TARGET AND SENDER DEPENDENCIES IN ANOMALOUS COGNITION (DRAFT TECHNICAL PROTOCOL)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 150
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 2, 1991
• Content Type: RP

TeNAPfif-PRAcEpr Release 2000/0WAMA-RDP96-0078919.061401-24160-1104
Target and Sender Dependencies
in
Anomalous Cognition
Prepared by:
Edwin C. May, Ph.D. and Nevin D. Lantz
2 December 1991
Science Applications International Corporation
An Employee-Owned Company
Presented to:
The Scientific Oversight Committee
Submitted by:
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330
Menlo Park, California 94025
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 ? [phone]
?Appftliettirtstiqt IWAVeP2001176870g c.atiAA1109r-tilfreWani1J64 tilif4
UNEDITED DRAFT
mApipicahRidtfopt: 20611101308nrielfiloRIDIRSORM8120416d100120001-4
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES 111
I OBJECTIVE 1
II INTRODUCTION 2
III APPROACH 4
1. Target-pool Selection 4
2. Target Perparation 4
3. Target Selection 8
4. Receiver Selection 8
5. Sender Selection 9
6. Session Protocol 9
7. Analysis 10
8. Hypotheses 10
IV DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 12
1. Null Result 12
2, Significant Deviations 12
V GLOSSARY 14
REFERENCES 15
APPENDIX 16
Approved For Release ANCRIZPSWP96-00789R00310012000124
Too piremtnitiolat: Fieb)85612800?084b8001AeRES R964/03A9:13P8800120001 -4
DRAFT
LIST OF FIGURES
1. City with a Mosque 5
2. Green Intensity Distribution for the City Target (Macro-pixel, 3,3) 6
3. City with Mosque (I AS I = 1.98 bits/0.25 in2) 6
4. Pacific Islands (I AS I = 1.35 bits/0.25 in2) 7
5. Zener Target Cards (Average I AS I = 0.15 bits/0.25 in2) 7
Approved For Release 21INCIEPCrag96-00789R0031001200011-i4
Tpopttledirwatf:ReteeasatalMiteitiOnditiAaRMR96neiblai9M011660120001-4
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES
1. Effect Size as a Function of Target Type 3
2. Potential Correlation of AS with Effect Size 8
3. Experiment Conditions 9
Approved For Release 2btigaggi?Cgag96-00789R0031001200011I-14
Tweavietchtm:up ?RdNg 919K4UMAOlil PAR?49cruM2RER? 20001-4
DRAFT
I. OBJECTIVE
There are two objectives of this pilot study:
(1) Explore the effects of target properties on AC quality.
(2) Determine the degree to which anomalous cognition (AC) quality depends upon a sender.*
* Definitions of terms can be found in Section V (i.e., Glossary) on page 14.
Approved For Release Mgfflipg[59A-Or96-00789R003100120001i4
imisonchttgarkqerigediRd2419,91,9 14)p8eridVIAORPAHREu8s9CIZA11910120001-4
DRAFT
II. INTRODUCTION
The field of parapsychology has been interested in improving the quality of responses to target material
since the 1930's when J. B. Rhine first began systematic laboratory studies of extra sensory perception.
Since that time, much of the field's effort has been oriented toward psychological factors that may influ-
ence anomalous cognition (AC). In this section, we review the pertinent literature that describes at-
tempts to improve the quality of AC by categorizing target content.
At a recent conference, Delanoy reported on a survey of the literature for successful AC experiments,
and, she categorized the target material according to perceptual, psychological and physical character-
istics.1* Except for trends related to dynamic, multi-sensory targets, she was unable to observe system-
atic correlations of AC quality with her target categories.
Watt examined the AC-target question from a theoretical perspective.2 She concluded that the "best"
AC targets are those that are meaningful, have emotional impact, and contain human interest; those
targets that have physical features that stand out from their backgrounds or contain movement, novelty,
and incongruity are also good targets.
The difficulty with either the survey of the experimental literature or the psychologically oriented
theoretical approach is that understanding the sources of the variation in AC quality is problematical.
Using a vision analogy, sources of visual material are easily understood (i.e., photons); yet, the percept
of vision is not well understood. Psychological and possibly physiological factors influence what we
"see." In AC research, the same difficulty arises. Until we understand the influence of these factors on
the AC percept, results of systematic studies of AC are difficult to interpret.
Yet, in a few cases, some progress has been realized. In 1990, Honorton et al. conducted a careful meta-
analysis of the experimental Ganzfeld literature.3 In Gansfeld experiments, receivers are placed in a
state of mild sensory isolation and asked to describe their mental imagery. After each trial, the analysis
was performed by the receiver, who was asked to rank order four pre-defined targets, which include the
actual target and three decoys; the chance first-place rank hitting rate was 0.25. In 355 trails collected
from 241 different receivers, Honorton et al. found a hitting rate of 0.31 (z = 3.89, p < 5 x 10-5) for an
effect size of 0.20. In addition, he found that AC quality was significantly enhanced when the targets
were video clips from popular movies (i.e., dynamic) as opposed to static photographs (i.e., effect sizes
of 0.32 and 0.05, respectively). All trials were conduced with a sender.
In a carefully conducted meta-analysis, Honorton and Ferrari report significant hitting in forced-
choice, precognition experiments.4 They analyzed 53 years of experiments conducted by 62 different
investigators using a limited set of symbols (i.e., called Zener cards) as target material. Fifty thousand
" References may be found at the end of the document.
t Forced-choice means targets are randomly chosen from a known and limited set of possibilities (e.g., red or black playing
cards). Precognition means that the target is generated randomly after the guess has been registered.
Approved For Release imblicsgb 701-414"96-00789R0031 001200012-4
TAIRIMVP4t5681:11A0M2Aggt9WaicgAARlianifigAggPA1P01 20001-4
DRAFT
subjects contributed a total of approximately 2 x 106 individual trials. The overall effect size was 0.020
corresponding to a p-value of 6.3 x 10-25. Similarly, in an earlier review article, Honorton analyzed
7.5 x 105 forced-choice Zener card trials that were collected from 1934 to 1939 and found a significant
overall effect size of 0.016+0.001.5
Puthoff and Targ publish the results of 39 AC real-time trials where the targets were natural scenes in
the San Francisco Bay area.6 The effect size for the 39 trials was 1.15.
Table 1 summarizes these results for each target type:
Table 1.
Effect Size as a Function of Target Type
Target Type
Trials
Effect Size
Symbols (Real-Time)
7.5 x 105
0.016 + 0.001
Symbols (Precognitive)
2.0 x 106
0.020 + 0.001
Static Photographs
165
0.05 ? 0.08
Dynamic Photographs
190
0.32 ? 0.07
Static Natural Scenes
39
1.15 + 0.16
The effect sizes shown in Table 1 are qualitatively monotonically related to target "complexity;" yet an
appropriate quantitative description for target type is currently unknown. Yet, target "complexity" was
one of the experimentally observed and theoretically conceived target concepts found by Delanoy and
Watt, respectively.
A number of confounds exist, however, in this database for the effect-size measures. For example, in all
but the Puthoff and Targ study (i.e., targets were natural scenes), the receivers were unselected. That is,
they did not participate in the various experiments on the basis of their known ability as receivers. So, is
the large effect size for the Puthoff and Targ study because of the accomplished receivers, the natural-
scene targets, or some combination of both? While there are a number of other exceptions, the prepon-
derance of the data were from unselected individuals. In many of the trials, a sender was concentrating
on the target material, and as in most perception experiments, psychological factors and boredom con-
tribute to the variance in the effect sizes.
In this pilot experiment, we will apply one physical measure to static and dynamic photographs to quan-
tify the relationship between target type and AC quality. By careful selection of target content, we will
minimize the psychological factors in perception. In addition, we will minimize individual differences
by conducting many trials with each receiver and by only choosing receivers who have previously dem-
onstrated excellent AC skill.
Because the previous database included trials with and without senders, we will explore the effects of a
sender on AC quality, as well.
Approved For Release 269$669k1ffer96-00789R003100120001-#
itViRGYKtgg:PrgVtof?gd2s%gg49WSIAricRIIMRPAni9a9a9MggR?120001-4
DRAFT
III. APPROACH
1. Target-pool Selection
The static target material for this pilot study will be an existing set of 100 National Geographic magazine
photographs. This set has been divided into 20 sets of five photographs that were determined to be
visually dissimilar by a fuzzy set analysis.7 The dynamic target material will be approximately 50, 60 to
90 second clips from popular video movies. These clips will be selected because they:
? are thematically coherent,
? contain obvious geometric elements (e.g., wings of air craft), and
? are emotionally neutral.
The intent of these selection criteria is to control for cognitive surprise, to provide target elements that
are easily sketched, and to control for psychological factors such as perceptual defensiveness.
The video segments will be drawn from a variety of themes including adventure, documentary, and fantasy.
2. Target Preparation
The target variable that we will consider in this experiment is the total change of entropy per unit area,
per unit time. We have chosen this quantity because it is qualitatively related to the "complexity" of
target type shown in Table 1, and because it represents a potential physical variable that is important in
the detection of traditional sensory stimuli. In the case of image data, the entropy is defined as:
Nk -1
Sk = ? P;k1.982.(Pik
1=0
where pjk is the probability of finding image intensity j of color k. In a standard, digitized, true color
image, each pixel (i.e., picture element) contains eight binary bits of red, green, and blue intensity, re-
spectively. That is, Nk is 256 (i.e., 28) for each k, k = 4 g, b. The total change of the entropy in differential
form is given by:
? OS k
dS k = VS,, ? dr + ?Jr dt (1)
We must specify the spatial and temporal resolution before we can compute the total change of entropy
for a real image. Henceforth, we drop the color index, k, and assume that all quantities are computed
for each color and summed.
Approved For Release 261RalLpgAft-M96-00789R003100120001:44
TANIEW6Itfar: %PM] ggigP019?n.dcAPPRAMONGlicalP0120001-4
DRAFT
2.1 Static Photographs
Each target from the pool of 100 National Geographic magazine photographs will be scanned at 100 dots per
inch (dpi) for eight bits of information of red, green, and blue intensity. At 0.25 inch spatial resolution, for
example, this scanning density provides 625 pixels for each 0.25 x 0.25 in2 patch to compute thepy.
For a specified resolution, the target photograph is divided into an integral number of macro-pixels ex-
cluding a thin border, if necessary. The entropy for the (i,j) macro-pixel is computed as:
N-1
= 11,1 log2(p1),
J=0
wherepi is computed empirically from the pixels in the (4j) macro-pixel only. For example, consider the
target photograph shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. City with a Mosque
Figure 2 shows the probability density for green macro-pixel (3,3), which is shown as a white square in
the upper left hand corner of Figure 1.* The probability density and the photograph indicates that most
of the intensity in this patch is near zero value (i.e., no intensity of green in this case). In a similar fash-
ion, Su are calculated for the entire scene. For the photograph shown in Figure 1, i ranges from zero to
43, and] ranges from zero to 32 for a total of 1,452 macro-pixels.
* The original photograph was 8.5 x 11 inches, and we have standardized on 0.25 inch resolution.
Approved For Release 219aLffil8. ? CIAL-Rp.F96-00789R003100120001-4
t D 5
AilarAYPFtitedi:PrOARAMWALcWreffirMinget9BAgRali?12CMCH
DRAFT
0.4
0.00
20
_Ea
40 60 80 100
Intensity (j)
Figure 2. Green Intensity Distribution for the City Target (Macro-pixel 3,3).
We will use a standard algorithm to compute the 2-dimensional spatial gradient of these 1,452 values of
the entropy. Figure 3 shows contours of constant change of entropy (calculated from Equation 1) for
the city target. The total change per unit area is 1.98 bits/0.25 in2.*
"Pn.VMWAr W.BROW:Z:::V.',1M45!..13Fe
***V. ? g .
Figure 3. City with Mosque ( I AS I = 1.98 bits/0.25 in2).
* In this formalism, entropy is in units of bits and the maximum entropy is 24 bits.
Approved For Release 2eingbft:Fffdler96-00789R0031001200014
TieRIREg?Mtfar: %WM i9P900190niiRIMERPSIARAWRI20120001-4
DRAFT
The city target was chosen as an example because it was known (qualitatively) to be a "good" static
photograph for AC trials in earlier research. Figure 4 shows contours of constant change of entropy for
a photograph that was known not to be a "good" AC target.
Figure 4. Pacific Islands (I AS I = 1.35 bits/0.25 in2).
For comparison, we show in, Figure 5, the traditional Zener card set, which was used in most of the
forced-choice experiments shown in Table 1 and described above.
401
Figure 5. Zener Target Cards (Average I AS I = 0.15 bits/0.25 in2).
Approved For Release ingifebilkiff96-00789R003100120001.i4
TappEtavedtiter: HABiagrai i014106696naCriaeRPRMARZINGyamo120001-4
DRAFT
In Table 2, we modify Table 1 to show the values of AS (0.25 in)-2 for two of four target types.
Table 2.
Potential Correlation of AS with Effect Size
Target Type
AS (0.25 in)-2
Symbols
0.15
Static Photographs
1.35
Dynamic Photographs
?
Static Natural Scenes
?
We illustrate in this table the intent of this pilot study. We will compute AS for all the static and dynamic
targets and, using accomplished receivers, measure their associated AC effect sizes.
2.2 Dynamic Photographs
The total change of entropy for the dynamic targets will be calculated in much the same way. The video
target will be digitized at approximately one frame per second. The spatial term of Equation 1 will be
computed exactly as it was for the static targets. The second term, however, will be computed from dif-
ferences between adjacent frames. Or,
OS i; AS;;(t) = S ;J(t + At) ? S(t)
of At At
(2)
where At is the one over the digitizing frame rate. We can see immediately that the dynamic targets will
have a larger AS than do the static ones becuase Equation 2 is identically zero for all static targets.
2.3 Cluster Analysis
As a result of the above calculations, the static and dynamic target sets will have associated sets of AS.
Using standard cluster analysis, each set will be grouped into relatively orthoginal clusters of relatively
constant AS. Inspection and fuzzy set analysis will be used to construct packets of five visually dissimilar
targets from within each cluster. Since we do not yet know how to assign entropy to an AC response, the
AC analysis must be performed on the basis of visual discrimination.
3. Target Selection
For a specified target type (e.g., static photographs), a target pack will be selected randomly and one
target of the five within the that pack will also be chosen randomly.
4. Receiver Selection
Six experienced receivers, who have produced significant AC effect sizes in previous investigations, will
contribute 40 AC trials each. Each receiver will contribute ten trials in each of the conditions shown in
Table 3.
Approved For Release iyhelB1.0.8.;,CIA-4Dp96-00789R0031001200014
ui urt 8
TANYAISIV461tkar: %%MN ggiMPOB9?n.dcrittleiNagg?n9rUirP?12???1-4
DRAFT
Table 3
Experiment Conditions
Condition
Target Type
Sender
1
Static
Yes
2
Static
No
3
Dynamic
Yes
4
Dynamic
No
5. Sender Selection
The sender for all trials will be the principal investigator (PI).
6. Session Protocol
Before the pilot experiment begins, the experiment coordinator will generate, randomly, a counter bal-
anced set of 20 dynamic and 20 static targets and, within each target type, generate randomly a counter
balanced set of sender/no sender conditions. Each of the six receivers will have their own individual set
of targets/conditions. For each receiver, the experiment coordinator will prepare 40 sealed envelopes
containing the target number and condition for each trial. For the no-sender condition, the target num-
ber will be sealed in a smaller internal envelope so that the PI will remain blind to the target choice, but
in the sender condition, the target number is visible in the outer envelope. The receivers will be notified
about the dates and times of day when their individual targets are available.
For each trial and for each receiver, the PI will perform the following tasks:
? Determine from the above list, the target and sender condition.
? In the sender condition, study the selected target and attempt to "transmit" it to the intended receiver.
In the no-sender condition, do nothing
? At the conclusion of the 15 minute trial period and after the receipt of the receiver's response by fac-
simile, send a copy of the target material (i.e., either a photograph or video tape) to the receiver by
over night mail.
During each trial, the receiver will perform the following tasks:
? At a prearranged time, the receiver will find a quiet and lighted room in his or her home and sit at a desk.
? For a period lasting no longer than 15 minutes, the receiver will write and draw his or her impressions
of the intended target material, which will be located in Lititz, PA.
? At the end of the AC trial, the subject will send the response by facsimile to the principal investigator (PI).
? By overnight mail, the subject will receive a copy of the actual target as feedback for the trial.
We will not provide specific instructions beyond logistical information to the receivers, because they are
all experienced in this type of task.
For each receiver, the 40 trials will occur at a rate of three per week (i.e., one every other day) during a
five-month period beginning in January 1992. There will be significant breaks during this period for
Approved For Release imgmb atipr96-00789R0031001200019-4
120001-4
DRAFT DRAFT
holidays and to allow the receiver to participate in other experiments. The PI will maintain frequent
phone contact with them during the experiment.
At the end of the study, the PI will remove the receiver's name, date, and time from each response; ran-
domize the order within a receiver set; and provide an analyst with a set of responses and associated
target packs. The indented target within each pack will not be disclosed.
7. Analysis
For each trial, there is a single response and its associated target pack (i.e., either static or dynamic).
During the first part of the analysis, a judge, who is blind to the condition and target for the trial, will be
asked to rank-order the targets within the given pack. This is a forced rank, so regardless of the quality
of match between the response and targets within the pack, the judge must assign a first place match to
the response, a second place match to the response, and so on for each of the five targets. The output
from this part of the analysis is a rank-order number (i.e., one to five, one corresponding to a first place
match) for the correct target.
For each receiver, target type, and condition there are 10 such rank-order numbers that constitute a
block of data. A rank-order effect size will be computed for a block as:
171j ? R-0
eij
12
(3)
where TRij is the average rank for target type i and sender condition j, and Ro is the expected average
rank, which for this study is equal to three for all cases. In Equation 3, N is the number of possible ranks
and is equal to five throughout this study. Thus, Equation 3 reduces to:
Rif ?3
I.
During the second part of the analysis, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be computed for
each receiver. The main effects are target type and sender condition.
In this part of the analysis, we do not plan to combine data across receivers.
In the third part of the analysis we will construct a scatter diagram of rank-order number versus 4S.
Using a logistic transformation on the rank-order numbers, we will compute a linear correlation coeffi-
cient to determine the degree to which AC quality linearly depends upon AS. By inspection of the scat-
ter diagram, we will determine if higher-order correlations should be calculated.
8. Hypotheses
8.1 Null Hypothesis
The overall null hypothesis is that eii will not be significantly different from zero. Even with only 10 trials
in each condition and given that the historical effect size of many of the receivers is approximately 0.8,
there is an 80% chance of observing a significant effect size for a given block of data.
Approved For Releaseuhcga81.0.8 ?ED D CJA-N96-00789R003100120001-4
urrR io
TAPIREgiwwiticar: ?Am% NIMPM?nigtOPRRA411A?w4190120001-4
DRAFT
8.2 Sender and Target Condition
Using an F-test we will test the hypothesis that the quality of AC does not depend upon a sender regard-
less of target type. Similarly, we will use an F-test to test the hypothesis that the quality of AC does not
depend upon target type regardless of the sender condition.
The interaction terms in the ANOVA will test the hypothesis that a sender might improve AC quality for
only a specific target type.
8.3 Target Entropy
The AC quality of each trial is assessed within a given target type and as closely as possible with similar
AS. Thus, a significant correlation between target AS and AC quality will be a valid indication of the
primary hypothesis that they are linearly related.
Approved For Release ap.84Q8 ? CJA-Or96-00789R003100120001-4
ui tD LJN 11
Tifoiteamiltiar: %NWT% RiVPciltioVIR RA?nali WM190120001-4
DRAFT
IV. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this pilot investigation we will study the degree to which the change of target entropy affects the qual-
ity of anomalous cognition, and we will explore the relationship of a sender to the AC process. There
are a number of potential outcomes to this investigation and a number of post hoc analyses that could
yield productive insight. We discuss these outcomes and analyses below.
1. Null Result
At the 95% confidence level, no statistically significant deviations are observed for any of the block ef-
fect sizes, Eij. If a X2 test for homogeneity of effect sizes across receivers demonstrates that the data are
homogeneous (i.e., p(X2) > 0.05), then we conclude that the experiment failed to demonstrate signifi-
cant AC functioning. In this case we will recommend that a replication be conducted with more trials,
because there is a 20% chance the the data produced by a single receiver would not reach statistical
significance even if an alternate hypotheses was true. That is, the Type II error is 20%.
If, however, the effect sizes across receivers is not homogeneous (i.e., p(X2) 0.05), then the data for
each receiver will be examined individually. Depending upon available resources and the advice of the
SOC, the receivers who may have demonstrated individually significant results might be asked to con-
tribute additional data.
2. Significant Deviations
The are a number of different ways, in accordance with the analysis described above, that significant
deviations could be observed.
2.1 Dependency on Target Type
Suppose that the ANOVA demonstrates significant effects for the target type regardless of the sender
condition. Suppose further that we observe a significant correlation between zIS and AC quality. In this
case, we would consider that the primary hypothesis (i.e., the change of target entropy is sensed by AC)
has been confirmed. We would recommend that we extend the study to include natural scenes as target
material. To do this properly, however, we must estimate the potential change of thermodynamic entro-
py for real locations.
2.2 Dependency on Sender
If the ANOVA demonstrates significant effects in support of a sender regardless of target type and
there is no significant interaction terms between target type and sender condition, we would conclude
that a sender can significantly improve the quality of AC. Furthermore, we would conclude, as Delanoy
before us, that we still do not understand what constitutes an AC target.
Approved For Release 219RIONgoiMpf96-00789R00310012000124
TftpitomeititEalf: Rieht,a?fitiZAQQA) rictgritieg P 15W?tifitigliMeN3P 01 20001 4
DRAFT
We would recommend, therefore, that a post hoc analysis be conducted to search for target systematics
in the existing database. If any were found, we would formulate hypotheses to be tested in later studies.
2.3 Other Post Hoc Analyses
Depending upon time and resources, we will re-analyze the AC data. Decoy targets for the blind rank-
ing would be selected not on the basis of constant AS, but rather on a visual basis alone; this is the tradi-
tional method usually employed in AC studies. Depending upon the content of the targets, there might
be other dimensions that could be used to construct decoy targets (e.g., function, physical proximity of
target elements).
There has been some indication in the literature that AC quality depends weakly upon the noise in the
geomagnetic field. Since we routinely record the time, date, and location of each trial, we will add the
results from this experiment to that analysis.
Approved For Release awal.ifgo 3kitkRC)p96-00789R00310012000h4
TittpistemildtEat RaWisiitaig1919514/AddcniSieliftlIRMICIMQ%fa1jp0120001-4
DRAFT
V. GLOSSARY
Not all the terms defined below are germane to the MEG study, but they are included here for com-
pleteness. In a typical anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) task, we define:
? Anomalous Cognition?A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are ab-
sent. That is, some individuals are able to gain access, by as yet an unknown process, to information
that is not available to the known sensorial channels.
? Receiver--An individual who attempts to perceive and report information about a target.
? Agent?An individual who attempts to influence a target system.
? Thrget?An item that is the focus of an AMP task (e.g., person, place, thing, event).
? Target Designation?A method by which a specific target, against the backdrop of all other possible
targets, is identified to the receiver (e.g., geographical coordinates).
? Sender/Beacon?An individual who, while receiving direct sensorial stimuli from an intended target,
acts as a putative transmitter to the receiver.
? Monitor?An individual who monitors an AC session to facilitate data collection.
? Session--A time period during which AC data is collected.
? Protocol--A template for conducting a structured data collection session.
? Response?Material that is produced during an AC session in response to the intended target.
? Feedback?After a response has been secured, information about the intended target is displayed to
the receiver.
? Analyst?An individual who provides a quantitative measure of AC.
? Speciality?A given receiver's ability to be particularly successful with a given class of targets (e.g.,
people as opposed to buildings).
Approved For Releaseiyeg0D .8 ? CJA-Rfly96-00789R003100120001-4
t 14
*DORM/eat : asiQO&9&ickAeRD R964iii7u%9Rag NM 0 120001-4
DRAFT
REFERENCES
1. D. L. Delanoy, "Characteristics of Successful Free-Response Targets: Experimental Findings and
Observations," Proceedings of Presented Papers of the Parapsychological Association 31st
Annual Convention, pp. 230-246, Montreal, Canada (August 1988).
2. C. Watt, "Characteristics of Successful Free-Response Targets: Theoretical Considerations,"
Proceedings of Presented Papers of the Parapsychological Association 31st Annual Convention,
pp. 247-263, Montreal, Canada (August 1988).
3. C. Honorton, R. E. Berger, M. P. Varvoglis, M. Quant, P. Derr, E. I. Schechter, and D. C. Ferrari,
"PSI Communication in the Ganzfeld,"Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 54, pp. 99-139 (June 1990).
4. C. Honorton and D. C. Ferrari, "'Future Telling:' A Meta-analysis of Forced-choice Precognition
Experiments, 1935-1987," Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 53, pp. 282-308 (December 1989).
5. C. Honorton, "Error Some Place!" Journal of Communication, pp. 103-116, (Winter, 1975).
6. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information 'fransfer over Kilometer
Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 3,
pp. 329-354, (March, 1976).
7. E. C. May, J. M. Utts, B. S. Humphrey, W. L. W. Luke, T. J. Frivold, and V. V. Trask, "Advances in
Remote-Viewing Analysis," Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 54, pp. 194-228, (September, 1990).
Approved For Release 21.9piteNbCARfrf'96-00789R003100120001s4
Approved For Release i005/0/08 : CIA-R.DP96-0780100120001-4
Tecical Protocol: Target andener8ependencies Anomalous Cognition
DRAFT
APPENDIX
This appendix contains the full reprints of the following seven papers:
(1) Characteristics of Successful Free-Response Targets: Experimental Findings and Observations
(2) Characteristics of Successful Free-Response Targets: Theoretical Considerations
(3) PSI Communication in the Ganzfeld
(4) "Future Telling:" A Meta-analysis of Forced-choice Precognition Experiments, 1935-1987
(5) Error Some Place!
(6) A Perceptual Channel for Information 'fransfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective
and Recent Research
(7) Advances in Remote-Viewing Analysis
Approved For Release 2ffiarlik:FLKLer96-00789R0031001200014
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL FREE-RESPONSE TARGETS:
?
EXPERIMENTAL FINDIMS AND a3SERVATIONS
Deborah L. Delanoy
Psychology Department
University of Edinburgh
7 George Square
Edinburgh E8
Scotland, U.K.
Abstract
This paper reviews experimental findings and observations concerning
characteristics of successful free-response targets. information relevant
to the following categories of target characteristics was examined:
colour/black and white; complex/simple; novel/familiar; abstract/
concrete; dynamic/static; form/idea andlneaning; emotion; and theme/
content. Very few conclusions could be drawn from the data base,
although a tentative finding related dynamic, multi-sensory targets to ESP
success. Other suggestive findings were reported for novel and abstract
characteristics. The discussion considers possible reasons for the general
lack of findings and presents a possible avenue for future research.
ACENCKEEGEMENTS: Ms. Caroline Watt and Professor James Crandall
contributed substantially to the research for this paper, for which I am
met grateful. my thanks also to Dr. Julie Milton and Ms. Watt for
helpful comments on the paper's content and again to Ms. Watt for the
typing of the references.
Approved For Release 2000/084%6 CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
Approved roe- Release 2000/08/08 . CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
This and the following paper,
represents the findings of a literature r
successful (in terms of being accurately ,
and/or unsuccessful free-response GESP target.
to assist the Koestler Lab in constructing a f
use in our future research. We thought such a
initial discussions as to what type of targets
revealed that various researchers in
opinions/ideas as to what qualities a succes
These differences were further reinforced
various targets which we had used in our own
those of other researchers with whose targets poo
initial search through some of the major
source books revealed very little coheren
regarding free-response targets. This review was
to remedy this situation. TO this end,
parapsychological and psychological experimental
models, post hoc observations, and lab lore in
consensus regarding psi-conducive target quali
first paper will present the findings from
findings, including post hoc findings and
It should be stressed that this revi
exhaustive. We have tried to scout out related
journals and newsletters (Journal of the Amer
Reselrch, Journal of Parapsychology, Journal
Society for Psychical Research, EUropean
International Journal of Parapsychology,
Research Letter). We have also emintiredvar
(Parapsychological Association and Parapsychol
parapsychological source blocks, some of the
the development of psychic abilities, same of
literature, and other procinent F books in our f
likely to contain the information we were
obviously impossible to examine all of the pass
Cur survey of the historical literature was neces
fact we examined only two main sources, War
Phantasms of the Living, 1886).
Target-related information from forced choi
systematically considered here, the primary reason
the two reviews of this literature already mind
Carpenter (1977). However, general findin
occasionally will be referred to where appropriate
. The most frequent comments regarding
sources were generalizations regarding the choice
example comments might be made that targets were
coloured, intrinsically interesting, pleasant
comments may be viewed as conveying the exper
constitutes an easy-to-perceive target, to list
have been a very tedious task for both the au
FUrthermore, no comment could be made upon
parameters were adopted when choosing targets unle
zeta-analysis of the relevant studies, a project
scope of the present undertaking. Thus, such
in this review unless information was provided wh
target characteristics to the success or failure
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RE96-00789R
ted by Caroline Watt,
w examining what makes a
'ved by the percpient)
e review was undertaken
response target pool for
review was necessary as
we should be looking for
group held differing
ful target should have.
n we started discussing
t research, and
s we were familiar. An
psychology journals and
y arranged information
undertaken in an attempt
we examined relevant
findings and theoretical
s of discovering scale
es and materials. This
chologicalexperinental
1 observations.
is not meant to be
information in the main
Society for Psychical
Proceedings of the
1 of Parapsychology,
psychology Review, and
s conference proceedings
Foundation), major
lar Literature regarding
related psychology
eld which we thought
g. However, it was
ly related literature.
'ly luite limited (in
flier s writings and
studies has not been
for this omission being
by Palmer (1978) and
s from these sources
in this review.
found in these
of target material. Fbr
which were vividly
and so on. While such
'perspective of what
all such comments would
and her audience.
utility of whatever
S one were to attempt a
ich was far beyond the
s were not included
related particular
f the study, and/or the
03100120001-4
target materials were specifically chosen to be unusual in some respect,
with Ariapiebtfisf EinedaiseRjet200E40811113 ecTINAID POEsOOMIR003100120001 -4
The initial task in this undertaking required finding some way to
organize the target information in a meaningful and useful manner. This
proved to be quite problematic, as target materials and content are
seldom one-dinensional. Thus it was required to find a means of
categorizing a diverse range of target materials, such as film clips,
actual geographical sites, agents' experience of some sensory stimulus,
and a large range of assorted pictorial material, each representing
varying degrees of denotative and connotative complexity. Indeed, even
defining the target in many studies was not a straightforward
proposition. Fbr example, in telepathic designs, is the target the
agent's experience of the target material or the target material itself?
In approaching this task it was thought that the target information
could perhaps be divided according to the type of target material used
(e.g. art prints, film clips, geographical locations, etc.). Bcwever,
this approach was rejected as in many cases there was not enough available
information about a specific target material to allow sensible
generalizations to be made. Also explored were various ways of trying to
represent and categorize the obtained target information in a
multi-dimensional manner, taking into account both denotative and
connotative meaning. TO this end, attempts were made to apply to the
data various three-dimensional conceptualizations of the sort obtained
from the semantic differential. Thus, we sought to find one scale
which would categorize the obtained target information taking into
consideration various connotative components such as evaluation (does the
information convey something which is good-bad, clean-dirty, sacred-
profane, etc.), potency (weak-strong, powerless-powerful, light-heavy,
etc.), and activity (fast-slow, active-passive, sharp-dull, etc.).
This approach of organizing the data was rejected as there was not enough
information about most targets to justify a post hoc fitting of the
Obtained information into such a model. Thus, in the end the task was
necessarily defined by the type of information obtained in the literature
search.
Looking through the data obtained, it was decided that the
information could best be organized according to the following target
characteristics: colour / black and white; camplex / simple; novel /
familiar; abstract / concrete; dynamic / static; form / idea and
meaning; emotion; and theme / content. The "working definitions" of
these categories will be delineated in the following appropriate sections
of this paper. There were many instances where the same data fitted into
several different categorizations. FOr instance, in Krippner, Ullman, et
al. (1972) the target consisted of a randomly chosen word, an art print
which portrayed the word, and then a multi-sensory (auditory, gustatory,
olfactory, tactile and kinesthetic) environment relating to the
word/Picture was created for the agent. Such a target could easily be
classified as complex, novel, dynamic, emotional, and as having a strong
theme. In such situations, the author has attempted to refer to the
information in all the relevant categories, but has only provided
details of the study in the category where it was first mentioned.
Colour / Black and Vthite
The colour category referred to all target materials which were
coloured, as opposed to black and white. A telepathic dream study by
Krippner and Zeichner (1974) obtained a significant degree (p < .002) of
psi-hitting using 74 art prints as the targets. Adescriptive analysis of
232
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
Ap
Ap
protind FortReittifig32ogaigsiqh.eiciteggicp- 0789R
US= 103100120001-4
an adaptation of Gough and
Heilbrun's Adjective Check List. Three j ..-= evaluated each of the art
prints using this list. If two judges checked the same adjective for any
picture, that adjective was deemed to descr the particular print.
This analysis revealed that a higher ge of hits were
associated with targets which had blue in them where targets containing
orange and yellow were associated with more sea (whether results were
significant is not reported). Puthoff and - (1979), in an anecdotal
camment upon their remote viewing studies s ted that most hits were
associated with various nonanalytic aspects of target, such as colour.
However, in another remote viewing study (Targ Targ and Lichtarge, 1986)
where colour was superimposed over black and white slides of locations,
it was found that the viewers were unable perceive the colour. In
commenting upon these results the authors lated that the lack of
colour perception may have been due to the icted number of colour
choices which resulted in making the colour ?ception a more analytic
task than the free-response perception of poss le target sites. Mich
of Warcollier's (1938) work used simple black and white line drawings
as targets. However, he observed informally tha when colour was in the
target, it appeared to be perceived as frequen y as was the farm of the
drawing.
A non-psi study by Hraud, Davis, and 1.-11a (1985) examined the
frequency of occurrence of different types of imagery in dreaming and
ganzfeld states. As this study used no gets, the results could
indicate what types of imagery have an a pri. i probability of being
mentioned more often than others. In reLa ? to this category, they
found that dreaming and ganzfeld imagery - a predominance of colour
(among other things). These results could be ent to the findings
discussed in this paper, in that some of these iindings could be due to a
simple predaninance of certain naturall ? . Ing types of imagery as
cpposed to reflecting actual transmission of .-t-related content. It is
possible that the higher frequency of colour 7. ? - in general could lead
to spurious observations of success with colour targets unless formally
examined. This should be borne in mind considering anecdotal
observations.
Many studies have been conducted using black and white targets, most
notably those experiments where the target consisted of simple line
drawings. However, we found no free-response work which compared the
effectiveness of black and white to co ed targets. McMahan and
Rhine (1947) conducted a forced-choice study usin both coloured and black
and white Zener cards. They found a higher erage score with the
coloured cards than with the black and white, bi4t the difference was not
significant.
The findings fram this category do not indicate any clear-cut
differences between the success-rate of colour ?black and white target
materials. As both have a long track-record of significant psi
outcames, research specifically lamed at g the two in a
free-response setting would be needed before any c clusions regarding the
superiority of one over the other could be made.
Complex / Simple
Information included in the "complex" ca referred to comments
and findings about target materials, most ly pictorial, which
were complex and/or rich in content. Krippner and Zeichner (1974) found a
higher percentage of misses with more camp
ex targets the
Einding was significant was not reported). Stuart(1946b) Itateedlerthat
proved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-Rea296-00789R003100120001-4
reasonably
'.tegglitleiAktfiergailagrikeolli0
.,Ors /
(1970r e 4
subjects but the judges, as complex targets could make the evaluation
procedure overly problematic, with the creative judge finding numerous
correspondences between many dream sequences and complex, detailed
pictures. On the other hand, significant results have been obtained with
very complex target material such as film clips (Psychophysical Research
laboratory, 1985) and the multi-sensory target environment of Krippner,
Ullman, et. al. (1972) described in the introduction.
Information classified as "simple" included references to targets
composed of clear, unequivocally definable, common objects and symbols.
Nbst frequently these targets were simple line drawings. Both Carington
(1940) and Stuart (1946a) recommended the use of simple, as opposed to
compound, drawings so as not to confuse the subject. Mbrcollier (1963)
noted that even though his targets were simple, percipients' responses
still showed considerable distortion. As above, Frippner and Zeichner
(1974) found a higher percentage of hits associated with more simple
targets as measured by the number of adjectives used to describe the
target (again, whether this finding was significant is not reported).
Several forced choice studies have examined the use of
multiple-asrect targets. Generally these targets would be considered to
be 'simple by free-response standards. However, being multi-aspect by
definition, they would represent more complex material than many
forced-choice targets. Palmer (1978) in reviewing this work concluded
that when multiple-aspect targets were used subjects tended "to score at
least as high or higher on the total target than on any of its primary
attributes. Such results suggest either that such targets are perceived
holistically (even if the overt responses are fragmentary) or that a
correct guess on one attribute somehow facilitates correct guesses on
other attributes." (Palmer, 1978, p.88) In a review of six studies
utilizing dual-aspect targets, Kennedy (1980) examined whether
complex target information was treated as a gestalt or whether the
individual parts of the information appeared to be processed separately.
No support for or against either mode of information processing was
obtained.
The above findings do not merit any clear conclusions. Before
such conclusions could be drawn direct comparison within studies of
complex target material is needed.
Nbvel / Familiar
Information relating to unexpected, unfamiliar, unusual and/or
incongruous target material was included in the novel category. Cayenne
and Servadio (1964) conducted a pilot study to investigate suitable
methodologies for studying the occurrence of ESP during states induced by
taking hallucinogenic drugs. Their targets were photographs consisting of
very incongruous elements, for example an upside-down foot, balancing an
artificial eye between the toes. The results were non-significant,
although this outcome could have been due to the difficulties involved in
attending to a test situation when under the influence of an
hallucinogenic drug. Erippner and Zeichner (1974) obtained a higher
percentage (whether or not significant was not reported) of hits when
targets were described as imaginative and interesting (qualities which
could be construed as novel). Ullman and Krippner (1973) ran a four
subject dream study in which the same target was used for half of the
testing nights and a different target used for each REM period for the
other half. They observed that the the four participants preferred the
Approved For Release 2000/08/08?21A-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
use of different targets for every dream against a single target.
The authors thought this indicative of the dreamers attention being more
engaged by novel ESP stinali. In another of the dream studies (female
subjects, eight nights ESP, eight of control, no significant scoring)
Ullman and Krippner (1973) commented that the subjects felt that the
target material should be as unusual as possible. Roll and Harary (1976)
found that "interesting responses" (hits) were .ined when spontaneous,
unexpected changes were made in the exper t. Dm examples they
provided of this involved last minute changes being made to the target
material.
Several forced-choice studies have cons the effect of novelty
of task and/or target material upon ESP perf ce. /n reviewing these
studies Carpenter (1977) concluded that ? -lty could facilitate
psi-hitting for most subjects, but could be ve for star
subjects used to a specific routine.
Information classified as "familiar" included references to targets
which held varying degrees of recognition for the percipients. Many
studies have been conducted using targets of enotl?l significance to the
subject and with which the subject would have been also necessarily
familiar. However, as emotional significance was usually deemed the mare
important aspect of such targets, these studies 1.1 be considered under
that section.
Irwin (1982) conducted a study examining
nmniliarity with the targets. Half of the
were exposed to the subjects prior to testing,
xenipulation had no significant effect
Narcolliees (1938) research lead him to
elements of a target familiar to both the subj
successfully transmitted. Targ, Puthoff and May (1979) have cemented on
mhe basis of informal observations of their ? research that use of
either repetitive target sequences and/or use of ; t pools of which the
subject had prior knowledge would inhibit remote ewing success.
The few findings reported in this ca ? do not support the
drawing of any firm conclusions. There is some . :1 support for the
utility of using a different target, with whi the subject is not
familiar, for each testing of that subject. Also, the Erippner and
Zeichner (1974) findings offer same support for use of imaginative and
:.nteresting targets.
influence of subjects'
ts (41.bnonides slides)
half were not. This
the study's outcome.
fly conclude that only
and agent could be
Abstract / Concrete
Abstract information included references to
a potentially realistic scene or object in ei
unrealistic manner (to varying degrees) or in a
fashion. Erippner and Zeichner (1974) found a
risses with targets which were described
this finding was significant was not reported).
1973) in the series of dream studies with -Erwin
abstract pictures which lacked human figures
tal.yet.s which contained human figures engaged in a
Information included in the concrete oa
to target material which presented an object or
recognizable, undistorted manner. While a great
used targets which could be characterized as bein
specific reference regarding the utility of this
free-response studies.
Although Erippner and Zeichner's (1974)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R
targets which portrayed
an abstract and/or
readily recognizable
greater percentage of
as unrealistic (whether
Ulluen and Kammer
reported that purely
ve poorer results than
*vity.
would be references
scene in an buediately
!amber of studies have
concrete, v.e found no
characteristic in the
inding and Ullman and
03100120001-4
CPYRGHT
Approved i-orKeiease.zumuoiug tkematetwau.sayy1 4w115?
Krippner s (1973) observation sugges
conducive to psi-hitting, more research is needed before firm
conclusions can be drawn.
The dynamic categorization was used to refer to informations about
targets which portrayed and/Or conveyed mcmement, a sense of movement,
and/or gustatory, olfactory, auditory, tactile, and/or kinesthetic
stimulation. This a wide diversity of target materials fell into this
category including pictorial material (showing movement), film clips
(contairdrignmement), and a variety of non-visual target material such
as music excerpts, the taste of a food, etc. In considering this large
category perhaps it should first be noted that Hraud, Davis, and Opella
(1985) in their nor-psi, no target study, found a preddrinance of
activity contained in ganzfeld and dreaming imagery. Gurney, Myers and
Podmore (1886) reporting on the findings of the Society for Psychical
Research's Census of Hallucinations found that in cases of apparent
GESP of literal reproductions of the agent's bodily sensation (pain,
smell, touch, etc.) were rarely transmitted. They noted from their own
experience that while taste was perceived in experimental situations,
they received no accounts of such in the spontaneous reports. The
spontaneous cases seldom contained reports of touch, and when it was
reported it was normally associated with auditory and/Or visual
impressions. Basic and other auditory stimuli were frequently reported.
Mu:collier (1963) informally observed that. =ming objects or the ability
of the target to suggest movement seemed to be perceived by the subject.
Nhrcollier (1938) also expressed the belief that kinesthetic sensations
should be easily transmitted, but admitted to having little data to back
this up. Reporting on an Etalen Meeting on Psi Research, Schlitz (1984)
reported general agreement among the participants that kinesthetic,
auditory and olfactory images were as important, if not more so, as
visual images in conveying psi information.
Honorton and Schechter (1987), reporting on the significant (=
0.027, 1-t) outcome of 187 automated testing ganzfeld sessions, found
that sessions using dynamic targets (video segments and other "lifelike"
material) were independently significant (p as 0.007, 1-t), while those
using static targets (defined as "still pictures") were at chance. The
difference between the two was suggestive, but not significant (p =
0.079! 2-t). Likewise, Erippner and Zeichner (1974) found more hits
associated with targets having dynamic content (whether this
finding was significant, was not reported).
Altam and Brand (1976) ran a pilot study aimed at exploring the idea
that right-hemisphere brain activity may be conducive to psi. They used
four different excerpts of music as targets, which it was thought might
enaourage right-hunisphere activity. They obtained a significant level of
psi scoring (p = 0.05). Kesner and Morris (1978) conducted a guided
imagery, precognition study using music fram records and their album
covers as targets. The subjects' imagery was rated by an independent
judge who individually rated subjects' visual and auditory imagery.
Neither the results from the visual or the auditory ratings were
independently significant, however the two ccmbinedwre < 0.02),
suggesting that the more senses involved in a target, the better.
Several dream studies have been conducted using dynamic target
material. Krippner, Hanorton, and Ullman (1972) obtained significant
results Op < .001) usings thematically related slides, accompanied by an
Approved For Reim= 2000/08/08 21f1A RDP96 00789R003100120001 4
CPYRGHT
ApPrOppfbrifirai?&1851?1212a9120/4air9ilaDraRtna9o11?03100120001-4
target material. Krippner,
Sonorton, et. al. (1972) again elicited a significant level of psi-hitting
Op = .004). An even higher level of significant scoring (p = .0002) was
obtained by Krippner, Ullman, et. al. (1972) using the multi-sensory
target environment described in the introdictjon of this paper. As
previously mentioned, Ullman and Krippner (1973 found that paintings of
humans engaged in activity seemed to be more uccessful than abstract
paintings in the Erwin series. The second Erwin study, which again
Obtained a significant degree of psi-hitting (r effects "on the
order of a thousand to one" p.116), used art prints together with
associated objects and activities on the part of the agent.
Dunne and Bisaha (1979), reviewing 8een remote viewing series,
noted that dynamic targets were perceived as redily as stationary ones.
Yet, Ptithoff and Targ (1979) ccirrnentirig upon t1eir remote viewirvwcrk
said that motion was very rarely reported, even qhen it was an important
component of the scene. Although, Targ, Pu f, and May (1979) stated
"that real-time activities at the target site are often perceived" (p.94).
These authors also noted that "in arlaition to vivally observable detail,
subjects sometimes report sounds, smells, electunagnetjc fields, and so
forth, which can be verified as existing at targt locations" (p.95). It
should be noted that the above three observations were all ancedotal.
TWo studies made specific comparisons between static and
dynamic target characteristics. lionorton and S (1987) obtained
highly significant psi effects with dynamic while static targets
Obtained chance results. Krippner and Zei (1974) founincre hits
associated with dynamic targets. The findings of Kesner and Morris
(1978) and those of the reviewed dream s ? s further suggest the
possible benefits of using multi-sensory target terials.
Fborm /naming and Idea
Comments related to the importance of the shape or form of the target
or same of its components are included in this cal$gary. Puthoff and Targ
(1979), in discussing their remote viewing wozk stated "most of the
correct information that subjects relate is of a =analytic nature
pertaining to shape, form, colour, and material raher than to function or
name (p. 65). Barrington (1983), reviewing past work with the medium
Stefan Cssowiecki, found many examples where th form of the target had
been correctly identified but not the meaning a situation which she
labelled as "incomprehending clairvoyance". SimL1arly, Warcollier (1938
& 1963) observed that frequently the shape of a trget would be perceived
without reference to the target's meaning or idea although he also notes
that meaning and idea may also be perceived wi ? t specific reference to
shape. Warcollier (1938) also discusses the k of Richonnet (no
reference provided) noting that Richonnet t that form was both
easier to perceive than meaning and would be perce ved prior to perception
of the identity (idea) of the ESP target.
The "nearing and idea" categorization incl information referring
to situations where the meaning, idea and or dentity were perceived,
without reference to the shape or physical a ce of the target.
Carington (1940) believed that the idea of a t, not the form, was
what would came through to the subject. Gurney, ers and Podmore (1886)
received reports which indicated that meaning and idea were the important
of this is where a word
suitably translated.
drawings as targets,
concept of the target
aspects of the
target. The example they provide
in one Language is received in another, having
Marsh (1960), in a study using simple line
commented that subjects tended to reproduce the
rather than ._the shape. Lodge apparently shared these beliefs as
acxyzircia/ %Ye liettlit6fitAal 129.1g 9 PiCILO fbeig*ea PIM -Gat? Q9Q1 Ng (410.34
transmitted than a drawing (i.e. form). As noted above, Puthoff and 1/erg
(1979) believed that most correct information provided by subjects
pertained to the nonanalytic aspects of targets such as form, shape and
colour. Indeed, they thought that errors could arise when the subject
tried to make sense (i.e. label according to name and function) of such
nonanalytical target components.
This category presents some conflicting observations and opinions,
all of which are anecdotal in nature, regarding the utility of form, as
opposed to meaning and idea, in conveying psirrelated information.
Given this state of affairs, the only conclusion that can be drawn is
that research aimed at resolving this question is needed.
EMotion
Any comments having to do with the emotional content of or emotional
reactions to target materials were included in this category. Same
researchers have also made comments about specific target themes/content
which could be interpreted as having a strong emotional component
(e.g. war scenes, erotic scenes, religious themes, etc.). However,
whether these themes would be regarded as positive or negative would
probably vary greatly from subject to subject. Therefore, these findings
will not be referred to in this section unless the author specifies that
the emotionality of the target was an important factor in the study's
success or failure.
Gurney, Myers, and Podmore (1886) observed that in spontaneous
cases emotions were frequently received, often with the receiver having
no idea why they were experiencing certain feelings. However, the
emotion experienced by the percipient was later found to be appropriate to
the event which was taking place at the time, unknown to the percipient
(e.g. feeling sadness over the death of a close friend). rcollier
(1938) also comments that in spontaneous cases, the message is almost
always emotional.
Williams and Duke (1979) conducted a study specifically examining
various target qualities and their relationship to psi performance. They
devised a 39-item Target Evaluation Rating which measured various target
qualities, including overall emotional impact and positive and negative
emotional dimensions, upon which each of 152 targets were rated. They
then looked at data, gathered from 174 subjects, fram other free-response
studies which had used these targets. For the purposes of their
analysis, they excluded any target which had not been randomly chosen as a
target at least three times in the previous studies. This criterion
provided 22 targets, and ESP data fram 91 subjects (overall
significant psi-hitting was obtained, p < .047, 2...t). The individual psi
scores obtained for each of these 22 targets were averaged to provide a
composite psi score for each target. The composite psi scores were divided
into good psi targets and poor psi targets resulting in 12 high
psi-scoring targets and 10 low-psi scoring targets. Comparing these
targets to the total emotion score (the mean of the positive and negative
emotion ratings) from the Target Evaluation Rating, they found that
targets containing a stronger emotional content were significantly better
(i.e. high psi-scoring targets) than non-emotional targets (p < .001).
Sondow, Braud and Barker (1981) conducted a ganzfeld study also aimed
at investigating target qualities, which obtained a significant outcome
using a sum of ranks (p < .04 1-t), but did not reach significance using
direct hits as a measurenent. Using the Target Evaluation Rating,
238
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
A
CPYRGHT
111183WiLlEgb MEW.? S EgalaggeOlBatfekk-WS64iNeriligaM400114 having a
relatively high enotion rating and five having a low emotion rating.
Each high emotion pack consisted of two positive and two negative emotion
pictures; the low emotion packs consisted of two natural scenes and two
pictures of material objects. This complex study involved many different
measurements and analyses, of which only those most relevant to this
paper will be reported. The neutral (lag) emotion target packs showed
acre psi-hitting than the high emotion pictures, with the difference
approaching significance (p = .052, 2-t). Using a scale they devised to
measure enotionuthich both the subjects and agents completed, they found
that when a high emotion picture was the target, receivers would feel
yore total emotion whilst in the ganzfeld than did receivers with a lad
emotion target pack (ID < .04, 2-t). Also receivers felt more enotionlAhen
senders felt more emotion while sending Op < .04, 1-t). However,
Stanford (1984) has pointed out that this latter finding could be
artifactual due to oommonalities of experience between subjects and
agents (e.g. the weather that day). Using Osgood s Semantic Differential
to, measure the components of the target pictures they found there more
hits when the receivers and senders evaluation of the targets were in
close agreement than when their categorizations widely differed. Of
twenty targets where agreement was close, nine were direct hits (p = .04,
1-t).
Both Williams and Duke (1979) and Sondow, Braud and Barker (1981)
found significant outccaes in various analysesg how well their
1 1
subjects liked (emotionally _preferred) the . Williams and Duke
(1979), ccaparing subjects ratings of target - - erence for hit and
missed targets for two different groups of subjects (with the rating
being made prior to obtaining feedback as to the target identity),
found the first group of 101 subjects signifiant1y preferred targets
with which they had obtained a hit Op < .035, 2 as did the second
group of 80 subjects (p < .0038, 2rt). A similar ing was reported in
the Sondow et al. (1981) study, where a n between liking for
psi-hit and for psi-missed targets again yielded a significant outcome (p
< .0096, 2-t). Another analysis in this study showed that pictures
received a significantly higher liking rank Op .0094, 2-t) when they
were the target than when they were a control. Braud and Loewenstern
(1982) also found that psi-hitters liked the targets significantly
better than psi-missers (p < .025, 1-t). TWo significant target
preference findings were presented in Braud and Boston (1986). The
authors replicated the preference effect (p < 036, 1-t), and also
reported similar results fram Braud, Ackles & les (p < .045, 1-t).
However, these findings may be contaminated ?ue to response bias
problems. To quote Stanford (1984) findings could be
artifactual;... Because of their desire for succes subjects may tend to
like pictures which correspond to their ganzf ldmentation, and such
correspondence tends to be greater and more detail when ESP has actually
occurred. Thus such pictures may be liked . ? .ly more. (to. 107).
Many forced-choice studies have examined the rol of target preference.
These findings have been reviewed by Carpenter (1 77) and Palmer (1978).
In drawing same conclusions about these findings Palmer coaments that
while a preferential effect has been found most often "with respect to
response type rather than target type, it (the erence hypothesis)
offers our best hope to date of intergrating a very messy and inconsistent
body of data concerning the effect of target type on ESP scoring in
Eorced-choice experiments." (p. 87).
Krippner, Honorton, et al. (1972) cons ed their targets
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-OP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
(tbedi0110 Frgiamealfiguo Laos agfglau6-gginyRogaiginToyi Is
emotionally arousing, and thought that their significant results provided
support for the use of such material. Ullman and Erippner (1973) also
felt "that an important ingredient in the success of experiments in
dream telepathy over waking telepathy ... is the use of potent, vivid,
emotionally impressive human interest pictures to which both agent and
subject can relate." (p. 210).
Moss (1968; also see: Moss, 1969; and Moss & Gengerelli, 1968)
described the evolution of her experimental methodology over a series
of six experiments. EWphasizing the importance of using emotionally
arousing targets, her targets evolved to consist of slides accompanied
by appropriate sound effects paired so as to present contrasting
emotions. The results from these studies were very sketchily,presented,
although significant outcomes were described for same of the studies.
However, no comparison was made between either emotionally arousing
targets and neutral ones, or between the effectiveness of the different
contrasting emotions. In a series of studies Preiser (1986) found that
ESP performance was highly dependent on the emotional loading of the
target material. The information about this study is limited as it was
obtained fram an abstract. However, while no overall significance was
obtained, one part of the series did get a significant ESP outcome.
Cavanna and Servadio (1964) stressed the careful choosing of targets which
they considered to have definite emoticnal significance. While they did
not obtain significant psi-scoring, they did express the belief that
their future targets should be chosen to be even stronger, emotionally.
Some studies utilizing physiological measurements have used
targets chosen to have specific emotional significance for individual
subjects. Laser, Etter, and Chamberlain (1967) used plethysmographic
responses to personalized target material, devised from initial
interviews with the participants. The resulting targets, designed to
have greater emotional significance for either the percipient or the
agent, were either names of importance to the subject or sentences or
quotes describing a emotional conflict of relevance to the participants.
No significant outcomes were obtained, but the results were suggestive in
that there was same correspondence between onset of the sending period and
plesthysnograph responses. Dean (1971) contrasted plethysmograph
recordings of vasoconstriction examining the reaction of subjects to
targets consisting of either a blank card or a card upon which was written
a name of a person who has emotional significance to the subject. He
found larger vasoconstrictions (i.e. more emotional arousal) for the names
7han for the blanks. This study also had a group of control subjects for
wham the names would have had no special relevance. Interestingly, he
found that the control subjects displayed a greater level of reaction to
the names than did the subjects for wham the names had emotional
significance. Haraldsson (1983) again used names of emotional
significance to the participants as the target in a study using a
plesthysmograph. No overall significant results were obtained, however,
be did obtain a significant outcome in the first 20 sessions of the study
p < .003), with results declining later.
Several studies have compared targets having positive emotional
qualities to those having negative emotional characteristics. Williams
and Duke (1979), comparing good psi targets to poor psi targets, found
that targets which contained a positive emotion were significantly better
targets (pp < .02) than those which did not and that targets which
contained negative emotion were significantly worse < .047) than
those which did not. Sondow, Braud and Barker (1981) found no significant
? ? a ?
iiso: 2: Ara?,?_ ii:?rosII Ill
I,
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 . GIA-RIDP96-0
oitterence between positive and negative ?
Donderi (1979) used 7 emotionally stimulating
study incoporating both forced-choice and f
obtained a significant degree of psi-hitting (f
.02; free-response condition: i p < .001).
classified as conveying either positive
although no significant difference was found
positive and negative emotional targets.
found more misses when the target was descr,
when the target was described as unpleasant
significant is not reported).
Cne forced-choice study which
positive/negative issue was conducted by Johnson
to provide two words, one having an exceedingl
subject and the other having a very unpleasant
created targets of associated words/concepts.
targets) were paired with a digit fram one
although 20 per cent of the primary targets
control (emotionally neutral targets). The sub
study were to guess what number would be sel
compared performance on positive, neutral
significant overall scoring was obtained, the
non-significant degree of psi-hitting, the nega
psi-missed (p .0094, 1-t), and the neutral
The difference between the positive and negative
(p < .005, 1-t).
The anecdotal observations in this ca
researchers believe emotional targets to be
ones. However, only two studies (Williams &
al., 1981) explicitly examined this ass
oonflicting results. One analysis in Sondow et
percipient would experience more emotion with a
as this study also obtained a greater deg
emotion targets, this result could be seen as
high emotion targets. Nor can the physiolog
interpreted as providing support for the utilit
chosen to have specific emotional significance
Aside from the general lack of significant out
Dean (1971) study actually obtained a greater r
subjects to wham the target material shoul
relevance. The studies comparing positive
with negative emotive qualities also obtained
again more research is needed before any
regarding the psi-conducive effects of emotional
03100120001-4
1 targets. Eisenberg and
films as targets in a
esponse conditions. They
ice conditions p <
The film clips were
or negative emotions,
the scoring on the
per and Zeichner (1974)
as pleasant and more hits
ther these findings were
fically addresses the
(1971) who asked subjects
pleasant: meaning for the
g, from which he
These concepts (secondary
five (primary targets),
e left unpaired as a
iects in this precognitive
as the target. Johnson
negative emotions. No
positive targets showed a
?ve targets significantly
targets scored at chance.
targets was significant
ry reveal that many
Superior to non-emotional
Duke, 1979; and Son:low et
ion and they obtained
1. (1981) found that the
high emotion target, but
of psi-hitting with low
g against the use of
cal studies be readily
of using target material
for individual subjects.
s of these studies, the
e from his control
have had no special
ional targets to those
licting results. Thus,
clusions can be drawn
ts.
Theme / Content
This category includes all references which associate the specific
content or theme of individual targets with the success/failure of these
targets. Williams and Duke (1979) found that "most of the psi-hitting
targets were natural, while the missing targets were material
objects--metal, concrete, man-made, and mectanical."(p. 8) Apcst hoc
analysis revealed this difference to be significant Op < .02). Dunne,
Jahn, and Nelson (1983), reporting on several remote viewing studies,
noted that there was no difference, in effectiveness between the following
site characteristics: natural vs. man-made; permanent vs. transient; and
indoor vs. outdoor. The Psychophysical Research. Laboratory (1985)
Approved rer Release 20E008108 : CIA-ReP9G4078111003-1-081200814
241
CPYRGHT
=WOO praufierolLf o citeljtat as20 BO /0 fitit4eC keRilan Eta Ogek9 gp j04) QJ
successful than others. The category of "disasters" obtained significant
psi-hitting (p = .014, 2-t). Sexual themes were associated with
significant psi-missing (p = .008, 2-t). Nan-significant scoring in the
psi-hitting direction was obtained by (listed in descending order of
strength of effect) the categories of religion, sports/hunting, locales,
and animals. Non-significant scoring in the psi-missing direction was
obtained by the racing and fighting/Warfare categories. A past hoc
analysis by Sondow (1979) found that targets were chosen and non-targets
avoided significantly often when the pictures showed horses (p ( .01),
water (p < .02), fire Op < .03), and flying-leaping-swinging Op < .04).
Such effects were not found with the target categories of food, war and
famine, and music. Ullman and Krippner (1973) observed that the art
prints containing/portraying religion, colour, eating/drinking, emotions,
and people tended to be successful, as did the agent's multi-sensory
involvement with the target. Stuart (1945), using simple line drawings as
targets found that the two most successful targets portrayed a cartoon
character and a candle. The two least successful targets were a book and
a mathematical equation. In another drawing study, Stuart (1947) found
the best target was a church and the worst was a train. Lastly, Braud,
Davis, and Opella (1985) found a predominance of human characters and
architectural content contained in ganzfeld and dreaming imagery. Less
frequent were mythical characters, animals, food, and unconnected body
parts. These findings could contribute to spurious anecdotal
observations.
Ekamining these diverse content categories it was discoved that
religion was mentioned three times as a generally successful target topic.
Warfare was twice mentioned as being less successful. Williams and Duke
(1979) found that natural targets were associated with psi-hitting, and
the categories specified as successful by Sondow (1979) could also be
classified as natural. However, given the wide diversity of actual
targets which these findings represent, these similarities should be
viewed at most as possible trends which require further reseach for
confirmation.
Discussion
The most consistent category findings of this paper relate to the
possible advantages of using dynamic, multi-sensory targets. However,
these findings are based on the outcome of relatively few studies and
thus should be treated with caution pending further confirmation. The
novel category provided same tentative support for the use of new targets
with which the subject is not familiar for each trial with that subject,
and also suggested possible benefits of using imaginative and interesting
targets. But again these finding are derived fram very few studies.
The two findings relevant to the abstract categorization both found
abstract targets to be associated with poorer results. The emotionality
of targets, often quoted in the literature as one of the yardsticks by
which targets are chosen, has not been shown to be reliably associated
with psi-hitting. Nor have any of the other categories investigated
herein.
In short, this review has not succeeded in shedding a great deal
light upon what qualities/characteristics might discriminate successful
from unsuccessful free-response targets. Indeed, the outcome of this
paper could be viewed as demonstrating haw very little we actually know
about successful versus unsuccessful target characteristics.
However, another interpretation of these findings could be that
Approved For Release 2000/08M : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
A
;rimiloteris
3 Ilberiktfuccessful
pp r awz In 1: :11'
years ago
Warcollier (1963) commented that "No two subjects respond alike to the
same target. No two targets seem to affect same subject in the
same way."(p. 56). Indeed, a great deal of experimentation has
examined and revealed interactions between various trait factors and
psi performance (for reviews of this literature see Palmer, 1978; or
Carpenter, 1977). Other variables such as state, setting, response
method, and so on, may also influence the particular type of target
which is successful in any given situation. PUture research could
profitably examine the effects of such variables. In addition the
development of a descriptive set of scales, such as the three-dimen;ional
scale discussed in the introduction of this paper, which could be used on
an inter'-laboratory basis, could forward our knowledge of target success
considerably. The development of such scales will be the focus of future
research at the Edinburgh Lab.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
243
CPYRGHT Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
? c . ? 44 ?-? . 0.-....
-dp. ?-? o ? - 1.....4
ri ...)g I ??
00..00 to 0 03 4J 03
co 41 ? gj03 .0 03 0 ..., ?
o
...O.; .og ... .4 2
..? 14 144 is 40/ 441
> 0 .0 ?
..e ?-?
o
? a go0
? ?
rt.. ??? *A 44.
044 4.1 A
.100A a d a?
? . 3e o 0'4 10 o d ?
rd-lo ? o a i - ?co .4
44 g 0 us a c o
e m2 -o ?V3 00 0 ,4>
.10 .. t - OA 0
O3 200
0-1
DI
V
as ? m-wp? o d
.1 ? C 03 ;,-; A 0 0 V
A
ml
.4 t
0 si
a ell
ko4
a
z . o ? ???
0 0 eve . d
s? o
4s
?mg mo ''4? ? ra a
.4 A 2
o 0
a Is : 4.405'4
...I ?
? ?? ?
?:0?' ? 14
0 0 0
no
a ... .k
4.i .4,4 4.3A?
? 0 0, M.P. '
ix 64 Os
11 a 41. A
A
E4, ......e avA oil 1-.? C p
z p4 o ,.., cs?
? ? a
? 2
z zbl 8d a .0 z 4 go) ?
... 0 P?1 ??41). ... .
0 ? C
..., 0 1.
.4 .4 .4
.4 0
go; Ek.00
0 ? WA
0
II 0 40.4 MA og .
0 ? M 0
. 1.? a E 4. g d k
.4 . a"'
a o . a ? o
I..; to 133 0. . 0 d 011 01
003 C .1.1 . 0
4?
10,4.1 ?0 .11
? *44 _o Doi 14 d DI 2.
03 43 0 WI ?d0 01I 00
???? g s? a ?C a *pi UI CO 11
a 113 ? .4 .44' 0 coo
03 0
. 4,8 CO 144 0 ? II 0 .I CIM
Z ? A IA 000
Z i .30
1 :
40
0 14 C.3 CI 0 PI
0101 30
I-4 k ? 03 14 0 i 4411 g
.??C 144
0 p. 03 4) 0. id a s ?-? Q4
U
o
?7 ? 1 C ? ?
C 0 44 de-
m z u.m
VA(0...
? 0301
0" .. 01 N
C 0 ? 2..
? 0 4
h 4b.
01'4..0 0 . 4
) ?? 0
I. .0 AA
.4 . d O.
? to Z ...
...I
0 0 ?
le . ? 44
u 0
? ? 0 ;1 ,21
....0 ?
co k 421
I- 13. 111 al h
V
co .4 41
?-? ? k
....0 d ?
?P? A0,42?
01 gr. A "4
0 1 ? . 1
.... ? ?
? ? ... Z
..
oi 0 ? .ao .
? 0 ?0 0 0303k
V
... " ? A
? ....0
. 0 a
a o ?-? ? 0
. 0
...4.
geo*v
.ccr, mos -
z
aid
, I A
-..., ?C 2;
13... 0 t- e. d a
4 I. .
..4 ? ?
? a 14
X . ? 0 a.
? n . 2 .1 CO
M.74 A
.41 p. ? 441 I
.0
.0 ... . ? ? 14
? 41 II 4?? 2 .4 ??? 0
r p.... ? 4.4 1 ? 0
Odk911 0010k
I-6,1k k z:a3
44)0060 A
AOZ, 010...01
0
4.1 14 Cl . 0 V ??1.1 '4 0 ?? 4.3 .. ... ? ,I
V 0 0 ... 01 .0 0
wl .4 0
04 Sri 95 ? ?
V ? 0 el
el C CI
114.4 ? 03
44 -4w) 0 4U
0 ??4 ii: r .0 ow Ca
d . ? I A A m...
0 0 Z to ? g 0 il 41.1 wile
.to P?1 0 4.1 0 0 d ??? a 4.4
?cs VI 41 "4 loi 12 0 ? 41 10
ii 0 _? 14 NV
CI ,.4 -VI14 ?0 C
.4 ? la I Ch . al 1 . . 4st di I 1 44 ? . aig
V ? V1 0 .41.1 0 00 ??4 51,
1?4 .4 ? A a 1 i K h C 14 A d ???
w AA k0,14 II 0 00
0 444 0 ??? 0 . V k CI I-4
d 14 .40
GU 04.4.d ? V
N . 4 0 ... k
oill at 0 0 ??? 11 I/ i ?
1:1 ? 0 a ,.1 a . d 13. ? 0
V 14. to V 44 .4 st 14 .0 0 11 ?P1 a
011.1."
01 > A ?M0 10.0 01
+4 0 ? V
? g 0 IN S? 0 ? ,4
a.m0
0.11...ri k "?I - d .0 d A4.
0 N 0 11100 30 ...II 10 .0 14 0
03 X h wl
?4.O
V ...4 V) /4 s..4
04Mil "?'
.4 ? 13 0
0
..
04 m V II g, v 4 0... o 0
w ? 0 - N. CI 0
a ?
?....00 0 0 ???? 0 03
_a ? 0 d to
.14 ? o 0 - 0 * ??4 0 ?-1 A 133
selC
4.1 V 164 ?"4 a
O. +, 0 0 . 1
? ..
a :t t. le 11' ..,,,, :A
-. . _... 4,.. ... yr
?
.0
0 ?-? I 14 N 0..4 0 44 PI
..0 ... . ei d V
1,:li I421.414 om
03 ig k R ??4 . Z a 4I CJ
v a o
. oam .P.' 01.00 .3 a
..., .
li ? is
?
? C
al
A ? 1.1 .
1-? MA "" 0 4 - 43 0 $.4 fa
OA t4
04JA o
8 ow
04 .
.....0 . ,, A....
00? 0 .161 z0
03
I4 ?
? at .0 0 0 43 ? ?,
0
? 114 ...4 :A 1?100140
00?1 Z el 42,,???
01
?? ??? 0 II 1 te Id .4 ? I " IQ
A CO I?t????
?a g'7 0 ? 0 ???1
t?
?-? a .. ? :0 iso a 211 v l't
0
Id 14 cg
k2.
.11 : ? ...4 -
01 0 .?4 10" 0 ...
? 114 ' ? ?
0 2 A Av.1 1?? - . Z A 0
0
k II a ,4 0 1,, ? .0 o,? 0
?1 .4 ja . ...0 "
..., .., 3 ? .11 .
1 ill ..4 . 44
o 0 a .a -00d o -0 ?
4.1 4?? 9 ZtZato 0.6 ?
. F4 0? 0-00-0 ?KO
to o; .....4 ? ? Z ? d 03 0 .4 . a. Ava ad 43.7
N OkU kd 20 0 2 0
1 2+1.411d 204 00 CO 0 ..., Eii
Od le01 . ti.vo
la 0. G MI 0 IX 30 0 V 0 0 04 11F.111 3 4 4.1 04 0
001 M04141 MHO
N 014.0 '...'M MMO0 ,nw40d0 4 4.1 0 pi g X W' .4
0 C A ? ? A * .4 ? 4.) ... . A ? h ? .
.8.
0 0 0 ? ..4 0 ? d ... C ? ? +I A 10 +4 I
0 ???1 14 0 ? 14 01 II ? W3 0 9:1 _Q .4 0 0
a 0 d ? a. a ? 14 .. 0103 KJ 1 ?
14 d V Ls .7 : It ? ????? 00 111 0 ? 0 ?
6 .41 0 I d I d 0 003 k +1 .0 13. 0 II 0 qv ...
0 d ? 0. C .0 34 .0 II
1
ik.. d ? 1 C:, 14 0 I.
14 ? 0
44.10 1 0 04 d egg 0 d ?
N. he. o0
Cs. 14 ?? 9 ii 0 ???1 a. wl . 4 A A ?IP .... O.
0...,. 0 4.4 ...4 d Od OM
.....m A..0".
41 " ? 0 .4 ? we ?-? id c? ge 0 0 1 1.. ...1
$_; V k ? .4 ?
04300 3. ? ,,, 03 ? 11) tO at .4 ada: .1 ID c
m..41$14 .4 ?71 .. A ..? 0 0 A ? 141
,,, p pg ? omg
44 ... 31 o O?.?
d?''a d????0Tj .?0 . 4 .0 dm
E?$^4 Ca ? ...1.10 03 2 0A0d
V +4 .4
0.
V 0 . Id C
.4 0 34 ? id %, I? o a Ai .1 50 0 ? 0 0 p, 14 RI 0
?0 ? ? 0
? 0 ?
444 .0
? is ...16
.0 ? 0 '1 z a 14 ga N
...
....0oA.... 0.00 00. .
...w.P ? A 0 A 1 ? . 0 e4
03 .. 43 0 0 .0Z
A 0 . 04 0 ? .. ?44 X . 0 m el 0
1-4 0 ?
4. d Z ?C1 t- 0 0
Mem, . c ?
??? ..., in ?i
WI 10 10
quo. .0 . 1.1 ???? ? 9.1 M .P1 w1bk. I"
-o .? 1,4 0 :
0 VIL 0
? a ? 1.1 ? > ... 3aii vo:
??? ig
110 ad I 1 14.2 . 0
4 V a 0 ? P o k
. d 54 a. ? ? Pi
?r?A 0?.
Atr4 PI
0 ??6
C r0; 0
o a o
z
o
....-1 0
0 a
? .4 V) i k ???
0
k 0a0
0> o. -so
t... .,
.1.1
~0
? il ??1
?
0 0
..
ca .0 0
4.... ? ? 0.1.1 07.?, ...0 .0
2031: 03 2 07 ... ? Mc .40. 0
?01 ? .go ow.
o=
:go izoc
?*. ., 1..i. h
ACM V o c:, 0 w
a-P4 .r $3 .
0.4 '..W
V . A
Ii ... d
. 0
O34 V
14
g ."1 ?
k ?
14
. o
... 1
? A
. 0
.0 V
M gt 00 ? %.
? CI V S ii 010a k UN 1?? N A > a
03
04 Z ?45 03 01 1 0
di 0 ? ?
C 0oI _oI
?C ? . A I 4
Mt Z X 0 Z 6 1'4 41 "
. d H 3 ?-? 3 as ?4 N
0 .4
? ? .4 k0 0 N 01 .. d
3, ? CC : tle C4 . ft 4.4 0 ? 0 0 0
PI .
..1flU.
0 gg 0. .4 ? 0 13
.*. Ls C ' ? ' 2 cl 0..1 03
.... 0 C ..3 ? ;1,t1 0 0 1441 aZ 4.1 43 al
A+, N-1?g
Bo
a a
0 a...
.. vi
0 z .... va O P ?
DICcJ ? i 4 .1 ate
o 1 u r
0.4 ? a .., I-0 .4 UVI
? A ? 0 .4 o
211c4"
v gc 0
. 11 d 0
P41 11C' AU. ? C0
4 10 V 0.0 1 pi 1E11
a 1
03 d .4.4 Z CO 4-1 E 03 ? C.3 0
t 0 ? 2 g 3 a.
o
a 4.) ?ic a S? fa
Approved .For Release 2000/08/08 :gA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
d ?-? to .-0 - ? .
c0 V oi (-? V se 1 ? ? a co ?-?4 4.) .. c d ? V V - 0 -
0 .1 A O- 0 ? al 0 CO ? A 0 0 te)
?C CD a VW .4 a 00 V 0 0 0.0 .? 4.) ..
?? 04 .. C 0 k Io) 14 Jd t4 PI 14 0 A .4 C ?
g...w. 0 C ' al 0 .4 4 0 ?12 J:t 0 C C)
0 ?-s ii of 0 .3 li 4.s . ? d 0 0 C.41 IN V 14 __. .0
44 o 4) a c ? A ???3 1, > d 'w? 0 0 4)
..J ? tO d 4.2 0 (I 0 0 13 CO 0 C V S4?
*I k 1) ? P4 +3Q a 0 .4 PI '.
! .4;34 Z 0 '12 ? ? C > V A ? al C 41114 .4?? 0
0 c o 0 44. +3 ...k k a ?-? 14 ""
...I ? 11, 0 0 .5. il
0 4.i u k?4
V ?C N 0 0 .4 w 0 ca cri I .71) al o k 0.4
0 0
0.
0 ? ?147 02 4.1 . Ty 8.? Cd ...I
? ?C co 0
1.4
0 ..
.0 0 d 1
0 ? 0 h ?
C ...
0 0 k 0 0 . C ..) 44 te P. 0 0. *1 so 4.1 p.4
.4 - GO03 V X
14 0 k 134 0 _. *1 II) ...4).?, . 4?1 >4
? 0 IQ 1 0 a 1 ? d 111 0
on
- C?? 0 .1
V tO ?O
+3 0 44 12. 0 0 0 ..1
S. g
ca a 'a - k ?131 .01 14 u:P 0 3111 ?? 0 0 44 ? 0 0 pi
0 14 E. 01
id N
...
g Id ..,0 41 010?
a 14 X I,
V td 1.1 'IC 0 q
_. ..... 0
>
0 44 ? 4. 04
...
C? ....4,0 0 V 0 10 ? al 1.4 e
4.3 0 a 0 ? 330 ?J?'I 11 z 14 c Ca V
CO 0 0 tal A 0 44 k
C C di 1230 1....01.10 .....la a 0 d
OH a 4 4.) d a 0 to 1: ...) ?4.) 0.3 0 0 03
00061Z 03 E-I 0. ' a . k 03 +'Ql
pi k .3 co ?-? 4I4 t??? C 0 in 44 ...I 4 03 k ?"1 V 0 ? 0 0 ..0 a
+I ? . 0 . a) "" vo 0 a o .., .4
o .43 o . SI ??? a s ?-1 oi 0 V C
El C .0 ?k $4 `" 1-1 C ?0 a a " 4
0 ? as a
Da ? 3-1 0 0 Ca a .4 0 . 7
m gi 0 ??? 0 IQ .0 0
V C.) ? > 04 0 0 " I d 0 ... 0
0 43 m td ? 44 > t) N ?
.3 pi
0 ? 0
04' ...id V 1.
?
W.
d "3
?? C ? 4
. Pi 0 0 0 ,?? io . ? o
m .-i
aa4.3 43 .4. 0 V go? ....
.;? 44 Z 0 CO ? 2 m O 00 co c.??
de ? 43 ..
0 ...) 4. Z .? ?
01 0 03
co 14 440 0 - g 13 ..-. V
??? ,?", . r-4 144
40 01 1.1 ?3
d > V
A
0 .... 0
A 03 ?
0. 0
cm *Pi Ca o: 41 44 1.1 V
???? 4C
... .0 ? 4 0 a 43 k
.0 ? ; .10 ....f.,
k d 430 >
01 0 .. 0 c.7.0- 111 k co
al ... .4
... .-
0 10 ez 4) ,.. cd c) - t- 04 4.? . 0 o
_.!?? ? 0 ....g.,
???? _.-4 ? ???? $4 x
aa +3 v ? Id ? 0 ' on .9 cd ? 133 1:1 cl? ,..1 y.......?
1?1 ? 0 ? ;13 0
d 4 a d 0 "4 ? r- ...d.4 0 0 01 0 ? V In ? ? ?
01 0 co co M f'' di .003 43 ?''? Z ,"4 . 0 > . 03 0 .3 ,..,03 si `1, S 7 c; 0 .
? 0 0 (..) 0 ? - _ 1 . 0 - la c. 0 . 4 ? ,0
1.1 *1 ? 11 44 .0 0 0 of in 03 .
0 ? w 0 Z C . 0
o. >? .., d . 0 0 . . .0 Z 4 in .^ 0 ? C . 0 ?C Q 0.t.t S, ' c.) Z
4.4 o = A ? .0 ... c." -01 +3 .0 V '0 P4 A I.. 0 i a co oe oa
Ca 0 11.?
Cli ..., 44 14 X I 10 N . a ...4 .4 .0 se V 0 . 0 . ?
03 ,r1 co 00 0 1. 0 ..., 0 .. E. 1. E-. k . F.
D0 - 00 ` 's V3
i = 4 0 0 - to e. 34 C 34 7443?4) go o? a ?-)
1-1 A os 0 0 = 4s 4.) d 4 ? s? z .3 in 8...., 2;1,0 m
,.. 43 33 0 Z i 0, ?
? 0. k
V
IN
00 ? 1
14 co k d .3 .0 14 0 I, Z ...? V 03 Z al 0 0 4C I, .. ad
Maid v.
0????ofk 07 - Dm ocor.? OE I4 1401.0
UW Se 0 Rtz El"'
CO La
al il 1:34 0 0 0 1.0 A F4 0. 01 0 d e?? C13 0. 0 0 ? ea co o? ma 0. co co 64 E m4 z COI)4Z Wai?-?
a
?
0
136-137.
.1 ? V 14
pi 1.4 0 K
Iso 4 0
0 V V
V C 1 .
? 10 .0 a . .
a F. ?-? o3
0 ?
0 ?
V
. ? 4.4 -
.. 4.4 = Z C? 44
41 t ? ?
. k 1.4
. cl "
on PI
? . C
Pi?
..0
CO 4., .... ...
X
I* 1/1?11 ? a. ??
? 0 a ^???? e-
V 3Cci 0
14 . ?
?
.?
...
be
?
Si
a .0
0
0 0
V ????
II 0
a
d V Ca AC g co d .11 V 0 co C C
...
? 03 0
y ... 10?, . ??? ...1
n r? 1-, 2?.. 1? .c ? t. 0
pi 01 ? ?3 ......-14 01 01 ???? f.. cs. 434 00 ? .."3 cn CO
.1 C co 0 N 0 t. .. .. co 1. ??? .?
.
e. 0 gP'ot 0 C V 34 43
*1 14 cci 01 mc E s4 z 0 -' 0 0 C V
I. 0 0 ?-. 0 0 .. .: .4J a* E V e???
???
0 '0 *.-. Cn .....0 03 dB 01 .4., .??1 A ? A II .0
? 11 ...4?PI C Z...I
?C? al till C 0 *1
14 01 144
1.0 0
? 10 0 ...?
? 4) *1 A .....
0) 44
c: ? $., . E ?-c .4
V a 0 - cu 0 ? "4
0j....,, Z 0 q 11 0. o
? .1 ? 0 4
40 o ca . 6 . V 0 c 4.1 0 oc
z 0 a ? ?
.W ? PI E 04 X I, 8 44 V 0 E. .4 a 0 01
a 1 o ..c co a ga 14
d 41 0
0 r- 0 p csi g 413 ?11 0 5c-
d - ?8 ?4 ?
I, ? N 0
.3 r -4 . il 14 1 . I,
>0 as 0 ...1 0 0 ' Ca ? 04 131 0 0)
??-? k A 0 0 0 0 --. I
0 ..1 N u 0 0 ''' l"
3 .... 41 ' ? .4 a = CC 11 ol >3
V ") g, co C ...II "4 0
t?- 43 0 .
Z . IN II 4131T1
1., 0
.. ? 4 ? A
. 03 gal Al 0
0 tit 0 4, ? ". 0 43 g
- ;4.0 ... e
. ? ? E - SI ? gl? Z '''
0
c . d te 0 th 0 0 0
0 .. 0 .... '0 E ???? ...? . x ? - 0 *PO i" o? ta.^1,
.41 W. ?.4 so ?"7 .. 0 0 Z a ?da co *
""" .4 0 ???I ??4 C4 k 0/
Z'
0 -4.10m 0 a ? .. E. g w of
? 0.7. ta
'0 = 4 z Is C-? 4 ? 0 .. 0 0 03 .... )4 i
? IX 4 0 . a . 4 1.4 03 Z ?C o
0 ,," 0 . 0 0 II Z .... p?
0 ??? .-4 .3 14 Z ? .4 0 N ,, In 0 Ca 02 .-.1 C0 0 0 cw
m. t4 V 0 0 0 '3' 1:4. o = s- ? ?'" gt.'. .3 ?41 0. ? o3
4.) 0.1 " = ?014 0 CM ...t*. 01 0
..? .4??? .
a = ...,?...
tle 0 C4 ? 3
A . .... 4,1 . . ? 4 . h a
0 ? 4.1 0 ? 0 ?-4 0 03 0 0 0 14 ? ? .
.-i CO a " 0 01
? > .4 0 03 A 0
0 44 ^i 0 pi 0 0 II 37?, o -, ? o a o4 z
.c - ;4 ?-1,.. - ?
.....i ca x a. 0 PM ? . 4.) IX .a ?a 0
0 CO 17.,...,0 o a ce .-? 0 os - d ''''' 0 0 ...1 a i ? 4 .. 0 ?.
A 03 ???? Pa z c 0 o z 1 ?-?
? z ..) q .0 X 0 ? CO ? Vg4114)0= Z 4bo ? . c
0, 0. 1. ...? .i? 0, 0 0?01 Ei. 1-. 12 .0 ?
E bd 0 0 0 te ECFP3/130?t?9.1h.' Frt Of rebiR
x N >
10 0?01?.7-7 0.0 de- ad 01 4 140 040 0.-4 13ea coke
A i4131tb4ge41.9 ratle
A ?? . U.
4J.4 lO14 .ri
Se ?0 k
0
? 0
0 11...
lx
4.1
0 r)
d so
94
4.) ?
a ???1 r
00 a
0 > .4
o .
4
a a
43 7 '
?cl
a 0
.4 .4 ?
43 0 4
k. 43 q
00 C 2 A
I.0 Id
C 0
0 C.. 4 PI 0 s..
C .4 D? 1?? a ?
.4 d 01
d 0
? ? C d
? gr
III 0.0 ?-? 11 ? ? Cl.
4.1 4 o ? d 1:). >3
0 +3 ? A es
14
V I 0 Ci . d 4./ 001
ow 0 A 30. 14 +I X M 1.1 40
3?4 ? C ? .1 ? ra
V ?-? .4 .4 a, .3 ? O
d 0 d Di V 0 d ?Id
134
I. k
CO > 0 ? 1.4
03 ?d Da ???1 7 .....: CO?0
Di 7 a 04 04., >0
0 le
a Z 0 0 CO
P
...,
003 i443 Os eta.
?? es.. 0
? ?
F
a.
Da
research
? ?
?INI?
? .1.4. 0
13
%.4 .4
a. o.,,o co d 0 ,., 01
'0I 0 0 ad
9.;
03 ? .4 0. ?
.0 4.11 ?-? d .0 0 ?
......? *AI .. Z t-t
... ?0 ? ?g .
? 0 1.4 0 F V ?? a
64 k II C?3 4.3 N -W
0 ? pi gr d ao 0 C
?? 1 as ?I CI?-? ?4 ca .4
co c co iii
glic00
t,lI 03 V ? X V
a) C .4 141 C
?Q? V 0 0C ???
E t 0 Z V 0.
Press, New
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
TARG, E., TARG, R. & LICHTARGE, 0. (1986). Realtime
clairvoyance: a study of remote viewing without feedback.
In D. H. Weiner & D. I. Radin (Eds.) Research in
Parapsychology, 1985 (pp. 36-39). Scarecrow Press,
Metuchen, New Jersey.
TARG, R., PUTHOFF, H. E. & MAY, E. C. (1979). Direct
perception of remote geographical locations. In C. T.
Tart, H. E. Puthoff & Targ, R. (Eds.) Mind at Large,
Praeger, New York.
ULLMAN, M. & KRIPPNER, S. (1973). Dream Telepathy. ?
Penguin, Baltimore.
WARCOLLIER, R. (1938). Experimental Telepathy. Boston
Society for Psychical Research, Boston.
WARCOLLIER, R. (1963).
York, New York.
Mind to Mind. Collier Books, New
WILLIAMS, L. B. & DUKE, M. (1979). Qualities of
free-response targets and their relationship to psi
performance. Parapsychology Association 22nd. Annual
Conference Proceedings, 1979, Moraga, California.
_2_46
Approved For Release 2000/08/uo : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL FREE-RESPONSE TARGETS:
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
by
Caroline Watt
Psychology Department
University of Edinburgh
ABSTRACT
This paper describes theoretical ideas from a variety of
sources as to what might be expected to make a
successful free-response GESP target. Popular "how to
be psychic" literature, analyses of the characteristics of
spontaneous cases, and theoretical suggestions from
psychology and parapsychology show considerable
consistency in their suggestions about the likely features of
a good target. Two main recommendations appear to
emerge from these sources - good GESP targets should
be psychologically salient and physically salient 1. targets
In parapsychological research should be meaningful, have
emotional impact and human interest - this may make
them salient in the minds of our experimental participants;
and, 2. targets should also be physically salient by
standing out from their backgrounds - properties such as
movement, novelty, brightness and contrast tend to make
stimuli physically salient.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
CHARAMBRUIR0860124MCPWEIBSPSEIFFISE04TESEONISElainctiatTS:
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS!
INTRODUCTION
Deborah Delanoy (1988) examined the observations from some free-response
literature on what makes a good GESP target. Despite the f aws and contradictory
w general statements
rget. This paper can
ughts about targets in
fly believed about the
on relatively formal
this paper describes
good targets, roaming
d literature which has
findings seen in this literature, it was possible to make a
about what experimenters believe constitutes a good GESP t
be seen as forming the second half of our observations and th
parapsychological research. Delanoy described what is curre
characteristics of successful GESP targets, concentrating
free-response experiments in parapsychology. In contrast
theoretical suggestions as to what might be expected to make
more widely (and consequently with less depth) over some vani
something relevant to say on this question.
As stressed by Delanoy, our combined efforts are far from
primarily aimed at getting some idea of what kind of targets
research in Edinburgh. To do this, we looked through so
journals (JASPR, JP, JSPR, EJP, IJP), parapsychological a
convention proceedings, RIP, Parapsychology Review, certain
in the Koestler Chair library, and I have also examined some
which I consider relevant to the target question. Particular
cases where authors made specific comments about the chara
GESP targets.
Firstly, this paper briefly considers so-called "Airport Project
some research by Professor Robert Morris and his students usi
be psychic" books which can be found in airport books
Secondly, the paper examines (again briefly) the kind of "ta
seems to be transmitted in people's spontaneous psychic exp
paper considers some theoretical suggestions by parapsycholo
be expected to make a good GESP target. Then I make so
own on possible characteristics of a successful GESP target,
the psychological literature on human-environment interaction
and attributions of causality. The paper ends with a summary a
omprehensive, being
e should use in our
e parapsychological
?stracts, PA and PF
"relevant" books held
sychological research
ttention was given to
teristics of successful
books [named after
g the kind of "how to
ops (Morris, 1977)].
et" information which
riences. Thirdly, this
ists as to what might
e suggestions of my
erived from some of
, curiosity, attention,
d conclusions.
1 I would like to thank Prof. Jim Crandall, Dr. Deborah Delanoy, Dr. Julie Milton, Prof.
Robert Morris and Mr. Robin Taylor for their valuable criticisms of and contributions to
this paper.
248
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGApproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
1. "AIRPORT PROJECT" BOOKS
A skim through the 21 "how to be psychic" books which form part of the Koestler
Chair library, and which I felt might have some comments to make about targets,
found only 6 authors who made recommendations on what might make a good target
when training psychic powers. Even then, the authors invariably failed to define their
terms or write more than a sentence on the subject. These recommendations should
therefore be treated with caution, as they do not represent the findings of careful
scientific experimentation. On the other hand, they may have something to suggest
about popular ideas of what makes a good GESP target, and these ideas may be
based on some grain of truth.
Boswell (1969) recommended the use of "mentally stimulating" targets. Also, he felt
that physical sensation and especially emotion were easily transmitted, and that
colour was picked up better than black and white. Edwards (no date) suggests that
faces and pictures make good targets. Denning & Phillips (1981) recommend trying
to transmit a message of emotional significance to the receiver. Likewise, Sherman
(1960) says that it is crucial to have some emotional content to the target. A related
area of interest is psychometry, where an object is used to provide further information
about its owner. Powell (1979) recommends using as a token object metal or leather
which has been close to the skin for a long time and therefore has had a chance to
build up some personal association with the owner. Finally, Burns (1981) feels the
following make good practice targets for developing GESP: pictures (rather than
words); something experienced vividly by the agent; flavours; body position of the
agent, or whether the agent is sitting in the light or dark; and sizes and weights of
objects.
There do seem to be some common themes in these authors' suggestions, though
the small sample covered here means that any patterns could be illusory: emotional
impact seems to be important (though little is said about whether the specific
emotions should be positive or negative ones); and targets conveying information
about events happening to humans seem popular.
2. SPONTANEOUS CASES
There is a considerable literature concerning the sort of information conveyed in
spontaneous cases of ESP, and so as a necessary constraint this section is limited to
observations from Sybo Schouten's (1979b, 1982) examination of two great
collections of spontaneous cases - Phantasms of the Living and the Louisa Rhine
collection.
Schouten made a quantitative analysis of these collections with a view to finding
patterns and relationships which might stimulate further experimental research. As he
pointed out, the two collections covered quite different cultures and eras, and were
gathered for different purposes. The collectors of the "Phantasms" cases took great
pains to investigate and verify their cases, and had a special interest in receiving
aPParitiR13 p raingsF (V ROA IWP8ffaig2 it 1i-9n
wain% Ruyi croth001esis4 that
120-
249
CPYRGHT
inforrrAPOKMAlsinitregekRfriagiaNiOga?g&IXTRA01149PRAMIliaPadcdased
persons. In contrast, the Rhine collection took cases more or less at face value, with
the idea that inaccuracies would cancel each other out over a I rge number of cases,
and the reports were gathered with the aim of providing s ggestions for future
laboratory research (Schouten, 1986).
Excluding 150 of the cases (for reasons outlined in Schout
analysed the remaining "Phantasms" cases according to
categories (Schouten, 1979a) and found that about 75% of the
illness or injury to the target person, though a tendency to rem
for longer than trivial events accounted for some of this pattern.
conveyed information about positive experiences of the target pe
Table 1 (from Schouten, 1979b, p.432)
Situation of target person at time of experience
n 1979b), Schouten
2 previously-defined
ases involved death,
mber serious events
Only 1.4% of cases
on.
death
66.7%
serious illness
12.5%
slight injuries
8.7%
serious material
.5%
slight material
.2%
trivial
10.0%
positive
1.4%
It Is interesting to note that slight personal injuries were more often the topic of
spontaneous experiences (8.7%) than serious material dam ge (for example, a
building on fire, considerable financial loss) (0.5%). This suggests that negative
events related to humans are particularly strong targets in sponta eous cases.
Similar patterns are observed in Schouten's (1982) study of the Rhine collection,
where he analysed a representative sarriple (15%) of cases ( xcluding PK). About
75% of the sample concerned negative events such as death, injury and accident
while almost no cases concerned material damage. As with the Phantasms study, a
tendency to remember and report serious events more often tha non-serious events
accounts for some of this pattern. However, the distribution of n gative events in the
Rhine collection differs from the Phantasms collection, with the former having fewer
cases involving death of the target person (37.7% compared wi h 66.7%), but more
cases involving serious accidents and slight injuries. As Schout n points out, part of
this difference may be due to the Phantasms collectors' preference for apparition
cases.
In summary, Schouten's analyses of spontaneous case colle
negative events related to humans feature predominantly as "t
observation may be partly' due to a reporting bias. It is significan
and the Phantasms cases share this pattern despite the very dill
Ions suggest that
rgets", although this
that both the Rhine
erent methods used
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :2:504-RDP96-00789R 03100120001-4
CPYRGAgproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
to gather these collections. Evidently parapsychologists cannot inflict physical injury
on their experimental participants in order to simulate real-life spontaneous cases.
However, negative physical events are likely to have a negative emotional impact
both on the target person and on the percipient (especially if they are emotionally
close). Possibly, therefore, targets which have some strong negative emotional
impact on a person may have more success In a free-response experimental setting
than trivial or impersonal targets. Further, it might be expected that any emotional
impact is better than none, and so positive emotional targets could perhaps be
successfully used in experimental research - this might circumvent any researcher's
concern about the ethics of exposing experimental participants to unpleasant targets.
3. THEORETICAL SUGGESTIONS BY PARAPSYCHOLOGISTS
Although this is not a comprehensive review, I have tried to cover instances where
authors have made specific comments about likely successful targets. Their
suggestions range from post hoc inferences based on the kinds of targets which were
successful in experimental studies to observations of what makes a good target in
areas of research related to parapsychology.
Le Shan (1977) criticizes parapsychologists for often neglecting to consider the
theoretical assumptions underpinning their research. There has been little discussion,
he feels, of what kind of information psi transmits even though there seems to be
wide agreement that psi does transmit information. As an example of how theorising
on this issue might influence our experimental design and choice of target material,
Le Shan considers the possibility that psi might depend on individual differences,
being better adapted for one purpose with one person and another purpose in a
different person. In this case, he suggests we should "customize" our targets by
examining experimental participants for their personal interests, philosophies,
preferred sensory modalities, and so on.
One of the few studies specifically to examine how target characteristics relate to psi
performance was conducted by Williams & Duke (1979), who go on to discuss
theoretical suggestions derived from their observations. Taking an evolutionary
perspective and asking what sort of information might have been most crucial to
communicate before language evolved in humans, they conclude that targets
reflecting "emotion, sex, survival, nature, food and other basic concerns might be
psychically perceived better than other types of targets" (p.15)
In a similar vein, a theoretical paper by Nash (1980) on the characteristics of psi
communication considers that, to be effective, psi communication must convey
"meaningful information". Also, one of the Maimonides experimental participants, in a
letter to Ullman and Krippner, gave her overall impressions of a dream telepathy
series in which she had recently participated. She felt that the more "potent and
unusual" the target material the better, because with subjects who might be
subconsciously afraid of telepathy this kind of target might be less likely to be "kept
out" (Ullman & Krippner, 1973). Perhaps unfortunately, it is very rare to find any
published opinions from the experimental participants who play a crucial part in
parapsvrepoKlgiNi Menckese 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
251
CPYRGHT
wilifgWrvatg F(ffEi4?EMEtinffiNclag4NPINT89Wg
our research - that psi involves redundancy with our oth
instance, most of our experimentation involves primarily vis
prints. Braud suggests that it would be useful if psi provided
immediately evident to our other known senses. Such non-e
concern the larger relationships in which a target participates,
Similarly, Gertrude Schmeidler in her 1971 PA Presidential
ESP target is not the physical stimulus variables, but the "m
an Informational pattern" (Schmeidler, 1972). Braud conduct
test the theory of non-evident psi, where subjects were conf
boxes containing, respectively, three control objects and two
one person's head. The hair samples were therefore related
control objects had no long-term association to a particular
told which box was the "key" (one of the two boxes contain
while remaining unaware of the contents of all the boxes,
remaining four boxes according to how "related" their content
the key box. This study failed to achieve significant results
idea worth further investigation.
The 1986 Esalen Conference discussed techniques to impr ve the reliable practical
use of psi abilities. Targ (1987) recommended that experim nters look for common
elements in the "psychic appearance" of targets (i.e. In mentations), and that they
should compose a glossary of typical target transformation errors. Tart (1987), at the
same conference, suggested that experimenters create a pool of "hot" targets - ones
that are consistently successful, either because they are correctly described or are
described in a recognisable fashion. In other words, what m kes a good target would
be defined operationally.
RIVIE9R.,11191M-1iuch of
r known senses. For
al targets such as art
information which is not
ident information could
for example its history.
ddress stated that the
aning" of the target or
d a pilot experiment to
nted with five identical
amples of hair cut from
o each other, while the
person. Subjects were
Ing a hair sample) and,
ere asked to rank the
were to the contents of
but this may still be an
So far, this section has considered research purely within
parapsychologists have taken a more interdisciplinary appro
related the findings from other areas of research back to the
a good GESP target.
Tart (1982) looked at how responses to targets are m
psychophysiology, and asked what were the characteristics
this field of research: what kind of stimuli are most readily r
to analyse. To be successful, a target stimulus in psycho
out from its background. For targets in parapsychologic
achieved by having the target stimulus occur suddenly, be di
what Tart calls "psychic intensity" - the sense that the
meaningful within the experimental context. Tart suggests t
experimental participants on the significance of the target
required meaningfulness. Psychic intensity could also r
happening to an agent - a methodology which Tart finds att
good target should stand out from its surroundings is str
psychological literature on human attention which I will be intr
? arapsychology. Some
ch, however, and have
question of what makes
asured in conventional
f a successful target in
sponded to, and easiest
hysiology should stand
I research, this may be
crate in time, and have
arget is important and
at we could instruct our
in order to give it the
flect an intense event
active. The idea that a
? ngiy supported by the
ducing later.
rn
252
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGPOproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
A second area of research which has had some heuristic value for parapsychological
research concerns subliminal perception, or preconscious processing (Dixon, 1981).
Comparisons of psi and subliminal perception have noted that "right hemisphere"
processing facilitates subliminal perception (Roney-Dougal, 1981, 1986) - a
suggestion which has also been made for psi perception (e.g. Braud, 1975). This
could suggest that "right hemisphere targets" such as music, pictures and other
non-analytic targets might be preferable to "left-hemisphere" targets such as words
and numbers. Another parallel between psi and subliminal perception is that emotive
stimuli can evoke clear autonomic responses in the percipient in both cases
(Roney-Dougal, 1986).
Serena Roney-Dougal feels that the use of negative emotional targets is both morally
and methodologically unsound, partly because some of her subjects reported
unpleasant experiences while receiving target impressions and might psi-miss with
this kind of target, and also because of the perceptual defence phenomenon seen in
subliminal perception. Sondow, Braud & Barker (1981) considered that "defensive"
subjects might be likely to psi-miss with unpleasant targets, and devised an
"Openness Questionnaire" to identify such subjects. They found no significant
difference between the "openness" of receivers who psi-hit and those who psi-missed
in a ganzfeld study. Unfortunately, no extensive description is made of the format of
the questionnaire, or of whether or not it measures perceptual defensiveness as seen
in subliminal perception or some other, unspecified, form of defensiveness.
In perceptual defence, a person may raise his or her recognition threshold for a
threatening or unpleasant stimulus - in other words, they perceive it less clearly.
Roney-Dougal interprets this as being due to the person's desire or motivation not to
perceive the threatening stimulus, a motivation which, she feels, may underlie
psi-missing also. However, Dixon reports experiments which suggest that the
perceptual defence effect, rather than representing the motivations of the
experimental participant, is best explained in physiological terms: emotive stimuli
cause changes in a person's arousal level which in turn affect the sensitivity of the
sensory receptors.
Whatever the mechanism of the effect of emotional stimuli on recognition thresholds,
it is clear that this effect is not uni-directional. One aspect of perceptual defence
which, it seems, tends to be overlooked is sometimes called vigilance. While some
people may raise their recognition thresholds to emotional stimuli, others may actually
/ower them (Brown, 1961; Dixon, 1981). Without digressing too much on the reasons
for this apparent contradiction, it has been found that there is a correlation between
personality-type and a person's tendency to raise or lower his or her recognition
threshold, with extroverts raising their thresholds, and introverts lowering them
(Brown, 1961; Corcoran, 1965). This has some interesting implications for
parapsychology. While Roney-Dougal felt that the raised recognition thresholds seen
in perceptual defence might be linked with the psi-missing of her own subjects with
negative emotional targets, other researchers have found the opposite (Delanoy,
1988), and the vigilance effect suggests that some parapsychological subjects could
even psi-hit with unpleasant targets. Donn Byrne (1961, 1963, 1964) has developed
a "repression-sensitization" WbiGt]. lacliDaQS_ whfithar _a_ oer.son_ miattt be
Approvea Keiease zuuOmo/uo : LAA-Kuv9b-uu to9KuOui 20oui -4
253
CPYRGHT
ensmet, logmhoptcRiogigio:.cimktin6Pro4
logists could study the
mec anisms o ing an psi-missing it I 'NJ 2969A1Crandall,
personal communication, 1988).
Having looked at popular literature, spontaneous cases, a
from parapsychologists on what might make a good targ
inferences from areas of psychology which I consider to be
(1) EMOTIONAL RESPONSES TO STIMULI
Mehrabian and Russell (1974) outline a theoretical a
psychology (the study of the impact of the physical and so
emotions, attitudes and behaviour). In their own words,
there are three basic emotional responses (pleasure, aro
dominance-submissiveness dimension refers to the
individuals feel they have over a situation or environment),
be used to describe adequately any emotional state (e.g.
their impacts on these basic emotional dimensions, the
components within or across sense modalities (e.g. color,
can be readily compared" (preface, Mehrabian & Russell, 1
d theoretical suggestions
t, I will now make some
levant to this discussion.
proach to environmental
la, environment on man's
"Evidence suggests that
sal, and dominance) (the
egree of control which
ombinations of which can
anxiety). By considering
ffects of diverse stimulus
itch, texture, temperature)
74, [my italics]).
There is evidence of considerable intermodality of human response to stimulation -
that is, stimulation in one sensory modality may affect p rception in another. For
instance, people who visualize auditory stimulation tend to gree in associating colour
names and mood adjectives with types of music: "Suc persons were found to
visualize exciting music in bright forms or sharp and angul r figures, and slow music
in rounder forms" ( p. 11, Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). e three basic emotional
responses to stimuli reported above (pleasure, arousal an dominance) are seen as
providing a measure with which to compare people's vane ? intermodal responses to
stimuli. This is relevant because it suggests that an addtional important aspect to
our consideration of what might be expected to be salient features of a GESP target
Is not only the actual physical characteristics of the targ t, but also the emotional
response (a combination of pleasure, arousal and dominan e) which that target elicits
in the percipient.
Further, the theory may provide a methodological framew
the impact of various target characteristics on our experim
personal communication, 1988). A semantic differential
people's emotional state in particular settings, or to m
emotions over time. Mehrabian and Russell's scale co
describing various aspects of pleasure, arousal and dorr
are asked to mark on the scale the degree to which one o
most accurately reflects their feelings. Semantic differentia
used in parapsychology, though for different purposes tha
et al (1970) used Osgood's Semantic Differential to find p
affective reactions to the same concept, though, contrary
found no relation between the degree to which people agr
target stimulus and their GESP scores with that stimulus.
rk for the consideration of
ntal participants (Delanoy,
scale is used to measure
asure their characteristic
prises 18 adjective pairs
inance, and their subjects
other of the adjective pair
scales have already been
suggested here. McBain
irs of people with common
to their expectations, they
ed in their reactions to the
Sondow, Braud & Barker
254
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-0078903100120001-4
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 ? CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
(1981) used Osgood's Semantic Differential as one of several measures of target
picture emotionality. However, it should be possible to make more extensive use of
the semantic differential, and it is planned to investigate further how a scale such as
Mehrabian & Russell's could be adapted to measure the reactions of
parapsychological subjects to targets and to provide a method to standardise
descriptions of successful targets.
The second aspect of Mehrabian and Russell's theory of environmental psychology
which may be relevant to our discussion about targets is their consideration of how
emotional reactions to physical environmental stimuli are related to the concept of
approach-avoidance. This they define broadly as including "..? physical movement
toward, or away from, an environment or stimulus, degree of attention,
exploration...favourable attitudes such as...preference or liking..." (p.96, Mehrabian &
Russell, 1974). Arousal is seen as a mediator of approach-avoidance behaviour. A
literature review suggests that approach-avoidance is an Inverted-U-shaped function
of arousal: an organism seeks an optimum level of arousal - whether or not it
approaches or avoids a stimulus depends on how arousing the stimulus is, and
extremely high or low levels of arousal are avoided.
In animals, there is a tendency to explore the unfamiliar. When the stimuli are
fear-inducing, animals repeatedly withdraw and approach the stimuli. Mehrabian and
Russell note that the animals are maintaining an optimum level of arousal with this
behaviour. Similar behaviour is seen in human children and adults (for references
see Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Berlyne, 1960). Anecdotally, humans do seem to
have a penchant for voluntarily and repeatedly exposing themselves to negative
emotive and fear-inducing stimuli - hair-raising roller coaster rides and horror films, for
example.
The Idea of approach-avoidance being mediated by arousal relates to the
consideration above (re perceptual defence and vigilance) of the merits of using
negative emotive targets in parapsychology. It suggests that people might have
some attraction to negative emotive targets insofar as these targets tend to increase
arousal. Too much arousal, however, will cause people to withdraw from an
unpleasant target. On the other hand the use of neutral and bland GESP targets is
unlikely to arouse our experimental participants at all, consequently failing to elicit
approach. Of course, positive emotive targets would also be expected to influence
the arousal of our subjects and to elicit approach-avoidance behaviour.
A second area of psychological research which may make suggestions relevant to the
question of what makes a good GESP target concerns the characteristics of stimuli
which attract people's attention.
(2) STUDIES OF ATTENTION
While the theory discussed in the preceding section suggested that stimuli could be
described in terms of people's basic emotional responses to them, other research has
examined characteristics of the stimuli themselves, to see what stimulus features tend
o Fo l attractA attentioa. !Maea r gg hEibm845181?(CrilltDieggialgkspobvp@crivoecptupn
pprove
255
PsYch01911cPfenekrAgatRee/tICRPiit/Velln9FAIFIDID96096710A0**166111,001114ey be
relevant to the discussion here as it could suggest the kind of target features which
might attract the attention of our experimental percipients in free-response GESP
tasks.
Berlyne (1970) noted the difficulty of even defining what i meant by the word
"attention". In his series of experiments (described in Berly e, 1960) on curiosity,
conflict and arousal he seems to use an operational definition. These experiments
typically presented the subject simultaneously with several sti ull and observed the
percipient's eye fixation movements - the inference being that attention was given to
the stimulus which attracted most eye fixation (e.g. Be lyne, 1958). Other
experiments used a different measure of attention, allowin subjects to expose
themselves to very brief sights of stimulus pictures as many times as they liked -
presumably attention was attracted by the stimuli which were c osen to be seen most
often by subjects. The characteristics of stimuli which seemeq to influence diredtion
of attention included: intensity; brightness; contrast; colour; n velty; complexity; and
incongruity.
Intensity. Berlyne (1960) states that the intensity of stiniulatlon is seen in "the
frequency of nerve impulses and the number of fibers a ivated" (p.170) in the
reticular arousal system. Generally, large stimuli are m re intense than small
stimuli; "warm" colours (e.g. red) are more intense anq arousing than "cold"
colours (e.g. blue); high-frequency sounds are mote intense than low
frequency sounds; and (in cats and monkeys) painful stliiuli are most intense,
followed by proprioceptive, auditory, and visual stimuli respectively. Berlyne
found that attention was attracted by relatively intense St mull - for example, to
larger than to smaller circles; to brighter than to simmer visual stimuli.
Intensity is related to brightness, which also appears to at ract attention.
Colour. Infants preferred looking at colour to lookin at black and white
stimuli. Adults' attention was attracted more to a colou ed stimulus than to a
white one (Berlyne, 1960).
Contrast. It was found that attention was attracted to a lighter stimulus on
black and medium grey backgrounds, and to a darke stimulus on a white
background. So, contrast with the background attracted attention. Above we
saw that brightness also attracts attention. When pr senting subjects with
stimuli which differed from their background to equal e tents but in different
directions, it was found that subjects were more likely to respond to the lighter
stimulus - that is, in the absence of a contrast differs ce, brightness was a
secondary determinant of attention (McDonnell, 1968).
Novelty. This can be defined as an unusual combination of parts of various
objects, or a change from the kind of stimulus to which the organism has
recently been exposed (Stotland & Canon, 1972). It has repeatedly been
found that novel stimuli attract more attention than familiar stimuli (e.g. Langer,
Fiske, Taylor & Chanowitz, 1976; Berlyne, 1958), though the effect of novelty
declines over time (perhaps as the subject habituates to the stimulus and
0
ApprovedCIR*Ficeltgise 2000/08/08 : COURDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHTApproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
arousal drops). Berlyne (1960) considers attention to be most effectively
attracted by a stimulus whose novelty is often renewed. Novelty is related to
change or surprisingness of a stimulus (Stotland & Canon, 1972). On surprise,
Berlyne says in experiments on learning, orienting behaviour (a set of
psychological and physiological responses through which the organism "sits up
and takes notice" when an aspect of its environment changes) is often found to
be strengthened by an unheralded change in experimental conditions" (p. 98,
Berlyne, 1960, (my italics]). This observation strongly resembles one made
from a parapsychological experiment by Roll & Harary (1972), that "some of
the more interesting results came when unannounced changes in the
experiment were made spontaneously", and similar results occurred "when
there was a last-minute change in the target materials" (p.4).
Complexity. This can be defined as the number of distinguishable parts which
a stimulus possesses, the degree of difference among these parts, and the
difficulty of integrating the parts involved (Stotland & Canon, 1972).
Incongruity, evidently related to both complexity and novelty, was found by
Berlyne (1958) to attract attention. Under examination, the distinction between
complexity and novelty grows blurred, and, as Stotland & Canon point out,
both involve stimulus change. Humans seem compelled to attend to stimulus
change - a response which might be expected to be evolutionarily adaptive.
Infants are attracted to relatively complex visual patterns and the attention of
adults is also determined partly by stimulus complexity (Berlyne, 1960; Jeffrey,
1968).
This research on the determinants of selective attention also states that, consistent
with the discussion earlier of approach-avoidance behaviour, people seek an optimum
level of arousal: either too much or too little arousal is unpleasant for individuals, and
factors such as stimulus novelty, complexity, intensity and incongruity are seen as
contributing to an organism's arousal.
The research outlined above tended to use fairly sterile tachistoscopic stimulus
presentation, however more recent studies of human causal judgement in social
situations have shown that these early findings can generalise to much more realistic
and complex situations. Shelley Taylor and Susan Fiske (1978), reviewing the
literature on the influence of salient stimuli on people's causal judgements, found that
bright, contrasting, moving and novel stimuli all attract attention in social situations
(e.g. Langer et. al., 1976; McArthur & Post, 1977). Movement can be regarded as
simply another aspect of stimulus complexity/novelty, and we have already seen that
stimulus change (a feature of movement) compels attention.
As it is not yet clear whether the process of psi perception is similar to perception
with our known senses it may be argued that the above findings from psychology on
attention-grabWng stimulus characteristics may not generalise to the "psi stimulus".
However, it would seem to be evolutionarily adaptive for any organism to attend to
bright, contrasting, moving and novel stimuli as such features may indicate either food
or threat to the organism. Insofar as psi perception may be an evolved attribute or
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
257
CPYRGHT
abilitylMancretcl Fewp&Melt's*, 213ited0ediebrr@IPeitandly0003110003110801111000/1-401ated
stimulus features such as those outlined above.
For parapsychologists, these findings suggest that: 1. stimuli which are likely to
attract the attention of our experimental participants and consequently make
successful GESP targets may possess the following charactenstics in some (as yet
unspecified) degree or form: movement, complexity, novelty, incongruity, contrast,
colour, brightness and intensity; and, 2. these attenti n-determining target
characteristics must be present at moderate levels - too much and our subjects will
be overwhelmed, too little and they will be bored.
SOME LIMITATIONS OF THIS PAPER
Although this paper may seem to have rambled over a wide ra
mainly been restricted to a consideration of targets' physical
examined in any depth the idea that "the target" is in part defin
participant's own personal reactions to and interactions with it.
considered some ways in which the salience of a stimulus
factors independent of the actual physical stimulus characteris
table summarizes their findings.
Table 2 (after Taylor & Fiske, 1978)
Determinants of Selective Attention
Properties of Stimuli
Brightness
Contrast
Movement
Novelty
Properties of Situation
Environmental Cues
Instructional Set
ge of subjects, it has
eatures, and has not
d by the experimental
Taylor & Fiske (1978)
ay be influenced by
ics, and the following
Properties of Perceiver
Temporary Need States
Enduring Individual Differences in Traits, Reinforcement Schedules, Schemas
As Table 2 suggests, properties of a situation and properties of the perceiver may
influence what aspects of an individual's environment, or a free-response target,
appear as salient to any individual. For instance, if a person is hungry then food will
become especially salient to that individual. An individual's cognitive schemata will
play some part in determining the direction of his or her attention (Stotland & Canon,
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIAADP96-00789R003100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Moor?
Science Applications International Corporation
An Employee-Owned Company
September 16, 1993
Defense Intelligence Agency
Bolling AFB, DT-5
Washington, D.C. 20340-6150
Attention:
SG1J
Reference: MDA908 ?93 ?C-0004
Data Item No. A001
Project Periodic Status Report
Dear
SG1J
As you know, we are required by the official contract to deliver formal reports. So, here is our Periodic
Status Report deliverable dated 10 September 1993. We are required by contract to distribute the deliver-
ables according to the Contract Data Requirements List. Although it specifies the reports should be mailed
to RSQ ?4, I am sending them to you for the final distribution:
DITRfl3UTION
Requiring Office
Final Report Copies
DIA/DT-5A
2
RSQ? 4
1
Also, please contact whomever it is that tracks these deliverables to let them know you have received both
the draft and the final reports.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
cc 'Ibm Albert/w/enclosure
Joe Angelo/w/enclosure
Betty Muzio/w/o/enclosure
file
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 ? [phone] ,
?HAP? A TAVetfuMegeiggratiMitlig Lrtelak-RibribratinigitereftbticlitbiT4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Science Applications International Corporation
An Employee-Owned Company
April 23, 1993
Defense Intelligence Agency
Bolling AFB, DT-5
Washington, D.C. 20340-6150
Attention: SG1J
Reference: MDA908 ?93 ?C-0004
01-0187-03 ?3880?XXX
Status and Management Report
Dear
SG1J
As you know, we are required by the official contract to deliver formal reports. So, here is our Status and
Management Report deliverable dated. We are required by contract to distribute the deliverables accord-
ing to the Contract Data Requirements List. Although it specifies the reports should be mailed to RSQ-4,
I am sending them to you for the final distribution:
.. ....
Requiring Office
Final Report Copies
ODT?S
2
DPP-4
1
Also, please contact whomever it is that tracks these deliverables to let them know you have received both
the draft and the final reports.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
cc ibm Albert/w/enclosure
Joe Angelo/w/enclosure
Betty Muzio/w/o/enclosure
file
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 330, P.O. Box 1412, Menlo Park, CA 94025 ? [phone]
OthAsa0f8;i;tyi?,r,65i,014,61(6oriiiarlibistitatot 6TAL otibegazionerimiloiyiSioleolocion4
CPYRGHfPProved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
1972). If a person has a phobia of spiders, then a picture of a spider will be very
salient to that person, while it may have no impact on another person who has a
phobia about water. If we as researchers instruct our experimental participants to
attend to one aspect of their environment, then that feature will become salient to
them. So, we see that there are many influences on what makes target
characteristics grab attention, and ills unwise to restrict our view to physical target
characteristics alone. Nevertheless, these conclusions about the salience of physical
target characteristics remain valid so long as it is appreciated that they do not give
the whole picture.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present paper considered theoretical ideas of what might be expected to make a
successful free-response GESP target.
1. Popular literature on the training of psychic powers suggested that
emotional impact and human interest content made good targets. A survey of
patterns seen in spontaneous cases seemed to support these observations:
the bulk of the information transmitted concerned negative events related to
humans, though reporting bias accounted for some of this pattern. While
parapsychologists could not physically harm their subjects, it was suggested
that the emotional impact seen in spontaneous cases could be incorporated
Into target material for experimental research, as observations from
spontaneous cases suggested that such targets might be expected to have
more success in an experimental setting than trivial or impersonal targets.
2. Varied theoretical suggestions by parapsychologists on what might make a
good target suggested that meaningful, emotional and potent targets could be
expected to be successful in GESP research. Studies of characteristics of
good targets in conventional psychophysiology suggested that targets in
parapsychology should stand out from their background. This might be
achieved by having the target event occur suddenly, be discrete in time and be
"Important" to the percipient.
Several parallels were noted between subliminal and psi perception. From
perceptual defence and vigilance effects seen in subliminal perception it was
suggested that, paradoxically, while some parapsychological subjects might be
expected to psi-miss with negative emotional targets, others might psi-hit with
such targets. It was suggested that the Repression-Sensitization Scale,
diagnostic of an individual's tendency to be defensive or vigilant, might be
useful to parapsychologists wishing to pursue these ideas.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
259
ApproviNkFareiagliMISONSIRPfflie teQbe&RADIRS164/0111t8R003MINNI20186ttitn were
described. Firstly, from environmental psychology it was suggested that
greater attention should be given to the subject's e otional response to the
target stimuli, and that, from the connection between arousal and
approach-avoidance, the use of negative emotive stim Ii could on the whole be
more likely to arouse our experimental participants a d attract their attention
than neutral or bland stimuli. Secondly, research n attention found that
attention was attracted by stimuli which were re atively Intense, bright,
contrasting, colourful, novel, complex and incong ous - though only at
moderate levels. Similarly, social psychology, usi g more complex and
realistic settings than attention research, found that b ght, moving, contrasting
and novel stimuli attracted attention.
4. Some of the limitations of this paper were noted: t ere was a narrow focus
on physical target characteristics without considering inevitable influences of
properties of the perceiver and the environment on w at aspects of the target
stimuli would appear salient to any individual. Ne ertheless, the findings
presented here were valid In their relevance to coniderations of the target
question given that this paper does not present a comprehensive and
exhaustive overview of the subject of targets in parapsychological research.
We have seen that there Is some consistency in the sugges ; ions of popular "psychic
training" literature, spontaneous cases, and parapsychologi ts' theoretical ideas on
the likely characteristics of successful GESP targets. These findings appear to
suggest that our targets should be psychologically salient and physically salient:
1. targets in parapsychological research should be mea ingful, have emotional
impact and human interest - this may make them salie t in the minds of our
. experimental participants; 2. targets should also be physi ally salient by standing
out from their backgrounds - properties such as movem nt, novelty, complexity,
incongruity, brightness and contrast tend to make stimuli physt ally salient.
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-0(096-00789R 03100120001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
REFERENCES
Berlyne, D.E. (1958) The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on
orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 289-296.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960) Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity McGraw-Hill, New York.
Berlyne, D.E. (1970) Attention as a problem in behaviour theory. In DJ. Mostofsky
(Ed.) Attention: Contemporary Theory and Analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New
York.
Boswell, H.A. (1969) Master Guide to Psychism. Lancer, New York.
Braud, W.G. (1975) Psi-conducive states. Journal of Communication, 25, 142-152.
Braud, W.G. (1982) Nonevident psi. Parapsychology Review, 13, 16-18.
Brown, W.P. (1961) Conceptions of perceptual defence. British Journal of
Psychology Monograph, supplement no. 35.
Burns, J. (1981) Your Innate Psychic Powers. Sphere, London.
Byrne, D. (1961) The repression-sensitization scale: rationale, reliability, and validity.
Journal of Personality, 29, 335-349.
Bryne, D. (1963) Relation of the revised Repression-Sensitization Scale to measures
of self-description. Psychological Reports, 13, 323-334.
Byrne, D. (1964) Repression-Sensitization as a dimension of personality. In B.A.
Maher (Ed) Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Volume 1, Academic
Press, New York.
Corcoran, D.W.J. (1965) Personality and the inverted-U relation. British Journal of
Psychology, 56, 267-274.
Crandall, J. Conversation held in Psychology Department, University of Edinburgh,
spring 1988.
Delanoy, D. Conversation held in Psychology Department, University of Edinburgh,
spring 1988.
Delanoy, D. (1988) Characteristics of successful free-response targets: experimental
findings and observations. Paper submitted for presentation at the 1988 Annual
Convention of the Parapsychological Association
Appr ovvd Fur Rulvabw 2000/08/08 . IA-RDP98-00789R003100120001-4
261
CPYRGHT
Denviar,otiesviehiffh9045 a
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Dixon, N. (1981) Preconscious Processing. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Edwards, H. (no date) A Guide for the Development of ediumship. Spiritualist
Association of Great Britain, London.
Jeffrey, W.E. (1968) The orienting reflex and attention in cognitive development.
Psychological Review, 75, 323-334. ?
Langer, E.J., Fiske, S., Taylor, S.E. & Chanowitz, B. (1976) Stigma, staring, and
discomfort: a novel-stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Experim ntal Social Psychology,
12, 451-463.
Le Shan, L (1977) The purpose of psi. Journal of th
Research, 49, 637-643.
McArthur, L.Z. & Post, D.L. (1977) Figural emphasis and per
of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 520-535.
McBain, W.N., Fox, W., Kimura, S., Nakanishi, M., a
Quasi-sensory communication: An investigation using s
accentuated affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho!
McDonnell, P. (1968) Effects of intensity, contrast and novel
and free-choice reaction time. Unpublished doctoral thesi
Cited in Berlyne, D.E. (1970) Attention as a problem in
Mostofsky (Ed.) Attention: Contemporary The
Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J.A. (1974) An Approach to En
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Morris, R.L. (1977) The Airport Project: A survey of the
development advocated by popular books. In J.D. Morris,
(Eds) Research in Parapsychology 1976, Scarecrow Press, M
Nash, C.B. (1980) Characteristics of psi communication.
11, 17-22.
Powell, I. (1979) How to be More Psychic. Sphere, London.
Roll, W.G. & Harary, K. (1976) Target responses during out of-body experiences. In
report by G. Soh/in of 1976 SERPA Conference, Parapsycho gy Review, 7, 1-7.
Roney-Dougal, S.M. (1981) The interface between psi ar d subliminal perception.
Parapsychology Review, 12, 12-18.
5080% ErriedgiRarear itgRV81130cteliti 0 1.46we I lyn ,
Society for Psychical
on perception. Journal
d Tirado, J. (1970)
mantic matching and
gy, 14, 281-291.
y, on selective attention
University of Toronto.
ehavior theory. In D.I.
ry and Analysis.
ironmental Psychology.
techniques for psychic
.G. Roll & R.L. Morris
tuchen, N.J.
arapsychology Review,
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R0
03100120001-4
262
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
Roney-Dougal, S.M. (1986) Subliminal and psi perception: a review of the literature.
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 53, 405-434.
Schmeidler, G. (1972) Respice, Adspice, Prospice. In W.G. Roll, R.L. Morris & J.D.
Morris (Eds) Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association (1971), 8,
Parapsychological Association, Durham, North Carolina.
Schouten, S.A. (1979a) Analysis of spontaneous cases. Research Letter, 9,
Parapsychology Laboratory, University of Utrecht, 55-62.
Schouten, S.A. (1979b) Analysis of spontaneous cases as reported in 'Phantasms of
the Living'. European Journal of Parapsychology, 2, 408-455.
Schouten, S.A. (1982) Analysing spontaneous cases: a replication based on the
Rhine collection. European Journal of Parapsychology, 4, 113-158.
Schouten, S.A. (1986) A different approach for studying psi. In B. Shapin & L Coly
(Eds) Current Trends in Psi Research (1984), Parapsychology Foundation, New York.
Sherman, H. (1960) Know Your Own Mind. Anthony, New York.
Sondow, N., Braud, L. & Barker, P. (1981) Target qualities and affect measures in an
exploratory psi ganzfeld. Proceedings, 24th Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association.
Stotland, E. & Canon, LK. (1972) Social Psychology: A Cognitive Approach. W.B.
Saunders, Philadelphia.
Tam, R. (1987) 1986 Esalen Conference. Parapsychology Review, 18, 6-8.
Tart? C.T. (1982) Physiological correlates of psi reception: some methodological
considerations. In Proceedings, PA & SPR Combined Jubilee and Centenary
Conference.
Tart, C.T. (1987) cited in Targ, R. 1986 Esalen Conference. Parapsychology
Review, 18, 6-8.
Taylor, S.E. & Fiske, S.T. (1978) Salience, attention, and attribution: top of the head
phenomena. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 249-288.
Ullman, M. & Krippner, S. (1973) Dream Telepathy. Penguin, Baltimore.
Williams, LB. & Duke, M. (1979) Qualities of free-response targets and their
relationship to psi performance. Proceedings, 22nd Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
263
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
rlor r-v-vnn-risTTXTIr A'T'Tr1N TM 'T' CAM7U V( I 11
F t_..+ 1V1 Li IN 1.1.?/i 1.1.N 1111:,
EXPERIMENTS WITH AN AUTOMATED TESTING SYSTEM
AND A COMPARISON Willi A META-ANAL\'SIS
OF EAIZLIEIZ STUDIES
BY CHARLES HONORTON, RICK E. BERGER, MARIO P. VARVOGLIS,
MARTA QUANT, PATRICIA DERR, EPHRAIM 1. SCHECHTER, AND
DIANE C. FERRARI
ABSTRACT: A compuiet-controllud Itsillig syslciii was mudIII I I cxpciiiiients JII
ganzfeld psi communication. The automated ganzfeld system controls target selection
and presentation, subjects' blind-judging, and data recording and storage. Video-
taped targets included video segments (dynamic targets) as well as single images
(static targets). Two hundred and forty-one volunteer subjects completed 355 psi
ganzfeld sessions. The subjects, on a blind basis, correctly identified randomly se-
lected and remotely viewed targets to a statistically significant degree, z = 3.89, p =
.00005. Study outcomes were homogeneous across the 11 series and eight different
experimenters. Performance on dynamic targets was highly significant, z = 4.62, p
= .0000019, as was the difference between dynamic and static targets, p = .002.
Suggestively stronger performance occurred with friends than with unacquainted
sender/receiver pairs, p = .0635. The automated ganzfeld study outcomes are com-
pared with a meta-analysis of 28 earlier ganzfeld studies. The two data sets are con-
sistent on four dimensions: overall success rate, impact of dynamic and static targets,
effect of sender/receiver acquaintance, and prior ganzfeld experience. The combined
z for all 39 studies is 7.53, p = 9 x
Research on psi communication in the ganzfeld developed as the
result of earlier research suggesting that psi functioning is fre-
quently associated with internal attention states brought about
This work was supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation of St. Louis,
Niissouri, and by the John E. Fetzer Foundation of Kalamazoo, Michigan.
We wish to thank Marilyn J. Schlitz, Peter Rojcewicz, and Rosemarie Pilkington
for their help in recruiting participants; Daryl J. Bern of Cornell University and
Donald McCarthy of St. Johns University for helpful comments on an earlier draft
of this paper; Edwin C. May of SRI International For performing the audio spectrum
analysis; and Robert Rosenthal of Harvard University for suggestions concerning
data analysis. We also wish to thank several PRE colleagues who contributed in var-
ious ways to the work reported here: Nancy Sondow for assistance in the preparation
relaxation exercise and instruction tape that was used throughout, and George
Hansen and Linda Moore who served frequently as lab senders. Hansen also pro-
vided technical assistance and conducted a data audit resulting in the correction of
several minor errors that appeared in a version of this report presented at the :12nd
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association. Finally, we thank the 241
volunteer participants for providing us with such interesting data.
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
CPYRGHT
Approved ror Release 2000/00/00 ? CIA-RDP3C-00703R003100120001
- b0 ti :!. ;?'.. 71 ,,, u
4;
.1..J u 4e> ? ...4
a)
It' I', -U ,,.
_, - En (-1. V `4' Z ? ?-? .-' Li..I V) I)
bo - (-? a) ?
- 0 - 0. > ct 0 reS '-a' ??? 'd Ev?s' 0 E ,,, ,7.) 7::, E 1-6 b0 5
-a 14.5..
ct v - a .4, 4.) ? ...4 tn En U cl --, I-. 0
0 . u v -O -
= 0 ?, g , .0 c..,L,..
,.. ,...0 o cz4 ss 0 .?; 2-, ',2 1... ,a.) ? o .,-, a. W ll.
M .?". ?-?.'') V) 6 ? -?
C 121 8 s?z 8 . -_ct uu lts.o!EIT...
.- 0.)
p H U U
--
,n
0...
, , ?/) Cn I.)
0.1 N >4 __?-?
'.... f: ? T.1 ??.-* CI) E ,--: P,C:n ? Ca' ? rSt'l' (7) $)) " Cr9 E ,.. >, .- L' L) rt L'2 .-? (u, ,...? -
4_, 4) 1
-'-c
4 . z), ,71, ct ?-? 0 r,' 0; ?..i , ,..4- ."?Z ?.-. ? .. 1-?I C
^c, a.) v = 0 ,,i E .-d 2.., $8. _0e?I .5 ...s 2 v L.. ss
-,..... 5 -47' -. u w cu a ...0 L.) ;_. 0-? 4-4
-_ CID ''' 00 0. bo 7" $-. V 0 0 70 .--. ?... (.., rt (1) 1\-)A -h) ti 'a' ....
---,_
,_ 1-.. 0... ,.. ca- .1 0 r,
CF:,'" -
vr, s.., 0..61, o a7 a o
- a ,,, .z.-, -7... 6. -a' ? 5:.a L, u ....
.
-a !?5, I-? 0 0 .0
C: i'-' U ...a ... c..) .a. Lc . = tj 0 ?.., .-. CCI
C.0 . Fi .4A 4 .
C.) --E -0 .-' tO 0 ''. 0- ??-' ..., ._..., s;:: . c 4.) ..... .., u TJ
cli: coCIC te.
?-?... 4.) ..0 3 0 ...? ii) _EP 0
-z: V V' ti) v ? 0 7.; -5), ?-.
- 4
? ELI
I-. C.,) clj 4.1 :6 CU ????? ,-. . 17; v3
CI 0 CI la0 2 4.11 b0 >" ..., 0 ).. ?il ..0 I.). Z co v
a.)
(..... >
F. -1-0
0
C
-0 ..... 4.) ct 4.) ??,Z 1.? , '-'-? CI 4.) . O.) cZ to 01 = -0 m C ,....,4) u ?=, 4 C E 1 el 'c' I-4 .... ? V3 +.1 8 i...?
v 6- .a.., Le:_,,?2? -,_, ,_, . >,....,? -:% v 0.
?:-. .--. 0 - i... tx0 cA) 0 ,-,--% V 0 i--4 a) '-' r, ,..)
...,. . .... ,.... ,,_.
.,. *,.= c ? ',,a? cf)
, (I) ?-? co,
V CI H 5 tin v Z 0 .. 'Evos.) 0 actrz4c4?..E0E0,4
? -
2.- .. >". (I) ?S' $t-... 8 4) 1.1 74 -0 ?-?( . o ct -? E .z., oz?us-P--z..0aitt,0?-? a)
r,
'-') ?' ._ u , 7:scu a. ct ii.)- sa :1 ?-? i...
Tu.) $.4+0-0 -cu.4(nua) a.=
:.., 0 4) ?-,
o. "?-i) 0
?- i-. cri tol 0 -. h) ..,1 C CO ...c vl = V av u I" ? .." Z $)) a a) 0- 8 .-?
o 0.. 4.) C.O ce,,,
Es 1 ,..-,
,r, , ,..... V) (TS CZ $1 g .,..;,,h0 0. z ?- . t, 0..) tn
0 ? LI) >,m$..,c1
C.:: . 512 a. E 74 -0 8 '8 .5 '-'-'m s' ""lz
q.) ,_, cu .4 ? a) va -9:(' 5 E %I, Tab `n ..5 s- ,,, bA E ,,, v 3 -0 ?
al -0 :.19,vv11.100
. _
t 8 2 2 .,9 ??,..
c... ...0- < 0 z ,..? t.c s- ,i ?,...> u ?-r,.. cz try; :?-, ms- __-:,.... 1-z?, r......e4 cii
.._
U N ,- -0 -,:$ ,..? ;,--? ... v 7..? a
..2 c a.) z' '.C..1 ? ?-? bo ci-) (?3 az CL...=.- if.; 0 arc
.2..), 2 E. glo -v sa 0.'7; tu c0 - -.0 ?.. v v,(1) ?-? -8 g -C..., = a- C Ct..? c'l 4)1- 7; ral -0 = ,-, a) u cram ,CLcu
:7--, 00
-7-7, (?.. -0 1,2, 7., ?_c c _, L7 .12 cd 0 Ll..) uu E uc ..5) ?- ,,, 7.."..ct ?,11 ...i7-1 Es,= 42 cl 0..) r " 42b 1:)? i
0
m 3 0..;.4 0 z (1...)) > v .- _
a 7s3 E ,...; _,..., c To v ..0 lu _ha -C?41 0 E4
u cu u
0 0 La.? ,.., 0, ho v) ".0 2 Q.) 2 8 r, 5 0 ?-? m bro-_ 4., 0 ?--,.. (-, .41 ?-. /-. tif cU '-' U cl CU
I
cn 0 .6.
a' c'-.4 2 47.n._ ' as La o 0 co ,-.. y -Es ?;,' ? 7,4 ul
._ .._
Cl) ;... -0 6. U Ci) '''' 7"-' "40 0 0
,? C I. Du ?
c.
. 44 CL 17,? '-d bo 'J> C Tizt i cl) 0 -70 1-1 '3.) $;.: Z
m -6, cr
-8 Ti 73 x CEL8 42 T.1 .`,; 75 al az .5 0 u 3 .= E 1Y, .'t E-, ct LL," E ,,, 7... o
..., . ? ' ' :-? v .,,n >., ? - ...)
:5 -:, ?:6 ?,(A' (.1) el) 2..? U :1.) 5 0 ?- k..-) -1,..0 -0 1.? ce)- e 0? ciS 8):) li; .a.' O >.) 7.74' C
I.
...0 .r.
C t '-',.._ "'...? ? 1. C ..0 ".'.:? C. ? :"' ? .' oli 1, .... cv a) a) oo 0 co 0 (..) 74 ? - (74 ...0 CO I-i .:e..
4 -? I. ...... = ;... 1::: .. ...0
oBcr)
>???..s-, 0 a 0, ,.?7?1 .--r. sa L.-. a) ,,, - ss - - s., ._,,d _ ,... 0., ? - ;?,,, ?, _.? ss
= - 0. L. - 0... ?,-,; -
.... ..g. : J.... 6 ?ci? 4.0) (It ...L.) 71 V: C8 ?.I.C; =c; 7 0 Ei
i 4)i. . CrUZ 1 d. :73) 71?. COLC) 0 ..., CI. 11J ''' V, C ? 2: r
,../ E ss ,.... - ? - _... 01
O 1/
(... o - 0 .- m 0 - ""t; ????? u u v N ... if. 7.3
on id" ;?????' (ir; u ?...
,....-..?? ,??47.; z., - ? ,-, ?_o? ..:
-._ > ...s..
0 to --- .
3 d )1-' -0 tj ,n ...7-.' (,) ?1Z cl - ti) ,.;_, r, 0., .., LE, ct - u 0 -ts ?
?- 17.? = v ?t: -'
...) v .0 -0 ......: ._, .4 - .,-..1 a-) u V. "' "--. v $-. v ,,,
tsc
-7. u ;-, 0 ,,,, --. ,..c r4 c 0. a '-, 0 '1-) >, (...6 0) _. r, cu.. _ L. cts =?
0. ?." ;z:
'7.' 'A -:.? ., c-E, . r . 4 0 CC
CI li ....NC. vatf,C9
? 1??? ,#) I.. INN. ????
= ? .? 0.) ..... .., A. M -a -a E 9.) . a 4.) > CI ..-, mkt a, >1. cS a.
?',7 x -0 x v - v >. w -, 0 v LT:
-e- t-??? . - v > - .0, ,....)., _ 0 v s.., - - v -0 u v . u . CZ 12) ?-? --? ---1, 1-. - u )-? ti 66 5 2 0 tc-=
-C -r..., .7,) > ? .... ,,,1 A co ,?:, :I O. 0 - :e., ?..,N 0 ,,,
r, .1.... _ 0 (..... vr.. ,t.., ??., ss 0, ,.., E .6- .r., .." (I.' - LC 2 0- ;Z: 0 71 a..) CO ? -' 0 ,., ?..-. :-.? -
?-...
o
74 ,...... 0 0,, ."'',...,... 09 . ,....1 ? El :Set ... = Lc-cc Cr) ^ U '''
C .?-? V ?-,g, "5.. r_
c 0 = ?-? _, L. ...... 7) .T V :: LL)
Z '74 ' ) a) 7.' 8 -c, 'e-.; :- - ?, 4..) 1_, cl.) '-'^'
:?:.' ? -, ,_,
--Fz -0. t?-?0 ::::: " %.": vz . --' > 0. El . = ?
? .... _c ?,
... ....., aj ,_ ....., el .
....od . c nct ZS = ? -I a
?.... ' 1 -L., .0 bi) 4J ? - cl MI 0 ,r.. LI
>-- ?.:. C ?")
= ?,) 0 = ?-.
1_ '''' 77:t i.. E ?...,
,..
-_,_ - .,, ? 6-.0 ..A' v 21) ?-? r: 0 u -0 '7; v _;? r.... -F, _
.-?,_
...J .... CU i..? .64 .. CI) r4 E Z -= 0 C O.0
:?., = 4.) 0 r';', L.-. 0) 7; cka , ?.,,..H.-;?_00zx
0
., 10) 0 ? - . Z CI a) v -uE,.o.nE
?.., E .....- C E a.?1 -. :0 . - . C C.0 (ID ?E --
-'0vovaaz-F,Eq,..,,,c?a. 41.)",7>m= 4
. 0x)oozo?-?''',..E0cr)Z ,c0 03 7
c7,--2-? UtU- . 6.M0 .... ???-? . - ?-? - ru ,..? ,..,,? a4 -? I.-, ,... .." .?-? ,??13 tto
.. 0.) .. 4..) r 4 0 X C) CS/ (.1
7,4 u0 79 ,z,0 .7; .....7 40 -F., 'LE 0 0 c 3 0 .-i -I:, 0 u .r?-? ? v
,- _,
- - ,,, .,- - ?-- 8 u co , ? - ,..., - a.ci) .-... -a ,..= CO
?... 0 ? -,-,..
R..0" 1 -2 . z.." , z , , ,. . ) . c.; ,. 8 cz -0 ..:., ?-t- s-Z. 3, ,_ CU 01 - Ill y,,, " -a > '-' cr) cki ct .= u
co US "" U "^" CI:? 0 .-- ? - . ? V ) ,,, '74 = . 71 ,..9., 1.0 lc; .E
1..., .7 5., vs - 0 _ 0., 0 0 ,, ..- ? - s, _o 0 0 - 0 01 a 0-) :at (1) 1) -C) s-'
?. rs: --,
c -) -0 ?,z, L? ..0 C
.--,
- . r ? - ._ . - " ., # ) i ...$-. ( u , m` - ' 4 j( $ "( . '4., V 1Z
.....,.. la:43 ;) a 43) 45 *.I':t "." o E -5, -8 -,74 L. c 1-- -- .4 C cu 'a 7i.=
v. ,... ?,.
cr) -..., ,,, ',:?'3 . - , t-. E 7 ..
bo
.:z?-?
0 c
;.--.2 -0 ?:--- o bo -c .-7-.- ''-' -7 u . Z -E, ?,,,,.- 4.;.- Eo ,.,1 mar;a. cnt (r)...
cu-0- >., ... u 4.) 0 .9. 0., I,: -, ,.0 a > _ :_, > _ 1_, ,_, ,.. ... o? ....: 0 CC I. ..., En u.' ....-. .. 0..-- 4.1
't a v 03 ;,-1,0 a -',.; ,?-? - 0 ?u0- ''',.., a. ...- ,--
'.x
._(...)-??-00--00--a.) - .,-, u u -- s- c.,- g ,_, - 71 1-. ,n ? - 01 o 0 es v ?t? 0.
- ,.., c _ bo _ 12 , :-.. (n s.., ?,_, (,.0 ? ?-? r, (..) v u
Cb
%---?cil `5 T., Le- v a, ?'..-_,.. Q., .-.. ss .0. z .0 ?,..., .- 1" t's ?.* S.' ? 6') I'b.om
.,, ?-. ? - >
v ??=. u 0 -71 z,. U . __-- .15 -2 L '8' t15& C t0. t :-A 'A cuci .,.-,F^c--,t- ;6.. `-'?-? 6- ,_,(7' 0,?? g ..V sf c, _0 ; 00,0 ,,..,, ?(,-; '-',z,.). ,..oli I?. a.,
_ .- ,... -0 U . ^
N ...0
co66 -..q . --,, E .,..,1-.>" 4 U
.,
cv sz,
-a .-,,...,0 bc .... bi -? - E ..''' , ...1..-; u o -a-, ? - t,', ..o. _.4. . '--. - ? '1 -9, cr4 - It m E ''' e - ' s''' to a
- -? ,,, o .,:.-. - ., - vi C ?-? ? - 0 ?-.... -0 cri s_. (?,) ?,,, 5 -.(i'L-...E. - ' ',71c1(.15 ?7Yo
-' - ,,, a - ?- ..t.' - 2 0 CU ? ''' L.T... '-' NI cci o 0 0 ?.7'
....i.) .?
- a
- -E. itt-piiefilied lgoi Release 26001033g1:VjAz, '041CF7-?41 0?11VVP.fluol -4'g = >
,, ,
CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : rIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
c?,-> g., 8 V .''' b0 >, C61 *fl 1-. ?...
(...? 0 0 ,26 )i< IL 71 .3 0) L ft, ... .-cs . . v 0 Llml C .44 ... 5 .. = z 0) 0) _*00
00*
C 5 v?.* t
v v 0 Z.J' . -3 cz) o
P
OS 0.. 0 pi V) ?J E E M 04 I.
iT
CZ 14.1 .1:) (....i ..y, as .r... cl - s. os u ?ul -= ...
ns ?-? 0 ..z. ?-? ..... .-. .-. 0
.0 1...
0 .... 0 "C1
ct v v . v -0 7..1 0 ? '-'
= iil 1-?
rn
*-. > ? ?-?
.5 ? - .T '4 j 1 r4C Cr 1. - . g t ' Y, ? : 1...),'Z c,"cl p? a) -cm a'-- 1:jc 2 a; t52.E:.
0 cr ,..) .r.'
-1 ';', ./) .,) ci) V C Cd qj .0 ? z.,* 001
... u v ' -.. cri 0 >, .c 7-4 -cs u c '.".", - 1:$ -0 0 .,?4 a) a)
&.
L., ? - u
0 -5
u ,..,.. c ? c 74 a., -c ..c c;') =
bo d? c c ,t'-'
9.;
Ts
Cl sVz .0f; -E. '''-' CV 04.1 g" L'm ....w 71'1 -ou 4tE 0E'
0 V5 C 0. 0 X 01. U 1
0
17 ...
.. ? ???? ? .''' .-. 1-1..
03 u E L.. ?-? 0 -,-,3 al Ct3 OO' v h
. 4) 01 coq V 13 : yn
.5r4E-0
? ?-? Y. ''" V U . '.2 v b0 V, 0
i... ?... ...? ...0 ?-J
4 09 E.1 E E-`-= tiri. E
1?,..-
V1..
c
-0 L..
7 V
571
o
c ,-
. - a 6 bi) c ,u...,uuE
o ?, ,_,4) z r.,. .,..m. 1-.), g o
o- t 8 a. g
..2 cz>... iz.? ,_ ,_.
Y. P > LT ? 7,, = b.0 Z
V 2
- ,,,, .a - N fJ g ?E .2 t.-5 ci. u -:4: ?-?: !.,'.&'e gi 'a Tz ,
. -....
6..--. u :5 ,,, 'V ? a 0 '-' a.) u ?... v v bp
0 .-,
0 -c .... ? -. al. ...,dr.:04.)5..c
0 ,,, ,,,, . L. v - c 11 V bp C '' qii ? -. .0 cn I-. Ye) ..4
.0 :1'? 0.. ' V ....1 -C
' , . .7- 1. ' C I - ' Ei ? c.* ? ? - . > C V I . , . . , . . . . . *- --3
a) v
r.V
u
?.2 2 . ....0 Lo i ....,...> bot .4 03C L''''. "A' ? "" 0 ''0 C ' =
L...-.
4.7
0
ivi C CI .0 L.-. oppo 03 : >..L . 3
2 2 .....,Lc it 6 '' -
0. 0 ? - a, i-, 4.)?...c,-? .0 2 2 15 -0
c ,... cu vl u bo-o tu 0
:r., ?;-, iu :::?, .9.- _.-
ci" ,11 .(42, -QP, - 0 2.),}4) a .I4' 0 0 ..E ;4" t
o " C c 5 '''' F.-. -c u
,... u .-. . - -..s. 5 a.) u, c : 41.14., .....6:1" .11 cue9
?>o 0 ..., NI
0. L... 0 0 4 j C 0.,
E .c . C.. ..., - 0. ? ti-. 17).
-?omo
`'aictil?'?58 u L. - u c . to ,;? .... C .? .40 u a o L.' ?2
-.?
V u 06 I . . .. ? " ? 0 1 ' ' " I - . ' 74 1 7 . _ , Ls, . 0 1:1 jo: E
?? o .....1 1,1 8 o t, ?- to.i; F3, 0.
-t...., 1:3 - .1 ran - . -. .... 0 ?" cu >'?? ID ... m
C ..... cv, .t? >, 8 0.. d
> ?-? ..c in 8 ,, 2 -5.,
u 6 ,IJ
!...), C V 0 71. c ? .. c u
0 ?"' A. . gd . U pc C cn
0 6'.1 - ?C I -St) Tj T4 um .c v -0 os?5!
v c. ,z1 ..0 c ....n, 4, ,,,
..=,' .i c o z v ?-
es v s: - 0 0... -
40 .r... .5.J. 0 t.;_T,1 E . r. rt bo u 2 ? U cn
? -. ' L.! '' .0 = wi 0 4., 0., v 00 ..0 a. 0 . w
..+
0.0 ?--.
M
1 0 b -5 c .%?
..c2 t. os .- 4) ,-, co
. 0 I. ....; 0 t 4 ? .". ...-, ''''' ..;. a 1 ,-.:. .., 4.) ce's u ?.- u . b0 (.3 yj
''Es' a .4.), 0.1 -10 qj 0. 11 $-* -.? '''' V. E . 0 ..F., 1" 0 -. -10 2 :-T 46'0.i.-=., 0 E ,.??.??, .c -0 ' ,
u - 0 0 ,
.g i g 1 .9 ?.,- ..-,_. A g :-.2 z ?49 .or: - ..z.?C .5 .2 ..ct6j . :PL. "! ---r! lil 11 1 ? cel 1.* .--1 13 1
_.-. 0; 0 u C ttO Z ? 73 txod L.' -4 r... ?-g 0 E -0 4-,
44514 d
C5 Lt. ?.....C/.."?J CI en >a,
V ? ." C ,... " C .. ? s7..: .... V -: = 4.) i... t,, 0..,?,.., ?-? ..; >9- V) 1-? .-,
-0 0 U.CE=E-4vc<
.:- c to 4) - i?-? c ' v = -= 01
11:1 cz ?&) C 2 .`n c'?u 4.1 c Izi ;,>,-- .... c ,- u., c o 0 cl -c z ?
2, 1,:,- L',Fi a.' 2 bC Zo. os 0 c 8 tn cn N -..' 0) ? *-. os - .. -0
..--u?- 0..c.;" tom.:09-1j6:--,??" r til u 6 31
.... ?_ - ?-?
.c 5 7'. -- . ....74 ? -t:"jg ("1: "5 b0 t TJ
0 , 4.) ..... -0 .2 a .0-Lc *Al
''' ?-? 1-' ...4 ?::: ,._, .0 0 ... c,.3 .> L. E .o 0 . c 3 ? - %.-.1 -, ..0 t.1 cn v '-' `-'1.? _,
(1-1
0
L. .' "' p4 ?6`...' v ..5. 1-amt, i.-.'cuurti.) our,'31-. h.nu cc?L'..' u_04., i....c.... a) L.o.),..co_o)---,00 0 u ?-
c., 0 ---., ...0 0. 0 ..., i.... os 0. a co ..0 to 0.. = CL ? > . '-' ii) - e.;.; ? rii C Z.: 7= ..1: 0 CL ..... CL ...4 "0 6. bf)
Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld
Ihe Journal of Parapsychology
to
'''' ' '' i- 6 ic)
V " II .L, ..4 E ...... * 4.) i . . I 4f) , I 6. ...)
Ct b.? ^^ 0 0 CZ Ajo CU 1.. .0 a: = 0.1 I. 0 be ... i.? . ow 4.? 7 ..1 1... Ft. .?' E li. rl v
cz u
.. LI
0.? U ?r- --;., 7. -C .7 ''''
aL.8 -sC
CL > ? - as .....
o__" tooyto ,0 E ,.,. .1.1 e? ?
.0 ..), S lc
- -.4 = to ?, cn i-. - m a...12 - r2 ..? 1:4 Mt. 0
? .. *)
h. C a. 0 Cd C ? ...) 0 ...
? 73" 10..1 'Al .0 ? 7 4z; v ?-.7 gt?I LI:01 . 0
0.0 3... C 4 ?-+ ? ." M
f,
Gy
= . I,
2 ,,,,
c z ..
s. .. V
I., 6J ;.... 0 en ? rj
U ? .., 6., en tu
1? U o
:.
I ulm 747:
t..D.cn v cn tt . v
?..... -.
1-.
p.. _.._. Lo L...
os,....
a-0--
.0 0.
,..-. c 0 ~-...- to 1.... col
ei.) C-. C 12 3 1-4 0 7.0 Vs C u LT,? ?.' C
.....1 0 - u 1.. .c
0 ..... ? ?." co . - -. s...
't?T3 w3 0-..:e.-.11-.... 3 = 7 0 z,,,.9, 0 . - ..-. co tiii, :..r.: ii. *- C ...L. ,--:: 0 ? 0
1... el.)
,F4.. :tli ..z, mmt u ?E 0 co _Ne 0 ',C 5.? 0 al
r-? ....... INek,
TA j.j. ? ..' gii Lf 3 2: Q 1.4 ? .... ,......
,.9
.a. , o c?, ?... U .1'.1 4.,
td :rj E
v ?-? .0 cr, c c
.> :.,..
z e,?
. . ? 5 r: ?- E
ai. -0 c I.. ? ?.?sc.....
KI .0 0 c, ? L..
6 l'".` a too 0 ce; a.,
os ? a3 1-4
...= 0 ,..- .:.4.0e, 2 ..?; cz,
. :?, = mee, -,-,z.- v u
c -,
U
.7..? en co
rs. 0 co -; '' r. a.-5.,.., ctl
C- L. 0 C V ,..b? tt
0 17:1 = 2R IT "e J14
bc 0 a '-.9 4) ..d
.r, .0 II .T. D- v .0*- c E ca. 0 ?
;,:iL.
0 u ?,
v .."4 - -c ?=i E I.. U 1., 0
? c f... L... ' 0 . C . 0...1...... tto . u
"0 ..,../ c .... cd,) v a.) ..0 v u
L.- -
4.1 0 .??-? _c s... -
L.... ?.., 00?-Euail 4,3
..c $.. ,:z F.., ? c - 01J 013 0 go, 1-. V '.... .... " as .0
1J B g ,? 4.J en . bp 0 ,..., ?-?
I. V ^ 0 ???? ?-' X 0- 0 --.
0) in as
0. F.15. _ to
. Z., ? ND t.) tr) cu ig _cS j C?,_, E," ''' (ID '-'?v FL 2 ?Tt:$ ',', g ? ..... .0 . 11:11 $-, t... t
et -? c,.. 7 0 0 ."'
? -, Is eu .74 ..... tn 1... CU
0 13 c ?-? ''' "' cil -0 (... a.) ...0 ?-? .2 ?,..o ,_4'm
4U 13.1
..5 ... > U I..
.." ^ sa. ? :?ti ?.. 0.1 ? ??? en ._ o z? c - --??,-,- ? ?v ..c 6., , I.., .0.J.,
0., ?- '0 tn t_. ,Z. e u o. v Ir.
6.' 4,1 ..???? 'n 0 c.. H. e.,,
,... -/-e.,. -0 ..c
o c :-, 7.1 Tr = m _ cr, co I.7).
v) ......, ? , Ga, u
'.7., ...... u r=,.., 0...Le V .?-? 4= qj .0 -5.. ? Z cZt .-.. - cri "` V --. ''`' ?Irs' ,..11)
V 1-* ; .-. 7, 6. 6. a ez.s 0.0 . (.5 .... . 0 E ..r... ,,, -
?--? ) --?, 0, 0 ? 0
u v - b_ -ts in cts 2 to T.: NI. i. ?1?3 ?C .. v 4.-.? . 'go :V2 2 (.0 a t 1 ) .0 Sr ,g c t-,- o
-; a a v c '..2 r: ,.., ..= 0 a) .m. - I' "3 v ?I.E ;kg :-...1 .??1,-, :al -01 ,x,`"-- "5 ?-.' ?41,1 -:"... '-.CCS
1..... -10
-0 ?-? os .... ..... c.) 0 .0 u ....., 2..)., 1- ,n 0 CL. "-. -
IN V c'4 *- F4 ARKOVO FerER1?11W,129CtOittt/01 alili-FXCE309%)001141341013W91k3001.4
0 :.-_-; 2 --- 0 L. 7 0 -v. 0 co ?-. -c .
L.... u c4 - ,..... 0 p. .... - 4) L. 0.. 0., 8 g E,>-2 *,-,- t-4,-? i czu
..... ........-c 7" .-- 0 t1C 6. c") , - ? q j :-. '-' C X C V CI.= CS
c.-. cn ta. r'' na ---, (.0 0 u
CPYRGHT
kr/
0.4
Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld
of Parapsychology
Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
. 0
*E .A-01..catosisnos s0
o..- ._, 0 ..o ?- o v a 0 .-
0
= E v ,i:s v u -,-, 0`" bo' L--,-?? ?v- .a)-- 6-
6 P v.) bc ???? ..t -
v v ?.- .0 .-. .0 .4 to2
it6 73 ....
Ca .....in 5 0 3J
g
2_ (14 173, 7..1. c g
8 ,
.0
.-0 )... su s -
3:3:
cat
*Eu .-2-
?. E.
';' XV -7,
C.0
0 CO
-,- o .E. ea 2. .!)? 1% ,...., ...i ...1:11 :a.., 72
, , 5 = ct .. ..
0 c CLI) cl 0 - = 4.1
U 1.0
.,-
.- = ,1>mcz,?=t04;m1c1-1:3 ....
1
..
Z
,:.; . 'El ...c 6, ,,, 0. I-' -" ??-? TY 7..) O.) .-
7 4) d...!
?.s
6,
. 1, $..0.1 i ..s fe. ?,n- _.0 6'1 RI
.-. C4 C. u OcncnCt1V
,..t Li. ? .. cz bp .72;
D
?-? 5 8 E
E
:4'..1, E T.
X.
?c ... Iii x :
,. 0
Ls 0. v cei "7 E t .i#2. 2 .0 ra4
...
a) ra
I-. cle?7421.11n32v5
313-- 0 0 r4
+g I 7?
. ..,
.
',
. a.. .
? E 1.2 = 11.; ral lia I VU. '-d--. ,..3
6. -o
0
0 v .,
et -0 ? at C VI
Z 0 . r." v aj
v 3 ci) = ?, ?? 13.1 ,tp, C ? :a- z.?,r,v
r
.5 2
.) 0 .1 0.., *: ov -: or" =731:5 at 608
,1
714, ,..c.ict-
-
tt 0 1-? 0
ISO -.0 g 0..
40 0
t) CI ad .0 c
W" c48g.ogiess.a.i.m>..:21,
???-, t..) Cn 04 r, Eel
?-? = -c
- .- . - ._. ., ....
b a' tn
?,
-o -0 et, a.) 4 1-:, .0
a, ?,..... 0 _a -0 .5,2, - ? - 00 ,.?-,-; .> OV
co cz a.?t
- 0.? .... ?-?' = .? ni V = -3
0 0 .......
- -..:" = I-2.
V ? - . ' Z.:1 ad '-' u -
v . -7." _ "
I)
?-? 1.., -00 c {,s ..t ...9-3
..'-k.n Li `,71
..... 0 _...7".... 11 ?.,.- A 4./
"
- ,..
r?u E V
r.....
? 0 ?
ul s...V v ... ...., 4.) C 1.. 0 I-
C C cl
1,/t;
co
k.* 0.? >, . Vto o -,t,
.... v
.0
I-. s.. tn ?-? in V C ' T
0 = .1./ "0 -7 ? - v v, 2 . . , z7. 1 - ? . 0.,
C v.
a 49 ?.' j5' u - ?- - a- 1.- _7 ra
TYt:IC v ? red ..... Ti
,-) 0 ? - at- (..) 0 >,
73'
. -
> 0_, sp v 0 t.. i.Z.' 11 a E 0 . _s,s 'vs,- -o ?`---' -0
-a Ls - c. 0 .47., ,,, 0
v v ,...
7 ---
0 .0 0 s-
"..4 CU rat
04 4)
c. cz
p,.... c
v x c 71. =
= -a u 0 Tat u ?-. a .- it) ? 7,' -0 u {Is ho _
? - L, 1... ,...., 3 4.) vi C _a ? 7. C i';'.
.,-,,, E ..1.; rt - -, ?- ,,,,s ?8
(...,?; -da ? g ,..."' ..8 w ..,3?1 0 171 c4 w1 7 "1
co ?-?
4.) ??- ...) 0
c .6. .; s- c p -ci ?-, 0 0 .... -0 ,01 - L???
M ri, E u Cl" ? hl r.; ?0" 1... CL . v c a L) v
V
8 c A " IL) tu elli ml .t: 'n IC, 0 ai P.. - t..:c ct P
o
" " " 1.1 le -? E ?E j-.1, E v v u
ca'sf
1. a .. - .22,, ,2.v
v c.J
0. el, v) 0
V 0 v 0
Vc CA V eu -0 g ?.:-.. = 44 cn "' m c E tx 0./ ti
.1- c ?a? V .... .0., 6. el ..-
VC
in 13
73 Lt -C ? 1-? 0 ? ?-* - g rts . _c
CL) v., ... v, ,,, ?- ,n; .= ,..,".? ,. c.) 7, ,
,:t? ::,if ApproyetitcFr Release-006/08t0e :EGWRiDeN-Pa7?9R
a.)
(0 ..0 '' cv a ??`? .= 0 a ft tS`
. v 4) -o a
'-' cn CI 0 I. in
0 '
..... C ...4
....1 4./ rat > s-0 .-. a. 0 - v.) ...0 -
'7,7j C C
,
?-,) 6. V rol
rs
a 0 li.; n
-0 z
..,
. -0
-^ ,..
"70 1....
.
?-
4.) 0 >? 2
,... -o
g 72., -.Si- 1: g
:E ::: :41'.j. -21
^ko) 1.... j.)0 -?,,, -
0
s... ...,
?-) cal = 0
RI ?-?
U c4 :?1;4..:U: 1
V ? F.; 7 111
s...
. ? - t.
' E
0
-
0.0 c c ss
o . ,? .o .s.)
:=..:.. vsi CA ?te. ,V,
8 . 5 t., 0.0 6
_ ?? ; ...o 7, I,.
v 0 c c
lz o -
Sender Preparation
;4 1.?
V
p? 0
m
v -6 .r.. .._ . ?- u
-5 -a v3 v , ,.,..--? , e
-0 ,... 7,3 ;.,.. , -s .g
1 4.) v .7 .... 7 ...4CA ..0 tC M C
09 LE CL. tiD 0
a 3
1-? v 1.) E ti -me") ? T. C
C
Cl.
V: ...
VV
t 1., 0 v
u '?
spe 6 v) ? - -0
0
(1)
v ci,
C
. - - oE - 8 g - mu 1::3c Lei .43j "4 cl
_ bc
E a-. u
o- v 1.. ... 4.) ri)* .:= V 0
I-
0 ....?
= -EL ? a.) ,. -,? ta) z , ...%
,,,, = ?... 6,
...' at ? 4 rti .. C Ri v 0
U bo < 'IA ^? t-, .-* t..)
'0 .0
1... C cti 4 i) 5 >.? 0 )1 co) u
0 .g) i f, ..,..- -z 4., et
. ?-
I 0 .,,, , , > E ta- ..; -6 2 ,
_44,1.... , ......:.,....9...042 1.0,.. 1.1,?
U 'tn.
.0
0, 0 ct .a u V 0 8
0 .... .0
.1) .0 "
v) u C
V<
t), ???-:. 0.,
8 MI V il 5.....
0 .,, -0 ? -. l?-? ? 4 i CI* {?11? ?
.....? .,_, ...
0 V t.... -9, ?7' > ,9 ? -? 0 4)
I-. ? ... b., .--, mi L,....?" 2 cl
11?1?E.'cl--00 ra .17; LE 45
01/110/211109T1 -264 -0 .0.9
1:1?4) Er cat -0 ?-...C4 "C-1 > 1;5 ri ,9 E.
CPYRGHT
Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld
ne Journal of rarapsycnotogy
Approvea i-or Keiease 2UUU/U1S/U13 : (IA-KIJF'Uti-UU itSUKUUJ1UU12UUU1 -4
6. :=L1., :f..' In ? - ?
UI I
1 6.
E
5
= c
E00
z IJ I. al T1 4,-, u
to 0 g?-? >-? ILICV
>
. -
s-
V
? v v,
a = ? ... c.?,
c.
. :CPYRGHT
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100120001-4
0 . c v.; ? ?-? 7. 0 U 04 _gg = .... ..c v
,..., u :-. :?3 RS go
-.4 ?-? 0 ?. ?-
i.. ?.... Z
1-. , , 71 E ? =..0 L'-* Z.
= '-:: t".j, V -0 4? V co 0
v -? v) 7-?., ,T.? .....
i.. .. C.)
v) c :10 ,- 0 au 0 cl.: -? 1.... ? .
x -0 . v v -CI > ? tj Cj ??-? ' ....
0 7.r. ". ..;.? Z.
- - 4.1 ? -? 0 a" . r. -
...-?
> rl :27:1
.4.. 0 .?..... ? -). a 0 .-:
00
- 't
74, .- ,.. 0
?-? 0 - o.!
- -a ..e.
>4 - cu - :.. - c .... -0 0)
????? V V 0) 1... -0 ? ...
7. '17 ...
".
. u ...
... ? ?-? 0. -tt "' I
S.? /". v3 ,-. ? .
>'. r-' I..76 E - = ?
o
V, `
- - --
,..).
v?.4-
. 9, 0 -i .4-.) cd "
Z I 2'
z.. 1.;,' 3 r- . > - ?- o
LI a.) . - ? ... ,...... " 4.! 2. =
Y..
0.: ,,,i? , V
?E .? ,
c.
,., _ -
r. . s;
C1.1 ....: ., :%
,,??? ...j = ttC in ...d k 7, = C o' ...:L. V)
).. . - g r. = ;... . ???4 C: .... .X ?-?
= 1.1 r: toS 3: et. t
Psi Communication in the Ganzfeld
The journal of Parapsychology
Mentation/Sending Procedures
.:. . A 1.) 0. r, J. . . !,,,, . .. .,., . ..,.: - , ,.. r?.. ??
4.1 .... ....) .... .... C.." c E- 0 ?'-", .55 !rd' :'.1. r) ::: -.... '"
.) .- - u 0 u o o .- ?-.
-0 u
._ ?, c .4.? ..., . ..
. ? . > .;?/) = ..X =I
....?
- cu - ? i; . a - ...? - ?,-.; WI VI
..c c
am ...., -r, ._. ...: o r, u ,o
a - nom .m.
????,
? V C V) ''' ,7'4 =, t,. ? :?: . . :: r.r. . . . . ? i.?.'
?' .42 .1' ::.
v
, a..., > v .
r v to; ::.;
t .'z. ,:::
B.A)t
..'
MS .4 .140 ? 4. ...
14 144) VA. .:.' 'AI . Ma (U ....?
. V) C ?441 ..?
(4 , 2?41 .":: 4. ..... Z. 444.. ? . 3 ti
v ;-4 ?.... :- _ - 0 ri, .?1::: - c c
?,..: _ ? - ,. ? ,,
Judging Procedure
7.;-
44 ? " '" u'
Eci " -*Eml",tri
r) ?-,4 -- c 2 >,' ? - c a
1... ?-? u vs .- . -c 0 rt
Lc ms t?is ..:: rts ij" CL., u
CL 7 1:1 T.;
C4 11?'-' 3 E c VI V ? ,... t.0 ....
i.. .1-). =. u
r; 0 I- v - bi:"
- c
v ." e? a." `12
-9
?. E
'E > -5 -c '''' 0 I, 0 ... u
v 1-. ...W3 U CJ 0.3 ... ?-..
Sc; w j1., WI .2,
: 0 "0 .....4) .7*/ bp '?j .4
1:: c ..... a.. c v - ? .- so
C.Y) i L.) CZ w 8 1 gt$ "E I ,....-.... 19
c4Y ti) to, CL)
4-? ,,,) i.? ..,./ "1:$ ..-. ld .0 ,, '''' , 0
t1_4,9; 3 :
:
a.
1- -.L. bo od - ? 4-' E cts 5;
Ct. ref ." >
9 ..c $.. ?? w -0 0- I. -? ?-? ;... 4., , - 0 4.) E c c v ."" "ts '4) _ro
u c >
4., 0 cr, a.) cts 0 lc
?.?-7.1.7 -.5 1- tc, cr..t. "' "" ...3? 12
tai LI 13
E
5 ....1...00-00,_,
,...?vEtz.m.o.c00=c1
E E .5 .rt
. Ft.' 2 .......; pi
u rs
v1,1 4. ????, ?..., ? ? ma
'.....' 3 z e..-? ' 5 Z,' Ji .; 3 ;.., ,..; .,
t,
- - ? 7. * - ' 7 . t: 6 .4 t - . . , ,c:a 0=4 .) ts= =: .":.: a ?i .0 czb 44 J
- M v ?-?:: a-- -, "1." ": ''' - - E
5 0 o -o - 5 E
i.- -o 0 Cz --z ?.-. >?? i-) ta o.i - v 11.1
:.-. = w?? . ,4,1 .5 0? 1.. 0 he - c -C .7.
= ,... ? - o - >....= 0 ,r. c o .i.,
47). 4.) .- ?-c 0 - c 0.) ,..
? ,=? r-s. eil 4; 3 .c-' 4 L. ?.. "5
0
re
- >... , 1... > =, = S. to d ..0, bs) - IE?
? ,I 0 . , .
11.) ...: (1.) > ?-?
17; ? ...7: :.)
.7. c.) 7:1 ?,.?='? m
0 E4 2-... v ;7
:,: ?z= -0 E-,
P ?-
- ? ? - - ., r,
..
- r.' .
i...-. Na
a... Ly, - slo p .f. r .,. . . . c. 2 1 . . >. ;
vlLo
V.
v, .... P. 7.) . ...
.... .... . .... ... >i F. C - 73 :. rn
:-, 0.. 3, 2;..J, .7 .0:
V 6. ? -. I.. 7 4.) p?, ,,; .1 :::: v, :tso ,?4 nt 16. Z :el -5 7: 0 -5, ..... .).:
C ? L. . =1) O., !.... u 1.'' " u ,,, :"4 .1 ....E. to 2 ...9. .61?1 0 ..V. c 5 :.
4 . 440 Vi ? ? 4.:: . C CU
. .01 . .44 1":3 ..e: _9, - .1 7. v .... E 0., r _ v . to - ?,-,?,?
1_, - c -- .,? .... - rs ra., rA = -0 ,-= X v ''' 11
-
= .fr, v 0 r" I- 1.u.. ?:: ,..>
-7-? E r.
1. ....P [-. LT-1 4?? 744 rf: 0 cu [-, -5 :.-'. - -
V -Fs' -= ...) z a.: ;.: = E LI - ---. ' ..0 1.... s. 0
E
-c
15 , Cr ) r 73
..w,
:
.4
L. ...,7.72. ?r2;..z. .E. . 00 3.;:., F... 4; ; 4 -E. , 3 , 2 em ..1 . E -=
?...c ..: _ . . ,i ?........ ..c
I-. ..., ....
, ??-? ?. ".. cu- r-P-old 1.-c-bc>'?'7?1`nce
..-...
.4.1 ..., 1: C% 1,7: V ? ......
E :to z = ?:-- .?,. > v ,. -, c to r, r...
a.) -4 Lo. 2 . , 0 X = . 7 I) 7 :- .-. - 4,) .0 6. L. C to -:
.-. '''' Th ; e. rz Lt-:
V C, V -0 r... .7.
Z. ? t....0 V Tu ,..-", ,r, . 1.1! v 7.4?:,
L. M ...' 0. V! ... . ..: . ? ...' 0.0 0.. V)
i.. ... ". :.? . , Q :.' ZA .A4 Lio' g .; VI .... V ?.. ? '? ,,.. ...
???? CU A . .. ..r.
0 4.)" ...7.,?.... 7, = 7.1 Cn ....' :...; ;.1 rj :?..4 E., a:>:,-, c -0 . u ix ,c ,o ;,- - g E., = ."?
6.1 .. 0 70 ..0 ? ^ < ...
0.1 0 ???? ,..J .10 .... , r. .5 ....
6-
4, i.:: i;j: uet c .- u." ..: o b..c . c? -0 ????-.. _ .. v ,,,, LI ..o 1.,,, --_, ...,, -_-.,
....? 4,,, . CZ . ::,) ..? ,,,.. = nt TO .. 1440 r: VP
? Tt. ? 4147: C4 C ,:: 4:: t) : '1i.j fa' ;.:1,"fj t ; . 749 "W C) W '.9 U *.' :55 . 5. ...
:41 L14 . '..) 7: .0% ... C ? r
:,. :6) 1..: s4 ????/ ::: VS ,??) ... '..
. 0 C ..0 .40 = C Irl ? . At
,,,...
_ - ,.. - , v 6 - T., ,,- -to ..... -0., ..c -0 :t _?1,- c.? v E 0 u'' m. x L-? 0
ct ? - - u 44 - .c a) -
, ???J c o ' ??-
Ct. .1 = = ,.." cz ? -
4.) 0 ^0 -0 ? - -74 6, -i c...) ,.., ,???? a a v ,..?c ?. ; ? C ho .!,-.) c.... ( L ..; "." cl.)
E 0-, >-?? v ti - ,,,) _c bo - .0..., a. rs o - V ,.., v
:: a. , - .1 ) u ,i, , 4 : : C.) ?4 ?,.. CC ? ,_-? b0 hi) .- - ?
i.. t .. ? 9., t " , , a tj
F w ??? . ur.. . E ...3 7.. fzi" a ..,C ..c ,..,= = := = 60 V v I r . 0 1-2 - p
11 .j? Y) -6:-. il-, - . ? 7-4
a.. ; .:-.. .
= ;' loptoVekl o
u _ leO1 r 20110,u108,A) pliS-F14P9`6t1CrTB9R /CYO 2t0'01-4
CPYRGHT
- Approved For Release 290/08/08 : CI,A7Rp?96-0018913003JQ.01,20001-4 74 b,
.
o.) ,.... ..: ..; pu V ._, _ -? col I. il Vi x a.) cc 4) CI.-0- .t,' .2-2
???c I* , ??? c 4.1 .-. GNI t j el? I- '''
--. iii ICI C CZ V ori V 70 ? ''' C) 0 0 NO ?jj:,
>t) *:: 2 ra > tn -0 ^01 . ?,.. I.? c 3 ? u 0 7". w
INI- Z 4.) . I:: a. `,--2. -0 3?-t .r.:-
.,..
,
t?J . 6,, v ...,t) el .., .'-'' 0
?E c ?rj
tO ,i7., . Lij?
70 ? r": ..r..?. CI' ???- 0 ? .00 ??? 4)
0 0 t.J. "0 .. ." Tti .> ;21; ''S. . 0 LA. 75i.. cli , c E ,-? b-,- an "4: L.. _2 T, '''
(1 4: :., v ? v CI. .7i c4
3 x t.t.. ,....? E ,g? )7";' 21 bo-0 T.: v .? - 6
c E .
.:::1.) -0 s- c :: .... .., C t) gel - I'd - ?
>-
.....,
i... 0 ..?
cu - ???c 0,1 u
.?-? 0 3 -0
, .
_
CPYRGHT
. N:spreved Forqe.legse g020710?/98 : CIA-RqP96-00789R 01.100120001-4
m
mc,4 _ ,L, ii 0 , zo ,...0 = = to 0 c.c ?
_ (-, . - .-0 -0 -- ?
0.---a?-? = a
?...
-
'11) *c..),/) ?, cau ? - a.) ozt ,,, ?, "ci -zs ',7,,, 2"m 75, -j" 5 - . cV) 5, fa, ,-0 .2 21 c.,,3
4) ... ' ?-' a. tr' ?
V 1.) 4) !,?,) C -0 = ,, 7r) >, En ill 1.......... .....w..
g u -,49
o
t3
V ? "' ? 'V ,L., C-, -0 In ..'
t; re: 'J = -0 ?-?1 ? ?-? (X) 0 'V 4 0 --. , 51.). .
suo
..; 0 . ???? 0 = '....... CZ 73 0 ".
. ? t < '''.. E OLJC/J66.0 ' r: 01:Cj *a?
1, . . -- 0 ..--,0- ? .; -F., e 5
g
30.1"
r.ii 1- y r-- 4., 6. m c.... :7. 0 17:/"--ct? VcnCetP
?A J.J.E-OES*- t'..-1117)11.)?; v)
? ...
Z.': ke: - 5 ,..
.,__. :-..O.c-)7 biD 2,-', :.,2 . 5, g ,?.,
u 4, E- ...., 4 ?
C 4.. = ':. \ ! , . . ? . C = i tl ?.... )? V VI
1,;,,. e bc ,i; -6 2 -0 13-. . :?-. ?_. -
-4)
-
7: 11.5 ;JY
..., cz
1- u
t.- = .? 5 :,,4= 1--. I" tic o '-' ctl -0 to v r.. c4 as ii u - ,,,? I- m oTh t
?C
.a%ic.
.-_;.0----:,?' -:.5o0_ " " ...-7..? a :oa., 5,c-t ,:'
'.7ac0Ld,1 ,,- 0.' ..0CCL ..y4ti0, r-
- ot, . 0ho E 0 -
. - : 5
5 .0 to..-:- ?-'
>.. :-i ?" iu >???? 1.: g v lei
..,--
.... =1.G774' ct ti vi b/ E 3 ? ... cce, 0 0 -. i..-0 ci v
.-
?... -0 ,_,?,? - ,... u - v
:19.17-elz,2 -877_ ,...11 - ? :I k.
,,, _ ?_
.... C C./ ?rs .b - W 4.) 7,7, -6
cts..co.-.--c v 1-- r) '-. t EliT,-,tii.
%."t-12,-.1)-E=
4 1 Si - V" : " .j. =.
0,-.7.,:.-? u
, u cu 0 u - :.., v ..0 v 0 -
:r- 00. -.,,m, 0-'= '- 3
LI ?,- 0.1.- ti ..:4 C
v j _,.....' - ' , . ._,cji* , 4j: t ; 7).: : :4u: (-7'.- a: -c vc
:-:- v
x L-- In v ...c -,--:
i-,?-0,30..1.- -
0
1.11f.m.:=:f.ap,00,1,0-,r?,- --z
il:t.'
,... ..._ ?-, 0 7.-_,. u - Z 7, :" 1) ": . 1
.....,m?..._ ,w,A..
r.., ,..4 ,.,..,0 0 ,..,2 -.A. a -- E .----- -0 c-., 0 -0 , 2:,? ? v
::2,,,:::;
1 .-?. .8. ; .-hc-g -
. OJ IJ ,11 tio
' 7 u) ns v 7, -- 4.) 4,) 1.1
cbC TICS oZ ...? -3> t:4 6 74
- >... y , .... ? {/2 ...
L% .,....colv=
.....:
. >. C 0 z 0 ? r., ;??? - 7:$ _, > 2
- ..., .m. Lc!---1.=-.14;bo'5=
o.0.0?..6,9-..E. . --
_.
- z?3 :: rut., o
: . - . ,. . - ,,, c 44,' ',. 8..e. ,,c4 0.??.0 4., ,,'-.. 1-1..0u-5-=
0.1.C!,),(8?..0.)Q`4,C?Vojc.)9 5. , 1,..0=1 r..",j-J, CL.-,!:-,772:L)=-CC
,..,
"'s ? va'r-1:5*.E1 .v. C).Z.-=--6-1) 0 CL -- . :?????
0..? vs --.
-1;1"Z E-'''. ea ? ea
*E
' CU
cl.,?:4,?-m? _
5
? .
....1, ,I.:
j4i7j11.1'
? .. 'N.7.1 CZ V.. W !LT ..:: = ...
r: .3 c ..a. ct,,),a ttc., .) - m Lc" v .1 ..,:-' 3 - v ,,, -8
-= ss >cc., -, , ...; . ,.. ,s cc
_0
_0 z 0 L) ? INN OM 400440?,
=4)
? 41M4, .141) Z C Z ti U
m 0 0 8 a 'II' 4.; PM, =
i?? ,
... en
V
4 IMM4, t'-o?--, E .=
.,??? - . - -a cn 0.. = ? -. .1--: ,..... .0 .1-1 :;,:-. vl .'-'
. - ... s.. -a
t..... V 4) V V ?-? .0
C.- '
- --,
.. . M V 0= , V
:A !A
^ ..., r-.
-5, -a,
V
, v :n
6 =
V
.?? ? S C " ?74 VE0
VC ,...,.'
..- >
:- E...?C V; > v V) N
es t,.) ...o L-.
2 :;;; .0 0 s, .7,.
- _ ?_., ..... c ,,, ..z. ni 0... >, V
.?
-0 ?
_ v 0
cn :3 N
I- c . Z.1
, ,... ....1 et) 5 ta ,_ c
,.. .N...... -ic,..,
..... ? . i..." XI = .. . I= . . - V
-1 E ad 1
-, b.()
V C.
vmo
E. ea ea .) _c ..c 7_,
-c .: -x v .1" =. 'cra' T. - m ?E u - .6., 0 = u
,... -, u = E .-.-., ..- ?TA ,,, - , ?T) ,
- .r. v c cts
v
,... U 4.) ? - C 4)
0 -C ;-. 0 r%I. 0 .0.1 , ..0 C.) u???
U V
>.
MVV cn 0 = U i0..
c. r.W F. W ,... 7-.. ? tt C3 V = ,.. ? ..:
u. J V C
X etj Lbw ',''' 4.) ? r, (1; V = 5
,
,
.0 ....-? o >
:...
?,..
> " 17: E ..: ??,. n E-.. -c, a, 4, rTs_ cu 2 -5
v
. 0 ?-?
4J :
.."";
. 1.1 0 X b 8 Ct C " L) ? ?-? en r'
? 1..,
...0... = 6.) V ci ?:: lu
.> 6. bowz z ?4.).- z
z - -__ o.)
, i 7 r-. I-. U ?_-; ?4,., I... ....:, . F... v ?-?
V.` .? C L.,
4 .C.5 ? ..
??C CU V ,n - ...
Le) 4.) '.72. T. CI)
-, .0 ...? $-. E. >4 0.) ..., M c ? 0 ...1 0 0 , - -C
od 1-7pm w-c
_ W ?-?-? v _ ..., ? V V ....,
.. U
....: ....
-0 -F. r,
s 4.,
? MS Ss.) San 24
V: mi ? V Cle, 1:; I..
0.1 L.
"UW"AULPH1::r:;V.10v6.V7.UC:1
OJ OJ -C ,1 Li tn oa lj 0 'n nt
t; 2--) 7- E 4) 0...
? -
C -F., 7., ti -z
VI -..:i '''''IV CA col_ . c.r/ ????i ,./
C. 0 ...? 46 1... ,- a - :..) . . r. M .' ' " 2 ? r : k n 0 ? -5
7:. .., .??? i: > 0 V.W.1,74
? ..., 4,1 = tz 7 0 C Cf) 0 ? 17 .... CV tal
0 0 C .."71
- .-- O.) ? '.74 ?. 1.. ? C (U ..-' 4.)
= -741 " cn : - C CI ZeU Fe . 'F., V0 In '4 - ,.. 4., C
la.m ..1 o u .COu:-....:0).'nM>1;;14/..?. C.,
.v)7,3' = m
w
in
u z 2 uo' 2
:/: ... ....6 > ,.. ti; L? =IC Zili X .. C,J 42 V' "C5 "...,.. r.... _ :??? CZ -cil= a 3.73 ..., ..0'17..
c.ccv, v 6 *> (--. 0:1 0 .T. rn -I = < ct9 Z H -01u n'aj u c ? .....?
v
r__....
ucv ...
? -
?.:: -i - ,n 0: NJ i??? :t1-08' -7.....= -2 ?,,, ''' u a
csi
_
-
2.tkgptoNied For RfEl@$e0p0/68Thg:TAIROP98-4010R .03100/$20602.t ' E -E ng
E.--_,-
? v
,?. 1-..: _5 7?7;
t'..'
. u v
-3 .?, m 3 id--.
Fa=
u-u
-0
o-
,,,, II.
=0 0. 0
? r.
7.-
...,
.. H
,.."
b... .... v:
"0 . 0 C
...,....0
4.,
4.., v ....
?-.:-.. ,r, WI ii.. tr. 0.
" ..' . to it . . s .,., " 0 V ,.." = Cl. .+1 0 -a ,-.? m . ''
C _,
Talc9.Ra-'171
.1)
.-.=m--ov....-.7,-
141
.....s,
-,
1;. ,-,
a,
a) , 7,. .? ?z , ? a v 0 o
cu ?E Ta.. it
...,..,
i-
:
-v! N .0
(..,
,., I, .0, . ca
H 8
"10
.-.'".
.
a,.
C/ cl LC
CPYRGHT
A p
Imm
TWME BY EXPE