by Joël van der Reijden
September 10, 2005
As I already mentioned, the purpose of
PEHI (Project For The Exposure
Of Hidden Institutions) is to put together the entire spectrum
of the world's hidden organizations. But even though I'm familiar
with the Pilgrims Society, the 1001 Club, the
Multinational Chairmans Group, Le Cercle, and other very
powerful hidden organizations, I'm sure there's is a lot more to
For example, during the long hours that these membership
lists were put together, I've always paid attention to individuals
who might have been involved with different intelligence agencies.
Information remains scarce, but it happens relatively often that you
come across someone who is involved with the CIA. This isn't
such a surprise, because there's no doubt that the CIA is
very closely allied with the most important financial and political
institutions in the United States.
On the other hand, I seldom or never came across individuals
involved with Army intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Air Force
Intelligence, the DIA, the NRO, or the NSA. Le Cercle is a
bit of an exception, because it's focused on bringing together
members of the international intelligence agencies. And, of course,
there is the science-oriented JASON Group, which has at least
one former NSA employee and two founders of the NRO.
All in all, besides their official functions it's very hard to get
an idea of what most of these intelligence agencies are doing.
Personally, I am always looking for leads in the longest and most
obvious cover up ever; that one about the UFO phenomenon, in
which I include the cattle mutilations (take a look here). There's
no indication that the average Pilgrims Society or
Trilateral Commission member has
any idea about these subjects, but somewhere these two worlds have
to meet. I am anything but an expert on intelligence agencies, but I
do want to put some basic information here which I think is
important for anyone looking into hidden organizations. It could
easily take a couple of years before I write some additional
information on this subject, and maybe I never will.
In the U.S. you only have 3 types of classification:
Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. That's it.
But this doesn't matter, since the true power of the classification
system is the famous 'need to know' policy. Just because you have a
Top Secret clearance doesn't mean you can gain access to all the
different Top Secret documents of the CIA, Army, Navy, and Air
However, this 3-tiered classification system is not enough to
protect some of the more sensitive information. Therefore additional
levels of compartmentalization have been created. After a very
intensive background check, someone with a Top Secret clearance
might obtain an additional Sensitive Compartmented Information
(SCI) clearance, under which information is buried that needs
to be restricted to even fewer individuals. This TS-SCI clearance
had been introduced mainly to stop some higher ranking officers from
looking into Top Secret files they don't have any business
But even the TS-SCI clearance doesn't provide the secrecy
needed for some of the most sensitive projects. This is the reason
that Special Access Programs (SAP) are created all the
time. In this case only a predetermined list of authorized personnel
has access to the project and additional security measures can be
taken to keep outsiders away from it. Different congressional
committees are informed about these SAPs, but there is very
little time for questions.
Most SAPs start out as Unacknowledged Special Access
Programs (USAP), better known as
Black Projects. The F-117A
Nighthawk and the B-2 Spirit are examples of projects that started
out as Unacknowledged SAPs.
A DOD manual describes a USAP
as follows (1):
"Unacknowledged SAPs require
a significantly greater degree of protection than acknowledged
SAPs... A SAP with protective controls that ensures the
existence of the Program is not acknowledged, affirmed, or made
known to any person not authorized for such information. All
aspects (e.g., technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are
handled in an unacknowledged manner."
Persons involved in a particular USAP
are ordered to deny such a program exists. It's not allowed to react
with a "no comment", because that way someone immediately suspects
something is being hidden and might be motivated to look further
into it. Officers not 'accessed' for a USAP, even superior
ones, are to be given the same response. The more sensitive the
program, the more protection the commanding officer can demand. He
could even subject his personnel to lie-detector tests to see
whether or not they have been talking about it to anyone. According
to a 1997 Senate investigation (2):
"Additional security requirements to
protect these special access programs can range from mere
upgrades of the collateral system’s requirements (such as
rosters specifying who is to have access to the information) to
entire facilities being equipped with added physical security
measures or elaborate and expensive cover, concealment,
deception, and operational security plans."
There are two versions of the
Unacknowledged Special Access Programs. The first one is
the regular USAP. These regular USAPs are reported in the
same way as their acknowledged versions. In closed sessions, the
House National Security Committee, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and the defense subcommittees of the House and Senate
Appropriations committees can get some basic information about them.
The Secretary of Defense, however, can decide to 'waive'
particularly sensitive USAPs. These are unofficially referred to as
Deep Black Programs. According to
the same 1997 Senate investigation as mentioned earlier:
"Among black programs, further
distinction is made for “waived” programs, considered to be so
sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting
requirements to the Congress. The chairperson, ranking member,
and, on occasion, other members and staff of relevant
Congressional committees are notified only orally of the
existence of these programs."
This leads to the conclusion that only
very few people are aware of these waived Unacknowledged
Special Access Programs. Congress certainly doesn't get the
information it needs to speak out against newly established waived
USAPs and I haven't read anywhere that their opinion is
actually appreciated. You could also ask yourself if Congress is
told the truth about many of the most sensitive Special Access
Projects or if their successors are informed about previously
activated (waived) USAPs. Even with regular SAPs Congress is ignored
"Last summer, the House Defense
Appropriations Committee complained that "the air force
acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide
range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules". One of
the alleged infractions was the launch of an SAP without
Congressional notification." (3)
What makes Unacknowledged Special
Access Projects even more impenetrable is the fact that a lot of
these programs are located within private industry. The U.S.
government generally doesn't develop a whole lot. If you look at the
defense industry, you have companies like Boeing, Lockheed,
Northrop, McDonnell Douglas, TRW, Rockwell, Bechtel, SAIC, or
Decision-Science Applications (DSA Inc.), who develop certain
technologies for the U.S. government.
This means it's virtually impossible to
get information about these projects, because private industry is
protected by something called 'proprietary privilege'. You
generally can't get any information about a USAP by issuing a
FOIA or by annoying a Congressman (National Security), but
just in case anyone might be able to succeed, there's always the
argument of proprietary privilege of the private industry.
|Additional levels of Compartmentalization
||A USAP behind another SAP or USAP, combined with the protection the private industry enjoys.
|'Waved' Unacknowledged Special Access Programs / 'Deep Black Programs'
(details already completely invisible to congress and the president)
|Unacknowledged Special Access Programs / 'Black Programs'
|(acknowledged) Special Access Programs
|Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS-SCI)
|Basic secrecy levels
||NATO Cosmic Top Secret
|Public or semi-public
For Official Use Only
And even in case the National Security State and proprietary
privilege fails, there still seems to be at least one other
(unverified) mechanism to protect the most sensitive projects from
public exposure. This information comes from (many very credible)
Disclosure Project witnesses (4),
all of them claiming to have some kind of experience with these type
Some of these people, with no one in the
project disputing it, are saying that certain Black Programs
(USAPs) act as covers for UFO / ET related projects.
This means that in an emergency situation a sensitive Black
or Deep Black Program could be revealed to the public, while
the program behind it remains undiscovered. In a 1997 speech,
astronaut Edgar Mitchell summarizes what the Disclosure
Project is all about (5):
"I also think that the prevalence in
the modern era of so many events - the sightings, the continual
mutilation events, the so-called abduction events - that we are
looking at likely reversed engineered technology in the hands of
humans that are not under government control or any type of high
So if there are back engineered
technologies existing, they are probably in the hands of
this group of individuals, formerly government, formerly perhaps
intelligence, formerly, under private sector control with some
sort of oversight by military or by government. But this
(oversight) is likely no longer the case as a result of this
access denied category that is now operating. I call it a
clandestine group. The technology is not in our military
arsenals anywhere in the world, but it does exist, and to me
that's quite disconcerting."
According to the
Disclosure Project some of black triangles have been developed
in Unacknowledged Special Access Projects.
from 'UFOs, The Footage Archives 1947-1997'.
Pictures of the
Belgian sightings have been included as well
as screenshot from 2
recent movies and a drawing of a witness.
A big questions that remains of course
is how all these projects are funded. The official black
budget of the DoD would be the most likely explanation, but
there are 'indications' that the U.S. economy is being plundered for
at least $1 trillion every year (yes, about 10% of GNP).
Because no one is going to believe this without reading the full
original sources, I cached all the mainstream news reports at the
bottom of this article.
I extracted the following numbers from these
(all cached at the bottom of this article)
||Congressional meeting; Insight Magazine
||CBS quoting Rumsfeld
||San Francisco Chronicle; CBS
According to financial expert Catherine Austin Fitts this has
become possible due to the introduction of acts like the 1947
National Security Act and the 1949 CIA Act (6). Large New York banks
like J.P. Morgan Chase and defense contractors like
Lockheed Martin, who are running the systems of all the
government departments, seem to be responsible for diverting and
laundering billions of dollars every day from public and other
undisclosed funds. I suggest you read all the sources that are
provided for this article, because I sure haven't got any answers on
At the moment, I am wondering who is
using who here? Is J.P. Morgan Chase, the core of the
American part of the Anglo-American financial empire, being used as
a milch cow to fund secret projects of the most unimaginable
magnitude? Or, in line with
the NWO conspiracy theories, are
the bankers of the Pilgrims Society themselves really the
ones in control? Or is there some kind of mutual interest here,
whereby these bankers fund
the Black Projects, while
technology and services from these Black Projects keeps them on top
of the world? I guess anything is possible at this moment.
By the way, USAPs don't always have to involve the
development of new cutting edge technology. In the following case a
USAP is used as to a tool to circumvent national and international
humanitarian laws. Seymour Hersh, 2004 (8):
"Rice and Rumsfeld
know what many others involved in the prisoner discussions did
not -- that sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, the President
had signed a top-secret finding, as required by law, authorizing
the Defense Department to set up a specially recruited
clandestine team of Special Forces operatives and others who
would defy diplomatic niceties and international law and snatch
-- or assassinate, if necessary -- identified 'high-value' Al
Qaeda operatives anywhere in the world.
Equally secret interrogation
centers would be set up in allied countries where harsh
treatments were meted out, unconstrained by legal limits of
public disclosure. The program was hidden inside the Defense
Department as an 'unacknowledged' special-access program, or
SAP, whose operational details were known only to a few
in the Pentagon, the CIA and the White House."
All I want at this point is the names of
the people who are running all these projects. Check back in a
couple of years or so.
Industrial Security Program Operating Manual Supplement
The Under Secretary Of Defense
Washington D.C. 20301
Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC):
... g. Procedures for
unacknowledged SAP security.
An unacknowledged SAP
will require additional security training and briefings,
beyond that required in the baseline. Additional
requirements will be specified in the Contract Security
Classification Specification and will address steps
necessary to protect sensitive relationships, locations, and
... 3102. Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (SAP).
Unacknowledged SAPs require a significantly greater
degree of protection than acknowledged SAPs. Special
emphasis should be placed on:
a. Why the
SAP is unacknowledged
b. Classification of the SAP
c. Approved communications system
d. Approved transmission systems
e. Visit procedures
f. Specific program guidance
... Unacknowledged Special
A SAP with protective controls
that ensures the existence of the Program is not
acknowledged, affirmed, or made known to any person not
authorized for such information. All aspects (e.g.,
technical, operational, logistical, etc.) are handled in an
||Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), 'National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual Supplement' (part of a (badly) scanned DOD manual)
||1997, Senate Document 105-2, 'Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy'
||January 5, 2000, Jane's Defense Weekly, 'In Search of the Pentagon's Billion Dollar Hidden Budgets'
Disclosure Project briefing document, USAP excerpts
||October 13, 1997, Las Vegas SUN / Associated Press Phoenix, 'Astronaut Says Aliens Have Landed' (includes a partial speech of Edgar Mitchell that was held at the conference)
||April 4, 2005, Coast to Coast AM, Catherine Austin Fitts talks for over 2 hours about the missing trillions and the U.S. government's black budget. (Fitts was
assistant-secretary of Housing at HUD, managing director of Wall Street investment bank Dillon Read & Co., and helped to clean up the financial mess of Iran-Contra and the BCCI scandal)
||November 23, 2003, Michael E. Salla, 'The Black Budget Report: An Investigation into the CIA’s ‘Black Budget’ and the Second Manhattan Project'
||2004, Seymour M. Hersh, 'Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib' (book)
to the missing annual trillions (no typo) in the DOD and
other government agencies
||April 1, 1999, Washington Times, '$3,400,000,000,000 Of Taxpayers' Money Is Missing'
||November 6, 2000, Insight Magazine, 'Why Is $59 Billion Missing From HUD?'
||June 25, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'THE CABINET - Inside HUD's Financial Fiasco'
||September 3, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'Rumsfeld Inherits Financial Mess'
||September 28, 2001, Insight Magazine, 'Wasted Riches'
||January 29, 2002, CBS News, 'The War on Waste - Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion'
||April 29, 2002, Insight Magazine, 'Government Fails Fiscal Fitness Test'
||May 18, 2003, San Francisco Chronicle, 'Military waste under fire $1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon accounting'
||May 19, 2003, CBS, 'Pentagon Fights For (Its) Freedom'
||May 22, 2003, The Guardian, 'So much for the peace dividend: Pentagon is winning the battle for a $400bn budget'
||June 28, 2003, NPR's Morning Edition, Congressman Dennis Kucinich mentions the missing trillions.
||April 6, 2004, USA Today, 'NASA costs can't be verified, GAO report says'
||March 2005, Senate Armed Services Committee, FY 2006 Defense Dept. Budget (congresswoman Cynthia McKinney asks some hard questions)