UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 9

Re: Cosmic Top Secret

From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 02:03:26 EST
Archived: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:30:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:29:54 -0500
>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

>>From: Robert Gates <RGates8254.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:57:59 EST
>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

>>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:25:34 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

>>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:41:59 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: Cosmic Top Secret

>>>>>From: Anthony Cipoletta <cipey.nul>
>>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>>Subject: Cosmic Top Secret
>>>>>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:04:44 -0500

>Hi Robert,

>I appreciate the chance to answer your objections. Your comments
>are thoughtful, but I have some objections of my own.

>>>>3. The GAO, in its search for Roswell related documents, noted
>>>>on page 80 of their 400+ page overview background package that
>>>>they had noted documents classified TOP SECRET RESTRICTED even
>>>>though they had been told (Majestic 12) that no such designation
>>>>was in use at the time (1954).

>>>No, this is incorrect. I believe you are talking about
>>>Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data both of which refer
>>>to nuclear related information. Again, I would like to see such
>>>a document that can be independently obtained from an archives.

>>In my research, I have actually seen documents that were marked
>>with Top Secret Restricted that had absolutly nothing do with so
>>called "Restricted Data." From documents that I have seen from
>>the Archives, not to mention photocopys I have seen over the
>>years many highly classified documents were not stamped
>>properly, or created exactly as the manual said they should be
>>created, marked or stamped. This didn't diminish from the fact
>>that they were highly classified until they were declassified,
>>just career level govt workers, White House workers and staff
>>members didn't always "do it by the book."

>Please note the challenge at the bottom of this page. Please
>produce one such document.

I have many thousands of pages of cold war related documents and
may or may not have copied those documents as part of my
research. I will check as I can.

I have seen documents with classification markings, such as
TS/Codeword dead center across the top. Others the markings are
on the side of each page. Others with the TS control number on
each page of the document and yet others with the control number
only on the cover page.  In one instance I was reviewing approx
25 or so boxes of documents at a Presidential library and saw
all sorts of variations, in how a document was marked...not by
the book, or by the regulations, however this did not diminish
from the fact that said documents were highly classified and
kept as such.

>>>>I had also noted, in Archives, documents classified as SECRET
>>>>classified programs relating to nuclear activities, one very
>>>>RESTRICTED DATA on classified documents.

>>>Again, I don't think you saw Secret Restrict, but rather Secret
>>>Restricted Data (SRD)

>>>The GOA Roswell investigators were cleared for access to nuclear
>>>weapons data and could see Top Secret Restricted Data.

>>>One problem in researching at archives is that documents
>>>containing Restricted Data must be reviewed by the Energy
>>>Department for release in addition to the originating agency. A
>>>real problem when nuclear capable units of, say the Air Force,
>>>are involved.

>>>>In addition I required a Q clearance which was normally thought
>>>>of as being somewhere between SECRET and TOP SECRET.

>>>This is completely false. A Q clearance was necessary for access
>>>to nuclear data. It is not between anything.

>>While that may technically be true, List members will recall a
>>much earlier post from me directly quoting the Congressional
>>testimony of the director of Sandia Labs. He stated that a Q
>>clearance was equivilant to a Top Secret and a L clearance was
>>equivilant to a Secret. Bottom line is these clearences only
>>apply to nuclear materials and a person with a Q clearance could
>>not walk over to a DOD project and expect to be given knowledge
>>about it even if it concerned nuclear materials.

>And that is a mis-statement. A Q-clearance and a TS clearance
>will get you access to TS nuclear information. One goes with the

As I stated earlier over the years its generally thought that a
L is equivilant to Secret and Q can cover either Secret or Top
Secret, by one DOE account, supposedly depending on if it has
the word "sensitive" behind it, i.e. Q Sensitive is access to
"specific Top Secret information on a need-to-know basis."

On a simple basis we have:


Reciprocal Clearances

To be eligible for a reciprocal clearance, the applicant must
have an active clearance from another agency (DOD, NRC, FBI,
CIA, etc.) and a current investigation.

DOE equivalencies are:

Secret is equivalent to a DOE - L.
Top Secret or SCI is equivalent to a DOE- Q.

NOTE: DOE does not recognize other levels of access.

End excerpt....

Note this does not discuss the Sensitive term, although
it is mentioned in the DOE system.

See this quote from: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/govsec/chap4.htm

"The length and complexity of the background investigation
varies depending on the level of clearance (or the access)
needed. In most agencies individuals are vetted for
Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret clearances, and possibly for
access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) as well. The
Department of Energy (DoE) has a separate system pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act; most of its employees receive either an "L"
clearance, which equates to a Confidential or Secret clearance,
or a "Q" clearance, which equates to a Top Secret clearance."


Types of Security Clearances

"Q" allows individual access to:
Top Secret Restricted Data
Top Secret Formerly Restricted Data
Top Secret National Security Information
Secret Restricted Data
Special Nuclear Material (Category I & II)
Exclusion Area Access

"L" allows individual access to:

Confidential Restricted Data
Confidential Formerly Restricted Data
Special Nuclear Material (Category III)
Confidential National Security Information
Unescorted Access to Limited and Protected Area
Secret Formerly Restricted Data
Secret National Security Information

End Excerpt

>>A DOD person shouldn't expect to walk over to DOE HQ and be
>>given access to weapons material... even though said person may
>>have TS/Codeword clearances relating to the DOD side of say a
>>nuclear weapons project.

>>The DOD person would have to go over to DOE, demonstrate a need-
>>to-know, be cleared for access and get investigated to get an L
>>or Q Clarence. The DOE person would have to go over to DOD,
>>demonstrate a need-to-know, be cleared for access and get
>>investigated to get a clearance into the DOD project.

>If you had not cut the portion of my message out that pertained
>to military personnel, we could now see where I said that
>military personnel are no longer (after 1955) required to have Q
>or L clearance. They are in the Personnel Reliability Program
>which allows them access to nuclear data/weapons. There is
>another Special Access Program, Critical Nuclear Design
>Information - off the top of my head CNWIDI which doesn't look
>correct - is the program.

>Your assertion that DOD personnel have to go to DOE to
>demonstrate a "need to know" is incorrect. They have to
>demonstrate such only to their superiors.

If a DOD person needs access to something in the DOE chain they
have to make a specific request in writing which is reviewed by
particular managers in the system.  The only exception to this
is on an emergency type basis. The same is true going the other
way. Now if the person(s) involved needed continuing access as
part of a specific project or program they don't have to submit
a request each and every time. Note when the project or program
is done, so is their access.

>>>Security manuals are readily available to researchers so
>>>mis-statement like this could easily be avoided with a little

>>Again, in my visits to the archives, I have found that many
>>documents were not created by the book, nor were they stamped by
>>the book and in some instances some of them did not have any
>>kind of TS control number... even though that is required.

>I didn't get my information from visits to archives although I
>have discover nearly one hundred formerly Top Secret documents
>there dealing with foo-fighters, ghost rockets and UFOs. I
>lived and breathed security for over seven years. I think there
>is a little difference in the experience level here.

>Robert, please send me a photocopy of just one Top Secret
>Restricted document from 1954 or before and the source
>information. I continue to doubt that such exist, but I can be
>convinced otherwise. During the last 50+ years marking and
>procedures have changed and each agency has some leeway in the
>marking and controlling their documents.

See my earlier comment. Some leeway in fact translates to they
did what they thought was right at the time, whether it was done
exactly as the manual or book said it should be done is another
thing entirely. It did not change the fact that the document was
in fact classified or highly classified, just means people are
in the system. During the Kennedy administration many so called
Presidential directives were not signed by the President but by
his National Security advisor.  Who would reject the guidance
solely on the basis that it wasn't done by the book and signed
by the President?

>As for document found at the Archives without everything in
>order, I have answer this objection about a dozen time. In
>preparing document for the public many time the declassification
>personnel might remove or change marking, coversheets, and
>control #s, etc.

I can appreciate that, but as you well know at times when you
make a copy of a document, you can see exactly what was removed,
or changed and tell something was in fact there. In some
documents a control # was not there. This is especially true of
the National Intelligence Estimates in the CIA RG at the



[ 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