Approved For %Lpase 2001 Y*tIWRDP96-QW91 R000200240001 -0 A N AIIIALYSIS OF A HEMOTE-VIVNIEliG EXPERIMENT OF URDF-3 DECEMBER 4y 19*15 Approved. For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For R&ase 2001/ 'MM. DP96-OQ01RO00200240001-0.1 SUMMARY 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 durinq that day's session. He was also told that they wanted a drawing of the perimeter fence. 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 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 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791f 000200240001 -0 Approved For Roase 200111,0011.11 DP96-OQZ,91ROO0200240001-0 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 mentioned seeing several landmark- type objects that simply did not exist at URDF-3. One explanation o1F 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 4 he would not know how to differentiate the fact from tile 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 I (the underground build- ing) at URDF-3. With the sketch as a reference, he "saw" the four main surface protrusions of Building I 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 staitement was his most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit his ability to remotely view URDF-3. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 ffr_ Approved For R*Joase 200.IMWF&P*WA-RDP96-OOZ91 R000200240001 -0 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 expe riment of URDF-3 was unsuccessful. Approved For Release 2001/03/97 CIA-RDP06-00791,RO002602400'01 -0 Approved For R&Lease 2001#M~'tM-RDP96-OW91ROO0200240001-0 4 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; I also revi.ewed 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 -,,ith-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 to Pat Price. This was necessary in order to 4 evaluaLe his originality in remote viewing. This study was done in four seg- ments corresponding to the four days of the experiment. Judgmenl: 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'experiment@ers (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 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 start with a view of the general area @s'seen from 50,000 ft. and get the layout of any complexes or buildings, or whatever. Approved For Release 2001/0@/07 CIA-RDP96-0079,IR000200240001:-O. Approved For Releqae 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00794ROO0200240001 -0 .. 7J-v- 4-"@ d-.rlj , 1, @ , @ "a , 7 " whk 6@ x Au&*A @? W"* ;0, , @4, @,@ 4+ w /j 11-@71- Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200240001 -0 Approved For RaWase 2001TO3"/0"7*-'CIA-RDP96-0=lRO00200240001-0 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 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. -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 2 112 miles NW of the Operations Area, but this data was Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791.ROO0200240001 -0 01/0T-W9t"- DP96-OQ7.91ROO0200240001-0 ,,Approved For Re.6-,ase 20 119A 10 PIP" :.CIA-RDP96-00791RO00200'*2*'01-0 4pproved For Release 2001/03/07 -. T I T Ix @@T 4 @P ?. i . (.177 1@ 01. rove@ r RQ&ase 2001 10%69o;CujA;PR P96-OOZ91 ROOO 1400014-@,-,"@' App %N ELI \A rD- Fit pproved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For RQI&ase 2UBpq4V~VMII,.MA-RDP96-OQZ91ROO0200240001-0 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 for two -to three years, when in fact it's been there for over a decade. Also in Fig. 2, he described a radar/com@unications 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 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 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 raiflway'spi@.r-near -the military complex at URDF-3. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00.791ROO0200240001 -0 y Approved For RQjpase 200 DP96-OQZ91 R000200240001@O 7k, Approved For Release 20J;Q4gZ,&lA-RDP96:0079$RO002002400 Approved For R4ase 2001/ C DP96-OQZ01 R000200240001 -01 o Price became specific in looking at a scope trace at the airstrip and claimed it made him nauseated. At this time the experimenters and Price decided to have lunch so Price 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., Price picks 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 seyeral low-boy @rucks and a gantry crane (for very heavy lifting) in the vehicle area (Fig. 1), Price was'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 I 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 thb 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 I and he had a very difficult time establishing them when he finally settled on 80' x 160'. He t*hen described the 'other buildings in the scientific complex. He said Building I was. the dominant building due to its height and-central location; eve rything seemed to, pivot off of it. There is no building a t URDF-3 that matches the above descrip- tion of AWP&QJ @Ior Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-0079.,I~'ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For R94pase 2001 1&6@@-@RDP96-OQZ91 R000200240001 -0 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 time, all of his viewing during this formalized part of the experiment - on this first day - had been at nighttime locally at URDF-3). Price said he was beginning to labor anyway and, "if you,start laboring -hen reminded that he was going at it, you start mocking-up things." He was 1. to draw a perimeter, or would he rather save that for tomorrow. He said he would rather save that since he's starting to 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 I hour and 52 minutes. It consisted of the experimenters defining the target as a 11real target" as opposed to a sample target. With the use of several maps, Pat Price was given coordinates of the target and told thall- it 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 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 -9f partially-buried buildi.ngs, It seemed he had the perfect description of URDF-3, but never came back to that again. In fact, his later Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96@007@$,RO00200240001 -0 Approved For Roase 2001/OWDV%N*MWRDP96-OQ,;91RO00200240001-0 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 surroundef,11 by trees about 500 yards-SE of the k`ientific complex, 5) an airstrip on a plateau 12 miles NW of URDF-3, 6) a smali 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 tie failed to see at the target because his attention may not have been directed on theiii. However, it does seem fair to question the existence of those objec@ls he claims to have seen. The most positive evidence of valid remote viewing for the first day (1 hour and 52 minutes) was his initia'l view of the -target as "lov@-One-story buil'd- ings that are partially dug into the ground..." Unfortunal-elY, lie never con- sidered that description again. The only other piece of pusill-ive evidence -that day was #tPPrR4@CVChr ?tR)~-48~49,0119;/Q7,i~PIA-RPfl96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For Roase 2001/0MffTfflft- DP96-0Q7,91RO0020024000@-P SGU 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 @pend_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.Fir@. @Da 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 there were some specific areas he had mentioned that the experimenters were most interested in. Specifical)y 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 iorms of connection or communication or transportation that exists between Building I (the main b,uilding) and the ones that are nearby." They especiall@ wanted "as much detail as possible on the 'gantry crane and its rel atiod to 'Bui l*di ng 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 looked1ike 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 Price had turned in drawings of a fence 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 bd- fore was underestimated by at least a factor of 3. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For Re4pase 200fby#pft4k-RDP96-OWlRO002-00240001-0 1.4 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 on exactly what the relationship was betwee@ the crane and the major building (Building 1); specifically, how did the crane interact wi'th Building 1 or any- thing surrounding the building. Price said the gantry cvane 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 sunkE@n 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 lby NPIC). As Price continued to look at the area, he said, "I'm seeing a lot of things today I didn't see yesterday.... 1-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 @)f 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 I whereas the single gantry crane at URDF-3 operates on rails above the underground Building 1. His description of th.is building is also wrong in several respects as compared to the actual Building I 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-k'he north side of the building and said there were no windows on the other three sides. The session Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791R, 000200240001 -0 QZ9, 0004@a Approved For q&pase 200 RDP95AW, ad V@> X, @5" x oved For Release 2001/93/07 - CIA-R 6-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For Rqjgase 2001/0%%T"EW-ftP96-OW1 R000200240bbl -0 V; Cl 0 to 0 to !elk 4-N zl@ Approved FOAAse iOO1/03/07: CIA-RDP96-00 1.R 40001-0 App roved For Rfjpase 2001 /ffV.TM DP96-OQmT91ROO0200240001-0 17 continued with discussions of the length of the gantry rails. Price saw weld- ing operations taking place south of.Building I 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. I The session resumed at 3:01 p.m. with what appears to be a telephone con- 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. Pr-'Ice had said earlier that day that: 1) the distance between the rails was about 50 ft., 2) the height of Building I was about 50 ft.,, 8) the height of the gantry crane was about 150 ft., and 4) the crane ran on the rails that entered -into Building 1. The above dimensions lead to a discrepancy in dimensions because the gantry crane is too tall (150 ft.) to enter -the 50 ft.-tall Building 1. This discre- pancy is resolved by Price telling 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 ral ls - one running east-,qest 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. Price is then contacted by phone again and asked to scan the area across the road west of Building 1 (see Fig. 5). He is told that in that region there's something else which is on the order of being as large or as unique as the crane. (The experimeter is obviously trying -to see 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 900, the Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-0079,,IR000200240001 -0 App roved For RVApase 2001 91MMT-WIRD P96 -GQ;91 R000200240001 -0 o experimenter was correct in asking Price to look in the region west 01' Building I 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-wiounted crane that runs up to Building 1. The tape resumes with yet another telephone conversation bell-Meen 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 Bui"1,'-,;ng 1. He also saw a 65-to-75 ft.-tal-1 cement silo-like building South olF 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 I and the s'llo-like building. I Russ Targ then concluded the phone conversation Wth a request for a sketch of the crane that runs on raills; specifically, "What does the Crane look like when it's outside of Buildin- 1?" Since Pricc had @ccn gantry cranes (one about 150 ft. tall and the other about 50 ft. tall), ho. 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 ialidity of Price's Y,e-- mote viewing of URDF-3. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the cement silo-like building and the dome-shaped building. Figure 6 shows their relative locations to Building 1; however, there is nothing at URDF-3 that looks like the dome-shaped building or the silo-like building. In Fig. 6, these buildings are shown in the general location where, at URDF-3, a partially earth-covered tank and tall cylindricai- shaped tanks or towers appear. The swimming pool (in Fig. 6) is in the general location of the headframes at URDF-3. Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-0079,@RO00200240001 -0 OT Approved For R4Pase 20 'CIA-RDP96-00;-91RI - > 19 1-0 Approved For Release, 200jQ*;,Q&-RDP96- 00794ROO0200240001 -A, Fi gure Approved For Rejpase 2 OOIMTMr.M-RDP.96-7GOZ-91 R000200240001 _0 20 IV N -,41 \L "IiAr Approved For Release 2001/03/07u'~~CIA-RDP96-0079lkROOO-200240001-0 Approved For RPjpase 2001/ -OQ;91 R000200240001 -0 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-0079lkROO0200240001 -0 22 @kpprovecl For P.&ase 2001. RDP96-OQ791 R0002002400017'0 A App@ovecl For Release 2001 /03/0.7 ;ZjA-itDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For I`Wpas@e :i-O'kO@ M%P-967ki9l --R0062*-6-0?fi 0001 NI Approved For Release 200T/Q3W tOCIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Approved For Rojoase 20&%T5T1t*?A_-RDP96-0W91 R000200240001 -0 24 Assuming the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 in Fig. 6 is the same as the relationship of the gantry crane to Building 1 at URDF-3, it must be concluded that Price is oriented 900 in error in the scien- tific complex. His north direction for the scientific complex only WOUld cor- respond to what is actually east at URDF-3. His relationship of scientific complex to military complex to the Irtysh River is still correc-41.- though. Unfortunately, the experimenters failed again to get a drawing of the perimeter fence for the scientific complex.- In Fig. 5, 1 have -taken the liberty of drawing a perimeter fence around the scientific complex and come very close to the actual sh ape 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. untill noon). The rest of the session was conducted over Ithe telephonc willlh onily tAlIC: 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 rviost positive evidence yet for remote viewing with hissketchof 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 possi'bility that Price could talk to other people - such as the Disinformation Section of the KGB. That may sound ridiculous to the reader, Lut I have to consider all possibilities in the spectrum from his being capable to vi'ew remotely to his being supplied data for disinformation pUrposes by the KGB. Discounting item 2 for the time being, because it seems distasteful, and un opular, Price did much better the second day toward establishing his p Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 Agp roved For RqJRase 2001/03107 : C IA-RD P96 -GQ,7-91 R000200240001 -0 25 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 2nly. 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 indon- clusive to validate Price's capability of remote viewing. THIRD DAY Summary The experiment began again at 11 : 43 a.m. on July 11 , 19714. The data included 67 pages of transcribed tapes along with 6 sketches drawn that 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 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 no`r:t-h*-'ev4n thou'g`*'h' 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, 4the underground building (Building 1), the partially earth-covered tank, Building 4, and the four headframes. Approved For Release "2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 %plym S, NIMF @1/031'07.: CIA-RDP96-OQW-,91ROO0200240001-0- Approved For FWeaie @:,;w 'Zi tj IT Approved For Release 2001/03/07\1 -con R P96-00791ROO0200240CP1-0 26 AOp roved For RQLease 2001/03/07 : C lA_RD P96 -OQ;-g 1 R000200240001 -0 27. They told him that this was a sketch of a perspective of the actual place and asked him whether he could now "see" the I@our 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 I 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 laege underground building. Finally, much later in the afternoon, it was requested that he investigate whether "Buildings A, B, C, and V 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.11 This description is the most negative evidence yet and tends to discredit Price's ability to remotely view URDF-3. FOURTH DAY Summa,ny The discussion on the fourth day ('July 15, 1974) involved 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'66 C*ked) to establish validity fOY4 Price's remote- viewing capability. 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 Approved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 tea?,;, Approved For RWpase 20,GeN6VW;-t1A-RDP96-0Q;91 R000200240001 -0 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 tile shape of the perimeter is unique. I tan 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 ibiects 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 11saw it" as four separate above-ground buildings sitting atop a concrete aproll. 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 ill 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 Ahe target. This was obvious when the experimenters didn't know which direction was north in the actual perspectjve of URDF-3. I suggest that in the future, at least one of the experimenters be.totally fami-liar wit'@ #e target. I also 4 suggest that future experiments be more tightly controlle4 to discount the pos-" sibility of the subject discussing the material with people not involved in the experiftA41proved For Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001-0 Approved For R440ase 2001/03/07 : CIA;-RDP96-OW91 R000200240001 yO After careful 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 Release 2001/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001 -0 a-%- Approved For FWease 200 CIA-RDP96-DW91 R000200240001 -0,,., CPYRGHT APPENDIX I from Science, Volumc 190, No. 4212 dated October 24, 1975 CPYRGHT Lie Detectors: PSE Gains Audience Despite Critics' Doubts Ultimately, the PSE coUld affect human communication the way the development of atomic bomb affected warfare. -International Moneyline, a newsletter. The above agitated observation reflects the fascination fell in some quarters over a recently developed instrument called the psychological stress evaluator, or PSE. The PSE has become the first competi- tion of the polygraph (or lie detector) since the latter was developed in the 1920's, Whereas a polygraph tests a subject's psychophysiological responses to question- ing by meastifine, his or her respiration, blood pressure, and skin conductivity, the PSE registers stress by measuring certain inaudible modulations in the voice. Be- cause it can be operated simply with the tape recording of a voice, "it is the first lie detector that can be used on a dead man," notes its inventor, Allan D. Bell. The PSE has bes-n the object of consid- erable attention and controversy and the subject of articles in Playhgy and Pent- house, as kvell as publications aimed at law enforcement and sec urity ''personnel. Its re- liability as an aid to lie detection has come under attack-notably in a study commis- sioned in 1973 by the Army@and its versa- tility and simplicity have aroused ethical concerns because they give it a real edge over the polygraph when it comes to in. vading privacy. The PSE was introduced a few years ago by Dektor Counterintelligence and Secu- rity, an adventurous little electronics com- pany run by ex-Army sleuths who believe a man's reach should @;.=c.' his grz,:;. tor was in the news last year, it mav be re- called, for coming tip with an ingenious counterex planation for the 18' -minute gap in Rose Mary Woods' tape. See Sci- ence, 22 February 1974 and 21 June Pv,74.) The PSE was born in Allan Bell's base- ment. Bell, a retired Army intelligence of- ficer who quit 5 years ago u forni Dektor, says the search for a new way to measure stress was triggered by a market research assignment to come up with a way to measure the emotionality with which people answer que5tions by poU-ters. Bell and the PSE's coinvcntors, Charles McQuiston and Bill Ford, set out to seek "identifiable ernissions from the human body." Odors and voice were the best pros- pccts, but odors are so numerous and cas- 24 OCTOBER 1975 ily dispelled or adulterated that they set- tled on the voice. They discovered that all njuscles, including those controlling the vocal cords, vibrate slightly when in use. a phenomenon that is believed to be an ip- voluntary function or the central nervous jystem. 'This is called the muscle niicro- tremor and had already bcen idertified, al- though the inventors didn't know it at the time--we reinvented the wheel," says tremor, which is transmitted to vocal cords, is suppressed by activity 6f the auto- norric nervous system when the speaker is under stress. It is analogous, and may be directly related. to the suppression of the brain's alpha waves (which are associated with a relaxed waking state) when a per- son is rnakin@- a conscious cfTort to think. The PSE is more versatile than the pol@- -rz-,h 1@ca@-r th- not -enuired to be hooked up, immobile, to a rnach;ne, and, in fact, doesn't even nef-d to tic pres- ent.. the analysis is made from a tape recording. and can be done on a tar"; Made from a telephone conversation or a broad- cast. In a lie detection situation the sub- ject is asked the same careltilly desigi@cd set of' questions (innocuous "control" questions interspersed with ;ignificant one&) that are asked in a poly2rraph eyarri. The tape is then played bac'k through the PSE-a portable affair trisconced in an inconspicuous black suitcase-11 a speed four times siower than that a t which it was recoro;ed, and. 3 needle on a moving graph chart pl.,xs the skress. If the waveform !ravels up amd df)wn CT- ratically. the frequency moduiation of the Approved For Release 20,01/03/07 CIA-RDP96-00791ROO0200240001-0 1:tti r.,ied ever having brard of Clifford Irving h wn before anv- t ive kno r _49 4N fit,, 1U. 00 Wg4=114,d bccau their analysis of Hughes' PSE chart showed him to be sincere). it does not suffer moral di- I Tfl, Allan Bell this. First of all. he lemmas about any of ELM emphasizes, anyone who buys a PSE must 41 3 T'l it 7iT. take a 3-day training course in its use, and 4 f the customer flunks there is no sale, or he can pay for more training until he passes. As for surreptitious use, Bell says that in In an unstressed utterance, at left, the overall configuration resembles a wave, produced by the uncontrol)ed conditions-such as taping a microtremor that oscillates at 8 to 14 cycles a second. The other chart shows heavy stress 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 a reliable in- cates no stress. When the speaker is under with "five" cases, 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 fro-m a variety of and tracings become mote uniform. declining to give the Kubis report official causes that can only 1--z weeded out in a Best known of the early 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, Be!l an- tcstants on the television show "To Tell the for use in research not related 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 to be tin- said "My name 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-Dcktor did the, same thing, sequently joined Dektor, reported a num- The government is clearly in no hurry to and canceled a deal because thev believed ber of successes using the PSE, most of attract more attacks on its surveillance they were being lied to about tl@c promired which contributed to clearing suspects of habits, and Bell doesn't mind having this delivery of some money. offenses ranging from shophifing to market closed to him, as lie thinks the gov- Leas, enamored of the PSE is t@,c 1200 murder. emment 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 passcd a resolution struments (now priced at S4200), mostly to Reliability aside, there has been consid- saying none of its members would be al- retail and industrial firms who want to erable concerA 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 en- is created by the fact that it can be used Barefoot of the APA says the PSF quite forcement agencies. And sales are going without the subject's knowledge. Robera 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 one. The APA also looks three of them over to the Army whose and he can be denied crnployment on the askance at PSE training requirements, as Land Warfare Laboratory paid Joseph basis of stressed- looking squiggles. lie 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,J27,500 graph. can be used in conjunction with Dektor counteTs 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 journabsts, have ing, well, it's much.casier to..use a PSE. percent accuracy rating and the PSE 33 been having fun analyzing th e 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 thn@at to did a "triad" study, testing people in three- onv ft-ee-lancc@ writer,- ex-CIA cor@ilputcr the tigbt-knit fraternity . of pplygraph rolcs- perpetrator, lookout, and innocent specialist George O'Toole. has written a' operators. Many companies would Aat- bystander), whole book explaining why Lee Harvey urally turn to the PSE because it's cheap- The *Kubis repo 'rt has gotten a..@ood deal Oswald didn't kill anyone-based inlarge c'r -to have an in-shouse truth specialist, of attention.,and is cited by all the PSE's part on a PSE analysis oT Oswald's state- andit *costs a lbt to farm oul -an em- critics. Bell, of course, dismisses the study ments after he was captured. ("I didn't @iloycc 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 sLress.) Other colorful PSE uses*have and security market because that's where findings. KAPptrGvedhFkW 4M #jng to spend other well-controlled cxpchment. agrees and John Mitchell (stress) at t e ater- c und. 4=4@ 3W SC1r-NC[-, V01- 190, CF;@RGHT Approved For Firase 2001/03/07 : GIA-@K Bell believes, or tile flow and zbb of bvOy chemle"V., Hel"L 't cin al@t@ c, @, @eS though, that thi. most interesting ;@,ppli-_ does tlic pc!ygraO, 5 n C ta chers have r@,aions Of tile niar."hine will be in psycho- register changes of stl-crs, lewn., '-illlin a been focht,& around with it, One has done logical research. diagnosis, and testing. single syllabic. It can be useCi with more a Study P:Uvink; that stage fright increases The PSE can do several other things the people in more sittlations because the sub- in proportiin to the number of people in an polygraph can't. It can chart whole sen- ject is free to roan-, about, and intoxication audien= another has analyzed stress tenccs in addition to simple yes-no an- with drugs or alcohol does not, it is among dental patients. One rcscnrcher, swers to which like polygraph is limited. claimed, distort tht. inicrotremor. 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 is the result of an played much interest in the instrument to ducing word test." By charting stress reac- electrical signal and does not have to wait date-Bcll explains that this cominunity is tions to lists of words, the, researcher can dctcrrninc@ tile shape of the circumstances that have gotten the subject in his present fix. The success of tests such as this leads bell to boast, "We can do 6 months worth of psychoanalysis in 10 minutes." The psychological stress evaluator has an interes tingiv arnbivalr-ni status as both a forensic and a clinical instrument. As the' Michigan attorney general wrote in re- sponsc to a request for clarification of the PSE status tinder Michigan's polygraph examineTs law: ". . . a very nar-ow line Separates tile use of mechanical devices for the purpose of mcasuring stress and the use of stich device to deterinine truthful- ness.'" (He decided that the act did apply to the PSE in the latter case.) Forensically speaking, the PSE is in a kind of limbo. Nineteen states have laws licensing or regulating polygraph use, and presumably in those states where other instruments are not banned, foiensic use of the PSE would be decided on a case-by-case basis. One state, North Carolina, licenses PSE operators (80 hours of training is re- quire.d); elsewhere, a person armed with .nothing but a Dektor training Certificate can czll hirnself a PSE operator. The other states. including New York and California, have no laws because of strenuous opposi- tion by labor unions to legislation they think will legitimize the usc of lie detectors in employment (six states now ban com- pulsory preemployment polygraph testing). One individual who is determined that the PSE shall gain full re.,pectability in the eyes of the law is John W. Heisse, a Bur- lington, Vermont, otolaryngologist. Heisse is the head of the International Socicty of Stress Analysts (ISSA), a fledgling organization of 200 PSE, polygraph, and voice an2lyzcr users From !he fields of law enforcement, industrial security, business. law, and health. Heisse is perhaps the PSE's most fervitl partisan. lie has rerum the Kubis study, using the contract's "al- ternatespecifications," and claims tile PSE came out with 97 percent reliability. He has used the instrument io prove diai people 'with laryngectornics still register muscle microirerno r-, he has tested the ef- fects of dozens of drugs on PSE subjects. He has a "death test" to see how anxious people are about death, and a suicide test-fivc questions relating to death that L can be asked over the phone. If the subject shows no stress in answerin.-, it means he is definitely preparing to kill himself'. Heisse says in seven cases the test unfortunately proved correct. Ile has also tried the PSE with hypnotized subjects and discovered that they show no muscle microtrCiTior- not because. of stress but b,-causc they are unusually relaxed. Ile says tile same find- ing applies to persons who havc bt:cn brainwashed. (Quick to see an applica- tion here, Heisse went off to San Francis- co to chart Patty Hearst's tapes, but he , w9n't tell what he found.) In addition to these activities, Heisse says he has b,---n doin.gall the lic-c!ctectin?, work for tile city of Burlington-thal is, until Vermont passed a law saying only po- lygraphers can do truthfuints's verification work. Heisse believes this law was passed just to protect the jobs of Vermont's three poiygraphers. He has rained $100,000, gathered 300 paecs of evidenec, and is suing tile state of Vermont. The outcome of this case could set a significant prece- dent if and when PSE's proliferate enough I-- attract the, atwntion of other makers. 10 'On h!"7V to the drawing board. "Tile PSE is to Stress analysis of the voice what the Mode! T is to locomotion," he declares. More work needs to be done on waveform.aniiy- sis, on quantitative measures of mind-body interaction, and on "flesh rncchanics.'" 'Tile stress evaluator, lic points out, is measar- ing something no one has 1,cen able to de- fine, so it would be nice to really pin it down, perhaps by locatin8l, the sprcific area of the brain where stress originates. One of the possible "end product confiprations" evvisage!d by Bell's agilc rmind would bc a n-achine that supplied a continuous meter r-cadout of stress levels to a psychiatyist while his pazierit lay chatting on the couch. Some Flight find this a distressing symp- of human v.,illingness to defer to ma- -"-xines. But fortunately, unlike the atom bomb, the PSE is -oniv as effective as he viho operates it--CONST@NdE HOLDE.N Approved For Release 2001/03/07 : CIA-RDP96-00791,RO00200240001 -0