PROPOSAL FOR PARANORMAL RESEARCH AT SRI

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110004-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 5, 2003
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: October 17, 1973
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110004-1
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
SG1I
~'RO FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT
Proposal for Paranormal Research at SRI
17 October 73
1. On 16 October 73
of OTS briefed
(as a consequence of I land me on a Proposal which
a specific OTS request) SRI had
just
program of submitted for a new, one yea?
paranormal research. The Proposal (attached) calls
uation of their , essentially, for a cor~in-
coordinates' work with SWANN and PRICE, their 'sealed envelo
with GELLER and their EEG studies with 'normal' subjects to determine whether the e lations with - are
subliminal correlations with remote stimuli;
remote stimuli;
rehash of their earlier most of the attached proposal consisrs of a
work--
with the substance of the new proposal being contained in
Pages 40-44 of the larger document. The price tag is 149K.
2. On 17 October
called me to state that, largely in response to D/C,S'
desire to ensure that someone is
doing something in the parano
SRI proposal as a test case rmal field and to use the
to spark a management decision, they are going to start
work in support of the SRI
proposal. P per-
He also said that his boss,
Engineering
I __1 C/OTS/Development
is going to forward the proposal to DOTS with the recom-
mendation that OTS and ORD be
jointly in charge of the program and split the costs, I
told that I had both
practical and philosophic reservations on that score (see
Para 3) but that I would undertake to acquaint ORD management with these developments
so
that they could be prepared to respond when the
proposal is officially surfaced.
3. With reference to my 26 September
73 memo on this topic, my primary object'
to this proposal are: it would be a continuation
-JnS
of the same undisciplined approach which
has given us so much trouble in the
past, with no well-defined research goals, no internal
focal-point of authority and control, little control over the cont,aactor;s efforts and
almost certainly equivocal results; an objective management decision should come f
if positive, the effort should be a-rst and,
serious one--selecting the best (not merely an oporture'
vehicle for the postulated goals and handled in
a highly secure, need-to-know fashion. 2
do not question the
SRI investigators' motivation at all and I do feel that their work has
been interesting and very Possibly of some real value--but there is some doubt as to the
soundness of some of their methodologies and, in any case, the controversy surrou;iin_
and their subjects still has a
fla the
P' potential which would unnecessarily Preoccupy and
distract us even if the DOI gave his approval (which is doubtful at
could be supported best). SRI's ePforts
on a sub-contract basis by whatever vehicle we might chose for the
overall effort--ieavin7
US securely out of the picture,
Costnonts:
( tl LC G !L /#. C' P c ~_ ~/ j . e.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00787R0007