Approved For Release 2Qgf)|^|0|/S(^5||:p|fQpO789ROO22OO1 50001-1
(U) The
specific hypothesis examined
in
this study was that hypnotizing
a subject
following an RV session and giving instructions to recall
all the information associated with the
just completed RV experience would
facilitate the
recall
of subconscious information blocked
from awareness
during an RV
session.
It was
hypothesized
that
hypnosis
could provide
a
significantly
better
aid
in
the
recovery
of
unconscious,
target-related
material
following
a
standard RV session than only a second try at the same target.
To test the hypnosis hypothesis
(hypnosis condition), a subject was hypnotized following a standard RV session (before feedback
was
given)
and
given
instructions
to remember
everything
about
the
target
from
the
just
completed session. A second RV session followed.
The hypnosis condition was compared to a
control
condition
(proofread
condition)
where
the
subject was asked
to proofread technical
report material following a standard RV session. A second RV session followed the proofreading
period.
(U) An SRI employee with previous remote viewing and hypnosis experience was
used
as
a viewer
in the demonstration.
Remote viewing experience included more than one
hundred monitored experimental sessions.
In addition, the viewer had received certified formal
training in the practice of hypnosis.
In preliminary testing, the viewer was found to rank in the
92nd
percentile
equivalent on
the
Standford Hypnotic
Susceptibility
Scales
suggesting
high
hypnotizability.
(U)
Targets were individually selected just before an experimental RV session and,
while aware of the general nature of the pool, the viewer and experimenter remained blind to the
target
until
after each
trial was
completed.
Twelve
targets were randomly
selected
for
experimental
trials from
a group
of 200 National Geographic photographs
of natural scenes
previously chosen as a pool of potential targets for RV experiments.
(U) RV sessions were conducted in the standard way with a monitor present.
After
the
conclusion of the RV session,
a computer randomly assigned the
session
to one
of two
experimental conditions.
In the hypnosis condition, the viewer was assisted into trance by an
experienced hypnotist.
When appropriate trance depth was achieved,
the viewer was guided
through a re-experience of the just completed RV session and given post hypnotic suggestions to
recall
all
the information acquired during the
session.
The trance was terminated
after
minutes and
a second RV
session
using the same
target was conducted.
In the proofread
condition the viewer was given a technical report to proofread for 30 minutes before a second RV
was conducted.
Feedback followed the second RV session for each condition.
This protocol
is
shown in Figure
4.
Approved For Release 2(W(W^cIbAS5^1^Pd0789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 2Ofc|bW0IAS6,IPFE0)O789R0022001
^50001 -1
Target
randomly
selected
RV
Hypnosis
RV 2
|
15 minutes
H
(30 minutes)
15 minutes
|
Feedback
T TXT/^T
A CfiTr>Tnr
Proofread
UNCLASSIFIED
FIGURE 4
(U) HYPNOSIS-RV PROTOCOL
(U) Two
analyses
of the responses were performed.
The
first involved
a
visual
judging of the 24 responses with each response blindly ranked by independent judges against a
subset composed of six randomly generated targets from the pool and the actual target. 1 *
Exact
p-values from the sum
of ranks were then
calculated.
Under the pre-treatment
condition
(RV1), the RV quality failed to reach significance.
However, the post-treatment sessions (RV2)
were independently significant (p < 0.029).
Further analysis showed that all the significance was
due to the
trials in the hypnosis condition
( p < 0.025; n =
6).
There was not a significant
difference between the proofread and hypnosis conditions.
(U) A second
analysis
of the
responses was conducted by another
judge
to
compare the calculation based on a 133-item descriptor list with the results of the visual ranking
analysis.
The FM for each pre-treatment session (FM1) was subtracted from the FM for the
corresponding post-treatment
session (FM2)
and
the
resulting
difference, AM,
was
plotted
versus FM1.
A regression line was computed for both conditions.
An F
test was performed
comparing the “full” model which allows two separate lines, to the “reduced” model in which the
lines are the same. 2
The general linear test comparing the two models showed no significant
difference between the two conditions—likely due to the small sample
size.
(U) The results confirm previous findings that hypnosis can facilitate the acquisition
of information not available to sensory processes.
Its efficacy may be due in part to the general
state
of relaxation produced by
the process or
to
the
greater
right hemisphere involvement
thought by some to be a part of the hypnotic experience.
These questions should be addressed
by continued research in this important area.
19.
(U)
Objective F, Task 7—Develop Mass Screening Protocol
a.
(U)
Introduction
(U)
Current
efforts
for establishing a core group of talented remote viewers
have focused primarily on two major approaches:
(1) enhancing RV abilities through the use of
—
(U)
References may be found at the end of this report.
Approved For Release 2
00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release 20y>|S$(gtiASSIPfE©0789 **0022001 50001-1
(U)
specified
training
procedures,
and
(2)
screening
the
population
for RV
abilities
using
performance-based
psychological
instruments
(e.g.,
PAS
and
the
current
research
into
neuropsychological testing)
(U)
In
the
first
approach,
the
emphasis
has been primarily on enhancing
whatever latent RV abilities might be extant in a given subject pool.
Talented performers in this
context have been
largely
defined
as
those who
continue
over
time
to
demonstrate
stable
accuracy and
reliability
in remote viewing within
the
confines of a
single,
highly specific RV
technology.
Therefore, selection of talented subjects is relative to the specific training procedure
being employed and may not be
related
to
identifying those
individuals who
are
best on an
absolute
scale.
(U)
In the second approach, psychological profiles for known talented viewers
are obtained using two methods
of psychological screening technology— i.e,,
the PAS and
a
battery of neuropsychological
tests.
In principle, these
star subject psychological profiles can
then be used as templates for future subject selection.
The major limitation of the psychological
screening approach
centers on
the
labor-intensive
nature
of
test
administration.
Unless
a
meaningful second-order correlation with self-report tests can be effected, the potential for using
these methods for screening large populations appears circumscribed.
(U)
Therefore, a third approach for locating talented individuals
is suggested,
through the deployment of a standardized and automated procedure that would screen directly
for RV abilities in a large population.
The following discussion advances some preliminary ideas
as to how such a pilot mass screening technology might be optimally designed and deployed.
b.
(U) Hardware Configuration
(U)
Initial design considerations
for mass screening hardware would include
the following:
(1)
Portability,
i.e., the screening unit should be easily deployable in a
variety
of
settings;
it must
also be
durable enough
to
withstand
frequent relocation;
(2)
Efficiency,
i.e.,
a variety of RV target materials should be rapidly
accessible,
in
order
to
exercise
the
range
of
a
given
subject’s
abilities as efficiently as possible,
Approved For Release 2
00789R0022001 50001-1
Approved For Release
^M0#BIlL
II
I
I
I
(U)
(3)
Cost effectiveness,
i.e.,
individual subject session times should be
kept manageably
brief
to
facilitate
rapid
turnover;
this approach
would also tend to sustain the subject’s interest in the task, thereby
maximizing the potential
for success in the screening process.
(U) A
preliminary
survey
of
the
extant
technology
for
attaining
these
objectives indicates that the most
feasible option would include
a video camera,
a video disk
recorder,
a video monitor, and
a Macintosh computer.
The video camera would be used
to
photograph
a
variety
of
target
materials
for
frame-by-frame
inclusion
on
the
video
disk.
Random
access
to
the
target photographs would be computer-controlled and
therefore
very
rapid—i.e., on the order of 0.5-second display time.
The disk, monitor, and computer would
comprise
the equipment
actually deployed
to the
screening
site.
Overall,
this equipment
is
relatively inexpensive, portable, and durable.
c.
(U)
Target Selection
(S/NF)
A wide variety of target materials
should be
incorporated onto
the disk to exercise
the
full potential range of the
subject
s abilities.
Candidate
target materials would include photographs
drawn from the following categories:
(1)
natural
scenes,
(2)
alphanumerics,
(3)
technical
sites
(for operational
site
simulation),
(4)
Zener cards,
and
(5)
the Maimonides
target
set.
A selection of dynamic
(i.e.,
moving video)
targets has also been suggested.*
A small
subset
of
approximately five targets would be selected from each category for
inclusion on the disk:
this would tend
to minimize
the potential
for
deviation from prescribed screening procedures;
it would also enable
greater standardization for RV performance across
the screened population.
d.
(U) Subject Populations
(U)
Judicious selection of candidate subject populations
is recommended over
the less-efficient and more labor-intensive “shotgun” approach.
One possible guideline, which
has been derived primarily from the observations of RV monitors,
is that a certain richness of the
subject’s vocabulary may be important for a comprehensive debrief of the RV signal.
This would
W
‘S
/?
ot Intend®d to'be a comprehensive
list of target categories:
some may be
deleted or others may be added as the mass screening protocol
is developed, deployed
and refined.
The same caveat applies to other research items mentioned in this discussion.
Approved For Release 2000I0&I&& OlS-fep96-00789R0022001 50001 -1