Approved For Release APPA, §'S 4A EGB-00789R002200380001-6 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective E, Task 4 (Forced-Choice Remote Viewing) (verbatim transcription--not edited) NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. The procedures for the first and last blocks of 50 trials seem solid in general, although in the future small daily variations should probably be minimized or at least declared in advance. Also, the assignment of targets should be scrambled so viewer gets no cues about the behavior of the RNG, since he gets trial by trial feedback. 2. The curve on page 14 should be analyzed in more detail, and discussion made of the sizable slump in performance midway through. There could be personal life variables overlaying it. Also, it is not clear from this information whether or not learning took place. Changes in performance should be examined in the light of such factors or changes in strategy and trials per day, as well. Also, some aspects of procedure should be more thoroughly explained, as noted in the margins. 3. More should be done to develop aspect of the viewer’s technique that could allow application to others. I think the viewer needs to be involved in this, at least to some extent. The final performance was impressive and should be followed up on. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: James Press Comments: 1. Viewer should not be permitted to choose targets. 2. Viewer should be assigned a daily number of trials, preferred to be the same each day. The 50 trials experiment should be repeated. 3. Experiment should be constructed in which the same viewer is used in 50 forced choice trials and another 50 in non-forced choice binary trials, and the 2 sets of results could be compared to suggest evidence for which task is harder. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-19 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2D APE/Ps\ §'§ |FGEB-00789R002200380001-6 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. The first experiment is well-designed and carefully done, as a demonstration of RV ability. Source of noise not really determined. 2. A tighter protocol. Future replications could be made even were airtight as follows: Give the subject a computer and modem. Let him call up and establish link with your computer; type in the two possible targets. Your computer selects one and puts the image in video; his computer signals him in 1 minute and he types in his selection. This is logged by your computer and correct selection is sent to him. End triall No human here need know anything during the trial. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Yervant Terzian Comments: 1. Page 2, paragraph 1 - Re. Ryzl demonstration ~- has it ever been repeated. Page 2, paragraph 1, line 9 - Re. “it is possible to increase the single—-bit hitting rate...” Is this a general statement or applies to a few cases? 2. Page 3, second bullet - (illegible). 3. Page 3, B., line 4 - typo. 4, Page 4, 4th bullet - “could begin” - in a few seconds. 5, Page 4, 5th bullet - “responded verbally” - in a few seconds. 6. Page 4, last paragraph, first sentence - Were the phone calls recorded? That is does the “raw data” exist? 7. Page 5 - Are the experimental results available if one wanted to re-analyze the data? Were there any trials eliminated, perhaps because of some anomaly of the protocol? 8. Page 7, B. 1., paragraph 1 - What is “exploration phase”? Why not count this with paragraph 2? 9. Page 8, 1., paragraph 2 ~ Vague. 10. Page 8, Table 1 - I suspect no effect! Possibly insufficient data. 11. Page 10, 2. 2. - “...because he felt he was nearing an understanding about internal processes,...” What does he mean? 12. Page 14, Figure 3 —- Re. 537B peak. If this means 70 to 80% correct answers for about 100 trials, it is important to note! But for real conclusions lots of further data is needed. 13. Page 14, first paragraph - “...there is a clear indication of...” But not generalization since too few points. A-20 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 29928 CA: SSR PE BS -00789R002200380001-6 14. Page 14, second paragraph —~ “...it represented a transition between three dimensional to two dimensional targets.” Who made this choice? 15. Page 15, line 3 - “...there is suggestive evidence that V002 is in internal contact with sources of internal noise.” Not yet! 16. Page 18, line 4 — Re. “a significant increase...” With only 2 points in the data! 64% and 76%. 17. Page 20, paragraph 2 - Re. “...it is clear that V002 has produced significant increases...” Not really, unless this trend continues. 18. Page 20, paragraph 3 - Important. 19. Increase data base to verify “learning curve.” 20. Use more individual independently. 21. Record (tape) the raw data, use data with other individuals, or better yet with groups — even the advisory council! Recommendation: Yes November 7, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. As pointed out in discussion, the protocols are not pristine; however, the final results are interesting. Yet, I find myself wondering after the final results are in, “So what, where does this lead?” Is this a highly personal approach that’s been encountered and developed, or does it have some more far reaching use? 2. Additionally, the question of whether learning has occurred presumes a baseline knowledge level before learning has occurred. That is not well shown, and there are many other variables which might impinge. There should also be a more extensive set of 50 unit trials to expand the data base and assure that the “knowledge increase” is stable. 3. Discussion indicated that there were even further problems with the protocols including who was choosing targets. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 1. This report deals with findings of a protocol involving 1 person who underwent long-term RV testing. The subject is well-known for his experience in this field. The results are striking. Efforts to reduce or eliminate inadvertent cuing were carefully made. 2. One caution - Subject’s name should not appear in report, on viewgraphs, etc. (confidentiality, privacy issue). Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-21 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2p9NP€7@8A SS FAB) 00789R002200380001-6 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1. Question, Was procedure tape recorded, since it was all by phone. Essential! for replication. bo Target selection must be determined by computer, not by staff researcher - eliminate the human source of intervention, 3, Unclear what page 4 sentence means, that “range of target material was selected by V002.” Clarify. Why necessary. 4. V002’s data are impressive and worth repeating. Under more structured conditions. Fixed, a priori criteria for number trials per day — can be range (e.g., 3-6). 5. Do not call the obtained curve a learning curve. It is clearly an enhanced performance curve. But we can not infer learning from performance without additional data that are essential to rule out straight motivation, habituation, etc. Effects that are non-learning effects (also the decline from trial 250+ to 350+ - violates any learning changes assumptions). 6. Why must viewer select target pairs? He also repeats target pairs — should be rule against it. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-22 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2DPPNDE708A SS FEIIFEB)00789R002200380001-6 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective F, Task 1 (Applications Of Fuzzy Sets To Remote Viewing Analysis) (verbatim transcription—-not edited) NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. This is a statistical protocol and analysis tool which seems to me an excellent step forward, producing a flexible tool albeit with a lot of initial effort. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. More theoretical work needed here. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. This approach appears to be a good attempt to solve the problem at hand, but refinement is critical, and the approach needs to be extended. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1. This continues to be one of the most promising developments from this project. It has widespread applications across many disciplines and data domains. The work to date is conceptually creative, thorough, insightful and clearly focused on operational utility. This should remain a high priority item for FY 89. (I am not qualified to assess the mathematical component of this analysis). 2. See page 8 - grammar. 3. Agree with conclusion 2, page 8. 4, Agree with conclusion 4 - who is that person? Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-23 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6