Approved For Release 2003/0«idfPAREEDE 96-00791R000100440001-9 Critical Evaluation: Local Targets "The observation of such unexpectedly high-quality descriptions early in our program is what provided the motivation for the large-scale three-year SRI study of remote viewing under secure double-blind conditions (i.e., target unknown to experimenters as well as subjects)." The "... early experiments were useful in establishing the existence of remote viewing as a real phenomenon, but were unsatisfactory as a vehicle for investigating the phenomenon from a scientific standpoint. What was needed was a protocol involving local targets that... [would] ... eliminate the possibility of target acquisition by ordinary means .... Finally, a - random target selection procedure and a blind judging (matching) of results would have to be handled independent of the researchers carrying out the experiments. Such procedures would have to be meticulously developed and rigorously followed to safeguard against charges of naivete in protocol which might permit cueing or, worse, charges of fraud and collusion .... After considerable discussion within SRI and consultation with interested scientists outside SRI, we designed an experimental protocol that promised to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by the belief structures of either the experimenters or’ the judges." (Targ and Puthoff, Mind Reach, 1977, pp. 34-35) The protocol developed to meet these guidelines was then applied to the experiments conducted with local San Francisco Bay area targets. This protocol, its consistency of application, and its possible flaws then constitute the fundamental bases -of evaluation of the SRI research. In the following pages we examine these bases in detail, by components of the 55 Approved For Release 200 ORR R ea F98-00791 R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/044sifsREFiz96-00791R000100440001-9 protocol, beginning with subjects, and progressing through order of experimentation, experimenters, target persons ("outbound experimenters"), target pool, target selection, subject orientation, experimenter behavior, target person behavior, and judging. Subjects. Although Puthoff and Targ had originally planned to use three types of subjects--gifted, learners and controls--time restrictions limited them to the use of only two of these categories--gifted and learners. A third category was added later~-unselected volunteers. The criteria for the selection of the gifted versus the learners were as follows: (1) "Gifted": "Three experimental paradigms were chosen to act as . sereening tests on the basis that these tests had been useful for such purposes prior to this program (in the sense that certain apparently gifted individuals did exceedingly well on at least one of the tests, whereas the results of unselected volunteers did not differ significantly ‘from chance expectation). ‘The tests are (a) remote viewing of natural targets, (b) reproduction of simple line drawings hidden from the subject but viewed by an experimenter, and (c) determination of the state of a four-state electronic random stimulus generator .... For the purpose of screening, the criteria as to what constitutes a paranormal result was chosen arbitrarily, viz: For the purpose of screening a result is to be paranormal if the a prtort probability for the occurrence of the result by chance, under the null hypothesis, is p < 107°," (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, pp, 14-16) JD Three subjects were chosen: Pat Price, Duane Elgin and Ingo Swann. Pat Price (S,):. This subject was chosen on the basis of his remote viewing ability: "... the caller was a businessman and a former police commissioner at Burbank I (H.P.) had met briefly a few years earlier." 56 Approved For Release ie ; CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 me RAREED0791R000100440001-9 (Mind Reach, pe 47) "... who felt he used his remote viewing ability in 5 his everyday life and in his past work as a police commissioner." (Targ and = , Puthoff, 1976, p. 34), and who "... came to us with a reported history of spontaneous remote viewing experiences." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1978, — S- p- 519) In another reference, it is stated quite differently: "... two of our subjects (H.H. and P.P.) had not considered themselves to have an usual ability before their participation in these experiments." (Targ and Puthoff, . 1975, p. 151) Puthoff and Targ also state: ''Furthermore, Price was not a professional psychic, which opened up the prospect that perhaps there were many individuals potentially capable of remote viewing." (Mind Reach, 1977, A p. 56) Price, however, despite the conflicting statements above, was selected on the basis of his "... ability to describe correctly buildings, docks ... " which "... indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability." (Puthoff£ and tare, 1976b, p-. 335) Although Puthoff and Targ feel that Price shows evidence of remote perceptual ability they also indicate: "it was clear to us as we went along that the results being generated were of superior quality .... (Mind Reach, p. 56) Does this imply that prior ‘results were not superior? lA Duane Elgin (S,): This subject was selected on the basis of his work . with the four-state random stimulus generator. Some confusion, however, seems to exist as to whether or not he was actually screened on the basis of the NASA screening study: "... we decided to extend our investigations to include the two outstanding (ordinary) subjects who had been uncovered in a broad-based screening experiment including 147 volunteer subjects. \,-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 Approved For Release 2003/04/18
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CTR Ea7 91 R000100440001-9 The subjects for this experiment were an SRI scientist, Mr. D.E., and a professional photographer, Ms. H.H." (farg and Puthoff, 1975, p. 155) Puthoff and Targ further state: "Mr. Elgin from Stanford Research Institute is the one who worked with the teaching machine through the entire year. He maintained high scores, in both the pre-test and the post-test, at a level of 10° ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 173) & In a different publication, discussing the same study: "In the exploratory and screening phases of the experiment, a total of 147 subjects, we identified six subjects who had a postive slope significant at the P = .01 level or better .... Excluding these six subjects, we found that the slopes of the remaining 141 subjects appeared to be normally distributed .... It should be noted that two subjects (not among the six who showed jearning) had significantly high scores over their total testing period. One had a mean run score of 30.50 over 1400 trials, an occurrence with a binomial probability of 2x 10°, The other had a mean run score of 29.57 over 2800 trials with a binomial probability of less than 107°, (Targ and Cole, 1975, pp. 28-29) Could one of these subjects be Elgin? A&A "Elgin simply began by scoring high at the beginning of the experiment and continued at the same rate throughout" (Mind Reach, 1977, pp. 27-28), so he cannot be considered to be one of the subjects who showed learning. "Of the 147 volunteer subjects, six were identified whose learning performance was significant at the 0.01 level or better .... In our report we took these preliminary findings to indicate that there is evidence for paranormal functioning from our work with the ESP teaching machine. This evidence includes one subject who achieved scores at the p < 10° level of significance in his 2800 trials." “ 58 . Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 —_SLOR ET
Approved For Release 2003/0 4a@QRPREIRAN 6-00791R000100440001-9 In another source, two subjects’ results are reported for the exploratory phase of the NASA study. "Subject 2 had a mean score of 30.50 over 1400 trials and had a learning curve of .714.". (Gardner, 1975, p. 115) These two subjects, however, are not SRI employees. wo 7. yy fpr? Following the exploratory phase, eleven subjects were retested with the addition of a teletype to record the results. Results fell to chance under these conditions. Additional work then continued with six subjects: "Only one subject was able to replicate his original performance. Over 2500 trials his mean score of 27.88 had a binomial probability of 4.19 x 107*” At his request, this subject was permitted a few clearly demarcated daily practice sessions." (Targ and Cole, 1975, p. 29) Ww This, however, does not yet qualify Elgin as "... the policy research ~6n on the basis that he analyst who was a high scoring subject p < 10 supposedly is not one of the two subjects used in the exploratory phase and other than those two subjects, none have results meeting that criterion. The remote viewing subjects were also asked to work with the random stimulus generator. In discussing these experiments, "we asked Elgin to participate in another replication experiment. This time the mechanical recording device was removed altogether, but at the price of being under continuous surveillance by an experimenter who would record the scores after each twenty-five trial run .... Elgin was permitted ‘freebie’ practice .... Elgin did regain a high scoring rate ... this time significant at odds 2,000:1 veel (Mind Reach, p. 128) And "At a later time, subject S) was asked to repeat the entire experiment, and he was able to replicate successfully a high meaning score (27.88/100 trial average p = 4.8 x 107." (Sponsor memo) Although Puthoff and Targ show inconsistency in their 59. Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 sean
| tt Approved For Release 2003/04/1 *apeineey-00791 R000100440001-9 reporting of the results, Elgin has been identified as the same subject reported in the other source, lA Why, however, do Targ and Cole neglect to include what is reported as earlier work with Elgin: "Data was collected from subjects Sy - S6 wee For the six subjects, only one (S.) scored significantly above chance. For the 2500 trials that subject averaged 29.36 hits/100 trials ...p=3% 107’. (Sponsor memo) Why is Elgin's replication study reported as his third: "Elgin did regain a high scoring rate during this third experiment, this time significant at odds of 2,000:1 ...." (Mind-Reach, 1970, p. 128) Elgin, it should be recalled, worked with the teaching machine for over a year, beginning, therefore, during the summer of 1973. Was Elgin one of the subjects discussed in the exploratory phase of the NASA study? A It should be noted that Puthoff and Targ comment: "We had a more difficult time finding a third eubject to go with Pat and Ingo." (Mind-Reach, p. 70) despite the fact that one of the screening criteria was the determina- tion of the state of a four-state electronic random stimulus generator especially since "In our report, we took these findings to indicate that there is evidence for paranormal functioning with the ESP teaching machine." (Mind-Reach, p. 180) LEN Ingo Swann (S,): Swann apparent ly was selected on the basis of his remote viewing capabilities: "We have found two individuals - Swann was the first - capable of such a high degree of remote viewing .... (Mind-Reach, p-. 56), although this is somewhat qualified elsewhere: ... Subject 3 is tentatively classed as gifted in remote viewing ...." (SRI Progress Report, "! . August 1974) This, however, is not what was first reported: to three subjects. screened in other programs as being gifted in the area of paranormal 60 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
’ Approved For Release :2003/04/1 2s “OPGRidag.0079" R000100440001-9 perception. They are Mr. Patrick H. Price, screened for remote viewing ability, Mrs. Hella Hammid, screened for EEG correlates to remote stimuli, and Mr. Duane Elgin, screened for high scoring response to a random target generator." (SRI Progress Report, 3/3/74, p. 3) One wonders why Puthoff and Targ changed their minds concerning their subjects, and Swann is S included as ' ‘sifted and Hammid becomes a "learner". (2) "Learners": Originally, Puthof£ and Targ had planned to use three categories of subjects: gifted, learners, and controls. Due to time restrictions, they decided to combine the learner and control groups since " ... the distinction between learners and controls was arbitrary in comparison between these categories and that of gifted subjects (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. iy) gifted subjects having been defined as having done well on the random stimulus generator, the line drawing tests, or in remote viewing. The criterion, however, is represented a little differently elsewhere: "The a prtori dichotomy between gifted and learners was based on the experienced group having been successful in other studies conducted before this program and the learners group being inexperienced with regard to paranormal preception." (Puthoff and Tare, 1976b, p. 335) ‘This criterion is even further defined: "Since we could hot pretest our subjects without violating the intention of the experiments, our criterion for selection of inexperienced participants was simply to choose intelligent, cheery, agreeable people with whom we would enjoy working." (Mind-Reach, p. 70) Hella Hammid, Marshall Pease, and Phyllis Cole were chosen. w Hella Hammid (S,): Hammid is classified as a learner despite the fact that "She was selected ... on the basis of her successful performance as a percipient in the EEG experiment ...."  (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336) Approved For Release 2003/04/ P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ Ppa EME,?6-00791R000100440001-9 " .. three subjects screened in other programs as being gifted in the area of paranormal perception ... Mrs. Hella Hammid ..." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, p. 3)"and, "., we decided’ to. extend our investigations to include two outstanding (ordinary) subjects who had been uncovered in a broad-based screening experiment ... Mr. D.E., and ... Ms. HE." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 155) &W _Although Hammid had been successful in the EEG program, she is reported to have ".,.. no strong feelings about the likelihood of her ability ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336) One must also take into account that though she undoubtedly fit the description of being cheerful, intelligent, and agreeable, she was also a friend: "I (R.T.) had known Hella for more than a dozen years ...." (Mind-Heach, p. 73) Having known Hammid for more than a dozen years, speculation leads one to wonder if Hammid is the "she" that was such a successful subject in his earlier work with the ESP teaching machine, &’ | | Marshall Pease (S.): Little is known about this subject other than he is a member of the SRI professional staff. &W Phyllis Cole (S_): This subject is also with SRI, a mathematician in the computer science laboratory. As will be seen later, Cole is not only a subject, but also an experimenter, “ -From the above, it is apparent that the second test to be used for screening of subjects was never used,. Under 1b. (SRI Progress Report, August 1974)? experimentation is reported in progress. The only other known line drawing experiments are those conducted with Geller. One is.led to speculate that the furor caused by Puthoff and Targ's reports of their early work with Geller led Puthoff and Targ to eliminate this subject. 62 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 a
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 sSpeReres-00791 R000100440001-9 Reports on the Geller work also. show inconsistencies. LW (3) . Unselected volunteers (Vi> Vo)! "Our observation that apparently everyone can experience remote viewing was a particularly hard-won truth which emerged from our efforts to handle the following problem ... no matter how miraculous the result of an ESP demonstration, an observer often tries to discount it as a lucky day, or is convinced later by a skeptical colleague that he is mistaken, deceived, or both ..... Fortunately, we evolved a simple way to remedy. the mistake-or-deception problem: by a frontal assault. In a word, the only way to be sure that an observer has seen something psychic tt is to have him do it himself-- ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 6) Hence, ‘our skeptical government scientist agreed to be a subject in a series of three of our standard remote viewing experiments." (Mind-Reach, 1977, p. 6) and "Many scientists from the government and elsewhere have visited .... Our second visitor ...." (Mind-Reach, 1977, p. 88) WW Order of Experimentation. Prior to the actual demonstration-of-ability experiments, mock experiments to facilitate learning are performed. These consist of the subject in the Laboratory attempting to remote view while the target person, with the use of a walkie-talkie connection with the laboratory- bound experimenter provides immediate feedback of the target to the subject. Since it is difficult at times to separate the order in which a ‘subject is used in these two types of experiments, both types will be dealt with at the same time. Each subject will be discussed separately. WA (1) Pat Price (S,): Price's series of nine experiments was the first to be completed from all reports in the publications dealing with remote viewing of local targets. It is reported that one mock experiment was carried out with this subject although no details are given. (SRI Progress 63 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : a R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : Gink AME e-00791R000100440001-9 Report, August 1974) © (2) Duane Elgin (So)? One might logically assume that subjects were run in numerical order. Experimentation apparently was underway following the Price series: "Experimentation is in progress with subjects 2 and 4, q two transcripts having been obtained from each to date." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974) In addition, in August 1974, it was reported: 'Based on the results of the Price experiments, we decided to extend our investi- gations to include the two outstanding ordinary subjects ..., The subjects for this experiment were ... Mr. D. E, ..,. and Ms, HH. wo, (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) we Confusion exists, however, when one finds "Having completed 22 remote viewing experiments ... 9 each with Pat and Hella, and four with Ingo ... we therefore decided to do four experiments.with each of the remaining subjects ...," (Mind-Reach,. p. 80) w Confusion also exists when it is reported: "In Duane's first try, the outbound experimenters were sent .., to the Bay Area Rapid (BART) Station ween (Mind-Reach, p. 80), when in another source, it is reported that of the four experiments conducted with Elgin and Hammid, the first of which is Hammid'st "In the second experiment, the experimenter (Phyllis Cole) was led by the throw of a die to a shielded room ,,." and "In a third trial, the experi- menters .,. went to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station ve.) (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, pp. 156-158), In all publications, BART is listed as Elgin's first experiment, the shielded room second, A 64 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 semtpetr ee pre"00791 R000100440001-9 (3) Ingo Swann (S,)% . Swann, the originator of the entire experiment and whose remote viewing abilities have been so successful prior to the remote viewing of local targets, apparently is not used until later in the series. Although referred to as the first subject in one publication: "... a second subject in the remote viewing program, Mr. Pat Price ..." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, p. 14), Swann somehow becomes 53° S Although it is stated "Having completed twenty-two remote-viewing experiments-nine each with Pat and Hella, and four with Ingo wee! (Mind- Reach, p. 80), it is otherwise reported. Having completed a series of 18 remote viewing experiments ... 9 each with experienced Sy (Price) and 5, ‘((Hammid), additional replication experiments, four with each S, were carried out ... S, (Elgin) and S. (Swann)." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 338) At the time Elgin's experiments are reported in Targ and Puthoff (1975), Swann is not mentioned. In addition, Swann's drawing of Palo Alto City Hall (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, Figure 7, p. 340) is dated "13 November 1974." Puthoff and Targ verify this: "the quality of transcript that can be generated ... is most evident from the results of our most recent experiment with Swann. The target location chosen ... was the Palo Alto City Hall." (Puthof£ and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) & This experiment incidentally is listed first in all publications, even _ though on his drawing of this target “miniature. golf course from yesterday?" (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 340), appears and the miniature golf course appears as the second listed target. Swann, however, ends his stay at SRI in August 1973: "The end of the summer brought to an end our eight month program with Ingo Swann. He had not only introduced us to paranormal functioning of a caliber we had not 65 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : GLB Ren panon721Ro00100440001-9 expected, but also defined the role of co-worker and contributor." (Mind- Reach, p. 45) W By March of 1974, Swann was in New York City: ".,, after Swann had returned to New York City, he and Sherman carried out a similar experiment ‘to probe mercury ... the experiment was carried out on the evening of March. Li, 1974 ... with Swann in New York ....'' (Mind-Reach, p. 211) iw He is also in New York on September 27, 1974 for the abacus/clock experiment: "As a demonstration for a’ group of interested scientists outside SRL, we were challenged to arrive unannounced in New York City and to invite Swann over to our hotel room .... Today is Friday, September 26, 1974." (Mind-Reach, pp. 38-39) Did he return to do his series of experiments, one of which is dated. November 1B, 19742 And the "miniature golf course from yesterday?" (Mind-Reach, Pp 39 W& If he returns, then there is quite a lapse between his mock experiments and his actual demonstrat ion-of-ability teats, since his mock experiments are reported at the same time as the first two experiments with Elgin and Hammid. "We have done some experiments with walkie-talkies subsequent to this whole series we have described here ..." (the Price series). "... where we wanted to give the subject direct feedback to help him learn _— In our most recent data, with this subject and with Swann, Harold has been going to high strangeness areas ...."' (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 172) = yj Yet, as has been stated earlier, it is reported that his series of four experiments were completed after Price and Hammid and that his mock experiments were reported in an August 1974 publication along with Elgin and Hammid's first two experiments. In addition, "To complete the series, four experiments were carried out with learner subjects S. and 56 wee” ; 66. Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04 te easse26-00791 R000100440001-9 (Puthof£ and Targ, 1976b, p. 339)" Cole's first transcript is dated October 7, 1974 (Mind-Reach, p. 104) and Swann's 13 November 1974. Confusing? A In addition, it is also stated that only two mock experiments were carried out with Swann (SRI Progress Report, August 1974) and yet it is reported: "... in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to do one right after the other ...." (Targ. and Puthoff, 1975, p. 177) AS Hella Hammid (S,)3 Some confusion revolves around one particular target "the actual target building was a £ifteen-foot-high model of a little red school house at a local miniature golf course ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 75) although it 1s also placed in Redwood City (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156). In March 1974,. the following was reported: "qa preliminary remote viewing experiment was carried out .... The subject's response was that she eaw a red clapboard structure with a steeple .... Based on this result, a series of remote viewing experiments under strict protocols are planned with this subject." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74) § In August 1974, this same "preliminary remote viewing experiment" is reported as being a demonstration-of-ability experiment, and was reported with Elgin's first two experiments: "The following gives a summary of the four experiments done with the two ordinary subjects from the screening study. In the first experiment, H.H. described a... red, wooden building with a pointed roof ... the building where the experimenter, Dr. Puthoff, stood was a 4.5-meter-high caricature of a schoolhouse and niniature golf- a> (larg and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) ® Later, this same target is described quite differently: "In this particular experiment, Hella made her maiden voyage into remote viewing while standing on the roof of our engineering building. Our walkie-talkie, 67 Approved For Release 2003/ : -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/05 EARS Fe6-00791 RO00100440001-9 unlike remote viewing, doesn't operate through walls ... the tape recording of Hella's first mock experiment beings: ... HELLA: I see a little house with red, overlapping boards. It has white trim and a very pointed roof. But the whole thing feels fake, like a movie set." (Mind-Reach, pp. 74-75) tr. Note also the discrepancy in, reporting ‘a tape-recorded experiment: ".., H.H. described ... red, wooden building with a pointed roof. The building was further described as being made with ... overlapping boards and has a white trim. Furthermore, she said the ... building is empty, as though nothing is going on inside. And the whole place seems artificial like a movie set." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) “A It is also interesting to note that the walkie-talkie does, in fact, operate through walls: "the subject and two experimenters (one of whom was R.T.) are in a first-floor laboratory in building 30 at SRI... H.P. and R.T. are in two-way radio communication via walkie-talkie ...." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74) In addition, if walkie-talkies are being used and these mock experiments are for training purposes only, why tape-record them? Ww (5) Marshall Pease (S_ Jy: From all that is known, this subject was apparently tested toward the end-of the series. "To complete the series, four experiments each were carried out with learner subjects S. and S. wee (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) No mock experiments are reported for this subject. Ln (6) Phyllis Cole (S,): This subject also is tested near the end of the series. "To complete the series, four experiments were carried out with each of the two learner subjects ... Marshall Pease and Phyllis Cole." (Mind-Reach, p. 84) Although this is the way it is stated in the text, Phyllis Cole's first experiment is actually run prior to that of Swann's 68 Approved For Release rah : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ seme 96-00791 R000100440001-9 (Palo Alto City Hall (11/13/74) miniature; golf course, 11/12/74) although there is if earding -this.- "Following is the unedited transcript of the first experiment with an SRI volunteer, Phyllis Cole .... Today is Monday, October 7 ...." (6, p. 104) | (7) Unselected volunteers (Vi> V,)3 "After more than a year of following the experimental protocol ... and observing that: even inexperienced subjects generated results better than expected, we initiated a series of experiments’ to.explore further whether individuals other than putative psychics can demonstrate the remote viewing ability." (puthoté and Targ, 1976b, p. 340) ~~ | It is worthwhile to stop and consider the use of the word "putative" meaning commonly accepted or supposed, reputed, assumed to exist or to have existed, applied to individuals who are also considered "learners". It should be noted that the use of this word is removed from other publications. The other element to be noted is that if these. experiments with unselected volunteers began more than a year after inexperienced subjects generated better than expected results, then the inexperienced subjects were tested prior to November 1973. The third target for vy is dated November 8, 1974. (Mind-~Reach, Figure 2, De 9) If Puthoff and Targ actually began using unselected subjects one year after the inexperienced subjects were tested, why weren't their data published? Price's data are not published until October 1974 although it had been submitted.for publication on March ll, 1974. See Targ and Puthoff, 1974 (p. 607). The experiments, five in number are conducted with "... a man and a woman ..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, pp. 340- 341) although these two people are both referred.to as being male in other publications. 69 Approved For Release pa : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9