I
wanted to share with you all something that took quite a few years to complete.
I chased after the FBI Files for all of the alleged members of MJ-12.
What
I found interesting beyond the fact that they pretty much all had files – many
of them (or portions thereof) were destroyed at some time in the past. Some of
the dates, you can argue were around the time the MJ-12 documents originally
surfaced, and began gaining traction (though, of course, that part is
speculation).
Here
are the documents: http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/fbi-files-the-paranormal-collection/
Just
scroll down to the MJ-12 heading, which outlines them all. You will notice quite
a few other FBI Files of interest.
Enjoy.
Sincerely,
John
Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault
http://www.theblackvault.com
The Black Vault
http://www.theblackvault.com
Government
Secrets
http://www.governmentsecrets.com
http://www.governmentsecrets.com
Phone:
(805) 32-VAULT
.jpg)
18 comments:
Wow, in the pdf file about Detlev Bronk, there is an interesting FBI memorandum made in april 1949, in which the FBI investigated Detlev Bronk. Apparently, the FBI was investigating Detlev Bronk in relationship with reports from dates of 3, 8 an d 13 of July 1947. Agent "Guy Hottel" (remember the Guy Hottel FBI memo?) is also quoted as investigating or reporting something from july 1947.
Does this 1949 document relates the great scientist Detlev Bronk with Roswell case and with Aztek case?
During morning I was able to see the now deleted comment here by the infamous "Max" "Lance" Moody. Apparently, Lance has now deleted his own message following his typical hen like style. As usual, he was being insulting and was quarreling about my previous post. He quarreled that the FBI investigation was related to some business related to the Atomic Energy Act, and not related to Roswell.
However, Atomic Energy Comission might also related to UFOs, as stated by Twining himself in the now famous "Twining memo" to Shulgen, from september 1947.
Aditionally, all the FBI quoted memos from July 1947 mentioned in the FBI's file on Bronk, seem to be still classified. So things remain strange IMO.
The FBI file on Bronk:
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/paranormal/detlevbronk.pdf
Don:
Of course "things remain strange". They do so because you WANT them to remain strange.
By the way, wasn't Bronk the guy who coined the term 'EBE' (Extraterrestrial Biological Entities) for the bodies recovered at Roswell? Search those July 1947 FBI files and see if you can discover EBE anywhere. If you succeed, you will be world famous for at last proving that those infamous MJ-12 papers were authentic after all.
All -
The point here wasn't to endorse the silly MJ-12 documents, but to provide a resource where additional information could be found. There really is nothing there that would elevate MJ-12 to any sort of status, just providing a point where all could see who these guys labeled as MJ were... and note something else. When MJ first emerged, none of the men were alive to deny any involvement in this nonsense which might be one reason they were selected in the first place... I mean by the forgers... who would select a dead man for anything (except for some voters in certains who might have done it as a protest against the other candidates... but I digress)>
MJ-12 documents cannot be put all in the same bag with 'hoax' label. The documents come from different sources, and for example, the Eisenhower Briefing Document might be the real thing, although I have some doubts.
Regarding the special operations manual SOM1-01, which came from other source, it is most likely an authentic document.
Don -
The Eisenhower Briefing Document contains a hoax. The El Indio crash was invented by Robert Willingham in the 1960s... and even if it was true, Willingham said it took place in 1954 or 1955, which means it couldn't have been in a document dated 1952. The link here is Todd Zechel and William Moore... Zechel thought it was real because he talked to an Air Force colonel who told him about it and Zechel told Moore about it. Moore, in the early 1980s when MJ-12 was first invented thought the source was legitimate so he had to include something about it... But Willingham was not an Air Force colonel nor was he a fighter pilot, nor was he consistent with his information, all of which leads to the conclusion that the El Indio crash was a hoax and therefore the EBD fails on that point alone...
The SOM 1-01 is filled with mistakes and even the man who received, Don Berliner, believes it to be a fake...
Sorry, MJ-12 is a hoax that has taken up too much time and too many of the very limited resources available for UFO research. I can't make this any plainer.
@ Don
"Shulgen, from september 1947."
You mean "Schulgen" and "September". In English our months are capitalized.
"Regarding the special operations manual SOM1-01, which came from other source, it is most likely an authentic document."
No. The elevated type key thought to give provenance to the fake document is easily reproduced by purchasing a vintage typewriter with the same fault.
Brian wrote:
No. The elevated type key thought to give provenance to the fake document is easily reproduced by purchasing a vintage typewriter with the same fault."
Well Brian, things are not always that easy. The SOM1-01 seems to have been made in a Print instead of a simple 'vintage' typewriter which has been purchased with "the same fault". I have checked the SOM1-01 document and there are some examples in which the "z" is indeed raised, but in other places of the document the "z" is not raised. So the hoaxer had to buy two vintage prints of the era, one working good and the other with the "fault"?
Robert and Ryan Wood call these kind of details "zinger", which is basically a detail that is very hard to fake, like the raised "z". For me, another 'zinger' presented is given by the numerical values of body weights and heights of the aliens reported in the SOM1-01. Those numerical values are pretty much consistent when compared against each other, and also are consistent when compared with values of body masses and heights of human children. Such consistency would require that the team of fakers had a medical Dr. or a biologist. Not that easy, ergo "zinger".
A famous purported anachronism which contained the phrase "downed satellites" has been shown recently to be no longer an anachronism. Just another detail very hard to fake, a "zinger".
The SOM1-01 is filled with "zingers". It is most probably real.
@ Don
I know you want to believe in its authenticy, but your "zingers" can be explained quite easily:
1) Berliner received a roll of undeveloped 35 mm film negatives. He did not receive a hard copy or bound example. There's no way to establish if the document in the negatives was from a printing press, a typewriter, or Microsoft Word using a replica type font (hundreds of vintage type fonts are available).
2) You don't need a forensic MD to calculate body mass and heights. There are pediatric charts that provide this information readily available to the public. One only needs to look at data for a four foot child and then claim it's from a four foot alien of similar stature.
3) The noun "satellites" proves very little. Documents of that era commonly referred to objects flying in the sky as "satellites" or "missiles" or other terms describing fast moving objects high in the sky. Their use doesn't literally convey a space orbiting object, or a fast moving rocket of some sort. They're just word expressions.
The only "zinger" I see is the one that keeps the hoaxers laughing at people who fell for their gimmick and still work to defend it.
Brian,
Nobody has claimed authorship of the SOM1-01. We don't have any hoaxer laughing about that. 20+ years and no hoaxer yet.
Microsoft Word (and any other software before 1994) was a very limited and crude text-editor at that time.
The raised "z" fault was a fault of printers, not of typewriters.
There here is something you are failing to understand Brian. I am frankly not discussing here whether those zingers can be faked or not. Of course they can. Almost everything can be conceivably faked. However, you need to think calmly whether is it really likely that those zingers were faked. You need to understand that Ryan and Robert Wood have found another zinger-like clues. Not just the ones I mentioned. I mean, Brian, if you keep trying to knee-jerk-deny, you will keep coming up with absurd explnations like "it was made with Microsft Word". Just think a little bit before you make silly claims.
Don -
I think the only "silly" claim in this discussion thread is a firm belief that SOM1-01 is authentic!
There are "zingers" on the otherside too - ones that clearly demonstrate the document is an elaborate hoax. For example the logo on the front is not historical to the time frame given for this document having been published. That alone is equal to your raised "z".
Regarding someone claiming this hoax, well we don't have anyone claiming the MJ12 documents either. But we have a very good idea about the handful of people most likely responsible and why they did it.
Don -
I think the only "silly" claim in this discussion thread is a firm belief that SOM1-01 is authentic!
There are "zingers" on the otherside too - ones that clearly demonstrate the document is an elaborate hoax. For example the logo on the front is not historical to the time frame given for this document having been published. That alone is equal to your raised "z".
Regarding someone claiming this hoax, well we don't have anyone claiming the MJ12 documents either. But we have a very good idea about the handful of people most likely responsible and why they did it.
Brian claimed:
There are "zingers" on the otherside too - ones that clearly demonstrate the document is an elaborate hoax. For example the logo on the front is not historical to the time frame given for this document having been published. That alone is equal to your raised "z".
Naaah Bri. Errors and mistakes can be indeed present in authentic and legit documents.
Moreover, R & R Wood write in their website that:
"The War Office Logo was used whenever the customer wanted it used (according to the US Government Printing Office) all the way up to 1969."
So there is NOTHING to your objections Brian.
Supposedly-obsolescent logos and names are usually present in documents made by companies even after the logos have been officialy changed. For instance, when a company is bought by another company, the logo of the smaller company keeps being used for some large time, even when the actual official name and logo corresponds to the owner/larger company, etc. These kind of situations are very common in every institution.
@ Don
The problem with your theory about the seal is that it doesn't check out historically.
There was no War Office in April 1954.
The War Office existed from August 7, 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it split into Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force and joined the Department of the Navy as part of the new joint National Military Establishment (NME), renamed the United States Department of Defense in 1949.
At best, the last time this seal would have been used is 1949. So you want everyone to believe the seal was still in circulation five years after all of the departmental changes occurred and government printing offices didn't bother to change it?
Not likely. The government doesn't work that way - at all. No one would have known who's manual this was if they used an out of date seal for a now defunct office.
But people will believe anything I guess.
Dear Brian, what part of...
"The War Office Logo was used whenever the customer wanted it used (according to the US Government Printing Office) all the way up to 1969."
...you are not able not understand?
@ Don
And you have documentation to prove this from the US Printing Office?
I find that as unlikely as the Department of Education choosing to use the White House or Presidential Seal on their documents whenever they wanted to.
Brian, just checking in the Wikipedia, I have found the "War Office Seal" is still used today!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_and_emblem_of_the_United_States_Department_of_the_Army
"This "War Office Seal” continues to be used TO THIS DAY when legal certification is necessary to authenticate as "official" documents and records of the Department of the Army."
The emphasis is mine.
Sorry Brian!
Post a Comment