Abstract

In an earlier report on remote viewing, it was noted by M. Schlitz and E. Gruber that in spite of the rigorous methods employed, a potential weakness existed in the study that involved inclusion of the agent's impressions of the target sites in the material given to judges. To insure the validity of earlier findings, a rejudging with 2 undergraduates was undertaken to eliminate this potential for sensory cuing. Results of the rejudging were significant. A comparison of the 2 sets of judgments yielded no significant difference; this rejudging confirmed the robustness of the Schlitz and Gruber finding. (7 ref)