Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CI/SfEGRcE7l9R002200470001-6
(S/Nl?)
Prior to FY 1986,
little was known about how to select good viewers.
There
was little systematic research either at SRI or within the
field in general, and what was available
was
inconclusive
or
contradictory.
The
effort
that began
in FY 1986 encompassed
a broad
approach
to
the
problem.
We
initiated
three
different
types
of
quantitative
approaches:
self-report
personality
tests,
neuropsychological
testing,
and
behavioral
testing
(i.e.,
the
Personality Assessment System—PAS).
In
addition, we used one
heuristic
approach,
which
simply asked individuals to try remote viewing.
(S/NF)
The heuristic approach has been quite successful.
The efficiency
(i.e., the
number of talented viewers found divided by the total number screened)
is approximately 1% in
the general population
(i.e., groups of self-selected volunteers).
Based upon the
results of a
mass screening effort, two individuals have been asked to be regular contributors to the project.
(S/NF)
One other heuristic source of good viewers
is individuals who have noticed a
psychoenergetic
ability
in
their
lives.
Many viewers in group G1 came to the project
in
this
manner, and
a new viewer, claiming similar experiences, was identified
in
a recent screening
effort.
This viewer produced an effect size of 0.440 in 6 remote viewing trials, which contained
many striking qualitative correspondences between targets and responses.
(S/NF)
Of the
quantitative
techniques,
the
neuropsychological approach was not
successful at predicting performance. The PAS, however, predicted performance of 9 viewers to
a significant degree.
(S/NF)
By
far, the best way to select viewers as of this writing
is to use individuals
who
either have
abilities measured
in
other
laboratories,
or who
have had
strong personal
experiences.
(S/NF)
One technique not mentioned above holds
great promise
for the
future.
Three individuals from group G1 who participated in a neurophysiological study of correlates with
remote
viewing produced
unusually
large
central
nervous
system
responses
to
light
stimuli
directed
at the eyes.
More work
is needed to determine
if this simple test might be the most
effective way to screen for individuals with excellent remote viewing ability.
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: 5lf^t(Jsf-lJb789R002200470001 -6
2.
(U)
Targeting
(S/NF)
Targeting
is
a
general term
to describe the method by which
a viewer
is
directed
to the
intended
target.
Common techniques
that have been employed
include the
following:
(1)
Beacon—an individual at the
site of the intended target.
(2)
Coordinates—the
geographical
or
military coordinates
of the intended
target.
(3)
Abstract—a
word
or
phrase
(e.g., “target”)
or
other
abstract
representation of the intended target.
(4)
Self—none of the above, the viewer
initiates the collection of data.
We examined these techniques in order to determine which provides the best access to a remote
target.
(S/NF)
For
these
four
targeting
techniques,
183
trials
were
identified—the
remainder,
13 trials, were listed as “unknown” targeting. The effect size for viewings initiated by
these
targeting techniques was 0.401,
leading
to
a p value
of 2.92 x
10~ 8
.
Thus,
there
is
significant
evidence
for
remote
viewing
functioning.
The
between-groups
chi-square
is
significant
(X2 = 12.58,
v =
3; p < 0.0058), indicating that the effect sizes resulting from these
targeting techniques are not drawn from the same population.
(S/NF)
It
is
difficult,
however,
to
attribute the
significant differences
to targeting
techniques alone.
In none of the experiments could the targeting technique be used as a valid
independent variable, because, in
all cases, the viewers and experimenters were not blind to the
targeting condition.
Thus,
it is possible, even likely, that the viewers’ scientific or emotional bias
toward one technique or another confounds the interpretation.
Other factors, such as feedback
time
and
type,
or
potential
physics
models
of
information
transfer,
also
confound
the
interpretation.
(S/NF)
Given these caveats, beacon targeting appears to provide the best and most
stable results
(n =
66,
z = 5.305, p <
5.65 X
10~ 8
, d = 0.653).
3.
(U)
Evaluation and Analysis
(U) The
evaluation and
analysis of remote viewing data has undergone
significant
improvement during our
16 years
of investigation.
Beginning
as
a simple blind matching by
judges, the techniques have been improved by the addition of concept analysis (the paraphrasing
of a complex response), discrete descriptor analysis (defining targets and response as the yes/no
answers to
a predetermined
set of descriptors), and fuzzy
set descriptors
(defining targets and
responses as fuzzy
sets).
SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200470001-6