Pat Price reads the Semipalatinsk Soviet test site (July 1974)

. _. Approved For Rglease 2001/6318 SCHAAR DP96-0Q791R000200240001-0 AN ANALYSIS OF A REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMERT OF URDF-3 { | : SGI ‘ ANALYSIS BY: TYPED BY: DECEMBER 4, 1975 . GONFIDENTEAL . - Ss  _. SUMNARY, : The remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 by Pat Price 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. During the first day's session, Price: . 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. . Price 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. ile was also told that they wanted a drawing of the perimeter fence. 7 > . On the second day, Price 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 drawa such a likeness to ” the actual crane at URDF-3 unless: p 1) he actually saw it through remote viewing, or 2 2) he was informed of what to draw by someone 7 - knowledgeable of URDF-3. a . 4  = 2 The second possibility 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 second day that he hadn't seen the previous day. In fact, he inentioned seeing several landmark- type objects that simply did not exist at URDF-3. One 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 his remote-viewing data since 0 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. Price was shown a sketch of a perspective of the Operations Area at URDF-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 one 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 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. . .  . . 3 Price'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 Price's remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 was unsuccessful. "  __ INTRODUCTION I was asked to analyze and then judge the validity of the remote-viewing experiment performed 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; 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 within 40 miles. 1 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. a Throughout this analysis, 1 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 the four days of the experiment. Judament of the prog- ress and validity of the experiment was evaluated at the end of each day. FIRST _DAY : The experiment started at 1] a.m. on July 9, 1974 at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). The experimenters (Russ Targ and Hal Puthoff) told Pat Price 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; . Price wrote these coordinates down. It was emphasized that this was a “real target" as opposed to a sample target. Using several maps, the experimenters “ ‘ showed Price the target location at 60 miles WSW of Semipalatinsk. The target . . was described as a scientific military research and test area. To help orient 7 Price, 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. Price was told to a start with a view of the general area as seen from 50,000 ft. and get the Jayout of any complexes or buildings, or whatever.  6 nak do Meer WF Thre The base ahend he frock . A anatt % for Revvebied! amellets OK Athyn fj ae ae  .. . e 5 | 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 i area. As he starts viewing, he says it's dark over there at the present time, i 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 iow one-story buildings that are partially dug into the ground giving the effect (as seen at ground level) of very short, squatty buildings, whereas i 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 i 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. 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-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 thé Operations Area, but this data was ; 7 7 .  6 Be . ee AA : roved For Release 2001/0810 PC RAARDP96-00Z91R000200240001-0 : fe? £ i rene = | ww Ieee sj Bro . Pi = | gk a my ( & 4 : AN € A le Oe, al Z| $$" Lo \ 2, eal } )\eZ \ % Va Me oe x i 2 <5 a y= i Hee a fac) l . & ae EEA \ . Ct & Pa ae i ' & tt (BS |) | ‘ Oo ae a: . i r A*s. —7 : \ ae 5 { . é Seq F&p | > Ag /8 | ST) a: i je “HA {iS 2 [ t BES \ i C, ? &\ .3 pp. ee — VY ff Coy : No ' N= j J 5 ee rh . 4 / wee Yes oon min SASS , ug pet wae 0. Om TR FR  _ & . cAN of | ag, Approved Kor Release 200 /03isGdeRADPOE-00291ROOORDHRADOOY 0, ws } i ek a Le Pgh td 7 S \ x S38 set N. SO IG) | = XY es went Ny . SR ge || es : BP OT | _ “ii So: Od a i N . er i a OY i ° . . ep . : _ Lx 5 Ty 3 2 < b AT 4 it: \ o 2 { : oO 7 r t 4 Gg © BW a § “Nn 1 = t \s : Vv | SAT = a a: RES 3 SSNS) s : os ® Yo Aas . | Bn For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00794R000200240001-0 @) cee RRL pulp POM te Qs  Approved For Reease 2089788707 HO1A-RDP96-00791R000200240001 a 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/comhunications 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 - i right," giving the impression that he could be led to see what 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 poies 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 j 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. . . ' Price 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 railway ‘spur-near-the military complex at URDF-3. 5 .  __ Approved For Relgase 2004¢6a/0%s244-RDP96-00791R000200240001°0 : § at a : 5 ay a a a \o\s 4 3 io 4 3 a : a : 3/ x : . ys . y rs i yw 7 . oO wor r 5 E 3 | & . S, oe x % 2 eco : ~ aK ; a So : mo Ss : ve % . t an . - . We g . : rat eo iN # i : hat \ie il Woe Ete oe ls een So, Rod  __ Approved For Relgase 2001/08/07"? ClA-RDP96-00Z91R000200240001-019 } Price became specific in looking at a scope trace at the airstrip and i claimed it made him nauseated. At this time the experimenters and Price decided j to have lunch so Price said he would come back to this later, but as he randomly j 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 i he could come back to the security and military designations. In reality, the i 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., Price picks up with the scope trace at the i 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, i Upon spotting several low-boy trucks and a gantry crane (for very heavy ‘ lifting) in the vehicle area (Fig. 1), Price was asked if he could tell where a they took the heavy things from the low-boy trucks. This question Jed him to i 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. 7 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 ais?6V84 For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00794R000200240001-0 #7  Approved For Relgase 2001/0M0Z .f1A- RDP96-00291 R000200240001-0 i : u | | They decided to stop the experiment for the day but asked Price to look : at the target at different intervals that evening. (Due to the difference in 4 time, all of his viewing during this formalized part of the experiment - on this first day - had been at nighttime locally at URDF-3). i : i Price said 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 i to draw a perimeter, or would he rather save that for tomorrow. He said he I would rather save that since he's starting tu labor a bit. It was unfortunate ! that they didn't pursue the perimeter earlier in the day because it certainly ad has a unique shape. They quit at 3 p.m. 7 i 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. Withtheuse of several maps, Pat Price was given coordinates of the target and told that il was a scientific military research and test area about 25 to 30 miles SW of the Irtysh River. When the coordinates were given, Price 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. Price 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 cs 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 buildings.. Tt seemed he had the perfect = description of URDF-3, but never came back to that again. In fact, his later ° -  _ Approved For Relpase 2001 /O08RFFPRSFAARDP96-0Q791R000200240001-0 . 12 description of the most dominant building (a large three-story building) doesn't match any building at URDF-3. : Price 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 smali village NE of URDF-3, 7 : 7) a city 60 miles SW of URDF-3, i 8) a cluster of pine trees west of URDF-3, and . 9) a three-story building (with a basement) as 3 the dominant building in the scientific complex. i It doesn't seem fair to grade him on landmark-type objects he failed to see at ae 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 Q seen. ” The nost positive evidence of valid remote viewing for 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..." Unfortunately, he never con- * . sidered that description again. The only other piece of positive evidence that day was APPRAKECLFor Relegseraae 1403/0dai CIA-RDR96-00791R000200240001-0 aoe  __ Approved For Relpase 2001/6187 "SRE DP 96-0979 1000200240001. . ° SG1J To summarize the first day's session, Price 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 : | Hal Puthoff talked to Pat Price by telephone that evening at 5:25 p.m. | to give him further instructions for his scanning that night. He was told that i 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 1." Further, they wanted to know “anything about Building 1 ‘in relation to the surrounding buildings, like whatever forms of connection or conmunication 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 Building 7." °” 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). 7 ~ + SECOND DAY . : The remote-viewing experiment resumed at 11 a.m. on July 10, 1974. It was mentioned that the previous night Price had turned in drawings of a fence 7 and a crane. Price'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 bé- 2 fore was underestimated by at least a factor of 3. - Th  _ Approved For Relgase 20070377" OtA-RDP96-00Z91R000200240001-0 e 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. : Price was again told that the experimeters wanted more information oii i 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. Price said the gantry crane interacted with I Building 1, the outdoor pool and the telephone pole array. He drew a sketch i showing the relative locations of buildings as he saw them that day (Fig. 5). i 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 Price 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). af 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. 0 underground Building 1. His description of this building is also wrong in oo 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 building rather than above ~ ground as Price described 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 7  , Ss Approved ror kaon oes sUfalage | . -_ = AEN BO: REN SP RSS | EE NS Oe | PAIS OT ASS, i) ae ee MOISE Ay, ; S GL Ly a Penne Ze a Z 5 . sd te : ¥ fs 7 ; : : . "Pe For Release 2004/93/07 : CIR }6-007941R000200240001-0 a : an 8  at ~ Approved For Relgase 2001/0887 °@fR¢RDP96-00Z91R000200240001-0 | : 1 & aX \ ~ 4 | Ye | } “3 “ an : : . ) AH oe . a et _ 4 ct, ee. “s : | &: _ : ; : A ee bal \5 = eet ee oe = Aj —_ . g 3 Rol Stk - a aed — (td : e(l c ~ 3 ele |FTe’ O Approved Foi i. banister : cuore cdeee seni: 2 = ns pommpepaege oo NEN ce KON  _ : - 7 { continued with discussions of the length of the gantry rails. Price saw weld- i 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- i versation between Price and 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. Price had said earlier ! that day that: . . I 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., I 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 Price telling the experimeters that the tail gantry crane : does not enter Building 1 but that there are two shorter gantry cranes inside 1 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 . t building on the same rail. This complicated relationship of three gantry i cranes does not exist at URDF-3. ete sg Price is then contacted by phone again and asked to scan the area across "4 the road west of Building 1 (see Fig. 5). He is told that in that region i 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 if Price 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 Price'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 a:  . experimenter was correct in asking Price 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 and Pat Price with only the voice of Russ Targ being heard. Price appar- 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 the SW corner 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 the crane look like when it's outside of Building 12" Since Price had seen two types of 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 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 of Price's re mote viewing of URDF-3. = 0 Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the cement silo-like building and the : dome-shaped building. Figure 6 shows their relative locations to Building 15 however, there is nothing at URDF-3 that looks like the dome-shaped building A or the silo-like building. In Fig. 6, these buildings are shown in the generat location where, at URDF-3, a partially earth-covered tank and tall cylindricat- shaped tanks or towers appear. The swimming pool (in Fig. 6) is in the general . location of the headframes at URDF-3. . .  f ws ee wSt OT Tag) fox : 19: awusvatnge APProved For Rejease 200 oso? : CIA-RDP96-00Z91R00H200R40Q04-0 j : . = i >z | ee : { [ | . . : . —F | ‘ { | © ' Lo. & . | : : c _ : j aan Ee re en ne YY, . + . : , > : _ , “ . tor ( | : AY tos Ww —_ . 1 ot ot QPS. : : ; SR a oa wea : | . : Bo vos Figure 6.0) te Ok ae:  : Approved For Rea 20080M1FER-ROPSE-0aLO1R000200240001.0 20: I 7 Tou) py NY eee eeeeeeeraaes 4 =a / Woot ii & A ee ee | i LS Ja ayo | 4 IM (I L_ y || 2 i dle me ae ; . sy a ee 2 eee a  : : . Ne}, ty BE : 14 ee ne fl | AX QD Aye p tye | PELE og «HS YY / i V\ wenn dl Pit] \\, a nn VA ee | || | \ 7 a ‘| rN | - | RA {| © a ey e 38 _ 7  i | t | a \ ! 22 fo _ aa . i | &% . te . iat 8B Sees \, i aa a ne \ | 7. i | _ | : : i | ee ere = . : - St ” A : a \ 0 Lee ~S ay : : _ 5 tm ace) ; 4 Nh. : oN 7 oN M ; iN ‘ a eee ee ( 4 . i ~ z Ld p ? og Z / 3 oc See” a 3 ae tt eee eee i “ : wrod ys ; R . . : ' 8 8 (« |  7 : ' “et oars Naneremmrssamomnntion(D** > _ Approved For Rajease 20080807 CIM RDPS6-0GZ91RODOD00Z40001O=— : / . _ rr ‘ 8 ii : ‘ b q ae . Hh fH i ' i 4 : : {| ae i : i | i Ti —_———— t : ee BO 5 t Se aR ~ i ee | : : i i . : fee . i i : . : i i z i t | So a . . y } : : 1 -% Y Lo i. * \ I —  . Approved For Rejease 200 POSTOT CIA-ROP96-0491R000200249901-0 i . . i Assuming the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 in i Fig. 6 is the same as the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 at i URDF-3, it must be concluded that Price is oriented 90° in error in the scien- | tific complex. His north direction for the scientific complex only would cor- i respond to what is actually east at URDF-3. His relationship of scientific i complex to military complex to the Irtysh River is still correct though. i 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 . i very close to the actual shape of the perimeter fence of the Operations Area | (scientific complex) at URDF-3. Price 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 with only the voice of the experimenter recorded on tape. Price 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: . | i 1) he actually saw it through remote viewing, or { 2) he was informed of what to draw by someone | knowledgeable of URDF-3. es d | vl I only mention this second possibility because the experiment was not controlled | to discount the possibility that Price could talk to other people - such as the F 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 i view remotely to his being supplied data for disinformation purposes by the KGB. i - | Discounting item 2 for the time being, because it seems distasteful’ St and unpopular, Price did much better the second day toward establishing his ae  Approved For Rajease 2001/03/07 ; CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200240001-0 S 5 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 Price 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 Price mentions 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 : Price'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 Price's capability of remote viewing. THIRD DAY Summary. The experiment began again at 11:43 a.m, on duly 11, 1974. The . data included 67 pages of transcribed tapes along with 6 sketches drawn thet day by Pat Price. It was difficult to follow the discussion of Price 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. The experiment started with Price describing the specifics of the . pool. At one time during this discussion I thought the pos] he was looking at might well be the underground building (Building 1) at UROF-3. ot 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 Price 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. ° .  ss = : . x. ccourotinen | 2 Approved For ee CIA-RDP96-08791R000200240001-0 i - es : : ik See Aa 3 i be Ze 4 A : tee 7. i | e _ weds Me 4 ee ON OA if £NSe aloe FF iy me eR NA if BAC Ea \ i . (So ery ae YR PT ty AAP EE fy i : a Le Ye 1 ey ov a : ! Lox Pp : . ia NE LEX ef if bs “el fis . 7 ue AT ape fo ek Es i ‘ ‘ wt i} foe : i = ‘hd oe i ' : yA i ae i i i \y Sa : : i a ao dy : i i | : g Tp Vernet 4 oY TL AL T Hf | Dosh oh : . if oe “ i . \, ; f ‘  ° UORFIDaNTIA . Approved For Re@jease 2004/03/07 : Cle RDF oe bar =| ougz0u2 200010 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 stil] 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. Price "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 particular area." This description is the most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit Price's ability to remotely view URDF-3. FOURTH DAY Summary The discussion on the fourth day (July 15, 1974) invoived only Hal Puthoff and Pat Price. Price 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 chiécked) to establish validity for Price's remote~ viewing capability. a CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . The experiment to determine the validity of Pat Price'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 .  . 7 ; 2 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 Jandmark-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 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 a "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 witk 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 “ft exper in  ° EONFIDENT ENS . Approved For Resease 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00#91R000200240004.0 After carefui analysis of the data presented to me, I consider Price'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 Raease 200 ff89/07 ClA-RDP96-08791R000200240001-0,,; i CP¥RGHT : “ i APPENDIX I i from Science, Volume 190, No. 4212 i dated October 24, 1975 i CPYRGHT | - ily dispelled or adulterated that they set- ! 2] ted on the voice. They discovered that all muscles, including those controlling the j j . i , vocal cords, vibrate slightly when in use. 2 i Lie Detectors: PSE Gains Audience phenomenon that is believed to be an in- i e ge voluntary function of the central nervous ; Despite Critics’ Doubts fystem. This is called the muscle micro- ‘ : tremor and had already been identified, al- ‘ though the inventors didn't Rnow Wat the fl time—"we reinvented the wheel,” says ; Ultimately. the PSE coyld affect human communication the way the development of t Ssctt—Wirs otderre ~ + atomic bomb affected warfare.—International Moneyline, a newsletter. ‘tremor, which is transmitted to vocal 4 cords, is suppressed by activity of the auto- . The above agitated observation reflects concerns because they give it a real edge nomic neryous system witen the speaker is ! the fascination felt in some quarters over a. over the polygraph when it comes to in- under stress. It is analogous, and may be recently developed instrument called the _vading privacy. directly related, to the suppression of the psychological stress evaluator, or PSE. The PSE was introduced a few years ago brain's alpha waves (which are associated The PSE has become the first competi- by Dektor Counterintelligence and Secu- with a relaxed waking state) wheo a per- tion of the polygraph (or lie detector) since rity, an adventurous little clectronics com- son is making a conscious effort te think. the latter was developed in the 1920's. pany run by ex-Army sleuths who believe a Tie PSE is more versatile than the poly~ Whereas @ polygraph tests a subject's man's reach should cxcoed his grasp. (Dek- graph breavee the suhiert ss not renuired to psychophysiological responses to question- tor was in the news last year, ii may be re- be hooked up, immobile, to @ machine, ing by measuring his or her respiration, called, for coming up with an ingenious and, in fact, doesn't even need to he pres- blood pressure, and skin conductivity, the counterexplanation for the 18‘ rminute ent: the analysis is made from a tape PSE registers stress by measuring certain gap in Rose Mary Woods’ tape. See Sci- recording, and can be done on a tape made inaudible modulations in the voice, Be- ence, 22 February 1974 and 21 June 1974.) irom a telephone conversation or a broad- cause it can be operated simply with the The PSE was born in Allan Bell's base- cast. In a lie detection situation the sub- tape recording of a voice, “it is the first ment. Bell, a retired Army intelligence of- ject is asked the same carefully designed jie detector that can be used on a dead ficer who quit 5 years ago to form Dektor, set of questions (innocuous “control” man,” notes its inventor, Allan D. Bell. says the search for a new way to measure questions interspersed with significant ‘The PSE has been the object of consid- stress was triggered by a market research ones) that are asked in a polygraph exam. erable attcation and controversy and the assignment to come up with a way to The tape is then played back through 7 subject of articles in Playhpy und Pent- measure the emotionality with which the PSE—a portable eflair ensconced house, as well as publications aimed at law people answer questions by pollsters. Bell in an inconspicuous black suitease-~at enforcement and security personnel. Its re- and the PSE’s coinventors, Charles a speed four times siower than that liability as an aid to lie detection has come — McQuiston and Bill Ford, set out to seek at which was recorded. and 3 needle under attack—notably jn a study commis- “identifiable emissions from the human on a moving graph chart plots the stress. sioned in 1973 by the Army—and its versa- body." Odors and voice were the best pros- If the waveform travels up and down er- tility and simplicity have aroused ethical pects. but odors are so aumerous and eas- ratically, the frequency modulation of the 24 OCTOBER 1975 M6 Conrroznerar .  Fa Tae etext MUTATED ied ener navng beard of Chios trong CAYHRBHHEIA PH da Fe SE RE TE EA ha kino PH BOK a ba6 known before any- ve He EELS ea eT Be 200 OT HAR DEBE ee BOB 24600 trO,e because TEE te Ea SSUES ea SE EER EEEATS rir anabis of Hughes! PSE_ shan HEE! eel peach fal Seale HEE aurea i eet SEtiiEE showed him to be sincere) SRA HO EEVHETTELGA «= Zest EERSTE SEHEEHEH Allan Bell does not suffer moral di- EEA HEE PEE Zev Fen Ht "FHREEIESGa lemmas about any of this. First of all, he if nile ee ee eee TT eee ee cmp he Luys.a PSE must 7 tpt se reteeediey atte es #1 emphasizes, anyone who buys @ FURCHHHREET EE [a] ESSER ESSE ian ie EEE SHEE take a 3-day raining course in its use. nd Hang HN REEEEH is Seas if the customer flunks there is no sale, or he Baar Er ae ae sepreserect geesisett can pay for more training until he passes. STRTUUUIEERI EES EF ecGESULLELEERILET 20? onptow ae oa sys nt In an unstressed utterance, at left, the overall configuration resembles a wave, produced by the uncontrolled conditions—such as taping @ microtremor that oscillates at 8 10 14 cycles a second. The other chart shows heavy siress as the presidential press conference or a phone tremor is obliterated. conversation—there is no way of telling whether a person is lying, only whether he microtremor is being registered. This indi- with. his conclusions, and that research is “stressing.” No stress is @ reliable in- cates no stress, When the speaker is under with “live” eases, which Dektor favors, dicator that a person thinks he is speaking ‘stress, however, the tremor is suppressed yield very poor results. The Army, while truth, but stress can arise from a variety of and tracings become more uniform. declining to give the Kubis report official causes that can only t< weeded out in a Best known of the carly PSE experi- endorsement, has nonetheless acted on its carefully controlled situation, As for ments is Dektor's run-through of con- findings. It allocated one of the machines broader ethical considerations, Bell an- testants on the television show “To Teli the for use in research not relaied to lie detec swers with a question: “Which is immoral Truth.” By taping each person when he tion, and “destroyed” the other two, ac- —for a person to lie, or for a lie 10 be un- said “My name is...." they claimed 95 cording to an Army spokesman, who was covered?” Bell suspects that some busi- percent accuracy in spotting the real John as emphatic about disassociating the mili- nessmen have bought the PSE to deter- Does, The PSE made its forensic debut in tary from the PSE as if he had been mine whether associates are squaring with Howard County, Maryland, where a police asked about plans to deploy a new nerve them in business dealings, but that doesn’t lieutenant named Michael Kradz, who sub- gas. bother him—Dektor did the same thing, sequently joined Dektor, reported a num- The government is clearly in no hurryto and canceled a deal because they believed ber of successes using the PSE, most of attract more attacks on its surveillance they were being lied to about the promised which contributed to clearing suspects of habits, and Bell doesn't mind having this delivery of some moncy. offenses ranging from shopiifting to market closed to him, as he thinks the gov- Least enamored of the PSE is the 1200- murder. ‘ernment is a nuisance to do business with member American Polygraph Association Dektor has sold more than 700 of the in- anyway and not too bright. (APA), which in 1973 passed a resolution struments (now priced at $4200), mostly to Reliability aside, there has been consid- saying none of its members would be al- retail and industrial firms who want to erable concerf over the potential for un- lowed to operate a PSE unless it were used catch sticky-fingered employees. to private ethical use of the PSE. The main problem in conjunction with a polygraph test, Kirk investigative firms, and to local law cn- is created by the fact that it can be used Barefoot of the APA says the PSE quite forcement agencies. And sales are going without the subject's knowledge. Rober. simply doesn’t meet the organization's up, says Bell, despite cold water thrown on: Smith, formerly of the American Civil standards because a lie-detecting machine the PSE by a report produced for the Liberties Union, points out that job inter- should be tuned into a minimum of two Army in 1973, The Department of Defense views can be taped and run tnrough the in- physiological responses. and the PSE bought five of the machines and turned strument without the person's knowledge measures only yne. The APA also looks three of them over to the Army whose and he can be denied employment on the askance at PSE training requirements, as Land Warfare Laboratory paid Joseph basis of stressed-looking squiggles. He also polygraph operators must go to school for Kubis, a psychologist and polygraph re- says that the PSE, again unlike the poly: 6 weeks followed by a 6-month internship. searcher at Fordham University.,$27.500 graph. can be used in conjunction with Dektor counters these objections, by * to conduct a comparative study of the wiretapping. And, he says, “people's ca- attacking the motives of the APA. Bell worth of the polygraph, the PSE. and an- reers can ride on other people going says the two instruments are about equally + ‘other machine similar to the PSE called around analyzing their voice tapes." That reliable when used by skilled examiners the voice stress analyzer. Kubis, using lab- comment is in reference to the fact that with well-constructed tests; as for train- oratory subjects, gave the polygraph a 76- some PSE operators and journalists have ing, well, it's much easier to. use a PSE. . percent accuracy rating and the PSE 33 been having fun analyzing the public utter- Bell says the ‘obvious reason for APA percent, or about the same as chance (he ances of various interesting people. Indeed, hostility is that the PSE poses a threat to did a “triad” study, testing people in three” one free-lance, writer: ex-CIA computer the tight-knit fraternity. of polygraph . roles—perpetrator, lookout, and innocent specialist George O'Toole, has written a’ operators. Many companies would fat- - bystander), whole book explaining why Lee Harvey urally turn to the PSE because it’s cheap- , The Kubis report has gotten a, good deal Oswald didn’t kill anyone—based in large cr to have an in-house truth specialist, of attention, and is cited by all the PSE's part on a PSE analysis of Oswald's state- and “it*costs a lot to farm oul an em- critics, Bell, of course, dismisses the study ments after he was captured. (“I didn't ployee for polygraph training. « ~ ‘as a slipshod piece of work and says no shoot anybody. no sir” said Oswald with — Dektor went after the law enforcement other research has.confirmed the Kubis no stress.) Other colorful PSE uses have and security market because that's where” findings. Ky roved'Fiot , sf Y willing to spend ~~ fniine. KApproved'For Releuse200F/09/07' CTATRP POR -DO7 STROMAN AARD Ah na ame ea mesememanene; SCIENCE, VOL. 199  iis CPYRGHT (OTR ane - ; _ Approved For Rqease 2001/03/07 - CIA-RDP96-Uere TRUNUZD0240001-0 orsign toshetoina: Dell believes, Tor the flow and ch of budy chemienls as” conservative simOs” “VSN yt AT Though that the most interesting appli” does the polyerapln says Hell. + cau als ~Himobile” ou: seme researchers have ations of the machine will be in psychos register changes of stress levels wisnin @ been feeling around with i. One has done logical research, diagnosis, and testing, single syllable, It can be used witn more a study proving that stage fright increases the PSE can do several other things the people in more situations because the sub- in proportian to the number of people in an polygraph can't, it can chart whole sen- ject is free to roare about, and intoxication audience: | ancther has analyzed stress Venees in addition to simple yes-ao an- with drugs or alcohol does not, it is among dental patients. One researcher, swers to which the polygraph is limited, claimed, distort the microtremor. says Bell, has done psychological diag- The PSE picks up stress instantaneously The academic community has not dis- noses of alcoholics using an ““emotion-pro~ because the microtremor isthe cesult of an played much interest in the instrument to ducing word test.” By charting stress reac- Clectrical signal and does not-have to wait date—Bell explains that this cominunity is tions to lists of words, the researcher can REC LEE OCC RTE oN Getermine the shape of the circumstances the PSE shall gain full respectatility in the says he has been doing all the lie-dctecting hat have gotten the subject in his present eyes of the law is John W. Heisse, a Bur work for tte city of Burlington-—that js. Fre The success of tests such as this leads lington, Vermont, otolaryngologist. Heisse until Vermont passed a law saying only po~ Ball to boast, "We can do 6 months worth is the head of the International Socicty Iygraphers can do truthfulness verification of psychoanalysis in 10 minutes.” ‘of Stress Analysts (ISSA), a fledgling work. Heisse believes this law was passed ‘The psychological stress evaluator has organization of 200 PSE, polygraph, and just to protect the jobs of Vermont's three fan intevestingiy ambivalent status as both voice analyzer users from the fields of law polygraphers. He has raised $100,000. a ovensic and a clinical instrument, As the’ enforcement, industrial security, business, gathered 300 pages of evidence, and is Michigan attorney general wrote in ce- law, and heclth. Heisse is perhaps the suing the state of Vermont. The outcome sponst to a request for clarification of the PSE’s most fervid partisan. He has rerun of this ease could set a significant prece- PSE status under Michigan's polygraph the Kubis study, using the contract's “al- dent if and when PSE's proliferate enough caaminets law. ""..-a very narrow line temate specifications.” and claims the PSE te attract the atiention of othe law- separates the use of mechanical devices for came out with 97 percent reliability. He makers. the purpose of measuring stress and the has used the instrument 10 prove that Meanwhile “tla Bell wants fo po hook, Ust of guch device to determine truthful- people with laryngectomies still register to the drawing board. “The PSE is te ness.” (He decided that the act did apply muscle microtremor, he has tested the ef- stress aniysis of the voice what the Mode! to the PSE in the latter case.) Forensically fects of dozens of drugs on PSE subjects. T is to locomotion,” he declares. More speaking, the PSE is in a kind of limbo, He has a “death test" to see how anxious work needs to be done on waveform ansit Nineiwen states have laws licensing ot people are about death, and a suicide sis. on quantitative measures of mind-body regulating polygraph use, and presumably _test—five questions relating to death that interaction, and on “Mesh mechanics.” The jn those states where other instruments can be asked over the phone, if the subject stress evaluator, he points out, is measur ‘are not banned, forensic usc of the PSE shows no stress in answering, it means heis ing something no one has teen able to de- vrould be devided on a case-by-case basis. definitely preparing to Kill himself. Heisse fine, 50 it would be nice to really pin it : ‘One state, North Carolina, licenses PSE says in seven cases the test unfortunately down, perhaps by locating the specific arca operators (80 hours of training is re- proved correct, He has also tried the PSE of the brain where stress originates, One of Guiredy, elsevhiere, 4 person armed with with hypnotized subjects and discovered the possible “end product configurations” Hothing but_a Dekior training certificate that they show no muscle microtremor— envisiged by Bell's agile mind would be & can call himself a PSE operator. The other not because of stress but because they are machine that supplied a continuous meier states, including New York and California, unusually relaxed. He says the same find- readout of stress levels to a psychiatrist * have no laws because of strenuous opposi- ing applics co persons who have been while his patient lay chatting on the couch tion by labor unions to legislation they brainwashed. (Quick to sce an applica- Some might find this a distressing symp.» think wil legitimize the use of lie detectors tion here, Heisse went off to San Francis tom of human willingness to defer to ma- in employment {six states now ban com- co to chart Patty Hearst's tapes, but he chines. But fortunately, unlike the atom pulsory preemployment polypraph testing). wan't tell what he found.) bomb, the PSE is only as effective as he ‘One individual who is determined that In addition to these activities, Heisse who operates it --CONSTANCE HOLDEN COIRMEDENEEAs, :