Crash Retrieval

1961 Crash Retrieval Document: Typos, UMBRA, Dr. Eric Davis And “A Guy Named Roy”

22 Jun , 2020  

If you like what you see here and on Twitter, this is my Patreon. I appreciate any and all support.

https://www.patreon.com/ufojoe

~~~

by Joe Murgia@ufojoe11 on Twitter

In the final part of my four-part blog on the Wilson/Davis documents, I included an alleged, 1961 SNIE (Special National Intelligence Estimate) document related to UFO crash retrievals that, due to information relayed to me from a source, I believe to be authentic.

This is what I 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. The one source who first brought up the typos never mentioned that possibility. I was going to search for other, similar reports with typos but I trust this source so I’ll take their word for it. Others can take a look. On a related note, when Luis Elizondo’s resignation letter leaked, folks pointed to a few typos and started claiming it was fake. It wasn’t. And lots of debate ensued.

And in a conversation on a private email list, forwarded to me by researcher Grant Cameron, “Larry” shared some of his issues with the document.

There are several mistakes in this document.  The first sentence, starts out “In pursuant to….”  It should be “Pursuant to….”

The third paragraph ends “…U.S. ECM capabilities are on a level similar to theirs and are at parody.”  Obviously, it should are “parity”.

The final paragraph refers to studies conducted at LANL (Los Alamos National Lab). This document was supposedly written in 1961, but Los Alamos wasn’t given National Lab status until 1981.  Before that, it was Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL).

On that same email list, Eric Davis PhD, an astrophysicist and main player in the Wilson/Davis document, responded and explained what he knew about those “issues.” He also shared information about the author and, as you’ll see, it’s along the same lines as what my source told me in Part 4.

Dr. Davis gave me permission to post his comments here.

1) Larry only gave one-half of the story. The other half is that LANL was called a national lab by name by Ed Teller, Bob Beyster, Norris Bradbury, the presidents and nuclear engineers at Bechtel Corp. and Babcock & Wilcox Co., Dr. Eric Walker (President of Penn State), Darol Froman, the Rover/NERVA program management team and staff, Harold Agnew, Stanton Friedman (GE nuclear propulsion division), Raemer Schreiber, William Crew, a guy named Hoyt, a guy named Roy, and several others as recorded in their personal letters, internal memos, official presentations and briefings given to political leaders and the IC, and oral communications during the post-Korea era.  Document authors did always have Los Alamos Science Lab written at the top of official and unofficial presentations and documents, but a few of these had Los Alamos National Lab inside of parentheses right below the Los Alamos Science Lab at the top or bottom of the first page or title page.  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 senior scientists’ and management’s use of LANL in some of the documents.  This was a gimmick to elicit questions from political leaders and AEC folks on why LANL appeared below LASL, which gave LASL personnel an opening to bring up their gripe that LASL was unfairly denied national lab status.

2) The 3-decade-long Herculean effort to change the name of LASL to LANL finally ended in 1981. This is because LASL was in intense competition for Congressional and political support against Argonne National Lab (established as a national lab in 1946) and Lawrence-Livermore National Lab (LLNL, established as a national lab in 1952).  The state of NM had very weak and ineffective representation in the US Congress, and VP Nixon was from Southern California so he and California’s Congressional delegation preferred that LLNL be given premiere national lab status for nuclear weapons R&D and manufacture.  LASL’s political effort to get national lab status was completely stymied by the stain of Sen. McCarthy’s accusation that Oppenheimer was a communist and the stain of chronic mismanagement (flawed management philosophy and attitudes) and internal control problems.

3) The author of the SNIE has a documented history of misspelling certain words and not correcting them. He did not use a secretary or anyone else to proof read his drafts  Other SNIE and NIE reports attributed to him also have typos. There are also old government documents that have fewer typos because secretaries were used to proof read final drafts.

I asked Dr. Davis if he would like to share his thoughts on the UMBRA question. He graciously took a minute from his busy work schedule to add this.
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.
Even portion markings change over time because of review policies. And review policies are not always implemented in a timely or even fashion due to laziness, incompetence, and a lack of time and resources.
Hopefully, this shows folks the level of detail Dr. Davis and my source put in before coming to the conclusion a document is authentic. I’m sure if Dr. Davis had the time, he could write pages and pages just on UMBRA. I believe that one day, everyone is going to realize just how valuable he is in our pursuit of the truth about UFOs. He’s one of a kind and truly irreplaceable.
.
UPDATE – June 27th – For Coast to Coast AM Listeners
.
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.

© Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net, 2018-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Joe Murgia and www.ufojoe.net with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

, , , , , ,

By



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *