DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SRI PERFORMANCE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00787R000200200017-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 28, 2000
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: August 5, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For F ease 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-QQ787R000200200017-2
5 August 1974
1. At 1030 hrs on 2 August 74 visited the undersigned S G11
and three broad topics were.discussed:
a. Results of the OOB Experiment: NPIC photos apparently do not
support Price's remarks about the derricks, water tower, etc, although prelim-
inary NPIC examination of the data seems to indicate the possibility of other,
nearby ambiguous hits; in any case, was to send NPIC all the transcribed data S G1
and his memo specifying what he'd like to have NPIC do in the way of analysis
and commentary on 2 Aug; he offered to send us a copy and, if appropriate, to
forward on to NPIC any new or significant suggestions we might make; he also
offered to have us accompany him when (possibly late in the week of 5 Aug) he
goes to NPIC for their first read-out; we reaffirmed the need to ensure that
any similar OOB experiments in the future focused on highly unique, simple
and uncluttered stimulus fields.
b. Other Possible Use of NPIC: I mentioned the possibility of
pursuing a related course with NPIC--that is, testing a number of our self-
professed staff psychics (and an equal number of staff controls) against NPIC's
thorniest interpretation problems (i.e., sequential photos in which only the
very last clearly permits objective judgements about the nature/function of
the site)--and then compare their 'readings' with those of the best NPIC analysts
who worked on the orginal case.
c. SRI's Performance and Reporting: See para 2, below.
2. asked if Hal or Russ had called and was puzzled when
S G11 I said they hadn't since he'd spoken to them about a week earlier and had
urged them to call me about some of their data. said that he was under S G11
the impression, from them, that they had considerable data collected with
respect to our task--e.g.: analysis of strobe-light/EEG data (note: possibly of
interest but hardly responsive if this is the material from last year); some
of the physical exam results on Price (note: really of consequence only when
complete and when evaluated against other subjects); some mid-experiment instru-
mentation data on Price (this would be new, unless its the gradiometer data).
S G11 I told that, obviously, we can judge the significance and adequacy of the
data only when we've seen it and that I hoped they would send it along with their
next (1 Aug?) report. He urged me to call them to stress that we wanted to see
that data and I told him that: there can't possibly be any doubt pn their minds that
we do want to see it; and I'd been studiously avoiding calling them because I S G11
didn't want to confuse or harass them. Discussed this later with fY ,%A,
d
i
d h
fi
id
i
t
d
lily VieW; 1U WCLes, ev
e 1Q_LY, aga
n commun
UU-
e con
rme
ca
e
E 11 an
by when the former called at 1700 hrs on 2 Aug to see whether
I'd made the call. At that time - said he thought he'd call SRI just to S G11
make sure that they realize we want to see the data in the next report--despite
S G1I position to the effect that it would be unfair and unrealistic for
us to impose special reporting requirements on SRI each time they came up with a
specific piece of data; we'd be quite satisfied if they would merely conform to
the orginally agreed-upon reporting scheme.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10 : CIA-RDP96-00 SG1 I