INSCOM GRILL FLAME PROJECT PROTOCOL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001100200004-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 17, 1998
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: June 1, 1981
• Content Type: MEMO

proved For Release 2000/O8/O7':4C"1 RDP96-00788 R001100200004-5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND
FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 20755
1. (S/NOFORN) GENERAL:
This protocol contains the procedure for INSCOM GRILL FLAME Project (IGFP)
sponsored remote viewing. It is in effect for the period required to accomplish
the scope of work. Remote viewing (RV) is an intellectual process by which an
individual perceives characteristics of a designated.target remote in space
and/or time from that individual. RV does not involve any electronic sensing
devices at or focused at the target site, nor-does it involve classical photo
interpretation of photographs obtained from overhead or oblique means. The
individual performing RV (the remote viewer) is provided with a unique identi-
fier to allow him to focus his attention on the designated target. This
identifier may be stationary map coordinates, a specific structure, an identi-
fiable vehicle (aircraft tail number) or a specific individual (name, place of
birth, age, and/or photograph). The task of the remote viewer is to d s r b
designated aspects of the specified target. The task is achievable 1,L,J,4,.
No drugs or hypnosis will be used in this RV protocol.
2. (S/NOFORN) MILITARY OBJECTIVE:
It is the objective of this protocol to standardize the process of remote
viewing so that it may become an established task in the spectrum of intelli-
gence and information gathering functions and for target acquisition applications.
3. (S/NOFORN) MILITARY APPLICATIONS:
Remote viewing can be used to: (1) target on key enemy military individuals from
covert agents to key battle commanders; (2) detect the change in state of military
units; (3) monitor hostile military LOCs. US Army personnel units, materiel
and operations are vulnerable to hostile RV. Countermeasures must be devised to
eliminate or reduce this vulnerability.
4. (S/NOFORN) APPROVAL HISTORY:
The Commander, US Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM)
approved, in principle, the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA)
involvement in project GRILL FLAME in April 1978. In May 1970, the Assistant
Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) accepted lead responsibility for GRILL
FLAME applications. Effective 14 January 1981, by approval of Under Secretary
of Army, INSCOM became the only active operational GRILL FLAME element in the
Army. Program management for GRILL FLAME was transferred to Commander, INSCOM
effective 11 February 1981. DACSI, DAMI-ISH remains the Army focal point for
policy matters and interface at the national level. Overall DoD responsibility
resides with the DeFensc Intelligence Agency (DIA).
SECRET
REASON
REVIEW ON
ANOT ItE'LUSABLE TO FOREIGN NATION $NDED BY
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 .' 1
Approved For Release 2000 '. R aRDP96-00788 R001100200004-5
5. (S/NOFORN) DEFINITIONS:
a. Remote Viewinc (RU}:. An intellectual process by which a person
perceives characteristics of a location remote from that person. It does not
involve any electronic sensing devices at or focused at the target nor does it
involve classical photo interpretation of photographs obtained from overhead
or oblique means.
b. Remote Viewing_Session: A single attempt by a remote viewer to
perceive and report characteristics of a designated target.
c. Remote Viewer: The individual who performs remote viewing.
d. Interviewer: The individual. who interacts with the remote viewer
before, during, and after the RV session.
e. Project Ana L The individual who interacts with outside agencies.
f. Projcct Operations Officer: The individual who controls utilization
of RV assets.
g. Project Training Concepts Officer: The individual who trains personnel
to do RV and develops operational concepts for application by the operations
officer.
h. Pro'ect Mana,9er: The individual who coordinates project activities.
i. Project Officer: The overall, responsible individual for all
aspects of the project.
j. Re uestor: A requestor is an Army or non-Army consumer or producer
agency who initiates and submits a task (See TAB A for Tasking Flow Chart).
k. Task: A task is an operational request for information, essential
elements of intelligence or target requirement.
1. Tar et: Specific task, which may be in the form of a coordinate,
picture of an object, or drawing, etc.
6. (S/NOFORN) PROCEDURE:
a. Training: To provide a framework for standardizing the task of RV,
a series.of training sessions will be conducted. The elements of a training
session are: (1) target selection; (2) remote viewer session preliminaries;
(3) remote viewing session, and (4) post-session analysis. The procedure.will
be described using geographic coordinates as the remote target identifier.
'ON"' E C R E T
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001100200004-5
 Approved For Release 2000/ ( % DP96-00788RO01100200004-5
(1) Target Selection: Training targets are developed in response to
operational . needs. .The basic training package includes the use of geographical
coordinates as well as the modifications outlined in paragraph 7 below. In the
case of geographical coordinates, a target pool is constructed by an individual
not.involved in interviewing or remote viewing. A target pool.consists of a
group of similar sealed envelopes which designate a specific target by geo-
graphic coordinate. Prior to the beginning of a session, an envelope is
randomly selected from this target pool by the interviewer. At this time, only
the coordinate is provided the interviewer who then reads the coordinate to
the remote viewer at the beginning of the session. Other information available
concerning the target is revealed only after the session during the post-session
analysis. A specific target is presented only once to the remote viewer.
(2) Remote Viewer Session Preliminaries: Before a first RU session
is scheduled, the remote viewer is oriented to the procedure to be followed by
the interviewer. The. remote viewer needs to understand that he or she should
state raw perceptions; experience has shownl that specific definitions are
quite often wrong while the initial raw perception tends to be correct. Remote
viewers are always encouraged to express their feelings and ideas for enhancing
all aspects of the RV process.
(3) Remote Viewing Session:
During the 30-60 minutes prior to the agreed-upon start time of a
session, the interviewer offers some encouragement to the remote viewer in the
manner of a coach giving a pep talk to his team.
During the 15 minutes immediately before the session the remote
viewer and interviewer are generally silent. Experience has shown (unpublished
data) that this "quiet time" enhances the RU process.
During the 15 minutes the remote viewer and the interviewer
function as a team. The interviewer provides encouragement with words of
reassurance that the task is, in fact, possible. At no time is the session
conducted by the remote viewer in the absence of all other persons.
If the remote viewer does not have any immediate sensory images,
the interviewer applies no pressure. Rather, the interviewer reassures the remote
viewer that they have all the time in the.world. When the remote viewer has an
image, experience. suggests (unpublished data) that the remote viewer often
intellectually transports himself or herself to the remote target site. The
interviewer, in conversation with the remote viewer, may then suggest that the
remote viewer intellectually.move around at the site and describe the site more
fully (e.g., buildings, terrain features, people, activities, machinery, etc).
If it appears to the interviewer that the images are in some way
contradictory or inconsistent, the interviewer may then.attempt clarification.
by asking questions in order to verify what the remote viewer first described.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 Approved For Release 2000 P96-00788RO01100200004-5
The RV session is tape-recorded and pen and paper are available
for the remote viewer to sketch his perceptions. Experience has shownl that
some remote viewers prefer to combine written and oral descriptions, while some
prefer to work sequentially,
The average RU session is approximately 30 minutes and never
exceeds 60 minutes, not to include drawings, etc.
(4) Post-Session Analysis: After the RV session is over, the remote
viewer and interviewer obtain specific information. about the target and compare
their session results with this data. The remote viewer and the interviewer
discuss the session results. The purpose of this post-session analysis is to
provide the remote viewer with the satisfaction of knowing how well he or she
did.
b. Operations: The elements of an operational remote viewing session, in
general, are similar to the elements of the training remote viewing session.
The sequence consists. of the following: (1) target selection; (2) remote viewing
session preliminaries;'(3) the remote viewing session; and, (4) post-session
analysis and reporting.
(1) Target Selection: Target selection or tasking is initiated by
a requester through USA INSCOM staff where it is subsequently passed to the
INSCOM, ADCSOPS-HUMINT, Special Actions (SA) Branch. Within SA, the task is
logged by the operations officer and assigned to a project analyst. The project
analyst working with the requester creates the specific task EEI. Subsequently,
the project analyst requests the operations officer schedule RV sessions against
the task.
(2) Remote Viewing Session Preliminaries: This aspect consists of
two phases: (arproject analyst-interviewer preparation; and (b) interviewer-
remote viewer preparation.
(a) Project Analyst-Interviewer Preparation: Prior to a session
the project analyst and the interviewer discuss the purpose of the session,
specific EEI required, line of questioning most appropriate for successful
mission accomplishment, and whether the session will be monitored.
(b) Interviewer-Remote Viewer Preparation:. This phase of the
sequence is similar to that used in a training RV session. The remote viewer
is oriented to the procedure to be followed by-the interviewer; reminded that
he/she should state raw perceptions; and, encouraged to express their feelings
and ideas for enhancing all aspects of the remote viewing process.
(3) Remote Uiewinq Session: This phase of the sequence is nearly
identical to the training RU session with the exception of the following:
(a) The project analyst and/or the requestor may monitor the
RV session from the control room and provide on-line guidance to the interviewer.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 Approved For Release 2000 '. 4.RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
(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 Analysis: 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 RVer.
7. (S/NOFORN) VARIATIONS IN PROCEDURE 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 personalinformation and then proceeds to describe the location
of the individual. Thus, the individual serves as a beacon to locate the target
by RV. To 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) past-session analysis.
(1) 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.Sess.ion Preliminaries: This element is identical to
that of the basic RU procedure.
(3) Activity of Person Who Serves as Beacon: At the beginning of the
RU session, the remote viewer and interviewer are given one or more items of
biographical information or may even meet briefly, for 3-5 minutes, the-.indivi-
dual serving as the beacon.. If the latter is the case, the beacon. individual
departs the meeting and obtains the target. This 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. He or she then interacts with the site for the predetermined length of
time of the RU session.
(4) Remote Viewing Session: This element is identical to that of the
basic RU procedure. ~' -__
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 vul.j
Approved For Release 2000 RDP96-0078`8 R001100200004-5
(5) .Post-Session Analysis: This element is identical to that of the
""__ _._
basic RV procedure.
8. (S/NOFORN) SCOPE OF TARGETS FOR REMOTE VIEWING: USAINSCOM sponsored RV
will exclude US, allied, or neutral nation's citizens as targets except when
expressly authorized by appropriate legal authority.
9. (S/NOFORN) PERFORMING ORGANIZATION: USAINSCOM is the performing organiza-
tion.
10. (S/NOFORN). PROJECTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF REMOTE VIEWERS AND INTERVIEWERS:
(Information classified beyond the scope of this paper.
11. (S/NOFORN) SELECTION OF
REMOTE VIEWERS AND INTERVIEWERS:
a. Historical Perspective: In December 1978 and January 1979 two hundred
and fifty-one INSCOM personnel. in the greater Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area were
considered for participation in the IGFP. These two hundred and fifty-one indivi-
duals were experienced in the intelligence disciplines of SIGINT, PHOTINT and
HUMINT and represented more than eight units/organizations within INSCOM. Of the
two hundred and fifty-one individuals considered, one hundred and seventeen were
interviewed by IGFP management personnel under the guise of a "survey" to determine
attitudes about the possible use of psychoenergetic phenomena (parapsychology)
in the intelligence, field. The large difference between number considered and
number actually interviewed was due to the Following elimination factors applied
by IGFP personnel.
(1) Commander's evaluation.
(2) Retainability - at least 20 months.
(3) Health.
(4) Not readily available (programmed TDY, schools, etc.).
During the selection process, IGFP management personnel were looking for individuals
who were open minded, adventurous,. above average intelligence, mature-and stable,
"artistic" 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,
Menlo Park, CA. SRI personnel stated essentially that no definite profile has
been established, but that their experience has shown that successful subjects
(Remote Viewers) normally possess some of these characteristics.
During 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 psychoenergetics were not
considered for final selection for the IGFP. Additionally, individuals who
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001100200004-5
 Approved For Release 200
96-00788R001 100200004-5
displayed an unreasonable enthusiasm for psychoenergetics, occult fanatics
and mystical zealots, were not considered. for final selection. Of the 117
individuals interviewed, one refused to talk about psychoenergetics at all,
three thought that most of what they had heard was nonsense or trickery, three
were opposed to the investigation of psychic phenomena on religious grounds, and
110 had favorable opinions towards psychoenergetics and the possible use of
psychic phenomena in the military. With 94" of the people interviewed showing
favorable attitudes for the IGFP, it was obvious that further screening was
necessary to reduce.this number to a manageable amount. IGFP screened the
interviewees to ensure equal participation across the intelligence fields of
S.IGINT,._PHOTINT and HUMINT, and after an extensive review of the interviews,
15 individuals were selected as prime candidates. However, it was the opinion
of IGFP personnel that approximately 30-35 individuals possessed the requisite
potentials desired for the IGFP.
b. Current 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
(3) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior (FIRO-B)
(4) California Psycholigical Inventory
(5) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(6) Personal Orientation Inventory
For 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. introversive
style of emotional expression. From these test results the Command Psychologist
has constructed a test that may be.used.as an initial screening tool in the
selection of new IGFP participants. Plans are to administer this.test to
populations such as the MI Officer's Advance Course at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
Individuals who score within parameters specified by the Command Psychologist
would then receive personal interview with IGFP management personnel. From
these interviews new IGFP participants would be selected.
12. (S/NOFORN) REPLICATION OF THE. RV PROCESS: For each participant, the
maximum number of RV sossions will be two per day and no more than three per
week.
13. (S/NOFORN) JUDGING:
a. Traininr~: Sessions will be judged using the following Target Correlation
Chart:
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 Approved For Release 2000/
P96-00788R001 100200004-5
TARGET CORRELATION CHART (TCC)*
ASSIGNED VALUE DESCRIPTION
1 Absolutely no target correlation.
2 Drawings, narrative, and feedback reaction
have minimal target correlation.
3 Increased target correlation, identity of
target could not be determined.
4 Many target correlation factors readily
recognizable. Target identity possibilities
narrowed.
RV data shows unmistakable correlation to
the target. Target possibilities can now
be typified.
6 Little or no extraneous RV data present.
Target identity can be readily matched.
RATING
None (096 )
Low (1596)
Low-Moderate
( 30% )
Moderate
(50%)
Moderate-High
( 70% )
High (80,?0)
7 Correct naming of the target. Direct Hit
(10096)
Target Correlation Chart (TCC) was established not to prove or disprove
Remote.Vi.ewing (RV). Rather, it was designed to measure RV learning trends and
to provide Project Management personnel a readily available management tool.
Current state-of-the-art indicates this level of expertise is the norm for
an experienced Remote Viewer.
b. Operations: Sessions will be judged in relation to intelligence
usefulness by the requesting agency.
14. (S/NOFORN) CONFIDENTIALITY: Individuals performing as remote viewers and
interviewers under the USAINSCOM GRILL FLAME program will not be identified
outside of their parent organization without their prior c.onsent,.and.they will
be referred to in project records only by an alpha-numeric designator. Products
of remote viewers and interviewers such as .tapes, drawings, transcripts, rosters,
or other materials which might reveal the identity of the remote viewer will be
coded to assure the protection of their identity.
15. (S/NOFORN) PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT: RV.sessionswil.l be conducted.in an
ordinary room at ambient temperature andhumidity during the normal waking hours
of the participants. The only limitations on these parameters will be security
from electronic eavesdropping and elimination of ordinary distracting noises
such as a radio and office machinery.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
TAB A
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5
 A . - Approved For Releasw2=0=1Dr7 r-O1A
DA, ACSI-ISIS
[OLICY MATTERS
l
r
f
INSCOM INTELLIGENCE
REVIEW COMMITTEE
G RILL FAA
1IOT R J SABLE TO FOREIGN NATI01i=
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100200004-5