Approved For Release "UNCLASSIFIED Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 NAME: Comments: 1. Brian Skyrms 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. 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. 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: Comments: 1. Michael Wartell Hypnosis experiment shows promise. Some stylistic changes needed in report as noted. 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. 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, 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 200PIROR JOSSEPPESZ 0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release UNCL : x31) [4 > aeeemmmaananaaal CLA 5. Neuropsychological assessment. Interesting possible correlates, but at which level of screening would they be useful, initial screening, follow-on, etc.? 6. 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. 7. RA Effects on Single a-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 2QIFAUE ACYSEPEE £90789R002200150001 -1
Approved For Release 2900108108 5 CUARDP;Bp;00789R002200150001-1 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 20PPRECE ASSET EL) 789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release UNCP ASSTRTEBD errnz oo ts000 -1 APPENDIX B PHYSIOLOGY CONFERENCE LETTERS (This Appendix is Unclassified) B-1 Approved For Release 200PRRFCE OSS FTES 789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 | UNCLASSIFIED Los Alamos 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. | really enjoyed myself and | 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: 4. Conduct a remote classical conditioning paradigm (a la the Hungarian study that was mentioned, | 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. !n 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. | would predict an enhancement of the readiness potential in trials preceding a correct response. Approved For Release 20GB ACHeAP RPA 70789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2PT RIC EASS FETE DO 729R 0022001 50001-1 3. In a similar vein, one could record the premotor activity in the computer based remote action paradigm. However, a difficulty | 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? { 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. | think a demonstration of the effect in a magnetically shielded room would be of value in that sense. | hope this is of help. | 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. Deborah Arthur B-3 Approved For Release 200)NBOB ACHSHPH #690789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 20pPP€/48A GS FEF FE B)00789R002200150001 -1 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 odo ob Achat 56430789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 24GKGYOR ACec RP PPHI0789R002200150001-1 to examine as regards experimental design, including choice and application of data analysis techniques. Training an nin 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 an h rain anorama 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 B-5 Approved For Release A0pb6)bsA S)§-HHIFB)00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 20Q9/PgC4 : AIS SHPPE-Dp789R002200150001-1 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 -O 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 odobhaifok Aci ibd £:190789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2000: 48L AS SbPIE789R002200150001-1 P ntial ra R rch Insti artici ion 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, Ajdiad Richard H. Dickhaut - Approved For Release otddN Sts Ae KEE 20789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 2000 (RIEL AISRPFIELS789R002200150001-1 LOS Alarnos 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. Io can see three ways immediately that may be useful to you. As we discussed in Menlo Park, the magnetic shielded room could be of use for measuring the influence of very low frequency magnetic fields on subjects. We can do this ina 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 roon 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 200)MBOB ACHP §4)0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 20PPRECE ASST FAT PES° 789R002200150001-1 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE ¢ ROOM 8226 LIFE SCIENCES EAST LANSING © MICHIGAN ¢ 48824-1317 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 20D) /ebO$ AG SAH I6190789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release 209 NICE ACCEPTED 07 89R002200150001-1 ° J 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: oO 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-11 Approved For Release 2Q0pNRQOB ACH GH Pit £4) 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release -OONCLASSIRIED eee address your problems. These sessions are difficult to pull off. Such groups must be brought together by one or two very well respected scientists who can recruit other top flight scientists from many fields. They must be introduced to the fields sufficiently, comprehensively, to give them a pretty good understanding of the issues. And, the discussions must be structured to prevent them from being unfocused and nonproductive. Kindling creativity and focusing it into certain directions using brilliant, independent scientists is an awesome challenge--but it is doable sometimes. I enjoyed my trip. Good luck! Regards; 4‘ Raymond H. rray, M.D. Professor and Chairman Department of Medicine RHM/1p B-12 Approved For Release 200P AGRI VE EASRPAED89R002200150001-1