Remote viewing

Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means, in particular, extra-sensory perception (ESP) or sensing with mind.Scientific studies have been conducted, and although some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results, none of the newer experiments concluded with such results when under properly controlled conditions, and therefore, like any other forms of ESP, constitutespseudoscience.[1] Typically a remote viewer is expected to give information about an object that is hidden from physical view and separated at some distance.[2] [3] [4] The term was introduced byparapsychologists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff in 1974.[5]

Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. Although one Stargate viewer had been awarded in 1984 a legion of merit for determining "150 essential elements of information (...) unavailable from any other source",[6] the program was eventually terminated in 1995, claiming a lack of documented evidence that the program had any value to the intelligence community.[7]

One of the early experiments was lauded by proponents as having improved the methodology of remote viewing testing and as raising future experimental standards, but also criticized as leaking information to the participants by inadvertently leaving clues.[8] Some later experiments had negative results when these clues were eliminated.[9]



[edit]Early background
The study of psychic phenomena by major scientists started in the mid-nineteenth century; early researchers included Michael Faraday,Alfred Russel Wallace, Rufus Osgood Mason and William Crookes. Their work predominantly involved carrying out focused experimental tests on specific individuals who were thought to be psychically gifted. Reports of apparently successful tests were met with much skepticism from the scientific community.

Later, in the 1930s, J. B. Rhine expanded the study of paranormal performance into larger populations, by using standard experimental protocols with unselected human subjects. But, as with the earlier studies, Rhine was reluctant to publicize this work too early, because of the fear of criticism from mainstream scientists.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-hyman86_9-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[10]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">This continuing skepticism, with its consequences for peer review and research funding, ensured that paranormal studies remained a fringe area of scientific exploration. However, by the 1960s, the countercultural attitudes of the time muted some of the prior hostility. The emergence of New Age thinking and the popularity of the human potential movement provoked a "mini-renaissance" that renewed public interest in consciousness studies and psychic phenomena, and helped to make financial support more available for research into such topics.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-sci181_10-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[11]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In the early 1970s, Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ joined the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory at Stanford Research Institute(SRI). In addition to their mainstream scientific research work on quantum mechanics and laser physics, they initiated several studies of the paranormal. These were supported with funding from the Parapsychology Foundation [3] and the newly-formed Institute of Noetic Sciences.

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Their research approach tended mainly towards studying alleged psychics, as had been the case with the studies in the nineteenth century. The initial goal of these studies was to try and determine, by technical means, how ESP processes and communication channels worked. This approach differed from other ESP-related research at the time, which was following the tradition of J. B. Rhine by primarily emphasizing proof-of-existence data-gathering from larger populations of general human subject participants.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-sci181_10-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[11]

[edit]US government-funded research
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">From World War II until the 1970s the US government occasionally funded ESP research. When the US intelligence community learned that the USSR and China were conducting ESP research, it became receptive to the idea of having its own competing psi research program. (Schnabel 1997)

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In 1972, Puthoff tested remote viewer Ingo Swann at SRI, and the experiment led to a visit from two employees of the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology. The result was a $50,000 CIA-sponsored project. (Schnabel 1997, Puthoff 1996,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-11" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[12] Kress 1977/1999<sup class="Template-Fact" style="line-height: 1em; white-space: nowrap; " title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009">[citation needed], Smith 2005) As research continued, the SRI team published papers in Nature,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[13] in Proceedings of the IEEE(Puthoff & Targ, 1976),<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-13" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[14] and in the proceedings of a symposium on consciousness for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Puthoff, et al., 1981<sup class="Template-Fact" style="line-height: 1em; white-space: nowrap; " title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009">[citation needed] ).

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">The initial CIA-funded project was later renewed and expanded. A number of CIA officials, including John N. McMahon (then the head of the Office of Technical Service and later the Agency's deputy director), became strong supporters of the program. By the mid 1970s, facing the post-Watergate revelations of its "skeletons", and after internal criticism of the program, the CIA dropped sponsorship of the SRI research effort.

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Sponsorship was picked up by the Air Force, led by analyst Dale E. Graff of the Foreign Technology Division. In 1979, the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, which had been providing some taskings to the SRI investigators, was ordered to develop its own program by the Army's chief intelligence officer, General Ed Thompson. CIA operations officers, working from McMahon's office and other offices, also continued to provide taskings to SRI's subjects. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005, Atwater 2001)

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">The program had three parts (Mumford, et al., 1995<sup class="Template-Fact" style="line-height: 1em; white-space: nowrap; " title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009">[citation needed] ). First was the evaluation of psi research performed by the U.S.S.R. and China, which appears to have been better-funded and better-supported than the government research in the U.S. (Schnabel 1997)

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In the second part of the program, called "Stargate project", SRI managed its own stable of "natural" psychics both for research purposes and to make them available for tasking by a variety of US intelligence agencies. The most famous results from these years were the description of a big crane at a Soviet nuclear research facility by Pat Price's (Kress 1977/1999, Targ 1996<sup class="Template-Fact" style="line-height: 1em; white-space: nowrap; " title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from August 2009">[citation needed] ) and Joseph McMoneagle,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-14" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[15] a description of a new class of Soviet strategic submarine by a team of three viewers including McMoneagle,(Smith 2005, McMoneagle 2002) and Rosemary Smith's <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-15" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[16] location of a downed Soviet bomber in Africa (which former President Carter later referred to in speeches). By the early 1980s numerous offices throughout the intelligence community were providing taskings to SRI's psychics. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005) In 1984 viewer McMoneagle was awarded a legion of merit for determining "150 essential elements of information...producing crucial and vital intelligence unavailable from any other source".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-may_5-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[6]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">The third branch of the program was a research project intended to find out if ESP – now called "remote viewing" – could be made accurate and reliable. The intelligence community offices that tasked the group seemed to believe that the phenomenon was real. But in the view of these taskers, a remote viewer could be "on" one day and "off" the next, a fact that made it hard for the technique to be officially accepted. Through SRI, individuals were studied for years in a search for physical (e.g., brain-wave) correlates that might reveal when they were "on- or off-target".

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">At SRI, Swann and Puthoff also developed a remote-viewing training program meant to enable any individual with a suitable background to produce useful data. As part of this project, a number of military officers and civilians were trained and formed a military remote viewing unit, based at Fort Meade, Maryland. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005, McMoneagle 2002)

[edit]Decline and termination
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">A struggle between unbelievers and believers in the sponsor organizations provided much of the program's actual drama. Each side seems to have been utterly convinced that the other's views were wrong. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005)

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In the early 1990s the Military Intelligence Board, chaired by DIA chief Soyster, appointed an Army Colonel, William Johnson, to manage the remote viewing unit and evaluate its objective usefulness. According to an account by former SRI-trained remote-viewer, Paul Smith (2005), Johnson spent several months running the remote viewing unit against military and DEA targets, and ended up a believer, not only in remote viewing's validity as a phenomenon but in its usefulness as an intelligence tool.

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">After the Democrats lost control of the Senate in late 1994, funding dissipated and the program went into decline. The project was transferred out of DIA to the CIA in 1995, with the promise that it would be evaluated there, but most participants in the program believed that it would be terminated. (Schnabel 1997, Smith 2005, Mumford, et al. 1995)

[edit]AIR evaluation of Stargate's results
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In 1995, the CIA hired the American Institutes for Research, a perennial intelligence-industry contractor, to perform a retrospective evaluation of the results generated by the remote-viewing program, the Stargate Project. Most of the program's results were not seen by the evaluators, with the report focusing on the most recent experiments, and only from of US government-sponsored research.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-16" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[17] One of the reviewers wasRay Hyman, a long-time critic of psi research, and another was Jessica Utts who, as a supporter of psi, was chosen to put forward the pro-psi argument. Utts maintained that there had been a statistically significant positive effect,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-17" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[18] with some subjects scoring 5%-15% above chance.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-psiland_18-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[19] Hyman argued that Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, "is premature, to say the least."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-HymanAbstract_19-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[20] Hyman said the findings had yet to be replicated independently, and that more investigation would be necessary to "legitimately claim the existence of paranormal functioning."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-HymanAbstract_19-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[20] Based upon both of their studies, which recommended a higher level of critical research and tighter controls, the CIA terminated the 20 million dollar project in 1995.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Time_6-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[7] Time magazine stated in 1995 three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget out of Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon be shut down.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Time_6-2" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[7]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">According to the official AIR report there was insufficient evidence of the utility of the intelligence data produced. David Goslin, of the American Institute for Research said, "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Time_6-3" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[7]

[edit]UK government research
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In 2001–2002 the UK Government performed a study on 18 untrained subjects. The experimenters recorded the E field and H field around each viewer to see if the cerebral activity of successful viewings caused higher-than-usual fields to be emitted from the brain. However, the experimenters did not find any evidence that the viewers had accessed the targets in the data collection phase, the project was abandoned, and the data was never analyzed since no RV activity had happened. Some "narrow-band" E-fields were detected during the viewings, but they were attributed to external causes. The experiment was disclosed in 2007 after a Freedom of Information request.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-20" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[21]

[edit]PEAR's Remote Perception program
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Following Utts' emphasis on replication and Hyman's challenge on interlaboratory consistency in the American Institutes for Research report, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab conducted several hundred trials to see if they could replicate the SAIC and SRIexperiments. They created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process that was criticized in past experiments, and they released a report in 1996. They felt the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-21" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[22]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">In 2007 the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab laboratory was closed.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-NY_Times_2007-02-06_22-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[23]

[edit]Scientific studies and claims
<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">According to psychologist David Marks in experiments conducted in the 1970s at the Stanford Research Institute, the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. Dr. Marks concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-23" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[24] <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-24" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[25]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Marks has also suggested that the participants of remote viewing experiments are influenced by subjective validation, a process through which correspondences are perceived between stimuli that are in fact associated purely randomly.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-25" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[26] Details and transcripts of the SRI remote viewing experiments themselves were found to be edited and even unattainable.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-26" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[27] <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-27" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[28]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Others have said that the information from remote viewing sessions can be vague and include a lot of erroneous data.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-psiland_18-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[19] A 1995 report for the American Institute for Research contains a section of anonymous reports describing how remote viewing was tentatively used in a number of operational situations. The three reports conclude that the data was too vague to be of any use, and in the report that offers the most positive results the writer notes that the viewers "had some knowledge of the target organizations and their operations but not the background of the particular tasking at hand."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-psiland_18-2" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[19]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">According to the stage magician James Randi, controlled tests by several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cuing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests, produced negative results. Students were also able to solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the clues that had inadvertently been included in the transcripts.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-28" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[29]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-dailymail_29-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[30] "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard WisemanDaily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 <sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-dailymail_29-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[30] <p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Wiseman also pointed at several problems with one of the early experiments at SAIC, like information leakage. However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-wiseman_one_0-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[1] Wiseman later insisted there were multiple opportunities for participants on that experiment to be influenced by inadvertent cues and that these cues can influence the results when they appear.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-wiseman_may_7-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[8]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Psychologist Ray Hyman says that, even if the results were reproduced under specified conditions, they would still not be a conclusive demonstration of the existence of psychic functioning. He blames this on the reliance on a negative outcome—the claims on ESP are based on the results of experiments not being explained by normal means. He says that the experiments lack a positive theory that guides as to what to control on them and what to ignore, and that "Parapsychologists have not come close to (having a positive theory) as yet".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-hyman_positive_30-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[31] Ray Hyman also says that the amount and quality of the experiments on RV are way too low to convince the scientific community to "abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles", due to its findings still not having been replicated successfully under careful scrutiny.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-hyman_si_31-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[32]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Science writer Martin Gardner, and others, describe the topic of remote viewing as pseudoscience.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-heretical_32-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[33] Gardner says that founding researcher Harold Puthoff was an active Scientologist prior to his work at Stanford University, and that this influenced his research at SRI. In 1970, the Church of Scientology published a notarized letter that had been written by Puthoff while he was conducting research on remote viewing at Stanford. The letter read, in part: "Although critics viewing the system [Scientology] from the outside may form the impression that Scientology is just another of many quasi-educational quasi-religious 'schemes,' it is in fact a highly sophistical and highly technological system more characteristic of modern corporate planning and applied technology."<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gardner_33-0" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[34] Among some of the ideas that Puthoff supported regarding remote viewing was the claim in the book Occult Chemistry that two followers of Madame Blavatsky, founder oftheosophy, were able to remote-view the inner structure of atoms.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Gardner_33-1" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[34]

<p style="margin-top: 0.4em; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; line-height: 1.5em; ">Various skeptic organizations have conducted experiments for remote viewing and other alleged paranormal abilities, with no positive results under properly controlled conditions. Some of the organizations would provide large monetary rewards to anyone who could demonstrate a supernatural power under fraud-proof and fool-proof conditions.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-34" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[35] For the largest paranormal research institution, the James Randi Educational Foundation, out of all of the applicants who applied for the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, nobody has even passed the preliminary tests.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-35" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[36]

[edit]Selected RV study participants

 * Ingo Swann, one of the prominent research participants of remote viewing
 * Pat Price, one of the early remote viewers
 * Russell Targ, cofounder of the Stanford Research Institute's investigation into psychic abilities in the 1970s and 1980s
 * Joseph McMoneagle, one of the early remote viewers.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-36" style="line-height: 1em; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; ">[37] See: Stargate Project
 * Courtney Brown, founder of the Farsight Institute
 * David Marks, the critic of remote viewing, after finding sensory cues and editing in the original transcripts generated by Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s