[FPSPACE] "Liting the Veil": Author's further comment

[Sven Grahn]

Rectification is fine, but the cases I brought up are such that the US 
data said that the missions were MORE successful than the Russians 
admit. In that case I tend to think the Russians have no reason to 
downplay their ability, so I believe them instead of the CIA. 

Had it been the other way round, I would have embraced your suggestion 
instantly!

Cheers

Sven

----Ursprungligt meddelande----
Från: pjp961 at svol.net
Datum: 15-11-2007 14:23
Till: <fpspace at friends-partners.org>
Ärende: [FPSPACE] &quot;Liting the Veil&quot;: Author&#39;s further 
comment

I would like to make a further "short" comment in regards to one of 
the
issues that Sven raised in his preliminary reactions to the Space 
Chronicle
piece.

 

The graphs that Sven spent some time on (dealing with when specific 
missions
failed in their flights) were part and parcel of a report that was
distributed Community-wide (meaning distributed across the US 
intelligence
community, to all of the organizations).  The report itself was 
classified
TS Trine, for a ranking and handling protocols that were for the most
sensitive materials.  The graphs themselves were also classified TS 
Trine,
due to the content of the graphs.

 

My current personal view is that I do not think that-- when data got 
to the
TS Trine level--there would have been inaccurate technical conclusions
allowed in the document.  By the time that text and conclusions reach 
TS
Trine, and were published, the content of such reports was heavily 
vetted.
It is the standard operating procedure.  So I am disinclined to 
believe
that--when the US data "clashes" with the currently published Russian
data-the US information should be immediately assumed to be 
incorrect.  When
the data is coming from such a TS SCI document (Top Secret, Sensitive
Compartmented Information), my view is the odds are against the 
hypothesis
that inaccurate data is going to appear, in regards to technical 
information
collection.  The US equipment was quite good, as I so state in the 
Space
Chronicle text.

 

But I would suggest to Sven, and the fpspace readership who are of 
like
mind, to have a change of perception.  Rather than immediately 
thinking the
US data, when it clashes with published Russian data, is incorrect, 
perhaps
everyone should take several steps back, and entertain the view that 
the
published Russian data itself is not correct.  That is my proffered
hypothesis.

 

Like I have mentioned a number of times to colleagues, both privately 
and in
print (see the Quest article serialization co-authored with Charles 
Vick
back in 2004), there are Two Prisms-the American, and the Soviet.  I 
have
also said that the American data would aid in the "rectification" of 
the
published Russian materials.

 

I think the material that Sven has highlighted from the graphs is an 
example
of such "rectifying" material-whether it is going the one way, or the 
other.

 

Let the Great Rectification begin!

_______________________________________________
FPSPACE mailing list
FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace




Sven Grahn
Rättviksvägen 44
S-192 71 Sollentuna
Mobile +46 70 3443844
www.svengrahn.pp.se