ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 77
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 22, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 1, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

L I
prove For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
Final Technical Report December 1986
Covering the Period 1 July 1986 to 15 November 1986
E~~
1 r111~ ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE
INVESTIGATION
PETER J. McNELIS, DSW
CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE
EDWIN C. MAY, Ph.D.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
By:
ROBERT S. LEONARD, Executive Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
ed For RellfseR2000/08/10 : CIA-R[ 96-W7
9 QQ38004198 1 U.S.A.
avenswood Avenue enlo rk a i ornia
[phone] Cable: SRI INTL MPK ? TWX: 910-373-2046
 Approved For Release 2000/YA etxs WfM3800410001-5
(U) TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION ................................................... .1
A. Overview ...................................................... 1
B. Definitions .................................................... 1
C. Program Scope ................................................. 1
D. Program Objectives ............................................. 2
E. Program Resources .............................................. 2
II PROGRESS TO DATE ............................................... 5
A. Status of Subcontracts ........................................... 5
B. Progress to Date for Each Objective/Task ........................... 6
III PROBLEM AREAS ................................................. 25
IV ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS ..................................... 27
V PROJECT MILESTONE CHART ...................................... 29
VI COST SUMMARY .................................................. 31
REFERENCES ............................................................... 35
APPENDIX A--A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE .................................................. 37
APPENDIX B--SINGLE a-PARTICLE EXPERIMENTAL HARDWARE .............. 75
Approved For Release 2000/ ANUAS U6 3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/tIF4:ift~Dtlt#-I iQ03800410001-5
(U) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES
TABLES
1 Status of Subcontracts for FY 1986 ......................................... 6
2 Enhanced Human Performance Investigation--FY 1986 ....................... 29
3 Financial Summary for Each Task .......................................... 32
4 Total Project .......................................................... 33
5 Cost Details ........................................................... 33
APPENDIX B--FIGURES
B-1 Conceptual Configuration of an a-Particle Experiment ........................ 77
B-2 Single a-Particle RA Apparatus ........................................... 78
B-3 Hardware System for Single a-particle RA Experiment ........................ 79
B-4 Detail of Detector Signal Output, Radioactive Source and Position
Sensitive Detector ...................................................... 82
Approved For Release 2000U N G WITI 3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
I INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the requirements set forth under the program, "Enhanced
Human Performance Investigations" (Contract No. DAMD17-85-C-5130), this document
provides a progress update for work performed by SRI International and its subcontractors
during Fiscal Year 1986. The aim of the five-year program (FY 1986-1990) is to provide
research and development in the area of psychoenergetics as a means to enhance human
performance
Psychoenergetic phenomena are defined here as direct interactions between human
consciousness and the environment, which, although the mechanism is unexplained, can be
observed and recorded. These human capabilities fall into two main categories: (1) the
acquisition of information, and (2) the production of physical effects. These can be further
defined as
? Remote Viewing (RV) /Extrasensory Perception (ESP)--The ability to
gain access, by mental means alone, to concealed data or remote sites.
? Remote Action (RA)/Psychokinesis (PK)--The ability to influence, by
mental means alone, physical or biological systems.
C. Program Scope
The program is designed to provide the necessary foundation to assess various
aspects of psychoenergetics having the The program is highly diverse
and interdisciplinary; it spans many fields and involves academic and research facilities,
subcontractors, and consultants. Furthermore, it initiates an in-depth investigation into the
lif. sciences aspects of psychoenergetic phenomena.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
D. Program Objectives
Basically, there are three program objectives: (1) to document that
psychoenergetic phenomena are real and reproducible, (2) to determine the mechanism(s)
underlying these phenomena, and (3) to bring the field of psychoenergetics into the
mainstream of human performance research, by providing a scientific foundation equivalent to
the rest of the performance research field. In the minds of some, there is no doubt that
psychoenergetic phenomena are real and reproducible. In the minds of many others, both
scientific professionals and informed lay persons, this is not the case.
The categories of research interest under consideration form a hierarchy Aging
from basic research on fundamental mechanisms to methodologies for applications, including
? Identifying explanatory mechanisms (e.g., electromagnetic effects,
neurophysiological mechanism's).
? Specifying phenomenological properties (e.g., the effects of distance and
shielding).
? Determining physical, physiological, and psychological correlates (e.g.,
geophysical environment, EEG and GSR measures, and personality
profiling).
? Developing optimal strategies for use in applications (e.g., statistical
averaging).
E. Program Resources
To meet the above objectives, the SRI program is using both in-house and
external expertise. For over a decade, a core group of researchers at SRI has been studying
a wide variety of subjects in psychoenergetics--augmented by access to specialty centers such
as our neurosciences and our microbial genetics laboratories.
Some of the work is being subcontracted to institutions, groups, and consultants
who have a demonstrated track record in this research area. Other subcontractors may have
had no association with this field but, because. of their specific area of expertise, can make
valuable contributions to our program goals. Thus, the widest possible interdisciplinar'
viewpoints are available to the program, and the mixture of resources will ensure that peer
group review and scientific interactions are maximized. Subcontractors and consultants
currently include personnel from Princeton University, Syracuse University, John F. Kennedy
University, the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, MARS Measurements Associates, the Parapsychology
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
(U)
Sources of Information Center, Mind Science Foundation, the University of Delaware, plus
other consultants having expertise in specific areas of interest to the program.
Approved For Release 2000/ttNCI S-F 3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200q/glL'V1-fAPt!;fVI (0003800410001-5
II PROGRESS TO DATE (U)
(U) For this reporting period, our primary progress was made in the areas of pilot and
formal experimentation.
(U) Table 1 shows the current status of the subcontracts for FY 1986. For
administrative purposes, it was convenient to use a number of different types of contractual
agreements:
? Purchase Order--Agreement for nonresearch oriented deliverables.
? Consultant--Agreement for a single individual within a large
organization.
? Services Contract--Agreement for contracts having total funding of less
than $100K.
? Full Subcontract--Agreement for contracts having total funding of
greater than $100K.
Approved For Release 20MNC R 04ER003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Table 1
(U) STATUS OF SUBCONTRACTS FOR FY 1986
Obj
Task
Institution
Subcontract
Type
Funding
per Year
Human
Use
Contract
Awarded
Technical
Monitor
A
3
Princeton
Purchase
$22 K
no
8-Jan-86
May
E
4
University
Order
A
3a
PRL
Services
$16 K
no
unknown*
May
Contract
B
1
PSIC
Purchase
$45 K
no
Hubbard
Order
C
1
Palo Alto
Purchase
$109K
yes
5-Nov-85
Thomson
Med. Clinic
Order
C
2
MARS
Purchase
$38 K
no
7-Nov-85
Humphrey
Associates
Order
C
5
Stanford
Consultant
$16 K
yes
7-Feb-86
Lantz
Med. Sch.
Agreement
D
1
Consultants
Purchase
$34 K
no
May
International
Order
E
5
Syracuse
Services
$38?K
yes
24-Jun-86
Hubbard
University
Contract
E
6
Mind Sci.
Services
$16 K
yes
23-Jun-86
Hubbard
Foundation
Contract
E
7
Time Res.
Full
$107K
no
terminated
Hubbard
Institute
Contract
19-May-86
E
8
JFK
Services
$28 K
yes
27-Jun-86
Hubbard
University
Contract
E
9
University
Services
$16 K
yes
19-Jun-86
Humphrey
of Delaware
Contract
* Contract was not awarded due to administrative delays at PRL.
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) The final contracts with Syracuse University, Mind Science Foundation, John F.
Kennedy University, and the University of Delaware were signed and in place as of the end of
the third quarter. The contract with Time Research Institute was terminated as a result of
extensive review of the subcontractor's Statement of Work and qualifications.
B. (U) Progress to Date for Each Objective/Task
(U) The progress to date for each Objective and Task is described below in the order
of its occurrence in the Statement of Work. Financial information for the budgeted and
actual costs for each task has been provided. For those cases in which the cost differences
exceed six percent, a brief explanation is afforded for the cost over- or underrun. A
Approved For Release 2000/43N:CL*,%f Ft 3800410001-5
GIW
 Approved For Release 200Q/Q$[ ~O+U991016003800410001-5
(U)
summary table of the finances and a detailed description of this budget adjustment may be
found in Chapter VI.
1. (U) Objective A, Task 1--Statistical Protocols and Research Design
a. (U) Technical
(U) The Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC) met for the first time on 6
January 1986 to discuss and review the protocols for the proposed experiments for FY 1986.
(U) The primary mission of the SOC is threefold:
? To review (in advance) experimental protocols, and to provide critical
comments where necessary.
? To volunteer to monitor specific experiments in detail. A volunteer will
observe the experiment in progress, determine if the original protocol
specifications are being met, and review the final report as if it were a
journal article.
? To recommend directions for future research.
(U) A total of 17 protocols were submitted for review. The SOC found
that the SRI protocols were in order and, except for one (Objective E, Task 7), the
comments reflected a search for clarification on specific points. The comments for E/7
questioned the proposed approach by one of our subcontractors, Time Research Institute
(TRI). The resolution of the TRI subcontract issue is detailed in Chapter III, Problem Areas.
(U) Of the $37.5K initially budgeted, $34.OK was spent.
2. (U) Objective A, Task 2--A Posteriori Assessments
a. (U) Technical
(U) On 6 and 7 November 1986, SRI reconvened with the SOC for a
year-end review of the FY 1986 program. As a result of these meetings, the SOC provided a
posteriori assessments of the FY 1986 experimental designs and protocols. These assessments
can be found in Appendix A; SRI has appended explanatory commentary to the SOC reviews
where appropriate.
Approved For Release 20CLODEG003800410001-5
 ? Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $37.5K initially budgeted, $9.8K was spent. A posteriori
assessment was not completed as of 4 October 1986. Therefore, this task was underspent.
3. (U) Objective A, Task 3--Host RV Analysis Conference
a. (U) Technical
(U) On 26 September 1986, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University hosted an RV analysis conference. Two
SRI staff attended the. conference. We exchanged information about the difficult RV analysis
question in general. Specifically, we were given a descriptor list and scoring algorithm for
their current system, FIDO. FIDO will allow an analyst to give partial credit to a target or
response element. After examining the FIDO material, we concluded that our fuzzy set
technology accomplished that same objective, and was broader in scope. Thus, we have
rejected the PEAR RV analysis technology at this time.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $11.0K initially budgeted, $10.8K was spent.
4. (U) Objective A, Task 4--Improve RV Evaluation'*
a. (U) Technical
(U) The FY 1986 evaluation effort has resulted in (1) refinement and
extension of current techniques, and (2) identification of new technologies that will be
candidates for preliminary research.
(U) The mathematical formalism for the current evaluation procedure--the
figure of merit analysis--is well understood and stable. In essence, it is a simplified
automated procedure for the analysis of free-response material. As in earlier similar
procedures, the target and response materials are coded as yes/no answers to a set of
questions (descriptors). By definition, this coding defines the complete target and response
information. The accuracy of the response is defined as the percent of the target material
that is correctly described (i.e., the number of correct response bits divided by the total
*
(U) In-depth discussions of specific tasks can be obtained in their respective 4th Quarter FY 1986 final and/or
interim technical reports, which are numerically annotated in each subsection heading, and are listed at the
end of this document.
Approved For Release 2000/9 NCL-4&SIyf 1D3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2009/9> iw..;_JWVf pitUO3800410001-5
N-C A5
(U)
number of target bits = 1). The reliability of the response is defined as the percent of the
response that is correct (i.e., the number of correct response bits divided by the total number
of response bits = 1). The figure of merit is the product of the accuracy and reliability.
(U) The advantages and weaknesses of the figure of merit system have
been identified and have been discussed (along with examples) in the FY 1986 final report for
this task. One of the system's primary advantages is its ability to provide a mechanism for
systematic examination of inter-analyst reliability factors, in addition to providing a reasonable
assessment of remote viewing data. Mean chance expectations (MCE) have been calculated
for the figure of merit, and recommendations have been made to extend current techniques
and to explore new technologies in FY 1987.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $189.0K initially budgeted, $194.7K was spent.
5. (U) Objective B, Task 1--Resource Library2
a. (U) Technical
(U) The Parapsychology Sources of Information Center (PSIC--Rhea A.
White, Director) has just completed the first year of a multiyear effort intended to provide
and maintain an extensive data-base facility for parapsychological literature. During this first
year, PSIC purchased the necessary hardware and software and implemented the first working
version of the data base. In addition, the PSIC has entered approximately sixteen years of
abstracts for each of the major parapsychological journals, ending with the current issue. The
overall goal is to eventually include abstracts of bibliographic information of the entire
literature of parapsychology in the data-base. Although the core of the data base will consist
of English-language parapsychological journals, it will also include books, chapters,
dissertations and theses, separate reports, and conference proceedings. Additionally, the data
base will include abstracts (in English) of parapsychological literature not originally written in
English, as well as articles on parapsychology in the journals of other disciplines (e.g.,
psychology, psychiatry, physics).
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $45.OK initially budgeted, $44.7K was spent.
Approved For Release 20tUNK-I &SI 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
6. (U) Objective C, Task 1--Health Assessments
a. (U) Technical
(U) Those individuals who have been selected (from the larger subject
pool) to participate in experiments have been asked to undergo a medical examination to
include
? Height, weight, pulse, and blood pressure
? Blood analysis to include
- Hgb or Hct
- Urea nitrogen
- Sugar
? Urinalysis for albumin or sugar.
(U) Scheduling of medical examinations for experiment participants
commenced during the third quarter, and eleven individuals have undergone examinations as
of the close of FY 1986.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $118.9K initially budgeted, $55.6K was reprogrammed to
Objective E, Task 8. Thus, $58.3K was budgeted and $52.5K was spent. The original budget
assumed that all 100 potential participants in the project would be required to have a medical
exam. Later, it was decided that only the actual participants need take the exam.
7. (U) Objective C, Task 2--Personality Assessment3
a. (U) Technical
(U) In the continuation of a promising FY 1984 effort, the development of
remote viewing (RV) subject selection criteria has continued to center, primarily, on
performance-based psychological testing, and secondarily on the use of self-report
instruments. The particular performance battery that was used both in this study and in the
earlier FY 1984 study is the Personality Assessment System (PAS). The PAS provides a
comprehensive interpretive framework for profiles of subtest performances that have been
generated by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS). The principal self-report test
under examination was the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
Approved For Release 2000/CU''N EtAFS 0800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200q/QNt. C Pt1;f fl~8Dp03800410001-5
(U) A subject pool of 95 candidates, who completed the PAS and the
self-report tests, was created by the end of FY 1986. On the basis of hypotheses formed
from the previous FY 1984 effort, nine participants were selected from the pool of new
candidates for inclusion in SRI's novice RV training group. A protocol was established to
maintain SRI control over subject anonymity, and to ensure that all participants involved in
the PAS/self-report testbed remained blind to the predictive criteria.
(U) At the conclusion of the FY 1986 novice training program, the
predictive ability of the PAS was assessed. Results indicate that the PAS provided a
conceptual replication of the earlier FY 1984 PAS effort: i.e., in the earlier study, the PAS
was used successfully to predict the top performer out of each of three different training
groups; in FY 1986, the PAS was used effectively to predict two out of the top three
performers in a single training group.
(U) Of the $38.OK initially budgeted, $38.4K was spent.
8. (U) Objective C, Task 3--Screen for RV Subjects
a. (U) Technical
(U) In conjunction with Task 2 above, MARS Measurement Associates has
completed the PAS analysis of approximately 95 individuals. To maintain experimental
protocol, it is necessary that SRI personnel remain uninformed as to the details of this
analysis.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $50.OK initially budgeted, $53.4K was spent, which resulted in
an over-expenditure of $3.4K. Start-up costs were slightly larger than expected, and we had
anticipated (based upon past experience) that some of the participants would not charge their
time to project during their exams. The latter assumption was not true. Thus, the slight
overrun.
9. (U) Objective C, Task 4 (now Objective A, Task 3a) Meta-analysis
(U) Not applicable.
Approved For Release 20JJcU . 1S.$18FoL 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
b. (U) Financial
(U) The contract was not awarded because of administrative problems at
the Psychophysical Research Laboratories. Of the original $16.0K budgeted for this task,
$8.OK will be carried forward to FY 1987. The remaining $8.OK was used to cover
unscheduled administration costs.
10. (U) Objective C, Task 5--Neuropsychological Assessment4
(U) One of the long-term goals of the neuropsychological assessment
project, should we be able to demonstrate reliable and consistent psychoenergetic functioning,
is to assess the role of brain mechanisms and processes in the mediation of psychoenergetic
output. As a beginning effort in this direction, a neuropsychologist, Dr. Ralph Kiernan, was
contracted on a consulting basis to (1) review the Personality Assessment System (PAS) data,
and (2) based on patterns found in these data,' develop specific hypotheses that could be
tested with a series of neuropsychological tests. His efforts resulted in a critique of the PAS
as personality measure, a theory of psychoenergetic function involving the frontal lobes, and a
battery of tests to examine positive frontal function as correlated with significant
psychoenergetic functioning.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $16.0K initially budgeted, $12.2K was spent resulting in an
underexpenditure of $3.8K. Dr. Kiernan did not require as much time as he originally
estimated to fulfill the requirements for this task.
11. (U) Objective D, Task 1--Develop RV Training Protocols5
a. (U) Technical
(U) At SRI, the apparent ability of certain individuals to provide correct
descriptive information of concealed photographs or remote sites has been designated Remote
Viewing (RV). While latent ability and motivation undoubtedly play a significant role, certain
accomplished remote viewers have claimed that RV can be taught and learned to varying
degrees. In FY 1986, SRI awarded a subcontract to Consultants International (CI) for the
purpose of providing a detailed report by an expert viewer of the subjective experiences
associated with RV. The goal of CI's report was to suggest procedures that might evolve into
a testable training methodology. SRI furnished an additional report to present, in abbreviated
Approved For Release 2000/UN:?IL- f PI M3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200p1pNCEAWREV003800410001-5
(U)
form, the basic principles and techniques that CI proposed. For the purpose of testing the
value of these ideas as a training methodology, two key concepts have emerged. These two
concepts are that: (1) a perceptual "window" or "channel" to RV data may be briefly opened
on demand through proper application of a stimulus-response type technique, and (2) once
access to the target has been established, correct impressions are fleeting, vague, and generally
indistinct in outline; this information is captured as "bits" of data, which are said to have a
symbolic character.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $34.OK initially budgeted, $33.7K was spent.
12. (U) Objective D, Task 2--Test and Develop RV Training Protocols
a. (U) Technical
i. (U) Novice RV Training
(U) In FY 1986, SRI began a novice RV training program, using nine
individuals selected by psychological profiling and a training technology based on the two
concepts outlined under Task D-1 above. The results of this experiment will be reported at
the end of the first quarter of FY 1987.
ii. (U) Advanced RV Training
(U) Two experienced remote viewers (Number 009 and Number 342),
who have been responsible for helping to formulate advanced training directions, were
formally calibrated during FY 1986. Viewer 00.9 was tested in an experimental series
involving National Geographic Magazine targets; Viewer 342 was calibrated in a series using
outbound sites in the San Francisco Bay Area. Both percipients demonstrated strong,
statistically significant evidence of functioning.
(U) In the advanced training program, hypothesis formulation and
testing is currently underway in conjunction with Consultants International. Three out of four
advanced training participants produced statistically significant RV results in an experiment
designed to test whether production of photons occurs concomitantly with successful RV (see
13,a.i. below).
(U) Of the $377.OK initially budgeted, $388.2K was spent.
-AP91;'0I 9R003800410001-5
Approved For Release 200>1%08/10"*
 ? Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
13. (U) Objective E, Task 1--Fundamentals
a. (U) Technical
(U) The two experiments under Fundamentals that were approved by the
SRI Human Use Review Board (HURB) involve (1) a replication of an FY 1984 study
claiming weak correlation between RV figure of merit and the noise emanating from a
photomultiplier,4 and (2) a study of dependency of RV quality upon feedback parameters.
The instrumentation necessary for both experiments has been installed in newly acquired
laboratory space. Final reports detailing the results of both experiments will be delivered at
the end of 3rd Quarter FY 1987.
i. (U) Photomultiplier Experiments
(U) We conducted a replication of work published in FY 1984 in
which we experimentally examined the possibility that light is emitted in the vicinity of
correctly identified remote viewing (RV) target material. In that earlier experiment, a
state-of-the-art, ambient temperature, photon counting system was used to monitor the target
material (35-mm slides of National Geographic Magazine photographs). The statistical
measure derived from the photon counting apparatus in that study showed a significant
positive correlation with the RV results (p S 0.035). That is, when the remote viewing was
good, there was an increase in the signal detected by the photon counting system. In
addition, we observed two anomalous pulses having a signal-to-noise ratio of about 20-40:1.
(U) In the FY 1986 experiment, we improved all hardware aspects of
the previous work, substantially reducing the background noise level, and improving shielding
against artifact. In addition, analysis of the remote viewing indicates that three out of the four
viewers produced independently significant results. If the probability of success is p { 0.05,.
the binomial probability of obtaining three out of four successful results by chance is p <
0.00048. These RV results are substantially better than those achieved in the FY 1984 study.
At this time, we have not completed the detailed statistical analysis comparing the
photomultiplier tube (PMT) output with the RV results. However, all data collection is
complete and visual inspection of the RV trials does not reveal any large anomalous pulses.
Our preliminary conclusion is that the anomalies observed earlier were the result of transients
in the experimental apparatus arising from normal sources.
ii. (U) Feedback Dependency Experiment?
(U) The issue of information source in a correct remote viewing (RV)
response has practical implications for experimental protocols as well as for defining the
Approved For Release 2000/ ~C4 AISS(F1!D3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/0$~l~!~EAMR Sffi-8QR003800410001-5
(U)
mechanism involved. In an attempt to partially address the issue of information source, we
designed an experiment to examine the role of feedback in an RV experiment.
(U) For purposes of learning, immediate feedback (in the form of.
pictorial representations of target material) has become a standard part of our RV protocol.
We wish to determine the degree to which the quality of an RV response is a function of the
magnitude of feedback.
(U) Four calibrated remote viewers will receive tachistoscopically
delivered feedback of target pictures at varying intensity levels. Figure of merit analysis of RV
data will be correlated with the intensity level of the feedback.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $252.0K initially budgeted, $265.9K was spent. The 5.5%
overrun on this project is because of minor additional administration costs and unforeseen
task start-up costs.
14. (U) Objective E, Task 2--Search8
a. (U) Technical
(U) One reported psychoenergetic skill, known to the general public as
"dowsing," is the ability to locate lost or hidden items of interest. In an effort to bring this
putative ability that we call "search" into the laboratory, we conducted a
computer-assisted-search (CAS) experiment. Participants scanned a computer graphics
display and attempted to locate a hidden computer-generated target. We explored two
conditions: (1) the target was fixed in space--space condition, and (2) the target was
randomly shifting locations each millisecond--time condition. Eight of 36 participants showed
above chance ability (p < 0.027) to find computer-generated targets in our laboratory
simulation of dowsing ability. This replicates and extends the results of work done in FY
1984, and provides a pool of individuals for a formal study of search techniques. A final
report detailing advances in search technology will be delivered at the end of the 3rd Quarter
FY 1987.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $252.OK initially budgeted, $263.2K was spent. The 4.4%
overrun on this project is because of minor additional administration costs and unforeseen
task start-up costs.
Approved For Release 20M NK ARd J?F=003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
15. (U) Objective E, Task 3--Pseudorandom Number Generators (PRNG)9
a. (U) Technical
(U) The hypothesis under test with the pseudorandom number generator
(PRNG) experiment is whether individuals are able to make a decision (and subsequently act
upon it) based upon information available only at a future time. We have developed a
model, called Intuitive Data Sorting (IDS), that might account for such an ability. The
particular mathematical formulation of the IDS model applied to PRNG experiments contains
a specific prediction: the z-score distribution derived from the PRNG data will possess a
variance significantly greater than one. A secondary consideration is to determine whether the
variance contains a sequence length dependency. We accomplish this by varying the sequence
length resulting from a single press of a button.
(U) In 1985, Radin and May* reported pilot results for two participants
(Number 105 and Number 531) who were selected on the basis of past successful
performance in PRNG experiments. In the 1985 pilot experiment, participants 531 and 105
contributed 500 and 298 trials respectively. The analysis showed that neither of the
participants produced sequence length dependencies different from MCE (i.e., a slope of
-0.5). However, the analysis revealed that both individuals showed independently significant
evidence for IDS (i.e,. the intercepts were significantly above MCE at the p < 0.005 level for
each participant). Thus, our tentative conclusion from these data is that IDS appears
possible, at least with these two participants.
(U) During the FY 1986 program, we conducted the experiment in two
phases: a screening phase and an experiment phase. For the screening phase, we asked 20
individuals to contribute 100 trials each under the protocol described above. All but four of
them completed this task. For availability reasons, the remaining participants contributed
varying numbers of trials (less than 100). We had decided to select seven individuals from
within the pilot group to participate in a formal PRNG IDS experiment. The criterion for
being included in the formal group was that the participant had to produce a significant
increase above MCE of the variance of the z-score distribution over 100 trials (the MCE
variance = 1.0).
* (U) Radin, D. I., and May, E. C., "Testing the Intuitive Data Sorting Model with Pseudorandom Number
Generators: A Proposed Method," Proceedings of the Presented Papers of the 29th Annual
Parapsychological Association Convention, pp. 539-554, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park,
California (August 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 2000/18 NCtAl 1fD3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200('( E1*"03800410001-5
(U) Of the 16 participants who finished the 100 trial series, only one,
Number 531, met the above requirement (variance = 1.37, p < 0.008). The second best
performer, however, produced a variance = 1.21 (p < 0.07). Judging from the 1984 study,
we would not expect to see a significant intercept after only 100 trials, and none were
observed.
(U) While it is particularly interesting that Participant 531 maintains his/her
consistent performance, we felt that we should continue the pilot screening until we are able
to select seven significant participants. Thus, at this point, we have nothing to report for the
formal experiment.
(U) Of the $62.5K initially budgeted, $64.OK was spent.
16. (U) Objective E, Task 4--IDS Test9
a. (U) Technical
(U) We have been in the process of developing a comprehensive model of
psychoenergetic functioning called Intuitive Data Sorting (IDS). Extending purely
philosophical arguments, we derive specific mathematical predictions for the interpretation of
random number generator experiments. In our analysis of an RNG experiment conducted at
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University, we
note that we are consistent with their analysis: while the magnitude of the effects are small,
they are, nonetheless, persistent and statistically robust.
(U) Unfortunately, their data were not collected to provide a specific test
of our IDS model. Thus, the sequence lengths that were chosen and, more importantly, the
number of trials collected at each sequence length, were not optimized for our test. In the
extreme, if all the data were collected at a single sequence length, our IDS analysis would be
completely inappropriate (i.e., the IDS formalism requires testing as a function of sequence
length). To first order, these Princeton data suffer from the same problem. Sixty-five
percent of the total data were collected at a single sequence length (i.e., 2,000), which was
the only sequence length that scored a mean chance expectation. Because the data were not
collected uniformly as a function of sequence length, it is difficult to interpret the results of
analysis. It is, therefore, premature to speculate upon forms of either remote action (RA) or
IDS models that can fit their data.
Approved For Release 200YM :AIUMA 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Of the $11.0K initially budgeted, $10.9K was spent.
17. (U) Objective E, Task 5--RA Effects on RNGs10
a. (U) Technical
(U) In FY 1986, SRI awarded a subcontract to the Communication Studies
Department at Syracuse University for the purpose of determining the effects of distance
between remote action (RA) subjects and random number generators (RNGs) and to
determine subjects' performance differences in influencing RNG's based on fundamentally
different sources of random noise. This subcontract is in part a "joint venture," because SRI
is providing three different RNGs and a computer-controlled communications link to serve as
the "distant" half of the experiment.
(U) Unforeseen delays arose in the subcontracting process, and as a result
the subcontract was not in place until 24 June 1986. These delays were due to questions
regarding the use of human subjects, differences in the cost-accounting procedures of SRI and
Syracuse, a dispute over the publication approval process, and the designation of a new
principal investigator at Syracuse. (Professor Edward Storm has replaced Dr. Robert Morris
who moved to Edinburgh University in January of 1986.) As a consequence of the delayed
start, no experimental data were recorded as of 15 November 1986. However, all of the
specialized hardware and software necessary to generate random numbers from a noise diode,
(3-decay, and a pseudorandom algorithm have been developed and debugged. In addition,
the telecommunications data link software has been written and test data have been
successfully transmitted between SRI and Syracuse. The staff at Syracuse has volunteered to
complete the pilot and confirmation experimental work so that we anticipate receiving a report
on the outcome during FY 1987.
18.
(U)
(U) Of the $38.OK initially budgeted, $37.4K was spent.
Objective E, Task 6--RA Effects on Skin Parameters"
a.
(U) Technical
(U) The Mind Science Foundation (MSF) examined possible remote
action influences on biological systems. This experiment attempted to determine whether an
Approved For Release 2000/UNCtASSIptES3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 20cJfLf4t[AW 003800410001-5
(U)
apparent RA influence on the electrodermal activity of an individual could be explained in
part by intuitive data sorting during the experiment rather than by an actual RA "force." The
results provided evidence for a psi effect in the RA condition (p = 0.019), no evidence for a
psi effect in the IDS condition, and a psi score superiority of the RA over the IDS condition,
which very closely approached significance (p = 0.08, two-tailed).
(U) We note, however, two problems in the experimental procedure that
render these results uninterpretable. One, a rest period whose duration was determined by
the key participant was interposed after each effort period. Because a fundamental difference
in the two conditions was intended to be a fixed versus flexible protocol, the effect of this
variable rest period was to render the RA and IDS conditions indistinguishable when
attempting to interpret the outcome. Second, the order in which the two conditions were
carried out during the experiment was based upon the timing of a computer keyboard carriage
return, which occurred while the experimenter was entering information about the subject. If
we assume the existence of psychic functioning, it is clear from the above procedure that the
experimenter had the first opportunity to "sort" the data. In this way, the experimenter could
have enhanced the probability that the final outcome of the study would conform to his/her
prejudice. In our Recommendation Section," we submit alternative protocols to help alleviate
these difficulties in future experiments.
(U) Of the $16.0K initially budgeted, $15.8K was spent.
19. (U) Objective E, Task 7--Correlates with ELF and Geomagnetic Variables
a. (U) Technical
(U) As a result of extensive analysis of the subcontractor's Statement of Work
and qualifications, the decision was made to terminate Time Research Institute's subcontract.
This termination was effective 19 May 1986. The reasons for termination of this subcontract
are outlined under Chapter III, Problem Areas.
(U) Of the $107.0K initially budgeted, $106.1K was spent. While this
task was halted on 19 May 1986, SRI personnel time was required for the orderly suspension
of activity. Thus, there was not an appreciable savings in cost.
Approved For Release 20U1N LA4 $4FJ(FD003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
20. (U) Objective E, Task 8--RA Effects on Strain Gauges12
a. (U) Technical
(U) Researchers from John F. Kennedy University, under subcontract from
SRI, have provided five participants for a series of remote action experiments conducted at
SRI. Each participant was asked to influence one of a pair of piezoelectric strain gauges,
operating in anticoincidence mode, so as to produce an event above a predetermined
threshold. The threshold was defined as a system output of 25 mV, where 4 mV is the
normal system noise. Altogether, the five participants contributed 20 sessions, each lasting
approximately 90 minutes. The last eight sessions were conducted under the most rigorous
conditions, in which the sensor enclosure was in a locked laboratory adjacent to the
participant's room. At that point, the participant was approximately three meters from the
sensor pair. Under those conditions, one of the participants produced a total of 11 events
above threshold distributed in three separate effort periods over two sessions on different days.
(U) Control trials of up to six hours in length were recorded with no one
present in the experimental room but with normal activity in the rest of the building. No
equivalent, uncorrelated events above threshold were detected in those control periods.
Known sources of artifactual events (electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical, infrared) were
considered, and wherever possible were controlled, minimized, or measured. However, some
potential but unlikely sources of artifact (such as cosmic rays or extremely low-frequency
magnetic fields) were excluded from consideration in this initial series of experiments. The
preliminary and pilot nature of these sessions cannot be stressed too strongly, especially
because all possible sources of artifact have not been excluded. Nonetheless, our conclusion
at this time is that sufficient data have been collected to warrant further investigation.
b. (U) Financial
(U) The $30.6K initially budgeted was later ammended to $78.8K. Of this
amount, $79.9K was spent.
Approved For Release 2000/8 -CL-* tpp 3800410001-5
L; LMF
 Approved For Release 200(UF tia" If9-EDP03800410001-5
21. (U) Objective E, Task 9--RA Effects on Marine Algae13
a. (U) Technical
(U) The College of Marine Studies of the University of Delaware has been
conducting experiments with Dunaliella algae for a number of years. They claim that
individuals are able to cause significant changes in the velocity of single algae cells. SRI
International has formulated a different hypothesis to explain their putative effect--i.e.,
individuals initiate experimental runs at a time during which the algae will naturally swim in
the prescribed fashion. This ability is called Intuitive Data Sorting. The interim technical
report on this experiment contains a historical overview of the effort at the University of
Delaware and a detailed outline of a proposed experimental test of the IDS model.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $16.0K initially budgeted, $16.0K was spent.
22. (U) Objective F, Task 1--Single Particle Hardware
a. (U) Technical
i. (U) Single a-particle Experiment
(U) The 4th Quarter FY 1986 final report detailing the status of the
single cr-particle experiment is included in its entirety as Appendix B.
ii. (U) Single Photon Experiment14
(U) Since the inception of quantum mechanics, there has been a
debate as to whether consciousness plays a part in determining physical reality. We propose
an experiment to examine this question empirically. In a standard, few-photon
Michelson-Morley interference experiment, a quantum effect (i.e., interference) is seen
because of the uncertainty about which path was traversed by the photon. We will modify
this standard interferometer by placing a shutter, controlled by a random event derived from
(3-decay, in each of the two interference paths. When both shutters are open simultaneously
(i.e., equivalent to the standard setup), an interference pattern will be seen at the detector.
If both shutters are closed simultaneously, no light reaches the detector. If a human
Approved For Release 20Q4/087'll?"i$1I LI ! 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/0D~ffxgg1rf800410001-5
(U)
"observer" is watching while one or the other shutter is closed, no interference is seen. E. H.
Walker claims that this is so not because of the apparatus (i.e., the metal shutter stops light),
but rather because the observer knows which path was traversed by the photon.*
(U) We test Walker's hypothesis by asking what happens when one
shutter at a time is open and the observer does not know (and can never learn) which one is
open when. There are two possible results: (1) an interference pattern will be seen, or (2) no
pattern will be seen. If the first case is true, Walker would be correct. The metal shutter
would not be sufficient to determine reality. Because consciousness (i.e., the knowledge
about which shutter was closed) is the only element that was missing, we would conclude that
consciousness is necessary to determine reality. The prevailing opinion in physics, however, is
that consciousness is not necessary, and therefore no interference pattern will be seen.
(U) Of the $60.OK initially budgeted, $59.2K was spent.
23. (U) Objective F, Task 2--Real-Time Computer and RA Hardware
a. (U) Technical
(U) We received the following real-time computer hardware and interface
equipment on or near 15 March 1986:
? Sun Microsystem 3/160 computer including
- 4 Mbytes of main memory
- 1 75-Mbyte disk
- 2 color monitors, keyboards, and mice
- 1 ethernet interface
- 1 GPIB interface for the CAMAC real-time front end.
? CAMAC interface equipment including
- 1 CAMAC crate
- 1 CAMAC GPIB crate controller
- 6-channel, 50-MHz counter
- 16-bit relay-output register
(U) Walker, E. H., Private Communication, (June 1985).
Approved For Release 2000/1jN:CJLA IVP[ED3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000UM IlMP961I 9$003800410001-5
(U)
- 48-bit change-of-state module
- Dataway display
- 8-channel, 12-bit, 100-kHz transient recorder (ADC)
- 32 Kbyte memory
- Programmable clock
- Prototype module.
(U) Since that date, the real-time computer system has been working in a
projection mode by controlling the photomultiplier tube and the tachistoscope experiment.
b. (U) Financial
(U) Of the $85.OK initially budgeted, $90.7K was spent resulting in an
overexpenditure of $4.3K. This overrun was due to unexpected hardware failure.
Approved For Release 200UNCLAS9I
D03800410001-5
rIIC
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
III PROBLEM AREAS (U)
As a result of the SOC comments at the commencement of the FY 1986 program,
substantial criticism was directed toward the Time Research Institute (TRI) subcontract, An
extensive review of TRI's proposed Statement of Work, facilities, techniques, and
qualifications was subsequently carried out by SRI, and three major problem areas were
revealed: (1) tenuous overall scientific justification for pursuing this area of investigation; (2)
inaccurate measurement techniques employed by TRI; and (3) questionable statistical
approaches proposed by TRI for data analysis.
As a result of this review, the decision was made to terminate TRI's subcontract.
This termination was effective 19 May 1986. At the time of the termination, approximately
S25,000 remained in this subcontract. TRI has provided an initial estimate of approximately
$9,800 in termination expenses. According to Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR),
however, TRI has until one year after the termination date to formalize its claims. In
addition, a determination must be made as to the disposition of the equipment purchased by
the subcontractor under the present contract and the one immediately preceding. Therefore,
a final settlement on the TRI subcontract is still pending.
25
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
IV ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS (U)
(U) This section has been included to provide a chronological overview of the
following significant technical and administrative meetings that took place during FY 1986:
? The Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC) met for the first time on 6
January 1986 to discuss and review the protocols for the proposed
experiments for FY 1986.
? A technical meeting was held on 26 February 1986 with C. Honorton
(Psychophysical Research Laboratories) and D. I. Radin (Bell
Laboratories) to discuss technical issues concerning the meta-analysis of
random number generator data.
? Client representatives visited SRI on 12 March 1986 to discuss
administrative and technical issues and to obtain a program status
update.
? SRI personnel met with E. H. Walker (Aberdeen Proving Ground) on 21
March 1986 to discuss the feasibility of implementing Walker's proposed
single-photon experiment.
? SRI personnel attended the Personality Assessment System (PAS) annual
conference that was held in Arlington, Virginia, from 18 to 20 April
1986. The purpose was to obtain an overview of current PAS
applications and to determine the status of PAS acceptance within the
mainstream psychological community.
? A technical meeting was held on 27 June 1986 with consultant J.
Spottiswoode to discuss technical issues concerning the evaluation of RV
data.
? On 25 and 26 September 1986, SRI personnel met with researchers at
the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory for technical
discussions concerning RV evaluation technologies.
? On 6 and 7 November 1986, SRI reconvened with the SOC for a
year-end review of the FY 1986 program. As a result of these meetings,
the SOC provided a posteriori assessments of the FY 1986 experimental
designs and protocols.
Approved For Release 200~~1,* 4 f 4 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/1314:ClLY n fFfW3800410001-5
V PROJECT MILESTONE CHART (U)
(U) The overall project milestone chart for FY 1986 is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
(U) ENHANCED HUMAN PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION--FY 1986
Objective A Task 1
- Protocols: Design Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Objective B - Library Task 1
Objective C
- Psychophysiological Profile
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Objective D Task 1
- Training Task 2
Objective E Task 1
- RV and RA Parameters Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Task 8
Task 9
Objective F Task 1
- Hardware Construction Task 2
M- Begin
Q
Q
Key I--1
End With Deliverable
Deliverable
q
Q
Approved For Release 2000/U/N:CiL#-06906 3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200LCLCJq1J003800410001-5
VI COST SUMMARY (U)
(U) The following is the overall project cost summary that was referenced in Chapter
I, Introduction.
(U) Table 3 shows a cost summary on a task-by-task basis. The amount budgeted in
the SOW for each Objective/Task was divided into project and administrative costs. The
amount spent is shown as project and administrative costs also. The totals and percent
differences are shown in the last two columns respectively. Any significant difference is
explained under the appropriate Objective/Task heading in Chapter II.
(U) Total project expenditures are detailed in Table 4. These funds reflect expended
funds, but do not include committed, but unspent, funds. The data in Table 3, however,
include committed funds.
(U) The project total expenditure for FY 1986 was within $500 of the budgeted
amount of $1,887.5K.
Approved For Release 200U/Q8T1~:~1A-F~DPl6-107R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR EACH TASK
Budgeted ($K)
Spent ($K)
Ojective/Task
SOW
Project
Admin.
Project
Admin.
Total
% Diff.
A 1
37.5
35,0
2.5
31.4
2.6
34.0
9.3
A 2
37.5
30.0
7.5
1.8
8.0
9.8
73.9
A 3
11.0
12.0
-1.0
121.8
-1.0
10.8
1.8
A 4
189.0
143.0
46.0
145.7
49.0
194.7
-3.0
B 1
45.0
49.1
-4.1
48.8
-4.1
44.7
0.7
C 1
58.3
63.9
-5.6
58.1
-5.6
52.5
9.9
C 2
38.0
41.5
-3.5
41.9
-3.5
38.4
-1.1
C 3
50.0
37.0
13.0
39.6
13.8
53.4
-6.8
C 4
16.0
17.5
-1.5
8.0
-1.5
6.5
59.4
C 5
16.0
17.5
-1.5
13.7
-1.5
12.2
23.8
D 1
34.0
37.1
-3.1
36.8
-3.1
33.7
0.9
D 2
377.0
275.0
102.0
279.5
108.7
388.2
-3.0
E 1
252.0
184.0
68.0
193.5
72.4
265.9
-5.5
E 2
252.0
184.0
68.0
190.8
72.4
263.2
-4.4
E 3
62.5
37.0
25.5
36.7
27.3
64.0
-2.4
E 4
11.0
12.0
-1.0
11.9
-1.0
10.9
0.9
E 5
38.0
41.5
-3.5
40.9
-3.5
37.4
1.6
E 6
16.0
17.5
-1.5
17.3
-1.5
15.8
1.3
E 7
107.0
116.7
-9.7
115.8
-9.7
106.1
0.8
E 8
78.7
85.6
-6.9
86.8
-6.9
79.9
-1.3
E 9
16.0
17.5
-1.5
17.5
-1.5
16.0
0.0
F 1
60.0
70.0
10.0
69.2
10.0
59.2
1.3
F 2
85.0
100.0
-15.0
105.7
-15.0
90.7
6.7
TOTALS
1,887.5
1,624.4
263.1
1603.2
284.8
1,888.0
-0.03
* Negative administrative costs means that funds must be added to the SOW budget
to cover fees not covered.
3800410001-5
Approved For Release 2000/(UN (R-MS1PI
ULF
 Approved For Release 200Q/Q$/1.0.; I kRgl? jfItUO3800410001-5
N C
Table 4
(U) TOTAL PROJECT
1600
1400
2000
1800
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Table 5
(U) COST DETAILS ($K)
Date
Total
Expenditures
This Period
Total
Expenditures
To Date
02-Nov-85
53.109
53.109
30-Nov-85
107.265
160.374
28-Dec-85
135.855
296.229
25-Jan-86
68.857
365.086
22-Feb-86
153.748
518.834
22-Mar-86
123.111
641.945
19-Apr-86
268.206
910.152
17-May-86
167.785
1, 221.392
14-Jun-86
143.455
1,221.392
12-Jul-86
181,185
1, 402.578
09-Aug-86
160.550
1,563.128
06-Sep-86
139.960
1,702.878
04-Oct-86
86.627
1,789.506
Approved For Release 2000UNCLAAi9S4f0IED03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2U C~ I VQEDR003800410001-5
REFERENCES (U)
1. Humphrey, B. S., May, E. C., Trask, V. V., Thomson, M. J., "Remote Viewing
Evaluation Techniques," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
2. Hubbard, G. S. and White, R., "A Resource Library for Parapsychological Literature
and Related Disciplines," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo
Park, California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
3. Humphrey, B. S., Saunders, D. R., and Lantz, N., "Screening and Selection of
Personnel: The Personality Assessment System (PAS)," Final Report, SRI Project 1291,
SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
4. Lantz, N. and Kiernan, R., "Neuropsychological Exploration of Psychoenergetic
Functioning," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California
(October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
5. Hubbard, G. S. and Langford, G. 0., "A Remote Viewing Training Methodology," Final
Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986)
UNCLASSIFIED.
6. Hubbard, G. S. and May, E. C., "An Experiment to Explore Possible Anomalistic
Behavior of a Photon Detection System During a Remote Viewing Task," Interim
Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986)
UNCLASSIFIED.
7. Piantanida, T., Lantz, N., and May, E. C., "A Remote Viewing Feedback Dependency
Experiment," Interim Report, SRI Project-1291, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
8. Lantz, N. and May, E. C., "Location of Target Material in Space and Time (U),"
Interim Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October
1986) SECRET.
9. May, E. C., "Intuitive Data Sorting: An Informational Model of Psychoenergetic
Functioning," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California
(October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
10. May, E. C. and Hubbard, G. S., "An RNG Experiment to Test the Effects of Source
and Distance," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
11. Hubbard, G. S., Braud, W., and Schlitz, M., "An Experiment to Test Apparent RA
Effects on Electrodermal Activity," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International,
Menlo Park, California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 20U1F9C L A.$S1E R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
12. Hubbard, G. S., "An Experiment to Examine the Possible Existence of Remote Action
Effects in Piezoelectric Strain Gauges," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI
International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
13. May, E. C., Humphrey, B. S., and Pleass, C. M., "Measuring Remote Action Influence
on the Vertical Component of Dunaliella Velocity," Interim Report, SRI Project 1291,
SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
14. May, E. C., "Remote Action Hardware Construction: A Quantum Mechanical Photon
Experiment," Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California
(October 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 2000/(J1N EtAI9S1 #ED3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 20001J'N ft A'0Vffb03800410001-5
Appendix A
A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF THE
SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE*
(This Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED)
The SOC members were requested to complete a "Reviewer's Comments" sheet (see example on next page)
for each task that they had elected to review. This Appendix provides a verbatim, unedited transcription of
the reviewers' (mostly hand-written) comments on a task-by-task basis. SRI responses have been
appended to the reviewers' comments where appropriate.
Approved For Release 200&j1CLJ,5S4 03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200L t.jC1A-5SjV 8003800410001-5
IMF%
REVIEWER'S COMMENTS
The attached report titled:
has been reviewed by the undersigned.
It is my opinion that, with the following exceptions, the research design, statistical
protocols employed, data analysis, and conclusions reached in this report appear to be
scientifically sound and appropriate.
Please list any exceptions (if none, please say so).
Additional comments:
I do/do not recommend release of this report.
Approved For Release 20D0/OS/ C'A RDA-IR00380041 0001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective A, Task 4
(RV Evaluation)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Recommendations, especially In-House Effort are logical, intelligent
extensions of previous work. Do more!
Exceptions: None.
Comments:
Recommendation:
S. JAMES PRESS
Time was too short to make adequate technical evaluation of this work. I
agree with the approach taken and, if mathematically correct, believe
that the formalism is promising.
Unable to comment on technical (mathematical) issues. 11-7-86
Exceptions: None.
Comments: General--Overall, the report presents an interesting & potentially useful
collection of ideas & approaches for evaluating RV experiments. The
idea of calculating a "figure of merit" is useful, as is the discussion of
vagueness associated with trying to characterize what a viewer "sees,"
and what descriptor terms should be used. Also useful is the notion of
breaking.down the "view" into a small set of descriptors.
Page 1 What the viewer will see if the analyst were to stand in the middle of
Golden Gate Bridge might or might not depend upon whether there were
fog that day or not, which could obscure the vision & the landscape.
Page 5 Here k denotes "response number" and line 10 k denotes "target
number. "
Page 6 Here k denotes "session number."
Page 3 (overview)--As described, the assessment of an RV response is
subjective, depending upon the analyst's interpretation of the RV's
picture. I propose developing a descriptor list with broad terms, & ask a
Approved For Release 2000/OUNQ--F 0 4800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200 003800410001-5
remote viewer to complete a form with descriptor questions himself (no
intermediate analyst). In advance the correct descriptor list should be
defined. Then, a comparison is easy & is objective.
Page 6 Section (b): Why should we do a regression analysis of "figure of merit"
regressed on "session number?" Unless we believe there is learning from
experience (increasing number of sessions), the slope of the regression
should be zero; i.e., there should be no relation.
Page 9 Bottom line: The method developed by Fisher for combining p-values,
which is referred to, involves combining p-values from independent
experiments. But here, the different p-values are obtained from
experiments all carried out by the same person (a "single viewer"), &
that person's responses must all be correlated, so these are not
independent p-values. Why should we combine p-values at all? There is
much more to an experiment than a single characterizing value, a
p-value. There are mean values for all subjects; there are standard
errors; in fact, there is an entire distribution for all outcomes
(replications) of the experiment. The overall distribution is much more
meaningful than just a p-value.
Page 11 While the descriptors may be limited in ability, a first step which would go
a long way, is to establish an RV ability as a fact, & not worry about
loosing the detail in the pictures as a viewer might be able to draw. The
latter is a much more complicated problem. Let's solve the simpler one
first.
Comments: The remote viewing project should be vigorously pursued. The research
base should be expanded, & startling results should be clipped together &
a file should be put together.
Exceptions: This study uses Figures of Merit (FM) and Mean Chance Expectations
(MCE) to evaluate RV. These indices appear to offer no insights on the
sequence of events in RV that was a key development in earlier RV
research at SRI by Ingo Swann, et al. Does the image build up, and if so,
how? It is not clear how the present approach will establish anything
more than very rudimentary yardsticks about the clear reality of RV.
Much wider acceptance of the credibility of this phenomenon would
appear an imperative goal.
Comments: This report cites but does not evaluate biases that may develop with this
protocol relating to development of knowledge ("learning") about the
pool of target images.
Use of Zadeh's fuzzy sets in data analysis here requires justification. The
method is appropriate in its assumptions about complexity, but cannot be
Approved For Release 2OcUc 1 lCLA&& I 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
used in assessment of nonlinearitus (SIC?) that may be inherent in spatial
and temporal organization of RV.
Response: Besides a notation problem that has been repaired in the RV Evaluation
report, Dr. Press has two comments of substance. The most important is
that he believes that our method of combining p-values across sessions
for a single viewer is invalid because the RV trials are not statistically
independent. In a follow-up letter, dated 10 November 1986, he
remarks:
"But the outcomes of the experiments carried out by the same individual
are correlated, because that person has a certain ability, and he uses
that ability in each of the experiments in which he is the subject. "
We believe that Dr. Press is incorrect on this point. Our NULL
hypothesis, which is the basis of our testing, is that there is no ability. If
the NULL hypothesis is true, then a series of RVs done by the same
individual is statistically equivalent to the same individual tossing a fair
die--a certain case for statistical independence. Our contention is
especially true in that normal free-response biases of various forms are
"normalized" out of the session p-values.
It is important to note that we agree with Dr. Press' overall comment that
we should focus our attention upon the information-richer distributions
rather than on a single p-value. In the analysis section of this particular
report, we describe the methods that we use to do just that.
In his second important comment, Dr. Press wonders why we do
regression analysis on the session figures of merit. It is true there is an
MCE for the regression line (not equal to zero, however), but we are
specifically interested in whether our RV training techniques can be
shown to be effective (i.e., a slope of the data line significantly larger
than the slope of the MCE line).
In responding to Dr. Adey's comments, we wish to note that our current
analysis is a crude attempt at analyzing a "natural language" description
of a natural scene. To do this comparison, some quantitative description
of the response and target is needed. To our knowledge, except for a few
special cases in AI, this problem has not been solved in general. Our
approach represents a significant improvement of the rank-order judging
performed in the earlier SRI remote viewing experiments. We agree with
Dr. Adey that the sequence of events in RV is particularly interesting. It
is our full intention over the next four years to address this issue. The
mechanism questions that he asks are of equal importance.
Approved For Release 2000/03N ?4 lAFf~ D800410001-5
 I ff
tEU03800410001-5
Approved For Release 200VKIftIW9FI4II
This particular report does evaluate the effects of development of
knowledge from a number of known and unknown sources. The end
result of the evaluation is the MCE line.
Lastly, Dr. Adey questions our interest in fuzzy set theory. Fuzzy set
technology has already had some modest success in environmental
psychology in describing natural scenes. Our initial use of it, however, is
quite simplistic: we will use it to provide a continuous subjective scoring
of the response and target, whereas now the scoring is only binary. As a
research issue, we believe we will improve the sensitivity of the descriptor
list technology by using fuzzy set theory.
Approved For Release 200 P' LA~`0lfi[)003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective C, Task 2
(Screening and Selection of Personnel: The Personality Assessment
System--PAS)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions:
Give traditional statistical information in rank correlation coefficients and
p-values.
See MS for places where elaboration/or justification is requested.
Need more information on " of figure" D.V., and aspects of
training--number of sessions (duration, task, feedback, etc.).
Comments: Well written report. Good, concise overview of the PAS and personality
measures.
Can you give in an appendix any more information on how WAIS
subscores get used to form a PAS score, i.e., one example.
A model selection and testing procedure.
I would state results as predicting 3/4 best and 1/3 worst cases and as 5/9
"hits. "
To answer Kiernan's criticisms, you need to state SRI's use of PAS as
purely an empirically-based screening procedure (without buying
Saunder's or Gittinger's theory of personality).
Prediction about a fundamental perceptual difference between RV and
others. Bit-map training procedure answers remote viewing psychic
ability is one of bottom-up sensation process of just extracting elementary
signals from background noise; then combining, integrating these simple
figures into ones of increasing detail and complexity, and finally, giving
the parts a whole framework, making them into a "percept." This is how
the primitive sensory system works, but is quickly over ridden by
perceptual-cognitive top-down processes which impose structure,
meaning, labels, and figures on elemental stimuli ASAP in the
processing. If the opposite is true of good RV subjects, then it should
follow that in their everyday functioning, they are more likely to be
"bottom-uppers" than "top-downers" (or less likely to be top-downers).
That is, they should have more difficulty (than the norm group) or take
longer on tasks requiring part -> integration, but do better finding
embedded figures, or decomposing wholes into parts. Just a prediction.
Approved For Release 2000/0N PAMIP JE9800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200UNUIXOR 9 03800410001-5
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions: None.
Comments: None.
Recommendation: None.
Response: In the formal, edited version of the PAS report, statistical information for
viewer performance and learning will be presented as effect-size
estimates, Pearson's r, rather than as p-values. It was determined that
effect-size estimates appropriately take into account the number of trials
that a viewer performed.
Detailed information on training methodologies and analysis procedures,
respectively, can be obtained in the SRI FY 1986 reports, "A Remote
Viewing Training Methodology," (see Reference 5) and "Remote
Viewing Evaluation Techniques." (See Reference 1.) It might be of
interest to note that we are in the process of formulating hypotheses
about how the current training procedures (including such issues as
duration, task, feedback, etc.) may only be effective for certain kinds of
cognitive styles and not for others. Exploratory work is underway to
"tailor" training procedures to the different cognitive styles of the various
PAS Reference Groups that have shown promise in psychoenergetic
tasks.
The psychometric algorithms used to generate the PAS profiles are
proprietary to the subcontractor, MARS Measurement Associates. It is
likely, however, that we can enlist MARS' cooperation in providing a
satisfactory overview of the PAS psychometric procedures, as well as a
model selection and testing procedure.
The PAS is a highly complex system, and Kiernan's criticisms are based
in large measure on lack of complete information about it. A subsequent
meeting between Kiernan and Saunders has helped considerably to dispel
some of Kiernan's misconceptions and misgivings about the PAS.
Further meetings are planned for FY 1987 in an effort to resolve any
possible remaining controversy. I believe that all the researchers involved
in psychological screening technologies would support the opportunity to
collaborate on a formal "position paper" that would provide a formal
evaluation of all methodologies (including the PAS) that are currently in
use.
A comparison of perceptual differences between remote viewing and
other perceptual modalities would be a very interesting and important
45
Approved For Release 200UNuC lARDPUl0 AP003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
undertaking. The PAS program is anticipated to last five years;
presumably there will be ample opportunity to explore these kinds of
research issues.
Approved For Release 2000/OUNeIjPAFS6qp (D800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200URIA4,Tti4m7.8Q003800410001-5
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective C, Task 5
(Neuropsychological Assessment of Participants in Psychoenergetic Tasks)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions:
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
Exceptions:
Change title. This is not neuro-psychological assessment, but a reanalysis
of PAS in terms of different criteria and suggestions for relationships
between RV good Ss and frontal lobe functioning.
I would like to see specific predictions made about neurophysiological
EEG measures of frontal lobe functioning and RV processing features of
RV "stars" and "no goods," & also hypotheses about differential frontal
lobe involvement in other psychoenergetic functions.
I do. 11-6-86
None.
None.
I do.
Strongly recommend pursuing ideas presented in this paper. An
alternative approach to the PAS is needed to determine if other
psychometric batteries can successfully identify good potential RV
candidates. I agree with the author's comments on the strong reliance on
a large number of cells or categories--96--my impression being that it is
much too cumbersome for practical-minded users to accept --I could be
wrong on this, however.
See Exceptions above.
I do. 11-6-86
In response to Dr. Zimbardo's comment, the title of this report has been
changed from "Neuropsychological Assessment of Participants in
Approved For Release 200NCLA$SL,0I D003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Psychoenergetic Tasks" to "Neuropsychological Exploration of
Psychoenergetic Functioning. "
Regarding Dr. Zimbardo's additional comments, his suggestions will be
considered in experiments to be conducted in subsequent years. We will
be exploring central nervous system correlates of psychoenergetic
function through the use of neuromagnetometry during FY 1987.
Approved For Release 2000/011f A 4S5 ff1FE 300410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000U /08/1 03800410001-5
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective D, Task 1
(RV Training Methodology)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions: None.
Comments: It would be helpful if numbers were assigned to each protocol and its
informed consent statement, and for final reports to include same as
appendices. The final report should make a statement in its summary
regarding any untoward events, their nature, etc.--or none during course
of the study. (The Format of the report should include key points noted
in the protocol--number of participants, no. and kinds of tests, etc.
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Protocols appear to be far too complicated. Simple experiments appear
to be possible using bit descriptions directly and should be pursued. Data
is loosely presented and, what there is, is poorly analyzed. Additionally,
procedures appear to be ineffective.
Exceptions: This is a position paper by Gary Langford. It presents his thinking, but is
not a research report.
Comments: I discussed with Scott Hubbard the need to add instrumentation (such as
EEG) to the RV session protocol to determine if RV activity can be seen
simultaneously on an EEG, etc.
Recommendation: I do not. I would keep it internal to SRI.
Exceptions: This is flawed report--an informal experiential analysis of the variables
and processes that might affect RV Quality which at times gives the
impression of being an empirical, scientific assessment of training
effectiveness An outcome - evaluation study remains to be done with
Approved For Release 2001V'N(L1ASS#Fd&03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
variables between operationalized pre/post measures. Good (especially
?) data tables--not data-masking graphs.
Page 6. Hypnosis--use as means of noise reduction only. Minimize internal
distractors through specific suggestions.
Page 7, 8. Training--why not have initial training procedure use only the common
RV symbols-bits (p. 7) plus some others to form a 10-unit set? This
simplifies S's task and provides a more objective basis for hit/miss
feedback to subject.
Note: The bit -> Composite Analysis is a "bottom-up" perceptual process, but
the Interpretive Overlay Analysis is a "top-down" Cognitive process. In
everyday, non-PSI transactions with the world, humans use both. The
bit-training procedure reduces to a focus on only the bottom-up
procedure--that is not how perception works.
Page 21. Good addition to training is to get S's to report BITS rather than holistic
impressions.
Page 22. Question: In assessing training is there a baseline, pre-training
evaluation of the S's RV ability? There must be one in order to
demonstrate it is the training per se that transformed novices into
experts--and not merely the S's unrecognized, latent ability being
tapped. Remember these are self-selected volunteers who may do so
with a sense of "being intuitive."
Page 31. Interpretations--Reinforcement analysis of target feedback.... "so
necessary for the functioning to be developed." What about feedback of
non-similarities? Does that weaken accurate functioning development?
Page 37, 38. These data are for 1 novice and 1 expert? Need to have larger sample,
especially of novices' time-function allocation.
Page 39. Why reproduce Figure 2 here as Figure 7 with different captions,
especially when caption for Figure 2 is more appropriate here under
"Data Access?"
Page 43. Again--delete this redundancy from the report.
Page 44. Question: Status of assertions re: the "correctness" of the "new"
information or the secondary "flood" of information and re: "at this
stage the viewer will be interpreting data correctly." We need some
factual basis for such generalizations.
Deleted in Subject Selection: Only 7 of 45 completed the training. (a) We need
Final better information about the possible reason for failure to
complete--" not wanting to devote time" is inadequate explanation. (b)
Of the 7 who completed training, how many qualify as having RV ability?
Deleted in This is really scanty discussion of expert training. What about individual
Final differences in style? . What % of the time expert Ss are improved
outcomes found with each of the two methods mentioned here.
Approved For Release 2000/0U N ?Tf PA5W 1800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200x0 dxieti IMP 03800410001-5
Page 60. Hypotheses may be arrived at by the means mentioned here, but then
they must be subjected to systematic evaluation by formal experiments to
become "fact" or generalizations.
A failure in this entire document is the confusion between the two classes
of assertions. One never knows the evidential basis for most of the
assertions presented.
Page 65. Is it an idealized graph or data summary? If so, then we must know the
N and the criterion for Quality of Viewing. Also the text confuses
"practice" and "reinforcement"--they are separate.
Page 66. This is not a "correlation."
Page 68. Not clear what events are reinforcing in the training situation. Showing
someone else's work is not per se vicarious reinforcement. It is only
when the other person gets praised or appears to be happy over a good
match.
Page 68. Where is the data table relating "Rate of improvement and frequency of
new concepts?" I do not believe that they collected RATE data.
Page 72. Now we have a new, universal definition of reinforcement--visiting a
target site.
Page 73. Figure 9 is hypothesized or empirical?
Page 74. Ditto--also how is motivation assessed?
Deleted in Finally, we get the (some) data. This must be presented earlier in the
Final report. I read this as a failure of training: 4/45 novices -> advanced
training. 1/4 advanced -> expert training, and ?/1 became expert?
Zimbardo Comments continued:
A Remote Viewing Idealized Procedure--" Outbound Targets"
1. Viewer-Subject
a. Does not know 2 or 3 (below) at all. OR
b. Constraints are set -- especially target categories and viewer characteristics.
c. Response. Viewer draws scene on computer screen with a light pen and identifies
descriptive features.
2. Objective Scene--Viewer-Sender
a. Does not know 1 (above) or 3 below. OR
b. Vary experimentally knowledge or "intimacy" with 1 (above) across viewer subject
pairs.
Approved For Release 20OU NC L"SLFJ D003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08U N CLD960196 800410001-5
3. Targets/Display
a. Individual set of stimuli from large pool.
b. Selected randomly.
c. Targets are schematic graphics of scenes with specifiable elements.
d. Presented on video laser disks to 2 (above).
e. While blank screen is available to 1 (above).
f. A priori set of descriptors are made by ratings of each target.
4. Analysis
Data set is each pair of computer-generated targets and S's response scene which are
stored in copy-protected, locked files as a paired set for analysis.
a. . Role must be reduced to that of handling only "logistics" of subject-viewer's
participation. (Queries, prompts must follow written standardized format--e.g.,
Describe major feature in scene, or Describe context, setting, background.
b. Should have no knowledge of target set in general or specifically.
6. Feedback
a. Should be specifically varied within the experimental design.
i. Sessions W/O feedback
ii. Sessions with feedback after each trial within Ss.
iii. Sessions with alternating feedback by stimulus sets across Ss. (e.g., Si 1st x trials
= yes, 2nd x trials = no; Sz 1st x trials = no, 2nd x trials = yes)
b. Involves seeing the target on the video screen and also the viewer's response. Perhaps
include additional data collected at this point on S's reactions to the hit/miss and any
reasons for a miss.
Some viewers may be instructed to be allowed "pass" trials on which they feel their
"perceptual window" is not open (e.g., a given target may have negative symbolic
value that creates "noise" which adds interference to the bit-grabbing process.
General Response: With the exception of Dr. Sidwell, the SOC comments all appear to
reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this report. This report is not
a description of experimental results; it is not a statement of protocols for
Approved For Release 2000/OUJqFj"Jf;JEV800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200VKqffAK Milffff 038 00410001-5
ongoing or future experiments. This report is an account of an expert
remote viewer's subjective experiences of the RV process and his
suggestions for (principally) a novice RV training program. We regret
this misunderstanding and have revised the SRI overview of Cl's report to
strongly emphasize this point. We found Dr. Zimbardo's detailed
comments to be very interesting and thought provoking. The entire set of
comments has been forwarded to CI for their consideration and
response. We anticipate that future discussions of those comments
between the subcontractor and SRI staff will be very rewarding.
We wish to further thank Dr. Zimbardo for his suggestions for an ideal
outbound RV experiment. Those suggestions will serve as a departure
point for future discussions of our RV program.
Approved For Release 20oO/JP%I C LA&UMD003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewer's Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task 1
(Possible Anomalistic Behavior of Photon Detection System)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Good experiment with knowledgable electrical isolation work.
Recommendation: I do.
Exceptions:
I need a briefing to explain the statistical procedures reflected in Tables 1
- 4. My questions re. procedures stem from my reluctance to accept
(Table 2) an overall p < 0.0488 from a series in which 2 of 6 "p's" are <
0.05 and 2 se 0.35, and 1 is an even 1.000. Is it appropriate to average p
values [in this case p(av) = 0.3172]? Sequential probability of all 6 sets
of data being the result of chance is, by my calculation, 2.6 x 10-s : 1.
These questions reflect my lack of understanding of methods used, I am
sure.
Comments: Would like to see final analysis including PMT/RV correlation. Would
also need to see protocol, informed consent statement, and final review
to reach a comment whether human use requirements have been met.
Recommendation: I do not.. .until final PMT/RV correlation has been incorporated.
11-6-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions: None.
Comments: None.
Recommendation: I do.
Response to Ley: The sequential probability calculation that Ley suggests appears to be the
joint probability derived from multiplying the p-values listed in Table 2.
(Although by my calculation, the value is 2.6 x 10-5 .) Such a
54
Approved For Release 2000/OJNFPPPIED800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200QIQ$(1p~1~~~~~7~8~003800410001-5
calculation confuses post-hoc analysis with a priori prediction in the
following way: If we had predicted in advance that the p-values obtained
would be those observed, then a joint probability calculation would be
correct. However, because no prediction about the p-values was made,
we can only test the null hypothesis by examining the distribution of
observed values as compared with the MCE distribution. One acceptable
way to accomplish this is through the Fisher X2-test, cited in the report.
An easy way to see the difference between these two approaches is to
imagine a series of 10 coin tosses whose random outcome is
HTTHTHHTHT. No one would claim that this outcome is
extraordinary, especially because the number of heads equals the number
of tails. However, applying Ley's idea, we would multiply the p-value
associated with each element (0.5) ten times. This value is 0.510 or 9.8 x
10-4 1 Clearly this probability would be relevant only if we had predicted
the outcome of the coin toss in advance.
The request to review the informed consent documents, etc., was
satisfied in a separate meeting of the Human Use Review Board.
Response to Press: During the verbal presentation of this experiment, Dr. Press took issue
with the use of the Fisher X2-test. He believes that our method of
combining p-values across sessions for a single viewer is invalid because
the ' RV trials are not statistically independent. In a follow-up letter,
dated 10 November 1986, he remarks:
"But the outcomes of the experiments carried out by the same individual
are correlated, because that person has a certain ability, and he uses
that ability in each of the experiments in which he is the subject."
We believe that Dr. Press is incorrect on this point. Our NULL
hypothesis, which is the basis of our testing, is that there is no ability. If
the NULL hypothesis is true, then a series of RVs performed by the same
individual is statistically equivalent to the same individual tossing a fair
die--a certain case for statistical independence. Our contention is
especially true in that normal free-response biases of various forms are
"normalized" out of the session p-values.
Approved For Release 20 C LAI&&LFIED003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task 1
(RV Feedback Dependency Experiment)
(verbatim transcription---not edited)
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Appears protocols are proper to isolate feedback variable as only possible
variable affecting RV performance. The issue of the information source
in a correct RV response appears well thought out.
None.
None.
I do.
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Suggest accomplishing a two condition, simple experiment in which
feedback is there or it isn't in order to test hypothesis initially.
Recommendation: I do. 11-6-86
BRIAN SKYRMS
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
Response:
The experiment suggested by Dr. Wartell, while appearing less
complicated, is actually more difficult because of the enormous problem
of entirely eliminating the feedback: it is easier to control the magnitude
of the feedback than to eliminate it. Another reason for conducting the
experiment as we described is to gain information about a possible
interaction between routes of information transfer (real-time acquisition
vs. precognition) as the magnitude of feedback varies from subliminal to
supraliminal.
Approved For Release 2000/0i/ NQbt-RAtFt~800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200Q/Q$[10+EIX&ff if 6003800410001-5
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 2
(Search)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Same as for "A Remote Viewing Training Methodology" (No protocol or
informed consent with report.)
Exceptions: None (edge effect mathematics needs closer scrutiny).
Comments: "Edge effects" on statistical interpretations might be handled through a
spherical display. While not quite "real world" enough, it would remove
the natural edge avoidance bias. Also, why not attempt the experiments
without feedback, as well.
Recommendations: I do not. Question of edge effect math.
S. JAMES PRESS
Exceptions: I do not think the analysis is sound.
Comments: I have handwritten some four pages outlining why I feel the analysis is
flawed, & suggesting an alternative experiment with an appropriate
analysis.
Recommendation: I do not.
Analysis of Location of Target Material in Space and Time
p-value is not computed correctly. If d = distance observed, p = P
{D > d/H} = p-value.
For a given individual, there are n trials (not replications), & results are
correlated. There is a joint probability distribution for the n trials. Results might
be d, , ..., do for a given subject. (d, , ..., dn) = joint probability density
function for d = (di , ..., dn ). There may also be learning with each trial,
Approved For Release 20(U : 5$1 003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
because of feedback, in which case we would expect an approximate ordering: d1
> d2 > ... > dn . Averaging the n separate p-values ignores the trial-to-trial
correlation.
A problematic issue is that some d's are more likely than others, just from the
geometry of the matrix. For example, choosing the center of the matrix is likely
to give smaller d's than if the subject chooses the corners.
If n subjects were to guess target position for the same fixed target position, then
we could logically compare subjects. If we then changed the target position to a
new location, & then had all n subjects again try their luck on that target, we
could again compare subject's ability. Doing this k times gives us an experimental
procedure that can be analyzed statistically. The experiment has 2 factors:
subject. factor, & target factor. Analysis of variance methodology can be used in
a traditional way to seek "main effects" for subject, and subject-target
interaction. We can even introduce replication by having the same subject do the
same target, randomly. In this event, replications are not independent, & the
correlation must be accounted for. In the same experiment, subjects evaluate
different targets, so direct comparisons are extremely difficult.
By using p-values with changing, targets in each trial (in the space condition) you
are subject to the criticism often leveled at the use of p-values; namely, you can
get whatever effect you like by taking a small, or a large sample, since the
consistency of the test demands that even if the hypothesis is off only very
slightly, we will reject the hypothesis with probability one. Thus, even if a small
data set confirms the hypothesis, a larger data set will reject itl
Because the subjects in the current experiment evaluate different subsets of
targets (there might of course be some overlap), their output "distances" from n
trials for each of them have different distributions. So what is the meaning of
averaging p-values?
Response: We have examined the "edge" effects carefully with our statistical
consultant, Dr. J. Utts, and found them to be both conservative and
sound. Dr. Wartell's suggestion of a spherical display, however, is quite
ingenious, and we plan to look into it as a modification to the approach.
In examining the analysis and the questions raised by Dr. Press, we find
that he is not correct in his assessment. We plan to invite Dr. Press and
Dr. Utts to SRI in early December to attempt to resolve the dispute.
Approved For Release 2000/1 eIN I F1 C V3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Tasks 3 & 4
(Intuitive Data Sorting)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments: None.
Recommendation:
I do. 11-7-86
FRED ZACHARIASEN
Exceptions:
BRIAN SKYRMS
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
Exceptions:
It doesn't seem to me that the data is really sufficiently good to
distinguish the various models, either from each other or from the purely
statistical prediction. Further, the model (IDS) violates such basic
physical principles that it's highly suspect on the face of it. I'd wait with
this report until there's better data. (Incidentally, no real data is shown
in this report, & it should be.)
I do not. 11-7-86
None.
None.
I do.
(1) The study does not address the possible significance of individual
social and cultural backgrounds in determining forced choices.
(2) The concept that "information from the future is available in the
present" is in the realm of one-shot learning. Differences in these
processes in man and planarian worms, for example, emphasize man's
ability to utilize the armamentarium of past experience; and thus further
emphasize the importance of evaluating social and cultural backgrounds.
None.
Approved For Release 20U :L4&S#f >D2003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Response:
Dr. Zachariasen is correct in that the PEAR data does not allow us to
separate RA from IDS. Also, because we have not yet completed the
PRNG formal experiment, he has a point with regard to the premature
nature of this report. However there are a number of points that should
be mentioned in favor of releasing this as an interim report.
While it is true that we do not present the RNG data base as part of this
report per se, we do reference a detailed analysis of the data base and
describe the conclusions we drew from 330 separate experiments--a
p-value suggesting some form of a statistical anomaly of 10-18 for the
historical data base consisting of sze 109 bits.
IDS provides a descriptive model of this historical data base that appears
more parsimonious than does either RA or MCE. As such, it should be
stated as clearly as possible in order for the model to receive proper
scrutiny by our research community, and in order to provide guidelines
for proper experimental protocols to test IDS correctly with RNGs.
We agree with Dr. Zachariasen that our proposal appears to violate basic
physical principles, but, as we say in the report, we feel that proposing an
RA explanation violates even more basic physical principles. We do not
present a meta-analysis of the literature claiming evidence for
information flow from the future, but our proposal is based (and
referenced) upon a rather large historical data base claiming that such a
phenomenon is statistically "real." It is important to note that the IDS
model is a heuristic model in that the data are best fit, assuming
backward flow of information.
Lastly, we do present the data from the PEAR laboratory in reduced
form. Princeton provided over 23,000 individual data points consisting
of 200; 2,000; 10,000; or 100,000 bits each. Data from the historical
data base are also too volumnous to be included in this particular report.
Approved For Release 2000/OUINGJj &fED800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000 0$/10 ffi ??1f f x9$003800410001-5
N ED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 5
(An RNG Experiment)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
HERB LEY
Exceptions: None.
Comments: None.
Recommendation: I do.
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Experimental protocols appear to be appropriate.
Recommendation: I do.
Approved For Release 20OUNC. L1 SSIEUM03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 6
(An Experiment to Test Apparent RA Effects on Electrodermal Activity)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions:
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Exceptions:
Page 1
NOTE: A rest period was added after each effort period during actual
procedure as distinct from the protocol. Was protocol amended through
SRI-IRB approval? Has this been noted for record in SRI-IRB minutes?
If RBC are to be used in FY 1987, the protocol and IC statement should
show that blood will be drawn (how much, how many times) and there
are possible complications from venipuncture, etc. How many subjects?
How many men or women? Timing of hemolysis tests, anticoagulant
used, etc., are important considerations as well.
I do. 11-6-86
Need to see protocol, informed consent statement, for evaluation of
meeting human use requirements.
I do. 11-6-86
The staff's abstract says: P=.08 (one-tailed) statistical test of psi
superiority is reported or "very closely" approaches significance." It does
not; is not. If P < .05 is criterion, then any greater value is
non-significant. The data table for the Page 10, Paragraph. 2 results
needs to be here.
The results in Page 15/16 indicate no statistical significance. No psi
effect, no IDS effect.
Where are data tables--at this stage we need appendices with primary
data as well.
Remote Action (RA) -> causal effect
Intuitive Data Sorting (IDS) -> informational effect--viewer anticipates
data change. Need to clearly parcel out hypotheses:
Approved For Release 2000/p Niet4 3 JITAMOP3800410001-5
M .0 11117,11C
 Approved For Release 2000(0 1 CtAA1TSJffW03800410001-5
Hypothesis 1. RA -> influences EDA
Hypothesis 2. IDS -> also occurs with EDA data
Hypothesis 3. RA effects are separable from IDS and still are
significant when IDS effects are parsed out.
Page 4 p = .08 is not significant from psi superiority. It does not "very closely
approach significance" as asserted. If the statistical criterion of p < .05 is
not met, there is not significance and should not be reported.
Pages 2 and 3 Method is not clear.
b. How were subjects and influencer situated?
Recommend: DATA ANALYSES: ANOVA Not T-test. Mixed
between--within 5 sources of degrees of freedom:
1. Trials--12 (for each type)
2. Seed type--2
3. Influencers--8
4. Subjects--32
5. Type a influence (calm/activate)--2.
Question: Were these counterbalanced in some way? Also: The
dependent variable (DV) is skin resistance.
1. How is this corrected for initial B.S.R. basal levels?
2. Is there subsequent corrections?
3. Why not carry (?) our B.S.R. differences from D.V.
ARTIFACT: Real time feedback was an uncontrolled variable, subject
selected--must be controlled/included or excluded or varied (?)
systematically.
The derived DV masks a lot of different effects, such as arousal vs.
calming influences, and should be used only after the separate analyses
are presented.
Comments: The SRI staff's detection and reporting of the 2 serious artifacts in this
procedure which render the results "uninterpretable" is to be
commended! Their new hypothesis and suggested paradigm (pp. 7 and
8) appear viable.
Recommendation: I do not. 11-6-86
Approved For Release 200JJ8I1O`R9JU9910003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Response to Zarafonetis:
We regret that Dr. Zarafonetis received the impression that the IRB
approved protocol was in some way modified or circumvented because of
problems experienced by the participants. In actuality, the IRB protocol
never specified the extremely detailed minute-by-minute experimental
procedure. Since the influencer was asked to alternately activate and
then calm the subject, the staff at MSF introduced the "rest" period as a
natural time to reorient the influencer's thinking. It was their
unfamiliarity with the IDS model which prevented them from recognizing
that this small element would completely disrupt the hypothesis under
test. In no way was this rest period a response to any perceived stress or
fatigue by the influencer or subject. The final report has been suitably
revised to clarify this point.
The issues surrounding planned experiments for FY 1987 will be
addressed when the protocols are written, very likely in January of 1987.
Response to Ley: The request to obtain the consent forms, etc., was satisfied in a separate
meeting of the Human Use Review Board.
Response to Zimbardo:
Dr. Zimbardo is correct that a p-value of 0.08 is nonsignificant. This
phrase has been deleted from the SRI overview report. The general
requests for data tables that support the statistical conclusions have been
forwarded to MSF for their consideration.
As indicated by the title of Appendix A, the first set of results were for
the Pilot study, which was nonsignificant, as indicated on pages 15 and
16. The results cited in the SRI overview are only for the Confirmation
experiment.
The next series of comments appear to reflect a misunderstanding as to
the basic hypothesis of the study. We proposed that MSF's earlier work
on EDA could be entirely explained by the IDS model, not that there is a
mixture of RA and IDS effects. Page 1 has been rewritten to emphasize
this point.
In the SRI overview, we did not feel it was important to repeat the details
of the EDA measurements or the physical layout of the experimental area
as reported in the MSF paper. We refer Dr. Zimbardo to pp. 10 and 24
for those particular explanations.
We have referred the proposed ANOVA analysis to Dr. Braud of MSF
for consideration. In a telephone conversation, however, he responded
that he favors a single, simple, a priori defined statistical test rather than
the ANOVA "fishing expedition." In Braud's opinion, complex analysis
that results in a statistically significant third-order term may be more
confusing than revealing.
Approved For Release 2000/081`-Pli~'000410001-5
 ~~0380
0410001-5
Approved For Release 2000(7MfASffdY
As described on pp. 13 and 25 of the MSF report, the trials were
appropriately counterbalanced.
The next series of questions and comments seem to stem from the idea
that the EDA measurements were of dc skin resistance. This was not the
case. EDA is identical to GSR, which is an ac measurement of the
fluctuations in skin conductance. In any ac-coupled system, questions of
baseline drift are irrelevant. This observation has been incorporated into
the revised report.
A detailed discussion of the possible role of real-time feedback was
provided by MSF and may be found on pages 30 and 31 of the original
report. Dr. Braud's conclusion was that possible artifact due to real-time
feedback had been adequately excluded.
Approved For Release 200UN1CL"fil 0L8Q003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 8
(RA. .Piezoelectric Strain Gauges)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Shielding (it may not be enough) is the first thought through my mind. I
was impressed however with the measures employed thus far for
mechanical, acoustic, heat and E.M. isolation. I worry about the
window, especially at low frequencies where even double shielding flex
cables are not sufficient and solid copper shield is used for EMI or
antenna pattern ranges. I agree with the conclusions of the report.
Consider Tempest testing of the system.
Recommendation: I do.
HERB LEY
Exceptions: Can't understand cell entries in Tab 1. Needs revision or footnotes.
Comments: Need to see protocols, and informed consent statement for evaluation of
meeting human use requirements.
Recommendation: I do. 11-6-86
Exceptions: It's not clear if there are 11 or only 3 events. Statistically, 3 events in 20
hours of experiment vs. 0 events in 30 hours of background is not
obviously inexplicable statistically. Why is the left hand gauge more
noisy?
Comments: This ought to be viewed as a preliminary description of the
experiment--with next year conclusive results.
Recommendation: I do. 11-7-86
Exceptions: Physics: It should be possible to do much better in isolating the strain
gauges from acoustic vibration. Such isolation is a standard problem in
many areas and standard techniques should be available.
Approved For Release 2000/(NP4-XF 95J(FJ F Q3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Methodological: These results are so surprising that SRI should see if an
independent experimenter can replicate them.
Exceptions: (1) There should be an adequate account of subjective states of mind
associated with attempts to influence the strain gauge.
(2) Since the test epochs are long (10-20 min.), these subjective
accounts should be supplemented by appropriate physiological measures
(e.g., eye saccods, EEG, EKGR-R, intervals, etc.).
(3) There should be a detailed account of the number, configuration and
temporal distribution of strain gauge responses, with data acquisition in
ways allowing strict temporal correlation with physiological events
outlined under (2).
Comments: (4) The frequency response of the strain gauge in the ELF spectrum
should be described.
(5) Serial spectral analyses should be made of strain gauge activity
throughout control and test epochs.
(6) Strain gauge activity spectra should be examined for evidence of
entrainment by weak, coherent ELF stimuli, in accordance with models
developed for such systems by Nicolis (1969, 1972, 1983, etc.).
Recommendation: (None.) 11-10-86
Response to Yaru: We agree completely with Dr. Yaru that the window is the weakest link in
the EMI shielding. This aspect of the system is discussed in Section II,
2.a, of the report, where we point out the initial psychological necessity
for the subject to be in visual contact with the sensor. We also agree that
there is a need for standardized testing of the unit (e.g., TEMPEST). In
the Conclusions Section of the revised report, we now clearly state that
future work will include appropriate EMI characterization and trials with
an intact (i.e. windowless) enclosure.
Response to Ley: Table 1 has been suitably revised to make the number of effort periods in
each condition as clear as possible. The request for informed consent
documents, etc., was satisfied in a separate meeting of the Human Use
Review Board.
Approved For Release 20UN'CLAS&-a~R003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Response to Zachariasen:
In the absence of a more detailed PZT output record, we cannot be
certain that signals above threshold, which are closely spaced in time, are
separate events. Therefore, Dr. Zachariasen is correct in stating that a
more conservative estimate of the number of events is 3 rather than 11.
Although we have modified the report to reflect this point, we must point
out that the a priori definition of an event of interest was any signal
crossing the predetermined threshold. If we hypothesize that the events
have a pulse-like Poisson distribution, then we can compute the
probability of observing 0 counts in thirty hours, assuming an average of 3
events in twenty hours. That value is p C 0.01. If one assumes an
average of 11 events, the probability is 6.8 x 10-8. While not
inexplicable statistically, the observed outcome is unlikely given the
stated assumptions.
In Section IV, B., of the modified report, we discuss (in somewhat
greater detail) problems of contact noise, which probably causes the slight
difference in the two sensors.
We agree completely that this year's effort should be regarded as
preliminary, a view unequivocally stated in the Abstract, Certainly in any
future work we will address all the issues raised by Dr. Zachariasen
(better time resolution, lower contact noise, longer control periods, etc.)
Response to Skyrms: Dr. Skyrms appears to proceed from a misunderstanding as to the nature
of the experiment. Several times in the report, we addressed the
engineering compromises that were necessary to meet the psychological
requirements of the participants (i.e., visual contact with the sensor).
We also pointed out the methodological steps taken to assure the
credibility of the final data (e.g., enclosure isolation and session audio
recording). To avoid such misunderstanding by other readers, we have
rewritten the acoustic artifact discussion (to emphasize the degree of
isolation actually achieved.
In his methodological comments, Dr. Skyrms has perhaps missed the
point. From the very beginning, the SRI/JFK University experiment was
conceived as possessing a "built-in" replication feature: No participant
was allowed to begin trials at SRI unless he had first produced greater or
equivalent effects at JFK. Again, to prevent future misunderstandings,
we have rewritten the Introduction to make this feature even more clear.
Response to Adey: Comments 1, 2, 3, and 6 appear appropriate only after the existence of
RA in PZT strain gauges has been firmly established. Comment 4, the
low-frequency response of the strain gauge, was addressed in Appendix
B of the report. In it we stated that the sensor has a flat capacitative
response from 10 Hz to 1 kHz. Above or below these points, the
electronics sharply cut off the response. As stated earlier, we plan more
detailed spectral analysis in future work (Comment 5).
Approved For Release UN(MASWRIM
 Approved For Release 20QO~Q8/10 :~CIQ-F~D~i~~O~$~R003800410001-5
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task 9
(RA on Dunaliella Velocity)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Need to see protocols & informed consent statement for evaluation of
project's meeting human use requirements.
Recommendation: I do not.. .until it reaches final report stage. 11-7-86
Exceptions: The velocity data are fitted to a normal distribution. But the data are
very clearly non-normal. So the f-tests subsequently arrived at are not
valid. In fact, the data are clearly "fat-tailed," so it might be sensible to
try to fit a Student t-distribution, or a stable symmetric distribution to the
data.
Page 8, paragraph 2: What is meant by the statement that the velocities
"are not necessarily statistically independent, & cannot be considered
random variables in the usual sense"? They sure seem like random
variables to me.
The "scores," or the velocity changes hypothesized to be produced by
human interaction, as shown in Figures 4, 5, appear to fall with the
normal range of variation of the algae circadian rhythms.
The regressions carried out appear to be poor. There is clear
heteroscedasticity (sic) (unequal variances in the disturbances), (Fig. 9,
Fig. 10, etc.). Moreover, it is not clear much is happening. In Fig. 11,
the slope appears to be zero, indicating the regression is not meaningful.
Similarly in Fig. 12.
I cannot quite figure out the measuring apparatus. I cannot help wonder
whether the apparatus itself affects the velocity of the algae.
I feel this experiment is looking for an effect that lies in the noise.
I would recommend "detrending" by removing the circadian rhythms
(diurnal variations) from the data, instead of removing a straight line
trend.
Approved For Release HUNG LANJETWO03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Exceptions: (1) This report resurrects the archaism that it remains to be shown that
living systems exist in "indefinite" states and can "thus qualify as
quantum systems."
(2) This viewpoint fails to recognize generally accepted views of the
essential role of cooperativity in (sic) an essential phenomenon in
biological systems (hemoglobin oxygen association-disassociation curve,
retinal photon detection, auditory threshold detection mechanisms, cell
membrane amplification in transductive coupling, etc., etc.).
Comments: (3) It should be known to these investigators that many key biomolecular
systems function as quantum detectors. This knowledge would seem
vitally important in further development of this program.
(4) The research plan envisages a separation of informational processes
(intuitive data sorting, IDS) from causal factors (Remote Action, RA),
with the expectation, that, if causal, "averaging over a large number of
cells will produce a strong result." This is a most important concept that
should be central to future studies in RV that would be based on
simultaneous multi-subject testing.
Response: We agree with Dr. Press's criticism of the in-place statistical analysis
reported by Dr. Pleass. There are a number of serious objections that
need to be addressed before experimentation can begin.
In the one comment about our statistical analysis, he questions whether
the velocity measurements are statistically independent. Because the
cells appear to have at least one known nonrandom cycle (the circadian
rhythm), it is necessary to demonstrate that the "detrending" (regardless
of the technique) has been successful. Until this is done, it is particularly
risky to use statistics that assume sample independence.
Yes, we are looking for small effects in a very noisy background.
In responding to Dr. Adey's remarks about living systems and quantum
mechanics, we point out that, while living systems might be shown to be
sensitive to quantum phenomena, it has never been demonstrated (to
date) that they can exist in quantum coherent indefinite states! In fact,
an ensemble of atoms st;s 105 must be cooled to 50 milli-degrees above
absolute zero before such effects can be seen.
Approved For Release 2000/UMMAOSES- 0F3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective F, Task 1
(RA Hardware Construction: Quantum Mechanical Photon Experiment)
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
Exceptions: None.
Comments: A "ballpark" experiment usually leads to controversy and a stringently
controlled experiment is required for credibility. Hence verified data
that two photons are not in the apparatus simultaneously is needed; how
do we know a photon does not "split." Some more data may not overly
complicate the proposed experiment.
Comments: This is a simple experiment; & since it might get rid of an apparent
(though minor) controversy it ought to be carried out.
Recommendation: I do. 11-7-86
Exceptions: None.
Additional comments: I am not a physicist, so I really can't comment intelligently about the
soundness of the experimental setup. It does appear to me, however, to
be an important experiment to run, & it looks to be straightforward to
run it.
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions: None.
Comments: Exciting experiment--look forward to seeing results.
Recommendation: I do.
Approved For Release 20W1CLCA-99IF4 &003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
Exceptions: Interpretation: One slit being closed at a time is not a measurement but
rather a specification of basic possibilities. Thus a positive result would
not support Wiogner (sic) but rather falsify Quantum Mechanics.
Redundancy: I expect that essentially this experiment has been done
many times, with the expected negative results. The experimenter (sic)
doesn't look till the end, after many trials. I suggest a review of the
experimental literature to see if this is not the case.
Comments: You might want to check some experimentalists (sic) in the EPR field,
e.g., Horne (sic).
Recommendation: I do not. 11-10-86
Response: Dr. Yaru may be confused by the prose. In this setup, all photons are
"split." The question is whether the "halves" are allowed to combine
again at the detector. Dr. Yaru's excellent suggestion about showing that
we have a few-photon domain will be incorporated into the experimental
design.
I am not sure if I understand Dr. Skyrms' comment. The quantum
mechanical question centers on identifying the proper form for the state
vector. In a standard Michelson-Morely interferometer, it is given by
'I` = ai'l' + a2 W2 , and
In the case of the "unknown" shutter, is the state vector still given by the
above, or does it now become al Ti or a2 W'2--depending upon which
shutter is closed? A positive result would support Wigner. All it would
say about quantum mechanics is that consciousness is a necessary
ingredient in the state vector collapse.
In 1982, we had done such a literature search and found only one
experiment involving positron annihilation, which was ambiguous with
regard to consciousness. As of January 1986, we have found no other
papers.
Approved For Release 2000/v'RCC t-&StFf IMM3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 20QQ/Q8,(WA}IDQ7MR003800410001-5
LL)
PHIL ZIMBARDO--GENERAL COMMENTS
(verbatim transcription--not edited)
1. The SRI staff has done an impressive job in meeting the research objectives set forth
in our initial session a year ago.
a. A large body of research has been started and much completed.
b. Some of the research is of sufficiently good quality to merit continued use of
these promising paradigms.
2. There are enough results that are "suggestive" and "provocative" to warrant further
study using some more simplified experimental procedures, improved assessment of
the outcome measures, and additional statistical analyses.
3. It is my opinion, however, that the number and scope of the research projects should
be limited in FY 1987-1988.
4. There should be greater quality control exercised by SRI staff over the (fewer number
of) subcontractors' performance; closer monitoring of ongoing procedures; presenting
clear criteria for reporting of procedural details, data analyses and general reporting
procedures.
5. The SRI staff should prepare a summary statement of what paradigms, and measures
seem to them to be most promising, what results they put most confidence in, and
what they believe are not promising and should be terminated.
6. There is a concern that experimental paradigms be simplified as much as possible, that
any potential source of artifact, source of criticism re deception (intentional or
non-intentional) be eliminated from new protocols.
7. I remain an open-minded skeptic who believes that if psychoenergetic (PE)
phenomena exist, the SRI group is the best possible to demonstrate it.
1. Breadth of focus is too broad at this time. Need a few PE demonstrations of
impecable quality (limit focus).
2. Differentiation of different types of PE.
3. Theories about how PE works (future feedback, mechanisms).
Approved For Release 20(uIA"I - "2003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
4. Training PE subjects.
5. Selection procedures for screening PE subjects.
6 Operationally defining valid, reliable measures of RV, etc., training, learning.
7. Need to simplify number of projects and procedures within project.
8. Need a statement from SRI staff about their views as to their confidence levels of
belief in various PE phenomena. And what they need to increase their confidence
and what they believe would increase the confidence levels of skeptics.
9. Potential application demonstrations to be done. Working for two masters--mixed
directions--mixed bag of projects.
10. Obtaining scientific credibility in academic/research community of this particular
project.
11. Conclusions are stated in non-conservative terms that are excessive in the scientific
community "striking," "powerful," for relatively weak effects. But are necessary to
convince contractor.
12. Too much is going on to expect such quality control. Action: Cut back on
subcontractors; have staff member directly responsible as liaison to each sub.; set
specific guidelines re: procedural safeguards, data analysis, data reporting, get
preliminary proposal for staff review prior to any public report.
Approved For Release 2000/U' el-A9SIFI~3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200 03800410001-5
Appendix B
SINGLE a-PARTICLE EXPERIMENTAL HARDWARE
(This Appendix is UNCLASSIFIED)
by
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5.
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
SINGLE a-PARTICLE HARDWARE
Objective F, Task 1
We have designed and constructed hardware that will be used to test for the existence of
remote action (RA) by examining the geometrical distribution of a beam of a-particles as a
function of the attention of selected participants. The hypothesis under examination is that an
RA interaction will cause an a-particle to be deflected into a position where it would never
appear under "normal" circumstances. In the proposed experiment, a low-intensity (Sz~ 100
counts/second) collimated beam of a-particles will be allowed to drift, in a vacuum,
approximately 1 cm from the radioactive source to a position sensitive radiation detector. The
detector will be capable of registering the arrival of single particles. During the experiment,
individuals will be asked to produce a deflection of the beam by "mental" means alone.
Figure B-1 displays the conceptual approach to the experiment.
Position Sensitive Detector:
48 Active Regions Divided
into Strips 80 pm in
width.
Detector Groove (inactive
region) 20 pm In Width
? -ra- o.-Particle, Normal Trajectory
Cm 244 Radioactive Source
77
Approved For Release 20 tfflCf 3W1FD003800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800410001-5
UNCLASSIFIED
This conceptual approach was adopted for the following reasons:
? If RA exists, it is plausible to assume that a mental interaction with
matter might be mediated by electromagnetic forces. This assumption is
partly based on many years of published claims in the parapsychological
literature that RA (more commonly known as psychokinesis or PK) can
affect electrical and mechanical apparatus.
? An a-particle, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, represents an
extremely simple and well-understood electromagnetic target.
? Macroscopic RA sensors (such as strain gauges) are sensitive to many
influences such as mechanical vibration, acoustic energy, infrared
radiation, and electromagnetic fields. With a suitable vacuum
environment, the a-particle should be affected only by electromagnetic
and gravitational forces.
The four hardware elements that are crucial to this experiment are a suitable radioactive
source, a position sensitive detector, an appropriate data acquisition system, and proper
environmental monitoring and conditions. Figure B-2 shows a schematic layout of the entire
system. Figure B-3 displays the actual hardware.
'a-Source and
Collimators
Detector
Pre-amps
CAMAC Crate
and
Pulse Processing
Modules
LSI 11/23
Host Computer
and
CAMAC Interface
1V9~'FtM3800410001-5
Approved For Release 2000/ V ItlCLA
441
 Approved For Release 200c jNt fAV9w 003800410001-5
Approved For Release 2001 (J S#&03800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08(Negtirf800410001-5
LA M
The following requirements had to be met before the proper radioactive source could be
selected:
? The source must be as close to a 100% a-emitter as possible so that
there is no conflicting radiation that might confound the experiment.
? A sufficiently long half-life is needed so that the emission rate will not
change substantially during the time of the experiment (approximately
one year).
? The a-particles must be energetic enough to be sensed by the radiation
detector, but also be low enough in energy to stop completely in the the
detector bulk. For a typical silicon detector of P---4 100 microns depletion
depth, the particle energy (E) must be: 2 MeV G E 'C 15 MeV.
? Finally, the source must be collimated so that the diameter of the beam
penumbra will be sze 1 mm at a distance of 1 cm.
All of the above requirements were met by Curium *244, a 99.97% a-emitter having a
half-life of 18.1 years and a principal a-energy of 5.81 MeV. [The balance of the emissions
(0.03%) are 40 to 100 keV gamma-rays, which will not be detected by our system.] The
vendor was also required to supply the source encapsulated with a pair of collimators spaced 2
mm apart and an aperture diameter of 0.25 mm.
The detector that was selected is a position sensitive silicon strip device. As indicated
in Figure B-1, the device is divided into 48 active strips and inactive grooves. Each strip is
connected to a separate preamplifier so that a-particles can be detected with an x-dimension
position sensitivity of 100 ?m. The detector purchased was a commercially available unit
commonly used in high-energy and nuclear physics experiments. Figure B-4 shows a detailed
view of the detector, source, and signal readout.
C. Data Acquisition and Signal Processing
In order to provide maximum flexibility, the apparatus clearly needed to be computer
controlled. We selected an existing LSI 11/23 computer as the host device and the Computer
Automated Measurement and Control (CAMAC) instrumentation system as the
communications link to the detector system. (CAMAC is a recognized standard for nuclear
digital data acquisition; modular components are available from a large number of firms.)
Approved For Release 2000/0ItJf ? SSd f j f D800410001-5
 Approved For Release 200UN UU F5 frt 6D003800410001-5
Signal processing is accomplished through commercially available charge-sensitive
preamplifiers, pulse amplifiers, and pulse discriminators. A 48-bit Coincidence Register
receives the amplified detector pulses from each of the 48 active detector strips, thus allowing
the computer to assign a unique strip-position to each detected a-particle.
The primary concern in designing this experiment was to anticipate the possible normal
sources of deflected a-particles, so that RA can be distinguished from artifact. Collisions of
gas molecules with a-particles appeared to be the greatest source of potential artifact. This is
a common problem faced on a daily basis by the operators of accelerator laboratories. Using
existing data for the cross sections of a-particles and air molecules, a number of calculations
of collision probabilities were performed. These calculations assumed a vacuum of 2 x 10-6
Torr, an a-particle emission rate of 1,000 counts per second, and a detector-source distance
of 5 cm. Under these conditions, the probability of a collision equaled 0.05 only after 11
years of continuous operation. While this appears to be adequate protection against collision
artifact, we will still conduct long control trials during experimental sessions.
Other possible sources of artifact are electromagnetic (EM) and gravitational fields.
While it is likely that the local gravitational ambient will remain stable during the time of a
proposed experimental session (15 to 90 minutes), the same may not be true of the EM
environment. However, in order to feel confident that any detected anomalous events are
due to RA, it is clear that appropriate shielding for EM fields, and transient detection for
both EM and gravitational fields must be employed during the actual experimental sessions.
Approved For Release 2000IJNQ SIJIED3800410001-5
 Approved For Release 2000/0;/1NQho1-F2kSf MIY800410001-5
CURIUM 244.
c.-PARTICLE
FIGURE B-4 DETAIL OF DETECTOR SIGNAL OUTPUT, RADIOACTIVE SOURCE AND
POSITION SENSITIVE DETECTOR
Approved For Release 2000/Ja/NGLA5S1g71fiD3800410001-5