"A Special National Intelligence Estimate" - 1961

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

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.

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.

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.

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  https://archive.org/details/MSA-MJ12 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.

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.

US Senate Select Committee report refers to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena

Introduction

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.

Details

Senator Marco Rubio. Source:https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/ 

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 passage 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. 

Update 25 March 2021

Las Vegas investigative journalist George Knapp, provided a link to a piece by Politico reporter Bryan Bender, who on 24 March 2021 wrote a piece titled "Outer limits." It read:

"ALIEN NATION: The public interest in a forthcoming public report to Congress on sightings of "unidentified aerial phenomenon: is exceptionally high. As for expectations on what the government's accounting of UFOs will reveal? Not as much.

Morning D is hearing rumblings that scant resources have been dedicated to the effort, which calls for the director of national intelligence to collect data from the Pentagon and other agencies about what they've been tracking and how. The report is due in June, but we hear it has a good chance of being delayed.

A spokesperson for DNI Avril Haines on Tuesday would only say that "we are aware of the requirement and will respond accordingly." "

Ubatuba Magnesium Sample - some speculation as to its source

Background

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

Introduction

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, e.g.in CIA documents.

Bibliography

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 Bulletin, Jul-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.

Acknowledgement

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.

Why did Edgar Mitchell get a copy of the Wilson/Davis document and why did his estate still have it in 2016?

Introduction

There has been much mention of late, on social media, about the 2002 notes of an alleged conversation between Dr Eric Davis and Admiral Thomas Wilson. There are several researchers and journalists who are hard at work, looking to determine if the notes are a) genuine, and b) the contents of the document are true.

From all the evidence which I have seen, the Wilson/Davis document was found in the estate papers of Dr. Edgar Mitchell, after his passing, and made their way through an unnamed (but known to some) intermediary, to Australian researcher James Rigney; thence to Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, and then mysteriously onto the Internet. The provenance from one end to the other, is now well established.

The purpose of this post is to pose the questions, why did Edgar Mitchell get a copy of the Wilson/Davis notes? Why did they remain in his papers until his death in 2016?

Background

For some background informatiion about the Wilson/Davis document, see my blog post dated 12 June 2019. Part of the post, referenced an article dated 6 August 2008 by US journalist Billy Cox. Cox contacted Wilson and part of the write up mentions Mitchell:

"Mitchell told De Void he never heard directly from Wilson after their initial meeting (1997-KB) but he says he trusts the veracity of the unnamed sources who told him of Wilson's inablity to penetrate security."

Wilson/Davis document

The core of the 15 page document boils down to the following extracts:

Page 8: EWD "Who was the project contractor or USG agency that runs program?"

TW "An aerospace technology contractor - one of the top in US."

Page 9: TW "T told I read their program record in the OUSDAT special program record group and wanted to know about their crashed UFO program, what their role in that was, what they had etc."

When Wilson described meeting three personnel from that one contractor:

Page 12: TW "They were a reverse engineering program. Something recovered years ago in the past. Technological hardware was recovered...They had (program manager talking) a craft - an intact craft they believed could fly (space? air? water? dimensions?) Was it from overseas or not? Said NO! Could not be - not possible!!...Program manager said they didn't know where it was from (they had some ideas on this) - it was technology - that was not of this Earth - not made by man - not by human hands. Said they were trying to understand and exploit technology; their program was going on for years and years with very slow progress."'

In summary, the notes says that Wilson states, that he found a US contractor secret program which had an intact, not of this Earth, craft, and were trying to reverse engineer it.

Why specifically would this document, making these claims, be of interest to Edgar Mitchell, which led him to keep the document, which then was found in his estate papers?

Mitchell's beliefs about UFOs

What do we know about Mitchell's beliefs about UFOs prior to the 2002 Wilson/Davis notes?

1996. There was an interview on the NBC program "Dateline" dated 19 April 1996, between Dennis Murphy and Edgar Mitchell. Extracts are:

DM: "Do you think it's more likely than not that extraterrestrials have been to this planet?"

EM: "From what I now understand and have experienced and seen the evidence for, I think the evidence is very strong, and large portions of it are classified."

DM "Classified by whom?"

EM "By governments."

DM "You're saying it it it not only likely happened, but there's been a cover-up?"

EM "Oh - I - I think it has happened the way it seems to be, there's definitely been a cover-up."

DM (Voiceover) Mitchell wouldn't name names but he says some of his information comes from former highly classified US government employees, people who say our government picked up some engineering secrets from UFOs."

1997. From "Forbidden Science: Volume Four" page 368 by Jacques Vallee. Vallee and Mitchell were both on the Science Advisory Board for the National Institute for Discovery Science. On 3 May 1997 Vallee had an opportunity for a private conversation with Mitchell. Vallee's diary records the following:

"In the van I had a chance to discuss various theories with Edgar Mitchell. He thought there was a change in the UFO phenomenon between the early and the late 40's. He believes there is a secret group, a spinoff from the US Government, with access to captured technology. It has reverse-engineered the craft and is busy creating a false threat, to be attributed to "bad aliens," he said, or to satanic forces. But I recall that Ed has been influenced by Steven Greer."

1998. In a May 1998 interview between producer James Fox and Edgar Mitchell, as cited in pages 59-60 of Steven M. Greer's "Disclosure." book, Mitchell says:

"Yes there have been ET visitations. There have been crashed craft. There has been material and bodies recovered. And there is some group of people somewhere that may or may not be associated with Government at this point...that has this knowledge. They have been attempting to conceal this knowledge or not permit it to be widely disseminated...There has been a certain amount of reverse engineering that has allowed some of these craft, or certain components to be duplicated. And that there are Earthlings who are utilizing some of this equipment in certain ways."

Questions answered

So, we can see that Mitchell's pre-existing beliefs would fit in very nicely with the core of the Wilson/Davis document. That would seem sufficient for Mitchell to have received a copy of the document around 2002 and why it would be found in his estate papers in 2016.

A note of caution

Let us assume now, that the meeting between Davis and Wilson, in 2002, did occur. Furthermore, let us assume that what Wilson said happened, did in fact transpire. What exactly, do we have? 

We have evidence that Wilson met some individuals who told him a story about reverse engineering a non-Earthly craft. However, does Wilson say he was shown that craft? No, he does not. Does Wilson have any evidence that such a craft physically exists? No, he does not. Does Wilson have a piece of an unknown fragment, which has been analysed and shown to be extra-terrestrial? No, he does not. We simply have a story, told to a US government official. If it wasn't for Edgar Mitchell, we wouldn't even have that story. But, at the moment it remains, to my mind, simply a story.