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: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:33:43 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:03:18 -0500
Subject: Re: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document


>Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:42:01 -0800
>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document

>On this repost, it was necessary to point out the shallowness of
>the counter-arguments of Stanton Friedman related to the alleged
>and bogus SCEO #092447, and by extension all old and new alleged
>MJ-12 documents referencing the bogus SCEO#092447.

>We also discover that Stanton Friedman had not been entirely
>truthful in his posts to this mailing list by allowing
>implications that in the past he had been in a "position" to
>handle TOP SECRET documents. His past continuous appeals to
>authority based on his alleged past experiences turned out to be
>irrelevant since never in his life Stanton Friedman had access
>to Top Secret documents. He never had a clearance that would
>have given him access to any such documents and his intellectual
>dishonesty was exposed in the repost, below.


Let us get facts straight:

1. I have never claimed to have had a TOP SECRET CLearance
although I did have a Q which gave me access to Secret
Restricted Data.

2. I have seen loads of formerly TOP SECRET Documents during my
many visits to Archives (18 at least count)

3. I published in my "Final Report on Operation Majestic 12" 5
formerly TS documents which did not have Control numbers,
whether Ed Stewart likes it or not.

4. Judging by the Cutler Twining Memo, we are dealing with a
NSC/MJ-12 Special Studies Group. This is not part of the
Department of Defense. The NSC serves the President.

5. It is simply too bad that Ed doesn't like my arguments. I
deal with the real world as it is and as it is testified to be
by Archivists who handle classified and fomerly classified
documents all the time. I realize that Ed believes he knows more
than they do and assumes that the rules about such matters are
identical and always adhered to in all governmental agencies.
This is false.

6. I have on several occasions found "classified" documents  in
boxes that had supposedly been declassiified. They were
sometimes not marked declassified. That is the real world

7. Perhaps to soothe Ed I should have said when a memo goes from
an individual to his boss instead of from me to my boss so no
one could even think I was talking f my handling TS material..
As indicated.

8. Ed tells us that a TS Executive Order doesn't get a number
until it is declassified. Since there is no indication that the
Truman Forrestal memo was declassified, could that not easily
explain why it did NOT have a normal number on it and  the term
"special classified executive order" ( which seems to me a very
accurate description) was used to give it a useful
identification in a listing on a preliminary Briefing document.
I use the date when I invoice people as part of the invoice
number. The State Department uses the date as part of their
filing system number for a document.. I am sorry that dosn't
meet with Ed's approval, but that is the way it is.

9. Obviously it would be useful if we had formerly highly
classified Briefings and special classified executive orders for
comparison. I have been unable to obtain even the 4 briefings
known to have been given by DCI Walter .B. Smith to Ike between
Nov. 4, 1952 and Jan. 9, l953. Perhaps Ed with all his knowledge
about such matters can find some good examples.

Stan Friedman


[ 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