PROJECT GRILL FLAME AMSAA PHASE I EFFORTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001100080005-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 246
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: July 1, 1979
• Content Type: REPORT

7
oved For Release 200OLOSI DP96-00788RO01100080005-8
INTERIM NOTE #
(SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U)
July 1979
CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA
(DAMI-ISH), dated ul 78
REVIEW ON 7 July 1999
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES OFFICE
U. S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
AMSM 1.1 551979 SECRET
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
{ Information and data contained in this document are based un the input
available at the time of preparation. The results may be subject to
change and should not be construed as representing the DARCOM position
unless so specified.
The Special Activities Office (SAO) of the US Army Materiel Systems
Analysis Activity (AMSAA) produces this Interim Note as an informal
account of an interim nature, transmitted through channels to a limited
number of addressees, on a working level need-to-know basis for internal
use. It is a fragmentary disclosure of day-to-day progress in a technical
field of interest to the Special Activities Office. It is not intended that
this report affect in any way the publication or established procedures
governing AMSAA reports. Thus, due to the nature of the document, no final
conclusions or recommendations should be construed or based upon the infor-
mation contained therein.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
S P E C I A L A C T I V I T I E S O F F I C E
INTERIM NOTE NO. 15
(SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U)
July 1979
CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA
(DAMI-ISH), dated 7 Jul 78
REVIEW ON: 7 July 1999
A B E R D E E N P R O V I N G G R 0 U N D, M D
NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
n w 1
40 sm MO
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 f ? M
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
/APPr
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
S P E C I A L A C T I V I T I E S O F F I C E
INTERIM NOTE NO. 15
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
July 1979
(SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U)
This report presents the results of AMSAA's Phase I
participation in Project GRILL FLAME.
3
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
The identification of the specific roles played by
specific individuals in the AMSAA GRILL FLAME program must be
protected. Individual roles are referred to in this publica-
tion and all other project records by alpha-numeric designa-
tors. However, the success of the GRILL FLAME program is
dependent on all of the individuals involved as participants,
advisors, administrative support personnel, etc. Their names
are hereby listed in recognition of their support.
Dr. Joseph Sperrazza
COL Albert DeProspero
GEN Lewis Walt
Mr. Daniel O'Neill
Mr. John Kramar
Dr. Evan Harris Walker
Mr. Paul Kunselman
Mr. Ray Dietz
Mr. Scott Phillips
Mr. Michael Iten
Mr. Dan Murdock
Mr. Clark Thomas
Ms. Lynne Taylor
Ms. Donna McComas
Ms. Edith Reardon
Ms. Sally Woomert
Mr. Mark Reches
Mr. George Hanna
Mr. Michael Finkel
Ms. Sandy Johnson
Ms. Jo Carroll
Ms. Carole Brooks
Mr. Brit Harrison
Ms. Glenna Tingle
Ms. Juanita Keesee
Ms. Arlene Whitaker
Ms. Michael Miller
Ms. Louise Aaron
UNCLASSIFIED
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
w~rss^w~ ^
(S-NF) CONTENTS (U)
Page
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Remote Viewing (RV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Remote Viewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Interviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Remote Viewing Session . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Target Pool Selector (TPS). . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Beacon Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Project Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.8 Project Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. ORGANIZATION OF RV TEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Target Selection. . . . . . . . .
6.2 Remote Viewer Session Preliminaries . . . . . .
6.3 Activity of the Beacon Individual . . . . . . .
6.4 Remote Viewing Session . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Post-Session Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Rank Ordering Method. . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Principle Concepts Method . . . . . . . . . . .
8. SPECIAL SESSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3 Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.4 Special Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.5 Target-of-the-day Sessions. . . . . . . . . . .
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
(S-NF) CONTENTS (Continued) (U)
9. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.1 Problems Impacting on Participant Efficiency. .
9.2 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.3 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.4 Special Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.1 Rise Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.2 Quiet Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 Remote Viewer/Interviewer Interaction . .
10.4 Remote Viewer/Interviewer Interaction Specific-
ally during the RV Session. . . . . . . . . . .
10.5 Tape Recording. . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.6 Role of the Beacon Individual . . . . . . . . .
10.7 Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX A - GRILL FLAME PROJECT DESIGNATION TWX . .
APPENDIX B - SRI PROTOCOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX C - EDITED TRANSCRIPTS AND TARGETS PACKAGE.
 Approved For Release 2000/08 7 + I - P96-00788 R001100080005-8
(SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U)
AMSAA PHASE I EFFORTS
1. (SECRET-NOFORN) BACKGROUND (U)
(S-NF) AMSAA first became cognizant of efforts
ongoing in applied parapsychology, or psychoenergetic pro-
cesses, through unclassified information available in the
open literature. This particular literature concentrated on
the work in remote viewing being done by Dr. Harold Puthoff
and Mr. Russell Targ of SRI International with psychics Ingo
Swann, Pat Price and Hella Hammid.
(S-NF) On 21 March 1978, Dr. Puthoff gave presen-
tations to the AMSAA staff on remote viewing as a part of
AMSAA's general guest lecture program. At Dr. Puthoff's
request, one of the presentations was given at the SECRET
controlled access SI level to a selected few AMSAA manage-
ment personnel while the other presentation was given at the
SECRET level to about 40 interested members of the AMSAA
staff. These presentations provided the impetus to further
explore SRI's efforts in coordination with the Foreign Tech-
nology Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Upon
realizing the tactical military potential of such phenomena,
AMSAA so informed the CG, DARCOM and the Under Secretary of
the Army and received tacit approval in April 1978 to fis-
cally assist the project in order to sustain it and to
obtain some data on targeting of tactical ground targets.
In May 1978, AMSAA transferred $100K to FTD for SRI to con-
tinue their investigations on the military applications of
remote viewing.
(S-NF) In addition to the AMSAA support of SRI,
the establishment of an in-house program on remote viewing
was approved by CG DARCOM in April 1978. General discus-
sions were held among interested analysts during April to
July 1978. In July 1978, a Project Manager was appointed by
the AMSAA Project Officer to organize and direct the in-
house effort. In August 1978, AMSAA began conducting remote
viewing sessions.
(S-NF) In July 1978 the unclassified code name
GRILL FLAME was issued to replace any open reference to US
Army involvement in parapsychology. US Army interest or
work in parapsychology is classified SECRET NOFORN with a
strict need-to-know caveat operative for the GRILL FLAME
program (Appendix A). In September 1978, DIA guidance fur-
ther defined the classification of all GRILL FLAME papers,
reports, etc., to be SECRET, ORCON (Dissemination and
Extraction of Information Controlled by Originator).
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
i Fit, I 100000000-0
 Approved For Release 2000/ 8 7 ? 1 - jPP96-OO788ROO1 100080005-8
40 WW_ %do
2. (SECRET-NOFORN) OBJECTIVES (U)
(S--NF) The AMSAA GRILL FLAME program was under-
taken to achieve the following two objectives:
. A first order challenge, confirmation and/or
rejection of the SRI remote viewing protocol (Appendix B).
r First hand experience with remote viewing by
AMSAA personnel.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
 Approved For Release 2000/ 7 ; I P96-00788R001100080005-8
3. (SECRET-NOFORN) DEFINITIONS (U)
3.1 (S-NF) Remote Viewing (RV) (U).
(S-NF) 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.
3.2 (S-NF) Remote Viewer (U).
(S-NF) The person who locates, identifies and/or
describes the target.
3.3 (S-NF)
Interviewer (U).
(S-NF) The person who interacts with the remote
viewer before, during and after the RV session.
3.4 (S-NF) Remote Viewing Session (U).
(S-NF) A single attempt by the remote viewer to
locate, identify and/or describe a target.
3.5 (S-NF) Target Pool Selector (TPS) (U).
(S-NF) The person who selectes the targets
comprising the target pool. This person does not
participate in any other phase of the RV process. The
individual targets are maintained in a secure container
accessible only to the TPS.
3.6 (S-NF) Beacon Individual (U).
(S-NF) The person at the target site during an RV
session.
3.7 (S-NF) Project Officer (U)
(S-NF) The overall, responsible individual for all
aspects of the project.
3.8 (S-NF) Project Manager (U).
(S-NF) The individual designated by the Project
Officer to organize and direct the in-house RV program.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
IQ M im I'll, a""
(S-NF) Some of the terminology defined above has
been changed from that of the original SRI protocol being
replicated. This change in identifiers resulted from dis-
cussions among the participants to more accurately describe
the roles of the individuals and their interactions as well
as redefine the nature of the process as a task to be
accomplished during an RV session rather than as an
experiment or demonstration. The terminology changes are
noted as follows:
Subject Remote Viewer
Inbound Experimenter Interviewer
Outbound Experimenter Beacon Individual
Experiment/Demonstration Session
 Approved For Release 2000/J8;QjiJl -pP96-00788 R001100080005-8
4. (SECRET-NOFORN) SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS (U)
(S-NF) Upon establishment of the AMSAA GRILL FLAME
program, individuals who had previously shown an interest in
the potential application of RV were invited to participate
as a remote viewer, interviewer or beacon individual. Indi
viduals desiring to participate in these tasks were accepted.
Other individuals selected after the initial participants
were identified were given an orientation on the phenomena
by the Project Officer and/or Project Manager and asked to
read published literature on RV. After a familiarization
with the RV process and procedures, these individuals were
asked if they would like to participate in one of the tasks.
Only those individuals who indicated a positive desire to
participate were accepted.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Approve or Release
 Approved For Release 2002jMjij 96-00788 R001100080005-8
~trr'?^i^~^~ w
5. (SECRET-NOFORN) ORGANIZATION OF RV TEAMS (S-NF)
(S-NF) Two teams, designated as Ti and T2, were
established to replicate the SRI protocol. Each team con-
sisted of a remote viewer, interviewer and one or more
beacon individuals. Ten RV sessions were conducted by each
team, for a total of 20 sessions comprising this Phase I
GRILL FLAME effort.
(S-NF) It was originally envisioned that the com-
position of the teams would remain the same throughout all
of the sessions. However, that was not the case (see Sec-
tion 9, Problems Encountered). The only members of the
teams that participated in all of the sessions were the
remote viewers; thus, each of the two remote viewers, desig-
nated as Sl and S2, participated in ten RV sessions. Four
interviewers, designated as IB1 through IB4, participated in
the sessions as did twelve beacon individuals, designated as
OB1 through OB12.
(S-NF) As the sessions progressed, the actual num-
ber of individuals involved was reduced to four: the two
remote viewers remained the same, the interviewers were
reduced to two in number and a remote viewer and/or inter-
viewer would serve as a beacon individual for the other
remote viewer/interviewer team. These four individuals
became the "core group" of the AMSAA GRILL FLAME program,
and, with one individual change, remain so today.
*2 C %0 IT a. r,
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Approve or Release
 Approved For Release 2000/ I - P96-00788 R001100080005-8
6. (SECRET-NOFORN) PROCEDURES (U)
6.1 (S-NF) Target Selection (U).
(S-NF) A target pool of 100 target sites was
selected by the TPS. The TPS was provided a-copy of the SRI
protocol to guide him in the target selection. The 100 tar-
gets selected were within a 30-minute drive of AMSAA; the
restricted areas of APG were specifically excluded from
consideration.
(S-NF) The TPS went to each of the target sites he
selected, took a Polaroid picture of the site and wrote the
name and location of the site on an index card. The card
and picture were placed in an envelope. The resulting 100
envelopes were sealed, randomized and numbered by the TPS.
The target pool was maintained by the TPS in a locked file
cabinet to which he had the only key.
(S-NF) The SRI protocol indicates that targets
chosen should be distinctive, but that the target pool
should include more than one example of each distinctive
type. This precludes the remote viewer from eliminating a
perception of a target because one of that type was used
before. Sl and S2 were informed that the target pool con-
sisted of similar as well as different types of targets and
that each individual target would be used only once.
6.2 (S-NF) Remote Viewer Session Preliminaries (U).
(S-NF) Before the first RV session was scheduled,
the remote viewers were oriented to the procedure to be
followed by the interviewers and beacon individuals. This
orientation included discussions among the participants as
well as reading the published literature available. This
orientation was very important, as the remote viewer needed
to understand that he should state raw perceptions; the SRI
protocol cited experience which indicated specific interpre-
tations are quite often inaccurate while the initial raw
perceptions of the remote viewer tend to be correct. In
addition, both Sl and S2 were always encouraged to express
their feelings and ideas for enhancing all aspects of the RV
process.
(S-NF) This orientation was also important to the
interviewers as they needed to be aware of the differences
between raw perceptions and embellished descriptions in
order to be able to encourage the remote viewers to state
what they perceived.
06 go Alms% N=qp
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
6.3 (S-NF) Activity of the Beacon Individual (U).
(S-NF) At the beginning of the RV session, the
remote viewer, interviewer and individual or individuals
serving as the beacon met for 5-10 minutes for a relaxed,
informal chat. The time of this meeting, as well as the
timing for all aspects of the session, was agreed to by all
participants prior to the final scheduling of the session.
(S-NF) The beacon individual(s) departed the
meeting and obtained the target from the TPS. The TPS did
not select the target until the beacon individual(s) arrived
at his office. The target was then selected by using the
random number generator program of the HP-65 calculator and
pulling that numbered envelope. This procedure eliminated
the possibility of the beacon individual(s) divulging any
hint of the target to the remote viewer and interviewer.
(S-NF) After driving through the gate of the
AMSAA/BRL compound, the beacon individual(s) opened the
target envelope and proceeded to that location, to arrive
there at the specified time, usually 30 minutes hence, which
was the amount of time it would take to drive to the
furthest target in the pool. The beacon individual(s) had
been instructed to stay in motion until 2-3 minutes prior to
the start time of the viewing period, park his car and then
walk up to the target location at the exact starting time so
his view of the location was fresh. The beacon individ-
ual(s) was to pay attention to the target environment and
not let his mind wander, particularly to other locations.
At the end of the fifteen minute viewing period, the beacon
individual(s) returned to the location of the remote viewer
and interviewers.
6.4 (S-NF) Remote Viewing Session (U).
(S-NF) After the beacon individual(s) departed to
obtain the target and proceed to the target site, the remote
viewer and interviewer had 30 minutes to relax and discuss
the procedures of the session. At this time, the inter-
viewer encouraged the remote viewer by reemphasizing his
ability to do RV, reminding him to simply state his percep-
tions and, most importantly, creating an atmosphere of
confidence and trust.
(S-NF) When we first started conducting RV ses-
sions, the interviewer and remote viewer usually chatted
right up to the start time of the viewing period. On sev-
eral occasions, other people were present in the room.
Through continued discussions between the GRILL FLAME
Approved-for Release
 Approved For Release 2000/ QI+DP96-00788 R001100080005-8
participants and the SRI personnel, both of these practices
were halted midway through Phase I (see Section 10, Lessons
Learned). The remote viewer and interviewer were thus the
only people in the room following the departure of the
beacon individual(s). Additionally, about 15 minutes prior
to the viewing period, the remote viewer and interviewer
were generally silent, enabling each one of them to relax in
whatever manner best suited them, e.g., reading a magazine,
relaxing with their eyes closed, etc.
(S-NF) During the 15-minute viewing period, the
remote viewer and interviewer functioned as a team. if
either S1 or S2 did not have any immediate sensory images,
the interviewer did not apply any pressure; rather, the
interviewer was responsible for reassuring Si or S2 that
there was no time pressure using statements like, "we have
all the time in the world;" neither was any attempt made by
the interviewer to make the remote viewer feel that he had
to say something. When S1 or S2 had a perception of the
remote target site, the interviewer, in conversation with
the remote viewer, would try to bring out descriptive state-
ments and sketches of those perceptions, being careful not
to lead the remote viewer by adding or detracting from the
perceptions or reenforcing certain perceptions at the
expense of others. The interviewer could suggest that the
remote viewer intellectually "move around" at the site and
describe the site more fully, to include structures, terrain
features, activities, colors, people, etc. The remote
viewer was encouraged to do only those things he felt
comfortable doing, e.g., he could tell the interviewer he
did not want to move around a structure but preferred to
describe his perceptions of the beacon individual(s)'
actions. If it appeared to the interviewer that the remote
viewer's perceptions were in some way contradictory or
inconsistent, the interviewer would attempt clarification by
asking questions or suggesting an alternate approach to
verify the original perceptions.
(S-NF) All of the RV sessions were tape recorded.
Additionally, the interviewer provided the remote viewer
with paper and pencil to sketch his perceptions; the SRI
experience indicates that drawings tend to be more accurate
in many instances than verbalizations. The remote viewers
were encouraged to draw either in conjunction with their
verbal descriptions and/or at the end of the 15-minute
viewing period, whichever they preferred.
4 110* ror
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
6.5 (S-NF) Post-Session Analysis (U).
(S-NF) At the end of the 15-minute viewing period
and drawing time, the remote viewer and interviewer relaxed
until the beacon individual(s) returned. At., that time, the
remote viewer, interviewer and beacon individual(s) all went
back out to the target site. This part of the procedure
served several purposes:*
a. (S-NF) The remote viewer was provided the
opportunity of seeing first-hand how well he did.
b. (S-NF) The remote viewer began to evaluate the
types of perceptions he felt most confident about as well as
the types of imagery he was less comfortable about reveal-
ing. The interviewer also began to recognize the form of
those perceptions and could thus reorient his conversation
with the remote viewer during subsequent sessions to better
account for those factors.
c. (S-NF) The beacon individual(s) could describe
his exact actions at the site; this was particularly sig-
nificant in the sessions in which the remote viewer speci-
fically perceived the actions of the beacon individual(s).
010 EWA** 1% PM9r
ftff am 1%0 a 1% am 5
 Approved For Release 2000jifteC tDP96OO788ROOl1 00080005-8
7. (SECRET-NOFORN) EVALUATION (U)
(S-NF) This section of the report describes the
two evaluation methods used to assess a "statistical sig-
nificance" and/or "success" of a set of remote viewing
efforts. On the surface, both of the methods described
below seem to be relatively straightforward and easily
accomplished, but, in "practice, they are complex, time
consuming, and a very critical part of the RV process. The
evaluation methods are dependent on the resulting impersonal
product of the remote viewing sessions, which turn out to be
a relatively complex set of raw impressions. These impres-
sions can be described as follows:
(1) (S-NF) Each session transcript averages seven
pages in length of basically single-spaced type, plus
associated drawings..
(2) (S-.NF) Each transcript is comprised of an
enormous amount of information that the evaluator has to
sort out, which is a product of the remote viewer's mind;
usually, it is not nicely organized in clear sentences or
even phrases. Rather, the verbalizations represent the
remote viewer's best first time attempts to describe the
fleeting perceptions of his mind, which is a very difficult
process and one that is only fully understood by experienc-
ing it oneself. The resulting information is usually not a
picture perfect description of the target area. The remote
viewer's perceptions do not necessarily fall into neat pat-
terns nor are they normally totally accurate as some of the
remote viewer's stated perceptions correspond perfectly to
the target, some less closely and some not at all. Addi-
tionally, the remote viewer's perceptions may be associative
in nature (e.g., heating or cooling function for a refriger-
ator), or symbolic in nature (e.g., hexagon for a synagogue)
as opposed to literal encompassing perceptions of the target
(e.g., a red brick, structure). Lastly, as the transcripts
are "edited" only to remove identities and target sequence
clues for the evaluator, some of the information in the tran-
scripts is philosophical in nature, or represents informal
dialogue between the remote viewer and interviewer and does
not relate to the target at all.
(3) (S-NF) The drawings made by the remote viewer
during the RV session are attached to the transcript. They
provide the evaluator with an additional source of informa-
tion to be sorted out. The drawings are usually a good
pictorial summary of the remote viewer's perceptions that
correspond to the target, as well as those that do not.
Additionally, the drawings oftentimes include information
CC=rMM
WW WWT1W_1
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
~- on Oft.. ~...
not related by the remote viewer during the verbalization
aspect of the session. However, the information content of
drawings has to be evaluated in light of several factors
consistently found during past experience:
? (S-NF) The information is often, but not
always, presented in a left-right reversal pattern.
? (S-NF) The remote viewer's size and distance
perceptions are not necessarily accurate, although limited
experience has shown that the proportional error tends to be
consistent for each remote viewer.
? (S-NF) While the drawing may be an accurate
representation of the target, the functional labels assigned
by the remote viewer may be inaccurate.
? (S-NF) Some remote viewers are better artists
than others and their drawings thus vary accordingly.
(4) (S-NF) In our rank ordering evaluation, the
evaluator had to go to each of the targets. While at each
target, he had to read six or seven transcripts and rank
order them based on their degree of correspondence to the
target. He had to do this at each target; this Phase I
effort had a total of 20 targets. Thus, the amount of time
that has to be devoted to the evaluation process is quite
significant.
7.1 (S-NF) Rank Ordering Method (U).
(S-NF) An individual who was in no way associated
with the remote viewing sessions read the 20 transcripts and
deleted from them any references to dates or previous tar-
gets. This was done to prevent an evaluator from ordering
the transcripts chronologically determining that a given
transcript couldn't be a specific site because the remote
viewer mentioned that what he was perceiving reminded him of
the specific target he had at his previous session.
(S-NF) Three evaluators were chosen to evaluate
all 20 edited transcripts with their associated drawings
against the 20 targets. Due to the cumbersome natue of this
task and advice provided by SRI, the transcripts and associ-
ated targets were divided into three packages: the first
seven sessions of Sl, the first seven sessions of S2, and
the last three sessions of Si and S2. The transcripts and
target listings were independently randomized for each
package,. Each evaluator was thus given three transcript/
target packages, a copy of the SRI protocol, a matrix to
 Approved For Release 2000 &4 DP96-00788R001100080005-8
fill in their results and an instruction sheet describing
the evaluation procedure detailed in the next paragraph. A
copy of the total packet given to the evaluators is included
as Appendix C. The details of the evaluation procedure for
each package were as follows:
(S-NF) The evaluator was to go to the first target
site of his choice and -look around. He then read through
all the transcripts and examined associated drawings with
the goal of determining the best to worst description of
that particular target, rank ordered the transcripts 1, 2,
...6, 7 (7 for the first two packages, 6 for the last
package), best to worst match for that target, and entered
the results on the matrix. This same procedure was carried
out at each target site. The rank ordering for each target
was done independently of the previous rank orderings, so
that, for example, a given transcript may have been chosen
first place match for more than one target if that provided
the best ordering of descriptions. After the first package
was completed, the evaluator went on to the second package
and followed the rank ordering procedure for that package.
The third package was evaluated accordingly. Each of the
three evaluators, working independently, went through the
entire procedure for each of the three packages. All of the
original evaluation matrices are provided in Tables 7-1
through 7-3; Table 7-1 contains the matrices generated by
the evaluators for Package #1, Table 7-2 for Package #2, and
Table 7-3 for Package #3. Table 7-4 is a summary of the
results listed in the order in which the sessions actually
occurred.
(S-NF) While the results of this evaluation were
not statistically significant, defined as the probability of
the obtained sum of ranks being less than or equal to .05,
the learning that occurred during that period was signifi-
cant, as can be somewhat implied by the results if the level
for statistical significance is lowered to 0.1 and provided
a very positive impetus for the participants to continue
their efforts.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
TABLE 7-1 (S-NF) EVALUATION MATRICES, PACKAGE #1 (U)
Transcript
1
2
3
Target Site
4
Evaluator #1
7
7
4 2
6
2
2 a
5
4
3 5
4
3
5 4
1
(D
6 6
Q
6
7 7
3
1
( 33
A
6
1
5
1 6
B
1
5
3
4
C
3
2
4
6 4
D
4
3
1
7 5
E
7
7
(7
3 7
F
2
A)
2
2 3
G
5
6
6
2
Evaluator #3
A
7,
5
6
5 5
B
3
7
2
4 G
C
5
4
5
3 4
D
4
1
4
6 7
E
6
7 6
F
1
1
1 2
G
2
2
3
1
5 5
2 2
`5 6
4 L4)
7 4
1 7
3 1
6 6
4 3
7
5 5
2 2
1 1
6
4
5
2
3
1
Afft fm AM 0% ~-
pprove r e ea
 Approved For Release 2000/ftig 42P96-00788R001100080005-8
TABLE 7-2 (S-NF) EVALUATION MATRICES, PACKAGE #2 (U)
Target Site
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Evaluator #1
A
6
C7
7
4
1
7
3
B
2
2
4
1
7~
5
1
C
3
2
6
4
2
D
5
6
1
2
2
2
6
E
1
1
3
3
3
5
F
7
5
5
7
6
4
r
G
3
4
3
5
1
7
A
6
(f
7
7
3
7
B
4
4
2
4
L6
2
C
1
2
5
1
4
6
D
3
6
2
5
1
5
E
5
5
1
2
3
4
F
7
6
4
5
1
6
;1
G
3
1
~
3
3
7
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
~'6
6
6
4
2
2
4
4)
3
4
5
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
1
2
2
4
4
1
3
(2,,V
5
1
(~5
5
5
5
5
Aft WO r
Qa GM
itrE%*?s?1w r
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01100080005-8
TABLE 7-3
(S-NF)
EVALUATION MATRICES, PACKAGE #3 (U)
Target Site
Transcript 1
2
3
4
5
6
A
4
2
3
2
(2'
1
B
6
6
6
1
2
C
(5)
4
5
3
6
4
D
3
1
1
3
E
1
5
6
5
6
F
2
2
1
4
5
A
3
4
4
5
B
6
3
l lam'
6
6
C
5
6
1
D
2
6
4
E
5
1
2
4
F
1
5
3
4
A
5
4
1
3
B
3
3
4
C
U4
6
6
D
1
5
2
6
E
2
2
4
1
F
6
LJ
5
5
Approved or Release
 Approved For Release 2000/ 7 ? 96-007888001100080005-8
TABLE 7-4
(S-NF)
EVALUATION RESULTS (U)
Package 1
Package 2
Pakage 3
5th
7th
3rd
2nd
5th
4th
7th
4th
2nd
1st
5th
4th
2nd
7th
3rd
1st
6th
5th
1st
6th
19
p=.054
7th
6th
4th
5th
4th
6th
1st
40
p=.99
7th
2nd
1st
6th
6th
3rd
2nd
21
p=.55
2nd
1st
lst
5th
lst
4th
33
p=.85
27
p=.46
14
p=.061
7th
7th
1st
7th
4th
3rd
7th
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
6th
2nd
3rd
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
32 p=.80 27 p=.46 15 p=.10
7 Targets/Transcripts - Sum of Ranks = 18 or less for signi-
f icance.
.6 Targets/Transcripts - Sum of Ranks = 13 or less for signi-
ficance.
Significance is defined as the probability of the obtained
sum of ranks