This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
WITH INGO SWANN
Edwin C. Mayl and Charles Honorton Maimonides Medical Center
We report noise-driven has produced tests
a preliminary random
study of psychokinetic generator with
psi effects laboratories.
in a variety
of controlled exaggeration, objective, 6f PK, or
in three different an applied
He may, without
be called therefore,
in this area. another
Our primary demonstration
was not merely abilities, task'in research
to provide but rather, order
of Mr. Swann's of psychokinetic ..
him to this form of developLn-:
ing a systematic sight and ability One of us PSIFI, should
ut.f li.z Mr. Swann's e
advantage. the instrument, which we call that we the experiand
(ECM) had described
to Mr. Swann and it appeared approach
take a "physics" we explained
to the PK task. workings
ment began" the basic dismantled pointing
the internal involved
of the instrument We partially
physics principles the sensitive
to Mr. Swann.
of the instrument
for his inspection, noise.
data paths and the source
of the random
of San Francisco~
._" Approved For Release 2003/09/04
= 2.). • While Mr.s. mean run score for the first 10 runs was 495. Swann's During these runs..4 set of 9 runs the mean was 493.ape. 29 df. Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 .H. departure from the laboratory. a mean of 499. 30 runs of 10 trials).Approved For Relea&W2003/09/04: CIA-RDP96-00787ROOO~130005-3 May and Honorton/2 These were marked with t. for 'the second The last mortitored • to set of 10 runs was taken while Mr. physics-type o fthe phenomena Fur'ther. was provided run score.. significant(t score of 493 is statistically 2-tailed). the instrument with independently a mean of 491. EEG was being room.. we took data for runs 'of 10 Mr. 4 C.027).e.91). runs showed with approximation (t to theoretical 0. Mr.11.rument. adjacent significant.). 29 runs of 103 trials were completed.nn frequently peered into the open top of the 3 instrument trials and took frequent notes.8 9 df.1 (n~s. 'These runs were (t = 2. Swa. P = .630 . depressing instrument of each the reset but-ton at the beginning via a scaler readirtg of the was 500/ run.7 = = . Overall. The. Swannls ran a control The control chance series of 3 x 105 trials exc~llent (i. One hour after Mr. we explained dramatically two possible that would alter the behavior ins t. Swann that chance expectation influence on the instrument run and that a significant reflected by consistent would be deviations from this mean. = . Swann operated the at a generation by manually Feedback We informed rate of SO/sec. (n.71" 28 df.011. P expectation. '1'he mean run P . he was in a sound-attenuated room.
P = . • Performance showed steady improvement from the beginning to ~nd of session. Swann was separated by distance and by two dOuble from the instrument steel walls.10= 1. in exerting a psycho- We also regard the following of direction~ for trends as provocative further collaborative • Performance and highly suggestive research with Mr. Swann: improved (and was i~dependently from the instrument. to Mr. Swann was successful on the instrument. Swannls to learning. significant) During the with increased distance last 10 runs.Approved For Relea~003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0002W30005-3 May and Honorton/3 We conclude kinetic influence that Mr.16). • Variability of performance decreased from the first to the last 10 runs of the session (F10.86. that his performance in psi tasks is susceptible Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 . These latter two trends. while not in themselves suggest the advisability belief of further research relating significant. Mr.
027) were obtained during the last 10 runs in which the subject was separated from the instrument by 12 feet and by two double steel walls. £~. ~603m9iojl~t:. Maimonides Medical Center. MAY and C.lOth Avenue . Prior experimental tests in 3 other laboratories provided encouraging results.An experiment was performed with an individual who claims to influence remote physical systems by non-physical means..~c.." alternating between '0' and '1' at a rate of 50 events/second. Data were taken for 29 runs of 103 events during which the subject attempted to influence the binary output of events. AI?SMember E.91). Independently significant results (p<0. Interaction with a Selected Subject. MAY Same name typewritten Maimonides Medical Center Address Division of paraEsychology 4802 -.Approved For Rele. C.M5P96-00787ROOO~130005-3 for 'the New York Meetihgof American Physical Society 2 . In the present experiment the subject was tested with a noise driven binary random event generator in which each event is compared to a "tiar qet.011.5 February 1976 Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme Number 05 the Bulletin Subject Heading in Which Paper Should Be Placed: General Physics Possible Detection of Experimenter-Instrument. E. A control experiment was run one hour after the subject's departure from the labo~atory. The number of events and the number of matches (events corresponding to targets) were recorded. The' results corresponded to a probabili ty against chance of p<O . The experimental results suggest that some anomalous influence on the generator occurred. HONORTON. Control data were taken for 30 runs of 104 events and showed good approximation to chance expectation (p<0. SOOmitted by Signature Of.
all runs were performed in an automatic mode such that the target ('heads' or 'tails') was alternated on each trial.). We decided in advance to have 10 §. showed statistically significant (p~. S.e. city College of San Francisco. and 5 low-aim runB. The random generator used in this experiment has been described by May (1975). . In order to totally exclude the possibility of generat- or bias. 10 sec... The generat- ion rate was 10 bits/sec. trying to enforce scores below 50%. The purpose of the present experiment was to replicate and extend the random generator (dynamic) PK work reported principally by Helmut Specifically. Mayl Maimonides Medical Center During the last five years. with a run length of 100 bits (i.s complete 5 high-aim runs.Approved For Relea. nonsignificant studies."2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROOO~130005-3 VOLITIONAL CONTROL IN A PSYCHOKINETIC TASK WITH AUDI'l'ORY AND VISUAL FEEDBACK Charles Honorton and Edwin C. we were interested in the Schmidt and his associates. Order of conditions (high-/low-aim) was alternated by lpresent addresfS: Physics Department. this result is still highly significant (p <1 x 10-5). Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 . trying to enforce scores above 50%. ' Twelve of these studies (80010) evidence of PK influenc~..05) that for each re- Even if we were toa5sume ported study there are five unreport~d. 15 experiments have been reported dealing with psychokinetic influence on e Lect. question of volitional control of dynamic psychokinetic influence.r on Lc random generators.
15). ~ was instructed to maintain the pen deflection below baseline as much as possible.10 t. ~ was informed that when the pen was above baseline and the auditory feedback was on. six had prior experience with EEG/EMG biofeedback training.92 (. 9 df.. Approved ~5 -. s/he was scoring at a rate of 700/0r higher.11.009.o03/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020~0005-3 Honorton and May Two modes of feedbacK. All 10 ~s were experienced in some form of internal state exploration. 9 df. ~ stood or sat in front of the polygraph with headphones for auditory feedback.. Nine had participated in previous psi research in our laboratoxy: six 'had prior experience with dynamic PK tasks. 8 were signifi- = . The mean run score for ~s in the high-aim condition was 51.RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 .89. p = .E . 1). The running time for each ~ was less than 3 min. and was informed that when the pen .0032) in the low-aim condition was 49. ~ was in- structed to maintain the pen deflection above baseline as much as possible. four were meditators. The mean run score for -1. r was below baseline and the auditory feedback was on. 4 were significantly For Release 2003/09/04: CIA.wereu:3ed. . I-tailed).26 S3 received auditory feedback over the Laat. s/he was scoring at a rate of 30% or lower. Of the 50 high-aim runs.22 (t ::I Of the 50 low-aim runs. During the session.Approved For Releas.r aLe . L digital chart recording S3 2 cr received visual feedback in the form ofa which regi3tered hits as deflections above baseline and misses as daflectionsbelow baseline (Fig. For the high-aim condition.(.05 Only one of 'the 50 high-aim runs was significantly below chance. o Similarly for the low-aim condition.. = . (tone) whenever they averaged ±1.i 2. = • cantly (p. .05) above chance (exact binomial p for 8/50 at p~.
h1ghand low-aim conditions was sign~ficant obtained between (t = 2. significant Thus.2 is = -2. 9 df. more hits Five of tho 10 5s individually condition significantly condition.score (t for the low-aim the high- condition was 48. Only one of the 50 low-aim runs significantly 'rhe difference chance. . 9 df.031).§. and the mean run. 9 df. P = . low-aim difference independently for the first two runs of each 5 (t associated = 2.3 (t S..12. P = .24).05 more hits the Ss obtained the high-aim Despite hibited in the low-aim condition.03. the short duration decline of each experimental Taking session.90.S ex- a significant run score effect. vs. run score The last two runs of each. the .Approved For Rel~ 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO~0130005-3 IIonorton and May 3 below was chance (exact binomial above p = . the mean for the high-aim condition = 3. of this study volitional replicate Schmidt's findings and demonstrate effects.05. ance was significant 2-tailed). were conditions. 9. p = .00006. P = . condition None of than in The exact binomial significantly p for 5/10 at p~.df.035).94. with a mean perform- of 50.009). in the high-aim than in the low-aim is: .= 2.016. p = . control of dynamic psychokinetic Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 . the first two runs of each was 54.5 for both This decline condition in volitional .§. 9 df.007). The results that S8 can exert for the high-aim (t.
Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 HIGH AIM / LOLJ AIM fi 9.5 60 /00 _ I4ITS TRIALS: FEE DC3ACl( = 41 /00 TRI~LS = Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 . I ____ ~~L HIT.1 H IG H LOW ~ AVE.
gCi s 2.(50 4 .035 5 0.00-. RUN5 P .05 . -l.22.009 N SJ(.92.0000 6 LOW. Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020013Q005-3 ' .Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005-3 . A\M 49.' - --lid P N SIG-NIF. 2.1t . Mt:I\Nj RuN t P .'N IF.2.40 _' " . Ss P ( HIGH A\M 51.
which corresponded to a probability against chance ofp<0. ~~e mean score was 49980±1. 5 of the 10 people individually had significant results at the p<0. and less matches than expected for the last 5 runs. The number of ~vents and the number of matches (events corresponding to targets) were recorded.39 matches which correspo'ndsto a probability against chance of p<0.05 level. We decided to look for a measurable effect. The results. Maimonides Medical Center -.lath Avenue Brookl y_n. This corresponds to a binomial probabili ty of p<O .57. after watching an experiment crash into oblivion. In the control experiment. when.rk Meeting of the American Physical Society 2 . New York 11219 Approved For Release 2003/09/04 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200130005_3 .Approved For Rel~AfRA¥R~to4)~t~96-00787ROOW0130005-3 for the New. Then 10 nexperimenters" were asked to influence the generator to have more matches than expected for the first 5 of 10 runs. 20 runs of 105 events each were taken with no one present. C. MAY Sarnename typewritten Maimonides Medical Center Address Division of ParapsycholoSY 4802 -.00006. HONORTON and 'E. suggest that some anomalous influence upon the generator occurred. In addition. C. Submitted by AUTHORS' INSTRUCTIONS: Please place these two papers sequentially in the same session with this one first.035.5 February 1976 Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme Number 05 Bulletin Subject Heading in Which Paper Should Be Placed: General Physics possible Detection of Experimenter-Instrument Interaction. the equipment resumes normal operation just as the technician arrives. A noise driven random binary event generator was constructed in such a way that each event is compared to a "target" which' alternated between '0' and' '1'.Many experimenters have suspected that there must be some anomalous influence upon their equipment.>Yo. MAY. Signature of APS Member E. C.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.