UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
Approved For Release 2000/<J8^£^*DP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
c
*
Trial
Three
The target
for Trial Three was
a
straw hat with curled up
brim and dimpled top
(Figure
9).
The remote viewer's response
is shown
in the
same
figure.
d
,
Trial Four
Target
four was
a photographic tripod
(Figure
10).
The
remote viewer's response,
shown in the
same
figure,
consisted essentially
of
a silver teapot-like object
sitting on
a tripod.
e
*
Trial Five
Following the first four trials,
the monitor and remote
viewer agreed that
the
target
location for
the
remaining two trials
should
be elsewhere than the
now- fa mi liar
SI./SAO facility.
Several alternative
locations were discussed,
with
the final decision to be made
by the monitor
The monitor
chose the roof
of the Radio Physics
Laboi^atory
.
Due
to an
error
in timing,
the remote viewer began the fifth session without
having
met with the monitor
to be informed
as
to which
of
the discussed alterna-
tive
locations was
to
be used.
In the absence
of
this
communication
there was
no overtly agreed-upon target
location.
Nonetheless, we observe
post hoc that
the remote viewer experienced an outside brightly-lit gravel-
based area,
and provided
a response which resembled the intended target
area
(see Figure
11).
Because
of
the ambiguity of target
location,
however
this
result
was
not
included
in the package of results
to be blind judged.
f.
Trial
Six
The
target
chosen for
the final
trial was
a world globe
(Figure
12).
In response
the remote viewer drew
a sphere mounted on
a
stand,
but
did
not
cognize
the
map aspect.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
FIGURE
TRIPOD
TARGET
AND
VIEWER
NO.
518
ERV
RESPONSE
(U)
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
UNCLASSIFIED
,
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
FIGURE
ANTENNA
AND
VIEWER
NO.
518
ERV
RESPONSE
(U)
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7
jcTIvli
.
Discussion
For an assessment
as
to
the quality of remote viewing obtained
in the ERV series,
the results were submitted to two independent analysts
for blind
judging.
The
judging packet submitted
to the analysts
consisted
of
the remote viewer drawings,
and target
photographs,
each in their own
random order different
from the order
of target
usage.
The analysts were
instructed to blind rank order,
on
a scale
1-5
(best
to worst match),
each
of the
five drawing packets against each
of
the
five target photographs.
One analyst obtained three direct
matches,
one second-place,
and one fourth place
match;
the other;
one
direct
match,
three second-
place, and one fourth place match.
The difference between the
two was
a
pair
of responses
that were essentially indistinguishable with regard
to
a particular pair
of targets
(food mill and hat).
The matrices were analyzed
using the direct-count-of-permutations
method discussed earlier.
One
of
the
two
judges results reached statistical significance
at
the
p
= 0,05
level
.
With regard
to
a
comparison between ERV and
the ordinary RV
process
,
the
data obtained
is
roughly
of
the
same
quality as that
of
*
ordinary RV,
There was therefore,
no apparent advantage
in committing
the greater time period for the ERV process.
By report
of the RVer,
however,
the subjectively more intense ERV state was never fully achieved
in this
series, and therefore
no definitive comparison between RV and ERV
is possible
at
this
point.
We therefore recommend further effort along
this
line
to ascertain
the
full potential
of
the ERV process.
See,
e.g.
,
the technology series
in H.
Puthoff
and
R.
Targ,
,fA Perceptual
Channel
for
Information Transfer Over Kilometer Distances,
Proc.
IEEE
64,
pp.
329-354
(March
1976).
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 00001 -7