Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9 Four sessions were conducted to provide information. The times and circumstances were as follows: (1) 1008 August 24 v372 was asked to describe the location and details of an event in progress. Details about pertinent personnel were also requested, (2) 1500 August 24 v372 was asked to describe details and activity at the site demarked by the presence of the Sponsor’s on-site representative. (3) 0910 August 25 v372 was asked to expand upon his descriptions from the previous day. (4) 1120 August 25 V372 was asked consolidate the information from the previous. scans and to provide his concluding remarks. 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 -: a SGIA feedback. D. Analysis Technique AS discussed in Section II, quantitative analysis in an 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 assessment, and vice versa. Under another program,® SRI developed a generalized analysis technique that allows for ana priori mission statement. An overview of that technique follows. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9 1.: 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 Tlek, uk, wk]: SG1A The RV response is similarly defined as a fuzzy set of response elements Riek, pk,wk}. The membership values for response elements, however, have a somewhat different meaning than those for target elements. Membership values, Hk, represent an analyst’s assessment as to the degree of presence of et in the response. For declarative statements, Hk= 1 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 pe< 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 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9 fuzzy set terminology, these quantities for the jth target/response pair are as follows: 2 w, (R; AT), 2 Tix Accuracy, = a; = > wi (RIN Tis Reliability = r = — , ; Dw Ris K and Figure of Merit, = M, = a, x r 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, », for the elements of the response, target, and their intersection—that is, Ri, Ti, and (Rim Ti), respectively. 2. Target and Response Data ‘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. Table 1 shows the universe of target and response elements and the formal definition of Tand 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(u), were determined from the raw data (see Appendices A and B). The target membership values, T(), 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() = 0) were assigned the average weight of elements present in the target. Approved For Release 2000/08/07--CIA-RDP96-00787R000300290001-9