‘ SG1l SG1l SG1l SG1l “4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110621-2 of efficiency, to collect maximum data &s soon as possible~-they dropped a critical part of the earlier protocol and, thereby, have left themselves and the data wide open to challenge. Instead of having someone outside the para- normal lab control the selection of target sites, Targ or Puthoff would make the selection ‘randomly’ after leaving the subject--usually by listing 6 SRI lab facilities and rolling a die to determine which one they would visit. It never ceases to amaze me how, as scientists, they can be so obtuse in this regard and So personally sensitive whenever T raise the issue. I have assured them time and again (and it is quite literally true) that I'm personally convinced that neither discredit such potentially good data ag they now have by using, for whatever reason, procedures which will permit anyone else to shoot holes in the evidence, Their (or, at least, Targ's) rebuttal is that if they use Cox or Jones to select the list of sites and roll the die, as I suggested, anyone caring to reject the evidence need only include them in the putative fraud as well. The rationality of this argument is more apparent than real. As I pointed out to them, rational men (hopefully, the majority of those to whom the evidence will be presented) will accept reasonable measures to preclude the possibility of conscious or unconscious cheating--but, in this last series, they have not provided those reasonable measures. Finally, they accepted the argument (for about the fifth time, I might add) and promised that the rest of this series would be done with those additional controls. In any case, and I listened to some of Subject # its tapes, Looked at her drawings and visited the sites, All I ean say is that, if repeatable with the necessary safeguards, the accuracy is uncanny--and could be of Ops value. We brought back copies of two of the tapes and drawings and photos of the sites if anyone cares to review them. ; lO. Participation in RV Experiments. JM ana I took part in two OOB experiments with Subject #2 who has not been noted for his OOB gifts; both he and they characterized the results as mediocre, even for him. In both instances we controlled the site selection. In one we went (with Puthoff and subject #6) to tennis courts about 3-4 miles from SRE and he located us ag being at a museum about 400 ft from where we actually were; his basic mistake (and apparently a common one) was in 'cognating' the museum & embroidering on that interpretation--while his six drawings were actually much more in tune with the tennis courts, The second experiment, a 'technical' one involving a nearby SRI lab, was quite similar: a clusion. I had a quite similar experience when T acted as the remote-viewer in an experiment, while Targ and went to a lab site; the major virtue of this experiment being that both and I got a much better feel for the actual procedures. I pointed out to them that, in the ops scenarios, we were unlikely ever to have a witting or cooperative subject at the site (and, if we did, we'd not require remote viewing skills); I urged them to try at least some experiments in which the subject didn't know the 'outbound' viewer at all--and then some in which the subject knew him/her only by name/photo/ete and, finally, some in which the subject was permitted to see the viewer in a 'walk-by' situation. They clearly would like to try these variations but T'm not sure they'll get around to it before the project ends, ll. Presentation in DC, This is tentatively scheduled for early in December and is clearly intended to have an impact on those in the hierarchy who will be passing on the question of renewal. In a sense it will be afpreview of their Final Report--and I feel this is a perfectly legitimate procedure. As indicated elsewhere throughout this memo, they were urged to ensure that their presentation included several elements--e.f.: as much summary and interpretive material as is available on the medical/sensory, psychological and neurophysiolosical Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2
© Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 10081 -2 material; independent judging results on the OOB screening tests; 'clean! (i.e, safeguarded) lab RV experiments; succinct statements of where they stand with SG1l respect to analysis of the raw data; whatever useful theorizing/hypotheses they (and/or can present--couched, if they wish, in terms of possible follow-on activity. We should talk to OTS soon about drawing up a definitive guest-list for the presentation. 12. Other Material, A copy of the latest Progress Report is attached-- with a few last minute medical raw data sheets inserted. In addition, there are (not attached but available): casette, photos & drawings of two RV experi- ments by Subj # 4; and a series of SRI documents relating to the Nature article. 13, Social. and I spent 5 or 6 six hours durin 16 Oct with Hal Puthorr SG1l SGFOIAS3 SGFOIA3 14, In Conclusion. I'm impressed by the intensity of their motivation and by the quantity of work they have done--but a bit distressed by the lack of discipline with respect to procedures and exploitation of data. It may be that this is an inevitable (however unpalatable) trade-off for having a pair of such eager, hard-working and imaginative investigators in such an exotic field. There is no doubt that both are very intensely and emotionally wrapped-up in their work, are wholly convinced of the existence of the psychic phenomena they are investigating and equally convinced that they can harnass it in time. I cannot honestly judge the degree to which their objectivity suffers as a consequence-~- or the degree to which any postulated loss of objectivity biases the outcome of their work. For what its worth, I am personally convinced that neither are engaging in conscious cheating--but the very intensity of their involvement does, it seems to me, elevate the possibility of unconscious cueing. Let me hasten to add that I have absolutely no evidence of the latter, either; it is simply a possibility which, given the dynemics of the entire Situation, it would be irresponsible not to recognize. On the other hand, at the risk of RUBE EAL EE AS that the weight of SBE the evidence CD Scare BEA SSENT Oa SAE Kg } leaves me on balance more persuaded than not of some psychic functioning--although I'm less confident that we now have either the tools to measure it or the capacity to conceptualize or model it. Empirically, nonetheless, I can see operational uses if certain of the alleged gifts can be demonstrated under optimum controls and if measures in support of confidence-level indicators can be devised, SG1l VOR. YP Teeem~ nerves ra ( 2AB-008 by bereipeee wy le x . , 4 a wa ea _— . } Set fot ef: OG ofr lc ful “Ly aEhiticigy Khe diberiigh ye Oo / Dy 4 (yee tia Lb! SG1l ZL y comp td ot KC Wie of Shit PO ih bel of oe ; . “7s . & wa el PL A LO SGI — Le Lo o yee A Lu? ree ele Lye k > c Cb be fb CE AAC “ Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110021-2 SG1l