SUMMARY OF KNOWN REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000100250013-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 26, 2003
• Sequence Number: 13
• Content Type: SUMMARY

4/18: CIA-RDP
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.
--Leasm tczp
Approved For 00100250013-2
Systemetrics, Inc., Post Office Drawer S, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
 Approved ForQpiease 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