Bob Collins and Exempt from Disclosure

Project Serpo related discussion

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby ryguy » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:03 pm

murnut wrote:I gotta say I was extremely impressed with her.

I plan on writing a report on my first UFO type of event, maybe I will have it ready later today or tomorrow.


Very cool... Can't wait to read it.

P.S. Instead of releasing your whole report at once, why not release in chapters?


That is a source of heated "debate" every night. I think that's a good idea - and trust me there's a lot of discussion going on about that.

-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


Postby caryn » Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:07 pm

ryguy wrote:
Good advice...I think I might just do that. I don't have much of a sense of humor lately given the b.s. that's been feeding a general "build-up" lately where certain positioning is taking place. I can see what's coming, as I'm sure you can as well. I don't think there's anything funny about it.
-Ry


Actually, Ryan, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who are positioning themselves and for what reason exactly?
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby Zep Tepi » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:30 pm

Just adding my .02 to this. I understand and share Ryan's frustrations with some of what goes on. Where some of Gary's reports are concerned, while I think a lot of them make for good reading, I also think they also sometimes unduly add to the already abundant suspense and intrigue that surrounds these stories in the first place. Of course, that is generally what the people behind the stories want; publicity, intrigue and mystery.

Ryan is not saying Gary does this intentionally btw, and neither am I, but it definitely happens. A small example is the way a certain someone is often referred to with the MI-6 caveat thrown in. We all know that is nonsense, yet it gets regularly brought up. The people behind the stories will love that, it justs adds a certain j' nes sais quas to the whole proceedings. In my view, anything that adds to the drama is only helping those that created the drama in the first place.

I do understand your frustrations – but snapping at everyone will only alienate you, ultimately.


I can't say I agree that Ryan has been snapping at anyone, let alone everyone lol. He has stated an opinion on something that in my mind is quite important and I fail to see why that would alienate anyone. I can see why certain other people wouldn't like it (not including you or Gary), but frankly, what they think isn't really high up on our list of priorities at the moment. On the contrary to feeling alienated, we've had very good discussions with a number of those people that have stayed behind the scenes for many years, and while they had been "warned" about us by the usual suspects, as soon as they saw what we are trying to do, they were only to happy to help. For the most part anyway ;)

Murnut wrote:
ryguy wrote:P.S. Instead of releasing your whole report at once, why not release in chapters?


That is a source of heated "debate" every night. I think that's a good idea - and trust me there's a lot of discussion going on about that.


Yes, we've had quite a few discussions about that just lately ;)

It would be a very easy task to just come out and say "this is who is behind it, this is why and this is how", but if we did that without providing everything we have at the same time we would be slaughtered for it. The people we will be mentioning in the report won't be too happy about it either, which is another reason why we have to make sure everything is "just so".

The biggest stumbling block we have at the moment is the sheer amount of data that we have collected during the course of this investigation. It has been an enormous undertaking and getting everything down in a form that will be easy to follow and understand hasn't been easy and is still ongoing. Added to this we are also still uncovering further information that can and will also be incorporated into the final report.

It hasn't been easy but we're getting there ;)

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby ScaRZ » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:38 pm

Well guys this report you've been working on either will finally come to light or you will decide to forget it. Much like waiting for the perfect time to have a family,there's just never going to be a perfect time.
Sure,try and get it where you think it should be,but don't over work it as can be the case many times. You can over work something as well as under working it. I've many times seen what could've been a great painting turn into a mediocre one,from nothing more than just not letting it go.
Image
User avatar
ScaRZ
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Postby murnut » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:02 am

ScaRZ wrote:Well guys this report you've been working on either will finally come to light or you will decide to forget it. Much like waiting for the perfect time to have a family,there's just never going to be a perfect time.
Sure,try and get it where you think it should be,but don't over work it as can be the case many times. You can over work something as well as under working it. I've many times seen what could've been a great painting turn into a mediocre one,from nothing more than just not letting it go.


Wise words and I agree.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:28 am

Zep Tepi wrote:Just adding my .02 to this. I understand and share Ryan's frustrations with some of what goes on. Where some of Gary's reports are concerned, while I think a lot of them make for good reading, I also think they also sometimes unduly add to the already abundant suspense and intrigue that surrounds these stories in the first place. Of course, that is generally what the people behind the stories want; publicity, intrigue and mystery.



Here's a nice, short article that hits the nail on the head:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/h ... store.html

"The Congressional Research Service's recent report on open source intelligence reminds us that the point Steele made eleven years ago remains valid today: the value of any given piece of information is found in its utility, not in how it was obtained.

Stolen information is useless if it doesn't answer any questions or in the case of the Burundi exercise, cannot be obtained period. Additionally, while secrets always come with baggage (is the source lying to you? does the source even know what he's talking about? is the information old? is this a trick?) OSINT can be fact-checked in real-time by multiple sources."

... which is why, in spite of reporting on the occasional leak of emails, we prefer to focus on open source material. I think you're both blowing this completely out of proportion.

You also seem to have glossed over our on-going use of the word "alleged" which appears continually in our reports.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:40 am

This is from the Congressional Report:

Open source information (OSINT) is derived from newspapers, journals, radio and television, and the Internet. Intelligence analysts have long used such information to supplement classified data, but systematically collecting open source information has not been a priority of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC). In recent years, given changes in the international environment, there have been calls, from Congress and the 9/11 Commission among others, for a more intense and focused investment in open source collection and analysis. However, some still emphasize that the primary business of intelligence continues to be obtaining and analyzing secrets.

A consensus now exists that OSINT must be systematically collected and should constitute an essential component of analytical products. This has been recognized by various commissions and in statutes. Responding to legislative direction, the Intelligence Community has established the position of Assistant Director of National Intelligence for Open Source and created the National Open Source Center. The goal is to perform specialized OSINT acquisition and analysis functions and create a center of excellence that will support and encourage all intelligence agencies.

The effort has been only underway since late 2005 but the Center is up and running, and providing support, including training, to OSINT professionals throughout the Intelligence Community. Administrative mechanisms are in place to ensure that there is a comprehensive community-wide open source effort. It appears, however, to some observers that not all agencies have as yet made comprehensive commitments to acquiring and using open source information, nor that the ODNI has taken sufficient steps to ensure that open sources are appropriately exploited.

Observers suggest that congressional oversight of the OSINT process might provide insight into current progress as well as identify areas that need modification. A particular focus of congressional interest might be potential tradeoffs between classified and open source collection to ensure that needed information is obtained in the best and most cost-effective manner. Proponents maintain that this approach helps to ensure that agents and expensive surveillance systems are focused on obtaining information that is being actively hidden.

The collection and analysis of OSINT information will be ultimately judged by its contribution to the overall intelligence effort. Collecting information from open sources is generally less expensive and less risky than collection from other intelligence sources. The use of OSINT may result not only in monetary savings but also in less risk than utilizing sensitive technical and human sources. OSINT can also provide insights into the types of developments that may not be on the priority list for other systems or may not be susceptible to collection through other intelligence approaches — innovative applications of new technologies, shifts in popular attitudes, emergence of new political and religious movements, growing popular discontent, disillusionment with leadership, etc. Supporters of OSINT maintain that the future contribution of the Intelligence Community will be enhanced by its ability to provide detailed information and incisive analyses of such developments. This report will be updated as new information becomes available.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34270.pdf
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:57 pm

Gary wrote:
ryguy wrote:
Gary wrote:Ryan -- apparently you are not aware that I did contact the FBI re: contacts with several sources, including the primary and secondary sources?

***
Gary,

Please call me if with your concerns on this issue. You are correct in
that there are some guidelines that must be followed for contact but, I
am not comfortable detailing those here.

Special Agent xxx xxxxxx
Joint Terrorism Task Force
Minneapolis, MN

***

Yes - you mentioned that...however his response indicates that you simply asked about some protocol (nothing specific, his answer could be about anything) - not about the allegations that an interview with a particular person took place or that any specific investigation was actually real.

So no...I don't see that as indication that you verified anything. I see it as indication that you contacted the FBI about a general topic like - "What guidelines should I follow when interacting with folks from the DNI or other intelligence agencies?" - and got a general answer back. However if you can prove otherwise, I would be very, very, very, very happy. All vagueness does is produce intrigue, it doesn't answer questions.

-Ry


Hi Ryan,

The inquiry was about proper authorization for CIA/DIA domestic intelligence collection for specific individuals.

As for the rules of journalism, we have been clear that our purpose is to collect intelligence [see my article "Spies Like Us"].

We have also been clear that the source for the information was the leaked messages; we have not made any statements to guarantee the veracity of the information within the messages.

Gary


Excerpt from my blog:

Ryan Dube believes that information provided to Starstream Research by members of the Intelligence Community does not meet standards observed by mainstream publications, like the Washington Post.

I have pointed out that reluctance by the FBI to openly discuss our contacts with members of the Intelligence Community may signal a deeper level of involvement behind the scenes:

[CRS Report]

As part of the CIA, the NOSC [National Open Source Center] is constrained in collecting information that will be used for law enforcement purposes in accordance with the provisions of the National Security Act precluding CIA involvement in law enforcement activities.

The Intelligence Community as a whole contains, however, several intelligence agencies — the FBI and DHS — that are also law enforcement agencies and use open source information to carry out their statutory responsibilities.

Arguably, placing the NOSC in the ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] would facilitate its ability to support law enforcement agencies.

For instance, collecting media accounts in foreign publications or websites that provide information about potential terrorist activities that involve persons physically present in the U.S. could arguably infringe on the statutory prohibition of CIA involvement in law enforcement functions.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:55 pm

Not that anyone really gives a rat's behind about my opinion... but I thought I would chime in and say:

I am officially "on-the-fence" here, for the following reasons:

1) I am very much in Ryan's camp with respect to "don't feed the beast what it thrives on", namely attention. Without passing a value judgment on Gary's articles, I think it is just a simple fact that vague reporting (whether it is to protect someone's identity or whether it is just due to a dearth of facts) leaves gigantic holes for people to drive their "UFO theory" trucks through. And the hoaxers and scammers rely on healthy doses of vague reporting to ignite intrigue, and they feed off of intrigue in how they package and sell their warez. These types of publicity-seeking idiots (who will also use and abuse the trust given to them by their "infected" followers) are bolstered by ANYONE reporting on anything having to do with their chosen area of hoaxdom.

But OTOH...

2) Gary's reports deal with a broader area than JUST UFOlogy. Starstream is following trails of INFORMATION related to INTELLIGENCE work, in general. Need I remind you of Caryn's excellent Trickster Tales series? And I have stated many times before that (IMO) the whole UFO community is tired, severely infected with various different types of viral memes, and NOT THE REAL FOCUS of the Powers-That-Be. While idiots such as those referred to in #1 above continue to use UFOlogy as their playground and means to get their 15 minutes of fame, those same idiots appear clueless that the entire UFO phenomenon was created specifically for intel purposes. And to this day it continues to be used as such. It is a microcosm laboratory which can be used to see how information spreads amongst a segement of the population who have demonstrated a keen ability to not keep their mouths shut... and not only that, but to embellish what they hear.

I just wish that people who focus so much on UFOs and SERPO and all that crap that is so obviously false would wake up to the game that is really being played all around them. IMO many people are being played for the fools that they are... Greer, Sheehan, Alfred Lambremont Webre JD Ed and his whole kooky gang of Exopoliticians.

While I dislike vague reporting and suggestive innuendo because it "feeds the beast", sometimes it is necessary (unfortunately) when you realize the much bigger game that is going on behind the nonsense.

Just my two bits...
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

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:13 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Not that anyone really gives a rat's behind about my opinion... but I thought I would chime in and say:

I am officially "on-the-fence" here, for the following reasons:

1) I am very much in Ryan's camp with respect to "don't feed the beast what it thrives on", namely attention. Without passing a value judgment on Gary's articles, I think it is just a simple fact that vague reporting (whether it is to protect someone's identity or whether it is just due to a dearth of facts) leaves gigantic holes for people to drive their "UFO theory" trucks through. And the hoaxers and scammers rely on healthy doses of vague reporting to ignite intrigue, and they feed off of intrigue in how they package and sell their warez. These types of publicity-seeking idiots (who will also use and abuse the trust given to them by their "infected" followers) are bolstered by ANYONE reporting on anything having to do with their chosen area of hoaxdom.


http://www.slate.com/id/2119989/

"As the historian Stanley I. Kutler noted in Slate a few years ago, Deep Throat's significance has surely been inflated by journalists, who have been entranced by a story that matters more to them than to history. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had scores of sources for their Watergate reporting, and while Deep Throat—or, as we should now say, W. Mark Felt, the former deputy associate director of the FBI—was an important one, he did not single-handedly expose Richard Nixon's "White House horrors."

Deep Throat's mythic role in the public imagination, however, remains strong. Because of the impact of their reporting and of the popularity of All the President's Men (both the book and the movie), Woodward and Bernstein became celebrities and journalistic legends—and Deep Throat's identity became the focus of endless conjecture."

Sources, like "deep throat," only provide input under the rules of "deep background":

Washington Post Policy:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=53&aid=61244

Deep background: This is a tricky category, to be avoided if possible. Information accepted on "deep background" can be included in the story, but not attributed. That means there is no way to help readers understand where it is coming from, which is why we discourage the use of deep background. You can also use information received on deep background as the basis for further reporting.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:17 pm

Gary - I appreciate your blog update....to publish this debate/discussion on your own blog certainly indicates a great deal of intellectual honesty on your part...so it was very heartening to see that.

Based on your response, you do seem to understand what I'm getting at...and your response is also clear, and I understand it - as much as I disagree with a few minor points.

Here is an excellent example of what lies at the heart of our divergent (very minor divergence apparently...) methods in coming to "conclusions" on these matters.


Excerpt from my blog:

Ryan Dube believes that information provided to Starstream Research by members of the Intelligence Community does not meet standards observed by mainstream publications, like the Washington Post.

I have pointed out that reluctance by the FBI to openly discuss our contacts with members of the Intelligence Community may signal a deeper level of involvement behind the scenes:


OR it may signal a non-issue. They are reluctant to discuss it because they, quite simply, do not care.

I know it's hard to see it when your standing right in the middle of all of the smoke - that the smoke is actually fog generated by a group of people who need you to believe (and report to the public) that there is much spy-drama going on in the deep dark shadowy halls of the intel agencies on these issues.

I recognize that you are aware of this CI aspect of what they do when they write to you or have contact with you....as you have pointed out (and Ray has excellently outlined above). However when they subsequently release their faux-official-disclosure plot release....you have unwittingly generated a nice large audience for them...an audience who, thanks to you, is now ready and willing to accept that there is a great deal out there of which they simply "do not know what they do not know."

This leaves people open to accepting outrageous claims without any demand for proof or evidence whatsoever. It also provides abundant ripe picking for con-artists - again, as Ray described wonderfully.

-Ry
Last edited by ryguy on Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
---
"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

Postby Access Denied » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:18 pm

Ray, I can't speak for anybody else but I for one enjoy reading your posts. Keep them coming!

Gary, when you say you're posting "information provided to Starstream Research by members of the Intelligence Community", what "members" (plural) are you talking about, how did you verify their credentials, and what you makes you believe they're acting in an official capacity? For example, If Kit Green is one of your sources, he is not a member of the IC.
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]

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:21 pm

This too:

http://www.slate.com/id/2119989/

"One recurring slur against Woodward, Bernstein, and the Washington Post was that Deep Throat was a fabrication. Most of the people who made such claims knew little about Woodward and Bernstein's reporting, and some were old Nixon loyalists. But the theory gained new currency in 1998 when Woodward and Bernstein's former agent, David Obst, wrote in his memoir Too Good to Be Forgotten that Deep Throat didn't appear in the first draft of the book All the President's Men. Obst concluded that the reporters therefore invented him for dramatic purposes."
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Postby murnut » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:22 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Not that anyone really gives a rat's behind about my opinion... but I thought I would chime in and say:

I am officially "on-the-fence" here, for the following reasons:

1) I am very much in Ryan's camp with respect to "don't feed the beast what it thrives on", namely attention. Without passing a value judgment on Gary's articles, I think it is just a simple fact that vague reporting (whether it is to protect someone's identity or whether it is just due to a dearth of facts) leaves gigantic holes for people to drive their "UFO theory" trucks through. And the hoaxers and scammers rely on healthy doses of vague reporting to ignite intrigue, and they feed off of intrigue in how they package and sell their warez. These types of publicity-seeking idiots (who will also use and abuse the trust given to them by their "infected" followers) are bolstered by ANYONE reporting on anything having to do with their chosen area of hoaxdom.

But OTOH...

2) Gary's reports deal with a broader area than JUST UFOlogy. Starstream is following trails of INFORMATION related to INTELLIGENCE work, in general. Need I remind you of Caryn's excellent Trickster Tales series? And I have stated many times before that (IMO) the whole UFO community is tired, severely infected with various different types of viral memes, and NOT THE REAL FOCUS of the Powers-That-Be. While idiots such as those referred to in #1 above continue to use UFOlogy as their playground and means to get their 15 minutes of fame, those same idiots appear clueless that the entire UFO phenomenon was created specifically for intel purposes. And to this day it continues to be used as such. It is a microcosm laboratory which can be used to see how information spreads amongst a segement of the population who have demonstrated a keen ability to not keep their mouths shut... and not only that, but to embellish what they hear.

I just wish that people who focus so much on UFOs and SERPO and all that crap that is so obviously false would wake up to the game that is really being played all around them. IMO many people are being played for the fools that they are... Greer, Sheehan, Alfred Lambremont Webre JD Ed and his whole kooky gang of Exopoliticians.

While I dislike vague reporting and suggestive innuendo because it "feeds the beast", sometimes it is necessary (unfortunately) when you realize the much bigger game that is going on behind the nonsense.

Just my two bits...
Ray



I care about your opinion Ray.

Correct me if I misunderstand your opinion.

Are you saying that there is no UFO phenomena?

I think many of the points you raise are valid, and we should always keep these in mind.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:33 pm

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:Not that anyone really gives a rat's behind about my opinion...


I wouldn't agree with that statement Ray. I would say that your opinion is respected by most of the people who visit here, me included.

2) Gary's reports deal with a broader area than JUST UFOlogy. Starstream is following trails of INFORMATION related to INTELLIGENCE work, in general. Need I remind you of Caryn's excellent Trickster Tales series?


Absolutely and I agree 100%. What I will say however is this. Our perceived "criticism" has absolutely nothing to do with the majority of Gary's reports. It has more to do with what's going on right now in relation to the Core Story and the Serpo BS. Ufology in general has indeed being used by the IC for exactly what has already been described in this thread. However, the Core Story, and Serpo specifically have absolutely nothing to do with valid IC operations. All IMHO, of course.

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Project Serpo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron