Russell Targ Sources:

Russell Targ

Russell Targ is an American physicist and author who co-founded the remote-viewing research program at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) with Harold E. Puthoff in 1972.[1][2] A pioneer in early laser development, he retired from Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space Co. in 1998 as a senior staff scientist.[1] His experiments with Puthoff appeared in Nature and the Proceedings of the IEEE, and the program they built was funded by the CIA and other US government agencies for over two decades.[3][4][1] He lives in Palo Alto, California, and continues to write and to teach remote viewing internationally.[1][2]

Deeper dives — Targ:

What Do We Know about Psi? A Perceptual Channel

Overview

Targ’s career runs on two tracks: mainstream laser physics and experimental parapsychology. In 1972 he and Harold E. Puthoff began a program at SRI to test whether people could describe distant places and hidden objects by mental means alone — the ability the program called “remote viewing.”[2][1] The work was supported by the CIA and later by other agencies, continued under a series of code names, and was declassified in 1995 under the name Star Gate.[2][1]

In papers in Nature (1974) and the Proceedings of the IEEE (1976), Targ and Puthoff reported three principal findings: that both selected and unselected subjects produced descriptions of remote sites accurate enough for blind judges to match them to the correct locations; that accuracy did not appear to fall off with distance; and that electrical shielding of the viewer did not degrade results.[3][4] They argued that these facts, taken together, cast doubt on conventional electromagnetic explanations of the effect.[5] The evidential weight of such experiments rests on the blind-judging step, in which independent judges rank unlabeled transcripts against candidate sites; mainstream psychophysics treats matching and ranking tasks of this kind within signal detection theory, which supplies the chance baselines against which hit rates are measured.[8]

Targ has also argued, from his own experiments and others’, that psi accuracy is as good for future targets as for present ones — a claim he acknowledges collides with ordinary notions of causality.[7][2] With physicist Elizabeth Rauscher he proposed a geometrical model based on a complex eight-dimensional space-time, intended to accommodate that claim without contradicting established physics.[9]

The Core SRI Statistics

Price series (nine outdoor trials, San Francisco Bay Area targets): an independent judge’s sum of ranks for the target-associated transcripts was 16 (possible range 9–81), including seven first-place matches, significant at p = 2.9 × 10−5; in the Nature judging, five judges made 24 correct matches out of 45 selections, and their plurality vote matched six of nine transcripts (p = 5.6 × 10−4).[4][3] Hammid series (nine trials): sum of ranks 13, with five first-place and four second-place matches, p = 1.8 × 10−6.[4] Distance was varied from 2 to 2,000 miles; the Faraday cage used in several sessions provided 120 dB attenuation for plane-wave radio-frequency radiation from 15 kHz to 1 GHz.[5][3] Not every series succeeded: the two experienced subjects Elgin and Swann jointly reached p = 3.8 × 10−4 over eight trials, but the two “learner” staff subjects (S5 and S6) were nonsignificant as a group at p = 0.08.[4]

Life and career

Targ was born in Chicago in 1934, the son of the bookseller and later publisher William Targ, whose downtown shop specialized in rare books, science fiction, and magic.[2][1] A childhood enthusiasm for stage magic led toward the real question: at fourteen, after a classmate demonstrated Zener ESP cards in his biology class, he joined the American Society for Psychical Research and read through its journals.[2] He earned a B.S. in physics from Queens College and did graduate work in physics at Columbia University.[2][1]

His first career was in microwaves and lasers. After microwave-engineering work at Sperry Gyroscope, he joined Technical Research Group in 1958 to help set up one of the world’s first laser laboratories, where by his account he and Gerald Grosof built the first laser amplifier; at GTE Sylvania he led development of a compact 1,000-watt carbon-dioxide laser in 1969.[2][1] He received two NASA awards for laser inventions and has published over one hundred scientific papers on lasers, plasma physics, and ESP research.[2][1] Psi ran alongside the day job throughout: he joined the Theosophical Society in 1956, built a dice-tumbling psychokinesis machine for Eileen Garrett’s Parapsychology Foundation, and ran an electron-beam deflection experiment published in Edgar Mitchell’s anthology Psychic Exploration.[2][10]

The 1972 move to SRI came, in his telling, through a chain of coincidences: a talk at the Esalen Institute led to a lecture at Grace Cathedral, which led to a NASA conference where Wernher von Braun tried his ESP teaching machine and helped him secure a NASA study contract to be run at SRI.[2] By Puthoff’s own account, Puthoff initiated the SRI psi effort in early 1972, and Targ, a laser colleague with a long-standing interest in parapsychology, joined soon after; together they built the program.[1] In 1978 the two trained six Army intelligence officers who went on to staff the government’s own viewing unit.[2][7] Targ left SRI in 1982, became a senior scientist at Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., and co-founded Delphi Associates with Keith Harary and Anthony White to apply “associative remote viewing” to silver-futures forecasting.[2] He accepted invitations to address the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1983 and 1984, and retired from Lockheed Martin in 1998 after developing airborne laser systems for detecting wind shear.[1][2]

He has written or co-written many books on psychic research, among them Mind-Reach, The Mind Race, Miracles of Mind, Limitless Mind, The Reality of ESP, the memoir Do You See What I See?, and Third Eye Spies, the companion volume to the 2018 documentary of the same name.[1][2] He lives in Palo Alto, California, with his wife Patricia.[2] His daughter, the psychiatrist Elisabeth Targ, conducted clinical research on distant healing and died before him.[1][11]

The Delphi Silver Forecasts and the NASA Seed Contract

By Targ’s account, NASA administrator James Fletcher approved $80,000 for the SRI project after von Braun’s endorsement; the resulting contract, on enhancing man/machine communication with the four-choice ESP trainer, reported significant learning in 11 of about 150 subjects.[2][12] At Delphi Associates in the fall of 1982, nine consecutive weekly forecasts of the silver market were all correct (the broker acted on seven); Targ’s 2010 summary gives the series a probability of 4 × 10−6, and Third Eye Spies puts the proceeds at $240,000, divided evenly between Delphi and the investor. A follow-up the next year, run at an accelerated twice-weekly pace without timely feedback, failed. A 1996 series with Jane Katra using a redundancy-coding protocol produced eleven hits in twelve trials (with six passes), reported as significant at odds of 3 in 1,000, with no money at stake.[12][2]

Research

Remote viewing at SRI

The SRI protocol was built around strict blinding. A pool of local target sites was assembled by an SRI manager not otherwise involved in the experiments; a demarcation team traveled to a randomly drawn site; and the viewer, closeted with an interviewer who knew neither the target nor the contents of the pool, described impressions into a tape recorder and made drawings.[3] The blinding addressed two specific non-psi explanations: sensory leakage was blocked by isolation (including a double-walled, acoustically and electrically shielded steel room), and interviewer cueing was eliminated because no one in contact with the viewer could know the answer.[3] Independent judges then visited the sites and blindly matched or rank-ordered the unlabeled transcripts against them.[3]

The first formal series used Pat Price, a retired California police official; blind judges matched his transcripts to the correct sites far more often than chance allows.[3] A replication with Hella Hammid, a photographer with no prior psi testing who was brought in as a control, produced a result Targ regards as stronger still.[4][2] Several sessions were run from inside a copper-screen Faraday cage without visible loss of quality.[3][5]

The same Nature letter reported two other lines of work. In picture-reproduction trials, Uri Geller, isolated in a shielded room before each target was drawn, produced sketches that two blind judges matched to the targets without error; he declined to respond, and did not depart from chance, in a series where targets were sealed in envelopes unknown to any person, and the authors stated plainly that they could not obtain adequately controlled data to support his claimed metal-bending.[3] A separate EEG study found that a receiver’s alpha rhythm weakened when a distant sender was stimulated with light flashes, even though her conscious guesses about the stimulus were at chance — the authors’ evidence, as they framed it, for perception of remote events below awareness.[3]

A 1980 report by Targ, Puthoff, Beverly Humphrey, and Edwin May documented a year-long screening and training program with six volunteers chosen by a government client. Four of the six produced individually significant local-site series, and the statistical method deliberately assumed the worst case — that viewer and interviewer already knew the entire target pool — so that guessing strategies could not inflate the outcome.[13] The same report covered “coordinate remote viewing,” in which viewers responded to geographic latitude and longitude alone, and noted that a small precognitive-viewing series was suggestive but did not reach significance.[13]

Protocols, Controls, and Judging Statistics

Target pools contained 60–100+ predefined sites within a 30-minute drive, held as sealed traveling orders and drawn by random number; the pool custodian was a division director not otherwise associated with the work.[3][13] Geller results: of 13 drawing experiments over seven days he responded in ten; two blind judges each matched all ten responses to targets without error (each judge’s a priori probability (10!)−1 ≈ 3 × 10−7); in a die-in-a-steel-box task he was correct on all eight of his responses (about one in 106); but a 100-envelope series with no knowledgeable person produced drawings that did not depart significantly from chance.[3] EEG study: average alpha power fell 24% (p < 0.04) and peak power 28% (p < 0.03) during remote 16-flash-per-second stimulation, with control recordings ruling out system artifacts and radio-frequency leakage.[3] 1980 program: four of six local-site series individually significant at p ≤ 0.003, group result p = 4 × 10−5; post-hoc accuracy ratings correlated with blind-judge rankings at r = 0.59 (p = 5 × 10−5); a coordinate-viewing series reached p = 0.0083; an extended-viewing object series was judged significant at p = 0.05 by one of two analysts; the future-viewing slide series was suggestive (p = 0.1) but nonsignificant.[13] Army training study: 19 first-place matches in 36 trials against six expected by chance.[7][2]

Precognition and the role of feedback

Targ’s earliest theoretical paper, presented in 1972, argued that precognition should be the psi phenomenon physics finds easiest to absorb. He proposed that the conventionally discarded advanced-potential solutions of classical field equations could model information about a significant event leaking a short distance backward in time, predicted that precognitive accuracy should fall off with temporal distance from the event, and suggested that déjà vu is the commonest form of precognition.[14]

He tested learning with a four-choice electronic ESP trainer of his own design, which gave immediate feedback and allowed a pass instead of a forced guess. One selected subject’s precognitive scoring improved significantly across blocks of trials, which Targ read as evidence that psi performance can be trained like a perceptual skill.[14] The device became the basis of a NASA-funded study in 1974 and, decades later, a smartphone app.[12][2]

A 1985 study with Charles Tart in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research confronted a competing explanation directly: the possibility that apparent clairvoyance is really precognition of later feedback. A computer generated ten-choice targets and, on non-feedback trials, permanently erased the trial-by-trial target data so that no person could ever inspect them, leaving only run totals. Unselected volunteers showed nothing; three experienced percipients scored significantly in the pure-clairvoyance condition, two of them as significant psi-missing that matched their stated attitudes toward the task.[6] The authors concluded that psi can manifest without any feedback of target information, while agreeing that feedback helps learning.[6]

Targ also cites presentiment experiments — physiological arousal shortly before randomly timed emotional stimuli — as converging evidence for perception that runs backward in time.[9][2] Mainstream psychophysiology offers non-retrocausal accounts of anticipatory arousal, including skin-conductance responses that develop before conscious knowledge of an outcome and slowly decaying arousal left over from preceding emotional trials.[15][16] A meta-analysis in Frontiers in Psychology reported a small but reliable pre-stimulus effect while cataloguing the expectation-bias and artifact objections.[17] Targ likewise treats Daryl Bem‘s retroactive-influence experiments as strong support for precognition; a mainstream Bayesian re-analysis argued that flexible analysis inflated the apparent evidence in that body of work.[2][18]

Teaching-Machine and Feedback Statistics

Teaching machine, clairvoyant mode: the best of eleven subjects completed 64 runs of 24 trials at a mean of 8.6 hits per run (chance expectation 6), CR = 9.8, whole-series P < 10−15. Precognitive mode (target chosen about 0.2 seconds after the response): 28 runs analyzed in blocks of 96 gave a best-fit learning slope of +0.56 hits per run, intercept 5.0, correlation coefficient 0.68, significant at P < .01.[14] Pure clairvoyance (1985): eight unselected SRI staff scored 225 hits against 216 expected with feedback and 220 against 216 without. Percipient A (Duane Elgin) hit 29/190 with feedback (p = .02) but only 11/190 without (p = .05, psi-missing); percipient B (Tart) hit 18/110 without feedback (p = .03); percipient C (Ingo Swann) hit 1/60 without feedback (p = .04, psi-missing).[6] Targ’s summary of Bem’s nine experimental series reports a combined significance of 6.6 standard deviations (P = 1.34 × 10−11); Wagenmakers and colleagues’ 2011 Bayesian critique in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology contested such frequentist totals as products of analytic flexibility.[2][18]

Physics, psychokinesis, and the eight-space model

With Puthoff, Targ reported early psychokinesis observations: Ingo Swann apparently perturbing the output of a superconductor-shielded magnetometer, and Pat Price producing signals in a shielded magnetic gradiometer that correlated with randomly scheduled effort periods. The authors labeled the magnetometer session an observation rather than a controlled experiment, and speculated that a psychokinesis subject might act as a “local negentropic source” (the paper’s phrase) that briefly orders a system’s noise.[19]

His main theoretical statement came in 2001 with Elizabeth Rauscher: a complex eight-dimensional Minkowski metric, pairing each of the familiar space and time coordinates with an imaginary counterpart, in which a path of zero separation can always be found between a viewer and a distant or future target. The authors argued the geometry is consistent with the equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Schrödinger, and they rejected electromagnetic carrier models — including extremely-low-frequency radio hypotheses — as unable to account for precognition or for the absence of distance fall-off.[9] Psi models that lean on quantum nonlocality face mainstream headwinds: surveys of physicists show consciousness-based readings of quantum measurement are a minority position, and decoherence calculations imply that warm neural tissue cannot sustain the quantum coherence such mechanisms would appear to need.[20][21]

PK Observations and the Eight-Space Geometry

The gradiometer study with Price comprised 13 ten-trial runs (130 trials: 64 randomly assigned activity periods, 66 no-activity). Of 63 recorded events with signal-to-noise ratio above 1, 42 fell in activity periods and 21 in no-activity periods, a correlation significant at p = 0.004; the authors treated a magnetic cause as most probable but tentative, since an electronics-interference pathway ahead of the displays could not be fully excluded.[19] The Rauscher–Targ model expands four-dimensional space-time to six spatial and two temporal coordinates; because imaginary components enter the metric with opposite sign, the interval between two events can be brought to zero, which the authors interpret as the geometric path awareness uses in real-time and precognitive viewing. They stress it is a descriptive model — consistent with, not derived from, the psi data — and that any ontology is perishable.[9]

Group experiments and later reflections

In 1999 Targ and Jane Katra ran a formal demonstration with twenty-four first-time participants at a conference in Arco, Italy, working in viewer–interviewer pairs on sealed-envelope photographic targets. Interviewers, blind to the targets, ranked each viewer’s sketches against four candidate photographs, and first-place matches came in at more than double the chance rate; the authors credited self-selected, motivated participants, prior practice on small objects, and deliberate attention to group rapport.[22] In the same period, writing with Katra for Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Targ framed psychic abilities and the distant-healing literature as expressions of a nonlocal mind, connecting laboratory findings to contemplative traditions.[23]

A 2010 career retrospective lists the laboratory series and operational episodes — including Price’s identifications in the Patricia Hearst kidnapping case and descriptions of Soviet facilities later corroborated by satellite photography, as Targ recounts it — that he says convinced him psi is real and that its accuracy is independent of distance and time.[12] A 2019 paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration restates the case that free-response remote viewing produced far larger effects than card-guessing research, and argues against the common view that psi is intrinsically weak.[7]

In a 2016 paper, also in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, he presented two anecdotal cases of apparent after-death communication concerning his late daughter, the psychiatrist Elisabeth Targ, and argued that their specificity resists explanation as psi among the living.[11] Reports of this kind rest on personal memory and testimony; mainstream research on source monitoring documents how imagination and inference can be misattributed as perception, a framework relevant to weighing anecdotal cases.[24]

The Arco Experiment in Detail

Twenty-four participants (20 women, 4 men, mostly healers and therapists) each served once as viewer. Target photographs were drawn from a large commercial image library, grouped into 24 non-overlapping sets of four, with one photo per set sealed in an opaque, tamper-resistant envelope. The overall result was 14 first-place matches where six were expected (binomial p = .0005; effect size Z/√N = 0.64 as given in the abstract), with the first cohort of 12 scoring eight first-place matches (p = .0028) and the second six (p = .0544). The authors considered handling wrinkles on reused photographs as a possible cue and judged them not a factor, and they noted the study included no double-blind comparison of their teaching approach against alternatives.[22]

Skeptical Critiques and Discussion

The 1995 government-commissioned review concluded that the laboratory effect, though statistically significant, did not establish a paranormal cause, and that remote viewing never produced actionable intelligence.

Skeptic source: Ray Hyman, co-evaluator of the 1995 American Institutes for Research (AIR) review of the government remote-viewing program, whose findings are reproduced and discussed in Joseph McMoneagle‘s first-hand account.[25]

Response: The review’s other evaluator, statistician Jessica Utts, judged that a statistically significant laboratory effect had been demonstrated — in the review’s own words, that hits occur more often than chance — and Targ cites her assessment as concluding that the reality of psi has been established as well as any other statistical phenomenon.[25][26][12] McMoneagle, a viewer in the program, wrote that the panel lacked clearances for the classified operational record, was effectively restricted to a late and unrepresentative slice of the program, and did not interview long-serving viewers or earlier managers.[25]

Analysis. Hyman’s and Utts’s evaluations proceeded from the same commissioned dataset and agreed that laboratory hit rates exceeded chance; they diverged on whether a paranormal interpretation follows and on the operational value of the reports. McMoneagle’s memoir asserts specific access restrictions on the reviewers that the review itself does not describe. A joint re-evaluation of the full declassified Star Gate archive designed and published by proponent and skeptic analysts together does not appear in the sources collected here.

Hyman (1996) argued that claims for psychic functioning outrun the reality of the evidence, so the phenomenon should not be treated as established.

Skeptic source: Ray Hyman, “The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality,” The Skeptical Inquirer (1996), cited by Targ and Katra as representative of the view that the phenomenon does not occur.[22]

Response: Targ and Katra answered with their group experiment in Italy, in which two dozen first-time participants judging sealed-envelope targets under a blind-ranking protocol produced more than double the first-place matches expected by chance.[22] Targ’s retrospective of the SRI decade reports selected-subject free-response series whose departures from chance were, by his account, orders of magnitude beyond conventional significance thresholds.[7][12]

Analysis. At issue is whether the cumulative evidence meets Hyman’s stated standard for establishing a new phenomenon; the studies Targ cites in response were conducted chiefly by his own teams and collaborators. The Open Science Collaboration’s 2015 audit of mainstream psychology reported that only a minority of published significant effects replicated under preregistration, a benchmark relevant to any pre-registration-era experimental literature.[27] The published replications in this corpus — Dunne and Bisaha’s Chicago series and PEAR‘s precognitive remote perception program — report positive results; a preregistered replication of the SRI outbound protocol by investigators independent of the original research community has not been published in the sources collected here.[28][29]

Inside the 1995 AIR Review

The AIR panel paired Utts (pro) and Hyman (con), with Lincoln Moses as statistical adviser and David Goslin of AIR coordinating; it reviewed roughly eighty research publications and interviewed personnel then attached to the program. McMoneagle’s account states that classification excluded most of the research record from the reviewers, that the operational evaluation was confined to the program’s final year, and that his own repeated offers to be interviewed were declined; he also notes that the earlier 1986 National Research Council review had been conducted under orders that barred program staff from speaking with its investigators.[25] On the methodological side, mainstream work on researcher degrees of freedom shows how choices in analysis and judging can manufacture significance from null data, which is one reason both proponents and critics of the SRI corpus emphasize the pre-specification and conservatism of judging procedures.[30][13]

Influence and reception

The 1974 Nature letter and the 1976 Proceedings of the IEEE review became the public foundation of remote-viewing research. Writing with Rauscher in 2001, Targ counted at least twenty-three published replications of the remote-viewing protocol — the authors’ own tally.[9] The most consequential independent follow-up was Brenda Dunne and John Bisaha’s Chicago series, which reproduced the SRI outbound design with unselected volunteers; Dunne’s results led directly to the founding of Princeton’s Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory and its long-running precognitive remote perception program.[31][28]

On the applied side, the six Army officers trained at SRI in 1978 formed the core of the Fort Meade unit that carried out intelligence tasking under the program eventually named Star Gate; Joseph McMoneagle, selected in that group, and later program officers such as Paul H. Smith describe Targ’s SRI work as the foundation of their careers as government viewers.[2][25][32] Targ attributes the program’s 1995 declassification, which made his account publishable, to the work of his son, attorney Nicholas Targ.[2]

Since leaving classified work he has taught remote-viewing workshops around the world and published widely for general readers; the 2018 documentary Third Eye Spies, which he co-produced, and its 2023 companion book present the program’s history to a popular audience, and a 2024 volume of interviews edited by Jeffrey Mishlove marked his ninetieth year.[1][2]

Replication Details

Dunne and Bisaha, “Precognitive remote viewing in the Chicago area: a replication of the Stanford experiment,” appeared in the Journal of Parapsychology in 1979.[28] PEAR’s precognitive remote perception program ran 653 formal trials from 1976 to 1999 with 72 participants; Dean Radin‘s summary puts the composite result at odds against chance of 33 million to 1, while PEAR’s own reports document a sharp decline in effect size in later, more stringently encoded trials.[29][28] Rauscher and Targ also describe the Schlitz–Gruber transcontinental experiment (Detroit to Rome): six of ten transcripts were matched in first place, reported at under 6 in 10,000, and a re-judging that omitted the outbound experimenter’s site notes — done to answer a shared-context criticism — remained significant at 16 in 10,000.[9]

Sources
  1. Russell Targ — Biographical Facts — verifiable sources: espresearch.com · espresearch.com · www.nature.com · whitecrowbooks.com · www.einpresswire.com · www.newdualism.org · rviewer.com · opensciences.org · galileocommission.org · contactinthedesert.com. R001 ↩︎
  2. Russell Targ (2023). Third Eye Spies. New Page Books. ISBN 9781637480137. R002 [Targ 2026] ↩︎
  3. Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 251(5476), 602-607. https://doi.org/10.1038/251602a0 R003 [Targ 1974] ↩︎
  4. Harold E. Puthoff & Russell Targ (1976). A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research. Proceedings of the IEEE, 64(3). R004 ↩︎
  5. Russell Targ & Harold E. Puthoff (1975). Remote Viewing of Natural Targets. In L. Oteri (Ed.), Quantum Physics and Parapsychology. Parapsychology Foundation. R005 ↩︎
  6. Russell Targ & Charles T. Tart (1985). Pure Clairvoyance and the Necessity of Feedback. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 79, 485–492. R006 ↩︎
  7. Targ, R. (2019). What Do We Know About Psi? The First Decade of Remote Viewing Research and Operations at Stanford Research Institute. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(4). https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1669 R007 [Targ 2019] ↩︎
  8. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2004). Detection Theory. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611147 R008 [Macmillan 2004] ↩︎
  9. Rauscher, E. A., & Targ, R. (2001). The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomena. http://www.espresearch.com:80/espgeneral/doc-SpeedOfThought.pdf R009 [Rauscher 2001] ↩︎
  10. Harold E. Puthoff & Russell Targ (1974). Psychic Research and Modern Physics. In Psychic Exploration. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. R010 ↩︎
  11. Targ, R. (2016). Apparent Communications from an Eager Spirit. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 31(2). https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1201 R011 [Targ 2016] ↩︎
  12. Targ, R. (2010). Why I Am Absolutely Convinced of the Reality of Psychic Abilities, And Why You Should Be, Too. http://www.espresearch.com:80/misc/Russell-Targ-Parapsychological-PA-Talk-Intro.pdf R012 [Targ 2010] ↩︎
  13. Russell Targ, Harold E. Puthoff, Beverly S. Humphrey & Edwin C. May (1980). Special Orientation Techniques (Final Report, June 1980). SRI International; declassified CIA release. R013 [Targ 1980] ↩︎
  14. Russell Targ (1972). Precognition in Everyday Life — A Physical Model. Parapsychology Foundation conference proceeding. [PDF] R014 ↩︎
  15. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293 R015 [Bechara 1997] ↩︎
  16. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 276-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276 R016 [Bradley 2001] ↩︎
  17. Mossbridge, J. A., Tressoldi, P. E., & Utts, J. M. (2012). Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390 R017 [Mossbridge 2012] ↩︎
  18. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790 R018 [Wagenmakers 2011] ↩︎
  19. Harold E. Puthoff & Russell Targ (1975). Physics, Entropy, and Psychokinesis. In L. Oteri (Ed.), Quantum Physics and Parapsychology. Parapsychology Foundation. R019 ↩︎
  20. Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., & Zeilinger, A. (2013). A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004 R020 [Schlosshauer 2013] ↩︎
  21. Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Physical Review E, 61(4), 4194-4206. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194 R021 [Tegmark 2000] ↩︎
  22. Targ, R., & Katra, J. (2000). Remote Viewing in a Group Setting. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(1). https://web.archive.org/web/20100706201508id_/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_14_1_targ.pdf R022 [Targ 2000] ↩︎
  23. Russell Targ & Jane Katra (2001). The Scientific and Spiritual Implications of Psychic Abilities. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 7(3), 143ff. R023 ↩︎
  24. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 R024 [Johnson 1993] ↩︎
  25. Joseph McMoneagle (2013). The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy. Crossroad Press digital edition. [Book] R025 ↩︎
  26. Jessica Utts (1996). An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3–30. R026 ↩︎
  27. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 R027 [Open Science Collaboration 2015] ↩︎
  28. Robert G. Jahn & Brenda J. Dunne (2011). Consciousness and the Source of Reality: The PEAR Odyssey. ICRL Press. R028 ↩︎
  29. Dean I. Radin (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. Paraview Pocket Books. R029 ↩︎
  30. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632 R030 [Simmons 2011] ↩︎
  31. Nemo C. Mörck (2019). Connected The Emergence of Global Consciousness. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(2). R031 ↩︎
  32. Russell Targ (2023). Third Eye Spies. New Page Books / Red Wheel Weiser. R032 ↩︎

Deeper dives — Targ:

What Do We Know about Psi? A Perceptual Channel

Last updated: 2026-08-23 13:57:12

Copyright © 2026 Innovative Software Design. All rights reserved.

ESP-Nexus reports published parapsychology research as written by its own authors. Source-fidelity to cited documents is audited on every page; the site takes no position on the epistemic status of parapsychological claims themselves.