Approved
Several
caveates
are necessary
in order that
this
review
be
considered
a fair appraisal
of
the
state of
the
research described,
e
First,
there are available only
three
progress
reports
covering
a
period
28 January
to
August
1974.
Evidently,
the major portion
of research data
both basic and applied
has
yet
to
be submitted
to
the
sponsor,
a
No
interviews
v/ere
held witb the principal
investigators
or
their staff
to
clarify some
of the
techniques
and procedures
described
in
the progress
report.
Little
or
no description
beyond
general
impressions
has. been
obtained
by the clients'
monitors
of this
project.
@
As
a
result of
the
incomplete reporting and data analysis,
the
reviev/er must
be extremely careful
not
to
give
a
biased
repoi t
because
supposed weaknesses
or strengths of the
initial
reports
may not
be perpetuated
in
a
final
and more comprehensive reporting
of
the
research.
Background Section
The purpose
as
stated
in
the
progress
report on
the program
is
"to determine
the characteri sti cs
of
those
perceptual
modalities
through
vdiicii
indiviouals
obtain
information about
their environment, wherein such
information
is
not
presented
to any
known
sense."
The
program
is"divided
into
two categories
of investigation of
approximately
equal
effort:
appl ied research
and
basic research.
The
purpose
of the applied
research
is
to explore experimentally the
potential
for
applications of perceptual
abilities
of
interest, with special
attention give
to accuracy and reliability.
The purpose of the
basic research
is
to
identiiy
the characteristics
of
individual
possessing
such abilities,
and
to
identify
neurophysiological
correlates
and basic mechanisms
involved
in such
functions."
This review must
by necessity
be concentrated
on what
the
Approved For Release
available
in
the
three progress
reports
concerning
the neurophysiological
correlates
and
basic mechanisms.
Since
the
information
is
presented
in
progress
report form,
the organization
of
this
reviev/ must
be artificial
and
perhaps
does
not represent
in order of importance of the subjects discussed.
An Overivew
A reading of the
three progress
reports
leaves
the
impression
that
the research was done
on
a
pragmatic and
perhaps
"catch-as-catch-can"
basis.
Such
an approach may have
been necessitated
by
the availability of certain
subjects or may
be
a
reflection
of
the absence of
a
long-range
plan.
It
is
also somewhat difficult
to
separate
the research
that was
begun
in January
1974 from research conducted
by
SRI
during previous
periods.
This
is particularly
true because
in
the first
tw'o progress
reports
there are
enclosures
(in
the form of appendices)
that were prepared
under different
sponsorship.
One
is
undated.
Thus,
it
is difficult
to determine
the
period
during which
the research was
conducted.
The reviewer believes
this
paper,
entitled
"Information
transmission under conditions
os
sensory shielding,"
may have
been sponsored just prior
to
the present reporting
period.
It
is
questionable v/hether this
portion
of the
progress
report should
be considered
here,
but
the reviewer
has
examined
it
in order
that
the review
be comprehensive.
This appendix covers
the work done with
Mr.
Geller who
performed
under
a variety of test situations.
When
one examines
the data
and
the analyses
of
Mr.
Geller's ability
to reproduce stimulus material
enclosed
in
sealed
envelopes,
it
is necessary
on
two counts
to
look at pragmatic useage
of
the
skills
or unique talent demonstrated.
The first point concerns
the degree of replicability
of
the stimulus
material.
How accurate must the reproduction
be
to
have value
or meaning.
If one seeks exact reproduction
as
a criterion one would
reach certain
conclusions
fromtlie
test.
If one allows
for analyses
of symbolism or
near-identity or even
similarity,
other interpretations are possible.
The second
point concerns
the methodology of submitting
Mr.
Geller's
responses
to judges
in order
to
see
if they can match responses
to
stimili.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007001 00007-9
The findings of
the judges
v/ould
indicate
a
very high matching
of stimulus
to
response material.
The reviewer questions
the
value of this matching
procedure.
There were
no false responses
or false stimulus
material.
These were very
limited
test materials
for matching
purposes.
This
is
an appropriate procedure only
if one
is
interested
in symbolism or
similarities
rather
than actual
or exact reproductions.
The
reviewer
feels
that
if one
is
not pragmatically concerned with exact reproductions,
or mental
Xerox copies
of
the
stimulus material,
then
he
has
a
purpose
for
this
information which would require symbolic analysis
and
interpretation
of the response material
that escapes
the
reviewer.
To
see something
like
the target material
rather
than
the target material
might give
hints
to
its
true
identity or configuration
but
if the responses made
by
Mr.
Geller
have elements
of symbolism,
and
they appear
to,
then
interpretation
becomes
a
much more ambiguous
and difficult
task.
These statements
in
no way
imply that
Mr.
Seller's
response stimulus
materials are not interesting
or
that on
the surface without examination
of
the
experimental
methodology are not above chance expectation.
One must,
however,
seek
and
interpret these results
in
terms
of the objectives of
the
research.
The reviewer cannot evaluate
the conditions
under which
these
experiments were conducted.
There
is
no way
to exclude
the possibility
that clairvoyance precogni tion
, or even elements
of psychokinesis,
or
a
mixture of
the
three,
may not
have
been operating.
In addition,
one cannot
judge from these reports whether there were
flaws
in handling
the
test material.
It
is
possible
to comment
on
the die experiments
conducted with
the
sensitive,
but
only
in
a
tentative fashion because
of the brief description
and data available.
In order
to
appropriately evaluate one needs
to
know more
about
the pass
circumstances
when
the subject chose not
to
respond.
The
fact
that
the ^stimulus material
is
known
(six possible choices)
makes
this
a more structured
task,
eliminating confusing
interpretations.
The
results
seem impressive.
However,
the reviewer
is
not acquainted with
the
potential
means
of manipulation
of dice
in' these circumstances.
More data
should
be collected
under controlled conditions.
Apprfi>v^V6r^?fei§&sf^2fmS>f/D3’/0^s G4A-RDfi*SS^73m0Oi(ii™O(lffla0^
pictures
of every day objects drawn
by
the experimenters
and artists
and
sealed
in
envelopes.
The
hundred
targets were divided
randomly
into
two groups
of
for
3 days of experiments.
On each of
the
days
of these
experiments
Mr.
C7eller did
not
respond.
He declined
to associate any
envelope with
the drawing
that
he
had made.
On each day
he made approximately
two
recognizable drawings which
Mr.
Geller felt were related
to
the target
pool
(100).
On each
of the three days,
two of his drawings were considered
reasonably associated with
2 of the
20 daily targets.
On
the
third day,
two
of
his drawings were considered close replications
to
that day's
pictures.
The experimenters did
not consider these results significant nor-
would
the reviewer.
Evidently,
the researchers
believed
the significant
factor was
that
no
person associated with
the research staff
had
knowledge
of what
the pictures
or
targets
were.
This
suggests
that
Mr.
Geller may
need
to
read somebody
s
mental
impressions
rather than
the
target material.
This
hypothesis
needs
further
study and
evaluation,
because
it
introduces
variables
not controlled
for totally
in
these studies.
Mr.
Geller'
subjective
impression was
that
having
a
target
pool
of 100 stimuli
in
contrast
to
a
single
target for
each judgement confused
the
identity of
the
target.
This explanation
is difficult
to evaluate.
Perhaps
if
Mr.
Geller
is
used
in
later studies
the
experimenters
can get at this
factor.
Until
this matter
is
clarified
the precise ESP condition
that
is operating cannot
be determined.
Remote Viewing
by
Mr.
Price
There
is
little description of
the
actual
narratives
of
Mr.
Price.
One
cannot determine whether
he was
aware of
the
nine
sites
or had
visited
them
prior
to. the experiment.
It
is
known that
he was
not aware of which
site was
being
visited- at any particular
time.
It
is
also clear
that
the experimenter
did
not know which
site was
visited,
but whether
he
had
knowledge of
the
site selected was
not clearly articulated.
In order for
the judges
to match narratives against the
sites
they
visited may
be potentially significant.
However,
v/ithout more original
data and transcripts
of the narratives
it
is
impossible for
the
reviewer
to