GRILL FLAME SPECIAL STUDY NO. 1

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001100080011-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: May 1, 1980
• Content Type: RS

Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
r~~~~~
NO.~-91
GRILL FLAME SPECIAL STUDY N0. 1
MAY 1980
WARNING NOTICE
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR
GRILL FLAME. RESTRICT
DISSEMINATIGN TO THOSE
WITH VERIFIED ACCESS
CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA
(DAMI-ISH), dtd 7 Jul 78
REVIEW ON: 7 July 1998
U. S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
(~~ Q(~ ~~n(~
A MS ~ro~d~or.Relea~e~9b0/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
The Combat Support Division of the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis
Activity (AMSAA) produces this Interim Note as an informal documentation
of a project or task primarily for US Army Materiel Development and
Readiness Command (DARCOM) use. The information and data contained in this
Interim Note are based on input available at the time of preparation.
Because the results may be subject to change, this Interim Note should not
be construed to represent the official position of AMSAA or DARCOM unless
so stated by other official documentation. This Interim Note may not be
distributed further without the specific approval of the Chief, Combat
Support Division, AMSAA.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
w..wws~~
C O M B A T 5 U P P O R T D I V I S I O N
INTERIM NOTE N0. C-91
GRILL FLAME SPECIAL STUDY N0. 1
WARNING NOTICE
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR
GRILL FLAME. RESTRICT
DISSEMINATION TO THOSE
WITH VERIFIED ACCESS
CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA
(DAMI-ISH), dtd 7 Jul 78
REVIEW ON: Ju`fy T998
US ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTTVITY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 :CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
Approved For Release 20 - - -
 Approved For Release 2000A~6001100080011-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (U)
Page
Background 5
Method 5
Schedule and Design 6
Results and Discussion 6
Table 1. Correct Responses for Viewers and Dimensions 7
Table 2. 45 Sessions Grouped by Viewer and by Number 8
of Correct Dimensions per Session
Table 3. Correct Responses for Various Displacements 9
of Sessions Relative to Actual Targets
Figure 1. Power of this Study for Various Alternative 11
P (correct response)
4~rr 1.P1~ w~
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
I~~CLAS~l~lE~
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA} wishes to
recognize the following individual for his contributions to this
report:
AUTHOR: Dr. Gerald Nielsen
U~ICLA~SlFlEC!
Approved For Release 2 0 /08/07 : C A-RDP96- -
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 ~ e7'68R001100080011-1
1. BACKGROUND
(S) AMSAA was requested by Dr. Walter LaBerge, then Under Secretary
of the Army, to independently conduct experimentation addressing the
existence of some form of psychic phenomena. Due to its previous expe-
rience,- AMSAA chose to investigate Remote Viewing.
(S) In response to this request, AMSAA personnel generated an
experimental protocol and analysis procedure for the remote viewing
of unique, geographical targets located within 100 nautical-miles of
Aberdeen Proving Ground. The protocol and analysis procedure were
briefed to the Army Science Board which was conducting a review of
current DOD work in parapsychology. They correctly noted the difficulty
in quantitatively evaluating the descriptions of complex geographical
targets obtained during remote viewing sessions. The-board suggested
that some sessions be conducted whose objective is to remotely view
targets whose attributes were simple and could be unambiguously defined
and evaluated.
(S) This document describes the results of one set of experimental
sessions in which AMSAA PROJECT GRILL FLAME participants attempted to
remotely view and describe "simple" targets, and what further actions
are being taken by AMSAA in this area.
2. METHOD
(S) The remote viewers used in this study were the same three
middle age, Caucasian males used .in related investigations by this
activity.
(S) Each simple object was described by four stimulus dimensions
which were selected as being both feasible to construct and of interest
to the viewers: color (black or white), shape (sphere or cuboid),
solidity (hollow or solid), and resiliency (resilient or non-resilient).
These four bivalved dimensions produce 16 possible objects, all of which
were included in the target pool for this effort. Size and material
also varied from object to object, and these variables are confounded
with the four dimensions described above. This confounding was caused
by the use, insofar as possible, of existing objects as targets.
(U) The display location or target site was the uppermost landing
of a flight of stairs leading to the roof of a building within the
restricted access compound. This portion of the stairway is used very
infrequently, and then only by the janitorial or maintenance staff.
The display stage was an approximately 4' x 4' light gray concrete
area, with two blank, beige walls and a medium gray door (to the roof)
on the third side. During sessions, viewer and interviewer remained
inside a trailer, some 100 meters away from the building containing the
display stage.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0 ~ 100080011-1
(S) Atypical trial or session began with the viewer and inter-
viewer entering the trailer on the hour (0900, 1000, or 1300, which
was confounded with viewer). Following customary procedure, the first
30 minutes were spent in relaxing and preparing for the viewing attempt.
At about 23 minutes past the hour, four digits were selected at random
by the experimenter, and these four. digits then determined the values
of the stimulus dimensions and thus the object to be used for that
session. The object was then placed in the display area at approxi-
mately 28 minutes past the hour. The viewers were encouraged toward
reports of general sensory impressions and not specifically directed
toward the particular dimensions used in this study until fairly late
in the session. The final task of the viewer in each session was to
indicate his selection for each dimension he chose to specify. In only
one session did the viewer not choose to identify all four dimensions.
Feedback was provided by allowing the viewer to retrieve the object
from the display area immediately after each session.
3. SCHEDULE AND DESIGN
(S) For "record" sessions began 22 January 1980 and continued
through 21 March 1980. No more than three sessions per viewer were
run in any single week. Prior to these sessions, the viewers were
given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the method through
a series of warm-up trials. Each viewer engaged in at least four warm-
up sessions. The data discussed herein are from only the sessions
identified to the viewers as sessions to be reported. Each viewer
participated in 15 sessions, and the results in terms of number correct
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
(S) Table 1 groups the results of the 15 sessions run by each
viewer into first half (sessions 1 through 7), second half (sessions
8 through 15) and total. There is no indication of a decrease in
performance across trials, which was an early concern due to the "un-
interesting" nature of the targets used. None of the cells or marginal
totals show a substantial departure from chance levels.
(S) In Table 2, the 45 sessions have been categorized by viewer
and by number of dimensions correct. The column totals expected by
chance are 2.81, 11.25, 16.88, 11.25 and 2.81. The chi square for
the observed totals is 2.45, well short of significance (x24, .05= 9.45).
(S) The possibility of session responses being out of step with
target stimuli (precognition, or, if you will, postcognition) was also
investigated (See Table 3). Again, there are no results of statistical
significance. The power of this study (probability of rejecting the
null hypothesis) for the overall results is shown vs various Palt values
-e s .rte w I'~~
pprove or a ease - - -
 Approved For Release 2000/0
-
88001100080011-1
Viewer
Color
Shape
Solidit
Resiliency
1
5
3
3
3
14
Sessions
2
3
5
3
4
15
1-7
5
2
4
4
4
14
10
12
10
it
43
.5118
ii/~~Oi
1
4
3
6
4
17
Sessions
2
4
4
5
4
17
8-15
5
5
4
4
4
17
13
11
15
12
51
" ,5313
1
9
6
9
7
31
Total
2
7
9
8
8
32
5
7
g
$
8
31
23
23
25
23
~4
.5222
TABLE 1. (U) Correct Responses for Viewers and Dimensions
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0 ~AR001100080011-1
Number of Dimensions Correct
Viewer
0
1
2
3
4
1
0
5
6
2
2
2
1
2
6
6
0
5
1
1
9
4
0
2
8
21
12
2
TABLE 2. (U) 45 Sessions Grouped by Viewer and by Number of
Correct Dimensions per Session.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96- -
 i~ ^ ~
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 - 8001100080011-1
Sessions
Offset
Dimensions
Correct
Dimensions
Attempted
P(correct)
_2
7g
172
.4593
_1
g3
176
.4716
0
94
180
.5222
1
87
176
.4943
2
g3
172
.5407
TABLE 3. (U) Correct Responses for Various Displacements of
Sessions Relative to Actual Targets
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/0 100080011-1
in Figure 1. For example, if the actual p(correct) were .425 or .575,
the overall total number of correct responses would be significant,
i.e., indicate rejecting the null hypothesis, about one out of every
two replications of this study.
(S) In summary, the data fail to demonstrate any characteristics
which cannot be adequately explained by chance alone. At this time,
there are no further efforts planned which involve "simple" targets.
~ IC'/?!1 r`~'
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/0> P9'dE~07~ 1100080011-1
~-~
(Probability o
rejecting Ho)
0 0 o p p p 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
,2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
P (correct) under alternative hypothesis
U ~#~~.~-SSt ~~ Et~-
FIGURE 1. Power of this study for various alternative
P (correct response).
Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-007888001100080011-1
 Approved For Release 2000/~L?~~~~~01100080011-1
Commander
US Army Materiel Development
and Readiness Command
ATTN: DRCDE (Dr. R. Haley)
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333
U~ICLASSIFiED
Approved~F-or F~eTease 20~0765~07-~iA-l~DP96-0