Below, is a excellent article by Sam Culper with some insight on “Single Source Information”.  Situational awareness and being able to properly document Single Source Information is crucial. If you see something first hand, use Radio Free Redoubt’s Partisan Spot Report to collect information to keep others informed!



Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) information by Sam Culper at

I briefly took part in a discussion on WRSA a week or two ago about the topic of single source information. Single source information, as opposed to multiple source information, is readily available but in many cases difficult to analyze or verify.  With multiple source information, the more people reporting the same information, the more indicators we have that the information is true, or is at least being accurately report.  Specific pieces of nearly identical information that come from multiple sources corroborate themselves, so to speak.  If all four local news broadcasts say that a woman murdered her husband on 15th Ave last night, then I can make a snap judgement that it probably happened… or at least that all four news outlets are reporting accurately what they were told by police.  I have four corroborating sub-sources (news outlets) from the same source (police).

Single source information, on the other hand, comes from one source; it’s one guy or one news outlet reporting information that can’t be found anywhere else.  There’s likely to be limited to no availability of information to corroborate what our source is saying.  Similarly, there may be limited or no time with which we have to reach a decision based on that information.  This time-sensitive, single source information manifests itself in the real world through an anonymous tip that the suspect is in a white sub-compact headed north on Backalackadacka Street.  Or that the regime security forces regional-coordinator in charge of overseeing gun registration/confiscation is meeting with local leaders at city hall.  In some cases, we may have a very short window of opportunity to act.  If our assumption that the information is true, then how fast can we get a Pred to find and hit the car, or how fast can we mobilize local FreeFor security elements to disrupt the meeting?

Our ability to quickly analyze single source information is critically important, so let’s go over a checklist that allows us to make inferences quickly about the veracity (re: truth) of the information.  Keep in mind that this is a cumulative checklist; the failure of one category shouldn’t indicate a failure of reporting accurate information.

Reliability (Source): Is the source of the information reliable himself?  Forget momentarily what he’s telling you, and give an honest assessment of how reliable he is as a source of information.  If we know this individual, is he someone that you’d trust with your children?  Can he be trusted to do the right thing?  What are his motivations for passing you this information (MICE/RC)?  Has he reported reliably in the past?  If he’s communicating this information second-hand, then who is his source, and is his source reliable?  If at all possible, inquire about the source of this information:who told you this, or how’d you get this information?  Remember that just like the game telephone, the longer the line of sources and sub-sources, the more we have to assume that the information has been modified, or that pieces of the information have been accidentally omitted.   Approach his reliability from multiple angles:  maybe you don’t trust him with your children, but he’s reported reliably in the past.  Be objective, not emotional, regardless if you like or dislike this person.

Plausibility (Content): Is the information plausible under any circumstance or just this one?  Could this information be true?  Plausible: your county sheriff receiving an MRAP.  Implausible: your county sheriff receiving an F-22.  Knowing whether something is plausible or implausible dictates that you have a working knowledge of the subjects involved.  Scrutinize the plausibility of the information even you if you believe it’s plausible at first.

Proximity: What is the source’s proximity to the information or original source?  Does he have placement and access to the original source?  I’d trust information much more if it came from someone who has continued access to the original source.  A cab driver in San Diego who passes me sensitive information about the White House isn’t in physical proximity to the original source.  In and of itself, lack of placement and access — proximity — to the source of the information raises red flags for me.

Appropriate: Is it appropriate for this information to come from this source?  It would be inappropriate for the cab driver in San Diego to be providing such protected information.  It wouldn’t be appropriate for him to know that information.  How would he know in the first place, unless he a) had a long chain of informants leading back to the White House; or b) had a direct source in the White House.  Even under option b, why would such a trusted person from the White House be passing information to a cabby on the other side of the nation?  On the other hand, if a White House attorney was telling me information, then it would be appropriate for him to know that information, but inappropriate for him to tell. me that information (unless I was running him as a source). .Expectable/Consistent. Did we expect this information to be made available?  Did we expect this information to come from this source?  Is this information expected based on what we already know?  In other words, is this information consistent with what’s already been or being reported?  More leaked NSA information being published by the mainstream media is expected.  Leaked NSA information being first published by your county’s weekly newspaper is highly unexpected.

Read the rest of the article at