proved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1800090001-4
9
Final Report December 1982
REVISED JULY 1983
0
=71 A REMOTE VIEWING EVALUATION PROTOCOL
By: EDWIN C. MAY
Prepared for
CONTRACT MDA908-82-C-0034
n
333 Ravenswood Ave. - Menlo Park, CA 94025
nternation
" a@8 proved For4ii?mWaw29OMWO$io-W"DPS64W88RON800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1800090001-4
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III ANALYSIS PROTOCOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A--EVALUATION OF FOUR COORDINATE REMOTE VIEWINGS 12
Appendix B-SUMMARY OF EVALUATION TECHNIQUE . . . . . . . . . 43
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
ii
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
FIGURES
1	Sample RV Assessment Form . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . 5
A-1	Transcript 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . 14
A-2	Transcript 2 . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . 15
A-3	Transcript 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . 16
A-4	Transcript 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . 17
A-5	Target Site Hang3 . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . 19
A-6	Target Site Fernando de Noronha . . .	. . . . I. . . . . . 20
A-7	Target Site Inverness . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . 21
A-8	Target Site Punkaharju . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . 22
iii
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
TABLES
1	Task-Defined Relevance Scale for	Target Elements . . .	. 6
2	Quality Assessment Scale . .	. .	. . . . . . . . . . .	. 8
3	Numerical Score Conversion Table		. . . . . . . . . . .	. 8
A-1	Target Element Relevance Ratings	for	Hang8 . . . . . .	. 23
A-2	Target Element Relevance Ratings	for	Inverness . . . .	. 23
A-3	Target Element Relevance Ratings	for	Fernando de	
	Noronha . . . . . . . . . . .	. .	. . . . . . . . . . .	. 24
A-4	Target Element Relevance Ratings	for	Punkaharju	24
A-5	RV Assessment Forms for Calibration of Remote Viewing	25
A-6	A Rank Ordering of Weighted Averages	. . . . . . . . .	. 41
iv
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
I OBJECTIVE
The objective of this task was to develop an evaluation procedure
to assess the relative quality of a set of different temote viewing (RV)
responses.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
II INTRODUCTION
In addressing the remote viewing (R%') evaluation question, we
consider two separate requirements:
~ Absolute evaluation of a single response for a
single unknown target.
~ Relative evaluation of a set of responses for
a series of known targets.
The first of these is of the most interest in an operational setting. As
part of the RV enhancement task, we have considered this problem in two
ways. First, by conducting an operational RV session between two calibra-
tion RV sessions, a tentative a priori assessment of operational efficacy
can be determined. The evaluation is made on the basis of performance
during the calibration sessions, and on the basis of adherence to a pre-
determined session structure.
A second technique for an a priori evaluation was explored as
part of the Fiscal Year 1982 program in an audio-linguistic task. This
task provided indications that careful linguistic analysis, when coupled
with technical audio analysis, could yield an assessment in the absence
of knowledge about the target.
Various techniques have been used in the past, * in an attempt to
solve the relative evaluation problem. The most common of these was the
simple rank ordering of all responses, as assessed against all possible
targets used in an experimental series. In this procedure, a judge is
presented with n RV transcripts and n target sites. His task is to arrange
References are listed at the end of this report.
2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
the transcripts in order of the best to least match for each of the n
targets. A simple numerical counting procedure is then used to estimate
the likelihood that the judge's transcript /target matches are by chance
alone.2 This early technique contained little systematic structure for
determining the final order of matches.
The first step toward systematizing the rank:order judging
procedure was to preprocess the raw data in the transcript by "concep-
tualizing" both the verbal and the pictorial responses. Conceptualizing
a transcript requires an analyst to paraphrase the transcript into a list
of coherent statements. This concept list is then compared and scored
concept - by- concept to each of the targets in the experiment. The resulting
scores are averaged for each response, and all responses are rank-ordered
on the basis of these scores.3 This improved analysis procedure was applied
to a number of experiments within the Technology Transfer Task
The problem with the above technique is that there are no guide-
lines as to how the analyst should paraphrase the transcript; furthermore,
the method in which the concepts are to be assessed against the targets
remains undefined. The purpose of the Evaluation Task in FY 1982 was to
identify a procedure that corrected these deficiencies.
3
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
III ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
To quantify the analysis procedure, %ve have divided the task
into four separate areas: subject response, target/task definition,
quality assessment, and numerical analysis. Figure 1 is a sample RV
Assessment Form that has been designed to emphasize the separation of the
analysis tasks. Each of the parts of the form are described below.
The subject's response should be prepared for analysis without
any knowledge of either the target site or the overall task. The aim of
this method of response preparation is to reduce a possibly redundant,
rambling response to a coherent set of concepts. To meet this requirement
we have developed a set of initial guidelines to the conceptualization
procedure.
A concept is defined as a paraphrase of a single idea that has
been expressed in the RV verbal or drawing response. That coherent idea
should not be fragmented into component parts. For example, a response
might be of the form, "I see a large, textured, gray building." The single
concept that expresses this idea should be "large, textured, gray building,"
rather than four separate concepts--one for each word in the phrase. Each
concept should be entered under the "Transcript Concept column in the RV
Assessment Form.
For this initial evaluation technique, a particular concept
should be used only once in the analysis. (Some weighting factor propor-
tional to concept frequency could be utilized, but, for the initial attempt,
only unique concepts are used.) If in the construction of the transcript
concept list a concept later in the transcript is a duplicate of an earlier
one, it should be so noted by placing the concept number of the original
concept in the "D" column.
4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
a)
co
T-
co
co
9
Cl)
04
4)
W
m
0
LL
>
0
CL
CL
00'
00		gz
f79'17
9'
d	cl	oz
6Z'17
Z V		
WE
@
6C		

J@.E	ol	zi
IZ*E	6	of
99'Z	9	6
os*z		
f7l - z	9	9
6L'I		
C17* 1		
Lo' I		
TL'O		z
gro		
00,0
64	0
P	
ajo:)s	
OJO39
"0	
bxgxd
VYHO:l IN3VYSS3SSV Ad 31dINVS t 3unqu
PT CT zi 11 ol 6 9 L 9 9 11 c z 1 0
gldaauo3 JTO
							91
							
			-- -----				CT
							
							
							ot
							6
							
							L
							
		F					
							
							
							
							

ejoas	
'Clit-lb	
TA

a-OH
_01	14DAVOIL Jo lumala

I	cl	a

I	ldaouo:) 4dTt:)su-j.

I	
:ssrlo
: a-413(l
JOA10TA
:UOTSSOS
:2uTzas"j ;o POEI:tow
::teuvj,
:UOTSSDS 10 iq:tguel
: MTIL PUR
OMTl U1208
50:
APProved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
To utilize an analysis procedure that is capable of quantitative
assessment, it is necessary to define, in advance, what the goals of the
assessment are. In the RV Assessment Form, columns "Element of Target"
and "Relevance" are provided to clearly define the goal of the analysis.
In the ideal situation, an RV target should be completely specified in
advance. A target typically consists of a number of target elements,
each of which may have varying relevance with regard to the overall RV
task. For any given target, an independent list of target elements should
be prepared. The selection of what constitutes a target element is left
completely to the discretion of the task coordinator. The target element
must be selected with little regard to task relevance (target element
relevance is accounted for later). Because an RV target consists, in
principle, of an essentially infinite number of possible elements, discre-
tion needs to be exercised in the selection process.
For each target element identified for the site, the task
coordinator must define a relevance rating. This rating allows the
coordinator to tailor the analysis to the task requirements. Table 1
shows the scale that is used for the target element relevance rating.
Table 1
TASK-DEFINED RELEVANCE SCALE FOR TARGET ELEMENTS
Rating			Relevance Scale
1	A	target	element	of	trivial interest
2	A	target	element	of	minor interest
3	A	target	element	of	intermediate interest
4	A	target	element	of	major interest
5	A	target	element	of	key interest
6
APProved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
For each transcript concept on the RV Assessment Form (Figure 1)
the analyst should attempt to find the element on the. list of target
elements that he/she considers to be the best match. The analyst should
be quite liberal in the concept/element matching (i.e., the quality of
the match should be considered at this point in the analysis). If
he/she is able to identify a target element that might be considered a
match to the given concept, a 1 is placed in the "p" (present) column
on the assessment form. If no element can be identified, a 0 is placed
in the "p" column. After making a target element identification, the
selected target element, and its corresponding overal iI relevance rating
should be entered in the appropriate columns on the a$@sessment form.
Having identified a corresponding target element for each con-
cept, it is now appropriate to assess the quality of the match. The
quality assessment is done on the basis of how well the single concept
in question matches the selected target element. The'judgement is to be
made without regard to any other issues, such as importance of the concept
to the transcript, or importance (relevance) of the t@rget element to the
target. Table 2 shows the quality assessment scale that is used for this
part of the analysis. The appropriate quality score from Table 2 is
entered in the "Quality" column on the RV Assessment Form for each concept
for which a matching target element has been identified.
An intermediate numerical score is computed for each concept
from the relevance and quality (Tables I and 2) evaluation as follows:
S' = P X R x Q
where P is the value in the "p" column (0 or 1); R is ithe relevance
evaluation; and 0 is the quality assessment. S' can assume values ranging
between 0 and 25. Table 3 demonstrates how to determilne the final score,
S, for a given value of S' for each concept. The conversion table is
7
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Table 2
QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE
Rating	Discrimination Scale-
I	Poor description; only one or two aspects of the material match.
2	Fair description; a few aspects of the material match, but a
	large ambiguity exists.
3	Reasonable description; many aspects of the material match, but
	there remains some ambiguity.
4	Good description; a large number of aspects of the material
	matches, but it is possible to conceive of material that
	would be a better match.
5	Excellent description; all or nearly all aspects of the
	material match.
Table 3
NUMERICAL SCORE CONVERSION TABLE
S P x R x Q	Score	Normalized Score
0	0	0.00
1	1	0.35
2	2	0.71
3	3	1.07
4	4	1.43
5	5	1.79
6	6	2.14
8	7	2.50
9	8	2.86
10	9	3.21
12	10	3.57
15	11	3.93
16	12	4.29
20	13	4.64
25	14	5.00
8
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
used to eliminate the nonuniformly-distributed gaps in scoring numbers
that occur if one simply uses the product S'. Thus, the final score for
each concept ranges from 0 to a maximum of 14. This conversion table is
provided as part of the RV Assessment Form.
If an assessment of an individual concept is re Iquired, the final
score for each concept/ target-element match can be related to the quality
assessment scale by using the conversions shown in the third column of
Table 3 and on the assessment sheet. It should be noted, however, that the
integer scores are used to simplify the remaining calculations.
To determine a final evaluation of the completo transcript
assessed against a given target, a weighted average of concept scores
is computed. To assist in the calculation of the weight@d average, a
tally box score is provided at the bottom of the RV Asse@sment Form. For
each of the possible scores, 0 through 14, the number of concepts that
attained that particular score are counted. For example., if 3 concepts
were evaluated with a score of 12, a 3 is entered in the,1 box below the
12 score. If the frequency of occurrence of score S, is! fi, then the final
weighted average is computed by
I - -
Ak = Z f i'IfiX Si /Z fi 1/f
Ak = 0.357 A@'
The normalized, weighted average score, A k? ig entered in the
weighted average box on the assessment sheet. The weighted average score
has been normalized to be within the range
0 < Ak < 5.0
To aid in the interpretation of the result, the quality assessment scale
(Table 2) can be used to assess quality of the match between the whole RV
response and the given target site.
At this point in the evaluation protocol, the; following options
are available, depending on the task requirement:
9
Approved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
* An n X n rank ordering on the basis of the weighted
averages.
* A simple selection of the best match.
e A statistical evaluation on a concept-by-concept
basis. I
10
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
IV CONCLUSIONS
A protocol has been developed to address the relative evaluation
portion of the overall RV transcript assessment proble@. As a demonstra-
tion of the technique, we provide in Appendix A an analysis of a series
of four remote viewings that were performed as calibrations
In this series the remote
viewing products were of relatively high quality, but ponetheless require
a sensitive technique to differentiate because of the I@imilarity of the
targets and, hence, of the descriptions. (The series was chosen primarily
for that reason.) Application of the assessment techn.Lque resulted in
the correct blind matching (highest scoring in matches versus cross
matches) of three of the four.
Appendix B is a one page, step-by-step procedure for the
application of this evaluation technique.
The material in this document thus constitutes an instruction
manual or protocol for application of a step-by-step p ocedure for quan-
titative assessment of the relative target/transcript correlations of a
series of transcripts matched into a series of targets.
11
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Appendix A
EVALUATION OF FOUR COORDINATE REMOTE VIEWINGS
12
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
on 14 December 1981, four coordinate remote viewings were con-
ducted as calibrations during remote viewing session tar-
geted on client-designated sites of interest. The calibrations and the
RV session were conducted at the client's !organization and
were witnessed by client representatives. These four icalibrations were
chosen as a test bed for the evaluation procedure for the following
reasons, (1) they were conducted and (2) the
targets had many similar features, and would thus provide a sensitive
test of the protocol.
Figures A-1 through A-4 are the transcripts that were presented
to the analyst. They are exactly as they were when collected, except that
the coordinates have been removed. Figures A-5 throug@ A-8 are the
National Geographic magazine targets that were used during the calibration
sessions. Finally, the task coordinator provided Tables A-1 through A-4
as target element relevance scales for the four targets in Figures A-5
through A-8. This completes the information that was given to the analyst,
and thus the analysis was carried out blind as to the matching target/
transcript pairs.
Table A-5 is a compilation of the completed work sheets that
were used by the analyst in this evaluation. They are shown in groups
by session number, and alphabetized on the four targets. (The task
coordinator first randomized the transcript order then assigned the session
number used above.) For each of the transcripts, the analyst simply
included all phrases and all drawings as concepts. For example, seven
concepts were found during Session 2.
All concepts were then analyzed as described i.n the text. The
matching target element, its relevance rating, and the computed score are
shown for all possible combinations of transcript/target pairs in Table
A-5. The score distributions and their resulting weighted averages are
also shown in Table A-5.
13
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
0
T V"
Q6
00
FIGURE A-1 TRANSCRIPT 1
14
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Q
C>
3-23
n
FIGURE A-2 TRANSCRIPT 2
15
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1800090001
M (0
0
1-3
LV
C@j t#t4,t
A @Po
VAAA
FIGURE A-3 TRANSCRIPT 3
16
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1860090001-4
0 0
Vj
D -c/
c
FIGURE A-4(a) TRANSCRIPT 4
17
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
3
13
,qw
FIGURE A-4(b) TRANSCRIPT 4 (concluded)
18
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
CPYR @p`p`roved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
	
	
	
	
	
	
V	
	
	
	
PAN=
jr jOO
A;-
.fI
At
i'q
Y
0
CD
z
LU
Lf)
LU
ML
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09: CIA-RDP96-00788 ROO 1800090001-4 CPYRGH
CPYRG F@pprovecl For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
21
LU
z
cc
w
w
in
LU
<
w
cc
D
0
U-
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
CPYRGHT
FIGURE A-8 TARGET SITE PUNKAHARJU
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Table A-1
TARGET ELENTENT RELEVANCE RATINGS FOP, HANGO
Target Element	Relevance
Town	5
Cold	4
Peninsula	5
Rocky	3
Vegetation	2
Bay	3
Table A-2
TARGET ELEMENT RELEVANCE RATINGS FOR INVERNESS
Target Element	Relevance
City	5
River	4
Bridge	3
River banks	2
Vegetation	1
23
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Table A-3
TARGET ELEMENT RELEVANCE P-ATINGS
FOR FERNANDO DE NORONHA
Target Element	Relevance
Island	5
Surf	3
Hills	4
Uninhabited	3
Mountain peak	3
Temperate climate	2
Vegetation	2
Ocean	4
Table A-4
TARGET ELEMENT RELEVANCE RATINGS
FOR PUNKAHARJU
Target Element	Relevance
Connect lakes	5
Town	4
Bridges	2
Cold	4
Vegetation	1
Islands	4
24
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Ln
Begin Tim: 12:40
End Time:
Length of Session:
Target: Inverness
Method of Tuyeting: Coordinates
Session: I
Ifiewer: -#002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
Concept
Number	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Role-
Vence	
44,4611ty
(Q)	
Score
1	Picture 1		1	Twin church towers	1	1	1
2	Picture 2	1					
3	Up and down		I	Buildings	5	1	5
4	Rocky		0				0
5	Land/water interface		1	River	4	4	12

6	
Picture 3		1	Tvin church towers	
1
@	
1	
1
7	Picture 4		1	River	4	4	12
8	Uprising		1	Buildings	5
5	1	5
9	Cliff		0				0
10	Fjords		I	River	5	1	5
111	Coastal city		I	City	5	4	1 20
12							
						. .. . ........ . . ..	......... ..
14							
15							
							
Score	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	11	14		
															1		
i
																	ghted AverageT 1
53]
P
of Concepts	2																.
		5			3	3							2	1			
						
TABLE	A-5	RV ASSESSMENT	FORMS	FOR CALIBRATION OF REMOTE	VIEWING	
0
CL
-n
0
I
X
M
M
0)
(A
M
CA)
0
0
'0
W
4
00
00
00
4.
Begin Time - 12:40
End Time:
Length of Session:
t
EQ
Target: HangZ;
Method of Targeting: Coordinates
Session: I

Concept

Number	

Transcript Concept	

D	

P	

Element of Target	Rel*-

Vance	
Quallty

M	

Scare
1	Picture 1		1	Rocks	3	3	8
2	Picture 2	1					
3	Up and down		I	Buildings	5	1	5

4	-
Rocky		
1	
Rocks	
3	
5	
11
5	Land/water Interfaces		1.	Coast	5	4	13
6	Picture 3		1	Church	2	1	2
7	Picture 4		1	Bay	3	2	6

a	
Uprising		
1	
Slope of land	
3
d	
1	3
1
9	Cliff		1	Coast	5	2	9
10	Fjords		I	Bay	3
3	1	3
11	Coastal city		1	City	5	5	14
12							
13							
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14@
-			1	1	2	1		1	1		1		1	1
Vi ewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
Peighted Average
0
M
CL
0
-N
M
2)
W
M
K)
0
0
CD
0
>
CD
4
00
00
00
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
W
0
0
0
>
a)
6
0
4
00
00
00
.0
4..
Begin Time:
End Time:
12:40
Length of Session:
Target:
Fernando de Noronha
Method of Targeting: CoorfUuptes
Session:
Viewer: #002
Date.- 14 December 19:31
Class:

COW.Opt	

Transcript Concept	

D	

P	

Element of Target	Role-

nC4*
(R)	
W111ty

(Q)	
,.re
	Picture 1		1	Hills	4	4	12
2	Picture 2	1					
3	Up and down		I	Peak	3	1	3
4	Rocky		1	Coast line	1	5	5

5	
Land
/water Interface		I	Island	5	4	13
6	Picture 3		1	Peak	3	2	6
7	Picture 4		1	Island	5	1 1	5
8	Uprising		I	Hills	4	1 2	7 1
9	Cliff		1	Peak	5	3	11
101	Fjords		1	Inlets	3	2	6
11	Coastal city		0				0
12							
...... .
13				------ -------- -----			
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
	2	3	1	3	1	2	1				1			
Weighted-Average
2.36
Table A-5 (continued)
00
Begin Time: 12:40
End Time:
Length of Session:
6
Ell
Target: Punkaharju
Method of Targeting:
Session;
Viewer: #002
Date:
Class;
14 December 1981
B

concept
NuWwr	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Rule-
Vance	
Quality
(Q)	
Score
I	Picture 1		0				0
2	Picture 2	1	0				
3	Up and down		I	Town	4 1	1	4
4	Rocky		0				0
5	Land/water interface		1	Connected lakes	5	4 1	13

6	
Picture 3		
0			
1	0
7	Picture 4		1	Connected lakes	5	2	9
8	Uprising						
9	Cliff		0				0
10	Fjords		1	Connected lakes	5	1	5
11	Coastal city		1	Town	4	3	10
12							
13							
14
4							

15
1
5
@							
Score
of Concepts
PXRYQ Score
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
8 7
9 8
10 9
12 10 1
15 11
16 12
1
20 13
25 14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
5 2 1 1 1 1 F@i@i-ghted Averag9-0---901
Coordinates
I
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
M
CL
-n
0
1
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
(D
0
>
;b
4
00
00
X
00
0
0
0
CD
0
0
Begin Time:
End Time:
15:23
Length of Session:
6
Target: Inverness
Method of Targeting: Coordinate
Session: 2
viewer: #002
Date: 14 December i9si
Class: B
C..Pt

Number	
Transcript Concept		
P	
Element of Target	Sale-
Vance

(R)	
Quality

(Q)	
sc..
I	Picture I		I	River bank	4	3	10
2	Straight angles		I	Build ings	5	1	5
3	Picture 2		1	River	4	3	
10
4	River		1	River	5	5	14

5	-
Buildings		
1	
Buildings	
5	
5	
14
6	Man-made			city	5	4	13
7	London		1	City	5	4	13
8							
							
10							
11							
12							
							
14							
15							
Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Weighted Average 4.131
of Concepts 2 2 2
>
0
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
W
(D
(D
0
>
@O
-4
00
00
X
0
00
0
0
0
CD
0
0
C?
46.
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
N
;10
M
M
2)
U)
M
0
0
W
0
W
0
o
>
to
T
0
0
4
00
00
X
0
C?
00
0
0
0
W
4..
Begin Time:
15:23
End Time:
Length of Session:
Target: HILDgZ*)
Method of Targeting: Coordinate
Session: 2
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
cowept

Aualwr	
Transcript Concept	
D	P	Element of Target	V833c*
(R)	Quality
(Q)	sco@,.
1	Picture 1		1	Buildings	5	1	5

2	
Straight angles		1	Buildings	5	1	5

3	
Picture 2		1	Peninsula	5	1	5

4	
River		I	Bay	3	2	6

5	Buildings		
1	Buildings	5	5	14

6	
Man-made		I	Buildings	5 .	1 4	13
7	London			T-	5	3	11
							
9							
10							
11							
12							
13							
14							
15							
Score 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ted :7:21
of Concepts I IJ- I I-
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
-N
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
W
0
W
0
>
to
T
0
0
-4
00
00
X
0
0
-L
00
0
0
0
W
0
46.
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
N
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
W
0
0
0
0
0
4
00
00
X
0
00
0
0
0
CD
0
0
C?
4..
Begin Time: 15:23
End Time:
Length of Session:
W
E-
Score
of Concepts
Target: Fernando de Noronha
Method of Targeting: Coordinate
Session: 2
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
cow@pt

Nua*mr	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	a
ve nc*	
QU&Ilty

(Q)	
scom
1	Picture 1		0				0
2	Straight angles		0				0
3	Picture 2		1	Island	5		5
4	River		
1	
Ocean	
3	
1	
3
5	Buti
dings		
0				
0
6	Man-made		0				0
7	London		0				0
8							
9							
10							
11 1							
12							

13	... . ....	.... ...					
14							
15							
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
5	2		1		1									
Weight d Average
ELI
Table A-5 (continued)
0
<
(D
0.
-n
0
M
M
0)
U)
(D
Q
CA)
(D
(D
0
0
4
00
00
00
0
(D
Begin Time: 15:23
Bud Time:
Length of Session:
C
Target: Funkaharju
Method of Targeting. Coordinate
Session- 2
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December iggi
Class: D
concopt
Numbor
I	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	WSW*

(R)	Qua
'Ity
(Q)	
Se.r.
1	Picture 1		1	Bridge	2	1	2
2	Straight angles		1	Bridge	2	1	2
3	Picture 2		1	Bridge	2	1	2
4	Rive r		1	Lakes	5	2	9
5	Buildings			Town	4	5	13
6	Man-made			Town	4	4 1	12
7	London		1	Town	4	3	10
8							
							
10							
							
12							
13							
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
	3	1	1	1	1				1	1				
Weighted Average 2.:,:,]
>
-0
0
<
M
CL
_n
0
M
2)
U)
M
0
0
CD
0
>
00
00
0
0
0
(D
Table A-5 (continued)
W
Begin Time: 13:13 Target: -- Inverness
End Time: Method of Targeting: Wordinates
Length of Session. Session: 3
K
M
S4

Concept
NuaWr	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	
"a
Oce
I	
Quality

(Q)	
score
1	Picture I		I	Buildings	5	1	5
2	Land/water interface		I	River	4	4	12 1
3	Ridges		0				0
4	Small ups and downs		I	Buildings	5		5
5 1	Cold		I	Location	3	1	3
6	Picture 2		1	Church	2	1	2
7	Rocky		0				0
8 1	Picture 3		1	Buildings	5	1 1	5
9	Picture 4		0				0
10	Frozen		0				0
11	Feeling of town		I	City	5	4	1 13
12	Cliff on water		1	River bank	1	1	1
. .. ..... . ....
13	........ .
1			. ... ....			
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10		@2	13	14
4	6	1	1	2	3							1	1	
Viewer: 9002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class; B
PxRxQ score
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
8 7
9 a
10 9
12 10
15 11
16 12
20 13
25 14
eTg-hted Average
F
Table A-5 (continued)
0
<
(D
CL
-n
0
M
(D
(D
CA)
0
(D
(D
0
0
'0
(D
a)
6
0
4
00
00
00
Begin Time: 13:13
End Time:
Length of Session:
9
t
6
rA
Target: Hangi;
Method of Targeting: Coordinates
Session: 3
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
Concept

Number	
Transcript Concept	
D

I	

P	
Element of Target	Role-
Vence

R)	
Quality	
score
1	Picture I		I	Rocks	3	2	6
2	Land/water interface			Peninsula	5	4	13
3	Ridges			
Rocks	
3	
2	
6
4	Small ups and downs		1	Rocks	
3	
2	
6
5	Cold		I	Location	4	4	12
6	
Picture 2		
1	
Church	
2	
1	
2
7	Rocky		I	Rocks	3	5	11
8	Picture 3		1	Sloping rocks	3	2	6 1
9	Picture 4		
0				
0
10	Frozen		I	Location	4	4	12
-
11	Feeling of town		I	Town	5	5	14
12	Cliff on water		1	Sloping rocks	3	2	6
13							
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	121	13	14
1	1	5		3	2	5					1	-2		
PXRYQ
Score
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
8 7
1
9
10 9
12 10
15 11
16 12
20 13
Weighted Averagel 2,65]
0
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
K)
0
0
LO
0
0
0
>
@O
0
_0
0
0
-4
00
00
X
0
0
-.3,
00
0
0
0
0
0
'Fable A-b (continuea)
Uj
Begin Time: 13:13 Target: Fernando de Noronha Viewer:
End Time: Method of Targeting: Coordinates Date:
Length of Session: session: 3 Class:
#002
14 December 1981
B
0
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
0
0
W
0
>
0
0
0
4
00
00
X
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
9
4..

concept
muwwr	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Role-
Vance

(R)	
Quality

(Q)	
g;cor*
I	Picture I		I	Hills	4	2	7
2	Land/water interface		I	Island	5	4	13
3	Ridges		1	Hills	4	5	13
4	Small ups and downs		I	Hills	4	3	12
5	Cold		
0				0
6	Picture 2		1	Peak	3	3	8
7	Rocky		1	Shoreline	3 1	2	6 1
8	Picture 3		1	Hills	4	3	10
9	Picture 4		1	Surf	3	1	3
10	
Frozen		
0				
0
11	Feeling of town		
0				0
12	Cliff on water		I	Hills by sea	4	5	13
							
							
15						
L	
t
W
Score
of Concepts
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 f-@-elghted Average 2.49
Table A-5 (continued)
0
CL
-n
0
-1
X
M
(D
U)
(D
CA)
0
>
0
W
a)
6
0
4
00
00
00
4.
W
ON
Begin Time: 13:13
End Time:
Length of Session.
In
Targetz. Punkharaja
Method of Targeting: Coordinales
Session: 3
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
Concept

Number	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	
(nce
R)	
qjallt7
(Q)	
scare
I	Picture 1		1	Scattered lakes	5
1	1	5
2	Land/water interface		I	Scattered lakes	5
5	4	13 1
3	Ridges		1	Islands	4

4	2	
7
4	Small ups and downs		I	Islands	
4
4 1	4	12

5	Cold		1	Location	4 1	4	12

6	
Picture 2		I	Islands	4	1	4
7	Rocky						0
8	Picture 3		1	Islands	4	1 1	4
9	Picture 4		0				0
10	Frozen		1	Location	4	4	12
11	Feeling of town		I	Town	4	5	13 1
12	Cliff on water		0				0
13							
14							
15							
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
3							1					3	2	
PxRxQ Scare
0 0
@O'
1 1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
8 7
9 a
10 9
12 10
1
15 11
16 12
20 13
25 141
[-9@-I-ghted Average ---
2,42]
>
0
<
M
-n
0
N
M
2)
U)
M
IQ
0
0
CD
0
CD
0
>
CD
a)
1
0
0
-4
00
00
00
0
CD
0
46.
Table A-5 (continued)
>
M
0
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
0
0
0 LJ
>
0
0
4
00
00
X
9
00
0
0
0
(D
0
0
4.
Begin Tim: 12:46
End Time:
Length of Session:
-C
Target: Inverness
Method of Targeting: Coordinates
Session- 4
Viewer: #002
Date; 14 December 1981
Class: B
Concept
Number	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Role-
var"	
Quallty	
Beare
I	Down jagged		0				0
2	Picture 1		1	Sloping bank	2	1	2
3	Flat		1	Area	4	3	10
4	Water		1	River	4	4	12
5	Green		1	Grass	1	3	3
6	Picture 2		1	River banks	2	1	2
7	Down/up		0				0
8	Deep valley		0				0
9	Picture 3	2					
10	Down		1	Banks	2	1	2
11	Land/water Interfaces		
1	
River	
4	4	12
12	Descending		
1	Banks
1	2	1	2
.... . ... ..	...... ...		
1--	
Trees	
2	
5	
9
14	Winding river		1	River	4	5	13
15	Jungle		1	Trees	2		2
Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l' 13 14
of Concepts 3 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 -42 1 1Weighted AveragqTll
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
<
M
0.
-n
0
N
M
2)
(A
M
0
0
0
0
0
>
0
0
j
00
00
X
0
9
00
0
0
0
0
0
46
OD
Begin Time: 12:46
End Time:
Length of Session:
@4
Ew.
Tuvet: Hang6
Method of Targeting: Coordinates
Session: 4
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B
concept

KuWwr	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Rele-
"*PC*	
Quallty	
Score
1	Down jagged		
1	
Sloping rocks	
3	
2	
6
2	Picture 1		
1	
Sloping rocks	
3	
2	
6
3	Flat		
I I	
Bay	
3	
1	
3
4	Water		1	Bay	3	4	10
5	Green		
0				
0
6	Picture 2		1	Sloping rocks	3	1	3
7	Dawn/up		0				0
a	Deep valley		
0				
0
9	Picture 3	2					
10
1	Down		I	Sloping rocks	
3	
1	
3
11	Land/water interfaces			Peninsula	5	4	13

12	
Descending		1	
rocks
Sloping	
3	
11 1	
3
13	Trees		1	Trees	2	4	7
14	Winding river		
1	
Bay	
3	
1	
1 3
15	Jungle			Trees	2	3 _	I 6
Score
of Concepts
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 13 14 r;FeTg-hled Average 1.381
3 1 3 1 1 1
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
1%)
0
Q
0
>
0
0
-4
00
00
X
00
0
0
0
CD
0
0
0
11,
44.
Table A-5 (continued)
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
M
h3
0
0
0
0
0
>
0
0
4
00
00
;0
0
9
00
0
0
0
(D
0
0
0
44.
Begin Time: 12:46
End Time:
Length of Session:
W
Target: Fernando de Noronha
Method of Targeting: Coordinates
Session: 4
Viewer: #002
Date: 14 December 1981
Class: B

C-pt
number	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Rel*- I
T&tkc*

(R)	
Quality

(Q)	
5@.r.
I	Down jagged		1	Hills	4	3	10
2	Picture 1		1	Hills	4	4	12
3	Flat		
0				0

4	
Water		
1	
Ocean	4	
4	
12
5	Green		I	Vegetation	2	3	6
	Picture 2		1	Hills	4	1	4
7	Dawn/up		i	Hills	4	1 1	4
	Deep valley		0				0
9	Picture 3	2					
10	Down		1	Sloping hills	4	1	1 4
11	Land/vater interfaces		1	Island	5	4	13
12	Descending		I	Sloping hills	4	1	4
13			1	Vegeta-ti-on.-	-2	5	
14	Winding river			Ocean	4	2	7

15	Jungle		
1 1	Vegetation	2	5	
9
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6 1	+7	8	9 1	10	11	12	13	14
2	4	1	2	3	2	1	1		2	1		2	1	
e d Average'
1 2.22
>
M
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
h3
0
0
0
CD
0
0
>
a)
6
0
-4
00
00
X
0
00
0
0
0
CD
0
0
C?
1
Table A-5 (continUed)
0
<
(D
CL
-n
0
I
X
M
(D
0)
U)
(D
CA)
(D
0
0
'0
to
0
0
4
00
00
0
-L
00
0
0
0
(D
4.
Begin Time:. 12:46
End Time-.
Length of Session:
-C
b
Ca
Target: Punkaharju Viewer:
Method of Targeting: Coordinates Date:
Session- 4 Class:
#002
14 December 1981
B
Concept

Number	
Transcript Concept	
D	
P	
Element of Target	Role-
Vance
(R)	
QuAlity
(Q)	
Score
	Down jagged		0				0
2	Picture 1		1	Islands	4	3	10

3	Flat		I	Area	4	3	10
4	Water		I	Lakes	5	4	13

5	Green		0				0
6	Picture 2		1	Lake bottoms	5	1	5
7	Dawn/up		I	Lake bottoms	5	1	5 1
8	Deep valley		I	Lake bottoms	5	1	5
-
9	
Picture 3	
2					
10	Down		I	Lake bottoms	5	1	5
11	Land/water interfaces		I	Lakes	5	4	13
3
12	Descending		1
1	islands
1	4	1	4

4
F
13	Trees		1 1	1 Trees	2	4	7

24	-
Winding river		
I	
Connected lakes	
5	
2	
9
15	Jungle		1	Trees	2	1	2
Score
of Concepts
0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
2			2	3	4		1		1	2		2		
PXRXQ Sco
0 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
a 7
9 8
10 9
12 10
15 11
16 12
20 13
2-5 :1:4]
F;@-igh-ted Average 1 2.21
>
0
<
M
CL
-n
0
M
2)
U)
M
CD
0
0
C"
6
0
-4
00
00
00
0
CD
0
0
46.
Table A-5 (concluded)
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Two types of overall assessment were chosen to emphasize the
versatility of the evaluation procedure, (1) a simple rank ordering based
on weighted average scores, and (2) a concept-by-concept, non-parametric,
statistical technique. Table A-6 shows the results of the first method,
the rank ordering. For convenience, the correct ma'tchesi are underlined.
Table A-6
A RANK ORDERING OF WEIGHTED AVERAGES

Session/Target	
Inverness	
Hangb	Fernando
de Noronha	
!Punkaharju-

2	
4.13	
2.72	0.22	
2.11
3	1.12	2.65	2.49	1 2.42
4	1.21	1.38	2.22	2.21
1	1.53	2.52	2.36	0.90
Scores computed with non-uniform target relevance factors.
From Table A-6, we see that there were 3 first-place matches
and 1 fourth-place match. The probability of obtaining 3 of 4 possible
first-place matches from chance fluctuations alone are less than 0.051.
The point spread between the best match (Inverness) and the worst match
(Punkaharju) are in qualitative agreement with a subjective "first look"
at the quality of the transcripts as well.
The second analysis determines the significance of the difference
between the correct concept/target matches and a control set of matches.
All concept/target matches that are not the correct matches act as an
internal control set. To avoid any invalid assumptions as to the correct
parent distribution, a non-parametric statistical test, the Mann-Whitney
U-Test, was chosen for the analysis. 4
41
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
It is beyond the scope of this report to review the details
of the Mann-Witney U-Test; thus, only the results are quoted here. The
probability that the set of correct concept/target matches is statistically
indistinguishable from the control concept/target matches is less than
0.071.
There are a number of additional statistical procedures that
could be used to analyze the results of this evaluation technique. The
two cited above, however, represent a spread in complexity that demonstrates
the internal consistency of the basic evaluation procedure. With only four
similar RV sessions, the evaluation technique nearly reached the 0.05 level
of statistical significance with each of the t,.-,.-o statistical procedures,
a result indicating a successful outcome with regard to the overall
assessment procedure.
42
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
Appendix B
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION TECHNIQUE
Step
Action
1 Task coordinator defines the evaluation goal. @e/she identifies
target elements and assigns target element rele @ance factors as
appropriate.
2 Analyst conceptualizes responses and prepares an' RV assessment
sheet for each response.
3 Repeated concepts are noted in the I'D" column.
4 Copies of the sheets from Item 2 are made; one for each possible
target used in the analysis.
5
6
7
8
9
10
FOR EACH POSSIBLE RESPONSE/TARGET COMBINATION:
Identify a target element for each concept not 1@arked in the
I'D" column; mark a 1 in the "p" column and writ4 the target
.the appropriate
element and its relevance factor from Step 1 in:
columns. (Write 0 and blanks if no element can;be found.)
Using Table 3, assign a quality rating for all resent (p 1)
concept/element combinations.
Compute the score as follows:
a. Calculate relevance (R) X quality (Q)
b. Convert R X Q to an integer between 0 and 14 using
the conversion table provided.
Enter the number of concepts that obtained each1possible score
in the space provided.
Calculate the weighted average using:
A 3 5 7 Z f -@T- S Z f ff-
k 0
where: S. is the score and f. is the number of1concepts
tRat obtained score
0, 1, 2, ..., 14
For each response, rank order the weighted averages.
43
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO180:0090001-4
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4
REFERENCES
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, No. 3, pp. 329-354 (March 1976).
2. C. Scott, "On the Evaluation of Verbal Material in Parapsychology:
A Discussion of Dr. Pratt's Monograph," J. Soc. Psych. Res., Vol. 46,
No. 752, pp. 79-90 (June 1972).
3. R. Targ, H. E. Puthoff, and E. C. May, "State of the Art in Remote
Viewing Studies at SRI," Technical Session on Research in Psycho-
energetics, Proc. 1977 IEEE International Conf. on Cybernetics and
Society, Washington, D.C. (September 20, 1977).
4. S. Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics, pp. 116-120 (McGraww-Hill, 1956).
44
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1800090001-4