Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 12. Hubbard, G. S., “An Experiment to Examine the Possible Existence of Remote Action Effects in Piezoelectric Strain Gauges,” Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) 13. May, E. C., Humphrey, B. S., and Pleass, C. M., “Measuring Remote Action Influence on the Vertical Component of Dunaliella Velocity,” Interim Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) 14. May, E. C., “Remote Action Hardware Construction: A Quantum Mechanical Photon Experiment,” Final Report, SRI Project 1291, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1986) 36 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 Appendix A A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* gp nee * The SOC members were requested to complete a “Reviewer's Comments” sheet (see example on next page) for each task that they had elected to review. This Appendix provides a verbatim, unedited transcription of the reviewers’ (mostly hand-written) comments on a task-by-task basis. SRI responses have been appended to the reviewers’ comments where appropriate. 37 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 REVIEWER’S COMMENTS The attached report titled: RR re ere, has been reviewed by the undersigned. It is my opinion that, with the following exceptions, the research design, statistical protocols employed, data analysis, and conclusions reached in this report appear to be scientifically sound and appropriate. Please list any exceptions (if none, please say so). Additional comments: I do/do not recommend release of this report. SIGNED DATE 39 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Final Report for Objective A, Task 4 NICK YARU Exceptions: Comments: Recommendations: (RV Evaluation) (verbatim transcription-—-not edited) None. Recommendations, especially In-House Effort are logical, intelligent extensions of previous work. Do more! I do. 11-7-86 MICHAEL A. WARTELL Exceptions: Comments: Recommendation: S. JAMES PRESS Exceptions: Comments: Page 1 Page 5 Page 6 Page 3 None. Time was too short to make adequate technical evaluation of this work. I agree with the approach taken and, if mathematically correct, believe that the formalism is promising. Unable to comment on technical (mathematical) issues. 11-7-86 None. General--Overall, the report presents an interesting & potentially useful collection of ideas & approaches for evaluating RV experiments. The idea of calculating a “figure of merit” is useful, as is the discussion of vagueness associated with trying to characterize what a viewer “sees,” and what descriptor terms should be used. Also useful is the notion of breaking down the “view” into a small set of descriptors. What the viewer will see if the analyst were to stand in the middle of Golden Gate Bridge might or might not depend upon whether there were fog that day or not, which could obscure the vision & the landscape. Here k denotes “response number” and line 10 k denotes “target number.” Here k denotes “session number.” (overview)--As described, the assessment of an RV _ response is subjective, depending upon the analyst’s interpretation of the RV’s picture. I propose developing a descriptor list with broad terms, & ask a 40 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4 remote viewer to complete a form with descriptor questions himself (no intermediate analyst). In advance the correct descriptor list should be defined. Then, a comparison is easy & is objective. Page 6 Section (b): Why should we do a regression analysis of “figure of merit” regressed on “session number?” Unless we believe there is learning from experience (increasing number of sessions), the slope of the regression should be zero; i.e., there should be no relation. Page 9 Bottom line: The method developed by Fisher for combining p-values, which is referred to, involves combining p-values from independent experiments. But here, the different p-values are obtained from experiments all carried out by the same person (a “single viewer”), & that person’s responses must all be correlated, so these are not independent p-values. Why should we combine p—values at all? There is much more to an experiment than a single characterizing value, a p-value. There are mean values for all subjects; there are standard errors; in fact, there is an entire distribution for all outcomes (replications) of the experiment. The overall distribution is much more meaningful than just a p-value. Page il While the descriptors may be limited in ability, a first step which would go a long way, is to establish an RV ability as a fact, & not worry about loosing the detail in the pictures as a viewer might be able to draw. The latter is a much more complicated problem. Let’s solve the simpler one first. Comments: The remote viewing project should be vigorously pursued. The research base should be expanded, & startling results should be clipped together & a file should be put together. Recommendation: I do. 11~-6-86 ROSS ADEY Exceptions: This study uses Figures of Merit (FM) and Mean Chance Expectations (MCE) to evaluate RV. These indices appear to offer no insights on the sequence of events in RV that was a key development in earlier RV research at SRI by Ingo Swann, et al. Does the image build up, and if so, how? It is not clear how the present approach will establish anything more than very rudimentary yardsticks about the clear reality of RV. Much wider acceptance of the credibility of this phenomenon would appear an imperative goal. Comments: This report cites but does not evaluate biases that may develop with this protocol relating to development of knowledge (“learning”) about the pool of target images. Use of Zadeh’s fuzzy sets in data analysis here requires justification. The method is appropriate in its assumptions about complexity, but cannot be 41 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003800420001-4