EVALUATION AND CRITIQUE OF SRI PROJECT 'GEOPHYSICIAL EFFECTS STUDY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 28, 1998
• Sequence Number: 10
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
Subject: Evaluation and Critique of SRI project "Geophyscial
Effects Study (U)
1. (U) Project goals which were met: The Geophysical Effects Study,
completed in December, 1984, accomplished the following tasked goals:
A. An analysis was performed to determine whether correlations
exist between RV performance in historical data (data from SRI's
previous experiments) and factors in the ambient geophysical
environment. Data from previous controlled RV studies were
analyzed against:
1) Geomagnetic indices.
2) Solar.electromagnetic emissions.
3) Sunspot number.
4) Ionospheric conditions.
5) Solarmagnetic field.
B. A program of real-time ELF monitoring was implemented. One
station was set up in a high-ELF environment (at SRI) and
another at a lower-ELF environment (at TRI). Comparisons were
made to detect common changes which might correlate to changes
in demonstrated RV performance.
2. (U) Project_goals which were not met:
A. Although the bibliography shows that a survey of existing
literature on the subject was made, no summary of the findings was
provided in either the interim or final reports.
B. Data from previous controlled experiments were not analyzed
against:
1) Weather (temperature, relative humidity, barometric
pressure, etc.).
2) Lunar cycles.
These two features were listed as tasked comparisions to be
made, but the Statement of Work said only that they would be
made "when possible". The affects of these two very real sets
of factors on RV performance should not have been left out,
since their biological effects have been shown to be large. It
does not seem that an accounting of the smaller variations on
biological performance can be taken into account without
consideration of their larger effects. No statement was made in
the report as to why these larger influences were not considered.
C. No "rough index" of expected RV performance was provided,
using given prevailing geophyscial factors. In fact, no study
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
of "given prevailing geophysical factors" dealing with the Ft.
Meade area, where we conduct our 'operations, was ever made.
3. (U) Project goals which were not properly addressed by the
tasking:
A. Whether or not the findings are applicable to our situation
is questionable. The main reasons for this are incorporated
into the original tasking. The Statement of Work allowed SRI
and TRI to conduct a purely "academic" study, rather than a
study which would be pertainent to our situation. As a result,
we have a final product which, although very specialized, is
little more than another textbook on the subject of remote
viewing. Examples of how this report vary from our specific
needs are:
1.) Even though ELF measurements were carried out both at SRI
and TRI, (places of high and low ELF radiation), the RV
sessions were only carried out at SRI, where the ELF
radiation is highest (and where transient ELF effects would
cause the lowest percentage of change). No attempt was made
to find out whether RV results would have been consistantly
different when carried out at the two locations; one with
consistantly high, and the other with consistantly low ELF
environments. Such an experiment would have provided us with
the ability to select the best locale for our work. Whether
or not solar activity affects us on a monthly or yearly basis
is not nearly as important as whether the location of our
worksite, in proximity to manmade constant-ELF emitters would
affect us on a consistant, day-to-day basis. This question
was not answered, or even addressed by the study.
2) The overall results of ELF effects were, naturally,
statistical averages. The report states that many
individuals did not conform to, or even showed tendancies to
be in opposition to the averages. Since the SRI contract
dealt only with the RV performances of their core personnel
and "off the street" volunteers, the report does not provide
us with any information which can be used to predict the
individual reactions of our personnel to our ELF enviroment.
Had the SRI project worked with our personnel, we would have
gained a wealth of information, dealing strictly with our
personnel and aimed at our operational goals. In this
respect, the original tasking for the project should have
been more stringent.
4. Conclusion: Because of the above factors, the study done by SRI
and TRI is shown to only answer questions about generalized trends,
dealing with the effects of solar-generated ELF on RV personnel
located in the constantly high ELF environment of the San Francisco
Bay area. It does not, however, answer specific questions about the
effects of ELF on each of our RV personnel, in our working
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
environment. In fact, the ELF environment in the Ft. Meade area,
where we work, is not even considered in the report. In short, the
findings of the report have little to do with our operations, and do
not effectively answer the questions we were asking when the project
began.
5. Recommendations for subsequent actions: In view of the
findings of the SRI study, certain actions on our part are now
appropriate for our optimum functioning:
A. Since a relationship has been established between sunspot
cycles and RV performance, we should now access open source
information about sunspot' cycles, to predict optimum operational
times.
B. Since individual performance has been shown to vary, in
spite of ELF intensity variations, we should now conduct a study
of our personnel to determine who will have optimum performance
times, and when.
C. Since the tasking did not require the ambient environment of
our worksite to be established, it should now be done, and
compared to the findings of the SRI study.
D. Continuing data bases should be kept on our RV performance
and our ELF environment. Now that the SRI study has shown the
most efficient method of analysis for such data, we should
continue it on our own, for prediction of optimum operational
conditions.
6. Recommendations for future contractual studies: Future
contracts for studies related to our field of operations should,
without fail, contain the following requirements:
A. Studies done for us concerning RV personnel should use our
personnel. This is the only way in which the individual
tendencies of our personnel, and the resulting effects on our
operational capabilities can be measured, studied, and predicted.
B. Studies done for us concerning environmental aspects should
include our environment. This is the only way we will be able
to predict the effects our present environment will have on us,
and is the only way we can predict what changes will occur with
any projected change in environment.
C. Any studies done for us concerning operational aspects of
remote viewing, either for intelligence or counterintelligence
purposes should be conducted in our operational environment.
This is the only way a planned study can meet the unpredictable
obstacles and tasks provided by our real-time work environment.
A removed study will produce a textbook for us to read. An
involved, hands-on study will produce an operating manual for us
to use in our daily operations.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100120010-3
3