Special Report: SUN STREAK Evaluation

“SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM [REDACTED] SPECIAL REPORT SUN STREAK EVALUATION WARNING NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL IS RESTRICTED TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS TO SUN STREAK LEVEL 3 (SS-3). 2 NOVEMBER 1989 CLASSIFIED BY: DIA/ST DECLASSIFY BY: OADR [REDACTED]/NOFORN SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM”

- the cover carries no author, no signature block, no addressee, no office symbol and no report or contract number; the only originator indication is the line CLASSIFIED BY: DIA/ST. The two items marked [REDACTED] are NOT solid black boxes: each is a single word obliterated by a heavy horizontal black marker stroke, and on both the partly visible letterforms underneath are consistent with the word SECRET (that word appears unobscured at the head and foot of pdf p.5). There is no marginal exemption code (no SG1A/SG1J/SGFOIA) beside either. The elements above are transcribed in the order they appear down the page but are separated on the paper by large blank areas; the WARNING NOTICE block sits at left and the date and classification-authority block at right on the same band of the page. The words WARNING NOTICE: and SUN STREAK EVALUATION are underscored on the paper. "2 NOVEMBER 1989" is the only date printed anywhere in this file.

“UNCLASSIFIED CONTENTS PURPOSE ... i I BACKGROUND ... 1 II EVALUATION ... 2 1. Data Base 2. Evaluation Techniques 3. Evaluation Results III FINDINGS ... 3 APPENDIX I. PROJECT RECORD DETAILS II. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS/DATA REVIEWERS UNCLASSIFIED”

- the "..." in each entry stands for a long typed run of dashes acting as a leader between the heading and its page number; the elision is marked here rather than reproduced. CONTENTS is underscored on the paper. Handwriting: a check mark in the left margin beside II EVALUATION, and an illegible handwritten word (three or four letters, possibly initials) below it at the far left edge. The page numbers given here (i, 1, 2, 3) differ from those on pdf p.3.

“I BACKGROUND ... 1 II EVALUATION ... 4 III FINDINGS ... 12 APPENDIX I. PROJECT RECORD DETAILS II. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS/DATA REVIEWERS UNCLASSIFIED”

- the "..." stands for the typed dash leader, as on pdf p.2. This page has no CONTENTS heading and no UNCLASSIFIED marking at the top, only at the foot. No handwriting on this page. The pagination here (1 / 4 / 12) is not the pagination on pdf p.2 (i / 1 / 2 / 3); this file contains both sheets and does not say which supersedes which.

“UNCLASSIFIED LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Number of Projects as a Function of type FIGURE 2. Data Categories FIGURE 3. Evaluation Scales FIGURE 4. Summary Data Evaluation Sheet---Example FIGURE 5. Overall Data Correlations FIGURE 6. Overall Averages for all Project Types FIGURE 7. Expected Results for Approximately 70% Data Accuracy---Selected Personnel UNCLASSIFIED”

- none of these seven figures is present anywhere in this file. "type" in FIGURE 1 is lower-case on the paper while the other words in that line are capitalised; transcribed as printed. LIST OF FIGURES is underscored. No handwriting on this page. The same list appears in a different typeface and different capitalisation on pdf p.7.

“SECRET SUN STREAK EVALUATION PURPOSE: (S/NF/SS-2) Purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the SUN STREAK operational projects conducted since 1986. SECRET”

- on this page SECRET is typed plainly at head and foot and is NOT struck through, unlike the same word on pdf pp.1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17. The doubled space between "SUN" and "STREAK" is as typed. Handwriting: a caret inserted between SUN and STREAK with the words "TOO MUCH SPACE." written below in capitals, and a check mark at the right-hand side of the page. PURPOSE: and SUN STREAK EVALUATION are underscored on the paper.

“I BACKGROUND (U) (S/SF/SS-2) SUN STREAK is an in-house DIA project for developing an operational psychoenergetics (i.e., remote viewing) capability for the Intelligence Community. Twelve GDIP billets were authorized for DIA in 1986 for this activity. Personnel from the ARMY INSCOM CENTER LANE Project who had been examining similar phenomenon were transferred to DIA to form the SUN STREAK core group. DIA had earlier (1985) received operational control from HQ DA for this 6-person Army unit.”

- the portion marking on this paragraph is typed "(S/SF/SS-2)", not the "(S/NF/SS-2)" used on every other paragraph in the file; transcribed as printed and confirmed at 300% enlargement. "similar phenomenon" is singular as typed. Handwriting on this paragraph: "General Defense Intelligence Program (GDIP)" written above the text with an arrow pointing to the typed word GDIP, which is circled; the words "remote viewing" are underlined; a marginal note reading approximately "Not previously broken out." (the last word is overwritten by the writer and is not fully legible); a caret before "Army unit" with an inserted capital A; and the word "CAPS" written in the far left margin. The classification word at head and foot of this page is obliterated by a black marker stroke with the letterforms of SECRET still partly visible underneath.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) Programmatic and operational requirements identified in the Action Plan were to: (1) gain Special Access Program (SAP) status (accomplished in March 198[?]); (2) gain human use approval (granted in March 1985); (3) set up a Senior Oversight and a Task Coordinating Committee (accomplished --- though not currently activated); (4) establish tight project controls along with an automated data base management and records system (accomplished); and (5) to establish an R/D link for supporting operational capability development (accomplished via HQ SGRD funding and a DARPA MIPR).”

- the fourth digit of the first year is overwritten by handwritten ink and is NOT confidently legible; it is transcribed as [?] rather than guessed. The clause two lines below it, "granted in March 1985", was re-cropped at 900% and IS legible. The "---" after "(accomplished" is a run of typed dashes on the paper. Handwriting on this paragraph: "Special Access Program", "Senior", "Task", "Coordinating" and "Committee" each have a handwritten capital or circle applied; a marginal note at the right reads approximately "ATTRIB?" or similar and is not confidently legible; a second marginal note reads "only two"; an arrow points at the "data base" line and the space in "data base" is circled.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) The R/D link, via SRI International, has yielded improved data evaluation procedures, has identified potential personnel selection techniques, and has contributed to training/development methods that are currently in project use. The activity at SRI has received and continues to receive extensive review by a 9-member peer review panel to insure that scientific rigor is maintained in all their activities.”

- "insure" is as typed. No handwriting on this paragraph. The paragraph names SRI International but no individual.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) The Evaluations performed for this report cover all the operational and operational simulation projects (approximately 200) that have been worked by SUN STREAK personnel since 1986. A few of the special operations called upon consultants from the SRI talent pool. These results are also included in the overall evaluation.”

- pdf p.16 continues I BACKGROUND from pdf p.6; the two sheets are not adjacent in the file. Handwriting on this page: a bracket and the note "NOT PREVIOUSLY BROKEN OUT TO SHOW WHAT IC MEANS." against the preceding paragraph, with the typed "IC" circled; "CAPS" and an arrow beside "Program Manager"; and a note lower on the page reading approximately "OK Intelligence Community (IC)". The classification word at head and foot is struck through with black marker.

“II EVALUATION (U) 1. DATA BASE (U) (S/NF/SS-2) The SUN STREAK project maintains an extensive record of all project activity. Details include project timing, people involved (i.e., viewers, interviewers, and possibly observers), and a variety of other data considered essential for good record keeping and for evaluating project results. ... (S/NF/SS-2) For this evaluation, the data base was subdivided into 6 main project types: (1) Scientific and Technological (S/T); (2) Counterterrorist (CT); (3) Counternarcotics (CN); (4) Counterintelligence (CI); (5) Document Contents (Doc Cont); and (6) predictive (pred). Total projects worked for these categories are shown in Figure 1. (S/NF/SS-2) Of the nearly 200 projects worked, approximately one-half cannot be evaluated since ground truth is not sufficiently known at this time. For approximately one- fourth of the projects, ground truth is totally known (or highly certain), and for the other one-fourth, ground truth is only partially known but considered sufficient for making a reasonable interim evaluation.”

- the "..." marks material elided between two paragraphs: the remainder of the first paragraph and a whole intervening paragraph about re-examination of the data base are omitted here and were not joined to what follows. "predictive (pred)" is lower-case in the typed list while the other five types are capitalised; transcribed as printed. Handwriting on this page: "HYPHEN" written in the left margin against "re-examination", with the word underlined; "CAPS" written in the left margin against "figure 1", with the "f" circled. The typed phrase "a separate aspect of the these project categories" later on the page contains a doubled word; it is outside this quote but is recorded here so a later reader is not surprised by it.

“2. EVALUATION TECHNIQUES (U) (S/NF/SS-2) Techniques used for evaluating the SUN STREAK operational and simulated operational data base depend on the nature of the task and type of project. S/T projects are the most difficult to evaluate. This difficulty arises from the general complexity existing at most S/T target sites, from possible ambiguous aspects of known ground truth about the target site, from the nature of the information desired, and in a few cases, possibly from the remote viewing (RV) targeting method employed. It is easier to evaluate data on S/T targets if only a single issue, such as presence or absence (of a particular system, for example) is desired, then it is to evaluate how well a viewers' detailed but possibly fragmentary description correlates with aspects of a complex site. In this case a considerable amount of subjectivity can be involved in evaluating the degree of data /target correlation.”

- "then it is to evaluate" is as typed (the sense appears to want "than"); "a viewers' detailed" and the stray space in "data /target" are also as typed. Handwriting: the space in the typed "data base" is circled and an arrow drawn to it in the right margin. The classification word at head and foot is struck through with black marker.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) An example of an S/T target evaluation is in Figure 4. In this case the target site was [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. The project was completed in June 1987 and involved four viewers (2 proven and 2 novice). In this example, the bracket ( ) indicates a best estimate of data validity was made for that data category since ground truth is not yet totally known for [REDACTED] A ‘dash’ means that data category was not present in the viewers' data. One of the viewers (#101) attempted to describe the site 6 months in the future. In this case, [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] Some of the data categories (i.e., geographic features, large scale objects) are not important from an intelligence data viewpoint since they are known from conventional collection assets.”

- redactions are SOLID BLACK BOXES over typed text, some running to the full width of the text block. They are the only redactions in the file. The left margin carries the codes SG1A (three times), SG1C and SG1B, and a further SG1A appears in the RIGHT margin against the first line; I cannot map each code to a specific box with certainty because the boxes and the codes are not aligned one-to-one. In particular the first passage "the target site was ... ." spans parts of three lines and I cannot tell whether that is one redaction or two. A single typed letter "R" survives at the left edge of the third redaction, immediately before ". The project was completed". The viewer is identified only by the number #101; no personal name appears in this passage or anywhere in the file. Handwriting elsewhere on this page: "MOVE APOSTROPHE" and "CAPITALIZE ?" in the left margin, the typed "methods'" marked with an X, "viewer" circled, and a marginal note reading "NOT PREVIOUSLY NOTED AFTER FULL WORDS" against the circled typed "CT, CN".

“ (S/NF/SS-2) A more sophisticated analysis methodology has been recently developed by SRI for use in evaluating complex projects. This methods' main advantage is that it allows quantified estimates to be made for each and every data element generated by the viewer with respect to both actual target existence and importance. This technique is currently being examined for use in the SUN STREAK program and has been applied to a few projects. However, it is a labor intensive technique that will probably be used only for select high interest projects in the future.”

- "This methods'" is as typed, with the apostrophe after the s; confirmed at 320% enlargement. A handwritten X sits over the apostrophe and "MOVE APOSTROPHE" is written in the left margin; the typed "v" of "viewer" is circled with "CAPITALIZE ?" beside it. Neither handwritten change is reflected in the typed text and neither is included in the quote.

“3. EVALUATION RESULTS (U) (S/NF/SS-3) Overall data correlations for all SUN STREAK operational and operational simulation projects performed since 1986 are shown in Figure 5. ... (S/NF/SS-3) Figure 5 indicates that, on the average, data from proven SUN STREAK viewers for S/T projects will tend to have a 20 percent to 30 percent correlation with ground truth for small scale targets, and a 30 percent to 50 percent correlation with ground truth for large scale target features. Likewise, for CT or CN projects, about 20 percent to 50 percent of SUN STREAK data would be expected to correlate with ground truth. Caution must be exercised in interpreting this data, however, since the data base with known ground truth is quite low in these categories. For CI and Document Reading projects, SUN STREAK data shows a 40 percent to 60 percent correlation level with ground truth; however the size of this data base is also quite low. ... Predictive data of the complex event type (e.g., political/military situations) shows a very low data correlation (i.e., reliability) of about 10 percent or less.”

- the two "..." marks elided material: the remainder of the first paragraph, and two sentences within the second paragraph about the Document Reading projects being carefully isolated. The elided text is NOT silently joined. Handwriting on this page: "CAPITALIZE (NAME OF REPORT FORM)" in the right margin with "Summary Data Evaluation sheets" circled; "DOUBLE SPACE BETWEEN SENTENCES." written in the left margin with a caret; a circle around the space in "data base" in two places; and arrows in the right margin.

“identification several months in advance of a specific area in the US where a fugitive was later found. In this case, SUN STREAK data was not acted upon; fortunately, the fugitive was nevertheless abducted in this area due to the alertness of a local law enforcement official. (S/NF/SS-3) Another way of considering overall SUN STREAK project data correlation is to consider only the proven viewers. This data is shown in Figure 7, for times when these experienced viewers received a 2 or 2+ in the numerical ratings assigned to their data correlations. Only two types of data are presented here; S/T, and Personality data as obtained from the various CT, CN and CI projects. For S/T projects, proven viewers would be expected to receive a high (i.e. approx. 70 percent) data correlation rating on about 20 percent of the S/T projects attempted. For Personality projects (i.e., background, state-of- the-health, specific activities), around 50 percent to 60 percent of the projects would yield high results.”

- "the fugitive was nevertheless abducted in this area" is EXACTLY as typed; "abducted" was re-cropped and enlarged 300% to confirm it is not "apprehended". Do not correct it. "state-of-the-health" is also as typed. Handwriting: "HOUSE-SPACE" or similar (not confidently legible, apparently a spacing instruction) in the left margin, and a circle around the space in "Personality data". The named fugitive, location and law enforcement official are not identified anywhere on the page. The classification word at head and foot is struck through with black marker.

“III FINDINGS (U) (S/NF/SS-3) Although the overall data correlations provided in the previous section have, in some instances, have a low overall average, the results are unique enough to warrant further attention and continued SUN STREAK activity. Even in the lowest reliability case (i.e., predictive), identification of even one important future event out of ten could in fact be highly significant for cost or life saving. These ‘averages’ do not do justice to the single unique cases that cost little to act upon, as in the case of the fugitive location cited in section 3. (S/NF/SS-3) Specific findings that resulted from in-depth review of the entire SUN STREAK data base include: o Individuals' performance correlates with project type. This observation has already assisted in better task/person matching, and overall data correlations would be expected to improve in the future. o SUN STREAK has a distinct potential for direct contribution to certain CI, CN and CT cases, as born out by specific instances over the past two years. o Predictive data is promising under certain conditions, such as near term events or situations that do not involve complex interactions. o S/T data, though having promise for select tasks, does not yield parametric data. o SUN STREAK viewers work well under operational stress. It may be that an environment of operational stress generates a clear and immediate need. This situation seems to foster conditions that enables RV to function better. o Obtaining highly reliable RV data and then applying it to real operational projects is difficult. However, it is evident that continued work with RV data does result in greater insight on how best to use RV data and on how best to utilize RV talent available. Thus, it is anticipated that RV data utility will increase as experience of the SUN STREAK team grows.”

- "have, in some instances, have a low overall average" contains the doubled word exactly as typed; the first "have" is circled and struck through in handwriting but the typed text is transcribed unamended. "as born out by" is as typed (not "borne"), confirmed at 320% enlargement; "that enables RV" is also as typed. Much of this page is underscored on the paper: the lead sentence of each bullet, and the whole of the last bullet's closing sentences. Handwriting: the typed "person" in "task/person" is circled with "VIEWER" written beside it; a circle and stroke around "could in fact be highly" with an arrow into the right margin. The classification word at head and foot is struck through with black marker.

“LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Number of projects as a function of type FIGURE 2. Data Categories FIGURE 3. evaluation scales FIGURE 4. summary data evaluation SHEET---Example FIGURE 5. Overall data correlations FIGURE 6. Overall averages for all project types FIGURE 7. Expected results for approximately 70% data accuracy---selected personnel”

- this sheet is typed in a cleaner Courier-like face, unlike the dot-matrix face of pdf p.4, and it carries no UNCLASSIFIED marking at head or foot. Handwriting: "all caps" with an arrow beside FIGURE 1; handwritten capital P inserted in "projects", capital F in "function", capitals inserted in "evaluation", "scales", "data"; the typed word "SHEET" struck through and "Sheet" written above it; a bracket linking FIGURE 3 and FIGURE 4; and a large brace and arrow in the right margin covering FIGURES 2 to 7. The typed text is transcribed here unamended - the capitalisation shown is what the typewriter put on the paper, not what the hand corrections ask for. Compare the same list on pdf p.4.

“SUN STREAK EVALUATION PURPOSE: (S/NF/SS-2) Purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the SUN STREAK operational projects conducted since 1986. I BACKGROUND: (U)”

- typed in the same cleaner Courier-like face as pdf p.7. The doubled space between SUN and STREAK is again as typed, and the handwritten "TOO MUCH SPACE." note seen on pdf p.5 is NOT present here. The typed heading "I BACKGROUND: (U)" is heavily obliterated by a large handwritten scribble and a large signature-like flourish beneath it; I read the heading through the ink and am reasonably but not completely confident of the colon after BACKGROUND. Note that the corresponding heading on pdf p.6 is typed "I BACKGROUND (U)" without a colon. The classification word at head and foot is struck through with black marker. There is a small handwritten mark below the foot stamp and a check mark at the lower right; neither is legible as a word or number.

“APPENDIX I PROJECT RECORD DETAILS”

- this sheet carries these two underscored lines and NOTHING else: no classification marking at head or foot, no page number, no handwriting. The appendix content itself does not follow in this file.

“APPENDIX II DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYST/DATA REVIEWERS UNCLASSIFIED CONTENTS PURPOSE ... i”

- the appendix title reads "ANALYST/DATA REVIEWERS" (singular ANALYST) here, whereas both contents pages, pdf p.2 and pdf p.3, read "ANALYSTS/DATA REVIEWERS" (plural). Transcribed as printed in each place; the difference is not corrected. The "..." stands for the typed dash leader. The lower block (UNCLASSIFIED / CONTENTS / PURPOSE ... i) sits well below the appendix title with a large gap, and nothing follows the PURPOSE line - the sheet appears to be a partial or overlaid impression, but I can only report what is on it. No handwriting; no classification marking at head or foot; no page number.