AN ANALYSIS OF A REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENT OF URDF -3

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000200040002-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 14, 2003
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: December 4, 1975
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
y ALYS!S OF A E 110T
E PERI1 E T OF URDF-3
A' 1LYs!s Y:
TYPEO By: 11mm
DDECE171DER 4Y 1015
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
SUMMARY S,, bje I ' S 1
The remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 by proved to be unsuc-
cessful. This conclusion was reached only after a careful review of the tape
recordings, tape transcripts, and sketches that were generated during the four-
day experiment.
S1
During the first day's session, M.
1) accurately described the location and type of
target (that information had been given to him
by the experimenters) but failed on the layout'
and types of buildings,
2) saw a gantry crane for heavy lifting,
3) tended to spend too much time on specifics only
to say, "I'll come back to that," but seldom
did, and
4) successfully evaded drawing a .perimeter of the
area even though he was asked to do this twice.
Therefore, nothing positive to validate remote viewing resulted from the first
day's session.
-Si
was contacted by phone that evening by one of the experimenters
and was told to concentrate on the crane and its relationship to the dominant
three-story building (Building 1) that he had seen during that day's session.
He was also told that they wanted a drawing of the perimeter fence.
On the second day, supplied the most positive evidence yet for
the remote-viewing experiment with his sketch of the rail-mounted gantry crane.
It seems inconceivable to imagine how he could have drawn such a likeness 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.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 The second possibility is mentioned only because the experiment was not controlled
to discount the possibility that could talk '-other people.
Si S1
commented that he was seeing a lot of things this second day that
he hadn't seen the previous day. In fact, he mentioned seeing several landmark-
type objects that simply did not exist at URDF-3. One explanation of this dis-
crepancy
could be that if he mentionedenouh specific objects, he would surely
hit on one object that is actually present. This could explain the inconsistency
between:
1) his most positive evidence of the experiment - a
sketch of a rail-mounted gantry crane, and
2) the large number of objects he sees that, in
reality, are simply not present at URDF-3.
This discrepancy between what sees and what is really there certainly
would make it difficult for the eventual user of his remote-viewing data since
he would not know how to differentiate the fact from the fiction. At this
stage of the experiment, the data is inconclusive to validate Price's capability
of remote viewing.
Si
was shown a sketch of a perspective of the Operations Area at
URDF-3? third day and was told that this was a sketch of the actual
target. said he recognized the area but claimed that only one of the
four headfranes was present now. That was wrong, but his most damaging state-
ments had to do with his interpretation of Building l (the underground build-
ing) at URDF-3. With the sketch as a reference, he "saw" the four main surface
protrusions of Building 1 as four separate above-ground buildings sitting atop
a concrete apron. He was. asked specifically whether these four buildings he
saw might really be the surface elements of an underground building. He failed
either to pick up the lead or to remotely view correctly because he said, "No,
that's a concrete apron, and there's nothing subterranean right in that particular
area." This statement was his most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit
his ability to remotely view URDF-3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18: CIA-RDP96-00791 R0002b00'40002-1
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
's comments on the fourth day were very specific regarding his
concept of the overall operation at URDF-3, however no new evidence (that could
be checked) was disclosed toward establishing validity for his remote-viewing
capability.
After careful analysis of all the data presented, I have concluded that
W
,Approved For Release 2003/ 96-007.91R0.00200040002-1
's remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 was unsuccessful.
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
INTRODUCTION
I was asked to analyze and then judge the validity of the remote-viewing
experiment performed on URDF-3 by The data to be analyzed included
two cassette tapes covering the first two days, 79 pages of transcribed tapes
regarding the third and fourth days, and 30 sketches-; I also reviewed the July
5, 1974 of URDF-3.
I am quite familiar with the chronology and layout of URDF-3, as well as
the surrounding terrain and technical areas dith-in 40 miles. I tried to keep
an open mind while performing this analysis, but if I had any bias at all, it
was that I wanted to believe remote viewing could help us establish the true'
purpose of URDF-3.
Throughout this analysis, I paid particular attention to all information
about URDF-3 that was supplied toMThis was necessary in order to
evaluate his originality in remote viewing. S'IThis study was done in four seg-
ments corresponding to the four days of the experiment. Judgient of the prog-
ress and validity of the experiment was evaluated at the end of each day.
FIRST DAY
The experiment started at 11 a.m. on July 9, 1974 at Stanford Research
Institute (SRI). The'experimenters (Russ Targ and Hal Puthoff) told
that the target was a geographical target selected from the Times of London
World Atlas. The coordinates of the target were given as 50?9'59"N and 78?22'22"E;
Slow wrote these coordinates down. It was emphasized that this was a "real
target" as opposed to a sample target. Using several maps, the experimenters
he target location at 60 miles WSW of Semipalatinsk. The target
showed MR t
was described as a scientific military research and test area. To help orient
Si he was told that the target was 25 to 30. miles SW of "this river," pre-
sumably labeled correctly on the maps as the Irtysh River. M was told to
start with a view of the general area as'seen from 50,000 ft. and get the layout
of any complexes or buildings, or whatever.
Approved For Release 20J,/~RDP96=00791 R09020.0040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
When the coordinates were given, said he was getting a picture that
they (the Soviets) have done a lot of rocket launching and recovery out of that
area. As he starts viewing, he says it's dark over there at the present time,
quite a cloud cover, and a full moon. He immediately sees the river and heads
SW from the river to the institute (as he calls it).' He says the area he's look-
ing at has 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. This description could very well
describe a first look at the Operations Area at URDF-3.
He then finds that he is looking at "a guy in a very peculiar type of
helmet." He tends to get bogged down in the specifics of the purpose of this.
helmet and shifts his attention to look at the cosmonauts (that were currently
in orbit) to compare helmets. He says they (the Soviets) are running some tests
on some equipment that currently has to do with their space program. Then he
backs off from this specific subject and says, "I'll look around and come back
to that" - but he never does.
,~; 1
was then asked to describe the general terrain and perhaps the
building layout. He drew a sketch (Fig. 1) in which he correctly identifies
the complex as being about 30 miles south of the Irtysh River (this information
had been given to him earlier). However, he incorrectly says the road from the
river passes through a gorge. The layout of the buildings and area they cover
as shown in his sketch are incorrect for URDF-3. Although there are some an-
tennas at URDF-3, none are as tall as the 500-ft. antenna he described.
He pondered over the dimensions of the outdoor pool he saw because "that's
in meters - they have it." He then translates it to feet (60' x 150'). He said
they use the pool for underwater testing and orientation studies but in reality
there is no outdoor pool at URDF-3.
In Fig. 2, he drew a military complex three-eighths of a mile NE of the
scientific complex shown in Fig. 1. Actually there is a military complex at
URDF-3, located about 2 1/2 miles NW of the Operations Area, but this data was
Approved For Release 20Q 1f$&NQWRDP96-00791 R060200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
~--
ean.?
4
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CJA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
1"'10RPd 1
/s P.
 Approvea
1
N%)
For Release 200: IA-RDP96-00791 R000200046002-1
1
4,
Ia .
1
f4A
A
d Fo
R
R
P96
00791 8000
00040002
1
pprove
r
e
as
-
D
-
.
-
:.. - Pi'gure 2
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
given to him earlier when the target was described as a scientific military
research and test area. He said the military complex looked like it had been
there for two to three years, when in fact it's been there for over a decade.
Also in Fig. 2, he described a radar/communications building north of the
scientific complex. The description of the,building and its location relative
to the military complex fits the description of the probable laboratory-admini-
stration building located about 2 1/2 miles northwest of the Operations Area at
URDF-3. When.he is specific about what he sees inside the building, one of the
experimenters asks whether one of the specifics he mentioned might well be some-
thing else. He takes another look and changes his mind saying, "You may be
right," giving the impression that he could be led-to see what the experimenter
suggests. The experimenter quickly informed that "we really don't know
what this thing is," and replies with, "I'll come back to that," but
again never does. Sl
saw an array of telephone poles about 400 yards SE of the scientific
complex (see Fig. 2), but there is no such array of poles at or near URDF-3.
He was then asked to go up to 50,000 ft. to look again and describe the
layout. Centering himself over the scientific complex, he scanned in a clock-
wise direction; the view he saw is sketched in Fig. 3. Nothing in this figure
is correct except that the area is arid and has low hills to the south. Speci-
fically, he is incorrect in his locations of a small village, an airstrip, a
cluster of pine trees, and a city 60 miles to the SW. There is, however, an
airfield at the Main Support Complex 30 miles north of URDF-3.
was asked if he saw a railroad anywhere. The closest railroad to
the target that he could see was about 60 miles north running roughly NW and
SE and he didn't see any spur tracks in a direction toward the target. In
reality, there is a railway in the Main Support Complex (about 30 miles north
of URDF-3) with a railway spur under construction down to URDF-3. There is also
grading-for -a ra i.l way 'spur ? near. the military complex at URDF-3.
Approved For Release 2.4II,3/D (1$ : CIA-RDP06-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
/ ei r'TENT T A T
Approved For. Release 20037. - DP96-00791 RQ00200040002-1
Figti 3.,
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
10
40libecame specific in looking at a scope trace at the airstrip and
claimed it made him nauseated. At this time the experimenters andm decided
to have lunch so-said he would come back to this later, but as he randomly
elevated himself, he noted the area was under high security and had a cyclone
fence. He could read the troop markings and buttons on a Colonel and then said
he could come back to the security and military designations. In reality, the
Operations Area of URDF-3 has 4 security fences, not just one cyclone fence. They
stopped for lunch at about 12:14 p.m.
After lunch, at 2:22 p.m.,Wpicks up with the scope-trace at the
airstrip. He concludes that the trace indicates the pulse of someone who is
nauseated - that's why it caused nausea in him.
He was asked to indicate again where the telephone poles were and to map
out the perimeter of the area. He drew in the telephone-pole grid with a circle
of trees around the grid (see Fig. 2). There is no telephone-pole grid like
this at or near URDF-3.
Upon spotting several low-boy trucks and a gantry crane (for very heavy
lifting) in the vehicle area (Fig. Mwas'a*sked if he could tell where
they took the heavy things from the low-boy trucks. This question led him to
a look at the area near'Building 1 in Fig. 1. He saw a sign in front"of the
building that said something to do with Zone 4. He said he would get. back to
that but never did.
When describing Building 1, he said it had three stories above-ground
plus a basement with meteorological equipment on the flat roof and then looked
inside the building at the top floor. He started to get too specific as to what
he saw inside the building and was reminded that the type of thing the experi-
menters could best check him on was the outside appearance of the buildings.
They asked him the dimensions of Building 1 and he had a very difficult time
establishing them when he finally settled on 80' x 160'. He then described
the other buildings in the scientific complex. He said Building 1 was the
dominant building due to its height and central location; everything seemed to,
pivot off of it. There is no building at URDF-3 that matches the above descrip-
tion of Building 1.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
4fti4&YT Y
11
S1.
They decided to stop the experiment for the day but asked M 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).
aid 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 t,; 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 3 p.m.
Summary of the First Day
The controlled session taped at SRI lasted a total of about 1 hour
and 52 minutes. It consisted of the experimenters defining the target as a
"real target" as opposed to a sample target. With the use of several maps, a
s t Mwas given coordinates of the target and told that it was a scientific
military research and test area about 25 to 30 miles SW of the Irtysh River.
When the coordinates were given, M 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.
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 buil.di.n.gs.. 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-RDP96-00791 R00b200640002-1
 description of the most dominant building (a large three-story building) doesn't
match any building at URDF-3.
51.
M 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 objects he claims to have
seen.
The most positive evidence of valid remote viewing IrDr 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..." UnfortunaIely, he never con-
sidered that description again. The only other piece of positive evidence that
day was his view of a gantry crane for heavy lifting.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 CIA-RDP96-00791 R00020d040002-1
? ? n r.+Tr.T nT~NTT 7 A T
? a vim- ? "-,''~"""
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
To summarize the first day's session accurately 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 1
Hal Puthoff talked to 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 I." Further, they wanted to know "anything about Building 1
in relation to the surrounding buildings, like whatever forms of connection or
communication or transportation that exists between Building 1 (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 Bui1'ding i."
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 11 a.m. on July 10, 1974. It
was mentioned that the previous night had turned in drawings of a fence
and a crane ''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 6 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 i@RJYM;&!GIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
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.
5t
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 1 or any-
thing surrounding the building. said 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).
As 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 1 at URDF-3).
However, his description of the interaction between the crane and Building
i 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-
ferencei is that Building 1 at URDF-3 is an underground building rather than above
ground as iescribed 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-RDP96-00791 R00G200940002-1
 Approved F~tf1~a'se'2~UU31Q~lM ~iA-RDP9
pproved For Release 200 4118 :CIA-RDP9-00791 ROOU2OOQ40002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
ti
0
S
Approved For Release 2003/04/ IA-RDP96-00791 R000~
~-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
17
Si
continued with discussions of the length of the gantry rails. Msaw 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 Wand 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) 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 bytelling the experimeters that the tall 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 rails - one running east-lest 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 ashunique
as the crane. (The experimeter is obviously trying to see ii 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.ro'tation of 90?, the
4
Approved For Release 2003/04 I P
a ,e96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
S1
experimenter was correct in asking to 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 crane
that runs up to Building 1.
The tape resumes with yet another telephone conversation between Russ
Targ aJA M wit,,i only the voice of Russ Targ being heard. M appar-
ently report a at he saw a dome-shaped building (about 55' tall x 160' diam-
eter) with its center located about 200 ft. west of th~,,$icorner of Bui 1 r ; ng 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, "Wh t does the crane
look like when it's cutside of Building 1?" Since had ccc; t::c pc c
3r~
gantry cranes (one about 150 ft. tall and the other about 50 ft. tall), he
sketched both of them (see Figs. 7 and 8).
0 -,. ,
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. This sketch
provides the most positive evidence yet to support the validity off's re-
mote viewing of URDF-3. 51
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the cement silo-like building and the
040 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 showy i. the general
location where, at URDF-3, a partially earth-covered tank and tall cylindrical-
shaped tanks or towers appear. The swimming poo~in Fig. 6) is in the general
location of the headframes at URDF-3.
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R0002D0040002-1
 W d.
1~5.t ,4I
1~?4
Approved For Release 2003/0 CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200
Z-
.r.
Approved For Release 2003/
? hAI ire
P96-00791 R000200040002-1
19
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
kLJ
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 A-RDP96-00791 R0002000400OZ-1
rn
 Approved For Release 2003/04/1
Approved For Release 2003/96-00791 R00020004'0002-1 .
Fi.gure.3. ::'
 Approved For Release 200/9,4/18: CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
Figure 10.
Approved For Release 2003/04/1 8 P9.6-00791.R000200040002-1
 ~pproved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
Approved For Release. 2003/08Yi96 ,00791 R0.40200040002-1. ,
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
Assuming the relationship of the gantry crane to Building I in
Fig. 6 is the same as the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 at
51
s oriented 900 in error in the scien-
URDF-3, it must be concluded thatift i
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 pserimeter fence of the Operations Area
(scientific complex) at URDF-3. M 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 pith only 1-4,11
6c
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 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 S 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
51
Approved For Releas& 2003/04/'I " - DP 96-00791 R0002U0040002:1. .
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
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 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 if 1 ntions 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 validate= Is capability of remote viewing.
SI
THIRD DAY
Summary
The experiment began again at 11:43 a.m. on July 11, 1974. T;e
data included 67 pages of transcribed tapes along with 6 sketches drawn that
day by ~~'IIt was difficult to follow the discussion ofm and 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.
I
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 URDF-3.
He incorrectly recalled the nearest railroad as being 300 miles
to the nort?heven though on the first day, he had said the closest railroad
was about 60 miles north.
1
During the early afternoon, the experimenters showed 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 2003J0 DP96-00791 R000200040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/1,01 IA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
ILI
ti
Approved For Release 2003 P~6-00791 R000200640002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
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 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 particula rea."
This description is the most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit's
ability to remotely view URDF-3. J t
FOURTH DAY
Summary
The discussion on t~h1e fourth day (July 15, 1974) involved only
Hal Puthoff and. W 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 su plying any new
evidence (that could be c}iecked) to establish validity for's remote-
viewing capability. 51
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.FprIRelease 200311 P96-00791R00020d040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
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 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 I 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 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 i:he target. I also
suggest that future experiments be more tightly controllee to discount the pos-'
sibility of the subject discussing the material with people not involved in the
experiment.
Approved For Release 200310 CIA-RDP96-00791 R0002Q0040002-1
 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200040002-1
After careful analysis of the data presented to me, I consider is
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. F.or Release. 2003/?P96-00791R0Ub2a0040002-1