Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Page
6.
Page
7,
8.
Note:
Page 21.
Page 22.
Page 31.
"Page 37,
38.
Page 39.
Page 43.
Page 44.
Deleted in
Final
Deleted in
Final
variables between operationalized pre/post measures.
Good
(especially
?) data tables—not data-masking graphs.
Hypnosis—use
as means
of
noise
reduction
only.
Minimize
internal
distractors through specific suggestions.
Training—why not have
initial training procedure use only the common
RV symbols-bits
(p.
7)
plus some others
to form a
10-unit
set?
This
simplifies
S’s
task
and
provides
a
more
objective
basis
for
hit/miss
feedback to subject.
The bit -> Composite Analysis
is a “bottom-up” perceptual process, but
the Interpretive Overlay Analysis
is a “top-down” Cognitive process.
In
everyday, non-PSI transactions with the world, humans use both.
The
bit-training
procedure
reduces
to
a
focus
on
only
the
bottom-up
procedure—that
is not how perception works.
Good addition to training
is to get S’s to report BITS rather than holistic
impressions.
Question:
In
assessing
training
is
there
a
baseline,
pre-training
evaluation
of
the
S’s RV
ability?
There
must
be
one
in
order
to
demonstrate
it
is
the
training
per
se
that
transformed
novices
into
experts—and
not
merely
the
S’s
unrecognized,
latent
ability
being
tapped.
Remember these are
self-selected volunteers who may do
so
with a sense of “being intuitive.”
Interpretations—Reinforcement
analysis
of
target
feedback....
“so
necessary for the functioning to be developed.”
What about feedback of
non-similarities?
Does that weaken accurate functioning development?
These data are for
1 novice and
1 expert?
Need to have larger sample,
especially of novices’ time-function allocation.
Why
reproduce
Figure
here
as
Figure
with
different
captions,
especially when
caption
for
Figure
is more
appropriate
here under
“Data Access?”
Again—delete
this redundancy from the report.
Question:
Status
of
assertions
re:
the
“correctness”
of
the
“new”
information
or the secondary
“flood”
of information and
re:
“at
this
stage
the
viewer
will be
interpreting
data
correctly.”
We need some
factual basis for such generalizations.
Subject Selection:
Only 7 of 45 completed the training,
(a) We need
better
information
about
the
possible
reason
for
failure
to
complete— “not wanting to devote time”
is inadequate explanation,
(b)
Of the 7 who completed training, how many qualify as having RV ability?
This
is really scanty discussion of expert training.
What about individual
differences
in
style?
What %
of
the
time
expert
Ss
are improved
outcomes found with each of the two methods mentioned here.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Page 60.
Hypotheses may be arrived
at by the means mentioned here, but then
they must be subjected to systematic evaluation by formal experiments
to
become “fact” or generalizations.
A failure in this entire document
is the confusion between the two classes
of assertions.
One
never knows
the
evidential
basis for most of the
assertions presented.
Page
65.
Is
it an idealized graph or data summary?
If so, then we must know the
N and
the
criterion
for
Quality
of
Viewing.
Also
the
text
confuses
“practice” and "reinforcement”—they are separate.
Page 66.
This
is not a “correlation.”
Page
68.
Not clear what events are reinforcing in the training situation.
Showing
someone
else's work
is not per
se
vicarious reinforcement.
It
is only
when the other person gets praised or appears to be happy over a good
match.
Page
68.
Where
is the data table relating “Rate of improvement and frequency of
new concepts?”
I do not believe that they collected RATE data.
Page 72.
Now we have
a new,
universal
definition
of reinforcement—visiting
a
target site.
Page 73.
Figure
is hypothesized or empirical?
Page 74.
Ditto—also how
is motivation assessed?
Deleted in
Final
Finally, we get the (some)
data.
This must be presented earlier in the
report.
I read
this as a
failure
of training:
4/45 novices -> advanced
training.
1/4 advanced -> expert training, and 771 became expert?
Zimbardo Comments continued:
A Remote Viewing Idealized Procedure—“Outbound Targets”
1.
Viewer-Subject
a.
Does not know 2 or
(below)
at
all.
OR
b.
Constraints are set — especially target categories and viewer characteristics.
c.
Response.
Viewer draws scene on computer screen with a
light pen and identifies
descriptive features.
2.
Objective Scene—Viewer-Sender
a.
Does not know
(above) or 3 below.
OR
b.
Vary experimentally knowledge or “intimacy"
with
(above)
across viewer subject
pairs.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
3.
Targets/Display
a.
Individual set of stimuli from large pool.
b.
Selected randomly.
c.
Targets are schematic graphics of scenes with specifiable elements.
d.
Presented on video laser disks to 2 (above).
e.
While blank screen
is available to
(above).
f.
A priori set of descriptors are made by ratings of each target.
4.
Analysis
Data set is each pair of computer-generated targets and S’s response scene which are
stored in copy-protected locked
files as a paired set for analysis.
5.
Monitor’s
a.
Role
must
be
reduced
to
that
of
handling
only
“logistics”
of
subject-viewer’s
participation.
(Queries,
prompts
must
follow
written
standardized
format—e.g.,
Describe major feature
in scene, or Describe context,
setting, background.
b.
Should have no knowledge of target set in general or specifically.
6.
Feedback
a.
Should be specifically varied within the experimental design,
i.
Sessions W/O feedback
-
ii.
Sessions with feedback after each trial within
Ss.
iii.
Sessions with alternating feedback by stimulus sets across Ss.
(e.g., Si 1st x trials
= yes, 2nd x trials = no;
Sz
1st
x trials = no, 2nd x trials = yes)
b.
Involves seeing the target on the video screen and also the viewer’s response.
Perhaps
include additional data collected at this point on S’s reactions to the hit/miss and any
reasons for a miss.
7.
Other Features
Some viewers may be instructed to be allowed “pass”
trials on which they
feel their
“perceptual window”
is not open
(e.g.,
a given target may have negative symbolic
value that creates “noise” which adds interference to the bit-grabbing process.
SCOTT HUBBARD
General Response:
With
the
exception
of
Dr.
Sidwell,
the SOC comments
all appear
to
reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this report.
This report is not
a description of experimental results;
it
is not a statement of protocols for
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewer’s Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task
(Possible Anomalistic Behavior of Photon Detection System)
(verbatim transcription— not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
None.
Good experiment with knowledgable electrical isolation work.
I do.
11-6-86
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation
:
I need a briefing to explain the statistical procedures reflected in Tables
-
4.
My questions
re. procedures stem from my reluctance
to accept
(Table 2) an overall p < 0.0488 from a series in which 2 of 6 “p’s” are <
0.05 and 2 « 0.35, and
is an even 1.000.
Is
it appropriate to average p
values
[in this case p(av) = 0.3172]?
Sequential probability of all 6 sets
of data being the result of chance
is, by my calculation, 2.6 x 10-8
:
1.
These questions reflect my lack of understanding of methods used,
I am
sure.
Would like to see
final analysis including PMT/RV correlation.
Would
also need to see protocol, informed consent statement, and final review
to reach a comment whether human use requirements have been met.
I do not... until
final PMT/RV correlation has been incorporated.
11 -6-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
SCOTT HUBBARD
Response to Ley:
The sequential probability calculation that Ley suggests appears to be the
joint probability derived from multiplying the p-values listed in Table
2.
(Although
by my
calculation,
the
value
is
2.6
x
10-5
.)
Such
a
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
calculation confuses post-hoc
analysis
with a priori
prediction
in
the
following way:
If we had predicted in advance that the p-values obtained
would be those observed, then
a joint probability calculation would be
correct.
However, because no prediction about the p-values was made,
we can only
test the
null
hypothesis by examining the
distribution
of
observed values as compared with the MCE distribution.
One acceptable
way to accomplish this
is through the Fisher x2-test, cited in the report.
An easy way to see the difference between these two approaches
is to
imagine
a
series
of
coin
tosses
whose
random
outcome
is
HTTHTHHTHT.
No
one
would
claim
that
this
outcome
is
extraordinary, especially because the number of heads equals the number
of
tails.
However,
applying Ley’s
idea, we would multiply the p-value
associated with each element (0.5) ten times.
This value
is 0.5 10 or 9.8 x
10-4
I
Clearly this probability would be relevant only
if we had predicted
the outcome of the coin toss
in advance.
The
request
to
review
the
informed
consent
documents,
etc.,
was
satisfied in a separate meeting of the Human Use Review Board.
Response to Press:
During the verbal presentation of this experiment,
Dr.
Press took issue
with the use
of the
Fisher x2-test.
He believes that our method
of
combining p-values across sessions for a single viewer
is invalid because
the RV
trials are
not
statistically independent.
In
a
follow-up
letter,
dated 10 November 1986, he remarks:
“But the outcomes of the experiments carried out by the same individual
are correlated, because
that person has a certain
ability, and he uses
that ability in each of the experiments in which he
is the subject.”
We
believe
that
Dr.
Press
is
incorrect
on
this
point.
Our NULL
*
hypothesis, which
is the basis of our testing,
is that there
is no ability.
If
the NULL hypothesis
is true, then a series of RVs performed by the same
individual
is
statistically equivalent to the same individual tossing a
fair
die—a
certain
case
for
statistical
independence.
Our
contention
is
especially true
in that normal free-response biases of various forms are
“normalized” out of the session p-values.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Interim Report for Objective E, Task
(RV Feedback Dependency Experiment)
(verbatim transcription
not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Appears protocols are proper to isolate feedback variable as only possible
variable affecting RV performance.
The issue of the information source
in a correct RV response appears well thought out.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Suggest
accomplishing
a
two
condition,
simple
experiment
in
which
feedback
is there or
it isn’t in order to test hypothesis
initially.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
BRIAN SKYRMS
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do.
11 - 10-86
NEVIN LANTZ
Response:
The
experiment
suggested
by
Dr.
Wartell,
while
appearing
less
complicated,
is actually more
difficult because of the enormous problem
of entirely eliminating the feedback:
it
is easier to control the magnitude
of the feedback than to eliminate
it.
Another reason for conducting the
experiment
as we
described
is
to
gain
information
about
a
possible
interaction between routes of information transfer (real-time acquisition
vs. precognition)
as the magnitude of feedback varies from subliminal to
supraliminal.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 2
(Search)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
CHRIS ZARAFONETIS
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
None.
Same as for “A Remote Viewing Training Methodology” (No protocol or
informed consent with report.)
Ido.
11-6-86
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendations:
None (edge effect mathematics needs closer scrutiny).
“Edge effects” on statistical interpretations might be handled through a
spherical display.
While not quite “real world” enough,
it would remove
the natural edge avoidance bias.
Also, why not attempt the experiments
without feedback, as well.
I do not.
Question of edge effect math.
11-6-86
S. JAMES PRESS
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
I do not think the analysis
is sound.
I have handwritten some four pages outlining why
I
feel the
analysis
is
flawed, &
suggesting
an
alternative
experiment
with
an
appropriate
analysis.
I do not.
11-6-86
Analysis of Location of Target Material in Space and Time
p-value
is not computed correctly.
If d = distance observed,
p = P
(D > d/H}
= p-value.
For
a
given
individual,
there
are
n
trials
(not
replications), &
results
are
correlated.
There
is a joint probability distribution for the n trials.
Results might
he
d!
dn
for
a
given
subject.
(di
,
....
dn
) =
joint probability density
function
for d =
(d!
,
....
dn ).
There may
also be
learning with each
trial,
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
EDWIN MAY
Response:
because of feedback, in which case we would expect an approximate ordering: di
> d2 >
... > d»
.
Averaging the n separate p-values ignores the trial-to-trial
correlation.
A problematic
issue
is that some d’s are more
likely than others, just from the
geometry of the matrix.
For example, choosing the center of the matrix
is likely
to give smaller d’s than
if the subject chooses the corners.
If n subjects were to guess target position for the same fixed target position, then
we could logically compare subjects.
If we then changed the target position to a
new location, & then had
all n subjects again try their luck on that target, we
could again compare subject’s ability.
Doing this k times gives us an experimental
procedure
that can be
analyzed
statistically.
The
experiment has
factors:
subject factor, & target factor.
Analysis of variance methodology can be used in
a
traditional
way
to
seek
“main
effects”
for
subject,
and
subject-target
interaction. We can even introduce replication by having the same subject do the
same
target, randomly.
In this event,
replications are not independent, & the
correlation must be accounted
for.
In the same experiment,
subjects evaluate
different targets,
so direct comparisons are extremely difficult.
By using p-values with changing targets in each trial
(in the space condition) you
are subject to the criticism often leveled at the use of p-values; namely, you can
get whatever
effect you
like by taking
a
small,
or
a
large
sample,
since
the
consistency
of the
test demands
that even
if
the
hypothesis
is
off only
very
slightly, we will reject the hypothesis with probability one.
Thus, even
if a small
data set confirms the hypothesis,
a larger data set will reject
it!
Because
the
subjects
in
the
current experiment
evaluate
different
subsets
of
targets (there might of course be some overlap), their output “distances” from n
trials
for each of them have different distributions.
So what
is the meaning of
averaging p-values?
We
have
examined
the
“edge”
effects
carefully
with
our
statistical
consultant,
Dr.
J.
Utts, and found them to be both
conservative and
sound.
Dr. Wartell’s suggestion of a spherical display, however,
is quite
ingenious, and we plan to look into
it as a modification to the approach.
In examining the analysis and the questions raised by Dr. Press, we find
that he
is not correct in his assessment. We plan to invite Dr. Press and
Dr. Utts to SRI in early December to attempt to resolve the dispute.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Tasks 3 & 4
(Intuitive Data Sorting)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-7-86
FRED ZACHARIASEN
Exceptions:
It
doesn’t
seem
to me
that
the
data
is
really
sufficiently
good
to
distinguish the various models, either from each other or from the purely
statistical
prediction.
Further,
the model
(IDS)
violates
such
basic
physical principles that
it's highly suspect on the face of it.
I’d wait with
this report until there’s better data.
(Incidentally, no real data
is shown
in this report, &
it should be.)
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do not.
11-7-86
BRIAN SKYRMS
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-7-86
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions:
(1)
The study does not address the possible significance
of individual
social and cultural backgrounds in determining forced choices.
(2)
The concept that “information from the
future
is
available
in the
present”
is
in
the
realm
of one-shot
learning.
Differences
in
these
processes
in man and planarian worms,
for example, emphasize man’s
ability to utilize the armamentarium of past experience; and thus further
emphasize the importance of evaluating social and cultural backgrounds.
Comments:
None.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Recommendation:
EDWIN MAY
Response:
None.
11 - 10-86
Dr. Zachariasen
is correct in that the PEAR data does not allow us to
separate RA from IDS.
Also, because we have not yet completed the
PRNG formal experiment, he has
a point with regard to the premature
nature of this report.
However there are a number of points that should
be mentioned in favor of releasing this as an interim report.
While
it
is true that we do not present the RNG data base as part of this
report per se, we do reference a detailed analysis of the data base and
describe
the
conclusions we drew
from
330
separate
experiments—
a
p-value suggesting some form of a statistical anomaly of fSa 10- 18 for the
historical data base consisting of »
109
bits.
IDS provides a descriptive model of this historical data base that appears
more parsimonious than does either RA or MCE.
As such,
it should be
stated
as
clearly
as possible
in order
for the model
to
receive proper
scrutiny by our research community, and in order to provide guidelines
for proper experimental protocols to test IDS correctly with RNGs.
We agree with Dr. Zachariasen that our proposal appears to violate basic
physical principles, but, as we say in the report, we feel that proposing an
RA explanation violates even more basic physical principles. We do not
present
a
meta-analysis
of
the
literature
claiming
evidence
for
information
flow
from
the
future,
but
our
proposal
is
based
(and
referenced) upon a rather large historical data base claiming that such a
phenomenon
is statistically “real.”
It
is important to note that the IDS
model
is
a
heuristic
model
in
that
the
data
are
best
fit,
assuming
backward flow of information.
Lastly, we do present
the
data from the PEAR laboratory
in reduced
form.
Princeton provided over 23,000
individual data points consisting
of 200; 2,000;
10,000; or 100,000
bits each.
Data from the historical
data base are also too volumnous to be included in this particular report.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers' Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 5
(An RNG Experiment)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
None.
Recommendation:
I do.
MICHAEL A. WARTELL
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Recommendation:
Experimental protocols appear to be appropriate.
I do.
11 -7-86
11-7-86
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 6
(An Experiment to Test Apparent RA Effects on Electrodermal Activity)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
CHRIS ZARAFONETIS
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
NOTE: A rest period was added after each effort period during actual
procedure as distinct from the protocol.
Was protocol amended through
SRI-IRB approval?
Has this been noted for record in SRI-IRB minutes?
If RBC are to be used in FY 1987, the protocol and IC statement should
show that blood
will be drawn (how much, how many times) and there
are possible complications from venipuncture,
etc.
How many subjects?
How many men
or women?
Timing
of hemolysis
tests,
anticoagulant
used,
etc., are important considerations as well.
Recommendation:
I do.
11-6-86
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation
None.
Need
to
see
protocol,
informed
consent
statement,
for
evaluation
of
meeting human use requirements.
I do.
11-6-86
The
staff’s
abstract
says:
P=.08
(one-tailed)
statistical
test
of
psi
superiority is reported or “very closely” approaches significance."
It does
not;
is
not.
If
P
<
.05
is
criterion,
then
any
greater
value
is
non-significant.
The data
table
for the Page
10,
Paragraph.
results
needs to be here.
The
results
in Page
15/16
indicate no
statistical
significance.
No
psi
effect, no IDS
effect.
Where are data tables— at
this stage we need appendices with primary
data as well.
Page
Remote Action (RA) -> causal effect
Intuitive Data Sorting (IDS) -> informational
effect—viewer anticipates
data change.
Need to clearly parcel out hypotheses:
PHIL ZIMBARDO
Exceptions:
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Page 4
Pages 2 and
Comments:
Recommendation:
Hypothesis
1.
RA -> influences EDA
Hypothesis
2.
IDS -> also occurs with EDA data
Hypothesis
3.
RA
effects
are
separable
from
IDS
and
still
are
significant when IDS effects are parsed out.
p =
.08
is not significant from psi superiority.
It does not “very closely
approach significance” as asserted.
If the statistical criterion of p < .05
is
not met, there
is not significance and should not be reported.
Method
is not clear.
a.
What was the EDA measure.
b.
How were subjects and influencer situated?
Recommend:
DATA ANALYSES:
ANOVA Not
T-test.
Mixed
between—within
.
5 sources of degrees of freedom:
1.
Trials— 12
(for each type)
2.
Seed type—
3.
Influences—
4.
Subjects—32
5.
Type a influence
(calm/activate)— 2.
Question:
Were
these
counterbalanced
in some
way?
Also:
The
dependent variable (DV)
is skin resistance.
1.
How
is this corrected for initial B.S.R. basal levels?
2.
Is there subsequent corrections?
3.
Why not carry
(?) our B.S.R. differences from D.V.
ARTIFACT:
Real time feedback was an uncontrolled variable, subject
selected—must
be
controlled/included
or
excluded
or
varied
(?)
systematically.
The derived DV masks
a
lot
of
different
effects,
such
as
arousal
vs.
calming influences, and should be used only after the separate analyses
are presented.
The SRI staff’s detection and reporting of the 2 serious artifacts
in this
procedure
which
render
the
results
“uninterpretable”
is
to
be
commended!
Their new hypothesis and suggested paradigm
(pp.
7 and
8) appear viable.
I do not.
11-6-86
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SCOTT HUBBARD
Response to Zarafonetis:
We
regret
that
Dr.
Zarafonetis
received
the
impression
that
the IRB
approved protocol was in some way modified or circumvented because of
problems experienced by the participants.
In actuality, the IRB protocol
never specified the extremely detailed minute-by-minute experimental
procedure.
Since
the influencer was asked
to alternately activate and
then calm the subject, the staff at MSF introduced the “rest” period as a
natural
time
to
reorient
the
influencer’s
thinking.
It
was
their
unfamiliarity with the IDS model which prevented them from recognizing
that
this
small element would completely disrupt the hypothesis under
test.
In no way was this rest period a response to any perceived stress or
fatigue by the influencer or subject.
The
final report has been suitably
revised to clarify this point.
The
issues
surrounding
planned
experiments
for FY
1987
will
be
addressed when the protocols are written, very likely in January of 1987.
Response to Ley:
The request to obtain the consent forms,
etc., was satisfied in a separate
meeting of the Human Use Review Board.
Response to Zimbardo:
Dr. Zimbardo
is correct that a p-value of 0.08
is nonsignificant.
This
phrase has been deleted from the SRI overview
report.
The
general
requests for data tables that support the statistical conclusions have been
forwarded to MSF for their consideration.
As indicated by the
title of Appendix A, the
first set of results were for
„
the
Pilot study, which was nonsignificant,
as indicated on pages
15 and
16.
The results cited in the SRI overview are only for the Confirmation
experiment.
The next series of comments appear to reflect a misunderstanding as to
the basic hypothesis of the study. We proposed that MSF’s earlier work
on EDA could be entirely explained by the IDS model, not that there
is a
mixture of RA and IDS effects.
Page
1 has been rewritten to emphasize
this point.
In the SRI overview, we did not feel
it was important to repeat the details
of the EDA measurements or the physical layout of the experimental area
as reported in the MSF paper. We refer Dr. Zimbardo to pp. 10 and 24
for those particular explanations.
We have referred the proposed ANOVA analysis to Dr. Braud of MSF
for consideration.
In a telephone conversation, however, he responded
that he favors a single, simple, a priori defined statistical test rather than
the ANOVA “fishing expedition.”
In Braud’s opinion, complex analysis
that
results
in
a
statistically
significant third-order term may be more
confusing than revealing.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
As
described on
pp.
13 and
of
the MSF
report,
the
trials were
appropriately counterbalanced.
The next series of questions and comments seem to stem from the idea
that the EDA measurements were of dc skin resistance.
This was not the
case.
EDA
is
identical
to GSR,
which
is an
ac measurement
of the
fluctuations in skin conductance.
In any ac-coupled system, questions of
baseline drift are irrelevant.
This observation has been incorporated into
the revised report.
A
detailed
discussion
of the
possible
role
of real-time
feedback was
provided by MSF and may be found on pages 30 and 31 of the original
report.
Dr. Braud’s conclusion was that possible artifact due to real-time
feedback had been adequately excluded.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective E, Task 8
(RA... Piezoelectric Strain Gauges)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NICK YARU
Exceptions:
None.
Comments:
Shielding
(it may not be enough)
is the
first thought through my mind.
I
was
impressed
however
with
the
measures
employed
thus
far
for
mechanical,
acoustic,
heat
and
E.M.
isolation.
I
worry
about
the
window,
especially
at low frequencies where even double shielding flex
cables
are
not
sufficient and
solid copper
shield
is used
for EMI
or
antenna
pattern
ranges.
I
agree
with
the
conclusions
of
the
report.
Consider Tempest testing of the system.
Recommendation:
Ido.
HERB LEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
Can’t understand
cell entries in Tab
1.
Needs revision or footnotes.
Need to see protocols, and informed consent statement for evaluation of
meeting human use requirements.
1 do -
11 -6-86
FRED ZACHARIASEN
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
It’s not clear if there are
1 1 or only 3 events.
Statistically, 3 events in 20
hours
of experiment
vs.
events
in
hours
of background
is
not
obviously
inexplicable
statistically.
Why
is
the
left hand
gauge more
noisy?
This
ought
to
be
viewed
as
a
preliminary
description
of
the
experiment—with next year conclusive
results.
1 do -
11-7-86
BRIAN SKYRMS
Exceptions:
Physics:
It should be possible to do much better in isolating the strain
gauges from acoustic vibration.
Such isolation
is a standard problem in
many areas and standard techniques should be available.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Comments:
Recommendation:
ROSS ADEY
Exceptions:
Comments:
Recommendation:
SCOTT HUBBARD
Response
to Yarn:
Response to Ley:
Methodological :
These results are so surprising that SRI should see
if an
independent experimenter can replicate them.
None.
I do not.
11-10-86
(1)
There should be an adequate account of subjective states of mind
associated with attempts to influence the strain gauge.
(2)
Since
the
test
epochs
are
long
(10-20
min.),
these
subjective
accounts should be supplemented by appropriate physiological measures
(e.g., eye saccods, EEG, EKGR-R,
intervals,
etc.).
(3)
There should be a detailed account of the number, configuration and
temporal distribution of strain gauge responses,
with data acquisition in
ways
allowing
strict
temporal
correlation
with
physiological
events
outlined under
(2).
(4)
The frequency response of the
strain gauge
in the ELF spectrum
should be described.
(5)
Serial
spectral
analyses should be made
of
strain
gauge
activity
throughout control and test epochs.
(6)
Strain gauge
activity spectra should be examined
for evidence
of
entrainment by weak, coherent ELF stimuli,
in accordance with models
developed for such systems by Nicolis (1969,
1972,
1983,
etc.).
(None.)
11-10-86
We agree completely with Dr. Yaru that the window is the weakest link in
the EMI shielding.
This aspect of the system
is discussed in Section
II,
2. a, of the report, where we point out the
initial psychological necessity
for the subject to be in visual contact with the sensor. We also agree that
there is a need for standardized testing of the unit (e.g., TEMPEST).
In
the Conclusions Section of the revised report, we now clearly state that
future work will include appropriate EMI characterization and trials with
an intact
(i.e. windowless)
enclosure.
Table
1 has been suitably revised to make the number of effort periods in
each condition as clear as possible.
The request for informed consent
documents,
etc., was satisfied in a separate meeting of the Human Use
Review Board.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Response to Zachariasen:
In
the absence
of
a more
detailed PZT output
record, we cannot be
certain that signals above threshold, which are closely spaced in time, are
separate events.
Therefore,
Dr. Zachariasen
is correct
in stating that a
more conservative estimate of the number of events
is
3 rather than
11.
Although we have modified the report to reflect this point, we must point
out that the a priori
definition
of an event of
interest was any
signal
crossing the predetermined threshold.
If we hypothesize that the events
have
a
pulse-like
Poisson
distribution,
then
we
can
compute
the
probability of observing 0 counts in thirty hours, assuming an average of 3
events
in twenty hours.
That value
is p <
0.01.
If one assumes an
average
of
events,
the
probability
is
6.8
x
10-3
.
While
not
inexplicable
statistically,
the
observed
outcome
is
unlikely
given
the
stated assumptions.
In
Section
IV,
B.,
of
the
modified
report,
we
discuss
(in somewhat
greater detail) problems of contact noise, which probably causes the slight
difference
in the two sensors.
We
agree
completely
that
this
year’s
effort
should
be
regarded
as
preliminary, a view unequivocally stated in the Abstract.
Certainly in any
future work we
will
address
all
the
issues
raised by
Dr.
Zachariasen
(better time resolution, lower contact noise, longer control periods, etc.)
Response to Skyrms:
Dr. Skyrms appears to proceed from a misunderstanding as to the nature
of
the
experiment.
Several
times
in
the
report,
we
addressed
the
engineering compromises that were necessary to meet the psychological
requirements
of the
participants
(i.e.,
visual
contact with
the
sensor).
..
We
also
pointed
out
the
methodological
steps
taken
to
assure
the
credibility of the
final data
(e.g.,
enclosure
isolation and session audio
recording).
To avoid such misunderstanding by other readers, we have
rewritten
the
acoustic
artifact
discussion
(to emphasize
the
degree
of
isolation actually achieved.
In
his methodological comments,
Dr.
Skyrms has perhaps
missed the
point.
From the very beginning, the SRI/JFK University experiment was
conceived as possessing a
“built-in”
replication feature:
No participant
was allowed to begin trials at SRI unless he had
first produced greater or
equivalent effects at JFK.
Again,
to prevent future misunderstandings,
we have rewritten the Introduction to make this feature even more clear.
Response to Adey:
Comments
1,
2,
3, and 6 appear appropriate only after the existence of
RA in PZT strain gauges has been
firmly established.
Comment
4, the
low-frequency response of the strain gauge, was addressed in Appendix
B of the report.
In
it we
stated that the sensor has a
flat capacitative
response
from
10 Hz
to
kHz.
Above
or below these
points,
the
electronics sharply cut off the response.
As stated earlier, we plan more
detailed spectral analysis
in future work (Comment 5).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
SINGLE a-PARTICLE HARDWARE
Objective F, Task
We have designed and constructed hardware that
will be used to test
for the existence of
remote action (RA) by examining the geometrical distribution of a beam of a-particles as a
function of the attention of selected participants.
The hypothesis under examination
is that an
RA interaction
will cause an a-particle to be deflected into a position where
it would never
appear under “normal” circumstances.
In the proposed experiment,
a low-intensity (» 100
counts/second) collimated beam of a-particles
will be allowed to
drift,
in a vacuum,
approximately
1 cm from the radioactive source to a position sensitive radiation detector.
The
detector will be capable of registering the
arrival of single particles.
During the experiment,
individuals
will be asked to produce a deflection of the beam by “mental” means alone.
Figure B-l displays the conceptual approach to the experiment.
Position Sensitive Detector:
48 Active Regions Divided
into
Strips 80 pm in
width.
Detector Groove
(inactive
region) 20 pm In Width
Normal Beam Spot
a-Particle Influenced
by RA
a-Particle, Normal Trajectory
Cm 244 Radioactive Source
FIGURE B-l
CONCEPTUAL CONFIGURATION OF ANO! -PARTICLE EXPERIMENT
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4