This
week I spoke with Ryan Wood. He had sent out an email complaining about the
anti-UFO bias on Wikipedia. I thought that would be an interesting topic, and
since he is a proponent of MJ-12, I thought we could spend some time on that as
well. But, as usual, the conversation took on a life of its own. You can listen
to it here:
We
veered off into the Cape Girardeau UFO crash of 1941, which, as everyone will
tell you, is six years older than the Roswell case. The problem here is that
there are no first-hand witnesses and while the granddaughter of minister who
was called to scene heard about it from family, the problem is that she heard
about it from family. There really is no documentation in the form of newspaper
articles and diary entries, or anything of that nature. And while I didn’t make
the comment
during the show because, well, we went off in other discussions, I
always worry about these pre-Roswell cases. If this had happened, it would seem
to me that the military might have been better prepared for the events in
Roswell.
 |
| Ryan Wood. Photo copyright by Kevin Randle. |
Ryan
said that his book, Majic Eyes Only, listed 74 crash retrievals. I
thought that there just weren’t that many because it would be impossible to
keep all that secret for so long. At some point one of those crashes would have
produced evidence no matter how hard the various government agencies attempted
to suppress it all. I did point out that in my book, Crash: When UFOs Fall from
the Sky, I listed something like 110. One of those was an alternative look
at the Cape Girardeau crash. An analysis of that case follows this posting.
Given
there were so many alleged crashes, I asked what Ryan thought were the best. He
suggested Roswell, Kecksburg and Shag Harbour. I mentioned that I thought of
Shag Harbour as more of an emergency landing than an actual crash. But the real
point was that each of these had documentation and newspaper articles while
most of the other crashes were single witness with no documentation at all.
Some were clearly mundane objects seen under unusual circumstances. Some were
clearly meteors, others debris from missile tests, and a few outright hoaxes.
We
finally did make it to MJ-12 and the so-called Operations Manual. I mentioned
that there were some anachronisms in it. Ryan pointed out that skeptics said
the War Department seal on the front was one, but that he had found that symbol
on other manuals printed after the War Department ceased to exist in 1947,
meaning that, in this one case, it might not be an anachronism.
I
wondered about the lack of a provenance for the manual and asked if there were
any MJ-12 documents from a legitimate government source that lead to support
MJ-12. Ryan said that there was a letter from Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blount
to Dr. Robley Evans that did lead to MJ-12. You can see that letter here:
I
believe the top-secret report to which Blount referred is the Air Intelligence
Report (AIR) 100-203-79 with a date of April 29, 1949. There is nothing in it
about UFO crashes or anything like that. Blount seemed to think it was more of
a psychological analysis, which the AIR report is not.
But
there is a real problem with the Blount letter that I’m sure if obvious to
everyone. To sort of prove that point, I think the Hottel Memo makes the case.
Here is an FBI document that mentions a UFO crash. You can read it here:
The
point is, the Hottel Memo refers to the Aztec crash hoax and is based on
information from Frank Scully’s book, Behind the Flying Saucers. Time
magazine, in January, 1950, printed an article about little men from Venus.
That predates the Blount letter and might well be the source of the rumor.
Next
week, John Burroughs is the guest. He’ll be offering some new information about
the Rendlesham Forest events of December 1980. If you have questions for him,
put them in a comment here, and I’ll try to get them answered during the
program.
4 comments:
Among other things, the biggest problem I have with the alleged MJ-12 documents as they appeared in Stanton Friedman's book is they don't read like a real military manual/document; it is repetitive, wordy, has two introductions and is just plain disorganized. I also can't see having to explain to someone, in fact anyone, how to make a "shipping crate". There might in fact be a real MJ-12 or a similar group, but those documents scream hoax. I ran a very small Navy tech library while stationed at NAS Lemoore, Ca., so I have some background in that area...
Don't bother Mr. Wood with the facts, his mind's made up.
Clarence, if you think everyone knows how to make a shipping crate, you really are as stupid as you appear. Bought anything on ebay recently?....Most people don't even know how to mail an item securely! The lower ranks of the military services are not recruited to think for themselves but first and foremost to follow orders! You of all people should remember that.
Mr Steiger (no relation to author Brad by any chance?) Clever, insightful and informative comments are clearly not your forte! Don't give up the day job!
Paul Jones
Paul Jones: I was paraphrasing the late Stanton Friedman ... if you didn't know (and I rather doubt you did).
P.S. Thank you so much for the unsolicited advice, but if you have any more to proffer, please be so kind as to patiently await my request for it, if you please.
Post a Comment