Monday, July 27, 2020

An analysis of the latest Department of Defense statement on UAP

Office of Naval Intelligence

In a blog post dated 9 July 2020, titled "Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) now part of the AATIP effort?" I explored that possibility. Now, in July 2020, we know that the ONI is indeed heavily involved.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Part of report 116-233 from the U.S. Congress Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated 17 June 2020, stated:

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

Department of Defense statement

Popular Mechanics magazine posted an article on their website dated 24 July 2020, by Andrew Daniels, which discussed the recent New York Times article on UAP, and various aspects of recent reporting on the topic.

Popular Mechanics sought and received, a statement from the Department of Defense, issued by spokesperson Susan Gough, and then updated their digital article with parts of that statement. However, researcher Nick Pope sought and obtained the full text of that statement, and it is worthwhile reproducing this in full.

"As we have said previously, the Department of Defense and all of the military departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace very seriously, and examine every report. This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.

Thorough examinations of any incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from across the department, and, as appropriate, consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies. The safety of our personnel and the security of our operations is of paramount concern. To protect our people and maintain operations security, which includes not providing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.

Regarding the task force mentioned in the article, I can say that the department is creating a task force to gain knowledge and insight into the nature and origins of UAPs, as well as their operations, capabilities, performance, and/or signatures. The mission of the task force will be to detect, analyze, catalog, consolidate, and exploit non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs posing an operational threat to U.S. national security and avoid strategic surprise."

Analysis of the statement

1. "...incursions of unauthorized aircraft..."

The DOD has consistently utilised this phrasing of "unauthorized aircraft" when speaking of incursions; as opposed to the terms "drones;" "unmanned aerial systems;" "unmanned aerial vehicles;" etc. Thus, downplaying the suggestion that the incursions are possibly due to other than terrestrial vehicles.

2. "...into our training ranges or designated airspace..."

As we know, there have been reported observations due to incursions into DOD training ranges off both the east and west coasts of the United States. However, I note that "designated airspace" could refer to any part of the U.S., not just training ranges.

3. "This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as "unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP) when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing."

This, to me, implies that they will be examing reported observations of both "unauthorized aircraft" and "Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon," seemingly differentiating  between these two things. A report of a drone like object with wings travelling at sub-sonic speed, is a different thing from a white, Tic tac like object travelling at hypersonic speeds.

4. "...consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies."

Hence the fact that it is a Task Force; i.e. a group of individuals from various agencies, coordinated by one specific agency; in this case the ONI.

5. "To protect our people and maintain operations security, which includes not providing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP."

This is consistent with earlier public DOD statements that no details of incursions, and their investigation will be made public. From an operation security perspective, this makes perfect sense. If you announce that you have detected an unknown object at 120,000 feet from a particular radar system you tell an enemy that your radar has at least this range. However, it seems to me that ONI could release some details to the public, e.g. number of observations in a specific time period; some description of what was seen, and whether or not their investigation revealed a cause; or that after a detailed examination of all the data, an observation remains in the UAP category.

6. "I can say that the department is creating a task force."

Luis Elizondo has referred to the fact that AATIP or its successor is already/still in place. Does this mean that the Task Force is already in place, or as the DOD statement says, is being "created?"

7.  "The mission of the task force will be to detect, analyze, catalog, consolidate, and exploit non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs posing an operational threat to U.S. national security and avoid strategic surprise."

a. "detect"

Now, this to me, is an interesting word used in this context. I would have expected the Task Force's first job would be to collect observations and then take a look at that data. However, the DOD statement specifically says "detect." Does this imply that the Task Force, themselves will be out there actively seeking to observe the objects intruding on U.S. training ranges and designated airspace. This is very different from collecting observations from other people.

b. "Analyze"

Once you have collected data, either from your own sources or that of others, naturally you wish to analyze them. Recall, though that this has already been undertaken by AATIP, where Elizondo refers to the five observables that they have drawn out of their data. Will the Task Force merely be reinventing the wheel, or will this analyze bring something fresh to the table?

c. "consolidate"

Another unusual word to use, consolidate what|? Usually you collect, consolidate/collate, then analyze. I am not sure what consolidate means when used in the order detect, analyze, collate, consolidate.

d. "exploit"

Exploit what? Information gained from the anlsysis? To do what, use the data to build your own UAP?

e. "...non-traditional aerospace vehicles/UAPs"

So, is this an admission that the DOD already knows that some of the incursions are in fact due to "non-traditional aerospace vehicles?

f. "...and avoid strategic surprise."

A reasonable concept, avoid being surprised by advanced aerospace vehicles which you don't. yourself possess.

Other comments

The statement does not describe the composition of the Task Force, other than that it is headed by ONI. Does it have representation from the USAF? NORAD? etc.

All in all, as per past DOD statements on UAP, the contents of the statement, raises more questions than it answers.

Thursday, July 9, 2020

Did The Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee prepare a contribution to SNIE 1-61-E?

Background 

A number of issues have been raised by various researchers, e.g. Paul Dean, Douglas D Johnson, and myself; concerning the 1961 document, titled "Critical Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and Allies,"  numbered Special National Intellegence (sic) Estimate (SNIE) 1-61-E, which has been much discussed on social media of late. For ease of discussion here, I will simply refer to this document as the 1961 document.

Introduction

The 1961 document states that it was prepared by four different bodies, namely:

* NSA Scientific Advisory Board (NSASAB)

* Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC)

* The Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee (GMAIC)

* The Scientific Intelligence Committee (SIC.)

CIA CREST documents

Now, upon checking various documents available on the CIA CREST website, I determined that the GMAIC, amongst other things, at their meetings, considered draft contributions to NIEs and SNIEs; revised the drafts, approved them, and then sent them to the Office of National Estimates (ONE.)

As an example, at the 19 April 1961 meeting, the GMAIC minutes of that meeting recorded:

"ITEM 1 SNIE 22-61

The Committee considered a draft contribution to SNIE 22-61 which had been prepared by [redacted word/s] ad hoc working group. The draft was revised, approved and forwarded to ONE as the GMAIC contribution to SNIE 22-61."

Reviewing the minutes of various GMAIC meetings held between 1 March 1961 and 19 December 1961 [the 1961 document stated that it was "Completed on 5 November 1961"] I noted numerous references to the GMAIC reviewing drafts of SNIE 11-4-61; NIE 11-5-61 and NIE 11-8/1-61; revising them; approving them and forwarding them on to ONE. Such was the process in 1961.

So, if the GMAIC did have a hand in preparing the 1961 document; one would expect to be able to find a reference to it in the minutes of a 1961 GMAIC meeting.

An inspection of the minutes of 23 GMAIC meetings held between 1 March 1961 and 19 December 1961; failed to find any reference to the 1961 document; either by number, title, or subject matter.

I did note that, out of the minutes from these 23 meetings I reviewed, that there were a few totally redacted agenda items. Some could argue that the reference to the 1961 document would be found in these redacted items. However, the other 99% of the agenda items are freely readable, so statistically I feel that the chances of a redacted agenda item being about the 1961 document is rather slim. I mention this for transparency of my argument.

Naturally, I would be delighted if any blog reader can locate a CIA document from the 1961 minutes of a GMAIC meeting which provides clear reference to the 1961 document.

Monday, July 6, 2020

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 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 U.S.security 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

Introduction

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

Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board




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

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

History of the Board

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Who was the SNIE ultimately aimed at?

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

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

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

TOP SECRET UMBRA

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Broadcasting Information Service

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

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

Final words for today

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

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

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

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

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

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 UFOJoe.net; @UFOJoe11on Twitter) has promoted the authenticity of a four-page document that purports to be a "Special National Intelligence Estimate" (SNIE), titled "Critical Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and Allies."  The document 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 http://www.ufojoe.net/umbra-hoyt, 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:

http://ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com/

https://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2020/07/a-special-national-intelligence.html

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.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sherman-kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates-collected-essays/5law.html

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

(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.

An analysis of the latest Department of Defense statement on UAP

Office of Naval Intelligence In a blog post dated 9 July 2020, titled "Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) now part of the ...