REVIEW OF PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000700100007-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 7
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved ~F~~~eb~a~~Q~-~/~3/~1~,~~~~~~P~fi{t'~Q~~7~t000700100007-9
I NTf:O(1UCT I0l~
Several caveates are necessary in order that this review be
considered a fair appraisal of the staf:e o-f the research described.
? First, there are available only f.hree progress reports
covering a period 28 January to 1 August 1974. Evidently,
the major portion of research data both basic and applied has
yet to be submitted to the sponsor.
~ Pdo intervie4vs were held with the principal investigators or
their staff to clarify soma of the techniques and procedures
described in the progress rr~port.
m Little or no description beyond general impressions has?beerr
obtained by the clients` monitors o>= this project.
~ As a result of the incomplete repor?tirrg ar~d data analysis, the
reviev~er must be extremely careful not to give a biased report
because supposEd 4veai:nesses or strengths of tf;e initial reports
may not be perpetuated in a final and more comprehensive reporting
of the research.
Bacl_ground Section
;The purpose as stated in the progress reporf. on the program is "to determine
the characteristics of those perceptual modalities through vahicf~ ir7ciividuals
obtain information about their erriironn;ent, wherein such informatior, 'is not
presented to any knortim sense."
The program is"divided into tsvo categories of investigation of
appror,in.a.tely equal effort: applied research and hasic researcir. The purl;ose
of the applied research is to explore experimentally thG {iotentiai for
applications of perceptual abi lities of interest, vrith special attention give
to accuracy and reliability. The purpose of th:: basic research is to icienti~y
the character~istics of individual possessing such abilities, ana to iderii;ify
neurophysiologicai correlates and basic mechanisms involved in sucl~r
functions." This revievJ must by necessity be concentrated on vrhat the
Approved For Release
 rc~~vrc~V~r~~irl4~rs ~~~h~O~Qi~Q7re~~~Q~~rQ07~~i~0~r~~q~iQQQ~a
available in the three progress reports concerning the neurophysiological
correlates and basic mechanisms. Since the information is presented in
progress report form, the organization of this review must he artificial and
perhaps does not represent in order of importance of the subjects discussed.
~1n Overi vew
A reading of the three progress reports leaves the impression that
the research eras done on a pragmatic and perhaps "catch-as-catch-can" basis.
Such an approach n:ay have been necessitated by the availability of certain
subjects or may be a reflection of the absence of a long-range plan.
It is also somewhat difficult to separate the research that was begun
in Januar~y 197 from research conducted by SRI during previous periods. This
is particularly true because in ttre first t~~ro progress reports there are
enclosures (in the form of appendices) that were prepared under different
sponsorship. One is undated. Thus, 'it is difficult to determine the period
during 4vhich the research 1-aas conducted. The reviewer believes .this paper,
entitled "Information transmission under conditions os sensory shielding,"
may have been sponsored just prior to the present reporting period. It is
questionable whether this portion of the prroyress report should
be considered here, but the reviel~,~er has examined it in order that the review
be comprehensive.
This appendix covers the titirorl; done with hlr. Geller who performed
under a variety of test situations. When one examines the data and the analyses
of i~1r. Geller's ability to reproduce stimulus material enclosed in sealed
envelopes, it is necessary on two counts to look at pragmatic useage of the
skills or unique talent demonstrated.
The first point concerns the degree of replicability o~F the stimulus
material. How accurate must the reproduction be to have value or meaning.
If one seeks exact reproduction as a criterion one would reach certain
conclusions from the test. If one allows .f or analyses of symbolism or
near-identity or even similarity, other interpretations are possible.
The second point center~ns the methodology of submitting Mr. Geller's
responses to judges in order to see if they can match responses to stircri1i.
 Ap roved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
The findings of the judges would indicate a very high matching of stimulus to
response material. The reviewer questions the value of this matching
procedure. Tf~cre ~?~ere no false responses or false stimulus
material. These ti?rere very limited test materials for matching purposes.
This is an appropriate procedure only if one is interested in.syrnbolism or
similarities rather than actual or exact reproductions. The revie~ver feels
that if one is not pragmatically concerned with exact reproductions,
or mental Xerox copies of the stinulus material, then he has a purpose for
this information which aaould require symbolic analysis and interpretation
of the response material that escapes the reviewer. To see something like
the target material rather than the target materia] might give hints to
its true identity or configuration but if the respanses made by P9r. Geller
have elements of symbolism, and they appear to, then interpretatien becomes
a much mare ambiguous and difficult task.
These statements in no 4?aay imply that P1r. Ge11er's response stimulus
materials are not interesting or that on the surface without examination of the
experimental methadology are not above chance expectation. One must,
however, seek and interpret these results in terms of the objectives of the
research. The reviewer cannot evaluate the conditions under which these
experiments were conducted. There is no way to exclude the possibility
that clairvoyance precognition, or even elements of psychaklnesis, or a
mixture of the three, may not have boon operating. In addition, one cannot
judge from these reports whether there were flaws in handling the test material.
It is possible to comment on the die experiments conducted with the
sensitive, but only in a tentative fashion because of the brief description
and data available. In order to appropriately evaluate one needs to {;now more
about the pass circumstances whe11 the subject chase not to respond. The
fact that the=stimulus material is kno~?ln (six possible choices} makes
this a more structured task. eliminating confusing interpretations. The
results seem impressive. However, the revie~?rer is not acquainted with the
potential means of manipulation of dice in these ?circums~tances. Pore data
should be collected under controlled conditions.
 Appr~v~9~'~r~~l~~s~2~~f/t78'f~s l~~A-F~Df~(9i0R~$'91ROOI0~04?Otfl~@7~e~
pictures of every day objects dr~ativn by the experirenters and artists and
sealed in envelopes. The hundred targets were divided randomly into
taro groups of 20 far 3 days of experiments. On each of the 3 days of these
experiments P1r. Geller did not respond. He declined to associate any
envelope with the dra4ving that he had made. On each day he made approximately
two recognizable drawings which P-ir. Geller felt were re]ated to the target
pool (100). On each of the three days, ttivo of his drawings were considered
reasonably associated afith 2 of the 20 daily targets. On the third day,
two of his drawings were considered close replications to that day's
pictures. The experimenters did not consider these results significant nor
would the revietiver. Evidently., the researchers believed the significant
factor was that no person associated with the research staff hs-~d kno:viedge
of what the pictures or targets were. This suggests that fYir. Geller may need
to read somebody's mental impressions rattler than the target material.
This hypothesis needs further study and evaluation, because it introduces
variables not controlled for totally in tf~ese studies. Mr. teller's
subjective impression Gvas that having a target pool of 100 stimuli in
contrast to a single target far each judgement confused the identity of
the target. This explanation is difficult to evaluate. Perhaps if fir. Geller
is used in later studies the experimenters can get at this factor. Until
this matter is clarified the precise ESP condition that is operating cannot
be determined,
Remote Viewing by Pair. Price
There is little description of the actual narratives of P1r. Price. One
cannot determine whether he was aadare of the nine sites or had visited them
prior to. tf~~e experiment. It is kr~o4vn that he teas not aware of which site was
being visited-at any particular time. It is also clear that the experimenter
did not know which site was visited, but 4vhether he had knowledge of the
site selected was not clearly articulated.
In order for the judges to match narratives against the sites they
visited may be potentially significant. However, without more original
data and transcripts of the narratives it is impossible far the revielver to
 ~~'di~~ I~~r~?~~r~Q1{~~~4~r~1~r1~6tOQ~8s7aR~1~7~@@x1100007-9
times thzt the descriptions contained inaccuracies.
There is a question of the value of the technique of having judges
compare narratives and then visit the sites to match them. How many
factors are considered as matches ar misses in a nature preserve or the
Redwood City Arena or a drive-in theater is difficult to know. There are too
many unexplained variables here for a proper revietiv.
Additionally, from the pragmatic point of viety of the client, one
has to know the accuracy that is necesary in these narratives to make
remote vie4ring valuable.
The F.EG P.esearch
The findings of the Targ-Putoff initial work measuring EEG activity
as an indicator of information transmission betrti~een an isolated receiver
and a remote sender is interesting but certainly preliminary. Sir. subjects
-~rere used. The second analyses gave no evidence of EEG driving in any
receiver although in control runs the receivers did exhibit driving when
physically stimulated with the flashes. One of the six subjects, HH,
showed a consistent alpha blocking cT~fort. TI-rerefore, this subject eras
studied further and izrost of the data recorded is based on HH's performance.
The only other data offered 1-rere the guesses or the subjects' canscious
assessment for each trial to see i-f they could say t~rhen the stimulus was
generated. This tti~as found to be at chance level. Thus, only FiH's work
shor~red significant EEG changes associated r,rith the presence of remote
stimuli under conditions of sensory shielding. No judgement can be made
of this preliminary work on such limited data.
The summary or discussion session section of this Targ-Putoff report
seems to be the basis for background in the present proposal for work:
Here they state a channel-exists which may involve either direct reception
of hidden information content, perception of mental images of persons
knowledgeable about target informatian, precognition, or some combination
of these or other information channels. The authors feel that they have
obtained some evidence that suggests a channel exists whereby -information
about a remote location can be obtained by a means that is an as yet
unidentified perceptual modality. The reviewer cannot challence this finding
but cautions only that these data, like other data submitted for the same
hypothesis over the years, may leave many unconvinced. The second
 A~~ Hosea For Rele se 20~1/~3.~P7 :. CfIA-R~.P96-~0787~ ROOQ700100007-9
c c Ep ~o be ha ie ~n orma ion c anne ~s Imperfect
containing noise along ~vith tl7e signal. This is not a useful conclusion
because it does not define noise, it does not consider intensity or of
signal, it does not explain what other channels of information and
biological systems may contribute. Their third conclusion is that "while
a quantative signal-to-noise ratio information-theoretical sense cannot
as yet be determined, the results of our experiments indicate that the
functioning is at a useful level of information transfer." Tf~e use of
signal-to-noise ratio has been discussed previously. The concept of
usefeulness is undefined, and it has yet to be determined ti-rhether such
information so obtained is useful for interesting. This is not
to deny that people obtain information of some quality as yet to be determined
through methods we do not understand. To immediately hypothesize that it is
extrasensory, beyond the ordinary channels of information, is not in the revie~,~;er~_
mind supportable or parsimonious. Science has yet to exhaust potential
information obtained through the knov~rn and studied sense mechanisms. f~iore-
over,.the ways in which these information channels are sources. of data and
function as integrators is still not thor?oughly knowr~. The authors go on to
say that "the remote perceptual abi 1 i ty nay be 4?ridely di str-i buted i n the
general population but because perception is generally belo~r~ an individual's
level of awareness it is repressed- or not noticed." These are loose
statements without evidence for repression or "not noticed." We have little
evidence tivhcther the perception is belo~v a person's level of awareness. This
criticism is directed solely at use of words that tend to offer little
explanation.
The statement by the authors that our cultural constraints (rave
prevented the surfacing of these abilities is of interest. The
reviewer's experience would indicate that the present cultural freedom
for new ideas, life styles, and the like, is much more conducive to the
study and awareness of these phenomena than conditions for the last
75 year~s have been. If good cases are to surface, if people with high
ability are going to feel free to express this gift, this is the time.
 . - Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
The authors conclude that experiments in the area of so-called paranormal
phenomena can be scientifically conducted and that these results offer a basis
from which departures as a function of other observablcs can be studied. The
reviewer cannot disagree with tllis statement as long as it is not meant to
imply that previous studies or otflers rlow under vray are being conducted in an
unscientific or un-reliable fashion. The experimenters have produced no
new technologies untried in some fashion in the past or present. The
reviewer believes the current methodologies are adequate for the study of
these pehnomena but at present and in this study there is too great dependence
on probability and mathematical determinations of events. Although such
figures are impressive, they do not offer much explanation of the events. They
only tend to prove, that something is happening above chance level. It may
be that they have chosen, in the case of using judges, the wrong methodology
or vrrong variable to examine.
Similarly, the use of such terminology as noise-to-signal ratio also
does not really get at the problem, but introduces a concept that is neither
applicable nor helpful, at least as far as describirlg ongoing events.
Pro~c ress Report 2
Progress report 2 mentions the continuation of remote V'1e4v1r1g, including
targets in Costa Rica. It gives no real data for examination.
The report talf;s about detection of variable-density target material in
which the goal vray differentiation of 12 lots-density cards, six pencil and
nine blank cards. These vrere to be sorted by the subject a'Fter they had
been randomized and placed inside unnumbered opaque envelopes. The two
series proved to give results that did not differ signil=icantly by change.
They do mention, however, the ranking of cards by number of times chosen.
This was evidently perceiv ed to be significant, but does not appear to tllis
reviewer to signify much. Too little information is given to do a careful
analysis of what these results mean. These data should be looked at carefully
and discussed to determine whether they are of value, but this cannot be
accomplished in progress report form.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
 ? ~ ? Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
Basic Research
There is notf7ing in the program of the psychological testing to be
commented upon. The reviewer does not i:no4v that the hypotheses are associated
with the hemisphere specialization of the brain, except as reported in the
appendix. Since there are no results of data available, this matter cannot
be reviewed.
The Measurement Program EEG
There is reference here to the EEG work reported in the first progress
report. Three trials or observations are repeated in order to test tl~e
hypotl~esis that certain observed characteristics of paranormal functioning might
involve right hemispheric specialization. In the three sessions the right and
left occipital regions were monitored, and a section of alpha activity
(arousal response) that correlated 4-a~ith remote stimuli, as reported in the
previous experiments was found. As ti~rill be recalled, the results did not
seem very promising for remote receiving except in one individual, so the
meaning and importance of this section of the report are unclear. The
authors now be lieve or say that this occurred eseentially only in the right
hemisphere tirhere the average alpha reduction was 16 percent (2 percent in the
left) during the 16Hz ti?ia1s, as compared woth no flash trials. These results,
the authors suggest, indicate initial support for the hypothesis of right
hemisphere specialization and tfrat further investigations of that hemisphere
are indicated. Their reasoning concerning the placing paranormal functionir~g
in the right hemisphere is quite unclear. It is certainly confusing to hear
now that there were results from remote stimulation in the earlier studies.
Until the data are available, one must trust only the progress report.
Physical h9casurements
The section on physical measures is a description of what they plan to
do and data they plan to have in April. The only other part of the second
progress report is an appendix which, a very interesting paper entitled
"Hemispheric Specialization in the Duality of Consciousness," by Galin and
Ornstein from the Institute for the Study of Human Consciousness, Langley
Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute. The reviewer's assumption is that this
paper is not to be reviewed, since it evidently is included merely as an
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
explanation of hemispheric specialization and the investigators' EEG
work to determine vrhether paranormal functioning was related to tf-e right
or left hemispheres. The paper is most fascinating and may be helpful as
a model for looking at paranormal functioning, although it seems to be
somewhat beyond the purposes of this particular contract. Obviously, one
should follow basic research leads, but vrhen so much is devoted in the second
progress report to this particular item, and so little on the data collection,
the emphasis seems unbalanced.
Progress Report 3
The first part of the progress report discusses Project Atlas remote
viewing (European R&D Test facility). This subject matter can best
be evaluated by the client and tiril1 not be commented on by the reviewer
who has no access to the evaluation of the data or the data themselves.
6. The Costa Rica Ren;ote Vi ewi net Experiment
The results ar?e said to be of high quality and presently being evaluated
in detail. Only samples are given there. The descriptions are such
that one does not feel able to determine the accuracy.
The data given is irirpressive and vaould seem to give an accurate
description of the target described. Ho~.aever, it is difficult to give a
hard evaluation on "sample" data.
~C. Local Targets with Feedback
The data and tl~e one example of a description in tf~e form of
communications between person on site and the person in the lab is just
too confusing to dray any real co~~clusions. It would be necessary to accept
their findings at this time including their statement about where viewing
is weak. If one accepts this rather slcctchy presentation, the data looks
impressive.
D. Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing
This brie~P description cannot be evaluated.
 ~ppr~gc~aF~~SR~~~~se 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
This section describes procedures which would best be conunented upon
when all the data are in. Some of the information has already been
referred to t~rhile discussing specific findings.
The section C an 4-state Electronic Random S?imulus Generator describes
procedures and statistical analyses. There is no real way in which to
evaluate these finings until more subject data are available.
#2. Identification of i4leasureable Characteristics Possessed by Gifted Subjects.
A. Medical Evaluation
This describes test pr?ocedures and the status of the various subjects.
Again not enough data are available for a review. It is assumed that
these data grill be included in the final report and can be reviewed at that
time. Few results are available an certain tests. Review arould no~~r give
an incomplete evaluation
Appendices
Appendix 2 - Personal Observations of the use of the 4-State
Electronic Random Stimulus Generator is a most interesting and insightful
paper of one subject. (Never before has the reviev~rer seen a more detailed
self-analysis of ho~~~r one prepares oneself for each response in a series of
hundreds of responses. The paper is well written and will make a valuable
contribution to the understanding of how at least one subject perceives
clues for judgerrrent on 4 choice generator. Hopefully data vrill be collected
from other subjects in the same manner.
SurrnTtar Thoughts of the Rev~iearer
Reviewing these progress reports has been most frustrating because at
times one feels that the experiments are going to offer excellent examples
of the paranormal functioning. Unfortunately as 4vas stated in the introduction
they (progress reports) do not include sufficient analysis for final
interpretation to substantiate this view.
 ~~~
`~~; Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9
The scope of the under~takir~g has been very broad and the plans seems
comprehensive. If all can be accomplisf~ed and the final report contains
the data promised then this ~aill have been a very worthwhile undertaking.
Unfortunately throughout one feels that the experimenters have not gone
far enough to "milk" the experimental situation, and the research design may not
haves been tota]ly adequate to prevent critics frop~ finding flaws. Finally
that too many avenues may have been explored so that time and money will
not permit conclusive evidence in some of the major undertakings.
There is also the feeling by tt~e reviewer that this has not been
the multidisciplined investigation that one initially hoped -('or. It is
assumed that the principal avritirZg has been accomplished by the two
investigators who interpreted much of the data collected by consultants.
This of course is a customary procedure but one would have hoped that
other specialists might have been brought more emphasis to the final
presentation of data. Of course, this may well be the case in the -t'inal report
but is not reflected in the progress reviews. One still has the feeling
that the prevailing philosophy is to "prove" the existence ~~an infot?mation
channel beyond those that customarily postulates and the effort to support
this hypothesis will certainly affect the tone of the report.
The reviewer looks forward to seeing the final data.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000700100007-9