Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3 3. Target Preparation Several hundred target packets were assembled prior to the first screening session. To prepare a single packet, a research assistant randomly chose one target from each of the four categories.* The target numbers were individually placed into opaque envelopes, sealed, and randomly numbered to indicate the order of presentation. A packet was formed by sealing the four smaller envelopes into a larger unmarked envelope. The packets were shuffled and locked in the project safe. For each different screening session, the assistant selected different packet for use during that session. . 4. Session Protocol A group screening session begins with an introduction to remote viewing presented by the project director. In addition to a historical review of the research conducted at SRI, the presentation included good, and not so good, examples of remote viewing. After a short break, the project director initiated the audience participation portion of the session. The four-trial audience participation requires a number of assistants. One of these, designated the sender, is sequestered in an isolated and locked laboratory (two floors above the session auditorium) throughout the four-trial series. The sender is responsible for the target display during each trial. While each trial is in progress, the sender views the target material (on a video monitor) and mentally attempts to “send” the target information to the assembled group. The remaining assistants are responsible for collecting the data (the response papers), session security, and providing target feedback. Before the series begins, the project director describes what is expected during the four trials, the logistics of data collection, and provides a short list of “hints” on how to accomplish remote viewing. The participants are encouraged to write and/or draw their first impressions on the single sheet of paper provided. The sender is introduced to the group before leaving for the isolated laboratory. The sequence of events for each trial is as follows: ® a one-minute relaxation period during which group members are encouraged to clear their minds and, while staying alert, relax as much as possible; @ a single telephone ring (i.e., the sender does not answer the phone) signals the sender to begin a trial and to view the target continuously until further notice; a five-minute viewing period; the data (the response sheets) is collected and sealed in large envelopes; @ feedback: an assistant telephones the sender, obtains the target number, and displays the target on a video monitor for the group; * A standard pseudo random algorithm (j.e., feedback shift register) was used throughout this study to provide random target/packet selections. Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3 @ a short break before beginning the next trial. Because the response sheets include carbonless carbon paper, the participants have copies of their original responses and can compare their individual responses with the target material during the feedback phase of each trial. 5. Analysis Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of subjects. Because all subjects have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an independent rank ordering for each person. Therefore, since the goal was to find persons with high-quality natural talent for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analyst to find any individuals who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements. Qualitative assessments of the responses from the first stage of screening formed the basis for deciding which persons might be invited for second-stage screening. The qualitative judging was based on the seven-point rating scale shown in Table 2.* An analyst was instructed to start at the top of the scale and find the highest rating that describes the match between each response and its intended target, post hoc. Table 2 Qualitative Rating Scale Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., nam- ing 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. * In other work, this seven-point scale was found to correlate with “blind” analysis (r=0.56, df=34, p <5 x 1075). Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3 Cc. Second-Stage Screening Protocol 1. Viewers The goal of second-stage screening is to select exceptional individuals who could participate in research. Individuals who showed qualitative evidence of remote viewing ability in the group screening described above, either by producing an average qualitative rating above three or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on at least one trial are invited to participate in a second round of individualized screening in the laboratory. 2. Targets Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for the initial group screening. Session Protocol For the second-stage screening, no sender was used. Before a session begins, a remote viewing monitor (i.e., an individual who interviews the viewer) selects the top opaque envelope, containing a target number as described above, from a randomly ordered stack of envelopes. The monitor places that sealed envelope adjacent to the video disk unit which is locked in a separate and isolated room during the remote viewing session. The sequence of events for each trial was as follows: 4. The monitor and viewer enter a remote viewing laboratory which is isolated from the target room. They sit opposite each other across a table in a well-lit, office-type environment. (This is SRI’s standard remote viewing protocol.) After a brief relaxation period, the viewer is instructed to describe the target with written words and drawings. The remote viewing session is five to fifteen minutes. During this time, the monitor is free to seek clarification from the viewer about words, drawings, and other information that arise during the session. (NOTE: The monitor is blind to the target selection.) The data (response papers) is collected, secured, and copied. The viewer and monitor leave the remote viewing laboratory and enter the target room. The target is displayed on a video monitor for the viewer as feedback. (NOTE: The viewer only has a copy of his/her response. Thus, there is no opportunity to add anything to the response.) Analysis Quantitative analysis presents no problem if each viewer is tested individually. Each response was ranked against the intended target and its three associated decoys by an independent 7 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3