MEMO FOR THE RECORD. SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH (Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00791R000200310002-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 25, 2000
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: August 25, 1995
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
SG1I
SG1I
MEMO FOR THE RECORD
25 August 1995
SG1I
Subject: Telephone conversation with
I called about 0930 and noted that I wished to speak to him about a
program that he was involved in as a user when Jack Vorona was the principal sponsor.
After we "fenced" around abit to identify the program of interest, he recalled the program
and his involvement with it, noting that he had not spoken to Jack in many years. Mr.
was responsible for Coast Guard intelligence at a west coast location and
recalled that he utilized the paranormal RV services several years ago, he thought 3 or
4. The function of his organization was to intercept merchant ships and search those
that were believed to be transporting drugs or other illegal materials. He used the RV's
both at his location in conjunction with his, people and also tasked them for inputs at the
Program Office location. He indicated that the RV's he used were government
employees (vice a contractor). SG1 I
In the initial portions of our conversation, I asked if he had ever used the
RV inputs as a basis to task other resources and/or had he ever confirmed RV
information based upon other data after the fact. His initial comments were enthusiastic
and positive, e.g. , "yes they had taken action based upon the RV inputs". For
example,his crew would board incoming merchant ships and look for materials of types
and locations defined by the RV's. However, when asked if they ever had any success,
he noted that this was open to personal interpretation, but probably not. He quoted one
instance where the RV's indicated a specific white powder in a specific ship, and when
they boarded the ship they found that it was full of exotic animals and some type of
powder, but not a drug. He thought his group had reported their evaluations of the RV
inputs back to the program office and that their comments should be in the Program
Office files.
He noted that their "success" with the RV's was much better when they were at his
location than when they were tasked at their home office, noting further that the RV's
then had a better idea of what his people were looking for and how they operated.
He stated his belief that there is really "something valid" about the phenomenon but that
it needs more research so it is better understood and so the user can be given more
assurance about what to expect. He noted that he didn't think we really know how to
use the phenomenon to the advantage of organizations such as his.
At about this point he seemed to hesitate and his enthusiasm for the activity seemed to
wane somewhat. I asked him if he thought the utility was sufficiently positive that, as a
government user, he would be willing to for pay the RV services from a private
contractor. He stated that "the probability of success is very low, but I think there is
something there, if only we had a better understanding of the phenomenon and how to
use it". He said that paying for the service would be a problem because of the "bosses"
attitude. I asked him to explain this and he said that the boss was initially interested in
the use of the service probably because it was so highly classified which gave the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
program an aura of mystery and legitimacy, i.e., it must be good if it's so highly
classified. However, this support died after a while due to the lack of success.
I told him that if he was going to be in the DC area we would be pleased to talk further.
He noted that he gets up here occasionally, but didn't think he'd be up here before the
end of September (I told him we had a hard schedule commitment). He reiterated his
belief that there was "something" to this phenomenon but more research was required.
He noted one case where an RV provided him with information on a ship that described
it so precisely that when he saw it, e.g., shape, color, he was convinced that the
phenomenon existed. But, he said, it simply is not understood well enough as yet to be
relied upon for applications. SG1 I
We completed the conversation about 0950. never asked me for any
identification nor even for the spelling of my name. a was very open a forthright in his
comments, his demeanor was most cordial and gracious and his comments were made
in a most convincing tone of voice. He responded to my questions without any apparent
hesitancy in spite of his initial cautionary attitude regarding the sensitivity of the
program. Considering his intelligence background, the nature of this project and the
facts that he didn't know me and claimed to not have spoken to Vorona, I was very
surprised at his openness and direct responses to my questions. I noted that we
thought the program was going to be declassified and he thought that was good, but
even without that prompt, he hardly hesitate to respond to anything I asked him once we
started discussing his involvement.
I came away with the belief that he was trying to support continuation of the program
(especially the R&D) but was not a great supporter of its use for operational
applications at the present time. His stated belief in the validity of the phenomenon
could account for this, although I found his support a little strange given that he is retired
and no longer engaged in Coast Guard activities. On the other hand, this could be
interpreted as support for an old friend's request. While he was most convincing over
the phone regarding his lack of recent communication with Vorona, he is a retired
intelligence officer and may be accustomed to portraying things differently that they are.
Follow-up information - 8/30/95
On 8/29/95, I went through the Star Gate files to extract any available records regarding
the Coast Guard tasking and subsequent results. I located about seven tasks that were
SG1 I clear) done for the Coast Guard group in Long Beach, CA (based upon Mr.
name referenced in each) during the period from July 1990 through
calendar year 1992. Four of these were discussed in a single document with a
SG1 I transmittal memo from (at the time Capt.) to Headquarters, Department
of Army. For each of the four tasks (called Projects in the document) the document
includes a detailed task description, the desired EEI's (Essential Elements of
Information) for that task, a paragraph - titled the Output - which apparently summarizes
the information provided by the RV (or RV's??) (the "raw" RV inputs are not included)
and a brief paragraph - titled the Results - describing the results from any subsequent
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
SG1 I use of the RV information during an operational action. In my earlier conversation, Mr.
mentioned that some of the Coast Guard tasks were accomplished with the
RV's on-site and I presume these four tasks are representative of that situation. This
presumption is based upon two facts, 1) the raw RV data is missing and 2) the review
package contains a complete scenario for each task, i.e., a task description, RV input
and subsequent results; no other tasking data that I have reviewed had this type of
tooth-to-tail completeness. I also presume that the EEI information was provided to the
RV's, i.e., they had substantial inputs regarding what was desired and important as a
result of their deliberations (unlike many of the other operational tasks where they would
be provided only the name of the tasking organization and, for example, the name of
SG1 I something, i.e., a erson, lace or thing, and simply asked to "tell me about that thing".)
Note also that noted that their use of the RV information had better
"success" for the tasks wherein the RV were on-site.
Before discussing the contents of this package and the four 1990 tasks, I note that the
1991 and 1992 task folders contained off: the tasking input from the Coast Guard, the
raw information developed by the RV's and the subsequent report sent from the Star
Gate office back to the tasking organization, i.e., no subsequent feedback or evaluation
information from the Coast Guard appeared in any of these folders.
Returning to the 1990 document, all of the four tasks or projects (numbered 1 to 4)
concern possible illegal narcotics activities conducted via commercial shipping traffic in
and out of the US West Coast. Project 2 related to communications intercepts and
either was scrubbed or the RV information was not evaluated. It's hard to tell which
since the comment in the Results states: "The evaluation (emphasis added) of specific
CIE intercepts was determined to be a project that would hold less potential for success
than the other projects covered.... Subsequent evaluation of these intercepts maybe
accomplished by HQDA." No information is provided for this project regarding any RV
inputs or the lack thereof, but the suggestion of future evaluation leaves that issue ill
defined.
Project number 3 requested a review of information provided by an Advanced Tracking
Prototype to determine the activities of three designated vessels (apparently the vessel
designation was provided elsewhere). The Results of this project note that: "... the
information... was unable to be verified but the general pattern of activity indicated is
believed to be typical of this region."
SG1I
The Output for both Projects 1 and 4 were credited in the Results sections as having
some match with subsequent information obtained from operations. In the case of
Project 1, the "contraband" and its location was described for three vessels. Only one
of these was subsequently boarded by a Coast Guard unit (this appears to be the case
the recalled in our discussion). The Output paragraph for that vessel
describes in some detail the location and wrapping of the contraband including: "The
items were described as white, granular and lumpy similar to laundry detergent that has
been wet and then is dried." The Results section noted that the boarding personnel
found over one thousand pieces of white coral and eight sea turtles. No other
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
 Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1
information describing where the items were found, any description of their wrapping
(hopefully the turtles were not wrapped in plastic sheets as defined in the Output for the
contraband) nor any explanation of why white coral looks like dried laundry detergent.
In spite of that apparent omission, it concludes with the comment: "0 f specific interest
in this seizure was the virtual match (emphasis added) of the original team (i.e., the
RV's) and that of the situation involving the [name of ship- deleted here]." If there was
anything that matched other than the fact that the alleged laundry powder and the coral
found on the ship were both white, it was not identified.
Project 4 concerned a suspicion that an American shipping company was involved in
smuggling narcotics into the San Francisco Bay area. The Output paragraph: describes
a generic adult male alleged to be the owner, describes narcotic sources and operating
ports, provides some information on the operational procedures used by the company
and the equipment on their ships and the names of the vessels involved. Note that an
adult male was indicated as the owner in the task description; further that the drug
sources and operating port information replicates information that was included in the
task statement and which (I presume) had been provided to the RV's initially. The
Output information concerning operational procedures and the names of the vessels
were both in error when compared with the comments in the Results portion. In spite
of these observations, the Results state: "A large portion of the information supplied
by the team has been verified as correct and corroborates our belief (emphasis added)
that these facilities are being used for smuggling."
SG1 I Given the anal sis and comments above in conjunction with the comments provided
earlier by I can only conclude that the any utility is in the eye of the
beholder, i.e., as I've noted elsewhere, this is a very subjective process and, given the
nebulous and generic type of data provided by the RV's and the breadth of the
possibilities surrounding any given operational situation, one can always "find"
something that appears to match. Whether this match is a coincidence, a "forced fit' on
the part of the user or a manifestation of a true phenomenon is not of any great
consequence. The fact is that it is not specific enough nor detailed enough when it
SG1 I occurs to have been of any real intelligence value prior or even during the operational
activity. comments that no real successes were achieved is certainly valid
in that context and the withdrawal of his Admiral's support for lack of success provides
further substantiation and confirmation of that conclusion.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00791 R000200310002-1