REQUEST FOR YOUR CRITICISM OF THE SRI RESULTS WITH THE RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 23, 2000
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: May 28, 1975
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200150007-9
[ORD #
MEMORANDUM FOR: ORD/LSR
OTS/CB Memo #75-60
28 May 1975
SG1I
SUBJECT Request for your Criticism of the
Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
Results with the Random Stimulus
Generator
1. In previous discussions you indicated your
opinion that the Random Stimulus Generator data
produced during the course of the "Perceptual
Augmentation Technique` by Puthoff and Targ at SRI
were of questionable value. You sighted information
that it was your understanding the machines were
not random and other procedural difficulties asso-
ciated with the experimental design. I explained
that summary data and procedures were given in
progress reports #3 and #4 and during the December
briefing which you, unfortunately, were unable to
attend. Also, partially duplicative summaries may
be found in the October 1974 Nature article published
by Targ and Puthoff and in their final report for
Contract 953653 under NASA sponsorship. The most
complete reference is the final report being com-
pleted for our contract. Attached is an advanced
copy of the relevant section of the final report.
2. After review of the randomness tests and
the experimental procedures described in these
reports, I can find no fundamental difficulty with
the machine or the procedures. It appears that SRI
has done a thorough enough job to allow them to make
the conclusion that they have documented paranormal
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200150007-9
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9
functioning within the stated statistical limits.
Since I have no practical experience with designing
and completing statistical experimental psychology
tests, I could easily have overlooked some obvious
mistake or omission which invalidates the SRI data
and conclusions. Therefore I am requesting your
aid. Specifically, are the machines random and the
experimental procedures valid? In addition to the
two specifics mentioned above, please locate and
criticize any other "soft" areas so that the SRI
research can be kept in proper perspective.
Attachment : SG 1 I
As stated
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9
 ?^ MMiUt6Id Ur ReI?s~I 8/10: CIA-RDP9"0N-WR050007-LI SECRET
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SG1I
RFZ WB~~~
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Request for your Criticism of the Stanford Research Institute
(SRI) Results with the Random Stimulus Gnerrator
EXTENSION NO.
C/OTS/CB
C/OTS/DED
C/ORD/LSR
SNQ
Log,
Approved For Release
FORM 61 O USE PREVIOUS
3-62 EDITIONS
/10:Cl
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
a
~4-RDP9
OTS/CB Memo #75-60
DATE
28 May 1975
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
3 q, c
s ~S /L e
6-00787 R00020015000.7-9
SECRET CONFIDENTIAL ^ SEERONI F-1 UNCLASSIFIED
19 MAY 1975
2000/08