STANDARD REMOTE-VIEWING PROTOCOL (LOCAL TARGETS)

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
U
Document Page Count: 
16
Document Creation Date: 
November 4, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 18, 1998
Sequence Number: 
1
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
November 1, 1978
Content Type: 
REPORT
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3.pdf522.4 KB
Body: 
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 I V $LS0) STANDARD REMOTE-VIEWING ...PROTOCOL (LOCAL TARGETS) by Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025 ? (415) 326-6200 ? Cable: SRI INTL MNP ? TWX: 910-373-1246 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 STANDARD REMOTE-VIEWING PROTOCOL (LOCAL TARGETS) The basic outline of our standard remote-viewing protocol is as given in our tutorial paper, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," H. Puthoff and R. Targ, Proc. IEEE, pp. 329-354, March 1976.1 The elements of the protocol, each of which is addressed below, consist of (1) target pool selection; (2) subject orientation; (3) outbound experimenter behavior; (4) inbound experimenter behavior; (5) post- experiment feedback; (6) judging procedure. 1. Target Pool Selection To carry out an experimental series of, say, n trials with a subject, a list of targets >> n should be prepared in advance by an experimenter who will not interact with the subject after that. The targets should be chosen to be distinctive, but not necessarily distinct from each other; that is, rather than just a collection of nondescript street corners one should select bridges, towers, fountains, gardens, plazas, etc., so that a judge could in principle recognize targets on the basis of correct but sketchy descriptions. On the other hand, once having chosen a fountain-type target, there should be several fountain targets; for a bridge target, several bridge targets, etc., in order to avoid the possible subject strategy of "I had a bridge yesterday, so it can't be a bridge today." The subject should be_told explicitly that there are similar as well as different typesof-targets. When the target list is made, each target location should be written on a card and placed in an envelope, the envelopes randomized and numbered. These should then be stored in a secure safe or similar container. With regard to whether a target is replaced in the pool after use, the preferable procedure, from a methodological standpoint, is to replace it. (A problem with actual replacement is that the subject, Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO130005000 upon becoming aware of a mental image of a previous target, might be biased to reject it as memory. An acceptable alternative is to replace a used target by a new one of similar type--e.g., one fountain by another.) 2. Subject Orientation Before the experiment, the subject should be shown some previous remote-viewing results with one goal in mind--to get across the idea that one should, as nearly as possible, report raw perception rather than analysis since the former tends to be correct and the latter is almost always wrong. A subject needs to understand that a rounded piece of blue metal is just that, and that he should not initially try to determine what it is. Remind the subject that imagination constitutes noise in the channel, and therefore the closer he can get to raw uninter- preted imagery, the better. To have success in the above, the best guideline we have found is to choose as subjects individuals who are self-confident, uninhibited, successful, and not afraid to be_ wrong. No psychological test we have investigated is as reliable as the above subjective assessment in choosing subjects. 3. //Outbound)Experimenter Behavior At the start of an experimental session, the inbound and outbound experimenters and subject should rendevous for a relaxed informal dis- cussion in the laboratory setting. (The outbound experimenter or experimenters must not know the target at this time.) Together they agree on a time for the subject description to sta t (e.g., 30 minutes hence--the length of time required to reach the furthest target in the pool; this time is then an invariant for all experiments.) The outbound experimenter then leaves the laboratory, uses a random-number generating procedure to obtain a number from 1 - n (number of targets in pool), Figures 3 and 4 in the IEEE papers are good examples. In Figure 4 the subject had absolutely no concept of a pedestrian overpass, but simply saw a pattern of receding squares; in Figure 3 correctly-dimensioned pools of water were misinterpreted as purification plant pools rather than recreational swimming pools. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 obtains the so-numbered envelope from the target pool, and leaves the premises. (We use a Texas Instruments SR-51 hand calculator, which has a random-number function.) After driving away from the laboratory, he opens the envelope to determine the target, and then proceeds to that Flo location. He should arrange?to park and then come upon the target Kr location at exactly the starting time so that his view of it is fresh at the beginning of the experiment. He then simply pays attention to the environment and does not let his mind wander (especially to another target). It does not appear to matter how many people comprise the out- bound team, provided they do not (1) pay attention only to each other, or (2) scatter about. At the end of the agreed-upon target viewing time (usually 15 minutes) they return to the lab. 4. InboundJExperimenter Behavior During the period that the outbound experimenters spend en route to the target, the inbound experimenter and subject have a period to relax and discuss the protocols. (Inbound it is best not to have addi- tional observers.) The goal of the inbound experimenter during this period is to make it "safe" for the subject to experience remote viewing. For the initial orientation of a new subject, this typically includes a low-key pep talk as to how remote viewing appears to be a natural, not abnormal, function, that many people appear to have done it successfully, even their first time, and always including the reminder to eschew -------------------------- analysis and simply render raw impressions. Since we think that remote viewing is a difficult task, like per- ceiving a subliminal stimulus, we think it takes the full attentive powers of the subject. Therefore, the environment, procedures, etc., should be as natural and comfortable as possible to minimize the attention on anything other than the job at hand. No hypnosis, strobe lights, or sensory-deprivation procedures are ever used, since in our view these (novel) environmental factors take away some of the subject's much-needed attention. We are in this sense proponents of a "naturalist school." If the subject feels more comfortable smoking, or drinking a cup of coffee, that is permitted. These should be arranged ahead of time, however, so that neither subject nor experimenter leave-the Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 experimentalroom_ waiting for the outbound experimenter to reach his target. The experimenter should have arranged ahead of time to have pen and paper available for drawing, and a tape recorder. When the agreed-upon experiment time arrives, he inbound exper m ter simply asks the subject to "describe what impressions come to mind with regard to where the outbound experimenter is." Most subjects prefer to close their eyes, but they should simply do what comes naturally. The room lighting is preferably subdued to prevent after-image highlights, shadows on eyelids, etc. It is best that the inbound experimenter not pressure the subject to say a lot; he should act as if there is all the time in the world. Otherwise, a subject may tend to embroider 3escriptions just to be saying something to please the experimenter. If the subject tends toward being analytical ("I see Macy's") the experimenter must gently lead the subject into description, not analysis. ("You don't have to tell me where it is, just describe what you see,") This is the most important and difficult task of the inbound experimenter. It is also useful for the inbound experimenter to "surprise" the subject with new viewpoints. ("Go above the scene and look down--what do you see? If you look to the left, what do you see?") The subject's viewpoint appears to shift rapidly with a question like this, and the data come through before the subject's defenses activate to block it out. The shifting of viewpoint also obviates the problem of the subject spending the entire time giving meticulous detail on a trivial item, such as a flower, which, even if true, will be of no help to a judge. Once a subject feels he sees something, he tends to hang on to this perception rather than commit himself to a new viewpoint. The subject must be encouraged to sketch what he sees, even over his objections that he is not an artist, can't sketch, etc. He may do so throughout, or wait until the last five minutes if intermittent drawing would distract his concentration. Since drawings tend to be more accurate than verbalizations, this is an extremely important factor for good results. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Post-Experiment Feedback When the outbound experimenter returns, the inbound and outbound experimenters and subject should proceed directly to the target for feedback. This helps to develop the subject's sense of which parts of his mental imaging are correct, versus incorrect. It completes the experiment for him, so that when he does a following experiment, his mind is not still involved with wondering how he did on the previous one. Only a very experienced subject can function well time after time without feedback, so this must be done for each experiment to ensure success. In a sense, the most critical part of the remote-viewing procedure is the judging. Any single experiment in remote viewing, even if per- fect, can in principle be dismissed as possibly coincidence. Further, any result less than perfect can be dismissed as a generalized "grass is green, sky is blue" transcript that fits every target. Only blind differential discrimination across a series of targets can put these interpretations to rest. To prepare the transcripts for judging, an experimenter not involved in judging must read the transcripts and delete from them any reference to dates or pr-viously_used tare.s., so that a judge could not order the transcripts chronologically or otherwise obtain a __priori information useful in matching. Two judging procedures can then be used: Direct Matching, and Rank Ordering. Both procedures assume that n experiments have been carried out and n responses obtained. The judge must then try to determine which of the n responses goes with which of the n targets. a. Direct-Matching Procedure The n responses (transcripts with associated drawings) are numbered in random order and given to the judge along with the list of n targets, also in a (different) random order. The key is known by an experimenter, but not the judge. The judge then visits the target sites and constructs a one-to-one correspondence list between targets and responses without replacement; that is, no target or response is used twice. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : tlA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 With the correspondence list and the aid of the key, the experimenter then consults the statistical table for Direct Matching (Table 1) to determine whether the result is statistically significant. For example, if there were 5 correct matches out of 9 responses, the table indicates that the probability of obtaining such a result by chance is p = 0.003125, or roughly 3 times out of a thousand. Since the accepted standard in behavioral research is that a result can be considered signi- ficant if one obtains the value p s 0.05, such a result would be considered significant--that is, indicative of a nonchance correspondence. The Direct Matching procedure is the simplest to carry out, but will give no credit for a fairly good description if a judge has difficulty in choosing between two possibilities and chooses the wrong one. This procedure is thus overly conservative. The more difficult Rank ordering procedure, described next, gives partial credit in such a case, and is therefore a more precise statistical tool for analysis of medium-grade results. Q3b Rank-Ordering Procedure In the use of the Rank-Ordering procedure, the experimenter randomizes the targets and transcripts as before. Now, however, each of it judges is given a set of the n transcripts but only one of the target sites to investigate. Each judge's task is to visit his assigned target site, read through all the transcripts, and order them best-to-worst match (1 through 5, say, if there are five targets and five transcripts). With the aid of the key, the experimenter then adds up the rank-ordering numbers assigned to each target's associated transcript. For example, if the actual response to a target was given a first place when a judge was looking at the target, then it gets a 1. If the actual response to a target was given a third place match when a judge was looking at that target, then it gets a 3, etc. The addition of these numbers 1 + 3 + ... then yields a number called the sum of ranks. One then consults the rank-ordering table (Table 2) for the statistic of interest. For example, if there were 5 experiments (5 targets and 5 transcripts) and the sum of ranks was 9, the table for 5 x 5 gives a Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 M + 1 2 ... .5000 SIGNIFICANT AT p < 0.05 (4 or more out of any arbitrary N) ... .000694 .000463 ?000321 .0005093 .000S112 .367882 .367879 -06T87911 . M678794 .183929 ?183941 _.1839396 __1_M39397 .061343 9061310 .0613137 .061313? ... .000012 ?0000083 .000n093 .000003 ... .0000014 .0600009 -- .000 00 --... .0000001 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 3 4 5 6 7 8 ,3333 .3750 .366b7 .36806 .36766 .367882 .5000 .3333 .37500 .36667 .36806 ?367857 ... ?2SOU .16667 .18750 .18333 .184028 91667 ... .08333 .05556 .06250 .061111 see 000417 .002778 0003125 .0030S6 .0030671 .003n6%3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Number of Targets - 4; Number of Transcripts - 4 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 4 0.39063E-02 5 0.19531E-01 6 0.58594E-01 7 0.13672E 00 8 0.25781E 00 9 0.41406E 00 10 0.58594E 00 11 0.74219E 00 12 0.86328E 00 13 0.94141E 00 14 0.98047E 00 15 0.99609E 00 16 0.10000E 01 Number of Targets - 5; Number of Transcripts - 5 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 5 0.32000E-03 6 0.19200E-02 7 0.67200E-02 8 0.17920E-01 9 0.40320E-01 10 0.79040E-01 11 0.13824E 00 12 0.21984E 00 13 0.32224E 00 14 0.43904E 00 15 0.56056E 00 16 0.67776E 00 17 0.78016E 00 18 0.86176E 00 19 0.92096E 00 20 0.95968E 00 21 0.98208E 00 22 0.99328E 00 23 0.99808E 00 24 0.99968E 00 25 0.10000E 01 *The notation E-02 is to be understood as 10-2; E 01 as 101; etc. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1300050001-3 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets . 6; Number of Transcripts - 6 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 6 0.21433E-04 7 0.15003E-03 8 0.60014E-03 9 0.18004F-02 10 0.45010E-02 11 0.99023E-02 12 0.19676E-01 13 0.35880E-01 14 0.60764E-01 15 0.96472E-01 16 0.14463E 00. 17 0.20585E 00 18 0.27939E 00 19 0.36310E 00 20 0.45357E 00 21 0.54642E 00 22 0.63689E 00 23 0.72061E 00 24 0.79415E 00 25 0.85537E 00 26 0.90353E 00 27 0.93923E 00 28 0.96412E 00 29 0.98032E 00 30 0.99010E 00 31 0.99550E 00 32 0.99820E 00 33 0.99940E 00 34 0.99985E 00 35 0.99998E 00 36 0.10000E 01 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1300050001-3 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 7; Number of Transcripts - 7 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 7 0.12143E-05 8 0.97141E-05 9 0.43714E-04 10 0.14571E-03 11 0.40071E-03 12 0.96170E-03 13 0.20837E-02 14 0.41589E-02 15 0.77458E-02 16 0.13585E-01 17 0.225 95 E-01 18 0.35838E-01 19 0.54453E-01 20 0.79544E-01 21 0.11205E 00 22 0.15259E 00 23 0.20137E 00 24 0.25802E 00 25 0.32161E 00 26 0.39065E 00 27 0.46315E 00 28 0.53685E 00 29 0.60935E 00 30 0.67839E 00 31 0.74198E 00 32 0.79863E 00 33 0.84741E 00 34 0.88795E 00 35 0.92045E 00 36 0.94555E 00 37 0.96416E 00 .38 0.97740E 00 39 0.98641E 00 40 0.99225E 00 41 0.99584E 00 42 0.99791E 00 43 0.99903E co 44 0.99958E 00 45 0.99984E 00 46 0.99995E 00 47 0.99998E 00 48 0.99999E 00 49 0.10000E 01 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 8; Number of Transcripts - 8 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 8 0.59605E-07 9 0.53644E-06 10 0.26822E-05 11 0.98348E-05 12 0.29504E-04 13 0.76711E-04 14 0.17899E-03 15 0.38356 E-03 16 0.76663E-03 17 0.14447E-02 18 0.25867E-02 19 0.44264E-02 20 0.72724E-02 21 0.11515E-01 22 0.17628E-01 23 0.26157E-01 24 0.37702E-01 25 0.52890E-01 26 0.72328E-01 27 0.96562E-01 28 0.12602E 00 29 0.16095E 00 30 0.20139E 00 31 0.24714E 00 32 0.29772E 00 33 0.35237E 00 34 0.41012E 00 35 0.46982E 00 36 0.53018E 00 37 0.58988E 00 38 0.64763E 00 39 0.70228E 00 40 0.75286E 00 41 0.79860E 00 42 0.83905E 00 43 0.87398E 00 44 0.90344E 00 45 0.92767E 00 46 0.94711E 00 47 0.96229E 00 48 0.97384E 00 49 0.98237E 00 50 0.98849E 00 51 0.99273E 00 52 0.99557E 00 53 0.99741E 00 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 9; Number of Transcripts - 9 SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 9 0.25812E-08 10 0.25812E-07 11 0.14196E-06 12 0.56786E-06 13 0.18455E-05 14 0.51675E-05 15 0.12919E-04 16 0.29529E-04 17 0.62748E-04 18 0.12547E-03 19 0.23821E-03 20 0.43226E-03 21 0.75357E-03 22 0.12673E-02 23 0.20628E-02 24 0.32586E-02 25 0.50075E-02 26 0.75003E-02 27 0.10968E-01 28 0.15683E-01 29 0.21954E-01 30 0.30122E-01 31 0.40548E-01 32 0.53601E-01 33 0.69639E-01 34 0.88989E-01 35 0.11192F 00 36 0.13864E 00 37 0.16924E 00 38 0.20370E 00 39 0.24189E 00 40 0.28353E 00 41 0.32821E 00 42 0.37540E 00 43 0.42447E 00 44 0.47469E 00 45 0.52531E 00 46 0.57553E 00 47 0.62460E 00 48 0.67179E 00 49 0.71647E 00 50 0.75811E 00 51 0.79630E 00 52 0.83076E 00 53 0.86136E 00 54 0.88807E 00 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Table 2 (Concluded) Number of Targets - 10; Number of Transcripts SUM OF RANKS P-VALUE 10 0.10000E-09 11 0.11000E-08 12 0.66000E-08 13 O.286DOE-07 14 0.10010E-06 15 0.30030F-06 16 0.80080E-06 17 0.19448E-05 18 0.43758E-05 19 0.92378E-05 20 0.18475E-04 21 0.35261E-04 22 0.64559E-04 23 0.11412E-03 24 0.19512E-03 25 0.32387E-03 26 0.52317E-03 27 0.82418E-03 28 0.12686E-02 29 0.19106E-02 30 0.28197E-02 31 0.40825E-02 32 0.58049E-02 33 0.81133E-02 34 O.11156F-01 35 0.15103E-01 36 0.20143E-01 37 0.26484E-01 38 0.34347F-01 39 0.43960F-O1 40 0.55552E-01 41 0.69345E-01 42 0.85541E-01 43 0.10432F 00 44 0.12581E 00 45 0.15011E 00 46 0.17725E 00 47 0.20721E 00 48 0.23987E 00 49 0.27506E 00 50 0.31255E 00 51 0.35202E 00 52 0.39311E 00 53 0.43538E 00 54 0.47838E 00 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 probability of obtaining such a rank ordering result by chance of 0.0403..., which is significant. A more complete set of tables is given in Solfvin et al.2 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3 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). 2. G. Solfvin et al., "Some New Methods of Analysis for Preferential- Ranking Data," J. Am. Soc. for Psychical Research, Vol. 72, No. 2 (April 1978). Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300050001-3