COMMENTS ON RV AND PK INVESTIGATIONS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230034-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 7, 1998
• Sequence Number: 34
• Publication Date: October 2, 1979
• Content Type: MEMO

C 0 11
k)L .Onnrnvprl For Rplaacsa9l(1?~f(li AL1Ai-rf F9 2r'1R9~(IA~BRAIA(119(1(19~(1(l~d-R ~~
NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER
CHINA LAKE, CALIFORNIA 93555
From: Frank Cartwright
To: Chairman, Grill Flame Committee
015/WFC: si
Reg 015-015-79
2 October 1979
Subj: Comments on RV and PK Investigations
1. This letter is by way of an interim report on my assessment of Grill
Flame activities as observed to date. (The response to the Davis questions
and critique of our committee reports will follow.) I am submitting this
because of a perception that our committee's ultimate findings and recom-
mendations should, perhaps, embrace more than an assessment of the specific
Grill Flame tasks now on going.
2. My understanding of the current DoD interest in performing PK and RV
experiments on a scientific basis (rather than on an engineering or appli-
cations basis) is that proof of existence of either phenomenon would compel
major effort to exploit military applications of such phenomena. In partic-
ular, the RV phenomenon, if it exists, represents a catastrophic military
deficiency if left unexploited. I believe the following observations should
be kept in mind in this regard.
(a) The proof of existence of a newly observed physical effect is
extremely difficult almost by the fundamental premises of the scientific
method. Phenomena which require even just a modification or extension of
presently known "laws" of physics have always required detailed, and repeated
physical measurements. (Interaction with other bodies, electro-magnetic
fields, etc., etc.)
Successful accomplishment of a definitive experiment which establishes
the existence of psychic interaction with the material world in an experi-
mental program of a few years is, I believe, extremely improbable.
Performance of such a (repeatable) experiment would require, I believe,
physical measurements, using physical measuring devices, in which the
psychic phenomenon always produces the identical effect on the measuring
devices. Otherwise, it cannot.be said that the observed effect is uniquely
caused by the psychic "interaction". I know of no major accepted modifi-
cations of physical "laws" which have been based on experiments which have
not established that the purported cause of an effect is always present in
the manifestation of the effect, and that the effect is never present without
the purported cause. An unproved proposed natural mechanism whose effect
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230034-8
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230W -815-015-79
2 October 1979
Subj: Comments on RV and PK Investigations
can be otherwise explained by the operation of other already proved
mechanisms will not, in general, be accepted as an explanation of
nature. (This may sound like a tract from the Tobacco Institute, but
read on!) In essence, I appeal to the maxim of Occam's Razor, (which
demands the simplest possible explanation of natural events.) Coin-
cidence or fraud, no matter how improbable, are more acceptable, (to
Occam), as an explanation of an unusual event than an addition to the
conventional set of natural laws. And most of the scientific community
are Occams. (e.g.: Norbert Wiener, in his assessment of his friend
Rhine's experiments). The impossibility of an unusual event without
such a new natural law must be proven before a psychic/physics inter-
action will be accepted by "hard science." (You'll excuse the expression?)
Thus the demonstration of the unlikelihood of coincidence as an
explanation of PK or RV experiences does not suffice to prove the
existence of psychic-physical interaction. Someday, when the electro-
chemical manifestations of the brain are more clearly understood, and
linked in a cause-effect relationship to thoughts (such as images),
a physical measurement (such asEEG wave forms) of a "viewer" can be
uniquely linked to a remote "view". Until such is accomplished, "proof"
of physical/psychic occurrences will not be accepted by the Occams.
(I am an Occam.)
The conclusion of all this is that the expectation of an existence
proof of psychic-physical interaction is a forlorn one, if near term
results are anticipated from Grill Flame.
(b) In spite of the inevitable failure of the "it can't be chance-
chance is too improbable" experiments to prove RV-PK phenomena, such
experiments can force the observation that something may be missing in
the present set of physical laws, and thus encourage development of
physical means to measure the phenomena. (The Bohm/Capra School of
thought would articulate this as Eastern science driving the attention
of Western science to new arenas of investigation.) Thus properly
executed PK-RV probability experiments, whose goal is solely to call
the attention of neuro-chemical-physical science to an improbable set
of coincidences would be scientifically justified. The crucial element
is the intent of such experiments; i.e., not the proof of a psychic-
physical link, but the stimulation of physical measurements experiments
to explore such a link. (There are many experiments being performed
to identify the carcinogens in tobacco smoke).
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230034-8
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10: CIA-RDP96-00788R001230I13408 5-79
2 October 1979
Subj: Comments on RV and PK Investigations
(c) The failure to understand or even posit the existence of a
mechanism (or "law") controlling certain natural occurrences has not,
in the past, prevented profound social benefit in applying such phe-
nomena. (The magnetic compass provided accurate navigation before,
during, and after its physics was understood. Bread mold was admin-
istered before penicillin was isolated, identified and employed by the
medical community). The criterion of proof of existence of a new and
peculiar law of nature is not a determining factor in the decision
to employ an observed effect. (Lots of scientific people stopped
smoking in the fifties.) The sole criterion for applying a procedure
for social benefit is: does it work? We need no understanding as to
why or how it works-we need only to discern what procedures are to
be invoked to make it work. We can "work in the dark"-we need only
to know, "if we do A, B follows-if we don't do A, B won't follow".
But we do need to ascertain the reliability of the formula. If the
B result occurs only 50% of the time we need to know it. The suggestion
is, then, that we're interested in pragmatic engineering, not scientific
principles. Pragmatic engineering is of vast social use, but, perhaps,
of minimal scientific use.
3. The observations made in (a), (b), and (c), above, have led me to
recommend that the objective of this committee be concentrated solely
on ascertaining the means to establish the reliability of RV in the
absence of proof of its existence. This is no subtle conclusion. It
does not require experiments to prove existence. (RV can be utilized
,without an Occam-satisfying proof). It does not require knowledge of
the mechanism. (An unknown mechanism, subjected to consistent procedures
will produce consistent results.) It does not inhibit scientific
research. (It bypasses it.)
The conclusion does require a program of reliability testing (not
proof testing). Just such a program seems to exist at INSCOM, but
even there the use of double blind procedures, and other devices to
insure scientific rigor does not, any longer, seem necessary. (The
integrity of the personnel has been well enough established.)
I recognize that the search for viewing reliability is akin to proof
of viewing. But the goal, being different, could well lead to an unbur-
dening of the INSCOM people, by dropping scientific rigor. I propose,
in short, that anecdotal events be emphasized. Declaring the INSCOM
apparatus as operational, albeit of low reliability at present, would
I believe, cause the apparatus to be "usefully" employed and provide
the operators the means to increase the reliability.
4. The PK experiments are not, in my view pseudo-science, but, rather
irrelevant science. The use of the accoutrements of modern technology to
repeat an experiment previously performed many times will not, even given
a positive result, "establish" the truth of PK, much less RV.
Q4axt'Y2- C
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00788R001200230034-8