Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Background
The requirement for an RA phenomena measurement and for the monitor set has been
established, and most functional and some aspects for form and
fit have been delineated.
This technical note describes the design details of the sensor section of the instrument.
Sensor Type
The sensor
is a version of the standard commercial PZT ceramic element offered by
several manufacturers in a variety of shapes,
sizes, and configurations for applications ranging
from high-voltage generators to low-level sound pickups.
The sensor
is a Piezoelectric Products R101S, with dimensions
1 x 0.125 x 0.005 inches.
This PZT
is designed to produce an electric charge when
it
is flexed laterally and so
it
is
assumed that such motion
(or
its equivalent)
is the mechanism by which the RA agent
influences
it.
Mounting the element
is therefore in keeping with that mode of physical
motion.
The mechano electrical characteristics are given in the data sheets;
the salient
parameters are:
•
Electric Charge output vs. force F (free-flexure mode)
(0.18 x 10-3
) x
(L) 2 pC/N
•
Electric Charge output vs. deflection
z,
23/L pC/mm,
where L
is the node-to-node beam length in mm.
The free-flexure mode assumes a fundamental symmetrical flexing about two nodes near
the free ends.
The driving force
is considered to be applied
at the center of the “beam.”
The applied force F
is in newtons, whereas the deflection z
is in millimeters. As can be
seen, the output charge
is very small,
especially when one calculates the allowable deflection z
to remain in the safe linear operating range.
For example, using an element 10 mm long
(L),
1 = 5.5 mm and the center deflection z must be limited to a small fraction
(< 0.01) of that length.
Thus, the largest charge from the element
is about 0.04 micro pC.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The minimum charge (hence deflection)
is dependent upon the noise contribution of the
amplifier used to bring the signal response up to a usable level.
The sensor has natural fundamental and harmonic resonance frequencies that can be
calculated once the physical dimensions are known.
Again, using the
size numbers from the
preceding paragraph,
a typical fundamental nodal-support frequency
is around 85 kHz.
However,
it
is of no importance to the present application because the expected RA source
driving function
duration
(at least the observed one)
is
in the range of a few milliseconds to
a few tens of milliseconds. Thus, the sensor appears as a
virtual flat-amplitude charge
generator with respect to the frequency bands of interest (10 Hz to
1 kHz).
Signal Amplification
Because the sensor
is a charge generator that has essentially a pure capacitive source
impedance
(well below resonance), the most appropriate signal amplifier
is an operational
amplifier configured as a charge amplifier.
The feedback elements were chosen to effect both
the low- and high-pass
filter corner (-3 dB)
frequencies of
1 kHz and
10 Hz, respectively.
Because the charge quantities involved are very small, the amplifier input bias and noise
currents are as small as possible.
Again, because there was no specification as to the level of the RA-induced deflection
that could be expected, the approach was to choose the very best low-noise operational
amplifier available and calculate the minimum equivalent deflection “noise.”
The equation for
a charge amplifier using a
10 pF feedback capacitor yields a transfer gain of 0.1 V/pC.
Assuming a 1000 pF coupling capacitor and a 20 M-H bias feedback resistor, we obtain a
high-pass
filter corner frequency of 8 Hz and a low-pass
filter corner frequency of 800 Hz.
The configuration yields unity voltage gain and a current transfer gain of 20 V/pA.
A high-quality, low-noise, low-bias-current operational amplifier has an equivalent input
noise voltage of a few microvolts rms.
Hence, the output noise voltage
will be the same
(unity
voltage gain)
.
However, the output noise voltage due to the input noise current can be larger
depending upon the value of the feedback resistor.
An achievable value for the noise current
of 30 fA for the 0.3-to-10-Hz band and 100 fA for the 10-Hz-to-10-kHz band implies that
the output noise voltage
will be about 2 pV.
In
this case, the noise contribution due to the
input noise current
is about the same order of magnitude as the contribution from the input
noise voltage.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
In any case, the equivalent noise voltage
is less than about 5 »iV rms, which established
the sensor/amplifier sensitivity limit.
Using the transfer gain value of 0.1 V/pC, the charge
sensitivity
is then 50 x 10- 18 C rms. Using a detection noise threshold of 14 dB minimum, the
minimum detectable charge
is 250 x 10-’ 8 C.
Because the flexure-mode PZT element has a
mechano electrical transfer constant of about 4 nC/mm, the equivalent motion for a minimum
detectable signal
is about 6 x 10-" meters.
A more useful interpretation
is that the electronic
noise
is orders of magnitude smaller than the environmental noise from the PZT sensor.
Environment Isolation
As explained in the previous paragraphs, the sensor/amplifier combination
allows for
measuring extremely small mechanical motion.
Concommitant,
it
is clear that for RA
measurements, unless the ambient physical environmental effects are excluded from the
sensor, performance
is compromised.
First, and foremost, the sensor must be isolated from mechanical vibration conducted to
it from the surrounding structures.
Second,
it must be shielded from acoustic vibrations
transmitted through the
air.
Third, thermal influences resulting from either conducted,
convected, or radiated heat must be removed.
Finally, because the signal of interest
is an
electrical charge,
it must be isolated from any external influence due to either electric or
magnetic
fields.
Mechanical Vibration
The sensor
is in a laboratory environment,
in which there are with many humans and
and pieces of equipment such as elevators, motor-driven machinery, vehicles, and the like.
The building
is in an urban area in which trucks and trains, as well as
aircraft, pass nearby.
Considerable motion fromo mechanical vibration exists in the floor of the room where the
sensor
is located; those motions had to be isolated.
The
first level of isolation
is to shock-mount the sensor enclosure of commercial
elastomeric pads.
The enclosure weighs about 100
lbs, including the internal batteries.
Weight per mount, resonant frequency, spring rate,
static deflection, and isolation efficiency
entered into the selection.
The enclosure/mount resonance frequency
is no more than 10 Hz
to ensure reasonable isolation of rotating machinery components at 30 Hz.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The next level of isolation
is the sensor suspension system, which
is a spring-mass type
with a much lower resonance frequency than the enclosure.
The sensor
is attached to a bob
weight that
is suspended from the top of the enclosure via a spring.
The weight
is about 2
lbs; the spring rate was selected to provide a resonance frequency of about 2 Hz.
This
provides an additional isolation factor of about
12 dB
(6 dB/octave)
at the enclosure
resonance frequency assumed to be about
10 Hz.
Beyond 10 Hz, the overall isolation
is the
sum of the two (12 dB/octave).
The above considers only the vertical motion.
There are horizontal and, to a lesser
degree, torsional vibration inputs from the external environment. At the present time,
horizontal inputs are damped by using a pendulum mode to support of the sensor.
Because
the suspended arm length
is
8 inches maximum, the pendulum fundamental harmonic motion
frequency
is about
1 Hz, which
is commensurate with the vertical frequency.
The sensor/bob combination places the sensor away from the bob on a relatively long
lever arm.
This implies that higher-order pendulum motion
is possible
in the form of
bob-weight rotation about the common center of mass with the sensor “swinging”
laterally
below. The suspension
is “soft” and allows this different mode, and any lateral motion
transient of the enclosure transmits this lateral mode down the spring to the bob and acts at a
rotational impulse exciting this special mode.
Metallic coil springs also have their own spring-mass lateral and longitudinal motion
resonances.
The lateral
is the simple “pinned-end beam” mode, and the longitudinal
is a
compressional mode.
Either or both can cause energy coupling that an ideal mass-less spring
does not have.
(Because the overall
performance was
difficult to predict, the only obvious
alternative was a light-weight elastomer rubber spring.)
Extension springs are not characterized for torsional spring rate; however,
a check of
nearly identical size torsion and extension springs does yield an estimate. For the metallic
spring selected above, the torsional spring constant
is about 0.1
lb-ft/radian.
Assuming that
the sensor weight
is a 2-lb lead sphere, the rotational moment of inertia
is about
1.0 x 10-4
,
which implies that the rotational harmonic frequency
is around
5 Hz.
Again,
this
is low
enough to ensure some isolation from machinery-induced vibrations.
Isolation from low-frequency vibrations (such as those induced by footsteps and vehicle
road “rumble”)
is not easy to provide.
In this case, the only hope
is that the energy below
10 Hz
(the electrical signal lower frequency cut-off point)
will not be so large that
it will mask
the noise that
will be visible above
10 Hz.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Acoustic Vibration
Just as for mechanical vibration, acoustic energy can cause the PZT sensor to produce
noise signals.
There
is a normal level of audible signals in the room in which the sensor
enclosure
is located; the level
is that for normal voice speech or probably less than 70 dBA.
There are other types of acoustic signals/noise, but those have associated mechanical
vibrations in the room structure that are of more concern
(e.g., doors slammed).
Some
degree of isolation was necessary to provide protection from sound energy in the test
instrumentation area.
The
first level of protection
is to ensure that the work area
is quiet.
It may be assumed
that the ambient noise could be suppressed to 60 dBA, but on-site measurements are needed
to confirm the degree of suppression.
The second level of protection
is that provided by the
steel sensor enclosure.
Any hard-material barrier reflects sound, but the degree of
transmission isolation depends upon the material type, thickness, and support.
Of course, the
wavelength
(i.e., frequency)
also enters in as the lower tones are reflected less than higher
ones for a given barrier thickness.
Sound absorbing material can be employed to enhance the isolation performance for the
enclosure.
An extremely effective material
is lead due to
its softness.
Commercial sound
absorbing panels designed for aircraft and other critical noise reduction applications can be
applied to either the interior or exterior of the enclosure.
The third level of protection was to place the sound reflective/absorptive material around
the sensor/preamplifier unit
itself.
Because the mechanical support system calls for a bob
weight for the spring/mass isolation system, that weight can take the form of a hollow lead bob
within which
is placed the preamplifier and associate circuit components that may be
microphonic.
Unfortunately, the sensor itself must be “visible” and, therefore, cannot be placed inside
the lead bob weight.
Only a small amount of conformal-coat elastomeric rubber was applied
as a sound-absorbing skin. The external silver-paint coat (which serves as protection against
EMI)
also serves in a small way as an acoustic reflector.
However, the thickness of these
“skins"
is quite small and does not provide much reduction in acoustic energy except at the
highest frequencies.
Of course, the ultimate sound elimination method would be to place the sensor in an
evacuated chamber such as a
light bulb.
The limitation of this approach
is that conductive
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
wires must exit the bulb and, therefore,
constitute a sound
(albeit mechanical) transmission
medium.
Previous work indicated that the cost and bother of such an approach was too high
relative to the degree of performance obtained.
Heat-Induced Variations
All of the elements that make
up) the analog portion of the sensor hardware are sensitive
to heat in various ways.
The sensor
is the most
critical because
its physical
size
(mass)
is very
small which means that the thermal time constant
is low also.
Hence, any thermal input such
as an infrared
(IR)
“pulse”
(from the subject’s hand moving past the viewing window) can
induce a response in the sensor that has significant spectral energy above the system high-pass
filter response of 10 Hz.
Because IR
is long-wave energy,
it penetrates many materials and
is
difficult to shield.
The only protection for the sensor
itself
is the
silver paint applied to the
outside over the rubber coating.
The preamplifier
is also very sensitive to thermal changes,
as well as the discrete
components
(resistances and capacitances)
that make up the feedback and coupling circuitry.
Here, the best isolation
is provided by tying
all of those elements to the lead bob weight either
directly or via thermally conductive materials.
So long as the rate-of-change of the bias
current
is less than a few picoamperes per second, no effect
is visible in the
final signal
bandwidth output.
Because the preamplifier
is operated as a current amplifier,
it has unity
voltage gain; therefore,
offset voltage
drift with temperature
is not a major factor but
still can
be a problem. A typical
drift rate
is 50 jiV/deg C, which means that the temperature
rate-of-change must be
less than
1 deg/sec to assure that the transient
is
less than the rms
noise (about 2 jiV).
Good thermal bonding of the circuitry to the lead mass appeared to
preclude any problems.
Electromagnetic Isolation
Because the entire sensor system
is electronic,
it must be shielded from both electric and
magnetic
field influences.
No high-voltage or large-current devices are near the sensor
enclosure, and
all electrical devices within 100
ft meet the FCC minimum requirements for
RFI emission suppression.
Such an assumption may not always be correct and so
it
is
recommended that potential areas in which the instrument
will be used in the future be
surveyed for large EM
fields over the
full electromagnetic spectrum
(at least from
14 kHz to
GHz).
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The primary shield for EM signals
is the basic sensor enclosure, which
is a standard
industry NEMA 12 steel RFI-specified box.
According to the manufacturer’s data book,
this
box provides up to 95 dB of magnetic-field shielding from 14 kHz up to
1 MHz, and over
100 dB of shielding for electric
fields from
14 kHz up to
at least 450 MHz,
These levels of
performance are degraded
if any openings are made in the steel case.
The viewing window in
the front of the box
is of a special RFI reflective material
(either metallized or with an
embedded metal mesh).
Power resides inside the box in the form of chemical batteries, and
the only other holes through the
shell are two 1/4-inch openings for the fiber optic cables.
Because of internally generated EM
fields (from the dc to dc convertors and the
fiber-optic driver electronics), the sensor and preamplifier are totally enclosed in a metallic
shield.
This shield
is a combination of the lead bob weight or the silver-paint coat; neither of
which afford any magnetic shielding.
If necessary, the dc to dc convertor units could be
mounted in steel
(or mu-metal) boxes to contain any switching magnetic
fields.
Because
all
interconnect wires are shielded coaxial or multiconductor cables, they are relatively immune to
extraneous
fields. A single-point common “ground" was used to minimize “ground loop
currents” and the associated signal noise voltages.
The
critical low-noise preamplifier
is
powered from batteries only.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Appendix C
FINAL REPORT
JFK 1986 REMOTE ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
By
JULIAN ISSACS
THE REMOTE ACTION PROJECT
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES
JOHN F. KENNEDY UNIVERSITY
ORINDA, CALIFORNIA
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
I INTRODUCTION
Recapitulating the Statement of Work,
1 which describes the year’s research in outline,
the task was to recruit and train a number of potential piezo remote action (Piezo-RA)
agents
in preparation for a formal Piezo-RA evaluation study to be undertaken at John F. Kennedy
University (JFK).
The best seven Piezo-RA agents from this study were to be made available
for participation in an SRI-based evaluation study designed to provide high-quality evidence
of the existence of the Piezo-RA effect.
In order to accomplish this task,
population-screening procedures were to be undertaken and Piezo-RA training sessions were
to be conducted.
The functional designs of suitable instrumentation for screening and
evaluation purposes were also to be supplied to SRI.
The research
activities were, as has been freely acknowledged by the SRI and JFK
personnel involved, heavily affected by the various unforeseen delays that accompanied many
phases of the task.
The evaluation devices were delivered in working order on
18 September
1986.
This
left too
little time available with the high-grade instrumentation to conduct a
sufficient Piezo-RA training with participants to ensure the high-level performance of trainee
Piezo-RA agents or to pursue a JFK-based formal evaluation.
Therefore, the decision was made to select those participants who seemed most likely to
succeed
in producing Piezo-RA effects and run multiple sessions
at SRI with this elite group,
assigning a variable number of sessions to different participants on the basis of their availability
and apparent likelihood of producing results.
Abandoning of the formal evaluation in the
present research cycle and adopting this highly pragmatic approach were necessitated by the
goal of optimizing the chances of obtaining (within the time frame of this contract) some
preliminary indications at SRI that the Piezo-RA effect
is a
reality.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
II POPULATION SCREENING
a.
Screening Methodology
The technique of population screening for Piezo-RA
ability was developed by Julian
Isaacs in England and
is described in detail elsewhere. 2
The basic approach used in the
California screenings remains the same, but the procedure was further developed and
optimized for use by a group of investigators in the American setting.
Because one of the conditions of the contract was that the link with SRI not be generally
broadcast, the population screenings (which had to be publicized in order to attract
participants) were advertised as being initiated by JFK.
The
title of “The Remote Action
Project” was selected as the public
title for the research
activities.
The screening technique
in
its current form used a three-stage process and seems likely to be more effective than the
original form.
The
first stage consists of a one-hour presentation about remote action (RA),
metal-bending, Piezo-RA, and the Remote Action Project.
During the
first stage,
several
visualization exercises are performed to induce ostensible macroscopic psychokinetic
metal-bending (Macro-PKMB)
effects to occur.
The overt purpose of the
first stage
is to
present information about the topic areas and to provide the opportunity for those who
respond to the visualization exercises to produce Macro-PKMB
effects.
The covert purpose
is
to change the audience’s mood to a relaxed nonanalytical
state, to induce the audience to
accept the reality of RA effects and to increase expectancy of success at the
later RA tasks.
The second stage consists of the move to a “RA Party" format, which
is a technique
orginated by G. Houck3 for inducing ostensible Macro-PKMB effects.
The audience forms a
group that
is instructed to collectively perform a visualization exercise while holding a piece of
flatware.
The flatware
is subsequently “tested”
for ostensibly paranormal softening by pressure
being exerted on
it, and by being bent while
in the softened
state.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The third stage comprises the instrumental screening of the group.
Typically, several
screening devices are set up, either in the room
in which the stage one presentation
is given
or in adjoining rooms.
Each machine
is operated by two persons.
One person
s role
is to
interact with the screenees and orient them to the task,
collect each Participant Information
Form (PIF)
(Section
III.), and supervise the line of screenees waiting their turn
at the
device.
The other person supervises the
trials and records the
results on the PIFs, which are
retained by the screening team.
b.
The Screenings
Four screenings were held.
The
first was held in Mountain View,
California,
at the
Trellis Singles Club on
1 March 1986.
The purpose of using a location away from the JFK
laboratory was to permit the
first screening to be a training session
for the screening team.
It
was
felt that screenings should only be held with local groups after
it was certain that the
screening procedure had been successfully modified to suit the new screening team and
context.
The instruments used
for this screening were three systems built in England, which
were pressed into service because the screening instruments from SRI had not yet been built.
The audience
at the Trellis screening was far from ideal.
To optimize the number of
potential Piezo-RA agents found, groups used
for screening should have pre-existing interest
in psi or experience of psi practices:
“New Age,”
spiritually inclined, and psi-oriented and
arts-based groups are optimal.
The Trellis group was composed of preponderantly male
semiconductor engineers and scientists
(the Trellis premises are close to the Santa Clara,
California or “Silicon” Valley), who were interested in the presentation, but who remained
resolutely analytical and somewhat skeptical in their orientation.
The three following screenings (on
8 May,
12 June, and
11 July 1986) were at JFK and
used the screening devices built at SRI.
The
first two of this series of three were held
at the
Village Campus.
They were publicized by a
flyer mailed to the members of the mailing
list of
the Graduate School of Consciousness Studies.
The third, held at the Walnut Creek Del
Valle Campus, was less well attended than the
first two and was publicized by a
flyer sent to
the members of the School of Law and the School of Business Studies.
The success of these
screenings in generating interest and enthusiasm was attested to by the fact that several
individuals attended more than one screening.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
c.
Criteria for Participant Selection
The screening technique has not been formalized and
is not a rigid procedure;
it has to
be adapted to
suit different situations and groups.
The overall goal, which
is essentially
utilitarian and pragmatic, seems to be adequately met by the procedure that has been
developed.
Its purpose
is to select from a large group of possible Piezo-RA agents those
individuals who are probably capable of RA and who are prepared to participate in the
experimental process.
The
style of presentation made by the speaker, the particular sequence
of events during the screening process, and the responses of the screened group can
all
reasonably be expected to affect the number of individuals who are induced to produce RA
effects.
It
is unrealistic to expect a 100% yield of those individuals who have RA ability to
result from the screening process;
for some of the screened group, the induction procedures
will be ineffective.
Additionally, no pretense
is made that the screening process
is anything other than a
very informal indication of possible RA
ability.
The procedure
is certainly not resistant to
cheating on the part of audience members, particularly with regard to the ostensible
Macro-PKMB phenomena.
Screenees who produce ostensible phenomena
at a screening may
subsequently show no RA
ability,
so that a second level of screening procedure, based on
actual performance in the Piezo-RA training situation, has to be used.
The selection of prospective Piezo-RA trainees in the screenings was based on three
criteria, which were used in a convergent fashion.
The
first criterion was the responses on the
Participant Information Form (PIF)
(see Annex
1), the second was the performance at an
instrumented RA task, and the third was the Macro-PKMB performance.
The PIF
is an inventory
(of ostensible psi-related experiences) that has been formulated
specifically to focus on spontaneous psi experiences thought to involve elements of RA effects.
The PIF was modified twice: one modification was made between the
first and second
screenings, and the second between the third and fourth screenings.
These changes were
almost entirely of form and typographical
detail, however.
The
first two versions had to be
used in conjunction with another form, the availability form, which asked potential participants
to indicate their availability for Piezo-RA training,
their address, and their willingness to
participate in experimentation.
The final version of the PIF eliminated the separate
Availability Form and combined this information on the front page with
(a)
a self-report
about the screenee’s Macro-PKMB attempts,
(b) the evaluator’s impression of the person as a
potential RA trainee;
(c) the interviewer’s evaluation of the screenee’s Macro-PKMB
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
phenomena; and (d) the person's highest score on the instrumented
test,
if this merited
recording.
The
first 17 questions of the PIF attempt to
elicit information about spontaneous psi
experiences.
Responses are categorised into tour types: "No"
indicates that the screenee has
never had the experience cited
in the question; “1" indicates that the experience has occurred
once; "2"
indicates "more than once,
several times;" "3" indicates “often, frequently."
Etgh.
of the
17 questions are RA-specific
(questions
1 through
6.
8, and
14).
Questions 20. 21,
and 22 request information about the person's prior practice of mental skills of various sorts
(e.g., meditation, visualization, and the like), the screenee's sports, dance, and marital
arts
preferences,
if any, and religious orientation.
The analysis of the PIF data on spontaneous psi functioning was formalized around two
key concepts.
The
first was the concept of a “psychic”
(P)
profile of responses, which
divided the interested persons into “psychic” and “nonpsych, c”
groups.
The cntenon of entry
into the P profile was that at least seven responses in Category “2” and an additional one
response in Category “1”
(see preceding paragraph) should be made to the
first 17 questions.
It should be noted that this definition of the P group
is
fairly extreme and represents the
selection of a group showing high levels of ostensible spontaneous psi functioning.
The second was the concept of “belief,” or the degree of belief evinced by the
interested person in the reality of RA. both generally, and specifically with regard to their own
ability to perform RA.
Question 18 asked, “Do you think
it
is possible to affect physical
objects without touching them?”
Question
19 asked, “Do you think that you can affect
physical objects without touching them?”
The two belief questions offer a scale of
1 to
5 to
be circled for responses, with
1 being “definitely no,” and
5 being “definitely yes.”
To enter
the “belief”
(B) profile population, interested persons had to respond with a value of 4
more on question
18, and a value of 3 or more on question
19.
The use of the two profiles, B and P, creates the possibility of an elite classification
“PB,”
in which interested persons match both profiles.
Generally, participants would be
accepted for Piezo-RA training only
if they scored within the PB profile.
The PIF data have
been divided to show the
P, B, and PB groups’ micro-RA performance (on the screening
devices) and the macro-RA
(visible metal-bending) performance.
This may offer the
possibility of a more fine-grained analysis of the results from the screenings
(see below).
The second criterion used in selecting prospective RA trainees was the score achieved by
each interested person on the screening device during his or her attempt to influence
it.
The
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
screening devices were sufficiently noisy so that scores spontaneously fluctuated over a range.
Because the devices showed individual differences, any attempt to produce frequency plots of
spontaneously occurring scores would have necessitated long runs with each device to obtain
histograms of score distributions.
Some pilot attempts to compile score histograms were made,
and
it was found that the settings in which the machines were operated affected the
distribution of scores.
Additionally,
it was realized that the peak reading obtained would be
affected by the duration of the
trial and the noise spectrum of the devices.
If calibration histograms were to be compiled, they would have to be compiled for a
sufficient range of durations to cover the actual durations of
all screening trials likely to be
performed, and the period of each
trial during the screening would have to be timed.
This
would have considerably complicated the screener’s job, because no provision for automatic
timing existed, and there are good psychological reasons for permitting variable
trial lengths to
be performed in the instrumental screening procedure.
It was realized that in order to
provide calibration data that would give well-controlled estimates of the probabilities of
low-end scores
(i.e., scores near the noise
floor of the devices), the devices would have to be
recalibrated at the screening
site,
in the presence of the group during the actual screening,
because the group’s activities
(especially walking, moving chairs, and the like) might affect the
devices.
Given the nonformal nature of the rest of the screening process,
it was, therefore
felt
that
it was not worth the large amount of time and effort required to produce adequate
calibration histogram data,
especially because there was good reason to believe that real-time
on-site calibration runs would be necessary, under actual screening conditions,
if the
calibration data were to be really meaningful.
It was decided that scores above 380 would be regarded as candidate RA, and scores at
or near this level were to be regarded as suggestive of RA.
Scores in this region and above
were, therefore, recorded on the PIF by the screener in charge of the device.
In the
tabulated data, the criterion score, which allowed entry into the microeffect (MIC)
category,
was set at a device reading of 380.
The third criterion used to select prospective trainees, which was given less weight than
the other two, was the account of the person’s Macro-PKMB effects and the appearance of
his or her deformed flatware.
It has been frequently observed that persons do not reliably
estimate the amount of physical force they exert on cutlery.
Nor,
often, do they appreciate
how
little physical force
is necessary to produce deformations.
The ostensible Macro-PKMB
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
effects are, therefore, evaluated very cautiously.
For the purposes of the tabulated data, the
persons producing deformed cutlery were assigned to the MAC category.
Those producing
effects on the screening devices and on cutlery were assigned to the “MIC+MAC”
category.
d.
Results of Screenings
Table A-l shows the
results of the
four screenings.
These are labelled T
(Trellis) and
K1 (Kennedy
first screening) through K3 (Kennedy third screening). A total of 189
individuals returned usable PIFs; the return rate was about 85%.
The screenee categories are
in ascending order of suitability for RA training, with the
elite (PB MIC+MAC) group
occupying top position, and those showing no evidence of RA, no psychic profile, and no
belief, are the “residual” group at the bottom of the table.
The results are surprisingly positive overall, but of course the data must be regarded
cautiously.
Although the chances of successful cheating at the micro task were
slight, some of
the readings, were marginal and may be artifactual.
It
is very likely that the numbers of the
B MAC and PB MAC groups are
artificially inflated by believers who unknowingly bent their
cutlery purely by physical force.
Some 58% of the
elite PB group showed some form of
effect, although 25% of the group showing neither a psychic profile nor belief also produced
effects.
It should be remembered that the psychic profile will
identify only those showing
strong spontaneous psi functioning, so that the “non-psi” group may include individuals who
are psi-capable.
The strongest effect in the data, which was anticipated, and which
is of importance in
practice,
is the difference between groups.
Thus 13% of the Trellis group produced some
form of effect, whereas 66% of the combined Kennedy groups produced some form of effect.
When this performance measure
is confined to those individuals who produced microeffects
on the instrumentation, only 6.5% of the Trellis group produced these effects, compared to
30% of the combined Kennedy groups.
These numbers may be misleading, however, because
the instrumentation used in the Trellis screening was different from that used for the Kennedy
screenings.
However, using another measure, the size of the residual groups, a clear
difference
is shown between the Trellis and Kennedy populations.
The Trellis residual group
constituted 38% of the overall Trellis group, whereas the combined Kennedy residual was only
7%.
These results, taken as a whole, tend to indicate that the careful choice of groups to
screen will maximize the yield of potential RA agents found.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
"U
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Categories
of
Screenees
G roups
Sere ened
Consolidated
Results
T
K
K2
K3
Subtls
Totals
Percent
P.B.
MIC+MAC B
5 B
P.B.
MIC
2 B
20.6
%
P.B.
MAC H
P.
MIC+MAC
0 BB
P.
MIC
1.5
%
P.
MAC
0 B
B.
MIC+MAC
'
0 BB
B.
MIC
B B
15.8
%
B.
MAC
1BB
MIC + MAC
BBB
MIC
BB
6.8
%
MAC
0 B
P.B.
n
14.8
%
P-
B
i
2.6
%
B.
B
17.0
%
Res
i dua
20.6
X
Group Totals
189
.
=
Believer Profile
M1C+MAC
= Micro
+
Macro Effects
.
= Psychic Profile
MIC
=
Micro Effects
Only
.B.
=
Psychic
+
Believer Profile
MAC
=
Macro Effects
Only
TABLE A-1
SCREENING RESULTS
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
The data seem to show a
slight effect of belief on performance.
Taking the microeffects
recorded, which presumably
will not be inflated by cheating, and which should show equal
incidence of artifact across groups, the percentage of individuals
for
all groups showing belief
who also produced the microeffect, 22%,
slightly exceeded the percentage of individuals
producing microeffects who did not show belief, 16%.
The Trellis screening did identify a number of individuals who appear to be
promising potential participants and who live near SRI and who might be available
for
research.
The JFK screenings should supply a number of participants for future studies.
e.
Participant Recruitment by Contacts
Only three of the
10 participants in the training sessions under review were recruited
through the screening process.
However,
of those three, two were good enough to go to SRI
(HW and ZK).
All but one of the JFK participants
fulfill the PIF PB profile.
The screenings
performed at JFK
will be of considerable use in the upcoming research cycle.
To be
efficient,
the Piezo-RA training process requires individuals showing reasonably
fast learning.
The need
for replacement participants for those showing poor learning performance requires the periodic
intake of fresh participants; the
fact that a group of potential RA trainees have already been
identified by the JFK screenings will render the replacement process much more efficient.
The apparent association of good Piezo-RA performance with the PB profile perhaps
suggests that a reasonable fraction of those individuals currently participating in SRI-based
parapsychological studies may prove successful
at the Piezo-RA task, assuming that they too
show the PB profile.
f.
Conclusions Regarding Selection
In practice,
for purpose of selecting potential trainees, the
criteria
for assessment of the
responses to both the PIF profile questions are complex and informal.
Furthermore,
a
person’s willingness to participate, freedom to schedule training sessions during the weekdays,
place of domicile (and hence journey time to the JFK laboratory in Walnut Creek), and
general attitudes, are
all non-psi factors that pragmatically affect the probability of their
selection.
The approach of the JFK-based research group towards participant selection and training
appears to be very similar to that developed at SRI.
Because a long-term commitment to
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
participation
is required, adult participants who are in stable social and domestic situations are
preferentially selected.
This approach contrasts greatly with the one-shot use of college
students that seems very common in many psychological and parapsychological studies.
The recruitment of outstanding Piezo-RA agents for long periods of research at JFK
would be greatly facilitated
if they could be paid
a stipend for participation in research.
This
issue has already been raised by some participants in the
first phase of this research.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
P
I FI
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
HAVE
YOU EVER EXPERIENCED ANY
OF THE FOLLOWING PHENOMENA
?
If
"NO",
place
a
check
mark
on
the
line under
"no":
If
"YES",
please
circle
how
often:
equa
1 s
v once
f
,
equals
'more
than
once,
several
times’,
or
equals
’often,
frequently’.
1.
Have
you
ever
tried
to
do anything
physical
with
the
power
of
your
mind?
2.
Have you
ever
had
raps,
bangs,
footsteps,
or
other
unusual
noises
occur
?
NO
3.
Have
you
had
doors
or
windows
open
or
close,
or
lights
turn
on
or
off
without
physical
cause
?
4.
Have
you ever
had objects
disappear
or
appear
in new
places when
you were certain
of
their
location
or
have
you
ever
felt
that
they moved
without
physical
cause?
5.
Does normally
functioning equipment occasionally
fail
to
operate
for
you
or
does malfunctioning
equipment
work
unexpectedly
for
you
?
6.
Have
clocks
or
watches
stopped
or
changed
speed, or
have
metal
objects
bent without
physical
force
in your
presence
?
7.
Have you
ever
felt
that you
had
received
information about
a
person
or
event
from
touching
an
object
?
8.
Have
you
ever
had
an unusual
strength experience
?
9.
Have you
ever
had
any
of
the
following
experiences while
awake:
The
feeling
or
thought
that
an unexpected
event
a)
had
happened,
b)
was
happening,
or
c)
was
going
to
happen
-
and
later
learned
that
you were
right
?
10.
Have
you
ever
felt
that
you
received
information about
something which happened
before,
during,
or
after
a
dream
which you
did
not
know about
or
did
not
expect
at
the
time
of
the
dream
?
(veridical
dream,
symbolic dream)
11.
Have
you
ever
had
an experience
while
awake
in which you
felt you were
located outside
of
or
away
from your
physical
body
?
12.
Have
you
ever
felt
you
have
seen
a
location
or
event
at
a
distance
?
13.
Have you
ever
had,
while
awake,
a
vivid
impression
of
seeing
or
being
touched
by another
being,
or
a sensation
of
cold,
which you
felt was
not
due
to any
external
physical
or
natural
cause
?
YES
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6