There are new and important assorted items available for study at the CIA's FOIA web page. Under: Special Collections, you will find many documents that cover the very early National Security era. For UFO history buffs, this means from 1946-on...with the interested UFO personality focusing on the year 1947…especially the month of July. Here we see early memorandum dealing with the likes of ICAPS, the IAB, the SAB, the JRDB and the NSRB. ICAPS alone is worth this writer's time.
-VIEW THE CIA FOIA SPECIAL COLLECTIONS PAGE HERE-
It is true, I don’t have very much available time to spend on this subject anymore, but I still try to give it my best. There was a period, though, when this writer actually had some time to devote to actual research, and I did. Valuable connections were made, during this moment of my life, that I will always be grateful for. Ryan Wood and this writer used to discuss the subject more regularly. He had been making trip after trip to the National Archives, while following up on the many leads that appeared during his investigations into the "Majestic Documents."
An item of interest gained from at least one of these archival pilgrimages dealt with the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) and the Intelligence Advisory Board (IAB). It had been hypothesized that the IAB might be a good candidate (along with the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) for information regarding possible disc crashes.
One document obtained by Ryan was eye-catching, mostly because of its date (late July, 1947), and one redacted paragraph. It was a memo regarding the 14th meeting of the IAB. Items 1, 2, and 4 are visible, but not item 3. It is all blacked out. So, while this didn't prove anything, it opened the door for further speculation about what it could be. After all, it was so important that it was "removed." Every logical, reasonable conjecture could rightfully be in focus here.
Well... many of these new documents released by the CIA deal with the IAB, and, more importantly, the document Ryan was given is one of these documents that is available for download (GIF or PDF.) His was redacted at entry "3." So, as he made clear, while it didn't prove anything, agenda 3 was important enough to be redacted. The “new” release is completely intact.
So what DOES the document say? Why was paragraph 3 redacted?
The offending, omitted section reads:
3. EMPLOYMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS AS AGENTS.
(IAB 3 and IAB 3/1, the latter to be circulated)
For consideration of the recommendations contained in
The memo is signed by J.S. Earman, Secretary of the NIA at that time.
Go here to see original release:
The CIA documents page also contains the documents that provide the background for the concern over using Reserve Officers as agents of the IAB/CIG, such as IAB 3. The question I have is, why did the CIA feel the need to redact that paragraph when they originally released the document to Ryan Wood? I don't get it. So what if the idea of using Reserve Officers was a tricky issue for them, back then, due to the special controls the Navy has over its people. That has very little, if anything at all, to do with today.
Were they just "messing" with Ryan? Did they redact a paragraph just so they could get him to "bite"? Who knows, but the newly released document is authentic, and neither it, nor the several other supporting documents have any obvious connection to the disc story. That's not to say they don't, or might not, have any relevant information to be gleaned. I have plenty of documents still to read, and even now have some names to look up.
Reading will continue, and reports on important material will be drawn up and posted when possible.
Until then…[shrugs…rolls eyes]
Only the most basic of data collection features are active on this blog. This is for amount of visitors, and where they visit from.
No other type of data is collected, or stored, to this blog author's knowledge. No cookies have been added by the author, for visitors to be aware of.
In certain instances, links to another web site may be provided to aide the reader. In these cases, the individual web sites might have different policies.