Briefing for the Secretary of the Army [Project CENTER LANE]

“BRIEFING FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY”

This single typed line is the only typed text on the page. Everything else is stamps. A faint 'SECRET' stamp sits at the head and, at the lower left, a large stamp reading 'CENTER LANE' above a rule, beside a second stamp reading 'WARNING NOTICE!' whose following lines are too faint to transcribe with confidence (they appear to concern restricted dissemination and limited access, but I will not put a guess in quotes). Below that, a printed word 'CATEGORY' is followed by what appears to be a hand-written figure 4, in ink, on the ruled line. - the page carries no printed page number at head or foot; the only running text is the CIA release banner 'Approved For Release 2008/06/16 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001700270021-3' at top and bottom, which appears on all 17 pages and is a release artefact, not part of the original paper.

“I AM LTC BUZBY, PROJECT MANAGER FOR INSCOM PROJECT CENTER LANE. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO MY OPERATIONS OFFICER, FRED ATWATER. THE PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH BACKGROUND INFORMATION CONCERNING INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES USING THE CENTER LANE TECHNIQUE. THAT TECHNIQUE IS THE USE OF PSYCHOENERGETICS FOR INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES. ... THE OVERALL CLASSIFICATION OF THE BRIEFING IS SECRET, CENTER LANE LEVEL 4.”

Elision marked with '...' removes one sentence listing the briefing's contents (history, personnel and fiscal situation, training, operations, plans). NAME TRAP / INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY: the operations officer is introduced here by the civilian-style form 'FRED ATWATER' and is called 'MR. ATWATER' on pdf p9, but the Q&A memorandum at pdf p14-15 calls the same office-holder 'CPT Atwater'. The pages give no first name in the Q&A and no rank here, so I record the discrepancy rather than merging or resolving it. TYPOGRAPHY: the whole briefing script is typed in a small-capitals typeface in which lower case letters appear as reduced capitals; I have transcribed it in capitals throughout, which is how it reads on the paper. The word 'PSYCHOENERGETICS' is broken across a line as 'PSYCHO-' / 'ENERGETICS' on the page; I have closed the hyphenation. My tesseract pass rendered the comma after BUZBY as a full stop - the mark on the page is a comma.

“(CHART 1) PSYCHOENERGETICS ARE THE PROCESSES BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL MAY PSYCHICALLY INTERACT WITH OBJECTS, LOCATIONS, ORGANISMS OR EVENTS. THIS INCLUDES SUCH DISCIPLINES AS PSYCHOKINESIS, REMOTE VIEWING, AND REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS. AS YOU RECALL SIR, GENERAL STUBBLEBINE DISCUSSED ONE FORM OF REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH YOU. THIS WAS THE ‘BAXTER EFFECT’ ON BLOOD CELLS WHERE, THROUGH THE USE OF PSYCHOGALVANIC MEASUREMENT, BLOOD CELLS ISOLATED FROM A DONOR APPEARED TO REVEAL THE ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL’ STATE OF THE DONOR.”

'(CHART 1)' is underlined on the page; the script is annotated throughout with bracketed, underlined stage directions such as '(CHART CHANGE)', '(CHART ON)', '(CHART OFF)' and '(PAUSE)', showing this is a speaking script cued to a set of visual aids. The charts themselves are NOT in this file. Spelled 'PSYCHOKINESIS' here - not the 'psychokienesis' misspelling found in a sister file. The page gives only a surname for 'GENERAL STUBBLEBINE' and no first name or initial. - the page does not say when the earlier Stubblebine briefing took place.

“(CHART CHANGE) THE US ARMY INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND'S INVOLVEMENT WITH PSYCHOENERGETICS BEGAN IN SEPTEMBER 1977. AT THAT TIME, AN INSCOM ELEMENT IMPLEMENTED THE GONDOLA WISH PROGRAM WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO INTEGRATE THE SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN PSYCHOENERGETIC INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION THREAT INTO THE ALL-SOURCE OPERATIONS SECURITY (OPSEC) SUPPORT SCENARIO. ... HE CANCELLED THE GONDOLA WISH EFFORT, PLACED A COMPLETE SECURITY ENVELOPE OVER ARMY'S INTEREST IN PSYCHOENERGETICS, AND IMPLEMENTED A NEW PROGRAM DIRECTED TOWARDS INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION USING REMOTE VIEWING. THE NEW EFFORT WAS GIVEN THE UNCLASSIFIED NICKNAME GRILL FLAME. IN OCTOBER 1978, ACSI TASKED INSCOM TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM USING PSYCHOENERGETICS FOR INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS UTILIZING REMOTE VIEWING.”

The elision marked '...' removes the intervening sentence, which begins 'BY SPRING OF 1978, THE ARMY ACSI CONCLUDED THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE...' and establishes that 'HE' in the resumed text is the Army ACSI. I have not joined the two stretches silently. '1978' is underlined on the page in the omitted sentence. ACSI is used throughout as a title (Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence) and no individual is named - the page gives no name for the ACSI at any point. The preceding paragraph on this same page states that US Government involvement dates from the early 1970s and names CIA (remote viewing as an intelligence gathering tool), DIA (threat analysis) and US Army DARCOM elements (research and development).

“THE ACQUISITION AND DESCRIPTION, BY MENTAL MEANS, OF INFORMATION BLOCKED FROM ORDINARY PERCEPTION BY DISTANCE, SHIELDING, OR TIME. ... IN MARCH 1980, THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, WILLIAM PERRY, ORDERED CURTAILMENT OF ALL PROGRAM 6 MONIES SUPPORTING PSYCHOENERGETIC R&D EFFORTS, BUT POSED NO OBJECTION TO THE CONTINUANCE OF INSCOM'S NON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS EFFORTS. THIS ACTION CAUSED DARCOM TO CEASE ALL ACTIVITY AT THE END OF FY 80.”

IMPORTANT SENTENCE-BOUNDARY WARNING: the first quoted sentence is a fragment that completes a sentence begun on the PREVIOUS pdf page (p3), whose last line reads 'REMOTE VIEWING IS AN SRI INTERNATIONAL COINED TERM WHICH IS DEFINED AS'. I have deliberately not run the two pages together into one quotation. The elision '...' between the definition and the Perry sentence removes one sentence about project personnel being selected and training initiated by spring 1979. NAME: the page gives 'WILLIAM PERRY' with no middle initial. - the page gives no document or memorandum reference for Perry's March 1980 order. Also on this page: a Joint Services GRILL FLAME Committee of DIA, Air Force and Army formed in 1981; the Navy 'EXPRESSED NO INTEREST'; the Air Force Chief of Staff later directed Air Force withdrawal. The page contains an apparent typing slip, 'THIS JOINT SERVICES WAS FORMED TO IMPLEMENT A 3-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM' - a noun appears to be missing after 'JOINT SERVICES'. Left uncorrected.

“UNTIL THE END OF FY 82 WHEN THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (SENATOR WALLOP) CURTAILED ALL PSYCHOENERGETIC OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE ARMY IN THE NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (NFIP). THE CONGRESSIONAL CONFEREES AGREED, HOWEVER, TO LET DIA COMPLETE THE THIRD YEAR OF THEIR EFFORT AND DIRECTED THAT FUTURE FUNDING -- IF ANY -- OF THIS PSYCHOENERGETIC ACTIVITY BE BUDGETED OUTSIDE THE NFIP. ... INSCOM TERMINATED FORMAL INVOLVEMENT WITH GRILL FLAME AT THE END OF FY 82, AND CONTINUED ITS EFFORTS UNDER A PROVISIONAL SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM NICKNAMED CENTER LANE.”

This is the passage that explains the relationship between the two programme names. The elision '...' removes the intervening sentences describing the CG INSCOM's decision in the fall of 1982 to continue the project using Security and Investigative Activities (S&IA) monies. The page gives only a surname for 'SENATOR WALLOP' - no first name or state. Note the word 'PROVISIONAL' here, which sits against pdf p2's flat statement that 'CENTER LANE IS A REGISTERED DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM'; the two pages describe its status differently and I record that without resolving it. My tesseract pass misread 'FY 82' in the first line as 'FY $2'; the page reads 82.

“HAVING BEEN DENIED NFIP FUNDING AND, THEREFORE, A TDA UNDER THE GDIP BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, CG, INSCOM HAS PROVIDED OUT-OF-HIDE PERSONNEL SPACES IN SUPPORT OF CENTER LANE SINCE THE LOSS OF THIS FUNDING AT THE END OF FY 82. THE FY 85 GDIP INITIATIVE WAS POSTPONED IN LATE AUGUST (29 AUG 83), AND NOW ACSI DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF NFIP FUNDING UNTIL FY86; THEREFORE, CENTER LANE WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHIN INSCOM AS A TASK FORCE WITHOUT A TDA.”

'(29 AUG 83)' is the latest specific calendar date typed anywhere in this file and is the firmest internal evidence for dating the briefing to on or after 29 August 1983. Note the inconsistent styling 'FY 85' with a space but 'FY86' without, in adjacent clauses - transcribed as printed. The same page records the 1979 Task Force as 'A PROJECT MANAGER, AN OPERATIONS/TRAINING OFFICER, A SECRETARY, AND TWO SOURCES (RVERS)'. - the page refers the reader to a chart for 'OUR CURRENT FULL-TIME STRENGTH', so this file nowhere states the actual headcount at the time of briefing; the chart is not in the file.

“DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF INSCOM'S EFFORT IN PSYCHOENERGETICS, WE HAVE CONDUCTED OVER 700 OPERATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION MISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF 89 COLLECTION PROJECTS, AND MANAGED 4 SOURCE TRAINING PROGRAMS -- ALL WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF PERSONNEL AND AT A COST TO DATE OF ONLY $703K.”

The immediately preceding sentence on the same page makes the exclusion explicit: the chart 'SHOWS OUR COSTS, LESS PERSONNEL SALARIES, SINCE THE PROJECT'S INCEPTION', so the $703K figure does not include pay. The chart itself is not in the file. The word 'ONLY' is the briefer's own framing. Figures on this page and pdf p9 are internally consistent: 89 collection projects total, broken out as 7 (1979), 41 (1980), 20 (1981), 11 (1982) and 10 (1983) = 89.

“(CHART CHANGE) OVER 85% OF OUR OPERATIONAL MISSIONS HAVE PRODUCED ACCURATE TARGET INFORMATION. EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT, APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE 700 MISSIONS PRODUCED USABLE INTELLIGENCE. (CHART OFF)”

This is the programme's own self-assessment as presented to the Secretary; the page gives no methodology, no definition of 'accurate' or 'usable', and no external validation for either percentage. - no page in this file explains how the 85% and 50% figures were computed or by whom. Sits against pdf p10-11, where the same briefing concedes that on 'search problems' the office has 'HAD LITTLE SUCCESS AT PROVIDING TIMELY USABLE INTELLIGENCE IN THESE CASES'.

“THIS $496.5K P6 MONEY WILL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY $235K INSCOM S&IA FUNDS WHICH WILL BE USED FOR TRAVEL AND SUPPORT FUNCTIONS.”

VERIFICATION NOTE: my tesseract pass rendered this as '$496.5 P6', dropping the K. I re-cropped and enlarged the line at 3x to check, and the page unambiguously reads '$496.5K P6 MONEY'. A checker searching a raw OCR string may not find the K. The itemised FY 84 spending this figure covers is listed on pdf p10-11: biomonitoring equipment; a psychological screening/selection profile; an ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic radiation countermeasures study; a new technique for 'SEARCH PROBLEMS'; continued Coordinate Remote Viewing training for one source; and CRV training for three new sources. Most items are annotated 'FUNDS NOTED ARE FOR SRI AND A SRI SUBCONTRACT'. - the page gives no dollar figure for any individual line item; those were on a chart that is not in this file.

“IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT DIA IS WORKING ON A 10-YEAR, $11 MILLION PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME. THE LOGICAL FALLOUT FROM SUCH A RESEARCH EFFORT WOULD BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF: MEACONING, INTRUSION, JAMMING AND DECEPTION TECHNIQUES.”

Reported as INSCOM's understanding of another agency's plan, not as a fact INSCOM could vouch for - the hedge 'IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING' is on the page and should be preserved. 'MEACONING, INTRUSION, JAMMING AND DECEPTION' is the standard MIJI initialism, here applied to psychoenergetics. This page also carries the revised Mission Statement, which the briefing says the CG INSCOM had 'JUST PROVIDED', and which extends the project past remote viewing: 'WE ARE NO LONGER CONFINED TO REMOTE VIEWING AS OUR PRINCIPAL TOOL AND WILL NOW DEVELOP AND USE TELEPATHIC AND PSYCHOKINETIC SKILLS.' - the revised Mission Statement is not dated on the page.

“QUESTIONS/ANSWERS DURING SECRETARY OF THE ARMY BRIEFING 1. (S/CL-4/NOFORN) Secretary of the Army (a) Q: During introductions, the Secretary asked CPT Atwater what his status was. A: CPT Atwater replied that he was a Great Skills Officer and worked for LTC Buzby. The Secretary indicated an understanding of the program and did not pursue the subject. (b) Q: Aren't you being ‘cute’ in continuing your efforts in the project when Congress dictated that intelligence should not be part of NFIP? A: The Army General Consul's legal opinion is that INSCOM is not going against the will of Congress. (LTC Fox)”

DOCUMENT-IDENTITY EVIDENCE: pdf p14-15 are typed in an ordinary upper-and-lower-case typeface quite unlike the small-capitals script of pdf p1-13, are separately paragraph-numbered, and pdf p14 is marked 'Incl 3' at the foot - so this is an enclosure to a covering memorandum that is NOT in this file. Paragraph classification is marked inline as '(S/CL-4/NOFORN)'. SPELLING, NOT CORRECTED: 'General Consul' appears on the page where 'General Counsel' would be expected; the same misspelling recurs on pdf p15. Also left as typed: 'Great Skills Officer'. NAMES: 'LTC Fox' is named here as the source of the legal answer and appears nowhere else in this file - the page gives only a surname and no first name or initial. Line breaks in the quote follow the page's own layout. This item (b) also confirms the Congressional action described on pdf p5 was a live problem the Secretary himself raised.

“(d) Q: Can you affect the behavior or individuals through remote viewing/psychoenergetics? A: There is some evidence that the Soviets have demonstrated an ability in this arena. The Soviets have done successful experiments in remote telepathic hypnosis. They have also done experiments in an attempt to influence the behavior of pilots. State-of-the-Art expertise would allow a person's behavior to be influenced from the point of view of changing their ‘state of mind’ or attitude. (The Secretary asked the question to determine if the Soviets, for example, could affect US decision makers' attitudes during times of crisis.) Our response was affirmative! (CPT Atwater)”

TRANSCRIPTION NOTE, NOT CORRECTED: the question as typed reads 'the behavior or individuals', where 'of' appears to be intended; left exactly as printed. The exclamation mark after 'Our response was affirmative!' is on the page. The parenthesis explaining the Secretary's motive is the memorandum-writer's gloss, not the Secretary's words - it is inside the answer block on the page and I have kept it in place rather than silently dropping it. The answer is attributed on the page to CPT Atwater; see the pdf p2 note on the Atwater rank inconsistency. - the page cites no source, report or reference for any of the claims made about Soviet experiments.

“(c) Q: What have you done to ensure you comply with applicable DoD human use directives? A: We have coordinated activities with MG Rapmund, Assistant Surgeon General for Research and Development and his staff to ensure that the project is in compliance with all applicable directives. Additionally, we have obtained a legal opinion from the Army General Consul that the project complies with applicable directives. 3. (U) Answers provided to Secretary Marsh and Assistant Secretary Spurlock satisfied their questions.”

THIS IS THE PAGE THAT IDENTIFIES THE AUDIENCE. The briefing script itself (pdf p1-13) addresses only an unnamed 'SIR'; it is this closing paragraph that supplies the names. NAMES, all surname-only on the page: 'Secretary Marsh' (the Secretary of the Army), 'Assistant Secretary Spurlock' - who is also headed 'Mr. Spurlock' at paragraph 2 on this page - and 'MG Rapmund'. No first names or initials appear for any of them anywhere in this file. PRINTED PAGE NUMBER: this page carries a printed '2' centred at the foot, the only printed page number anywhere in the file; pdf p14 is its unnumbered first page. 'General Consul' misspelled again, left as typed. Paragraph 3 is marked '(U)' while paragraphs 1 and 2 are '(S/CL-4/NOFORN)'. This page also contains material about the handling and reassignment of an individual project member; that is administrative rather than personal and is quoted nowhere here because it adds nothing to the record.