datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
r
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIAgg^»|^^88R001 500080001 -8
IAGPA-F-SD
FACT SHEET
LTC Buzby/7829
16 August
1983
SUBJECT:
CENTER LANE Update (U)
THRU:
Mr. Del
Toro, ADCSOPS-HUMINT
TO:
Commander,
Headquarters,
INSCOM
(U)
PURPOSE:
To
update
Commander,
INSCOM concerning CENTER LANE
activities
from
6 Jun through
16 Aug
.
FACTS:
.
(U
)
LTC Jachim transferred
from SSPD to Hawaii
on
8 Jul
83.
2.
(C)
Cpt Atwater
served
as
acting
chief
of
SSPD
from
Jul
TO
14 Aug
.
.
(U )
LTC Buzby arrived
on
15 Aug
from Los Angeles,
CA
.
4.
(S/CL-3/NOFORN)
One
CL
personnel
attending
MIAS
Gateway
Program
( PHASE
II)
from
through
19 Aug
.
5.
( S/CL-3/NOFORN )
Two new
incoming personnel:
a.
Captain,
due
Sep
83 ,
transferring from USAOG
b
.
Captain,
due
Jan
83,
transferring from Ft Huachuca
6.
(S/CL-3/NOFORN
)
One
civilian part-time participant
has
been
recruited
and has
started
an
in-house training program
.
.
(S/CL-l/NOFORN)
Two
new
taskings
were
received
from
NSA
,
work
is currently under way
to satisfy these
requests
.
WARNING
NOTICE'.
SPECIAL ACCESS
PROGRAM
RESTRICT DISSEMINATION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS
CATEGORY QLr 3
CLASSIFIED
BY:
DECL:
OADR
CDR , INSCOM
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-1 SB0788R001 500080001 -8
NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
-_ | Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150011-4 sample size 100 -maximum 12 minimum 3 - range 9 , mean 6.23 ° variance — 4.239494949 an standard deviation 2.059003387 Al mean deviation 1.6314 median 6 mode 6 15M M M . M Qo. M- : Q) 0.0 TOM , Oo 0 00 Number M oO °° 9090 9) 0 of MQ QO Q QO - 00 oO o00 °.0 Yellow MO 0 m6) 000 6 6 66 0 2) fe) per MO 9 0 000 0 g000 0 Q) 0 0 00 O00 Trial - 5MO0 000 9 00 0 Q 0000 0 0 O M QO Q000 O oO oO O00 0 0.0 a M 0) 0 {) Q Q QO Q Q) wo M- OM M M M M M M M M M M 0 20 40 60 80 100 Trial Number Figure 1.1.a -Distribution of Machine Yellows Over Trials Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150011-4 6 :
ad -— Number of Green per Trial — t. wna Sample size maximum minimum range - mean variance - standard deviation mean deviation median. mode 154M M M M M 0 tOM MQ oO.0°. 60 0 00 MO QO OO M QO. 0 00. 0 QO MO 0 0 00 00 5M 00 0 0000 0 0 MOO Q) QO Q M 0 QO M 0.0 , M QO. OM M M M OM 40 0 20 100 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150011-4 0 0 QO OO 0.000 0.0.0 OO 0 00 0:0 0 Q.0 @) 0 12 fe) 12 6.13 52851616162 24419011402 1.9404 6 5 7 9] ey) 0 00 a0 0.0 0 Q OO 0 000 Qo 0 () 00 0 Q Q 00 QO M M M 60 Trial Number M M M 80 100 Figure 1.1.b Distribution of Machine Greens Over Trials 7 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020015001 1-4
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020015001 1-4 sample size. ‘400 maximum ne _ minimum | range me) mean 6.21 _ variance ~ 5.218080808 “Standard deviation 2.284311889 mean deviation (.8194 median 6 mode 6 15M M M M we lon O° 6° Number MQ 0 () 0 BTU ‘ Oo 00 00 0, o ue Q 0 0 Q Per M 0-0 00 0 00 0 0 00. 000 9” 3° ‘Trial MO OOO Q 0 000000 9) 000 0 oO Oo 5M 0000 0-0 a) O00 00 MO OF 0 0000-0 0 yO _  o9 0 0 0 MOQ) 0 0 OM 0 0 : oO 20, © 40 | 60 80 100 Trial Number Approvefiigar Release 20034047 ButGUn RAP RS 0 TARRONHAAA 15001 1-4 a 3
Number of Red Per Trial Sample size maximum minimum range mean Varlance Standard deviation mean deviation median mode 15M M M M ‘MO | 10M 00 M00 00 M000 wo OO M 5M “MO " i . | OM MOM 0 20 QOQQO QO 0 00 Q000 0 00 0 O Q M 0 9 0 0 00 00 0 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R00020015001 1-4 100 12 I Ui 6.43 . 4.638414] 4] 2. 152072058 6 fe) Q 0. 0 QO 0000 90 00 0 00 00 QQ 9200 9) 0 Trial Number " vA 9] Q QO 0.0 0.0 QO 0 Q A re) le 03/04/18 : CIA- RDP96- 00787R000200150011-4 ppreued hon Re Aste opiate of Machine Reds Over Trials 9 Q) 9) Q 0 100
a a Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001600160001-8 cot ke Sk te ca SGIA Additional tasking Is additional tasking required? (If yes, please write what that tasking is on the back of the form) Did the attached information add to _ information. derived from other intell- igence sources? Did the attached information aid in tasking other intelligence resources by providing targeting information? SG1l (Printed), NAME, GRADE TEcH SvoPT dbrre (Printed) TITLE, or OFFICE OTE! Nae Naas GonteNe > oper — Spe | Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001600160001-8
‘me nun a tenet nhyaimiasttna Cea hea SHENG a aa TD Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6 _— a OX —— | o AF | Se | ct nn I CE a ee ee Magee os mane ARE eA Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6
spreitcnalsiadiceandnenmentireie askin ge nanatiniommaeleeanminaalas ih o4y eis ial agen ot bea Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6 wef ID Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/09 : ny i i _ % q aN rr ok Wren Ne SA OCN Co SSS f — %, a - yee / SS ea / " a AN. f Approved For Release 2000/08/09 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003700240004-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0037002^0^-2
On. \
^
(]_ C
O
\‘-
c-
K \ \ CL
Approved For Release 2000/08/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003700240004-2
- Test Scoring aa ep no a Halstead Category Nonverbal test requiring abstraction of conceptual relation- j 14 33 46 6 28 Test , ships. Score: Total errors. Tactual Performance Requires placement of 10 geometrically shaped blocks in Test their correct locations on a formboard while blindfolded. 16.4 11.8 7.7 7.7 11.4 6.9 Separate RT, LT, and bimanual trials. Score: Total time (min.). Speech Perception Discrimination of non-word speéch sounds. 4 2 0 2 5 3 Test Score: Total errors. ; Seashore Rhythm Test Discrimination of nonverbal rhythms. Score: Number correct. | 27 25 28 29 26 29 _——— —— Finger Tapping Test Measure of finger oscillation rate for 10-sec. period, both RT/LT RT/LT RT/LT RT/LT RT/LT- = RT/LT . RT and LT hand trials. Score: No. taps/10 sec. 53/50 53/49 48/47 54/53 47/47 48/43 Trail Making Test Requires connecting numbered circles in order from 1 to 25. Attainment Test Score: Number correct. 27 (Part A) Paper and pencil task. Score: Total times (sec) 40 16 18 19 30 Trail Making Test Requires connecting alphabetic and numbered circles by 56 50 55 50 54 53 (Part B) alternating 1+A>%2-B, etc. Score: Total time (sec) Knox Cube Test Measure of attention span and immediate visual memory. 13 14 13 16 17 V7 Score: Number correct. Raven Progressive Nonverbal intelligence test involving spatial matrices. 39 53 49 55 60 54 . Matrices Score: Number correct. ee Verbal Concept Requires abstraction of verbal conceptual relationships. 22 24 27 23 21 24 | { Total: 14/20 17/20 18/20 19/20 20/20 20/20 List: 8/20 14/20 11/20 16/20 15/20 16/20 (8 trials)(7 trials “RT/LT RT/LT RT/LT RI/LT RI/LT RT/LT 76/74 69/70 58/67 59/67 ga 48/50 Buschke Memory Test Requires learning a 20-word list in a maximum of 12 trials with repetition of words omitted after each trial. Score: Max. no. words correctly remembered; List: no. words consistently remembered Grooved Pegboard Test} Requires insertion of 25 pegs in their holes in a pegboard. Both RT and LT hand trials. Score: Total time (sec). Spatial Relations Requires mental rotation and identification of figures Subtest of the PMA rotated in 2 dimensions. Score: no. correct —- no. errors. Gottschaldt Hidden Requires tracing outline of simple figure hidden Within | | d t Figures Test lines of more complexAppgaved For Release 2003048, : ClArBDP.96-00787R0G02001500 718° - v-good outst. outst.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200390001-5
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200390001-5
Approved For
CIA-RDP96-00789R003700320002-5
/w
**Y
f?
S&r
S’/
$.
GlAs^_£
fir
XrLsp#L^£
/C-c^
(B-
Approved For Release 2000/08/09
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003700320002-5
Approved,£or Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-09787R000200200016-3 ia ww ° 6 August 1974 MEMO FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT Telecon from Dr Puthoff of SRI 1. Talked with Dr Puthoff fran 1330 to 1350 hrs on this date. He gave me a run-down on some of the developments and data which he is putting into his next report (see below). He promised me that he would be through with the report this week and hoped that, after editing and art-work, etc, it would be on its way to us by the end of next week. Told him that, in addition to the regular channels, he should bring a couple of copies with him when he comes East. We'll be seeing him on 21 August and can discuss the report then if we already have a copy and, if not, can discuss it with him when he returns thru DC from Geneva on 28 or 29 August. Some of the tidbits he passed on are: a. they've identified all nine subjects but are tending now to view them only in two categories: Super Stars and Controls (with, possibly, a sub-group of the latter being 'learners'--those who seem to progress); b. they've reduced the screening tests from five to three (learning machine, OOB, telepathic drawings) and have set firm million-to-one . criteria for super-star status; the other two tests (EEG strobe and tortion pendulum) are still being used in later stages but were not, he Says, sufficiently discriminating for screening; ec. they have ‘mountains of data' for us which he is trying to analyze for this next report and he agrees that at least preliminary analysis at this point makes much more sense than waiting (as he'd planned) til near the end of the project; d. Pat Price has gone thru his entire medical and starts his psych- ological exams on 8 August; PAMC had just called Hal before he called me to say they'd found highly unusual amounts of fluid in his brain-scan 4 (which SRI has decided to include on PAMC's statement that X-ray exposure oe is minimal--so much for our guidance); e. all other subjects are now firmly scheduled for medical & psych & exams and all should be completed by late September; f. they've run some mid-test neurological correlates on Price, with some possibly interesting findings--and are now factor analyzing to see if there are correlates with respect to accurate and inaccurate OOB reporting. 2. All in all, he sounded rather positive, encouraged and encouraging--~but we'll know better when we see his report. Though I told him I'd deliberately refrained from calling him because I didn't want to seem harassing, I stressed to him the importance of this report and the need to ensure that it reflected accurately all that has gone on. I told him it makes no difference to us if there are 5 or 3 screening tests, or 2 or 3 groups of subjects, as long as the procedures and data are consistent and m j SGFOIA3 __ SGI1I SGFOIA3 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200200016-3
Approved^r Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-0Q787R000200200016-3
6 August 1974
MEMO FOE THE RECORD
SUBJECT
Telecon from Dr Puthoff of SRI
1. Talked with Dr Puthoff from 1330 to 1350 hrs on this date.
He gave me
a run-down on some of the developments and data which he
is putting into his
next report
(see below).
He promised me that he would be through with the report
this week and hoped that,
after editing and art-work,
etc,
it would be on its
way to us by the end of next week.
Told him that,
in addition to the regular
channels, he should bring a couple
of copies with him when he comes East.
We'll
be
seeing him on 21 August and can discuss the report then if we already have
a
copy and,
if not,
can discuss
it with him when he returns thru DC from Geneva on
28 or 29 August.
Some
of the tidbits he passed on are:
a.
they've identified all nine subjects but are tending now to
view them only in two categories:
Super Stars and Controls
(with, possibly,
a sub-group of the latter being
'learners '--those who seem to progress);
b.
they've reduced the screening tests from five to three
(learning
machine,
00B,
telepathic drawings) and have set firm million-to-one
criteria for super-star status;
the other two tests
(EEG strobe and toi^ion
pendulum)
are still being used in later stages but were not,
he says,
sufficiently discriminating for screening;
c.
they . have
'mountains
of data'
for us which he
is trying to
analyze for this next report and he agrees that at least preliminary analysis
at this point makes much more sense than waiting
(as he'd planned) til
near the end of the project;
d.
Pat Price has gone thru his
entire medical and starts his psych-
ological exams on 8 August;
PAMC had just called Hal before he called me
to say they'd found highly unOisual amounts of fluid in his brain-scan
(which SRI has decided to include
on PAMC's statement that X-ray exposure
-
is minimal— so much for our guidance);
e.
all other subjects are now firmly scheduled for medical & psych
exams and all should be completed by late September;
f. .they've run some mid-test neurological correlates
on Price, with
some possibly interesting findings--and are now factor analyzing to see if
there are correlates with respect to accurate and inaccurate 00B reporting.
2« All in all,
he sounded rather positive,
encouraged and encouraging- -but
we'll know better when we
see his report.
Though I told him I'd deliberately
refrained from calling
hiap. because
I didn't want to seem harassing,
I stressed to
him the importance of this report and the need to ensure that
it reflected
accurately all that has gone
on.
I told him it makes no difference to us
if there
are
5 or
3 screening tests,
or
2 or 3 groups of subjects,
as long as the procedures
and data are consistent and meaningful
.
I
'
I
SGI
SGFOIA3
SGFOIA3
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200200016-3
Appraivedifier Releane’ROQMOSIi0:: GARD RE 007SNRI00200200030-7 ; » This outline is divided into Gusce sections: one for each of the _ three specified areas of basic research and a final section devoted to general comments and suggestions relating to the overall research design, It is suggested that the extensive batteries of standard tests listed below be given only to those gifted subjects used in developing the ‘applied’ research data and to an appropriate. number of controls. PART I: Identification of Measurable Characteristics Possessed by Gifted Subjects (approximately 20% of The total project effort) Sensory Evaluation ; . . Can bet, MrEnsiTy % Fa eCRUNY) Auditory if- Simple tones, check extremes of spectrum -going as far . beyond thresholds as instrumentation permits an hfe [HP LER # ~ As much fancy audiometry as facilities permit ~ <4 widieatec? bp ats 6? Cog Dek B C- Include if possible measures relating,to implicit speech] a a HAR ed = Subtinimad Ce ttte, elern ; bis Visual #7 - Check acuity, defining the extreme limits 4 ~ Visual fields by instrument with several types of targets and varying dimness-intennity-color factovs #7 € Pseudoisochromatice plates " : L £ cohen digerimin: pion with monochrometers or yarn test ; A ~ Explore Wasson reyond visible range; beyond visual threshold (the A ~ Flicker-Fusion test Bp Mannaicr of PHOTONS) Tactile - Two-point discrimination - Vibratory te perder he -— An rend Cold discrimination - : anedienl Haim 4 - (Synesthesia test?) ~— Sherewgverta § SG1I Psychological Evaluation (i op MM /) pO . fi - Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI) ff. ~ Projective tests <. for Rorschach» fi ~ WAIS/PAS test (by Ga wa werriné) Al ~- luscher Color test . . . SG1I B - Strong and/or Allport-Vernon’ -- aptitude/values ° | 8 ~ Reaction time tests -- latency {- Raven's Matrix -- abstractions ff ~ Iimbedded Figures tests -- illusions fi - Memory tests, including cidetic imagery is possible § @ - Suggestibility tests (Ernest Hilgarde, Stanford) ff - Field Dependency tests (Witkin) 8 - If facilities permit, tests relating to ‘information processing’ rates and modes In-Depth Interview - This item is listed separately but will obviously be closely tied to both the psychological evaluation (above) and the medical evluation (below). We visualize the 2 f possibility of separate_but_related interviews by. medical Approved ForéReleans 2000/08(10.5:GIA-RDP96.0028 /ROGOAOO 20008057" ene SGI
Approved For ReUyN G<kA&5 If tEDe-00788R001 3001 70002-9
(U)
in use at the present time,
it
can be applied to analyses
in which numeri-
cal estimates
of target/transcript correspondences are made on the basis
of other rank-order or rating scales.
This includes arbitrary scale
rating arrived at by some complex procedure involving many factors such
as occurs
in multiple- judge voting;
cases
in which, for a given target,
several transcripts are given the same rating,
all transcripts are rated
zero,
a few transcripts are assigned rank order numbers and the rest are
assigned the mean of ' the remaining rank order numbers, and so forth.
The
only requirement
is that no artifactual information is provided as to the
order of targets and transcripts.
In particular,
it
can be shown that
if
targets are used with replacement or are non-orthogonal , then the method
applies even in the case in which there is trial-by-trial feedback and
the target pool
is known a priori to both remote viewer and interviewer .
Thus the possibility of interviewer cueing or subject guessing based on
a priori knowledge of the target pool
is handled at
a fundamental level
by a statistical procedure that assumes the worst
.
The argument
is
as
follows
.
(U)
In the absence of knowledge as to which transcript was
generated in response to which target,
one observes
that in setting up
the target-transcript matrix there are
nl
possible ways to label the
columns
(transcripts),
given any particular order of the rows
(targets),
and vice versa.
Thus,
there are
nl possible matrices that could be
constructed from the raw judging data,
all
of them equally likely under
the null hypothesis that the viewer's remote viewing attempts produce
nothing but vague and general descriptions and/or occasional
chance
correspondences with various target sites.
Each matrix has
its associated
sum on the matrix diagonal corresponding to a possible alignment
of
targets
.
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 70002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
:
(U)
representation of the arched entrance to the overpass.
Again, however,
there were so many extraneous elements
to the viewer's output that our
judge ranked this transcript fourth out of six.
Rating
it only with
regard to the individual target, we assigned it an Accuracy Rating = 3.
This remote viewing series was the first
to be conducted
with a
volunteer.
It was
judged in accordance with the detailed
concept analysis described earlier.
The final tally revealed only one
correct first-place assignment,
and all others fourth-place or
less.
The
series was therefore statistically nonsignificant, according to our
evaluation criteria.
Our Accuracy Rating assessment agreed fairly well
with the blind judging results
,
both being relatively low because
of the
viewer's
frdquent inclusion of erroneous elements along with strongly
correct ones
in a given transcript/drawing package,
a combination that
made judging difficult.
(Our sum of Accuracy Ratings was
16,
the
next
to the
lowest
of the six.)
In engineering terms
this would be a good
example of
a signal-to-noise problem.
There were occasional good examples
of signal,
but
it was generally overwhelmed by the
noise.
2.
Viewer
No.
292
(U)
(U)
Target
1:
SRI Courtyard .
The central feature of this
large,
enclosed courtyard is
a fountain in a square concrete base.
The
viewer described a number of different architectual forms
including domes
and columns, which are not
at
the target
site.
He also described a small
waterfall,
however, which
is
in fact at the
site,
in a form well illustrated
by one of his drawings.
In addition, another drawing shows an eight-lobed
circular structure that
closely resembles
the inner portion of
the fountain.
Because
of
the many nonapplicable elements
of the description,
however,
this transcript only merits an Accuracy Rating
= 3
.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
f
e>
Approved For Release^000/08/10
: ClA-RDP96-00787RW0200200030-7
(1) baselines and resting levels
(2) response to tones and lights
(3)
sub -threshold stimuli
(4)
specialized testing
PART III:
Identify
(or provide theories
on) the nature of the validated
paranormal phenomena and energy (approximately 10% of the
total project effort)
,
, Mt
,
s*^AU“**
Use of Beischer probes ,
if feasible
)
i
)aA
Use of Gradiometers
.
specifying the energy
) level,
field strength,
intensity of stimuli
attempt to
- Whether in eclectic or creative mode,
provide basic theoretical constructs on the underlying
dynamics,
the mode of communication or of energy
transference which seem consistent with the validated
phenomena
Provide theories on means of developing/enhancing the gift
PART IV:
General Comments and Observations , Additional Suggestions
SG1D
oh
F°r °p
x mum credibility with sponsor elements
(assuming validation
fLs?hlp
hn^
men
?^
WS
. Urge adoPtlon of the most stringent experimental controls
feasible .under the circumstances-including,
but not necessarily limited to
use of non-paranormal lab referees
>
,
u
J‘
i
: . inltlaly
«*> balance of toe overall orperlaental
design,
establish daily procedures and routine management practices before
eginning experimentation with the subjects;
spot-check the on-going experiments*
cstablxto the random trials involving CNS, A® and otoet
(e.g., X-Sy) S.
T
Jf
oughout the experimentation,
use only qualified experts to
administer the various specialized tests;
*
(3) Before
a day's experimentation,
subjects should strip-down (removing
rings, wristwatches,
etc,
as wen) and put
on a special lab gaLent (jmpsIS);
the
ori-f-
Sh?u1
^
clearer understanding of the criteria employed by
the contractor in determining who are
’gifted’
and
'superstar'
subjects;
shoald be understood that, while
the sponsor will not be given
^entities of the_ subjects along with the results of testing,
the sponsor
will have access to all of the specified raw test data
(above);
be limit
a
?
S ^°ne
a
sPotbasis during experimentation,
it should
e limited
bo chest,
hands and skull;
(ultra- sound?)
-
<n
UnJ^houW also have a cleaecr understanding and,
if possible
a
set
for the subjects'
fees;
’
be matched normal-control subjects throughout;
"jpippijP should be on the list of
' authorized'
supervisors;
be us ®ful to have
- a simple yet comprehensive self-inventory
(e.g., mood,
rested,
ailments,
etc)
for the subjects
to fill out
on the morning of each test day before interaction with lab personnel*
ssssar
(
di"u?enith
o4
an4 ftp
for
givon
&
,
.
. Dc discusoed with the subjects beforehand;
and
(1-2) We should be clear on the nature of
'feedback'
(when,
how, how often)
e
c
lurinS experimentation.
r
,
.(Jr< l/i
rv A-i
t
fc/j .
ij;
,
/
.-*• /
(j~t tv
*
rate
SGI
I
SGI
I
// jJ £/'f&Z
3 ^prove^Fo ryRelease 2f^O/Cte/^^^lA-^e#>9^(Kr7
?8^R6cfo^2t5oSo0030-7
j
l| yrvcil
y
| _-~" Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6 GSGESSTONW VAaSkerEnG SHEET Source No. ee <-  —ae Date Task Initiated € LEB Gud. Suspense Date ie | 00 ay, 7 LE BI] Task/Targeting Na.: GAH GF SEM Method/Technique: Target Data Desired: 1. DESCRIBE KEY TARGET FEATURES (include forms, shapes, spatial aspects, color, motion/dynamics): ~ Emphasize the following: - Do the fallowing perspectives: - Ground-level ~ Overview ~ Qther: 2. IDENTIFY KEY TARGET CONTENT (include meaning, purpose, function, nature of activity, type/nature of people, if present): ~ Emphasize the following: 3. IF PERSONALITY, DESCRIBE: cal o~ 4. OTHER: (mectometeccree / | sett dts t£ts) AALG ; A ‘ . - Cf” ht / a a $C, a, 4‘ S. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: (see attached) - Optiorrah Coardimatia : Mp S02( feo 6¥dY _ pV oe? vuud ais Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002302440001-6