THE "PICTURE DRAWINGS" AND
MY FIRST "AMBIGUOUS SUCCESS" - NOVEMBER 24, 1971
My sketches of the concealed practice targets were now referred to simply as "picture drawings."
The picture drawings and descriptions of the targets were, as was to be expected, being circulated among the staff of the ASPR who were beginning to "ooh" and "aah."
So the news of these informal successes began going out into gossip lines -- and into the extensive combined networks of "my local espionage community" of Zelda, Buell, the Wingates and the Bennitts.
It needs to be stipulated that researchers were quite used to experiencing subjects' responses which did not at all correlate with ESP targets. So any shred of correlation was always made much of.
In my own estimation, most of the first picture drawings were actually not all that good when compared with the targets. I considered them as revealing some minimal kind of perceptual contact with the targets, but only in a kind of ambiguous way.
Enough of the targets could be seen in them though. And so everyone was experiencing tremors of encouragement.
Then came the experiment of November 24, 1971.
My archives show that I arrived at the ASPR with a light head cold, and Janet's record of the experiment indicates that I did it with a runny nose.
This, of course, was not considered ideal. For I could not wipe the nose dribble because doing so would disrupt the brainwave charts. But $50 were at stake, and it didn't really matter if I did well or not because the session was still a practice "run."
I now regret that images and pictures cannot be introduced into the text at this point. If this book was assisted by illustrations there would be over fifty of them. These would need to be scanned, and so the cost would add up.
But I'll do my best to describe the targets and my sketched responses. The targets were not yet being photographed, but Janet made a sketch of their layouts during the session. She NEVER knew what the targets were in advance.
My picture drawing shows that I did not "see" five of the seven of the target items. The target tray contained a pencil, a small yellow plastic dipper, a subway token, and a small cross. I did not indicate those in my sketch.
But my picture drawing contained a smallish rectangle, identified as red, a "something" which was indicated to be about 1/2-inch thick. This target turned out to be a small, red address book which was of that thickness.
My picture drawing also indicated a circle, identified as "red or pink." Inside the circle in my picture drawing I had indicated a TU or a UT thing which was black. If the UT or TU thing had been joined together by one more strokes, it would have made the number 5.
When the target tray was taken down, it did contain an off-colored red circle (of paper) in the center of which was a largish number 5.
Everyone was very impressed, almost into silence -- as was I. But I immediately told Janet and Osis: "This has to get better than this, or we will only end up with yet another of those 'statistically significant' experiments." The kind just minimally above "chance expectation."
You will note that my "perceptual mind" did not quite identify the figure of the 5, but that I got its elements. In other words, I had no cognitive idea that the figure was a 5, but I felt that my perceptual processes should have known that.
As a result of this yet ambiguous "success" I began thinking that there existed a hidden extrasensory perceptual system that functioned with rules and a logic of its own. And that THIS system functioned beneath the levels of conscious control of it.
In other words, the perceptual process was SUBLIMINAL.
In my mind, the question arose as to how or why the cognitive intellect (which could have identified the 5) did not MATCH the subliminal perceptual processes which produced the UT. Turn the UT on its side and it will assume the basic shape of the 5.
I'm now going to ask you to remember, even memorize, the three paragraphs just above, or the three enumerated concepts just below -- for upon them rests almost the entire future creation of America's remote viewing spies.
Think of this as follows:
(1) A hidden extrasensory perceptual SYSTEM that functions with rules and a logic of its own;
(2) How the cognitive, conscious mind interfaces (or does not) with that hidden system; and
(3) Can the INTERFACING be improved?
Without considering the implications contained in the two trios above,
you will never understand what remote viewing is.
And, as well, you will never understand the basis for anything which goes under the heading of INTUITION.