SUBJECTIVE CRITIQUE OF SRI VISIT, NOVEMBER, 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070003-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: November 1, 1974
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Re~~~~~~~1~~:~~~-FPIOd'~T$~1~000200070003-2
ovemb~:r, 7
INTRODUCT'14N
The following pages include a schedule of my activities at SRI, a report
on each of those seven activities, and an extensive analysis of the second
remote viewing. Each of those sections stands alone, and a summary
assessment is best obtained by reading each of the critiques, since they
indicate not only my criticisms but the steps taken to Gaunter them.
By way of additional comment, my impressions were favorable with
regard to the SRI effort, the existence and hardiness of the. phenomena
involved, Hella's credibility and capability, and my own performance.
Although this is a subjective assessment of my own performance, I have
tried to restrain my amazement and excitement over the results. In
particular, since this is written, weeks after the events, I have attempted
to not give myself benefit of the doubt when relying on .memory. Very
likely the SRI report of my activities wi II be less restrained. Also, the
results need be viewed in the context of a number of isolated events occurring
over a short period of time, without precedent in my experiences.
An additional s-ubjective assessement of operational utility for these
phenomena is being completed, but is not part of this historical report.
p~i~w.~d:~Far ~elQase~:~0(}~,IQ3~07~~.,CIA-RD~96 ,...., .:;... .. ~~07~6~~.-
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200.070003-2
SCHEDULE
Wednesday 1:30 A.M. arrive motel
9: 30 A.M. arrive SRI, tour and meetings
10: 00 RV #1 and its debriefing
12: 00 lunch and review of Nature paper critiques
1:00 met Hella I-lammid, observed her performance
at Stanford chapel.
3: 00 witnessed critique of Hella's performance
4:30 discussions with Targ and Puthoff regarding
schedule far -the next days, obtained further
background reading on .Remote Viewing and
Ryzl's paper on redundant coding
7: 30 dinner meeting including Puthoff and SG11
off-site. Fallawed by discussion with- SG11
regarding handling of Hella's data and my
further activities.
Thursday 10: 00 RV #2 and its debriefing
1:00 select target,- Hella's RV and its critique
3: 00 Hella leaves, further discussion of her results
4:00 Obtain tape of Hella performing an RV on
scientific apparatus, fio try repeating the drill
press experiment,.
4:15 make several. runs on the ESP teaching machine,
using various techniques
6: 30 listen to Hella's RV tape, identify keywords;
read coding theory papers.
Friday 9: 30 obtain Hella's drawings from the RV and
again listen to tape
10: 00 debriefing on my performance
11:00 RV #3 and debriefing
2:00 abacus experiment
2:20 teaching machine experiment
4: 00 correct RV #2 transcript, obtain copies
of drawings and photos
6:00 total debriefing: my results, my criticisms,
expected follow-on, alternative funding sources,
what my trip accomplished, outlook for
operational utility
10: 00 flight out
M o>t? " e base ,;.. 103/07 . ,,.G1~-f~QP9C 00.787R0O~2.QOIa7O0~~ 2a
~. _ ~..v....... .
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
RV # 1
The fiirst experiment utilizing me as subject was run immediately upon
my arrival at the SRI lab. The standard mood adjective assessment was not
done in this case or on the subsequent days for lack of time and because I
was already noting my experiences in detail. At this time I was very tired and
suffering from a bad head cold, and so was certain no one could expect a good
performance from me. As a result, I was completed relaxed. Puthoff and Targ
seemed anxious to run such an experiment at once as a way of calibrating me,
and defining our schedule for the three days.
Protocol
Hal Puthoff obtained a standard target site from the office safe, under their
usual protocol, and proceeded to the place. I remained in the experiment room
with Russell Targ, discussing a variety of topics. At the agreed time, I turned
on the tape recorder and described the images that came to mind. At various
points, Russell encouraged me to talk in further detail. I drew no pictures.
Another tape was made when Hal returned and I was debriefed.
Transcripts of these tapes were not completed before I left and so are not
contained here. They will be included in SRl's report on my visit. From my
notes, key points in my description were:
Hal is shuffling about an area that is 50 feet from parked cars.
The area has a geometrical shape (not round) which he has de-
cided to stay inside, although it is not a physical constraint in the
sense that he can get out of the area if he wants. There is a railing
more than waist high. He is looking both out and down. There is
movement, in the sense of a breeze, past him. He walks back to
our room.
When Hal returned and asked how it went, I began to confess. that I had
avoided describing my initial impressions. At that point he turned on a second
tape recorder, and I continued with a description of Hal standing on a wooden
dock with rippling water going past him. There were two reasons why I had
not described these feelings: first, the image seemed too much like my own
apartment dock and 1 thought I was just remembering it. Second, I had driven
around SRI's periphery in locating. the lab, and was certain there was no water
around. Since I wanted to do well, I had not mentioned those impressions,
although I later realized that I wanted them on tape for completeness of the
documentation .
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07.: CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Subjective Assessment
The impressions came easily to mind. It was like daydreaming except
had Russ as director, and the impressions had to be translated into words
and pictures with conscious effort.. As a result, I was reluctant to talk. I
did not expect that I had done well. I was, however, surprised that I had
been able to really clear my mind, and had then gotten a consistent set of
impressions for 15-20 minutes. Also in the past experiments I had reviewed,
there seemed to be no impressions of time or motion (as well as no sounds)
and so I had not. expected to receive such impressions when following that
protocol .
Analysis of Results
Hal became obviously either pleased or amused at listening to my tape
during debriefing. I was too impatient to make any drawings and so we
proceeded to revisit the target site. PJIy initially surpressed description
was very accurate, as were my other statements. From my impressions I could
have identified the actual target location, which was a bridge across a man-
made brook an the SRI grounds. I was extremely surprised by that, and later
analyzed the proceedings for possible explanation.
Criti ue
It was frustrating to attempt a 1 5-20 minute session, as my mind started
to wander.
The questioning sometimes was distracting. The process I was performing
seemed to involve getting an impression, then searching for a word or image
to match -sometimes an entire experience would result from the search. The
process was analogous to smelling something, which may recall the name of
a fragrance, or may recall an entire event complete with sounds and emotional
memories. Sometimes the questions would get me off on such a side track.
questioned how I could be certain the site was not rnanufactured after-
the-fact either by monitoring my description as I made it or during debriefing.
Either Hal's cleverness or computer assistance could then select a site similar
to my description. There were three retorts to this:
1) Originally, the outbound experimenter did tape-his movements
and destination. This procedure was later dropped since it did not
seem to add to the analysis, but merely generated more tapes to be
catalogued .
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
2) The high strangeness of the sites would make it difficult
to manufacture such places within the r?equir.ed range, if any
specific description were given. Due to my unfamiliarity with the
area, I could not effectively counter their challenge to match my
total description to any other site within 15 minutes from SRI.
However,. I did attempt to construct such a site near my D.C.
office and could not. If some of the details were ignored it
became possible.
3) We decided that we would tape a complete record of the
outbound experimenter's journey and activities- at the site, both
to eliminate such a possibility of manufacture after the fact; and
to provide time calibration data for my impressions of body move-
ment, posture, and intent. Unfortunately, this was not done until
the third experiment.
Much discussion has been made concerning the "symbolism" used by RV
subjects. This term carries incorrect connotations, referring to a pur-
poseful obscurring of details. Rather, the process which occurs is a pure
translation from experience to words, which may necessitate analogy but.
not symbolism. By a discussion of symbolic content in the RV data,
experimenters imply that the deep psychological make-up of a subject must
be probed before-his data can be assessed. That is not true.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
With Hello at-the Church
As described in the objective report, I accompanied Hello to the church
primarily to observe her, although I did have a number of questions in mind
regarding my own performance potential and possible interaction with her.
She did extremely well, as described elsewhere in this report and as
attested to by a letter from the officer in charge. I will add here only a few
of my own observations .
Hello's performance indicates the durability of the phenomenon
involved. The environment was totally uncontrolled and the task
was completely new to her, since it involved perception of past
events, with na assistance from a "transmitting" experimenter.
The attending officer knew full detai Is of the case, so that
Hello could. theoretically have gotten all the verifiable results
from him via telepathy. She did add information regarding the
suspect's description and identity which have yet to be verified.
The possibility that the entire event was staged far me is not
worth consideration. Since I viewed official reports and video
tapes at the Menlo Park police barracks, the staging would have
required police co-operation.
Hello's results support the frequent assertion that subjects
perform better on more difficult and important tasks, rather than
when playing games.
In attempting to establish rapport with Hello, I directed some
questioning of her. She in turn began asking me far my impressions
and confirmation of hers. Since the entire proceedings were being
taped, I backed off and said I wanted to walk around. However,
we did briefly work together on the description of the victim, and I
believe that was at least a psychological boost to her performance.
(She directed the officer at one point to question me further since I
seemed to be on to something, but I was able to avoid his further
interest by describing i3spects of the case that were completely wrong.
He paid me no more attention, and 1 receive no notice in his further
correspondence with SRI . )
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
I found it was possible to get a nurnber.of impressions
myself as I walked about the church, although they were not
as specific as Hellas. I do believe th~ak a group discussion
following independent observations would effectively integrate
out some of the noise involved in such a process.
Hella is very much concerned with her performance. After
the visit to the church, she several times cited statements she
had made and the fact that no one had told her the data before
hand. She was somewhat surprised at how well she had done,
and joked about how much further she should go. She is
attempting further efforts on the case, and it will be interesting
to follow them.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Of my three RV experiments, I talked most freely during this one, and
a mood indicator would probably have shown me to be still excited over the
events of the previous day. As a result, I talked more in this experiment,
giving elaborate detail, and drew a set of pictures.
Protocol
The desire was to duplicate the standard profocol as performed the
previous day. I made a number of mental adjustments: I would dictate every-
thing that came to mind, I would concentrate on body movements, I would
work on detail rather than overall impressions
A completely checked and verified transcript of my tape is included in
a later section, along with a detailed attempt at objective analysis. The
RV occurred in three parts:
1) First, I attempted to predict the site at a time when 1
expected Hal was on his way there.
2) Second, at the agreed time I get an initial impression
of shielding and then perception of geometrical forms.
3) Third, 1 then get an impression of a bui (ding interior,
and continue to be involved with the bui Iding for the remainder
of the experiment.
Subjective Assessment
1) At the time of my first attempt, Hal was in fact still
waiting in Bart Cox's office for a site to be selected from the
safe. He was leaning against a more than waist high counter
which has a light wood top. My impression of him leaning
against a light wood workbench of similar height, and my later
statement that this is not a prediction but a viewing at-the time,
are both essentially correct. In addition, I correctly describe
"papers and small items, no large. equipment" on the counter top.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
2) The second perception, at the erctual start of the
experiment later provided the moss: sots ~fy~'Fig single piece of
feedback of the entire trip. Initially, l describe a positive
feeling of an absence of emissions, and guess that Hal is in
the shielded room which I have not seers but know to exist. .
Soon after that statement, I get a sensation of moving triangles
which I describe as looking through a prism or shooting a movie
through a Kallidescope. In addition, I see Hal grinning and
chuckling to himself. The scene then shifts inside a building.
At the time of this description, Hal was reportedly standing
inside the left tower shown in Figure RV #2-1 . Upon re-
membering that Pat Price had gotten a shielded sensation under
the same conditions, he decided to move out, but first wanted
to give me a good target in case I was getting an impression .
Therefore, he looked up through the tower, and spun around.
The weather was too wet for me to get any good pictures but,
as SRI's photos should show, and as I verified for myself, my
description gives a very good. picture of the actual scenes.
3) For the remainder of the experiment I describe the interior
of a building which is a museum and art gallery where movies are
shown; a tourist type place far walking around which is not a
business place. The architecture is busy, with the main room
about 40 x 40.
It is not really a museum. Also, just before he leaves, Hal
turns a complete circle and scans the whole place.
Those facts are all correct. The detai Is of the description are
a little better than 50 o correct as later discussed.
I felt frustrated at my inability to achieve the precise overview I had
expected remote viewing to entail. I was beginning to suspect that what I
must really be doing was picking up unprocessed sensory data from Hal,
along with his intentions and body posturing. However, in the third portion
of the experiment, I am concerned with the interior of the building, while he
remains outside. Either I am getting impressions from his unconscious
memories of the interior, or I am merely using him as a beacon, in the true
RV sense. Unfortunately, I do not have the ability to raise up and clearly see
the entire site, but am restricted to more myopic views.
 ?. Y ..t~. ", ;~,(~'L ~ ~:, 7t.. t", ~f { ~'' " ,.:. e ~ _. ! ~ s R t~ m'' w' y~ r t } t "~S~rf
~f. y~y 4 t
~~i`...r~, '~M /~/r;~' ... p~ ~,~ y 7~ T1~Y~f'r':"~ r~' ~S?.~~'~""~MMT~~IM ~ }enw ~1/ ~y ~ ~;/f
_t .u:_. .. ... a.... .,. ... ....~.~. ,.... f....,-. ., .... _. .. .,. w-. ,.
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Analysis of Results
During debriefing, Hal was delighted with my Kallidescope description- ,
as well as with the general content of the building description. I was
particularly surprised by my impressions (correct) of absolute compass
directions since I am characteristically poor at directions, and could not
even figure out the heading of my own house.
Critique
Although it would seem impossible to manufacture a site having
both the Kallidescope and museum aspects, it is very unfortunate that no
record was made of Hal's movements. At the time, we wished to duplicate
the proceeding day's protocol, and so did not wish to introduce the need
for Hal to dictate all his moves and intentions into a recorder. (In retrospect,
t-here was no sufficient reason for this decision. The shortness of my stay
made us continually-choose between replication of results and trials of new
experiments. )
There were particularly bad effects in this instance from the interrogation
procedure. !n certain cases, the questions served to distract me by either
drawing my attention to something else in my perception or to Hal's
perceptions. In other cases, the questions were completely misleading,
either in making wrong suppositions ("describe the room Hal is in" when
he is outside), or asking for further detail on an incorrect point of description
("what color is the floor?" When what I have described is the outside area) .
was not consciously able to distinguish between the perceptions that Hal was
getting, and the remaining ones 1 got. Therefore, any question which
directed me to go and get a specific piece of information might lead me to
give conflicting descriptions.
Due to the effects stated above, it is additionally difficult to analyze
information received under the interrogation process. My next RV would use
no interrogator.
The question of personality dependence is now raised, since I wonder
whether I can perform with Russell on the outbound end. In addition, the
effect of multiple- outbounders should be .studied. Due to the lack of time,
all of these changes are made in RV #3.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00787R000200070~3~ ~" ~,~
 ~~'R00
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Experiment
Two trials were made using the abacus clock which had previously been
an RV target. As-shown in the SRI reports, the apparatus has 5 rows of 10
beads each, plus a clock face with two hands, a slide indicating the date,
and cutouts for exposireg day of the week and month.
-Hal Puthoff wanted to try perception of a binary message generated
by moving all the beads in each row to the right or left. I selected positions
from a random number table, and focused on the resulting bead positions
while he attempted to visualize them in the next room. He got 3 out of the
five bits, essentially-chance results.
1 preferred that he set up the entire apparatus, including movement
of any number. of beads in each row. I guessed that I could get the outline
of the beads pattern .
The outline was the correct shape
but in trying to come up with
corresponding digits, the sequence generated was- 66689. If these are
positioned left or right based on the outline shape, then three of the digits
were correct. The small hand of the clock was correct, and the approximate
position of the date slide indicator was close, although an incorrect number
was assigned to it.
Results were not good enough to further consider at that time, but
additional trials along with. more familiarity with the apparatus are worth
pursuing .
Critique
It is interesting that I predicted the type of Task I could do well.
This was the only coding-type experiment we had- time to perform,
although we had discussions involving a good design for a? redundant
coding experiment. _
Both for training purposes and ease of analysis, more such short
experiments should be emphasized.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
i ,~
~~~d r~ ~/r~" ~ ~~
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
ESP Teaching Mlachine
In an attempt to demonstrate some degree of learning or improvement
during my three days, I made three series of runs on the teaching machine
which was designed by Russell Targ for NASA, and which is described in
the SRI reports. E3asically, it is a four-state machine, with the states
generated randomly. Each run consists of 25 trials in which the .subject
selects one of 4 state buttons or the "pass" button. The machine can also
be operated in two precognitive modes, during which the machine state is
determined either 1/2 or 1 second after the operator selects his prediction
of the state.
I tried a variety of approaches: right hand only, left hand onlyy both
hands, the proceeding three both with -eyes open or shut. By shutting my
eyes I was avoiding the visual feedback on my incorrect selections. Correct
selections rang a bell. After 200 runs of each type, I appeared to do best
by using both hands, eyes open, and proceeding very fast. ' I then performed
2000 such trials, and attained an average of about ~- ~ rte' , ~~ P =' ~ ~c~
Generally, people get better as they practice more with the machine.
On the following day, I~ repeated my run of 2000, and scored precisely at
chance, although with possibly a significantly extra-chance variance.
!'ve not-yet received results of those calculations or computed them myself.
Later that same afternoon while both Hal and Russ were called to the
phone, I went in to again run the machine, this time in an angry mood over
my earlier results. 1 cleared the machine, and then punched out very
deliberately 15 hits out of the 25 trials. It sounded as it the bell were ringing
constantly. I- ran for Russ and Hal to show them the result and then attempted
to repeat it. After two trials below chance, I abandoned the machine again.
Although a run of 2000 trials took me less. than two hours, I did not have.
a chance to make any further runs.
~,.
deaf'
Y.~
 Approved For Release 200'l/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Interpretation of 1-leCla's RV Tape
SG11
Before my trip to SRI, I had been reviewing Hello's performance on
remote viewing of technical equipment: After hearing her description and
seeing her drawings from the experiment with a CRT graphics terminal as
target, I mentioned that I could ossibly have guessed the actual equipment
from her descriptions. suggested I try to do that with another tape
she had made, which was thought to be less gaud than the CRT results. After
two runs through the tape, my guess of a vertical.boreing machine was close
to the actual target of a drill press.
That result was considered significant, since it indicated that more
information might be present in the data than had been supposed. Two factors
seemed important to me: One, I was very familiar with both CRT's and
vertical milling machines, and was currently working with both. Two, I had
been briefed on Hello's background and personality. In particular, I knew
that she was basically untechnically oriented, that she was capable of detailed
description of anything she had seen, that she was not prone to fabricate
details, and that she was employed in photography.
After having spent several hours with her at SRI, I expected that my
familiarity with her RV performances had very much increased. My attempt
to process another of her tapes, however, was not a success. In this case,
the target was the ESP teaching machine, with which she was quite familiar.
I had spent my first hour on it just before ! left with her tape for the evening.
My guess of a view graph projector was based on arbitrary selections from
seemingly ambiguous and contradictory sets of statements. Far instance, I
was not certain if light were shining into or out of the box. Same of her
terminology, such as "burning in" had specific meaning far me based on my
background. ,I had to decide, in those cases, whether another meaning fit
her background, or whether she .had picked up the terminology along with
the target.
Although it is probably helpful to have a calibration on the original subject
(such as realizing that Hello's sizes are generally overestimated, and her
drawings are often better than her descriptions) , it does seem that familiarity
of the interpreter with the possible target set is the crucial aspect of such an
interpretation attempt. This may be considered analogous to giving raw
intelligence data to an analyst who is well grounded in the pertinent fields.
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Both from the standpoint of reliability assessment and information production,
the analyst must know his field as well as Iris source.
Unfortunately, there was no chance to work along with Hella as she
performed a technical RV experiment, due to time constriants.
>~ov~: rr~F~~l ea~:e:;
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
RV #3
This experiment was not the first event of the day, as the other two
RV's had been. In this case, I had just completed the interpretation run on
Hello's RV of the teaching machine. I had been disappointed in my per-
formance. However, my interest was peaked for this RV #3, since there
were several protocol modifications I wished to try. In addition, this could
be my last RV of the trip, so I wanted it to go well..
Protoco I
Based on my observations during Hello's performances and during my
awn, I made a number of changes to the standard protocol. In each case, I
believe the change resulted in stronger evidence for occurrence of para-
normal phenomena, as well as demonstration that the phenomena are not
fragile or protocol-dependent. From the suggestions contained in each section
of this paper, the following changes were made for this run:
Both Russ and Fial went to the site, which was a standard
target obtained from the safe.
No one remained with me; there was no interrogator.
All movements, intentions, and descriptions of the site
were recorded by Russ and Hal from the time they left the
building.
In addition, although I had not mentioned it beforehand;
I moved around inside the room, moved outside of the inner room
I taped all of my responses, but did not mention my move-
ments on the tape .
Transcript of my tape was not completed before I left and so is not
contained here. Photographs of the target site are also still in preparation.
The following data is from my notes and from memory. I drew no pictures
at that time.
~~~-~gs~aa~~x~~o~~:oao7o
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
I spoke very little, relative to RV '~2. The predominant
feature was white arches, on a circular base. I felt I could
distinguish the presence of both Hal and Russ. I tried con-
centrating on Russ, to check whether n,y results were dependent
on Hal; and I got a clear impression of Russ sitting very low to
the ground such that .his knees were up by his ears, And at one
point his head rested on his arms, which were folded-across
his knees. I did not like the place, and had an uneasy feeling
about it. I mentioned the-word "cupola" which came to mind,
and stated that I didn't know what it meant. I had a particular
sensation of looking down and attending to one point purposely,
although the site could have been used as a vantage point.
Subjective Assessment
The few images I did receive were very, strong. However, the peripheral
information just seemed blurred out. In particular, the body sensations of
sitting, fixating on an area, and being uncomfortable were very strong.
was not particular pleased with my results, although I had ascertained that
all my moving about during the experiment did not affect my perceptions.
Analysis of Results
When Hal and Russ returned, my first statement was that I didn't like
the place. I also mentioned my strange use of the word "cupola", and my
image of Russ sitting down. At Hal's suggestion, I tried to draw my overall.
image, which was of white arches. He then directed me to draw the cupola,
and also an overhead view. He was delighted with the results, and asked his
secretary to guess what it was on our way out to the site. She did not know,
but responded to his whispered answer by saying "oh, that's right! ", which.
really pleased him.
We drove to the site, which was a park play ground, and Russ and Hal
recreated their motions, which involved sitting an and spinning a merry go
round composed of a disk with large white loops for holding on. Many screaming
children were around, as is obvious from the tapes. I agreed that my images
had been pretty goad, but noticed that a maintenance bui Iding adjoining the
merry go round area had a cupola on the roof (I had looked the word up in an
illustrated dictionary just before leaving the office) , and that it had a black
lightening rod on top, and divisions just as my top view drawing showed.
Hal and Russ both expressed dismay that the structure was there and that they
had not noticed it. However,. my feeling was that I had originally seen only
the arches, and when directed by. Russ to go back and draw the cupola, I had
done just that by finding a cupola at the site. I'm certain I must have known
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
the word in the past sometime. My TOP V16~'W drawing could be a good
sketch of that cupola, while the other two are composite of the two features -
arches and cupola.
At the site, Hal and Russ recreated their motions, which I later verified
by listening to their tape. The sensations of focusing on a spot, looking down,
and feeling uneasy were strongly verified by Russ, who had gotten quite-
dizzy during the experiment and had been eager for it to end.
We were all surprised that no strong perceptions of lots of people,
lots of noise, or rapid movement ever came through.
Critique
During debriefing, warding of the questions or instructions is
critical.
Assessment of debriefing results must be done in the context of the
interrogator's involvement.
Lack of an inquisitor during the experiment was no handicap, although
I would generally produce less data when alone.
I was able to receive impressions of Russell, as well as of Hal.
Using two outbounders seemed to increase the strength of a few
primary impressions, while washing out the rest. Part of that washout,
however, may have been due to the saturation effects of so much noise and
such rapid movement.
As in the previous experiments, my sensations of bodily movements or
feelings were correct; although in this case there were several strong sensory
inputs of that type which I failed to receive.
Taping by the outbounders was desirable in this case, since it verified
my impressions, as well as indicating that the cupola was not an intentional
part of their target activities.
From my movements about and outside of the experiment room, I conclude
that no subliminal suggestion techniques were being used on me.
r~R~l~ase,~o~~ra~~o~:.:C~AL~-~~~.~- 0~~87.RO?Qa~a~7gf~ca3-z~;
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-0078780002 007 03-2 ~/ ~
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2
~-
U
w
m
I-
~_
F--
z
w
U
w
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007878000200070003-2