SGFOIA2 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2ppNDE)¢8A 9 § Hii9b)00789R002200380001-6 APPENDIX A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* (This Appendix is Unclassified) “The SOC members were requested to complete a “Reviewer's Comments” sheet (see example on next page) for each task that they had elected to review. This Appendix provides a verbatim, unedited transcription of the reviewers’ (mostly handwritten) comments on a task-by-task basis. SRI responses have been appended to the reviewers’ comments where appropriate. A-1 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2099 @/q8A 9S HEEB) 00789R002200380001-6 SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective E, Tasks 1 and 2 (Feedback And Target Dependencies In Remote Viewing Experiments) (verbatim transcription--not edited) NAME: Herb Ley Comments: 1. This report appears abridged with only the title page, one full page of text and a short paragraph at the top of page 3. The information provided is inadequate for any assessment. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 NAME: Robert Morris Comments: 1. They seem adequate for the task. No problems. 2. These findings raise the question of how the various target pools may be deployed in the future, e.g., do you focus on the natural targets, where success is best, and shift later to client-centered material, or do you keep client-centered material in at the start, figuring that you want to know early on who will be good with that material? I lean towards the former. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: James Press Comments: 1. This was just a description of the target pool used for mass screening. There was no description of feedback, or of target dependencies. The effort seems admirable - but I guess if would be hard to analyze the results because of statistically confounding factors. Recommendation: Yes November 1, 1988 A-14 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 209 PGR ASS FORE )00789R002200380001-6 NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. Research design is good. To test the overall feedback hypothesis. Results negative. There are no hard conclusions drawn, about the hypothesis about the “viewability” of different kinds are targets. Could be tested in the future, with an experiment carefully designed to do that. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Mike Wartell Comments: 1. Design, protocols - all are satisfactory. Results appropriate. Recommendation: Yes November 3, 1988 NAME: Chris Zarafonetis Comments: 1. Well done. The approach is described and findings are given in relevant Objective/Task studies reports. Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 NAME: Phil Zimbardo Comments: 1, This is an excellent improvement in procedure, more technically/“ cosmetically” sound and preferred by RV subjects. 2. For future research, target pool should eliminate those with low hit rates and utilize those with highest hit rates (for category type) and target. 3. Page 3 — Please elaborate and detail what “certain characteristics” enhance RV quality. Need to develop optimal protocol materials, Recommendation: Yes November 4, 1988 A-15 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6