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.