| by
September 10, 2005
from ProjectForTheExposureOfHiddenInstitutions Website
As I already mentioned, the purpose of PEHI (Project For The Exposure Of Hidden Institutions) is to put together the entire spectrum of the world's hidden organizations. But even though I'm familiar with the Pilgrims Society, the 1001 Club, the Multinational Chairmans Group, Le Cercle, and other very powerful hidden organizations, I'm sure there's is a lot more to discover.
For example, during the long hours that these membership lists were put together, I've always paid attention to individuals who might have been involved with different intelligence agencies. Information remains scarce, but it happens relatively often that you come across someone who is involved with the CIA. This isn't such a surprise, because there's no doubt that the CIA is very closely allied with the most important financial and political institutions in the United States. On the other hand, I seldom or never came across individuals involved with Army intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence, the DIA, the NRO, or the NSA. Le Cercle is a bit of an exception, because it's focused on bringing together members of the international intelligence agencies. And, of course, there is the science-oriented JASON Group, which has at least one former NSA employee and two founders of the NRO. All in all, besides their official functions it's very hard to get an idea of what most of these intelligence agencies are doing. Personally, I am always looking for leads in the longest and most obvious cover up ever; that one about the UFO phenomenon, in which I include the cattle mutilations (take a look here). There's no indication that the average Pilgrims Society or Trilateral Commission member has any idea about these subjects, but somewhere these two worlds have to meet. I am anything but an expert on intelligence agencies, but I do want to put some basic information here which I think is important for anyone looking into hidden organizations. It could easily take a couple of years before I write some additional information on this subject, and maybe I never will. In the U.S. you only have 3 types of classification: Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. That's it. But this doesn't matter, since the true power of the classification system is the famous 'need to know' policy. Just because you have a Top Secret clearance doesn't mean you can gain access to all the different Top Secret documents of the CIA, Army, Navy, and Air Force. However, this 3-tiered classification system is not enough to protect some of the more sensitive information. Therefore additional levels of compartmentalization have been created. After a very intensive background check, someone with a Top Secret clearance might obtain an additional Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) clearance, under which information is buried that needs to be restricted to even fewer individuals. This TS-SCI clearance had been introduced mainly to stop some higher ranking officers from looking into Top Secret files they don't have any business with.
But even the TS-SCI clearance doesn't provide the secrecy needed for some of the most sensitive projects. This is the reason that Special Access Programs (SAP) are created all the time. In this case only a predetermined list of authorized personnel has access to the project and additional security measures can be taken to keep outsiders away from it. Different congressional committees are informed about these SAPs, but there is very little time for questions. Most SAPs start out as Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (USAP), better known as Black Projects. The F-117A Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit are examples of projects that started out as Unacknowledged SAPs. A DOD manual describes a USAP as follows (1): "Unacknowledged SAPs require a significantly greater degree of protection than acknowledged SAPs... A SAP with protective controls that ensures the existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not authorized for such information. All aspects (e.g., technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are handled in an unacknowledged manner." Persons involved in a particular USAP are ordered to deny such a program exists. It's not allowed to react with a "no comment", because that way someone immediately suspects something is being hidden and might be motivated to look further into it. Officers not 'accessed' for a USAP, even superior ones, are to be given the same response. The more sensitive the program, the more protection the commanding officer can demand. He could even subject his personnel to lie-detector tests to see whether or not they have been talking about it to anyone. According to a 1997 Senate investigation (2): "Additional security requirements to protect these special access programs can range from mere upgrades of the collateral system’s requirements (such as rosters specifying who is to have access to the information) to entire facilities being equipped with added physical security measures or elaborate and expensive cover, concealment, deception, and operational security plans." There are two versions of the Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. The first one is the regular USAP. These regular USAPs are reported in the same way as their acknowledged versions. In closed sessions, the House National Security Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the defense subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations committees can get some basic information about them. The Secretary of Defense, however, can decide to 'waive' particularly sensitive USAPs. These are unofficially referred to as Deep Black Programs. According to the same 1997 Senate investigation as mentioned earlier: "Among black programs, further distinction is made for “waived” programs, considered to be so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress. The chairperson, ranking member, and, on occasion, other members and staff of relevant Congressional committees are notified only orally of the existence of these programs." This leads to the conclusion that only very few people are aware of these waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. Congress certainly doesn't get the information it needs to speak out against newly established waived USAPs and I haven't read anywhere that their opinion is actually appreciated. You could also ask yourself if Congress is told the truth about many of the most sensitive Special Access Projects or if their successors are informed about previously activated (waived) USAPs. Even with regular SAPs Congress is ignored at times: "Last summer, the House Defense Appropriations Committee complained that "the air force acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules". One of the alleged infractions was the launch of an SAP without Congressional notification." (3) What makes Unacknowledged Special Access Projects even more impenetrable is the fact that a lot of these programs are located within private industry. The U.S. government generally doesn't develop a whole lot. If you look at the defense industry, you have companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, TRW, Rockwell, Bechtel, SAIC, or Decision-Science Applications (DSA Inc.), who develop certain technologies for the U.S. government. This means it's virtually impossible to get information about these projects, because private industry is protected by something called 'proprietary privilege'. You generally can't get any information about a USAP by issuing a FOIA or by annoying a Congressman (National Security), but just in case anyone might be able to succeed, there's always the argument of proprietary privilege of the private industry.
| Category | Secrecy levels | | Additional levels of Compartmentalization | A USAP behind another SAP or USAP, combined with the protection the private industry enjoys. | | 'Waved' Unacknowledged Special Access Programs / 'Deep Black Programs' (details already completely invisible to congress and the president) | | Unacknowledged Special Access Programs / 'Black Programs' | | (acknowledged) Special Access Programs | | Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI) | | Basic secrecy levels | Top Secret | NATO Cosmic Top Secret | | Secret | NATO Secret | | Confidential | NATO Confidential | | Public or semi-public | For Official Use Only | NATO Restricted | | Unclassified | NATO Unclassified | |
And even in case the National Security State and proprietary privilege fails, there still seems to be at least one other (unverified) mechanism to protect the most sensitive projects from public exposure. This information comes from (many very credible) Disclosure Project witnesses (4), all of them claiming to have some kind of experience with these type of projects.
Some of these people, with no one in the project disputing it, are saying that certain Black Programs (USAPs) act as covers for UFO / ET related projects. This means that in an emergency situation a sensitive Black or Deep Black Program could be revealed to the public, while the program behind it remains undiscovered. In a 1997 speech, former astronaut Edgar Mitchell summarizes what the Disclosure Project is all about (5): "I also think that the prevalence in the modern era of so many events - the sightings, the continual mutilation events, the so-called abduction events - that we are looking at likely reversed engineered technology in the hands of humans that are not under government control or any type of high level control... So if there are back engineered technologies existing, they are probably in the hands of this group of individuals, formerly government, formerly perhaps intelligence, formerly, under private sector control with some sort of oversight by military or by government. But this (oversight) is likely no longer the case as a result of this access denied category that is now operating. I call it a clandestine group. The technology is not in our military arsenals anywhere in the world, but it does exist, and to me that's quite disconcerting."  According to the Disclosure Project some of black triangles have been developed in Unacknowledged Special Access Projects. Screenshots taken from 'UFOs, The Footage Archives 1947-1997'. Pictures of the Belgian sightings have been included as well as screenshot from 2 recent movies and a drawing of a witness.
A big questions that remains of course is how all these projects are funded. The official black budget of the DoD would be the most likely explanation, but there are 'indications' that the U.S. economy is being plundered for at least $1 trillion every year (yes, about 10% of GNP). Because no one is going to believe this without reading the full original sources, I cached all the mainstream news reports at the bottom of this article. I extracted the following numbers from these reports:
According to financial expert Catherine Austin Fitts this has become possible due to the introduction of acts like the 1947 National Security Act and the 1949 CIA Act (6). Large New York banks like J.P. Morgan Chase and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, who are running the systems of all the government departments, seem to be responsible for diverting and laundering billions of dollars every day from public and other undisclosed funds. I suggest you read all the sources that are provided for this article, because I sure haven't got any answers on this subject.
At the moment, I am wondering who is using who here? Is J.P. Morgan Chase, the core of the American part of the Anglo-American financial empire, being used as a milch cow to fund secret projects of the most unimaginable magnitude? Or, in line with the NWO conspiracy theories, are the bankers of the Pilgrims Society themselves really the ones in control? Or is there some kind of mutual interest here, whereby these bankers fund the Black Projects, while technology and services from these Black Projects keeps them on top of the world? I guess anything is possible at this moment. By the way, USAPs don't always have to involve the development of new cutting edge technology. In the following case a USAP is used as to a tool to circumvent national and international humanitarian laws. Seymour Hersh, 2004 (8): "Rice and Rumsfeld know what many others involved in the prisoner discussions did not -- that sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, the President had signed a top-secret finding, as required by law, authorizing the Defense Department to set up a specially recruited clandestine team of Special Forces operatives and others who would defy diplomatic niceties and international law and snatch -- or assassinate, if necessary -- identified 'high-value' Al Qaeda operatives anywhere in the world. Equally secret interrogation centers would be set up in allied countries where harsh treatments were meted out, unconstrained by legal limits of public disclosure. The program was hidden inside the Defense Department as an 'unacknowledged' special-access program, or SAP, whose operational details were known only to a few in the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House." All I want at this point is the names of the people who are running all these projects. Check back in a couple of years or so.
National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual Supplement
The Under Secretary Of Defense
Washington D.C. 20301 2000
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC): DoD 5220.22-M-SUP-1 ... g. Procedures for unacknowledged SAP security. An unacknowledged SAP will require additional security training and briefings, beyond that required in the baseline. Additional requirements will be specified in the Contract Security Classification Specification and will address steps necessary to protect sensitive relationships, locations, and activities. ... 3102. Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (SAP).
Unacknowledged SAPs require a significantly greater degree of protection than acknowledged SAPs. Special emphasis should be placed on: a. Why the SAP is unacknowledged
b. Classification of the SAP
c. Approved communications system
d. Approved transmission systems
e. Visit procedures
f. Specific program guidance ... Unacknowledged Special Access Program. A SAP with protective controls that ensures the existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not authorized for such information. All aspects (e.g., technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are handled in an unacknowledged manner.
Endnotes
| [1] | Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), 'National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual Supplement' (part of a (badly) scanned DOD manual) | | [3] | January 5, 2000, Jane's Defense Weekly, 'In Search of the Pentagon's Billion Dollar Hidden Budgets' | | [4] | April 2001, Disclosure Project briefing document, USAP excerpts | | [5] | October 13, 1997, Las Vegas SUN / Associated Press Phoenix, 'Astronaut Says Aliens Have Landed' (includes a partial speech of Edgar Mitchell that was held at the conference) | | [6] | April 4, 2005, Coast to Coast AM, Catherine Austin Fitts talks for over 2 hours about the missing trillions and the U.S. government's black budget. (Fitts was assistant-secretary of Housing at HUD, managing director of Wall Street investment bank Dillon Read & Co., and helped to clean up the financial mess of Iran-Contra and the BCCI scandal) | | [7] | | [8] | 2004, Seymour M. Hersh, 'Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib' (book) | |
References to the missing annual trillions (no typo) in the DOD and other government agencies | [1] | April 1, 1999, Washington Times, '$3,400,000,000,000 Of Taxpayers' Money Is Missing' | | [2] | November 6, 2000, Insight Magazine, 'Why Is $59 Billion Missing From HUD?' | | [3] | June 25, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'THE CABINET - Inside HUD's Financial Fiasco' | | [4] | September 3, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'Rumsfeld Inherits Financial Mess' | | [5] | September 28, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'Wasted Riches' | | [7] | April 29, 2002, Insight Magazine, 'Government Fails Fiscal Fitness Test' | | [9] | May 19, 2003, CBS, 'Pentagon Fights For (Its) Freedom' | | [11] | June 28, 2003, NPR's Morning Edition, Congressman Dennis Kucinich mentions the missing trillions. | | [12] | April 6, 2004, USA Today, 'NASA costs can't be verified, GAO report says' | | [13] | March 2005, Senate Armed Services Committee, FY 2006 Defense Dept. Budget (congresswoman Cynthia McKinney asks some hard questions) | |
|
Comments
Post a Comment