THE CARAVEL PROJECT: THE LOCATION, DESCRIPTION, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF MARINE SITES THROUGH REMOTE VIEWING, INCLUDING A COMPARISON WITH AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY,GEOLOGIC CORING, AND ELECTRONIC REMOTE SENSING
ABSTRACT
The
Columbus Caravels Project is a multi-phase research program designed to locate
and excavate from St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica the remains of Columbus’ last two
ships, Capitana and Santiago
de Palos. After an enforced exile of a year and five days, Columbus and his
marooned crew were finally rescued on 29 June 1504. They departed for
Hispaniola and Spain, leaving behind two of the oldest recorded shipwrecks in
the Western Hemisphere, and the earliest European site in Jamaica. The Caravel Project was organized in 1982 by
the Institute for Nautical Archaeology (INA) in conjunction with the Institute
of Jamaica. The Mobius Society joined
in the search during the summer field season of 1985. This report presents only that phase of the work involving the
use of Remote Viewing data subjected to field confirmation, after employing a
specialized analysis developed by Mobius for use in archaeological field
searches. There were two subsequent
survey’s of the Bay, and these are also addressed in the discussion section.
© copyright
1986 and 2001 by Stephan A. Schwartz, Randall J. De Mattei, and Roger C.
Smith
Location: Within a Search Area of 4.35 sq. mile during
three previous seasons prior to Mobius’ investigation by magnetometer, radar,
and side-scan sonar, as well as coring and caisson excavations under water and
on land had produced materials from 18th-century English plantation activities,
including the remains of two abandoned vessels. Remote Viewing, using a previously reported technique and prior
to, and after the Mobius teams coming to Jamaica selected, and then confirmed
on-site, an area of 1041 feet x 541 feet = 0.02 sq. miles as the area where
finds would be made. The discovery of
artifact and ship remains were made within the Remote Viewing predicted areas,
and nowhere else, although substantial
areas outside of the Remote Viewing locations were searched. As described and located by the Remote
Viewers, previously unknown shipwreck was found in Consensus Area I. One viewer also provided a much smaller
location site which, on the basis of initial success in Consensus Area I, was
also pursued, with good results. Two
other small single viewer sites were unproductive supporting the research
premise that consensually predicted locations are more likely to be productive. A second Consensus Area because of time and
sea conditions was not searched. Visual
diver inspection was the confirming source of each location prediction. No
excavation was carried out, although Remote Viewing suggested that ship remains
were covered by several feet of overburden.
Discoveries by subsequent expeditions under different direction made
such discoveries. To calculate the probability of selecting these locations by
chance within the Search Area, consider the finds reported as a cell in a grid
of 217 similar cells. The probability
of finding this one = p0.0046, which
strongly suggests that chance is not an explanation for the locations. The much
smaller location of material on the north side of the bay’s outer reef, as
predicted by one Remote Viewer would, correspondingly, be even more improbable. Some of these remains are from unidentified
ships of a period later than the Columbus wrecks, but much of the debris is
unidentified, even as to period.
Ultimately, for non-parapyschological reasons, identification of Capitana and Santiago de Palos may never be achieved because there may not be enough to answer
in an absolute way the question of where the caravels are located.
Description and Reconstruction: Remote Viewing in addition to providing location, described the underwater and surface geography of the area to be searched, as well as providing descriptive and reconstructive data on the objects that would be found there. Overall 1012 concepts concerning Remote Viewing locations, descriptions, and reconstructions were presented during individual interviews by eight Remote Viewers, whose psychological profiles are defined by the PAS system, with the Saunders correction. An evaluation of the accuracy of Remote Viewing data, was carried out by the INA Archaeological Field Director, based on archaeological, geological, and electronic remote sensing field surveys and historical analysis. It is presented with each concept evaluated on a four point scale: “Correct,” “Partially Correct,” “Incorrect,” and “Not Evaluable.” Forty five per cent (45%) of the concepts received other than “Not Evaluable.” These concepts are arranged within a category outline, in accordance with the described methodology. This study has ten major subsets of information developed from the Remote Viewing interviews. The headings and archaeologically useful “hit” rates, comprised of a combination of “Correct” and “Partially Correct”, are: Remains, 54 per cent; Bottom Features, 80 per cent; Overburden, 90 per cent; Events Subsequent to Abandoning Ships, 62 per cent; Position of Ship Remains, 81 per cent; Differentiation of Two Ships, 60 per cent; Geology, 95 per cent; Roger Smith Archaeologist, 78 per cent; Comments re: Project, 53 per cent; Other & Miscellaneous, 76 per cent.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
COLUMBUS’ FOURTH VOYAGE: A HISTORY[1]: Four small caravels, all that Columbus could muster in 1502, weighed anchor in April from Spain to sail the familiar route to the Indies. It was to be the mariner’s most dangerous, least profitable, and final voyage of discovery. He called it the alto viaje, or high voyage, but in fact it was an expedition fraught with frustration, duress and despair.
Experts in the evolution of seagoing craft know surprisingly little about Columbus’ vessels, the equivalent in the technology of that day, to the Mercury space capsules of ours: The first in a long line of European transoceanic craft that made world exploration possible and catapulted western Europe out of the inward looking Middle Ages.
For all its historical significance, no one
living has ever seen a caravel under sail, (See
Illustration One), although several naval architects and maritime
historians have constructed conjectural models of Columbus’ ships. We know
though that they were adapted from various Old World traditions, and created
for lightness, speed, and maneuverability by the Portuguese, who tried to keep
their design features a secret. The
Spaniards eventually discovered them, and altered the rigging of their new
caravels to catch the Atlantic trade winds. Columbus and his colleagues chose
caravels for each of their famous voyages because they were the best choice. 
Seeking gold and a navigable strait to the Orient, the Columbus fleet cruised the Central American coast for many months until it finally was forced to take refuge in Panama due to continual storms and the worm-eaten condition of the ships. The Admiral’s attempt to establish a colony there, at the mouth of a river he named Belen (Bethlehem), was no more successful than his search for a strait. The endeavor cost him the lives of several crewmen, including the two ship’s caulkers, during a skirmish with Indians, as well as one of the ships, which had to be abandoned in a hasty retreat. Soon after, a second vessel was abandoned, too leaky to be kept from foundering.
The Fourth Voyage
Intent on the closest safe haven, Columbus ordered his weary crew to make for
Hispaniola, but soon found that sailing against contrary winds and currents
they could not gain enough windward progress to reach their destination. With the remaining caravels, Capitana and Santiago de Palos now so leaky that the pumps could no longer keep
them afloat, Columbus directed his ships to enter the bay he had discovered and
named Santa Gloria -- modern-day St. Ann’s Bay -- during his second voyage 10
years earlier. The date was 24 June
1503, 13 months since their departure from Spain.
The two rotten vessels were grounded in shallow water “within a bow-shot distance from shore.” Their decks awash, the hulls were shored upright and lashed together, and cabins were built on the decks to house the crews. Two good streams and a large Indian village, which ultimately supplied the company with victuals, were located nearby.
Columbus and his crew lacked the tools necessary to build a new ship, and the caulker skills to make them seaworthy. And there was only a dim prospect of another ship arriving at gold-barren Jamaica. The castaways’ only salvation lay in getting a message to Hispaniola. Diego Mendez, Columbus’ secretary, volunteered to make the crossing, trading a brass helmet, cloak and shirt with a local chief for a large dugout. The first effort failed; during a succeeding attempt, a larger crew of Spaniards and Indians finally managed, after nearly four days of paddling across open water to reach Hispaniola. However, the arrival on the island was only the first part of the rescue operation; Mendez still had to convince the island’s governor, Ovando, to save Columbus, whom he greatly disliked.
Meanwhile at Santa Gloria, the stranded crew waited, not knowing the fate of the rescue operation. The situation quickly degenerated into a survival outpost filled with sick, hungry, and mutinous men. Because the vessels were almost awash when they were beached, only the decks and sterncastles provided shelter for some 117 men and boys. Their endless confinement on the ships, and at their camp on the island, fomented discontent, and eventually --- in January 1504 --- a mutiny. It was inspired by two brothers named Porras, who were joined by 48 disloyal men and boys. Hoping for their own escape to Hispaniola, the band fled eastward in 10 canoes, robbing Indians and discrediting Columbus along the way. Their efforts on the open ocean, however, were fruitless, and they were driven back to the north coast of Jamaica, where they established a camp and proceeded to harass the natives.
Meanwhile, Columbus, seriously disabled and in pain from arthritis, and his loyal contingent of 50 men were approaching starvation as the Indians daily brought fewer provisions. In a desperate but inspired last effort, Columbus constructed a scheme for their salvation: noting from his almanac an impending lunar eclipse, he summoned the Indian chiefs, expressed his Christian god’s displeasure over Indian’s treatment of his followers, and foretold a grim fate. The chiefs scoffed and departed; but, when the moon began to rise and, then, to disappear they returned, pleading for the Columbus” intercession to restore the moon, and promising to provide the supplies the seamen needed.
Near the end of March, a small caravel entered Santa Gloria/St. Ann’s Bay, but the castaways’ elation soon turned to despair when they learned that the ship had come, not to rescue them, but only to determine their condition, and leave a few token supplies. The ship’s captain visited Columbus, conveying a message from Diego Mendez that a rescue party was still in the process of being formed. The ship sailed away that same evening.
Seeking then to mend the breach with the mutineers, Columbus sent messengers with a portion of the meager supplies to the Porras camp as proof of the caravel’s arrival. Although they were offered a general pardon, the mutineers chose instead to attack the loyalists, who were commanded by Columbus’ brother during a pitched battle near the beach. As the astonished Indians watched, the loyalists subdued the attackers, killing and wounding several. One Porras brother was captured and placed in irons, causing the remaining dissenters to submit.
After an enforced exile of a year and five days, the marooned sailors finally were rescued on 29 June 1504. Columbus and his crew departed for Hispaniola and Spain, leaving behind Capitana and Santiago de Palos, two of the oldest recorded shipwrecks in the Western Hemisphere, and the earliest European site in Jamaica
PERSONNEL
There were three categories of personnel were involved in this study:
Archaeology Personnel: The INA Field Director, for five seasons, Roger Smith, is an acknowledged expert in 16th Century “Ships of Discovery”. He was assisted by INA staff member KC Smith, dive master Marko Manicetti, conservator Ted Keros, and archaeology graduate student Bonnie Foster. They were all skilled in some aspect of underwater archaeological techniques, ranging from conservation of recovered artifacts to pottery analysis. In addition consulting geologists and other specialists were brought in as needed.
Parapsychology Personnel: Mobius’ Chairman and Research Director, Stephan A. Schwartz, and its Executive Director, Randall J. De Mattei, coordinated the Mobius consensual Remote Viewing methodology described in this paper, including the field phase in 1985.
Remote Viewers: Eight men and women, were selected as Remote Viewers in this experiment. They can be described as follows, and are defined under the Personality Assessment System (PAS)[2] with subscript addition by Saunders[3], as:
R-1: Judith Orloff, M.D., a woman, 35, board certified psychiatrist. She is defined under PAS as an IFU3. R-1 had never been to Jamaica.
R-2: Hella Hammid, a woman, 64, fine arts photographer, defined under PAS as an ERA8. R-2 had never been to Jamaica.
R-3: John Oligny, a man, 44, staff photographer for a major western daily newspaper. He is defined by PAS as an IFA8. R-3 had never been to Jamaica. Participated in the Mobius field team.
R-4: Ben Moses, a man, 44, feature film producer and documentarian. He is defined by PAS as an EFU6. R-4 had never been to Jamaica.
R-5: Alan Vaughan, a man, 50, author, psychic, lecturer, and parapsychological researcher. R-5’s research work has primarily been in dreams and precognition. He is defined by PAS as an IRU2. R-5 had never been to Jamaica. Participated in the Mobius field team.
R-6: Andre Vaillancourt, a man, 36, musician and film producer. He is defined by PAS as an IRU6. R-6 had never been to Jamaica. Participated in the Mobius field team.
R-7: Rosalyn Bruyere, a woman, 36, director of a healing outreach clinic. R-7 had earlier participated in healing studies. She is defined by PAS as an ERU6. R-7 had never been to Jamaica.
R-8: Ann Druffel, a woman, 61, author and a research assistant at Mobius. She is defined by PAS as EFU8. R-8 had never been to Jamaica.
These eight individuals were selected on the basis of past performance in other
experiments. They volunteered
approximately two hours of their time, for which they received no fee.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL
FIELD EFFORT
Archival research, electronic remote sensing, and geological coring:
Formal research to find the lost caravel’s of Columbus’ fourth voyage began in 1935, with the work of amateur archaeologist William Goodwin, who searched in Don Christopher’s Cove next to St. Ann’s Bay. Goodwin made 150 test holes before giving up. Samuel Elliot Morrison led a harvard University expedition into St. Ann’s in 1940. He believed Goodwin had not properly considered the narrow shape and shallow water of the Cove, and that St. Ann’s was a far more likely to have been the site chosen by Columbus, particularly the western section of the bay, where deep tranquil water came up close to the shore.
In the mid 1960s, Robert Marx visited St. Ann’s Bay, and probed the mud at the
site favored by Morrison. Fragments of
wood, stone, ceramics, and obsidian turned up.
Two years later Marx returned, this time accompanied by Harold Edgerton,
who conducted a sub-bottom sonar survey and turned up several targets in the
bay. Core samples, in the area
previously probed, additional materials.
This material was examined in several laboratories and the samples were
judged to be of different dates. The
range, however did not preclude at least some of this material having come from
Columbus’ ships. A sonar target
suggested that the other ship might lie nearby. Marx urged the Jamaican government to pursue the excavation of
this target and, with international support this was undertaken. In 1969 during a several day dredging
operation veteran French diver Frederic Dumas located ballast stones and
artifacts, including wine bottle bases, and mapped the area. Analysis of this material dated much of it
to the 18th century, and the site was abandoned as a possible
location of the caravels.
In 1981, Smith and geologist John Gifford carried out the next phase of the
search. Using all available historical
documentation, they attempted to reconstruct the ancient shoreline, and
theorized that because of the changes that had occurred over time, the sites
might lie under the present day beach.
Commencing in June 1982, this relatively small, enclosed bay (See Illustration Three) was also subjected to rigorous and comprehensive electronic remote sensing surveys. Sub-bottom penetrating sonar was employed to detect targets buried under the seabed. A magnetometer survey of marine and coastal portions of the bay followed, to distinguish magnetic anomalies associated with shipwreck debris. Geological core testing was carried out and core samples were analyzed to narrow the possibilities for test excavation. Standard underwater excavation techniques were used to test limited areas of detected sites; small, sunken caissons were employed in parts of the bay. None of this fieldwork produced the discoveries sought.
REMOTE VIEWING PROTOCOL
In March 1985, Mobius was contacted by nautical archaeologist Roger Smith of INA. Smith wished to explore a joint effort, using Mobius’ Remote Viewing approach, to locate Columbus’ two caravels. Even though his previous fieldwork had been unsuccessful, Smith was still convinced, from his historical analysis, that St. Ann’s Bay remained the Search Area, and proposed that Mobius survey it. From 29 July to 2 August, Mobius carried out a Remote Viewing survey from Los Angeles, using a previously reported methodology.[4] Following this, Schwartz and De Mattei, and three Remote Viewers, Alan Vaughan, André Vaillancourt, and John Oligny traveled to Jamaica for 12-days to work with the INA team.
PROCEDURE
The steps in the Consensual Methodology were:
1.) INA provides blank chart
2.) Remote Viewers are assigned an R-number, e.g., R-1, R-2, by which they will be designated
3.) One of two Interviewers assigned to each Remote Viewer
4.) Tape-recorded interviews
5.) Transcribe taped interviews
6.) Break down transcripts into concepts
7.) Produce Numbered Concept Transcript and file for loading into custom database program
8.) Code and sort concepts by category, producing Breakdown by Concept Category document
9.) Produce Master Composite Field Chart
10.) Develop hypotheses for fieldwork follow-up
11.) Store all data in a vault, outside of Mobius’ control, to assure unimpeachable chronology of prediction, field work and analysis of results.
12.) On-site confirmation, development of additional land-sites data
13.) Fieldwork by INA, joined for 12 days by Mobius
14.) Preparation of Evaluation Feedback Document
15.) Evaluation of individual concepts, and locations
16.) Preparation of final report
THE CHART
In August 1985, Smith provided a photocopy of a standard sea chart from which most location detail had been stripped, and the scale deleted. A partial compass rose allowed magnetic North orientation. (See Illustration Five) The master was photocopied and a fresh copy was used for each interview.
INTERVIEW SESSIONS
Beyond the blank chart, Schwartz and De Mattei requested no information about
the area, or the caravels and, later, in the field, Smith was at pains to see
that no inadvertent cueing took place.
The information in Introduction
and Overview above was provided after
the fieldwork had been carried out.
Individual interviews were
conducted with each of the Remote Viewers.
In order to avoid possible subtle biases that might lead to cueing, the
interviews were split between Schwartz and De Mattei. Both interviewers were blind to the results of those interviews
in which they did not participate, until all interviews had been completed.
Remote Viewers were blind to all but their own session. Interviewers were also
ignorant of specific factual details concerning the project, beyond the names
of the ships, the fact of their abandonment, and the date this occurred. Once
locations had been made, drawings were solicited (See Illustration Six) and comments about geography and geology
were requested, to aid divers in their later searches. When mention of specific objects was
volunteered, viewers are asked for details.
When all sessions were completed, the charts were put on a light table and aligned in register, one by one, with the developing Master Composite Field Chart. (See Illustration Seven) In this way within the original Search Area primary target sites emerged as clustered or overlapping circles. One cluster was the obvious primary focus. It was designated Consensus Area I. A lesser cluster became Consensus Area II.
TRANSCRIPTS
The individual session tapes were transcribed into a computer word processing file. A copy of these raw transcripts was then manually edited to produce a second version, in which sentences were broken into discrete concepts and marked for coding. Non-pertinent conversation, e.g., “Could you change the blinds,” or “ah...” were left without numerical coding. This version was then saved as a series of ASCII files and ported over to a custom Fortran™ program which automatically assigned each discrete concept a unique alphanumeric designator, beginning with the first concept of the first interview and proceeding sequentially to the last concept of the last interview. In this way, each concept can be identified, as well as its place in the sequence of all concepts advanced during the interviews. Previous experience has suggested that there is a carry-over from one session to another, through some unknown mechanism, and that on occasion an image from one viewer in one session will be developed further by another viewer in a another session. Sometimes an expansion occurs before the initial concept, as such, has been introduced. This concept breakdown process can be seen in the following example: “I think there is a ship completely broken up, and buried under sand, and there is a coral head sticking out of the water there.”
R-1: <1> I think there is a ship
R-1: <2> completely
broken up,
R-1: <3> and buried
R-1 <4> under sand,
R-1: <5> and there is a coral head
R-1: <6> sticking out of
the water there.
The encoded transcript for this experiment, with its accompanying charts and drawings, is the basic pool of data from which all subsequent analyses are drawn. For The Caravel Project, 1012 coded concepts were proffered by the eight Remote Viewers.
BREAKDOWN BY CONCEPT CATEGORY
Beyond location, the basic task of Mobius’ consensual methodology is pattern recognition, that is, the extraction of the common, and presumably the most probably accurate, patterns from the varying descriptions offered by the individual viewers. Attention is also paid to observations that have a low a prior probability of occurring in the context of the interview. This analysis task is similar to that carried out by any field investigator, whether sociologist, anthropologist, journalist, or law enforcement officer when attempting to winnow accurate information from reconstructions provided by informants or witnesses. As with eye witnesses, or cultural informants, Remote Viewers can not help but filter their perceptions through their own personal interests and biases. It is a given that they will not be entirely accurate. They do not see everything, and various aspects of the total picture hold greater interest for them than others. They unconsciously provide “bridges” to make logical order out of the disparate images they do perceive. For this reason, again as with eye witnesses, it is important to determine where the Remote Viewers agree, and to give more weight to areas of high consensus.
The numbered transcripts are ported over from the custom Fortran(tm) program into a custom database written in Double Helix™ A concept category outline is created which encompasses all the comments coded in the transcript. The Concept Category headings of the outline emerge from the transcripts themselves, they are not imposed; thus, the structure of the datasets is unique to each project.
Physically working together, as a unified team, the INA and Mobius groups jointly evaluated each concept in turn and assigned it to a category. In order to make this consensus as complete and useful in fieldwork as possible concepts were sometimes assigned to more than one category. i.e. a “Bottom Feature” concept may also be listed in “Geology,” although remaining a single concept for accuracy evaluation. This project developed 10 distinct headings: “Remains,” “Bottom Features,” “Overburden,” “Events Subsequent to Abandoning Ships,” “Position of Ship Remains,” “Differentiation of Two Ships,” “Geology,” “Roger Smith, Archaeologist,” “Comments re: Project,” “Other and Miscellaneous.” Each of these, in turn, was broken down into a varying number of subheadings which, again, were created from, not imposed upon, the data in the transcripts, e.g., “2.0 “Bottom Features,” “2.1 Bottom,” “2.2 Shelf/Slope,” “2.3 Depression/Deep Spot,” 2.4 Sea Life,” “2.5 Currents.” (See Table I )
Using the category headings and subheadings, the Breakdown by Concept Category document, was prepared in a custom program written in Double Helix(tm). It is this compilation which reveals the levels of consensus amongst Respondents, and which is used to guide subsequent fieldwork.
REMOTE VIEWING FIELDWORK
While in Jamaica, additional Remote Viewing was proffered by the three viewers in the Mobius team. Over several days Remote Viewers were taken out one at a time, in a small boat, and asked to intuitively guide the boat to the location they had previously marked on the chart -- without looking at the chart. This was successfully accomplished. They were also asked, or volunteered, new or additional material concerning sites on land. Much of the information from these Remote Viewing sessions in the field seemed plausible to Smith but, as of this writing, the fieldwork to confirm or refute this information has not been carried out, and so it is not included. For parts of the 12 days while the Mobius team was in Jamaica, search dives were carried out. During one of the search days, Schwartz accompanied the team to get a sense of the search parameters, and to visually inspect certain locations that had been made, and to check Remote Viewing descriptions against the actual marine geography. This work continued for several weeks after Mobius left. In a typical survey dive, three divers swam abreast, linked by a rope, moving across and above the sea floor at a height of approximately three feet. Discovered artifact or ship material, or predicted marine geography, was studied more closely, tagged and followed up as indicated. Underwater visibility in the Search Area was typically about eight feet.
EVALUATION FEEDBACK DOCUMENT
A year later, after the 1986 fieldwork season was completed, Smith carried out the expert evaluation necessary to establish accuracy levels. His ratings are based on more than a decade of research on 16th Century “Ships of Discovery” in general, and specifically his work on this project. He had been responsible for preliminary historical research, had overseen all collateral research by geologists and other consultants, and had personally spent five summer seasons on site in St. Ann’s Bay searching for the remains of the Columbus caravels.
Smith was given by Mobius copies of all documentation, drawings, and charts, as well as the blank Evaluation Feedback Document (EFB) and the following written instructions:
The
statement codings in this evaluation report correspond to the original
transcript codings for the eight respondents participating in The Caravel
Project; i.e., <0020> R-1: Every
coded statement is to be marked with one of four evaluations:
Correct (C)
Partially Correct (PC)
Incorrect (IN)
Not Evaluable (NE)
Where
you have data, through historical or field research and experience, the first
three choices apply. A statement should
be rated “Not Evaluable” if : 1.)
material covered is unknown to you; 2.) the described area has not been
explored to a degree which allows a conclusive statement; 3.) a predicted find
or event has not yet occurred; 4.) the statement is not one of fact, i.e.,
simply a comment such as, “That’s how it feels.” Use your best judgment, remembering the more that can be
evaluated the more accurate the analysis.
In
the References and Comments section of each page please list specific
references and, where possible, include photographs and sketches. These references are very important, and
your extra effort in generating them is much appreciated. Also, the copies of the transcripts which
were left with you in Jamaica carried some reference notes by your team
recorded during the Breakdown & Analysis session. Would you please incorporate those notes in this feedback
document?
Many
of the respondents’ statements are descriptions of the area surrounding the
targeted ship remains. Sometimes the
respondents first give their impressions as a remote viewing, without referring
to the chart. Often descriptions are
offered in reference to a particular site the respondent has marked on the
chart, and many of the respondents marked multiple locations. Clearly, this evaluation could be multi-dimensional,
and could easily become too complex.
Seeking a balance between an acceptable level of thoroughness and
reasonable simplicity in handling, we have chosen a two-level approach.
A
subset of the statements has been specially coded, and is to be evaluated in
relation to the primary consensus area -- the channel opening of St. Ann’s
Bay. These statements are preceded with
a “C”, i.e. C<0020>. In the vast
majority of cases these “C” statements are repeats of the standard coded
statements such as, <0020>, so that you are evaluating the same statement
twice; once relative to the consensus zone, and once for another area. Respondents 1 & 3 have only one site
marked outside the consensus area so the question of which to use for
evaluation should be clear.
For
an example, reference R-1’s chart (addendum to TRANSCRIPTS document). He has two marks, one in the consensus zone
and a second outside the reef to the
west. Statement <0020> “And there
is a lot of rubble around them,” would be evaluated against the X’d circle, and
C<0020> against the circle in the channel opening.
Respondents
2,4,5,6,7, & 8 have more than one mark outside the consensus zone. If it is clear from the context which mark
is being spoken of, evaluate the standard (non-”C”) coded statement against
that area. If it is ambiguous which
site corresponds to the statement, or if remote viewing images of the site are
being offered without referring to a chart mark, use the following designated
sites for your evaluation (reference charts -- addendum to TRANSCRIPTS
document):
R-2: circle #2 in the eastern bay; R-4: mark on the coral island in the eastern bay; R-5: the marking on the shoreline showing just northeast of St. Ann”s on the chart (on the second of R-5”s two marked charts); R-6: X'd circle IA just outside and west of the channel opening; R-7: land site near New Seville; R-8: “Ship 1” circle on reef near the Blue Hole.
Smith’s feedback on the EFB provides the assessment of the accuracy of the Remote Viewing data in areas where a statistical probability analysis was either not possible or appropriate.
RESULTS
Location: Within the 4.35 square mile Search Area previously defined by the INA Archaeological Director, magnetometer survey, aerial photography, sub-bottom sonar, and geological coring, had been unrewarding. Remote Viewing, prior to, and after the Mobius teams coming to Jamaica selected, and then confirmed on-site, an area of 1041 feet x 541 feet = 0.02 sq. miles as the area where finds would be made. The discovery of artifact and ship remains were made within the Remote Viewing predicted areas, and nowhere else, although substantial areas outside of the Remote Viewing locations were searched. As described and located by the Remote Viewers, previously unknown shipwreck was found in Consensus Area I.
One viewer also provided a much smaller location site which, on the basis of
initial success in Consensus Area I, was also pursued, with good results. Two other small single viewer sites were
unproductive. A second Consensus Area
because of time and sea conditions was not searched. Visual diver inspection was the confirming source of each
location prediction. To calculate the
probability of selecting these locations by chance within the Search Area, consider
the finds reported as a cell in a grid of 217 similar cells. The probability of finding this one = p0.0046, which strongly suggests that
chance is not an explanation for the locations. The much smaller location of
material on the north side of the bay’s outer reef, as predicted by one Remote
Viewer would, correspondingly, be even more improbable. Some of these remains are from unidentified
ships of a period later than the Columbus wrecks, but much of the debris is
unidentified, even as to period.
Ultimately, for reasons
unrelated to Remote Viewing, identification of Capitana and Santiago
de Palos may never be
achieved. These fragments, although
significant parapsychologically, may not be able to answer in an absolute way
the question of where the caravels are located.
Description and Reconstruction: Smith evaluated all 1012 concepts, giving
ratings of “Correct,” “Partially Correct,” or “Incorrect” to 445 of this
number, or 45 per cent of the total. The 1012 concepts from the Interview
transcripts were sorted into 10
categories which constitute the heading framework for the Breakdown by Concept Category section. The 10 category headings, and the sub-categories of which they
are comprised, are shown in Table One along with the counts for: Number of concepts in the category heading
(shown as #); number which were “Correct” (C);
“Partially Correct” (PC);
“Incorrect” (IC); and “Not
Evaluable” (NE). It should be
remembered that 191 concepts were assigned to more than one category; for a
total of 1203 concepts in this table.
ACCURACY BY CONCEPT CATEGORY
|
No. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Concepts |
Corr. |
Part. Corr. |
Incorr. |
Non- eval. |
CONCEPT
CATEGORY |
|
|
|
|||
|
312 |
26 |
35 |
53 |
198 |
1. REMAINS |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 Wood; 1.2
Metal; 1.3 Frame/Ribs/ |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beams/Hull/Mast; 1.4
Percentage Intact; |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 Debris; 1.6
Spheres; 1.7 Shapes/Form; |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8 Overall Appearance (Location); |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9 Artifacts/Cargo |
|
|
||||
|
178 |
48 |
46 |
23 |
61 |
2. BOTTOM FEATURES |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 Bottom; 2.2
Shelf/Slope; 2.3 Depression/ |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deep Spot; 2.4 Sea Life; 2.5 Currents |
|
|||||
|
52 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
32 |
3. OVERBURDEN |
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1 Coral; 3.2
Sand; 3.3 Mud/Silt |
|
|||||
|
50 |
7 |
6 |
8 |
29 |
4. EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO ABANDONING SHIP |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 Storm/Hurricane; 4.2
Fire; 4.3 Land Movements |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Seismic); 4.4 Water
Movements |
|
|||||
|
148 |
39 |
27 |
15 |
67 |
5. POSITIONING OF SHIP REMAINS |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1 Shore Distance; 5.11
Underwater/Underground; |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.12 Reef; 5.2 Site Size;
5.3 Depth; 5.31 Clear
Water; |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.32 Dark Water; 5.4
Distance Between Ships |
||||||
|
44 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
34 |
6. DIFFERENTIATION OF TWO SHIPS |
|
|||||
|
56 |
12 |
6 |
1 |
37 |
7. GEOLOGY |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1 Shoreline; 7.2
Underground Water; 7.3 Salt |
||||||
|
87 |
30 |
23 |
15 |
19 |
8. ROGER SMITH, ARCHAEOLOGIST |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.1 Physical Description;
8.2 Other Comments |
||||||
|
40 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
25 |
9. COMMENTS RE; PROJECT |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.1 Difficulty/Ease; 9.2
Outcome |
|
|||||
|
236 |
36 |
18 |
17 |
165 |
10. Other & Miscellaneous Comments |
|
|||||
|
Table One |
215 |
176 |
128 |
667 |
TOTALS |
|
|
|
|||
The Concept Categories, as shown in Table Two, can be further considered in terms of percentile accuracy. Of the 45 per cent of the data which could be evaluated, the overall accuracy rating for all Respondents and all concepts is 40 per cent “Correct,” 33 per cent “Partially Correct,” 27 per cent “Incorrect.” The “Hit Rate” (combined “Correct” and “Partially Correct”) is 73 per cent.
Under the 10 categories, the category with the highest percentage of evaluable material concerns “Bottom Features,” at 66 per cent. The lowest is “Differentiation of Two Ships,” at 23 per cent. It should be borne in
