Memorandum for Record: CG INSCOM visit, 11 July 1984 (CENTER LANE)
What this is
That on 11 July 1984 BG Soyster, COL Kirk, COL Powers and Mr. Del Toro received a three-and-a-half hour briefing on the INSCOM CENTER LANE Project from LTC Buzby and at least one further briefer whose name is withheld.
That in July 1984 the Commanding General asked who had been tasked for Gondola Wish, why S&IA money was funding the project, whether SECDEF approval had ever been sought, and whether Senator Wallop had reversed his position on GDIP use.
That the briefing covered a staged training progression referred to as Stage 6 and Stage 7, the operation of biomonitoring equipment, and the sourcing of the project's Remote Viewers.
That in July 1984 the Commanding General of INSCOM described the CENTER LANE project as producing good results while doubting that INSCOM was the right home for it, and said the welfare of the assigned personnel would weigh in his decision.
That FY85 funds had already been set aside for the CENTER LANE project, that no table of distribution and allowances was expected for at least three years even if the project were cleared for the GDIP, and that the Commanding General undertook to decide the project's future within the week.
5 passages read · 2 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at cia.gov/readingroom →5 passages read
“IAGPA-F-SD 12 July 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: CG, INSCOM Visit, 11 July 1984 (U) 1. (S/CL4/NOFORN) On 11 July 1984, BG Soyster, COL Kirk, COL Powers and Mr. Del Toro were briefed by LTC Buzby and [REDACTED] [REDACTED] concerning the INSCOM CENTER LANE Project (ICLP). The briefing lasted from approximately 1430 to approximately 1800 hours.”
The two redactions are solid black boxes, each marked SG1J in the margin. One falls at the end of the first line after 'LTC Buzby and' and one at the start of the second line, so the number of withheld names cannot be determined from the page - it may be one name spanning the break or two. I have marked both boxes rather than assume. The memorandum is stamped CENTER LANE with the warning notice 'SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM / RESTRICT DISSEMINATION TO THOSE WITH VERIFIED ACCESS' and a handwritten 'CATEGORY CL 4'.
“2. (U) During the briefing the following questions were asked. Unless otherwise indicated the questions were asked by the CG: a (U) Who was tasked for Gondola Wish? b. (U) Why are S&IA monies being used? c. (U) Have you ever gone to SECDEF for approval for the project? d. (U) The CG stated that he thought going to the INSCOM Human Use Board was a good idea. e. (U) Has Senator Wallop reversed his stand on the use of the GDIP? f. (U) When shown the personnel utilization chart, the CG asked were the same people going through training for the different years shown on the chart.”
Subparagraph 'a' is printed without a full stop after the letter, unlike b through f; as printed. Question a shows that GONDOLA WISH, cancelled in 1978, was still a live question for INSCOM's Commanding General in 1984 - recorded as what the page carries, no connection proposed. Question d is not a question but a statement, though listed among the questions; as printed.
“g. (U) COL Powers asked if the man who finished Stage 6 would now be going on to Stage 7. h. (U) The CG asked who we would get to operate the biomonitoring equipment? i. (S/CL2/NOFORN) The CG made the comment that for CENTER LANE to be really effective required a receptive user. j. (S/CL2/NOFORN) COL Powers asked where we got our Remote Viewers from?”
Subparagraph g refers to a single unnamed individual by his training stage. No name, unit or identifying detail is given, so no section 6 privacy question arises on this page.
“3. (S/CL3/NOFORN) The CG was very candid in his comments. Prior to the briefing he stated that ICLP was ‘plowing new ground.’ He was not sure, however, if INSCOM was the one who should be plowing that ground. The CG stated on several occasions that ICLP was producing good results. He also stated that people who had come in contact with the project spoke highly of the dedication and professionalism of the people assigned to the project and that the welfare of these people would be a primary consideration in any decision he made concerning the project.”
This is the CG's assessment as recorded by a subordinate officer present at the briefing; it is a memorandum for record, not a transcript. The CG is not named anywhere on either page - he is referred to throughout as 'the CG'. BG Soyster is named in paragraph 1 as one of those briefed; the page does not state that Soyster is the CG, and the memorandum should not be cited as though it does.
“COL Kirk stated that this was no problem as the monies used by ICLP were only a drop in the barrel when compared to INSCOM'S overall budget and that funds had already been set aside for FY 85 for ICLP. Mr. Del Toro spoke strongly in favor of the project and suggested it be used by the US Army much more in the future. The CG stated that should ICLP be cleared for the GDIP, there was still no chance of getting a TDA approved for at least the next three years. 4. (S/CL2/NOFORN) After the briefing, the CG toured the CENTER LANE facilities and made several favorable comments. The CG stated that we would have his decision on the future of the project soon. LTC Buzby pushed for an early decision because the deadline was approaching for committing funds for new contracts. The CG agreed to have a decision by the end of the week.”
'a drop in the barrel' is as printed - not corrected to 'a drop in the bucket'. 'INSCOM'S' with a capital S is as printed. The memorandum is signed 'WILLIAM G. RAY / CPT, MI'. NAME TRAP: William G. Ray is not Rep. William G. Bray, the 1966 congressman flagged in section 7 of the brief. Similar name, different person, different decade.
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
Nothing on this map rests on this document yet, and nothing has been tested against it. It is here because it is held.