[FPSPACE] "Liting the Veil": Author's further comment
cpvick at globalsecurity.org
Thu Nov 15 08:56:12 EST 2007
Some of the points about the data is well taken by peter as I am reminded of
the end of year review of the records on the fight with the community Dr.
Charles S. Sheldon II use to have and describe to me with the community in
their "glass Squirrel Cages" over the space launches data and the obvious
errors there in he forced them to correct before publication.
From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org
[mailto:fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org] On Behalf Of Peter Pesavento
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:23 AM
To: fpspace at friends-partners.org
Subject: [FPSPACE] "Liting the Veil": Author'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
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
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
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
More information about the FPSPACE