‘Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110041-2 COS i De iT Lab 19 Cotoser 197 ST Pas i Ae 1. Urey 1 eg woich!: as SG1l nours at SRI on 15 = ctoner, 2 were held, primarily with Futho?? and fare and to esser extent with Cozx~ and Jones, about past verformance and acnievements, current status of the research and the details of that to be accomplished in the time vrenainines: we reviewed in some detail the experinental protocols, went over all the evidence pertaining to several recent experinents and took part in three new ones; and tentative vlans were made for an SRT pecsoniation in Vashington, probably in early December, In addition, while visiting another contractor during the afternoon of 17 Cotobex, spent severel hours weviewing Satts SGI exverinental records and sampling the various categories of raw data collected Zar. Desvite distractions s emnins from reactions to the publication of tne nature article and desvit t% that none of the ‘superstars! were able to be in San Francisco on such Short notice, the tric was usetul in terms of 7 _ : SG1l clari ren and delineating both our exvectations and their obligations during the remainder of the ef? xt. while they weren't t lini e c Coy avout the criticality to them o% ag-up follow-on funds (or support from other sources) as soon 28 possidle, there wasn't any undue focus or pressure on this issue--nor, of course, were any commitments made, Indeed, on balance, they almost certainly view the Deospects as being rather more bleak than prom= ising. Ina not unrelated vein, there were several attemots to get me t conclude that (from the operator's voint of view) the capabilities evidently shown in the recent technical-Co3 experinents could be usefully exnl CQ 3 fe) the field. The most I was able to tell them in this resvect was that I could visualize legitimate field applications (and a genminely receptive attitude on the vart of DD/C nana cement) only if: those exveriments could de veplicated with at le the sane desree oF accuracy under fool=procf vrotccols (sea below); and ve was also some way of oroviding reasonably reliable contidence~level indicators (289 or otherwise) with respect to the procable accuracy of each 4 & p qa ce ‘ of the renote~viewing narration, Current Status & Plans re Basic Research ee ee re basic Research 2. Subjects, They explained the reduction from 9 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 9 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, CTW Berea c, vey PROM CR Fyfe Fee rS (LE MR Maef§ PAN Tue TVA rT AE “OOM re OL 6 CONFIDENTIAL Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
SG1l ‘Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R6007001 10021-2 a weN Nw 3. The Screening Tests. Their reasons for dropping 2 of the tests were as i. follows: the EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 1074 figures (in part, they ““ believe, because ERG signals.in general are just too noisy to work with) and since “.y they'd set a standard of 107° for psychic performance they saw no advantage in ‘J continuing to devote dwindling time to it; the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also ‘giving low figures with Subjects #1 and 2 but the major problem was that one has WN to run a tremendous number of trials in order to get statistically Significant xs results in any PK experiment and the analysis of the data is much more time-consuming * than in other experiments. They'd Like to have kept a PK test, such as the one with y | the gradiometer (where, after 150 runs, they were getting 10-3 with subj #1) but, ae again, it seemed inadvisable time-wise. The remaining screening tests are: Remote SO Viewing (RV=9 trials), the Teaching Machine (TM=2500 trials) and Line Drawings (plus ‘ ¢ ee. every” re <e ee ue? 40> c ‘\ aN S/W cards) (ID=10 trials). The current status with respect to each for each “YS subject is as follows (those who've already reached 10-© are indicated by (*)). AW Subject RV TM ID #1 Completed (*) Completed Completed #2 2 done Completed (*) om # 3 . % done + done Completed (but to be don again w/ right protocol) wh Completed (*) Completed 0 # 5 0 0 0 #6 $ done Completed 9) They're getting ‘crummy' data from the Line Drawings (i.ec, 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 ofthe Teaching Machine trials from 1000 to 2 OO, they claim that (in our original conversations & SG1l the later ones in they hadn't focused on those figures as being neces- sarily definitive and, In any case, they hadn't really analyzed enough data at that time to make sound judgements about the best number of trials. Thy eafe phere Fee 4, 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 T 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 # 4 was chosen as a 'tcontrol' specitf- 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 #4 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. PLR k 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 three areas is as follows: Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
~ 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10061 -2 Subject Medical/Sensory Psych/Beh/H-R . _ Mid=Exp Neuro # Completed Complete(- HR 0 fame # 2 Completed Complete(- HR) 0 #3 Completed Complete(- HR) . $ done # Completed Complete(- HR) done — #5 Scheduled Scheduled 0 #6 Completed Complete(- HR) fe) 6. Some Observations and SRT Commitments in re the 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.#). After all the data hasbeen 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 &/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 goon 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.: SRT 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. ec. Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams. These consist of: ‘total’ EEG; ‘filtered! (alpha) 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 EEG signals 20 seconds before the ‘event') was the merest kind of hint--based only, & couple of Subject # 4 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 SRT'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 #1; and (2) a Mid-Experiment EEG/GSR/Pleth with Subj #1 during an OOB test, But, according to Puthoff, these tests were of a quite Low ylority for Iukas (who, apparently, is not interested in psychic phenomena) and the bad difficulty in getting timely and useful responses from him, So, with 4 help and urgings, they set up a capability to do the game thing in their own lab a i SG1l Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
‘Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R600700110021-2 couple of months ago (I didn't task him with failing to notify us of this change in protocol since using Iukas 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 T: five mid-experiment tests with each of two subjects, using 'walkie-tallies' for real-time comparison of accurate hits and EEG/GSR/Pleth signals; these experiments are in additi to the nine Screening experiments and the later OOB tests for from this SG1l data they will attempt. to develop one or more hypotheses. (2) Phase II: Any useful hypotheses will then be tested on the remaining four subjects. At first, Puthoff indicated that they might stop with Phase I if no useful hypotheses emerged from it but I insisted that we'd need similar evidence from the other four in any 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 para 1, I spent most of the afternoon of LY Oct looking at their raw data alone (they merely assembled it for me and, after soméexplanatory remarks, left it with me). In general, it consisted of: (1) their daily lab notebooks/logs; (2) ks tape gasettes (and drawings) of OOB experiments; (3) print-out tapes from the Teaching Machine; (4) strip-charts on the EEG/Strobe light experiments; (5) strip-charés 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, one half-hour OOB test with subj #1 results in possibly 200 feet of strip-charts with five graphs on it--and T 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 that 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 lof PR, # 4.-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 SGi1l was given (or ever will be) and she did just as well. Ags soon as oT! consultant has given us his report on the Geneva conference and his views on possible cheories or hypotheses to be tested, it is intended to put him together with Puthoéf and Targ, let him see their data and see whether, together, they can come up with useful hypotheses. Other Matters SG1l 9. Series of Technical/Lab 00B Experiments. This series was begun a few SG1l weeks ago in response to a request from who was trying to get a fix on the kind of capabilities which might service requirements such as those which SG1l PE s :0%0 to us about some months ago. These experiments are in addition to the basic screening tests and the mid-test neurophysiological ones. So far , they've run perhaps ten of them--half with subject #4 who appears to be the most gifted of all in this domain. TI was appalled to realize, however, that--evidently for reasons Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2