—  — — —— S) cod CIA-RDP96-00787R00020001 0005-6 fae Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CONFIDENTIAL 19 October 1974 MENO FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT SRI Paranormal Research Sci GI 15 = 18 October 1974 Trip Report . 1. Summary. BE (ors) and (ORD) spent a total of twenty hours at SRI on 15 ~ 17 October, during which! a series of general discussions were held, primarily with Puthoff and Targ and to a much lesser extent with Cox and Jones, about past performance and achievements, current status of the research and the details of that to be accomplished in the time remaining; we reviewed in some detail the experimental protocols, went over all the evidence. pertaining to several recent experiments and took part in three new ones; and tentative plans were made for an SRI ~ ee in Washington, probably in SG1l early December, In addition, while Was visiting another contractor during the afternoon of 17 October, spent several hours reviewing SRI'ts SGI experimental records and sampling the various categories of raw data collected thus far. Despite distractions stemming from. reactions to the publication of the Nature article and despite the fact that none of the ‘superstars’ were able to be in San Francisco on such short notice, the trip was useful in terms of clarifying the exact status of the research and delineating both our expectations ‘and their obligations during the remainder of the effort. While they weren't coy about the criticality to them of lining-up follow-on funds (or support from other sources) as soon as possible, there wasn't any undue focus or pressure on this issue--nor, of course, were any commitments made. Indeed, on balance, they almost certainly view the prospects as being rather more bleak than prom- ising. Ina not unrelated vein, there were several attempts to get me to — conclude that (from the operator's point of view) the capabilities evidently shown in the recent technical-COB experiments could be usefully exploited in the field. The most I was able to tell them in this respect was that I could visualize legitimate field applications (and a genuinely receptive attitude on the part of DD/O management) only iff those experiments could be replicated with at least the same degree of accuracy under fool-proof protocols (see below); and 4f there was also some way of providing reasonably reliable confidence-level indicators (EEG or otherwise) with respect to the probable accuracy of each element of the remote-viewing narration, Current Status & Plans re Basic Research 2, Subjects. They explained the reduction from 9 to 6 subjects by stating that they'd been unrealistically optimistic in our first talks--that there simply wasn't enough time to put nine people thru all the screening tests and then thru the ops testing and that they could never have analyzed all the data (indeed, its doubtful if they'll ever fully analyze the data which they already have--see below). In any case, they felt it better to do 6 thoroughly than 9 partially. As for the 3 so-called 'subjects' and 3 so-called'controls', their basic error was in not sticking to their.guns at the outset--i.e., that when you don't control the phenomena (as in this case) you simply cannot (in their view) determine in advance who the controls are to be. C71 desvac, They OR Cr Fa FEE FETUS ‘Ue Ate h§ Ran ble FHA "COmMTR CLE, CONFIDENTIAL Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6 a savejen whips weeny Dent ae SRAEDOREA ACA out 14 9 ees Si Aas ata fz
ET ‘ . “»#2- Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6. : 3, The Screening Tests. Their reasons for dropping 2 of the tests were as follows: the EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 107° figures (in part, they believe, because EEG signals,in general are just too noisy to work with) and since they'd set a standard of 1076 for psychic performance they saw no advantage in continuing to devote dwindling time to it; the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also i giving low figures with Subjects # 1 and 2 but the major problem was that one has : to run a tremendous number of trials in order to get statistically significant results in any PK experiment and the analysis of the data is much more time-consuming than in other experiments, They'd like to have kept a PK test, such as the one with the gradiometer (where, after 150 runs, they were getting 1073 with subj #1) but, again, it seemed inadvisable time-wise. The remaining screening tests are: Remote Viewing (RV=9 trials), the Teaching Machine (TM=2500 trials) and Line Drawings(plus es) eards)(ID=10 trials). The current status wifh respect to each for each subject is as follows (those who've already reached 10™™ are indicated by (*)). Subject RV TM LD SG1I #1 ; Completed (*) Completed Completed #2 2 done Completed (*) o> # 3 . $ done 4+ done Completed (but.to be done again w/ right protocol) #4 . Completed (*) Completed @) #5 0 0 0 # 6 4 done Completed 0) They're getting 'crummy' data from the Line Drawings (i.e., few hits) but will complete them for all subjects anyway. All of the RV and TM basic screening should be completed within the next few weeks. As for their increasing ofsthe Teaching a Machine trials from 1000 to 2500, they claim that (in our original.conversations & SG1l the later ones with WE they hadn't focused on those figures as being neces- sarily definitive and, in any case, they hadn't really analyzed enough data at that time to make sound judgements about the best number of trials. h, Some Observations re the Screening Tests. All of the RV results will be i judged by 5 independent judges, each of whom will get the nine transcripts from each subj and then visit the sites (with replacements) and try to match them. They had been planning to wait til they had all 54 trials completed and may yet do so but I urged them, in any case, to be sure the judging was completed on all which have been run by the time of their presentation in DC and they promised to do so. The LDs are yun til they have 10 drawings from each subj--but they are allowed unlimited number of 'passes'. As an example of what they meant by the problem of identifying ‘'subjects' _ vs ‘eontrols' in advance, they stated that Subj # 4 was chosen as a ‘control’ specif- ically because she did so poorly on both the TM and the gradiometer--but then she went wild on the RV experiments, surpassing everyone else in accuracy & repeatability. 5. Status of Medical, Psychological & Mid-Test Neurophysiological Exams. See the clipped pages in the attached Progress Report #0 for the Medical & Psych matrices--about which the following comments and clarifications should be made: the Halstead-Reitan will be added as an entry in the Psych matrix and, altho all the arrangements have been made, none of the subjs have taken it yet since Puthoff (as a result of some other unpleasantnesses, see below) wants to take it himself first and promised to do so in the near future and then schedule all the subjects; when subj ## 2 returned from the Electroretinogram he was almost a basket case--said it was the most harrowing experience he'd ever had--and Puthoff cancelled it for the rest of the subjects; all the rest of the exams have been going quite well with the exception that Subj # 1 refused to take the TAT. P.Ro# 4 does not show a matrix for the Neuro Mid-Experiment exams but they intend to do five such exams on a random pasis (without any warning) for each of the six subjects. The current status in all three areas is as follows: Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
A -~3- Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96- i ) Subject Medical /Sensory PEP ALE 4P00 1000S: aap Neuro # HR 0 1 Completed Complete{- # 2 Completed Complete(- HR) 0 # 3 Completed Complete(- HR) + done # 4 Completed ~  Complete(- HR) done #5 Scheduled Scheduled oO #6 Completed Complete(- HR) 9) 6. Some Observations and SRT Commitments in re the Above Material. a. The Medical/Sensory Data. We've been receiving the raw data all along (with the subjects’ names deleted and will continue to do so (much of it is repro- duced in appendices to P.R##+). After all the data has been gathered (subj #5 is scheduled for the next week, I believe), Dr Armbruster of PAMC will collect and integrate the summaries from each department; these summaries will inter alia compare the subjects as a group with the 'normal' population and with eachother (seeking _ correlates); as appropriate, on the basis of these summaries, SRI Will go back to Ambruster with questions &/or hypotheses (if possible, at least for spot-testing before the end of the project); all of this material will be given to us aS soon as possible and certainly by (or in) the Final Report. I urged them to incorporate all available PAMC findings in their DC presentation in December. If, on the basis of the raw data, we have any questions we'd like to address to PAMC we may, of course, do so through Puthoff. b. The Psych/Behavioral Data. Puthoff has been having some difficulty _ getting raw data from the woman in charge of this effort--partially, he believes, because she'd rather deal in summaries; in any case, we will get copies of all the raw data and the summaries--and the same process will be followed as above, i.e.: SRI will go back to them with questions and/or hypotheses, will test the hyp if possible and we'll get the results of such exchanges as well; also, if we wish to. pose questions we may do so. I urged Puthoff: to put some pressure on the lady, pointing out that because of the relative fuzziness of the data they are sometimes dilatory in making and writing their final interpretations, and. he promised to.do so this week. —— EEG; ‘filtered! (alpha) EEG; GSR and plethysmograph. In the Final Report (if not earlier) we will get detailed summaries and interpretations of this material--and we can have access to the raw data any time we wish (but, having seen much of it, L can attest that it would be foolish and probably useless for them to try to send ‘us copies of it). They have only run 7 of them (out of a possible total of 30) and Puthoff admitted that their earlier mention of a possible indicator of accuracy (the suppression of EEG signals 20 seconds before the 'event') was the merest kind of hint--based only, & couple of Subject #4 readings. I impressed on him the importance of thorough data collection and analysis in this area and, while he clearly agreed, I believe he perceives a real problem with respect to analysis. 5o far they've only been eye-balling it and even this cursory approach is quite time consuming. TI told him we'd been under the impression they had a computer capability for this and he explained that they had had one--but no longer, the background being as follows. They started out by using SRI's Sensory Sciences Lab (and Dr Lukas) for this effort but actually completed only two experiments with him: (1) a Strobe-Light/EEG experi- ment with subj # 4 in which they suecessfully replicated last year's results with - the man who is now Subj # 1; and (2) a Mid-Experiment EEG/GSR/Pleth with Subj # 1 during an OOB test. But, according to Puthoff, these tests were of a quite low priority for Lukas (who, apparently, is not interested in psychic phenomena) and they ad difficulty in getting timely and useful responses from him. So, with Dr Ornstien's help and urgings, they set up a capability to do the same thing in their ow lab a Ce Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams. These consist of: ‘total' Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
SG1l ER =~ yo Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6 © . couple of months ago (I didn't task him with failing to notify us of this change in protocol since using lukas was their idea originally and not one insisted upon by us--but the loss of another lab's input does, I fear, somewhat degrade the data). They like their own system better than Lukas', partially because it has an analogue output capability, and they intend to pursue the tests in two phases: (a) Phase I: five mid-experiment tests with each of two. subjects, ‘using 'walkie-talkies' for real-time comparison of accurate hits and EEG/GSR/Pleth signals; these experiments are in addition to the nine screening experiments and the later OOB tests for iii from this data they will attempt to develop one or more hypotheses. so _ (2) Phase II: Any useful hypotheses will then be tested on the remaining four subjects. At first, Puthoff indicated that they might stop with Phase I if no useful hypotheses emerged from it but I insisted that we'd need similar evidence from the other four in any case--and he promised to do at least one and, if possible, five tests on each of them. SG1l 7. The Raw Data. As noted in para 1, I spent most of the afternoon of 17 Oct looking at their raw data alone (they merely assembled it for me and, after somdexplanatory remarks, left it with me). In general, it consisted of: (1) their daily lab notebooks/logs; (2) 45 tape casettes (and drawings) of OOB experiments; (3) print-out tapes from the Teaching Machine; (4) strip-charts on the EEG/Strobe light experiments; (5) strip-charts on the Laser-Pendulum/Gradiometer experiments 3 and (6) strip-charts on mid-experimentation EEG/GSR/Pleth tests. In all, while not massive, the assembled raw data is impressive--but much of it, I fear, will not get the kind of scrutiny it may deserve before the end of the project. For instance, ‘one half-hour OOB test with subj #1 results in possibly 200 feet of strip-charts with five graphs on it--and IT doubt if they've done anything with it yet, except eye-ball it and, possibly, physically weigh it. If they don't exploit the data by the end of the project I believe we could and should insist on a no-cost extension for that purpose. If there is anything of significance in that data, with respect to indicators of accurate psychic functioning, it is unrealistic to expect it to be so obvious as to leap off the chart and bite you in the leg. 8, The Hypotheses/Theoretical Aspects of Basic Research, While they have nothing solid to show in this area as yet (which isn't surprising), they say that some useful ideas came out of the Geneva conference--and one of them (see Appendix 1 of PR, # ¥+-which, they've already been told, looks suspiciously like 'padding') they have already tested and rejected; that is the Feinberg hypothesis that OOB phenomena are 'merely' short-term ‘future memories! of feedback after the experi- ment. They have run a couple of experiments with subj # 4 in which no feedback was given (or ever will be) and she did just as well. As soon as oTs' consultant has given us his report on the Geneva conference and his views on possible theories or hypotheses to be tested, it is intended to put him together with Puthosf and Targ, let him see their data and see whether, together, they can come up with useful hypotheses. SGi1l Other Matters 9. Series of Technical/Lab OOB Experiments. This series was begun a few SG1I weeks ago in response to a request fro who was trying to get a fix on the kind of capabilities which might service requirements such as those which J BE spoke to us about some months ago. These experiments are in addition to the basic screening tests and the mid-test neurophysiological ones. So far, they've run perhaps ten of them--half with subject # 4 who appears to be the most gifted of all in this domain. I was appalled to realize, however, that--evidently for reasons SG1l Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6 ae ReeRcenen onda e Menem eae
TT SG1l SG1l SG1l SGil. (5 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6 of efficiency, to collect maximum data as goon 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 cam be so obtuse in this regard and so personally sensitive whenever I raise the issue. I have assured them time and again (and it is quite literally true) that I'm personally convinced that neither of them are consciously cheating--but that it is irresponsible of them to wantonly discredit such potentially good data as 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 casc, Mi and I listened to some of Subject # 4'g tapes, looked at her drawings and visited the sites. All I can 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 ian anyone cares to review them. 10. Participation in RV Experiments. ig and I took part in two OOB experiments With Subject # 2 who has not been noted for his O0OB 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 SRT and he located us as being at a museum about oe hoo ft from where we actually were; his basic mistake (and apparently a common one) was in 'cognating' the museum & embroidering on that intérpretation--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 number of quite good verbal and drawing descriptions but a quite erroneous con- clusion. I had a quite similar a vont * 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 I'm not sure they'll get around to it before the project ends. 11. 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 efpreview 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.g.: as much summary and interpretive material as is available on the medical/sensory ; psychological and neurophysiological Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6