Have You Heard of the National Clandestine Service?

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by Aleister

 

I'm no legal scholar, but if the CIA is forbidden from operating within US borders, how does the First Amendment protect operatives engaged in shilling exactly? You don't sound too sure about that. Are you trying to make excuses for these people while simultaneously disapproving of what they do?

Kind of. It is a conflict that the CIA operatives have to give up their freedom of speech and of the press in operating within the U.S. (the consitutional freedoms are one of the bedrocks of citizens rights in the U.S.). And of course they should not be breaking this important law, and trying to derail threads by ignoring the law to do it. But on one level it is their right as individual citizens to do so, even if they should be in jail for doing so. That's why posters and admins on important-topic threads, or posting on threads which may attract these type of thread-creepers, have to be diligent in keeping the discussion on topic. These folks (or at least their bosses) know how to use words and emotions to move a thread off topic, so everyone here who is interested in the topic their posting on has to keep on top of that and not get caught up in the web of emotion.

Back to topic on this thread, have any of the admins at the site where the post was first made given an adequate explanation for closing it? I'm glad ATS has kept it open, and hopefully that news will "get around" to some users on the other sites who would like to try ATS as either a back-up or their main posting outlet (I personally would like to see the best science-orienated people join us here, and ancient civilization folks, sort of outside the interest area of this thread).

In regards to the original thread on GLP in which this strangeness began, the discussion was centered primarily around the question of who pronounced the victims dead at Sandy Hook, who has the authority to pronounce the victims dead, who decided that none of the victims left in the school were able to be saved with emergency medical attention, etc.

I think in the context of our discussion here the topic under discussion THERE has some relevance, although it is not the crux of the matter for our purposes.

This post from the original thread touches on part of that argument and is worth thinking about, in my opinion:



This comment from the thread also reiterates the point under discussion:

It's worth noting that this issue - who pronounced the 27 dead at the school, was recussitation attempted and by whom and on how many victims - has really gotten the attention of the shills.

Has anyone heard any talk of this issue? Who DID attempt to resuccitate the victims and how many of them? Was it the police? Paramedics? What is the proper procedure here, and was it followed? This issue may be worthy of a thread of its own, but I thought I'd at least ask if this info has been made available.

It's sort of hard to imagine a lot of active duty agency guys doing this, it just seems like a piss poor ROI to shill GLP or, for that matter, ATS or the other CT sites.

I could see some sort of voluntary program for retired agency guys, maybe. There actually WAS a program a few years back like that, volunteer retired operators were given a site to surf, looking for little bits of dropped intel or writing styles that matched people SOCOM was looking for. It was pretty cheap to administer, they actually got some really useful data out of it.

That was a pilot, it wrapped up and I didn't hear any more about it, but it was talked up as a really cost effective technique. Maybe this is similar. Anyway, it was a way around some USSIDs that forbade surfing domestic websites for certain types of info. Not that they couldn't do that anyway, but it took some help from a UKUSA partner.

Another comment relevant to the subject being discussed on the thread in question.

Again, well put by another GLP member:

Some pretty interesting stuff to mull over on that thread.

T his link will take you to the Google search results leading you to the thread (right on top).

Can't link directly to the thread according to ATS rules. I recommend starting at the beginning. There are some really good points made in the first few pages, then stuff gets a little crazy on page 7 and thereafter.

Oh my God! Please take your "home" account with your walls of text/graphics and open a thread on the LEO/EMT issue, if your boss is so insistent on that issue being discussed.

Clearly a "real" person can figure out that this thread is discussing something not directly related to Sandy Hook, GLP, or any LEO SOP Docs.

If you want to derail the conversation at hand, why not try an ad hominem attack?

M.E.H.

reply to post by Bedlam


I would have an easier time agreeing with you, if Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo weren't all scrubbing this issue from search results. I might have an easier time agreeing if there weren't so many sites that automatically close and delete all threads on this issue, even jehovahs-witness.net!

I don't fully understand the ROI myself. I have read several people's opinion that in some way the "conspiracy community" is being set up for a fall of some sort. This does resonate with me on some level.

While I'm sure this event is not a hoax, based on the scale of the response, I'm not sure what it is.

One detail that bothers me is that if this was supposed to be an program error that took ASCII text off of the clipboard and dumped it into the message, why is the Team Leaders last name obfuscated with asterisks? It says Sheila N*****. I can understand how the clipboard could get dumped to the post on accident, but wouldn't those asterisks have to be added after the fact? Unless her last name really is N******.

I'm hoping anyone might have an idea on that. It's a small bit that puts a check-mark in the "accidentally on purpose" column for me.

M.E.H.

Originally posted by Aleister
...
Kind of. It is a conflict that the CIA operatives have to give up their freedom of speech and of the press in operating within the U.S. (the consitutional freedoms are one of the bedrocks of citizens rights in the U.S.). And of course they should not be breaking this important law, and trying to derail threads by ignoring the law to do it. But on one level it is their right as individual citizens to do so, even if they should be in jail for doing so. That's why posters and admins on important-topic threads, or posting on threads which may attract these type of thread-creepers, have to be diligent in keeping the discussion on topic. These folks (or at least their bosses) know how to use words and emotions to move a thread off topic, so everyone here who is interested in the topic their posting on has to keep on top of that and not get caught up in the web of emotion.

Back to topic on this thread, have any of the admins at the site where the post was first made given an adequate explanation for closing it? I'm glad ATS has kept it open, and hopefully that news will "get around" to some users on the other sites who would like to try ATS as either a back-up or their main posting outlet (I personally would like to see the best science-orienated people join us here, and ancient civilization folks, sort of outside the interest area of this thread).

Let me take a stab at conveying why this event bothered me so much, and see if you agree.

I might not like it, but I acknowledge that there are things our government and military do that I don't have a need to know. There are some things that need to be kept secret (with proper FOIA review, of course). I suspect there are far fewer issues that meet this true need for secrecy than the government claims. So fine, keep secrets, keep mum, reveal only selective facts. Tell me "nope, sorry, not going to give you that information. Need to know and you don't."

However, secrets may be necessary, but American citizens should not be counterintelligence targets, being fed disinformation by their own government in order to steer them in approved directions.

Keep your mouth shut, if you must, but don't #ing lie to me.

M.E.H.

...my thought- and this is me using my whatIf omg spy brain. What if... That post was placed there to see how many users would attempt to research the information given. There's #'s listed in the post & in the heading that look like file-document # 's.
Whats contained in the files? They'll have a record of every IP putting those #'s in search and bAm!!! ... Your on their snooping list!!!! lol Which is threat 50 on their threat level list. lol
I quickly ditched this frame of thought because all anyone has to do is follow our well out in the open/out-spoken opinions here, copy our IP's and then come and taze us into submission. lol lol

BUMP

Originally posted by Empyreal
…
While I'm sure this event is not a hoax, based on the scale of the response, I'm not sure what it is.

[color=#13ee00]One detail that bothers me is that if this was supposed to be an program error that took ASCII text off of the clipboard and dumped it into the message, why is the Team Leaders last name obfuscated with asterisks? It says Sheila N*****. I can understand how the clipboard could get dumped to the post on accident, but wouldn't those asterisks have to be added after the fact? Unless her last name really is N******.

I'm hoping anyone might have an idea on that. It's a small bit that puts a check-mark in the "accidentally on purpose" column for me.

M.E.H.

M.E.H., redaction (in this instance possibly for personnel security) is what came to my mind when I saw those asterisks.

By security, I mean that the document itself probably resides on SharePoint012 in already-redacted form.

The un-redacted original version would live in a more secure part of their private LAN/NIPRNet/SIPRNet.

Especially applicable here because that SharePoint is being accessed by a computer which exists on their networks DMZ (the wall between the LAN and WLAN),
i.e. it is also directly connected to Internet.

Here is a Government document that I found, which deals with various processes and procedures of redacting documents: link to nj.gov

If an electronic document is subject to redaction (i.e., word processing or Adobe Acrobat files) custodians should be sure to [color=#11ee00]delete the material being redacted and insert in place of the redacted material asterisks to obviously indicate the redaction.

reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE


Redaction! That was the word I was looking for! Yes, it looks like redaction to me. I hadn't thought that the working copy of the document might already have been redacted. Do you think that is common?

I guess I've always looked at redaction as something that is done when making a copy for FOIA or something. It kinda reduces the usefulness of a working copy to have reactions in it, doesn't it?

The point about having it redacted on the cloud sounds like a possible explanation

Originally posted by bigfootgurl
Another comment relevant to the subject being discussed on the thread in question.

Very good question that quote raises. The original topic that got shilled is being researched more in depth and hopefully a brave EMT will go on record soon to lay it out. If the shill fail was a desperate attempt to change the subject of the thread, which it did, it is worth taking a more in-depth look at the EMS protocols and lack of execution thereof at Sandy Hook.

While I do strongly suspect that this was part of a hoax or a troll (though, it is obviously odd and I am open at least to the possibility of it being more significant than that,) and while I hope you know Hefficide that I have a lot of respect for you and your positions on a lot of things - many of which I wholeheartedly agree with - I have to concede that I would need to consider myself somewhat naive to claim with such certitude that the CIA doesn't operate domestically and doesn't engage in cyber infiltration.

For one, the CIA has a long and well documented history of - highly illegal - domestic operations, their concealment, and a habitual tendency to perpetuate them even after having them shut down by congressional oversight and so forth.

Secondly, there is ample documentation of CIA redundancy with respect to other agencies' programs. There have been plenty of times in research where, say, an Air Force project that seemed most well suited to them had a mirror or similar project within the CIA simply because the CIA internally wanted to know about what the Air Force was investigating via its own methodology and so they could control the flow of intel being collected in-house.

This has happened before in ways that were internalized and compartmentalized enough that even the oversight bodies responsible for making sure this didn't happen were unaware (or feigned unawareness at least) that different agencies and branches all had their own little versions of operations best suited to any one of them. Granted, this was some time ago, but it's conceivable.

In short, just because they aren't supposed to do a thing, and may not be best suited to do a thing, doesn't mean they haven't historically done a fine job of spending the taxpayer's dollars on doing it anyway. That doesn't mean they are, or that this isn't just a hoax. But it's a thought worth considering in my opinion.

Peace.

One of the secrets of a secret organization is its chain of command and organizational structure.

According to the Supreme Court, any type of observation could be constitutional depending on the reason or the method.

Covert action, in contrast to information collection, is usually illegal, and the departments which do such required operations tend to never exsist, or you could say, come and go.

Intelligence collection is a constant and amenable to permanent institutions and directing by policy. Action is always ad hoc and highly dependant on circumstances. (The way all government projects and taxes should be.)

Anything is possible, since we don't know the real state of affairs.

Sorry for bumping an old thread but I felt this to be relevant information for this thread.

www.canadafreepress.com...

No idea about the source's validity but what he says in the article dated 6 Feb, 2013, is very relevant and is said way before any of the relevant activities discussed in this thread was brought forward. I have tried to find more information about the "Cyber-warriors for Obama", but sadly this article, or it's source, is the same quoted all round google.

Personally I feel this issue is unresolved and points towards a covert political action-group, government-sponsored or not, this kind of activities cannot be left unchecked. And imho it is uncharacteristic of the ATS userbase not to take this more seriously. But then again, all this happened at G*P, a site whose content is constantly ignored or shunned, and well, I guess sometimes it is justified. Not so sure about this though

I notice that the entire existence of that thread has been scrubbed from Google. Can't find it anywhere. Is that typical?

a reply to: PREDEVpersona

You seem to have a particular interest in this story...

Only now hearing of it myself. GLP seems to have erased all pertinent threads, though their community still quabbles over the authenticity of the original post.

After reading about this, I was compelled to revisit this enlightening site:
cryptome.org...

Hoax (imo). The "accidental paste" of a non-text-selectable "Microsoft error message" was miscapitalized and mispunctuated.

I have no doubt that instructions such as were "accidentally pasted" exist in real life; in fact, the wild (feigned) shock that oh-so-swiftly followed the incident had me scratching my head until I realized most of it wasn't genuine.

Of course there are instructions for shilling forums; but I'd wager most of them are put out by PR firms hired by the government, not the government itself.

Either way, the "accident" and it's "OMG" reaction was just a ploy to get people off of the ever-sensitive, lawyer-infested topic of the botched emergency response to Sandy Hook.

An additional thought: Is this a full 8515 message?

In all versions of Access starting with 2000, the actual error message is:

"You copied a large amount of data onto the Clipboard.@When you copy data onto the Clipboard, only the reference to the object is copied. If you close the source document, however, Microsoft Access must paste all the data from its source. Depending on the amount of data, this can take some time. Do you want to save this data on the Clipboard?"

However, when people are referring to the message in conversation, they tend to abbreviate it in different ways...sometimes with three dots connecting the first and last sentences, sometimes with four dots, sometimes with spaces an dots...but I believe it's always an abbreviation.

I don't think genuine Microsoft error message include elipsis, do they?

Here are all the 8515s according to Microsoft:

msaccess2000.dbquanti.eu...