Raw capture
FY1987 SRI report extracts on Gary Langford and experiment review
FY1987 SRI report extracts on Gary Langford and experiment review
- Official source: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000300100001-9.pdf
- Report: Enhanced Human Performance Investigation, FY1987 final report
- Author: Edwin C. May, SRI International
- Report date: 1987-12
- Sourced: 2026-09-04
- Extraction: Verbatim pdftotext extracts from the section defining Gary Langford's FY1987 role and the Scientific Oversight Committee comments on the two experiments in which the report says he participated
- Scope: Extract only, from a 79-page report
- Related analysis: ../../sources/gary-o-langford
Extract
possibility that post-session feedback may not always be available.
(U) A second proposed experiment dealt with the issue of different types of target
material. Some viewers have reported subjectively different impressions when the task is to view
an actual outdoor scene (after which the viewer goes to the scene for feedback) than when the
task is to view a photograph of an outdoor scene (following which the viewer is shown the
photograph). The specific opinion is that the RV impressions are richer, more varied, and not as
limited to visual for actual scenes than for the photographs. It follows that viewer responses
might also be more detailed and not as limited to visual impressions. This hypothesis could be
tested by conducting a series of viewings where targets are randomly chosen from a pool of
outdoor sites and photographs. ~
(U) A third proposal reached the stage of a formal written protocol. It was to test the
idea that experienced viewers could perform just as well without a monitor as with a mbnitor
present in the RV session. This experiment was rated as a high priority because if it were
successful it would (1) reduce the resources necessary to conduct an RV experiment, (2)
eliminate potential monitor cues, and (3) allow multiple viewers to work on the same target at
once.
(U) Formal \ work on experiments previously proposed and approved preempted
further efforts on these proposals. Advanced viewers spent the second half of the year
participating in several experiments with large numbers of remote viewings. Weekly meetings of
the group 'ceased for the remainder of the year.
16. (U) Objective F, Task 4--DeveJop RV Training Hypothesis
(U) 'This task, originally intended to ee fulfilled through a subcontract with
Consultants International (CI), was converted to a consulting relationship with the founder of cr,
Mr. Gary Langford. During FY 1987, Mr. Langford provided consulting services in two areas:
• Remote Viewing
During the year Mr. Langford served as a viewer in approximately 100
RV sessions including practice, exploratory, and pilot work, and served
as subject in two major experiments: (1) the Real-Time versus
19
U~(WA:&S"~P96_00787R000300100001-9
Approved For Relea
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300100001-9
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
Precognition experiment and (2) the Feedback experiment (see
Objective F, Tasks 1a and 1b).
• Hypothesis Generation.
Mr. Langford participated in the meetings with other viewers and
researchers contributing to the formulation of testable RV hypotheses.
17. (U) Objective F, Task S--Investigate RV Stimulus-Response Times
(U) Experienced monitors of remote viewing sessions have often come up with
hunches as to how to tell when a particular session might be more successful than another. One
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewer's Comments on Objective F, Tasks la and Ib
(Feedback and Precognition Dependent Remote Viewing Experiments)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
NAME: Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1. Additional analysis should be done. What is the analysis of the sum total of
evidence presented here. We have 3 experiments; two negative and the third
with 4 viewings of which 2 are negative and 2 significant. Are the aggregate
results significant or not?
Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87
NAME: Michael Wartell
Comments:
1. Protocol (page 5) would have been stronger had all time parameters been
matched (assistant leaving site and arrival back at SRI).
2. Cluster analysis approach is excellent - othogonal target selection important to
efficiency and final analytical approaches.
3. L,\st statement about Viewer 372 (top of page 11) is inappropriate and should be
deleted.
4. Page ii-explanation is marked paragraph (2) inappropriate. Excuses regarding
"rushing trials" inappropriate.
5. This experiment provided inconclusive results. I do not believe that inferences
should be drawn from the results.
,
Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87
NAME: Philip Zimbardo
Comments:
1. The inconclusive pattern of hits and misses across these 3 experiments is
disappointing.
2. I find as an over generalization and not acceptable the statement on page 3, "yet,
the evidence strangely suggests the (sic) [that} precognition is a fact of nature."
A-1S
Approved For Release 200tyf.'j tl~Ff£5787R0003001 00001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300100001-9
UNCLASSIFIED
3. The out-bound protocol is wasteful of time and resources. I recommend
substituting "cinema verite" video displays of dynamic" real world" scenes as the
target material.
4. Page 8--line 6 from bottom (typo - three experience.ct viewers).
5. Page 10--line 2 from bottom in other words.
6. Page l1--last line confused/also page 12, line 7, from bottom.
7. The procedure and design and analysis are exemplary, but I am not convinced
that they allow for RV versus pre-cognition evaluation as competing theories.
8. Given the predictions, the results for Ss with significant RV, 177 and 009 would
have to support real-time RV and fail to support pre-cognition hypotheses.
9. The authors must avoid the stylistic bias of too quickly dismissing null findings
with a rush toward explaining them away.
10. Conclusion: more research is definitely needed using the T-Scope procedure.
Why not have a set of practice trials to do an initial screening of S's RV
functioning on that day. If + then test, if not + then suspend--give a rain check.
~
Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87
Response To Philip Zimbardo's Comments: