COMMENTS ON FINDINGS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 7, 1998
• Sequence Number: 36
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
Finding 1)
The stated finding contains four distinct thoughts:
(a) RV research neither proves nor disproves existence of the
phenomenon. (I concur.)
(b) Some RV experiences, however, are difficult to explain on
the basis of presently known science. (I concur.)
(c) RV research has not contributed to describing the character-
istics of the RV signal, such as bandwidth, form of modulation, attenuation
with distance, or absorption. (I partially concur. I believe it to be
important to explicitly conclude, given the failure to unequivocally
prove the existence of the phenomenon, that isolation of the effect for
purposes of characterizing it is unlikely to be fruitful. The experiments
done in screen rooms and submarines purported to demonstrate low atten-
uation of the signal by distance, conduction electrons, and molecular
absorption. This conclusion assumed successful RV events during the
experiments. The experimental results are still, however, judged
problematic-and thus the lack of transmission attenuation remains moot.
Description of the signal parameters should be undertaken only after
proof of existence is on a sounder basis.)
(d) RV research has not produced a physical model that explains
the mechanisms of signal transmission. (I concur with this. I believe,
further, that we should point out that until the signal can be para-
metrically described, attempts to model RV will be quite unsuccessful.)
I recommend, then, that "Finding 1" be split into four separate
Findings, with the observations above concerning each one included.
Finding 2)
The finding, as stated, is a compound sentence, thus presenting two
separate sub-findings. I believe the second clause is just supportive
of the first. Even if the second clause is made adverbial, or even
removed, I do not subscribe to the wording. In particular, the finding
implies two ideas that I do not believe to be true: first, all RV
events posing difficulties of physical explanation were not presented
as "successful"-many were exhibited as "suggestive", "difficult to
explain" or the like; second, "credibility" is not a binary concept,
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
--credence can be put, I believe, in the possibility of an RV phenomenon.
The "Finding 2", then, I recommend be rewritten into a far less
negative statement.
Finding 3)
The finding as stated contains two thoughts the second of which is
a recommendation. If the meaning of the second phrase is to say that
the committee has not devised an experimental approach which would satisfy
scientific requirements of proof, I recommend we so state, and make it a
separate finding. I concur with the first clause as a finding.
Finding 4)
I concur with the first statement and disagree with the second. I
discerned an explicit recognition of reliability limits in Ohio, Florida
and Maryland.
Finding 5)
I believe this to be a general philosophical observation rather than
a "Finding", and certainly not uniquely related to RV. Any but the most
mundane engineering projects usually experience belief in false premises--
beliefs devoutly held. This ubiquitous problem is solved by supervision,
and is in fact, one of any management's principal tasks.
Finding 6)
Five thoughts are presented here, all. important and, I believe deserving
of separate emphasis in separate findings. I concur with each, although
I would add the words "review and" after "management." The parenthetical
remark goes without saying and should be removed.
Finding 7)
Four thoughts occur here. I cannot speak to the "medical" or "legal"
insufficiency. Previous findings address the "scientific" deficiencies,
and the lack of management supervision. I recommend this finding be
restricted to "medical" and "legal" considerations.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
Finding 8)
This finding contains two thoughts. The first I concur with, and
recommend it be separated from the second. I cannot comment on the second.
Finding 9)
I would reorder the lead-in paragraph to read:
"The conduct of parapsychological research to first, prove existence
of either PK or RV, and then, to characterize these phenomena, would---."
Subparagraph (1)-I would replace "several million" by "a million
or more."
Subparagraph (2)-I would delete this in its entirety, since sub-
paragraph 5 covers the intent of this Finding.
Subparagraphs (3), (4), and (5) I agree with.
Finding 10)
Finding 11)
Finding 12)
Hawke is not funded. I don't know about Phillips. The Finding
implies adequacy of PK research funding. The implication, I believe,
is false. I would recommend a finding that "non-statistical" experiments
on PK are more amenable to scientific measurement than "random number"
PK experiments, and are more scientifically attainable than RV experi-
ments. I recommend a further finding that although PK and RV may well
not be related, a convincing PK experiment will as well as validated RV
phenomenon upset the present physical model of nature, and thus lend
some impetus to careful RV investigations.
Finding 13)
I would delete this, first because we did not explore this area,
and secondly, so what?
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
Finding 14)
Finding 15)
I would delete this as unnecessary, given the previous findings.
Findings 16) and 17)
I cannot comment.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6
Since the visit to LLL, my assessment of the realizability of PK
"proof" has altered. I believe the Hawke-type experiments should be
supported. DoD can, and has, supported "basic research"-and has done
so on a classified basis. Peer review is crucial, however, and should
be accommodated under security restrictions.
Recommendation 1), then, I think, should be withheld pending
further discussion.
I suggest deleting 2a. (The statement as its stands implies inattention
by management. I believe this can and should be covered in 2c.)
2c should have the words "direction, review" between "adequate" and
"resources".
2e I believe the second clause can be left out; otherwise we are micro
managing what we recommend be managed elsewhere.
I would delete the first clause, thus starting the recommendation with
"The community---."
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230036-6