Monday, July 6, 2020

Bob McGwier provides further information about his knowledge of the Wilson/Davis notes


On 5 July 2020, U.S. researcher Joe Murgia, drew our attention to a comment made by Dr. Bob McGwier, on the Facebook page of "Spaced Our Radio" host, Dave Scott. In a reply to another person, commenting about the Wilson/Davis notes, Dr. McGwier said:

"That is not the most interesting thing I've read. The most interesting thing I've read is contemporaneous mail from Thomas Wilson to someone else confirming the meeting and the content of the meeting BEFORE it was widely distributed..."

I later revisited that same Facebook page and found an additional comment from Dr. McGwier, which read:

"I believe there is sufficient evidence that the meeting was held and I cannot figure out what Eric Davis would get from lying. I lean towards accepting the meeting and the contents which are still unverified because we want the SAPs not just their existence."

Dr. McGwier provides more information

Joe, then provided a transcript of a short Facebook Messenger conversation he had with Dr. McGwier. This included the statement, by McGwier, that he knew Admiral Wilson through the Institute for Defense Analyses. For more information on this Institute please see further down in this blog. His short conversation raised further questions in my mind, so I reached out to Dr. McGwier, myself, and he kindly responded to my queries. With his permission, I provide the questions and answers, for the further information of blog readers.

Q1. Was the communication from Wilson to someone else, an email, a letter or some other form of communication? Which?

A1. Mail.

Q2. What were the circumstances which allowed you to see this communication?

A2. Happenstance, seredipitous, synchronicity? I was doing work in the intelligence community and a friend been sent the mail. He showed it to me and told me what he thought it meant. I could never forget Admiral Wilson. So this is a personal confidence but did not come from Wilson. I didn't think about it again until this all blew up again.

Q3. You mentioned to Joe that you thought this was in 2004/2005. However, where specificially were you when you saw the communication?

A3. Inside a USG government facility. The person was concerned that the mail might be classified. It may be.

Q4. At the time what were your thoughts upon seeing the contents of the communication?

A4. At that point in time I was a hard nosed scientist acting regularly as an Engineer/MacGayver in the US government and I thought it was probably crap. I put it out of my mind until recently.

Q5. What can you recall about the contents of the communication?

A5. Wilson was complaining about programs dealing with UFOs and crashes that he didn't have access to.

Q6. Do you recall who the receipient of the communication was?

A6. Yes. I do recall. That is what I am protecting for the time being.

Who is Bob McGwier?

His LinkedIn profile, provides a great deal of information about his career. I particularly note the following:

* Founder and Technical Adviser of HawkEye 360. September 2015 to the present

* Director of Research, Hume Center and Research Professor of ECE, Virginia Polytechnic . 2011 to the present

* Between 1984 and June 2011 he was a Member of Research Staff at the Center for Communications Research, Princeton, NJ, at the Institute for Defense Analyses where he worked on research for the U.S. Department of Defense.

Where was he when he saw the communication?

In his short communication with Joe Murgia, Dr. McGwier stated that at the time "In late 2004 or early 2005, I went embedded at U.S. government entities that IDA worked for." IDA is short for the Institute for Defense Analyses. Its website states that:

"The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) is a private, nonprofit corporation headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, just outside Washington DC. IDA's mission is to answer the most challenging and science policy questions with objective analysis leveraging extraordinary scientific, technical and analytic expertise."

The Center for Communications Research  website states, in part, that:

"The two Centers employ more than 70 PhD. mathematicians and computer scientists, working on poroblems in cryptography, cryptanalysis, algorithms, high-performance computing, information processing, signal processing, and network security, as well as related areas of pure and applied mathematics."

It should be noted that Dr. McGwier's professional qualifications include:

* 1975-1977. Bs. Mathematics, Electrical Engineering, Auburn University

* 1980-1984. PhD. Applied Mathematics, Brown University.

What are his UAP interests?

On 10 March 2020, Dr. McGwier appeared on Fade to Black on the Jimmy Church show   Here, Dr.McGwier discussed the use of computer technology in the field of UFO detection. Dr.McGwier is a participant in the Sky Hub project, which is a crowd sourced, open-source public project. The Sky Hub website states that coming soon is a "A world wide, public search for UAPs using a global network of machine-learning, smart cameras and sensor arrays built by you using our opensource software." 

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

"A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961 - Part 2


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

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.


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 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.

Updates 2 July 2020

1. I received a further communication from US researcher Douglas D. Johnson. He noted that the 1 April 1959 and 1 December 1960 CIA documents which he sent me, (links provided above) were issued under the "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" marking. He went on to say that "This is not a classification, but it does indicate that these publications were intended for use within the government, not for public release."  He went on to say "The Foreign Broadcast entity was placed within the CIA in September 1947. Paul Dean had relied in part on a 1952 memo (attached) on "FBIS History," the writer of which explained that as a "subterfuge" to conceal the FBID's connection to the CIA, "all overt publications, material published abroad, etccetera" was attributed to Foreign Broadcast Information SERVICE, without reference to the CIA, but that internal government documents employed the technically correct then Foreign Broadcast Information DIVISION. Yet the documents I found (I expect there are many others out there) show that this distinction was no longer being observed by 1959, but this point is lost unless you note that they were marked OFFICIAL USE ONLY."

2. US researcher and archivist Barry Greenwood, undertook a search through his digital copy of the website where Dr. Robert M. Wood, and Ryan S. Wood,  had archived their document collection. He was unable to locate a copy of the 1961 document, amongst that collection.

Update 5 July 2020

I received a further communication from US researcher Douglas D. Johnson, which read as follows:

Over the past couple of weeks, Joe Murgia, on his blog and on Twitter (blog at; @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 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, 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:

I previously have contributed a few small comments on and supplements to the Paul Dean and Keith Basterfield blog posts. Yesterday 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 [imaged below - KB] 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 [first three pages imaged below - KB] 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.

(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.

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.

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

"A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961


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,, 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

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:

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.

 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.
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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Thursday, June 25, 2020

The benefits of networking

Sighting in the Timor Sea

The other day, US researcher Jan Aldrich of Project 1947 fame, sent me an email containing details about a sighting in my part of the world.

The source was "UFO Depiction Published 11:35am 9/18/2010." The text read:

"I would like to submit the following sighting of an object at night over the Timor Sea. [The Timor Sea is bounded to the north by the island of Timor, to the east by the Arafura Sea, and to the south by Australia- KB.] Perhaps there is a known explanation (e.g. space re-entry) in which case I would like to know, or maybe there is another sighting of a similar object on that night?

Date & Time: 6 September 2010 at 0215hrs (05-09-2010/1645hrs UTC.)

Position: Latitude 11 degrees 26.5 mins south; Longitude 128 degrees 09.8 mins east.

Ship heading: 107 (T) at 12 knots.

The object appeared to be a lozenge-shaped, bright orange light - possibly made up of a row of bright lights, with a slight, silvery tail that tapered to a point, approximately 6 times the length of the object.

The object appeared ahead of the ship at about 45 degrees on the starboard bow, and crossed ahead (right to left) to disappear behind cloud at about 60 degrees on the port bow (ie it was travelling more or less from south to north. The object appeared to travel in a straight horizontal path, at an elevation of about 40 degrees above the horizon.

The sighting lasted for about ten seconds, and the object was travelling VERY fast!!..."

To see what the witness thought were potential explanations, here is the source of the story. 

Possibility of space debris re-entry?

To check out the possibility of space debris re-entry, I reached out to Canadian amateur satellite re-entry expert Ted Molczan who maintains a watching brief on such things. Ted has published a lengthy list of "Visually Observed Natural Re-entries of Earth Satellites," which is available here.  Using this list you can check details of numerous satellite re-entries which have generated UAP reports since 1958.

Ted quickly responsed to my enquiry on the 2010 sighting.

"The short duration of the sighting tends to identify the cause as a meteor. The USAF did not predict the decay of any large objects on the date of the sighting. It does list a few small fragments of debris that decayed on or about that date, but my calculations show that none could have correlated with the sighting. Therefore, it was probably a meteor."

I wrote back and thanked Ted for taking the time to look at the possibility of a satellite re-entry. I concur with his conclusion.

I then advised Jan Aldrich of the potential explanation for the sighting.

This demonstrates the value of networking with other individuals, who have skill sets which I don't possess.

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

US Senate Select Committee report refers to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena


Thanks to a lead provided to US researcher Danny Silva (original source Steve McDaniel) we have been made aware, of a Report 116-233, from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated 17 June 2020, that refers to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.


Senator Marco Rubio. Source: 

The introduction to the Committee's report on a Bill, S3905, "Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021" sponsored by Senator Marco Rubio, (Senator for the state of Florida) states:

"The Select Committee on Intelligence, having considered an original bill (S.3905) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, reports favourably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass." So, they recommend the bill be turned into an Act, thereby authorizing the details contained in the bill (after debate) to be then law, and actionable.

UAP reference

Why are we interested in this bill? Well, under "Committee comments," in the Committee's report, we find the following:

"Advanced Aerial Threats

The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations.

However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.

Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as "anomalous aerial vehicles"), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified.

The Committee further directs the report to include:

1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
a. geospatial intelligence;
b. signals intelligence;
c. human intelligence, and
d. measurement and signals intelligence.

3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace.

4. A detailed description of an interagency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information.

5. Identification of an official accountable for the process described in paragraph 4.

6. Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries.

7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that indicate a potential adversary may have achieved breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put United States strategic or conventional forces at risk; and

8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data, enhanced research and development, and additional funding and other resources.

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified anex."

Analysis and comments

1. In a blog post dated 9 July 2019, I posed the question" Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence now part of the AATIP effort" and concluded that it was. 

2. On 6 July 2019, US researcher Danny Silva noted, that in Episode 6 of the "Unidentified" TV series, former Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) manager Luis Elizondo stated that:

"AATIP is no longer run by a single office. There's now several offices that are engaged in this effort...and it is being run with official blessing."

The Committee report provides the name " Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force" and places it at the Office of Naval Intelligence. The language the report uses, supports the notion that this Task Force is currently in existence, and appears to suggest that this may well be the new AATIP. The Committee comments include the words "and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations" not just Naval assets. This is what you would expect from a Task Force which draws its members from various agencies. 

3. The main thrust of the Committee's comments, is a call for a detailed report within 180 days of the date of the enactment of the bill, and provides some fairly detailed things which are to be reported upon. Specifically, that it must include data held by the Task Force, which should therefore include data obtained by AATIP. Note that the report is to be unclassified. 

4. Interestingly, there is mention of the FBI - presumably the Federal Bureau of Investigation "A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace." While I waa aware that the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations did look into the release of the US Navy videos, I do not recall hearing of any FBI investigation. I'd appreciate hearing from any blog reader who knows more about this aspect.

5. The Committee also wishes to be provided with "A detailed description of an interagency process for timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information." This requirement looks to provide a central point of contact for data, which can only be a good thing. 

6. Note, that there remains a perspective expressed that the phenomena may be due to foreign adversaries, although there have been strong indications that this is not the case, from a number of sources. 

7. Finally, the report must include recommendations for future action; such as collection, research, funding and resources. Note that there is no mention of fiscal year 2021 funding for any of this, in the bill, as funding for intelligence programs comes from separate Appropriations legislation. 

8. Of course, any of the above depends on the passge of the bill into law and an Act.

Nevertheless, a very interesting development, which to a large degree has been one of the main actions which To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) have been working on in the background. Kudos to them.

Update 23 June 2020

I have corrected parts of this blog following a comment in the blog's comment section. 

Wednesday, June 17, 2020

Ubatuba Magnesium Sample - some speculation as to its source


Recently, Robert Powell of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) presented a lecture on Youtube. The subject was the never-ending story of analyses of samples from an incident said to have occurred at Ubatuba, in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, in 1957. Ubatuba is located on the Brazilian coast, between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.

Image courtesy of Google maps


The sample analysed by the SCU had a provenance which went as follows:

1. Unknown person.

2. Brazilian Newspaper.

3. Dr. O. Fontes.

Image from Craig, 1995.

4. Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization.

5. Dr. Peter Sturrock.

6. Dr. Michael Swords.

7. Robert Powell.

New analysis

The SCU's aims for their new analysis were, firstly, to look at the isotopic ratios of the magnesium component of the sample (around 99.9% of the sample.) Secondly, to look at the isotopic ratios of the trace elements found in the mainly magnesium sample.

In summary, the SCU found that the magnesium isotopic ratios appear to match terrestrial values, but that they cannot say, one way or the other, if the isotopic ratios of the trace elements in the mainly magnesium sample; namely strontium, copper, zinc and barium, match terrestrial values, or not. The reason for the uncertainty re the trace elements, is due to the fact that the two laboratories which checked the trace element isotopic ratios, showed major discrepancies in these values. Robert Powell stated that if they were to do the testing again, he would isolate the trace elements separately, and then run isotopic ratio testing.

Robert's major question at the end of the day is, even if the magnesium component matched terrestrial values, how did a piece of magnesium of this purity come to be in Brazil in 1957?

Some speculation

Over the years, there have been suggestions regarding some abduction experiences in Latin America, that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may have been involved. For example, in the book "Mirage Men: A Journey into Disinformation, Paranoia and UFOs," [Pilkington, M. 2010, p.65] there is an extremely interesting reference:

"Until his death in Fairfax, Virginia in 1999, Bosco Nedecovic was an interpreter and translator at the Inter-American  Defense College, which educates future leaders of Latin American nations. In 1978 the Yugoslavian emigre confided in the American UFO researcher Rich Reynolds that, during the 1950's and 1960's, the CIA had deliberately manufactured UFO incidents all over the world as part of a project called Project Mirage. What's more, Nedecovic, who between 1956 and 1963 had worked for the CIA in Latin America under the Agency for International Development (AID) was himself present at some of these staged events. And one of them was the Villas Boas abduction."

Note that the Villas Boas abduction is reported to have occurred on 16 October 1957.

Furthermore, along these lines, there is a fascinating quote in Jacques Vallee's "Forbidden Science: Volume Four" in the diary entry dated 26 March 1992 which reads:

"I have secured a document confirming that the CIA simulated UFO abductions in Latin America (Brazil and Argentina.)"

Researcher Jack Brewer followed up this statement, by contacting Vallee. For Vallee's response, click here. 

As I pondered Robert Powell's questions as to how come a piece of nearly pure magnesium turned up in Brazil in 1957, a thought occurred to me. If it were true that the CIA were involved in creating fake abduction events, could they have possibly created a fake "exploding flying saucer" story complete with fake physical evidence? Note, that the first we heard of the Ubatuba fragments, was on 14 September 1957. Take note of the following facts.

No-one has ever located the individual who submitted the fragments to the Brazilian newspaper. Could it be because there was no such individual?

No-one (e.g. Kaufmann & Sturrock, 2004) has ever located first-hand witnesses to the explosion  despite searches by multiple individuals. Could it be because there was no such explosion?

If the above is true, then where did the nearly pure magnesium samples come from? A possible answer is to be found in Sturrock (2001:74) who reports a statement, from 1968, from Dr. Roy Craig, who had a piece of fragment from Ubatuba analyzed. Craig (1995:112) wrote that between 1943 and 1968, the Dow Chemical Corporation, in the USA, had manufactured batches of almost pure magnesium, upon request.

Putting this altogether, we have an unknown source providing magnesium samples, which were available in the USA at that time, to a Brazilian newspaper. This was accompanied by a story of an "exploding flying saucer" for which no first-hand witnesses could be located. Thus we can form a working hypothesis that that perhaps the CIA obtained pieces from Dow; and submitted them to the newspaper along with a fake story.

I would be interested to hear from blog readers what they think of this hypothesis. It fits the known facts, but is speculation, unless we could locate documentary evidence of such a deception, CIA documents.


For those blog readers who wish to read more about the Ubatuba samples, here is a listing of the material which I have on file. I have provided online links to the sources cited, wherever possible. 

1. 1957. Fontes, O. "Special Report: Physical Evidence Proving UFOs To Be Craft From Outer Space." Unpublished manuscript. 57 pages. APRO files.

2. 1957. Sued, I. "Um Fragmento De Disco - Voador!" O Globo, (Rio de Janero, Brazil), 14 September 1957, page 4.

3. 1960. "Physical Evidence." The APRO Bulletin, March, pages 1 &3.

4. 1960. "APRO Metal Extraterrestrial?" NICAP Special Bulletin, May, page 3.

5. 1960. "The Physical Evidence Story." The APRO Bulletin, May, pages 1-3 & 8.

6. 1961. Wightman, D. "The Aerial Phenomena Research Organization's 'Physical Evidence': Was the Ubatuba Disc a Missile, a Hoax or a Flying Saucer?" Saucer News, March, Volume 8, Number 1, pages 5-9.

7. 1962. Fontes, O.T. "A report on the Investigation of Magnesium Samples from a UFO Exploding Over the Sea in the Ubatuba Region of Brazil." Published as a chapter in, Lorenzen, C. E. "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax." William Frederick Press, New York, pages 89-132.

8. 1968. "Report On An Investigation Of A Magnesium Sample." 25 pages. Colorado Project material. Located in the Condon Committee file held by the American Philosophical Society Library. Dr. Michael Swords digital collection.

9. 1968. Saunders, D. R. & Harkens, R. R. "UFOs? Yes!: Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong." Signet Books, New York. page 170.

10. 1969. Lorenzen, C & J. "UFOs:The Whole Story." Signet Books, New York.

11. 1970. "APRO's New Findings on Ubatuba magnesium." The APRO BulletinJul-Aug, pages 1 & 5.

12. 1971. Harney, J. "The Search for Physical Evidence- Part Three- The Ubatuba Magnesium." Merseyside UFO Bulletin, Volume 4, number 2, pages 19-25.

13. 1976. Scornaux, J. "Ubatuba, Brasil - Septembre 1957: Authentiques fragment d'ovni?" Lumieres Dans La Nuit, October, number 158, pages 5-9.

14. 1978. Bourron, M. "Ubatuba." Lumieres Dans La Nuit, April, number 174, pages 1-5.

15. 1979. Lebelson, H. "Alien Metals." UFO Update. OMNI magazine, November, Volume 2, number 2, pages 30 & 132.

16. 1980. Pace, A. R. "Ubatuba Magnesium - UFO Fragments." Journal of Transient Aerial Phenomena. Volume 1, number 2, pages 41-42.

17. 1980. Walker, W. W. "Ubatuba (Brazil) Magnesium." In Story, R. (ed.) "The Encyclopedia of UFOs" Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York pages 374-375.

18. 1984. "Magensium Study Continues." The APRO Bulletin, January, page 6.

19. 1985. Sturrock, P. A. "Brazil Magnesium Study." The Explorer, Volume 2, number 2, page 6.

20. 1986. Lorin, J. & Havette, A. "Isotope and Elemental Charcterization of a Magensium Sample of Unknown Origin Collected in Brazil in 1957." Paris, France. Laboratoire de Mineralogie - Crystallographie, Universite P, et M. Curie.

21. 1987. Sturrock, P. A. "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Number 1, pages 75-100.

22. 1988. Henry, R.C. "UFOs and NASA." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 2, Number 2, pages 93-142.

23. 1990. Vallee, J. "Confrontations." Ballentine Books, New York, pages 49-51.

24. 1990. Vallee, J. "Revelations." Ballentine Books, New York. page 21.

25. 1992. Swords, M.D. "Analysis of Alleged Fragments from an Exploding UFO near Ubatuba, Brazil: An Introduction." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4, pages 1-5.

26. 1992. Walker, W.W. & Johnson, R. "Further Studies of the Ubatuba UFO Magnesium Samples." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4,  pages 6-25.

27. 1992. Walker, W.W. "Scientific Study of the Ubatuba Magnesium Fragments: A 1992 Perspective." Journal of UFO Studies, (new series), 4, pages 26-37.

28. 1995. Craig, R. "UFOs: An Insiders View of the Official Quest for Evidence." Denton, Texas, Uni. of North Texas Press, pages 105-113.

29. 1998. Clark, J. "Ubatuba Residue." "The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon from the Beginning." 2nd. ed. Volume 2, pages 909-911. Detroit, Michigan. Omnigraphics. Inc.

30. 1998. Vallee, J. "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, number 3, pages 354-375.

31. 2001. Sturrock, P. A. "Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 15, number 1, pages 69-95.

32. 2004. Kaufmann, P.& Sturrock, P. A. "On Events Possibly Related to the 'Brazil Magnesium.'" Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 18, number 2, pages 283-291.


I wish to thank Barry Greenwood, of Boston, in the USA for sharing his data file on Ubatuba; and to Dr. Michael Swords, also in the USA for sharing his Ubatuba information.

Updates 18 June 2020

1. Barry Greenwood forwarded me a cleaner copy of the 14 September 1957 Brazilian newspaper article, and points out that the name of the newspaper was O Globo not El Globo as per the Sturrock (2001) paper.

2. US researcher Brad Sparks advised me that he has an extensive article on Ubatuba, which discusses Ubatuba history, theories, lists all known lab analyses to 2018 and analyzes the isotopic
studies, in "The UFO Encyclopedia, 3rd. ed." authored by Jerome Clark, and published by Omnigraphics Inc., 2018. I was did not have a copy of this article in my files, and so failed to mention it in my bibliography.

3. I received a lengthy comment from researcher Robert Duvall. For some reason Blogspot comments wouldn't work for Robert so I asked him to email me his comments, which appear below.

Magnesium and the CIA - part 1

Hello Keith, how are you doing? Adelaide was a wonderful time for me - enjoyed the visit immensely!

Generally as I see it at least, much of the problem with UFO research is that it focuses on what the government has done or is doing or will do. One has to ask what has the government given the community besides headaches? I began studying UFO by reading the books that came out on the subject in the order which they were published. By the mid-1950s it was obvious that the government had taken a hostile position with regard to the research community and everything that followed verified that position. So why given this obvious stance is it that the community is going after this hostile entity for answers? Anyone who thinks that the CIA works for the president or any government portion that has appearances of representation to the population is nuts.

The CIA was born of nefarious purposes and anyone paying the least bit of attention today to what is going on here in the US should see how far that and other entities will go to secure an agenda that has "no good" written all over it. Australia is beginning to flex and fight - thankfully - against the beast that is the CCP. Globalism is real, and the idea that UFO/UAP or whatever are separate from global politics and agendas is patently absurd. Any observations that the CIA was then involved in obfuscation, mis- and disinformation campaigns and certain military entities were also tending to this should get a gold star. The Magnesium samples - just par for the CIA course.

Many learn about UFO by studying the history of the human reaction to UFO starting jokingly in 1947 - and that overlaps substantially with official actions and responses to these events. That formula is flawed right off. We are learning by taking in all of the disinformation and trying to separate the correct data from the lies? Streams have sudden wide spots where the main current drives the water at these wide spots in a circular motion - Eddie Currents. What the US government has done very successfully over and over and over is kept many talented people within the research community going around in circles unknowingly - assigned to Eddiedom. This is and has been for a very long time the state of the majority of research efforts. I watched it over and over from the sidelines getting my assessment validated. It is hard to watch. You know good and well that intelligence was behind all of it.

The fact is that research needs a new approach. I think it is brilliant that you are pointing out something I have been kind of silent about for quite a while. I bring it up - but it mostly just gets swatted like a pesky fly. This is the heart of the problem with UAP research. I saw it early on and completely avoided the ring where no one can be trusted. Why bother? So I came up with an approach with the help of a colleague that I think panned out in huge ways. I tried to export that approach into the research mix - the community. It went to deaf ears. To be honest now I really don't care - if the community is going to continue to insist on getting the "official" answer from US or other government entities, go ahead by all means possible. You are going to get exactly what you have been getting since probably around 1947. Have fun with that. I left research years ago - I have no current investment in it and certainly don't wish to waste my time trying to convince others about the dam leaking. I'd rather sit off to the side and watch the melee that ensues or better yet do something valuable with my time - I really don't enjoy watching others suffer (which is the state of research).

Magnesium and the CIA - part 2

I did not publish my findings on UFO intent and actions regarding our global nuclear weapons infrastructures for a couple of reasons: a - It is a complex study that requires many working on it to cover the decades of events in enough detail with enough historical analysis that it clearly indicates what actually occurred relationally, b - A deeper historical study would have to take place to place context onto what we see today and since WW2, and c - The same entities that are birthing Eddies in the community won't easily allow the real reason for all of this to see the light of day. Given the state of the research community and the absolute disregard for any approach that is not asking the government to come clean I knew my odds were slim but I persisted for around ten years to try to get this to take. Then I got out. I can't do all of the work required to put this into a form useful to the community and as far as that goes the public at large and I value my life enough to know when to move on. I don't like being played by the nefarious intelligence entities and though I wouldn't hesitate to call them out I know from the beginning I am on the losing side. Only a few within the community understand the importance of a different approach - and the value of this particular approach. These individuals have never exercised it enough to see the returns, so even they aren't convinced. Others have and know the benefits.

We will never learn the truth from the US government, period. To be successful is to go completely around the government, involve history as the comparative backdrop for understanding intent, and look deep into history for the context of what we see today. Only then can an appreciation for what is happening today come about. You need event data, clear concise history, and between the lines information regarding what happened during intense nuclear times - the stuff the governments censored. No one single government and especially the US government wants to be seen as completely incompetent with regard to their most sophisticated defenses toward any enemy - and that is what this exposes in spades. It also tells us a great deal about why these events happen in the first place - and we could learn from that if we could ever study it unimpeded. Go after it and you could receive a package delivered to your home that will send you into the circular waters I call Eddies. You must throw it away and keep plugging.

I hope that answers your question Keith about whether there is merit to your theory regarding the magnesium. To me it is a no-brainer; of course it was an intelligence operation. Fits like a glove and it is still achieving what it set out to do in the first place sixty years after the plan was hatched. Think about how many of these types of misguided lies were thrown at the community since then.

Update 19 June 2020

Robert Powell forwarded me a 6 page report from the National Office Laboratory, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Diviision, dated 27 February 1968, titled "Neutron activation analysis of Artifacts associated with UFO Phenomena." The Ubatuba sample was provided by Dr. Roy Craig.

Bob McGwier provides further information about his knowledge of the Wilson/Davis notes

Background On 5 July 2020 , U.S. researcher Joe Murgia, drew our attention to a comment made by Dr. Bob McGwier, on the Facebook page o...