UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 1

Re: Robert Todd On MJ-12

From: "Bill Hamilton" <skywatcher22@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:53:59 PST
Fwd Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 18:32:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Robert Todd On MJ-12

This response has been sent to me in response to Kevin Randle's
remarks.  I think the points are being made regarding the issues
for the record, but I do not expect concessions, just discourse.

Bill Hamilton


----Original Message Follows----
From: DrBobWood@aol.com
To: skywatcher22@hotmail.com
CC: rswood@igc.apc.org
Subject: Comments on Kevin Randle's Remarks
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 01:16:53 EST

Dear Bill,

If you would like to post this, we would welcome it.

Thanks, Bob and Ryan Wood

Recently, a "Joint Statement" about the authenticity of the Special
Operations
Manual 1-01, "Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and
Disposal"
has been posted.  Robert and Ryan Wood wrote a rebuttal, and Tom Deuley
and
Kevin Randle wrote supporting the initial Joint Statement.  We found in
our
files the initial evaluation, never published before, of Appendix C,
"The
MJ-12 Operations Manual" critique by Randle, pp. 285-290, in "Conspiracy
of
Silence," Avon Books, 1997.  Although the book has many excellent
attributes
and is indeed recommended reading, the treatment of the MJ-12 topics and
the
Manual were based on faulty assumptions, as noted below:

Page 285, Par 1
o Allegation: Evidence exists that the documents are fraudulent.
o Rebuttal: No such evidence exists.
o Comment: The ability to discriminate the real from the fake is the
correct
way to view the issue.

Page 285, Par. 2
o Allegation: The source is unidentified.  Man at gun show did not know
source.
o Rebuttal: Don Berliner received undeveloped 35-mm negatives in the
mail
postmarked March 7, 1994, La Crosse, WI.  Mailer=92s identity is indeed
unknown.
Lack of provenance is not highly relevant to authenticity.  Experts do
not
have to rely on provenance alone.

Page 286, Par. 3
o Allegation: A great deal of work went into construction, implying work
by
faker.  Seal included to add visual impact.
o Rebuttal: The high quality of the manual is also consistent with
production
by the USGPO or CIA print shop equivalent.  The War Department Seal was
used
on most manuals of that vintage.  Examples abound.

Page 286, Par. 4
o Allegation: The manual is short.  It is missing some pages including
photos.
o Rebuttal: If the manual were authentic, it would have been only long
enough
to accomplish purpose.  Twenty-three frames are consistent with the
photographer running out of film in a 20-roll.

Page 286, Par. 5
o Allegation: Most members of UFO community believe the MJ-12 documents
fake.
But new document should stand or fall on its own analysis.
o Rebuttal: "Most members" has no basis in any scientific poll.  Yes,
the
document could and does stand on its own analysis.  If the other
documents
were correlated, it would seem strange to ignore them.  There is a
distinct
possibility that part of the Eisenhower Briefing Document is fake, but
that
the Manual is genuine.

Page 286, Par. 6
o Allegation: "Eyes Only" is for a specific person; therefore, a manual
would
be inconsistent with this classification caveat.
o Rebuttal: "Eyes Only" is not limited to specific persons.  It means
that it
cannot be copied, but that everyone who sees it must sign a record. 
This
allegation is obviously based on a false assumption.

Page 287, Par. 7
o Allegation: The "real mistake" is the use of "Restricted" on the
cover.
This category was canceled in November 1953, and manual date is April
1954.
o Rebuttal: The classification alluded to was "Restricted Data."  The
use of
the single word "Restricted" is not a classification but would be
limiting
distribution.  Examples of manuals of the era exist having "Restricted"
on the
cover in the same style type.

Page 287, Par. 8
o Allegation: If document does not conform to regulations, it implies
hoax.
Documents at this level would be closely monitored.
o Rebuttal: There is no evidence that the document does not conform to
the
regulations of the era.  In any case, this group, according to the
document,
could set their own rules.

Page 287, Par. 9
o Allegation: Pankratz of the Eisenhower Library is cited as saying
MAJIC EYES
ONLY never existed.
o Rebuttal: Eisenhower Library would not have been given this data if
the
classification were genuine.  Probably NSA does not know either.  This
classification is seen on documents only after 24 September 1947.  Lack
of
official record does not discriminate.  Officials will not release
anything
that is defined to be not for public inspection.

Page 288, Par. 10
o Allegation: A real manual would not contain an obsolete classification
mark.
o Rebuttal: Same old argument about "Restricted."  See examples in same
type
style.  The level of people authorizing would have been the same level
establishing the classification rules.

Page 288, Par. 11
o Allegation: If the classification is a mistake, need examples of
similar
mistakes from authentic documents.
o Rebuttal: At the Top Secret level, most documents are not declassified
yet,
especially Code Word and Eyes Only.  In addition, classification level
in the
Archives is not a category.  Several documents at lower levels include
"Restricted" and the War Department logo.

Page 288, Par. 12
o Allegation: The security level of "2 points above Top Secret" does not
exist.  Text says, "no special group such as MJ-12 exists."
o Rebuttal: The purpose of this sentence would be consistent with
impressing
the 1954 reader.  One "point" might be the Code Word MAJIC, and the
second,
"Eyes Only."  The directions about the existence of the group are
totally
consistent with an authentic manual=92s objectives: fully covert
operations.
Gen. Groves had a file "Above Top Secret."

Page 288, Par. 13
o Allegation: (Preceding) "paragraph is utter nonsense."  There are no
classifications above Top Secret.
o Rebuttal: There may be no classifications above Top Secret, but the
Manhattan Engineering District records may not be available, and they
had
their own rules.  In the absence of detailed (classified) Classification
Management Directives from this era, we do not really know.  Not a
discriminator.

Page 289, Par. 14
o Allegation: Special Compartmented Information (SCI) would modify Top
Secret
legitimately.
o Rebuttal: True statement.  Top Secret=97MAJIC could have been a
legitimate
compartment designation, as the precursor of what we now call SCI.  The
current security procedures have their roots in the past, of course.

Page 289, Par. 15
o Allegation: "Two points higher than Top Secret is ridiculous"=97 "There
is no
such classification."
o Rebuttal: Same argument as Par. 12.  See rebuttal there.  Today=92s
classification guidance is nearly irrelevant to what went on in 1954 or
so.

Page 289, Par. 16
o Allegation: There is no need to explain or justify the need for the
high
classification. ("Ridiculous")
o Rebuttal: The classification of UFO recoveries and alien bodies is
easily
justified, as something the public should not know.  The security of the
program was one of the main objectives, according to the manual.

Page 289, Par. 17
o Allegation: "The smoking gun proving the manual to be a hoax is
...several
references to Area 51 and S-4."
o Rebuttal: Deep research shows that the Government in 1951 obtained
this
geographical region for covert purposes.  The references are still
classified.
This material is very impressive, and cannot be obtained easily.

Page 290, Par. 18
o Allegation: Designation Area 51 did not come into use until late
1950s.
Thus, manual is a fake.
o Rebuttal: Same as above.  The story of this land is deeply classified,
even
today.  The initial Air Force memo released regarding the manual
redacted all
discussion of Area 51 S-4 in the unclassified version.

Page 290, Par. 19
o Allegation: A lot of time was spent by someone creating the manual but
he
had not understood the classification system.
o Rebuttal: A lot of time has been spent trying to replicate them to
conform
with USGPO practices of the time, unsuccessfully.  The nominal Adobe
Monotype
Modern does not quite match the manual.  If the manual is authentic, it
was
created with a Monotype machine that used a mechanical spacing technique
with
triangular shaped wedges.  Today=92s machines cannot replicate the fonts
and
spacing.  Anyone who claims that it is easy should try to do just one
page
with 1993 software.

Page 290, Par. 20
o Allegation: There is no doubt that the manual is nothing more than a
fake.
It does not conform to the regulations, contains inaccurate information,
and
is incomplete.
o Rebuttal: A summary of specious claims.  No objective tests have been
offered to discriminate between real and fake.  The weight of the
evidence is
overwhelmingly consistent with an authentic document.

Overall, the concerns raised by Randle do not include all those offered
by the
Air Force.  He failed to cover the allegation that 1954 radars could not
determine shape (they can, given several data records or air-to-air
recordings); or that the manual in 1954 mentioned downed satellites as a
legitimate argument to convince the nosy public to go away.  It can be
shown
that the public would have been quite familiar with the reality of
satellites.

Furthermore, since the manual was first made available for research, a
"change
control" page has been found that clearly indicates the exact date of
update
of each changed page and the typed initials of the change control
authority.
This was published in "The Majestic Documents," available at
800-845-2151.
Other naysayers had said that such a page must exist, and it does.

We will respond to Tom Deuley=92s extensive and thoughtful comments later.

Wood and Wood Enterprises.
Robert M. Wood and Ryan S. Wood





[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com