1994 CIA Intel SRI International Study in Remote Viewing

™y

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

UNCLASSIFIED

INDEX

Laboratory, Volume 1 & 2.

SUBJECT:

ROCUMENT # ORIG
1 SRI
2 SRI
3 SRI
4 SRI
5 SRI
6 SRI
7 SRI
8 SRI
9 SRI
10 SRI
11 SRI
12 SRI

poc CONTROL

SAICMP91.388

SAICMP91.398

SAICMP91.385

SAICMP91.390

SAICMP91.396

‘SAICMP91.386

SAICMP91.419

SAICMP91.447

SAICMP91.436

SAICMP91.478

SAICMP91.481

SAICMP91.438

Proposed Downgrading of Classified Documents for Cognitive Sciences

TITLE

Targeting Requirements Task (VU)

Special Orientation Techniques (U)

RV Reliability, Enhancement, and
Evaluation (U)

Feasibility Study on the Use of RV
Detection Techniques to Determine
Location of Targets (U)

Countermeasures: A Survey and

Evaluation (U)

Audiolinguistic Correlations with the
Quality _of Remote Viewing
Sessions (U

RV Reliability, Enhancement, and
Fvaluation (U)

Review of the Research Conducted at
SRI International (1973-1988) (U)

Screening and Selection of Personnel:

The Personality Assessment System

PAS U

The Effects of Hypnosis on Remote
Viewing Quality (U)

Photon Production (Chinese

Replication) (U)

Remote Viewing Evaluation

Techniques (UV)

UNCLASSIFIED

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

|

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

SAICMP94.009

Copy_/ of A.

Proposed Downgrading of
Classified Documents
for Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Volume 1 of 2 (U)

June 9, 1994

SG1J Presented to:

Contract MDA908—93-—C—0004

Submitted by:

Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Science Applications International Corporation
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
PO. Box 1412
Menlo Park, CA 94025

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : asiaaiaaiadatiaiaas ent

A |

Lf

a ne

atm een et egg

Ole

oO

Inuernat

rm

ry.

rr)

(

fae

Final Report
Covering the Period October 1980 to October 1981

TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK (U)

ved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4


Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES, o3e«e @ @ oo e# @ @ ° . eo fe ry ee oe e@ @ @ #@# #@ @ @ iil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY e « e e e . J e e e e e e e e e °° e * ° ® e e e se iv
I OBJECTIVE. ° e es e e e ° e e eo e e e e e e e e e . e ea e s e 1
II INTRODUCTION. 2... ......-0-00000ee50., 2

IIt PROTOCOLS. e e se e es e e e e e e e ° c J e e e e e e a e e e e 4

A. Geferal Protocol. .........0.00+0eee8weecece 4
B, Viewer Selection. ..........0..86. oe we ee 4

Cc, Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions, ... 5

D, Transcript Evaluation. .........e84.. ee ee 6

IV RESULTS, e e e e e s o e . a o . e ° ry . s e e e o e e ° e o 8
A, Trial Collection. ..........0.2020020e0e04-. 8
B. Data Summaries... .. 1... eee ee we ee ww ne 8
Cc, Overall Findings. .......e6.. o 6 6 ww we ew ew 8

1. Evidence for Remote Viewing. ........ oe 15

2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes , . 15

3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback. ..... oe ew 17

4. Caveats... . e eee ee tt tt ew cn ° 18

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .....4.4.., “eee eo we ec wo ew ew 21
REFERENCES. ° e e e e es e ° e e e s e se eo eo e e e e s e eo ° e e s 24

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

S

XY aA Oo Pf

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 1 |
TABLES
(mn
Distribution of Trials in Targeting Study. ......e.. 5
O-to-7 Point Evaluation Scale for Target/Transcript -
Correspondence .....+se+se«eeeceeveeceevees 7
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 557. . ....2e«.e-e-eeeee 9 -
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 753. . .. 2... 2. see eee 10
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 688. . .....+se¢eeesee 1l en
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 807. . . 1... «ee a ee woe 12 7
All Data from 48 RV Trials, with Mean Values for Each =
Viewer and Each Session Category . ....e«.-e-e-«c-eece oe 13
Summary of Coordinate RV Trials with Mid-Session Feedback. . 14 a 7
|

om

i
t
'
{
1
{
‘

Approved For Release 2000/98/08 ; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

———


Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

_1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this report we present the results of a four-month investigation,
carried out by SRI International, to determine the relative effectiveness
of various targeting procedures in use in remote viewing (RV). Three such
procedures were investigated:

(1) Beacon targeting, in which the viewer has had some

personal contact with, or is given the photograph of,
ar individual at the target site.

(2) Coordinate targeting, in which the viewer is given the
geographical coordinates of the target site.

(3) Abstract targeting, in which the viewer is only told

that there is a target site to be described.

In our experiments with four remote viewers, three of whom performed
reliably in the RV task (RV of San Francisco Bay Area sites), we did not
find any overall significant differences in the efficacy of three targeting
modes, subject to some variation because of individual preferences. In-
stead, reliable RV functioning with results of comparable accuracy was

obtained with all three techniques.

As an additional task, we investigated the usefulness of giving the
viewer limited mid-session feedback as to the general nature of the target
site. We found that this procedure did not result in increased accuracy

of description,

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
: ty

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

I OBJECTIVE

The objective of the "Targeting Requirements Task" was to determine
the relative effectiveness of various targeting procedures for use in
remote viewing (RV). If differences in relative effectiveness were found,
SRI International was also to determine whether such differences depend

on the characteristics of individual remote viewers or are widespread in

nature.

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

_ co —r—_;@|


| 47t ~t -—aA

«ll

Approved For Release 2000 $ 13 : if DE 96-00789R003200200001-4

II INTRODUCTION

Inf (Sry studies in RV over the past decade, several
methods have been used to target the remote viewer on the site. Much of
the early work used a person located at the target site as a target for
the remote viewer .273* We refer to this as Beacon RV, because in some
sense the individual at the site can be said to act as a “homing" beacon.
A second technique, which has often been used in 2, and around
which a training program is being developed, ‘ is Coordinate RV. In this
procedure, the target site coordinates (latitude and longi tude in degrees,
minutes, and seconds ) are given (with no further information) to the remote
viewer who is to view the site. A third technique, which has been used
occasionally with good success both in laboratory work and in
viewing, we call Abstract RV. In this approach, the remote viewer is

simply told that there is a target site to be described; no further infor-

mation is given,

t
These three techniques, with variations, have been used success-

fully, at SRI, ~ and elsewhere. However, no

systematic comparison of their relative effectiveness has been made to date.

This study compares the results of the use of the targeting techniques
as described above under otherwise uniform RV conditions. The results are
examined to determine whether significant quantitative differences exist

as far as the quality of the RV product is concerned. These three

*

References are listed at the end of the report.

+

For example, in Beacon RV, the remote viewer may be introduced to the
outbound person who is to act asa beacon, or simply be shown his
photograph.

Approved’ For Release 2oo0igpibe : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4


representative techniques were chosen for this study because they span

the range, from the concrete to the abstract, of the targeting techniques

typically required in na: :

Specifically, the targeting mode is varied over the three techniques.

These techniques are designated here as Techniques A, B, and C (for Abstract,

Beacon, and Coordinate, respectively). A variation of Technique C,

designated c’, is also incorporated into the study to examine whether

modest feedback given to the viewer at mid-session about the general

nature of the site increases accuracy in the remainder of the session.

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

rot


representative techniques were chosen for this study because they span
7 the range, from the concrete to the abstract, of the targeting techniques
?
typically required in Bp tests .
*
Specifically, the targeting mode is varied over the three techniques,
These techniques are designated here as Techniques A, B, and C (for Abstract,
Beacon, and Coordinate, respectively). A variation of Technique C,
- designated c’, is also incorporated into the study to examine whether
modest feedback given to the viewer at mid-session about the general
- nature of the site increases accuracy in the remainder of the session.
r ;
"
baal
al

—1 1

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

4.

cat

ne eel
a

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

i

III PROTOCOLS

A. General Protocol

The general protocol for the study is to closet a remote viewer with
an experimenter at SRI, and, at a prearranged time, have the viewer describe
an undisclosed remote site using the required targeting technique. The
target site, one of sixty located in the San Francisco Bay Area within a
30-min driving radius of SRI, is selected by random number access to a
target pool by a second experimenter in charge of overall protocol. For
each viewer, target sites are used without replacement as the series
progresses, so that no individual viewer has the same site twice. In all

cases, the interviewer is blind to the target so that he is free to question

the remote viewer to clarify his descriptions without fear of leading.

During the prearranged viewing period lasting 15-min, the viewer
makes drawings of and records on tape his impressions of the target site,
At the end of this viewing period, the interviewer collects the data for
the file, finds out from the protocol experimenter what the target site

was, and then takes the viewer to the site for feedback.

B. Viewer Selection

To evaluate fairly the effects of varying the target conditions, we
chose to carry out the study with four relatively inexperienced SRI viewers,
as opposed to the more experienced viewers who exhibit strong preferences

for certain targeting techniques.

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

4

mI


r rr” r ean c atom, rr vey

i a a i ioe

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

f

Cc. Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions

Each of the four remote viewers chosen was asked to contribute twelve

trials apiece, three trials each for each of the four techniques, A, B,

C, and C’ This method provides a total of 48 trials, 12 in each of the

four categories, distributed as shown in Table 1 below. Each of the

viewers used the four techniques in a balanced, random intermixed order

(e.g.,; BACC ‘ACB ...) as is usual in psychological studies with several

stimulus categories.

Table 1

‘DISTRIBUTION OF TRIALS IN TARGETING STUDY

Category

Viewer A B Cc c!

557
733

3 3
3 3
807 3 3
3 3

wo WwW wD w
Oo WwW 6 WwW

688

The protocol experimenter tells the interviewer at the beginning of

the session which technique is to be used. For Technique A, the interviewer

simply informs the viewer that there is a target site to be described; no
further information is given.
For Technique B, the viewer is either introduced in person to the

outwardbound experimenter who will act as a beacon (Beacon Trial One),

or is simply shown a photograph of an otherwise unknown outwardbound

experimenter (Beacon Trials Two and Three). The reason for this inter-

trial variation is to obtain additional information about the amount of

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : , ClA- RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

viewer/beacon contact required.


Approved For Release ———>>o--~*

For Technique C and Cc’, the viewer is read the coordinates (in
degrees, minutes, and seconds) for the site. For Technique C’, the

interviewer obtains from the protocol experimenter before session start

|

I

an envelope containing general information about the site (e.g., “target

site is a building exterior, target site is an open outdoor area," and

so forth.) In mid-sessio Wter the viewer has described the site to

the best of his ability interviewer opens the feedback envelope and

ee senate

gives this additional information to determine whether it stimlates

increased accuracy and detail in the viewer's subsequent images of the

site.

ie.

D. Transcript Evaluation

In early programs, transcript analysis was carried out exclusively

on the basis of blind judging (matching) of transcripts to target sites.)

ee

This technique, although excellent with regard to demonstrating the

presence or absence of a viable RV function, did not provide a uniform

measure from transcript to transcript of the quality of RV functioning.

In the previous progran, SRI, Mis developed

a O-to-7 point rating scale to be applied ‘nonblind", post hoc to the
evaluation of transcripts .* For no correspondence between transcript and
target site, a 0 is assigned; for excellent correspondence a 7; and for
intermediate correspondence an intermediate rating. The. precise criteria
for each rating is shown below in Table 2. A comparison (in the previous
program) of the ratings produced with this approach against the ratings
produced by the blind- judging approach for a 36-trial series showed sta-
tistically significant positive correlation between the two techniques.
Furthermore, application of the O-to-7 point scale to randomly matched
transcripts and targets from that study yielded chance results, These
two findings taken together establish that application of the 0-to-7

point scale provides a reliable, objective measure of RV quality. This

. 6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 — RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

Approved For Release 20 -RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

Table 2

O-TO-7 POINT EVALUATION SCALE FOR TARGET/TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCE

Point t Value Assigned to the Point

7 Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail
(e.g., naming the site by name), and with essentially no
incorrect information,

6 Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g.,

naming the function) and relatively little incorrect

information. ;
5 Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements,

but some incorrect information.

4 Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed i
with incorrect information. -

: ,

3 Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the iH

former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site.

2 Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results
beyond chance expectation,

1 Little correspondence,

(8) No correspondence.

net eee pare epee nee eee

method was, therefore, chosen for evaluation of the transcripts for this

targeting study.

1

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 fi

PY +

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

—

IV RESULTS

A. Trial Collection

In accord with the protocols outlined in Section III, a total of 48
trials were carried out, 12 with each of four remote viewers, As summarized

in Table 1, each viewer contributed three trials for each of the four

techniques.

-

B. Data Summaries

é

Data summaries for each of the four remote viewers are tabulated in
Tables 3 through 6, and a collective summary is provided in Table 7.
Listed in the individual viewer Tables 3 through 6 are the trial numbers
(1 through 12) and associated Sites, targeting techniques and 0—-to-7 point-
scale accuracy ratings. (Two columns appear in the accuracy ratings for
Category c’, Ratings in the first column were assigned on the basis of
material produced before feedback only, while those in the second colum
apply to the transcript as a whole, including material generated following
feedback, The effects of mid-session feedback are treated in detail in

Table 8, in which we present a detailed session-by-session summary. )

Cc. Overall Findings

Most of the findings of this study are obtained by examination of
Table 7. We, therefore, turn our attention for a moment to a detailed

examination of this table.

The transcript ratings for each of the remote viewers, for each of
the session categories, are shown in the individual boxes in the table.

The techniques, listed across the top, are Abstract (A), Beacon (B),
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

(fae, |

\
ql
| 3

T
=
3 *3dyatosuvay arxtque 8U2 JO Sftseq ay. uo ¢
=) et0feq pds yezeues TBttezeW Jo stseq 842 UO a ® suoteenee aan
g pew arB suotzenteaa yo 79S Ysaty
S *
o
€9 s
S o°e tee {toeapeeg Uo Tsseg—p Th & ST ire) eJerep punozZzapun It
f U2TA s93BUTPz005 € Zz ve) e403g ArTID0In g
2 v b i) xeTduog Toog 4
9
o ; S°T +e)
2 8°T 59} BU Tp.1009 T +e) otasoay peosrren :

IT Fey S
9 € fa) uneTosnuy €
<x
5 et uooveg 0 q Teuuny, yodaq OT
x & a spus[seg 9
2 S°T q an
8 383g Sipe T
= €

; Vv 3u
: ee sovzasay . FPT¥ng eTqqng rae
3 : Vv T830H BuBqeug ZL
; Vv S34Y PETLLIY z
SPON 3u
8 /Baveen : F3ey Aovrnooy onb FUyoaL e7TS yesrRy Tequny
3 UFZaZI¢8
2 uson L TBTLL
fe) :
LL ae
4 (AY tozZ sousepta
: PTAS moys you §90d~-¢€°¢ = uvou TT B298AQ9)
| é 4SS UIMAIA YOd VLYa AY dO AUVWANS
<x
€ equ
en en | es a 4 J i] J J

Approved For Release 2000/0808 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4


Tt
—
oO
oO
oO
oO
N
o
r=)
N
o
Oo
r=)
a
@
i)
Nm
oO
9
Te)
ron)
oO
Q
O-
<
O
©O
oO
=
©O
Oo
=
o
oO
r=)
N
®
”
©
)
®
a
Sm
fe)
LL
®
>
(or
Se
‘ok

[X

‘youqpeey eroyeq pezereued [eTsaze FO Sse

°(s0°O > d azoz pastnber PI'S = d--69°L = A
m-ou0) o ‘a SY suotzFpUOD useajzoq saoueTeTTTp queofTyTusts smo

*adqazosuviy erfyue ayy Fo stseq By} UO ‘aes puooas
q oy} UO epeU aiIB sUOTZENTBAD FO 72S SIT

:g = “zp ‘zg = Typ feoustaea
ys ameTA oul

jo stshteuse Av
€ s’°e ae) asnoy UBTIOIOTA ZI
re igre | pteaPOed UOFESOS PIN J gts 9 ,o lop exnzeTuTW | 9
sre se UTM SO7BUTP1009 ft 5 kxoxoueg | >
‘
———————————————— —— ant
€ 9 szanop sfuusy tt
| BuTpLihg spioosy evususg L
° $97 bu Tpsz00g Oo re)
me a“ S re) sazpeeyL APFSIBA €
9 d TITH uo younyo ot
uoo Beg s’s d [ood Bu yu fits S
° s°9 a punorsAB{d $s, ueIpT tuo T
Zz V etd 318s 6
qzoBrysqy T Vv yareg uy esptig 8
, ra) Vv asnoyH sulog z
3qun
Spon BuTyey Aosinooy anbTuYyoaL ats .edIBL a a N
/ 3a F28Y Suy ,oesiBy TBTAL
uvsoyl .

(S03FS 393183 YZTM JOBWUOD soysoTpur--E’Es = UBoW TTB12A0)

€SL UAMAIA YOI VLVd AY JO AUVWNS
* :

bP eTQeBL

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

10

-

“ydyaosuery arftzUue ay} JO stseq ayy Uo ‘4aS puodas
‘YOBqpssy siozeq pe ,eieues [vyIe,eU Fo stseq ey} UO epwul ore SUOTZENTBAS Jo jas 4sAT_Z
*

ee te pPeaqpeeg wotsseg-pTH se o°zZ ye) unesny .1y It
ae 4 U}TM $948UTpz1005 Ss‘? S rae) yqornyy 3S FpoyzoHW OT
c's S ye) eJsBisey punorgs2sepuy P
eoalaeaeaSSeaeaeaEaeeeeSaaEaoEoeSeeeEeEeEeE=EEeEEEEeE——EESESESESESEeE=—ESESEE™EPHNE™ENEOE™E“EHHE™EEEE_="_ —
z a) Tt®H A4FO OLY OTE 6
L°? $907 8U Fp.00pD € e] aTo1tO eata ynoog Aog 9
£ 9 aazueg sutddoug pazosusys £
€ d Ppeus extd Tus ot
8° Uo0d Beg s°s dq eTtd 418s L
S qd +8T1OTT STII T
Ss’ V zETOAAaYD ATY 8
os qovrqzsqy 9 Vv punorZfstqd eAT ouoD07T cS
9 Vv TTH UO Younyg A
apo, sutzyey Aovarnsoy anbyuyoay a1ts JosrBy awaquny
/3uyt yey ; BUF PsZIBy, Tefal
uvey .

(seouepuodsertio®s pooS YUM SeLTsS 393183 YLT JYOBIUOD sayvOTpUI--O’pP = UBSW [TBIAAQ)

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

889 UAMAIA YOU VLVd AY JO AUVHNNS

S eTqQBL

yt aay |

re | a gm a wma

ee

ll

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

a

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

T
=
ro)
=)
“qdfaosuer3, artquea 843 FO sftseq 943 uO ‘39a5 puOoddss <4
é
*HOBQpesT Sitofeq pe eieues [Lepazezew yo S¥seq 94} UO SpuUl oIB sSUOTZBNTeAD Jo Jes ysaTy 3
i + a
rar)
ro)
s° v4
re ty | #¥PaPeeg woTsseg-pri € t /o erzeeyy Aytsava | 1 x
U3TK $24 8UTPI005 & se rae) @9SNnoH UBTIOLO TA 8 Ne
s°e S'P yx) T830W ataddttg ssetp 9 =]
oO
———————— — ©
o
S fe) wneTosney S OW
L°P S38} eUTpso00ED s°¢ 9) Sjinopj sfuusay, ‘4 0
s‘e ro] Taso], TaAcoy € m4
)
oe S a FTOD Sinz eTuTy ol pm
u0o Beg Zz a . SuTPT Ing etqqng 6 Oo Nn
Ss‘ q 3STt0ld strIm | T oo”
r=}
Ss’ v spuelAeg OT S
o°P FOBALSQY s°? Vv wooy peptetus Z 3
s°9 Vv S, TaZueqi tem z e
: ——— &
an 2ufzsy Aovrnosoy anbtuyoey GIS Josr1By JTaquny rd
/ 30 Fz BY Buy .aTIB [BEI -
usoy hd
j o
(seo0uepuodsarz109 pood 44TH S39378 493184 YYFM YORQUOD S8}8OTpU-~-T°p = uBaw [[B19A9) 5
;
408 UAMAIA YOU VLYG AY JO AUYWANS S
<x

9 eTQBL

00/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

or Release

faoustaes yo syskt wus Ava-9U0) 0 ‘g ‘y suot}Tpuco

es

*(g0°O > d roy partnbezr PI'S = d--69°L = A ig =
weenzeq saquelszI Tp queoptsTusts smoys TamaypA ou

z

Fe ‘SZ = "yp

*upow IOMOTA BuUPFZBLNO[ Bo UF pesn Ayao yowqpes;s a10jaq Aryua 9 PRON

uoTzoung
AY 3uyMous
€ FO uBoyW
p°s 6’ eve vr bre £10397 8D
uvay
eve s’e oe L°e ve £10383%89
ty e's = x =x Lye x ses x weex
s*e ¥ S S sre
& s‘s s's z se
ss S‘t g*e S°e s‘9 408
¥ s‘e= <x ope x Les % s'e = x eg x
e°s s°Z z hs S's
s*y s £ s°e 9
s’e s £ Ss 9 889
es s'e = x s’e = x Las x g= x t=x
€ s*t € 2 :
s°s 9 Q s’¢ ou
_ t s $9 0 4e
Au-uou)
a e=< st % Bt = x st=% ere = x
3 s°t s"t i) e
€ z t € z
v e € hn § $ “ss
a
tJ
usa HORqpoes WO BqQpIer (893 8U Fps005) (woo vag) Gaoeiaeaw) TaMOTA
TeKeTA Sutpnyoul aroyeg 9 a
CPeqpess SN{A $9} 8UTp.100D)
,2
RYODSLVO NOISSTS HOVE GNV UKTIA HOVE YOL SANTVA NVA HLIA ‘STWIUL AU SF HOUT VLYd TTV
L OTQey

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

T
=
oO
So
o
Oo
N
o
So
N
©
So
So
a
rer)
ee)
iS
o
i
©
a
oW
Q
<
O

Approved For Release 2000/08/08

: i i | re gg t
i t « : @ 4 : € EF €£° FOS
T
“UOFZBUTZewT pus £ =
pus Azowew Jo Ap avag TBoTPWAsuy of suUTelI8ed tor S
(=)
JOU 9104 980y3--poptAoczd sIte oy ase
3°p BUTPTINg otstoeds Jo 5s
Th¥Aap ‘you . 5
IOV ‘xouqpee; 1033zy s*2 sz wnasny 2ay ~
FO $237q Tuo B sine
F3¥Ppe owos yzTH Su0te ‘peptaoad AT sno fAaad STT¥I9p Jo uoTfjuueW atayzIng ¢° =
sqortneet ke nena b s Younyg 1sTpoyzaW Ss
Peyvard pus ioy dn partes ¢ ereay pe eng eto? aot » per seen 2
I pouws Apyerte swazt fO UCTS AeYQINZ 03 pat yoeqpaag . 50
s‘e of punozZ2apun | ggg po
“ssBi2 pus s3u
FPTENG B9TZJO ynoqe IOy pappe pus ‘suotqdeozed [wuT3qtz0 Poway zuog ° °
s’e b arzeeyL Arpsr1eA Lo
sousing on “a0 oor & Peptaord sum TTeiep yoa2100
Hoeqpeesy £q pazrotta ez0a s90¥td z9y30 pus s, 4204 Jo SUOTIdTAOSap oY € s‘e a
SSNOH T¥TI0z9 TA Q
dn pete youqpssz 3nq ‘TTBIeP TBUO Uop0On uy eee pe tee <
FITPPB poo’ st sza3ustd Uspoom UT e923 Jo [T¥I0q S°s Ss’ ad <
, To30M zaddtts ssetn | zog
: O
93TS 393183 sz9yIOUB Bors Tov ut yy3no0ag € s’e SSNOH UBTLOJTA -
TSUCTITppe swog ad
pp PUY (e@ZeZDU00 ‘ ezayuds e3210T) STTBIaP Ya21.2100 TYAN osiseds maz v s’s 9
FTOD SIN{BTU TKR
“THe3ep TeucTzippe se ‘
auceu0s Ao : weterooe eno
UF FT. SGes uspied ‘ Teaa0y *S8U0} SutTeez poos OsST® 3nq ‘Toy TBUoTITppe sauos 4 T
£taqauay €SzZ
"e282c2 o d
uotsdyaosep » pur em C) Prsuy dusz souvrzqua zo
P NTOS 3noqy LTezap yoar200 TBuot3Fppe sntd ‘yoy T8UOT Eppes suog é s°t 3
8d8iBD punolr31apuyn
*seyoueq ‘s2 ‘ we
qoueq ‘sizaquetd Ju syz3a0 SoUBIZUS SACU USTs *TB198p yoors0D TBUOCTITPpe aos € A
81035 AraD0.15
TRBJep zEeYyZINZ yUBOTZ TITS ‘
| FFUSTS ou yng » OV TBUCTIIpps suog 17 b xeTdwog Toog 2ss¢
49 BqQPseT1S0g
weqpsay | youqpeayz e17ts AIAITA
3u fpnyjouy dtosag
Sutyey 3uyjEy

(ST¥FIL {5 edfz)

NOVECTTI NOISSAS-CIN HLIA STVIUL AY FLYNIGUOOD JO auvwns

8 eTqQuL

Approved For Release 2000/08/08

14

ed For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

qu:

Coordinates (C) and Coordinates with Feedback (C’). The latter (c’)
technique has two columns of transcript evaluation numbers; those made on
the basis of material up to the point of mid-session feedback (first
column), and those made for the entire transcript, including material

generated after feedback (second column).

The bottom row shows the mean transcript numbers for each targeting
technique averaged both for all four viewers and for the three viewers who
showed evidence for reliable RV (discussed below). The right-hand column
shows each viewer's twelve-trial mean. For Technique C’, the numbers
before feedback only are used in the calculation of these means so that

they are not ‘contaminated by the effects of feedback.

1. Evidence for Remote Viewing

The first overall result of the study is obtained by noting each
viewer's twelve-trial mean (Table 7, right-hand column). The twelve-trial
means for the four viewers are 2.3, 3.3, 4.0, and 4,1, respectively.
Reference to the rating-scale definitions in Table 2 indicates that the
last three of the four viewers in Table 7 produced means high enough to
constitute evidence for relatively reliable remote viewing, while Viewer 557,
the first viewer, did not do so, (For this viewer evidence for RV was not
totally lacking because five of the twelve trials rated a 3 or higher;
rather, trial-to-trial reliability was lacking.) We conclude, therefore,

that robust RV was obtained with three of the four remote viewers.

2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes

To evaluate the results of using the alternative targeting
techniques, A, B, and C, we examine the A, B, and C columns of Table 7.
Examination of the means in the bottom row shows little difference between

ajtornatad Sead Seog strategies. This is confirmed in detail by
pproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

15

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
statistical analysis of all the transcript rating numbers, both in the
three-cateogry X four-viewer matrix, and in the three~category X three-
viewer matrix confined to the three remote viewers showing reliable RV

*
functioning. Therefore, the results obtained for Target Techniques A,

B, and C were essentially the same.

As we examine the fine structure of individual viewer performance
profiles, we find that the above conclusion for the group as a whole is
especially reflected in the individual responses of the two stronger
remote viewers, 688 and 807, who essentially did equally well with each

of the three targeting techniques, as did the unreliable viewer, 557.°

.

Only in the case of the remaining successful remote viewer (753)
do we find significant differences in the alternative targeting conditions;
the Beacon (B) ratings are elevated, and the Abstract (A) ratings depressed,
as compared with mean performance, In this case, the viewer expressed
from the beginning a strong preference for targeting on a beacon person,
which seemed "natural," as compared with the increasing abstraction of the
Coordinate (C) and Abstract (A) targeting technique. This preference for
a particular targeting technique, correlated with better performance for
that technique, can be contrasted with the lack of expressed preference
on the part of the other viewers plus their relatively stable performance

using the alternative techniques.

These results, taken together, lead us to conclude that there

are no inherent differences in the use of Abstract (A), Beacon (B) or

*
One-way analysis of variance: 3 x 4; dfj = 2, dfg = 33; F = 0.47 (F = 3,29

required for p< 0.05). 3 x 3; df, = 2, df> = 24; F = 0.95 (F = 3.40
required for p < 0.05),

‘one-way analysis of variance: df, = 2.5 df, = 6 (F = 5.14 required for
p< 0.05). F(688) = 4,02; F(807) = 0.40; F(557) = 1.51; FC(753) = 7.69.

Approved For Release 2000/08/0&6 CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
= i

5

we


ae
Coordinate (C) targeting techniques, but personal bias or preference on

For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4

the part of a viewer can skew the relative effectiveness of these alterna~

tive targeting techniques in practice.

in Finally, no differences of note were observed in Technique B

(Beacon) between the first trial, in which the remote viewer is {ntroduced

«= in person to the jndividual who is to act as a beacon, and the second and

third trials, in which the remote viewer is simply shown the photograph
*
_ of an otherwise unknown beacon person.

- 3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback

In a series of twelve Coordinate Trials (labeled c’), three each

contributed by’ each of the four remote viewers, viewers were given rudi-

mentary mid-session feedback after providing initial descriptions on the

pasis of coordinate targeting (as in a C Trial). The interviewer then .

- encouraged further response from the remote viewer.

The feedback material used was prepared in advance by the ex-

-
perimenter in charge of overall protocol, and was unknown to the inter-
viewer until that moment in the RV session when he opened an enve lope
_
containing feedback information and disclosed its contents to the viewer.
“a The type of feedback given was designed to be as " nonleading™

as possible, meant only to give the viewer some verification if he were

form of a single

a already on the right track. The feedback was in the

phrase, such as ‘an expansive interior location" for an underground

- garage, Or "an outdoor open area with structures” for a cemetery.

The data from the twelve c’ trials with mid-session feedback are

summarized in two columns of Table 7 and in Table 8. Comparison of the

*
One-way analysis of variance: df, = 1, dfg = 6; F = 0.25 (F = 4.96

vARPrawedeFo
req dpFOrR@ease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
17

em

——F


|

Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4

means in the bottom row for the results with feedback (second C’ colum)
against the results, either of the same session before feedback (first c’
column), or the Coordinates targeting without feedback (C colum), shows
no significant differences, either enhancement or degradation, This holds

. *
considering all the viewers, or just the three with reliable functioning.

Specific session-by-session detail is presented in Table 8. It
is clear from these data that feedback, presented in the form described,
was not generally helpful in increasing the accuracy of postfeedback
elaboration, Instead, in the majority of trials, the feedback appeared
to trigger Analytical Overlay (AOL) of images from memory and imagination,
resulting in some (though not significant) degradation of the description
provided before, feedback, at least in those cases where the initial
description was good. In the few cases where the rating improved after
feedback, the improvement can be attributed to leading from the feedback,
because the results in those cases still showed little evidence for RV

functioning.

Overall, then, there was no evidence that mid-session feedback
led to improved accuracy. Instead, there was a trend (though statistically

insignificant) toward degradation of the result by AOL,

4, Caveats

In regard to the effects of mid~-session feedback just described,

care must be taken not to generalize that intrasession feedback in any

form is necessarily unproductive; only that there was no evidence that

feedback in the form given was useful, Evidence is emerging in another

"all viewers, one-way analysis of variance: df, = 1, df = 22, F = 4.3
required for p < 0.05: F(C' before and after feedback) = 0.16, F(C, C’
after feedback) = 0.44. Three reliable viewers: df, = 1, df, = 16,

F = 4,49 required for p < 0.05: F(C’ before and after feedback) = 0.53,
F(C, C’ after feedback) = 0.03.

Approved For Release a mn CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
7
nt