SCREENING FOR REMOTE VIEWING TALENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 1, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Content Type: REPORT

Final Report-Task 6.0.5 December 1989
Covering the Period 1 October 1988 to 30 September 1989
SCREENING FOR REMOTE VIEWING TALENT
Prepared By: Virginia V. Trask
Nevin D. Lantz
Wanda W. Luke
Edwin C. May
Prepared for:
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
SRI Project 1291
MURRAY J. BARON, Director
Geoscience and Engineering Center
333 Ravenswood Ave. ? Menlo Park, CA 94025
Approved For eleaseo2U0~1%f/Vo.3A2~P9~ebe83 -486
200590001-3
SG1J
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
A multi-level screening effort to identify potential high-quality remote viewers was
continued during FY 1989. Specifically, during FY 1989 the Cognitive Sciences Project was tasked
to:
(1) continue the two-stage screening of groups as we had in FY 1988, and
(2) evaluate individual experienced remote viewers from other research laboratories.
A total of 256 people (from three separate groups) participated in the group screening. Of these,
eight qualified for the second-stage screening. To date, no second-stage tests with these selected
indiduals has yet taken place; this work will be continued during FY 1990. In addition to the group
effort, one person with claimed remote viewing ability from another laboratory was evaluated by
the second-stage screening task; this individual demonstrated robust (p S 0.0025,
effect size = 1.01) remote viewing ability.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... iii
A. Overview .................................................... 1
B. Objective ..................................................... 1
A. General Description ............................................ 2
B. Group Screening Protocol ....................................... 2
C. Second-Stage Screening Protocol ................................. 7
A. Summary .................................................... 9
B. First-Stage Results ............................................. 9
C. Second-Stage Results ......................................... 11
D. Conclusions ................................................. 12
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
LIST OF TABLES
la. Military Target Category .................................................. 3
lb. Scientific/Industrial Target Category ......................................... 3
1c. Natural/Non-technical Target Category ...................................... 4
id. Projects Target Category .................................................. 4
2. Qualitative Rating Scale ................................................... 6
3. Results of First-Stage Screening ............................................ 9
4. Parameters of the Scoring Distributions ..................................... 10
5. Two-Sample t-Test Results ............................................... 11
6. Results of Second-Stage Screening with Viewer 389 ........................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Distribution of Scores ................................................... 10
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
I INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, psychoenergetic experimenters at SRI have relied on the remote viewing
ability of a relatively small number of talented persons. But, as the number and nature of
experiments and/or applications increases, the necessity for discovering additional talented
individuals becomes acute. In FY 1984, in anticipation of more process-oriented experiments, the
Cognitive Sciences Project at SRI International began to increase the number of remote viewers
available for experimental work. Three directions were pursued: (1) train selected individuals, (2)
screen using psychological correlates to remote viewing ability, and (3) screen groups of people
using a carefully developed remote viewing task.1t This report details the continuing screening
work conducted during FY 1989, as well as the work to evaluate the claims of individuals who
purport to have remote viewing abilities.t
B. Objective
Although it has not been documented to what extent remote viewing abilities exist in the
general population, certain individuals appear to have a capacity for accessing information not
available by known sensory processes. Some of these persons may have had spontaneous
experiences that lead them to be more or less aware of an extrasensory potential while others with
such potential may not have had these experiences and thus remain unaware of their remote
viewing abilities. The goal of the FY 1989 group screening effort was to identify individuals who
possess a natural talent for remote viewing.
To accomplish this goal, we used a two-stage process, which we developed in FY 1988, for
screening large numbers of people. The objective was to screen several hundred people at the first
stage and then to invite the most promising persons to participate in eight individualized laboratory
trials in anticipation of finding a few persons who would show robust and consistent remote viewing
performance.
Lantz, Nevin D., Edwin C. May, Mass Screening For Psychoenergetic Talent Using A
Remote Viewing Task, Final Report, Objective B, Task 1, Project 1291, SRI Interna-
tional, Menlo Park, CA (September, 1988).
t This report constitutes the deliverable for Statement of Work, item 6.0.5.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
A. General Description
A two-stage screening process was used to find high-quality remote viewers. The first stage
included a lecture presentation summarizing remote viewing research conducted at SRI
International during the past 17 years. This presentation was designed to attract interested
audiences of 25 or more persons. Following the lecture, the audience was asked to voluntarily
participate in four remote viewing trials using targets randomly selected from a previously
constructed target pool. Based on a qualitative assessment of the data collected during the first
stage, the best individuals were chosen to participate in further screening activity. The
second-stage screening consisted of a formal test with the selected individuals using independent
trials.
A special set of 16 targets was constructed for the screening procedure. The target pool
contained both dynamic (targets with motion) and static (still photographs) targets. Dynamic
targets consisted of action film clips edited from popular movies. The static targets were a series of
thematically related still photographs shown in succession for five seconds each. The targets
ranged in length from approximately 60 to 100 seconds and were stored on two video disks.
The 16 targets were divided into four categories of four targets each. Categories
included: Military, Scientific/industrial, Natural/non-technical, and Projects. Targets in the first
three categories were film clips of the dynamic variety. Each target in the fourth category showed a
project title (e.g., Project Blue Book) interspersed with images related to the purpose of the project
(e.g., UFOs). Four categories were chosen to allow for the possibility that different types of targets
might be easier to view than others. No attempt was made to maintain target orthogonality (i.e.,
significant differences) across categories, but considerable effort was expended to maintain
within-category orthogonality.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Two factors were considered in choosing the targets. Within each category, the targets
were chosen because they were thematic, interesting and possessed geometric elements that could
be drawn easily. Secondly, they were selected to be as distinct as possible, so that the other targets
within that category could be used as decoys in the analysis procedure.
Tables la-d show the target categories, the specific targets within a category, and a
brief description of each target.
Military Target Category
Name
Source / Description
Aircraft carrier
Final Countdown--Multiple takeoffs of mostly F-16s.
Characterized by triangular shapes and high drama.
Control room
Wargames--Control room sequence. Characterized by rec-
tangular shapes and rotating lights.
Russians in space
Superman IV--EVAs and the collision of two satellites.
Characterized by tubular shapes and Russian singing.
Atomic bomb blasts
Atomic Cafe--Continuous series of atmospheric atomic
blasts. Characterized by fireballs, bright light, buildings be-
ing destroyed, and trees in violent motion.
Scientific/Industrial Target Category
Name
Source / Description
Bottling factory
Take This Job and Shove It--Bottles on a conveyer belt.
Characterized by multiple cylindrical shapes.
Building construction
Steel--Girder construction by helicopter. Characterized by
rectangular shapes "floating" in air.
Tacoma Narrows bridge
Documentary on the Bridge Disaster--Wild oscillation of the
bridge. Characterized by linear shapes in tortional motion.
The Right Stuff--Single rocket launch. Characterized by
Launch of John Glen
singular tubular shape and bright light.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Table 1c
Natural/Non-technical Target Category
Name
Source / Description
Skiing
The Spy Who Loved Me--James Bond skiing fast. Charac-
terized by snowy mountain scenes and dramatic skiing off a
cliff.
Ostriches
Animals are Beautiful People--Ostriches in synchronized
dance. Characterized by black and white, fluffy birds.
Waterfall
Emerald Forest--Aerial view of a waterfall. Characterized
by dramatic vertical fall and flying raptor.
Greek temple
Jacques Cousteau--Helicopter view of the Posiden temple
ruins.
Project Target Category
Name
Source / Description
Manhattan Project
Various Still Photographs--Oppenheimer, Fat Man, Little
Boy, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and an air blast.
Project Blue Book
Various Still Photographs--Hynek, UFOs, and "landing"
imprints.
Project Deep Quest
In Search Of--Schwartz and others, underwater submers-
ible, and large rectangular block.
Project Ultra
Various Still Photographs--Turing, code machine, and
bombed-out cathedral at Coventry.
2. Subjects
Potential subjects were recruited by offering an evening lecture program to local adult
groups having an interest in educational seminars. The lecture described remote viewing research
at SRI International and promised voluntary audience participation in four remote viewing trials.
During FY 1989, screening was conducted with members of a San Francisco Bay Area
social/cultural club and two university alumni groups. Each of these screening programs involved
groups of between 30 and 160 people with all individuals participating in the same trial
simultaneously. (Because participation was voluntary, not all audience members submitted trial
response papers.)
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
3. Target Preparation
Several hundred target packets were assembled prior to the first screening session. To
prepare a single packet, a research assistant randomly chose one target from each of the four
categories. * The target numbers were individually placed into opaque envelopes, sealed, and
randomly numbered to indicate the order of presentation. A packet was formed by sealing the four
smaller envelopes into a larger unmarked envelope. The packets were shuffled and locked in the
project safe. For each different screening session, the assistant selected different packet for use
during that session.
A group screening session begins with an introduction to remote viewing presented by
the project director. In addition to a historical review of the research conducted at SRI, the
presentation included good, and not so good, examples of remote viewing. After a short break, the
project director initiated the audience participation portion of the session.
The four-trial audience participation requires a number of assistants. One of these,
designated the sender, is sequestered in an isolated and locked laboratory (two floors above the
session auditorium) throughout the four-trial series. The sender is responsible for the target
display during each trial. While each trial is in progress, the sender views the target material (on a
video monitor) and mentally attempts to "send" the target information to the assembled group.
The remaining assistants are responsible for collecting the data (the response papers), session
security, and providing target feedback.
Before the series begins, the project director describes what is expected during the four
trials, the logistics of data collection, and provides a short list of "hints" on how to accomplish
remote viewing. The participants are encouraged to write and/or draw their first impressions on the
single sheet of paper provided. The sender is introduced to the group before leaving for the
isolated laboratory. The sequence of events for each trial is as follows:
? a one-minute relaxation period during which group members are encouraged to clear
their minds and, while staying alert, relax as much as possible;
? a single telephone ring (i.e., the sender does not answer the phone) signals the sender to
begin a trial and to view the target continuously until further notice;
? a five-minute viewing period;
? the data (the response sheets) is collected and sealed in large envelopes;
? feedback: an assistant telephones the sender, obtains the target number, and displays
the target on a video monitor for the group;
* A standard pseudo random algorithm (i.e., feedback shift register) was used throughout
this study to provide random target/packet selections.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
? a short break before beginning the next trial.
Because the response sheets include carbonless carbon paper, the participants have copies of their
original responses and can compare their individual responses with the target material during the
feedback phase of each trial.
S. Analysis
Quantitative scoring presents several problems when testing groups of subjects. Because
all subjects have seen the same four targets, a single judge cannot produce an independent rank
ordering for each person. Therefore, since the goal was to find persons with high-quality natural
talent for additional testing, a more qualitative assessment was done by the analyst to find any
individuals who had produced striking matches to discrete target elements.
Qualitative assessments of the responses from the first stage of screening formed the
basis for deciding which persons might be invited for second-stage screening. The qualitative
judging was based on the seven-point rating scale shown in Table 2. * An analyst was instructed to
start at the top of the scale and find the highest rating that describes the match between each
response and its intended target, post hoc.
Qualitative Rating Scale
Scale
Criteria
7
Excellent correspondence, including good analytical detail (e.g., nam-
ing 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.
* In other work, this seven-point scale was found to correlate with "blind" analysis
(r=0.56, df=34, p S 5 X 10-5).
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
C. Second-Stage Screening Protocol
The goal of second-stage screening is to select exceptional individuals who could
participate in research. Individuals who showed qualitative evidence of remote viewing ability in
the group screening described above, either by producing an average qualitative rating above three
or producing a qualitative rating of six or seven on at least one trial are invited to participate in a
second round of individualized screening in the laboratory.
Targets for second-stage screening were the same as for the initial group screening.
For the second-stage screening, no sender was used. Before a session begins, a remote
viewing monitor (i.e., an individual who interviews the viewer) selects the top opaque envelope,
containing a target number as described above, from a randomly ordered stack of envelopes. The
monitor places that sealed envelope adjacent to the video disk unit which is locked in a separate
and isolated room during the remote viewing session. The sequence of events for each trial was as
follows:
? The monitor and viewer enter a remote viewing laboratory which is isolated from the
target room. They sit opposite each other across a table in a well-lit, office-type
environment. (This is SRI's standard remote viewing protocol.)
? After a brief relaxation period, the viewer is instructed to describe the target with written
words and drawings.
? The remote viewing session is five to fifteen minutes. During this time, the monitor is free
to seek clarification from the viewer about words, drawings, and other information that
arise during the session. (NOTE: The monitor is blind to the target selection.)
? The data (response papers) is collected, secured, and copied.
? The viewer and monitor leave the remote viewing laboratory and enter the target room.
The target is displayed on a video monitor for the viewer as feedback. (NOTE: The
viewer only has a copy of his/her response. Thus, there is no opportunity to add anything
to the response.)
4. Analysis
Quantitative analysis presents no problem if each viewer is tested individually. Each
response was ranked against the intended target and its three associated decoys by an independent
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
analyst (who was otherwise uninvolved with the experiment). In this procedure, the target and its
three decoys from the designated category were presented in random order. The analyst
rank-ordered the targets in order of decreasing similarity to the response (i.e., a rank of 1 means
that the target best matches the response, and a rank of 4 means the worst match). The output
from each trial was the rank number the analyst assigned to the correct target. The sum of ranks
over the total number of trials was used to calculate p-value and effect size (r) for the second-stage
viewer.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
III RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In FY 1989 three groups ranging in size from 26 to 125 were screened at the first or group
stage for a total of 256 individuals. Of that number eight showed qualitative evidence of ability to
report target-related material.
B. First-Stage Results
Table 3 shows the results of first-stage screening. A total of 256 individuals participated in
three separate screening sessions at SRI International. The first session was open to members and
guests of a university alumni group. Twenty-six individuals participated in that session and none
were selected to participate in second-stage screening. The second session involved members and
guests of a San Francisco Bay Area social/cultural club; 105 persons submitted responses. Seven of
these were selected for individualized testing. The third and final session was open to members and
guests of another university alumni group; 125 persons participated in the four-trial series.
Qualitative judging produced one person who was selected for second-stage screening.
Results of First Stage Screening
Organization
# of Participants
# Selected for Stage II
1. Peninsula Stanford
26
0
Club
2. San Francisco Mensa
105
7
3. Stanford Alumni Club
125
1
of Palo Alto
Qualitatively, the San Francisco Mensa organization appears to be a better population for
screening for remote viewers, because seven individuals met the a priori criteria for inclusion in the
second-stage screening, and only none or one did from the other two groups, respectively.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
A different view of this same data is shown in Figure 1 as the distribution of scores for each
four-trial series for each group. For example, 26% and 35% of the Mensa responses achieved
scores of 1 and 2, respectively. For the Peninsula and Palo Alto Stanford group, the percentages
are 48 and 29, and 33 and 17, respectively. Quantitatively, the means of the distributions differ
slightly (see Table 4). However, two-sample t-tests show significant differences between all pairs
of means of the three groups. Table 5 shows the t-test statistics including the effect size for the
pairs.
Figure 1. Distribution of Scores for (a) Peninsula Stanford Club
(b) San Francisco Mensa
(c) Stanford Alumni of Palo Alto
Parameters of the Scoring Distributions
Statistic
Peninsula Stanford
Club
San Francisco
Mensa
Stanford Alumni Club
of Palo Alto
Number of
104
412
479
Viewings
Mean Score
1.490
1.735
1.044
Standard Deviation
0.878
1.129
1.079
* Not all participants submitted responses for all trials; therefore, the number of viewings
does not equal four times the number of participants.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Two-Sample t-Test Results
Statistic
Mensa/Peninsula
Mensa/Palo Alto
Peninsula/Palo Alto
Two Sample t
2.061
9.337
3.947
Degrees of Freedom
514
889
581
p-Value
0.020
5.0 X 10-21
4.5 x 10-5
Effect Size
0.025
0.299
0.006
As measured by the effect size, the only "meaningful" comparison is between San Francisco
Mensa with the Stanford Alumni Club of Palo Alto. It is premature to conclude, however, that
something exists within Mensa that predisposes its members toward possessing remote viewing
ability. There are a number of problems that prevent such a conclusion. First of all, the analyst
was not blind to the groups, and thus could distort the scoring. Even if the analyst were blind,
however, such a conclusions would still be unwarranted, because of the lack of statistical
independence among the subjects. Additional circumstantial evidence in favor of Mensa would be
realized if the seven individuals chosen for the second-stage screening continue to demonstrate
high-quality remote viewing ability.
C. Second-Stage Results
Although there were a total of eight persons from the first-stage screening who showed
qualitative evidence of potential exceptional remote viewing abilities, none participated in
second-stage screening in FY 1989 becasue of timing and/or availability. These eight individuals
will be invited to participate in invidualized second-stage screenings as part of the FY 1990
screening work.
In accordance with the FY 1989 Statement of Work-Task 6.0.5, we asked a long-time
remote viewer who has produced quality results in dream and Ganzfeld studies conducted at
Maimonides Medical Center in the Division of Parapsychology (1972-1978), to participate in a
second-stage screening. Table 7 shows the target and the rank assignments for each of Viewer
389's eight trials. The resulting sum of ranks was 11 (p S 0.0025, effect size = 1.01). A 75%
hitting rate (6 of 8 first-place matches) where the mean expectation is 25% is the best we have
obtained for any of our second-stage screenings during the past two years. Viewer 389 has joined
our research program and is currently participating in one experiment.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
 Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3
Results of Second-Stage Screening with Viewer 389
Session #
Target
Rank
1
Project Blue Book
1
2
Manhattan Project
1
3
Skiing
1
4
Atomic Bomb Blasts
2
5
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
1
6
Greek Temple
3
7
Tacoma Narrows Bridge
1
8
Project Deep Quest
1
In the past, the group screening procedure has been successfull in selecting people with
natural remote viewing ability. Two individuals from approximately 200 were asked to become
regular remote viewers in the Cognitive Sciences Program.
Because of scheduling difficulties, successful) candidates from this year's first-stage
screening have yet to participate in the second-stage. Even if all of these candidates satisfy the
second-stage requirements, this screening procedure is a labor-intensive and time-consuming
method of identifying individuals with natural ability for high quality remote viewing.
Approved For Release 2002/11/18 : CIA-RDP96-00789R002200590001-3