datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200170012-6 DRAFT Dr. Edwin May SAIC, etc. Dear Dr. May: In accordance with the terms of your contract, | am enclosing an “Indexed” copy of the bibliography of SRI reports and documents you had given tol pnd arequest SGI1l for your assistance In evaluating, annotating and copying selected documents. Each document Is Indexed with five different diacritical symbols along the left-hand margin, each symbol designates: * . reports apparently prepared under government contract which are not available at the current government program office. The letter “D" In front of the asterisk denotes documents that _may have been destroyed when you SG1J ands reviewed your files. + - reports which are available at the program office. & - reports not at the program office but which appear to be Interim or progress reports for which a final or subsequent report is available. ? - reports Included in the “sanitized” volume prepared last year by SAIC for which a copy of the original, unsanitized report in not at the program office. x - documents not of interest for the current evaluation process, e.g., proposals, Internal memos and/or letters, administrative reports, draft reports, SRI technical papers presented at technical fora or in open publications. For documents denoted by the “*” symbol, [_]requests your appraisal of their SGII potential value to the current program review and evaluation noting that the external Review Panel can review only unclassified documents. Please eliminate any of the designated documents from the action requested below If you believe they do not offer information relevant to the panel’s review or If the Information they contain Is provided in other available documents. If your copy of any of these documents has been destroyed, e.g., those designated by the “D" symbol, please note in your response. For the remaining, designated documents that you belleve are relevant to the review process, please prepare an ‘unclassifled annotated bibliography. Annotation should comprise 2 or 3 lines of text briefly delineating the principal contents. That annotated bibliography and coples of all unclassified reports shouldbe senttol__— |] S11 CIA/ORD, Washington, DC 20505, for receipt NLT 19 June 1995. Coples of classifled reports included on the bibliography should be sent to [pia appropriate SG1I channels for recelpt NLT 15 July 1995. If you have any questions about this tasking, please contact|__s At =| SGI SGFOIA3 or me atl ___ SG1B Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200170012-6
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 2-6
SGI J
DRAFT
Dr. Edwin May
SAIC, etc.
Dear Dr. May:
In accordance with the terms of your contract,
I am enclosing an "Indexed
11 copy of the
bibliography of SRI reports and documents you had given to]
fond a request
for your assistance In evaluating, annotating and copying selected documents
Each document is Indexed with five different diacritical symbols along the left-hand
margin, each symbol designates:
*
- reports apparently prepared under government contract which are not
available at the current government program office. The letter “D” in front of
the asterisk denotes documents that may have been destroyed when you
andf
I reviewed your files.
+
- reports which are available at the program office.
&
- reports not at the program office but which appear to be Interim or progress
reports for which a final or subsequent report is available.
?
- reports included in the “sanitized” volume prepared last year by SAIC for
which a copy of the original, unsanitized report
in not at the program office,
x - documents not of interest for the current evaluation process, e.g,, proposals,
Internal memos and/or letters, administrative reports, draft reports, SRI
technical papers presented at technical fora or in open publications.
For documents denoted by the
symbol,
|
| requests your appraisal of their
potential value to the current program review and evaluation noting that the external
Review Panel can review only unclassified documents.
Please eliminate any of the
designated documents from the action requested below
If you believe they do not offer
information relevant to the panel's review or
If the Information they contain is provided
In other available documents.
If your copy of any of these documents has been
destroyed, e.g., those designated by the “D” symbol, please note in your response.
For the remaining, designated documents that you believe are relevant to the review
process, please prepare an
unclassified
annotated bibliography.
Annotation should
comprise 2 or 3 lines of text briefly delineating the principal contents.
< That annotated
bibliography and
copies of all unclassified reports should be sent to
CIA/ORD, Washington, DC 20505, for receipt NLT 19 June 1995 . Copies of classified
reports included on the bibliography should be sent to
|
channels for receipt NLT 15 July 1995.
]/ia appropriate
If you have any questions about this tasking, please contact
SGFOIA3 or me at i
I
bt
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
I
SG1I
SG1B
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 2-6
Approved For Release 2 : - - - pp e 001/03/07 CIA-RDP96 00791R000200170014-4 . CIA BIBLIOGRAPHY CLASS. | TITLE AUTHOR(S) (U) BIOFIELD MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM, Part One - H. Puthoff Technical Proposal, 11 Aug 72, and Part Two - Contractual Provisions, 12 Sept 72. (U) SRI proposal for an exploratory study to investigate the abilities of an individual to produce psychokinetic effects. (U) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, Progress Report on Contract H. Puthofft Number 1471(S)73, 22 Feb 73 R. Targ (U) Summary report of 3 perception experiments and 2 psychokinetic experiments at SRI. (U) Project SCANATE, circa 1973 (UNK?) (U) Exploratory research in remote viewing. Appendix reports experiments with Uri Geller at SRI during 8/73. {S) PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES (U), Part H. Puthoff One - Executive Summary, Covering Period 1/74 R.Targ through 2/75 (U) Documents study of remote viewing at SRI during period noted. Cp? PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES, Progress H. Puthoff Rpt No. 3 Covering Period 4/74 to 8/74 (U) Report of SRI work in basic to identify the characteristics of individuals possessing desired capabilities and applied research to explore experimentally the potential for applications of perceptual abilities of interest. (U) INFORMATION TRANSMISSION UNDER CONDITIONS OF = 4H Puthoff SENSORY SHIELDING R. Targ (U) Report published in NATURE Magazine, 10/74 (U) PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FOUR- (UNK) STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR. (U) Personal notes on results of working with an ESP machine. CP" PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES, Progress H. Puthoff Rpt No. 4 Covering Period 8/74 to 10/74 R. Targ (U) Report of SRI work in basic to identify the characteristics of individuals possessing desired capabilities and applied research to explore experimentally the potential for applications of perceptual abilities of interest. 1UNK = author unknown or unidentified — 2CP = Client Private oF Propricta Information Approve or Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200170014-4
“we A : CIA- . - coy APProved For Release 2001/03/07 ; CIA-RDP96-00794R000200179014-4 First Interim Report covering period (U) Second Interim Report covering period 7-9/74 N. Khokhlov (U) Status reports on work to review parapsychology and paraphysics activities in the Soviet Union. (U) INSITITUTES, LABORATORIES AND CENTERS PERFOMRING RESEARCH ON UNCONVENTIONAL .BIOPHYSIC, PARAPSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHOPHYSICALOGY (S) (U) Listing of facilities and related scientists and other information regarding their research activities. (U) EVALUATION OF SOVIET RESERACH IN THE FIELDS OF N. Khokhlov PARANORMAL BEHAVIOR AND UNCONVENTIOAL HUMAN BIOPHYSICS, Final Report, Mar 75 (U) Final report on review of parapsychology and paraphysics activities in the Soviet Union. CP USERS REQUIREMENTS STUDY FOR THE EVALUATION OF B. Ripple PRESENTATION MEDIA, Part One - Technical Proposal and Part Two - Contractual Provisions, (DRAFT Versions),20 Dec 1976 (U) Proposed study to determine relevant sources for top-level users of intelligence information. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200170014-4
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 4-4
STAR GATE
CIA BIBLIOGRAPHY
CLASS.
TITLE
AUTHOR ( S
)
(U)
BIOFIELD MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM,
Part One
-
H.
E
Technical Proposal,
11 Aug
72,
and Part Two
-
Contractual Provisions,
Sept
72.
(U)
SRI proposal
for an exploratory study to investigate the
abilities of an individual
to produce psychokinetic effects.
(U)
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM,
Progress Report on Contract
H.
Puthoff
Number 1471(S)73,
22 Feb 73
R-
Targ
.
(U)
Summary report of
3 perception experiments and
2 psychokinetic
experiments at SRI
.
(U)
Project SCANATE,
circa 1973
_
(UNK1
)
(U)
Exploratory research in remote viewing.
Appendix reports
experiments with Uri Geller at SRI during
8/73.
(S)
PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES
(U)
,
Part
H.
Puthoff
One
- Executive Summary,
Covering Period 1/74
R.Targ
through 2/75
,
,
(U)
Documents
study of remote viewing at
SRI during period noted.
CP2
PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES,
Progress
H.
Puthoff
Rpt No.
3 Covering Period 4/74 to 8/74
(U)
Report of
SRI work in basic
to identify the characteristics of
individuals possessing desired capabilities and applied research
to explore experimentally the potential
for applications of
perceptual abilities of interest.
H Puthoff
R .
Targ
(UNK)
(U)
Personal notes on results of working with an ESP machine.
CP*
PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES,
Progress
H.
Puthoff
Rpt No.
4 Covering Period 8/74
to
10/74
R*_ Targ
(U)
Report of
SRI work m basic
to identify the characteristics
of
individuals possessing desired capabilities and applied research
to explore experimentally the potential
for applications of
perceptual abilities of interest.
(U)
INFORMATION TRANSMISSION UNDER CONDITIONS OF
SENSORY SHIELDING
(U)
Report published in NATURE Magazine,
10/74
(U)
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FOUR-
STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR.
1UNK = author unknown or unidentified
2C^pfroTef^
R0002001 7001 4-4
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 4-4
(U)
First Interim Report covering period 6-7/74
N.
Khokhlov
(U)
Second Interim Report covering period 7-9/74
N.
Khokhlov
(U)
Status reports on work to review parapsychology and
paraphysics activities
in the Soviet Union.
(U)
INSITITUTES,
LABORATORIES AND CENTERS PERFOMRING
RESEARCH ON UNCONVENTIONAL BIOPHYSIC,
PARAPSYCHOLOGY
AND PSYCHOPHYSICALOGY
(S)
(U)
Listing of facilities and related scientists and other
information regarding their research activities.
(U)
EVALUATION OF SOVIET RESERACH IN THE FIELDS OF
N.
Khokhlov
PARANORMAL BEHAVIOR AND UNCONVENT IOAL HUMAN
BIOPHYSICS,
Final Report,
Mar 75
(U)
Final report on review of parapsychology and paraphysics
activities
in the Soviet Union.
CP
USERS REQUIREMENTS STUDY FOR THE EVALUATION OF
B.
Ripple
PRESENTATION MEDIA,
Part One
- Technical Proposal and Part
Two
- Contractual Provisions,
(DRAFT Versions), 20 Dec 1976
(U)
Proposed study to determine relevant sources
for top-level
users of intelligence information.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 4-4
‘ Science Ap Kor Releases SODA IOSI0 5) O27 Ck wets Sunday, June 18, 1995 17:50- Page 1 of 21 -RDP96-00791R0900200- --------+----Approved-For-Release 470016-2-------------- Annotated Bibliography , UNEDITED DRAFT 16 June 1995 OBJECTIVE The objective of this report is to provide an annotated bibliography of the document set that was generated by the Cognitive Sciences Program under contract to the government from 1972 to date.” * The document constitutes partial fulfillment of the deliverable under Subtask 1 of the FY95 SETA Task 2545-230. UNEDITED DRAFT | ' Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200170016-2
Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 I Chapter Three: Research Reviews 8. REFERENCES Bem, Daryl J. and Charles Honorton (1994). "Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer," Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Bierman, Dick J. (1995). "The Amsterdam Ganztfeld Series III & IV: Target clip emotionality, effect sizes and openness,” Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 27-37. Broughton, Richard and Cheryl Alexander (1995). "Autoganzfeld II: The first 100 sessions," Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 53-61. May, Edwin C. (1995). "AC Technical trials: Inspiration for the target entropy concept," May 26, 1995, SAIC Technical Report. May, Edwin C., Nevin D. Lantz and Tom Piantineda (1994). "Feedback Considerations in Anomalous Cognition Experiments," Technical Report, 29 November 1994. May, Edwin C., J.M. Utts, V.V. Trask, W.W. Luke, T.J. Frivold and B.S. Humphrey (1988). "Review of the psychoenergetic research conducted at SRI International (1973-1988)" SRI International Technical Report, March 1989. Morris, Robert L., Kathy Dalton, Deborah Delanoy and Caroline Watt (1995). "Comparison of the sender/no sender condition in the Ganzfeld, " Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 244-259. Puthoff, Harold E. and Russell Targ (1975). "Perceptual Augmentation Techniques: Part Two--Research Report," Stanford Research Institute Final Report, Dec. 1, 1975. American institutes for Research " 3-29 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5
Science Applications International Corp. - (41 5) 322-7960 - Created: Sunday, June 1 8, 1 995 1 7:51 - Page 4 of 21
Approved- For-Release -200-1^03/07-:-GIA-RE>P96-00-79
J1-R660200t7001^;2‘
Annotated Bibliography
UNEDITED DRAFT
16 June 1995
Caveats
For each category in Figure 1, we provide a definition of the major problem and what we
have learned from the research that was associated with
it.
Neither of these descriptions are
meant to be definitive;
rather, they should be considered as providing a context for the
documents in this annotated bibliography and as a guide to reading the associated reports.
An attempt was made to include all technically relevant documents.
All documents from the
sponsor’s tasking that are not
discussed below, were deemed not
critical for the project
review. The documents that were marked “destroyed” or were classified will be accounted
for at a later date in our McLean offices.
There appeared to be a few errors in the original bibliography. For e
xample, a few titles
were incorrect and some author orders was
wrong,
but they have been corrected in this
document.
In a few
cases,
documents were
replaced with
later versions,
and those
instances are marked within the body of this report. Documents marked as [***] were not
present in the original bibliography, but are important enough to included here.
All documents annotated in this report are now on file with the sponsor.
UNEDITED DRAFT
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0002001 7001 6-2
LT SS SS ar SSS Sis tre Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan examining issues relevant to the various participants would provide the most appropriate strategy. Accordingly, structured interviews were developed for three participant groups in intelligence operations: ° end-users: representatives from agencies requesting information from remote viewers, ° the Program Manager, and ° the remote viewers. Another key issue to be considered in an interview procedure is the nature of the people to be interviewed. Although end-users, program managers, and viewers represent the major participants, many different individuals have been involved in intelligence applications of remote viewing over the course of the last twenty years. Nevertheless, it was decided to interview only those persons who were involved in the program at the time of its suspension in the Spring of 1995. This decision was based on the need for accurate, current information that had not been distorted by time and could be corroborated by existing documentation and follow-up interviews. Information about operational applications was gathered in a series of interviews conducted during July and August of 1995. We interviewed seven representatives of end-user groups, three remote viewers, and the incumbent Program Manager. With regard to the data collection procedures that we employed, a number of points should be borne in mind. First, members of the groups we interviewed could only speak to recent operations. Although it would have been desirable to interview people involved in earlier operations, for example during the 1970s, the problems associated with the passage of time, including forgetting and the difficulties involved in verifying information, effectively precluded this approach. Accordingly, the interviews focused on current operations. Second, it should be noted that the end-user representatives represented a range of current concerns in the intelligence community. The relevant user groups were involved in operations ranging from counterintelligence and drug interdiction to search and rescue operations. This diversity permitted operational merits to be assessed for a number of different contexts. DRAFT - American Institutes for Research 2-7 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5
erence Pp SD SS Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 a Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan The interviews were conducted by one of the two panel members from AIR. A retired intelligence officer took notes during the interviews. A representative of the CIA attended interviews as necessary to describe the reasons the interviews were being conducted and to address any security concerns. Each interview was conducted using a standard protocol. Different protocols were developed for members of the three groups because they had somewhat different perspectives on current operations. Appendix C presents the instructions given to the interviewer. This Appendix also lists the interview questions presented to users, viewers, and the program manager. User interviews were conducted in the offices of the client organization; interviews with the program manager and the viewers were conducted at the Washington Office of AIR. The interviews were one to two hours long. A total of 12 to 16 questions were asked in the interviews. We developed the questions presented in each interview,as follows: Initially, the literature on remote viewing and available information bearing on operations within the intelligence community were reviewed by AIR scientists. This review was used to formulate an initial set of interview questions, Subsequently, these candidate questions were presented to a panel of three psychologists at AIR. In addition, review panel members were asked to review these candidate questions to insure they were not leading and covered the issues that were relevant to the particular group under consideration. With regard to operational users, four types of questions were asked. These four types of questions examined the background and nature of the tasks presented to the remote viewers, the nature and accuracy of the information. resulting from the viewings, operational use of this information, and the utility of the resulting information. The remote viewers were asked a somewhat different set of questions. The four types of questions presented to them examined recruitment, selection, and development; the procedures used to generate viewings; the conditions that influenced the nature and success of viewings; and the organizational factors that influenced program operations. The Program Manager was not asked about the viewing process. Instead, questions presented to the program manager primarily focused on broader organizational issues. The DRAFT - American insitutes for Research 2-8 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5
re a a a Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5 Chapter Two: Evaluation Plan four types of managerial questions focused on the manager's background, client recruitment, factors influencing successes and failures, and needs for effective program management. The interview questions presented in each protocol were asked in order, as specified in Appendix D. Typically these interviews began by asking for objective background information. Questions examining broader evaluative issues were asked at the end of the interview. The AIR scientist conducting the interviews produced reports for each individual interview. They also are contained in Appendix C. Analyses of User Feedback. In addition to the qualitative data provided by the interviews, some quantitative information was available. For all of the operational tasks conducted during 1994, representatives from the requesting agencies were asked to provide two summary judgments: one with respect to the accuracy of the remote viewing, and the second of the actual or potential value of the information provided. These data — the accuracy and value evaluations obtained for viewings as program feedback from the users — were analyzed and summarized in a report prepared prior to the current evaluation. A copy of this report is provided in Appendix D. Although these judgments have been routinely collected for only a relatively short period of time, they provided an important additional source of evaluative information. This information was of some value as a supplement to interviews in part because it was collected prior to the start of the current review, and in part because it reflects user assessments of the resulting information. We present the findings flowing from this multifaceted evaluation of the operational component of the program in Section 4 of this report. In that section, we first present the findings emerging from prior research and the interviews and then consider the results obtained from the more quantitative evaluations. Prior to turning to this evaluation of operations, however, we first present the findings from review of the basic research, examining evidence for the existence and nature of the remote viewing phenomenon. DRAFT - American Institutes for Research 2-9 Approved For Release 2002/05/22 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200180005-5