FOIA doc - NSA Flying Saucer Disinformation

On the whole I would say people nowadays are much more readily willing to believe stories about flying saucers than they were 20 to 30 years ago. While this is a good thing (we should be open to new but hard to believe ideas that may prove true) we still need to be critical and level-headed.

And here's why.

While skimming through some older NSA FOIA docs I stumbled on this gem:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fc01408fb89c.png[/atsimg]
(NSA release - Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Flying Saucers Are a Myth)

Clearly the suggestion is that the NSA, or another intelligence agency, leaked misinformation to the author, possibly through a field agent or by simply releasing doctored press releases to the public.

This sort of thing is insidious. It suggests many things we take for granted may simply be incorrect.

To maintain objectivity we need corroboration from first-hand, primary witnesses and many different independently corroborating sources. Without that we may be allowing disinformation campaigns that were meant to confuse the United States enemy to bamboozle us, her citizens.

This is why all UFO advocates need to evaluate very carefully for themselves, is there a conspiracy cover-up or a grand foul-up afoot?

Tread lightly!

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

Just my opinion, but that document doesn't conform to my experiences with NSA documentation. I also don't see the stereotypical paragraph by paragraph classification designations which are common in 'informational releases'.

I won't say this means it's fake, but I certainly would never have assumed it was from the NSA. It seems also, written in a style which belies it's official nature. But again, that's just my opinion.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Just to be clear, You are referring to the Plant markings on the doc, to draw the conclusion that the NSA planted that particular piece of info used by the author in his article?

Originally posted by Maxmars
Just my opinion, but that document doesn't conform to my experiences with NSA documentation. I also don't see the stereotypical paragraph by paragraph classification designations which are common in 'informational releases'.

Good point. However it appears this report was originally taken from the Department of State (back in '68 no less) and was never actually classified (unclassified).

Since it was simply an analysis of a long article from Moskovsky Koscomolets it's very likely it didn't need the long header typically associated with usual TS or secret codeword projects.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed20c0fc82bd.png[/atsimg]

I won't say this means it's fake, but I certainly would never have assumed it was from the NSA. It seems also, written in a style which belies it's official nature. But again, that's just my opinion.

The actual analysis is pretty brief as is evidenced by the first page. I have a feeling the Department of State wanted someone to simply fact check the Russian article to see if the report of a crashed saucer was true.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Just to be clear, You are referring to the Plant markings on the doc, to draw the conclusion that the NSA planted that particular piece of info used by the author in his article?

Yep, though there could be other interpretations. Another thing I considered was that an actual "craft" was planted in the Spitsbergen to lead the Russians to believe it was alien in nature. However that struck me as a little over the top.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Xtraeme]

Another alternate explanation ... Perhaps "Plant" indicates that the NSA discovered Russian intelligence agencies were "planting" misinformation in public news sources.