By Billy Cox, 27 October 2015
(De Void, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida)
Billy Cox presents his fifth article on the 25 April
2013 Aguadilla (Puerto Rico) UFO video (filmed by a DHC-8 Turboprop under the command of U.S. Customs and Border Protection):
Quote from the article:
“Once it became clear CBP wasn’t going to bite, De
Void filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a government copy of that
video. It was apparently leaked to researchers by Customs insiders and had been
lighting up the Internet a year or so before the SCU issued its report. ‘It’s
not like they can deny it,’ says SCU co-author Robert Powell. “We’ve got radar
records showing their plane in the air at that time.” Still, it seemed
important to officially verify the provenance of the controversial clip. The
ensuing brushoff a couple of weeks ago, slugged ‘Final Disposition’ and tersely
worded as a ‘full denial based on exemptions,’ came as no surprise. But its
crimes against coherence were abominable.
‘CBP has determined,’ stated the online rejection notice, ‘that the responsive records are partially releasable, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C 552 and have applied the appropriate exemptions.’ De Void followed that link to a list of nine itemized potential ‘Exemptions,’ accompanied by three other separate speedbumps beneath a category called ‘Exclusions.’ The range was eclectic; it covered everything from protecting ‘trade secrets’ to ‘unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Unfortunately, the verdict failed to specify exactly which ‘Exemption’ or ‘Exclusion’ the CBP employed to justify its rejection of De Void’s FOIA. Furthermore, whatever the censors deemed ‘partially releasable’ is nowhere in sight.”
‘CBP has determined,’ stated the online rejection notice, ‘that the responsive records are partially releasable, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C 552 and have applied the appropriate exemptions.’ De Void followed that link to a list of nine itemized potential ‘Exemptions,’ accompanied by three other separate speedbumps beneath a category called ‘Exclusions.’ The range was eclectic; it covered everything from protecting ‘trade secrets’ to ‘unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’ Unfortunately, the verdict failed to specify exactly which ‘Exemption’ or ‘Exclusion’ the CBP employed to justify its rejection of De Void’s FOIA. Furthermore, whatever the censors deemed ‘partially releasable’ is nowhere in sight.”
(openminds.tv image)
