Tl -RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 Approved For Release 2000/08/ = Date 17 January 1981; 1230 hrs | e Session No, eee mi Target No. 8m Target _,. = Oo = Interviewer | | a Comments : l. At Session start remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target = | location and target activity of interest, Mid-session, interviewer consulted atlas and became thereby knowledgeable as to target = | country~-this was not made known to remote viewer, 2 ° | ! = SRI International 9? 03200200001-4 | en : -RDP96-00789RO0 Ly 333 “approved Fommaiease-2990108/08 SiR * Cable: SRIINTL MNP « TWX: 910-373-124 /) aa
Renee Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : Cl 003200200001 -4 OOO had dee “7S SS Fi international NLL LLLSA at at Date 2 April 1981; 0912 hrs Series a . Session No. J.S. #12 Target No. Target qu Remote Viewer #002 H, Puthoff Interviewer Beacon(s) CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing) ; : Tape Cassette 110 Comments : 1, Coordinate supplied to interviewer puthors 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and target activity of interest, 3. Pre-session. calibration experiment with Nat'l Geographic target (Buenos Aires, Argentina) yielded good results, indicating high probability that remote viewer “on-line” to start. Post-session calibration (Dusky Sound, New Zealand) was equivocal, indicating that the..remote viewer may have gone “off-line” during or after the ' viewing. Caution is therefore advised, 4, Viewer described a "science-city” type of site, with radio towers, chemical storage, and medical facilities. 38 t ional Approved Par RULE SOA ios... cia BaRe6-nezaaRen3 20020000 (MEL MNP + TWX: 910 333 Ravenswood Ave. ¢ *
‘i 01-4 | Approved For Release 2000/08/08. —\ | ~ - Date . 3 April 1981; 0905 hrs . a Series - Session No, mm { Target No, J.S. #13 Target Remote Viewer #002 = Interviewer Beacon(s) CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing) = Tape Cassette 111 - Comments : — 1. Coordinate Supplied to intervi eve: iy = 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and target activity of interest. — 3. Pre-session calibration experiment with Nat'l Geographic target (Istanbul , Turkey) yielded good results, indicating high probability that remote viewer “on-line” to Start. Post-session calibration ™ (Mt. Ararat, Turkey) “off-line ," indicating possibility that target of interest might be equivocal, Remote viewer's confidence low, aborts, = 4. Viewer describes large noisy factory with cranes, and water contained by stone walls, = = SRI International 89R003200200001-4 = 108/08 : CIA-RDP96-007 = 333 Rappsawad For, Release 2000/08 (415) 326-6200 * Cable: SRIINTLMNP + TWx: 910-373-1246 a
Sree 00200001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96- 89R0032 Date 7 April 1981; 0928 hrs Series Session No, Target No, J.S, #14 Target Remote Viewer ‘#002 Interviewer H. Puthoff Beacon(s) '  CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewi ng ) ; Tape Cassette 112 Comments: 1. Coordinate supplied to interviewer Puthoff a . 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and target activity. 3. Pre-session calibration experiment with Nat'} Geographic targets (Zagreb, Yugoslavia, and Monument Valley, Utah) yielded 00d results, indicating high probability that remote viewer "on-line" to start, Post-session calibrations (Jordan River; San Antonio, Texas) good and poor, respectively, indicating some fatigue in functioning toward end Some caution with regard to target should therefore be exercised, : 4. Remote viewer described vast structures, partly subterranean, with storage function, SRI international “0 333 Ravenswood Ave. » Menlo Park, CA 94025 « (415) 526,5209 63 See SDN TLAINP . TWK: 910. 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA- = { Ed
: R003200200001-4 Approved: For Release 2000/08/0mmmmaay-7°78° Date 8 April 1981; 0827 hrs Series | § ce Session No, Target No, JS, #15 Remote Viewer #002 ee Interviewer H, Puthofr Beacon(s) . CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing) Tape Cassette 113 Comments : 1. Coordinate Supplied to interviewer Puthoff 2. Remote viewer and intery iewer blind as to target location and target activity, 3. Pre-session calibration experiments with Nat'l Geographic targets (Mt, McKinley, Sea of Galilee, Grand Canyon, St, Vincent Island) yielded acceptable results, indicating fair proba viewer on-line to start, Mid-session calibration bed, Mexico) of medium quality, Post-session cali Lake , Utah, Robinson Crusoe Island, Mt, Ararat) of expectation for ; SN target--medium quality, 4. Remote viewer described what appears to be *  cacitity. bility that remote | 41 SRI international 001-4 ~s napproved For Reléase-2eesrosiees CHEARDP Wr QOZHIRIIRZ002000 910-373-1246 ppro } ' : + 2 ies THE Yes
Date 8 April 1981; 1055 hrs Series a —_ Session No, . Target No,- JS. #16 rere = Target ce sCd Remote Viewer #002 aad . Interviewer H. Puthoff = Beacon(s) CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing ) Tape Cassette 114 - I Comments : — - 1. Coordinate supplied to interviewer. Puthoff ¥§ 2. Remote viewer and interviewer blind as to target location and target activity. “sl ge y 3. Remote viewer described large facility, energy producing, perhaps nuclear reactor, | _ a = — 42 -~ SRI international 333 Ravenswood Ave. « Menlo Park. CA 94025. * (415) - ROTBOROOS SOG EOS * TWX: 910-373-1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : = ‘ ww. w
—t Approvéd For Release 2000/98/08 - 16-00789R003200200001-4 There is the smell of disinfectant and ultra violet lights, purple light, lavendar light, inside this large hangar like building. The floor seems wet. People wear boots, very large rubber boots. There seem to be inside stairs going down. This place is maybe 40 ft high at least. There are these chamber units there, but there are stairs and an elevator going down. And a ramp and lift forks, so this is underground too. It‘s funny, there seems to be windows on the outside, but there aren‘t any windows on the inside. Fake windows. I seem to see what looks like a guard cubicle ’ because it has all glass around, it is inside the building. It has, by comparison to the other cold lavendar lights, it has yellow illumination in it. There are six men there. There is a big panel, it seems to be a voltage control panel for some sort of electronics system. Down the ramp are very long corridors, It looks like storage. There are signs everywhere. I can't read the characters but the phoenetics is sort of There are blinking red lights over some doors here and there. I think these are exit markers. /08/08 S@IA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA 3200200001 -4 Outside the ground isn't ™ flat, it is sort of like there are hills or artificially made mounds that sort of divide up this compound in a way. Buildings that look™ like barracks. A whole series of buildings that look like prefabricat m boxes, that are sort of all stacked together, Water tank on the hi Large tower I think and in the area there is an airstrip. It is = about 2 miles to the NE I think. I am going to end there, I don't like this place, | At that Class A site there was a tall thing that I couldn't make out I bet that that is a chimmney. I bet those are large furnaces, = a 60 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
a a ara i ieemernenemeeeereeees 0/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 a) | Approved For Release 200 T Appendix D T a EVALUATION PROTOCOLS “+t 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 ot
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 (a Appendix D Bt INSTRUCTIONS TO ANALYSTS (U) (U) The information provided as. enclosure to this report was obtained in response to a collection requirement provided by . This information was acquired from a new and potentially valuable source Work is currently being pursued to determine the accuracy, reliability, and improvement potential of this source. Your remarks and ‘attention to the evaluation sheet will be the basis for our assessment of this new collection technique, Therefore, the effort you expend will greatly assist us and will ultimately result in you receiving more data of increasing accuracy and reliability. (U) While formulating your judgements concerning the data, the following comments concerning this new source of Information may be helpful. (U) Foremost, the data is likely to consist of a mixture of correct and incorrect elements. Specifically: (1) | | The descriptive elements are generally of higher reliability than judgements or labels as to what is being described (recreational swimming pool may be mistaken for water purification pools, an aircraft hull may be mistaken for a submarine hull, etc.). Therefore, seemingly appropriate descriptive elements should not be rejected because of mislabeling. (2) SE tne data often contain gaps (in a 3-building complex, for example, perhaps only two of the buildings may be described, and an airfield may be added that isn't there). Such gaps or additions should not be taken to mean that the rest of the data is necessarily inaccurate, BPMrrerefore, a recommended approach is to first examine the entire information packet to obtain an overall "flavor" of the response, reserving final judgement even in the face of certain errors, and then go back through for detailed analysis, (U) If you have questions regarding the data you have received or on its evaluation please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you. 63 Approved For Release 200 iapieeepiielF26-00769R003200200001-4
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : => | PSYCHOENERGETICS PROGRAM TARGET FILE (SRI Internal Use Only) (U) Project Name eee . Viewer _ Monitor Date Time of Start Time of Finish Client ; Priority Urgent {] Routine —_ (U) Target Key TTT € ) Variance from Standard Protocol eee (U) Target ID No. . eee ( } Information Provided by Requestor —_—_— eee € ) Information Provided to the Monitor ees () Information Provided to the Source * . ( ) Information Requested by Analyst Date Information Delivered to Client Additional Data Request by Client Yes {] No [ Dates Additional Data Requests Met ( ) Remarks Approved For Release.2000/08/08 : —_—o —_—_
os 8 8 & 8 8 £ F UCTABWIOJUT JOIAAOOUT FTIITT ATBAFABTIA puw squoweTa sTqeyo rem anbyun snons}tqueun 4QTA gous puodserzz209 poog *UOFIBUIOJUT YOo<TAOUT oWOs ING *ZuyYyo JEU syUsUaTS TersAes YITA aouapuodseirz09 poop *‘aqts 3a31e3 BYyQ psssao0e kyqeqord sey voinos azeoTpUrT 0} ew sYyQ FO YBnous ynq ‘sjUaWaTe J9eTIOOUT pus 39e177109 Jo 2INgxTH *kzoqeuetdxa tes * * "7 ¢ aouapuodsei109 aTIIFT +t <= oS :Bl eos Aoeanooe a4} A0F SUOFIFUTIEG (mS oS . e s ° ° . ° e e . e queTlsox" - e 6 . . * . e e s e e e ° poop S}[Nser poxyw se ee # * © UGTA QoBqUOD BITS - T Ly NO Ly oO | BW] STI 3B peupuW19y C_} tnjosn AraA | Ingesn “ap aq WouuRD L_] yeuyszaeC; (} aUuON A2FLFIN vre2000 SE (*oqa ‘fsuetd ‘saTatTTqysuodsaz ‘suoyz zoe co wu CJ CJ (J CJ Sooo cece resTsdud) voTyEmiosuy AQP [BUOSIET 00789R003200200001 -4 Oo Oo oO Oo CJ RDP96 SATIFATIOR DEJFIodS JUBAITOY ((°239, CIA 038. UOTIeI3 -syuyupe ‘uoTyonpoad ‘yorwes: =32) auazque qadivz TezeUsD (cogs ‘s001s70 TEPER, (2223 nGu00 ‘seuusque). sqyUausTs speuueW a1 B98-TT BUS (938 “spyTeTsate ‘saut, peoztyea ‘sxo0P ‘sotys ‘sduTpT ing ‘sataqzo) slusus,Ts spEewueW aleos-3d81e7 | Oo oO oO Oo o Oo Oo «a i R (039 {1998M ‘uye1199) uoFza ~-dyaz9sap BT BI0T leoTydeazoag CI) CJ CJ C) CJ CI CI a CI CJ CJ C4 CI a C] £ é T 0 atqeottddy  usouyun QUITIa2XG = pood) s3z[nsey pextH gouapuodsar109 ION qayta aTqqTT fyowqUoD 3335 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 Approved | pOvandov mming aui itod (fn) *[eyIaqIewW paqyajuqns eyq jo Adeansoe ayz 07 SB saxog BuzAoOTTOJ e4a yoosys 35 (n) LIFHS NOLLVNIVAT AUVANNS
4400 poo 1 feesa os E - oe vw peuuoy . OO FT Ff 8 8 we we ew ey e © © «© 005 « “+7 49942] 3U passazae 4, qeqoad SPY 32An0s ajzRay p é put sirnsagz Vd Famzoy 8432 Jo y8noua 3nq ‘squawayza J29IIOSUT pur yoaag03 JO PANIKTY ss ee ee : Pate NVEM 2DeQUOD aQIS - T 23909 puodsaij985 PTI 2BANDIE Bi 10j SUOF3 TUT jag (cn) % “£20 eueyTdxa JT9§S * © © sa Tes [] awta S¥Q7 38 pautuzay { ) inzasp Azan, : { 7 hn den “3p 3q JouUURD mgesn | leursaey_ ° (o] 2u0n -— - ow -~ = = we a = Ayan iie20n dQ t ‘ § UJ ‘ q UOOOO0o0o0g { t t UJ ea ~ se we we ew Cc] YF P3zBfOOSse/o} atqrsuodsaz | suosiad ‘satouase ‘ SzUaWUTaA0D S9F3TAT398/SaT3 TT Tq Tsuodsaa Peuuertd wuesstou fil SOF FATIOW/SATITT Tq Tsucdsaz | WstIINS yuBAaTay T a ° ° ° ° N ° ° nN © ° rs) a S8TTIATIOB /SOTTIT Iq tsuodsas 3sed FUBASTOY (°222 ‘azouvauap ‘aqeis ‘Tequaw) “2 SOTISTLaIOBIBYD Ky Fl Buosazag i \Q— AYTL BUTI BN CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 SOFISTiaqowseyo yzTeeYy TBLauan (°338 a0 [09 Iftey ‘suavog ‘au3tom ‘243 Toy) aouelvedds LBo tsfkug (°938 ‘Tens *Tewaoy | ‘w.atoy tun) *MuUBIBaddE ssaag' UOOooooga g NnOOoOogocgogadg “OOO 000000 g NOooOocgggoga g uotidtassap ATBD0OL Teo Tydearsoan | -OOoOoo0ggg PA I *TqPO TT ddy uMouyUn WaT] Taoxy pooy S3TNSOY poxyqy s2uapuodsazizoag ION WIte ‘yorque) STII Teuuossag OVaNdoy *TEFlajew PeItuqns ayQ jo sdeand08 842 02 se saxog BuyAoOTTOZ aya 49842 aseayd ‘uoyjenpena A2euuns a4} toq (Nn) (0) TaNNosuga LaQHS NOLLVATWAg AUVNINS ; Approved For Release 2000/08/08 Approved For Release 2000/08/08
—— pproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 | () DETAILED EVALUATION SHEET (U) . Specific Transcript /Drawing Items Evaluation” Reference 1. ©) 2. () 3 C) 4. ¢@) 5. ¢) 6. () 7 () 8. (¢) 9 () 10. ¢€) ll. €) 2. €) *o to 3 point scale of previous page. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 67 fi. | _—, |
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : —r QB seestionas information desired? ves [| No [__] | Priority Urgent {] Routine [_ date ( ) Items 1. ( ) 68 Approved For Release mamaya’ IA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4
OE ne nnencerereen, peer memniypienorod-orhelesse-2000/08/08--ClA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 (a) Appendix E A SAMPLE RETURNED EVALUATION PROTOCOL Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 69 i —
——E7=oO“U ae *UOTPBUIOFUT YOSATOOUF BTIIATT AT@AFIVLIA pus squoweyTe si qeyo ew anbyun snon3tqueun YQ yA gouapuodsarz09 poop SQuoyjeu10 jut jovzooUy suos jnq ‘BuTYDIEU sqUeweTe Ter9AVs YITA gouapuodsarzi103 poop *aaTs 2932789 ay pessaoo8 Atqeqoad sey aoxnos a7BOF PUT sj[nset pextu 0} zew10Z 3uz JO YBnous Inq ‘gquaulata yoarToouT pueBe 7972109 FO eangxtHh °° * % *% * © YaFA JoequU0S aats - T *kzojzeuetdxe gtag °° °° ¢ aouapuodsezi0> eTI3F1 - 0 :D[EOS DeaNaoe VY TOF SuoT]FUPIEG (Mm) eee ee ee 8 8 8 guazpaoxd - € ee ee 6 © © © © 8 © ee peOoH - Z leuysaey C | swt Sty 3e peuTw3zsa3 -3p aq jouuRD [__] 2u0N | —  AQET FAN 1122000 yo oe a J(*toqe fsuetd o 8 oO oO oO - feopartrarsuodses ‘evoy208 .. * oi fguozgdzazosap yeotsdéyd)  wopaemzogzuy Aap TBuoszeg Ml oe w= me oe oe 2 s DP96-00789R003200200001 P96-00789R003200200001-4 CJ a) yd Cc ) Cy ? | x U oO Co Oo 0 om 0 DX oo 0 ® . gqueusTe opeuuEM eTeos-TT US . S S (‘oa ‘sppaTgzzye ® oD p<] ] ‘squy, peozyTea *sx00pP o rd ‘sopys ‘s2uzpting ‘setat?) ® . ‘gqueweTs speuuem 91208-2218] 2 LL | | [ | | | | | Be (to3@ ‘19784 fuzezi99) uot3 ao) 2s -d}aosap aT FI0T peoTydessoeH 2 ® > ; oO ) € Zz T 4 roe atTquoyiddy uaouxun quayT{eoxg poop s3[nsey pexTH gous puodseizz09 5 = ON ya | 8133 FI = joe a6 fg08QuU09 23TS AOVENOOV *[BTAzaqew peIjuqns Vy FO KoeznsoB ayz OF SB saxoq BuFMOTTOZ 23 yoays aseatd “uop entere Axzeumns ay3 zoqg = (Nn) Ll# Sf 231S (n) LASHS NOLLYNTVAd AUVANNsS BB } q ; J | } 1 I | rE J “t J | i 1 ! 1 }
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 ( ) DETAILED EVALUATION SHEET (U) ™ * Specific Transcript/Drawing Items Evaluation Referngn a 1. ©) Dolenti # cation , 3 Ts 2. () Ass cece ficn wy: th pesen fi ; * creck ty : 3. () Geograph cal Location ! - 4. ¢() Gur nem@s x ' a 5S. (€) fraesence ef towers ” 1. and buencce » 2 - 6 ( ) . ) . Suhre > of thier bows md o 7. ©) Smell of Lh sin tn hants ant a J} - 8 ( ) Y. : Ae, foeled Cc) te 9. ¢) | ; Neuww hy he Ie re) ‘oe 0. €) Vacler epounlk J < atmve a fa. ll. ¢ ) - 12. ¢€) ™ * 0 to 3 point scale of previous page. 72 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CA rE RO 3200200001 -4
Approved For Release (J : a No mse information desired? yes DX [| a Te ta AG: Routine “a Priority Urgent [| Tal Bie f vf oO 64 date Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : GbA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4
i Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 I OBJECTIVE The purpose of this document is to provide an outline of a program to assess the feasibility of using RV detection techniques to determine the location ° MEE ects of interest. reer eae Throughout this document the abbreviation RV refers to the term “remote . . oe . ae ae viewing, not to its other use as re-entry vehicle. Approved For Release 2000/08/08; CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 /_ a, |
Approved For Release 2000/06 I F-00789R003200200004;4 II INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND aA. Location of Unknown Targets B. Remote Viewing (RV) as a Location Technology ee ron Re CRNO LORY Of particular interest along the psychoenergetic lines is a human information-accessing capability that we call “remote viewing” (RV). The RV phenomenon, under study at SRI International for the past nine years, pertains to the ability of certain individuals to access and describe, by means of mental processes, information blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding, and generally believed to be secure against such access. This has included the ability of subjects to view remote geographical] locations given only geographical coordinates or a designated person on whom to tarret, The RV abilities of several subjects have been developed to the point where they can describe--often in Rreat detail--geographical and technical material such as natural formations, roads, buildings, interior laboratory apparatus, and real-time activities. In problems of the location type (which have not been addressed in any detail in former programs) the feneral prospect of a continuum of 2 . Approved For Release 200 : | 6-00789R003200200001 -4
‘se an 3200200001 -4 Approved For Release 2000/08/0 789R00 Possible locations can often be reduced to that of a set of discrete possi- bilities. This is because, for example, only a finite number of ay sites a... available, or because Specifying one of a number of erid Squares is sufficient to define location. If a location task can be so defined (to be One of a discrete sot of possibilities), of the discrete location problem, One of the Standard formats for RV testing is a computerized form of “shell” game which is a direct analog of the ME tarcct location situa- tion. The testing procedure addresses the basic problem of choosing, by RV techniques, a “correct" answer from among a number of Possible alterna- tives, An example is provided by an electronically-automated Screening Study carried out by SRI consultant Charles Tart, Subjects were asked to determine which one of ten possible positions ona circular display had been designated as an active target by the electronic test device's random number generator .* From an unselected Population of 2000 university students participating in a mass card SCreening program, seventy of the better subjects accepted an invitation to be further screened using the automated electronic testing system, Of these, ten were finally chosen to participate in a formal study involving 500 trials each, The results obtained with these ten subjects are shown in Table 1, It is seen that five of the ten Subjects scored Significantly above chance, all in the range of 1,5-2.5 times chance expectation. The best Subject averaged a 24.8° hit rate (2.5 x chance) over the 500-trial Sequence: the probability ~2 of such a result or better occurring by chance is Only p = 2 x 19 28 Furthermore, aS good as these results are, the potential utility of such results can be further enhanced by the use of error-correct ing Statistical averaging techniques, Such techniques have proven themselves 8/08: CIA P96-00789R003200200001 -4 Approved For Release 20
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 Table 1 ELECTRONICALLY=AUTOMATED SCREENING STUD} Probability of Obtaining Such a Result by Chance Hit Rate Sub ject (10% Expected) (one-tailed) 1 24.8% 2 x 10728 2 20.6% 1 y 10714 3 16,25 2 x 1076 4 16.0% 4 x 1076 5 15.6% 2x 107° 6 11.8% nonsignificant 7 11.4% nonsignificant & 10,8° nonsignificant 9 9.41% nonsignificant 10 78° nonsignificant capable of amplifying even small statistical advantages to arbitrarily- high-accuracy results. To cite an example, Czech researcher Dr. Milan Ryzl, a chemist with the Institute of Biology of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Science, carried out an experiment with a subject. whose base performance level was that he was gencrally capable of generating better than .. 60% hit rate targeting on sequences of random binary digits, or bits (0, 1), where chance expectation was 50%. For the purpose of showing the power of psi enhancement by statistical averaging techniques, Ryzl chose as a task the acquisition, without error, of a 50-digit random binary sequence, The effort took 19,350 calls, averaging 9 sec per call. The hit rate for individual calls was 61.9%, 11,978 hits and 7372 misses.” By means of repeated passes through the Approved For Release 7900 asada 6-00789R003200200001 -4
A pproved For Release DP96-00789R003200200001-4 * sequence and an elaborate (though inefficient ) ma jority-vote protocol, all 50 bits. The 15 s able to identify with 100% accuracy y chance is only one in 10°. the subject wa probability that he did so b Cc. Conclusion data already extant from RV detection experiments indicate that Thus, (a) one target from among a number can, with some statistical advantage, ) the accuracy of doing so be determined by RV detection techniques, and (b can be amplified by statistical averaging techniques. These observations sound basis upon which to estimate the feasibility of RV thus provide a detection of randomly distributed targets, and the protocols in use are essentially directly applicable in their present form. ne of about 20 could be expected on by a factor e optimum than that * An ‘increase in efficiency the basis of a statistical averaging used in the experiment.’ procedure mor Approved For Release 2000/68/08° CIA-R 6-00789R003200200001-4 -
-00789R003200200001 -4 III METHOD OF APPROACH With regard to determining the vulnerability of GRE tarcets to RV detection, an approach that recommends itself is a gradient-scale three- step program involving (1) microcomputer-based screening/training, (2) Simulation testing, and (3) demonstration-of-feasibility field study. Each of these are discussed below, aA. Step 1--Microcomputer-Based Screening /Training — ee ee nie raining The first step of the program would involve screening ‘training a population of volunteers using microcomputer-based modeling of the location problem. Basically, the individuals participating as remote viewers are asked, in repetitive trials, to determine which one of twenty possible locations (schematically represented as circles ona computer- driven graphics display) has been designated as the simlated target by the computer's random number generator. The computer display is driven by an LSI-11 microcomputer which, on a trial-by-trial basis, fenerates a new random display of the circles (to circumvent bias on the part of the remote viewer due to previous choices), The individual enters his selections by button press on a hand device positioned over an X-Y erid (see Figure 1, where a one-in-ten case is shown), and the computer responds by giving immediate feedback as to the correct answer (to encourage learning). As the trials progress, the selections are computer analyzed on line by a statistical averaging program, the output of which indicates whether one of the possibilities has been chosen statistically significantly more often than expected by ciiance. (In the later application phase essentially the same procedure is followed, with the circles internally Approved For Release 200 | 8/08 ‘SCIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 na | a
said uoying Aq paiaiua s) ea os | 1aA0 pau oapin samoy stn as mn ; ous S,JaAA3IA al0Wa) aYUL “sOlUOW Jaddn 341 UO uMOUS st “der on Bop b vonien ! US JE SUOReDO) Ia} a19Issod Bunuasaidas $3]9I19 ayy YSY | ONMa00n Lanes ! OOW ¥3LNdWOD Ll 3nd | Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : Qo 7892003200200001 -4 0» eee ae to, Ca agg = FR Knute Tak POE OT VETEM : re + ere ee P96-00789R003200200001 -4 So bed S ° °o N ® ” © 2 ® a Sm fe) LL Oo ® > ) Som Q. Q. <x }
1 1 pproved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 a | keyed to actual target site possibilities. The procedure differs only in that trial-by-trial feedback would, of course, not be available). il. Sequential Sampling Statistical Averaging Procedure An efficient statistical method for the screening/training process is provided by a sequential-sampling technique used in production- line quality control.® The sequential method gives a rule of procedure. for making one of three decisions (with regard to each of the possible choices) following each trial, which consists of a remote viewer entering a selection: the accumulated selections have met a pre-established hit- rate criterion (decision positive); the accumulated selection do not exceed chance expectation (decision negative); continue trials (insufficient data to make a decision). The sequential sampling procedure differs from ‘ixed-trial-length procedures in that the number of trials required to reach a decision is not fixed, but depends on the results accumulated with each trial, The principal advantage of the sequential sampling procedure as comprred with other methods is that, on the average, fewer trials per decision are required for an equivalent degree of reliability. To apply the sequential analysis procedure to screening training, we must a priori define the hit rate we require to conclude that useful RV detection is taking place, and what statistical risks we are willing to accept for making an incorrect decision. To meet these criteria, sequential analysis requires the speci- fication of four parameters to determine from which of two distributions (chance or required-hit-rate) a data stream belongs. They are: Por the fraction of selections of a particular target expected in the chance condition (e.g., p = 1/20 for the case under discussion); p the fraction ° 1 ’ of selections expected in the presence of a functioning RV capability (c.g., Py = 0.125 for a 2.5 x chance-expectation requirement, a valuc that might Approved For Release 2000/08/08 8 CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 Qo 7
—f i, =A. oll —ft = Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 (| be chosen because of previous performance in a successful one-in-twenty task); ®, an a priori assigned acceptable error rate (c.g., @ = 0.05) for concluding that accumulated sclections of a particular choice derive from the Py (RV) distribution when in fact they derive from the Po (chance ) distribution (Type I error); 8, an a priori assigned acceptable error rate (e.g., 8 = 0.05) for concluding that accumulated selections of a particular choice derive from the Py (chance) distribution when in fact they derive from the Py (RV) distribution (Type II error), With the parameters thus specified, the sequential sampling procedure provides for construction of a decision graph of the type shown in Figure 2. The decision graph illustrates the rules of procedure for making one of the three possible decisions following each trial: continuc test before making a decision (unshaded middle region in Figure 2); decision positive (upper shaded region in Figure 2); decision negative (lower shaded area in Figure 2), The equations for the upper and lower decision lines are given in the Appendix. With the appropriate equations programmed into the microcomputer, the computer automatically records all data (trial number, target response pair), and displays on the video graphics system progress on a target decision graph. aA cumulative record of remote viewer selections is compiled by the computer until either the upper or lower decision line is reached, at which point a decision is made. Also given in the Appendix are the equations for the average number of trials to make decisions, positive or negative. A plot of the average number of trials to reach a positive decision for typiical cases of interest is shown in Figure 3, where 5% (a, 7) error rates have been assumed, As an example, we see that for a 2.5 xX expectation rate (k = 2.5) hitter, any ~ 62 trials are required on the average to reach a positive decision on a one-in-twenty target. Approved For Release 2000 6-00789R003200200001 -4
ee id ——— 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001 -4 2. System Error The overall system error is dependent on the type of mode employed in site penetration attempts. (a) If the RV detection task is approached with a tentative choice having already been made (presumably by more conventional means), then the task of the remote viewer is to verify or reject the tentative decision as a backup test. In this mode, only a single decision graph is plotted in the target choice of interest. The probability of error due to chance (Pee? in this case ~ a, being given by the product of the probability of making a selection even though operating at chance, and the percentage of such selections that correspond to an incorrect decision: P = a e e,c N (b) If the RV detection task is approached as a blind one-in-N task (e.g¢., one-in-20 task), the N decision graphs are plotted in parallel, one for each of the N target choices, as each selection is being made. In this case, to a good approximation the graphs can be treated in the chance condition as independent, and the probability of error due to chance (Po ie? ~ Na. Specifically, it is given by the product of the probability of making at least one selection in the N graphs by chance (which is one minus the probability of making no selections), and the percentage of such selections that correspond to an incorrect decision: N- 1 N po (4) f- a- a] . For example, with N = 20, a 1% individual-target error rate (a = 0,01) leads to P = 0,17, or a confidence factor 1 - P = 0.83; e,c e,c this provides ~ a 17-fold increase in odds over the one-in-twenty confi- dence factor expected by chance. Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R003200200001-4 .
ee aot Approved F p! or Release 200 P96-00789R003200200001 -4 am 3. Test Data ‘ene As a test of the above procedure applied to real data, the data _ generated by Subject #1, Table 1, were processed by passing it through the sequential analysis statistical averaging program (500 trials, 24.8% “— hit rate on a one-in-ten task). With the parameters set to correspond to a twice-chance-expectation requirement and 5% (a, 8) error rates, the - results are as shown graphically in Figure 4: twelve correct selections, in a row, of one-in-ten targets were made in 452 trials. Although the - data was gathered under the condition that the correct answers were stored in the computer during the runs, and therefore trial-by-trial feedback al could be given as the random number generator stepped through its program, the conditions are nonetheless sufficiently similar to the projected task - that the results can be taken as evidence that the proposed approach is sound, = 4, Summary = In the screening. training program, participants would be screened = trained by carryins out the task described in this section, first with trial-by-trial feedback to encourafe learniny, and then without feedback a to model properly an application study. In this initial phase the target for each run would be designated internally by the computer's random number —_ generator. Carried out ona large-enough scale, the screening training = program described in this section would provide realistic estimates of - the percentage of population trainable in this task, and the levels of proficiency to which performance in this task could be developed. Ina ~ program designed to assess to its fullest the feasibility of locating hl by RV detection techniques, it is recommended that suffi- - ‘ciently large-scale screening to meet these requirements be considered. proved For.Release 2000/08/08 » CIRRD -00789R003200200001-4 & e