:7~ Api2roved For Release 200OLOSI DP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 INTERIM NOTE 15 (SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U) AMSAA PHASE I EFFORTS July 1979 CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA (DAMI-ISH), dated 7 Jul 78 REVIEW 01i 7 Jul 1999 ACTIVITIES OFFICE U. S. ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTNITY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND SECRET A,MS AA 1. 15 5 1979'-A Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 1000866'05-8 Infirmation and data contained in this document are based 6n 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 MISAA 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-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 .r.r.mmor r 4w ~ mw S P E C I A L A C T I V I T I E S 0 F F I C E INTERIM NOTE NO. 15 (SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U) AMSAA PHASE I EFFORTS 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 0 V I N G G R 0 U N D, M D NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS Jft- 40 -mm %~10 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED S P E C I A L A C T I V I T I E S 0 F F I C E INTERIM NOTE NO. 15 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD July 1979 (SECRET-NOFORN) PROJECT GRILL FLAME (U) AMSAA PHASE I EFFORTS 19 ABSTRACT Th is report presents the results of AMSAA's Phase I participation in Project GRILL FLAME. 3 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROol 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The identification of the s9ecific roles played by specific individuals in the AMSAA GRILL FLA14E 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 4 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 (S-NF) CONTENTS (U) Page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . . . 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 Re-mote 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 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 AM ft 910 __ - M rw~ (S-NF) CONTENTS (continued) (U) Page 9. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . 9.1 Problems Impacting on Participant Efficiency. - 9.2 Location . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Special Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. LESSONS LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 2000/0e8&EI~,-A.DP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 (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 phenomenaf 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). 7 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/2.8, a7J.~;1A.-JLDP96-00788R001 100080005-8 2. (SECRET-NOFORN) (S--NF) The taken to achieve the * A first rejection of the SRI First hand AMSAA personnel. OBJECTIVES (U) AMSAA GRILL FLAME program was under- following two objectives: order challenge, confIrmation and/or remote viewing protocol (Appendix B). experience with remote viewing by 9 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED 10 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 202a/A4Q #,-*DP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 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 r6mote from that person; it does not involve any electronic sensing devices at or focused at the ta'rget 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). session. (S-NF) The person at the target site during an RV (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. 11 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 (S-NF) Some of the terminology def ined 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: SRI Subject Inbound Experimenter Outbound Experimenter Experiment/Demonstration AMSAA Remote Viewer Interviewer Beacon Individual Session 12 Approved For Release 2000/J8;Qji J*XP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 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 selecied 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. 13 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED 14 UNCLASSIFIED Approv-6-d-Tor Release zu----- - - 1u1TuuuuWuO-O Approved For Release 200Q/AWjjj ifiinV96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 5. (SECRET-NOFORN) ORGANIZATION OF RV TEAMS (S-NF) (S-NF) Two teams, designated as Tl 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 c6nducted 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. 15 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED 16 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release zuuuiutsiu I : T M-VVb-UU1WMUU1 I UUU-UUUuO!O Approved For Release 20OO/W;,; OQA&P96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 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 withkn 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 f ile 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. 17 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 wmwnmdft~ -'M elk M~ 4a1G%NA'1%.1W 0 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 o *f the session, was agreed to by all participants prior to the final scheduling of the session. (S-NF) The beacon individual(s) de-oarted 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 18 ApproVed-for Releas MUC-067MUUMUNUOUTS Approved For Release 20001112,T176i vQMJ~DP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 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 S1 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. 19 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 IQ r AM r% J=9P 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). 20 Approved For Release 2000L4W;-*:vQhA rDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 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 philoso'phical 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 21 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Aft M 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: 0 (S-NF) The information is often, but not always, presented in a left-right reversal pattern. 0 (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. 0 (S-NF) While the drawing may be an accurate representation of the target, the functional labels assigned by the remote viewer may be inaccurate. 0 (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 f irst seven sessions of Sl, the first seven sessions of S2, and the last three sessions of Sl 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 22 Approved For Release 2000ejg&4 A IDP96 00788RO01 100080005-8 4A0 EM %10 M'% 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 f irst 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. 23 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 G ~ rm 4"k TABLE 7-1 (S-NF) EVALUATION MATRICES,PACKAGE#1 (U) T arget site Transcript 1 2 3 4 5~ 6 7 Evaluator #1 A 7 7 4 2 7 6 B 1 6 2 2 Ul 6 4 C 4 5 4 3 5 (f~ 5 D 3 4 3 5 4 4 E 7 1 (D5 6 6 3 2 F 5 (9) 6 7 7 2 3 G 6 3 1 Ul 3 5 1 Evaluator #2 A 60 1 5 1 6 5 5 B 1 5 3 4 2 2 C 3 2 4 6 4 C6," 6 D 4 3 1 7 5 4 . ~4) E 7 7 (i) 3 7 7 4 F 2 A) 2 2 3 1 7 G 5 6 6 2 3 1 Evaluator #3 A 5 6 5 5 6 6 B 3 7 2 4 w 4 3 c 5 4 5 3 4 (i) D 4 1 4 6 7 7 E 6 7 6 5 5 F 1 1 2 2 2 G 2 2 3 24 Approved For 1, UU /Ut$/U 110 Approved For Release 2000/peig j:g2P96-00788RO01 100080005-8 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 2 2 4 1 ~"t B 5 C 3 2 6 4 2 D 65 6 1 2 2 2 6 E 1 1 3 3 3 5 F 7 5 5 7 6 4 C4 G 3 4 3 5 1 7 Evaluator #2 A 6 (f 7 7 7 7 B 4 4 2 4 L6 5 2 c 1 2 5 1 4 2~ 6 D 3 6 2 5 1 5 E 5 5 2 3 4 F 7 6 4 5 1 6 'j G 3 1 30 3 7 4 3 Evaluator #3 A 7 7 7 7 7 ~ B 6 6 6 6 '6 6 6 C 4 2 2 4 4) 3 5 3 2 4 4 D 3 3 3 E 2 2 4 4 1 3 C2) F G 5 1 C5, 5 5 5 5 -- - --- -------------- ------ 25 Ica cm fto Em %* 9N mom I Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Aft SM AM *AF Aw %%10 TABLE 7-3 (S-NF) EVALUATION MATRICES, PACKAGE #3 (U) Target Site Transcript 1 2 3 4 5 6 4valuator #1 A 4 2 3 2 (2 1 B 6 6 6 1 2 C C5 4 5 3 6 4 D 3 1 1 -k 3 E 1 5 6 5 6 F 2 ) 2 1 4 ( i 5 Evaluator #2 A 3 4 4 (11 5 B 6 3 6 6 C 5 6 1 6 2 D 2 6 4 3 E 5 1 2 ~5 4 3 F 5 3 5 4 Evaluator #3 A 5 4 1 6 03 3 B 3 3 3 1 4 1 C U4 6 1 6 D 1 5 2 2 62 E 2 2 4 62 4 1 F 6 Ul 5 4 5 5 26 mft~- Approved For Release 2000108/07: M m-Pul-607MU01100050000-0 Approved For Release 2000/g$4Q7, W#w4DP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 TABLE 7-4 (S-NF) EVALUATION RESULTS (U) Package 1 Package 2 Pakage 3 Evaluator 1 5th 7th 3rd 2nd 5th 4th 7th 4th 2nd lst 5th 4th 2nd 7th 3rd lst 6th 5th 1st 6th 19 p=.054 40 p=.99 21 p =.55 Evaluator 2 7th 7th 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 4th 1st lst 5th 6th 5th 4th 6th 1st 6th 3rd 4th lst 2nd T-3 -p--.85 27 p=.46 14 p=-.061 Evaluator 3 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- ficance. . .6 Targets/Transcripts Sum of Ranks 13 or less for signi- ficance. Significance is defined as the probability of the obtained sum of ranks <.05. 27 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 *A# am --I k'T Mil 7.2 (S-NF) Principle Concepts Methods (U). (S-NF) This evaluation method has only been applied on a limited basis to evaluate our transcript/target correspondence to date, but the results are encouraging. This method provides for a less cumbersome on-site evalu- ation procedure and alsoserves as a basis for analyzing the accuracy and applicability of the data generated during the RV session. Several improvements in both the effectiveness and efficiency of the evaluation process have resulted from the use of this method: a. (S-NF) The evaluator reads the transcripts prior to being provided with the identity of the target sites and determines the principle concepts (PC) of each transcript. The PC for each transcript are then listed on an evaluation matrix. Thus, during the actual evaluation at the target sites, the evaluator only has to deal with a 1-2 page summary of the transcripts rather than continuously reading several transcripts, each averaging about seven pages in length. b. (S-NF) The rank ordering method forces the evaluator to not only compare each transcript to the target site, but also to compare the transcripts to each other. The PC method allows the evaluator to rate the corres- pondence of each PC of the transcript to the target site, one PC at a time, without having to go through the process of comparing the transcripts against each other. C. (S-NF) The evaluator can make his final deter- mination of transcript/target match after he has visited one of the target sites by statistically evaluating the PC cor- respondence ratings and using those results in concert with the drawings and any other information he may have to come to a final decision, to include going back to the target site. This relieves the pressure on the evaluator, present in the rank ordering method, to make a determination of final match at the same time. d. (S-NF) Even after their use during the evalu- ation process, the PC matrices are a valuable source of information to all of the participants in the remote viewing process. The correspondence ratings allow the remote viewer to see how his feelings about the PC compare with their evaluation and to identify which types of his impressions tend to be more accurate than others. This type of analysis is also helpful to the interviewer in being able to suggest avenues of approach to the remote viewing during the RV sessions. Additionally, this analysis of PC correspondence 28 Approved For Kelease MOOMMU I : MX-MP95--WIrMWUU-I TUMOU005-3 Approved For Release 200212:61."DP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 can serve as a guideline in determining target characteris- tics that are more physically interesting than others; this type of information is valuable in developing target pools and particularly in evaluating the reliability and accuracy of remote viewer impressions in actual application situa- tions. (S-NF) The onl~r evaluation done to date using this method was conducted by a member of the SRI staf f in March 1979. The randomized target/transcript package consisted of five of the six sessions included in the previously men- tioned third package; the 6th session was not included as it did not meet all of the criteria of the protocol (see Sec- tion 9, Problems Encountered). The results of this evalua- tion, based on the procedures described in the following paragraph, are provided in Table 7-5. Figure 7.1 presents a graphical interpretation of the results of the evaluation on Table 7-5. The steps of this evaluation procedure were as follows: a. (S-NF) The evaluator first reads a transcript at his work site and determines the principle concepts (PC) stated throughout the transcript. He then listed the PC for this transcript on an evaluation matrix (Figure 7.2). He then followed the same procedure for the other transcripts. At this step has has an evaluation matrix for each tran- script. b. (S-NF) The evaluator made additional copies of the five matrices so that he had several sets of evaluation matrices one of which is to be used at each target. Thus, his correspondence analysis at each target was done inde- pendently of his analyses at any of the other targets. C. (S-NF) The evaluator then went to the first target site of his choosing and, using one set of evaluation matrices, evaluated the correspondence to the site of each PC of the five separate transcripts on a scale of 0-10. He then put this set of evaluation matrices aside and went on to the second target site. He followed this correspondence evaluation procedure at each of the remaining target sites. Upon finishing the evaluation, he had five completed sets of evaluation matrices. d. (S-NF) The evaluator appropriate statistics, including the all the PCs of each transcript for is a summary of these calculated mean 29 then calculated. the mean and variance, of each target. Table 7-5 values. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 200240,§/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1100080005-8 n I-or TABLE 7-5 (S-NF) EVALUATION RESULTS (U) TARGETj- Florist Diner High Community Marina " SCRIPT Shop School Services Bldg A 6.80 4.20 3.80 4.30 0.60 , e I I ~!'o ~420 3.33 B 3.33 7.75 4.00 '5.92', 1.83 C 2.36 3.29 5.52 3.31 2.43 D 4.29 4.59 2.71 5.47-~ 1.76 2.71 5.47 F 2.38 2.69 4.46 2.38 6.62 Correct Match Shift in choice due to comparison of drawing to target Targets have been reoriered to show results along the diagonal 3Q AM M AftAft-RELM~. Approvea For-MM"000101102 Approved For Release 2000/05M/%P"WFIKVVVb-UO788 ROO 1100080005-8 Iz Q tj %4a Zi I zl~ 31 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For ReleastWV jfi gjftPtf96-OO788 ROO 1100080005-8 32 UNCLASSIFIED lu Approved For R-6lease P96--CY0788RO01 1 OUM005-8 Approved For Release 20OOM&SAGI&MOMP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 e. (S-NF) The results of the target/transcript correspondence based on the calculated mean values were then reviewed utilizing the drawings attached to the transcripts in order to establish a final rank ordering of each tran- script with each target. The resulting five out of five correct matches obtained in this evaluation ~re indicated on Table 7-5 by blocks. (S-NF) It is planned to have three evaluators utilize this evaluation procedure on five targets/transcripts. The results should interesting and quite useful. 33 in-house the same prove both Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED 34 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 200-0/08/07 T =-Pq6-OO7muu11uuu1uuu5-t5 . ", InR=.&.r- Approved For Release 2000. 96-00788RO01 100080005-8 8. (SECRET-NOFORN) SPECIAL SESSIONS (U) (S-NF) This section briefly summarizes the special sessions that were held in addition to the 20 replication sessions discussed thus far. The transcripts from the majority of these sessions have not been edited or formally evaluated and are thus not included in this report. They are available to those- individuals with a need to know as determined by the Project Officer or Project Manager. 8.1 (S-NF) Canada (U). (S-NF) Four sessions were conducted at SRI with an SRI consultant as the remote viewer, an SRI staff member as the interviewer and an AMSAA GRILL FLAME participant serving as the beacon individual. The beacon individual was on a business/vacation trip in Canada over a two week period in August 1978. At the time these sessions were conducted, the remote viewer and beacon individual had never met; the remote viewer was told the beacon individual's name and place of employment, provided with a copy of his Pentagon pass, and informed that he was in Canada. After the first session had been held, the remote viewer requested and was provided with the beacon individual's date and place of birth. No other information was given to the remote viewer during the course of the sessions. (S-NF) At the predetermined times for the sessions, the beacon individual took notes, photographs and/or made sketches of his location. The sessions were tape recorded and transcribed as usual; copies of the edited transcripts and any notes or drawings made by the remote viewer during the sessions were sent to AMSAA for evalua- tion. (S-NF) The package was first evaluated in September 1978. Four AMSAA individuals were provided with copies of the four transcripts and one each of the targets, with their task being to rank order the four transcripts 1 to 4, best to worst match, to their one target. The results of this evaluation were not statistically significant. How- ever, it should be noted that the last three sessions held after the viewer was provided the beacon individual's date and place of birth were ranked lst, lst, and 2nd. The first session received a 4th place ranking; a possible explanation for this occurrence is that the beacon individual had his family with him and his son has the same name as his. The data obtained during the session correlated with a possible location of his son at that time (as the son was unaware of 35 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 r% Im"r the experiment there is no precise record of where the son was at the time of the first session) . (S-NF) In February 1979, these sessions were reevaluated by four different AMSAA individuals with the addition of two photographs provided by ~he beacon indi- vidual of one of the target locations. The results were identical to the initial'evaluation. 8.2 (S-NF) Sweden (U). (S-NF) Three sessions were held in October 1978 with an AMSAA GRILL FLAME participant on a business trip to Sweden serving as the beacon individual. S1 participated in two sessions, S2 in one session and IB4 was the interviewer in all three sessions. These transcripts have not been edited or formally evaluated; informal evaluation based on verbal and written descriptions provided by the beacon indi- vidual indicated considerable correlation with the data provided by the remote viewers. 8.3 (S-NF) Egypt (U). (S-NF) In November 1978, two sessions were held with an AMSAA GRILL FLAME participant on a business trip to Egypt serving as the beacon individual. Sl and IB4 were the remote viewer and interviewer in both sessions. These tran- scripts have not been edited or formally evaluated; informal evaluation based on verbal and pictorial descriptions pro- vided by the beacon individual indicated considerable correlation with the data provided by the remote viewer. 8.4 (S-NF) Special Participants (U). (S-NF) Two special sessions were conducted, one in October 1978 and one in January 1979, with two individuals outside of the core group who had requested to particpate in a session as remote viewers. .These two sessions were con- ducted in accordance with the procedures detailed in Section 6 of this report. (S-NF) S31s session was held in October 1978 with IB4 as the interviewer and OB9 as the beacon individual. This was the first time S3 had participated in a controlled RV program. While the results of this session have never been formally evaluated, the participants, particularly S3, were extremely pleased with the high degree of correlation of the session imagery with the target site. S31s personal insights into the process as it worked for him, which he termed "relaxed concentration," were extremely valuable to 36 ,'~~V 0-0 ApproveCl For F UMIUS10 1 0 1A k I CM-40-W 19 !UUTTUUUUUV Approved For Release 2000/08107-;,~ --r'DP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 A -IL' - I'k Sm I the core group and we have been most fortunate in having S3 continue his association with the project. (S-NF) S41s session was held in January 1979 with 134 as the interviewer and OB10 as the beacon individual. S4 had previously been involved in an RV experience, but not under the controlled conditions of the GRILL FLAME program. The results of this se§sion have not been formally evalu- ated; IB4 and OB11 were encouraged by the results , but S4's reactions were mixed and marked by a high degree of disap- pointment with his poor ability to accurately verbalize his perceptions in the transcript. S4 was also frustrated by his not summarizing his perceptions at the end of the ses- sion for the record. S4 has also continued his association with the program and has indicated his desire to participate in future sessions. (S-NF) Two other sessions were conducted during this time period in which an individual requested to serve as a beacon individual. Both of these session departed from the established procedure in several ways: (1) (S-NF) The established target pool was not used; rather the beacon individual selected his own target. (2) ('S-NF) Sl participated in both sessions, however, at the time of the first session, the individuals normally filling the role of the interviewer were not available, so an individual never before associated with the program was placed into that role. IB4 was the interviewer at the second session. (3) (S-NF) The first session was conducted on the spur of the moment, the second session was rescheduled several times before it finally occurred. (S-NF) Both of these sessions were conducted under circumstances that were previously found to not necessarily be conductive to achieving good remote viewing results. While the results of the sessions had their good points as well as their bad points, these sessions were most valuable for the lessons learned in how not to conduct an RV session. 8.5 (S-NF) Target-of-the-day Sessions (U). (S-NF) Three target-of-the-day sessions were held in November -December 1978, two with Sl and one with S2. IB4 was the interviewer in all of the sessions. These sessions were held after the completion of the official 20 sessions and were conceived of by the core group for the purpose of 37 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 IM ~ Aft 01%, 00~ gaining further experience and insight into the RV process before progressing into Phase II of the program. (S-NF) The target-of-the-day sessions basically followed the procedures detailed in Section 6, with the following exceptions: (1) (S-NF) No' beacon individual participated in the sessions. In two of the sessions, the TPS randomly selected the target envelope and merely placed it on his desk, rather than giving it to a beacon individual(s) as usual. In the third session, the TPS did not select the target envelope until the session was completed. (2) (S-NF) Immediately following the session, the remote viewer and interviewer obtained the target envelope from the TPS and proceeded to the target site, rather than waiting for the usual return of a beacon individual(s). (S-NF) The results of these three sessions have never been evaluated by anyone other than the participants. Aside from having removed the constraints of being "for the official record" or waiting for nebulous feedback from a distant beacon individual, these sessions provided the participants with the opportunity to explore new approaches to the interaction between the remote viewer and interviewer as well as concentrate on the correlation between the "true" perceptions and the verbalized perceptions with each other and the target site. Additionally, these sessions paved the way for approaching the type of sessions scheduled for Phase 38 Approved For Release 20DD708107 : CIA-RDP96.UU7t$t$KUU11UUUt$UUUO-t5 Approved For Release 2000/OPAJ d6UDP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 9. (SECRET-NOFORN) PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED (U) (S-NF) The procedures detailed in Section 6 describe the perfectly coordinated RV session from target selection to post-session analysis. Howeve.r, the sessions conducted during this Phase I effort did not necessarily go as planned. This section of the report deals with the prob- lems encountered over th6 course of Phase I. (S-NF) The problems related in this section can be divided into two categories: those that impact the effi- ciency of the participants and those that impact the overall quality of the product. The ad hoc nature of this effort involved a broad spectrum of individuals, each of whom approached this task with their own personal beliefs or disbeliefs, levels of expectation and levels of insight and knowledge. The SRI protocol that guided us throughout this program merely outlined the process; only after becoming a part of the process did we even begin to ralize the impact of people, places, events, attitudes and a whole host of other factors on -the whole process. Thus, it is the intent of this section of the report to be frank and open in stat- ing the problems we encountered during this phase so that the next group of people desiring to undertake a similar effort may avoid some of the same pitfalls. 9.1 (S-NF) Problems Impacting on Partici2ant Effici- en (S-NF) As noted in Section 5, two teams, Tl and T2, were originally established to participate in this Phase I replication effort. Over time, these teams evolved into a four-person core group. This evolution resulted from the interactions of the events and attitudes discussed below: (1) (S-NF) The availability . of the participants was a pressing problem, due to travel schedules, leave time, meetings, etc. Quite often, the project officer was not notified of the participants' nonavailability until shortly before the session preliminaries were to begin. It then became a very frustrating rush -to find a replacement among the limited number of individuals cleared to participate in the program. (2) (S-NF) Several participants were unwilling to devote an entire afternoon to participating in a session. One participant refused to go back out to the target site for post-session analyses; he said he had more important things to do. From that point on, sessions were not held 39 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 F=- I unless everyone agreed in advance to be part of the entire process. (3) (S-NF) The attitude of one of the prime par- ticipants was particularly distressing to the other members of the team. as well as the project officer. " Instead of dis- cussing his opinions and feelings prior to the start of the sessions, he began his first session by stating he did not want to have his name associated with the program in any way, questioning the need for the administrative details of the session and, in general, creating an atmosphere of confusion and antagonism. This.individual was aware of the fact, as was everyone else, that any written record of GRILL FLAME would identify participants only by an alpha-numeric code, never by name; however, in order to get ~he session started, the participants agreed to destroy the session tapes after they were transcribed, thus removing all mention of names. That was perhaps the worst decision made throughout the program, as we destroyed any concrete proof of the integrity of the sessions. Unfortunately, we did not recognize that fact until we had conducted well over half of the -sessions. The team members concluded that this individual was not very empathetic to the program and his active participation was considerably reduced. (4) (S-NF) Several of the participants expressed the feeling that they could not justify to themselves or their supervisors the time they spent on GRILL FLAME in lieu of other work. (5) (S-NF) One of the participants rightly informed his office where he would be; unfortunately, he did not tell them that he couldn't be disturbed. Consequently, the ensuing session turned into chaos as other people walked in and out to see the one participant, destroying the concentration of the remote viewer and reducing the effectiveness of the session as a whole. (6) (S-NF) The general attitude and well-being of all session participants impacts on the conduct and outcome of the sessions. Several participants have come into a session with the events of the morning, the events of the next day, personal problems, etc., being their primary concern. In most cases, this was a reasonable and natural preoccupation; however, there were a few cases in which the concerns totally overshadowed the intent of the session. The sessions conducted under those circumstances were not as "successful" from the participants points of view as other sessions conducted under more relaxed circumstances. The participants' reluctance to say they did not really feel up 40 ApproveCl For Release 2000/UB/Ul , M!"Pub-06 1=001 10 Approved For Release 2000/OQm1PPA11w-'P-DP96-OO788 ROO 1100080005-8 4WWW ~%V E'W ~ E to participating in a session was overcome as the sessions progressed; thus, sessions were postponed until everyone felt comfortable about participating. 9.2 (S-NF) Location (U). (S-NF) Sessions were held in any reasonable loca- tion available at the time: Bldg 392 Conference Room, Bldg 328 Conference Room, Bldg 390 Conference Room, Bldg 394 Conference Room, or any office available if all of the conference rooms were booked. The lack of a dedicated location presented several problems: (1) (S-NF) Even though office doors were closed and signs were posted on conference rooms that a meeting was in progress, interruptions still occurred. These interrup- tions broke the concentration of the remote viewer and interviewer and it was very difficult to resume a session after an interruption. Also, the fact that two people were occupying a. large conference room was questioned upon occasion; on one such occasion, the participants were asked to leave so a larger group of people could use the room. (2) (S-NF) Particularly in an office situation, telephones and conversations were very distracting. For instance, in one session, the remote viewer found it extremely difficult to concentrate on anything but the animated discussion going on outside of the office; 10 minutes of the session were thus unproductive until the discussion quieted down and the remote viewer could con- centrate on the session. (3) (S-NF) The room environment affected each of the remote viewers differently. For instance, S1 found one particular room to be quite distracting due to its cluttered nature and extreme brightness. S2 was not as affected by content of the room, but was more susceptible to room temperature. (S-NF) In November 1978, the location problem was solved with the hookup of the trailer located outside of Bldg 367. The trailer contains a large conference table and chairs as well as a comfortable couch and chair. Addi- tionally, it has its own heat and air conditioning system and no telephone. GRILL FLAME has first priority on use of the trailer; however, it is used as a conference room by other AMSAA personnel as needed and available. 41 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 9.3 (S-NF) Equipment (U). (S-NF) In order to start the sessions, a dictophone tape recorder was borrowed from one of the offices in AMSAA, as the unit ordered for this project had ndt yet come in. The borrowed unit broke dow 'n during one of the early sessions and had to be sent out for repairs. SRI lent us a Sony recorder to use until ours arrived, as we were having a difficult time finding another available recorder in AMSAA. Our dictaphone unit finally arrived in November 1978 and appears to be working very well. (S-NF) The original 60-minute cassette tapes available through the supply system presented no problem. Midway through our Phase I effort, the tapes began to be supplied by a second manufacturer. The quality of these tapes left much to be desired; we lost an entire session because the tape unwound all through the recorder. This malfunction was not noted by the participants until 10 minutes of the session had elapsed and, at that Point, nothing could be done to correct the problem. In order to make sure the problem was not with the recorder, we tested several more of those particular tapes along with privately purchased tapes; again, the problem occurred only with the one manufacturer's tapes. We thus special ordered some reputable 60-minute tapes and have had no recurrence of the problem. 9.4 (S-NF) Special Case (U). (S-NF) In one of the latter sessions, the beacon individual was several minutes late in arriving at the target location; he was unfamiliar with the location, had gotten lost and had to stop to get directions. Conse- quently, when the session started, he was still driving to the target location. The remote viewer perceived the area the beacon individual was driving by at that time and it was that area he described during the session. Unfortunately, it was not the target location. Thus, the remote viewer's descriptions in no way corresponded to the actual target location, although they corresponded very well to the 11passing" location of the beacon individual at the start of the session. Unfortunately, the evaluation procedure does not allow for this type of occurrence. After discussing this matter with SRI it was decided to eliminate this session from the principle concept evaluation procedure, described in Section 7.2, as it did not conform to the procedural requirements for an RV session. 42 Approved -F6-r-Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RD -00788R001 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/OP-4Mt,*QA-4R r)P96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 "W MW qfto 2 1W am a 10. (SECRET-NOFORN) LESSONS LEARNED (U) (S-NF) The RV process is very dynamic and personal in nature; however, the elements that comprise these facets of the process are not easily incorporated into a procedural protocol. When we first started this Phase I effort, we were not aware of the broad spectrun of influences, inter- actions or their impact on the process. Only through the experience of being part of the process, along with the interaction among the participants and between the par- ticipants and SRI, did we even begin to realize the dynamics of the process. This section attempts to describe the most significant realizations, our efforts to deal with them on a personal basis, and our efforts to incorporate them in our approach to the process. 10.1 (S-NF) Rise Time (U). (S-NF) Rise time is essentially the time between the final scheduling of an RV session with a remote viewer and the session; the remote viewer is told he will be participating in an RV session at a specific time in the near future, i.e., two days from now at 1300 hours. During this rise time, the remote viewer prepares himself for the session, knowing precisely that his time of "heightened awareness" for remote viewing will occur at the stated time on the scheduled day. Thus, it was found to be essential that the session start at the stated time. When a session was held on time, a remote viewer's "heightened awareness" tended to stay high for several minutes and then gradually started to taper off. However, if a session was delayed for whatever reason, the remote viewer's "hightened awareness" tended to drop dramatically after the scheduled time had passed, noticeably affecting the quantity and quality of the remote viewing perceptions. This rise time process was found to be equally applicable to the interviewer. (S-NF) Once having recognized the importance of rise time to the RV process, sessions were very carefully scheduled to meet the availability of the participants. Although the need never arose during the remaining sessions of this effort, all participants have agreed to cancel any session in which such a delay. occurs. The agreement continues at the time of this writing. 10.2 (S-NF) Quiet Time (U). (S-NF) Quiet time is the 15-minute period prior to the start of the session. During this period, the remote viewer and interviewer basically do what they feel is best 43 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000108107 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 for their individual relaxation, i.e. , they are generally silent; they may either sit and relax with their eyes closed, read a magazine, etc. (S-NF) The concept of quiet time.-has become part of our approved protocol for RV; however, it was not even a consideration when this effort was started. During the first few sessions, t~e remote viewer and interviewer usually conversed right up to the viewing period and, on several occasions, other people were also present in the room. It was only after S1 and S2 expressed their dissat- isfaction with this arrangement did we recognize the need for a quiet period without any observers. All subsequent sessions allowed for this quiet time for the remote viewer and interviewer and no longer allowed anyone else to be present in the room after the beacon individual(s) had departed. On those special sessions where the beacon indi- vidual was at a distant location or not even a necessary part of the session, the remote viewer and interviewer were the only participants. 10.3 (S-NF) Remote Viewer/Interviewer Interaction (U). (S-NF) The concept of the remote viewer and inter- viewer functioning as a team during an RV session has become an integral part of the RV process and protocols. While the initial RV teams were set up to hopefully reflect a certain degree of compatibility, the natural relationships that developed, and in a large part led to the formation of the core group, more clearly reflect the interpersonal and emotional undercurrents of the interaction between the remote viewer and interviewer that impact so significantly on the entire RV process. (1) (S-NF) First and foremost, the remote viewer and interviewer must respect and trust each other. While this does not mean they have to be the best of friends, it does mean they have to communicate with each other honestly and openly in order to establish the rapport that works best for them. (2) (S-NF) Both the remote viewer and interviewer have to have a positive outlook about RV and work together to maintain a success oriented rapport. (3) (S-NF) The interviewer must be sensitive to what the remote viewer says during a session and, more importantly, to what he says to the remote viewer. This is discussed in more detail in Section 10.4. 44 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 f C 1A.RDP96--OD788 ROO 1 1DOUND05-8 Approved For Release 2000/ .2nP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 1 (4) (S-NF) The interviewer has to allow each remote viewer to develop his own style of remote viewing, e.g., keeping his eyes closed, turning out the lights, etc. Basically, the interviewer has to be flexible in order to insure the remote viewer is as comfortable An a session as is possible. 10.4 (S-NF) Specifically Dur Remote'-Viewer/Interviewer Interaction (S-NF) As noted above, the interviewer must be sensitive to what he says to the remote viewer and to what the remote viewer says during a session. We have found the following to be helpful in this regards with our core group of four: (1) (S-NF) The vocabulary of the interviewer should not include negative words or words which cue or lead the remote viewer or reinforce his specific, seemingly analytical, statements. For example, the interviewer should not mention words like "failure," 11miss," "experiment," etc. (2) (S-NF) The interviewer should provide guid- ance to the remote viewer in the form of suggestions or directions rather than asking questions, although there are times where questions cannot be avoided. The suggestion approach has two very positive benefits. First, implicit in the suggestion is the knowledge that the remote viewer is capable of doing what is suggested by the interviewer. For instance, the suggestion "approach the structure and tell me about it" is a much more positive and reassuring approach than the question "why don't you approach the structure and tell me if you see anything?" By the more positive approach, the interviewer is letting the remote viewer know he has confidence in his ability and the remote viewer responds accordingly. Secondly, questions apparently force the remote viewer to have to consciously decide if he wants to answer the question at all and, if he agrees to answer, he then has to provide himself with the reassurance to do what the interviewer has requested. In the case where questions cannot be avoided, either due to the nature of the .interactive conversation or because the interviewr can't verbalize what he wants to say any other way, they should be phrased very carefully to avoid forcing the remote viewer to become less descriptive and more analytical or feel as if he is obligated to answer and thus possibly loose some additional remote viewing perceptions. (3) (S-NF) The interviewer has to learn to react to each remote viewer individually. For instance, the 45 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2009QW7,; Lik--RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 interviewer learns through the remote viewer's tone of voice, facial expression, etc., whether he has confusing or contradictory imagery or whether he is not perceiving any imagery at all. What the interviewer says at this time, or if he even says anything at all, depends on.his knowing the remote viewer's reaction patterns. This is something the interviewer learns only *through experience and is different for each interviewer/remote viewer team. This type of recognition also occurs on the part of the remote viewer; for instance, the remote viewer can tell if the interviewer is hesitant about suggesting a new approach and may even request that the interviewer do so. In our experience in Phase I, the interplay described here was developing between IB4 and Sl and IB4 and S2. The latter sessions of Phase I reflect this development. (4) (S-NF) The interviewer has to learn to keep quiet! While this was alluded to above, it is important enough to be mentioned again here. Too much direction by the interviewer may break or reduce the viewer's concen- tration or cause him to be too analytical. 10.5 (S-NF) Tape Recording (U). (S-NF) As noted in the procedure for an RV ses- sion, the entire viewing period and subsequent conversation while drawing by the remote viewer is tape recorded. Actu- ally, during the initial sessions of Phase I, only the remote viewing segment was taped; the recorder was turned off when the remote viewer was drawing, having completed the vebalization of his perceptions. Over time, we realized that the remote viewer often mentioned new perceptins while he was drawing and also tended to more fully describe the spatial relationships of his perceptions as he drew. Thus, the original taping procedure was modified to taping what truly comprises the RV session: the verbalization period and the drawing period. (S-NF) A critical lesson learned in regard to tape recording the sessions concerns the tapes themselves. As mentioned in the section on problems encountered during this effort, the participants originally agreed to destroy the session tapes after they were transcribed. It was, at best, a bad decision, as we managed to thus destroy any concrete proof of our efforts and, essentially, our integrity as participants in this process. The situation was eventually corrected and will never occur again; unfortunately, we can never recover the 15 sessions taped and destroyed prior to that recognition. 46 Approved For Release 2000/08/07: IMMM-00788RO01 TGOD8005-B Approved For Release 2000/A8&i ~'tA-11DP96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 4a IFW %AO 10.6 (S-NF) Role of the Beacon Individual (S-NF). (S-NF) While a lot of attention has been paid to the functions, attitudes and interactions of the remote viewer and interviewer, very little attention,.. has been paid to the influence of the beacon individual on the RV process. just as the timing of the, beacon individual is important to the RV session, so are his attitudes towards and active interaction with the process. (1) (S-NF) Especially for introductory sessions, we have found that the beacon individual has to have a positive rapport with the remote viewer and interviewer. The remote viewer and interviewer depend on the beacon individual to arrive at the target site on time and interact with the target as prescribed. Thus, a positive rapport between all of the participants reassures the remote viewer and interviewer that the beacon individual will accomplish his mission and, at the same time, the beacon individual knows he is playing an important part in the RV process, not just wasting his time driving and standing around at a site. (2) (S-NF) While we don't necessarily understand the reasons why, we have some interesting thoughts on the activity of the beacon individual at the site during the 15-minute viewing period. In several instances, the beacon individual consciously tried to "send" information to the remote viewer. Our experience has shown this technicque to be totally unsuccessfuf. Rather, the remote viewer tended to perceive the more natural actions of the beacon individ- ual, such as the beacon individual fiddling with the camera, waving to someone he knew, or concentrating on an object at the site of personal interest which was not really a perma- nent part of the site. (3) (S-NF) The attitude of the beacon individual during the post-session feedback analysis phase is very important. We had several instances in which the beacon individual was more concerned with the guidance not given by the interviewer and/or the perceptions not related by the remote viewer rather than the information that was obtained during the session. This type of attitude does nothing to encourage the remote viewer or interviewer. It does, however, reinforce our thoughts on the importance of the beacon individual, particularly during the learning phases of remote viewing. 47 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000LQWL6C.14 PDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 10.7 (S-NF) Evaluation Process (U). (S-NF) The evaluation process is truly an art. However, in order to recognize the fullest potential of the process, the evaluators must be aware of the, complexities, peculiarities and interactions of the total I~V process, some of which were related in Section 7 of this report. This awareness develops from 'reading available literature and established protocols, interacting with remote viewers and interviewers in order to understand their perspectives and feelings, and actually doing evaluations of RV sessions. Knowledgeable, experienced evaluators are critical to the potential of the RV process. (S-NF) The three AMSAA evaluators who participated in the Phase I rank-ordering evaluation process were pro- vided a copy of the SRI protocol, a one page instruction sheet which detailed the evaluation procedure, and the target/transcript packages. They had no interaction with the remote viewers, interviewers or beacon individuals. Basically, they had practically no exposure to the RV process at all. Under those circumstances, their results were quite remarkable. (S-NF) Having recognized the criticality of the evaluation process and particularly the need to have knowledgeable, experienced evaluators, five interested AMSAA analysts were asked if they would like to participate in GRILL FLAME to form a pool of evaluators. All accepted the offer and are now in the early stage of familiarizing themselves with the RV process. It is hoped that they will not only bring a sense of understanding to the evaluation process currently used, but that they will also provide new insights and ideas that can be used to formulate less frustrating and more effective and efficient evaluation methodologies. 48 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000ft2&fij&.J1DP96-OO788 ROO 1100080005-8 #Ar am Ifto 11. (SECRET-NOFORN) SUMMARY (U) (S-NF) AMSAA's Phase I GRILL FLAME efforts were undertaken to replicate the SRI RV protocol and to gain in-house experience in RV. /Our replication of the protocol did not result in statistical significan6e, but, more importantly, it did result in a significant amount of learning on the part of all of the participants as well as a recognition of the criticality of the evaluation process. Additionally, we learned a great deal about ourselves,~ (S-NF) This learning should not be construed to include an explanation of how the RV process works or an assessment of its utility. Rather, this learning phase fostered among all of the participants a sense of the potential of the phenomena and, most of allf an appreciation ot that which remains to--Fe learned. 49 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 A--RnR9 Approved For Release UNWAOFIED 6-00788R001 100080005-8 -50 UNCLASSIFIED -- mmmm~ -- ---MOO/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1100080005-8 Approved For Release Approved For Release 20qOUU7v*f§l&WP96-OO788 ROO 1100080005-8 ftfm='%0m'%&w 0 APPENDIX A (SECRET-NOFORN) GRILL FLAME PROJECT DESIGNATION TWX (U) CLASSIFIED BY: MSG, HQDA (DAMI-ISH), dated 7 Jul 78 REVIEW ON: .599 51 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2 n7. 00788RO01 100080005-8 UREA99114M 52 UNCLASSIFIED - - -2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For ReFease NOW &a3 ApprMcl For Rel6%e 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 RTTc--YUW RUEADWO2240 1861806-SSS5--RULNAPG# ZNY SCISS5 R.CI51630Z-JUL 75 F'~,A TO. RUE~K~JCS/D,:A- Vi_ASH0C//0T//,.. RUKLOAR/CDRDARC'OM':ALEXANDRIA~iVA//DRr.DE~4,-' RULNAPG/r.DFAM,qA APG MD//DRC5Y_1r~ - ARSENAL AL//-DRDMI-YE-/Y S-m C R I ~. . - . ET NOFORN SUP, JFCT _-P 1c"-UANCc' OF UN[CLASr-~_T;7TF:Q NICKNAME-___-Q-P1L[., ELAME (U .F.CENTLY INCREASED-' . _E:_tL INTEREST-IN,'MILITARY 7S/NOFQRN).. R HIGH,L V PAR APSY CHO LOGY/REMOTE 'VIEWING- (PY/RV)j 'AL0N(5-.'W ITH... INHERENT"" SENSI- TIVITIESP NOW'WARRANT USE'OF--AN UNCLASSIFIED NTCKNAME-0 THE: UNCLASSI,-m FIED NICKNAME-GRILL FLAME.WILL REPLACE ANY OPEN REFERENCE TO.US ARMY INVOLVEMENT.-IN __ 'PY/RV RESEARCHF ~:XPERIMENTSF-AP%ICATIONP ETC,-THE -FACT 'OF US-ARYY-INTEREST,--OR-WORK-IN'PY/RVr IS CLASS-IFIED,SECRET."' N(DFORNN' "FROM THE US-ARMY,.STANDPOINTP''A-STR.'I.CT NEr-,D.~;T-0~-KNMW CAVEAT IS~N OW OPERATIVE' IN ANY SITUATIONINVOLVINS PY/RV* ~-XGDS~-2p 31 DEC 2,008 ST - #2240 0 42040C12 0258 BIB6 2158Z -4 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 r%0 Approved For Release 2ffifeEXISCZAI-MV-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 54 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/0 : RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2UNWA9 1,&-fjQ-QQ 00788ROO1100080005-8 m 11M APPENDIX B SRI PROTOCOL 55 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For ReleaY.AUX9t Mff 96-00788RO01 1 .00080005-8 IREV 56 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release MUUMUU i : Mr-Org M-788RO01 1 uuu-B-uUU5-5 - - - Approved For Release 2"/p lAqFT96-00788RO01 100080005-8- githl, rac-rd to replication O:f our stz=da--d -otm viavi:mg protocoLs, tha basic autli=e is as #va= Lmm our tutor--lal paper, "A Per--aptual Cha=al != Tx.:-or--acion Tramsfar over Kilcmet= Distances- F-Ls=orical ?arz!mect:'-ve and Recent Research," H. and '.L. m=z, ?--oc. 7p. 3Z9-354, ?Arch 1976 (4 copims emclosed). The e-'=E=::s of C~le protocol, mac-t, of address below c=sizz a! (a) =3et pool C 57 SRI UN Ravenswood Ave. - Menlo Park, Call1amia Q-4025 * (4 1 5) 225-3200 - Cable: S7, ANAFES, Menlo Park - 7N X Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 ?age Z :Feb44WdVOdLM Release 20 §'AfT~6-00788ROO`l 100080005-8 TIM I L selection; (b) subject oriantaciom; (c) out!:c=d artzeri=enter behavior; (d) inbound ax-pari--entar behav-.'"or; (a) post- a-xmeri--ent feedback; (4-!) judgi--z Procedure. (a) 7ar3et ?ool Selection: To caxr7 out an exmeri;oanta! se-ries o!, say, m expez-4--ants vi-I-EE a subject, a list oi outdoor targets >> = should be prapared i= advance by an experi:mamter who will mac i=taract with the subject or exper--'-e--t after tLat. The targets should be chosen to be disti=zival but not mecassa=ily diszi=t `--m each other; chat is, rather than a collec. or =Ondescript scr-eec Co.--e=s one should select bridges, t=wexrs, fcu--ta:L-.s, Sm.-da=, plm--as, so tHac a judge could I= principle recovize targets on the basis of correc"ZI buc sketchy dascripcic=. 0-a the othe-- hand once having chose= a -;:ountaim-ty?e target, there should be seve-ral fountai= tar3ats; 'For a b-Z.-Idge target, several bridge targets, atm., so that ycru avoid the subject stratagy of "T. had a tower yesterday, so it ca='-- be a tCwa-- today." 1= fact, the subject should be told explicitly chat the targets &--a =cc chosen to be orthoScra.1 cc each other. W"han the target list is =de, each tar-et location should be written an a card and ;Iacad in an envelove, the e=velaDes randomized then =L=barad so as to lose all crack ~f a kzy. Mes'e should then be stcZed in a sac-=e sa.-a or si--flar cou=ai=a--. WLth regard to -w-hether a target is replaced in tale pool aZ-=mx- use, there are tv-o ---avs to go. The preferable one is to not replace i=, but kaeD Mal -rakae-a= statistics by hav--;-g a vez-, large pool W41-h several sl--"az ta--Ze=s, or else rev -6 lAci=g a used -Iouncai= :arse= .tth another fountain target. The probl= with St-24&hC rapl&C_e=t is that the subject would, upon beccmi=z aware or a =a-"=a! 4--ge of a previous target, be biased cc reject it as ==or7. n1m=a-fora), eve= though straight replac=emc =akes some psyc'nologiscs happy, it is ac-.-"Ily an artillact-uroduci=g procedure. (b) Subject C--i&=tx=izm: Before the the subjecc- should be shc,.-.m sc=a previous r-cce viewing results with ace goal :L= -4-c4--to Sac across the idem that one should, as besc as vcssiblal revar- raw perception rather than analysis, si=mca the t-As to be correct and & latter is al=ost alm-mys vrons. M-guras 4 and 6 i= the ZZWE paper are good e==Ias. T-u Figure 4 the subject had absolutely mo cc=ezt 0! a pedestrian 'overpass,, bur. si=ply saw a patta= c-61 recedi--& Squares; the target in T-1fat:re 6 with passable dravings vas interpreted as a restar--ant.; even the correctly d-azisionad pools c:f water !.~ Fi&%=e 3 were misi--tar-prated as puri"fmation plant pools rather t-ha:m .e=a&r-:La=zI av4--f- pools. J.. Raadi--g o' our book !Ai=d Reach (7&--g and .mtho.", Delacorta, Press, 1977) provides a good background, as va go =to this aspec 4ch =c=a detail t!:az we could afford 4- - our ~chz-fcxl pape--z. =iay need to "get it" that a rou=dad piace of blue 58 U NULAY~ I ~ REV Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Page 3 Febri.%ar-y 17 1 78 Appr ~or Releaseu"ft!Aoj"~ Ifik,50)P96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 =etal is Just thazy and they shouldn'z =7 to figure cut whether I: is a car -Eander be!'ore they say a=yth4mg. R-4-nd the subject that tion ccnstitutzs noise in the caazmei, and therelore the closer he can get to raw uninterprecad Iz-gery, the better. To have success in the above, the best guideline we have found Is to choose as subjects Individuals w-ho are sel-4-con---idant, not afraid to be wrong, uni--hibi:ed, ychological tast we have C=iad (and we have"t-4ad th- all) etr-. No ps- is as successful as the above subjective assassmem= whan I= C==es to choosing subjects. Artist t7pah used to unevaluacad observacio= are a=cng tie =ost successful. (c). Outbound Sxzmari=enter Behavior: At the start of an experi=en:al session, At.he inbound and outbound ex=er4_-e=tars and subJec: should randevous '62o= a re-la.-ced ch_at in the laboratory sect_,"S. (The outbound mxzeri_-e=c&r a= em-per4-antars =ust not k--ow -the ta=3e= this ti;--e. Together they agree on a tq~,e for the subject description to start. 30 minutes hence--the length af ti=e required for get=_4-9 to the f,.=thcst target In the Dcal. -his t--1-e is then am i=va_-ia=c for all e_-cze=4_-e=zz. ) The oucbcuzd ax;eri=,&=ca= the= leaves the lab., usas a razd= ==ber &end=-at4_=,S procedure to abca-4- a ==bar fr= I - . .. (nL=ber Of targets I= pool), obes,4=5 the sc-mi=bared anvelove f--om the tax-Sat pool (pre,6E&rzb1:y kent by another person) and leaves the p=a=isas. (We use a Texas Z=strt=ants SR-31 hand calc-latcr V=ctiom.) After dr-* i=g awmay from che mich has a rand= m=ber I _v laboratory, 'Ma oioe=s the ezvelove to detar-_ina the ta-Zat, and proceeds A to thac location. I suggest he arrange to park- and then c=e wzcm cta tzz3at location at e---ac=ly the starting C'"m so his view of it is .9-ash at experi=em: beg-;-4-mg. He the-- si=-ply pays attention to ::!:,a e_-v7iz--mm= and does mcc !at his -4-d wander (especially to another target). :t appears =cc to =Zttar how =arzy people c=p=-.iJe the outbound caar., provided they do='= (1) just pay a-6=a==_4C= to -ch other or (2) scattar about. A= the and of the ag=mad-upoz tarSez vieving -.!=a zhey retur-_ to the lab (usually 1.5 =i=%-.zes). W inbound Zxme_-i=emtar Behavio-.- Du=i:m-- the -aevio(! chat the CUtbol---d axperi=e=Zars are an-routa to the tax3mcl, the Inbound, expe_-i=e==_mr and subject have a period to relax and discuss the protocols. (!--bound it is best not to have aciditio=1 observers.) The gc4LI a! the izbc=d expo-tri=ancer during this period is to =ka it "safe" for the subject to experience r=ote viavi=&. Th4_3 typically includes a lcw-key pat talk as to how re-ota vism-ri--g azoe,=s to be a =t=al, =cc abmcr=_&l, 1=ction, that =nY pecl:la appeai' to have done it succmss:~ully, even their firist tl=.ey and ilway; the -r=iader to asr-1new analysis and si=pI7 render rz-.: -1-pressions. Si=e we think that ca viewing is a dif--Oi-cult task, like pexceivi--g a subli-4-1 sti=mlus, we think I= zakes the full acte=zive pctmrs of the subject. Max-m-4mrs, the a=7-_1-o=emc, procedures, cc=., should be as L 59 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Ok! f. FA 0 -00080005-8 ~kD~pA P788ft .11 ..,4 MatuAM att QCgqJqJ M s a so I_ at as c~ an as possible is an arlythiz- other than the jol, at u nd. No hypnosis, strobe lights, or seas cry-dapriva tion Procedures, all these (move!) e=virc=enta! factors ta~a avay sc=e of the subject's =uccl--meeded ac~_*antiarz. We are in this se=se proponents of a "raturalist school. " IS the subiect !_-els =are cc=fortable s=ck:L-.g or drlink4mg a cup of coffee, why =at? Misse should be arranged ahead of ti;ce, %awever, so that =either subiect mor axzeri~centar leave the e_x-oer!=ental r0= while waitiz_& for the outbouad experi=eatar to reach his taz3at. T 1.he e_-cceri=entar should have arranged aheac! of t~_-s to have oen and paper available for d=avi=g, and- a Cape recorder. 'When the ~grzaed_ upon experi.-_e=tal t-1-s arrives, the ?-=bound s_xx?ert.-_entar asks the subject to "desc=ibe -wiiac c=e to mi=d with regard cc where the oucbcu.-d e_xper-_F=entar is." most subjects e-6 to close pr - ax thei= eyes, but they should si=ply do what cc=es =aturally. -,%.a roo= lighting is preferably subdued to prevent a_fta_r-i=&e highl-Igh=s: shadows an eyelidsl etc. It is best that the 4--b-cund exme_-i=e=ca= =cc push the subject to say a lot, but act as i-' they have ail t:he t4--2 iz the world; otherwise, a subject =ay tend to -braider descripcicns just to be saying scmethi=& to please the Axperi=e=car. if the su~bjec-_ tands tawards being analytical ("I see Macy's an El Ca-4no Real"), the expe-ri=entarr --ust gamtly lead the subject into description, -act _q-F-A llys is. ("You don't have to call =a vhe-- 'a it is, just describe what you ses.") This is the =cst i=portamt and dii-f-fi--41t task of the inbound ex-jax-~==tar. it is also use!ul for t!ae inbound expe='~-eatar to "surprise" the subiac= -writh mew viewpoints. ("Co above the scame. and look do yro~ see? If you look to the left, what do you see?) For sc--a reascm, the subject's viau-poi= aTzem s to shi-4-- rapidly wi--!% a question ii". this.? and the da= szeaks ML-ough before the subject's de_`-_=sas activate to black it cut. Mie shif t 4 --.-,of viev-poi-_r also obviates :he problp-_ a! -he subject spending the a=t*_;-a ti=e F1 =eticulous; detail on a single blade a! grass or piece of concrete, which, even L`f true, will be of no help to a judge. O=za a subject 41sels he sees scmeth_-..g, he tends to hand cm Cc this parception rathax- than cc="t to a mew viswocimz =%a subject =ust be encouraged tz sketch -.mat he seas, even over 'his objectic- that he is not an artist, e-Illn': sketch, atz. Be =ay do so thr;ughcut, or wait until :hq last tive :minutes Ue i=te=.ittant drawt=g wculd d4s=act his c=mcz==&ti= Since d=zvim;s ts=dd to be =ore acz%=at; Ph- varballzatiamms,, this is a= axtr=ely ~4-porrazt fac=zr far good results. ,t) Post _ZxzeLr!=e=t Feedback: Mhen the outbound experi=eater % inbound and outbound axpe_ri=e=tz-_s and subject should proceed tctl7 PC the ta--Zst for fatedback. 711h1s helps to develop the =bject's C r0 0 UPTLASSW F1 ED Approved For Release 200-0/0-8/07 :_ClA-RDP9"- 0788RO01 1 00080-G05-8 ZeDrUZZ7 J4.1, IV/0 Cir-M Approved For Release 2"As glAk-IUW96-00788 ROO 1100080005-8 subjective sense of what in- his czental 4-g1_=S is correct versus - ectl nc or- and co=viecas that axperi=ant for hi-_ so that --hen he does a follcwi:-_g e=zer!_-_ent71 his =ind is =cc sti-7-1 on wondering how he did on, the previous ona. C-aly a very experl-anced subject can 46or, well ti:--e after tee^ without -feedback.4 so this =ust be done to 4=s%=e success. (ZO) judging ?rocedura: in a sanse.1 all the action in the r=ace viewi=g procedure is in the judzi=g. Azy single e_XDer=ent i= r-ota -e. eving, even i! per-fact, can in principle be di=issed as possibly co4--cide=C2. Further, any result less than perfac: cz= be dis=_Issad as a gemeralizzad "grass is Sree-_, sky is blue" txa=scrimt which -4-4-ts ever7 target. C-..Iy bl_4;.=d di!_4'ars=tial discr4-i-tion across a series of targets cam put both of these al:az=a:Jvas --o rest. Ma Judsqlmmg procedures areas follows. Fixst, am, ax-zar1=emtar =cc i=volved :L= judgi=g =usz read the trz=crivts and delete _1_= th- any re;ference to dates or previous targetsl so thac a judge could Mac order- the t=a=.sc:=ipcs chronologically, or dete---Ine that a S4-ve= transcript can't be the boathouse because the subiect mem"ons im the transc=i;t that what he is looking at re=inds hi_-'af the c6)o-`-achc%_,se which was the previous day's target. With these deletions, the -=ansc=4-pc3 with thaix associated are labeled im. rard= order and given to the judge i= one hand, so to speak, vm ile a 16 1 s t c f c h a target cards, also in a ==bered =a_-dom order is given to the judge in the other hand. His job, then, it to so to a =a=gat location (physically), read th--ough all the t=a-c=4ptz, and order th- best to worst =atch (I through 67 say, Uf ther; axe six targe=s amxi six transcripts). He then proceeds to a second :arzvec s4ta and reorders the sac^ sat of tra-c=#cs again, best t_h-ougn wor;t =tc- and so !o=th. M%a judge is to do this exercise i_- a =ep1ac-z-_t` 3e-a-; that is, even though he =y have assig=ad a given transcript as best =t=h to a Sivem target, he,=y !i=d at a=othexr targaz thac it is the best =tch to that one also. Even though hei knaws logically that it couldn't so to bath, we f:imd that judges in fact have no hesitation i= using a =r:z=sc=#c =ice in fiz-st place$ si=ply because they aren't 9=a as to which cza it does izz _4act belong, and they (24 not Mj53j_ il 4 Zy to i==s the best possib - 4. ng a potaM=:Lal =tCh. Based on this wa feel it is more appropriate to use statistics based on raplac-emz. Some argue with this,, !Q if one thi=ks it is =ra cor--act than one can use statistics 0:! =acchins without replac==t. A stz==7 ot bach approaches wiLth the appropriate tables is attached in the foz c! the ~i=ached ne"o. 61 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 20 TTWA S1~jFPP~3-00788RO01 100080005-8 ..?age 6 February, 17, 1978 1 believe the above s,-mry covers evexything. you or yo= colleagues involved in setting up and car--7ing out an experi=ant have any .4%,--ther questions, pleAse do not hesitate to c=mtact =e !or ;~=ther infor--ation. My telapfiome m"--Iber is (413) 3Z6-6200, Mxt. =02. oood luck-! With, best regards, ?h.B. Se=4-cr Research Radio Ph7sizs Labcrat=7 a=-2:dlt Inc. 62 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Kelease ZUUUAYBM7 : M-RDP96-0 7=001 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2 n7 , §tjPPqE2'1c 00788R001 100080005-8 bOfqdA 0 APPENDIX C (UNCLASSIFIED) EDITED TRANSCRIPTS AND TARGETS PACKAGE 63 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 UNCLASSIFIED 64 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For elease 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2OoU/;W&A8&[fkPP-00788RO01 100080005-8 75 65 UNCLAssIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005. V) 14) I Approved For Release 20u"4 So)' ~t-096-00788 ROO 11000.80005-8 - -- 0~.~ 2~i~ AP6-1 V w 66 UNCLASSIFIR Approvea For R-elei-ase 2000/08/07, IT-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 2CWAGJOA,%,W46&6-OO788 ROO 1 100080005-A ro 7 -UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 Approved For Release 20*O%-A09iftP9-00788RO01 100080005-8 6 UNCOSSIA proved For Release 2000108/07 : CIA-R Approved For Release QW0 E%PW-00-788ROD1 100080005-8 PA V '01 r0 9 UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788RO01 100080005-8 . Approved For Release 206Mh-A:S&W&66-00788RO01 100080005-8