Approved For Release 20£Jlj(^0^^^j^^0789R0022001 50001-1
(U)
discriminator inputs from the environmental noise.
Using the metal mesh cage around the glass
bell jar
as
a Faraday
shield and covering
it with aluminum
foil helped
to increase
the noise
immunity to high-frequency noise injection inside the chamber.
To reduce emitted EMI, the
computer and printer were removed from the CAMAC rack and placed
feet away from the
experiment.
This did not change the system noise and the computer was put back in the rack.
e.
ECL Logic Levels
(U) Another problem that could be causing the parallel noise pulse
is a weak
ECL logic level on the discriminator outputs. The ECL output voltage is lower than specified but
is just within operating range.
There
is
a 200-mV, 60-Hz ac
sine wave
riding on the
logic
output.
Combining the low logic level with the 60-Hz noise puts the logic level right on the edge
of
the
threshold between
a
logic
and
0.
A
very
small
signal on
this
line,
such
as an
environmental event, could be just enough to lower
all logic levels.
The weak logic level on the
discriminator output
is not being caused by the coincidence
register
or
the
parallel OR
gate
loading it down. The logic levels do not change when the registers are disconnected; loading the
2735B has no effect.
f.
(U) Ground Loops
(U) As the system noise diminished,
it became apparent that ground loops
were being created by a grounding strap connecting all pieces of the system together.
Eliminating
this strap reduced the noise floor another 4
p.A.
g.
(U) Alpha Particle Distribution
(U) The uneven
distribution
of
the
alpha
particles
is
not
inherent
in
the
system, but rather in the curium 244 source.
Tests were performed to verify that the detector
strip numbers 1-48 are the same as computer channels 1-48.
This indicates that the lines are
properly matched. When the source
is moved a couple of millimeters, the alpha particle pattern
moves
as
well.
This
indicates
that the
strip
detector
is
still functioning
correctly.
The two
collimating screens
inside the curium source,
or the curium
itself,
could have
shifted
slightly
inside the housing.
This could explain the uneven distribution of alpha particles shown in the
data.
Approved For Release 2Oy|^i#g^[P10^789ROO22OO1 50001-1
Approved For Release 2(|^^^(^j^|^^)0789R0022001 50001-1
(U) The following data represent a sample of each type of noise.
The data
were taken over a period of one-half hour with threshold voltage set at 15 volts and the curium
source set at a distance of
1 cm,
Spurious,
intermittent, random noise
1-16 000
17-32
33-48 000
Parallel noise pulses
1-16
17-32
33-48
1111
1111
833
1110
848
1111
1111
1111
The following
is a chart of eight, one-half-hour sessions compiled with
all the random
noise pulses displayed on the same histogram, and with the curium source present but subtracted
from the data:
1-16 0013
01 0100010012
17-32
1 10000
000 000000
33-48 00011000 00001060
h.
(U) Proposed System Testing And Modifications
(U) We are now able to demonstrate the presence of the alpha particle beam
well above the noise floor.
Three different software packages have been debugged and can be
used to give us maximum flexibility in the way we collect and display the data.
Both types of
noise
still exist but we now have a better understanding of the noise and the limitations of the
system.
In order to meet the requirements of the RA experiments, the alpha particle system
must be
noiseless
except
for
the beam.
In order
to examine
and,
if possible,
exclude
all
remaining noise, the following tests and modifications are suggested:
Approved For Release 2<U<NCibAS5i#l
:i&0789R00220015000 1-1
Approved For Release 2O0)^e^jg^^|^^O789ROO22OO1 50001-1
(u)
•
Separate vacuum system and CAMAC crate/electronics by 10-20
feet.
•
Monitor
outlying random
noise
channel
with
charge-sensitive
(pulse
shape)
electronics.
•
Retest, examine, and,
if necessary, modify 2735B to increase the ECL
logic to -2
volts.
•
Purchase
a
new,
microstrip
detector
selected
for
low-noise
characteristics.
Price $3,000, with delivery in 3-6 months.
•
Slowly and
carefully move detector connections on present microstrip
device to examine the noise performance of all 48
strip combinations.
•
Using EMI equipment and appropriate spectrum
analyzers,
retest the
ambient electro-magnetic noise environment.
(1)
(U)
Detector Instrumentation
(U)
During FY 1986,
all necessary detector apparatus was specified and
purchased, or was fabricated.
During the first half of FY 1987, this equipment was tested for use
in the proposed RA experiment and modified or improved where necessary.
The radioactive
source has been verified using a separate detector system, and was found to be in the range of ~
100
counts per second,
which
will be adequate
for the
experiment.
The operation
of the
multiple-strip detector system has also been tested using a single-channel preamplifier unit and
found to be
functioning properly when the system noise has been
filtered by an appropriate
amplifier time constant.
Principal
difficulties encountered in the pilot work with the detector
centered on proper alignment of 48 parallel channels and suppression of electronic noise pickup
from the environment.
The first problem was solved by careful checking and rerouting all wires,
vacuum feedthrough connectors, and computer register inputs.
Noise
interference
has been
suppressed by several techniques, including identifying and removing ground loops, establishing a
substantial ground plane next to the detector, supplying a shielded connector inside the vacuum
chamber, and replacing twisted pair wires with coaxial cable.
(2)
(U) Data Display
(U) With
the
help
of
an
SRI
Geoscience
and
Engineering
Center
specialist
in real-time computer systems,
the LSI
11/23 computer,
the Computer Automated
Measurement and Control (CAMAC)
interface, and data inputs have been made operational.
We now are able to identify which of 48 possible detector strips have been activated, save those
data, and rapidly reinitialize the system for another cycle.
The information
is then transmitted
via the CAMAC interface to the LSI 11/23 computer, where
it is stored in a memory buffer, then
Approved For Release 2(fcttlsK&bASSIW®0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release ^^j^^§J$fP|ft3-00789R0022001 50001-1
(U)
shown on a video-display screen.
In parallel, the pattern of activated strips for all 48 locations
is
printed for later inspection.
At present, this process
is repeated each time any detector strip has
been enabled.
(3)
(U)
Artifactual Influences
(U) We have initiated environmental measurements of potential sources
of
artifact,
which may
influence
the
flight
of
the
particles
or may add
extra
noise
to
the
electronics.
The room
in which the apparatus
is located also contains a transmission electron
microscope
(TEM),
with
its
attendant
high-voltage
power
supply
and
typical
industrial
fluorescent
lighting—as
well
as
the
video-display
terminal and
other
computer
equipment.
Measurements of magnetic-field transients indicated a need for some shielding near the detector
apparatus.
This
shield
will
served
to
suppress
ambient
electric
fields.
A TOPAZ power
conditioner was purchased and installed to suppress or eliminate power line surges resulting from
switching of other nearby apparatus such as the TEM mentioned above.
The unit meets severe
IEEE and
Mil-Std
specifications
for
noise and
transient
suppression,
and
appears
to have
successfully eliminated such problems.
26.
(U)
Objective H, Task 2—RA Effects on a Few-Photon Quantum System
(U) We
have
used
a
single-photon
interferometer
to
examine
the
role
of
consciousness
in
the
state
vector
collapse.
The
result
was
that
an
“irreversible
act
of
amplification”
does not require consciousness.
The implication
is that RA
is,
at
least,
not
a
necessary condition in nature.
27.
(U)
Objective H, Task 3 and 3a—RA Effects on Strain Gauges
(U)
In FY 1986, a joint venture was begun to examine possible remote action (RA)
effects on
piezoelectric
transducers.
Participants were
recruited,
evaluated, and
trained, by
researchers from John F. Kennedy University.
SRI International developed an experimental RA
system, and prepared a well-characterized environment for formal experimental sessions.
(U)
During
the
pilot
phase,
transducer
signals
were
observed under
sufficiently
controlled
conditions
to
warrant
continued
investigation.
During
FY
1987,
significant
improvements
were
made
to
the
protocol,
system
hardware
and
software,
and
control
environments. A separate report reviews the FY 1986 pilot study and details the elaborate and
necessary precautions undertaken
during FY
1987
to
prevent
or understand
the
sources
of
artifact.
No evidence
for RA was observed in this experiment.
Approved For Release 2UWClfA(SSI€)t6Do0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2fi
-00789R0022001 50001-1
28.
(U)
Objective
I, Task
1—Meta-Analysis of RNG Data Base
(U)
This work
is being conducted under subcontract with Psychophysical Research
Laboratories (PRL)
in Princeton, New Jersey. The PRL Purchase Order Contract was let August
4, 1987 with the
first deliverable due at the end of the
first quarter of FY 1988.
29.
(U)
Objective
I, Task 2—Test of IDS Model with “Dynamic” Systems
(U) A computer
test
of the
Intuitive Data
Sorting
(IDS) model has been
carried
forward from the FY 1986 tasking.
The primary reason for this delay was that only one out of
the 100 individuals tested was able to demonstrate psychoenergetic
ability during the FY 1986
screening phase.
Because the IDS model
is such an important model for the program at large,
we
will continue to screen for talented participants.
(U) A
modification
to
the
computer
program
was made
in
order
to
provide
information
about
the
details
of
the
button-press
timing.
Because
of
the
nature
of
pseudorandom number generators, adjacent seeds do not produce nearly identical sequences.
Thus, the remarkable 1-ms timing reported by Radin and May3 appears to be a methodological
artifact. We incorporated a simple seed transformation in order to have the significant seeds be
evenly spaced in time.
Thus, the IDS experiment
is expected to yield results with regard to the
model,
as well as with regard to human timing ability under psychoenergetic conditions.
30.
(U)
Objective
I, Task 3—Host Theory Conferences
(U) No theory conference was held during FY 1987.
31.
(U)
Objective
I, Task 4—Princeton Conference
(U)
In FY 1987, SRI International awarded a subcontract to the Princeton University
Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR)
.
The purpose of that subcontract was to
organize and host
a conference
of SRI
Cognitive Science Program
staff,
subcontractors, and
designated consultants. The conference was held at Princeton’s Scanticon Conference Center on
April
9-10,
1987,
to
discuss
the
topic “What
constitutes proof
of
a
controversial
claim?”
Thirty-one persons attended the
conference.
There was
also an
after dinner speaker each
evening.
A
separate
report
contains an SRI
assessment
of
the
conference.
Following
the
conference, the PEAR staff prepared a conference proceedings. 4
Approved For Release 2y^J0L8/^g5fPflB0OO789ROO22OO1 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/Qfljft&^£fDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
32.
(U) FY 1986 Objective E, Task
1—PMT Final
(S/NF) We conducted
a replication
of
work, published
in FY 1984
in
which we experimentally examined
the possibility that
light
is emitted
in
the vicinity of correctly identified remote viewing target material.
In
that earlier experiment,
a state-of-the-art,
ambient
temperature,
photon-counting system was used
to monitor
the target material
(35-mm
slides of
National Geographic photographs)
.
The statistical measure derived
from the photon counting apparatus
in
that
study showed
a significant
positive correlation with
the RV results
(p <0.035).
That
is,
when
the
remote viewing was good,
there was
an
increase
in
the
signal detected by
the photon-counting system.
In addition,
we observed
two anomalous pulses
having
a signal-to-noise ratio
of about
20 or
40:1.
In
the present
experiment
(FY 1987)
,
we
improved all hardware aspects
of
the previous
work,
substantially reducing
the background noise
level and
improving
shielding against artifact.
In addition,
analysis of the remote viewing
indicates
that
three
out. of
the four viewers produced
independently
significant results.
SG1B
(S/NF)
Our analysis of
the PMT data shows no evidence of any
anomalous high-count-rate pulses,
no evidence of any effect
on the PMT
output during the RV session,
and ho evidence of any significant
correlation between RV performance and PMT output.
We conclude
that
(1)
suggest that
the significant correlation observed
in our
1984
study
is
either
a statistical anomaly or
the result
of
Intuitive Data Sorting on
the part
of
the experimenters.
33.
(U)
Objective J, Task
1—Administrative Support
(U) There are no deliverables required
for this Task.
34.
(U)
Objective J, Task 2—Publications
(U)
' There are no deliverables required
for this Task.
35.
(U)
Objective
J, Task
3— Computer Hardware/Software Maintenance
(U)
SRI
has
negotiated
a
contract
with
Sun
Microsystems
that
offers
software
maintenance and support coverage at a greatly reduced rate to
all Sun users at SRI.
The overall
Approved For Release 2000/QfiSfcG#BlDP96-00789R002200 150001-1
Approved For Release 2^|(|g(|8^^l^-|^|^g)00789R0022001 50001-1
(U)
cost of the contract will be shared by those requesting coverage, and thus the cost to the project
is not yet known.
Nonetheless, the cost will be
at least 50%
less than previously paid.
(U)
Since
the
beginning
of FY
1987,
approximately
$7,000
has been
spent
for
hardware repairs to monitors, video controller boards, and power supplies.
In the past,
it has
been more expensive to buy hardware maintenance coverage than to pay for individual repairs,
Currently, SRI
is negotiating a hardware maintenance contract with Sun to cover all Sun systems
at SRI;
this contract
is expected to be
as advantageous
as the software
contract.
Once
this
agreement
is
in
place,
key nodes
in the
system
will be placed on
a hardware maintenance
contract.
(U) Of the
13 Sun Microsystems workstations used by the group,
all are in working
order, and only one
is off line—pending the completion of software and hardware modifications
to the tachistiscope experiment.
(U) When the Sun 3/280
file server was brought on line
in mid-March, the most
recent version
of the UNIX
operating system
(Version
3,2)
was
installed.
The most recent
version of the Unify data base program (Version 2.0), along with a new window-based interface
(SunSimplify)
,
will be installed in mid-April.
Unlike the old data base system, which was slow
and complex, the Unify system will provide rapid and easy access to data from any workstation
on the network.
36.
(U)
Objective J, Task 4—Upgrade Computer Hardware
(U) No new computer upgrades were made during the second half of FY 1987.
37.
(U)
Objective J, Task 5—Additional RA Experimental Hardware
(U) No new substantial RA hardware was purchased during the second half of FY
1987.
38.
(U)
Objective J, Task 6—Travel
(U) There are no deliverables required for this task.
Approved For Release 2(()(N<2!l§A(SSI#lfO)0789R0022001 50001 -1
SGFOIA2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2^|<|^|8y^^^-f^Ef^g)00789R0022001 50001-1
IV ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENTS (U)
(U)
Peter
J. McNelis and Edwin C. May separately
set
priorities
for the Statement of
Work for FY 1987.
McNelis set priorities on an Objective/Task basis, while May prioritized on a
level-of-effort basis for deliverables.
The assignment definitions, which were formally agreed
upon, are
as follows:
McNELIS
MAY
A
Must do
B
Should do
C
Postpone
Major formal report
Pilot, exploratory, approximately
3 to
5 pages
Wild guess, few paragraphs
Postpone.
(U) Table
3 summarizes the assignments on a task-by-task basis.
Table
(U)
PRIORITY/DELIVERABLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR FY 1987
RV
RA
Rating Task
B3
A4
B3
D1
A1
Fla
A1
Fib
A2
F2
A2
F3
B2
F4
B3
F5
B2
F6
A3
F7
B3
F9
B2
F10
A1
G1
Name
Physical Correlation
Dowsing
RV/Precognition
Feedback + SL Tachistoscope
Video Disk
Advanced Training
Training Concepts
Stimulus/Response Correlation
Hypnosis
Special Targets
Neuropsychology
Analytics
Computer Search
Rating Task
Name
A1
El
Delaware
B2
E2
Mind Science
A2
HI
Alpha-Particle
A1
H2
QM Photon
A1
H3
JFK
A1
IDS-Dynamic
A2
J2
RA-Hardware
A1
H3a
SRI Part of JFK
TECH SUPPORT
GENERAL
Rating Task
Name
Rating Task
Name
A1
A1
A1
A2
SOC
Design
SOC Assessment
A3
A1
Theory Conference
Subs Conference
A1
A3
RV Analysis
A1
J1
Administration
B2
B1
Libraiw
Med/Psych Baselines
A3
J2
Publications
A2
Cl
A3
J6
Travel
A1
C2
MARS
A3
J7
Additional SRI Staff
C3
C3
PAS Review
A1
F8
Physiology Conference
A2
FI 1
MDS
A1
PRL
A3
J3
Computer Maintenance
A3
J4
Computer Hardware
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2UlN@|8A(SS(PtiGE)078dR0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release 2(|^^^C^I^|^|^)0789R0022001 50001-1
(U)
In a separate memorandum, several FY 1987 task changes and task interpretations
were formally authorized.
These changes are summarized in Tables 4 and
5.
Table
(U)
AUTHORIZED TASK CHANGES TO FY 1987 STATEMENT OF WORK
TASK CHANGE
I
ORIGINAL SOW
CHANGED SOW
!
Old
Task
$ K
Activity
New
Task
Activity
Justification
D-2
35.0
E&M correlates to
dowsing
H-3a
SRI portion of
JFK
Provide recognition
of significant SRI
participation in the
JFK project
F-7
30.0
“Applications”
targets
for novice viewers
F-7
Develop video
“mass” screening
Augment talented
viewer pool
F-8
16.2
MEG with
Los Alamos
F-8
Physiology
Conference
More effective search
for physiology
correlates
UNCLASSIFIED
Table
(U)
AUTHORIZED INTERPRETATIONS OF FY 1987 STATEMENT OF WORK
|
TASK INTERPRETATION
|
Task
$ K
Activity
Interpretation
Justification
F-la
87.5
Precognitive RV
To include real-time
RV
Balanced protocol
F-lb
87.5
Subliminal Perception
Continue FY 1986
feedback experiment
Experiment
contains SL
G-l
100.0
Abstract to real-world
target link
Continue FY 1986
computer search
activity
Necessary pilot
phase
for link
investigation
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 20DDKfifOIA$91R£B0789R0022001 50001 -1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
Table 6 (Continued)
(U)
ENHANCED
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE INVESTIGATION—FY 1987
Bilifilt Phase gyfliilli!
QUARTER
j
Objective G—Computer
Taok
i
“Search"
lasK
H
Objective H—RA Parameters
Task
Task 2
Task 3a
Task 3
Ifc
1W
Objective
1— IDS Model
/
Task
Conferences
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
L
a
L
H
jjg
t
^B
Objective J—Administrative
/
Task
Hardware
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Begin
Key* Hi
^
End With Delivera
•
Deliverable
ble HIH
LL
End w/c) Deliverable
j
c
U
UNCLASSIFIED
* Tasks with no beginning indicator
( ) are continuations of an FY 1986
effort.
Approved For Release
0789R0022001 50001-1
SGF0IA2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 20y/j^^8^^RDP|6g0789R00220015000 1-1
REFERENCES
(U)
1.
Humphrey, B.
S., May, E. C.,
Utts,
J. M., Frivold, T.
J., Luke, W. W„ and Trask, V.
V., Fuzzy Set Applications in Remote Viewing Analysis, Final Report, Objective A, Task 3,
SRI
Project
1291,
SRI
International,
Menlo
Park,
California
(December
1986)
UNCLASSIFIED.
’
2.
Neter,
J.,
Wasserman, W„
and
Kutner, M.
H.
(1985),
pp.
94-96,
Applied Linear
Statistical Models, 2nd Edition, Richard D.
Irwin,
Inc., UNCLASSIFIED.
3.
Radin,
D.
I.,
and
May,
E.
C.,
“Testing
the
Intuitive
Data
Sorting
Model
with
Pseudorandom Number
Generators: A
Proposed
Method,”
Proceedings
of the
29th
Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association,
pp.
537-535, Sonoma
State
University, Rohnert Park, California (August 1986) UNCLASSIFIED.
4.
Hubbard,
G.
S.,
The SRI
International
Cognitive
Sciences
Conference
at
Princeton
University,
Final Report,
Objective
I, Task
4,
Project
1291,
SRI
International, Menlo
Park, California (December 1987) UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 2J|fiq)g|8^^l^-jf^^00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 20^J)j^^|^^|pP|6^0789R0022001 50001-1
APPENDIX A
A POSTERIORI ASSESSMENTS OF
THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE*
(This Appendix
is Unclassified)
The SOC members were requested
to complete a “Reviewer's Comments” sheet (see example on next oaee')
for each task that they had elected
to review.
This Appendix provides a verbatim, unedited transcrip tionYf
the reviewers
(mostly hand-written) comments on a task-by-task basis.
SRI responses have been
P
appended to the reviewers
comments where appropriate.
A-l
Approved For Release 2gpp^gT|l^3|j|lfl)^-00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
REVIEWER’S COMMENTS
The attached report titled:
has been reviewed by the undersigned.
My assessment of the research design,
statistical protocols employed, the analyses of the
data, and conclusions reached in this report
is as follows:
Additional comments:
SIGNED
DATE
A-
Approved For Release ^ff0^JI3fpj|^y)O789ROO22OO1 50001-1
Approved For Release 20^J)|0^fi^^^jpj>|^)0789R0022001 50001-1
SOC Reviewers’ Comments, Objective A, Task 3
(Fuzzy Set Applications In Remote Viewing Analysis)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
S. James Press
Comments:
1.
The research
is very interesting and
is clearly very fruitful.
It
is so promising
it
should continue to be pursued with vigor.
2.
Page
12, line
10.
“Lowest p-values” - should be deleted.
It’s not necessary for
the argument—-“figures of merit”
is enough.
Then you’re not involved
in the
issue of interpreting p-values.
3.
Page
13, line
1. You should include 0 < p <
1.
I would put the 5th paragraph
about “the assigned p’s,...” up with line
2.
4.
Page
12, bottom
line.
Explain how the consensus decision was made.
What
happened when there was disagreement?
Were they ever at an impasse?
How
far apart were they to start?
Did you record this information?
Would 5 analysts
make a difference? Would 2 analysts make a difference? What was the variance
in assessments?
5.
Page 14.
In the equations, Rj and Tj are not defined; fuzzy set intersection
is not
defined; how would we set the weights, Wk?
Are the equations correct?
6.
Page 14, last paragraph.
It would be substantially clearer if you gave a numerical
example, with a threshold, to show how a - cuts are used, and how Accuracy and
Reliability are actually computed.
'
Page
16, line
8. How stable
is the value “37,” the average number of non-zero
values?
If you did the evaluation many more times what would the variance in
the 37 be?
8.
Page
17.
Formula
is not correct.
9.
Page
19,
paragraph
F.
“Ground
truth”
is
a
term
appropriate
in
“remote
sensing.
Since RV
is
a
kind
of remote
sensing,
the
term
seems
entirely
appropriate.
This might be explained.
10.
Page 21.
I would not know how to record my answer to the “Belief in ESP”
question, nor do
I know how to interpret other’s responses to that question.
To
me, the biggest issue
is binary belief:
it
it possible
at
all?
I don’t know what
degree-of-belief means here?
What does “complete” mean?
11.
Page 22, line 6. How do you know the scores are normally distributed?
Do you
need them to be normally distributed?
A-
Approved For Release 2(J(|^f7^^G^|ffp0OO789ROO22O0 150001-1
Approved For Release 2p
-00789R0022001 50001-1
12.
Page
22,
Figure
5.
Aren't
the
subjective
evaluations
by
a
single
analyst
correlated?
All biases of a given analyst are bound to influence each of the
assessments
13.
Page
23,
line
4.
What
are
the
definitions
of
“experienced,”
“expert,”
and
“novice”
analysts?
14.
Page 23, Figure
6.
I am confused by this figure.
Are the entries correlations?
If
they are correlations, why are some numbers greater than 1.0 and less than -1.0?
I am not clear what the entries in Figure
6 are.
Line 7 asserts
that 15 differences were computed.
I’m not sure, but
I guess these
are differences between
figures
of merit
for each response-target combination
and
degrees-of-correspondence
obtained
from
the PMT
series.
If
so,
the
numbers aren’t really comparable.
15.
Page
24,
line
3.
The
correlation
coefficient computed
is only meaningful
for
significance computations if the data are normally distributed.
But are they?
It is
not likely.
16.
Page 28, References. Why not delete “unclassified” for references
1, 2, 4, 6 and
put “classified”
for the remainder?
It calls less attention to the classified nature
of this work.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-24-87
NAME:
Brian
Skyrms
Comments:
1.
This
is a careful and well-thought out use of fuzzy set theory.
I agree that the
important point
is the identification of “orthogonal”
target sets.
2.
I doubt
if use of fuzzy sets with fuzzy elements
(page 26) would really lead to
greater accuracy.
3.
The suggestion made in session that RV subjects use descriptors to do their own
classification after drawing,
is a good to isolate fewer experimenter effects.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Mike A. Wartell
Comments:
1.
This method* seems to be an extremely powerful means by which to analyze the
results of experiments.
It is the most promising formalism
I have seen for use on
ambiguous
data
of
the
type
provided
by
these
experiments.
I am
slightly
Fuzzy sets and cluster analysis and appropriate universe of descriptors and “ground truth”
assessment.
A-4
Approved For Release 20£|)|(j^e|y^Qgfpfg^0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2
-00789R0022001 50001-1
concerned (but only slightly) by the small size of the sample used for determining
“ground truth.”
2.
The described methodology must be published in some legitimate outlet so that
it
gains
external
validation and
is made
available
for
other uses.
(But
I
can’t
overemphasize the need for external validation of every aspect of this project.)
3.
Suggest future research directions are appropriate.
4.
Also, choice of orthogonal targets as decoys makes analysis more straightforward.
5.
This may be the most significant secondary achievement coming from the project.
Response To
S. James Press’ Comments:
NAME:
Edwin C. May
1.
Most
all of Dr.
Press’ comments have been attended to
in the published
final
report for Objective A, Task
3.
A-
Approved For Release 2l3^^A
(35'ff
,ffiDC)0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective C, Tasks 2 and 3
(Review of the Personality Assessment System)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Brian Skyrms
Comments:
1*
This careful review concludes that the PAS
will not be useful for the purposes
envisioned.
The conclusion appears warranted.
Recommend:
Yes
11-18-87
NAME:
Mike
Wartell
Comments:
1.
Good descriptive report on PAS methodology.
Does not really detail usefulness
or lack-of same to the project.
Does not really report correlation of results, and
is, therefore,
functionally different from other reports.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-11-87
NAME:
Philip Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
This is an excellent review which could be published in a professional journal with
minor revision.
2.
Need to mention that the PAS has also been rejected by psychologists because
it
is a type theory at a time when typologies are not in vogue.
3.
I
accept
the
conclusions reached
that
there
is
limited
utility
of PAS
for RV
screening.
It should also be noted that a reason for the obscure status of PAS
is the fact that
early research was probably classified, since
it was part of the CIA’s program of
identifying target individuals for various mind/behavior modification attempts
4.
Five characteristics of individual’s that might correlate with RV ability:
1.
Openness to new experiments (paper and pencil test).
2.
Remote associates test (paper and pencil
test).
3.
Tolerance
for ambiguity.
A-
Approved For Release
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
4.
Tolerance
for frustration.
5.
High
self esteem - high ego strength.
6.
p.
4 Bern
is Daryl not Darrel
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
Approved For Release 20yf^(Jt^]J3^
iPI®0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objectives D and G, Task
(Computer-Assisted Search)
(verbatim transcription
not edited)
NAME:
S. James Press
1.
Results of this work are interesting and encouraging, but much more work needs
to be carried out.
The underlying phenomena are not yet well understood, and
replicability
is problematic.
2.
Page
ii, paragraph 3.
Last sentence
is an overdrawn conclusion based upon very
small sample.
3.
Page
ii,
last
paragraph.
I
don’t
find
that
this
“effect”
is
sufficiently
well
understood as to
it being ready to be proposed to the military.
For me, we would
need large samples, replicated many times with the same subjects - the time and
space differential effects are not yet understood.
The conclusion
is overdrawn.
4.
Page 3, line 2.
The formula l-(l-.OOOl) 72 is based upon independence of trials.
But they weren’t independent; there was learning.
5.
Page 9,
last paragraph.
This approach to a p-value for an experiment
is hokey,
ad hoc, and not founded in a scientific basis-or
is
it?
If so,
I would like to see a
proof of why this procedure
is appropriate.
It’s not obvious.
6.
Page
13,
middle paragraph.
Results
in
1987
with
completely chance
results
emphasize more than ever that these dowsing results are nowhere near ready for
military application.
7.
Page
iii, last paragraph.
Placing the subject directly over the target (the wreck)
is
a location that could have been guessed by the subject
(just as the combination
lock on a suitcase
is usually a birth date, a marriage date,
etc., and so with a bit
of prior effort,
the
result can be guessed).
Strangely, there was no significant
result.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
Response To S. James Press’ Comments:
NAME:
Jessica Utts
1.
Response to comment 2:
It is true that the sample size upon which this statement
is based was small for the FY 1987 experiment, but the surprising thing is that this
same trend has survived three
years
of experiments.
Also,
the
sentence was
worded as a suggestion of a trend, not as a conclusion.
A-
Approved For Release 20flJJ|^|^:y^l^jyp|^Q0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R0022001 50001-1
UNCLASSIFIED
2.
Response to comment 3:
Agreed. The paragraph in question has been reworded
to reflect a more cautious interpretation of the
results.
3.
Response to comment
4:
Learning would not change the fact that the
trials are
independent under the null hypothesis, and p-values are always computed under
the null hypothesis.
The game
is set up so that even complete knowledge about
how
it works
will not help one’s chance
for success without the use of psi.
Response to comment 5:
This approach to a combined p-value was the first one
used historically for combining results.
It
is powerful when one or more subjects
can produce a large effect, whether or not others can.
This seems to be the case
in psi experiments, so
it seems to be a good measure of the overall significance of
a psi experiment.
An explanation to this effect has been added to the report.
Response to comment
6:
Agreed.
See note
(3) and response.
Response
to comment
7:
This comment
reflects
a
misunderstanding
of the
experiment; the report has been reworded to try to clarify that issue. The subject
knew that they were anchored over the wreck, but did not know which segment of
the (unmarked) map corresponded to that spot.
The grid used for dowsing was
keyed to the map in a random fashion.
NAME:
Michael Wartell
1.
Research
design and
analysis
are
acceptable,
where CAS
is
involved.
Some
aspects of the design of the Atocha experiment are unclear.
Analysis of both
experiments
is sensible.
2.
Some parts of preliminary draft are confusing to this reader as marked on report.
Writing needs clarification.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
NAME:
Philip
Zimbardo
Comments:
1.
The computer-generated Task
1 target procedure
is sound.
2.
This
application
of
psi
has
clear
operational
implications—and
should
be
continued.
3.
The
results are
disappointing,
if the prime
findings are those on page
11,
last
sentence.
However,
operationally,
if you
are
looking
for anyone who
can
enhance search operations for your client, then the individual data for
s # 837
is
promising.
But to be operational, there would have to be more
stability of the
“dowser” over time,
i.e.,
test situations.
4.
Q:
Why not use as Ss known “dowser” with some established track record in a
laboratory controlled setting?
A-
Approved For Release
|J>0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release
-00789R0022001 50001-1
:oa
:
5.
Page
13, paragraph
1.
Conclusion: “once again produced
significant
results.”
This conclusion again
is
vastly overstated, and should be tempered by
greater
scientific cautiousness.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-13-87
Response To Philip Zimbardo’s Comments:
NAME:
Jessica Utts
1.
Response
to comment
4:
We have worked
with one known dowser
(Subject
198),
with
mixed
results.
Some
of
these
are
reported
with
the FY
1984
experiments.
Response
to comment
5:
While
it
is
true
that
the
experiment produced
a
significant
result using one particular
criterion,
the
overall
results were not
as
good
as they were
in
past
years.
Thus,
the statement
in question has been
tempered in the report.
A-10
Approved For Release 2^<^^fl^ffjf$§)p0789R002200'l 50001-1
Approved For Release 2p
-00789R0022001 50001-1
SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task
(An RA Investigation With Marine Microorganisms)
(verbatim transcription—not edited)
NAME:
Michael Wartell
Comments:
1.
I have concern about quality and quantity of data contained within
this report.
As stated, no conclusions can be drawn.
I do feel that the proposed experimental
.
design and data analysis were acceptable.
2.
Report should simply identify this experience as a “busted contract” and go on
from there or drop the subject.
Recommendation:
Yes
11-11-87
A- 11
Approved For Release 2fJf(j^Aq55-f|Cfg0OO789ROO22OO1 50001-1