SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift , page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 87 times


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 07:20 AM by thebozeian
reply to post by gfad
Yes appologies gfad, intelgurl indeed did not state in this thread that "sometimes more than a bit of testing goes on at these facillities". I got my threads mixed up, however she did say it in the thread Where Was This Picture Taken. And we discussed it earlier in my thread So what's going on at Groom Lake?. So with correction, I stand by what I said.

As for why they wouldn't use the perfectly good facillities at Plant 42. The problem with it is that, A) Everyone knows about the place and you can easily observe from outside the comings and goinings. B) There are over 6500 people working in the plants many complexes. C) A large number of different government agencies, private companies and contractors use the site. D) There is a regional airport located next door. None of this is conducive to practical and manageable security. The most likely scenario I feel is that development, prototyping and pre production sub assembly testing would be done at Plant 42. Production of some components and sub assemblies during the production phase would also be possible as this can be done away from prying eyes and anyone who did see it would think or be told that it was for another program. Afterall one sub assembly looks pretty much like another unless you know exactly what it is you are looking at. It makes logical sense that you would then move final assembly and some component production to Groom Lake(or any other classified location) along with any prebuilt components from Plant 42 or elsewhere. All in a nice and secure location away from the vast majority of prying eyes and joe public, with total control of those who are on site.

You may also be right that the size of the building is an indication that there is intent to build a larger vehicle(s) either concurrently, or in the future.

LEE.


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 08:44 AM by Zaphod58
reply to post by TAGBOARD


As was pointed out on page 2, the AIR FORCE released this information first, followed by other sources. This is merely the same information from a different source.


reply posted on 2-9-2007 @ 09:54 PM by intelgurl
Originally posted by TAGBOARD
Note Regarding Sensitive Information

Personnel holding DoD/DoE clearances with other SCIs, caveats: Legal release of sensitive information is done through appropriate channels.

Five year updates and datalogging reveal your activities. In addition, the individual(s) that source sensitive information are tracked and dispositioned, along with their contacts.

Some of the reasons for disclosing sensitive information: MICE, deliberate misinformation or disclosure through appropriate channels.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by TAGBOARD]

I am actually extremely aware and atune to DoD regs, legalities and Opsec than I dare say even you are.

I am amazed at how many people have either contacted me via email and have essentially told me that I am either a traitor, someone deserving of prosecution to the utmost of the law or they have made me their ATS "Foe" simply because of this post.

Apparently as astute as they may be to DoD protocols and regulations, they do not have the ability or willingness to read the entire thread, especially the following post:

Originally posted by intelgurl
Originally posted by mtmaraca
I'm kind of new and everything, but is Intelgurl so revered here that as long as she makes sure to underline "extremely reliable" her source is trusted instantly? I mean, no one even asked about the source, you're just taking it all at face value. Don't get me wrong, it sounds convincing and everything, but isn't this place about denying ignorance, and doesn't that include checking sources?

I fully appreciate your wisdom and skepticism.
So let me break this down as to how I work this.

1. The SR-72 story is documented in Air Force Times magazine.

2. The "Blackswift" program was not "outed" by me but rather publicized in a well known tech site called "Daily Tech.com".
I would never have posted this information unless I knew that it had already been outed by another news source first.

3. As for my "extremely reliable" source, consider what he/she said as an industry rumor... that's all, just a very well informed industry rumor.

Never, ever would I jeopardize my employment (defense industry contractor), my freedom (does Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary sound familiar?) or the security of my nation. I am always very careful to be compliant with United States Code Title 18 Ch 37 Sections 793 & 798.


Also Intelgurl, if this is truly a black program and someone is speaking to you about it, I think you should report them to law enforcement officials. It's not a great idea to continue to pass along sensitive information.


People speak to me, other interested industry contacts and even the press, rather frequently about "black programs", what they don't do is give me specifics.

The existence of and even the names of "Black" programs or "Special Access Programs" (SAP) may very well be public information - I hold up the Missile Defense Agency's midcourse defense measures as a prime example.

These are acknowledged, yet deep black programs as far as methodologies and capabilities, and yet widely publicized that they exist.

I hope for your sake that you are just making this stuff up. I know it feels good to be "in on" something like this, but have you considered the damage you could do if you get your hands on the wrong information and it ends up on the internet?


Since there is already mainstream news of this coming from the USAF's own publication as well as Daily Tech.Com, I hardly feel that anything I have given out would in any way harm the security of the United States - thanks to the USAF, the info is already on the internet, so I fail to see where I am jeopardizing anything - nor does my company lawyer.


There is a reason I have this: "Always compliant with USC Title 18 Ch 37 Secs 793 & 798" as my signature, it's because I am always compliant.


reply posted on 3-9-2007 @ 01:21 PM by TAGBOARD
This is in regards to the original statement from this thread...go back and read the first line and read intelgurl's statement #3 to mtmaraca's original response. I reviewed some posted comments regarding laws governing dislosure of sensitive information. I support the original comment (2nd paragraph only) from mtmaraca. The following is the law as I understand it...please correct this if it's wrong.

For those holding sensitive information and a DoD clearance should review their SF 312 (especially section 3) and DD 2386 (if applicable for further SCIs).

For those without clearance and need to know about questionable information on specific official U.S government activities, they should review United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 792 - Harboring or Concealing Persons and report it to the DoD at:

Fraud, Waste and Abuse
www.dodig.mil...

It is not the responsibility of the information holder to interpret law.

From their website: "Anyone, whether uniformed or civilian, who witnesses what he or she believes to be a violation of ethical standards and/or the law, including but not limited to fraud, waste, or abuse of authority, potential leaks of classified information, or potential acts of terrorism, should report such conduct through the chain of command or either directly to his or her respective service Inspector General or directly to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Hotline at 800-424-9098 (e-mail: hotline@dodig.mil).

If the above is not the case, it would be appreciated by many of us that the information and the source be disclosed and verifiable.


reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 12:00 AM by intelgurl
Originally posted by makeitso
I-Team: New Top Secret Construction at Area 51

Do you really think intelgurl should report that someone talked to her about information that was publicly published news over a month ago?


Couldn't have said it better myself - but let me try...

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
This is in regards to the original statement from this thread...

Yada yada yada... Already outed info/rumors.
Yawn.

Originally posted by TAGBOARD...it would be appreciated by many of us that the information and the source be disclosed and verifiable.

LOL! So I am supposed to give out someone's identity in this forum as if you are some representative of an offended organization?!?
I think not.

Tell ya what - you call that Defense Hotline... it's a free call.

Meanwhile;

"If" I work as a contractor at Creech or even Tonopah - I will continue to work as I have for the past 3 years.

There will be no change,
there will be no men in overcoats carting me away (much to your chagrin), no Gitmo, no Leavenworth, no nothing.

And "if" I have a security level - there will be no change in it,

"If" I work on classified projects, I will still work on them.

AND I will still post here, as I always do - little known, open source, already outed information, facts and rumors.

Now enough of this attempt to derail the thread, we move on.
If you still have issues, feel free to U2U me ... or not.


reply posted on 4-9-2007 @ 02:38 PM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by ultralo1
Give me the UCMJ article for such.


If deemed a violation by a higher authority you will likely get slapped with an Article 15. Let me quote how the military defines an OPSEC violation...

OPSEC is a methodology that denies critical information to an
adversary. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified
information, OPSEC measures identify, control, and protect
generally unclassified evidence that is associated with sensitive operations and activities.

Operational Security (PDF)


Furthermore OPSEC is a very gray area as it a means of regulating rather than specific law. It does not necessary limit itself to what is classified and what is not, even an inadvertent release of information which may be helpful to an "enemy" can be considered an offense.

Operations security (OPSEC) is a process that identifies critical
information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by
adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained
by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then
executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary
exploitation of friendly critical information.

4. Characteristics of Operations Security

a. OPSEC's most important characteristic is that it is a process. OPSEC is not a collection of specific rules and instructions that can be applied to every operation. It is a method that can be applied to any operation or activity for the purpose of denying critical information to anadversary.

b. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified information, OPSEC is concerned with identifying, controlling, and protecting unclassified evidence that is associated with military operations and activities. OPSEC and security programs must be closely coordinated to ensure appropriate aspects of military operations are protected.

Operational Security (PDF)


Even if something is not necessary classified and or has already been reported or published by open sources military personnel are not allowed to comment if it is deemed "sensitive information". Try asking F-16 drivers for example how many "Wild Weasel" aircraft there are, where they are based and what kind of weapons they typically carry. That information is public record yet you will not get an answer due to OPSEC consideration. Military members are under different regulations than civilians.

As I said before if Intelgurl had been a member of the US Armed Forces there would have been sufficient grounds for an OPSEC violation charge.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



In Case Of Videos Of Flying People
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags
First flight for \'flapless\' plane - the Evolution of Aviation
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags
Boeing X-37 and X-40 - the ultimate history
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags
F22 mishap or more that meeets the eye?
  Posted 1 days ago with 3 member flags
Its a bird, its a plane, no its a ....
  Posted 14 days ago with 0 member flags