💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › ufo › oxcartbh.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 12:33:12.
View Raw
More Information
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Msg#:19542 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:41:11 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
To: DEAN ADAMS
Subj: OX
DA > Still won't accept it, eh?
Seven weeks ago you started posting messages regarding a document
you claimed was a declassified US Govt CIA document. I do not recall
any supporting evidence. Soon you posted a reproduction claimed to
be "EXACTLY as on the official report" and obtained from "someone"
on a private, college? net. For proof, you refer to "some people on
the Internet", "some people who should know", "people with the
ability to know", "people connected with setting up the A-12/D21
exhibit", "person who has the same clearance", "reputable people",
"interested parties", "reliable person's","several sources confirm",
"many different and credible sources". For this to be valid, your
judgement must be relied on. Since you have not mentioned having
years of personal experience with US Govt, Govt documents, US Govt
classification procedures, USAF, DoD etc, nor any other expertise
that would make your judgement more reliable than many others on
this echo, I don't think you should expect everyone here to accept
your judgement..right or wrong..when you haven't even seen document.
Without seeing a real COPY of the document, you say the electronic
reproduction is "-exactly- like the original. What you got would
have been no different from the hard copy." You have no first hand
knowledge to make that statement.... and it is incorrect. As the
first person I questioned about this document said, "You can not
judge it by an electronic reproduction. Let me send you a copy and
you'll see what I mean. It is evident it is not a CIA document."
He was correct.
I raised several questions, knowing enough of the answers to feel
anyone who found answer would see it was not CIA/Govt document.
No/bogus answers was all I got. By this time, I had expected your
"source" to confess knowingly trying to add glamor, mystery, and
drama by deliberate mis-labelling it as a declassified CIA document
authored by a CIA writer. I don't know his name but I was told it
could only have been one of two people. One is KNOWN for his
sensationalism......sorta like supermarket tabloids. I was told
"....they both know it was NOT a CIA or US government document."
Everyone has their special interests and their own idea of who
or what they want to believe. Some would rather trust astrology
(hi Nancy), an actor, sci-fi writers, etc. than the dull scientific,
engineering, or operating personnel. I would hope that on echoes
like Legal, Science, Aviation, etc., the focus would be different
than on Debate, UFO, Trek, Witchcraft, Occult, SciFi type echoes.
I had never heard of Jim Goodland but you evidently respect him as
an authority. He caters to a different type following than those
who would be interested in Ben Rich's (future) book on Lockheed's
activities. If I get him to tell you that the document was a
Lockheed internal document, will you believe him?
Jim has provided information and photographs for some books but I
don't know extent of his published WRITINGS. Personally I am more
impressed by the only real writer/author we have on this echo that
I am aware of........Bob Cadwalader. He writes aviation columns for
periodical and is respected for his opinions and knowledge by those
who know him. I think you could profit from respecting him more. I
feel you are well-intentioned but have little evidence to support
your position and certainly no reason to personally attack those
who disagree with your opinion of the origin/accuracy of "ox" doc.
Msg#:19543 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:42:21 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
To: ALL
Subj: OX
----- Part 1 of 2 -----
Dean Adams posted messages in early December about a supposed CIA
declassified document known as "The Oxcart Story" by Thomas P.
McIninch, a purported CIA writer/author. Dean posted a claimed
"verbatim transcript" but it did not include everything written,
typed, stamped, or printed on the paper in addition to what he
posted here. For instance, some omissions (not all) are:
(1) Imprinted in italics "Record of a pioneering achievement"
on first page. As one might expect in a PR document
(2) Imprinted in italics "Oxcart" on all pages but 1st.
(3) 1st page stamped with Lockheed name and address.
(4) All of the (S), (U), etc. are handwritten additions.
(5) Control document stamp and blanks filled in as mentioned
but date was 15 Dec 1986.
(6) Classification stamp iaw. "CLASSIFICATION GUIDE, 25 MAY 87"
(appears classified 1986 iaw instruction guide dated 1987)
(7) Highest classification Secret (not Top Secret as suggested)
(8) Stamp saying declassified 2/25/91 iaw guide dated 11/1/89.
(9) Pages appear originally (typed) numbered 25-29 but ink
renumbered with circled 1-25
I have made inquiries of various people including personnell at CIA,
Lockheed, museums, etc. Only one expressed the CIA document theme.
When asked why, it seems it was an ASSUMPTION because CIA was once
involved. That person contacted his "expert" who also had made an
ASSUMPTION only. Today, this is best scenario I can put together
based on evidence I received. Part is fact, part is educated guess.
Throw rocks if you like but I'm going to make it hard for you by
not identifying which is which. Aim and fire at your own risk.
Once upon a time a very few people were engaged in a secret A-12
project. CIA had an input in conjunction with DoD, USAF, Lockheed.
Project name = Oxcart, 1957-1968. The SR-71 project was a separate
program with its own name issued by USAF. That name was "Senior
Crown", 1962-1991. Normal security procedure, even with a Top
Secret personal security clearance is that you don't see even
Confidential documents unless you have an authorized "need to know".
Project name "Senior Crown" was not a level of security but merely
says the info is related to SR-71 project. A "Senior Crown"
authorization was needed to see any classified project documents
and even then, an engine man might not be allowed access to wing,
landing gear, control system, etc. documents/info.
Msg#:19544 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:43:18 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
To: ALL
Subj: OX
----- Part 2 of 2 -----
Sometime between 1968-1986, a Lockheed VIP ordered a "history" of
all projects be written and put together in one reference volume.
The A-12 project was given to a middle aged PR guy, McIninch, whose
knowledge of aviation was questionable. Once "The Oxcart Story"
was complete, it was put in loose leaf notebook with all other
project "histories". It was not classified iaw any system. Appeared
same as any unclassified document if you picked it up.
In 1986, all heck broke loose over Lockheed's handling of classified
material. DoD and USAF all over Lockheed. A crash program to get
all documents cataloged, classified, and access controlled. Single
volume "Project Histories" book had to be broken up into individual
documents and classified iaw guidelines associated with the specific
project. Someone took "Oxcart Story" and decided to put it under
"Senior Crown" (SR-71) and classify/control iaw that guide. Then
someone scanned the "new" 25 page document and put (U), (C), or (S)
where he thought appropriate, probably in haste, since control
date in 1986 and instructions were dated in 1987.
When SR-71 project ended, a lot of extra parts and pieces were sold
through USAF surplus procedures. As A-12/SR-71s were sent to various
sites there was a flood of requests for data, pictures, blueprints,
manuals, and anything else pertaining to "Blackbirds". Most of data
was declassified and that included "Oxcart Story". Lockheed was
overwhelmed and hired a retired employee to search for things for
PR etc. to give away. One of items was the 25 page ox document. The
proper way would have been to retype but that would have taken more
time and money. It was copied and at least 6,000 handed out all
over US as a Lockheed document.
I could not find anyone at Lockheed that would vouch for accuracy of
contents nor exact job of McIninch, who is no longer around. I was
told to take everything in it with a grain of salt......a suggestion
Frank Walters also made, long ago. There are places where it appears
author did not understand what he was talking about or he would
never have said what he did nor left out what he did. This is giving
benefit of doubt that it was an honest attempt to be a history.
I was assured by CIA personnel that it was not their document. Had
it been, it would have been marked, controlled, classified, etc. in
a different manner according to different procedures.
Msg#:19545 *AVIATION*
01/27/92 21:44:18 (Read 0 Times)
From: BILL HODGES
To: ALBERT DOBYNS
Subj: OX
My opinion or best info on several points you have raised:
( 1) Never saw a TRADE-A-PLANE ad but surplus A-12/SR-71 project
surplus parts, equipment, etc. were put in normal USAF
disposal system for surplus public auction.
( 2) If your friend in Washington is familiar with CIA procedures
and understands "Senior Crown" use, he will know document
is not US Govt or CIA...........or should.
( 3) The lack of Top Secret marked paragraphs as nothing to do
with your "source"'s info. "Ox" was never classified by US
Govt. A "clerk" at Lockheed wrote (S), (U), (C), where he
wanted to. He couldn't spell (TS) (and wasn't authorized).
( 4) AD > don't see why the AF won't release some more of them.
This project was over 23+ years ago and Lockheed wanted PR.
There were political pressures for release of SR-71 data
since airplanes were now being given to public. Different.
( 5) AD > [talked to] Jim Goodall....He has also seen the document
AD > when it was not stamped although the person who showed
AD > Jim the document had a letter from the CIA that the
AD > document was declassified......Jim is working on two more
AD > Blackbird books. One will be mostly text and will
AD > incorporate the CIA document.
Albert, this prompted me to call Jim a couple weeks ago because
it sounded like he had solid evidence. He told me he had ASSUMED
it was a Govt CIA document because of CIA involvement in program
etc. I asked him to confirm the existence of any letter from
the CIA regarding the classifying/declassifying of document.
He denied knowledge of any such letter. I read your statement
to him. Jim said you must have misunderstood him. He remembered
telling you Dennis Sullivan had told him of seeing document
without any classified markings but nothing about a letter.
He confirmed he had planned to include document in a book but
was now questioning origin and would investigate.
About a week ago, Jim Goodall called me back and said he was
determined to find McIninch and determine true origin of document.
No one has gone to trouble yet to check each and every point in
document and probably never will. Jim told me who he contacted at
Lockheed to get REAL TRUTH. That person told Jim that he had also
just always ASSUMED it was a CIA document. I found some humor in
that because that individual was one of a group at Lockheed that
confirmed to me that it WAS NOT a CIA document but only an in house
Lockheed document. Jim says he is determined to get answers and
will let me know when he has results. I appreciate your posting the
contact and figure maybe "ox believers" will believe one of their
revered? if he says its not a US Govt/CIA document. Jim said he
didn't remember any "ox" mention of Doolittle at first flight
and thought it worth mentioning in a "history".
Msg#:23999 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:33:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
To: BILL HODGES
Subj: RE: OXCART
- Forwarded from: le01167@portal.decnet.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel)
- Originally to: Dean Adams
After reading your note by this Hodges character, I went straight to the
horse's mouth, and sent your communications with Hodges to a personal friend
of mine who, as a young engineer, personally worked on OXCART and Crown
projects and was close with Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich (still is), this
person has also had a chance to read the OXCART mailings. No longer with
the Skunk Works, this person is, however, still with Lockheed. This is a
completely reliable source. To give you an indication of this sources's
placement: when "all heck broke loose" (to quote Hodges) this person was
CO-LEADER of that entire investigation effort (I worked with this individual
at that time so I know it's true). Some interesting information on that
subject refutes Hodges, as you will see. Another contradiction: Hodges says
of the A-12 program that the CIA "had input", according to my source, they
were the CUSTOMER! Ron Nadel, Lockheed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To : Ron Nadel
Subj: OXCART and CROWN
First, the original A-12 Program had an internal and a customer code name.
The customer was the CIA, the same as the origninal customer for the U-2. The
customer code name was Oxcart. The internal (Lockheed) name was Arc Angel,
which is where the "A" came from (the U-2's were called Angel). When the Air
Force got into the business,it was decided that a 2-place aircraft was needed.
This lead to the development of the SR-71, which was supposed to be called RS
for recon-strike. The AF program evolved with time into a Top Secret program,
while the A-12 remained very "Black". Many classified Air Force programs are
given code names that begin with "Senior",and the SR became the "Senior Crown"
Program. The U-2's had the code name "Senior Year". Most often, programs that
were non-AF or other military, and/or were prototypes/demonstrators, etc.,
were given different type code names. Hence, Oxcart.
In the late 60's, we at Lockheed were told to destroy anything that told about
the A-12's -- they "didn't ever exist". In fact, when the program was grounded
the aircraft were seceretly stored in a building in Palmdale where they
remained for many years until the agency admitted to their existance.
Regarding the "all heck" breaking loose over Lockheed's handling of classified
documents in 1986, that had nothing to do with the A-12's. It was a result of
some "old" methods for accounting/destroying documents (that were acceptable
to the "old" agency-type customers) that were still being used but did not
comply with DoD regulations. The whole deal blew up during a probe by the
Dingle committee, and actually put our Chairman, Larry Kitchen, on the stand
before the committee in Washington D.C. We had to dig into lots and lots of
old stuff, do lots of research to see what happened to certain documents that
did not have official "destroyed" records, etc., and go thru EVERYTHING wall
to wall. Dingle did not know anything about the A-12's, and the internal
searches and investigations did not turn up anything about the A-12's.
I OUGHT TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THIS DEAL, AS THE EFFORT WAS CALLED THE
"CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, (CAP)" AND I WAS CO-LEADER OF THAT EFFORT!!!
From my perspective, the question of whether or not the "document" in question
is an official CIA piece or not if of little interest. Lots of the stuff done
in the early days for that customer was done in a very low key, minimal
documentation, low visibility sort of way. In fact, sub contractors for
Lockheed were known as Company X, etc., and we had special non-Lockheed
telephones (internally) that were to be answered "hello" only. We had mailing
addresses that were non-Lockheed. We travelled as non-Lockheed. There were
no real regulations or restrictions regarding "allowable" expenses, and things
were paid into and out of special and private accounts. The aircraft were
built without virtually any of todays "checks and balances" and rather
excessive oversight and reports. Basically, the agency just cut a deal with
Kelly to produce the things at a certain price, dropped off the money, and
asked to be called when they were ready......simple and efficient.
So, as I said, it may be difficult to tell whether this was an "official"
document of the agency, or some form of internal document, or whatever.
But, for the most part, the information seems quite accurate. I was there.
Msg#:24000 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:40:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
To: BILL HODGES
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 23999 (RE: OXCART)
- Forwarded from: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
- Originally to: Dean Adams
The CIA nature of the document was my opinion after considering the tone of the
document and the standpoint from which it is written. I might be wrong that it
is a CIA document. Ben Rich also told me that it was a CIA document.
Lets approach this from two standpoints:
1. Use names (because I'm willing to use hard names that any of you can
verify). I have used HARD names up to this point. I intend to continue
to do so. Why not, this stuff is declassified and it's a very positive
success story. Also use document names/nos.
2. Lets go after facts reported in the document. Lets not say "a Friend
says this section is wrong". I think you should say, this section is
wrong. Here is the truth. And optimally, here is the name of the guy
that says it's wrong, and why he knows what he's talking about. We can
then call him and verify. Or the document source that comflicts with
OXCART History along with document nos.
We might find sections of the document that are wrong, but that still doesn't
say the whole document is wrong. If we find lots of sections that are wrong,
then I would agree the document is suspect. This shouldn't be hard to verify
because the document reports lots of previously unknown factual information.
For instance, the names of the original OXCART Test Pilots is mentioned. This
should be easy to verify. Some of these guys are probably still living.
Also there DOES appear to be several different versions of this document. The
one I have has all the security stamps on it. Other versions have been sent
to aviation authors. These versions are devoid of the classification stamps,
but best that I've been able to determine so far, they say the same thing,
although I haven't been able to do a word-for-word comparison.
As far as it being evident that when one reads the real manuscript or a copy
thereof, that the document is obviously not CIA, please inform me how this is
so obvious? I am not aware of the standards by which CIA documents are judged
authentic. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. You still have to
read the document though and judge for yourself what standpoint the document
is written from. IMHO, it is written from a CIA perspective. I might be wrong.
BH> those who would be interested in Ben Rich's (future) book on Lockheed's
BH> activities. If I get him to tell you that the document was a Lockheed
BH> internal document, will you believe him?
Well lets have Ben Rich be the authority. He claimed that it was real and
that it was a CIA history. I not only was there, but he was talking to me.
Because I dove across the room when I saw him waving the document. I wanted
to know from him whether it was authentic. Gen. Doug Nelson USAF (ret) also
wanted to know if it was authentic. Ben was answering him and me. So there's
another name for you!
BH> Only one expressed the CIA document theme. When asked why, it seems
BH> it was an ASSUMPTION because CIA was once involved.
As I said above, it was my opinion after reading the position of the document.
Just read the document and what it says about the SR-71! The position of the
document is from a pro-CIA position, IMHO. Also as stated earlier, Ben Rich
said it was a CIA history. Forget all other sources. I'm giving you a BIG
source here. Just photocopy the cover page and write him a letter via
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Div. Very easy to do!
BH> Today, this is best scenario I can put together based on evidence I
BH> received. Part is fact, part is educated guess. Throw rocks if you like
BH> but I'm going to make it hard for you by not identifying which is which.
Well this is NOT a very good way to argue! I am willing to argue with:
1. Hard Names
2. I'll indicate my opinion where it is my opinion because I WANT the
collective intelligence of the enthusiasts on skunk.works to analyse this.
I'm not the only mind that's interested in this. The collective thoughts
of everyone on skunk.works that has something to say here is VERY valuable!
I want analysis of this to occurr. But lets not call analysis FACT. The
CIA doesn't even do this!
3. Where I find out statements made by 'experts' I will indicate that as so
and I will use their names. I won't argue someones point that won't let me
use his/her name. The UFO people do this and it means next to nothing!
You get nowhere with this!
If we have to figure which of your statements are your opinions and which are
fact I think we should ignore you!
Msg#:24001 *AVIATION*
01/31/92 22:57:00 (Read 0 Times)
From: DEAN ADAMS
To: BILL HODGES
Subj: RE: OXCART <CON'T>
- Forwarded from: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
- Originally to: Dean Adams
BH> Sometime between 1968-1986, a Lockheed VIP ordered a "history" of
BH> all projects be written and put together in one reference volume.
BH> The A-12 project was given to a middle aged PR guy, McIninch, whose
BH> knowledge of aviation was questionable.
Again let's speak from the facts of the document. Let's not accuse Mr McIninch
of being middle-aged and therefore wrong (is that what you were implying?),
and of being incompetent without HARD opposing facts. So just where is Mr.
McIninch's errors? Lets hear where in OXCART History he is incorrect. What
are your sources sir!
BH> Lockheed was overwhelmed and hired a retired employee to search for
BH> things for PR etc. to give away. One of items was the 25 page ox
BH> document. The proper way would have been to retype but that would have
BH> taken more time and money. It was copied and at least 6,000 handed out
BH> all over US as a Lockheed document.
Retired employee is Ben Rich! Ben and other Lockheed Blackbird veterans are
helping more than one museum with their SR-71 or A-12 restoration or D-21
drone procurement. This comes from Mark Smith SMOF A-12 exhibit curator.
If you don't believe me, call him.
BH> I could not find anyone at Lockheed that would vouch for accuracy of
BH> contents nor exact job of McIninch, who is no longer around.
Two points.
1. Where did the Lockheed employees say the document is wrong?
2. I think I can say that a Lockheed employee usually tells you nothing.
We have several on this mail list who are Black project types and they are
very uninformative. Why is this? Because they are working or have worked
Black Programs and they're not about to tell you anything over the phone or
the Net. They are used to not telling people anything about what they do.
Others like them will outright lie about what they do! Not because they're
bad people, but because they're trying to protect classified information.
This is the nature of the world in which this stuff goes on.
However when you have high-up Black World types like Ben Rich or even Keith
Beswick talking about OXCART and M-12 history, then you listen because you
know that information has been approved for release and these guys are the
dissemination vehicles for some of it.
I suppose that Ben Rich could give out a bogus document for disinformation
purposes, but if that's the case, then I give up! Because at that point we've
all had it in terms of what can be believed and what can't!
BH> I was told to take everything in it with a grain of salt. There are
BH> places where it appears author did not understand what he was talking
BH> about or he would never have said what he did nor left out what he did.
Well we need specific places where McIninch is wrong, or I would suggest
that your comments be ignored. Sorry! We need why it's wrong as well!
BH> I was assured by CIA personnel that it was not their document. Had
BH> it been, it would have been marked, controlled, classified, etc. in
BH> a different manner according to different procedures.
Well, we'll find out. Because I sent the first 3 pages of the document to
CIA asking for more information on the Lockheed A-1 thru A-11 GUSTO
proposals AND the Convair GUSTO proposals. I also mentioned that I was told
this was their history and I offered them a complete copy of the document
should they desire one. I've had a CIA FOIA about this going on since August
30, 1991. My CIA FOIA number is: F91-1464.
I recently ammended it with the OXCART History. Lets talk hard names, facts
that are wrong, and document nos.!