‘Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 - 14 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 4 is his sketch of a small sec- tion of the fence. S| 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 did the crane interact with Building 17 or any- thing surrounding the building. 245 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). A continued to look at the area, he said, "I'm seeing a lot of things today I didn't see yesterday... I 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 1 is incorrect. He describes two gantry cranes that enter into his above-ground Building 1 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 1 at URDF-3. The major dif- ference is that Building 1 at URDF-3 is an underground buiiding rather than above ground a escribed 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 Co . SSHFEDENTIAL . re
rw Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 16 a3 AVG i 4st OT Ag w ety § =©aOf aouas 7 ee aqgqussog 0 e of t ‘ eo off » a? im) / / : “ / xajduoo o1f{13uUayos arn et ra a : ForRelease 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787RO0 nad pa ae 2 ee | Y4dou StH Vf |
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 - — EAD - . 17 : Sf continued with discussions of the length of the gantry rails. Gp ::. 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 end 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. 5 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 ap can see the four headframes that exist at URDF-3). Note: there 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-RDP96-00787R000790050003-9 ~<CONPESEREEAD. —
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 AOHTEDENEIAL | pany 1S - > experimenter was correct in asking re 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 tal] rail-mounted crane that runs up to Building 1. The tape resumes with yet another telephone conversation between Russ Targ 7 with only the voice of Russ Targ being heard. Gp er 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..Shcorner 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 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 tne crane look like when it's outside of Building 7?" Since QP soon two tysas ct gantry cranes (one about 150 ft. tall and the other about 50 ft. tall), he sketched both of them (see Figs. 7 and 8). Discussion of J otches 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. St er Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the cement silo-like building and the 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 buiiding or the silo-like building. In Fig. 6, these buildings are show ‘ify the generai location where, at URDF-3, a partially earth-covered tank and tali cylindricai- Shaped tanks or towers appear. The swimming pool in Fig. 6) is in the general location of the headframes at URDF-3. ‘ Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 CONFIDENSEAL-
fo wa | Rest Ot wa f S I" o eee Comment it een Pa omis Oe ee ee ee fe ae tm “4 — -_ ~— eee nemnrmeren nomen ft ry oe [ LY ! { 3 “SRA cS a ; nt Approved F For Release POORER EIEREP IS: -00787R000700050003-9 of Figure 6. » is at ‘< « we * ry bat peed Tenia
. Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 20 we -yigh oF We. oo | ee enn ee vO a ~ £@\A-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 Approved For Release 2003/04/18
“ay re N Approved For Release 2003/04/18 /C1A- Yo oikvd ” 6 ot tor . ° es et em mee meee, "2 | Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007.00050003-9
a . oe eo” Approved For Release 2008/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 . it ne e . rennet ‘ i area emer atnenn neenrmnmmerneres mrt | Approved For Release 2003M#¢t8e CiX-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 . ' . ° woe ty oy ss . . . Q . « . - - . MONt TPENE RAT % o S
oem ee oe ene, . . . . eee ee ee ae wo ee ~ : : totem te mee 2P oe te 0s a ar rete nie et Re ene retn ee terres, . Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : ‘Cl ihe oe ‘So7e7ROOOTHQNgN00S 8 9 ; we Cidtee q- Rom ae eee memes cee wae is 7 Cd ‘ . vf ee ee ee 5 vA. JUL 10 q974 2 te ome " LASLERDA-OFFICIAL a+)
a Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 SoeeepEent— : rom Assuming the-relationship of the gantry crane to Building 7 in Fig. 6 is the same as the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 at: URDF-3, it must be concluded that 1s 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 stil] correct though. Unfortunately, the experimenters failed again to get a drawing of the perimeter fence for the scientific comptex.: 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 herimeter fence of the Operations Area (scientific complex) at URDF-3. | ie 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 7 t the Lain noon). The rest of thesession was conducted over the telephone with on} &e 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 sketchof 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 possibility because the experiment was not controlled to discount the possibility that could talk to other people - such as the Disinformation Section of the KGB2LThat 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 Approwdd For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007.00050003-9 ey * - we. . . . soe a ; Po . . . . . at, . . nd . . ene ‘* oe » . . . e a6 we ot .@ : ~ tie? . eer, °. . 7 . ‘ . rn * . . . “oe . . . : 7 ho _ og -
“St . Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 CONFIDENT TAT. 25 o 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 that Prlade. 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. (ne explanation could be that if QP itintions 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. St THIRD DAY summary Tne experiment began again at 11:43 a.m. on July 771, 1974. Tha data included 67 pages of transcribed tapes along with 6 sketches drawn that day py Se: was difficult to follow the discussion QB eh: 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. 4 | The experiment started with 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 UROF-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 shoves QD » 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-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 “ 7 * * u . .
S14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 GORE EPEnTEAS tad . 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 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 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- ground building with four sections (A, B, C, and D) extending above the ground. "looked" 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 particular area." This description is the most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit ‘ n ability to remotely view URDF-3. St FOURTH DAY summary ST The discussion on the fourth day (July 15, 1974) involved only Hal Puthoff and .  ] 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 chécked) to establish validity for viewing capability. S1 's remote- Si 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-RDP96-00787R006700050003-9 . : lf
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 CONPEBEHGIAL— . rr. 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 faijied 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 wits the target. T also suggest that future experiments be more tightly controlles to discount the pos-‘ sibility of the subject discussing the material with peopie not involved in the experiment. »aproved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 . mo4 . Lo . ee re a . * ht . . wry? e
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 PORTIDE NS After careful analysis of the data presented to me, I consider Qa 's remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 to be unsuccessful. ‘I reconmend 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-RDP96-00787R000700050003-9 CORE TEEN Mat a . Lye i rr nly ry me . a, oo * * : _ . 7 . . _ . e