The CIA Said Records of a Space-Related Message Had Been Destroyed
An internal memo called the response to an investigator evasive and unfair.
An internal memo called the response to an investigator evasive and unfair.
The CIA told an investigator that records of a message linked to space, along with the device that transmitted it, had been destroyed. An internal memo described the response as evasive and unfair.
A 9 January 1958 CIA internal memorandum from the Chicago Office to the Support Branch / Contact Division (Case 17708, closed) recording a telephone conversation with Dr. Leon Davidson. Davidson was advised that the CIA could not resolve his inquiry about a 'space message and its transmitter' because the responsible agency had destroyed the records of the transmitter. The memo also notes Davidson had a second article ready for publication concerning Air Force handling of space/saucer sightings, and discusses the non-committal, evasive answer the agency was instructed to give him.
"We have contacted Dr. Davidson by telephone advising him that we cannot resolve his problem concerning the space message and its transmitter because records on the transmitter have been destroyed by the originating agency."
Why it matters: States that records of the transmitter were destroyed by the originating agency, the central fact of the case.
Page 1
"the only noncommittal and evasive answer we were instructed to give Davidson was the only one possible if we were to avoid crossing up previous statements... But the answer is hardly fair to Davidson, and is not likely to be fully accepted by him."
Why it matters: Internal acknowledgement that the agency deliberately gave an evasive answer it knew was unfair.
Page 1
Dr. Leon Davidson
Subject of inquiry; author of articles on Air Force handling of space/saucer sightings · Page 1
R.P.B. Lofountain
Apparent memo author / signatory · CIA Chicago Office · Page 1
Walker
Person Davidson dealt with in prior contacts · Page 1
Smkich
Person Davidson dealt with in prior contacts · Page 1
Chicago, United States
Page 1
Manifest notes a redacted version of this memorandum was previously public; OCR shows degraded/illegible passages
Likely reason: Names of agency personnel and the originating agency that destroyed the transmitter records
OCR quality is poor; many lines garbled. Names 'Lofountain', 'Walker', 'Smkich' are best-effort OCR readings and may be inaccurate. Case 17708 is marked closed. Document is one of the CIA-UAP-004 series.
The memo does not explain what the message was, who created it, or what was transmitted.
According to the memo, the response was given to avoid contradicting statements previously made by the CIA and other agencies.
In January 1958, a CIA contact called Dr. Leon Davidson and told him that records of a message linked to space, along with the device that transmitted it, had been destroyed.
Davidson wanted to learn more about the message and its transmitter. But the answer was familiar: he had heard it before. An internal CIA memo reveals that its author also recognized the response as evasive and thought Davidson probably would not accept it.
The memo was written on January 9, the day after the phone call. It summarizes the conversation and related information. According to the memo, the contact told Davidson there was no way to answer his question because the agency that had handled the matter had destroyed the records.
A transmitter is a device that sends a signal, like a radio transmitter. The memo does not explain how the message was created or exactly what was transmitted. It only records that Davidson asked about a particular message and its transmitter.
Davidson accepted the answer but pointed out that he had already heard the same thing. He hinted that he might ask again about the message later. The memo’s author concluded that they would hear from him again.
The memo’s author explained that the response had been given under instructions. It was, he said, the only way to avoid contradicting statements previously made by the CIA and other agencies.
But the document also contained blunt criticism: the author described the response as evasive and unfair to Davidson. He thought the investigator was unlikely to accept it. The memo thus recorded both the explanation given to the investigator and the acknowledgment that it was inadequate.
The memo does not reveal what the message was, who created it, or what happened to the transmitter. Davidson was told that the agency that had handled the matter had destroyed the records.
A message with no record. And an answer its own author knew would not be enough.