Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
March 23, 2000
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
May 28, 1975
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9.pdf114.37 KB
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200150007-9 [ORD # MEMORANDUM FOR: ORD/LSR OTS/CB Memo #75-60 28 May 1975 SG1I SUBJECT Request for your Criticism of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) Results with the Random Stimulus Generator 1. In previous discussions you indicated your opinion that the Random Stimulus Generator data produced during the course of the "Perceptual Augmentation Technique` by Puthoff and Targ at SRI were of questionable value. You sighted information that it was your understanding the machines were not random and other procedural difficulties asso- ciated with the experimental design. I explained that summary data and procedures were given in progress reports #3 and #4 and during the December briefing which you, unfortunately, were unable to attend. Also, partially duplicative summaries may be found in the October 1974 Nature article published by Targ and Puthoff and in their final report for Contract 953653 under NASA sponsorship. The most complete reference is the final report being com- pleted for our contract. Attached is an advanced copy of the relevant section of the final report. 2. After review of the randomness tests and the experimental procedures described in these reports, I can find no fundamental difficulty with the machine or the procedures. It appears that SRI has done a thorough enough job to allow them to make the conclusion that they have documented paranormal Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0200150007-9 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9 functioning within the stated statistical limits. Since I have no practical experience with designing and completing statistical experimental psychology tests, I could easily have overlooked some obvious mistake or omission which invalidates the SRI data and conclusions. Therefore I am requesting your aid. Specifically, are the machines random and the experimental procedures valid? In addition to the two specifics mentioned above, please locate and criticize any other "soft" areas so that the SRI research can be kept in proper perspective. Attachment : SG 1 I As stated Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000200150007-9 ?^ MMiUt6Id Ur ReI?s~I 8/10: CIA-RDP9"0N-WR050007-LI SECRET ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET SG1I RFZ WB~~~ TO: (Officer designation, room number, and building) SUBJECT: (Optional) Request for your Criticism of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) Results with the Random Stimulus Gnerrator EXTENSION NO. C/OTS/CB C/OTS/DED C/ORD/LSR SNQ Log, Approved For Release FORM 61 O USE PREVIOUS 3-62 EDITIONS /10:Cl OFFICER'S INITIALS a ~4-RDP9 OTS/CB Memo #75-60 DATE 28 May 1975 COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.) 3 q, c s ~S /L e 6-00787 R00020015000.7-9 SECRET CONFIDENTIAL ^ SEERONI F-1 UNCLASSIFIED 19 MAY 1975 2000/08