CENTER LANE Information Papers for Director, Defense Intelligence Agency
What this is
The founding sequence of the Army program: GONDOLA WISH in September 1977 as a defensive OPSEC mission, renamed GRILL FLAME in July 1978, six people selected from 251 considered, training at SRI from April 1979, first operational session September 1979.
That the program ran 106 operational projects over five years and that its intelligence sponsors rated 53 as having value and 28 as having none.
What the Army spent on remote viewing year by year from 1979 to 1983, where it went, and that Congress ended its NFIP-funded participation after 1982.
That the program's budget rose from $121K in FY83 to $811.5K in FY84, what the money was for, and that the program recorded its own repeated failure on search tasks.
That the Secretary of Defense took a special interest in the program in 1979 and that a named DoD committee was charged with assessing whether PSI phenomena existed.
That the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee ordered the 1983 evaluation by name and date, and what the DIA evaluation team concluded about the SRI and Princeton results and about Puthoff's team.
That the Surgeon General's board reversed itself in November 1979 and found remote viewing DID constitute human use; that the Under Secretary of Defense restricted P-6 funding in March 1980; and that Congress was briefed on the human-use question.
That the Vice President was briefed on the program in March 1983, who briefed him and who was present; and that CPT Frederick Atwater took over as Acting Project Manager on 7 July 1983.
The Army's own summary of the human-use question - and that a portion of the February 1979 General Counsel determination is still withheld under the deliberative-process exemption.
That a Senator and staff of both the intelligence and appropriations committees were briefed through 1982; that Congress terminated NFIP funding on 1 October 1982; and that INSCOM renamed and self-funded the program on 3 December 1982.
10 passages read · 125 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at cia.gov →10 passages read
“SEP 77 - GONDOLA WISH established. COMMENTS: Designed as an OPSEC support mission to mimic HOIS remote viewers to determine US vulnerability. | APR 78-JUL 78 - Robert Monroe, Executive Director, Monroe Institute of Applied Sciences (MIAS), was contacted to determine what MIAS could provide in support of GONDOLA WISH. | 13 JUL 78 - Establishment of GRILL FLAME. COMMENTS: ACSI directed all Army Parapsychology/Remote Viewing research, experiments, application, etc. be protected by unclassified nickname GRILL FLAME. | OCT 78 - ACSI tasked INSCOM to develop parapsychology program. COMMENTS: HQ INSCOM never received written tasking on this subject. | DEC 78-JAN 79 - Selection of remote viewers and interviewers. COMMENTS: Of the 251 personnel considered for GRILL FLAME, 117 were interviewed and six individuals were actually selected for training. | 15 FEB 79 - Army General Counsel advised ACSI that GRILL FLAME constitutes human use. | 26 MAR 79 - Surgeon General's Human Use Subjects Research Review Board concludes GRILL FLAME not human use. COMMENTS: Remote Viewing considered technology transfer rather than direct research. | APR 79 - Beginning of orientation training at SRI-International. COMMENTS: Six INSCOM personnel begin training at SRI-International in Remote Viewing. | 4 SEP 79 - First operational Remote Viewing session took place. COMMENTS: A missing aircraft (A6E) was located within a 15-nautical mile radius of its downed location.”
THE A6E ENTRY IS WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS HAPPENED, recorded as such. It is the program's own account of its first operational session and nothing here corroborates it.
“SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Operational Accomplishments (U). ISSUE: To provide the Director, DIA with statistical and narrative information on CENTER LANE operations. FACTS: 1. Total number of projects from 1 September 1979 to 28 September 1984: 106. 2. Number of projects rated by sponsor as having intelligence value: 53. 3. Number of projects rated by sponsor as having no intelligence value: 28. 4. Number of projects reporting information not verifiable by the sponsor: 2. 5. Number of projects without evaluations from the sponsor: 8. 6. Number of projects cancelled: 15.”
A COUNT OF CUSTOMER RATINGS, NOT A FINDING ABOUT REMOTE VIEWING. The sponsors graded tasks they had commissioned; the document does not say how they graded them or against what.
“SUBJECT: CENTER LANE Funding (U). The total cost for INSCOM's use of psychoenergetics for intelligence purposes, less personnel salaries for FYs 1979 through 1983 was $686K. In 1979, the total cost to INSCOM was $87K, $75K of which went to SRI-International for orientation training. In 1980, INSCOM's costs for the project were only $32K and there were no external contracts. In 1981, funding levels were increased to permit INSCOM to participate in the Joint Services GRILL FLAME Program with DIA. Of the $205K spent in 1981, $190K went to external contracts with SRI-International. 1982 was the second and last year of INSCOM's support to the joint services program due to Congressional restrictions placed on the use of NFIP funds. ... The $121K FY 1983 budget saw the beginning of the new coordinate remote viewing training at SRI-International at a cost of $36K, expansion of advanced training under a consultant services agreement with Mr. Robert Monroe of the Monroe Institute of Applied Sciences, Faber, Virginia at a cost of $24.4K”
THIS IS NOT THE SAME MEASURE as the DOD/INTELLIGENCE PSYCHOENERGETICS PROGRAM FUNDING table in cia-rdp96-00788r001100340001-3, which counts what SRI RECEIVED. This counts what INSCOM SPENT, less salaries. The two must not be added or reconciled.
“In FY 84 CENTER LANE received $496.5K in P-6 funds through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) and $315K INSCOM S&IA funds to continue the project's efforts. ... a. Purchase of biomonitoring equipment to be used to determine physiological changes during the conduct of psychoenergetic tasks. (Effort cancelled, $26.5K returned to DA) b. Development of a state-of-the-art psychological screening/selection profile for use in identifying potential sources. ... c. Determine the countermeasures potential of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation. ... The logical follow-on to this effort would be the development of local counter-countermeasures environments for CENTER LANE sources. d. Development of a new psychoenergetic technique for use in ‘search problems.’ Over the years, sponsor agencies have asked for assistance in locating lost or missing equipment or personnel. Because this is not a conventional remote viewing task, we have had little success at providing timely usable intelligence in these cases. That is not to say that information we provided was inaccurate, just that it was not directly usable to resolve the intelligence problem at hand. ... INSCOM awarded a contract to SRI-International on 15 November 1983 to perform work described in para 2b-f above.”
The self-criticism is the program's own, in a paper written to keep its funding. That is what makes it worth quoting.
“SUBJECT: GRILL FLAME Evaluations (U). In June 1979, Dr. LaBerge, then Under Secretary of the Army, suggested that a scientific evaluation committee be appointed to review the Army's parapsychological activities. In early July 1979, Dr. Ruth Davis recommended that because of the special interest of the Secretary of Defense, that the committee review the total DoD posture. The mission of the committee, known as the ‘GRILL FLAME Scientific Evaluation Committee’ was as follows: a. To review the parapsychological research, investigations, and applications within DoD and the Intelligence Community. b. To assess the validity of claims made for the alleged existence of the PSI phenomena, with particular emphasis on the experiments which were instituted to approach the ‘proof of principle.’ c. To recommend a course of action for DoD in future parapsychological activities.”
Dr. LaBerge, Dr. Ruth Davis and Mr. Manfred Gale are named. None is on this map and none is proposed here.
“The Committee, chaired by Mr. Manfred Gale, published their report in December 1979. Among the recommendations made by the Committee was the following: ‘Operationally-oriented RV activities aimed at determining the empirical value of RV to intelligence should continue.’ 2. On 23 August 1982, Rep. Edward P. Boland, Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), requested that a comprehensive report be prepared documenting the results of the DoD three year GRILL FLAME project and that it be submitted to the HPSCI not later than 15 October 1983. In response to this request, the Assistant Deputy Director for Scientific and Technical Intelligence, DIA, assembled an independent Scientific Evaluation Team. ... INSCOM has not received a final copy of the report, but did receive a copy of the final draft. Although the Scientific Evaluation Team did not examine INSCOM'S operational program, the following extracts from their recommendations seem appropriate: ‘The evidence shown to us is too impressive to dismiss as mere coincidence. Certain similarities between the SRI and Princeton results, obtained in very different circumstances by unrelated investigators, are particularly compelling. ...Exploration of the phenomenon should not be restricted to specific applications. ...It is our conclusion that Dr. Puthoff's team (SRI International) warrants cautious continued fiscal support.’ 3. The Defense Intelligence Agency published the results of their three year, $1.5 million psychoenergetic research effort on 19 October 1983, with significant recommendations that INSCOM'S operational remote viewing project continue.”
THREE LIMITS, ALL STATED BY THE DOCUMENT ITSELF: INSCOM never received the final report, only a draft; the team did not examine INSCOM's operational program; and these are extracts SELECTED BY THE PROGRAM BEING EVALUATED for a paper written to persuade the Director of DIA. Anyone citing this is citing INSCOM's selection from a draft.
“20 NOV 79 - Surgeon General's Human Subjects Research Review Board states Remote Viewing is human use. COMMENTS: Found that Remote Viewing did constitute human use and recommended more formal compliance with human use requirements. ... 5 MAR 80 - Under Secretary of Defense, William Perry, issues restriction on use of P-6 funds. COMMENTS: Not appropriate for Army to fund technology programs aimed at scientific demonstration of parapsychology. ... 16 JUL 81 - Congressman Rose briefed on human use issue. ... 17 JUL 81 - The Honorable Delbert Spurlock, Army General Counsel, recommends ACSI submit GRILL FLAME Charter to Secretary of the Army for review and approval in order to comply with DOD Reg 5240.1-R.”
This entry is the one Appendix A of the same dossier omits.
“31 MAR 83 - The Honorable George Bush, Vice President of the United States, was briefed for thirty minutes concerning CENTER LANE related activities by DR. Vorona, DIA. Also present were Adm. Murphy, C/S, Mr. Gregg, Assistant to the Vice President, National Security Affairs, and LTC Fry, Military Assistant. COMMENTS: DIA and Army INSCOM efforts were reviewed and three INSCOM projects were used as examples: [withheld]. The briefing was well received and the Vice President was interested and impressed. ... 15 JUN 83 - Secretary of the Army approves establishment of Special Access Program for CENTER LANE. ... 7 JUL 83 - CPT Frederick Atwater assumes duties as Acting Project Manager. ... 19 JUL 83 - Contract signed with Mr. Robert Monroe for ‘One-on-One’ training of CENTER LANE operative at MIAS.”
Three INSCOM example projects are withheld from the comments column, marked SG1A.
“APPENDIX A. Historical Summary of ‘Human Use’ Issue. 1. In February 1979, the Army General Counsel determined that GRILL FLAME activities involved testing on human subjects, [WITHHELD - FOIAB5 ARMY]. In March 1979, The Surgeon General's Human Subjects Research Review Board reviewed the GRILL FLAME protocol and concluded that it represented technology transfer and validation of the technology transfer, rather than research or clinical investigation, and as such, GRILL FLAME activities did not require approval for human use. However, the Board expressed concerns that future Army follow-on work might be classified as research ... In April 1979, Army General Counsel determined that the Army could continue/proceed with GRILL FLAME activities as long as HEW guidelines and other appropriate precautionary measures were taken. In April 1980, the Under Secretary of the Army approved the continuation of GRILL FLAME activities. ... Secretary or Under Secretary approval for GRILL FLAME/ICLP activities has been granted on 14 January 1981, 1 February 1982 and 1 September 1983. Approvals are generally valid for one year.”
THIS SUMMARY OMITS THE 20 NOVEMBER 1979 REVERSAL that the same dossier's chronology records at PDF page 32. The omission is not asserted to be deliberate. It is recorded because the document disagrees with itself.
“4 MAY 82 - Ms. Smiley, Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), briefed. | 29 JUN 82 - Mr. Dyer, Ms. Shekmar, Mr. Rhodes, Staff Members, Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC), briefed. | 5 AUG 82 - LTG Faurer, Director NSA, briefed. | 29 SEP 82 - Senator Pell briefed. | 1 OCT 82 - NFIP funding terminated for project by Congressional directive. COMMENTS: Army GRILL FLAME collection operations cease. | 3 DEC 82 - CG INSCOM notifies ACSI DA that INSCOM will fund a psychoenergetics program out of hide by using S&IA funds, based on ACSI staff guidance. Project name changed to CENTER LANE. | 19 JAN 83 - The Honorable Richard DeLauer, Under Secretary of Defense, signs memorandum allowing Program 6 resources to be used to maintain the current INSCOM CENTER LANE capability. | 1 MAR 83 - Letter of Instruction signed establishing CENTER LANE as Security Systems Planning Division, Security Support Detachment, 902d MI Group.”
'Senator Pell briefed' is all the document says. No first name appears here or anywhere in either copy of the dossier.
Where no sheet is shown, the quote was still read off the page, rendered from the file we hold. A page image has not been prepared for the web for that page yet.
What this document is used for, page by page
Every claim on this map that rests on this document, and every claim tested against it and deliberately not used — in the order you would meet them reading the file itself. Where the check was written down, our wording is followed by the document’s own sentence, so you can hold the two side by side. 20 of 20 name a page.