SRI PARANORMAL RESEARCH: 15-18 OCTOBER 1974 TRIP REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 11, 1998
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: October 19, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2000108/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001100~1-
7 Cctc:~er 1971-
-JC
J it a -n, no- al itesea rc-.-
1 3 r
5 lc October 1971. Tr^i er~br
l? ~itrr^^l^zrSG11 spent a total of t,wrent:r
hours at Son 15 - 17 cto :er, durin ? whic : a series of general discussions
were held, primarily with Puthoff and rip;- and to a much lesser extent Kith Co
and Jones, about past Performance and achievements, current status of the
research and the '.eta i is of that to be accom-ol fished in 'tie tine remaining; we
reviewed in some detail the exoeri :rental protocols, -.Tent y over all the evidence
the ~ainin; to sever al recent ex:aeriren is and to,,, in three r part ~new ones; and
SG11 tentative laps were made for an R1 Drec . ~:~tien in -Tiers ,in rton, probably in
early December, n addition, while _as visiting another Contractor
Burl 1 the afternoon of 17 October, spent several h
'
ours reviewing ShI
s
SG1I exoerimental records and samplin: the various Cates
orles of raw data collected
thus far. Despite distract;Gns stemming LOt reactions t
- to the pu.blica t,.-on of
U .. ,a..,U_ a._^ isle a nd. Bees }fife the fact t
11 hat none of the 'supe^stars? were able
to to in San Kira ncisco on such short notice, the trip was useful terms of
c1a- i f v'in^- the exact sta tus of the research and d.ei1 ne l tjn both our e}: ec a ti C'_ls
and their obligations Burin; the remainder of the effort. ihi l e the;;, I?reren' t
coy about the criticality to them of 11nin -up follo -on -funds (Gr support
from other sources) as soon as -possible, there wasn't any undue focus or pressure
on this issue--nor, of course, were any commitments made. Indeed, on balance,
they almost certainly view the prospects as bein rather more blear, than prom-
isin,,-,. In a not unrelated vein, there were several attempts to ,c-et me to
conclude that (?rom the operator's point of view) the capabilities evidently
shown in the recent technical-COB experiments could be usefully exploited in
the field. The most I was able to tell them
in this respect was that I could
visualize le. itima.te field a;_rplica, lions and a ,~-e: i nely receptive at
wrt of 7D 0 ~ tltude on
the
,- __ / na e:.,ent) only if: those experiments could be replicated
with
at least the same do-cc of accuracy under fool-proof protocols (3
f below); and
i ~therewas also some way of .orovidin reaso!1 .bl:y reliable confidence-level
indicators (i,rx or otherwise) with respect to the provable accuracy of each
element of the renote-viewin narration.
Current Status & Plans re Basic Research
2. Subjects. They explained the reduction from 9 to 6 subjects by
stating that they'd been unrealistically optimistic in our first talks--that there
simply wasn't enough time to put nine people thru all the screening tests and then
thru the cps testing and that they could never have analyzed all the data (indeed,
its doubtful if they'll ever fully analyze the data which they already have--see
below). In any case, they felt it better to do 6 thoroughly than 9 partially. As
for the 3 so-called 'subjects' and 3 so-called'controls', their basic error was in
not sticking to their guns at the outset--i.e., that when you don't control the
phenomena (as in this case) you simply cannot (in their view) determine in advance
who the controls are to be. ,-Ile X
7 - if2 - - s ? " /' /7 //. T// rJ I/ C'e, -- i? ~ ~~ S "
COITF IDE NTIAL
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
 Appr6
ved For Release 2000/68/07 : CIA-RDP96-00781R0007001100ZI-2
3. The Screening Tests. Their reasons for dropping 2 of the tests were as
follows: the EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 10-2 figures (in part, they
~believe, because EEG signals in general are just too noisy to work with) and since
`'they'd set a standard of 10-6 for psychic performance they saw no advantage in
.,- continuing to devote dwindling time to it; the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also
giving low figures with Subjects # 1 and 2 but the major
~ problem was that one has
to run a tremendous number of trials in order to get statistically significant
results in any Pk experiment and the analysis of the data is much more time-consuming
than in other experiments. They'd like to have kept a PK test, such as the one with
the gradiometer (where, after 150 runs, they were getting 10-3 with subj # 1) but,
again, it seemed inadvisable time-wise. The remaining screening tests are: Remote
Viewin (RV=9 trials), the Teaching Machine (TM=2500 trials) and Line Drawihgs(plus
S/W cards)(LD=l0 trials). The current status wi h respect to each for each
subject is as follows (those who've already reached 10-0 are indicated by (*)),
Subject RV TM LD
Completed (*) Completed Completed
#2 done Completed ( -) 0
SG11 # 3 2 done done Completed (but to be don
# Completed again w/ right protocol)
# 5 ( ) Completed 0
0 0 0
# 6 2 done Completed 0
They're getting 'crummy' data from the Line Drawings (i.e., few hits) but will
complete them for all subjects anyway. All of the RV and TM basic screening should
be completed within the next few weeks. As for their increasing of-,the Teaching
Machine trials from I nnn t
-znn 4_1_ ___ -, 11
o
-uou ii ,urk-_5 as oeing neces-
sarily definitive an a, in any case, they hadn't really_analyzedenough data at that
time to make sound judgements about the best number of trials. -+i II
4. Some Observations re the Screening Tests. All of the RV results will be
judged by 5 independent judges, each of whom will get the nine transcripts from each
subj and then visit the sites (with replacements) and try to match them. They had
been planning to wait til they had all 54 trials completed and may yet do so but I
urged them, in any case, to be sure the judging was completed on all which have been
run by the time of their presentation in DC and they promised to do so. The LDs are
run til they have 10 drawings from each subj--but they are allowed unlimited number
of 'passes'. As an example of what they meant by the problem of identifying 'subjects
vs 'controls' in advance, they stated that Subj # 4 was chosen as a 'control' specif-
ically because she did so poorly on both the TM and the gradiometer--but then she
went gild on the RV experiments, surpassing everyone else in accuracy & repeatability.
5. Status of Medical, Psychological _& Mid-Test Neurophysiological Exams.
See the clipped pages in the attached Progress Report # E for the Medical & Psych
matrices--about which the following comments and clarifications should be made: the
Halstead-Reitan will be added as an entry in the Psych matrix and, altho all the
arrangements have been made, none of the subjs have taken it yet since Puthoff (as
a result of some other unpleasantnesses, see below) wants to take it himself first
and promised to do so in the near future and then schedule all the subjects; when
subj / 2 returned from the Electroretinogram he was almost a basket case--said it
was the most harrowing experience held ever had--and Puthoff cancelled it for the
rest of the subjects; all the rest of the exams have been going quite well with the
exception that Subj #/ 1 refused to take the TAT. PORE#r It does not show a matrix for
the Neuro Mid-Experiment exams but they intend to do five such exams on a random
basis (without any warning) for each of the six subjects. The current status in
all three areas is as follows:
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00717R00070011000 -2
Subject
Medical/Sensor
P
y
sych Beh H-R
Mid=E
Fr
Completed
xp Neuro
Complete -
HR
0
?j
#
2
Completed
Complete(-
HR)
0
#
3
4
Completed
Complete(-
HR)
2
done
Com
let
d
#
5
p
e
S
h
d
l
Complete(-
HR)
done
#
6
c
e
u
ed
Scheduled
0
Completed
Complete(-
HR)
0
6. Some Observations and SRI Commitments in re the Above Material.
a. The Medical Sensory Data. We've been receiving the raw data all along
(with the subjects' names deleted and will continue to do so (much of it is repro-
duced in appendices to P. R.#4) . After all the data ;has-.'been gathered (subj # 5 is
scheduled for the next week, I believe), Dr Armbruster of PAMC will collect and
integrate the summaries from each department; these summaries will inter alia compare
the subjects as a group with the 'normal' population and with eachother (seeking
correlates); as appropriate, on the basis of these summaries, SRI will go back to
Ambruster with questions &/or hypotheses (if possible, at least for spot-testing
before the end of the project); all of this material will be given to us as soon as
possible and certainly by (or in) the Final Report. I urged them to incorporate all
available PAMC findings in their DC presentation in December. If, on the basis of
the raw data, we have any questions we'd like to address to PAMC we may, of course,
do so through Puthoff.
h. The Psych/Behavioral Data. Puthoff has been having some difficulty
getting raw data from the woman in charge of this effort--partially, he believes,
because she'd rather deal in summaries; in any case, we will get copies of all the
raw data and the summaries--and the same process will be followed as above, i.e.: SRI
will go back to them with questions and/or hypotheses, will test the hyp if possible
and we'll get the results of such exchanges as well; also, if we wish to pose questions
we may do so. I urged Puthoff to put some pressure on the lady, pointing out that
because of the relative fuzziness of the data they are sometimes dilatory in making
and writing their final interpretations, and he promised to do so this week.
c. Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams. These consist of: 'total'
EEG; 'filtered' alpha EEG; GSR and plethysmograph. In the Final Report (if not
earlier) we will get detailed summaries and interpretations of this material--and
we can have access to the raw data any time we wish (but, having seen much of it,
I can attest that it would be foolish and probably useless for them to try to send
us copies of it). They have only run 7 of them (out of a possible total of 30) and
Puthoff admitted that their earlier mention of a possible indicator of accuracy (the
suppression of EEG signals 20 seconds before the 'event') was the merest kind of
hint--based only"" `a couple of Subject # 4 readings. I impressed on him the importance
of thorough data collection and analysis in this area and, while he clearly agreed,
I believe he perceives a real problem with respect to analysis. So far they've
only been eye-balling it and even this cursory approach is quite time consuming. I
told him we'd been under the impression they had a computer capability for this and
he explained that they had had one--but no longer, the background being as follows.
They started out by using SRI's Sensory Sciences Lab (and Dr Lukas) for this effort
but actually completed only two experiments with him; (1) a Strobe-Light/EEG experi-
ment with sub! ,~ 4 in which th
ey successfully replicated last year's results with
the man who is now Subj i 1; and (2) a Mid-Experiment EEG/GSR/Pleth with Subj rr 1
during an 0013 test. But, according to Puthoff, these tests were of a quite low
priority for Lukas (who, apparently, is not interested in psychic phenomena) and the
had diffi(-_n1t.v in
et nm ..
g
rulll slame t' m' ~o, with
help and urgings, they set up aV capability y ~ th ,~
too do the do same thing in their own lab
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2 SG11
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-007800070011001-2
couple of months ago (I didn't task him with failing to notify us of this change in
protocol since using Lukas was their idea originally and not one insisted upon by
us--but the loss of another lab's input does, I fear, somewhat degrade the data).
They like their own system better than Lukas', partially because it has an analogue
output capability, and they intend to pursue the tests in two phases:
(a) Phase I: five mid-experiment tests with each of two subjects,
using 'walkie-talkies' for real-time comparison of accurate hits and
EEG/GSR/Pleth signals; these experiments are in addition to the nine
screening experiments and the later OOB tests-for
SG11 data they will attempt to develop one or more hypotheses. from this
(2) Phase II: Any useful hypotheses will then be tested on the
remaining four subjects.
At first, Puthoff indicated that they might stop with Phase I if no useful hypotheses
emerged from it but I insisted that we'd need similar evidence from the other four
in any case--and he promised to do at least one and, if possible, five tests on
each of them.
7. The Raw Data. As noted in para 1, I spent most of the afternoon of
17 Oct looking at their raw data alone (they merely assembled it for me and, after
someAexplanatory remarks, left it with me). In general, it consisted of: (1) their
daily lab notebooks/logs; (2) 45 tape pasettes (and drawings) of OOB experiments;
(3) print-out tapes from the Teaching Machine; (4) strip-charts on the EEG/Strobe
light experiments; (5) strip-charts on the Laser-Pendulum/Gradiometer experiments;
and (6) strip-charts on mid-experimentation EEG/GSR/Pleth tests. In all, while not
massive, the assembled raw data is impressive--but much of it, I fear, will not get
the kind of scrutiny it may deserve before the end of the project. For instance,
one half-hour OOB test with subj # 1 results in possibly 200 feet of strip-charts
with five graphs on it--and I doubt if they've done anything with it yet, except
eye-ball it and, possibly, physically weigh it. If they don't exploit the data
by the end of the project I believe we could and should insist on a no-cost
extension for that purpose. If there is anything of significance in that data,
with respect to indicators of accurate psychic functioning, it is unrealistic to
expect it to be so obvious as to.leap off the chart and bite you in the leg.
8. The Hypotheses/Theoretical Aspects of Basic Research. While they have
nothing solid to show in this area as yet which isn't surprising), they say that
some useful ideas came out of the Geneva conference--and one of them (see Appendix
1 of P.R. # 4--which, they've already been told, looks suspiciously like 'padding')
they have already tested and rejected; that is the Feinberg hypothesis that OOB
phenomena are 'merely' short-term 'future memories' of feedback after the experi-
ment. They have run a couple of experiments with subj # 4 in which no feedback
was given (or ever will be) and she did just as well. As soon as OTS' consultant
has given us his report on the Geneva conference and his views on possible
theories or hypotheses to be tested, it is intended to put him together with
Puthoff and Targ, let him see their data and see whether, together, they can come
up with useful hypotheses.
Other Matters
SG11 9. Series of Technical Lab COB Experiments. This series was begun a few
weeks ago in response t
o
a request from lllllllllllllllllllllllllwho was trying to get a fix on the
kind of capabilities whi
h
i
c
m
ght service requirements such as those which
-_++-- - ~ -1 caUU1t1 V11 UU
the basic screening tests and the mid-test neurophysiological ones. So far, they've
run perhaps ten of them--half with subject # 4 who appears to be the most gifted of
all in this domain. I was annallod to realize, however, that--e dently for reasons
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
 Approved For Release 200b/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00070011O 1-2
of efficiency, to collect maximum data as soon as possible--they dropped a
critical part of the earlier protocol and, thereby, have left themselves and
the data wide open to challenge. Instead of having someone outside the para-
normal lab control the selection of target sites, Targ or Puthoff would make the
selection 'randomly' after leaving the subject--usually by listing 6 SRI lab
facilities and rolling a die to determine which one they would visit. It never
ceases to amaze me how, as scientists, they can be so obtuse in this regard and
so personally sensitive whenever I raise the issue. I have assured them time and
again (and it is quite literally true) that I'm personally convinced that neither
of them are consciously cheating--but that it is irresponsible of them to wantonly
discredit such potentially good data as they now have by using, for whatever
reason, procedures which will permit anyone else to shoot holes in the evidence.
Their (or, at least, Targ's) rebuttal is that if they use Cox or Jones to select
the list of sites and roll the die, as I suggested, anyone caring to reject the
evidence need only include them in the putative fraud as well. The rationality
of this argument is more apparent than real. As I pointed out to them, rational
men (hopefully, the majority of those to whom the evidence will be presented) will
accept reasonable measures to preclude the possibility of conscious or unconscious
cheating--but, in this last series, they have not provided those reasonable
measures. Finally, they accepted the argument (for about the fifth time, I might
add) and promised that the rest of this series would be done with those additional
SG11 controls. In any case,~and I listened to some of Subject # !'s tapes, looked
at her drawings and visited he sites. All I can say is that, if repeatable with
the necessary safeguards, the accuracy is uncanny--and brought back co gcould be of ops value. We
pies of two of the tapes and drawings and photos of the sites if
anyone cares to review them.
10. Participation in RV Experiments. _ and I took part in two OOB
experiments with Subject f who has not been noted for his OOB gifts; both he and
SG11 they characterized the results as mediocre, even for him. In both instances we
controlled the site selection. In one we went (with Puthoff and subject # 6) to
tennis courts about 3-4 miles from SRI and he located us as being at a museum about
400 ft from where we actually were; his basic mistake (and apparently a common one)
was in 'cognating' the museum & embroidering on that interpretation--while his six
drawings were actually much more in tune with the tennis courts. The second
experiment, a 'technical' one involving a nearby SRI lab, was quite similar: a
SG11 number of quite good verbal and drawing descriptions but a quite erroneous con-
clusion. I had a quite similar experience when I acted as the remote-viewer in
SG11 an experiment, while Targ and went to a lab site; the major virtue of this
experiment being that both and I got a much better feel for the actual
procedures. I pointed out to them that, in the ops scenarios, we were unlikely
ever to have a witting or cooperative subject at the site (and, if we did, we'd
not require remote viewing skills); I urged them to try at least some experiments
in which the subject didn't know the 'outbound' viewer at all--and then some in
which the subject knew him/her only by name/photo/etc and, finally, some in which
the subject was permitted to see the viewer in a 'walk-by' situation. They clearly
would like to try these variations but I'm not sure they'll get around to it
before the project ends,
11. Presentation in DC. This is tentatively scheduled for early in
December and is clearly intended to have an impact on those in the hierarchy who
will be passing on the question of renewal. In a sense it will be *review of
their Final Report--and I feel this is a perfectly legitimate procedure. As
indicated elsewhere throughout this memo, they were urged to ensure that their
presentation included several elements--e.F.: as much summary and interpretive
material as is available on the medical/sensory, psychological and neurophysiolo:_ca]
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-007QJR0007001100I1-2
material; independent judging results on the COB screening tests; 'clean' (i.e.,
safeguarded) lab RV experiments; succinct statements of whe
th
re
ey stand with
SG11 respect to anal sis of the raw data; whatever useful theorizing/hypotheses they
(and/or can present--couched, if they wish, in terms of possible
follow-on activity. We should talk to OTS soon about drawing up a definitive
guest-list for the presentation.
12. Other Material. A copy of the latest Progress Report is attached--
with a few last minute medical raw data sheets inserted. In addition, there
are (not attached but available): casette, photos & drawings of two RV experi-
ments by Subj # 4; and a series of SRI documents relating to the Nature
article.
13. Social. and I spent 5 or 6 six hours durin
14. In Conclusion. I'm impressed by the intensity of their motivation
and by the quantity of work they have done--but a bit distressed by the lack of
discipline with respect to procedures and exploitation of data. It may be that
this is an inevitable (however unpalatable) trade-off for having a pair of such
eager, hard-working and imaginative investigators in such an exotic field. There
is no doubt that both are very intensely and emotionally wrapped-up in their
work, are wholly convinced of the existence of the psychic phenomena they are
investigating and equally convinced that they can harnass it in time. I cannot
honestly judge the degree to which their objectivity suffers as a consequence--
or the degree to which any postulated loss of objectivity biases the outcome
of their work. For what its worth, I am personally convinced that neither are
engaging in conscious cheating--but the very intensity of their involvement
does, it seems to me, elevate the possibility of unconscious cueing. Let me
hasten to add that I have absolutely no evidence of the latter, either; it is
simply a possibility which, given the dynamics of the entire situation, it
would be irresponsible not to recognize. On the other hand, at the risk of
damaging myowneredib~lity,sI must_adm t that the weight of the evidence
-(awever-at`~ted-por{ionsmight } leaves me on balance more persuaded
than not of some psychic functioning--although I'm less confident that we now
have either the tools to measure it or the capacity to conceptualize or model
it. Empirically, nonetheless, I can see operational uses if certain of the
alleged gifts can be demonstrated under optimum controls and if measures in
support of confidence-level indicators can be devised.
/)a,.
4' GGf-" r! L LC_~f
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2