« Psi and Cannabis | Main | Cuddly Humanism »

March 05, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good post as usual Robert. Personally I prefer when the parapsychologists takes time to deal with their critics. In this case David Marks is not even mentioned in passing (i.e. his name is not in the index). I also note, concerning predicting the price of silver, that although Targ writes "...I should add that in the following year we were not successful in our silver forecasting..." he does not cite or mention Keith Harary's article "The goose that laid the silver eggs: A criticism of psi and silver futures forecasting" (abstract available online). This in addition to some points highlighted by Chris Batcher in JSPR (oct, 2012) is really an invitation for criticism. By the way, concerning Pat Price there is an interesting note in Elizabeth Mayer's book (chap 7, endnote 9).


Kress' report is freely available:


A couple of months ago I received the Star Gate archive from stargate-interactive.com and even with the extensive indexes supplied by Tamra Temple, it can be difficult to find what you want.

There are hits, of course, but there are also misses. Interestingly, some of these misses have been described as hits in books and articles. Pat Price's remote viewing of URDF-3 is a case in point. He did draw a large gantry crane, but that was after he mentioned a gantry crane in passing and the people who commissioned the remote viewing sessions (ie, the CIA) then asked him for more detail about the crane. That evening Pat Price drew a gantry crane. In other words, he did not produce the drawing spontaneously during a session. Regarding the size, Pat Price described everything as big during his sessions as if he had guessed that they were working from satellite/aerial photographs.

But like I said, I've not had these documents for long, and I feel as if I'm just scratching the surface. Nevertheless, there are plenty of erroneous data, especially with regards to their attempts at remote viewing hostages. Again, some of these sessions have later been written up as successes, which is cause for concern.

By the way, it seems there aren't any massive gaps in the archive. The idea that the best sessions are still classified is possible, but it is probably a handful of sessions rather than a vast number. There are two documents listing operational remote viewing sessions and, although the target has been blanked out on some of them, all of the sessions appear to be present in the archive.

I don't understand what you are trying to say, ersby. Price either remote viewed a gantry crane or not. Why does it matter when he drew what he saw?

Fascinating article and thank you. It's always interesting to see the great David Bohm's name again! He was very well aware of parapsychology as evidenced in this paper, "A New theory of the relationship of mind and matter" and his mention of receiving the Gardner Murphy award.


Interestingly that bit was taken out before getting published in Philosophical Psychology (1990), see here and is a little different,


I was a young physics postgrad. student who wandered onto his quantum theory courses in the early '80s and got taught by him and his colleagues. You never forgot Bohm's brilliance and his kindness and you always felt you knew were with him in his discussions but it was different afterwards! Basil Hiley (his colleague then) is still extensively developing his ideas - another great man.

I think it is important. Commonly, the account given is that Pat Price was given only a set of co-ordinates and then drew a huge crane. But this is wrong.

On the first during during a session lasting two hours, Pat Price started well with describing the first impressions you'd get from looking at URDF-3, but then went on to view nine elements which weren't there. In amongst this, he mentions a gantry crane. Since this was one of the features that the CIA was interested in, they asked for more details. Effectively, they told Price that he was right about there being a crane. It was only after being prompted by someone who was not blind to the target did Price draw the crane and then describe it as being very big.

The impression given by the first version compared to the second is quite different. One is far more impressive than the other.

Above, Robert McLuhan wrote that "critics artfully raise the level of noise to the point where the existence of any actual signal becomes impossible to determine," which I'm sure is what some people think I'm doing now. It may be that, even knowing that the correct data were in a small minority compared erroneous data, you still think that the crane drawing is proof enough of remote viewing. That's fine, but it's a good idea to understand the context in which these hits took place.

The original report of Price's remote viewing is online here


Alan, thanks so much for the links - I skimmed one of the articles, but will need some time to do them justice!

I got interested in Bohm after reading David Lorimer's book Whole in One some years ago - exploring the idea of human interconnectedness through the idea of the implicate order. Targ has reawakened my interest, so I shall have another look.

'He did draw a large gantry crane, but ... did not produce the drawing spontaneously during a session.'

Ersby, this is not at all supported either by Targ's quite detailed description, based (he says) on data recorded in his notebook at the time, or the CIA agent Ken Kress's separately published account (link above).

Targ handed Price a slip of paper with the geographical coordinates he had received from Kress. Price started the session, describing mental images: 'I am in the sunshine lying on top of a three-story building in some kind of R&D complex. The sun feels good . . . some kind of giant gantry craine just rolled over my body. It's going back and forth . . . this is the biggest damn crane I've ever seen . . . It runs on a track, and it has wheels on both sides of the building. It has four wheels on each side of the building. I have to draw this'.

No one else was present (Kress was waiting downstairs) so Price could not have been prompted at this time. The drawing is closely similar to a tracing the CIA had made from a satellite photograph, as I think can be agreed is clear from the published images.

Price's failure to observe four other large structures in the neighbourhood of the crane resembling oil derricks was considered to have weakened the result of what had been, in effect, a test of his abilities. When the installation was again checked it turned out that two of them had been partially disassembled, but basically all four were visible.

This weakened the impact of the successful viewing of the crane. But that success still stands.

Ideally I'd get hold of the archive myself and see if I can clear this up. If these documents give a different impression, it naturally raises big questions about where the truth lies, and which published source is reliable, if any.

The essential point in all of this, and the one that so easily gets lost in these discussions, is whether or not it is possible to psychically 'view' remote locations on the basis only of geographical coordinates. We shouldn't confuse it with the quite separate issue of whether remote viewing provides actionable intelligence. The fascinating thing about this is how the presence of so many failures can weaken the impact of the successes.

Kress writes: 'Two analysts, a photo interpreter at IAS [12] and a nuclear analyst at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories, agreed that Price's description of the crane was accurate; the nuclear analyst wrote that "one: he, the subject, actually saw it through remote viewing, or two: he was informed what to draw by someone knowledgeable of URDF-3 [13]." But, again, since there was so much bad information mixed in with the good, the overall result was not considered useful. As proof of remote viewing, the data are at best inconclusive.'

I find this extraordinary. The presence of a lot of dross shouldn't blind one to the presence of a little bit of gold. The one doesn't cancel out the other. That's the logic, surely. But this logic gets lost in the miasma of subjective impressions.

Robert, you're welcome and most do (in these areas of consciousness studies) encounter Bohm in some way!

Robert, I put a link to the 1975 report in my second reply, so I hope you get a chance to read it. Obviously, the secret services needed information they could act upon, and having one or two correct pieces of data hidden amongst many mistakes may be evidence of ESP but it's not much use to them. I'm not convinced that it is reasonable to say that one good hit is equally evidential, no matter how many misses accompany it.

If you've read Targ then I'm sure you'll notice, there is one hit in the report that the author misses. At the beginning, Pat Price identifies URDF-3 as being linked to the space program (possibly influenced by news stories about the Soviet space program in the previous few days: a successful docking of the Salyut space station). The author, believing it to be a nuclear testing area says this is wrong, but many years later it was discovered that it was indeed concerned with researching nuclear rockets for space travel.


Mind you, in day four Pat Price said that he realised he was wrong about it being connected with space and retracted it. Still, worth noting.

Ersby, thanks, I missed the link but have checked it out now. The document does give a very detailed picture and is substantially different from Targ's account. Much of this is a matter of impressions, but there is also at least one major discrepancy.

Targ clearly states that Price made the detailed drawing of the crane on the first session, before he had been given any details about the site, whereas this document states he made the drawing on the second day after the existence of the crane he had seen had been confirmed (and potentially had the chance to talk to someone about it - however unlikely this might have been in practice.)

I'd certainly like to get to the bottom of this!

Posting up a storm of late Robert. Yes I have always thought that the Price/crane remote viewing was too ambiguous, and that Targ's account is not definitive. I did recently read this very book of Targ's, fascinating, even if it doesn't take into account all the valid criticisms of SRI's work (and the Harary criticisms of Targ's future silver market trading is too little acknowledged in general as Nemo points out above).

The thing with Price is that he may have been a CIA agent, and could have gotten data from CIA sources, which contaminates much of his remote viewing work. Targ does not mention this, and he ought to have disclosed this. Targ and Puthoff were not aware of Price's CIA work at the time, but there is no excuse for Targ not to acknowledge it in say 'The Reality of ESP'.

As Jim Schnabel, a highly regarded and generally fair-minded writer of these kind of things, who takes remote viewing seriously (author of 'Remote Viewers The secret history of America's Psychic Spies' and the man behind the noted pro-RV documentary The Real X-Files) put it in this must-read article on Pat Price:


"A few years later, the Price story became even more complicated, after the FBI raided the Los Angeles office of the Church of Scientology. Among the documents they found were records of briefings that Price, a Church member, had routinely given to a senior Scientology official about his SRI and CIA activities. These included descriptions of highly classified taskings and the names of covert Agency personnel that Price had agreed, in his CIA and SRI contracts, to keep secret. (Puthoff, who was informed of all this by government officials in the late 1970s, recently described it as “the biggest betrayal I have ever experienced.”)"

The thing is there has been so much solid RV successes coming from so many others, like Hammind, McMoneagle, Swann and others. Price is something of a trickster figure and is fascinating for this reason. And if you think RV is going to be without its tricksters, well that's like having trees without the birds.

I have some doubts on some of those solid RV successes.

Like I said, I've only had the archive a couple of months, and while I've found several good hits these mostly appear to have happened before 1979, which is before the coverage of sessions becomes more complete, or have occurred during a training session. There are undoubtedly more, but bear in mind that during the operational remote viewing sessions, the interviewer is usually not blind to the nature of the target and sometimes neither is the viewer.

I am still to find many of the sessions relating to most of the hits I've seen described in books and articles, but the URDF-3 result is not the only story to have grown in the telling. And the problem is not that session notes are missing but that there are session notes that directly contradict the version of events.

As far as I can tell, the many attempts to remote view hostages were mostly met with negative results. Certainly, the account that states that remote viewers had focused in on Dozier's location but the data had not reached the authorities in time would appear to be wrong. Indeed, quite the opposite. I write about it in more detail in the link below, but in summary: data from remote viewers were passed on and it was acted upon twice with negative results.


It will take a while for me to have a better idea of the quality of data in the archive as a whole. Part of the problem is that evaluations are either still classified or that two different evaluations of the same data come to different conclusions. I shall keep ploughing through to see what I can uncover. But first impressions suggest that, while there are some good hits suggestive of ESP, the final conclusion that the data was not suitable for operational use appears to be reasonable.

Well, come
Good, good move
Learning about
thank you

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • ‘A brisk, bracing look at this continuing controversy, exhaustively researched .. a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in parapsychology and its critics.’
  • ‘‘Packed with accurate information while at the same time surprisingly engaging and fun to read.’
  • ‘‘This is one book that gives a completely objective review of skeptical debunking, and spells out in detail a clear pattern of chicanery which pervades a well-funded and organized campaign against all psi research.’

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • ‘These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in.’ Alan Turing, computer scientist.

  • ‘I have noticed that if a small group of intelligent people, not supposed to be impressed by psychic research, get together and such matters are mentioned, and all feel that they are in safe and sane company, usually from a third to a half of them begin to relate exceptions. That is to say, each opens a little residual closet and takes out some incident which happened to them or to some member of their family, or to some friend whom they trust and which they think odd and extremely puzzling.’ Walter Prince, psychic researcher.

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

  • ‘Science seems to me to teach in the highest and strongest manner the great truth which is embodied in the Christian conception of entire surrender to the will of God. Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.’ Thomas Henry Huxley

  • We can always immunize a theory against refutation. There are many such immunizing tactics; and if nothing better occurs to us, we can always deny the objectivity – or even the existence – of the refuting observation. Those intellectuals who are more interested in being right than in learning something interesting but unexpected are by no means rare exceptions. Karl Popper, on the defenders of materialism.

  • If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run - and often in the short one - the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative. Arthur C. Clarke.

Become a Fan