Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
n
They decided
to
stop the experiment for the day but asked
to
look
at the target at different intervals
that evening.
(Due
to
the difference
in
time,
all
of his viewing during this formalized part of the experiment
- on
this first day
-
had been at nighttime locally at URDF-3).
- -Si
^^^Hpaid
he was
beginning
to
labor anyway and,
"if you
start laboring
at
it, you start mocking-up things."
He was
then reminded
that
he was
going
to draw
a perimeter,
or would
he rather save that for tomorrow.
He
said
he
would rather save
that since
he's
starting
tu labor
a
bit.
It was unfortunate
that they didn't pursue the perimeter earlier
in
the day because
it certainly
has
a unique
shape.
They quit at
p.m.
Summary of the First Day
The controlled
session taped
at
SRI
lasted
a
total
of about
hour
and
52 minutes.
It consisted
of the experimenters defining
the target as
a
d
"real
target"
as
opposed
to
a
sample target.
With the use of several
maps,
^^P^was given coordinates
of the target and
told
that
it was
a scientific
military research and
test area about
to
30 miles
SW of the
Irtysh
River.
When
the coordinates were given,
immediately biased
his
thinking
that this
area was
related
to the Soviets'
space-launching and
recov-
ery areas.
Since
this
is
not
true,
he may have inadvertantly and unknowingly
biased
himself
into
an
incorrect target relationship.
~T
^^described
the target as
a military and scientific complex
about 30 miles
SW of
the
Irtysh River but there
is
nothing
in
this description
that wasn't already given
to
him.
He
then
gives what
is almost
a
perfect de-
scription of someone's
first
look at the Operations Area of URDF-3.
He describes
it as
low one-story buildings
that are partially dug
into
the ground giving
the
effect
(as seen at ground
level)
of very short,
squatty buildings, whereas
they
are actually fairly roomy on
the
inside.
Unfortunately,
as
he later describes
the specifics
of buildings
in
the scientific complex,
he never again mentions
earth-covering of partially-buried buildings..
It seemed
he had
the perfect
description of URDF-3,
but never came back
to that again.
In fact,
his
later
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RQP96-00791R0001T)0580001-2
......
.
. V COqFTDMflAL
.
‘v
!#
:
•
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
^OMPIDEBBIJa-
description of the most dominant building
(a
large three-story building)
doesn
t-
match any building at URDF-3.
SI
tends
to get bogged down
in
specifics
and
then
says
something
like,
"I'll
come back
to
that,"
but seldom does.
He
said
the military complex
looks
like
it's
been
there for two
to three years when
in fact
it's
been
there
for over
a decade.
At one point when describing
the specifics
of the
"radar/
communications
building,"
he demonstrates
that
he could possibly
be
led
to
see
what the experimenter wants
him
to
see.
He
sees some landmark- type
items
that simply don't appear at or
near URDF-3.
They are:
1)
the road from the river to the
target area
passes through
a
gorge,
2)
a
500-ft.
tall
antenna,
3)
an outdoor
pool
(60'
x
150'),
4)
an array of telephone poles
surrounded
by
trees
about 500 yards
SE of the scientific complex,
5)
an airstrip
on
a
plateau
12 miles
NW of URDF-3,
6)
a
small
village
NE
of URDF-3,
7)
a city
60 miles
SW of URDF-3,
8)
a cluster of pine trees west of URDF-3,
and
9)
a three-story building
(with
a basement)
as
the dominant building
in
the scientific complex.
It doesn't seem fair to grade
him on landmark-type objects
he failed
to
see
at
the target because
his attention may not
have
been directed
on
them.
However,
it does
seem fair
to question
the existence
of those
object's
lie claims
to have
seen.
The most positive evidence
of valid remote viewing
for the first day
(1
hour and
52 minutes)
was
his
initial
view of the target as "low -One-story build
ings
that are partially dug
into
the ground..."
Unfortunately,
ne
never con-
sidered that description again.
The only other piece of positive evidence
that
day was
his /^&\Pefd
^ f^U-iif>V6^(i791 R000T005D0001 -2
•jSQNFIDEITIIAl
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
•.mwimiTiAb
To summarize
the
first day's session4^J|paccurately described
the
location
and
type of target
(but that was
given)
but failed on
the layout
and type of buildings.
He tended
to spend
too much
time on
specifics
only
to
say,
"I'll
come back
to
that,"
but seldom did.
He successfully evaded drawing
a perimeter of the area even though
he was asked
to
do
this
twice.
This was
unfortunate because
the shape of the perimeter
is
unique.
My conclusion
is
that nothing positive
to validate remote viewing resulted from this first day's
session.
Additional
Contact on
the
First Day
c,
J
Hal
Puthoff talked
by telephone
that evening at 5:25
p.m.
to give him further instructions
for
his
scanning
that night.
He was
told
that
there were some specific areas
he
had mentioned
that
the experimenters were most
interested
in.
Specifically
he was asked "for an
exact,
as
possible,
drawing
of the crane
(that was
in
the
rear of Building
1)
and exactly what
its
relation-
ship
is
to Building
1."
Further,
they wanted
to
know "anything about Building
in
relation
to
the surrounding buildings,
like whatever forms
of connection
or
communication or transportation
that exists
between Building
(the main building)
and the ones
that are nearby."
They especially wanted
"as much detail
as
possible
on
the gantry crane and
its
relation
to 'Building
1."
He was
told that the second
thing
they were most
interested
in
was
the security
fence around
the perimeter.
They wanted any detail
on
that
-
even
a drawing of exactly what the
fence
looked
like.
It was emphasized that
the
crane was
really
top priority,
especially what
it
looked like
in
relation
to
the main
building
(Building
1).
SECOND
DAY
The remote-viewing experiment resumed at
a.m.
on July
10,
1974.
It
was mentioned that
the previous night^^J^had turned
in drawings of
a
fence
and
a
crane .^JlBBfc's
first comments had
to
do with
an observation of
the
immense
size of
the gantry crane.
He
said
he didn't realize how large
the gantry crane
was
until
he saw
a man walking
by one of the
crane. wheels.
Assuming
the height of
the man
as
ft.,
he
realized that
the dimensional
data
he had derived
the day be-
fore was underestimated by at least
a
factor of
3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001005G0001-2
CSKPIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
fleHPiDuraiija
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.
|was 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
d id
the crane
interact with Building
or any-
Isaid
the gantry crane interacted with
thing
surrounding
the building.
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).
•m
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 f^JJJpescribed
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
V '
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOOf00500001 -2
.
.
OOHFIDEjflllAL
.
•
•
‘
Approved For Retease 2003/04/48 +-GIA-RBP96-08794R000 10050000172. iastereeeenemetenat ener sememeenemmeemetnatntattetmiiemnianemienteanenenl ; . i i om
His
north
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
~:>
On
c?»
OD
£ a
DO
‘
*
H
«,
•
ca
.
t-4
*
&
Sh V
,0 'K
rQ
+»
V
CO S
CO O
CO
O KV
p
,co
co
P-i
co
J-'St-.
%i
* *
(•
*
V.*
kU'U-i71 *'
c>,*
O
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-OO791ROd^dOO58£)0O1-
VS
-
:
• V 'N/
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
JOlTJlBHHMAIi
continued with discussions
of
the length of the gantry rails. JU^saw weld-
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-
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.
had
said
earl ier
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^^Wtelling
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.
is
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 if^^Hpcan
see
the four headframes
that exist
at URDF-3).
Note:
there
is
an azimuthal
shift
•
Si
J
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-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
H
B
—
~ aaixm -r
* t.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
Og»tDEHg!IASr
experimenter was correct
in asking
SI
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 betweenRuss
Targ ancfifljHjH^ wi^ only the voice
of Russ Targ
being
heard. ^jjjP^appar-
ently repoHec^hat
he saw
a dome-shaped building
(about
55'
tall
x
160'
diam-
eter)
with
its center located about 200
ft. west of th^SV^cornar 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
rails;
specifically,
"Wh|t does
the crane
r- o/’'**'
I VA N*
'
I
*
ID
4- W
l/«l V/
V-
V
I
look
like when
it's outside of Building
1?"
Since
gantry cranes
(one about
150
ft.
tall
and
the other about
ft.
tall),
he
sketched both of them
(see
Figs.
7 and
8).
‘
•<#
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^TMs
sketch
provides
the most positive evidence yet
to support
the validity
s
re-
mote viewing of URDF-3.
|
Figures
9 and
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 shovel i^ the general
location where,
at URDF-3,
a partially earth-covered
tank and
tall
cylindrical-
shaped
tanks or towers appear.
The
swimming
ijeol^in
Fig.
6)
is
in
the general
location of
the headframes
at URDF-3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2
•eOffffDBHTIAL
20 ‘ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 we yish oF We ae i =. Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : ClA-RDP96-00791R00000500001-2 ~ tomes
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
Assuming
the relationship of the gantry crane
to Building
in
Fig.
is
the
same
as
the relationship of the gantry crane
to Building
at
URDF-3,
it must be concluded thatfUHj is 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 o^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 ove r the telephone with only
the
voice of the experimenter recorded on tape.^^J|| 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
possi bility because the experiment was
not controlled
to discount
the
possibility thatfljjH could talk
to other
people
-
such
as
the
Disinformation Section of the KGBr’-Mhat 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.
Dis counti ng
item
2 for the time being,
because
it
seems distasteful'
and unpopular ,
did much better 'the second day toward establishing
his
Approwil For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-OO791ROOe£oO50OOO1-2
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
60HFIDEMTIAL --
credibility
in
remote
viewing.
Unfortunately,
the experimenters
did not follow
up on
a couple of key
items
-
a sketch of
the penmeter of the
scientific complex,
and pursuing
the
"sunken
building"
comment thatjj^lnade.
After studying
onlX
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
if ((^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
I
1 s
remote-viewi ng
talents
had no way of checking,
how could
he differentiate
the fact from the
f iction ?
At this
stage of the experiment,
the
data
is
incon-
clusive
to validate** s capability of remote viewing.
Si
THIRD DAY
Summary
The experiment began again
at
11:43 a.m.
on July
11,
1374.
i
i le)
data
included
67 pages of transcribed tapes along with
6 sketche^drawn
that
day by
|
It was
difficult
to follow
the discussion
ofl|
I^irTd
the
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 withJ||Pdescribing
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
thougii on
the first day,
he
had
said' the closest railroad
was about 60 miles
north.
During
the early afternoon,
the experimenters showedQ^p a sketcn
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-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
/.
••
<
.-twiwipgwMft
Shamans 20 ee ne en eh Py ene mas bloat Barat tale Sin it Bt Rent cade nae nether ge 3 malt adh est Sates ACN gj Se ee ee emer eee ee eer ae tee eee ee ae Ce «, \ en ean o Aa : : RDP -00791R000400500001-2 Ady Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : NSO MEET SVT rr rr rman ree eo ete
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
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
than
there
being
a
50-ft.
deep
under-
ground building with four sections
(A,
B,
C,
and
D)
extending above
the ground.
"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's
a concrete apron,
and
there's nothing
subterranean
right
in
that
parti culai^jea.
This description
is
the most negative evidence yet and
tends
to discrediting'
s
ability
to
remotely view URDF-3.
FOURTH
DAY
Th<^tfscuss i on
on
t^e fourth day
(July
15,
1974)
involved only
Hal
Puthoff and^^^P^.
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 supplying any new
evidence
(that could
be
checked)
to establish validity fdr^UP's
remote-
viewing
capability.
SI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
gf
The experiment
to determine the validity of||^HHVs
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-OO791ROOtfioO5QOO0l-2
f
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0001 00500001 -2
-
had
been
given
to him earlier.
He got very specific about details onty
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 of 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 2003/04/1 8
: CIA-RDP96-00791 ROOQ 100500001 -2
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001 -2
a§
After careful
analysis of
the data
presented
to me,
I consider^jpp'
remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3
to
be unsuccessful.
I
recommend
that
the
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-RDP96-0079lR00Q?l00500001-2