Proposed GRILL FLAME Protocol: Task II - Proposed SRI International Protocol for Research on Remote Perturbation Techniques

“8 May 1979 PROPOSED GRILL FLAME PROTOCOL: TASK II PROPOSED SRI INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL FOR RESEARCH ON REMOTE PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES WARNING NOTICE - Intelligence Sources and Methods Involved — NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS — SRI 9-4186 Copy No. 1”

SECRET is printed large at head and foot (not struck through on this sheet, unlike the interior pages). The WARNING NOTICE is a rubber-stamped box; the NOT RELEASABLE line is also stamped, in a different face from the typed title. A handwritten circled numeral, which reads as '10' or possibly '16', sits at the top right corner. The 'Copy No. 1' underscore is typed with a typed '1'. No printed page number on this sheet.

“CLASSIFIED BY: Msg, 7 Jul 78, DA(DAMI-ISH), Wash., D.C. REVIEW ON: 7 Jul 1998 WARNING NOTICE - Intelligence Sources and Methods Involved NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions SRI 9-4186 This document consists of 84 pages. Copy No. /”

The title on this page carries paragraph classification marks: 'PROPOSED GRILL FLAME PROTOCOL: TASK II (S)' and 'PROPOSED SRI INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL FOR RESEARCH ON REMOTE PERTURBATION TECHNIQUES (S)'. Two stamped boxes (WARNING NOTICE; NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION). 'Copy No.' is completed in ink with a handwritten stroke that reads as '1'. The '84' in 'consists of 84 pages' is typed and underlined. The SRI International logo and Menlo Park address block (333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025; (415) 326-6200; Cable: STANRES; TWX: 910-373-1246) are printed at the foot; a large 'SRI International' watermark runs down the left margin. — the file as scanned is 86 pages, two more than the 84 the document claims for itself; the extra sheets are the outer cover (pdf 1) and back cover (pdf 86).

“E. Volunteer Consent Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 F. Medical Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Personal Injuries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 2. Emergency Response Program . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 G. Debriefing Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ... APPENDICES A A PK TEST WITH ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . 30 B A PERCEPTUAL CHANNEL FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER OVER KILOMETER DISTANCES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND RECENT RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C BIOGRAPHIES OF KEY PERSONNEL. . . . . . . . . . . . 65”

The printed page number is the roman numeral 'iii' at the foot. This page is stamped UNCLASSIFIED at head and foot, whereas the preceding contents page (pdf 3, printed 'ii') is stamped SECRET with the word struck through by a hand-drawn line — the classification stamps differ between the two halves of the same table of contents. The elision marked by '...' above omits the three Debriefing sub-entries and the entries for sections IV, V and REFERENCES.

“This protocol contains the procedure for MIA-sponsored SRI International research on remote perturbations. It is to remain in effect for the contractual period. The term ‘remote perturbation (RP)’ is used herein to signify an intellectual/mental process by which a person perturbs remote sensitive apparatus or equipment. RP does not involve any electronic sensing devices at, or focused on, the RP agent. No drugs, hypnosis, special sensory (visual, auditory or olfactory) or proprioceptive stimuli, liminal, or subliminal, electrical, or electromagnetic will be used in this protocol.”

'MIA-sponsored' is transcribed exactly as typed; the sponsor named elsewhere in the document is DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency, printed on page 2), so this reads as a typewriter transposition, but it is not corrected here. Note that the exclusion list governs what is done TO THE PARTICIPANT, not what is done to the target equipment.

“1. Military Objective It is the objective of this protocol to determine whether targeted sensitive electronic equipment can be perturbed as a result of RP activity. 2. Military Applications RP offers the potential for remote man/machine interactions with computers, locks, switches, codes, and other sensitive or delicate mechanical or electronic apparatus, barred or held secure from ordinary physical contact or intervention.”

This is the clearest statement in the document of what is to be influenced: equipment, not people. Nothing on this page proposes influencing a person. The word 'targeted' is the document's own.

“The Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM) approved in principle the U.S. Army involvement in what is now known as project GRILL FLAME in April 1978. In May 1978, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) accepted lead responsibility for GRILL FLAME applications. Overall DoD responsibility resides with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). 4. Project Officers The overall, responsible individuals for all aspects of the project at SRI International are Dr. Edwin C. May, Dr. Harold Puthoff, and Mr. Russell Targ.”

Spellings as printed: 'Puthoff' with two f's, 'Russell Targ' with two l's — both differ from spellings that appear elsewhere in this corpus, and are not normalised here. 'Materiel' is printed without an accent. — no page in this protocol states who approved the protocol itself, as opposed to the project; the approval history covers the project only.

“One of the first psychoenergetically produced physical effects observed by SRI personnel in early research (1972) was the apparent perturbation of a superconductor-shielded Josephson effect magnetometer by a gifted subject, Mr. Ingo Swann. Following is a fairly detailed account of that first observation, since it reveals a number of aspects of remote perturbation (RP) research that we consider to be of significance. This magnetometer is located in a well under a building and is shielded by µ-metal shielding, an aluminum container, copper shielding, and, most important, a superconducting niobium shield. (See Figure 1.)”

The Greek mu in 'µ-metal' is printed as a lower-case mu. Figure 1, a line drawing captioned 'Figure 1. Magnetometer housing construction.', occupies the lower half of the page; its internal labels are small and partly illegible at this resolution.

“Mr. Swann was shown the setup and told that if he were to affect the magnetic field in the magnetometer, it would show up as a change in the output recording. Then, to use his own description, he placed his attention on the interior of the magnetometer, at which time the frequency of the output doubled for about two of the cycles or roughly 30 seconds. This is indicated by A in Figure 2. Mr. Swann was next asked if he could stop the field change being indicated by the periodic output on the recorder. He then apparently proceeded to do just that, as can be seen at B in the graph, for a period of roughly 45 seconds.”

Figure 2, captioned 'Figure 2. Raw data, magnetometer test run.', is a photo-reduced chart-recorder trace with handwritten annotations on the original chart paper; those annotations are not legible at this resolution. The word 'apparently' is the document's own hedge and is preserved.

“The conditions of this observation, involving as it did a few hours use of an instrument committed to other research, of course 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 investigation of possible ‘recorder only’ effects.”

The following page (printed 6) opens by calling the same episode 'a laboratory anecdotal account rather than a formal experiment'. This caveat is the document's own and is not an outside criticism.

“In 1970, H. Schmidt reported that he had observed significant perturbations, by psychoenergetic means, of an otherwise binary (0, 1) random sequence that was derived from the beta decay of strontium 90 90Sr. ... In this experiment individuals were asked to focus their attention on the electronic system by remote viewing the noise source, and monitoring any effects that occurred by watching the random walk of a display-light feedback system.”

This is the one place in the protocol proper where the two terms are welded together: the participant is said to focus attention 'by remote viewing the noise source' while the effect sought is a perturbation of that source. The elision marked '...' skips the intervening two sentences describing the clock-interruption mechanism and the ~1/s generation rate. The isotope is printed twice, once as the words 'strontium 90' and once as the superscripted symbol '90Sr'; superscripts are rendered inline here.

“As of 1978, a total of 54 experiments of this type had been reported in the literature (see Table 1). Of these, 35 reported significant departure from chance expectation, and none reported similar effects during control runs. ... There are, however, two characteristics of this data base which pose problems. First, the effects are rarely stable with one individual's RP effort, the quoted results being averages over a number of individuals. Secondly, the physical environment of the noise sources and associated”

The second paragraph is cut off by the page break; it continues on printed page 9 (pdf 13) with 'electronics was not discussed in any detail for any of the experiments, so it is possible that some of the effects may be the result of normal and possibly subtle electronic interference.' The two halves are NOT joined here. Table 1, listing the 54 experiments by author and significance level, runs across printed pages 8 and 9.

“We intend to address these two problems by first focusing our attention upon a limited number (8 or less) of participants who have shown expertise as remote viewers in our earlier paranormal perception experiments.* By using experienced remote viewers, it is anticipated that we should observe an effect within this limited number, rather than having to average over large numbers of individuals as in the data base experiments. ... Secondly, to assure ourselves that the noise sources are sufficiently free of even subtle (but normal) electronic nonrandomness, we intend to use the most rigorous construction and design techniques possible (battery power, optically coupled signals, etc.) to isolate the sources from normal environmental influences.”

The asterisk is a footnote marker; the footnote at the foot of the same page reads 'Described in Proc. IEEE, March 1976, included here as Appendix B.' — i.e. the remote-viewing credential of the proposed participants is the Puthoff and Targ paper reprinted as Appendix B. The elision marked '...' skips one sentence about more sensitive analysis techniques.

“Most importantly, we could investigate the relation (if any) between remote viewing and remote perturbation. Some relation might be expected since in ordinary physical interactions information about the state of a system can be obtained only by way of some interaction with the system, which in some cases is supplied by the observer. We might therefore expect an observable dependence between RV and RP under certain conditions.”

This is the passage that keeps the two concepts apart on the page: RV and RP are given separate abbreviations and the relation between them is stated as unknown ('if any'). A later reader should not treat the document's use of 'remote viewers' as subjects as evidence that the experiment is a viewing experiment.

“E. Technical Application Using the proper analysis procedure, even a very small effect can be made to operate a mentally-activated switch with arbitrarily high reliability.”

That is the complete text of section E — two lines, then the rest of the page is blank. No hardware, cost or timeline is attached to the claim anywhere in the protocol.

“(1) Noise sources--β decay, noise diode. (2) Analysis and recording techniques--LSI-11, floppy-disk-based microcomputer. (3) Feedback display--video system. ... The characteristics of this hypothesized remote perturbation process are completely unknown. The data base suggests that the putative effect is quite small, so it is reasonable to make a few assumptions about our experiments: (1) the analysis hardware (LSI-11 microcomputer), the recording device (floppy disk system), and the display devices (computer-driven video monitors) are to first order assumed to be stable against remote perturbation processes, the effect being assumed to be isolated within the random noise sources exclusively (an assumption that can be checked during the course of experimentation);”

Sentence (2) of the assumptions is cut by the page break and continues at the top of printed page 13 (pdf 17) as 'pertubation is assumed to be the human participant.' — spelled there without the 'r'. The two halves are NOT joined here; see the next passage. 'β' is printed as a Greek beta.

“There are three primary independent variables that may be varied during the course of the investigation: (1) Participant/no participant. (2) Source variation (beta decay, noise diode, pseudo random). (3) Feedback display variation. ... There is only one dependent variable, namely the output of the statistical analysis of the binary bit stream derived from the noise source. ... An electronic instrument that is designed to be sensitive to remote pertubation processes contains three basic elements: sources of randomness, an analysis capability, and a feedback mechanism. We propose to integrate these components with our existing Digital Equipment Corporation LSI-11/2 microcomputer system.”

'pertubation' is printed without the 'r' twice on this page (in the sentence quoted and in the first line, 'pertubation is assumed to be the human participant'), and again on printed page 18; it is spelled correctly elsewhere. Transcribed as printed, not corrected. The 'no participant' condition is the control.

“We propose to design a binary noise source derived from the beta decay of carbon 14 (14C) and prometheum 147 (147Pr). We have chosen these isotopes since they are 100% beta emitters with no competing decay modes, and thus provide a simple radioactive decay spectrum. To insure isolation from spurious power line transients we plan to use battery-operated”

Two oddities transcribed as printed: 'prometheum' (usual spelling promethium) and the symbol '147Pr' — Pr is the symbol for praseodymium; the symbol for promethium is Pm. Superscript mass numbers are rendered inline here. The sentence is cut by the page break and continues on printed page 15 with 'surface barrier detector with charge-sensitive preamplifier...'; the halves are not joined. Figure 4 on this page is captioned 'BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A COMPUTER-BASED INSTRUMENT DESIGNED TO BE SENSITIVE TO REMOTE PERTURBATION PROCESSES' and shows THERMAL NOISE, ELECTRON DECAY and SHIFT REGISTER feeding a 16-BIT LSI-11 COMPUTER, with COLOR GRAPHICS FEEDBACK, a GRAPHICS TABLET, and an output arrow labelled 'TO PRIME 400'.

“To act as a control noise source we will optically couple a standard pseudo-random shift register to the LSI-11. The binary output of such a device has the property that although the sequence meets a number of criteria for randomness, the sequence is deterministic, once the starting seed for the register is given. ... The analysis and control portion of the system consists of an existing project LSI-11 microcomputer. To obtain an imput, the LSI-11 is programmed to sample one of the noise sources at a specified rate to obtain its random bits. ... The sequential analysis technique is an extremely efficient technique for determining whether the output of the binary random generator contains a distribution of 0s and 1s as expected for an unperturbed source, or is distorted due to, say, RP influence.”

'imput' for 'input' is transcribed as typed. This is one of the few places where the document uses the word 'influence' of the RP effect itself; it is used of the effect on the generator, not on a person.

“With the parameters thus specified, the sequential sampling procedure provides for construction of a decision graph as shown in Figure 5. The decision graph gives a rule of procedure for making one of three possible decisions following the sampling of each bit: continue sampling before making a decision (Region I in Figure 5); label the sequence as undistorted (Region II); label the sequence as distorted (Region III).”

The preceding paragraph on the same page defines the four parameters p0, p1, α (Type I error) and β (Type II error), with worked examples of 50% and 60%; subscripts and Greek letters are set in the typescript and are not reproduced in this quote. Figure 5, on the next page, plots the two limit lines for p0 = .50, p1 = .60, α = β = .05.

“FIGURE 5 IF THE ACCUMULATED NUMBER OF 1s ENTERS REGION III, THE SEQUENCE IS ACCEPTED AS PERTURBED. If it enters Region II, the sequence is accepted as unperturbed, and no decision is made while the accumulated number of 1s remains in Region I.”

Caption is set in a display face, first sentence in capitals, remainder in upper and lower case. In the second occurrence the spacing between '1' and 's' is wide enough that it could be read as '1 s'; transcribed as '1s' to match the first occurrence, but the spacing is ambiguous on the page. The plot itself is annotated 'SEQUENTIAL ANALYSIS OF A BINARY SEQUENCE (P0 = .50, P1 = .60, α = β = .05)'.

“We plan to record the raw noise data prior to analysis, and to record the feedback display on video tape during the experiment, using the second channel of the display facility. After the participant has left the area, a comparison can be made between the actual display during the experiment and the display which is now generated from the recorded raw data of the experiment. If there is a disagreement, we are able to isolate the pertubation to the analysis display (as opposed to source) hardware. An agreement between the two displays is an indication that the initial assumptions are valid.”

'pertubation' again printed without the 'r' on this page. This is the design's answer to the 'recorder only' worry the authors raised about the 1972 magnetometer episode on printed page 5.

“SRI International has individuals who are presently participating in remote viewing experiments. Some of these are consultants, others are members of the SRI staff. Only those individuals who indicate a positive desire to participate, after familiarization with the remote perturbation experiments and procedures, will be accepted into the RP program. An information and consent form is included below (Section E). In addition to willingness to participate, special attention will be paid to enlisting the support and participation of those subjects who have already demonstrated ability in the area of remote viewing. B. Payment Criteria The participants will be paid monthly in accordance with the number of sessions contributed, and the payment is independent of their performance in the sessions.”

The page distinguishes the two activities explicitly in one sentence — people 'presently participating in remote viewing experiments' are to be familiarised with 'the remote perturbation experiments' before joining 'the RP program'. Payment decoupled from performance is a stated control against incentive to inflate results.

“The total duration of the investigation is 6 months. Experiment sessions will take place during the normal work week and will not exceed 1/2 hour length each. There will be no more than 2 sessions per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. ... We plan to ask our experienced remote viewers to participate in this investigation, and we expect to work with no more than eight individuals. All participants are to be in general good health, as determined by a standard SRI employment physical examination.”

The elision marked '...' skips the section heading 'D. Number of Participants'. The only health screening specified anywhere in the protocol is the routine employment physical; no psychological or psychiatric screening is mentioned.

“VOLUNTEER CONSENT FORM I, ____________________, SSN ____________, having attained my eighteenth (18th) birthday, and otherwise having full capacity to consent, do hereby volunteer to participate in this program to determine the nature, and possible applications of inherent psychic abilities. ... I understand that I may at any time during the course of this project revoke my consent and withdraw from the study without prejudice; however, I may be requested to undergo certain further examinations, if, in the opinion of a qualified physician, such examinations are necessary for my health or well-being.”

The form is a blank template — the name, SSN, explainer's name, signature and date lines are empty rules, so no personal data appears. The elision marked '...' skips lettered items a. through d. (nature and duration; methods and means; inconveniences, hazards, discomforts, risks; alternative procedures). A witness block follows, whose wording is 'I was present during the explanation referred to above, as well as the volunteer's opportunity for questions, and hereby witness his signature. I am not involved in the program in any way.'

“1. Explanation of the Experiments. The purpose of these experiments is to determine the extent to which a person is able to mentally perturb or affect sensitive electronic equipment. In this case a random number generator will control a variety of different video displays generated by a small computer. Your interaction with the computer is to be by mental means alone. You will be asked to try to make changes in the video display; or, in biofeedback terminology, to use passive volition to produce the desired change. We are naming this interaction between a person and a remote system remote perturbation, or RP for short. We are endeavoring to both foster and understand these abilities. In the course of these experiments, no drugs, hypnosis, psychopharmacological agents of any kind or subliminal stimulation will be used.”

Item 2 on the same page adds that the session takes place 'at SRI building 44 (see Figure 6)', lasts a half-hour, gives immediate feedback 'to assist you in gaining conscious control over the remote perturbation abilities we are examining', and that 'At any time you may decline to take part in either session, without prejudice to your continued participation in the program.' Figure 6 is the photograph of the room on printed page 27.

“3. Description of Reasonably-Expected Inconveniences, Hazards, Discomfort, Risks, or Other Effects. There is no known evidence for any adverse effects or risks associated with participation in research of this type. Investigations such as these have been carried out in laboratories for almost a hundred years in the United States and England, and there is no record of any type of hazard or discomfort to a participating subject. 4. Description of Any Alternative Procedure that Might be Employed to Protect the Subject's Health. There is no known risk to protect against. 5. Description of Alternative Advantages to the Volunteer. He has opportunity to gain conscious control over otherwise latent or unconscious processes within himself.”

This is the document's entire risk assessment for human subjects, and it is asserted rather than referenced — no study or authority is cited for the 'almost a hundred years' claim. Item 6 is 'Questions Posed by Volunteer--and Answers. (To be filled in.)', and the page closes 'Volunteer will initial end of each of the above paragraphs.'

“General. When accidents occur involving personal injuries to staff members or subjects, the supervisor shall: (1) Ensure that the staff member or subject receives first aid and medical care immediately. (2) In the event the accident is serious enough to warrant additional assistance, Dial 7. ... Medical Assistance in Case of Injury. The Menlo Medical Clinic, 1111 University Drive, Menlo Park, has been designated to handle industrial accident cases from the Institute.”

The elision marked '...' skips item (3), the Supervisor's Accident Investigation Report requirement. Clinic hours and the out-of-hours arrangement (Emergency Section of the Palo Alto/Stanford Hospital, 300 Pasteur Drive) follow on the same page. Nothing in sections F.1 or F.2 is specific to remote perturbation; the whole medical annex is boilerplate SRI safety text, including a 'DIAL 7' page and first-aid instructions for bleeding, non-breathing and shock on printed page 23.

“Medical and Disability Benefits. Participants in the Remote Per-bation activities will fall into three classes, with resulting differences in their insurance coverage. ... Individual Consultants. As independent contractors, consultants would not be covered by Worker's Compensation Insurance, nor would they be covered by any of the insurance benefits available to SRI employees or government employees. They would have to look to their own personal insurance for protection.”

'Remote Per-bation' is transcribed exactly: the word breaks across a line as 'Per-' / 'bation' and the syllable 'tur' is simply missing, so the page reads 'Remote Perbation'. Not corrected. The elision marked '...' skips the SRI Employees (California) and U.S. Government Employees paragraphs.

“At the end of each experimental session, the subject will be given all the data available pertaining to that group of trials. Any statistical significance or lack thereof will also be clearly explained to him. ... We do not anticipate that participation in these experiments will have any effect on the day-to-day life of the subjects. This study is a purely intellectual activity, and we believe that the debriefing provided by the final technical report will be a suitable termination of the experiment for the subject.”

The elision marked '...' skips section G.2 'Experiment Debriefing', which states that 'At the conclusion of experimental testing, a final unclassified report will be prepared, summarizing all results from the experiment' and that it 'will be given to each participating subject' — a classified protocol promising an unclassified report to its subjects.

“The first 4 months of the investigation will be used as a pilot period during which the participants will familiarize themselves with the experiment and explore various techniques in a learning mode. This period will also be used to optimize the device parameters. During the final two months of the investigation, each participant will be asked to contribute 100 runs. Using the analysis described above, we will determine the number of runs that had odds against chance expectation of greater than 20:1. If this total number of runs is greater than 10 (the number required by exact binomial calculation to meet odds against chance of greater than 20:1) then we will declare that participant to have a significant result. To assess whether the entire investigation is significant, we shall combine the results of the eight participants using standard statistical procedures.”

The superscript 33 after 'standard statistical procedures' cites reference 33, R. Rosenthal, 'Combining Results of Independent Studies', Psychological Bulletin 1978. This is the whole of Section IV — one paragraph; the rest of the page is blank. Note the pilot period is also used to 'optimize the device parameters', i.e. the apparatus is tuned before the scoring period begins.

“The laboratory in which these experiments will be conducted is located on the third floor of the Radio Physics Building (Bldg. 44) in the SRI International complex at Menlo Park, California. The room to be used for this work is a comfortable, carpeted, air-conditioned environment. It is lit by a combination of fluorescent and incandescent fixtures in the ceiling. There is a couch, an easy chair, and two tables. The computer graphics terminal stands on one of these tables. The participant will be seated on a conventional reclining swivel chair.”

A photograph of the room fills the lower half of the page (this is the 'Figure 6' referred to in the consent-form text on printed page 21, though the picture here carries no printed figure number). This is the last page of the protocol proper; printed pages 28-29 are the reference list, and printed page 30 onward are the appendices.

“The basic part of the apparatus was a binary random number generator which produced the numbers ‘+1’ and ‘-1’ in random sequence, and the general objective was to have the subjects try to mentally influence the generator to produce one of the two numbers more frequently than the other.”

COPYRIGHT: this and the following seven sheets are a photographic reprint of Helmut Schmidt, 'A PK Test with Electronic Equipment', The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 34, No. 3 (September 1970), pp. 175-181, and each sheet carries a stamped 'CPYRGHT' in the left margin with the journal text boxed by a ruled border. Quoted here minimally for that reason. The reprint carries both its own journal pagination (175-181) and SRI page numbers (31-37) at the foot; the SRI number is given as printed_page. The author's name is spelled 'HELMUT SCHMIDT' in the byline and 'H. Schmidt' in the SRI text.

“PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 64, NO. 3, MARCH 1976 A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research HAROLD E. PUTHOFF, MEMBER, IEEE, AND RUSSELL TARG, SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE”

printed_page is null here on purpose: this sheet carries NO SRI page number at head or foot — only the journal's own page number, 329, at the top right. The same is true of every reprint sheet from pdf 43 to pdf 68 (journal pages 329-354), whereas the preceding Appendix A sheets did carry SRI numbers. COPYRIGHT: 'CPYRGHT' is stamped in the left margin of each sheet and the journal text is enclosed in a ruled box; quoted minimally for that reason. Names as printed: 'HAROLD E. PUTHOFF' and 'RUSSELL TARG'. The paper's footnote block states the work 'was supported by the Foundation for Parasensory Investigation and the Parapsychology Foundation, New York, NY; the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Palo Alto, CA; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under Contract NAS 7-100.' Distinguish this paper's subject — information transfer, i.e. remote viewing — from the perturbation research the protocol itself proposes.

“RESUME NAME: Edwin C. May EDUCATION: University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, 1958-1962; B.S. Degree, Physics, 1962 Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, PA, 1962-1964 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 1964-1968; Ph.D. Degree, Physics, 1968 EMPLOYMENT: Consultant - Radio Physics Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1976-present”

The line above EDUCATION is a birth-date line whose label is typed 'BRITHDATE:' — a transposition, transcribed here as the label only; the date itself is deliberately left out of the quote (see the excluded list). The resume also lists 'Consultant - Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, 1975-1977' and a period recorded as 'Voluntary unemployment. Course in artificial intelligence.' His publication list on printed pages 68-70 mixes nuclear-physics papers with parapsychology papers including 'A Dynamic PK Experiment with Ingo Swann' — the same subject named in the 1972 magnetometer account at the front of this protocol.

“After graduating with a Master's degree from the University of Florida in 1960, he reported to active duty as a commissioned officer in the Navy and was assigned a research billet at NSA, Ft. Meade, MD. While there he pursued research and monitored contracts concerned with the development of ultra-high-speed computers under project LIGHTNING. He also initiated a program to determine the potential of lasers, fiber optics, and other devices of this nature for use in optical and optoelectronic computers. His work in this area resulted in the award of a Department of Defense Certificate of Commendation for Outstanding Performance, and an award of Second Prize for Outstanding Paper of the Year, NSA Technical Journal, 1963.”

Header of the page reads 'HAROLD E. PUTHOFF, Ph.D. / Radio Physics Laboratory / SRI International / Menlo Park, California'. The page also gives his date and place of birth, not quoted here. Name spelled 'Puthoff' throughout this biography. 'NSA' is expanded nowhere on the page.

“He presently serves in various capacities as consultant and contractor to the DoD and Intelligence Communities in the parapsychological area.”

That is the last line of the biography; the rest of the page is blank. 'Intelligence Communities' is plural as printed. This sentence sits in an UNCLASSIFIED appendix of a SECRET document.

“RUSSELL TARG Senior Research Physicist Radio Physics Laboratory Electronics and Radio Sciences Division SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE • Research in remote sensing and other psychoenergetic phenomena (1972-present). • Development of high-power gas lasers, FM laser, and supermode laser techniques. • Optical modulation and demodulation at microwave frequencies. • Microwave generation from plasmas.”

'May 1979' is typed at the lower right of this page, level with the page number 78 — the only date inside Appendix C, and it matches the 8 May 1979 date on the title page. The same page records him as 'President and cofounder of Parapsychology Research Group, a tax-exempt California corporation since 1963'. Name spelled 'RUSSELL TARG' here and 'R. Targ' in the publication list following.

“SECRET WARNING NOTICE - Intelligence Sources and Methods Involved SECRET”

Otherwise blank; no page number, no text besides the stamped box and the two SECRET markings. Unlike the interior pages, SECRET here is not struck through. A faint ink tick sits at the top left corner. — note that the SECRET markings on the interior pages of the protocol are struck through by hand while Appendix pages are stamped UNCLASSIFIED; the covers are the only sheets where SECRET stands unstruck.