TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 27, 2000
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

approved For Release 2000/08i~n>~ (I4- $7,R0003QO
Final Report
Covering the Period October 1980 to October 1981
TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK (U)
d For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP9~-00787R000300060001-4
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
iv
I OBJECTIVE. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. .
1
II INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . .
2
III PROTOCOLS . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
A. General Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
4
B. Viewer Selection
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
4
C. Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions.
. . .
5
D. Transcript Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
6
IV RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . .
8
A. Trial Collection. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
8
B. Data Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
8
C. Overall Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
8
1. Evidence for Remote Viewing. . . . . . . . .
. .
15
2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes . .
15
3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback. . . . . . . . . .
17
4. Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP66-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
imi
1 Distribution of Trials in Targeting Study. . . . . . . . . . 5
2 0-to-7 Point Evaluation Scale for Target/Transcript
Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 557 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Summary of RV Data for Viewer 807. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7 All Data from 48 RV Trials, with Mean Values for Each
Viewer and Each Session Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Summary of Coordinate RV Trials with Mid-Session Feedback. . 14
Approved For Release 20 /O8Y10 : Cl RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 "; - Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
In this report we present the results of a four-month investigation,
.carried out by SRI International, to determine the relative effectiveness
of various targeting procedures in use in remote viewing (RV). Three such
procedures were investigated:
(1) Beacon targeting, in which the viewer has had some
personal contact with, or is given the photograph of,
an individual at the target site.
(2) Coordinate targeting, in which the viewer is given the
geographical coordinates of the target site.
(3) Abstract targeting, in which the viewer is only told
that there is a target site to be described.
In our experiments with four remote viewers, three of whom performed
reliably in the RV task (RV of San Francisco Bay Area sites), we did not
find any overall significant differences in the efficacy of three targeting
modes, subject to some variation because of individual preferences. In-
stead, reliable RV functioning with results of comparable accuracy was
obtained with all three techniques.
As an additional task, we investigated the usefulness of giving the
viewer limited mid-session feedback as to the general nature of the target
site. We found that this procedure did not result in increased accuracy
of description.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
V
Ti
 Approved For Relea~e 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96II-00787R000300060001-4
The objective of the "Targeting Requirements Task" was to determine
the relative effectiveness of various targeting procedures for use in
remote viewing (RV). If differences in relative effectiveness were found,
SRI International was also to determine whether such differences depend
on the characteristics of individual remote viewers or are widespread in
nature.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 R$6-00787R000300060001-4
ISR studies in RV over the past decade, several
methods have been use to target the remote viewer on the site. Much of
the early work used a person located at the target site as a target for
the remote viewer.1-3 We refer to this as Beacon RV, because in some
sense the individual at the site can be said to'act as a "homing" beacon.
A second technique, which has often been used in 1RV, and around
which a training program is being developed,4 is Coordinate RV. In this
procedure, the target site coordinates (latitude and longitude in degrees,
minutes, and seconds) are given (with no further information) to the remote
viewer who is to view the site. A third technique, which has been used
occasionally with good success both in laboratory work and in
viewing, we call Abstract RV. In this approach, the remote viewer is
simply told that there is a target site to be described; no further infor-
mation is given.
These three techniques, with variations,t have been used success-
fully, at SRI, and elsewhere. However, no
systematic comparison of their relative effectiveness has been made to date.
This study compares the results of the use of the targeting techniques
as described above under otherwise uniform RV conditions. The results are
examined to determine whether significant quantitative differences exist
as far as the quality of the RV product is concerned. These three
References are listed at the end of the report.
tFor example, in Beacon RV, the remote viewer may be introduced to the
outbound person who is to act as a beacon, or simply be shown his
photograph.
Approved. For Release 2 1 C A-RDP96-007878000300060001-4
 pal
representative techniques were chosen for this study because they span
the range, from the concrete to the abstract, of the targeting techniques
typically required in tasks.
Specifically, the targeting mode is varied over the three techniques.
These techniques are designated here as Techniques A, B, and C (for Abstract,
Beacon, and Coordinate, respectively). A variation of Technique C,
designated C', is also incorporated into the study to examine whether
modest feedback given to the viewer at mid-session about the general
nature of the site increases accuracy in the remainder. of the session.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 J
Approved For Release 206=8 10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
A. General Protocol
The general protocol for the study is to closet a remote viewer with
an experimenter at SRI, and, at a prearranged time, have the viewer describe
an undisclosed remote site using the required targeting technique. The
target site, one of sixty located in the San Francisco Bay Area within a
30-min driving radius of SRI, is selected by random number access to a
target pool by a second experimenter in charge of overall protocol. For
each viewer, target sites are used without replacement as the series
progresses, so that no individual viewer has the same site twice. In all
cases, the interviewer is blind to the target so that he is free to question
the remote viewer to clarify his descriptions without fear of leading.
During the prearranged viewing period lasting 15-min, the viewer
makes drawings of and records on tape his impressions of the target site.
At the end of this viewing period, the interviewer collects the data for
the file, finds out from the protocol experimenter what the target site
was, and then takes the viewer to the site for feedback.
B. Viewer Selection
To evaluate fairly the effects of varying the target conditions, we
chose to carry out the study with four relatively inexperienced SRI viewers,
as opposed to the more experienced viewers who exhibit strong preferences
for certain targeting techniques.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
4
 Approved For Release 20.00/0S110-:`CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
C. Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions
Each of the four remote viewers chosen was asked to contribute twelve
trials apiece, three trials each for each of the four techniques, A, B,
C. and C'. This method provides a total of 48 trials, 12 in each of the
four categories, distributed as shown in Table 1 below. Each of the
viewers used the four techniques in a balanced, random intermixed order
(e.g., BACC'ACB ...) as is usual in psychological studies with several
stimulus categories.
DISTRIBUTION OF TRIALS IN TARGETING STUDY
Category
Viewer
A
B
C
C'
557
3
3
3
3
753
3
3
3
3
807
3
3
3
3
688
3
3
3
3
The protocol experimenter tells the interviewer at the beginning of
the session which technique is to be used. For Technique A, the interviewer
simply informs the viewer that there is a target site to be described; no
further information is given.
For Technique B, the viewer is either introduced in person to the
outwardbound experimenter who will act as a beacon (Beacon Trial One),
or is simply shown a photograph of an otherwise unknown outwardbound
experimenter (Beacon Trials Two and Three). The reason for this inter-
trial variation is to obtain additional information about the amount of
A~rved Foc- I&a~QQP9j08/10 CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
vie r eacon o
 Approved For Release 200 RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
For Technique C and C', the viewer is read the coordinates (in
degrees, minutes, and seconds) for the site. For Technique C', the
interviewer obtains from the protocol experimenter before session start
an envelope containing general information about the site (e.g., "target
site is a building exterior," "target site is an open outdoor area," and
so forth.) In mid-sessio ter the viewer has described the site to
the best of his ability , a interviewer opens the feedback envelope and
e
gives this additional i ormation to determine whether it stimulates
increased accuracy and detail in the viewer's subsequent images of the
site.
D. Transcript Evaluation
In early prqgrams, transcript analysis was carried out exclusively
on the basis of blind judging (matching) of transcripts to target sites.I'a
This technique, although excellent with regard to demonstrating the
presence or absence of a viable RV function, did not provide a uniform
measure from transcript to transcript of the quality of RV functioning.
In the previous program, SRI, developed
Approved For Release 20 DP96-00787R000300060001-4
6
a 0-to-7 point rating scale to be applied "nonblind", post hoc to the
evaluation of transcripts.3 For no.correspondence between transcript and
target site, a 0 is assigned; for excellent correspondence a 7;.'and for
intermediate correspondence an intermediate rating. The.precise criteria
for each rating is shown below in Table 2. A comparison (in the previous
program) of the ratings produced with this approach against the ratings
produced by the blind-judging approach for a 36-trial series showed sta-
tistically significant positive correlation between the two techniques.
Furthermore, application of the 0-to-7 point scale to randomly matched
transcripts and targets from that study yielded chance results. These
two findings taken together establish that application of the 0-to-7
point scale provides a reliable, objective measure of RV quality. This
 ,Approved For Release 20001d8/1fl CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
0-TO-7 POINT EVALUATION SCALE FOR TARGET/TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCE
Point
, Value Assigned to the Point
7
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail
(e.g., naming the site by name), and with essentially no
incorrect information.
6
Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g.,
naming the function) and relatively little incorrect
information.
5
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements,
but some incorrect information.
4
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed
with ihcorrect information.
3
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the
former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site.
2
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results
beyond chance expectation.
1
Little correspondence.
0
No correspondence.
method was, therefore, chosen for evaluation of the transcripts for this
Approved For Release 2000/08/f0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :. CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
T
r
A. Trial Collection
In accord with the protocols outlined in Section III, a total of 48
trials were carried out, 12 with each of four remote viewers. As summarized
in Table 1, each viewer contributed three trials for each of the four
techniques.
B. Data Summaries
Data summaries for each of the four remote viewers are tabulated in
Tables 3 through 6, and a collective summary is provided in Table 7.
Listed in the individual viewer Tables 3 through 6 are the trial numbers
(1 through 12) and associated sites, targeting techniques and 0-to-7 point-
scale accuracy ratings. (Two columns appear in the accuracy ratings for
Category C'. Ratings in the first column were assigned on the basis of
material produced before feedback only, while those in the second column
apply to the transcript as a whole, including material generated following
feedback. The effects of mid-session feedback are treated in detail in
Table 8, in which we present a detailed session-by-session summary.)
C. Overall Findings
Most of the findings of this study are obtained by examination of
Table 7. We, therefore, turn our attention for a moment to a detailed
examination of this table.
The transcript ratings for each of the remote viewers, for each of
the session categories, are shown in the individual boxes in the table.
The techniques, listed across the top, are Abstract (A), Beacon (B),
Approved For Release 2000/08/1Q: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 .Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
to
t[1 N M r1 M O
to
M r-1 ri
a)
r?
a) .1 a)
Ul a) ri 0 Q)
O Q E O
,-1 U a 1~ r l O toll r 14 -I ~
-4 11
li
r-1 a)
Od .Q
r1 E
N [- N r-1 (D O
T-1 r-1
U
a)
0
G7
'W 00 r4
r-1
,., Approved For Release 2000/08/'b0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
_
 .Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
'Ti
I0
m
a)
N
ci
0
.,b
4J 0
rl
c0
.
N
..
to
GoG
M
4-
U
W
d
4)
bo
4-1
ui
4-3
0 0
U)
U)
0
4
a)
0
ul
0
?
~'
VI
0
U
to
to
O
r+
N
cD
lO
tD
to
O
CV)
to
N to M
to
rI CO M
ba a)
r1 p'
4)
Q
Q
Q
(1a
W
Cn
U
U
U
U U U
b04
P4 ci
H
F
b
H
a)
4J
bD
(j
r-I
rl
r-I
UI
'O
U)
CH (n
H
0
x
0
IL,
4)
a)
x
0
to
m
m 4J k
o
0
bD
a
U
-H
-H
4.
CS
l
H -I
I
1..
-r4 4-3
a)
0
p
Pq
r
CS
-r
A
U
(
vi
U
Cl)
>
N
rI a)
N
00
)
ra
an
O
M
N
H
d' cD
E
z
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
10
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
r
OO W
O N
43
R: rt
W to
4J
>
ca
to O 4
W
d
.a
.a F -t
A 3
a cd
0 0
,-t
+a
U
Cd
UI
U
to
10 M c) M M N
to
to to N
U
to
a)
Cd
0
U
'C7
O
JL4
O
r-I CS
r-4 r-I +3
LL
11
> FO,
O
4J 0
Cd
d)
t, O
E
r-q
O t-O1 t=7
r-I
td
iy
r-1 a)
E-
z
N to OD
r-1 t- N
r-1
U U U
V O r-t
r-t r-1
Approved For Release 2000/08/110 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 .Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
m a +-)
0
d w .t~
rl +)
a'~d H 3
M
q ~ C)
N
to
l~
M
+3 0
M
4-3
$3
4J
(A
-H
+1
+3
Cd
4) 0
43 -H
O
C
J
eY,'
to
to
to
to
M
in
t0
N
M
M
N
to
M
U
en
to to
M M C
to to
Vt M ~
bn
q q
. .
4) $3
-:G
d
PO
p]
W
U
U
U
U U 0
t,
3
0
w
0
U2 j
tai)
A
a
O
i.
4
:1 44
+)
0
Oi
rt
r-1
L
Q)
H
F+
b
r
O
F
C3
4
-H
P.
w
ri
q
O
0
q
q
cb
r-4 -1-4
ri
0
N
t
4
r-4
0
H
M
'T
to
tD DO
r-4
rr4
-
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
12
 Approved For.Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
ON*
N M M
on
rI CD M
n
M
II
1 x
ri
II
I x
n
II
M
ai
n
M a
of ri
40
1 x
Ix
n
N
n m
M M M
.-I
'i.
In I n'n
In to N V M a
1
Ix
N 11
M In N
h
M M V
II
Ix
N
a
9
Od
V
M M
00
W 4
V
II
Y
U
'
Ix
10.
a a
O
Y
61
00
u0 u0 In
4
F
ID N M
d
ID ID M
.
N
L1
Y
C
M a q
U,
0 0 O F +O+
U
tl Y
N
01 C d C O
II ~
Y to Y tQ C
I
ci s c`3 ~ U]
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
13
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0300060001-4
own
0
0
0.
1.
w
..
'a
0
4-
0
4.
40
.0
4)
a
'
V
14
1-4
=1
a
N
0
4-'
r4
'M
a0
.0
1
4
O
W
.i
a
N
u
0
A
0
u
0
m
.y
3
'
0
,O
0
W
a
a
a
0
W
1.
a,
a
as
.i
W
0
q
0
'0
u
O
'
i
-'
W
.
-1
4'
a
a
W
0
as
q
V
1
a
0
0
1
I
M
WW
'O
41
TJ
14
0.
W
'O
q
a
0
+?
0
1
.-4
0
13
N
1"
O
m
a
4)
?
a
0
ar
.
a)
.ti
W
0
a
u
4-
i
.D
.4
1.
c
0
r
W
a
.0
0.
14
+'
.
4
1.
.i
V
0
u
++
?
0
a
01
4)
-M
.
q
01
1
"
a
14
O
A
i.
0
v
i
.
,
.
'O
0
..4i
cc[
a
0
U
V
0
t
8 A
p
p
0
0
.4
Q
i+
d
0
0
V
P
H
..
a
4)
a
pO
q
' 0
N
4'
W
4)
0
a
A
L+ w
as
6a
?'
0
a1
.0
.4
1.
a
V
a
.9
r.
V
4-
0
cd P%
13
It
4~
d)
?
W
V
it
a
0 ?
V
$4
+'
+
'
o
1-4
D
00
m
600
as
a
4
aid a
>
~
02
AO
1.
4)
14
W
0
V
q r
0
0
as
0
.1
i
.
a
0
.
V
q U
O.
u
u
v
0.
U
Qp
a)
.4
m
as
4.' r4
D.
4.
.
i
60
ri
7.
W
W
1.
M W
r.
.4
-H
-H
m
-
w
-
r{
0
4
0 a
w4
a
4
0
.r
+'
a
H 03
0 rt
0
1
0.
t'a
?
N
a
0
W
m
+
m 0
d
a
i
a s
>
W
~
V
V
q
?
0
.
,
V m
0
4'
q
C.
.
i m
1
.
0
0
a
V as
W 1-4
4J
as
as
0
+' V
0.
9:
as 1
4
0
a
o
V
wq
r.
W
0
a
0 0 a
.
W
4)
4-'
4 a+
W
.i
N
0
W 6
a
0
.a
V
0.
4) u
.-1
.4
'
a
0 +1
O
i
u >
u0
t
a
a+
4.
0
.
+ a
0. V
0
.
a
4) ?-
V O
a.y O
1.
. s4
W )
4+
+
41
?
91
It
.
.
V
of
0 '
).
0
.
.C 0
a1
'0
1'
0.
P
4
.a
1
.
.4 0
as
8
at .,
SI
0
o
O
0
o
a0
0 W
rl
0 it
4i
0
a
U
a
-dC m
H
a
0
++ 0
0
.r
..
0.
.
,
Q
.4 0
.i
W
a
.,
0
a
a
c
a
O
~
4
m
44 x
?
u
a
0
0
a c
,
0
0 .a
a)
O
a
0 .
.
1, V ?.
.44
'-
i+ CO
.
i
/.
V
,
i
a-'
a
.i
.r
.. O
14
a
+' V
0. 4'
0
4)
a
.0
?'
4'
w U
a
).
a
co
.i 0
.-1
0
V
.i
..
.. a
0
a
..
4.
$. V
V
a
6
0
V
V
V at
V
11
0 M
0
a)
W 0
V
V
'a 1.
m
W
#'
0
a ++
8
0
.i
f.
M 4'
a
a
a a+
03 0
.0
..
0 U
t.
a
~
A 7
O
0
C.
.
f,
u a,
w
]
0
A?
a r8
4
Oa
0
cam
a
. S.
a
?
3
?
0
4.
0 3
,.
0
"
,
Q 0
p
0
,
w u
.
?
a u 0
)
(
n
(
n
Q
m
Q a
4,
a
m.iu
a
..
.. 0 A
v
C)
N
N
N
M
N
1')
to
W)
10
ko
++ .. V
N
C')
C)
M
a'
N
a s O
H 1a,
U
m O
t.
A
a
i 0
.
u)
u)
.f)
U)
.al
11
ry
O
V
N
-
.
to
a')
a
C')
"A
in
N
N
OC W
.
W
O
0
to
?
U
y
(7
.
1,
:3
4.
0
O
41i
'-
i
0.
6
VI
=1
:2
a'
y
E
0
T
f.
as
.~
03
0
a
a)
O
1
m
.i
a
4)
4~
1.
k
41
a..
a
0
Y
o
0
e
C
m
V
9.
.+
U
t7
4
1.
O
N
t')
NN
00
3
IC)
-0
o
00
a)
.a)
N
aD
tD
..
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0300060001-4
14
R
 AppToved For Release 2000/08/10 CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
V
I
IN
Coordinates (C) and Coordinates with Feedback (Cl). The latter (Cf)
technique has two columns of transcript evaluation numbers; those made on
the basis of material up to the point of mid-session feedback (first
column), and those made for the entire transcript, including material
generated after feedback (second column).
The bottom row shows the mean transcript numbers for each targeting
technique averaged both for all four viewers and for the three viewers who
showed evidence for reliable RV (discussed below). The right-hand column
shows each viewer's twelve-trial mean. For Technique C', the numbers
before feedback only are used in the calculation of these means so that
they are not contaminated by the effects of feedback.
1. Evidence for Remote Viewing
The first overall result of the study is obtained by noting each
viewer's twelve-trial mean (Table 7, right-hand column). The twelve-trial
means for the four viewers are 2.3, 3.3, 4.0, and 4.1, respectively.
Reference to the rating-scale definitions.in Table 2 indicates that the
last three of the four viewers in Table 7 produced means high enough to
constitute evidence for relatively reliable remote viewing, while Viewer 557,
the first viewer, did not do so. (For this viewer evidence for RV was not
totally lacking because five of the twelve trials rated a 3 or higher;
rather, trial-to-trial reliability was lacking.) We conclude, therefore,
that robust RV was obtained with three of the four remote viewers.
2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes
To evaluate the results of using the alternative targeting
techniques, A, B. and C. we examine the A. B, and C columns of Table 7.
Examination of the means in the bottom row shows little difference between
alternative targeting strategies. This is confirmed in detail by
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
15
 .C I ,"t e
1
T
T
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 :. CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
statistical analysis of all the transcript rating numbers, both in the
three-cateogry X four-viewer matrix, and in the three-category X three-
viewer matrix confined to the three remote viewers showing reliable RV
functioning. Therefore, the results obtained for Target Techniques A,
B, and C were essentially the same.
As we examine the fine structure of individual viewer performance
profiles, we find that the above conclusion for the group as a whole is
especially reflected in the individual responses of the two stronger
remote viewers, 688 and 807, who essentially did equally well with each
of the three targeting techniques, as did the unreliable viewer, 557.1
Only-in the case of the remaining successful remote viewer (753)
do we find significant differences in the alternative targeting conditions;
the Beacon (B) ratings are elevated, and the Abstract (A) ratings depressed,
as compared with mean performance.t In this case, the viewer expressed
from the beginning a strong preference for targeting on a beacon person,
which seemed "natural," as compared with the increasing abstraction of the
Coordinate (C) and Abstract (A) targeting technique. This preference for
a particular targeting technique, correlated with better performance for
that technique, can be contrasted with the lack of expressed preference
on the part of the other viewers plus their relatively stable performance
using the alternative techniques.
These results, taken together, lead us to conclude that there
are no inherent differences in the use of Abstract (A), Beacon (B) or
*
One-way analysis of variance: 3 X 4; dfl = 2, df2 = 33; F = 0.47 (F = 3.29
required for p < 0.05). 3 X 3; dfl = 2, df2 = 24; F = 0.95 (F = 3.40
required for p < 0.05).
tone-way analysis of variance : df 1 = 2., df2 = 6 (F = 5.14 required for
p < 0.05). F(688) = 4.02; F(807) = 0.40; F(557) = 1.51; F(753) = 7.69.
Approved For Release 2000/08/1: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved for Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
CM*
Coordinate (C) targeting techniques, but personal bias or preference on
the part of a viewer can skew the relative effectiveness of these alterna-
tive targeting techniques in practice.
Finally, no differences of note were observed in Technique B
(Beacon) between the first trial, in which the remote viewer is introduced
in person to the individual who is to act as a beacon, and the second and
third trials, in which the remote viewer is simply shown the photograph
3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback
In a'series of twelve Coordinate Trials (labeled Cl), three each
contributed by'each of the four remote viewers, viewers were given rudi-
mentary mid-session feedback after providing initial descriptions on the
basis of coordinate targeting (as in a C Trial): The interviewer then
encouraged further response from the remote viewer.
The feedback material used was prepared in advance by the ex-
.m perimenter in charge of overall protocol, and was unknown to the inter-
viewer until that moment in the RV session when he opened an envelope
containing feedback information and disclosed its contents to the viewer.
The type of feedback given was designed to be as "nonleading"
as possible, meant only to give the viewer some verification if he were
already on the right track. The feedback was in the form of a single
phrase, such as "an expansive interior location" for an underground
garage, or "an outdoor open area with structures" for a cemetery.
The data from the twelve C' trials with mid-session feedback are
summarized in two columns of Table 7 and in Table 8. Comparison of the
One-way analysis of variance: dfl = 1, df2 = 6; F = 0.25 (F = 4.96
required for p < 0.05).
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 ,Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
means in the bottom row for the results with feedback (second C' column)
against the results, either of the same session before feedback (first C'
column), or the Coordinates targeting without feedback (C column), shows
no significant differences, either enhancement or degradation. This holds
considering all the viewers, or just the three with reliable functioning.
Specific session-by-session detail is presented in Table 8. It
is clear from these data that feedback, presented in the form described,
was not generally helpful in increasing the accuracy of postfeedback
elaboration. Instead, in the majority of trials, the feedback appeared
to trigger Analytical Overlay (AOL) of images from memory and imagination,
resulting in some (though not significant) degradation of the description
provided beforefeedback, at least in those cases where the initial
description was good. In the few cases where the rating improved after
feedback, the improvement can be attributed to leading from the feedback,
because the results in those cases still showed little evidence for RV
functioning.
Overall, then, there was no evidence that mid-session feedback
led to improved accuracy. Instead, there was a trend (though statistically
insignificant) toward degradation of the result by AOL.
In regard to the effects of mid-session feedback just described,
care must be taken not to generalize that intrasession feedback in any
form is necessarily unproductive; only that there was no evidence that
feedback in the form given was useful. Evidence is emerging in another
All viewers, one-way analysis of variance: dfl = 1, df2 = 22, F = 4.3
required for p < 0.05: F(C' before and after feedback) = 0.16, F(C, C'
after feedback) = 0.44. Three reliable viewers: df1 = 1, df2 = 16,
F = 4.49 required for p < 0.05: F(C' before and after feedback) = 0.53,
F(C, C' after feedback) = 0.03.'
Approved For Release 2000/08/1f: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10: CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
A.W
study,4 for example, that simple statements of "correct," given in
immediate response to correct viewer statements can be helpful, parallelling
similar evidence in computer "guessing game" studies in which immediate
feedback appears to lead to increasingly elevated performance profiles.6
We have shown, however, that descriptive statements of fact about a site,
given after a lengthy narrative by a viewer, may not be helpful.
With regard to the effects of a different kind of feedback,
Ow post-session access to information about the site, the targeting study
was designed to parallel as closely as possible protocols that hold under
operational conditions. As such, because feedback to the remote viewer
is often made available at some future time, in our study we also provided
feedback. In'this case we took the viewer to the site following each
session. Such post-experiment feedback provides, however, a confounding
factor, both in our study and in tasking in general: namely,
the possibility of obtaining information via a precognition channel. At
this point we have no data on whether a significant portion of the infor-
mation is transferred via this channel in a typical RV session. It is
only known, primarily from RV data generated in other laboratories,6 that
a precognitive channel can provide significant amounts of information in
studies designed to focus on this aspect.
To determine as best we could whether there was any evidence in
this study for precognitive effects, we examined the transcripts and
flagged references to future site visitation that might in principle
trigger use of a precognitive channel.
An average of approximately one
reference per transcript met this criterion (49 references in 48 transcripts).
To determine first whether any potential effects of feedback
precognition might be distributed unevenly across the session categories,
and thereby possibly compromise the effort to compare targeting techniques,
a statistical analysis of the distribution of future feedback references
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
4=3
in the transcripts was done. (The number of references totalled 16, 11,
and 14 for Targeting Techniques A, B, and C. respectively.) No evidence
was found for an uneven distribution across session conditions, indicating
no evidence for compromise caused by an uneven distribution of future-
feedback references.
To check the matter further, we investigated whether there was
any evidence that references to future feedback resulted in higher individual
transcript ratings, because a positive correlation between references and
ratings might indicate that triggered precognition played a major role.
r' Altogether, with 49 such references distributed across 48 transcripts, we
found by statistical test that the correlation coefficient between number
of references per transcript and transcript ratings was not significant
(r = 0.08, p = 0.70).
Thus, we find no evidence that statements that might in principle
encourage use of a precognitive channel had any effect, either for indi-
vidual transcript ratings or for the differential comparisons between
targeting conditions. The possibility of precognitive influence is,
therefore, limited to the global possibility that a significant amount of
information comes via the precognitive mode when it is available, simply
because it is available. A separate study with feedback withheld on a
random basis is required to resolve this global question.
One-way analysis of variance: df1 = 2, df2 33, F = 0.52 (F = 3.29
required for p < 0.05.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
20 ,
 .Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this study, "Targeting Requirements Task". we investigated the
relative effectiveness of three alternative RV targeting techniques in
use at the present time. The techniques are:
(1) Beacon targeting, in which the remote viewer has
had personal contact with, or is given a photograph
of an individual located at the target site at the time
of viewing.
(2) Coordinate targeting, in which the remote viewer is
given'?the geographical coordinates (latitude and
longitude, in degrees, minutes and seconds) of the
remote site to be described.
(3) Abstract targeting, in which the remote viewer is
told only that there is a site to be described.
In addition, as a secondary task we also investigated the efficacy
of giving the remote viewer limited mid-session feedback as to the general
nature of the target site whose more detailed description we were seeking.
To address these issues, we collected a total of 48 RV trials over
a four-month period, using San Francisco Bay Area locations as the target
sites. These 48 trials, twelve from each of four remote viewers, were
divided into two groups: thirty-six trials evenly distributed across the
three targeting techniques (Beacon, Coordinate and Abstract), and an
additional twelve coordinate trials in which mid-session feedback was
given, to be compared with those coordinate trials without mid-session
feedback. Relatively inexperienced viewers were used to minimize a priori
bias with regard to the efficacy of one targeting technique over another.
Before discussing the specific results of the study we note that the
findi proved For-#0Te %VNf6df1MHS
 .Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
Con]
typical RV sessions, which include the possibility of eventual
future feedback to the viewer as to "ground truth." The results obtained
in this study, as in many tasks, are, therefore, subject to the
caveat that a global precognitive channel could be operative, and it is
recommended that this issue be examined separately in future work.
The results of this study are,summarized as follows:
? Three of the four viewers exhibited reliable RV
functioning.
? For the viewers as a group (and for the successful
viewers as a subgroup), no significant differences
as to the efficiacy of one targeting technique over
another emerged; all three techniques provided useful
data of comparable accuracy, indicating that there is
little, if any, intrinsic difference between the modes.
? For one of the successful viewers, who quickly developed
an order of preference for targeting techniques, sig-
nificant differences were noted, aligned with the expressed
preferences; we take this to indicate that the apparent
intrinsic equality of the technique evidenced in the
overall results of the study can be modulated by personal
preference or bias, and so the choice of targeting must be
tempered by this factor. .
? In the case of Beacon Targeting, no significant
difference between personal contact and the use of a
photograph was evident.
? Mid-session feedback in the form given (limited feedback
as to the general nature of the site, following the
development of a coherent 15- or 20-min narration by
the viewer) yielded no significant improvement in
accuracy, and some (though statistically nonsignificant)
evidence for degradation of accuracy, at least in the
better transcripts.
We, therefore, conclude that remote viewers can describe remote sites
of interest with equal accuracy, using Beacon, Coordinate, or Abstract
Targeting Techniques, subject only to their individual preferences. Attempts
to increase the accuracy of such results by providing mid-session
Approved For Release 2000/08k't0 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
 Approved For Release 2000 8/10 : C1A- P96-00787R000300060001-4
descriptive feedback as to the general nature of the site, are, however,
not likely to be successful.
Approved For Release 2000/08/l:D : CIA-RDP96-00787R000300060001-4
&~O 11
 Approved For Release 2000/
6-00787R000300060001-4
1. H. E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information
Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent
Research," Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64, pp. 329-354 (March 1976), UNCLASSIFIED.
2. H. E. Puthoff, R. Targ, and E. C. May, "Experimental Psi Research:
Implications for Physics," in The Role of Consciousness in the
Physical World, Ed. R. Jahn, AAAS Selected Symposium 57 (Westview
Press, Inc., Boulder, CO, 1981), UNCLASSIFIED.
(February 1982)
3. R. Targ; H. E. Puthoff, B. S. Humphrey, and E. C. May, "Sp cial
Orientation Techniques (U)," Final Report,, SRI
International, Menlo Park, CA (June 1980),
4. H. E. Puthoff, "RV Reliability, Enhancement, and Evaluation (U),"
Final Report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
5. C. T. Tart, Learning to Use Extrasensory Perception (University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Il, 1976), UNCLASSIFIED.
6. J. P. Bisaha and B. J. Dunne, "Multiple Subject and Long-Distance
Precognitive Remote Viewing of Geographical Location," in Mind At
Large: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Symposia
on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception, Ed. C. T. Tart, H. E.
Puthoff, R. Targ (Praeger Press, New York, NY, 1979), UNCLASSIFIED.
Approved For Release 2000/,G8/10 ? blA-RD96-00787R000300060001-4