Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : COTE PREC TETE D2 (U) Target 6: Brickyard, There are initial descriptions of rectangular objects, and the first drawing looks like a drawing of a brick. 4 The transcript also had discussions of being inside a building, and of views of towers, which are incorrect. He later sees things lined up that look like books on.a shelf. Again and again he has "very precise geometric j patterns," as "the most important aspect of the place," which is correct. The drawing package has six pages of curved objects and forms that do not apply, however. The viewer also stated, "when I look up I see red, red sky, the sky is all red for some reason ...' which appears to correspond to the beacons' note about spending a significant amount of time "between two very extensive solid walls of red-orange brick." Accuracy Rating = 3. (U) The sum of Accuracy Ratings for this viewer is 24, the highest in the group. The blind judging with transcript analysis resulted 4 in correct matches to the appropriate targets for four of the six tran- scripts, and an interchange of. the remaining two, This gives four first place matches and two second place matches in the final judging matrix. Using the exact count-of-permutations analysis described earlier, the probability of obtaining by chance a result equal to or better than the one obtained is p = 2/6! < 0.003. Thus, the odds of obtaining a result of this significance by chance is less than 1 in 300, (U) The viewer's significant performance was repeated in his second training period at SRI, when he took part in additional trials, which again produced highly significant results. 4, Viewer No. 468 (U) (U) Target 1: Merry-Go-Round, The target was a child's merry- go-round in a playground sand pile. About 25 ft away is a spiral slide. The viewer's main descriptions were of a large multistory building ina courtyard, Inside this building he has a "free-floating staircase that 36 UNCLASSIFIED PS Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 abs
Approved For Releasy FApOr A CETE LED 300170002-9 (U) is kind of suspended, It turns this way, and then there is a chute," a. description that resembled somewhat the spiral slide. . However, there was nothing in the drawings or transcript that pertained to the merry-go- round, and the multistory building concept was incorrect, so that a judge would not be able to identify the target from these data. We therefore assigned it an Accuracy Rating = 0, in spite of certain suggestive correspondences to a nearby feature. (U) Target 2: Windmill. This target is a white-vaned windmill on a country road and has been well described by two previous viewers in past years. This viewer described curving stairs (incorrect) and a circular building like a water tank (correct). Our assessment was Accuracy Rating = 3, (U) Target 3: Stanford Art Museum. The item of main interest at this site is a 5-ft cube sculpture standing on its corner in front of a columned portico of a Greek-style building. The viewer described a dark rectangular solid sticking out of the front of a building, and drew a careful sketch of pillars that support the front of the entry just behind the cube. The viewer also mentioned track lighting, heavy doors, and an “interior bridge," all of.which show good correspondence to elements at the target site. His transcript also had office buildings and cyclone fencing, however, which do not appear at the site. We assigned it an Accuracy Rating = 3, based primarily on the two good drawings of the projecting rectangular solid and the columns, (U) Target 4: Methodist Church, For this target he described a building with a "sloping roof with windows set into it.'" He then drew . a large sketch of a put lding with a pointed roof supported from the out- side by sloping roof beams. These features accurately represent the main features of the large stone church that was the target. . The viewer also 37 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CONC SOFIE P22 ai | Ww) correctly described that the target team went inside the building, and il then looked out through windows toward the end of the trial. Accuracy Rating = 5. (U) We also note that the viewer seemed quite tense to the interviewer during the first three trials. On Thursday, just before IH trial 4, our contract monitor arrived at SRI to observe the protocol, and particularly the randomization procedure used in target selection, He also observed this trial by joining the outbound target team, From this point forward we noticed a dramatic change (for the better) in the viewer's performance. (U) Target 5: Four Seasons Arch, "I get the feeling of their walking through an opening in a low wall." That is just what a target team does at an omega-shaped arch in front of a restaurant. The viewer had: several arch shapes, together with a carefully drawn wall comprising 300 degrees of a circle, and correctly labeled as being white (although he had it lying on the ground, which is incorrect). The transcript is all} arches and walls for the first four pages, and then drifts into buildings and wooden structures which are not at the site. Accuracy Rating = 5. (U) Target 6: Mount Alverno Conference Center. This target consists of an assembly building with glass doors, and an overhanging shallow-pitched roof that resembles in many details the drawing made by the viewer. He also correctly described the approach to the site over a little bridge with hand rails, and said that the building was locked, so that the target team could not go inside (correct). Further, he described} a bridge "that goes nowhere," in striking agreement with a stairway that rises up a hill, and appears to. go nowhere, since all one sees at the top 1 of the stairway is the sky. The viewer did not describe a tall stone tower surmounted by a gold cross next to the assembly building, which is UNCLASSIFIED ‘ Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 UNCLASSIFIED (U) considered the main feature of the target site. Our assessment resulted in an Accuracy Rating = 5, because of the good drawing of the main building, and an accurate description of the place as being "quite like a church but not exactly a church itself." (U) Sum of Accuracy Ratings = 21. We note that this viewer's ability to make clear drawings of his mental images (he is a professional illustrator) is a great asset both to himself in describing his remote viewing experiences, and to those trying to evaluate his descriptions. Blind judging gave this series 4 first, 1 second, and 1 fourth place match (p < 0.003, or odds of less than one in 300 for such a matching profile to occur by chance alone), 5. Viewer No. 518 (U) (U) Target 1: Stanford Shopping Center. The target is the central courtyard of the Stanford Shopping Center. It is a large rotunda surrounded by high arches and is paved with tiles in a circular pattern, The pedestrian avenues leading away from this hub have fountains and large planters with flowers. The viewer drew and described a round fountain with a spray, located close to a rectangular box with something dark in it, This transcript did not contain a description of the central focus of the target, although many elements could be found in the nearby pedestrian avenues, Accuracy Rating = 3. (U) Target 2: Bowling Alley. The viewer described an outdoor scene with a large building with overhang (correct), with many curves and oaken doors (incorrect). Inside he had a complex structure like ‘a throne. We found little resemblance to the target. Accuracy Rating = 1, (U) Target 3: Alta Mesa Cemetery. The viewer described and drew several buildings, which were not apropos, and described "a place 39 UNCLASSIFIED. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : ONCE AS STEED - (U) of fun and recreation." He had a recurring bicycle throughout the transcript which also could not be matched. Our Accuracy Rating = 1. (U) Target 4: Hoover Tower, The viewer had the feeling that he was "abnormally high." He also saw semicircular ends of a dark tunnel ; in which he was standing. The target team was on the observation deck of Hoover Tower, The deck is surmounted with a domed ceiling (that the viewer described) and each of the four sides:is a large floor-to-ceiling arch, making the view outside much brighter than the space inside the observation deck, resulting in a tunnel-like aspect, The viewer clearly had the idea of shade, coolness, arches, and height. He also drew a "reddish inverted cone" and labelled it as such, which was a good match of} the top of the tower. The beacon was slightly acrophobic during the ex- periment, and the viewer detected "tension, anxiety around me and below me ....' Accuracy Rating = 4, (U) Target 5: Swimming Pool Complex. The viewer described "a two-dimensional rectangle that is not a structure," in a plaza sur- ~ rounded by walls. His images finally resolved into a three-tiered fountaig of lazy-susan construction, At the site the target team was standing between a large rectangular pool and a circular wading pool 110 ft across,% The target team members discussed at the site the fact that if the viewer 1 described the wading pool as three concentric circles in a plaza, that would probably indicate target acquisition. (The circular pool has three : depth graduations, each marked by a dark circular band.) The viewer's final drawing is of three nested circles in the middle of a plaza, surrounded by a wall, with trellises and foliage on the sides (correct). However, this very apropos drawing was preceded by others less descriptive} of or applicable to the target. Accuracy Rating = 4, 40 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For es INCLASSIFIE 88R001300170002-9 (U) to corn, So, one may speculate that the viewer accessed this adjacent area as the target team arrived at their site. (U) Target 6: Methodist Church. All the images in this tran- script pertain to a one-story building with "an inverted V roof." The © main feature of the target is just such a roof. The viewer also correctly identified the target as being a building in downtown Palo Alto. Since there were no identifying characteristics given, we assigned it an Accuracy Rating = 4. (U) The sum of the Accuracy Ratings for the six trials is 19, which is the third highest in the group. One of the main features that contribute to this viewer's comparatively high rating is that these tran- scripts are relatively free of incorrect material; the viewer does not have a lot to say, but what is said is largely correct, We consider this to be a very desirable characteristic, (U) The formal judging for this series yielded five first place matches. The probability of obtaining such a result by chance is p = 1/2! < 0.002. (The most significant of the study.) Cc. Analysis of Transcript Correlations (U) (U) Before summarizing the judging results of Phase One, we digress to discuss an interesting and potentially important observation, During the past seven years of research, we have carried out a total of more than two hundred remote viewing trials with several viewers. Since the target locations for these trials are selected by random processes from previously prepared target pools, individual targets will recur from time to time for different viewers. We have observed that certain targets are almost always described correctly, while certain others are described in a SS consistent idiosyncratic fashion even when the description is incorrect, 43 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CARDOSO SIPIPD? ! (U) For example, the Baylands Nature Preserve, which is a botanical garden in the marshes of San Francisco Bay, has been a target several times in the last two years. This large open area is reached by a wooden walkway about a quarter of a mile long. This walkway is crossed at its midpoint A by another walkway under some high-voltage transmission wires. Nearly AA all viewers (including Viewer 372 from this program) describe this site in terms of a "large cross lying on the ground." (U) In the Phase One series, two large churches in the target pool were not described by Viewers 468 and 690 in terms of their rather prominent crosses; instead, attention was called to their "tall pointed roof" (correct). (U) The windmill target has never been described in terms of its four large white blades, but instead by reference to a circle with four quadrants marked off, and a feeling of circular motion, even though the windmill does not move. The responses of Viewer 468 and an earlier subject are shown in Figure 3, (U) We take these consistent perceptions as suggesting that ‘viewers do not necessarily experience a target location in the same terms as they would if looking at the target visually. Instead, some kind of simplifying transformation may take place during the viewer's perception of the target site, (U) An example of such simplification is shown in Figure 4, in which the target is a large cross on a hilltop. Two viewers, 155 and 372, described and drew it as a tall isosceles triangle. (U) Ina recent experiment, a viewer (No. 155) described a target as "squares within squares within squares." His drawing and description were quite parallel to a drawing made by a subject six years UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release “UNC [ 0788R001300170002-9 ED Oum (a) (b) UNCLASSIFIED WINDMILL TARGET AND RESPONSES BY VIEWERS S5 (a) (U) AND No. 468 (b) FIGURE 3 eit: wy —t a) — Le ry) wr < ol U z a | ° N oS oS So a = oS (=) o = oS (=) a © © i oS > (co) oO a Q O < oO KR So — © So — So oS oO N a ” © rc) Y aw ° LL zo] a > fo) = [om [om —{
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-ROPPT CO ERS STE PREY UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 4 REDWOOD CITY CROSS TARGET, AND RESPONSES OF VIEWERS 372 (a), AND 155 (b) = (U) 46 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 UNCLASSIFIED (U) earlier in response to the same target, a pedestrian overpass, The responses of both viewers are shown in Figure 5, (U) Since the subject in the laboratory is not perceiving the target visually, it seems unrealistic and unwarranted to assume that his experience (perception and conceptualization) of the target should necessarily always be photographic, Ina different perceptual modality, if the only data a person obtained about a trumpet was its sound, he would be able to recognize it each time it was heard, but he would have little information about its visual or physical aspects. On the other hand, after he had received visual feedback on his perceptions of many different musical instruments, the viewer (listener) would be able to learn the particular transformation between the sound of the instrument ‘and its visual appearance. In a similar manner, the occurrence of simple, recurring and archetypical responses to a given target in remote viewing may signal the possibility that the underlying transformations. can be learned and categorized, D. Summary of Judging Results for Local Target Sites (U) (U) We have described earlier in some detail how a judge arrives at a numerical ranking of the trials in a formal blind evaluation of a series, by use of concept analysis of the transcripts, The overall results of the formal judging are shown in Figure 6, Although in blind ranking one would expect one first, one second, ... one sixth place match for each person, or six of each for the six viewers combined, we find in fact that over half of the transcripts were first-place matched to the appropriate. target. The result recapitulates that obtained in our laboratory in our original study published in the March 1976 Proc. IEEE. (U) In addition, in order to arrive quickly at a trial-by-trial assessment, we made use also of a simple post hoc rating technique of a AT UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : UNC 001300170002-9 . ASSIFIED {b) i UNCLASSIFIED 48 UNCLASSIFIED - Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/0 IA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 7:C¢ UNCLASSIFIE cus) a oe . 2 ‘ INCREASING | if ii TRANSCRIPT 5 QUALITY ) nc: UL } ; c wu : ro) oe EXPECTED NUMBER pu OF MATCHES se. 2 4 PLACE MATCH q (blind matching) q UNCLASSIFIED 3 FIGURE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF 36 TARGET/TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCES Br FOR LOCAL TARGET SITES (6 subjects, 6 transcripts each), SHOWING MORE THAN 50% FIRST-PLACE MATCHES fees 49 UNCLASSIFIED E Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : “an (U) type devised by the client. In this approach one rates as "perfect" (e.g., 7 on a 0-to-7 scale) a transcript in which the target is unequivo-~ cally identified, If there is no apparent relationship between the transcript and the intended target, on the other hand, the transcript is rated 0. For intermediate results, an intermediate rating is assigned, as indicated earlier in Table 2. All transcripts were given a numerical Accuracy Rating, using the 0-to-7 scale, in the presence of the contract monitor, The summary data for the two judging processes are tabulated in Table 3, (U) We are now in a position to compare mathematically our Accuracy Rating of the transcripts (post hoc evaluation scale) with the formal ratings of. the same transcripts by a blind judge. In Figure 7 we have plotted a comparison of the Accuracy Ratings (vertical scale) and the blind- judge rankings (horizontal scale). We have also calculated the correlation coefficient between these two sets of ratings for the 36 transcripts/target pairs evaluated by both procedures, For the 36 pairs, the correlation coefficient is r= 0.59. The numerical probability of a correlation this high or higher Occurring by chance between "uncorrelated" data over the same range of values is only one in twenty thdygand (p = 5X 107°), (U) This important result shows that a post hoc Accuracy Rating technique similar to that used by the client organization to evaluate transcripts and viewer performance is very well correlated with objective blind matching normally used in psychology to evaluate data of this type. E. Phase-One Conclusions CU) — eS Oe Fusions mm In the first phase carried out six series of remote viewing trials, one series with each of ~ e have 50 | Approved For Release 2000/08/07 ummm 2001300170002. )
Approved For Release BUN Ar§ Sait EdisR001300170002-9 ACCURACY RATINGS REGRESSION LINE CORRELATION r = 0.59 {probability p = 5 x 107) BLIND-JUDGE RANKING UNCLASS!FIED FIGURE 7 COMPARISON BETWEEN BLIND-JUDGE RANKINGS AND ACCURACY ASSESSMENTS. Blind judging provides objective support for the accuracy _ rating evaluation process, in that the high-accuracy-rated transcripts are likely to be first-place matched (in the blind) to the appropriate target. UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : COFRIE TATRA EES? Table 3 (U) TOTAL SCORES FOR EACH OF THE SIX VIEWERS IN PHASE-ONE ORIENTATION PROGRAM (U) Viewer No, 155 Accuracy Target Blind Place Match Rating White Plaza. (Stanford) Stanford Art Museum Fire Circle Logo Valombrosa Conference Center Pedestrian Overpass NS (nonsignificant) Viewer No, 292 Accuracy Target Blind Place Match Rating SRI Courtyard Varsity Theater Arcade Glass Slipper Motel Wallbangers Racquetball Court Airport Tower Shielded Room 52 UNCLASSIFIED "Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP9 -00788R001300170002-9 Vv ORIENTATION PROGRAM-~PHASE Two (U) ry In this second phase of the orientation/training program, five of the six original participants returned to SRI for an additional two weeks of exposure to various remote viewing exercises. One of the con- tinuing questions in our examination of remote viewing is the determina- tion of what constitutes a target, of crucial importance in|, JACTVAL applications. To obtain data relevant to this question, we carried out | two series of remote viewing trials, with two individuals who were asked to describe the;+contents of 35-mm slides representing Bay Area locations. We wanted to determine whether the viewer would describe the slide itself or the target site of which it was taken, The results seem to indicate that it is the slide as opposed to the target site, that is perce ®\ed and described in this series, Bi: second area to be examined was that of precognition, or future remote viewing (FRV) in which a viewer is to describe a slide that will be shown to him at a later time, under conditions where the slide had not yet been chosen at the time of his description. This situation corresponds to certain Es :. in which we have been asked to describe a remote geographical target as it would appear at some later time. We have found good evidence for the successful outcome of such trials, and our goal here was to attempt to obtain further information potentially useful in learning how to increase the accuracy and reliability of such functioning. 57 Approved For Release ‘= : —_p
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : C CLASSIFIED | (U) To begin, after the viewer announces that he is ready, the monitor selects a slide by random number generator. No feedback is provided to the viewer until the viewer has indicated that he is finished and the monitor has gone to the room in which the viewer has been working and has collected his drawings. A session typically lasts about fifteen minutes, 1, Viewer No, 372 RV (U) (U) The first series of six trials was carried out by Viewer 372 during his second two-week period at SRI. The six target slides were of the following targets: (1) Alta Mesa Cemetery (2) Ultra-modern Dome House (3) Pedestrian Overpass (4) Mount Alverno Conference Center (5) Redwood City Cross (6) Stanford Shopping Center Pavilion. (U) Our post hoe personal impression was that three of the six descriptions were good matches to the target slides, as indicated by our Accuracy Ratings of 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, and 5, respectively. (U) The results were also formally evaluated by a blind judge using the concept analysis techniques being applied to the local target series of Phase One. As per standard procedure, the transcript /drawing response packages and target material (slides) were turned over to the judge, each in a separate random order different from the order of target usage. Again, the transcripts were edited only to the point of deleting information that could provide artifactual cues to the judge, such as references to other targets or temporal order, (Only five of the target / transcript pairs were submitted for judging, since the judge had inadvertently 59 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 FRI CEASSIFIED 70002-9 (U) been exposed to one of the results [Target 4] presented at a briefing as an example of excellent slide viewing.) (U) The ‘judge was asked to blind rank order, on a scale of 1 4 to 5, best to worst match, each of the transcripts against each of the targets, generating a 5 x 5 matrix of the five target/transcript pairings. 4 Three slides and transcripts were directly matched, one was matched second place, and one was matched third place. The direct-count-of- permutations analysis of the matrix yielded a result significant at 4 p = 2/120 = 0.017, or odds of one in sixty of obtaining such a result by chance matchings. (U) Three of the drawings and slide targets for this viewer are shown here as Figures 8 through 10. We conclude from these results that viewers can describe target slides, and from our analysis of the content of the transcripts it appears that they are describing the slides as projected, not the overall target location. AZ | . 2, Viewer No. 518 RV (U) ; | ii | (U) A similar series of six trials was conducted with Viewer 518. His six target slides were: q (1) Laundromat interior (2) Varsity Theatre arcade (3) White victorian house (4) Sylvania dome building (5) Glass Slipper Motel (6) A locomotive slide in a playground. The viewer made what we consider to be three excellent sets of drawings i to correspond with the Theatre, the Victorian, and the Motel targets. FI These three drawing/target pairs are shown here in Figures 11 through 13. 60 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA- RDP96- 00788R001300170002-9: UNCLASSIFIED ORR RUE ects gt aera *, * Pree? op o 4 4 “Aono \ | . OY SoS ip s - Siped: | 5: Canes a ' PmTTEAAX, . {{ UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 8 ULTRA MODERN DOME HOUSE--TARGET, AND VIEWER 372 DRAWING — (U) 4 61 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED (U) MOUNT ALVERNO CONFERENCE CENTER, AND VIEWER 372 DRAWING FIGURE 9 62 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 am ae Mpg ee ESE
FIGURE 10 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER--TARGET, AND VIEWER 372 DRAWING = (U) 63 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : UNCLASSTFIEB” ees ane arene ncenevam me pen eee 2 it Hl I i a 7 ey 1 i | i | i i UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 11 VARSITY THEATRE ARCADE--TARGET, AND VIEWER 518 DRAWING — (U) 64 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release NE [RS RePETEIBRON" 2071700028 ue UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 12. VICTORIAN HOUSE--TARGET, AND VIEWER 518 DRAWING — (U) 65 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 !
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED FIGURE 13 GLASS SLIPPER MOTEL--TARGET, AND VIEWER 518 DRAWING (U} 66 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 d