Schwartz and De Mattei - The Discovery of an American Brig (2020)

Source: Journal of Scientific Exploration
PDF: author-deposited full article
Authors: Stephan A. Schwartz and Randall J. De Mattei
Published: 2020-03
Earlier versions: Parapsychological Association conference, 1988; Society for Historical Archaeology conference, 1989; Mobius Society report, 2000
Captured: 2026-09-05
Extraction: complete 27-page PDF converted with pymupdf4llm
License stated on the author deposit page: CC BY-NC
Analysis: ../../sources/stephan-a-schwartz

THE DISCOVERY OF AN AMERICAN BRIG: FIELDWORK INVOLVING APPLIED REMOTE VIEWING INCLUDING A COMPARISON WITH ELECTRONIC REMOTE SENSING

by Stephan A. Schwartz and Randall J. De Mattei -- The Mobius Society

ABSTRACT

In the fall of 1987 Mobius began fieldwork, under a license from the Bahamian Government, to
carry out an archaeological survey in an area of the Grand Bahama Banks encompassing some
579.15 square miles (1500 sq. km). This report compares the Remote Viewing, electronic remote
sensing, and visual search process used to locate the wreck site of a previously undiscovered armed
American merchantman believed to be the Brig Leander, which was found in a sub-section of the
License Area known as Consensus Zone C; an area of 11.81 sq. miles (30.59 sq. km) of water. It
concludes that Remote Viewing was the source of information which led to the site’s location, and
that electronic remote sensing was not useful in this instance. Leander was under the Command of
Captain William Johnson when she sank for unknown reasons near Beaks Cay on 6 April 1834,
while returning from Manzanilla, Cuba to her homeport in Boston, Massachusetts. In addition to
location information, a total of 193 conceptual descriptive concepts concerning the site were
proffered by twelve Remote Viewers. Of this, 148 concepts, or 75% of the total, could be evaluated
through direct field observations, or historical research. An evaluation of this material reveals
84% Correct, 12% Partially Correct, 4% Incorrect. There is little accuracy variation across the
sequence of material from the Los Angeles interviews ( 84% Corr., 13% Part. Corr., 3% Incorr.), to
the on-site data (81% Corr., 11% Part. Corr., 8% Incorr.). Approximately 300 notable wrecks went
down, not just in the License Area but across the entire Banks, from 1500 to 1876 as determined by
a thorough search of historical records and archival material in the U.S., the U.K., Spain and the
Bahamas. To make a conservative assessment of this location occurring by chance, assume the
wrecks are evenly distributed not throughout the Banks, but only within the License Area. That
said, we should expect to see 6.12 boats in Consensus Zone C (11.81/579.15 x 300 =6.12). The brig
site is 5000 square feet (464.5 sq. m), equaling 0.00018 of a square mile. Within Consensus Zone C
65,849 sites of this size could be placed, thus yielding a grid of 65,849 cells.. If the probability of
selecting this particular cell in the grid by chance exceeds p ≥ 0.05 then Remote Viewing can be
considered a determinative factor. The probability of finding this one 5,000 square feet area is then
6.12/65,849 = p 0.00009, which strongly suggests that chance is not an explanation for the location
of Leander.

History: “The Discovery of an American Brig: Fieldwork Involving Applied Archaeological
Remote Viewing.” Research in Parapsychology 1988, Eds. Linda A. Henkel and Rick E. Berger.
(Scarecrow: Metuchen, N.J. & London, 1989). pp. 73-78. Also The Discovery of an American Brig:
Fieldwork Involving Applied Archaeological Remote Viewing, Including a Comparison with Electronic
Remote Sensing. Conference on Underwater Archaeology/Society of Historic Archaeology Annual
Meetings. 1989.

The Discovery of an American Brig

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

The central problem facing archaeology is the challenge of where to
look. Both on land and sea, the literature makes it clear that serendipity
is a principal explanation for many discoveries.

This paper reports the latest development in a ten year program to
explore the efficacy of a previously reported applied Remote Viewing
methodology, and its integration with electronic remote sensing.
1,2,3,4,5,6 It argues that even though we may not possess a universally
accepted explanatory model for Remote Viewing, [7] the accumulation of
research argues that this approach offers an efficient cost-effective
procedure for locating and finding sites, both marine and terrestrial,
particularly those deeply buried and obscure to visual inspection. A
previously unknown site is presented as a case study to illustrate this
conclusion.

The paper covers the location and excavation of an unusually intact
shipwreck, believed to be the American brig Leander, which was located
by Remote Viewing, and excavated during the course of three voyages of
the Research Vessel Seaview. (See Illustration One)

The work in this report was carried out by a team of parapsychologists,
archaeologists, geophysicists and historians under the auspices of The
Mobius Society, in conjunction with Seaview Exploration Associates,
under license from the Bahamian Government. It describes a total of
four weeks of field time devoted to this site, involving 443 hours of dive
time by an archaeological dive team composed of 18 men and women
working from Seaview, as well as a team of historical and archival
researchers working in the U.S., Spain, Great Britain, and the Bahamas .
Several sites were found in the Beaks Cay area using this approach; this
site was selected for this report based on five considerations: 1) The site
most clearly illustrates the relative strengths and weaknesses of various
search techniques; 2) It contains the most well-preserved ship remains
in the area; 3) We have been able to locate the historical documentation
concerning the probable identity of this wreck; thus allowing the most
comprehensive evaluation of the remote viewing data; 4) This area has
been covered by an unusually clear Landsat 4 computer image with very

N 2 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

minimal cloud coverage; and, 5) A comprehensive magnetometer
survey for this site was carried out.

The Research Vessel Seaview

Illustration One

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

THE GULF STREAM AND THE GRAND BAHAMA BANKS

The Gulf Stream was discovered by the Spanish in the mid-fifteen
hundreds. For three and a half centuries, until steam replaced sail, and
emancipation brought about the collapse of the slave-powered sugar
cane economies of the Caribbean Islands, it remained the best way back
to Europe from much of the New World.

This extraordinary geographic phenomenon, which Matthew Fontaine
Maury called “the River in the Ocean,” [8] passes between Florida and
the Bahamas, channeled on the west by the Florida Keys, and the east by
the vast shallows of the Bahama Banks. The Grand Bahama Banks to the
south, and the Little Bahama Banks to the north, are made of calcareous
limestone thousands of feet deep, formed from the action of organic

N 3 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

matter on the light sand. This rocky plateau is covered with five to 15
feet (1.52m – 4.57m) of sand, and fringed on its western side by a long
series of reefs, rocks and cays. The average water depth over the Banks
is about 15 feet (4.57m), until it reaches its western edge whereupon
there is a precipitous drop off to more than 800 feet (244 m). Visually
however, from a ship, this difference is not readily perceptible, which
accounts for the large numbers of ships lost on the Banks.

Vessels blown eastwards out of the deep gulf stream by storms,
particularly hurricanes, were driven across the flats until they either
struck a sandy area shallow enough to ground them or until a
submerged reef knocked out their bottoms. There are no accurate
figures on the numbers of vessels that have been lost in this way but a
database, compiled in the course of Mobius’ archival research, suggests
that, from the a 15 [th] Century onwards, approximately 300 notable, i.e.,
mentioned in historical sources, vessels met such a fate, with the loss of
ships, cargo, lives, or all three. [9]

In the time period of particular interest to this report, however, the
piracy situation is the probable critical factor explaining why the ship
was found where it was. The new governments that grew up as the
Spanish empire fell apart at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, were
corrupt, poor, and rebellious. For them piracy of ships from more
developed nations was an attractive activity and, by 1821 a good part of
the United States Navy was in the Caribbean suppressing pirates. [10]
England and France helped, but even in l829, the year before the death of
Simon De Bolivar, the Maine Enquirer advised: “All vessels bound to
the Spanish Islands to be armed at least with one or two guns, a dozen
muskets and boarding pikes or harpoons........” [11] Before the struggle
against piracy was over, more than 500 American vessels were captured
by pirates in the Caribbean. [12] In the years l8l2 to l8l5 alone, over three
thousand assaults occurred. [13]

The north coast of Cuba was a particularly rank nest of semi-legal and
illegal pirates and privateers. If one wanted to avoid the notorious
Cuban coast, it was possible to go north across the Bahama Banks in
order to come out in the north flowing Gulf Stream somewhere due east
of what is now Miami. The passage between Beaks Cay and Browns Rock
is one of the last safe exits from the Banks, through the barrier reefs, into
the northward flowing Gulf Stream. It was here that an armed American

N 4 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

Brig sank, which current research suggests, by reason of ship
measurements, wood, pottery and metal analysis, as well as historical
research, was Leander. [ 14], [15] Under the Command of Captain William
Johnson she sank for unknown reasons near Beaks Cay on 6 April 1834,
while returning from Manzanilla, Cuba to her homeport in Boston,
Massachusetts. [16]

PERSONNEL

There were six categories of personnel, organized as teams, involved in
this study:

1. The Parapsychology & Management Team: Research Director,
Stephan A. Schwartz, Project Director and Executive Director, Randall J.
De Mattei, Deputy Project Director. This team carried out the
parapsychological research, and coordinated all aspects of the project.

2. The Remote Viewers: Twelve men and women, acted as Remote
Viewers in this experiment. It is their images which serve as one of the
data sources. All Remote Viewers were blind to all information in any
interview session but their own. They were also provided no
intellectual material on the project. Eight of the viewers took part in the
project through direct interviews. Four responded to mailed
questionnaires. For eight of them we have, through earlier
experimentation, profiles under the Personality Assessment System
(PAS) [17] with subscript addition by Saunders [18] as:

A. In-person Interview Remote Viewers:

Andre Vaillancourt R-1: a man, 36, musician and film producer. He is
defined by PAS as an IRU6. R-1 had never been to the Grand Bahama
Banks.

John Oligny R-2: a man, 37, staff photographer for a major western daily
newspaper. He is defined by PAS as an IFA8. R2 had never been to the
Grand Bahama Banks.

N 5 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

Ben Moses R-3: a man, 40, feature film producer and documentarian. He
is defined by PAS as an EFU6. R-3 had never been to the Grand Bahama
Banks.

Hella Hammid R-4: a woman, 64, fine arts photographer, defined under
PAS as an ERA8. R-4 has never been to the Grand Bahama Banks.

Judith Orloff R-5: a woman, 36, board certified psychiatrist. She is
defined under PAS as an IFU3. R-5 had never been to the Grand Bahama
Banks.

Alan Vaughan R-6: a man, 48, author, psychic, lecturer, and
parapsychological researcher. R-6's research work has primarily been in
dreams and precognition. As a Respondent, he has participated in
studies for many research groups. He is defined by PAS as an IRU2. R-6
had never been to the Grand Bahama Banks.

Rosalyn Bruyere R-8: a woman, 36, director of a healing outreach clinic.
She is defined by PAS as an ERU6. R-6 had never been to the Grand
Bahama Banks.

Michael Crichton R-15: a man, 44, author, feature film director. He is
defined by PAS as IRU6. R-15 had been to Nassau in the Bahamas, but
never to the Banks.

B. Remote Viewers by Mail:

Keith Harary R-7: a man, psychologist, parapsychologist. PAS profile
not available. R-7 had never been to the Grand Bahama Banks.

Umberto Di Grazia R-9: Italian television consultant. R-9 had never
been to the Grand Bahama Banks.

Terry Ross R-10: a man, retired investment broker. R-10 had never been
the Grand Bahama Banks. PAS profile not available

Roger Nelson R-17: a man, psychologist and parapsychologist. R-17: has
never been the Grand Bahama Banks. PAS profile not available.

N 6 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

The R- numbers, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 were assigned but, for a variety of
reasons the individuals to whom these numbers were assigned did not
end up being interviewed.

These 12 individuals, were selected on the basis of past performance in
other Remote Viewing experiments. They volunteered approximately
two hours of their time for the interviews, for which they received no
fee. Five of them R-1, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, were brought on-site and
contributed location material on the site that is included in this paper.

3. The Archaeology & Archivist Team: Peter Throckmorton of Nova
University, one of the founders of modern nautical archaeology,
oversaw all archaeological aspects of the project. A recognized authority
on wooden sailing ships, Throckmorton is a member of the Society of
Professional Archaeologists, and the author of numerous scholarly
papers, books, and articles on nautical archaeology. In addition to his
role in interpreting what was brought up during the fieldwork phase of
the project, Throckmorton coordinated the archivists and historians who
carried out the historical archival research, and did the archival work in
the Bahamas himself. The other members of this team were: Catherine
Throckmorton in Maine, working on colonial newspaper searches, with
a particular emphasis on Massachusetts shipping; Richard Swete, at the
Mariners’ Museum in Newport News, Virginia working in colonial
newspaper and academic literature searches, with a particular emphasis
on southeastern colonial and U.S. shipping; Stephen Rogers in London
and Greenwich, working in the British Admiralty records, and searching
period European papers; and, Michel Parret in Seville, working in
Spanish commercial and shipping records. The database, which was
developed as the fruit of this work is the first comprehensive survey of
these waters. [19]

4. The Geophysical & Electronic Remote Sensing Team: Saul Friedman,
formerly of Lamont Geological Laboratories, and Robert Bisson, Chief
Executive Officer and Senior Researcher for BCI Geonetics, carried out
the electronic remote sensing aspect of the project. Friedman did the onsite proton precession magnetometer survey, while Bisson coordinated
an aerial survey and satellite surveillance analysis of the site.

5. The Divers & Ships Personnel: Fieldwork was carried out by
teams of certified divers who also comprised crew of the Seaview.

N 7 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

6. Photography, Audio Recording, Videotape Team: A photographic
record was made by a number of divers as events unfolded.
Additionally, a professional videotape crew came out to Seaview to make
a real-time video record of the Remote Viewers at work.

ELECTRONIC REMOTE SENSING

Aerial Survey: Prior to the Seaview arriving on station, three overflights
were made at an altitude of 100-200 feet above the ocean surface. Flight
speed on all three occasions was approximately 50 miles per hour. By
flying spaced parallel north-south patterns a thorough coverage of the
entire license zone was possible. Photographs were taken on each flight.

Satellite: A Landsat 4 image, commissioned under a National Science
Foundation Grant, and taken on 3 May 1983 was obtained. The image
covered the northern part of the license area, bounded by Latitudes
25°50'00" by and Longitudes 79°20'00" and 78°58'00".

Magnetometer: A Barringer SM-123 Shallow Marine Proton Precession
Magnetometer System, Console S/N 750, Sensor S/N 8046, was obtained
from the Barringer Corporation. The instrument was checked by the
manufacturer prior to shipping and, again, upon receipt aboard Seaview.
The instrument was run at 1.0 second interval pulse cycles, from a diesel
powered small craft. The sensor was towed 140 feet from the craft, and
performed within manufacturer's tolerances in the daily test runs that
were carried before actual survey procedures were implemented.
Magnetometers, of course, principally locate ferrous mass (no signal is
produced by wood or non-ferrous metals).

The Seaview magnotometer procedure was to conduct parallel runs
approximately 30 feet apart. Lanes were usually run north-south, with
perpendicular east-west lanes run across the same area when anomalies
were recorded.

Navigation: The great challenge in nautical search procedures is fixing a
location in such a way that it can be reliably relocated. Seaview was
equipped with a Foruno Satellite Communications navigation downlink,
model FSN50 linked to a Forun LC-90 Loran-C.

N 8 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

Because the Loran C signal is weak on the Banks, electronic navigation is
notoriously unreliable over long periods. Variations as much as 0.3 of a
mile (.48 km), can occur over several days. For this reason we
established, through repeated readings off the SatCom a fixed known
point. The Loran was corrected daily, by the SatCom relative to this
point, thus assuring reasonable accuracy standards. A Raytheon Model
R41 rastar scan radar equipped with range and bearing capability
provided the ability to fix small boat locations. Sexton fixes were also
shot, as needed, from the magnetometer craft, on land masses (Beaks
Cay, Brown’s Cay) in the northernmost consensus zone. Most important,
however, was the use of simple Styrofoam buoys. These were dropped
with 8 -16 pounds of lead at the end of the line at every significant mag
“hit” .

Metal Detectors: Dive teams making a visual inspection of a site were
equipped with metal detectors, Whites model P1-1000. Unlike the
magnetometer these metal detectors are non-discriminating; that is, they
detect the presence of any type of metal within their range. Tests were
run to establish an efficacy parameter: under optimal conditions, a metal
object, the size of a dinner spoon could be detected under three feet of
sand. As expected larger objects produced stronger signals.

Visual: Two divers at a time were slowly towed over significant
portions of the license area in water 8-18 feet (2.44m – 5.49m) deep. They
were visually inspecting the bottom, typically sand with eel-grass,.

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

Maps: In August 1985, we began our research seeking to define, on the
basis of historical research, an area where there was some likelihood that
shipwrecks existed representing the maritime history of the Caribbean.
This archival work produced an area, approximately 579.15 square miles
(1,500 sq. km) in size. Once we had defined this general area, we applied
for, and received, an exclusive license from the Bahamian Government to
search it. (See illustration Two) The next task of the Archival Team was to
produce the first compendium of all known shipwrecks from 1500 to
1876 known to have gone down on the Banks – an area much larger than
the License Area. 1876 was established as the cut-off for this database

N 9 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

because ships after that date usually have little or no historical
significance.

The database had a second function. It allowed us, for the first time to
develop in an applied Remote Viewing experiment, the baseline
necessary to develop a statistical analysis.

REMOTE VIEWING

While the License Area was only a small portion of the Bahamian
national waters, it was still an area so large that it was obvious from the
beginning that the Remote
Viewing portion of the project
would have to be carried out in
stages.

To do this, we started with a map
of sufficient scale to encompass
the License Area , (See Illustration
Two) using Bahamian Government Hydro-graphic Chart
(BLSH702, scale 1:300,000
Mercator, 1st ed. Sept. 84). (See
Illustration Three)

The License Area N 10 m

Illustration Two

The Discovery of an American Brig

This work began in December 1985. Consistent with our earlier work,
the individual Remote Viewing session map used in our applied
Remote Viewing protocol ere prepared. Significant place names, and
other geographic data were removed, a compass rose was added, and the
map was transferred to a Mylar™ master and identical blueprint copies
were run off, thus eliminating colors which might cause inadvertent
cueing. These blueprint charts were then used in a series of individual
and identical interview sessions with twelve Remote Viewers.

Consensus Zones. When all sessions from the first cycle of interviews
were completed, the maps were put on a light table and location

The Composite Master, produced by transferring the data from individual Remote Viewer
charts to a single master. Each square encompasses areas where multiple selections of the
same area have been made. Consensus Area C, at the top of the chart, is addressed by this
report. Other wrecks and debris were found in the Consensus Zone and other areas as well.

Illustration Three

markings, from the individual Remote Viewing session maps, were all
transferred to a blank copy of the map. This became the Composite
Master Map. Where more than one Remote Viewer selected the same

N 11 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

area, the aggregate area encompassed by those marks was designated a
Consensus Zone. The entire search area was, in this way, broken into
three major, and several secondary, Consensus Zones. (See Illustration
Three ) It was this composite, with its Consensus Zones which lay the
foundation of the location hypotheses, and which led to the second cycle
of Remote Viewing sessions, which would direct the fieldwork.

More detailed charts of the three major Consensus Areas were then
obtained. The Northern most Consensus Zone, which is the subject of
this report, was covered by a Bahamian Government Chart (Bimini Sheet
8 (Ref: PU822070, scale 1:10,000). (See Illustration Four) Note the difference
in scale. The maps used in this second set of interviews were prepared in
the same way as those used in the first sessions. Following the same
protocol a second set of interviews was carried out.

Remote Viewing Sessions:

a. Via Mail Sessions: Remote Viewers were blind to all but their
own session. As already noted, some of the individual sessions, in both
the first and second cycles of the map probe phrase were done via mail.
These viewers received the map and a series of questions, each in its own
sealed numbered envelope. The questions they contained were
answered sequentially, with each envelope remaining sealed until the
viewer felt the previous question had been responded to as fully as
possible. Responses included audio tapes, drawings of things to be
found at the sites marked on the map, and the map itself with the
viewer’s locations. Each sheet of paper, signed and dated, as well as the
audio taped, were then returned by mail.

b. In Person Sessions: Where interviews were conducted in person
the interviews were split between the authors to at least ameliorate any
subtle biases that might develop in the researchers, and lead them to
unintentionally cue the viewers. It was not a question of cueing a correct
answer, since that was unknown to all, but of creating a kind of “noise”,
a favored outcome, that would override the Remote Viewing perception.
There was no discussion between Interviewers; thus, each Interviewer
was blind to the interviews he did not conduct, until all sessions had
been completed.

N 12 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

Everyone throughout the experiment, of course, was blind as to whether
the information proffered by either electronic remote sensing, or Remote
Viewing was accurate, until the answer was revealed through fieldwork.

Interview Room: A room equipped with a table on which were:

An audio-tape recorder, lavolier micro-phone, and the specially
prepared map; pencils and pens; a file folder containing the initial
charge or direction;blank 8 1/2" x 11" paper for drawing RV images.

Interview in Steps: Following are the steps comprising a standard
interview:

1.) Remote Viewer enters. On the table, face down, is the map.

2.) The tape-recorder is turned on and the tape is initialized with the
names of the interviewer the name of the Remote Viewer, the time and
date of the interview, and the interview location.

3.) The initial charge for the session is given.

4.) A free-ranging interview discussion follows. The Interviewer
follows the viewer’s lead. The role of the Interviewer is to elicit, without
cueing, further impressions concerning a primary image offered by that
session’s Remote Viewer.

5.) At a point that “feels comfortable” for the Remote Viewer, the map is
turned right side up, and locations are marked on it. The map is signed
and dated by the viewer and the Interviewer.

6.) At such time as a Remote Viewer desires, he or she makes drawings
to illustrate perceived images. These drawings, when completed, are
signed and dated by the Viewer. They are numbered sequentially
beginning from #1.

7.) When the Remote Viewer feels he or she has exhausted the images
available, the session ends (a time ranging from 20 minutes to an hour).
Map, tape(s) and drawings are all coded with the date and Remote
Viewer number, and filed. The session is concluded.

N 13 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

We go into this in some detail because it is our view that what is going
on in all Remote Viewing is a transaction involving everyone defined by
intention and agreement as being part of the experiment. We are in
essence faced with an engineering problem in which a bio-circuit made
up of all participants is created by intention. Studies in the life sciences
suggest, to us at least, that levels of interaction whose mechanisms are
unknown at present – although well observed [20] - have to be considered
in designing these experiments. Practically, this means what everyone
feels, thinks, and intents is a factor in the protocol.

REMOTE VIEWING ANALYSIS LABORATORY & APPLIED

In laboratory Remote Viewing experiments, it is possible to establish a
fixed number of variables in the form of a descriptor list, in which
descriptive detail is reduced to a binary “Yes/No” format. "Hits” can be
described in terms of whether or not a given descriptor is turned on or
off, and the descriptions provided by Remote Viewing can be measured
against a previously encoded correct answer form created by visually examining the target. [21] In this way statistical analyses can be developed.

In an archaeological project such as this one, the target is a large
geographical location (as in some laboratory Remote Viewing research),
but the correct answers have not been previously worked out. Only
fieldwork can say whether a given bit of data is correct or not. The
experiments are truly triple-blind. For this reason, it is usually
impossible to establish a baseline against which to measure the exact
probability of a given answer. However, in this instance, thanks to the
exhaustive survey of the Archival Team, we have a baseline against
which to measure the probability of a given location; and it is one in
which we can repose reasonable confidence.

While this is important in determining whether a location or a concept is
something which might have been arrived at by Remote Viewing, as
opposed to intellectual knowledge, practically it doesn’t mean very
much, since the probability is only defined after the fieldwork.

N 14 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

The central difference between a laboratory experiment, and an applied
experiment is that in the laboratory experiment evaluating the accuracy
of the information is the final step. In the applied experiment, it is only
a midway point useful, as with all remote sensing input, in making
decisions as to how to conduct fieldwork.

What counts, in the applied experiment, is the considered expertise of
several disciplines, in analysing the proffered Remote Viewing data in
greater detail than the relatively coarse “screens” provided by descriptor
lists; which are typically limited to 20 or 30 discrete concepts.

FIELDWORK PROCEDURE

Remote Viewers came out to the Seaview, one or two at a time . Once
there, they were individually taken in a small boat carrying a diver/boat
operator, a researcher/diver, and a Remote Viewer. Each boat was
equipped with a VHF two-way radio and a radar reflector. The reflector
allowed the position of the small boat to be fixed relative to the known
location of Seaview. The boats went to the outer boundaries of the
Consensus Zones developed during the pre-fieldwork phase. One boat
worked one zone. At this point Remote Viewers, accompanied by a
researcher and a small boat operator, were asked to guide the craft to
areas to which they were drawn. Guided by the Remote Viewer the boat
moved to a specific location, at which point a range and bearing fix was
taken, and a numbered Styrofoam buoy was dropped. Its number and
location was logged on the 1:10,000 work charts for the area being
searched.

While this was going on the magnetometer boat was carrying out its
own assigned independent search pattern. In addition to its search gear,
the boat was equipped with a radar reflector and a two way radio. The
boat was usually manned by a boat operator and the magnetometer
operator; although the operator sometimes performed both roles.
Either after its independent survey was completed or, occasionally, as an
interruption to the mag process, when a remote viewing “hit” was
reported via radio, the mag boat would follow behind the Remote
Viewer boat, and mag the area just selected. If a mag “hit” was also

N 15 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

reported, a second buoy would be dropped, and its location fixed. In this
way it was possible to clearly know whether a site had been located by
magnetometer, Remote Viewing, or both. Subsequently, divers
equipped with metal detectors searched the area, seeking visual clues,
i.e., mounding, right angle shapes, and metal detector “hits”.

Through this step-down process, a search area that began with
approximately 579.15 square miles (1,500 sq. km), was brought down to a
precision of feet (m), as is required if such information is to be really
useful.
The Overburden, of sand, coral, rock, and vegetation was then
removed from the site, thus revealing what lay beneath the seafloor.

RESULTS ELECTRONIC SENSING & VISUAL SURVEYS

Satellite: The Land Sat image is unusually fine. There was virtually no
cloud cover, and penetration to the bottom was clear and unequivocal.
In these waters, however, resolution of unclassified satellite imagery,
was not adequate to locate or identify sites as small the wreck site
reported here, so this form of remote sensing was not useful.

Magnetometer: Seaview’s magnetometer running over this site, never
produced readings greater than 60 gammas. This is explained by the fact
that the target ship was an unusually fine one, and was built with the
leading technology of its age. That is, because the fastenings were brass,
bronze, or Muntz metal (a patented brass based amalgam introduced in
the early part of the 19th-Century), the mass of ferrous metal, which is
the magnetometer’s target, was far smaller than would have been found
on a ship of less expensive construction. (See Illustration Nine) Whether
readings such as these would have resulted in discovering this site is
discussed below.

The failure of the magnetometer to locate the site, as it turned out,
occurred on more than one occasion. When we found the site on 29
September 1987, we were unequipped to do excavation. That awaited a
stop in dry-dock where alterations and additions were made to Seaview.

N 16 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

When we returned to the area some three weeks later, unaccompanied
by a Remote Viewer, the buoys we had left on the earlier voyage had
been blown away by storms, or stolen by fishermen.

We could not be sure about the Loran, beyond saying that we were
within 500 yards (457m) of where we had found the ship. No Remote
Viewer was present. Three days of towing divers, and magging this
area, failed to relocate the site. Three weeks after that we again returned
and tried to make the location. This time a Remote Viewer was aboard.
With that guidance we positioned ourselves with sufficient accuracy that
the visual memory of the original divers were triggered. Three of them
snorkeling had re-found the site within an hour.

Aerial: Three flights were carried out, at different times of day, and
with different cloud covers, to assure complete visual aerial surveillance.
No ship wrecks, not already on the charts, were visible. There was no
sign of the wreck site that is the focus of this report.

Visual: Salvers from the 16th century onward have been searching this
area particularly because it is immediately adjacent to Brown's channel.
There are no reports of such a discovery. This is also a favored area for
sport divers, and at least two sport dive operations regularly bring out
clients for dives working the Beaks Cay area. Interviews with their staffs
established they had no previous knowledge of the site. [22]

RESULTS REMOTE VIEWING

Location: As the Master Composite Map for Consensus Zone C (See
Illustration Four) shows, this wreck was found by Remote Viewing at the
location predicted. On 29 September, 1987, Hammid and Vaughan were
taken out in a small boat and, within an hour, had agreed on a site and
dropped a buoy. It was too dark, by the time they were finished to make
a visual inspection. The next morning divers went down to look at what
at first appeared to be a typical low rise covered with eel grass. (See
Illustration Five) Without the impetus of Remote Viewing guidance, it is
unlikely the site would have been discovered, but the divers were
particularly vigilant and, as the dive was ending, one of them noticed
that a sequence of fire coral, when viewed from one angle, seemed

N 17 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

unnaturally symmetrical. On a “hunch” a diver struck the coral with his
dive knife, and a piece gave way. The chip revealed what was later
determined to be a bronze keel bolt. This led to a reexamination of
some small rocks, later determined to be ballast stones. This entire
process took perhaps five hours. The buoy dropped by Vaughan and
Hammid was less than 35 feet from the keel bolt.

Note placement of the two buoys, within the most significant cluster
within the zone. The other locations all contained debris as well.

Illustration Four

N 18 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

After a second failure of mag and visual survey in an area of only a few
hundred yards, the site was relocated by Remote Viewing, Excavation
began immediately. It revealed an unusually intact wreck buried three
to five feet beneath the eel grass and sand. Nothing was visible except
the fire coral covered keel bolts, and some ballast mixed in with natural
rock. Only excavation revealed what were remains of a collapsed
American armed merchant brig which sank in the early decades of the
19th century.

The site as it originally appeared. Note the keel bolt with a line attached. The magneto-
meter survey, on two occasion failed to locate it.

Illustration Five

Descriptive Concepts: The transcripts of the interview sessions show
there were 193 conceptual concepts put forward about this site by the
Remote Viewers. This material covered surface geography, sub-surface
geology, ship location, and the position and identity of both ship parts
and contents. Based on fieldwork, archaeological, and historical
research, the accuracy of the concepts was determined to be:

N 19 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

CONCEPT ACCURACY EVALUATION
Correct Partially Corr. Incorr Non-evaluable
PRE-FIELDWORK
TOTAL
Total Number of Concepts 91 14 3 38
146/108

Percentages Including N-e 62% 10% 2% 26%
Percentages Minus N-e 84% 13% 3%

ON-SITE
Total Number of Concepts 30 4 3 10
47/37

Percentages Including N-e 64% 9% 6% 21%
Percentages Minus N-e 81% 11% 8%

COMBINED
Total Number of Concepts 121 18 6 48
193/145

Percentages Including N-e 63% 9% 3% 25%
Percentages Minus N-e 83% 12% 4%

Table One

A Piori Evaluation: The reconstructive material is subject to what might
be called The Generic Criticism. That is: When a Remote Viewer is asked
to describe something in, or under the sea, there is a generic sort of
description that many presume will cover many, if not most wrecks. In
the sense of naming or drawing certain nautical universals, for instance
an anchor, this is true. But in most respects, as we have learned by direct
field experience and study of the literature, this criticism is true in only
the broadest terms. Shipwrecks present themselves in many ways.
There are thousands of boat types.

N 20 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

The Remote Viewers describe a ship that is intact. Several saying it sank
in place. This sounds generic but, in fact, the brig is the only wooden
sailing ship wreck ever found in the area this intact. Sailing ships driven
or mis-sailed onto the Banks did not often stay completely together like
this when they sank. Typically, one find a debris trail along which, over

some distance, a ship breaks up, spilling contents, and parts of its
structure. Here are a few other examples of Remote Viewing at an even
smaller scale, that also had a low a priori probability of being correct: R15 described the site by saying: <2840> “I feel wood, big pieces of wood,
like railroad ties…”. (See Illustration Six) This may sound generic. It is
not. The massive timbers of the Leander present the rare case of a ship
that sank intact. There is no other ship recovery on record in the License Area
that matches this site. There does not seem to have been another equivalent
reported excavation like this on the entire Banks.

Similarly, <2847> “and small glass bottles.” Small glass bottles rarely
survive the constant movement of sand, and currents on the Bank. The

N 21 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

probability of discovering one is very small. Yet two were found in the
wreckage of this site. (See Illustration Seven)

Or, <2848> “… pewter…I don't know what it is, but
some kind of corroded metal.”; (See Illustration Eight)
And <2849> “Everyday artifacts…” Again, these
observations only seem commonplace. Based on
other excavation reports the site is notable for the
number of such items which have survived. Among
the artifacts recovered: The Captain's pearl handled
razor, parts of a drafting set, a silver or pewter
cruet.

Remote Viewing
predicted “small
glass bottles”
would be found,
and they were.

Illustration Seven

Remnants of containers. Of
particular interest is the pewter cruet
in the center; it had been predicted
by Remote Viewing.

Illustration Eight

Experience taught predicted “small
us that arguments glass bottles”
proposing that most would be found,
wrecks can be and they were.
described by Illustration Seven
predictable interchangeable cliché images, simply do
not hold up. Similarly, the criticism
that anywhere one looks one is likely
to turn up a wreck, is ludicrous in the
face of the immensity of the ocean, the
uniqueness of each site, and the
academic and historical search
literature.

Statistical Analysis: There are three ways to determine the statistical
probability that this discovery was a chance occurrence: 1) The location
of the site only in reference to Consensus Zone C; 2) The location of the
site in reference to the entire License Area; 3) the location of the site in
reference to the entire Grand Bahama Banks. Let us select only the first
two, since it must follow that if these two analyses are above chance,
then the third, involving the entire Banks, must be even more
improbable.

No matter which case is selected, one begins by recognizing that
approximately 300 notable wrecks went down, not just in the License Area but

N 22 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

across the entire Banks, from 1500 to 1876 as determined by a thorough
search of historical records and archival material.

Let us take the most conservative (and obviously artificial) position:
Assume all 300 of those wrecks were within Consensus Zone C. The
search area of Consensus Zone C is 30.59 square km (11.81 sq. miles, 12
sq. miles of sea minus 0.19 sq. miles of land mass). The brig site is 5,000
square feet, equaling 0.000179 of a square mile. Within Consensus Zone
C, 65,849 sites of this size could be placed. In essence, then, we have a
grid with 65,849 cells. If the probability of selecting that particular cell
in the grid by chance exceeds p 0.05 then Remote Viewing can be
considered a determinative factor. In fact, it is 300/65,849 or p 0.005; a
very significant result.

Let us next take the less conservative, and more realistic, (although still
artificially conservative) case: Assume the wrecks are evenly distributed
throughout the entire License Area. That said, we should expect to see
11.81/579.15 x 300 = 6.12 boats in Consensus Zone C. The probability of
finding one in a 5,000 square feet area is then 6.12/65,849 = p 0.00009,
which strongly suggests that chance is not an explanation for the location
of Leander.

DISCUSSION

Remote Viewing was the one location methodology that produced
accurate useful location data on this site. That conclusion, however,
should not overshadow
another, which is also
notable: the efficiency of
Remote Viewing. From
the time we arrived at the
edge of Consensus Zone
C, a total of approximately five hours of
operation time was
required to initially make
the location.

Examples of ship fittings. These were used to establish
the identity of the Leander. Several were predicted in
the Remote Viewing sessions, particularly the ratchet
wheel, top center. N m

If the site had been found

N 23 m

Illustration Nine

The Discovery of an American Brig

by the magnetometer how long would it have taken? The site is 100 feet
(30.5m) long by 50 feet (15.3m) wide. The traditional approach would
have been to use a magnetometer to search the overall area. The ship
follows Loran-C, or some locally set up navigation system, such as Del
Norte with the magnetometer sensor trailing from a ship operating at no
more than 6 knots. Parallel lanes no more than 30 feet (9.14m) from one
another are run, much like a tractor making corn rows. Thus it is
possible to compute with considerable accuracy exactly how long a
magnetometer survey will require, if one first knows the size of the area
to be searched.

The total area of the chart given to the Remote Viewers to search is 12
square nautical miles (a nautical mile ≈ 6000 feet (1,829m)); it measures 3
miles by 4 miles. At 6 knots, a standard magging speed, a run 30 feet
(9.14m) wide and one mile long is optimally covered in ten minutes. To
cover one square mile in 30-foot (9.14m) swaths, then, would require 200
passes.

Thus, in a “perfect” plan, the fastest possible survey time for the chart
area can be calculated as 10 x 200 x 12 = 24,000 minutes/60 = 400 hours.
Adding just the most conservative turn around and set-up time between
each of these perfect one mile runs, say five minutes, would bring the
total up to 600 hours. This “perfect” plan, of course, fails to take into
account any of the realities of navigation, weather, site obstructions,
equipment set-up and break-down, currents, or the myriad other factors
that actually would have to be considered.

A post hoc reexamination of the record was carried out, and it reaffirms
that over this site Seaview did not get anything like the pattern associated
with a ship, although there were two “hits”. But of such a low range that
they did not suggest a ship site. Understanding why this is so, takes
some sense of field realities; the question of why the magnetometer did
not identify the site on not one but two occasions is an important one.

Removing sand under water is a major logistical operation. It forces any
field project to establish a threshold beneath which mag “hits” are discarded as not worth following up. It is simply not practically possible to
follow up on every magnetometer “hit”, particularly in an area like the
Banks where, during the 1940s and 50s, pilots trained for strafing and
bombing runs, littering the sea with thousands of expended 50 caliber

N 24 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

machine gun bullets, and unexploded bombs. Such a search would take
years, if not decades.

Low level individual “hits” when isolated are also of less interest than a
pattern consisting of a number of small 10-15 gamma responses with 3060 gamma spikes. Such patterns suggest that a ship, as opposed to a
single ferrous object, lies beneath the seafloor overburden. Each
expedition must, of course, set its own threshold, and pattern
requirements, but an informal survey of individuals who have worked
the banks suggests that 30 gammas is about the lower practical limit, and
that these really only become meaningful in the context of a pattern. The
ship was expensively built of the latest materials for its time. Thus, it
used relatively little ferrous metal and, thus, made a small target for the
magnetometer.

It seems to us reasonable to conclude that the involvement of
archaeological remote viewing made the search procedure more
efficient, cost effective, and faster than would otherwise have been the
case. It is hard to explain away sailing up to the site, dropping a buoy
within a few feet of a site, and accurately and uniquely describing the
wreck's disposition, and contents prior to excavation.

The fact that the site was previously unknown is not hard to explain,
given the depth at which the wreck was buried, the paucity of visible
signs on the seafloor, and the low iron content, because of the use of
bronze, and Muntz metal. Thus, while one can not absolutely say that
the site could not have been found using electronic remote sensing the
fact that it lay undisturbed for 154 years, in one of the most intensely
searched areas of the Banks, supports this improbability. Our own
unsuccessful attempt to relocate the site, even though we knew it was
present, until Remote Viewing was employed, further suggests this was
the critical variable in bringing our success.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank our ship’s Master and crew of the Research Vessel SEAVIEW,
without whose tireless work this research would never have happened. We also thank
the Bahamian Government, particularly the Honorable Philip Bethel, Minister of
Transport and Local Government, and his Deputy Mr. Calvin Balfour for their gracious
assistance, and permission to carry out this research. Most significantly of all we thank

N 25 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

the 74 men and women whose financial support made this work possible. And to S. P.
James Spottiswoode, our thanks for checking our statistical analysis section.

SAS & RDM

REFERENCES

1 Stephan A. Schwartz. A Preliminary Survey of the Eastern Harbor, Alexandria,
Egypt,. 11th Annual Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 11 January 1980.

2 ------------------------ The Use of Intuitionally Derived Data in Archaeological Fieldwork,
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological
Association/Association for Transpersonal Anthropology, 10 March 1980

3------------------------- The Location, Reconstruction, and Excavation of a Byzantine
Structure in Marea, Egypt, presented at The Annual Meetings of the American Research
Center in Egypt, 14 April 1980.

4 ------------------------ Randall J. De Mattei and Marilyn Schlitz. The Pecos Project:
Reconstruction of Life in a Southwestern Indian Village Along the Lower Pecos River
Through Remote Viewing, Circa 8th Century A.D.. American Anthropology
Association Annual Meetings 1984.

5 --------------------------------- “Remote Viewing: An Applications-Oriented Perspective for
Anthropology”. Invited Paper in Proceedings. A Summary of Data and Theories from
Parapsychology Relevant to Psychological Anthropology. 84th Annual Meeting American
Anthropology Association. 1985.

6 ------------------------- and Randall J. De Mattei. (In conjunction with Roger Smith, Institute
for Nautical Archaeology) The Caravel Report . Proceedings of the Parapsychological
Association. 1987. Also The Caravel Report. Conference on Underwater
Archaeology/Society of Historic Archaeology Annual Meetings 1987.

7 Robert G. Jahn. “The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: And Engineering
Perspective” Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 70, no. 2. February 1982, pp. 136-170 See
also

8 Matthew Fontaine Maury. “Physical Geography of the Sea”. In Astronomical
Observations. 1855.

9 Stephan A. Schwartz, Peter Throckmorton, Catherine Throckmorton, Richard Swete,
Stephen Rogers, and Michael Parret. A Survey from Historical Sources of Ships Lost on the
Grand Bahama Banks 1500-1876 . (Mobius: Los Angeles, 1988).

10 Barbara Tuchman. The First Salute. (Knopf: New York, 1987).

11 Maine Enquirer (1829). Collection of the University of Maine.

12 Joseph A Goldenberg Shipbuilding in Colonial America. (University of Virginia Press:
Charlottesville, Virginia, 1976).

N 26 m

The Discovery of an American Brig

13 Ibid.

14 William Avery Baker. A Maritime History of Bath, Maine. 2 vols. (Marine Research
Society: Bath Maine, l973).

15 Samuel and Richard Hodgson. Calculations Relating to the Equipment, Displacement,
etc. of Ships and Vessels of War. (John Edye: London, 1832).

16 Baker. Loc. cit.
17 John F. Winne and John W. Gittinger. “An Introduction to the Personality
Assessment System”. Monograph Supplement No. 38. Journal of Clinical Psychology. April
1973.

18 David R. Saunders. “Correlations of Remote Viewing Ability with Performance
Personality Measures: Preliminary Results ”. SRI Technical Report. April 1985

19 Schwartz, Throckmorton, et al. Loc. Cit.

20 See: Bernard Grad, R.J. Cadoret, and G.I. Paul. “An unorthodox Method of
Treatment on Wound Healing in Mice” . International Journal of Parapsychology, 2, (1961),
pp. 5-19. Carroll B. Nash. “Psychokinetic Control of Bacterial Growth”, In Research in
Parapsychology (W. G. Roll, Robert L. Morris, and Rhea A. White Eds., Scarecrow,
Metuchen, 1982), pp. 61-64. Dolores Kreiger. “Healing by the Laying on of Hands as
a Facilitator of Bio-Energetic Change: The Response of In Vivo Human Hemoglobin”,
Psychoenergetic Systems,1 (1974), pp. 121-129. M. Justa Smith, “Paranormal Effects on
Enzyme Activity.” Human Dimension, 1 (1973), pp. 12-15. G. Watkins and A. Watkins,
“Possible PK Influence on the Resuscitation of Anesthetized Mice”, Journal of
Parapsychology, 35, (1971), pp. 257-72.

21 Robert Jahn, B.J. Dunne, and E.G. Jahn. “Analytical Judging Procedure for Remote
Perception Experiments”. Journal of Parapsychology . No. 3, pp. 207-231, 1980.

22 Private Communications with Dive Masters and crews of Bottom Time, and Bottom
Time II. .

N 27 m