PAPER DISCUSSING OTHER DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS. AUTHOR NOT SPECIFIED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250004-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 29, 2000
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 28, 1978
• Content Type: REPORT

SG1E
pproved or e e ; . 4 RRALOQJ 1a-? P500250004-8
I know that I have been slow in commenting on the information you
supplied to me, but quite frankly, it took me a long time to digest it
all and even longer to check out those references I could get my hands
on. Further, after reviewing the reports, I can not honestly say I
have anything that important to add to what you apparently already
know. There is, however, one thing unrelated to the report I would
like to bring to your attention which may be of interest to someone,
somewhere in your organization. It deals with a potential model of
psi-magnification.
Document No. 76-13197
Overall, this document bears a strong resemblence to the pro-
posal I submitted to you last year. Unfortunately, practically
everyone else in the field has had the same thoughts at one time or
another, in one form or another (Caziamalli, early 1900's; VasilieI,
L.L., Experiments in Mental Suggestion. Church Crookham, Hampshire,
England: Institute for the Study of Mental Images, 1963; Kogan, I.M.
in Rejdak, A. (Ed) Telepatic a Jasnovidnost, Prague: Svoboda, 1970;
for review see Chari, C.T.K. in Wolman, B.B. (Ed) Handbook of Para-
psychology, New York: VanNostrand Reinhold Company, 1977).
1.1. Section 2
I have not run across any of the names (contributors) listed in
Section 2, Page 1 in the literature. I am still interested in ob-
taining report No. 75-11096A, if available to me. I have no reason to
doubt anything in this section, especially the choice of Kogan as the
leader in the field. I found conclusions (5) and (7) particularly
curious (p. 2-3, 2-4, respectively) as well as the inclusion of
Document EW-76-011 with those you sent me. I sense that neither the
authors of Document No. EW-76-011 nor you can determine the purpose
for psychophysiological training on a large scale. There is no indi-
cation that it is being used just as screening device to detect and
develop only those people who are "gifted". It appears that they be-
lieve the ability is inherent in almost everyone and can be developed
to some reasonable (and usable ?) extent in those individuals willing
to try.
Section 3
I found this section very vague. It seems as though it were
written to fill a gap rather than to inform. I also feel that they
have greatly underestimated Ryzl's attempts to combine sequential
analysis, decision boundaries, probability theory and information
theory. Even though I had read this section a number of times, I did
not see any connection between Ryzl's work and my own binary elimina-
tion computer modeling (see Psi Magnification, below) until after I
had thought out the model and made the calculations.
Approved For Re pICICA t%/0tiACIATLt 6-gQ,180RQ'@0500250004-8
E7 Q
 Approved For ReleM 47 C I~ LO(1~7 F 89500250004-8
1.3. Section 4 - 6
No comment. Not my field.
1.4. Section 7
Elegant. However, I have this scenerio in my mind where Kogan
presents a similar theoretical construct to his superiors who listen
patiently and then say "That's very nice Dr. Kogan, now how do we
use it to send messages which cannot be detected by satellite"? My
point is that nowhere in this document do the authors address them-
selves to application of psi-phenomenon to information transfer. It
seems to me that some speculation on this point is warranted inde-
pendent of how it works.
1.5. Section 8
Again Ryzl's work is mentioned but nothing concrete is made of
1.6. Section 9
I do not agree. It would seem more likely that a military instil-
lation would be used where large numbers of mentally healthy. volunteers
were available. If their research is to be reduced to practice in some
sort of communication effort it is doubtful, that mentally unstable
personnel would be used. There is an overriding tone in this entire
report that the Soviets are restricting themselves to highly theoreti-
cal and exploratory research without any effort to develop a practical,
even if crude, communication system or network.
Section 10
Psychophysiology and Psychology p 10-2. I assume the initial re-
port they are refering to is No. 75-11096A. Although I have not read
this report, I can easily guess that the authors are refering to the
widely known asymmetric functions of the parietal and/or temporal
lobes of the human cortex. Considering the 4olistic nature of psi-
phenomena and the conceptual nature of information processing performed
by the non-dominant (usually right) cerebral hemisphere it is the only
parsimonious explanation available to date.
I further assume that the authors realize that the studies pro-
posed on p. 10-2 would be confounded (at least) and irrelevant (at
worst) if the subjects had an intact corpus collosum. I would agree
that it would be absolutely fascinating to do these very same studies
in "split brain" subjects or right temporal lobe epileptics known to
be sensitive to "gifted" agents.
NflDENiR s CJAINiE NAL :$4.QNL
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000500250004-8
 Approved For Rele WAOtIRI fhl, : 61414 at0~%IRO.R2~00250004-8
SG1 B
2. Document No. EW-76-011
I must confess I fell asleep many times reading this document. It
basically says the same thing as Ostrander and Schroeder (Psychic
Research Behind the Iron Curtain, Prentice Hall, 1968) and J. C. Pratt
(in Wolman, B.B. Ed. Handbook of Parapsychology, New York, Reinhold
Company, 1977). That is, that the Soviets take parapsychology seriously,
treat it objectively (as opposed to mystically) and do a lost of mass
training. Like all other scientists in a poorly funded field, he suggests
that the U.S. government pump large quantities of money into his
specialty - biofeedback - so we can stay ahead to the Soviet Union.
3. Document
Paper by G. P. Krokhalev entitled "Photographing Visual Hallucina-
tions" (Third International Congress on Psychotronic Research, Part II,
Tokoyo, 1977).
This is a well written account of some Soviet studies in though-
ography. It did get me to read Jule Eisenbtds fascinating book on Ted
Serios (The World of Ted Serios. New York; Morrow, 1967). It is in-
teresting to note that the su'-ects in Krokhalev's paper and Ted Serios
were alcoholics. Further, there is nothing new in Krokhalev's article
which Eisenbrij.d had not already considered. Such phenomenon have been
known for more than 100 years (earliest account: Mumler, W. H. Personal
Experiences of William H. Mumler in Spirit Photography. Boston: Colby
and Rich, 1875). This and other psychokinetic phenomena (i.e. polter-
gist activity) are perhaps the most demanding forms of psi-effects - de-
manding in the sense that they are real, leave lasting evidence of their
existence, and obviously require large amounts of carefully focused
energy.
4. Psi-Magnification
This section is a brief report on my own work as it relates to ESP.
It is all theoretical. There is no biological. data. It resulted ram .
an interestof mine in optical illusions and sensory processing. Some
of it is tough reading because of its abstract nature.
Above, are four classical examples of optical illusions. You
know that in Figures 1 and 2 that lines "a" and "b" are equal in length;
that "a" is continuous with "b2" and not "b1" in Figure 3; and that
Approved For RQ9'b?i1~0: II'9~7k)600500250004-8
 Y'}
Approved For ReI .igif~W41( 7CIt1 P&dM* fJ500250004-8
corners "a" and "b" cannot be in two placed at once in Figure 4. How-
ever, no matter how hard or long you look at these figures, the illusions
persist (i.e. b > a in Figures 1 and 2, etc.). It occurred to me, as I
am sure it has occurred to others, that the brain does not use all the
information available to it before making an irreversible decision as to
what it "thinks" it senses within the visual field. I decided to test a
part of this hypothesis with a mathematical model which incorporated a
simple decision making process. It went as follows: according to inform-
ation theory the number of information bits (I) necessary to absolutely
identify a character with population of fixed size (N) is
I = log2N
For simplicity I chose a population of N = 16, thus requiring 1092 16 = 4
information bits to positively identify any one character (mark). I also
chose to have 16 independant estimates randomly identify the mark. The
mark was the number seven (7) in the following array in the entire study:
121 1
If any one estimate was in the plurality, it became the choice for the
entire set. In the case of a tieyinformation bits were used until a
plurality was established. The sequence was always the same: I1 dis-
tinguished between 1 - 8 and 9 - 12, I2 between 1 - 4 and 5 - 8, I3 be-
tween 5 - 6 and 7 - 8 and I4 between 7 and 8. Of course, if the informa-
tion bits were called for, the average population size decreased pro-
portionally. This was calculated separately. Two examples are shown
below:
Example 1
5 3 13 10 11 6 3 3 8 9 3 15 7 1 3 10
Ranked 1 3 3 3-3)5 6 7 8 9
Mark = 7
Plurality estimate = 3
Information bits used = none, chance = 1/16
Estimate correct? = no
GON''FIDENTIAL CA I E5 AL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R6-00500250004-8
 Approved For Rel 1,Q&1r lO MACIhM
K6-ggJ8~RQ9O5OO250004-8
- 5 -
Example 2
5 8 15 14 5 12 14 7 12 7 9 9 2 7 13 5
Ranked 2 5 5 7 7 - 8:.-) 12 12 13 14 14 15
Plurality estimate = cannot make because of tie) call
for Il, thus eliminating 9 - 16
remaining 2 5 5 5 C7 7 8
Plurality estimate = cannot make because of tie, call
for 12, thus eliminating 1 - 4
remaining= -' ='' 8
Plurality estimate = cannot make because of tie, call
for I-, thus eliminating 5 and 6
remaining C= 7 8
Plurality estimate = 7
Information bits used = 3, change = 1/2
I used this procedure on 500 sets of 16 random numbers generated
by computer. The results were interesting:
Chance with no information bits = 1/16 = 0.0625
Average change in 500 set s where information bits
were introduced as needed' = 1/11.54 = 0.0867
Incidence of 7's (hits) = 1/5.88 = 0.170
There is probably some very sophisticated mathematical explanation
for this phenomenon but it struck me as a fascinating observation. What
it means is that a unilateral decision making process can increase the
incidence of hits above chance. At this point I bisected my interest
into two areas. The first is a continuation relevent to my interests in
illusionary phenomena which I will not go into further here. The second
was a potential method for communication which could be reduced to
practice with partially "gifted" subjects.
GO N Approved For Release 2001 7 11 AlJOWd l871R 0@WO~r250004-8
 Approved For Releas t d ai U Z : CJA4RPMAQOTfrTW1Q? f 00250004-8
4.1. Percipient Limitations
In order to determine the range limitations of potential percip-
ients I read J. B. Rhines original text on extrasensory perception.
His best subjects performed at twenty percent above chance, i.e. when
chance was 1/5, they would operate at 2/5 rather reliably. It is
curious to note that nowhere in the literature has anyone attempted
to determine whether the operating level of a percipient is related to
the size of the forced choice population. So we really do not know
whether Rhines best subjects were performing at exactly twenty percent
or rather at twice chance. This is an important point. For instance
if the population was N 10
Case I: operating at 20% above change
0.10 (chance) + 0.20 (4') = 0.30 (operating level)
Case II: operating at 2 x chance
0.10 (chance) + 0.10 ("' = 0.20 (operating level)
4.2. Computer Modeling
For the sake of argument I assumed that a reasonable "alphabet"
could be made of 16 characters. This alphabet then became the forced
choice population or "N" value. I then assumed that 16 percipients
would be available on the "receiving" end of the communication link
and an indeterminant number of agents would be available on the "send-
ing" end of the communications link. The last assumption would be that
separate computer-run data processing devices would be in contact with
each other by conventional radio on the receiving and sending end of
the communications link. When an information bit was to be transferred
the computers would signal both agents and percipients to "send" and
"receive" respectively. The 16 percipients would individually indicate
their choice of what they think the particular character (out of 16
characters) was. Once all 16 percipients indicat 4 their choice the
percipients computer (unilaterally) applied the decision boundaries
described in 4. above. In the case of ties the percipient computer
would ask the agent computer to apply I1, Ii...etc. as necessary until
a plurality occurred on the percipients end. Going back to the example
in 4. where only chance was involved (and no ESP), the chance of an
external source (monitoring satellite) guessing the correct character
was 1/11.54 or 0.087 (8.7%) whereas the accuracy of information re-
ceived by the percipient computer was 1/5.88 or 0.170 (17%). This, of
course, is not accurate enought to make such a system practical. Now
let us consider the situation where the percipient group does have ESP
ability. I modeled this out by computer by expanding N to 17, then 18,
then 19, then 20 but held the sets (percipients) to 16. When analyzing
the random number sets of 16, I assigned those numbers above 16 (e.g.
17 and/or 18 and/or 19 and/or 20) as correct estimates arrived at by
ESP. Of course, the correct guess by chance (always character number 7)
was also included. The results were startling as shown in Figure 1.
Approved For Release0117~r 9C~R~ 71 x,0 ,Q 250004-8
 Approved For Release 7001!d3I& . AEAC 6W 7YM 400500250004-8
I have little knowledge of what the practical limits are for in-
formation transfer but I assume that they fall within the range de-
scribed in Figure 1. The Soviets may have already stumbled upon a
similar principle and this may be the reason why they are training so
many gifted individuals. It is quite possible that other combinations
of character population, decision boundaries, etc. would have even
more appealing characteristics. The only flaw in the system that I
can see at this point is the possibility of response bias, i.e. a given
individual will be bias towards some characters more than others thus
upsetting the random nature of chance guessing.
ApprovOdzfbr RIeftise 2W1 fWi&7h tC4A-RD-0078MQf1 OW&Q
discuss it in more detail with members of your organization.
 Appr-oe
Unum
Mfit
IFt~~=l~,i+lkkk~I1-
r
ft 1
P IN
r
i
A fftt Iff
fl
,
glum 111 21
r ,
-1 4
11 t4- M
Fit
4~ M4
.1 F-: P T77-UT -1
1
1
~~i ' r I +~ t i t 1 r 1,
t:S P
UJrOIDENT (VI rD
rh FR.; PAIPaCP 7nn'I /n~/ t t R Al f~i , nr~llgC, 5Qnna_A
I- J
COINFIDENTIAL, CIA INTERNAL USE ONLY