long- distance. experiments were carried out with the Grant's Tomb and Washington Square targets? If so, it seems unlikely that some contact was not made with the subjects. Targ was certainly in New York and there is a reference in one transcript to "H"; "IT SEEMED TO BE IN FRONT OF H." & If the subject had any general idea as to where the experimenters might be, even just a city name, the use of the word "shortly" to the subject, followed by the time the experiment was to start would give the subject an indication of how far away the target might be. In addition, the return. call was set for one hour later, which also provides the subject with some Approved For Release 2003/04/48 9 CIA-RDP96-00791 R000100440001-9 i igt,