INFORMATION TRANSMISSION IN REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS: II

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: January 1, 1979
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200090017-5
January 1979
Submitted for Publication to NATURE:
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION IN REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS: II
H. E. Puthoff
Russell Targ
SRI International
REANALYSIS OF SRI REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS
Charles T. Tart
University of California, Davis
SRI International
? able: SRI INTL MNP ? TWX: 910-373-1246
33 F 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ o il~d3RDP9'6-O U787ROO0200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION IN REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENTS: II
Marks and Kammann in a recent letter to Nature1 report failure in
their attempt to replicate our experiments in "remote viewing," the
ability of certain individuals to access and describe, by means of
mental processes, information blocked from ordinary perception by
distance or shielding. 2-4 In order to account for the discrepancy
between their failure and our reported success, they hypothesize that
the apparent success in our experiments may be an artifact of statements
in the subject transcripts which provide extraneous cues useful to
judges attempting to blind match transcripts to target sites. Marks
and Kammann argue post hoc that examples from the transcripts of our
first published experiment--a nine-trial series with subject Price2--
support their hypothesis. Generalizing to the rest of our work they
then conclude that the remote viewing phenomenon is as yet unconfirmed.
We present here and in the following letter by Tart, evidence
demonstrating that their conjecture is invalid for our work in general,
and for the Price series in particular. -For the Price series we
include a rigorous test of their hypothesis, which we show to be false.
Background. At the beginning of an experiment, one experimenter
is closeted with a subject to await an agreed-upon start time. A
second experimenter is then sent, by random-number access to a
previously prepared target pool, to a target location in the
San,Francisco Bay Area (- 250 square km). During a predetermined
30-min viewing period the subject is asked to render drawings and
describe into a tape recorder his impressions of the target site being
1
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
visited by the outbound experimenter. The experimenter remaining with
the subject is kept ignorant of both the particular target and
the contents of the target pool, and is therefore free to question the
subject to clarify his descriptions without fear of cueing, overt or
subliminal.
Following a series of such experiments over a several-day period,
the data are given to independent judges for various forms of blind
analysis such as correlation of target/transcript descriptors, blind
matching, etc. In the blind-matching procedure, which provides an
overall estimate of target/transcript correlations, a judge attempts
to blind-match transcripts to target sites, putatively on the basis
of information in the transcripts derived via the remote-viewing
channel. For this matching process, extraneous cues that might be helpful
to a judge must be absent from the judging package. Although in the
Price series in question we took certain precautions to ensure that
the judging package was cue-free (light editing of transcript preambles,
randomization procedures), Marks and Kammann assert that the process
was not carried far enough. Indeed, they hypothesize that certain
phrases that were not edited out of the transcripts (e.g., "second
place of the day") are solely responsible for the target/transcript
matchings, and that "the successful identification of target sites by
judges is impossible" in the absence of such phrases.
Rejudging. To test the Marks-Kammann hypothesis rigorously,
the nine-transcript series in question was turned over to an independent
research psychologist 5 for rejudging on the basis of the criteria
implied by the Marks-Kammann criticism. He set himself the task of
going over the transcripts carefully, removing all phrases suggested as
2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
potential cues by Marks and Kammann, and editing the transcripts still
further, removing any additional phrases for which even the most remote
post hoc cue argument could be made. He then arranged to have the
series rejudged by an independent qualified judge6 who was completely
unfamiliar with this study. The materials turned over to the judge
consisted of the newly edited transcripts presented in random order,
and the list of target sites, also in random order (different from
both the transcript random order and from the order of original target
usage). The judge was instructed to provide, on a blind basis, a
detailed content analysis of target/transcript correlations, which
required that she visit each target site and rate transcripts to targets
on a scale of 0-100 for all possible combinations. These data also
yield the conventional overall measure of target/transcript correlations
by indicating the best transcript description from the set of nine for
each target.
Results. The result of the blind matching of transcripts to target
sites in the rejudging was that seven of the nine were correctly
matched, the same results obtained by the best two of the previous six
judges.1,2 The appropriate statistic for this overall matching result
is derived assuming non-independent assignment of transcripts to target
sites (as in guessing the order of a random sequence of the digits
zero through nine, each used once);7 the result (seven out of nine
correctly matched) is significant at p < 10-4. The more detailed
matrix of target/transcript rating correlations can be analyzed by the
Pratt-Birge method;8 the result obtained by this analysis is significant
at p < 10 9. (For details, see accompanying letter by Tart.) The
greater significance obtained by the latter, more sensitive measure of
3
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
target/transcript correlations reflects the following fact: The judge
found that, with the exception of two transcripts that did not appear
to correspond to any site, the remaining seven transcripts each showed
high correlation to one (correct) site and low correlation to the
others.
Therefore, on the basis of an independently conducted empirical
test, we can reject as invalid the Marks-Kammann conjecture that
success in our first-published study on remote viewing might be
attributable to cueing artifacts rather than to transcript/target
correlations.
Discussion. To place the preceding arguments in proper perspective,
we first draw attention to the fact that the Marks-Kammann critique
did not address the quality of the remote-viewing descriptions in the
transcripts per se, but was instead limited to criticism of a particular
judging procedure used to evaluate those descriptions. With regard to
the descriptions themselves, we note that in the nine-transcript series
in question, when the target was a boat marina the subject gave a
consistent narrative that began with "What I'm looking at is a little
boat jetty or boat dock along the bay. It is in a direction about
like that (pointing) from here. Yeah, I see the little boats, some
motor launch (sic), some little sailing ships...." For a landmark
Hoover Tower site, the subject summarized his impressions as "The area--
I have a place--seems like it would be Hoover Tower." For a recreational
swimming pool site with a 75' X 100' rectangular pool and a 1'0'
diameter circular pool, the subject made a drawing of the target area
as centered about two pools of water, which he dimensioned as a
60' X 89' rectangular pool and a 120' diameter circular pool; and so
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
forth. Furthermore, as pointed out above, blind content
analysis of the transcripts, which provides a sensitive measure
of the degree of target/transcript correspondences, confirms objectively
the subjective impression of above-chance correspondences that one infers
from examples such as the above. With data of this quality we would
argue that it is not surprising that empirical test failed to confirm
the cueing-artifact hypothesis put forward by Marks and Kammann, but
rather confirmed that the target/transcript matches in our first remote-
viewing study are to be attributed (as originally interpreted) to the
quality of the subject's descriptions themselves.
Secondly, we note that in our extensive replication studies,3 which
also yielded significant results, the Marks-Kammann criticisms do not
apply in principle. Target lists and transcripts were separately
randomized, and transcripts were carefully checked prior to judging
to ensure absence of any phrasing for which even a weak post hoc potential-
cue argument could be made.
Finally, where Marks and Kammann report failure in their attempt
to replicate our remote-viewing results, there are other laboratories
who, following our procedures, have reported success. 9-13 We will
have to await disclosure of the Marks-Kammann protocols to determine
whether failure on their part can be traced to differences in procedure.
Given (1) the failure (by empirical test) of the Marks-Kammann
cueing-artifact hypothesis to account for the success of our first-
published remote-viewing study,2 (2) the level of Rignificance of
detailed content analysis of that study, (3) the inapplicability of
their hypothesis to our later replication studies,3 and (4) the
continuing successful replication of this work in our own and other
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
laboratories, 14-15 we stand confirmed in our original conclusion that
remote viewing is a viable human perceptual capability.
We wish to thank Prof. Charles T. Tart, University of California,
Davis, for his contribution in carrying out the independent rejudging
study necessary for the test of the Marks-Kammann hypothesis.
Harold E. Puthoff
Russell Targ
Radio Physics Laboratory
SRI International
Menlo Park, California
6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
1. Marks, D. and Kammann, R. Nature 274, 680-681 (1978).
2. Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. Nature 252, 602-607 (1974).
3. Puthoff, H. and Targ, R. Proc. IEEE 64, 329-354 (1976).
4. Targ, R. and Puthoff, H. Mind-Reach (Delacorte, New York, 1977).
5. Prof. Charles T. Tart, Department of Psychology, University of
California, Davis.
6. Qualified on the basis of having previously demonstrated competence
in blind matching and verbal content analysis of similar materials--
see accompanying letter by Tart for details.
7. Feller, W. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications,
vol. 1, 2nd ed., 98 (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957).
8. Pratt, J. and Birge, W. Jour. of Parapsychology 12, 236-256 (1948).
9. Hastings, A. and Hurt, D. Proc. IEEE 64, 1544-1545 (1976).
10. Whitson, T., Bogart, D., Palmer, J. and Tart, C. Proc. IEEE 64, 1550-1551
(1976).
11. Bisaha, J. and Dunne, B. Research in Parapsychology 1976 (Scarecrow,
Metuchen, NJ, 1977).
12. Dunne, B. and Bisaha, J. Research in Parapsychology 1977 (Scarecrow,
Metuchen, NJ, 1978).
13. Bisaha, J. and Dunne, B. Proc. IEEE 1977 Intern'1 Conf. on Cybernetics
and Society, 512-516 (IEEE, NY, 1977).
14. Proc. IEEE Electro/77 Special Sess.Lon on the State of the Art in
Psychic Research (IEEE, NY, 1977).
15. Proc. IEEE 1977 Intern']. Conf. on Cybernetics and Society, 508-539
(IEEE, NY, 1977).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
REANALYSIS OF SRI REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT
Marks and Kammann1 examined the transcripts of the first remote-
viewing experiment published by Targ and Puthoff2 and hypothesized
that inadvertent cues in the subject's (Pat Price) and experimenter's
remarks might have provided an artifactual basis for matching the
transcripts and target sites. They also report attempts by two judges
of their own selection to match a subset of five of the transcripts
(with potential artifactual cues edited out) and target sites. This
judging produced only chance results, leading them to conclude that no
evidence for extrasensory perception (ESP) exists in this particular
remote-viewing series. Although the case for ESP in general and
remote-viewing in particular is based on many other experiments3 to
which this artifactual cueing hypothesis is not applicable, I felt
it was important to test the Marks and Kammann hypothesis, because the
published examples of data from the Price series seemed to show
exceptionally strong ESP functioning. My independent reanalysis of
the Price series, after eliminating possible artifacts of the type
hypothesized by Marks and Kammann, shows it to be exceptionally
significant and indicative of ESP functioning.
In analyzing experimental results of this type, somewhat ambiguous
verbal material must be skillfully matched to see if there is ESP
"signal" among the noise of guesses and generalities. Such analysis
involves two assumptions that should be made explicit: (1) The judge
has whatever specialized intellectual faculties are needed to
discriminate the signal from the noise in the transcripts, and (2) the
judge is motivated to use these faculties effectively. If these two
assumptions are not reasonably well met, then we cannot reliably decide
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
whether ESP is present in verbal material. In particular, the judging
analysis can produce a negative result if the judge does not possess
the necessary discrimination, or if he is not motivated to use these
faculties or is negatively motivated, or if no ESP is present in the
data.
To minimize the likelihood of negative results from an incompetent
or poorly motivated judge in rejudging the Price series, I began with
a simple judge selection procedure. I obtained transcripts from
another successful remote-viewing series (not the Price series) of
Puthoff and Targ4 and constructed a test set of five transcripts and
five target sites. Transcripts were edited by me to be certain no
artifactual clues of the type postulated by Marks and Kammann were
present. The transcripts were then randomly ordered, and the target
locations were arranged in another random order. Two potential judges
who had no knowledge of the published data on the Price series or the
test series were asked to match the test set of targets and transcripts.
one of the two judges scored at chance (one of five possible correct
matches) and was thus disqualified from judging the Price series, while
the other correctly matched all five transcripts, and was thus selected
to blind judge the Price series.
I then obtained the nine transcripts of the Price series and the
list of target sites from Targ and Puthoff, and edited them to delete
all references that could conceivably give any indication as to the
order of the experiments. I also deleted all remarks that referred
even indirectly to other experimental sessions. This procedure
eliminated potential cues of the type hypothesized by Marks and
Kammann.
2
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
I arranged the nine edited transcripts of the Price series in random
order, and the nine target locations in another random order. The
judge was instructed to first visit all nine sites6 to get a general
familiarity with them before reading any transcripts. She was then
asked to visit each site and, while there, to rate each of the nine
transcripts against that site on a 0-to-100-point scale, with zero
representing no similarity and 100 representing a very high degree of
similarity between target site and transcript.
The judge's results were analyzed by the Pratt-Birge technique?
for evaluating degree of correspondence between descriptions and sites.
This statistical method basically tests the null hypothesis that the
subject's descriptions are generalities, randomly distributed as to
correctness over all target sites, versus the ESP hypothesis that the
subject said specific and correct things about particular sites that he
was intending to describe. This method is more sensitive for evaluating
this kind of material than simple ranking or only counting first-place
matches, because it takes the magnitude of the judge's ratings into
account. The results are shown in Table 1.
As can be seen from the table, the judge rated most transcripts
as having zero resemblance to most sites. When she did see correspondence
between sites and transcripts, however, it was frequently a high degree
of correspondence (80 to 100 points). For seven of the nine target
sites the highest correspondence rating was given to the correct
transcript. The results obtained in Table 1 would occur by chance with
p < 10-9, one-tailed. The null hypothesis that there are no specific
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 3CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
correspondences between targets and descriptions is thus soundly
rejected, as is Marks and Kammann's hypothesis that significant
judging depends on artifactual cues.
Marks and Kammann also had two judges, described as "research
psychologists" try to match a subset of five targets and transcripts
of the Price series. This subset was picked because nothing has been
published about specific target-transcript correspondences. Their
judges could not match targets and transcripts with greater than chance
expectancy. I extracted the same subset of targets and sites from my
judge's ratings: It is highly significant for ESP functioning by the
Pratt-Birge analysis (p = 0.005, one-tailed).
While non-psychologists might assume that psychologists are
experts at judging verbal material, this is not the case. Most of us
receive no training at all in this sort of procedure in the course of
our education. I would hypothesize that Marks and Kammann were unable
to obtain significant results in their reanalysis of the subset of
the Price series because their judges either lacked the necessary
discriminative skills and/or were not sufficiently motivated to use
them effectively.
In summary, although Marks and Kammann have raised questions
concerning the data analysis procedure in the Price series, when the
series is rejudged taking their suggestions into account there is no
loss of significance in the data, and ESP remains the most reasonable
interpretation of the results.
Charles T. Tart
Professor of Psychology
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
Table 1
TARGET -- TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCLS
DISTRIBUTION OF BLIND RATINGS (0-100) ASSIGNED TO TRANSCRIPTS
FOR EACH TARGET SITE
(SUBJECT PRICE)
TRANSCRIPT
NUMBER
TARGET
SITE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RADIO TELESCOPE
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOLL BOOTH
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
BAYLANDS
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
15
0
ALLIED ARTS PLAZA
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
HOOVER TOWER
0
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
0
RINCONADA PARK
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
CHURCH
0
80
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
MARINA
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
100
0
DRIVE IN
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
Note: Judge's blind ratings on the Price remote-viewing series.
The number in each cell represents the judge's rating, on a 0-to-
100-point scale, of the degree of resemblance between each site
and each transcript. The table is arranged so that cells on the
diagonal are ratings for transcripts the subject generated for
the corresponding target site.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : c lA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5
1. Marks, D. and Kammann, R., Nature, 274, No. 5672, 680-681 (1978).
2. Targ, R. and Puthoff, H., Nature, 252, No. 5476, 602-607 (1974).
3. Tart, C., Science, 202, No. 4373, 1145 (1978).
4. Puthoff, H. and Targ, R., Proc. IEEE, 64, No. 3 (1976).
5. I wish to thank Phyllis Matson for her services as a judge.
6. The Palo Alto Drive-In Theatre site had been razed since the
original experiment had been conducted. However the judge
located the cement driveways from it that were still there,
used them to orient herself to the general area, and filled in
her perception of the site with memories from having been to
that drive-in in the past.
7. Pratt, J. and Birge, W., J. Parapsychology, 12, 236-256 (1948).
6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200090017-5