Approved For Release 2000Jj08/08
: CIA-RD^96-00789R002200500001-2
L
Four sessions were conducted
to provide
information.
The
times and circumstances were as follows:
,n
ioor
Aue-11 st
V372 was
asked
to
describe
the
location
and
‘
’ detailf of^ event
in process.
Details
about
pertinent
personnel were also requested*
(2)
1m
August
V372
was
asked
to
describe
details
activity
at
the
site
demarked
by
the
presence
of
sponsor's on—site representative.
and
the
(3) pom
August
25.
V372
was
asked
to
expand
upon
his
descriptions from the previous
day.
(4)
119.0
August
25.
V372
was
asked
consolidate
from
the
previous
scans
and
to
provide
remarks
the
information
his
concluding
During each session,
V372's responses were tape-recorded.
He
was encouraged
to draw details whenever possible.
Drawings
are contained
in Appendix A.
and Appendix B contains verbatim transcripts of all four
sessions.
(Because of technical difficulties,
most of the taped record of
the second session was lost.
Since
the remaining data are
intact and
since the drawings from the remaining viewings are complete,
this gap
is
not significant.)
After all raw data had been delivered to^the sponsor,
V372 and
SRI personnel were allowed to visit the target
site
]f°r
feedback.
D.
(U)
Analysis Technique
as discussed
in' Section
II.
quantitative analysis
in an
intelligence setting poses problems.
Any analysis of remote viewing data
must be accomplished within the context of
a mission statement.
An
analysis designed only to demonstrate RV
is
inadequate
to enable an
f
assessment,
and
vice versa.
Under another program,®
SRI
'"developed a generalized analysis technique that allows
for an
a priori
mission statement.
An overview of that technique follows.
Approved For Release 2000/0^708
: CIA-RDP^-00789R002200500001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-£DP96-00789R002200500001-2
1.
(U) Definitions
The most
important aspect of RV data analysis
is the
definition of both the target and
the RV response.
For this analysis,
all
target and response information
is defined as
the fuzzy sets T and R,
respectively.
Each
is described below.
'The target
is defined as
a fuzzy set of target elements
T[ek, pk, wk]
:
SG1A
ek
is an element of a target.
For example,
an element
SG1A
SG1A
SG1A
SG1A
pk
is
the membership value of element
ek.
It
representsthedegree
to which ek is present at
the target.
examp le,
might have
a membership
value of 0.6,
indicating that
i s 60% of
the target material.
Determined subjectively,
pk
is always
a value from 0
to
1.
v
_ wk is an arbitrary
weighting factor for element
ek.
This
factor accounts for differing missions by assigning the
importance of elements relative
to each other.
The
is very
important
,
for example,
and might be assigned a weight of
when compared with
which might have a
weight
of 0.5.
The RV response
is similarly defined as a fuzzy set of
response elements R lei, pk, wk]
The membership values for response
elements,
however,
have
a somewhat different meaning than those for target
elements.
Membership values,
pit. represent an analyst's assessment as
to
the degree of presence of
ek in the response.
For declarative statements,
pit -
i unless a viewer volunteers
a specific or implied importance of
ek
to
the overall
target.
A degree of interpretation
is allowed for
nondeclarative statements by letting pk<
1.
The response weights,
wk,
are
identical
to the target weights.
(|
~
^We define accuracy as the percent of
target material described
correctly by a response.
Likewise,
we define
reliability
(of a viewer)
as
the
percent
of a response that
is correct.
The figure of merit
is
the product
of
the
two;
to obtain a high figure of merit,
a viewer's description of
a
target must be largely correct and contain few extraneous
images.
In
Approved For Release 200jty08/08
: CIA-^DP|96-00789R002200500001 -2
96-00789R002200500001 -2
Approved For Release 20QQ/08/08
: CIA-Rpp
fuzzy set terminology,
these quantities for the yth target/response pair
are as follows:
£wk (RjOTj)*
Accuracy,
=
a,
=
and
Reliability
=
r
j
j
2 wk (RjnTj) k
_k
2 wk Rj.k
k
Figure of Merit
j «
x
»
The
sum over k
is called the sigma count
in fuzzy
set terminology.
The
sigma
count
is defined as
the sum of
the membership values,
p,
for the elements
of the response,
target,
and their intersection—that
is,
Rj,
Tj, and
</?i n
Ti)
,
respectively.
2.
(U) Target and Response Data
j
The universe of target and response elements
is drawn from the
August,
1988,
experiment.
We define three element categories:
functions,
relationships,
and objects.
These categories are weighted
1.0,
0.75,
and
0.50,
respectively.
(U) Table
1 shows the universe of target and response elements and the formal definition
of T and R.
All scans were considered together, rather than scan by scan. The various scaling
weights are shown in parentheses adjacent to the appropriate factors.
The relative weights are
derived from SRI’s best assessment of the operational
utility of each element.
The response
membership values, R(p), were determined from the raw data (see Appendices A and B).
The
target membership
values,
T(p),
were
determined by
SRI
personnel
during
a
site
visit
in
September, 1988.
All elements, however, were determined by an SRI analyst post hoc in order
to allow a more accurate assessment of reliability.
Elements derived from the response were
taken literally.
Those elements having no corresponding element in the target
(i.e., T(p) = 0)
were assigned the average weight of elements present in the target.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIa3iDP96-00789R002200500001 -2