UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Dec > Dec 3

Re: Security Classifications - Friedman

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:38:04 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 16:52:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Security Classifications - Friedman


 >From: Murray Bott <murrayb@win.co.nz>
 >To: Updates List <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:20:15 +1300 (NZDT)
 >Subject: Security Classifications [was: Frank Kaufman?]

 >Greetings List

 >On 28th Novemember Stan Friedman wrote

 >>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@rogers.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 22:37:20 -0400
 >>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufman?

 ><snip>

 >>I will have more to say about the claim I am told was made that
 >>MJ-12 is a fraud once I see the program.

 >>My paper noted above does point out that despite Jan Aldrich's
 >>recent false claim that the GAO must have been mistaken, that
 >>the GAO found examples of the use of TOP SECRET RESTRICTED on
 >>documents from the same time frame as the Cutler Twining memo,
 >>that they indeed had.

 >I recall that Jan asked that you provide an "Independantly
 >Verifiable Copy" of such a Document containing "TOP SECRET
 >RESTRICTED" Classification.

Murray please refer to what I have said

1.The GAO stated on page 80 of their 456 package re their
Roswell effort ".....In several instances we noticed the
classification TOP SECRET RESTRICTED used on several documents.
This is mentioned because in past references to this
classification (Majestic 12) we were told it was not in use
during this period.".

2. I also noted that I spoke with 3GAO people who told me the
material was classified and they could not make copies of it. Is
that clear?They had clearances for just about everything.I did
not and do not.

3. Jan came up with the interesting claim that they must have
seen TOP SECRET RESTRICTED DATA, rather than TOP SECRET
RESTRICTED without providing any basis for this claim.The GAO
people certainly were aware of TSRD.

4. Furthermore we have to ask what other classification besides
TOP SECRET RESTRICTED was noted as not in use at the time with
regard to Majestic 12. I didn't put in the Majestic 12,  it is
in the GAO report. I was quite familiar with Restricted Data
tacked on to classified nuclear related documents because I
wrote and handled many such documents.No, I did not consider
trying to break into theNational Archives and force them to
release these documents to me.I stated these same points on page
203-204 of the MUFON 2000 Symposium Proceedings.

 >Stan my enquiry to you (and Jan) is:
 >
 >Have you provided Jan with such a document yet? - Or do you wish
 >to ignore this request and hope that it will go away?

I covered this point in my MUFON 2000 paper and in my posting.
The GAO people say the material in question was still
classified. They could not provide copies of it. Is there some
reason for thinking they were lying?

 >Until then Stan your claim is nothing more than that - A claim
 >without any form of verifiable evidence

Read what the GAO said. They qualify as expert witnesses who
were there with the proper clearances.

 >>I also noted that not all TS documents have TS Control numbers,
 >>again despite Jan's false claim to the contrary.

 >Again Stan:

 >Have you provided Jan with any "Independantly Verifiable Copy"
 >of such a document.

I noted that I has published 2 such documents  in my 1990
'Final Report on Operation Majestic 12', pages B-4 and B-5. Both
TOP SECRET memos were 1 page and each was from Robert Cutler and
both were found in the Twining papers at the Library of Congress
Manuscript Division. Anybody can go see them and xerox copies
there as I did. Furthermore in discussions with Archivists at
the Eisenhower Library, the Marshall Archives and theTruman
Library I was informed that often there were not TS Control
numbers onWhite House TS documents. Clearly this was
understandable if it was a one page item form General A to
General B as opposed to a 20 page report of which there were 20
copies distributed.

 >>In Jan's defense I must note that his excellent security related
 >>background seemed to relate to classified military documents not
 >>to NSC, White House, Industrial classified documents, tc.

 >Stan:- it is obvious Jan has shown that you dont know as much
 >about security classifications as you often try and make out you
 >do (A little learning is a dangerous thing here)

That is an interesting proclamation backed up by what?

 >You continue your barrage against Jan to imply that his background
 >knowledge doesnt cover "NSC, White House, Industrial classified
 >documents, etc."

What I said was that Jan's " excellent security related
background seemed to relate to classified military documents,
not to NSC etc." Which items that he mentioned relate to NSC
etc? The White House and NSC are not military groups.In other
words the background he provided doesn't allow you or me to
evaluate how familiar he was with NSC White House etc documents.
Or are you psychic?

 >Stan my question here is - What evidence do you have here that
 >your own knowledge is better (than Jan's or anyone elses) in
 >this area. Any attempt to claim that you have visited so many
 >archives etc you must come away with something to verify any
 >bold claims on "Security Classifications" etc.

Let's see now, I spoke with several archivists, I published TS
documents which did not have TS Control numbers, I quoted from
and can provide copies of the GAO page 80 and I have been to 19
different Archives. In earlier discussions on this same matter
Iy quoted from The Record Group 341 56 page Preliminary
Inventory of the Records of  HQ USAF Records Group 341 to
clearly establish that that group did NOT come even close to
containing only declassified TOP SECRET documents all with
control numbers.as had been claimed.

 >Stan - so far I suggest "Claims - Many, Evidence - None"

 >You must remember that when you make such bold claims that there
 >are in fact other researchers out here (many on the "Updates
 >List") who are equally (or more) familar with "Security
 >Classifications" and "Archives Searches" etc.

 >In any "Court of Law" - Civil or Criminal the prosecuting agency
 >must be able to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt"

 >In Ufology the sometimes quoted statement "The absence of
 >evidence is not the evidence of absence" is just a "slick catch
 >phrase" made by people who havent a scrap of evidence to support
 >their case.

That is plain nonsense as I noted in my MUFON Journal column.

 >I would certainly welcome your release (to Jan Aldrich and
 >others) of any "Independantly Verifiable Documents" as outlined
 >above.

Go get the above referenced items. They have been noted before.
Also how about providing some evidence that the GAO was mistaken
and tell me how much time Jan has spent at those 19 government
archives. This discussion is beginning to sound as silly as Joe
Nickell's claim that the EBE is fraudulent because the data
format violates the government style Manual. In fact there are
many examples of that same format..


Stan Friedman
fsphys@rogers.com
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com