Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP965o785R885!S!5BBBBT9
Date
5 ^ 1982, 0950
(Scan 5)
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S. #34
Target
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CRV
Comments:
l,
Continuation of scans begun on
1 March 1982.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location
and target activity of interest.
Calibration trials with known target material
indicated
remote viewer "on-line."*
Presession:
Steel Plant, Aliquippa,
PA.
O' Hare International Airport.
Postsession:
/2
H.
E. Puthoff * Ph «D .
, Radic/fhy
hysics Laboratory
SRI(lnkeeddliorlltflease 2000/08/0a* CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
333 Ravenswood Ave.
. Menlo Park. CA9402S^1^gg00^^
. TELEX: 334463
.
Facs.m.je:
415,326-5512
vInternational t
6 May 1982,
0933
(Scan
6)
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S. #34
Target
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CrV
Comments:
1.
Continuation
of
scans begun on
1 March 1982.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to target location
and
target activity of interest.
3.
Calibration trials with known target materials indicated
remote viewer
on-line."*
Cr«k
S
to«
n:
MaCArt “Ur Brldge ’
St ‘
Postsession:
Rock
H.
E.
Puthoff 9
Ph.D.
f
RadicX Physics Laboratorj
ApprovSWi[fReteiaS(5WfiP/08/08
: CIA-R©P96-00789R003200200001 -4
333 Ravenswood Ave
• Menlo Park. CA 940?^ *
w ~—
—
Date
7 May 1982,
0931
(Scan 7)
Series
fjj
Session No.
Target No.
J.S. #34
Remote Viewer
:
~
——
—-
#002
Interviewer
H. Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CRV
Comments
:
1.
Continuation of scans begun
1 March 1982.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to target location
and target activity of interest.
3.
Calibration trials with known target materials indicated
remote viewer "on-line."*
Presession:
Moses Power Plant,
Niagra Falls;
U.N.
Bldg., NYC.
Postsession:
Rondo
I Radar Dish,
Palo Alto,
CA.
H.
E.
Puthoff,
Ph.D.,
Radit/ Khysics Laboratory
SR!r(Rte(Sl^W^tase 2000/08/08 t
9CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
333 Ravenswood Ave.
• Menlo Park. CA 94025^*—415
326-6200 • TWX: 910-373-1246
• TELEX: 334463
•
Facsimile:
415:326-5512
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Comments
:
1 .
Continuation of scans begun
1 March 1982
-
as to——
‘
‘—ate.
*
Presession:
Newfoundland
Pahlavi Dam,
Iran.
Postsession:
Pulp Plant,
M-
P-
*• E ' Puthoff ’
2000/08/08
: CIAjgDP96-00789R003200200001-4
CAMB .....
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Date
18 May 1982,
0849
(Scan 9)
Series
Session No.
Target No.
Target
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
J.S. #34
#002
H. Puthoff
Beacon(s)
CRV
Comments
:
1 .
2 .
Continuation of scans begun
1 March 1982.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target
location and target activity of
interest.
3.
Calibration trials with known target materials
indicated remote viewer "on-line."
Presession:
Pit
6, Shasta County Dam,
CA.
Postsession:
Terrebonne Bay Oil Wells.
H.
E.
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
,
Radit/ Physics Laboratory
S^fl%'emaflona|eaSe 2000/08/0%i CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
333 Ravenswood Ave
• M.mnP,,., r a <un?fi
326-6200
« TWX- 910-373-1246
• TELEX. 334463
•
Facsinjile:
415
326-5512
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
19 Mar 1382 . 0901
(Scan
i0 )
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
Beacon (s)
Comments:
Continuation
of scans bcg„„
i Mar(:h 1982
and target act^ty^f Tntlrest
URd “ ^ tareet
locatlon
‘
-ateniala indented
*
Presession:
Puunene Mill,
Maui-
Pit 7
-
.
Postsession:
American Museum of Natural
°am
’
CA ‘
Ene Mining Co.
atural History,
NYC;
H *
E *
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
,
Radic
hysies Laboratory
/^jnbfr^fhatS^ll^se 2000/08/08 :£IA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
. Wo,„p„ cawtcs .^,5
910-37.1-IO^C
Release 2000/08/0
0789R003200200001 -4
Covering the Ferioa
i October 1988 to 15 February 1989
March 1989
REVIEW
OF
THE
PSYCHOENERGETIC
RESEARCH
CONDUCTED AT SRI INTERNATIONAL (1973-1988)
(U)
For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (U)
We
have
conducted
a
review and
analysis
of
the
psychoenergetic
research
conducted
at SRI
International from
1 October
1973
to 30 September
1988.
The database
comprises 117 documents with a total of 5,025 pages.
A
total of 25,449
trials were conducted under a variety of protocols.
Analysis
indicates that the odds that our results are not due to simple
statistical
fluctuations alone are
better than 2 x
1020 to
(i.e., 2 followed by 20 zeros).
Using accepted criteria set forth in the
standard behavioral sciences, we conclude
that
this
constitutes
convincing,
if not
conclusive,
evidence
for the existence of psychoenergetic functioning.
kThe main
results are summarized below:
•
Remote viewing (RV) can provide useful (Misinformation.
•
Laboratory and
operational remote
viewing show the
greatest
potential
for
practical applications.
•
Experienced viewers are significantly better than the general population.
•
Approximately 1% of the general population possess a natural remote viewing
ability.
•
Remote viewing ability does not degrade over time.
•
At this time, there
is no quantitative evidence to support a training hypothesis.
•
Natural
scenes
are
significantly
better
than
symbols
as
targets
for
remote
viewing.
•
Remote viewing quality
is independent of target distance and/or size.
•
There
is no evidence
to support that a psychoenergetic
interaction with
the
physical world
exists.
•
Electromagnetic shielding is not effective against psychoenergetic acquisition of
information.
• A potential central nervous system correlate to remote viewing has recently
been identified.
rzL
Approved For Release 2000
0789R003200200001 -4
SCREENING AND SELECTION OF PERSONNEL:
THE PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (PAS)
(U)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/0870^
p0j
D0789R003200200001 -4
IV METHOD OF APPROACH (U)
A.
(U)
Analysis Domain
__
The domain of this meta-analysis includes all
applications and psychoenergetic research conducted a. SR.
of
us
subcontractors,
from
,
October
.973
to
September
A
prlori
deCared
monstrauons or other activities Utat were no. under the control of SR. .nternationa, were no.
included m
the
documentation.
All other forms
of experimentation were
included
in SR,
reP°m '
i0UrnaIS ' °r PUb"“,i0nS ’ a"d «“ -» P- o' -is
analysis.
This database comprises 117 documents with a total of 5.025 pages.
<U> By definition, there
is no
file drawer problem in this analysis; a„ hems that me. the
— Were
;
C 'Uded
»' ** —» •
Care was exercised to avoid multiple
entries of the same data.
H
All psychoenergetic phenomena
fall broadly into two classes:
0) Mgmiation
PrpcggfiS-those phenomena
that
involve
a
passive
transfer
of
information
(e.g., remote viewing, search).
° f
<2)
ihai
»
The psychoenergetic effort has been divided into various categories within these processes
The
various categories within this domain are defined as follows:
0)
Eprced-Choi<^e—remote
viewing where the
tarrefc
ar»
<•
(and known)
set o, potentia,
<£
*
(2> ^=L^
_remote
v*ewing where
the
targets
are drawn from
a
large
set
of
loM
."
l,a
\
male"al
(e ' 8-
Phot°8raphs
of
natural
scenes,
natural physical
condidorts'. ^ ““
" “"dU'"d
“"d"
<3>
are drawn from specific targets of
W
VieWine ^
lhg
laTO1S
arC
-
their
Approved For Release 2OGO70B/O8
:4CIA-RDR96-00789R003200200001-4
)O070B/O8 :XIA-RDF?
nbl
Approved For Release 2000(0
6-00789R003200200001 -4
(U)
For
the
purpose
of
this
analysis,
all
putative
causal-process
experiments
are
considered under the general heading of remote action.
(U)
Figure
1 shows a schematic representation of these categories and the total number of
individual
trials that were conducted within each category.
Psychoenergetics
26,074
Informational
25,045
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .vi
Forced Choice
RV-Lab
RV-pfe.
Search
19,715
1,071
106
'
I
4,153
FIGURE
(U) CATEGORIES AND NUMBER OF TRIALS
The
total
number
of
psychoenergetic
trials
(26,074)
was
collected
in
154
different
experiments
involving
227
different
subjects.*
All
the
data
were
entered
into
a
computer database management system (DBMS).
B.
(U)
Database Management System
1.
(U)
Database Requirements
(U) One of the main purposes of performing a meta-analysis
is to be able to look at
data gathered from multiple studies conducted under a wide variety of circumstances.
In order
to
collect
and
store
the
data
in
a
meaningful
way,
one
must know
what
kind
of
data
manipulations
will
be
performed.
To
evaluate
the
effect
of
certain
parameters
on
psychoenergetic functioning, we needed to focus our attention on the conditions of a wide array
of potentially important variables. As a result, the database design is primarily determined by the
data
and
provides
for
the
selection
of
information,
by
experiment,
given
parameter
specifications.
*
(U) The number of subjects does not include the preliminary mass screening partici-
pants.
The formal screening participants were, however, included
in the
analysis.
Approved For Release 200
-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/C
J789R003200200001 -4
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)
(U) The results of the meta-analysis are presented here, where possible,
in quantitative
analytic terms, and various interpretations are discussed in detail.
In addition, items that cannot
be analyzed are discussed from a qualitative perspective.
(U) The analysis proceeds in a top-down fashion in accordance with the hierarchy shown
in Figure
1.
A.
(U)
Overall Results
(U) The overall analysis was conducted from three different perspectives:
(1)
All of the data, regardless of the purported
skill of the subjects,
(2)
A subset of the data contributed by an experienced group of viewers, Gl
(i.e., long-term, generally accepted expen viewers—002, 009, 131, 372,
414, and 504)
(3)
All of the data except for the group Gl
(i.e., All-Gl).
1 able 2 sltows the number of trials n, total z score, p value, and effect size d for informational
and putative causal processes and
for the combination of the two.
Table 2
(U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR MAJOR CLASSES
Perspective
All-Gl
All-Gl
25,449
9.37
3.69
(-21)
0.059
9,825
6.86
3.46 (-12)
0.069
15,624
6.53
3.46
(-11)
0.052
24,450
9.07
5.83 (-20)
0.058
9,702
6.69
1.14
(-11)
0.068
14,748
6.25
1.96 (-10)
0.052
999
2.42
6.39
(-03)
123
2.06
1.99 (-02)
All-Gl
876
1.89
2.95
(-02)
*
(U) Powers-of-ten are shown in parentheses.
Approved For Release 2000/08/03.: CIA1RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08$
6400789R003200200001 -4
(U) The number of trials shown in Table 2 differs slightly from those shown in Figure
1.
A few trials in each category were analyzed from a post-hoc point of view and therefore have not
been included
in the formal analysis.
^_The heterogeneity of effect size within each group for all classes
is very large
(i.e. t
the chi-squares for within-groups were large).
This
is to be expected for such a global analysis
and
is frequently seen in meta-analyses of psychological data. 5
The sources of the within-group
variation include
the psychoenergetic
skill
level of the
subjects and fundamental
differences
between psychoenergetic tasks.
»The data, regardless of subjects or process, show strongly significant evidence for
psychoenergetic functioning
(p ^ 3.69 x
10-“).
Both the informational and putative causal
processes show significant evidence of psychoenergetic functioning, as well.
^Since p values are strongly dependent upon the number of
trials,
the modern
trend
in meta-analysis
is to consider the trial-independent measure of effect
size. From
this
point of view, the magnitude of the psychoenergetic functioning appears roughly constant for all
the data shown
in Table
2, and, according to Cohen's
criteria for the interpretation of effect
size,*
corresponds
to small
effects. 6 The method of calculating overall effect
size,
however,
involves a weighted average (see Table
1) and thus may not provide an accurate picture of the
size of the psychoenergetic functioning within a given category. To obtain more insight into the
nature of the functioning, we must examine the data within each category.
(U)
Results for Categories Within the Informational Process
Table
3 shows the number of
trials,
total
z score, p value, and
effect
size
for
categories
within
the
informational process.
The
data show
strongly
significant evidence
for
psychoenergetic functioning for
all categories regardless of subjects.
The effect size, however,
begins to demonstrate category differences.
forced-choice effect size
(
d
= 0.052)
is equivalent to the overall effect size
shown in Table 2
(d = 0.059).
Since the forced-choice category accounts for 77% of the total
number of trials, the effect-size averaging technique biases the overall result.
For example, the
effect size (d = 0.209) for the RV-Lab category is significantly larger than for the Forced-Choice
case (X2 = 22.70,
v =
1; p < 6.63 X
10 -6
). The RV-Lab effect sizes meet Cohen's criterion for
a medium-sized behavioral effect.
(U)
Values of 0. 1, 0.3, and 0.5 correspond to small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: fcU-RBP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/0$
ifUQ0789R003200200001 -4
Table 3
(U) STATISTICAL RESULTS FOR INFORMATIONAL CATEGORIES
Category
Perspective
n
z
p*
d
Forced-Choice
All
19,675
7.42
6.12 (-14)
0.052
RV-Lab
Perspective
n
z
P*
d
All
19,675
7.42
6.12 (-14)
0.052
G1
9,487
5.82
2.92 (-09)
0.060
All-Gl
10,188
4.69
1.39 (-06)
0.046
All
966
6.49
4.33 (-11)
0.209
G1
196
5.39
3.49 (-08)
0.385
All-Gl
770
4.55
2.71 (-06)
0.164
All
3.98
3.45
(-05)
1.326
G1
3.98
3.45 (-05)
1.326
All-Gl
—
—
—
—
All
3,790
2.61
4.53 (-03)
0.042
G1
—
—
—
—
All-Gl
3,790
2.61
4.53
(-03)
0.042
(U) Powers-of-ten are shown
in parentheses.
*j^00fc^For
the RV-Lab
category,
the
experienced
group.
Cl,
performs
significantly
better than the novice, larger group (X z = 7.63,
v -
1; p < 0.0057).
^fcAs in the overall analysis, the data analyzed in Table 3 show a large heterogeneity
of effect
size within each category.
The heterogeneity of effect
size, however,
is significantly
reduced for the experienced subjects in the RV-Lab category.
This reduction may result from a
more uniform
skill
level of the
subjects
in group Gl\
this
is
in
general agreement
with our
qualitative assessment of their abilities.
^Pm^pnly 8.5% of the remote viewing operational
trials were analyzed
as
a formal
experiment.
The
effect
size
for
these
exceeds
Cohen’s
definition
of
a
large
effect.
The
^mmH^^equiremenis oKjmm^femote viewing, however, are less dependent upon the
quality of the viewing than they may be on other factors.
Excellent remote viewing does not
necessarily imply good4H|HBHLinformation.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1
00789R003200200001 -4
In the RV-Search category, 91.3% of the data were collected under laboratory
conditions
by
novice
subjects.
The
small
effect
size
(
d
=
0.042)
is
commensurate with that found in other laboratories, and may reflect our lack of understanding
about how to
elicit this form of psychoenergetic functioning.
C.
(U)
Specific Results for Remote Viewing
(U)
In this section we address the specific questions posed in the SOW.
In any kind of an
investigation where the general results fall under a statistical regime
(i.e., 2 scores less than about
5), no hard definitions exist for definitive conclusions. The problem
is confounded in behavioral
science because many
factors, beyond
the
particular independent
variable
in
question, may
significantly alter the outcome of an experiment.
In trying to assess a large body of literature, as
more constraints are placed on the outcomes, fewer within-group trials are available for analysis;
thus, statistical conclusions become more difficult.
This is also true for psychoenergetic research.
Yet,
it
is possible to describe trends, to suggest ways of improving experiments based upon earlier
results, and to obtain clear insights into factors that may affect psychoenergetic functioning.
r To ensure the most reliable interpretations of results in what follows below, group
Cl has been used
for the quantitative discussion.
As was shown in Section V.-B.
this group
possessed
the most homogeneous
set of data
for
the RV-Lab category and demonstrated
a
significant amount of remote viewing ability.
1.
(U)
Selection/Screening
tm
The selection of individuals who are able to accomplish remote viewing both
in an operational
setting and
in the
laboratory
is of paramount importance.
As
is shown
in
Section V.-B.,
above, group G1
provides the
best
results
for both
types
of remote
viewing.
Throughout the
history of the program
at SRI.
individuals have been able
to demonstrate
consistent
functioning over
a
long period
of time.
This does not mean
that,
after vigorous
searching, only 6 have been found.
Rather, given our(^charter for most of
the time period
in question, we had
little impetus to
find other viewers.
During
fiscal years
1986-1988,
it became
clear that
a
greater number of talented viewers was needed
for both
applications and research.
Approved For Release 2000/08M
0789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/0&
CIA-RDP96n00789R003200200001 -4
0a ^CIA-RDP96n0
Prior to FY 1986,
little was known about how to select good viewers.
There
was
little systematic research either at SRI or within the field in general, and what was available
was inconclusive or contradictory.
The
effort that began
in FY
1986 encompassed a broad
approach
to
the
problem.
We
initiated
three
different
types
of
quantitative
approaches:
self-report
personality
tests,
neuropsychological
testing,
and
behavioral
testing
(i.e.,
the
Personality Assessment System—PAS).
In
addition, we used one
heuristic approach, which
simply asked individuals to try remote viewing.
|The heuristic approach has been quite successful.
The efficiency
(i.e., the
number of talented viewers found divided by the total number screened)
is approximately 1% in
the general population
(i.e., groups of self-selected volunteers).
Based upon the results of a
mass screening effort, two individuals have been asked to be regular contributors to the project.
| One other heuristic source of good viewers is individuals who have noticed a
psychoenergetic
ability
in their
lives.
Many viewers
in group G1 came
to the
project
in this
manner, and
a new viewer, claiming similar experiences, was identified
in a
recent screening
effort.
This viewer produced an effect size of 0.440 in 6 remote viewing trials, which contained
many striking qualitative correspondences between targets and responses.
Of the
quantitative techniques,
the
neuropsychological approach was not
successful at predicting performance. The PAS, however, predicted performance of 9 viewers to
a significant degree.
who
either
experiencesm
r have
al
By far, the best way to select viewers as of this writing
is to use individuals
bililies measured
in
other
laboratories,
or who have had
strong personal
One technique
not mentioned above
holds
great promise
for the
future.
Three individuals from group Gl who participated in a neurophysiological study of correlates with
remote
viewing produced
unusually
large
central
nervous
system
responses
to
light
stimuli
directed
at the eyes.
More work
is needed to determine
if this simple
test might be the most
effective way to screen
for individuals with excellent remote viewing ability.
Approved For Release 2000/08/0
789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
2.
(U) Targeting
Targeting
is
a general term to describe
the method by which a viewer
is
directed
to
the intended
target.
Common techniques
that have been employed include the
following:
(1) Eeaggn—an individual at the site of the intended target.
(2)
Coordinates—the geographical orHBH coordinates of the intended
target.
(3) Abstract
a
word
or
phrase
(e.g., “target”)
or
other
abstract
representation of the intended target.
(4)
Self—none of the above, the viewer initiates the collection of data.
We examined these techniques in order to determine which provides the best access to a remote
target.
these
four
targeting
techniques.
183
trials
were
identified—the
remainder, 13 trials, were listed as “unknown" targeting. The effect size for viewings initiated by
these
targeting techniques was 0.401,
leading to
a p value
of 2.92 x
10~®.
Thus,
there
is
significant
evidence
for
remote
viewing
functioning.
The
between-groups
chi-square
is
significant
(X2 = 12.58, v = 3 ; p < 0.0058), indicating that the effect sizes resulting from these
targeting techniques are not drawn from the same population.
It
is
difficult, however,
to
attribute the
significant differences
to targeting
techniques alone.
In none of the experiments could the targeting technique be used as a valid
independent variable, because, in all cases, the viewers and experimenters were not blind to the
targeting condition.
Thus,
it is possible, even likely, that the viewers’ scientific or emotional bias
toward one technique or another confounds the interpretation.
Other factors, such as feedback
time
and
type,
or
potential
physics
models
of
information
transfer,
also
confound
the
interpretation.
Given these caveats, beacon targeting appears to provide the best and most
stable
results
(n = 66.
z = 5.305, p <
5.65 x
10"8
, d = 0.653).
3.
(U)
Evaluation and Analysis
(U) The evaluation and analysis of remote viewing data has undergone
significant
improvement during our
years of investigation.
Beginning as a simple blind matching by
judges, the techniques have been improved by the addition of concept analysis (the paraphrasing
of a complex response), discrete descriptor analysis (defining targets and response as the yes/no
answers to a predetermined set of descriptors), and fuzzy set descriptors (defining targets and
responses as fuzzy sets).
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000A
6-00789R003200200001 -4
The
fuzzy
set technique has
also been
applied
to
experiments and found to provide a useful estimate of remote viewing accuracy (the percent of
the
intended
target
that was
described
correctly) and
viewer
reliability
(the percent
of the
viewer’s response that was correct).
For
rapid
evaluation
of
laboratory
experiments,
rank-order
judging
of
targets within preselected
(i.e., by fuzzy set techniques)
target packets
is recommended.
For
more
accurate
measures
of remote
viewing
ability,
however,
the
full
fuzzy
set
analysis
is
suggested. Determining whether the fuzzy set technique can be applied
a topic for further investigation.
4.
(U) Training
training
efforts
were
conducted
during
the
time
period
under
consideration; three were qualitative and three were quantitative. There
is no overall quantitative
evidence that remote viewing can be taught to novice viewers. Of the qualitative efforts, two were
conducted withm^j^|m|^ viewers, and one was conducted with SRI personnel.
All
three showed some qualitative evidence, however, that training improves remote viewing
skill.
Quantitative experiments were conducted with
novice viewers
in three
separate experiments comprising 481
trials.
In the
first group, the novices were self-selected on
the basis of strong interest and previous personal experiences.
None had participated
in prior
laboratory experiments.
The six viewers in this group produced overall significant evidence for
remote viewing
(
n
=
169,
z =
1.719, p < 0.043, d = 0.132).
None of the viewers, however,
individually
or
collectively demonstrated
significant
evidence
that
training
helps
a
viewer
to
improve.
The
second
group
of
viewers
was
selected
because
the
Personality
Assessment System predicted
that they would exhibit a wide range of remote viewing
ability.
Overall,
their data did not reach statistical significance
(n = 221,
z = -0.971, p < 0.834,
d = -0.065).
While the best viewer produced an effect size of 0.170, none of the viewers’ data
reached statistical significance.
None of these viewers individually or collectively demonstrated
significant evidence that training helps a viewer to improve.
In
the
third
group
of
novice
viewers,
one
demonstrated
significant
evidence
for improvement
(
n
= 26,
z = 3.01, p < 0.0013, d = 0.590).
While significant evidence
for remote viewing has been observed, whether
training can improve remote viewing skill has yet to be substantiated quantitatively.
It
is possible
that knowledge has not yet advanced to the point where we know how to train.
Since the data
from viewers in group G1 have remained stable over lime, we conclude that simple practice does
not appear to improve performance.
Approved For Release 2000/Q
IA-RD^-00789R003200200001-^|
mis-
was randomized with decoys from orthogonal target clusters for judging purposes after the RV
session was concluded instead of before the session.
Displacement into the other targets in the
packet may have occurred, such that the viewer was confused about exactly what constituted the
target. To check this possibility, a new set of decoys for each target was randomly chosen from
orthogonal target clusters and a second judging was performed by a different judge. The second
judging produced marked variability in the ranks assigned and a decline in the sum-of-ranks,
with a p-value for the difference in means between the two judgings of 0.08.
While this result
does not achieve significance at the usual 0.05 level and may be due to judging differences,
it
could also suggest displacement effects.
In
order
to address
these
issues,
future experiments
should be
designed
to
eliminate these potential difficulties.
Specifically, an attempt seems warranted to replicate the
results of the successful pilot work mentioned above, where hypnosis was used as a memory aid
and targets were randomized with decoys after the viewing.
Approved For Release 2000/08/^8
: GIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
***
^Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-0QZ89R0032QQ2QQQQ1 -4
Final Report
Covering the Period October
1983
to October
1984
May
1985
[
PHOTON PRODUCTION
(CHINESE REPLICATION)
(U)
-g
“
I
~~1