Approved For Release 2^l^g(|^(^^-|ff^^00789R002200380001-6
NAME:
James Press
Comments:
1*
I do not understand the physics and description of the experimental apparatus.
It
is outside of my field of expertise.
2.
Part C, Analysis, line 5 - It is stated that MANOVA removes the requirement of
independent data.
This statement could be true depending upon what
is really
meant.
By
itself,
it
strains
credibility.
The
reason
is
that MANOVA
is
a
statistical procedure designed to analyze experiments with multiple, correlated,
response variables.
In this sense, the data are dependent, i.e., the response data
are dependent.
But the vectors of replications must
still be independent,
as in
ANOVA.
3.
It strikes me there was no control in the experiment - same subject, simulated
conditions, but no transmitter.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
1,
1988
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
Fascinating
technology
and
suggestive
results
from
preliminary
experiments.
Some follow-up should be done, but
I don’t think this should be the absolutely
highest priority.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
3,
1988
NAME:
Phil Sidwell
Comments:
1.
I believe this project has great merit and should be aggressively pursued.
It will
be important
for you
to be
able to demonstrate to your
clients that currently
available signal to noise analytical techniques tease out real RV signals that do
exist within
a person’s pattern and gain concurrence of such signals/responses
existence and presence by recognized authorities in the
field of signal analysis.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
NAME:
Comments:
.
2.
3.
Yervant Terzian
Page
1, paragraph 2 - not flashing or continuous flashing?
Page
8, paragraph
2,
9th line - “on dots” - what dots?
Page
8 - Stimuli and responses - aren’t all these expected?
Although we do not
understand the
details.
A-ll
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/0S/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2(£p|q^0g^Q5l|tpfgQp0789R002200380001-6
4.
Page 9, B.
2. - “a viewer responds to a remote stimulus” - what changes for the
viewer during stimulus?
5.
Page
11 - Results?
Relevance
clarity.
6.
Isolate sender’s and viewer’s apparatus completely - just synchronize messages.
7.
Probably not important to use many different “senders” and “viewers,”
since
they make no obvious decisions.
8.
Very interesting work which should continue.
9.
Consider changing the “image”
to
a very
“stimulating”
“surprising”
target
to
enhance the response - maybe.
10.
Can you run
or
test the
data the experiment
in
reverse
order?
That
is the
“sender” sends message after viewer’s slower response.
Any such effect will be
“looking into the future I”
Ha!
Ha!
Recommendation:
Yes
November 7, 1988
NAME:
Mike Wartell
Comments:
1.
Iam troubled by #1 of the two underlying assumptions and need to hear further
argument for its adoption.
Of course, assumption #2 rests on assumption #1 for
its validity.
These, in fact, are not really “assumptions,” but are starting points.
2.
In the
psi protocol,
it
is not
entirely
clear how the experiment
is conducted
especially re “pseudostimuli.”
Description needs clarification.
3.
If this work
is
to be continued (and
I support continuation),
it seems that
it
would be productive
to
intensify
the
“cranial mapping”
effort
so
that
effect
intensity could be maximized.
Failing that, even in conjunction with
it,
a more
convincing analysis of the the data needs to be developed.
4.
This approach seems
to hold
great promise.
Exploration
in
this area should
continue.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4, 1988
NAME:
Chris Zarafonetis
Comments:
1.
Interesting
discussion
of
Magnetoencephalography
(MEG)
and
its
potential
application to RV studies.
2.
Method
of
approach
is
good,
and
outlook
for
meaningful
results
appears
excellent.
A- 12
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6