REPORTING ON RECONNAISSANCE MISSIONS FOR THE SPECIAL GROUP

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77B00403R000100010009-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 22, 2004
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: February 19, 1964
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 20 O C A-RDP7 010009009-7 25X1
19 FEB 1964
I
opy No.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director (Science and Technology)
SUBJECT: Reporting on Reconnaissance Missions
for the Special Group
REFERENCE:- Attached Study to DD/S&T, Same Subject,
13 February 1964, signed by Assistant
Directors, OSA, OSI and 25X1
1. Subsequent to the last meeting in your office on
the matter of high altitude reconnaissance mission reports
for the Special Group, OSI, in the person of 25X1A
has undertaken to prepare for you a series of recommended
alternatives on this matter. The work has now been com-
pleted and has the concurrence of the Assistant OSA, OSI and 25X1
2. I believe you would be wise to acquaint yourself
with the content of the attached document, and have the
benefit of the advice of your staff, such advice being
herein included, prior to convening another meeting of
interested parties on this subject. There follows, then, a
brief analysis of the joint report and my own dy-ICIP con-
cerning a course to pursue. I am asking to 25X1
review the attachment plus my own comments and attach his
position also to this file for you.
3. The recommendations of the joint group offer both
functional and time-span alternatives. The functional
alternatives are between verbal briefings and hard-cover
reports. The time-span alternatives are on an elapsed time
after mission completion of three days, ten days, and sixty
to seventy-five days, and a quarterly summary for flights in
a given area during the previous quarter. The quantitative
and qualitative content of the time-span alternatives
obviously vary widely. However, the scope of coverage is
most closely correlated between the ten-day and the sixty-day
period.
Approved For Release 200
0100010009-7 25X1
 Approved For Release 2096704/21 : CIA-R
3R0001000009-7
4. In the ten-day period, the following items would be
discussed, to the degree that all inputs from various
geographical locations and government agencies allows:
25X1
25X1 D
b. Pilot's Report: Visual si htin s, deviations,
reactions, cloud cover. - Field 25X1A
25X1 C
e. Developed film package: Received by NPIC from
Rochester.
g. IPIR: Immediate PI report of Mission. - NPIC
In the sixty to seventy-five day time-span report, the
following differences would occur:
a. Added to the coverage listed above would
(1)
(2) MCI: Mission Coverage Index -
Finalized PI report; Mission Plot -
Route flown determined from
photography.
b. Greater quantitative and qualitative
coverage undoubtedly would be available on the
seven points listed above.
25X1A
25X1
II`
Approved For Release 2005/ 91 t JAi4~=Rf2 Pb7B00403R 00100010009-7
 Approved For Release 201'
lop: t1KII
p001000109-7
5. I would suggest that by a process of inverse
reasoning you elect to adopt the ten-day hard-cover mechanism
for the Special Group (see Attachment 1 to joint report). My
recommendation is predicated on the following reason. The
two-three day time-span report represents an insufficient
time period to compile a meaningful report and represents a
quicker reaction time than the weekly meetings of the Special
Group dictate. The sixty to seventy-five day report on a
single mission basis will represent too much information
submitted too late. I would tend to doubt if much enthusiasm
for such a reporting mechanism will be shown by a national
level group reading an overly-detailed report on an event
that transpired more than two months in past history. It is
also possible, to my mind, that events in this fast-moving
world may well take place in the sixty-day period from event
to report which will tend to depreciate the content of or
the interest in the report itself. I hold the same views
when considering a quarterly report of missions flown in a
given area. I believe again too much information is being
submitted too late. Secondly, you would end up with two
different reporting mechanisms to the Special Group. One
would be the quarterly summary for given area flights, plus
another reporting mechanism for individual flights over
different area. I do not believe this is a wise course of
action.
6. It is my recommendation that, for a reasonable
period of time, you adopt the ten-day hard-cover reporting
mechanism, on a mission by mission basis, to the Special
Group. After a reasonable number of reports have been
issued, it would then be wise to survey the reaction of the
members to this mechanism.
Distribution:
Orig & 1 - DD/S&T
1 - Mr. Blake
2 - DD/S&T Files
Approved For Release 2005/
Gs ?
dc HN F. BLAKE
utive Officer
Deputy Director
(Science and Technology)
25X1
25X1A
00100010009-7 25X1
 040
F12
CENTRAL I VLLIGENCE AGENCY
25X1 JROUTING SHEET
INITIALS DATE
TO DD/S&T
1
2
3
4
5
6
FROM INITIALS DATE
1
2
3
Approval
Information irect Reply Signature
Action D
Return
Comment Preparation of Reply Dispatch
Concurrence Recommendation File
REMARKS: I have studied proposals and Jack 25X1
Blake's comments thereon. I concur in the recommendation
/ contained in Paragraph 6 with the observation that this
system should be satisfactory where no particularly flap- tO
/ worthy developments took place during a mission. When
considered necessary, therefore, an earlier written or
/ verbal report might be lzeee~ to satisfy the circumstances.
~ 25X1
251
Appended document contains classified information within
the meaning of Section 798, Title 18, United States Code.
TOP SECRET
2005/04/ 7} B0040
10
2