FOIA strange stuff at CIA: "The Story of ADAM and EVE"

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,304
Reaction score
2,290
I look true FOIA for new declassified CIA technical projects

As i stumble on this "The Story of ADAM and EVE"
After WTF? moment reading this i look into story about it.
Around 1965 a certain Chan Thomas publish a book called "The Story of ADAM and EVE"
in 1966 the CIA classified that Book and pulled it out bookselling.
in 2013 a FOIA request on that book was order, it took CIA 3 years to publish the PDF
better say a Sanitized Copy Approved for Release with 57 page from of 284 page of original book.

it content is cross over from Charles Berlitz and Graham Hancock theories with scrip of Emmerich movie "2012"
and deal about Pole shifts that cyclically destroyed civilization over the Time

oddly the book was reissue in 1993 under title "The Story of Adam and Eve: the history of Cataclysms"
it got only 232 pages so missing 52 page from 1965 version.
only connection between CIA and this Pole shift book is Charles Hapgood, who worked prior at CIA predecessor OSS.
Why the CIA deal with that, is a mystery for me...

source
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp79b00752a000300070001-8
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300070001-8.pdf
 

antigravite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
776
Reaction score
137
Thx.

That's weird… Never head of that before.

Sold once on amazon, seemingly.
https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Story-Chan-Thomas/dp/B0007ET2KI

A.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,446
Reaction score
3,295
There's this version too:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19p3edWdRAycEsBnW-2irWRtsXxnkJ7GK/view

Sure are a lot of people trying to make a buck claiming they have the "unsanitized" version.

Also mentioned here under, "McDonnell Douglas studied UFOs in 1960sProject called BITBR for “‘Boys in the Back Room”"

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/MUFON/Journals/2008/October_2008.pdf
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,304
Reaction score
2,290
Interesting find sferrin

This PDF has additional text written by Chan Thomas in 1971.
also it show different page numbers that only 70 page, not 284 page claim by other sources.

And According this link the original print was a booklet of only 55 pages !
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adam-Eve-Story-Chan-Thomas/dp/B0007ET2KI

but still why makes the CIA so much effort to pull that booklet out circulation and classified it ?
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
1,475
Website
galgot.com
Could be because there was some infos in there that only certain persons could decipher … Hidden in a pile of crap, maybe someone leaked some piece of info in a coded way destined to a certain person/group who would be the only one to know that info wold come in that very book.
Then CIA found that leak just in time and classify the book :p
Isn't that a bit like "Three Days of The Condor" ? The guy researching open sources for the agency, then every body get killed around him, cause his service read an open source that shouldn't be "open"...
 

DrRansom

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
555
Reaction score
37
What is this document? It reads like the fever dream of some devotee of hidden knowledge....
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,445
Reaction score
7,108
Perhaps ''Chan Thomas" was a pseudonym for a CIA analyst who accidentally disclosed sensitive information in his book.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,446
Reaction score
3,295
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Perhaps ''Chan Thomas" was a pseudonym for a CIA analyst who accidentally disclosed sensitive information in his book.

Nah, he was a real person. (Well, at least a person of the same name worked on a project at McDonnell Douglas according to the UFO PDF I posted a link to.)
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
851
Reaction score
155
The question is, what other material from 1966 does the CIA have still classified? The decrypted material may just be an embarrassment, and not something technically significant.

Also: Social Engineering.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,446
Reaction score
3,295
sublight is back said:
Also: Social Engineering.

Could you be more specific? What good does making a likely crank book seem more mysterious? 99.9999999999% of the public has never heard of the thing. A notably weak attempt at social engineering if that was the plan.
 

ShawnTheDestroyer

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I look true FOIA for new declassified CIA technical projects

As i stumble on this "The Story of ADAM and EVE"
After WTF? moment reading this i look into story about it.
Around 1965 a certain Chan Thomas publish a book called "The Story of ADAM and EVE"
in 1966 the CIA classified that Book and pulled it out bookselling.
in 2013 a FOIA request on that book was order, it took CIA 3 years to publish the PDF
better say a Sanitized Copy Approved for Release with 57 page from of 284 page of original book.

it content is cross over from Charles Berlitz and Graham Hancock theories with scrip of Emmerich movie "2012"
and deal about Pole shifts that cyclically destroyed civilization over the Time

oddly the book was reissue in 1993 under title "The Story of Adam and Eve: the history of Cataclysms"
it got only 232 pages so missing 52 page from 1965 version.
only connection between CIA and this Pole shift book is Charles Hapgood, who worked prior at CIA predecessor OSS.
Why the CIA deal with that, is a mystery for me...

source
My guess here, is that the CIA took suck an interest in this book, because it’s content is the undeniable proof that way more advanced cultures have been here, and vanished in an half a day. And we’re next. WAY sooner then anyone can imagine. I mean years,’not decades not centuries. YEARS!
 
Top