*
«
Affltfrfdftkd)
QIW4RDR96J-D917B7R000200230001 -6
INTRODUCTION
Several
caveates
are necessary
in order
that
this
review
be
considered
a
fair appraisal
of
the state
of the
research described,
c
First,
there are available only
three progress
reports
covering
a
period
28 January to
August
1974.
Evidently,
the major portion of research data
both basic
and applied
has
yet
to
be submitted
to
the sponsor,
o
No
interviews were
held with
the
principal
investigators
or
their staff
to clarify
some of the
techniques
and procedures
described
in
the progress
report,
o
Little or
no description
beyond
general, impressions
has. been
obtained
by the clients'
monitors
of this
project.
©
As
a
result of the incomplete reporting and data analysis,
the
reviewer must
be extremely careful
not to give
a biased report
because supposed weaknesses
or strengths
of the
initial
reports
may not
be perpetuated
in
a
final
and more comprehensive reporting
of the
research.
Background Section
The purpose
as
stated
in
the progress
report on
the program
is
"to determine
the characteristics
of those
perceptual
modalities
through which
individuals
obtain
information about their environment, wherein
such
information
is
not
presented
to any
known
sense."
The
program is"divided
into
two categories
of
investigation
of
approximately equal
effort:
appl ied ‘research
and
basic
research.
The purpose
of the applied
research
is
to explore experimentally the
potential
for
applications of perceptual
abilities of interest, with special
attention give
to accuracy and reliability.
The purpose of the
basic research
is
to
identity
the characteristics
of individual
possessing
such abilities,
and
to
identify
neurophysiological
correlates
and basic mechanisms
involved
in
such
functions."
This review must
by necessity
be concentrated
on what the
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
reviewer assumes
to
be
the applied
research effort.
There are little data
available
in
the
three progress
reports concerning
the neurophysiological
correlates
and
basic mechanisms.
Since
the
information
is
presented
in
progress report form,
the organization
of
this review must
be artificial
and
perhaps
does
not represent
in order of importance of the subjects discussed.
An Qverivew
A reading
of the three progress
reports
leaves
the impression that
the research was
done
on
a
pragmatic and
perhaps
"catch-as-catch-can"
basis.
Such
an approach may have been necessitated
by
the availability of certain
subjects
or may
be
a reflection
of
the absence of
a
long-range
plan.
It
is
also somewhat difficult
to separate
the research
that was
begun
in January
1974 from research conducted
by
SRI
during previous
periods.
This
is particularly
true because
in
the first
two progress reports
there are
enclosures
(in
the form of appendices)
that were prepared under different
sponsorship.
One
is
undated.
Thus,
it
is difficult
to determine the period
during which the research was
conducted.
The reviewer believes
this
paper,
entitled
"Information transmission under conditions
os
sensory shielding,"
may have
been sponsored just prior
to
the present reporting
period.
It
is
questionable whether this portion of the progress
report should
be considered
here,
but the reviewer
has
examined
it
in order that the review
be comprehensive.
This appendix covers
the work done with
Mr.
Geller who performed
under
a
variety of test situations.
When
one examines
the data
and
the analyses
of
Mr.
Geller's ability
to reproduce stimulus material
enclosed
in sealed
envelopes,
it
is necessary
on
two counts
to
look at pragmatic useage of the
skills
or unique talent demonstrated.
The first point concerns
the degree of replicability
of the stimulus
material.
How accurate must the reproduction
be
to
have value
or meaning.
If one seeks exact reproduction
as
a criterion one would reach certain
conclusions
fromthe
test.
If one allows
for analyses of symbolism or
near-identity or even similarity,
other interpretations are
possible.
The second point concerns
the methodology of submitting
Mr.
Geller's
responses
to judges
in order
to
see
if
they can match responses
to stimili.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020023000M,
V.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
The findings
of
the judges would
indicate
a very
high matching
of stimulus
to
response material.
The reviewer questions
the value of this matching
procedure.
There were
no false responses
or false stimulus
material.
These were very limited
test materials
for matching
purposes.
This
is
an appropriate procedure only
if one
is
interested
in. symbol ism
or
similarities
rather than actual
or exact reproductions.
The
reviewer feels
that
if one
is
not pragmatically concerned with
exact reproductions,
or mental
Xerox copies
of
the stimulus material,
then
he
has
a purpose for
this
information which would require symbolic analysis
and
interpretation
of the response material
that escapes
the reviewer.
To
see
something
like
the target material
rather
than
the target material
might give hints
to
its
true
identity or configuration
but
if the responses made
by
Mr.
Geller
have elements
of symbolism,
and
they appear
to,
then
interpretation
becomes
a
much more ambiguous
and difficult
task.
These statements
in
no way
imply that
Mr.
Geller's
response stimulus
materials
are not interesting
or
that on the surface without examination
of
the
experimental
methodology are not above chance expectation.
One must,
however,
seek and
interpret these results
in
terms of the objectives
of
the
research.
The reviewer cannot evaluate
the conditions under which these
experiments were conducted.
There
is
no way
to exclude
the possibility
that clairvoyance precognition, or even elements
of psychokinesis,
or
a
mixture of the
three,
may not have
been operating.
In addition,
one cannot
judge from these reports whether there were flaws
in
handling
the test material
It
is possible
to comment
on
the die experiments conducted with the
sensitive,
but only
in
a tentative fashion because
of
the brief description
and data available.
In order
to
appropriately evaluate one
needs
to
know more
about
the pass
circumstances
when
the subject chose not
to
respond.
The
fact that
the -stimulus material
is
known
(six possible choices)
makes
this
a more structured
task,
eliminating confusing
interpretations.
The
results
seem impressive.
However,
the reviewer
is
not acquainted with
the
potential
means of manipulation of dice
in' these circumstances.
More data
should
be collected under controlled conditions.
,
.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
n
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
A second series
of experiments was conducted with
a
hundred
target
pictures
of every day objects drawn
by the experimenters
and artists
and
sealed
in
envelopes.
The
hundred
targets were divided randomly
into
two groups
of 20 for
3 days
of experiments.
On each of the
3 days of these
experiments
Mr.
Geller did
not respond.
He declined
to associate any
envelope with
the drawing
that
he
had made.
On each day
he made approximately
two recognizable drawings which
Mr.
Geller felt were related
to
the
target
pool
(100).
On each
of the three days,
two of
his drawings were considered
reasonably associated with
2 of the
20 daily
targets.
On
the
third
day,
two of his drawings were considered close replications
to
that day's
pictures.
The experimenters
did
not consider these results
significant
nor
would
the reviewer.
Evidently, the researchers
believed
the significant
factor was
that
no person associated with
the research staff
had
knowledge
of what the pictures
or targets
were.
This
suggests
that
Mr.
Geller may
need
to
read somebody's
mental
impressions
rather than
the
target material.
This
hypothesis
needs
further study and evaluation,
because
it
introduces
variables
not controlled for totally
in
these
studies.
Mr.
Geller's
subjective
impression was
that
having
a
target
pool
of 100 stimuli
in
contrast
to
a
single
target for
each judgement confused
the
identity of
the
target.
This explanation
is difficult
to evaluate.
Perhaps
if
Mr.
Geller
is
used
in later studies
the
experimenters
can
get at this
factor.
Until
this matter
is
clarified
the precise ESP condition
that
is
operating cannot
be determined.
Remote Viewing
by
Mr.
Price
There
is
little description of
the actual
narratives of
Mr.
Price.
One
cannot determine whether
he was aware of
the nine sites
or
had
visited
them
prior
to. the experiment.
It
is
known that
he was
not aware of which
site was
being
visited- at any particular
time.
It
is also clear that the experimenter
did
not know which
site was
visited,
but whether
he
had
knowledge of
the
site selected was
not clearly articulated.
In order for the judges
to match narratives against the
sites
they
visited may
be potentially
significant.
However, without more original
data and
transcripts of the narratives
it
is
impossible for
the reviewer
to
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
evaluate
these experiments,
particularly when
it
is
said
several
times
that the descriptions contained
inaccuracies.
There
is
a question
of
the value
of
the
technique of having judges
compare
narratives
and
then visit
the
sites
to match
them.
How many
factors
are considered
as matches
or misses
in
a nature preserve or
the
Redwood City Arena
or
a drive-in theater
is difficult to
know.
There are
too
many unexplained variables
here
for
a
proper review.
Additionally,
from
the pragmatic
point of view of
the
client,
one
has
to
know the accuracy that
is
necesary
in
these narratives
to make
remote viewing
valuable.
The
EEG Research
The findings
of
the Targ-Putoff
initial
work measuring
EEG activity
as
an
indicator of information
transmission
between
an
isolated
receiver
and
a remote
sender
is
interesting
but certainly preliminary.
Six subjects
were used.
The second analyses gave
no evidence
of
EEG driving
in any
receiver although
in
control
runs
the receivers
did exhibit driving when
physically stimulated with
the flashes.
One of
the
six
subjects,
HH,
•showed
a
consistent alpha blocking
effort.
Therefore,
this
subject was
studied
further and most of the data recorded
is
based
on
HH's performance.
The only other data offered were
the guesses
or the subjects'
conscious
assessment for each
trial
to
see
if they could
say when the stimulus was
generated.
This was
found
to
be
at chance
level.
Thus,
only HH's work
showed
significant EEG changes associated with
the presence of remote
stimuli
under conditions of sensory shielding.
No judgement can
be made
of
this
preliminary work on
such
limited
data.
The summary or discussion session
section of
this Targ-Putoff report
seems
to
be
the basis
for background
in
the present proposal
for work.
Here
they
state
a channel
exists which may involve either direct reception
of hidden
information content,
perception
of mental
images
of persons
knowledgeable about target information,
precognition,
or some combination
of these
or other
information channels.
The authors
feel
that
they
have
obtained
some evidence
that suggests
a channel
exists whereby
information
about
a
remote
location can
be obtained
by
a means
that
is
an
as yet
unidentified
perceptual
modality.
The reviewer cannot challence
this finding
but cautions
only that
these data,
like other data
submitted
for
the
same
hypothesis over the years,
may
leave many unconvinced.
The second
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
conclusion appears
to
be
that the information channel
is
imperfect
containing
noise along with
the signal.
This
is
not
a
useful
conclusion
because
it does
not define noise,
it does
not consider intensity
or of
signal,
it does
not explain what other channels
of information
and
biological
systems may contribute.
Their
third conclusion
is
that
"while
a quantative
signal -to-noise ratio
information-theoretical
sense cannot
as yet be determined,
the results
of our experiments
indicate that
the
functioning
is
at
a
useful
level
of
information
transfer."
The
use of
signal-to-noise ratio
has
been discussed previously.
The
concept
of
usefeulness
is
undefined,
and
it
has yet
to
be determined whether
such
information
so obtained
is
useful
for
interesting.
This
is
not
to deny that people obtain
information of some quality as yet
to
be determined
through methods
we
do not understand.
To immediately
hypothesize
that
it
is
extrasensory,
beyond
the ordinary channels of
information,
is
not
in
the
revie',
mind
supportable or parsimonious.
Science
has yet
to exhaust potential
information obtained
through
the
known- and studied
sense mechanisms.
More-
over, .the ways
in which these information channels
are
sources, of data and
function
as
integrators
is
still
not thoroughly
known.
The authors
go
on
to
say
that
"the remote perceptual
ability may
be widely distributed
in the
general
population
but because perception
is generally below
an
individual's
level
of awareness
it
is repressed
or not noticed."
These are
loose
statements without evidence
for repression
or
"not noticed."
We have little
evidence whether the perception
is
below
a person's
level
of awareness.
This
criticism
is directed
solely at use of words
that tend
to offer little
explanation.
The
statement
by the authors
that our cultural
constraints
have
prevented
the
surfacing
of these abilities
is of interest.
The
reviewer's
experience would
indicate that
the present cultural
freedom
for new ideas,
life styles,
and
the
like,
is much more conducive
to the
study and awareness
of these phenomena
than conditions
for the
last
75 years
have
been.
If good
cases
are
to surface,
if people with
high
ability are going
to
feel
free
to express
this
gift,
this
is
the
time.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
; CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
The authors
conclude that experiments
in
the area of so-called
paranormal
phenomena
can
be scientifically conducted
and
that these results
offer
a
basis
from which departures
as. a function
of other observables
can
be
studied.
The
reviewer cannot disagree with
this
statement
as
long
as
it
is
not meant
to
imply that previous studies
or others
now under way are being
conducted
in
an
unscientific or un-reliable fashion.
The experimenters
have produced
no
new technologies
untried
in
some fashion
in
the past or present.
The
reviewer believes
the current methodologies are adequate
for the study of
these pehnomena
but at present
and
in
this
study there
is
too great dependence
on probability and mathematical
determinations of events.
Although
such
figures
are impressive,
they do
not offer much explanation
of
the
events.
They
only
tend
to
prove,
that something
is
happening above chance
level.
It may
be
that
they have chosen,
in
the case
of using judges,
the wrong methodology
or wrong
variable
to examine.
Similarly,
the use of such terminology
as
nois;e-to-signal
ratio also
does
not really get at
the problem,
but
introduces
a concept that
is
neither
applicable
nor
helpful,
at least as
far as describing ongoing
events.
Progress
Report
Progress
report
2 mentions
the continuation of remote viewing,
including
targets
in Costa
Rica.
It gives
no
real
data
for examination.
The report talks about detection of variable-density target material
in
which
the
goal
was differentiation of
12 low-density cards,
six
pencil
and
nine blank
cards.
These were
to
be sorted
by
the subject after
they
had
been randomized
and placed
inside unnumbered opaque
envelopes.
The
two
series proved
to give results
that did
not differ significantly
by change.
They do mention,
however,
the ranking
of cards
by number
of
times
chosen.
This was
evidently perceiv
ed
to
be significant,
but does
not appear
to
this
reviewer
to signify much.
Too
little
information
is given
to do
a
careful
analysis
of what these results mean.
These data
should
be
looked
at carefully
and discussed
to determine whether they are of value,
but
this
cannot
be
accomplished
in progress
report form.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Basic Research
There
is
nothing
in
the program of
the psychological
testing
to
be
commented
upon.
The reviewer does
not know that
the
hypotheses
are associated
with the
hemisphere specialization
of
the
brain,
except
as reported
in
the
appendix.
Since
there are
no results
of data available,
this matter cannot
be
reviewed.
The Measurement Program
EE G
There
is reference
here
to
the
EEG work reported
in
the first progress
report.
Three trials
or observations
are repeated
in order
to
test
the
hypothesis
that certain observed characteristics
of paranormal
functioning might
involve right hemispheric
specialization.
In
the
three sessions
the right and
left occipital
regions were monitored,
and
a
section
of alpha activity
(arousal
response)
that correlated with remote
stimuli,
as reported
in
the
previous
experiments was
found.
As will
be recalled,
the results did
not
seem very promising
for remote
receiving
except
in one
individual,
so
the
meaning
and
importance of
this
section of
the report are unclear.
The
authors
now believe or say that this occurred
eseentially only
in
the right
hemisphere where
the average alpha reduction was
16 percent
(2 percent
in
the
left)
during
the
16Hz
trials,
as compared woth
no flash trials.
These
results,
the authors
suggest,
indicate
initial
support for the hypothesis
of right
hemisphere specialization and that further investigations
of that hemisphere
are
indicated.
Their reasoning
concerning
the placing
paranormal
functioning
in
the right hemisphere
is quite unclear.
It
is certainly confusing
to
hear
now that there were results
from remote stimulation
in the earlier
studies.
Until
the data
are available,
one must trust only the progress
report.
Physical
Measurements
The section
on
physical
measures
is
a description of what they plan
to
do and data
they plan
to
have
in April.
The only other part of
the second
progress
report
is
an appendix which,
a very
interesting paper entitled
"Hemispheric Specialization
in
the Duality of Consciousness,"
by Galin and
Ornstein from
the
Institute for
the Study of Human Consciousness,
Langley
Porter Neuropsychiatric
Institute.
The reviewer's
assumption
is
that
this
paper
is
not
to
be reviewed,
since
it evidently
is
included merely
as
an
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
explanation of hemispheric
specialization
and
the
investigators'
EEG
work
to determine whether paranormal
functioning was
related
to the right
or
left hemispheres.
The
paper
is most fascinating
and may
be
helpful
as
a model
for
looking
at paranormal
functioning,
although
it
seems
to
be
somewhat beyond
the purposes
of
this particular contract.
Obviously,
one
should follow basic research
leads,
but when
so much
is devoted
in
the
second
progress
report
to
this particular item,
and
so
little on
the data
collection,
the emphasis
seems unbalanced.
Progress
Report
The first
part of
the progress
report discusses
Project Atlas
remote
viewing
(European
R&D Test facility).
This
subject matter can
best
be evaluated
by
the client and will
not
be commented
on
by
the reviewer
who
has
no access
to
the evaluation
of
the data or
the data themselves.
B.
The Costa
Rica
Remote Viewing Experiment
The results are said
to
be of
high quality and presently
being
evaluated
in detail.
Only samples are given
there.
The descriptions are'such
that
one does
not feel
able
to determine
the accuracy.
The data given
is
impressive and would
seem
to give an accurate
description of
the target described.
However,
it
is difficult to give
a
hard evaluation on
"sample"
data.
C.
Local
Targets with
Feedback
The data
and
the one example of
a description
in
the form of
communications
between person
on
site and
the person
in
the
lab
is just
too confusing
to draw any
real
conclusions.
It would
be necessary
to accept
their findings
at this
time including
their statement about where viewing
is weak.
If one accepts
this
rather sketchy presentation,
the data
looks
impressive.
D.
Local
Targets with Azimuth Bearing
This
brief description cannot
be evaluated.
'
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
B.
Basic Research
'
This section describes procedures which would
best
be commented
upon
when
all
the data
are
in.
Some of the
information
has already been
referred
to while discussing
specific
findings.
The section
C
on 4-state Electronic Random Stimulus Generator describes
procedures
and
statistical
analyses.
There
is
no
real way
in which
to
evaluate
these findings
until
more subject data
are available.
#2.
Identification of Measureable Characteristics
Possessed
by Gifted Subjects.
A.
Medical
Evaluation
This describes
test procedures
and
the
status
of the various
subjects.
Again
not enough data
are available for
a
review.
It
is assumed
that
these data will
be
included
in
the
final
report
and
can
be reviewed
at
that
time.
Few results are available
on certain
tests.
Review would
now give
an
incomplete evaluation
Appendices
Appendix
-
Personal
Observations
of the use
of
the 4-State
Electronic Random Stimulus Generator
is
a most
interesting and
insightful
paper of one
subject.
Never
before
has
the reviewer
seen
a more detailed
self-analysis
of
how one prepares oneself for each response
in
a
series of
hundreds
of responses.
The paper
is well
written and will
make
a valuable
contribution
to
the understanding of how at least one subject perceives
clues
for judgement
on
4 choice generator.
Hopefully data will
be collected
from other subjects
in
the
same manner.
Summary Thoughts of the Reviewer
Reviewing
these progress reports
has
been most frustrating
because at
times
one
feels
that
the experiments
are going
to offer excellent examples
of
the paranormal
functioning.
Unfortunately
as was
stated
in
the
introduction
they
(progress reports)
do
not
include sufficient analysis
for
final
interpretation
to substantiate
this
view.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6
The scope
of the undertaking
has
been
very broad
and
the
plans
seems
comprehensive.
If
all
can
be accomplished
and
the
final
report contains
the data promised
then
this will
have been
a
very worthwhile undertaking.
Unfortunately throughout one feels
that
the experimenters
have not gone
far enough
to
"milk"
the experimental
situation,
and
the research design may not
have;
been
total ly adequate to prevent critics from finding
flaws.
Finally
that
too many avenues may
have
been explored
so that time and money will
not permit conclusive evidence
in some of the major undertakings.
There
is
also the feeling
by
the
reviewer
that this
has
not been
the multi disciplined
investigation
that one
initially hoped
for.
It
is
assumed that
the principal
writing
has
been accomplished
by
the
two
investigators who
interpreted much
of the data collected
by consultants.
This of course
is
a customary procedure but one would
have
hoped that
other specialists might
have been
brought more emphasis
to
the
final
presentation of data.
Of course,
this may well
be
the case
in
the
final
report
but
is
not reflected
in
the progress
reviews.
One still
has
the feeling
that the prevailing philosophy
is
to
"prove"
the existence '^an
information
channel
beyond
those
that customarily postulated and
the effort
to support
this
hypothesis
will
certainly affect the
tone of the
report.
The reviewer
looks
forward
to
seeing
the
final
data.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200230001-6