Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 The next level of isolation is the sensor suspension system, which is a spring—mass type with a much lower resonance frequency than the enclosure. The sensor is attached to a bob weight that is suspended from the top of the enclosure via a spring. The weight is about 2 lbs; the spring rate was selected to provide a resonance frequency of about 2 Hz. This provides an additional isolation factor of about 12 dB (6 dB/octave) at the enclosure resonance frequency assumed to be about 10 Hz. Beyond 10 Hz, the overall isolation is the sum of the two (12 dB/octave). The above considers only the vertical motion. There are horizontal and, to a lesser degree, torsional vibration inputs from the external environment. At the present time, horizontal inputs are damped by using a pendulum mode to support of the sensor. Because the suspended arm length is 8 inches maximum, the pendulum fundamental harmonic motion frequency is about 1 Hz, which is commensurate with the vertical frequency. The sensor/bob combination places the sensor away from the bob on a relatively long lever arm. This implies that higher-order pendulum motion is possible in the form of bob-weight rotation about the common center of mass with the sensor “swinging” laterally below. The suspension is “soft” and allows this different mode, and any lateral motion transient of the enclosure transmits this lateral mode down the spring to the bob and acts at a rotational impulse exciting this special mode. Metallic coil springs also have their own spring-mass lateral and longitudinal motion resonances. The lateral is the simple “pinned-end beam” mode, and the longitudinal is a compressional mode. Either or both can cause energy coupling that an ideal mass-less spring does not have. (Because the overall performance was difficult to predict, the only obvious alternative was a light-weight elastomer rubber spring.) Extension springs are not characterized for torsional spring rate; however, a check of nearly identical size torsion and extension springs does yield an estimate. For the metallic spring selected above, the torsional spring constant is about 0.1 lb-ft/radian. Assuming that the sensor weight is a 2-lb lead sphere, the rotational moment of inertia is about 1.0 x 10-4, which implies that the rotational harmonic frequency is around 5 Hz. Again, this is low enough to ensure some isolation from machinery-induced vibrations. Isolation from low-frequency vibrations (such as those induced by footsteps and vehicle road “rumble”) is not easy to provide. In this case, the only hope is that the energy below 10 Hz (the electrical signal lower frequency cut-off point) will not be so large that it will mask the noise that will be visible above 10 Hz. 40 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Acoustic Vibration Just as for mechanical vibration, acoustic energy can cause the PZT sensor to produce noise signals. There is a normal level of audible signals in the room in which the sensor enclosure is located; the level is that for normal voice speech or probably less than 70 dBA. There are other types of acoustic signals/noise, but those have associated mechanical vibrations in the room structure that are of more concern (e.g., doors slammed). Some degree of isolation was necessary to provide protection from sound energy in the test instrumentation area. The first level of protection is to ensure that the work area is quiet. It may be assumed that the ambient noise could be suppressed to 60 dBA, but on-site measurements are needed to confirm the degree of suppression. The second level of protection is that provided by the steel sensor enclosure. Any hard-material barrier reflects sound, but the degree of transmission isolation depends upon the material type, thickness, and support. Of course, the wavelength (i.e., frequency) also enters in as the lower tones are reflected less than higher ones for a given barrier thickness. Sound absorbing material can be employed to enhance the isolation performance for the enclosure. An extremely effective material is lead due to its softness. Commercial sound absorbing panels designed for aircraft and other critical noise reduction applications can be applied to either the interior or exterior of the enclosure. The third level of protection was to place the sound reflective/absorptive material around the sensor/preamplifier unit itself. Because the mechanical support system calls for a bob weight for the spring/mass isolation system, that weight can take the form of a hollow lead bob within which is placed the preamplifier and associate circuit components that may be microphonic. Unfortunately, the sensor itself must be “visible” and, therefore, cannot be placed inside the lead bob weight. Only a small amount of conformal-coat elastomeric rubber was applied as a sound-absorbing skin. The external silver-paint coat (which serves as protection against EMI) also serves in a small way as an acoustic reflector. However, the thickness of these “skins” is quite small and does not provide much reduction in acoustic energy except at the highest frequencies. Of course, the ultimate sound elimination method would be to place the sensor in an evacuated chamber such as a light bulb. The limitation of this approach is that conductive 4l Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 wires must exit the bulb and, therefore, constitute a sound (albeit mechanical) transmission medium. Previous work indicated that the cost and bother of such an approach was too high relative to the degree of performance obtained. Heat-Induced Variations All of the elements that make up the analog portion of the sensor hardware are sensitive to heat in various ways. The sensor is the most critical because its physical size (mass) is very small which means that the thermal time constant is low also. Hence, any thermal input such as an infrared (IR) “pulse” (from the subject’s hand moving past the viewing window) can induce a response in the sensor that has significant spectral energy above the system high-pass filter response of 10 Hz. Because IR is long-wave energy, it penetrates many materials and is difficult to shield. The only protection for the sensor itself is the silver paint applied to the outside over the rubber coating. The preamplifier is also very sensitive to thermal changes, as well as the discrete components (resistances and capacitances) that make up the feedback and coupling circuitry. Here, the best isolation is provided by tying all of those elements to the lead bob weight either directly or via thermally conductive materials. So long as the rate~of-change of the bias current is less than a few picoamperes per second, no effect is visible in the final signal bandwidth output. Because the preamplifier is operated as a current amplifier, it has unity voltage gain; therefore, offset voltage drift with temperature is not a major factor but still can be a problem. A typical drift rate is 50 ~V/deg C, which means that the temperature rate-of—change must be less than 1 deg/sec to assure that the transient is less than the rms noise (about 2 1V). Good thermal bonding of the circuitry to the lead mass appeared to preclude any problems. Electromagnetic Isolation Because the entire sensor system is electronic, it must be shielded from both electric and magnetic field influences. No high-voltage or large-current devices are near the sensor enclosure, and all electrical devices within 100 ft meet the FCC minimum requirements for RFI emission suppression. Such an assumption may not always be correct and so it is recommended that potential areas in which the instrument will be used in the future be surveyed for large EM fields over the full electromagnetic spectrum (at least from 14 kHz to 1 GHz). 42 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 a SE mn
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 The primary shield for EM signals is the basic sensor enclosure, which is a standard industry NEMA 12 steel RFI-specified box. According to the manufacturer’s data book, this box provides up to 95 dB of magnetic~field shielding from 14 kHz up to 1 MHz, and over 100 dB of shielding for electric fields from 14 kHz up to at least 450 MHz. These levels of performance are degraded if any openings are made in the steel case. The viewing window in the front of the box is of a special RFI reflective material (either metallized or with an embedded metal mesh). Power resides inside the box in the form of chemical batteries, and the only other holes through the shell are two 1/4-inch openings for the fiber optic cables. Because of internally generated EM fields (from the dc to de convertors and the fiber-optic driver electronics), the sensor and preamplifier are totally enclosed in a metallic shield. This shield is a combination of the lead bob weight or the silver—-paint coat; neither of which afford any magnetic shielding. If necessary, the dc to de convertor units could be mounted in steel (or mu-metal) boxes to contain any switching magnetic fields. Because all interconnect wires are shielded coaxial or multiconductor cables, they are relatively immune to extraneous fields. A single-point common “ground” was used to minimize “ground loop currents” and the associated signal noise voltages. The critical low-noise preamplifier is powered from batteries only. 43 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Appendix C FINAL REPORT JFK 1986 REMOTE ACTION RESEARCH ACTIVITIES By JULIAN ISSACS THE REMOTE ACTION PROJECT GRADUATE SCHOOL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES JOHN F. KENNEDY UNIVERSITY ORINDA, CALIFORNIA 45 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 I INTRODUCTION Recapitulating the Statement of Work,' which describes the year’s research in outline, the task was to recruit and train a number of potential piezo remote action (Piezo-RA) agents in preparation for a formal Piezo-RA evaluation study to be undertaken at John F. Kennedy University (JFK). The best seven Piezo-RA agents from this study were to be made available for participation in an SRI-based evaluation study designed to provide high-quality evidence of the existence of the Piezo-RA effect. In order to accomplish this task, population—screening procedures were to be undertaken and Piezo-RA training sessions were to be conducted. The functional designs of suitable instrumentation for screening and evaluation purposes were also to be supplied to SRI. The research activities were, as has been freely acknowledged by the SRI and JFK personnel involved, heavily affected by the various unforeseen delays that accompanied many phases of the task. The evaluation devices were delivered in working order on 18 September 1986. This left too little time available with the high-grade instrumentation to conduct a sufficient Piezo-RA training with participants to ensure the high-level performance of trainee Piezo-RA agents or to pursue a JFK-based formal evaluation. Therefore, the decision was made to select those participants who seemed most likely to succeed in producing Piezo-RA effects and run multiple sessions at SRI with this elite group, assigning a variable number of sessions to different participants on the basis of their availability and apparent likelihood of producing results. Abandoning of the formal evaluation in the present research cycle and adopting this highly pragmatic approach were necessitated by the goal of optimizing the chances of obtaining (within the time frame of this contract) some preliminary indications at SRI that the Piezo-RA effect is a reality. 47 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 II POPULATION SCREENING a. Screening Methodology The technique of population screening for Piezo-RA ability was developed by Julian Isaacs in England and is described in detail elsewhere.2. The basic approach used in the California screenings remains the same, but the procedure was further developed and optimized for use by a group of investigators in the American setting. Because one of the conditions of the contract was that the link with SRI not be generally broadcast, the population screenings (which had to be publicized in order to attract participants) were advertised as being initiated by JFK. The title of “The Remote Action Project” was selected as the public title for the research activities. The screening technique in its current form used a three-stage process and seems likely to be more effective than the original form. The first stage consists of a one-hour presentation about remote action (RA), metal-bending, Piezo-RA, and the Remote Action Project. During the first stage, several visualization exercises are performed to induce ostensible macroscopic psychokinetic metal-bending (Macro-PKMB) effects to occur. The overt purpose of the first stage is to present information about the topic areas and to provide the opportunity for those who respond to the visualization exercises to produce Macro-PKMB effects. The covert purpose is to change the audience’s mood to a relaxed nonanalytical state, to induce the audience to accept the reality of RA effects and to increase expectancy of success at the later RA tasks. The second stage consists of the move to a “RA Party” format, which is a technique orginated by G. Houck? for inducing ostensible Macro~-PKMB effects. The audience forms a group that is instructed to collectively perform a visualization exercise while holding a piece of flatware. The flatware is subsequently “tested” for ostensibly paranormal softening by pressure being exerted on it, and by being bent while in the softened state. 49 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 The third stage comprises the instrumental screening of the group. Typically, several screening devices are set up, either in the room in which the stage one presentation is given or in adjoining rooms. Each machine is operated by two persons. One person’s role is to interact with the screenees and orient them to the task, collect each Participant Information Form (PIF) (Section III.), and supervise the line of screenees waiting their turn at the device. The other person supervises the trials and records the results on the PIFs, which are retained by the screening team. b. The Screenings Four screenings were held. The first was held in Mountain View, California, at the Trellis Singles Club on 1 March 1986. The purpose of using a location away from the JFK laboratory was to permit the first screening to be a training session for the screening team. It was felt that screenings should only be held with local groups after it was certain that the screening procedure had been successfully modified to suit the new screening team and context. The instruments used for this screening were three systems built in England, which were pressed into service because the screening instruments from SRI had not yet been built. The audience at the Trellis screening was far from ideal. To optimize the number of potential Piezo-RA agents found, groups used for screening should have pre-existing interest in psi or experience of psi practices: “New Age,” spiritually inclined, and psi-oriented and arts-based groups are optimal. The Trellis group was composed of preponderantly male semiconductor engineers and scientists (the Trellis premises are close to the Santa Clara, California or “Silicon” Valley), who were interested in the presentation, but who remained resolutely analytical and somewhat skeptical in their orientation. The three following screenings (on 8 May, 12 June, and 11 July 1986) were at JFK and used the screening devices built at SRI. The first two of this series of three were held at the Village Campus. They were publicized by a flyer mailed to the members of the mailing list of the Graduate School of Consciousness Studies. The third, held at the Walnut Creek Del Valle Campus, was less well attended than the first two and was publicized by a flyer sent to the members of the School of Law and the School of Business Studies. The success of these screenings in generating interest and enthusiasm was attested to by the fact that several individuals attended more than one screening. 50 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 c. Criteria for Participant Selection The screening technique has not been formalized and is not a rigid procedure; it has to be adapted to suit different situations and groups. The overall goal, which is essentially utilitarian and pragmatic, seems to be adequately met by the procedure that has been developed. Its purpose is to select from a large group of possible Piezo—-RA agents those individuals who are probably capable of RA and who are prepared to participate in the experimental process. The style of presentation made by the speaker, the particular sequence of events during the screening process, and the responses of the screened group can all reasonably be expected to affect the number of individuals who are induced to produce RA effects. It is unrealistic to expect a 100% yield of those individuals who have RA ability to result from the screening process; for some of the screened group, the induction procedures will be ineffective. Additionally, no pretense is made that the screening process is anything other than a very informal indication of possible RA ability. The procedure is certainly not resistant to cheating on the part of audience members, particularly with regard to the ostensible Macro-PKMB phenomena. Screenees who produce ostensible phenomena at a screening may subsequently show no RA ability, so that a second level of screening procedure, based on actual performance in the Piezo-RA training situation, has to be used. The selection of prospective Piezo-RA trainees in the screenings was based on three criteria, which were used in a convergent fashion. The first criterion was the responses on the Participant Information Form (PIF) (see Annex 1), the second was the performance at an instrumented RA task, and the third was the Macro-PKMB performance. The PIF is an inventory (of ostensible psi-related experiences) that has been formulated specifically to focus on spontaneous psi experiences thought to involve elements of RA effects. The PIF was modified twice: one modification was made between the first and second screenings, and the second between the third and fourth screenings. These changes were almost entirely of form and typographical detail, however. The first two versions had to be used in conjunction with another form, the availability form, which asked potential participants to indicate their availability for Piezo-RA training, their address, and their willingness to participate in experimentation. The final version of the PIF eliminated the separate Availability Form and combined this information on the front page with (a) a self-report about the screenee’s Macro-PKMB attempts, (b) the evaluator’s impression of the person as a potential RA trainee; (c) the interviewer’s evaluation of the screenee’s Macro—-PKMB 51 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 phenomena; and (d) the person’s highest score on the instrumented test, if this merited recording. The first 17 questions of the PIF attempt to elicit information about spontaneous psi experiences. Responses are categorized into four types: “No” indicates that the screenee has never had the experience cited in the question; “1” indicates that the experience has occurred once; “2” indicates “more than once, several times;” “3” indicates “often, frequently.” Eight of the 17 questions are RA-specific (questions 1 through 6, 8, and 14). Questions 20, 21, and 22 request information about the person’s prior practice of mental skills of various sorts (e.g., meditation, visualization, and the like), the screenee’s sports, dance, and martial arts preferences, if any, and religious orientation. The analysis of the PIF data on spontaneous psi functioning was formalized around two key concepts. The first was the concept of a “psychic” (P) profile of responses, which divided the interested persons into “psychic” and “nonpsychic” groups. The criterion of entry into the P profile was that at least seven responses in Category “2” and an additional one response in Category “1” (see preceding paragraph) should be made to the first 17 questions. It should be noted that this definition of the P group is fairly extreme and represents the selection of a group showing high levels of ostensible spontaneous psi functioning. The second was the concept of “belief,” or the degree of belief evinced by the interested person in the reality of RA, both generally, and specifically with regard to their own ability to perform RA. Question 18 asked, “Do you think it is possible to affect physical objects without touching them?” Question 19 asked, “Do you think that you can affect physical objects without touching them?” The two belief questions offer a scale of i to 5 to be circled for responses, with 1 being “definitely no,” and 5 being “definitely yes.” To enter the “belief” (B) profile population, interested persons had to respond with a value of 4 or more on question 18, and a value of 3 or more on question 19. The use of the two profiles, B and P, creates the possibility of an elite classification “pp,” in which interested persons match both profiles. Generally, participants would be accepted for Piezo-RA training only if they scored within the PB profile. The PIF data have been divided to show the P, B, and PB groups’ micro-RA performance (on the screening devices) and the macro-RA (visible metal-bending) performance. This may offer the possibility of a more fine-grained analysis of the results from the screenings (see below). The second criterion used in selecting prospective RA trainees was the score achieved by each interested person on the screening device during his or her attempt to influence it. The 52 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 a A: |
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 screening devices were sufficiently noisy so that scores spontaneously fluctuated over a range. Because the devices showed individual differences, any attempt to produce frequency plots of spontaneously occurring scores would have necessitated long runs with each device to obtain histograms of score distributions. Some pilot attempts to compile score histograms were made, and it was found that the settings in which the machines were operated affected the distribution of scores. Additionally, it was realized that the peak reading obtained would be affected by the duration of the trial and the noise spectrum of the devices. If calibration histograms were to be compiled, they would have to be compiled for a sufficient range of durations to cover the actual durations of all screening trials likely to be performed, and the period of each trial during the screening would have to be timed. This would have considerably complicated the screener’s job, because no provision for automatic timing existed, and there are good psychological reasons for permitting variable trial lengths to be performed in the instrumental screening procedure. It was realized that in order to provide calibration data that would give well-controlled estimates of the probabilities of low-end scores (i.e., scores near the noise floor of the devices), the devices would have to be recalibrated at the screening site, in the presence of the group during the actual screening, because the group’s activities (especially walking, moving chairs, and the like) might affect the devices. Given the nonformal nature of the rest of the screening process, it was, therefore felt that it was not worth the large amount of time and effort required to produce adequate calibration histogram data, especially because there was good reason to believe that real-time on-site calibration runs would be necessary, under actual screening conditions, if the calibration data were to be really meaningful. It was decided that scores above 380 would be regarded as candidate RA, and scores at or near this level were to be regarded as suggestive of RA. Scores in this region and above were, therefore, recorded on the PIF by the screener in charge of the device. In the tabulated data, the criterion score, which allowed entry into the microeffect (MIC) category, was set at a device reading of 380. The third criterion used to select prospective trainees, which was given less weight than the other two, was the account of the person’s Macro-PKMB effects and the appearance of his or her deformed flatware. It has been frequently observed that persons do not reliably estimate the amount of physical force they exert on cutlery. Nor, often, do they appreciate how little physical force is necessary to produce deformations. The ostensible Macro~-PKMB 53 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 effects are, therefore, evaluated very cautiously. For the purposes of the tabulated data, the persons producing deformed cutlery were assigned to the MAC category. Those producing effects on the screening devices and on cutlery were assigned to the “MIC+MAC” category. d. Results of Screenings Table A-1 shows the results of the four screenings. These are labelled T (Trellis) and K1 (Kennedy first screening) through K3 (Kennedy third screening). A total of 189 individuals returned usable PIFs; the return rate was about 85%. The screenee categories are in ascending order of suitability for RA training, with the elite (PB MIC+MAC) group occupying top position, and those showing no evidence of RA, no psychic profile, and no belief, are the “residual” group at the bottom of the table. The results are surprisingly positive overall, but of course the data must be regarded cautiously. Although the chances of successful cheating at the micro task were slight, some of the readings, were marginal and may be artifactual. It is very likely that the numbers of the B MAC and PB MAC groups are artificially inflated by believers who unknowingly bent their cutlery purely by physical force. Some 58% of the elite PB group showed some form of effect, although 25% of the group showing neither a psychic profile nor belief also produced effects. It should be remembered that the psychic profile will identify only those showing strong spontaneous psi functioning, so that the “non-psi” group may include individuals who are psi-capable. The strongest effect in the data, which was anticipated, and which is of importance in practice, is the difference between groups. Thus 13% of the Trellis group produced some form of effect, whereas 66% of the combined Kennedy groups produced some form of effect. When this performance measure is confined to those individuals who produced microeffects on the instrumentation, only 6.5% of the Trellis group produced these effects, compared to 30% of the combined Kennedy groups. These numbers may be misleading, however, because the instrumentation used in the Trellis screening was different from that used for the Kennedy screenings. However, using another measure, the size of the residual groups, a clear difference is shown between the Trellis and Kennedy populations. The Trellis residual group constituted 38% of the overall Trellis group, whereas the combined Kennedy residual was only 7%. These results, taken as a whole, tend to indicate that the careful choice of groups to screen will maximize the yield of potential RA agents found. 54 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
MAC Residual uU wo Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Categories Groups Screened Consolidated Results of Screenees Totals Percent MIC+MAC -B. MIC 39 20.6 % -B. MIC+MAC MIC MIC+MAC 30 MIC+MAC Mic a Ea po pe | ® oO = Believer Profile MIC+MAC = Micro + Macro Effects = Psychic Profile MIC = Micro Effects Only -B. = Psychic .+ Believer Profile MAC = Macro Effects Only TABLE A-1 SCREENING RESULTS 55 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 The data seem to show a slight effect of belief on performance. Taking the microeffects recorded, which presumably will not be inflated by cheating, and which should show equal incidence of artifact across groups, the percentage of individuals for all groups showing belief who also produced the microeffect, 22%, slightly exceeded the percentage of individuals producing microeffects who did not show belief, 16%. The Trellis screening did identify a number of individuals who appear to be promising potential participants and who live near SRI and who might be available for research. The JFK screenings should supply a number of participants for future studies. e. Participant Recruitment by Contacts Only three of the 10 participants in the training sessions under review were recruited through the screening process. However, of those three, two were good enough to go to SRI (HW and ZK). All but one of the JFK participants fulfill the PIF PB profile. The screenings performed at JFK will be of considerable use in the upcoming research cycle. To be efficient, the Piezo-RA training process requires individuals showing reasonably fast learning. The need for replacement participants for those showing poor learning performance requires the periodic intake of fresh participants; the fact that a group of potential RA trainees have already been identified by the JFK screenings will render the replacement process much more efficient. The apparent association of good Piezo-RA performance with the PB profile perhaps suggests that a reasonable fraction of those individuals currently participating in SRl-based parapsychological studies may prove successful at the Piezo-RA task, assuming that they too show the PB profile. f. Conclusions Regarding Selection In practice, for purpose of selecting potential trainees, the criteria for assessment of the responses to both the PIF profile questions are complex and informal. Furthermore, a person’s willingness to participate, freedom to schedule training sessions during the weekdays, place of domicile (and hence journey time to the JFK laboratory in Walnut Creek), and general attitudes, are all non-psi factors that pragmatically affect the probability of their selection. The approach of the JFK-based research group towards participant selection and training appears to be very similar to that developed at SRI. Because a long-term commitment to 56 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
re entnens enie Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 participation is required, adult participants who are in stable social and domestic situations are preferentially selected. This approach contrasts greatly with the one-shot use of college students that seems very common in many psychological and parapsychological studies. The recruitment of outstanding Piezo-RA agents for long periods of research at JEK would be greatly facilitated if they could be paid a stipend for participation in research. This issue has already been raised by some participants in the first phase of this research, 57 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 ig mm Ni ARE SN a anc ERM MEE TE oi su pep Ew: abl = a et:
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 III REMOTE ACTION TRAINING SESSIONS a. Training Sessions with Modified Screening Device The modified screening device (MSD) proved of great service in the RA training process. The feedback characteristics (audible “click” feedback, with the click rate tied to the output of the selectable crystal channel) are very suitable for RA training, because feedback from the noise floor of the system is available. Some 50 training sessions were held using this device, and the participants seemed to enjoy using it. The MSD is very sensitive to sound and vibration and the two channels are not well matched in sensitivity. As a result, the sessions using this device cannot be used for formal data recovery. When the device is used in the same room as the participant, slight movements or noises create measurable outputs from the device. When used in a separate room, slight outputs are generated by distant doors being slammed, or movement of the participant or experimenter in the adjacent room may create small outputs. The MSD could rather easily be revised to provide a more artifact—free response; it is suggested that improvement would be a very worthwhile investment. If the present light plastic enclosure were replaced with a massive airtight glass cover, if the cabling were replaced with a much longer cable of a more compliant type, and if a vibration-resistant mounting were developed and a sound-attenuating shield assembled around it, the device would provide an excellent training facility for beginning RA trainees. b. Training Sessions with Twenty-Tone Device About 20 training sessions were held using the twenty-tone device (TTD), which was built in England, and which provided the model for the design of the evaluation device (ED) feedback system. The TTD employs one piezoelectric crystal sensor strip, that is mounted near its preamplifier, that is connected by cable to the separate main signal processing unit. The TTD provides a white noise feedback signal from near the noise floor to a fixed lower threshold. From the fixed lower threshold to a selectable upper threshold, the device 59 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 produces 20 tones of the tempered musical scale. Participant response to the feedback characteristics of the TTD has been universally very positive. The TTD was designed to be used in conjunction with a stereo cassette tape recording system, one stereo channel being dedicated to the device, the other to a microphone placed in the vicinity of the sensor, which is normally mounted remotely from the TTD main signal processing unit. Scoring is normally done by an automatic instrumental analysis of the tape sections on which candidate events are recorded. In the training sessions under review, the TTD was used as a supplement to the twin sensor device. Because it was used on this informal, irregular basis, formal data were not collected. Cc. Training Sessions with Evaluation Device Although the EDs did not function correctly when first received, they were used for about a week before being returned for modification, because it took a week for the problems to become clearly identified. They were then modified and returned to service on 18 September 1986. Counting all sessions, including those when the EDs were not functioning satisfactorily, some 30 training sessions were held using the EDs. Because the EDs do not provide satisfactory audio feedback, especially at subthreshold levels, two feedback devices were configured (from previously constructed equipment) that provide click-rate feedback from the ED noise floor. The addition of this extra feedback channel was very much appreciated by participants, because they and the experimental team had experienced a great deal of frustration caused by the lack of feedback from the EDs, especially in the first phase of their usage when the feedback algorithm was based on peak detection. Unfortunately, although some participants had reached the stage of just starting to function effectively with the MSD in the next room, the frustrations and generally negative effect caused by the EDs when they first arrived seriously affected the RA performance of all of the participants. The ability to create ostensible distant effects was seemingly lost by the individuals who had previously exhibited this capacity with the MSD. It is arguable that the RA performance of some participants has still not fully recovered from this setback. This incident must be regarded as an important lesson for the JFK research team. Instrumentation 60 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 sie aca a iin deni
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 must be released for use with participants only after it has been proven fully functional and after the operators have received sufficient training. Participants varied greatly in their response to the rather noisy printers functioning during the trial period, so the download capability of the Model 102 computers used as terminals proved to be a crucial facility for those participants who would otherwise have found the noise intolerable. The ED systems have been used in three configurations: (1) the “Open” (O) condition, in which the front window is left open; (2) the “Closed” (C) condition, in which the front window is secured; and (3) the “Next Room” (NR) condition, in which the system was placed in a room adjacent to the participant. The NR condition was dropped after it was found that the participants’ RA performance had regressed as a result of the instabilities and frustrations of the early phase of ED usage, so that they could no longer produce effects in adjacent rooms. In the O condition, artifacts caused by acoustic events (principally speech) are readily recorded at low threshold settings (10). In the C condition, acoustic artifacts of above threshold magnitude are seldom produced by normal speech. Because many sessions were held in the O condition, and some sessions with other equipment were of necessity interleaved with the ED sessions, formal data are not available for the ED training sessions held at JFK. Some sessions were held under the C condition in which over-threshold (threshold of 10) events were obtained. d. Criteria for Continuance of Training Originally, the decision regarding the continuance of participant training after the three preliminary sessions was planned to be based on a formal and invariant criterion applied to the performance reached by participants in these sessions. However, the use of three different and essentially noncomparable training devices in the early training phases (unmodified screening device, modified screening device, and twenty-tone device), necessitated by the delay in the delivery of the evaluation devices made it impossible to apply a formal criterion. The criterion used was that the participant’s trainer had to be convinced that the participant had produced at least two events that were highly suggestive of Piezo-RA before further training. Because every participant met this criterion, all were retained. 61 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Since that time, one participant (WE) has withdrawn because of the demands of his JFK courses, one participant (RS) will be dropped because of poor RA performance, one (HW) will be working in Argentina for three months, and two (SN and JA) may be dropped on account of poor RA performance, unless this improves within their next three RA sessions. SN, JA, and RM have all shown a powerful negative effect from the first phase of use of the evaluation devices, and RM and JA have made only a slow recovery. In this context, it is interesting that both RM and JA have been trained by Julian Isaacs, who was probably most directly affected by the effects of the nonfunctioning evaluation devices. One of these less successful participants (JA) is currently undergoing remedial biofeedback training during his experimental sessions under the control of another experimenter (MM) in order to explore the possibility that those RA agents who perform poorly, apparently because of excessive striving, may be able to improve their RA performance after supplementary training at a biofeedback task. e. Overall Session Results Although no formal data are available from this phase of research, certain conclusions can informally be suggested. Table A-2 shows the number of sessions performed by each participant. Referring to Table A-2, the basic postulate (that repeated trial sessions produces increments in performance for some participants) seems to be upheld by the results. Five of the 10 participants showed definite increases in Piezo-RA output per session (WA, CR, HW, ZK, and JM). These results are significantly better than the English results,4 which suggested that perhaps only one in seven participants in training would show marked increases in RA performance with training (the English participants were also much less carefully selected). Of the five less successful participants, it seems that three may yet show a learning effect, although it seems likely that the other two will probably not. Second, the results seem to suggest that session number is an important determinant of performance. Referring to Table A-2, it can be seen that the successful group of five performed a total of 94 sessions, whereas the less successful group of five performed 58 sessions——only just over half of the successful group’s sessions. Although this difference in performance with increasing number of sessions may partly reflect motivational factors as well as learning, it certainly appears to be an important variable, whatever interpretation is given to it. 62 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 nn SES tt om ER PENT ME TE ME”
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Experimenter Participant Number of Sessions R.C. W.A. 20 R.C. C.R. 14 J.d R.M 9 Jol. JA. 11 J.J. H.W. 15 J.J. R.S. 16 D.M. zZ.K. 26 D.M. S.N. 7 (+5) 4# J.M. W.E. 10 M.M. J.M. 7 (+12) * Estimated sessions conducted prior to Remote Action Project ** Previous sessions run by M.M. and J.J. TABLE A-2. PARTICIPANT PIEZO-RA TRAINING SESSIONS 63 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 IV INSTRUMENTAL DESIGN a. Psychological Requirements The specifications for the functional design of the SD and the ED were outlined in detail in the description of the devices’ functional designs, which has already been tendered to SRI. Because the psychological requirements of the training instrumentation are crucial to the Piezo-RA training process, a recent paper by this author® is quoted here; these paragraphs specify some centrally important considerations relating to the feedback properties that are necessary for RA learning. “ ,.The phenomenology of DDPK training appears closely to conform to the principles of operant conditioning where a behavior which is an approximation to the required behavior must be emitted first, and then reinforced, before further, more optimal behaviors, are then emitted and can be reinforced. In practice this leads to what at first sight appears to be a paradox, that subjects should essentially be presented with a “noisy” system, but the rationale for this relates closely, in my view, to the reason why it seems relatively easy to obtain PK on REG types of systems. If we ask the question of what behaviors should be reinforced in order to start the process of operant conditioning in the PK training process, clearly the answer must be PK behaviors, or at least PK-like behaviors. Typically, a DDPK agent may at first produce only relatively few PK events, or even none, over the threshold which defines events as candidate DDPK (in practice the threshold is set high enough for some under-threshold events to be likely to be PK rather than noise or artifact*). But if feedback is only supplied for the over—threshold events, the operant conditioning process will be very slow and a risk is generated that due to lack of frequency of reinforcement, motivation may fail and the PK response may even be extinguished. It thus becomes necessary to provide a feedback signal which is sufficiently sensitive to the state of the system to be able to relay the intrinsic noise of the system in perceptible form to the DDPK agent in training. This will ensure that however slight the trainee’s PK responses may be, reinforcement will occur. Usually, what happens in DDPK training is that the agent’s signals start out by mostly being in the range of the noise of the system, but over the course of several DDPK training sessions [typically six sessions in the English studies? * with 65 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 successful subjects, the signal magnitudes climb out of the noise until many over—threshold events occur in each session. This kind of phenomenology is very compatible with the operant conditioning paradigm, and the crucial point to appreciate, from that perspective, is that in order for the subject to emit a PK-like behavior, the feedback system must be sensitive enough to be able to signal perturbations which are at, or very near, the intrinsic noise level of the DDPK detection system. The psychology of DDPK training can be examined at different levels of discourse, using different models, since there are other non-paranormal learning models which can be applied as analogues to DDPK training in addition to operant conditioning. So far, I have used the language of operant conditioning, but a more cognitive approach is possible. K.J. Batcheldor’s formulation falls into this category.6 His principle hypothesis is that PK is elicited by a particular type of situationally triggered “instant” belief state which is induced by the subject being exposed to a stimulus which they interpret as indicating that PK is already occurring. This is the rationale for Batcheldor’s “artifact induction (of PK) hypothesis.” ...From this cognitive perspective, relaying the noise from a DDPK detection system allows the PK trainee to construe (or misconstrue) the system’s fluctuations as being cue to his or her influence, analogously to the situation I have hypothesized as occurring with the REG. This then may create the “instant” PK-producing belief state, which creates more reinforcing feedback, and so on. Diana Robinson has discussed the possibly psi facilitating role that a subject’s felt sense of control could have in maintaining high levels of motivation in the absence of high anxiety or high striving.” In support of this analysis, it should be mentioned that an apparently universal preference shown by DDPK trainees is that they must, through experience of the feedback signal, feel “in touch” with the piezo crystal itself, which is interpretable as implying that the feedback system should be responsive to the slightest alteration in state of the piezo sensor. ...In terms of DDPK methodology the lessons from this analysis seem clear-—-the feedback system must be capable of wide excursions from the instrumental “noise floor” up to several magnitudes above noise-- yet still provide sensorally descriminable and aesthetically pleasing results. Presumably too, for motivational optimization, the feedback modality should fit the preferences and cognitive style of the PK trainee, although this too remains unverified by experimentation.” The current ED instrumentation does not yet fulfill these requirements, because its “white noise” audio output does not seem to be aesthetically acceptable to participants, nor does it provide accurate and fast information regarding the occurrence or magnitude of under-threshold RA events. This deficiency was ameliorated in both the SRI-based sessions and the JFK ED training sessions by the use of supplementary audio feedback from devices (one was loaned to SRI) modified for this purpose. 66 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 ce a NAME RET eM TET TN BN PIT
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6 Additionally, it is clear, comparing the ED with an analog audio feedback system, that the response time of the ED is presently too slow to allow its audio feedback to accurately track complex incoming RA signals. Psychologically, participants are faced with a device that fails to provide essential and motivating feedback at the low end of the RA range and that does not give a smooth and well-graded response to RA effects. These properties are crucial in a device intended for training purposes. b. Recommended Evaluation Device Modifications JFK recommends the following modifications to the ED produced by SRI: (1) Software (a) If software modification can increase the speed of response of the (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) feedback, this would be useful. It may be that no significant increase in feedback response speed can be achieved by software modifications, given that the STD system uses an interpreted BASIC. In this case, substitution of an analog feedback system driven by the chart recorder output would definitely correct the problem. All data, especially the system status check information, should be displayed by the terminal. At present the system check data is only output via the serial printer port. The printer output becomes unreadable under conditions of RA activity because the print becomes displaced from its normal position and overprinting occurs. Perhaps buffering of printer output might correct this without incurring a significant overhead. The “white noise” feedback is very unpleasant to listen to because it has a “pumped” quality, in which increases in volume occur as discrete steps, happening at irregular intervals (because of program execution time variations due to competing tasks for the CPU). Finer gradation of volume increases, or an analog feedback system, is necessary to remove this characteristic. The white noise also still contains 60-Hz components. Substitution of a true white noise source and the careful sculpting of its amplitude/frequency characteristics would correct the problem of the subjective acceptability of the white noise. At present, only three trial periods per session are allowed by the system if automatic timing of sessions is required. It was originally requested that up to six trial and six rest periods be software selectable per session. At present, the printout does not seem to consistently label printed-out events as “R” or “T.” The software clock providing the automatic timing is clearly inaccurate, even over short periods. Substitution of hardware clock would correct this. 67 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200100001-6