◆ SpookStack

ing * CPYRGHT Approved For Release 2000/08/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R0Q0 ures PUTHOFF AND TARG: PERCEPTUAL CHANNEL FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER | class of paranormal perception phenomenon exists. At all times, we and others responsible for the overall program took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional. To ensure evaluations independent of belief structures of both experimenters and judges, all experiments were carried out under a protocol, described below, in which target selection at the beginning of experiments and blind judging of results at the end of experiments were handled independently of the researchers engaged in carrying out the experiments. Six subjects, designated $1 through S6, were chosen for the study. Three were considered as gifted or experienced subjects (Si through $3), and three were considered as learners (S4 through §6). The @ priori dichotomy between gifted and learners was based on the experienced group having been successful in other studies conducted before this program and the learners group being inexperienced with regard to paranormal] experimentation. The study consisted of a series of double-blind tests with local targets in the San Francisco Bay Area so that several in- dependent judges could visit the sites to establish documenta- tion. The protocol was to closet the subject with an experi- menter at SRI and at an agreed-on time to obtain from the subject a description of an undisclosed remote site being visited by a target team. In each of the experiments, one of the six program subjects served as remote-viewing subject, and SRI experimenters served as a target demarcation team at the remote location chosen in a double-blind protocol as follows. In each experiment, SRI management randomly chose a target location from a list of targets within a 30-min driving time from SRI; the target location selected was kept blind to subject and experimenters. The target pool consisted of more than 100 target locations chosen from a target-rich environ- ment. (Before the experimental series began, the Director of the Information Science and Engineering Division, not other- wise associated with the experiment, established the set of lo- cations as the target pool which remained known only to him. The target locations were printed on cards sealed in envelopes and kept in the SRI Division office safe. They were available only with the personal assistance of the Division Director who issued a single random-number selected target card that con- stituted the traveling orders for that experiment.) In detail: To begin the experiment, the subject was closeted with an experimenter at SRI to wait 30 min before beginning a narrative description of the remote location. A second ex- perimenter then obtained from the Division Director a target location from a set of traveling orders previously prepared and randomized by the Director and kept under his control. The target demarcation team, consisting of two to four SRI experi- menters, then proceeded by automobile directly to the target without any communication with the subject or experimenter remaining behind. The experimenter remaining with the sub- ject at SRI was kept ignorant of both the particular target and the target pool so as to eliminate the possibility of cueing (overt or subliminal) and to allow him freedom in questioning the subject to clarify his descriptions, The demarcation team remained at the target site for an agreed-on 15-min period following the 30 min allotted for travel.4 During the observa- “The first subject (S1) was allowed 30 min for his descriptions, but it was found that he fatigued and had little comment after the first 15 om cca SABE Vee BP RETCEBE 2010S CHRO EDA aa Gt OGY oa creer dudeing UNCLASS FIED 335 tion period, the remote-viewing subject was asked to describe his impressions of the target site into a tape recorder and to make any drawings he thought appropriate. An informal com- parison was then made when the demarcation team returned, and the subject was taken to the site to provide feedback. A. Subject S81: Experienced To begin the series, Pat Price, a former California police com- missioner and city councilman, participated as a subject in nine experiments. In general, Price’s ability to describe correctly buildings, docks, roads, gardens, and the like, includ- ing structural materials, color, ambience, and activity—often in great detail—indicated the functioning of a remote per- ceptual ability. A Hoover Tower target, for example, was recognized and named by name. Nonetheless, in general, the descriptions contained inaccuracies as well as correct state- ments, A typical example is indicated by the subject’s drawing shown in Fig. 3 in which he correctly described a park-like area containing two pools of water: one rectangular, 60 by 89 ft (actual dimensions 75 by 100 ft); the other circular, diameter 120 ft (actual diameter 110 ft). He incorrectly indi- cated the function, however, as water filtration rather than recreational swimming. (We often observe essentially correct descriptions of basic elements and patterns coupled with in- complete or erroneous analysis of function.) As can be seen from his drawing, he also included some elements, such as the tanks shown in the upper right, that are not present at the target site. We also note an apparent left-right reversal, often observed in paranormal perception experiments. To obtain a numerical evaluation of the accuracy of the temote-viewing experiment, the experimental results were subjected to independent judging on a blind basis by an SRI research analyst not otherwise associated with the research. The subject’s response packets, which contained the nine typed unedited transcripts of the tape-recorded narratives along with any associated drawings, were unlabeled and pre- sented in random order. While standing at each target loca- tion, visited in turn; the judge was required to blind rank order the nine packets on a scale 1 to 9 (best to worst match). The statistic of interest is the sum of ranks assigned to the target- associated transcripts, lower values indicating better matches. For nine targets, the sum of ranks could range from nine to eighty-one. The probability that a given sum of ranks s or Jess will occur by chance is given by [55] Pr (s or less) = Ty paps co'(t)( ) i=n 130 n-1 where s is obtained sum of ranks, N is number of assignable tanks, n is number of occasions on which rankings were made, and / takes on values from zero to the least positive integer k in (i- n){n. (Table I is a table to enable easy application of the above formula to those cases in which VN =n.) The sum in this case, which included seven direct hits out of the nine, was 16 (see Table II), a result significant at p= 2.9 X 107° by exact calculation. In Experiments 3, 4, and 6 through 9, the subject was se- cured in a double-walled copper-screen Faraday cage. The Faraday cage provides 120-dB attenuation for plane-wave tadio-frequency radiation over a range of 15 kHz to 1 GHz. For magnetic fields, the attenuation is 68 dB at 15 kHz and