A Special National Intelligence Estimate - 1961

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by nivek, Jul 1, 2020.

  1. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,688
    "A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961
    By Keith Basterfield

    Introduction

    A document titled " A Special National Intelligence Estimate" no. 1-61-E, completed on 5 November 1961, titled "Critical Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and Alllies" has been circulating on the Internet for some time; possibly quite a long time.

    Its origins


    Where did the document first surface? It seems that it first came to light here. On that website, the introduction states "To our knowledge this is not on any Web Page except this one. Originally leaked to Tim Cooper and sent by Bob Wood, thanks to both." This site, ufoconspiracy.com, provides links to the four page document. It also states "In 2000 Washington DC OSI sources according to Rick Doty verified this document as real, but is a retype of the original." There is an 8 August 2000 email from Doty to Wood referring to a number of documents. In part, it states: "Document #5- Restricted Data Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This document is authentic based on a source document contained in a government file. This document was retyped from its original." The document has a "Received July 21 2000" rubber stamp on it.

    In recent times, however, this 1961 document, has generated much discussion, both pro and against. It is not my intention to enter into any discussion for or against the genuineness of this document, simply to analyze part of the contents, to see if we can gain further insight into it. For the purposes of clarity, when I am speaking of this document, I will use the label "the 1961 document."

    Images of the document


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Basis for action

    Page 2 of the document, is headed "Basis for action" and starts off with the words, "In pursuant to Presidential National Security Action Memorandum No. 70..." I wondered what this memorandum was about?

    I found a copy of the Memorandum is held at the J. F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum website. The folder description states:

    This folder contains copies of National Security Action Memorandum number 70 (NSAM70) to Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara from President John F. Kennedy requesting a report on Berlin and progress in obtaining a committment from NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies for an increase in military forces."

    The actual document is four pages long, I image these pages below:



    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    You immediately notice that there are two copies of the Memorandum, one signed copy is dated 15 August 1961, and the other, unsigned one, labelled "copy" is dated 15 August 1962. The third document, signed by Taylor is dated 18 August 1961.

    So, if this Memorandum dated 15 August 1961 was one of the bases for the production of the 1961 document, then obviously, the action, in terms of a report of some kind would be dated later than 15 August 1961. The 1961 document stated that it was completed on 5 November 1961.

    The second "Basis for Action" mentioned on page 2 is "...and a separate action item levied against the DCI for the production of an SNIE regarding what information concerning unidentified flying objects has been collected and evauluated in the context of nuclear war possibilities."

    Can we find such an "action item?"


    I wondered if it were possible to find such an action tasked of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? I therefore went to the CIA CREST website Here I used a range of keywords searching the CREST database, including unidentified flying objects; nuclear war possibilities; SNIE; Special National Intelligence Estimate, etc. I found no such action item. That doesn't mean there isn't such a document, just that I could not find it in CREST. I also looked on the wider Internet, for documentation about this second basis for action, but was unable to locate anything relevant.

    DCID 5/1

    The 1961 document then goes on to say "DCID 5/1 was authorized by the USIB."

    Now, DCID stands for a Director of Central Intelligence Directive, and USIB stands for United States Intelligence Board.

    A search of the CIA CREST website for DCID 5/1 found a heading "Compilation of Intelligence Directives" and a document labelled "Compilation of Intelligence Directives" dated 4 March 1980, Here DCID 5/1 has the title "Coordination of US Clandestine Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Activities Abroad."

    A further CIA document dated 22 March 1960 states that DCID 5/1 was issued on 15 September 1958, and states "The net effect of the news series is to increase the degree of control over military clandestine intelligence activities by the DCI's representitives in the field."

    The 1961 (completed on 5 November 1961) document appears to be saying that DCID 5/1 was authorized in connection with the 1961 "basis for action." However, DCID 5/1 was issued on 15 September 1958, three years earlier.

    What is an NIE and SNIE?

    Let us return to basics. What was a National Intelligence Estimate and what was a Special National Intelligence Estimate? Below, I image a National Intelligence Estimate dated 5 October 1961.

    [​IMG]

    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000261335.pdf

    An NIE was a document submitted by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, which was concurred in by the United States Intelligence Board, for distribution to various places. A Special National Intelligence Estimate had the same purpose. Below I image a copy of a SNIE from 25 April 1961.

    [​IMG]

    https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000272879.pdf
    Again, SNIEs were submitted by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and concurred by the USIB for distribution to various places. The distribution for the above SNIE was The White House, National Security Council, Deparment of State, Department of Defense, Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    Below is an image of the front cover of the 1961 document.

    [​IMG]

    It is clearly different from a NIE or SNIE submitted by the Director of Central Intelligence, in a number of ways, e.g. CIA NIEs and SNIEs are numbered, yet the 1961 document has a letter in its numbering system, i.e. 1-61-E; that titles of CIA NIEs and SNIEs are always in capital letters, not so with the 1961 document. Yet the 1961 document states it is "A Special National Intelligence Estimate."

    I used the CIA CREST website to look for a SNIE with the same title, contents etc. of the 1961 document, but failed to find any reference to such an SNIE.

    So, can anyone else issue an NIE or SNIE?

    The 1961 document itself states that it was prepared by:

    NSA Scientific Advisory Board (NSASAB)

    Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC)

    The Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee (GMAIC)

    The Scientific Intelligence Committee. (SIC)

    For the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

    I went to the website for the J F Kennedy Library and Museum and looked at the available documents there, concerning the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. There were 438 records revealed, but there was no sign of a copy of the 1961 document in that collection.

    Points from Paul Dean's blog

    1. Page 2 of the 1961 document refers to JRDB specialists. Paul states this is The Joint Research and Development Board and says this went out of existence in 1948-1949, to be replaced by the Research and Development Board which was itself, abolished in 1953. I found a history of the Board.

    2. Page 2 of the 1961 document mentions both JNEIC and JAEIC. Paul says that The Joint Nuclear Energy Intelligence Committee was replaced by the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee in 1948, and that only the JAEIC existed in 1961. I found a document dated October 1949 where the JNEIC makes an estimate. So it was still in existence in 1949. I also found another CIA document which shows that the JAEIC was in existence in January 1961. So, regardless of exactly what year the JNEIC changed to the JAEIC, it appears that there was only the JAEIC in November 1961, when the 1961 document was issued.

    3. Page 2 of the 1961 document mentions the DD/O. Paul takes this to refer to the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations. CIA's Directorate for Operations didn't exist until 1973. In 1961 it was the Directorate for Plans, and the Deputy Director would have been refered to as DD/P.

    [​IMG]

    4. Page two of the 1961 document also refers to the FBIS which Paul says is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service which did not exist in 1961. In that year, it was named the Foreign Broadcast Information Division (FBID.) In 1965 it was renamed the Foreign Broadcast Information Service.

    [​IMG]

    5. On page 4 of the 1961 document there is mention of LANL. Paul says this is a reference to The Las Alamos National Laboratory but says that in 1961, its name was the Las Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL.) In 1981 LASL officially became LANL. In an email to Joe Murgia, Dr. Eric Davis disputes this, and explains why LANL could be found in a document from 1961. The critical part of this email is that Davis says "The author of the Nov. 1961 SNIE was a nuclear SME who served a TDY at the AEC in the late-50s and was thus fully exposed to LASL scenior scientists and management's use of LANL in some of the documents." I believe SME refes to "subject matter expert;" TDY is a "tour of duty;" and AEC is the Atomic Energy Commission.

    6. DCID 5/1 issued December 1959. Paul states that it had nothing to do with UFOs, as I have indicated above.

    7. NASM70 issued August 1961. Paul says this has nothing to do with UFOs. I explored this earlier in this post.

    8. The document has been sitting online for a long time at Majestic Files : http://j.mp/MindSpaceApocalypse : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive which was owned by "Peregrine Commuincation" which Paul says involved Robert M. Collins; Richard C. Doty and Timothy Cooper.



    In summary, Paul is indicating that there are items mentioned in the1961 document, which should not be in a genuine 1961 document.

    A closing aside

    The 1961 document title page contains the words "MJTWELVE," and page 2 refers to CIA MJTWELVE consultants" and later, "MJTWELVE advisory group," which has rung alarm bells with a number of researchers, due to an intense debate which ran for many years about the genuiness or otherwise of a number of documents about MJ12.

    Was there ever a "real" US government MJ12 group? I draw the readers' attention to an entry in Jacques Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume 3" page 349, dated 23 October 1988, which refers to a discussion between Vallee and Christopher (Kit) Green, which reads:

    "He assured me that there was indeed an MJ-12, which had employed the list of scientists quoted by the ufologists, including Menzel, and that it had reported to Truman and Eisenhower. But that project had nothing to do with UFOs; it was a vast program to study impacts and possible reaction against a psychological warfare attack directed at the United States. The story is right out of my novel Alintel. This version of MJ-12 still exists, he conceeded when I pressed him. Someone has been spinning it through the UFO rumour mill as part of the government Alien coverup, but what is the purpose of this manipulation?"

    In conclusion


    Having set out all of the above, I will leave it to the discerning reader to examine the data in an unbiased way, and form their own opinion on this 1961 document. I welcome points of correction; clarification; et. as I grapple to understand the contents of the 1961 document.

    .
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,688
    "A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961 - Part 2
    By Keith Basterfield

    Introduction

    Yesterday, I posted a piece about "A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961, which has recently resurfaced. This blog post provides additional information, to enable the reader to decide for themselves on the question of whether or not it is a genuine document.

    Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

    [​IMG]


    The 1961 document, on the front page, states that it was prepared for "The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board." According to the White House website , today:

    "The President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB), with its component Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), is an independent element within the Executive Office of the President. For more than six decades the PIAB has offered the President expert advice on the conduct of U.S. intelligence. Throughout its history, the board has closely guarded its special status by making every effort to ensure the strict confidentiality of its deliberations and communications, and the objectivity of its advice. As a result, the Board has had immense and long-lasting impacts on the structure, management, and operations of U.S. intelligence."

    History of the Board

    In 1956, President Eisenhower established the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence. In May 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, the name changed to The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. President George W. Bush changed its name to the current President's Intelligence Advisory Board. So by 5 November 1961, when the 1961 document said it was completed, the name was as per the 1961 document, i.e. The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

    I found reference to a couple of books about the Board, namely:

    Absher, K.M., Desch, M. C. & Popadiuk, R. 2010. "The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board." Oxford Press. Oxford.

    Absher, K. M., Desch, M. C. & Popadiuk, R. 2012. "Privileged and Confidential: The Secret History of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board." Uni. of Kentucky.

    Interestingly, the blurb for the 2012 book says, among other things, that:

    " ... is a committee that meets behind locked doors and leaves its paper trail in classified files. The President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) is one of the most secretive and potentially influential segments of the US Intelligence Community." It would seem like the chances of locating the 1961 document in archives of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are slim.

    Who was the SNIE ultimately aimed at?

    So, by submitting a "Special National Intelligence Estimate" to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, you were effectively providing advice that might then by relayed to the President.

    Can we find a record of the 1961 document in the archives of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board? As I mentioned in yesterday's blog post, I went to the J. F. Kennedy Library and Museum website and typed in the words "Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board." I examined the several hundred response titles, but found no reference to the 1961 document.

    Readers of yesterday's blog, may recall that the 1961 document, on page 2, under "Basis for action" stated that the document was responding "In pursuant to Presidential National Security Action Memorandum No. 70..." which I found a copy of, and that it related to issues with NATO about Berlin. It is logical that if the President issued a NSAM No. 70, that the response would go back through the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for relay to the President. However, it should be noted that NSAM No. 70 was not about UFOs.

    TOP SECRET UMBRA

    The 1961 document has the words "TOP SECRET UMBRA" on it. "TOP SECRET" is of course a security classification. "UMBRA" was one of three codewords placed after the words "TOP SECRET," indicating a level of sensitivity. "UMBRA" was used for the highest level of sensitivity (category 3.) According to one website I consulted the use of "UMBRA" terminated in 1999. So, the question is, was "TOP SECRET UMBRA" in use in 1961?

    I checked with researcher and author Tim McMillan, who advised me that "UMBRA didn't come into existence until 1968." To fact check this, I turned to the definitive work on the US intelligence community, namely Jeffrey T Richelson's book "The U.S. Intelligence Community" 2015. epub. On page 744 I found the following:

    "For many years Special Intelligence contained three primary compartments indicating different levels of sensitivity - UMBRA, SPOKE and MORAY- whose sensitivity was indicated by the prefixes attached to each codeword: TOP SECRET for UMBRA, and SECRET for SPOKE and MORAY. UMBRA, beginning in 1968, became the successor to the post World War II SI codewords..."

    In a 22 June 2020 blog post on UFOjoe.net Dr. Eric Davis has this to say about the question:

    "Regarding the Umbra stamp, I don't care to get into debates with people that don't know how the government works now or in the past. Classified documents get different markings applied to them over time as part of a reclassification/declassification review process."

    Foreign Broadcasting Information Service

    One of Paul Dean's points in his recent blog on the 1961 document was that page 2 of the 1961 document refers to the FBIS, which Paul says is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service which did not exist in 1961. He stated, based on a document he found, that in that year it was named the Foreign Broadcast Information Division (FBID). Only in 1965 was it renamed the Foreign Broadcast Information Service.

    However, US researcher Douglas D. Johnson contacted Paul and I, to say that he had found a CIA document dated 1 April 1959 which was used the words "Foreign Broadcasting Information Service" in its title, and a second CIA document dated 1 December 1960 which again used the words "Foreign Broadcasting Information Service" in its title. I found that there were numerous examples of CIA "Foreign Broadcasting Information Service" documents from 1961. Thus the use of the term FBIS in the 1961 document is not unusual.

    Final words for today

    I hope that the contents of yesterday's and today's blogs, will provide better information upon which to basis a judgement as to whether or not, the 1961 document is genuine.

    I note from Joe Murgia's blog posts about this matter, that at least one person, Dr. Eric Davis indicates that he is aware of the author of the SNIE. In Davis' own words: "The author of the Nov. 1961 SNIE was a nuclear SME who served a TDY at the AEC in the late-50s."

    In a 27 June 2020 update to his 22 June 2020 blog post, Joe Murgia wrote:

    "I heard from the source earlier today and he gave me further details on how the document was authenticated and his opinion on the work of a few in UFOlogy. He saw the original SNIE in an office he was a consultant to at a 3-letter agency concerning non-human, non-terrestrial, non-natural UAPs. My source knows who the author of the SNIE is and his job title at the agency."

    I hope Joe is able to provide us with further clarification on the "consultant to at a 3-letter agency concerning non-human, non-terrestrial, non-natural UAPs." That certainly sounds very intriguing.

    .
     
  3. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    Joe has been on the twitter lately saying some "sources" have told him some very intresting things.

    Sure. Intresting things or disinformation?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    Joe seems to be saying the same thing Delonge has been spewing out, now on twitter. So core of UFO phenomena to him: Interdimensional vampires that love to drink our sweet human suffering, and apparently only the power of love can defeat them. What the actual fuck?!

    Mark O'Connell put it very nicely

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  5. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,688
    He certainly thinks Gnostic texts hold insights into understanding UFOs...Could this be one of his "sources"?...

     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    Hes digging too deep into the rabbit hole, whatever "sources" he claims he has followed, he cant be certain their not feeding him bs. If this is what hes getting, id say its definately bs. Obfuscation, fake things. I fear hes turning into another Delonge.

    I find it funny that Elizondo claims there was an alleged group inside that didnt want anything to do with the phenomenon cause they were superstitious and feared it was the "work of the devil". Now we have a seemingly secret anonymous inside source that talks about what its really about, and what do they seemingly give Delonge or Joe: a story that is just about as ludicrous? What the hell is going on there?
    [​IMG]

    And the secret keepers, of course it paints them all as heroes, why wouldnt it. Two important things here tough, just that you dont forget:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    Listening to Luis Elizondo and then Tom Delonge is like listening to Carl Sagan and after that David Icke, and theyre both from the same company. Sometimes i cant tell what the hell is going on anymore. Very mixed messages.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
  8. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419


    Indeed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,688
    Here's a bit more from both of them...

     
  10. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    I think this kind of speculation is very dangerous speculation. PostDisclosures question is very valid. First of all who are the "insiders" giving out these kinds of things, how did they find it out and from whom/what supposedly, and how can it be proved?

    If it turns out theres aliens here, and then something like this is given for their motives, whats the next step? Were gonna declare an interstellar war or a quarantine border(or maybe a Trump style "space wall" or a guarded planet) based on what? Some feelings, or speculations of stuff we cant even see, about an alien race whose motivations can be a total mystery, maybe not even possible to be fully grasped by human beings?

    Besides it could be this is the secret keepers saying this, people who have already cried wolf. Multiple times. Why should i or anyone trust anything they say, thats the problem when you cry wolf. Are you trying to also tell me these people dont have their own intrests mixed in this? Remember that those who control the secrets can also control the narrative, and can provide us with any kind of version of "truth" that they wish, should they start letting some of it out.

    This is the main problem with any kind of possible disclosure that is coming from a government, that is known to lie, known to be imperialistic, oligarchic and elite serving and having large budgets and preferences to expansion, militarism, national security and maintaining its power. What kind of narrative are we presented, and what is the goal of it?

    Ask yourselves, do we have wise men in power that can potentially handle this fairly? Do i see wise men leading in the current world? Or do i see clueless bunglers, criminals, corrupt, paranoid and arrogant people, psychopaths and dictators? What kind of narrative do you expect them to represent to us?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  11. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,688
    I first read of something like this a few years ago, research from the Italians, here is a thread on it, and Dr. Malanga, much of this was obtained from hypnotic regression I think, read the first post, its interesting to read if nothing else...

    Alien Interferences

    ...
     
  12. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    419
    [​IMG]

    Are there any ways that are not done via hypnosis, remote viewing, channeling or other rather dubious methods? We cant really trust info that comes from these kinds of sources.

    Have they captured and interviewed an alien perhaps? Or did one of them leave their plans in the open on some desk and they stole and translated it like in "To Serve Man"(Its a cook book!).:tongue8:



    Im taking what Delonge and Joe claim "theyve heard" with a very big douse of salt. At best it sounds like wild speculation, at worst outright spinning and story telling, to put it mildly. Its quite possible theyre in a process of spawning another couple of Bennewitzs here, whoever it is that supposedly is feeding them this from the "inside".

    And I fear Joe Murgia goes bye bye in the head department, if he starts delving even deeper into this muddy swamp without maintaining some objectivity and skepticism. It seem that Tom is already in the Wonderland eagerly listening to these storytellers, whoever they are. Tom may be gullible enough to believe this shit, but if you try to bring this to the world, especially without some very convincing proof, good luck with that, heh.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Dean

    Dean Adept Dabbler

    Messages:
    109
    Documents and observations pertinent to Joe Murgia-promoted
    1961 UFO-nuke "Special National Intelligence Estimate 1-61-E"


    As discussed higher in this thread, over the past couple of weeks, Joe Murgia ("UFOJoe"), on his blog and on Twitter (blog at UFOJoe.net; @UFOJoe11on Twitter) has promoted the authenticity of a four-page document that purports to be a "Special National Intelligence Estimate" (SNIE), titled "Critical Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and Allies." The document (attached in PDF, along with a jpg image of the first page) presents itself as the product of "U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND MJTWELVE OPERATIONS." It also contains the notations "No. 1-61-E" and "Completed on 5 November 1961."

    In a June 22 blog post, found at 1961 Crash Retrieval Document: Typos, UMBRA, Dr. Eric Davis And “A Guy Named Roy” » Joe Murgia, Joe Murgia wrote:

    I believe it to be a legitimate document because of the following: An independent source with the appropriate security clearances and need-to-know access had authenticated and validated the Nov. 1961 SNIE with several SIS-level authorities at the U.S. government agency that owns it, so this document is not any hoax or forgery. (SIS = Senior Intelligence Service ~Joe) And the same source added this little tidbit: The author of this SNIE report has a documented history of leaving various, uncorrected typos in their final reports. What?! That piece of information might just be my favorite part of this entire story!!! That tells you just how thorough this source (and others like him/her) are with this material. They need to make sure before they put their reputation behind it. And I realize it’s an anonymous source but I know who they are and I have no doubt this document is legitimate.

    In a June 27 update (same URL) Murgia wrote:

    I heard from the source earlier today and he gave me further details on how the document was authenticated and his opinion on the work of a few in UFOlogy. He saw the original SNIE in an office he was a consultant to at a 3-letter agency concerning non-human, non-terrestrial, non-natural UAPs. My source knows who the author of the SNIE is and his job title at the agency. Various researchers in UFOlogy literally have no clue what is what in the pre-1970s black programs world. Their point-by-point arguments are wrong because they don’t know the context and precedence behind the SNIE. It is not a Doty document and it is not a James Jesus Angleton document, nor is it a Bill Cooper document. My source saw the original SNIE at the agency and received verification of its authenticity from agency leadership and archivists during official briefings on non-terrestrial UAP events. The SNIE author is long-ago retired.
    Paul James Dean and Keith Basterfield have published blog posts that discussed multiple problematic or questionable aspects of the 1-61-E document:

    UFOs - Documenting The Evidence

    Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - scientific research: "A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961 - Part 2

    Some days ago, I contributed a few small comments on and supplements to the Paul Dean and Keith Basterfield blog posts. More recently I obtained a several additional items that I think pertinent, which I will now proceed to interject into the discussion.

    (1) I've obtained the attached 8-page National Security Council document that was issued January 24, 1964 with a SECRET classification. It was declassified over 30 years later. (I think that the handwritten declassification date is 4-14-97, but the marking is somewhat unclear.) The document is a "list [that] includes all National Intelligence Estimates published since 1961 [i.e., 1961 through 1963, inclusive] which IL [the NSC Information Liaison] considers still generally useful..." The list includes Special National Intelligence Estimates as well as NIEs. The purported November 5, 1961 UFO-nuke SNIE is not on this originally classified list, nor is any similar topic listed.

    (2) Some (probably most) of the NIEs and SNIEs that appear on the January 24, 1964 NSC list have since been declassified, albeit with redactions in some cases. In order to provide a basis for comparison with the Murgia-promoted UFO-nuke document, I am attaching one of the then-most-recent listed NIEs -- "Soviet Capabilities for Strategic Attack," issued Oct. 18, 1963. This Oct. 18, 1963 NIE was issued as TOP SECRET CONTROLLED DISSEM. The third page of the document was a memo from the Director of Central Intelligence that specified that "no revelation of its existence [may] be made to unauthorized persons." Despite this tight control, the title of this NIE appears on the Jan. 1964 NSC list, even though the list itself was classified at the less restrictive level of SECRET. (On the list, the Oct. 18, 1963 NIE was marked as "RD only" --"RD" meaning "Restricted Data," the term applied to certain specially controlled nuclear-related information, not to be confused with the low-level "restricted" category of classification.)

    (3) Yesterday, I consulted an academic historian with extensive expertise in the history of the Intelligence Community (and, so far as I could tell, no previous involvement in UFO-related controversies). This individual did not directly examine the 1-61-E document -- which, after all, is presented as still being highly classified -- but did review Murgia's two statements that I have quoted in total above, summarizing what Murgia reported that the anonymous "independent source" says about the origins of 1-61-E. This is verbatim the nub of what the expert historian told me:

    [If authentic, the purported SNIE] would appear on the lists of NIEs and SNIEs that are in the files. Government offices continually indexed estimates. We know of many NIEs only through their appearance in an index, since the document itself has not been released....Intelligence estimates have no 'author'. They are consensus documents to which many whole agencies each add their snippet of text. There are CIA analysts who brag for the rest of their career that they got to write a few words in an estimate. SNIEs appear only after a long trail of paper, proposals, correspondence, drafts, etc. There’s never an SNIE all on its own. The procedure is this: the Office of National Estimates issues a request, including details of what to be included and a deadline, and parcels out responsibilities to different agencies. The agencies then assemble committees and prepare their parts. The different parts then go for review to all of the other agencies. Then you get to full drafts, which are circulated. So if a person claims to know the 'author' of an SNIE you can be sure that person has never had a job in intelligence.

    (4) The expert historian also directed me to a CIA historical document, originally written and classified SECRET in 1965 and 1976, which may be instructive. Note especially the second link, which lists the steps that were involved in the preparation of a National Intelligence Estimate during that era.

    The Law and Custom of the National Intelligence Estimate — Central Intelligence Agency

    II. The Making of an NIE — Central Intelligence Agency

    (5) I realize that the specialist historian's assessment regarding the claims of Murgia's anonymous "independent source" may be discounted by some, even though this falls squarely within that historian's field of expertise, because the historian also wishes to remain anonymous. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to locate persons not connected with ufology, with suitable expertise in the history of the production of National Intelligence Estimates, and/or in assessing the forensic attributes of purportedly classified or once-classified documents, to obtain independent assessments.

    (6) Another thing: The number on the UFO-nuke document, "1-61-E," is gibberish -- it bears no correspondence to the well-documented system by which NIEs and SNIEs were number-coded, beginning in 1953. According to the authoritative historical work by the highly regarding career CIA officer Sherman Kent, starting in 1953, the initial two-digit number stood for a geographical area; for example, "11" designated an NIE focused on the Soviet Union. The middle number, when present, stood for how many NIEs for that particular geographical area had been issued during the calendar year. A final two-digit number designated the year of publication. Thus, the number on the real 1963 NIE that I described in paragraph (2) above, 11-8-63, was the eighth Soviet-focused NIE issued in 1961.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sherman-
    kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates-collected-essays/making.html#rtoc12


    I have additional thoughts regarding the actual substantive content of the 1-61-E document -- if limited to a single adjective, I would choose "incoherent" -- but I will defer those comments to another occasion.

    -- @ddeanjohnson on Twitter
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
  14. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer tall, thin, irritable

    Messages:
    3,331
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page