I
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
reliable,
more
sporadic.
Nevertheless,
as described
earlier,
individual
transcripts
from the
inexperienced
group
of subjects number among
some
of
the best
obtained.
Such observations
indicate
a hypothesis
that remote
viewing may be
a
latent and widely distributed perceptual
ability.
Thus,
the primary achievement
of
the SRI program was
the
elici-
tation of high-quality remote viewing
from individuals who agreed
to
act
as
subjects.
Criticism of
this
claim could
in principle
be put
forward
on
the basis
of
three potential
flaws:
(1)
the study could involve
naivete
in protocol
that permits various
forms
of cueing,
intentional
or
unintentional;
(2)
the experiments discussed could be
selected out
of
a
larger pool
of experiments
of which many are
of poorer quality;
and
(3)
data
for
the reported experiments
could
be
edited
to show only
the matching
elements,
the nonmatching elements being discarded.
All
three
criticisms,
however,
are
invalid.
First,
with regard
to
cueing,
the
use of double-blind protocols
ensures
that none
of
the
persons
in contact with
the
subject
can be
aware
of
the
target.
Second,
selection
of experiments
for reporting did not
take place;
every experiment was
entered
as
performed
on
a master
log and
is
included
in
the
statistical
evaluations.
Third,
data associated with
a given experiment remain un-
edited;
all experiments
are
tape
recorded and
all data are included unedited
in
the data package
to be
judged and evaluated.
In
the process
of judging--attempting
to match
transcripts against
targets
on
the basis
of
the
information
in the
transcripts-- some patterns
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
and regularities
in
the
transcript descriptions became
evident,
par-
ticularly regarding individual
styles
in
remote viewing and
in
the
per-
ceptual
form of
the descriptions given by
the
subjects.
These
patterns
and
the
judging procedure are discussed below.
Styles
of Response--The
fifty-one transcripts were
taken
from
nine different
subjects.
Comparing
the
transcripts
of
one
subject with
those
of another revealed
that
each person
tended
to
focus
on certain
aspects
of
the
remote
target complex and
to
exclude
others,
so
that
each
had an individual pattern of response,
like
a
signature.
Subject
S3,
for
example,
frequently responded with topographical
descriptions,
maps,
and architectural
features
of
the
target
locations.
Subject
S2 often
focused
on
the behavior
of
the
remote experimenter or
the
sequence
of actions he carried
out
at
the
target.
The
transcripts
of
subject S-4,
more
than those
of other
subjects,
had descriptions
of
the
feel
of
the
location,
and experiential or
sensory gestalt s-- for example,
light/dark elements
in
the
scene;
indoor/outdoor and enclosed/open
distinctions.
Prominent
features
of
Si's
transcripts were detailed
descriptions
of what
the
target persons were concretely experiencing,
seeing,
or doing--for
example,
standing
on asphalty blacktop overlooking
water;
looking
at
a purple
iris.
The range
of any individual
subject's
responses was wide.
Any
one might draw
a map or describe
the mood
of
the
remote
experimenter,
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
but
the consistency
of each
subject's
overall approach
suggests
that
just
as
individual descriptions
of
a directly viewed
scene would differ,
so
these differences
also
occur
in
remote viewing processes.
Nature
of
the Descriptions --The concrete descriptions
that
appear most
commonly
in transcripts
are
at
the
level
of subunits
of
the
overall
scene.
For
example,
when
the
target was
a Xerox copy machine,
the
responses
included
(S2)
a rolling object
(the moving
light),
or dials
and
a cover
that
is
lifted
(S3),
but
the machine
as
a whole was not
identified
by name
or
function.
In
a
few transcripts,
the
subjects correctly identified and
named
the
target.
In
the
case
of
a computer terminal,
the
subject
(V2)
apparently
perceived
the
terminal and
the
relay racks behind
it.
In
the case
of
targets which were Hoover Tower and White
Plaza,
the
subjects
($1
and
S6,
respectively)
seemed
to
identify
the
locations
through anal-
ysis
of their
initial
images
of
the
elements
of
the
target.
There were also occasional
incorrect identifications.
Gestalts
were
incorrectly named;
for example,
swimming pools
in
a park were
iden-
tified
as water
storage
tanks
at
a water filtration plant
(Si).
The most common perceptual
level was
thus
an intermediate
one
the
individual elements
and
items
that make
up
the
target.
This
is
sug-
gestive
of
a
scanning process
that
takes
sample perceptions
from within
the overall
environment.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
When the
subjects
tried
to make
sense
out
of
these
fragmentary
impressions,
they often resorted
to metaphors
or constructed
an
image with
a kind
of perceptual
inference.
From
a
feeling
of
the
target
as
an
"august"
and "solemn" building,
a
subject
(S4)
said
it might
be
a
library:
it was
a
church.
A pedestrian overpass above
a freeway was described
as
a conduit
(S4).
A rapid
transit
station,
elevated above
the countryside,
was associated with
an observatory
(S2).
These responses
seem
to be
the
result
of attempts
to process
partial
information:
similarly,
this
occurs
in other parapsychological experiments.
These observations
are compatible
with
the hypotheses
that information received
in
a putative remote viewing
mode
is processed
piecemeal
in pattern form
(consistent with
a
low bit
rate process,
but not necessarily requiring
it);
and
the
errors arise
in
the processes
of attempted integration
of
the data
into
larger patterns
directed toward verbal
labeling.
When
the
subjects augmented
the verbal
transcripts with drawings
or
sketches,
these often expressed
the
target elements more accurately
than the verbal descriptions.
Thus,
the drawings
tended to
correspond
with
the
targets more
clearly and precisely than
the words
of the
transcript.
The descriptions
given by
the
subjects
sometimes went beyond
what
the
remote experimenter experienced,
at
least consciously.
For
example,
one
subject
(S4)
described and drew
a belt drive
at
the
top of
a drill press
that was
invisible
even to the
remote
experimenter who was
operating
the machine;
another
subject
(Si)
described
a number of
items
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6
behind
shrubbery
and
thus not visible
to members
of
the demarcation
team at
the
site.
Curiously,
objects
in motion at
the
remote
site were
rarely
mentioned
in
the
transcript.
For
example,
trains crossing
the railroad
trestle
target were not described,
though
the
remote experimenter
stood
very close
to
them.
Also
in
a
few cases,
the
subject descriptions were
inaccurate
regarding
size
of
structures.
A 20-foot courtyard
separating
two build-
ings was described
as
200
feet wide,
and
a
small
shed was
expanded
to
a
bairn- like
structure.
Blind Judging
of Transcripts --The judging procedure
entailed
examining
the transcripts
for a given experimental
series
and attempting
to match
the
transcripts with
the
correct
targets
on
the basis
of
their
correspondences.
The
transcripts varied
from coherent
and accurate
descriptions
to mixtures
of correspondences and noncorrespondences.
Since
the judge did not know
a priori which
elements
of
the descriptions were
correct
or
incorrect,
the task was complicated,
and transcripts
often
seemed plausibly
to match more
than
one
target,
A confounding
factor
in
these
studies
is
that some
target
locations have
similarities
that
seem
alike
at
some
level
of perception.
For example,
a radio telescope
at
the
top
of
a hill,
the observation deck of
a tower,
and
a jetty
on
the
edge
of
a bay
all match
a transcript description
of "looking
out
over
a
long
distance."
A
lake,
a
fountain,
and
a creek may
all
result
in an
image
Approved For Release 2002/05/17
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000500020001-6