VISIT TO STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 10-11 DECEMBER 1974

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 11, 2003
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: December 16, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2003/06/24: CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
SUBJECT: Visit to Stanford Research Institute, 10-11 December 1974
1. While at SRI, we conducted a series of experiments over a
period of two days with interesting results. The first day, Tuesday
afternoon, was devoted to another outdoor remote viewing experiment.
Hal and his secretary, Jan, drove to the target while I remained in the
Lab-with Russ. The experiment was delayed fifteen minutes because of
problems in acquiring the traveling orders from Bart's safe. During
this experiment, the images were not asclear or distinct as in the
previous one, and I was forced to "work" harder to extract meaningful
data.
2. Much of the key data that I recorded and sketched was correct
and the gastalt elements were all present. I correctly located Hal and
Jan as being by water, standing on a stony surface. I had him pointing
at a winged creature which I incorrectly identified as a seagull (it
was a winged insect in the water). The black and white structure to
the left of the pool turned out to be a lamp post with a glass globe
rather than the light-house-like structure I tried to describe (my
drawing is a good likeness to the structure). Again toward the end of
the fifteen minute experiment, the results became less accurate. I
tried to describe a wooden bridge off to the right that did not exist
but there were several wooden balconies on a two-story apartment house
that resembled what I called a wooden bridge. Also my drawing of the
"cement stantions and cables" resembled the wooden and metal fence
surrounding the pool. I did, however, mention the presence of railroad
tracks that I could not precisely place. This presented a good time
correlation with the passage of a S.P. train on its track about two
blocks away; the train caught Jan's attention and Hal explained to her
where the tracks were.
3. All in all I feel this was a good correlation experiment
although by no means as outstanding as the first experiment. Further-
more, the range to this site was over twelve miles and there were no
obvious sources of strong A.C. fields. These facts plus the state-of-
agitation of Hal due to the delay in arriving at the target all contri-
bute to the less outstanding results. However, I am getting better at
filtering out noise in these experiments.
SG1A
 Approved For Release 2003/06/24: CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
4, Since the results were encouraging, I agreed to return Wednesday
after visiting another contractor. We begain with a full protocal
technology series experiment with only Hal going to the target site
while Russ remained in the Lab with me. I correctly identified the
target as being a computer terminal but was unable to specify whether
it was a haYrd copy or CRT terminal (two CRT and one hand copy terminals
were in the room). I placed it correctly in the room and identified
the PDP-8 computer computer as "at least three 6-foot relay racks of
equipment with interconnecting coax cables" - there were five racks!
I incorrectly tried to place a yellow gieger counter on a table in the
target room, but the counter I described was sitting on a shelf just
outside the door of the Lab I was in. I correctly stated in reply to a
question by Russ that Hal was talking to the computer operator about
what the operator was doing rather than about the experiment Hal was
conducting. Again the results of this experiment were very good so we
planned to do an additional one after lunch. We also agreed not to use
targets that I was familiar with as a result of the briefings.
5. After lunch we conducted a blind remote viewing experiment in
which Hal asked Earle Jones to place an object in Bart's conference
room. I remained alone in the Lab and attempted to verbally describe
the object to a tape recorder. My initial image was of a "heavy grey
metal casting." I immediately stated that "if we had not agreed not to
use objects that I knew had been used before, I would say that it was the
three hole punch again." I continued for about five minutes trying to
describe this "grey metal casting" with "engraved or embossed markings"
continually stating if it isn't the three hole punch then I can't identify
the object. Finally, I gave up after sketching the object and Hal and I
went to the conference room to see the object - it was a three hole
punch: Earle had chosen it at random and was not aware that it had been
used before! I am particularly happy about this experiment and its
results.
6. We then ran two more completely unsuccessful experiments in
which objects were placed in the conference room by Earle and a person
unknown to me. The first object, a pocket watch about two inches in
diameter was missed completely. Instead I drew a green IBM typewriter
and a tall philodendron-type plant in a dark blue pot. Both of these
objects were in the office outside the conference room. Interestingly
in this experiment I saw the two objects I described individually de-
pending on the angle from which I tried to observe the table. Looking
down I saw the typewriter; looking sideways I saw the plant. In the
next experiment, Earle placed a wooden carving of a bird on the table.
I incorrectly identified it as a blue rough surfaced notebook with a
red sunburst emblem on its cover. Earle had had such a notebook and
emblem in the conference room for several hours that day! Hal has an
explanation for this smearing in time of the data.
Approved For Release 2003/06/24: CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
e
 Approved, For Release 2003/06/24: CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
7. Following these two unsuccessful experiments, Hal suggested that
I try to separate six S.W. message envelopes from six blank envelopes.
While he prepared the experiment by putting the envelopes into brown
envelopes, I played with the teaching machine. Out of five runs of 25
trials my worst score was six and my best was twelve.
8. In selecting the SW message envelopes I scored exactly 50%.
Of the six envelopes I had selected as SW messages, the last three were
while likewise,three of the six that I had selected as blanks were SWs.
I then tried to draw the geometric figures that were in the three SW
envelopes that I had correctly selected. The match of the drawings is
easily rationalized but I don't know how good they are. The results are
sketched below:
9. After this last experiment, we sat and talked for awhile but
conducted no additional experiments. To be honest, I felt drained and
quite tired but I am well satisfied with the pattern of the experiments.
There are no "near hits"; either the results are overwhelmingly positive
with good accuracy, or, as in the two unsuccessful cases, they bear no
resemblence what so ever to the object or scene of the experiment.
10. To date then I have conducted two outdoor remote viewing
experiments with good to excellent results, one technology series with
good results, and three blind remote viewing experiments, one with
excellent results and two in the same room with zero results.
SG1A
Distribution:
Original - Circulate
1 - OTS/CB
1 - OTS/APB C rono
1 - OTS/APB/Contractor File
Approved For Release 2003/06/24: CIA-RDP79-00999A000300060003-3
a