Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800260001-5 UNCLASSIFIED (v) Probability of at least _ NI i N-i R hits in N trials Zp il (N-! pa (1) Mz Although probabilities are listed for several representative values in published tables,* it is perhaps most convenient to calculate them directly with the aid of a standard programmable calculator. A program for the Hewlett-Packard HP 41-C series calculator .is provided for convenience as Table 2. (U) To complete discussion of the binomial distribution, we note that the mean number of hits expected by chance in N trials is ~ = Np, while the standard deviation (measure of expected spread about the mean) is given by o = VNpq (U) Throughout the statistical evaluations, whether for continuum or discrete search, we shall adhere to the standard convention that a result obtained in testing can be interpreted as evidence for psychoenergetic access if the probability of that result occurring by chance is less than p = 0.05. *(U) Tables of Cumulative Binomial Probability Distribution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1955). -7J- UNCLASSIFIED . Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800260001-5
Approved For "Ui 2003/09/1 deb NCLASSIFIE Table 2 (U) HP 41-C PROGRAM: CUMULATIVE BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION #LBL "CUM BIN 444¢LBL 15 atI 3 45 RIN 39 46 ¥=8? ST at 4? G10 5 "fh PRIORI PR?" 46 STO 14 PROMPT §94LBL STO 82 56 RCL § LH 9 STO 92 A RCL 92 CHS ay at 1 STO a4 5 LH Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800260001-5 6 STi 85 "NE HITS?" PRONP T 9 S370 H6 PROMPT 22 510 ae REL 2 at 34 570 af 36 570 it a? RCL GP? 38 570 12 49 RCL 86 48 @CL a9 AL XY? 4? O70 15 43 ONY 2a “NR TRIALS?" UNCLASSIFIED 8 - t4 cL i4 x=? GTQ i? GTO ié 644LBL 17 65 RCL it 66 LN RCL {8 60 + sf ETS ST+ Gi RCL Ai 2 TOWNE @ PSE i ST+ 86 REL 46 1 GRO fo RY? G70 a8 RCL 1 83 "P, R OR MORES" 84 ARCL K 83 A¥Teid 86 BEEP 8? END UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release abba ET Rppss-00788R001 800260001-5 CENTER LANE-3/NOFORN IV EXPERIMENTAL EFFORT (UV) A. (U) Generai (U) In pursuing the search task, SRI engaged several remote viewers (RVers) ranging from (1) volunteer subjects, (2) experienced SRI RVers, through (3) well-known professional “dowsers” (who were contacted through the American Society of Dowsers). In somewhat extensive work with the latter, every effort was made to determine whether whatever skills could be demonstrated might be of a transferable nature. B. (S/NF/CL-3) Simulation of “Bug” Search (Continuum) (S/NF/CL/3) Described here is a test of whether a search procedure involving attempts to locate small objects in a room (e.g., a “bug”) would be successful. The target location was a large conference room in which a >1400 sq. ft. area (37.5 X 37.5 ft) was designated as the potential target area. For each trial, a small hand-size object was chosen (e.g., a calculator) then placed somewhere in the conference room—-the location was determined by entry into a random number generator for x-y coordinates on a 20 x 20 unit grid. (U) A total of 50 trials, 25 in each of two conditions (labeled I and II), was carried out with an experienced SRI RVer (#688) as search percipient. The RVer was in the RV chamber on the third floor of the Radio Physics Laboratory (RPL); the target area was a locked and guarded, nonoccupied conference room on the ground floor of the RPL. 1. (U) Condition I (U) In Condition I, for each trial, an experimenter (E1) places an object at a location in the target room (determined by random number generator), then remains outside the target room as a guard. A few minutes later, at a previously—agreed—upon time, Experimenter E2, who is kept blind as to the object’s location, has the RVer indicate his assessment of the object’s location. The RVer places a mark on a piece of paper containing a single blank square to represent the target room. At the end of the trial, the RVer turns -9- SECRET Approved For Release 2003/69/10 - CIA-RDN 96-00788R001800260001-5
Approved For Relenganpes psn s QAP PEPRPO788R001800260001-5 (U) his response over to E2, the two of them proceed to the target room to meet El, and they all enter the room to obtain feedback. Following feedback, the response coordinates, obtained by use of a 20 X 20 grid square overlay on the response sheet, are determined, and (along with the target coordinates) are entered into a computer to compare the probability of the observed result against chance. (U) In the 37.5-ft-square target area, the mean chance expectation (MCE) target/response pair distance is 19.5 ft. In the 25 trials taken under Condition I, the target/response pair distances ranged from a maximum of 15.6 ft to a minimum of 2.0 ft, with a mean of 13.5 ft. This result (a 31 percent reduction from MCE) is statistically significant at p = 1.7 xX 10°. As a second measure of performance, the target/response pair distances were ordered such that there was a trend from larger to smaller distances as the series progressed, providing some evidence of improvement in task performance over time, but the trend was not statistically significant. 2. (U) Condition II (U) The Condition I and Condition II series were carried out in an identical fashion, except that in Condition II, only one experimenter (E1) was involved. Thus, E1 “hid” the object for each trial. In the 25-trial sequence, the target/response pair distances ranged from a maximum of 37.5 ft to a minimum of 3.75 ft, with a mean of 18.8 ft. This result (a 4 percent reduction MCE) is statistically nonsignificant. In the second measure of perform— ance, however, the target/response pair distances were again ordered from larger to smaller as the series progressed, but, in this case, the trend was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Thus, evidence of improvement in task performance over time was established. (U) With regard to the difference in RVer performance between Conditions I and II (which, a one-way analysis of variance shows to be significant*), one can simply note the ‘difference in the two conditions. Technically speaking, the RVer’s task was identical in the two cases~-namely, to determine the location of a randomly-placed object in a target room. The psychology differed somewhat, however, in that during the less successful series (Condition II), one experimenter hiding an object could be said to have more of a “game” *(U) df1=1, df2 = 48, F = 4.94; p= 0.031. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800260001-5
Approved For Release 200 bee ET popos-o078R001 800260001-5 (u) CENTER LANE-3/NOFORN aspect to it than in Condition I, where the task is structured more along application lines of an experimenter and RVer searching for an object placed by a third party. Another difference is that the second series followed the first; the trend may simply reflect the “decline” effect that is typical in the psychoenergetics field when experimentation becomes a repetitive routine. Further work along these lines would be required to clarify this particular facet. Nonetheless, with both sets of data combined, the overall result, a mean target/response pair distance of 16.2 ft (17 percent reduction of MCE), is statistically significant at p = 0.01. Thus, the experimental series as a whole indicates that the application of psychoenergetic search techniques, although not yet developed to high accuracy, Can augment other techniques in locating small target objects in a remote, otherwise inaccessible, space. C. (S/NEF/CL-3) Simulation of “Agent” Search, Facility Level (Continuum) (U) The RVer who participated in the above experiment was asked to take part in a second experiment of a similar nature. In the second case, the target was to be a person, located somewhere on the grounds of the SRI 70-acre complex. The RVer entered the RV chamber on the third floor of the RPL, then an experimenter was sent to a random location, determined by entry into a random number generator for x-y coordinates on a 20 X 20 unit grid. (U) Forty trials were carried out--20 in each of two conditions; the second condition differed from the first only in that the RVer had in his possession a sample of hair from the individual to be targeted (to test the so-called “witness” concept, part of the lore in dowsing studies). (U) The outcome of this experiment was that neither series yielded results differing from chance expectation, nor was there any significant difference between the two conditions. Although the RVer expressed subjective differences in attempting to locate a person (as opposed to an object), no conclusions as to the difference between the two Experiments B and C* could be drawn. *(U) Defined in Subsections B and C of this chapter and hereafter referred to as Experiments B and C. -1l1- SECRET CENTER LANE-3/NOFORN Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001800260001-5