Approved For Release 2000/QNQ0-PLt5r%M 00788ROO2000100002-8
 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 3 July 1980
 SUBJECT: Summary of Grill Flame Meeting, 1 July 1960
 1. (U) Following outlines primary topics discussed at Grill Flame working group
 meeting chaired by DIA/DT on I July 1980. Members present consisted of:
                                  DIA
 T INSCO
 SG1J LIC MURRAY B. WAT M
 SG1 I SG1J
 SG1J
 2. (S/NOFORN) PURPOSE: Meeting had been arranged by to work out
 details of "joint proqram" concerning Project Grill Flame. stated that
 he felt that tho fOllowihg conditions had already been agreed to by service represent-
 atives (MG Thompson, Army, and BG Marks, AF) (See incl I and 2) and Dr. Vorona, DIA
 prior to this meeting:
 a. That there would be a joint program for Grill Flame.
 b. That all parties concerned had agreed to provide approximately $150K each
 for joint effort.
 c. That contractual effort would be with SRI with an additional smaller
 effort going to'unknown (at this time) outfit to do work in area of PK (this effort
 would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $40K).
 SG1J
 d. Total effort would be programmed for 3 years.
 3. (S/NOFORN) I informed the members that I knew of no such agreement and that
 the INSCOM position was not in accords with what had just outlined. I
 informed everyone that INSCOM's total budget for FY 81 was $150K but that operational
 expenses had to come from that total and that approximately $120-130K would be
 available for contractual work as needed. Further, I remarked that we should not
 limit ourselves to dealing strictly with SRI even though INSCOM was interested in
 dealing with SRI in two areas ..... audio analysis and receiving training in their
 "new" RV concept.
 4. (S/NOFORN) stated that the proposed management of the joint effort
 SG1J would be as follows:
 a. Dr. Vorona would be the chairperson.
 b. Each agency putting money into the program would serve as voting members on
 the committee.
 c. DIA would provide individual to serve as contract monitor at SRI.
 SG1J Individual would be physically located at SRI (this individual is going to be
 L L F E "A M E
 Approved For Release 206&C R -STP96-0076#RQPWPIPqAQ2-§AMI-ISH
 DATED: 051630Z Jul 78
 NOT RELEASA0LL:,'TO',FOREIGN NATI MY& nN! iiiix/ 9nnn
 11

 Approved For Release 2000/OE)ECkF~EToO788ROO2000100002-8
 etc. d. Committee would meet quarterly to review progress, establish new tasking,
 5. (S/NOFORN) I stated that it appeared to be unnecessary and not logical in face
 of Gale Report to set up permanent position at SRI. DIA seems to feel that vast
 majority of contract work will be with SRI. Therefore, they are willing to take
 on this additional expense.
 6. (U) I recommend that Ist order of business of the committee should be to draw
 up an MOU that should be signed off by all parties concerned.
 7. (S/NOFORN) I asked for clarification concerning the question of SRI using
 technique of remote viewing allegedly developed by Mr. Ingo Swann. It is my
 SG1J understanding that Mr. Swann has not iven SRI permission to train anyone using
 methods that he has developed stated that he was aware of the possible
 conflict but felt`~that everyt~lng wou e worked out properly. I requested that
 the committee be provided a firm answer to this question as soon as possible.
      SG1 J (U) informed everyone that a draft MOU and draft statement of
 0~jectiV63 wou e provided to all committee members tomorrow (2 July 1960).
     SG1J 9 (U) requested that INSCOM tell him how much money they would be putting
 i4o the joint program and provide recommendations on how the money should be spent.
 10. (S/NOFORN) COMMENTS:
 a. Advantages for joint effort-
 (1) Gives united effort to program.
 (2) More to gain for $$ spent. For example, INSCOM might be able to
 use UiA/A~ monies for further training of their personnel.
 (3) Cuts down on the number of individual contracts that would have to
 be generated.
 (4) Could increase security.
 b. I don't understand the role of DIA/DT in developing operational techniques
 for remote viewing. DoD has been told by Dr. Perry to get out of the R&D arena
 and anything that even resembles R&D type work is only asking for trouble.
 c. Finally, I recommend against any joint program that identifies, at the
 outset, SRI as the primary contractor. Again, the Gale Committee Report recommended
 against further business with SRI and it seems to be asking for trouble to "fly
 in the face" of such a recommendation without at least giving some consideration to
 other agencies involved in parapsychological work.
 11. (U) Inclosure 3 lists the specific tasks that INSCOM would like to see the
 committee work on over the next 2 years.
 M
 3 Incl URRAY WATT
 1. Cy ltr ACSI, re:GF Mtg 9 Apr SO(S) LTC, MI
 2. Briefing on GF (S) Project Manager
    3. Specific Tasks to-be Perfomtt... " R002000100002-8
 Approved For Kelease 0"`~ -00788
 ET