Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001-1 NAME: UNCLASSIFIED SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objectives D and G, Task 1 (Computer-Assisted Search) (verbatim transcription---not edited) S$. James Press 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. Page ii, paragraph 3. Last sentence is an overdrawn conclusion based upon very small sample. 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. Page 3, line 2. The formula 1-(1-.0001)72 is based upon independence of trials. But they weren’t independent; there was learning. 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. 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. 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 8. James Press’ Comments: NAME: Jessica Utts 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-8 Approved For Release 2009 RFEL A SSH ATP TNO” 89R002200150001-1
Approved For Release "UNCL : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200150001 -1 IA- ASSIFIED 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-9 Approved For Release 20OPICSE ACOSEP PEEP 0789R002200150001 -1
Approved For Release UNCLASSIFIED 50001-1 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 2Q9 RES ASS REF B00789R002200150001-1
Approved For Release PPR CP es SET ERE BS ear z200150001-1 SOC Reviewers’ Comments on Objective E, Task 1 (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 209 NOES ASS FEE P00789R002200150001-1