I'm not sure why you're saying this. It's certainly not my opinion.
It's indirectly implied in most of the posts that you made about the project. The language and the insinuations... But nevermind.
And while I appreciate the time you took in your reply, and the interesting points you made, it seems to me to be more pertinent to judge the success of remote viewing sessions by looking at the actual session notes. That's my method, anyway.
Let's go there, then. I took the time of searching Google Books and reading about the submarine incident, settling on Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer's
Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind (p. 117) as the most complete quote available for "free viewing" (the only one that I could access in a book authored by Joe was a summary in
The Ultimate Time Machine). I will not address the speculation about the "officer knowing" about the construction of a sub or not, since that can't really be proven, Severodvinsk had been photographed by satellites as far back as 1969, but as with most top secret information, it is unlikely that this information was widespread (any leakage would allow the Soviet Union to relocate their facility elsewhere). There is a chance that he had no idea of the sort of facility that they were searching for, tough I will concede that he most likely had seen photographic material prior to the session as is to be expected. I have issues with both yours and Joe's account, so get ready for some heavy quoting. Let's begin with your in that old thread:
Joe says that the military didn’t believe him when he told them that the building they ask him to remote view had a submarine in it. But according to other sources, the Americans knew that a submarine was being constructed there in 1977, so I think it’s unlikely that they’d dismiss that.
In this particular point, I think that you may be mistaking the timelines of two different projects. The US was most certainly aware of the commision of the K-424 Delta-III by 1977, but the Typhoon was built in a much larger and separate building. It's quite possible that the US knew where the other Delta-III subs were being built, but not what was being built in the facility where TK-208 (the very first Typhoon) was laid down. What I have read about the underwater race of the Cold War suggests that the US was quite surprised that the Soviet Union suddenly produced something that could compete with their Ohio class, especially so quickly after the Delta-III was first introduced, since they were expecting the Delta-IV. In EHM's book, Hal Puthoff implies that the US disbelieved that a sub was being built in this particular building due to the building's location (which he claims is "in the dead of the frozen landscape with no direct access to water" but "not far" from the White Sea i.e. not in the facility were the Delta-III were built, but adjacent) and due to its size, they considered that this particular facility was being used to built something larger like a troop carrier.
Also, the missile tubes on a Typhoon submarine are not canted, as Joe claims.
This is probably the strongest point in your argument, since I have seen several depictions and cutoffs of the Typhoon and can't see any tilting in the missile tubes. This is a photo of the sub in question, while being built in 1979:
http://i.imgur.com/FNptg9p.jpg
The building is certainly enormous, since this baby was nearly 600ft. long and it does not look cramped in there.
And also, it wasn’t launched three months later: it wasn’t until 1981 that the first one launched.
Here you are mistaken, the sub was launched in September 1980 and commisioned in 1981. I believe that you are misunderstanding the terminology, launch means that the ship was placed in a dock wereas commision means that its ready to begin operations. The US certainly became aware of the presence of this beast as soon as it was taken out of the building, it's hard to miss. Also, in EHM's book it is mentioned that a canal was built besides the building and that the sub was moved along it. If it was launched in September, its entirely possible that the canal was completed or being built by January 1980 (the date quoted by Hal as the one in which the satelite photos were take) and that it was visible, but the sub was not yet in place (likely because they needed to make sure that the canal was deep enough for this thing to pass trough it). The date is not as incongruent as you think, more of an issue is... Why they would build a gigantic sub in a place with no direct access to the sea? Even to throw off your adversary, this is self-complicating. I guess that "in Soviet Russia"... Sea comes to submarine!
Interviewer leading him: page 7, there's a handwritten note “Be careful! Leading him!” next to a section where the interviewer (Atwater) asks Joe about any new construction in the area.
Interesting, but if the note was written during the section, it actually serves to show that there were controls.
In the second session, Atwater asks Joe to move around the area: 10km north-west, 15km south-east, 3.3km north-east and 3.3km south-east from a particular point (the round building). This was because they found a round building in the general vicinity of the target. Of those four directions, one was the correct one that should have taken him to the shipyard, but Joe just saw a forest. Clearly, the interviewer knows about the target in some detail.
Would the right directly lead him directly to the shipyard or towards Severodvinsk? Take note that during the Soviet days, Severodvinsk was a "closed city" surrounded by taiga, not a thriving metropolis. The population was mosttly around 250K historically.
The third session is the first time that Joe describes a shipyard, but remember, he's had those geographic co-ordinates for some time. Any atlas would've taken him to Severodvinsk, which was known for being a shipyard where they built submarines.
Known to the high ranking military perhaps, the Soviet Union did not promote the existence of the Sevmash for obvious reasons. Remember that this was not a civilian shipyard, its were the Soviet Union built their entire fleet.... So there was no red arrow pointing to it. There is no reason why the US would risk a leak by randomly telling a lower-rank individual a crucial piece of intelligence. Sorry, but I don't buy the Atlas idea.
After this the remaining sessions describe modifications to a submarine. Joe doesn’t mention anything about the building being a long way in-land, even though Atwater asks him to focus on the area between the building and the water. He’s hoping Joe will mention how far apart they are, but all he sees is some crates.
I explained what Hal says above, the satellite images showed a building that was not far away from the sea, but that lacked direct access to it.
Atwater knew wasn’t blind to the target, and the fact that they used geographical co-ordinates means that Joe wasn’t really blind to the target either. As such, the session notes are just generic images you'd expect when describing a place where they build submarines.
He was not blind, in ELM's book Hal actually implies that after he found the building, he was shown a photo of it. The coordinates would not mean much for the reasons mentioned above. I am not sure what would constitute "generic" images of a submarine factory (which, seems like a pretty extraordinary place by definition), but I have an album showing exactly how the facilty where the TK-208 was built:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/562105597219616783/ Perhaps we can match some?
So... They banned your other account already?