Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect"
⚡ Contested📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
In the late 1970s, Stanford Research Institute claimed two subjects could "remotely view" distant locations using ESP. Psychologist David Marks investigated -- and what he found was devastating. The original researchers refused to release raw transcripts (red flag!). When Marks obtained them anyway, he discovered they were riddled with giveaway clues: dates, experimenter names, and cross-session references having nothing to do with psychic ability. The jaw-dropping part: Marks sent these cue-laden transcripts to judges in New Zealand, who matched them to locations just as accurately as the originals -- using only mundane clues, no ESP required. Surveying all replication attempts, he found a clean pattern: tightly controlled studies came up empty, while positive results only appeared in sloppy designs. Remote viewing, Marks concluded, is a methodological mirage. His work set the standards that all serious RV research has followed since.
Research Notes
Foundational skeptical critique of the Targ-Puthoff SRI remote viewing program, published in Summer 1982 in The Skeptical Inquirer (catalog ID carries legacy 'alcock_2003' name from a mislabeled PDF). The 'remote judging' demonstration—achieving p=.001 without psi using only transcript cues—is the paper's enduring contribution. Establishes cue-free transcript and randomized target-list standards for all subsequent RV research. Direct precursor to the Utts-Hyman SAIC evaluation debates of the 1990s.
David Marks examines the SRI remote viewing (RV) experiments by Targ and Puthoff with subjects Pat Price and Hella Hammid. He documents data suppression—Targ and Puthoff refused to release raw transcripts—then demonstrates that the Hammid transcripts contain 24 identifiable sensory cues (dates, experimenter names, temporal references, cross-session comments) enabling correct ordering without ESP. Independent judges in New Zealand (12,000 km away) used only these cues to achieve p=.001 in blind transcript matching, equaling the original SRI judge's performance. A systematic review of replication attempts finds a clear pattern: all well-controlled RV studies fail (Allen 1976; Karnes 1979, 1980), while positive results appear only in flawed designs. Marks concludes remote viewing is a cognitive illusion produced entirely by methodological artifact.
Related Papers
Cites
Same Research Program
More in Remote Viewing
Exploring the Correlates and Nature of Subjective Anomalous Interactions with Objects (Psychometry): A Mixed Methods Survey
Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments
The Location and Reconstruction of a Byzantine Structure in Marea, Egypt, Including a Comparison of Electronic Remote Sensing and Remote Viewing
Greg Kolodziejzyk's 13-Year Associative Remote Viewing Experiment Results
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences
📋 Cite this paper
Marks, David F (1982). Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect". The Skeptical Inquirer.
@article{marks_1982_remote_viewing_revisited,
title = {Remote Viewing Revisited: Well-Controlled Experiments Don't Find the "RV Effect"},
author = {Marks, David F},
year = {1982},
journal = {The Skeptical Inquirer},
}