Rather
than chase footnotes, I thought I would chase some trivia because that’s what
we seem to be doing here lately. I had thought that once the body in the slides
was identified as an unfortunate child from hundreds of years ago, we could be done
with that discussion. What more could be said? Arguments about the number of
ribs or the other deformities, which could be the result of a “natural”
mummification, seem to be useless. It really doesn’t matter at this point because
the mummy has been identified, its location has been identified, and what
happened to it has been identified. It was returned to it ancestor’s as federal
law required (Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 for those who wish to
know). All that
seems to be a matter of record so that we could move onto other discussions,
but we’re caught up in the trivia of number of ribs and other obscure
deformities.
 |
| CAP Officer Robert Willingham |
And
I hear that there are still discussions about the typeface used on the MJ-12
documents or more specifically, the Truman memo which was attached to the
Eisenhower Briefing Document. It would seem that once the fatal flaw had been
uncovered there that we could move away from the nonsense of attempting to
determine who had what typewriter in the White House more than half a century
ago. It matters little what typeface that typewriter used when the tale of the
UFO crash in the El Indio area has been found to be a hoax told by a man who
was never a fighter pilot nor an Air Force officer. It would seem that the
shifting nature of his tale, from the number of UFOs involved, to the date of
the incident and the area of the crash would be enough to sink his tale which
is reported in the EBD. If that story is a hoax that wasn’t invented until the
1960s, or that the crash that is now claimed to have taken place two or three
years after the EBD was written, that would be enough. But no, we’re still
caught up in arguing over the trivia of typeface and other unimportant factors
because these other things simply can’t be explained.
But
the trivia of trivia seems to be the short and limited discussion of Brad
Steiger’s real name. Seriously? Yes, he was born as Eugene Olson, and if you
look at the copyright page of some of his earlier books, it lists the copyright
owner as Eugene Olson. I knew that was his name in the 1970s, and I knew that
he taught in Decorah, Iowa, so I called directory assistance (which is what you
did in the days before online white pages and the Internet). They gave me the
telephone number of Eugene Olson and we had a very nice chat.
 |
| Brad and Sherry Steiger |
He
wrote under the name of Brad Steiger and sometime in the late 1970s, I believe,
legally changed his name to Brad Steiger. So the point being made was moot
because his real, legal name was Brad Steiger. In fact, for those searching for
the real names of writers, sometimes all you have to do is look to see who
holds the copyright because that will often be in the writer’s real, legal name…
though not always. Thinner, which we
all know was written by Stephen King is copyrighted in the name of Richard
Bachman. My own books, Wings Over Nam
is copyrighted by Cat Branigan rather than Kevin Randle (hey, don’t blame me; I
didn’t pick the pen name).
The
point here is that we engage way too often in discussions of trivia rather than
focusing on the more important, overriding issues. I don’t know if it is a
desire to be right even if it is just one small segment of the discussion or if
it is just stubbornness. Maybe it’s a way to keep a topic going or maybe it’s
just to be contrary. Whatever the reason, it seems to me that we ought to let
go of the trivia and confine ourselves to discussions of the more important
points… and for those wondering who makes that determination… here, on this
blog, it’s me.
42 comments:
Well Kevin, one man's trivia can be another man's significant knowledge. We've both been criticized for similarly delving into the "trivia" of Project Mogul, such as NOTAMS, project summaries, project diagrams and schematics, flight trajectories, project diaries, flight summaries, etc. But to us this "trivia" ultimately and collectively tells us that the Project Mogul explanation completely falls apart, such as it telling us the allegedly guilty flight never existed.
You can criticize Stan Friedman's arguments over MJ-12 typeface or dating as "trivia", but Stan's "trivia" was in direct response to objections to authenticity based on that same trivia. Phil Klass also made a trivi argument that Truman couldn't have signed his name that way, yet I have original Truman signatures in which Truman very definitely DID sign his name this way. (I saw him speak Nov. 10, 1963, was maybe 10 feet away, and my father had him sign his memoirs immediately afterward--yes those were originals.)
Counter-trivia that Truman DID sign his name that way didn't prove the MJ-12 documents authentic, but did disprove another argument used against them. Debates like this often revolve around such "trivia" (or "the devil is in the details") and is also part of the vetting process.
Does it matter how many ribs the mummy had or whether it had other deformities? To most this is "trivia" and could care less. It's a mummy, dummy! Fine, nobody is asking you to probe further.
But to some of us, it does matter. It is the difference between incompetence and/or fraud and perhaps an understandable mistake in identity. I want to understand better where things went wrong here, since I think you would agree that that Tom and Don are not fools nor would they condone or be part of a hoax. There was simply too much for them to lose.
There may also be scientific knowledge to be gained. If the body, e.g., really was lacking large numbers of the normal ribcage complement, that might be unique in medical history. (The mummification process itself would not cause bones like this to decay away and disappear.) Perhaps this was a previously unknown genetic syndrome. Perhaps it was the result of excessive inbreeding, which would also tell us something about these ancient Indians. Scientific knowledge often advances by pursuing what others might consider trivia. (To give but one example, that is how Fleming discovered penicillin, through a minor observation on bacterial cultures that others might easily have overlooked or not followed up on. You often don't know if something is worth following up on until you try.)
As for the Indian Repatriation Act settling where the body ultimately ended up long ago, that isn't necessarily true. I just came across a recent park service notice that this is STILL going on with the various Mesa Verde area bodies recovered. If the Indian representatives do not make claims to them, they remain in park service hands. I will try to follow up tomorrow on this lead, which may end up being more trivia--who knows?
Whatever happened to the body, there should be more information on it in some archive that might settle some issues.
Again, I honestly don't understand why anybody cares if I quietly follow up on this. What's the problem? If I find out anything significant, I'll let any interested people know. If you don't care, do something else. Sheesh!
David =
You missed the point here. Friedman still argues about typeface when it no longer matters. Yes, when Klass raised the argument so long ago, Friedman proved to be correct about the use of various typefaces. Today, with it clear that EBD and the Truman memo are forgeries, it no longer matters who used what typeface.
And, if you wish to follow leads on the mummy, that's certainly your business. But it doesn't help us identify the poor child seen on the slides. That has been accomplished and it is clear that the photograph is of a specific mummy.
My point about arguing over trivia is that sometimes the time for those arguments has passed. They don't lead us to a solution. We have the solution in hand. So, yes, when we are researching a specific question, we need to engage in a search for trivia, but once we have answers, then discussion of that trivia seems, well trivial.
With the slides I think it is fairly clear what happened here... Tom and Don did not see the original slides projected on a screen but had digital copies that were less than perfect. Of course they were not part of a hoax but just as clearly they failed to follow through on the trivia. That would have led them to the truth...
But here, I'm suggesting that I wish to move on. If you wish to remain here for a little longer, then more power to you.
KR wrote:
"With the slides I think it is fairly clear what happened here... Tom and Don did not see the original slides projected on a screen but had digital copies that were less than perfect. Of course they were not part of a hoax but just as clearly they failed to follow through on the trivia. That would have led them to the truth..."
Essentially they went into this whole thing believing they had something. They should have been far more cautious and if they had discussed the matter with other members of "their team" they wouldn't have been embarrassed like they are today.
Sheesh - even Stan Friedman was skeptical - what does that tell you!
Regards
Nitram
What's with the pic of Willingham? He's just another Col Corso!
> Arguments about the number of ribs or the other deformities...seem to be useless.
For respecters of facts, yes. But Maussan is using the anomalies argument to keep this project alive. We've been going around and around on Twitter about it.
> discussion of Brad Steiger’s real name. Seriously?
Don't blame me. David R. brought it up, slandering those who don't post under their real names. I merely asked his position on the respected Isaac Koi and the prolific Steiger.
I missed David's response.
b"h
What might be useful, perhaps even interesting, would be a report on the chain-of-events, i.e. the specific failures that led from “takeoff” (slide discovery) to the “crash” of 5-5-15. Such an inquiry couldn’t be conducted on a daily blog. If they willing to do so, probably DS and AJB could supply sufficient chronological detail to pin down crucial flawed decision points in appraising the slides. A detailed report would require an experienced researcher-investigator and the openness of at least a few of the slide investigation team. Gonna’ happen? Eh, . . . doubt it, but who knows . . . Such a report might help prevent needless future accidents.
The Stan Friedman 'contradiction' is easily explained. He played no part whatever in either the Alien Autopsy film or the Roswell slides. To him they were both, on balance, phony and did not conform to the Roswell story as he knew it.
With MJ-12 it was completely different. Stan played a very prominent role in the archival research of all the names appearing in the MJ-12 papers. He spent at least 2 years working with Moore & Shandera beforehand.
Therefore, he cannot do an about-face and admit he was wrong, since all the dates, events and people involved (i.e. the names in the MJ-12 docs) were the very dates, events and people he had researched so assiduously in the preceding 2 or 3 years! Add to this the fact that he is a nuclear physicist, i.e. a guy who knows some advanced science.
Which is worse, a sucker who won't admit he was wrong (Friedman), or one who will, and did, admit to being wrong (Tony Bragalia)?
Actually, Willingham is worse because Corso was a commissioned officer and rose to lieutenant colonel before he retired. Willingham was never commissioned in the Armed Forces and in his military service rose to E-4, a low enlisted grade.
Willingham is responsible for the entire Del Rio - El Indio UFO crash scenario, which has been discredited by various avenues of research. Willingham told multiple versions of his story and has offered nothing in the way of evidence.
If that crash didn't take place, and if the information wasn't created until after the Eisenhower Briefing, this seems to be the fatal flaw in the EBD.
Of course it's silly to banter about the trivia in this any further. For one, though, I would like to see a last chapter to this saga; perhaps a case study which could tell us in a macro way how we reached this nadir in ufology.
It could be illuminating and helpful.
Kevin, I understand why you are highly suspicious about Colonel Robert Willingham's reported UFO sighting, but I just want to say that Ruben Uriarte and I interviewed him for an entire year prior to publishing the book about him, and, although he was uncertain about the date of the encounter and other details, he seemed completely certain about the event itself. He suffered a series of strokes beginning in the 1960s that affected his memory, and most of his military records were lost in a fire at the data storage facility. By the way, he never mentioned "El Indio" and never made any reference whatsover to the EDB. I know he made some contradictory statements about the date, but to this day I wonder, if he hoaxed the whole thing, what was his motivation? He never gained anything, and the whole episode plagued him during his entire life.
Noe -
I really don't want to get into this again, but his statement, published in MUFON's Skylook magazine in March 1968, tells the story about his sighting. I can't believe that someone would get so confused that he wouldn't remember going through flight school and becoming a fighter pilot, seeing three objects and all that other detail.
El Indio is the compromise location of the crash made by Todd Zechel who is the one who worked with Willingham in the 1970s... but all that has been laid out here before.
Unless there is some evidence that Willingham ever attended flight school, was assigned as a fighter pilot or was ever commissioned in anything other that the Civil Air Patrol...
And remember he said that he had been personally promoted by President Johnson about the time that Johnson died and was no longer president...
There is so much wrong with his tale that it will be difficult to rehabilitate him.
'Tom and Don did not see the original slides projected on a screen but had digital copies that were less than perfect. Of course they were not part of a hoax '
No , they were part of a scam.
How can anyone look at these slides or a digital copy and not see some sort of mummy.And they saw an alien ?
Jaime Maussan is now offering in Twitter a bounty for the corpse (of the mummy)- $ 10 000 -.
I and my mainstream collegues are horrified by this recent Maussan twitt...
You are agreeing to pay a grave robber or to participate of such an infamy?
"I" count on you (including Anthony Bragalia) to stop and denounce this crazy guy and his recent call in Twitter, offering bounty in social media to stole a mummy and not respecting Natives.
Regards,
Gilles Fernandez
You could form a new group 'Defenders Of The Mummy'...
"Maussan is now offering in Twitter a bounty for the corpse (of the mummy)- $ 10 000"
Agree - ridiculous. If he knew anything he would know, from blogs like this or REAL research that Native American bodies have long since been repatriated and hence re-buried.
It does smack of inciting grave robbery. Does show this man's true colors.
On another thought - just supply the guy with a rubber Walmart Alien Grey - maybe your $25 investment could turn into a $10,000 payback.....LOL
John Space wrote:
"Although I have no way of knowing, I would suspect that the governments interagency UFO working group is having a big laugh about this whole "Roswell Slides" affair."
Well put John - bang on the money again!
"Maussan is now offering in Twitter a bounty for the corpse (of the mummy)- $ 10 000"
...maybe its all just a viral advertising promotion for another 'Indiana Jones' movie?
'Indiana Jones and the Last Roswell Witness'?
'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crappy Obvious Mummy'?
The pseudonymous "Terry the Censor", said:
> discussion of Brad Steiger’s real name. Seriously?
Don't blame me. David R. brought it up,
I did? News to me. Instead some troll named "Terry the Censor" brought up Steiger, after I suggested, to improve discussions, banning people who refuse to post under their real names, instead hiding behind pseudonyms so they don't have to take responsibility for their personal attacks, insults, and deliberate disruption of discussions, i.e. trolling behavior.
Last I heard, Steiger does not post to blogs nor engage in such behavior, so a very strange example to use. Besides Kevin says Brad Steiger long ago changed his legal name to same.
slandering those who don't post under their real names.
First of all, legal distinction:
Slander: Oral/spoken defamation
Libel: Written defamation
So I could not be "slandering" anyone, since my remarks were written. You should have used "libeling". (If someone doesn't tell you these things, how will you ever learn?)
Second, I wrote about nobody in particular, only about weeding out most of the trolls, sociopaths, and idiots by insisting they post under their real names. To be "libelous", some false, defamatory charge would have to levied at specific people with REAL names.
Anonymous posters cannot be defamed because they have no real public identity. Thus saying "Jerry the Joker is a Jerk" cannot be defamatory unless it is generally known who "Jerry the Joker" is, such that he might conceivably experience some harm to his reputation from such a comment.
The general class of "trolls, psychopaths, and idiots" cannot be defamed because they are not specific, real, known people who could suffer harm, but an abstraction. Thus, if I wrote, "UFO debunkers are all sexual deviants, drug addicts, and traitors," there is no defamation of any particular individuals. If I named specific people and made the same comment, I might be hauled into court.
But I can't defame a phantom.
I merely asked his position on the respected Isaac Koi and the prolific Steiger.
Steiger is obviously irrelevant here, and Isaac Koi is a serious guy who doesn't troll the web making snarky and insulting remarks about others just for the fun of it, like some I could mention.
And as "Terry" very well knows, I suggested making exceptions for people just like "Isaac Koi", like the brilliant NASA engineer "Larry" who might get some blow-back in their careers.
"Isaac Koi" says he is an attorney. His interest in the subject could conceivably be used against him in court by opposing counsel seeking to discredit him. Or maybe he has other LEGITIMATE reasons for not using his real name. But clearly it is not for the purpose of ducking responsibility for his remarks, like some people I could mention.
I missed David's response.
See above. Happy?
CDA said:
"Which is worse, a sucker who won't admit he was wrong (Friedman), or one who will, and did, admit to being wrong (Tony Bragalia)?"
The problem with calling Friedman a sucker is that he is not. Even I don't have much faith on the Eisenhower Briefing Document or the Truman Forrestal Memo, but I still don’t see the fatal flaw on them, or the confession of hoax by Moore or anyone.
Regarding the MJ-12 document “Special Operations Manual”, I feel that it is the right stuff. I recently analyzed the body weights range (25-50 pounds) and the body heights range (41”-50”) given in the SOM for the “type II” alien; and the numbers are pretty consistent and credible. If one consider two alien individuals, one of them having 25 pounds and 41” and the other individual having 50 pounds and 50”, the numbers are consistent in showing that despite one individual is larger than the other, both individuals are: (1) Fairly isometrically scaled (same overall shape), and (2) Both are slender than human children of equal height, in agreement with the typical _thin_ description of the “gray” alien. So I am still baffled as how the hoaxer of the SOM was so sophisticated as to put such credible numbers.
Additionally, Ryan Wood has a new website arguing in favor of the SOM.
http://www.specialoperationsmanual.com/
So things regarding some MJ-12 documents, or particularly the SOM, are not as clear as some here claim.
Speaking of libels... Does cda calling Friedman a "sucker" count as a libel? I am not a native english speaker but I would say yes.
David,
At the risk of getting my ass chewed by others, any chance that you will be contacting that forensic anthropologist?
I'm still interested should you decide to do so.
Complete tweet from Jaime Maussan:
'Ofrezco 5 mil dólares de recompensa a la persona que presente una nueva imagen del Ser de Bewitness y 10 Mil a quien presente el Cuerpo.'
Any 'sceptic' concerned about grave-robbing perhaps has not read James Moseley's book 'Shockingly Close To The Truth : Confessions of a Grave-Robbing UFOlogist' - specifically Chapter 6 - GRAVE ROBBING FOR FUN AND PROFIT.
Published (shamelessly) by Prometheus Books.
Kevin
Got you....I didn't realize the EBD was referring to the alleged willingham Crash. Didn't Mr Friedman write a foreword for that book about it? Not good for his credibility for sure. But also his support for B&B Hill stretches his credulity!
Don Maor:
The "fatal flaw" with the two primary MJ-12 documents (i.e. the ones endorsed by Stan Friedman) is that they describe events that NEVER took place. That is all I have to say, as Kevin does not, I am positive, want to discuss them here.
Do you seriously believe that there is the minutest chance that the SOM might be genuine? Even Friedman rejects this - for the obvious reason that he played no part in researching its contents.
And it does not take a genius to work out some plausible measurements and weights to comprise a supposed ET. Any schoolboy who understands heights/volumes/ratios can do it!
But we are going off topic, again.
CDA said:
"Do you seriously believe that there is the minutest chance that the SOM might be genuine?"
Yes, I do.
"Even Friedman rejects this - for the obvious reason that he played no part in researching its contents."
I have got the book “Top Secret Magic” from Friedman and he gives support to the SOM. If he changed his mind, or put it in his gray basket, I did not notice. In any case, the SOM seems to be the real thing. I am not a blind follower of other researchers, although I still believe Friedman is a great one.
"And it does not take a genius to work out some plausible measurements and weights to comprise a supposed ET. Any schoolboy who understands heights/volumes/ratios can do it!"
Admittedly, the deduction is very simple. Things are pretty easy after someone have figured them out. I never saw anyone making such an easy corroboration, not even British amateur mathematicians.
"But we are going off topic, again."
Topic is trivia, so involves almost everything one can imagine.
@Don Maor on the MJ12 and SOM
"....but I still don’t see the fatal flaw on them, or the confession of hoax by Moore or anyone."
- Moore et.al. would never make the confession; obviously no one will but we know they are fakes and evidence clarky indicates a few people, and perhaps just one, who did the forging.
- SOM is interesting but nothing more than entertaining fiction.
MJ12 is a proven hoax by UFOlogists against UFO followers. More junk con men behind that material.
Bell "SOM is interesting but nothing more than entertaining fiction."
Does not look like fiction. Check out Ryan Wood's relatively new website on it.
http://www.specialoperationsmanual.com/
Noe & Ruben also think the Donald Shrum/Cisco Grove incident is real. So what does that tell you?
@Don Maor - SOM1-01:
Not to be a bugger about SOM1-01, there are a few things that are still concerning, although granted some work has been done to attempt to validate aspects of the manual against known period examples.
Things like the “raised Z“ and a “control number” as well as “common terms from the era” are important and seem to be in the document.
However we know that those can be faked – and this is a series of negatives of the alleged manual and not the real thing, so to speak.
Someone who has previously written or published military manuals, as well as collectors of such manuals, will definitely know the subtle details that need to be represented if indeed it was faked.
We are not talking about a “rushed forgery attempt” either, something that someone worked on for months if not longer to fake (like MJ12 documents). If people can fake currency notes they can fake this manual.
Here are some concerns:
Craft illustrations – It is suggested that these are simply drawn as “representative examples” of the most commonly seen saucer shapes. Well…...it seems too sparse to me – this is 1954 and we had many saucer sightings and not everything is really shown there. More importantly, it shows a “triangular” shaped craft more akin to what was being seen in 1994 and even now – which makes me wonder how in 1954 they knew of these things when they are a more modern version of what people claim.
Additionally – if Roswell was a crash, then which of these images represents that one? Clearly it would be represented if they actually collected one. Why not? There is no “pod” craft, “boot heel” saucer, or other type craft shown there – including nothing that matches Arnold’s sightings – why not?
EBE’s – Only two types are described – the “Roswell” type is depicted in McDonald’s illustrations from the description in SOM1-01…..but it looks like a small human being even with genitalia? The classic “grey” has a ridge on its head? Where are the other so called depictions of “tall Grey’s”, “Nordics”, “Reptilians” that are claimed to be visiting us? Not there…why not?
Branch of service – The document is said to be mainly published for US Army use, but why is this the case if by 1954 the USAAF was now the USAF? Is this for “boots on the ground” army only? Or for all branches of service?
Quantity – if this were a publication for training, and for soldiers who had to work with crashed saucer recovery, then where are all the real manuals? One does not print just one or even 10 copies for training purposes – there would be a whole slew of these around – possibly hundreds. Where are the original copies? Where is the witness testimony from serviceman who read this as part of their training? Why is it not an FM designation if it were for training purposes?
SOM1-01 - More.....
Additionally, Wood states this:
"Other, less careful skeptics have written whole chapters and books on why MJ-12 is a hoax. See, for example, “Case MJ-12” by Kevin D. Randle, who brings forth everything that he can think of that might be favoring fake on every questioned document on this topic. A very careful reading of this book by me yields 159 marginal notes where I either disagreed with his facts or his logic. There was no significant discussion of the Special Operations Manual 1-01 or issues of fakery, a rather significant omission."
The MJ12 documents are in fact faked - we all know this. Disagreeing with someone else's "facts" or "logic" doesn't make a person right.
Heiser paid out of his own pocket for the original linguistics evaluation when others avoided it out of fear it might be faked, or like Friedman to simply avoid "being wrong" after decades of selling his story on Roswell and belief that MJ12 documents were real (he still thinks SOME are real).
Point is - MJ documents are faked - doesn't mean there isn't an "MJ12" type orignization.
Moreover, we should not just presume that if there is an MJ12 that it pertains to an "alien coverup" agenda.
For all we know, and we don't know much, MJ12 may be a cover for a group of people overseeing advanced weapons or propulsion systems designs that are unconventional and to most "exotic". Man made stuff.
That doesn't necessarily mean "from aliens".
Internally produced counter intelligence may be in effect within the service branches as means to provide layered secrecy. Printing "propaganda" for use inside the military is not impossible. The Nazi's did it for nearly a decade to their own troops too.
Re SOM 1-01:
Has anyone got any idea where & when the term EBE (Extraterrestrial Biological Entity) originated?
I did once read that it was Paul Bennewitz who invented this c. 1980, but cannot substantiate or confirm this. We can be certain that it was NOT invented by Detlev Bronk as per the Ike MJ-12 document, but otherwise it seems to be a dead end bit of research.
Needless to say, if we could establish it was long after the SOM 1-01 date (April 1954) it would demolish this and all the rest of the MJ-12 junk forever.
Not that Ryan Wood would ever accept such a disproof, I am positive.
The phrase "downed satellites" (section 12c) also looks highly dubious, but no doubt Wood can find a way out of this too!
@Don Maor:
Over a year ago, in the comment thread of Kevin's post "MJ-12 and Major Contradictions" from March 29, 2014, I responded to your similar comments about the William Moore & Co.-fabricated MJ-12 documents, including the SOM1-01, and referred you to some of Barry Greenwood's and Kevin's earlier writings about why the entire collection of MJ-12 docs are all hoaxes. Greenwood, particularly, and Brad Sparks have thoroughly documented how and why the MJ-12 papers, like the SOM1-01, are fraudulent. They are disinformation.
Here's a partial excerpt from that old comment, that includes the references I provided for you then to check out:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.greenwoodufoarchive.com/uhr/uhr03.pdf
http://greenwoodufoarchive.com/Just_Cause_Greenwood/1987_09_n13.pdf
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2007/09/mj-12-is-dead.html
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/08/mj-12-beating-dead-horse.html
"The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origins of MJ-12" 2007 MUFON Symposium Proceedings, by Brad Sparks and Barry Greenwood [70 pages] (The most thorough treatment of the controversy, although some, like Greenwood, disagree with some of Sparks content in this paper).
See: http://bit.ly/1dMgmGm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you took my advice/suggestion to read those source references that clearly show MJ-12 was a Bill Moore-orchestrated fraud, but if not, you really ought to.
Greenwood exposed the SOM1-01 as a hoax over 25 years ago before virtually anyone.
And, I would not take Ryan Wood's long-term unsubstantiated support for the MJ-12 docs seriously, if I were you -- he has a vested financial interest in selling DVD "product" about that.
With that, I'm basically done with debating the trivia of MJ-12/SOM1-01 as either "real" or faked. If you do the research, and still cannot see how and why those insidious docs are phony, there's not much more I can say. Let's not continue to beat a dead horse into nano-particles and quarks. It's long past "done," and a waste of time.
If anything, the "Roswell slides" affair, and the ancient MJ-12 hoax, if anyone still believes in them as being genuine, only demonstrates how extraordinarily powerful the "will to believe," without proof, is with some people.
Steve Sawyer said:
'..If anything, the "Roswell slides" affair, and the ancient MJ-12 hoax, if anyone still believes in them as being genuine, only demonstrates how extraordinarily powerful the "will to believe," without proof, is with some people...'
Like everyone else posting here, you see only human beings involved in these events, human beings always assumed to be in control. And they must be 'hoax' or 'genuine' cases, neatly boxed away, so that the illusion that we are in control of the situation can be maintained.
What if everything is an Alien experiment, and they are in control of it, in control of the 'evidence' and how it is presented, in control of you, me, and everyone in 'UFOlogy', everyone you want to praise or condemn, get along with, or disagree with?
The cited extraordinarily powerful will to believe is your imaginary construct. I, for one, have watched the specialists presented by Jaime Maussan, and was impressed by them. I DID NOT want to believe them. I just happened to be impressed by them. Do you understand the distinction between this and belief, Steve?
Is it still allowed for someone to be impressed by these men - and now, one woman (on the new Maussan programme update), or are we entering a new phase of UFO fascism, when only American and British sceptics and their allies are allowed to state their views without being insulted by cheap shots about 'will to believe' etc.?
Brian Bell wrote:
“Craft illustrations – It is suggested that these are simply drawn as “representative examples” of the most commonly seen saucer shapes. Well…...it seems too sparse to me – this is 1954 and we had many saucer sightings and not everything is really shown there. More importantly, it shows a “triangular” shaped craft more akin to what was being seen in 1994 and even now – which makes me wonder how in 1954 they knew of these things when they are a more modern version of what people claim.”
As explains Ryan Wood in his website, the SOM chapter describing UFOs was independently released via FOIA, so you can have doubts about the rest of the document, but not about this precise chapter.
Brian Bell wrote:
“Things like the “raised Z“ and a “control number” as well as “common terms from the era” are important and seem to be in the document. However we know that those can be faked – and this is a series of negatives of the alleged manual and not the real thing, so to speak.”
Yes Brian, everything can be faked. Now recently, I have found that the numerical values given on alien body weights and alien body heights are mutually consistent. Of course, that clever detail can be faked, too, but the likelihood of hoax should decrease with every new found detail such as that one.
Anyway Brian, thanks for the comments.
"And, I would not take Ryan Wood's long-term unsubstantiated support for the MJ-12 docs seriously, if I were you -- he has a vested financial interest in selling DVD "product" about that."
I agree - evidenced by the fact you can pay $$$ to Wood for an SOM copy. They got it for FREE. Why not offer it for $1 a copy or something? Just more scam....
Anyone want to buy authentic Roswell hyroglyphic I- Beams? I'll make you as many as you want - $75 each!!! BUY NOW!!!
@Don Maor -
"independently released via FOIA, so you can have doubts about the rest of the document, but not about this precise chapter."
What's the history on this FOIA? What else was it released with? Also when?
Most FM and TM manuals are reprinted or go obsolete. Not certain how a more recent item can get into a 1954 print. Ideas? Thx
Steve Sawyer wrote:
“Over a year ago, in the comment thread of Kevin's post "MJ-12 and Major Contradictions" from March 29, 2014, I responded to your similar comments about the William Moore & Co.-fabricated MJ-12 documents”
Yes Steve, I remember, you thrown at me a lot of links, you called me a believer, you told me that the matter was already settled, and that you would not be wasting further time about it. Yet, you are still here wasting your time, and so am I.
Why don’t you, instead of throwing a lot of links from Greewood and Sparks, explain some specific details that bother you about the SOM? Brian Bell has done so, and even CDA did so.
"Greenwood exposed the SOM1-01 as a hoax over 25 years ago before virtually anyone.
And, I would not take Ryan Wood's long-term unsubstantiated support for the MJ-12 docs seriously, if I were you -- he has a vested financial interest in selling DVD "product" about that."
Great argument Steve, attacking people simply because they sell DVDs. So you don’t trust Ryan Wood? And what if I arbitrarily don’t want to trust in you or in Greenwood? Who are you (Steve) anyway? What if instead I choose arbitrarily to trust in people with scientist credentials like Robert Wood (Ryan’s Father) or Stanton Friedman? They are scientists. Are you a scientist?
The point Steve is, let me be clear and repeat it, that I found a detail in the SOM that shows numerical consistence (namely, body heights and body weights of reported aliens). In your own world view, that simply should mean that the hoaxer (or multidisciplinary team of hoaxers) was/were clever enough to put the right numbers in the faked document. You still don’t need to believe that the SOM is authentic. You can relax.
Tim Herbert wrote:
At the risk of getting my ass chewed by others, any chance that you will be contacting that forensic anthropologist?
I'm still interested should you decide to do so.
Tim,
I was trying to get better data for examination than just out-of-focus slides with limited viewing angle, such as likely archival National Park Service scientific/medical studies of the body, maybe photos and X-rays.
However, I am running into unexpected resistance on what I thought was a simple request. So I am being delayed. I'll keep you posted if anything turns up. I would also prefer more than one qualified expert take a look. If anyone knows a well-qualified medical pathologist, radiologist, etc., willing to way in, please do.
Don Maor:
"As explains Ryan Wood in his website, the SOM chapter describing UFOs was independently released via FOIA, so you can have doubts about the rest of the document, but not about this precise chapter."
Do I understand this? Ryan Wood claims that a portion of this SOM was actually obtained via FOIA?
Something fishy here. Either the whole document is genuine or it is fake. You cannot have a document of which one chapter is genuine, (in the sense that it was obtained from official sources) whilst the rest is phony.
Anything secret that is released under the FOIA has a declassification tag and signature. Is this available for us to see? If not, why not?
My conclusion: NONE of this SOM was released via the FOIA and Ryan Wood is either making it up or passing on dud info given to him by another party.
Which of course merely proves the whole document is phony.
Brian Bell wrote: , "I agree - evidenced by the fact you can pay $$$ to Wood for an SOM copy. They got it for FREE. Why not offer it for $1 a copy or something? Just more scam...."
As usual, Brian likes being wrong. Copies of the SOM are freely available in the website. It seems that they are selling something like a improved and clarified replica of the document. I dream with the day in which trolls stop acussing other people of scammer without evidence.
@Don Maor -
Point is this Don, they are charging nearly $20 US for a "replica" copy. Why?
The FREE version you describe are just shots of the negatives and not easily read in certain pages. Why not just retype the thing and provide it free? No...because they want to make $$$$ from believers.
Read what Berliner and Hall have to say for themselves:
http://www.cufos.org/ros5.html
Your accusation of trolling is annoying - you obviously just think people should accept your ridiculous thoughts as correct - any objections simply get hit by your trigger to personally attack. Facts are facts. Get real.
CDA said:
“Do I understand this? Ryan Wood claims that a portion of this SOM was actually obtained via FOIA? Something fishy here. Either the whole document is genuine or it is fake”
Right CDA, these days I have been trying to understand what exactly was Ryan Wood referring to and found that YES, one part of a chapter of the SOM1-01 can indeed be found in old documents which were used in years 1954-1955 by the 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron. The Chapter 6 of the SOM1-01 (starting in page 21) is called “Guide to UFO identification” and has three Sections. Sections I and II are indeed and clearly based in the so called “UFO Guide” of the 4602nd AISS, Parts I and II. According to Ryan Wood in his book “Majic Eyes”, the AISS document was released via FOIA in 1985 to a person called Brian Parks.
However, the real documents can be found on independent websites and even a pdf file can be found in the Black Vault site, which specializes in documents released under FOIA.
Cufon site
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/cufon-v.htm
Nicap site
http://www.nicap.org/4602smpl4.htm
Black Vault
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/4602HistoryUFOs.pdf
Ryan Woood is right in his assertion that the Parts I and II of the UFOB Guide of the 4602nd AISS documentation fit exactly in the pages mentioned in the index of SOM01-1. Most of these pages, except the page 21 od the SOM1-01, were missing in the images received by Don Berliner in 1994.
CDA concluded
“NONE of this SOM was released via the FOIA and Ryan Wood is either making it up or passing on dud info given to him by another party.”…Which of course merely proves the whole document is phony."
No CDA, you are wrong on that. Ryan Wood was not making it up, nor was it based on “dud” info.
Post a Comment