◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003100140001-2 . ° Tabie 1 Summary of Maimonides Results on Tendency for Dreams to Be Jud Than Like Nontargets in Target Pool Y ged More Like Target ‘Series tit Mins out Mas Judges Subjects Eources ee Sa Sree GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent “‘transmitting/’ during each REM period A. 1st screening 7 5 10 2 z= 0.71" z= 1.83° B. 1st Erwin 5 2 6 1 z= 2.53" z= 1,90° C. 2nd screening 4 8 9 ‘3 z= -—.25° z= 17 DO. Posin 6 2 6 2 zZ™ 1.05° Z™= 1.05° E. Grayeb 3 5 5 3 z= -.63° z=0. F. 2nd Erwin 8 0 f= 4.93° G 6 2 8 ) t= 2.81¢ t= 2.74¢ . Van de Castle H. Pilot sessions 53 14 42 22 Z= 4.20° _ SO = 2, Ullman, Krippner, & Fetdstein (1966) Uliman et al. (1966) Ullman (1969) Utiman (1969) Ullman, Krippner, & Vaughan (1973) Ultiman & Krippner (1969) Krippner & Uliman (1970) thd Uliman et al. (1973) Precognition: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; target experience next day i. Ist Bessent 7 1 t=2.81° J. 2nd Bessent 7 1 t= 2.27* K. Pilot sessions “2 re) z= 0.67 GESP: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; agent active only at L. Sensory bombard- 8 (a) 4 4 z= 3.17° Z= 0.00° ment M. Grateful Dead 7 5 8 4 z= 0.615 z=0.81 Krippner, Uliman, & Honorton (1971) Krippner, Honorton, & Uliman (1972) Ullman et al. (1973) beginning or sporadically _Uliman, Masters, & Houston (1971) i . Honorton, & Uliman (1973) Clairvoyance: Dreams monitored and recorded throughout night; concealed target known to no one N. Piot sessions 5 3 4 5 Z= 0.98" z= 0.00 Ullman et al. (1973) GESP: Single dreams 105 58 74 79 z= 0.63". Honorton, Krippner, & Parise Uliman (1972) Fr tr we: pte ce Sst Se nT onc al rea pcs fe neh laboratory reports were also * Ratings. ° Rankings. * Score (count of hits and misses). plan to merge the outcomes for judges and subjects. Moreover, the various series could be split up in other ways. Although I think my organization of the table 1S very reasonable (and I did not notice this outcome i constructed), it is not the until after the table was to vary great! dreams—Line O—suggest Other extreme, some separ impressive. I will next co mately evaluate the relati Organization selected by Ullman et al. (1973); their table, if evaluated statistically in this same way, would not yield so striking a result. What is clear is that the tendency toward hits rather than misses cannot rea- sonably be ascribed to chance. There is some system- atic—that is, nonrandom—+-source of anomalous re- semblance of dreams to target. Despite its breadth, this “hitting” tendency seems y in strength. The data on single no consistency. At the te lines of the table look sider how we may legiti- Statistical significance of 1222 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDPOS-UO7SYRGOSTHUT ANG ICE