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

Part 1: MJ-12 SOM 1-01 [was Robert Todd on MJ-12]

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 05:24:20 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:48:36 -0500
Subject: Part 1: MJ-12 SOM 1-01 [was 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

Since my reply is long, I am breaking the message down into two
parts.

PART I

See the Joint Statement of SOM 1-01,

http://www.fufor.org/mj12statement.htm

Signed by people that have extensive experience (that is, people
who have been "on the ground") relative to the arguments
presented concerning SOM 1-01. I would not have signed the
statement if I had not had experience in security, in tactical
operations in the field, and writing field manuals. It is one
thing to have manual that purports to tell one how to recover a
UFO, it quite another to execute such an undertaking from the
meager and irrelevant information imparted by this manual.
Imagine for a moment that you are an Operations Officer. Using
this manual and the references provide within the text and the
publication appendix, plan for such a recovery operation
including proper equipment, properly trained personnel, and
proper execution. Consider problems that might be encountered,
trafficibility, access to the site, sustaining such a field
operation, safety of the troops and civilians living in the
area, supply rates of material used, support elements required,
special situation such as operations in unusual terrain (in a
swamp, on a mountain side, etc.), documenting the material,
etc., etc.

If you contend that the operation can be performed using the
information or references in SOM 1-01, than you just don't
understand how elaborate such operations are.

I would ask you to further consider the dialogue about the
SOM 1-01 also on the Fund for UFO Research (FUFOR) site:

http://www.fufor.org/dialogue.htm


>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

>From: DrBobWood@aol.com
>CC: rswood@igc.apc.org

>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.

You can assert it is real or fraudulent. The key is proof. It is
up to the proponents to prove their case.

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

What experts? History is full of forgeries and fakes. Provenance
is the main question here. On that issue alone SOM 1-01
flounders.


>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.

The War Department Seal is used on Army and some joint Army/Air
Force manuals of this era. MJ-12 is supposedly levels above the
Army. Why use its seal? This is nonsense! The War Dept. seal was
not used on the State, Navy, Interior or other such publications
of other agencies. Demonstrate that it was used on publications
of other services and agencies of the time.

The War Department Seal belongs to the Army exclusively.

>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 completely inadequate for the purpose. Beside the
lack of concrete information, it is loaded with irrelevant
information such as "why is the sky blue." Publications of this
type are suppose to give concise directions and standards for
accomplishing the mission.  See above for just a little example
of the information required.

>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.

Part of the Eisenhower Briefing Document is fake? How
interesting? However, that does not make the SOM 1-01 genuine,
by any stretch of the imagination.

>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.

Classified documents cannot be copied without permission of the
responsible authority. That is part of the security regulations.
It needs no "Eyes Only" for that. Reference anywhere in any
security regulation where "Eyes Only" appears. As I have
discussed, before "Eyes Only" is an order and has no other force
in law, and so would be only applicable to those subjected to
the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. All persons who view Top
Secret documents must sign a record. Once again, the proponents
of MJ-12 do not know >!*basic*!< security procedures in place at
the time and afterwards!

Cite one security regulation that states "Eyes Only" conveys
this meaning. This is made up in the minds of the investigators!


>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.

Kevin is correct. The levels of classification were Top Secret,
Secret, Confidential, and Restricted. An Eisenhower executive
order did away with the Restricted classification. NATO and most
other countries still have the Restricted classification.
"Restricted Data" and "Formerly Restricted Data" indicate
nuclear weapons information and are always associated with a
classification, such as Secret Restricted Data (SRD),
Confidential Formerly Restricted Data (CFRD), etc., etc.

If examples abound of manuals with "Top Secret" and "Restricted"
in 1954, supply just one! Once again, the it is obvious that in
two years of research the investigators learned very little
about basic security procedures!

>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.

Well, this is a good one. If it has the War Department seal on
it, maybe we should expect that it would conform to Army
regulations and doctrine which it doesn't, see above.

Continued in Part 2.

--
Jan Aldrich
Project 1947
http://www.iufog.org/project1947/
P. O. Box 391, Canterbury, CT 06331, USA
Telephone: (860) 546-9135


[ 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