Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
CONFIDENTIAL
19 October 197^
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT
SG I
I
SRI Paranormal Research!
15 - 18 October 197^ Trip Report
SGI
I
1. Summary .
(OTS) and^^^H (ORD)
spent a total of
. twenty
hours at SRI
on 15 - 17 October,
during which!
a series of general discussions
were held,
primarily with Puthoff and Targ and to a much lesser extent with Cox
and Jones, about past performance and achievements,
current status of the
research and the details
of that to be accomplished in the time
'
reviewed in some detail the experimental protocols,
went over all the evidence,
pertaining to several recent experiments and took part in three new ones}
and
tentative plans were made for an SRI presentation in Washington,
probably in
early December.
In addition, while^^Bwas visiting another contractor
during the afternoon of 17 October,
sPent several hours reviewing SRI
s
experimental records and sampling the various categories of raw data collected
thus far.
Despite distractions stemming from reactions to the publication o±
the Nature article and despite the fact that none of the
superstars
were able
to be in San Francisco on such short notice,
the trip was useful m terms
clarifying the exact status
of the research and delineating both our expectatio
and their obligations during the remainder of the effort.
rfi}ile they weren
coy about the criticality to them of lining-up follow-on funds (or support
from other sources) as soon as possible,
there wasn’t any undue focus or pressure
on this issue—nor,
of course, were any commitments made.
Indeed,
on balance^,
they almost certainly view the prospects as being rather more bleak than prom-
ising.
In a not unrelated vein,
there were several attempts to get me to
conclude that (from the operator's point of view)
the capabilities evidently
shown in the recent technical-OOB experiments could be usefully exploited in
the field.
The most I was able to tell them in this respect was that 1 could
visualize legitimate field applications
(and a genuinely receptive attitude on
the part of DD/0 management)
only if!
those experiments could be replicated with
at least the same degree
of accuracy under fool-proof protocols
(see below;;
and
if there was also some way of providing reasonably reliaole confidence-level
indicators
(ESC- or otherwise)
with respect to the probable accuracy of each
element of the remote-viewing narration.
SGI
SGI
Current
' Status & Plans
re Basic Research
2.
Subjects .
They explained the reduction from 9 to 6 subjects by
stating that they’d been unrealistically optimistic in our first talks --that there
simply wasn't enough time to put nine people thru all the screening tests and then
thru the ops testing and that they could never have analyzed all the data
(indeed,
its doubtful if they'll ever fully analyze the data which they already have--see
below).
In any case,
they felt
it better to do 6 thoroughly than 9 partially.
As
for the 3 so-called
'subjects'
and 3 so-called' controls
'
,
their basic error was
in
not sticking to their guns at the outset--i.e. ,
that when you don't control the
phenomena
(as in this case) you simply cannot
(in their view) determine in advance
who the controls are to be.
(T>u
re* c,
si
yyyy
nr*a/
"
/?A A//Y y:
AYYYjslY
’•'Ao^ayZ y>y
S' ‘'y)
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
SGI
I
SGI
I
'
-
-
'
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
3 0 The Screening Tests. Their reasons
for dropping 2 of the tests were as
follows:
the-EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 10“
figures
(xn part,
they
believe, because EEG signals.in general are just too noisy to work with) and since
they’d set
a standard of 10~6 for psychic performance they saw no advantage in
continuing to devote dwindling time to
it;
the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also
giving low figures with Subjects # 1 and 2 but the major problem was. that. one has
to rim a tremendous number of trials in order to
get- statistically significant
results in any PK experiment and the analysis of the
data is much more time-consuming
than in other experiments.
They’d like to have kept
a PK test,
such as the one with
the gradiometer
(where,
after 150 runs,
they were getting 10^ with subj # 1) but,
again,
it seemed inadvisable time-wise.
The remaining screening tests are: Remote
Viewing
(RV=9 trials),
the Teaching Machine
(TM-2500 trials) and Line Drawings (plus
HHs/u cards) (LD=10 trials).
The current status with respect to each for each
subject
is
as follows
(those who've already reached 10"b are indicated by
(
)).
Subject
"FT—
#2
# 3
#4
#
#6
RV
Completed
(*)
i done
done
Completed
(*)
\ done
TM
Completed
Completed
(*)
\ done
Completed
Completed
LD
Completed
0)
Completed
(but to be done
again w/ right protocol)
They're getting
'crummy'
data from the Line Drawings
(i.e.,
few hits) but . will
complete them for all subjects anyway.
All of the RV and TM basic screening should
be completed within the next few weeks.
As for their increasing of '.the Teaching
Machine trials from 1000 to 2500,
they claim that
(in our original conversations &
the later ones with
they hadn't focused on those figures as being neces-
sarily definitive
and,
in any case,
they hadn't really analyzed enough data at that
time to make sound judgements about
the best number of trials.
4 .
Some Observations
re the Screening Tests . All of the RV results will be
judged by
5 independent judges7 each of whom will get the nine transcripts from each
subj
and then visit the sites
(with replacements) and try to match them.
They had
been planning to wait til they had all 54 trials completed and may yet do so but I
urged them,
in any case,
to be sure the judging was completed on all which have been
run by the time of their presentation in DC and they promised to do so.
.The LDs are
run til they have 10 drawings from each subj --but they are allowed unlimited number
^
of
’passes'.
As an example of what they meant by the problem of identifying
'subjects
vs
'controls'
in advance,
they stated that Subj # 4 was chosen as
a
'control'
specif
' ically because
she did so poorly on both the TM and the gradiometer--but then she
went wild on the RV experiments,
surpassing everyone else in accuracy & repeatability.
5. Status of Medical,
Psychological & Mid-Test Neurophysiological Exams ..
See the clipped pages in the attached Progress Report # 4 for the Medical & Psych
matrices- -about which the following comments and clarifications
should be made:
the
Halstead-Reitan will be added as an entry in the Psych matrix and,
altho all the
arrangements have been made, none of the
subjs have taken it yet
since. Puthoff . (as
a result of some other unpleasantnesses,
see below) wants to take
it himself first
and promised to do
so in the near future and then schedule all the subjects; when
subj $ 2 returned from the Electroretinogram he was almost
a basket case--said it
was the most harrowing experience he'd ever had--and Puthoffi cancelled it for the
rest of the
subjects;
all the rest of the exams have been going quite well with the
exception that Subj # 1 refused to take the TAT.
P„R.$ 4 does not show a matrix for
the Neuro Mid-Experiment
exams but they intend to do five such exams on a random
basis
(without any warning)
for each of the six subjects.
The current status m
all three areas is as follows
:
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
-
-
'
__ Approved For Release 2Q0mjUA0: ClA-RDP^p^fflpp^OOIOOOS^a.^p Heuro
fp
-Competed
cSnpletel- HR)
% P
Completed
Complete (- HR)
x
%
o
Completed
Complete^- HR)
2 done
| 4
Completed
Complete (- HR)
done
Jt
Scheduled
Scheduled
JJ-
#6
Completed
Complete (- HR)
°
6 .
Seme Observations and SRI Commitments in re the Above Material .
a.
The Medical/Sensory Data. We’ve been receiving the rav^data^il^along
fwith the
sub i ect"s
’
names deleted} and will continue to do so
(much of
, xt
,
£2 in^ppendices to P.U4)
.
*««
‘
H
SSi?a—is s?
SsS£
Pare
do so through Puthoff.
„
The Psvch/Behavioral Data.
Puthoff has been having some difficulty
getting raw tetVfri the womaii IVchSie of this effort--partially, he Deiieves^
she'd rather deal in summaries;
in any
tbow
Se!=
8BI
raw data and the summaries-and the
same process Toll be followed as above^
b
will so back to them with questions and/or hypotheses, will test the hyp if po ®
'll Set the results of such exchanges as veil;
also, if we wish to pose questions
we mav do so
I urged Puthoff' to put
some pressure on the lady , pointing out that
^cZe of the relative^fusziness Sf the data they are ^et^es dilatory in making
and writing their final interpretations, and he promised to do
so this week.
c. Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams.
These^ consist
w
,
'filtered'" (alpha)
EEC;" "GSR and pletbysmograph.
In the Final Report
(if no
SriierWe Sll gefdetailh summaries and interpretations of this material--and
!
can have access to the raw data any time we wish
(but, having seen much of it,
Tcan at?Ist S it would he foolish and probably useless for them to try
ito; end
'us conies of it).
They have only run 7 of them
(out of a possible total of 30) and
Puthoff admitted that their earlier mention of a possible indicator of accuracy
(
SpprfL?S of EPS signals 20 seconds before the
'event') was the merest kind of
hint--based onl^ -Sle of Subject # k readings.
I
afiy^ee”
of thorough data collection and analysis in this area and, while he clear^ agr
,
I believe he perceives
a real problem with respect to analysis .
So far they
IgZZ eye-balling it and e?en this cursory approach is quite time consuming.^
fold him we'd been under the impression they had a computer capability
S expSi^d tSt they had had Sne-but no longer
the background being ^follows
They started out by using SRI's Sensory Sciences Lab
(and Dr Lukas)
^his
experi-
but actually completed only two experiments with him:
(l)
a Strobe -Light/EG
P
ment with subj # 4 in which they successfully replicated last year
s results with
the man who is now Subj # 1;
and
(2)
a Mid-Experiment EEG/GSR/Pleth with Sub j # 1
during an 00B test.
But,
according to Puthoff,
these tests were of a quite low
ise?S S^nSffM^srSth Dr Ormstien's
help and urgings,
they set up a capability to do the
same thing m their own lab
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
- 4
-
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
r-ouTjle of months ago
(l didn't task him with failing to notify us of . this change xn
protocol since using Lukas was their idea originally and not one ins
J'
st^
uP°n ty
Ss—but the loss of another lab's input does,
I fear,
somewhat degrade the data).
They like their own system better than Lukas
'
, partially because xt has an analogue
output capability,
and they intend to pursue the tests in two phases:
(a) Phase
I:
five mid-experiment tests with each of two subjects,
• using 'walkie-talkies'
for real-time comparison of accurate hits and
EEG/GSR/Pleth signals;
these experiments are in addiii^n to the nine
screening experiments and the later 00B tests for^^^^^J
from
is
data they will attempt to develop one or more hypotheses.
\
(2) Phase
II: Any useful hypotheses will then be tested on the
remaining four subjects.
At first, Puthoff indicated that they might stop with Phase
I xf no useful hypotheses
emerged from it but
I insisted that we’d need similar evidence from the other four
in any case --and he promised to do at least one and,
xf possxble,
fxve tests
each of them.
SGI
I
7.
The Raw Data,
As noted in para
1,
I spent most of the afternoon of
17 Oct lookiHi aFthelr raw data alone
(they merely assembled it for me
and,
after
somdexplanatory remarks,
left
it with me).
In general,
xt consxsted of.
(1) thexr
daily lab notebooks/logs;
(2)
45 tape pasettes
(and drawings)
of 0°B expermiients;
(3) print-out tapes from the Teaching Machine;
( 4 )
strxp-charts on the EEG/Strobe
light experiments;
( 5 )
strip-charts on the Laser-Pendulum/Gr iadx,
^ei^nts,
and
(6) strip-charts on mid-experimentation EEG/GSR/Pleth tests.
In all, whxle no
massive,
the assembled raw data is impressive—but much of xt, I fea£> wxll no
g
the kind of scrutiny it may deserve before the end of the project.
For xnstance,
22 haS-hour 00B Sat with subj # 1 results in possibly 200 feet
of strxp-charts
with five graphs on it—and I doubt
if they’ve done anythxng wxth xt^yet,
except
eye-ball it and,
possibly, physically weigh it.
If they . don t exploxt the
by the end of the project
I believe we could and should xnsxst on a no-cost
extension for that purpose.
If there
is anything of _ signifxcance xn that data,
with respect to indicators of accurate psychic functxonxng,
xt xs unrealxstxc
expect it to be
so obvious
as to leap off the chart and bite you xn the leg.
8.
The Kypotheses/Theoretical Aspects of Basic Research . While they bave^
nothing soliTto show in this area ai yet (^ich isn’t
surprising), they say that
some useful ideas came out
of the Geneva conference—and one of them (see Appendxx
1 of P„R. # 4 - -which,
they've already been told,
looks suspxcxously like
S
they have already tested and rejected;
that
is the Feinberg hypothesxs that 00B.
phenomena are
'merely'
short-teim
'future memories’
of feedback after the experx-
ment.
They have run a couple of experiments wxth subj # 4 xn whxch no feedback
was given
(or ever will be) and she did just
as well.
As soon as 0TS
consultant^
~l has given us his report on the Geneva conference and hxs vxews on possxble
theories or hypotheses to be tested,
it
is intended to put him together with
Puthoff and Targ,
let him see their data and see whether, together,
they can come
up with useful hypotheses.
SG1|
Other Matters
9.
Series of Technical/Lab 00B Experiments .
This series was begun a few
weeks ago in response' to
a request froiii^j(^who
-
was trying to get
a fix o^the
kind of capabilities which might
service requxrements
such as those which
Mspoke to us about
some months
ago.
These experiments are in addition to
screening tests and the Md-
es
--ophysxol g
e 1 ones.^ So
“fof
S £
rS d^n.“a^rfo4falte, h^r, that-evldently To. reasons
SGI
I
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
I
.
—
-
-
'
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
of efficiency,
to collect maximum data as soon as possible -they dropped a
critical
of the earlier protocol and,
thereby, have left themselves and
the data wide open to challenge.
Instead of having someone outside the par
normal labcontrol the
selection of target sites, Targ or Puthoff would make the
selection
'randomly'
after leaving the subject.-usually by listing 6
=
fnciTities and rolling a die to determine which one they would visit.
It never
Sases S Mze me how,
as scientists,
they con be
so obtuse in ^
so personally sensitive whenever
I raise the issue.
I have assured them time and
RP-ain
/and it
is quite literally true) that I'm personally convinced that neither
S Sei are conLSis^y cheati/g-but'that it is irresponsible
discredit such potentially good data as they now have f using,
for
t~Jgnce .
reason, procedures which will permit anyone else to
shoot boles, in the evidence.
Their
or
at least, Targ's) rebuttal^ that if they use
Cox or Jones to select
the list of sites and roll the
die,
as
I suggested,
anyone caring to ^ect the
evidence need only include them in the putative fraud ^ well,
^herationality
of this argument is more apparent than real.
As
I pointed out to them, rational^
men
(hopefully,
the majority of those to whom the evidence will be presented) will
accept reasonable measures to preclude the possibility of conscious or unconscious
cheating—but
in this last series, they have not provided those reasonable
_
measures.
Finally,
they accepted the argument
(for about the fifth
^
J
addl and promised that the res t of this series would be done with those additio
controls Ti case,^H and I listened to some of Subject # 4's tapes,
looked
Ther towSgs^nd vis"he sites.
All I can say is that, if repeatable with
the necessary safeguards,
the accuracy is uncanny-and could he of ops value.
We
brought hack copies of two of the tapes and drawings and photos
of the
sites if
anyone cares to review them.
10. Participation in RV Experiments .
and I took part in two 00B
experiments with SubjiSTFs who has not been noted for bis 00B
0S S^t^ees we
they characterized the results as mediocre,
even for him.
In both ins an
controlled the
site selectibn.
In one we went
(with Puthoff and subject # 6) to
tennis courts about 3-4 miles from SRI and he located us as being at
a museum about
400 ft from where we actually were;
his basic mistake
(and apparently a common one)
was in
'cognating'
the museum & embroidering on that interpretation-while his
six
drawings were actually much more in tune with the tennis courts .
The
_ second
experiment,
a
'technical'
one involving a nearby SRI lab, was quite
similar,
number of quite good verbal and drawing descriptions but
a quite erroneous con-
clusion.
I had a quite similar experience when I acted as
the remote-viewer in
«lament, whUe Targ andjliwent to a lab
site;
the major
experiment being that both^*and I got
a much better feel for the actual
procedures o
I pointed out to them that,
in the ops scenarios, we were unlikely
ever to have a witting or cooperative subject
at the site
(and,
if we did, we
no
require
remote vifwing skills);
I urged them to try at least
some experiments
in which the
subject didn't know the
'outbound'
viewer at all- -and then some in
which the subject knew him/her only by name/photo/etc and,
fijally,
some in which
the subject was permitted to see the viewer m a
'walk-hy
situation.
They clear y
would like to try these variations but I'm not sure they 11 get around to it
before the project ends.
11. Presentation in DC 0
This is tentatively scheduled for early in
December and is clearly intended to have an impact on those in the hierarchy who
will be passing on the question of renewal.
In a sense it will be ^preview o
their Final Report—and
I feel this
is
a perfectly legitimate procedure.
As
indicated elsewhere throughout this memo, they were urged to ensure that their
presentation included several elements— e. g„
:
as much summary and interpretive
_
material as
is available on the medical/sensory,
psychological and neurophysiological
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6
'
'
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-R[g396-00787R00020001 0005-6
material;
independent judging results on the 00B screening tests;
’clean
(i.e.,
safeguarded)
lab RV experiments;
succinct statements of where they stand with
SGI
|
respect to analysis of the raw data; whatever useful theorizing/hypotheses they
(and/or
can present --couched,
if they wish,
in terms of possible
follow-on activity.
We should talk to OTS soon about drawing up a definitive
guest-list for the presentation.
12.
Other Material .
A copy of the latest Progress Report
is attached—
]
with a few last minute medical raw data sheets inserted.
In addition,
there
j
are
(not attached but available):
casette, photos & drawings of two RV experi-
>j
ments by Subj # 4;
and a series of SRI documents relating to the Nature
article.
SGFOIAS
SGI
I
14.
In Conclusion .
I’m impressed by the intensity
. of their, motivation
and by the quantity of work they have done—but
a bit distressed by the lack of
discipline with respect to procedures and exploitation of data.
It may be that
this is an inevitable
(however unpalatable) trade-off for having a pair of such
eager, hard-working and imaginative investigators in such an exotic field. There
is no doubt that both are very intensely and emotionally wrapped-up in their
work,
are wholly convinced of the existence of the psychic phenomena they are
investigating and equally convinced that they can harnass it in time.
I cannot
honestly judge the degree to which their objectivity suffers as a consequence
or the degree to which any postulated loss of objectivity biases the outcome
of their work.
For what
its worth,
I am personally convinced that neither are
engaging in conscious cheating—but the very intensity of their involvement
does,
it
seems to me,
elevate the possibility of unconscious cueing.
Let me
hasten to add that
I have absolutely no evidence of the latter,
either;
it
is
simply a possibility which,
given the dynamics of the entire situation,
it
would be irresponsible not
to recognize.
On the other hand,
at the risk of
the TOle?
t
, of «“• the evlae“0
?
faulted portions of
l-t might
do y- heaves me on balance more persuaded
than not of some psychic functioning—although I'm less confident that we now
have either the tools to measure
it or the capacity to conceptualize or model
it.
Empirically, nonetheless,
I can see operational uses if certain of the
alleged gifts can be demonstrated under optimum controls and if measures in
support of confidence -level indicators can be devised.
\
\
damaging
&/A/?
r
Social.
16 Oct with Hal Puthoff and his
and I spent
5 or 6 six hours during the evening of
SGFOIAS
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6