It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FOIA: An Analysis of Remote-Viewing - Experiment of URDF-3

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
CIARemoteViewing.pdf
An Analysis of Remote-Viewing - Experiment of URDF-3
This is a report based on a Remote Viewing Experiment in December 1974

Document date: 1974-12-04
Department: CIA
Author: Unknown
Document type: Report
pages: 34

 

Archivist's Notes: This report concerns a 4 day experiment with a test subject regarding a remote location. The code for this location is given as URDF-3. The coordinates are given and is searchable in tools like google earth. It was conducted to see if a certain test subject was able to RV and how accurate the information is. It was really not conclusive at all and was classified as a failure. Though the subject was able to give some details it is possible to have been fed these details by another person or source and details that would be easily seen were not described.
 




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Page 1:

Cover Sheet
An Analysis Of A Remote-Viewing
Analysis By: *blacked out*
Typed By: *blacked out*
December 4, 1975

Page 2:

Summary
The remote-viewing experiment of URDF proved to be unsuccessful. The conclusion was reached after a careful review of the tape recordings, tape transcripts, and sketches thata were generated during the four-day experiment.
First day's session..
The remote viewer's name is consistently blacked out and replaced with "SG1J." Here are some results from first day...

1) accurately described the location of type of target 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.
4) successfully evaded drawing the perimeter of the area despite being asked to do this twice.

Second day's session...
1) he actually saw it through remote viewing, or
2) he was informed of what to draw by someone knowledgeable of URDF-3.

Page 3:

(contin) This possibility is mentioned because the experiment was not controlled to discount the possibility that he could talk to other people. SG1J seemed inconsistent for example:

1) his most positive evidence of the experiment - a sketch of a rail-mounted gentry crane.
2) yet the large number of objects he also sees are simply not resent at URDF-3.

His most damaging statements had to do with his interpretation of Bldg 1 (the underground bldg) at URDF-3. He saw four main surface protrusions, but when asked if those four were surface elements of an underground bldg, he answered "no" incorrectly. That statement tends to discredit his ability to remotely view URDF-3.

Page 4:

Analysis of all data presented concludes that remote-viewing experiment of URDF-3 was unsuccessful.

Page 5:

Introduction
I was asked to analyze and then judge the validity of the remote-viewing experiment performed on URDF-3 by *blacked out*
The data analyzed included 2 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.

The study was done in 4 segments corresponding to the four days of the experiment. Judgement of the progress and validity of the experiment was evaluated at the end of each day.

First Day

Experiment started 11 a.m. on July 9, 1974 at Stanford Research Institute (SRI). SG1J was told that the target was a geographical target selected from th Times of London World Atlas. The coordinates of the target (long & lat) were written down. The target was described as a scientific military research and test area. He was told the target was 25-30 miles SW of Irtysh River. SG1J was told to start with a view of the general area as seen from 50,000 ft and get the layout of any complexes or buildings, or whatever.

Page 6:

Not much to see.

Page 7:

SG1J 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, quite a cloud cover, and a full moon. He immediately sees the river and heads SW from the river to the institute. He gave description of very short, squatty buildings, whereas they are actually fairly roomy on the inside.

He claims the Soviets are running some tets on some equipment to do with their space program. He then backs off saying "I'll come back to that"- but never does.

SG1J 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 (the info given to him earlier). However, he incorrectly says the road from the river passes through a gorge. None of the antennas at URDF-3 are as tall as the 500-ft. antenna he described. He also described an outdoor pool used for testing and orientation studies but in reality there is no outdoor pool at URDF-3.

In Fig. 2 he draw a military complex 3/8ths of a mile NE of the scientific complex shown in Fig. 1. Acutally there is a military complex at URDF-3 but it's 2 1/2 miles NW of the Operations Area.

Page 8:

Fig. 1 (drawing)

Page 9:

Fig. 2 (drawing)

Page 10:

Further inaccuracies...

Said the military complex looked like it had been there for 2-3 years, when in fact it's been there for over a decade.

In Fig. 2 he described a radar/communications bldg. north of the scientific complex. The description of the bldg. and its location relative to the military complex fits the description of the probable lab-admin bldg. located 2 1/2 miles NW of the Operations Area at URDF-3. When he is questioned on specifics he changes his mind, giving the impression that he could be led to see what the experimenter suggests.

SG1J saw an array of telephone poles 400 years SE of the scientific complex but there is no such array of poles at or near the installation.

He was then asked to go up to 50,000 ft. to look again and describe the layout. The View he saw is sketched in Fig. 3. Nothing is correct in the figure except that the area is arid and has low hills to the south. When asked about a railroad he again gives incorrect descriptions.

Page 11:

Fig. 3 (drawing)

To be continued....



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Page 12:

(Continued) inaccurate descriptions from SG1J. He sees a cyclone fence but in reality there are 4 security fences not just one.
He also describes a telephone pole grid with trees around it, when in reality such a thing doesn't exist.

When describing Bldg. 1, he gets too detailed on the inner description. He is reminded that they can't judge him on this. They suggest he look more at the outside of the building. He then described Bldg. 1 as the tallest and most central building to which everything pivots on. This is completely inaccurate.

Page 13:

The first day was called at 3pm as SG1J began to get tired. He opted for drawing the perimeter later.
Summary of first day:

Explains the information given to SG1J. It was noted that when the "target installation's" coordinates were given SG1J immediately biased his thinking that it must be a Soviet space launch and recovery area. More details regarding SG1J's inaccuracies are summarized here.

Page 14:

Summary continues...
It's noted he tends to get bogged down by details and then says "I'll come back to that," but seldom does.
The following are landmark type items which he described which simply don't exist at the installation:

1) the road from the river to the target area passes through a gorge,
2) a 500-ft tall antennna,
3) an outdoor pool (60' x 150'),
4) an array of telephone poles surrounded by trees
5) an airstrip on a plateau 12 miles NW of URDF-3,
6) a small village NE of URDF-3
7) a city 60 miles SW of URDF-3
8) a cluster of pine tres west of URDF-3, and
9) a three-story bldg (with a basement) as the dominant bldg in the complex.

Positive notes about the remote viewing for the first day was his initial view of the target as "low one-story buildings that are partially dug into the ground."

Page 15:

Summary: Overall nothing positive from Remote Viewing resulted from Day 1's session.

That night SG1J was told by telephone of some specific areas he had mentioned that the experimenters were most interested in. Specifically he was asked for a drawing of the crane (in the rear of bldg 1). While the crane was top priority, they also wanted detail on the security fence around the perimeter.

Second Day:

SG1J turned in drawings of the fence and crane. He didn't realize how large the gantry crane was until he saw a man walking by one of the crane wheels.

Page 16:

He commented on the fence being electric but never mentioned the unique shape or the fact that there are really 4 perimeter fences.

He was asked how the crane interacts with bldg 1 or anything surrounding the building. SG1J said the crane interacted with bldg 1, the outdoor pool, and the telephone pole array. He said the crane was so heavy it left tracks and the tracks go to the building and where this "sunken" building is. Unfortunately, the experimenters did not ask him to identify the "sunken building." This was important because the crane at URDF-3 operates on rails over a sunken building.

He described something like a railroad track, but spread too wide so it looks like a riding gantry. This description compares closely with one of the most distinctive features at URDF-3, the gantry crane that operates on rails over the 3 story underground building.

However, his descriptions of the interaction between the crane and bldg 1 is incorrect. He was asked more about bldg 1, specifically if there are any windows in the building. At that point he realizes for the first time the building is actually 5 stories and says the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stories have windows on the north side of the building.

Page 17:

Sketch of ?

Page 18:

Sketch- refined drawing of the area

Page 19:

Continued discussion of the gantry crane. SG1J said earlier that:

1) the distance between the rails was about 50 ft.
2) the height of bldg 1 was about 50 ft.
3) the height of the grantry crane was about 150 ft.
4) the crane ran on the rails that entered into bldg 1

He tells the experimenters the tall gantry crane does not enter the building and thus is taller. Instead he tells of 2 shorter cranes inside bldg 1 that also run on the 50 ft wide rails to meet the tall crane outside the building. In reality this relationship of 3 gantry cranes does not exist at URDF-3.

Page 20:

Goes into a discussion of the sketches drawn. The crane SG1J drew was remarkably similiar to the real crane. Yet he also drawns a dome shaped building and in reality there is nothing at URDF-3 that looks like a dome shaped building.

To be continued..



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Page 21:

Refined Sketch of facility including gantry crane and bldg 1.

Page 22:

Detail sketch of crane and tracks.

Page 23:

Another sketch of crane.

Page 24:

Detail sketch of the "silo" or dome shaped bldg described earlier.

Page 25:

Closer detail sketch of "dome" from page 24.

Page 26:

SG1J sketch of the relationship between Irtysh River, the scientific complex, and the military complex is somewhat correct.

Day 2 Summary:

It's nearly inconceivable how similar SG1J's vision/sketch of the gantry crane is to the real crane. Two possibilities:

1) He really saw it thru remote viewing
2) He was informed by someone who knows what it looks like. *This can't be discounted since the experiment was not fully "controlled."

Page 27:

Despite his drawings' likeness to the real crane, there were many things he described which simply were incorrect or didn't exist. Day 2 overall is inconclusive.

Day 3 Summary:

Experiment started with SG1J describing the pool. He incorrectly described the closest railroad and was also inconsistent with his earlier viewing when we claimed it was 60 miles north. SG1J was then shown a perspective sketch of the facility (Fig. 11).

Page 28:

Figure 11

Page 29:

Upon being shown this perspective drawing SG1J was asked if he could now see all 4 headframes. He claimed only one was present, which is untrue. Remote viewer also never suggested that the buildings are just parts (on the surface) of a larger underground facility.

Day 4 Summary:

Not much came of the fourth day.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

There doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to support proof of remote viewing capabilities.

Page 30:

Furthermore, SG1J’s inability to see all structures or “landmark-type” objects is understandable. Yet, his description of things that simply do not exist tend to cast major shadows on his remote viewing capabilities. One more note is that much of this experiment was done over the phone, which didn’t work well at times.

Page 32:

Overall conclusion was experiment was unsuccessful.

Page 33-34:

Appendix comprised of an article on PSE (psychological stress evaluator) and why it may be better than a polygraph.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Just to have in MyATS



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
good find...

I will go over in greater detail... A little later...

I am glad to see more threads on psychic warfare



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 



First I wanted to say thank you again for posting this.... I had a slight issue it would not let me directly quote????

Also I am referencing the author of the review and NOT the OP... Again it is not the OP or the posters here... it is directed at the author of the summary


Before I begin I have fail the crator of this report... Manipulation is only part of experiments and not after action reports on experiments....


I have to fail his ability as an analysis..... Your opinion is not the facts but merely a coloring of facts...

Again I have to call your writing of this report as a failure... Epic... why... Because I see you and your attempt... You should join ATS and visit the disinfo threads and at least get a better education...

I see an under officer kissing rear trying to climb the ranks... Partially trained in being a non-leader... always in the office never the front lines... fighting the great office wars... I am not trained and could write a better kill piece then this... to the author of this summary , please get some help writing this next time old man...

se I can color information to... most readers will now have an idea you are covering something up ... see I bet even if your do read this you doubt your own report...

main issues...

Huge procedural violations on the remote viewing.... huge...

1) multi-day and not secured....

2) amuerature tasking at best... the one doing the tasking is knowledable in the target... usually not done to prevent pollution

the methodology used was sloppy designed to encourage failure... Look into stray cat and AOL

3)I see no mention of the batting average of the viewer mentioned... Are they good with color... people.. animals... spatial relations.... Again for a report this important it is missing very basic information

4) He was informed by someone... seems to be repeated again and again... like this report it appears very sloppy like 'He was informed by someone'....what to put

so there was correct information? it seems glossed over... was it all in a type or range....

5)protocol violation abound, the other one was for single RV'er... My understanding that on targets multiple veiwers are used... Team versus the individual...



in conclusion, I recomend a demotion with brig time for the author... sloppy misinformation at best.... deliberate treason at worse

The debunking needs work to be at a professional level...

Multiple instances of protocol violations
No knowledge of the subject by author
fraud was leveled why no investigation... (He was informed by someone) that means a spy!!!!

It is a great find by ATS...

It actually makes me think there was an effort to hide it....


A single line of reason...

The guy in charge of Russia now was in charge of the Russian programs back then for the KGB from what I have seen...

The russians have a great habit of operating culturally different then we do... We spend billions for a pen to write in space... Russian use a number two pencil....

they see something work and do not ask why, if, maybe why , but they do put it to work...the russiaans used naturals....

One of the battlefields of the future is the mind... and all access to the enemies minds ( and thus ours as well) is the high ground....

Again ATS great find.....

Thank you for reading this post....

Kent Walls... aka Ripcontrol




top topics



 
3

log in

join