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

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000200240001-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 27, 1998
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: December 4, 1975
• Content Type: RP

Approved -For Fease 2001 f1~~i~i ~RDP96-4918000200240001-0
SG11
Approved~For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00791~8000200240001-0
~68~~ ..
 Approved For Rase 2001/~~~~DP96-01,~J18000200240001-0
SUNiMAR'f
The remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 by Pat Price proved to tie 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.
During the-first day's session, Price:
l) 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 bu i 1 di rigs ,
2) saw a gantry crane far 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 perimete~~ of the
area even though he was asked to do this twice.
Therefore, nottring positive to validate remote viewing resulted from the first
day's session,.
Price was contacted by phone that evening by one t~f 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 durin`a that day's session.
3ie was also told that they wanted a drawing of the perimeter fence.
pn the second day, Price supplied the most positi?~~e 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 drawer 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 ~vhat to draw by somr:one
knowledgeable of URDF-3. ?~
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00791~R000~00240001-0
r- r.
~'~ ,..~:
~~`~
 Approved For R~gase 200116 DP96-OQ,~918000200240001-0
2
The second passibility is mentioned only because the experiment was not controlled
to discount the possibility that Price could talk to other people. '
Price commented that he was seeing a lot of things this secand day that.
he hadn't seen the previous day. In fact, he mentioned seeing several landmark-
type ob~iects that simply did not exist at URgF-3. ane explanation of this dis-
crepancy could be that if he mentioned enough 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 Price sees and what is really there certainly
would make it difFicult for the eventual user of h?is remote-viewing dai:a since
he would not know how to differentiate the fact from the fiction. At this
stage of the experintent, the data is inconclusive to validate Price's capability
of remote viewing.
Price was shown a sketch of a perspective of the dperations Area at
URC1F-3 on the third day and was told that this was a sketch of the actual
target. Price said he recognized the area but claimed that only ane of the
four headframes was present now. That was wrong, but his most damaging state-
ments had to do with his interpretation of Building 1 (the underground build-
ing) at URgF-3. lrJith the sketch as a reference, he "saw" the four ma in surface
protrusions of Building 1 as four separate above-ground buildings sitting atop
a concrete ap.ran. 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, "(io,
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 20.01/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-0079;'FfZ000200240001-0 ~= .,~,
? .. y
 Approved For Rase 200~f9'~=RDP96-OQ~918000200240001-0
Price`s com;r~ents 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 va'~idity for his remote-viewing
capability.
After careful analysis of all the data presented,. I have concluded that
Price's remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 was unsuccessful.
~.
Approved For Release 2001/03/Q7 :CIA-RDP96-00791FR000200240001-0
--
 Approved For F~yease 2001,~RDP96-091 8000200240001-0 ~
INTRODUCTION
I was asked to analyze and then judge the validity of the remote-viewing
experiment per~Formed on URDF-3 by Pat Price. 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; 2 also reviewed the July
5, 197.4 of URDF-3.
I am quite familiar with the chronology and layout of URDF-3, as well as
the surrounding terrain and technical areas :within 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 to Pat Price. This was necessary in order to
evaluate his originality in remote viewing. This study was done in four seg-
ments corresponding to Lire four days of i:he exper~irn~:~~t. Jucig~~~ent of the Prog-
ress and validity of the experiment was evaluated at the end of each day.
FIRST DRY
The experiment started at 11 a.m. on July 9, 1974 at Stanford Research
Institute (SRI). The-experimenters (Russ Targ and Nal Puthoff) told Pat Price
that the target was a geographical target selected from the Times of Landon
World Atlas. The coordinates of the target were given as 50?9'59"N and 7$?22'22"E;
Price wrote these coordinates down. It was emphasized-that this was a "real
taryet" as opposed to a sample target. Using sever?al maps, the ?xperimenters
showed Price the target location at 60 miles WSW of Semipalatinsk. The taryet
was described as a scientific military research and test area. To help orient
Price, he was told that the target was 25 ~to 30 nriles SW of "this river," pre-
sumabiy labeled correctly on the maps as the Irtysh River. Price was told to ,,
start with a vietirr of the general area as~seen from 50,000 f't. and get the layout
of any complexes or buildings, or whatever.
Approved For Release 2001 /03/07 :. CIA-RDP96-0079'FR000200240001=0. ~~ .
 Approved For Rele~e 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-0079+4~R0002002400b1-0 ..
Approved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-007918000200240001-0
 Approved For Rq~ase 200103/07 : CIA=RDP96-007.,918000200240001-0
When the coordinates were given, Price 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 tune,
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-
iny 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 laak 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 the it -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.
Price 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--f t. 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 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-0079~R000200240001-0 .
.. ...
 ~4~proved For Rase 2001/~~~~DP96-OQ~1 8000200240001-0
~ ~~~ ~
Approved For Release 20.01/03/07 :.CIA-RDP96-0079'~R000200201-0
 ~" , Approved
Ruse 2001/O~~~P96-04Z~J1 R000 40001 --~ `~~
`? ~....p
..
*r-
:~..
~ cr> ~
~~
.~'- ~ ~.~
pproved For Release 2001/03/07 :CIA-RDP96-00791~R000200240001-0
V~
 Approved For Rq,~ase 201~'~#~I?A=RDP96-09818000200240001-0
8
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 far 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 ghat the experimenter
suggests. The experimenter quickly informed Price that "we really don't know
what this thing is," and Price replies with, "I'll come back to that," but
again never does.
Price 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 s!. one researcher,
says Bell, has done psychological diag-
noses of alcoholics using an "emotion-pra-
ducing word test." 6y charting stress reac-
tions to lists of words, the researcher can
determine the shape of the circumstances
that have gotten the subject in his present
fix. The success of tests such as this leads
Bell to beast, "We can do b months worth
of psychaanaiysis in 10 minutes."
The psychological stress evaluator has
an interestingly ambivalent status as both
a forensic and a clinical instrument. As the'
Mictsigan attorney general wrote in re-
sponse to a request for clarification of the
PSE status apnder A~Tichigan's polygraph
examiners taw: '?... a very narcaw tine
separates the use of mechanical devices for
the purpose of measuring stress and the
use of Mich device to detu.rraine truthful-
ness.'" (Me decided that the act did apply
to the 1'SE in ttre latter case.) Foreatsically
spyaking, thr. PSIv is in a kind of limbo.
Nineteen states have laws licensing or
regulating polygraph use, .and presumably
in tlaose states where other instruments
aze not banned,- forensic use of the PSE
would be decided on a cease-toy-case basis.
One state, North Carolina, licer6ses PSE
operators ($0 hours of training is re-
yuiri;d); elsewhere, a persara armed with
' nothir+g but a L)ektar training certificate
can call hinasclf a PSE operator. i he ottper
states. includ'sr.g ltiew ~C'ark one{ California,
ha?fe no laws because of strcnuaass opposi-
tion by labor unions to legislation they
think will legitimize the use of lie detectors
in employment ;six states now ban com-
pulsory precrfaploymentpolygraph testing).
?ne individual who is determined that
the PSE shall gain full re;,ility in the says he has been doing .all the !ie-c'etectin~.
eyes of the law is John '!~'. Heisse, a Bar- work far the city of [3urlington-that. as,
iingtan, Vermont, atolaryn~~ologist, lieisse until Vermont passed a taw saying only po-
is the head of the International Society lygraphers can do trutttfuln~ss verificatier:
of Stress Analysts (ISSA), a tledgling work. I-leisse',elieves this la~.v was passed
organization of '011 PSE, polygraph, and just to protect the jobs of Vermont's three
voice anslyzer users from the fields of law polyeraphers. }-le has raised X100,000,
enforcement, industrial security, business, gathered 300 pages of outdone:, and is
law, and health. i-Icisse is perhaps the suing they state of Vermaatt. Ttre'. outcome
PSE's most fe:-v9c; partisan. He has rerun c9f this case could set a significant prece-
the Kubis study, using the contract's "ai- clerat if and when PSE's proliferate enough
ternate specifications," and claims the PSE t+~ attract the attention of oche: la.L~-
came out ca'ith 47 percent reliability?. 1-ie croakers.
has used the tnstrument to prove tiadi ,.,~~,?.a,??,... ?.. ~. ---: ~ .
people with laryngectomics still register t:a the drawing bi,rard. ?`The 1'SE is to
muscle miurotrernor; he has tested the ef- stress ana.iysis of the voice what the Model
foots of dozens of drugs an PSE subjects. T is to locomotion,"' !ae