SGFOIA3
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200 0042-q
2
17-3 NovemBer 1,.) 79
Mr. Manfred Gale
HQ, Department of the Army
ATTN: DAMA-ZD
The Pentagon
Washington, D. C.
Dear Manny:
Following our last meeting, I have given considerable thought to what
was obviously a minority viewpoint on the need for further, better,
more-controlled R&D on RV. I find myself still in favor of recommending
such, with the same degree of uncertainty I indicated at that meeting.
It is difficult to take a positive position toward the possible (let
alone probable) existence of RV. Everything we are taught in scientific
inquiry, in both the physical and the behavioral sciences, suggests that
such a phenomenon cannot and should not exist. Indeed, because plausible
evidence of its existence is so difficult to obtain, the acceptance of a
physically measured PK phenomenon is more palatable to us. At least, the
PK decision can be placed upon the output of physical instruments, thereby
taking our "decision making" out of consideration, and avoiding any guilt
or conflict feelings we, as scientists, might have by accepting the
existence of PK.
Such is not the case with RV, because we have not yet learned how to
remote the decision making aspects of its possible existence. Thus, to
state that it may exist is to be willing to place one's scientific
rigidity (if not sanity) on the line. That is rough--and none of us can
do it.comfortably or objectively.
Nonetheless, I believe there is enough anecdotal "evidence" to prevent
our disregarding its possibility of existence. At least, there appear
to be adequate, though nonscientific, examples. That, I feel, should
cause us to research the possiblity further.
The major argument FOR this R&D is that, if the RV phenomenon exists,
and it can be controlled and used in the intelligence community, then
the payoff is potentially large. The major argument AGAINST seems to be
the combination of notoriety, disbelief, incredulity, and loss of
scientific reputation of the proponents. (I can certainly identify with
the latter.) Cost has really very little to do with it--the cost of a
3-5 year, controlled scientific program would be small in the overall
scheme of DoD R&D (e.g., DARPA). To hide behind the cost cloak is, I
think, convenient but invalid.
For the above reasons, I'm willing to stick my neck out, perhaps too far,
and take a positive position that future R&D is indicated in the RV area.
In the attachment to this letter I've tried to provide my "Findings and
Recommendations" for your use, along with some rationale. I've tried to
keep the rationale unclassified, and I think you can fill in the details.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230042-9
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230042-9
Manfred Gale
I-IQ, Dept. of the Army
19 November 1979
page 2
One last comment is perhaps in order. As our team is constituted, we have
some exceedingly brilliant and competent people. They have not all had,
the opportunity to review all detailed "research" and "experimental"
reports. While I would certainly agree with Jesse that no unequivocal
scientific evidence for the existence of RV is available, we deal in a
probabilistic world. My subjective impression of the probabilities of
the existence of RV is that p (existence) is greater than zero. Whether
we should pursue it further depends on the utility side of the payoff
matrix.
Sincerely,
Vk4-
Earry L. Snyder, Ph.D.
/edm
Encl.
P.S. If we choose not to recommend further work, how would we explain
a possible positive result on the shipbuilding details to be evaluated
on 1/l/80? Such, if valid, would be a reasonably positive result and
potentially embarrassing (to say the least.!) to a negative recommendation..
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788ROO1200230042-9