80023-9 Approved For Release 2001/03126 ClAtRDP96-00787ROO02000 16 The Jou of Parapsychology Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 43, March 1979 J RAo, K. R. Studies in the preferential effect. IV. The role of key cards in preferential response situati6ns. Journal of Parapsychology, 1964, 28, 28-41. a RAo, K. R. The differential response in three new situations.Journal of Para- psychology, 1964, 28, 81-92. b RAo, K. R., Se DAVIS, J. W. The differential effect and experimenter effects in intentional and nonintentional psi tests. Journal of Parapsychology, 1978, 42, 1-19. SAILAJA, P. Confirmatory study of the role of key cards in the language ESP test. Journal of Parapsychology, 1965, 29, 290-29 1. (Abstract) SAILAJA, P., & RAo, K. R. Experimmial studies of the differential effect in life setting- Parapsychological Monographs, No. 13. New York: Parapsychol- ogy Foundation, 1973. SARGENT, CARL L. Hypnosis as a psi-conducive state: A controlled replication study. J&U"ud of Parapiychology, 1978, 42, 257-275. Institutef" Parapsychology College Station Durham, NC 27708 PRECOGNITIVE REMOTE VIEWING IN THE CHICAGO AREA: A REPLICATION OF THE STANFORD EXPERIMENT By BRENDA J. DUNNE AND JOHN P. BISAHA ABsTRACT: The ability of untrained individuals to describe a remote geographical site where an agent will be at a future time, before the target location has b... determined, was investigated in eight separate trials using two volunteer pt -r.1N ients who had no claim to extraordinary psychic abilities. The transcripts of descriptions were matched and ranked against the various target locations by e.61t independent judges who had no other connection with the experimuL The rest of his matching indicated . d%,ree of accuracy at the p < .008 (one-tailed) signifi. cance level. The ability of individuals to describe remote geographical loc-a- tions up to several thousand kilometers distant from their physical presence was labeled "remote viewing" by Puthoff and Targ (1976a) at Stanford Research Institute. In these experiments the percipien't was closeted with an experimenter at SRI and, at an agreed-upon time, attempted to describe the site which was then being visited by a target team of experimenters known to the percipient. The target sites were chosen randomly from a pool of over 100 targets within a 30-minute driving distance and were unknown to either the percip- ient or the experimenters who remained with him. After allowing 30 minutes for travel time, the percipient was asked to attempt to scribe aloud into a tape recorder his impressions of the locati,',': where he thought the target team was and to draw a sketch of the location he was describing. The "demarcation" team remained at the target site for 15 minutes, the same 15-minute period during which the percipient was recording his impressions. In the course of experimentation, one participant claimed to have received impressions of the targets before the trials began, and her descriptions turned out to be exceptionally accurate, even though the target locations had not been selected at the time these impressions were recei ved. These spontaneous occurrences moti- Approved For Release 2001103/26: This paper is based on a preliminary report given on August 21, 1976, at the nineteenth annual convention of the Parapsychological Association which was held at the Um CIA-RDP96_06Tftd0ftdftft23-9 18 t TheJournal of Parapsychology Precognitive Remote Viewing: A RePlication 19 vated Puthoff and Targ (1976b) to investigate further the precogni tive aspects of remote viewing by altering their experimental pro tocol. The new protocol required the percipient to describe the re mote target during a 15-minute period commencing 20 minutes be C14 0 fore the target was selected and 35 minutes before the outbound 00 experimenter was to arrive at the target. Four trials of this kind were 0 performed with one experienced subject. The method used to verify 0 0 the success of these trials was to have three independent judges blind C14 0 match the percipient's descriptions with the target sites. 0 The experiment described in the present paper was.carried out during a period of one month in the spring of 1976. It was a repli t'- cation of the precognitive remote-viewing experiment conducted at 00 1- SRI, with the exception that eight trials were performed with two 0 0 inexperienced percipients. The results of these trials were originally cL analyzed by the same method of judging utilized by Puthoff and Targ (Bisaha 8c Dunne, 1977). However, the possibility of a violation a a of independence in judging existed under those circumstances (Solf W vin, Kelly, & Burdick, 1978), and the judging procedure was mod ified accordingly by having eight separate judges rank only one de Fj scription apiece against the eight potential targets. This revision pro vided for the assurance that the rankings for each trial would be '-0 independent of the other seven rankings and accounts for the dif 04 ference in statistical results as given in the earlier report of these trials (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977). C14 METHOD Sukeas Two inexperienced female volunteers were selected to be the W percipients, the only prerequisite being that they hold a positive at- W titude toward the phenomenon under investigation. One of them 0 performed two trials; the other performed six, the determination for LL this division being made strictly by the availability of the participants. V 4) The agent in all eight trials was B. Dunne, designated here as E2. > J. Bisaha (E,) served as coordinator and observer in the laboratory. 0 CL 0- Apparatus Five other individuals who had no association with the experi- ment were asked to submit lists of various locations in the Chicago area; these were then compared and compiled into a target pool of over 100 locations by a sixth individual, who was the only person familiar with all the targets and who had no other involvement in the experiment. The targets were printed on index cards, sealed incPn- velopes, and kept in a locked file cabinet. Other equipment consirrd of a tape recorder, pencil (for percipients' and agents' use if *y desired to draw sketches of their impressions), and a camera (forae use of the outbound experimenter, or agent, enabling her to ge photographs of the target sites at the time of her visit and fromc.me perspective of her observations of the site). 0 0 Procedure 0 00 The percipients were individually tested. Before the expermit- began, they were informed of the nature of the experiment and experimental protocol. The agent took the time to talk casually each percipient in an informal, friendly atmosphere, attemptin w6h Gem-" establish a comfortable rapport. At the time of the trials the pe ients were instructed by E, to make themselves comfortable, to r re and let their minds become as blank as possible They were then t+ to try to imagine or visualize the location where the agent wouldpp 35 to 50 minutes after the trial began and to de to tlTe scribe aloud in tape recorder the images which came to mind during the 15-mind& trial period. It was suggested that they also try to make sketches these ima es, if possible. (Only two such sketches were obta. 9 ina from one of the percipients; the other drew one sketch, but d;R not feel comfortable drawing, so the issue was not pressed.) TO percipients were further advised to try not to define or identify wh%f they saw with specificity, but to stick to general impressions, even these appeared to make no sense or have no continuity. They we allowed as much time as they felt they needed to relax and prepa themselves before each trial. Although it was preferable to have an obsc - -,r closeted with tb -8 percipient, keeping track of time and asking c@Liesrions which wouW elicit more explicit description, one percipient indicated that she hadi difficulty relaxing or talking out loud with another person presen@ She was left alone in a closed room with the observer, E,, nearbp_ ready to knock on the door and inform her when the allotted timeL was up, CL < Once the time schedule was agreed upon (see Table I for a sam ple protocol) the agent left Mundelein College and the percipient began recording her description. The agent had in her possession 10 envelopes which had been selected blindly by E, from the target pool. Kept locked in a cabinet by E, the contents of the envelopes 20- TheJournal of Parapsychology Precognitive Remote Viewing:,4 Replication 21 Table I Table 2 SAMPLE ExPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL 7 10:00 The agent (E2) leaves with 10 envelopes containingRANKS ASSIGNED BY JUDGES IN PRECOGNITivF REMOTE-VIEf4NG target locations and begins TRIALS Q I 20-minute drive. Q 14 (Pi Percipient #1; P2= Percipient #2) The observer (El), remaining with subject, elicits description of location where 00 the agent (F.,) will be between 10:35 and 10:50. 10:15 Percipient response completed, at which time Q laboratory part of experiment is Target Rank AssignedCN over. 10:20 Outbound E@ generates random number between Windmill Cemetery (PJ Q I and 10, counts down to associated envelope, opens it, and proceeds to targetAdler Planetarium (p,)a location indicated. D 10:35 Outbound F-2 arrives at target location and Playboy Building (P,) 3 00 remains there for 15 minutes, until DO 10:50. Marina Towers (P,) 10:50 E2 returns to laboratory. Experimental trial 2 Q completed. Q Lincoln Park Conservatory (P,) I (6 were unknown to either E, or E2. The agent drove continuouslyElks Headquarters and Memorial (P,) 5 with It IL 0) no set direction or goal for 20 minutes, or until Ivanhoe Restaurant (p,)- 6 five minutes after CL the percipient had completed her part of the trial, Angel Guardian Orphanage Florist (p,)a 0 the description of I W the future target. After 20 minutes the agent blindly selected a Sum of Ranks 20 number from I to 10 from an enclosed container holdingStatistical Significance P < .008 (one-WI4@ 10 num- C) bered and identically folded sheets of paper. She selected the en velope corresponding to the drawn number, opened the envelope, C*4 * and proceeded to the destination indicated on the In addition to the tape-recording, the percipient enclosed card, drew a sketch. CO C arriving at the designated site 35 minutes after the 4 percipient had - begun her description and 20 minutes after the description'e had been depending on the agent'sjudgment of the complexity and size of'&' completed. She remained at the target site for 15 target as well as her own observational perspective minutes, photo- at the time of Re graphed the location, and made notes as to her impressionstrial. The judges were given these photographs of the taped to a sheet&f site. These photographs and notes were used later paper with the name of the target and the agent's as the basis of the descriptive noes (D U) judges' comparisons and rankings. When each trial typed below the photographs. The judge was requested W was completed, a to r t' order the e-recorded hoto ta ra f th hs on a scale b f I t d 8 i i di 1 b d h d e su o s o e o e te t transcr e target wh, pt was ma p jec ; , une ng type g p p description and was attached to any associated drawingsbest matched the transcript, and 8 being the which the worst. subject might have made. When the eight trials were completed 0 0 there were eight percipient-generated transcripts, RESULTS LL and eight agent- LL generated sets of photographs and accompanying notes a which had The statistical analysis of these experimental trials was based 6 b ;u i V out the rankings given by the eightjudges, in accordance W on a w been prepared by the agent before she had any informat ith Solfvg ' d i > escr Kelly, and Burdick's (1978) method of analysis 0 ptions. - for the contents of the subjects preferentiQ_ After the eight experimental trials had been carried out, eight ranking data. The sum of ranks assigned by CL persons, not otherwise connected with the experiment, the judges was 20 (sar were asked to Table 2), a figure significant at p < .008 (one-tailed). < act as judges. Each judge was given one transcript Four of the of a percipient's eight transcripts were ranked as 1, and the description to read and was then presented with a other four ranks were 2, set of eight 3, 5, and 6. photographs with accompanying agenCs notes, one of which was the The judges who evaluated the transcripts were correct target. The number of photographs for each not specifically target varied, trained for the task of assessing material of this type, a factor which 22 TlwJournal of Parapsychology could have possibly had a negative effect on the results. However, the untrained judges still saw enough information in the transcripts to match them significantly with the appropriate targets. idea of the 04 A short description of each trial will provide some Q degree of accuracy which was reached in the percipien& descrip- 40 00 tions. As must be expected, some of the descriptions were more ac- CD 4o curate than others, a fact which is reflected in the ranks assigned by C@l the judges. For reasons of space, only select portions of the tran- 04 CD scripts are given here. The excerpts presented were chosen on the a basis of the judges' opinions, after judging, as to which elements of the transcripts they felt best matched the locations they had just 00 ranked. CD Trial I (ranked as 1) CD cL The target was the Windmill Cemetery in Franklin Park, Illinois. 0) The primary feature of the target was a large windmill, dark brown with square white windows and white blades of latticed, rectangular e windmill, pattern. There were two shiny spotlights in front of th mounted on a nearby building. The cemetery itself was like a park, no headstones or monuments; just lawn, trees, shrubbery, and a small take. The percipient saw a "contrast of black and white.... The white shape was triangular, suspended on something .... Has 04 both vertical and horizontal lines .... Some shiny things .... The CD impression of being out in the open .... A sensation of swing, up and down movements .... A design of the horizontal and vertical CD lines, but in squares .... A big thing that it's on, I don't know, like a " big building or a big something.... Maybe it's windows." (D U) M Trial 2 (ranked as 1) 0 The target was the Adler Planetarium. The predominant fea- 77D tures were the large domed building itself, a seated statue of Coper nicus on a base of light-colored marble blocks, and a landscaped, 0 LL tree-lined mall lying between the statue and the building. The per- cipienCs tape recording for this trial was inaudible. Since she had left the building and the agent was still at the target site, E, telephoned 0 the percipient and had her-repeat her impressions. It was this tran- script, together with a drawing made at the time of the original tape recording, that was presented to the judges for matching. The fol- lowing is what the percipient reported over the telephone: She had a sensation of motion. The next image was of vertical and parallel lines which began to look like a tunnel. There was a sensation of sunlight flashing through trees, as if of movement; it Precognitive Remote Viewing: A Replication 23 would flash and disappear., She had an image of a half-circle w*h was like a dome. Then parallel lines again which looked like a Ah or road going into the distance. Again, parallel lines like a path, 91t I this time it seemed to be like little hills, like landscaping, she said,off to the side. The dome again. The next impression was of what%3- peared to be open arches which seemed to be to the left. It appea&,d to have something solid on either side; she wasn't sure if they wete CL actually arches, but they were of that general shape. She had do- culty in defining that particular part of it, drew a sketch. Her fiW impression was of a pattern which seemed to be made of stones, hte solid stones set into some kind of a thing. She said it might be a st?, floor, she wasn't exactly sure. It was some kind of a hard stone, coo crete, marble, some light-colored stone. She did mention having Re AD image of seeing the experimenter's hair blowing in the wind. Tw was all she could recall. IL A sketch which the percipient drew bore a striking resembla to the features of the dome and statue pedestal, very similar to ft- photograph taken by the agent at the time of the trial. U Trial 3 (ranked as 3) The Playboy Building, a large office building in the heart Chicago, was the target. The front part of the building (the low" part) was mostly glass windows divided vertically by dark columa and horizontally by dark square panels. There was a dark-colorG rectangular marquee over the entranceway. The panels and colum?4 divide the front of the building into sections about 10 feet squarqb The percipient saw "something big, maybe a building.... Impreis.- sion of sections or partitions.... Some kind of division, not nece,4D sarily fences but something else. Into squares or other shapes. . -0 don't know if it's different sections.... These sections aren't too biE, 10 x 10 or something like that." 0 LL Trial 4 (ranked as 2) (D Marina Towers was the target. The locati,,,@[., -I a distinctive one> though somewhat difficult to describe, and ti. @ -ercipient's descriPE! tion is an excellent example of the nature of remote-viewing imagDL ery, There are two tall circular buildings, often described as re,::f sembling corncobs, each divided into two main sections. The top sections consist of rows of semi-circular balconies forming a series of 11 rings" around the buildings; they are separated from the bottom sections by vertical supporting pillars. The bottom parts of the buildings resemble spirals and are used for parking. There is a large q > 0 CL CL 24 TheJounial qf Parapsychology theatre shaped in a Curved design off to one side. The percipient described "horizontal lines. just going across the whole field.... Vertical lines now, but not nearly as many as the horizontal and they're mainly from the lower part .... Sort of are sticking out of the bottom.... A sense of division .... There are curves that run along the lower field.... Also the impression of levels.... There might be cars parked on the bottom. I'm looking at the area on an angle, like from a corner or something. I get the impression of the whole thing on a slant.... Impressions of circles.... Not much color.... Mostly dark and light contrasts." Trial 5 (ranked as 1) The target was the Lincoln Park Conservatory. This is a large open space, a park, with a circular fountain, several large trees, a stone bridge which extends to a stone wall on either side, and, at the time of the trial, large bare flower beds on the lawn. This is the percipient's description: "A small pond.... In the middle of grass .... Something like a sand trap or something in a golf course .... A lot of grass around, very green. Trees too.... A sense of openness. A big, wide expanse.... There may be a stone wall.... Could ... be some sort of park." Trial 6 (ranked as 5) Although the agent was in the correct location, the actual target in this trial was not the one designated in the selected envelope, but an unusual structure in the vicinity. (The designated target was a statue nearby which could not be located at the time of the trial. Once the decision was made to use the Elks National Headquarters and Memorial as the target it was treated as though it had been the designated one, and the designated target, the statue, was dropped from any further consideration. It should be noted that this decision was made at the time of the trial and before the agent had any in- formation about the description generated by the percipient.) The selected target was a large circular building flanked by two smaller square buildings, each housing black metal statues. A large flight of steps led to the Memorial, which was made of white stone and had three distinct layers, the middle section of which was circumscribed by white pillars. There was a large black metal doorway. The tran- script reads: "There seems to be a lot of concrete or asphalt or stone of some kind. Grays and gray colors or beiges.... Dark metal, steel maybe.... Could be steps.... Round and square shapes. Maybe poles-like pillars or something." Precognitive Remote Viewing.- A Replication 25 Trial 7 (ranked as 6) The target was the Ivanhoe Restaurant, an old English-sty@;pub located at the corner of a busy intersection. A large buildin 9111ith several sections with Tudor-style trim and a rounded brick turcot on the corner from which protruded a flag pole with a rigid pe I 1@ant- shaped sign. Looking down the street along the side of the bLAWing was a row of arched street lights. The transcript described "ap9t of movement nearby, cars, a lot of traffic .... Some kind of a littlaeaf- like thing.... Arches one over the other .... Rectangles.... A0oad . . . going off away from me.... I see a kind of corner. . . . A ri%nd- ness... a curving kind of side like a bowl. A wavy effect, kivo f leaf-like effect." Q Q Trial 8 (ranked as 1) 1 to The final target was a florist shop, the Angel Guardian Organ- age Florist. The shop was a square-shaped building with a pc&ted roof, distinguished by four blue mosaic tile-covered col mns More an almost solid glass front. Behind the glass was a large disp!!!@ of colorful flowers and plants. This description was probably theLoiost accurate in terms of detail of the eight. The percipient saw "a lot of colors, small groups of colors. Lots of reds and yellows, glans, pinks. Probably flowers. They look like they're all bunche;4 to- gether.... On display .... There's some kind of a buildinia... Windows, poles, glass .... Concrete around that she's wnlCing on.... A couple of raised round things.... A sensation of blu DISCUSSION U) Co The most significant finding evidenced by these experi trials is that it appears possible for an untrained, not previousl n- sidered "psychic" subject to give significant descriptive inform ion regarding an unknown location which is spatially and temr) Mally remote from the percipient's physical presence when no appq9ent source of ordinary communication is possible. This infarmation@iay be added to Puthoff and Targ's (1976a) findings that the qualip of remote-viewing descriptions is not influenced by the amount Ais- tance involved and that electrical shielding does not interfere th @i the accuracy or quality of remote-viewing descriptions. This success- ful replication of their experiment, as well as other experiments in this area by the present authors (Dunne & Bisaha, 1978), supports the hypothesis that the remote-viewing design might well be a de- pendable vehicle for further research in which variables such as 26 TheJournal of Parapsychology time, the role of the agent, the improvement of subject performance through training and experience and enhanced environmental con ditions, the relationship between percipient and agent, and other vital issues in the field of parapsychology can be more fully C14 0explored. 0 00 Some ideas for future research along these lines were suggested 0by two instances in the present experiment when exact adherence to 0 0the experimental protocol was prevented by unusual circumstances. 04 0In Trial 1, because of an error in calculation on the part of the per- 0son who prepared the target pool, the target turned out to be much 0 farther away than the prescribed 30-minute drive. Instead of arriv ing at the target, which was the Windmill Cemetery, 35 minutes after 00 I- the experiment began, the experimenter arrived 55 minutes later, or 0 090 minutes after the start of the trial. In spite of this variation in the c6 timing, the percipient's description was still accurate enough to be 01) ranked as I by the judge who evaluated this transcript. This seems to CL indicate that the specific time assignment given to participants may not be a determining factor in their remote-viewing performance. By varying the time element in future experiments, this implication could easily be tested. In Trial 6, the experimenter was unable to locate the designated target although she was in the correct area, and instead concentrated C14 CO on a nearby structure in the vicinity, the Elks Memorial Headquar 2- ters. Although the judge ranked the description as a 5, the descrip tion was still closer to the chosen target than it would have been to the designated one, a bronze statue. In this instance, at least, it could C14 be possible that the percipient's description was more influenced by d) to the agent's attentional direction than by some clairvoyant knowledge M 0of the contents of the envelope or by possible PK influence of the 79 random number selection determining the appropriate envelope. Statistical analysis of the results of this experiment even without these two trials is still significant (sum of ranks = 14 in 6 trials, with 0 LL P < .012, one-tailed). V Since this experiment was completed, three major forms of crit- a) . . >icism have been leveled at some of the other remote-viewing ex- 0 %_ penments: CL ' 1. Diaconis (1978) points out that in cases when the subjects have CL sults of such an analysis would be useful for trainingjudges to dis- 0 L_ tinguish the major or critical elements in the transcripts they are judging from the extraneous detail. For example, a percipient who < might perceive a shape which reminded him of an old castle might be tempted to include in his description such features as a draw- bridge or turrets when none existed, although the overall impression of the site might be very similar to a castle-like structure. It might be Precognitive Remote Viewing.- A Replication 2! possible to develop a judging procedure which is less dependent on the judge's subjective determination concerning the relamnship I I between transcript and target and geared more toward naching specific aspects based on an order of transmissibility, theray en- abling us to learn more about the nature of the information tainsfer occurring in remote view' CD ing. Q It is the authors' belief that the attitudinal environment Md the initial rapport established bet nts and agent areorucial I I I ween percipie factors in remote-viewing success. In all the experiments v8 have con ducted, we have attempted to create an atmosphere ofMonge- niality, playfulness, and relaxation in which percipients anlw_ ent join in creating a belief system in which psi phenomena are r@) V d natural. Although we have not tested this empirically as yet,mi e be- lieve that such an environment is a vital part of our proceduop and should be taken into consideration in any attempts at future &Iica- tions. 13 Although our present knowledge does not enable us to *lain adequately the phenomenon being investigated here, the faL4 that this paper represents a replicati n of an earlier experiment s I ti5gests 10. that remote viewing as an experimental design provides additional evidence substanti to - ating the existence of perceptual and comn*tpica- tion channels lying beyond the senses as they are currently daned, and offers itself as a viable vehicle for future research in paRpsy- chology. V_ Q Q REFERENCES 04 4D BISAHA, J., & DUNNE, B. Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago U) %- A replication of the Stanford experiment. in J. D. Morris, W. G liz- & al 11) R. L. Mortis (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology, 1976. Metuchen,,2. Scarecrow Press, 1977. BURDICK, D. S., & KELLY, E. F. Statistical methods in parapsychol og). in B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of parapsychology. New York: VadlNos- trand Reinhold, 1977. 8 V DIACONIS, P. Statistical problems in ESP research. Science, 197 , 201 136. 0 DUNNE, B., & BISAHA, J. Multiple channels in precognitive rem te vieliting. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in parapIchology, 1977. Metuchen, ttf: Scarecrow Press, 1978. MORRIs, R. L. An exact method for evaluating preferentially matched free- response material. Journal of the American Society for Psyhical Research, 1972, 66, 401-407. PUTHOFF, H., & TARG, R. A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. 30 The journal of Parapsychology Proceedings of the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1976, 64, 329-353. a PUTHOFF, H., & TARG, R. Precognitive remote viewing. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology, 1975. Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow Press, 1976. b SOLFVIN, G., KELLY, E. F., & BURDICK, D. Some new methods of analysis for preferential-ranking data. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Re- search, 1978, 72, 93-111. STOKES, D. M. Review of Research in parapsychology, 1976, J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.). Journal of Parapsychology, 1978, 42, 70-76. Midwest Parapsychological Research Institute Mundelein College of Chicago 6363 Sheridan Rd. Chicago, IL 60660