UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Apr > Apr 2

Re: Robert Todd On MJ-12

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:51:46 EST
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 05:03:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Robert Todd On MJ-12


Here is my response to the rebuttal from Dr. and Ryan Woods -

>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:

I'm not sure what it means that they found "the initial
evaluation, never published before, of Appendix C" and then
mention it was published by Avon Books. Anyway, thanks for the
kind words, even if we do disagree on the authenticity of the
Operations Manual and MJ-12.

>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.

Actually, what the line says is, "It seems that every time we
have provided evidence that the documents are fraudulent,
another argument pops up to contradict our opinion."

That evidence would be the proof that the Aquarius Telex is a
hoax, the CIA/MJ-5 letter is a hoax, and that the Truman memo
accompanying the Eisenhower Briefing is a hoax. The only
questioned document examiner who has expressed an opinion to me,
Stan Friedman and others has said that the signature on the
Truman memo was clearly transplanted, that the cross stroke on
the "T" had been slightly altered which eliminates the multiple
pen arrangement argument, and that the donor document had been
located. This shows the document to be fraudulent.

The Woods themselves admit the Eisenhower Briefing may be a fake
(See their comments below). Seems like such evidence does, in
fact, exist.

The real way to view this issue is to realize that the
documents, without a provenance, are questioned and the burden
of proof is on those claiming authenticity. In other words, they
are required to prove the documents authentic and they have
failed to do so.

>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's
>identity is indeed unknown.
>Lack of provenance is not highly relevant to authenticity. 
>Experts do not have to rely on provenance alone.

Excuse me, but Don Berliner receiving a copy anonymously in the
mail is not the same as an identified source. Provenance is, in
fact, one of the keys in establishing the authenticity of a
questioned document. And no one said they rely on provenance
alone. It is just an important part of the examination.

>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.

In April 1954, when this document was allegedly created, there
was no War Department and it hadn't existed for about seven
years. If the War Department seal is proper, then it means the
document was created by an agency as part of the Army or Air
Force. That changes the search parameters and eliminates all
other agencies as the source of, and the home of, MJ-12 and its
materials.

>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.

The manual is short because it does not contain the information
that would be expected for the job the manual directs to be done
correctly. The idea that the photographer was dumb enough to
risk prison to photograph the manual but didn't bring enough
film stretches credulity. Besides, I have a friend whose camera
used but half the frame on a 35 mm roll of film. If he brought a
36 exposure roll, he could have taken 72 pictures. The rebuttal
is little more than speculation.

>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.

No one claimed it was a scientific poll. This is a straw man. I
will say, however, in the informal, self-selecting polls that I
have conducted, as well as my discussions with many leaders in
the UFO community, the majority believe the documents to be
fraudulent.

Please note that the Woods suggested earlier that there is no
evidence that the documents are faked, but here suggest another
of the documents, or rather part of the Eisenhower Briefing,
might be faked.

>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 itcannot be copied, but that everyone who sees it must
 >sign a record. This allegation is obviously based on a false
 >assumption.

Please present any other MANUAL that is labeled as "Eyes Only."
If duplication is forbidden, that is what the document says. It
does not say "Eyes Only" to prevent duplication.

>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.

Nope. Restricted was a classification below secret before
Eisenhower, by executive order, created the three levels of
classification - Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. Restricted
Data referred specifically to nuclear secrets and was not used
as "Restricted." While there are other manuals that existed in
the time frame with Restricted on the cover, they were not
created AFTER Eisenhower issued his executive order. Having both
Restricted and Top Secret on the cover is a mixing of two
classification levels and is indicative of a hoax. There really
is no way around this mistake.

>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.

The use of both Restricted and Top Secret on the cover is just
one example of the documents failure to conform to the standards
of the time. If we allow the speculative argument that the group
could set their own standards, then we have removed a barrier to
establishing authenticity without a proper foundation. We have
NO examples of any group, no matter how highly placed they were,
who could ignore the regulations on the creation of classified
documents. More importantly, there is no reason for the mythical
MJ-12 committee to have such power because obeying the
regulations would not lead to the compromise of their
organization. That they could set their own rules is
speculation.

>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.

Another nice dodge to explain why there is absolutely no
evidence outside of the documents themselves to the existence of
MJ-12. Since the Eisenhower Library DOES have a great deal of
material that is still classified, there is no legitimate reason
to believe that some reference to MJ-12 could not be found if
the organization existed. With all the people looking in so many
places, it is reasonable to believe that some reference to MJ-12
would have been found. That simply hasn't happened.

>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.

And I would use the same argument that I used above. Restricted
is improper and outdated. It suggests that the manual is a hoax.

>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.

Yet we have lots of examples of formerly classified Top Secret
and code word documents to review. We have not seen similar
mistakes on them. Anyone who has worked with documents
classified at this level will suggest the documents that have
mixed levels of classification are not authentic. The only way
this could happen is if the document was originally classified
at one level and then downgraded. There is no evidence on the
Operation Manual that this is the case, which would be there if
it was.

>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's objectives: fully covert operations. Gen.
>Groves had a file "Above Top Secret."

Idle speculation to explain something that didn't exist. And I
had a file laying around that said impending doom, but that did
not make it part of the classification system, nor would such a
thing legitimize the statement from the manual.

>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.

As a former Air Force intelligence officer, in all my training,
including that at the DIA, I was never exposed to anything that
suggested there was a classification above top secret. Those
people I knew who held higher clearances, such as crypto, have
never heard of such a thing.

>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.

Yes, but there is no evidence that there was ever anything
legitimately classified as TOP SECRET - MAJIC. (At least after
World War II, in which MAGIC referred to the breaking of the
Japanese codes. The documents have long since been declassified.
And for those interested, ULTRA referred to reading of the
German codes.)

>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's
 >classification guidance is nearly irrelevant to what went
 >on in 1954 or so.

Same argument as above.

>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.

But not properly laid out which suggests the manual is a hoax.

>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.

There is absolutely no evidence that Area 51 existed in 1954.
More importantly, in 1954, the location now known as Area 51 was
in civilian hands. Civilians were still mining the area around
Groom Lake. Sorry, but this really is a "smoking gun."

>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.

Without any evidence that the term Area 51 was in use in 1954,
and without a facility there, and with no evidence of any other
facility ever designated as Area 51, this is an anachronism that
spells the end of the manual.

>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's machines cannot
>replicate the fonts and spacing.  Anyone who claims that it is
>easy should try to do just one page with 1993 software.

Isn't that what I just said.. No evidence has been presented, in
the form of a qualified questioned document expert, to support
the claim of the use of a Monotype machine.

>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.

No, a recapitulation of the evidence that suggests the document
is a fake. The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly consistent
with fraud. This is a neat attempt to shift the burden of proof
from the supporters of MJ-12 to those of us who believe it a
fake. It is the same tactic that Stan Friedman attempted in his
"Final Report on Operation Majestic Twelve" when he claimed that
in North American courts the defendant was considered innocent
until proven guilty, suggesting that MJ-12 should be considered
authentic until proven a fake. In reality, such is not the case
with questioned documents and the burden of proof is on those
who claim authenticity. They are required to prove their case
but have failed to do so.

>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.

Now I'm criticized because I didn't use an Air Force argument?
Does that make any sense?


Yes, the idea of artificial satellites was in the public arena
in 1954, but, if the mythical MJ-12 committee attempted to use a
downed satellite as a cover story for the recovery of a crashed
spacecraft, isn't such a cover story going to generate more
questions than it answers? Aren't the reporters, and the public,
going to want to know who was launching artificial satellites in
that era? A cover story, to be believed, must be believable. To
suggest a downed artificial satellite is not going to be
believed and it is going to force reporters to dig deeper
because they will KNOW that it is a cover story.

>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.

So someone, hearing these criticisms invented the change control
page which is not the same as the control number that is still
missing.

In the end we are left with the same problems that we have
always had. The Operations Manual, just as the other MJ-12
documents, is filled with mistakes, errors, inconsistencies,
anachronisms and a failure to conform to other, authentic
documents from the era. These are major problems and they have
not been satisfactorily explained.

Worse still is that fact that no direct links to governmental
agencies, or to the membership of MJ-12, have been established.
Without a provenance, the first link in the chain is broken. We
have nothing to suggest that MJ-12 existed except the documents
themselves, all of dubious authenticity.

Nor is there a link from any of the alleged members back into
MJ-12. Stan Friedman performed the Herculean task of researching
Dr. Donald Menzel's past but when all was said and done, there
was nothing in Menzel's personal papers to establish membership
on MJ-12. There were no notes written in his hand about MJ-12,
no letters or memos mentioning MJ-12. There was nothing other
than the fact that Menzel had held high security clearances and
that he had worked in intelligence during the war.

If MJ-12 was real, no matter how highly classified, we would
have found some hint that it existed outside of the documents
that are anonymously leaked and filled with stylistic,
technical, and anachronistic errors. Those problems have not
been adequately addressed by anyone to this date. Instead we are
treated to speculation about why the errors exist but we are
offered no proof in the form of similar mistakes and errors in
other manuals created in the era.

The point is that we have no evidence for the existence of MJ-12
or the authenticity of the various documents, and a great deal
of evidence to suggest that they are faked.

KRandle

[ 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