IMPRESSIONS DERIVED FROM THE LAND PANEL MEETING, 21 JULY 1965

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01138A000100100001-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 20, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 26, 1965
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2QA2/ 1 80B01I38A000100 I4,Q001-2
25X1A
MaSO jh Copy - of
23w26 July 1965
DRAFT
26 July 1965
25X1 D
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Science & Technology
SUBJECT
Impressions Derived from the Land Panel
Meeting, 21 July 1965
1. The overall general impression I received from the many
briefings was that probably very little was added to the information
most of the Panel already possessed. The limited time allowed per
presentation further inhibited the degree of new data given. On the
whole, the questions reflected the basically good background knowledge
of the Panel members. It was rather difficult to obtain an appreciation
of what has occurred since February 1965 in some of the programs since
most briefers appeared constrained to use large parts of their allotted
time for general system descriptions. These comments do not strictly
apply to
vI Prime and ISINGLASS.
eX~l
tlba a
HAMM r If'
.
TO 0 FM RFT
L 1 11
25X1A
 Approved For Release 2 2/OS1 1 : 1194=RD 80BO1138A0001001.p001-2
25X1A
Page 2
25X1 D
The second apparent incongruity comes from looking at
NR
95X1
In ISINGLASS the
of dollars less than an
unmanned version. The briefings did not pinpoint and clarify this apparent
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP80B01138A00010U ?QOi
lob F9' r~.
 Approved For Release 2 2/08 pCb- i 8 BO1138A0001001.p,0001-2
25X1A
0
Page
25X1 D
4. The presentation by Brig. Can. Stewart was illuminating
since it did not quite match my understanding of even current pro-
cedures, much less the agreed upon and regulated ones. As an
example, the approval for overflight of denied areas by SAC forces
not in any way related to the 303 Committee -_ rather, the implica-
tion was that JRC or JCS had approval authority. Another example was
the repeated and rather pointed referral to the NRO staff as being
Stewart's rather than McMillan's. The position and relative authority
sip Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP80BOl 13S III 00'r
25X1A
 Approved For Release 24U/08/21 : CIA-RDP80B01138A0001001QO001-2
25X1A
Page 4
25X1A
of DDS&T, the
director and DNRO also was somewhat
mixed up on the charts. To anyone who knows, this might not be
serious but to relative outsiders, like perhaps S. Baker and Don
Ling, it must be judged to be deceptive.
Though the quality and content of the various presentations
25X1 D
varied rather greatly, I did not get the feeling that these differences
would be of significance to any Panel recommendations, conclusions
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP80B01138A000100100001-2
 Approved For Release 2Qp210?A21 WA911801301138A000100180001-2
25X1A
25X1 D
25X1A
Page 5
Chief, Systems Analysis Staff
25X1A
TOP SECRET Clt
Approved For Release 2002/08/21 : CIA-RDP80B0l138A000100100001-2
F ,E V
 25X1A
App
F2 CHE KATIE` TOP AND BOTTOM
F L
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
E' Q DD/S&T
2
DDIA&T
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
Bud-
Attached is my general evaluation of the
PSAC Recon Panel Meeting Of 21 July 1965.
SIGHED
Max
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
4
0
27 July 6
1
Use previous editions
FORM N0, 237
2-61 /