Erik Scott Wrongful-Death Lawsuit and "The Permit" e-book

Friends and colleagues,

Last Wednesday, our attorney, Ross Goodman, presented oral arguments before federal Judge Edward Reed, Jr., in  U.S. District Court. Judge Reed said he would issue a ruling "within the next few days," which will determine which claims will be allowed in our wrongful-death lawsuit against Clark County, NV; the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept.; Sheriff Douglas Gillespie, and the three officers who shot and killed our son, Erik Scott.

Since January, I've been writing a techno-thriller book of fiction based on Erik's brutal shooting death last July 10th. It's an online, serialized (free) e-book, with a new chapter posted every few weeks at: http://thepermit.blogspot.com

Writing "The Permit" is simply good therapy for ol' man Scott. As I said, it's just fiction. I hope you enjoy it.

As a preview, I'll attach the first installments of "The Permit." Chapter 6 - "Impact!" was posted online today.

Cheers,

Bill Scott

www.williambscott.com

www.erikbscott.com

AFGHANISTAN: DID GEN. McCHRYSTAL FALL ON HIS SWORD INTENTIONALLY?

As a former aerospace and defense reporter, flight test engineer and Air Force officer, who once served with the National Security Agency, I'm skeptical. The facts aren't adding up, based on what we're seeing and hearing today. I have to wonder:  Are our "black world" elites at work behind the scenes?
    I'm referring to General Stanley McChrystal's mouthing off about the Obama Administration's war strategy in Afghanistan—particularly in front of a Rolling Stones reporter, ostensibly "on the record"—and the general's public affairs officer (PAO) supposedly confirming his boss's comments to the reporter, knowing full well they were too juicy to ignore. It all smacks of orchestration.
    Look at McChrystal's past, and you see a very smart military officer devoting years of a stellar career to Special Operations and "black ops." I suspect he understands counterinsurgency as well as any military officer today, and knows precisely how to run hard-hitting covert missions that decimate an enemy. In short, his resume reads like that of a modern comic-book superhero. He also has a long history—going back to his cadet days at West Point—of tweaking superior's noses and getting away with it. He's a master at walking the line between admiration and admonition.
    So, does this sound like a general officer who suddenly suffers from repeated lapses in judgment befitting someone of far less intellect and rank? And one who would allow his PAO to confirm off-the-cuff comments about the president's policies? Or one who accidently belittles the vice-president and State Department emissaries, all in front of a wide-eyed young reporter? Hardly.
    Put these tidbits alongside the fact that many higher-ups believe the war in Afghanistan is going poorly; the "news" that trillions of dollars in natural resources have been discovered in Afghanistan; the truth that no invading force has ever subdued Afghanistan, including Alexander the Great; and that this White House and Congress have been focused completely on a disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, too busy with hearings and finger-pointing to realize hundreds of soldiers and Marines from several nations continue to die in the 'Stan, and you have to wonder what the in-country commanding general was up against.
    Was anybody over here paying attention to him and his troops' needs over there? How could he focus the world's attention on what he, McChrystal, might have concluded is an unwinnable war? How could he or any other senior military officer spark an open discussion among U.S. citizens and their elected officials about the pros and cons of continuing this  bloody, endless conflict in Afghanistan, the longest-running war in America's history?
    Maybe, just maybe, the "mouthy general" had to make a massive splash to garner the focused attention necessary to trigger a hard-nosed assessment of these matters—now. Could that explain McChrystal's willingness to let a Rolling Stone reporter tag along, watching and listening and recording and taking notes on everything the general and his staff said and did? No holds barred. Everything's on the record—although "no-attribution" in some cases, please. Write what you want.
    Do we really believe these seasoned senior officers, who fully understand that the media, in general, holds a very dim view of all things military, actually trusted a scoop-hungry reporter to filter-out their off-color, damning critiques of a U.S. vice-president and the policies of an inexperienced White House? As James Fallows writes for The Atlantic, "McChrystal's team was inexplicably reckless in talking before a reporter this way..."
    Further, in a special piece for CNN, Michael Innes writes: "It is difficult to fathom that any reporter would be granted warts-and-all access to the inner sanctum, with no strings attached."
    I find it hard to believe that there was anything reckless about it. McChrystal and his team knew exactly what they were doing, and they knew Rolling Stone would print every career-curtailing tidbit. But why? What motivated McChrystal to knowingly bare his chest to the spears and arrows he knew would be fired from Washington?   
    Something else is going on here. McChrystal's downfall was almost staged, as if he intended to get fired. My guess? This very smart, extremely patriotic, proven-gutsy, black-world operator was sending a message to somebody. I'm not among those to whom he's transmitting, and I don't know what the message might be. But I certainly hope the heady circle of elites who have enough power to alter the course of events in Afghanistan is receiving McChrystal's message loud and clear.
    General, thanks for your distinguished service to America. Sorry you had to exit this way.

BLACK-WORLD SECRETS: "UFO FACTOR"

Artist's Concept of "Black" Near-Neutral Buoyancy Airship (Courtesy of Aviation Week & Space Technology)

[Spectrum of Security Strategies (continued)]

    * Camouflage. Sometimes, secrets are hidden in plain sight, but in such clever ways that serious investigators will pay no attention. We know of events where classified "black" aircraft were seen and photographed, but the story and evidence were quickly dismissed by mainstream news organizations. Why? Because the incident was tainted with the dreaded "UFO"—unidentified flying object—label.
    Once a bona fide sighting is contaminated by the UFO stench, mainstream news organizations rarely pay it any heed. In fact, most journalists run the opposite direction to protect their credibility and reputations. Would government secret-keepers intentionally invoke the "UFO Factor," just to throw journalists off the trail of a classified aircraft? Most definitely. A career spook once suggested I should "read those [tabloids] at the supermarket checkout stand. There's a grain of truth in some of those wild UFO and aliens-on-Earth articles." When questioned about intent, he smiled and said: "It's worked for 50 years. Why would we change now?"
     Ask an airline pilot how willing he or she is to report a strange-looking aircraft, and the "UFO Factor" usually comes up. No pilot will risk his or her career by reporting something that could invite ridicule and embarrassment. Consequently, this front-line network of airline crews, who would be ideal, credible observers and reporters of "black" aircraft, is effectively silenced.
    * Intimidation. Although this tactic might be rarely employed—and is certain to trigger accusations of paranoia—it's obvious that, on some occasions, deep-black operatives resort to it. Ostensibly, the information at risk warrants such heavy-handed methods, according to insiders. For example, a prominent U.S. scientist, who independently stumbled on a technology that was also under development in the highly classified realm, and dared to speak publicly about its commercial potential, suffered a very suspicious house fire. Similarly, an author who wrote about "black aircraft" projects lost all of his notes and a partially completed book manuscript about a specific, highly classified aircraft in a fire that destroyed his home in the 1980s. He also was subjected to several surprise visits from FBI agents interested in obtaining his sources' identities.
    Finally, a bizarre case that would appear to reek of paranoia, but it happened: An engineer who simply mentioned the word "diamagnetics" in a letter-to-the-editor that appeared in an aerospace publication had his house broken into, a notebook stolen from a locked safe, and his dog poisoned. Even after several reports to local police about these and other incidents, darkened-window sport utility vehicles kept his home under surveillance, and he was photographed repeatedly by the vehicles' occupants. According to a university professor I interviewed at the time, "diamagnetics" are materials typically associated with "gravity-alteration" research.
    * Budget games. Independently, Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter and author, and I independently determined that, during the late 1980s, the annual U.S. "black" budget reached about $36 billion. Admittedly imprecise, the magnitude of that figure—which supposedly covered everything from CIA-run covert wars to highly classified aircraft and space programs—becomes apparent, when one considers that $36 billion equates to about $100 million per day, every day of the year. These funds are buried in the budgets of various federal agencies.
    Another career "spook" explained that "black" money is not only well-hidden in Department of Defense budgets, but also in Agriculture and State department budgets. An Army general once testified to Congress that money allocated for construction of military buildings was confiscated and redirected to classified programs—and he couldn't prevent it. When a congressman asked where that money went, he answered: "I have no idea. I was told I didn't have a need to know."
    * Conscientious insiders. At times, newspaper and magazine editors are challenged by a logical question: "How could the government possibly keep a program (or incident) like that secret? With so many people involved, surely somebody would talk." Surprisingly, insiders rarely, if ever, do so. Company employees, military and government-agency personnel who work on highly classified programs, or inside super-secret organizations, are extremely well-screened, and almost never violate their allegiance to secrecy. They are trusted to keep their mouths shut, and all but a very small percentage actually do. One only has to consider the U-2 Dragon Lady, SR-71 Blackbird and F-117 Nighthawk programs to realize that, despite their size and the number of people involved, there were no overt leaks prior to their public acknowledgment. People can keep secrets.
    Of course, those who work in sensitive areas are practically brainwashed into believing that revelation of any information could be damaging to U.S. national security—and that they will go to jail for disclosing classified info. Such ominous threats, backed by a sincere, personal commitment to honor a "black world" code of silence, are very effective.
    This dedication of individuals, backed by the array of strategies outlined here, greatly increase the probabilities that U.S. "spooks" will keep their secrets secret for as long as necessary.
[END]

BLACK-WORLD SECRETS: STRATEGIES

Military Spaceplane Concept (Courtesy of Erik Simonsen)

When keeping a program "black" is deemed essential for national security reasons, how do security-obsessed "spooks" ensure their aircraft, weapon or spacecraft—and its mission—remain secret, especially if it's already flying and at risk of being spotted? Over the years, I've come across a broad, escalating spectrum of security strategies, such as:
    * Basic classification. Stamp a program "Top Secret" (TS) and it's automatically protected by a structured, documented process. People cleared to work on a Top Secret program have to abide by strict procedures that cover document-handling, where classified issues can be discussed, and even who can discuss them. Simply having a Top Security clearance doesn't mean a person has access to a particular program. Information is restricted to only those who have a bona fide "need to know." Even tighter restrictions are imposed by the "Special Access Required" or "Special Access Program" designations, which blur the line between acknowledged "white-world" classification and covert "black" programs.
    * Cover stories. During the F-117 "stealth fighter's" early days, Nighthawk pilots flew Vought A-7 Corsairs for training and proficiency purposes, using A-7 call signs in conversing with air traffic controllers. However, they also used those A-7 call signs, when they were actually flying the F-117. In a similar vein, leaders of the U.S. Air Force/Northrop B-2 bomber's development prepared bogus presentations for senior officers and civilians, who insisted they be briefed about the program, before providing needed support. A test pilot who headed the B-2 test force at Edwards AFB, Calif., explained, "We would give the untrusting soul a completely unrelated indoctrination, briefing him into absolutely nothing, then ask him for whatever we really needed. It never failed to work."
    * Total denials and carefully worded "official explanations." An unequivocal denial from then-USAF secretary Donald B. Rice, published Dec. 27, 1992, in the Washington Post as a letter-to-the-editor, was intended to put speculation about the so-called "Aurora" high-speed aircraft to rest. However, his firm words were undermined by an air-to-ground radiotelephone conversation intercepted by a radio-monitoring hobbyist a week earlier. A general on a flight using the call sign SAM (Special Air Mission) 204 placed a call through Andrews Air Force Base (near Washington, D.C.), asking for a connection to "Air Force 'public relations.'" Speaking with a Public Affairs officer, he outlined ways to discount Aurora sightings by linking them to "FAA efforts to debunk other incidents." He said: "Take each one on and conclude with a paragraph that says the fantasy of Aurora doesn't exist."
    References also were made to "our contact with the FBI" and "[the] secretary." Whether that phone call and Rice's subsequent letter-to-the-editor were related remains unproven. Meanwhile, "Aurora" sighting reports continued to circulate.
    * Disparaging and ridiculing observers and news reports. Simply pooh-poohing classified-aircraft sightings and dismissing observers as nut-cases routinely discourage others from coming forward—especially airline pilots who are worried about putting their jobs on the line, if they report something unusual.
    * Disinformation and misleading statements. Closely related to cover stories, this strategy is designed to intentionally trap the unsuspecting. By starting a rumor or releasing a well-crafted, bogus photo—easily promulgated via the Internet these days—even credible people can be suckered into believing "evidence" that a new aircraft exists. Photo-altering software, in the hands of a skilled manipulator, can create convincing images of almost anything. Woe to the person who stakes his credibility on such "red herrings," though—especially when government officials later step forward with incontrovertible evidence that the whole incident was a hoax.
[continued...]

BLACK-WORLD SECRETS: WHY?

Unmanned Bomber Concept (Courtesy of Erik Simonsen)

Certain advanced technologies, military strategies and intelligence-gathering capabilities absolutely should remain secret, because they are critical to U.S. national security. Many "black" programs, though, stretch that "national security" cover to obscene levels, ensuring projects and actions are hidden from public view. For one reason or another, those "black" programs probably wouldn't survive if subjected to congressional and public scrutiny. Excessive costs and embarrassing failures typify the latter.
    For that and other good reasons—such as, a free society ensures its military-industrial complex remains a servant of taxpayers—aerospace news organizations try to closely monitor "secret" and "black" government programs. Some readers object to such scrutiny, though, claiming the media only "help the enemy." That argument ignores a basic truth: If news publications, given their limited budgets and investigative resources, can uncover details about a classified aircraft program, then the same information very likely is already known to adversaries who have huge intelligence-gathering budgets and hundreds of spies. Indeed, news reports about a program should be a red flag for "black world" government and industry leaders, signaling that their expensive, sometimes borderline-legal security procedures have failed.
    During the 1980s, when defense and intelligence budgets skyrocketed, even career "spooks" became alarmed by the amount of money being spent on "deep black" activities. One conscientious engineer approached me, saying, "You guys need to look into the 'black world.' It's out of control." However, any journalist who investigates this realm quickly finds it's an endless labyrinth of deception, camouflage, dead-ends and red herrings. If he gets suckered-in, personal and publication reputations can be destroyed. [continued...]

BLACK-WORLD SECRETS: RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

by William B. Scott

Author and aerospace investigative journalist, who wrote about "black aircraft" for Aviation Week & Space Technology over a 22-year career with the highly respected international magazine.

Those devoted to keeping super-secret or "black" aerospace programs out of public view periodically titillate outsiders with a rumor that some "classified aircraft" will be unveiled, typically before a key election. Since this rumor routinely pops up, but is rarely followed by a true unveiling, I'm not getting too excited this time.

Its almost-predictable reemergence, though, spotlights an interesting phenomenon. The shadowy subculture of military-intelligence-industry "spooks" who develop and operate aircraft, weapon systems and space platforms as unacknowledged, covert, off-the-books "black" programs have become extremely adept at keeping secrets.

Investigative reporters realized the rules of engagement had changed when, during the 1980s, an Air Force general told Aviation Week & Space Technology's editor-in-chief and senior military editor that "there's no such thing as a stealth fighter." In his position, the officer had direct oversight of the F-117 Nighthawk program, and knew it had already gone operational.

That incident was a watershed event for the Pentagon's often-strained relationship with news organizations. No longer were military officials limited to saying, "I can't confirm or deny that." Bald-face lying had become an approved means of keeping "black" programs secret. Since then, a former Lockheed "Skunk Works" executive has confirmed that lying was acceptable, noting that an unofficial motto of some in the legendary "black world" design and development outfit was: "Tell the untruths—always." 

About the same time, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning the F-117 program resulted in this Aug. 21, 1987, response from Anne W. Turner, the USAF's FOIA manager: "Our search disclosed no records, or knowledge of, a F-117 Night Hawk." To be fair, there probably were no records or knowledge of the F-117 in Turner's allowed area-of-search in 1987, because the stealth fighter-bomber program was still "black" at the time. If any documents had been subject to FOIA criteria, the program would no longer have been considered "black." Or was Turner's response a tongue-in-cheek "correct" answer, because she (intentionally?) misspelled "Nighthawk?" Later, when the F-117's existence was publicly acknowledged, Turner's letter subtly confirmed that FOIA searches only extend so far; they cannot touch "black world," off-the-books programs.