Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Paper for presentation to the Annual parapsychological Association Convention, Moraga, California August 1979 Precognitive Remote Perception: A critical overview of the experimental program I B. J. Dunne* and J. P. Bisaha Midwest Parapsychological Research Institute Evanston, Illinois Running head: Precognitive Remote Perception After June 15, 1979: School of Engineering/Applied Science, Princeton University. Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 ABSTRACT A three year experimental program in precognitive re- mote perception (PRP) provides the data base for a critical anal- ysis of this mode of ESP. The program consisted of a total of -forty formal trials with nineteen untrained percipients, and pro- duced a total of eighty-two percipient transcripts of randomly selected geographical locations where an agent was situated, spa- tially and temporally remote from the percipeint(s). These eighty- two transcripts were blind rank ordered against photographs of the target locations in seven separate series, by a total of one hun- dred and fifty-seven independent judges. Of the one hundred and fifty-seven transcript rankings, eighty-four (53.5%) were correct- ly ranked as one. Various comparisions were made, using Norris' (1972) and Solfvin, Kelly and Durd-ick's (1978) statistical tech- niques for evaluating free-zesponse data. The implications and problems of the protocol, evaluative methods, and the human factor in PRP experiments are examined from the standpoint of establish- ing the fundamental characteristics of this mode of information transfer, and devising more effective future experiments. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 introduction In the spring of 1976 a successful eight trial experiment in precognitive remote perception (PRP) was conducted by the authors (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977a; Dunne & Bisaha, 1979b), following a proto- col first suggested by Puthoff and Targ (1975). That experiment was the first in an experimental program which, to date, has con- sisted of a total of 40 formal trials in seven experimental series, with a total of 19 different percipients. Since several of the series involved more than one percipient per trial, at this time we have accumulated a data bank of 82 transcripts which have been evaluated by independent judges, and 80 of which have been analyzed in accordance with Solfvin, Kelly and Burdick's (1978) method of analyzing preferential-ranking data. (Table 2.) In addition, over 30 informal trials have been carried out which have provided con- siderable anecdotal evidence and insights for future research, even though they have not contributed any formal data. The purpose of this paper is to review the results of this ex- periffiental program, to discuss some of the problems and implications which have emerged from it, and to make some suggestions for consid- eration in future research in remote perception and other free-re-, sponse experimentation. We have chosen to use the nomenclature of precognitive remote perception at this point, in preference to precognitive remote view- ing, since its generality avoids the categorization of this anoma- lous process as a visual one. It is possible that even the word f1perception" will prove inappropriate once the process is understood better, however, at this stage of our knowledge it is necessary to find a description term which is suitably ambiguous, without extend- ing beyond the prevailing paradigm. In brief, the PRP experimental procedure, or portocol, requires one or more percipients to describe, by free-response verbal or writ- ten narrative or drawing, a remote, unknown target location where an agent will be situated at a future time, with no available channels for communication via known sensory modes between agent and percip- ient, and no means of deducing the target by logical process. The target is not selected, and therefore is unknown to anyone, includ- ing the agent or the experimenter remaining with the percipient, until after the percipient has completed his description. (See Table 1 for a sample protocol.) Experimental Program Protocol #1. (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977a; Dunne & Bisaha, 1979b.) Two inexperienced, volunteer, female percipients were tested individually, P, participating in 6 trials and P 2 in two trials. Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 ~ 1 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 In all eight trials B.D. was the agent, or outbound experimenter# and J.B. remained with the percipient. Percipients were asked to spend 15 minutes describing aloud, into a tape recorder, their im- pressions of where the agent would be between 35 and 50 minutes later, and to draw these impressions, if possible. The target was selected randomly from a group of 10 locations which had been ran- domly selected from a pool of over 100, five minutes after the per- cipient had concluded her narrative. The contents of the target pool were unknown to anyone involved in the experiment, including the two experimenters. (Table 2.) The original judging procedure consisted of having three sepa- rate judges blind rank order the eight transcripts of the percipi- ents' narratives, three with accompanying drawings, against photo- graphs and descriptive notes taken by the agent at the time of the trials, on a scale of 1 to 8 (best to worst match). The results of these ranRings were analyzed by Morris' (1972) method for evaluating preferentially matched free-response material. The sum of the ranks assigned was 12 in two cases (p=10-4) and 3.5 in the third case (p=.0005). (All p-values cited in this paper are. one-tailed..) These transcripts were subsequently re-judged by three sets of eight independent judges, each judge ranking a single transcript against the eight targets, and the results analyzed by the Solfvin, Kelly and Burdick (1978) technique. The resultant sums of ranks were 20 (P=.008), 21 (P=.012), and 23 (p=.027). (Table 3.) Protocol #2 (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977b; Bisaha & Dunne, 1979; Dunne & Bisaha, 1978.) In the fall of 1976, a second series of PRP trials was con- dDeted following the same protocol and using the same target pool, with the exception that the seven volunteer percipients were tested in four different pairs while both percipients in each trial were spatially separated from each other, in three instances by a dis- tance of over ten miles. Seven trials of this sort were performed witb B.D. as the agent, yielding data in the form of one set of seven target photographs and notes, and fourteen transcripts, two of which corresponded to each target. The transcripts were randomly divided into two sets, Group A and Group B, so that each set contained one description for each of the seven targets. Each set of transcripts was judged as if a separate experiment, following the original procedure in Protocol #1. Two judges blind rank ordered the Group A transcripts against the targets with sums of ranks of 15 (p=.Ol) and 13 (p=.005). Two other judges blind rank ordered the Group B transcripts against the targets, with sums of ranks of 15 (p=.Ol) and 14 (p=.005). In addition, a fifth judge had matched both sets with sums of ranks for Group A of 18 (p=.04) and Group B of 19 (p=.10). These transcripts have since been ranked by four sets of seven independent judges each (two sets of judges for each of the two groups of transcripts). The results of these eval- uations, using Solfvin, Kelly and Burdick's (1978) method, were: Group A sums of ranks of 15 (p=.008) an3 18 (p=.036); Group B, sums of ranks of 17 (p=.023) and 12 (p=.001). (Table 4.) Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 This design afforded us the opportunity to compare and note the diversity in individual narrative styles of two percipients describing the game target. In spite of this diversity, two judges who were asked to rank order the Group B transcripts against the Group A transcripts were able to match them with significant results (rank sums of 12 (p=.001) and 14 (p=.005), using Morriz' (1972) table.) Protocol #3 (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977b; Dunne & Bisaha, 1979a; Bisaha & Dunne, 1979.) In August of 1976, a series of five trials was conducted be- tween eastern Europe and Wisconsin, with an approximate spatial dis- tance of 5,000 miles and a temporal differential of approximately 24 hours separating the participants. In all five trials the agent was J.B. and the percipient was B.D. The agent was on an extended trip with an itinerary which was undetermined at the time of his departure, precluding the possibility of compiling a target pool. Since neither agent nor percipient had ever been in that part of the world (Russia and Czechoslovakia) and had little or no familiarity with its topography or geography and had no means of knowing where the agents tour would place him at any given day or time, it was agreed that the target would be wherever the agent happened to find himself between 3:00 and 3:15 P.M. (local European time) and the percipient would attempt to describe this location between 6:30 and 8:45 A.M. on the previous day. Upon the agent's return, his photographs and notes were given, along with the randomized transcripts of the percipient's narratives, to three judges for rank ordering and analysis by Morris' (1972) method. The resultant rank sums were 9 (p=.05), 11 (p<.20), and 15 (p<.20). Re-evaluation with four sets of five independent judges each, and Solfvin, Burdick and Kelly's (1978) technique, yielded rank sums of 9 (p=.041), 11 (p=.139), 6 (p=.002), and 7 (p=.007). (Table 5.) Protocol #4 (Bisaha, Dunne & Blauvelt, 1979) In June of 1977, two carefully controlled trials were carried out under the supervision of CBS-TV, and were aired on national tele- vision in a 15-minute segment of "CBS News Magazine" on January 5, 1978. Two experienced percipients, E.W. and D.F., were selected on the basis of past successful PRP performance, and B.D. acted as a- gent. In Trial #1, the agent was flown to an unknown destination, which turned out to be Columbus, Indiana, and a target site was ran- domly selected from a pool of 10 potential targets, prepared by an employee of CBS, unconnected with this experiment. The agent visited the site four hours after the percipient had described the target. In Trial' #2, the target was Rockefeller Chapel in Chicago, also chosen by random process from an unknown target pool, and visited by the agent an hour after the percipient described it. Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : 6A-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Two trials were insufficient for analysis by the usual method, however, two set.,~ of ten independent judges each were asked to rank each description against photographs of the ten sites which had com- prised each target pool. The rank sum for Trial #1 was 27, and the rank sum for Trial #2 was 10 (all ten judges correctly matched the transcript to the correct target). (Table 6.) Protocol #5 - In September of 1978, B.D. bad occasion to travel in the far west under circumstances similar to those of Protocol #3, leaving the last six days of the trip totally unplanned and unknown. We took advantage of this situation to conduct a series of six multiple- percipient, multiple-mode, long distance PRP trials. Seven volun- teers, two of whom the agent had never personally met, from parapsy- chology laboratories in various parts of the country, served as per- cipients. Two followed the precognitive mode of the protocol, four followed a retrocognitive mode (describing the target several hours after the agent's visit), and one attempted to describe the target simultaneously with the agent's visit. Two percipients were located in the Chicago area, the others were in Princeton, N. J.; Brooklyn, N. Y.; Menlo Park, Cal.; Durham, N.C.; and the last spent part of the period in London, England and part in San Antonio, Tex. It was agreed that the target would be wherever the agent happened to find herself at noon (Central Daylight Time) each day for six consecutive days. Each set of transcripts was sent, along with a set of target photog-raphs and notes to a laboratory other than the one which had generated that set (with the exception of one of the Chicago per- cipients, whose transcripts were judged in Chicago). The results of these judgings provided rank sums of 6 (with only five transcripts) (p<.001), 13 (p=.036), 14 (p=.061), 17 (p<~.145), 19 (p<.145), 22 (p<.145), 24 (p<.145). (Table 7.) Protocol #6 This series was conducted in two parts with a person (IM.K.) who had never before participated in a PRP experiment serving as agent, and the authors serving as percipients. Three trials were conducted in the spring of 1978, with B.D. as percipient, between Acapulco, Mexico and Chicago, and three were conducted in the spring of 1979, with J.B. as percipient, between Florida and Chicago. All six trials followed the same precognitive protocol, with the percip- ient attempting to describe the location where the agent would happen to find herself at a future time. Since all the trials had occurred in a similar climate at the same time of year and day, we combined these transcripts and had them judged as a series. Six independent judges assigned a rank sum of 16 (p=.145). (Table 8) Protocol 47 In the spring of 1979, a series of six long distance trials was conducted between Florida and'Cbicago, with M.K. as agent and two inexperienced percipients, J.B. and N.S. Since J.B. was only Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: a[A-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 able to complete three trials, those three were included as part of Protocol #6F 6nd the results of this series was based only on the transcripts generated by N.S. The target selection process was similar to Protocols #3, 5, and 6, with the target being some- thing in the vicinity of where the agent happened to be at a given time on six consecutive days. Five of these trials were conducted precognitiv6ly, and one, due to unavoidable circumstances, book place retrocognitively. in addition, in one trial the.agent for- got to "send" at the prearranged time, creating a control trial, wl-Cere the percipient was describing impressions of a non-existent ta-rget. The sum of ranks of all six trials, evaluated by six in- dependent judges, was 15 (p=.097). Omitting the "control" trial, which we had ranked twice and which was assigned a rank of 6 by both judges, the rank sum was 9 (p=.006). The results of the four precognitive trials alone was 8 (p=.007). (Table 9.) Miscellaneous Trials and Anecdotal Evidence In addition to the 40 trials described above, three formal trials have been carried out un5er the conditions of Protocol #1, but are insufficient for evaluation by the accepted methods. Ar- rangements have been made to conduct three or four additional trials in the near future, at the same time of year when the three exist- ing trials took place, and to combine these for evaluation as a series. Of'the formal trials conducted to date, six have been discarded; two because they failed to produce any percipient narratives, three because the designated targets were non-existent and the agent re- turned to the laboratory instead of selecting an alternative target (as in trial #6 of Protocol #1), and one because several interrup- tions broke the percipient's concentration and she was unable to maintain her flow of imagery. All other formal trials to date have been reported above and elsewhere. Over 30 informal trials have been conducted under a variety of conditions, including a series of 16 consecutive trials between Chicago and Russia, while an acquaintance was travelling in that country. Most of these informal trials were evaluated on the basis of subsequent exchange of information between agent and percipient and did not involve target photographs or independent judging. Nevertheless, we were able to observe many instances of extremely accurate correspondence as well as some interesting serendipitous effects which will be taken into consideration in the following sections, along with the formal data. General Observations At this point in the experimental program we have collected sufficient data to support the hypothesis that some non-sensory mode of information transfer can function under the conditions of the PRP protocol. Of a total of 157 transcript judgings, 64 (53.51/'./), have resulted in ranks of 1. Perhaps the success of this design might be attributable to the fact that it comes closer to simulating Approved For Release 2000108/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: qA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 spontaneous psi experiences than most formal experimental designs because: 1) it utilizes real experiences with real targets in a naturalistic environment; and 2) the agent/percipient relationship is closer and less formal as both are active participants in a shared task within a shared belief system. Under these circum- stances, the effects of experimenter expectations are'likely to be magnified as a result of being opei)ly communicated to, and s'hared by,, percipients. However, it also is apparent that this communica- tLon channel is not completely reliable insofar as the clarity and s]~bcificity of the transmitted information, or the "signal-to-noise ratio" are concerned. The question at this point is where do we go from here. We can continue to carry out more confirmatory experiments of this type, and indeed we are doing so, but these are not likely to tell us more than that such a communication channel exists under these conditions and seems to be relatively reliable. We arc- still far from explain- ing what the phenomenon is, how it works, or why it fails on some occasions. In some respects, the eXperimental procedure, is some- what analogous to the children's game of "Telephone," where a whis- pered message is passed from one person to another, and after several transmissions of this kind, becomes distorted, often beyond recog- nition. We too are dealing with a chain of communications - from, target to agent to percipient to transcript to experimenter to judge and every link in that chain is vulnerable to distortion and bias. At each link in the chain, information is being received, interpreted, and transmitted by individuals with varying cognitive styles; and at each transfer point a different mo6e of perception is being em- ployed. When the quantification of the fidelity of information trans- fer finally is attempted at the end of the process, as in the present statistical procedure, much of the abstract and impressionistic coin- ponent may be overlooked. Then too, it is clear that much of the unusual and plentiful anecdotal evidence, which seems to provide empirical confirmation of the process being investigated, is not taken into account by the judging process and may even work to the detriment of the final statistical outcome. One class of such unused evidence is that derived from time in- tervals other than those prescribed by the protocol. For example, during the series from the far west (Protocol #5), on one occasion, several hours before the formal trial was to take place, the agent unexpectedly found herself riding a very wobbly bicycle which she found at a gas station where she and her companions had interrupted their trip. The target site that day was a gambling casino. one percipient's description, obtained retrocognitively, made no mention of and contained only vague symbolic resemblances to the casino. By the formal judging criteria, this transcript might easily he con- si"'dered a miss. However, one part of the transcript read: "I have an image of (the agent) on a bicycle, now she's on it. She teetered and tottered a little, but apparently she's OK. She's going down, well - I have the impression that she's gotten the bike from maybe like a roadside stand or something like that." This kind of dis- placed information has been acquired on numerous occasions, anO. while such events impress the experimenters as significant evidence of PRP, they invariably distort the narrative and lower the probability of that a-M71~80thu6'-30(yRt 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 A similar effect is displayed in descriptions which contains elements of more than one target7 this has also occurred on several occasions, notably in those series in which the agent was on a trip and no feedback was available to percipients until well after the series was completed and when the efforts were on successive days. (Protocols #3, 5, 6, and 7.) In such cases, it is clear that infor- mation is being transmitted, yet the formal results are neg,atively affected by it, rather than enhanced, It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine in detail each link in this communication chain; nevertheless, they can, and should, be recognized and taken into consideration in any attempt to formu- late a model of the PRP process: 1. A ent/tarqet. First, the agent selects a target via a ran- dom process which is possibly vulnerable to some psi influence. Then, at the target, he is involved in some process of perception and rep- resentation. While it is not completely clear ~,,,hether the agent is actually "sending" the information telepathically, o.- i-ricrely serving as a beacon for the percipient (although the eviOenre of the single control trial in Protocol 1147 appears to suppc)rt the "sending" hypD- thesis), in either case he acquires information regarding the target via sensory input, which he then translates into an extrasensory transmission, whether consciously or unconsciously. 2. Percipient/aqent. The percipient is attempting to pick up an extrasensory signal, either fro.-ii the agent or the Itarget, or pos- sibly both, against a background of internal and external noise, to interpret it in terms of his own cognitive patterns, and to trans- late it into a more conventional communication. At the same time the percipient may be extrasensorily influencing the agent's percep- tions of the target. (At the, time the envelope vas opened, which contained the designated target in trial #2 of Protocol 44, the agent experienced a rush of excitement and a sense of certainty that the trial was successful, and felt a strong desire to go inside the chapel as well as to view the exterior; indeed, the percipient had described the interior as well as the exterior of the building. Up to this point we had assumed that information was being transmitte~l only from agent to percipient, however, in this case it seemed that not only was the percipient perceiving forward in time, but the agent was perceiving backward in time in a similar mode. This experience has recurred several times since then.) 3. Experimenter/perc pient. The experimenter, in his instruc- tions to the percipient and through the environment he creates for the experiment, is in a position to exercise considerable influence on the percipient's performance. It is his words, actions, and at- titude which mold the percipient's understanding of his task, his belief in his ability to.-accomplish it, and the mood, or emotional climate, of the trial. 4. Percipient/narrative. The translation of the received sig- nal into language or drawing involves a subjective interpretation of the original signal, which can easily be biased by attemp*ts to define, rather than describe the impressions received. It is important to Approved For Release 2000108107 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 realize that the percipient's interpretation of the signal emerges in the form of lFinguage only after being.filtered through a cog- nitive structure predisposed to categorizing sensory input through the use of memory, expectations, imagination, etc. Still another potential distortion lies in the fact that the percipient's free- response verbal description is presented to the judge in written form, where nuances of emphasis, tone of voice, pauses, and'so forth, are lost. 5. Transcri-pt/experimenter/luggA. It experimenter will examine the transcript to between the narrative and the target before on to the judge. His unofficial evaluation expectations for the outcome, which in turn of judges, the judge's attitude toward the decision by some extrasensory influence. is inevitable that an seek out similarities passing the transcript could possibly bias his may influence the choice task, or even the judge's 6. Judqe/transcript, Once again there is a process of inter- pretation. qoil-~, 01), wil-ne-ral~le to subjective opinion and perspoctive, The judge reads the transcript, which is a written version of a pcr- cipient's verbal impressions of the original target (linRs 1-4 above), and attei-iipts to match it to his perception of a photograph of that original target. (This is why we include the agent's notes with the photographs; it helps the jtidge to get a better idea of the agent's perspective of the target_.) Keeping all these points in mind, it seems clear that if we are to utilize the PRP protocol for further investigation of the nature and process of psi phenomena, we must attempt to strengthen some of the weaknesses in the technique itself, by examining and evaluating the perception and communication links described above and finding ways to minimize the distortions of the signal occurring at these points, and possibly by finding means to evaluate the quality of the transmission at each link. Methodological Criticisms Two methodological criticisms have been directed against the RP protocol and other free-response experiments. The first is the issue of target selection and the possibility of psi influence in the selection of the random number yielding the target.. This pos- sibility cannot be categorically refuted by any protocol, no matter how elaborate, but we have taken deliberate care to avoid any logi- cal deduction of the target. We have employed four different methods of target selection in our experiments, and it appears that the method employed had little influence on the results. In Protocols #1 and #2, where the target was selected through two processes of random selection (10 envelopes from a pool of 100, and 1 envelope from a pool of 10), the contents of the envelopes were unknown to anyone associated with the experiment. In the CBS trials (Protocol 04), once again the contents were completely unknown to any of the par- ticipants, and in one case even the city in which the target was located was unknown. In these two trials random selection was care- fully controlled through the use of electronic random number Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 9. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 generatorst using in one instance a nuclear decay noise source, and in another a hand calculator chip. In Protocols #3, #5, #6 and #7 (as well*as trial #6 in Protocol #1) there was no target pool, and the agent personally selected the target from his im- mediate enviroment, which was itself unknown until the actual time of the trial, and percipients were completely unaware-of even the general location of the agent. The method utilized in there trials also permitted the agent to select targets which were as distinc- tively different from each other as possible, thereby reducing the possibility of confusing the judges with a target pool containing Several similar sites, as had been the situation in series utilizing more traditional methods of random target selection. Since each judge ranked only one transcriptr any deduction he might make as to the order of the targets would provide him no information regarding which of those targets corresponded to the transcript he was ranking. We have tentatively concluded, on the basis of the manipulation of these variables, particularly trial #6 of Protocol 41, where the designated target was unavoidably aborted at the last moment, that the method of target selection is not a critical component of the process being studied, so long as the target is selected in some random fashion and cannot be deduced by the percipient through logical. process. The second criticism, the possibility of sensory cues, has been raised in an article by Perci Diaconis in Science (1978), in a letter to Nature by D. Marks and R. Karomann (1976_~ , -and by J. E. Kennedy in an article in J.A.S.P.R. (1979). These critics hypothesize that the apparent succe of remote viewing experiments could be attributed to an "artifact of statements" in the transcripts which provide ex- traneous cues to the judges, about the weather on the day of the trial, for example. While the criticisms of the Science and Nature articles were not expressly directed at our work, Professor Yenn(~_~17y_has extend- ed this censure to include our work as well, suggesting that the photo- graphs taken on the days of the trials and the transcripts of those days "might have contained cues about the weather on the day of the trial." This criticism is invalid with regard to these experiment for two reasons: first, all tri-als in a given series took place at approx- i-mately the same time of day and any variations in weather conditiol-17, which might have existed were undetectable from the agent's photographs or notes; and second, all transcirpts were carefully screened before they were given to the judges eliminating references to weather, the order of the trials (i.e., remarks such as "yesterday's trial" or "this is the first (last) day," etc.), or any other potential identifying cues, Judgin'g Strategies and Problems in Quantitative Evaluation . In the nature of the PRP experiment, the data evaluation procedure is not an integral part of the testing process, but involves post facto comparisons by individuals who have not participated actively in the experimental test. Results take the form of relative overall accuracy, indicated by an assigned rank, rather than an absolute score, as would obtain in a binary choice design. The distinction between a hit and Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 :-I&A-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 a miss is therefore blurred, causing the experimental outcome to be especiallisensitive to the personal characteristics of the judges. For these reasons, there is room to question whether the traditional judging procedures are appropriate for establishing the fidelity in- dex of PRP experiments. The procedure originally followed in the first three PRP exDeri- nents was Morris' (1972) method for evaluating preferentially ranked free-response material. It was pointed out that this method was in- appropriate to the PRP protocol for two reasons. First, in the origi- nal experiments, a single judge was asked to rank order the entire series, which introduced tl)e problem that once he had inM-.ched a par- ticular transcript to a given target he was not as likely to give full considei~ation to that target when making subsequent matches. Second, the judging takes place under closed-deck conditions; that is, the composition of tbe t-arget pool. is fixed, consisting of those tar- gets consituting 'Che given series of trials. These two factors were corrected by having in0ependent judges each match only one transcript aqainst the target pool, and by svitching to Soli'vir, Burdick and E t W)-1 4 f- "elly s (1978) evaluatlive procedure, J _h, vhile- s3milar to Morri,.Z.,- is a more conservative measure as well as being more appropriate for closed 6eck experiments. (Note: in the tables giving the results of the experiments described in this paper, we have included the p-values from both statistical tables, for comparison.) In spite of these corrections, there are still several short- comings in the preferential ranking technique itself, some of which have been pointed out in previous sections of this paper. For example, the judgei-cien-ts of correspondence made are inherently subjective, and are as much a measure of the individual judge's ability to discern, interpret, and evaluate the informational content of the transcripts, as they are an evaluation of the percipient's ability to obtain in- formation via a non-sensory communication channel and translate it into traditional communication symbolism. The existence of such sub- jective bias was suggested by the judging results of the two CDS tran- scripts (Protocol 44.) Both transcripts had been evaluated by ten in- dependent judges, and while one had been correctly inatchej by every judge, the second produced a varielty of different ranks, ranai-q from one to four. Even allowing for the similarities in the target pool in this case, which might have posed a handicap to the judges, there was still little conformity in the judges' opinions. In an attempt to gauge the extent of judges' subjective bias, we had the 27 transcripts of Protocols #1, 2, and 3 re-judged several times by a number of different judges. The transcripts were all matched against the target photos and notes of their particular series, the same choices as had been presented to the original judges. These new ranks were compared with the original ranks assigned these transcripts by both non-independent and independent judgest resulting in a minimum of five ranks assigned each transcript by separate individuals. (Tables 3 - 9.) Of the 27 transcripts, only three were consistently ranked as I by all judges, and three others were never ranked higher than 2. Five other transcripts were ranked as I or 2 by all judges with a single ex- ception. In all, 13 transcripts received a mean rank score of 2 or 2ess. Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDPW-00787RO00500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: KJA-RDP96-00787R000500390001-6 However, the fourteen remaining transcripts received a wide range of ranks, demonstrating a broad diversity in the judges' opinions, and suggesting that the final positive outcomes of these experiments were, at least as far as these 14 transcripts were concerned, large- ly due to chance. That is, after several series of judgings had been performed on a given series of trials, if we added thenhighest ranks assigned by any judge to each transcript, the resultant sum;e of ranks for that total series would have been a non-significang figure. This subjective variability in judges' ranks is especially insid- i6us when applied to the least correlated transcripts. Often, once a judge has selected his first, and perhaps second choice, he will tend to be less precise in the ordering of the remaining tarciets, and the choice of whether to assign a 4 or an 8 might be purely arbitrary. However, that extra four points, carelessly assigned, could make the difference between a significant sum of ranks or a non-significant one. For example, in series D of Protocol #5, the rank sum was 14, a figure with a non-significant p yalue of OG1. I-lad one transcript in that series, which was ranked as 5, been assigned a rank of 4 (still not an outstanding hit), the series would have been defined as significant at p-.036. The' remaining five ranks in this series were 1, 3, 2, 2, and 1. Again, the central point is that wben the outcor,-~e of an entire series is this sensitive to a single rank, the assignment of those ranks should not be as vulnerable as they are to the subjective opinion, of a single individual. A second basic problem with the present judging methods is their relative insensitiviLy to desc)^iption quality. A judge might assimn a rank of 1 to a transcript simply because, in his opinion, there as some vague resemblance to a ininor detail of that particular target and less resemblance to any of the other targets, or, he might assign a rank of 1 because the correspondences between the description and target are so markedly accurate as to exclude the possibility of it referring to any but the correct target. In either case, the rank is the same and bears strongly on the statistical outcome of the series. We attempted to demonstrate this variability by including a 11measure of confidence" indicator in the judging form drav.,n up for these new evaluations. After making their selections, judges were asked to rank the degree of confidence with which they chose their first-place match, on an ascending scale of 1 to 5. Since we were unable to compare these confidence indicators across all of the ranks assigned any given transcript, there was insufficient data to reach any definitive conclusion other than that not all first-place matches were made with the same degree of confidence, even though they carried the same weight. We did observe, however, that those transcripts' which obtained the lowest mean rank sums, particularly the three tran--' scripts consistently ranked as 1, did appear to have received higher confidence indicators than most of the other transcripts. Another difficulty with these procedures is their insensitivity to striking fidelity of individual trials of a total series. In Pro- tocol #3, trial #5, the Danube River, was one of those three trans- cripts which received a rank of I from all seven judges who evaluated Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 it. The fact that one of the most outstanding hits in these series was part of a series which, overall, had lower significance levels, and in some cases non-significant results, is an indication of this problem. This insensitivity also applies in the context of evalu- ating the critical detail within a single transcript. Since each transcript is judged against a given pool, an unfortun-ate by-product of the random target selection process is lack of control over po- tential similarities of more than one target in a series. For ex- ample, in Protocol #2, two of the targets, the Lindheimer Observa- tory and the Grant Park Bandshell, contained rounded structures in open fields with tall buildings in the background and Lahe Michigan within easy view. Such similarities complicate the judges' tasl, and reduce the probability of first place ranks, even when the de- scriptions are quite accurate, as they were in these two trials. Unsolicited additional information ' although accurate, may further complicate the problem, as in the case of the bicycle ride mentioned earlier, or in the case of a transcript which described, in part, the agent walking through a parking lot and a grove of trees. The agent did follow such a path en route to the target, but these -Intails %-,,ero not specified in the photographs of the target. Still another ex- ample can be found in the transcript of one of the percipients in Protocol #5. The target was a young man sitting in an abandoned car wreck, playing a trumpet. The percipient described the sound of a horn blowing, but he also described elements which may have fit sev- eral other targets as well. (Note: this was one of the sequential series which seem so sensitive to bleed-through or overlap of trials.) Once again, the judge's subjective bias, his decision to mahe his se2ection on the basis of the overall impression of the transcript vs. specific details within the, transcript, determines the f--'Lnal out-- come, and this decision may be easily influenced by the percipient's unique descriptive style, as well as his (the percipient's) choice of priority and order of transmission of the remotely perceived in- formation. SOMe percipients tend to describe minute details, while others are more general in describing their impressions. For this reason, we have added to our judging forms, in addition to the con- fidence indicator, two additional questions for the judge to answer. 1) Did ybu reach your decision more on the basis of the transcript's explicit detail, overall impression, or both?, and 2) In reaching your decision, were you more influenced by the transcript's symbolic similarities, realistic features, or both? We have already mentioned the problem of overlap or bleed-through in series conducted over an extended period with no feedback to per- cipients until all trials have been completed. This effect has also been noted by Targ and Puthoff (personal communication) in series they have conducted under similariconditions. Reference to a similar phenomenon can be found in the work of Whately Carington (1940) when he conducted experiments on paranormal cognition of drawings in series of'ten targets without feedback. It is as if, at some level of awarc- ness, percipients regard the entire series as a single extended trial when they have no information regarding the outcome of each individual trial. After all, the task assigned the percipients requires them to disregard temporal distinction, a difficult enough task without also requiring that they be able to assiduously pinpoint their location Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 outside "real" time. The present evaluation procedures do not take this effect into consideration, and are thus inadequate for assessing series of this kind. A final criticism of the current evaluative methods involves the possibility of psi influences in the judging process itself. There is no way of ruling out the possibility that the judges, perhaps due to the influence of the experimenter, are making their matches via some extrasensory process. In Protocol #5, the two sets of tran- scripts which were significant belonged to a percipient in a pre- cognitive mode who had never inet the aqent, and a percipient in a retrocognitive,rnode who was a close friend of the agent's. The only commonalities they shared were 1) both were experienced, successful PRP percipients (Diane Freemand and Hella Haim-nid) , and 2) these were the two sets of transcripts which were judged in Chicago. It might be noted that, while we had no familiarity with Eella Hammid's.typi- cal descriptive style, the authors both agreed that, in their personal opinions, Diane's transcripts were not up to her usual descriptive standards. Under the conclitions of the PRP protocol, an argument could be made to regard th,~ entire 1~roce(aurc, up to the jtiCh~fina pro- cess, as nothing irtore than an elabo-rate and convoluted technique for selecting targets for an ESP matching test in which the judges arc, the subjects. In a later section we vill be discussing the role of the experimenter in influencing the percipient's attitut9e and per- formance, as well as the importance of a positive attitude on the part of the percipient, for obtaining positive resu.1tS-. The.,se same factors may also be a determinant in the judges' performance. In the light of this hypothesis, it may be possible that the non-significant results obtained for some of the transcript sets of Protocol 05 be the result of having the judging undertaken under the supervision of experimenters other than thoF3e cc-)ndhicting the experi)-~icnt. Vle are currently having some of our earlier transcripts re-C-valuated at dif- ferent laboratories to test this. It seems clear that some alternative strategy for evaluating PRP experiments must be developed; one that is more sensitive to the in- tricacieS of the phenomenon and, at the same time, more objective in its assessment of the transmitted information. This paper does not presume to detail such a strategy, however, perhaps some relevant factors can be delineated which may percipitate and aid the design of a suitable process in the near future. One possibility is the development of a more sensitive ranking scale and a uniform process for training judges, thus reducing the subjective bias in evaluation tasks of this kind. Transcripts might be broken down to the elemental descriptive components of their con- tent, and each informational bit ranked on a more sensitive scale against a pool of potential targets. The problem with a procedure of this kind is that, while it might provide a method for evaluating each transcript on its own merit, rather than as a single element of an overall series, it might also negate the influence of Gestalt impres- sions which involve much more than simple superposition of detaiis and which provide a "feel" of a particular location to the judge, without specifying the individual elements in dotail. The, interpretation of Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 14 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 symbolic similarities would still be dependent upon the subjective perspective of the judge. one might account for the subjective bias by having each transcript ranked by a number of different judges, as we attenipted to do, but this is cxunbersome, time-consuming, and places a strain on one's ability to recruit a sufficient number of competent judges, especially when one is trying to evaluate a number of trials in this fashion. Some of the earliest free-response experiments attempted to capitalize on subjective perspecti -ve by having the percipient judge hi-s' own transcript against a pool of targets, since the percipient is more capable than anyone else of interpreting his ox%Ti inpressions an(l experiences during the trial. Such a procedure does render the evalu- ation more sensitive and reduces the vulnerability of the process to subjeCtive interpretation by eliminating one of the links in the com- municLtion chain, hu,~7ever, at the saiyie time it renders the results Jr,ore suscepti-ble to~critilcici-,is of collusion IDY eli-minating the subs tant i a-IL-A. on of objective ve-rification of the result.s . 0 (- a-L An alternative might be- to eliminate the subjective comp nnt I- togeth--_r, by designing a procedure by which experimental re's-Ults mic1ht be, eva2uated by a coii-~puLerized process. By altering the protocol s-cmc- what from the unstructured free-response mode presently eanployc(2, the percipient co-uld be presented with a finite list of yes/no questions regarding 'his impression-s (i.e., is it otitdoors?, is thc-~re water pres- ent-, etc*.), the results of-. which could be quantified easily and eval- uated Ly binary logic. Powever, this intrusion on the PRP procesS, by at-Le),rpting to force the percipient into a pa.-edominantly logjical of cXy-)Cr1eT1cO., could prove fatal to the phenomenon, if psi is inde(_16 evidonce of "paranormal" perception of cognition. (Nevertheless, thIS could prove an interesting line of research to probe the perceptual or cognitive parameters of the phenomcnon.) Alternatively, a description obtained in the traditional fashion could be brol-,en down to binary bits of information. once again, the problem with this method is that there would be difficulty in interpreting the many Gestalt impressions with which PRP transcripts seem to abound. It might be worth exploring the possibility of developing an al- gorithm which would code and compare the elements of the taract and the elements of a free-response description, taking such factors as narrative style into consideration, via electronic pattern recognition. The solution does not have to lie in an either/or decision be- tween human judge sensitivity and electronic objectivity. For exa-Tliple, a hybrid system could be explored wherein each process could evaluate that aspect of the protocol where its expertise lies. Two separate scales could be developed and compared: an electronically generated evaluation of descriptive detail, and a human judge generated evalu- ation of the Gestalt of the narrative content - i.e., mood, feeling, and overall resemblances couched in comparative terms. Tho clac-sification of information, whether cognitive or scientific, is a of drawing distinctions. These distinctions arc usually drawn in accordance with agreed-upon systems of rules or definitions Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 J_~A-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 which have proven useful from past experience. one of these rule systems, that of statistical probability, was designed to organize and classify large amounts of data, or events, in order to infer a pattern of behavior which is typical of the group, so that fairly reliable predictions can be made regarding future events which appear to belong to the saine classification. In psi researbh, we are looking at deviations from these patterns; that is, we are ex- amining a body of events which do not follow or conform to the normal probability distril:)ution describing this class of events, We-attempt to collect a sufficient. amount of this non-conforming, data to begin to classify these events as a nev7 category with properties of its own, and to form generalizations and pre6ic- tions regarding them. The problem we are facing may lie in the. fact that we have been atteriipting to force these events which do not coiform to our .,ories into new cateclories defined b-, the same J already existing categ 7 distincitions ~,jhich dcfine the )-,,,ehavior of c-.vents. I t- i s just possible tl)a'L-. those rules do not apply to tl~ose "paranormal " evcnts, vhich is why they axe. distingui,,hecl as in the first place. We may need to distance ourselves irom, our precon- oeived expectations of ho,,.x psi. operates beforc.. v.,e cain begin -to es- tablish appropriate new cat-egories to describc how it actually func- tions. The evaluation an enalysir, of PRP anO. other parapsychological experiments at present are predicated on rules which were devoloped for the evaluation an analysis of "normal" events, and lience, may not provide us with a useful basis for reipresenting tljc-- essential nature of psi. We might exz~mine the preceeient set by the example of the development of Quantum Statistics, as a result of` the ina"Dility of the rule systein of Classical Statistics to proviae the appropriate tools for the task of evaluating certain quantuir, events. (Fowler and Guggenheim, 1952.) Huinan Factor Recognition Parellel to the need for a sufficiently sensitive evaluation and quantification procedure to measure the information transfer oc- curring during PPP, is the necessity to develop an adequate frainework or paradigm within which to examine the nature of the information trans- fer process. We have observed that, regardless how strict the adherence to the experimental protocol, the degree of success in PRP is still un- predictable. Apparently, there is still some variable not taken into consideration in the experimental design, and, since PRP describes a particular mode of human behavior, it is likely that. this unknown fac- tro is in some way related to the specific.characteristics of the peo- ple participating in the experiment. ~ A great deal of research has been reported in the literature which has attempted to establish correlations between psychological and personality characteristics of subjects and successful psi func- tioning. (Carpenter, 1977.) However, the results of those experiments, lil~e so many others in this fielO, IM,-,)~~ ol`ten to L)e replicated, and in some instances have even demonstrated contradictory results. The fact that even subjects of the "ideal" personality type do not Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : aA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 demonstrate consistently successful Psi functioning, suggests that there is still a~ inissing ingredient in the formula. Th s raises the issue of the role of the experimenter in PRP and other psi re- search. Along with the problem of quantification and evaluation of data, the questions of "experimenter effects" and performance feedback are two of the major issues currently being confropted by psychic researchers as potential sources for the resolution of the replicability enigma. ~ Reported replications attempted in remote perception expcri- mehtation, both formal and anecdotal, support the assumption that the attitude of the experiTpenter may be as important a factor as that of the percipient in producing the desired experimental out- CoMe. Researchers who hold the belief that remote perceptio!i is a valid possibility which they would like to see confirmed tend to obtain positive results, wh3le those motivzate(3 to disprove the J enerally report chance, or even balov, ch-rice results. phenoiiiano--, a The role of the experii.i~nter as a variable in any parapsychologic"i-1 experiment, has bcen ac:e~-nowlcdged by rescarchers in tl-,is iiel'd -~C),_, ~a long time (107hite, 10,77), but ve ry little emipirical research has 1)eefi undei:Laken to ascertain to what extent the expex-imenter's contagious enthusiasm affects the experim(7-:!ntal outcomet or, for that matter, to what extent the experimel-iter's, or possibly even the labora-Lory's, past successes affect his co-ritagious enthusiasm. Earlier in this paper it was suggested that the experimenter and/or agent was in a position to exert influence on th'e percipient's (or judge,ls) perfo:L-mance, by establishing the environyrent via his words, actions, attitude, and expectationst thereby inol3ing the perc-1pi.ent's (or judges-) understanding of the task, contributinu. to his confidence in accomplishing it, and providing the emotional climate of the experimental trial. This suggestion is in accorcl with the so-called "Rosenthal effect", in which it has been demonstrated that an experimenter's wi"-hes and expectations may bias the outcome of the experimental data. (Rosenthal, 1966. ) It may well b-a that the psi effects demonstrated in PI'111 rcsearch .are not simply evidence of an individual percipient's, or exper1ritent- erls, "paranormal" ability, but are by-products of the interaction be- tween the experiiqenter and the percipient. (None of the participants in any of our trials considered themselves to have any unusual "psychic" talents.) If this is the case, psi cannot be predicted or evaluated simply on the basis of the personality parameters of-either of the par- ticipants, or even on the basis of an additive process, such as Per- sonality A + Personality B = psi. The process, or interaction, is complicated by factor E: the environment within which A and B inter- act. Within the context of the experimental protocol, A and B together may be capable of behavior of which neither is capable independent"IL',". The personality factors which have been identified as being represen- tative of good subjects, may be no more than the characteristics which define those individuals best capable of entering into', contributing to, and functioning within the type of bonded interaction which is conducive to psi effects. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Rblease 2000/08/07 : UA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Perhaps one of the most relevant aspects of the experimental procedure we followed in these experiments, which does not appear on Table 1, is the fact that before each of the experiments beganj the percipients were briefed informally about the nature of the ex- periment and the experimental protocol, as the agent took time to talk casually with each percipient in an informal, friendly atmo, sphere, attempting to establish a comfortable rapport and a'shared enthusiasm for the project. - To date, psychic research path, attempting to identify each tributing to the psi process. dividuals participating in PRP an element of the experience w-iich Two percipients who havc each seven separate trials, were as,,cd terii-if; of their feelings. one "tuned into" the experimen ter/ wave length." She said she dian't task or the logical impossibilLty trie,_1 to clear her mind of any on trvinq to visualize the aqe)t has been proceeding along a linear of the individual components con- Yet, the subjective reports of in- experiments suggest that there is defies cognitive categorization. ,articipated successfully in at least to describe their experiences in ~xprcsse.-. this in ternts of feeling icjent, "like we were both on the same thinh alJo-'a-IC the nai.,urc of the of accomplishing i-l-, but 0 C r, 4- & extraneous thoughts, and c n c- r tc and sensinq the rapnort between them, The second percipient explained that she had to "ba in trie riant MOOCI- which involved a "willing suspension of disbelief and a general mental posture of receptivity." In aaditibn, she described a "sense of over- all physiological alertness." Even after ten successful trials, she does not consider lierself to have any unusual psychic abilities. When asl~ed to what she attributed her remar)-,ablo succegs rate, she replied, "Some kind of high energy level combined with intense concentration." One of the authors, B. D., who has been a percipient in eight formal trials and several informal ones, has described her experiences in similar terms. In adaition, as aQent, she has sensed the same kind of resonance with the percipient(s), a feeling of heightened alertness and excitement, and an awareness of an emotional, as well as an in- tellectual,. involvement in the experiment which is similar to par- ticipating in an exciting game. It is as if one -"Tnakes believe" that one can accomplish the impossible to the extent that it becomes real, Perhaps tha current linear direction of parapsychological research should be complemented by a holistic perspective of the phenomena. This would involve, in part, an investigation of the nature of the ex- perimenter/percipient, and the experimonter/judge, relationships. We have observed, informally, that the more comfortable, intimate, and warm the relationship between the agent and the percipient, the more confident we have felt of success in the endeavor. The results of the trials wehave conducted appear to support this assumption, although a formal analysis along these lines has yet to be attempted. Concluding Observations The course of future research in PRP will be dependent upon sev- eral factors, such as whether experimrntation is motivated by a desire for more specific phenomenological (R:r,-~onstiiition or the development of the utilitarian potential of the information transfer process. Both Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 .lines of exploration are worthy of pursuit, although they would, most likely, take different directions. The former would stress the interactive psychological aspects of the phenomenon, employ- ing a variety of percipient personality types and a broad range of freely-selected target material. The latter would concentrato on improving the fidelity index of transmitted information and limit itself to working with a few highly trained percipients to develop a method of optimal relay of clearly defined details of specific types of targets. Appropriate evaluative techniques would be needed in both instances. In the former case, the emphasis would be placed on the developmen-'C. of a method sufficiently sensitivo to incHvidual narrative styles, abstract or symbolic representations, critical de- tail, and Gestalt impressions. In the latter case, binary repre- sentat-ion of specific detail might be preferable for the Cletermina- tion of precise measurement of "signal-to-noise ratio," dFta acqui- sition rate, etc. Up to this pojint, PF~P research has provided a quzintity of data which bears strong evidence of so-me kind of" non-sensory infc,=.)ation transfer tall-ing place undcr the conClitions of tlieso exper' '~incntE. The results of this e>,perimental program have _-ur)pc)r1.-c!d the hypo- 1 .1, t ei-, -- I o the-is that this inform.ation transfer is not limited b- . pci Z_ r spatial barriers, in si-ite of the difficulty that such f~r),,`ings po~;c in the light- of generally accepted physical laws. Yet-, we believc- that the consistently positive results we have obtaine(~ czn be at- tributed, in part, to the fact that the precognitive aspcct of the design reinforces the logical impossibi lity of the tash, forcing the p-ercipient anO. agent into a "paranormal" modc of commi-Inication. .in addition, we have tentatively concluded that the specific ternporz.1 distinction establ:'Lshec'~ by the protocol cannot, al\,,,ays be enforceo:, particu,larly in series of consecutive trials where no fee0lback is available at the end of each trial. So,mc of the additional findings of this program can be Sulllly!a- rized as follows: 1) It appears as if the agent's attentional dircct.-i-In m-,y be more important factor in the process than the contentF of the tar- get envelope. 2) The method of target selection does not appear to be a critical component of the process, as long as the target is chosen in a random fashion and cannot be deduced by the percipient through normal logical processes. 3) Moving targets are detected as easily as stationary ones. 4) The assumption that a relaxed, quiet environment is a pre- requisite for successful PRP is not borne out, since several trials, incloding the two CBS trials of Protocol #4, were conducted succcess- fully under contrary conditions of high tension and exbitement and in the presence of television personnel and paraphenalia-, however, this tension and excitement were of a positive nature, which may have 1jr,d thC effect Of inCrE!aSi1)C4 motivation rather than pro.-~t)cing anxiety. This does not mean Thai a relaxed, quiet environment an,3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 19 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 state of mind is not conducive to psi functioning, it merely sug- gests that the process can function successfully under alternative conditions as well. 5) The PRP process is not limited to two-person Interactions, and appears to function equally as well with more than one percipient, 6) Ungifted percipients appear to be able to demonstrate this- ability without extensive training, and the roles of agent and per- cipient appear to be interchangeable. The shortcomings of the experimental design, discussed at length in this paper, while presenting difficulties in the description and quantification of the results, provide no evidence to deny the ex- istence of the hypothesized communication channel. These problems are not Insurmountable, but rather present a challenge to scientists de~.ci-.te6 to orderly pattein53 in apparently random e v (-- n t 1~.- ~The existence of "paranormal" is a fact, sup.-portecl by aneclotal reports sincu the beginni.nas of recoreled history and ever more scholarly investigations over the past CC-ntUr~7. If can.- not finC~ a vay to fit this fact into our existing 'models of reEIity, then it is just possible that the moCc-,ls themselves are in need of revision. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 20 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 References Bioaha, J.P. and Dunne, B.J. Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago area: A replication of the Stanford experiment. flci - tfie Parapsy search in Parapsycholo 1976: Proceedinas Sj~j~jpgical Association Convention, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1976, Scarecrow Press, 1977a. Bisaha, J.P. and Dunne, B..3. Multiple subject and long distance precognitive remote viewing of geographic;,l 'Locations. Proc. 7th International Conference on_q~~-_rnetics and SocietV, ILEE, Washington, D.C., September, 19177b (invited pav)c!r) . Bisaha, J.P. and Dunne, B.J. Long distance and multiple subject precognitive remate vin%,,ring of geographicDl locations. Chapter _Ln MinC) at Liroc, Charles Tart, ed. (in pres--) Bisalia, J.P., Dl.inne, B.J., Blau-velt, D. Prel-c'unitive rC-1-1Ot3 ing for CBS-TV Nevlys MagazinE, sr_-z.!rc!j in 197': Procee6iinqs of t!)e Parav,Fv- ', Louis, I 11olonical As~;Ocia-'-ion Conventio~? .'o. , 1978. c _t u c-h _en__,_E, -J--.-:- r_-e_s_s_ , 113 7-0,-i.n press Carp(-.,nter, J.C, Intrasubject and subject-agc-int effects in ESP e,,:- periments. Handbook of Par~.psychology, B.B. Wolman, ed. N c York: Van Nostrand Reinhole', Co., 2.977. Ca.rington, Expo.riments on th,e pcjrz~;-orvial cognition o-f dra%.,,inCjSi. :!_, 1,40, 4, 1-134. Jovrn,)l of P a ra_r- y_2.~Loj 2, jr C, Diaconi,,,, P. Statistical probler,is. in E-'SP research. Science, 14 July 197B, 201, pp. 131-136. Dunne, B.J. and Bisaha, J.P. 1,11ultiple subject precognitive remote viewing, Research i I Prqcee6ing___pf- _n P;~~r Dsy 1 1977: the Association Convontio 1.). C, 1977. 1,~&tuchen, N.J. Scarecrow Press, 1.970. Dunne, B.J. and Bisaha, J.P. Long distance precognitive remote viewing. Research in Paran~ygho~~g_y,_ 1978: Proceeclinqs of the Conventkqn, St. Louis_,_jj2_,., !~78. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1979a (in press). Dunne, B.J. and Bisaha, J.P. Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago area, Journal of Par~.psycboloqy, March 1979b(in press). Fowler, R. and Guggenheim, E.A. Statistical Thermodynamics. New York: Cambridge University Yennedy, J.E. Methodological problems in free-response ESP experi- ments. The Journal of the Anierican Society for PsVchical. Re- January 1979, 73, pp. 1-15. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Marks, D. and Kammann, R. Nature, 274, 1978, pp. 680-661. Morris, R.L. An exact method for evaluating preferentially matched free-response material. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. October 1972, 66, p. 401. . Puthoff, H.E. and Targ, R. Precognitive remote viewing. Research in Parapsvcholoqy 1975: Proceedin s of the Parapsychological 4. Association Convention, Sant.a Barbara, Calif., 1975. Metuchen, K.J:.: Scarecrow Press, 1976a. Rosenthal, R. Ex-perimentc~r Effects in Behavior Research. i4ew York: ,Appleton-Century-Cross, 1966. Solfvin, G., Kelly, E., and Burdick, D. Some new niethods of analy- sis for preforential-ranking data. Journal of the Arierican Sncict~,,~ or I'sy A p r i 1 72, p. 93. V,Thite, R.A. The influcnce of the Experimenter irtoLivatio-ni, attitudes, and inetl)o(~F, of handiling subjects in psi test results. F an (7, - book of Para-,)!:~ycho)cgv, B.B. Wolman, ed. New York: V aC_)'s - trand Reinhold Co., 1977. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Precognitive Remote Perception 22 .Table Sample Experimental Protocol (Precognitive Remoee Perception) 10:00 Outbound experitiiPnter leaves with 10 envelopes contain-5-ng target locatioiis and beFjns 20-minute drive. Expc-rimenLer remaininc, witli percipient elicits description of location wh(-,ro outbouno experimenter will be betwcan )0:35 and 10:50. 10:1.5 PcycipJ(~nt response ccm.-,plete6, at wl-i5r-h time laboratcry part of expcriment is over. 10:20 Outbound experimeiiter gerierates random nut-,)ber between I and 10, counts do,,,,n to as&ociistedl envelope, opei)s it and procceds Lo, target location irjCiCItC-d. 10:35 Outi)ovne, expcrImenter arrives at target and rei,.,mins there for 15 minutes) until 10,50. 10:50 Outbound experimenter photoo'rFphs the thrSet and makcs notes of 0 her iriipi~cssions of it, then returns to laboraotry, Experimental trial completed, Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For RIBlease 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO05~03900$1-6 Precogn tive emote Perception 23 Table 2 Cumulative Results of NIP Experimental Program of of of of Times X Sum tocol. -Percipients,Triils Transcripts JtIcigesJu !C of Ranl~s P-Value* 1 2 8 8 27 6 17.2 .002 -2-A 5 7 7 17 5 15.8 .0111 B 6 7 7 17 5 15. /1 .00R 101:81 62. 7, 7 .14 34 5 15.6 > . 001 3 1 5 5 2 3 7 10.1 .079 2 2 2 20 10 (27) (10,) 1 6 6 6 1 13 .036 6 5 1 6 ~.001 C 1 6 6 6 1 22 <.145 D 1 6 6 6 1 14 OG1 E 1 6 6 6 1 17 <.145 6 6 6 1 19 <.145 6 -6 6 1 24 <.145 tal #5 7 6 41 41 1 16.4 46 2 6 6 6 1 16 .145 6 6 6 1 15 (a) .097 9 (b) .006 (c) .007 tals 19 40 82 157 Solfvin, Kelly Burdick, & 1978 Approved For Release DP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 2000/08/07 CIA-R (a) Includes controltrial. ()-,) Fycl.%)des trial. co, -1 Fr~~cQznitive Rr_--.aoto 24 Table 3 _'~.ssi-no-d ~,y J,.!j-es in Protocol 7`1~1 a) M J03,:,e jmld~2 3 Ind J. Ind. J. Ind. j. 1 2 I 2 3 a) Igindmill. Cemetery 3 1 i 8 2.7 0 LO r3dler Planetariu-m 1 2 1 1 4 1 1.7 0 00 9layboy Building 1 3 3 1 3 2.3 to 0 a) 9 CL I Eprina. Towers 2 3 3 1.8 to a) lincoln Park Conservatory 2 2 1. 1 2 1.5 Olks Memorial & Ee-ndquarters 2 3 5 2 2 2.7 CO 4vanhoe Restaurant 2 6 8 3 3.5 CO 0 0 0 0 c'Angel Guardian Florist I 1 1 Sum of ranks 12 12 15 20 21 23 17.2 0 U_ 4 10-4 0 p value (one-tailed) 10- .0005 .01 .025 .04 .002 U_ p (Morris, 1972) CL > p CL .5 . >.001 > . 001 .008 012 .027 .002 CL < value (one-tailed) 001 CL (Solfvin, Kelly & Burdick, 1978) Precognitiye Remote Perceotion 25 Table 4 r,aa.,,:s ".ssigned by Judges in Protocol #2 Percipients Talaet (A E) Ranks Assigned a) o Group Tinn:~cripts Grou p Transcripts 0 A B 0 CD JIA J2A J3A Ind.IA Ind. 2A J1B J2B j3BInd.lB Ind.2B 0 0 0 21g9ta del Lago (P 'V. 1 5 6 2 3 3.4 2 4 2 4 1 2.6 Q 5 0 4 I- . C:' Wr%gley Field (PJOqPq) 1 1 2 1 2 1.4 2 3 3 4 1 2.9 0 a) 9 Te2jany Mission (PO P5) 3 1 1 7 6 3.6 3 1 3 2 2 2.4w(0 Ligdheimer Observatory(P 3 1 1.8 3 3 2 2 0 63' P7) 2 2 i 1 2.22 Mz9onna della Strada(P P 3 1 2 1 4 2.2 2 2 2 4 3 2.0 52 4) YvgR Station 1%nt (P6, P8) 2 1 G Park Bandshell (P7, PO o Sum of ranks 0 LL value (one-tailed) 0 (Morris, 1972) p cL p value (one-tailed) CL (Solfvin, Kelly, & Burdick, 1978) 2 1.4 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 Z 13 18 .01 .005 .04 .01 15 18 15.8 .008 .002 .036 .008 .04 .01 .036 .041 1 3 2 1 2 1. 1 1 1 -Go- 04 14 15 19 17 12 15.42 .005 .01 .10 .025 .001 .01 o U_ .005 .003 .055 .023 .001 .008 > 0- CL CL Precogn-itive Remote Perception 26 Table 5 R3nks Assigned by Judges in Protocol #3 Tar Ranks _Lssigned Moscow Exhibition Taxi to Ukraine Hotel St. Michael's Church Tertrezeko Art Gallery Danube River Sum of RanlL3 p value (one-tailed) (Morris, 1972 p, value (one-tailed) (Solfvin, Kelly & Burdick, 1978) LO Op_ judga J u 3 Ind. J. Ind. J. Ind. J. Ind. J. 4 9( 1 1, 2 3 1 2 1 3 6 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 2) a) a- 3 3 5 3 2 2 1 2.1 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 5. 4 I 9 11 15 9 11 6 7 .05 .20 <.20 .05 .20 .005 .01 .10 OLI .139 13 9 .041 .139 .002' .007 179 > 0 L. CL CL Precognitive Remote Perception 27 Table 6 Ran", Assigned by Judo-es in Protocol CD CD 0 ) CD LO CD 0 O CD CD 0 O N get Ranks Assigned 0 9 Rank Sum 4! w 0 a) 0 a. Columbus, indiana Public Library 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 27 2.- a. Rockefeller Chapel 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 CD CO 0 0 CD CO CD 0 N 0 U) N M 0 0 U- 0 U- > '0 0 > 0- Precognitive Remote Perception 28 Table Q .;Ianks Assigned by JudZes in Protocol i~5 Target Ranks Assigned Set A Set: B Set C Set D Set E Set F Set G Feathered Pipe Ranch Lodge (11ont.)1 1 2 1 1 3 4 oo Pontiac wreck and trumpet player 3 1 5 3 1 4 3 2-1 cl (Mont. (b Herd of cows and culvert (Idaho) 2 1 4 2 1 6 6 3. 1) 3 43 Gambling casino (Nev.) 2 1 5 5 3 6 . Coffee shop (Calif.) 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 3. rQO 9 Driving down Pacific coast (Calif.)4 5 1 4 1 -1 2. 7 Sum of ranks 13 6 22 14 17 19 24 16.42 p value (one-tailed) o4 .0005 2 0. ~.05 <.20. <.20 <.20 (Morris, 1972) 0 U_ value (one-tailed) 036 >.001 .145 061 .145 .145 . 14.5 (Solfvin, Kelly & > Burdick, 1978' P CL CL 'Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-0078f&WD§t9~8lO6OR-enote Perception 29 Table 8 Ranks Assigned by Judges in'Protocol If 6 Tnr5~et Rank Asslc.,T-~qej Salt lqi~ter Unpoon 4 Cafe Pollito I Lobby of Princess Plotel I River Boat at Disney Worl.6 VillaZc 3 Seaworld 2 Riding on expressway 5 Sum of Ranks 16 p value (orie-tailed) .20 (Morris, 1972) - value (one-tailed) .145 (Solfvin, Kelly & Burdick, 1978) Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6 Approved For Rblease 2000/08/07 ClA-RDP96-007~W29Fqq4WQ"otc Perception 30 Table 9 Ranks Assigned by JuOges in Protocol f7 Target Rsnl~ Assigned River Boat at Disney Vurld Village (retro) SeaworH Ilutel room (no target) 6 Carib Hotel deck 2 Riding on expressway 2 Gatorland 3 Sum of ranks 15 (a) 9 (b) 8 p value (one-tailed) .10 Olorris, 1972) p value (one-tailed) .097 .006 .007 (Solfvin, Kelly & Burdick, 1978) (a) Excluding control trial (b) Excluding control and retrocognitive trials Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500390001-6