Approved For Rees eFNCLA SS PR PE Ly 2200 1300170002-9 (U) The correspondences for the remaining three were of lesser quality, although still containing many correct elements. (The Accuracy Ratings for this series were 2, 5, 5, 2, 5, and 2, respectively, for a total of 21.) Note that neither slide series used an interviewer. (U) With regard to the formal blind judging, in the rankings of the six pictorial responses alone the judge made an assignment of ranks (two Ist, three 2nd, one Sth place) that was significant at p < 0,04, However, the overall rankings combining verbal and pictorial responses together had a numerical deviation from chance expectation which yielded only p = 0.075. Although suggestive, this does not meet the criterion for statistical sig- nificance. In this series, therefore, pictorial information alone appears In other words, the verbal information superior to pictorial plus verbal. appeared to degrade the overall product. (U) It appears from the data of these two series that remote viewers can perceive the contents of projected slides. Furthermore, they appear to describe the slides themselves, rather than the geographical locations corresponding to the slides. Finally, taking into account the brevity of the transcripts on the part of the viewer and the greater ease of analysis experienced by the judge, it appears that because of the more limited focus of content presented by a slide, a viewer and a judge have an easier time assessing data associated with the target in the slide case as compared with an outdoor target. Thus, in future screening/training studies the use of slides appears to be an efficient alternative to the use of physical locations as targets. 3. Comparison of Blind Judging and Accuracy Ratings for 35-mm Slides () (U) After the completion of these two series, we undertook to make a further determination of the correlations between the Accuracy UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9 UNCLASSIFIED CU): | | Ratings and the results obtained from blind judging. The two series received Accuracy Ratings' of 22 and 21, respectively, and blind judging statistical significance measures of 0.04 and 0.08. Then, as a control, two researchers assigned new Accuracy Ratings for each of the twelve transcripts, this time rating transcripts in each series against the same numbered target from the other series. In effect, this is a measure of the Accuracy Rating that a transcript will receive when matched against a random target. A mean score of 13 was obtained for transcripts from Viewer No. 372 when matched against targets of Viewer 518. The mean score for the cross=-matching of transcripts from Viewer 518 against targets from Viewer 372 was 9. The mean of these two scores is (9 + 13)/2 = 11, which is roughly half the average accuracy scores 4 from the series when matched against the appropriate corresponding ‘ | transcript/target pairs. / (U) This result is in good agreement with a similar analysis i carried out two years ago in connection with a coast-to-coast remote viewing series, One viewer who took part in the series was to describe . the location of a traveler in New York City on two different days. The transcripts and drawings were considered good matches for each day's target, although they contained incorrect as well as correct statements. fr In this early study, each transcript contained about twenty identifiable concepts. Each statement was given a numerical rating on a scale from 0 to 10, When the concepts were matched to the correct day's target, the mean score was 66%, whereas when they were matched against the other, noncorresponding day's target, the mean score was 33%, This previous analysis thus also yielded a two-to-one correspondence factor between remote viewing transcripts for corresponding and noncorresponding targets. 68 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9
Approved For Release 200 - 0788R001300170002-9 B. Future Remote Viewing (FRV) (U) ; | In the course of our remote viewing experiments we have occa- sionally been directed P| to have subjects describe a target location or event as it would appear at some future time, We have also asked viewers to describe target locations that would not be chosen until after the end of their description. Our assessment qu rr t~—COY is that the quality of these (admittedly few) future remote viewings is approximately comparable to that the the remote viewings carried out with real-time targets. It appears that if the FRV process can be developed further it would offer a new and stunning array of WR 0 ssivizities . (U) In addition to our own experience with FRV in the laboratory, e the principal remote viewing replications in the academic community, which have been carried out at Mundelein College in Chicago by Bisaha and Dunne, have ati~feen of the FRV type, with the target selection following the viewer description, often by several hours, These were successful even when the viewers were in Chicago, and the outbound experi- * menter was in the Soviet Union. (U) We recognize that there is no current physical explanation for future remote viewing, although theories have been put forward by physicists Feinberg and de Beauregard, among others, However, even in the absence of a good understanding, these phenomena appear to occur with some relia- bility, and therefore lend themselves to utilitarian purpose. (U) In the past year, future remote viewing scans have been carried out using as targets both 35-mm slides and local Bay Area locations being * (U) J. Bisaha and B. Dunne, "Mind at Large,’ Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Per- ception, C. T. Tart, H. E. Puthoff, and R. Targ, Eds. (Praeger, New York, Nvy., 1979). . 69 Approved For Release 200 >96-00/788R001300170002-9
ty | Approved For Release 200 SOTEFNCLASSIFIED 70002-9 (U) visited by a target experimenter. In this section we present the results of this FRV study. t 1e : + 1. Viewer No. 468, RV and FRV of 35-mm Slides (U) (U) As a first step in assessing the reliability of future remote viewing we carried out a series of eight slide trials with Viewer 468, who had produced several excellent responses in his phase-one series of real-time local Bay Area target remote viewings. Six of the eight trials’ were FRV trials, two were real-time, (U) In the six FRV trials the viewer was asked to describe the contents of 35-mm slides, before each slide was randomly chosen for display. 4 Immediately after his description of the slide, a random number generator was activated in the monitors! room in a separate building (trailer) to give a number between 1 and 60, The corresponding 35-mm slide was then projected in the monitors' room, After the monitors recorded the name and number of the chosen slide, they went to the viewer's location and escorted him to the monitors' location for feedback. The FRV series was blind : a judged and also judged on the basis of Accuracy Ratings by two analysts. oe , All three ratings agreed that the data were suggestive, but not statisti- cally significant. The blind judging found that the FRV series departed from chance expectation at the p = 0.1 level, with two first place matches, if one second, one third, one fifth, and one sixth. (A value of p = 0.05 is rf required for formal statistical significance.) The Accuracy Ratings by the two analysts totaled 18 and 20 respectively, with four of the six trials rated by both analysts as 3 or higher, which is to say (from Table 2): "a mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the former to indicate that the viewer has made contact with the target." 70 | UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300170002-9