Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
III
RESULTS (U)
<
Table
shows
the p-values for each participant
in each
condition.
Two individuals achieved significant p-values
in the space
condition and six persons showed significant p-values
in the time
condition.
Table
1 (U)
(U)
p-VALUES FOR PARTICIPANTS IN SEARCH EXPERIMENTS
Subject I.D.
Space
Time
105
0.84078
0.16176
177
0.44148
0.13012
111
0.98868+
0.96894+
274
0.96954+
0.74088
144
0.63678
0.67126
099
0.95199+
0.21685
933
0.70792
0.14378
728
0.26703
0.11501
537
0.34966
0.19182
161
0.44627
0.31385
258
0.43465
0.96682+
594
0.54688
0.41565
677
0.76812
0.49793
653
0.23560
0.81473
636
0.85025
0.36908
570
0.67064
0.26024
393
0.44284
0.49724
255
0.97783+
0.96208+
425
0.74256
0.98615+
989
0.56330
0.80866
498
0.23507
0.84781
790
0.70135
0.63873
642
0.27391
0.03106*
300
0.13345
0.00010*
463
0.16690
0.01473*
428
0.34136
0.03143*
057
0.63092
0.03778*
004
0.99536+
0.04630*
531
0.25078
0.91276
432
0.01245*
0.29625
837
0.04117*
0.69349
003
0.10618
0.19182
580
0.08974
0.53519
763
0.18481
0.26932
038
0.18619
0.35158
164
0.97838+
0.61381
*
Significant at < 0.05
in predicted direction
+ Significant at < 0.05
in direction of target avoidance
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Release 2001/03/^7
: CIA-RDP96-^0789R003200160001-9
^ Evidence supporting the tendency for significant subjects to do
better on one task over the other
(as reported
in previous research)
can
be
demonstrated by calculating
a z-score
for
the difference between the
z-^cores associated with the average
(across
individuals)
p-values of
the
significant condition versus
the nonsignificant condition.
We find
z -
2.87, which
is significant at
the 0.002
level.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Release 200imi07
: CIA-£DB^6-00789R0032001 60001 -9
IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS (U)
The results are
in line with predictions;
eight persons showed
significant deviation from chance expectation
(probability equals 0.027).
In addition,
post hoc analysis shows
a significant tendency to do better on
one condition than ON the other.
(U)
In FY 1987, the seven best individuals in each condition will participate in a formal
CAS study,
in which the conditions
will be separated and the number of trials increased.
Approved For Release 2001/^3/07
CIA-RDP
r
P|6-00789R0032001 60001 -9
pproved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Final Repon-^m^^^6^m7 to
Covering the Perioa
30 September 1988
December
1 988
neurophysiological correlates to
remote VIEWING (U)
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
(U)
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Data Format
2.
Button Pressing Results
iii
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200160001-9
Approved For Release 2001/0
-00789R0032001 60001 -9
III
RESULTS (U)
(U)
Viewers 002, 007, 009, 372, 531, and 908 from SRI International, and viewers 262
and 734 from Los Alamos National Laboratory participated in the effort.
Viewers 002, 009, and
372 were experienced while viewers 007, 262, 531, and 734 had not previously participated in
remote viewing trials.
As described in Section
II, the output from the MEG consisted of seven
channels of data recorded simultaneously from different physical locations.
These data were
stored either in average mode
(i.e., signal averaging was accomplished in real time) or as single
passes
(i.e., the signal averaging was accomplished during later processing).
A.
(U) Vassy Protocol
(U)
Since
there was no
initial
hypothesis
(other than
a
possible
response
to remote
stimuli), the following analyses are, by definition, post hoc.
In the signal-averaged condition, the
data from each viewer and each series were visually inspected for prominent peaks regardless of
the data channel.
Candidate peaks for a possible response to the remote stimuli were identified
for
later comparison.
See Figure
for a schematic representation of a candidate peak.
(U)
This particular post hoc approach
is problematical.
Because the data across viewers
are ^specially
ill behaved
(statistically),
it
is difficult to estimate the degree to which the timing of
candidate peaks
is fortuitous.
i
~
~^As shown
in
Figure
3,
the response
(in channel
1)
to
direct stimuli
for V002
exceed! 400
ft.
The arrows
in each channel mark
a candidate peak
for response
to remote
stimuli.
This peak appears approximately 100 ms after the onset of the remote stimulus, and
is
most prevalent
in channel
1.
(The peak
is the left-most component of a broader response.)
This peak can be seen
in channel
2, but
is absent from channels
4,
5, and
6 and
is sharply
reduced in channel
3.
This candidate peak, by
itself,
is not particularly compelling.
Yet data
froib the next session, one day
later, show a strong peak with the identical timing.
r
f On that day, 23 August, the detector array was placed as close as possible to the
loc^tionon the previous day.
This new placement resulted in a sharply reduced response to the
direct stimulus (see Figure 4) from that shown in Figure 3.
In fact,
all channels show a reduced
response to the direct stimulus indicating that the detector array might have been moved away
from the CNS site that was responding to the direct stimulus. The arrows indicate a peak in each
channel
that
corresponds (±2 ms) to
the
peaks
indicated
in
Figure 3.
In
all
channels
the
Approved For Release 2001/0^/07
: CIA-RDP96-QI0789R003200160001-9
Vy