TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 7, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 1, 1982
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA- R001300320001-3
SG1J
Final Report
TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK (U)
By: HAROLD E. PUTHOFF RUSSELL TARG
BEVERLY S. HUMPHREY KEITH HARARY
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
May 1982
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR GRILL FLAME.
RESTRICT DISSEMINATION TO ONLY INDIVIDUALS WITH VERIFIED ACCESS.
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, California 94025 U.S.A.
[phone]
Cable: SRI INTL MPK
TWX: 910-373-2046
looved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA- 8R001300320001-3
 d For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-R 01300320001-3
TARGETING REQUIREMENTS TASK (U)
By: HAROLD E. PUTHOFF RUSSELL TARG
BEVERLY S. HUMPHREY KEITH HARARY
Covering the Period October 1980 to October 1981
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
Attention: SG1J
DT-1A
SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM FOR GRILL FLAME.
RESTRICT DISSEMINATION TO ONLY INDIVIDUALS WITH VERIFIED ACCESS.
ROBERT S. LEONARD, Director
Radio Physics Laboratory
DAVID D. ELLIOTT, Vice President
Research and Analysis Division
CLASSIFIED BY: DT-1A
REVIEW ON: 31 May 2002
Copy No... .. ....... .
This document consists of 28 pages.
SRI/GF-0030
dw re A^ 1% 1" ~
-Wom %o 0% 16 1
NOT RELEASABLE TO
FOREIGN NATIONALS
333 Ravenswood Avenue ? Menlo Park, California 94025 ? U.S.A.
[phone] ? Cable: SRI INTL MPK ? TWX: 910-373-2046
pproved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
ftr 100 'UP Ulm
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III PROTOCOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. General Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Viewer Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions. . . . 5
D. Transcript Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
IV RESULTS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Trial Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Data Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Overall Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1, Evidence for Remote Viewing. . . . . . . . . 15
2. Distribution of Results across Targeting Modes . . 15
3. Effects of Mid-Session Feedback. . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
cCr~nCT
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/ Affiff -00788 R001300320001-3
1
Distribution of Trials in Targeting Study. . . . . . . . . .
5
2
0-to-7 Point Evaluation Scale for Target/Transcript
Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
3
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 557 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
4
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 753 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
5
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
6
Summary of RV Data for Viewer 8
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
7
All Data from 48 RV Trials, wit
Mean Values for Each
Viewer and Each Session Categor
. . . . . . . . . . . .
13
8
Summary of Coordinate RV Trials'
with Mid-Session Feedback. .
14
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08 0 P96-007888001300320001-3
60 go %W MEN a
In this report we present the results of a four-month investigation,
carried out by SRI International, to determine the relative effectiveness
of various targeting procedures in use in remote viewing (RV). Three such
procedures were investigated:
(1) Beacon targeting, in which the viewer has had some
personal contact with, or is given the photograph of,
an individual at the target site.
(2) Coordinate targeting, in which the viewer is given the
geographical coordinates of the target site.
(3) Abstract targeting, in which the viewer is only told
that there is a target site to be described.
In our experiments with four remote viewers, three of whom performed
reliably in the RV task (RV of San Francisco Bay Area sites), we did not
find any overall significant differences in the efficacy of three targeting
modes, subject to some variation because of individual preferences. In-
stead, reliable RV functioning with results of comparable accuracy was
obtained with all three techniques.
As an additional task, we investigated the usefulness of giving the
viewer limited mid-session feedback as to the general nature of the target
site. We found that this procedure did not result in increased accuracy
of description.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000196-00788ROO1300320001-3
The objective of the "Targeting Requirements Task" was to determine
the relative effectiveness of various targeting procedures for use in
remote viewing (RV). If differences in relative effectiveness were found,
SRI International was also to determine whether such differences depend
on the characteristics of individual remote viewers or are widespread in
nature.
1
00 Wn
fto an
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/0
P96-00788R001300320001-3
ic"W
In both SRI and client studies in RV over the past decade, several
methods have been used to target the remote viewer on the site. Much of
the early work used a person located at the target site as a target for
the remote viewer. 1-3* We refer to this as Beacon RV, because in some
sense the individual at the site can be said to act as a "homing" beacon.
A second technique, which has often been used in operational RV, and around
which a training program is being developed,4 is Coordinate RV. In this
procedure, the target site coordinates (latitude and longitude in degrees,
minutes, and seconds) are given (with no further information) to the remote
viewer who is to view the site. A third technique, which has been used
occasionally with good success both in laboratory work and in operational
viewing, we call Abstract RV. In this approach, the remote viewer is
simply told that there is a target site to be described; no further infor-
mation is given.
These three techniques, with variations, have been used success-
fully, at SRI, in the client community, and elsewhere. However, no
This study compares the results of the use of the targeting techniques
as described above under otherwise uniform RV conditions. The results are
examined to determine whether significant quantitative differences exist
as far as the quality of the RV product is concerned. These three
References 1?For example, i are in listed Beacon at RV, the the end of remote the viewer report.
may be introduced to the
outbound person who is to act as a beacon, or simply be shown his
photograph.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/082j;.~' P96-00788R001300320001-3
representative techniques were chosen for this study because they span
the range, from the concrete to the abstract, of the targeting techniques
typically required in operational tasks.
Specifically, the targeting mode is varied over the three techniques.
These techniques are designated here as Techniques A, B, and C (for Abstract,
Beacon, and Coordinate, respectively). A variation of Technique C,
designated C', is also incorporated into the study to examine whether
modest feedback given to the viewer at mid-session about the general
nature of the site increases accuracy in the remainder of the session.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08/ P96-00788 R001300320001-3
A. General Protocol
The general protocol for the study is to closet a remote viewer with
an experimenter at SRI, and, at a prearranged time, have the viewer describe
an undisclosed remote site using the required targeting technique. The
target site, one of sixty located in the San Francisco Bay Area within a
30-min driving radius of SRI, is selected by random number access to a
target pool by a second experimenter in charge of overall protocol. For
each viewer, target sites are used without replacement as the series
progresses, so that no individual viewer has the same site twice. In all
cases, the interviewer is blind to the target so that he is free to question
the remote viewer to clarify his descriptions without fear of leading.
During the prearranged viewing period lasting 15-min, the viewer
makes drawings of and records on tape his impressions of the target site.
At the end of this viewing period, the interviewer collects the data for
the file, finds out from the protocol experimenter what the target site
was, and then takes the viewer to the site for feedback.
B. Viewer Selection
To evaluate fairly the effects of varying the target conditions, we
chose to carry out the study with four relatively inexperienced SRI viewers,
as opposed to the more experienced viewers who exhibit strong preferences
for certain targeting techniques.
r% 1" 4r
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/0 P96-00788RO01300320001-3
C. Distribution of Trials Across Session Conditions
Each of the four remote viewers chosen was asked to contribute twelve
trials apiece, three trials each for each of the four techniques, A, B,
C. and C'. This method provides a total of 48 trials, 12 in each of the
four categories, distributed as shown in Table 1 below. Each of the
viewers used the four techniques in a balanced, random intermixed order
(e.g., BACC'ACB ...) as is usual in psychological studies with several
stimulus categories.
DISTRIBUTION OF TRIALS IN TARGETING STUDY
Category
Viewer
A
B
C
C'
557
3
3
3
3
753
3
' 3
3
3
807
3
3
3
3
688
3
3
3
3
The protocol experimenter tells the interviewer at the beginning of
the session which technique is to be used. For Technique A, the interviewer
simply informs the viewer that there is a target site to be described; no
further information is given.
For Technique B, the viewer is either introduced in person to the
outwardbound experimenter who will act as a beacon (Beacon Trial One),
or is simply shown a photograph of an otherwise unknown outwardbound
experimenter (Beacon Trials Two and Three). The reason for this inter-
trial variation is to obtain additional information about the amount of
r% go or
Elk Min 0
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08 P96-00788R001300320001-3
For Technique C and C', the viewer is read the coordinates (in
degrees, minutes, and seconds) for the site. For Technique C', the
interviewer obtains from the protocol experimenter before session start
an envelope containing general information about the site (e.g., "target
site is a building exterior," "target site is an open outdoor area," and
so forth.) In mid-session, after the viewer has described the site to
the best of his ability, the interviewer opens the feedback envelope and
gives this additional information to determine whether it stimulates
increased accuracy and detail in the viewer's subsequent images of the
site.
D. Transcript Evaluation
In early programs, transcript analysis was carried out exclusively
on the basis of blind judging (matching) of transcripts to target sites.l'2
This technique, although excellent with regard to demonstrating the
presence or absence of a viable RV function, did not provide a uniform
measure from transcript to transcript of the quality of RV functioning.
In the previous program, SRI, in cooperation with the client, developed
a 0-to-7 point rating scale to be applied "nonblind", post hoc to the
evaluation of transcripts.3 For no correspondence between transcript and
target site, a 0 is assigned; for excellent correspondence a 7; and for
intermediate correspondence an intermediate rating. The precise criteria
for each rating is shown below in Table 2. A comparison (in the previous
program) of the ratings produced with this approach against the ratings
produced by the blind-judging approach for a 36-trial series showed sta-
tistically significant positive correlation between the two techniques.
Furthermore, application of the 0-to-7 point scale to randomly matched
transcripts and targets from that study yielded chance results. These
two findings taken together establish that application of the 0-to-7
point scale provides a reliable, objective measure of RV quality. This
R Er
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/0&9.7,4 I P96-00788R001300320001-3
O-TO-7 POINT EVALUATION SCALE FOR TARGET/TRANSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCE
Point
, Value Assigned to the Point
7
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail
(e.g., naming the site by name), and with essentially no
incorrect information.
6
Good correspondence with good analytical information (e.g.,
naming the function) and relatively little incorrect
information.
5
Good correspondence with unambiguous unique matchable elements,
but some incorrect information.
4
Good correspondence with several matchable elements intermixed
with incorrect information.
3
Mixture of correct and incorrect elements, but enough of the
former to indicate viewer has made contact with the site.
2
Some correct elements, but not sufficient to suggest results
beyond chance expectation.
1
Little correspondence.
0
No correspondence.
method was, therefore, chosen for evaluation of the transcripts for this
targeting study.
r% ro Mir
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/0 P96-00788R001300320001-3
A. Trial Collection
In accord with the protocols outlined in Section III, a total of 48
trials were carried out, 12 with each of four remote viewers. As summarized
in Table 1, each viewer contributed three trials for each of the four
techniques.
Data summaries for each of the four remote viewers are tabulated in
Tables 3 through 6, and a collective summary is provided in Table.7.
Listed in the individual viewer Tables 3 through 6 are the trial numbers
(1 through 12) and associated sites, targeting techniques and O-to-7 point-
scale accuracy ratings. (Two columns appear in the accuracy ratings for
Category C'. Ratings in the first column were assigned on the basis of
material produced before feedback only, while those in the second column
apply to the transcript as a whole, including material generated following
feedback. The effects of mid-session feedback are treated in detail in
Table 8, in which we present a detailed session-by-session summary.)
C. Overall Findings
Most of the findings of this study are obtained by examination of
Table 7. We, therefore, turn our attention for a moment to a detailed
examination of this table.
The transcript ratings for each of the remote viewers, for each of
the session categories, are shown in the individual boxes in the table.
The techniques, listed across the top, are Abstract (A), Beacon (B),
8
Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300320001-3
 Approved For Release 2000/08/ I - P96-00788 R001300320001-3
?
i
p
p
S7 )
M
00
4)
4-)
M
r-I
r I
10
C
z
N
U
Z3
O)
N
W
A
4-)
Cd
U3 0
4)
U
0
0
w
0
U
.
0
CO
~C
I
cd
0
t
N
M
r4
M
O
M
r-I
ri
d' M N
C0
N r l
b.0
?r1 C)
4J 'r-I
~C