Approved For Release 2000/0*/^ glA-RDP96-00789R002200380001 -6
C.
(U)
Progress to Date for Each Objective/Task
(U) The
progress to
date
for each
Objective and Task
in the
Statement
of Work
is
described below.
1.
(U)
Objective A, Task
1—Statistical Protocols and Research Design
(U)
In June, we sent four separate protocols to the
Scientific Oversight Committee
(SOC)
for review.
They were:
(1)
An RV experiment to be conducted at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(2) A hypnosis experiment to be conducted at SRI.
(3)
A mass screening procedure.
(4) A neurophysiological investigation using magnetoelectroencepholography
techniques.
Because we did not receive any comments back from the SOC on these protocols, we proceeded
with the various experiments as stated.
2.
(U)
Objective A, Task 2—Access to Ongoing Experiments
(U)
During the year, three members of the SOC,
Dr. M.
Wartell, Dr.
B. Skyrms,
and Dr. R. Morris, paid
site
visits.
3.
(U)
Objective A, Task 3—Critical Review.
(U)
In
order
to
review
the
year’s
work,
SRI
International
hosted
a
two-day
conference for the SOC on November 3 and 4,
1988.
Their comments and SRI’s responses can
be found in the Appendix.
4.
(U)
Objective B, Task
1—Identify New and “Excellent” Remote Viewers
(U)
During FY 1988, SRI screened a total of 196 individuals from SRI, the federal
government, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Society for Scientific Exploration for remote
viewing
ability.
The video disk technology and protocol that were developed during FY 1987
were used in this effort.
(S/NF)
Of the 196 individuals who participated in the first-level screening,
16 were
selected for a second-stage screening that involved 8
trials under SRI’s normal remote viewing
protocol.
Of these, 2 produced excellent results and have subsequently been invited to join the
research effort as part-time viewers.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6
Approved For Release 2000/0g|B£|Jlg-
,|*DP96-00789R002200380001-6
5.
(U)
Objective C, Task
1— Obtain Successful Replications Of RV
(U)
This task was abandoned by agreement with the sponsor in order to focus more
attention on Objective D, Task
1.
6.
(U)
Objective D, Task
1—Determine Physiological Indicators Of RV
(U) A contract was
let to Los Alamos National Laboratory
in order to determine
whether there are neurophysiological indicators of remote viewing. Two protocols were designed
that represented replications of earlier work.
One was a remote-conditioning design where a
viewer received
a
direct stimulus
(light)
after
a remote
light had
flashed.
The second was a
replication of earlier SRI work
in which
it was found that one individual exhibited significant
alpha blocking as the result of a remote stimulus
(light).
(S/NF)
Six individuals participated in experiments conducted at Los Alamos.
Some
of them exhibited a response to a remote stimulus approximately 100 ms after the onset of the
stimulus.
Given the shielding environment,
it remains possible that the central nervous systems
of these individuals are sensitive to high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.
High-frequency
radiation should be shielded in any further investigations,
(S/NF)
All of the three individuals who participated in the SRI replication attempt
demonstrated significant changes in alpha power across the remote stimulus boundary,
7.
(U)
Objective E, Tasks 1 and 2—Determine The Effects Of Robust Feedback On
RV Quality
(U) We
have
used
the
data
from
the
second-level
screening
screening
task
(Objective B, Task
1) to examine the role of robust feedback on RV performance.
(S/NF)
The data from 85 second-level screening remote viewings were used in the
analysis.
One of the target categories,
Natural, showed
a
significant tendency over the other
categories
(Military,
Science/Industrial, and
Projects) to produce better remote viewing.
One
single target in the Projects category (Deep Quest—an underwater scene and submersible)
also
showed a significant tendency to be
“visible.”
(S/NF) We have examined the possibility that such results could arise because of a
judging preference for more interesting targets.
In one case, there was bias against one of the
less interesting targets, but judging biases are unable to account for the target preferences.
As
was found in other laboratories,
it appears that moving targets with complete (video and audio)
feedback provide the best RV targets,
static images with no audio feedback the worst.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200380001-6