eine Approved For Release od GdeAS2 HELE 00789R002200670001-4 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. Research design is good. To test the overall feedback hypothesis. Results negative. There are no hard conclusions drawn, about the hypothesis about the “viewability” of different kinds are targets. Could be tested in the future, with an experiment carefully designed to do that. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: , . 1. Design, protocols - all are satisfactory. Results appropriate. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 1. Well done. The approach is described and findings ‘are given in relevant Objective/Task studies reports. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1. This is an excellent improvement in procedure, more technically/“cosmetically” . sound and preferred by RV subjects. 2. For future research, target pool should eliminate those with low hit rates and utilize those with highest hit rates (for category type) and target. 3. Page 3 ~ Please elaborate and detail what “certain characteristics” enhance RV quality. Need to develop optimal protocol materials. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-15 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4 UNCLASSIFIED SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective E, Tasks 1 and 2 (Feedback And Target Dependencies In Remote Viewing Experiments) (verbatim transcription--not edited) NAME: Herb Ley Comments: 1. This report appears abridged with only the title page, one full page of text and a short paragraph at the top of page 3. The information provided is inadequate for any assessment. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. They seem adequate for the task. No problems. ‘ 2. These findings raise the question of how the various target pools may be deployed in the future, e.g., do you focus on the natural targets, where success is best, and shift later to client-centered material, or do you keep client-centered material in at the start, figuring that you want to know early on who will be good with that material? I lean towards the former. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 4 NAME: James Press Comments: 1. This was just a description of the target pool used for mass screening. There was no description of feedback, or of target dependencies. The effort seems admirable - but I guess if would be hard to analyze the results because of statistically confounding factors. Recommengation: Yes November 1, 1988 A-14 Approved For Release 4gqNI@b¢\ § GLRPES9-00789R002200670001 -4
Brian Skyrms 1. Research design is good. To test the overall feedback hypothesis. Results negative. There are no hard conclusions drawn, about the hypothesis about the “viewability” of different kinds are targets. Could be tested in the future, with an experiment carefully designed to do that. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 Mike Wartell “Comments: . 1. Design, protocols — all are satisfactory. Results appropriate. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 [E: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 4. Well done. The approach is described and findings are given fh relevant Objective/Task studies reports. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: . Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1. This is an excellent improvement in procedure, more technically/“cosmetically” sound ‘and preferred by RV subjects. 2. For future research, target pool should eliminate those with low hit rates and utilize those with highest hit rates (for category type) and target. 3. Page 3 - Please elaborate and detail what “certain characteristics” enhance RV quality. Need to develop optimal protocol materials. ce Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 ad A-15 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 G: 407.89R002200670001-4
Approved For Release oo AO FLED, o789R002200670001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective E, Task 3 (The Effects Of Hypnosis On Remote Viewing Quality) (verbatim transcription--not edited) NAME: Herb Ley Comments: 1. The study described in this task is straightforward, and the research design and statistical analyses are appropriate for the hypothesis. The sample size of two seems rather small, but is compensated for, I suspect, by the data available on these two persons from prior studies. No results were presented in the report, so I cannot comment on them or on conclusions. 2. I was impressed by the comments on page 2 under “Objective” that the monitor shad observed the viewer to be in a more internally focused and relaxed state after hypnosis than during the control period. The same observation has been made by their practitioners for both meditation and prayer. However, “meditation” and “prayer” have different meanings to different people, and would be almost impossible to apply to a controlled scientific study. There is sufficient data on hypnosis to place it in a more objective category of variables for study. You did well to use a professional for induction of hypnosis. The point I object to in the report is the use of the word, “trance.” That word may be replaced by the phrase, “altered state of consciousness,” or ASC if you prefer, to minimize the undesirable connotations of the word, “trance.” Why don’t you discuss that with Ornstein? Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: . Robert Morris Comments: 1. The research design could have used relaxation as a control condition rather than proofreading. Proofreading is a different category of experience altogether. The protocol and analysis seem fine. The conclusions offer interesting possibilities, but the concept of displacement has some difficulties. 2. Basically, you are using hypnosis to accomplish something, to be helpful in aiding some aspect of psi-mediated information processing. So why not see if there is any evidence that it has an effect upon information processing, and if greater effects are associated with stronger psi performance. If so, you have learned something and can then go on to tease out whether expectation (not ruled out in this study) or some aspect of hypnosis contributed to psi directly or some other process which in turn affected psi. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A~16 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200670001-4