SUMMARY AND CRITICAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH IN REMOTE VIEWING, 1 JUNE 1979

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 170
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 6, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: June 1, 1979
• Content Type: SUMMARY

A
roved F
r Release 200
P96-00791R00010044000-1-9-1
Report RV-79-1
Copy Number 2,
SUMMARY AND CRITICAL EVALUATION
OF
RESEARCH IN REMOTE VIEWING
by
tor
ierit
)0 Days
HARRY L. SNYDER and ARLENE G. SNYDER
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
CONTRACT 77F 104420
1 JUNE 1979 (
(Part 1)
mtemetric5
Awc14=leAteaft urawer giNg=946 yafp 0 0 1-9
Approved For Release 2003/0 ? -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
ABSTRACT
? This report summarizes and critically evaluates all known, published
and unpublished, research in the United States on "remote viewing." Particular
attention is given to sources of inaccuracy, inconsistency, and misinterpretation
of the obtained results. Based upon these evaluations, guidelines are suggested
for improvement of the currently popular research protocol to develop an
experimental approach acceptable to the behavioral science research community.
This set of protocol recommendations addresses the areas of target selection,
subject selection and treatment, experimenter and investigator knowledge
and behavior, judging, and feedback.
KEY WORDS
Remote Viewing Parapsychology
Paranormal Psychology Extrasensory Perception
Clairvoyance Psi
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003 -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background
Purpose 2
Approach 3
II. SUMMARY OF SRI STUDIES 4
A. Project SCANATE: Long Distance Remote Viewing by
Geographical Coordinates 22
Virginia Site 23
Urals Site 27
Island Site 27
Project Atlas Site 27
Sylvania Laser Laboratory 30
Berkeley Laboratory Bevatron 31
Utah and China Lake 31
USSR Sites 32
Critical Evaluation 32
B. Long Distance Remote Viewing by Target Person Cueing . . 38
Costa Rica 39
Continental U.S. 40
C. Local Targets with Target Person Cueing 43
Training with Feedback 44
Demonstration of Ability 45
Precognitive Experiments 51
Technology Targets 52
Critical Evaluation, Local Targets 55
Critical Evaluation, Long Distance Targets 138
PART 2 Critical Evaluation, Remaining Long Distance Targets
with Coordinates 167
D. Alphabet Letter Experiments 172
E. Random Stimulus Generator Experiments Critical
Evaluation 174
F. EEG Experiments 179
G. Summary of SRI Studies 180
Positive Characteristics 180
Negative Characteristics 181
III. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF NON-SRI REMOTE-VIEWING
EXPERIMENTS 182
A. Allen, Green, Rucker, Cohen, Goolsby, and Morris (1976) 182
B. Bisaha and Dunne (1977a) 186
C. Bisaha and Dunne (1977b) 197
D. Dunne and Bisaha (1978) 202
Approved For Release 2003/04L18 : IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0 14.1aPP96-00791R000100440001-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
E. Hastings and Hurt (1976)
F. Jahn? (1978)
G. Karnes and Susman (1978)
H. Rauscher, Weissmann, Sarfatti, and
I. Solfvin, Roll, and Krieger (1978)
J. Tart (1977)
K. Vallee, Hastings, and Askevold
L. Whitson, Bogart, Palmer, and Tart
Page
205
210
213
Sirag (1976) 224
228
232
237
245
IV. EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CRITICISMS 253
V. RECOMMENDED RESEARCH IMPROVEMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
261
270
SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF MORRIS' (1972) FREE-
RESPONSE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE 274
REMOTE VIEWING PROTOCOL
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : C1A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
-APRif4-
282
mi
Approved For Release 2003
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Interest in paranormal psychology has ebbed and flowed in many countries
and many laboratories since the early 1800s. Several professional societies,
46
a few scientific periodicals, a couple niversity departments, and a variety
of popular publications have been devotedto the general subject matter.
(Lk)
While numerous scientific investigations have been reported in various
types of paranormal functioning, the field has also been plagued with constant
criticising from the "harder" sciences, including the more conventional
experimental psychology. To cast more doubt upon the claims of paranormal
functioning, there have been several reported and verified cases of fraud
and falsification of data. 0-)
As a result, skepticism of paranormal claims is generally maintained
by most scientists outside the field. Paranormal researchers have thus
been placed in a position of distrust, doubt, and often considered akin to
magicians, charlatans, and writers of fiction. In essence, the paranormal
researcher has been asked to prove his results and claims far beyond the
levels of acceptance required by researchers in other scientific areas. 6-0
Recently, considerable attention has been given to research publications
emanating from Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in the area of "remote
viewing," a term used by Puthoff and Targ at SRI to describe their research
in clairvoyant description of distant objects. Because these researchers
are trained and recognized as "hard" scientists (i.e., physicists), they
me have achieved a much greater acceptance in some quarters than have the many
researchers who preceeded them. Their publications in scientific journals
1.1
1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
r%'111.
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 96-00791R000100440001-9
such as Nature and IEEE Proceedings have augmented this reputation. Finally,
they have, through their many publications, stimulated related and replicative
studies . (.4)
Purpose
The SRI work, as well as that of others relating to their approach, has
implications for covert intelligence information gathering. As a result,
their research has been sponsored by several government organizations, both
within and without the intelligence community. (5)
Puthoff, Targ, and their associates have not gone unchallanged, however.
Reputable scientists have evaluated and often criticized their methods,
analyses, claims, and results. They have responded to
publically and apparently meaningfully. (4)
Thus, there exists a growing body of such "remote
such
criticisms,
viewing" literature
which has some very startling (to the nonbeliever) results, but which appears
to be well planned and executed. Because the skeptics of these results are
also vocal, quantitative, and respected in scientific quarters, the time
appeared ripe to evaluate the bulk of this literature and to offer guidelines
to the sponsorT this review for future research, procedures, and possibilities.
Accordingly, the purposes of this report are as follows:
(1) Summarize all known controlled experimental research in remote
viewing, at SRI and elsewhere;
(2) Evaluate this research in terms of the appropriateness of its
methodology and conclusions; and
(3)
On the basis of this evaluation, recommend experimental or
procedural safeguards and protocols that should be followed in future remote
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 :2CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/04/ . DP96-00791R000100440001-9
viewing research to gain the acceptability of the behavioral and physical
science communities .(Lt)
Approach
Section II of this report summarizes and critiques the SRI research,
largely because other studies are based upon this methodology. Published
experiments are collected together by type and evaluated collectively.W
Section III similarly summarizes and evaluates all other research efforts,
published and nonpublished, known to the authors. because the sponsor is
less familiar with the non-SRI work, more detail is presented on these studies. S
-0)
Section IV evaluates nine of the potential criticisms of the SRI and
related results.04)
Section V offers guidelines and recommendations for future research
protocols and procedures, based upon the preceeding analyses and summaries.
It is hoped that adherence to these guidelines will serve to reduce criticism
of remote viewing research and to permit the scientific community to accept
the results, positive or negative, more readily.(k)
Finally, it should be emphasized that this report does not, deliberately,
address the question "Is remote viewing a real phenomenon or ability?"
Rather, we are concerned with an evaluation and possible improvement of
methodologies appropriate to study the remote viewing abilities of people.
Adherence to the recommended procedures should permit a more valid answer
to this question than can an analysis of existing data and publications. (!4)
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : bA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
II. SUMMARY OF SRI STUDIES
96-00791R000100440001-9
Research in remote viewing at SRI was preceded by psychic research in
psychokinesis and more conventional clairvoyance within the SRI laboratories.
The major impetus for the remote viewing work occurred when a subject, Ingo
Swann, suggested that the experimentation could be made more interesting
because he could "look anywhere in the world if you just gave me some
coordinates like latitude and longitude". (Targ and Puthoff, 1977, p. 27) $
Initial "experiments" were done largely to placate Swann; however, when these
were considered to be successful, more controlled experiments and a "standard"
protocol were developed. The remote viewing effort was enlarged, various
subjects were used, near and far targets were selected, individual success
predictors were evaluated, and several sponsors supported the work.
In this section, we summarize and evaluate the remote viewing work at
SRI conducted by Puthoff, Targ, and their several associates. The individual
experiments and groups of experiments are described only to the detail
necessary to permit objective evaluation and comparison. The reader is
directed to the various referenced sources for a complete description of
the studies. (L4)
To place the various experiments, references, and events in chronological
perspective, we have compiled Table 1. Reference will subsequently be made
to the entries in this table to show the temporal relationships among various
SRI activities. Similarly, Table 2 should be used to locate specific sources
of information or reports pertaining to the groups of experiments which will
be discussed below.(9)
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: 8IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mmiREFF--
IL I IL
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SECRET
TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY OF CRITICAL EVENTS IN SRI RESEARCH PROGRAM
YEAR/MONTH RELEVANT EVENTS EXPERIMENTS PUBLICATIONS
1971 Harold Puthoff affiliates with 0.0
Stanford Research Institute.
1972 Proposal submitted to Research ( Puthoff, H.E. Toward a
Corporation for basic research 11/49-1 quantum theory of life
into quantum biology; copy sent processes.
to Cleve Backster.
March Ingo Swann visits Backster's
laboratory; sees Puthoff's
proposal.
March 30 Ingo Swann writes to Puthoff. (L)
Cu)
April
Puthoff's proposal funded by
Science Unlimited Research
Foundation, San Antonio, Texas.
June Ingo Swann visits Puthoff.
July-August
August 11
Magnetometer
Hidden objects-in-box
Approved For Release 2003S1)RIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Targ, R., and Hurt, D.
Learning clairvoyance and
precognition with an ESP
teaching machine.
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Proposal: Document 1 Su-
72-1348
YEAR/MONTH
August 23-25
September 2-5
September
November
December
1973
January
Ii IL I I I I I I IL 1 I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
International Conference Para- Lt
psychology and the Sciences,
Amsterdam.
Russell Targ's affiliation still
listed with Sylvannia GTE,
Mountain View and with the
Parapsychology Research Group.
Fifteenth Annual Convention of
the Parapsychological Association,
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Targ affiliates with Stanford
Research Institute
Meeting with Andrija Puharich; ("17)
learn about Uri Geller.
Preliminary 6 weeks with Uri
Geller.
Letter to Scientific American
inquiring about interest in
receiving survey on ESP.
Ingo Swann returns for eight
months (1/73 - 8/73)
Approved For Release 2003/
621.4^-1.-7
/
Dice box
Hidden objects in box
Picture drawing
drawing
Metal bending
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
I
PUBLICATIONS
Targ, R. Precognition in
everyday life - A physical '
model.
Targ, R. Precognition in
everyday life - A physical
model.
I. I I I I_ 1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
YEAR/MONTH RELEVANT EVENTS
March 9 Columbia University Physics
Colloquium.
March
LCRET
TABLE 1. (continued)
I_ I
EXPERIMENTS PUBLICATIONS
Geographical coordinates:
results beginning to show.
May 29 First experiment: Project
SCANATE, Virginia site: First
reading: Swann
Six weeks with Geller;
magnetometer experiment:
Swann.
Cc)
May 30 Virginia site: Second reading: 6)
Swann
June I Pat Price calls SRI; given 6)
Va. site coordinates.
June 2
June 4 Letter arrives with Price
description of Virginia site.
June
July 21
Virginia site: Price
cci
Price volunteers reading 60 Urals site
on Urals site.
6-)
Second experiment: Project
SCANATE, Kerguelen Island: (Y)
First reading: Swann
July 22 Kerguelen Island: Second
reading: Swann
Approved For Release 20Q 47
YEAR/MONTH
July
July
August 4-11
August 13
August
September 6-8
December 7
December
End of Year
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SitREV
TABLE 1., (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Puthoff and Swann attend Inter-
national Conference on Psychotronic
Research, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Duane Elgin starts working with (4,?
the teaching machine.
Additional work with Geller.
Swann ends stay at SRI.
The Sixteenth Annual Convention
of the Parapsychological
Association, Charlottesville ,Qlt-')
Virginia.
Editorial: Nature k)
Approved For Release 20
EXPERIMENTS
Picture drawing (13) -?
Target pictures (100)
Week of experimentation
with Uri Geller
More than 20 experiments
carried out with Price and
Swann
EEG data gathered (6 subjects)
?-7
160CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Z. I
PUBLICATIONS
Summary of work
Targ, R. Report: Experiments-
Uri Geller at SRI, August 4711,
1973 Cu-)
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.
ESP expegments.with Uri
Geller. C
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
PK experiments with Uri(k)
Geller and Ingo Swann
I I I
YEAR/MONTH
1974
January 28
March 1
March 11
March 12
March 1
April 1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
RELEVANT EVENTS
First reporting period
SRI Project 3183
riET
TABLE 1. (continued)
EXPERIMENTS
begin.s: 6) Remote viewing experiment designed
Pilot series with walkie-talkies
Preliminary pilot experiment: S4
(Hammid)
Detection of variable density
target material
Testing program
Random target generator
motivation study: Si(Price); (75)
7075 trials
First reporting period endsaj
Targ, R. and Puthoff, H.
Information transmission
under conditions of sensory(a,
shielding: rtceived by
Nature
Second reporting period 60)
begins: SRI Project 3183
Second reporting period ends:60
SRI contract 3183
Pat Price experimental series
completed
Remote viewing of local targets
continuing: 70 sites
Detection of variable density
target materials: two
series completed
Psychological and medical testing
EEG: repeated three times:
20 15-sec trials: 0, 16 Hz
Approved For Release 2004047:tf7VA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
IL I
PUBLICATIONS
Puthoff, H. Perceptual
augmentation techniques,
Progress report No. 1, SRI
Project 3183, Appendix:
Targ, R. and Puthoff, H.
(
Information transmission
under conditions of sensory s
shielding
YEAR/MONTH
April 24
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SOU
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS EXPERIMENTS
April 1 Third reporting period (e
begins: SRI contract 3183 .5)
April 7-17
(approximate)
June 10-21
Long distance targets: Costa
Rica: S1 (Price); S4
(Hammid); Targ
Long distance target: San
Andres, Columbia airport 6)
Local targets with walkie-
talkie feedback: S1-1;
S2-1; S3-2; S4-5
Remote viewing of local targets
using azimuth bearings (2)
Remote viewing of local targets
S2-2; S4-2
Line drawings (50)
Gradiometer: Sl, 13 10-trial
runs; S2, 1 10-trial run;
S6, 2 10 trial runs
June 21 Pat Price leaves SRI ,
(approximately)
PUBLICATIONS
Puthoff, H. Perceptual
augmentation techniques,
Progress report No. 2
SRI Project 3183 Appendix:
Galin, D. and Ornstein, R.E. 6)
Hemispheric specialization
and the duality of conscious-
ness
Cs)
Cs
ni
Approved For For Release 2004ttlerIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
YEAR/MONTH
July 8
July 10
July
August 1
August 22-24
I a
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
-norT
46istwil
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Targ, R. and Puthoff, H.
Information transmission under ce;
conditions of sensory shielding
revised for Nature
End of third reporting
period: SRI Project 3183 17-
The Seventeenth Annual
Convention of the Para-
psychological Association,
Jamaica, New York
tt)
EXPERIMENTS
Project Atlas: European ?
R&D test facility: S1 (Price)
Random stimulus generator
51, 52, 56: 100 25-trial runs;
54: 84 25-trial runs
Approved For Release?
2003/Nkft
A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Cole, P., and
Puthoff, H. Techniques to
enhance man/machine communica-
tions. Final report on:qqASA
Project NA57-100 .
???"
Puthoff, H. Perceptual
augmentation techniques
Report No. 3 SRI Project 3183
Targ, R., and Cole, P. Usei
of an automatic stimulus
generator to teach extrasensory
perception
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Remote viewing of natural'
targets
YEAR/MONTH
August 26-27
September 26
October 7
N.)
October 18
November 8
November 12
November 13
November
i 1 Ii I I till
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
RELEVANT EVENTS
International. Conference on
Quantum Physics and Para-
psychology, Geneva,
Switzerland
SECRET
TABLE 1. (continued)
Ingo Swann makes list of
things he "sees" but are
not at scene. Second list
of things at scene
5
Approved For Release 2003/
EXPERIMENTS
Abacus/clock target
S3 (Swann) New York City S
White Plaza: S6 (Cole) 5
(first experiment)
Experiments: V1, V2
5
Bridge overstream - V2
Baylands Nature Preserve - V1
Merry-go-round - V1
Miniature golf course: S3
(Swann)
City Hall, Palo Alto:
(Swann)
ErA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Physics, entrophy and
psychokinesis
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.
Remote viewing of natural
targets
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.
Information transmission under
conditions of sensory shielding
I
YEAR/MONTH
Fall
1975
February 1
April
May 28
July 25
July
August 21-23
I It I I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
ciEi
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Other laboratories beginning
to replicate remote viewing
experiments
End of reporting period
SRI Project 3183
Richard Bach visits
Puthoff,. H. and Targ, R.
A perceptual channel for
information transfer ()verb,-
kilometer distances:
Historical perspective
and recent research:
Received by IEEE
Pat Price dies
The Eighteenth Annual Convention
of the Parapsychological
Association, Santa Barbara,
California
EXPERIMENTS
Concluded most of experiments
with SI-6, V1, V2
Memo: Four-state random number
generator; Analysis of man/machine
relationship
Approved For Release 2003/04/117-816A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Allen, S., Green, R., Cohen,
R., Goolsby, C., and Morris,
R. L. A remote viewing study
using a modified version of
the SRI procedure
Hastings, A. Mental processing
of ESP imagery: Theoretical
considerations
YEAR/MONTH
August 21-23
(continued)
November 7
November
December 1
IL II
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
CET
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
A perceptual channel for
information transfer over
kilometer distances: Historical
perspective and recent research.
Revised for IEEE
(6A-)
EXPERIMENTS PUBLICATIONS
4
Beginning of final reporting dc EEG experiments with
period, SRI Project 4540 Hammid
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Precognitive remote viewing
Rauscher, E. A., Neissman, G.,
Sarfatti, J., and Sirag, S. -P.
Remote perception of natural
scenes
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.
Replication study on the
remote viewing of natural
targets
IWICREr
Approved For Release 2003/0 _-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Perceptual augmentation
techniques. Part two:
Research report. Menlo Park,
California: Stanford Research
Institute, Final report,
Contract 3183
YEAR/MONTH
1976
January
March 6
March 25
March
April 15
May 3
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
S'91T
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Whitson, T. W., Bogart, D. N.,
Palmer, J., and Tart, C. T.
Preliminary experiments in
group "remote viewing":
Received by IEEE.
IEEE call for replication
studies on remote viewing
Beginning of SRI Project .1;
5309
Calkins, J. L. Comments on
A perceptual channel for
information transfer over
kilometer distances: ?
Historical perspective and '
recent research. Received
by IEEE
EXPERIMENTS
Hastings, A., and Hurt, D.
Conduct experiment with the
Parapsychology Research Group,
Palo Alto, California
Long-distance remote viewing
with target-person or
geographical coordinates
g"1?
Approved For Release 2003/04.tr
RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H.
Letters, Scientific American
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
A perceptual channel for
information transfer over
kilometer distances: Historical
perspective and recent research
I I I 1 I I t i t
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Sati
TABLE 1. (continued)
YEAR/MONTH RELEVANT EVENTS
May4
May 5 Vallee, J., Hastings, A., and
Askevold, G. Remote viewing
experiments through computer
conferencing. Received by
IEEE
May
May 6 Hastings, A. and Hurt, D.
cr, A confirmatory remote viewing
experiment in a group setting.
Received by IEEE
June 22
June 30
Calkins, J. L. Comments on
A perceptual channel for
information transfer over
kilometer distances: Historical
perspective and recent research.
Revised for IEEE
Puthoff, H., and Targ, R.
Replies to comments on A
perceptual channel for
information transfer over
kilometer distances: Historical
perspective and recent research.
Received by IEEE
EXPERIMENTS PUBLICATIONS
Remote viewing: Baylands Nature
Preserve - V
Remote viewing: Inner Quadrangle, Jr
Stanford University - V
Tart conducts Nebraska Psychiatric
Institute experiment
Approved For Release 2006TkittCIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
YEAR/MONTH
July 2
July 6
August 18-21
August
(5 days)
October 30
October 31
October
L t I t I t t t t
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CAIRDP96-00791R000100440001-9
ECRU
TABLE 1. (continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
Nineteenth Annual Convention
of the Parapsychological (
Association, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
EXPERIMENTS
Long distance remote viewing:
Grant's Tomb: S7' S8
Long distance remote viewing;
Washington Square: S7, S8
Bisaha, J. P., and Dunne, B. J.
Long distance precognitive
remote viewing experiments: (14...
/
Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R.
Long distance remote viewing:
New Orleans - Palo Alto:
f
California Bank Building: S8
Long distance remote viewing:
Menlo Park - New Orleans:
Louisiana Superdome: S7
Approved For Release 20URE814: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
I I.
PUBLICATIONS
Bisaha, J. P., and Dunne, B. J.
Precognitive remote viewing
in the Chicago area: A
replication of the Stanford
experiment
Hastings, A., and Hurt, D.
A confirmatory remote viewing
experiment in a group setting
Vallee, J., Hastings, A., and6;\
Askevold, G. Remote viewing "")
experiments through computer
conferencing
1 1 I
Approved For Release 2003/04/11.: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
StCRET
TABLE 1. (continued)
YEAR/MONTH RELEVANT EVENTS EXPERIMENTS PUBLICATIONS
October
(continued)
1-, 1
m I.
October End of reporting period: Jr Long-distance targeting (?)
SRI Project 4540
1977
April 19-22
Electro 77: Special Session: ,
The State of the Art in Psychic
, I
Research, New York, New York
Approved For Release 200 4.. 1CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Whitson, T. W., Bogart, D. N.
Palmer, J., and Tart, C. T.
Preliminary experiments in
group "remote viewing".
Comments on Perceptual channel
for information transfer over
kilometer distances: Historical
perspective and recent research.
Calkins, J. L., Deutsch, S.,
Harris, W. A., McConnell, R. A.,
and Muses, C. A.
Replies: Puthoff, H. E., and
Targ, R.
Targ, R., and Puthoff, H. E.,
Mind-Reach
May, E. C., Targ, R., and
Puthoff, H. E. Possible EEG6
correlates to remote stimuli4 /
under conditions of sensory
shielding
Puthoff, H. E., and Targ,
Direct perception of remote I
geographical locations
YEAR/MONTH
April
July
August 10-13
,$) September
December
1978
Winter
I I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SEIET
TABLE 1. (Continued)
RELEVANT EVENTS
End of reporting period:
SRI Project 5309
The Twentieth Annual Convention
of the Parapsychological
Association, Washington, D.C.
International Conference on
Cybernetics and Society,
Washington, D.C.
Robert G. Jahn and Carol
Curry visit SRI
EXPERIMENTS
Dunne, B., and Bisaha, J. P.
Multiple channels in
precognitive remote viewing
Experiments conducted at
SRI: Holiday Inn, Chapel,'
Stanford
14.
1
Approved For Release 2003(64/141a. IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Puthoff, H. E., Targ, R. and
May, E. C. Advanced threat
technique assessments.
Stanford Research Institute
Project 5309, Document 7-4375
Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J.
Multiple subject and long
distance precognitive remote
viewing of geographical
locations
Targ, R., Puthoff, H. E., and
May, E. C. State of the art
in remote viewing studies
at SRI
'2
Puthoff, H. E. Memo: *".* ?
judging procedures
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
S:CRET
TABLE 1. (continued)
YEAR/MONTH RELEVANT EVENTS EXPERIMENTS
Winter
March 28
April
April 17
May 1
December 4
Jahn, R. G., J. E. Farnum
Lecture, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey
Approved For Release 2001 lc47aCIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
PUBLICATIONS
Karnes, E. W., and Susman, E. P.
Remote viewing: A response
bias interpretation
Puthoff, H. E. Letter to
Karnes, E. W., and Susman,
E. P.
Targ, R., May, E., and Puthoff,
H., Galin, D., and Ornstein,
R. Sensing of remote EM 5
sources (Physiological
correlates): SRI Project 4540:
Final Report
4
Puthoff, H. E., Targ, R., and
May, E. C. Psychoenergetic
research: suggested approaches
Jahn, R. G. Psychic processes,
energy transfer and things L4,
that go bump in the night.
6-1?000117001.000t11.6/00-96dCIU-VIO 81./170/C00Z aseeieu -10d peACLICIdV
IOUIONHDHI
:simaNixaaxa HAIIINDOOnd
.05), indicating no
justifiable conclusion of learning over the trial blocks. IL'
As indicated above, these successes led to following, more rigorous
experiments which required Swann to provide details that would not be
available on a map. Several items are important in evaluating those results.
Virginia site, Subject: Swann. It is interesting to note the possible
clues given to the subject at the time the coordinates were introduced:
... a skeptical colleague of ours on the East Coast ..." (Targ and Puthoff,
f601
1977, p. 2) Although it is not clear as to what preceded the introduction
of the coordinates to the subject, Swann's initial description is an
extremely general one. It was not until the second reading on the following
day that any real detail is included in his description, such as "Cliffs to
the east ... a circular building ... a former Nike base ... something under-
ground DOOO" This, however, is reported in Mind Reach as a single reading.
Swann also states: "This is about as far as I can go without feedback,
and perhaps guidance as to what was wanted. There is something strange
about this area, but since I don't know particularly what to look for
within the scope of this cloudy ability, it is extremely difficult to make
decisions on what is there and what is not." (Project SCANATE Report, pp. 4-5)
This comment is made during his second reading. If Swann can "see", why does
he need guidance as to what to look. for? )
35
Approved For Release 2003/04/ : -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/ -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
In addition, Puthoff and Targ did not quote their own sources accurately.
"There's a circular building (a tower?) ..." (SCANATE,
circular building, perhaps a tower ...." (Mind Reach,
P.
p.
4) and "There's a
2) These may
appear as minor points until another more obvious discrepancy occurs relating
to Pat Price's appearance as a subject. "As a back-up test, the coordinates
were given to a second subject who appears to possess similar ability in
casual testing ...." (SCANATE Report, p. 5) "It began with a phone call
from Lake Tahoe, ... I've been following what you fellows are doing so I
thought I'd call to let you know that I have similar abilities .... On an
impulse, I read off to him the coordinates of the East Coast site that Swann
was targeting ...," (Mind Reach, pp. 46-47)
Virginia site,
in the reporting of
viewing is reported
rather than the two
5
tot
Subject: Price. Again, one finds the same discrepancy
Price's viewing as is found with Swann. The entire
as a single viewing in one source, Mad Reach, pp. 47-48),
readings that Price actually supplies. One wonders how
Price knew about the work going on at SRI with Swann since it was just a
"game". There was certainly sufficient time for contact to be made between
Swann and Price, assuming that they knew each other or had common associates.
It is alleged, although unverified by the authors, that Price had once worked
for the organization that had control over that particular site and therefore
might have had access to the reported information. $
Approximately three weeks later, a second set of coordinates was given
to Swann, those of Kerguelen Island.
Kerguelen Island, Subject: Swann. Two readings were allowed again.
His first impressions were of an island which was verified almost immediately
by the experimenter although no maps were permitted. "My initial response
36
Approved For Release 2003/0418: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
is that it's an island, maybe a mountain sticking up through cloud cover
(experimenter checks, gives positive feedback)." (SCANATE Report, p. 8)
Swann verifies this in his book, but with a different twist: "Well, said
the experimenter present, I think that is wrong. I checked the target just
before we began, and it is in the middle of the ocean." (Swann, 1975, p. 112)
Swann also relates: "... it was seen that the coordinate referred almost
exactly to the 1,600-foot mountains rising out of the eastern end of Kerguelen
Island." (p. 112)t't His directions, however, seem to get reversed when he
draws his map the following day as he then places the mountains in the west..or
In comparing his descriptions of his map, we again find another discrepancy
in reporting: "If I look to the west, hills; to the north flatlands and, I
think, airstrip and ocean in the distance; to the east, rolling bumpy grass-
lands with bumps; to the south is--I can't see anything to the south ....
May be a lighthouse (on tip?) I lacked ...." (SCANATE Report, p. 9) '5
The other accounting: "If I look to the west, hills; to the north flatlands,
and I think, airstrip and ocean in the distance to the east; can't see any-
thing in the south ... maybe a lighthouse. I lacked courage ', (Mind Reach,
pp. 32-33) LN
It is interesting to note what appears to be two different types of
handwriting on the first detailed map Swann drew of the airport strip and
buildings, although the authors do not profess to being handwriting experts
("maybe 6' long, like gas storage tanks"). SECTION 1. DETAIL (SCANATE Report). dt
Note the different "r's" and "s's". A comparison with the airport drawing,
drawn by one of the experimenters during the Costa Rica experiments, might
be in order. (Mind Reach, p. 12) Note also that this is referred to as
Experiment 66 (SCANATE Report) although this number has been removed from s
37
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 20032gflrflfffRDP9600791R000100440001-9
the same drawing in Mind Reach (p. 32).
? After Puthoff and Targ describe the Kerguelen Island site in Mind Reach,
they qualify the results by stating that prior knowledge could have been
possible. Therefore, another experiment was performed in which no prior
knowledge was available. "No such criticism could be leveled at the following
type of experiment ... A target site on the East Coast ...." (Mind Reach,
p. 33) leading the reader to believe that this target came after Kerguelen
Island. Although they have stated the date and have stated that this was
the first experiment of many, the reader can easily be led to believe that
Kerguelen Island came before the East Coast site, unless the reader returns
to the earlier description in the early pages of the book. Wind Reach,
pp. 1-4)
In general, the Kerguelen Island and Virginia site results are impressive
until one carefully considers the timing, and the notion that each subject
could have obtained the impressive detailed information during the day that
(")
ensued between the first and second readings.
Similarly, inconsistent and conflicting detail reporting cause the
careful reader to be at least slightly suspicious. However, these are
early attempts in the research program, and the investigators were perhaps
feeling their way. Judgement about these particular experiments is not
critical. The later experiments are the ones designed to improve the
methodology and verify the existence of a remote-viewing ability.
B. Long Distance Remote Viewing by Target Person Cueing.
A number of studies have been conducted at SRI (and elsewhere) to evaluate
the abilities of subjects to describe remote target sites identified only
38
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003
6-00791R000100440001-9
by the presence at the target of a known individuJ or group of indj,Yi41-141s
("target persons"),
Costa Rica Experiment
Puthoff's itinerary for a one-week trip was known to the subjects (Price
and Hammid), who described his location each day at 1330 PDT, Puthoff kept
a detailed record of his location and activities, including photographs.
S4 (Hammid) contributed five daily responses, of which "two were in
excellent agreement, two had elements in common but were not clear correspon-
dences, and one was clearly a miss." (August 1974 Progress Report, p. 5) S
Nothing specific is offered in this progress report on S11s responses. However,
in Mind Reach, the authors indicate further "excellent correspondences" for
targets such as "poolside relaxation, a tropical forest at the base of a
truncated volcano, a hotel room, and so on." (p. 13) (..A.
The picture presented most frequently to exemplify the success of this
experiment is that of the airport in San Andres, Columbia, and the related
sketch by Targ, who "filled in" on that day because one of the subjects (S4)
was absent.
? Upon his return, Puthoff attempted to blind match the twelve responses
to the seven target locations. He correctly matched five of the twelve
responses, a result "significant at odds of 50:1." (Targ and Puthoff, 1977,
p. 13) S
Assuming independence of the responses and events, one can verify this
probability estimate with the binomial distribution, asking the probability
of obtaining 5 or more correct matches out of 12, when the a priori chance
probability is 1/12. Thus,
39
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 20
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
5
12 1 n
p(n > 5) = E ( n)(ii) (11--ff)12-n
n = 0
= .00026
That is, under the above assumptions, the probability of this occurrence by
chance is .00026; or, the odds are better than 3000:1!
(1)
Continental U.S.. Experiments
Based upon the various local remote viewing experimental results, the
Project SCANATE results, and the Costa Rica results, it was decided to
explore the accuracy of long-distance remote viewing for U.S. targets
demarcated by a target person. Puthoff, Targ, and May (1977) described the
results of experiments with five such targets. These experiments are also
reported by Targ, Puthoff, and May (1978). They all followed the same general
c
procedure.
The DARPA computer teleconferencing network was used to coordinate
experimental timing, and to provide time/date stamped permanent records of
all communications. With this system inputs at one location can be read out
in real time at another location. s'
After logging off the computer, the target person used a random number
generator to determine which of six locations in the target area would
constitute the target. Neither the subject nor the experimenter knew the
mi contents of the target list, which was compiled after the target person
logged off. The target person selected the target, proceeded directly to
the target, arriving there 30 minutes after logging off, and remained at the
target site for 15 minutes. di
mit
Approved For Release 200
RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mi
When the target person returned from the target site, he entered his
Approved For Release 2003/0Ah1flftrTiDp9600791R000100440001-9
The subject, at the beginning of start time, would begin to type his
impressions into a special computer file established for this purpose.
description of the site into a limited-access file. "He would then return
mi
us
to the executive level of the computer, and await the appearance of the SRI
experimenters and subject who could then (and only then) link the [target
location] and Menlo Park terminals. At that time both files would be printed
out on both terminals (and at a third location if desired--for example, at
the sponsor facility), and the subject and the outbound experimenter would
each learn what the other had written." (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1977) The
results are summarized below by target.
Grant's Tomb (New York City). Both subjects S1 (probably Swann) and
G1 (an SRI systems analyst) were located in California, and made independent
responses. One subject (unspecified) drew a sketch. [These subjects are
renumbered S7 and S8' but still unnamed in the 1978 report.] The selected
target was Grant's tomb. Other targets in the pool were a railroad bridge,
the 20-story NYU law library, the fountain in Washington Square Park, the
Columbia University subway station, and the 72nd Street boat basin.
Responses deemed correct by G1 were "outdoors, large open area
white building, ... arched look ..., large shade tree close to Russ."
Responses by S1 included "tree on your left ... in front of a building
you were entering ... looking at coins in palm of your hand, maybe giving
some to Nicky (son of target person)."
These responses are essentially correct; other details were correct,
and some clearly incorrect.
41
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Washington Square Fountain. Subject S1 was accurate in description of
column, pigeons, dry fountain pool, cement steps, rounded edge of top of
depression. Drawing also appeared fairly accurate. 5
An SRI scientist, familiar with New York City but blind to the target,
identified the target correctly on reading twenty lines of printout as it
emerged from the terminal. 5
An admittedly crude content analysis of the responses of subject S1
indicates that about 66% of the transcripts is accurate. If matched against
the other target sites, only 37% of the transcripts would apply. "Although
crude, this analysis strongly suggests a method for further single transcript
analysis to be carried out by professional linguists." (Puthoff, et al.,
1977, p. 46) $
Ohio Caves, Springfield, Ohio. The target person, under sponsor observation,
telephoned subject H1 in New York City that the target person was somewhere
between New York and SRI, and would shortly be taken to a target site. The
experiment was set to begin at 2:00 PM EDT,.with the target person to call H1
at 3:00 PM to obtain the impressions of H1 and to provide feedback.
The cave depths are about 150 feet, and the cave is entered through a
small building having a long flight of steep stairs. The response included
"underground caves or mines ... deep shafts ... darker, cool, moist earth-
smelling passages." These are considered quite accurate.
A second, less experienced subject (C1) at SRI also served as a subject.
His transcript contained some correct elements, but he believed the target
to be a museum. No paranormal functioning was concluded from his transcript.
Northern California Bank Plaza. Subject S1 was in New Orleans, while
the target was in Palo Alto. The subject correctly reported "overhang of a
42
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ? -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ DP96-00791R000100440001-9
building over their heads ... also a round gold rim around a sunken depression."
He also reported "there was a projectile coming toward [the target person].
Like a ball or frisbee ...." Actually, they had tossed a paper airplane
back and forth several times. This appears to be a rare instance of a
subject reporting rapid motion. 5
Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans. Subject G1 in Menlo Park described
this target as "a large circular building with a white dome." The sketches
are considered close. Subject saw rings, seats, inside lighting color,
nearby freeway, parking lot, newness. The target was selected randomly from
a New Orleans guide book list. /
Puthoff, et al. (1977, pp. 57-58) conclude that "Taken overall, the
results ... are of roughly the same accuraCy with regard to site descriptions
as those obtained in local remote-viewing Sxperiments. The descriptions not
only contain correct information beyond that expected by chance, but also
show remarkable detail and resolution. Furthermore, real-time activities
are observed and correctly described in a number of instances .... Any
application of paranormal functioning need not, to first order, consider
distance as a barrier." 5
? Critical Evaluation
A critical evaluation of these result
at the end of Section II because of the ch
experiments and the methodological similar
and methodologies is contained
onological proximity of the
ties.
C. Local Targets with Target Person Cueing
? 43
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : Cl
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/044WEIP96-00791R000100440001-9
A very large portion of the SRI work has dealt with a somewhat standard-
ized procedure in which a target person goes to a nearby, randomly selected
target at a designated time. The subject then describes the target site in
as much detail as possible. In the following sections, we summarize these
"local" experiments by related categories. Since these studies form the most
quantitatively judged experimentation, they are probably the most important
studies for the purposes of method evaluation and improvement.
Training with Feedback
Puthoff (1974, August Progress Report) describes a series of local
experiments which were designed to give immediate data to the experimenters.
While these are clearly "pilot" experiments in the traditional experimental
sense, they are also described and discussed elsewhere (Targ and Puthoff,
1975; Targ and Puthoff, 1977) and therefore warrant inclusion here. .11.'
In this series, the subject and experimenter remain in a laboratory at
SRI, while the target person leaves the area and proceeds to a remote location
of his choosing. The target person and the experimenter are in two-way radio
mi communication by "walkie-talkie" to provide the experimenter with real-time
data and to give the subject immediate feedback. Thus, this serves as a
training technique for the naive subject in.particular, permitting the subject
to "learn to separate real from imagined images." (Puthoff, 1974, p. 9)
Transcripts of "representative" experiments indicate queries and
responses between the experimenter and target person.
Puthoff (1974) reports that one experiment of this type was carried out
with S1, one with S2' two with S3' and five with S4. (We believe these
subjects to be Price, Elgin, Swann, and liammid, respectively.) "A number of
44
Approved For Release 2003/04/ -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mio descriptions were essentially free of error and with no feedback other than
verification following the remote viewer's description." (p. 12) f
In one such experiment, "... Swann gave a description of Hal walking
across some blacktop, stopping in front of a blue building, and then walking
into a depression .... Now you really have to have a very high level of
confidence in your perceptions ... to say that somebody stopped near a blue
building. The probability of encountering a blue building is about the same
as a purple cow., but Harold in fact did stop in front of a blue building on
his way to the depression." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, pp. 172-173) i??%--
fig
Demonstration of Ability
Successful results in the above feedback experiments and the long-distance
trials with Swann led to the formulation of a protocol for better controlled
experiments to be conducted in the San Francisco Bay area. This standard
protocol is taken, as follows, from the August 1974 SRI Progress Report
(Puthoff, 1974). c
"This experiment consists of a series of double-blind tests involving
local targets in the San Francisco Bay area which can be documented by
independent judging. Target locations within thirty minutes driving time
from SRI are randomly chosen from a list of targets kept blind to subject
and experimenters and used without replacement. S
"To begin an experiment, an experimenter is closeted with a subject at
SRI to wait 30 minutes to begin a narrative description of the remote location.
A second experimenter [target person] obtains a target location from the
target pool and proceeds directly to the target without communicating with
the subject or experimenter remaining behind. The second experimenter remains
45
Approved For Release 2003/00/ IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
96-00791R000100440001-9
at the target site for an agreed-upon thirty-minute period following the
thirty minutes allotted for travel. During the observation period, the
remote viewing subject is asked to describe his impressions of the target
site into a tape recorder. A comparison is made when the experimenter
[target person] returns.
"Following a series of nine experiments, the results are subjected to
independent judging on a blind basis by five SRI scientists not otherwise
associated with the research. The judges are asked to blind match locations,
independently visited, against typed manuscripts of tape-recorded narratives
of the remote viewer. A given narrative can be assigned to more than one
ad target location. A correct match requires that a transcript of a given date
be associated with the target of that date. Probability calculations are on
the basis of the a priori probability of the obtained series of matches by
chance, conservatively assuming assignment without replacement on the part
of the judges." (pp. 18-19) $
Elaboration of this protocol is given in Appendix B, an unpublished 1977
communication from Puthoff to a sponsor. Comments on this protocol, as
written and executed, are offered throughout this section of the report
in the context of critical evaluation. Other comments are contained in
Sections IV and V.
Results from these experiments have been reported in various progress
reports, technical reports, and open literature publications. They are
summarized below by subject. An overview of the ranking of each subject's
transcript, by target, is presented in Table 4, along with summary statistics
following the procedure of Morris (1972), as summarized in Appendix A and
Appendix B.
tei
46
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-018791R010100448001-9
SECRET
TABLE 4. SRI RESULTS, BAY AREA TARGETS. Tabled values are ranks assigned by judges.
de". ?
TARGETSSi.
' PRICE
S4' ? HAMMID
53: SWANK
S2: ELGIN
S5: PEASE S6: COLE
Vi
?
2
1
.
1
V.
--
1
3
HOOVER TOWER
BAYLANDS PRESERVE
P.V. TELESCOPE
R.C. MARINA
FREEMONT TOLL PLAZA
DRIVE-IN THEATRE
ARTS/CRAFTS PLAZA
CATHOLIC CHURCH
SWIMMING POOL COMPLEX
METHODIST CHURCH
NESS AUDITORIUM
MERRY-GO-ROUND
PARKING GARAGE
SRI COURTYARD
BICYCLE SHED
RR BRIDGE
PUMPKIN PATCH
PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS
CITY HALL
MINIATURE GOLF COURSE
KIOSK
BART STATION
SRI SHIELDED ROOM
TENNIS COURTS
GOLF COURSE BRIDGE
WINDMILL
WHITE PLAZA
AIRPORT
BOATHOUSE
BRIDGE OVER STREAM
SWIMMING POOL
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
.
6
3
5
2
4- 1* ?
2
1
REPORTED p-VALUE:
CALCULATED p-VALUE:
2.9 x 10-5
2.95 x 10-5
1.8 x 10-6
1.84 x 10-6
3.8 x 10-4
3.83 x 10-4
0.08
0.08
0.017
0.018
*: JOINT TARGET
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SECRET
IMMI
oil
oat
sot
Approved For Release 2003/04
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Subject S1. ' Price. This subject, a former California police commissioner
and city councilman, "indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability.
A Hoover Tower target, for example, was recognized and named by name. Nonetheless,
in general, the descriptions-contained inaccuracies as well as correct statements."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976, p. 335) k4
Of the nine targets viewed by Price an SRI research analyst who served
as judge correctly matched seven fo the correct transcript, as indicated in
Table 4. The authors conclude that this result is significant at p = 2.9 x 10-5
by exact calculation, using Morris' (1972) procedure. Our calculations verify
this p-value at 2.95 x 10-5. it,
In Experiments [targets] 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Price was secured in a
double-walled copper-screen Faraday cage, which provides 120 dB of attenuation
for RF radiation over a range of 15 KHz to 1 GHz. For magnetic fields, the
attenuation is 68 dB at 15 KHz and decreases to 3 dB at 60 Hz. The authors
conclude that this shielding does not reduce the subject's remote viewing
performance, a conclusion which appears quite valid based upon the rankings
of Table 4. ik
Subject 54: Hammid. This subject was a professional photographer selected
for her successful performance in an earlier EEG experiment. She had no previous
experience with apparent paranormal functioning.
Judging of her transcripts resulted in five direct hits and a p-value of
1.8 x 10-6 (Table 4).U,
While the naive SRI analyst served as the judge for both Price and
Hammid manuscripts, a panel of five SRI scientists was used as backup judges,
each independently following the same Morris (1972) procedure. Under the
null hypothesis of random matching, each judge would be expected to obtain
48
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ? P96-00791R000100440001-9
one correct match out of nine. Fr the Price transcripts, the backup judges
obtained 7, 6, 5, 3, and 3 correct, while they obtained 5, 3, 3, 2, and 2
for the Hammid transcripts. It is worth noting that none of the backup
judges, for either subject, did better thin the naive "chosen" judge. A
t-test comparing the backup judges' number correct against the chosen judges
score results in a t of 4.34, with a rAvalue of 0.0019, two-tailed. Thus,
the likelihood of the chosen judge being selected randomly from the same
population as the five (or perhaps ten) backup judges is less than one in
five hundred. Stated another way, the ahosen judge did significantly better,
at odds of 500:1, than the backup judges. No reason for this difference (or
acknowledgement of its existence) is given by the authors. (A
In Targ and Puthoff (1975), the distribution of the matching responses
by the five backup judges for Price's transcripts are given. As reported,
the number of correct matches is highly significant although judge C matched
three different transcripts to the Baylands Nature Preserve target and no
transcript to either the Bridge Toll Plaza or the Swimming Pool Complex in
in Rinconada Park. No explanation is given although the judges "were asked
to find a narrative which they would consider the best match for each of the
places they visited." (p. 154) Li
Subjects S3 (Swann) and S2 (Elgin). Subjects S2 and S3 are considered to
be experienced subjects. Their individual results and the combined probability
of their 8 transcripts being ranked as well by chance are shown in Table 4.
Again, as with Price and Hammid the results are highly significant (9 = 3.8 x
-4
10 ). Apparently no backup judges were used for these subjects.
Subjects 85 (Pease) and Se (Cole). These two subjects were on the SRI
professional staff, and were selected to balance out this series of experiments.
49
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
3ECIET
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ? P96-00791R000100440001-9
S1' S2' and S3 were considered experienced subjects with previous paranormal
accomplishments, while S4, S5, and S6 were "learners." Similarly, S4 and S6
were female, while the others were male.k
The results for S5 and S6 are indicated in Table 4 also. One target,
the Stanford White Plaza, "came up" for both subjects, so the two transcripts
were judged together. [How this target "came up" that way, or why it was not
replaced, is not mentioned. Note that, in the original protocol statement,
targets were to.be sampled without replacement (Puthoff, 1974, August Progress
Report); yet, clearly this target was sampled with replacement. Note also
that the double transcript provided more potential information for that target
than for any other in this series. It was correctly judged.] 5
As indicated in Table 4, the results for these subjects, taken together,
failed to reach statistical significance, p = .08.
Subjects V and V2'
Five experiments were done with these two visitors,
as indicated in Table 4. The reason for these studies is that "After more
um than a year of following the experimental protocol described above and
observing that even inexperienced subjects generated results better than
expected, we initiated a series of experiments to explore further whether
individuals other than putative 'psychics' can demonstrate the remote-viewing
ability. To test this idea, we have a continuing program to carry out
additional experiments of the outdoor type with new subjects whom we have no
a priori reason to believe have paranormal perceptual ability." (puthoff
and Targ, 1976, p. 340) 1,1
bk.46-2
For V1, the quality of response was judged to increase with
His response to this target, the Merry-Go-Round, was considered to be a close
ww match. (It was judged correctly, as shown in Table 4. It was also used
previously with S4.)
practice.
Approved For Release 2003/
50
A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
owl
ita
gal
Approved For Release 2003/04/18s ^ P96-00791R000100440001-9
Subject V2 was considered to generate one of the higher signal-to-noise
responses obtained, on his first attempt. (This target, the windmill, had
been previously used for 55. It was judged correctly for subject V2.)
The results for V1 and V2 combined were statistically significant,
p = 0.017 (actually 0.018 as we calculate it).
The authors conclude that observations with unselected (inexperienced)
subjects such as V1 and V2 indicate that remote viewing may be a latent and
widely distributed ability. It is this result and assertion that has led
other researchers to use inexperienced subjects, provide them encouragement,
and obtain seemingly positive results, as will be seen in Section III of
this report.
Precognitive Experiments
Puthoff and Targ (1976a) noted that subjects "occasionally volunteered
the information that they had been thinking about their forthcoming ...
experiment and had had an image come to them as to what the target location
was to be. (p. 37) Hella Hammid (S4) was selected as a subject to test this
ability, largely because she had been successful on precognitive trials with
the four-choice random number generator, as will be described below.
In this series, Hammid described the remote location during a 15-minute
period beginning 20 minutes before the target was selected and 35 minutes
before the target person was to arrive at the target site. Other elements
of the SRI protocol were essentially unchanged.
The four targets, none used in previous research with her, were (1) the
Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, (2) a fountain at Stanford University Hospital, (3)
a children's swing in a small park, and (4) the Palo Alto City Hall. (Target
(4) was used with subject S3.)
51
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 .4. -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
6-00791R000100440001-9
The four transcripts were blind matched to the four locations by three
SRI scientists who were not otherwise associated with the experiment. "The
three judges each matched the target data to the response data without error.
The majority vote of the judges thus yielded four out of a possible four hits:
P = = .042." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976a, p. 40) No particular explanation
is offered for the excellent results.
Technology Targets
These 12 experiments were conducted to obtain data on the "resolution"
of remote viewing ability. Five different subjects were used. Three were
previous subjects (S2, S3, S4) while tWo (V2, V3) were visiting government
scientists. +
The target person was sent to a laboratory within the SRI complex and,
once there, interacted with the equipment or apparatus at that location.
The experimenter was ignorant of the target pool, the size of which is
unspecified. Targets were sampled with replacement. (Since three targets
were used twice, and one three times, it seems likely that the pool contained
only 12 targets.) IA.
Subjective analyses of the responses by the authors are stated to
provide "circumstantial evidence for an information channel of useful bit
rate." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343)
The authors believed that the drawings constitute the most accurate
portion of a subject's description. Thus, in the first judging procedure
with these data, a judge was asked simply to rank only the drawings (without
tape transcripts) to the targets. Multiple-subject responses were stapled
together. The results are given in Table 5, with the analysis following
52
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 6-00791R000100440001-9
In* TABLE 5. RESULTS FROM TECHNOLOGY TARGETS, PUTHOFF AND TARG (1976b)
SUBJECT TARGET RANK
.S3, S4 Drill Press
S2' S3' V3 Xerox Machine 2
S4' V2 Video Terminal 1
S3 Chart Recorder 2
Random Number Generator 6
Machine Shop 3
Typewriter 2
Sum of Ranks 18
p = 0.936
S3' S4
53
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
40e
Aperov d Eor
661j
the Morris (f'72) procedure (Appendix A). The res ts are signific
1(
se 20
?11-1-grao Awto
ii944R
C4.4,_ ;1,7 Xeirt.40?*?'-'edi'l,
p = 0.036.
In a second evaluation, a visiting scientist randomly selected the drill
press data package, sight unseen, and submitted it for independent analysis
to an engineer, asking for an estimate of what was described. The answer
was "a man-sized vertical boring machine." Note this target was not perfectly
matched, even though the description seems reasonable by this second analysis.
In Targ and Puthoff (1976), the authors also describe these experiments.
They indicate the same procedure, rationale, and subjects. They further state
that seven targets were used: "drill press, computer-driven flight simulator
(Link trainer), Xerox machine, video terminal, chart recorder, ESP teaching
machine (random number generator), and typewriter. Three of these were used
twice (drill press, video terminal, and typewriter), and one (Xerox machine)
came up three times in our random selection procedure. Blind matching without
replacement of subject response packets (tape transcripts plus drawings) and
targets resulted in four matches out of the 12, a result significant at P = .015."
(pp. 36-37)
Two discrepancies in these reportings of the same data should be noted.
First, the complete machine shop target in Puthoff and Targ (1976b), Puthoff
and Targ (1975c), and Targ and Puthoff (1977) has become a Link trainer in
Targ and Puthoff (1976). Second, the matching without transcripts = 0.036)
became more significant (2, = 0.015) when transcripts were added (Targ and
Puthoff, 1976) although the detailed results are not presented in that report.
It is unclear why the results, including transcripts, which were presented in
August, 1975 (Targ and Puthoff, 1976), were not presented in later publications
of 1976 and 1977.
54
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
EtCR[T
ail
mid
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
Critical Evaluation: Local Targets
"The observation of such unexpectedly high-quality descriptions early
in our program is what provided the motivation for the large-scale three-year
SRI study of remote viewing under secure double-blind conditions (i.e., target
unknown to experimenters as well as subjects)."
The."... early experiments were useful in establishing the existence
of remote viewing as a real phenomenon, but were unsatisfactory as a vehicle
for investigating the phenomenon from a scientific standpoint. What was
needed was a protocol involving local targets that ... [would] ... eliminate
the possibility of target acquisition by ordinary means .... Finally, a
random target selection procedure and a blind judging (matching) of results
would have to be handled independent of the researchers carrying out the
experiments. Such procedures would have to be meticulously developed and
rigorously followed to safeguard against charges of naivete in protocol
which might permit cueing or, worse, charges of fraud and collusion ....
After considerable discussion within SRI and consultation with interested
scientists outside SRI, we designed an experimental protocol that promised
to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by the belief structures
of either the experimenters or the judges." (Targ and Puthoff, Mind Reach,
1977, pp. 34-35)
The protocol developed to meet these guidelines was then applied to
the experiments conducted with local San Francisco Bay area targets. This
protocol, its consistency of application, and its possible flaws then
constitute the fundamental bases of evaluation of the SRI research. In
the following pages we examine these bases in detail, by components of the
55
Approved For Release 2003/03/1CRM-RQP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/041"gfeltErD96-00791R000100440001-9
protocol, beginning with subjects, and
experimentation, experimenters, target
target pool, target selection, subject
target person behavior, and judging.
Subjects. Although Puthoff and Targ had originally planned to use
three types of subjects--gifted, learners and controls--time restrictions
limited them to the use of only two of these categories--gifted and learners.
A third category was added later--unselected volunteers. The criteria for
the selection of the gifted versus the learners were as follows:
(1) "Gifted": "Three experimental paradigms were chosen to act as
screening tests on the basis that these tests had been useful for such
purposes prior to this program (in the sense that certain apparently gifted
progressing through order of
persons ("outbound experimenters"),
orientation, experimenter behavior,
individuals did exceedingly well
results of unselected volunteers
expectation). The tests are (a)
on at least one of the tests, whereas the
did not differ significantly from chance
remote viewing of natural targets, (b)
reproduction of simple line drawings hidden from the subject but viewed by
an experimenter, and (c) determination of the state of a four-state electronic
random stimulus generator .... For the purpose of screening, the criteria
as to what constitutes a paranormal result was chosen arbitrarily, viz: For
the purpose of screening a result is to be paranormal if the a priori
probability for the occurrence of the result by chance, under the null
hypothesis, is p < 10"," (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, pp. 14-16) Y
Three subjects were chosen: Pat Price, Duane Elgin and Ingo Swann.
Pat Price (S1): This subject was chosen on the basis of his remote
viewing ability: "... the caller was a businessman and a former police
commissioner at Burbank I (H.P.) had met briefly a few years earlier."
.56
Approved For Release 2003/04 CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 infiefflip0791R000100440001-9
Wind Reach, p. 47) "... who felt he used his remote viewing ability in
his everyday life and in his past work as a police commissioner." (Targ and
Puthoff, 1976, p. 34), and who "... came to us with a reported history o
spontaneous remote viewing experiences." .(Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1978, -- 5
p. 519)
In another reference, it is stated quite differently: "... two of our
subjects (H.H. and P.P.) had not consideqd themselves to have an usual
ability before their participation in these experiments." (Targ and Puthoff,
1975, p. 151) Puthoff and Targ also state: "Furthermore, Price was not a
professional psychic, which opened up the prospect that perhaps there were
many individuals potentially capable of remote viewing." Wind Reach, 1977, LA
p.
56)
Price, however, despite the conflicting statements above, was selected
on the basis of his "... ability to describe correctly buildings, docks ..."
which "... indicated the functioning of a remote perceptual ability."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) Although Puthoff and Targ feel that Price
shows evidence of remote perceptual ability they also indicate: "it was
clear to us as we went along that the results being generated were of
superior quality .." (Mind Reach, p. 56) Does this imply that prior
results were not superior? tot
Duane Elgin (S2): This subject was selected on the basis of his work
with the four-state random stimulus generator. Some confusion, however,
seems to exist as to whether or not he was actually screened on the basis
of the NASA screening study: It ... we decided to extend our investigations
to include the two outstanding (ordinary) subjects who had been uncovered
in a broad-based screening experiment including 147 volunteer subjects.
57
Approved For Release 2003/04 -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
bri
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA 791R000100440001-9
The subjects for this experiment were an SRI scientist, Mr. D.E., and a
professional photographer, Ms. .H.H." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, P. 155)
Puthoff and Targ further state: "Mr. Elgin from Stanford Research Institute
is the one who worked with the teaching machine through the entire year.
He maintained high scores, in both the pre-test and the post-test, at a
level of 10-6
I 1
? ? ? ?
(Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 173)
In a different publication, discussing the same study: "In the
exploratory and screening phases of the experiment, a total of 147 subjects,
we identified six subjects who had a postive slope significant at the P .01
level or better .... Excluding these six subjects, we found that the slopes
of the remaining 141 subjects appeared to be normally distributed .... It
should be noted that two subjects (not among the six who showed learning)
had significantly high scores over their total testing period. One had a
mean run score of 30.50 over 1400 trials, an occurrence with a binomial
probability of 2 x 10-6 The other had a mean run score of 29.57 over
2800 trials with a binomial probability of less than 10-6. (Targ and Cole,
1975, pp. 28-29) Could one of these subjects be Elgin?
"Elgin simply began by scoring high at the beginning of the experiment
and continued at the same rate throughout" (Mind Reach, 1977, pp. 27-28), so
he cannot be considered to be one of the subjects who showed learning. "Of
the 147 volunteer subjects, six were identified whose learning performance
was significant at the 0.01 level or better .... In our report we took
these preliminary findings to indicate that there is evidence for paranormal
functioning from our work with the ESP teaching machine. This evidence
includes one subject who achieved scores at the p < 10-6 level of significance
in his 2800 trials." 101\
58
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
ammr"
Approved For Release 2003/04010i3
efetik96 -00791 R000100440001-9
In another source, two subjects' results are reported for the exploratory
phase of the NASA study. "Subject 2 had a mean score of 30.50 over 1400
trials and had a learning curve of .714." (Gardner, 1975, p. 115)
two subjects, however, are not SRI employees.
Or7
These
Following the exploratory phase, eleven subjects were retested with the
addition of a teletype to record the results. Results fell to chance under
these conditions. Additional work then continued with six subjects: "Only
one subject was able to replicate his original performance. Over 2500 trials
his mean score of 27.88 had a binomial probability of 4.19 x 10-4. At his
request, this subject was permitted a few clearly demarcated daily practice
sessions." (Targ and Cole, 1975, p. 29) t,_
This, however, does not yet qualify Elgin as "... the policy research
111? analyst who was a high scoring subject p < 10-6" on the basis that he
supposedly is not one of the two subjects used in the exploratory phase
am
and other than those two subjects, none have results meeting that criterion.
The remote viewing subjects were also asked to work with the random
mm
stimulus generator. In discussing these experiments, "we asked Elgin to
mo participate in another replication experiment. This time the mechanical
recording device was removed altogether, but at the price of being under
continuous surveillance by an experimenter who would record the scores after
each twenty-five trial run .... Elgin was permitted 'freebie' practice ....
Elgin did regain a high scoring rate . this time significant at odds
mi 2,000:1 ...." (Mind Reach, p. 128) And "At a later time, subject S2 was
asked to repeat the entire experiment, and he was able to replicate
moo
successfully a high meaning score (27.88/100 trial average p = 4.8 x 10-4."
(Sponsor memo) Although Puthoff and Targ show inconsistency in their
59
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ?
-00791R000100440001-9
reporting of the results, Elgin has been identified as the same subject
reported in the other source. V
Why, however, do Targ and Cole neglect to include what is reported as
earlier work with Elgin: "Data was collected from subjects S1 - S6 OYOO
For the six subjects, only one (S2) scored significantly above chance. For
the 2500 trials that subject averaged 29.36 hits/100 trials ... p = 3 x
(Sponsor memo) Why is Elgin's replication study reported as his third:
"Elgin did regain a high scoring rate during this third experiment, this
time significant at odds of 2,000:1 ...." (Mind-Reach, 1970, p. 128)
Elgin, it should be recalled, worked with the teaching machine for over a
year, beginning, therefore, during the summer of 1973. Was Elgin one of
the subjects discussed in the exploratory phase of the NASA study? Li,
It should be noted that Puthoff and Targ comment: "We had a more
difficult time finding a third subject to go with Pat and Ingo." (Mind-Reach,
p. 70) despite the fact that one of the screening criteria was the determina-
tion of the state of a four-state electronic random stimulus generator
especially since "In our report, we took these findings to indicate that
there is evidence for paranormal functioning with the ESP teaching machine."
(Mind-Reach, p. 180) Lk,
Ingo Swann (S3): Swann apparently was selected on the basis of his
remote viewing capabilities: "We have found two individuals - Swann was
the first - capable of such a high degree of remote viewing .... (Mind-Reach,
.01 p. 56), although this is somewhat qualified elsewhere: 11 ... subject 3 is
tentatively classed as gifted in remote viewing ...." (SRI Progress Report,
August 1974) This, however, is not what was first reported: "... to three
subjects. screened in other programs as being gifted in the area of paranormal
60
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : -00791R000100440001-9
perception. .They are Mr. Patrick H. Price, screened for remote viewing
ability, Mrs. Hella Hammid, screened for EEG correlates to remote stimuli,
and Mr. Duane Elgin, screened for high scoring response to a random target
generator." (SRI Progress Report, 3/3/74, p. 3) One wonders why Puthoff
and Targ changed their minds concerning their subjects, and Swann is
included as "gifted" and Hammid becomes a "learner".
(2) "Learners": Originally, Puthoff and Targ had planned to use three
categories of subjects: gifted, learners, and controls. Due to time
restrictions, they decided to combine the learner and control groups since
"... the distinction between learners and controls was arbitrary in
comparison between these categories and that of gifted subjects (SRI Progress
5
Report, August 1974, p. 17), gifted subjects having been defined as having
done well on the random stimulus generator, the line drawing tests, or in
remote viewing. The criterion, however, is represented a little differently
elsewhere: "The a priori dichotomy between gifted and learners was based
on the experienced group having been successful in other studies conducted
before this program and the learners group being inexperienced with regard
to paranormal preception." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) This criterion
is even further defined: "Since we could not pretest our subjects without
violating the intention of the experiments, our criterion for selection of
inexperienced participants was simply to choose intelligent, cheery, agreeable
people with whom we would enjoy working." (Mind-Reach, p. 70) Hella Hammid,
Marshall Pease, and Phyllis Cole were chosen. IA.
Hella Hammid (S4): Hammid is classified as a learner despite the fact
that "She was selected . . on the basis of her successful performance as a
percipient in the EEG experiment ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336)
61
Approved For Release 2003/04/ P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
6-00791R000100440001-9
..? three subjects screened in other programs as being gifted in the area
of paranormal'perception ... Mrs. Hella Hammid ..." (SRI Progress Report,
3/12/74, p. 3)6and, "... we decided to extend our investigations to include
two outstanding (ordinary) subjects who had been uncovered in a broad-based.
ow
screening experiment ... Mr. D.E., and ... Ms. H.H." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975,
ON
p. 155) to..
Although Hammid had been successful in the EEG program, she is reported
to have "... no strong feelings about the likelihood of her ability ...."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336) One must also take into account that
though she undoubtedly fit the description of being cheerful, intelligent,
and agreeable, she was also a friend: 111 (R.T.) had known Hella for more
than a dozen years
. ? . ? 111
(Mind-Reach, p. 73) Having known Hammid for more
than a dozen years, speculation leads one to wonder if Hammid is the "she"
that was such a successful subject in his earlier work with the ESP teaching
machine.
LA-
Marshall Pease (S5): Little is known about this subject other, than
he is a member of the SRI professional staff.
Phyllis Cole (S6): This subject is also with SRI, a mathematician in
the computer science laboratory. As will be seen later, Cole is not only
a subject, but also an experimenter. IA
From the above, it is apparent that the second test to be used for
screening of subjects was never used. Under lb. (SRI Progress Report,
August 1974), experimentation is reported in progress. The only other known
line drawing experiments are those conducted with Geller. One is.led to
speculate that the furor caused by Puthoff and Targ's reports of their
early work with Geller led Puthoff and Targ to eliminate this subject.
62
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mei
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
-00791R000100440001-9
Reports on the Geller work alsa show inconsistencies.
(3)
Unselected volunteers (V1' V2): "Our observation that apparently
everyone can experience remote viewing was a particularly hard-won truth
which emerged from our efforts to handle the following problem ... no matter
how miraculous the result of an ESP demonstration, an observer often tries
to discount it as a lucky day, or is convinced later by a skeptical colleague
that he is mistaken, deceived, or both Fortunately, we evolved a simple
way to remedy the mistake-or-deception problem: by a frontal assault. In
a word, the only way to be sure that an observer has seen something psychic
is to have him do it himself--
? ? ? ? I I
(Mind-Reach, p. 6) Hence, "our
skeptical government scientist agreed to be a subject in a series of three
of our standard remote viewing experiments." (Mind-Reach, 1977, P. 6) and
"Many scientists from the government and elsewhere have visited .... Our
second visitor ...." (Mind-Reach, 1977, p. 88) (A?
Order of Experimentation. Prior to the actual demonstration-of-ability
experiments, mock experiments to facilitate learning are performed. These
consist of the subject in the laboratory attempting to remote view while the
target person, with the use of a walkie-talkie connection with the laboratory-
bound experimenter provides immediate feedback of the target to the subject.
Since it is difficult at times to separate the order in which a subject
is used in these two types of experiments, both types will be dealt with at
the same time. Each subject will be discussed separately. LA
(1) Pat Price (81): Price's series of nine experiments was the first
to be completed from all reports in the publications dealing with remote
viewing of local targets. It is reported that one mock experiment was
carried out with this subject although no details are given. (SRI Progress
63
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : Cl -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
t
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
-00791R000100440001-9
Report, August 1974) 4'
(2) Duane Elgin (S2): One might logically assume that subjects were
run in numerical order. Experimentation apparently was underway following
the Price series: "Experimentation is in progress with subjects 2 and 4,
two transcripts having been obtained from each to date." (SRI Progress
ui Report, August 1974) In addition, in August 1974, it was reported: "Based
on the results of the Price experiments, we decided to extend our investi-
gations to include the two outstanding ordinary subjects The subjects
for this experiment were ... Mr. D. E. and Ms. H.H. ...." (.farg and
Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) tx.,
Confusion exists, however, when one finds; "Having completed 22 remote
sr
?=a
viewing experiments ... 9 each with Pat and Hells, and four with Ingo ,
we therefore decided to do four experiments with each of the remaining
subjects ...." (Mind-Reach,. p. 80) to,L.
Confusion also exists when it is reported: In Duane's first try, the
outbound experimenters were sent to. the Bay Area Rapid (BART) Station ...
(Mind-Reach, p, 80), when in another source it is reported that of the four
experiments conducted with Elgin and Hammid, the first of which is Hammictl'st
"In the second experiment, the experimenter (.Phyllis Cole) was led by the
throw of a die to a shielded room ?." and "In a third trial, the experi,-
menters .,.went to the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station ...." (Targ and
Puthoff, 1975, pp. 156-158), In all publications, BART is listed as Elgin's
first experiment, the shielded room second.L4-
64
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
RETft el,
Approved For Release 2003/04/184PflaW00791R000100440001-9
(3) Ingo Swann (S3): Swann, the originator of the entire experiment
and whose remote viewing abilities have been so successful prior to the
remote viewing of local targets, apparently is not used until later in the
series. Although referred to as the first subject in one publication:
a second subject in the remote viewing program, Mr. Pat Price ..." (SRI
Progress Report, 3/12/74, p. 14), Swann somehow becomes S3' 5
Although it is stated "Having completed twenty-two remote-viewing
experiments-nine each with Pat and Hella, and four with Ingo ..." (Mind-
Reach, p. 80), it is otherwise reported. Having completed a series of 18
remote viewing experiments ... 9 each with experienced S1 (Price) and S4
(Hammid), additional replication experiments, four with each S, were carried
out ... S2 (Elgin) and S3 (Swann)." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p.338)
At the time Elgin's experiments are reported in Targ and Puthoff (1975),
Swann is not mentioned. In addition, Swann's drawing of Palo Alto City
Hall (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, Figure 7, p. 340) is dated "13 November 1974."
Puthoff and Targ verify this: "the quality of transcript that can be
generated ... is most evident from the results of our most recent experiment
with Swann. The target location chosen ... was the Palo Alto City Hall."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) 40
This experiment incidentally is listed first in all publications, even
though on his drawing of this target "miniature golf course from yesterday?"
(Puthoff and Targ, 19766, p. 340), appears and the miniature golf course
appears as the second listed target. L?.
Swann, however, ends his stay at SRI in August 1973: "The end of the
summer brought to an end our eight month program with Ingo Swann. He had
not only introduced us to paranormal functioning of a caliber we had not
It...
65
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 00791R000100440001-9
expected, but also defined the role of co-worker and contributor." (Mind-
Reach, p. 45)
By March of 1974, Swann was in New York City: ... after Swann had
returned to New York City, he and Sherman carried out a similar experiment
to probe mercury ... the experiment was carried out on the evening of March
11, 1974 ... with Swann in New York ...."
(Mind-Reach, p. 211) LA.
He is also in New York. on September 27, 1974 for the abacus/clock
experiment: "As a demonstration for a group of interested scientists outside
SRI, we were challenged to arrive unannounced in New York City and to invite
Swann over to our hotel room .... Today is Friday, September 26, 1974."
(Mind-Reach, pp. 38-39) Did he return to do his series of experiments, one
of which is dated November 13, 1974? And the "miniature golf course from
yesterday?" (Mind-Reach, p. 38) bk.
If he returns, then there is quite a lapse between his mock experiments
and his actual demonstration-of-ability tests, since his mock experiments
are reported at the same time as the first two experiments with Elgin and
Hammid. "We have done some experiments with walkie-talkies subsequent to
this whole series we have described here ..." (the Price series). " Of*
where we wanted to give the subject direct feedback to help him learn ....
In our most recent data, with this subject and with Swann, Harold has been
going to high strangeness areas ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 172) --
Yet, as has been stated earlier, it is reported that his series of
four experiments were completed after Price and Hammid and that his mock
experiments were reported in an August 1974 publication along with Elgin
and Hammid's first two experiments. In addition, "To complete the series,
four experiments were carried out with learner subjects S5 and S6 ...."
66
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ ? 96-00791R000100440001-9
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) Co*le sjirst transcript is dated October
7, 1974 (Miwi-Reach,
13?
104)'and Swann's 13 November 1974. Confusing?
In addition, it is also stated that only two mock experiments were
carried out with Swann (SRI Progress Report, August 1974) and yet it is
reported: ? ..? in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to
do one right after the other ....P (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 177)
Hella Hammid (34): Some confusion revolves around one particular
target "the actual target building was a fifteen-foot-high model of a little
red
-
red school house at a local miniature golf course ..." (Mind-Reach,
p.
75)
although it Is also placed in Redwood City (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156).
In March 1974,:the following was reported: "a preliminary remote viewing
experiment was carried out .... The subject's response was that she saw a
red clapboard structure with a steePle .... Based on this result, a series
of remote viewing experiments under strict protocols are planned with this
subject." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74)
5
In August 1974, this same "preliminary remote viewing experiment" is
reported as being a demonstration-of-ability experiment, and was reported
with Elgin's first two experiments: "The following gives a summary of the
four experiments done with the two ordinary subjects from the screening
study. In the first experiment, H.H. described a ... red, wooden building
with a pointed roof ... the building where the experimenter, Dr. Puthoff,
stood was a 4.5-meter-high caricature of a schoolhouse and miniature golf-
? (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) 6-
Later, this same target is described quite differently: "In this
particular experiment, Hella made her maiden voyage into remote viewing
while standing on the roof of our engineering building. Our walkie-talkie,
Approved For Release 2003/
67
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
-mi
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 6-00791R000100440001-9
unlike remote viewing, doesn't operate through walls ... the tape recording
of Hella's first mock experiment beings: ... HELLA: I see a little house
with red, overlapping boards. It has white trim and a very pointed roof.
But the whole thing feels fake, like a movie set." (Mind-Reach, pp. 74-75) LA,
Note also the discrepancy in. reporting a tape-recorded experiment:
H.H. described ... red, wooden building with a pointed roof. The
building was further described as being made with ... overlapping boards and
has a white trim. Furthermore, she said the ... building is empty, as though
nothing is going on inside. And the whole place seems artificial like a
movie set." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) &\
It is .also interesting to note that the waIkie-talkie does, in fact,
operate through walls: "the subject and two experimenters (one of whom was
R.T.) are in a first-floor laboratory in building 30 at SRI ... H.P. and
R.T. are in two-way radio communication via walkie-talkie ...." (SRI Progress
Report, 3/12/74) In addition, if walkie-talkies are being used and these
mock experiments are for training purposes only, why tape-record them?
(5) Marshall Pease (S5): From all that is known, this subject was
apparently tested toward the end-of-the series. "To complete the series,
four experiments each were carried out with learner subjects S5 and S6 ...."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) No mock experiments are reported for this
subject. 10,
(6) Phyllis Cole (S6): This subject also is tested near the end of
the series. "To complete the series, four experiments were carried out
with each of the two learner subjects ... Marshall Pease and Phyllis Cole."
(Mind-Reach, p. 84) Although this is the way it is stated in the text,
Phyllis Cole's first experiment is actually run prior to that of Swann's
Approved For Release 2003/
68
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/14M+96-00791R000100440001-9
(Palo Alto City Hall (11/13/74) miniature; golf course, 11/12/74) although
there is
arding-this.- "Following is the unedited transcript
of the first experiment with an SRI volunteer, Phyllis Cole .... Today is
Monday, October 7 ...." (6, p. 104)
(7) Unselected volunteers (V1, V2): "After more than a year of
following the experimental protocol ... and observing that even inexperienced
subjects generated results better than expected, we initiated a series of
experiments to ,.explore further whether individuals other than putative
Psychics can demonstrate the remote viewing ability." (Puthoff and Targ,
1976b, p. 340)
It is worthwhile to stop and consider the use of the word "putative"
meaning commonly accepted or supposed, reputed, assumed to exist or to
have existed; applied to individuals who are also considered "learners".
It should be noted that the use of this word is removed from other publications.
The other element to be noted is that if these experiments with unselected
volunteers began more than a year after inexperienced subjects generated
better than expected results, then the inexperienced subjects were tested
prior to November 1973. The third target for V1 is dated November 8, 1974.
(Mind-Reach, Figure 2, p. 9) If Puthoff and Targ actually began using
unselected subjects one year after the inexperienced subjects were tested,
why weren't their data published? Price's data are not published until
October 1974 although it had been submitted,for publication on March 11, 1974.
See Targ and Puthoff, 1974 (p. 607). The experiments, five in number are
conducted with "... a man and a woman ..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, pp. 340-
341) although these two people are both referred to as being male in other
publications.
69
Approved For Release 200/I/1 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04 96-00791R000100440001-9
"The first visitor's responses were excellent ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 88)
A series of three remote viewing experiments were carried outs In the
first experiment, Hal was sent to stand on a bridge over a stream in Burgess
Park ... a second experiment ... Baylands Nature Preserve .... He also
described .... After we played the tape made by the subject, and he learned
... he told us ... for the third experiment .... The subject knew where we
had been, and we had his description ... his third ... the traveling orders
brought us to a merry-go-round ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 7-9) Lk
"Our second visitor gave one of the best results we have ever observed
in his first experiment. He began his narrative,'There is a red A-frame
building ,_to" (Mind-Reach, p. 88) The target for this experiment was a
windmill, which was followed by an apartment swimming pool. (Mind-Reach,
mi Table 9, p. 89) However, these visitors are later reported as being V2 and
V3' even though the targets correspond.
too
It is also interesting to note that in 1977, Puthoff and Targ report:
mi "We have carried out more than one hundred experiments of this sort, most
of them successful, as determined by independent judging." (Mind-Reach,
pp. 9-10) If so, one might assume that these total results would be published.
As of this writing, we cannot account for 100 such experimentsAA
Experimenters. ... we set up a research program to test the remote
viewing hypothesis under rigidly controlled scientific conditions." (Puthoff
and Targ, 1976b, p. 334) "The protocol was to closet the subject with an
Neil experimenter .i.." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) This was borne out
in other publications: "one E would remain at SRI with the subject ..."
me
(Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 155) and "As in all our other work, one E
remained with the S ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976a, p. 36) LA
WO
Eli
70
Approved For Release 2003paRDP96-00791R000100440001-9
rig
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
-00791R000100440001-9
However, despite the "rigidly controlled conditions", it is reported:
"This is remote viewing experiment with Pat Price, Dean Brown and Russell
Targ in the shielded room in Building 30 ..." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 161),
the two experimenters remaining with the subject." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b),
?and "... the two experimenters remaining with Mrs. Hammid." (Puthoff and
Targ, 1976a, p. 38)
Target Persons. "In our standard protocol . . the target demarcation
team, consisting of usually of one to three other experimenters and myself
(H.P.) picked up our travelling orders ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335)
This protocol, however, is not always followed either. "This is remote
viewing experiment with Russ Targ, Phyllis Cole, and Hal Puthoff. In this
experiment, Hall will drive to a remote site ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 104), and
"The outbound experimenter ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 340)
It also should be noted that SRI experimenters also included subjects
despite the statement: "The protocol was ... In each of the experiments,
one of the six program subjects served as remote-viewing subject, and SRI
experimenters served as a target demarcation team ...." (Puthoff and Targ,
1976b, p. 335) From what limited resources are available of unedited
transcripts, pictures, and drawings, it can be determined that the following
subjects also served as experimenters in the associated targets:
(a) Phyllis Cole: Price:
Allied Arts (Mind-Reach, p. 53)
Elgin:
BART Station (Targ and Puthoff, 1975,
p.
158)
Elgin:
Shielded Room (Targ and Puthoff, 1975,
p.
156)
Elgin:
Tennis Courts (Mind-Reach, Figure 15,
p.
83)
The reasoning behind this lies in the fact that the two figures in Elgin's
drawing are labelled "H & P" and it is known that Cole was used as an
Approved For Release 2003/
71
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
dli
Approved For Release 2003/04/ ? 0
P96-00791R000100440001-9
experimenter in two of Elgin's other experiments. (A,
(b) Hammid
Pease:? Windmill The rational for this can be found in
Pease's drawing in which he writes: "Hal and Hella sitting." (Mind-Reach,
Figure 17, p. 87)
In the precognition series with Hammid, it is interesting to note: "We
even brought in a professional engineering consultant (David Hurt) to
independently observe and record the events. How unbiased can this "profes-
sional consultant" be if he has worked closely with Russell Targ (Targ and
Hurt, 1972) and is reported by the authors to be a colleague of theirs:
"Following is one such example that involved one of the authors (R.T.) and
our colleague David Hurt who works with us on many experimental projects."
(Mind-Reach, p. 197) iet
mi Target Pool.
(a) Preparation of target pool: "(Before the experimental series began,
NO
the Director of the Information Science and Engineering Division, not other-
wise associated with the experiment, established the set of locations as the
target pool ...)" (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) [Before going further,
one might stop to ask if there were any specific directions given to the
director before he established this pool. Obviously some were needed if
Puthoff and Targ were to have the kinds of targets they felt they were going
MEI
to need.]
(b) Size of target pool: "The target pool consisted of more than 100
target locations chosen from a target-rich environment ...." (Puthoff and
Targ, 1976b, p. 335) The targets apparently were spread over a wide area:
... the target team could be going anywhere from the Golden Gate Bridge to
the San Jose airport, an area covering several hundred square miles." Wind-
72
Approved For Release 2003/04/. DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/
?
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Reach, p. 7) and another description: "He asked me to describe where a
.."
man was ... who was now somewhere 300 square miles in some direction ..
(land-Reach, Foreword, xxiv) This is stated somewhat differently in another
publication:
... a remote site chosen at random from hundreds of nearby
targets in the San Francisco Bay area ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, pp.
151-152) Cot
One assumes that the entire target pool has been constructed prior to
the beginning of the entire series of experiments. However, in their early
rendition of the Nature article, they state: "The set of targets were chosen
from a target-rich environment by asking the selector to use his judgment in
providing a set of nine target locations." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74)
The number of locations increases by the time the paper is actually published:
"In the experiments, a set of twelve target locations had been chosen from
a target-rich environment (More than 100 of the type used in the experimental
series prior to the experimental series ... by the Director of the Information
Science and Engineering Division." (Targ and Puthoff, 1974, p. 605) Although
Puthoff and Targ believe:
... we
designed an experimental protocol that
promised to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by the belief
structures of either the experimenters or the judges." and they also believed
that: "No loose thread could be permitted ..." (land-Reach, p. 35) a change
has been made in the number of targets in the pool used for Price as well as
the establishment of a larger target pool. ,/'
In reporting the first four experiments run with Elgin and Hammid which
are reported to have followed the Price series, the list of targets included
those that had apparently been used with Price either as demonstration-of-
ability or as demonstration experiments. Although they qualify the list
73
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mei
dee
Approved For Release 2003/ P96-00791R000100440001-9
with "among others", (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 155) one does wonder how
large the pool really was at this time. The other three targets that are
used are the BART Station, the shielded room at SRI, and the "schoolhouse"
on the miniature golf course which is reported as the target in (1) a
preliminary remote viewing experiment, (2) a mock experiment, and (3) a
demonstration-of-ability experiment. The question also arises as to why
those particular targets come to mind? The experimenter had obviously been
talking publicly about these experiments since the publication is in a
proceedings of a meeting, but the demonstration targets were not discussed
in the paper. t.
It should be noted that Price's early targets are labelled quite
differently in early publications than they are in later ones. The target
"Rinconada Park" (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, Table 1, p. 54; Targ and Puthoff,
1974, p. 606; SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, Table 2, p. 17) later is changed
to "Swimming Pool complex" in a 1976 publication where, for the first time,
his drawing and the related city map appear. (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b,
p. 336; Mind-Reach, p. 54) Many of Geller's drawings are included in the
early publication, so why did they choose not to use a drawing that is such
a good representation of the target, especially since they viewed the
experimental series as a "... large-scale three-year SRI study of remote
viewing ...?" (Mind-Reach, p. 34) Lk
(c) Types of target: "... a list of outdoor targets ... should be
prepared in advance by an experimenter who will not interact with the subject
or experiment after that. The targets should be chosen to be distinctive,
but not necessarily distinct from each other; that is, rather than a
collection of nondescript street corners one should select bridges, towers,
Approved For Release
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
fountains, gardens, plazas, etc. .... On the other hand, once having chosen
a fountain-type target, there should be several fountain targets; for a
bridge target, several bridge targets etc.; so you avoid the subject
strategy of I had a tower yesterday, so it can't be a tower today." (SRI
Protocol, Appendix B, p, 1) As far as the variety of target is concerned,
the actual targets that were used meet the above criterion with one exception.
The use of the "Shielded Room" does not meet the outdoor criterion
although Puthoff and Targ refer to the use of this target as one of being
"nowhere" (Puthoff private communication to Karnes and Susman): "Our best
effort at sending an experimenter nowhere consisted of our locking him inside
a shielded room instead of sending him to an expected outdoor site." If
the target is considered to be "nowhere", it certainly does not meet any (A,
?ri of the criteria.
The question also arises as to whether or not these criteria were ever
given to the director since: "The set of targets was chosen from a target-
rich environment by asking the selector to use his judgment ...." Obviously,
there must have been some kind of direction given if they were to have the
kinds of targets they felt they were going to need. These directions are
unspecified and the protocol in which the target pool selection is specified
was apparently written after March 1976: "With regard to replication of
our standard remote viewing protocols', the basic outline is as given in
our tutorial paper, 'A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over
Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective' and Recent Research,' ...
March 1976." There are no specific criteria given in this publication
except for the number in the pool, driving time from SRI, and a mention of
"natural" targets in the "Summary" section.
75
Approved For Release 2003 RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
2 m %
Approved For Release 2003/04 371tor ?
P96-00791R000100440001-9
(d) Distance of targets: As has been discussed above, "the target
team could be going anywhere from the Golden Gate Bridge to the San Jose
airport, an area covering several hundred square miles ..." (Mind Reach,
p. 7), although this is qualified far more in technical and recent publications;
"the target pool consists of more than 100 target locations chosen from a
target-rich environment." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 21) An examination
of the distances of the targets reveals that only two targets are listed
at any large distance. BART Station at 10.0 miles and the "Bridge Toll
Plaza at 8.76 miles. A quick calculation reveals that if the furthest
target is used, the total area covered is 314 square miles. Excluding
these two targets, the remainder all fall within a 100.4 square-mile area.
Listed by subject, the average target distance was:
Price: 3.89 mi
? Elgin: 3.57 mi
Swann: 1.81 mi
Hammid: 1.48 mi
Pease: 2.89 mi
Cole: 2.11 mi
V1, V2: ? 3.42 mi
With the exception of the marina, Redwood City, all targets that were
used lay in a semi-circle south of SRI.
Although there is little information given, it is interesting to note
that both Price and Elgin used some form of a geographical system during
their remote viewing. Price, in the unedited transcript of the Allied Arts
and Crafts Plaza, begins his transcript (Mind-Reach, pp. 63-68) by scanning
quadrants: "Why don't I start scanning by quadrant using this as the center
76
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 200 -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
point. Twelve to three, six to nine ...." It also appears that Price and
Targ are using some sort of reference: "this is an arbor area ... the
center part doesn't seem to have it-this part in here ...." (Mind-Reach,
p. 77) It appears that Price is making a drawing. Perhaps he is also
making ?a map when he
not far away-I'd say
a line just about in
states: "Yeah, I got them out about this far-it's
in this direction over here ... and it seems to be on
that direction but just a hair more--rather than a
direct line from here ... they seem to be just slightly more to the left of
that line ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 65) It is also interesting to note that
although Price is scanning the quadrants and he begins logically he next
goes to the opposite quadrant: "Twelve to three, six to nine ...." He
does this ?twice before he includes nine to twelve, despite the fact that
he states:
?
... but I'll go on in the rest and look ....
He never does
mention scanning three to six. IA.
Elgin also uses a system: "Duane held a bearing compass at arm's length,
and began the experiment by indicating the direction of the target demarcation
team to within 5 degrees. (In all four experiments with Elgin, he was always
correct within ten degrees of the correction direction.)" (Mind-Reach, p. 82)
If Elgin is able to do this, who is the subject referred to in the following:
"In two remote viewing experiments, the second of which was clearly correct
from a descriptive standpoint, an effort was made to determine whether in
driving the subject around the area it would be possible to determine the
location of the target team by triangulation
Progress Report, August 1974) Although "the
essentially uncorrelated with each other and
with a bearing compass?" (SRI
triangulation lines were
with the target location, and
therefore provided a null result," (SRI Progress Report, August 1974),
77
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ? 96-00791R000100440001-9
were these two experiments included as demonstration-of-ability experiments?
Table 6 shows individual targets listed by distance from SRI. The
precognitive targets are listed separately since these targets were not
used previously although: "the experimental protocol for precognitive
remote viewing ... was identical
?
0000
(Mind-Reach, p. 111)
In examining Table 6, it can be seen that several targets fall the same
distance from SRI as others, and it is to those that the discussion will be
directed first..
Targets at 2.11 mi.: Palo Alto. The targets listed at this distance
are "Swimming Pool Complex", "Merry-go-round", and "Tennis Courts". As has
been noted earlier, what must be the "Swimming Pool Complex" is first listed
as "Rinconada Park." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, Table 1, p. 54; Targ and
Puthoff, 1974, p. 606; SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, Table 2, p. 17) It is
not until 1976 that this target is called "Swimming Pool Complex" and is
then accompanied by Price's drawing and a city map. (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b,
p. 336) Price's sketch and the map show a variety of activities, physically
close to one another: tennis courts, swimming pool, picnic area, and a
playground. For reference, Iniormap, Palo Alto, prepared and distributed
by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 1979, and a street map of the cities
of San Mateo County, published by the Redwood City, San Mateo County Chamber
of Commerce, 1976, were obtained. A description of Rinconada Park can be
found on the first listed map, which shows that a junior museum is also
located in the same park. An elementary school also appears to be located
in that same vicinity. Since most elementary schools have playgrounds, it
is safe to assume that this one does also or uses the nearby park facilities.
Price's description:
? ....subject ... described a park-like area containing 44,
78
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
kr)
I I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SECRET
TABLE 6. DISTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL BAY AREA TARGETS FROM SRI
TARGET
DISTANCE
HILES
KILOMETERS
RANK
S1
S2
53
SUBJECTS
S4
S5
S
6
V1
V2
Bike shed, Menlo Park
0.06
0.1
2
X
Shielded room, SRI,. Menlo Park
0.06
0.1
1
X
.
Ness Auditorium, Menlo Park
0.12
0.2
1
X
SRI International Courtyard, Menlo Park
0.12
0.2
1
X
Kiosk in park, Menlo Park
0.19
0.3
3,5
X
X
Bridge over stream, Menlo Park
0.19
0.3
1
X
Railroad trestle bridge, Palo Alto
0.81
1.3.
2,6
X
Pumpkin patch, Menlo Park
0.81
1.3
1 .
'
,-
Methodist Church, Palo Alto
1.18
1.9
1
Arts and Crafts Plaza, Menlo Park
1.18
1.9
1
City Hall, Palo Alto
1.24
2.0
I
X
Miniature golf course, Menlo Park
1.86
3.0
1
Swimming pool complex, Palo Alto
2.11
3.4
1
Merry-go-round, Palo Alto
2.11
3.4
1,1
X
Tennis courts, Palo Alto
2.11
3.4
2
X
Hoover Tower, Stanford
2.11
3.4
1
X
Golf course bridge, Stanford
2.11
3.4
2
X
White Plaza, Stanford
2.36
3.8
1
X
X
Boathouse, Stanford
2.48
4.0
1
X
Pedestrian overpass, Palo Alto
3.11
5.0
2,3
X
X
Drive-in theater, Palo Alto
3.17
5:1
2
X
Approved For Release 2003/04/1k
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
1 1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-91
Siari
TABLE 6. DISTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL BAY AREA TARGETS FROM SRI (continued)
TARGET
DISTANCE
MILES
KILOMETERS
RANK
S1
,
S2
SUBJECTS
S4.
S5
s6
V1
v2
Airport, Talo Alto
3.42
5.5
2
Radio telescope, Portola Valley
3.98
6.4
2
X
Baylands Nature Preserve
3.98
6.4
1,3,2
X
X
X
Marina, Redwood City
4.22
6.8
1
X
Parking garage, Mountain View
5.03
8.1
2
X
Catholic Church, Portola Valley
5.28
8.5
3
X
.
Windmill, Portola Valley
5.28
8.,5
2,1
X
Apartment swimming pool, Mountain View
5.65
9.1
3
Bridge toll plaza, Fremont
9.01
14.5
6
X.
BART Station (Transit System), Fremont
10.00
16.1
1
X
rrni
Approved For Release 2003/04M
IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0/184I14-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
1
3.
two pools of water ..." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1978, p. 519) appears to
apply to this area.
Elgin's target is "Tennis Court." ... Elgin indicated that he was
uncertain as to the action, but had the impression that the demarcation team
was located at a museum (known to him) in a particular park. In fact, the
target was a tennis court located in that park only 90 m from the indicated
museum." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 339) The tennis courts are also
located in close proximity to the swimming pool. In such a "target-rich
environment", why do Puthoff and Targ choose to use elements within a general,
but what appears to be rather limited, area when they usually do not do so
otherwise? Is the subject's ability to "see" so well defined that the
subject is able to distinguish one specific area from another when other
targets might well be within the target person's scope of vision? "Furthermore,
the subjects' perceptual viewpoint has mobility so that they can shift their
point of view so as to describe elements of a scene that would not be
visible to an observer merely standing at ground level and describing what
he secs. (In particular, a ?subject often correctly describes elements not
visible to the experimenter.)" (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336) 44.,
Yet, later in that same year and in reply to Calkin's comments on their
basic experimental design, Puthoff and Targ reply: "It would be in our
opinion premature and imprudent, for example, during the initial stages
of an investigation when much remains unknown about the mechanisms and
factors involved, to follow Calkin's suggestion to specify precisely on
what stimuli within a target area a subject or judge is to concentrate."
(IEEE Proceedings Letters, October 1976, p. 1549) Gk.
81
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Thus, we have conflicting opinions regarding the degree to which the
subject can focus upon and separate elements in the (wide) target area.
The "merry-go-round" used with Hammid and V1 might also be considered
in the same way as the tennis courts. It is interesting to note that "... a
merry-go-round or a playground, about four miles south of SRI" (Mind-Reach,
p. 9) is listed elsewhere and in the same reference as being 2.11 mi distant.
Targets at 0.19 mi. In examining other targets, the "Kiosk in Park"
and "Bridge over Stream" may also be physically close to one another,
especially since the park, according to the reference maps is even smaller
than Rinconada Park. Other than an early reference to this target: "Hal
was sent to stand on a bridge over a stream in Burgess Park ..." (Mind-Reach,
p. 7), the name of the park is not used again. No other parts appear to
be located at this distance from SRI.
(e) Reporting of targets: A church target has been noted in early
publications, but this target was listed only as "church" (Targ and Puthoff,
1975, Table 2, p. 606; SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, Table 2, p. 17), and
was not changed until later publications to: "Catholic Church, Portola Valley."
If Puthoff and Targ had planned a long-term study of remote viewing, if
the target pool had been constructed prior to the beginning of the total
series of experiments, and if several churches were in the target pool so
as to meet their criteria (Table 4) why was this church not labelled
specifically from the beginning. It also should be noted that the list of
targets from which the first two experiments with Elgin and Hammid were chosen
(a total of four which included one long-distance target) listed Palo Alto
Methodist Church, "among others" (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) and with
the exception of the three local targets actually used with Elgin and Hammid
82
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
from a pool of six consisted entirely of those used with Price either as
demonstration experiments (Mind-Reach, p. 57) for visitors or as demonstration-
of-ability experiments.
BART Station (Transit System), Fremont. This target appears to be
located in two different cities: "... the Bay Area Rapid Transit station in
Fremont.'..." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 156) whereas the title under the
picture depicting the target is "BART station at Union City, California,
used as a remote-viewing target ...." (p. 159) This is also evident in
Mind-Reach. A San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transit Guide issued by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1976, shows BART stations at both
Union City and Fremont.
Tennis Courts. Elgin's target of "tennis court" is also a demonstration-
of-ability experiment: "this was a demonstration experiment for a visitor
who had heard of our work and wanted to evaluate our experimental protocol.
The target location in this case was a tennis court 3.4 km south of SRI."
(Mind-Reach, p. 82) Why was Elgin's target included as one of his four
demonstration-of-ability experiments whereas Price's are not: "Price's
rough and ready approach made him ideally suited to the demonstration type
experiment that we were continually tasked with early in our program. In
one demonstration for a potential sponsor, our standard protocol sent us to
a building in the hills behind the Stanford campus ... an Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory ... a beer garden housed in a century old building ...."
(Mind-Reach, p. 57) Lk
(f) Target security: "When the target list is made, each target
location should be written on a card and placed in an envelope, the envelopes
randomized and then numbered so as to lose all track of a key. These should
83
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0e ICREyr"196-00791R000100440001-9
be stored in a secure safe or similar container." (SRI Protocol, Appendix
B, p. 1) If the purpose is to lose track of the order of the targets, why
is it necessary to number the targets after they have been randomized?
Numbering provides a new key. If one target is used at a time, a record
could be kept after the target is used. Within any series, the targets
were not replaced so that the use of numbers seems superfluous. Targets
once used for a series can then be replaced, re-randomized and used again in
a similar manner. In addition, the protocol for selection of the target pool
was not followed, but rather pools of targets were selected, and then
randomized. Who selects the target pool is also unclear. CA..
Despite their proclaimed double-blind conditions, there is a possibility
that leakage could occur. Where were the targets kept once they had been
selected? Apparently, two or more experiments were not run on the same day.
Were specific targets chosen to form the pool? Table 4 reveals multiple
use of several targets.
In addition, the target pool was not unknown, despite their statement:
"the experimenter remaining with the subject was kept ignorant of both the
particular target and target pool so as to eliminate the possibility o
cueing .... (Mind-Reach, p. 335) The target pool is known since:
(1) Remote viewing results are shown to the subject prior to an
experiment: "Before the experiment, the subject should be shown some
previous remote viewing results ...." (Protocol, Appendix B, p. 1)
(2) "An informal comparison was then made when the demarcation team
returned, and the subject was taken to the site to provide feedback."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) The experimenter does not leave and is
included in the feedback: "When the outbound experimenter returns, the
Approved For Release 2003/0
84
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791R000100440001-9
inbound experimenters and subject should proceed to the target for feedback."
(Appendix B, p. 1) and
(3) Subjects are also used as experimenters.
(g) Selection of targets from the pool. "... we designed an experimental
protocol that promised to be foolproof and which could not be influenced by
the belief structures of either the experimenters or the judges. No loose
thread could be permitted." (Mind-Reach, p. 35) "The target locations were
printed on cards sealed in envelopes and kept in the SRI Division office safe.
They were available only with the personal assistance of the Division Director
who issued a single random-number selected target card that constituted the
traveling orders for that experiment." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335)
From this statement in their tutorial paper, it is apparent that single
target selection by the director was considered to be the protocol for this
element of the experiment. As has been discussed earlier, this single
target was selected from a pool of "greater than 100" targets, although
it has been shown that in Price's series only nine or twelve targets
comprised the pool. CI
A closer examination of the literature reveals that more inconsistencies
appear. With Elgin and Hammid, in their first four experimental sessions,
two each, it is reported: "The traveling experimenter, who had a list of
six San Francisco Bay area locations that could be reached in no more than
30 minutes driving time, then cast a die ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975,
p. 155) Not only does the experimenter do his own randomizing, but in
addition, he makes the selection. The target pool consists of only six
targets rather than the 100, of which four will be used. As has been stated
previously, one of those four experiments was reported in three different
ways.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
6-00791R000100440001-9
Urn
roi
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 00791R000100440001-9
In another publication, a different number of targets are selected
for this smaller pool: "Ten sites known to the subject are to be visited
in random sequence ... the subject must then make a choice as to which site
is being visited ...." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, P. 1) Still another
publication reports:
"... we carried out a nine-experiment series which
replicated the Price work ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 48) "Before the series
began, a set of target locations was chosen randomly from a larger pool
(Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 35) How many targets were selected for the
pool--nine? Twelve? Six? Ten? As for the selection: "... a set of
target locations was chosen randomly ... by a person not otherwise connected
with the experiment." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 35) Once the experiments
were under way, how was each target selected?
Another example: "The experimental protocol for precognitive remote
viewing experiments with Hella Hammid was identical to that followed in
the remote viewing experiments described in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 ... one
of the experimenters would leave SRI with a stack of ten sealed envelopes ...
generated a random digit from 0 to nine by a means of a Texas Instruments
? ? ?? ?
SR-51 random number generator."
it is also reported: "
(Mind-Reach, p. 111-113)
In this publication,
a random target procedure would have to be
handled independent of the researchers carrying out the experiments."
(Mind-Reach, p. 35) "In our standard protocol, ... we picked up our
traveling orders from the division director, who chose one at random from
his safe ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 48); and "A target location from a set of traveling
orders previously prepared and randomized by the Director ...." (Mind-Reach,
p. 35)
86
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
ari
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 :44144000791R000100440001-9
In a-later publication: "The target team is assigned their target
location by an independent experimenter who has generated a list of targets
within a30-minute driving time" and "the target team obtains sealed traveling
orders from a monitor who has previously prepared such a set
Puthoff, and May, 1978, p. 1)
-5
? ? ? 4 It
(Targ,
Because of the varying manner in which the experimental series are
reported, it is difficult to determine precisely how many (and which) targets
were in the pool and subsequently sampled for each subject. The multiple
reporting (Table 2) of most experiments, however, permits an attempt at this
determination, which is summarized in Table 7. As indicated here, the sample
size drawn rarely exceeds that used. If, as is the case, the total pool is
not >> the sample size, then through repetitive exposure (via subject
"feedback") the experimenters gradually (quickly?) become familiar with
the contents of the target pool.
(h) Types of targets used. Since the targets used with any one subject '
are ... used without replacement ..." (Targ and Puthoff, 1974, p. 605), it
is clear that the same tariet cannot come up twice within an individual
??????
series. Therefore, it is logical to examine the targets within each series
of experiments as to their similarities and differences.
In the series used with Price, a similar target could have possibly
come up if the target pool had been established prior to the entire series
and if similar targets were included in the pool. However, it appears that
this was not done: "The set of targets was chosen from a target-rich
environment by asking the selector to use his judgment in providing a set
of nine locations ... which were clearly differentiated from each other and
within 30 minutes driving time from SRI." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, p. 15)
87
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: Cl
,6 A
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
I I I t
t
"Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SEM
TABLE 7. TARGET SAMPLE SIZE, FROM WHICH TARGETS USED WERE DRAWN FOR EACH SUBJECT
SUBJECT
POOL SIZE DRAWN
FOR EXPERIMENTAL SERIES1
NUMBER OF TARGETS USED REFERENCE
Price 9
Elgin, Hammid 6
92
Hammid
Swann
Elgin
Pease
Cole
9 SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74
4 (2 per subject) Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 155
9 Targ and Puthoff,, 1976, p. 34;
Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336;
Mind-Reach, p. 75
92
2
92
4
92
4
Mind-Reach, p. 36
1Presumably this sample size.was drawn from the larger, main target pool o "over 100 targets," but
see discussion.
2
Based upon "original" protocol used with Price.
Approved For Release 2003/04NO-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Although it appears that a pool of more than 100 targets had not been
constructed prior to the Price series, other (additional) targets are used
following this series. How were they selected? In their protocol they state:
"The targets should be chosen to be distinctive but not necessarily distinct
from one another On the other hand, once having chosen a fountain-type
target there should be several fountain-type targets; ..." (Appendix B, p. 1)
that is, targets should also have a degree of similarity. Is there a way
that such a pool could be constructed so that a subject could most easily
distinguish, say, the predestrian overpass from the railroad trestle bridge?
Perhaps the concepts in information theory should be considered.
Puthoff and Targ are quite familiar with the work of Dr. Milan Ryzl
and had indicated that Dr. Ryzl was willing to work with them. (SRI Progress
report, 3/12/74) They have used his technique of working with subjects: "His
primary contribution was a decision to interact with the subject as a person,
?to try to build up his confidence and ability. His protocol depended on
working with rather than running his subjects." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b,
P-
332) After discussing some of Ryzl's work, Puthoff and Targ continue:
... the information channel is imperfect, containing noise along with the
signal. When considering how best to use such a channel, one is led to the
communication theory concept of the introduction of redundancy as a means
of coding a message to combat the effects of a noisy channel [30]." (Puthoff
and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) They further state, although they are relating
this to Ryzl's work:
... it is even possible to use such a (noisy) channel
for error-free transmission of information if sufficient redundancy coding
is used [30], [31]. Following is a general procedure that we have used
successfully for signal enhancement. We shall assume that the 'message'
89
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
consists of a stream of binary digits (0,1) of equal probability .... One
efficient coding scheme for such a channel is obtained by application of a
sequential sampling procedure of the type used in production-line quality
control [80]. The adaptation of such a proceaure to paranormal communication
.004 " (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 351) Puthoff and Targ propose to use
this type of coding procedure in the judging of targets in a more objective
manner. They state: ... it would appear that at least five recurrent
target attributes are frequently sensed correctly by our subjects." (Puthoff,
Targ, and May, 1978, p. 11) They propose the use of the following attributes:
inside/outside; subdued lighting/bright lighting; wet/dry; passive/active;
man-made/natural. (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1978, Table 3, p. 11) Gould
targets also be chosen under a similar set of attributes to which such
elements as elevation/no elevation, shape, geographical location, and
distance could be added? IA'
If one examines targets with these types of criteria in mind, how would
the selection of targets within any one series appear? Are targets more
than just fountains, bridges, plazas, and so forth?
Although a great deal of information is not given about the targets,
certain elements are quite apparent: wet/dry; elevated/flat; open/enclosed;
shapes (square, circular, etc.); and active/passive. See Table 8,
Elgin's and Swann's targets could be assigned quite easily into these
various categories. It is interesting to note that Puthoff and Targ remark:
"The transcripts of subject S4' more than those of other subjects, had
descriptions of the feel of the location, and experiential or sensory
gestalts-for example, light/dark elements . . indoor/outdoor, and enclosed/
open distinctions." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) They also comment
90
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
miosi-irt77-rtRiimo
TABLE 8. ELGIN
Li tit MI
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
SECRET
)/SWANN (S3) TARGETS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
Target (Subject
Target Attributes
Elevated-
Flat
Wet-Dry
Enclosed- Light- Passive-
Open Dark Active
1. BART Station (S2)
2. Shielded Room (S2)
3. Tennis Court (S2)
4. Golf Course Bridge (S2)
5. Palo Alto City Hall (S3)
6. Miniature Golf Course (S3) F
7. Kiosk in Park (S3)
8. Baylands Nature Preserve
(S3)
0
0
0
0
A
A
A
A
NOTE: Blanks are left where there is not sufficient information on which to base an attribute.
These attributes are merely suggestive, however, since the actual target may be other than the
elements actually described, such as Palo Alto City Hall in which the building could also be used
rather than the fountain, as is seen in Hammid's precognition series in which a fountain is not
mentioned (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 348).
Approved For Release 2003/0
A
ET-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04
96-00791R000100440001-9
on each individual's specific way of describing a target, although they
relate this to post-experimental analysis: "Comparing the transcripts of
one subject with those of another revealed that each pattern tended to focus
on certain aspects of the remote target complex and to exclude others, so
that each had an individual pattern of response, 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." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) IA,
Assume then, that the target pool consists not of randomly selected,
distinct targets, but rather of targets differing uniquely on combinations
of several attributes or dimensions (e.g., tall/flat, dry/wet). If each
of these attributes has two states, and if there were six such attributes,
then the number of unique targets which could be defined, without confusion,
would be 26 = 64. At least six such attributes have been noted, and less
than 64 targets in the bay area have been used. 'J.
Oneshould then ask if targets were really selected on the basis of
these attributes, dimensions which a traditional experimental psychologist
might call "independent variables." The answer may be provided directly in
the following.
In Puthoff and Targ's reply to Calkins' comments concerning their
experimental design, they state: "In keeping with accepted methodology
in experimental psychology we emphasized rigid control over variables that
might have introduced bias into our results .... A series of independent
variables (IV's) that Calkins chooses to ignore (target site characteristics'
such as distance, elevation, presence or absence of water, etc.) were
manipulated by random selection ...." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976,
92
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mdmitfm,
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 96-00791R000100440001-9
Letters, p. 1549)
But, they go on to say: "In short, precise experimental control was
used where appropriate to eliminate ambiguous conditions, independent
variables were systematically manipulated ...." (p. 1549) Puthoff and
Targ do then use a "coding" system with which they describe their targets
and these are then
IT
systematically manipulated ...."
Were these targets selected so that the target attributes (to which
subjects are most sensitive) define a unique target for each attribute
combination? Perhaps so, and this raises no experimental problem as long
as there is no "leakage" of any target attribute information by nonparanormal
means to the subject while (or before) he is viewing the target. We then
turn to the question of how such leakage might occur. LA,
Targets are often familiar to the subjects as all of them resided in
the area during their experimentation: "... ten sites known to the subject
...." (SRI Progress Report, 4/24/74, p. 1) However, even though the
subjects may be totally familiar with the targets, how does this help them
distinguish one target from another during a demonstration-of-ability 5.
experiment? A feasible solution lies in the use of feedback.
Puthoff and Targ uses feedback in numerous situations, extensive
enough to cause one scientist (Feinburg) to comment: "... And from what
you told me about the remote viewing of the Bay area, plus what I saw when
I visited you, it seems to me all of those exchanges involve an extreme
amount of feedback to the subject at the end of a run. That is from what
I recall, when you came back you told the subject, 'We were here, we saw
this and this.' In fact, sometimes you even then took the subject to those
places." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 177)
93
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CI -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
tit
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ?
,96-00791R000100440001-9
tO *"
From the beginning, Swann and Price were given some feedback: "In
the case of the coordinates, Price was given very limited feedback, as to
?the overall nature of his correctness." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, P. 174)
In fact, Swann feels: "This is as far as I can go with out feedback, and
perhaps guidance as to what is wanted." (Project SCANATE Report, pp. 4-5)
Swann also received feedback on the other site discussed in this same
reference before making a second transcript a day later. 1
? Puthoff and Targ also use feedback prior to the actual demonstration-
of-ability tests. "Before beginning a formal experiment ... with Hella,
we set up an orientation series of mock experiments using a walkie-talkie
link as a method of providing a comfortable transition into the type of
experiment we wished to conduct.,. In these mock experiments the
subject is asked to describe simultaneously what the remote experimenter
is looking at." (Mind-Reach, p. 74) It is difficult to reconcile this
with: "Since we could not pretest our subjects without violating the
intention of the experiments, our criterion for selection of inexperienced
participants was simply to choose intelligent, cheery, agreeable people ....
(Mind-Reach, p. 70) jet_
These mock experiments were carried out with at least four subjects.
The number of such experiments actually performed has been reported in
various ways for Hammid. Targ does state: "It would be particularly easy
to do in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to do a number
of experiments, one right after another." (Mind Reach, p. 177) LAL
In addition, a great deal of information could be gathered from a
particular site during the time the demarcation team is at the site. Subjects
also were used as experimenters and, hence, were at target sites during an
Approved For Release 2003/04/
94
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04
96-00791R000100440001-9
actual experiment.
Clearly, by a variety of these processes, subjects (and experimenters)
built up a gradual familiarity with elements of the target pool.
In Puthoff's letter (of 28 March 1978) to Karnes and Susman concerning
their experiment, he states: "Your subjects did not receive immediate
feedback as to the correct site (since they were kept blind to judge).
In fact, looked at from a pedagogical point of view they received post-
experiment noisy feedback in which they viewed several pictures, only one
set of which pertained to the site. We have found remote viewing to be
extremely sensitive to the feedback parameters. For example, we recently
completed a series of 7 experiments to examine this specifically: 3 with
feedback, 3 without feedback, 1 with feedback. The first three and the
last one were perfect hits (as determined by a binary coding system which
is completely objective) while the three without feedback were complete
misses." In a recent publication they also state: "In past programs we
have conducted two series of experiments with experienced remote viewing
subjects to determine the effects of withholding feedback. Both of these
series failed to give a single successful outcome in the no-feedback
conditions. This result offers strong evidence that feedback is an essential
element for successful remote viewing, whether the reasons be psychological
or physical." (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1978, p. 13) t"...
If a "no feedback" condition occurs for an experiment, it occurs
following the viewing and response. Does this mean, therefore, that the
subject does not respond to the following target correctly? If so, could
it be that he has no way of knowing what type of target or targets have
been used previously, and what has been eliminated from the target pool?
95
Approved, For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA- DP96-00791R000100440001-9
.1
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Taking an extremely skeptical position, could it also mean that the
(inadvertent?, subliminal?) cues available to him during the experiment
cannot be decoded?
Could a subject learn to differeniate various types of targets using
some sort of a system? Swann worked with experimenters at the ASPR: "The
routine of these experiment b ran over some fourteen months." (Swann, 1975,
p. 104) He states: "the entire battery of experiments, however, was
exceedingly meaningful as a learning procedure since the extrasensory
perception was seen to increase both in scope and accuracy as the experimenta-
tion increased." (Swann, 1975, pp. 104-105) "Initially a five-digit number
was used as a target ... but Swann was unable to identify unmistakably any
five-digit number .... So these experiments used an open-topped box near
the ceiling with randomly selected objects in it, thus requiring only
easier figure-ground discriminations." (Mitchell, 1974, p. 365)
Swann, who refers to himself in the third person in his book, comments:
"By now the subject was used to the attitudes at the ASPR." (Swann, 1975,
p. 6) This statement is made in January 1972, apparently after quite a
period of experimentation. Had he also been able to learn what kinds of
targets the experimenters used, i.e., simple figure-ground discriminations?
Out of the experiments run over fourteen months, only "... eight sessions
considered impeachable from an experimental point would be submitted for
independent judging. The judge correctly identified all eight drawn responses
with the correct target ... this seemed
Following one experimental session
"To him, all argumentation, speculation,
a good beginning." (???.-
in January 1972, Swann
and hypothesis aside,
comments:
it had been
an important day. If the results of the experiment were unclear to the
96
Approved For Release 2003/04 IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Nog
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
4614-
researchers, they were good enough to convince him of one important under-
standing. "Yes, yes, he breathed, dipping into the stale air of the subway
system. It is possible! It can be done!" (Swann, 1975, P. 8) He further
states: "Before I was invited to SRI, as the experiments in which I
became involved progressed, it seemed more likely that all one had to do
in terms of awareness was to approximate (by a process yet unknown to physics)
whatever it was one wished to perceive .... I was reasonably convinced that,
until one consciously can do this-that is, duplicate in terms of awareness
what it is one wishes to perceive paranormally-all will be black and remain
black. The tendency of memory to present to consciousness a 'picture' of
whatever is being recalled seemed close to this idea, but memory in most
cases appeared to be under only a quasi-consciousness-control system, if
not completely automatic." (Swann, 1975, p. 51) Lk-
Swann contacts SRI and after numerous phone conversations with Puthoff,
(Swann, 1975, p. 56) is invited to SRI for preliminary experimentation
about which he comments:
... it was possible for me to go to SRI to poke
around' in association with Puthoff with the results of this initial
exploration contributing hopefully to the future establishment of a larger
opportunity." (Swann, 1975, p. 56) bk._
Swann then begins experimentation at SRI and initiates the geographical
coordinate experiment, based on the rationale that: "... the psychic being
would have to reduce into the conditions of the physical universe in order
to perceive them, even through sensory mechanisms .... The psychic entity
would have to think 'down' into things physical and not 'upward' from things
physical into transcending situations .... The psychic entity could not
relate to unknown physical targets very well in the absence of a mental or
97
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
6-00791R000100440001-9
thinking access to them." (Swann, 1975, pp. 107-108)
There, during experimentation using geographical coordinates Swann
states: "But as the experiment was run over several days, evidence mounted
that the psi-ability was undergoing some sort of learning pattern, reflected
in a rising curve of both accuracies and increasing descriptions of the
site." (Swann, 1975, p. 110) t'.-
He comments: "There, during an eight-month concentrated effort, some
7,000 exterior 'perception trials were conducted, yielding an extraordinary
amount of data." (Few of these 7,000 trials have been published!) "Once
more the learning pattern became visible in almost all cases. The perception
of any given set of targets actually began to improve through enforced use
of the unknown ability. This led, of course, toward the establishment of
a trial hypothesis that the ability is accessible because it exhibits a
learning pattern, and therefore conforms to the general idea that abilities
improve through practice." (Swann, 1975, p. 106) LA_
At SRI, the following picture of Swann is reported: "This experimental
effort was characteristic of Ingo's professional approach, his enthusiasm
for an involvement in research. As others who have worked with Swann know,
however, his contributions to paranormal research are not confined to his
role as subject. He also is very articulate about his subjective experience,
and slips easily into the role of co-researcher investigating the underlying
laws of the phenomena .... He left with us an unmistakable sense of the
breadth and the scope of the human side of the research to which we were
now committed." (Mind-Reach, p. 43) IA
In Swann's report to Puthoff and Targ, about the problems of remote
viewing, from which they take several excerpts, the following seem pertinent:
98
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 96-00791R000100440001-9
"Several breakthroughs were needed to uncover the remote viewing possibil-
ities .... If breakthroughs have tended to expose such ability, subsequent
quantitative analysis has also established the existence of certain qualita-
tive problems that need to be resolved .... For various reasons as described
below, the emergence of erroneous data in subjects' responses to given targets
has been given the working name of 'analytical overlay' ....
"Accumulated responses from subjects' attempts to view distant targets
indicates that the target often is actually viewed, but in some way the
target also acts as a prompter for the spontaneous appearance of seemingly
irrelevant data. This is especially obvious when the subjects' drawing of
the target is by observation specifically applicable to the target, but his
interpretations, either verbally or in the form of mental image pictures, is
far from the mark .... tx,
fl... It seems relevant to hypothesis, then, that the subject is perceiving
the target at some level of awareness to prompt logical mental processing in
the subject. The subject's response therefore usually includes not only
descriptors relevant to the target, but also other details coming out of
as
the logical analytical comparison doubtlessly going on as he tries to
'recognize' the target." (Mind-Reach, pp. 41-42) 1...4.0
am
It is apparent that subjects can learn, but how can a subject, assuming
that a target could be broken down into some sort of elemental system,
learn to respond?
In the Garrett report, the authors state: "In terms of remote viewing
as described by Puthoff and Targ (Reference 3-7), the methodology of
sequential analysis can be a useful tool for both training and analyzing
viewed results. In this context, the technique could initially be used as
Approved For Release 2003/04
gal
99
; - -
96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04
6-00791R000100440001-9
a means of analyzing data obtained in a training session. This would involve
a sender at a site that was sending one item of information at a time (e.g.,
tree). After the receiver in the laboratory had made a decision, he would
be informed of the correctness of his decision so that training would occur.
The sender would then be instructed to proceed to the next item of the
message." (Wortz, et al., 1976, Section 3, p. 5)
Isn't this the technique that Puthoff and Targ use in their mock experiments
except that they use specific elements at any given site, rather than a binary
digit? The following provides just such a partial example: "the capital
letters signify walkie-talkie communication:
R.T.: It is now 12:35.
S-4: ... very strong diagonal . . like a zigzag that goes this way,
vertically.
R.T.: 5-4's FIRST IMPRESSION IS OF A VERY STRONG DIAGONAL ZIGZAG
THAT'S GOING VERTICALLY, OVER. (Talking on walkie-talkie
to H.P.)
H.P.: THERE IS A STRONG ZIGZAG AT MY PLACE, BUT IT IS NOT VERTICAL
BUT RATHER HORIZONTAL; BUT IF SHE IS LOOKING FROM THE AIR,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. OVER,
R.T.: Can you tell what the zigzag is attached to? Whether it's
part of a building or a fence on the ground?" (SRI progress
Report, August 1974, p. 9)
The session continues with one element after another discussed.
Recall that "... we set up an orientation series of mock experiments
using a walkie-talkie link as a method of providing a comfortable transition
into the type of experiment we wished to conduct." (Mind-Reach, p. 74) 14.)
100
Approved For Release 2003/04/ ? 6-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
96-00791R000100440001-9
Could these mock experiments not only help the subject to visualize the
site mentally, but also help the subject learn how to respond? Or how to
respond (perhaps subliminally) to experimenter "prompts"? tof_
If it can be assumed that this kind of learning could occur, how would
a subject in the laboratory be able to describe the proper target? In their
Nei protocol, Puthoff and Targ state: "Before the experiment begins, the subject
should be shown some previous remote viewing results .... (Appendix B, p. 1)
Could these results in any way be related to the actual target? LA.-
ami
n his letter to Karnes and Susman, Puthoff points out: ... the remote
scene often appears to trigger associate memory, so that when the target
is, e.g., a bridge over a stream, the subject gets an image of a bridge over
a stream, but not necessarily the same one (an actual case--the subject in
our California lab had an overwhelming image of a bridge over a stream known
to him ... which he knew couldn't be the local California target, which was
a different bridge over a different stream). This associate memory overlap
makes it more difficult for the subject than for a blind judge ...." (p. 2)
W. G. G. Roll in (White, 1976) writes: "It has long been known that
certain conditions facilitate learning. These are described in the 'laws
of learning.' The best known are the laws of recency, frequency, and
vividness (or intensity). In other words, recent events, all other conditions
being equal, are more likely to be remembered than events in the remote past....
If the memory theory of ESP is correct, we expect ESP responses to be
expressed in terms of memory traces that are recent, frequent, and vivid.
In other words, ESP stimuli are likely to trigger memory traces that are
already prepared to 'fire' ...." (p. 355) Lk
Approved For Release 2003/04/1e. : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
MS
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
6-00791R000100440001-9
In Price's transcript of the Allied Arts and Crafts Plaza, he comments
part way through his viewing: "Right now Bart is trying to point something
out that is basically the significance of whole place. It's like that
key thing, well, if you'd mentioned a salt pile I'd have blown my lid. Well,
this has a significance that's just about comparable to that. I'm screening
it out." And later: "There's something about the windmill that I was going
to look at. Wasn't that what you were ...." Price's first mention of
windmill is shortly followed by a question from the experimenter: "What are
the boundaries of the place they're at?" (Mind-Reach, pp. 63-68) Is some
sort of a "key" given that could trigger-the subject's memory?
Rol? l later later states: "Since memory traces are the products of sensory
?
perceptions and other familiar psychological processes, introspectively,
they reflect these rather than the ESP stimulus that provokes them." (White,
1976, p. 363) 1"..
"If a memory, trace is aroused in the course Of normal perceptual or
imm introspective activities, it may, in turn arouse other memory traces which
IMINg
ONI
are associated with it but unrelated to the situation at hand." (p. 356)
"If we distinguish between the learning, retention, remembering, and
forgetting aspects of memory, the ESP response can be described as an
instance of remembering something that the organism learnt in the course
of its past sensory experiences or other familiar activities. This part of
the ESP process is an ordinary psychological process or biological one. It
is only because there is evidence that the evoked memories are relevant to
some actual event which the person could not have known about by sensory
or rational means that we are dealing with a parapsychological phenomenon."
(p. 374) 10(
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 96 00791R000100440001-9
Assuming, therefore, some sort of "triggering" process occurs either
in terms of the introduction of previous remote viewing results, or some
other sort of a "key", as seen in Price's transcript, are there other ways
in which a subject can be "triggered"?
Their protocol for the experimenter states: "It is best that the inbound
experimenter not push the subject to say a lot ... if the subject tends toward
being analytical ... the experimenter must gently lead the subject into
description, not analysis. (You don't have to tell me what it is, just
describe what you see.) This is the most important and difficult task of
the inbound experimenter.
"It is also useful for the inbound experimenter to 'surprise' the
subject with new viewpoints .... The shifting of viewpoint also obviates
the problem of the subject spending the entire time giving the meticulous
detail on a single blade of grass or piece of concrete, which even if true,
will be of no help to the judge." (SRI Progress Report, 3/12/74, p. 3) 5
It is interesting to note some of the experimenter's questions in Price's
transcript of the Allied Arts and Crafts Plaza after Price has scanned by
mi
quadrant and has mentioned an arbor, trees, dirt path, fountain, and red
?
brick walkway: What kind of place is the arbor in? Is it in a field out
in the open? ... Tell me about the town and country aspect. In what way
does it remind you of town and country? Town and country means to mea
covered walkway ... What do you find the boundaries of the place they're
at? ... The quadrant you had them in is basically the northeast quadrant? ...
If you look down on the place from above, can you get any feeling for the-
is there any overall layout or plan? ... What would you say is the interest
to this place? What's special about this place? ... Was Hal doing anything
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
P96-00791R000100440001-9
besides walking along - was there any activity.for Hal to do?" (Mind-Reach,
pp. 63-68) bk..
It is also interesting to note the use .of time in this transcript: "One
forty. This is remote viewing experiment ... we expect the travelers to be
at their place in about ten minutes. It's one-fifty-eight. Our travelers
should be near to arriving." (Mind-Reach, p.. 63) Experiments are to start
at set times, prearranged before the target persons leave for their destination:
"Together they agree on a time for the subject description to start (e.g.,
30 minutes hence--the length of time required for getting to the further
target in the pool ...)." (Appendix B, p. 2) Why then does Targ call out
the time so frequently. It is interesting to note that the target is 1.9 km
away from SRI and Targ calls out the time at 1:58, two minutes before the
hour.
Also, within the 'same general quadrant are Burgess Park, Stanford
Arboretum, Stanford Stadium, Stanford golf course, White Plaza, and the
Stanford campus which has architecture similar to that of the target. In
his transcript, Price refers to "... an arbor ...", "... dirt path ...",
... fountain...",
... Town and Country Mall ...?
,
? ... outdoor park ...",
"... windmill ...", "... stadium structure ...", "... arboretum ...",
... miniature golf course ...", "... small pool of water ...", "... corner
of a golf course ...", and "... small building ...", It ... single story
building ... pitched roof four poles supporting it ...." The targets
used with this subject are distinct, are not used with replacement, and
have been selected out of a pool of nine. In addition, subjects do think
about their upcoming experiments and therefore, a process of elimination by
this one subject can possibly occur.
104
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
It is interesting to note Elgin's description of the BART station:
... a simple, heavy, solid building with a unique function in ... relatively
natural surroundings. In his further description, D.E. said (correctly)
'they are standing at a metal railing looking out over the scene. They are
high enough up so they can see some buildings down below.' ... He sensed
some ambiguity as to whether the experimenters were inside a building or not.
'I have the sense they're outside, though, but they're near a building ....
Feels like it has sort of one function. One primary function." (Targ and
Puthoff, 1975, p. 158) This description is general enough to apply to many
targets such as Hoover Tower, the radio telescope, Palo Alto City Hall, and
the churches, among others. 5
Misreporting of the order of experimentation (see above) eliminates the
possibility of knowing in what order targets are actually used, so a "triggering"
analysis based on order is not feasible.
An examination for the possibility of "triggering" is possible only in
the only other unedited transcript presented in all publications. In Phyllis
Cole's unedited transcript, the use of time, as was seen in Price's transcript,
also appears. The target for Cole in this experiment is 3.8 km from SRI and
Targ states the time 4 mins after the subject has ?begun.
Cole makes the following statement at the beginning of the viewing: "The
first thing that came to mind was some sort of a large, square kind of a shape.
Like Hal was in front of it. It was a
? ?
not a building or something, it was
a square. I don't know if it was a window, but something like that so that
the bottom line of it was not at the ground. About where his waist was, at
least. That's what it seemed to me. It seems outdoors somehow, tree."
(Mind-Reach, pp. 104-106) At this point, Cole's description is extremely
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CUARDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0-t,
u-i?6-00791R000100440001-9
mi general-a shape and its possible position. All targets are outdoor targets
and the area has many trees. This description was followed by a question
by the experimenter: "Does Hal seem to be looking at that square?" Within
the first four minutes of the experiment, the experimenter asks three questions,
the one stated above as well as: "Can you tell if it is on the ground or
vertical? ... Can you move into where he is standing and try to see what he
is looking at?" In their protocol, they state: "It is best that the inbound
experimenter not push the subject to say a lot, but act as if they have all
the time in the world; otherwise, a subject may tend to embroider descriptions
just to be saying something to please the experimenter." (Appendix B, p. 3)
If this is the case, why did Targ ask three questions within four minutes?
Why then does he state: "It is twenty-four minutes after eleven. Can you
change your point of view and move about the scene so you can get a bigger
picture of what's there?" Cole then mentions a courtyard, followed by
mentioning White Plaza although she feels that is misleading. I have
MS
the sense ... that its a small area ...." The experimenter's questions
continue as follows: "What is that? ... Are there any buildings? You
described a kind of courtyard. Uusually at such places there should be a
building, large or small, that the courtyard is about. Look at the end or
the sides of the courtyard. Is there anything to be seen?
? ? ?
Do you have
.any better idea of what your square was that you saw at the outset? ...
Does it seem part of the scene? What kinds of trees do you see in
this place? ... New trees rather than old trees? ... Is there anything
interesting about the pavement? ... You saw some benches. Do you want to
di ?
tell me about them? ... What do you think. Val is doing while he is there?"
In a period of less than 15 min: "We expect this experiment to start at
wo
Approved For Release 2003/04/18;
P96-00791R000100440001-9
ago
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
96-00791R000100440001-9
twenty minutes after eleven .... It's eleven thirty-three. He's just
probably getting ready to come back." The experimenter has asked fourteen
questions. (.,-/
It is interesting to note that Cole uses the past tense in the early
part of this viewing: "The thing that came to mind was ... like Hal was ...
it was ... that's what it seemed to me ... about where his waist was ...."
She then changes to the present tense shortly after Targ's first question. 4?
If a subject is actually able to perceive a remote scene, why does the
experimenter feel the need to "prod" the subject? 60,-
It appears plausible then, that the (unique?) target attributes can be
elicited by several sources: (1) leading or probing questions from the
experimenter, clearly content-oriented and perhaps containing (e.g., time
of day) cues; (2) memory trace elements from immediately preceding targets,
verifiable only by knowing the true order of target exposure to each subject;
and (3) demonstration trials with feedback, or selective reinforcement of
particular classes of target attributes pertinent to the categorizations of
the targets in the pool. Clearly, the subjects are encouraged to respond
with as much perceptual information about the target as possible. The
"proof of the pudding" then lies in the judging process. 11%.e
Subject Orientation. "... one of our primary tasks as researchers is
to provide an environment in which the subject feels safe to explore the
possibility of paranormal perception .... All we provide is a quiet, relaxing
place to work, an assurance to the subject that the ability is natural and
not unique, and finally we give them the assurance that it is possible to
be successful, permissible to fail, and fun to try at any rate." (Mind-Reach,
p. 74) Let.'
Approved For Release 2003/04/
107
f. 14
96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
P96-00791R000100440001-9
The subject, experimenter, and target person(s) meet prior to the
experimental session: "Yeah, I can see Bart in his red shirt and what looks
like a grey paisley tie--I didn't really look at that when he was down there.
The red shirt, I did." (Mind-Reach, p. 63) Obviously, in other cases where
the subject has been the experimenter, the relationship between them is close.
Margaret Mead, in her introduction to Mind-Reach states, "Furthermore, where
much of existing research has treated the human participants as either 'subjects'
... or imposters or self-deJuded Targ and Puthoff have treated both
their apprentice learners and experienced sensitives as collaborators and
persons whose views were to be respected. It is unique here that the subjects
were considered as partners in research." (Mind-Reach, p. xx) This type of
treatment toward the subject was carried to the point that Swann had much of
the original responsibility for the experiments. "These ESP experiments
are a trivialization of my abilities. I want to look at something more
interesting than what is in the next room I did some experiments at
the ASPR in which I moved my viewpoint to some remote location and described
what was there. That was fun to do, and the studies were statistically
significant." (Mind-Reach, p. 27) "The cumulative results of these
experiments were not to be collected for several months. When they were
complete, eight sessions considered unimpeachable from an experimental
point of view would be submitted for independent judging." (Swann, 1975,
pp. 7-8) "The routine of these experiments ran over some fourteen months
altogether .
I'
(Swann, 1975, p. 104) Swann, however, has been reported
to have been "bored to tears" by the increasingly tedious and monotonous
108
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
wit
mei
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
procedure during his eighteen months work at the ASPR. b",
Arthur Hastings, SRI consultant, uses a pre-session procedure that Tart
describes as: "Hastings went through a sophisticated psychological procedure
(to be described at length in a future publication) to get the percipients
to allow themselves to use psi .... I was particularly impressed by the
sophisticated psychological procedures that Hastings had used ... so he and
I discussed them at length, and I worked out'a protocol for incorporating
them into my workshop ...." Tart conducted a general workshop on
the psi
phenomenon, including the widespread success of the SRI studies. "Then I
gave instructions on psychological procedures for eliciting psi for remote
viewing ... to give the teams a chance to practice relaxing, visualizing,
and trying to get their psi talents to operate. I then conducted a GESP
test in which the task was to try to get impressions of a color slide that
was sealed in a double, opaque envelope in my pocket ...." (Tart, 1977, p. 171)
Similarly, Puthoff and Targ suggest: "Before the experiment, the subject
should be shown some previous remote viewing results with one goal in mind--
to get across the idea that one should, as best as possible, report raw
perception rather than analysis ...." (Appendix B, p. 1) Why do they
advocate the actual display of real data? Why isn't a verbal description
adequate? Why is this necessary when subjects have been used previously
and should know the procedure? Does the process, as suggested above, help
to instill in memory the target attribute "language" for subsequent use
during experiments? CAL
Experimenter behavior. "The goal of the inbound experimenter is to
make it 'safe' for the subject to experience remote viewing, this typically
includes a low-key pep talk as to how remote viewing appears to be a natural,
109
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 91A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ?
p96-00791R000100440001-9
not abnormal, function, that many people have done it successfully, and
always the reminder to eschew analysis and simply render raw impressions."
(Appendix B, pp. 2-3) The experimenter also arranges to have lights subdued,
pen, paper, and tape recorder and most importantly, during the actual
transcription: "It is best that the inbound experimenter not push the
subject to say a lot .... If the subject tends towards being analytical
? ? ?
the experimenter must gently lead the subject into description, not analysis.
It is also useful ... to 'surprise' the subject with new viewpoints
encourage the subject to sketch .... He may do so throughout, or wait until
the last five minutes if intermittent drawing would distract his concentration."
(Appendix B, p. 3) IA_
Experimenter behavior may be even more defined if Hastings' procedures
are followed.
The procedure used for transcribing the remote viewing session would
also be the responsibility of the experimenter. Again, there appears to
be no set procedure despite the claim of an "... extremely tight protocol ...."
(Mind-Reach, p. 37) "Our skeptical government visitor agreed to be a subject
in a series of three of our standard remote viewing experiments. A tape
recorder was started and the subject and experimenters identified themselves.
A couple of sentences giving the time and the date, along with an announcement
that the experimenter "... would be at the site in a half hour." (Mind-Reach,
p. 6) One of two transcripts available which is "... the entire unedited
text of one of the better narratives ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 153) s
reads: "ONE FORTY. THIS IS REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENT WITH PAT PRICE ...."
(Mind-Reach, p. 63) No mention of a date, which is included in Cole's
transcript.
"TODAY IS MONDAY, OCTOBER SEVENTH. IT IS ELEVEN O'CLOCK AND
110
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003I04tk.gqyDp9600791R000100440001-9
THIS IS REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT WITH RUSS.TARG, PHYLLIS COLE AND HAL
PUTHOFF . IT IS JUST ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES AFTER ELEVEN, AND HAL SHOULD
BE AT HIS TARGET LOCATION BY NOW." (Mind-Reach, pp. 104-105) LeL_
The latter also includes a set experimental time and then the starting
time of the experiment. Price's transcript, however, reads: "One forty
I expect our visitors to be at their place in about ten minutes 4000 " (One
fifty) "... It's one-fifty-eight. Our travelers should be near to arriving
at the place." (Mind-Reach, p. 63) Why the repeated use of time? to..-
The strange use of time can also be seen in Cole's transcript where,
despite "It is best that the inbound exper*enter not push the subject to
say a lot but act as if they have all the time in the world ...." (Appendix
B, p. 3) Targ says: "It is just about twenty minutes after eleven and Hal
should be at his target location by now 0000 It is twenty-four minutes
after eleven ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 105)
Note also the way in which the time is stated: "Twenty minutes after
twenty minutes after ... twenty-four minutes after ... eleven thirty-three
I I
????
(Mind-Reach, p. 106) Targ states time in the Price transcript: "One forty
one fifty-eight ... two thirty ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 68)
Another example can be seen with the abacus/clock target where description
of the experimenter's actions precedes the date of the experiment. "Hal and
I have brought a present for you. We wandered around ... and bought an
object . . of the type that one interacts with .... Hal will use it for
its normal purpose. Today is Friday, September 26, 1974 ...." (Mind-Reach,
Still another example is seen when Richard Bach visits: "Hal sholild
be there in three minutes ... it is eleven o'clock on Tuesday, July 18,
1975 ...." (Mind-Reach, xxiii) Although Puthoff and Targ state: "Final1Y,
?Approved For Release 2003/04/141cIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
6-00791R000100440001-9
one sunny day in April 1975, Richard flew his small plane into San Francisco
... he was ready to visit our lab and see what we were up to .... We decided
to use our newfound successful protocol and asked our visitor to be the
subject ... the target was a church ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 91-92)
It is also interesting to note that the experiment starting time is
not preset although Puthoff and Targ state: "The experimental protocol for
precognitive remote viewing experiments with Hella Hammid was identical to
that followed in the remote viewing experiments ... each day at ten o'clock,
one of the experimenters would leave SRI ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 111-112) LA"'
Yet, reply to Calkins' comments concerning their experimental design,
Puthoff and Targ state: "Among other things, the precise time of stimulus
presentation was controlled ...." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976,
Letters, p. 1549)
In the Price series, the viewing time was a 30-minute period and after
was reduced to a 15-minute period for Hella Hammid: "The first subject was
allowed 30 minutes for his description but it was found he fatigued and
had little comment after the first 15 minutes. The viewing procedure was
therefore reduced to 15 minutes for S2 - S6." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b,
p. 335) Perhaps this accounts for the return of the target team at 2:30
after the session had started at 2:00: "It's one fifty-eight. Our travelers
should be near to arriving" ... "two thirty. Shall we go downstairs and
see how they're doing?" (Mind-Reach, pp. 63-68) v,..?
Who actually fatigued is not quite clear since it is ,also stated:
"Second, the remote viewing periods were reduced from 30 to 15 minutes since
Hammid was observed to tire." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 35)
Approved For Release 2003/
112
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
toil
is?
led
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Target person behavior. "At the start of an experimental session, the
inbound and outbound experimenters and the subject should rendezvous for a
relaxed informal chat in the laboratory setting (the outbound experimenter
or experimenters must not know the target site at this time) .... The out-
bound experimenter then leaves the lab, uses a random number generating
procedure to obtain a number, obtains the so numbered envelope (preferably
kept by another person) and leaves .., opens the envelope to determine the
target, and proceeds to that location ... come upon the target location at
exactly the starting time so his view of it is fresh at experiment beginning.
He then simply pays attention to the environment and does not let his mind
wander (especially to another target) .... It appears not to matter how many
people comprise the outbound team, provided they don't 1) just pay attention
to each other. or 2) scatter about. At the end of the agreed-upon target
viewing time they return to the lab." (Appendix B, p. 2) In relation to
the acquisition of the target, and the randomization procedure, the behavior
of the target person obviously has varied from series to series. This has
been discussed previously and will not be dealt with again. LA-
Another area that also showed inconsistency, not only in procedure,
but in reporting, was the time actually spent at the target. "The first
subject was allowed 30 minutes for his description but it was found he
fatigued and had little comment after the first 15 minutes. The viewing
procedure was therefore reduced to 15 minutes for S2 - S6." (Puthoff and
Targ, 1976b, p. 335) However, in another source, it is stated: "Second,
the remote viewing periods were reduced from 30 to 15 minutes, since in the
mock-experiment training series Mrs. Hammid was observed to tire when viewing
was extended beyond the shorter period." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 35; Gt
113
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 9 -00791R000100440001-9
Mind-Reach, pp. 75-76) And yet earlier, Hammid was run through one after
another: "... in the walkie-talkie experiments, wherein we are able to
do a number of experiments, one right after the other." (Targ and Puthoff,
1975, p. 177)
Several other questions arise, however, as to what the experimenter
actually does when he/she or they arrive at the target. Again, Tart implies
there may be more, assuming that Hastings, having shared his procedure with
Tart: "Our consultant, Dr. Arthur Hastings ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 101)
Tart comments: "1 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 ...." (Tart, 1970, p. 170) Price, in the Allied
Arts transcript states: "Right now Bart is trying to point something out
that is basically the significance of the whole place .... Hal and Bart are
talking about something and he's pointing at something and it seems to me
that he's pointing over to what I'd call a windmill or something that looks
like a windmill ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 65-66) (Apparently remote viewing
also includes remote hearing also!) It is obvious that "people paying
attention to each other" did not distract Price from his description, so
what evidence is there that this personal attention should not occur? What
evidence is there that experimenters should not scatter about? (A...
One whole area that remains undisclosed is that of determining what
it is that the experimenters actually knew. Are there instructions given
as to what elements, say of Rinconada Park, are to be viewed? Or of the
marina? Or of the playground? As has been discussed earlier, the earlier
descriptions of some targets causes some question as to when they became
specific elements, say, within a larger target. Are maps drawn? Are tapes
114
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
S:CIET
Approved For Release 2003IO4IlgflJr1P9600791R000100440001-9
normally, made? Are specific actions required? At best, the lack of planned
activity, and1'1
ts subsequent documentation, of the target persons provides
an opportunity for redefinition of the "target" and free "interpretation"
by the judge.tk
Judging. Prior to the judging procedure: "First, an experimenter not
involved in judging must read the transcripts and delete from them any
reference to dates or previous targets, so that a judge could not order the
transcripts chronologically, or determine that a given transcript can't be
the boathouse because the subject mentions in the transcript that what he
is looking at reminds him of the boathouse which was the previous day's
target." (Appendix B, p. 4) LA(
As has been noted earlier, this protocol was written after their tutorial
paper. (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b) This time relationship is verified in
this latter publication: "The subjects' response packets, which contained
the nine typed unedited transcripts of the narratives along with any
associated drawings ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 335) and "... a
panel of five additional judges ... were asked simply to blind match the
unedited typed transcripts and associated drawings ...." (Puthoff and Targ,
1976b, p. 338) The latter quotation is in reference to the judging procedure
used with Hammid so one assumes that it was used with the remaining subjects.
Therefore, during the actual judging procedure, unedited transcripts are
apparently used. tt
Judging procedure. II ... the transcripts with their associated drawings
are labeled in random order and given to the judge ... while a list of the
target cards, also in a (different) numbered random order is given to the
judge. His job, then (is) to go to a target location (physically), read
115
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791R000100440001-9
through all the manuscripts, and order them best to worst match .... He
then proceeds to the second target site and reorders the same set of transcripts
again, best through worst match, and so forth. The judge is to do this exercise
in a replacement sense; that is, even though he may have assigned a given
transcript as best match to a given target, he may find at another target
that it is the best match to that one also. ' Even though he knows logically
that it couldn't go to both, we find that judges in fact have no hesitation
in using a transcript twice in first place, 'simply because they aren't sure
as to which one it does in fact belong, and they want to insure the best
possibility of not missing a potential match. Based on this we feel it is
more appropriate to use statistics based bn replacement." (Appendix B, p. 4) Mi.,
The Price series is judged by this method. In examining the results of
the judging, some interesting facts appear: (1) although 45 selections
are shown, all judges did not match all targets; (2) when the bridge toll
plaza was visited, no matchings are shown for Judge C nor are any shown for
the same judge for Rinconada Park; (3) Judge C uses three transcripts on a
single target', Baylands, so that if "Cs" are counted, it appears as if he
responded 9 times; (4) Judge D never chooses any transcripts other than
those of the first five targets; and (5) Judge E uses all transcripts but
one. On these bases, one could meaningfully question the appropriateness
of the statistical assumptions and conclusions. However, the number of
matchings is -quite impressive. The strength or weakness of this experimental
series is dependent on factors other than the strange judging results.
This is the only form of judging that is used in describing the Price results
in early publications. (Targ and Puthoff, 1974; SRI Progress Reports, March
and August 1974; Targ and Puthoff, 1975) Their conclusion is: "By plurality
116
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
vote, six of the nine descriptions and locations were correctly matched.
Under the null hypothesis (no remote viewing and a random selection of
descriptions without replacement), this outcome has the a priori probability
-4
of p = 5.6 x 10 , since, among all possible permutations of the integers
one through nine, the probability of six or more being in their natural
position in the list has that value." (Targ and Puthoff, 1974, p. 606)
No matter how dramatic the above statistic is, it still does not meet their
preViously stated criterion that an event cannot be considered paranormal
unless p < 10-6. (SRI Progress Report, August 1974) Why change criteria
here?
Why is it, in 1976, that Puthoff and Targ state: "As in the original
series with Price, the results of the nine-experiment series were submitted
for independent judging on a blind basis by an SRI research analyst ...."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, pp. 337-338) "And as back up judging procedure,
a panel of five additional SRI scientists ... were asked simply to blind
al match ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 336) IN,
This change in procedure is first seen in a 1975 publication in which
Hammid's replication series is first reported. (Targ and Puthoff, 1976)
It is supposedly instituted: "To obtain a more conventional and generally
accepted evaluation of the accuracy of the remote viewing experiment, the
experimental results were subjected to independent judging on a blind basis
?by a single judge who visited each location in turn. ... the judge was
required to blind rank order the nine packets on a scale from 1 to 9 (best
to worst match." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 36) -5-
The logic for this change is also based on the belief that one judge
was as good as the best of five judges. In their reply to Calkins' comments,
aim
Approved For Release 2003
117
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/ ? -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
t, ?
Puthoff and Targ state: "As indicated in Sections A & B, pp. 335-338, two
judging procedures were used. In the first, panels of five independent
judges analyzed the first and second experiments. From this one could
obtain the reliability of rankings by several judges (inter-rater agreement)
as measured by the coefficient of concordance W. However, in the present
study a judgment consisted of the matching of descriptive transcripts and
drawings to actual sites, and therefore the accuracy of matching provides
an empirical measure of judge reliability. The best judge obtained seven
matches out of nine cases in the first experiment, five out of nine in the
second, setting at least an empirical standard for quality judging. This
procedure amounted to a pretesting of potential judge reliability. A sixth
judge was then obtained who independently rank-order judged the same two
experiments. Since he also independently obtained the same 7 and 5 direct
matches as the best judge, we at least had a measure that indicated that,
with regard to the data generated in our first two experiments, the better
judges were in accord, indicating a high degree of reliability, inter- and
intra-judge. This sixth judge was therefore used for all the subsequent
judging in the paper ...." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976, pp. 1549-
1550) I/1'
If they chose their judge on the basis of the above and used only that
one judge for the rest of the series, they were certainly maximizing the
results by using the "better" judge who provided higher rankings. More
will be said later about this particular judge.
However, the single judge's results are not used until their tutorial
paper was submitted for publication in July 1974. Perhaps Puthoff and Targ
chose to use the second procedure of ranking since Hammid's results also
118
Approved For Release 2003/I RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003IulA 3CRrrDP96-00791R000100440001-9
would not have reached their statistical criterion of p < 10-6. By plurality
vote of the five judges, Price's was p = 5.6 x 10-4 with 7, 6, 5, 3, and 3
matches whereas Hammid's were poorer: 5, 3, 3, 2, and 2.
Note also, of course, the calculation reported above in the summary of
the research, indicating that the "five additional judges" performed signifi-
cantly poorer than the first selected judge. Is this a valid reason for
a posteriori changing to a plurality vote? A...?
Although the ranking procedure does not appear until 1975, Puthoff and
Targ make it appear as if it were the only method used throughout the series.
"Working alone, the analyst visited each target location and in a blind
fashion rated Pat's answers on a scale of 1 to 9 (best to worst match)," and
"As a back-up procedure, a panel of five additional SRI scientists ... were
asked to blind match ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 54-55) LA.
Who does the judging? The five judges are only referred to as being
SRI scientists not associated with the experiment. The single judge is
also SRI associated, a research analyst, although the judge is only referred
to earlier as being "a judge." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 36) 5"
In Mind-Reach, Puthoff and Targ relate: "In the process of judging-
attempting to match transcripts against targets on the basis of the information
in the transcripts-some patterns and regularities in the transcript descriptions
became evident. Our consultant, Dr. Arthur Hastings, pointed out to us 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." (Mind Roach, p. 101) Li
Hastings paper on "Mental Processing of ESP Imagery: Theoretical
Considerations" at The Eighteenth Annual Convention of the Parapsychological
119
Approved For Release 2003/04/ P96-00791R000100440001-9
EMI
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : - 6-00791R000100440001-9
Convention, 1975, dealt "... with responses that appear as mental images to
the mind's eye of the percipient, who then draws or describes them."
(Hastings, 1976, p. 187) tA"'
Hastings is also thanked in one publication: "We express our sincere
thanks also to Earle Jones, Bonnar Cox, and Dr. Arthur Hastings, SRI ...."
4, p. 353 although he is later thanked in Mind-Reach as a consultant:
the authors have greatly benefited from many discussions with ... SRI
consultant Dr. Arthur Hastings." (Mind-Reach, viii)
Thus, Hastings is an SRI employee, perhaps an SRI scientist, certainly
a consultant, and also a coauthor. In addition, we understand (R. Hyman,
personal communication) that he is a professional magician and the sole
judge used in the latter SRI local target studies and a consultant and judge
for another organization in the Southwest U.S. currently conducting remote
viewing studies. Should the above be as accurate as we believe it to be,
significant changes are needed in future judging procedures and judge
selection.
Once the judge has the target list and transcripts, he proceeds to each
target location. With the exception of one publication, there are no details
as to what kind of instructions the judge is given. In that one publication,
gm
it is stated: "While standing at a specific location, the judge was required
.0 to blind rank order the nine packets ...." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974,5
p. 36) Since this statement is made in reference to the Hammid series, it
.11
can be surmised that it was also followed for the rest of the experiments.
If this is the case, bias must also be a factor in this element of the
judging since the experimenters are aware of the subject's description, and
can send a judge to the area in which a correspondence might be seen. In
120
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mig
da
moi
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 ? P96-00791R000100440001-9
uLURLI
the description of Hammid's target, the pedestrian overpass, Puthoff and
Targ relate: "She went on to explain that if you stand where they are
standing you will see something like this, and drew a series of nested
squares. As it turned out, a judge standing where she indicated would have
had a view closely resembling what she had drawn." (SRI Progress Report,
August 1974, p. 35) Her earlier part of the description, ... a kind of
trough up in the air ... (Targ and Puthoff, 1976) certainly could have also described
the railroad trestle bridge. The key, therefore, to identification then
becomes the "nested squares". Was a judge sent to this location? Note
again that this is the first drawing. Why do Puthoff and Targ choose to
use only one? If the correlation was so good, why was it only given a ranking
of 2? Note also the accurate reporting: "... she saw a kind of trough up
in the air ..." which later becomes "... the subject said that she saw a
kind of diagonal trough up in the air ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 4)
Calkins, in his comments, raises an excellent point: "Unfortunately,
there are also fundamental problems in the very definition of the DV
[dependent variable] ... at the heart of which is confusion over the nature
of the so-called 'target'. Specifically, the judge for a given S's
performance for a given 'target' was successively driven to each geographical
location previously visited by the peripatetic E's. Since we do not know
precisely what ,aspects of the geographical location constituted a 'target'
in the original 'experiment' when the demarcation team was present, and
since it is even more ambiguous now what the judge was viewing, as well as
what he was supposed to be looking at while he reviewed the S's packets of
9 descriptions, we seem in this procedure, therefore, to actually be dealing
with at least three recognizably distinct categories of 'targets': one is
121
Approved For Release 2003/04013 96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/
0791R000100440001-9
constituted by the perceptions of the demarcation team; a second by the
perceptions of the judges; and a third by direct physical aspects of some
geographical location." (Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976, p. 1547) IA,
Although "while standing at a specific location, the judge was required
to blind rank order ..." (SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 36), the
reply to Calkins' comments on their basic experimental design (which has
been quoted before) is highly applicable here also: "It would be in our
opinion premature and imprudent, for example, during the initial stages of
an investigation when much remains unknown about the mechanisms and factors
involved, to follow Calkins suggestion to specify precisely on what
stimuli within a target area a subject or a judge is to concentrate."
(Proceedings of the IEEE, October 1976, p. 1549) t4
Another area in which bias can occur is in the judge's desire to have
the experiment show positive results. Puthoff and Targ relate concerning
the matching procedure: "Even though he knows logically it couldn't go
to both, we find that judges in fact have no hesitation in using a transcript
twice in first place, simply because they aren't sure as to which one it
does in fact belong, and they want to insure the best possibility of not
missing a potential match. Based on this, we feel it is more appropriate
to use statistics based on replacement." (Appendix B, p. 4) If this is
true for the matching procedure in which five judges are involved, it would
also seem likely that a single judge might behave the same way. Lk
In addition, another type of subjectiveness can bias the results, that
of reading in more correspondence than may actually be there. This kind of
subjectiveness can most easily be illustrated with the following example
although this experiment was used as a demonstration experiment. Following
122
Approved For Release 2003/040) ? RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 6-00791R000100440001-9
their paper, although this target was not presented, a round table discussion
ensued in which the Alpine Inn beer garden was brought up. U?.
"Feinburg: What happened is that the people who had been at this place
came back, and then they drove Price, myself, and some others back to the
place they had been before. When we got there, we looked around and compared
some of the things Pat had said ....
Concerning the historical plate, Price 4aid something was there which
sounded a,little bit like what actually was there. But then, one of the
people who went there afterwards, said, Oh, look, here's something that
[
looks a little bit like what he said there was. After that, everybody
crowded around, saying yes, yes, that's the historical marker." (Puthoff
and Targ, 1975b, p. 178) IN
When a forced ranking method is used, this subjectiveness necessarily
must enter in since the judge (1) knows that a transcript must match each
target; and (2) can increase the actual rank given by "reading" in "more
correspondence than is actually, there." This bias is evident when Puthoff
and Targ state: "Several descriptions yielded significantly correct data
pertaining to and descriptive of the target location." (Targ and Puthoff,
1974, p. 605)
If only "several" descriptions yielded correct data, why were so many
ranked so highly? They also state: "The transcripts varied from coherent
and accurate descriptions to mixtures of correspondences and noncorrespondences."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 346) How does the judge go about this ranking
procedure?
There appears to be some question as to whether all the transcripts in
a given series are judged at the same time: "Following a series of several
123
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04 RET-00791R000100440001-9
experiments, all of the subjects' unlabeled response packets, ... were
presented to the judge in random order." (Mind-Reach, p. 36) Could it
be that all the transcripts are not rated at the same time? The use of
the word "several" could suggest just that. 14
Regardless of the number of transcripts involved, although it would
mi make the task much simplier and result in a greater probability of making
correct matches, the judge found the following method the best.
"According to the judge, the most successful procedure was a careful
element-by-element comparison that tested each transcript against every
target and used the transcript descriptions and drawings as arguments for
and against assigning the transcript to a particular target." (Puthoff and
Targ, 1976b, p. 346) Some transcripts were obviously matched easily, such
or
as White Plaza and Hoover Tower which were named correctly. ... seems
like it would be Hoover Tower. We sat there finding it difficult to believe
that he had actually identified the target by name." (Mind-Reach, p. 50) IA_
"One of the direct hits, which occurred with Phyllis Cole in her first
experiment ... she recognized the location as White Plaza " (Mind-Reach,
p. 86) Swann, in his drawing of Palo Alto City Hall, lists "the miniature
golf course from yesterday?" (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 340) and Price
mentions the "marina" used prior to the target he is describing: the Allied
Arts and Crafts Plaza: "... not half the distance they were to the marina ...."
He also mentions distance: ... feels like a mile to a mile and a half ...."
(Mind-Reach, pp. 63-68) Since these are the only available unedited transcripts
and only eight drawings are shown from a total of 43 experiments, it is
difficult to go into greater detail about other uses of cueing within these
sources. (./\
124
Approved For Release 2003/04/
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0411R ZRE439,6?0791R000100440001-9
In the Elgin/Swann series, once Palo Alto City Hall is matched, the
only remaining "... simple, heavy, solid building with a unique function ..."
is the BART station. Therefore, a judge can, by the process of elimination
reduce the number ol transcripts from the Series he is judging. Since he
has a list prior to the actual judging, he doesn't necessarily tank each
transcript without prier knowledge as to what the other target locations
are. He can, therefore, actually match each transcript to the target rather
than rank. it.
Other possible cueing may take place. Names of experimenters are included
in some of the drawings and if the names of the experimenters are included
in the pre-viewing description of the experiment as they have been for Price's
and Cole's unedited transcripts: ? ... the travelers to ?the remote location
are ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 63) and "... and this is a remote viewing, experiment
with ..." (Mind-Reach, p. 104), these references would also provide cues.
In the drawing by Elgin, he has labelled his figures "H" and "P" (p. 83)
and Pease has noted in his drawing "Hal and Hella sitting." (Mind-Reach,
p.87)
The questions that the experimenters use during an experiment may
provide even more cues. The use of such questions as: "What kind of place
is the arbor in ... tell me about town and country ... town and country
means to me a covered walkway ... what would you say is the interest to
this place? What's special about this place?" (Mind-Reach, pp. 63-67)
Trovide a few examples from the Allied Arts transcript where questions
might be helpful to the judge. tot,
Most importantly, a subject is not encouraged to name the target,
although when the names are correct, they are lauded: "We sat there
125
Approved For Release 2003/04610306WROP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
6-00791R000100440001-9
finding it difficult to believe that he had actually identified the target
by name. Although this feat was no more spectacular than his original
experiment, this one had to be confronted at close range." (Mind-Reach, LA.-
p. 50) Puthoff and Targ state: "We often observe essentially correct
descriptions of basic elements and patterns coupled with complete or
erroneous analysis of function." (Targ, et al., 1977, pp. 519-520) If,
however, judging were to be based on the analysis of function, how many
transcripts would be correct? "An 'august and 'solemn' building," was
called a church and "a pedestrain overpass above a freeway" was described
as a conduit (S4). A rapid transit station, elevated above the countryside,
was associated with an observatory (S )." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) L/4??
Obviously, a judge would have to call them incorrect. The use of a less
demanding criterion, one of "... individual elements and items that make
up the target." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) allows a subject to
learn a given set of responses that can be applied to any target within
that specific set of targets, such as fountains and bridges, so that a
judge can judge them on a less demanding and less precise basis.
ma Puthoff and Targ conclude, among other points that "... most of the
correct information that subjects relate is of nonanalytic nature pertaining
to shape, form, color, and material rather than to function or name."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 350) Subjects are, in fact, encouraged to
describe a target in these terms: "they need to 'get it' that a rounded
41111 piece of blue metal is just that, and they shouldn't try to figure out
whether it is a car fender before they say anything." (Appendix B, p. 2) 1A-1
In describing mock experiments, Targ related as an example of a mock
experiment: "She'll say, I see an elliptical brick structure surrounded
twit
126
Approved For Release 2003/04/ a,:
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
6-00791R000100440001-9
with green, with irridescent blue flowers inside. Harold will say, Say
again what the color is, and she'll say, Peacock blue. And he'll say,
the brick planter is there with the surround of green, but it's magenta.
She'll say, well, I must be looking someplace else, because the flowers
I see are blue. Then he'll go on to some other place." (Targ and Puthoff,
1975, p. 172) The emphasis is placed on these details during the mock
experiments; in this particular case, the emphasis is on color. bk_,
It is intdresting to note that Puthoff, Targ, and May have carried out
training experiments that not only involved hape, but also color. "We
have in our laboratory carried out a series Of communication experiments
involving the transmission, from one laboratbry to another, of simple shapes,
(e.g., T, 0, A), which also were of different colors for each shape. With
the hypothesis that a similar gradient is followed in the development of
paranormal perception ..., (that of learnin
o discriminate first black
and white, followed by red, green, yellow, blue, brown, and other colors),
... subjects were asked to differentiate among simple remote color card
targets first on the dichotomy dull/bright, then with regard to shape, and
only finally with regard to color .... Numerous data were gathered with
two subjects who were experienced remote viewers. Analysis of the data,
which shows learning in both cases, provides initial support for the
hypothesis that progress in paranormal perception can be made on the basis
of training drills designed from what is known about ordinary perception."
(Puthoff, et ca., 1978, pp. 30-31) These data, however, have not been
published.
In relation to the above study and the use of mock experiments in which
training occurs, it is interesting to note the following: "In comparing
127
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Hella's results with Pat's, we observe a difference in style which evidently
affected the Pattern of results. Pat's descriptions were in general more
detailed than Hella's, leading to more first place Matches ... he also got
two clear misses where the striving for detail resulted in erroneous analytical
interpretations. Rena, on the other hand, preferring. to be more cautious,
got fewer first place matches but did not find any of her descriptions falling
into less than second place." (Mind-Reach, p. 79) "The transcripts of
subject S4, more than those of other subjects, had descriptions of the feel
of the location, and experiential or sensory gestalts-for example, light/
dark elements in the scene and indoor/outdoor and enclosed/open distinctions."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 345) Le.--
Targ, Puthoff, and May (1978) conclude: "Of the six studies, involving
remote viewing of natural targets or laboratory apparatus, five reached
statistical significance. The overall results, evaluated conservatively
on the basis of a judging procedure that ignored transcript quality beyond
that necessary to rank order the data packets (vastly underestimating the
statistical significance of individual descriptions), clearly indicates
the presence of an information channel of Useful bit rate." 5'
If, as they state, the procedure ignored transcript quality "... (vastly
under-estimating the statistical significance) ...", it also was beneficial:
"Pat's descriptions were in general more detailed ... leading to more first
place matches, that is, direct hits in the rank order judging, but he also
got two clear misses ...",,(Mind-Reach, p. 79), i.e., rankings of 3 and 6.
... the analyst visited each target location and in a blind fashion rated
Pat's answers on a scale of 1 to 9 (best to worst match)." (Mind-Reach,
p. 54) (A,
128
Approved For Release 2003/04/
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
;
6-00791R000100440001-9
"For the purpose of screening a result is to be considered paranormal
if the a priori probability for the occurrence of the result by chance,
-6 ?
under the null hypothesis, is p < 10 . (SRI Progress Report, August 1974,
p. 16) -5
40
If this is the criterion for "screening", is there some reason it should
be changed for the experiments themselves? Of the five, only S4's results
came close to the statistical criterion: p 1.8 x 10-6. No other statistical
criteria are ever mentioned, with the exception of the screening criterion
in one publication. Rather, general statements are made: "therefore, in
carrying out our proposed program, we would have to concentrate on what we
mi considered to be our primary responsibility: to resolve under unambiguous
conditions the basic issue of whether or not this class of paranormal
perception phenomenon exists." (Mind-Reacho p. 35) LA
Finally, Puthoff and Targ state: "The descriptions supplied by the
subjects in the experiments involving remote viewing of natural targets or
44 laboratory apparatus, although containing inaccuracies, were sufficiently
accurate to permit the judges to differentiate among the various targets
to the degree indicated." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 344) Is this
what is needed? It seems a much more proscribed judging procedure and
voi
response criterion are required. As will be seen in Section III, when
these requirements are met, results tend to be negative. Lk
Technology Targets. The results of the technology series of targets
were first presented in 1975. At that time, it was stated: "Having
completed two sets of remote viewing experiments under controlled conditions,
we set out to try to determine some of the properties of the information
channel. To accomplish this we turned to the use of indoor technological
ANA
00
129
Approved For Release 2003/044?66JeRDP96-00791R000100440001-9
cd-f;..1.11t1. I
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
? targets." (Targ and Puthoff,,1976, p. 36) The subjects for this series
were S2, S3 S4' V2' V3' If this series was actually carried out following
'
the series with Price and Hammid, and V2 and V participate, the demonstration-
of-ability experiments for other subjects with local targets must have come
after November 8, 1974. Vi's third target is dated and signed by Puthoff.
(Mind-Reach, p. 9) One assumes that V2 was run following V1. However, Cole's
transcript of White Plaza is dated October seventh (Mind-Reach, p. 104) so
low
some confusion appears.
Twelve experimental sessions are reported, although in the publication,
00
it appears that the experimenters had planned on a larger series since they
state: "Twelve experimental sessions have been completed to date, involving
a total of five subjects." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 36) Of a total of
twelve transcripts, Swann produced four and Hammid five.
The
-
The target pool is reported as being "... anything from office equipment
to machinery or an experimental set-up." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 36)
The list included a: "... computer-driven flight simulator (Link trainer) ..."
(p. 36) which is changed later to: "... and, in one case, an entire machine
shop." (Mind-Reach, p. 94) The remaining targets are the same in all
publications. The subject is told: ... one of the experimenters would
be sent to a laboratory within the SRI complex and that he would interact
with the equipment or apparatus." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 36) td\
With the discussion of this group of targets, eight drawings are
included. Out of a total of twelve experiments, although only eight drawings
are used for the series of forty-three experiments in which natural and
man-made targets are used. The drawings are grouped together according to
the target used and Puthoff and Targ have provided a photograph for each
drawing. ?IX
awl
Approved For Release 2003/0
130
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791R000100440001-9
The drawings for the Xerox machine illustrate a table with a figure
in front of it with the notation "rolling along table". (Puthoff and Targ,
1976b, p. 343) Above this, the entire Xerox machine is pictured. The
next drawing looks like a squat fire plug sitting on a table with a wire
attached, and has the notation: "it turns? dark brown or maroon". (Puthoff
and Targ, 1976b, p. 343) and must be either the second drawing or second target,
since it is noted as 2. For this, Puthoff and Targ show a close up of the
counter with its two knobs. The third drawing shows a square with semi-circle
on the bottom of the square with what appears to be a light bulb-shaped
object in front and to the side a rectangular shaped item. These drawings
interestingly enough are labelled 1, 2, and 4. The subject related: " gee
'I have the feeling that there is
'There is this predominant light
something silhouetted against the window ....'
source which might have been a window, and
a working surface which might have been the sill, or a working surface or
desk." Puthoff and Targ relate these two comments, however, in reverse
order: "Earlier the subject said ....' Pictured above these drawings of
which one is missing, is the caption: To add interest to target location
experimenter with his head being xeroxed." In their "Potential Criticism
and Responses" section, Puthoff refers to the use of photography as a
possible criticism. His response is that: "All blind judging, matching
and statistical evaluation of the results (which is where the scientific
issues are decided) are completed before photographs are taken; judges do
not have access to photographs during their analysis, and therefore judges
cannot be ?cued into correspondences observed post hoc." (Targ, et ca., 1977,
p. 528) Le\
131
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mut
INS
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
The judging of the targets is reported in different publications in
various ways. The first presentation states: "Blind matching without
replacement of subject response packets ... and targets resulted in four
matches out of the 12, a result significant at p = .015." (Targ and Puthoff,
1976, p. 37) In this reporting, therefore, each individual transcript was
matched separately.
n another publication, the judging procedure was as
follows: "... in the first judging procedute a judge was asked simply to
blind match .., to the target. -Multiple=su$ject responses ..." therefore,
only seven this time, "... were stapled together, and thus seven ...
response packets were to be matched .... While standing at each target
location, the judge was required to rank order the seven subject-drawing
response packets ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343)
Not only only has the judging procedure changed, but also the number of
packets used. Instead of judging on a one-to-one basis, the subjects
response packets for any given target are stapled together. To confuse
the issue further, in the earlier study, the judge was given: ... subject
response packets (tape transcripts plus drawings) (Targ and Puthoff, 1976,
p. 37) whereas later, only drawings are used: "... in the first judging
procedure a judge was asked simply to blindl match only the drawings (i.e.,
without tape transcripts) ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 343)
1
"In a second more detailed effort at evaluation, a visiting Scientist
selected at random one of the 12 data packages (a drill press equipment),
sight unseen and submitted it for independent analysis to an engineer with
a request for an estimate as to what was being described. The analyst,
'blind as to the target and given only the Object's taped narrative and
drawing (Figure 13) was able, from the subject's description alone, to
or 132
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
correctly classify the target as a man-sized vertical boring machine."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, pp. 343-344) ("4>
The remaining publication that gives any detail concerning this series
of targets reports: "Given that in generallthe drawings constitute the most
accurate portion of a subject's description in the first judging procedure
a judge was asked simply to blind match only the drawings (i.e., without
tape transcripts) to the targets. Multiple subject responses on a given
target were stapled together, and thus seven subject-drawing response packets
were to be matched .... The response packets (judged on a scale of 1 to
7 ...." (Mind-Reach, pp. 96-97) One assumes that the authors meant to
use "ranked" rather than "matched" in describing this well-used procedure.
"The result was significant at odds of 28:1," (Mind-Reach, p. 97) The
second judging procedure is also described in this reference. lot
In summary of the technology series, we can conclude several things.
First, the inconsistency of the target set (simulator vs. machine shop)
is a Source of inaccurate reporting at best. Second, the loosely changing
judging procedure is a source of concern. Third, the unequal trials spread
over the four subjects is clean l e of 1 -ideal 1
research _practice. For these reasons, it is doubtful that the series
provided any indication of the "properties". of the remote viewing information
channel, nor do the authors refer back to that stated purpose in any of their
discussion of the results. This series of experiments therefore seems to
add little to their existing data base.
Unselected Visitors. "After more than a year of following the
experimental protocol ... and observing that even inexperienced subjects
got better than expected results, we began a series of experiments to
133
Approved For Release 2003/ DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : C -00791R000100440001-9
explore further whether individuals other than so-called 'psychics' could
demonstrate the remote viewing ability. To: test this idea, we have a
continuing program to carry out additional experiments using local targets
in the Bay area with subjects who we have ne particular reason to believe they
have paranormal perception." (Mind Reach, pp. 87-88)
In Mind-Reach, following a description of the experiments with V1.
Puthoff and Targ state: "We have carried out more than one hundred experiments
of this type, most of them successful, as determined by independent judging.
The majority of our subjects have not been 'psychics'; at least they didn't
think of themselves that way when they started." (Mind-Reach, pp. 9-10) Gk.
In another publication the figures are rather different: "In over. 70
laboratory experiments that now include work with more than a dozen subjects,
..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 1) although later, within the same publication
they also state: "... we initiated an extensive series of experiments
using unselected subjects and local targets in the Bay area ...." (p. 5)
If this series is as successful as claimed, not to mention being
"extensive", where are the data from these experiments. It would seem *
logical that Puthoff and Targ would be eager to publish these results, ----n
especially since they typically appear to publish their results shortly
after conducting the experiments. (See Table 1.)
As of the publication of Mind Reach in 1977, the only two unselected
subjects reported are V1 and V2 who are included in the remote viewing of
local target statistics. V3 is included as a subject for the technology
series. The only remaining subject is Richard Bach, from whom they desire
funding. "Desperate times call for desperate measures. I had read Jonathan
Livingston Seagull, and also the interview with its author, Richard Bach ...
134
Approved For Release 2003/A4 -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
J
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
.propelled by Bach's idea that 'the seagull that flies the highest sees the
furthest,' we called Richard Bach himself to see if he could pump new blood
into our project." (Mind-Reach, p. 90)
The dates that Bach actually visits are reported differently: "... one
sunny day in April 1975, Richard flew his small plane into San Francisco
airport and called to say that he was ready to visit our lab and see what
we were up to." (Miwi-Reach, p. 91) Bach, in the Forward of Mind-Reach,
states in describing what appears to be his first experiment: "Somehow I
hadn't expected it to be human. I had expected ... and then the beginning
of the experiment: It is eleven o'clock on Tuesday, July 18, 1975. This
is a remote viewing experiment with Richard Bach ...." (p. xxiii)
No other unselected subjects are mentioned until April 1977, at which
time they describe three experiments with two visitors. "The following
results obtained with the last two visitors who agreed to act as subjects
provide specific examples." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 6) One of the
drawings is dated 5 May 76.
Also reported in July 1977 are three other experiments. These, however,
use a variety of subjects, identified by initials: 01 (an SRI research
engineer), H1, Il and R1 in addition to D whose experiments are the same
'
as those that were reported in April 1977. 01 can be eliminated since he
was used in the long-distance remote-viewing experiments between New York
City and California and New Orleans-California and I is an experienced
subject. Therefore, of the total group, there have been four unselected
subjects used in five experiments from 1976 on.
The targets that are used are the following: Methodist Church, Stanford
University Inner Quadrangle featuring Memorial Church, Baylands Nature
Approved For Release 200
135
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
?ea
- mai
- mit
Approved For Release 2003/04/ 96-00791R000100440001-9
Preserve, a swimming pool complex, Hyatt House Hotel, and White Plaza. Jahn
(1978) mentions two targets that were used while he and his co-worker Carol
Curry were at SRI: the local Holiday Inn swimming pool, and the Stanford
Chapel. Another recent target used with G1 is the Vallombrosa Chapel, and
with experienced Il the Golden Pavillion Restaurant. The targets appear to
fall into two general categories: chapels or churches, and water-related
targets. Lk
Subject D1, has two experiments and it is interesting to note that this
subject includes in his transcript of Baylands Nature Preserve a description
of a building he had visited the day before. (The occurrence of prior images
within a transcript were discussed previously.) The description in another
publication fails to state that the building was seen the day before: "However,
he also described seeing a building that is not at the target site. This sort
of super position of erroneous imagery on otherwise accurate descriptions is
a common occurrence ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 6) k'
Subject D17s second target is the Inner Quadrangle, Stanford University.
The two associated drawings depict a courtyard. Although both drawings are
different, one wonders why the second was drawn since they essentially do
not differ all that much. Both contain the same elements: a tall structure
to the left and a porch running from this large structure to form an
At the back, a street is shown and a wall. Both also indicate glass windows
and green plants as being in the large structure, poles In front of it,
anda lot or patio in the center of the square formed by building, porch,
and street.
In one, there is a partial completion of the square labeled
"stores"; in the other, a short run of steps.. The word "emporium" also
appears on one though it is pointing to some large *buildings outside the
Approved For Release 20
136
sli Is.6 5
-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2005/04/18 ?
96-00791R000100440001-9
square. The pictures above the drawings show an aerial view of the quadrangle
and a close-up of Memorial Church. In another publication, the target is
called the dormitory quadrangle and the above reference is to Memorial Church.
The drawings first of all do not indicate a quadrangle, for both indicate a
street on one side. In addition, the "store" image is quite obvious if one
reads the writing and if the target were Memorial Church, its pointed roof is
not apparent in the drawings. Yet, Puthoff and Targ state: "Almost every
element of his drawings correspond to the actual arrangement at the location
of the remote experimenters. These responses are among the most accurate
and detailed that we have ever seen." (1977b, p. 6) Once again, unless a
reader examines the elements carefully, they can be led into seeing correspondences
that do not appear to be there. IlAe
The other visitor's target was White Plaza, ... the second time in four
years that this particular site came up for experimental use." (Mind-Reach,
p. 7) If this is the case, then Cole and Elgin had to have had the same
target at the same time. Could other subjects have been run simultaneously
also? As will be seen in the following section, two subjects are used in
the long-distance series.("-
As will be seen in experiments dealing with long-distance remote viewing,
emphasis is placed on one subject's transcripts and not on the second's.
In the case of White Plaza, Cole's transcript was given a rank of 1, and
although judged with Pease's as a single transcript, it basically eliminated
a fourth target for Pease as no ranking is used for his. Obviously, the
better transcript was used for judging by permitting it to overshadow the
poorer one. (We muse what results could be obtained if all targets were
simultaneously viewed by several subjects, only one of whom somehow produced
Approved For Release 20
137
P96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
P96-00791R000100440001-9
an "excellent"'transcript, and the judges received all transcripts of each
target stapled together.)
46,
Two subjects are also run simultaneously in some of the remaining
experiments with unselected subjects. I (experienced) and R1 are run
together for the Hyatt House, and H and I for the swimming pool complex,
1 1
Mt. View, previously used with V2. In other experiments involving alphabet
letters and letter-guessing, H1, I1, and S1 are used simultaneously. H1
participates in. both. S1 is used in the long-distance experiments. tot
The protocol for all these experiments is the same used for the local
remote-viewing experiments. It has been seen in the previous section that
adherence to protocol has been less than consistent despite "... maintaining
scientific rigor ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 4) This is also seen
in the following section. LN
Critical Evaluation: Long Distance Targets with Target Person
The first experiment in the long-distance remote viewing series with
the use of a target person is the Costa Rica series. The procedure is not
stated other than: "The experiment called for Dr. Puthoff to keep a detailed
record of his location and activities, including photographs, each day at
1330 PDT ..." while he ... spent a week traveling through Costa Rica on a
combination business/pleasure trip." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 5) The
subjects did not know of his itinerary.
Two presentations of this material were made in the general time frame
of August 1974. One of the publications states: "Subjects 1 and 4
NO
participated in a long-distance experiment." (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 5)
ow In the other, only Hammid, S4 is reported: one subject (H.H.) participated
138
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
64 wig.,
Approved For Release 2003/04 C ARDlR9600791R0001004400019
This page intentionally left blan
Approved For Release 2003/04139)?
0791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
791R000100440001-9
in a long-distance experiment. In this experiment one of the experimenters
(Dr. Puthoff) spent a week traveling through 'Central America on a combination
business/pleasure trip." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 158) Prior to actually
discussing the results of three local remote-viewing experiments with Elgin
and Hammid, the targets are listed. Included in this list is "... and (as a
special long-distance task) a vacation resort in Costa Rica." (Targ and Puthoff,
1975, p. 156) ?-?
Both publications agree on the number of responses that were made by
Hammid although apparently on one day no experiments were run. There are
six responses listed for Price: "Six daily responses were obtained from
Subject 1, five from subject 4." (Targ And Puthoff, 1976,,
P? 5) (A
... on one occasion when the test subj6ct was unavailable, an
experimenter volunteered a drawing of an image he obtained at the beginning
of one of the daily experiments. (The target for that day was an airport,
an unexpected target associated with a side excursion at midpoint of the
week's activity.)" (Targ and Puthoff, 1976, p. 6) This experimenter is
later referred to in other publications as an SRI researcher and subject.
"Three subjects participated in a long-distance experiment ..." (Puthoff and
Targ, 1976b, p. 330) and "... one response from an SRI researcher, ...."
(Mind-Reach, p. 11) In one of the first publications, however, it becomes
clear as to who this subject is: ... one of the authors (R.T.) volunteered
a drawing .... The target for that day was an airport (Targ and
Puthoff, 1975, p. 160)
Puthoff's week, however, has lengthened into "... (Dr. Puthoff) spent
ten days ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, P. 330)
The drawing of the airport is seen in four references. The comparison
5
140
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
between drawing and target is goodr "The match was good ...."
(Targ and
Puthoff, 1975, P. 160; SRI Progress Report, August 1974, p. 6) In another
publication, it is reported: "The sole discrepancy was that the subject's
drawing showed a Quonset-hut type of building' in place of the rectangular
structure ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 13)
Later, it is stated: "... we present an illustrative example generated
in an early pilot experiment. As will be clear from our later discussion,
this is not a 'best-ever' example, but rather a typical sample of the level
of proficiency that can be reached and that we have come to expect in our
research." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 330) S
In looking at the various publications in which this drawing is presented,
two interesting aspects appear. The labels describing the drawing read as
follows: "sketch produced by subject from San Andres, Columbia, airport used
as a remote viewing target." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 162) Note: This
is also stated in similar fashion again below the label in lower-case format
with the addition of "Figure 6". The same label reappears in (SRI Progress
Report, August 1974, p. 8) However, the label is changed in the other
publications to: "Figure 1. Airport in Safi Andres, Columbia, used as a
remote-viewing target, along with sketch produced by subject in California"
(Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, 330) and "sketch produced by subject with San Andres,
Columbia, airport used as remote viewing target." (Mind-Reach, P. 12)
Another interesting part of this drawing is the date: "Friday, 4/12/73".
However, April 12, 1973 was a Thursday, and experimentation had not even
begun as of yet. (See Table 1.)
Although we are not handwriting experts, the handwriting on this drawing
appears similar to some of the handwriting on Swann's first drawing of
141
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIAAR 0791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
96-00791R000100440001-9
Kerguelen Island, specifically that which was noted earlier as appearing
different from the other writing.
Although Hammid was also asked to supply drawings: the subject was
asked to supply a drawing and written description", none appear for this
subject and only descriptions are referred to thereafter: "Twelve daily
descriptions were collected ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 330) However,
"the third subject who submitted the single response supplied a drawing for a
day in the middle of the series." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 330) IA,
The use of pictures with the airport drawing is also unusual. In three
of the publications, there are close-up shots of the terminal and airstrip.
In Mind-Reach, however, they have used an aerial view taken either before or
after the experiment was conducted: "... Hal ... at the time of the experiment
...." (pp. 12-13) V\
had just disembarked from a plane
Where was the drawing made? Was it drawn by Russell Targ? When was it
made? How does it happen that the vantage Point of the subject's sketch
al corresponds so well to the (previously taken?) photograph of the airport
from an airplane window either during approach or takeoff from a mile or so
off the end of the runway? If one were merely going to document one's
presence, at the airport at
ma
a given time, and to describe the nature of the
airport, wouldn't a picture of the terminal
The perspective correspondence appears too
from ground level be more likely?
lose to be coincidental. Lot
Hammid's responses are reported: "Two were in excellent agreement,
two had elements in common but were not clear correspondences, and one was
clearly a miss." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 158) In another publication
it is reported after the airport drawing is discussed: "The remaining
submissions in this experiment provided further examples of excellent
142
Approved For Release 2003/04gan96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 0791R000100440001-9
id correspondences between target and response. (A target period of poolside
relaxation was identified; a drive through a tropical forest at the base of
a truncated volcano was described as a drive through a jungle below a large
bare table mountain; a hotel room target description including rug color
was correct; and so on." (Puthoff and Tars, 1976b, p. 331) There is no
mention of any of Price's descriptions. The total publication of Hammid's
"excellent" responses consists of "... larger bare table mountain, jungle
below, dark coal moist atmosphere ... and .. picture of Dr. Puthoff sitting
in a beach chair by a pool ...." (Targ and Puthoff, 1975, p. 158) These 4p
are the only quoted descriptions or general descriptions provided from a
as total of five transcripts, or from 75 minutes of Hammid's viewing time.
That is, we are exposed to only a small sample of her responses, especially
mi
considering their reputed excellent nature.
The second set of experiments in the long-distance remote viewing series
im
with the use of a target person was presented at two separate IEEE conferences.
mi The first, "Direct Perception of Remote Geo raphical Locations," was presented
at Electro/77, April 1977. The second, "St te of the Art in Remote Viewing
me
Studies at SRI," was presented in August 1977.
Although the papers deal in detail with the long-distance targets,
they also give a description of the previous experiments in the remote viewing
of local targets. The presentation is somehat different, however, in
these two papers, in that a new terminology l appears for Electro/77. Though
both papers state that the terminology is used as "... a neutral descriptive
term free from prior associations and bias as to mechanisms," (Puthoff and
Targ, 1977b, p. 1; Targ, Puthoff, and May, 978, p. 519), "remote viewing"
is now called "remote sensing".
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
4155E9
-
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
In the introduction of the Electro/77 paPer they state: "In over 70
'laboratory experiments that now include work with more than a dozen subjects"
and "here, throughout research spanning a five-year period, we have worked
with new and untrained subjects so to avoid reliance on the availability of
a very limited number of special subjects. Remote perceptual abilities
have been developed in several individuals . .." (PuthoEf and Targ, 1977b,
p. 1) The paper then gives a description of the general protocol used with
local targets, followed by a brief resume of the Price and Hammid series. (..?
Other than the tables showing targets, distances, and associated
rankings for both Price and Hammid, there is no mention of the rest of
the remote viewing series and no data base is ever given. Experiments with
unselected subjects are then covered:
... we initiated an extensive series
of experiments using unselected subjects and local targets." (..4.
In the second paper, "remote sensing" (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 1)
is again called "remote viewing." (Targ, Puthoff and May, 1977, p. 519)
Targets, however, are now at < 20 km and they specifically refer to a data
base: "... our previously established data base of over 50 local (< 20 km)
experiments ...." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1977, p. 519) As was noted
earlier, the farthest target in the series was 16.1 km away. The experimental
protocol is discussed, followed by a description of the Price series, the
Hammid series, and a summary table of all the results of remote viewing o
local targets. This section is followed by the long-distance targets. 4.44.
The long-distance experiments were apparently carried out whenever one
of the experimenters went on a trip. Those between Menlo Park and New York
City are dated July 1976, and the two conducted between New Orleans and
California in October 1976. The remaining transcript is undated.
144
Approved For Release 2003/94t DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
In the first two experiments, tlose held between Menlo Park and
New York City, with the subject in C lifornia, ... the DARPA computer
teleconferencing net was used for re ponse recording, time recording, and
post-experiment feedback....", as noted previOusly.
Puthoff and Targ include the coiiputer file printout in their publication
1
and state: "These experiments provi e an elegant demonstration of the utility
of the teleconferencing process as alsecure data recording system to provide
real-time monitoring of long-distance remote-Viewing experiments." (Targ,
Puthoff, and May, 1977, p. 523) An xamination of the transcript from the
first experiment in which the target
was Grant's Tomb reveals several interest-
ing aspects. At the top is listed: message number, date, time, and "FROM:
TARG" followed by "SUBJECT: S7's REPORT" and then "TO: TARG". The transcript
then begins with "RUSSEL-". At the end of the transcript the following:
"ARUSSELL IS THAT YOU? HI, THAT WAS 57, AND WE WERE IN THE 'MSG' STILL,
I THINK THAT IT MAY ABORT!" Why "TO TARG" . . "FROM TARG"? Why the need
to identify the subject?
on the east coast agreed ...
and May, 1977, p. 5) (A.,
The only time the two experimenters are
"The subject (supervised) and the experimenter
to begin the experiment
...."
(Targ, Puthoff,
linked is following the target
person's return to the hotel where he "... awaited the appearance of the
SRI experimenters and subject who could then and only then link the New York
and Menlo Park terminal" at which time "... both files were printed out on
both terminals ...." If this is the case, why then does the experimenter
in California say: "ARUSSELL IS THAT YOU?" ?The message is the first so
apparently the talk communications are not to be on the file. Did the
experimenter forget? 6,1,
145
igaggom
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
The experiment also typed: "WE WERE IN THE MSG STILL, I THINK THAT IT
MAY ABORT." Note the use of the word "were". What is going to abort? The
experiment? Why might it abort?
The description in the transcript seems consistent until the following:
"THEN DAVID SNAPPED HIS FINGER - I SAW A BASKETBALL VERY CLEAR TACTILE
SENSATION FROM A SOMEWHAT TEXTURED GLOBE - ALSO, ON ANOTHER - THE COLOR RED
NOT SHARPLY DEFINED - LIQUID OR FLOWING MATERIAL OR NICKY RACING AROUND IN
A RED SHOIRT ANOTHER SNAP AND D ASKED FOR THE NAME OF THE PLAVCE - I WAS
THINKING BAR' BUT I THREW THAT OUT AS OLD AND SAW THE LETTERS CH' WHICH I
COMPLETED AS 'CHILE' OR 'CHILI' -- ALSO ANOTHER SNAP AND THE NAME OF THE
THIRD PERSON - JOE JOHN OR GERRY - IS IT GARY? ...."
Why the snaps? Can the subject hear or see the target person snapping
his fingers or is the experimenter with the subject doing so and for what
purpose? The subject appears to respond in either case with a fresh image. (i.
Puthoff and Targ state in Mind-Reach: "... motion is in general not
perceived; in fact, moving objects often are unseen even when nearby static
objects are correctly identified." (Mind-Reach, p. 102) They also state
this in another publication: "Curiously, objects in motion were rarely
mentioned." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 346) IA.
Two other facets of the transcript are interesting. The transcript
begins with "RUSSEL- I THOUGHT OF A HIGH PLACE WITH A VIEW - DETAILS
INCLUDED 3 MIN BEFORE V [a line is skipped] IEWING." What details are
included three minutes before viewing? In what are they included? tit,
In the middle of the transcript the subject reports: "ALSO THE
SURFACE WITH SOMETHING VERTICAL ABOVE - SOMETHING REFLECTING METAL PIPEX
OF AN ORGAN (THE ONE I DIDN'T VIEW LAST TIME) ...." When did this "last
146
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
AL.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
P96-00791R000100440001-9
time" happen? This is the first experiment in the series. L.,
Targ, Puthoff and May state; "As an example of the style of narrative
generated by a subject during computer teleconferencing experiment, we
include the entire unedited computer-logged text of S7's response to the
ai
Grant's Tomb target in Figure 3." (Targ, Puthoff, and May, 1977, p. 521)
However, there are two blank lines in the transcript and although the message
appears coherent, the number of characters the computer indicates to be in
the file is 1676. A count reveals only 1660 including spacing and carriage
returns. Has something been deleted? Has the computer made a counting error? IA
,The following appears in the Electro/77 proceedings: "I thought of a
high place with a view. I saw a tree on your left. A brick plaza seemed
to be in front of a building you were entering. I could not clearly identify
the activity. A restaurant? A museum? A bookstore? You had coins in the
palm of your hand, maybe giving some to Nicky (son of outbound experimenter).
UI
The coins were in fact used to purchase the postcard from which Figure 5
at was made, and they were given to the experimenter's son who made the purchase.
Both subjects then went on for an additional paragraph to describe details
of the activities they imagined to be going on inside the building they saw,
details that were partly correct, partly incorrect." (Puthoff and Targ,
1977b, p. 8) Li. .
Within the above direct quote of the subject's transcript, the following
was deleted: "RUSSEL ... DETAILS INCLUDED THREE MINUTES BEFORE VIEWING ...
I SAW A TREE ON YOUR LEFT IN A BRICK PLAZA - IT SEEMED TO BE IN FRONT OF H
WRONG BUTTON - BUILDING YOU WERE ENTERING" has become "A brick plaza seemed
to be in front of a building you were entering." The entire section
concerning an elevator is deleted and the following is then picked up:
41011
147
Approved For Release 209/ : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
6-00791R000100440001-9
"I COULD NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE. ACTIVITY A RESTAURANT? A MUSEUM? A
BOOKSTORE?" "AT ONE TIME I HAD THE FEELING YOU WERE LOOKING AT COINS IN
THE PALM OF YOUR HAND ..." becomes "YOU HAD COINS IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND ...."
The ... details of the activities they imagined to be going on inside the
building ." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) must be in reference to the
snapping of the fingers and the images described after each snap as well as
the subject's reference to the METAL PIPEX OF AN ORGAN (THE ONE I
mi DIDN'T VIEW LASY TIME) ...."
LA
"Two subjects, both in California, participated simultaneously in this
experiment with the first of two New York City targets .... Both subjects
independently provided computer-stored records ...." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
?
p. 8) Although Puthoff and Targ relate some details of the first subject's
transcript, little is really said. This subject is referred to as: "The
first subject, an SRI systems analyst ...." "The second subject a medical
student ..." provided the transcript that has been described above. However,
in the later publication, this subject has become "S7" and the first subject
is "S8": "Subject S8, an SRI system's analyst ..." and "Subject S7, closeted
in a separate SRI location, began with: I thought of a high place with a
view ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 521) (10...
gom
In beginning the description of the second target, Washington Square,
this subject, S7, is referred to as a female.? "One subject participated.
She produced an exceptionally accurate transcript .... She began her printout
? with the following: 'The first image I got at about the first minute was
of a cement depression (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) Her transcript
is included.: "... we include the entire unedited computer-logged text of
the Washington Square experiment below (Figure 7)." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
mi
148
Approved For Release 200 .4J% L A -RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/0
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
p. 9) In this transcript, the'll?SUBJECT: 5USANS REPORT ..." is used. However,
in the other publication the following appears: "One subject, S7' participated
...." The subject began his printout with the following: "The first image I
got at about the first minute was of a cement depression . (Targ, et al.,.
1977, p. 522) Why the change of gender? The .transcripts are identical,
except in the latter publication "SUSAN" has been deleted and "S7Ts" has been
typed in. CA/
These same two subjects are referred to in a third publication as
an SRI systems analyst, and Sl. (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1977a) Therefore,
the first subject is S8' now G1, and the secOd subject is S7' Susan and now
si.
The target and pool of targets for theseLexperiments are chosen in the
following manner: "After logging off the coOputer, the outbound experimenter
would use a random number generator to deterMine which of six locations in
New York City would constitute the target tojbe visited in this experiment.
Neither the subject nor the experimenter at OI knew the contents of the
target list that was compiled just before the experiment. Having selected
a target location by the random protocol, the experimenter would proceed
4
directly to the site and remain there for 4teen minutes." (Puthoff and Targ,
1977b, p..7) If this is the case, the target list would have to have been
compiled rather rapidly since "At the previously agreed-upon start time
(one half-hour after breaking computer link) the subject typed impressions
? ? ?
(Targ, et al., 1977, p. 521) This meant that the target person would have to
prepare a list, make a selection, and stiWget to the chosen target within
half an hour, The Washington Square transcript was begun at "1354-PDT" and
therefore was at the beginning of the rush hour (4:54 PM) in New York City.
149
Approved For Release 2003/04/$
P96-00791R000100440001-9
mg
were a railroad' bridge, the 20-story New York University law library, the
rim fountain in Washington Square Park, the ColuMbia University subway station,
and the 72nd Street basin ..."? (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 8) The same
mi list of targets is used for both experiments and,therefore, cannot be
I... compiled after logging off ..." in both icases. (.01-
It is interesting to note that the targdts fall into three general areas:
the New York University law campus is at Washington Square; Grant's Tomb
and the Columbia University subway station Uie between 116th and 125th Street;
ad and the 72nd Street Boat Basin is located at the southwestern end of Riverside
Park,approximately midway between the other tWo sets of targets. The location
of the railroad bridge is unspecified. The second target, Washington Square
fountain, is in the opposite direction from the first.
"The targets were chosen to be dissimilar and therefore, differentiable,
by potential judges." If targets were chosen so carefully, it would seem as
if this might take more time than that allowed in the one-half hour between
logging off and arriving at the target, in one case at rush hour. The choice
of dissimilar targets does not meet the previous protocol for target selection
that was used in the local remote viewing series in which similar, but distinct
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
.10
-00791R000100440001-9
(Targ, et al., 1977, p. 524) This flurry of activity and travel within 30
minutes seems implausible.
Or do Puthoff and Targ mean before bo0 the experiments began? "Targets
were determined either by random-number .generator entry into a previously
prepared target list ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 521) If the target list
is prepared prior to each experiment and not before the series of experiments,
why is it stated: 'The five possible targets in addition to Grant's Tomb
-
targets were used.
Approved For Release 2003/
150
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
mug
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : Cl
The
subject,
1977, P. 524; Puthoff and Targ,. 1977b) The subject, however, is not finished
after the first transcription is made: "In a more detailed tape recording
made after the experiment, but before any feedback, the subject described
'cement steps going into the depression, like a stadium, and the rounded edge
-00791R000100440001-9
second target, Washington Square fciiintain, was viewed by only one
S7. The transcript is included in both publications. (Targ, et ca.,
of the top of the depression as you go up to ground level.' . These descriptions
are not only correct, but also Show remarkable detail." Why does the subject
make a more detailed second recording? If a subject is viewing a target,
and sees these details why aren't these details included in the original
printout? What serves as the indicator of the target location after the
experiment; i.e., after the target person has left the target? ?,-
Although they do not appear on the transcript, apparently the experimenter
with the subject does ask questions of the subject during the transcription:
... only declarative statements spontaneously generated by the subject, or
responses to direct questions are used for the quantitative analysis." (Targ
et ca., 1977, p. 522) Although the experimenter with the subject does not
know the target list: "Neither the subject nor the experimenter at SRI
knew the target list ...." (Targ et ca., 1977, p. 522) What kinds of
questions does the experimenter ask? to"'
In the transcript, (Targ et al., 1977, p. 524; Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
p. 10) the sujbect states: "THE FIRST IMAGE I GOT AT ABOUT THE FIRST MINUTE
WAS OF A CEMENT DEPRESSION - AS IF A DRY FOUNTAIN - WITH A CEMENT POST IN
THE CENTER OR INSIDE. THERE SEEMED TO BE PIGEONS OFF TO THE RIGHT, FLYING
AROUND THE SURFACE OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. HThEN I SAW AS IF IFIF IN THE
DISTANCE A REAL STADIUM WITH GRASS IN THE CENTER AND PERHAPS STADIUM LIGHTS.
151
Approved For Release 2003/0 DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 00791R000100440001-9
?
OTHER IMAGES. WERE A ROW OF HOUSES/AFICKET FENCE- SOME VERTICAL UNITS WITH
JAGGED TOPS. THEN A FLUTED/GROOVED VERTICAL COLUMN, BUT I COULDN'T SENSE
WART IT WAS RELATED TO." Note that the subject transcribes in the past tense
as was seen for a short time in Cole's transcript of White Plaza. (Mind-Reach)
It then appears that later the subject has a second image: "AGAIN YOU WERE
IN A DEPRESSED AREA WITH CEMENT SIDES, LOOKING OUT ONTO THE SURFACE OUTSIDE.
THE CEMENT SIDES ARE NOT STRAIGHT, BUT SLOPING, ALMOST S-SHAPED.
. . THERE
DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING REALLY SPECIAL INSIDE, JUST A SEPARATION BETWEEN
TEWO TWO SIMILAR AREAS." At the beginning of the transcript, the subject
has mentioned the cement depression "THE FIRST IMAGE I GOT AT ABOUT THE
FIRST MINUTE WAS A CEMENT DEPRESSION ..." and goes on to describe the dry
fountain. This apparently must be another image or an answer to a question
from the experimenter. CA+
The subject is also quite familiar with New York City: "ALSO A CLEAR
FEELING OF THE HEAVY, WORN METAL BAR ON THE TOP OF TYPICAL NYC OR ANY CITY
FENCES ..., ALL IN ALL, I ThOUGHT YOU WERE IN RIVERSIDE PARK NEAR A TRACK
AND PLAY AREA, OCCASIONALLY LOOKING UP AT THE 'ROCK AND LEAF' CLIFFS LEADING
UP TO THE DRIVE. AFTER I HAD THOUGHT THAT AND FIT IT IN T WITH OTHER IMAGES
RECEIVED SO FAR, IT KIND OF STUCK, AND I POSSIBLY GENERATED MORE PARK
SCENES. THE STADIUM/FOUNTAIN IMAGES WERE THE FIRST AND THUS THE LEAST
BJIASED 16 TO PARK MEMORIES." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 524) Is there a
fountain in Riverside Park that might possibly fit this description?
The entire transcript, in this case, is in the past tense. When does
a subject make the transcription? "(one-half hour after breaking computer
links) the subject typed impressions into a special computer file
. . . "
(Targ, et al., 1977, p. 521) If a subject is using a tape-recorder, then
Approved For Release 2003/04/18:
152
"
.??6-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CI
91R000100440001-9
the transcription can be made as the subje'ct views the target. "When the
agreed upon experimental time arrives, the inbound experimenter simply asks
the subject to 'describe what impressions come to mind with regard to where
the outbound experimenter is.' Most subjects prefer to close their eyes,
but they should simply do what comes naturally .... Since we think that
remote viewing is a difficult task, like perceiving a subliminal stimulus,
we think it takes the full attentive powers of the subject. Therefore, the
environment, procedures, etc., should be as natural and comfortable as
possible so that as little attention as possible is on anything other than
the job at hand." How does a subject transcribe on a typewriter at the
beginning of the experiment and still keep their "full attentive powers"
on the viewing itself? It is stated: "In our remote viewing experiments,
the final output is typically a tape recording and a written transcript,
in which the subject relates his perceptions and experiences with respect to
the remote site that he is attempting to describe. It is becoming apparent
to us, as experimenters, that some portions of a subject's output are more
reliable than others." (Puthoff, Targ, and May, 1978, p. 18) No mention
of a written transcript has been made before in the publications to the best
of our knowledge. When are these written transcripts made? Before or after
feedback from the experimenters or from the site itself, if such a procedure
was used during the remote viewing of local sites? "After the target
demarcation team returns to SRI, the impressions obtained from the subject
are compared with the actual observations Of the team. Finally, following
the experiment, the subject is taken to the, site so that he may obtain
direct feedback." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977h, p. 2) When does the subject,
during the long-distance experiments actually transcribe? The use of the
Approved For Release 2003/
153
RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Nei
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-R
R000100440001-9 .
past tense indicates that an image is seen and then the transcription made.
Does the subject hop back and forth from viewing to transcription: "AGAIN
YOU WERE IN A DEPRESSED AREA" ,
GENERATED MORE PARK SCENES"
. "AT ONE POINT" ... "LATER". "I POSSIBLY
or do the subjects
have a series of images and
then transcribe the memory of what they saw. Since Puthoff and Targ state:
"Two principal sources of noise in the system apparently are memory and
imagination, both of which can give rise to Mental pictures of greater
clarity than the target to be perceived." (Puthoff and Targ, 1976b, p. 346),
one questions why this technique would be encouraged.
It is perhaps pertinent to note that Puthoff, Targ, and May are familiar
? with work relating to subliminal cueing. This is referred to in relation
to training: "We have in our laboratory carried out a series of communication
experiments involving the transmission, from one laboratory to another, of
simple shapes (e.g., T, 0, A), which also were of different colors for each
shape .... The communications series was designed to determine whether a
gradient series of perception tasks that mimic the known development of
ordinary perception would be useful in the development of paranormal perception.
The decision to follow such a protocol was derived from data indicating that
the laws of paranormal perception are congruent with, rather than skew to,
the laws that govern ordinary perception, especially under conditions of
subliminal perception. The particular question examined was whether a
specific perceptual orientation process known to hold in ordinary perception
of color, would hold in the case of paranormal perception .... Numerous
data were gathered with two subjects who were experienced remote viewers.
so
Analysis of the data, which shows learning in both cases, provides initial
support for the hypothesis that progress in paranormal perception can be
154
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: IA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA
0791R000100440001-9
1mm made on the basis of training drills designed from what is known about
um
wig
4?1
ordinary perception. The purpose of this kind of. training is the development
of excellent and reliable paranormal perception of analytic and other
?
alphanumeric types of target material." (Puthoff, et aZ., 1978, pp. 30-31)
This series apparently must have been carried out prior to the publication
of their ttProtocol.tI
At the end of the transcript, the subject states: "I SURE DO LIKR THE
TELETYPE. IT CAN BECOME AN OBSESSIVE PASTTIME, I SEE). This is followed
by: "THAT WAS MESSAGE 6." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 524) It appears that
other messages have been placed in these special files. The first experiment
is labelled "message 1." Since the experimental time was set prior to the
message 1 transcript, any communication in the TALK mode is not numbered as
a message file. We are never told the contents of messages 2, 3, 4, and 5! 0-
"In attempting to derive a quantitative analysis estimate of the amount
of valid data in a transcript, we have made a detailed analysis of the previous
two transcripts generated by a single subject during the long-distance
experiments between Menlo Park, California, and New York City .... Each
transcript typed by the subject into a computer file was edited to retain
only declarative statements spontaneously generated by the subject, or
responses to direct questions. These statements were collected in groups
called concepts .... Each concept was assigned a rating ranging from 0 to
10, depending on the analyst's subjective impression ..." ("We performed
four comparative analyses ....") "... as to whether the concept had no
correspondence (a rank of 0) or complete correspondence (a rank of 10) with
the target. "... if the subject had five references to a condition that
could be defined as shady, these would be combined in the concept 'shady'."
Approved For Release 2003/ DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-
.111, ,
- 0791R000100440001-9
(Targ, et al., 1977, P. 522) (".
In their Table 4 (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 526), the chosen concepts from
the transcription are listed with the correspondences. After combining
the scores from both transcripts, they state: "From these means we would
el
estimate that approximately 66% of this one subject's response constitutes
um an accurate description of the target site, whereas if the data are matched
against other target sites, only 37% of the response would typically apply.
Although crude; this subjective analysis serves as a first step in suggesting
a method for further single transcript analysis." (Targ, et ca., 1977,
pp. 522-523) (.0%.
ao In Table 9 the same subject's descriptions are listed, with our rankings
of correspondences to Yankee Stadium. (This "target" is relatively close to
Grant's Tomb.) The subject's mention of a 'real' stadium was the basis for
this choice. Certainly the Yankee Stadium bears a good similarity to the
responses made to the Washington Square target by S7. Does the statement
that "... if the data are matched against other target sites, only 37% of
the response would typically apply." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 522) really
seem that impressive? The score for Yankee Stadium is estimated at 69%,
roughly the same as that for the "correct" target. Once again, careful
consideration of a definitive response accuracy criterion seems warranted.4.4._
vs In examining the listed correspondences of this transcript, several
additional questions arise. If the fountain is operating, how can the
experimenters be in it? If they are speaking of a depressed area outside
it, how can a rank of 10 be given to being in an area with cement sides that
seri
aren't 'straight, but sloping'? The outside of the entire area appears to
be a curb. If the subject is able to see the houses, why is there no
low
fast
41 .
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 -00791R000100440001-9
IIIIIIII_I
Approved For Release 2003/14/18.;.GIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
a
TABLE 9. SUBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF S7'S RESPONSES TO WASHINGTON SQUARE TARGET, AND COMPARATIVE
CONTENT ANALYSIS TO YANKEE STADIUM
TARGET CHARACTERISTIC
1. Cement depression
9. You are in depressed
area with cement sides
10. Sides are sloping
almost S-shaped
2. A dry fountain
3. Cement post in center
4. Pigeons off to the
right
14. You were feeding
popcorn to pigeons
5. Stadium with grass
and lights
SUBJECT'S RESPONSE
SCORE CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE
TO YANKEE STADIUM SCORE
'a cement depression' ? 10 We were in cement depression Exactly
'you were in a depressed 10 Exactly
area with cement sides'
'cement sides are not 10 Exactly
straight, but sloping
almost S-shaped'
'a dry fountain' 8 Operating fountain
'stadium/fountain
images the first'
'with a cement post in 7 Cement post plus large
the center or inside' Pipe.
'nothing special inside'
'seemed to be pigeons off
to the right, flying
around the surface out of
the depression'
8 Pigeons were in the park
nearby
'you feeding popcorn to 3 Others were
pigeons'
'in the distance a 'real'
stadium with grass in
the center'
'perhaps stadium lights'
'stadium/fountain Images
the first'
Scale factor
SECRET
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Exactly
Yes
Stadium, no fountain
Partial
Yes; pigeons all
over NYC
Others were
Exactly
10
10
7
3
3
10
TARGET CHARACTERISTIC
6. Rows of houses, picket
fence
11. Heavy worn metal
12. Separation between
two different areas
13. You were opening a
cellophane bag
15. Rectangular wooden
frame ... on a
building
16. Riverside Park,
tracks and play
area
I I i I I I I I
Approved For Release 2003/04/11A.FIDP96-00791R000100440001-9
TABLE 9. (continued)
SUBJECT'S RESPONSE
'a row of houses/a
picket fence'
'a clear feeling of
the heavy, worn metal
bar on the top of
typical NYC or any
city fences
'separation between
tweo two similar
areas'
'you were opening a
cellophane bag'
'looking out onto the
surface outside'
'rectangular wooden
frame, a window frame'
'wasn't sure if it was
on a building, or a
similar structure with
different purpose'
'you were in Riverside
Park near a track and
play area'
'more park scenes'
'looking up at 'rock
and leaf' cliffs'
CORRESPONDENCE
SCORE
CORRESPONDENCE
TO YANKEE STADIUM
SCORE
9
Houses with iron fences
Yes, nearby
6
7
Copper posts in fountain
Yes, bar/railings
9
6
In and out of fountain
Yes, field and
seating areas
10
10
Yes
Yes
10
Could be the arch
3 Play area nearby
mean = 6.8
Approved For Release 2003/04/
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Could be related
to basic structure
Partial - track and 4
play area correct
mean = 6.9
Approved For Release 2003/0411a "1-00791R000100440001-9
mention of the arch which greatly dominates the area?
Similar confusions and questions arise with the Ohio caves target. "A
third long-distance remote-viewing experiment was carried out under the control
of an independent, skeptical scientist. In this case, both SRI experimenters,
while visiting in Ohio, agreed to take part in a remote-viewing experiment in
which our host would select the target." t"."
"Under the observation of our challenger, we telephoned subject S4 in New
York City and obtained the subject's agreement to participate in a long-distance
remote viewing experiment. The subject was told only that we were located
somewhwere between New York City and our California laboratory and that shortly
we would be taken to a target that we would like to have described." (Targ,
et al., 1977, p. 523) This subject is also referred to as H1 in another
publication (Puthoff, et al., 1977a) and by name in the other.(Puthoff and
Targ, 1977b)
As S3 had been residing in New York and S apparently in California,
one wonders why S4 is used for this experiment if she was on vacation in
New York City. Did this trip relate to the trip during which the long-
distance experiments were carried out with the Grant's Tomb and Washington
Square targets? If so, it seems unlikely that some contact was not made
with the subjects. Targ was certainly in New York and there is a reference
in one transcript to "H": "IT SEEMED TO BE IN FRONT OF H."
If
-
If the subject had any general idea as to where the experimenters might
be, even just a city name, the use of the word "shortly" to the subject,
followed by the time the experiment was to start would give the subject an
indication of how far away the target might be. In addition, the return
call was set for one hour later, which also provides the subject with some
Approved For Release 2003/04MCIA,RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
mmoommormi
1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CI 791R000100440001-9
sort of information as to the length of time is would take to return: "We
also agreed to call again at 3:00 PM EDT to obtain Subject 4's impressions
and to provide feedback as to the actual target." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 523)
"A second subject (S8) working by himself at SRI, who had agreed in
advance to participate in the same experiment by time and date, was less
successful with the cavern target." (Targ, et ca., 1977, p. 523) This
subject is also referred to as G1 in another publication (Puthoff, et al.,
1977a) and omitted from the third.(Puthoff and Targ, 1977b)
If the experiment was done on the spur of the moment, after arrival,
hence necessitating a call to 54'?
.., both SRI experimenters, while visiting
in Ohio, agreed to take part ...", how, at th same time, could a date and
time be pre-set with another subject? "A send subject ... had agreed in
advance by date and time soo*It (Puthoff' et al., 1978, p. 523)
A quick look at a standard road map of Olio reveals that both the
Ohio Caverns and the Air Force Museum are no0d in red lettering in the
Springfield/Dayton area. There are few othellplaces of interest shown.
"This subject erroneously interpreted early 1111pressions as associated with
a museum. As a result the majority of his tOnscript, although containing
some correct elements, reflects.primarily an!incorrect analytical interpretation
and cannot be said to constitute evidence folparanormal functioning." (Tara,
et aZ., 1977, p. 523) t%-
In the transcript itself several images are presented: ... something
to do with underground caves or mines or dee shafts ... nuclear or some
very far out and possibly secret installation . . corridors ... whole under-
ground city ... arbor-like shaft fee* " (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 523) These
images are described in more detail: "... some electric humming ... inner
Approved For Release 2003/04/1/369
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA- 791R000100440001-9
throbbing'... man helped nature ... vines (wisteria) growing in arch ...
darker earth ... cool moist passage bank of elevators ... a very man-made
steel wall ... shaft-like inverted silo brightly lit ...." (Targ, et al.,
1977, p.523)
Targ, Puthoff, Puthoff, and May state: "As if (is) .often the case, one observes
that the basic gestalt of the target site is cognized and even experienced --
e.g., the underground caves aspect, While specifics are misinterpreted -- e.g.,
the labeling of' the location as 4 nuclear iils.Eallation." (Targ, et aZ., 1977,
p. 525) Enough elements are included in the description that it could apply
to either type of target, and therefore be called successful. The image
presented actually might apply to an imagined perception of an underground
installation, rather than a cave. to'
The final two experiments in this series were carried out between New
Orleans and California, one in each direction.
"The first experiment in this series involved Subject S7 in New Orleans
viewing activities of a group of three people known to the subject, at a
location in a Palo Alto/Menlo Park area 2000 miles away." (Targ, et al.,
1977, p. 525) The title under the corresponding picture reads: "REMOTE
VIEWING EXPERIMENT - NEW ORLEANS TO PALO ALTO, 30 OCTOBER 1976." (Targ, et
1977, p. 527) However, in the other publication, the following is stated:
"During an extensive cross-country trip.. we arranged to conduct two experiments
between New Orleans and Menlo Park, California one each way .... For the
first experiment (subject in Menlo Park) .." and "the most recent ...
involved a subject in New Orleans " (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11)
Which did come first? The picture corresponding to this target is labelled:
"LONG DISTANCE REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT - SRI, MENLO PARK, TO LOUISIANA LA.,
Approved For Release 2003/04/184?1A-RDP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 86-00791R000100440001-9
SUPER DOME. SUBJECT DESCRIBED LARGE CIRCULAR BUILDING 31 OCTOBER 1976."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 12) The picture of the other target, used
in the Louisiana to Palo Alto experiment is dated: "NEW ORLEANS TO PALO
ALTO, 30 OCTOBER 1976." Therefore, although the pictures in both publications
are labelled with the same dates, the text indicates both of these experiments
as the first.
The
-
The experiments "... were carried out with the two subjects who had
participated in the New York-California experiments." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
p. 11) In the earlier publication there are no direct references to subject's
identity other than by gender: "... the subject in Menlo Park would tape record
his impressions .... He also expressed feelings ...." (Puthoff and Targ,
1977b, p. 11) "The most recent experiment in this series involved a subject
in New Orleans viewing activities of a group of three people known to her,
at a location in the Palo Alto/Menlo Park area ... She reported ...."
(Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) The other publication is more specific:
"The first experiment involved S7 in New Orleans ..." and "During this time,
S8 in Menlo Park ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 526) S7 identified earlier
as Susan, "The second subject, a medical student ..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
p. 8) (and as S7) apparently was taken on "... an extensive cross-country
trip ..." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) so that she could participate
in this one experiment. This subject, although serving in the New York City
experiments, did not participate in the Ohio experiment.104.-
Subject S8' who earlier was "the first subject, an SRI systems analyst ...",
and G1 participated in one of the two New York City targets (Grant's Tomb) and
the Ohio experiment as "... A second subject (S8) working by himself at SRI ...."
(Targ, et aZ., 1977, p. 525) If he is used at this time as a subject and
162
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 ?
6-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/
96-00791R000100440001-9
participated in the Ohio experiment, why didn't he participate in the second
New York experiment? (44"-
The targets for these two experiments were chosen in the following manner:
"The target chosen by randomized entry into a New Orleans guidebook list was
the Louisiana Super Dome." ?(Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11) The selection
of the targets is made on the following basis: "The methodology with regard
to target selection again was designed to eliminate possible cueing paths.
Targets were determined either by random-number generator entry into a
previously prepared target list unknown to subject and experimenters ...."
(Puthoff, et al., 1977, p. 521) "-
In these experiments, the target selection, by another person and maintained
unknown to the experimenters in accordance with the standardized protocol
(Appendix B), was done quite differently. Apparently the division director
stopped handling the target pool sometime during the local series as the
following is stated: "The target team is assigned their target location by
an independent experimenter ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p. 519) since this
is in reference to the earlier work with Price and Hammid. The independent
experimenter, also called monitor ". , then obtains sealed traveling orders
from a monitor ...." (Targ, et al., 1977, p.519) In the opening paragraph
of Cole's transcript the following is reported: "... PHYLLIS COLE IS THE
REMOTE VIEWER, AND RUSS TARO IS THE MONITOR . .." (Mind-Reach, p. 104) Is
Targ now the monitor, target selector, and experimenter? IN-
S8 made two drawings of the Super Dome. (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 12)
One is a front view and the other an aerial view. The handwriting on the
aerial view looks similar to that on the San Andres, Columbia airport drawing.
(Mind-Reach, p. 12) Although we profess no expertise in this, area, a comparison
Approved For Release 2003/
DP96-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA- 6-00791R000100440001-9
might be in order. Note the words "grass" and "cement".
The subject's quoted descriptions vary within both publications. Under
the drawings and pictures, the following appears: "A ROUND GOLD RIM AROUND
A SUNKEN DEPRESSION' ... 'IN THE SURFACE OF THE DEPRESSION THERE IS SOME
KIND OF FAKE CHINA FLOWERS. IT'S LIKE A BONSAI TREE MUSHROOMING OUT OF
THE SURFACE." This is quoted in the text as: "Her principal impression
was ofa 'overhang of a building over their heads ... also a round gold rim
around a sunken. depression.' The target, a bank building is shown in Figure
10. Principal features of the target include a dramatic building overhang
and a rectangular concrete depression with a fountain in which the water
comes out of a circular gold rim. The subject also reported 'some kind of
fake china flowers mushrooming out of the depression.' There were four
orange lamps mounted on the gold rim." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11)
The pictures used to depict this target are two close-ups, one shot
from the side showing the two experimenters throwing something and showing
only the lower portion of the building. The pool is apparently off to one
side so that only one upper corner appears. The other photo is a close-up
of the fountain within the pool and what appears to be a circular metal
piece that contains the jet-type, water outlets and four spot lights
beneath the metal piece. The pool is tiled. gohoe
"Finally, she reported 'there was a projectile coming toward David
(one of the outbound experimenters). Like a ball or frisbee, as if Elizabeth
(another experimenter) has tossed him a ball.' Actually the experimenters
had found a paper airplane lying on the ground and had thrown it back and
forth for some period of time. In fact, the photo of the site taken at the
time of the experiment shows the airplane between them. This is one of the
164
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
-00791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1
6-00791R000100440001-9
few times that a remote viewing subject has perceived rapid motion at the
target site." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b, p. 11)
"R9: All All blind judging, matching, and statistical evaluation of the
results (which is where the scientific issues are decided) are completed
before photographs are taken, ...." (Targ, et ca., 1977, p. 528) CC
"In short, at all times, we and others responsible for the overall program
took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing and to prevent
deception, whether intentional or. unintentional. To ensure evaluations
independent of belief structures of both experimenters and judges, all
experiments were carried out under a protocol in which target selection at
the beginning of experiments and judging of results at the end of the
experiments were handled independently of the researchers engaged in carrying
out the experiments. In five years of self- and other-criticism, we have
not found a way to fault either the experimental protocols or the conclusions
derived therefrom." (Targ, et al., 1977, pp. 528-529) 66._
Yet, two of the experimenters at this target site were "David" and
"Elizabeth". Puthoff and Targ acknowledge her contribution in a footnote:
"We wish to acknowledge the technical contributions of Elizabeth A. Rauscher,
a consultant on leave from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, who has done
extensive research on physical theories relevant to psi functioning; in
particular, work on multidimensional geometries." (Puthoff and Targ, 1977b,
p. 13) She is also mentioned in another publication: "The extradimensional
hypothesis is based on the ideas of Targ, Tuthoff, and May (SRI), G. Feinburg
(Columbia University), and E. Rauscher (University of California Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory) ...." (Puthoff, et ai., 1978, p. 19) Rauscher, et al.
(1976) also report an experiment in remote viewing which will be described
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : 8
0791R000100440001-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
00791R000100440001-9
later. The experiment showed negative results. Although the results were
negative, the subject apparently described the previous day's target on the
following day in at least three sessions.. "The first target showed a strong
resemblence to the subject's descriptions during the second session and the
second target seemed to be related to the subject's descriptions during the
third session." (p. 43)
This same type of reporting can be seen in the description for Visitor
Dl. In his drawing, he include the buildinglhe had seen the day before.
"He also described seeing a building that is not at the target site. This
sort of superposition of erroneous imagery on otherwise accurate descriptions
is a common occurrence . .." (Puthoff and Tag, 1977b, p. 6) 6,
If this is a common occurrence, how easy it would be to use those (previous
day's) transcripts as the transcript for the (current day's) target. The
transcripts are randomized and handed to a judge. The order in which the
experiments are run has been misreported in Several cases. Swann's Palo
Alto City Hall is listed as the 'first target but is actually his second
as he refers to "miniature golf course from yesterday?" on his drawing.
(Mind-Reach) The same reversal is seen in the reporting of Elgin's first
two transcripts. The BART station is reported as his second target in one
publication (Targ and Puthoff, 1975) and as his first in Mind-Reach (p. 80).
Price mentions the marina in his seventh transcript of Allied Arts and the
marina is the fourth target, although it appears to be quite vivid to him.
"They don't feel as far away. I'd say that it is about -not half the
distance they were to the marina ...." (Mind-Reach, p. 65) To carry over
a feeling after the use of two other targets is quite remarkable.
166
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : cpek,Rp, -00791R000100440001-9
Je-_,?