CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

1
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 5, Para I. a. G. {C.,
These paragraphs lump the "seeking
of scientific proof " and "application results"
together and effectively display both in on
unfarnable light. The first sentence of
paragraph c., clearly state that the committee
has been " persuaded" that "effects attributed
to the RV phenomena efect under unexplained
circumstances." .. and then state these effects
have not been adequately documented. This
would leave me with a decidedly negative
outlook when the first sentence of paragraph
dis need ; " even when granted the existance
of the phenomena .... " Either the phenomena
wirts a it don't ! Negation double talk.
Page 5, Para 2. G.,
This entire paragraph is deliberately and
destructively negative. It would lenne
to believe that perhaps the personnel involved
in this study were not quite an open minded
w objection as they would have themselves appear.
a mine position way of stating the same
thing giving nothing " subjective" would have
bun; "Operational programe, that by their
my existence assume RV as a reality, may
produces
1
multe of a subjective
valuable
ARNeedFor Release290309/10:CIARD796-9079GRO0128939964RV
---------
20
P
x

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-KDP96-00788R001200230054-6
existance may not presently h achievable . "
Page 6 , para R.c.,
Sentence in paren's is another prime example
of dedicated , nauw view , destructiveness and
lack of objectivity . If the statement is true,
then it would be bitter said - and for more
objective to say ; (" Removing these deficiencies
would enable a more effective investigation
for prof on quantification of the RV phenomena. )"
If these deficiencies are that compounding
then it has not won the non-existence
of RV phenomena either - but the negative
flow of this report would suggest to the wander
that the committee has attempted to accomplish
this since the intact.
Page 6 , para R. d.,
again ; applications mea and Scientific
study area are lumped together here . It is
also not very objective to generalize Management
in such a way . They ( diversity of projects )
probably have ranged from come problemen to
gravely Miss-managed . If this is the ; then
it would only be fair to address specific
probleme of a service nature - ly project , in
the summary - and make sure the difference
of uni htween Scientific & applications is
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : GIA-RDP90100788R001200230054-6

2
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDR96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 6, para 3. a. (2 ).,
again a muy negative statement!
that previous research has established
substantial knowledge of what not to do . "
Para I. a. , page 5 is in direct contravention
to this statement . If nothing has hen"un-
clusively established , then how can such
a statement he made . If none of the"proof" todate
is criditable - then how can you establish what
has been die wrong ! Very , very negative .
Page 7, para 3. G.,
I am not a scientist, but it appears
to me that Objectively speaking when direct
human interaction occurs in an experiment
and a control group is not possible - there
will efect a great digue of varience in the
quality of date. ( I. e., just by virtue that me
human being drawn diferently on has a different
#vocabulary will effect this .
·
Page 8 , para 5. G.,
Didn't know this was a desired mult
wanted from the committe . was a " unifying
parapsychological concept " question raised !? If
not- why include it ; it's flak !
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 10, para 3. a.,
Why scientific membres in the
quationil oversight committee ? appear
to me that there would be intelligence require-
ments and not scientific.
Page 11, para 3. c.,
What should useful data In attributed
tro .... " Paraphycological Penemena in general . "
N what ?! If there is an answer to thei
question - then the committee should how
merguized formally " that there is some kind
of phenomena
recurring ! "
Page 23, para 6.
This , I assume , is where information
for Para S. G., page 8, come from. If this
is true - then it has hem twisted ( again
to the negative ) just a bit in its quoting .
Page 26, para 4.G.,
I am sure the transcripts do contain
cues! That is precisely what the remote
viewer is intending to penide ajudge - a
watch by cure is just as valid as a watch
by chawing .
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

-
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
27
Page # para 4.G. ( 1 ).,
Believe it Naive to assume statistical
significance as lack of proof. Such a state-
ment is written in the report is only me of many
parochial ' ismo in the scientific would ; and
you will find as many who believe in a
object to statistical prof." ( I. e. , use of drugs
to cure disease is based on statistics results ).
Their alitement is not muy objective. Sta-
tisties do provide some prof - certainly a
lack of statistics underscores a lack of proof.
Page 27, para 4. G. (2).,
This leads me to believe that this is how
it has been reported - and this is not the
case . These tust have been repeated, and
by mine me person .
Page 27, para 4.G. (4).,
This is not my clear . One reading
this would think " all" data was screened
for a significant mault . But in fact, SRI ,
does their screening in groups . Significance
by each group of sessions. They have shown
significance by both sub-group) (six sessions)
as wellas on all ( total groups). Believe the
is a bras, muss-leading, and negative statement.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 27, para 4. G. (5) ,
This paragraph could have all the
words " positive" and " negative" inter-exchanged
------
and applicabley describe this report in its
entirety. Negative recette have been provided,
recorded, reported - don't understand why this
report would have was feel differently. They have
failed in any case to present positive"statements
of any cont in this findings - not my objection.
Page 27, para $ 5.,
Belin the entire committee missed
a vy important pointhere .... the statistid
analysis is in the case of SRI reports is based
on the quality of data ( interpretation), not
the otherway mound . Interpretation by the
judge is what causes the match of taget
RV'd to real probable target- und motte
bases of those matches- the statistical
data is produced. actually, if this committee
had understand this, then we would be forced
with claims that the data evaluated for
statistical significante was " ... obviously
done subjectively and not objectively, therefore
invalidating all of the data, Sort ofacatch 22.
There is no right way for this committee .
(Continued myt page)
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

2
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
agree with the statement " ... the huden
I proof lies with those who advocate the
existance of any paranormal phenomena! "
The committee agrees with something
existing - but not the RV effect (RE: paras
I . c . , & I. d. , page 5). This makes this para
kind of contravusial . What is clean , is the
Reviewers also ... we the community at
least the effect to maintain objective
neutrality - but it appears that was
not done .
Page 28-31. para 2 5'S.d.,
" although they how not yet done so, the
Soviets may vary will be the first to identify the
field forces involved , and the means by which
they are generated , ... "
... the data available from reliable
munches are highly significant. "
The above quotes from the chapter
clearly illustrate the positive approach in
view point which the committee has co-
werning the Russian efforts where even less
documentation exists than in the effort here
at home where they have repeatedly been
way negativi . Does this imply the Russians
are right and we are wrong - sounds awfully
subjective to me .
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

-
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CISRDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 34, para I. c.,
Particularly with regard to this
committee ! Thought they were selected re
open minded and non- bored.
Page 34 , para I . d . ,
Thought there were no " replication
studies "as presionaly determined by this"
document . They say it here though ! ?
Which they'd get the facts straight. ( RE:
Chapter 8, para 3; parás (1), (2),(4), and (5)
page 27, etc. etc. )
Page 35, para I. f.,
Why were only criticisms said here.
There have been notable people who have
aclaimed their workas well. again -
the narrow , subjective , evaluations chine
though.
Page 35, para 1. g.)
" .... which appears to be will
planned and executed ." What is implied
here !? If me has developed the negative
attitude in reading this document by the time
he gets to this point - this implies "fraud! "
Very poorly done !
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

9.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 35, para 2. a. (2 ).,
So what if a RVis visits a target
mine than once ? It appears that is pre -
useby the attitude for defining resolution
that may be nuded. On't understand their
comments here - which are clearly made
at least out of context and therefore unfairly.
Page 36, para 2. G. (1),
No where in this paragraph do they
explain their problem ! what does any -
thing said - have to do with the actual
Remote Viewing of ar specific target.
Page 36, para 2. b. (3),
What affect dois feedback have in
the
accuracy of the remote viewers
scheteles a previous taped session ? This
is not very clean .
Page 36 , para Z. G. (4) .,
order of evaluation- selection of judges-
- reason for judge selection -"best "judge selection
definition of target-etc. None of the alm
should discredit whether a match was
made of six targets to six RV cessione correctly.
The probability of chance still exists - and
the "significant" vault will still recur . To
superfulone to the memuttergingeine.

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
10
Page 37 , para 2. c. ,
Clearly the point has been missed.
What is implied here is that a form of cheating
is taking place . If a remote views has
six aircraft targets in a row; and there
is a significant match statistically ; then
statistically it should be of even higher value
since the probability of getting mix ancraft
in a row is , alme my significant with relation
to the target pool . Believe the judging schemes
utilized at SRI are not fully understood by the
committee .
Page 37, para 2. d. (1) .,
This paragraph statements clearly
imply cheating , fraud , etc . , in the way it
is written - with incluindoe ite . e . g . ,
". appear to change . " What kind of remark
isthat ! They do on they don't . The where
is a direct attack on the reputation of a
rehu and not his work - not a rey
professional an objective aproach. It almost
smacks of vindictivism !
Page 38, para Z. d. (2).,
So what! If the description matched
1,000 locations. Point in fact is- that from
the entire warth - the description watched
Approved For Release 2008/09/10: CIA-RDP96-0078R00 0200230054-6 (vat, etc.
:

-
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 / CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Page 39, para 3. c. ( 3).,
Shouldn't they list a couple. I
think their way would be even less creditable
than RV assumption - because I don't believe
they understand protocol of how long distance
targets were done . I'd challenge them in this.
Page 40, para S. c.,
appears the last sentence here
does not coincide with their puissions
statements concerning validity of statistical
findings !
11
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 :
A-RDP96-66788R001200230054-6
(2)
3.
I likemp cut at INSCOM.
para 2di pg6
- I have to aque.
para 2f, pq 6
- The committee found no fraudulent
intent - get they sure take
Recipes at SRI / Russ Tary !
para 36, pg ?
-
they are looking for " proof" of 751. of
agree that statistical improbability
doesn't cut it from our point of
view. Ultimately, our quality
requirements well be (if They are
not already) even more de-
manding than mere replicability
and statistical improbability.
We need high correlation each
time.
5.
para 4a, pg 1
- I Thought in para 2c, pg 2,
They said there was" considerably
class controversy prow point of
view of measurement techniques"
cre. PK.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
para 50 , pg. 8
- Should we suggest that the
Committee structure a program?
-- . They are the know it allx.
-- They have the credibility ??
-. They meet requirements of
paras 2 b, c, dx
-- why not have them organizo
and structure a protocol/
program ?
para 66. , pq?
- This is a grand supposition in
the queatest sense- and -worded
negatively, to boot! Did we say
what about agents, satellites, or
radios? Each of these hepatimes
collects a lot of garbage that
goes into file 15 ! But no one
would say that fact under-
mines their overall value in
intel applications !
-----
para 1 , pq 10.
- I say again - task the GALE
Committee to develop their " credible"
approach .
8
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
14.
9.
para 2, pg. 10
- This contradicts para 7, pg 9
which says proof experiments
and characterization experiments
may occur simultaneously.
in para a, pg 10, they say
Characterization experiments
should not occur until proof
cepists !
10
para 3 a. kg 10
- Is the "false alarm sate" con-
1
Ridered in assessing value of
other systems ? How about
the vulnerability of other systems
-----------
to deception - is deception
a "false alarm Mate" -V
think it is .
para 3c. , pg "
- what, pray till, would it be
attributable to, an act of
God ?"
11.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

.....
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
12.
para 1, pg 1/a
Minority opinion is full of shit !
"Since operational tests can occur
with little warning " is flat
erroneous. We are now con-
ducting well planned long
term penetration of fixed
targets. that all RV operations
are short funge spontaneous
missions - in fact , we all
would prefer longer term
operations. The dissentire
use this erroneous assum-
Ation To say that all operating
tests are uncontrolled and
Therefore not worthy of attempt.
" Such tests cannot be varied
systematically" This is also
an erroneous assumption.
It is an cintruth we
can vary anything they
Clown well want, denfow
a separate aps text element
Could do the same thing.
Approved For Release 2003709/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788RQ01200230054-6
Then, in para 2, whey say that

-
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
12
" even if these falsehoods were not
falsehoods, it would probably
provide little usable data any-
way " This is the third
false assumption cused to
promote a falsehood and then
Throttle any effort to prove
their own minority opinion
To be wrong through dissipation
of enthusiasm.
----
-------
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
Scotty- my ideas
11
-----
2
---
-------
Correct
1 I had been informed that we shared
90k of a 190K AMSAA contract!
This data on pq 18 implies we
have a 75K contract and
AMSAA has (A separate) 190K
contract!
Was my info wrong? what's
up - it affects the POM worde
a whole lot.
La discussing judging, I do not
understand the negative aspect of
Cuis in a transcript. The
transcript cis a product of the
RVer, therefore it contains
info derived from PSI, Therefore
it is validly judgeable
and should be used in
the overall judging effort.
This is a viable statement only
cip de facilitator puto cues
into the session (in trans-
cript)
This appears to say
That
only sketches should be judged
but anything verbal from the
Approved Kof RA64562005/09646123P96696369807201 - Ident
Understand.

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
18.
4
This appears to be a non-
statement.
paragraph
says it is an example
of misuse of statistical
analysis, but subpara (2)
Апрель „ динамо “тот!
apple pie " about repeatability.
I don't understand the
message here. If the
logic used in sub-para (2)
reflecto a misuse of
statistics (as it is supposed
to) what constitutes
a good use of statistics?
To accept one result with
no regard for repeatability?
This is wrong and ausleading
wording >
4)
Amen
3) Curious to note the article names
The defendants but not the
plaintiffs/ prosecutors!
8 Interesting that the attack to discredet
is aimed at the 2nd sessions.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
It overlooks the possibility that
P35.

P.36
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
19,
having been (possibly) positively
reinforced, more revolution was
gained during pyramiding" sessions
than the first "saw run" This
may indicate a rather
planking attack against the
Concept of "Agramiding".
2 It certainly highlights
a favorable trend or prospect
can a negative view instead
of a positive, curious view.
3)
and doesn't address the
simple human info processing
system that once you've
keen a picture, you can
later go back and see
more detail in it.
2 no wonder! you may
randomly bring in a control
and find out he's gifted?
Many more people can do
This than the SALE Contre
is willing to accept. If a
control comes in and
blows ingred socks off, how
do you classify him the
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
This
10 not

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
26.
because it is difficult & 10
psychics. It is because it
is difficult & ID non-
psychics !
1 They have a good point!
------------
p37
Was there a handwriting analyst
on the Gale Committee? This
Constitutes a real attempt at
Alander without the guts to
make it specific!
10
"appear to !!
again an attack
based on innuendo and
whispers. How do they change
This could simply mean that
some were left out in
one publication one to co
limited reproduction frame
or, to consume space, may
have been relocated intoto
* a different quadrant of
the sketch!
Does the handwriting change?
do the words change?
These would be the
37
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 - CIA-RDP9S-00788R001200230054-6
important aspects of fraud.
:

ZI
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
And besides, here they are only
talking about "publications"
not the original sketches
Did the Gale Committee
review the originals in
each case ? Anything can
look different after it is
printed for mass consumption.
It is the original data
which counts
Publishers do take certain
license with their authors
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
work, you know.

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CJA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
1
22.
- Pagey - Para C
Circumstances home hem delineated
and i humanly possible, controlled
Results worded
mathematical computation
contre computed on anticipated
muito senen actual multe.
Page 5 Parq 10 10
Welcome the skepticism
but des agree with the conclusions
drawn !
Page 5 Para2 6
Onur should and will soon
bu to prove RV as unreal!
......
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
23.
Page 8 Para5b
why PK and the physical
tangible kroof
suentific
Is there not a mathematical
correlation correlating results
in terms of provoculity and
reality ( results schimed uncle)
controlled condition) .?
Page 10 Para1
August "cudiace
approaches "be defined and
imposed ( contracted) by the
scientific community,
Page 10 Para 2
Incredibly stupid statement!
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-06788R001200230054-6
--

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
24,
Page 10 Prasa 3b
aque - maintain RV
on Having basis
Page 11 Para 3 C
should add "unless directly attributable
to the (RV) phenomena" action -
uni another stupid statement
Pagella Para 3
Reliability on the AV phenoma
certainly should not be read
is percentile ratio of established
mathematical success obtains
under controlled conditions
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230054-6
.