Date:   Mon, Feb 12, 1996 11:20 AM PDT
From:   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subj:   "Security Manual"
To:     PsychoSpy

Read the "Security Manual" (guffaw! snicker!). You've been 
taken for a ride. It bears scant resemblance to any *real* 
security manual. I've seen a few (up until about a year 
and a half ago, I was cleared to above top secret and my 
main client was the Air Force).

It looks like somebody took a few things and pieced it 
together to look real, but anyone who has ever read the 
real thing would not be so fooled. See if you can locate a 
real security manual, like through the FOIA --- even an 
old one will give you the basic structure. This one 
doesn't even come close to having it.

Hint: There isn't enough organization in this purported 
"manual" (giggle) to quote regulations. Spelling is 
abysmal. Everything about it screams fabrication.

But it was worth a few laughs.


Date: Mon, Feb 12, 1996 6:54 PM PDT From: PsychoSpy Subj: Fwd: "Security Manual" To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX -- If the security manual is fake, it is a government generated fake, because it is sprinkled with a lot of detailed facts which were not public knowledge prior to its release. Admittedly, the document is shabby & amaturish. It is boilerplate put together by a bureaucrat to serve the special needs of a relatively small unit. I see the same quality all the time as I go through old DOE records. I do have the Nevada Test Site security manual, and I see nothing incompatible between the two. I see the manual as a "local supplement." Presumably there is a body of rules and regs that the cammo dudes are following-- perhaps from a standard code for all such secure installations. In addition to that body of regs, which we don't see, we have this shoddy supplement of things you need to know for this particular assignment or that some local officer feels are not adequately dealt with in the standard regs. The document itself does not call itself anything. It is only journalists on the outside who call it "the security manual". Would "security supplement" make you feel any less giddy? Your point is good, though, and unless you object I will post your email as a response to the manual--with your email address blacked out. Glenn Campbell
Subj: Re: Fwd: "Security Manual" Date: Tue, Feb 13, 1996 9:45 AM PDT From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX To: campbell@ufomind.com >XXX -- > >If the security manual is fake, it is a government generated fake, >because it is sprinkled with a lot of detailed facts which were not >public knowledge prior to its release. > It's too amateurish and shabby to be a "government-generated fake," even by the people who do that sort of thing at the CIA. They do have some pride in their work. >Admittedly, the document is shabby & amaturish. It is boilerplate >put together by a bureaucrat to serve the special needs of a >relatively small unit. I beg to differ. I've put together "boilerplate" security manuals, and they bore little resemblance to this concoction. I see the same qaulity all the time as I go >through old DOE records. I do have the Nevada Test Site security >manual, and I see nothing incompatible between the two. > I've worked on security manuals for Blackworld projects, plus had to read plenty more. They were a great deal more coherent than that appalling piece purported to be a "security manual" for what is purportedly one of our nation's higher-security facilities. Having worked with the Air Force officers reponsible for accepting the hand-off from Northrop for the Stealth Fighter, I can assure you that things are a great deal less incoherent and messy documentation-wise when it comes to the nation's security, at least with that particular base! DOE is another entity entirely. Look at Rocky Flats and that will tell you how sloppy they are. Sheer arrogance, that department. And, for that matter, take a glimpse at Santa Susana --- ask any of the local activists about THAT mess. >I see the current Groom Secuity manual as a "local supplement." >Presumably there is a body of rules and regs that the cammo dudes >are following-- perhaps from a standard code for all such secure >installations. In addition to that body of regs, which we don't >see, we have this shoddy supplement of things you need to know >for this particular assignment or that some local officer feels are >not adequately dealt with in the standard regs. > It looks to me more like a fair hoax, like someone in PsychOps decided to have a little fun. They Might have had access to something remotely resembling the local security manual, or they might have decided to create a lovely work of fiction. Either way, if this is purportedly an Above Top Secret facility, you better believe the "security manuals" follow standard Air Force procedure. Having worked in that industry, and worked with those associated with that particular facility (in a roundabout way), I know how careful and tight-lipped they are. But full of pranks, too --- it would just as easily been some Air Force wag who decided to play an elaborate trick. >The document itself does not call itself anything. It is only >journalists on the outside who call it "the security manual". >Would "security supplement" make you feel any less giddy? I wouldn't refer to myself as a "giddy" sort. But I would say that the document sends me into paroxysms of laughter that anyone would call it anything but a joke. P.S. The name on the email is "XXX XXX," but my name isn't XXX XXX by any stretch of the imagination.

XXX = text blacked out by editor (GC). [9112]