Chapter 16
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.