PROCEEDINGS LETTERS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001100010003-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: August 1, 1976
• Content Type: RP

PROCEED1NQC ppf d For Release 2000/178/07: CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100010003.7 .,
dissertation, ETS. Ing Telecomunicacion, Madrid, 1973.
S. Yoshizawa, "Some properties of randomly connected networks
of neuron-like elements with refractory period," Kybernerik, vol.
16, PP. 173-182, 1974.
S. Amari, "A method of statistical neurodynamics," Kybernetik,'
vol. 14, pp. 201-215, 1974. .
Comments on "A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical
Perspective and Recent Research"
LEON D. HARMON
There are many ways in which to comment upon the above paper,1 I
imagine that PROCEEDINGS readers will provide a fine variety of feed-
back. My own reaction, however, is very simple.
If one takes the trouble to categorize roughly the contents of this
ramble, the sequence looks like this:
1) Introduction
2) Informal anecdotal assertions
3) Historical background
4) Main study: Introduction, procedures,
controls
5) Results, gratuitous editorial comments,
anecdotal procedure citation
6) Informal presentations and discussions
of further experiments
7) Analysis
8) Raw data transcript
9) Bibliography
Number of
Pages
3
W
5
2r
10
3
1
It
T
The central issue in a deeply controversial and highly suspect topic
such as telepathy, clairvoyance, time reversal, etc., is whether one is
prepared to accept as true what is offered in evidence. Notice that in
the rough categorization of the article's contents, above, only three-
quarters of one page (p. 335) in a 26 page paper is concerned with the
critical issue of rigorous experimental protocols and controls. And
much of that slim section is cursory and anecdotal.
We can keep our eyes on the ball by examining solely the relevant
three paragraphs on page 335 of the.Puthoff and Targ paper (par. 3,
4, 5). All the rest-background, anecdotes, drawings, discussion, and
other (less formal) experiments, delightful as they may be-can be set
aside while we peer closely at what must ultimately supply reasonable
satisfaction regarding credibility.
The signal-to-noise ratio of this article improves markedly when
26 pages of meander are replaced by three paragraphs of explicit rela-
tively formal description of experimental procedure.
We are told the following.
1) The experiment was double blind.
2) The "transmission" experimenters were given "target" locations
and proceeded to the target while the "reception" experimenter
was kept ignorant of the target.
3) Experimenters were with the "transmitting" subject at all times
during the "transmission."
4) An experimenter was with the "receiving" subject at all times
during data taking.
The entire business now hinges on the reader's accepting on faith that
no information was transmitted conventionally at any time from, say,
the transmission experimenters to the receiving experimenter or to the
subject. ? But no controls are cited; no safeguards are described; no
neutral watchdogs are mentioned.
Manuscript received March 15, 1976.
The author is with the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.
'H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. IEEE, vol. 64, pp. 329-354, Mar.
1976.
Further, this was not a true double-blind experiment as claimed,
since at least one of the researchers had a priori knowledge of the pre-
sumed occult data. We are asked to believe that no conceivable com-
munication channel existed between "transmitter" and "receiver"
other than by some exotic attenuationless seemingly magical informa-
tion propagation.
I feel certain that your readers can conceive of many possible alter-
native conventional channels. Both electronics engineers and magicians, .
for example, will be at no loss to suggest many.
It is comforting to know that the Editor and Reviewers of the
PROCEEDINGS recommended publication of this preposterous ma-
terial. At least they are open-minded-which is a good thing. But
then, too much open-mindedness is a hole in the head.
Reply2 by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ3
We would like to comment on the points raised in Harmon's letter in
response to our article.
In his introductory remarks, Harmon makes a reference to "less for-
mal" experiments. It is important to state at the outset that there were
no such experiments. In every experimental series, from the Costa Rica
pilot study to the verification study with visiting government scientists,
and resolution study with technology targets, a rigid formal protocol
was followed. This required that the experimenter with the subject
always be kept ignorant of the chosen target and that the analysis
(judging) of the experiment be done in a blind fashion by an individual
who did not know which response was associated with which target.
Harmon suggests that the reader. of our paper must accept on faith
that there was no conventional communication channel from the target
site to the subject, since "no controls are cited, no safeguards are de-
scribed, no neutral watchdogs are mentioned." In fact, if Harmon will
examine p. 335, he will find that the entire experiment had multiple
controls, safeguards, and watchdogs every step along the way.
With regard to control over target selection at the beginning of the
experiment:
Before the experimental series began, the Director of the In-
formation Science and Engineering Division, not otherwise
associated with the experiment, established the set of locations
as the target pool which remained known only to him. The
target locations were printed on cards sealed in envelopes and
kept in the SRI Division office safe. They were available only
with the personal assistance of the Division Director who issued
a single random-number selected target card that constituted
the traveling orders for that experiment .... The experimenter
remaining with the subject at SRI was kept ignorant of both the
particular target and the target pool so as to eliminate the
possibility of cueing, overt or subliminal ....
When it came to the departure of the target- team, an experimenter
plus one to three "watchdogs" assigned by SRI management were
handed the travel orders, left SRI, got into an automobile, opened the
orders, and then proceeded to the site indicated. As stated in the
paper, "The target demarcation team, consisting of two to four SRI
experimenters, then proceeded by automobile directly to the target
without any communication with the subject or experimenter remain-
ing behind." We find it remarkable for Harmon to read that the target
demarcation team consisted of two to four experimenters, and yet
argue that perhaps they were not vigilant with regard to the possibility
that one of their members might try to communicate back to the sub-
ject. In addition, numerous of these experiments were observed by
visiting government scientists, outside consultants, SRI management,
etc. The roles of the two main experimenters were often reversed as to
who remained with the subject and who accompanied the outbound
team. The composition of the outbound team was changed, and many
times did not include either of the main experimenters. In short, as
stated on p. 335:
At all times, we and others responsible for the overall program
took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing
and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional.
To ensure evaluations independent of belief structures of both
experimenters and judges, all experiments were carried out under
a protocol ... in which target selection at the beginning of ex-
2 Manuscript received April 9, 1976.
3H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ are with The Electronics and Bioengineer.
ing Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100010003-7
 12b0 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100%K2
571hvS OF THE IEEE, AUGUST 1976
periments and blind judging of results at the end of experiments
were handled Independently of the researchers engaged in carry-
ing out the experiments.
Harmon goes on to comment that "this was not a true double-blind
experiment as claimed, since at least one of the researchers had a priori
knowledge of the presumed occult data." This is In error. Neither the
experimenter with the subject nor the judge who evaluated the data,
the two individuals in principle capable of affecting the outcome, had
any knowledge of the true correspondences, and thus the experiment
was double blind. The fact that experimenters sent to the target site
knew where they were is Irrelevant, since they did not have any oppor-
tunity to Interact with subjects or judges.
With regard to the mechanisms involved in remote viewing, Harmon
states, "We are asked to believe that no conceivable communication
channel existed between `transmitter' and'teceiver' other than by some
exotic attenuationless seemingly magical information propagation."
We wish to indicate to Harmon that the two mechanisms discussed by
the authors, extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic propaga-
tion and quantum correlation, though they may seem exotic and mag-
ical to him, are well understood phenomena in the engineering and
scientific community, both theoretically and experimentally.
Finally, as we indicated in some detail on'pp. 340-343, the watchdog
aspect was carried to the extreme, by having visiting government scien-
tists who were interested in observing our experimental protocols be
subjects themselves in an effort to detect whether chicanery was in-
volved. In the process of trying to account for their own good results
on the basis of other than paranormal functioning, they expressed con-
cern that perhaps the experimenter might be cueing them subliminally.
This was countered by eliminating the inbound experimenter and hav-
ing the visitor remain alone in the lab throughout the duration of the
experiment. They then conjectured that perhaps after the experiment
they were being taken to a place that sounded like their description,
even though that may not have been the place where the outbound
experimenters had gone. This was countered by having the outbound
experimenters make a tape while at the site and turning it over to the
subject-critic at the same time that he turned over his own tape de-
scribing the remote scene. In such fashion every criticism was met.
Thus, although Harmon suggests that "both electronics engineers and
magicians" will be at no loss to suggest many possible alternative con-
ventional channels, we find that, to the contrary, both electronics
engineers and professional magicians, who have consulted on this
project have in fact not found any viable alternative to fault the SRI
experiments. We therefore consider it important to continue data
collection and to encourage others to do likewise.
Further Comments4 by Leon D. Harmon
I was delighted to see the nature of Puthoff and Targ's response to
my letter. The only rebuttal needed is to invite the reader to examine
the article and both letters with care and then to judge whether or not
my criticisms were responded to.
A similar example of nonresponsive obfuscation by these gentlemen
can be found on pages 6 and 8 of Scientific American for February
1976.
I tried on two separate occasions to get permission from them to visit
and see for myself, preferably with a neutral but hard-nosed observa-
tion team of my choice. The requests were met with point-blank re-
fuel. Tch!
Further Reply5 by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ
We agree with Harmon that it is very desirable that interested readers
-examine with care the article and letters to which he refers, and come
to their own conclusions with regard to the points he raises.
We understand Harmon's desire to visit SRI to "see for himself' ex-
periments in progress. As we are sure Harmon can appreciate, he is one
of more than fifty who have made similar requests in the past year. We
have therefore out of necessity limited such observation to contract
monitors and their consultants, potential sponsors, and researchers in-
volved in serious attempts at replication of our work.
4 Manuscript received April 15, 1976.
' Manuscript received April 21, 1976.
If Harmon is genuinely interested in determining whether the expeli.
ment works as reported, we would suggest that he try the experiment
himself under his own conditions as many others have done. Such inde.
pendent observations are much to be preferred, if for no other reason
than on the issue that an experiment that is not replicablc from lab to
lab would be more of an art than a science. However, as we have in-
dicated in our response to Harmon's first letter, it Is the robustness and
independence of environment or subject that characterizes this particu-
lar experiment. Therefore, although a demonstration at SRI would be
satisfying to Mr. Harmon and to those who know and trust him, we
think it would be a mistake for the field. That kind of experiment is
basically to provide testimony, but science goes forward on the basis of
independent experimentation and replication, not testimony.
Adaptive Monopulse Beamforming
LLOYD J. GRIFFITHS
Abrtmct-A new receive array adaptive beamformer configuration is
presented. The array output signal consists of the difference between a
conventionally weighted beam and an adaptive beam that is constrained
to have a spatial null in the direction of interest. Adaptation then pro-
vides minimum total array output power.
Adaptive receiving arrays have been extensively discussed in the
literature fl)-[4) and have been shown to provide significant interfer-
ence rejection properties. In most of these systems, the arrival direc-
tion and/or temporal properties of the signal of interest are assumed to
be known a priori. If the specification of these properties is inaccurate,
the actual desired signal may be treated as interference by the adaptive
beamformer and thus may be rejected to some degree by the processor.
For this reason, practical adaptive beamformers are generally operated
in parallel with a conventionally formed array output which has fixed
prespecified mainlobe and sidelobe characteristics. Comparisons be-
tween the adapted and conventional outputs can then be conducted to
ensure that the desired signal-to-noise and interference ratio is indeed
being enhanced by the adaptive beamformer.
The array processor suggested in this letter incorporates a conven-
tionally weighted beam as an integral part of the total. beainforming
structure, as depicted in Fig. I. In this figure, Z is used to denote the
K-dimensional vector of received array-element signals and G is a fixed
prefilter, which ensures that the system is steered in the direction of
interest. Thus G is either a set of bulk time delays (for broad-band sys-
tems) or a network of phase shifters (for narrow-band arrays), which
ensures that the desired signal portion of the K-dimensional vector Xis
in phase at all components. Equivalently, for a digital beamformer,
X (k) = s (k)1 + N(k) (1)
where s(k) is the kth sample of the desired signal, 1 is a constant vector
of ones, and N(k) is the sampled vector of noise and interference terms.
The adapted beam output signal yA(k) is formed using a system of
tapped delay lines, one for each received component, as discussed in
[1j-[3]. For a system with L taps per delay line, yq(k) may be ex-
pressed as
L-1
YA(k) _ XT(k - 1) WAI(k) (2)
1-0
where T denotes transpose and WA,(k) is the lth column of delay-line
coefficients employed at the kth sampling instant. A conventional out-
put yC(k) is formed using a vector of fixed coefficients WC, which are
applied to the input data after a suitable delay, corresponding to the
midpoint of the delay lines in the adaptive processor. Thus
Yc(k) = XT(k - n) WC (3)
where n = (L - 1)/2 when L is odd and n - L/2 or (L/2) - 1 when L is
even.
Manuscript received January 19, 1976.
The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, CO 60302.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100010003-7