Approved For Release rene abate 88-0079" R000100440001-9 By> Sy > and 5, were considered experienced subjects with previous paranormal accomplishments, while $ " S., and S. were "learners. 4? "5 6 were female, while the others were male. Similarly, S) and 3 5 6 the Stanford White Plaza, "came up" for both subjects, so the two transcripts The results for $. and S. are indicated in Table 4 also. One target, were judged together. [How this target "came up" that way, or why it was not replaced, is not mentioned. Note that, in the original protocol statement, targets were to-be sampled without replacement (Puthoff, 1974, August Progress Report); yet, clearly this target was sampled wtth replacement. Note also that the double transcript provided more potential information for that target than for any other in this series. It was correctly judged. ] S As indicated in Table 4, the results for these subjects, taken together, failed to reach statistical significance, p = .08. | Subjects V5 and Vo. Five experiments were done with these two visitors, as indicated in Table 4. The reason for these studies is that "After more than a year of following the experimental protocol described above and observing that even inexperienced subjects generated results better than expected, we initiated a series of experiments to explore further whether | individuals other than putative 'psychics' can demonstrate the remote~viewing ability. To test this idea, we have a continuing program to carry out additional experiments of the outdoor type with new subjects whom we have no a prtori reason to believe have paranormal perceptual ability." (Puthoff d . p vl Cete e hs, os os ble for nght £ and Targ, 1976, p. 340) xa on fee pape ee 0 For Vis the quality of response was ‘fed’ to increase with practice. His response to this target, the Merry-Go-Round, was considered to be a close match. (It was judged correctly, as shown in Table 4. It was also used previously with S,+) | 50 Approved For Release ieee R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 — R000100440001-9 Subject V aw 9 was considered to generate one of the higher signal-to-noise responses obtained, on his first attempt. (This target, the windmill, had been previously used for 8... It was judged correctly for subject Vy+) 5 The results for V, and Vo combined were statistically significant, p = 0.017 (actually 0.018 as we calculate it). ed The authors conclude that observations with unselected (inexperienced) subjects such as V, and Vy indicate that remote viewing may be a latent and L widely distributed ability. It is this result and assertion that has led other researchers to use inexperienced subjects, provide them encouragement, and obtain seemingly positive results, as will be seen in Section III of this report. . . Ww Precogni tive Reperiments Puthoff and Tare (1976a) noted that subjects "occasionally volunteered the information that they had been thinking about their forthcoming ... experiment and had had an image come to them as to what the target location was to be. (p. 37) Hella Hammid ($,) was selected as a subject to test this ability, largely because she had been successful on precognitive trials with the four-choice random number generator, as will be described below. ni In this series, Hammid described the remote location during a 15-minute period beginning 20 minutes before the target was selected and 35 minutes before the target person was to arrive at the target site. Other elements of the SRI protocol were essentially unchanged. be The four targets, none used in previous research with her, were (1) the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, (2) a fountain at Stanford University Hospital, (3) a children's swing in a small park, and (4) the Palo Alto City Hall. (Target (4) was used with subject 84+) 51 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : ee R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ TOSS TFPS6-00791 R000100440001-9 The four transcripts were blind matched to the four locations by three SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the experiment. "The three judges each matched the target data to the response data without error. The majority vote of the judges thus yielded four out of a possible four hits: p= (41) 4 it .042."  (Puthoff and Targ, 1976a, p. 40) No particular explanation is offered for the excellent results. wv Technology Targets These 12 experiments were conducted to obtain data on the "resolution" of remote viewing ability. Five different subjects were used. Three were. previous subjects (S55 S., S,) while two (V V3) were visiting government 2? scientists. «= ‘ The target person was sent to a laboratory within the SRI complex and, once there, interacted with the equipment or apparatus at that location. The experimenter was ignorant of the target pool, the size of which is ‘unspecified. Targets were sampled with replacement. (Since three targets. were used twice, and one three times, it seems likely that the pool contained only 12 targets.) A Subjective analyses of the responses by the authors are stated to provide "circumstantial. evidence for an information channel of useful bit rate." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343) ew The authors believed that the drawings constitute the most accurate portion of a subject's description. Thus, in the first judging procedure with these data, a judge was asked simply to rank only the drawings (without tape transcripts) to the targets, Multiple-subject responses were stapled together. The results are given in Table 5, with the analysis following 52 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 1S Gee ETPSs-00791R000100440001-9 TABLE 5. RESULTS FROM TECHNOLOGY TARGETS, PUTHOFF AND TARG (1976b) SUBJECT TARGET RANK Sys S,, Drill Press . 2 Sos S35 Vz, Xerox Machine . . 2 Sy. Vo Video Terminal | | 1 S4 . . Chart Récorder 2 Sy 7 Random Number Generator 6 S, | Machine Shop . | 3 85> S,, Typewriter 2 Sum of Ranks 18 p = 0.036 53 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 En La
L free Seopa AR ye or ish Approy a sae lease 20 the Morris Bon) procedure (Appendix A). _The meee are signific rn p20. 036. ; In a second evaluation, a visiting scientist randomly selected the drill press data package, sight unseen, and submitted it for independent analysis to an engineer, asking for an’estimate of what was described. The answer was "a man-sized vertical boring machine." “Note this target was not perfectly matched, even though the description seems reasonable by this second analysis. In Targ and Puthoff (1976), the authors also describe these experiments. They indicate the same procedure, rationale, and subjects. They further state that seven targets were used: "driit press, computer-driven flight simulator (Link trainer), Xerox machine, video terminal, chart recorder, ESP teaching machine (random number generator), and typewriter. Three of these were used twice (drill press, video terminal, and typewriter), and one (Xerox machine) came up three times in our random selection procedure. Blind matching without replacement of subject response packets (tape transcripts plus drawings) and targets resulted in four matches out of the 12, a result significant at P = .015." (pp. 36-37) Two discrepancies in these reportings of the same data should be noted. First, the complete machine shop target in Puthoff and Targ (1976b), Puthoff and Targ (1975c), and Targ and Puthoff (1977) has become a Link trainer in Targ and Putho££ (1976). Second, the matching without transcripts (p = 0.036) became more significant (p = 0.015) when transcripts were added (Targ and Puthof£, 1976) although the detailed results are not presented in that report. It is unclear why the results, including transeripte, which were presented in August, 1975 (Targ and Puthoff, 1976), were not presented in later publications of 1976 and 1977. . 54 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9 he