Approved Forj@please 2003IR4/18: CIA-RDP96 0078 BDA04P0250013-2
SUMMARY OF KNOWN REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENTS
The following very brief summaries describe those remote viewing
experiments, or series of experiments, published (or submitted for
publication) to date. Details of these experiments or demonstrations
are clearly omitted; methodological problems exist in many of them;
technique and experimental control vary considerably; and the small
number of such reports probably does not lead to any significant,
conclusive overall result. Nonetheless, the following may be of use
and is presented in that context. A critical, detailed evaluation of
all such studies will be contained in the forthcoming Systemetrics,
Inc. report on the subject.
I. Allen, S., Green, P., Rucker, K., Cohen, R., Goolsby, C., and
Morris, R. L. A remote viewing study using a modified version of
the SRI procedure. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris
(Ed.), Research in parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, N. J.: The
Scarecrow Press, 1976, pp. 46-48.
A team of 12 persons rotated roles in direct viewing of 12 targets.
Each team member served as experimenter, subject, and target person for
4 targets of the 12. The 12 targets were sampled, without replacement,
from a pool of 30.
For each target, one author (RLM) selected the target, gave the
envelope to the target person, who arrived at the target 30 minutes
later and remained there for 15 minutes, taking notes on the target.
The subject, with the experimenter, tape recorded target descriptions.
The experimenter prompted the subject as necessary to obtain greater
target detail.
Three blind judges matched the transcripts to each target as they
visited the targets. One judge was told to select the single best
transcript for each target; the other two judges rated each transcript
in (1) its similarity to the target, and (2) their confidence in the
ratings.
Results were nonsignificant. The judge@ who used the matching
procedure got one hit, which is exactly chance performance. The other
two judges rated the correct transcripts above the mean rating on four
and three targets, respectively, where six would be chance.
This study used different scoring techniques and procedures than
the more successful studies, which may be pertinent.
Approved For Fiteleasid-t-T-4-t-M-090 7CM-9811910107URbO0100250013-2
Systemetrics, Inc., Post Office Drawer S, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
Approved ForQplease 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-007874WO100250013-2
II. Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J. Multiple subject and long distant
precognitive remote viewing of geographical locations. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and
Society, IEEE, 19-21 September 1977, Washington, D.C., pp. 512-516.
Two experiments were conducted, the first requiring seven subjects
to predict where the experimenter would be 35 minutes in the future, the
second where the experimenter would be 23 to 24 hours in the future, and
over 5000 miles away.
Experiment 1. Subjects worked in pairs, with each member of pair
responding to each of seven targets. Response (tape recordings and
drawings) from one member of each pair randomly assigned to Group A,
the other to Group B. Experimenter visited targets, made photographs,
took notes. Target randomly chosen from set of 10 targets by random
number. Pool of targets and 10 packets per trial selected by other
person not associated with the experiment.
Two judges blind ranked Group A responses against targets; two
other judges blind ranked Group B responses; two additional judges
blind ranked Group A responses against Group B responses.
Morris' (1972) statistical procedure was used to evaluate results.
For Group A, each judge matched responses successfully (p < .005, each
judge). For Group B, each judge also matched responses successfully
(P < .01 each). The last two judges compared Group A and Group B
responses successfully (p < .002 each). Seventeen direct hits were
made of the 42 total matches.
Experiment 2. One subject described location of experimenter,
on five successive days and 23-24 hours in advance. Subject in Chicago,
experimenter in Eastern Europe. Upon return of the experimenter,
responses were matched against targets by (1) subject, (2) experimenter,
and (3) third person.
Resulting rank orderings were significant (p <'.025 for subject
and experimenter, p < .05 for third person).
Results are interpreted to support existence of remote viewing
abilities independent of distance and time.
III. Bisaha, J. P. and Dunne, B. J. Precognitive remote viewing in
the Chicago area: A replication of the Stanford experiment.
In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.), Research
in Parapsychology, 1976. Metuchen, N. J.: The Scarecrow Press,
1977, pp. 84-86.
Using same procedure as in (II), two subjects were used (6 trials
for one subject, two for the o@her) to describe target location of
Approved For Release 2003/04/18.1-CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0100250013-2
Approved ForiMilease 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787QW0100250013-2
experimenter 35 minutes in advance. The eight responses were compared
to photographs and notes taken at the target by an experimenter. All
three judges successfully matched targets to responses, p < 10-4 for
two judges, and p < .0005 for the third. Two judges had five direct
hits out of eight targets; the third judge had four direct hits.
Targets, responses, and other details (such as subjects and their
selection process) are not given in the paper.
IV. Hastings, A. C. and Hurt, D. B. A,confirmatory remote viewing
experiment in a group setting. Proceedings of the IEEE, 1976,
October, 1544-1545.
Thirty-six subjects described, individually, a randomly selected
target (of a pool of six selected by the experimenters). After writing
their responses, they compared notes and voted for the target, being
NNW, then informed of the six targets in the pool.
Of the 36 subjects, 20 voted for the correct target, t = 5.22,
P < 6 x 10-7.
.Authors surprised at results, attribute them to care in reinforcing
subjects, feedback, etc. Authors state that group-subject research in
this area can clearly have positive results.
V. Karnes, E. W. and Susman, E. P. Remote viewing: A response
bias interpretation. Denver: Metropolitan State College,
unpublished manuscript.
Authors used a signal detection experimental procedure with 90
subjects in an experimental group and 25 subjects in a control group
to provide a baseline for guessing or response bias.
Receiver-sender pairs were randomly selected, and senders sent
to one of nine target locations. Receivers viewed booklets of 18
(color) pictured sites, one of which was correct target. In control
group, the target was not among the 18 in the booklet from which the
receivers had to select the target.
Results indicate that control group behaved at chance, selecting
target sites and "noise" sites equally often; thus, no significant
response bias existed. Experimental subjects obtained 24 hits of 409
selections, for hit rate of 0.0586. Chance is 1/18 = .0555.
Difference is not significant (p = .395).
Authors conclude there is no evidence for existence of remote
viewing.abilit@ in this experiment.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1&3CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0100250013-2
Approved ForlWease 2003104/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787WO100250013-2
Nove
VI. Puthoff, H. E. and Targ, R. A. Various experiments published in
technical reports. Proceedings of the IEEE (1976, 6-4, 329-354),
Nature (1974, 251, 602-607), and elsewhere.
These experiments have used local and long-distance remote viewing
protocols in which the subject describes and/or sketches either the
location of an "outbound" experimenter or a geographical coordinate
pair. Experiments have been conducted successfully with approximately
10 subjects, some practiced and a couple naive. Statistics for local
experiments follow procedures of Morris (1972).
This laboratory has had key role in developing methodology,
attempting to quantify channel of such communication, and offering
rationale for successful vs. unsuccessful results. Experiments are
far too varied and numerous to summarize here. Results are nearly
always positive and impressive, as reported.
VII. Rauscher., E. A., Weissmann., G., Sarfatti, J., and Sirag, S. P.
Remote perception of natural scenes, shielded against ordinary
perception. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, and R. L. Morris (Ed.),
Research in Parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, N. J.: The
Scarecrow Press, 1976, pp. 41-45.
One subject remotely viewed eight different targets known only to
one of the experimenters, who visited the sites at specified times.
Each target (of pool of 10) randomly selected without replacement.
Subject's responses were tape recorded; she also made sketches%. Feed-
back provided to subject immediately thereafter.
Five judges matched transcripts/sketches with photographs of sites.
For each site, each judge recorded first, second, and third transcript
choice, and gave percentage weighting to each choice "to indicate
likelihood of its being a first choice."
Results were determined to be nonsignificant, but experimenters
felt some noticeable correlations between actual targets and subjects'
descriptions. Absence of positive results as described in terms of
delayed feedback, which authors believed to be a methodological error.
VIII. Vallee, J., Hastings, A. C., and Askevold, G. Remote viewing
experiments through computer conferencing. Proceedings of the
IEEE, October 1976, 1551-1552.
Twelve subjects, situated at computer terminals in New York,
Florida, California, and Quebec, indicated their selection of a
mineral sample taken from an envelope at a preselected time. In
addition, "double blind" targets were also remotely viewed as a
preselected time period. (Double blind targets were not removed
from their envelope, and no fe6dback was provided to subjects.)
-Ai
Approved For Release 2003/04114'-.-CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0100250013-2
Approved For*0ease 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787WO100250013-2
Six subjects responded, giving a total of 33 descriptions of the
10 samples. Thirteen of the descriptions were under the double blind
conditions, and 20 under "open" conditions. Four specimens (targets)
were run under both conditions.
Five outside judges matched the 33 descriptions against the 10
targets, instructed to assign one or more targets to each description.
Judges also allocated 100 percentage points among all specimens to
indicate their "certainty."
Results show eight of 33 targets correctly identifiedly summing
certainty percentages across Judges (p < .01). Chance is 3,.3 of 33.
Two subjects, submitting 9 and 11 transcripts, respectively, did
better than others (p = .04).
Double blind targets were viewed as successfully as open targets.
IX. Whitson, T. W., Bogart, D. N., Palmer, J., and Tart, C. T.
Preliminary experiments in group "remote viewing." Proceedinas
of the IEEE, October 1976, 1550-1551.
Students in a university art class were subjects. Experimenters
selected 10 targets from pool of 30, with color slide of each and
travelling instructions in a sealed envelope. Subjects sketched target
while experimenter visited target (selected randomly from 10 envelopes).
Outbound experimenter returned, removed and randomized all ten
slides, including target slide. Judge was asked to match first and
second choice of 10 slides to each subject's drawing. Five first
choices (of 27) were correct, and six second choices (of 26) were
correct. No statistics were applied to these results.
Now A second experiment was conducted, in a similar fashion, to
check against possible response bias. In this experiment, the correct
target was the first choice on 3 of 14 drawings and the second choice
on 1 of 14 drawings.
Authors conclude p = .033 for combined results but statistical
evaluation not clear.
SGFOIA3
Approved For Release 2003/04/1A -@ CIA-RDP96-00787ROO01 00250013-2