Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
ornmr
(6)
Wd target person visit
target hlone?
How was
this verified?
Did target person concentrate on "transmitting"
to subject?
Because
target
person can reasonably be
considered
a skeptic,
these questions
can be highly
pertinent
to
the obtained negative results.
(7)
Nature
of
feedback to
the subjects
is not described.
If inadequate,
it could
lead
to deterioration in performance over trials.
While
this
deterioration
is suggested by authors,
the nature of
the statistical
test
is not
given.
.
(8)
No quantitative data
(2-scores,
signs,
rating scores,
rankings)
are
given.
While results are considered negative,
data could be
of
interest
to
other. researchers.
Summary.
In summary,
this experiment produced negative results.
However
it has sufficient methodological insufficiencies
to question
the
completeness
of
the procedure.
Were the results positive, numerous methodological problems
would cause us
to question the validity
of
the results.
The same questions
should apply
to acceptance
of
the negative results.
B.
Bisaha,
J.
P.
and Dunne,
B.
J.
Multiple subject and long distance
remote viewing
of geographical locations.
In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Cybernetics and Society,
IEEE,
19-21
September
1977,
Washington,
D.C.,
512-516.
Purpose.
The first experiment tested the abilities
of pairs
of subjects
simultaneously
to predict where
the experimenter would be
in the
future.
The second experiment required
the subject
to predict,
to
24 hours
in
advance, where
the experimenter would be over 5,000 miles away.
These two
experiments are described separately below.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
cyrftnrT
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
:,(^RpP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Experiment One
Experimental Design.
Seven subjects were tested
(in four different
subject pairs)
on seven targets
in the Chicago
area,
for
a total of
subject
transcripts.
No effort appears
to have been made
to randomly
or
logically pair
the subjects.
For the seven target encounters,
the
indicated
subject pairs,
by subject number, were:
(4,5),
(10,9),
(4,5),
(6,7),
(5,4),
(6,8),
and
(7,6).
The transcripts were randomly divided
into
two sets
(A and
B)
for
scoring.
The
first member
of each pair
of subjects had his/her
transcript
assigned
to Set
A,
the second
to Set
B.
Subjects.
Subjects were volunteers,
two males and seven females,
ranging
in age from
to
37.
Subjects knew each other,
but were unrelated
by blood
or marriage.
Experimenter (s )
.
No mention
is made of
the identity
of
the experimenters;
they are probably
the authors.
Target Person.
This
is one
of
the experimenters
(female)
,
identity
not given otherwise.
Judges.
These were
"six persons,
not otherwise affiliated with
the
experiment."
No further information
is
given.
Equipment.
Subjects'
responses were
tape recorded;
no other equipment
is mentioned.
Target locations were photographed by
the target person.
Targets.
The seven targets were randomly selected from the
"target
pool of over one hundred locations
in the
city and suburbs
of
Chicago,
previously compiled and sealed
[in envelopes]
by
an individual who had no
other association with the experiment."
The contents
of
the envelopes
(target pool)
were unknown
to either experimenter or
subjects.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
: ^pA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
jaranOi
Procedure
.
Experimenter explained nature
of
the experiment
to subjects
before
the trials began,
and
they were
told
they would have sufficient
time
to relax,
become comfortable,
and allow their minds
to become
as blank as
possible.
They were
then Instructed
to visualize where
the experimenter
would be between 35
and 50 minutes after
the trial began.
They were asked
to describe whatever
images
or thoughts
they had,
during
that 15-minute
period,
into
a tape recorder,
and
to make any sketches
if
they wished.
They
were asked
not. to
try
to define specifically
or
identify
their impressions,
but
to describe them generally with as much detail as possible,
even
if
the
images appeared
to make no sense or have no continuity."
Subjects
within pairs were
to have no communication with each other during
the
trial.
In four trials
(undefined),
subjects were
in separate rooms on different
floors
of
the
same building.
In the other
three
trials,
they were approximately
10 miles apart.
"When subjects began generating their descriptions,
an experimenter left
the area with ten envelopes which had been randomly selected from the
target
pool
of over one hundred locations
....
Driving continuously
for
20 minutes
with no particular direction,
or until five minutes after
the subjects had
completed their descriptions,
the experimenter then blindly selected
a
number from one
to
ten from an enclosed container holding
ten numbered and
folded
sheets
of paper,
counted down
to the chosen number
of envelopes,
opened the envelope and proceeded
to
the location indicated on the enclosed
card,
arriving
at
the target
15 minutes later,
or
35 minutes after
the
subjects
started recording their descriptions.
The experimenter remained
at
the
target
for
15 minutes, photographed
the location and made notes
as
to her impressions
of
the site,
then returned
to the point of origin
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0
: GIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
uCunCT
Typed unedited
transcripts were made of
the
subjects'
recorded responses
and attached
to any associated drawings which
a subject may have made."
No mention
is made of feedback
to
the
subjects.
Data Analysis.
The
transcripts were divided
into
two
sets, A and
B'.
Set A consisted of the subjects
4,
10,
4, 6/5,
6,
and
7, while
Set
B
consisted of
5,
9,
5,
7,
4,
8,
and
6.
Two judges blind ranked
Set A
transcripts against
the target photographs
and notes;
two other judges
blind
ranked Set
B transcripts against
the same photographs
and notes;
and
two final judges blind ranked
Set A transcripts against
Set
B transcripts.
Each set
of rankings was on a
to
7 basis, with all transcripts force
ranked against each target.
Morris'
(1972) method of evaluation of preferentially matched free-
response material was
used.
(This method
is described
and evaluated
in
Appendix A of
this
report.)
Results are given
in Table
As seen there,
all four judges successfully match
the transcripts
to the
targets
(p
<
.01)
Further,
the
two judges comparing
Set A with Set
B
transcripts had sums
of
ranks
of
12 and
14,
respectively, which are also statistically significant
(p
<
.005),
as
indicated
in Table
13.
Of
the
total
of 42 rankings made,
17 were direct hits.
(Chance level
is
1/7
x 42
=
6.)
"The degree of accuracy varied among subjects,
as did
the specific details
of
the target."
Transcript excerpts
are given for
Plaza del Lago
and
the NWRR Station.
Conclusions.
Results from Experiment One are clearly positive.
All
judges were able
to compare transcripts
to
the seven targets well beyond
chance probabilities.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 0160IA-RDP96-OO787ROOO1 00260003-2
j*rrmnr
Approved For Release
DP96-00787R0001 00260003-2
TABLE
12. RESULTS OF EXPERIMENT ONE OF BISAHA AND DUNNE
(1977)
RANKS ASSIGNED
SUBJECTS
SET A
SET
B
TARGET
A
B
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
Plaza del Lago
Wrigley Field
,
Techny Mission
Lindheimer
Obs
.
Madonna del Strada
NWRR Station
Grant Park Bandshell
Sum of Ranks
Associated p-value
<
.01
<
.005
<
.01
<
.01
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
:
3S?A-RDP96-00787R0001 00260003-2