g_. 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 Intemational Corporation Cognitive Sciences Laboratory PO. Box 1412 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : oes Soak A /
Sten ete wipe egg rm rnavloné Pp, Final Report Covering the Period October 1980 to October 1981 TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK (U) ved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 a
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES e o7oe ee @ @ oo e# @ @ o . oe o ee oo ¢ @ © @# # # @® e@ iil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY e a oe e ci eo e e a e se e e eo ry ri} ee . ° s e e e es iv I OBJECTIVE. J ry e ri e e ° e e eo e e eo e e e ea e e . e a oe e e 1 II INTRODUCTION. 2... 2.0... ec eee ee ee cee, 2 IIt PROTOCOLS. e e e e e e e e e e e e ca c e e oe oe e e a e * . so 4 A. Geferal Protocol. .........0.200-0ec0e8e8cee 4 B, Viewer Selection. ......4.2..2..08.e8. oe we we 4 Cc, Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions, ... 5 D, Transcript Evaluation. .........8.06846 ee oe 6 IV RESULTS, e e e e e o . e . a ° . e ° ° . s « e ° o e e . e o 8 A. Trial Collection. ........02..8.80.6 oe ee oe 8 B. Data Summaries. ..... 1.1.0 ee ew eee oe we ew ew 8 Cc. Overall Findings. ..........2000088cee8e 8 1. Evidence for Remote Viewing. ........ o 2 » 15 2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes , . 15 3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback. ..... oe oe 17 4, Caveats, «2.2. 26 ee ee tte ee te cn ° 18 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. ......4.. <2 © © wo we we ew awe 21 REFERENCES. ° e e e o e e eo e e e . e s o eo e e . J e oe eo eo ° e e os 24 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
NS XY om oO - & Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 \ | TABLES fun Distribution of Trials in Targeting Study. . ....+ ss. 5 O-to-7 Point Evaluation Scale for Target/Transcript - Correspondence .....«-«c«ee+sscervrecececer cece eecees 7 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 557. ....s«+.«.e-eeceses 9 = Summary of RV Data for Viewer 753. . . 2... 2. ee ee eee 10 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 688. . .....54+42eeeecee 1l on Summary of RV Data for Viewer 807. . . 1... se eee ecee 12 / All Data from 48 RV Trials, with Mean Values for Each = Viewer and Each Session Category .......+-e-+s0e68-s 13 Summary of Coordinate RV Trials with Mid-Session Feedback. . 14 7 | ras i t ' { f { ' Approved For Release 2000/98/08 ; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 ——
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 _| 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, arr 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 __ corel |
| 47-t ~t ~~ -ll Approved For Release 2000) a(Ge 7 CIARDI 96-00789R003200200001-4 II INTRODUCTION In{ (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 a , 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 cal] 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, tor example, in Beacon RV, the remote viewer may be introduced to the outbound person who is to act as a beacon, or simply be shown his photograph. =~ ae Approved For Release 2900/08/08 ae CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
e they span representative techniques were chosen for this study becaus 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 Pal
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 QR tasks. 7 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 ; bal baal al —t 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 cal
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 , 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
foun: rr eaFh: re" | a i a i do 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, Cc, and Cc’, 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 lele! Viewer 557 3 753 3 807 3 3 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. se me ene eemeee,
Approved For Release ———>>>>~ 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 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-sessionga@iter the viewer has described the site to the best of his ability, interviewer opens the feedback envelope and gives this additional information to determine whether it stimlates increased accuracy and detail in the viewer's subsequent images of the site. D. Transcript Evaluation In early programs, transcript analysis was carried out exclusively on the basis of blind judging (matching) of transcripts to target sites.) ? 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, SR!, Es <eveloped 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 0-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 2000/08/03 © RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Approved For Release 20 -RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 Table 2 0-TO-7 POINT EVALUATION SCALE FOR TARGET/TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCE Value Assigned to the Point Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., naming the site by name), and with essentially no incorrect information, Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g., naming the function) and relatively little incorrect information. Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements, but some incorrect information. Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed with incorrect information. Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site. Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results beyond chance expectation, Little correspondence. No correspondence, method was, therefore, chosen for evaluation of the transcripts for this targeting study. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 PY +. ere <a toaeplanrar none eaten Tepes ete peene ae aeteete oceans ap emi,
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 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 ee ES 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 (Qe | \ i | 3
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 *3dyaosuvrzy artqua 84} FO sftseq ayi uo ‘ Stofeq poyerduag T¥ttezeW Jo stseq 243 Uo open eae cu 79S puodss tyoRqpaaz OF2BNT BAS Fo yas ysaty * Hoeqpeez uotssag—p Ty U3TM S03} 8UTps005 adereyg punoz32zapun e404g AraD0In xaTduog [oog asnoyys0g eTS9rL peor pey uneTosney Teauun, yodag spuslseg enzeBIg sup 3u TPT tng eTqqng T930H Beusqeg SI4Y PETLILTY enbfuyoay, e7TS yesrBy Sutzasr1ey Taquny TBTty (AY tox Ssoueptas MOUS Jou S380q~-9°¢ = uve [TT ez049) 4GG UAMAIA Yor VLYG AY Jo AUYNANS € aTquy Ty = Oo Oo Oo Oo N Oo Oo N © o Oo w oO co m Oo 2 oO (o>) ou Q ac < O co Oo oo” Oo ~ Oo Oo Oo N ® ” © 2 ® w = fe) LL xe) ® > re) Sm (oe (oe xt
proved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 *adqzosuviy oeatjue o4z fo stseq ayy UO ‘agas puooas Oo ape are suOTZENT BAG FO 39S SIT ‘youqpeey eit0zeq pazersues TETIazM Jo sTsuq oy} u T . 4 _ *(so'o > d sox peatnbes pI's = d--69°L = F +9 = FP ‘t= jo stsA[vue Avm-9U0) O ‘g fy suof}Tpuoo uesMzoq saxoUsLaT TTP qu eo Fs Tu asnoy UBTIOZOTA povapoed uofsses-PTH c's JIOH ain, VTUTHn YA $97 BU Fpz00p A£197z9Us9 szanog sTuusy wu su $9} bu Fps000 3u FPT Eng Spt009u Bg aizeeyy, AVTSIBA TLTtH wo younyo Joog Zu yuu tag punoraszAéBtd $s, UeIpTtyd aTtd F18S yreg uy esptid oB1I4s ° _ esnoy auog anb FuyoaL a71Ts 7esZIBL Sup PosmVy (se3zFs 393183 YRFA JOB ZNO SO}BOTPUI--E°E = UBeU TTBI2AD) €SL UAMAIA YOI VLVG AY JO AUVNANS * : bP eTQeBL Jp taouszaea STs smoyus JOMoTA oul Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 10
. *ydfatosuely artqua ay. Jo stseq ey} uo ‘4e5 puooas ‘YOBqpssy atojyeq pezetIoUuss [By1se}Ell Jo sftseq 94} UO ape are SUOTZENTeAS Jo 1as ysaTyZ * unesny 4.2ty qornyo 15 FPpoyzew aZBiey punorZ1apuy yo Bap seg UOTSS3S—PTW U}FM S$93BU Tp.I009 Ttey 4470 OLY OTE $91 BU TpI00g @TI1T9 eATg_ }Noog Log aazueg sutddoug paosusys i peus OX Tus eTtd 318s +S7T10TT STLIW ll ZeToOmAEeYD ATY punorzszABtd eATYoWODOT TTFH WO Young anb puyooy atts JosrBy aaquny But zosayy, Tetal (ssouapuodsarios poos YFM SdUTS 393182 YLFA JOBPUOD sazVoOTpUI--O’p = UBeU TT BI3A0) 889 YAMAIA YOd VLYC AY JO AUYHNNS Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 S eTqBL
“Zdfaosuvsy erfjUe 943 JO sTs¥q 94} UO *4es puoDas é *YOBQPSSF SOJeq peysioues [LeTsezeuM Jo S¥Seq 94} UO spy oY sUOTJBNT BAe Jo 4es 4sITyZ * YOouqpaaz uotsseg-pty SizeayL, AL TsrBA U3FM S84 6UTp.1005 OsNnoH UBTIOFOTA T830W azeddttg ssetp * uneTosney SjaIn0D sfuuay TasAOL IeA00H $8} 8UFp1009 FIOD eanzeTutTHW SuUTPT Ing etqqng #SFIOTA STII spustieg POBALSQY wooy pepletus S, TaZueql[ [eM enbyuyoey PUTS Josrzy azequny Sut .asIBy TBTay Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 (seouepuodsaizi0®9 pood 43TH S24TS 193182 YVFM 4OBRQUOD S89}BOFPUT~-T°p = uBaw [TL eB19A9) £08 UAMHIA YOU VLVG AY JO AUWWNNS Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 9 STQBL 12
00/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 or Release z T *(S0°O > d az0F partnbes PI'S = d--69°L = d 19 = FP ‘eg = FP SMOYUS TAMATA BUL fgousyava zo syekTeus Ava-9N0) 9 ‘g ‘y suo}? Ppuon UseMzeq s9UaIZTFTP queotyTusts soy } eupom JOMBTA BuTPVLNOTV UT pasn ATMO Aovqpsss aropeq KIZUS ,D APO * uoTzoung Ay 2uzmoys € JO uBOW £10393%D uray £1038380 (Au-u0u) o st= * s°t T € € s°t ee | _ | : ~ halal AW 8p WOud VLYO TTV [ yowqpaeg er0zeg HoBqpeeg Zutpntour ‘ RUODELVO NOISSIS HOVE UNV USATIA HOVE YOd SAN TWA NVIA LIA © STVIUL L 9Tqey ’ a q 4 I 1 4 LU | i] | i Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
Tt = r=) oO oO (>) N oO (>) N oP) oO (=) o~ o (ee) M oO md ©o o ae a) a < O Approved For Release 2000/08/08 co 8 F © bp © © © Gs en en ee @ 8 “UOFZeuTBsewuy pus Azowoew zo Avlazaag TeoTWpeuy 03 suTeqiad Joy "4oarI09 00200001-4 uneasny wy "IOV FAINT *uoTsnyzuos SW9Tt Jo UoTyUeM reyZINz 03 Pal YOeqpaay FO $37q TeuoT B FIPPB omos YITH BuoTE ‘ peptaoad AT sno fAaad STT¥1ep Jo uofjueW sz98y Yyounyy ysTpoyzsyH “HOBQPeeZ fq pextorrte stteze Pe{uaI0 pus Toy dn parttso ‘ pawwu Spuarte D torauee tenn oe punos3Z2apuy 889 *ssBi2 pus S3UTpL tng S9TIFJO Jnoqw Toy peppy pus ‘suorydeozed [Bu T3z20 Powatyuog atzVsqL Ay psr1BA “peptaord se™ LEe19ep 490a2z00 qaqzITN, ° TINT on Aoeqpees;s £q pazrotte ezoa saovtd zay30 pu ¢ A004 Zo SUOT 3d TAOsap Joy @SNOH TeT4039 TA “TOV [VUCTI Epps FO JOT & dn pettvo youqpes ‘ Weqpasys ynq ‘TT eyep TEUOCTITPPB poo’ st szaquertd Uspoom UT 8923 Jo TTBI0q TdjoM asddtts ssety SSNOH UBTLOJ TA FTOD Sinz Bru tq &ataqauay CIA-RDP96-00 “O2TS 393203 s9q30U8 Worzy IOV UT AYyInoag “IOV Srteyds e310T) stte.ep yoar200 TeyzINy osieds aaz y “THB3ePp TeuoTzippy se ‘3T Wo BuTy20m *S0U0} Buz{eez poo ost 3nq ‘IOV T¥uoT3Tppe auog TSUOTITPPe oUOg puY (ezez20U00 ®UCCWOS UZTA osuss Uspi8d ‘ [wui0; adeiep punor319puy "TT ea *TEBIEP YOorz0D [TwUCTITppE auog “TFBIep reyzanz FUBOTT FUSS ou yng ‘ seyouaq * saaquutd ‘Zuvyqreao souvzqua SA0qE UZTs a103g Ar1aD015 4 10¥ TeUOT3tppe ewog xaTdwop [oog Wo Vqpsas{s0g xe eqpesy | youqpeeg 3utpntouy Sut3Ey aa (ST¥TIL ,9 adfy) MOVAGTTI NOISSHS-CIN KLIMA STVIUL AU ZLYNIGUOOO JO AUNYWOINS 8 eTqQuL Approved For Release 2000/08/08 14
LL ed For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 Ny a 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). “| “ “| a | The bottom row shows the mean transcript numbers for each targeting technique averaged both for all four viewers and for the three viewers who T showed evidence for reliable RV (discussed below). The right-hand column shows each viewer's twelve-trial mean. For Technique Cc’, the numbers T 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 T The first overall result of the study is obtained by noting each T 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. T 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 T 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, r that robust RV was obtained with three of the four remote viewers. om 2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes Distribution of Results across ——————— 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 ajternatea seed arpa 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; dfy = 2, dfg = 33; F = 0.47 (F = 3.29 required for p< 0.05). 3 x 3; dfy = 2, dfg = 24; F = 0.95 (F = 3.40 required for p < 0.05). ‘one-way analysis of variance: df, = 2, df, = 6 (F = 5.14 required for p< 0.05). F(688) = 4,02; F(807) = 0.40; F(557) = 1.51; F(753) = 7.69. Approved For Release 2000/08/0&6 CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 re i , aw
For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 c Coordinate (C) targeting techniques, but per w the relative effectiveness of these alterna~ sonal bias or preference on the part of a viewer can ske tive targeting techniques in practice. Finally, no differences of note were observed in Technique B (Beacon) between the first trial, jn which the remote viewer is j{ntroduced in person to the individual 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 basis of coordinate targeting (as ina C Trial): The jnterviewer 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. The type of feedback given was designed to be as "nonleading™ as possible, meant only to give the viewer some verification if he were already on the right track. The feedback was in the form of a single 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 ae * One-way analysis of variance: df, = 1, dfg = 6; F = 0.25 (F = 4.96 vARravedpFo req dpFoR@ease 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 17 a _ _——
| 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 Cc’ column), or the Coordinates targeting without feedback (C column), 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 1 en CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 7 et
AA a I ee | a Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 | study,* for example, that simple statements of "correct," given in immediate response to correct viewer statements can be helpful, parallelling similar evidence in computer “guessing game" studies in which immediate feedback appears to lead to increasingly elevated performance profiles .° We have shown, however, that descriptive statements of fact about a site, given after a lengthy narrative by a viewer, may not be helpful. With regard to the effects of a different kind of feedback, post-session dccess to information about the site, the targeting study was designed to parallel as closely as possible protocols that hold under operational conditions. As such, because feedback to the remote viewer is often made ‘available at some future time, in our study we also provided feedback. In ‘this case we took the viewer to the site following each session, Such post-experiment feedback provides , however, a confounding factor, both in our study and in Ce}: in general: namely, . the possibility of obtaining information via a precognition channel. At this point we have no data on whether a significant portion of the infor- mation is transferred via this channel in a typical RV session. It is only known, primarily from RV data generated in other laboratories ,°® that a precognitive channel can provide significant amounts of information in studies designed to focus on this aspect. To determine as best we could whether there was any evidence in this study for precognitive effects, we examined the transcripts and flagged references to future site visitation that might in principle trigger use of a precognitive channel, An average of approximately one reference per transcript met this criterion (49 references in 48 transcripts). To determine first whether any potential effects of feedback precognition might be distributed unevenly across the session categories, i and thereby possibly compromise the effort to compare targeting techniques, a statistical analysis of the distribution of future feedback references Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 19
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 — in the transcripts was done. (The number of references totalled 16, 11, and 14 for Targeting Techniques A, B, and C, respectively.) No evidence: was found for an uneven distribution across session conditions, indicating no evidence for compromise caused by an uneven distribution of future- * feedback references. To check the matter further, we investigated whether there was any evidence that references to future feedback resulted in higher individual transcript ratings, because a positive correlation between references and ratings might indicate that triggered precognition played a major role, Altogether, with 49 such references distributed across 48 transcripts, we found by statistical test that the correlation coefficient between number of references per transcript and transcript ratings was not significant (r = 0.08, p = 0.70). Thus, we find no evidence that statements that might in principle encourage use of a precognitive channel had any effect, either for indi- vidual transcript ratings or for the differential comparisons between targeting conditions, The possibility of precognitive influence is, therefore, limited to the global possibility that a significant amount of information comes via the precognitive mode when it is available, simply because it is available. A separate study with feedback withheld on a random basis is required to resolve this global question. * One-way analysis of variance: df, = 2, dfy = 33, F = 0.52 (F = 3.29 red oproved For Reléase 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 90
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 Vv SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this study, "Targeting Requirements Task", we investigated the relative effectiveness of three alternative RV targeting techniques in use at the present time, The techniques are: (1) Beacon targeting, in which the remote viewer has had personal contact with, or is given a photograph of an individual located at the target site at the time of viewing. (2) Coordinate targeting, in which the remote viewer is given ‘the geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude, in degrees, minutes and seconds) of the remote site to be described, (3) Abstract targeting, in which the remote viewer is told only that there is a site to be described. In addition, as a secondary task we also investigated the efficacy of giving the remote viewer limited mid-session feedback as to the general nature of the target site whose more detailed description we were seeking. To address these issues, we collected a total of 48 RV trials over a four-month period, using San Francisco Bay Area locations as the target sites, These 48 trials, twelve from each of four remote viewers, were divided into two groups: thirty-six trials evenly distributed across the three targeting techniques (Beacon, Coordinate and Abstract), and an additional twelve coordinate trials in which mid-session feedback was given, to be compared with those coordinate trials without mid-session feedback. Relatively inexperienced viewers were used to minimize a priori bias with regard to the efficacy of one targeting technique over another. Before discussing the specific results of the study we note that the findApproved PomRele¢ase 2000/0308 nsCiApPRDPOE-007 88RO0B20020000 1 4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 typica 1 7 Rv sessions, which include the possibility of eventual future feedback to the viewer as to "ground truth." The results obtained in this study, as in nany (a tasks, are, therefore, subject to the caveat that a global precognitive channel could be operative, and it is recommended that this issue be examined separately in future work, The results of this study are summarized as follows: ¢ Three of the four viewers exhibited reliable RV functioning. * For the viewers as a group (and for the successful viewers as a subgroup), no significant differences as to the efficiacy of one targeting technique over another emerged; all three techniques provided useful data of comparable accuracy, indicating that there is little, if any, intrinsic difference between the modes. * For one of the successful viewers, who quickly developed an order of preference for targeting techniques, sig- nificant differences were noted, aligned with the expressed preferences; we take this to indicate that the apparent intrinsic equality of the technique evidenced in the overall results of the study can be modulated by personal preference or bias, and so the choice of targeting must be tempered by this factor. e In the case of Beacon Targeting, no significant difference between personal contact and the use of a photograph was evident. ¢ Mid-session feedback in the form given (limited feedback as to the general nature of the site, following the development of a coherent 15- or 20-min narration by the viewer) yielded no significant improvement in accuracy, and some (though statistically nonsignificant) evidence for degradation of accuracy, at least in the better transcripts. We, therefore, conclude that remote viewers can describe remote sites of interest with equal accuracy, using Beacon, Coordinate, or Abstract Targeting Techniques, subject only to their individual preferences. Attempts to increase the accuracy of such results by providing mid-session Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 22 |
Approved For Release ( : pi descriptive feedback as to the general nature of the site, are, however, not likely to be successful, Approved For Release 2000/08/G8 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 = <
Approved For Release 2000/ 8 : CIA-R 6-00789R003200200001-4 REFERENCES H. E, Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proc, IEEE, Vol. 64, pp. 329-354 (March 1976), UNCLASSIFIED. H. E. Puthoff, R. Targ, and E. C. May, “Experimental Psi Research: Implications for Physics," in The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World, Ed. R. Jahn, AAAS Selected Symposium 57 (Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO, 1981), UNCLASSIFIED, R. Targ; H. E. Puthoff, B. S, Humphrey, and_E. C. May, “Special Orientation Techniques (U)," Final Report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (June 1980), H. E. Puthoff, "RV Reliability, Enhancement, and Evaluation (U)," Final Report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (February 1982) | Cc. T. Tart, Learning to Use Extrasensory Perception (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, I1, 1976), UNCLASSIFIED. J, P. Bisaha and B. J. Dunne, "Multiple Subject and Long-Distance Precognitive Remote Viewing of Geographical Location,” in Mind At Large: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception, Ed. C. T. Tart, H. E. Puthoff, R. Targ (Praeger Press, New York, NY, 1979), UNCLASSIFIED, Approved For Release 2000/08/08 2€1IA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 =
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : «6, Final Report June 1980 Covering the Period 1 May 1979 to 31 March 1980 SPECIAL ORIENTATION TECHNIQUES (U) oe MuerneWwone ; Approv od,.For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
[RN Chem Neem any Approved For Release 2000/08/0 CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS @...., ° LIST OF TABLES (U). . . , , ee ew II INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (U) , . A. Basic Program Structure (U) B, Task Summary (U). , oe 8 Cc, Report Organization (U) ., ITI BACKGROUND (U) er A. Screening (U) oe eo ew ww B, Remote Viewing Protocols for the Description of (San Francisco Bay Area) Target Sites (U) (U) - 1. Basic Procedural Design (U). oe 2. Remote Viewer/Interviewer Roles (U). 3. Target Pool Selection (U). . ’ 4, Target Storage and Access (U). . , 5. Remote Viewer Orientation (U). ,. 6, Interviewer Behavior (U) - ee 7. Target Person ("Beacon") Behavior (WU), 8, Post~Experi ment Feedback (U) oe ee 9, Evaluation Procedure (U) IV ORIENTATION PROGRAM--PHASE ONE (U) A. Remote Viewing of Local Target Sites (U). B. Summary of the Six Series (U) ; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 vii oo fm |! wy © ll 12 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 25 25 26 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 **CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 7 | a 1 a | bas ded
fs: Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : 1a ROP 20°0""* . Viewer No. 155 (U) . 1. - 2 2-6 es ee ee eee Viewer No. 292 (U) . 1. 2. 6 2 es ee te te eee Viewer No, 372 (U) .. 2. 6 ee ee © © fe ee Viewer No. 468 (U) .. 2. 6 2 2 ee © ee es . viewer No. 518 (UU). 2 ee ee ee ee : Viewer No, 690 (U) . 2. 2 6 se 2 te ee ees aah OD . om Analysis of Transcript Correlations (U) . 2 © © 2 D. Summary of Judging Results for Local Target Sites (U) .. 2.6 6 ee ee ee ee eee ee E. Phase-One Conclusions (U) . . 2. +++ +e*e se 8% v ORIENTATION PROGRAM--PHASE TWO (WU) 2. 2. 2 © «© © © ee A. Remote Viewing (RV) of 35-mm Slides (U) . 1. 2 wee 1. Viewer No. 372 RV (WU). 2. - 6+ se ese tere 2. Viewer No. 518 RV (U). 2. 2-6 © ee se ete for 35-mm Slides (U) . 2. 6. e+ e# © 2 8 es fo 8 B. Future Remote Viewing (FRV) CU) 2. 6 6 ee ew ws es Viewer No. 468, RV and. FRV of 35-mm Slides (U) Viewer No, 292, RV and FRV of 35-mm Slides (U) Viewer No. 155, RV and FRV of 35-mm Slides (U) Viewer No. 155, FRV of Local Target Sites (U). mb ON Cc, Extended Remote Viewing (ERV), Viewer No. 518 (U) . 1. Background (U) ...- + +e eee eee ere 2. Pilot Effort (U) .. 6. 6 6 ee ee te tes 3. Formal Series (Six Trials) (U) .-. +--+ -++s-s 4 Discussion (U) .. 2. 2. ee eee ee ee ees D. Remote Viewing of Alphabet Letters CU). 2 1 8 ew we E. Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) with Immediate Feedback (U). . +. 2-26 + 2+ see ee © eo Fes VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (U). « 2 oe © © © te eo iv Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : — «=—slhc 3. Comparison of Blind Judging and Accuracy Ratings
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 as ILLUSTRATIONS (U) . ~ 1 Stanford Art Museum Target (a), and Response (b), by = Viewer 372 (U). 2... 2... ee eee oe ee ew eh ee 5 - 2 Beacon Tower in Vicinity of Control Tower Target at Palo aa Alto Airport (a), and Response by Viewer No. 292 (b) (U).. 33 3 Windmill Target and Responses by Viewers S5 (a) and ES No. 468 (b) UW). 2. eee ee ee ee ee 45 7 4 Redwood City Cross Target, and Responses of Viewers 372 (a) baa and 155 (b) (). Py e e ° ° o ry . e o ° ° ° ry e * . . . ° e e 46 =: 5 Pedestrian Overpass Target, and Responses of S4 (a) and _ No. 155 (b) (UU)... ee ee ew tt ee ee 48 a 6 Distribution of 36 Target/Transcript Correspondences for mm | 4 Local Target Sites (6 subjects, 6 transcripts each), Showing th More than 50% First-Place Matches (U)............, 49 E 7 Comparison Between Blind-Judge Rankings and Accuracy é : f Assessments (U). . 2... ee 0 eee et we ew we cee sl f = 8 Ultra Modern Dome House-~Target, and Viewer 372 i Drawing (U). .. 1... 2 eee ee eee eee he es 61 i . 9 Mount Alverno Conference Center, and Viewer 372 ‘ Drawing (UU)... 1... ee te et tt ww a oe ee eee 62 10 Stanford Shopping Center--Target, and Viewer 372 Drawing (U). 2... 1.4.2 ee ee ee wee ee ee ww ‘63 Ll Varsity Theatre Arcade--Target, and Viewer 518 Drawing (U). . 2... 1 ee ew ee ew a 64 12 Victorian House--Target, and Viewer 518 Drawing (U). ...., 65 13 Glass Slipper Motel--Target, and Viewer 518 Drawing (U). . . 66 14 Stanford Shopping Center--Target, and Response of Viewer No. 468 (U).. 2... 0.2.2.2... 04.4. ot oe 72 15 Target Slide, and Viewer 292 Response Fifteen Minutes Before 76 Random Selection of Target (U) .. a 16 Target Slide, and Viewer 272 Response Fifteen Minutes Before Random Selection of Target (U)........0... oe e 77 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 Vv
ved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R 200200001 -4 17 Copper Pitcher and Viewer No. 518 ERV Response ss, Food Mill Target and Viewer No. 518 ERV Response | s Straw Hat Target and Viewer No. 518 ERV Response . : 0 Tripod Target and viewer No. 518 ERV — . ' ' - 21 Antenna and Viewer No. 518 ERV Response a onse (U) + +++ °° 22 Globe Target and Viewer No. 518 ERV Resp Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R0903200200001-4 a |
SS ER vag omer: er Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 TABLES (U) 1 Results of Transcript Concept Analysis of a Remote Viewing 30 Experiment (U) . . » + ee er ae ee ee «- 2 0-7 Point Accuracy Rating Scale for Target/Transcript a7 Correspondence (U).- ++ -sseeee 4 07° ws ee ee 3 Total Scores for Each of the Six Viewers in Phase-One 50 Orientation Program (U). ..- + - oe ep ewe we ee oe. eee 4 Distribution of CRV Target/Response Matchings (UU). 2. se we ow 98 100 5 Program Summary (U). «+ - . , Approved For Release 2000/08/08; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 ; ~——(<sés;SCté<iarrT “tee B a
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 a I OBJECTIVE (U) } | The objectives of this program are the optimization of remote viewing (RV) protocols, the orientation of selected individuals to reach enhanced levels of ability, and the establishment of screening procedures to enlarge the population from which individuals are selected. cay ORE epee ery Ta Be IPN TR: see ¥r Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 1 ~aeeall A ,
: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 = | Approved For Release 2000/08/ II INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY (U) A. Basic Program Structure (vu) — eo = In this report we present results and assessments of a one~year program for the optimization of remote viewing Ey. en. The objective of this program was to familiarize these individuals with the SRI remote viewing protocols, to produce enhanced levels of ability, and to establish screening tests and procedures for enlarging the population from which such individuals are selected, (U) For the past seven years SRI International has been investigating a human perceptual /processing ability called remote viewing (RV). This is the subject matter of the current study, and it pertains to the acquisition and description, by mental means, of information blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding and generally considered to be secure from such access, 6 .. the start of this program, six individuals were an a. «. participate in an RV technology transfer With the exception of one of the six who had participated in an ESP study Several years earlier, these participants when selected were inexperienced with regard to paranormal perception in general, and RV in particular. A variety of different training protocols were examined with the goal of helping the participants familiarize themselves with the SRI RV techniques, Formal assessment and transfer series were carried out with each of the six participants, in which they were asked to use mental imagery processes to describe distant geographic locations (bridges, roads, buildings, etc.), hidden 35-mm slides of similar sites, and objects placed in a controlled- access location, Several other information series were carried out. These RBISVEE HPN Hadt 2oomesoe  samousree7ssnons20020000"-4
A pproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 #08: CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 (U) Four of the six participant each produced results that de- parted significantly from chance expectation in assessment series that were formally judged by very strict criteria. The other two produced results An the assessment series that were also suggestive of paranormal perception. Overall, this result constitutes highly significant per- -5 formance (p = 4x%10 , 0 odds of one in 25 ,000 of such a result occurring by chance). me are including in this introduction one illustrative example of an RV trial for a real-time San Francisco Bay Area outdoor target. Te viewer, No. 372, who contributed this data, produced a mixture of responses, some excellent and some noncorresponding , in his two series at SRI. Several of his descriptions were among the best obtained in the program, and his overall consistency in performance resulted in both of his individual series reaching statistical significance. (U) Current and proposed programs are directed at training partici- pants to bring their RV ability under more conscious control, and to learn to recognize and overcome the factors that limit RV reliability. These limiting factors center around the genera jon of erroneous data by the viewer from his memory and imagination. An example of the successful resolution of such noise is the following. (U) The viewer was closeted with an interviewer in the laboratory at SRI to await the target team's arrival at their destination. The target was the Stanford Art Museum on the Stanford campus. The viewer made several tentative outline sketches of different shapes that he said were “associated with the face of a puilding." Finally, he made a careful perspective drawing of the building he was visualizing. A photograph of the target is shown in Figure 1(a), and the viewer's drawing is shown for comparison in Figure 1(b). The viewer's narrative descri ed the face of the building as follows: “ghere is a white and black pattern, a white 4 a
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 - = » 7 (u) ~ and black striped pattern." ... "It's like an inverted rectangle, wit ™L square fastened to the back, or a rectangle laid down behind it." two buildings in one. One building." "I have the sense that there i Li} . - dirt by the walls .... He went on to talk about trees, flowers, ¢ d bicycles, all of which can be found directly in front of the target P] building. B, Task Summary (U) (U) In the following we briefly summarize results of the var iaau perceptual tasks that were undertaken: * (U) Bay Area Target Site Remote Viewing. In the Phase One sites as targets were carried out with each of the six ~ viewers. In these six series, four of the viewers each produced results that were independently significant (p < 0.05), making the series as a whole strongly m significant (p = 4 X 1075; odds of one in 25,000). * (U) Remote Viewing of 35-mm Slides. These trials = were carried out under varying conditions for five viewers in Phase Two. One viewer, who generated significant results in Phase One, was again independently my significant in his description of distant slides, A second viewer, also producing significant results in Phase One, produced drawings in Phase Two that were = formally judged to have significant correlations with the slide targets, although his verbal material did not, A third viewer was asked to describe slides before they al were chosen, that would be shown to him at a later time, His results were suggestive of success (p = 0.1) but not statistically significant. Simtlar trials with two other ™ viewers were also encouraging but nonsignificant. Remote Viewing in a Room A viewer who was mm successful in the slide viewing trials also carried out a series using extended remote viewing, in which he spent more than an hour on each of six attempts to describe | objects held ina vwgm Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 . _— mr
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA- 96-00789R003200200001 -4 viewer's responses: one judged it significant (p = 0.05), and one just missed significance. (U) Alphabet Targets. A viewer successful in both Bay Area remote viewing and Slide trials also participated in a series in which he attempted to describe alphabet letters in a distant location. This was not a formal series, since the protocol, which was exploratory in nature, was changed several times during the series, However, the percentage hits result indicates that the viewer was in contact with the target letters at a rate higher than would be expected by chance. These data, taken in conjunction with data generated on another program, show promise that this ability can be developed. (U) Correlated Responses. In the course of the year's work, targets were repeated from time. to time as a result of random selection from a target pool of sixty. In some cases we obtained strikingly similar responses (even when incorrect) from the different viewers who countered these repeated targets. These responses also corMlated well with responses obtained from other viewers over past years of research. The observation of such a resuit indicates the possibility that given target stimuli trigger charac~ teristic responses, which could be tabulated in a “dictionary” of site attributes. Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV). Three of the viewers ‘took part in CRV exercises in which they were asked to describe distant locations anywhere on the globe, given only the geographical coordinates of latitude and longitude. This is an ability that has been well demonstrated by some of our experienced participants, and similar encouraging results were obtained in these trials One exercise which was sufficiently lengthy to justify analysis was found to be statistically significant at ¢ p = 0.0083 (odds of one in 120). | ee these studies we find evidence that the SRI RV technology is transferable; one of the viewers turned in clearly superior performances, and three others produced successful (statistically signifi- cant) remote viewing at a level to indicate useful information transfer. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 :,-CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 _—_ |
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 (a | a A WNOen A i NN (Seth) international WALZ Date 6 August 1981; 0810 hrs Series , Session No, Target No. J.S. #21 Remote Viewer | #002 a Interviewer H. Puthoff eee Beacon(s) CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing) ee " Tape Cassette 123 eee Comments: ——————— 1. . Coordinate supplied to interviewer Puthoff at session start e 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and target activity of interest, 3. Pre-, mid-, and post-session calibration experiments with Nat'l. Geographic target material (Hong Kong; Mt, Hood; and Kotor, Yugoslavia, respectively) yielded good results. 4. Remote viewer describes complex of buildings, with site having to do with high-energy, high-technology activity. SRI itepnatiorzbr Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 333 Ravenswood Ave. * Menlo Park. CA 94025 « (415) 326-6200 « Cable: SRIINTL MNP -« TWX: 910-373-1246
incieceeemniaenenanarnae ea Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : Clamp 003 200200001-4 Date 15 September 1981; 0858 hrs Series ~~ . Session No, 1 a Target No. J.S. #22. Target a Remote Viewer #009 A Interviewer H, Puthoff Tape Cassette 124 Comments: J - 2, Remote viewer, interviewer and monitor blind as to target location and target activity of interest. 3. Site accessed by abstract “Target,” taken to correspond with a site = chosen @B by COTR > Mand known only to him at time of session. 4, Pre-session calibration with Nat'l. Geographic target site (Dubrovnik - Yugoslavia) good, indicating good conditions going into session. f 5, Remote viewer described airfield location and associated buildings, = including some interiors. SRI international 52 ApprovedsBoraRelease 2000/08/08 CTA REP IE UH FBORODS 2002000U 14 MN * TWX: 910-2 *
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 Appendix C AN EXAMPLE OF A REMOTE VIEWING RESPONSE - 53 Approved For Release oon EERE 2s-007sen008200200001-4