SUMMARY OF GRILL FLAME MEETING, 1 JULY 1980

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R002000100002-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 25, 1998
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: July 3, 1980
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 20001 c .
00788R002000100002-8
ET.-
SG1J
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 3 July 1980
SUBJECT: Summary of Grill Flame Meeting, 1 July 1980
1. (U) Following outlines primary topics discussed at Grill Flame working group
meeting chaired by DIA/DT on 1 July 1980. Members present consisted of:
DIA
SG1J M RRA B. WATT INSCOM
SG1I
SG1J
SG1J
2. (S/NOFORN) PURPOSE: Meeting had been arranged by to work out
details of "joint program" concerning Project Grill Flame. stated that
he felt that the fOllowing conditions had already been agreed to by service represent-
atives (MG Thompson, Army, and BG Marks, AF) (See incl 1 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 $15OK 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).
d. Total effort would be programmed for 3 years. SG1J
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 $120-13OK 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
would be as follows:
Dr. Vorona would be the chairperson.
SG1J
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.
Individual would be physically located at SRI (this individual is going to be
GRILL FrA
Approved For Release 20
ME
C96-OO?6,QWQ~1D(Q2-?AMI-ISH
NOT RELEASABLE `TO'F'OREIGN NATIONALS DATED: 05163OZ Jul 78
~r'n.i Wyk n _liii.t 9nnn
 Approved For Release 200010 GI TO0788ROO2000100002-8
etc. Committee would meet quarterly to review progress, establish new tasking,
.
SG1J
SG1J
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 1st 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
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 everything wou be worked out properly. I requested that
the committee be provided a firm answer to this question as soon as possible.
8. (U) informed everyone that a draft MOU and draft stat
t
f
emen
o
objectives wou ,be provided to all committee members tomorrow (2 July 1980).
SG1J 9? (U) requested that INSCOM tell him how much money they would be putting
into 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 DIA/AF 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.
3 Inc1 MURRAY . WATT I
1
Approved For Rele5?6-2'0UqAWJ"t%QAr -00788ROO2000100002-8
. Cy ltr ACSI, re:GF Mg 9 Apr 80(S) LTC, MI
2. Briefing on GF (S) Project Manager
ti