Here’s
something that I have never understood. How can you hold two beliefs that are
contradictory? If one is true, then the other cannot be true. They cancel out
one another.
Here’s
what I mean. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Eisenhower Briefing
Document (EBD) received by Jaime Shandera is authentic (which means only for
this point). It tells of two crashes, one on the Brazel ranch and the other in
December 1950 in the El Indio – Guerrero area near the Texas – Mexico border.
It tells us that four “human-like beings” had been found some two miles from
the main debris field and all four had been killed in the crash. Other details,
such as the name of the base at Roswell, the creation of the Air Force Project
Sign, and Arnold sighting of June 24, 1947, suggest that the creator of the
document had knowledge of the history of the UFO phenomenon.
There
are those who believe this document but who also believe there was a crash on
the Plains of San Agustin which might have been part of the Roswell crash, and
another event near Aztec, New Mexico in March 1948. The question that arises
from this is if the EBD was created for President-elect Eisenhower, why are
these other two crashes left out? There is no reason to hide that information
from Eisenhower, unless those creating the EBD knew that those events hadn’t
happened? In other words, they didn’t include them because they knew they were
faked.
Taking
this a step further, and because we’ve just discussed the Interplanetary
Phenomenon Unit, we see in those two documents the information about a UFO
crash near the Trinity site on the White Sands Missile Ranch. While it could be
said that this is part of the events on the Brazel ranch, it was not mentioned
in the EDB. The documents talk of five creatures rather than four and,
importantly, mention that Eisenhower, then the top officer in the Army, would
be briefed in August 1947, eliminating the need for a briefing in November 1952.
If
we look at the First Annual Report, it mentions three sites. Two are on the
Brazel ranch and one at the Trinity site. Again, this is in conflict not only
with the EBD but also the IPU summary. So which of these documents is accurate
and which are fakes? And isn’t it possible that all three are fake?
As
mentioned in the past, the El Indio – Guerrero crash of December 6, 1950, has
but a single witness and the credibility of the crash rests on his shoulders.
In the mid-1980s when the EDB was released, nearly everyone in the UFO field
accepted this case because the witness was a retired Air Force colonel who had
been fighter pilot. The trouble is that he is neither and he changed the date
of the crash three or more times. Given those facts, it seems logical to reject
his claims of a UFO crash, and if that is true, what does that mean for both
the EBD and the First Annual Report, which contain that information?
I
had planned to talk of other MJ-12 documents that seem to contradict one
another, but this all makes the point. There are fatal flaws in each of the
documents. Any document created at the supposed level at which these were
created would be accurate. There wouldn’t be the sort of elemental errors seen
here. If there were three crashes, then three crashes would have been
mentioned.
I
will point out one other obvious thing because there are some who don’t seem to
get it. In various MJ-12 documents there are anachronisms… that is, there are
things mentioned that did not exist when the documents were allegedly created.
I’ve pointed out that the First Annual Report written in 1952 mentions Project
Moon Dust which wasn’t created until late 1957 as an example. The MJ-12 manual
SOM1-01 sent to Don Berliner some time ago, suggested as one of the cover
stories to suggest to the press that the debris was from a “downed satellite.”
The manual was allegedly created in 1954 when there were no satellites to crash
and scatter debris. Such a suggestion prior to October 1957 would raise more
questions than it answered.
What
all that means is that the documents have some real problems that are not
easily explained. They contain information that just wasn’t available when they
were allegedly created and they seem to be predictive of the future. Or, more
precisely, this seems to suggest the documents are forged.
However, the real question
that I have is how one person can hold two sets of beliefs that are mutually
exclusive. If the EBD is authentic, then the tales of other crashes, on the
Plains of San Agustin and at Aztec must be false… and if those are real events,
then why are they not mentioned in the EBD? One set of facts or documents must
be wrong and given everything else we know, it seems obvious that all of the
documents are fraudulent… but as they say, “That’s just my opinion
Gen. Landry provided some legitimate insider insight regarding what was and was not put in writing regarding UFOs in those days.
ReplyDelete"I was directed to report quarterly to the President after consulting with Central Intelligence people, as to whether or not any UFO incidents received by them could be considered as having any strategic threatening implications at all.
The report was to be made orally by me unless it was considered by intelligence to be so serious or alarming as to warrant a more detailed report in writing. During the four and one-half years in office there, all reports were made orally. Nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence."
Of course we know that this protocol included the 52 DC UFO incident.
"However, the real question that I have is how one person can hold two sets of beliefs that are mutually exclusive."
ReplyDeleteBecause they are loyally devoted to a party platform regardless of the specific circumstance at hand and whether or not it is reasonable to do so. They don't concern themselves from one incident to the next about things like verifiable evidence or previously established facts that have bearing. They simply support a given concept, be it alien visitation, conspiracy theories, stubbornly unreasonable debunking or any number of such perspectives - and in spite of how aptly the preferred perspective may or may not apply to any given circumstance. Thanks for pointing it out, KR, as it is a relevant point.
Can but agree...
ReplyDeleteMuch of this comes across as an unfortunate distraction from what seems like more credible evidence, namely:
The Smith memo
Sarbacher's acknowledgement that he was the source for the information Smith set out
The consistency of the Smith memo with the hints left us by Ruppelt of a reporting route to Research and Development.
Ruppelt suggested that he thought "the Major General from R&D" was called something like White...the only name he was vague about. There was an army Major General Jerry White who was military secretary ( from memory - will have to check exact title) of the JRDB / RDB in 1950. That seems a little early to be the same person Ruppelt was referring to as being in 1952 meetings but is a possibility for further investigation.
Convenient timing, all that MJ stuff, just as people where making these connections, and with some of the players still alive all that mass of noise descends... And we're still talking about it!
This doesn't address anything in the above post, but I found this interview with former Blue Book head, Lt. Col. Robert Freind very interesting: http://www.openminds.tv/air-force-colonels-inside-look-of-project-blue-book/2576
ReplyDeleteLt. Col. Friend on Menzel's visit to BB to check files for information: "Dr. Menzel in writing his book came to Wright-Patterson and stayed there and I helped him put together the information that went into his book, in other words, he needed the cases, we talked, discussed the cases, so forth, he didn’t know anything more about what was going on in that program until he came up there and got a chance to see."
MJ-12 learning about UFOs from Project Blue Book files does not compute.
I think MJ-12 haunts us because it provides characters to fill in the holes in the government cover-up storyline.
There is a method of proof of some mathematical theorems called "reductio ad absurdum". It is usually applied to Euclidean geometry. It consists of assuming the proposed theorem is false, then making logical deductions from this, eventually arriving at a contradiction. This means the original assumption (i.e. that the theorem is false) is itself false. Hence, the given theorem is true.
ReplyDeleteIs this not exactly what you have done with the EBD? We assume the EBD is a true document - and hey presto by following the logic through, we deduce that it is a false document.
The analogy may not be quite the same, but the methodology is. We do not have the exactness and fineness to apply "reductio ad absurdum" perfectly, but we do have enough, as you say, to assert that, quite simply, the various documents contradict each other and cannot all be true. The simplest answer is to say all of them are false.
I do know one at least person who will certainly disagree here. This person is a "renowned" (his term) nuclear physicist. I believe you know who I am referring to.
It's time to stop talking about Government coverup and disclosure...it's a dead-end road. The Government is as clueless as the populace...get over it. There is no significant evidence for alien visitations....UFO sighting yes but purely of terrestrial origins!
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteFrank Stalter wrote:
(General Landry about UFO briefings to Truman): "The report was to be made orally by me unless it was considered by intelligence to be so serious or alarming as to warrant a more detailed report in writing. During the four and one-half years in office there, all reports were made orally. Nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence."
Of course we know that this protocol included the 52 DC UFO incident.
Landry probably wasn't being totally candid, since obviously something WAS considered very credible or threatening during the 52 DC and a myriad other incidents because:
1) Ruppelt wrote: "A few days prior to the incident a scientist, from an agency that I can't name, and I were talking about the build-up of reports along the east coast of the United States. We talked for about two hours... he had one last comment to make - a prediction. From his study of the UFO reports that he was getting from Air Force Headquarters, and from discussions with his colleagues, he said that he thought that we were sitting right on top of a big keg full of loaded flying saucers. 'Within the next few days,' he told me, and I remember that he punctuated his slow, deliberate remarks by hitting the desk with his fist, 'they're going to blow up and you're going to have the granddaddy of all UFO sightings. The sighting will occur in Washington or New York,' he predicted, 'probably Washington.'
2) CIA historian Gerald Haines, in his 1997 history of the CIA's involvement with UFOs, mentions Truman's great concern over this: "A massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952, especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20 July, radar scopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared."
3) Next day (July 28), Ruppelt wrote that: "About 10:00 A.M. the President's air aide, Brigadier General Landry, called intelligence at President Truman's request to find out what was going on. Somehow I got the call. I told General Landry that the radar target could have been caused by weather but that we had no proof."
3) Truman's concern may have led to the Air Force issuing a "shootdown order", which they admitted to in an INS news story July 29, 1952:
http://www.roswellproof.com/ShootDown_INS_72952.html
This also led to some telegrams to the White House decrying the shootdown order as unwise and dangerous.
4) Same day (July 29), the largest Washington press conference since WWII was called to calm reported public anxiety. This was the infamous debunking press conference involving Gen.'s John Samford and Roger Ramey of Roswell weather balloon infamy.
5) Same day: SECRET, EYES ONLY MEMO to Deputy Director/Intelligence from Ralph L. Clark, Acting Asst. Dir. of Scientific Intelligence stating: "In the past several weeks numerous UFOs have been sighted visually and on radar. This office (CIA) has maintained a continuing review of reputed sightings for the past three years and a special group has been formed to review the sightings to date. O/CI and O/SI [Offices of Central and Scientific Intelligence] will participate in this study and prepare a report on UFOs by August 15, 1952."
Another CIA SECRET MEMO to Director, CIA, from H. Marshall Chadwell, of CIA's O/SI: "ATIC has set up a worldwide reporting network for Flying Saucers and major Air Force bases have been ordered to make interceptions of UFOs... From 1947 to date, there have been 1500 official sightings with 250 of them in 1952 alone. Of the 1500, 28% remain unexplained. UFOs are of such importance that the matter should be brought before the National Security Council."
part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteSo UFOs visually and on radar over Washington, Truman concerned, jets ordered to intercept at all major bases, shootdown orders, CIA obviously concerned starting internal scientific study and feeling matter so important it should be brought before the NSC.
This does not sound like "nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence."
I have seen the usage of the "reductio ad absurdum" method in order to demonstrate algebraic or calculus theorems, but when it comes to real life, using the method may be risky at best.
ReplyDeleteWhen the human factor is involded, things get a little more complicated: the passion, the emotions, the greed, the necessity of keeping your job, the changes of opinion, the changes of moods, the cases of misinformation or the lack of information, the mistakes, all make great differences and apparently very absurd and or/contradictory situations do indeed occur in politics, businesses, scientific enterprises, and every human endeavor or relationship that one can imagine, including (of course) the relationships between ufologists. My point is that contradictions and absurd situations do occur in daily life, and that does not mean that the daily activities containing such absurd situations are non-existent, or that they are "false" activities.
So the existence of contradictions between two documents may reveal that one of the documents is false, that the two documents are false, or that neither document is false.
Specifically, there may be many reasons why an incident is not mentioned in one briefing and is mentioned in other briefing. One reason is compartmentalization. E.g. The officer in charge of a given briefing simply did not know about other incidents, because the level of secrecy of every incident is different. Or, the officer was explicitly instructed to not to include some incidents because such incidents were still under investigation, or because such incidents were included in a previous briefing, or simply because his superior wanted to focus in some specific topic, or simply because that day his superior did not want to review an excessively large briefing. That last possibility is what I mean by the "human factor".
With respect to the MJ-12 manual SOM1-01, Kevin said that it was allegedly created in 1954 and concluded that it therefore could not realistically contain the clause on the downed satellites. Let's look at it more closely: Was the manual really created in 1954? What if not? Or what if it was indeed created in 1954 but that it underwent a posterior revision? Consider that it is a manual, it is not a letter or memorandum. Manuals and other procedural documents normally are, or should be, subjected to reviews and revisions, which may have happened years after the creation of the document. So the appearance of the term satellite on it may be not so fatal as Kevin would like to think.
Regards,
Hey David,
ReplyDeleteI think the key thing to take from Landry's comments is that it was a pretty high bar for something in writing to go to or from the president.
Landry's unsolicited written post script to his oral history at the Truman library is a huge revelation and I think that reasonable assumption about UFO documents and at least President Truman can be drawn. Maybe Landry is engaging in some doublespeak . . . . nothing in writing ever. I don't think that's unreasonable.
That works against any validity to any MJ-12 documents.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI think you drawing too broad a conclusion. Landry said Truman's instructions to him were no written briefings TO TRUMAN unless absolutely necessary (which by itself means, if necessary, even Truman would accept a written briefing).
First, Landry didn't come on board the Truman Administration until early 1948, so this doesn't necessarily invalidate written UFO briefings before Landry (i.e. 1947) and his instructions to provide only oral briefings.
Nor does it forbid written briefings within other departments not directly involving Truman, after Truman, and to other Presidents, who might have their own ideas of how they wanted briefings.
Quite a few of the "MJ-12 docs" thus fall outside of the oral briefing restriction given specifically to Landry--all 1947 (e.g., original Truman signature doc forming MJ-12), all other Presidents (such as Eisenhower--1952 Eisenhower briefing doc, 1954 Cutler-Twining memo), other departments (SOM manual), etc. This doesn't somehow validate them, only points out Landry's instructions didn't preclude them.
However you interpret Landry, he was admitting Truman considered UFOs to be very important and a high security matter, requiring regular briefings based on central intelligence. If at all possible, Truman didn't want a paper trail leading back to the Presidency, i.e., plausible deniability, which is the name of the game at this level of government (hence such things as the NSC and covert ops to keep the President at arms length away from anything that could blow up in his face if it became public).
Overall there is clear evidence of a gap in the historical record that we have available.
ReplyDeleteLandry's comments around verbal briefings appear to be only a part of this picture. During the Truman administration at least the UFO issue reached the top of a number of agencies including the Air Force and the CIA. There is very little in the way of a paper trail concerning co-ordination between these agencies. The very abrupt appearance of the CIA study in July 1952 is an example - the paperwork begins at a middle management level with no record of the original decision...
The reasonable evidence for a second tier of technical / scientific study (under the chairmanship of Vannevar Bush as of 1950) and centred in Research and Development also appears to be a gap in the official record. In some ways noting what is missing in the paper trail is as interesting as what is actually there.
None of this establishes the ETH, although Ruppelt tells us that this second group was convinced of it. It also strikes me as perfectly reasonable as a policy response. Authorities never like to admit the aren't in total control and the wider risks of the situation in terms of sociological impacts remain largely unchanged today. Letting things lie, whilst quietly trying to tease out any lessons that can be learnt, may well be the most sensible option...alas my curiosity gets the better of my own better judgement.
Anthony:
ReplyDeleteYou state there is "reasonable evidence" for a scientific study under Vannevar Bush's chairmanship c. 1950.
You mean that Wilbert Smith said so in his (in)famous memo. Nobody else said so, and there is no documentary evidence from Bush himself, or anyone else, that he ever chaired a committee investigating UFOs.
You really are clutching at straws here. Where is there anything to show that Bush even sat on any such committee, let alone chaired it?
Even those handwritten notes by Smith from his interview with Sarbacher do NOT mention Vannevar Bush. So from whom do you think Smith got this story?
Or are we straying off track? (Answer: yes we are, a bit). The "clear evidence of a gap in the historical record" is there, but only if you want it to be there.
Did Bush ever write anything at all about UFOs? Where is it?
Yes, I know absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence (as per the gospel according to you know who).
Hi CDA
ReplyDeleteI think the triangulation of sources between Smith, Sarbacher and Ruppelt is sufficient to make a case.
At the end of the day when policy makers were being advised by Project Sign that some of these things were real and probably extraterrestrial, or conversely by Air Intelligence Analysis Division (title approximate and from memory) that some of these things were real and possibly Russian, a Project Grudge type response seems a little odd...
unless Grudge's / Blue Book's role was to:
a) act as a public face
b) filter reports in the days prior to complete radar coverage and civilian organisations that could do the job for you, and
c) then pass on reports to some grown ups who could consider the data quietly and objectively...
Which is what the above sources seem to add up to.
Just a hypothesis of course...
Hey David,
ReplyDeleteIt's the Eisenhower doc that's the key here and that one was purportedly written while Truman was head man as a key element to the transition process.
I've read them all. I think they're well researched and entertaining, but I've never seen anything in them that makes me lean towards any of the MJ-12 Docs sent Shandera's way being authentic.
Part One of Two:
ReplyDeleteThere is some interesting "wiggle room" in Landry's statement of the following:
"I was directed to report quarterly to the President after consulting with Central Intelligence people, as to whether or not any UFO incidents received by them could be considered as having any strategic threatening implications at all.
"The report was to be made orally by me unless it was considered by intelligence to be so serious or alarming as to warrant a more detailed report in writing. During the four and one-half years in office there, all reports were made orally. Nothing of substance considered credible or threatening to the country was ever received from intelligence."
Notice USAF General Landry's comments refer only to "Central Intelligence" and "intelligence," both presumably meaning the CIA.
But the 1952 "Washington Nationals" dual weekends of UFOs seen on three different radar systems, both civilian and military (USAF), and seen visually from both radar towers, in the air, and by a very frightened USAF Lt. William Patterson,** who was surrounded at one point by four white "glows" in his pursuit over Washington, D.C. of objects he was vectored toward, primarily concerned USAF personnel, radar operators, etc.
So, the question arises: was Landry being "clever" or "elusive" here in referring to nothing coming to him from the CIA, when the agency to inquire of or receive info about the "Washington Nationals" sightings would have been from the USAF, not CIA, which had not even begun their short-term inquiry into the UFO sightings, initially directed from Truman, via Landry, to Ruppelt, the head of the USAF's Project Blue Book at the time? Landry says nothing, either way, about getting info from the USAF, but only the CIA. And Landry was a USAF General. Interesting, eh? 8^}
And, as Frank Stalter discovered, there was a very interesting, off-the-record, pair of Sept. 3, 1952 meetings at the White House with Truman and numerous USAF personnel, RAND, NSRB, in the morning, and in the afternoon with the CIA director and NSC Exec. Sec., and other intriguing personnel, and the only specific thing known about the first meeting was that it was in regard to a "briefing on the defense of the capital."
The personnel attending, and the timing, a little over a month after the final weekend of capital area UFO sightings, may very well be significant.
It would take about that long for the various USAF and CIA personnel to research and come up with briefing materials on the "Washington Nationals" in order to inform the President of their findings, whatever they may have been.
No smoking gun, but highly suggestive, at least, of smoke in the room, IMHO.
See: http://bit.ly/1dJ1Rnf and http://bit.ly/1pBFGAT
Kevin, who do you think generated the original MJ-12 documents, the Cutler/Twining memo found in the archives, the EBD, and the SOM 1=01 manual? My bet is on William Moore and/or Richard C. Doty. Maybe Shandera on the C/T memo..
Your candidates?
Could some of the MJ-12 docs been part of an early Cold War psyop to draw out Soviet interest, and later used to divert/confuse ufologists, like in the Bennewitz affair (recycling)?
Part Two of Two:
ReplyDelete**References to the above comment:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident
Excerpt:
** "However, his wingman, Lt. William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them. Suddenly, the "glows" turned and surrounded his fighter. Patterson asked the control tower at National Airport what he should do; according to Chop, the tower's answer was "stunned silence". The four lights then sped away from Patterson's jet and disappeared.[14]"
"14.^ (Clark, p. 659)" [from Jerome Clark's "UFO Encyclopedia"]
See also: http://bit.ly/1ojBMiT
[Google book search of Jerome Clark's "Strange Skies / Pilot Encounters with UFOs"]
And: http://washingtonoddities.blogspot.com/2010/09/ufos-over-dc.html
Plus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12
I believe Landry's "central intelligence" reference is to the Air technical Intelligence Center out of Wright-Pat which oversaw Blue Book. They're the one's who had the best UFO info.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the EBD, there's the question of why Hillenkoetter would deliver this info? He was out as CIA director, replaced by Bedell Smith . . . who had been Ike's chief of staff in Europe during the war.
In fact, James Carrion turned up some docs that indicate Smith conducted at least one significant transition briefing.
http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.jp/2012/02/real-eisenhower-briefing-documents.html
"My bet is on William Moore and/or Richard C. Doty. Maybe Shandera on the C/T memo.."
ReplyDeleteHello Steve:
Did you ask these people whether or not they created these documents?
Frank,
ReplyDeleteLandry's comments did not absolutely preclude written briefings to Truman. They were allowed if deemed necessary.
The so-called Eisenhower briefing document, in any case, was not a briefing for Truman but for the President-elect, Eisenhower.
Again, none of this lends support to the authenticity of any MJ-12 document received by Shandera, but contrarily, the fact that there might have been written briefings does not somehow invalidate them as authentic. If that were the case, no written government UFO document would ever be authentic.
@Frank:
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess we disagree then. Landry referred to "Central Intelligence," as in the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA.
He didn't refer to "Air Intelligence," "AF Intelligence," or ATIC.
But, that's part of my point: Landry's statement from his oral history is ambiguous. I suppose he could have meant either one, but the context of his terminology suggests CIA, not the USAF's ATIC, to me.
@Don:
"Did you ask these people whether or not they created these documents?"
No, there would be no point in doing so, since both Doty and Moore have been asked many dozens of times over the past nearly 30 years now whether either of them were in any way responsible for creating any of the MJ-12 documents, and as far as I know, they have both always denied it, repeatedly.
But if you know some things about the history of Moore or Doty, they are the two most likely "suspects."
Start here for the basic background:
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
Hey David,
ReplyDelete"The so-called Eisenhower briefing document, in any case, was not a briefing for Truman but for the President-elect, Eisenhower."
By people working for Truman.
"Again, none of this lends support to the authenticity of any MJ-12 document received by Shandera."
There really isn't anything that does. That's the problem with them. What's good about them is they're entertaining jumping off points for deeper research.
Since Anthony Mugan brought up the Wilbert Smith memo, I think we can take it as near to certainty as possible that the EBD was written by someone who had seen this 35-year old memo.
ReplyDeleteThe Smith memo dates from 1950 but was not released until either 1978 or 1979, at the request of a Canadian researcher named Arthur Bray. It was then passed to Stan Friedman and Bill Moore, the latter seeing it before THE ROSWELL INCIDENT was published in 1980. Small portions of the memo are shown in the book. The necessary and vital archival research among the files of Vannevar Bush was done during 1981-82 by Moore, Shandera and Friedman. (STF admits this much himself). The reason Bush's files were of such interest to them was because Bush was specifically named in that Smith 1950 memo as leader of a small group investigating the flying discs. All the names of those allegedly on the MJ-12 committee appear among the various Bush papers at the Library of Congress. Having obtained these names, the forger(s) then examined some of the papers of these named persons, and so on, etc.
The MJ-12 hoax was thus born.
Hillenkoetter's name was chosen mainly because he was at one time a governor of NICAP. Menzel's name was chosen to spring a 'surprise' on the public since he was such a rabid debunker in times past.
CDA said: "Hillenkoetter's name was chosen mainly because he was at one time a governor of NICAP. Menzel's name was chosen to spring a 'surprise' on the public since he was such a rabid debunker in times past."
ReplyDeleteWow! Once again debunkers surprising us with their psychic skills.
(by the way, Menzel as an intentional "surprise" is one the most fascinatingly ad-hoc theories I have seen.)
Frank said about the MJ documents:
ReplyDelete"There really isn't anything that does. That's the problem with them. What's good about them is they're entertaining jumping off points for deeper research."
If these are hoaxes, Why then would they be jumping off points?
I believe that if the main MJ-12 documents are hoaxes, the only outsider with the intellectual height to create such documents would have been Friedman himself (a possibility that of course can be readily discounted). The other possibility is some insider with good knowledge and probably access to real documents.
My previous elucubration sounds good, but somewhat tortured. I prefer to calmly think that the first MJ-12 documents are the real thing, as proposed by Friedman in his books.
@Don Maor
ReplyDelete> Once again debunkers surprising us with their psychic skills.
> Menzel as an intentional "surprise" is one the most fascinatingly ad-hoc theories I have seen
James Moseley favoured this theory. He wrote about MJ-12: “Including Menzel was a clever ploy and a subtle joke. And the joke's on Stan Friedman” (Shockingly Close to the Truth! p. 265).
And it worked. In Captured!, Friedman defends the Hills from criticism by smearing Menzel, saying he had done work “for the CIA, NSA...and was probably a member of the Majestic 12 Group controlling classified UFO research.” Never does he tell his readers what most ufologists believe -- that MJ-12 is a hoax.
> the real question that I have is how one person can hold two sets of beliefs that are mutually exclusive
ReplyDeleteKevin describes a strictly logical conflict resulting from a disagreement of facts. However, our emotions influence our thoughts -- or at least our thought processes -- and we are not strictly logical.
We all have an emotional investment in being right -- an emotional need for certainty rather than self-doubt. Preserving our self-esteem from pesky facts and reasoned analysis might seem immature but it's only human.
Don -
ReplyDeleteReally? Even after Friedman wrote that he, Moore and Shandera already had the knowledge to create the EBD? Even after we find the mistakes in it that lead to a hoax conclusion? Even after, in some 30, not a single authentic document has been found? Really?
No, I don't think Stan had a hand in creating these documents but he has become the number one proponent of them... and contrary to what he claims, he has been unable to debunk all the claims of hoax including the major stumbling block of a lack of provenance...
Even after showing that this one part of the EBD is a hoax and proving it? Really?
"If these are hoaxes, Why then would they be jumping off points?"
ReplyDeleteThey're reasonably well researched. The Truman-Bush-Forrestal meeting checks out. You get the names of the MJ12 members to get to work on. They helped me when I got started doing my research. By checking them out, you can learn a lot about what went on.
The research to produce the 3 primary documents would have taken 12 to 18 months. It would not be difficult, it just required dedication by someone devoted to proving Roswell was ET and that selected high-up people knew all about it. Moore & Shandera were probably the perpetrators, with Friedman assisting, albeit unwittingly, in their research into names, dates and events. Stan then became the 'fall guy' (and still is).
ReplyDeleteYes Don, Kevin is right and you are wrong. No I am not psychic either. However, I do read between the lines sometimes.
The problem with the arguments that allegedly debunk the first MJ documents is that many of them have not resisted a closer scrutiny, and those which have resisted, are not conclusive.
ReplyDeleteKevin Randle's objection on the EBD that uses the “Del Rio” case connection is inconclusive. Randle even tried to use Zechel's claims to reinforce his theory, but that method had the opposite effect given that Sechel was shown to be not trustable.
The argument of the alleged anachronism clause on the “downed satellites” that appears in the MJ SOM manual. Again, inconclusive. Manuals and procedures are normally revised, so the document could have been revised in the sixties.
The problem of the identical Truman’s sign. Interesting but Inconclusive.
The fatal flaw of the “75 miles” of Brad Sparks. Interesting but inconclusive.
With respect to the points in favor of the authenticity of the first Majestic documents, they are listed in Friedman’s excellent book “Top Secret Majic”. To be fair, his arguments are very good but also inconclusive. The good thing is there are many of them in the book.
¿What is the problem of the debunkers of the first MJ documents? As Steven Kaeser explained, there is no admission from Moore, Doty or Shandera of being the perpetrators of the hoax, even after being asked explicitly many times about the topic. I believe that this is a major problem. This problem is even greater than the problem of the so called “lack of provenance” of the MJ documents that troubles the proponents of the MJ documents. ¿How can it be so hard to get an admission from the supposed hoaxers given that they are all identified?
Don -
ReplyDeleteReally? You attach more weight to the fact that neither Moore nor Doty has admitted the hoax than you do to the fact there is no provenance for the documents? You are aware, of course, that the very first MJ-12 document, the Aquarius Telex (which mentioned MJ-12) was a retype of a real message... Moore admitted he retyped it, but, again the original document, when found, did not mention MJ-12... And Friedman doesn't mention it in his book. Doesn't that suggest something about MJ-12?
You mention the Truman signature, but in every document signed by Truman, the cross stroke in the "T" intersects with the text of the document, except on that memo. Does it worry you that you can see where the cross stroke has been modified to remove the remnants of the typed letters it touched?
I will tell you that if the SOM 1-01 had been revised, you would see the "pen and ink" revisions, or if reprinted, it would have the new date on it. The "downed satellites" anachronism cannot be explained by that... and it is but one of meny problems with the manual.
How many mistakes does it take in these documents before you say, "This is one too many."
And the nonsense about Del Rio/El Indio UFO crash should not be in an authentic document because there was no such incident, and if there was no such incident, then the document if fake.
Kevin, thanks for your answer, specially about the Aquarius Telex issue.
ReplyDeleteAn erratum in my previous message is that a I wrote Steven Kaeser and the correct name to be written was "Steve Sawyer".
Regards,
Could the flaws and contradictions of newer documentation be deversions from the intitial story??? Could they be a means to dillute and discredit the truth or make it seem froadulant???
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteThis partial, edited comment is reposted here (with a speculative addendum included in Part 2), since I mistakenly posted it, or the first 4 paragraphs (with additional opinion in longer form) originally in the comment thread of the succeeding blog post by Kevin, in error. Mea culpa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Don:
Did you read any of the articles at the links I provided to you above regarding how and why MJ-12 and the related EDB, C/T, Forrestal, and SOM 1-01 documents are a now proven hoax and fraud?
If not, your really need to do some reading, and the required research, before more "armchair" speculation about MJ-12 and related matters.
The real answers to your repeated questions and doubts are there, in the data, as Kevin has cited now several times to you.
If you don't take the time and make the effort to do what I'm suggesting, and find out for yourself, instead of rehashing what should be obvious to you by now, and as Kevin and David Rudiak have documented, then I'm afraid your "will to believe" and consequent confirmation biases in favor of the MJ-12 documents and supposed crashes cannot be remedied. FYI, DIY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Addendum]
Bottom line: MJ-12 is a fraud, part of an elaborate con, and a hoax.
Regardless of what you apparently wish to believe, using Stanton Friedman's "Top Secret / Majic" book as your source and reference, at least in part apparently, it is now very well-established that the "original MJ-12 documents" disclosed to Shandera, Friedman, and Berliner, and that Friedman still apparently supports as "genuine" are, in fact, not. They are fraudulent. Read Greg Bishop's book, "Project Beta" for additional info and insight.
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteNow, I should add, that's not to say that there absolutely may not have been (and/or may or may not still be) _some_ kind of US government element(s) within the military and/or intelligence agencies of, perhaps, some sort of UFO "control group" -- that is possible, but unknown. Logically, one "cannot prove a negative."
It's just that such has not been proven. All evidence in that regard is rather circumstantial, questionable, and/or second-hand. As yet, there is no direct documentation or proof of any such "control group" publicly known.
Conceptually, though, it's actually kind of difficult for me to objectively think (or "believe") that no such group ever existed (and/or may not still exist today).
You'd think, with the body of historical evidence, best case incidents, radar tracking, some very rare incidents of ground trace effects, past USAF fighter jet pursuit of evasive UFOs with seemingly reactive and anomalous maneuvers and interactive "behaviors" (or movement/motion), multiple-witness cases by military, intelligence, and government scientific personnel, theodolite sightings by highly-qualified ground observers, NORAD tracking of "uncorrelated target tracks," or UCT's, and NORAD's known tracking of what they have colloquially referred to as "fast walkers" and "slow walkers," that there must be some kind of deeply-classified US government mil/intell group, elements, or "special access" org or program involved in the past and perhaps currently with UFO report collection, investigation, and analysis (but, if so, it remains a very closely-guarded secret).
[While the Bolender memo was quite explicitly "suggestive," no additional or supplementary "follow-up" documentation about the alternative, non-Blue Book reporting channel, implying perhaps some CIRVIS or MERINT-type reporting avenue existed for reporting UFOs with national security implications he referred to, seems to exist in the public domain. It's also "intriguing" that NORAD (and its sub-elements), as an "international" agency, i.e., US and Canada, is seemingly almost entirely "immune" from requests for info on and declassification of these UCT/fast & slow walker incidents or cases from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Most "convenient" for the USG agency with the very best ground, air, and satellite resources for atmospheric and space surveillance, IMHO.]
And, if not, there certainly should be and should have been, given just the circumstantial evidence noted above. I personally do not think that the relevant agencies of the US government concerned with national security issues are either oblivious to, that stupid, or ignorant of, the best UFO evidence in the past, particularly, and its potential significance, IMHO. But that's just my speculation, and personal opinion. Nothing more.
All I know for sure is that, in turn, if such an effort or org existed/exists, it was not called MJ-12, Majic, or Majestic.
MJ-12, possibly, could even be what you might call a "doppelganger" parallel kind of cover story, or USG/USAF/CIA/AFOSI sort of psyop, to discredit and divert researchers with the now-known "bad smell" of the MJ-12 "red herring" from pursuing or taking seriously the idea of some other group with a similar function and purpose, though.
If so, that would be a very clever diversionary tale to create a "wild goose chase" up the wrong path, and away from any such actual group. Hard to say. But there is no real evidence or vetted documentation about that idea publicly known or confirmed, as far as I know.
So all of the issues cited here remain unresolved, unfortunately. Empirically, that's the best than can be said. For now. **sigh**
Maybe in another 65 years we'll know better. Or, maybe not.