Approved For Release 2;
-00789R0022001 50001-1
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task
(October, 1985-September, 1987)
(Possible Photon Production During A Remote Viewing Task:
A Replication Experiment)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
Design and analysis of experiments are acceptable.
Experiment appears to have
been carefully accomplished.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-11-87
NAME:
Nicholas Yaru
Comments:
1.
I agree with the conclusion that the Chinese experimenters observed the results of
transients.
This
is conclusive data to terminate
this experiment.
The shielding
and
signal processing techniques you have evolved should be
useful
in
future
work.
Recommendation:
Yes
12-21-87
A- 12
Approved For Release 2G0)|9^O|/^pg}p|>g0)O789ROO22OO1 50001-1
Approved For Release 2
-00789R0022001 50001-1
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task 2
(Experimental Protocol For Hemolysis:
Confirmation Experiment)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Herbert L. Ley
Comments:
1.
The report
is excellent.
There
is one variable that
I did not pick up in earlier
reviews
(probably
because
with
subjects
the
drawing
of blood
must
be
staggered) that could be looked at in greater depth.
Blood samples were drawn
for 14 to 42 hours before the experimental period.
This
is a three-fold variation
in time.
Although ACD is a good blood preservative,
it does not totally eliminate
the effects of aging on red
cell
fragitity.
Therefore, the time between drawing
blood and the testing could be influencing results.
Critics of this experiment may
be expected to focus on this uncontrolled variable.
2.
I would recommend,
if possible, that the variable of time between drawing blood
and
testing be tested
for significance
in the recent
test using ANOVA.
If no
significance can be associated with this variable,
fine.
Any future testing should
include controlling the time variable.
Obviously,
if the samples are refrigerated
sufficient time must pass before the testing to permit thermal equilibrium of all
samples.
Whether the delay is 24 +
1 hours or 4 + 0.2 hours or some other figure
makes no difference. The important thing is that the time variable be controlled
in any future tests of hemolysis.
Recommendation:
Yes
12-18-87
Response To Herbert L. Ley’s Comments:
NAME:
Jessica Utts
1.
Response to comment
1:
The
differences
in time should be
at least partially
controlled for by interspersing the control and protest periods.
A statement to
this effect has been added to the report.
Also, the suggestion will be passed on to
the Mind Science Foundation for their use in designing future experiments.
NAME
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
This appears to be a well-designed experiment, which produced results which are
equivocal for the theories under consideration.
A-13
Approved For Release 2CB
)fTCtASSlPrE13)0789R0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release 2^^^8^g^-^|j|^-00789R0022001 50001-1
Recommendation:
Yes
11-18-87
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
I am concerned that the protocol became unduly complicated when the “own”
blood
versus
“others”
blood
was
added
as
a
variable.
The
results
remain
ambiguous, but the extra variable clouds the issue.
I suggest simply allowing this
experiment to disappear with the other RA experiments.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-12-87
A- 14
Approved For Release 2qopf^|jQ(^5||pfg{^0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2
-00789R0022001 50001-1
SOC Reviewer’s Comments on Objective F, Tasks la and lb
(Feedback and Precognition Dependent Remote Viewing Experiments)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
Additional
analysis should be done.
What
is the
analysis
of the sum
total of
evidence presented here.
We have
3 experiments; two negative and the third
with 4 viewings
of which
are
negative and
significant.
Are
the
aggregate
results significant or not?
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
Protocol
(page
5)
would
have been
stronger had
all
time
parameters been
matched
(assistant leaving site and arrival back at SRI)
.
2.
Cluster analysis approach
is excellent - othogonal target selection important to
efficiency and final analytical approaches.
3.
Last statement about Viewer 372 (top of page 11)
is inappropriate and should be
deleted.
4.
Page 11-explanation
is marked paragraph
(2)
inappropriate. Excuses regarding
“rushing trials”
inappropriate.
5.
This experiment provided inconclusive results.
I do not believe that inferences
should be drawn from the results.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Philip Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
The
inconclusive
pattern
of
hits
and
misses
across
these
experiments
is
disappointing.
2.
I find as an over generalization and not acceptable the statement on page
3, “yet,
the evidence strangely suggests the
(sic)
[that] precognition
is a fact of nature.”
A-15
Approved For Release 20EfPfGi/C5S1Pf^0789R0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release ^|^^gl^||^|^-00789R0022001 50001-1
3.
The
out-bound
protocol
is
wasteful
of
time
and
resources.
I recommend
substituting “cinema verite” video displays of dynamic “real world” scenes as the
target material.
4.
Page
8—line
6 from bottom
(typo - three experienced viewers).
5.
Page
10—line 2 from bottom in other words.
6.
Page
11—last line confused/also page
12,
line
7, from bottom.
7.
The procedure and design and analysis are exemplary, but
I am not convinced
that they allow for RV versus pre-cognition evaluation as competing theories.
8.
Given the predictions, the results for Ss with significant RV,
177 and 009 would
have to support real-time RV and
fail to support pre-cognition hypotheses.
9.
The authors must avoid the
stylistic bias of too quickly dismissing null findings
with a rush toward explaining them away.
10.
Conclusion:
more research
is
definitely needed using the T-Scope procedure.
Why
not have
a
set
of
practice
trials
to do
an
initial
screening
of
S’s RV
functioning on that day.
If + then test,
if not + then suspend—give a rain check.
Recommendation:
Yes
H- 13_87
Response To Philip Zimbardo’s Comments:
NAME:
Edwin C. May
1.
Response to comments:
Conclusions were modified appropriately.
A- 16
Approved For Release 2(UtNl©6ASSIftfiB00789*0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release 2(J^^^(^-j^)J^|j00789R0022001
50001-1
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective H, Tasks 3 and 3a
(A Remote Action Experiment With A Piezoelectric Transducer)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Brain Skyrms
Comments:
1.
The experiment was carefully done, with good experimental design.
I visited and
inspected
the
experiment.
Sources
of
noise
and
artifacts
were
carefully
controlled (much better than in the pilot study!). The conclusion of our evidence
for RA should be accepted.
2.
This counts negatively on subcontractor JFKU’s track record.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Michael Wartel
Comments:
1.
Design and analysis acceptable.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-11-87
NAME:
Philip Zimbardo
Comments:
1*
This research represents “state of the art” protocols for the control or suppression
of RA sources of artifact.
2.
The apparatus and procedural features are impressive.
3.
Subjects were rated as very high in psi ability (8/10 were “practitioner-level” psi
people)
4.
Q:
What about using the PIF scores
for screening of your RV population?
5.
Caveats on pages
16,
17, and
ff, are important to note:
Anti-scientific personal
biases of JFKU research team led to poor research decisions!
6.
Post hoc motivatorial explanations are not acceptable
(as on page 23)
for failure
to
find
effects predicted.
Researchers cannot
resort
to explanations
that
are
based on too much and/or too low levels of motivation, inhibitory and excitatory
motivation.
A- 18
Approved For Release 2(|G|yq^t)|/^5(PfEQp0789R002200 150001-1
Approved For Release 2yj[^^(J8^^-||rj^-00789R0022001 50001-1
7.
In
general,
this
null
effect
of
a
well-designed
study
and
protocol
seriously
questions
any
continued
research
on RA
with
changes
in
physical/biological
systems as the DV.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
A- 19
Approved For Release 2qj|l(]^y)g^fpfgQp0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release
-00789R0022001 50001-1
8* Cli
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective
I, Task 2
(Intuitive Data Sorting)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
S. James
Press
Comments:
1.
There were no really significant results of this effort although the care taken to
obtain scientific results
is impressive.
2.
I would want to know more about the degree of randomness in these RNG before
suggesting the research be continued.
3..
Page
2, paragraph 2,
first sentence.
I don’t agree that we would need to “have
access
to
future
events.”
If we knew
the
seed and we knew
the number
generating mechanism, we could state precisely what the entire sequence of digits
would be, and
it would be the same sequence on every run.
4.
Page 2, paragraph
3.
All information about the future
is probabilistic. We can
assign
(subjective)
probabilities for
all future events.
Sometimes the events are
repeatable and the probabilities are objective.
For example,
the event that a
“six”
will appear on a fair die when
I cast
it, 10 days from now.
Are we being
given the probabilities of certain events in the future?
If so, whose probability
is
it?
5.
Page
6.
Is there any meaning to the numerical ordering of seed numbers? How
are the “random” numbers generated by two successive seed numbers related?
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
Response To
S. James Press’ Comments:
NAME:
Jessica Utts
1.
Response
to comment
2:
Details about the pseudo—random number generator
used in our experiments are being sent to Dr.
Press.
2.
Response to comment 3:
The experiments discussed in this section of the report
are based on true random sources,
so the sequences are not determined by a
seed, but rather are generated after the buttons are pressed.
Thus, one would
need
access
to
future
events.
The
experiments
we
conducted,
using
a
A-20
Approved For Release ^M®fc^95IWE©-00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release
-00789R0022001 50001-1
pseudo-random number generator, would require access to future events only to
account
for human reaction time
to
press the
button.
We have
not claimed
otherwise in this report.
Response to comment 4: The statement in question is a philosophical one.
If the
future
is already determined, and
if precognition
exists, then one might expect
that perfectly reliable information about the future would sometimes be available.
However,
it appears that precognition does not operate that way.
Instead, from
the potential futures, those predicted in precognition trials appear to be actualized
/
at a
higher
rate than expected by chance.
This indicates
that certain
future
events may be more
likely to occur than
others, and
that
this information
is
available.
An extra sentence has been added to the report for clarification.
Response to comment
5:
They aren’t related at
all.
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
I do not find any problem with the experimental approach, but
I am concerned
about the lack of definitive result, one way or the other.
I do not favor dropping
the
experiment— it
seems
cheap
and
useful
in
developing
some
necessary
theoretical framework.
2.
Unless some better experimental verification
(or anti-verification) of IDS can be
developed,
I would favor continuing this set of experiments.
Recommendation:
Yes
12-03-87
NAME:
Nicholas Yaru
Comments:
1.
The research design and statistical protocols are
valid.
2.
I agree with the recommendation that the experiment be continued at such a date
as the availability of significant performers can be
fulfilled.
Recommendation:
Yes
12-21-87
A-21
Approved For Release 2^f^<|8AS5ffl(®00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release
r00789R0022001 50001-1
)/0M)8* Cl
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Technical Report
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Comments:
.
2 .
3.
4.
5.
.
7.
.
9.
.
S. James Press
I find the overall approach used scientifically “open.”
The research staff is open
to new ideas and criticism, and anxious to attend to any problems found in the
research.
Designs
are
well thought
out, and
analyses
are
careful.
My only
concern
is that too many diverse experiments are being pursued. A few narrow
areas should be defined and experiments pursued in these areas.
Page
5.
Are
all consultants listed:
I’m not for example.
Page 10.
Under “features” in Figure 3, items are not exhaustive of the category.
Also, under “contours,”
“flat” and “not
flat” would improve upon
“flat” and
“hilly.”
Factors seem to be equally weighted for DACOS.
Page 11
(4).
There should be more data given.
For example, the water attribute
was
correctly
identified
times, but how many cases were there with water
present?
Perhaps instead of asking whether water is present or not, the question should be,
was there 50% or more water in the picture?
Also, were there clouds and sky in
50% or more in the picture?
Page
13,
paragraph
2.
Distributions
of
these
variables
are
skewed,
so
the
correlations computed have questionable
merit.
I recommend
first logging the
variable and then doing the correlations.
Page
13, paragraph
3.
Eye movements—we can study change in pupil size by a
remote camera focused on the subject’s eye.
Page
14, last paragraph.
Research has shown that while some people make good
subjects for hypnosis (and there are specific personality types for this)
, they are
very
often
inaccurate
in
their
recollections,
assessments,
and
evaluations
of
situations—their reports under hypnosis are composites of relaxed experience,
reality, and fantasies.
Page 20, section 17.
Again, what is recalled under hypnosis is not reliable.
This
is
all hokey stuff.
“Eye witness” accounts are usually wrong!
Page
32,
paragraph
3.
This
description
of
an
experiment
is
complicated
unnecessarily by the mention of an earlier experiment which was successful.
The
earlier one has nothing to do with this one.
Page 40, last paragraph.
If only one individual was successful,
it’s not clear from
the 1:100 rate that this
is more than what would be expected.
A-22
Approved For Release 2|^|S(|)(7|
i^§l5IPIG®'00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
C
r00789R0022001 50001 -1
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1.
If the viewer classifies his or her own drawing using the descriptor
list developed
using
the
fuzzy
logic
techniques,
the
rest
of
the
statistical
analysis
can
be
automated.
This has several advantages:
(1)
it makes the experiment more
objective and
(2)
it eliminates enormous amounts of labor on the part of the
analyst.
Page
6,
this would make the whole expert system project pages 6-12
superfluous.
Frankly, the expert system project does not seem worthwhile to me.
It’s
preliminary
success
is
slight,
and
it
will
impact
all
the
problems
of
“
logic”
into the analysis of experimental design.
2.
Screenings.
There
is no sense trying to find indications of psi ability until a large
pool of subjects who reliably demonstrate psi ability
is identified.
Effort should
be to test large numbers of subjects in simple psi tasks, rather than complicated
tasks.
3.
External
contractors.
There
seems
to
be
bad
luck
with
a
lot
of
external
experimentation.
It would be better to concentrate on in-house experimentation
which can be tightly controlled.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
Hypnosis experiment shows promise.
Some stylistic changes needed in report as
noted.
2.
Page 22, paragraph 2.
Discussion not productive.
Simply state that further study
is necessary but don’t blame lack of significance on small sample
size.
3.
Screening.
For future screening, identify high possible payoff target populations
based
on
intuitively
derived
characteristics,
e.g.,
successfully
dealing
with
ambiguity.
Thus,
I would
suggest making educated guesses concerning target
populations without doing strictly random sampling.
Additionally,
I am unsure
that the psychological profile information provides enough information
for aid
with the screening process.
Automated procedures are not only a good idea, but
a necessary one,
4.
I am
also
highly
supportive
of the dynamic
target
set
option.
Add
to
the
parameters
for developing
a screening mechanism the idea that extremely low
labor intensiveness
is
critical.
Methodology:
I’m not sure standardization
is as
important
as
speed and
ease
of
application—after
all,
this
is
screening,
not
research.
I
can’t
get over the
feeling that the screening protocol discussions
describe potential methodologies that border on the baroque.
A-23
Approved For Release 2qopf^^jflpgagf}pfg|3)0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: C
-00789R0022001 50001 -1
5.
.
7.
Neuropsychological
assessment.
Interesting possible
correlates,
but
at which
level of screening would they be useful,
initial screening, follow-on,
etc.?
Investigate RV of Analytical Information.
I am not convinced about
“less than
chance expectation” explanation
for non-contact with target.
Once again, I’m
not sure
that “one-too-many”
variables wasn’t added
to
the
variable
set
(in
contact or not in contact)
to allow meaningful interpretation of results.
RA
Effects on
Single
cx-Particles
Agree
strongly with discontinuation
of this
experiment.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Philip G. Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
This a valuable summary overview of the project’s successes and misses for FY
1987.
2.
It
is clear, concise and informative.
3.
Good distinction between what did not work, what worked and what
is mixed.
4.
Worth pursuing further - NExpert system development with:
a.
Specifications for ways to improve
its utility
for RV analysis
b.
Find sources of support for resource library
c.
Video disk technology
d.
RV training models
e.
Hypnosis as tool.
5.
Not worth pursuing:
a.
Gross physical correlates to RV
b.
Skeptical about the value of PAS and a continuing commitment to this task
c.
Objective E, Task
1, RA marine algae
d.
Objective E, Task
2, Hemolysis
e.
All PK research
6.
Unclear as to how to interpret the mixed results of Objective F, Task
1 -
which
is very important.
7.
Unclear how much
reliance
can
be
placed
on
the
hunches,
intuition
and
introspection of RV subjects.
Staff seems to be overly impressed/sensitized to
them.
Problem
is the low correlation between S’s experience and the quality of
A-24
Approved For Release 2(QC|^^Qg^3^fpfgQp0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2(j^^^C^|^J
5||^00789R0022001 50001-1
their RV.
(See Objective F, Task 10 - for S’s failure to relate +/-/0 days to his
accuracy.)
8.
Need
to
clarify
mechanism (s)
by
which
hypnosis
debriefing
enhances RV
performance.
a.
Relaxation
b.
Right hemisphere activation
c.
Rid mind of irrelevant noise
d.
Emotional “flushing” other?
9.
Need to work further on Objective F, Task 7, mass screening, but do not support
PAS use or neuropsych testing.
Recommend we look for Ss higher: REMOTE
ASSOCIATION (RAT TEST)
imaginative
ability, openness to new experience,
field dependence,
cognitive
flexibility.
More work
suggest on
forced choice
format, computer “search” and no more work on Objective H, RA effect.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-12-87
A-25
Approved For Release
JJ||nf^0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2^(j^^(j8^^-^p^|j00789R0022001 50001-1
APPENDIX B
PHYSIOLOGY CONFERENCE LETTERS
(This Appendix
is Unclassified)
B-l
Approved For Release 2qgJ)((^e^yj^5^p|pg0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos,New Mexico 87545
August 4, 1987
Dr. Peter McNelis
SRI International, G-206
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Dear Pete:
Thank you for inviting me to the Physiology Seminar.
I really enjoyed
myself and
I found the project to be quite interesting. I'm impressed by the
general quality and thoroughness of the research.
My suggestions for studying physiological correlates and indicators are as
follows:
. Conduct a remote classical conditioning paradigm (a la the Hungarian
study that was mentioned,
I don't know the reference). Set up a remote
light or tone conditioned stimulus (CS) that is predictive of a subsequent
shock unconditioned stimulus to the subject. Monitor EEG from scalp
electrodes and record the evoked response to the remote CS. You may also
want to record the GSR as well.
If you find an effect, you have provided
strong support for the "informational" hypothesis. Additionally,
it would
be quite interesting to subsequently monitor the effect using MEG. In this
way, one could distinguish the physiological source of a remote
conditioned response, as compared to the traditionally evoked conditioned
response. Positive results from such a study would be of remarkable
scientific interest.
2.
It would be fairly straight forward to record motor evoked responses in
the computer search paradigm. The digitization of brain activity could be
triggered (in a pre-trigger mode) by the subject's press of the mouse (ie.,
record EMG and use
it as a trigger). Single trial data could subsequently be
sorted and averaged according to correct and incorrect responses. One
would look for differences in the "readiness potential" (the broad
negativity that precedes the motor response) that distinguish between the
accuracy of the responses.
I would predict an enhancement of the
readiness potential in trials preceding a correct response.
Approved For Release 2
0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2^j^j)^(j8^^|^)^^}0789R0022001 50001-1
3. In a similar vein, one could record the premotor activity in the computer
based remote action paradigm. However, a difficulty
I perceive here is that
I'm not so sure a correct versus incorrect response is as well defined as in
the computer search game.
It is my impression that a positive outcome is
determined on a statistical basis. However, there are responses that fall
outside of the normal curve, and perhaps the brain activity preceding them
is distinct from activity preceding the selection of a normal sequence of
random bits.
4. Determining physiological correlates to RV phenomena will be more
difficult because of the difficulty in timing the process. While one could
attempt to record brain activity evoked by the cue "target", I'm less
optimistic about this approach. There are simply too many unknown
variables in the situation. As was stated in the meeting,
it may be that a
less time locked, more global physiological approach than evoked
responses would be better. How would the cerebral blood flow (or PET)
vary between a remote viewing
, an actual viewing of a comparable visual
stimuli, and a session where one simply imagines a comparable visual
scene?
I would also push the "proof of principle" strategy and continue to
forcefully demonstrate the existence of -the phenomenon in the absence of
known physical cues.
I think a demonstration of the effect in a
magnetically shielded room would be of value in
that sense.
I hope this is of help.
I would be more than willing to go into greater
experimental detail
if any of these ideas are of interest for your program.
Once again, many thanks for the stimulating conference.
Sincerely,
Deborah Arthur
B-3
Approved For Release 20(B|)^p(S|i/fc8^lp|gD0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2y)fJgJ^g5flEfP|)00789R0022001 50001-1
F\\ SPECTRA Research Institute
3700 Osuna Rd. NE, #503
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109
(505) 344-1040
September
2,
1987
Dr.
Peter
J. McNelis
c/o Ms. Cathy Flowers
SRI
International,
G-206
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park,
California 94025
Dear Peter,
I was
glad
to have the opportunity to speak briefly with you yesterday.
As
I mentioned,
I
am sorry for the delay in getting my comments
to you.
Things
have been rather hectic since our meeting and time
for quiet reflection hard
to come by.
Starting premises
Making my premises explicit seems
an appropriate way to begin,
starting
with an acceptance,
at least implicitly implied
as
a basis
for our symposium,
of the proposition that there
are real behavioral phenomena
that correlate
with observable events shielded from human senses,
and the possibility that
a
second class of events
are produced by humans without mechanical
interaction
(the notion of time,
or the
time correlation of these events,
will
be
introduced later).
Given this generalized beginning,
the premises
I wish to
introduce are that neuronal activity in the brain determines behavior,
that
with physiological methods
it
is possible
to look
at macroscopic brain state
phenomena,
and that EEG/MEG techniques provide
a window into objective
information on brain states.
(Other physiological correlates
such
as GSR and
EMG may also yield useful quantitative information,
but
for now,
let
the
burden of
the discussion fall on
the EEG).
Additionally,
it
is
assumed that
pervasive parallel processing obscures
(even at one locus)
single pieces
of
information unless
special techniques such as time-averaging are used.
If EEG techniques
are used
for establishing the existence
of
physiological correlates
and ERP phenomena,
close attention should
be paid
to
the experimental design regarding placement of
the electrodes,
recording,
and
analysis
techniques,
presuming
more than a crude indicator of
an unusual
event
is desired.
I
am not
so pessimistic
as
some researchers regarding the
existence
of some clues
as
to what
the brain
is doing.
Accordingly,
for
example,
I would not record the usual differential signal between active test
electrodes,
but rather take
the differential between each test electrode
and
the reference electrode on that hemisphere.
Note that by that last statement
I
am encouraging the researcher not
to tie together
the reference
electrodes
from opposite hemispheres.
By using the
two suggestions
above,
the chances
are
increased of observing any unique information that exists from within each
hemisphere,
and any information that may be in phase between
two active
test
sites
is not thrown away.
At any rate,
these and other questions may be useful
B-4
Approved For Release 2(MW^tA&&E|I
>ilio789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2(0C|^^^^lj;^|^O789ROO22OO1 50001-1
to examine
as regards experimental design,
including choice and application of
data analysis techniques.
Training and screening
As regards experimental RV subjects,
I
feel
a need to be convinced that
there
is no training effect possible with known adepts.
At least with respect
to quality of RV responses,
I have been exposed to information claiming that
enhanced quality of RV responses due
to specific physiological
training
techniques was possible;
don’t know if
the claim is
true or not,
but
I find
it
conceivable that an induced change in brain state such that
a higher
percentage of the subject’s
time can be spent
at his/her cortical
tone rest
frequency
(read alpha frequency) under alert,
rest conditions would contribute
to improved performance.
The brief question
I raised at the symposium
regarding this
issue was not really answered or discussed due
to the press
of
time
On another tack,
I believe
I remember commentary at
the symposium to the
effect that
to date no personality screening techniques were able to separate
RV adepts from non-adepts.
My follow-on question to this,
given Ed’s proposal
of time-independence
for RV phenomena,
is whether PAS or some other test(s)
might separate those adepts who are good at precognitive RV from those who are
not?
If there
is
a separation,
this raises other questions
that may impact the
experimental design,
how the ERP data
is
taken,
and analysis.
ELF and the brain state panorama
Perhaps
a physiological screening technique
for adepts
is possible based
on their normal EEG "alpha” rest frequency.
The suggestion
is
that there may
be
a useful correlation between rest frequency and RV ability
(as
there may be
between EEG rest frequency and EM sensitivity),
based in part on some of my
other endeavors with which you are familiar.
As
I mentioned
to you
at one our
breaks,
some attention still needs
to be paid to the tenability of an ELF
hypothesis despite negative glib arguments
to the contrary.
The Schumann ELF
resonances yield
a continuous, uniform field operating in
a transverse
magnetic mode
that does not attenuate
as
the inverse square of distance.
It
is
at least coincidence that the brain
is upset sensitive to H-component
frequencies outside the first Schumann resonance frequency regime,
and will
try to decode ELF frequencies or modulations
that look like the brain’s own
signaling system.
Conventional shielded rooms should improve performance
for
remote viewers inside
them,
as
the rooms will diminish EM noise with which the
brain may have to contend,
but
the rooms do nothing
to block ELF.
RV performed
in
a specially shielded MEG room may be
a
tougher test but
an H- component
attenuation of 2000 at
10 Hz
(such
as
the room at LANL)
still may not block RV
even on an ELF hypothesis.
Further,
an ELF hypothesis
for RV can be envisioned
that does not entail sending/receiving information with
a human
as
its
point
source and thereby the usual inverse square problem
(not
to mention power
generation and antenna length),
but rather coding/decoding by the brain
on/from an already continuously existing, uniform field ELF carrier containing
information.
In addition,
known brain architecture reveals millions or
tens
of
millions
of. potential simultaneous information processing channels
rather than
a single channel operating under Shannon bit information constraints
appropriate
to
a single ELF input channel. With regard
to timing,
since we’re
Approved For Release
B-5
l&8SJffllBD°0789R0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release 2O|J/pji|0L:^l5-gfppg-g)p789ROO22OO1 50001-1
dealing with Maxwell’s equations,
I have no
a priori difficulty contemplating
advanced potential solutions
as part of this information transmission
possibility,
thereby leading into the precognitive realm or what may
be called
advanced time
(AT)
solutions.
In fact,
the paper by Nelson,
Jahn,
and Dunne
given to us by Ed at
the end of
the symposium has
in it
a time event density
plot that looks suspiciously as though
it might be gaussian if
the number of
events on an ordinate scale were plotted along the same time
axis.
The number
of events
appear to fall off sharply in either direction at about three days
but there would still be
a small
finite
probability at longer
times in either
direction.
I suspect such
a plot could afford some interesting discussion with
respect to Maxwell’s
theory.
Neuro team member(s)
Some commentary was made regarding having
a neurologist
aboard as
a team
member. Most neurologists
are trained intensively to look for signs
of human
pathology and may not be expert in the neurology of
the normal,
so one would
want
to be sure of their motivation and expertise
as
a team member oriented
to
look at human potential,
and perhaps new neurological phenomena.
In any case,
it would be most desirable
if
a new person
is added
that besides
the requisite
background he/she be thoroughly fascinated with brain states
and coding
phenomena in the brain,
for
I think that
it
is
from those issues
that
the
break will come.
Miscellaneous comments on RV and PK
For RV at
t = +0,
0,
or -0
a known event either existed,
exists now or
will exist
as arranged by some action.
The issue
is
therefore
access
to an
information "channel".
If there
is
a possibility in PK that there
is no human
instituted action but rather an adept
is proficient
at picking out anomalies
in real,
past,
or advanced time then we
are
also left with
the issue
of
information "channel" access,
as
in RV.
In both cases,
the EEG experimental
design could encompass multiple instances of time-locked events
to produce ERP
experiments,
and time-averaging procedures
to extract
the signal
from the
background activities.
From just
an on-going EEG record of subjects
in
an
experimental situation nothing of any critical significance should be expected
to be extracted since the signal being looked for is totally masked by myriad
other processing activities.
Given
a time-locked approach,
analysis
is
Suggested for times prior
to time zero
as well
as subsequent
to time
zero,
as
will be remembered from my comments
at
the blackboard.
To produce multiple
instances
of time-locked events of PK,
I suggest something akin
to
the
ping-pong ball normal distribution experiment.
In this
case,
time-average
those events
to the right and left
as independent groups,
and in the ERP
analyses look for significant differences
etc.
As
a point of curiosity,
left-right reversal reported in RV may not
be
so
peculiar after all,
since no one is postulating
the use of visual
channel,
and
therefore there
is no initial reversal
as
in the case
of information from left
and right visual
fields
to opposite cortices.
B-6
Approved For Release 2(UM^LA&SNfiitfeQo789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 20(WN6LASS4F1EB789R0022001 50001-1
Potential
Spectra Research Institute ..participation
SPECTRA
is willing and interested in participating
in
electrophysiological correlates research With
SRI
International,
should that
be appropriate. Two areas
are suggested for consideration:
(1) Computer-controlled ERP remote RV experiments between different rooms
with both subject and "outbound experimenter" instrumented.
The experimental
design
is envisioned to be essentially the same approach as
I outlined
at the
blackboard during our symposium.
(2) Remote hypnosis experiments between different rooms based on an
information access model much as in RV.
Instrument both participants and use
protocol involving time-locked wake and sleep commands. Monitor wake and sleep
EEG brain state onset
and time course
in subject.
(At
last,
here
is some
macroscopic and quantitative EEG difference
to which most electrophysiologists
can agree).
Finis
Hope these few cryptic thoughts provide input
for useful reflection.
The
comments and arguments
are not polished nor fleshed out,
as
is
evident.
Even
if they were,
I suspect they are ripe
for engendering some controversy and
debate.
Some or all of
these avenues
of thought might be useful
to explore in
greater detail with at least you and Ed.
Thanks again for inviting my participation in a most stimulating
symposium.
I thoroughly enjoyed all
the conversation and points of view.
Best regards,
Richard
H.
Dickhaut
B-7
Approved For Release 2
0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 20C^(^^8^^|[j)^^789R0022001 50001-1
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos.New Mexico 87545
August
5,
1987
Dr.
Peter
J.
McNelis
Cognitive Sciences Program
Geoscience and Engineering Center
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave.
Menlo Park,
CA 94025
Dear Peter:
I am responding to your request for possible
ways
we
can
help
your
program.
I
can
see
three
ways immediately that may be
useful
to you.
As we discussed
in Menlo Park,
the magnetic shielded
room
could
of.
use
for
measuring
the
influence of very low frequency
magnetic fields
on subjects.
We can do this
in
a variety of ways
which
.
could
involve
repeating
of
some
of
your
standard RV
experiments
inside the room,
repeating the EEG experiment you did
inside
the shielded room or looking at the influence of the room
on some evoked response studies such as
I
will
suggest
below.
Obviously
such experiments will need to be done
at Los Alamos or
some other shielded room.
(Actually,
there
is some sort
of
room
at
Stanford used
for magnetotelluric studies but
it
is primarily
a DC shielded room using iron instead of mu-metal)
.
A second category of
experiments
involves
the
use
of
evoked
responses
(ER)
for measuring time locked responses.
Again,
many
of these were discussed at the Menlo Park
meeting.
However,
to
summarize the discussions as
I see them,
I would like to make the
following comments.
The RV experiments could be timed locked
to
the
prompt
word
or
some
other
type
of
stimulus.
These
experiments should be first done with EEG to look for effects and
then could be done with MEG to localize physiological
features
if
the EEg results are positive.
A more definitive experiment along
these
lines
would
be
the
light
or auditory experiment using
stimuli
from other rooms and time locking the recording
of
ER's
to stimuli presentation.
The original stimuli should be local
so
that the ER's could be
examined
for
their
patterns
for
each
subject
and the subject would know what the stimuli were.
Again
these could be done
first with EEG
although
the
MEG
setup
is
directly applicable.
The EEG could be done at SRI,
Los Alamos
or
another
contractor.
There
are
many
variations
of
these
experiments
which
could
be
examined
if they are of interest.
Again the effect of the shielded room would be interesting.
B-8
Approved For Release 2G|g)((^Q|
>/^S^|p}00O789ROO22OO1 50001-1
Approved For Release 2
i00789R0022001 50001 -1
The third category of experiments would be
the
presentation
of
multiple
stimuli
with
the subject told to pick one out.
As we
discussed,
the subject could press
a button
in
anticipation
of
the
correct
stimuli
or
other procedures could be used.
In any
case,
the experiment would be conducted
in
a pretrigger mode with
data
collected
before
and
after each stimulus presentation to
examine the ER’s
for early
components.
This
and
the
previous
experiments have the advantage of time locked signal averaging to
improve
signal-to-noise.
They
also
have
the
advantage
of
allowing
many
control checks on the data as well
as
a wealth of
existing data both from EEG and MEG.
In addition,
P?wer
spectrum
can
also
be
obtained
simply
be doing FFT's on the ER data
if
these are
desired.
Clearly
these
experiments
would
want
to
utilize
some
of
your
special
subjects.
This latter group of
experiments would best be done at Los Alamos because we have
all
of
the
equipment
and
paradigms
basically available now.
This
would also
have
the
advantage
that
we
would
have
the
MEG
available
for
localizing
the sources of any effects we saw and
the subjects would be used to the shielded room environment.
It also occurs to me that
if any of the experiments involving the
alpha or piezo gadgets work out,
it would be desirable there also
to
monitor
the
brain
for
distinctive
changes
and
perhaps
establish physiological correlates.
I hope this
is of some use to you.
I really enjoyed the
meeting
in
Menlo Park and
it would be nice to have future correspondence
with you.
In any case
I will be more than happy to assist you
in
any
way
possible.
Should
I have more thoughts on the sub}ect
I
will communicate them with you.
I hope to hear from you m
the
near future with your response to this letter.
Edward R.
Flynn
Los Alamos National Laboratory
BOX 1663,
MS
D434
Los Alamos,
NM 87545
Tel:
(505)
667-4746
B-9
Approved For Release 2(^(|^^^C^IfpffQ)0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2O0)|(^|^IJ^j[p|^JO789ROO22O0 150001-1
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE
• ROOM
B220 LIFE SCIENCES
EAST LANSING
• MICHIGAN
• 488241317
DEPARTMENT OFFICE
(517) 353-6625
30 July
1987
Dr.
Edwin
C.
May
Cognitive Sciences Program
Geoscience and Engineering Center SRI
International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park,
CA
94025
Dear
Ed:
I'm writing
to thank you and Peter and your colleagues
for introducing me
to
a most
interesting field
and’ including me among
a fascinating group
of
participants--and for your warm hospitality.
I'm writing
also
to summarize
my thoughts regarding the problems
of the present
state
of development of
your program and
a few recommendations
for future research.
First,
some general comments
:
°
The "science"
of the present efforts
at SRI International
is
a welcome finding
in a field overloaded with interesting
anecdotes
and poorly-designed experiments--and apparently
some fraud.
Your background
as
a well-trained broadly-experienced
and accomplished physical scientist
lends great credibility to the
work.
I
liked your open,
honest presentation
style.
°
It's
an enormously difficulty field to study well and your
interest
in moving more deeply into the "basic science" aspects
of the
phenomena and observations
is welcome.
My intuition tells me that
there won't
be much found by physiological research studies
the
first time around--but the success record
of my intuition
isn't
very good
in fields
I know little about.
Yet,
even
if that turns
out
to
be true,
it should not disuade you from carrying
out
a
series of carefully-designed and conducted studies using the
best methodologies and technologies available.
You may get
interesting and perhaps useful results.
You may get
some
leads
that will direct future research efforts that will
be successful.
And/or you will bring
into the field
a corps
of first-class
scientists
and graduate students who,
over time,
may or will
come up with answer
This
last
isn't
a trivial outcome.
The scientific quality of the
investigators who collaborate with
you
in the basic science studies
is very important,
if not crucial.
Especially
in
a field
like yours,
you need the kind of face-value
creditability they will bring,
so that their results will
be unchal-
lengeable.
Getting them
to become
involved will
probably be difficult
and expensive and inconvenient for you,
but will
be worth the effort
entailed.
B-10
Approved For Release
ARSWlfe[D0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2(^(j^^^C^ljipj^^)0789R0022001 50001-1
I would
like
to suggest
for your consideration two groups
of
extramural scientists ,
consultants
.
-
Your present group,
if properly constituted
could
serve
as
close advisors/collaborators with frequent
visits
and even participation
in design,
data assessment,
etc
.
Another subgroup of scientists might
be
impaneled
to serve
as arm-length,
objective evaluators,
critics
and challengers.
I've seen such
a division
of responsi-
bility and expectations work well elsewhere.
Now,
for some more specific suggestions
:
°
I
liked Steve's general approach to
the neurophysiological
evaluation of RV
(and perhaps RA's).
I
doubt very much that there will
be any value
in studying
biochemical
or nonneurological physiological
changes
in humans,
but
it might
be useful
to ask the question
of
a group
of sophisticated
neurophysiologists working closely
in the field of neurochemical--be-
havioral
interactions.
It would seem
to
be very
important
to develop
a major effort
to create animal models- -small animals
to start,
but
later
a
larger animal,
such
as monkeys.
If successful,
this would
permit
all
sorts
of useful short-term and long-term investigations
.
Despite the apparent
(to me)
failures
of
the past,
I
feel that
a careful assessment
of psychoactive drugs
of various
sorts
would
be
a useful
initiative.
If
one
or more performance enhancers
or blockers could
be
found,
this
could
be extremely valuable.
Although you've excluded children and bizarre-types
(for
want
of
a better term)
from your study groups,
I wonder
if
it might
be useful
to seek out from these groups
and others
all sorts
of people who
can document strong and consistent
performance
.
°
I realize there have been
some studies
of primitive organizisms
(algae)
and even cells,
but
further studies
at these
levels
of
complexity might
be productive.
For example,
a colleague
of
mine
at Michigan State University
in the Department
of Pediatrics
(Dr.
James Trosko)
is very successful
in studying cell--cell
communication.
It would
be useful
to know
if such systems
could
be perturbed.
I
agree with you that
a high priority ought
to
be assigned
to
the discovery
of means
to screen larger groups
to uncover people
with high performance capabilities.
Finally,
it might
be time
or organize and carry out
a two-four day "idea
session”,
bringing together very creative scientists
from
a variety of
fields who
can be stimulated
to elicit new and promising approaches
to
B-ll
Approved For Release 2(^2PN
b©EA®91R®0789R0022001 50001-1