Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070^
;^^/'^a
1 1 KHf
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0002000700Q3-2
iSp
C3Sf§
K-'V
«* -«•
»r- n- n« rv
mn
U '^-' % ''V
'"
'-
-5' '-
•
•;.
;••>••/"
m
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
Abacus
Experiment
Two trials were made using the abacus clock which had previously been
an RV target.
As shown in the SRI reports, the apparatus has
5 rows of 10
beads each, plus a clock face with two hands, a slide indicating the date,
and cutouts for exposing day of the week and month.
Hal Puthoff wanted to try perception of a binary message generated
by moving all the beads in each row to the right or
left.
I selected positions
from a random number table, and focused on the resulting bead positions
while he attempted to visualize them in the next room.
He got 3 out of the
five bits, essentially chance results.
I preferred that he set up the entire apparatus, including movement
of any number of beads in each row.
I guessed that
I could get the outline
of the beads pattern.
The outline was the correct shape
but in trying to come up with
corresponding digits, the sequence generated was 66689.
If these are
positioned
left or right based on the outline shape, then three of the digits
were correct.
The small hand of the clock was correct, and the approximate
position of the date slide indicator was close, although an incorrect number
was assigned to
it.
Results were not good enough to further consider at that time, but
additional trials along with more familiarity with the apparatus are worth
pursuing
.
Critique
It is interesting that
I predicted the type of Task
I could do well.
This was the only coding-type experiment we had time to perform,
although we had discussions involving a good design for a redundant
coding experiment.
Both for training purposes and ease of analysis, more such short
experiments should be emphasized.
tSSSSSS^""
pam
r
•"Kj.-
•
^proved-Fer-Re lease 200 1 /03/07
. CM ,-RDP9b-00 / 8/ R000200070003-2
we . Eel aaaalill eR 8 Discs cade rn tet ON AE Yo aa Mach ABACUS avn a eeniel Le va X (7) Leutt we by .
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
ESP Teaching Machine
In an attempt to demonstrate some degree of learning or improvement
during my three days,
I made three series of runs on the teaching machine
which was designed by Russell Targ for NASA, and which
is described in
the SRI reports.
Basically,
it
is a four-state machine, with the states
generated randomly.
Each run consists of 25 trials in which the subject
selects one of 4 state buttons or the "pass" button.
The machine can also
be operated in two precognitive modes, during which the machine state
is
determined either 1/2 or
1 second after the operator selects his prediction
of the state.
I tried a variety of approaches:
right hand only,
left hand only, both
hands, the preceeding three both with eyes open or shut.
By shutting my
eyes
I was avoiding the visual feedback on my incorrect selections.
Correct
selections rang a bell.
After 200 runs of each type,
I appeared to do best
by using both hands, eyes open, and proceeding very fast.
I then performed
2000 such trials, and attained an average of about
f
/ <T
,
Ar P
» /o
Generally, people get better as they practice more with the machine.
On the following day,
f repeated my run of 2000, and scored precisely at
chance, although with possibly a significantly extra-chance variance.
I've not yet received results of those calculations or computed them myself.
Later that same afternoon while both Hal and Russ were called to the
phone,
I went in to again run the machine, this time in an angry mood over
my earlier results.
I cleared the machine, and then punched out very
deliberately 15 hits out of the 25 trials.
It sounded as
it the bell were ringing
constantly.
I- ran for Russ and Hal to show them the result and then attempted
to repeat
it.
After two trials below chance,
I abandoned the machine again.
Although a run of 2000 trials took me less than two hours,
I did not have
a chance to make any further runs.
Iran!**:*'
,v.
* /
_
<
.
I
V'
'
/,
" i r
.
M
'•V*
/^P0ye4 For Release 2001/03/07
; C|^-RDP96 r00787R000200070p03-2
x v v,*-"V'ljy/i;, j..
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
Interpretation
of Hella's RV Tape
Before my trip to SRI,
I had been reviewing Hella's performance on
remote viewing of technical equipment.
After hearing her description and
seeing her drawings from the experiment with a CRT graphics terminal as
cm
i
tar9 e*'
* mentioned that Icouldpossibly have guessed the actual equipment
from her descriptions
. ^^^^^^fsuggested
I try to do that with another tape
she had made, which was thought to be less good than the CRT results.
After
two runs through the tape, my guess of a vertical boreing machine was close
to the actual target of a drill press.
That result was considered significant, since
it indicated that more
information might be present in the data than had been supposed.
Two factors
seemed important to me:
One,
I was very familiar with both CRT's and
vertical milling machines, and was currently working with both.
Two,
I had
been briefed on Hella's background and personality.
In particular,
I knew
that she was basically untechnically oriented, that she was capable of detailed
description of anything she had seen, that she was not prone to fabricate
details, and that she was employed in photography.
After having spent several hours with her at SRI,
I expected that my
familiarity with her RV performances had very much increased.
My attempt
to process another of her tapes, however, was not a success.
In this case,
the target was the ESP teaching machine, with which she was quite familiar.
I had spent my first hour on
it just before
I
left with her tape for the evening.
My guess of a view graph projector was based on arbitrary selections from
seemingly ambiguous and contradictory sets of statements.
For instance,
I
was not certain
if light were shining into or out of the box.
Some of her
terminology, such as "burning in" had specific meaning for me based on my
background.
J had to decide,
in those cases, whether another meaning
fit
her background, or whether she had picked up the terminology along with
the target.
Although
it is probably helpful to have a calibration on the original subject
(such as realizing that Hella's sizes are generally overestimated, and her
drawings are often better than her descriptions)
,
it does seem that familiarity
of the interpreter with the possible target set is the crucial aspect of such an
interpretation attempt.
This may be considered analogous to giving raw
intelligence data to an analyst who is well grounded in the pertinent fields.
fl'JJ.' .J,
tiwrjfrst.
m?
r
•
'
.
s
I
Approved Fpr Release 2001/03/07
: CIAtRBP96-00787R00020007Q003-2
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
Both from the standpoint of reliability assessment and information production,
the analyst must know his field as well as his source.
.
..
.
Unfortunately, there was no chance to work along with Hella as she
performed a technical RV experiment, due to time constriants.
ta'icar
\
K
»
V
'- >
»
’
.<
*
Approved For Rele;
^leasfe ^01/03/07 ;JCIA^!^P^6-0p787Rp0p20p07QQ03^2:
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
RV
#3
Mood
(
This experiment was not the first event of the day, as the other two
RV's had been.
In this case,
I had just completed the interpretation run on
Hella's RV of the teaching machine.
I had been disappointed in my per-
formance.
However, my interest was peaked for this RV #3, since there
were several protocol modifications
I wished to try.
In addition, this could
be my last RV of the trip, so
I wanted
it to go well.
Protocol
Based on my observations during Hella's performances and during my
own,
I made a number of changes to the standard protocol.
In each case,
I
believe the change resulted in stronger evidence for occurrence of para-
normal phenomena, as well as demonstration that the phenomena are not
fragile or protocol-dependent.
From the suggestions contained in each section
of this paper, the following changes were made for this run:
Both Russ and Hal went to the site, which was a standard
target obtained from the safe.
No one remained with me; there was no interrogator.
All movements, intentions, and descriptions of the site
were recorded by Russ and Hal from the time they
left the
building.
In addition, although
I had not mentioned
it beforehand;
I moved around inside the room, moved outside of the inner room^
I taped all of my responses, but did not mention my move-
ments on the tape.
Data
Transcript of my tape was not completed before
I
left and so is not
contained here.
Photographs of the target site are also still in preparation.
The following data is from my notes and from memory.
I drew no pictures
at that time.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
I spoke very
little,
relative to RV #2.
The predominant
feature was white arches, on a circular base.
I
felt
I could
distinguish the presence of both Hal and Russ.
I tried con-
centrating on Russ, to check whether my results were dependent
on Hal; and
I got a clear impression of Russ sitting very low to
the ground such that his knees were up by his ears.
And at one
point his head rested on his arms, which were folded across
his knees.
I did not like the place, and had an uneasy feeling
about
it.
I mentioned the word "cupola" which came to mind,
and stated that
I didn't know what
it meant.
I had a particular
sensation of looking down and attending to one point purposely,
although the site could have been used as a vantage point.
Subjective Assessment
The few images
I did receive were very strong.
However, the peripheral
information just seemed blurred out.
In particular, the body sensations of
sitting, fixating on an area, and being uncomfortable were very strong.
I
was not particular pleased with my results, although
I had ascertained that
all my moving about during the experiment did not affect my perceptions.
Analysis
of Results
When Hal and Russ returned, my first statement was that
I didn't like
the place.
I also mentioned my strange use of the word "cupola", and my
image of Russ sitting down.
At Hal's suggestion,
I tried to draw my overall
image, which was of white arches.
He then directed me to draw the cupola,
and also an overhead view.
He was delighted with the results, and asked his
secretary to guess what
it was on our way out to the site.
She did not know,
but responded to his whispered answer by saying "oh, that's right!", which
really pleased him.
We drove to the site, which was a park play ground, and Russ and Hal
recreated their motions, which involved sitting on and spinning a merry go
round composed of a disk with large white loops for holding on.
Many screaming
children were around, as
is obvious from the tapes.
I agreed that my images
had been pretty good, but noticed that a maintenance building adjoining the
merry go round area had a cupola on the roof
(I had looked the word up in an
illustrated dictionary just before leaving the office)
, and that
it had a black
lightening rod on top, and divisions just as my top view drawing showed.
Hal and Russ both expressed dismay that the structure was there and that they
had not noticed
it.
However, my feeling was that
I had originally seen only
the arches, and when directed by Russ to go back and draw the cupola,
I had
done just that by finding a cupola at the site.
I'm certain
I must have known
~
'• AfJ
For Retease 2001/03/07
i ClA-RDP9e-00787R0Q02000700D3-2
B32ES5?^
IWWyr.n*-
Approved For Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
the word in the past sometime.
My TOP VIEW drawing could be a good
sketch of that cupola, while the other two are composite of the two features -
arches and cupola.
At the site, Hal and Russ recreated their motions, which
I
later verified
by listening to their tape.
The sensations of focusing on a spot,
looking down,
and feeling uneasy were strongly verified by Russ, who had gotten quite
dizzy during the experiment and had been eager for
it to end.
We were all surprised that no strong perceptions of lots of people,
lots of noise, or rapid movement ever came through.
Critique
During debriefing, wording of the questions or instructions
is
critical
.
Assessment of debriefing results must be done in the context of the
interrogator's involvement.
Lack of an inquisitor during the experiment was no handicap, although
I would generally produce less data when alone.
I was able to receive impressions of Russell, as well as of Hal.
Using two outbounders seemed to increase the strength of a few
primary impressions, while washing out the rest.
Part of that washout,
however, may have been due to the saturation effects of so much noise and
such rapid movement.
As in the previous experiments, my sensations of bodily movements or
feelings were correct; although in this case there were several strong sensory
inputs of that type which
I failed to receive.
Taping by the outbounders was desirable in this case, since
it verified
my impressions, as well as indicating that the cupola was not an intentional
part of their target activities.
From my movements about and outside of the experiment room,
I conclude
that no subliminal suggestion techniques were being used on me.
iEjtar..;-
'AW.-'
Release 2001/03/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2'