Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RD S '42!~ isni International November 1978 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-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 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 types of 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, 1 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 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-confidentl 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 start (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 paper' 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. 2 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 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 location. He should arrange to park and then come upon the target 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. Inbound Experimenter 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 timel 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 3 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 experimental room while 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, the inbound experimenter 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 descriptions 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. 4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 5. 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. 6. Judging Procedure 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 previously used targets, 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 : CIA-RDP 6-00787ROO0500400001-4 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 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 ~-- 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. b. Rank-Ordering Procedure In the use of the Rank-Ordering procedure, the experimenter randomizes the targets and transcripts as before. Now, however, each of n 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 (I 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 6 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 -n 0 N fu U) M I-j 0 0 0 0 00 0 4 0 > U CD lp 0 0 -4 00 4 ;0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ph 0 0 0 9 IL Table I DIRECT MATCHING THE PROBABILITIES OF M CORRECT MATCHES OUT OF N TARGETS M 3 6 7 9 9 In 11 0 *5000 o3333o3750.366bT.368o6*36786 *367882*3676?9o367679 .3678794.3678i94 1 19000 *so 95000*3333*37SOO36661---.3680-6'-3678S7 36?9823678ii9 16T045 ifiTS-74-4 2 95000 090 0250Vs16661o18750918333 184028 9183929*183941 1839396J11139397 3 9166?gee 90833390SSS6*06250 9061111*061343061310 .06131~7.8613j30 ---- - 4 004 99* *0200 e01389 *01S625e015278*01S336 *0153274olSI284 1r 5 *00833too o00417 *002?78*00312S*003056 90030671.003116SS SIGNIFICANTp - AT < 0.05 6 (4 or more any *00139see *000694o00046390005P1 .000S093i60Sii2 out of arbitrary N) ? 0 010-010---- va -1-000-694---*-61FW6-- eidvu-7-44.00 a ---- 000002Sso* e000012 *0000083.0000093 9000003600 .00800i4.0000009 - -- --- - -- - - 10 900 9 00 0466 00 0 0 1 11- - - - -- 000-00000-- 9.0 -, ~ - - 12 .0000000 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 RANK-ORDERING TABLE Number of Targets - 4; Number of Transcripts 4 SUM OF RANKS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 P-WALUE 0939063E-02 OeI9531E-01 0 o58594E-01 0*13672F 00 0*25781E 00 0*41406F 00 0958594E 00 0*74219F 00 0*86328F 00 0994141F 00 Oe98047F 00 0*99609E 00 001000OF 01 Number of Targets 5; Number of Transcripts 5 SUM OF RANKS 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P-VALUE Do3200DE-03 0*1920CE-02 Oe672OOE-02 0.17920E-01 Oe4O32OE-Cl Oe7904OF-01 0*13824F 00 Oe21984E 00 0*32224F 00 Oe43904E 00 Oo56096E 00 0*67776C 00 008016F 00 0*86176E 00 0992096F 00 0*95968F 00 0998208F 00 0*99328F 00 0099808E 00 0*99968F DO OSIOOOOF 01 The notation E-02 is to be understood as 10- 2;E 01 as 101 etc. 8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 6; Number of Transcripts6 SUM OF RANKS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 9 P-VALUE 0*21433E-04 Oo15003E-03 0o6001417-03 0.18004E-02 Ge45010F-02 0*99023E-02 Oo1967617-01 Oo3588DE-01 0960764F-01 0996472E-01 0*14463E 00 Oo20585E 00 Oo27939E 00 0*36310E 00 Ge45357r 00 Oo54642F 00 Co63689E 00 Oo72061F 00 Oo79415E 00 Oo85537E 00 Oo903531 00 Co93923E 00 Co96412E 00 Oe98O32E 00 0&99010E 00 Oo9955CE 00 Oo99820C 00 Do99940F 00 Oo99985E 00 0099998E 00 0010coor 01 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 7; Number of Transcripts7 SUM OF RANKS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 P-VALUE 0*12143E-05 Oo97141E-05 0*43714E-04 0*14571E-03 0040071E-03 Oo9617CE-03 Co20837E-02 Co41589E-02 Oo77458E-02 0913585E-01 Oo22595E-01 0&35838E-01 0*54453E-01 Oo79544E-01 Oo11205E 00 OeI5259E 00 0920137E 00 0*25802E 00 Do32161E 00 Do39065E 00 0*46315E 00 0953685F 00 0*60935E DC Oo67839E 00 0*74198F 00 009863F 00 Co84741F 00 CoSS795E 00 Oo92045E 00 0994555E 00 Oo96416E 00 Co97740E 00 0998641E 00 099922517 00 0*99584E 00 Oo99791E 00 099990317 00 0099958F 00 Oo99984E 00 Co99995E 00 Oo99998E 00 0099999F 00 OsIOCCOE 01 10 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 8; Number of Transcripts8 SUM OF RANKS a 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 8#5 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 P-VALUE 0959605E-07 0953644E-06 0*26822F-05 Co98348E-05 0929504E-04 097671117-04 0917699E-03 0938356E-03 0*76663E-03 0*14447E-02 0*25867E-02 0*44264E-02 0972724E-02 OeI151517-01 0*17628E-01 0&26157F-01 0*37702E-01 0*5289CE-01 0*72328E-01 0*96562E-01 De12602E 00 0916095E 00 0*20139E 00 0*24714E Do 0*29772E 00 0035237F 00 Oe41012E 00 0*46982F 00 Oe5301SE 00 0*58988E 00 0*64763F 00 0970228F 00 0975286E 00 0*79860E 00 Oo83905E 00 0*87398E 00 0*90344E 00 0&92767E 00 0*94711E 00 0996229E 00 0997384E 00 0998237E 00 0*98849E 00 Oe99273E 00 0*99557E 00 0*99741E 00 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 (Continued) Number of Targets - 9; Number of Transcripts9 SUM OF RANKS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 52 53 54 P-VALUE 0*25812E-08 0*25812E-07 0*14196E-06 0*56786E-06 0*18455E-05 Oe51675E-05 OeI2919F-04 0*29529E-04 0*6274BE-04 0*12547E-03 0*23821E-03 0*43226E-03 Oe75357E-03 0*12673E-02 0*20628E-02 0*32586E-02 0*50075E-02 0*75003E-02 0*10968E-01 0*15683E-01 Oo21954E-01 0*30122E-01 0940548E-01 0*53601E-01 0*69639E-01 O08&989E-OI OolII92F 00 Oe13864E 00 0*16924E 00 0*2037CE 00 0*24189E 00 0&28353E 00 0932821E 00 0937540E 00 0&42447E 00 0*47469E 00 0*52531E DO 0&57553E 00 Oe62460E 00 Do67179E 00 0*71647E 00 OoT5811E 00 Co79630E 00 0*83076F 00 0*86136E 00 OoBBS07E 00 12 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Table 2 (Concluded) Number of Targets - 10; Number of Transcripts 10 SUM OF RANKS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 P-VALUE 001000DE-09 OollooOE-08 0*6600CE-08 De2860CE-07 OolGOICE-06 Oo30030F-06 00800BOE-06 0*1944BE-05 0*4375BE-05 0*92378F-05 0*18475E-04 0*35261E-04 0*64599E-04 0*11412E-03 0*19512E-03 0.32367E-03 0*52317E-03 0*8241SE-03 De12686F-02 0*19106E-02 0928197E-02 Do40825E-02 0958049F-02 0*81133E-02 0911156F-01 Oe15103F-01 0*20143F-01 0*26484E-01 0*34347F-01 De43960F-01 Co55552E-01 0*69345E-01 0*85541E-01 0*10432F 00 0*12581F 00 0915011E 00 0*17725E 00 Oo2072117 00 0*23987F 00 0*27506E 00 0*31255r, 00 0935202E 00 0*39311F 00 0*43538E 00 0*4783SE 00 13 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 I ~ Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 probability of obtaining such a rank ordering result by chance of 0.0403 ... . which is significant. A more complete set of tables is given 2 in Solfvin et al. 14 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4 REFERENCES 1. H.E. Puthoff and R. Targ, "A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research.." Proc. IEEEt Vol. 64, pp. 329-354 (March 1976). 2. G. Solfvin et al., I'Some New Methods of Analysis for Preferential- Ranking Data," J. Am. Soc. for Psychical Research, Vol. 72, No. 2 (April 1978). 15 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787ROO0500400001-4