'CIA' REALLY STANDS FOR 'CENTRAL INSPECTION AGENCY'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000504700001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 3, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 4, 1987
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Si Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/03 : CIA-RDP90-00965R000504700001-8
/LEV 4 March 1987 ~~~~ 0~~~
INThLLI ENCE - ESPIONAGE NAVROZOV
'CIS Rally Stands or `Cenhal Inspection Agency'
First of a series
I have said repeatedly that "I" in CIA
stands for "Inspection" (that is, data
collection of which the Soviet rulers are
aware and against which they develop
especially successful measures of con-
cealment and deception) and not for
"Intelligence" (that is, collection - of
which the Soviet rulers are not aware
- of data they "deny").
For example, the space-satellite
photography of Gorbachev's Russia is
inspection, not intelligence, since the
Soviet military have been fully aware of
it right from the start, never have
objected to it since 1963 and have been
developing counter-measures such as
strategic camouflage.
The CIA has been so mysterious
about its means of inspection (in order
to misrepresent it as clandestine
intelligence-espionage) that while the
Europeans - not to mention Soviet
intelligence - know all about them, the
U.S. government, Congress and public
have been kept in the mysterious dark,
replete with tales of the CIAs miracles
such as its ability to read the masthead
of Pravda on space photographs
(though not yet the text itself).
Unpleasant as it may sound to the
mysterious CIA and the rest of the intel-
ligence (that is, inspection) community,
it is unmysterious optical photography
- just the kind of photography we all
know - that has the best resolution of
all methods of image perception.
What is "resolution?" The thickness
of an "i" or a "t" in the masthead of the
New York City 7Wbune is about Vs inch,
and so is the space between letters. So
to be able to read the masthead, the
resolution must be better than - that
is, less than -Vs inch or it will be seen
as a blur.
The high speed of a satellite in orbit
will cause it to burn if it comes too close
to the earth; its closest approach has so
far been 80 miles.
Space Telescope Upside-Down
Every amateur photographer knows
how resolution drops with distance. In
astronomy, the answer is the 43-foot
satellite Space Telescope - the world's
greatest state-of-the-art project in tele-
scopic photography, raising man's eyes
above the atmosphere to see the stars
without its interference.
A similar telescopic photo satellite,
such as the U. S. 46-foot Black Bird,
goes up to look down at Gorbachev's
Russia - alas, through the atmos-
phere.
Thus, we know the maximum res-
olution of the telescopic photo satellite
looking down through the atmosphere
- since we know the maximum res-
olution of telescopic photography from
the earth up through the atmosphere.
No matter what telescopic cameras the
Central Inspection Agency (CIA) may
order in the future, it won't be able to
remove the atmosphere through which
it has to photograph objects on earth.
But before going over to this maxi-
mum resolution, let me discuss another
problem.
A satellite carrying a camera with
the resolution of the Space Telescope at
a height of 125 miles can photograph on
9-inch-wide film an area only half a mile
wide. So, in order to photograph the
whole territory of Russia in 9 X 9-inch
frames the camera has to make 35 mil-
lion shots.
"No matter what
telescopic cameras
the Central
Inspection Agency
may order in the
future, it won't be
able to remove the
atmosphere
through which it
has to photograph
objects on earth. ,,
If one photo-interpreter can study
one such photograph per hour, and the
territory of Russia is photographed
daily, in order to see all the changes and
movements at least once a day the job
will require about 1 million photo-
interpreters.
Now, what will they see?
There is no need to encumber our
readers with the maximum resolution
formula for photography through the
atmosphere. A state-of-the-art space
photograph obtained by the U.S. intel-
ligence (read: inspection) community,
led by the CIA, was published for the
first (and last) time in the British Jane's
Defence Weekly of Aug. 11, 1983.
The American contributor was put
on trial in the United States and sen-
tenced to a term in prison.
There was nothing new to the KGB-
GRU in this photograph. If a better one
is impossible to obtain because of the
atmosphere, I doubt that Soviet space
photography produces worse photo-
graphs, relying as it does on the photo-
graphic technology of East Germany
(once the world's best), West Germany,
Japan - and (through espionage, if nec-
essary) these United States. The best
album of civilian space photographs at
the New York Public Library is Soviet,
and I have never noticed that Soviet
military products are inferior to civilian
ones.
But the Jane's photograph was an
eye-opener for the American public,
and that was evidently outrageous for
the intelligence (inspection) community
- the fellow fully deserves his sen-
tence, from that point of view. It
showed a resolution of no better than 3
feet.
That brings me to the crucial point
of this column. "Look at those blurred
dots," I may say to the CIA - and here
the CIA will wipe me out in 10 seconds.
"Dots? So they seem to you. But our
experts will tell you that these are
Soviet supply dumps. You see dots,
while we see the Soviet armed forces."
Well, I have prepared myself for
such a case with the Reconnaissance
Handy Book of McDonnell Douglas
Corp., which gives the resolutions
required to (1) detect, (2) identify in
general, (3) identify precisely, (4)
describe and (5) analyze an object in a
space photograph.
With a 3-foot resolution, a photo-
interpreter can only "detect" as dots
Soviet supply dumps or vehicles; he
cannot identify them even in general.
He cannot "identify precisely" troop
units, rockets and artillery, aircraft,
command and control headquarters,
SS/SA missile sites or even surface
ships!
He can "describe" nothing except
ports or harbors, landing beaches and
railroad yards - and he can "analyze"
nothing at all. Even the analysis of a
railroad yard requires a resolution of 2
feet, not 3.
A camera aboard an aircraft flying at
1,000 feet has a 700-times-better res-
olution than the same camera aboard a
satellite 125 miles up. Yet during World
War II, with aircraft flying at 1, 000 feet,
there was much successful camouflage.
Well, it would be unfair to use cam-
ouflage even at the World War II level
against U.S. space optical photo cam-
eras. What camouflage? The poor
"eyes-in-the-sky" or "spies-in-the-
sky" can see hardly anything without
camouflage.
When all this was presented to the
late leader Nikita S. Khrushchev in
1963, he allowed U.S. "eyes/spies in
the sky" over his Russia - especially
since the Soviets can knock them out
any time, just as well as all means of
inspection, and then the United States
will go totally blind.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/03: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504700001-8
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/03: CIA-RDP90-00965R000504700001-8
1VGVV LULL 1L