roved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 200050007-8
IMM©
to
Ingo Swann
from
Hal Puthoff
subject:
Documentation,
The Whole Story
date
14 February 1984
LOCATION: G-21.9
CC:
You asked me
in our last telcon why the documentation issue keeps coming up
and
w e«
is the pressure coming
from. Therefore,
, thought
r
SGI
J
At the beginning
of Py
. 8l,
proposed to his organization and others that
a
concentrated three-year period be given SRI
to determine whether RV was
a special
expectL'in the
*“ ch oase
-; th °“Sh scientificallyInteresting,
could not be
S eted In the_l.ong run to meet
DoD- needajl, or whether it
was- a robust Phenomenon
which could be transferred to trainees and thereby become
a useful
tool lo
,
,
Wiethe thought
in mind that,
if successfui,
hls
y
„rga„izatio„
e
::irb°ekr::
“.a
;,
1^
SRI accepted^ the challenge ih©he~jjeitaf-that RV was
a robust phenomenon that could
be so trained.
It was left up to SRI
as to how to proceed. We could contract with
you to develop a program,
develop one ourselves based on what we had learned over
the years,
subcontract to Monroe, etc,
etc.
As Project Birector
I
opZTo .abstract
m
1 thoueht
ttat wuid - - “
At
the end of the three-year period we attested
that we had to first order achieved
our goa
,
although admitting (as did you,
in the Science Panel hrilL"
Ihl “Him
had full documentation of this achievement left to do. Our sponsor (vla^^H
qfil
I
represented that
the goal had apparently been achieved,
but
realized
+
would have to be pursued vigorously in FY
"84 to provide the necessary backup^
illo'IhrLD
be ®”barrasssd “b°“' *ts investment,
especially as they expanded
pllviHl ILs ™
t
SUPP°rt '
thlS *a3
the MSSa "e
SRI
- The
»ad
UI d
,
,
° SRI
to
°°”'e
UI> witl> “ training program
(which would,
of course
include seme kind of documentation),
and at this point SRI was
in arrears
At this
point
it should be noted that
it was SRI,
not Swann,
that had
a problem. What arrangement.
I!n””shiellld'
Tt rLT*!! T
CO”SUltants la SRI -internal business;
this
is where
Set ttem
n\
“
° iS
res I)0"slbl <i
™«ting requirements; whether we
business™III \IT\
!'
,
ourselves -
°r wlth the help of other consultants
is our
wi h a tlafn
re<1UlreS
1S
“
bb
a
Position to move forward
'
*
“ol jTEiT
°gran'’
alnlDg ltS
°W” PerSO””el ln "
' 8 =.
<* ««M. that
it
SRI 2903 2/73
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 200050007-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 200050007-8
SGI J
As the new fiscal year got underway,
it appeared ^^^^that SRI was not going to
be able to meet
its obligation with regard to documentation, whatever the reason,
so
he decided
tot step
in.
As
a result
of my "circles" memo, he recognized that this was
not an appropriate tack to take,
so he stepped back.
All
of the above you know. Now we get
to the part that will be new for you,
the price
I paid for defending that position.
I was called in and told that SRI
as an organization,
and
I
as
a Project Director, had not met our obligation to provide
a viable defdnsible
product
for what had been invested with regard to whether training was feasible.
Therefore,
the project was stopped
(I don’t mean CRV R&D;
I mean everything,
intell,
search,
etc.),
and
I was told that
I had failed as
a Project Director,
and essentially,
went the way of Russell. ,.i .e.
,
no charge number. (Again,
I point
out that none of this
involved you in any way. Our arrangements with you were our own business;
this was
strictly a client -SRI problem.)
In the following period of negotiation to determine
whether the relationship should be -severed permanently,
or whether SRI
could meet its
lobligatlOT^^t'h^
'
^wgu^-
rliihiat^i;-4hod'^t Straining waa still
a viable concept
,
although
I
could not
at this point provide documentation to prove
it;
that
I
thought
it would be folly to write off training because of not yet having provided documentation,
since we would in effect be throwing out the baby with the bathwater;
and that,
if given
a chance,
the training concept
as
a concept could be documented.
On
that basis,
the
SRI
contract was re-instated with me on probation
as Project Director.
I
am obliged to
document in any way
I
can the concept that
training is
a viable concept.
I
can do it
on the basis
of working with you to document progress with the other client's trainees;
I
can set up my own training program using any technique
I
like,
even if it is simply
IEEE-style RV;
I
can subcontract
to anyone else,
etc. The bottom line is that,
as
a
result of my experience over the past decade,
I
feel
that training as
a concept
is
viable,
primarily because of what
I
have observed working with you. My job at
this
point
is to provide documentation that that feeling has
a scientific basis,
and
I
can do that any way
I
like. There
is no pressure on you, (as
this
is not your obligation;,
you have done your job),
nor is there any pressure on me to utilize you or your method
to provide this documentation... how
I meet
this requirement
is up to me.
Obviously,
since
I think your approach is excellent,
I would prefer to document the
training concept on the basis of your approach. Therefore,
although not obligated
to meet this requirement
on the basis
of your approach,
I nonetheless wanted to pursue
with you as hard as
I could whether there was
a way to obtain documentation on your
method with your cooperation and agreement. For reasons you stated,
and which
I
eventually supported,
it was not appropriate to do so with the core R&D- group. Given
that there was not time for you to work with me on this with a new group because of
the committments
to a second client
(which were necessary,
given
the chronology of
funding,
etc.),
I was naturally led to see if there was
a way you and
I
could work
together to obtain some documentation
(although it was not required) with the new
trainees. The pressure therefore came from me,
not anyone else,
because if
a way
could have been worked out
that would not infringe on that training,
I thought it
would be best that that the training concept be verified on the basis
of your system,
not some other. You have indicated to me why that is not appropriate,
given the
committment to high-quality ops requirements,
and
I
have accepted that,
and duplicated
precisely why,
as evidenced by my "crystal-growing" memo. If it should turn out that
Approved For Release 2000/08/07
: CIA-RDP96-00788R001 200050007-8