PROCEEDINGS OF TH>' IEEE, OCTOBER 1976
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-OO787ROOQ20OO8OOO7-7
-no.rald crvstal
.
.
.
it
is flecked and connected to a coarse
(without time, date, or author identification) and the geological speci-
mens.
Their instructions were to assign one or more specimens to each
description. We consider the method of judging to be a critical factor.
While Puthoff and Targ used
a ranking system, we used a percentage
scoring system.
Each specimen assigned to a given description was al-
lotted a percentage score which reflected the judge’s certainty of the
“match”
The total of 100 percent could be divided among any or
none of the specimens. We then totaled all five judges assignments for
each description to find which specimens scored the highest for each
description. The results are shown in the accompanying table.
The
corrrect
target sample was assigned the highest score (that
is,
“correctly” identified) in 8 out of 33 cases on the basis of the remote
viewing description.
This frequency is more than double a pure chance
expectation of 3.3 and would occur less than once in 100 trials by
chance.
For a more detailed analysis, which accounted for the distribu-
tion of percentages among several targets for each description, the per-
centage
scores were computer processed with the Statistical Package
for the
social sciences. A one-tailed T-test was used to determine the
probability that the assigned percentage scores for correct and incor-
rect targets were due to chance.
For all 3 3 transcripts, the probability
of
achieving
the
observed
distribution of the percentage
scores by
chance was 0.08.
For transcripts provided by participants
I. S. from
New York and R. B. from Orlando, Florida (9 and
1 1 transcripts, re-
spectively), the T-test indicated a 0.04 probability score.
Following are some descriptions of the target specimens taken from
the remote viewing transcripts:
Target F was halite, which is NaCl (salt).
It consisted of two, al-
most
transparent,
intergrown
crystals.
Transcript #18
said,
“crystal,
crystal
ball,
glass,
crystal,
clear
crystal
.
.
. formed by
dripping and evaporation
.
.
. acquired by mining but found quite
near surface
.
.
. Northern Nevada.”
(Actual origin was Southern
Nevada.)
Transcript #17 referred to supersaturated
salt solu-
tions, and Transcript #3 said, “white thing like a coral
.
. .will
crumble if treated hard
.
.
. more than one part ... it grew.
Target D contained blue-green and milky-white opal clusters in
a brown
pyramidal
silica
rock.
Transcript #25
said,
in
part,
“Why do
I keep
getting GREENS?
I see a medium size green
wedge
.
.
. flecked with brown rock color ...
I don’t see a pure
green emerald crystal ...
it
is decked and connected to a coa^e
rock edging ... It looks to me like
it was poured
a heavy liquid
green plastic (the green becoming blue-green at the edges oft
sample), and
if
it
is fractured
it would be in one clean smooth
break of glassine purity.”
About
two-thirds of the transcripts contained descriptive elements
that corresponded with the correct target specimen, but often these
were mixed with noncorresponding elements, and
it was not possible
to reduce the information to a coherent single identification. The char-
acteristics most often identified correctly were the color of the sample,
the shape, relative weight, presence of crystals, type of material (c.g.,
metallic), and geological formation process (e.g., volcanic).
Attempts
to specify location were usually in error as were descriptions of the size
of the samples and their exact substance. We do not know if these pat-
terns are due to the participants or to the nature of the information
transfer process.
We suggest that further studies should select targets
that are easily discriminated
(i.e., widely different) along these
most
perceived” characteristics.
.
We were encouraged by these
results.
Accurate and
significant
re-
mote perception occurred under
test conditions that placed the most
successful participants 2500 M away from the targets.
Also of interest
is the result that the double blind conditions provided equally correct
descriptions, suggesting that the ability under study also functions on
information not known to others.
The computer conference system
allowed control of the test conditions, with complete recordmg ot
all
messages among participants.
.
,
The fact that several of the specimens were composite and contained
mixed materials made this an especially complex (though realistic) test
situation, perhaps more demanding than the conditions that prevailed
in the SRI studies, at least for non-geologists.
Our results tend to vali-
date Puthoff and Targ’s experiments and indicate that remote viewmg
techniques are deserving of further attention.
The conference and experiments were made possible by Mr. A. Katz
of Deer Communications,
Inc., San Francisco.
We
also express our
gratitude to Messrs. Hudson and Wilson for their assistance in carrying
out and analyzing the experiments.
Our special thanks go to the five
judges:
Ms.
Amara,
Ms.
Chula,
Dr.
Johansen,
Dr.
Lipmski,
and
Ms. Spangler.
Book Reviews
The following reviews were selected from those recently published in
various IEEE Transactions and Group/ Society Newsletters.
They are
reprinted here to make them conveniently available to the many readers
who otherwise might not have ready access to them.
Each review is fol-
lowed by an identification of its original source.
Design of Systems and Circuits for Maximum Reliability or Maximum
Production
Yield-P. W.
Becker and
F. Jensen (Lyngby, Denmark:
Polyteknisk Forlag, 1974, 347
pp., $16.00).
Reviewed by Harold K.
Knudsen, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
The
main
thrust
of
this exceptional book
is the development
of
methods of computer-aided design which results in circuits and systems
of maximum drift reliability or maximum production yield. The book
has an
excellent
exposition.
The
authors
express
themselves
with
candor and give a full and nonpedantic development of their material.
The material is presented at a level which assumes a modest knowledge
of probability theory
(e.g., conditional probability, continuous density
functions, functions of random variables,
etc.).
This book would be
suitable for a graduate level course, or for self-study in computer-aided
design and reliability
.
The main body of the text develops fundamental reliability concepts,
the
formulation
of
suitable mathematical models, and
optimization
methods.
This material is applied in the design of example circuits of
reasonable complexity
.
The reliability concepts which are defined and/or developed include,
the definition of the reliability function, properties of the
reliability
function, combinational reliability, and system reliability as a function
of time; chapters on design and philosophy, the rule of preliminary
design
in model formulation, feasible solutions, the development of a
mathematical model of yield or of drift reliability, and methods for
computing the probability of system or
circuit
success.
The chapter
on
optimization
reviews
methods
for
searching
for
unconstrained
maxima and for formulating performance indices which lead to feasible
solutions.
Finally,
circuit examples
consisting of one-transistor and
three-transistor amplifiers are used to illustrate the methods which were
developed.
The appendices
provide valuable extensions to the text
materials. There is also an extensive bibliography.
This preliminary edition, although excellent
in exposition and con-
tent, does have some areas in which
it could be improved. There is no
concluding chapter as a summary of the methods developed and esti-
mates for the costs of applying these methods to more complex sys-
tems.
A few exercises are scattered throughout the book;but these arc
insufficient
for
self-instruction, or for a class, unless supplemented by
the
instructor.
Finally, the
equations
occasionally contain symbols
which are not adequately defined in the text (e.g., Pq on p. 46).
The above shortcomings in the preliminary edition detract very httle
from the overall book which is an excellent tutorial presentation of the
techniques of
reliability
optimization
in the design phase of circuits
and systems.
Reprinted from the IEEE Circuits and Systems Society Newsletter,
FebruaryT976.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
PROCEEDINGS LETTERS
CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
I2S9
dissertation, ETS. Ing Telecomunicacion, Madrid, 1973.
1 3]
S. Yoshizawa, “Some properties of randomly connected networks
of neuron-like elements with refractory period,” Kybemetik,
col.
16, pp. 173-182, 1974.
S. Amari, “A method of statistical neurodynamics,” Kybemetik,
vol. 14, pp. 201-215, 1974.
Comments on “A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical
Perspective and Recent Research”
LEON D. HARMON
There are many ways in which to comment upon the above paper. 1
I
imagine that Proceedings readers will provide a fine variety of feed-
back. My own reaction, however, is very simple.
If one takes the trouble to categorize roughly the contents of this
ramble, the sequence looks like this:
Topic
1) Introduction
2) Informal anecdotal assertions
3)
Historical background
4) Main study: Introduction, procedures,
controls
5)
Results, gratuitous editorial comments,
anecdotal procedure citation
6)
Informal presentations and discussions
of further experiments
7) Analysis
8) Raw data transcript
9) Bibliography
Number of
Pages
if
The central issue in a deeply
controversial and highly suspect topic
such as telepathy, clairvoyance, time reversal, etc.,
is whether one
is
prepared to accept as true what is offered in evidence.
Notice that in
the rough categorization of the
article’s contents, above, only three-
quarters of one page (p. 335) in a 26 page paper is concerned with the
critical
issue of rigorous experimental
protocols and
controls.
And
much of that slim section is cursory and anecdotal.
We can keep our eyes on the ball by examining solely the relevant
three paragraphs on page 335 of the Puthoff and Targ paper (par. 3,
4, S).
All the rest—background, anecdotes, drawings, discussion, and
other (less formal) experiments, delightful as they may be—can be set
aside while we peer closely at what must ultimately supply reasonable
satisfaction regarding credibility.
The
signal-to-noise
ratio
of
this
article
improves markedly when
26 pages of meander are replaced by three paragraphs of explicit rela-
tively formal description of experimental procedure.
We are told the following.
1) The experiment was double blind.
2) The “transmission” experimenters were given “target” locations
and proceeded to the target while the “reception” experimenter
was kept ignorant of the target.
3) Experimenters were with the “transmitting” subject at all times
during the “transmission.”
4) An experimenter was with
the “receiving” subject at all times
during data taking.
The entire business now hinges on the reader’s accepting on faith that
no information was transmitted conventionally at any time from, say,
the transmission experimenters to the receiving experimenter or to the
subject.
But no
controls
are
cited; no safeguards are described; no
neutral watchdogs are mentioned.
'^S-fanuscript received March 15, 1976.
The author
is with the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case
Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106.
1 H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. IEEE, vol. 64, pp. 329-354, Mar.
1976.
Further,
this was not
a
true double-blind experiment
as claimed,
since at
least one of the researchers had a priori knowledge of the pre-
sumed occult data. We are asked to believe that no conceivable com-
munication
channel
existed
between
“transmitter” and
“receiver”
other than by some exotic attenuationless seemingly magical informa-
tion propagation.
feet certain that your readers can conceive of many possible alter-
native conventional channels. Both electronics engineers and magicians,
for example, will be at no loss to suggest many.
It
is
comforting
to know
that
the Editor and Reviewers of the
Proceedings recommended
publication
of
this
preposterous
ma-
terial.
At
least
they are open-minded -which
is a good thing.
But
then, too much open-mindedness is a hole in the head.
Reply
2 by Harold E. Puthoffand Russell Targ3
We would like to comment on the points raised in Harmon’s letter in
response to our article.
In his introductory remarks, Harmon makes a reference to “less for-
mal” experiments.
It is important to state at the outset that there were
no such experiments.
In every experimental series, from the Costa Rica
pilot study to the verification study with visiting government scientists,
and resolution study with technology
targets, a rigid formal protocol
was followed.
This required that the experimenter with the subject
always be kept ignorant of the chosen
target and that the analysis
(judging) of the experiment be done in a blind fashion by an individual
who did not know which response was associated with which target.
Harmon suggests that the reader, of our paper must accept on faith
that there was no conventional communication channel from the target
site to the subject, since “no controls are cited, no safeguards are de-
scribed, no neutral watchdogs are mentioned.”
In fact, if Harmon will
examine p. 335, he will find that the entire experiment had multiple
controls, safeguards, and watchdogs every step along the way.
With regard
to control over target selection at the beginning of the
experiment:
Before
the experimental
series began, the Director of the In-
formation
Science
and
Engineering
Division,
not
otherwise
associated with the experiment, established the set of locations
as the
target
pool which remained known only
to him.
The
target locations were printed on cards sealed
in envelopes and
kept in the SRI Division office safe.
They were available only
with the personal assistance of the Division Director who issued
a
single random-number
selected
target card
that
constituted
the traveling orders for that experiment .... The experimenter
remaining with the subject at SRI was kept ignorant of both the
particular
target
and
the
target
pooi
so
as to
eliminate
the
possibility of cueing, overt or subliminal ....
When
it came to the departure of the target- team, an experimenter
plus one
to
three “watchdogs” assigned by SRI management were
handed the travel orders, left SRI, got into an automobile, opened the
orders, and then proceeded
to
the
site
indicated.
As stated in the
paper, “The target demarcation team, consisting of two to four SRI
experimenters, then proceeded by automobile directly to the target
without any communication with the subject or experimenter remain-
ing behind.” We find it remarkable for Harmon to read that the target
demarcation team
consisted of two
to four experimenters, and yet
argue that perhaps they were not vigilant with regard to the possibility
that one of their members might try to communicate back to the sub-
ject.
In addition, numerous of these experiments were observed by
visiting government
scientists, outside consultants, SRI management,
etc.
The roles of the two main experimenters were often reversed as to
who remained with the subject and who accompanied the outbound
team.
The composition of the outbound team was changed, and many
times did not include either of the main experimenters.
In short, as
stated on p. 335:
At
all times, we and others responsible for the overall program
took measures to prevent sensory leakage and subliminal cueing
and to prevent deception, whether intentional or unintentional.
To ensure evaluations independent of belief structures of both
experimenters and judges, all experiments were carried out under
a protocol ... in which target selection at the beginning of ex-
2 Manuscript received April 9, 1976.
3 H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ are with The Electronics and Bioengineer-
ing Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
i 26o~
Approved For Releasp^OI/03/26
periments and blind judging of results at the end of experiments
were handled independently of the researchers engaged in carry-
ing out the experiments.
Harmon goes on to comment that “this was not a true double-blind
experiment as claimed, since at least one of the researchers had a priori
knowledge of the presumed occult data.”
This is in error.
Neither the
experimenter with the subject nor the judge who evaluated the data,
the two individuals in principle capable of affecting the outcome, had
any knowledge of the true correspondences, and thus the experiment
was double blind.
The fact that experimenters sent to the target site
knew where they were is irrelevant, since they did not have any oppor-
tunity to interact with subjects or judges.
With regard to the mechanisms involved in remote viewing, Harmon
states, “We are asked to believe that no conceivable communication
channel existed between ‘transmitter’ and Teceiver’ other than by some
exotic
attenuationless
seemingly
magical
information
propagation.”
We wish to indicate to Harmon that the two mechanisms discussed by
the authors, extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic propaga-
tion and quantum correlation, though they may seem exotic and mag-
ical to
him, axe well understood phenomena
in the engineering and
scientific community, both theoretically and experimentally.
Finally, as we indicated in some detail on pp. 340-343, the watchdog
aspect was carried to the extreme, by having visiting government scien-
tists who were interested in observing our experimental protocols be
subjects themselves in an effort to detect whether chicanery was in-
volved.
In the process of trying to account for their own good results
on the basis of other than paranormal functioning, they expressed con-
cern that perhaps the experimenter might be cueing them subliminally.
This was countered by eliminating the inbound experimenter and hav-
ing the visitor remain alone in the lab throughout the duration of the
experiment.
They then conjectured that perhaps after the experiment
they were being taken to a place that sounded like their description,
even though that may not have been the place where the outbound
experimenters had gone.
This was countered by having the outbound
experimenters make a tape while at the site and turning
it over to the
subject-critic at the same time that he turned over
his own tape de-
scribing
the remote scene.
In such fashion every criticism was met.
Thus, although Harmon suggests that “both electronics engineers and
magicians” will be at no loss to suggest many possible alternative con-
ventional
channels, we
find
that, to the
contrary, both electronics
engineers
and
professional
magicians, who
have
consulted on
this
project have in fact not found any viable alternative to fault the SRI
experiments.
We therefore
consider
it important
to continue data
collection and to encourage others to do likewise.
Further Comments4 by Leon D. Harmon
I was delighted to see the nature of Puthoff and Targ’s response to
my letter. The only rebuttal needed is to invite the reader to examine
the article and both letters with care and then to judge whether or not
my criticisms were responded to.
A similar example of nonresponsive obfuscation by these gentlemen
can be found on pages 6 and 8 of Scientific American for February
1976.
I tried on two separate occasions to get permission from them to visit
and see for myself, preferably with a neutral but hard-nosed observa-
tion team of my choice.
The requests were met with point-blank re-
fual. Tch!
Further Reply 5 by Harold E. Puthoffand Russell Targ
We agree with Harmon that it is very desirable that interested readers
examine with care the article and letters to which he refers, and come
to their own conclusions with regard to the points he raises.
We understand Harmon’s desire to visit SRI to “see for himself” ex-
periments in progress. As we are sure Harmon can appreciate, he is one
of more than fifty who have made similar requests in the past year. We
have
therefore out of necessity limited such observation to contract
monitors and their consultants, potential sponsors, and researchers in-
volved in serious attempts at replication of our work.
“Manuscript received April IS, 1976.
“Manuscript received April 21, 1976.
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
:
CIA-RDP96-^§^^0flftTO7^UST 1976
If Harmon is genuinely interested in determining whether the experi-
ment works as reported, we would suggest that he try the experiment
himself under his own conditions as many others have done. Such inde-
pendent observations are much to be preferred,
if for no other reason
than on the issue that an experiment that is not replicable from lab to
lab would be more of an art than a science.
However, as we have in-
dicated in our response to Harmon’s first letter, it is the robustness and
independence of environment or subject that characterizes this particu-
lar experiment.
Therefore, although a demonstration at SRI would be
satisfying to Mr. Harmon and to those who know and trust him, we
think
it would be a mistake for the field.
That kind of experiment is
basically to provide testimony, but science goes forward on the basis of
independent experimentation and replication, not testimony.
Adaptive Moiiopulse Beamforming
LLOYD
J. GRIFFITHS
Abstract-A new receive-array adaptive beamformer configuration is
presented.
The array output signal consists of the difference between a
conventionally weighted beam and an adaptive beam that is constrained
to have a spatial null in the direction of interest Adaptation then pro-
vides minimum total array output power.
Adaptive
receiving
arrays
have been
extensively
discussed
in the
literature [1 ]— [4] and have been shown to provide significant interfer-
ence rejection properties.
In most of these systems, the arrival direc-
tion and/or temporal properties of the signal of interest are assumed to
be known a priori.
If the specification of these properties is inaccurate,
the actual desired signal may be treated as interference by the adaptive
beamformer and thus may be rejected to some degree by the processor.
For this reason, practical adaptive beamformers are generally operated
in
parallel with a conventionally formed array output which has fixed
prespecified mainlobe and
sidelobe
characteristics.
Comparisons be-
tween the adapted and conventional outputs can then be conducted to
ensure that the desired
signal-to-noise and interference ratio
is indeed
being enhanced by the adaptive beamformer.
The array processor suggested in this letter incorporates a conven-
tionally weighted beam as an integral part of the total .beamforming
structure, as depicted in Fig.
1.
In this figure, Z is used to denote the
-dimensional vector of received array-element signals and G is a fixed
prefilter, which ensures that the system
is steered in the direction of
interest.
Thus G is either a set of bulk time delays (for broad-band sys-
tems) or a network of phase
shifters (for narrow-band arrays), which
ensures that the desired signal portion of the /^dimensional vector X is
in phase at all components.
Equivalently, for a digital beamformer,
X(k) = s(/fc)l+/V(k)
(1)
where s(k)
is the kth sample of the desired signal, 1 is a constant vector
of ones, and N(k) is the sampled vector of noise and interference terms.
The adapted beam output signal yA (k)
is formed using a system of
tapped delay
lines, one for each received component, as discussed in
[1 J—[3]
.
For a system with L taps per delay line, yA (k) may be ex-
pressed as
JU(*>= £ XT(k-l)WAl{k)
(2)
1=0
where T denotes transpose and WA )(k) is the fth Column of delay-line
coefficients employed at the fcth sampling instant. A conventional out-
put yc(k) is formed using a vector of fixed coefficients Wc, which are
applied to the input data after a suitable delay, corresponding to the
midpoint of the delay lines in the adaptive processor. Thus
ycik) = XT{k ~n)Wc
(3)
where « = (/.- l)/2 when L
is odd and n = L/2 or (L/2) - 1 when L is
even.
Manuscript received January 19, 1976.
.
The author
is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Univer-
sity of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80302.
CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7
Approved For Releas|J001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-OO787R06O2OOO8OOO7-;
A PERCEPTUAL CHANNEL FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER OVER KILOMETER DISTANCES:
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND RECENT RESEARCH
H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ
CooviiEht © 1976 by The Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc,
Printed in U.S.A. Annals No.
603PR004
Approved For Release 2001/03/26
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200080007-7