Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [coldwarcomms] Official Business Members?

Expand Messages
  • albertjlafrance@cs.com
    Perhaps those member know of the former AT&T Long Lines Eastern Region s Potomac District , which appears to have been responsible for AT&T facilities at
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Perhaps those member know of the former AT&T Long Lines Eastern Region's
      "Potomac District", which appears to have been responsible for AT&T
      facilities at classified government sites :)

      Albert

      In a message dated 12/5/2001 7:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      ozob99@... writes:

      > Anyone have a guess as to how many members here are Gov't agents
      > monitoring security issues and/or gathering data?...I'd say at least
      > one.While I dont think anyone has compromised anything, I'm sure they
      > are surprised at the breadth of knowledge; and have had to get some
      > info & nomenclature checked out by subject matter experts.
    • David Lesher
      ... I doubt any one has time to care. As a domestic matter, it would be the Feebes terrain. They re still busy looking for the bomb in TWA 800 to bother us.
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Unnamed Administration sources reported that albertjlafrance@... said:
        >
        > Perhaps those member know of the former AT&T Long Lines Eastern Region's
        > "Potomac District", which appears to have been responsible for AT&T
        > facilities at classified government sites :)
        >
        > Albert
        >
        > In a message dated 12/5/2001 7:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        > ozob99@... writes:
        >
        > > Anyone have a guess as to how many members here are Gov't agents
        > > monitoring security issues and/or gathering data?...I'd say at least
        > > one.While I dont think anyone has compromised anything, I'm sure they
        > > are surprised at the breadth of knowledge; and have had to get some
        > > info & nomenclature checked out by subject matter experts.

        I doubt any one has time to care.

        As a domestic matter, it would be the Feebes terrain. They're
        still busy looking for the bomb in TWA 800 to bother us.

        (Hell, at one point just asking about "SMO" [Southern MD
        Operations] would prick up ears. Now everyone knows where
        Mt. Weather is...)

        I did some WWII Open door work at Archives-II {that must be
        Albert's home...} and ftp'ed 1/2 GB of "TOP SECRET" etc docs
        to CERN. NARA didn't even want me to use a declas bug on the
        scanner...

        I chatted w/a friend still 'inside' and joked about making some
        analyst's day.. He thought and said "Yea, for about 10 seconds."



        --
        A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
        & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
        Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
        is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
      • somdchem
        I guess the sarcasm was lost if you missed the signature line. . . It made me chuckle though :-) In all seriousness, I agree most do not care anymore about
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I guess the sarcasm was lost if you missed the signature line. . .
          It made me chuckle though :-)
          In all seriousness, I agree most do not care anymore about such
          things, as secrecy ain't what is used to be! But it would not
          surprise me if a few member were involved in current project similar
          to older ones discussed here, but more for history, not monitoring
          to see what people know!

          --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "ozob99" <ozob99@y...> wrote:
          > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" <kc7vdg@e...>
          > wrote:
          > > People in the intelligence field? Not here...
          >
          > Why not?..
          > >
          > > Kurt
          > >
          > > ---
          > > Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
          > > Rosetta Proving Grounds
        • kemartinsnetnet
          So just a question or two. Maybe security isn t what it once was but don t you think there are some things that should not be posted on an open forum?
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            So just a question or two. Maybe security isn't what it once was
            but don't you think there are some things that should not be posted
            on an open forum? Perhaps people "looking" at certain sites might
            see information a little more sensative or detailed then they may
            otherwise know about?

            Ken

            --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "somdchem" <rickchem@h...> wrote:
            > I guess the sarcasm was lost if you missed the signature line. . .
            > It made me chuckle though :-)
            > In all seriousness, I agree most do not care anymore about such
            > things, as secrecy ain't what is used to be! But it would not
            > surprise me if a few member were involved in current project
            similar
            > to older ones discussed here, but more for history, not monitoring
            > to see what people know!
            >
            > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "ozob99" <ozob99@y...> wrote:
            > > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" <kc7vdg@e...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > People in the intelligence field? Not here...
            > >
            > > Why not?..
            > > >
            > > > Kurt
            > > >
            > > > ---
            > > > Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
            > > > Rosetta Proving Grounds
          • ozob99
            ... Assuming there are Carnivore/Echelon type surveillence devices checking relevent Usenet,Groups,Forums,etc for key words,content,phrases; i m sure some of
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "somdchem" <rickchem@h...> wrote:
              > I guess the sarcasm was lost if you missed the signature line. . .
              > It made me chuckle though :-)
              > In all seriousness, I agree most do not care anymore about such
              > things, as secrecy ain't what is used to be! But it would not
              > surprise me if a few member were involved in current project similar
              > to older ones discussed here, but more for history, not monitoring
              > to see what people know!




              Assuming there are Carnivore/Echelon type surveillence devices
              checking relevent Usenet,Groups,Forums,etc for key
              words,content,phrases; i'm sure some of the words/acronyms here have
              triggered a look at the strings,not 24/7 becuz i agree this is'nt a
              priority,but i'd guess somebody is dropping in occasionally.




              >
              > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "ozob99" <ozob99@y...> wrote:
              > > --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK" <kc7vdg@e...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > People in the intelligence field? Not here...
              > >
              > > Why not?..
              > > >
              > > > Kurt
              > > >
              > > > ---
              > > > Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
              > > > Rosetta Proving Grounds
            • Frederick J Roecker II
              ... I am really new to this list and the subject material but most everything I have read on the posts to this group seems to be about outdated equipment and
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                At 07:35 AM 12/6/01, kemartinsnetnet wrote:

                > So just a question or two. Maybe security isn't what it once was
                >but don't you think there are some things that should not be posted
                >on an open forum? Perhaps people "looking" at certain sites might
                >see information a little more sensative or detailed then they may
                >otherwise know about?
                >
                > Ken
                I am really new to this list and the subject material but most everything I
                have read on the posts to this group seems to be about outdated equipment
                and communication sites. If people are "looking" at sites on the net, there
                isn't anything too "sensitive" they would be looking at. To the best of my
                knowledge, in order to read truly "sensitive" material you would need some
                sort of security clearance to view such material. I like reading about the
                things that people post on here. There are parts of history that are not
                taught in school, the old communication infrastructure being one of them.
                Keep up the good work folks, I really enjoy your posts.

                Fred
              • Rick C.
                Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized (or public knowledge). Take for example the Ground Entry Point system. To the best of my
                Message 7 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized (or public
                  knowledge). Take for example the Ground Entry Point system. To the best of
                  my knowledge, it is not classified. But neither is it publicized as an
                  asset, nor does the public have general knowledge of it. Discussion of it
                  might raise eyebrows with certain people, not that anybody knows, but
                  curiousity that you in particular know about it. In a similar vein, often
                  the systems are not classified, but what they are used for or exactly how
                  they work *is*. For example, the existence of a plane used for high
                  altitude remote chemical sensing of the ground was not classified, as was
                  not the use of certain analytical techniques and lasers to accomplish. But
                  how they used those techniques and exactly how they used the lasers *was*,
                  as was what they used that information *for*. It is much easier to guard
                  information as an abstract rather than physical, geographic location from
                  being revealed!(although, granted, the Greenbriar was a surprise!)
                  I think most everyone here uses decent judgement. . . I am positive
                  guru-LaFrance has documents up his sleave he hasn't web-published :-)

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                • ozob99
                  ... (or public ... the best of ... as an ... Discussion of it ... but ... vein, often ... exactly how ... high ... as was ... accomplish. But ... *was*, ...
                  Message 8 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In coldwarcomms@y..., "Rick C." <rickchem@h...> wrote:
                    > Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized
                    (or public
                    > knowledge). Take for example the Ground Entry Point system. To
                    the best of
                    > my knowledge, it is not classified. But neither is it publicized
                    as an
                    > asset, nor does the public have general knowledge of it.
                    Discussion of it
                    > might raise eyebrows with certain people, not that anybody knows,
                    but
                    > curiousity that you in particular know about it. In a similar
                    vein, often
                    > the systems are not classified, but what they are used for or
                    exactly how
                    > they work *is*. For example, the existence of a plane used for
                    high
                    > altitude remote chemical sensing of the ground was not classified,
                    as was
                    > not the use of certain analytical techniques and lasers to
                    accomplish. But
                    > how they used those techniques and exactly how they used the lasers
                    *was*,
                    > as was what they used that information *for*. It is much easier to
                    guard
                    > information as an abstract rather than physical, geographic
                    location from
                    > being revealed!(although, granted, the Greenbriar was a surprise!)
                    > I think most everyone here uses decent judgement. . . I am
                    positive
                    > guru-LaFrance has documents up his sleave he hasn't web-published :-
                    )



                    And since any "big brother" following arcane "leads" mentioned on
                    posts will conclude some members know more than they are telling,and
                    therefor may continue to watch for anything revealed that no one has
                    a "need to know".





                    >
                    > _________________________________________________________________
                    > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
                    http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                  • Chris Ness
                    ... Ahh, paranoia, the thinking man s mental illness. Then again, maybe... -- Chris Ness mailto:luxomni@yahoo.com All jobs are equally easy to
                    Message 9 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On December 6, 2001 03:55 pm, ozob99 wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > And since any "big brother" following arcane "leads" mentioned on
                      > posts will conclude some members know more than they are telling,and
                      > therefor may continue to watch for anything revealed that no one has
                      > a "need to know".

                      Ahh, paranoia, the thinking man's mental illness.
                      Then again, maybe...
                      --
                      Chris Ness
                      mailto:luxomni@... All jobs are equally easy to
                      http://vivid.nbank.net/~gloster the person not doing the work.
                      Holt's Law
                    • Stephen H Chapman
                      Decent judgment is not a criteria for disclosure. Establishing a need to know is the first question. A single dot or two is not a picture. Show enough dots of
                      Message 10 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Decent judgment is not a criteria for disclosure.
                        Establishing a need to know is the first question.
                        A single dot or two is not a picture. Show enough dots of either positive or
                        negative information will create a picture.
                        While the picture might change on a time line, often the criteria that
                        directed that choice is still valid.
                        Silence on acknowledgement of any information is a more secure path that
                        random disclosure to unknown parties.
                        Steve.
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Rick C." <rickchem@...>
                        To: <coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 12:33 PM
                        Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Official Business Members?


                        > Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized (or
                        public
                        > knowledge). Take for example the Ground Entry Point system. To the best
                        of
                        > my knowledge, it is not classified. But neither is it publicized as an
                        > asset, nor does the public have general knowledge of it. Discussion of it
                        > might raise eyebrows with certain people, not that anybody knows, but
                        > curiousity that you in particular know about it. In a similar vein, often
                        > the systems are not classified, but what they are used for or exactly how
                        > they work *is*. For example, the existence of a plane used for high
                        > altitude remote chemical sensing of the ground was not classified, as was
                        > not the use of certain analytical techniques and lasers to accomplish.
                        But
                        > how they used those techniques and exactly how they used the lasers *was*,
                        > as was what they used that information *for*. It is much easier to guard
                        > information as an abstract rather than physical, geographic location from
                        > being revealed!(although, granted, the Greenbriar was a surprise!)
                        > I think most everyone here uses decent judgement. . . I am positive
                        > guru-LaFrance has documents up his sleave he hasn't web-published :-)
                        >
                        > _________________________________________________________________
                        > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Jason Grabill
                        Here either.... Jason Grabill Formerly on the Staff of Director, Marine Corps Intelligence Currently assigned to Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md DOD Police. ...
                        Message 11 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Here either....
                           
                          Jason Grabill
                          Formerly on the Staff of Director, Marine Corps Intelligence
                           
                          Currently assigned to Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md
                          DOD Police.
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:15 PM
                          Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Official Business Members?

                          People in the intelligence field?  Not here...

                          Kurt

                          ---
                          Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
                          Rosetta Proving Grounds



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        • Eric F. Richards
                          ... Just because you re paranoid doesn t mean... Interesting story I read on a web bulletin board just yesterday, about when a regular there made a joke
                          Message 12 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 04:45 PM 12/6/01 -0500, you wrote:
                            >On December 6, 2001 03:55 pm, ozob99 wrote:
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> And since any "big brother" following arcane "leads" mentioned on
                            >> posts will conclude some members know more than they are telling,and
                            >> therefor may continue to watch for anything revealed that no one has
                            >> a "need to know".
                            >
                            >Ahh, paranoia, the thinking man's mental illness.
                            >Then again, maybe...

                            "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean..."

                            Interesting story I read on a web bulletin board just yesterday, about
                            when a regular there made a joke about assassination. (Some
                            joke -- does he do kids parties, too?) Even though he clearly marked
                            it as a joke, the Men in Black showed up on his doorstep and took him
                            for a good quizzing before they decided he was harmless. I don't know
                            what parts of the story he didn't and couldn't tell, obviously, but it
                            took 'em no time at all to track him down.

                            On classification... anyone who has worked with even the lowest, most
                            boring classified stuff sees that the rules for it are strange. Imagine
                            a paragraph that is classified "confidential" until a single word is
                            struck from it, but that word can clearly be determined by context.
                            example: striking "phase modulation." Imagine getting a briefing from
                            uncleared people on a given subject to people cleared on that subject,
                            even though it is obvious that the uncleared people know more about it
                            than those with the need to know, etc.

                            Classification rules are weird things...

                            And don't make comments that'll get you in trouble! I hope the one
                            above doesn't do that!

                            (First post to this list -- hopefully not my last... :-))

                            Eric

                            --
                            Eric F. Richards
                            efricha@...
                            "The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
                            - Dilbert
                          • Frederick J Roecker II
                            ... isn t that an oximoron along with Military Intelligence?? lol J/K
                            Message 13 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Marine Corps Intelligence


                              isn't that an oximoron along with Military Intelligence??  lol

                              J/K

                            • albertjlafrance@cs.com
                              That s a very good question. Keeping an eye on a list where potentially sensitive topics might be discussed could serve a couple of purposes for government
                              Message 14 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                That's a very good question. Keeping an eye on a list where potentially
                                sensitive topics might be discussed could serve a couple of purposes for
                                government agencies concerned with secrecy. Because anyone can join the
                                list, the monitoring can be done without the legal and procedural
                                difficulties posed by more intrusive surveillance techniques (e.g.
                                wiretapping).

                                First, it's a way of making sure that people with access to classified
                                information aren't "spilling" anything, intentionally or by careless remarks.
                                The monitoring would be analogous to the Department of Energy reviewing
                                academic papers published by DoE scientists working on nuclear weapons.

                                Second, this group could serve as an early warning of lapses in security.
                                For example, a message like "does anyone know why 10 acres of XYZ National
                                Park were suddenly closed off and guarded by MPs last week?" might alert the
                                person responsible for that activity that he should be a little more subtle
                                in his approach to OPSEC, or he'll likely find the press snooping around
                                before long.

                                Albert

                                In a message dated 12/5/2001 7:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                ozob99@... writes:

                                > Anyone have a guess as to how many members here are Gov't agents
                                > monitoring security issues and/or gathering data?...I'd say at least
                                > one.While I dont think anyone has compromised anything, I'm sure they
                                > are surprised at the breadth of knowledge; and have had to get some
                                > info & nomenclature checked out by subject matter experts.
                              • Mr. K. Rudolph, KD7JYK
                                That c cool! I thought about that in 93! Jason Grabill Currently assigned to Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md DOD Police. Kurt ... Ross Technologies Signals
                                Message 15 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  That'c cool!  I thought about that in '93!
                                   
                                  Jason Grabill
                                  Currently assigned to Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md
                                  DOD Police.
                                   
                                  Kurt

                                  ---
                                  Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
                                  Rosetta Proving Grounds
                                • combatsent
                                  If you are interested in most of what is known about the GEP system, take a look at my web site. http://ncamonitor.tripod.com/ ... From: Rick C. To:
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    If you are interested in most of what is known about the GEP system, take a look at my web site.
                                     
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Rick C.
                                    Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 8:33 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Official Business Members?

                                    Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized (or public
                                    knowledge).  Take for example the Ground Entry Point system.  To the best of
                                    my knowledge, it is not classified.  But neither is it publicized as an
                                    asset, nor does the public have general knowledge of it.  Discussion of it
                                    might raise eyebrows with certain people, not that anybody knows, but
                                    curiousity that you in particular know about it.  In a similar vein, often
                                    the systems are not classified, but what they are used for or exactly how
                                    they work *is*.  For example, the existence of a plane used for high
                                    altitude remote chemical sensing of the ground was not classified, as was
                                    not the use of certain analytical techniques and lasers to accomplish.  But
                                    how they used those techniques and exactly how they used the lasers *was*,
                                    as was what they used that information *for*.  It is much easier to guard
                                    information as an abstract rather than physical, geographic location from
                                    being revealed!(although, granted, the Greenbriar was a surprise!)
                                       I think most everyone here uses decent judgement. . . I am positive
                                    guru-LaFrance has documents up his sleave he hasn't web-published :-)

                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                  • ozob99
                                    ... Region s ... The Potomac District was formed to compartmentalize the operations of the 5 project offices
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Dec 6, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In coldwarcomms@y..., albertjlafrance@c... wrote:
                                      > Perhaps those member know of the former AT&T Long Lines Eastern
                                      Region's
                                      > "Potomac District", which appears to have been responsible for AT&T
                                      > facilities at classified government sites :)
                                      >
                                      > Albert



                                      The Potomac District was formed to compartmentalize the operations of
                                      the 5 "project" offices
                                      (Chatham,Buckingham,Charlottesville#2,Leesburg#5,Hagerstown#2),
                                      Lewisburg#2(Greenbrier) & Berryville#2(Mt. Weather); it later
                                      included all 100% Gov't CO's in the Eastern Region(Pentagon #3[in
                                      1987] & Greenbelt).

                                      BTW this is a good example of the illustration posted earlier(2631)
                                      on "classified vs public" info; the project offices' location & some
                                      of the transmission facilities are known to those willing to explore
                                      online & elsewhere,so its available but not general public knowledge;
                                      but the projects' mission,etc then, & maybe now ,was/is classified.

                                      This also illustrates how one can be visited by men in black:if i
                                      speculated on here with info that was correct i might be checked out;
                                      if i never worked with, had a clearance,or knew anyone on the project
                                      it might pass as a lucky guess with no inquiry;however,if i worked
                                      with related stuff and/or had a clearance then i'd be investigated.

                                      So those of you who have documentable knowledge of something
                                      classified need to be careful not to slip up unless u know for sure
                                      its been declassified,& thats difficult to find out sometimes.

                                      I thought this issue would generate some dialog & glad to see it
                                      brought some out of the sidelines.




                                      >
                                      > In a message dated 12/5/2001 7:38:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      > ozob99@y... writes:
                                      >
                                      > > Anyone have a guess as to how many members here are Gov't agents
                                      > > monitoring security issues and/or gathering data?...I'd say at
                                      least
                                      > > one.While I dont think anyone has compromised anything, I'm sure
                                      they
                                      > > are surprised at the breadth of knowledge; and have had to get
                                      some
                                      > > info & nomenclature checked out by subject matter experts.
                                    • Mark Foster
                                      ... Blue Ridge Summitt? What is the difference between Washington #4 and Berryville #2. Or when did the designation change. Maybe Washington #4 was the AT&T
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Dec 7, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 03:24 AM 12/7/2001 +0000, you wrote:
                                        >The Potomac District was formed to compartmentalize the operations of
                                        >the 5 "project" offices
                                        >(Chatham,Buckingham,Charlottesville#2,Leesburg#5,Hagerstown#2),
                                        >Lewisburg#2(Greenbrier) & Berryville#2(Mt. Weather); it later
                                        >included all 100% Gov't CO's in the Eastern Region(Pentagon #3[in
                                        >1987] & Greenbelt).

                                        Blue Ridge Summitt?

                                        What is the difference between Washington #4 and Berryville #2.
                                        Or when did the designation change. Maybe Washington #4 was the
                                        AT&T designation and Berryville #2 the local provider? Maybe they
                                        were at the same place but physically different locations?
                                      • ozob99
                                        ... of ... Yes ,i forgot to include Blue Ridge Summitt #2(Site R) in the list; Wash #4 was a later designation for Berryville #2 in a different context;where
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Dec 7, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In coldwarcomms@y..., Mark Foster <mfoster@c...> wrote:
                                          > At 03:24 AM 12/7/2001 +0000, you wrote:
                                          > >The Potomac District was formed to compartmentalize the operations
                                          of
                                          > >the 5 "project" offices
                                          > >(Chatham,Buckingham,Charlottesville#2,Leesburg#5,Hagerstown#2),
                                          > >Lewisburg#2(Greenbrier) & Berryville#2(Mt. Weather); it later
                                          > >included all 100% Gov't CO's in the Eastern Region(Pentagon #3[in
                                          > >1987] & Greenbelt).
                                          >
                                          > Blue Ridge Summitt?
                                          >
                                          > What is the difference between Washington #4 and Berryville #2.
                                          > Or when did the designation change. Maybe Washington #4 was the
                                          > AT&T designation and Berryville #2 the local provider? Maybe they
                                          > were at the same place but physically different locations?


                                          Yes ,i forgot to include Blue Ridge Summitt #2(Site R) in the list;
                                          Wash #4 was a later designation for Berryville #2 in a different
                                          context;where there was a #2 office,#1 was usually the local company
                                          CO, & Berryville #1 was the C&P CO although C&P did'nt refer to it
                                          that way. There was a C&P Tel Co presence at Mt Weather but i don't
                                          know if it had a alias.
                                        • albertjlafrance@cs.com
                                          I learned of Washington #4 when I saw it listed as a station name in the FCC microwave-license database. Although the name is deceptive, the license entry
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Dec 7, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I learned of Washington #4 when I saw it listed as a station name in the FCC
                                            microwave-license database. Although the name is deceptive, the license
                                            entry gives the correct coordinates and even the street address for the
                                            Special Facility.

                                            The database shows the antenna site is about 100 ft. lower in elevation than
                                            the public road which runs along the mountain ridge, and no tower is visible
                                            from the road. The antenna height above ground is unusually low (25 ft., I
                                            think), suggesting to me that it's a hardened dish like the one at Monrovia.

                                            A couple of other noteworthy things about Washington #4: The callsign
                                            (WPNL603) differs from the usual 3-letter + 2 digit calls used for older
                                            common-carrier fixed microwave stations. And the license renews on a
                                            different date from the February cycle apparently used for most AT&T stations.

                                            Albert

                                            In a message dated 12/7/2001 8:52:04 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                            ozob99@... writes:

                                            > Yes ,i forgot to include Blue Ridge Summitt #2(Site R) in the list;
                                            > Wash #4 was a later designation for Berryville #2 in a different
                                            > context;where there was a #2 office,#1 was usually the local company
                                            > CO, & Berryville #1 was the C&P CO although C&P did'nt refer to it
                                            > that way. There was a C&P Tel Co presence at Mt Weather but i don't
                                            > know if it had a alias.
                                          • Jason Grabill
                                            Naturally... Jason ... From: Frederick J Roecker II To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com ; coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 6:57 PM
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Dec 7, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Naturally...
                                               
                                              Jason
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 6:57 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Official Business Members?

                                              Marine Corps Intelligence


                                              isn't that an oximoron along with Military Intelligence??  lol

                                              J/K



                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                            • Jason Grabill
                                              Well, we are still looking for bodies! Drop me a line off the list if you are interested...that goes for anyone. Jason DOD Police, Fort Detrick, Md. ... From:
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Dec 7, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Well, we are still looking for bodies!  Drop me a line off the list if you are interested...that goes for anyone.
                                                 
                                                Jason
                                                DOD Police, Fort Detrick, Md.
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 8:10 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Official Business Members?

                                                That'c cool!  I thought about that in '93!
                                                 
                                                Jason Grabill
                                                Currently assigned to Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md
                                                DOD Police.
                                                 
                                                Kurt

                                                ---
                                                Ross Technologies Signals Intelligence Division
                                                Rosetta Proving Grounds

                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                              • albertjlafrance@cs.com
                                                In a message dated 12/6/2001 3:34:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... public ... of ... Yes, I think that s a very important point. There s a substantial amount
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Dec 11, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 12/6/2001 3:34:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                                  rickchem@... writes:

                                                  > Well, the there is a difference between classified and publicized (or
                                                  public
                                                  > knowledge). Take for example the Ground Entry Point system. To the best
                                                  of
                                                  >
                                                  > my knowledge, it is not classified. But neither is it publicized as an
                                                  > asset, nor does the public have general knowledge of it. Discussion of it
                                                  > might raise eyebrows with certain people, not that anybody knows, but
                                                  > curiousity that you in particular know about it. In a similar vein, often
                                                  > the systems are not classified, but what they are used for or exactly how
                                                  > they work *is*.

                                                  Yes, I think that's a very important point. There's a substantial amount of
                                                  potentially sensitive but unclassified information which can be found - often
                                                  in public documents - with a little effort. And where no records are
                                                  available, field work can answer a lot of questions. For example, the
                                                  obvious directionality and limited range of a terrestrial microwave dish
                                                  often make it fairly easy to guess the other end of a link even when no paper
                                                  records are available. And marked routes of buried cables are, of course,
                                                  even simpler to trace.

                                                  Whether or not one's interest in a particular asset gets the attention of a
                                                  federal agency is probably a matter of chance (the agency discovering that
                                                  someone is looking at a sensitive system or facility) and context (who's
                                                  interested, for how long, and how seriously, who the information is being
                                                  shared with and for what alleged purpose, the nation's overall security
                                                  posture at the time, any known or anticipated threats to the asset).

                                                  > For example, the existence of a plane used for high
                                                  >altitude remote chemical sensing of the ground was not classified, as was
                                                  >not the use of certain analytical techniques and lasers to accomplish. But
                                                  >how they used those techniques and exactly how they used the lasers *was*,
                                                  >as was what they used that information *for*. It is much easier to guard
                                                  >information as an abstract rather than physical, geographic location from
                                                  >being revealed!(although, granted, the Greenbriar was a surprise!)

                                                  Also very good points. And, I think the unsung hero in maintaining the low
                                                  profile of sensitive facilities has been the fact that most people just don't
                                                  care. I'm always surprised by the number of people I encounter here in the
                                                  Washington suburbs who haven't heard of the legendary Mount Weather, and
                                                  other local facilities like Site R, the AT&T bunkers, and FEMA's Federal
                                                  Support Center remain even less known. And most people don't seem very
                                                  interested in knowing about them; they just take for granted that the places
                                                  exist but aren't at all curious about the details.

                                                  Regarding the Greenbrier, it's worth noting that someone curious about the
                                                  AT&T network, as many of us are, potentially could have stumbled on the
                                                  facility as a result of that interest. The Greenbrier's interface to the
                                                  Long Lines microwave network was through a mountaintop station several miles
                                                  away, connected to the hotel by a buried cable. The station is in a state
                                                  forest, far from any transcontinental cable routes and major population
                                                  centers, and reached by a long, winding and steep gravel road. So a
                                                  researcher looking at the station would likely have been surprised to find
                                                  AT&T cable markers leading from the station down the heavily-wooded
                                                  mountainside. He would have been further puzzled by the signs on the
                                                  markers, which identify Dranesville, VA (over 180 miles away) as the AT&T
                                                  facility responsible for the cable.

                                                  If this list had existed back in the days when the Greenbrier facility was
                                                  operational, and if one of us had discovered that cable and posted the
                                                  information, I'll bet the feds would have been *very* interested!

                                                  > I think most everyone here uses decent judgement. . . I am positive
                                                  >guru-LaFrance has documents up his sleave he hasn't web-published :-)

                                                  Not much in the way of documents, but there is one interesting facility whose
                                                  original mission was very secret, which has changed hands and now houses a
                                                  different but still sensitive activity for a civilian federal agency. When I
                                                  contacted the official in charge of the place and asked about its history, he
                                                  became very suspicious and wanted to know how I found out about it, and
                                                  finally asked me not to publicize it. The situation is complicated because
                                                  the previous occupant is also very security-conscious and has apparently
                                                  requested that the current user to maintain the secrecy of the previous
                                                  mission, so I'm not sure which activity is the main beneficiary of this
                                                  secrecy. Confusing? It sure is for me!

                                                  Albert
                                                • mikemakar
                                                  Group, To supplement Alberts comments, this appeared in the London Telegraph. The term accessing national secrets is an interesting concept. Where do you
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Dec 12, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Group,

                                                    To supplement Alberts comments, this appeared in the London Telegraph.

                                                    The term "accessing national secrets" is an interesting concept.
                                                    Where do you draw the line? I agree the best protection has been
                                                    public apathy.

                                                    I understand planespotting is quite a serious hobby and has been for
                                                    decades. There is even Yahoo Groups that facilitate this
                                                    information.

                                                    Mike Makar

                                                    Planespotters freed on bail
                                                    (Filed: 12/12/2001)

                                                    TWELVE British planespotters are being released on bail and will
                                                    stand trial on lesser charges than spying, their lawyer said.

                                                    The 12 British and two Dutch planespotters have been in custody for
                                                    more than a month after being accused of spying by taking photographs
                                                    of military planes. The bail was set at 5 million drachmas each, the
                                                    equivalent of £10,000, the lawyer said.

                                                    "If we can come up with the money we might manage to get them
                                                    released today," lawyer Yannis Zacharias said.

                                                    Mr Zacharias said the 14 now faced misdemeanour charges of "accessing
                                                    national secrets". No date has been set for the trial.

                                                    Stephen Warren, the son of one of the accused Lesley Coppin, branded
                                                    the decision "disgusting" and said there was little hope of raising
                                                    the bail money in time for their release before Christmas.

                                                    But Labour East MEP Richard Howitt, who has been campaigning on
                                                    behalf of the group, said: "I regard this as a victory. I have no
                                                    doubt that when it comes to trial the case will collapse - although
                                                    technically this misdemeanour allegation could carry a five-year jail
                                                    sentence if proved.

                                                    "It does worry me that asking each family to find £10,000 for bail
                                                    is
                                                    a lot.

                                                    http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/
                                                  • Rick C.
                                                    Many people from my informal surveys are not only uninterested, but actively do not want to know what goes on at facilities, or the dual nature of facilities.
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Dec 12, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Many people from my informal surveys are not only uninterested, but actively
                                                      do not want to know what goes on at facilities, or the dual nature of
                                                      facilities. According to one person, it ruins their view of a safe world, in
                                                      just needing these types of things.
                                                      Similar to this but 180 degrees opposite is the smug assumption that
                                                      these sorts of black facilities exist in much greater numbers than commonly
                                                      assumed - same idea, comfort - but comfort in the believed existence of a
                                                      vast security complex that is much weaker than imagined. Thus, known
                                                      facilities are passe, and these people ignore the.
                                                      On this second point, I recall that I argued in vain to a woman that
                                                      there currently existed no deployed missile defense system, and that if
                                                      someone launched a missile, there was nothing we could do wait for it to
                                                      arrive. She didn't want to hear it and went as far to ask me to stop
                                                      because she had faith our government would do "something" to stop it. I
                                                      then found out that this is a widely held view, that "star wars" exists, is
                                                      deployed, and works. If people knew the truth, perhaps the clamor would be
                                                      high for such as system, but then they would all live in total fear. . .it
                                                      is a psychological trade off.
                                                      Rick




                                                      >surprised by the number of people I encounter here in the
                                                      >Washington suburbs who haven't heard of the legendary Mount Weather, and
                                                      >other local facilities like Site R, the AT&T bunkers, and FEMA's Federal
                                                      >Support Center remain even less known. And most people don't seem very
                                                      >interested in knowing about them; they just take for granted that the
                                                      >places
                                                      >exist but aren't at all curious about the details.


                                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                                      MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                                                      http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
                                                    • long-lines@att.net
                                                      You have to wonder, with respect to this -- and Sept 11, how air traffic controllers felt watching their scopes that day...
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Dec 15, 2001
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        You have to wonder, with respect to this -- and Sept 11,
                                                        how air traffic controllers felt watching their scopes
                                                        that day...
                                                        > She didn't want to hear it and went as far to ask me to stop
                                                        > because she had faith our government would do "something" to stop it.
                                                      • Dave Emery
                                                        ... The very careful reader will see the clue here, but the way the article was qouted it sure doesn t stand out. This case is not a case in the UK but in
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Dec 17, 2001
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 02:23:24PM -0000, mikemakar wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > Planespotters freed on bail
                                                          > (Filed: 12/12/2001)
                                                          >
                                                          > TWELVE British planespotters are being released on bail and will
                                                          > stand trial on lesser charges than spying, their lawyer said.
                                                          >
                                                          > The 12 British and two Dutch planespotters have been in custody for
                                                          > more than a month after being accused of spying by taking photographs
                                                          > of military planes. The bail was set at 5 million drachmas each, the
                                                          > equivalent of £10,000, the lawyer said.
                                                          >

                                                          The very careful reader will see the clue here, but the way the
                                                          article was qouted it sure doesn't stand out. This case is not a case
                                                          in the UK but in Athens Greece. Apparently the Greeks don't understand
                                                          the European (and especially UK) fantatical plane spotter/photographing
                                                          culture and arrested a bunch of spotters who had traveled to Athens
                                                          specifically to see and photograph certain Greek aircraft at an airbase
                                                          there.

                                                          Like so many other things in that area of the world, the rules of
                                                          acceptable behavior and what is considered treasonable spying are a bit
                                                          different than in the UK...


                                                          --
                                                          Dave Emery N1PRE, die@... DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass.
                                                          PGP fingerprint = 2047/4D7B08D1 DE 6E E1 CC 1F 1D 96 E2 5D 27 BD B0 24 88 C3 18
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.