Bob Collins and Exempt from Disclosure

[ryguy]

Ryan,

You seem to have neglected to post the messages where source #1 and #2 both discuss FBI involvement, Justice Department and Internal Affairs.

Source #2 above indicated FBI involvement was non-existant...they didn't care. Internal Affairs was related to our reporting of Doty's harassment of one of our moderators, in addition to his threatening of the DNI source himself. At least in one case - there could certainly have been others. Other places where internal affairs or Justice Dept was mentioned had no supporting evidence. Yes - we have a number of the messages in the archive along with a larger number that we've received directly since then.

Your quote re: FBI was about the previous meeting involving an interview as part of a clearance review of source #2.

No - all quotes were laid out in the exact sequence that the conversation took place... He was referring to the FBI's interest in the subject above which the two sources were discussing. And the FBI, while there on normal business (quite likely a clearance review as you note), when the Soap Opera subject at hand (Gene) was mentioned they had no interest.

I wish I had more time that the few minutes a day available to respond properly to the issues you have raised here. Perhaps we can continue this after the holidays?

Gary

It's probably not fair that I type posts like the one above in less than 15 minutes...lol. Yes - we can discuss in greater detail after the holidays. In fact, maybe we should hash it out in even greater detail via email - so that maybe we can save our sources a little bit of grief over how much material we're releasing here.... lol

-Ry

[ryguy]

BTW I should also add that Source #1 has back peddled on numerous occasions re: information provided by Source #2, later confirming his errors in private emails sent directly to me.

Gary

Yes - and the same goes for the backpeddling of Source #2 on numerous occasions when information provided by Source #1 confirms Source #2's errors in private emails sent directly to me.

-Ry

[murnut]

Thank-you to the both of you for having this discussion.

It is eye opening.

Merry Christmas

Andy


Edit

In fact, maybe we should hash it out in even greater detail via email - so that maybe we can save our sources a little bit of grief over how much material we're releasing here.... lol

-Ry

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

[ryguy]

In fact, maybe we should hash it out in even greater detail via email - so that maybe we can save our sources a little bit of grief over how much material we're releasing here.... lol

-Ry

Nooooooooooooooooooooo

LOL....not to hide anything - only so we can decide how much we can both release without getting our sources TOO upset with us.

-Ry

[murnut]

Too funny

Next you guys will be posting your emails redacted, about leaked emails that are already redacted.

See the irony?

Merry Christmas

Andy

[ryguy]

Next you guys will be posting your emails redacted, about leaked emails that are already redacted.

See the irony?

LOL....yeah. How about we name you source #3, AD can be source #4, Serpentime will be source #5 - and then we'll leak all of our emails redacted and try to see who can keep track of who's who.

Merry Christmas

You too...thanks for bringing along your sense of humor.

-Ry

[Gary]

A quick note to clarify any confusion we might have created here:

The Original Source of "leaked emails" is the person sometimes referred to as the "Official of the DNI" -- who then provided the messages to Dan Smith who provided them to the person I have referred to as "the foreign national" -- the same person the Originating Source allegedly suggested might be an agent of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-6). The Original Source denied this claim but another party closely involved confirmed that the rumor originated with the Original Source re: a meeting arranged with the USAF Source.

To add to the already confusing mess of sources, allegations, spies, lies, and -- etc. etc. etc. -- one might wonder if there was any counterintelligence value in passing messages in full knowledge they would be placed in the hands of an "alleged agent of MI-6" -- who then provided the messages to several others.

Any questions?

[ryguy]

**Raises Hand**

From your recent blog update:

[Redacted] speculated that "It may have been my question about Glomar, at out dinner with [redacted], that was the real security breach. You [redacted] were used to obfuscate that breach. The stories about a drug connection were used to put (some) people off the real scent."

[Redacted] lamented, "The problem is, we can't reveal the sources. These particular releases are very vague to anyone not in the know ... I don't believe that we are in a 'safe' position to allow any finer detail to be added. Tricky one."

Tricky one indeed. Our quest to land a tricky fish had yielded mountains of data just outside the comfort zone of journalistic ethics. Alas, if we had only intended to be intelligence operatives, our efforts might have paid off!

[Redacted] continued, "It's either confirmation of ET or the most complex scam in history."

Could you elaborate as to why this person would consider the Glomar Explorer mission to be "confirmation of ET"?

-Ry

[murnut]

Gary and Ry,

Any questions? Smile

Your joking, right?

Let me see....Gary's source1 and 2 are opposite from Ry's source1 and 2.

OK...wait a minute....huh?

Sometimes you refer to the names and somes times you don't.

I get it...wait a minute...huh?

So...the "overlooked" pair of issues for me?

1) Motive (Government? Black Project? Hah! It feels all wrong to me)

2) Who (I reject it is from the folks with no day-jobs, the ones in tennis shoes in the kitchens with time so free, the lawyers working for Aerospace Companies...and on, and on, an on.)

In Short...I got no clue about One and Two...and I am going to buckle my Shoe and try and figure out these (to me, to me...I don't expect anyone to agree) what in the heck is going on. I am so confused I am REALLY confused!

kit

He is confused?

Dr. Green:

Ray has it right:

Thanks... but what part did I get right?

Ray

I had to laugh at this....I feel the same way, what parts do I get right?
Is it the part I think it is?

The last few pages are confusing, not your guy's fault, sometimes it is prudent to read things over and over.

Did any of you watch the TV show "Seinfeld"?

There was an episode where George, who was your basic loser, decided that he would do the opposite of his first impulse, and it worked, he started succeeding. It was so funny.

I loved "Seinfeld". I never missed an episode. I have seen every show at least 3 of 4 times. It was with out a doubt the funniest show on TV ever, in my opinion.

I don't watch too TV any more except for maybe some news shows and an occasional Philadelphia Eagles game.

Couple of weeks ago, I was home sick. Maybe it was because I was sick but I watched that episode of "Seinfeld" again and it was no longer funny.

Why was that? Was it because I realized that the characters were self centered jerks? Was it because I had seen it over and over again? Was it because the episode was 10 years old and dated?
Maybe all of the above or something else I realized.

Where am I going with this?

When it comes to this particular subject, I have a hard time trusting any of my impulses. I wish it was as easy as to think the opposite of my first impression.
I am not blaming any of you, certainly you are doing your best to try to"vaccinate"

So if I make a mistake in grasping what you are communicating please try to understand, and please feel free to nudge me in the right direction.

I know you guys are protecting sources, but perhaps instead of redacting names, you could use fictitious names, similar to what Gus Russo did.
It might make it just a little easier to follow. Most of us know the names anyway.

Thanks and Merry Everything.
Andy

[Gary]

**Raises Hand**

From your recent blog update:

[Redacted] speculated that "It may have been my question about Glomar, at out dinner with [redacted], that was the real security breach. You [redacted] were used to obfuscate that breach. The stories about a drug connection were used to put (some) people off the real scent."

[Redacted] lamented, "The problem is, we can't reveal the sources. These particular releases are very vague to anyone not in the know ... I don't believe that we are in a 'safe' position to allow any finer detail to be added. Tricky one."

Tricky one indeed. Our quest to land a tricky fish had yielded mountains of data just outside the comfort zone of journalistic ethics. Alas, if we had only intended to be intelligence operatives, our efforts might have paid off!

[Redacted] continued, "It's either confirmation of ET or the most complex scam in history."

Could you elaborate as to why this person would consider the Glomar Explorer mission to be "confirmation of ET"?

-Ry

First, let me state that IMHO this is pretty far out -- that said, I recall it was Dan Smith who suggested that the 'sensitive subject' raised at a meeting between Smith, Pandolfi, and the foreign national, involved the once super-secret CIA Glomar Recovery project. Ron did confirm that the foreign national had raised questions about his "real work" at the dinner meeting.

So, to add my two cents to the conspiracy crowd (and I am not one of them!) ...

Here are the 'clues' for what they are worth (which is not a lot, IMHO):

The CV of Ron's mentor at CIA
Involvement of Ron's relative
Allegations about the cause of the sinking of K-129

"There are claims from unofficial writers (who provide no documentation nor source data) that the material recovered by the Glomar Explorer included nuclear missiles and various codebooks. It has also been suggested, again by writers with no first hand knowledge, that contrary to the official account, nearly the entire submarine was recovered and that the official CIA account amounts to disinformation to give the impression of an unsuccessful mission."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Gloma ... _(T-AG-193)

Ingo Swann's (official?) report to DIA of UFO sinking a Russian submarine
Rumors of a rogue Russian submarine attempting to launch a nuclear attack
Presumed interference by the alleged UFO to prevent the above from taking place
Any evidence supporting the alleged UFO attack that might have been recovered by the Glomar
Ron's experience of a visit from the Men in Black re: Glomar operations

"There are indicators suggesting K-129 suffered a similar explosion in 1968, sixteen years earlier. First, the radioactive contamination of the recovered bow section and the six crewmen of K-129 by weapons grade plutonium very strongly indicates the explosion of the warhead detonator charge of one of the missiles, prior to the ship reaching crush depth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sub ... Golf_II%29

"In 2005, the book Red Star Rogue claimed that K-129 ventured much further south, some 300 nautical miles (560 km) northwest of Oahu on 7 March 1968 positioning to launch one of her three ballistic missiles in a rogue attack on Pearl Harbor. The manner of the launch was purportedly designed to mimic an attack by a Chinese submarine, with the intention of igniting a war between the U.S. and China.

Red Star Rogue posits that the sinking of K-129 was caused by the explosion of one of the ballistic missiles while it was being readied for launch. While such an event could have been due to a failure in the liquid-fuel system, Craven's The Silent War (p.218) postulates that the explosion was due to a failsafe mechanism intended to prevent an unauthorized launch.The theory presented in Red Star Rogue has been criticized as speculative conspiracy theory by the head of the contemporary history branch of the U.S. Naval Historical Center. Evidence against the logic of such a false flag operation include the fact that United States intelligence knew China had not developed a missile for its Golf class submarines in 1968. Furthermore, China did not have a thermonuclear weapon small enough to be launched from a submarine."

[caleban]

Fact: The CIA involvement with the Hughe's Glomar Explorer presents one of the finest examples of "official" disinfo I have ever seen. Top rate, fooled the UN (easier these days given their global alarming agenda), and numerous countries who so believed the sea-bed mining stories that they changed their 12 mile coastal waters to a 200 mile limit. Elements of the UN reaction, I believe, can be traced into the current Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Now that is REAL disinfo.

Fact: K129 was acknowledged as lost at sea by the Soviet Union. Their search versus the later Glomar recovery indicates the Soviets did not know the correct area to search. This is a serious anomaly given the rigid military control the Soviets had over nuclear resources.

Fact: We not only knew where to look, but we designed and built a recovery vessel at very high cost DURING the Vietnam War.

From Gary's Wiki reference:
According to Dr. John P. Craven (former chief scientist of the U.S. Navy's Special Projects Office ), K-129 crossed the International Date Line at latitude 40 north, which was far south of her expected position:
"When [K-129] passed [longitude] 180, it should have been farther north, at a latitude of 45 degrees, or more than three hundred miles away. If that was a navigational mistake it would be an error of historic proportions. Thus if the sub were not somewhere in the vicinity of where the Soviets supposed it to be, there would be a high probability, if not a certainty, that the submarine was a rogue, off on its own, in grave disobedience of its orders."

Sounds like a plot for a good book, and soon to be movie (optioned by Warner Brothers), huh? About the author:

Kenneth R. Sewell is a nuclear engineer and a U.S. Navy veteran who spent five years aboard the USS Parche, a fast attack submarine that was the Navy's most decorated ship.

(I wonder if Tim Printy knew this guy, wouldn't they have served in fast attacks around the same time frame ?)

I read his book over a year ago, and have his next one on my wish list
(estimated publish date: 15 April 2008):

All Hands Down, The True Story of the Soviet Attack on the USS Scorpion.

His book speculates in some areas, but there are a lot of interesting facts to speculate from. For example, I recall some speculation about satellite IR detection of launch being the real source for locating the sub. Such capability went initial ops in the 70-71 time frame, so it is possible that developmental capability would have been available in 1968. K-129 was lost shortly before Johnson decided NOT to run for re-election.

And Merry Christmas all

[murnut]

Anybody catch the interview with George Knapp and Bob Collins?

They are covering a lot of ground....I am still listening to the stream.

It is very interesting to hear him speak.

[ryguy]

Hey - you got a link to the interview? I just realized I've got about 10 emails today on the subject and no one actually provided any link....lol

-Ry

[murnut]

It is not free

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/01/27.html

I downloaded it but the file is too large for me to email

I just finished listening to it.

I enjoyed it.

[murnut]

Free Streamlink 'Week'
We're happy to announce an upcoming Free Streamlink 'Week' running from Wed. Feb. 6th through Sun. Feb. 10th. Participants will have a chance to test drive our subscriber package, including podcasting current shows, and downloading recent favorites. Join us here at 7pm PT on Wed. to start experiencing the excitement and convenience that Streamlink offers!


http://www.coasttocoastam.com/