free anmnee Approved For Release odd NSdb AS SEBHEEb0789R002200670001-4 NAME: James Press Comments: 1. Page 2 - Why is the fact that “the subject was not blind to experimental condition” considered a design flaw? If the subject had no psychic ability, so what if he knew why he was being hypnotized? 2. Section F - There is no explanation for how a p-value was computed for each viewer of his 16 trials. I suspect independence is required, but the trials are not mutually independent. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: Brian Skyrms t : Comments: 1. This was a more or less exploratory experiment with negative results. Further ‘research along this lines should be given low priority. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Yervant Terzian , Comments: 1, Page 2, paragraph 1 — Do we understand hypnosis? 2. Page 2, paragraph 2- significant (?). 3. Page 3, paragraph 1, second sentence — Could also minimize! Since we do not understand the causes! 4 Page 4, 4th full paragraph - Question second sentence. 5.” Page 5, first paragraph — Re. word communicate in line 6 - was this verbal? 6 Page 5, Figure 1 - Re. RV.15-30 minutes — per target? 7. Page 5, last paragraph, second sentence — better way? Results? Recommendation: Yes November 7, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. Design protocols for purpose of the experiment are satisfactory. Suggest discontinuing trance RV aspect and, if this approach is to be continued, emphasize post hypnotic suggestion approach. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 A-17 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4
Approved For Release ode Ses Ase kE HS 2)0789R002200670001-4 NAME: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 1. This report provides a very good review of prior literature concerning studies utilizing hypnosis in association with psychic tests. There were past reports which - indicated a possible enhanced effect for RV under the hypnotic condition. Although the findings were not Statistically significant, some flaws in the protocol were noted and further studies should not be ruled out. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: t " 1. Interesting attempt. 2. I would have preferred that we use only subjects who scored 12 - top of the line ~ to start with. Yes, I agree with your page 8 inference. 3. Page 8 - Yes, there should have been more hypnosis-RV training trials. 4, Page 3 - Spelling error. 5. In general, the hypnosis training and its application were good and warranted, but better approach is suggested on page 9. Continue with pilot study procedure to use hypnosis for “clearing up the subject’s mental state,” so he/she can focus better on RV target. Recommendation: Yes ; November 4, 1988 A-18 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4
Approved For Release ot GLAS SLELED, o780R002200670001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective E, Task 4 (Forced—Choice Remote Viewing) (verbatim transcription—-not edited) NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. The procedures for the first and last blocks of 50 trials seem solid in general, although in the future small daily variations should probably be minimized or at least declared in advance. Also, the assignment of targets should be scrambled so viewer gets no cues about the behavior of the RNG, since he get¥ trial by trial feedback. 2. The curve on page 14 should be analyzed in more detail, and discussion made of the sizable slump in performance midway through. There could be personal life variables overlaying it. Also, it is not clear from this information whether or not learning took place. Changes in performance should be examined in the light of such factors or changes in strategy and trials per day, as well. Also, some aspects of procedure should be more thoroughly explained, as noted in the margins. ¥ 3, More should be done to develop aspect of the viewer’s technique that could allow application to others. I think the viewer needs to be involved in this, at least to some extent. The final performance was impressive and should be followed up on. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: James Press Comments 1. Viewer should not be permitted to choose targets. 2. Viewer should be assigned a daily number of trials, preferred to be the same each day. The 50 trials experiment should be repeated. 3. Experiment should be constructed in which the same viewer is used in 50 forced choice trials and another 50 in non~forced choice binary trials, and the 2 sets of results could be compared to suggest evidence for which task is harder. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-19 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4