Approved For Release 200
96-00787R0003000500Q1 -5
to evaluation because the descriptions
of the experiments are incomplete
±n one or
aspects.
To consider the possibility of physical
CM, we
are forced to assume that all reports are true
, and to exercise caution
in drawing conclusions
from the data base.
In analyzing the data-gathering form of intrusion, we find ample
evidence lnSV^^QHBBHHHHHH^iterature2
» a
that RV may be a
valuable information-gathering technology.
Because no reported perturba-
tion occur at the time of RV data acquisition, we are unable to recommend
a physical
countermeasure.
However, evidence from two 00BE4
»5
suggests
that
there may be a concomitant remote perturbation that
can be detected
at the time of the OOBE.
Whether RV produces similar detectable effects
remains
to
be determined.
Analysis of
the remaining forms
of intrusion presented in Table
revealed
that virtually none of the papers
discussed effects
at distances
greater than a few meters.
(For example,
almost all of the metal bending
reported occurred with the subject actually touching the object in question.)
These observations
suggest
that
the simplest form of countermeasure in
these cases
may be distance between sensitive equipment and a putative
RP agent.
Some
forms
of RP may be accomplished
by unusual
(but
not psycho-
energetic) human abilities.
(For example,
some authors
have suggested
that RP on static objects may be explained by the subject's ability to
generate electric fields.)
In such
cases,
standard shielding techniques
would serve
as an adequate countermeasure.
Approved For Release
. Approved For Release
IV
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PSYCHOENERGETIC INTRUSION
Theoretical understanding of psychoenergetic processes
is still in
its
infancy.
With one possible exception,6
»7
all suggestions
for mechanisms
must
be categorized as "plausibility" arguments.
Table
2 shows the current theoretical
ideas with a brief description
of each.
In order to suggest possible countermeasures, we must assume that
a
given mechanism is responsible for the phenomena.
From Table
2,
we see
that Mechanisms
1 and
6 are "normal" because they involve well understood
physical processes and thus have recognizable countermeasures.
The re-
maining mechanisms, however, have
no known physical
CM.
Yet,
to disallow
the possibility of
some form of mental CM would be premature.
Approved For Released
-RDP96-00787R000300050001 -5
SUGGESTED
PSYCHOENERGETIC
MECHANISMS
Approved For Release 2
RDP96-00787R000300050001 -5
Approved For Release 200mm
P96-00787R000300050001 -5
Approved For Release 200j
P96-00787R000300050001 -5
V
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because considerable evidence for the information-gathering form of
psychoenergetic intrusion exists and because evidence also exists
that
some forms of
this intrusion incidentally affect physical objects
, we
recommend that
a countermeasure program be initiated.
To optimize the
likelihood that such
a program will have definitive results,
we outline
here
a systematic,
but
limited effort.
Several considerations beyond those of
the survey must
influence
the design of
a physical CM program.
They are:
•
Devices
must
be chosen that have demonstrated
susceptibility to
RP.
•
Devices
must
be sensitive,
yet
isolated from the
environment
•
Engineering
(hardware /s of tware )
should
be kept at
a minimum.
•
The approach should be systematic and should follow
some of the earlier reported efforts
Given these constraints
,
three types
of hardware are suggested for
study in
a physical CM program:
(1)
A RNG device
(2)
Temperature sensing elements.
(3)
Film detectors.
A RNG device was selected because such devices
have been under study for
10 years
.
It
is
clear from this
data
base and from one study1
conducted
at
SRI
International
that
some form of psychoenergetic interaction exists.
To isolate the form of interaction and to assess
the usefulness
of
RNGs
as
potential intrusion detectors,
a modest redesign of the existing RNG
Approved For Released lit
HMB-RDP96-00787R000300050001 -5