PSYCHICS AND SCIENTISTS: 'MIND-REACH' AND REMOTE VIEWING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 5, 1998
• Sequence Number: 37
• Publication Date: May 1, 1977
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

Approved For Reles 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-0078?000200080037-4
disIpr~fI claim s that here is strong
In a new book, Mind Reach, Russell Targ and laroldl'u
evidence for "remote viewing .'" Here, Ray Hyman contention
PSYCHICS AND SCIENTISTS:
AND REMOTE VIEWING
"MIND-REACH"
Ray Hyman
he dust jacket of Mind-Reach (New York: Delacorte, 1977)
T informs us that "this book is a lucid and fasci ating seal record
of historic experiments-historic because they put
'hard' physical science upon evidence that some degree of
psychic ability is universal-a phenomenon straight out of
science fiction that actually happened, and can be made to
happen again in any laboratory! The scientists even offer a
'recipe' for developing your own ESP 'information channel."'
The two scientists in question are Russell Targ and Harold
Puthoff, both laser physicists at the prestigious Stanford Re-
search Institute. As scientists, their credentials are impec-
cable. Targ has important patents to his credit in the laser
field. Puthoff, a Stanford Ph.D., in addition to also having
laser patents has coauthored a textbook in quantum physics.
Although Margaret Mead, in the introduction to the book,
writes that the evidence put forth does "not appear to be the
work of true believers who set out to use science to validate
passionately held beliefs," neither author is a novice in psy-
chical research.
Targ's interest in psychic phenomena goes back some
twenty years. Prior to the time covered by this book, he had
done work with an ESP teaching machine and, he told me, he
had investigated the famed psychic Peter Hurkos. Targ also
claims to be an amateur magician, who not only has prac-
ticed conjuring but also is aware of the standard methods of
deception. Puthoff, who has made it to the level of alCllasss I I I
pre-
Operational Thetan in the Church of Scientology, had
viously obtained funding to study the Backster Effect--the
alleged ability of plants to sense by extransensory means the
thoughts of humans.
The research described in this book began in 1972 when
both Targ and Puthoff came to the Stanford Research Insti-
tute. The major portion of their work involves remote viewing,
a term they use to refer to phenomena that cover "a range of
subjective experience variously referred to in the literature as
astral projection (occult); simple clairvoyance, traveling clair-
Ray Hyman, professor of psy-
chology at the University of Or-
egon and author of The Nature
of Psychological Inquiry, is on
the executive council of the
Committee for the Scientific In-
vestigation of Claims of the Para-
normal and participated in "The
Psychics," a TV program in the
"Ethics in America" series.
voyance, or out-of-body experience (parapsychological)
exteriorization or disassociation (psychological); or
scopy (medical)." Remote viewing occurs when a subject i
able to describe a target site even though he has no sensor,
basis for doing so. This can come about, according to th4
authors, by giving the subject the longitude and latitude o
any place on the globe, or by sending a team of observers to
randomly selected site that is unknown to the subject.
In addition, the book contains research into other psychi
phenomena. Studies are reported with an electronic randor
generator (ESP teaching machine); with attempts to influent
magnetometers, compasses, and other instruments remotel'
with Uri Geller's attempts at psychically bending metal, di
materializing objects, seeing the face of a hidden die, an
duplicating drawings from which he was shielded.
The authors present us with both "hard" and "soft"
dente. The "hard" evidence consists of outcomes th
pass their strict criteria for having occurred under "rigorou
and "controlled" scientific conditions. If they cannot figu
out any way that the results could have been pro accidei
d
trickery, instrument artifact, inadvertent cuing, r then they pass the test. "Soft" evidence is all the rest of t
occurrences that intrigue the authors but that, for one reas
or another, cannot pass the test on all the criteria.
Let's look first at what the authors claim as "hard" dence. They state that "the primary achievement of this
search has been the demonstration of high-quality 'rem,
viewing': the ability of experienced and inexperienced vol
teers to view, by means of.mental processes, remote g
graphical or technical targets, such as roads, buildings,
laboratory apparatus." This remote-viewing ability, they clz
is unaffected by distance or the type of shielding provi
by a Faraday cage. It can also occur precognitively-tha
the subject can correctly describe the target site before
target team has randomly selected and visited it. They fur
claim that this sort of psychic ability seems to be predi
nantly a function of the right hemisphere of the brain,
cause accuracy is more in terms of geometric shapes
patterns than in interpretation and also because EEG act
seems to indicate this. They also claim that anyone ca
this. They have succeeded with both experienced and
perienced subjects. Indeed, they claim than no subject
failed to show the ability.
They also claim "hard" evidence for at least some suE
showing success on the electronic random generator. I
case of Uri Geller, they claim scientific evidence for
normal perceptual abilities in divining the uppermost
"rh", 111111.
elease 2001/03/26: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
 Approved For Rele 2001/03/26:' CIA-RDP96-0078WO00200080037-4,
a die in a closed box and in duplicating drawings made under
conditions that precluded sensory contact.
The book is replete with accounts of striking and seemingly
persuasive phenomena that the authors admit occurred under
conditions that do not meet the standards for, "hard" evi-
dence. Geller was seemingly able to affect the magnetom-
eter, affect a scale under a bell jar, move a TV picture in
various directions, cause a compass needle to move, dema-
terialize part of a camera, and trigger off a number of "coinci-.
dences." The last chapter deals with anecdotes involving
prophetic dreams, psychic cats, sympathetic, magic, and
exploring outer space via remote viewing.
What are we to make of all this? What is it that makes this
work "historic"? Certainly it is not the fact that physicists
are investigating and apparently finding evidence for psychic
phenomena. In spite of implications to the contrary on the
dust jacket and in Margaret Mead's introduction (she claims
that one advantage of these experiments is that "they come
out of physics, popularly believed to be the hardest of-the
hard sciences"), physicists have a history going back over a
hundred years of investigating and endorsing psychic phe-
nomena. In the nineteenth century there were such big names
as Crookes, Lodge, Barrett, and Zoellner. Other'well-known
scientists who plunged into psychical research were Alfred'
Russel Wallace, Robert Hare, Charles Richet, and Claude
Flammarion. Nor is it the general approach of Targ and
Puthoff, which treats the subject as a full-fledged collaborator'
rather than a guinea pig. All of the previously mentioned sci-
entists also went out of their way to make the investigative
conditions "safe" and sympathetic for the alleged psychics.
What is new, if it stands up to further scrutiny, is the un-
precedented consistency of the findings. They simply have no
failures in their remote-viewing experiments. Experienced and
inexperienced subjects succeed. Even skeptical visitors suc-
ceed when put through the protocols.. (The authors slip into
another meaning of "succeed" in this latter case. "Success" in
the regular experiments is measured by the agreement of
reports with actual target sites as obtained by a neutral judge;
"success" in the case of visitors is measured by subjective'
judgment that a given description does seem to match, in
part, the given site.)
If Targ and Puthoff have actually hit upon a formula for
getting results with all subjects,,and if these results can be
replicated in independent laboratories as they claim, then
indeed their work represents a major breakthrough in psychi-
cal research. Up to now, this field of endeavor has been
plagued by inconsistencies, hidden pitfalls, and nonrepeat-
ability. It has caused its most dedicated workers nothing but
frustration. Here is what William James had to say in his last
article on psychical research in 1909 (William James on Psy-
chical Research, ed. by C. Murphy and R. O. Ballou [New
York: Viking, 1969]).
For twenty-five years I have been in touch with the literature of
psychical research, and have had acquaintance with numerous
"researchers." I have also spent a good many hours ... in wit-
nessing (or trying to witness) phenomena. Yet I am theoretical-
ly no "further" than I was at the beginning; and I confess that
at times I have been tempted to believe that the Creator has
eternally intended this department of nature to remain baf-
fling, to prompt our curiosities and hopes and suspicions all in
equal measure so that, although ghosts and clairvoyances, and
raps and messages from spirits, are always seeming to exist and
can never be fully explained away, they also can never be
susceptible of full corroboration.
Some sixty-six years after William James penned these
words, the philosopher Antony Flew, after twenty years in
psychical research, in an article in the November 1975 New
Humanist, had this to say:
It seemed to me that the situation in this misbegotten area
could be summed up by saying that there was too much evi-
dence for one just to dismiss it as all a lot of nonsense, and
enough to require that one should maintain a continuing inter-
est in the field, even if a distant interest. On the other hand, it
seemed to me then that, though there was too much for one
just to reject the whole business out of hand as a lot of
superstition, nevertheless there was no such thing as a reliably
repeatable phenomenon in the area, and there was really
almost nothing positive that you could point to with assur-
ance; there were some bits of negative work you could point to
with assurance, but that was all. The depressing thing about
the subsequent twenty-two years is that, though people have
Subscribe to
Renew Now
"Amid the vast array of American magazines,
The Humanist stands out as uniquely stimu-
lating and eminently worth reading. It is the
only journal that can keep--you up to date on
the fast-growing Humanist movement in the
United States."
Corliss Lamont
"I am delighted with The Humanist. It main-
tains a high level of both thought and ex-
pression." ,
1 year ( 6 issues) $12.00
2 years`(12 Issues) $20.00
3 years (18 Issues) $27.00
923 Kensington Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14215
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
17
May/June 1977
 Approved For Reles 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00781000200080037-4
re( wit's th,?
gone on working in this area-perhaps more has been done in
the last twenty-two years than in any comparable period
before-it still seems to me that the general evidential situa-
tion is just the same.
p
trust of the apparent paranormal i urn. ii
Cold War struggle by at least a ( entury.- (I read this lust at the
time that NBC put on its movie on the late Senator Joe
McCarthy).
they graciously grant their critics good faith. 1 he
tead
I
,
ns
We do not know yet whether Targ and Puthoff will be making difficulty lies in the fact that the Loyal opposition consists of
similar laments at some future date. individuals who cannot face up to the possibility that their
ld views may be wrong. Targ and Puthoff supply a psy-
wor
"The authors may not yet have found the mag-
ic formula for the repeatable ESP experiment.
The history of the field is against them. And
enough questions can be raised about their
current work to raise doubts, at least for mem-
bers of the Loyal Opposition."
Russell Targ (left) and Harold Puthoff (right) at SRI
Meanwhile, however, they have already encountered the
inevitable frustrations that confront every researcher in
this field. They have become the target for attacks from what
they call the "Loyal Opposition." The specific members of the
Loyal Opposition that they deal with are The Amazing Randi,
Martin Gardner, Joe Hanlon, George Lawrence, and myself. In
a chapter entitled "The Loyal Opposition-What Are They
Loyal To?" Targ and Puthoff deal with their critics in an inter-
esting manner.
The authors imply that they are aware that resistance to
new and radical ideas plays a positive role in the development
of science. But they have obviously been stung at the per-
sonal level. They describe what from their viewpoint con-
stitutes a series of unethical and malicious misrepresentations
of their work by the Loyal Opposition. And I am indicted for a
breach of ethics in allegedly "leaking" information about my
confidential visit to SRI to Time magazine.
Obviously, Targ and Puthoff are puzzled by what they take
as fanatic and unfair criticism. So they try to account for it.
"At first, we spun paranoid theories with Cold War overtones.
Perhaps there really was a developing ESP gap, as implied by
the Ostrander-Schroeder book Psychic Discoveries Behind the
Iron Curtain. Perhaps United States efforts in the study of the
paranormal were the target of a deliberate program of disin-
formation, with the press the unwitting accomplice." After
planting this suggestitih of a communist conspiracy, the
authors dismiss it on the grounds that "the deep-rooted dis-
chological analysis of how the Loyal opposition employs ever
more extreme defenses to protect themselves from having to
admit evidence that challenges the premises of their world
view. They also point out that precognition and other psychic
phenomena are compatible with current notions in quantum
physics. This means, in their logic, that the burden of proof
now lies with the critic who wants to deny such phenomena.
All this is unfortunate. By dismissing their critics as mis-
guided fanatics, Targ and Puthoff miss the legitimate reasons
for suspecting their work. If they were not so blinded by the
search for psychological blocks in their opposition, the author-
might better see how they have supplied the critics with much
of their ammunition. My own criticisms of their work cannot
be simply dismissed as another case of someone who cannot
tolerate challenges to his world view. As far back as Decem-
ber 1957, I committed to print my opinion that if ESP were
proved to be a reality it would not provide a serious threat to
science or other accepted views (in a review of Experiments in
Telepathy, by S. G. Soal and F. Bateman, in the Journal of the
American Statistical Association); and in his recent book, The
Search for Superman, John Wilhelm writes of my position:
"He has a personal belief structure that seemingly would suf-
. fer least if psychic phenomena became accepted as a scien-
tific reality." I want to make this clear to emphasize that there
are grounds other than dogmatic fanaticism to raise serious
questions about the credibility of the evidence that Targ and
Puthoff have offered us.
In challenging the validity of their findings, I also want to
emphasize that I am not necessarily claiming that they are
more vulnerable to error than other scientists plunging into
this tricky area. But they are vulnerable. And what seems to
be a serious problem is their unwillingness or inability to ad-
mit that they are vulnerable. Neither expertise in laser physics
nor training in conjuring nor sincere desire to make their ex-
periments error-free and fraud=proof suffices to immunize
them from mistakes, misinterpretations, and deception. In-
deed, their very insistence that they are free from such defects
may actually enhance their vulnerability.
In a given specialty like laser physics, one which has a well-
developed history and accepted standards of instrumentation,
measurement, experimental paradigms, and other agreed-
upon procedures, a scientist's colleagues know what is meant
when he states that he gathered his data under controlled and
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
tV 1humanist
 Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-0078;000200080037-4
rigorous conditions. But when the same scientist transfers his
efforts to a new field, especially one in which scientific de-
velopment is in its initial stages, it no longer is obvious what
constitutes an adequately "controlled" experiment. Even
in standard areas of science it takes a long shake-down period
before a new problem or phenomenon can be safely studied
without fear of generating artifacts or overlooking important
sources of variance. In the area of psychical research,
especially in such unchartered areas of dealing with a
flamboyant psychic who claims to bend metals or in remote
viewing, we have no accepted and standardized procedures,
no specialized instrumentation, no agreed-upon dimensions
and units, no well-developed paradigms, and no accumula-
tion of experience to inform us unambiguously. of what
sources of error most need attention.
n a visit to SRI on December 8, 1972, I saw little to increase
my confidence in the authors' ability to conduct psychic in-
vestigations. Targ and Puthoff, on more than one occasion,
have insisted that what I witnessed that day was irrelevant for
evaluating their research on Uri Geller. In this book, they in-
sist that I have only myself to blame if what I saw was uncon-
trolled and unscientific. It was my fault that I let Uri get away
with what they call his standard coffee-table demonstrations.
All this baffles me greatly. As far as I knew, I was part of a visit-
ing team to ascertain if Targ and Puthoff had sufficient evi-
d nce and an ade uate case to justify the
f ge . n ng their research on Uri Geller. Under
the circumstances, I assumed that they would present to us
the best case possible for Uri's powers and their competence
to harness them. Just what did Targ and Puthoff have to gain
by sitting back and letting Uri devote an entire day and their
resources to a display of useless parlor tricks? Did they think
that what they regarded as unscientific entertainments would
nevertheless be sufficient to convince us to recommend
financial support.
But this is not the place to go into differences about the
visit. The point I want to make is how the authors and I differ
on what is a "controlled" experiment. Targ and Puthoff say
that the only controlled experiment that occurred during our
visit to SRI was the one in which Uri Geller apparently dupli-
cated a drawing that Robert Van de Castle had earlier sealed
in an envelope. Here is what I observed, based upon the de-
tailed notes I made at the time it occurred.
Van de Castle had brought a picture with him that he
wanted Uri to duplicate by psychic means. When Uri learned
that the picture had been clipped from a magazine, he was
hesitant. He said that it would be better if it were something
that Van de Castle had drawn himself. Van de Castle offered
to draw a version of the picture from memory. Uri reluctantly
agreed. Uri did not feel confident, but said he would give it a
try. Van de Castle sealed his drawing in one opaque envelope
and the magazine picture in another. Each was marked
outside to identify it. Uri sent everyone out of the room
except George Lawrence and myself. He had George place his
hands on each envelope. Uri tried to get an impression. But
nothing, he said, came through. He asked George to retain the
envelopes and he would try later, maybe at lunch or after.
After lunch, while all alone with George, Uri tried again.
Again nothing happened. Then Uri decided to try with Van de
Castle, who, of course, knew what the drawings were. They
went alone into a room. After a half-hour, Uri and Van de
Castle emerged. They were obviously flushed with victory-
A new book on humanism
and the good life...
qEXUBERANCE
CEXUBER"CE
CEXUBMUNCE
'E CE
A Philosophy of Happiness
by Paul Kurtz
Editor, The Humanist
In marked contrast to the mood of
despair that often pervades contem-
porary society EXUBERANCE pre-
sents an affirmative philosophy of life.
"I believe that it is possible for many or
most human beings to find some happiness
in the active life. It's chief excellences are
courage, the willingness to dare, self-
power, resourcefulness, audacity, creativ-
ity, intelligence . . ."
178 pages, cloth $8.95
It Prometheus Books
1203 Kensington Avenue
-Buffalo, New York 14215
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4
19
May/June 1977
 Approved For Releip 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-007000200080037-4
they announced success, or at least partial success. The
envelopes had been opened before they emerged! Van de
Castle explained this obvious breach of protocol on the
ground that Uri was impatient to know how well he had done.
So Van de Castle and Uri opened the envelopes immediately
to check out the drawings. It was not clear which one of them
had opened the envelopes.
We asked what had taken place during the half-hour in the
room. We were told that Van de Castle asked Uri how he
could be of help. Uri suggested that Van de Castle keep his
eyes closed and keep his hands over his eyes to better visual-
ize what he wanted to project. Van de Castle claimed that
during this long time with his eyes closed he had control of
the envelopes. This meant, as elicited by further questioning,
that Van de Castle had his elbow upon the envelope with his
drawing in it. He freely admitted at that point, and again later,
that the second envelope could have been out of his posses-
sion. As someone pointed out, Uri's drawing was a better
match to the magazine picture than to Van de Castle's draw-
ing. Targ commented that this was a perfect experiment.
This, then, is the experiment that Targ and Puthoff claim
was done under controlled conditions. From my viewpoint,
this fails at being a controlled experiment on a number of
grounds: (1) Uri was alone with just one man and the enve-
lopes for a half-hour; (2) Van de Castle had his eyes shut during
this entire period; (3) Van de Castle was sure only that he had
control of one envelope; (4) The envelopes had been opened
prior to their emerging from the room (thereby destroying any
evidence of possible tampering); (51 Uri's drawing was a bet-
ter match to the picture that was in the envelope that Van
de Castle admitted could have been out of his possession.
This is just one example of why we cannot be satisfied by the
simple declaration that the conditions were "controlled."
It is unfortunate that Uri Geller happened to Targ and Put-
hoff. Ironically, one of the reasons they give for not al-
lowing me to see their regular experiments with Uri is that
at that time they suspected that Uri might have been sent to
test their competence. They hinted that I might have col-
laborated with Uri to trick them and then use this success-
ful deception to discredit them as psychic investigators.
Whether he was sent to SRI for this purpose or not, Targ and
Puthoff will have a hard time convincing even some believers
that Geller did not swindle them. They themselves, in trying
to show how knowledgeable they are about magicians'
describe ho
intrr r;reat detail about huw the subject generates his des( r;l)
tion, how the target site is selected, and how the team is sent
to it. I hey describe the judging procedure, but in mu( h It-ss
detail. In fact, it is just in this detail that problems arise the
statistics and judging procedure assume independence of
descriptions for each target site. But this is obviously violated
by the experimental procedure. Immediately after the subject
generates his description, he is taken to the target site to be
given feedback on how well he has done. Although the reason
for doing this may be understandable, it makes his next de-
scription no longer independent of the first target site. To give
one example of how this might generate false hits, assume
that the first site is a municipal swimming pool. The next day
the subject will probably avoid describing features that ob-
viously belong to a swimming pool. If the second site, say, is
a marina, the subject, in the third protocol, would avoid
describing things that obviously belong to a swimming pool
or a marina, and so on. Such a situation, in principle, could
suffice to give a judge sufficient information to make perfect
matches at each site from the descriptions. We, of course,
in fact, such an artifact did actually pro-1
do not know if
,
duce their results. But the very fact that the assumption of
independence was violated destroys the validity of their sta-
tistical computations. In future experiments, they will have to
find a way to ensure independence (such as using only one
target per subject and having the judge match a set of de-
Possibly just as serious is the lack of any description of pre-
scription, the subject and the team of investigators all go to the
target site and openly discuss how well the description fits the
site. Good, or apparently good, descriptions will become
to make sure that none of this gossip trickled back to
potential judges? Similar comments could be made about
security of the protocols, recording judges' ratings, randomiz-
ing protocols to give to judges, the order in which judges visit
The authors make the strong claim that everyone whom
they have run through their protocol has succeeded to "satis-
faction." This is certainly not completely the case. I have
talked with two individuals who went through this procedure
who were definitely not convinced that they had succeeded;
beyond simple chance matching. And I know someone who
has talked with another individual who also felt it did not
work for him. Targ and Puthoff further claim that the remote-
viewing experiment has been successfully replicated in sev-
wi ing to trick them, they went ahead with their research pro-
gram, fully confident that they could separate out the trickery
from the real thing. More cautious investigators would have
either immediately sent Uri back to his sponsor or treated all
subsequent miracles with suspicion.
Because of the Geller affair, perhaps, the remote-viewing
experiments become even more suspect than otherwise. In a
sense, they are too good. Without question they are several
orders of magnitude superior as experiments than the ones re-
ported with Uri Geller. The protocols are described in much
more detail, and we are given rather detailed descriptions of
precautions taken against deception, inadvertent cuing, edit-
ing, and selection of cases. And the ultimate criterion of suc-
cess is based upon a sophisticated statistical procedure.
So what is wrong? Without being on the scene it is hard to
say, but there are some disturbing aspects. The authors go
other study by name of investigators and laboratory. I n a foot-
they mention the study and say it consisted of a lengthy
note
,
series. In a report put out by these authors, the "lengthy
series" consists of eight trials, two of which they admit were
defective. I know of one attempt to faithfully replicate
the remote-viewing experiment as they described it in an
article published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
All this suggests that the authors may not yet have found
the magic formula for the repeatable ESP experiment. The
be raised about their current work to raise doubts, at least for
members of the Loyal Opposition. But, as always, time will
tell. And if it turns out that they are correct after all, then I am
ready to resign my membership in the Loyal Opposition. ?
Approved For Release 2001/03/26 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080037-4 r f