Originally posted by mtmaraca

Originally posted by thelibra
So I have little doubt that an experience like yours is possible, but you shouldn't assume it is the norm, or that it is that way across the board.

We should say the same thing about your original post, unless of course you're claiming that the way you say it works is truly how its done at places like Area 51.

Direct and to the point, if a bit brusque in your delivery. Had I given a concrete set of assumptions, I'd be inclined to agree. Instead, if you re-read my post, I think you'll find the following statements are more in line with my message:

Each must generally pass a...

...are typically done on...

...are typically subject to...

...might be a lot more subject to ...

...generally references...

If you feel I was a bit too restrictive in my wording, then I invite you to come up with less exacting of an assertion. However, IMHO, for me to have gotten any more "general" with my wording would have made the post rather useless and frustrating to read.

Originally posted by mtmaraca
I guess you could only make that claim if you actually worked at a place like that...

Incorrect. You can also make such claims when people you have reason to trust more than others have had direct first-hand experience in such places and choose to relay what information to you that they can.

For instance, if my father, whom has never given me reason to doubt his word, travels to Europe for over 20 years, and comes back and says "In Europe, you will typically find older buildings than you would in America," I would be inclined to believe him, despite having never been to Europe. Not only is he someone I trust, but his assertion that Europe would have older buildings on average would be quite reasonable, considering the comparative ages and civilizations of both continents. If I wanted to be more certain, I would ask other people I trusted, whom had been to Europe, what they had seen. If they also told me that

In the end, I would feel comfortable relaying to other people that if they went to Europe, they could expect to, on average, see older buildings than in America. Now, one might ask, well, why not just have someone whose been to both America AND Europe post about the state of the buildings.

The answer to this allegorical question then is this: People who work in "Secret Facilities" have yet to come online and post here at ATS a guide as to how to debunk those who claim to be from them from those who really have been. To do so would probably get them fired, arrested, fined, or imprisoned. Perhaps worse. If someone verifiably from Area 51 were to hop online and say "Ah, here is the complete guide to how to know who is and is not from these types of facilities," then I would certainly defer to their knowledge.

As it stands, we do not have any such people, and I must instead hem together a guide based on the firsthand testimony of other people besides myself whom I can trust, and have been to such places, and post a secondhand guide for others to use as a yardstick when measuring the depth of fertilizer in certain threads.

I think it's pretty clear reading the original post that you are attempting to explain what you view as the normal experience of those who get and keep high-level clearances like those necessary to have access to facilities like Area 51. You certainly made it clear that you don't have firsthand knowledge of such things and that not all experiences will be the same. I also don't disagree with you that there is a lot of BS out there waiting to be exposed. I think it's simple enough to just say that anyone who has these clearances and access to any kind of "super secret" information is NOT going to get on ATS one evening and spill their guts. It follows that anyone who claims to do that is just blowing smoke, end of discussion. No doubt I'm being abrupt and final (even brusque), and people will disagree and point out that there's some small, even infinitesimal chance that I'm wrong and so they will hold out hope. We could argue for hours I suppose.

Anyway you rightly pointed out that assumptions are very important, and I agree with that. I think it's correct to question your assumption that your second- and third-hand knowledge is normal, just as it is correct to question the other poster's assumption that his firsthand experience was normal. At the end of the day we are left taking someone's word for it, and I am tempted to launch off on a rant about how that makes the whole discussion pointless from the start, but I will resist the urge.

Originally posted by mtmaraca
I think it's simple enough to just say that anyone who has these clearances and access to any kind of "super secret" information is NOT going to get on ATS one evening and spill their guts.

Would that the world worked that way, but for some reason, there's still some people out there who just don't take my word as gospel, and instead require a logically, rationally laid out argument in support of my statements. So, yes, for those willing to take everything I say at face value, I could have just simply posted a one-line, closed thread, that said "Psshhht! No one with super-secret info is ever going to post here," and leave it at that. However, I have a feeling that those who believe otherwise would stand zero chance of being convinced, those on the fence would demand more substance than an off-hand statement, and those already agreeing, well, it'd merely be preaching to the choir.

Hence the rather long OP, outlining each part of the rationale, the follow-up questions and answers, and also leaving open the possibility that, yes, one day we might get a "press packet" from a renegade, or get a public whistle-blower on the site.

Originally posted by mtmaraca
...At the end of the day we are left taking someone's word for it, and I am tempted to launch off on a rant about how that makes the whole discussion pointless from the start, but I will resist the urge.

Well, honestly, the point was to give at least a starting set of questions that one should ask of anyone claiming to be from a secret facility, as a gauge of the liklihood of their being a hoax. It's obviously not foolproof, but it's a good starting point for people who've never given the subject much thought, or have never known anyone who worked at such facilities.

My experience matches scientists experience.

Desk jockeys & laborers? In my experience, Field Mice, Lab Rats, Pencil Pushers and the Clueless Clowns Clan.

Pencil Pushers means logistics. Supply guys and girls.

Clueless Clowns Clan includes upper management, secretaries, HR, Safety Nazi.

Field Mice have mud on their Red Wings, a vocabulary that would appall a drill sergeant, and a wicked sense of humor. Field Mice have fun at work.

Lab Rats tend to be prissy sissies. Obsessed with cleanliness, testosterone deficient, prone to huff "I DON'T think that kind of HUMOR is APPROPRIATE in the WORKPLACE". Tend to jump when a field mouse stands up suddenly within 20 feet.

You are subject to endless, tedious, dreary, dismal, mind numbing classes and lectures about the need for security. It comes up at least as often as safety.

You get paid 20% more than the next best job nearby, medical, dental, vacation, and a retirement pckage that makes putting up with the strange hours and strange people worth your time.

You would risk losing all that and becoming the queen of Cell Block D to post here because ??????????????????????????????

I would suggest that there really are only a few types of whistle-blowers and neither type is concerned with 'getting any exotic info out there to the people' under some altruistic motive.

One type we've seen and that is those who are concerned with safety, such as the Area 51 situation where workers were exposed to toxic fumes and their health is in jeopardy.

One other, rarer type might be a financial waste and abuse whistler blower. Possibly a third type might be a patriot who felt there was some espionage going on.

I really can't imagine a type that gets through the checks and still has this need to 'tell all' for sensational reasons.

In fact that secret knowledge, what little there is in any one compartment is what gives these workers some of their feeling of eliteness. They know something, however little, that we don't. They have no desire to change this or expose anything other than for the above reasons of safety and rarely, financial abuse.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Badge01]

shame people feel it necesary to hoax atall tbh

I would say over half of anything thats posted on here is fake.Some people even tend to post everyday they claim they are involved with in different subjects.Its like why bother to post?

Another thing that gets me is when some web pages put down a list of secret bases around the country and come up with some really weird. In my state there is supposed to be a secret base under mount rainer and one under mount ST Helens.....that doesn't even make sense since both mountains are active at some level. Some people just need to get a life and not just try to get attention.

everything is the truth:
1 except when
2 only if
3 so long as.
feel free to use these examples at will. they really apply to everything. this is what i have learned to apply to most things in life.

i think people like to believe the unlikely. it is part of the thrill i guess. the thrill of "knowing something". and for those people there is no telling them it is true or not. it can be sad to watch people go down that path. but you can only watch. it is not for others to stop them. only try to leave signs along the way. to say and believe what we wish is what makes America a super power (oh, and colored staples. ha ha).

Laborers and Desk Jockeys you have to be kidding.

You missed two other groups

Security and Technicians.

Security, Someone has to watch.

Technicians, Labors don't have the skill level and Desk Jockeys don't want to get the hands dirty.
I have worked with desk jockeys that could not change the toilet paper roll in the bathroom without a instruction sheet.
They were great at pushing a pen. but lost when faced with a screwdriver.


I held my first top secret clearance while I was still in high school and was working a work experience program at NOTS China Lake in 1969
"Interim NAC Top Secret"
In 1970 i joined the navy and was given a FULL NAC Top Secret clearance.
After my navy schooling on my first ship i was one of two electricians on the ship that were cleared to go into the crypto room the other one was my Senior Chief.
After 4 years NAVY i went to work as a Security Officer at NWC China Lake.
new officers worked low clearance post for a average of 6 months before there clearance checks were finished.
i worked 3 day and got my TS badge.

I worked security for three years while going to collage.

Then moved on but i have worked for contractors off and on at NWC China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base and NTC Fort Irwin many times since and other new contractor employees would be give badges with "uncleared escorted only" or "Secret clearance" i would alway get a TS badge.

I even had to escort my bosses on a few jobs till there clearance was finished.

While much of what is posted by others on this thread is true i have found that the ongoing background checks depends not on your clearance level but your "need to know" level.

In The original post by thelibra

Gaining Clearance Levels
this follows you any time you work on a government clearance job.
and "Clearance is not something you walk into the company with"
is not entirely true.
If you have worked for other companies or the government your vetting follows you all your working life.
I have had mine follow me on both gov and contractor jobs.
they look at the highest "need to know" level you have worked and you can "walk into a company with" if the level if your "clearance" and "need to know" are higher then the job with the company without compromising Need to Know Compartmentalization

If you only have a clearance level but not the need to know level you my not be able to 'walk onto the job with'.

The need to know level is what many call "above top secret"
but is a obscure term as it does not have set levels. and is not above but a separate co-existing system of clearance.
you could be cleared and worked on a UFO project but later be denied for a lower rated project for a weapons system to shoot down UFOs because they don't want one person with information on both projects.
This does not mean you have less clearance or "need to know" just they don't want to break there Compartmentalization.

This is why the government can say that there is no clearance above top secret.
its not above, its a separate co-existing system.
it may have a letter designation but most people with it will never know what there's is.
you may have worked on projects with letter designations of Q,G,and S.
someone in security may be asked to give you a clearance to work a project with a letter designation of B but when they check you are barred from working any project with T, B, M, or J letter designations without clearance from a very high level authorization officer. and no one may be able to clear you but the president for projects with a letter designation Z,X,Y, and U.
The security officer will not know what project B is nor will he know what projects Q,G,S,T,M,J,Z,X,Y, or U are he does not have the need to know he just follows the list.
He most likely will have a need to know "letter" that keeps him from working on any other need to know project "letter" so that he never find out.

If you understand all this let me know because i never did.

This is Compartmentalization

I don't talk about what "I" know but what is published in open source publications.
some of them are obscure so what i can talk about may sound new but its just because i know enough about the projects i can find the obscure publications on the internet. and know that i can talk about that subject freely to the limit it is public.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 22-10-2008 by ANNED]

This is how it really goes. At least in the scientific part of the security world


Executives-basically do nothing. Never seen, never heard, basically a name on a report. Not even located on site

Desk Jockeys/ Pencil Pushers - Involved in the report writing/ proposal/ costing side of things, nothing else. Liason between techs relay results onto execs.

Technicians - Those who do the hands on work in the labs. Need to know, but no clue what they are really working on. need for a clearance ends here.

Laborers - Most likely do not even have a clearance

Security - also no clearance. Basically on the honor system... when on site, asked not to peer into labs... basically asked to forget what they see.

I too have no problem discussing things that are basically common knowledge, and are not proprietary, business sensitive or classified. If some of our results are published, I also will comment on that... but since I recently just had my clearances cleared I will not mention where I work, or what I work on.


DOD-S
DOJ-S
CDC-SA

[edit on 26-10-2008 by retroviralsounds]

Originally posted by Badge01
I would suggest that there really are only a few types of whistle-blowers and neither type is concerned with 'getting any exotic info out there to the people' under some altruistic motive...One other, rarer type might be a financial waste and abuse whistler blower.

The financial waste and abuse whistle blowers are especially prevalent in federal government work. In fact, I'd say that they are more prevalent than the "safety whistleblower" due to something called a qui tam lawsuit in which a whistleblower basically files a suit on behalf of the federal government to expose wrongdoing at a federal contractor. This is authorized under the False Claims Act.

A couple years ago, an individual in Florida made a tremendous amount of money by filing a qui tam suit against office supply companies that were selling Chinese-made staple removers and paper clip to the federal government in violation of the Trade Agreements Act.

Of course, given the huge financial incentives (the office supply lawsuit resulted in the individual making literally millions) "the truth" in these cases is much more likely to come out in courtrooms rather than on message boards.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by seentoomuch]

What if YOU'RE a part of a government conspiracy to debunk those who tell your government secrets by confusing us with things we know nothing about?

Just kidding, good point, you made, well written I'll be sure not to go believing any nutcases claiming to work at area 51 or some bs. Most of them work for staples. I know, cause we often make jokes about this dude who's the PERFECT example of what you described as the fakers.

Well, I have read this thread and like it actually. Yes you are right about compartmentalization. No two things that go together are going to be constructed in the same place because then this would give away in the least a feasible idea as to what the whole picture is. Which brings me to my next thing that I read. That is, most of the top secret and black projects are most likely being done in plain sight and no one is any the wiser because they are just making a small part of the overall project. Secret areas like Area 51 are the places that see the culmination of the project for testing purposes. The people there are most likely the only ones that know the entire picture of most projects. Also, about screening tests. If you are being screened you will and you wont know that you are. There will be the formal people who go to your friends and family as far back as the company thinks they need to go, however there is also an informal process that goes on with this screening as well. Friends and family will be approached in public say at a park, bar, some public place where strangers coming to chat wouldnt be uncommon. And eventually their chat will lead up to the person being screened and go from there. This is how they find out the information that normally wouldnt be said during a normal sit down formal meeting. I like this thread, because it does shead light on the many red flags of a hoax.

interesting post, logical and reasonable, and i appreciate all who have written about this. i worked in the computer field as a wrench jockey, screw man, or the more loathsome and generic term (hardware technician). i come at this from a point of view, that however specific a job one has, there are hundreds or even thousands of people that have assembled enough or all of the parts, documents, specs, that have a pretty good idea of the make-up of the final product. in other words, someone has to attach, hook-up, hot start, test, the "plasma drive" to the "ship". with various products being produced with different applications, you cannot have a three or four man team running around the country with the expertise needed to "finalize" the end product. so there are plenty of people "in the know".

Originally posted by retroviralsounds
This is how it really goes. At least in the scientific part of the security world


Executives-basically do nothing. Never seen, never heard, basically a name on a report. Not even located on site

Desk Jockeys/ Pencil Pushers - Involved in the report writing/ proposal/ costing side of things, nothing else. Liason between techs relay results onto execs.

Technicians - Those who do the hands on work in the labs. Need to know, but no clue what they are really working on. need for a clearance ends here.

Laborers - Most likely do not even have a clearance

Security - also no clearance. Basically on the honor system... when on site, asked not to peer into labs... basically asked to forget what they see.

I too have no problem discussing things that are basically common knowledge, and are not proprietary, business sensitive or classified. If some of our results are published, I also will comment on that... but since I recently just had my clearances cleared I will not mention where I work, or what I work on.


DOD-S
DOJ-S
CDC-SA

[edit on 26-10-2008 by retroviralsounds]

well, you are simply wrong on the "technicians". as one, for most jobs, i knew and had to know what i was working on, or i would not have been employed to work on the product or application involved. although i readily admit that i'm not at the level of intellect required for developing advanced products and applications, most of the time, i had a "working" knowledge of the end product. however, there were a few times where the seperation of "jobs" did leave me to merely speculate on the finalization, due to the generic nature of what was before me.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by jimmyx]

Do u believe that the govt. would work with someone off the street if their work was good enough? It's been a while however I recieved an offer to work with someone concerning chronomonitor technology that I turned down in 94. The circumstances I would have been living under were not fitting to my individuality.. I do not believe it was time at all for this to occur.. I had not yet learned the next appropriate step for my work.. I was on the run and scared as a result of my success; and some very unnerving people that exist, no matter who they are.. Now I have learned the next appropriate step; iF it is to occur.. I would like to ask something since I believe u know enough.. The first part of my work did not require alot of technological expense at all.. I waS successful.. Thus the, "employment" offer. The next step of my work would without a doubt require the resources of a government.. It is something designed to impliment what I allready made in 93.. With this particular technology there is of necessity a waiting period, unless ur committing suicide, then u would use it immediately.. There have been people in the past with success in this area, however they never learned the next step which would enable them to actually use it. I havE.. Anyway; I am trying to find my way in to the, "appropriate" group of people that would wish to work on this because, though others havE made them, I am the onlY one that can put it to use after it has been, "made".. Who is there for this?