datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
u
,
SECRET
Approved ForRelease 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400§)7
il#M£}1 73
MEMO OF RECORD
SUBJECT
:
Brief Notes on 2 March 73 Paranormal Research Meeting
1.
|
|(TSD) and
| (DDSfeT) met on 2 March to discuss plans /procedures for the joint
program of paranormal research.
Following were the salient decisions made:
SGI
I
a.
that TSD would sound-out SRI on the proposal to speed up basic research with
GELLER & SWANN before the end of the 1973 Fiscal Year by having SWANN tested in
the Washington area for the last two months or so (using tests devised by us & having
an SRI rep present if they wished) and by moving GELLER into their lab for those two
months for further testing --again using,
in large part,
tests devised by us;
if SWANN
is to be tested here we would also want to have before hand all of their raw test data
on the work done with him so far;
b.
if SRI accepts the proposal, ORD will transfer to TSD the additional funds
necessary and they will arrange with SRI for the necessary emeddations to their
existing project (Note: on 1 March D/ORD allocated up to 50K of FY 73 funds for
this purpose);
(Note: |~
| of ORD have stated that there is no
managerial hindrance to such a transfer of funds)
c.
in preparation for the above testing ORD would prepare a basic requirements
questionnaire to be sent to about a dozen selected officers in various components --
requesting their views /ideas on appropriate tests
fk procedures; once the replies are
received,
Ito prepare a paper which: ennumerates specific series
of tests to be employed; defines approppiate lab -testing conditions; and makes specific
proposals re timing /cost/facilities /procedures;
(Note: the questionnaire is to be shown
to TSD for”approval before use and will not refer to TSD or its current program)
d.
If the actual existence of the phenomena is thus validated by end of FY 73 we
will then consider jointly where and how to proceed from there --especially as regards
elucidating the nature of the phenomena and identifying /training others with the capac-
itv:
I
and also of establishing an overt screening
mechanism re other paranormal practitioners was discussed.
SGI
I
2. On 5 March
|
called
| to state that he had talked with
Dr Puthoff on 2 March and that SRI agrees to the general program outlined above.
|
|
| was told that the 'Paranowmal Research Questionnaire' has been completed
and he suggefeted that, once the replies are in and we have drafted our testing
proposal,
it might be useful to have Dr Puthoff come to Washington and go over it
with us.
SGI
I
/VcrTd
am
/<CP9ly<J
/SM-tSC
Tor Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96
$/2 /
s&L&A £o
•siy so
: CIA-RDP96-Q<f78;
787R000400070020-1
Approved For Reldg@e 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96- -007@gR : 28 February 1973 T eer OE BR Ge Cee ea NOTE FOR: Carl SUBJECT: More Geller Business I understand (nth hand) that: ‘The science editor of TIME magazine, a Mr. Jareff, told the public information man at SRI that the TIME edition for Monday, 5 March, will.carry an article tending to discredit Geller and casting some aspersions at SRI for being taken in. Free aoa . _ Jareff says that the source of the article was - “Dr. George Lawrence of ARPA, and apparently the article identifies Lawrence as the source of the information. Lawrence, on the other hand, denies having talked to .TIME--Jareff says this is nonsense, Lawrence has talked to T TIME lots of times. mE FAURE Pe Lawrence is the guy with ARPA who felt Geller was a charlatan based on the die-calling experiment. - Lawrence's rationale was that Geller was not looking into the box as he-claimed to be, but instead was | influencing the die so that it came up with the face that he wished!!!! (This kind of logic I don't under- _ stand). - The article also, apparently, says that TIME. ae 7 took Geller to a lab in New York, and that he was Found to be cheating. This judgment, I understand, stems from the fact that a magician watched what Geller. “did, and said that Geller surely looked and acted like Co a magician. tH! APNE TFs TIME's noble purpose in publishing this is to alert the community. The article does not give any indication of Agency interest. If the article appears, this can only complicate the ‘already difficult situation involved in dealing with Geller, . Swann--in fact, this whole area. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070022-9
SGI
I
Approved For Rel<j*rfe 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-007yR0HV9l9VillP
28 February
1973
NOTE FOR:
Carl
SUBJECT:
More Geller Business
I understand
(n^n hand)
that
:
The science editor of TIME magazine
,
a Mr.
Jareff,
told the public information man at SRI that the TIME
edition
for Monday,
5 March,
will. carry an article
tending to discredit Geller and casting some aspersions
at SRI
for being taken
in.
Jareff
says that the source of the article was
Dr .
George Lawrence of ARPA ,
and apparently the article
identifies Lawrence
as the source of the information
.
Lawrence,
on the other hand, denies having talked to
TIME—Jareff
says this
is nonsense,
Lawrence has talked
to TIME
lots of times
.
Lawrence
is. the guy with ARPA who felt Geller was
a charlatan based on the die-calling experiment.
Lawrence’s rationale was that Geller was not looking
into the box as he claimed to be,
but instead was
influencing the die
so that it came up with the face
that he wished!! I!
(This kind of logic
I don’t under-
stand)
.
The article also, apparently,
says that TIME
took Geller to
a lab
in New York,
and that he was
found to be cheating.
This judgment,
I understand,
stems
from the fact that
a magician watched what Geller
did,
and said that Geller surely looked and acted like
a magician
.
TIME'S noble purpose
in publishing this
is
to
alert the community.
The article does not give any indication of
Agency interest.
...
If the article appears,
this can only complicate the
already difficult situation involved in dealing with Geller,
. Swann— in
fact,
this whole
area.
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070022-9
•!!”
l
f7F
’"!
"'\
I
'
t
1!
!
"f
'
vyipifH"
-
>
r!'
r
"
T
"'"
:
|!
'
"
flFTllftW
r
ill
h'
:
•
!l
Hl
,
fH!*
»H
l,
i-
*'
!
;
*
'flUBf
Mp
j-if
«|
ip*r
i
wnfinip’!**
»i
.^
Approved For Release 2000/08/oUf4€[lpA-S)&IF4)&Dl 70002-9
(U)
a target.
Since in the present
case the target was not yet
chosen,
it
was with much anticipation that interviewer and remote viewer
left the
session room at the end of the session, went
to the project office, and
randomly generated by RNG a target number to determine which of the sixty
target
locations would actually be visited.
The number was generated
and the target envelope drawn.
It was found to
be the pedestrian overpass,
just
as
in the
1973 trial which elicited the same description.
(At the
time of the random generation of
the target number,
the interviewer did not
know the number of the pedestrian overpass
target.)
The Accuracy Rating
assigned to the viewer’s response was
4.
(In addition to his
correct
impressions,
erroneous
analysis and interpretation of his
data come into
play.
)
(U)
Trial
2 was
a Hyatt House Hotel.
The viewer drew and
described a receding double column of rectangular objects
of differing
heights,
going off
into
the distance.
He also drew,
as his main percep-
tion of
the target
,
a perspective showing a narrow sidewalk that one
looks
across to see a narrow roadway, and then another narrow walkway.
Behind
this are divided buildings or
a divided wall
(all his terminology).
When
we arrived at the site we found
little correspondence to the viewer's
description of
the place,
although there
is
a
long row of statues running
from the street
to the hotel, which are suggestive of his
first
drawing.
(U)
Since we arrived a few minutes early, we went into the
lobby of the hotel, although the "target" was the outside of the building.
After we looked around the lobby the monitor noted that the agreed-upon
target time was almost upon them, when the viewer was
to be outside
at
the target.
Therefore, we
left the hotel lobby at the exact
target time,
and noticed that we were facing a scene greatly resembling the drawing
generated during the session.
As we stood on the steps
of the hotel
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 70002-9
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 70002-9
UNCLASSIFIED
Ol)
looking out, we were standing on a narrow sidewalk,
looking across
a
narrow driveway,
to another narrow walkway to the
four wide supporting
columns
that hold up the
large overhang
covering the driveway and the
entry to the hotel.
The Accuracy Rating was
4.
(U)
Trial 3 was a Menlo Park brickyard.
The viewer saw
"lots
of corners and angles
.
.
.
two and three dimensional shapes
.
Then he
described a
"wall with columns sticking out
of it," and later drew a
curvy road going off
to the right.
All these elements
can be found within
the rich material
of the brickyard.
In particular ,
if one stands facing
the wall with the
columns sticking
out of
it, there
is
in fact
a curvy
road on the right.
The Accuracy Rating was again
4.
(U)
Target
4 was
a local tennis
court.
The viewer's descriptions
was primarily of
a windmill and a metal bell-shaped object, both of which
bear no obvious resemblance to elements of the target site.
He
did,
however, describe and draw a
latticework arrangement
that was suggestive
of
a tennis
net, and he described the area as recreational or a playground.
Accuracy Rating was
2.
(U)
Target
5 was
a large bubble-shaped air-inflated building.
The description consisted mainly of arches and pillars as
in a colonnade,
overlaid with images
of San Francisco, which are
not particularly apropos.
His
drawings
of receding curves and arches reflect somewhat the main elements
of the target site
, but altogether an Accuracy Rating of 2 characterizes
the result as
not being beyond chance expectation.
(U)
The sixth and final target was a large commercial salt
pile in Redwood City.
The target
is
a salt storage yard of Leslie Salt
Company,
on the edge of San Francisco Bay.
The salt pile
is a hundred
feet
long and perhaps fifty feet high, and it shines brilliantly in the
sun.
The viewer did not see or describe anything at all resembling the
UNCLASSIFIED
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 3001 70002-9
Approved For f@lease 2000/08/07 ‘<fgdtekeinis96.Q9787R000400070028-3 2 Feb 73 a MEMO FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT Informal Discussion on Paranormal Phenomena SG1I 1. On 30 Jon 73 i 20d the undersigned had an informal discussion of this topic, prompted by the SRI presentations and the subsequent paper by the undersigned. This memo is in no sense an account of that discussion but purports merely to record the overall sense of the meeting and views of the participants. 2. C/ORD stated that he had no theoretic/philosophic difficulty in accepting the existence of 'some types! of paranormal phenomena, although he suspected that we might find ourselves incapable, now, of physically measuring or sensing them in modes which permit true laboratory analysis. He agreed with the prop- osition that the question of how and whether they could be appropriately/effectively used by the intel community was a thorny one--though he inclined to the pragmatic view that if it works the operators should simply use it in whatever fashion is appropriate on a case by case basis. He also agreed, however, that long-range and optimum use would depend upon the degree to which we are able to arrive at a genuine understanding of the reality lying behind the phenomena and the degree to which we can devise ways of identifying people with the necessary attributes and training/perfecting their capabilities --both of which functions, he believed, should be ORD's responsibility. In this context he expressed himself as willing to enter- tain any reasonable proposal for ORD funding of a continuation of the inve stigations-- if an appropriate and mutually supportive role vis a vis TSD could be devised. But he was quite emphatic in stating that he wanted to avoid the creation of any formal committees or steering panels; while he agreed that it was important to get all of the substantive input necessary from the various Agency elements with a legitimate interest and that the preparatory work had to be very meticulously performed, it was essential to keep the effort a low-key one. 3. Other discussion ranged about the various anecdotal accounts of the GELLER and (to a lesser extent) SWANN phenomena but the all of the substantive views, to which all present appeared to agree, are reflected in para 2, above, SG1I Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070028-3
Approved For
lease 2000/08/07 :^fej^96^787R000400070028-3
2 Feb 73
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT
Informal Discussion on Paranormal Phenomena
and
had an informal discussion of this topic, prompted by the SRI presentations and
the subsequent paper by the undersigned.
This memo is in no sense an account
of that discussion but purports merely to record the overall sense of the meeting
and views of the participants,
2,
C/ORD stated that he had no theoretic /philosophic difficulty in accepting
the existence
of *some types* of paranormal phenomena,
although he suspected
that we might find ourselves incapable, now,
of physically measuring or sensing
them in modes which permit true laboratory analysis.
He agreed with the prop-
osition that the question of how and whether they could be appropriately/effectively
used by the intel community was a thorny one --though he inclined to the pragmatic
view that if it works the operators should simply use
it in whatever fashion is
appropriate on a case by case basis.
He also agreed, however,
that long-range
and optimum use would depend upon the degree to which we are able to arrive at
a genuine understanding of the reality lying behind the phenomena and the degree
to which we can devise ways
of identifying people with the necessary attributes and
training /perfecting their capabilities --both of which functions, he believed,
should
be ORD's responsibility.
In this context he expressed himself as willing to enter-
tain any reasonable proposal for ORD funding of a continuation of the investigations —
if an appropriate and mutually supportive role vis a vis TSD could be devised.
But
he was quite emphatic in stating that he wanted to avoid the creation of any
formal committees or steering panels; while he agreed that it was important to get
all of the substantive input necessary from the various Agency elements with a
legitimate interest and that the preparatory work had to be very meticulously
performed,
it was essential to keep the effort a low-key one.
3. Other discussion ranged about the various anecdotal accounts of the GELLER
and (to a lesser extent) SWANN phenomena but the all of the substantive views,
to
which all present appeared to agree,
are reflected in para 2,
above.
SG1I
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070028-3
* Approved Forselease 20007 ROREEIA-RDP94.90787R000400070029-2 ORD-413-73 24 January 1973 MEMORANDUM FOR: C/IP&A/ORD SUBJECT : Briefing by Stanford Research Institute 1. On 23 January 1973, Drs. Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff of Stanford Research Institute showed a film of their recent experiments with Uri Geller, an Israeli magician with claimed capabilities in ESP. The SRI work with Geller has been supported by Edgar Mitchell's foundation, by something with a name like Mind Science Institute of Los Angeles, and by TSD. 2. The film depicted Geller in a number of task situations. These included reproduction of line drawings from originals sealed in envelopes, guessing which face of a die enclosed in a container would be uppermost when shaking of the container ceased, guessing which one of twelve containers contained a piece of metal or some water (by successive elimination of the empty containers), and bending spoons by touching them with apparently much less force than would be required normally to bend them. If the experiments as shown on the film are accepted at face value there is strong indication that Geller possesses uncommon abilities. For except in those cases where Geller 'passed' either because of fatigue, of claimed temporary diminution of ESP abilities, or of claimed interference from hostile onlookers Geller is said to have performed many of these tasks repeatedly under controlled conditions with no errors whatsoever (although some of the line drawings were reproduced by Geller as a mirror image of the out-of-sight originals). Targ and Puthoff presented themselves as neutral physical scientists, well aware of the hazards of dealing with a professional magician whose avowed purpose at SRI is to obtain certifi- cation as an authentic psychic, and willing to accept only experimental results that admit of no explanation through fraud, sleight-of~hand, or other trickery. chasstere BY 7 cy a EX’T2T FROW CINERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCEE2ULD G0. J. 2102, FREMPTION CaTcGORY: § bos, 'S> vx (4) Cvcle one or more) AUTO. °°. ALLY DELLASSIFi£ZD ON 7 sae) ‘ ease 20S: CIA-RDP AROOQAOUR COS dent) er WARNING NOTICE sensi MIELUIGERCE SOURCES AND ABISPRS Np WED iment
(1)
The individuals
chosen to participate
in the program
were pre-screenedfl|^HBH frora a P°Pulation of
250 potential candidates, using broad personality
profile guidelines recommended by SRI, with final
selection determined on the basis
of interview by the
SRI project
leaders
(R.
T. and H.
P.).
The fact that
the overall study was successful lends support
to the
effectiveness
of this initial screening-by-profile
procedure
.
(2)
The details of
the results
of the program indicate that
a half dozen local-site RV trials may constitute a
meaningful screening-by-performance procedure to
separate the more reliable from the less reliable
viewers.
In order for screening-by-performance to
be
successful,
it
is necessary that the performance of
a viewer be relatively consistent.
We find that those
individuals who were the most successful in the Phase-
One trials, were also the most successful in Phase-Two,
even though different remote viewing tasks were pursued.
Of
the four successful viewers
in Phase-One,
two produced
significant
results and one near-significant
(the fourth
was
not available for the Phase-TWo study).
The two
viewers from Phase-One that were
least successful
there
(not reaching significance) again did not reach signifi-
cance in Phase-Two.
Although the sample is too small
to be definitive,
it appears that the Phase-One
local-
site RV series
itself offers evidence of
constituting a
useful screening-by-performance procedure.
^tf»The data indicating that
a viewer can describe an individual
Lide as
it
is shown on a screen shows
that targeting on high-resolution
ransient
targets
(charts,
maps,
etc.)
is
not out
of the question.
This,
oupled with our findings
that a viewer may be able to describe and identify
lphabet letters
is
a most encouraging development, and one deserving of
urther work.
Extension of the RV process
to include high-resolution
aterial, especially with a readi ng abilit y, would constitute
a significant
reakthrough
Approved For Release 2000/0
101
Approvedwggr Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-0QZ97R000400070030-0 Ciena 26 JAN 73 MEMO FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT Parapsych Discussion with C/TSD 1, Ihad lunch with C/TSD in his office today and inter alia we discussed parapsych phenomena in general, the SRI presentation, TSD's interest in the field and my 23 Jan paper--a copy of which he read while Iwaited. The salient aspects were as follows: a, The 52 K figure accurately represents TSD's investment in SG1H the SRI project--and, in 1953 and 1963, they also supporte to some extent but are no longer involved; b. C/TSD sees no short-range payoff operationally in these efforts but feels quite strongly that research should continue; specifically, he feels that the existence of undefined parapsych phenomena of certain types has been established beyond all reasonable doubt--and it is his feeling that, though the Agemcy is not the most logical organization to support continuing research, we ought to fill the gap until someone else does; c. In that context, he intends to have the directors of ARPA and NSA in his office soon to try to persuade them to join him in signing a letter to the National Science Foundation (NSF )--urging them to support a long-range (3 to 5 year) program of intensive research in this area; but, even if this effort should succeed (and he has no real feeling for whether it will or not), any such program is not apt to get started for a year or so; d. C/TSD had no basic arguments with the paper (other than that he believes 'whether' has already been established) and agrees basically with the recommendations --and appears to be willing to go along with a proposal for joitn action if DDS&T is willing to put up the money; ~ e. He believes that the SRI people would agree to the conditions set out in the paper. Approved For Release 2003/04/18 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070030-0
Approved For Release (INCLASS) , -00788R001300210001 UN FIED CONTENTS (U) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (U) . . 1 6 6 0 6 et ee ee we ew ee LIST OF TABLES (U). ... .. » . Fe I OBJECTIVE (U). . 2. 2 ee ee eh ee we ht ee hw ee II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (U). . . 6s 6 6 6 ee © ee eh ee III INTRODUCTION (U) . 2.2. 6 6 ee ee ee eee ee ee ee IV RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR SYSTEM (U) . 2 6 oe ew eo eo ee ee A. Hardware (U). . 1... «© «© © © © © © oe he ee ew ee ee 1. Random Sources (U) . . 6 6 © » «© © © © © © © ee 8 2, Analysis and Control (U) . . 2. 6 2 +e © se ee 3. Display (U). 2. 6 1 6 0 2 6 0 te ee te we B. System Testing (U). 2. 6 6 6 6 ee ee ee ee ee ee Cc. System Isolation and Interference Protection (U). ... D. System Certification Testing Results (U). . 2 2 eo we we V EXPERIMENT PROTOCOL (U). . 2. 6 2 © «© © © © © © © © © # ww fe . Definitions (U) ...-. +6 «©» © «© © © © © © we ee . Data-Acquisition Session Description (U). « » «2 © © © . Controls (U). . 6. 2. 6 6 ee eo eo ee ee ee ee A B Cc D. Test Requirements (U) . 1. 2. 6 6 6 ee ee ew ees E, Records (U) .. + 6 se es ee se ee eee ee he F, Trial Invalidation Requirements (U) ... . + « «+e « « G . General Considerations (U). . 2... 2 © © © ©» © © wo VI RESULTS (U). . . + « «© © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © e 4 oe A. Pilot Phase (U) .. 6 1 8 ee 6 we ee ee ee ee es B. Global Control Runs (U) . . 2. «6» © © © © © © © © © oo om Formal Phase (U). ... + « «© «© «© + © © © © © © © © © iii UNCLASSIFIED Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001300210001-5 -5 11 il 12 14 15 17 18 18 19 19 20 22 22 23 25 27 27 28 30
Approved^ Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-O^7ROO04OOO7OO3O-O
26 JAN 73
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT
Parapsych Discussion with C/TSD
^ had lunch with C/TSD in his office today and inter alia we
discussed parapsych phenomena in general,
the SRI pres^t^i^7~TSD‘s
interest m the field andimy 23 Jan paper --a copy og which he read while
I waited.
The salient aspects were as follows:
a. The 52 K figure accurately represents TSD's investment in
the SRI project- -and,
in 1953 and 1963,
they also supported
to some extent but are no longer involved;
b ' C/TSD sees no short-range payoff operationally in these efforts
but feels quite strongly that research should continue;
specifically, he feels
that the existence of undefined parapsych phenomena of certain types has been
established beyond all reasonable doubt- -and it is his feeling that,
though the
Agemcy is not the most logical organization to support continuing research,
we ought to fill the gap until someone else does;
c.
In that context, he intends to have the directors
of ARPA and
NSA m his office soon to try to persuade them to join him in signing a letter
to the National Science Foundation (NSF)-urging them to support a long-range
(3 to 5 year) prograpa of intensive research in this area; but, even if this
effort should succeed (and he has no real feeling for whether
it will or not)
,
any such$> program is not apt to get started for a year or so;
d. C/TSD had no basic arguments with the paper (other than that
he believes ‘whether
1 has already been established) and agrees basically with
the recommendations --and appears to be willing to go along with a proposal
for joitn action if DDS&T is willing to put up the money;
e. He believes that% the SRI people would agree to the conditions
set out in the paper.
SG1H
SGI
I
Approved For Release 2003/04/18
: CIA-RDP96-00787R000400070030-0