Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
eewFiDianiaui
He commented
on
the security fence
as
being electrified,
but never men-
tioned
the unique shape of the perimeter fence or the fact that there are
really four perimeter fences at URDF-3.
Figure
is
his
sketch of
a
small
sec-
tion of the fence.
Jwas
again
told that the experimeters wanted more information on
exactly what
the relationship was between
the crane and the major building
(Building
1);
specifically,
how did
the crane
interact with Building
or any-
thing
surrounding
the building. fl^^Bsaid
the gantry crane interacted with
Building
1,
the outdoor
pool
and
the telephone pole array.
He drew
a
sketch
showing
the relative
locations
of buildings
as
he saw them that day
(Fig.
5).
He said the crane was
so heavy that
it left tracks
in
the ground and that,
"the crane tracks
go
to
the building and where this
sunken building
is."
Un-
fortunately,
the experimenters
did
not ask him
to identify the
"sunken building."
This was
important because
in
reality the gantry crane at URDF-3 operates
on
rails over
a sunken building
(designated
as
Building
1 by NPIC).
continued
to look at the area,
he said,
"I'm seeing
a
lot of
things
today
I didn't
see yesterday...
T can
see some very
heavy...
looks
like
railroad
track,
but they're spread much
too wide
so
it looks
like
a riding gan-
try."
That description compares quite closely with one of the most distinctive
observables
at URDF-3
-
the gantry crane that operates
on rails over the three-
story underground building
(Building
at URDF-3).
However,
his description of the
interaction between
the crane and Building
is
incorrect.
He describes
two gantry cranes
that enter into his above-ground
Building
whereas
the single gantry crane at URDF-3 operates
on
rails
above the
underground Building
1.
His description of
this building
is also wrong
in
several
respects
as compared
to
the actual
Building
at URDF-3.
The major dif-
ference
i s
that Building
at URDF-3
is
an underground building rather
than above
ground asJ^jjj^Pescribed
it.
He was asked,
"Are there
any windows
in
the build-
ing
at all?"
At this
time,
he
realizes
for
the first
time that the building
is
actually five-stories
tall
rather than three-stories
as
he had originally thought.
He saw windows
on
the second,
third and fourth stories
on
the north
side of
the
building
and
said
there were
no windows
on
the other
three sides.
The session
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
.
•
.
- ooinriDENiiAL
.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
OD
iQO
nn-
J
• ft;.
).).
Sh V
03 .O 'K
rC>
4A
•t*
03 S
(0 o ®
O KV
O
,03 O
Pm
**—^
€0
l _ ¥
M=d
O
Approved Fdr’Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R008/000SOOO3-
.
a
.
‘
•
'
:
•
*
: ^\r\/
•
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
Si
continued with discussions
of the length of the gantry
rails. ^J^^saw wad-
ing operations
taking place
south of .Building
and also
saw an electrical
sub-
station east of the building
(see
Fig.
5).
In reality there
is
no substation
near the gantry crane or Building
at URDF-3.
The session ended at noon.
The session
resumed at
3:01
p.m.
with what appears
to
be
a telephone con-
si
versation between
and one of the experimenters.
Although
it's possible
to hear only the experimeter's
side of the conversati on,
the discussion appeared
to
be related
to
the dimensions of the gantry crane. flBhad
said earl ier
SI
that day that:
1)
the distance between
the
rails was about 50 ft.,
2)
the
height of Building
was about
50 ft.,
3)
the height of the gantry crane was about
150
ft.,
and
4)
the crane
ran on
the rails that entered
into
Building
The above dimensions
lead
to
a discrepancy
in dimensions because
the gantry
crane
is
too
tall
(150 ft.)
to enter the
ft. -tall
Building
1.
This discre-
pancy
is
resolved byj^^Bptell ing
the experimeters
that
the
tall
gantry crane
does
not enter Building
but that there are
two shorter gantry cranes
inside
Building
that also
run
on
the
ft. -wide
rails
- one running east-west on
rails and one
running north-south
to meet the
tall
gantry crane outside the
building
on
the
same
rail.
This complicated relationship of three gantry
cranes
does
not exist at URDF-3.
si
fl^His
then contacted by phone again and asked
to
scan
the area across
the
road west of Building
(see
Fig.
5).
He
is
told
that
in
that region
there's
something
else which
is on
the order of being
as
large or as unique
as
the crane.
(The experimeter
is obviously trying
to
see lfv^HBcan
see
the four headframes
that exist at URDF-3).
Note:
there
is
an azimuthal
shift
of- 90°
in comparing
the north-south motion ofBBB
s
tall
rail-mounted gantry
crane as opposed
to
the actual
east-west motion
of
the
rail -mounted gantry crane
at URDF-3.
For
the
time being,
if one accepts
this -rotation of 90°,
the
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007.00050003-9
-eQWl
'PMTIAfr
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
experimenter was correct
in asking
*>1
to
look
in
the region west of Building
as shown
in
Fig.
5.
Price was also
reminded
at the end of this
phone conver-
sation
to continue working on
a
picture
(sketch)
of the
tall
rail-mounted crane
that runs
up
to Building
1.
The tape resumes with yet another telephone conversation between Russ
Targ and
witji only the voice of Russ Targ being
heard.
appar-
ently reportecRhat
he saw
a dome-shaped building
(about
55'
tall
x
160'
diam-
eter)
with
its center located about 200
ft. west of th^SV^corner of Building
1.
He also
saw
a 65-to-75
ft. -tall
cement silo-like building
south of the dome-
shaped building
that consisted of three
ft. -diameter vertical
silos tangent
to each other
(see
Fig.
6 for their relative locations).
He confirmed that’
the swimming
pool
was west of both Building
and the silo-like building.
#
Russ Targ
then concluded the phone conversation with
a
request for
a
sketch of
the crane that runs
on
ra
look like when
it's outside of Bui
gantry cranes
(one about 150
ft.
ta
sketched
both of them
(see
Figs.
7 and
8).
ils;
specifically,
"What does
the crane
ding
1?"
Since
had
4- x / *-* i*. <-
/-
V. w. »
W «» w
-J
Vv
and
the other about 50 ft.
tall),
he
Discussion of Sketches
Drawn
by Pat Price on the
Second. Day
The detail
shown
in
Fig.
7,
the sketch of
the taller gantry crane,
is
remarkably close
in detail
to
the actual
gantry crane
at URDF-3^TMis sketch
provides
the most positive evidence yet
to support
the validity
s
re-
mote viewing of URDF-3.
{
Figures
9 and
10 illustrate
the cement silo-like building and
the
dome-shaped building.
Figure
shows
their relative
locations
to Building
1;
however,
there
is
nothing
at URDF-3
that
looks
like
the dome-shaped building
or the silo-like
building.
In
Fig.
6,
these buildings are shov^p
the general
location where,
at URDF-3,
a partially earth-covered
tank and
tall
cylindrical-
shaped
tanks
or towers appear.
The swimming
fteol,4 in
Fig.
6)
is
in
the general
location
of
the
headframes
at
URDF-3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007)00050003-9
*
’ *
.
•confidential
Approved For Release 2OO3/£$Sfe0y^P96-OO7S7ROOQ7T)OO5OOO3=9
•
.•
•
• Figure
6.
•_
-
:•
•
- Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 20 ~ £@\A-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 Ee, aera ees wife a jt 1a eee a ee eR EE SORE soem men oto, e Approved For Release 2003/04/18
*
•
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CI^|DI^6-00787R0007ii00§0003-9
f i n it v*1 /".
O
lASl-EKDA.OfffCIAl
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
Assuming
the relationship of the gantry crane
to Building
in
Fig.
is
the
same
as
the relatio nship of the gantry crane
to Building
at
URDF-3,
it must be concluded that^^j^
'fs oriented
90°
in error
in
the scien-
tific complex.
His
north direction for the scientific complex only would cor-
respond
to what
is actually east at URDF-3.
His
relationship of scientific
complex
to military complex
to the
Irtysh River
is
still
correct though.
Unfortunately,
the experimenters failed again
to get
a drawing of
the perimeter fence for the scientific
complex.-
In
Fig.
5,
I
have taken
the
liberty of drawing
a
perimeter fence around
the scientific complex and come
very close to the actual
shape of the perimeter fence of
the Operations Area
(scientific complex)
at URDF-3
.
had been asked
twice the day before
to
draw
a perimeter of the area,
but
it wasn't followed
up
by the experimenters
Summary of the Second Day
The controlled
session at SRI
lasted for one hour
(11
a.m.
until
noon).
The
rest of the session was
conducted over the telephone with only
the
voice of the experimenter recorded
on
tape
commented that he was
see-
ing
a
lot of things
that he hadn't seen
the previous day and supplied
the most
positive evidence yet
for remote viewing with
his sketch of
the rail-mounted
gantry crane.
It seems
inconceivable
to
imagine how he could draw such
a
like-
ness
to
the actual
crane at URDF-3 unless:
1)
he actually
saw
it through remote viewing,
or
2)
he was
informed of what
to draw by someone
knowledgeable of URDF-3.
I only mention
this
second possibf^ty because the experiment was
not controlled
to discount
the possibility that^Hp could
talk
to other people
-
such
as
the
Disinformation Section of the KGB.^That may sound ridiculous
to the
reader,
but
I
have
to consider all
possibilities
in
the spectrum from
his
being capable
to
view remotely
to
his
being
supplied data
for disinformation
purposes
by the
KGB.
Discounting
item
for the time being,
because
it seems distasteful
and unpopular.
did much better the second day toward establishing
his
Appro^d For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007.000500Q3-9
:
.
k
\-.
,
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
-flOHTIJEHIIAE-
credibility
in
remote viewing.
Unfortunately,
the experimenters
did not follow
up
on
a couple of key
items
-
a sketch of the perimeter of the scientific
complex,
and pursuing
the
"sunken
building"
comment thatj^BB made.
After studying
only
his sketch of the gantry crane,
it's easy
to believe
that
he can
view remotely.
I
can understand how he might not see
some
landmark- type objects
(like
the four
headframes)
but
I
find
it difficult
to understand the other landmark- type
ob-
jects
he
sees
that simply do not exist at URDF-3,
like
his
incorrect description
of Building
1,
One explanation could
be
that ifHp mentions enough specific
objects
(such
as
three different types of gantry cranes when
there
is
really only
one),
he will
surely hit
on
one object that
is actually present.
If
the user of
s
remote- viewing
talents
had no way of checking,
how could
he differentiate
the fact from the fiction ?
At this
stage of the experiment,
the
data
is
incon-
clusive
to
val idate^Ul's capability of remote viewing.
SI
THIRD DAY
Summary
The experiment began again at
11:43, a. m.
on July
II,
1374.
I
I id
data
included
pages of transcribed
tapes along with
6 sketches
drawn
that
i./a c
rt l -F •f *i r 1
1 +
-f-rs
-Fn 1 1 ni.i
f ho
rlic/'liccirin
n -f
lin'd the
day
v/as difficult
to
follow
the discussion
of^
experimenters when
they were obviously looking at
a sketch
and saying things
like,
"What about this
object over
here?"
I
had no way of guessing which object
and at which
location and on which
sketch.
The experiment started with^Up describing
the specifics
of
the
pool.
At one
time during
this discussion
I
thought the pool
he was
looking at
might well
be
the underground building
(Building
1)
at URDF-3.
He incorrectly recalled
the nearest railroad
as
being
300 miles
to
the north even
though' oh
the first
day,
he
had said
- the closest railroad
was
about 60 miles
north.
During
the early afternoon,
the experimenters showedj^^B a sketch
of
a perspective of
the southern
part of
the Operations Area at URDF-3
(see
Fig.
11).
The
sketch
included
the
rail -mounted gantry crane,
the underground building
(Building
1),
the partially earth-covered
tank.
Building
4,
and
the
four headframes.
•*
„
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R006'700050003-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8 (:^A-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
/'?_ %
7.
•
«
f ' T
.-tES*,-
’ ,v/
/&
/
~
,3l\i .:
P,
'’/v
: ;vra>J
\^-r
Ice
/ *Wf
*
»*
v ^o=i >
k
V\\- sTAW
j
-j
\^J
\K
SSf“
I
j
''y l
A
h-
U-r\
•i
/
*>
V
!>; Jn-rm
A
r
.
t*-.
j-a r
kffcTl I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: &M-RDP96(-OO787ROOO7.0OO5OOO3-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
They told him that
this was
a sketch of
a perspective of the actual
place
and
asked him whether
he
could now "see"
the four headframes
as
shown
in
the sketch.
He said
he
recognized the area
as
the one
he
had been seeing but claimed that
only one of the four headframes was present now.
That proved
to
be untrue,
since
all
four headframes
are
still
there.
As
seen
in
Fig.
11,
the
sketch of Building
is deceiving
in
that
it looks
like
there are really four buildings
(A,
B,
C,
and
D
as marked
in
Fig.
11)
sitting atop
a concrete slab rather
thar.
there
being
a
50-ft.
deep under-
ground building with four sections
(A,
B,
C,
and
D)
extending above
the ground.
Hi "looked"
into
the four
"separate"
buildings
(A,
B,
C,
and
D)
and described
their contents
in great detail
but never suggested
that this was
all
one
large
underground building.
Finally,
much later
in
the afternoon,
it was
requested
that he investigate whether "Buildings
A,
B,
C,
and
D" were really
the
surface
elements
of an underground building.
He looked underground and
said,
"No,
that'
a concrete apron,
and
there's nothing
subterranean
right
in
that
parti culai^rea
This description
is
the most negative evidence yet and tends
to discredited^'
ability
to
remotely view URDF-3.
FOURTH
DAY
Summary
5^ Th^discussion
on
the fourth
day
(July
15,
1974)
involved only
Hal
Puthoff M HI
was
very specific
regarding
his concept of
the overall
operation at URDF-3.
He recognized
that from
the beginning,
he had
been
trying
to force-fit
a
space-oriented situation
to
the
target
location,
but
now realized this
"feeling"
was
incorrect.
This
day,
the discussions did nothing
toward
suppl ying
any new
evidence
(that could be
checked)
to establish validity forjjjjf's
remote-
viewing capability.
SI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
^
The experiment
to determine the validity
s
remote
viewing of URDF-3 appears
to
be
a
failure.
He described
a
scientific
and
military complex
about 30 miles
SW of
the
Irtysh
River,
but
this
information
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R00£700050003-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
vGOliriDEHM
-AL-
had
been
given
to
him earlier.
He got very specific about details on\y
to sum-
marize with
a
comment like
"I'll
come
back
to
that,"
but seldom did
he ever
"come back
to
that."
He successfully evaded drawing
a perimeter of
the area
even though
he was
asked
to
do
this
several
times
throughout
the experiment;
this was
unfortunate because
the shape of the perimeter
is
unique.
I
can understand
how he might not have
seen some of the
landmark- type
objects at URDF-3,
but
it's difficult
to
understand
how he
"saw"
the other
landmark-type objects
that simply
do not exist at URDF-3.
One explanation could
be that
if
he mentioned enough specific
items,
he would surely hit on one ob-
ject that
is
present which could explain
the most positive evidence
to
support
remote viewing
for
this experiment
-
a
sketch of
a
rail -mounted gantry crane.
He was completely wrong
in
his
description of how this
crane was related
to any building.
Even after he was
shown
an
actual
sketch of the scientific
complex,
he failed
to
see
the underground
building
(Building
at URDF-3)
but
"saw
it"
as
four separate above-ground
buildings
sitting atop
a concrete apron.
In
trying
to determine
the validity
o~f this
remote-viewing experiment,
the worth
of
the data
to
the eventual
user
has
to
be considered.
If
the user
had no way of checking,
how could
he differentiate
the fact from
the fiction?
In
the case
of URDF-3,
the only positive evidence
of
the rail-mounted gantry
crane was
far outweighed
by
the
large amount of negative evidence noted
in
the
body of
this analysis.
It's
unfortunate
that
so much of
the experiment was
done over
the
phone.
If
this
should happen
in
the future,
both
sides
of the phone conversation should
be
recorded
rather
than just the experimenter's
voice,
as was
done during
this
experiment.
Also,
the experimenters did not
pursue
some important details when
they had
a
chance.
This may have
been
a
result of their unfamil iarity with
the target.
This
was
obvious when
the experimenters
didn't
know which direction
was
north
in
the actual
perspective of URDF-3.
I
suggest that
in
the
future,
at
least one
of
the experimenters
be. totally familiar with
.the
target.
I
also
suggest that future experiments
be more
tightly controlled
to discount
the
pos-
sibil
i ty of
the subject discussing
the material
with
people not
involved
in
the
experiment. Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R0007Q0050003-9
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9
After careful
analysis of
the data presented
to me,
I considerJHfr
s
remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3
to be unsuccessful.
I
recommend ttia^he
tapes
be considered for use with
the psychological
stress evaluator
(PSE)
de-
scribed
in Appendix
I;
I am not competent
to judge
the reliability of
the
PSE
as
an
aid
to
lie detection,
but
I
think
the
tapes
should
be subjected
to
such
a
test.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9