Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 CORP PRR EET - . 17 Si continued with discussions of the length of the gantry rails. ap: weld- ing operations taking place south of Building 1 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 1 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 QB zc one of the experimenters. Although it's possible to hear only the experimeter's side of the conversation, the discussion appeared to be related to the dimensions of the gantry crane. had said earlier that day that: ‘1 1) the distance between the rails was about 50 ft., 2) the height of Building 1 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 1. The above dimensions lead to a discrepancy in dimensions because the gantry crane is too tall (150 ft.) to enter the 50 ft.-tall Building 1. This discre- pancy is resolved by telling the experimeters that the tail gantry crane does not enter Building 1 but that there are two shorter gantry cranes inside Building 1 that also run on the 50 ft.-wide ralls - one running east-vest 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 1 (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 Gp can see the four headframes that exist at URDF-3). Note: _phere is an azimuthal shift of: 90° in comparing the north-south motion of 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-RDP96-00791R000400500001-2 _ be
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 CGRPIDENGIAL. : he . 18 . St experimenter was correct in asking QP + look in the region west of Building 1 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 crarie that runs up to Building 1. The tape resumes with yet another telephone conversation between Russ -s . ; . SL Targ 4 with only the voice of Russ Targ being heard. Gp ieee ently reported that he saw a dome-shaped building (about 55' tall x 160' diam- eter) with its center located about 200 ft. west of thg..SWycorner of Buiidcing 7. He also saw a 65-to-75 ft.-tall cement silo-like building south of the dome- shaped building that consisted of three 25 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 1 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, "What does the crane look like when it's cutside of Building 1?" Since had seen two types ct gantry cranes (one about 150 ft. tall and the other about 50 fv. tall), he sketched both of them (see Figs. 7 and 8). Discussion of Seotches 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.. This sketch provides the most positive evidence yet to support the validity of 's re- mote viewing of URDF-3. S{ ee Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the cement silo-like building and tne dome-shaped building. Figure 6 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 showp ity the genera i location where, at URDF-3, a partially earth-covered tank and tall cylindrical- shaped tanks or towers appear. The swimming WOOL in Fig. 6) is in the general location of the headframes at URDF-3. ’ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 . . woofs
/ tes Wel : Approved For Release 2003/04/48 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100 g F3t OT Gay : 7 . ‘° ‘ > ae eee Ze ! t i { } ~ OL A . rf | a: . ne, t P| | : : on” - . . gro <a wh Jf iz fe _ Approved For Release 2003/00 SsRHEREP o6- 00791R000100590001-2 , - se Figure 6. - oo he . . yd toe toy ote
20 ‘Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 we yish ot WC. _ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R00000500001-2 ~ tomes
Approved For Release 2003/04/¥8/. | - 6+00791R000100500001-2 . ; RN @ \— any a wp A = re ne ee o é * , ‘ nn EL I a RR A ERT RT | eee Approved For Release sé 2003/0448 GUE -00791R000160500001 2 . , Figure. Bs + oe
“ ‘ Approved For Release 20Q4{04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 ; SS eR com TT RR ace al id Gs, ~ } ‘ . i a Leg } i | l } | rn Ww _¥ Ea Figure 10. » ; Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 oh a7.
LY a Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R0001 00500001-2 29 ic ca : , : 2 = 3 Poa! 3 nia ne wee enn Ka Lee See nee ee eee en -—— my \ to. H i . { La een neve ere we + rm ee i \ t =| 3| Approved For Release veil 6- -00791000100500001 2 a , 7 Pa ative on
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 GOPEDENT IAL — ras 24 Assuming the relationship of the gantry crane to Buiiding 1 in Fig. 6 is the same as the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 at URDF-3, it must be concluded that 7s 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. draw a perimeter of the area, but. it wasn't followed up by the experimenters. had been asked twice the day before to 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 . . Si voice of the experimenter recorded on tape. commented tnat 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 sketchof the rail-mounted gantry crane. It seems inconceivable to imagine how he could draw suca 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 possibility because the experiment was not controlled to discount the possibility that 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 2 for the time being, because it seems distasteful’ and unpopular, did much better ‘the second day toward establishing his Approve For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R0004.00§00001 -2 * . er . : sO Lf . . a ww 2 ft .? cary A DEEEAT, . a 7 . soe ee? af , ‘ . 14
SL lene Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 ~GONPEDENSTALS - 25 - 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 chat Piece. 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. Qne explanation could be that if RP tentions 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 ‘ne differentiate the fact from the fiction? At this stage of the experiment, the data is incon- clusive to validate 's capability of remote viewing. S41 THIRD DAY Summary Tne experiment began again at 11:43 a.m, on July 11, 1974. Tha data included 67 pages of transcribed tapes along with 6 sketches drawn that day py aS: was difficult to follow the discussion RR 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. 1 The experiment started with describing the specifics of the pool. At one time during this discussion | thought the pool he was looking at might well be the underground building (Building +) at URDF-3. He incorrectly recalled the nearest railroad as being 300 miles to the north’ even though on the first day, he had said the closest railroad was about 60 miles north. During the early afternoon, the experimenters showed 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-RDP96-00791R000400500001-2 “ Sele To 8 agRFEBBNEEAR ee . ee yee ore . ret oe wef ae eo, sin
Approved For Release 2003/ 26 Pane Nee ae \ \ ra we Se -00791R000400500001-2 o” GR-L064/ 74 \ Ab ee nyt, ey . QALOREC ‘ bd . . . cael Me nusemerers ~ * ™ “ Leia als ealint han neti leataint befialiiah inna hd eens aah a Bett kt adnate Lee ee r ' : ’ t et eof ’ f ee Sy wens Ao we mee beget Vii wh cL et ee alg eee ede ei ctene nee eeammmmenaes we merannana or amend Sh ER, 4 by
Dp oe Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : GIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 hee 27 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 tne 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 1 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- round building with four sections (A, B, C, and D) extending above the ground. S41 ae into the four "separate" buildings (A, B, C, and 5) 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 particula ea," This description is the most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit ig ability to remotely view URDF-3. St FOURTH DAY summary sq The discussion on the fourth day (July 15, 1974) involved only Hal Puthoff and . fF 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 Iccation, but now realized this "feeling" was incorrect. This day, the discussions did nothing toward -. any new evidence (that could be cHécked) to establish validity for 's remote~ viewing capability. St CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS < a The experiment to determine the validity of 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-RDP96-00791R000400500001-2 ar ar ee
* ease Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 GORPERERETAL— . ; 28 had been given to him earlier. He got very specific about details only 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 ubjects 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 1 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 gantrv 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 unfamiliarity 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-‘ sibility of the subject discussing the material with peopie not involved in the experiment. ' P nt Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 ry ae eft poe. a ‘oe ary . A hoe . . ‘ 1 ote oe at . ’
ae Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 29 " 9 After careful analysis of the data presented to me, I consider 'S 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-RDP96-00791R000100500001-2 : : . CORP Taree. poet fee, wea vet! oe oe . * <a # . eo of . chs * oes oe ” . . , . . ot * : ‘ my * . * n ?