Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
April 4, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
August 1, 1979
Content Type: 
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 paper for presentation to the Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, Moraga, California August 1979 Precognitive Remote Perception: A critical overview of the experimental program 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-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 -i A three year experimental program in precognitive re- mote perception (P RP) provides the data base for a critical anal- ysis of this made of ESP. The program consisted of a total of .forty formal trials with nineteen untrained percipients, and pro- duced a total of e.i.gYzty-two percipient transcripts of randomly selected geographical locations where an agent was situated, spa- Bally 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 camparisions were made, using Norris' (1972) and Solfvin, Kelly and Burdick's (1978) statistical tech- niques for evaluating free--xespanse 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-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 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- co~ 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 iii accordance wi~L-h Solfvin, Kelly and Burdick's (1978) method of analyzing preferential-ranking data. (Table 2.) In addition, aver 30 informal trials have been carxied 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- perimental program, to discuss same 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 "perception" 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, P1 participating in 6 trials and P2 in two trials. Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 s Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 In all eight trials B.D. was the agent, or outbound experimenter, and J.B. remained with the percipient. Percipients were their im- spend 15 minutes eetheiagegtawould betbetweene35eandd50~minutes pressions of wher ossible. The target was later, and to draw these irouesofol0~locations which had been ran- selected randomly from a g P dourly selected from a pool of aver 100, five minutes after the per- cipient had concluded her narrative. Theheoexeerimontthincluding pool were unknown to anyone involved in t P th_e two experimenters . (Table 2 . ) ? The original judging procedure consisted of having three sepa- rate judges blind rank order theoeigntingadrawiPgs,aagah nstephoto- ents' narratives, three with acc p y graphs and descriptive notes taken by the agent at thTht?x-rce.s?itsh of trials, on a scale of 1 to 8 (best to worst match). ' these rankings were analyzed bs' oinse~mater9al, m'IYheosumaofetheurank preferentially matched free-re P10_4) and 1.5 in the third case assigned was 12 in t~vo cases (p= (p=.0005} . (All p-values cited in tl~iis gaper. ax-e one-tailed..) These transcripts were subsequently re-Judged by three sets ar eight independent judges, each juresultskanalyzednbyetheaSolfvlin,aKellyt the eight targets, and the and Burdick (1978) technique.' The res027jant(Tableo3.)an>~s we_e 20 (p=.008), 21 (p=.012), and 23 (p=. Protocol #2 (Bisaha & Dunne, 1977b; Bisaha & Dunne, 1979; Dunne & Bisaha, 1978.) In the fall of 1976, a second series of PRP trials ti*as COQOl, ducted following tYie same protocol and using the same target p with the exception that the seven volur~ieearnPsrinpeachstrial wereed in four different pairs while bath pe P a dis- spatially separated from each otlicx,, in three instances b~erformed p tance of over ten miles. Seven trials of this sort were with B,D. as the agent, yielding data in the fo nl~ of one set of seven target photographs and notes, and fourteen transcripts, two of ~ohich corresponded to each targetGrouheB~rsosthatteachrsetacortainedvoned into two sets, Group A and P 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 agai~t? otherajudgeswblindurank of ranks of 15 (p=.01) and 13 (p=.005) . ordered the Group B transcripts against the targets, with sums ?fhad ranks of 15 (p=.01) and 14 (p=.005). In addition, a fifth judg 04 ) a ncl matched both sets with sums of ranks for Group A of 18 (p=. 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 (197036)etG~oup Bresums Group A sums of ranks of 15 (p=.008) and 18 (p--? of ranks of 17 (p=.023) and 12 (p=.001). (Table 4.) Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 This design afforded us the opportunity to compare and note the diversity in individual narrative styles of two percipients describing the same 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 Morris' (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 tha+,:. 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 ar 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 8:30 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 2lorris' (1972) method. The resultant rank sums were 9 (p=.05), 11 (p ~.20), and 15 (p x.20). Re -evaluation with four sets of five independent judges each, and Solfvin, Burdick and Kelly's (1978) technique, yie407d~ rank sums of 9 (p=.041), 1.1 (p=.139), 6 (p=.002), and 7 (p=. (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 l0 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-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007878000500390001-6 Two trials were insufficient for analysis by the usual method, however, two sets 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 i In September of 1978, I3.D. had occasion to travel in the fa r_ west under circumstances similar to those of Protocol #3, leaving the last six days of the trip totally unplanned and unknown. VJe 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- cholo~y laboratories in various parts of the country, served asfour cipients. Tcao fallo~~ed the precognitive mode of the protocol, follot,=ed a retrococ,]nitive made (describing the target several hours after the agent's visit}, and oiie 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.; D9enlo Parl., 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 (Ceni;ral Daylight Time) each day for six consecutive days. Each set of transcripts was sent, along with a set of target p}~atagraphs and notes to a laba.ratory 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 145), only five transcripts) (p