Photo Credit: Alexis Poquis
From 1983 on, Dr. Thompson Smith participated in remote viewing and other research both for individuals, scientific groups, and others. Her work from the early 1983 until 2013 is documented in her book Seer: 30 years of Remote Viewing….and counting. Following are several examples of remote viewing work carried out for professional groups in the United States.
During the Summer of 2012, Dr. Smith was retained by a private, physics research organization to remote view the 3-dimensional form, function and movement of the interior of an electron. Three minimally-frontloaded sessions were conducted. The group rated the initial session as a 10 on a 1-10 scale and reported that the information correlated with their other data and was very helpful.
In September, 2011, a group of 3 remote viewers, including Dr. Smith, were tasked by to two graduate students from the University of Delaware to remote view a biochemical process that that they were investigating. Their 2-year project had unknown outcomes with important implications for US waterways and the environment. Three “blind” RV sessions were carried out and the data relayed to the researchers. The research would be completed in 2013/2014 and Dr. Smith’s data will compare her results with the research findings. To date no feedback has been received on this project.
In April, 2012, Dr. Smith participated in a week-long project sponsored and run by the Institute for the Scientific Study of Consciousness (ISSC) in Delaware. The focus of the week centered around the work of Reiki’s Founder Sensei Dr. Mikao Usui and incorporated remote viewing and remote healing modalities. A modern version of Byosin Reikan Ho was the main focus of the week. Dr. Smith also developed and taught a shamanic process of “talking to the spirit of the disease” in the remote viewing protocol.
The goals of the workshop were to: obtain information on actual patients’ disease processes that could not be obtained through other means; to apply that information to the healing process; to have objective and well-defined parameters of success; to share that information with the patient; and to empower the patient in the healing process.
Plant Virology Research
Dr. Angela Thompson Smith participated in a 2009 scientific study where remote viewers attempted to identify sick plants from healthy plants. Titled A Triple Blind Study of the Non-Local Perception of Plants Infected with Tobacco Mosaic Virus (2009), the study found that remote viewers could identify sick plants from healthy ones. As the protocols became more refined, Dr. Smith was able to correctly identify 80% of the sick plants, and 100% in another protocol. (Interestingly if was noted, the plants that had been identified as sick were found to begin to recover after being given attention during the study!)
Angela Thompson Smith, PhD.
ANOMALOUS HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION: RELATIONSHIP TO
TRAINING EXPECTATIONS, ABSORPTION, FLOW, AND CREATIVITY.
The primary goal of this study was to replicate and extend studies conducted at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory, utilizing their portable Random Event Generator (REG) and experimental protocols (PORTREG) whereby operators attempt to intentionally influence the output of the REG. Another primary purpose was to examine the possible impact of expectations engendered in the training period. The secondary purposes of this study were to investigate the association of measures of absorption, flow, and vocational creativity with REG scores. Gender effects were also investigated. Eighty adult subjects, 44 males and 36 females, contributed one experimental REG series to the database, in a tripolar protocol, with the intention to raise or lower the output of the REG (High intention and Low intention) plus the generation of a Baseline. No significant effects were found in the direction of intention (High or Low) and there were no significant gender effects. Subjects completed the Tellegen Absorption Scale – TAS (Tellegen and Atkinson, 1974), a modified flow scale (Csikszentmihalyi, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi , 1988), and a vocational self-report related to the Lifetime Creativity Scales (LCS) (Richards, Kinney, Benet, & Merzel, 1988). No significant relationships were found between the REG scores, expectation, absorption, flow, or the LCS. Eighteen of the 80 subjects were designated Extrachance scorers, as they achieved significant differences between their High and Low REG scores, where only four such subjects would be expected by chance alone. The Extrachance subjects had significantly different scores than non-Extrachance subjects on a two-tailed t-test for absorption, flow, and peak creativity, with levels of vocational creativity being higher in the Extrachance than non-Extrachance group, and flow and absorption lower. Hence, for the Extrachance subgroup, representing 23% of the sample, significant findings occurred involving subject influence on REG scores, as well as differences from non-Extrachance scorers on all of the vocational creativity, flow, and absorption measures. These results fit with reports from PEAR and suggest the value of further in-depth studies of exceptional people, and of characteristics that may be relevant to the REG task. Suggestions are given for further research of the impact of human consciousness on random electronic systems.
Remote Viewing Study
Summary and Preliminary Group Data
In 2001 a study was carried out to investigate certain aspects of human consciousness and, in particular, the topic of remote viewing. As part of a potentially much larger study to measure the “footprint of consciousness” the study investigated characteristics of remote viewing and of the individuals doing the viewing. In particular, variables such as gender, age, type and length of training, the trait of absorption, and range of handedness were evaluated. Other variables such as distance, time, sidereal time, and presence or absence of solar storms were included, as these might be important to remote viewing performance.
A call went out for trained remote viewers to participate in the study and 25 viewers completed all of the requirements for the study. The requirements included completion of an Informed Consent, questionnaires, and one remote viewing session. The study was conducted “double-blind”: the participants, as well as the experimenter, were “blind” to the targets until they had been scored. Third parties selected the targets and put them into sealed, numbered envelopes, contacted the participants, scheduled the viewing dates, and scored the targets. The target pictures were chosen at random from a pool of 100 targets and provided as feedback to the participants by email and postal mail.
The twenty-five participants who took part in the study ranged in age from 20 to 66 years. There were 13 males and 12 females. The participants ranged between 63 and 9,513 miles away from the picture targets. The participants had been trained at 8 schools of remote viewing. Some of the preliminary remote viewing results were interesting. For example, participants were asked if they used a monitor during their sessions: of the 25 participants, 19 did their session solo.
A scoring method developed by Problems<Solutions<Innovations was used to evaluate the remote viewing sessions. The scale scored each session on 39 categories, on a yes, no, or unknown basis. Trained scorers compared the participants’ session summaries to the picture target, and a percentage score was given to each session. The summaries ranged from 6% to 100% correct information perceived about the target. The mean correct information obtained by the participants was 63.8%. Ten of the participants perceived 80% and higher correct information.
There was a positive correlation between the time that the participant took to complete their session and their percentage score (p = .037) indicating that shorter sessions appeared to generate higher scores. The participants took on average about an hour to complete their sessions. Higher scores were also positively correlated with level of training (p = .002). However the unequal number of participants from the different training schools made it difficult to estimate any difference between schools. There were no age or gender differences in scores.
The laterality data showed that the participants fell into a distribution of right, left, and mixed- handedness that was comparable to that found in the general population. There was a bias toward being left-eared in the remote viewing group, compared to a right-ear preference in the general population. The study population was equally divided between having a right or left-eye preference. In the general population, being right-eyed is the norm. Also the study participants were equally divided between being right or left-footed where the norm in the general population is to be right-footed.
Variables such as the trait of absorption, laterality, distance, time, sidereal time, and presence or absence of solar storms were not compared to session scores, at this time, because of the small database. There was insufficient data for these measures to give a meaningful analysis. Further data will be collected in the future to evaluate these measures.
I would like to thank all of the research participants and volunteers who contributed their time and expertise in order to carry out this study.
Laterality and Psi Study
In 1987 a pilot project of 150 individuals who had participated for the first time in the Psychophysical Research Laboratory’s (PRL) Ganzfeld studies (a state of semi-sensory deprivation which facilitates psi abilities) were asked to report on their hand-preference.PRLwas located at Princeton Junction, NJ and directed by Mr. Charles (Chuck) Honorton). At that time I was participating as a volunteer participant at thePRL. According to Geschwind (1974), self-report is generally regarded as the best single measure of lateral preference. Participants were requested to return a postcard, giving information on their hand preference as follows: right- handed, left-handed or mixed-handed. There was an 80% return rate for the postcards. A preliminary analysis of the results showed the following:
R Preference (n=91)
L Preference (n=11)
The handedness estimates were compared with first-place hits on a Ganzfeld psi experiment. Among the 91 right- handers, only 29 had direct Ganzfeld hits (32%, z=1.38). Of the left- handers, an even smaller proportion had direct hits on the Ganzfeld, 2 out of 11 (18%, z =-.17). However, there were 10 mixed-handed subjects with direct hits, out of 19 (53%, z = 2.2). While this was a preliminary study, the results certainly warrant further investigation.
How are mixed- handers different from strong right or left- handers? The distribution of mixed-handedness ranges between 24% to 34% in the general population and more males than females are mixed-handed (Annett, 1970). Mixed handedness may be a normal variant on the right/left continuum (Annett, 1967, 1970, 1972). She demonstrated that the handedness distribution on the general population should be regarded as continuous, rather than a discrete right/left distribution. Bakan (1975) found a familial influence for ambilaterality: mixed- handers reported far more left-handed and mixed-handed relatives than right- handers did.
Most adults with mixed hand preference appear to be cognitively and neurologically normal (Bishop, 1983). The assumption that mixed handedness reflects immature, underdeveloped cerebral lateralization is not confirmed. Mixed-handedness may also be a product of environmental pressures. On the whole, ambilateral adults with mixed-hand preference are cognitively and neurologically normal and may represent a normal, genetic variation. Mixed- handers may have a unique perspective on the world and behave according to their different view.