SRI/GALE COMMITTEE MEETING OF 24-25 JULY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: August 3, 1979
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Mr. Manfred Gale (HQDA, DAMA-ZD)
SUBJECT SRI/Gale Committee Meeting of 24-25 July
Gu
DATE 3 August 1979
LOCATION Bid. 44
cc
We appreciated having an opportunity to discuss with you and members of your
committee several aspects of our work during your recent visit to SRI. We
welcome this kind of dialog and exchange of views with individuals of diverse
backgrounds, who are willing to focus on issues of importance to us and our
program.
There were certain aspects of the meeting, however, which we felt were
unsatisfactory, but for which we have specific remedial actions to propose.
As you know from our agenda, we had intended to cover four major areas of
interest: (1) an historical overview, including past applications to problems
of interest to clients; (2) scientific questions with regard to RV protocols,
judging, statistics, and so forth; (3) the goals and planned activities on
present client programs; and (4) committee discussion with program remote viewers.
Unfortunately, with the extended ad hoc discussions that took place during the
opening presentation on historical material (Part 1) and the need to press on
to a discussion of planned efforts on present client programs (Part 3), we all
but skipped Part 2 on scientific questions (for example, none of the slides were
shown). This seemed expedient at the time, given the apparent inappropriateness,
in a group of such diverse interests, of getting involved in detailed discussions
on specific technical issues (e.g., nuances as to protocol procedures, statistical
evaluation techniques, etc.). This may have been "penny-wise and pound foolish,"
however, for all of us at SRI realized at one time or another in casual discussions
with individual committee members during dinner breaks, etc., that there was a
profound lack of understanding of some very basic issues. To cite some specific
examples:
(1) It was expressed that the RV target pool should be chosen and
maintained by someone further removed from the experimentation
than the principal investigators, and that access to the target
pool should be limited.
The above is in fact the procedure already in force. An independent
target selection team generated the target pool and turned them
over to the Project SSO who keeps them stored in a secure container.
Targets are then withdrawn only under supervision of the SSO (who
records their withdrawal) at the beginning of RV sessions. In
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Mr. Manfred Gale
Page 2
3 August 1979
particular, the RV session interviewers (Targ and Puthoff) had
never seen the target list until your committee asked that it be
brought to the conference room.
(2) Concern was expressed that apparently successful RV results in
our protocols might be due instead to a combination of remote viewer
guesses of known Bay Area landmarks and/or artifactual sharpening
of a subject's narrative by cues from the interviewer who is at
least educated, if not directly knowledgeable as to the target
possibilities. (We think that is was understood that the inter-
viewer never knows the particular target.) The corollary to this
concern is that although the RV function may exist, our protocols
can't demonstrate it because of the above-stated circumstances.
In fact, the statistical procedure we use takes into account at
the outset the possibility that the target pool might be completely
known to both remote viewer and interviewer--that it could be that
the remote viewer and interviewer were poring over the target list
during the session; in short, that the RV series is to be treated
as belonging to that class of studies in which the elements of the
target pool are known a priori to both remote viewer and interviewer,
as in studies involving numbers or cards as targets. (In fact, we
would go this apparent criticism one step further and assert that
it would be naive to assume that by any change in protocol one could
in principle avoid the assumption that the remote viewer knows the
target pool.) Thus, when there is a statistically significant result
in our protocols, the cause must lie elsewhere than remote viewer
guess or interviewer cueing, as these possibilities are handled at
a fundamental level by a statistical procedure that assumes the worst.
This fact must be understood by the committee members if they are
to assess the SRI program results properly.
(3) It was repeatedly suggested that it would be better to dispense with
the interviewer in an RV session so as to have a "cleaner" protocol,
and that the use of an interviewer is somehow a methodological flaw.
Such a suggestion indicates a complete failure to comprehend that
success as obtained by use of the SRI RV protocols (as opposed to other
procedures) is in large part due to an innovative design which
incorporates a division of labor between remote viewer and interviewer
designed to mirror the two primary modes of cerebral functioning;
namely, the nonanalytic cognitive style (brain function) that pre-
dominates in spatial pattern recognition and other holistic processing
(and is hypothesized to predominate in psi functioning), and the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Mr. Manfred Gale
Page 3
3 August 1979
analytical cognitive style that predominates in verbal and other
analytical functioning. (Only very experienced remote viewers
appear to have the ability to handle both cognitive styles
simultaneously.) The removal of the burden of analytical functioning
(by the interviewer) during exercise of the RV faculty appears
to be an important ingredient for success. A change in this
aspect of the methodology may give the appearance of a cleaner
protocol (it is not), but it may also yield the lower level results
characteristic of classical academic (as opposed to operational)
studies. Our client programs, on the other hand, force us to
develop techniques that yield results, and it cannot be stressed
enough that we have developed the appropriate statistical procedures
to handle such possibilities as remote viewer guessing and
interviewer cueing or sharpening.
To the degree that the committee's overall evaluation of the SRI program will
touch on technical issues such as these, we would suggest that it is incumbent
on the committee members to obtain a more thorough grounding in the technical
details than was possible in the few hours available during the July meeting at
SRI. We would doubt, for example, that anyone would be in a position to
critique our present RV statistical procedures fairly and justly (not that there
wasn't the potential because of the expertise represented) simply because we did
not have an opportunity to present them, and, being a new approach in our program
(Scott's direct-count-of-permutations method), we have not discussed them at any
length in publications available to the committee. Since the approach (a) is
specifically designed to handle narrative material of the remote viewing type,
(b) takes into account the possibility of potential remote viewer/interviewer
guessing and/or knowledge of the target pool, and (c) has been thoroughly
investigated, used, and documented in the academic parapsychology community as
the most conservative reference statistic to fall back on, one cannot assess
remarks such as (1) - (3) above without at least an intuitive understanding of the
assumptions and implications of this approach. Beyond this, there were other
items that to our mind need clearing up, such as confusion of our work with
other labs' work and statements, and little awareness that we have done considerable
experimentation with simpler paranormal functions than remote viewing (e.g.,
computer-automated number-perception tasks, binary card tasks) to establish
certain parameters of the more complicated functioning. (Such scientific legwork
we did not present to the committee, as it seemed beyond the scope of interest
expressed at the time.)
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Mr. Manfred Gale
Page 4
3 August 1979
To remedy the shortcomings inherent in the brief orientation meeting of 24-25
July, to ensure that we do justice to the multitudinous concerns of the committee,
and to ensure that the SRI program obtains a fair hearing from the committee, we
propose that: (1) all committee members receive from your office a copy of this
memo and the attached protocols to gain a better understanding of our procedures;
(2) further discussions be held in smaller groups between SRI personnel and those
members of the committee who are especially concerned with specific issues
(e.g., protocol procedures and statistical approaches with Drs. Synder and
Tang).
We are available for such interactions at Menlo Park, Washington, or elsewhere,
and would appreciate the opportunity to resolve these issues at the earliest
convenience. Out of such interactions we could also expect as a bonus to define
with greater clarity those scientific issues that need to be pursued in more
detail should fundamentally-oriented research programs be set up in the future,
as they must.
Since we are mutually tasked by our sponsor to provide the best technical
assessment possible of a field fraught with complex and subtle issues, we believe
that additional actions such as we have proposed are necessary if we are to
fulfill our mutual goals and responsibilities.
Enclosed are copies of the memo and protocols for all the committee members,
which we would appreciate your distributing. Also enclosed for use at your
discretion are additional copies for Maj. Gen. E. R. Thompson, Dr. Ruth Davis,
and the Hon. Walter Laberge.
We remain at your disposal as to arrangements should you decide to follow up on
the further interactions we have proposed.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 ApprUqd For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
August 1979
STANDARD REMOTE VIEWING (RV) PROCEDURES: LOCAL SITES
Prepared by:
H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D.
R. Targ
E. C. May, Ph.D.
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, California 94025
ed For Re 4e ss20O0/O(NI R10174-RDP9&.087 TR90Oi00060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Our present standard remote-viewing (RV) procedures are similar to
those in our Proc. IEEE paper, "A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent
Research."1 The elements of the protocol, each of which is addressed
below, consist of (1) basic procedural design; (2) remote viewer/interviewer
roles; (3) target pool selection; (4) target storage and access; (5) remote
viewer orientation; (6) interviewer behavior; (7) target person behavior;
(8) post-experiment feedback; (9) evaluation procedure.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
At the beginning of a trial, a remote viewer is closeted with an
interviewer in an isolated windowless room of the Radio Physics Laboratory
in the SRI complex to await an agreed-upon start time. At the same time
a target person is sent, without communication with the remote viewer or
interviewers remaining at SRI, to a target location somewhere in the
San Francisco Bay Area (^,500 square km). The target is determined by
random-number access to a target pool of sealed travelling orders previously
prepared by an independent experimental team and kept locked in a secure
safe. The target pool consists of more than 50 target locations chosen
from a target-rich environment.
During a predetermined viewing period of 15 minutes duration, the
remote viewer is asked to render drawings and describe into a tape recorder
his impressions of the target site being visited by the outbound target
person. The interviewer with the remote viewer is kept ignorant of the
target and is therefore free to question him to clarify his descriptions
without fear of cueing (overt or subliminal) as to the particular target.
Since general knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area target region on
the part of the remote viewer and interviewer must be taken as a given,
and since particular knowledge of the contents of the target pool is
revealed as a series progresses, one must take into account the possi-
bility that any particular description may be artifactually sharpened.
(Such sharpening can in principle increase the apparent quality of the
result only if there is functional remote viewing to begin with. It
cannot in the absence of ESP produce an inflated result.) This sharpening
possibility in the presence of an already functioning RV capability is
handled in the statistical evaluation of the results by conservatively
assuming at the outset that the series is to be treated as belonging to
that class of studies in which the elements of the target pool are known
a priori to both remote viewer and interviewer, as in studies involving
numbers or cards as targets.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
When the target person returns to SRI following the remote viewing
period, the subject is then taken to the target site so that he may obtain
direct feedback. Following a series of such trials over a several-day
period, a formal blind judging procedure (described below) is used to
evaluate the data and quantify the results.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
An important methodological aspect of the SRI RV protocols revolves
around the fact that the remote viewer/interviewer team constitutes a
single information gathering unit in which the remote viewer's role is
designed to be that of perceiver/information source, and the interviewer's
role is designed to be that of analytical control.
This division of labor is designed to mirror the two primary modes of
cerebral functioning; namely, the nonanalytic cognitive style (related to
brain function) that predominates in spatial pattern recognition and other
holistic processing (and is hypothesized to predominate in psi functioning),
and the analytical cognitive style that predominates in verbal and other
analytical functioning. 2-4 (Only very experienced remote viewers appear
to have the ability to handle both cognitive styles simultaneously.) The
interviewer role, removing as it does the burden of analytical functioning
during exercise of the RV faculty, appears to be a key element in generating
the level of success required in operational programs, and we attribute
the success of the SRI RV protocols in large part to this innovative design
which appears to provide an appropriate match to the required functioning.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Target locations in the San Francisco Bay Area are selected by a team
of two Radio Physics Laboratory personnel who are not involved as inter-
viewers in the experiments (to prevent direct knowledge of the target pool
by the interviewers). The locations are chosen to satisfy the following
criteria:
(1) Target sites must be within a half-hour drive of the
SRI Menlo Park complex so that a uniform target access
time exists for all experiments.
(2) The target pool is constructed to contain several targets
of various types--that is, several fountains, several
churches, several boathouses, and so forth--specifically
to circumvent analysis strategies of the type "there was
a fountain yesterday, so it is unlikely that there is a
fountain today." Furthermore, targets of different types
are not chosen to be particularly distinct from each other,
so that overlapping features exist. In this manner the
content of a given target, determined by random entry
into the target pool, is essentially independent of the
contents of other targets ("open-deck" design).
(3) The definition of what constitutes each target is
established in advance of the entire RV series
by written descriptions on a set of 3" X 5" target
cards. (Ex: Four Seasons Restaurant, on El Camino
Real, just north of San Antonio Road. Stand under the
entry arch and feel the bricks.) These cards constitute
the outbound team's instructions at the beginning
of the trial, and the judge's target list during the
evaluation phase.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0100060001-6
The target cards are numbered and placed in individual envelopes,
similarly numbered, by the target selection team; they are then turned
over to the project Special Security Officer (SSO) who maintains them in
a GSA-approved secure container.
At the start of an RV session the interviewer, remote viewer, and
target person rendevous in the laboratory and establish the trial start
time (30 minutes hence). The target person then leaves the laboratory
for the SSO station, generates a random number in the presence of the SSO
by the use of the random-number function on a Texas Instruments Model
SR-51 hand calculator, obtains the associated envelope (which is recorded
by the SSO), and departs for the target site.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
During the period that the target person is enroute to the target,
the interviewer and remote viewer have a period to relax and discuss the
protocols. The goal of the interviewer during this period is to make it
"safe" for the remote viewer to experience remote viewing. For the initial
orientation of a new remote viewer, this typically includes a discussion
as to how remote viewing appears to be a natural rather than abnormal
function, and that many people appear to have done it successfully.
The remote viewer is told that memory and imagination constitute
noise in the channel, and therefore the closer he can get to raw uninter-
preted imagery, the better. He is encouraged to report raw perception
rather than analysis, since the former tends to be correct while the latter
is often wrong.
Since remote viewing is a difficult task, apparently similar to the
perception of subliminal stimuli,6 it takes the full attentive powers of
the remote viewer. Therefore, the environment, procedures, etc., are
designed to be as natural and comfortable as possible so as to minimize
the diversion of attention to anything other than the task at hand. No
hypnosis, strobe lights, or sensory-derivation procedures are used, since
in our view such (novel) environmental factors would divert some of the
subject's much-needed attention.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
The interviewer arranges ahead of time to have pen and paper available
for drawing, and a tape recorder. The room lighting is somewhat subdued
to prevent after-image highlights, shadows on eyelids, etc.
When the agreed-upon RV trial time arrives, the interviewer simply
asks the remote viewer to "describe what impressions come to mind with
regard to where the target person is." The interviewer does not pressure
the remote viewer to verbalize continuously; if he were to, the remote
viewer might tend to embroider descriptions to please the interviewer,
a well-known syndrome in behavioral studies of this type. If the remote
viewer tends toward being analytical ("I see Macy's") the interviewer
gently leads him into description, not analysis. ("You don't have to tell
me where it is, just describe what you see.") This is the most important
and difficult task of the interviewer, but is apparently necessary for
good results, especially with inexperienced remote viewers.
It is also useful for the interviewer to "surprise" the remote viewer
with new viewpoints. ("Go above the scene and look down--what do you see?
If you look to the left, what do you see?"') The remote viewer's viewpoint
appears to shift rapidly with a question like this, and the data come
through before the viewer's defenses activate to block it out. The shifting
of viewpoint also obviates the problem of the remote viewer spending the
entire session time giving meticulous detail on a relatively trivial item,
such as a flower, which, even if correct, generally will be of little use
in assessing the session. (Once a remote viewer feels he sees something,
he tends to hang on to this perception rather than commit himself to a new
viewpoint.) It is important to recognize again that with the division of
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
labor outlined in Section II it is the interviewer's (not the remote
viewer's) responsibility to see that the necessary information to permit
discrimination among the range of target possibilities is generated, the
remote viewer's responsibility being confined to exercise of the RV
faculty.
The remote viewer is encouraged to sketch what he sees, even over
his objections that he is not an artist, can't sketch, etc. He may do
so throughout, or wait until the end of the session if intermittent
drawing would distract his concentration. Since drawings tend to be more
accurate than verbalizations, this is an extremely important factor for
good results.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
After obtaining a target card in the manner described in Section V,
the target person proceeds to the target site indicated.
He is asked to come upon the target location at the starting time
so that his view of it is fresh at the beginning of the remote viewing
period. He is to then simply pay attention to the environment as dictated
by instructions on the target card. At the end of the agreed-upon target
viewing time of 15 minutes the target person returns to the lab.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
VIII POST-EXPERIMENT FEEDBACK
When the target person returns, and after all the raw data has been
turned over to the SSO, the interviewer, remote viewer, and target person
proceed directly to the target site for feedback. This helps to develop
the remote viewer's sense of which aspects of his mental imaging process
are correct, which are incorrect. This appears to bring the RV trial to
closure for the remote viewer, so that when he has a following session,
his mind is no longer involved with wondering how he did on the previous
one. Only a very experienced subject can function well time after time
without feedback, so this is done for each trial to optimize the potential
for success.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
In a sense, the most critical part of the remote-viewing procedure
is the evaluation procedure. Any single experiment in remote viewing,
even if perfect, could in principle be dismissed as possibly a coincidence.
Further, any result less than pefect might be called into question as a
generalized "grass is green, sky is blue" transcript that fits every target.
Only blind differential discrimination of transcripts across a series of
targets can provide a basis to discriminate between these dismissals and
the RV interpretation.
To obtain a numerical evaluation of the accuracy of a standard six-
trial :remote viewing series with a given remote viewer, the results are
subjected to independent judging on a blind basis by an SRI research
analyst not otherwise associated with the series.
In preparation for judging, the remote viewer's tapes are transcribed.
The resulting transcripts are then edited only to the extent of deleting
information which might act as artifactual cues to a judge, such as
references to other targets, or phrases which might indicate the temporal
order of the transcripts.
The transcripts (including associated drawings) and target cards,
each arranged in their own random order different from the order of target
usage, are then turned over to the judge. The judge is instructed to
visit the target locations on the basis of the target card instructions,
and to blind rank order, on a scale of 1-6 (best to worst match), each of
the six transcripts against each of the six target sites, generating a
6 X 6 matrix as in the example shown in Table 1.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
Distribution of Judge's Rankings
TRANSCRIPT LETTER
TARGET
A
B
C
D
E
F
1
(D
5
3
1
4
6
2
5
0
2
6
4
3
3
5
6
( 1)
2
3
4
4
1
5
3
O
4
6
5
5
4
2
6
O
3
6
6
4
2
5
3
( 1)
A precise measure of the statistical significance of the matrix of
target/transcript relations is given by a direct-count-of-permutations
method of great generality.a It is an exact calculation method requiring
no approximations such as normality assumptions. Furthermore, the judging
process that went into generating the matrix is not required to be inde-
pendent transcript-to-transcript nor target-to-target. Finally, the
statistical evaluation procedure is general enough that, in addition to
being applicable to the blind rank order procedure in use at the present
time, it can be applied to analyses in which numerical estimates of
target/transcript correspondences are made on the basis of other rank-order
or rating scales. This includes rating 1-7, zero to complete correspondence;
arbitrary scale rating arrived at by some complex procedure involving many
factors such as occurs in multiple-judge voting; cases in which, for a
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
given target, several transcripts are given the same rating, all transcripts
are rated zero, a few transcripts are assigned rank order numbers and the
rest are assigned the mean of the remaining rank order numbers, and so
forth. The only requirement is that no artifactual information is provided
as to the order of targets and transcripts. In particular, it can be
shown that if targets are used with replacement or are non-orthogonal,
then the method applies even in the case in which there is trial-by-trial
feedback and the target pool is known a priori to both remote viewer and
interviewer. Thus the possibility of interviewer cueing or subject
guessing based on a priori knowledge of the target pool is handled at a
fundamental level by a statistical procedure that assumes the worst.
The argument is as follows.
In the absence of knowledge as to which transcript was generated in
response to which target, one observes that in setting up the matrix there
are n: possible ways to label the columns (transcripts), given any
particular order of the rows (targets), and vice versa. Thus, there are
n: possible matrices which could be constructed from the raw judging data,
all of them equally likely a priori in the absence of knowledge as to the
order of targets and transcripts. Each has its associated sum on the
diagonal corresponding to a possible alignment of targets and transcripts.
The significance level for the experiment is then determined by
counting the number of possible matrices that would yield a result
(diagonal sum) equal to or better (i.e., lower sum of ranks in the rank-
order case, higher sum of scores in the correspondence-rating case, etc.)
than that obtained for the matrix corresponding to the key, and dividing
by n: This ratio gives the probability of obtaining by chance a result
equal to or better than that obtained in the actual judging process.
For the 6 X 6 matrix used as an example (Table 1) we have, by direct
computer count of the 6; matrices obtained by interchanging columns,
p = 2/6: = 2.8 X 10 3.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
This statistical procedure, in use for more than two decades by many
researchers, was specifically designed to handle narrative material of the
remote viewing type, and it cannot be stressed enough that it is constructed
sufficiently conservatively so as to apply even in the limiting case in
which the target pool is completely known a priori to all involved, thus
handling any possible contamination due to remote viewer guessing or
interviewer cueing in protocols of the type used in the SRI RV procedure.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6
1. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent
Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64, pp. 329-354 (March 1976).
2. J. Ehrenwald, `Cerebral Localization and the Psi Syndrome," J. of
Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 161, No. 6, pp. 393-398.
3. R. Ornstein, The Nature of Human Consciousness, San Francisco, CA:
Freeman, 1973, Ch. 7 and 8.
4. R. W. Sperry, "Cerebral Organization and Behavior," Science, Vol. 133,
pp. 1749-1757 (1961).
5. H. F. Dixon, 'Subliminal Perception and Parapsychology: Points of
Contact," Proc. of the XXVII Annual International Conference of the
Parapsychology Foundation, Inc., New York (in press).
6. C. Scott, '}On the Evaluation of Verbal Material in Parapsychology:
A Discussion of Dr. Pratt's monograph," Jour. Soc. Psych. Res.,
Vol. 46, No. 752, pp. 79-90 (June 1972).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000100060001-6