It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: gariac
That doesn't seem to match anything when I tried to pull it up. Could we have a brief idea what is in there?
www.foia.cia.gov...
originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
At least post some quote from the link so we can have an idea of what the material is referencing, these days clicking random links can be dangerous
originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: boomer135
Well, it's telling the the "F-19" was in quotes. F-19 always appears in quotes. No other designator appears that way in the text. The F-117 designation wasn't publicly released for another 3 months. If all the analyst was cleared to know about the the F-117 airframe itself (or "F-19") was that it was a follow-up, larger derivative of the Have Blue program, all those estimates look pretty good in hindsight (and they mesh well with the rumours and innuendo rampant at the time). Compare the measurements, weights, etc with Have Blue. It's obvious he wasn't guessing that it was already deployed. He gives the number as between 50 and 71. That's near enough to 64 for my taste.
He also knew (which is even more impressive, actually) that production of the B-2 had just started. So you know he had access to a lot of SAP data.
The memo is classified secret, and it doesn't look like it was generated with future release in mind 20 or 30 years later or it'd be padded. If you look at the distribution list, it's pretty clear that it wasn't just propaganda.
originally posted by: boomer135
That's assuming they were talking about the f-19 being the f-117 instead of a different aircraft though. At the back of the document they said that the f-19 could have a top speed of mach 2.5 or so. That's not our stealth fighter.
originally posted by: gariac
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac
I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.
10 March 2001
Where is this marked?
originally posted by: gariac
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac
I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.
10 March 2001
Where is this marked?
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: gariac
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac
I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.
10 March 2001
Where is this marked?
Well I was off a day. It says 9 March 2001 but they had to correct it to 10 March.
source
originally posted by: gariac
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: gariac
originally posted by: boomer135
originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac
I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.
10 March 2001
Where is this marked?
Well I was off a day. It says 9 March 2001 but they had to correct it to 10 March.
source
Odd though, that what I found was a PDF from the CIA, not gif. I will go back later and compare the pages to insure they are the same document. But the initial release date is good enough to tell when the CIA didn't care about it.