AN APPLICATION ORIENTED REMOTE VIEWING EXPERIMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

ed For Release 2000/08/08 CIA- P96-00789ROO2200500001-2
K
AN APPLICATION ORIENTED REMOTE VIEWING
EXPERIMENT(U)
`J U
By:
lVV/
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025
roved Fort'IkeliPaW&02b6Mi~/'d837:3dPA6 P,d0 6lhR002200500001-2
 Final Report April 1989
Covering the Period 1 May 1988 to April 1989
AN APPLICATION ORIENTED REMOTE VIEWING
EXPERIMENT(U)
f`'
J
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025
415 326-6200 ? TWX: 910-373-2046 ? Telex: 334-486
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
oved For Release 2000/08/08 : C A-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For ReleascJ L/ASSItIFED6-00789R002200500001-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (U)
LIST OF FIGURES ......... .................. ... .................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................... iii
I OBJECTIVE .................................................... 1
II BACKGROUND ................................................. 2
A. Remote Viewing ............................................ 2
B. Fuzzy Set Analysis ......................................... 3
III APPROACH .................................................... 4
A. Remote Viewer ............................................ 4
B. Target Material ........................................... 4
C. Experiment Protocol ......................................... 4
D. Analysis Technique ......................................... 5
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................... 10
V CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 19
REFERENCES ............................................................ 20
APPENDIX A--REMOTE VIEWING RESPONSE (DRAWINGS) ................... A-1
APPENDIX B--REMOTE VIEWING RESPONSE (TRANSCRIPT) ................. B-1
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2fl00/08/08 : C- RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
SG1A
LIST OF FIGURES (U)
1.
Viewer 372:
I ..............11
2.
Viewer 372:
................... 12
3.
Viewer 373:
................... 13
4.
Viewer 372:
................. 15
5.
Viewer 372:
A ..................16
6.
Viewer 009:
................... 18
LIST OF TABLES (U)
1. Universe of Target And Response Elements (U) .............................. 8
2. Figure of Merit (FM) Summary-(
................10
Approved For Release 20OQ/08/08 : CIA--RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 L
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
I OBJECTIVE (U)
The objectives of this experiment were to:
?f
Demonstrate the potential of a novel
collection technique, known as remote viewing,
Determine the degree to which the technique used to
analyze remote viewing results is applicable.
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
SG 1 A r J 1 II BACKGROUND (U)
lij SRI was asked( -
Ito participate in an experiment
conducted during the latter half of August, 1988,
The primary objectives were (1) to demonstrate
the remote viewing of and (2) to apply fuzzy set
analysis to interpret the data.
A. (U) Remote Viewing
SG1A
SG1A
Approved For Release 2 /08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
(U) Remote viewing (RV) is an apparent human ability to gain access, by mental means
alone, to information that is secured by shielding, distance, or time. 1-5 * At least three elements
are necessary to conduct an RV experiment:
(1) An individual, called a viewer, with RV ability
(2) Specific target material (not available to the viewer at the time of the
experiment)
(3) An analysis technique to determine the degree to which RV occurred
In a typical laboratory protocol, a viewer and a monitor-an interviewer who is also unaware of
the target material-are sequestered at time To. At To + 5 minutes, an assistant selects the
intended target from a large pool of potential targets (e.g., a list of locations within a half-hour
drive from the laboratory) using a random procedure. At To + 30 minutes, the assistant is at the
selected site and, back at the laboratory, the viewing begins. At To + 45 minutes, the viewing
ends and the assistant returns to the laboratory. To provide feedback, the viewer, monitor, and
assistant return to the selected site and review the RV data.
(U) To determine if RV occurred, similar experiments are conducted using a newly
selected target for each trial. Usually, the trials are done with target replacement (i.e., each
target is returned to the pool and may be selected again by the random process).
(U) References may be found at the end of this report.
 Approved For Release 2 0/08/08 : Cl - DP96-00789R002200500001-2
B. (U) Fuzzy Set Analysis
(U) Since 1972, SRI has developed many procedures to determine whether information
has been obtained beyond chance expectation.6-8 In the current method,9 the targets and
viewer's responses are described as fuzzy sets of descriptor elements (e.g., presence of water).
The outcome of the RV experiment is measured by a figure of merit, which is related to the
accuracy and reliability of the viewer's description of the target.
(U)
' When RV is applied pthe analysis
procedures differ considerably. In laboratory experiments, much is known
about the target, but in I -applications, very little target
information is known. Thus, the analysis technique must be modified in
order to assess the "correct" RV response elements before confirming
evidence can be obtained.
J
'Long-standing difficulties in applying the RV phenomena to
intelligence applications are at least twofold. In a lengthy response,
those elements of genuine significance must be identified a
priori. Second, even excellent examples of remote viewing do not
necessarily imply usefulness. Therefore, RV-derived
data should be used in conjunction with information'obtained
through more conventional channels.
3
Approved For Release 2/08/08 : CIA;DP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
III APPROACH (U)
(U) SRI conducted a 26-hour RV experiment beginning at 1008 on August 24, 1988.
The viewer provided data in four different work periods: at 1008 and 1500 on August 24, and at
0910 and 1120 on August 25. The details of the experiment are described below.
SRI selected Viewer V372 to participate in this experiment
because of his* 10-year experience as a viewer, and because he produced
good results in the first experiment in this series, conducted in May,
1987.
B. (U) Target Material
The target was
Included in the target material was the
functional aspect i relationships among elementsk and
the elements themselves.
C. (U) Experiment Protocol
,,,.The SRI team was given the, name of the experiment, a time
window during which the experiment would be active, and a photograph and
Social Security number of an on-site individual. Other than this, all
aspects and details of the experiment were withheld from V372 and SRI
personnel.
* (U) To keep the identify of the viewer confidential, we refer to the viewer with the
pronouns he and his regardless of the viewer's gender.
4
Approved For Release 200 08/08 : CIA- 96-00789R002200500001-2
SG1A
 Approved For Release 20000_8108 : CIA-RD'96-00789RO02200500001-2
r
r
r
r
Four sessions were conducted to provide information. The
times and circumstances were as follows:
(1) 1008 August 24 V372 was asked to describe the location and
details of an event in progress. Details about pertinent
personnel were also requested.
(2) 1500 August 24 V372 was asked to describe details and
activity at. the site demarked by the presence of the
sponsor's on-site representative.
(3) 0910 August 2S V372 was asked to expand upon his
descriptions from the previous day.
(4) 1120 August 25 V372 was asked consolidate the information
from the previous scans and to provide his concluding
remarks.
During each session, V372's responses were tape-recorded. He
was encouraged to draw details whenever possible. Drawings are contained
in Appendix 4, and Appendix B contains verbatim transcripts of all four
sessions. (Because of technical difficulties, most of the taped record of
the second session was lost. Since the remaining data are intact and
since the drawings from the remaining viewings are complete, this gap is
not significant.)
After all raw data had been delivered to the sponsor, V372 and
,
SRI personnel were allowed to visit the target site for
feedback.
D. (U) Analysis Technique
As discussed in'Section Ii, quantitative analysis in an
intelligence setting poses problems. Any analysis of remote viewing data
must be accomplished within the context of a mission statement. An
analysis designed only to demonstrate RV is inadequate to enable an
assessment, and vice versa. Under another program,? SRI
developed a generalized analysis technique that allows for an a priori
mission statement. An overview of that technique follows.
5
Approved For Release 2000/0 7- : CIA-RD P9 -00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 200Q108108 : CIA- iDP96-00789ROO2200500001-2
SG1A
SG1A
SG1A
The most important aspect of RV data analysis is the
definition of both the target and the RV response. For this analysis, all
target and response information is defined as the fuzzy sets T and R,
respectively. Each is described below.
-The target is defined as a fuzzy set of target elements
T[ek,Ak,wk]:
? , ek is an element of a target. For example, an element
? p.k is the membership value of element ek. It
represents the degree to which ek is present at the target.
for example, might have a membership
value of 0.6, indicating that is 60% of
the target material. Determined subjectively, ?k is always
a valpe from 0 to 1.
? 4- wk is an arbitrary weighting factor for element ek. This
factor accounts for differing missions by assigning the
SG1A importance of elements relative to each other. The
is very
SG1A rtant, for example, and might be assigned a weight of 5
when compared with which might have a
weight of 0.5.
The RV response is similarly defined as a fuzzy set of
response elements R(ek,p.k,wk]. The membership values for response
elements, however, have a somewhat different meaning than those for target
elements. Membership values, ?k. represent an-analyst's assessment as to
the degree of presence of ekin the response. For declarative statements,
?k- 1 unless a viewer volunteers a specific or implied importance of ek to
the overall target. A degree of interpretation is allowed for
nondeclarative statements by letting Ak< 1. The response weights, Wk, are
identical to the target weights.
( ewe define accuracy as the percent of target material described
correctly by a response. Likewise, we define reliability (of a viewer) as the
percent of a response that is correct. The figure of merit is the product
of the two; to obtain a high figure of merit, a viewer's description of a
target must be largely correct and contain few extraneous images. In
Approved For Release 200 /08/08 : CIA-RD~96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2001Q/08/08 : CIA-Rl P96-00789R002200500001-2
fuzzy set terminology, these quantities for the jth target/response pair
are as follows:
Fa wk (Rir1T)k
k
Accuracy, = ai =
.1 wk (Ri n Ti)k
k
Reliability = r =
i i
,Y WkTJ,k
k
wk Rj.k
k
Figure of Merit, - Mi - a, x r,
The sum over k is called the sigma count in fuzzy set terminology. The sigma
count is defined as the sum of the membership values, ?, for the elements
of the response, target, and their intersection-that is, Ri, Ti, and
(Rill Ti), respectively.
2. (U) Target and Response Data
The universe of target and response elements is drawn from the
August, 1988, experiment. We define three element categories: functions,
relationships, and objects. These categories are weighted 1.0, 0.75, and
0.50, respectively.
(U) Table 1 shows the universe of target and response elements and the formal definition
of T and R. All scans were considered together, rather than scan by scan. The various scaling
weights are shown in parentheses adjacent to the appropriate factors. The relative weights are
derived from SRI's best assessment of the operational utility of each element. The response
membership values, R(?), were determined from the raw data (see Appendices A and B). The
target membership values, T(?), were determined by SRI personnel during a site visit in
September, 1988. All elements, however, were determined by an SRI analyst post hoc in order
to allow a more accurate assessment of reliability. Elements derived from the response were
taken literally. Those elements having no corresponding element in the target (i.e., T(?) = 0)
were assigned the average weight of elements present in the target.
7
Approved For Release 20 b/08/08 : CIA- DP96-00789ROO2200500001-2
 SG1A
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
1-1
SG1A
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (U)
Table 2 shows the figure-of-merit analysis for the
experiment using the fuzzy sets defined in Table 1. The target was the
The
target-response intersection is shown as IT n RI, and the sigma counts of
the target and response sets are shown as ITI and IRS, respectively. N
is the number of elements that were identified for each category. All
quantities include the relative weights shown in Table 1.
'The weighted accuracy total of 0.80 (i.e., 80% of the
identifiably elements at the target site were correctly described by V372)
agrees well with the qualitative correspondence shown in Figures 1 and 2.*
Figure 3 shows V372's drawing of a plan view of the target area, which
appears to match the experimental situation almost exactly. The figures
of merit show that, since the first experiment in this series, V372's
ability to sense functions and objects has increased modestly, and his
ability to sense relationships has increased by a factor of four. The
relatively low value of 0.57 for the combined (weighted by the category
weighting factors) target elements is consistent with the elaborate nature
of V372's response (see the original response in Appendices A and B).
FIGURE OF MERIT SUMMARY'
Element Type
N
IT fRi
ITI
IRI
Acc.
Rel.
M
FUNCTIONS
8
10.00
11.40
12.43
0.88
0.80
0.70
RELATIONSHIPS
16
15.05
21.95
23.45
0.69
0.64
0.44
OBJECTS
48
46.20
56.70
72.92
0.82
0.63
0.52
TOTAL
72
-
-
-
0.80
0.65
0.52
(U) All figures are to be taken as indicators of qualitative correspondence. The drawings and
photographs have been selected to illustrate the correspondence.
10
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2080/O8/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789ROO2200500001-2
SG1A
Approved For Release 200/08/08 : CIA-RDP96J-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 200P/08/08 : CIA-RTP96-00789ROO2200500001-2
3- ~O
SG1A
00/08/08 : CIMRDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release X000/08/08 : CIA-RPDP96-00789R002200500001-2
FIGURE 3 VIEWER 372: PLAN VIEW OF THE TARGET
Approved For Release 2 09/08/08 : CIA-DP96-00789R002200500001-2
 SG1A
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 200/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
? G4OUA D Fob A 4.
? SP=-C( F I r . A CA I D Oc17 ~rol~ ~~ 04'IU4 /,
~O~E''71N 1~~~ ~ ~
? j*eKeo 4) r T4 eo 10
Op 64alt~L)FrM4S.
SG1A
15
Approved For Release 200/08/08 : CIA- DP96-00789RO02200500001-2
 Approved For Release 200
a(Eir "t u ms's.
SG1A
0/08/08 : CIA-RPP96-00789R002200500001-2
16
Approved For Release 2 QO/08/08 : CIA DP96-00789R002200500001-2
 C 1
Approved For Release 2000/08/08: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
:After SRI personnel had been debriefed about the target, a
second long-term participant, V009, was asked to view the same event. He
was told to provide whatever information he could about an event that had
taken place approximately two weeks earlier. Viewer V009 was told nothing
else about the nature of the target or target event, and he worked without
an RV monitor.
Since this was an ad hoc test, not intended to be part of the
series, we have not conducted a formal analysis of V009's response.
Qualitatively, however, V009 appeared to do as well as V372, given that he
remained in session, unmonitored, for only 20 minutes. Figure 6 shows one
part of his drawing response that captures V009's theme. Interestingly,
V009 also appeared to be confused by the multitude of potential target
material in the immediate area. He drew an airport and recognized that it
was not the intended target.
17
Approved For Release L/08/08 : CI- RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
i
SG1A
L
Approved For Release 2000/08/08 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200500001-2
 Approved For Release 200/08/08 : CIA-R~P96-007898002200500001-2
V CONCLUSIONS (U)
Viewer V372 was asked to use RV to describe the activity of
Project 'during August 24 and 25, 1988. He described approximately
80% of the identifiable target elements correctly, and 71% of his
responses corresponded with the intended target. Although 29% noise
remains, if this experiment had been an actual )activity, the
noise probably would not have been a significant distracting factor.
19
Approved For Release 2000/p8T08 : CIA-RDP 6-00789R002200500001-2
 008 : CIA- 96-00789R002200500001-2
Approved For Release 2000 1
L
L
REFERENCES (U)
1. Puthoff, H. E. and Targ, R., "Perceptual Augmentation Techniques (U)," Final Report,
SRI Project 3183, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (December 1975)
2. Puthoff, H. E. and Targ, R., "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer Over
Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research," Proceedings of the
IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 3 (March 1976) *JNCLASSIFIED.
3. Puthoff, H. E., et al., "Advanced Threat Technique Assessment (U)," Final Report, SRI
Project 5309, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (October 1978)
4. Jahn, R. G., "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering
Perspective," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 136-170 (1982).
UNCLASSIFIED
5. Puthoff, H. E., "RV Reliability, Enhancement, and Evaluation (U)," Final Report, SRI
Project 4028-1.. SRI International, Menlo Park, California (January 1984)
1- 1.
6. May, E. C., "A Remote Viewing Evaluation Protocol (U)," Final Report (revised), SRI
Project 4028, SRI International, Menlo Park, California (July 1983)( z
7. May, E. C., Humphrey, B. S., and Puthoff, H. E., "An Automated RV Evaluation
Procedure (U)," Final Report, SRI Proiect 7408, SRI International, Menlo Park,
California (May 1985)
8. May, E. C., Humphrey, B. S., and Mathews, C., "A Figure of Merit Analysis for
Free-Response Material," Proceedings of the 28th Annual Convention of the
Parapsychological Association, pp. 343-354, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
(August 1985) UNCLASSIFIED.
9. Humphrey, B. S., Trask, V. V., May, E. C., and Thomson M. J., "Remote Viewing
Evaluation Techniques (U)," Final Report-Objective A, Task-4, SRI Project 1291, SRI
International, Menlo Park, California (December 1986) 1
20
Approved For Release 2000/ 8/08: CIA-R 6-00789R002200500001-2