Thursday, April 10, 2014

Eisenhower Briefing Document, MJ-12, and the Washington Alert

I am often stunned by the mental gymnastics of some to keep a cherished belief alive in the face of documented facts and reliable testimony. I am often surprised when something that I believe to be obvious from the evidence available is rejected for speculation that has no supporting proof. When the facts line up, when there is good evidence for a conclusion, when it all seems to be so obvious to me, I simply fail to understand how it is that others can’t see with the same clarity. And yes, I know there are those who believe Roswell to be a Mogul balloon will point at me and say the same things but this isn’t about Roswell or Mogul balloons (and besides, I can point at the Mogul explanation and say the same thing about that conclusion).

This is about the Eisenhower Briefing Document (EBD) and the fatal flaw that is contained in it. I am going to lay all the facts out at length because those other postings which contain the information are spread throughout this blog. I haven’t put it all together into a single document until now. There is a caveat, however. I am not going to review all the other problems with the EBD including a lack of provenance, the other factual errors, or the misspellings and incorrect security classifications. I am going to deal with the one paragraph that relates to another UFO crash that is a hoax and as such shouldn’t have been included in a briefing written for the incoming president. That entry said:

On 06 December, 1950, a second object, probably of similar origin, impacted the earth at high speed in the El Indio – Guerrero area of the Texas – Mexican boder [sic] after following a long trajectory through the atmosphere. By the time a search team arrived, what remained of the object had been almost totally incinerated. Such material as could be recovered was transported to the A.E.C. facility at Sandia, New Mexico, for study.
The first mention of this report of a crash in any sort of a public arena came from Robert Willingham, a pilot in the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), which is identified as an official auxiliary of the United States Air Force. To be clear, it is not a part of the Air Force, members of the CAP are not paid for their service, they do not earn retirement points, and they are not considered to be part of the Reserve Component of the United States military. They are civilians who wear modified uniforms and provide a valuable service in search and rescue operations. But understand, they are not part of the military.

Willingham, and several other CAP pilots, were interviewed in the late 1960s about their experiences with UFOs. This was done for a small “shopper” type of newspaper, and while I have been unable to find that specific article, I did find a summary of Willingham’s statements in MUFON’s Skylook, which was their newsletter/magazine in the 1960s. According to the March, 1968 issue:

Col. R. B. Willingham, CAP squadron commander, has had an avid interest in UFO’s for years, dating back to 1948 when he was leading a squadron of F-94 jets near the Mexican border in Texas and was advised by radio that three UFO’s “flying formation” were near. He picked them up on his plane radar and was informed one of the UFO’s had crashed a few miles away from him in Mexico. He went to the scene of the crash but was prevented by the Mexican authorities from making an investigation or coming any closer than 60 feet. From that vantage point the wreckage seemed to consist of “numerous pieces of metal polished on the outside, very rough on the inner sides.”
For those keeping score at home, please note that it clearly states that Willingham is in the CAP, that the date of the sighting is 1948, that he was flying an F-94, there were three UFOs instead of just one, that he saw them on his plane’s radar and was told that one had crashed in Mexico. I mention these things because this is the first time that Willingham told the story in public and it was written down in an article for those who wish to verify the accuracy of the statements… which is not to say that what he was saying was true, only that I have reported here exactly what was reported in 1968.

I did find another 1968 article about Willingham that is important to this discussion because it proves Willingham had a long interest in UFOs. I found, in the NICAP UFO Investigator for March 1968 on page one:

During the early morning hours of January 12, Colonel Robert Willingham, of the Civil Air Patrol, a member of the Subcommittee, was alerted by Chairman George Cook to a UFO seen by a police dispatcher near Camp Hill.
Col. Willingham sighted the orange-and-white glowing object at an altitude of not more than 150 feet, as it traveled toward North Mountain. The UFO appeared to be between 30 and 40 feet in diameter. The former jet pilot followed the object by car until it disappeared behind trees in the Mountain section.
In other words, NICAP was so unimpressed with the crash story, they didn’t even mention it. Instead, they published a Willingham UFO sighting that was rather mundane.  It was just an object in the sky, noting that Willingham was a colonel in the CAP but said nothing about any association with the Air Force Reserve. It also said that Willingham belonged to NICAP underscoring his interest in UFOs.

We all know that W. Todd Zechel tracked down Willingham and got a statement from him. Zechel made that point repeatedly, and there is no dispute that it is accurate. Zechel found Willingham and talked to him. In fact, Zechel was able to get Willingham to sign an affidavit about his experiences in 1977. That date does not seem to be in dispute.

That affidavit does little to enhance the credibility of the tale. It does allow us to make some comparisons, however. It said:

Down in Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, we were testing what turned out to be the F-94. They reported on the [radar] scope that they had an unidentified flying object at a high speed to intercept our course. It came visible to us and we wanted to take off after it. Headquarters wouldn’t let us go after it and it played around a little bit. We got to watching how it made 90 degree turns at this high speed and everything. We knew it wasn’t a missile of any type. So then we confirmed it with the radar control station on the DEW Line (NORAD) and they kept following it and they claimed that it crashed somewhere off between Texas and the Mexican border. We got a light aircraft, me and my co-pilot, and we went down to the site. We landed out in the pasture right across from the where it hit. We got over there. They told us to leave and everything else and then the armed guards came out and they started to form a line around the area. So, on the way back, I saw a little piece of metal so I picked it up and brought it back with me. There were two sand mounds that came down and it looked to me like this thing crashed right in between them. But it went into the ground, according to the way people were acting around it. But you could see for, oh I’d say, three to five hundred yards where it had went across the sand. It looked to me, I guess from the metal that we found, chunks of metal, that it either had a little explosion or it began to disintegrate. Something caused this metal to come apart.
It looked like it was something that was made because it was honeycombed. You know how you would make a metal that would cool faster. In a way it looked like magnesium steel but it had a lot of carbon in it. I tried to heat it with a cutting torch. It just wouldn’t melt. A cutting torch burns anywhere from 3200 to 3800 degrees Fahrenheit and it would make the metal hot but it wouldn’t even start to melt.
Please notice here that he is in his F-94 and that DEW line radar picked up the object but it says nothing about where the object was first sighted nor does it mention where Willingham was flying at the time. Most importantly, this affidavit gives no date for the sighting which is a major oversight. That becomes important later.

Len Stringfield, a well-respected UFO researcher who took an interest in UFO crashes when the rest of us were ignoring them, collected many stories of crashes. In 1978 he wrote a paper for the MUFON Symposium, which allows us to date this next chapter in this case. He wrote, “...Months later in 1977, I was to learn more about a crashed disc occurring in 1948. This came from researcher Todd Zeckel [sic], whom I had known since 1975 when he became Research Director of Ground Saucer Watch... The crash occurred about 30 miles inside the Mexican border across from Laredo, Texas, and was recovered by U.S. troops after it was tracked on radar screens... Zeckel pieced together other eyewitnesses to the 1948 crash event.”

According to Stringfield, Zechel reported:

I traced another Air Force colonel, now retired in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He had seen the UFO in flight. He was flying an F-94 fighter out of Dias [sic] Air Force base in Texas and was over Albuquerque, New Mexico, when reports came of a UFO on the West Coast, flying over Washington State. Radars clocked its speed at 2,000 miles per hours.
It made a 90 – degree turn and flew east, over Texas. The colonel, then a captain pilot, actually saw it as it passed. Then suddenly it disappeared from radar screens. At Dias [sic] base, the radar operators plotted its course, and decided it had crashed some 30 miles across the Mexican border from Laredo. When the captain got back to base, he and a fellow pilot got into a small plane and took off over the border after the UFO. When they landed in the desert at the crash site, U.S. troops were there before them.
The craft was covered with a canopy [tarpaulin?], and the two pilots were not allowed to see it. They were then called to Washington, D.C. for debriefing and sworn to secrecy about the whole event.
It’s clear from the above information that Zechel was reporting on the story told by Willingham. We know, based on documentation available, that Willingham was living in Pennsylvania at the time and the other details of the story are close to what Willingham had originally reported. Please note here that Willingham is still flying his F-94, that the crash site is near Laredo, Texas, that it happened in 1948, and that it was tracked on radar. Also note that the radars put the UFO over Washington state which will become important later.

What we have here is a single witness tale that is believed because the man telling it is a retired Air Force colonel and a veteran fighter pilot. These two facts lend to his credibility and I know that when I first heard this story and was told it came from a high-ranking Air Force officer, I was inclined to believe it, especially since we had Jesse Marcel and so many others around Roswell talking of the crash there. This simply means that I was a little less suspicious of tales of crashes, given what I knew about Roswell. Please remember here, that I learned of Willingham’s crashed saucer tale after several trips to Roswell, rather than coming upon it cold.

There was another fact that came out later. According to Zechel, the crash didn’t take place in 1948 but in December 1950. Bruce Maccabee, another respected UFO researcher had been sending Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests to the FBI, among other places. His persistence paid off and he received a huge stack of documents that included some that related to some sort of alert in December 1950.

The question becomes did the alert have anything to do with UFOs. According to the documents found by Maccabee and others, on December 6, 1950, unidentified objects were spotted by radar heading toward the eastern seaboard. This triggered an alert and was discussed at the highest levels of the government. The consensus, from various memoirs and other documents, suggests that at about 10:30 a.m. Deputy Secretary of Defense Lovett called Dean Acheson, then secretary of State to tell him that the Pentagon’s phone system was about to shut down because the early warning system in Canada had picked up formations of unidentified objects, presumably aircraft heading to the southeast on a course that would put them over Washington, D.C. in two or three hours. Given the state of the world at the time, that is a major war in Korea that involved Chinese and UN forces (the majority of which were American and South Korean); it was thought that the Soviets might have been sending bombers toward the United States, probably armed with atomic weapons.

Truman, in his memoirs, suggested that the objects had been detected by radar stations and fighters had been launched to reconnoiter, though I personally would have wanted every fighter launched to intercept if I had thought the Soviets were sending bombers, which probably explains why I won’t be president.

There is another version of these events that suggest that the formations were over Alaska, which makes you wonder how they could have reached Washington, D.C. in just two or three hours unless their speed was considerably higher, that is, something on the order of 2000 miles an hour. This doesn’t have the same kind of documentation that the other version has and might be where Zechel got the idea that the UFOs were near Washington state and traveling at 2000 mph.

Within an hour, that is, by 11:30 a.m., the alert was cancelled, and once again there are multiple answers. Acheson reported that he was called back by Lovett who told him that the objects had disappeared. Lovett apparently thought the objects were geese but that seems a little strange to me… but I do remember reading about a strange event during WW II in which London radar operators reported that each morning an object appeared, rose into the sky and then seemed to fade away. It was found that it was caused by birds awaking and taking flight about the same time every day from the same London park.

Truman said that some sort of Atlantic weather disturbance had thrown off the radars. I suppose you could say that the disturbance could have caused the geese to be misidentified. The point is that the alert lasted about an hour.

These descriptions are based on the memories of the men (or the ghostwriters) who were there at the time. But as there is in many UFO–linked stories, there are some documents from the time. One of the major news services, INS reported:

A warning of an impending air attack resulted in a false alarm in this capitol [sic] city today. No air raid alarms were sounded, but functionaries charged with Civil Air Defense of Washington [D.C.] were alerted that an unidentified aircraft had been detected off the coast of the State of Maine at mid-day. Later, a spokesman for the Air Force stated that interceptor aircraft had been dispatched, and that the object in question had been identified shortly thereafter as a North American C-47 aircraft which was approaching the continent from Goose Bay, Labrador. The warning was said to have been useful in verifying the efficient of the Washington Civil Defense System. Civil Defense officials declined to comment on the incident.
Yes, there is a letter written by Colonel Charles Winkle, Assistant Executive in the Directorate of Plans that said that 40 aircraft were spotted at 32,000 feet. He noted that at 1104 hours the original track had faded out and it appeared that the flight was friendly.

While all this is interesting, it is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the Willingham and his alleged sighting, which, until Zechel got involved was set in 1948. Then, seeing an opportunity to add some credibility to the Willingham crash report, he changed the date of the sighting to December 1950. Now Willingham’s sighting was not stand alone. There was a historical perspective to it.

There is one other aspect to this, again which is probably not related at all, other than it happened on December 8, 1950. Maccabee found, in the FBI files, an “Urgent” message that was labeled, “Flying Saucers.”

This office very confidentially advised by Army Intelligence, Richmond, that they have been put on immediate high alert for any data whatsoever concerning flying saucers. CIC here states background of instructions not available from Air Force Intelligence, who are not aware of the reason for alert locally, but any information whatsoever must be telephoned by them immediately to Air Force Intelligence. CIC advises data strictly confidential and should not be disseminated (sic).
And this would suggest some credibility to the Willingham tale. Here, just two days after the crash, the Air Force was requiring all intelligence information to be relayed to them. But, again, it is clear from Willingham’s original story, the crash took place in 1948, and not 1950. In fact, Willingham told me that in December 1950, he was serving in Korea (no evidence to support this claim), and the real date of the crash was in 1954 or 1955.

What that tells me is that no matter what Air Force Intelligence wanted in December 1950, this incident is irrelevant because there was no crash in December 1950. Remember, Willingham first claimed it was in 1948 and said that Zechel had changed the date to December 6, 1950. Willingham later said that it couldn’t have happened in December 1950 because he was in Korea at the time.

The question then becomes, how did this sighting get into the Eisenhower Briefing Document if it is a hoax? According to Zechel, he shared the information with Bill Moore and Moore, believing that Willingham was a retired colonel and that his story was credible, accepted it. We know that Moore was aware of this because he wrote about it, briefly, in The Roswell Incident. Moore wrote:

Then a second group, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS), was formed in 1978 under the directorship of W. T. Zechel, former research director of GSW [Ground Saucer Watch] and a one-time radio-telegraph operator for the Army Security Agency. CAUS’s announced aim was nothing less than an “attempt to establish that the USAF (or elements thereof) recovered a crashed extraterrestrial spacecraft” in the Texas – New Mexico – Mexico border area sometime in the late 1940s.
This establishes that Zechel, as he claimed, had been talking to Moore about this crash. Since the book was published in 1980, and because the lead time between manuscript submission and actual publication is a year to eighteen months, it means that Zechel was talking to Moore in the late 1970s. In other words, it verifies part of what Zechel claimed when he said that Moore knew about this crash, and because Moore accepted the information from CAUS as authentic, it provides another reason that the Willingham crash had to be included in the EBD.  
They all thought it real, and if it was real, it had to be mentioned in the document.

It is clear from the details, that the Del Rio crash is the El Indio - Guerrero crash. The location selected is between the original site of Laredo and Del Rio. Zechel changed the date to correspond to the December 6, 1950 alert, though he suggested the event as December 5. The accepted date in the EBD is a compromise between that date and the December 8, 1950, request by the Air Force to the Army’s CIC. There were no documents to contradict this and Willingham said that he knew the December 6 date was wrong, but said nothing about that until years later.

Everything points to the December 6 crash as being the Willingham crash, and if that is true, then there was no such crash. And without a December 6, 1950 crash, anywhere in the Texas – Mexico border area, then the EBD must be a hoax.
You can reject everything that Zechel said, but the facts here are verified through other sources. Willingham confirms that he gave all this information to Zechel, he confirms that it was Zechel who came up with the December 1950 date, and Bill Moore, in his book, confirms that Zechel and CAUS were pursuing this crash case. 

All the dots line up and the facts now argue against the authenticity of the EBD because there is nothing true about the case except that Zechel investigated and the original source was Willingham.

Here is the real point. The December 6, 1950, alert has no relevance here. The information for the crash has come from a small circle of people and it all goes back to Willingham. He has changed the story to cover the facts that were in error and Zechel changed it to make use of the 1950 alert. There are no documents about it, nothing printed in any newspaper such as there was for Roswell, Kecksburg, or Shag Harbour to name just three, and there is a single witness, which again is unlike those other cases.

Unless someone can come up with some evidence that hasn’t passed through the hands of Willingham, Zechel or Moore, there is nothing left for this case. It is a hoax and if that is true, then the Eisenhower Briefing Document is a hoax. That is the only rational conclusion to be drawn.


Graham said...

First time I've ever commented here, but with regards the 'Canada Geese' detection that story is (or was) rather well known in the 1980's as one of several instances where it was believed that WWIII could have broken out over some trivial incident, reputedly another incident occurred when a DEW radar locked onto the Moon as it rose.

Dr David Clark has a page discussing several instances of radars detecting flocks of birds and the steps taken to eliminate such detections as radars became more sensative.

Anthony Mugan said...

Thanks for the interesting review.

Perhaps the most significant item of information in this scenario is the FBI memo of the 8th December 1950. Can't think immediately of what might have triggered that...some local sighting?
It comes across as a bit odd as this was during the Project Grudge period where ATIC did little actual investigation.

Chet Dembeck said...

Mr. Randle:

Once again, I believe you have tackled the facts and I agree with your conclusions.

Honestly, if it were not for the few researchers in the UFO community like you, I would have quit being part of it long ago.

I have read several of your books and they are excellent.

I look forward to your blog posts and this blog is a great source for any serious UFO researcher.

William Strathmann said...

The F-94 not in service in 1948 so that casts further doubt on the story from the 1948 angle.

The failure of the Curtiss Blackhawk and the delays in the Northrop Scorpion program forced the USAF to consider alternatives. To solve its immediate need for a jet-powered night fighter, in March of 1948 the USAF approached Lockheed with the prospect of fitting its TF-80C two-seat trainer [i.e. T-33] with armament and a Hughes E-1 fire control system. . .

On October 8, 1948, a General Operational Requirement (GOR) was issued calling for the development of an all-weather interceptor.

Clarence R. "Kelly" Johnson entrusted the development of the new fighter to a team headed by Russ Daniell. Fortunately, the TF-80C airframe had sufficient volume to house the fire-control system in a modified nose and enough room in the aft cockpit to house the radar operator's position and his associated equipment. . . and the concept was endorsed by the Secretary of Defense on October 14, 1948 . . .

A Letter of Contract was awarded to Lockheed in January of 1949. The designation F-94 was assigned to the project. . . .

Two TF-80Cs (48-356 and 48-373) were modified as prototypes for the F-94 all weather fighter. . . They initially lacked the radar, the weapons, and most of the operational equipment that was to be fitted to production aircraft. . . . The maiden flight took place from the Van Nuys airport on April 16, 1949, with Tony LeVier and Glenn Fulkerson at the controls.. . .

The first F-94A was accepted by the USAF in December of 1949. A total of 109 were built before production switched to the more reliable F-94B model. . . .

The F-94A began replacing the North American F-82 Twin Mustangs of the 317th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at McChord AFB in Washington and the 319th Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Moses Lake AFB in Washington in May of 1950. . . .

The first F-94B reached service in April of 1951 with the 61st Fighter Interceptor Squadron based at Selfridge AFB in Michigan. A total of 356 F-94Bs were built.

Don Maor said...

Hello Kevin /all:

I tried to check one fact of your post. You say that "El Indio - Guerrero" is located approximately in the middle of the way between Laredo and Del Rio, but I could not find a thoroughly detailed map of Texas in which it was unambiguously clear the location of "El Indio" or "Guerrero" or "El Indio - Guerrero". I first thought that "El Indio Guerrero" was only one place because "El indio guerrero" means "The indian warrior" in Spanish. I finally couldn't check the fact.

I would appreciate if someone can put a link to a detailed map that clarifies the issue.

In my following entry I will point what I think to be an important logical flaw in Kevin's argument.

KRandle said...

Don -

Guerrero in at 28.20N 100.23W, between Del Rio and Laredo on the Mexican side of the border. It is nearly due south of Piedras Negras (the largest city close to the alleged site).

As for the alleged logical flaw... you mean that there is no crash in that area at that time (or any of the other times mentioned) and one simply cannot use the MJ-12 documents as a source of information because their accuracy is in dispute.

Don Maor said...

Kevin's conclusions regarding the EBD, Willingham, Zechel, etc., rest basically on the absolutely unproven assumption that Willinham's original story did not happen at all. But, there is NO real evidence that it did not happen.

As Kevin explains, Willingham, with the years changed his story, lied about his credentials, and also became a UFO enthusiast.

But unfortunately for Kevin's argument, this does NOT prove that the original story is an absolutely false story, in the sense that it did not happen ever.

Okay. Okay. Willinham was very probably a little weird, and unfortunately got in contact with another researcher that was also a bit strange (Zechel) (who apparently was a compulsive talker according to Kevin's recall). But again, this does NOT prove that Willingham's original story did not happen. Strange people can also experience UFO sightings or UFO crashes. Even more to it, strange people also have ears, and therefore can listen stories coming from other REAL witnesses.

Willingham could have listened the story from a real air force officer and made the classical trick of telling the story pretending that he himself experienced it.

Given the Willinham's and Zechel's proclivity to make-up and distort stories, it is not unlikely that they tried to make sense of the original story, tried to fit dates, places, descriptions and probably merged UFO cases, etc.

Again, this does NOT mean that the original story did not happen, and we can even have doubts about the date or the exact location, but we also can NOT negate the possibility that Zechel somehow had a good insight assigning the date Dec 6, 1950 to the original story. This last conclusion is consistent with one of the last posts here after which the date of 1948 seems to be unlikely because there were not F94's in that time. Does this makes the 1950 date to be more likely? Maybe.

The MJ documents are one of the great conundrums inside this thing called ufology. One way or another, we are all fascinated by those documents. We have to admit it.

Don Maor said...

Kevin said:

"As for the alleged logical flaw... you mean that there is no crash in that area at that time (or any of the other times mentioned) and one simply cannot use the MJ-12 documents as a source of information because their accuracy is in dispute."

I certainly agree with the notion that the accuracy and the authenticity of the EBD is in dispute.

What I say here is that your interpretation regarding Willinham and Zechel, does not advance too much in the sense that the EBD is a fraud.


Ross said...

People might venture to ask why having proclaimed MJ-12 dead on numerous occasions has Randle produced a spate of redundant debunkery?

Perhaps you are privy to information which has left you with a bad case of cognitive dissonance.

KRandle said...

Don –

That’s the logical flaw in my thinking? Willingham might have heard the tale from someone else and injected himself into it? There might be a real event somewhere but you don’t know where?

How about some evidence to support these speculations? Are there any newspaper articles, witness testimonies, Air Force documents, anything to show there was some sort of event in that area at that time (or should I say those areas at those times… which is the accurate information)?
Here’s the problem… you have nothing on your side of the ledger other than speculation, invention and confabulation. Willingham was not an Air Force officer nor was he a fighter pilot. Zechel changed the date so that it would conform to the alert for the unidentified aircraft that evaporated. There is nothing here and unless and until someone can find something that to alter that point of view, I’ll let it stand.

You continue to harp on the idea that I have NOT proved there was no event… but you have offered no evidence that there was one. Nothing. I showed it all came back to a single source and you showed… nothing. It is not up to me to prove this didn’t happen by up to you to prove it did, especially with all the evidence weighted against it.

I will say that in the other UFO crash cases, no matter what you might think about them, there is something other than a shifting tale told by a man who now claims to have been involved in seven crash retrievals. A man whose military career was made up almost entirely of service with the CAP (so I use the term military career loosely). A man who changed the details, flew in an aircraft that didn’t exist at the time, used radar plots from a system that didn’t exist and couldn’t even get the spelling of the base where he was assigned right. There is nothing there at all…

But you do have the date of the crash… oops there are four or five of them. But that’s okay, you have the location… oops, there are at least three of them. But you do have witnesses… oops, there is only one and his testimony is unreliable… Guess maybe there is nothing unless you have something.

Ross -

Really? The best you can do is call me a debunker? You cite no evidence, you cite no witnesses, you obviously reject the idea that this UFO crash was invented by Willingham and there is nothing else to offer in support of it. If you have some evidence to suggest an error in my analysis, please present it… if not, keep your other opinions to yourself.

I put up these columns because there were questions about this case. I laid it all out carefully and all you can do is suggest debunkery.

Anthony Mugan said...

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on methodological grounds.

In cases like this a case has to hang together from every angle to be taken forward for further study. Roswell does meet that initial criteria. This one doesn't.

That weakens the case for the EBD considerably.

The search for final proof is a philosophical error when dealing with this sort of data - it is all about falsification and seeing what survives that process.

cda said...

Unfortunately, even if you can prove irrefutably that the Texas-Mexico border crash never happened, you could still not say with certainty that the EBD is a fake.

The said document was supposedly written by Hillenkoetter to Ike in November 1952. (Even this can be disputed as the EBD says "prepared by" not "written by"). H was merely the "briefing officer".

Therefore, in order to prove the EBD is a fake because of its contents, you have to show the paper contains references to things that were still in the future or that were definitely unknown to H in Nov '52.

Otherwise you have to use forensic methods (such as date styles, punctuation, typeface, false security markings, etc).

You cannot simply say something like: "this event never happened, therefore the EBD is a fake" because it is still possible, in the weird world of ufology, that H genuinely believed the event happened and thus inserted it in his briefing paper to Ike.

Can anyone prove that H did NOT really believe the Dec 1950 crash was genuine or that he knew nothing about it at the time?

In other words, can anyone read H's thoughts as of Nov 18, 1952?

Perhaps H was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Was he? Perhaps he genuinely believed Menzel and others were members of this secret cabal of 12. Can anyone show H was on vacation on, say, Easter Island during the 2 weeks Nov 10 to 24?

Tricky, isn't it?

Of course I am playing the devil's advocate here. But we have to be fair to both sides, don't we?

Ross said...


A debunker! You flatter yourself. I'd never accuse you of anything for which some degree of competence is requisite.

Your issues with MJ-12 are your dislike of the principles concerned, and the fact that you were not amongst them. Kaufman speaks to the fact that your standards of evidence are malleable depending on the degree to which you are connected to that evidence.

There are facts contained within the core MJ-12 documents which reference times, dates and other minutia which are confirmed by paperwork which prior to the attempts to authenticate the documents had not been accessed.

The initial releases were not merely emulations of other documents, spiced up with some MJ-12 and UFO references thrown in. Your contention that Bill Moore is responsible for fabricating the material requires an explanation as to how he knew these facts.

KRandle said...

Ross -

You are free to discuss the material but not free to insult me or others. Make your points without the insults. Your psychological analysis is in error.

You are aware, of course, that Bill Moore told several people that he wanted to create a "Roswell" document because he had run into a wall in his investigation? He thought it might shake things loose.

You are aware that the first document to mention MJ-12 was the Aquarius Telex which Moore admitted he retyped?

You are aware that Moore, with Bob Pratt, wrote a novel in 1980 that laid out the MJ-12 case and that they called it Majestic?

You are aware that Stan Friedman has said many times that he, Moore and others had already done the research to know where people were and what they were doing in 1947 so that the information contained in the EBD was of no great surprise? In other words, Friedman was saying that he and Moore had already done the research into this prior to the appearance of MJ-12... maybe for the book that Moone and Pratt wrote in the years prior to the introducion of MJ-12.

And, there are other mistakes in the EBD that I haven't mentioned here... for example, why was Stuart Symington left out of the mix when he position in 1947 should have put him into the middle of it?


Do you have any reference to this 1948 crash prior to Willingham's revelation in 1968... after the EDB was allegedly written. We know it couldn't have happened in 1948 because the fighter that Willingham was flying didn't exist and the radar system that spotted it didn't exist.

The witness has said that the crash took place in 1954 or 1955, which is after the EBD... but there is no other reference to it until after 1968... if you have one present now.

Don Maor said...

Hello Kevin,

Thanks for the info. Now you add that Willingham have 7 versions of the story.

Well, again, this does not prove that the original story is false. The point is there are a lot of alternative scenarios. CDA put it correctly, giving more alternative scenarios, albeit trying to dress them with a slightly ridicolous aura.

It maybe that the man (Willingham) was told, in the begining, a real story. Someone told him the story, and Willingham became obssesed with it.

The initial spark of a real case would easily explain Willingham's obsession with UFO crashes in the next decades. In his obsession, He associated with Zechel, and both started a frenzy of bad research.

This is not a very surprising thing. Most probably a similar effect occured to the Canadian engineer W. Smith. The guy was in some instant extremely close to the truth, and that imbalanced him. Some time later, he believed that he was a contactee. That last fact does not prove the Smith memo is a hoax and that the Sarbacher interview is a hoax.

To Anthony Mugan. I am sorry if I seem to be stubborn, but the logical flaw in kevin's arguments is still there. My point here is not to prove that the EBD is authentic. I did not started the argument.

Anthony Mugan said...


I'm not trying to be difficult with this but in in this field I do feel both sides if the debate cut far too much slack for their favoured theories.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Any claim that has a substantial weakness such as this claim of a crash in December 1950 must be discounted.
The same applies to more normal UFO reports. A lot of what are classed as 'unknows' actually have insufficient information to form a view in my opinion.

The EBD document was supposed to be an official briefing to the president elect. It would represent the best official information and if it contains reference to claims now not considered credible it is also damaged goods.

Some of the rest of the above conversation is just surreal, unless meant mischievously by CDA...?

Ross said...


You make this claim a lot, but have no evidence to back it up. Where is the proof that Moore said he was going to do this, where is this novel you reference?


Ross said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KRandle said...

Ross -

Do you believe I would just make this up?

For the information on the novel, see Sparks and Greenwood, "The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origin of MJ-12," in the 2007 MUFON Proceedings, pp. 95 - 100.

Oh, you don't have that in your llibrary, try to find it at http://michaelsheiser,com/UFOReligions/2007MUFONSymposiumNewMJ12Revelations.pdf.

For anotther take on Moore suggesting that he wanted to create a Roswell document, see http://www.realityuncovered.sect/fforum/viewpoint.php?t=56.

There are several references to this to be found at various UFO related web sites. I will note that Friedman told me this himself, though he now denies he said it. Brad Sparks reported that the moment he heard the idea, he called Friedman to tell him to tell Moore not to do it.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for all of this.

cda said...


Can you point to a single topic or event in the EBD that nobody, even Moore, could possibly have known about before the EBD was released in May 1987?

Can you please list the main thing mentioned in that document that is strongly indicative of its authenticity?

Remember Moore, Shandera & Friedman did their research during 1981-83, using the Wilbert Smith 1950 memo as a starting point, i.e. naming Vannevar Bush as head of a highly classified committee looking into UFOs.

Where do you think Hillenkoetter actually was during the period Nov 18, 1952 when he supposedly wrote, or "prepared" that document? Also, any ideas how Dr.Menzel's name got there? I have an idea. It was to send a certain Stan Friedman off into wasting time, using MUFON funds, doing a lot of pointless research into Menzel's career (pointless in the sense that it did nothing whatever to further MJ-12's authenticity).

Having said this, I do wonder if we should spend so much as another word on this MJ-12 garbage.

Nor do I believe for a moment that Hillenkoetter was under the influence of either drugs or alcohol on that day in Nov.'52.

Anthony Mugan said...

And there we get to the most important point. The main effect of the MJ documents was a monumental distraction from what appears a far more credible line of enquiry.
The fairly clear evidence for a study group within Research and Development in the early 1950s may be quite significant. It would be fascinating to see any documentation regarding its work and conclusions beyond the hints we have from Ruppelt, Smith and Sarbacher.

In an odd way I agree with CDA...there is little value in much discussion of MJ-12. For those who feel differently and think there may be something in those documents they may provide clues to further lines of enquiry, but caveat emptor!

Lance said...

The odd date format on the original documents provide a virtual fingerprint that points directly to Bill Moore.

The mental gymnastics needed to ignore this are are wonder to behold!

The myriad of of other problems with the documents and the silly, embarrassing way that saucer believers try to hold onto their religion is par for the course for an belief system that is ENTIRELY supported by crappy evidence.


Ross said...


Ahh, the secret Pratt tapes which remain secret. Why no release for pubic scrutiny?

KRandle said...

Don -

See above...

Find any information about this alleged crash that predates the EBD. You have the date and location... should be simple to find something.

Ross -

MUFON controls the "secret" tapes and are available for public scrutiny when proper arrangements have been made. You can listen to them yourself.

Ross said...


The use of the classification 'Top Secret Restricted'. Up until the GAO did a search for Roswell related materials it was claimed it was proof of fakery as the classification did not come into use until years after the date of the EBD.

As the GAO put it...

" DATE: December 7, 1994

Ms. Laura Jackson and I reviewed records pertaining to the Air
Force Atomic energy projects and certain mission and weapons
requirements. These files were classified up to and including
top secret. The period covered by these records was from 1948
to 1956. There was no mention of the Roswell Incident. No
information pertaining to the assignment was obtained. In
several instances we noticed the classification Top Secret
Restricted, used on several documents. This is mentioned
because in past references to this classification (Majestic
12) we were told that it was not used during this period.

Randle contends that Bill Moore cooked these documents up, in which case he needs to provide an explanation as to why he would use such an obscure classification, and one which prior to the GAO's comments had been deemed to be an anachronism for the time period covering the EBD.

Lance said...

"Randle contends that Bill Moore cooked these documents up, in which case he needs to provide an explanation as to why he would use such an obscure classification, and one which prior to the GAO's comments had been deemed to be an anachronism for the time period covering the EBD."

Hilarious saucer-thinking...

Ignoring the overwhelming evidence of fraud the true believer focuses on some idiotic non-confirmatory detail.

This kind of thinking is why people laugh and point when UFO's are brought up as a topic.


Ross said...


A retort conspicuous for its lack of an answer to the question posed.

It is far from the only confounding detail, but let's stick with it fr now and should you venture a reasonable explanation we can move on to addressing the many others.

Lance said...

It's hard to imagine that someone is really so dense that they think this constitutes evidence of some kind. t is hilarious how you turn a blind eye to the massive rigorous evidence against your holy documents and focus on some inane detail.

Moore found evidence of or simply coincidentally fabricated what turns out to be an actual apparent security classification.

That some folks said that this classification was not in use in 1947 is immaterial. It apparently was. So what?


cda said...


I don't quite follow you over the security classification. We are talking about the EBD (arising out of the crash on the Texas-Mexico border). The classification you are talking about does not appear on this document but on the so-called Cutler-Twining memo.

Ross said...


I had the topic of this blog post ringing in my ears when writing the abbreviation. Yes, the C-T memo is indeed the document in question.

Of further interest is the fact that our wouldbe hoaxer was sufficiently thorough in their research to leave the document unsigned. Research revealed (and the information was not easy to come by) that Cutler was not around to sign the memo on that date.

Ross said...


Having done so much research to produce this extraordinary elaborate hoax does it seem likely he would then jeopardise his efforts by making a classification up which he had no idea was extant and use that?

As to him having discovered the classification elsewhere, the issue with that explanation is that even today AFAIK there isn't a 'top secret restricted" document which has gone through declassification. So where did he find evidence of the existence of this classification in the early 80's to use it in a fabricated document?

KRandle said...

Ross -

While it really isn't up to me to explain what Moore knew and when he knew, nor is the Cutler-Twining memo relevant to this discussion, I will note the following:

According to Friedman, in his book Top Secret/Majic (page 130 to make it easier on you):

"... the simple fact of the matter is that Moore, Shandera, and I had already picked up on all the names of the [MJ-12] list prior to receipt of the film except for Dr. Donald Menzel as a result of many days spent in archival research begun a decade ago..."

Or, in other words, they had been in the archives reading document after document with a variety of security classifications on them as they were researching the Roswell crash.

I will also note that one of Moore's partners was Richard Doty of the AFOSI who would have been well versed in the world of security and security classifications. So Moore et. al. had access to a wide variety of information about security classifications.

So what you do is reject everything that doesn't line up with your beliefs and then say, "Yeah, but he got this one thing right. How could he have done that?"

And I say, what about all the other stuff that is wrong... and how do you explain a hoax in the middle of a document allegedly prepared for the president-elect? As I mentioned to Don, do you have any reference to the December 6, 1950 crash that can be documented before November 18, 1952.

cda said...


You are at odds with Stan Friedman in your 'analysis'. He did research both before and after the three MJ-12 documents' release date (May 1987) and found that the security markings on all of them were consistent with those used in the 1947-54 period. So your argument has no relevance. Any good researcher could have found them and used them on forged documents. Thus Moore & Shandera, in the early 1980s, DID know about these security classifications.

Unfortunately the forger(s) failed to discover that Cutler was out of the country at the time, but again this didn't bother Friedman in the least, who simply answered by saying the said document was only a carbon copy anyway, which is usually unsigned. To cover the serious 'Cutler absent' error, Friedman then claimed that it was written by Cutler's deputy! Needless to say, the original has never been found.

We can go on forever with all this. And the net result will, as always, be a big fat zero.

David Rudiak said...

Since most seem to agree that Moore-Shandera are untrustworthy characters when it comes to the origins of the MJ-12 documents, does the same line of reasoning apply to Moore-Shandera and their later claims that Colonel Dubose told them the weather debris in the Fort Worth photos was the same stuff Major Marcel brought from Roswell and there was no debris substitution?

Or do some people here want it both ways?

As Kevin has pointed out in prior blogs, neither Moore nor Shandera has any tapes of notes of the phone conversations with Dubose where he allegedly said this to back up their claims, at odds with RECORDED interviews with Dubose plus his affidavit where he states the exact opposite. E.g., see my website for a summary of Dubose's many other statements about a high-level cover-up of what happened at Roswell and that the weather balloon in the photos was a cover story to get rid of the press:

Don Maor said...

The MJ-12 documents affair is complex. Let's take an example.

Kevin said:
You are aware that Moore, with Bob Pratt, wrote a novel in 1980 that laid out the MJ-12 case and that they called it Majestic?

¿Does this mean that in 1980 Moore and Pratt wrote a fictional novel (with the word Majestic and the MJ-12 plot in it) and then, 4 years later Moore tried to create a supposedly authentic document with the hope that the document would be credible to Bob Pratt and the public? Is it really posible that Moore was stupid enough to try that?

On the other hand, the alternative scenario is much more reasonable: Moore, in 1980 or even before, was already in contact with some insider who teached him what was MJ-12. This same insider sent some year laters the MJ-12 documents to Moore.


Lance said...

Rudiak uses conspiracy buff thinking to create a tortured false proposition:

You said this person was untrustworthy. THEREFORE everything that person has EVER said is false.

The idea that the debris in the Roswell pictures is the same stuff as Marcel picked up at the ranch is supported by many line of evidence. But most embarrassingly it is supported by Marcel himself, who stated this on several occasions.

That Roswell, believers have somehow rationalized this testimony away is a sad indication of the religious nature of their belief system . It doesn't seem to fit Kevin's otherwise mostly rational and admirable approach to UFO discussion (but is to be expected from zealous conspiracy buffs like Rudiak). I hope Kevin will come around one day. :)


cda said...


Did this novel of Moore/Pratt ever get into print? If it didn't, how does anyone know what was in it?

Kevin should have said that it was prepared in draft form but never published. In fact, we do not know how much even appeared in draft and who saw it.

It may be that the MJ-12 papers (which had the names of real persons in them) were quite different from the fictional characters & events Moore or Pratt put into the draft of their novel.

So you cannot use this as an argument against Moore having created the 1987 MJ-12 stuff.

As for DR's comments about Moore & Shandera, I agree they were shady characters. This does NOT mean that everything they wrote or said was false or even suspect. In the end, it is up to each of us to decide what is credible and what is not.

If everything duBose ever said about that debris was published in full, you would see the contradictions (presumably due to repeated and endless questioning by interviewers, and memories fading with age).

It can reasonably be argued that Moore and Shandera were never in it, i.e. the MJ-12 forgery, for the money. They created it purely to titillate, and cause raised eyebrows amongst, UFO believers and conspiracists while Roswell was still a hot topic. They both knew perfectly well that the scientific community plus, shall we say, the saner side of ufology, would see the forgeries for what they were and reject them. They both had a brief moment of fame.

How right they were. And how wrong poor Stan Friedman was (and still is).

KRandle said...

Don -

Do you actually believe that I haven't considered all the alternative explanations? Are you aware of Project Aquarius? Do you have any evidence for a UFO crash on December 6 (or 5 through 8), 1950? Have you bothered to examine the entire history of MJ-12 including the material known as Project Aquarius (which Stan Friedman happily claims to have not mention in his work on MJ-12)?

David and Lance -

The posting has nothing to do with what Jesse Marcel said or didn't say, but is about what I believe to be the fatal flaw in the EBD, which is the inclusion of the hoax crash of December 1950.

Lance -

Since you felt it necessary to bring up, I will say that Moore offered three versions of the quote from Marcel about the pictures. And, I will note that when shown the pictures taken by J. Bond Johnson in Ramey's office said that it was not the stuff he brought from Roswell... you tend to ignore that.

Lance said...


I most certainly am NOT ignoring that Marcel FINALLY came around to realize that he had to say that the stuff in the pictures wasn't space sticks and rocket foil. He also made up some silly story about how he hid some of the real stuff behind the fake stuff!

This is all so ridiculous.

His first (and second and third) testimony was that the stuff in the pictures is flying saucer debris. That he finally changed his testimony isn't something I would wish to hide. As a skeptic, I see it as how things always work in saucer land.

Combine this damning fact with the other damning testimony from Marcel: that he knew NOTHING about any huge secret saucer recovery effort (he is the base intelligence officer!!!) and the whole Roswell house of cards drifts off into the wind.


KRandle said...

Lance -

I'll let this stand, but the discussion here is not about Marcel... This is the end of it for now.

Don Maor said...

Kevin, wrote:

"You are aware that the first document to mention MJ-12 was the Aquarius Telex which Moore admitted he retyped?"

If Moore admited guilt in this last one ¿Why did not he admit his guilt in the other suppossedly fraudulent MJ-12 documents? It would have been pretty easy for him to do that, and people would stop calling him a hoaxer and would start calling him a practical joker or a redeemed guy. But no, somehow he has always rejected the charge. Why? Probably because he has no fault.

Don Maor said...

I will emphasize my last argument. If there are, as Kevin believes, about one hundred arguments for believing that the MJ-12 documents are false... why is Moore not moved by these one hundred arguments? If he were the real hoaxer he would feel intimidated by the multitude of arguments. Apparently he is not intimidated. Why? Because it was not he.

KRandle said...

Don -

Have you found anything that supports a crash on December 5, 6, 7 or 8, 1950 that contains the elements described in the EBD?

I also notice that you dodge questions... if you wish to know why Moore hasn't admitted the truth, you must ask him. That he, or anyone else has come forward as the forger does not mean the EBD is authentic... You ignore the evidence as you dance around the truth. Without provenance, without corroboration, without positive testimony, and with all the evidence aligned against, there is but a single, rational conclusion.

Compare this to the exposure of Project Moon Dust... when I sent FOIA requests to the Department of State, I received documents... think about that.

Don Maor said...

Kevin said:

"Have you found anything that supports a crash on December 5, 6, 7 or 8, 1950 that contains the elements described in the EBD? ."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Specifically, the crash might have had very few witnesses or none. The only witness may have been the air force guy in charge, who eventually told the story to Willingham. There is no way of knowing. The point is you can't call something a hoax simply because you were not able to find witnesses.

"I also notice that you dodge questions... if you wish to know why Moore hasn't admitted the truth, you must ask him."

I don't wish that. I am calm. I think he has nothing relevant to add about this. You should be worried by that question. You are the one who believes he has not told the truth.

"That he, or anyone else has come forward as the forger does not mean the EBD is authentic..."

Agreed. Plus, I never said anything like that.

"You ignore the evidence as you dance around the truth. Without provenance, without corroboration, without positive testimony, and with all the evidence aligned against, there is but a single, rational conclusion."

Please don't start with the debunker style of calling irrational the opinions of others. That won't help the debate.

"Compare this to the exposure of Project Moon Dust... when I sent FOIA requests to the Department of State, I received documents... think about that."

An unfair comparison. Project Moon dust seems to have been a project that lasted for years. The crash of a single object is a point in time.

KRandle said...

Part One:

Don wrote:

Kevin said:

"Have you found anything that supports a crash on December 5, 6, 7 or 8, 1950 that contains the elements described in the EBD? ."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Specifically, the crash might have had very few witnesses or none. The only witness may have been the air force guy in charge, who eventually told the story to Willingham. There is no way of knowing. The point is you can't call something a hoax simply because you were not able to find witnesses.


Actually, in science, as in the law, there are times in which absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. You continue to dodge the question and rather than answer it, engage in spouting propaganda phases that answer nothing, but continue the argument in what Lance would call “saucer logic.” Rather than deal with the facts of the case, you invent a mythical Air Force guy to spill the beans to Willingham but you have no evidence to support this, so you revert to “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” which is meaningless, does not answer the questions, but keeps the debate alive in lieu of evidence.

I will note here that friends and colleagues have attempted to find documentation for this December 6 crash and have failed. They have reviewed newspaper archives, talked to long-time residents of the areas in question, searched in Mexico, and they have found nothing. Your response is not to initiate your own investigation but to say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Can you offer something more substantial than your propaganda phrase and the idea that Willingham learned about the crash from some Air Force guy?
And, yes, I can call it a hoax until you or anyone else produces some evidence for it… not just speculation based on assumption and false testimony.

KRandle said...

Part Two:

Don wrote:

Kevin said:

"I also notice that you dodge questions... if you wish to know why Moore hasn't admitted the truth, you must ask him."

I don't wish that. I am calm. I think he has nothing relevant to add about this. You should be worried by that question. You are the one who believes he has not told the truth.


I can prove that he hasn’t told the truth. I can prove that he has offered variations of the truth. You throw this out, that Moore, if he was the forger, has not admitted it, and then retreat from the idea when I suggest that you communicate with him to find out why he has not admitted the truth.

"You ignore the evidence as you dance around the truth. Without provenance, without corroboration, without positive testimony, and with all the evidence aligned against, there is but a single, rational conclusion."

Please don't start with the debunker style of calling irrational the opinions of others. That won't help the debate.


Didn’t call the arguments irrational, merely conclusions drawn through invention without a shred of evidence to back up the claims. Maybe you would be happier if I characterized the conclusions as illogical, meaning that you ignore the evidence aligned against the EBD, which should lead to specific conclusions, and instead substitute your enthusiasm to believe in the unbelievable.

"Compare this to the exposure of Project Moon Dust... when I sent FOIA requests to the Department of State, I received documents... think about that."

An unfair comparison. Project Moon dust seems to have been a project that lasted for years. The crash of a single object is a point in time.


My error in not being clear here. I was suggesting that I can make FOIA requests and receive information about Moon Dust… as can you or anyone else, and those documents come with a known provenance. With the EBD, you can make no FOIA requests and receive information about it with a known provenance. MJ-12 has persisted for years, but no one has ever been able to reach out, with FOIA, and receive documentation… with Moon Dust, many of us have.

But here is the end game… I have evidence, testimony, and documentation for what I say. You have, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Which do you believe is the more persuasive argument… and just where is this Air Force guy?... On, and to make the point one final time, do you have any evidence to support the crash in December 1950

Don Maor said...

All right Kevin. I will admit it:

I DO NOT have evidence that something crashed at El Indio-Guerrero en Dec 6, 1950.

Moreover, I DO NOT have the evidence that the EBD is authentic. I am NOT sure that it is authentic.

What I have been telling you in all these posts is that your chain of logical deduction is not 100% clean, you have a logical flaw in it.

Terry the Censor said...

Don, what is the logical flaw, that Kevin can't prove a negative? That is not his fault, it is the fault of Willingham and those who support his crashed-saucer tale. They never had anything but a story -- no corroborating evidence of any kind. Which leaves us with one thing only to examine: Willingham's credibility as a source of information. Kevin has ably shown, in several posts, that Willingham was a serial fabulist.

And a final note:

James Moseley: "In truth, the absence of evidence after a thorough investigation is a strong clue that what was not found does not exist or did not happen, and common sense says go with that until contrary clues show up." (Shockingly Close to the Truth, p 313)

Terry the Censor said...

Don, you might find this bit interesting, as reported in Saucer Smear, Volume 49, No. 4, May 5th, 2002.


Pflock Ptalk - "EL INDIO?..." - STAN FRIEDMAN, 09 FEBRUARY, 2002
by Karl Pflock, Our Contributing Editor & Fifth Columnist

Speaking of MJ-12, in February I was in New York City taping the pilot for a hoped-for new Science Fiction Channel series [...] The conspiracy chosen for the pilot? MJ-12 and Roswell. The experts? Stanton T. Friedman and Yours Truly.

Following the taping, Stan Friedman and I had dinner together. In the course of conversation, MJ-12 came up (surprise!), and I mentioned the second saucer crash referred to in the MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing Document: "On 06 December, 1950, a second object, probably of similar origin, impacted the the El Indio - Guerrero area of the Texas - Mexican boder
(sic)..." I asked Stan how he could continue to argue for the authenticity of the EBD and the reality of MJ-12 with this little clinker in the mix.

Puzzled, Stan asked what I meant. I reminded him that this alleged event was introduced to saucerdom by the long-since discredited W. Todd Zechel. I reviewed the years-long investigation by top MUFON official Tom Deuley and Dennis Stacy that had established the tale was the product of fragmentary recollections of a real event (the accidental shootdown of a Civil Air Patrol plane) and Zechel's fevered imagination and ambition, about which both Tom and Dennis had written and publicly spoken.

"El Indio?...", Stan said. "Well, I..." Then, with a worried look, he changed the subject.

It was as if he'd completely forgotten that the Texas-Mexico "boder" incident was mentioned in his favorite Cosmic Watergate evidence. I had the distinct impression that Stan had been so wrapped up for so long in touting Menzel's "secret life" and debating date formats, presidential signatures, and classification markings that he'd completely neglected this little red flag flapping in the ufological breeze.

Well, Stan??


Don Maor said...


You are only repeating Kevin's arguments. I won't repeat mines.

Regarding Pflock recalls of a meal, and the supposedly worried "face of Friedman". What a piece of evidence. I am impressed. Apparently, Pflock was an expert in irrelevant details.

Please notice that a worried face means only that the person is worried, and probably has taken a personal note of checking something. It does not mean that the person is wrong, guilty, etc.

KRandle said...

Don -

My logic only fails if there was a UFO crash on the Texas - Mexico border on December 6, 1950. If there was not, then the EBD is a fake as well. Since I have attempted to find any supporting information for this crash, have actively sought documentation, and have actually talked to the sole witness, I believe that I have demonstrated that no such crash took place. All you must do is find anything to suggest otherwise... anything that predates the EBD. I do not see what is so difficult to understand here.

Don Maor said...

You have made an interesting case here Kevin...though I hope you find a more definitive fatal flaw.

Terry the Censor said...

Don, you are simply repeating cheap rhetoric tricks while ignoring facts and arguments.

You ignore the factual heart of the Pflock piece: that an official MUFON investigation came to the same conclusion as Kevin. They aren't repeating each other, they are corroborating each other.

Friedman's response should be familiar to you: denialism.

Don Maor said...

All right. Where is this "official" MUFON investigation? What is its name and date of publication?

Terry the Censor said...


Dennis Stacy, “Crash at El Indio – Alleged UFO crash in Mexico,” Omni magazine, March 1995

"Conclusions: Sadly, we may never know beyond reasonable doubt whether or not an extraterrestrial object slammed to earth near Guerrero in December 1950. We do know, though, that an indisputably real terrestrial object impacted within seven miles of the very same Mexican town in January 1944. Could this have been the event, witnessed by a much-younger Rosendo Flores, before his memory of specific dates became blurred by the passage of time? If so, it's conceivable, depending on who way talked to and how the questions were phrased, that the crash of the Civil Air Patrol plane and its military retrieval could have given rise to all sorts of UFO rumors along the Rio Grande. In the end it's impossible to prove a negative--that a UFO didn't crash near Guerrero, Mexico, in December 1950. One might just as well search for the proverbial needle in the haystack--or a hole in the ground."

Deuley and Stacy also made a presentation at the 1999 National UFO Conference, which is listed as:

Tom Deuley, "MJ-12 & the El Indio-Guerrero Crash."

Don said...

Don "All right. Where is this "official" MUFON investigation? What is its name and date of publication?"

Kevin posted the link in this discussion:

"For the information on the novel, see Sparks and Greenwood, "The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origin of MJ-12," in the 2007 MUFON Proceedings, pp. 95 - 100.

Oh, you don't have that in your llibrary, try to find it at
(link typo corrected)

In 2007 on the old updateslist and here on Kevin's blog is plenty of discussion about it, easily found with a simple google search.



Don Maor said...

Thanks to Don. In that time, I read the UFO Updates list discussion on the MUFON article by Brad Sparks. (I also read the article in that time) I remember that Friedman responded to the article, and then Sparks responded.

The final impression I got that time is that Brad Sparks' fatal flaws were not as fatal as he believed. I have about the same impression regarding this post of Kevin Randle.

The other "oficial" MUFON study, by Dennis Stacy, announced with fanfare by Terry the censor is about a crash in 1944. Absolutely inconclusive by the way.

Terry the Censor said...

@Don Maor [We have two Dons here! I'll be more clear who I'm addressing]

> The other "official" MUFON study, by Dennis Stacy ... is about a crash in 1944

And how that real event got transmuted into the El Indio crash.

You're just being obtuse now, Don.

Don said...

The term "fatal flaw" is opaque -- at least to me since I see no fatalities that are a consequence of the flaw. Kevin's case is solidly built and the flaw has no effect on it.

I think, though, that there is a seed of an interesting discussion here, not on this matter, or not this matter alone, but perhaps for ufology altogether (and I always include the ufo skeptics in "ufology altogether".



KRandle said...

Don -

Fatal flaw means that the document contains some bit of information, some reference that is so out of place that it means the document is a hoax. In this case, a reference to an event that never happened, in a document prepared by those who would have known better. Since the event never happened, mentioning it means the document is fatally flawed.

Don said...

Kevin, while my brain was thinking "logical", my fingers typed "fatal".

This thread is well past its sell by date, but there will be other opportunities to discuss it.