MFR SRI PARANORMAL RESEARCH 15 -18 OCTOBER 1974 TRIP REPORT
CIA-STARGATE
PDF Scan: PDF
Open AI Summary
According to a document from the CIA's Stargate program dated 19 October 1974, representatives from the CIA visited SRI (Stanford Research Institute) to discuss past research and current projects. They reviewed experimental protocols, participated in new experiments, and made plans for a presentation in Washington. The document also discusses the reduction of subjects from 9 to 6 due to time constraints, and the screening tests that were conducted. The results of these tests, including remote viewing and teaching machine trials, varied for each subject. The document also mentions medical, psychological, and neurophysiological examinations that were conducted, as well as the difficulties in obtaining raw data and summaries. Overall, the document provides an overview of the progress and challenges faced by SRI in their paranormal research.
Text
Body: Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
CONFIDENTIAL
19 October 1974
ME-;O FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT SRI Paranormal Researcht
SG11 15 - 18 October 1974 Trip Report
1. Summary. _ (OTS) and (ORD) spent a total of twenty
hours at SRI on 15 - 17 October, during whicht a series of general discussions
were held, primarily with Puthoff and Targ and to a much lesser extent with Cox
and Jones, about past performance and achievements, current status of the
research and the details of that to be accomplished in the time remaining; we
reviewed in some detail the experimental protocols, went over all the evidence.
pertaining to several recent experiments and took part in three new ones; and
tentative plans were made for an SRI presentation in Washington, probably in SG11
early December. In addition, while was visiting another contractor
during the afternoon of 17 October, spent several hours reviewing SRI's SG11
experimental records and sampling the various categories of raw data collected
thus far. Despite distractions stemming from reactions to the publication of
the Nature article and despite the fact that none of the 'superstars' were able
to be in San Francisco on such short notice, the trip was useful in terms of
clarifying the exact status of the research and delineating both our expectations
and their obligations during the remainder of the effort. While they weren't
coy about the criticality to them of lining-up follow-on funds (or support
from other sources) as soon as possible, there wasn't any undue focus or pressure
on this issue--nor, of course, were any commitments made. Indeed, on balance,
they almost certainly view the prospects as being rather more bleak than prom-
ising. In a not unrelated vein, there were several attempts to get me to
conclude that (from the operator's point of view) the capabilities evidently
shown in the recent technical-OOB experiments could be usefully exploited in
the field. The most I was able to tell them in this respect was that I could
visualize legitimate field applications (and a genuinely receptive attitude on
the part of DD/O management) only ift those experiments could be replicated with
at least the same degree of accuracy under fool-proof protocols (see below); and
if there was also some way of providing reasonably reliable confidence-level
indicators (Erg= or otherwise) with respect to the probable accuracy of each
element of the remote-viewing narration.
Current'Status & Plans re Basic Research
2. Subjects. They explained the reduction from 9 to 6 subjects by
stating that they'd been unrealistically optimistic in our first talks--that there
simply wasn't enough time to put nine people thru all the screening tests and then
thru the ops testing and that they could never have analyzed all the data (indeed,
its doubtful if they'll ever fully analyze the data which they already have--see
below). In any case, they felt it better to do 6 thoroughly than 9 partially. As
for the 3 so-called 'subjects' and 3 so-called'controls', their basic error was in
not sticking to their guns at the outset--i.e., that when you don't control the
phenomena (as in this case) you simply cannot (in their view) determine in advance
who the controls are to be.
".4!G /s e! :+ :T.14 t1 G`n. tr:r-/1 C' S ~
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0002000.10005-6
3, The Screening Tests. Their reasons for dropping 2 of the tests were as
follows: the EEG-Strobe Light was at best generating 10-2 figures (in part, they
believe, because EEG signals in general are just too noisy to work with) and since
they'd set a standard of 10-6 for psychic performance they saw no advantage in
continuing to devote dwindling time to it; the Laser Monitored Pendulum was also
giving low.figures with Subjects.# 1 and .2 but the major problem was that one has
to run a tremendous number of trials in order to get statistically significant
results in any PK experiment and the analysis of the data is much more time-consuming
than in other experiments. They'd like to have kept a PK test, such as the one with
the gradiometer (where, after 150 runs, they were getting 10-3 with subj # 1) but,
again, it seemed inadvisable time-wise. The remaining screening tests are: Remote
Viewin (RV=9 trials), the Teaching Machine (TM=2500 trials) and Line Drawings(plus
S/W cards)(LD=10 trials). The current status with respect to each for each
subject is as follows (those who've already reached 10- are indicated by (*)).
Subject RV TM ID
SG1I # Completed (*) Completed Completed
#2 done Completed (*) 0'
# 3 done done Completed (but to be done
again w/ right protocol)
# 4 Completed (*) Completed 0
# 5 0 0 0
# 6 z done Completed 0
They're getting 'crummy' data from the Line Drawings (i.e.,.few hits) but will
complete them for all subjects anyway. All of the RV and TM basic screening should
be completed within the next few weeks. As for their increasing of-.the Teaching
Machine trials from 1000 to 2500, they claim that (in our original conversations &
SG11 the later ones with they hadn't focused on those figures as being neces-
sarily definitive and, in any case, they hadn't really analyzed enough data at that
time to make sound judgements about the best number of trials.
4. Some observations re the Screening Tests. All of the RV results will be
judged by 5 independent judges, each of whom will get the nine transcripts from each
subj and then visit the sites (with replacements) and try to match them. They had
been planning to wait til they had all 54 trials completed and may yet do so but I
urged them, in any case, to be sure the judging was completed on all which have been
run by the time of their presentation in DC and they promised to do so. The LDs are
run til they have 10 drawings from each subj--but they are allowed unlimited number
of 'passes'. As an example of what they meant by the problem of identifying 'subjects'
vs 'controls' in advance, they stated that Subj # 4 was chosen as a 'control' specif-
ically because she did so poorly on both the TM and the gradiometer--but then she
went wild on the RV experiments, surpassing everyone else in accuracy & repeatability.
5. Status of Medical, Psychological & Mid-Test Neurophysiological Exams.
See the clipped pages in the attached Progress Report # I for the Medical & Psych
matrices--about which the following comments and clarifications should be made: the
Halstead-Reitan will be added as an entry in the Psych matrix and, altho all the
arrangements have been made, none of the subjs have taken it yet since Puthoff (as
a result of some other unpleasantnesses, see below) wants to take it himself first
and promised to do so in the near future and then schedule all the subjects; when
subj # 2 returned from the Electroretinogram he was almost a basket case--said it
was the most harrowing experience he'd ever had--and Puthoff cancelled it for the
rest of the subjects; all the rest of the exams have been going quite well with the
exception that Subj # 1 refused to take the TAT. P.R.# 4 does not show a matrix for
the Neuro Mid-Experiment exams but they intend to do five such exams on a random
basis (without any warning) for each of the six subjects. The current status in
all three areas is as follows:
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200010005-6
3
Approved For Release 2000/00/10 : CIA-RDPgg6-007 FO 2RQ0010005-dip Neuro
Subject Medical. Sensory Psyc e 0
Com lete - HR
Completed p 0
# 2 Completed Complete(- HR)
done
# 3 Completed Complete(- HR) '_ff
# 4 Completed Complete(- HR) done
d 0
l
e
Scheduled Schedu
# 5
# 6 Completed Complete(- HR) 0
6. Some Observations and SRI Commitments in re the Above Material.
a. The Medical Sensory Data. We've been receiving the raw data all along
(with the subjects' names deleted and will continue to do so (much of it is repro-
duced in appendices to P.R.#4). After all the data has been gathered (subj # 5 is
scheduled for the next week, I believe), Dr Armbruster of PAMC will collect and
integrate the summaries from each department; these summaries will inter alia compare
the subjects as a group with the 'normal' population P,nd with eachother (seeking
correlates); as appropriate, on the basis of these summaries, SRI will go back to
Ambruster with questions &/or hypotheses (if possible, at least for spot-testing
before the end of the project); all of this material will be given to us as soon as
possible and certainly by (or in) the Final Report. I urged them to incorporate all
available PAMC findings in their DC presentation in December. If, on. the basis of
the raw data, we have any questions we'd like to address to PAMC we may, of course,
do so through Puthoff.
b. The Psych/Behavioral Data. Puthoff has been having some difficulty
getting raw data from the woman in charge of this effort--partially, he believes.,
we will get copies of all the
in any case
mmaries
l i
'
,
;
n su
d rather dea
because she
raw data and the summaries--and the same process will be followed as above, i.e.: SRI
will go back to them with questions and/or hypotheses; will test the hyp if possible
and we'll get the results of such exchanges as well; also, if we wish to. pose questions
we may do so. I urged Puthoff to put somepressure on the lady, pointing out that
because of the relative fuzziness of the data they are sometimes dilatory in making
and writing their final interpretations, and. he promised to do so this week.
c. Mid-Experiment Neurophysiological Exams. These consist of: 'total'
EEG; 'filtered' alpha EEG; GSR and plethysmograph. In the Final Report (if not
earlier) we will get detailed summaries and interpretations of this material--and
we can have access to the raw data any time we wish (but, having seen much of it,
I can attest that it would be foolish and probably useless for them to try to send
us copies of it). They have only run 7 of them (out of a possible total of 30) and
Puthoff admitted that their earlier mention of a possible indicator of accuracy (the
suppression of EEG signals 20 seconds before the 'event') was the merest kind of