Approved For Release 2O^i|S|@.A9L5fP]0QO789ROO22OO38OOO1-6
Response to P. Zinibardo’s Comments;
NAME:
Nevin Lantz, SRI Response
Comments:
.
The
final version of the screening report was changed to reflect the questions
reflected in the reviewers’ comments.
Two methodological problems raised by
Zimbardo
will be discussed in detail.
y
The
first deals with his suggestion of using multiple judges in analyzing an RV
response.
Since the intent of the screening investigation was to locate excellent
remote
viewers,
the
kinds
of
controls
that
would
be
necessary
in
a
proof of-prmciple experiment are not necessary. We agree with Zimbardo that
multiple judges would be a significant improvement to our research protocols and
we intend to add that feature in the future.
The
second
problem—having
an
informed,
involved,
monitor
present-
highlights
a
“political”
difficulty more
than
a
scientific
one.
The
analysis (rank order judging assumes that the viewer and the monitor know the
lt?n
et
f
P
,°u
0 m d6ta
;
C
i'
e;’ 3 °ne_in_n forced choice )- ^ fact, the analysis holds
if the viewer had the set of 5 targets in the pool in front of him/her during
the session.
Since our viewers participate in multiple sessions
(e.g., 40 in our
tachistoscope experiment), and
since we provide
trial-by-trial feedback,
it
is
impossible to prevent the viewer from knowing something about the target pool
(It was this consideration that inspired the on-in-n analysis procedure in the first
place
.
)
We recognize the need of providing exceptional proof for exceptional claims,
and will continue to improve the protocols.
A-
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 20M|^iAS$<W6E)0789R002200380001-6
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective D, Task 1
(Neurophysiological Correlates To Remote Viewing)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Comments:
.
.
Recommendation:
Yes
Herb Ley
This is a fascinating new technology for the study of neuronal activity.
The two
pronged
research
design
is
well
presented
and
appropriate
for
the MEG
technology.
The statistical analysis
is complicated by the lack of independence
of data and the lack of stationarity.
The Monte Carlo approach proposed looks
i
e a good start for analysis.
Perhaps other approaches may turn up given more
experience with the study.
K 6
! ^
^miliar with some of Dr. Robert Ornstein’s work and publications, and
o
im m
lg
regard.
For some time
I have been interested
in the use of
auditory stimuli,
in addition to visual stimuli,
for modification of CNS rhythms.
ou mig
t want to discuss with Ornstein and consider the use of auditory stimuli
in
this protocol.
In
particular,
I am interested
in low frequency
(ca.
4 Hz)
stimuli
as
used
in
a number
of
cultures
in
native
“fold medicine”
-
e .e.
Malaysian drumming, native American drumming, and Tibetan Buddhist chants’
This sort of auditory stimulus
is far removed from RV, so
it may be outside your
research boundaries.
Nevertheless
it
is just as much a “stimulus”
as
light, and
appears to have significant effects on mental functioning in certain cultures.
November
1,
1988
NAME:
Robert Morris
Comments:
1.
The general research area
is a good one and should be explored further
I am
not
sure
I
agree
with
the
two
assumptions
about
the
similarities
in
neurophysiology.
This
is
an
hypothesis
for
the
timebeing,
which
gives
a
reasonable starting place.
The Vassy protocol appears to have problems in
its
analysis,
as has been acknowledged.
The use protocol seems more promising
and should be pursued,
perhaps
with both
0.002 and
0.009,
to
see
if thev
continue to show their response
differences in opposite directions.
I think
it
should also be possible to do a comparison of rate of change differences with a
real
stimulus
versus
the pseudo
stimulus,
and
that
in
future
designs
such
a
comparison
should be
emphasized much more
directly
in
the
experimental
design, with experimental and control trials interspersed, perhaps in a
series of
couplets with E
first half the time and C
first the other half.
Recommendation:
Yes
November
4,
1988
A-10
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6