31 October 1974 Progress Report No. 3 Covering the Period I April to I August 1974 Stanford Research Institute Project 3183 PERCEPTUAL AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES by Harold E. Puthoff Russell Targ Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory Client Private Approved For Release 2000108110 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 CONTENTS I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II PROGRESSDURING THE REPORTING PERIOD . . . . . . 2 . . . . A. Applied 2 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Remote Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . (a) Project Atlas Remote Viewing . . . 2 . . . . (b) Costa Rica Remote Viewing Experiment 6 . . . (c) Local Targets with Mid-Test Feedback. 7 . . (d) Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing 11 . . . . B. Basic 11 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Criteria for the Determination of Gifted Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . (a) Remote Viewing of Natural Targets . 16 . . . (b) Line Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . (c) Four-State Electronic Random Stimulus Generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . 2. Identification of Measurable Characteristics Possessed by Gifted Subjects (207,) . . 22 . . . . (a) Medical Evaluation . . . . . . . . 22 . . . . (b) Psychological Evaluation . . . . . 24 . . . . (c) Neuropsychological Evaluation . . . 41 . . . 3. Identification of Neurophysiological Correlates Which Relate to Paranormal Activities (20%) . . . . . . . . . . . 41 . . . . (a) Bilateral EEG Measurements--Remote Strobe Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . (b) Physiological Correlates of Remote Viewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . 4. Identification of the Nature of Paranormal Phenomena and Energy (10%) . . . . . . 44 . . . . (a) Universal Randomization Protocol . 46 . . . . (b) Experiments with Develco Superconducting Differential Magnetometer (Gradiometer) 50 ii Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (c) Experiments with Laser-Monitored Torsion Pendulum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 (d) Experiments with Geiger Counter . . . . . 59 5. Basic Research Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Appendix 1--RANDOMNESS TESTS OF FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Appendix 2--PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR 66 Appendix 3--SAMPLE OF RAW DATA--MEDICAL EVALUATION OF SUBJECT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Appendix 4--PRELIMINARY NOTES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING . . . . 103 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 I OBJECTIVE The purpose of the program is to determine the characteristics of those perceptual modalities through which individuals obtain information about their environment, wherein such information is not presented to any known sense. The program is divided into two categories of investigation of approximately equal effort, applied research and basic research. The purpose of the applied research effort is to explore experimentally the potential for applications of perceptual abilities of interest, with special attention given to accuracy and reliability. The purpose of the basic research effort is to identify the characteristics of individuals possessing such abilities, and to identify neurophysiological correlates and basic mechanisms involved in such functioning. I Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Il PROGRESS DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD A. Applied Research 1. Remote Viewing (a) Project Atlas Remote Viewing A remote-viewing experiment has been carried out on a client-designated target of interest, a European R&D test facility. The experiment, carried out in three phases, had as its goal the determina- tion of the utility of remote-viewing under operational conditions. In Phase 1. map coordinates were furnished to the experi- menters, the only additional information provided being the designation of the target as an R&D test facility. The experimenters then carried out a remote viewing experiment with Subject 1 on a double-blind basis. The results of the experiment were turned over to client representatives for data evaluation. Figure 1 shows the level of detail for a sample early effort at building layout, and Figure 2 shows the subject's first effort at drawing a gantry crane he observed, both results being obtained on a double-blind basis before exposure to client-held information. An artist's conception of the site as known to the client (but not to contract per- sonnel) prior to the experiment is shown in Figure 3. Numerical designations for subjects are discussed in Section B. 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 LU u u 3 ga -]A - P OV, 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 q tz- 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 ui a. x ui (n LU F- (n LU F- LL 0 z 0 F- CL LU 0 z 0 L) P F- U) F- CY) LLJ LL 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Were the results not promising, the experiment would have stopped at this point. The results were judged to be of sufficiently good quality, however, that Phase II was entered in which the subject was made witting by client representatives. A second round of experimentation ensued with participation of client representatives. The Phase 11 effort was focussed on the generation of physical data which could be client-verified, providing a calibration in the process. The end of Phase II gradually evolved into the first part of Phase III, the generation of unverifiable data not available to the client, but of interest nonetheless. Evaluation of the data by the client is under way. (b) Costa Rica Remote Viewing Experiment Subjects 1 and 4 participated in a long-distance experiment involving a Central American target series. In this experiment, one of - the experimenters (Dr. Puthoff) spent a week traveling through Costa Rica on a combination business/pleasure trip. That is all that was known to the subjects about the traveler's itinerary. The experiment called for Dr. Puthoff to keep a detailed record of his location and activities, including photographs, each day at 1330 PDT. Six daily responses were obtained from Subject 1, five from Subject 4. The results were of high quality and are presently being evaluated in detail, containing as they did a large amount of material. Samples of that data are as follows. Of the five daily responses obtained from Subject 4. two were in good agreement, two had elements in common but were not clear correspondences, and one was clearly a miss. In the first of the two reasonably good matches, Dr. Puthoff was driving in rugged terrain at the base of a volcano and the subject's response was "large bare table 6 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 mountain, jungle below, dark cool moist atmosphere," a reasonable corre- spondence both with regard to topography and ambience. In the second match the subject submitted that all she got was a "picture of Dr. Puthoff sitting in a beach chair by a pool," which was entirely correct. The transcript data will be examined further to determine fine structure, resolution, etc. (c) Local Targets with Mid-Test Feedback In this series of experiments, designed to give immediate data to experimenters, a subject is asked to take part in a remote viewing experiment under the following conditions. The subject and two experimenters (one of whom was R.T.) are in a first floor laboratory in Building 30 at SRI. A second experi- menter (H.P.) leaves the area and proceeds to a remote location of his choosing. None of the experimenters with the subject knew of the remote target location. H.P. and R.T. are in two-way radio communication via walkie-talkie (a) to provide the experimenter at the target location real- time data and (b) to give the subject immediate feedback after he has made his assessment of the target. By this means the subject has,an opportunity to learn to separate real from imagined images. This is not considered to be a demonstration-of-ability test, but rather a training step on a gradient scale of ability. In many of these experiments we monitor physiological correlates as discussed in Section B.3 (b). (Nine of these experiments have been completed to date, seven with the measurements of physiological correlates.) The following is a sample of an experiment with Subject 4. In this experiment we monitored physiological correlates of the remote viewing activity. 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 cc LU 3: (D 4 N 0 N Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 R.T.: WATERY WE CAN'T TELL. IT'S SHINY AND THEREIS VERY LITTLE VEGETATION--NO VEGETATION AROUND.... S-4: Mostly concrete. . . R.T.: IT'S MOSTLY CONCRETE... S-4: He's standing on concrete .... R.T.: YOU'RE STANDING ON CONCRETE. OVER. H.P.: IT CERTAINLY IS TRUE THAT THIS IS SHINY AND IN MY NEAR VICINITY IT IS BARREN AND CONCRETE OR CONCRETE-COLORED EARTH. SHE SAID THAT IT LOOKED LIKE STEEL OR WATER. CAN SHE MAKE THE DIFFERENTIA- TION BETWEEN THE TWO? R.T.: He wants to know whether it looks more like steel or water. S-4: It seems to have movement--that's why I would deduce that it's water. R.T.: What if you try to look at the whole thing. S-4: I'm trying to get an eagle's eye view. That's a waterworks. R.T.: Why does it look like a waterworks? In what way? S-4: There seems to be a man-made layout of channels and connections to conduct it. R.T.: S-4 SEES MOVEMENT IN THE ZIGZAG THING.9 SO SHE THINKS THAT IT'S WATER, AND A KIND OF LAYOUT OF CHANNELS AS THOUGH IT WAS A MAN- MADE WATERWORKS WITH WATER RUNNING IN ZIGZAG CHANNELS. OVER. H.P.: THAT IS PRECISELY CORRECT. IT IS A ZIGZAG MAN-MADE CHANNEL WITH CONCRETE SIDES. OVER. S-4: I can't believe it. The above is an excerpt from an early experiment, and is typical, rather a sample of exceptionally good quality. That experiment continued with four more site descriptions, three of which were of equal quality. 10 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 One experiment of this nature has been carried out with Subject 1, one with Subject 2, two with Subject 3, and five with Subject 4. A number of descriptions were essentially free of error and with no feedback other than verification following the remote viewer's description. A complete analysis is to be carried out on these trans- cripts following more experimentation. To date it appears that the viewing is weak in the following areas: (a) perspective and dimension are often distorted (an 8-foot tower is taken to be 50 feet tall, a 20- foot separation between buildings may appear to be 100 feet, etc.), and (b) written material generally cannot be read. (d) Local Targets with Azimuth Bearing In two remote viewing experiments, the second of which was clearly correct from a descriptive standpoint, an effort was made to de- termine whether in driving the subject around the area it would be possible to determine the location of the target team by triangulation with a bearing compass. The triangulation lines were essentially uncorrelated with each other and with the target location, and therefore provided a null result. B. Basic Research In addition to the testing of individuals under conditions which yield data indicating the feasibility of the application of paranormal abilities to operational needs, 50 percent of the effort is devoted to: (1) Identification of measurable characteristics possessed by gifted individuals (20%). (2) Identification of neurophysiological correlates which relate to paranormal activities (20%). (3) Identification of the nature of paranormal phenomena and energy (10%). 11 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 To meet these objectives four specific requirements must be fulfilled during the course of experimentation: (1) establish and apply criteria to differentiate between those for whom paranormal ability is considered to be functional and those for whom it is not; (2) obtain sufficient medical and psychological data to establish baseline profiles against which (a) one individual may be compared with another, and (b) an in- dividual may be compared to himself at different times to determine whether paranormal functioning occurs in an altered neurophysiological state; (3) specific validation experiments must be conducted with suffi- cient control to ensure that all conventional communication paths are blocked, with outcomes sufficiently unambiguous to determine whether paranormal functioning occurred; (4) obtain neurophysiological data during experimentation to determine those correlates, if any, which relate to paranormal activity. In the following paragraphs, each of these items is considered in turn and the progress to date reported. The milestone chart for the basic research program is shown in Table 1. The work is progressing in accor- dance with the schedule prepared for this program, and the remaining time and funds are sufficient to meet all program objectives. 1. Criteria for the Determination of Gifted Individuals One of the key issues in the program is the establishment of criteria capable of differentiating individuals who are apparently gifted in paranormal functioning from those who are not. Three experimental paradigms were chosen to act as screening tests on the basis that these tests had been useful for such purposes prior to this program (in the sense that certain apparently gifted in- dividuals did exceedingly well on at least one of the tests, whereas the results of unselected volunteers did not differ significantly from chance 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 -n 0 X (D (D 00 TABLE I V M A M J J A S 0 N D J F PROGRAM SCHEDULE - II MO T11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1112 13 1. Set up neurophysiological lab with computer V processing debugged. 2. W.A.I.S. testing of subjects by client 3. Measure neurophysiological correlates during paranormal experimentation V V a) paranormal EEG experiments b) other paranormal experimentation 4. Work to determine nature of energies involved (gradiometer, etc.) 5. Medical testing, including special testing V V 6. Neuropsychological testing 7. Psychological testing, including in-depth interview 8. Correlate data and consider theoretical models V 9. Prepare final report 0 Q 4 ;U Q C~ CD Q Q C~ Q Q -;A, Q Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 expectation). The tests are (a) remote viewing of natural targets, (b) reproduction of simple line drawings hidden from the subject but viewed by an experimenter, and (c) determination of the state of a four- state electronic random stimulus generator. The first test constitutes a so-called "free-response" paradigm in which the subject originates freely about contents of his awareness; furthermore, the channel in general may involve both direct perception of the remote site and perception of the mental contents of an observer at the site. The second test is more constrained than the first in that the target information is more analytical or abstract, being associated with a graphical representation of an item of interest rather than the item itself. The third test is the most constrained in that the target is blind to all participants in the experiment and the subject's choice is precisely constrained. The details of these tests are given below. For the purpose of screening, the criteria as to what constitutes a paranormal result was chosen arbitrarily, viz: For the purpose of screening a result is to be considered paranormal if the a priori probability for the occurrence of the result by chance, under the null hypothesis, is -6 p < 10 Although the above requirement is exceedingly strict by usual psycho- physiological standards, it is chosen here (a) because the controversial nature of the subject requires strict handling, and (b) in our work and elsewhere, a bimodal distribution has been observed empirically in which a subset of individuals participating in paranormal research produce re- -6 sults at a level of statistical significance P !E~ 10 in comparison with 14 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOOI 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 the bulk of individuals who cluster about the mean as expected. There- fore, we base our criteria on an observable natural division into clearly functional and nonfunctional categories. Six subjects have been chosen for the study to date, subjects 1, 2Y and 3 considered gifted, subjects 4, 5, and 6 acting as learners or controls. Subject 1 qualifies as a gifted subject on the basis of remote viewing; subject 2 qualifies as gifted on the basis of the random generator test; subject 3 is tentatively classed as gifted in remote viewing, al- though not yet completing the screening series, based on client evaluation of highly successful remote-viewing experiments carried out for the client -6 in the previous program, and also on the basis of meeting the p < 10 criterion in experimentation at another laboratory. Subject 5 (learner/control), a male, age 54, is paired with gifted subject 1. a male, age 55. Learner/control subject 6, a female, age 34, is by age, background, and temperament paired with gifted subject 2, a male, age 31. Learner subject 4 (female, age 53) and gifted subject 3 (male. age 41) are paired on the basis of artistic occupations (pro- fessional photographer and painter, respectively) and similar emotional and psychological makeup. Earlier in the program nine subjects were to be placed in three cate- gories, three subjects each: gifted subjects, learners, and controls. However experience in the early part of the program indicated that (a) a best effort would require spending more time with fewer people, and (b) the distinction between learners and controls was arbitrary in comparison with the distinction between these categories and that of gifted subjects as defined above. 15 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (a) Remote Viewing of Natural Targets The first screening test is based on previous SRI research results which indicate that it is possible for a~subject to describe ran- domly chosen geographical sites located several miles from the subject's position and demarcated by some appropriate means. This experiment consists of a series of double-blind tests involving local targets in the San Francisco Bay area which can be docu- mented by independent judging. Target locations within 30 minutes driving time from SRI are randomly chosen from a list of targets kept blind to subject and experimenters and used without replacement. To begin an experiment, an experimenter is closeted with a subject at SRI to wait 30 minutes to begin a narrative description of the remote location. A second experimenter obtains a target location from the target pool and proceeds directly to the target without communicating with the subject or experimenter remaining behind. The second experi- menter remains at the target site for an agreed-upon 30-minute period following the 30 minutes allotted for travel. During the observation period, the remote viewing subject is asked to describe his impressions of the target site into a tape recorder. A comparison is made when the experimenter returns. Following a series of nine experiments, the results are subjected to independent judging on a blind basis by five SRI scientists not otherwise associated with the research. The judges are asked to blind match locations, independently visited, against typed manuscripts of tape-recorded narratives of the remote vie.wer. A given narrative can be assigned to more than one target location. A correct match requires that a transcript of a given date be associated with the target of that date. Probability calculations are on the basis of the a priori 16 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOOI 00430001 -0 probability of the obtained series of matches by chance, conservatively assuming assignment without replacement on the part of the judges. As indicated in Report No. 1, Subject I has completed this series, obtaining a result significant at the p ~ 8 X 10- 10 level. Ex- perimentation is in progress with Subjects 2 and 4, two transcripts having been obtained from each to date. (b) Line Drawings A pool of 50 simple line drawings of everyday objects has been drawn, randomized and placed in a secure location. During experimentation, experimenters and subject are separated by either an experimenter or subject entering a shielded room so that from that time forward the subject is at all times visually, acoustically, and electrically shielded from personnel and material at the target location. Following isolation a target is chosen by means of the universal randomization protocol technique described in Section 4 (a), used in this case to generate a two-digit number modulo 50. The subject's task is then to reproduce with pen on paper the line drawing now displayed at the target location. Following a period of effort not to exceed half an hour, the subject may either pass (when he does not feel confident) or indicate he is ready to submit a drawing to the experimenters, in which case the drawing is collected by an experimenter before the subject is permitted to see the target. The experiment is then repeated with replacement until ten drawings have been obtained from the subject. To obtain an independent evaluation of the correlation between target and response data, the experimenters submit the data for 17 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOOI 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 judging on a blind basis by two SRI scientists not otherwise associated with the research. The judges are asked to match the response data with the corresponding target data (without replacement). Such experimentation is presently in progress, a number of drawings having been obtained from several of the subjects but have not yet been submitted for judging. (c) Four-State Electronic Random Stimulus Generator The determination of the state of a four-state electronic random stimulus generator comprises the third screening test. The target is in the form of one of four art slides chosen randomly (p = 1/4) by an electronic random generator. The generator does not indicate its choice until the subject indicates his choice to the machine by pressing a button (see Figure 5). As soon as the subject indicates his choice,, the target slide is illuminated to provide visual and auditory (bell if correct) feedback as to the correctness or incorrectness of his choice. Until that time both subject and experimenter remain ignorant of the machine's choice5 so the experiment is of the double-blind type. Five legends at the top of the machine face are illuminated one at a time with increasing correct choices (6, 8~ 10, ...) to provide additional reinforcement. The machine choice, subject choice, cumulative trial number, and cumulative hit number are recorded automatically on a printer. Following trial number 25, the machine must be reset manually by depressing a RESET button. A methodological feature of the machine is that the choice of a target is not forced. That is., a subject may press a PASS button when he wishes not to guess, in which case the machine indicates what its choice was, and neither a hit nor a trial is scored by the machine, which then goes on to make its next selection. Thus, the subject does not have 18 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Figure 5. ESP Teaching Machine used in this experiment. An incorrect choice of target is indicated. Two of the five "encouragement lights" at the top of the machine are illuminated. The printer to the right of the machine records data on fan-fold paper tape. 19 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 to guess at targets when he does not feel that he has an idea as to which to choose. Under the null hypothesis of random binomial choices with probability 1/4 and no learning, the probability of observing ~tk successes in n trials is approximated by the probability of a normal distribution value (k 4 2 For the purpose of screening, each subject is required to complete 100 25-trial runs (i.e., a total of 2,500 trials). To date Subjects 1, 2, and 6 have completed this phase of the screening program, and their results are tabulated in Table 2. Subject 4 has completed 2,100.trials with mean scores of 25.71 (p = 0.20). Table 2 SCREENING DATA: FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR Mean Score/100 Trials Subject Over 2,500 Trials Binomial Probability 1 25.76 0.22 -7 2 29.36 3 X 10 6 25.40 0.33 On the basis of this test Subject 2, whose scores are plotted in Figure 6, qualifies as a gifted individual, having satisfied the criterion of producing a result whose a priori probability under the null hypothesis is p < 10- 6. Of further interest are this subject's personal observations of subjective experiences during the screening test, presented in Appendix 2. 20 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 50 + a cr .r4 0 30 0 4J 0 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 RUN NUMBER - 100 Trials/Run P = i per trial FIGURE 6 DATA SUMMARY FOR SUBJECT 2 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 2. Identification of Measurable Characteristics Possessed by Gifted Subjects (20%) (a) Medical Evaluation The medical evaluation of program participants has been assigned to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Coordination of the program is being handled by Dr. Robert Armbruster, Director of the Clinic's Depart- ment of Environmental Medicine. The Clinic, in turn, has subcontracted certain special tests to the Stanford Medical Center, Stanford University. One visual sensitivity test is being administered by the Bioengineering Group of the Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory of SRI. The testing procedures, outlined in Table 3, fall into seven categories: (1) General physical examination, including complete medical and family history. (2) Laboratory examinations, including SMA-12 panel blood chemistries, protein electrophoresis, blood lipid profile, urinalysis, serology, blood type and factor, pulmonary function screening, and 12-lead electrocardiogram. (3) Neurological examination, including comprehen- sive and electroencephalogram (sleeping and routine). (4) Audiometric examination, including comprehensive, Bekesy bone conduction, speech discrimination, and impedance bridge test. (5) Ophthalmologist examination, including compre- hensive, card testing, peripheral field test, muscle test,- dilation funduscope, and indirect ophthalmoscopic and fundus examination. (6) Special visual examinations, including electro- retinogram, dark adaptation test, and visual contrast sensitivity. (7) EMI brain scan. 22 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 ~ ";~~ .0 Az 0~1 0 0 .0 .0 OOYN eb- 3'~f e 01 CP' 'o 0. Y;o eN V '-0. 0 Y e? 4) 0 t7\ 0 01 0 C (D #1 G Ou 0 0 0 C 0 (D '_10 0 0 0 0 3 0 #2 U 0 (0) G) 0 0 0 3 (D 1 (D 0 0 0 0 #3 0 Q 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q Q 00 Q #4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5~0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 6 ~0 (D 0 02 (0 0- T 101 1 Q 01 001 00 cl o0 01 00 #7 1 0 0 0 Q 0 O LO 0 0 Q 0 #8 10 0 0 0a _ -O -L 1 1 OA Q Q Q +-Completed Scheduled MEDICAL EXAMINATION Table 3 Personnel #1 - 3, subjects; #4 - 6, learners/controls; 7, 8, experimenters. 1. General Physical Examination Complete medical Family history ;2. Laboratory Examinations 0 < SMA-12 panel blood chemistries (D Protein electrophoresis -n Blood lipid profile 0 Urinalyses Serology (D F ~Blood type and factor Pulmonary function screening (D Electrocardiogram 12-lead Q Q Q 3. Neurological Examination Comprehensive Q 00 Electroencephalogram, bleeping and routine-L Q 4. Audiometric Examination 0 Comprehensive > Bekesy bone conduction Speech discrimination 0 U Impedance bridge test 5. Opthalmol ogist Examination Q Q Comprehensive 4 Card testing Peripheral field test Q Muscle test Q Q Dilation funduscope L Q Indirect opthalmoscopic and fundus examinationQ 6. Special Visual Examinations Q Electroretinogram (Stanford Med.) Q Q L Dark adaptation test (Stanford Med.) I Visual contrast sensitivity (SRI) Q 7. EMI Brain Scan 0 Palo Alto Medical Clinic 0 Stanford Medical Center SRI Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 As indicated in Table 3. medical testing is currently in progress. To date the return information is sparse,- having to be collated from several clinics before a comprehensive analysis can be completed. To provide an indication of the type of raw data that is to be collated.~ a small sample of data obtained on Subject 1 is presented in Appendix 3. As indicated, the EMI computerized brain scan reveals a slight enlarge- ment of the entire right lateral ventricle,, while the left appears normal in size. An asymmetry in alpha development between left and right hemi- spheres is also indicated. Also noted is some concern about the EKG sug- gesting a coroilary artery problem. The significance of these factors for our interest will be developed under the direction of Dr. Armbruster and made available to the client as available. (b) Psychological Evaluation The psychological evaluation of program participants con- sists of both baseline personality evaluation, and of ongoing testing associated with daily experimentation. The collection of baseline data (e.g., in-depth interview, W.A.I.S., etc.) is for the purpose of identi- fying baseline characteristics possessed by gifted subjects. The ongoing testing associated with daily experimentation (e.g., Mood Adjective Check- lists) is for the purpose of identifying psychological correlates of successful versus unsuccessful performance tasks. (1) Baseline Data The bulk of the baseline evaluation has been assigned to the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. Coordination of the program is being handled by Dr. J. E. Heenan, Chief Clinical Psychologist of the Department of Psychiatry. 24 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 The baseline evaluation, outlined in Table 4, con- sists of (1) In-depth interviews, including objective events and subjective views relating to the discovery and enhancement of paranormal capacities; socioeconomic,, cultural., familial, religious environment; outstanding peaks, traumas; values,, motivation., inter- personal style. (2) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (W.A.I.S.). (3) Minnesota Multiphase Personality Inventory (M.M.P.I.). (4) Benton Visual Memory Test and Wechsler Memory Scale. (5) Thematic Apperception Test (T.A.T.) and Rorschach projective tests. (6) Bender Gestalt Test. (7) Luscher color test. (8) Strong Aptitude/Values Test. (9) Cognitive Style Preference Test. As indicated in Table 4, the psychological testing is well under way. There is of course, a considerable lag between testing and results. To date, only a partial analysis of data from Subject I is available. We present these data in Appendix 4 as a sample of the type of analysis that will become available. (2) Cognitive Style Preference Test In connection with testing hypotheses associated with hemispheric specialization of the brain, Dr. Robert Ornstein of the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, San Francisco, has been brought into the program as a consultant. 25 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/dM-V:4ClA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 PSYCHOIDGICAL EXAMINATION Personnel'#l - 3, subjects; #4 6 learners/controls; #7 8~ experimenters.. (b N> K) 0 4zp e, K>1 6~ 0 0(> 0 yv Al Al ~-O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Q 0 . #2 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #3 0 0- 001 00 001 00 0 0 00 09 1 . 0 01 0 0 . 01 00 0 0 0 0 - 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 #4 0 - .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 #6 00 001 0(3 0 00 0 0 01ah 01 0 01 0 #7 0.0 C . 0 ' 0 .0 0 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Q 0 0 #8 00 [0 0'0t o 0 0, 00. 0 0. 00. 0 . 0. 0. 0. SRI 0 Palo Alto Medical Clinic Appr oved For Release 2000/08/f6 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 in his capacity as consultant., Dr. Ornstein has pro- vided an instrument named the Cognitive Style Preference Test. This test was developed for use in differentiating between individuals preferring a structure-oriented cognitive style as compared with a verbally oriented cognitive style. For the purpose of the program, this instrument is ad- ministered to determine whether individuals exhibiting paranormal func- tioning prefer, as a group, one style of cognitive functioning predomi- nantly as compared with individuals in a control group. The test is administered once to each individual. A sample of the test is included below. Preliminary results indicate some preference for a verbally oriented cognitive style on the part of good subjects (Figure 7), but further data are required before any significance is to be attached to the results tabulated thus far. Should a correlation of test results with paranormal functioning be founda, it would be appropriate in later work to determine whether this test instrument would be useful as a screening device, i.e., to determine whether other individuals sharing the profile also exhibit paranormal functioning. 27 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000108110 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECT: COGNITIVE STYLE PREFERENCE TEST Please do not turn over the pages until I ask you to do so. On each page of this booklet there are sets of three items arranged in rows. Two of them are alike or fit together in some way. Your task is to select which one is different and doesn't belona with the other two. The two columns on the first page are samples. There are three desi--ns or shapes in each row. Each design has a word printed on it. In the first ro,--v of the first column all the words are the same. Most people would say that the first and second shapes go together and the third one doesn't belong. Would you agree? (If not, explain.) Mark the third one with an X then. In the second row most people would say that the first one is different and the last two go together. Do you agree? Then mark the first one with an X. In the third row the shapes are all the same, but the words HORSE and SADDLE go together and the world FAULT doesn't belong. Do you agree? (If not, explain.) Mark the third one with an X. Which would you pick as the odd one in the 4th row? EColor Ond one)] In the 5th row you could choose either a word that doesn't 7-1-elong or a shape that doesn't belong. Which is the odd word? (TROUT.) Which is the odd shape? [the CIRCLE (DIME)] Either one of these answers is right. Mark either one of them. The last row also has two possible right answers. ~ItFhich is the odd word? (SHIRT.) Which is the odd shape? [The second one (DOG)] mark either one of them with an X. On some of these sets people find it easier or more natural to pick out the odd word, and one some they find it easier to pick out the odd shape. Either way is correct. We want you to make your selections whichever way seems mo3t comfortable and natural to you. Mark only once in each row, and go as fast as y-ou can. Any questions so far? 28 Approved For Release 2000108/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 The second column has more samples. When I say begin, please mark an odd member in each row, and say "STOP" as soon as you finish this sample column. BEGIN. (Check forced choices--) Any questions? Then when I say "BEGIN" turn over the next page. Work as fast as you can, and continue until you-have finished the booklet, then say "STOP". Ready? BEGIN. 29 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 r-i_m L151TJ rrb~e rb- In C L-LIr -IIj- 30 0 E3 0 0 0 CP.k,o, coden Oalm 13 E3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 became0 window0 dwr 0 0 0 0 CP 0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 rAi,, E~ SP < . =-d er J90 zn 31 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 El R ~D - Zhppy) 63 'ah A~j 32 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 EQ) m ~-19D G:~\ 33 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 50 40 c) 4.4 30 20 10 0 lc 2( Q) c1 I c) 3( 4( 0 z 51 ters FIGURE 7 SUMMARY ON COGNITIVE STYLE PREFERENCE 34 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (3) Mid-Testing (SRI-Administered) Ongoing testing associated with daily experimentation is carried out to provide indicators as to the effects of mood and con- ceptualization on success in experimentation. Conclusions will be drawn in the final stage of project effort. Test: Mood Adjective Checklist Source: Psychology Department, Stanford University (Hypnosis Lab) Purpose: The Mood Adjective Checklist is one of a number of pre- experiment instruments designed to provide a measure of a subject's feelings of the moment as he enters the experi- mental situation. The purpose is to determine whether measures of success in the experimental phase correlate with pre-experiment mood indicators. 35 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 MOOD ADJECTIVE CHECKLIST Each of the words in Oe followino list describes feelinvs or mood. Please use the list to describe your feelin-s at this moment. 7-fark each word accordinq to these instructions: If the word definitely describes h07-1 you feel at the moment you read it, circle the double check OTV) to the right of the word. For exam-ole, if the word is calm anr! you are definitely feelinp. Salm at the nomen t, circle the double check as follows: calm V ? no (This means you definitely feel calm at this moment.) If the word only slightly applies to your feelings at the moment, circle the single check as follows: calm W (V I, ? no (This means you feel sliiphtly calm at this noment.) If the word is not clear to you or if you cannot decide whether or not it describes your feelings, circle the question mark as follows: calm VV V no (This neans you c~jnnot decide 1-7liether you are calm or not.) If you clearly decide that the word does not apply to your feelinas at this moment, circle the no as follows: calm VV V ? (This means you are sure (no you are not calm at this moment. 14ork rapidly. Your first reaction is best. Work down the first column before going to the next. Please mark all the words. This should tal-.e only a few minutes. 36 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 angry vv v ? no energetic vv v ? no concentrating,vv v ? no playful vv v ? no drowsy vv v ? no suspicious vv v ? no affectionate vv v ? no startled vv v ? no apprehensive vv v ? no relaxed vv v ? no blue vv V ? no defiant vv v ? no boastful vv v ? no en,7ap:ed in thought vv v ? no elated vv v ? no active Vv v ? no pleased vv v ? no noncha I ant. vv v ? no tired vv v ? no skeptical vv' v ? no fearful vv v ? no shocked vv v ? no re-retful vv v ? no calm vv v ? no egotistic vv v ? no bold vv v ? no overjoyed vv v ? no earnest vv v 7 no viRorous vv v ? no sluggish vv v ? no witty vv v ? no forgiviw, VV v ? no serene vii v ? no clutched up vv v ? no rebellious vv v ? no lonely vv v ? no serious vv v ? no cocky vv v ? no tiamlioarted vv v ? no lighthearted vv ? no insecure vv v ? no quiet vv v ? no self- centered vv ? no still vv v ? no 37 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Test: Semantic Differential Checklist Source: SRI Urban and Social Systems Division Purpose: The Semantic Differential Checklist is one of a number of pre-experiment instruments designed to provide a measure of subject conceptualization about an experiment in which he is about to participate. The purpose is to determine whether measures of success in the experiment correlate with pre- experiment conceptualization. 38 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Relea!§e2MM/tOLtiCtAmREll?9BQMSIROOOI00430001-0 The purpose of this rating sheet is to obtain your candid reactions regarding the conditions surrounding the experiment. For eadh numbered item you will find a concept to be judged. You are to rate each in order. This is how you are to use the scales: If you feel that the concept is highly or closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your checkmark as follows; impractical practical impractical LI-1 practical If your feelings on the concept are neutral, place your checkmark in the middle space, etc. Work at fairly high speed through this rating sheet. Do not puzzle over individual items. Give your first impressions, your immediate feelings about each item. Conditions surrounding experiment 1-good 2. unfriendly 3. stimulating bad friendly dull 4. positive 5. unhelpful 6. right 7. uninteresting C.~ negative helpful wrong interesting 8. unorganized organized 39 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 9. satisfying disappointing ~0. unprepared prepared Mv involvement in experiment 1. good 2. useless 3. stimulating 4. positive 5.. passive 6. capable 7. important 8. unsuccessful 9. prepared 10. impractical bad valuable dull negative active incapable unimportant successful unprepared practical 40 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (c) Neuropsychological Evaluation In addition to the measurement of the physiological com- ponents of the neurological system covered in the medical evaluation, a neuropsychological profile is being obtained by the administration of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychology Test Battery, which includes the Category Recognition Test, Tactual Performance Test, Halstead-Wepman Aphasia Screening Test, and other appropriate measures. This phase of the program is being handled by Dr. Donald Lim of the Palo Alto Veteran's Administra- tion Hospital, who has personally consulted with Dr. Reitan on testing procedures and interpretation. The neuropsychological evaluation program is scheduled for the first half of September. 3. Identification of Neurophysiological Correlates Which Relate to Paranormal Activities (207o) High on the list of priorities for the program is the identifi- cation of neurophysiological correlates accompanying paranormal activity. The purpose of this part of the study is twofold: (a) to obtain informa- tion about the neurophysiological state associated with paranormal ac- tivity in general, and (b) to obtain indicators which differentiate be- tween correct and incorrect responses to a paranormally applied stimulus, so that an independently determined bias factor can be applied during the generation of data by the subject. Two facilities are in use for the purposes described above. One is a standard EEG facility under the direction of Dr. Jerry Lukas, head of SRI's Sleep Studies program. This facility consists of two sound-isolated rooms with appropriate signal lead connections, an eight- channel polygraph for visual recording, and a magnetic tape/computer processing/printer readout which provides on-line processing of the poly- graph data. In our configuration we obtain a hardcopy printout of 5-second 41 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 averages of eight channels of polygraph information 15 minutes following a 15 minute run. At present we monitor broad alpha (7-14 Hz) and beta (14-34 Hz) brainwave components from the left and right occipital regions, galvanic skin response, and two channels of plethysmograph data (blood volume and pulse height). The second facility is a smaller semiportable, four-channel polygraph with a GSR channel, reflected-light plethysmograph indicating blood volume/pulse height, one channel of unfiltered EEG activity, and a fourth EEG channel with zero-crossing digital filtering. The last per- mits percent-time measurements in any band, with upper and lower band edge settings in 1-Hz increments. Considerable data have been obtained with both facilities. The bulk of the data awaits further analysis which will occur at completion of various series under way. However, several results have been obtained which we describe below. (a) Bilateral EEG Measurements--Remote Strobe Experiment As discussed in Report No. 2, a variety of evidence from clinical and neurosurgical sources indicates that the two hemispheres of the human brain are specialized for different cognitive functions. The left hemisphere is predominantly involved in verbal and other analytic functioning, the right in spatial and other holistic processing. In consultation with Dr. Robert Ornstein of the Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, an hypothesis was formed based on certain observed characteristics that paranormal functioning might in- volve right hemispheric specialization. To test this hypothesis, the EEG remote strobeflash experiment, discussed in the original proposal and in the paper attached to Report No. 1, was repeated with Subject 4 three 42 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 times in the sleep lab under the direction of Dr. Lukas with monitoring of right and left occipital regions. Each experiment consisted of twenty 15-second trials, with ten no-flash trials, and ten 16-Hz trials randomly intermixed. Reduction of alpha activity (arousal response) correlated with remote stimuli was observed as in previous experiments', but essen- tially only in the right hemisphere (average alpha reduction 16 percent in right hemisphere, 2 percent in left,, during the 16-Hz trials as com- pared with the no-flash trials). The trial-to-trial variation is larger than in previous work, however, due to use of a wider-band filter for the alpha band, and therefore the system is being modified before further work. (b) Physiological Correlates of Remote Viewing In this series of experiments a subject takes part in a remote viewing protocol as described in Section A.1 (c) (Remote Viewing with Feedback). In this case, however, the subject is connected to the physiological recording instruments of the smaller semiportable four- channel polygraph described above. Baseline and experimental measures of the following observables are made: (1) galvanic skin response (GSR) is recorded using finger electrodes taped in place on second and fourth fingers; (2) blood volume/pulse height is recorded using a reflected- light plethysmograph; (3) unfiltered EEG is recorded from the right occipital region; (4) percent-time in alpha (8-12 Hz) is recorded on the fourth channel. The alpha filter is a sharp cutoff digital type with essentially zero-pass outside the prescribed bandpass limits. During the course of an experiment, the subject is asked to describe his perceptions as to the nature of the remote target. His comments are tape-recorded and noted on the polygraph, along with the time. A correlation is then attempted between those descriptions which 43 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 are found to be uniquely correct and accurate, and the corresponding sec- tions of polygraph recording. In our investigations to date we have not found a strong correlation between the observed physiological states and the subjects' descriptions. Of the correlates being monitored, the one which seems the most promising is the unfiltered EEG. In our preliminary analysis of the data it appears that there is often an overall reduction in EEG power in the 20-second period just before a subject renders a correct description. Subsequent to this observation, we have learned that Ms. Janet Mitchell at the American Society for Psychical Research made similar observations in her work with Subject 3, also in remote viewing experiments. A sample chart record is shown in Figure 8. (Time runs from right to left.) The traces, top to bottom, are the unfiltered EEG, blood volume/pulse height, GSR, and filtered (alpha) EEG. Protocol, verbal description, and photograph of the location accompanying this chart are given in Section A.1 (c). Seven experiments of this type have been completed as a pilot study. Upon completion of the analysis of these data, any findings will be tested under rigorous no-feedback conditions. 4. Identification of the Nature of Paranormal Phenomena and Energy (10%) This portion of the program is devoted to efforts to understand the nature and scope of paranormal phenomena., including investigation of the physical and psychological laws underlying the phenomena, determina- tion of the manner and degree to which known processes are mediated by little understood or undiscovered mechanisms or energies, definition of the precise nature of the channels involved, etc. 44 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 T- T FFT t 1 t+ t 4 1 (a 11 PERCENT ALPHA sec INTEGRATION),, 15 + J- T_ _14 J --t (b) 41 -L-1 LL I -A T~7 T_1' _T -4- F1 -J- _-i L - t 777~1, ~,I (W PLETHYSM043RAPH j J _F 77-- T- T ILI F" qr1l 7' 1 ii 7 7 7 ` ' 7 11 i d) , 7 1 71 17T RAW . EE I :t AB ] F T SA-3183-10 FIGURE 8 POLYGRAPH DATA Correct verbal description given during time interval tAB' 45 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 At this point in the effort three "psychokinetic" tasks have been investigated beyond the pilot stage, and are reported below. (a) Universal Randomization Protocol It was deemed desirable in our work to establish a uni- versal randomization protocol independent of the particular experiment under consideration. The only exceptions were to be automated experi- ments where target selection is determined by radioactive decay or elec- tronic randomization. The randomization procedure is designed around a ten-unit base, e.g., ten targets, ten work periods, etc. A ten-digit sequence governing an experiment is blind to both experimenter and subject, and is uncovered by means of the following procedure. A three-page RAND Table of Random Digits (Table 5) is entered to obtain the ten-digit sequence, the entrance point being determined by four throws of a die, the first 1, 2., or 3 determining page, the next 1. 2~1 3, or 4 determining column block, and the final throw determining from which of the first six rows in the block the ten-digit sequence is to be taken. An opaque card with a single-digit window is then moved across the row to uncover digits one at a time. If a multiplicity of targets exist, the digits 0 through 9 are employed directly. If a binary command is required (e.g., increase/ decrease or activity/no activity) the parity of the digit (even or odd) is employed. A technique found in control runs to produce a distribution of die faces differing nonsignificantly from chance expectation. 46 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0100430001-0 CPYRGHT Table 5 Table of Random Digits 11 16 43 63 75 06 13 40 60 31 83 23 53 73 61 18 76 74 61 52 21 21 59 17 76 83 15 40 94 15 69 95 86 09 16 91 86 78 35 85 10 43 84 44 66 55 83 73 50 58 55 95 31 79 57 82 76 49 34 72 36 79 22 62 33 26 66 39 41 21 11 44 28 93 20 36 65 93 60 13 73 94 40 47 12 03 25 57 99 47 54 62 74 85 11 73 14 14 67 48 49 56 31 28 14 06 39 61 83 45 15 46 98 22 85 72 31 04 91 99 64 20 84 82 41 70 17 91 40 27 79 51 62 10 07 37 31 17 72 27 52 48 67 28 38 60 52 58 29 98 20 12 51 07 94 75 93 41 38 80 99 75 62 63 64 51 61 40 68 49 33 88 07 64 13 60 79 71 99 48 71 32 55 52 13 01 57 75 97 86 08 07 46 20 55 17 29 07 42 98 63 28 59 71 12 13 85 34 55 63 88 26 77 60 68 98 30 10 98 61 17 26 45 73 38 22 42 65 99 05 25 06 77 75 71 27 93 01 70 48 93 63 99 97 31 19 99 16 38 11 25 41 68 78 75 54 25 58 50 69 61 55 57 64 86 21 01 52 45 88 78 35 26 79 13 04 18 08 88 80 78 13 79 87 04 68 98 33 00 78 92 00 84 48 97 68 71 30 56 07 62 49 09 92 84 98 72 38 71 23 08 58 66 14 90 15 87 59 15 12 24 21 66 34 21 28 30 58 72 20 19 18 66 96 02 44 70 44 36*78 16 97 59 54 33 22 65 26 18 86 51 35 14 77 99 28 59 03 94 97 59 23 83 95 71 16 85 12 89 35 07 25 58 61 49 42 76 09 40 48 29 47 85 96 50 41 43 33 IS 68 85 09 53 72 82 52 19 66 13 46 96 15 59 50 27 42 97 '79 89 88 39 25 42 11 09 29 IS 32 94 48 29 62 16 65 62 96 61 48 44 9i 44 12 61 94 38 83 24 68 51 02 12 63 97 52 71 02 01 94 20 50 68 98 35 05 61 91 72 65 42 59 14 54 43 71 54 71 40 38 64 80 81 31 37 74 00 34 24 01 92 78 - 09 83 41 04 29 24 75 66 62 69 54 83 40 38 88 13 33 60 28 27 67 64 20 52 30 69 74 17 02 64 85 87 51 21 39 04 48 06 97 37 64 04 19 90 61 04 02 48 07 07 02 53 19 77 37 11 73 09 68 48 17 04 89 45 97 44 45 30 15 99 83 77 84 61 15 23 99 04 54 50 93 03 98 94 52 79 51 12 14 89 31 36 16 06 50 16 06 31 22 31 82 24 43 43 96 60 71 73 83 87 24 86 39 75 76 92 72 20 70 67 96 99 05 52 70 69 32 73 54 74 95 63 23 95 55 44 52 55 37 59 09 11 97 48 97 30 38 07 27 79 79 42 12 17 69 03 87 01 32 17 37 66 64 12 47 58 97 65 12 84 07 49 32 80 98 04 83 64 83 34 46 49 26 15 26 72 95 38 71 66 60 21 20 50 99 94 82 72 13 80 08 43 31 91 08 32 02 31 92 17 73 72 00 86 57 72 08 39 64 58 10 01 17 50 86 05 44 57 23 82 61 48 75 23 29 04 11 90 74 64 92 42 06 54 16 53 00 24 21 94 08 53 16 15 78 31 55 47 10 90 35 54 25 58 07 30 44 31 30 94 02 33 00 24 76 65 70 10 93 87 86 59 52 62 18 55 22 20 75 09 72 61 96 66 28 47 94 91 70 24 72 11 53 49 58 03 69 28 53 78 26 65 43 78 51 85 91 37 43 95 * This table appears through the courtesy of The RAND Corporation and the McGraw-Hill Company, from The Compleat Bouk Inc. and is reprinted by permission Strategyst, by J, D. Williams, pp. 219-221 (441. 47 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0100430001-0 CPYRGHT 07 42 85 88 63 96 02 38 89 36 97 92 94 12 20 86 43 19 44 85 35 37 92 79 22 28 90 65 50 13 40 56 83 32 22 40 48 69 11 22 10 98 22 28 07 10 92 02 62 99 41 48 39 29 35 17 06 17 82 52 90 12 73 33 41 77 80 61 24 46 93 04 06 64 76 24 99 04 10 99 63 00 21 29 90 23 51 06 87 74 76 86 93 93 00 84 97 60 75 04 40 77 98 63 82 48 45 46 52 69 02 98 25 79 91 50 76 59 19 30 43 21 61 26 08 18 16 78 46 31 94 47 97 65 00 39 17 00 66 29 96 16 76 43 75 74 10 89 36 43 52 29 17 58 22 95 96 69 09 47 70 97 56 26 93 35 68 47 26 07 03 68 40 36 00 52 83 15 53 81 85 81 26 18 75 23 57 07 57 54 58 93 92 83 66 86 76 56 74 65 37 10 06 24 92 63 64 24 76 38 54 72 35 65 27 53 07 63 82 35 53 40 61 38 55 38 51 92 95 00 84 82 88 12 48 25 54 83 40 75 55 17 28 15 56 IS 85 65 90 43 65 79 90 19 14 81 36 30 51 73 40 35 38 48 07 47 76 74 68 90 87 91 73 85 49 48 21 37 17 08 is 89 90 96 1:2 77 54 15 76 75 26 90 78 81 73 71 18 92 83 77 68 14 12 53 40 92 55 11 13 26 68 05 26 54 22 88 46 00 63 52 51 55 99 11 59 81 31 06 32 51 42 58 76 81 49 88 14 79 97 00 92 21 43 33 86 73 45 97 93 59 97 17 65 54 16 67 64 20 50 51 15 08 95 05 57 33 16 68 70 94 53 29 58 71 33 38 26 49 47 08 96 46 10 06 04 11 12 02 22 54 23 01 19 41 08 29 19 66 51 87 28 17 74 41 It 15 70 57 38 35 75 76 84 95 49 24 54 36 32 85 66 95 34 47 37 St 12 70 74 93 86 66 87 03 41 66 46 07 56 48 19 71 22 72 63 94 57 54 98 20 56 72 77 20 36 50 34 73 35 21, 68 75 66 47 57 19 98 79 22 22 27 93 67 80 10 09 61 70 44 08 75 02 26 53 32 98 60 62 94 51 31 99 46 90 72 37 35 49 30 25 11 32 37 00 69 90 26 98 92 66 02 98 59 53 03 15 18 25 01 66 55 20 86 34 70 18 15 82 52 83 89 96 51 02 06 95 83 09 54 06 21 47 40 87 86 05 59 46 70 45 45 58 72 96 11 98 57 94 24 81 81 42 28 68 42 60 99 77 96 69 01 07 10 85 30 74 30 57 75 09 21 77 17 59 63 23 15 19 02 74 90 20 96 85 21 14 29 33 91 94 42 27 81 21 60 32 57 61 42 78 04 98 26 84 70 27 87 51 54 80 17 69 76 01 14 63 24 73 20 96 19 74 02 46 37 97 37 73 21 12 05 68 63 02 43 34 13 40 29 36 50 19 77 98 69 66 49 76 87 09 52 99 24 66 50 89 91 05 73 95 46 95 46 75 36 28 96 88 19 36 94 51 89 39 84 81 47 86 77 50 82 54 96 26 76 31 12 34 98 99 00 IS 47 21 86 78 90 67 54 80 61 79 88 16 00 80 01 88 47 4Z ~87 46 26 31 65 79 81 66 16 30 57 66 62 90 55 46 51 80 14 87 88 69 25 87 16 12 27 34 81 76 29 80 56 49 94 66 87 26 22 30 20 09 44 29 62 41 38 21 67 68 06 71 13 49 39 19 59 97 62 47 60 93 58 15 04 50 52 08 21 53 13 93 44 68 85 58 31 58 83 66 48 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 CPYRGHT 51 39 28 59 36 43 89 85 05 96 28 54 99 83 27 99 94 32 53 77 54 23 94 19 18 79 52 64 62 74 40 87 16 18 03 25 76 75 54 94 57 89 27 33 94 07 16 09 02 62 47 70 43 83 55 71 70 88 01 17 02 33 07 47 36 53 27 44 44 68 62 61 11 96 98 09 30 42 92. 65 76 11 52 92 47 55 34 25 12 99 03 04 78 39 81 It 91 60 92 67 63 31 28 18 86 29 08 52 01 01 26 46 05 05 01 31 73 11 89 38 27 63 22 15 70 34 27 45 64 26 01 76 42 59 59 69 29 38 98 75 06 33 56 21 11 44 01 45 25 67 11 76 25 48 06 02 65 15 29 12 64 14 28 76 76 21 35 88 87 73 31 73 63 16 95 11 52 36 42 13 28 43 62 54 68 75 23 57 53 70 97 15 54 87 06 52 23 92 18 31 09 52 28 38 55 85 97 31 38 88 31 IS 14 96 72 17 23 70 40 24 93 71 41 54 14 93 71 20 27 42 32 11 58 26 83 67 18 28 90 30 IS 68 15 35 99 58 18 57 38 40 07 06 87 59 47 71 74 36 92 85 77 71 22 39 14 08 90 74 37 68 26 62 27 41 84 75 16 69 67 48 78 45 35 48 44 61 50 90 12 45 02 80 55 26 76 22 51 94 78 48 24 86 06 82 84 19 36 72 90 73 32 30 15 87 01 04 19 33 01 42 37 28 40 68 44 78 88 75 72 76 26 33 95 69 09 39 33 14 21 01 35 48 85 24 73 37 63 43 25 69 95 27 40 95 08 81 01 24 24 13 51 59 55 99 09 35 22 34 49 91 24 27 53 96 32 09 77 79 88 00 90 66 03 51 71 30 02 19 11 20 36 11 64 21 28 65 40 19 41 99 47 50 50 20 08 20 30 08 71 88 96 19 50 70 59 13 26 63 13 89 13 35 00 84 14 64 04 99 43 77 22 40 89 49 58 19 09 55 80 35 33 00 69 26 90 69 24 89 74 43 53 89 62 35 08 16 22 75 69 29 55 21 66 38 86 06 80 41 18 61 22 56 50 24 75 00 25 87 90 18 21 99 12 62 28 14 80 11 91 92 49 43 82 07 72 60 84 66 97 32 71 02 52 82 12 10 47 42 75 22 65 62 03 46 84 00 21 00 48 63 65 52 21 52 42 84 55 47 45 60 20 24 62 69 41 41 29 80 47 63 27 97 55 49 23 90 65 00 61 70 09 43 30 91 67 35 16 63 27 31 07 30 00 97 04 36 09 96 15 77 95 55 27 34 56 16 57 88 81 40 54 35 71 36 89 19 56 90 38 14 76 05 30 51 50 69 12 56 94 42 00 97 70 44 81 42 04 40 86 49 34 82 23 58 43 78 46 88 23 80 13 92 07 87 61 12 31 19 28 08 07 75 30 40 73 58 52 08 00 22 08 39 53 70 43 37 88 03 41 72 04 20 49 44 34 62 79 88 19 02 " 16 66 72 06 01 61 94 37 69 96 77 01 94 40 29 70 04 20 93 87 76 77 76 07 03 74 20 16 13 65 98 96 28 43 10 91 73 44 58 29 88 09 52 88 21 64 44 65 87 06 64 49 47 84 66 99 56 18 12 36 24 83 66 66 14 89 45 92 73 88 95 04 60 77 34 65 11 20 38 12 38 62 96 56 30 47 42 59 64 21 48 29 54 22 02 00 23 36 71 52 06 87 38 01 52 18 81 94 91 55 13 76 10 39 02 00 66 99 13 41 72 75 21 71 56 71 90 60 54 98 44 18 15 29 59 60 76 52 25 49 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (b) Experiments with Develco Superconducting Differential Magnetometer (Gradiometer) One of the first psychoenergetically produced physical effects observed by SRI personnel in early research (1972) was the apparent perturbation of a Josephson effect magnetometer. The conditions of that pilot study, involving a few hours use of an instrument committed to other research, prevented a proper investigation. The number of data samples was too few to permit meaningful statistical analysis, and the lack of readily available multiple recording equipment prevented investi- gation of possible "recorder only" effects. Therefore, at the suggestion of the client, a series of experiments were carried out using a client-supplied Develco Model 8805 superconducting second-derivative gradiometer manufactured by Develco, Inc., Mountain View, California. The assembled device is shown in Figure 9. Basically, the gradiometer is a four-coil Josephson effect magnetometer device consisting of a pair of coil pairs wound so as to provide a series connection of two opposing first-derivative gradiometers, yielding a second-derivative gradiometer (i.e., a device sensitive only to second and higher order derivative fields). As a result, the device is relatively insensitive to uniform fields and to uniform gradients. This arrangement allows for sensitive measurement of fields from nearby sources while discriminating against relatively uniform magnetic fields produced by remote sources. The device is ordinarily used to measure magnetic fields originating from processes within the human body, such as action currents in the heart which produce magnetocardiograms. The sensi- tive tip of the instrument is simply placed near the body area of interest. In our application, however, the subject is located at a distance of four meters from the gradiometer probe. As a result the 50 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 FIGURE 9 SUPERCONDUCTING DIFFERENTIAL MAGNETOMETER Approved For Release 2000/08/10 *]CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 subject is located in a zone of relative insensitivity; e.g., standing up, sitting down, leaning forward, and arm and leg movements produce no signals. From this location the subject is asked, as a mental task, to affect the probe. The results of his efforts are available to him as feedback from three sources: an oscilloscope, a panel meter, and a chart recorder, the last providing a permanent record. After initial difficulty with the instrument due to RF interference effects, which required modification by the manufacturer, the gradiometer was available for use by the contractor from 10 June to 21 June. Some RF interference effects remained, due in part to environ- mental proximity to other instrumentation, but the device was usable nonetheless. Protocol for subject participation was instituted as fol- lows. The subject removes all metal objects, and the effects of body movements are checked at the start of each experimental period. The sub- ject then works with the machine in a learning mode, observing effects being produced, if any, via feedback from the instrumentation. Once satisfied that a possibility exists of producing effects on command under experimenter control, the experimenter announces the start of the experi- ment. The universal randomization protocol (discussed in previous sec- tion) is then used to generate ten activity/no activity periods of equal length (e.g., 25 seconds) predetermined by the experimenter. A sample run (Run 1, Subject 1) is shown in Figure 10. The randomly generated ON (activity) periods are Nos. 2,, 8, and 9. As observed, signals appear in each of these three periods. The signal appearing in period 9 was strong enough to cause loss of continuous tracking. This latter type of signals can be the result of an excep- tionally strong flux change, or an RF burst whether subject-generated or artifactual, and are handled on the basis of statistical correlation as 52 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 c G) BASELINE END OFF ON ON OFF TRUCK 1.1 OFF A VIVITOFF 111F Pil OFF do. :t T A! OFF ,+, ON :tiiii IN, it OFF W.!. i BASELINE START > + t 53 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 discussed below. An artifact due to the passage of a truck in the parking lot adjacent to the laboratory (under continuous surveillance by the experimenter) is noted in period 6. Each of the signals on scale corresponds to an input -1.6 X 10 -9 Gauss/cm2 (second derivative b2B /~ 2 z z which is equivalent to -3.5 X 10 -7 Gauss referred to one pickup coil. The interpretation of such observations must be subjected to careful analysis. For example, the emphasis on "corresponds to" is based on the following: although the probe is designed to register mag- netic fields, and the simplest hypothesis is that an observed signal is such,, in a task as potentially complex as f'psychokinesis," one must be cautious about assigning a given observed effect to a specific cause. Therefore, without multiple measurement employing equally sensitive apparatus, which time and lack of instrument availability did not permit, one can only conclude that generation of a magnetic field is the most probable cause. With regard to signal display, the signal was observed simultaneously on three recording devices, and thus a "recorder only" effect can be considered low probability, although an electronics inter- ference effect ahead of all display cannot be ruled out. We therefore treat the magnetic cause as tentative, although most probable, and con- centrate our attention on whether a correlation exists between system disturbances and subject efforts. Subject 1 logged the most time in controlled runs, 13 ten- trial runs. Each of the ten trials in the run lasted 50 seconds each,, the activity/no-activity command for each trial being generated by the universal randomization protocol technique. In the 13 X 10 = 130 trials, consisting of a random distribution of 64 activity and 66 no-activity periods, 63 events of signal-to-noise ratio > 1 were observed. Of these With the exception of the first run where 25-second trials were used. 54 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 63 events, 42 were distributed among the activity periods, 21 among the no-activity periods, a correlation significant at the p = 0.004 level. Subjects 2 and 6 also interacted with the device. Al- though subject efforts and observed perturbations sometimes coincided, activity was generally low and did not appear to be that of a signature of correlated activity under control. A controlled ten-trial run with Subject 2 and two such runs with Subject 6 yielded nonsignificant results. Given the limited availability of the instrument and some- what noisy environment, from our best effort we nonetheless conclude that for Subject 1 the observed number of precisely timed events in pilot work coupled with the statistically significant (p = 0.004) correlation be- tween subject effort and signal output in controlled runs indicate a highly probable cause-effect relationship. Thus it appears that a gifted subject can interact with a second derivative magnetic gradiometer of sensitivity -10 -9 Gauss/cm2 from a distance of four meters. Further work would be required to determine absolutely the precise nature of the inter- action, although given the equipment design the generation of a magnetic field is the most probable mechanism. (c) Experiments with Laser-Monitored Torsion Pendulum In this series of experiments we examine the possibility that a subject may be able to exert a physical influence on a remotely located physical system. The target is a torsion pendulum suspended by a metal fiber inside a sealed glass bell jar. The pendulum consists of three 100-gram balls arranged symmetrically at 1200 angles on a 2-cm radius. The entire apparatus is shock mounted, and protected from air currents by the enclosing bell jar. The angular position of the pendulum is measured by means of an optical readout system. The system consists of a laser beam from 55 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 a low power argon laser reflected from a small mirror on the pendulum onto a position sensing silicon detector t 1.5 meters from the pendulum. The detector yields an output voltage proportional to spot position. The output from the detector is monitored by a chart recorder which provides a continuous sine wave record of pendulum position. The system exhibits a sensitivity of approximately 10 microradians. Under typical experimental conditions random acoustical fluctuations drive the pendulum in its torsional normal mode of 10 second period to a level -100 microradians angular deviation. During control runs the pendulum executes harmonic motion with a maximum variation in amplitude of ±10 percent over an hour period. Sudden vibrational pertur- bations in the environment produce oscillation of the pendulum in the vertical plane at a frequency of 1 Hz, as contrasted with the torsional mode in the horizontal plane at 0.1 Hz. The subject is askedY as a mental taskY to affect the pendulum motion, the results of which would be available as feedback from the chart recorder. The subject is then encouraged to work with the pendulum from a distance of 1 meter, observing effects being produced. If satisfied that there is a possibility of producing effects (typically following a week's activity, a couple of hours per day), an experiment is begun. As in other experiments, subject efforts to increase or decrease oscillation amplitude are determined by an experimenter utilizing the universal randomization protocol described in (a). Each experiment Spectra Physics Model 262. United Detector Technology Model SC/10. Brush Model Mark 200. 56 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 lasts one hour and consists of six 5-minute work periods alternated with six 5-minute rest periods. In later work., the subject is removed to a room 12 meters down the hall with three intervening office spaces to determine whether effects can be produced from a remote location. The subject is provided feedback at the remote location either by closed circuit video or by a second chart recorder in parallel with the recorder in the enclosed tar- get laboratory. The remote aspect was instituted both to prevent arti- factual effects from body heat, etc., and also to determine whether energy can be coupled with the remote viewing channel to a remote location. In pilot studies we observed considerable evidence indi- cating that a gifted subject located in the same room is able, by con- centration, to increase or decrease pendulum motion on command while sitting quietly one meter from the bell jar. The change-to-baseline ratio is often 5:1 or better so the effects are not small. A sample chart showing a rest period followed by a decrease period is given in Figure 11. Vibrational artifacts can be ruled out on the basis that when such inputs occur, a marked 1-Hz oscillation signal due to vertical motion is superimposed on the 0.1-Hz torsional motion. Especially in- teresting are the decreases that take the motion below that generally observed due to environmental noise driving. Such observations indicate the application of a constraint which couples energy out of the pendulum motion. Similar observations have been observed with the subject removed Both experimental evidence and theoretical work indicate that distance may not be a strong factor in paranormal phenomena. See, for example, E. H. Walker "Properties of Hidden Variables in Quantum Theory: Impli- cations for Paraphysics, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 57 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 C proved For Rel§ase 2000/08/10 C RDP96-00791ROO0100430001-0 F-4 PH H 44 RDP96~0791ROO 00430001,A 0; 0 M ~4 0 4-1 0 4-1 0 04 ~4 ~4 0 0 4-1 cl ~4 0 > 04 bO ~4 m Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 to the second location 12 meters away. Although less pronounced (change- to-baseline ratios typically 2:1), the effect remains easily observable. The universal randomization protocol is used throughout to determine increase/decrease periods. Control run data are being col- lected to be subjected to the same analysis. Multiple recording is used throughout to rule out artifacts due to recorder effects. Finally, an electrometer with the base of the bell jar serving as one electrode is monitored to record acoustic vibration independently. Due to the potential significance of such findings, considerable data are being taken in order that the matter can be subjected to statistical analysis over a large sample involving hundreds of work periods. A few hundred data samples have already been collected for this purpose, and the results will be published when available. (d) Experiments with Geiger Counter As part of a continuing search for mechanisms involved in I paranormal phenomena, a series of experiments were conducted with Subject 1 to determine whether a Geiger counter in the ly-ray mode (i.e., beta shield in place) would register subject-directed efforts. The output of a Geiger counter,, fed into a Monsanto Model 1020 counter/timer,, indicates a background count due to cosmic rays -35 counts/minute. Experimental protocol requires the subject to try to change the registered count by concentration on the Geiger counter probe from a distance --0.5 meters. Each run consists of fifteen 60-second trials, with 10-second separations between the trials. Preceding each subject run is a control run of equal duration. OCDM Item No. CD V-700, Model No. 66, Electro-Neutronics, Inc., Oakland, California. 59 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 In four runs to date the results, shown in Table 81 indi- cate no effect of statistical significance, either in the mean or standard deviation of counts. Table 6 GEIGER COUNTER EXPERIMENT Control Ex perimental Runs Runs Run Mean Standard DeviationMean Standard Deviation 1 36.07 5.73 35.33 6.00 2 34.87 6.23 33.87 7.27 3 33.87 5.88 34.00 5.25 4 35.20 5.09 35.67 5.77 5. Basic Research Summary The basic research program to date has been spread over a number of subjects and over a number of activities, generating a considerable amount of data. It was deemed desirable in the first half of the research program to cover as much material as possible in a horizontal development to determine the best subjects and the fruitful directions for concentrated effort in the second half of the program. We intend to concentrate on analysis of the large amounts of data already obtained while subjects are involved in extramural medical and psychological testing. Based on the findings, a few carefully-chosen items will be culled for final specific testing following discussion with client representatives. 60 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 1 RANDOMNESS TESTS OF FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR 61 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 1 RANDOMNESS TESTS OF FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR The design objective was to build a four-state machine, with each state equally likely to occur on each trial, independent of the past sequence of states. If the machine meets this objective, it should not be possible to devise a rule for future play that significantly differs from chance. A simple example of such a rule would be to select the machine state observed in the preceding trial; if this strategy were to produce scores significantly above chance (25 percent hits), we would reject the hypothesis of randomness of the machine under test. Before experimentation, four machines, purchased from Aquarius Electronics., Albion, California, were extensively tested for randomness. Data were analyzed on a CDC-6400 computer, and the three machines finally selected for use in screening met established criteria for randomness. In developing randomness tests, we are guided in part by a knowledge of the machine logic. When one of the four choice keys or the pass key is depressed,, the current machine state is displayed; then a brief time after release of the key, a new machine state is established (but not shown to the subject) by sampling the instantaneous state of a high-speed four-state electronic counter. For the machine to be random, the times of dwell of the counter in each of the four states must be precisely equal; otherwise, the distribution of outcomes will be biased. The first randomness test is thus based on tallying the number of occurrences of each of the four states. This test should detect a stable bias, yet may miss a drifting bias. To test for this second possibility we also tally the distribution of outcomes in each group of 100 trials, then compute a 62 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 likelihood ratio test statistic (see below) for each group. Under the null hypothesis of equal likelihood of the four states, these statistic values are distributed approximately as chi-square with three degrees of freedom and their sum for m groups distributed approximately as chi-square -with three m degrees of freedom. This test may also detect stable bias, but is not as powerful for this purpose as the first test. Variable bias of still a shorter period, if substantial, can be tested for by tallying the frequency with which the previous machine state is repeated; an overall repeat ratio ("all") significantly above 0.25 is indicative of such bias. If for any reason the machine were to fail to sample the counter to establish a new state, the previous machine state would be repeated. To test for this possibility, we tally the number of repeats following the depression of each key. A repeat ratio significantly greater than 0.25 should be considered a danger signal. We also tally the initial machine states following reset and the transitions between states. In each case, the number of occurrences of each of the four possible outcomes should be approximately equal. When repeats are deleted from the sequence of trials ("nondiagonal transi- tions"), the four states should also be approximately equal in frequency. In testing the null hypothesis of four equally likely outcomes of a trial,, a likelihood ratio test is used. The statistic 4 -2 n. kn '~4 E =,I 1 (!ini under the null hypothesis is distributed approximately as chi-square with three degrees of freedom, with rejection for large values of this 63 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 statistic. The computer program used in testing randomness includes a subroutine for computing the probability of a chi-square value as large or larger than that observed. In testing the null hypothesis that the probability of a repeat is 0.25,, the binomial probability of obtaining the observed number K or more repeats in N trials is computed. For K greater than 1000, a normal dis- tribution approximation is computed, assuming the statistic K - 1/2 - 0. 25) .- = N V3/16' to be approximately normal with mean zero and standard deviation one. The typical test pattern used was six passes followed by 25 choices of one color, repeating this for each of the four colors. In this way each of the five keys other than rest were given approximately equal use. Typically, 2000 to 6000 trials were made in each sitting. In the absence of any unusual results in the randomness tests, a minimum of 10,000 trials were made before using a machine with experimental subjects. With 10,000 trials , the expected fraction of repeats is 0.25 with a standard deviation of 3/200 = 0.00866. A sample computer listing of the results of randomness tests on Machine 4 is included in Table A-1. Of the four machines tested, three were found suitable for use in screening activity. The fourth machine was returned to the manufacturer for adjustment. Alexander Mood,, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics (McGraw Hill, New York, 1950). 64 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 (D 0 % (D 00 cn 0 > ~U 0 6 0 4 (0 0 0 7, Table A-1 RANDOMNESS TESTS--MACHINE 4 Buttons Number Binomial of Yellow GreenBlue Red Trials Chi-SquareProbability Initial states 107 116 113 128 464 1.996 0.57 Transitions 728 7 7-65 V~o 3~1047 2.573 0.46 64' 784 1,17, 7713 8'&3 3~1197 6.745 0.08 776-~_ 7~,6 810 1_7~ 3,155 1.158 0.76 247 2.877 0.41 787 852- 80 805 3 3!.. All states 31175 3,312. 3 359 13,110 5.667 0.18 3 264 Nondiagonal transitions2,340 2.4122,341 2426 9.7519 2.630 0.45 Binomial Key N-Trials RepeatsRatio Probability Diagonal transitionsYellow2P774 705 0.2541 0.313 Green 2.J55 674 0.2446 0.748 Blue 2~1761 706 0.2557 0.250 Red 2,742 667 0.2433 0.793 Pass 11614 375 0.2323 0.953 All 12,646 3,127 0.2473 0.763 Note: Randomness in groups of 100 trials: Chi-square 299.6141; D.F. 345; Probability = 0.9628. 0 < (D -n 0 00 Q > 6 44 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 2 PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR 66 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 2 PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FOUR-STATE ELECTRONIC RANDOM STIMULUS GENERATOR * The following notes are based solely upon my experience and I there- fore make no claim that they are generalizable to other persons. Since I am still learning about ESP phenomena, I am confident that additional work in this area will expand, modify, and refine the perceptual processes discussed below. While I have tried to describe these experimental processes with as much precision as possible, the use of seemingly pre- cise language should not leave the impression that the perceptions them- selves were equally precise. To the contrary, I found these perceptions to be delicate., transient,, and ephemeral--and yet, at the same time--and somewhat surprisingly--unmistakably real. 1. Perceptual Processes Working with the ESP machine proved to be a venture into unfamiliar perceptual territory which functioned according to new and different rules. It took some time (five hours or so with the ESP machine) to begin to learn not only which perceptual processes would work but, equally im- portant which would not work. There was clearly a learning process in finding those delicate and subtle internal cues that would allow me to make perceptually based choices. After approximately 1000 trials with the ESP machine., five dominant perceptual modes emerged. Subsequent work Prepared by a6policy research analyst at SRI, who was a high-scoring sub- ject (p < 10- ) with the four-state electronic random stimulus generator. 67 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 with the machine seemed to essentially expand and refine these perceptual processes that emerged initially. Direct Knowing (Used approximately 5 to 15 percent of the time)-- This perceptual cue came as a If gift" that I did not have to work for. This is not to say that this cue" was always right., but when there was a direct perception of the appropriate response unmediated by any of the other cues described below, my chances of being right seemed quite high (say 75 percent of the time). Internally, this was simply the feeling that I should push one specific button and the knowing was almost im- mediate. If it were not immediate then, typically, one of the other cues would be used. Closure Cues" (Used perhaps 75 percent of the time)--This cue mani- fested itself in a variety of ways; a sense of "fullness' I with respect to a particular button, an internal anticipation of the bell ringing, a sense of IIhardness" or "firmness" and a sense of being "locked into" the correct response. The validity of this cue could be tested by acting and thinking as if I were going to push a particular button and then noting the extent to which these "closure cues" became present. This sense of active intentionality--both physically and psychologically--seems im- portant in that it allowed me to sort out many real from imagined per- ceptions. Also, this cue often gave a kind of veto power; i.e., it did not necessarily assure me as to the right answer but it would tend to tell me if I had picked the wrong one, i.e., I would not experience the aforementioned cues. Pattern Recognition (Negligible use initially, but then used approxi- mately 75 percent of the time during Phase IV)--Although I used this perceptual mode very infrequently during the initial stages of the 68 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 experiment, it emerged rather naturally toward the end. This was similar to the "direct knowing but not isolated to a single button; rather, there was a sense of the next two to three buttons that would be the correct responses. These perceptual cues were obtained in a less objec- tive/rational way and in more of a meditative state, highly concentrated but without specific focus on a particular button. Interestingly, in using this perceptual process, I was able to go somewhat faster and have greater access to all of the buttons in an equivalent way. Thus, this mode had the advantage of loosening habituated perceptual patterns but it also made selections less amenable to conscious control and testing. This process proved to be either highly accurate or highly inaccurate. Accuracy seemed to be a function of the degree to which I could become synchronized with the evolving pattern of machine selected choices--and it was easy to get out of phase/sequence with this pattern. Rational Guessing (Used approximately 5 percent of the time)--Al- though I virtually never did try to superimpose some rationally predicted pattern upon the random, machine selection of buttons, I would sometimes temper my selections (very seldom for the better) by noting that one button had come up too often for it to be likely on the next trial or, conversely, it had come up so seldom that it should be given special consideration as a likely possibility on the next trial. Again, although this was a tempting strategy, I found that random processes were not amenable to rational anticipations and my rational guesses seemed often to be wrong. Tension/Vector Analysis (Used approximately 75 percent of the time)-- Here the cue was manifested as a sense of tension(s) pulling in one direc- tion or another with the selection buttons as the locus for that tension. The cue was also manifested as a feeling of "emptiness" and conversely as a sense of "fullness. To describe this process further, it felt analogous 69 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 to vector analysis in physics where, in sorting out competing tugs and pulls, one finds the "dominant" vector; i.e., the one with the strongest It pull" or the one that best "balances the other vector tensions. Figure A-1 illustrates this phenomenon. Although the tension/vector cues were very useful and among the most reliable of all the cues, I found them to be at times quite misleading. The source of confusion stemmed from the role of time as a variable rather than a constant in extrasensory reality (discussed in more detail under Section 2, 1'Comments on Perceptual Processes"). If my assumptions as to the temporal nature of my perceptions did not fit with the actual nature of those perceptions, then the perceptions were quite misleading. (Re- call that precognition refers here to a button that will be selected in the future--typically the next trial.) The nine-cell matrix shown in Figure A-2 may clarify the complexity of the perceptual process, the need for discriminating awareness and the possibility for error. Out of nine possible combinations of the assumed/actual nature of perceptions, only three are matched or congruent and yield accurate understandings. Each of these primary cases is discussed below: ~ Clairvoyant--Here the feeling which allows sorting and selection is like that described in Figure A-1. ~ Precognitive--The feeling, sorting, and selection is like that described in Figure A-1 with clairvoyance; the primary difference being a shift in the time dimension to refer, not to the present target of the machine, but to the one to be selected next. To act on this perception I would press the pass button to bring the future into the present and then press the button that corresponded to my precog- nitive perceptions. ~ Clairvoyant and Precognitive--The perception is of a pat- tern of buttons, distributed through time, that are arid will be selected by the machine--the "pattern" usually consisted of two to three buttons. Again, the time vari- able was most troublesome--typically with greater difficulty 70 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 LIGHT PULL/UNBALANCED STRONG PULL OR BALANCE EMPTY LIGHT PULL/ UNBALANCED SA-26113r-211 FIGURE A-1 ILLUSTRATION OF TENSIONNECTOR ANALYSIS IN OPERATION With Button C being the one selected using these cues. ACTUAL NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS ASSUMED NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS SA-2613-22 FIGURE A-2 MATRIX SHOWING CORRECT PERCEPTION AND MISPERCEPTION IN THE USE OF TENSION/VECTOR CUES VIA THE INTERFACE BETWEEN ASSUMED AND ACTUAL NATURE OF PERCEPTIONS 71. Clairvoyant ClairvoyantPrecognitiveand Precognitive ClairvoyantCorrect MisperceptionMisperception Perception PrecognitiveMisperceptionCorrect Misperception Perception Clairvoyant Correct and MisperceptionMisperception Precognitive Perception Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 in determining the order in which the buttons would appear as targets and lesser difficulty in determining which buttons were targets. Confusion and error would arise when I assumed the tension/vector perceptions were clairvoyant when in fact they were (say) clairvoyant and precognitive. To explain how this felt, I refer back to Figure A-1. If the actual sequence of correct answers were Buttons B and D., and if I were assuming the perceptions were clairvoyant only, then it was not un- common to have the perception that the intervening button (C) was the correct choice. The rationale for this perception was that it felt like a balance point between Buttons B (present target) and D (next target). In retrospect, when I am more rationally aware of the room for error in the use of this cue mechanism,, I am somewhat surprised as to how useful it was in operation. It should be clear from the preceding descriptions that selections were made by a variety of processes which were used sometimes in isola- tion and oftentimes in combination. A typical sequence in the selection process was: (1) check for "direct knowing" cues, if not there, then (2) use "tension/vector" cues, then (3) make final selection with "clo- sure cues. 2. Comments on Perceptual Processes Rather than work rapidly, I chose to work deliberately, consciously, and therefore slowly. I would typically take five to thirty seconds to select a button--enough time to have a firm and conscious sense of my internal cues and what I thought they meant. The typical sequence would be as follows: ~ Clear mind and become quiet ~ Concentrate internal awareness 72 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 0 Observe various cues * Rationally interact with cues to sort them out 0 Select a button and press it 0 Integrate feedback from response 9 Clear mind and become quiet. Except during "pattern recognition," when all buttons seemed equally accessible, I found that the top two buttons on the machine were much more accessible than the bottom two. Three plausible explanations emerge to account for this. First (and least likely I think) is a psychological predisposition against the bottom two buttons--perhaps because of the color of the buttons or because of the pictures associated with the tar- gets. Second is the possibility that the circuitry of the ESP machine in some way favors the top two buttons or obscures the bottom two. Third (and most plausible to me) is the possibility that to the extent I used the "tension/vector" cue,, then the bottom two buttons would be without a vector below them--making it more difficult to "bracket" the bottom two buttons with this perceptual process. In later phases of the experiment, I was more able to access the bottom two buttons and this seemed to corre- spond with increasing use of the "pattern recognition" cues and the de- creasing use of tension/vector cues. The longer I work6d with the ESP machine, the more apparent it be- came that, in an extrasensory perception reality, time becomes fluid. In other words, although the experiment was designed to test clairvoyance (selecting the current target) only, I found that the perceptual cues would oftentimes be equally applicable to precognition (selecting a future target--usually the next one). Therefore, making a correct selec- tion required doing two things: firstY finding the correct "pattern" of buttons that would be randomly selected by the machine (typically the pattern consisted of two to three buttons), and second, associating a 73 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000108110 : CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOOI 00430001 -0 time component with the buttons in that pattern. Stated differently, the same cues discussed above held equally well for precognition or for clairvoyance--so the problem of making a selection was compounded by the additional difficulty of having to determine whether a perceptual cue was associated with the button that had already been selected by the machine or the button that would be selected in the next or even subsequent trial. I definitely felt that if I could consistently separate clairvoyant from precognitive dimensions of identical cues, that I could substantially in- crease the accuracy of overall scores. The cues were not always consistent in their presence and meaning. For example, I might be obtaining good results with the use of tension/ vector cues and then find them become ambiguous., with a commensurate decline in my score. Then I would rely more heavily upon other cues. Or,- the cues might work well for clairvoyant perceptions for a while but then shift to operate for precognition--then I would have to "recalibrate" myself to the cue mechanisms. So, it was a fluid, dynamic perceptual process which required flexibility and patience. Highly significant scores and perceptions seemed to go in spurts of ten trials or so, then I would fall back to a chance level until I could resynchronize myself with the machine and the character of my perceptual cues. I tend to agree with the notion that it might be more appropriate to call these processes "extraconceptual perception" rather than "extra- sensory perception." The perceptual cues were definitely present and they had sensory dimensions even though they do not fit into our tradi- tional sensory categories. Just "where' ,and "how I' these sensory cues were present is not clear to me--but these are essentially conceptual rather than sensory issues. 74 Approved For Release 2000108/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 3. Problems in Perceptual Translation A basic problem in using the ESP machine was not so much the obtaining of perceptual data as the translating of those data into sufficient in- formation to allow the action of selecting the correct button. While the act itself is so simple as to be trivial, the information processes (gathering, filtering, dynamically translating) underlying that act seemed to me very substantial. It is within this unseen and unrecorded portion of the ESP testing process that most of the "action" takes place. From this vantage point I would like to suggest two impediments that might partially account for relatively low scores. Firstl I am still not fluent in the "language" of extrasensory per- ceptions--analogously, it is like hearing many separate commands in Russian (or another unfamiliar language), each time spoken in slightly different ways and with different intonations and inflections. The call for action may be clearly heard but the translation of that command into operational reality is an imprecise process until the language can be better understood. Second is the problem created by shifting back and forth between rational and intuitive knowledge processes during the course of the ex- periment. In selecting a single button I would use intuitive knowledge processes for perception and oftentimes, rational or semirational knowledge processes to interpret those perceptions. This is not to say that the rational component is absolutely necessary, but it did seem to be useful for me. In any event, since the experiment covers thousands of trials (button selections) it required thousands of translations from one knowledge mode to another. Although the rational mode did seem helpful for interpretation, it was also I'costly" (i.e., by shifting to a rational mode, I could be thrown slightly off-balance in maintaining contact with 75 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 the subtle and delicate intuitive processes--thereby introducing an additional element of ambiguity and error). Related to the problem of differential knowledge processes is the problem of having to translate between states of consciousness in order to act upon extrasensory perceptions. LeShan analyzed the experiential properties of what he has termed Clairvoyant Reality and found that while certain events (such as telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance) are 11 normal" to this reality, certain other events (such as being able to take directed action toward a goal) are "paranormal." For me this was mani- fested experientially as the feeling that when I obtain extrasensory per- ceptions, I am so much a part of, and immersed in the Clairvoyant Reality that in order to act, I must causally separate myself from the Clairvoyant Reality and enter the dualistic, subject/object Reality that LeShan terms 11 Sensory Reality." Encouragingly, the "pattern recognition" process seemed to offer a means of both perception and action, which did not re- quire the same degree of transfer between these subtly different states of consciousness. The preceding points suggest that one difficulty in testing and assessing extrasensory perception may be the apparent need to translate it into an output that is not isomorphic with the perceptions themselves-- a person must translate the perceptual ,'language" to a familiar form, across rational and intuitive dimensions, and relatedly, from one state of awareness to another. Is it possible, then, that our means for testing ESP may not be highly congruent with the nature of the phenomenon, and this may inherently reduce the significance of the test results that can be obtained? Lawrence LeShan, The Medium, the Mystic, and the Physicist (Viking Press, New York, 1974). 76 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 4. Two Views of the ESP Process I suspect that, to an external observerY my work with the ESP machine might appear as fairly consistent scoring slightly above chance--the logical inference could then be made that a small amount of extrasensory perception was mixed with a substantial amount of pure guessing. While the scoring data may support this inference, my awareness of the input process does not. Consider the following: on the first run, a person could get 6 "hits" out of 25 by pushing buttons at random; then on the second run, he could get 6 "hits" out of 25 by using extrasensory per- ception. To the statistician who looks only at the output, the scores are identical--they are no more than would occur by chance--and the logical inference would be that the input processes were identical or at least very similar. However alike they might appear externally, internally they could feel like quite different runs. In the second instance, the chance level of scoring would be the result of an imperfect but operative extrasensory perception process. Obviously, then, measurement of ESP by statistical output alone obscures the nature and extent of the extrasen- sory input. A relatively modest score on the ESP machine can--I think-- substantially understate the amount of learning and perceptual development that actually occurs. The foregoing is consistent with my impression that my scores,, though statistically significant, still did not reflect the actual amount of learning that had occurred. 5. Supportive Mind Set There emerged, after a time, what seemed to be a series of precondi- tions to good performance in terms of mind set. These were: A high level of motivation seemed essential. The task of pushing one of four buttons over thousands of trials could be rather boring--enough to allow one's attention to wander. With each trial., it was necessary to have a high level of 77 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 motivation to ensure adequate levels of concentration and focused attention. ~ Although motivation concentration,, and attention were im- portant, it was also necessary not to be too concerned with the success or failure associated with each selection. if I became "attached" to the outcome of a previous trial., whether a success or a failure, it could divert a signifi- cant amount of attention from the present trial. Therefore, each trial must be separate/fresh/clear/unconditioned by the actual success or failure of previous trials and separate from the imagined successes or failures of upcoming trials. ~ A relatively stable, undisturbed emotional state also seems important. I noticed the most substantial fluctuation in my scores when I was emotionally stressed (angry, hassled, and so on). ~ Feeling rested physically also seemed important. This was particularly true if I were to work with the machine for an hour or two--as this required a substantial amount of energy. ~ A positive attitude--a feeling that I could do well and could always score at least at the chance level--was also important. A corollary to this was that I found I did better when I "al- ways liked myself" even if I did poorly. Self-deprecation seemed to be a sure way of rapidly diminishing the accuracy of the perceptual processes. 6. The Environment There were attributes of the surrounding environment that seemed to enhance the accuracy of my selections. The more significant factors seemed to be the following: It was helpful to have a relatively quiet working environment. Or., if there were noises, to have them of a sort--fairly con- stant ones that remained in the background--that could be readily filtered out of my conscio usness. My impression was that external sensory information--particularly sounds--could readily overload/override subtle and delicate internal sen- sory information. It also seemed to help to have low light levels--I would al- ways turn out the overhead lights in the testing room. I 78 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 experimented with closing my eyes to further reduce external sensory stimulation and I found that this would increase the sensitivity of sensory cues, but -this increase in sensi- tivity was offset by a lack of visually based feedback to verify the accuracy of the selections. As a consequence, I chose to keep my eyes open. I found it essential to work with the ESP machine by sitting somewhat above it so that I could look down on the face of the machine. For some reason, perceptual discrimination seemed much more difficult when I would sit at a lower level which placed the buttons in a plane more nearly horizontal to my face and upper body. 7. Transferability of Processes The perceptual learning gained in this experiment seemed generally transferable to other situations where I might use ESP abilities, in particular, telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance. The inference is that a process or faculty is being developed which has numerous applica- tions in other situations which would rely upon ESP. Analogously, just as jogging could exercise muscles to make a person more adept at playing football, dancing, swimming, and the like, the use and development of these "psychic" muscles seems to have some degree of transference to other situations. 8. Conclusions I found the experiment to be a very substantial learning experience in which, I feel, I learned much more than was reflected in the scores. It allowed me to begin to identify an ability which I presume was largely latent within--never having had a prior opportunity for overt expression. Finally, it suggests to me that this must be a common ability among many people that they simply do not recognize--primarily because they have never had the opportunity to explore it as a legitimate and "real" phenomenon. 79 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 3 SAMPLE OF RAW DATA--MEDICAL EVALUATION OF SUBJECT 1 80 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 SGFOIA3 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Next 21 Page(s) In Document Exempt Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Appendix 4 PRELIMINARY NOTES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING 103 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 SGFOIA3 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0 Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00430001 -0