f Approved For Release room by RE Popoc-co7sero1 300240001-2 A Appendix III COUNTERMEASURES/INTRUSION DETECTION A. Background We have been tasked under the gJoint Services. contract to provide an initial investigation into the countermeasures problem, This FY'81 effort will be devoted to scientific critiques of the open literature that pertain to various aspects of countermeasures--e.g., papers relating to intrusion detectors and to theories of Extremely Low Frequency E&M radiation. The concept of intrusion detection is an important, initial step toward RV countermeasures. It is beyond the scope of this report to describe the theoretical and experimental background that suggests that intrusion detection may be possible, A graduated two-year effort that addresses the intrusion question will, however, be outlined. B. Method of Approach To reduce the problem to a manageable size we will now define a number of terms: e Intrusion I. A perturbation of a physical system that is correlated with the RV acquisition of data. * Intrusion II. A perturbation of a physical system that is correlated with an RV session, however with no evidence of RV data acquisition, (Active PK) * Future RV I, The correct acquisition of RV infor- mation from the trial feedback period rather than from the target itself. * Future RV II, The acquisitions of correct RV infor- mation when trial-by-trial target information is not available to anyone, yet global feedback (i.e., "you 119 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
Approved For Release 200284 RE Ropos-00788R001300240001-2 had 4 out of 6 first place matches) is given to the RVer.”* * Remote Perturbation, Remote interaction with a physical system, e Retro-Cognitive RP. RP intention as some future time interacting with a physical system in present time. Further, we will define a successful intrusion detection program as clear evidence of Intrusion I, From an operational viewpoint, the actual source of the physical interaction (i.e., the RVer or someone else in his vicinity) is inconsequential. Therefore, in what follows, we will ignore the possi- bility that during experiments an RV monitor might be the source of the interaction, And we will defer the operationally important problem that individuals within the secure facility might inadvertently cause an in- trusion-like alarm, Figure 1 outlines the initial experiment which must succeed prior to designing a complete intrusion detection system. Although the figure appears straightforward, it may be difficult to prove that the given detector system was actually perturbed rather than that the observed effect was obtained by psychoenergetic data selection, This will constitute the entire effort for FY'82,. Once a given device has been verified perturbable, a second stage of experiments will be initiated to search for RV/RP correlations, (Beginning FY'83.) Figure 2 shows the decision flow chart for this stage. A subject will be asked to remote view target information that is in the near vicinity of the detection device, (The extensive protocols to do this are beyond the scope of this memo, but will be supplied upon demand. ) * * . ‘ . Future RV II is a debatable point with regard to real time data acquisition (clairvoyance); we have used it here to avoid the difficult question of a real time data acquisition proof, 120 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
Approved For Release 200S6/(@ RofA RDP96-00788R001300240001-2 CONCLUSIONS RP exists FIGURE 1 DEVICE INDEPENDENT RP ANALYSIS PLAN (FY'82) 121 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
P96-00788R001300240001-2 Approved For Release 2002 3oejze ou 10 (28,44) I AB oangzng SNOTSIYTONOOD MOVACHIA IVIML-AUSTVINL HLIM NWId NOILOSLEYC NOISNULNI LNAYANGdaONT AOTAdG 11 votens.uT du @ATINN SNOTSNTONOD a@ ° 30901101 10 YF BoysnsyUT SNOTSITTIONOOD TOTAL/ TOTAL wWeurtredxg Av 6 AUNT A ultsep peq 10 139033@ OW SNOTSN'TONOD 122 Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
Approved For Release 2000597 RET poc-co7esR001 300240001-2 He will be given trial-by-trial feedback of the target immediately after the session, During the entire RV session the detector device will be in a continuous operation mode, There are two sets of conclusions one would draw after an RV experiment that was considered a success by blind judging: * With RP correlation we would conclude that we have Intrusion I detection, And at this stage we would be unable to differentiate between standard retrocogni- tive RP and Intrusion I. * With no RP correlation, either there might not be an RP interaction concomitant with remote viewing, or the successful RV resulted from future RV I. Likewise there are two sets of conclusions one would draw after an unsuccessful RV experiment. °* With RP correlation we would conclude that we would have, by definition, Intrusion II. e® With no RP correlation, either there would be no effect in general, or we would have an incorrect experimental design. In summary, for the trial-by-trial feedback experiment, it would be possible to observe actual intrusion; it would also be possible, however, to have an ambiguous result--namely good RV with no RP. To remove this last ambiguity, it will be necessary to do remote viewing experiments with global feedback only (second half of FY'83). In this mode of operation, neither the subject nor any experimenter will ever be aware of the individual targets used in an experiment, This is necessary to close any possible future RV I channels. For this class of experiments, pictorial target material will be chosen randomly from a large pool of targets stored on magnetic tape and will be displayed on the computer's graphic system, The subject will register his response as usual, and later it will be analyzed with regard to a standard series of questions, 123 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
Approved For Release 20 EY RET opoc-o078eR001300240001-2 which have been developed to facilitate automatic computer judging. The computer automated results of each trial will be saved in a protected file until the series is completed. At the conclusion of the series, the subject and experimenters will be told the results of the entire series (e.g., 4 first place matches out of 6), but not the individual trial results, The computer will then destroy the trial-by-trial results, This last, extreme step is mandatory, if we are to conclude that at no time in his future will the subject ever be exposed to the result of a single trial, These trials will be conducted with the detector device in continuous operation. Figure 3 shows the decision flow diagram for the global feedback experiment. As in the case above, there are two sets of conclusions one would draw from successful RV in such an experiment. ® With RP correlation we would conclude that we have Intrusion I detection, If there were successful RV in the trial-by-trial case but no RP correlation, it would most likely be due to a future RV I effect. Of course retrocognitive RP might also be a possibility. Retrocognitive RP here would require that this phenomenon work in the absence of overt RP feedback, an assumption which has not yet been verified. e With no RP correlation there would be either no RP interaction concomitant with remote viewing, or the successful RV would have resulted by future RV II effects. Likewise these are two sets of conclusions one would draw after an unsuccessful RV experiment. * With RP correlation, we would conclude that we have Intrusion II (active RP) and that trial-by-trial feedback is necessary for a successful RV experiment. e With no RP correlation we would conclude either there is no RP correlate to RV or we have a bad experimental design. We might also conclude that trial-by-trial feedback is necessary for a successful RV experiment. 124 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
. Approved For Release 200SEC RE -Ropss-00788R001300240001-2 avoid a six man-month equipment development effort, we strongly urge the use of the certified RNG system as a starting point. We also wish to point out that the overall intrusion plan (Figure 4) is a series of relatively low cost experiments with well defined success criteria that must be met for the continuation of the effort. Table 1 HARDWARE PK/Intrusion Useage_ ADC development board Possible PK/PDS disc $1,500 Parallel input interface Remote start of exp. 500 Total $2 ,000 SECRET Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2
S E C R E T Approved For Release 2002/0 _ CIA-RDP96-00788R001300240001-2 ina SECRET OuTe GV Buperineat Trial/Triel Ld 20 on Koi nd orrelatios = COMCLUS 10m CONCLUS 10NS COMCLUS10NE COnCLus ) GMs ao effect er ective ap _tatrusios 3 er Cuture HY OI bad design Aiatrvetoo 11 retrocog. &P or a effect =) ee) SV Biperiacat Globe) al <> ) CONCLUS 1 GH8 CONCLUSIONS BONCLL S 3 Onis active mp wo effect Satrusion 2} oe" 1Oms jet rusios be des Genign TAT future fv wre At pocessery feu secesssry or retro. & or we effect 9 ee) en) =) Figure 4, DEVICE INDEPENDENT INTRUSION DETECTION PLAN ~ OVERVIEW Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : C28 RDP96-00788R001300240001-2