Monday, 16 July 2018

A Corpse Not Buried For Nineteen Years

On this day two hundred and fifty years ago (16 July 1768), a woman was finally laid to rest in London after an apparently very literal interpretation of the terms of a will meant that she remained unburied for almost two decades.

According to the Gentleman's Magazine and the Annual Register for 1768, a close relative of the woman passed away and left a clause in his will that she should receive an annual sum of £25 "as long as she is on the Earth." According to the website Measuring Worth, the value of £25 in the mid-eighteenth century in today’s money is at least £3,150 and possibly much higher.

Hence, when the woman died, her husband did not have her interred but instead rented a room above a stable in South Audley Street where she was placed in a "decent coffin." Thus, fulfilling the terms of the will (at least the meaning if not the intention), he continued to receive the yearly sum. The Annual Register put the rent of the room at £5, giving him a clear profit of £20 a year.

It wasn't until the husband died that the landlord, wanting to do some work on the building, discovered the body. After this she was laid to rest having served her husband for rather longer than "til death us do part."


The Gentleman’s Magazine, vol 38, 1768. p 347
Annual Register for the year 1768, p 138

Saturday, 28 April 2018

Best writing in parapsychology

Recently, two papers in the field of parapsychology have impressed me with their clarity of writing and depth of research, applied to an interesting subject. One was Charman, R., Hume, S. (2018) “The Case of Colonel Henderson and The Apparition of Captain Hinchcliffe Revisited – A Crisis Apparition?” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol 82, No. 1, pp 28-42. The other was Schooler, J.W., Baumgart, S (2018) Entertaining Without Endorsing: The Case for the Scientific Investigation of Anomalous Cognition,” Psychology of Consciousness: Theory Research and Practice, American Psychological Association

Reading these made me want to write about other articles on parapsychology that I thought had reached similar levels of high quality. So here’s my list, with links where possible.

Akers, C. (1984) "Methodological criticisms of parapsychology."Advances in Parapsychological Research, vol. 4, ed. Krippner, S. McFarland

This is an extensive review of the state of parapsychology to date by focusing on fifty-four of the most oft-cited experiments, as taken from Wolman Handbook of Parapsychology. It’s an invaluable resource for anyone interested in post-WW2 parapsychology since it talks about papers that are still referenced today, detailing critiques and defences that were well-known then but have since been forgotten.

Bierman DJ, Spottiswoode JP, Bijl A (2016) Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0153049. 1

Similarly to Akers, this paper examines some of the more famous parapsychological results to see if it withstands current criticisms. In this case, the focus was on the Ganzfeld database, and concluded that Questionable Research Practices may have inflated the reported findings, they could not account for all of the effect being measured.

Coelho, C., Tierney, I., Lamont, P. (2008) “Contacts by Distressed Individuals to UK Parapsychology and Anomalous Experience Academic Research Units – A Retrospective Survey Looking to the Future,” European Journal of Parapsychology, Volume 23.1, pp 31-59

This fascinating paper looks at a largely ignored aspect of academic research into parapsychology: coming into contact with people who are genuinely distressed by the paranormal phenomena they seem to be subject to. By contacting a parapsychology unit, some people sought to explain their diagnoses, while others were trying to postpone approaching the mental health care services. The paper discusses preferred strategies in these circumstances.

Collins, H.M, Pinch, J.T. (1982) “Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science,” London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

This book is remarkable for its story about a largely forgotten episode in parapsychology: the sudden rise of spoon-bending in the early 1970s, especially regarding children. The book contains a detailed description of the authors’ attempts at investigating this phenomena at Bath University, as well as the influence of Uri Geller on science and popular culture in a wider sense.

Drake, J. (2015) “Ghosts, Elves, & the Man from Mars: 2 Decades (Skeptically) Investigating the Paranormal”

This talk by Jerry Drake is a real eye-opener. First, for the insight he brings to the subjects he looks into, and secondly as an introduction to Jerry Drake who, I must admit, I’d never heard of before I saw this video. My favourite part must be the explanation of the haunting at Faust Hotel in Texas, that begins at 54:50.

Fortean Studies, volumes 1-7, John Brown Publishing, 1994-2001

These books are collections of papers written in a more thorough, academic manner than the ones published in the magazine Fortean Times, and they are full of fascinating cases explained in often minute detail. The author, Mike Dash contributes two lengthy articles (The Devil’s Hoofmarks, in volume one and The Vanishing Lighthousemen of Eilan Mor in volume four) which were major influences on me as an example of how to do proper research using first-hand documents. But every other article is worthy of anyone’s attention, ranging from Princess Diana conspiracy theories to UFO sightings in the 1910s.

Koehler, J.J, (1993) “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,” 56, pp28-55

The opening sentence reads “This paper is concerned with the influence of scientists' prior beliefs on their judgements of evidence quality” and that pretty much sums it up. It makes sobering reading for skeptics of the paranormal, demonstrating that they are far more extreme than proponents in how they judge the quality of experiments with results that agree/disagree with their pre-existing views.

Lamont , P, Wiseman , R. (2001), “The rise and fall of the Indian rope trick,” Journal of the Society for Psychical Research , vol 65 , no. 3, pp. 175-193

Peter Lamont is the only person to have two entries on this list with this study into the myth of the Indian Rope Trick. As I grew up in the 1970s, the idea of the rope trick being a genuine thing (be it conjuring trick or paranormal feat) was so ingrained that it never occurred to that the truth would be more nuanced. Dr Lamont continued to work on this topic, publishing it as a book with the same name in 2005

Ogbourne, D., (2012) “Encyclopedia of Optography: The Shutter of Death”

The idea behind Optography (that the last thing seen before someone dies remains as an image on the retina) is one that had long intrigued me, but I thought had never been taken that seriously by anyone so I didn’t bother researching it. Luckily, Derek Ogbourne did the work that I was too lazy to do and put together a considerable body of work on the subject.

Sunday, 1 April 2018

Project Stargate and the Charles Jordan case

The TV program Sunday Morning, broadcast on the US network CBS, recently carried a story about the US government-sponsored remote viewing project. It can be seen online here.

It was a fairly typical piece on Project Stargate. In this kind of coverage it's rare to get much further than a few talking heads, old photocopies of declassified documents and a skeptic to provide balance. Talking of which, I’ve no idea what Sean Carroll talking about. Something about putting a receiver next to your head should pick up ESP? He didn't mention remote viewing at all. But in his defence, he might not have been asked about it. It felt like his bit was edited in from an entirely different story.

The clip from Sunday Morning talks about the Charles Jordan case. Charles Jordan was a customs official who helped smuggle drugs into the US. He went on the run in 1986. On 4 December, 1988 his case was covered on America's Most Wanted (series 2, episode 43). The remote viewers were asked to focus on him in April 1989.

Screenshot from CBS's Sunday Morning

Angela Ford (then called Dellafiore) was one of the remote viewers at that time and in her interview with CBS she describes it:

“I said the man was in Lowell, Wyoming, and I spelt it L-O-W-E-L-L. [...] Well, when my boss went to Customs and said ‘we’re still getting the Wyoming feeling,’ Customs said ‘As we're speaking we're apprehending Charles Jordan 100 miles west of Lovell, Wyoming’.”

Out of all the claims of success for Project Stargate, this one is perhaps the most striking. Tasked with finding a man on the run who, after three years as a fugitive, could be anywhere on the American continent, and yet succeding in naming a town within a hundred miles of his ultimate place of arrest is very impressive.

The sessions themselves were pretty typical except that each remote viewer was given the opportunity to use whatever method they preferred. This lead to all the sessions being carried out solo (ie, no monitor to prompt them) and a range of techniques, using written remote viewing, coordinates and dowsing over maps. How blind the remote viewers were to the target is not clear. In the original declassified documents Charlie Jordan is referred to as “the felon” or “the fugitive,” but Lyn Buchanan wrote in his book The Seventh Sense that the team were given a full debriefing on Charles Jordan.

There were about nineteen sessions on this target and five remote viewers contributed sessions. Angela Ford only did two: the one in which she mentioned an Indian reserve and the name “Lowel” and then a second session two months later but more on that in a bit.

I can't find the actual notes from Angela's first session, but in an undated report (that must be before 17 April 1989 because certain results from an RV session run on that date are missing, described as “pending”) there is a list of the team's findings to date.

The other three remote viewers who had completed sessions on this target put the fugitive in Mexico or south Florida. Angela's conclusion, now pinpointed as “Lovell, Wyoming” was definitely the odd one out.

The others continued to remote view Charlie Jordan but Angela did not. The other findings did not start to converge on Wyoming, but remained in the fairly typical idiom of places where fugitives might hide: farmhouses deep in the country, Central America, the Everglades in Florida. One dowsing session by Mel Riley ended on Minnesota, but that was as close as anyone else got.

Meanwhile, the FBI had been going through leads generated by the America's Most Wanted episode and had probable cause to search the property of Jordan's parents. There they found a videotape made by Jordan of his wife and their newborn baby in a hospital that they were able to identify as being in Denver.

They had already begun a search in Colorado around June 1989 when an eyewitness account of Charles Jordan in Yellowstone Park came in. He was found and arrested in Pinedale, WY on 16 June 1989.

What's interesting is that, in the CBS piece, Angela described how the remote viewers kept getting the Wyoming feeling and when they went back to tell their client they were told “As we're speaking we're apprehending Charles Jordan 100 miles west of Lovell.”

That's interesting because the project on Charlie Jordan had closed on 28 April with no further mention of Wyoming, so there were no extra findings in June for them to pass on to their client. Instead there is one final session dated 16 June at 9.00am run by Angela Ford. In the tasking document it is made clear that this session was prompted by the recent eyewitness account placing Jordan in Yellowstone Park. Angela is asked to describe his movements for the next two weeks. She reported that he was heading towards Biddle, Montana, via camp sites.

Charles Jordan was indeed found in a camp site (albeit nowhere near Biddle and actually about 250 miles south-west of Lowell) so that much is a hit but Angela doesn't seem to know that Charles would be arrested that day. I wonder if this could be where the “as we're speaking...” quote she gave comes from: when they passed on the session notes to their client later that same day.

As to where the original guess of “Lowell” came from, I don't know. Maybe a brief moment of psychic clarity. But I'd also like to know more about what was in that episode of America's Most Wanted.


Summary of early remote viewing sessions on the Charlie Jordan project

Session notes from Angela's second remote viewing session

Sunday, 3 December 2017

The placement of city names on maps

This past October, I went on holiday to Japan and, for the first time in about seven years, my trip took me to Tokyo.

Before I left, I was trying to decide where to go and what to do, when I was struck by the curious placement of the city name Tokyo on Google Maps. It didn’t seem to be over anything in particular: it changed slightly each time I zoomed in but it was usually over a small alleyway in Edogawabashi, a fairly anonymous part of Tokyo.

I checked around to see where other online maps had positioned their “Tokyo” labels.

Bing had it over Shinjuku. More or less over the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building. A fairly sensible choice.

Michelin maps and Openstreet map both chose the grounds of the Imperial Palace. Perhaps an even more sensible choice.

But I was so puzzled by Google Map’s placement that I actually took the time during my holiday to visit Edogawabashi to see if there was anything there I was missing.

This is the alleyway from one end

And this is it from the other

Couldn’t see anything, so I’m none the wiser as to why it was chosen. Possibly the result of some algorithm, I expect. When I was there, I stood where I thought the exact place was and looked up. But I didn’t see this.


Sunday, 19 November 2017

Joe McMoneagle and the Typhoon submarine sessions

In this post, I’d like to focus on Joe McMoneagle’s famous remote viewing of a brand new class of submarine in an apparently land-locked warehouse. While undoubtedly one of the remote viewing project’s successes, it is still prone to exaggerated claims so I thought it worth the time to go over it in detail.

This post is a bit longer than I’d anticipated, so I’ll begin with the summary (in bold text) and those who want more background can continue reading.

Joe McMoneagle is said to have remote viewed a large warehouse, 100 yards from the White Sea in the USSR, which the US Intelligence were clueless to its contents. Joe described a brand knew type of submarine, far bigger than ever seen before, with slanted missile tubes and a unique double-hull structure. His findings were ridiculed, since why would anyone build a submarine in a land-locked building, let alone the biggest ever made? Joe McMoneagle replied by telling them when it would launch and when the Intelligence agencies got their data from a few days after the date he gave them, they saw a newly-dug channel to the sea and an enormous submarine sitting by the quay.

In truth, there were six sessions, over the span of six weeks and the US Intelligence agencies were well aware of the contents of the building. Joe described a submarine being modified, but did not identify it as a new type. Nor did he mention anything about the distance to the sea.

The sessions were conducted in non-blind conditions and the interviewer often guided the session quite overtly by repeating the same question. Many of the claims of success for these sessions are wrong (Joe says the Typhoon submarine had slanted missile tubes) or missing entirely (Joe doesn't talk about a double hull structure). Also, the warehouse in question was not 100 yards from the sea at the time of the remote viewing, but instead the loading bay had been extended over a number of years. As such, the part of the narrative about the Intelligence agencies dismissing Joe's findings and a channel being cut to the sea seems very implausible.

To better analyze the typical narrative, I’ve split it into sections.

First, I'm going to relate the version of events according to those connected to or supportive of the remote viewing project.


In The Stargate Chronicles, Joe McMoneagle wrote:

One of the first operational targets brought to the program around September of 1979 originated within the National Security Council. A naval lieutenant commander assigned to the council who had seen some of the previous OPSEC reports was enthusiastic about using RV for offensive intelligence-gathering purposes. He brought a photograph of a large building that was obviously an industrial type of building for targeting and development. The building was seen to be near a large body of water, but that was all one could tell about it. Materials were stacked on the exterior of the building, but they were general in nature and did not add clues about what might be going on inside the building. The building was huge, labeled as building number 402, and was located somewhere in Russia. (We were to find out much later that the facility was located at the port of Severodvinsk, on the White Sea, very near the Arctic Circle.) The NSC was very interested in knowing specifically what was going on inside.
McMoneagle, Joseph. The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy: The Remarkable Life of U.S. Government Remote Viewer 001 (Kindle Locations 2316-2323). Crossroad Press. Kindle Edition.

In this version of events, the National Security Council were using the remote viewers as a means of getting information on a target that was otherwise a mystery to the intelligence services.

The Remote Viewing Session

Joe McMoneagle carried out a session where the targeting material was a photo (or a piece of the photo) in an opaque envelope. During this session he described a giant submarine.

Dr Edwin May described the session as having a 137-page transcript “about the construction of a very very large submarine that had two hulls like a catamaran”

In The Stargate Chronicles, McMoneagle makes reference to multiple sessions. He wrote:

Two or three days later, Fred asked me to visit the building again.

On my second visit, I got up very close to the larger vessel and was amazed at its size [...] I moved up over the deck and was surprised to see that it had canted missile tubes running side by side. This was critically important because this indicated that it had the capacity to fire while on the move rather than having to stand still in the water, which made it a very dangerous type of submarine.
McMoneagle, Joseph. The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy: The Remarkable Life of U.S. Government Remote Viewer 001 Crossroad Press. Kindle Edition.


According to Joe McMoneagle, his findings were roundly ridiculed by people in the intelligence services. Annie Jacobsen, in her book Phenomena, explains:

The report was interesting to some, including Commander Jake Stewart of the Office of Naval Intelligence, and dismissed by others including Robert Gates, an analyst on loan to the NSC from CIA. That the Soviets would build a submarine inside this building, and not in a dry dock located at the water’s edge, seemed to defy logic. The building McMoneagle had been asked to view was located roughly one hundred yards inland from the shore at the naval yard. At one point in McMoneagle’s session he had described “a concrete structure, like in Holland in a canal. For you know, controlling the flow of water.” But the KH-9 spy satellite photographs from September 1979 showed no canal between the mysterious building and the navy docks— only flat, frozen earth.
Jacobsen, Annie. Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis (p. 235). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

“[...] and I said they were going to launch in 120 days. And this was all disagreed with by the senior officer from the CIA [...] He made arrangements to look at the area 114 days later and they in fact had launched the largest submarine ever built in history. It’s called the TK-089, the Typhoon class submarine. The only response we got from that individual was “it was a lucky guess”. And that individual was Robert Gates.”
Joe McMoneagle interview, Third Eye Spies, 2016, dir Lance Mungia

That is the version of events usually presented. Trying to corroborate this against third-party statements was a little tricky, but here is what I’ve found.


The session targeted at Severodsvink was one of the first “operational” (i.e., real world, classified) targets to be used by the remote viewing team. I can find no correspondence in the CIA archives explaining why this particular target was chosen but it is clear that, far from being in the dark about the construction of a new class of submarine, the Intelligence agencies (in this case, the request came from OASCI – The Office for the Assistant Chief of Staff, Intelligence) were well aware of what the building contained.

A document titled “Typhoon SSBN Construction at Severodsvink Shipyard 402 USSR (TSR)” and dated January 1980 is a heavily redacted history of what is known about the submarine being constructed there. It reads “since September 1977, however, evidence supporting the construction of a Typhoon-class SSBN has continued to accumulate.”

So in this version of events, the contents of Shipyard 402 is not a mystery when the OASCI tasks the remote viewing project with this target. In this context, it is a more typical training exercise with a known target that the remote viewing results can easily be compared against.

Remote Viewing

The remote viewing sessions against this target actually lasted six sessions. You can read the transcripts of all six on the CIA Crest site here, here and here.

Session One, C-47

The first was on 7 September 1979. The targeting material was not a photograph (or scrap of one) in an envelope. It was the geographical co ordinates of the location.

“In my first session against the building, I was given a set of geographic coordinates, clearly somewhere in the north, probably in the Finland or Eastern bloc region.”
McMoneagle, Joseph. The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy: The Remarkable Life of U.S. Government Remote Viewer 001 (Kindle Locations 2323-2324). Crossroad Press. Kindle Edition.

NB: The co-ordinates are given in other CIA documents as being 64-34-39N, 39-48-29E

Joe immediately talked about a large circular building and structures shaped like “tips of cigar tubes [...] standing in the air [...] 2 ½ to 3 stories.” He described the general geography as being a valley between two rows of hills.

He spoke about steel spheres constructed underground, a lot of power being used (this has a tick beside it in the session transcript) and powerful magnetic fields.

After around 13 minutes, the interviewer #66 asked if there’d been any recent new construction or recent change in mission, and written in the margin of the session transcript is a note that reads: “Careful! Leading him.”

Joe went on to talk about spheres that were very large and designed for a violent atmosphere.

There is nothing particularly relevant to a submarine or shipyard. The closest we get is during the latter part of the session when Joe is sketching what he saw. He mentioned that there was a “dam close by this. A dammed waterway [...] it’s very distant.” (later, he adds “to the north east”) and later still, while talking about the spheres he noted that “I did some... metallurgical studying on nautical engineering” and he talked about “new technology” and “has to be some welded plates”.

Session Two, C-53

The second, third and fourth sessions were one week later on the 14 September. Joe himself had done no operational remote viewing sessions since then and the second session began with the interviewer #66 repeating the coordinates again and telling him he’d viewed the vicinity before.

#66 asked Joe to centre himself over the round building and then move a certain number of kilometres in certain directions and then describe what he could see. In this session, there is very little about submarines or shipyards. Perhaps the closest to a potential hit was when Joe is asked to draw a map of the area and he placed some steel and concrete buildings near a body of water.

Session Three, C-54

The third session took place in the afternoon of the 14 September. It began with #66 saying that he was “Interested in finding out about a building located at [redacted]”

Joe said he saw a low silhouette building with an L-shape and a pitched roof and an antenna with supports. After this, Joe was far more on target. He said the building is open at one end and he describes cranes and fins “like shark fins. Dull, gray color.”

This session is full of descriptors that seemed to fit the target location. Joe described fencing and an open area, curved pieces of metal, and lot of water there. He also talked about a large concrete structure. Reading the session notes, I found myself confused as to whether the structure was inside the building or was the actual building, but that could’ve been my lack of understanding. #66 appears to have assumed it was the building itself.

#66 ask Joe to move inside concrete structure. Joe reported seeing water in there, metal railings, a tubular thing, an immense rack type object, a brilliantly lit work bay, an oblong bay of water, and a bracket type apparatus with circular gripping arms. Also a dark shadow type object, very large. Tall but longer than tall.

He described a burning metal smell, acrid, like arc welding.

He spoke about a very large body of water, two sections of land that curve out and then back in for some reason. Like a protected bay.

He had a very strong impression of props (ie, propellers) for some kind of ship. But he specified that the ship wasn’t constructed here, but just modified. This is, perhaps, the least accurate thing Joe said during the session, yet it had two ticks beside it as if the assessor was especially happy with this statement.

Unfortunately, the sketches for this remarkably on-target session were in coloured pencil, and have not reproduced well.

Session Four, C-55

The fourth session was conducted on the same afternoon as the third. #66 began by asking Joe to bring his attention to the concrete building just north of the geographical coordinates.

Joe continued to describe a similar scene as before, adding that the building is connected to a dry dock building. He also, for the first time, started to talk about submarines in some detail.

“I’m seeing what looks like part of a submarine in the building [...] almost likely a mock-up”

#66: How did this submarine come to be in the building?
Joe: There’s not a whole submarine. [...] They created this part of a submarine to fasten this coffin-shaped modification to. The modification in question is described as a sort of hump that fits on top of the submarine.

Joe talked about another, neighbouring building where he saw “a lot of black sails” (this is underlined) and “Fins, I see fins” (also underlined)

#66 asked what’s to the left of the building. This seems to be an attempt at getting Joe to describe how the building is connected to the bay. But Joe was confused as to which building he means, and the subject was briefly dropped until #66 tries again later.

“Facing the quays, tell me about just over the edge of the building between the building and the quays, tell me about that area.” He asked. But Joe could only see stacked crates.

Session Five, C-73

The next time that Joe tackled this target was about one month later, on 18 October. Although a month had past, Joe had not actually conducted any operational remote viewing sessions so the October sessions are, in a sense, immediately after the 14 September session in terms of tasking.

#66 began the session by asking Joe to “go to a large concrete building in the vicinity of [coordinates redacted]” so Joe straight away had enough information to help him understand that this session follows on from his previous one.

Although Joe did not go straight to describing submarines, the overall picture is the same. He talked about girders and flashes of light like someone cutting metal.

After a while, Joe mentioned the coffin-type things that go on top of submarines. #66 immediately asked “How do the objects leave this room? By what method do they leave the room?” Once again he seems to be trying to get Joe to think about the area between building and the sea.

Joe tried to explain the process, but despite #66’s prompting, Joe never answered the question.

#66 then asked Joe to go to an area of interest in the building. However, mid-way through Joe describing an area of his choosing, #66 cut him off and asked him to focus again. The role of #66 in this session seems much more controlling than before. He even told Joe, mid-session, that he was focusing on the wrong part of the building and needed to take an overview.

After some guidance from #66, Joe takes a look at the whole building from a corner, and he describes the incomplete submarine as before.

#66, apparently very keen on the area between the building and the sea, tells Joe to hover over the building and look down over different sides of the building. During this part, Joe was describing other buildings and a storage yard, when he broke off: He said he was looking at water, but not seeing water. “I don’t know how to explain that.” After the session, Joe drew a map of what he saw, which had certain similarities to the target area.

He then began talking about small submarines. “You know I mentally want to see big submarines, but there are none. I’m seeing a much smaller class of submarine that I am normally used to, for some reason.” The session ended soon after.

Session Six, C-74

Session six began the same day and, judging by the lack of introduction, could have started immediately after the previous session.

#66 immediately asked Joe to hover over the building and look over the edge, once again trying to get a description of the area between the building and the sea. When this didn't initially work, #66 tries to reposition Joe's point of view several times and asks again.

Joe is also asked to remote view the location for the 1 January 1980. Joe says that the water in the building has gone, or is very low, and that they're fitting tubes to the backs of the submarines. These are the canted missile tubes that Joe mentioned in The Stargate Chronicles as one of the features that demonstrate how accurate his remote viewing was.

He talked about there being four submarines in bays, and he tried to read the numbers written on the side of them. He described the submarines as being “high-class submarines. These are biggies” but specifies that “These aren't new... they are old ones.” #66 asked how the submarines got out of there, and after Joe replied “You open the wall,” #66 drew the session to an end.


The overall picture of the six sessions gives a very different impression to the one given in more recent versions of events.

One thing is clear: Joe was given a submarine shipyard as a target and he described a place where work was being done on submarines.

However, most of the remarkable aspects of the remote viewing are missing. Neither Interviewer #66 nor Joe were completely blind to the target. #66 asks many leading questions and you have to wonder how much detail he knew about the target. Meanwhile Joe was given geographical coordinates that he recognised as being “somewhere in the north, probably in the Finland or Eastern bloc region.”

The claim that Joe saw a brand new class of submarine being constructed is undermined by the transcript telling us that Joe saw a modification to an existing class of submarine.

Other aspects, such as Joe's correct description of a two-hull structure, or correctly guessing the launch date appear to be entirely absent.

But the most important part – that the OASCI dismissed Joe's findings as impossible – now make no sense at all. Since the OASCI knew there was a submarine being built there, they wouldn't have poured scorn on Joe's description of a submarine.

Also, the part of the story about the construction hall being 100 yards from the sea and needing a channel built at the last minute in order to launch the submarine is not backed up by other documents or photographs regarding Severodsvink. In fact, the CIA document quoted near the start of this blog post decisively contradicts it:

“Expansion of the launch basin in front of construction hall 3 has been ongoing since early 1973. The major construction on the basin expansion was complete by late 1978; however, work on the launch rails from construction hall 3 and the ledges that will support the launch dock continued throughout 1979.”
Typhoon SSBN Construction at Severodvinsk Shipyard 402 USSR (TSR), page 1, CIA-RDP80T00556A000100100001-4

So we are left with a series of six remote viewing sessions that successfully describe the target that was set for the remote viewer, but was conducted under non-blind conditions and has been exaggerated ever since.