UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Feb > Feb 3

Re: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:54:52 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:37:34 -0500
Subject: Re: 8/27/96   Re: MJ-12 Document


This repost serves two purposes. First, to show the
selectiveness of data employed by the MJ-12 promoters, i.e. in
this case Stanton Friedman's. Second, to point out to what
extent MJ-12 promoters will go to in their irrelevance. Three to
four months later, Stanton Friedman repeated his accusations,
slightly modifying them to include Kevin Randle who was also
pointing out why the MJ-12 documents were bogus why.

Ed Stewart

---------

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:58:46 -0400
To: ianr@global-data.com
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ebk@nobelmed.com>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 Document

From: egs@netcom.com (Edward G. Stewart)
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 Document
To: ebk@nobelmed.com (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 00:07:10 -0700 (PDT)


>From: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 96 18:20:47 -0400

>Re Ed Stewart, Dr. Wescott, and TOP SECRET/MAJIC.

>I guess my Publisher, Marlowe and Co. must have already put
>out another printing of TOP SECRET/MAJIC.

Before he does that, may I suggest that either you, or your
ghost writer, rewrite it and correct the misleading
"endorsements" you present in the book.

>My pages 78 and 133 don't have the word "endorsement".

Friedman is correct. He doesn't use the word "ENDORSEMENT". My
use of quotes around the word endorsement was for emphasis and
not a direct attribution to a word that Friedman wrote. When I
attribute something directly to what Friedman wrote, I provide
the source documentation including page number where anyone can
independently verify it. Nevertheless, Friedman does say:


"His (Kevin Randle) omission of linguistics expert Roger
Wescott's conclusions supporting the legitimacy of the
briefing document on the basis of Hillenkoeter's writing."
                   ---Stanton T. Friedman, from page 133


AND THAT IS AN EXACT QUOTE FROM PAGE 133. It is nothing but
intellectual dishonesty on Stanton T. Friedman to state that
Roger Wescott's conclusions supported the legitimacy of the
briefing document.

>I can't find retraction in Roger Wescott's letter either.

From Wescott's letter previously posted in its entirely to this
mailing list and appearing in IUR, vol. 13, no.4, July/August
1988, page 19:

"...I have no strong conviction favoring either rather polarized
 position in the matter..."

"I wrote that I thought its fraudulance unproved."

"I could equally well have maintained that its authenticity is
 unproved."

"...inconclusiveness seems to me to be of its essence."

                                       --- Dr. Roger W. Wescott

Yet, in 1996 Friedman states in his book that Dr. Roger W.
Wescott's conclusions supported the legitimacy of the
Hillenkoetter material. That is simply intellectual dishonesty
of Stanton T. Friedman's part. Pure and simple.

>I strongly recommend everybody read what is actually said on
>those two pages and reread Roger's >letter, (which I had
>forgotten, if I ever saw it) and Ed's description of >it.

Again, the letter can be found in IUR, vol. 13, no. 4,
July/August 1988 on page 19, and also reproduced in JUST CAUSE
(NEW SERIES) No.18, December 1988, pp. 4-5.  Apparently, Stanton
T. Friedman has "forgotten" a lot regarding the early
controversy over the MJ-12 documents, or maybe Stanton T.
Friedman had his head buried in some archive and when he came up
for air, everyone forgot to mention it to him that Dr. Wescott
was no longer interested in being quoted by Moore, Shandera or
Friedman as supportive of the Hillenkoetter material.

>As usual he is living in his own little world. I hope he is
>being paid well to birddog me. Perhaps by the successor to
>Majestic 12? Stan Friedman.

My goodness!

Nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman, the original Roswell
researcher with fourteen years handling classified documents in
industry, truly outdoes himself with the above insight, no doubt
based on his personal experiences in heroic and unprecedented
archival research. No doubt, I will also soon be receiving an
updated version of my resume from Richard J. Boylan, Ph.D.
(GRIN)

Now back to the real world.

Ed Stewart




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - |	So Man, who here seems principal alone,
"There is                     |	Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
 Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal,
 -Salvador Freixedo-  ( O O ) |	'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
-------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man -------



Search for other documents from or mentioning: ianr

[ 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