Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

RU Fails 'Intelligence' Test?

Postby Gary » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:25 am

Since AD locked the previous thread [Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?] I'll respond to the issues raised there in this new thread (some issues are legitimate, others less so or not at all).

Are you guys paranoid?! :-)


I posted US Code for the edification of the reader, under the assumption that an astute reader would find it obvious that the 'sensitive' nature of the email messages was primarily on a personal / professional level.

It would appear that RU is seeing their 'reality' based upon the dance of light and shadow on the wall of the virtual cave. How RU connects the dots and attempts to put their paranoid interpretation into my writing is almost comical.

It certainly IS somewhat entertaining, otherwise I wouldn't be here!

AD raised a legitimate point about whether or not open-sources have properly referred to Paul Murad as "Dr." Paul Murad. A minor point given his influence at STAIF, but certainly worth correcting if it turns out AD is correct.

[Note for the record: I also pointed out numerous (and similar) minor errors in the article by investigative author Gus Russo which is featured at the RU web site.]

If that is the best AD can come up with then I am less than impressed.

As for the rest of the story ...
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am


Re: RU Fails 'Intelligence' Test?

Postby Gary » Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:42 am

The first issue raised by AD (legitimate): AD wrote "The implication of that statement in the context you used it in is that Paul Murad is a Dr. (holds a PhD) and works at the DIA (is an intelligence official).

My contention is that Paul Murad does not hold a PhD and he is not an intelligence official.
"

Open-sources including an established journalist (Sharon Weinberger, Wired and Washington Post) referred to Murad as from DIA or referred to a "Dr. Paul Murad" as did these Chinese scientists in

∗ Invited talk at the first international conference on High-Frequency Gravitational Waves, Paper-03-108, May 2003, The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia, USA. 1


Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. R. M. L. Baker, Jr. and Dr. P. A. Murad for their attention, helpful suggestion to this manuscript and useful remarks.
This work is supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 10175096 and the Hubei Province Key Laboratory Foundation of Gravitational and Quantum Physics under Grants No. GQ 0101.


http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format ... %2F0308079

Comments, gentlemen?


Added reference:


[Mod Edit: irrelevant additional reference to another paper by the same authors removed]
Last edited by Gary on Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: RU Fails 'Intelligence' Test?

Postby Gary » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:03 am

Regarding foreign intelligence collection efforts and 'alternative physics' the new

SPACE, PROPULSION & ENERGY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL FORUM
... qualifies their invitation with the following:

As an international forum we are interested in cooperating with foreign space science agencies and businesses, including (but not limited to): [images: logos of foreign partners not reproduced here]

This invitation is extended with respect to US restrictions, as ITAR and other security issues must be taken into account.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:37 am

Gary wrote:Open-sources including an established journalist (Sharon Weinberger, Wired and Washington Post) referred to Murad as from DIA…

Yes, you said that already. Still doesn’t make it right. She could have been misinformed by the same sources you’re using.

Gary wrote:…or referred to a "Dr. Paul Murad" as did these Chinese scientists…

Still doesn’t make it right. See above.

Gary, it’s clear you’re more interested in promoting Kit and Hal’s (et. al.) scams (e.g. funding for pseudoscientific “research” and “insider” alien tales like Serpo) and using RU to attack us and others via proxy then getting the facts straight as you were asked you to do. If they’ve got something to say they can post it here themselves. I’ve suspended your account for the time being while we review this matter and your future participation here.

Gary wrote:This invitation is extended with respect to US restrictions, as ITAR and other security issues must be taken into account.

They better be! I have my doubts certain folks (including you) will…

Thread unlocked…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:33 am

Gary,

I hope you enjoy drawing more people in with your antics to show just how sloppy you are in your "analysis". Because with your blatantly sloppy reasoning with regard to my challenges, you are doing just that...

Gary wrote:Ray wrote: "The fact that you have no security clearance means you have absolutely NO REASON to not be SPECIFIC about things. But instead of being specific you hide, and dodge, and throw out "clues"..."

Not in the least bit true: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=61244

In some circumstances where a source has allowed us to see something that reporters would not otherwise be able to observe, special problems of attribution may arise.

Journalistic ground rules can be confusing, but our goal is clarity in our dealings with sources and readers. This means explaining our ground rules to sources, and giving readers as much information as possible about how we learned the information in our stories. If a source is not on the record, it is important to establish ground rules at the beginning of a conversation.


We must be careful, when dealing with sources who say they want to provide information "on background," to explain that to us that means we can quote the statement while maintaining the confidentiality of the source.


One alternative to off-the-record is "for guidance." A source may be willing to give us information for our guidance or to prompt further reporting, on the understanding that we will not use his comments as the basis for putting something in the paper. This, for example, was the relationship between Deep Throat and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Such guidance can be useful even if we can't print it at once.


As you have done SOOOOO many times before, your response is a non-sequitor with respect to the issue/challenge I put before you. NOWHERE was I talking about "attribution of sources". Yet you try to (and fail to) refute my statement above and claim it is untrue by quoting something about attribution of sources. Let's go back and review EXACTLY what my challenge was to you, and then you see if you can find ANYWHERE in that challenge where I was asking for your "sources"...

Ray wrote:Tell us exactly what you think the NSSO is all about with regard to your citing them here in this thread. You cannot be thrown in jail, because you have no knowledge of classification of any of your speculations.


See anything in there about me asking for you to attribute anything to your "open sources"? No, I didn't think so. So instead of treating me as if I am some sort of idiot who cannot see when you are avoiding simple questions, why don't you simply SPELL OUT what you think the relationship is between NSSO and your imaginary spy games? No attributions of people/sources necessary. Plain and simple: Just tell me what YOU think NSSO has to do with any of the nonsense you cite in this thread. Any/all sources can and will be protected, because it will only be YOUR (naieve) thoughts. Unless, of course, you are too much of a stinking coward to come right out and put it on the table.

I swear, Gary, every last ounce of respect that I ONCE held for you because of the things I saw you share on Sarfatti's list is all but disintegrated with your silly antics here. Put up or shut the eff up!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:44 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Any/all sources can and will be protected, because it will only be YOUR (naieve) thoughts. Unless, of course, you are too much of a stinking coward to come right out and put it on the table.

I swear, Gary, every last ounce of respect that I ONCE held for you because of the things I saw you share on Sarfatti's list is all but disintegrated with your silly antics here. Put up or shut the eff up!

Ray


Well written Ray. There is a major difference between the act of hiding behind anonymous comments of sources in order to "imply" what you really, really want to say - and the act of writing clearly and in a non-convoluted manner, EXACTLY what ones personal conclusions are regarding a certain matter.

In the first case you've got fear, feelings of incompetence and feeling as though you're "in over your head", and in the second case you've got courage, self-respect, and even a bit of humility.

That line said it all Ray...

Unless, of course, you are too much of a stinking coward to come right out and put it on the table.

Thank you!!!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:47 pm

Here, Gary, let me help out by rubbing a little more salt in your wound:

Gary wrote:One more clue for the clueless: http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/


If you look under the programs NSSO is touting themselves as a big player on/in (under their "Current Efforts" link on their web page), you will see one of them is ORS (Operationally Responsive Space). A program I have worked from the contractor side. First let us take a look at a specific part of NSSO's "mission statement":

The NSSO facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities. We are the only office specifically focused on cross-space enterprise issues and we provide direct support to the Air Force, National Reconnaissance Office, other Services and Agencies, Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, White House, and Congress, as well as other national security space stakeholders.


Emphasis mine. And now, let us see what the GAO is saying about the ORS program:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense

According to a new report, GAO found that both the intelligence and military communities are unclear about the ORS concept and “concerned about DOD’s lack of consultation and communication with them.”


Again, my emphasis. But wait!!! Isn't "cross-space enterprise issues" exactly what NSSO says they should be doing? If so, clearly they are failing at least with regard to how the GAO measures the program! More from the GAO article:

DOD has acknowledged the importance of integrating ORS into existing DOD and intelligence community processes and architecture, “but it has not fully addressed how it will achieve this integration,” GAO says.


Where is the NSSO? Are they asleep at the switch? Or are they just-now polishing off their new ORS Powerpoint charts that will make people go "ooooh! ahhhhh!"????

GAO is recommending that DOD define key ORS terms and what Joint Force Commander needs the concept is trying to satisfy. The agency also recommends DOD “begin to adequately plan integration of the ORS concept now” to ensure success down the road.


If NSSO were really doing their job as they claim it relates to "architecture development" (something I know a lot about given I have now been promoted to a System Architect position), all of this would already be in place. The FIRST part of an architecture you develop and define is the "how am I planning to use this capability". That is also called by the name of "Concept of Operations" which defines an architecture of specific "Operational Activities" which a new system can be designed around.

So, Gary... I am still waiting for you to GET SPECIFIC about why you brought up the NSSO. Because as I have clearly shown here:

1) They are an organization of "big words but few value-added deeds" bureaucrats.
2) According to the GAO, the thing NSSO says they are here for (and claim to do best), is NOT being done on the ORS program!

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:17 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:If NSSO were really doing their job as they claim it relates to "architecture development" (something I know a lot about given I have now been promoted to a System Architect position), all of this would already be in place.


Hey...congratulations Ray, that's quite an accomplishment! Nice work!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:28 pm

I just had to add one more post-mortem to this thread...because when Gary first brought up the NSSO I almost peed my pants I laughed so hard. Check out this article in AvLeak:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... E08148.xml

A blue-ribbon panel of national security space experts is calling for a number of "bold steps" - including the abolishment of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) as they exist today - to shake up today's ineffective national security space procurement and operations structures and provide cohesive governance of this increasingly vulnerable area for the Pentagon.


What a great job it seems the NSSO has been doing! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you reading in stealth mode, Gary? But even "more encouraging" that our FED government really knows how to spend money is this:

Yet, perhaps even more radical is the recommendation for management of duties now executed to develop "black," or classified, satellite systems at the NRO and open, white-world constellations at the SMC in Los Angeles. A new layer of management, called the National Security Space Authority (NSSA), should be formed, the panel says. The NSSA chief would be dual-hatted, reporting into the Pentagon as an undersecretary of defense for space and reporting to the DNI as the deputy for space.


Gee.... NSSO didn't work out so well... so let's change the last letter...yeah, that will fix it! :lol:

This is also why I guffaw at the idea that we should take funds for schools away from the state govs and give it to the feds... they have such a great track record of management of critical infrastructure!

R
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:06 am

What’s the matter Ray? Still bitter about Boeing winning their protest against the Air Force for awarding the $35 billion dollar tanker contract to you guys? :P

Anyway, I think you’ve made it pretty obvious Gary just saw the word “intelligence” on their web page and ran with it…

Meanwhile, in other Air Force news, it appears the rumors of the death of Air Force Cyber Command may have been premature.

I was going to say if the Navy wants to rule cyberspace they would have to raise the bar on the ASVAB (AFQT) score they require to get in… :wink:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:43 am

Access Denied wrote:What’s the matter Ray? Still bitter about Boeing winning their protest against the Air Force for awarding the $35 billion dollar tanker contract to you guys? :P


Not at all. In fact, most of us at NGC are most amused at their latest whining. As our CEO stated: They got exactly what they wanted. Their protest was based upon the USAF not being clear about the scoring criteria. Now that the DoD has made it clear for the rebid, why are they now complaining? The tanker's primary job is to carry fuel to thirsty aircraft. Does it not make perfect sense that the customer would give extra credit for ability to carry MORE fuel than the minimum required? So now we have heard comments from Congress that they are going to fight this criteria as being unfair to Boeing and slanted towards Northrop-Grumman??? Really!?!? Is Boeing THAT weak that they require protection from Congress? And what does that say about bias and favoritism given Northrop-Grumman is also a US contractor (who happens to have a great track record with the USAF!) Be prepared to be blasted by Europeans if any such actions are taken that would CLEARLY benefit Boeing. In fact, if such were to occur it would be a serious black mark on their still-open case dealing with Airbus subsidies. I used to respect Boeing until I saw what they were all about when they took over McDonnell-Douglas when I worked at Douglas Long Beach.

But I digress... :)
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:55 pm

Unlocked this thread because the following information is again relevant and important...I'm trying to learn more.

Access Denied wrote:2. Paul Murad claims in his bio that he is a government consultant. Government consultants and contractors are not government employees. To be considered a government official one must be a government employee therefore he is not an intelligence official no matter where he works. Furthermore, I do not believe intelligence officials routinely serve on the Board of Directors of American Antigravity Inc. alongside other known pseudoscientific scam artists. Please refer to the U.S. Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office web site FMI re: Ethics and Conflicts of Interest…

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/


I've heard a few rumors that he was recently forced to retire from his position with the government - I wonder if the Standards of Conduct that you listed above is the reason (assuming it's true - I still haven't been able to confirm from a second source).

3. You claim to have an email from Paul Murad signed with a DoD PKI certificate that originated from an OSD email server. OSD is not DIA and they have their own email servers therefore this email you claim to have (and we have not seen and therefore may not even exist) does not verify the claim he works at the DIA made by you and your sources, Ronald Pandolfi, Sharon Wienberger, and Eric Davis. Furthermore, government consultants and contractors can and do have government email addresses and DoD PKI certificates are issued to everyone with an DoD email account therefore your (currently unsubstantiated) claim that you have an email signed with Paul Marrad’s PKI certificate does nothing to validate yours or anybody’s else’s claim that he is a DIA intelligence official.


I can confirm that Ron is at least one source of the statement that Murad works (or worked) at DIA. Not that he's an intelligence official, but that he works for DIA. However, if the OSD is not DIA, then that is called into question, and it also calls Ron's credibility into question - so I'd really like to confirm whether or not Murad did or didn't work for DIA.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: RU Fails 'Intelligence' Test?

Postby ryguy » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:59 pm

Gary wrote:Open-sources including an established journalist (Sharon Weinberger, Wired and Washington Post) referred to Murad as from DIA or referred to a "Dr. Paul Murad" as did these Chinese scientists in

∗ Invited talk at the first international conference on High-Frequency Gravitational Waves, Paper-03-108, May 2003, The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia, USA. 1



This statement above confirms that Sharon, the Washington Post, and the Chinese Scientists involved in the HFGW debacle were all informed (by someone) that Murad was a Ph.D, and that he worked for the DIA. It's important that this is clarified, because if he (or someone representing him) misrepresented his credentials and his position, that reflects a fraud - and of course here at RU, we believe there's always a motive behind any fraud that will tell a much larger story....

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:44 pm

ryguy wrote:I've heard a few rumors that he was recently forced to retire from his position with the government - I wonder if the Standards of Conduct that you listed above is the reason (assuming it's true - I still haven't been able to confirm from a second source).

Well, I don’t know anything about that but I do recall the American Antigravity site went down for quite a while after I posted that. Perhaps only a coincidence but I see it’s back up now and here’s a photo of Murad at the (now defunct) STAIF in Albuquerque in 2007…

http://www.americanantigravity.com/imag ... iginal.jpg

Note his placard merely says “Department of Defense” which seems highly unusual to me. Normally one would indicate which specific branch of an organization they work for, especially if the reason they’re there is work related. (in the military this would be what’s known as your “office symbol”)

Also, here’s a photo of fellow board member Richard Hoaxland at the same event…

http://www.americanantigravity.com/imag ... iginal.jpg

You know what they say about birds of a feather…

ryguy wrote:I can confirm that Ron is at least one source of the statement that Murad works (or worked) at DIA. Not that he's an intelligence official, but that he works for DIA. However, if the OSD is not DIA, then that is called into question, and it also calls Ron's credibility into question - so I'd really like to confirm whether or not Murad did or didn't work for DIA.

I don’t think it really matters that much, the two are closely related and I recall reading somewhere that Ron said they sometimes use their mail servers?

I believe Murad was most likely an employee of, or paid consultant to, the MITRE Corporation. (a government contractor)

Of course that really doesn’t tell us anything about someone’s credibility, for all we know they could be paid as little as $1 a year in order to “retain” them but you would have to ask Ron about that particular practice… ;)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Why Did a Senior Intelligence Official Leak Sensitive Email?

Postby longhaircowboy » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:17 am

Can I just say here that once Gary writes the name Howard Blum I am immediately suspicious. He's referring to the book "Out There" which can be called semi fiction without guilt. Blum cites no names and the amount of speculation is rampant. There are some relevant and quite possibly true revelations contained in the book, But Gary has no clue which they are. If you're gonna use a work that may or may not contain any inaccuracies(or accuracies for that matter) by anonymous talking heads then you better have a good second source.
Sorry Gary you fail on all counts.
Save a horse, ride a cowboy.

Memory...is an internal rumor.
George Santayana
User avatar
longhaircowboy
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:05 am
Location: Florida

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron