Approved For R*ease 2000108107 : CIA-RDP96-ftl87ROO0400070023-8
 28 Feb 73
 MEMORANDUMFOR: C/ORD
 INFO DC/ORD
 SUBJECT Discussionof 'Paranormall Issue with SG1 I
   SG% Per vour instructions as conveyed b I called and met Mr SG1 I
 ) on 27 Feb and we discussed paranormal and related matters for
 an nour and a half. The salient points covered were, briefly, as follows.
 a. I briefed him on the genesis of our (ORD)) involvement--i. e., the SRI
 presentation, my paper, discussions with you and C/TSD, the decision to explore
 a joint approach, the outcome of the I and 16 Feb meetings with TSD and SRI and
 out* tentative plans for further pursuit of the basic research with TSD and SRI.
    b. Mr S then briefed me on the background from his perspective and on his
 views, to wit: early developments with Mr TARG when he still worked for SYLVANIA;
    SGlGsome of GELLER's alleged exploits his (Sts) early attempts
 to ensure that appropriate Agency e ements were aware of the potential represented
 by the phenomena (if validated)- -with his primary concern being that, as a brand-new
 and wholly extraneous 'technology', it would fall between the stools. This fear seems
 to have been substantiated by the indifference and/or lack of comprehension which
 he has run into in virtually every quarter. He fears that there might be a large
 flap potential in it for the Agency--almost no matter what we do--but that it is
 incumbent upon us to proceed in any case. He has been trying to convince C/DDS&T
 that a quick, 'big bite' immersion (even multi-millions, if necessary) may be called
 for--but with uncertain success thus far. He also believes that the DCI should be
 briefed and warned of the flap potential but, so far as he knows, this has not yet
 been done. Mr S's basic position appears to be that : he believes in the existence of
 some phenomena (tho he doesn't exclude the possibility of, in part at least, some
 trickery by GELLER); and that we may never fully 'understand' the phenomena any
 more than we understand gravity--but that isn't necessarily important as long as we
 can quantify, predict and--to some degree--control its performance.
    c. We agreed on the need for a well-reasoned, integrated approach by all
 Agency elements having a legitimate interest (Cl Staff, Security, OMS, ORD, OSI,
 TSD)--and on the need for keeping the matter as low key as possible until all the
 evidence is in. We also discussed the possible procedures should the 'big bite'
 philosophy prevail--e. settin SRI up in a new lab near here under our control
 and possibly with etting up a 'clean' overt screening mechanism
    SG1H for new subjects, etc. When I asked if I was right in assuming that ORD & TSD
 should proceed with the joint program in the interim (possibly to the extent of our
 putting up the 100K necessary for a full year of SRI research), he emphatically
 agreed--stating that he felt C/DDS&T would be critical of us only if we moved too
 slowly and, for instance, let GELLER get away from us. He accepted and seemed
 pleased by my description of the wholly cooperative TSD/ORD atmosphere.
 2. 1 invited Mr S to the next TSD/ORD meeting (tentatively scheduled for 2
 March) but he had a prior commitment. I left him coges of emo
 of Recor Ap
 4PV64td F,00 Rs4~te* 2&a0ffl"7s:eQ1ArPKPJ op-
 ments. .He'intends, I believe, to do likewise. S611 "i""