Message posted by NoOne on January 27, 2010 at 1:48:54 PST:
> I think you'll find that most people on this forum agree there Please succinctly and clearly define an objective method for determining on which side of the line a given project lays. Please also include how an average A51 project worker might go about obtaining the necessary data to feed into your method. We can then give your document to, oh let’s say, an average mechanic working on a project at A51. He can then individually decide if he should take photo’s of the latest flying object at Groom and put them up on YouTube for the world to see. IMHO this is one very slippery slope - what in one man’s view is a “legit” black op might very well be in another’s view a cover-up. If the cover-up believer gets it wrong and goes public then what? The vast majority (virtually 100% judging by the general lack of (m)any leaks) of those tapped on the shoulder to participate in a special clearance need to know environments abide by the rules and willingly do so. Coercion doesn’t seem to be a factor in gaining participation or silence. OTOH, coercion seems to be used as a tool by some sources to get those working on secret projects to go public. As an individual you don’t get to make a decision to go public – your signed clearance documents spell out the consequences. Making your own decision that the rules don’t/shouldn’t apply over some trifling argument that the “The Pentagon discovered its easier to get new toys "in the black" than through the front door.” would seem foolish. Just my 2c worth. NO?
>is a line that marks the difference between projects that are
>black for legitimate national security reasons, and those that
>are black simply because they wouldn't have been funded
>otherwise.
In Reply to: Patriotic duty posted by Chris McDowell on January 27, 2010 at 0:06:41 PST:
Replies: