Approved For Release 2003/09/16
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 100440061 -6
(b)
The project analyst
. and/or the requestor may require drawings
of specified descriptions,
and may provide post-session debriefing/analytic
guidance.
(4)
Post-Session Ana l ysi s:
Upon conclusion
of the remote
viewing
session,
the interview,
in accordance with guidance received from
the. project
analyst,
discusses
the session
results with the remote
viewer.
The purpose of
this discussion
is
to provide
the RVer with
feedback
in
the form of positive
reinforcement concerning his/her ability during the session.
However,
it should
be noted that
due
to the
tasking constraints placed upon
the interviewer by
the
project analyst or operations officer there may be no post-session analysis
feedback to the
RV/er.
7.
(S/N0F0RN)
VARIATIONS
I N
P HOftPURE FOR
RV
TRAINING;
a.
The foregoing has
focused on the use of coordinates
to obtain from a
remote
viewer the description
of that site.
Another approach
to the same goal
.is
to use
a person in place of
a coordinate.
For example,
the remote viewer is
provided some personal information and then proceeds
to describe the location
of
the individual.
Thus,
the individual serves as
a beacon to locate the
target;
by
RV.
lo standardize this approach,
the procedure described
in paragraph 6
is
modified,
b.
The elements of this procedure consist
of;
(1)
target selection;
(2)
remote viewer session preliminaries;
(3)
activity
of
person who serves
as
beacon;
(4)
remote viewing session;
and
(5)
post-session analysis.
(D
Target Selection ;
A target pool
is selected by
an individual not
involved
in interviewing or remote
viewing,
the
targets chosen will be distinctive,
to include more than one example of each.
This precludes
the remote viewer from
eliminating
a target because one example was used before.
The remote viewer
is
informed that the
target pool consists of similar
as well
as different types of
targets.
All other aspects
of
the target selection element
of the procedure
remain the
same.
(2)
Remote Viewer Session Preliminaries ;
This element is identical
to
that of the basic
RV procedure
(3)
Act ivity of Person Who Serves as Beacon;
At
the beginning of the
RV session,
the remote
viewer and interviewer
are
given one or more
items of
biographical information
or may
even meet briefly,
for
3-3 minutes,
the -.indivi-
dual
serving as the beacon.
If the latter
is
the case,
the beacon individual
departs the meeting and obtains
the target,
fhis procedure eliminates
the
possibility of
the beacon individual divulging any hint
of
the
target.
The
beacon individual
travels
to
the target,
arriving there at the previously specified
time,
lie or she
then interacts with the site for
the predetermined
length of
time of the
RV session.
(4)
Remote Viewing Session;
This element
is identical to
that
of
the
basic RV procedure.
Approved For Release
IP96-00788R001 1 00440061 -6
Approved For Release 2003/0
6-00788R001 1 00440061-6
(5)
Post-Sessi on Analysis:
This element
is identical
to
that of
the
basic
HU procedure,
8.
(S/N0F0RN)
SiCOPE OF
TARGETS FOR REMOTE VIEWING;
USAINSC0M
sponsored RV
will exclude
US,
allied*
or neutral
nation"* s citizens as targets except when
expressly authorized by appropriate legal authority.
),
(vj/N0F0RN)
PERFORMING 0HGAN1ZAI ION:
USAINSCQM is the performing oroaniza
tion.
“
j
j
-
10.
(S/N0F0RN)
PROJECTED MAXIMUM MUMPER OF REMOTL VIEWERS AND INTERVIEWERS:
(Information classified beyond
tne scopTof" this paper7T
LI.
( S/NOFORN)
SELECTION
OF REMOTE VIEWERS AND INTERVIEWERS;
a
*
Historical
Perspective :
In December 1970 and January
.1979
two hundred
and fifty-one INSCQM personnel
in
the
greater Daltimore/Washington,
D.C,
area were
considered for participation
in
the
IGFP.
These
two hundred and fifty-one
indiv/i-
mM^T
We^ experienced
in
the intelligence disciplines
of 5IGINT, PH0TINT and
.fdl'IINr
and represented more than eight units/organizations within
INSC0M.
Of the
two hundred and fifty-one individuals considered,
one hundred and seventeen were
interviewed by
It,fP management personnel
under
the
guise of -a "survey"
to determine
a
i udes about
the possible use
of
psychoenergetic phenomena
(parapsychology)
Ln
th0 intelligence field.
The large difference between number considered and
number actually interviewed was due
to
the following elimination factors applied
by
IGFP personnel.
ri
(1)
Commander's evaluation.
(2)
Retainability
-
at
least
20 months.
(3)
Health.
(4)
Not.
readily available
(programmed
TOY,
schools,
etc.).
Curing the selection process,
IOTP management personnel were looking
for individuals
If K
!i
W
°f°.°
pen minded >
adventurous,
above average intelligence,
mature and stable,
art is Lie
in character and personality,
successful,
well
thought of
by self and
co-workers,
articulate,
sensitive,
and had an
ability
to
"in- flow"
data.
These
characteristics were provided by Stanford Research Institute
(SRI)
International,
lenlo Park,
lA.
oRI personnel stated essentially
that no definite profile has
been established,
but that
their experience has shown
that successful sub Sects
nonio Lo
\l 1 ow 0 r s )
no r nta i 1 y pos
s
gs s
g onio
o f
i;
h
cog
cha r a c t c r i a t ins.
Curing
the
interview phase of the selection process consideration was also given
to individuals who related
their own previous psychoenergetic experiences.
Individuals who had objections to the military
use of psyehoeriorgetico were not
considered for
final selection
for
the
IGFP.
Additionally,
individuals who
(>
ftwfitfeADP96-00788R001 100440061-6
Approved For Relea:
Approved For Release 2003/C
6-00788R001 100440061-6
displayed
an unreasonable enthusiasm
tor psychoenergetics,
occult fanatics
and mystical zealots,
were not
considered
for final selection.
Of
the 117
individuals interviewed,
one refused
to talk about psychoenergctics at alL
three thought
that most
ol
what
they had hoard was nonsense
or trickery,
three
T?nV^ P r
Sed to
, the investigation
of psychic phenomena on religious grounds,
and
110 had favorable opinions towards psychoenerqetics and
the oossible'use of
psychic phenomena
in the military.
With 94%
of
the people interviewed' showing
tavoraole attitudes
lor the
IGf-P,
it was obvious
that
further screening was
necessary
to reduce this number to a manageable amount.
1GFP screened
the
"InirSil:,!
erTuHM?Mr
Sl P»rticiPation across
the' intelligence fields of
slGINT
,
PHOT IN f and HUMIM
,
and alter an extensive review of
the interviews,
l
r
frr
d
D WdUalS
s
flectcd as Prime candidates.
However,
it was the opinion
°
.
Personnel that approximately
30-3'i individuals possessed the requisite
potentials desired
for the
IGFP.
P •
Curren t Activities;
After over a year of work
in
IGFP,
participants
were tested by
the INSCOM Command Psychologist
in an attempt
to 'determine
a
suitable profile by which
further participants could be identified.
The tests
administered were:
(1)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory
(2)
Gordon Personal Profile
Inventory
(j)
Fundamental
Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior
(FIRO-B)
(4)
California Psychological
Inventory
(5)
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(6)
Personal Orientation Inventory
lor
the most
part.,
the
group presented
as emotionally stable with no marked
trends.
There does appear to be an interesting similarity
in defensive style
a
tending toward artistic,
aesthetic,
cultural' interests,
and an
introve^si
w
ha^eon-truet^r^ f^rff'Y
00 *
* r°m Uf
se test
re£3lJ .Its the Command Psychologist
coiiotructed
a
test
that may oe used as an initial screening
tool
in the
selection of new
IGFP participants.
Plans are
to administer this tes^to
Indiiidialo
wi
U
n
h aG the Ml Officer's Advance Course at Fort Huachuca,
Arizona.
.,i
i
?!
Jdlj
. sloie WAthin parameters specified by
the Command Psychologist
would then receive personal
interview with
IGFP management personnel.
From
these interviews new
IGFP participants would he selected
12.
(S/NOFORN)
REPLICATION OF
THi
R\l
PROOFS'!
•
maxinium number of RV
f7cssfons wiUTe' two per^ay and no' more 'than''thi^per
for each participant,
th:
13.
(S/NOFORN)
JUDGING:
Chart
:*
fli
Sessions
u,i 11
judged using
the following Target Correlation
Approved For Release 2003/09/16
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 100440061 -6
<•
^rnnrr
Approved For Release 2003/09W^rtJW^RBPy6-00788R0Q1 1 00440061-6
ASSIGNED VALUE
.1
r -)f .jj.
target CORRELATION CHART
(TCC)
DESCRIPTION
Absolutely no target correlation.
Drawings,
narrative,
and feedback reaction
have minimal target correlation.
Increased target correlation,
identity of
target
could not be determined.
Many target correlation
factors
readily
recognizable,
farejet identity possibilities
narrowed.
RV data shows unmistakable correlation
to
the
target,,
Target possibilities can now
be typified.
Little
or no extraneous
RV data present.
! argot
identity can be readily
mat died.
Correct naming of the
target.
RATING
None
(0%
)
Low
(15%)
Low-Moderate
( 30%
)
Moderate
(50%)
Moderate-High
(70%)
High
(80%)
Direct
Hit
( 100%)
m^^
t
£2Ju
hS^ rf
,dl0al“ thiS lewl
of experts is the no™for
usefloS?W^%Ul^7^y.
he
jU<J9ed ^ rClaUOn
l° isisaigence
performing as ro»ote™and
outside of
their parent oroani^tinn IT,
f
PF°Fam Wlli not be identified
be referred
to
in project records
onlv^liJ
011
,^
eir prior consent,
and they will
of remote viewers
and" interviewer- -uchn-r
alpha-numeric designator.
Products
or other materials which might
repeal ^fhe°idenH tv' o?T^
bT
8C
- iptS »
r°sters '
coded to assure the protection of
their identit^
rem°te Vlewer viU be
ordinary^room^atSSS’ ™“s will
be conducted in an
.
of the participants.
The only
limit at iL^on^h
during
thf normal waking hours
from electronic eavesdroDoinn snrf
•,
i
these parameters will be security
such
as
a radio Z
°f °fdinary distracti"3 noises
y I"
1 1 ITT
Approved For Release
A-RDP96-00788R001 1 00440061 -6