datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2 Secret proceed with declassification, interim report on management strategy would be provided in July Briefed Richard D’Amato at Hart Senate Office bldg. on status of transfer; obtained agreement on previously submitted Terms of Reference 28 Mar: Formal meeting with NRC representatives and final drafting of Statement of Work for submission to Internal NRC Governing Board 16 May. 31 Mar Discussion with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Privacy Act Coordinator concerning request on CIA paranormal studies. Response complicated by declassification efforts Mar-Apr: MOU executed between US Army and CIA, funds officially transferred to Pentagon Apr: Evaluation of customer feedback on Star Gate tasking begins at Ft. Meade 14 Apr: Official memo to CIA OGC asking them consider declassification issues and other questions concerning how to proceed on Star Gate transfer 2 May: Formal meeting with president and representatives of American Institutes of Research (AIR) to consider potential CIA study request 5 May: NRC formally rejects CIA study proposal citing prior definitive study. NRC stated unequivocally that “the case for remote viewing...is virtually nonexistent.” 10 May: DIA responds to request for assistance in declassification citing EO 12958 as controlling, declines any further DIA action 19 May: Meeting with CIA’s OGC to discuss EO 12958, other declassification strategies and issues Secret Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
SG1B Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4
19 September 1995
SGI
I
In accordance with the terms of my contract and the requirements of Tasks C
,
I have:
- attended all specified meetings of the AIR (replacement organization for the
NRC), their appointed panel members, and ORD,
- participated in the review and editing of all unclassified reports prepared by
the AIR,
its panel members and ORD, and
- assisted in the preparation (writing), review and editing of the interim and final
versions of the report from the AIR and its panel.
In accordance with the terms of my contract and the requirements of Tasks D
,
I have:
- prepared a plan delineating a program for the declassification review of 43
boxes of material related to the Star Gate program and its predecessor
programs,
- met with representatives of CSI, the DC I declassification committee and the
DD/S&T Records Management staff to discuss how best to implement this plan
and make recommendations regarding how to proceed to satisfy
Congressional guidance.
I believe the completed activities noted above satisfy all the requirements of both
Tasks C and D of my contract with your organization and, thereby, request your
approval for payment in the amount of
I
I
SG1B
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4
SG1B Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020001-4
SG1I SG1I SG1I SG1I Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020010-4 DRAFT eae» ORD-NNN 7 Mar 1995 FROM: ams Group, ORD SUBJECT: — 7 ness Independent Contract with i tablish an independent contract with o that ORD can specifically task him to 1 @ transrer of a technical program (Star Gate) from another government agency to CIA. I have enclosed draft language with the specific tasking and a fee structure for this tasking. If tasking is not completed by 30 Sept. 1995, I anticipate renewing his contract for FY 1996 in order to complete the tasking. Can you tell me what I need to do? Is there a bunch of boiler plate that goes with this? Thanks. SG1B DECL OADR DRV FRM Multiple All Portions SECRET DRAFT Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020010-4
SG1I Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2 Secret 18 May 95 MEMO FOR: Record SUBJECT: Complete Star Gate Transfer Chronology Jan: Preliminary planning meetings by CIA senior management in response to Congressionally Directed Action (CDA) to tgransfer Star Gate Program. D/ORD Appointed program manager at CIA/ORD Contacted Office of Military Affairs to coordinate meetings with DIA and US Army (in anticipation of Star Gate review) Feb-Mar: Informal discussions with US Army Research Institute (ART) and National Research Council (NRC) about potential CIA paranormal study request Feb-Apr: Archiving initiated of all DIA and CIA files relating to paranormal studies going back 20 years 21 Feb: Formal memo sent from ORD to DIA requesting their assistance with declassification to facilitate execution of the CDA Feb: Met with Center for Studies on Intelligence (CSI) to discuss potential strategies for declassification 28 Feb: CIA met with DIA principal investigator at SAIC, Dr. Ed May. All-day technical exchange. 1 Mar: CIA and Representative from Office of Military Affairs make site visit to Ft. Meade to meet all program personnel and discuss transfer. All-day technical exchange. 15 Mar: After informal discussions with NRC, panel member selection begins: Jessica Utts, John Palmer, James Alcock, and Ray Hyman contacted by NRC and agree to act as commissioned reviewers 27 Mar: Submitted a “Terms of Reference” in formal response to the Congressionally Directed Action stating NRC would perform unclassified retrospective, CIA would Secret Approved For Release 2004/07/09 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
SGI
I
SGI
I
SG1I
SG1I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020010-4
DRAFT
ORD-NNN
7 Mar 1995
MEMO FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT
:
Emerging programs Group,
ORD
Request
to Initiate Independent Contract with
T would
i
V
p establish an independent contract with
;o that ORD can specifically task him to
racincace cransrer of a technical program
(Star Gate)
from
another government agency to CIA.
I have enclosed draft
language with the specific tasking and a fee structure for
this
tasking.
If tasking is not completed by 30
Sept.
1995,
I anticipate renewing his contract
for FY 1996
in order to
complete the tasking.
Can you tell me what
I need to do?
Is there a bunch of
boiler plate that goes with this?
Thanks.
SGI
I
SG1B
DECL
OADR
DRV FRM Multiple
All Portions SECRET
DRAFT
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020010-4
SG1I SG1I SG1I DP96-00791R000200020012- Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA- SECRET SG1B ORD-NNN 7 Mar 1995 yy idl MEMO FOR: office of Personnel VIA: Director of Research and Development FROM: Emerging Programs Group, ORD SUBJECT: — to Amend Independent Contract of T would like to amend. [ee contract so that SGI ORD can specifically task him to racill transfer of a technical program (Star Gate) from another government agency to CIA. I have enclosed draft language with the specific tasking and a fee structure for this tasking. I understand that the contract is active during fiscal year 1995. Tf tasking is not completed by 30 Sept. 1995, I anticipate renewing his contract for FY 1996 in order to complete the tasking. SG1I SG1I SECRET Approved For Release 2004/08/25 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020012-2
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
I
SG1B
ORD-NNN
7 Mar 1995
MEMO FOR:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT
:
<y4/ / ^ /
Offics of Personnel
Director of Research and Development
Emerging Programs Group,
ORD
Bpmiest to Amend Independent Contract of
I would like to amend
|_
. _ ..I f-rsn^fer of a
ORD can specifically task him ^oacii
government agency
technical program
(Star Gate)
from another
g.
i£lc
to CIA.
I have enclosed ^£t language with
^derstand
?f
ac
i S
ri
?! cal
«
^ng^ifcoScflorV^ffin ordei to complete the
tasking.
contract
so that
SGI
I
SGI
I
SGI
SECRET
Approved For Release 2004/08/25
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020012-2
Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8 7 August 1995 In accordance with the terms of my contract and the requirements of Task B, | have delivered to you a classified and unclassified version of my report detailing the results of my independent evaluation of the operational tasking records from the Star Gate program supplemented by the results of interviews with the staff of four of the operational organizations that tasked the Star Gate program. The report includes: - a brief description of all 40+ operational tasks that were numerically evaluated by the tasking organizations - a description of the Star Gate procedure for responding to those tasks, - a description of the evaluation scoring criteria and the process, - an analysis of the resulting scores, - the results of the operational interviews and their relevance to my evaluation, and - conclusions and recommendations based upon my review and analysis. | believe these deliverables completes Task B of 7 contract with your organization and, thereby, request payment in the amount of SG1B SG1I Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
SG1B Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
Approve Mor Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8 UNCLASSIFIED 3. All other terms and conditions of the contract, as amended, remain in full force and effect. SG1I SG1I ORD rj j Budgeting Branch | UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
7 August 1995
SGI
I
In accordance with the terms of my contract and the requirements of Task B,
I have
delivered to you a classified and unclassified version of my report detailing the results
of my independent evaluation of the operational tasking records from the Star Gate
program supplemented by the results of interviews with the staff of four of the
operational organizations that tasked the Star Gate program.
The report includes:
- a brief description of all 40+ operational tasks that were numerically evaluated
by the tasking organizations
- a description of the Star Gate procedure for responding to those tasks,
- a description of the evaluation scoring criteria and the process,
- an analysis of the resulting scores,
- the results of the operational interviews and their relevance to my evaluation,
and
- conclusions and recommendations based upon my review and analysis.
I believe these deliverables completes Task B of my contract wi
and, thereby, request payment in the amount of
I
:h your organization
SG1B
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
SG1B Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
m
r
ApprovetfTor Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
UNCLASSIFIED
3.
All other terms and conditions of the contract,
as
amended,
remain in full force^and effect.
SGI
I
SGI
I
(J/okd/
P
lanning,
Programming
,
Budgeting Branch
7AM
Date
7 ~(
(
Date
Date /
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200020016-8
Approved For Release 2004/07/09
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
Secret
18 May 95
MEMO FOR :
Record
SGI
I
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Complete Star Gate Transfer Chronology
Jan:
Preliminary planning meetings by CIA senior
management in response
to Congressionally Directed
Action
(CDA)
to tgransfer Star Gate Program.
D/ORD Appointed program manager at CIA/ORD
Contacted Office of Military Affairs
to coordinate
meetings with DIA and US Army
(in anticipation of
Star Gate review)
Feb-Mar:
Informal discussions with US Army Research
Institute
(ARI)
and National Research Council
(NRC)
about potential CIA paranormal study request
Feb-Apr:
Archiving initiated of all DIA and CIA
files relating to paranormal studies going back 20
years
Feb:
Formal memo sent from ORD to DIA requesting their
assistance with declassification to facilitate
execution of the CDA
Feb:
Met with Center
for Studies on Intelligence
(CSI)
to discuss potential strategies
for
declassification
Feb:
CIA met with DIA principal investigator at
SAIC,
Dr.
Ed May.
All-day technical exchange.
1 Mar:
CIA and Representative from Office of Military
Affairs make site visit
to
Ft.
Meade
to meet all
program personnel and discuss transfer.
All-day
technical exchange.
15 Mar:
After informal discussions with NRC,
panel member
selection begins:
Jessica Utts,
John Palmer,
James
Alcock,
and Ray Hyman contacted by NRC and agree
to
act as commissioned reviewers
Mart
Submitted a
"Terms of Reference"
in formal response
to the Congress ionally Directed Action stating NRC
would perform unclassified retrospective,
CIA would
Secret
Approved For Release 2004/07/09
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
Approved For Release 2004/07/09
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
Secret
proceed with declassification,
interim report on
management strategy would be provided in July
Briefed Richard D'Amato at Hart Senate Office bldg,
on status of transfer;
obtained agreement on
previously submitted Terms of Reference
Mar:
Formal meeting with NRC representatives and final
drafting of Statement of Work for submission to
Internal NRC Governing Board
16 May.
31 Mar
Discussion with Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
Privacy Act Coordinator concerning request on CIA
paranormal studies.
Response complicated by
declassification efforts
Mar-Apr:
MOU executed between US Army and CIA,
funds
officially transferred to Pentagon
Apr:
Evaluation of customer feedback on Star Gate
tasking begins at
Ft.
Meade
14 Apr:
Official memo to CIA OGC asking them consider
declassification issues and other questions
concerning how to proceed on Star Gate transfer
2 May:
Formal meeting with president and representatives
of American Institutes of Research
(AIR)
to
consider potential CIA study request
May:
NRC
formally
rejects
CIA
study
proposal
citing
prior
definitive
study.
NRC
stated
unequivocally
that
"the
case
for
remote
viewing... is
virtually
nonexistent."
10 May:
DIA responds
to request
for assistance
in
declassification citing EO 12958 as controlling,
declines any further DIA action
19 May:
Meeting with CIA's OGC
to discuss EO 12958,
other declassification strategies and issues
Secret
Approved For Release 2004/07/09
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030002-2
05/05/95 11:25 202 334 2201 CBASSE EXEC OFF [1002 Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030006-8 NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMISSION ON BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES AND EDUCATION 2101 Constitution Avenue Wayhington, D.C, 20418 OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TELEPHONE: (202) 334-2300 SG1I SG1B FAX: (202) 334-2201 May 5, 1995 Office of Research and Development, CIA Ames Building, Room 846 Washington, D.C. 20505 Fax: sot1 Lid We appreciate your thinking of the National Research Council (NRC) in terms of evaluating your remote viewing studies. As you know, we did a very thorough look at a number of paranormal phenomena in a study entitled Enhancing Human Performance, Issues Theories and Techniques published by the National Academy Press in 1988. One section of that report was encitled "Sclenulfic Assessment of Remote Viewing" beginning on p. 178. The report reviewed the major studies and concluded: “In summary, after approximately 15 years of claims and sometimes bitter controversy, the literature on remote viewing has managed to produce only one possibly successful experiment thal is not seriously flawed in its methedology - and that one experiment provides only marginal evidence for the existence of ESP. By both scientific and parapsychological standards, then, the case for remote viewing is not just very weak, but virtually nonexistent. It seems that tha preeminent position that remote viewing occupies in the minds of many propanents results from the highly exaggerated claims made for the early experiments, as well as the subjectively compelling, but illusory, correspondences that experimenters and participants find between components of the descriptions and the target sites." The comparativa advantage of the NRC is in evaluating a field of research. To put the machinery of the NRC committee process into place for the. evaluation of a limited set of studies docs not seem warranted so soon after the last report. What I hope is that our recent report will be helpful in guiding your own assessment of remote viewing studies. Please let me know if I can be of help. ucgptely, Barbara Boylé Torrey , The Nations BSB TOEA EOP RENEE S208 OUT 18 NOH REP 95-007 04 ROWT2O0RI00 9G Brecring Serve govEernrtent did other organizations cc: John Swets Sandy Wigdor Dan Druckman
@002
05/05/05
11:25
©202
334
2201
CBASSE EXEC OFF
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030006-8
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMISSION ON BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES AND EDUCATION
2101 Conililutiun Avuiua
Washington, D.C. 20418
OfflCE Of THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
May
5,
1995
TELEPHONE: (202) 334-2300
FAX: (202) 334-2201
SGI
I
Office of Research and Development,
CIA
Ames Building, Room 846
Washington,
D.C.
20505
SG1B
Fax:
I
I
SGI
I
We appreciate your thinking of the National Research Council
(NRC)
in
terms of evaluating your remote viewing studies.
As you know,
we did a very
thorough look at a number of paranormal phenomena in a study entitled
Enhancing Human Performance.
Issues Theories
and Techniques published by
the
National Academy Press
in 1988.
One section of that report was entitled "Scientific Assessment of Remote
Viewing" beginning on p.
178.
The report reviewed the major studies and
concluded:
"In summary,
after approximately
15 years of claims and sometimes bitter
controversy,
the literature on remote viewing has managed
to produce
only one possibly successful experiment
ChaL i3 not seriously flawed in
its methodology
- and
that one experiment provides only marginal
evidence for the existence of ESP.
By both scientific and
parapsychological standards,
then,
the case for remote viewing is not
just very weak, hut virtually nonexistent.
It seems
that the preeminent
position that remote viewing occupies in the minds of many proponents
results from the highly exaggerated claims made for the early
experiments,
as well as
the subjectively compelling,
but illusory,
correspondences
that experimenters and participants find between
components of the descriptions and the
target sites."
The comparative advantage of the NRC
is
in evaluating a field of
research.
To put
the machinery of the NRC committee process
into place for
the
. evaluation of a limited
set of studies docs not seem warranted so soon
after the last report.
What
I hope
is that our recent report will be helpful
in guiding your own assessment of remote viewing studies.
Sandy Wigdor
Dan Druckman
fh* Natit
tvwwvrw io
. wmrvwiv
ferve gGDtmrnent and aihar orgenizationi
- Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200d8000955 ener DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340- U-64,142/PAG-TA TO: Science Applications International Corporation ATTN: Dr. Edwin May Suite 400 20 California Street San Francisco, California 94111 SUBJECT: Document Declassification (U) References: a. (U) DIA Letter, S-64,039/PAG-TA, 15 April 1994, subject: Document Declassification Review Procedures. b. (U) DIAR 50-2, subject: Information Security Program, dated 15 July 1994. Cc. (S/NF/WN/LIMDIS/SG) Joint review of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory's (CSL) DoD associated classified documents relative to Project STAR GATE, Menlo Park, CA, 15-16 March 1994, 1. (U) The classified documents proposed for downgrading have been reviewed and approved for declassification by this office, the DIA General Counsel's Office and the DIA's Office for Public Liaison. 2.  (U) The changes proposed by SAIC, and those made by the aforementioned DIA offices have been incorporated in volumes 1 and 2 which were originally forwarded to this office in June 1994. At enclosures 1 and 2 are indices of documents contained in the aforementioned volumes. At enclosures 3 and 4 are volumes 1 and 2 containing the declassified reports and pages from other reports as forwarded by SAIC's CSL. REPRODUCTION REQUIRES WARNING NOTICE-INTELLIGENCE APPROVAL OF ORIGINATOR SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY FURTHER DISSEMINATION LIMITED DISSEMINATION ONLY AS DIRECTED BY PAG OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY CLASSIFIED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES DECLASSIFY ON OADR eae NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS STAR GATE Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030009-5
p
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200
U-64 , 142/PAG-TA
T0:
Science Applications International Corporation
ATTN:
Dr.
Edwin May
Suite 400
20 California Street
San Francisco,
California 94111
SUBJECT:
Document Declassification
(U)
References:
a.
(U)
DIA Letter,
S-64 , 039/PAG-TA,
15 April
1994
subject:
Document Declassification Review
'
Procedures
.
b.
(U)
DIAR 50-2,
subject:
Information Security
Program,
dated
15 July 1994.
c.
(S/NF/WN/LIMDIS/SG)
Joint review of the
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory's
(CSL)
DoD
associated classified documents relative to
Project STAR GATE,
Menlo Park,
CA,
15-16 March 1994.
1.
(U)
The classified documents proposed for downgrading have
?u en^fVieWed and aPProved for declassification by this office
the DIA General Counsel's Office and the DIA's Office for Public
Liaison*
2.
(U)
The changes proposed by SAIC,
and those made by the
aforementioned DIA offices have been incorporated
in volumes
l
and
2 which were originally forwarded to this office in June
1994.
At enclosures
1 and
2 are indices of documents contained
t^e~aforfmfn^loned voluwies *
At enclosures
3 and
4 are volumes
1 and
containing the declassified reports and pages from other
reports as forwarded by SAIC's CSL.
y
REPRODUCTION REQUIRES
APPROVAL OF ORIGINATOR
OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY
WARNING NOTICE-INTELLIGENCE
SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED
FURTHER DISSEMINATION
ONLY AS DIRECTED BY PAG
OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY
LIMITED DISSEMINATION
CLASSIFIED BY MULTIPLE SOURCES
DECLASSIFY ON OADR
NOT RELEASABLE TO FOREIGN NATIONALS
STAR GATE
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030009-5
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00791R000200030009-5
3.
(U)
As stated in reference
a,
the documents approved for
deqlassification will be remarked IAW instructions
in Chapter
entitled Mgrkmg_ Classified Material .
A copy was provided as an
enclosure to reference
a.
In addition,
the DIA General Counsel's
Office advises that the government prefers that the redactions be
incorporated into the masters of the documents and the reports be
reprinted in its unclassified form if the SAIC still retains
them*
4.
(U)
Request that this office be advised as to when the
redactions were incorporated into existing documents and the
disposition of said documents.
QP 1 R
The POC for this action is the undersigned,
okj
I d
reached at
He can be
4 enclosures
|
1.
Index - Approved
Declassified Documents,
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory,
Volume
1 of
(U)
1 cy
.
Index - Approved
Declassified Documents,
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory,
Volume
2 of
(U)
1 cy
.
Proposed Downgrading of
Classified Documents for
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Volume
1 of
(S/NF)
l cy
4.
Proposed downgrading of
Classified Documents for
Cognitive Sciences Laboratory
Volume
2 of
(S/NF)
Chief ,
Technology Support^
and Aseessment Activity
REPRODUCTION REQUIRES
APPROVAL OF ORIGINATOR
OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY
WARNING NOTICE-INTELLIGENCE
SOURCES OR METHODS INVOLVED
FURTHER DISSEMINATION
ONLY AS DIRECTED BY PAG
OR HIGHER DOD AUTHORITY
SOURCES
LIMITED DISSEMINATION
Approved¥SF
: ^m®DW6NSOTICWMIlS00030009-5
STAR GATE