SUBJECT: A CUFON EDITORIAL 16-MAY-1994 FILE: UFO2135
This the second in a series of CUFON editorials: 16-MAY-1994
==========================================================================
In our constant effort to verify material, we noticed that a reproduction of a
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) "Withdrawal Notice," (NA
Form 1400 (4-85)) appears on page 525 of _Above Top Secret, the Worldwide UFO
Coverup_, Timothy Good, Sidgewick & Jackson Limited, London, 1987,
ISBN 0-99496-7.
Such withdrawal notices retain the place of restricted or classified documents
in the holdings of the NARA.
The implication made in Mr. Good's statement in the caption to the withdrawal
notice reproduction is that the document which this particular withdrawal
notice represents is a "... Top Secret UFO report...". This does not appear
to be the case.
Dale Goudie, Director of the UFO Reporting and Information Service has filed
requests with the NARA for the document, "Report TR-DE-3A," represented by the
withdrawal notice which Mr. Good reproduces. Correspondence and a sample page
from the "sanitized version" of the report are reproduced below.
The "sanitized version" of Report TR-DE-3A is very heavily censored making it
difficult to ascertain the actual report contents in detail. But by the
title and the text that does remain, it is apparent that this report concerns
the collection and analysis of "electronic intelligence", (ELINT). While it is
possible that ELINT collection might have to do with UFOs, it seems unlikely
that this particular report is related to UFOs judging by the context of the
released text.
We also wish to point out that although the records of "Project Blue Book,"
the official records of the United States Air Force UFO projects Sign, Grudge
and Blue Book which are in the custody of the NARA are included in NARA Record
Group 341, "Records of Headquarters, United States Air Force." The withdrawal
notice in question is _not_ from the Blue Book records. According to a NARA
official, there are no withdrawal notices in the Blue Book records. Simply
stated, the Blue Book records are a component of RG-341.
The withdrawal notice does, however, represent a restricted document from
RG-341. We are not claiming that Mr. Good has stated that this withdrawal
notice is from the Blue Book records, but neither does he make the
distinction between RG-341 and Blue Book.
We believe that the reproduction of this withdrawal notice with the caption
Mr. Good has applied to it is misleading. It cannot currently be said that
this withdrawal notice represents a withheld "... Top Secret UFO report.".
We agree that there are many UFO related documents being withheld by the
various government agencies.
In reply to a request from Congressman Steven Schiff's office (R-NM), we
have provided a letter and a full photostatic copy of the "sanitized version"
of Report TR-DE-3A. Our letter to Rep. Schiff is also reproduced below.
Jim Klotz - CUFON SYSOP
Dale Goudie - CUFON Information Director
===========================================================================
National
Archives Washington, DC 20408
November 10, 1993
Reply to: NNRM94-1360-ER
Mr. Dale Goudie
Dear Mr. Goudie:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act inquiry
(NN93-1216) dated October 15, 1993. Your letter was received in
this office on November 8, 1993.
Project BLUE BOOK files contains no withdrawal notices. They
were all declassified when we accessioned them. We cannot
identify any other series in Record Group 341 as "UFO related
files."
In order to request a declassification review of withdrawn items
you must identify the specific withdrawal notices that would be
found among the records you examine in our search room. We have
no listings of withdrawal notices that have been placed in our
records.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jo Ann Williamson
JO ANN WILLIAMSON
Chief
Military Reference Branch
Textual Reference Division
National Archives and Records Administration
=============================================================================
National
Archives Washington, DC 20408
November 10, 1993
Reply to: NNRM94-1361-WM
Mr. Dale Goudie
Dear Mr. Goudie:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request
(NN93-1217) of October 23, 1993, which was received in this
office on November 8, 1993.
The original document is currently security classified. Since we
must submit the document to another government agency, we are
unable to complete the processing of your request within the ten
days provided for by the Act. The amended Act [5 U.S.C. 552
(a)(6)(B)] provides that an agency may be allowed additional time
to complete its review of the requested records if that agency is
exercising due diligence in responding to the request. We will
inform you when the review is complete.
We can furnish a sanitized copy of "report TR-DE-3A, Elint
Progress Report Supplement" 15 October 1955, Documents Relating
to Intelligence Activities, (entry 267, NM-15), Records of
Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, Record Group 341, for $6 (our
minimum mail order fee). We can also make it available in our
research room.
Remittance should be made payable to "NATF-NNRM94-1361-WM" and
sent to the National Archives Trust Fund Board, P.O. Box 100793
Atlanta, GA 30384. Please return the enclosed NATF Form 72 with
your remittance. Instructions for ordering are printed on the
back of this form. We have a minimum fee of $6 for all mail
orders. If you wish to pay by using a MasterCard or VISA credit
card, you should return the enclosed form (annotated with type of
credit card, account number, expiration date, and your signature)
to the Cashier (NAJC), National Archives, Washington, DC 20407.
Your account will be verified before the copies are shipped.
Beginning in December 1993, the National Archives will move more
than 800,000 cubic feet of records from several facilities to its
new building, Archives II, in College Park, maryland. the move
will continue through 1996, and during that time, various record
groups will be closed for research and reference activities,
including requests for information and reproductions. If
planning a research trip to Washington, within the next years,
verify with each reference branch that records that you will want to
see will be available.
The "Archives II Researcher Bulletin" publishes updates of the
move schedule. You should write the Textual reference Division
(NNR), National Archives and records Administration, Washington,
D.C. 20408 to obtain copies and be put on its mailing list. You
may write this division or call the Reference Service Branch
(202) 501-5400, for more information on the move status of specific
records. We know this massive move will inconvenience people;
we ask your patience and understanding while we move records to
Archives II.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jo Ann Williamson
JO ANN WILLIAMSON
Chief
Military Reference Branch
Textual Reference Division
=============================================================================
SANITIZED COPY
SENSITIVE INFORMATION DELETED
USAF
(B)(1)
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. TR-DE-3A
(TITLE UNCLASSIFIED
ELINT PROGRESS REPORT SUPPLEMENT
PROJECT NO. 20024
15 OCTOBER 1955
DEPUTY FOR ELINT
AIR TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
OHIO
__________________________
| DECLASSIFIED |
|Authority _NND-857013____ |
| |
|By_______NARA, Date______ |
|__________________________|
===========================================================================
SECTION I
SIGNALS ASSOCIATED WITH [------------------------] (TOP SECRET)(AFOIN-4C2)
1. Analysis of [--------------------------------] of nine recent
[--------------------] made by an Air Force Security Service [-----------]
[------------------------------] has indicated that these [----------] may
be associated with a [---------------------------------------------------]
(para 22b) [-------------------------------------------------------------]
2. The principal characteristics of these signals as summarized
from USAFSS data are shown in Table I. All of the intercepts were made
at the [---------------------------------------------------------] and
[--------------------------------------------------------------] (para
23c) [-------------------------------------------------------------------]
a. Laboratory analysis at ATIC has shown that the [----] of
these [------------------------------------------------------------------]
[--------] In one case [------------------------] both of these [--------]
occurred simultaneously. A correlation between the recordings and the
operators' logs indicates that a [-------------------------] is used
with the [--------] and a [----------------] is used with [--------------]
[------------] para 23c) [-----------------------------------------------]
b. Two different [----] modes were observed. They are: (1)
[--------------------------------------------------------------] and
(2) [----------------------] Both [----] modes have been seen at [-------]
[-------------] (para 23c) [---------------------------------------------]
3. A comparison of the [----------------------] with collateral
information has provided a tentative association of this group of sig-
nals with the [----------------------------------------------------------]
[-----------------------------] (para 22b[-------------------------------]
a. There is very little intelligence on this [------] but it
is estimated to have the following [--------] design characteristics:
(1) [------------------------------------------------------]
(2) [------------------------------------------------------]
[------------------------------------------------------------------------]
(2) [------------------------------------------------------]
[------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[------------------------------------------------------------------------]
* denotes source of material. AFOIN-4C2 is the Analysis Division under
the Deputy for ELINT ay ATIC.
1
__________________________
| DECLASSIFIED |
|Authority _NND-857013____ |
| |
|By_______NARA, Date______ |
|__________________________|
=============================================================================
National
Archives Washington, DC 20408
December 14, 1993
Reply to; NNRM94-02320-KS
Mr. Dale Goudie
Dear Mr. Goudie:
This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1993.
Record Group 341, Records of Headquarters United States Air
Force, consists of 7,739 cubic feet of material, arranged in over
500 series. Project BLUE BOOK, the documentation relating to
investigations of unidentified flying objects, is just one series
in this record group.
The copy of the withdrawal card you enclosed with your letter is
from RG 341, Entry 267. This entry consists of the records of
the Dissemination Branch of the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff, Operations. These are not the BLUE BOOK records.
We will inform you when we have received a response concerning
your FOIA request (NN93-1216).
Sincerely,
/s/ Kenneth D. Schlessinger
KENNETH D. SCHLESSINGER
Military Reference Branch
Textual Reference Division
National Archives and Records Administration
===========================================================================
March 12, 1994
The Honorable Steven Schiff
District Office
625 Silver Ave., Suite 140
Silver Square
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Congressman Schiff,
We are writing to follow up on our February 6 letter; we are in
receipt of your reply. Since you, as a congressman, received
what you considered inappropriate response to a request for
information from the Department of Defense, we thought that you
would be interested in the existing situation which we describe
here with the help of an example.
We are writing to provide an example of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) in action; of how the FOIA works.
We became interested in a document which was supposed to have
been retired to the National Archives and maintained in NARA
Record Group 341: records of the Headquarters, United States Air
Force. This document was not in the collection, however. In its
place was a "withdrawal slip." A withdrawal slip holds the place
in the files of a document which is being withheld by an agency.
Dale then made a FOIA request to the Modern Military Branch,
Textual Reference Division, NARA for the withdrawn document. We
are informed that NARA then requested the document from the
activity of the Air Force withholding the document on Dale's
behalf as a requester.
Apparently, that Air Force activity provided a "sanitized" copy
of the document to the NARA which, in turn, for a nominal fee,
was reproduced and shipped to us. We have attached a copy of the
sanitized report.
As can be readily seen by even a cursory examination, a great
deal of the text has been selectively deleted, (redacted), before
release. We'd say that this document has been "well sanitized!"
At this point, we want to be clear that we sincerely believe that
there is a need and a proper use for secrecy, precisely for the
protection of the national security. Use but not abuse.
A case can be made for the continued protection of intelligence
sources IF any living person could be compromised from the
release of names. However, in this case, human intelligence is
not the subject but electronic intelligence (ELINT).
Similarly, an equally strong case can be made for withholding
site names and locations of intelligence monitoring sites, IF the
sites are still active.
However, it is very difficult to understand how most, if not all,
of the information excised from the report can have any relevance
to the protection of the national security now, nearly 40 years
later.
Certainly, technology issues are no longer relevant. The vacuum
tube and discrete transistor technology, and the extremely
limited and cumbersome computational hardware of 1955 is far
outstripped by the high speed digital technology of today.
Consequently, signal analysis methods in use in 1955 would also
be obsolete.
Right along with the advancement of digital computer technology,
information coding and decoding techniques must have also
evolved. In this light, it is hard to understand the need for
secrecy now about methods which were in use in 1955.
Perhaps more importantly, it seems likely that the political
situations or entities no longer exist which inspired the
collection of intelligence and the attendant secrecy. Even if
the political entities still exist, the immense changes in the
political structures and interests of the world since 1955 would
surely make intelligence, or the fact that it was gathered,
obsolete today. Again, it is difficult to understand how any of
this material need remain classified.
In short, it seems unreasonable in these days of the decline of
world communism, and announced openness, that a citizen would
receive such an answer to a legitimate Freedom of Information Act
request. A recent position Memorandum from President Clinton to
heads of federal departments and agencies reads, in part:
"I therefore call upon all federal departments and
agencies to renew their commitment to the Freedom of
Information Act, to its underlying principles of
government openness...
We believe that eliminating unnecessary secrecy such as in this
case is one of the goals of President Clinton's Presidential
Review Directive (PRD) 29. PRD 29 orders a sweeping review of
secrecy and classification in general with an eye to a re-write
of Executive order 12356.
There are many more examples like the attached sanitized report;
such apparently unnecessary secrecy is pervasive. We have been
told by an ex-military intelligence officer that the standard
practice (in the informant's unit) was " ... when in doubt,
classify ... when in doubt about at what level to classify,
classify higher.", "... we routinely classified everything Top
Secret ..."
Any researcher who uses the Freedom of Information or Privacy
Acts to any extent learns by experience that although most
agencies act in a businesslike manner, the agencies do not make
things easy. On the contrary, even if one can identify a
specific document to inconsistently applied standards, the
resulting search may be made only among previously released
records. Or so many portions of a document are withheld
(redacted) that the meaning of the contents can only be guessed
at as in the attached example.
Illegible copies are another frequent result of FOIA requests.
The rubber stamped admonition "BEST COPY AVAILABLE," or "POOR
ORIGINAL" appear often on largely or completely unreadable
copies. Per page reproduction fees are charged in some instances
for illegible material.
Through personal experience with the FOIA, we find it very odd
that on repeated occasions, an agency or storage facility will
have extensive records of mundane day-to-day activities, but will
deny possessing any records pertaining to much more dramatic
events. In one instance, voluminous records were available of a
post Korea Air Force construction unit making repairs in local
public buildings in spare time, but made "no records" responses
to requests for regulations and other records of events which had
garnered media attention.
It appears from our experience that each Department, each branch,
each Agency and some units have regulations and other special
unit specific documents which define the procedures for that
activity in handling FOIA and Privacy Act requests. In one case,
"canned responses" to use in reply to certain specific FOIA
requests appeared in an Army "FOIA SOP" (Freedom of Information
Act Standard Operating Procedure) document. Upon obtaining a
partial copy of this document, we were informed that the document
was being withdrawn from use.
The apparent simplicity of the FOIA is crushed under the weight
of large complicating requirements imposed by less well known
documents such as Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5400.7,
"DoD Freedom of Information Act Program."
The feeling that the spirit of the FOIA does not enter into most
FOIA or Privacy Act cases is pervasive among those who use these
Acts to any extent. Many stories of FOIA adventures appear in
literature.
Dale is in the process of appealing the withholding of so much
from the attached report. We feel that it is important to follow
the prescribed procedures to their conclusion.
As indicated in our previous letter, we are not actively pursuing
the "Roswell Case," we do have much similar information about
other, similar cases of unnecessary secrecy and
non-responsiveness of government departments and agencies. Most
notable among these is probably "Project Aquarius." At least two
Senators have requested information on this matter with
inconsistent result.
Should you be interested in the outcome of the appeal on the
enclosed document, or if we can provide you with additional
information, please do not hesitate to write us.
Sincerely,
/s/ Dale Goudie /s/ James Klotz
Dale Goudie James Klotz
P.O. Box 832
Mercer Island, WA 98040
============================================================================
March 23, 1994
Reply to: NNRM94-04986-ER
Mr. Dale Goudie
Dear Mr. Goudie:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act inquiry (NN94-306)
dated February 20, 1994, and received in this office on March 15, 1994.
The document you cite "Report TR-DE-3A, ELINT PROGRESS REPORT
SUPPLEMENT" dated 15 October 1955, was filed under a Top Secret Register
number 5-2862, Record Group 341, Entry 267. This entry is a arranged by Top
Secret register numbers. The Top Secret register number was placed on each
document in this entry when it was received by Headquarters U.S. Air Force
while in their custody. There is no index to this series and the register
number to a particular document does not relate to other documents that may be
on the same subject. We examined the contents of the archives box in which
5-2862 was found but did not locate the report on "TR-DE-3", nor have we
located any ELINT progress reports or a separate series for the Deputy for
ELINT. Research in this series requires one to examine all boxes of this entry.
"TR-DE-3A" (5-2862) was withdrawn by our Declassification Division, based on
guidelines provided by the originating agency the Air Force, after we
accessioned the records; the withdrawn document is retained in that division.
When you submitted a FOIA on this document we forwarded it to the Freedom of
Information Office of the United States Air Force for declassification review.
Sincerely,
/s/ Timothy K. Nenninger
TIMOTHY K. NENNINGER
Chief
Military Reference Branch
Textual Reference Division
============================================================================
April 26, 1994
Reply to: NNRM94-6304-TKN
Dale Goudie
Dear Mr. Goudie:
This is in response to your letter, dated April 3 which we
received April 25, regarding your October 23, 1993, FOIA request
(NN93-1217).
As we indicated in our November 10, 1993, letter to you (copy
enclosed), we have forwarded a copy of the document you requested
to the Department of the Air Force for further declassification
review. This review is to determine whether any additional
portions of the document deleted during the original Air Force
declassification of the document can now be declassified.
Because the Air Force has not completed its review and informed
the National Archives of its outcome, your appeal of these
deletions is premature. The established procedure for handling
your original FOIA request is still underway and not yet run its
course. When the Air Force completes its review, we will inform
you of the outcome.
Sincerely,
/s/ Timothy K. Nenninger
TIMOTHY K. NENNINGER
Chief
Military Reference Branch
Textual Reference Division
Enclosure
=============================================================================
**********************************************
* THE U.F.O. BBS -
http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
**********************************************
