0
nu
Approved Fq r"
YT,: TtRMM88R01 0017-7
17 January 1980
MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION
SUBJECT: Gale Briefing to ZA, Science Evaluation Group Final
Report on GRILL FLAME, 14 Jan 80 (U)
1. (SINOFORN) During subject briefing Mr Gale gave the
impression of a final report that can stand impartial scrutiny
by qualified scientists. He has, in briefing the report here
and elsewhere, done a great deal of verbalizing (shading) issues,
personal opinion, "faction," and general guesswork not contained
anywhere in the report. Some of it is just plain misleading.
For example, "Dean Jahn at Princeton has a two-year leash on
his PK program and had to invoke freedom of inquiry, the
academic Magna Carta, before the University President allowed
him to go ahead." In fact, Dean Jahn does not have a drop
dead time two years out. He explained, and twice reconfirmed
that the two year marker is when he expects to have some credible
results to report.
2. (S/NOFORN) Some other points.I jotted down that may be of
interest to you:
a. "I rejected two people who had pronounced tendencies to
be nonobjective." FACT: One person himself declined the offer
to participate, claiming potential flak from1his corporation.
The other, Dr Ray Hyman, was rejected not because of any action
by Gale, but because of a protest memo from MG Thompson to Dr
LaBerge.
b. When MG Thompson asked if there were any non-Warsaw Pact
countries besides the United States, which are interested in
this type research, Gale responded that there are a "few," with
the UK somewhat involved/leading. In fact, the US is far behind
many countries in this regard, and accounts for only a fraction
of the work going on. See attachment.
C. When quizzed by MG Thompson on what the word "proof" in
th6 report findings meant, Gale responded with a flurry of
scientific buzzwords and jargon, the bottom line of which is
that SCIENTIFIC PROOF has not been demonstrated -- which is
vastly different that what the report says and implies. The
report states that no proof, scientific, empirical, or otherwise
has been demonstrated. Under the report's definition of proof
the very real phenomenon of Ball Lightning does not exist --
not because it has not been observed by tens of thousands of
people throughout history -- because it cannot be duplicated
in a laboratory. (Note: This all inclusive, misuse of the word
proof is a major, extremely serious flaw in the final report.)
CLi,soiFIED j3yr: . DIA DT
--- j_EiH'__f6Z5
E;-.%@u@,w ON: ... 77 gn
0
------------------- Af
M I
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230017-7
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230017-7
2
d. "There have been over 5000 experiments, many of which
are undocumented. There is a low hit rate and low probability
of success." FACTS: First, the number 5000;'is an unadulterated
W.A.G. (wild guess) -- no-one can say, probably within a couple
of tens of thousands, how many PSI tests have been run in even
recent history. Second, it is disturbing an@ not at all trivial
that all work is lumped together in this report's final analysis.
INSCOM's 300-odd runs and SRI's 1972 work are commingled,
disregarding the fact that INSCOM's operational tests have been
producing some amazing things, with better frequency than in
the past.
e. "No effort to date has the potential to establish the
existance of the phenomena." FACT: Again, perhaps not in
the scientific sense of proof (yet), but certainly in the meaning
of field observation (empirically).
f. "MICOM's random number generator experiment does not
take into account system artifacts and other outside influences
not related to PK at all." FACT: I believe MICOM has taken
into account all known system artifacts and methodically checks
to insure the system itself is not generating noise. There
may be several experts on random number generator manufacture
in the US, but none of them were on the Evaluation Group.
g. "Some scientifically proven effects,'.not PK, are evolving
which explain previously 'mysterious' phenomena." Mr Gale used
as his prime example a November 1979 Science.article, which
postulates as to why computer "soft fails" occur. (So-called
soft fails are when for a.still unexplained rieason a byt is
dropped out during a run, but later turns back up. To the
average scientist any explanation is better than black magic
or PK.) The article attributes soft fails to random cosmic
rays. This explains why a byt disappers, perhaps, but why
it comes back later is left hanging by the cosmic ray theory.
Where did the byt go?
h. "The Surgeon General is critical of the MICOM proposal.
FACT: I do not think the Surgeon General's ad hoc Human Use
Committee in its deliberations on the MICOM protocol, was
especially critical of MICOM's proposal. (Note.: Gale's
remarks were based on a cribbed copy of the Surgeon General's
comments. Question I have is who gave it to him.) As I
recollect, the MICOM work was approved provided the volunteer
consent statement was revised. It was also suggested that
pregnant women not participate in the tests. The facts of
the matter are that because of prior intelligence problems
(e.g., LSD case) two members of the Surgeon General's review
panel are dead set against this kind of work, Unfortunately,
one of them, the Panel Chairman, is in a position to drag feet,
(two months to get the recommendations out) perform a little
sub rosa disinformation on the side, etc.
L
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230017-7
Approved For Release 2003/09A10 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230017-7
i. "The GRILL FLAME Working Group is in a shambles." FACT:
As you know I am less than thrilled by the Working Group's
leadership, but categorically deny that the 9roup is in shambles.
When you look at it, the Working Group conta@ns a number of
doctors, scientists and engineers who are as qualified, more so
perhaps given their total command of PSI fact/history/etc, as
anyone on the temporary Science Evaluation Group.
SG1A j. "The INSCOMI work does not prove phenomena
existance.11 Again, not scientifically perhaps, but well on
the way empirically.
3. (S/NOFORN) Personal thoughts and recommendations:
a. In my opinion the Gale report is big, but weak. Its
weaknesses are best determined by others on the DoD Working
Group. I feel that Gale recognizes-its faulty nature and wants
to avoid at all costs being challenged on accuracy, content, etc.
By pushing to have the report quickly accepted by Dr LaBerge
he will have an effective shield from tough questions and critici!5m.
I doubt he has the answers -- as shown by his failure to adequaely
respond to the DoD Working Group.
b. The Gale committee was chartered to accomplish a very
specific mission: look at the on-going work, evaluate it and
make recommendations. As it is turning out 1 sense that Gale
has gone far beyond that charter, impinging on the ACSI's
responsibility for total program management. For example, I
am certain Gale's charter did not include selling the report
around the Pentagon, trying to force implementation of the
recommendations even before the report is disseminated or the
affected parties have a chance to comment. Nor, do I feel he
was given let to brief the Army Secretariat on the problem as
he sees it (e.g., Dr Yore, Dr Pierre, etc and the USofA).
In other words he should be thanked by the D6D Steering Committe
and allowed or told to quietly go his way. The report speaks
for itself and he should desist from brokering it around the
Pentagon.
C. After Mr Gale briefed the DoD Working Group last week,
Dr Vorona sent a memo to LTG Tighe (11 Jan). It urged the
Director to intercede with Dr LaBerge on the report. The
recommendation was that the report be put on hold until the
Working Group, as part of its responsibilities, could provide
a clear analysis of what the report says. Do not believe LTG
Tighe approached Dr LaBerge, who is now on a TDY until o/a
21 Jan. The memo recommendation should stand unless we are
willing to watch Gale work it out to his satisfaction, delivering
us a fait accompli.
IMILUAM L STONER
MAJ, G8
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230017-7