Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : Serra FP e-00787R000100260003-2 phenomenon, See the Puthoff criticism of the Karnes and Susman paper; the same applies here. (3) Inadequate or no feedback may have taken place after each trial, thereby permitting trace responses/ impressions from one target to contaminate the next, | Summary. The methodology is again somewhat different from the Puthoff and Targ approach. These differences, should a true remote viewing capability exist, may have suppressed it in. this experiment. Clearly, however, no strong remote viewing results were obtained in this study. J. Tart, C. T.. Pst. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1977, Chapter 8. In this book, which deals with the author's twenty years of psi research, Chapter 8 is devoted to a discussion of three remote viewing experiments. The first two were previously published and are described below (Whitson, et al., 1976). The third, apparently unpublished elsewhere, is described here. | Purpose. The author was impressed by the procedures and results of the Hastings and Hurt (1976) experiment, and attempted to replicate the experiment during the conduct of his two-day workshop on consciousness and extrasensory perception for the professional staff of the Nebraska Psychiatric Institute. ~N Expertmental Design. Workshop participants were formed into 25 teams to remote view one randomly selected target site. Subjects. The subjects were the staff of the Institute who attended the workshop. Originally there were 25 teams, each consisting of a coach and a viewer. Some participants had to leave early, however, and 25 viewers, Approved For Release alt d *"1A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 SH ARRPEDS -00787R000100260003-2 21 coaches, and 20 intact teams provided responses. No other details are known about the subjects. Euperimenter. Charles Tart. Target Persons. Marjorie Hook-Gegoud (workshop organizer) and her husband. | Judges. - Subjects judged their own responses in a forced~choice fashion.” Equipment. "About sixty" slides of possible target sites were provided to Tart by Hlook-Gegoud prior to his arrival in Omaha. Notes and drawings were made by subjects. Targets. Tart (alone) selected six slides from the 60 that he “felt were visually quite distinct." He then sealed each slide, "along with a set of instructions that I made up then and there on appropriate things that could be done to interact with the site, in an opaque envelope." No mention is made of where these selected slides were stored or what was done with the nonselected target slides. | Procedure. The participants were instructed on psychological procedures for eliciting psi for remote viewing, and then divided into two-person teams (assignment procedure is undefined). The coach's main functions were to take notes of the viewer's imagery, ask questions to help elaborate imagery, and so on. fTart’ then conducted a general ESP test in the workshop room to get their psi talents to operate. Using color slides of four classical paintings, he was quite successful. Hastings (later) served as a blind judge of the results and correctly matched 24 of the 28 responses to the correct target slide. The target slide, chosen deliberately by Tart (The Saerament of the Last Supper, by Dali) was used successfully in the . , Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 i 6-00787R000100260003-2 Maimonides studies, with which both Tart and Hastings were familiar! This experiment is considered too confounded in methodology to be critically discussed here; it is mentioned only because it was part of the "warm up" procedure. | The target persons left with all six envelopes and used an HP~25 calculator with a random—number generating program to select a target by a number between l and 6 as the last digit. (They had "to push the [Generate] button many times before they got a number between 1 and 6." How many times is not stated.) They then got into their car and started to drive away, opened the target envelope, and were to arrive at the target in 20 minutes, at which time the subjects would try to remote view. After all drawings and notes were collected, the envelopes were opened and all six target slides were projected for the subjects to see. Each team voted separately, as did each viewer and each coach. Voting instructions were not given, although the word "ranking" is used in the text. The “Combined first and second choice responses for each site" are presented. After all votes were tabulated, the target persons returned to brief the subjects. Data Analysts. No statistical analysis of the data is presented (or warranted). Results. The. results are given in Table16. Clearly, the results do not confirm the existence of remote viewing. However, the author offers a strong explanation for the results, as follows: When Hook~Gegoud returned, she immediately apologized for "messing up" the experiment. The HP-25 give a room in the art museum as the target. Her husband stated the art museum was closed that day, which they verified by . . 234 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 RETR ee rennm ooze 0008? TABLE 16. TART'S (1977) RESULTS TARGET SITES VIEWERS COACHES TEAMS MORTUARY 17 RB _ MUSEUM | 11 11 9 CHURCH (TARGET) 10 | 7 7 WOOLWORTH'S 8 9 10 BOOKSTORE - 4 2 1 PRINTSHOP 0 L 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 2351A-RDP96-00787R000100260003-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/@=G¢ ARP P96-00787R000100260003-2 telephoning the museum. They then selected the next target envelope, the church, which they got to on time. Hook-Gegoud, throughout the experiment, had hoped the mortuary would be selected as the target due to the fact that a close friend had died a few days earlier and that his funeral was taking place that afternoon at a | different mortuary. She had wanted to attend the funeral but chose to participate in the experiment instead. Conelusions. The author believes the experiment was a "failure" in terms of the subjects’ votes. "Yet, the viewers' choices showed a clear preponderance of first and second choices for the mortuary (the target site that the principal agent had strongly wanted to go to), a second-place vote for the room in the art museum (where the agents had been supposed to go), and a third-place vote for the church (the site they had actually visited). ‘The coaches' separate votes and. the team votes also showed a preference for the mortuary, with the room in the art museum and the church also getting a very high number of votes." Tart believes the results to demonstrate psi, but points out that we do not know the Zimtte of psi. That is, "we cannot assume that the experimenter is independent of the experiment." In this case, the target - person's desires would appear to influence the outcome as much as the target person's actions. Critical Evaluation. This experiment clearly shows negative statistical results. Interpreted objectively and scientifically, it does not support the remote viewing hypothesis. The author's post-hoc explanation, while plausible, is untestable. It remains interesting speculation. Approved For Release 2000/08/1 a FyAROP96-00787R0001 00260003-2