SRI PARANORMAL RESEARCH

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200200013-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 28, 2000
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: October 7, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Releasc~fJ00/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020~0013-6
19 October 19"~~
SUi3JECT SRS Paranormal Researcha
15 - 18 October l~'~4 Trip Report
SG11
1. Summary. spent a total of twenty
hours at SRS on 15 - 1'~ October, during whichi a series of general discussions
were held, primarily with Puthoff and Targ and to a much lesser extent with Cox
and Jones, about past performance and achievements, current status of the
research and the details of that to be accomplished in the time remainingp we
reviewed in same detail the experimental protocols, went over all the evidence
pertaining to several recent experiments and took part in three new ones; and
tentative plans were made for an SR:I presentation in Washington, probably in
early December, In addition, while ~s visiting another contractor S G11
during the afternoon of 17 Oetobery spent several hours reviewing SRS's S G11
experimental records and sampling the various categories of raw data collected
thus far. Despite distractions stemming from reactions to the publication of
the Id .~r article and despite the fact that Wane of the 'superstars' were able
to be in San Francisco an such short notice, the trip was useful in terms of
clarifying the exact status of the research and delineating both our expectations
and their obligations durin, the remainder of the effort. While they weren't
coy about the criticality to them of lining-up fallow-on funds (ar support
from other sources) as soon as passible, there wasn't any undue focus ar pressure
on this issue--nor,. of course, were any commitments made. Indeed., on balance,
they almost certainly view the prospects as being rather more bleak than prom-
ising. Ina not unrelated vein, there were several attempts to get me to
conclude that (from. the operator's point of view) the capabilities evidently
shown in the recent technical-003 experiments could be usefully exploited in
the field. The most S was able to tell them in this respect was that I could
visualize legitimate field applications (and a genuinely receptive attitude an
the part of DD/O management) only ift those experiments could be replicated with
at least the same de.kree of accuracy under fool-proof protocols (see below); and
if there was also same way of providing reasonably reliable confidence-level
indicators (EEG or otherwise) with respect to the prababl~ accuracy of each
element of the remote-viewing narration.
Current Status & Plans re Basic Research
2. Subjects. They explained the reduction from g to 6 subjects by
stating that they'd been unrealistically optimistic in our first talks--that there
simply wasn't enough time to put nine people thru all the screening tests and then
thru the ops testing and that they could never have analyzed all the data (indeed,
its doubtful if they'll ever fully analyze the data which they already have--see
below). In any case, they felt it better to do 6 thoroughly than g partially. As
for the 3 so-called 'subjects' and 3 so-called'controls', their basic error was in
not sticking to their guns at the outset--i.e., that when you don't control the
phenomena (as in this case) you simply cannot (in their view) determine in advance
who the controls are to be. (`i~/~2f?.'"~i1c; ~t~ ,~.Q,~=~-~~ ,;,y~~~- ~.-~.R,y
~rL. ~N ~IQILG~i~S " 2 /} 7'~G-7G TiY`~iY '~C?.~C~1'/Z G>L $' "
Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CI - - 7 000200200013-6
 pproved For Release 0/08/10: CIA-RDP96~o-787R000200~013-6
~~'~ 3. The Screening Tests. Their reasons for dropping 2 of the tests were as
.,~ifollows: the EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 10-2 figures (in part, they
'h believe, because EEG signals in general are just too noisy to work with) and since
they'd set a standard of 10-6 for psychic performance they saw no advantage in
~`~ ~,a~,continuing to devote dwind:l.ing time to it; the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also
giving low figures with Subjects # 1 and 2 but the major problem was that ane has
to run. a tremendous numb~~of trials in order to get statistically significant
lt
~an
~~K
t and th
a
l
f th
t
i
i
d
i
h
ti
i
resu
s n
y
men
na
ys
a
a
me-consum
ng
per
e
s o
e
s muc
more
than in other experiments. They'd like to have kept a PK test
such as the one with
,
the gradiometer (where, after 150 runs, they were getting 10-3 with subj # 1) but,
-~ again, it seemed inadvisable time-wise. The remaining screening tests are: Remate
View (RV=9 trials), the Teaching Machine (TM=2500 trials) and Line Draw~~ngs(plus
~W cards)(LD=10 trials). The current status with respect to each for each
e~ is as follows (those who've already reached 10- are indicated by (~)).
Subject RV TM LD
Completed (~) Comple'ted Completed
,~2 ~ done Completed (~) Oi'
#6
~+ Completed (~) Completed
#5 0 0
# 3 2 (LUlle 2 CLUlle
l:OtlljJleLea `pUL LO pe aone
again w~ right protocol)
0
0
2 done Completed 0
They're getting 'crummy' data from the Line Drawings (i.e., few hits) but will
complete them for all subjects anyway. All of the RV and TM basic screening should
be completed within the next few weeks. As for their increasing of';the Teaching
Machine trials from 1000 to 2500, they claim that (in our original conversations 8c
S G11 the later ones with they hadn't focused on those figures as being neces-
sarily definitive and, in any case, they hadn't? really ana],yzed enough data at that
___- ~~._
,L n, ~.,,,
time to make sound judgements about the best number of trials
5i
y~~
~ ,
~
~+. Some Observations re the Screening Tests. All of the RV results will be
judged by 5 independent judges, each of whom will get the nine transcripts from each
subj and then visit the sites (with replacements) and try to match them. They had
been planning to wait til they had all 54 trials completed and may yet do so but I
urged them, in any case, to be sure the judging was completed on all which have been
run by the time of their presentation in DC and they promised to do so. The LDs are
run til they have 10 drawings from each subj--but they are allowed unlimited number
of 'passes'. As an example of what they meant by the problem of identifying 'subjects'
vs 'controls' in advance, they stated that Subj # ~+ was chosen as a 'control' specif-
ically because she did so poorly on both the TM and the gradiometer--but then she
went wild on the RV experiments, surpassing everyone else in accuracy & repeatability.
5. Status of Medical, Psychological & Mid-Test Neurophysiological Exams.
See the clipped pages in the attached Progress Report for the Medical & Psych
matrices--about which the following comments and clarifications should be made: the
Halstead-Reitan will be added as an entry in the Psych matrix and, altho all the
arrangements have been made, none of the subjs have taken it yet since Puthoff (as
a result of some other unpleasantnesses, see below) wants to take it himself first
and promised to do so in the near future and then schedule all the subjects; when
subj # 2 returned from the Electroretinogram he was almost a basket case--said it
was the most harrowing experience he'd ever had--and Puthoff' cancelled it for the
rest of the subjects; all the rest of the exams have been going quite well with the
exception that Subj # 1 refused to take the TAT. P.R.# ~+ does not show a matrix for
the Neuro Mid-Experiment exams but they intend to do five such exams on a random
basis (without any warning) for each of the six subjects. The current status in
all t~lp~eoa~d~rlRe~s`~~D69fiQ8/10 : CIA-RDP96-007878000200200013-6
 Approved For Releas~W00/08/10: CIA-RDP936-00787R0002~02~0013-6
Subject
Medical/Sensory
Psych Beh H-R
Mid=Exp Neuro
~ ~
Completed
Complete - HR
0
2
Completed
Complete(- HR)
0
3
Completed
Complete(- HR)
2 done
~+
Completed
Complete(- HR)
done
#
5
Scheduled
Scheduled
p
6
Completed
Complete(- HR)
0
6. Some Observations and SRI Commitments in re th~?:-Above Material.
a. The Medical/Sensory Data. We've been receiving the raw data all along
(with the subjects' names deleted and will continue to do so (much of it is repro-
duced in appendices to P. R,#4). After all the data 'been gathered (subj # 5 is
scheduled for the next week, I believe), Dr Armbruster of PAMC will collect and
integrate the summaries from each department; these summaries will inter alia compare
the subjects as a group with the 'normal' population and with eachother (seeking
correlates); as appropriate, on the basis of these summaries, SRI will go back to
Ambruster with questions 8c~or hypotheses (if possible, at least for spot-testing
before the end of the project); all of this material will be given to us as soon as
possible and certainly by (or in) the Final Report. I urged them to incorporate all
available PAMC findings in their DC presentation in December. If, on the basis of
the raw data, we have any questions we'd like to address to PAMC we may, of course,
do so through Puthoff.
b. The Psych/Behavioral Data. Puthoff has been having some difficulty
getting raw data from the woman in charge of this effort--partially, he believes,
because she'd rather deal in summaries; in any case, we will get copies of all the
raw data and the summaries--and the same process will be followed as above, i.e.: SRI
will go back to them with questions and~or hypotheses, will test the hyp if possible
and we'll get the results of such exchanges as well; also, if we wish to pose questions
we may do so. I urged Puthoff to put some pressure on the lady, pointing out that
because of the relative fuzziness of the data they are sometimes dilatory in making
and writing their final interpretations, and he promised to do so this week.
c. Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams. These consist of: 'total'
EEG; 'filtered'Ta~lpha EEG; GSR and plethysmograph. In the Final Report (if not
earlier) we will get detailed summaries and interpretations of this material--and
we can have access to the raw data any time we wish (but, having seen much of it,
I can attest that it would be foolish and probably useless for them to try to send
us copies of it). They have only run 7 of them (out of a possible total of 30) and
Puthoff admitted that their earlier mention of a possible indicator of accuracy (the
suppression of EEC signals 20 seconds before the 'event') was the merest kind of
hint--based only~~ a couple of Subject ;# 1+ readings. I impressed on him the importance
of thorough data collection and analysis in this area and, while he clearly agreed,
I believe he perceives a real problem with respect to analysis. So far they've
only been eye-balling it and even this cursory approach is quite time consuming. I
told him we'd been under the impression they had a computer capability for this and
he explained that they had had one--but no longer, the background being as follows.
They started out by using SRI's Sensory Sciences Lab (and Dr Lukas) for this effort
but actually completed only two experiments with him: (1) a Strobe-Light~EEG experi-
ment with subj # ~ in which they successfully replicated last year's results with
the man who is now Subj # l; and (2) a Mid-Experiment EEG~GSR~P1eth with Subj # 1
during an OOB test. But, according to Puthoff, these tests were of a quite low
priority for Lukas (who, apparently, is not interested in psychic phenomena) and they
had difficulty in getti ng ,t ~U I and u~e, f~~~~c~~ 0 ~~' with Dr Ornstien's
help and410.1~~@.Y ~~ ~.~ ~, ~ Q~ obi o ~ .Lg ~ their own lab a
 Approved For Releaa~..2000/08/10: CIA-RDP~6 ~0787R000200~?.00013-6
couple of months ago (I didn't task him with failing to notify us of this change in
protocol since using Lukas was their idea originally and not one insisted upon by
us--but the loss of another lab's input does, I fear, somewhat degrade the data).
They like their own system better than Lukas', partially because it has an analogue
output capability, and they intend to pursue the tests in two phases:
(a) Phase I; five mid-experiment tests with each of two subjects,
using 'walkie-talLcies' for real-time comparison of accurate hits and
EEG~GSR~Pleth signals; these experiments are in addition to the nine
screening experiments and the later OOB tests for ~ from this
data they will attempt to develop one or more hypo eses. S G11
(2) Phase II: Any useful hypotheses will then be tested pn the
remaining four subjects.
At first, Puthoff indicated that they might stop with Phase T if no useful hypotheses
emerged from it but I insisted that we'd need similar evidence from the other four
in arty case--and he promised to do at least one and, if possible, five tests on
each of them.
7. The Raw Data. As noted in pare 1, I spent most of the afternoon of
17 Oct looking at their raw data alone (they merely assembled it for me and, after
som~explanatory remarks, left it with me). In general, it consisted of: (1) their
daily lab notebooks logs; (2) 45 tape casettes (and drawings) of OOB experiments;
(3) print-out tapes from the Teaching Machine; (~+) strip-charts on the EEG~Strobe
light experiments; (5) strip-charts on the Laser-Pendulum~Gradiometer experiments;
and (6) strip-charts on mid-experimentation EEG~GSR~Pleth tests. In all, while not
massive, the assembled raw data is impressive--but much of it, I fear, will not get
the kind of scrutiny it may deserve before the end of the project. For instance,
ane half-hour OOB test with subj # 1 results in possibly 200 feet of strip-charts
with five graphs on it--and I doubt if they've done anything with it yet, except
eye-ball it and, possibly, physically weigh it. If they don't exploit the data
by the end of the project I believe we could and should insist on a no-cost
extension for that purpose. If there is anything of significance in t~.a data,
with respect to indicators of accurate psychic functioning, it is unrealistic to
expect it to be so obvious as to leap off the chart and bite you in the leg.
8. The Hypotheses/Theoretical Aspects of Basic Research. While they have
nothing solid to show in this area as yet which isn't surprising), they say that
some useful ideas came out of the Geneva conference--and one of them (see Appendix
1 of P. R. # ~--which, they've already been told, looks suspiciously like 'padding')
they have already tested and rejected; that is the Feinberg hypothesis that OOB
phenomena are 'merely' short-term 'future memories' of feedback after the experi-
ment. They have run a couple of experiments with subj # 4 in which no feedback
TeTA.e rc~ vovi (O
r
l
SG1D
ever wi
l be) and she did dust as well. As soon as OTS' consultant
has given us his report on the Geneva conference and his views on possible
r hypotheses to be tested
it is intended t
t
,
o pu
him together with
Putho~'f and Targ, let him see their data and see whether, together, they can come
up with useful hypotheses.
Other Matters
9. Series of Technical/Lab OOB Ex eriments. This series was begun. a few
S G1lweeks ago in response to a request from who was t in to
rY' ~ g get a fix on the
kind of capabilities which might service requirements such as those which
poke to us about some months ago. These experiments are in addition to
e asic screening tests and the mid-test neurophysiological ones. So far, they've
run perha~p~~~~' ~f~el~'2II~~x08~~b~eCCCl44,1~[~p8~.da~0~@0$~0~~-Bost gifted of
all in this domain. I was appalled to realize, however, that--evidently for reasons
 Approved For Rel~,se 2000/08/10: CIA-RD~56-00787R00,~00200013-6
of efficiency, to collect maximum data as soon as possible--they dropped a
critical part of the earlier protocol and, thereby, have left themselves and
the data wide open to challenge. Instead of having someone outside the para-
normal lab control the selection of target sites, Targ or Puthoff would make the
selection 'randomly' after leaving the subject--usually by listing 6 SRI lab
facilities and rolling a die to determine which one they would visit. It never
ceases to amaze me how, as scientists, they can be so obtuse in this regard and
so personally sensitive whenever I raise the issue. I have assured them time and
again (and it is quite literally true) that I'm personally convinced that neither
of them are consciously cheating--but that it is irresponsible of them to wantonly
discredit such potentially good data as they now have by using, for whatever
reason, procedures which will permit anyone else to shoot holes in the evidence.
Their (or, at least, Targ's) rebuttal is that if they use Cox or Jones to select
the list of sites and roll the die, as I suggested, anyone caring to reject the
evidence need only include them in the putative fraud as well. The rationality
of this argument is more apparent than real. As I pointed out to them, rational
men (hopefully, the majority of those to whom the evidence will be presented) will
accept reasonable measures to preclude the possibility of conscipus or unconscious
cheating--but, in this last series, they have not provided those reasonable
measures. Finally, they accepted the argument (for about the fifth time, I might
add) and promised that the rest of this series would be done with those additional
S G1lcontrols. In any case, -and I listened to some of Subject # 1+'s tapes, looked
at her drawings and visited the sites. All I can say is that, if repeatable with
the necessary safeguards, the accuracy is uncanny--and could be of ops value. We
brought back copies of two of the tapes and drawings and photos of the sites if
ar.~yone cares to review them.
10. Participation in RV Experiments. _ and I took part in two OOB S G11
experiments with Subject ~ who has not been noted for his OOB gifts; both he and
they characterized the results as mediocre, even for him. In both instances we
controlled the site selection. In one we went (with Puthoff and subject # 6) to
tennis courts about 3-~+ miles from SRI and he located us as being at a museum about
x+00 ft from where we actually were; his basic mistake (and apparently a common one)
was in 'cognating' the museum & embroidering on that interpretation--while his six
drawings were actually much more in tune with the tennis courts. The second
experiment, a 'technical' one involving a nearby SRI lab, was quite similar: a
number of quite good verbal and drawing descriptions but a quite erroneous con-
clusion. I had a quite similar experience when I acted as the remote-viewer in
an experiment, while Targ and
went to a lab site; the major virtue of this
S G1~
experiment being that both
and I got a much better feel for the actual
S G11
procedures. I pointed out to them that, in the ops scenarios, we were unlikely
ever to have a witting or cooperative subject at the site (and, if we did, we'd
not require remote viewing skills); I urged them to try at least some experiments
in which the subject didn't know the 'outbound' viewer at all--and then some in
which the subject knew him~her only by name~photo~etc and, finally, some in which
the subject was permitted to see the viewer in a 'walk-by' situation. They clearly
would like to try these variations but I'm not sure they'll get around to it
before the project endsa
11. Presentation in DC. This is tentatively scheduled for early in
December and is clearly intended to have an impact on those in the hierarchy who
will be passing on the question of renewal. In a sense it will be a~preview of
their Final Report--and I feel this is a perfectly legitimate procedure. As
indicated elsewhere throughout this memo, they were urged to ensure that their
presentation included several elem nt ~} }~ nterpretive
materia~p~5?Y~d ~~ig~po~tO~AC~~i~~c~~`"~~~~~?~~i.~Y~~~ar,ts .. g~i~neurophysiological
 Approved For Release 2~/08/10: CIA-RDP96-~0787R0002002~013-6
material; independent judging results on the OOB screening tests; 'clean' (i.e.,
safeguarded) lab RV experiments; succinct statements of where they stand with
respect ~to ana sis of the raw data; whatever useful theorizing hypotheses they
S G1 D (and~or -) can present--couched, if they wish, in terms of possible
follow-on activity. We should talk to OTS soon about drawing up a definitive
guest-list for the presentation.
12. Other Material. A copy of the latest Progress Report is attached--
with a few last minute medical raw data sheets inserted. In addition, there
are (not attached but available); casette, photos & drawings of two RV experi-
ments by Subj # 4; and a series of SRI documents relating to the Nature
article.
S G11 13. Social. _ and I spent 5 or 6 six hours durin the evening of
16 Oct with Hal Puthoff and his recent bride, a S G F OIA3
rather bright, articulate and charming 'teacher o eac ers in e S.F. area.
1~+. In Conclusion. I'm impressed by the intensity of their motivation
and by the quantity of work they have done--but a bit distressed by the lack of
discipline with respect to procedures and exploitation of data. It may be that
this is an inevitable (however unpalatable) trade-off for having a pair of such
eager, hard-working and imaginative investigators in such an exotic field. There
is no doubt that both are very intensely and emotionally wrapped-up in their
work, are wholly convinced of the existence of the psychic phenomena they are
investigating and equally convinced that they can harnass it in time. I cannot
honestly judge the degree to which their objectivity suffers as a consequence--
or the degree to which any postulated loss of objectivity biases the outcome
of their work. For what its worth, I am personally convinced that neither are
engaging in conscious cheating--but the,very intensity of their involvement
does, it seems to me, elevate the possibility of unconscious cueing. Let me
hasten to add that I have absolutely no evidence of the latter, either; it is
simply a possibility which, given the dynamics of the entire situation, it
would be irresponsible not to recognize. On the other hand, at the risk of
~s~.~daniavgr?~Y~~? ~-c edob~~~ty I fm~u~~ a~ 't that the weight of the evidence
-wever fau~tedrtions o~~ m~gh~} leaves me on balance more persuaded
than not of some psychic functioning--although I'm less confident that we now
have either the tools to measure it or the capacity to conceptualize or model
it. Empirically, nonetheless, I can see operational uses if certain of the
alleged gifts can be demonstrated under optimum controls and if measures in
support of confidence-level indicators can be de~i~s1d.
9
~a Sa { - `1ZLL~^ .-2G/~LC~d c.~ L /5~Q- Gs 4 ~ ~~L~~C-6'Ll+'~S' 4~!'~' ~L
SG11
r
~v "~~
~ d~~`~~ SG1I
Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-007878000200200013-6