GONDOLA WISH Assessment Report
What this is
That the GONDOLA WISH Assessment Report is dated 25 August 1978 and was prepared by the 902d Military Intelligence Group.
That GONDOLA WISH's stated technique was the out-of-the-body experience, and that the report's own Executive Summary distinguishes that technique from what SRI calls Remote Viewing.
That the report draws an explicit operational distinction between OOBE and SRI's Remote Viewing: in Remote Viewing the subject observes the target without perceiving himself present, in an OOBE he perceives himself present, and the OOBE product may include telepathic material as well as imagery.
That GONDOLA WISH's stated purpose was to bring the Soviet and East European parapsychology collection threat into all-source OPSEC support by training MI personnel to mimic Soviet collectors.
That Robert A. Monroe agreed to train MI personnel in OOBE for $2,000 in October-November 1978, and that Intelligence Contingency Funds for the fee were approved by BG John A. Smith, Jr. on 19 July 1978.
That in 1978 SRI told DIA it had not evaluated Monroe's technique, that SRI's own research was Remote Viewing rather than OOBE, and that Targ and Puthoff regarded Monroe as credible.
That as of 25 August 1978 the plan was a pilot programme of three MI personnel trained by Monroe in October-November 1978, with further training contingent on success.
7 passages read · 6 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at cia.gov/readingroom →7 passages read
“GONDOLA WISH ASSESSMENT REPORT (U) 25 August 1978 Prepared by: 902d Military Intelligence Group”
Cover sheet also carries the stamp NO FOREIGN DISSEM, a SECRET stamp struck through, the declassification block 'CLASSIFIED BY ACSI, DA / EXEMPT FROM GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652 / EXEMPTION CATEGORY 2 / DECLASSIFY ON 31 Dec 2008', a handwritten file reference 'SAVE-759-78', and a handwritten annotation in the top right that reads 'Excellent paper' followed by an illegible signature or initials. The annotation is handwritten by an unidentified hand; the page gives no name.
“The parapsychological technique to be used is known as out-of-the-body experience (OOBE). An OOBE is a parapsychological experience in which one's center of consciousness seems to be in a spatial location separate from that of one's physical body. An OOBE differs from what Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Menlo Park, CA, calls ‘Remote Viewing.’”
READ THIS BEFORE USING THE KNOWN SENTENCE. The brief lists as already known: 'An OOBE differs from what Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Menlo Park, CA, calls \'Remote Viewing.\'' attributed to 'Assessment Report, printed 1'. My transcription of the words matches exactly, with two differences worth recording. (1) The page uses straight double quotation marks around Remote Viewing, not single quotes. (2) The attribution 'printed 1' does not hold. The sentence ENDS at 'Remote Viewing.' only here, on pdf page 2, which is the Executive Summary and carries no printed page number. On the body page (pdf page 3), which is the page the project's own worked example in section 11 cites as printed 1 / pdf 3, the sentence does NOT end there - it continues 'in that during Remote Viewing the subject does not perceive himself to be at the target location, but only observing it.' See the next passage. One of the two placements is wrong and it matters, because section 9 check 2 tests the printed_page/pdf_page pair.
“(An OOBE is a parapsychological experience, either spontaneous or induced, in which one's center of consciousness seems to be in a spatial location separate from that of one's physical body. An OOBE differs from what Stanford Research Institute (SRI), Menlo Park, CA, calls ‘Remote Viewing,’ in that during Remote Viewing the subject does not perceive himself to be at the target location, but only observing it. In an OOBE, the subject perceives himself to be actually at the target location. The product of Remote Viewing is usually only a graphic depiction of the target area, whereas the product of an OOBE may include not only a graphic picture of the target location, but also a record of subliminal telepathic communication with individuals at the target location.)”
This passage runs across the page break: it begins on pdf page 3 and its final sentence completes at the top of pdf page 4. pdf page 3 carries NO printed page number - I cropped and enlarged the foot of the page to check, and there is only the 'Approved For Release' stamp. pdf page 4 is printed 2, pdf page 5 is printed 3, pdf page 6 is printed 4, so the body numbering starts at 2 on the second body leaf and the first body leaf is simply unnumbered. Per section 3 I have recorded printed_page as null rather than infer 1. This conflicts with the worked example in section 11 of the brief, which records printed_page 1 for this page.
“GONDOLA WISH is a program designed to integrate the Soviet and East European parapsychology intelligence collection threat into the all-source operations security (OPSEC) support scenario. This is to be accomplished by training MI personnel to mimic Soviet intelligence collectors, and then utilize these trained personnel to demonstrate the parapsychology intelligence collection threat, identify EEFI exploitable by parapsychological means, determine vulnerabilities, and develop and recommend countermeasures.”
Note the wording difference against the 1984 programme history (CIA-RDP96-00788R001100370005-6), which renders the same formula as 'psychoenergetic intelligence collection threat' and capitalises 'Operations Security'. This 1978 document says 'parapsychology intelligence collection threat' and lower-cases 'operations security'. Transcribed as printed in each case; do not normalise one to the other.
“Robert A. Monroe, Executive Director, MIAS, was eventually contacted, and agreed to conduct a training program in OOBE for MI personnel on a confidential basis for a fee of $2,000 during the months of October and November 1978. ICF for payment of the $2,000 training fee was approved by BG John A. Smith, Jr., Deputy Commander for Security, INSCOM, on 19 July 1978.”
The approval described here is the same action recorded on the Disposition Form CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160004-0, which carries John A. Smith, Jr.'s signature and the date 19 Jul 78. NAME TRAP: this BG John A. Smith, Jr. (Deputy Commander for Security, INSCOM) is not the MAJ. GENERAL S. SMITH (Commanding General, Fourth Air Force) listed on the Asilomar advisory committee in CIA-RDP80B01676R004100010095-4. Different people, different services.
“DIA then queried SRI scientists about Monroe. SRI representatives stated that they had not evaluated Monroe's teaching technique. SRI's research is with Remote Viewing, not OOBE, and SRI has had some success at teaching Remote Viewing. Scientists at SRI (Dr. Targ and Dr. Puthoff) also stated that they knew Monroe personally, and believed him to be a credible individual who has had parapsychological experiences which are not beyond present understanding.”
The page also records, in the same paragraph, that FTD 'has the mission to verify Soviet parapsychology research and development by duplicating known efforts of the Soviets. To this end, contracts have, in the past, been let to SRI because of their success with Remote Viewing.' The page gives Targ and Puthoff by surname and title only; no first names appear on this page.
“Monroe has agreed to train three MI personnel in OOBE at his laboratory during October and November 1978, for a fee of $2,000. This office is currently in the planning phase for this training, and is ready to proceed on schedule. This is to be a pilot training program. If the program is successful in generating the OOBE state, further training with Monroe may be negotiated to refine the technique and enhance the intelligence collection component of the OOBE.”
- the number of trainees is not stable across this batch. This page says three MI personnel. The 15 May 1978 memorandum for Chief, OPSEC Spt DIV (CIA-RDP96-00788R002000160003-1) says 'Present plans are to have two personnel receive this training' and then costs TDY 'for three individuals'. The 27 Oct 78 Information Paper (CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210021-9) says MIAS 'was briefly considered earlier this year to train three or four INSCOM Subjects'. Recorded as a discrepancy across pages, not resolved.
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.