Special Report: SUN STREAK Evaluation

“SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM ... SUN STREAK ... WARNING SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED. NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS. THIS COVER SHEET OR ENVELOPE WILL BE USED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DOCUMENT TO ALERT RECIPIENTS OF THE SENSITIVITY INVOLVED. ... CLASSIFIED BY: DIA/DT DECLASSIFY: OADR”

Elision marked with ... : the SUN STREAK wordmark sits in a printed logo band between the SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM heading and the WARNING block, and the CLASSIFIED BY / DECLASSIFY lines are at lower right, not continuous with the WARNING paragraph. TWO MANUSCRIPT MARKS, both in what looks like a broad felt-tip or marker rather than pencil, both in block capitals of the same hand: (1) centred below the SUN STREAK band, on two lines, 'SPECIAL REPORT' over 'SUN STREAK EVALUATION' - the final letters of EVALUATION are broken and faint in the reproduction, the word reads confidently as EVALUATION but the T-I-O are partly dropped out; (2) at lower right, above a printed rule, '# 06-89'. The mark between 06 and 89 is a short low stroke that could be read as a hyphen or as a period; I cannot tell which. 'SECRET' is printed top and bottom, struck through by hand with a heavy diagonal/horizontal cancellation line. - '# 06-89' is a handwritten number on a cover sheet and is not a date line; the document's own typed date is on pdf pages 4 and 5.

“SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM ... 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”

Elisions marked with ... : the title elements are widely separated down the page, and the date '2 NOVEMBER 1989' sits at right on the same line as the first line of the WARNING NOTICE block, not after it. This is the clean impression of the title page; a second, more degraded impression of the same page is at pdf page 4. Classification authority here reads DIA/ST, whereas the cover sheet at pdf page 1 reads DIA/DT - transcribed as printed on each, not reconciled. 'SECRET' is struck through by hand at the head of the page and again above 'NOFORN' at the foot, the strike-out obliterating the word so that only '...NOFORN' is legible in the footer line.

“2 NO EMBER 1989”

Transcribed exactly as it appears on this page: the V of NOVEMBER has dropped out of the reproduction, leaving a gap. I have NOT corrected it. The same line on the cleaner impression at pdf page 5 reads '2 NOVEMBER 1989'. Other lines on this page are likewise degraded - 'CLASSIFIED BY: DIA/ST' prints as 'CLASS FIED BY: DIA/ST' and 'DECLASSIFY BY: OADR' as 'DECLA SIFY BY: OADR'. - this page is a duplicate title page, not a second document; I record only that two impressions of the same title page sit consecutively in the file and make no claim about why.

“CONTENTS PURPOSE ------------------------------------ i I BACKGROUND ------------------------------------1 II EVALUATION ------------------------------------3 1. Database 2. Evaluation Techniques 3. Evaluation Results III FINDINGS ---------------------------------15 APPENDIX I. PROJECT RECORD DETAILS II. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS/DATA REVIEWERS”

The dash leaders are of unequal length as typed and are reproduced here approximately, not counted character for character. Page is headed and footed UNCLASSIFIED. Note that the Contents calls the second appendix 'ANALYSTS/DATA REVIEWERS' while its own title page at pdf page 26 reads 'ANALYST/DATA REVIEWERS' - transcribed as printed in each place, not reconciled.

“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”

'70%' is typed with the percent sign as shown. - the list names seven figures, but a figure page inside the file (pdf page 2) is captioned 'FIGURE 8' in the typed caption line under the frame. I record both as read and propose no explanation.

“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.”

The printed page number is the roman numeral 'i', centred at the foot above a struck-through SECRET. Page is otherwise blank below the paragraph.

“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 General Defense Intelligence Program (GDIP) billets were authorized for DIA in 1986 for this activity. Personnel from the ARMY INSCOM CENTER LANE Project 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 mark on this paragraph is typed '(S/SF/SS-2)' - SF, not the NF that every other portion mark in the document uses. Verified at 4x magnification. Transcribed as printed; I have not corrected it.

“ (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 1985); (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 database 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). (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 oversight by a 9-member peer review panel to insure that scientific rigor is maintained in all their activities.”

Two consecutive paragraphs, quoted in full and in order, with a blank line between them; nothing elided between them. 'SRI International' is spelled as shown. The preceding paragraph on the same page states that key aspects of the Action Plan 'were sent to congressional committees in 1986' and that 'The IC staff was also briefed at this time'.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) The operational projects pursued by SUN STREAK are approved by the Program Manager and are, in part, based on the Program Manager's familarity with Intelligence Community (IC) needs and on solicitation from others within the IC who have been briefed into the SUN STREAK program. (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.”

'familarity' is typed thus, missing an i - transcribed as printed, not corrected. Two consecutive paragraphs quoted in full; nothing elided between them.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) For this evaluation, the database 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.”

Two consecutive paragraphs quoted in full; nothing elided between them. Note the inconsistent capitalisation of the sixth category, 'predictive (pred)', against the five capitalised categories before it - as printed.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) Final evaluations and summaries are prepared by the Program Manager and/or his project representative (who is not part of SUN STREAK staff) in conjunction with the responsible system or Area Analyst or Intelligence Community point-of-contact. Latest intelligence data and reports on that target site are also reviewed during this process. In some cases, area analysts and the IC points-of-contact provide written appraisals to assist in the final evaluation process. These evaluations are recorded on summary forms and are maintained in the Program Manager's files.”

This page bears printed page number 5; the file jumps from printed page 3 (pdf page 11) to printed page 5 here, with no page 4 present in the file. The same paragraph block also records that S/T projects 'are the most difficult to evaluate'.

“SG1A”

- nothing of this page's content survives. The page carries only the release stamp at top and bottom, the code 'SG1A' printed at upper left in the release agency's sans-serif type (not typewriter, not manuscript), and one very heavy solid black diagonal bar running corner to corner across the whole sheet. The bar is a printed/photographic obliteration of the whole page, not a box over a passage. No printed page number is visible. This falls between printed pages 5 (pdf 12) and the Figure 3 sheet (pdf 14).

“EVALUATION SCALES NUMERICAL RATING APPROX. DEGREE OF DATA CORRELATION PERCENT DESCRIPTION 0 ---- 0-10 ---- LITTLE OR NO CORRELATION 1 ---- 10-30 ---- MIXTURE OF RELEVANT AND INCORRECT DATA 1+ ---- 30-50 ---- WITH MAJORITY INCORRECT 2 ---- 50-70 ---- MIXTURE OF RELEVANT AND INCORRECT DATA 2+ ---- 70-90 ---- WITH MAJORITY CORRECT AND UNAMBIGUOUS 3 ---- 90-100 ---- VERY HIGH TARGET CORRELATION WITH ESSENTIALLY NO AMBIGUOUS DATA”

The chart's layout is not linear text and my line breaks are a reading of it, not a facsimile. On the sheet, the two descriptions 'MIXTURE OF RELEVANT AND INCORRECT DATA / WITH MAJORITY INCORRECT' and 'MIXTURE OF RELEVANT AND INCORRECT DATA / WITH MAJORITY CORRECT AND UNAMBIGUOUS' are each bracketed with a large curly brace spanning the two rating rows above them (1 and 1+; 2 and 2+) - so each description covers a pair of ratings, which my linear transcription cannot show. The connecting rules between columns are printed as leader lines, rendered here as dashes. Caption 'FIGURE 3' is typed at the foot, partly overlapped by the release stamp. A DIA seal is at upper left; 'SP5353.11' is printed small at lower right. The page number in the left margin is a single digit printed sideways, too broken to read with confidence - left null rather than inferred.

“ (S/NF/SS-2) A more sophisticated analysis methodology has been recently developed by SRI for use in evaluating complex projects. This method's main advantage is that it allows quantitative 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.”

[REDACTED] occupies the whole upper half of this page above the quoted paragraph: a single solid black rectangle, sharp-edged and filled black (not a white box, no marginal code beside it), roughly full text-width and about a third of the sheet deep. It is one continuous box - I see no internal division that would make it two. The release code 'SG1A' is printed at the top of the page to the right of 'SECRET', outside the box. On this page SECRET at head and foot is printed clean, NOT struck through, unlike the surrounding pages.

“SUMMARY DATA EVALUATION SHEET 0-3 SCALE DATA CATEGORIES PROJ | CMPLTD | SESS | SRCS | a. GEO. | b. OBJ L.S. | c. OBJ S.S. | d. FN L.S. | e. FN S.S. | f. PERS | g. PR | COMMENTS 8701 | 870611 | 12 | 003 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ | (1) | - | - | () - ESTIMATE | | | 018 | - | - | 0 | 1 | 0 | - | - | | | | 021 | 1 | 2 | (1) | - | - | - | - | | | | 101 | 1 | 2+ | 2+ | 1+ | (1) | - | YES | PRED 6 MON IN ADV”

This is a ruled table; the pipe characters are mine, added to preserve column boundaries, and are not on the page. Column headings b-e are stacked two lines deep in the original ('OBJ' over 'L.S.', and so on). The four sources are identified ONLY by number - 003, 018, 021, 101 - with no names anywhere on the sheet; per the reading rules a bare source number is not identifying, but a later reader should know these figures are per-individual performance scores for numbered remote viewers. Caption 'FIGURE 4' is typed at the foot, overlapped by the release stamp. The left-margin page number is a single sideways digit that could be a 6 or a 9 - left null rather than inferred.

“ (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 database 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 database is also quite low. The Document Reading projects were, however, carefully isolated and in a known or designated location. Predictive data of political/military situations) when no context is provided the viewer, shows a very low data correlation (i.e., reliability) of about 10 percent or less.”

The sentence beginning 'Predictive data of political/military situations)' carries an unmatched closing parenthesis with no opening one, exactly as typed - not corrected. Portion marks in this section step up to SS-3 from the SS-2 used earlier in the report. The following paragraph on the same page states that averaging all projects together gives 'about 20 percent for small scale aspects to about 40 percent for large scale aspects', and describes an unacted-upon identification, several months in advance, of an area in the US where a fugitive was later found.

“OVERALL AVERAGES FOR ALL PROJECT TYPES PERCENT OF DATA CORRELATION 60 / 50 / 40 / 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 LARGE SCALE SMALL SCALE ALL PROJECTS”

- THE DATA CANNOT BE READ. The chart reproduces as a solid black field: the title, the axis ticks 0 to 60, the two series labels and the x-axis label 'ALL PROJECTS' survive as white lettering, but no plotted bar or line is distinguishable anywhere inside the plot frame. My slash-separated axis values are the tick labels reading down the y-axis, not a line of text on the page. 'SECRET NOFORN' at lower left and a code at lower right are present but too broken to transcribe. The typed caption at the foot is obscured by the release stamp - only 'FIG' shows - so I cannot say which figure number this sheet carries. Printed page number 12 is set sideways in the left margin and is legible.

“EXPECTED RESULTS FOR APPROXIMATELY 70% DATA ACCURACY SELECTED PERSONNEL PERCENT OF PROJECTS 80 / 70 / 60 / 50 / 40 / 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 S/T PERSONALITY DATA PROJECT TYPE”

- THE DATA CANNOT BE READ. As with pdf page 18, the plot frame reproduces solid black and no bar is distinguishable; only the title, axis ticks, the two category labels and 'PROJECT TYPE' survive as white lettering. The words 'FOR APPROXIMATELY' in the title are badly broken and read with some effort. Slash-separated values are y-axis ticks, not a line of text. Typed caption at the foot is obscured by the release stamp. Printed page number 13 is set sideways in the left margin and is legible. The List of Figures at pdf page 7 gives this title to FIGURE 7.

“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. Essentially, this chart indicates certain strengths/weaknesses of the present SUN STREAK staff and suggests that more projects on foreign or CI target personalities are warranted.”

The quote begins mid-sentence: it is the run-over of a sentence begun at the foot of printed page 10 (pdf page 17) and I have started at the first word on this page rather than silently joining. 'state-of-the-health' here is a category of information sought ABOUT foreign or CI TARGET personalities, not about SUN STREAK's own viewers - a later reader should not misread it as medical information about staff. The rest of the page below this paragraph is blank.

“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.”

'have, in some instances, have a low overall average' - the verb 'have' is typed twice, as printed. Not corrected. The reference to 'section 3' is as typed, although the section containing the fugitive account is numbered II.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 dynamic, 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.”

All six bullets quoted in full and in order; nothing elided. In the original the leading clause of each bullet is UNDERLINED - 'Individuals' performance correlates with project type.'; 'SUN STREAK has a distinct potential for direct contribution to certain CI, CN and CT cases'; 'Predictive data is promising under certain conditions,'; 'S/T data, though having promise for select tasks, does not yield parametric data.'; 'SUN STREAK viewers work well under operational stress.'; and in the last bullet the closing sentence 'Thus, it is anticipated that RV data utility will increase as experience of the SUN STREAK team grows.' - the underlining does not carry into plain text here. 'as born out by' is typed thus, not 'borne' - not corrected. 'that enables RV to function better' is typed thus - not corrected. This is the last page of the report body; the appendices follow.

“PROJECTS WORKED 1986-1989 TOTAL PROJECTS = 192 KNOWN PARTIALLY KNOWN NOT KNOWN PROJECTS 70 / 60 / 50 / 40 / 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 S/T CT CN CI DOC CONTENTS PRED. PROJECT TYPE”

'TOTAL PROJECTS = 192' is legible and is the one hard number recoverable from this sheet - it is a more precise figure than the body text's 'approximately 200' and 'nearly 200'; I record both and reconcile neither. The reproduction is badly mottled with vertical streaking; the title, legend, axis labels and the total are readable, but the bar heights can only be gauged approximately and I have transcribed no bar values. Slash-separated values are y-axis ticks, not a line of text. Typed caption at the foot reads 'FIGURE 7'. Printed page number 12 is set sideways in the left margin - verified at 4x. - the same printed page number 12 appears again at pdf page 18, on a different chart; I note the fact and propose no explanation.

“OVERALL DATA CORRELATIONS PERCENT OF DATA CORRELATION 80 / 60 / 40 / 20 / 0 S/T CT CN CI DOC. CONTENTS PRED. PROJECT TYPE LARGE SCALE (TEST FACILITY, AIRFIELD) SMALL SCALE (LASER TEST, ANTENNA DISH)”

- the plotted values cannot be read reliably. The reproduction is heavily mottled with vertical streaking; title, axis labels and the two legend entries are legible, and pale bars are visible in each category, but I have transcribed no bar values because the tops cannot be fixed against the scale with confidence. Slash-separated values are y-axis ticks, not a line of text; the two legend entries sit side by side, not stacked as the line break here suggests. Typed caption at the foot reads 'FIGURE 8' - verified at 4x - although the List of Figures at pdf page 7 stops at FIGURE 7 and gives this title to FIGURE 5. Printed page number 13 is set sideways in the left margin - verified at 4x; the same printed page number 13 appears again at pdf page 19 on a different chart. I record all of this and propose no explanation.

“5. (S/NF/SK) Technique Utilized: Indicate the initials ERV, CRV or SRV. ERV indicates the Extended Remote Viewing technique, (Hella Hammid; CRV indicates the Coordinate Remote Viewing technique (Ingo Swann) and SRV indicates the Spontaneous Remote Viewing technique, (data provided to the viewer in a sealed envelope without the assistance of a”

Quote ends mid-sentence at the foot of the page; it continues at the head of pdf page 25 with 'monitor/interviewer to structure the reporting of the results).' I have NOT joined them. '(Hella Hammid;' is typed with an opening parenthesis closed by a semicolon rather than a parenthesis - as printed, not corrected. Hella Hammid and Ingo Swann appear here only as the names attached to the two techniques. The page is headed 'E X A M P L E' (spaced capitals as shown) and 'PROJECT SUN STREAK (U) / Session Procedures Report / INSTRUCTIONS'; classification line at the foot reads 'CLASSIFIED BY: DTS-DIA / DECLASSIFY: OADR'. Note that pdf pages 23 and 24 sit in reverse order in the file: this sheet is printed page 2, the sheet after it is printed page 1.

“10. (U) Source Identifier: Indicate the coded number of the Source. Under no circumstances is the Source to ever be identified or described in any official documentations or correspondence (internal or external) which pertains to a specific SUN STREAK (U) mission. It is permissible to refer to the Source by gender for ease of composition.”

'documentations' plural as typed. At the foot of the page, separately: 'This page unclassified when separated / from classified enclosure.' - typed 'classifed', missing the i, exactly as shown there; I have not corrected it in this note. A small dark blot sits in the left margin beside item 10, apparently a scanning artefact rather than a mark.

“The information in this report was obtained in direct response to an intelligence collection requirement provided by your office. The material furnished to you has been acquired through a unique and highly sensitive collection technique. Your care in evaluating this information will form the basis by which USI can assess this technique and/or modify and refine the technology to improve its overall value. ... Foremost it must be stated that the information obtained through this technique is likely to consist of a mixture of correct, incorrect or at times apparently, irrelevant data.”

Elision marked with ... : one sentence of the first paragraph ('While formulating your evaluation the following comments concerning this unique collection technique may be helpful.') and the paragraph break are skipped between 'overall value.' and 'Foremost'. 'USI' is typed thus - the page gives no expansion of it and I offer none. 'at times apparently, irrelevant data' has the comma placed after 'apparently' as printed. The page is headed 'INTELLIGENCE EVALUATION SHEET' and 'INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS:'; the whole sheet is typed on a noticeable slant.

“(U) Definitions for the accuracy scale: 0 - Little correspondence . . . . . Self explanatory. 1 - Site contact with . . . . . . . Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to mixed results indicate source has probably accessed the target site. 2 - Good . . . . . . . . . . . . Good correspondence with several elements matching, but some incorrect information. 3 - Excellent . . . . . . . . . . Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements and relatively little incorrect information.”

A ruled form with tick boxes; my line breaks follow the printed layout but the runs of leader dots are approximate, not counted. Above this the form lists the rateable categories - geographical locale, large-scale manmade elements, small-scale manmade elements, general target ambience, relevant specific activities, personality information - and an 'Overall utility' row scored None / Marginal / Useful / Very Useful / Cannot be determined at this time. 'SECRET' is printed sideways at the right edge with a heavy hand-drawn strike through it. The page number in the left margin is a sideways '3'; because it is rotated and partly clipped I have left printed_page null rather than assert it.