Approved For Release 01 \ (ol: 4-59/4| 3» eeaeeenneana 50001-1 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task 1 (October, 1985-September, 1987) (Possible Photon Production During A Remote Viewing Task: A Replication Experiment) (verbatim transcription--not edited) NAME: Michael Wartell Comments: 1. Design and analysis of experiments are acceptable. Experiment appears to have been carefully accomplished. Recommendation: Yes 11-11-87 NAME: Nicholas Yaru Comments: 1. I agree with the conclusion that the Chinese experimenters observed the results of transients. This is conclusive data to terminate this experiment. The shielding and signal processing techniques you have evolved should be useful in future work, Recommendation: Yes “12-21-87 A-12 Approved For Release 200PIRCOR LOSSTPPED 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release *UNCTASSIHED ere -1 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task 2 (Experimental Protocol For Hemolysis: Confirmation Experiment) NAME: Comments: 1. (verbatim transcription--not edited) Herbert L. Ley The report is excellent. There is one variable that I did not pick up in earlier reviews (probably because with 32 subjects the drawing of blood must be staggered) that could be looked at in greater depth. Blood samples were drawn for 14 to 42 hours before the experimental period. This is a three-fold variation in time. Although ACD is a good blood preservative, it does not totally eliminate the effects of aging on red cell fragitity. Therefore, the time between drawing blood and the testing could be influencing results. Critics of this experiment may be expected to focus on this uncontrolled variable. I would recommend, if possible, that the variable of time between drawing blood and testing be tested for significance in the recent test using ANOVA. If no significance can be associated with this variable, fine. Any future testing should include controlling the time variable. Obviously, if the samples are refrigerated sufficient time must pass before the testing to permit thermal equilibrium of all samples. Whether the delay is 24 + 1 hours or 4 + 0.2 hours or some other figure makes no difference. The important thing is that the time variable be controlled in any future tests of hemolysis. Recommendation: Yes 12-18-87 Response To Herbert L. Ley’s Comments: NAME: NAME Comments: 1. Jessica Utts Response to comment 1: The differences in time should be at least partially controlled for by interspersing the control and protest periods. A statement to this effect has been added to the report. Also, the suggestion will be passed on to the Mind Science Foundation for their use in designing future experiments. Brian Skyrms This appears to be a well-designed experiment, which produced results which are equivocal for the theories under consideration. A-13 Approved For Release 200 PROB LOSSEPPED 0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release UNCTASSIHED znotsonots Recommendation: Yes 11-18-87 NAME: Michael Wartell Comments: 1. I am concerned that the protocol became unduly complicated when the “own” blood versus “others” blood was added as a variable. The results remain ambiguous, but the extra variable clouds the issue. I suggest simply allowing this experiment to disappear with the other RA experiments. Recommendation: Yes 11-12-87 A-14 Approved For Release 2Q0pQR{OB LESSTPPED 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release *UNCTASSINIED etree -1 SOC Reviewer’s Comments on Objective F, Tasks la and 1b (Feedback and Precognition Dependent Remote Viewing Experiments) (verbatim transcription-—not edited) NAME: Brian Skyrms Comments: 1. Additional analysis should be done. What is the analysis of the sum total of evidence presented here. We have 3 experiments; two negative and the third with 4 viewings of which 2 are negative and 2 significant. Are the aggregate results significant or not? Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 NAME: Michael Wartell Comments: 1. Protocol (page 5) would have been stronger had all time parameters been matched (assistant leaving site and arrival back at SRI). 2. Cluster analysis approach is excellent ~ othogonal target selection important to efficiency and final analytical approaches. 3. Last statement about Viewer 372 (top of page 11) is inappropriate and should be deleted. 4, Page 11-explanation is marked paragraph (2) inappropriate. Excuses regarding “rushing trials” inappropriate. 5. This experiment provided inconclusive results. I do not believe that inferences should be drawn from the results. Recommendation: Yes 11~13-87 NAME: Philip Zimbardo Comments: 1. The inconclusive pattern of hits and misses across these 3 experiments is disappointing. 2. I find as an over generalization and not acceptable the statement on page 3, “yet, the evidence strangely suggests the (sic) [that] precognition is a fact of nature.” A-15 Approved For Release 20PPNBCE ASSP TEE) 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release EPREE PSs SO TERE TG 007 82R002200150001-4 3. The out-bound protocol is wasteful of time and resources. I recommend substituting “cinema verite” video displays of dynamic “real world” scenes as the target material. Page 8—-line 6 from bottom (typo - three experienced viewers). Page 10--line 2 from bottom in other words. Page 11--last line confused/also page 12, line 7, from bottom. NI DH A £& The procedure and design and analysis are exemplary, but I am not convinced that they allow for RV versus pre—-cognition evaluation as competing theories. 8. Given the predictions, the results for Ss. with significant RV, 177 and 009 would have to support real-time RV and fail to support pre-cognition hypotheses. 9. The authors must avoid the stylistic bias of too quickly dismissing null findings with a rush toward explaining them away. 10. Conclusion: more research is definitely needed using the T-Scope procedure. Why not have a set of practice trials to do an initial screening of S’s RV functioning on that day. If + then test, if not + then suspend--give a rain check. Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 Response To Philip Zimbardo’s Comments: NAME: Edwin C. May 1. Response to comments: Conclusions were modified appropriately. A-16 Approved For Release 20gq4q20b AC9S RBH B00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release “UNCLASSIFIED SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective H, Tasks 3 and 3a (A Remote Action Experiment With A Piezoelectric Transducer) (verbatim transcription—-not edited) NAME: Brain Skyrms Comments: 1. The experiment was carefully done, with good experimental design. I visited and inspected the experiment. Sources of noise and artifacts were carefully controlled (much better than in the pilot study!). The conclusion of our evidence for RA should be accepted. 2. This counts negatively on subcontractor JFKU’s track record. Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 NAME: Michael Wartel Comments: 1. Design and analysis acceptable. Recommendation: Yes 11-11-87 NAME: Philip Zimbardo Comments: 1. This research represents “state of the art” protocols for the control or suppression of RA sources of artifact. 2. The apparatus and procedural features are impressive. 3. Subjects were rated as very high in psi ability (8/10 were “practitioner-level” psi people). 4. Q: What about using the PIF scores for screening of your RV population? 5. Caveats on pages 16, 17, and ff, are important to note: Anti-scientific personal biases of JFKU research team led to poor research decisions! 6. Post hoc motivatorial explanations are not acceptable (as on page 23) for failure to find effects predicted. Researchers cannot resort to explanations that are based on too much and/or too low levels of motivation, inhibitory and excitatory motivation. A-18 Approved For Release 2QQ0RGq/0B ACYSRP FRE 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release INCAS STEB rf2200 50001-1 7. In general, this null effect of a well-designed study and protocol seriously questions any continued research on RA with changes in physical/biological systems as the DV. Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 A-19 Approved For Release 24FFAUOE AOSSPPIP EP 0789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release “EP REE Pen SS TERE BH oo 8002200 1007-1 NAME: Comments: 1. SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective I, Task 2 (Intuitive Data Sorting) (verbatim transcription--not edited) S. James Press There were no really significant results of this effort although the care taken to obtain scientific results is impressive. I would want to know more about the degree of randomness in these RNG before suggesting the research be continued. Page 2, paragraph 2, first sentence. I don’t agree that we would need to “have access to future events.” If we knew the seed and we knew the number generating mechanism, we could state precisely what the entire sequence of digits would be, and it would be the same sequence on every run. Page 2, paragraph 3. All information about the future is probabilistic. We can assign (subjective) probabilities for all future events. Sometimes the events are repeatable and the probabilities are objective. For example, the event that a “six” will appear on a fair die when I cast it, 10 days from now. Are we being given the probabilities of certain events in the future? If so, whose probability is it? Page 6. Is there any meaning to the numerical ordering of seed numbers? How are the “random” numbers generated by two successive seed numbers related? Recommendation: Yes 11-13-87 Response To S. James Press’ Comments: NAME: Jessica Utts Response to comment 2: Details about the pseudo-random number generator used in our experiments are being sent to Dr. Press. Response to comment 3: The experiments discussed in this section of the report are based on true random sources, so the sequences are not determined by a seed, but rather are generated after the buttons are pressed. Thus, one would need access to future events. The experiments we conducted, using a A-20 Approved For Release AP NPEIPSA S'S HF} F4B-00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release “ONT AS STHEB Oreo zao sont pseudo-random number generator, would require access to future events only to account for human reaction time to press the button. We have not claimed otherwise in this report. 3 Response to comment 4: The statement in question is a philosophical one. If the future is already determined, and if precognition exists, then one might expect that perfectly reliable information about the future would sometimes be available. However, it appears that precognition does not operate that way. Instead, from the potential futures, those predicted in precognition trials appear to be actualized at a higher rate than expected by chance. This indicates that certain future events may be more likely to occur than others, and that this information is available. An extra sentence has been added to the report for clarification. Response to comment 5: They aren’t related at all. NAME: Michael Wartell Comments: 1. I do not find any problem with the experimental approach, but I am concerned about the lack of definitive result, one way or the other. I do not favor dropping the experiment--it seems cheap and useful in developing some necessary theoretical framework. 2. Unless some better experimental verification (or anti-verification) of IDS can be developed, I would favor continuing this set of experiments. Recommendation: Yes 12-03-87 NAME: Nicholas Yaru Comments: 1. The research design and statistical protocols are valid. 2. I agree with the recommendation that the experiment be continued at such a date as the availability of significant performers can be fulfilled. Recommendation: Yes {2-21-87 A-21 Approved For Release 209 NPE748A SS FFI) 00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release OP RE Pen SS TERE BS oot 200 100071 NAME: Comments: 1. 10. SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Technical Report (verbatim transcription--not edited) S. James Press I find the overall approach used scientifically “open.” The research staff is open to new ideas and criticism, and anxious to attend to any problems found in the research. Designs are well thought out, and analyses are careful. My only concern is that too many diverse experiments are being pursued. A few narrow areas should be defined and experiments pursued in these areas. Page 5. Are all consultants listed: I’m not for example. Page 10. Under “features” in Figure 3, items are not exhaustive of the category. Also, under “contours,” “flat” and “not flat” would improve upon “flat” and “hilly.” Factors seem to be equally weighted for DACOS. Page 11 (4). There should be more data given. For example, the water attribute was correctly identified 17 times, but how many cases were there with water present? Perhaps instead of asking whether water is present or not, the question should be, was there 50% or more water in the picture? Also, were there clouds and sky in 50% or more in the picture? _ Page 13, paragraph 2. Distributions of these variables are skewed, so the correlations computed have questionable merit. I recommend first logging the variable and then doing the correlations. Page 13, paragraph 3. Eye movements—-we can study change in pupil size by a remote camera focused on the subject’s eye. Page 14, last paragraph. Research has shown that while some people make good subjects for hypnosis (and there are specific personality types for this), they are very often inaccurate in their recollections, assessments, and evaluations of situations—-their reports under hypnosis are composites of relaxed experience, reality, and fantasies. Page 20, section 17. Again, what is recalled under hypnosis is not reliable. This is all hokey stuff. “Eye witness” accounts are usually wrong! Page 32, paragraph 3. This description of an experiment is complicated unnecessarily by the mention of an earlier experiment which was successful. The earlier one has nothing to do with this one. Page 40, last paragraph. If only one individual was successful, it’s not clear from the 1:100 rate that this is more than what would be expected. A-22 Approved For Release 2D) Pip6/b8A S)§ FRY FYB-00789R002200150001-1