Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: (!l^|^pQ791R0001 00440001 -9
in a long-distance experiment.
In this experiment
one
of
the experimenters
(Dr.
Puthoff)
spent
a week traveling through Central America on a combination
business /pleasure trip."
(Targ and Puthoff ,
1975,
p.
158)
Prior
to actually
discussing the results
of
three
local remota-yiewing experiments with Elgin
and Hammid ,
the targets are
listed.
Included: in this list
is "...
and
(as a
special long-distance task)
a vacation resort in Costa Rica."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
156)
-
Both publications agree on the number
of responses
that were made by
Hammld although apparently on one day no experiments were run.
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) U
"...
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-Beach,
p.
11)
In one of the first publications, however,
it becomes ^
clear
as
to who this subject
is:
"...
one of
the authors
(R.T.) volunteered
a drawing
....
The target
for that day was
an airport
.
.
.
.”
(Targ and
^
Puthoff,
1975,
p.
160)
Puthoff ’s week, however, has lengthened into
...
(Dr.
Puthoff)
sp
ten days
...."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1976b,
p.
330)
The drawing
of
the airport
is seen in four references.
The comparison
140
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
(iTODEL
TJCOnCr
between drawing and target
is
good:'
"The match was good
.
.
.
(Targ and
Puthoff,
1975,
p,
160;
SRI Progress Report, August
1974,
p.
6)
In another
/
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
"
CMind-Reach ,
p.
13)
Later,
it
is
stated:
"...
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)
S
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 J
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
Sari Andres,
Columbia,
used
as
a
remote-viewing target,
along with sketch produced by subject
in California"
(Puthoff 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".
However,
April
12,
1973 was
a Thursday,
andj experimentation had not even
begun as
of
yet.
(See Table
1 .)
j
.
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
: CI/ygftK16flW791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Kerguelen Island,
specifically that which was
: 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
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
330)
However,
"the third subject who submitted the single response supplied
a drawing for a
day in the middle of
the series."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
330) U
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-Beach, 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-
13)
vt
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?
If one were merely going
to document
presence,
at
the airport at a given time,
a
f
d
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.
U.
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
Approved For Release 2003/C
IDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
iILum-a
0791 R0001 00440001 -9
correspondences between target and response.
(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,
p.
331)
There
is no
mention
of
any of Price's descriptions.
The total publication
of Hammid's
"excellent" responses
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
...."
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975,
p.
158)
These gj
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
j we are exposed
to only
a small sample
of her responses,
especia
y
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
19/7.
(A
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
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,
jl978,
P-
519),
"remote viewing"
s
|
is now called "remote sensing
.
143
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
In the introduction
of
the Electro/77 paper they state:
"In over
laboratory experiments
that now include work with more than
a dozen subjects"
and "here,
throughout' research spanning a fivp-year period, we have worked
with new and untrained subjects
so
to avoid reliance on the availability of
a very limited number of special subjects.
Remote perceptual abilities
have been developed in several individuals
••••"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
1)
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.^
Other
than the tables showing targets,
distances,
and associated
rankings
for both Price and Hammid
,
there
is
no mention of
the rest
of
the remote viewing series and no data base
is ever given.
Experiments with
unselected subjects are then covered:
"...
we initiated an extensive series
of
experiments using unselected subjects and local targets." U
In
the second paper,
"remote sensing"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
1)
is again called "remote viewing."
(Targ,
Puthoff,. 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, >977,
p.
519)
As was noted
earlier,
the farthest target in the series was
16.1 km away.
The experimental
protocol
is discussed,
followed by a description of
the Price series,
the
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.
**
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
California
in October
1976.
The remaining transcript
is undated.
Approved For Release 2003/Q^'
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
I?* i
first experiment
in which the target
In the
first
two experiments,
those held between Menlo Park and
New York City, with
the subject
in California,
"...
the DARPA computer
teleconferencing net was used
for response recording,
time recording,
and
I
.
post-experiment feedback....",
as noted previously.
Puthoff
and Targ include the computer file printout
in their publication
I
and state:
"These experiments provide an elegant demonstration of
the utility
of
the teleconferencing process
as
a secure
da.ta recording system
to provide
real-time monitoring of long-distance remote-viewing experiments.
(Targ,
Puthoff,
and May,
1977,
p.
523)
An Examination of
the transcript from the
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,
I THINK THAT
IT MAY ABORT!"
Why "TO TARG"
.
.'j.
"FROM TARG"?
Why
the need
to identify
the subject?
"The subject
(supervised)
and
the experimenter
on the east
coast agreed
...
to begin
the experiment
«...
(Targ,
Puthoff,
and May,
1977,
p.
5)
^
The only time the two experimenters are
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, why 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?
(A,
I
145
linked is
following the target
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
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?
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
SlIOIRT 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'
WHICH
I
COMPLETED AS
'CHILE'
OR
'CIIILI' — 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. t\
Puthoff and Targ state in Mind-Reach:
"... 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)
tv
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]
IEWING."
What details are
included three minutes before viewing?
In what are they included?
In 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 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 foiw
P96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
time"
happen?
This
is
the first experiment
in the series,
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
Grant's Tomb
target
in Figure 3."
(Targ, Puthoff,
and May,
1977,
p.
521)
fa^
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?
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
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) U
*
Within
the above direct quote
of
the subject's transcript,
the following
was deleted
:
"RUSSEL
.
.
.
DETAILS
INCLUDED THREE MINUTES BEFORE VIEWING
.
.
.
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
Approved For Release 200J3/J34U*
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/fy^l5|||C^6-00791R0001 00440001 -9
"I 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) must 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 PIPJJX 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,
in
the later publication,
this subject has become
"S^"
and the
first subject
is
"Sg"
:
"Subject
S
g
,
an SRI system’s analyst
..." and "Subject
S
,
closeted
in a separate
SRI location, began with:
I
thought
of
a high place with
a
view
...."
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
521)
ts.
In beginning the description of
the second target, Washington Square,
this
subject,
S 7>
is referred
to as
a female.
"One subject participated.
She produced an exceptionally accurate transcript
....
She began her printout
with
the
following:
'The
first
image
I 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 2003fimiEliA-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
uTvsuu
Approved For Release 2003/04^OSlCJiDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
. it
p.
9)
in this transcript
,
the "''SUBJECT
;
SUSANS REPORT
..."
Is used.
However,
in the other publication the following appears:
"One subject,
S ?
, participated
11 xhe
subject began his printout with the following
:
The first image
got at about the first minute was
of
a cement depression
...."
(Targ,
<* al.,-
1977,
p.
522)
Why the change of gender?
The Stranscripts are identical,
except
in
the latter publication "SUSAN" has ijeen deleted and "S/s" has been
typed
In.
These same two subjects are referred
to
in a
third publication as G^
an SRI systems analyst,
and S,.
(Puthoff, Tars,
and May,
1977a)
Therefore,
the first subject
is
Sg, now G,,
and
the sccohd subject
is
S ?
.
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 determine which
of
six locations
in
New York City would constitute
the
target tope visited in this experiment.
Neither
the subject nor
the experimenter
at |kl knew the contents
of
the
target
list
that was compiled just before the experiment.
Having selected
a
target location by
the random protocol,
tile experimenter would proceed
directly
to
the site and remain there
for
fifteen minutes."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1977b,
p.
7)
If
this is
the case,
the targft list would have to have been
compiled rather rapidly since "At
the previously agreed-upon start time
(one half-hour after breaking computer
links)
the subject typed impressions
..
(Targ, Of al..
1977 ,
p.
521)
This meant
that
the
target person would have
to
prepare a list, make
a selection,
and stiuiget
to
the chosen
target within
half an hour.
The Washington Sguare transciipt was begun at "1352-PDT"
and
therefore was at
the beginning of
the rush hour
(4:54 PM)
in New York City.
149
Approved For Release 2003/04/^1
om&nmga
^CvULl
SPP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
00791 R0001 00440001 -9
(Targ,
et at.
,
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 at.
,
1977,
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
targets
in addition
to Grant's Tomb
were a railroad’ bridge ,
the 20-story New Yorjt University law library,
the
. fountain
in Washington Square Park,
the Columbia University subway station,
and
the
72nd
Street basin
..."?
(Puthoff
arid Targ,
1977b,
p.
8)
The same
list
of
targets
is used
for both experiments
and, therefore,
cannot be
"...
compiled after logging off
..."
in both
cases.
(A-
It
is
interesting
to note
that
the
targets
fall into three general areas:
the New York University law campus
is
at Washington Square;
Grant's Tomb
and
the Columbia University subway station
lfje 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
ftoo sets
of
targets.
The location
of
the railroad bridge
is
unspecified.
The second
target, Washington Square
fountain,
is
in the opposite direction from the first,
d—
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.
^
150
Approved For Release 2003/n'lfifUfjyriDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: 0^^^-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
The second
target, Washington Square fountain, was viewed by only one
subject,
S^.
The transcript
is
included in both publications.
(Targ,
et at.
,
1977,
p.
524;
Puthoff and Targ,
1977b)
The subject,
however,
is not finished
after
the first transcription is made:
"In a more detailed tape recording
made after
the experiment,
but before any feedback
,
the subject described
’cement
steps going into the depression,
liRh
a stadium,
and
the rounded edge
of the
top
of
the depression as you go up
to
1 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 hps
left the target?
Although they do not appear on the transcript,
apparently
the experimenter
with the subject does ask questions
of
the subject during
the
transcription:
"...
only declarative statements spontaneously generated by the subject,
or
responses
to direct questions are used
for the quantitative analysis."
(Targ
et at.,
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
(Targ
et al.
,
1977,
p.
522)
What kinds
of
questions does
the experimenter
ask? V~
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
THE CENTER OR INSIDE.
THERE SEEMED TO BE 1 IGEONS OFF TO
THE RIGHT,
FLYING
AROUND THE SURFACE OUT OF THE DEPRESSION.
! THEN
I SAW AS
IF IFIF
IN THE
DISTANCE A REAL STADIUM WITH GRASS
IN THE CENTER AND PERHAPS STADIUM LIGHTS.
151
eroDSI—
Approved For Release 2003/04rtf?^WRPP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 :CMpMgB-00791R00010044000 1-9
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
WAIIT
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.
0Mind-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
..." and goes on to describe
the dry
fountain.
This apparently must be another image or
an answer
to
a question
from the experimenter.
£/**
The' subject
is
also qpite 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
BJIASED AS TO PARK MEMORIES."
(Targ,
et at.
,
1977,
p.
524)
Is
fountain in Riverside Park that might possibly fit
this description?
^
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
....
(Targ,
et at .,
1977,
p.
521)
If
a subject
is using a tape-recorder,
then
152
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CJA^^||^91R00010044000 1-9
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."
IIow 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
of 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."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1977b,
p.
2)
When does
the subject,
during
the long-distance experiments actually transcribe?
The use of
the
153
Approved For Release 2003/Q#tttaS^RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RC
I R0001 00440001 -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"
...
"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 Puthoff 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."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1976b,
p.
346),
one questions why
this
technique would be encouraged.
(
-
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
siiape
....
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 development
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-RDP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: CIAggj||^0791 R0001 00440001 -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
,
n
of their "Protocol."
»
At the end of
the transcript,
the subject states:
"I SURE DO LIKR THE
TELETYPE.
IT CAH BECOME M OBSESSIVE PASTTIME,
I
SEE).
This
is followed
by:
THAT WAS MESSAGE 6."
(Targ,
et at.
,
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
5! UL-
"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
")
"...
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/(^1
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CI>^^||^g^91R0001 00440001 -9
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
522) ^
In their Table
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
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 37%
of
the response would typically apply.
Although
crude,’ this subjective analysis serves
as
a first step
in suggesting
a method
for
further single transcript analysis."
(Targ,
et at .,
1977,
pp.
522-523) u
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
S
?
.
Does
the statement
that
"...
if
the data are matched against other target sites,
only
37%
of
the response would typically apply."
(Targ,
et at.,
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.
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
is
able to see the houses, why
is
there no
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
00791 R0001 00440001 -9
158
I
I
ft
ft
ft
ft
I
K
I
I
t
ft
ft
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 |,rGKMWP96-00791R0001 00440001 -9
K ILL
TABLE
9.
(continued)
TARGET CHARACTERISTIC
SUBJECT'S RESPONSE
SCORE
CORRESPONDENCE
6.
Rows
of houses, picket
'a row of houses/a
;
Houses with iron fences
fence
picket fence'
11.
Heavy worn metal
12.
Separation between
two different areas
13. You were opening a
cellophane bag
15 .
Rectangular wooden
frame
...
on a
building
16.
Riverside Park,
tracks and play
area
' a clear feeling of
the heavy, worn metal
bar on the top
of
typical NYC or any
city fences
' separation between
tweo two similar
areas
'you were opening a
cellophane bag'
' looking out onto the
surface outside'
'rectangular wooden
Could be the arch
frame,
a window frame'
'wasn't sure if
it was
on a building,
or
a
similar structure with
different purpose'
'you were
in Riverside
Play area nearby
Park near a track and
play area'
'more park scenes'
'looking up at
'rock
and leaf'
cliffs'
Copper posts in fountain
In and out of fountain
Yes
mean = 6.8
CORRESPONDENCE
TO YANKEE STADIUM
SCORE
Yes , nearby
Yes, bar /railings
Yes,
field and
seating areas
Yes
Could be related
to basic structure
Partial
- track and
play area correct
mean = 6.9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1^Ali^Biifi£-00791 R0001 00440001 -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."
"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
at.
,
1977,
p.
523)
This subject
is also referred
to as
in another
publication
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1977a)
and by name in
the
other. (Puthoff and
Targ,
1977b)
^
As
Sg had been residing
in New York and
S^ apparently in California,
one wonders why
S^
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."
U.
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/#? CIAtRDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-1
791 R0001 00440001 -9
sort
of information as
to
the length of
time
is would
take
to return:
"We
also agreed to
call again at 3:00 PM EDT to Obtain Subject
4's impressions
m
and to provide feedback as
to the actual target."
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
523) 1/^
"A second subject
(S
) working by himself
at
SRI, who had agreed
in
O
advance
to participate
in
the same experiment by time and date, was
less
successful with
the cavern target."
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
523)
This
subject
is also referred
to
as
in another publication
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1911a.)
and omitted from the
third. (Puthoff
and Targ,
1977b)
If
the experiment was done on the spur
qf
the moment,
after arrival,
hence necessitating a call
to
S.
:
"...
both SRI experimenters, while visiting
U'
in Ohio,
agreed
to take part
...",
how,
at
the same time,
could
a date and
time be pre-set with another
subject?
"A sedond subject
.
.
.
had agreed
in
advance
...
by date and time
...."
(Puthoff
,'
! et at.,
1978,
p.
523)
A quick look at
a standard road map
of
cjhio reveals
that both
the
Ohio Caverns and
the Air Force Museum are notfed in red lettering in the
Springfield/Dayton area.
There are few othef places
of interest
shown.
"This subject erroneously interpreted early impressions
as associated with
a museum.
As
a result the majority of his
transcript,
although containing
some correct elements,
reflects .primarily an lincorrect analytical interpretation
i
!
and cannot be said
to constitute evidence
foij paranormal functioning."
(Targ,
et at.
,
1977,
p.
523)
|
In the transcript itself several images are presented:
"...
something
to do with underground caves
or mines
or deep
j shafts
...
nuclear
or some
very far out and possibly secret installation
.
.
.
corridors
.
.
. whole under-
ground city
.
.
.
arbor-like shaft
et at.
,
1977,
p.
523)
These
images
are described in more detail:
"...
some electric humming
...
inner
Approved For Release 2003/04/lfc°£JA«gDP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA
throbbing*... man helped nature
...
vines
(Wisteria)
growing in arch
...
darker earth
.
.
.
cool moist passage
.
.
.
bank of elevators
...
a very man-made
steel wall
...
shaft-like inverted silo
...j brightly lit
"
(Targ,
et at.,
I
1977,
p.
523) ^
Targ, Puthoff,
and May state:
"As
if
(is)
often the
case,
one observes
I
that
the basic gestalt of
the target site
i£ cognized and even experienced —
e.g.,
the underground caves aspect, while specifics are misinterpreted — e.g.,
the labeling
of' the location as
a nuclear installation."
(Targ, et at.,
1977,
p.
525)
Enough elements are included in the description that
it
could apply
to either type
of
target,
and therefore be called successful.
The image
presented actually might apply
to an imagined perception of an underground
installation,
rather than a cave.
A—".
The
final two experiments
in this series were carried out between New
Orleans and California,
one in each direction.
"The first experiment
in this series involved Subject
in New Orleans
viewing activities
of
a group of
three people known
to the subject,
at
a
location in a Palo Alto/Menlo Park area 2000 miles away."
(Targ,
et
cCl .,
1977,
p.
525)
The
title under
the corresponding picture reads:
"REMOTE
VIEWING EXPERIMENT - NEW ORLEANS TO PALO ALTO,
30 OCTOBER 1976."
(Targ, et at.
1977,
p.
527)
However,
in
the other publication,
the following
is stated:
"During an extensive cross-country trip
s
we arranged
to conduct
two experiment
between New Orleans and Menlo Park,
California,
one each way
....
For
the
first experiment
(subject
in Menlo Park)
..." and
"the most recent
...
involved
a subject in New Orleans
"
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
Which did come first?
The picture corresponding
to
this
target
is labelled:
"LONG DISTANCE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT - SRI, MENLO PARK,
TO LOUISIANA
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8 ^A-RDPSB-OOTSIROOOI 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
:
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
SUPER DOME.
SUBJECT DESCRIBED LARGE CIRCULAR 'BUILDING. 31 OCTOBER 1976."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
12)
The picture of
the other target,
used
in the Louisiana to Palo Alto experiment
is dated:
"NEW ORLEANS TO PALO
ALTO,
30 OCTOBER 1976."
Therefore, although the pictures
in both publications
are labelled with the same dates,
the text indicates both of
these experiments
as
the
first.
C^L.
The experiments
"... were carried out with the
two subjects who had
participated
in- the New York-Caiifornia experiments."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b
p.
11)
In
the earlier publication there are no direct references
to subject's
identity other than by gender:
"...
the subject
in Menlo Park would
tape record
his
impressions
....
He also expressed feelings
...."
(Puthoff
and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
"The most recent experiment in this
series
involved
a subject
in New Orleans viewing activities
of
a group
of
three people known
to her,
at
a location in the Palo Alto /Menlo Park area
...
She reported
...."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
The other publication
is more specific:
"The first experiment involved
in New Orleans
..."
and "During
this
time,
Sg in Menlo Park
...."
(Targ,
et at.
,
1977,
;p.
526)
S^
identified earlier
as
Susan,
"The second subject,
a medical student
..."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
8)
(and
as
S^)
apparently was taken on "...
an extensive cross-country
trip
..."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
so that
she could participate
in this one experiment.
This subject,
although serving
in the New York City
experiments,
did not participate in the Ohio experiment
. U'
Subject
Sg, who earlier was
"the first subject,
an SRI systems analyst
...
and G^ participated in one of
the
two New York City targets
(Grant's Tomb)
and
the Ohio experiment as
"... A second subject
(Sg) working by himself
at SRI
...
(Targ,
et at.,
1977,
p.
525)
If he
is used at
this
time
as
a subject and
162
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ^
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
J
96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
participated in the Ohio experiment, why didn't he participate
in the second
New York experiment?
tA-
The targets
for
these two experiments were chosen in the following manner
"The target chosen by randomised entry into :a New Orleans guidebook list was
the Louisiana Super Dome."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
The selection
of the targets
is made on the following basis:
"The methodology with regard
to
target selection again was designed
to eliminate possible cueing paths.
Targets were determined either by random-number generator entry into
a
previously prepared
target list unknown
to subject and experimenters
...."
(Puthoff,
et at.,
1977,
p.
521)
In
these experiments,
the
target selection,
by another person and maintained
unknown
to
the experimenters
in accordance with the standardized protocol
(Appendix B),
was done quite differently.
Apparently
the division director
stopped handling
the target pool sometime during
the local series
as
the
following
is
stated:
"The target
team is assigned
their target location by
an independent experimenter
(Targ, et at.
,
1977,
p.
519)
since this
is
in reference
to the earlier work with Price and Hammid.
The independent
experimenter,
also called monitor
"...
then obtains sealed traveling orders
from a monitor
...."
(Targ,
** a l.
,
1977, p.519)
In
the opening paragraph
of Cole's
transcript
the following
is reported:
"...
PHYLLIS COLE
IS
THE
REMOTE VIEWER, AND RUSS TARG
IS THE MONITOR
(Mind-Reach,
p.
104 )
Is
Targ now the monitor,
target selector,
and experimenter?
S
g made
two drawings
of
the
Super Dome.
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
12)
One
is
a front view and
the other an aerial view.
The handwriting
on the
aerial view looks similar
to that
on
the San Andres,
Columbia airport drawing.
0Mind-Reach
,
p.
12)
Although we profess no expertise in
this, area,
a comparison
163
Approved For Release 2003/1
DP96-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: ClA-RDF®6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
might be in order.
Note the words
"grass" and "cement".
The subject's quoted descriptions vary within both publications.
Under
the drawings and pictures,
the following appears:
'"A ROUND GOLD RIM AROUND
A SUNKEN DEPRESSION'
...
'IN THE SURFACE OF THE DEPRESSION THERE
IS
SOME
KIND OF FAKE CHINA FLOWERS.
IT'S LIKE A BONSAI TREE MUSHROOMING OUT OF
THE SURFACE.'"
This
is quoted in the text
as:
"Her principal impression
was
of a "overhang
of
a building over
their heads ...
.
also
a round gold rim
around
a sunken- depression.'
The
target,
a bank building
is shown in Figure
10.
Principal features
of
the
target include
a dramatic building overhang
and
a rectangular concrete depression with a fountain in which
the water
comes out
of
a circular gold
rim.
The subject also reported
'some kind of
fake china flowers mushrooming out of
the depression.
'
There were four
orange lamps mounted on the gold rim."
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p.
11)
The pictures used
to depict
this
target are two close-ups,
one shot
from the
side showing
the
two experimenters throwing something and showing
only
the lower portion of
the building.
The pool
is apparently off
to one
side so that only one upper corner appears.
The other photo
is
a close-up
of
the fountain within the pool and what appears
to be a circular metal
piece that contains
the jet-type, water outlets and four spot
lights
beneath the metal piece.
The pool
is
tiled.
Finally,
she reported
'there was
a projectile coming toward David
(one of the outbound experimenters).
Like
a ball or frisbee,
as
if Elizabeth
(another experimenter)
has tossed him a ball.'
Actually
the experimenters
had found a paper airplane lying on the ground and had thrown
it back and
forth for some period
of
time.
In fact,
the photo
of
the site taken at
the
time
of
the experiment shows
the airplane between them.
This
is
one
of
the
164
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
1-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 20.03/04/1
6-00791 R0001 00440001 -9
few times
that
a remote viewing: subject has perceived rapid motion at
the
target
site.'.'
(Puthoff and Targ,
1977b,
p. ID
"R9:
All blind judging, matching,
and statistical evaluation of
the
results
(which is where the scientific issues are decided)
are completed
before photographs are taken
(Targ, at at.,
1977,
p.
"In short,
at all times, we and others responsible for the overall program
took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing and to prevent
deception, whether intentional or unintentional.
To ensure evaluations
independent of belief structures
of both experimenters and Judges, all
experiments were carried out under a protocol in which target selection at
the beginning of experiments and Judging of insults at the end of
the
experiments were handled independently of
the researchers engaged in carrying
out the experiments.
In five years of self, and other-criticism,
we have
not found
a way to fault either
the experimental protocols or
the conclusions
derived therefrom."
(Targ, et at.,
1977, pp.
528 529) k—
Yet,
two
of
the experimenters at this target site sere "David"
and
"Elizabeth"
.
Puthoff
and Targ acknowledge her contribution in a footnote:
"He wish to acknowledge
the technical contributions
of Elizabeth A.
Rauscher,
a consultant on leave from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who has done
extensive research on physical theories relevant
to psi functioning
;
in
particular, work on multidimensional geometries.
(Puthoff and Targ,
p.
13)
She
is also mentioned' in another publication:
"The extradimensional
hypothesis
is based on the ideas of Targ, Puthoff,
and Hay
(SRI)
,
G.
Feinburg
(Columbia University),
and E. Rauscher
(University
of California Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory)
...."
(Puthoff, a* at.,
1978,
p.
19)
Rauscher,
at at.
(1976)
also report an experiment in remote,viewing which will be described
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
0791 R0001 00440001 -9
00791 R0001 00440001 -9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
later.
The experiment showed negative results.
Although the results were
negative,
the subject apparently described
the previous day's
target on the
following day
in at least three sessions..
"The first target showed
a strong
resemblence
to
the subject's descriptions during
the second session and
the
second target seemed
to be related
to
the
<
- >
third session."
(p.
43)
"""
This same type
of reporting can be seen
ect's descriptions during the
D^.
In his drawing,
he
includes- the building
n the description for Visitor
he had seen the day before.
"He also described seeing a building that
is :not at
the
target
site.
This
sort
of superposition of erroneous
imagery on otherwise accurate descriptions
:
!
is
a common occurrence
. ..."
(Puthoff and Tdfg,
1977b,
p.
6)
If
this
is
a common occurrence, how easy
it would be to use
those
(previous
day's)
transcripts as
the transcript for
the
(current day's)
target.
The
transcripts
are randomized and handed
to
a judge.
The order
in which the
experiments are run has been misreported in several cases.
Swann's Palo
Alto City Hall
is listed as
the first
target ;but
is actually his second
as he refers
to "miniature golf course from yesterday?"
on his
drawing.
(Mind-Reach )
The same reversal
is seen in
tlie reporting
of Elgin's
first
two transcripts.
The BART station
is reported
as his second target
in one
publication
(Targ and Puthoff,
1975)
and
as his
first
in Mind-Reach
(p.
80).
Price mentions
the marina in his seventh trariscript
of Allied Arts
and the
marina
is
the fourth target,
although
it appears
to be quite vivid
to him.
"They don't feel
as
far away.
I'd say that
it
is about
~ not half
the
distance
they were
to
the marina
...."
{Mind-Reach,
p.
65)
To carry over
a feeling after
the use of
two other
targets jiB quite remarkable.
166
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA^RDE
-00791 R0001 00440001 -9