Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Matthew Lewis]

How secret was it really? Since the internet wasn't around then, any rumors would have taken longer to spread. I did find this though on wikipedia

In the 1980s, the Jane's Information Group misidentified the F-117 as the F-19, and featured fictitious artwork in All the World's Aircraft. Modelmakers Testors and Monogram both released hypothetical "F-19 Stealth" models; neither bore any resemblance to the real F-117.

Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct.

From the same page

The Air Force denied the existence of the aircraft until 1988, when a grainy photograph was released to the public

What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

[Len Colby]

The history of Stealth demonstrates conclusively that thousands of people can be privy to a major secret without it leaking for years and years and years. See Jane's Defence & Aerospace correspondent Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" for the detail.

Some are not so enthushiactic about the Cook book

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/20...vity/index.html

That Salon review is a clumsy hatchet job, whichi is hardly surprizing given the taboo subject matter of "The Hunt for Zero Point"

Merely saying so doesn’t make it true. The only supposed defect you point to doesn’t hold any water

The attacks on Polish researcher Igor Witkowski are entirely unfounded, given that he has unearthed both secret SS underground sites in Poland, a veritable treasure trove of original Nazi documentation, and allied, Polish and Soviet intelligence reports.

Do you have any evidence for your claims about Witkowski? Kleiner didn’t attack him as much as he question Cook accepting his undocumented claims un critically.

“Where did the information come from? Witkowski says a Polish government official (whom he refuses to name) allowed him to see some documents, but not make copies of them. Why does Cook believe Witkowski?”

Kleiner’s criticism that “In fact, a lot of the evidence here is based on Cook's feelings.” seems confirmed by the video though I only watched part of it much of it depends on what the suthor deemed plausible rather than hard fact.

Kurt Kleiner, author of that Salon nonsense, appears to specialize in creative writing - if this is his CV:

http://kurtkleiner.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/resume.html

Look again; you seem to specialize in creative reading! His CV is that of a well qualified journalist specialized in science reporting.

Oh, and Len - you haven't addressed the issue of the "invisible plane" (Stealth) having been kept secret by thousands of people for more than a decade.

• You haven’t provided any evidence for your claim that so many people were aware of the Stealth yet managed to keep it secret. Matthew’s excerpts from Wikipedia reconcile with my memory from the time (which admittedly could be in error) that such a plane was rumored, even in mainstream media, for years before any official announcements were made.

• If you want to compare the supposed secrecy of the Stealth to CT like 9/11 the analogy doesn’t hold

• You do realize that though it was harder to see than normal planes the Stealth was only invisible (or near invisible) to radar.

[Matthew Lewis]

How secret was it really? Since the internet wasn't around then, any rumors would have taken longer to spread. I did find this though on wikipedia

In the 1980s, the Jane's Information Group misidentified the F-117 as the F-19, and featured fictitious artwork in All the World's Aircraft. Modelmakers Testors and Monogram both released hypothetical "F-19 Stealth" models; neither bore any resemblance to the real F-117.

Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct.

From the same page

The Air Force denied the existence of the aircraft until 1988, when a grainy photograph was released to the public

What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

Is that the best refutation of my argument you can manage?

Stealth technology had been operational since 1983, in development for at least a decade prior, and the best Janes could manage was a "grainy photo" in 1988!!!

Stealth technology represents a prima facie example that thousands of people can preserve a huge secret over a long period of time. And thus it disproves the oft-quoted argument that once a sizeable number of people know something, it cannot be kept secret, and therefore major conspiracies are impossible.

Why the perceived hostility? I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I'm just here to add info so calm down ok? If you had bothered to actually check the link, the photo was not from Jane's, it seems that it was released by the Air Force. Jane's had info in the "1980's". They don't say when exactly. The whole point is though that there was SOME info that had gotten out because there was rumors and question about it sometime in the 80's. How does this disprove the idea that major conspiracies are impossible? (not something I was arguing for by the way nor really care about) I'm not sure how the existence of stealth aircraft is a conspiracy.

[Matthew Lewis]

How secret was it really? Since the internet wasn't around then, any rumors would have taken longer to spread. I did find this though on wikipedia

In the 1980s, the Jane's Information Group misidentified the F-117 as the F-19, and featured fictitious artwork in All the World's Aircraft. Modelmakers Testors and Monogram both released hypothetical "F-19 Stealth" models; neither bore any resemblance to the real F-117.

Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct.

From the same page

The Air Force denied the existence of the aircraft until 1988, when a grainy photograph was released to the public

What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

Is that the best refutation of my argument you can manage?

Stealth technology had been operational since 1983, in development for at least a decade prior, and the best Janes could manage was a "grainy photo" in 1988!!!

Stealth technology represents a prima facie example that thousands of people can preserve a huge secret over a long period of time. And thus it disproves the oft-quoted argument that once a sizeable number of people know something, it cannot be kept secret, and therefore major conspiracies are impossible.

Why the perceived hostility? I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I'm just here to add info so calm down ok? If you had bothered to actually check the link, the photo was not from Jane's, it seems that it was released by the Air Force. Jane's had info in the "1980's". They don't say when exactly. The whole point is though that there was SOME info that had gotten out because there was rumors and question about it sometime in the 80's. How does this disprove the idea that major conspiracies are impossible? (not something I was arguing for by the way nor really care about) I'm not sure how the existence of stealth aircraft is a conspiracy.

One of the main planks of those who use the "conspiracy theory" label to discredit investigative reseach is that events involving, or known to, a sizeable number of people over a period of years cannot be kept secret. And therefore conspiracies are impossible.

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988. It is therefore prima facie evidence that thousands of people can be privy to a secret for years and years without that secret leaking in any substantial form. As Cook states, professional defence & aerospace journalists (including those from Janes), had heard whispers of Stealth, but they were all amazed when the technology itself was revealed.

Again, not something I was arguing for nor really care about. Now that you seem to want to dwell on it, I do however see a big difference between the existence of stealth and a conspiracy. One involves a new aircraft and the other involves the murder of thousands of people. Not sure why you can't see the difference. I'll just leave it at that. It still also shows that something was leaked. Not all of the thousands involved kept quiet.

Edited June 29, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Again, not something I was arguing for nor really care about. Now that you seem to want to dwell on it, I do however see a big difference between the existence of stealth and a conspiracy. One involves a new aircraft and the other involves the murder of thousands of people. Not sure why you can't see the difference. I'll just leave it at that. It still also shows that something was leaked. Not all of the thousands involved kept quiet.

JFK was one man last time I checked. So was RFK. So was MLK.

Jonestown - now that involved hundreds, maybe thousands, of people.

Bluebird, Artichoke & MK-ULTRA involved tens of thousands.

Again, not anything I care about and now not anything I know about nor care to know anything about. I fear I may have caused som confusion here. The main conspiracy I see mentioned involving thousands keeping quiet is 911 and that is what I was referring to when mentioning the murder of thousands of people. moving on though as we seem to be getting WAY off topic here.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988.

Actually, you are wrong here. The Carter Administration admitted the existence of the stealth programme on 22 AUG 80, although specific details were not given. Details of the F-117 were not officially released until 1988. RCS was well understood, even during WWII. Even the German Navy used radar absorbent paint on U-boat periscopes.

[Evan Burton]

BTW, I am NOT saying there is no such thing as an "Aurora" aircraft; it's just that reports have been around since the early 90s, and I would have thought that any such project would have been announced by now.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I very much suspect that Aurora - or what we think of as Aurora - is a reality, but time will tell.

Jan is correct in saying that the existence of stealth was kept secret for many years. I remember Carter's announcement about it and the subsequent attack by the Reagan candidacy who reviled Carter almost as a traitor for outing the technology. I was ever sure why Carter did that, but I wonder if he had concerns about the possibility of its unauthorized use as a first strike weapon against the Soviet Union?

I'd not be at al surprised if Len hasn't read Nick Cook's book... Not reading books has never stopped him from commenting with complete knowledge and assurance about them before.

[Evan Burton]

Good God! Jack is RIGHT!!! The evidence is here:

[Len Colby]

Len - have you actually read Nick Cook's book?

No

”The Salon piece is an attempt at ridicule, and a clumsy hatchet job.”

You can repeat that as much as you want it won’t make it so. You’ve yet to show there was anything wrong with it.

“Kleiner's CV is stuffed full of literature and writing qualifications/courses.”

Wrong dealt with below

”Polish researcher Igor Witkowski has published all his evidence, which is based extensively on new documentation discovered in recently opened German and Polish archives from WW2 and the immediate aftermath, in "The Truth About the Wunderwaffe". Nick Cook saw many of the original documents. Witkowski and other genuine researchers have found many more since "The Hunt for Point Zero" was published.”

Please elaborate on and provide evidence for these claims. What are these documents what do they prove?

”As for Stealth, Cook was a Defence & Aerospace correspondent at Jane's, which is the trade rag of the defence industry. He states that Jane's correspondents were very sceptical of rumours of an "invisible plane" right up until the US military admitted its existence in 1988.”

As with your claims about Kleiner’s CV and as Evan already pointed out you’re just plain wrong. I just did a quick search of the Newsbank archive http://tiny.cc/newsbank for the keywords “stealth” “invisible” “radar” 1975 (when according to Wikipedia development of such planes began) – 1986, there were dozens of hits for the latter year.

The 1st hit was from 1980

Washington Post, The (DC) - August 14, 1980

Carter to Support New U.S. Bomber

President Carter will commit himself to developing a new strategic bomber, perhaps as early as tonight when he accepts renomination at the Democratic National Convention, government sources said yesterday.Such a commitment would steal a march on GOP standard-bearer Ronald Reagan and his adherents who have lambasted Carter for canceling the B1 bomber in 1977. Breakthroughs in technology, sources said, will enable Carter to argue that his cancellation was a good move because the contemplated...

One could argue that perhaps that article didn’t mention stealth aircraft but 8 days later came this

Washington Post, The (DC) - August 22, 1980

Pentagon Confirms Work On Radar-Invisible Plane

The Pentagon confirmed yesterday that it was working on a "Stealth" airplane that would be virtually invisible to enemy radar. Pentagon spokesman Thomas B. Ross said that one reason the Carter administration was lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding the plane was that advances in the Stealth program are "part of Congress' consideration of a new manned bomber." Also, said Ross, the program has reached the point where it will...

If you a willing to part with your hard earned cash you can buy the articles for $2.95 each and various packages are available. There were 3 other articles just that month and several US newspapers; most notably the NY Times aren’t part of the archive. The archive only includes papers i.e. no magazines let alone trade journals like Jane’s. So the project wasn’t as secret as long as you thought.

Searching the above cited database for individual years turned up the following numbers of hits:

1980 – 29, 1981 – 10, 1982 – 5, 1983 – 13, 1984 – 19, 1985 – 27, 1986 – 87

See a couple of later examples below:

Miami Herald, The (FL) - October 21, 1983

U.S. STEALTH PROGRAM BREEDS BUSINESS

"ONE OF THE SEXIEST AREAS of advanced defense technology is the super-secret Stealth program, whose aim is to make aircraft and missiles as well as ground vehicles and naval vessels virtually invisible to enemy radar," says Yale Hirsch (Ground Floor, Old Tappan, N.J.). "In Pentagon parlance, it's called low observable technology' (LOT), and it's so secret that companies rarely admit they're involved. The...

Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - November 3, 1986

U.S., SOVIETS BOTH HAVE ABILITY TO TRACK INVISIBLE STEALTH' PLANE

The United States and the Soviet Union have the means to track `Stealth' aircraft that are supposed to be made invisible from radar by high-tech construction techniques, U.S. officials say.Pentagon officials, who over the past month agreed to discuss the matter with the Associated Press, made that admission in the wake of the fanfare that has surrounded the U.S.' super-secret Stealth bomber and its ability to evade radar detection.But these...

How long before Carter’s announcement did people in the know hear about Stealth? My layman’s guess would at least a year. Perhaps you should contact Cook and ask. If you read his book and understood that the Stealth program was a “vigorously denied” closely guarded secret until the late 80’s either you misunderstood it or it is highly misleading.

The following from the article YOUR posted suggests people knew abut it years before Carter’s announcement:

"President Carter responded to the criticism by downplaying the degree of detail revealed and in turn criticized his opponents for

not classifying stealth when the program entered development

under the Ford administration.

Carter claimed that stealth had been out in the open during public testimony for initial contract assignment until his administration classified the program in 1977

. The leaking of information about the program was inevitable, he claimed, given that thousands of workers were involved with the projects."

You have also yet to produce any evidence that “thousands of people” knew about the Stealth program but kept it secret even from people in the know like Jane’s staff.

Based on the articles linked below the History of Stealth can be summarized as following

1940’s - US scientists start researching ways to reduce the radar signatures of planes

Late 50’s early 60’s - some planes are developed with limited if any success

Late 60’s - Russian researcher develops a mathematical model called Echo 1

Early 70’s - American scientists at Lockheed realize that Echo 1 can be applied to radar clocking aircraft and begin research

1975 - Lockheed builds a model called “the Hopeless Diamond”

1977 – Lockheed wins “a contract to build and test two subscale models (about 60 percent of the size of an operational airplane) of a stealthy aircraft”

1978 – “The F-117A production decision was made … with a contract awarded to Lockheed” This was the 1st stealth plane.

Aug 1980 – Carter acknowledges US working on Stealth planes

June 1981 – First test flight of the F-117A

1983 F-117A "declared operational"

1986 Book entitled Stealth Aircraft published

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Ev...raft/Tech31.htm

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Ev...tech/Tech18.htm

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=104

So contrary to your claims the program was made very public almost a year before the 1st flight

"I am deliberately using the phrase "invisible plane" as that is an example of how language is used to create a "conspiracy theory" which can then be ridiculed by official apologists. Of course, when Stealth was finally admitted to, its "invisibility" was revealed as a radar-specific invisibility."

I have no idea what you are talking about, who 1st used the terminology "invisible plane"? Do you think stealth planes are actually invisible? You said this was demonstrated in the video but it’s over 100 minutes long. I watched a few bits but saw nothing along those lines. Can you tell us how many minutes (and seconds) in this clip appears? Do you have any other evidence for this claim? You do realize that flying at their ceilings and top speeds stealth planes would be all but impossible to see? There was no reason to make the “invisible”.

"And so, it's 100% inevitable and predictable that crude ad hominem attacks are launched on those bringing this new evidence to a broad audience. The truth is dangerous stuff."

Of course your main critique of the critical review of the Cook book is a “crude ad hominem attack’ and a false one at that (see below) very little of Kleiner’s review could be labeled “ad hominem” are you sure you know what the phrase means?

“Kurt Kleiner, author of that Salon nonsense, appears to specialize in creative writing”

“Kleiner's CV is stuffed full of literature and writing qualifications/courses.”

This is getting silly. I divided his CV in parts related to: 1) science and technology reporting, 2) general journalism and 3) fiction. The vast bulk especially recently falls in the 1st category almost none in the 3rd.

1) science and technology reporting 1987 - present

2005 - Canadian Science Writers Association Science in Society Award Best Print News or Short Feature

2003-Present Freelance:

Economist, Nature, Science, New Scientist, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail Have written for these and others.

Correspondent 1994-2003: New Scientist magazine

Wrote news and features covering science policy and general science news.

Johns Hopkins University MS Science Writing, 1993

Reporter 1988-1992: Baltimore Business Journal, Baltimore, Maryland

Covered industry, transportation and technology for the weekly business newspaper.

Reporter 1987-1988: Westchester Business Journal, Port Chester, New York

Covered technology and communications for the weekly business newspaper.

2) general journalism 1985 - 87 plus class taught 1994 - 5

Reporter 1986-1987: Stuart News, Stuart, Florida Covered local government, business, general assignment for the daily local newspaper.

Reporter, Copy Editor 1985: Columbus Citizen-Journal, Columbus, Ohio Reported and copy edited for the state desk and sports department on the city daily.

Instructor 1994-1995: Johns Hopkins University Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Washington, D.C. Developed and taught graduate-level non-fiction writing courses.

Ohio University, Honors Tutorial College BS Journalism, 1985

3) fiction 1981 - 5 (college) 1992- 3 ? (taught class)

Teaching Fellow (1993?) Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland - Developed and taught Contemporary American Letters, an undergraduate combined literature and writing course.

Ohio University, Honors Tutorial College BA English Literature, 1985

------------------------

So 24 years ago he got a double degree in literature and journalism and 15 or so years ago while getting a master’s in science writing he taught an undergraduate course in “literature and writing”. Since 1987 except for teaching that class he has specialized in science journalism. Your claim that “Kurt Kleiner… appears to specialize in creative writing” is just plain false.

Now I could see in haste you seeing 2 reference to teaching or studying literature and coming to wrong conclusion but if after I pointed out your error you still thought his CV was mostly or to significant degree geared towards ‘creative writing’ you must suffer from an acute case of cognitive dissonance. No offense but from this point forward I will take any claims you make that a book, article, video etc which I can’t read or see myself proves/demonstrates/says something with a kilo of salt

EDITs added last 2 items to timeline, typos fixed minor romating for clarity

Edited June 30, 2008 by Len Colby

[Guest David Guyatt]

One of the more intriguing parts of Nick Cook's book was the source (who's moniker I now forget) who provides insights to Cook on aspects of his investigation -- and seems to gently lead him, at critical points, through what is a very complex field.

Cook understandably does not name this source. However, he does indicate where he meets with him: Bawdsey on the Suffolk coast. At the very end of the book, he has this gentleman melting away into the trees that back on to the east of Bawdsey. Interestingly, the only trees there form part of the grounds of Bawdsey Manor.

Bawdsey Manor has the distinction of being the top secret HQ for the British development of radar just prior to and during WWII:

Bawdsey Manor is now used for commercial functions like weddings, sailing and boating courses etc.

To the north of Bawdsey Manor and located in the Manor's original grounds is RAF Bawdsey which was active from 1936 to 1991. Prior to being decommissioned (it remains a MOD property and is chained and locked and subject to the Official Secrets Act), it formed part of the UK air defence perimeter with a battery of Bloodhound surface to air missiles stationed there.

I have been to Bawdsey many times and it is certainly an ideal location for top secret MOD activity, with one narrow long and winding country road for access. During the war, the military brought in most of the supplies by ferry from nearby Felixstowe harbour. It is very out of the way with no pubs, shops and only the Manor house and a few other houses. There are countless other locations that would equably suit a private meeting in this part of Suffolk (Rendlesham forest comes to mind) that are far easier to reach by Cook traveling from London by car.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len - I've dealt with your Stealth nonsense in post #24.

Since you have read neither Nick Cook nor Igor Witkowski, let's resume this debate when you have. I have better things to do than discuss important historical matters with people who don't bother reading sources before offering biased & highly misleading opinions.

Ta ta.

Touche!

[Len Colby]

Len - I've dealt with your Stealth nonsense in post #24.

Since you have read neither Nick Cook nor Igor Witkowski, let's resume this debate when you have. I have better things to do than discuss important historical matters with people who don't bother reading sources before offering biased & highly misleading opinions.

Ta ta.

You wrote (emphasis mine):

Stealth technology was developed by hundreds of engineers & designers, guarded by hundreds of security guards, and flown by dozens of pilots (both in tests and operationally) for more than a decade WITHOUT ITS EXISTENCE BEING KNOWN. Stealth technology was even used operationally from 1983-88 despite not existing officially. Indeed, THE NOTION OF AN INVISIBLE PLANE WAS SURELY SOMETHING THAT ONLY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS AND NUTTERS COULD BELIEVE IN.

And

STEALTH WAS CATEGORICALLY AND OFFICIALLY DENIED THROUGHOUT THE 80S UNTIL IT WAS FINALLY ADMITTED IN 1988. It is therefore prima facie evidence that thousands of people can be privy to a secret for years and years without that secret leaking in any substantial form. As Cook states, professional defence & aerospace journalists (including those from Janes), had heard whispers of Stealth, but they were all amazed when the technology itself was revealed.

Both these statements were false.Nothing in post #24 changes that. In fact the article you cited indictes Stealth became public knowledge soon aftrer the program began.

Theoretical work on one of the base technologies was begun by Lockheed in “the early 70’s”. real development began i.e a scale model and a government research contract came in 1975 and according to the article you posted starting in June of that year articles started appearing in the specialized press.

In June 1975, the Defense Daily carried a report that a small stealth fighter was being developed for the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory.8 In an article on the genesis of the advanced tactical fighter (ATF) published in January 1976, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported that a high priority was being given to the incorporation of stealth technology into the fighter designs. The article further stated that Lockheed and Northrop (which went on to develop the F-117A and B-2 stealth aircraft) were being given funding for design studies on the inclusion of stealth characteristics in the ATF because of their experience with low-observable technologies in their stealth fighter programs already in progress at the time.9 In August 1976 Aviation Week & Space Technology carried a brief story that the development contract for the stealth fighter demonstrator had been won by Lockheed.10 The 1977-78 edition of Jane's All the World's. Aircraft marked the debut of the stealth fighter in that famous work. A one paragraph entry under the Lockheed Corporation mentioned that a "small" stealth fighter was being built and was expected to fly in 1977.11

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/cadre/aspj/ai.../fal91/cunn.htm

In 1977 Carter classified the program and the author makes no mention of further articles till August 1980 when the program was officially acknowledged. From then on the was a fair steady stream of articles in the specialized press (according to your source) and mainstream media (according to your source and my database search.)

The article you cited only mentioned one denial of the program.

A demonstration of just how far the Reagan administration was willing togo with keeping stealth technology secret can be seen in statements by Air Force Secretary Verne Orr in July 1981. Contradicting what Secretary of Defense Harold Brown had stated the year before and disregarding reports of several years in the technical media, Orr called the stealth bomber a "paper airplane" and "wishful thinking." He also expressed doubt that American industry could handle such a "rush program," when in fact the F-117A was developed in record time.24

Despite that and possibly other denials, press accounts continued to appear. Though details about the Stealth seem to have been largely unknown outside a small select circle the program itself was widely known and publicly acknowledged. From your source again

Congressional questioning about missing stealth documents during the same hearing in which the model was passed around were less amusing. In June 1986 two Lockheed employees working on the stealth fighter program brought to light that hundreds of documents, tapes, films, and photographs dealing with the aircraft were missing from the company's files. Representative John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who later chaired an investigation into the problem, indicated that there was evidence that Lockheed had falsified audits to conceal the problem.34 In one instance, an employee allegedly removed blueprints of the aircraft in a rolled-up newspaper. The employee then supposedly showed them to his ex-wife and girlfriend, who turned him in.35 As a result of the lax document security, payments for the aircraft were withheld until the situation was corrected.36 Some officials complained that the hearings and publicity associated with them had led to the program being unnecessarily compromised.37

Footnotes 34 -7 all referred to contemporary articles. I agree there is really no use in continuing this discussion, arguing with someone who says

a) black is white,

night is day

c) a program that had been reported publicly starting in 1975 and officially acknowledged in 1980 was “developed…for more than a decade without its existence being known.” “until it was finally admitted in 1988” is pointless.

The ‘your opinion is invalid because you haven’t read the book’ argument is of limited value. Should someone refraining from debating a Holocaust denier just because they haven’t read one of the books he cites? You haven’t even shown that he claims what you say. Fortunately the full text of the book can be read on Amazon. If he really argued and proved what you say he did you should easily be able to make a strong case citing the book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0767906284..._pt#reader-link (registration required)

The Witkowski, book seems to be about technology developed by the Nazis does he also falsely claim that the existence of Stealth was unknown till 1988?

Edited July 1, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Len is right, Jan. The stealth programme was revealed in 1980.

The existence of the F-117 was not officially admitted until 1988 (the date you mentioned), but your statement was:

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988. It is therefore prima facie evidence that thousands of people can be privy to a secret for years and years without that secret leaking in any substantial form. As Cook states, professional defence & aerospace journalists (including those from Janes), had heard whispers of Stealth, but they were all amazed when the technology itself was revealed.

And we know the stealth was admitted in 1980. Your own post #24 says:

On 22 August Secretary of Defense Harold Brown held a press conference to clarify the stealth "leak." At the conference, Brown confirmed the details published in the media. The purpose of confirming the leaks, Brown insisted, was to create a "firebreak" and prevent further information about the program being revealed. Unsurprisingly, official confirmation of a supposedly secret program was seized upon as an ideal political weapon by Republicans, who accused the Carter administration of revealing secret military technology to rebuff their own claim that President Carter had neglected defense matters.

Gen Richard H. Ellis, then commander of the Strategic Air Command, said in a letter to Gen Lew Allen, Jr., USAF chief of staff at the time, that the release of such information, the announcement of a possible stealth bomber in particular, "brought the hair up on the back of my neck." He indicated that the reports gave the Soviets years of advance warning of the projects and time to prepare countermeasures that would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the systems.15 These remarks seemed to ignore the reports on stealth published in earlier years that gave more detailed information than was leaked in 1980. Given the emphasis placed on such technical media as Aviation Week & Space Technology in the aerospace community, as well as the ability of Soviet intelligence organizations to gain informationon other "black" programs, it seems unlikely that the Soviets first learned about the existence of stealth programs from the 1980 leaks.

President Carter responded to the criticism by downplaying the degree of detail revealed and in turn criticized his opponents for not classifying stealth when the program entered development under the Ford administration. Carter claimed that stealth had been out in the open during public testimony for initial contract assignment until his administration classified the program in 1977. The leaking of information about the program was inevitable, he claimed, given that thousands of workers were involved with the projects.16

The breaking of stealth information drew attention from the House Armed Services Committee, which prepared a report that was released in early February 1981. The origin of the report is probably linked to the fact that the committee was specially briefed on stealth technology two days before the media revelations, was given less information than was later leaked, and was told that the matter was highly secret. The report questions the official executive branch explanation for revelation of stealth data. Of particular interest was testimony by Benjamin Schemmer, then editor of Armed Forces Journal, who withheld publication of an articleon stealth in 1978at the request of the Department of Defense. In August 1980, he was approached by Under Secretaryof Defense for Research and EngineeringWilliam J. Perry, who encouraged him to publish amodified version of the article no later than 21 August, one day before Secretary Brown's press conference on stealth.17

etc, etc.

As I said, you are INCORRECT that the stealth programme was officially denied until 1988 but correct in that the F-117 in particular was not officially acknowledged until 1988.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

[Evan Burton]

*sigh*

Jan, your words again:

Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s

Now, once more, sections of the quotes you yourself provided:

On 22 August Secretary of Defense Harold Brown held a press conference to clarify the stealth "leak." ... the purpose of confirming the leaks, Brown insisted, was to create a "firebreak" and prevent further information about the program being revealed.

The breaking of stealth information drew attention from the House Armed Services Committee...

Testimony given by Secretary Brown in which he explained his justification for the official announcement of stealth was deemed flimsy by the committee.

Thus, the third option, official revelation, was chosen as a way of preventing further leaks. How focusing on the press conference about stealth technology would limit such attention on the matter was never fully explained by Secretary Brown.

Neglecting the fact that stealth technology had been written about in the technical media for several years, the report concluded that the official announcement did "serious damage...to the security of the United States and our ability to deter or to contain a potential Soviet threat."

...explanation by Secretary Brown, supported the belief that the official disclosure was undertaken, for political purposes by the Carter administrations...

These are your own quotes - the stealth programme was acknowledged in 1980. Sure, they didn't say exactly what they were working on (the F-117 was being kept secret), and yes it was designed to try and limit what was known / not known. Yes, it was a "political game". I have no problems with that. They may have even tried to misdirect... but they admitted the existence of a stealth programme.

This is in DIRECT contradiction to your statement that it was "...categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s...". Even Blind Freddy can see that.