Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: Cl
03200200001-4
J.S.
#20
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CRV
(Coordinate Remote Viewing)
Tape Cassette
#120
Comments
:
1.
Continuation of scans
carried out on 6 /8 /81
,
6 /9 /81
,
7/30/81.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to
target
location and
activity of interest.
3.
Pre- and post-session calibration experiments with Nat'l.
Geographic
materials
yielded good results,
indicating with goo~nrohg M if*
,
remote viewer was
"on-line" during
y that
Viewings
Pre-session calibrations:
Antwerp,
Belgium;
Bora
Bora
Island
Post-session calibration:
Erciyas
Dagi
(Mountain),
Turkey.
SRI international
Approved F^Refease 2o!f5WM
• ™x
: 910 - 3 ^
For Release 200dMH^H^P96-00789R003200200001-4
Date
4 August
1981,
0825 hrs
(Session
5)
Series
—
Session No.
Target No.
J.S.
#20
Ji^BI
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CRV
(Coordinate Remote Viewing)
Tape Cassette
#121
Approved
Comments
:
1.
Continuation of scans carried out on 6/8/81,
6/9/81,
7/30/81,
8/3/81.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to target
location and activity
of interest.
3.
Pre-session calibration experiments with Nat
' 1 . Geographi
materials
yielded good results;
post-session calibration experiments yielded
correct descriptions
but
weak interpretations,
indicating viewer went
somewhat
"off-line" during overall
sequence.*
Pre-session calibrations:
Agung volcano;
Florence,
Italy
Post-session calibrations:
Robinson Crusoe
Island;
Dubrovnik,
Yugoslavia.
SRI International
333 Approved^ r R^^9§e^O€0^/O8
(f^l^6
)P>9*6-^y8WftB1Jl3M2boWl
1-1246
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: Cl
003200200001-4
uaze
°
;
—
Series
.
—
Session No.
Target No.
J.S.
#20
Target
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s)
CRV
(Coordinate Remote Viewing)
Tape Cassette
#122
Comments
:
1.
Continuation of scans
carried out on 6/8/81,
6/9/81,
7/30/81,
8/3/81,
8/4/81.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind
as
to target
location and activity
of
interest.
3.
Pre- and post-session calibration experiments with Nat
' 1
,
Geographic
materials
yielded good results, indix^ingwith good probability that
remote viewer was
"on-line"
during
viewings
.
4.
*
4-
Pre-session calibration:
Mt
,
Shasta
Post-session calibration:
Vienna, Austria.
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave.
•
Menlo Park, CA
!
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA;
94025
•
(415)326-6200
•
Cable: SRI INTL MNP
3200200001-4
TWX: 910-
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Date
6 August
1981;
0810 hrs
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S.
#21
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s
)
CRV
(Coordinate Remote Viewing)
Tape Cassette
123
Comments
:
1 .
.
Coordinate supplied
to interviewer
Puthoff at session start
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to target
location and target
activity of interest.
3.
Pre-
,
mid-,
and post-session calibration experiments with
Nat'l.
Geographic target material
(Hong Kong;
Mt.
Hood;
and KotorV Yugoslavia,
respectively)
yielded good results.
4.
Remote viewer describes
complex of buildings, with site having
to
do with high-energy, high-technology activity.
SRI It^na&Dt^k Release 2000/0&08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
333 Ravenswood Ave.
•
Menlo Park. CA 94025
•
(415)326-6200
•
Cable: SRI INTL MNP
•
TWX: 910-3r3-l246
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
:
003200200001-4
Date
Se Pteraber
1981;
Series
Session No.
0858 hrs
Target
No.
Target
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
__
Beacon (s)
Tape Cassette
#009
H.
Puthoff
"Target"
124
Comments
:
.
2 .
Session monitored
Remote viewer,
interviewer and monitor blind as
to
target
location
and target activity of interest.
3.
4.
Site accessed by abstract "Target," taken
to correspond with
a site
chosen
Pre-session calibration with Nat'l. Geographic target
site
(Dubrovnik
Yugoslavia)
good,
indicating good conditions going into
session.
fc>V
C.OTR.
nd known only to him at time
of session.
5.
Remote viewer described airfield location and associated buildings,
including some interiors.
SRI International
Approved3feHbRe4eas^^QO/O«!/08ar^A9ragg^^J^326tf^§8d^4 MNP
‘
TWX;9102
Appendix C
AN EXAMPLE OF A REMOTE VIEWING RESPONSE
Approved For Release 2000/1
P96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Appendix C
Date
9 April
1981;
0853
-
0919 hrs
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S.
#17
Target
IS
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff
Beacon (s
)
CRV
(Coordinate
Remote Viewing)
Tape Cassette
115
Comments
:
1.
Coordinate supplied
to interviewer
Coordinate
was
#16
but
latitude number was
18" off,
being given as
02”
instead of 20",
somewhat
less than 600 yards off.
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to target
location and target
activity of interest.
3.
Pre- and post-session calibration experiments with
Nat'l.
Geographic
target material
(Mount Kilimanjaro and Canyonlands Nat'l.
Park,
Utah,
respectively)
yielded good results,
indicating with high probability
that remote viewer was "on-line" throughout ^^m^^^^yiewing
,
4.
SRI International
AE>P^Vi^lclbe>r(Ji.elea&ei(230Q/08^9®^ (5IAJ
^O7$9W»0§20(!)£0O5O1 -T^x
91 °‘ 3
"3 ' 1 246
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Remote Viewer:
002
9 April
1981
Monitor:
Hal Puthoff
m
H:
Today
is April 9,
1981,
Remote Viewer
002 and Hal
Puthoff monitoj®ni
*AOL
Approved For Release 20
96-00789R003200200001 -4
Me
-L V/<L-
SefoM-^
i '-y(f4<- £<=/
Analytical Overlay;
images
thought
to be erroneous,
being triggered imagination
Possibly relevant,
but
not taken
to be primary data.
Approved For Release 2000/08/Og^i^RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
V:
H:
V:
This
is
a terrible place for some reason.
I am having words
like !>«
biological,
research, human use, human guinea
pigs rather, prison
fa<
m
Chemicals and gas, a biological warfare place.
Hiis
is
like a
decompression chamber.
Maybe those are contamination chambers.
Oh dear, what did we find.
Who gave
this
coordinate?
I
came across
-
it seems
to be five rather complex chambers
in a very large hangar
"1
like building.
They remind me of the decompression chamber that we^
saw down at
that marine research base on Catalina.
A decompression-
place where people went
if
they came up from diving too fast.
A
^
complex
chamber made of reinforced steel and concrete and things and
it
has
tanks.
They have tanks
of various
kinds
leading into them.
(
s\
Uda/i janf 5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
13200200001-4
Approved For Release 200p^^^^^J^6-00789R003200200001-4
V:
There is the smell of disinfectant and ultra violet
lights,
purple
light,
lavendar light,
inside
this
large hangar
like building.
The floor seems
wet.
People wear boots, very large rubber boots.
There seem to be inside
stairs going down.
This place is maybe 40 ft high at least.
There are
these chamber units there,
but there are stairs and an elevator going down.
And a ramp and lift forks, so this
is underground too.
It's funny, there
seems
to be windows on the outside,
but there aren't any windows on the
inside.
Fake windows.
I seem to see what
looks
like a guard cubicle
because it has all glass around,
it is
inside the building.
It has,
by
comparison to the other cold lavendar lights,
it has yellow illumination
in it.
There are six men there.
There is a big panel,
it seems
to be a
voltage control panel for some sort of electronics system.
Down the ramp
are very long corridors.
It
looks
like storage.
There are signs everywhere.
I can't read the characters
but the phoenetics
is sort of
There are blinking red lights over some doors here and there.
I think
these are exit markers.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA
3200200001-4
Outside the ground isn't
**
flat,
it
is sort
of
like there are hills or artificially made mounds
that
sort
of divide up this compound in a way.
Buildings
that look*
like barracks.
A whole series of buildings
that
look like prefabricat
boxes,
that are sort of all stacked together.
Water tank on the hi*.
Large tower
I think and in the area there is an airstrip,
it
is
about 2 miles
to the NE
I
think.
I am going to end there.
I
don't
1"
like this place.
At
that
Class
A site
there was
I bet
that that
is
a chimmney.
a tall
thing
that
I couldn't make oul"
I bet
those
are
large furnaces.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
T
T
Appendix D
RV EVALUATION PROTOCOLS
r
r
r
Approved For Release 2000/08/0£: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Appendix D
INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS
(U)
(U)
The information provided as enclosure to this report was obtained in
response to a collection requirement provided by
.
This information was acquired from a new and potentially valuable source^jj^
Work is currently being pursued
to determine the accuracy,
reliability,
and improvement potential of
this source.
Your remarks and
attention to the evaluation sheet will be the basis
for our assessment of this
new collection technique.
Therefore,
the effort you expend will greatly assist
us and will ultimately result
in you receiving more data of increasing accuracy
and reliability.
(U)
While formulating your judgements concerning
the data,
the following
comments concerning this new source of
/n-fct-rvvrtioo may be helpful.
(U)
Foremost,
the data
is likely to consist of a mixture of correct and
incorrect elements.
Specifically:
(1)
The descriptive elements are generally of higher
reliability than
judgements or
labels
as
to what
is
being described
(recreational swimming pool may be
mistaken for water purification pools,
an aircraft
hull may be mistaken for a submarine hull,
etc.).
Therefore,
seemingly appropriate descriptive elements
should not be rejected because of mislabeling.
(2) miThe data often contain gaps
(in a 3-building complex,
for example,
perhaps
only
two of the buildings may be
described,
and an airfield may be added that isn't
there).
Such gaps or additions should not be taken
to mean that
the
rest of
the data
is necessarily inaccurate.
iJlPdtherefore,
a recommended approach
is
to first examine the entire
information packet
to obtain an overall "flavor" of
the response,
reserving
final judgement even in the face of certain errors,
and then go back through
for detailed analysis.
(U)
If you have questions regarding the data you have received or on its
evaluation please
feel
free
to contact me at any
time.
Thank you.
Approved For Release
DP96-00789R003200200001 -4
PSYCHOENERGETICS PROGRAM
fl^m^^y^TARGET FILE
(SRI
Internal
Use Only)
(U)
Project Name
i
Viewer
. Monitor
Date
Time of Start
Client
Priority
Urgent
(U)
Target Key
(
)
Variance from Standard Protocol
(U)
Target
ID No.
(
Information Provided by Requestor
(
)
Information Provided to
the Monitor
(
)
Information Provided to the Source
Time of Finish
Routine
(
)
Information Requested by Analyst
I
Date Information Delivered
to Client
Additional Data Request
by Client
Yes
|
j
Dates Additional Data Requests
Met
(
)
Remarks
No
Approved For Release 2000/08/08jjCIA-^DP96^i
789R003200200001 -4
cs o6 om #€ 8 8 ££ Be Fe *UOTIEMAIOFUF JO@AIOOUF O1IITT ATaapyeyaa puwe squsweTa eTqeyojeu anbyun snon3}zqueun 4IpA aouepuodsaiios poop * °° 7 e 8 T * * * * quaTTaox”g - *UCTIBWIOJUF JO@ATOIUT suos ANG ‘ZuyYyoJeM syUaWaTS TereAes YIFA aouapuodsaaioo poop * * * "°° ee ee ee © poop - *aqts 393189 242 pessaooe Ayqeqoid sey a01n0s | BOFPUyT sj[Nnsat paxtw 03 reUA0J BYR JO YZnous yng ‘squaweTe JOII1OOUT pue Joaaio> jo eanaxFH ° °°" * * yaa 39BIU0D 27TS *kzoqeuetdxe yTeg * °° f°! gouapuodserti09 aT33TT Yt <— © :apeos Adeanooe |W 10F BUTI FUFIE ms oO oe Oe ] QWT2 SFY 3B pauywisz C_} tngeasn 412A _] [ngesn -9p aq JouuRD [_] [eutZz.aen [_] aUON AVFLFIN ‘123090 IE (toa ‘fsuetd ‘satatTiqysuodsar ‘suoyz 08 Mm 0 CJ (_] CJ C4) Soe eee ey worsened) uofyeurozuy AQPTBuCSrAd J 00789R003200200001 -4 Co oO oO CI CIA-RDP96 -31) auazque qediey [ezsued (1030 ‘s90t330 Gi. J . ‘giayndwoo ‘seuuaque). g]UaUaTe apeuUeW eT BOS-TT BUS - (1939 ‘spTaTs24e ‘sauy] peoryyea *sxo0P ‘sotts ‘sdutprt#nq *satato) sqUsusTs spEewueU aleos-a31e7T | ” (*09a ‘13984 fuyerzi93) uot3 . -dyaosap aT Boot leotydez30e9 Oo oa oOo oOo ca Oo oa oOo oOo ca oO a Oo oF oO oO [op Oo Approved For Release 2000/08/08 e @ T 0 i“ atqeottddy usouyuy quelT[acoxg poop  sa[nsey pexth aouapuodsai109 3 ION yay aTIIFT 5 fyoequog 3237S roy <x povanoov (xpumngs aul roa (N) es 3 ed iJ > w ral *[Bylejzew paqaafuqns ayy Jo Aovanooe 3y3 03 SB Saxog BUAOTTOJZ ay Yay 8 (n) LIFHS NOLLYNTVAT AUVANNS
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
U
A)
n
E
•o
<u
e
.3
to
J3
«a
•u
u
o
«w
cx
CL<
c:5oc
c
U-4
^
O
c
0J
W
>%
O
.4
g
«-<
a>u
W
£
X
Sc
w
a
CO
*0
g
»
£
fj
•u00
4J
h
_
W
«
"
S3
JC
co
s
as
»—
<
r
*—
S5
_
O
C?
js
m
S
0)
£
C
£
*
j
H
*
0 — a
<
s
O
A
O
s>
a
L
rj
'o
.
<
Z)
—*
<•
oc
c
c-
C
*
C
w
^
X?
-£
><
O
cs ^
M* H
S
O
Cj
uj
-5
Qy
Uc0
<0
v
-a
«—<
rr
-
o
a>
jco
u
<n
to
a>
co
-J
^
u
cu
CO3
«—
CO
to
a>
J3
X.O
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
R003200200001 -4
Apptoved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
(
)
DETAILED EVALUATION SHEET
(U)
Specific Transcript /Drawing
Items
.
(
)
Evaluation
Reference
2 .
(
)
3 .
(
)
4 .
(
)
5 .
(
)
6 .
(
)
7 .
(
)
.
(
)
.
(
)
10 .
(
)
11 .
(
)
12 .
(
)
*0 to 3
point scale of previous
page.
£
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
HHarewed For
<-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Appendix E
A SAMPLE RETURNED EVALUATION PROTOCOL
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2
DP96-00789R003200200001 -#
O
-
<o
>C
O
c-C
O
B
C A 3
O
tiS
G
O -H
CJ
» *3
«<
0)
a)
u
X
M
<u
'
j;
HI
Q)
o
<D
>
B
•
C ^
•H
4J
U
f
CO
this
o
4J
r-4
cU
M
a)
U
Q>
0) M
MH 'd
:
•O
<0
I
o
-Q
*0
‘
QJ
u
d
i
O
t e
:
:
.
:
O
CO
0)
a)
- C
o » »i
flj
60 r-t
SC
^
3 fC u
•
gm
«( o
H O U
«H
Vt 3
H ^
'
«
? .2
O
i M *3
co n
•-*
|
0)
0>
-M
CO
60 44 A
>*-l
M -H O U
CO O O
-rf
jvfl O
CO 3
3 M
,
•O O
<c:
at
E 3 3
.
g
O. O
co S *h
E o *h
.
o CW
<0
o
I -2
«£
. u
44 O
Cd
3 3*M
cO'Of o
istsgs;
-
r-tr^C
sap
„
S'., «!»?,
IpjIHS
CO
I
,
,1.
O « U
•M C t4
»
44 O
l-l
OtI*I
I
a u
> S
O..T<
I,
O t4
CO
/
-
[CM
‘i C
•
COO
H
CO
Q.
•
CO ^
S’O
oi
•
4-1
H O
t4
*-*
U
rl «
- O
at o
co
i
Ci-c C
•»
O
co O
co
i
<0
>.-! C
lc.fi u O
I
0)
O. O
r-C
Pi^o a
O
4J
0)
. 3
.
x; 6 43
«l
4-1
i-t
*H
•.
co
oo
at
C
d
Jfi
0)
JJ
tC o
0) A y
4J
60 o
<3
tc
cj 6
•° 2 | «
•N
co
o>
co
a*
44 .C
CJ -H
C
44 C £
0> 3
§
E
at
a)
co
H »H 3
0)
41 O
0)
cl U H
O O
C# t4
41 4
tc 43
M
E
Vc
>» > §
I
o
•-<
a> C
i
O 43
e
co
tC 41 43X
O
X)
U rC T1
c
a. >
i*
;
a)
“
co
oi
<u
11 C O O'
. O A C c
x
a»
o)
oi
u
vc
ot *p *o
o n
o C C
O M O O
nt o
P* P*
C
O a
<°
co
u-c
co
at
o>
-co
u H
cu
at
Vi P
44 o O
at
la
at u u
3 0
_
M
*i-( *3 *3
-C X -3 o O
v
-m c o o
n ScCOO
u
at
Cd -3
jfi
•
•
C
11 O -H
•
•
A
P. S
C0
CO
•
•
.
Ic M OH
•
•
O h 0 3
HI O
It
.44
o
C
c
co
o
Vc
•
c
O
c-1
O
r-»
"3
c-4
t4
01 *3 3
4J
JO O
C4
•H
•»-*
*r4
**-C
O X
ChHO
E O w
H
144
I
I
3Q o
c-H
CM CO
Approved For Release 200[0/|
>96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
(
)
DETAILED EVALUATION SHEET
(U)
Specific Transcript/Drawing
Items
.
(
)
-La/cin /•
Z -
2.
(
)
f)ss Ci.'.cV’
pfi-'H 1 n
-^-c ; /;
3 .
(
)
Cj c & Cj O.
p> i'
•
u
I
/» O ca / • o O
4.
(
)
G, i\vi.
r* tLt'i.
<i
Evaluation
»
% J
5 .
(
)
/Vi it.SC.Kl «- «A
an
'
•'C*
-s
/
/
6 .
(
)
SiiA.fi ^
(• /
; /
/
*
*
C'lii/I, /»C ,vl i
.3.
7.
8 .
(
)
3 m*t
1 1
j / d
y
4-
I
p
/>''** ac n
»
p
;
*'7
Ml/
l.tjUii,
{
)
r
/
r
1 -
/' c/.Z
9 -
()
/„ /^,
'
(
}
*/«t rt-
^
11 .
(
)
.
(
)
0 to
3 point scale of previous
page.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
RO032OO2OOOO1-4
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE USE
OF RV
DETECTION TECHNIQUE S
TO DETERMINE
LOCATION OFi^^BB^ARGETS
Approved For Releaserm*
DP96-00789R003200200001 -4
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
I
OBJECTIVE
II
INTRODUCTION. AND BACKGROUND.
Location of Unknown
B.
Remote Viewing
(RV)
as a
C.
Conclusion
^Targets
Location Technology.
A.
HI
METHOD OF APPROACH
Step
1—Mi crocompu ter-Based Screening Training.
.
•
•
!
sequential Sampling Statistical Averaging
Procedure
'
....
System Error
3.
Test Data
’
4.
Summary
step 2—Simulation Testing
..r Feasibility Field
Study.
.
•
Step
3— Demo ns t ra 1 1 on-o f
Fcas
B.
C.
IV
PROPOSED PROGRAM
REFERENCES
.
APPENDIX,
Approved For Release 2000/01!
CIA-RI
00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
ILLUSTRATIONS
Computer Modeling Task
Decision Graph for Site Selection
Average Number of Trials
n^
to Screen Positive
Decision Graphs
for Site Selections Based on the Data of
Subject
(Table
1) Screening Study,
Resulting in TVelve
Consecutive Correct Selections
iii
6-00789R003200200001 -4
I
OBJECTIVE
The
purpose of
this document
is
to provide an outline of
a program to
assess
the feasibility of using RV detection techniques
to determine the
location ofj
argots
of interest
*
Throughout
this
document
the abbreviation RV refers
to
the
term
"remote
viewing,'
not
to
its
other use as
"re-entry vehicle."
Approved For Release 2000/08/08i: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000A
-00789R003200200001.-4
'
II
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
D -
Remote Viewing
(RV)
as
a Location Technology
Of particular interest along
the psychoenergetic
lines
is
a human
information-accessing capability
that we
call
'remote viewing”
(RV).
The
RV phenomenon,
under study at
SRI
International
for
the
past
nine
years,
pertains
to
the ability of certain individuals
to access and describe,
by
means
of mental
processes,
information blocked from ordinary perception
by distance or shielding, and generally believed
to be secure against
such
access.
This
lias
included
the ability of subjects
to view remote geographical
locations given only geographical
coordinates
or
a designated person on whom
to target
.
The
RV abilities
of several subjects
have
been developed
to the
point
where
they can describe—of ten
in great
detai 1—geographical and
technical
material such as
natural formations,
roads,
buildings,
interior laboratory
In problems of the
location
type
(which have
not
been addressed
in
any detail
in former programs)
the general
prospect
of
a
continuum of
Approved For Release 20Q
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/0
789R003200200001 -4
possible locations
can often
be reduced to that
r
bill ties,
nua
ls
be„
,
that °f * Set
°f discrete puss
because,
—Pi*. "Ur a
finite number of
sites
number of grid square£>
.
. ^
aVailabl°’
°r
b— -Pocifyin^ one of a
** ~ - -
<to
be o„: :rcr
if *
then a detectl °"
bo designed around one of tlT]'?
5 ''
for RV testing
a statist-
-
ho standard formats
>
a statistical
form of sh^i
«.«
"ahell
0ne
Ka°
f ^
ls * “"P-terized fern of
POOH
(Tome which
is a direct analog of the^^—r
tlon.
Ihe testing procedure addresses
the ba^^"
arRet
l0Catl °'’ Slt"a
RV techniques,
a
•correct"
^ Pr°blem of
choosl "K.
by
tires
.
An
eyam„ lo
.
^^
’ <* P-l- 1 . alterna-
carried o ^“T
“^~a“~ greening
determine which one
o
^
Chl“' 1CS ^ ^
-
11 one
°f
ten possible
nositinnu
been designated
^ &
CirCUlar dis Play had
1Rnated as an active target
bv the
.1
*
number generator
y
k> «» tlmtotit ,est devlCe. s „„d„
* r°" an
population of 2000 university
u ents
participating in
a
mass
card screening
better subjects accent
d
Pr°*ram ’
° f
th*
J
accepted an invitation to
bo
a u t n m-i t
i
i
further screened using
the
automated electronic
testing system.
Of these
ten
tn
’
ten "ere finally chosen
ici pate in
a
formal
study involving 500 trials each
n
obtained with
these
ten
.
•
*
1110 results
hese
ten subjects are shown
in Table
it
five of
the
ten subjects
scored significantly ab
#
^
h nil leant ly above
chance
all
in
+ i,
ran^rc
of
r
o
c
+.
*
in
the
1,5
2 * 5
tl,nes
chance expectation
Thn
i
*
or
...
.
*
T °
bost
subject averaged
a
24 . 8
.
hit
rate (^.5
x chance) over
the 500
t
Of such
a result
or
b
tt
“» »-obabili, v
°‘
b0tt0r ooourring by chance
is only
p
=
,
X
rthormoio
,
as good as
these results are
the
not
t-
such results
can
bn
r „
’
l>0ton,lal utility of
an
bo further enhanced
by
the use
n f
statist, nm
•
error-correcting
averaging
techniques.
Such tochnim
techniques
have proven themselves
Approved For Release 2000708/08
: CIA--RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
cjmm
Table
ELECTRON I CALLY-AUTOMATED SCREENING
STUD'i
Subject
Hit
Ra t
e
(10
r
r Expected)
Probability of Obtaining
Such
a
Result
by Chance
(one-tailed)
24.81
/
10"28
20.61
y
10" 14
16.21
y
10" 6
16.01
x
10" 6
15.61
y
10" 5
ii .s'-;
nonsignificant
. 41
nonsignificant
10.81
nonsignificant
9.41
nonsipni f i cant
7.81
nonsignif i cant
capable
of amplifying even small statistical advantages
to arbitrarily-*
hiph-accuracy results.
To cite an example,
Czech researcher
Dr.
Milan
Ryz l
,
a
chemist with
the
Institute
of
Biology of
the Czechoslovakian
Academy of Science,
carried out
an experiment with
a
subject whose
base
performance
level was
that
he was penerally capable of pencratinp better
than
..
601;
hit
rate tarpetinp on sequences
of random binary dipits,
or
bits
(0,
1), where
chance expectation was
SO^t.
For
the purpose
of showing
the power of
psi
enhancement
by statistica
averaging techniques,
Ryzl
chose
as
a
task
the acquisition, without error,
of
a
50-dipit
random binary sequence.
The effort
took
19,350 calls,
averaging
9 sec
per
call.
The hit rate
for individual
calls was
61.
r
;
,
11,978 hits and 7372 misses.
By means
of repeated passes
through
the
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2n
Approved For Release
JRDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
sequence and an elaborate
(though inefficient"
) majority-vote protocol,
the subject was able
to identify with 100% accuracy all^50 bits,
probability that
he did so by chance is only one
in
.
C.
Conclusion
Thus
,
data already extant Iren RV detection experiments
Indicate that
(a, one target Irom amonC a number can, with some statistical
be determined by RV detection techniques. and
(b>
the accuracy ol doinB so
can be amplified by statistical averaKlnB techniques.
These observations
thus provide a sound basis Upon which to estate
the feasibility - »
detection of randomly distributed** targets
, and
the protocols
in
use are essentially directly applicable
in their present
lorm.
An increase
in efficiency
by
a factor of about
the
basis
of a statistical averaging procedure
used in the experiment.
20 could
be expected on
more optimum than that
Approved For Release 2000/08/08* CIA-RSR96-00789R003200200001-4
I
I
Approved For Release 2000/0
-00789R003200200001 -4
III
METHOD OF APPROACH
With regard to determining the vulnerability of ^J^^targets
to
RV detection, an approach
that recommends
itself
is
a gradient-scale three-
step program involving
(1)
microcomputer-based screening/training,
(2)
simulation testing,
and
(3) demonstration-of-feasibility field study.
Each of
these are discussed
below.
^ •
Step
1—Microcomputer-Based Screening/Training
The
first
step of
the program would involve screening /training
a
population of volunteers using microcomputer-based modeling of
the
location problem.
Basically,
the individuals
participating as
remote
viewers
are asked,
in repetitive
trials,
to determine which one
of twenty
possible
locations
(schematically represented as
circles
on a computer-
driven graphics
display)
has
been designated as
the simulated
target
by the
computer's
random number generator.
The computer display
is
driven
by an LSI-11 microcomputer which,
on
a
trial-by-trial
basis,
generates
a
new random display of
the
circles
(to circumvent
bias
on the
part
of
the remote viewer due
to previous
choices).
The
individual enters
his selections
by button press on
a hand device positioned over an X-Y
grid
(sec
Figure
1, where
a ono-in-ten case
is
shown),
and the computer
responds
by giving immediate
feedback as
to the correct
answer
(to encourage
learning).
As
the
trials
progress,
the selections are computer analyzed
on
line
by a statistical averaging program,
the output of which indicates
whether one of
the possibilities
has
been chosen statistically significant!
v
more often than expected by
chance.
(In the
later application phase
essentially the same procedure
is
followed, with the
circles
internally
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
:
(CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
“‘plub A-x 338040 pauor a | sod adlaap pue ! lowas ay) “soluOWw Jaddn ayi uo UMOYUS Si YdeJ6 uotsioap : ares Bunuasaidas S3}I3 ayy 0 ‘oluoew ASVL ONIN3SGOW ¥31LNdWOD t 3Yndld P96-00789R003200200001 -4 Rms fe ne Sas ; zs : oo . y ero, Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : QR 7 892003200200007 4 So my S ° So N ® ” © 2 ® a ~~ fe) Le oS ® > ° Se Q Q <x
TpproveTFor Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
keyed
to actual target site possibilities.
The procedure differs
only in
that trial-by-trial feedback would,
of course,
not
bo available).
1.
Sequential Sampling Statistical Averaging
Procedure
An efficient statistical method for the screening /training
process
is provided by a sequential-sampling technique used
in production-
line quality control. 8
Hie sequential method gives
a rule of procedure
for making one of three decisions
(with regard to each of
the possible
choices)
following each trial, which
consists
of a remote viewer entering
a selection:
the accumulated selections have met
a pre-established hit-
rate
criterion
(decision positive);
the accumulated selection
do
not
exceed chance expectation
(decision negative);
continue trials
(insufficient
data
to make
a decision).
The sequential sampling procedure differs from
! ixed—trial-length procedures
in that
the number of trials
required
to
reach a decision
is
not
fixed,
but
depends
on
the results accumulated with
each trial.
The principal advantage of
the sequential sampling procedure
as
compr’’ed with other methods
is
that,
on the average,
fewer trials
per
decision arc
required for an equivalent degree of reliability.
To apply
the sequential analysis procedure
to screening training,
we
must
a priori
define
the
hit
rate we require
to conclude
that useful
RY detection
is
taking place, and what statistical
risks we are willing
to
accept
for making an incorrect
decision.
To meet
these criteria, sequential analysis
requires
the speci-
fication of
four parameters
to determine from which of two distributions
(chance or required-hit-rate)
a
data stream belongs.
They arc:
p^
,
the
fraction of selections
of
a particular target expected
in
the
chance
condition
(e.g.,
p
= 1/20
for
the case under discussion);
p
the fraction
o
of selections expected in the presence of
a
functioning RV capability
(e.g.
,
p^
= 0.125 for
a 2.5
X chance-expectation requirement,
a value
that
might
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 g CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
re —
HI
HI
m
v
f
f
f
T
T
T
T
T
T
m
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
be chosen because of previous performance in a successful one-in-twonty
task);
o,
an
a
priori assigned acceptable error rate
(e.g., a
= 0.05)
for
concluding
that accumulated selections
of
a
particular choice derive from
the
p
(RV)
distribution when in fact
they derive from the
p
(chance)
o
distribution
(Type
I error);
,
an
a priori assigned acceptable error rate
(e.g.,
= 0.05)
for concluding
that accumulated selections of
a particular
choice
derive
from the
p
(chance) distribution when in fact
they derive
o
from the
p^
(RV) distribution
(Type
II error).
With the parameters
thus specified,
the sequential sampling
procedure provides
for construction of
a decision graph of
the type shown
in Figure
2.
The decision graph illustrates
the rules
of procedure for
making one of
the three possible decisions
following each
trial:
continue
test before making a decision
(unshaded middle region in Figure
2);
decision positive
(upper shaded region
in Figure
2);
decision negative
(lower shaded area
in Figure
2).
The equations
for
the upper and
lower
decision
lines are given
in the Appendix.
With
the appropriate equations
programmed into
the microcomputer,
the computer automatically records all data
(trial number,
target
response
pair),
and displays on the video graphics
system progress
on
a
target
decision graph.
A cumulative record of
remote
viewer selections
is
compiled by the
computer until either
the upper
or
lower decision
line
is
reached,
at which
point
a decision
is made.
Also given
in the Appendix arc the
equations
for
the average
number of trials
to make decisions,
positive
or
negative.
A plot
of
the
average
number of
trials to
reach
a positive decision for
typical
cases
of
interest
is shown in Figure
3, where
5 r
r
(a,
3 ) error
rates
have been
assumed.
As
an example,
we sec
that
for a 2.5
x expectation rate
(k
= 2.5)
hitter,
n^ ~ 62
trials are required on the average
to reach
a positive
decision on
a one-in-twenty
target.
Approved For Release 200Q
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
2 .
System Error
The overall system error
is dependent on the type of mode
employed
in site penetration attempts.
(a)
If the RV detection task
is approached with
a tentative
choice having already been made
(presumably by more conventional
means),
then the task of
the remote viewer
is
to verify or reject the tentative
decision as
a backup test.
In this mode, only a single decision graph
is plotted
in the target choice of
interest.
The probability of error
due
to
chance
(Pe
c
)
in this
case
~
being given by the product of
the
probability of
making
a selection even though operating at
chance,
and
the percentage
of such selections
that correspond to an incorrect
decision:
Pe,c
a
(b)
If
the
RV detection task
is approached
as
a blind one-in-
X
task
(e.g.,
one-in-20 task),
the
X decision graphs are plotted in parallel,
one
for each
of
the
X target
choices,
as each selection
is
being
made.
In
this
case,
to
a good approximation
the graphs
can be
treated in the chance
condition as
independent, and
the probability of
error due
to
chance
(P
)
~ Sa.
Specifically,
it
is given by the product
of
the probability
e
» <-
of making at
least one selection in the
N graphs
by chance
(which
is one
minus
the probability of making no selections),
and
the percentage of such
selections
that
correspond
to an incorrect
decision:
For example, with
N
= 20,
a
1?; individual-target
error
rate
(a = 0.01)
leads
to
P
=0.17,
or
a confidence factor
-
P
= 0.83;
e,c
c,c
this
provides ~ a
17-fold increase
in odds over the one-in- twenty confi-
dence factor expected
by chance.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 200PC
P96-00789R003200200001 -4
3 ^
Test Data
,
.
.
data,
the data
As
a
test
ol the above procedure applied to
_
Tablc
i
were processed by passing
It throuch
generated by Sub.iect
#1,
Tabl
'
c statistical averapinp propram
(500
trial
,
the sequential analy.i.
correspond to
hit rate on a one-in-ten tart).
With the paraneters set
.
a nri
(a
B ) error rates,
the
requirement and
a
twice-chance-expectation
selections.
results are
as shown graphically in FiS™
4:
twelve
cor
~
,
.„ ten targets were wade
in 452 trials.
Although the
ij, a row,
oi one-in-122 HIE
—
^ stored
data was gathered under the condition
ieedbach
rnns
and therefore tnal-hy
i n the computer during
the
t
::: *
- -——-r*r:r—
t ,,nl „cc sufficiently similar to tne pr
j
the conditions are nonetheless
nnnroach
is
,
4-
iron as evidence that
the proposed approach
that the results can be taken as eviden
sound
.
4.
Summary
In the screens,training program,
participants would be screened
trained
by carrying out tbe
tash described
in this section,
First with
trial-bv- trial
ieedbach to encourage
learning,
and
~
Tw,
thic
initial
phase the
target
to model properly an application stu
y^
'
computor
. s
random number
for each run would
be designated internal
.
penerator
.
carried on,
on a
large-enough scale,
the screening training
program described in this section would provide realistic estates
oi
the percentage of population trainable
in this
task,
and
the
. „
H,ic
took could
be developed.
in
a
proficiency to which performance
.its
fullest
the feasibility
of
locating
program desired
to assess
to
f
that
suffi -
^^^^—tarpets
by RV detection techniques,
t
these
requirements
be considered.
ciently larpe-scale screeninp
to
••rw'.'ii.
red ForJRelease 2000/08/Q8
: ClA
-RDt
I-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
?
B.
Step
2—Simulation Testing
m
Tlie participants who emerge
from Step
1 with successful
performance
profiles would then be asked
to participate in Step
2.
For this
step,
a
flft
model
of an actual j^^^^^situat ion with
a random one-in-twonty designated
target would
be constructed.
The subject's access
to the mockup during
*
experimental runs would
be by way of video monitor, although secondary
means such as maps or photographs
might
be utilized in later stages
of
®
the study if appropriate.
To carry out
the
test,
a participant
(or participants) would
be
briefed as
to the task and
then
be asked
to proceed as
in Step
1.
The
sequential sampling parameters
in
the microcomputer analysis
program would
be set
in accordance with
the performance
profile established
by
the par-
ticipants)
in the Step
1 screening training study.
In Step
the mechanics
of microcomputer recording and analysis
of
subject selections would
be
the same as
in Step
1.
Step
2 differs
from
Step
1,
however,
in that
a participant’s selection from the random circle
display,
internally keyed
to numbered sites,
cannot
be internally compared
to
a recorded
correct answer.
The
results generated
by the
parti cipant (s )
in the site selection
procedure would
then be tabulated and discussed
the
results appear encouraging,
then Step
3 wou
Should
Id be engaged.
m
m
C.
Step
3—Demonstration-o- -Feasibi li ty Field Study
The
final step in the three-step vulnerability assessment program
would consist
of
a field-demonstration test
involving,
^
Data would
be
taken using
the successful remote viewers
of Step
2,
both to determine
the degree
of correlation between performance on the
tasks
of
Steps
2 and
3,
and also
to evaluate actual performance
in the field study.
Approved For Release 2000
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 200
P96-00789R003200200001 -4
The possibility of success
in such a field study is buttressed by
the fact that
the procedures described here have been used by us
success
fully in an exploratory program to determine
the
locations of hidden
material
.
Following
a series
of such tests
,
performance profiles
for the
individual remote viewers would be computed and
the overall data set
would be evaluated to provide an estimate as
to the usefulness
of
RV
techniques
Approved For Release 2000A
(
)
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/!
00789R003200200001 -4
IV
PROPOSED PROGRAM
To accomplish
the proposed program,
SRI proposes
to provide
the
necessary personnel,
facilities,
and materials
to perform the outlined
work, summarized below,
and
to report on the results
thereof.
•
Provide
to
the sponsor the details
of
the statistical
package and hardware setup tailored
to sponsor-designated
task requirements.
•
Screen, train a population of volunteers
on an LSI-11
microcomputer-modelled location problem,
first with
real-time
feedback,
then without
(Step
1).
•
Carry out simulation tests on mockups
of an actual
target
situation using participants with successful
performance profiles from Step
(Step 2).
•
Carry out
a demonstration-of-feasibility field study
on
a sponsor-designated test site of
interest
(Step 3).
•
Evaluate data sets
to provide estimates
of:
(a)
Percentage
of population trainable.
(b)
Level
of proficiency
to which
task performance
can
be developed.
(c)
Usefulness
of
locating^targets
by RV
detection techniques.
It
is
proposed
that
the above program
be pursued on
a
three-man-vear
leve 1-of-effort
basis.
If programmed
as
a
two-year effort,
an expenditure
of somewhat
less
than
S200K
for the
first
year
is envisioned.
An itemized
cost
breakdown
can
be
provided on request.
roved For Release 2000/08/08
:
200200001-4
Final Report
Covering
the Period October 1980 to September
1981
COUNTERMEASURES:
A SURVEY AND EVALUATION
(U)
January
1982
nternational
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CllMPPP*«|e$R00320020g001-4
333
Ravenswood
Avenue
'
Menlo
Park,
California
94025
•
U.S.A.
Approved For Release 2000A
6-00789R003200200001 -4
CONTENTS
I
OBJECTIVE
II
INTRODUCTION
Ill
LITERATURE SURVEY AND EVALUATION
IV
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PSYCHOENERGETIC INTRUSION
.
.
V
RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY BY CATEGORY
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: Q1A-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
i
Approved For Release 200
IP96-00789R003200200001 -4
TABLES
Mental Intrusion ..........
Suggested Psychoenergetic Mechanisms
Approved For Release 2000/Q8/0£*felA-RQP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/^^^^^^^6-00789R003200200001-4
II
INTRODUCTION
Should countermeasures
(CM) against psychoenergetic intrusion exist,
they will be accomplished by physical or by mental processes.
Physical
countermeasures, such as various
forms of shielding,
implicitly assume
the existence of psychoenergetic interactions with the physical world.
In the parapsychological
literature,
such interactions are referred to
as
remote perturbation
(RP)
, psychokinesis
(PK)
, telekinesis
(TK)
,
etc.
Countermeasures accomplished by mental processes are difficult to define
and even more difficult to investigate.
Like
jamming a radar signal,
mental CM would most
likely use the same process as
that of the intrusion.
Examples
of potential mental CM drawn from the occult literature are
"psychic attack," "hexes," and the
like.
This report
focuses upon physi-
cal CM.
To determine the feasibility of
a physical CM device, we must first
assess whether simple intrusion detection
is possible.
The mechanism
underlying such a detector would then serve as
the basis
for the develop-
ment
of
a CM device.
Psychoenergetic intrusion may be classified into two categories:
(1)
Material objects are affected
(2)
Information only
is obtained from the remote
location.
We have surveyed the
literature and evaluated the most recent
laboratory
experiments that address both types of intrusion.
This report
summarizes
that
investigation.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
(3A-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/0^£I^DP96-00789R003200200001-4
ABB
III
LITERATURE SURVEY AND EVALUATION
To achieve our objective, we have conducted a complete survey of the
most recent
ten years of parapsychological literature in five different
$
journals.
We have
limited the period surveyed:
•
To ensure that the threat assessment
of psychoenergetic
intrusion is relevant
to modern facilities.
•
To make the survey chronologically compatible with a
previously completed survey of random number generator
(RNG)
RP.
Sixty-five papers were identified that pertain to RP,
exclusive of RNG
studies.
Combined with the papers reviewed in a previous report1
we now
have a data base of approximately 100 laboratory publications
of experi-
ments
that suggest the probability of mental intrusion.
These reports fall into categories
(Table
1)
that
can be arranged
into
a hierarchy of
the magnitude of intrusive effect.
This same organi-
zation yields
a parallel hierarchy of credibility that
is determined by
soundness of methodology and replicability.
In general, phenomena
reported at
the beginning of
the table
[e.g., effects on RNG,
dice experi-
ments,
remote viewing] tend to be characterized by rigorous experimental
design.
Remote perturbation effects
listed at
the end of the table
(metal
bending,
levitation) are more difficult to assess because of incomplete
descriptions of controls and
the near anecdotal nature of the reports.
Most of the papers
claiming evidence of physical effects are not
subject
4s
These journals were the
Journal of Parapsychology
,
the Journal of American
Society for Psychical Research,
the Journal of the Society for Psychical
Research
,
the European Journal
of Parapsychology , and Research in
Paraps ycho logy
.
Approved For Release 2OOO/O8/O83: PIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/
>96-00789R003200200001 -4
MENTAL INTRUSION
Type of
Intrusion and Examples
Effect of Intrusion
I
Data gathering
•
Remote viewing
(RV)
•
Out-of-body experiences
(OOBE)
•
Psychoenergetic data selection
(PDS)
-
Pseudorandom number generator
-
True random number generator
II
Perturbation of systems and objects
•
Transient systems
-
Dice throwing
Random number generators
-
Thoughtography
-
Spinning coin
•
Biological systems
Paramecla
-
Small animals
Humans
(physiology and movement
)
•
Stable systems
-
Strain gauge
-
Thermometry
Magnetometer
Bubble chamber
•
Static objects
Metal bending
Compass needle deflection
Moving plastic tubes, small
jars,
etc,
Table levitation
Minimal
Some physical effect
III
Unusual or rare RP
•
Materializations
•
Large scale levitations and RP
-
D .
D . Home
Approved For Release 200
Large scale effect
96-00789R003200200001 -4
I
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIAkRDP96-00789R003200200001-4
to evaluation because the descriptions
of the experiments are incomplete
in one or more aspects.
To consider the possibility of physical CM, we
are forced to assume that all reports are true
, and to exercise caution
in drawing conclusions
from the data base.
In analyzing the data-gathering form of intrusion, we find ample
iterature2
* 3
that RV may be a
evidence in
valuable information-gathering technology.
Because no reported perturba-
tion occur at the time of RV data acquisition, we are unable to recommend
a physical countermeasure.
However, evidence from two 00BE4
»B
suggests
that there may be a concomitant remote perturbation that can be detected
at the time of the OOBE.
Whether RV produces similar detectable effects
remains
to
be determined.
Analysis of the remaining forms
of intrusion presented in Table
revealed that virtually none of the papers
discussed effects
at distances
greater than a few meters.
(For example, almost all of
the metal bending
reported occurred with the subject actually touching the object
in question.)
These observations
suggest
that
the simplest form of countermeasure
in
these cases
may be distance between sensitive equipment and a putative
RP agent.
Some
forms of RP may be accomplished by unusual
(but not psycho-
energetic) human abilities.
(For example,
some authors
have suggested
that RP on static objects may be explained by the subject's ability to
generate electric fields.)
In such cases,
standard shielding techniques
would serve
as an adequate countermeasure
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
fi
"
CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 20,
DP96-00789R003200200001 -4
IV
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PSYCHOENERGETIC INTRUSION
Theoretical understanding of psyehoenergetic processes
is still in
its infancy.
With one possible exception,6
*7
all suggestions for mechanisms
must be categorized as "plausibility" arguments.
Table
2 shows the current theoretical ideas with a brief description
of each.
In order to suggest possible countermeasures
, we must assume that
a
given mechanism is responsible for the phenomena.
From Table 2, we see
that Mechanisms
1 and
6 are
"normal" because they involve well understood
physical processes and thus have recognizable countermeasures.
The re-
maining mechanisms, however, have no known physical
CM.
Yet,
to disallow
the possibility of
some form of mental CM would be premature.
Approved For Release
A-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 200p||^^^|^DP96-00789R003200200001-4
V
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because considerable evidence for the information-gathering form of
psychoenergetic intrusion exists and because evidence also exists
that
some forms of this intrusion incidentally affect physical objects, we
recommend that a countermeasure program be initiated.
To optimize the
likelihood that such
a program will have definitive results, we outline
here a systematic,
but
limited effort.
Several considerations beyond those of
the survey must influence
the design of
a physical CM program.
They are:
•
Devices
must
be chosen that have demonstrated
susceptibility to RP.
•
Devices
must
be sensitive,
yet isolated from the
environment
.
•
Engineering
(hardware/software) should
be kept at
a minimum.
•
The approach should be systematic and should follow
some of
the earlier reported efforts
.
Given these
constraints
,
three types
of hardware are suggested
for
study in a physical CM program:
(1)
A RNG device
(2)
Temperature sensing elements.
(3)
Film detectors.
A RNG device was
selected because such devices
have been under study for
10 years.
It
is
clear from this
data base and from one study1
conducted
at SRI
International
that some form of psychoenergetic interaction exists.
To isolate the form of interaction and
to assess
the usefulness
of RNGs
as potential intrusion detectors,
a modest redesign of the existing RNG
Approved For Release 2000/
96-00789R003200200001 -4
device
is
necessary.
Little or no effort
is required
to update our proven
analytical system.
Although there are other devices
(e.g., strain gauges, magnetometers,
etc.)
that have also been reported as susceptible
to RP, we chose tempera-
ture sensing hardware and film detectors because of engineering considerations.
In summary,
we recommend that an RNG device, temperature sensing
elements,
and film detectors
be investigated with regard to their sus-
ceptibility to RP as an initial step toward intrusion detection and physical
countermeasures
.
Approved For Release 2^||^^^|^)P96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Final Report
Covering the Period October 1980 to October 1981
Aprit 1982
audiolinguistic correlations with the quality
OF REMOTE VIEWING SESSIONS
(U)
|
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES.
I
OBJECTIVE.
II
INTRODUCTION
A.
Statement of Problem
B.
Possible Solution
C.
Historical Perspective of Audio Analysis
Techniques
III
METHOD OF APPROACH
A.
Selection of Data
Base.
.
B.
Audiolinguistic Protocol,
C.
Scoring the Utterances.
,
1.
Preprocessing the Utterances
2.
Target-Independent Analysis.
3.
Target-Dependent Analysis.
.
IV
RESULTS
.
V
CONCLUSIONS.
REFERENCES
.
iii
iii
APPENDICES
A
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT FOR COORDINATE D-3
(DOLL)
B
SCORE SHEETS FOR THE "DOLL" TRIAL
IN THE "COORDINATE
BOX EXPERIMENT"
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
ii
ILLUSTRATIONS
4X4 Array of Objects used in Box Coordinate Experiment
.
.
TABLES
Quality Rating for a Concept
that has been Identified
at
the Site
Visual Functional Centrality Rating Scale for Target
Sub—Element
Audiolinguistic Analysis
Results
B-l
Audiolinguistic Category:
Present Time
(PT) ....
B-2
Audiolinguistic Category:
Debriefing
<DB)
B-3
Audiolinguistic Category:
Analysis
(AN)
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: Q1A-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/0
96-00789R003200200001 -4
I
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this program was
to determine the feasibility of
developing audio analysis techniques that
separate correct from incorrect statements recorded during remote viewing
(RV) experiments
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 1 CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/p8
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
C.
Historical Perspective of Audio Analysis Techniques
Earlier research has shown that changes in speech behavior can reflect
subtle physiological changes such as
those resulting from stress or disease.
Two studies representing this research will be described to provide a
context for the present study of speech changes observed during RV sessions.
These studies illustrate different approaches to speech analysis.
The first study was designed to examine how speech behavior may be
influenced by task-induced stress
.1
An arithmetic task requiring a verbal
response was repeatedly administered to each of ten male subjects.
The
•^difficulty of the task was varied from trial to trial:
on some occasions
the subject was obviously stressed, and on other occasions he was relatively
relaxed.
Contrasting responses containing the same test phrase were
com-
pared by means of critical listening and instrumental analysis
.
Listeners were able to discriminate between the responses representing
the stress and control conditions for many subjects.
Level measurements
showed that three subjects spoke more softly and one subject
spoke more
loudly under stress.
Measurements of fundamental frequency provided
similar results:
some subjects raised their vocal pitch,
others
lowered
their vocal pitch, and still others exhibited unique pitch contours when
the task became stressful.
An extensive comparison of spectrograms
demonstrated many other stress—related changes in the speech signal.
Temporal and spectral irregularities were observed in the acoustic pulses
that are generated in the
larynx during speech production.
Stress also
affected the precision with which particular speech sounds were articulated.
The second study was concerned with speech changes
that are related
to cerebrovascular disorders
. 2
* 3
The purpose of the study was to develop
a subjective method of speech analysis that could be used to identify
persons who have suffered a minor stroke.
Because stroke affects speech
Approved For Release 2000/08/0£
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 20
P96-00789R003200200001 -4
production in a complex manner, all speech samples that were analyzed were
first converted into spectrograms.
Experiments were conducted to determine
whether certain speech attributes observed in the spectrograms could be
used to discriminate between a population of diagnosed stroke patients
and an age-matched population of normal speakers.
Linear discriminant
scores based on ratings of only six speech attributes correctly classified
89 percent of the stroke patients and 87 percent of the normal speakers.
Approved For Release 2OOO^08X()8
-REFJ96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/m
: CIA-RDR96-00789R003200200001 -4
III
METHOD OF APPROACH
A.
Selection of Data Base
To determine
a useful set of audiolinguistic
(A/L)
criteria,
it was
important in this
pilot investigation to work with a RV data base that
met two conditions:
(1)
The data base had been indepefi^ntly analyzed
by "blind" judging procedures.
(2)
The RV targets had to be well-defined.
The first requirement defined the minimum assessment standard;
namely,
any A/L technique had to perform at
least
as well as blind judging procedures.
The second requirement allowed for an unambiguous element-by-element
comparison between target information and RV-generated data.
To meet
these requirements, an existing data base from earlier SRI experiments
was used.
In an early attempt to assess
the nature of "abstract" targeting,
Subject 504 was
the only participant in the "Coordinate Box Experiment."
The
target material was
a collection of
16 small dissimilar objects
,
placed one each in a
x 4 matrix array.
Each cell
of this matrix was
a
cube measuring approximately one foot on a side.
Subject
504 was targeted
with only a row and column address and asked to describe the object at
that
location.
The experiment
consisted of six trials.
A complete
description of this experiment can be found elsewhere. 4
The overall result derived from blind judging analysis was significant.
Two important
features
of this experiment were
(1)
the targets were
well defined
(Figure
1) and
(2)
the target-transcript
correspondences
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
production in a complex manner, all speech samples
that were analyzed were
first converted into spectrograms .
Experiments were conducted to determine
whether certain speech attributes observed in the spectrograms
could be
used to discriminate between a population of diagnosed stroke patients
and an age-matched population of normal speakers.
Linear discriminant
scores based on ratings of only six speech attributes correctly classified
89 percent of the stroke patients and 87 percent of the normal speakers.
arger-mdependent analysis
a simm
concepts lB ench 1tejo / s T
* ““
cegory
is
computed.
It was
bl
d
^ W”“t °f « «««*. wo„ ld oorreUte wit„ the
Und ™- - ««— - .~ of BV
Approved For Release 2
P96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
ranged from excellent to rather poor.
These two features allowed for a
sensitive test of the A/L procedure described below.
B.
Audiolinguistic Protocol
From these summations
,
the percent PT is
calculated from
%PT = No. (PT)
/
[No. (PT)
+ No.(DB)]
*»
( 1 )
U
where No.(PT) and No.(DB) are the number of PT and DB concepts, respectively.
It must be noted the %PT can be calculated without any knowledge of the
target
.
3 .
Target-Dependent Analysis
Following an idea first proposed by Targ et al .
,
B
a detailed
target-dependent analysis was devised.
With a response conceptualized in
accordance with the above guidelines,
the target-dependent analysis
proceeds in three steps
:
(1)
Binary determination—Each concept
is assigned a one
if
some element
in the target appears to correspond to the
concept
in question.
The concept
is assigned a z£ro
otherwise.
There
is
no implied evaluation at this point,
but
if there
is
a correspondence,
the identified element
must be explicitly noted.
(2)
Quality evaluation—A quality evaluation is
made for
each concept
that has been assigned a one
from Step
(1)
above.
The evaluation is made on a one-to-f ive-point
scale shown in Table
1.
(3)
Centrality evaluation—Each concept that has been assigned
a one from Step
(1) above
is also evaluated with respect
to
the centrality of the corresponding target element.
Centrality is expressed as a number between one and five
(Table 2).
This numeric assignment
is made according
to the element's importance to the target
as
a whole
and is based on target information only.
The scores
from these three steps are then multiplied together to
form
a
composite score
(maximum of 25)
for each concept
in each response.
Appendix B is
a complete example of this procedure for one of the three
responses,
i.e.,
for which the target was
a small rag doll
(Figure
1).
tg
I
*
I
Approved For Release 2000768/08 ? CIA-RDR* MJ0789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Table
QUALITY RATING FOR A CONCEPT
THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THE SITE
(Specific Target Sub-element)
(1)
Little correspondence,
but possible
(2)
Some correct elements
(3)
Mixture of correct and incorrect
,
but more of the former
(4)
Good correspondence, with unambiguous matchable elements
(5)
Excellent
correspondence,
perhaps with correct analysis
of the sub-element
Table
VISUAL FUNCTIONAL CENTRALITY RATING SCALE
FOR TARGET SUB-ELEMENT
(1)
Present
,
but
a trivial or hardly noticeable feature
(2)
Minor feature,
could be overlooked,
not central
(3)
Prominant,
but
not central
(4)
Strong,
central, visual feature,
can not be missed
(5)
Immediately strikes the
eye as
central,
element
gets
this rating.
Only one
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 ^
<fc|A-
96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
IV
STATISTICAL RESULTS
Table 3 shows the results of A/L analysis as
it was applied to three
of the six targets for the coordinate box experiment.
The plant,
the book,
and the doll were chosen for this initial study because the quality of
their corresponding transcripts, as described earlier, was poor,
inter-
mediate and excellent, respectively.
The results
of the blind judging
for the actual experiment are shown in the
last column in Table 3.
The
Greek letter mu
(p)
in Table
is calculated from the overall concept
scores
for each category from
p = E concept scores/N
where
N is
the total number of concepts for the specific category.
The
p,
then,
represents
the average score out of a maximum possible 25 for
each
cateogry.
The %PT was
calculated from Eq
.
(1),
and F is
the F ratio
derived from a one-way analysis of variance.
For each target,
a one-way
analysis
of variance was computed under the null hypothesis assumption
that
the scores for A/L category do not differ from one another.
The %PT and the F-ratio represent the results for the target-independent
and target-dependent A/L analysis respectively:
a correlation with blind
judging exists
for both analyses.
Approved For Release 2000/08/0ai CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Table 3
AUDIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
Target
P PT
UDB
PAN
N__
PT
ndb
NAN
%PT
F
Blind
Judging
(Relative Units)
Plant
4.88
4.79
2.36
0.22
1.47
1.00
Book
2.50
4.45
1.63
0.33
1.53
2.19
Doll
7.37
8.33
0.00
0.51
4.38
5.09
Approved For Release 2000/08/0^ CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 200mm
96-00789R003200200001 -4
V
CONCLUSIONS
This
pilot investigation was
conducted on the basis of
a detailed
analysis of three trials from a single subject.
Therefore,
it
is premature
to conclude with certainty to what degree the particular A/L analysis
technique used with this subject can be generalized.
It is possible,
however,
to conclude that the A/L technique is basically productive in
its approach.
In particular the observed correlation of the target-
independent analysis with previous blind judging results is highly
encouraging.
As the A/L analysis technique evolves
further,
a single set of A/L
criteria
is
not expected to be applicable across subjects;
rather,
for
the operational setting,
in all likelihood a subject-specific set of
criteria must be developed.
In summary,
it should be emphasized that,
(1)
at
a minimum,
some
improvement
in the RV product can be immediately realized by rejecting all
analytical
(AN)
statements;
(2)
beyond that,
a full audio-linguistic
(A/L) analysis
of utterances appears to further differentiate correct
from incorrect statements generated in RV sessions.
Approved For Release 2000A
6-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 2000Amt
96-00789R003200200001 -4
REFERENCES
1.
Hecker, M.H.L., Stevens,
K.
N.
, von Bismarck,
G.
, and Williams,
C.
E.,
"Manifestations of Task-Induced Stress
in the Acoustic
Speech Signal,"
J. Acoust.
Soc. Amer .
,
Vol.
44,
pp.
993-1001
(1968).
2.
Hecker, M.H.L.
, and Kreul,
E.
J.
,
"Research on Speech Changes Related
to Disease," Final Report,
Projects 7742 and 8853, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park,
CA
(April
1974).
3.
Bell,
D. W. and Foza,
F.,
"Discrimination between Stroke Patients
and Normal Speakers on the Basis
of Speech Attributes Observed in
Spectrograms," Final Report,
Project 3954, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park,
CA
(February 1976).
4.
Targ,
R.
,
Puthoff,
H.
E., Humphrey,
B.
S., and Tart,
C.
T.,
"inves-
tigations
of Target Acquisition," Research in Parapsychology ,
pp.
122-124
(1979).
5.
Targ,
R.
,
May,
E.,
Puthoff, H.,
and Hecker,
M.
,
Interim Technical
Report
(Covering the period 20 July 1981 through
4 August
1981)
SRI Project 3279,
SRI
International, Menlo Park,
CA
(August
1981).
Approved For Release 200
DR96-00789R003200200001 -4
Final Report
RV RELIABILITY, ENHANCEMENT, AND
EVALUATION
(U)
December
198.
pproved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
.
..
m
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
*
AS
I
OBJECTIVE
(U)
lUt
jThe objective of
the Remote Viewing
(RV)
Reliability,
Enhance-
ment
, and Evaluation Task is
to develop remote viewing techniques, HHLto
enhance the potential for]
m
m
m
m
CU)
RV
(remote viewing)
is the acquisition and description,
by mental
means,
of
information blocked from ordinary perception by distance or
shielding,
_
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
II
INTRODUCTION
(U)
International
is
tasked, with assessing the potential
of RV
In this
task,
as defined for fiscal
years
(FY)
1981 through 1983,
special emphasis
is placed on the possibility that
enhancement techniques can be developed that will significantly increase
levels of accuracy and reliability.
^m^The three-year effort focuses on
(1)
the development
of techniques
to enhance the accuracy and reliability of RV ,
(2)
the application of RV
(3)
the evaluation of such techniques and applica-
the
RV
The apportionment
of these efforts over the three-year period
is
shown in Figure
Investigation of
the RV phenomenon at SRI
International over the
past decade has
ranged from basic
research, where proof of the existence
of
the phenomenon was at
issue
to
applications
,
in which the
existence of
the phenomenon
is assumed.
The present study emphasizes
applicability— proof
of
the phenomenon
is
not explicitly pursued here.
Some pragmatic measure of demonstration of existence
is provided,
however,
by assessment
of
the quality of
results obtained
carried out under the double-blind conditions.
^in this
report we discuss the effort
for FY 1982.
This effort
consisted of
(1)
Continued development
of
a six-stage RV training
procedure
,
hypothesized to lead
to improved RV
performance.
Special emphasis was placed on
developing tools
that were useful
in differentiating
and identifying technological facilities.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
FIGURE
(U)
RV ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
'I
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Table
REMOTE VIEWING TASKS
(FY 82)
(U)
Target
Date
rSES
J.S;
#26;
J.S.
#27;
J.S.
#28;
J.S.
#29;
10/26/81
10/27/81
10/29/81
12/7/81
12/10/81
12/13/81,
12/14/81,
12/15/81
,
12/16/81
12/14/81
#009
#009
#009
#002
J.S.
#30;
J.S.
#31;
J.S.
#32:1
J.S.
#33;
J.S.
#34:
12/14/81
12/15/81
12/18/81,
1/10/82
12/21/81,
1/17/82
1/7/82
3/1/82,
3/2/82,
3/24/82,
5/5/82,
5/6/82,
5/7/82,
5/11/82,
5/18/82,
5/19/82
#002
#009
(Group)
#002,
#622
date,
site,
viewer,
and
so forth,
along with the capability of
yielding
trend analysis functions.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
V
SUMMARY OF THE FY 82 RV ENHANCEMENT TASK
(U)
Progress
follows
:
in the FY 82 RV Enhancement Task can be summarized as
•
RV enhancement procedure further developed.
Special emphasis on procedures applicable to
identification of
technological
facilities.
75 RV research/training practice trials with
I . Swann
.
•
Procedure transfer begun
to five
novice SRI
staff
members and consultants.
-
Orientation and practice through various
levels
of Stage
II.
•
Procedure transfer begun
to
two novice
personnel
.
-
One RVer mid-Stage
II;
53 RV training trials.
One RVer nearly complete on Stage
II;
77 RV
training trials.
•
Data obtained on
J.S.
#34.
*
•
RV evaluation protocols developed.
Sites
J.S.
#23 through
•
Computerized RV data-base management
system developed
to completion
(LSI
11/23
stand-alone microcomputer).
*
(U)
E.
C.
May,
"RV Evaluation Protocol
4028-5,
SRI International, Menlo Park,
(U)," Final
Report,
SRI Project
CA
(December 1982 )
J
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: £[A-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
m]
Approved For Release 2000/(%mMp#RpP96-00789R003200200001-4
^International >
Date
26 October 1981;
0830
Series
Session No.
Target Nbi
J.S. #23
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
Beacon (s)
Abstract
("Target")
Comments
:
Session
Remote viewer and interviewer blind as
to
target location and
activity of
interest;
interviewer knowledgeable only of broad
technologies
of concern.
Viewer gives only general description of building layout.
H.
E. Puthof f
f
Ph.D.
f
Radi cr Physics Laboratory
SRIitotedrl^icfi^^ase 2000/08/
333 Ravenswood Ave
• Menlo Park. CA 94025 '•V41SV
RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
;9l(K373-1246
• TELEX: 334463
•
Facsimile:
415*326-5512
m™ Date 27 October 1981; 0835 ; Series ; i | mm Session No, 1 Target No, — JS. #24 | Remote Viewer #009 i] Interviewer uw w bad Beacon(s) Abstract ("Target") i Comments: 1, Session conducted b' = 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and activity of interest. , m= 3. Viewer described construction, a building, planned for = Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA= ‘ ys cs Laboratol-
Series Session No. 1 ; Target No. _ J.S. #25 | —* Target Remote Viewer #009. Interviewer Beacon(s) Abstract (" “qarget") —S——— oer Comments: 1. Session conducted by 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and activity of interest. 3. Viewer described a facility dedicated to 2 single purpose, technological, high use of cooling water. 132002000014
Date
7 December 1981;
1012
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S. #26
Target
|HiB
Remote Viewer
„
#009
Interviewer
Beacon (s)
Phrase "Target"
Comments
:
Session carried out
m
m
m
/2
H.
E.
D,
, Radiophyi
I
ApprovjpcUfpr Release 200
SRI international
Puthoff
,
Ph.D,
,
Radic/ Physics Laboratory
2000/08/08
: CIA-RDF96-00789R003200200001-4
Ravpn<;u/fw1 Aw
•
kAarttn o-sri,
r'A QAnoz
tic.
Remote Viewer
ffuua
Interviewer
Beacon (s)
Comments
Phrase "Target"
Session carried out by
15$
H.
E.
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
,
Radiicr Physics Laboratory
Approved For Release 2000/08/08; CIA-RDP96-Q0789R003200200001-4
SRI International
> »
Dttl n a cwn')^ ^S
J-32(^€2C»
• TWX: 910-373-1246
• TELEX
334463
• Fac„mi«-
415-326-5512
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
m
Date
13 December
iqo-[
TSreet
iqqq, »/
1000
Remote Viewer
12/17/81
(Future av)
’
.
00 !_gf ternoon
,
e„,
' "orni»S.
noon,
duilli
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
*02fi
Beacon (s)
__ Abstract
/«nftr
.
^
"
'
f
>
* I
Comments:
2.
Remote viewer and interviewer bT
w
and activity of interest.
d as to target slgnifi can
‘ ^»TZTt
lbT
i0n experi “eats wit*
„
‘^rzrrr- -
d
locations o^sT’
*» ^
“*
E ’
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
Radty^T~
CD!
|
.
Bysics Laborate
Approvea VwWilKi©P06oO/O8/O8
: CI/teRDP96-00789R003200200001-4
re- -« . ™„M73_
.
-
.—
^
L
°ate —
December-
ioo 1
Series
1230
1523
(Session 3 )
Comments
brought
2.
Renote viewer
’ f-»-— calibration trl.ls
aCtlVlt ’' *
1~~t
-
»reet materials yielded good result
\ ^
^“graphic
generally "on-line" for
4 ' Jjemote viewer descnb-a atHHtow
-X-
fh.
hysics Laboratory
H ‘ E ’
Putho«.
Pfa.D.,
SRI International
333Fj9^Qyfcd For please 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
^
* Wm&'PSrk. CA 94025
• -AJ5 326-6200 . TWX:.-8JQ473-1246
• TELEX. 334463
• Facsimile:
'415i 326-5512
an
14 December 1981
.
1650
Remote Viewer
#002
Interviewer
H.
Puthoff,
Beacon (s)
2.
Remote viewer blind as
to identify of
+.
activities of interest.
PerS°n and his
3.
Pre- and post-op calibration trials with Nat'i
r
“r- :r “d Tei
,
indicating remote viewer generally "nn
i
•
»
for remote viewing.
generally
on-line
4.
Remote viewer prollled subject of interest.
SRI International
Approym&Fx*frc&e4ea6e>j2QQQ/B3dQi
M-
(I
H.
E.
Puthof f
,
Ph, D *
•
Radic/phy
hysics Laboratory
Session No.
Target No.
J.S. *31
Remote viewer blind as to target location and activity of interest.
On-line-check calibration trials utilizing Nat'l Geographic target
materials
(listed below)* yielded good results,
indicating
remote
viewer generally "on-line" for remote viewing.
Remote viewer described a social event
with people
awaiting some event.
Nothing of
note
(precognitively)
is
to happen.
Waikiki,
Corrientes,
Mt.
Everest,
llirku Archipelago,
yjyof Spain, Central
Park,
NYC.
Midcheck:
Bodrum.
Cape Cod
.
H.
E.
Puthoff,
,D.
.
Radic/ &iv
hysics Laboratory
2000/08/08
5 ? CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
333 Ravenswood Ave.
• Menlo Park. CA 94025 *-^ 15: 326-6200
• TWX: 910-373-1246
• TELEX: 334463
•
Facsimile:
.415
326-5512
International
Date
18 December
1981.
1445
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S.
#32
Target
Remote Viewer
Interviewer
Beacon (s
)
Comments
:
H.
Puthoff
H.
E.
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
,
Radia Physics Laboratojv
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
SRI International
Approved For Release 2
-FRDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
r
17 January 1982
Series
Session No.
Target No.
J.S, #32
Target
Remote Viewer
#°°
Interviewer
Beacon(s)
_wB8|
#009
(Group)
Comments
:
On
17 January 1982,
RVer turned over to H.
Puthoff
a compilation of inputs from RVers
labeled Apple,
Baker,
ar
Delta, Theta, Lambda, Epsilon, and Pi .
The dates
of individm
remote viewings spanned the dates
15 December 1981
-
Januai
1982 .
Compilation carried
18 January 1982 *
SRI
Apor
H.
E.
Puthoff,
Ph.D.
, Radio Physics Laboratory
II International
2J8X8d JGPcBfllft
simile:
i415) 32&-5512
JOT-4
-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 Date 7 January 1982, 0700 I Seri es c=) Session No, 1, 2 a Target No, J.S, #33 ee Target * "Letters" author (unknown) I Remote Viewer #002 (Participant "A"), #622 (Participant "B") Interviewer none Beacon(s) "Letters" author Comments: 1. Remote viewers #002 and #622 were Possible determine the location of t a Ue | qn ia ih 2. Copies of letters dated Jul November 1981 were sent to hand delivered to Puthoff 15 December 1981. #002 3. The remote viewers' renderi at SRI, who then telexed it 11 January 1982, on y of 1981 (2), August 1981, and= ngs were turned over to H. Put hogat a Approved intemationdlosios ; cla-RDP98-00789R003200200001-4 3. 33 Ravenswood Ave. « Mento Park. CA 94025 © 415 326-6200 « TWx: 910-373-1246 © TELEX: 334463 * Facsimile: 415 326-