|
ARIZONA EXPERIMENTS CONTINUED
Phase
II: Blind Judging
There are multiple purposes for conducting blinding judging of the themes / fundamentals: To determine
how general or specific the fundamentals are: Can they be matched to specific pictures taken either at the locations, or en
route to the locations? To determine if specific pictures taken either at the locations, or en route to the locations, can
be accurately culled from the complete set of fundamentals provided per day? To determine if the fundamentals provided for
a given day are unique to a given location and / or en route to the location, or are found at other locations or en route
to the locations?
The first purpose is straight forward to implement and was performed below. Based upon these data,
it is not necessary to perform the second purpose (for reasons explained below). The third purpose can not be adequately addressed
from the video tapes collected in the present experiment and will be performed in future research (explained in detail in
the discussion section).
Seventy-eight University of Arizona students (47 females and 29 males) between the ages of
20 and 55 performed the blind-judging task. Nine exemplary fundamentals, one per location per day – that were unique to each
location and not present at the other locations – were selected for scoring. The tenth was an “en route” fundamental (the
pitched propeller); however, had a location fundamental for this particular day been chosen for judging (e.g. a solar telescope),
the scoring accuracy would be the identical (clearly unique to the location and readily recognizable).
Ten pictures,
one per location per day, were presented via Power Point; subjects attempted to match the ten possible statements with the
ten pictures. The ten statements were arranged alphabetically: dust in a building, flat tire (it was not possible to take
a single photo showing all four flat tires), holes in the ground (one representative hole was shown), jeans, ladders, metal
sculpture store, pitched propeller, satellite dishes, space capsule inside a building, trees in a park-like setting.
Forty-two
females and 28 males obtained ten out of ten matches correctly. Five females and one male made a total of 13 errors out of
50. This resulted in 767 correct matches out of a possible 780; the total percent accuracy of judging was 98.33%. Given of
this high degree of apparent specificity of primary theme description and content observed in the pictures, it is obvious
that blind judging for the second purpose would yield similar high levels of matching. However, the third purpose of blind
judging can not be adequately addressed in the present study because CR and PE took the videos. Since CR and PE were searching
for the fundamental information provided each day, the videos do not present the full scope of possible information present
en route and at each location. Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, each day CR obtained information about the location (as
well as en route) that was unique to the location. Hence, if judges were given the full list of fundamentals obtained over
the ten days, and then visited each location following the route taken to each location, they would discover that the majority
of fundamentals provided per day were unique to the location visited per day. For example, only one location had a car with
four flat tires parked for twenty years at the given location (described precisely in a dream); only one location had one
inch thick dust covering the floor in a building at a given location (described precisely in a dream); and so forth.
Discussion:
Patterns
of Fundamentals:
The above findings revealed patterns of details that were surprisingly specific and unique to each
location. Moreover, the degree of precognitive specificity revealed in the information was meaningful. Consider the following
example:
On Day 9, PE informed CR that he might not be able to participate in Day 10. PE explained that to be at the
University of Arizona Health Sciences for a talk he was giving at 1:00 on Day Ten. He needed to get to the medical school
by 12 noon. If the location turned out to be close to the University, he could participate; if it was some distance from the
University, another person would have to accompany CR to the location. CR reported that in June, his dream for Day 10 indicated
that CR would be finished “very early” and that he would spend most of the day by the pool. The information was written in
his June dream reports.
On Day 10, when the envelope was actually opened, it turned out that CR and PE were to go the
Arizona State Museum (a few minutes from CR’s hotel) at the University. Furthermore, it turned out that the Museum was closed
that day. The post location videotaping performed back at CR’s hotel was completed by 11:00 am. PE was able to get to the
medical school before 12 noon. CR spent the rest of the day at the pool.
The present findings, when viewed in their
entirety, cannot be explained using conventional mechanisms such as fraud, guessing, or selective searching for information
to fit each location. Instead, the data are consistent with CR’s claim that he has precognitive dream abilities.
A
later report will include patterns of fundamentals not observed en route and at the location, but were observed post location
on the same day. These findings further support the hypothesis that the findings are not due to selective searching based
upon the fundamentals reported per day.
For example, on Day 5, CR also reported four fundamentals: “tires stacked along
a fence, lots of umbrellas, PE needing a credit card to enter a store, and ‘the spirit of God.’ These fundamentals were not
observed en route or at the site that day.
After the Day 5 location data were logged, and hits (and “misses” – i.e.
information not observed en route and at the location) were recorded, PE realized that CR and he were running out of digital
videotape, and he requested that CR accompany him to a store that sells digital videotape in bulk. CR and PE went to Costco
Wholesale. PE was required to use his membership card (which is credit-card shaped) to enter the store. PE initially dismissed
this “coincidence” as possibly due to unconscious suggestion from CR to PE concerning information CR had provided that morning
regarding his dreams. CR was hungry, and PE purchased him a sandwich in Costco. Opposite from where PE and CR sat were tires
piled up against a chain link fence, arranged as CR had drawn them from his dream diary. It turned out that although the eating
area was indoors, the round tables had outdoor umbrellas in them (CR’s “lots of umbrellas”). There were at least ten round
tables with umbrellas in the eating area. The umbrellas were used as advertising for Hebrew National Hotdogs. The slogan printed
on each umbrella was “We answer to a higher authority” (was this a reference to “the spirit of God”?). No other day has this
precise pattern of post-location fundamental information.
The above example is prototypic of the type of patterns of
information provided by CR for primary themes / fundamentals. On the one hand, the patterns of findings (the constellation
of fundamentals) cannot be explained as selective information matching on the part of the experimenters. On the other hand,
they point to the complexity of calculating precise “percent accuracy scores” when the theme information spans an entire day.
Implications for Blind Judging, Double-Blind Data Collection, and Narrowing the Time Window
The complexity
of the data obtained in this kind of experiment reveals the challenge of conducting appropriate double-blind scoring. In the
present paper, for Phase II blind scoring, we selected ten exemplary primary theme / fundamental statements from CR, one per
day. Subjects were asked to match these statements with ten photos, one per day, selected from the locations that fit the
statements. This simple judging procedure speaks only to the clarity and specificity of the information. It documents that
the information is easily recognized in photos taken at the locations (or en route to the locations). However, this judging
procedure does not answer the important question: whether the findings are due to selective attention and searching of the
experimenters, or reflect genuine precognitive information?
Are the apparent matches observed between the primary theme
/ fundamental verbal information and the visual descriptions of the locations due to (1) selective video taping by PE and
CR, followed by selective choosing of the visual information or (2) actual precognitive information that is specific and unique
to the locations predicted per day? Ideally, judges would watch hours of videotapes, collected en route to the location and
at the location, and make individual item as well as summary ratings for each of the ten days. These video tapes would have
to be collected by naïve experimenters who were not told ahead of time what the specific fundamentals were for the specific
days. The present findings strongly justify the time and expense required to conduct this kind of experiment in the future.
As discussed above, the pattern of findings obtained in the present experiment suggests that selective searching for information
by PE and CR is not a plausible explanation for the totality of the findings. Highly specific fundamental information, uniquely
present at only one the ten sites, was obtained for each of the ten locations. However, it may be possible in future experiments
to narrow the time span to the site itself. In the summer of 2002, CR performed a demonstration for a well known evening BBC
news program. CR was told he would be taken to a secret site. He was told he would be blind folded and also fitted with a
sound-reducing headphone. He was to bring the information from his previous night’s dream to the TV station in a sealed envelope.
The sealed envelope was shown on television and the male and female co-hosts signed the back of the sealed envelope. CR was
shown being blind-folded and fitted with the sound-reducing headphone. He was then driven to the secret site selected by the
TV program. When he was at the site, before the blind fold and headphone was removed, the announcers opened the sealed envelope
and read the fundamentals summarized from his dream. The thirteen fundamentals were “hospital, paddles, river, jetty, wooden
poles, water, boats, train, symbols of a dollar sign, hospital, bridge with cars and windows.” The picture below, taken from
the TV footage, shows CR before he was allowed to see and hear where he was. The picture shows he was taken to a river, with
a boat in the background, wooden poles, and the Tyler bridge with cars and windows. Not visible in the picture were children
playing in paddle boats, the jetty, the Royal Mint building (fitting the symbol of money), and Guy’s Hospital. The only fundamental
not observed was the train. Twelve of the thirteen fundamentals matched the unique location selected by the TV station.As
the shocked male announcer pointed out, he said “We could have taken you anywhere.” Possible alternative locations mentioned
on the show included stores, the zoo, the train station, etc.
Future research can potentially be designed
to restrict the dream information to the actual sites. This procedure would simply the process of experimenter-blind collection
and scoring of the information.
Additional Information Consistent with the Precognitive Dream Hypothesis
In
February of 2002, CR conducted a replication and extension ten-day experiment in Washington, DC, with a member of a US secret
service agency [who requested to GES that her identity and agency be kept secret]. In this experiment, CR predicted major
events that would be published each day in the news paper. The findings replicated, in accuracy and detail, the findings from
the University of Arizona ten-day experiment. Though these findings are currently secret (GES has read the report), it is
planned that they can be published at a later date.
It is worth noting that while CR was in Tucson, he had a “nightmare”
involving planes crashing into large buildings in New York City and thousands of people dying. These dreams continued when
he returned to England. He recorded these dreams, drew the buildings, and told his police superiors of the dreams. A few days
before 9-11, he was compelled to post a letter to the London Embassy warning of a serious threat to US safety. CR’s police
supervisor has a copy of drawings made by CR prior to 9-11 of planes crashing into tall buildings in New York City. The diagram
faxed to the police and verified by them is available.
The 9-11 twin-tower dream is not novel for CR. He has been having
terrorist-related dreams, documented by British police and Scotland yard, for fourteen years.
Future Research on Mechanisms
Further
research is clearly warranted. A fundamental question concerns the possible mechanism (s) involved. The term “precognitive”
is a description, it is not an explanation. Since CR’s dreams occurred (1) not only before the envelopes were opened, but
(2) even before the locations were consciously selected by GES and placed in the envelopes (the primary experimenter in this
experiment), the findings can not be explained simply as telepathy with the physically living.
One possible physical
/ field mechanism is that CR is somehow directly receiving information from the Universe (e.g. in the “vacuum” of space) that
contains detailed information of past, present, and future. One could speculate that the apparent intelligence observed in
the data involves CR’s unconscious intelligence in digesting the information. However, CR speculates that at least two other
possible mechanisms – both extraordinarily controversial – may be involved. Acknowledging these highly controversial potential
mechanisms should not be cause for dismissing the data. The first controversial hypothesis involves active assistance from
individuals who have died and are committed to continued collaboration with people who are physically alive. In Schwartz et
al’s research testing the survival of consciousness hypothesis, such individuals are termed “departed hypothesized co-investigators”
(see Schwartz with Simon, 2002). Based upon the totality of findings reported in The Afterlife Experiments book (Schwartz
with Simon, 2002), it is possible that just as the US has a “C.I.A.” (for Central Intelligence Agency), it is theoretically
possible, in principle, that there could be an “A.I.A.” (for Afterlife Intelligence Agency). Double-blind studies integrating
precognitive dream research with mediumship research could shed important light on this potential afterlife mechanism. For
examples, mediums could be requested to read CR long distance under double-blind conditions; the medium’s blind readings of
CR could be combined with the medium’s blind readings of other individuals (i.e. controls) and returned to CR to be scored
double-blind.
The second even more controversial hypothesis involves assistance from advanced individuals, if not direct
assistance from the source of intelligence in the universe itself (in religions labeled by various names including Yahweh,
the Great Spirit, God, Allah). The reason that CR posits such a mechanism involves the apparent degree of advanced and coordinated
intelligence in the nature of the information he apparently receives in his dreams. For example, four of the locations that
were randomly selected from the group of twenty possible locations, and were visited in the ten experimental locations, happened
to be museums or contained museums: The Sonoran Desert Museum, the Gem and Mineral Store (it contained a museum), the University
of Arizona Planetarium (it contained a museum), and the Arizona State Museum. However, CR did not dream of a museum per se,
nor did he ever mention the word museum. Had he done so, the word “museum” could have applied equally well to four possible
sites, and therefore would not have discriminated between them. An anonymous reviewer wondered whether CR “purposely avoided
committing himself to too specific features,” inferring that the term “museum” is very specific. The data suggest the contrary.
On Day 4, for example, CR used specific terms like the sun, mirrors, LCDs, and a “pitched propeller,” information that was
precise and accurate. Also, intelligent design is implied by the fact that CR dreamt in June that Day Ten (in August) would
end quickly, which matched GES’s university speaking responsibility in August. Note that the precise date that the ten-day
experiment was to begin was not set until CR arrived in the US. Moreover, GES was blind to the dream information obtained
by CR during May, June, and July. In addition, CR was blind to GES’s speaking responsibilities until he arrived in Tucson).
The pattern of findings suggests the operation of a level of highly advanced intelligence.
One anonymous wrote: “The
intervention AIA and God et al is just too much for me and I suspect many readers. The risk is that the whole report will
be dismissed as ‘unserious’. I suggest omitting this.” PE and CR appreciate that some readers may find these two hypotheses
highly questionable; however, integrity in presenting the findings (including previously published research) requires that
we honestly and seriously face the potential implications of the phenomenon even if they are misinterpreted as being “unserious.”
The possible electromagnetic source (s) of the information / signals can be investigated using different kinds of shielded
environments in which CR sleeps. In Tiller’s (1997) book Science and Human Transformation, he describes a preliminary experiment
with mediums claiming that in an electrically shielded room, the mediums’ accuracy increased, whereas in a magnetically shielded
room, the mediums’ accuracy decreased. Are CR’s dreams more or less accurate depending upon geomagnetic conditions? Another
important question concerns other individuals who may have this level of skill. In collaboration with GES, CR has been working
with three other individuals (all females - a British citizen and two US citizens) who also have a documented pre-cognitive
dream skill. What is the base rate for a high level of skill? Can the skill be trained? Can CR’s (and others) skills be further
developed with additional practice and more optimal sleeping conditions?
If a collaborative network of precognitive
dreamers is created, can the combination of information so obtained yield more precise and reliable data? Can pattern recognition
algorithms be developed to make the information more useful for non-defense as well as defense applications? Can the precognitive
dream skill be used for malevolent purposes as well as benevolent ones? Also, as CR and other psychics believe, does the actual
presence of disbelievers (super-skeptics) degrade the accuracy of their precognitive dreams? These and other important questions
can be addressed in future research. The challenge is to find ways of supporting this kind of frontier research with a collaborative
team of scientists and psychics.
References
Bender, H. (1966). The Gotenhafen Case of Correspondence between
Dreams and Future Events: The Case of Motivation. International Journal of
Neuropsychiatry. 2: 398-407.Lange, R.,
Schredle, M., Houran, J. (2000). What Precognitive Dreams are Made of:
The Nonlinear Dynamics of Tolerance of Ambiguity,
Dream Recall, and Paranormal Belief. Dynamical Psychology.
Http://www.ogertzel.or/dynapsyc/dynacon.html.
Krippner,
S., Ullman, M., and Honorton, C. (1971). A Precognitive Dream Study with a Single Subject. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research. 65: 192-203.
Krippner, S., Honorton, C., and Ullman, M. (1972). A second precognitive dream
study with Malcom Bessent. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 66: 269-279.
Radin, D. (1997). The
Conscious Universe. San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins.
Robinson, C., with Boot, A. (1996). Dream Detective. New York,
NY: Warner Books.
Schwartz, G.E., Geoffrion, S., Jain, S., Lewis, S., and Russek, L.G. (2002, in press).
Evidence
of anomalous information retrieval between two research mediums:
Replication in a double-blind design. JSPR.
Schwartz,
G.E.R., Russek, L.G.S., Nelson, L.A. and Barentsen, C. (2001). Accuracy and Replicability of Anomalous After-Death Communication
Across Highly Skilled
Mediums. JSPR. 65, 862: 1-25.
Schwartz, G.R., Russek, L.G., and Nelson, L.A. (2002, press).
Purported anomalous perception in a highly skilled individual: Observations, interpretations,compassion. Journal of Scientific
Exploration. Schwartz, G.E., Russek, L.G., and Barentsen, C. (2002, in press). Accuracy and Replicability of Anomalous Information
Retrieval: Replication and Extension.
JSPR.
Schwartz, G.E., and Russek, L.G. (2001). Evidence of Anomalous
Information Retrieval between Two Mediums: Telepathy, Network Memory Resonance, and Continuance of Consciousness. JSPR. 65,
865:257-275.
Schwartz, G.E., with Simon, W.L. (2002). The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence for
Life After Death. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
Tiller, W.A. (1997). Science and Human Transformation. California: Pavior
Publications.
Below are Photographs from the Test Days.
|
