Approved For Release 2499748 AGS RPFP F30789R002200380001-6 the ability are unaware of it? or Others have not had spontaneous experiences? Unclear as written.” Page 2 comment: The sentence read, “No attempt was made to maintain target orthogonality across categories, but considerable effort was expended to maintain within-category orthogonality.” Dr. Zimbardo’s comment is, “add sentence to clarify use of orgongonality in this case.” Page 3 comment: The sentences read, “Dynamic targets have been shown in some studies to have a higher hit rate than static targets. Our aim was to have some relatively difficult targets to help in our qualitative assessment.” Dr. Zimbardo’s comments are, “But is the effect robust enough to add this as a variable? [Add] reference [relative to some studies]. Are static areas thus more difficult?” Page 4 comment: Regarding the words “...viewer #009 produced responses...” Dr. Zimbardo comments “clarify this ambiguous phrase.” Page 6 comments: Regarding “As the sender repeatedly viewed the target...” Dr. Zimbardo suggests changing the word repeatedly to continually or another appropriate word. Regarding the sentence “This was particularly useful for finding viewers who occasionally produced an extremely accurate response, but operated close to chance on the remainder of the trials.” Dr. Zimbardo comments, “Important point - to elaborate more.” Page 7 comments: Regarding Table 2, Qualitative Rating Scale, “good scale.” Regarding “Two independent judges made the qualitative assessments of the responses...” Dr. Zimbardo comments: “Need inter-judge reliability measure.” Page 8 comments: Under Section 2., Targets “...each against randomly selected targets...” Dr. Zimbardo comments, “Not clearly worded assessed in comparison to viewings of randomly.” Under Section 3., Protocol, Dr. Zimbardo comments, “Need to remove the monitor from direct contact with subject — RV, a possible source of contamination. Monitor can observe subject via TV.” Page 9 comments: Hyphenate rank-order. Under B.1., paragraph 2, last sentence, change and to but. Page 11 comment: “But all this effort has produced only 2 reasonable RV’s? Is that considered good? Need to state that ~ seems costly 2/195?” 2. Must have multiple judges evaluating target hit/misses - and present data for inter~judge reliability. 3. Must remove “involved” monitor from contact with subject. Replace with “supportive” uninformed R. A. 4, Page 12 — Effect size of “Aspirin Study” is 0.29 not 0.25 as indicated. 5. Page 12 - Will there be a follow-up of the implications of the final sentence regarding ways to enhance the efficiency of subject selection? There should be. 6. Good strategy. Is yield of only 2 good RV’s considered “good”? Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-8 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2009 OL AG S4PAGE[Q0789R002200380001-6 Response to P. Zimbardo’s Comments: NAME: Comments: 1. Nevin Lantz, SRI Response The final version of the screening report was changed to reflect the questions reflected in the reviewers’ comments. Two methodological problems raised by Zimbardo will be discussed in detail. The first deals with his suggestion of using multiple judges in analyzing an RV response. Since the intent of the screening investigation was to locate excellent remote viewers, the kinds of controls that would be necessary in a proof-of-principle experiment are not necessary. We apree with Zimbardo that multiple judges would be a significant improvement to our research protocols and we intend to add that feature in the future. The — second problem--having an informed, involved, monitor present--highlights a “political” difficulty more than a scientific one. The analysis (rank order judging assumes that the viewer and the monitor know the target pool in detail (i.e., a one-in—n forced choice). In fact, the analysis holds even if the viewer had the set of 5 targets in the pool in front of him/her during the session. Since our viewers participate in multiple sessions (e.g., 40 in our tachistoscope experiment), and since we provide trial-by-trial feedback, it is impossible to prevent the viewer from knowing something about the target pool. (It was this consideration that inspired the on-in-n analysis procedure in the first place.) We recognize the need of providing exceptional proof for exceptional claims, and will continue to improve the protocols, A-9 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 200d PbO AG SHPH45[00789R002200380001-6 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective D, Task 1 (Neurophysiological Correlates To Remote Viewing) (verbatim transcription—-not edited) NAME: Herb Ley Comments: 1. This is a fascinating new technology for the study of neuronal activity. The two pronged research design is well presented and appropriate for the MEG technology. The statistical analysis is complicated by the lack of independence of data and the lack of stationarity. The Monte Carlo approach proposed looks like a good start for analysis. Perhaps other approaches may turn up given more experience with the study. 2. I am familiar with some of Dr. Robert Ornstein’s work and publications, and hold him in high regard. For some time I have been interested in the use of auditory stimuli, in addition to visual stimuli, for modification of CNS rhythms. You might want to discuss with Ornstein and consider the use of auditory stimuli in this protocol. In particular, I am interested in low frequency (ca. 4 Hz) stimuli as used in a number of cultures in native “fold medicine” —- e.g, Malaysian drumming, native American drumming, and Tibetan Buddhist chants. This sort of auditory stimulus is far removed from RV, so it may be outside your research boundaries. Nevertheless it is just as much a “stimulus” as light, and appears to have significant effects on mental functioning in certain cultures. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. The general research area is a good one and should be explored further. I am not sure I agree with the two assumptions about the similarities in neurophysiology. This is an hypothesis for the timebeing, which gives a reasonable starting place. The Vassy protocol appears to have problems in its analysis, as has been acknowledged. The use protocol seems more promising and should be pursued, perhaps with both 0.002 and 0.009, to see if they continue to show their response differences in opposite directions. I think it should also be possible to do a comparison of rate of change differences with a real stimulus versus the pseudo stimulus, and that in future designs such a comparison should be emphasized much more directly in the experimental design, with experimental and control trials interspersed, perhaps in a series of couplets with E first half the time and C first the other half, Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 4-10 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6