UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 21

Oppenheimer & Einstien - 'New' MJ-12 Doc

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:04:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 12:16:02 -0500
Subject: Oppenheimer & Einstien - 'New' MJ-12 Doc

Here is my analysis/comment on the "Celestrial " document:

in the Wood & Wood Collection
by Bruce Maccabee

Document #1:

Note: it will be easier to understand some of my comments in the
following if you realize that there have been identified "UFO"
documents which were partially based, word for word, on real
documents. The real documents were modified by the addition of
UFO-related terminology. Also various "caveats" (security
markings) have been added (such as "majic") to make them look as
if they were part of a highly classified study of UFOs, etc.

1) Did E have a TS clearance (we know he had a clearance from
the Navy for torpedo explosive (?) work). He did not work on
"the bomb." I am only aware of the following open literature
association between E and UFOS: someone asked (1952, 53?) what
he thought people were seeing when they reported flying saucers.
He responded "they must be seeing something" or something like

2) Why Einstein? What did he know about international law of
territorial occupation or colonization or relationships between
us and "estraterrestrial men?" Same question for Oppenheimer.

3) Why June, 1947 as "draft" date? the implication is that by
June 1947 it was well accepted by a some people (including E and
O) that ETs were real, flying around, and might communicate.
Where is there independent evidence that saucer reality was
accepted on a high level BEFORE July, 1947?

4) Celestrial? (sp)

5) The first paragraph seems self-contradictory: "Relationships
with (ETs) presents (sic) no bascially(sic) new problem (for)
international law...", yet, "confronting intelligent" non-human
beings "would bring up problems whose solution is difficult to
conceive." So which is it, a piece of (international law) cake,
or "too hard to do?"

6) The third paragraph says that a first condition is that they
should have human-like psychology. What if they don't meet that
condition? We give up?

7) What guidlines in the Pentateuch? (guidelines for
interactions between nation-states?) Guidelines for occupying

8) Paragraph 5 clarified (I hope): "If these intelligent beings
were in possession of a more or less (sic) culture, (sic) and a
more or less perfect political organization, (then (1)) they
would have an absolute right to be recognized as independent and
sovereign peoples, (2) we would have to come to an agreement
with them to establish the legal regulations upon which future
relationships should be based, (sic) and (3) it would be
necessary to accept many of their principles."

You know what this sounds like? It sounds like a discussion of
how to interact with the aborigines (native peoples) of a
country. Imagine someone in the 1600's or 1700's writing about
how to deal with the American Indian Nations. Or, more primitive
yet, somone writing about how Columbus should deal with the
natives he discovered. How about the first contacts with the
South Sea Island aborigines in WWII (Tasaday, etc)?

Also, it sounds like someone trying to determine how a "United
Nations" organization would interact with aborigines.
Discussions leading up to the founding of the UN?

Alternatively, this might be a stab at creating an "interplanet"
law that would be needed after colonies of humans are
established on other planets or on space stations. This would
be something that people interested in space exploration and
colonization might write. (see below)

9) Paragraph 6: cross off "to the earth" and imagine the US
government vs the American Indians: if they attacked we could
defend. Alternatively, this might pertain to the possibility
that a well established colony of humans on another planet or
space platform might become a threat to the earth. (see below)

10) Paragraph 7: Considering the UFO context of this document,
the suggestion is made that ETs are homo sapiens that "grew up"
on another planet ("celestrial body in our solar system") and
evolved a different culture. Actually, this is more consistent
with thinking of a future situation in which a human colony
"grew up" on another planet or space station and evolved its own
culture. "Obviously, this possibility depends upon many
circumstances. whose condition cannot yet be foreseen. However,
we can make a study of the basis on which such a thing might
have occurred." Might have occurred?

I believe that already by 1947 astronomers had concluded that
the conditions for human-like life exist only on the earth and
not on any other "body in our solar system." Hence I believe
that for E and O to suggest otherwise would be highly unlikely.
Furthermore, this paragraph suggests that the writers didn't
know whether it was true or not and are therefore ready to "make
a study." This uncertainty seems strange when compared to the
opening paragraph which seems to imply that the writers are not
merely engaged in an academic exercise to answer the question
"what are the legal ramifications of contact with ET? or
something like that."

On the other hand, this might apply to far future space colonies
that mght try to break away from their parent earth nations and
become nations on their own.

Paragraph 8: this paragraph seems to directly address the
possibility of HUMAN colonization of planets, the opposite of
other solar system planets being the source of ETs coming to
earth. Amusing: in this paragraph it is suggested that water of
hydration could be driven off by heating and split into H and O
and that the O would be used for breathing and the H as fuel.
Question: what is the H going to burn when used as fuel? O?

Paragraph 9: The original of this document could be about the
possible problems for international law that could result if
colonies of humans that have been established on other planets
or bodies in the solar system for purposes of exploitation
decide to become independent nations (analogous to the American
colonies of Britain!!!). It could also be about the problems of
colonies of previously uninhabited places on earth where there
is a "continuous interchange" of men who work in these places
but with no chance of the place becoming an independent country.

Para 10): Thought EBE was supposedly invented by Bronk after the
Roswell crash!! This paragraph, ostensibly written in June,
1947, says we now want to determine what to do if EBEs want to
settle here

Para 11: item 1 of "what to do"/...... suggests that we consider
them an independent people if they have culture and are
politically organized. This paragraph also says what THEY could
do: they could consider "what degree of development would be
required on earth for colonizing." Do these statements make any
sense in the context of a technologically superior "race" coming
to "colonize" earth? NO. To me it appear as nonsense.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if this refers to HUMANs who grew up in space
colonies and who now want to return to earth after developing
their own "culture", then it does make some sense.

Para 12: item 2 of "What to do"......This doesn't suggest
anything for us to do. Instead it says that EBEs have a "right"
to colonize if THEY consider our culture "devoid of political
unity." Does this make any sense at all? NO. More nonsense? It
also is a little weird if one assumes this is a discussion of
space colonies returning to earth.

Para 13: This suggests that the EBEs should carry out a
colonization in which they would be our guardians of teach us
something ("tutelage") with the "tacit approval" of the United
Nations. I ask, what would the UN have to say if a
technologically superior race of EBEs decided to colonize earth?
Would the EBEs care what the UN had to say? Probably not. On th
other hand, aboriginal races that are discovered by UN member
nations might well care what the UN had to say. If this refers
to human space colonies returning to earth with superior
knowledge gained from living in space, then it might marginally
make some sense.

Para 14: labelled (a). The first sentence says the UN regulated
international relations and not tutelage (as mentioned
previously). This implies that the tutelage is going to occur
within a nation's boundaries and hence is not subject to UN
control. The next sentence makes no sense. It appears to be the
concatenation of two ideas. "It would have the right to
intervene only if the relationships of a member nation with a
celestrial (sic) body affected another member nation with an
extraterrestrial people is beyond the domain of the United
Nations." This sentence falls apart at the word "is." Leaving
off all words after "is" we have a sentence that says the UN
could only intervene if "th relationships of a member nation
with a celestrial body" were to affect "another member nation
with an extraterrestrial people." The meaning of a "member
nation with a celestrial body" is not clear. Nor is the meaning
of a "member nation with an extraterrestrial people." Aside from
the lousy sentence construction, this sentence doesn't really
mean anything (unless this refers to an earthbound country that
has a relationship with a space-based colony on some platform or
planet and said relationship affects some other member nation
which also has an "extraterrestrial" colony).

Para. 15: labelled (b): "If the United Nations were a
supra-national organization it would have competency to deal
with all problems related to extraterrestrial peoples. Of
course, even though it is merely an international organization,
it would have this competence if its member states would be
willing to recognize it." This paragraph would make sense if
"extraterrestrial peoples" was replaced with something more
earthy or with "space colonies." "Supra-natioal" means "above"
the national. In other words, if the UN could tell member
countries what to do, then the UN could deal with problems of
(aboriginal or space-based) peoples. However, the UN is only an
organization of member states, not a superior ruling body over
the members. But, if the member states would recognize the UN as
being "superior," then the UN coul handle these problems.

Para. 16: except for "celestrial" this is one of the few
paragraphs that makes sense standing alone. However, with a
change of a few words this could probably be made more "earthy."

Para. 17: Considering the previous paragraphs the first sentence
here sounds somewhat redundant and somewhat senseless: "We
cannot exclude the possibility that a race of extraterrstrial
(sic) people more advanced technologically and economically may
take upon itself the right to occupy another celestrial body."
Wait a minute, to this point the discussion has mostly been
about EBEs colonizing earth. What is this "other celetrial
body?" consider what this sentence would mean if
"extraterrestrial" were replaced by "people" (meaning humans)
and "celestrial body" were replaced by "country" or "area of the
earth." "How, then, would this occupation come about?"

Another interpretation: this may refer to one space colony of
humans trying to take over another space colony. Suppose, for
example, the USA set up a colony on Mars and the Soviet Union
(remember, this is ostensibly written about 50 years ago) were
to set up a space colony on the moon. Now suppose the US colony
decided to attack the moon colony. What could the UN do to
intervene? If the space colonies were sufficiently self-reliant,
not needing anything from the earthbound "mother" countries, ten
probably the UN could do nothing short of launching a space war
to deter agresssion. But this would likely end up an earth war.

Para 18: labelled 1. This paragraph does not answer "how this
occupation would come about." Instead, it says "The idea of
exploitation by one celestrial state" (by another?) "would be
rejected" (by whom or what?), "they may think it would be
advisable to grant it" (what, explotation?) to all others"
(other what? "celestrial" states? races? humans? EBEs?) "capable
of reaching another celestrial body." The two main portions of
this sentence don't fit together. The first half says the "idea"
of exploitation would be rejected. THe second half talks about
granting "it" to all others that are capable of reaching
"another celestrial body." Does that mean that any group capable
of space travel will be granted "it" by the UN? Is "it" the
right of exploitation?

This makes little sense as written.

Para 19: labelled 2: presumably this is another description of
"how this occupation would come about." This does not answer
that question. But it does discuss what might happen with
occupation: a "celestrail" body could be divided into zones
which would be distributed among "other celestrial states." This
raises the question of how many "Celestrial states" are trying
to take over the earth. According to this paragraph, division
into zones would present a problem of "distribution" and,
furthermore, "other celestrial states would be deprived of the
possibility of owning an area, or if they were granted one it
would involve complicate operations." Now this makes me feel
sorry for the other "celestrial states" that would be deprived
of the opportunity for owning an area. This makes no
sense.....except perhaps in the context of the relationships
between space colonies (of humans).

Para 20: labelled 3: This paragraph is another answer to how
occupation would come about: "Indivisible co-sovereignty, giving
each celestrial state the right to make whatever use is most
convenient to its interests, independently of the others." This
is not a complete sentence, but if the first two words are
assumed to answer the question of how occupation would come
about, i.e., "by indivisible co-sovereignty," then the sentence
makes sense. I presume occupation by "indivisible
co-sovereignty" would work. Sounds like a real good deal for the
occupiers since they get the "right to make whatever use is most
convenient." However, there is a drawback to "indivisible
co-soverignty": "This would create a situation of anarchy, as
the strongest on would win out in the end." In other words the
"co-occupiers" would fight for control. There would be anarchy
for a while, perhaps, but I presume that ultimately rule would
be reestablished as a dictatorship. Overall, this paragraph
makes little sense inhte context of EBE taking over or occupying
the earth. It might make some sense in terms of the
relationships between space colonies of humans.

Para 21: labelled 4: Does this paragraph make sense in the
context of occupation? Apparently it assumes that the EBEs would
be moral and would allow themselves to be absorbed peacefully
into our culture in such as way as to be invisible ("their
presence not be revealed"). This sounds like "stealth
occupation" by agreement with the occupied, if one assumes EBEs
are the occupiers and humans are the occupied.

Para 22: "Actually we do not believe it necessary to go that
far." Huh? Not necessary to have stealth occupation? "It would
merely be a matter of internationalizing celestrial peoples and
creating an international treaty instrument preventing
exploitation of all nations belonging to the United Nations."
What is this supposed to mean? By "internationalizing celestrial
peoples," the EBEs, who are about to take over or occupy the
earth, we can create and "international treaty instrument" that
will prevent "exploitation" by the EBEs of "all nations
belonging to the United Nations." Don't we wish that were so!!
In my opinion this paragraph makes little no sense.... UNLESS,
it pertains to the relationships between space-based colonies of
humans. IN that case, they essentially say that the United
Nations (of earth) should be extended to space so that "space
nations" would also be bound by basic laws of the UN (against
the exploitation of one space nation or one space nation's
possessions, by another space nation).

Para 23: This paragraph says that there has been a loss of
interest "by states here on earth" in law related to the
occupation of unoccupied or unpossessed territories (terra
nullius or, in this document, "res nullius"; look it up on the
web! a hot topic in Australia!!!) since there are no longer
unoccupied territories on earth. However, there are potentially
"territories" in space which could be occupied (moon, planets)
and this possibility brings forth again the need for
international laws related to territorial occupation.

Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26: Except for the misspelling of
"celestial" in para. 26, these paragraphs are acceptable as
written. These paragraphs effectively define occupation as "the
means for acquiring sovereignty over territories....either
inhabited of in an elementary state of civilization." In other
words, send your army and/or civilians to simply "move in" on
the present inhabitants, if any, and "take over" the land or
area to be occupied. Then you can teach them your ways of
"civilization" (see previous reference to tutelage). Paragraph
26 "predicts" a rise in "imperialist expansion" by states taking
over extraterrestrial bodies in interplanetary space where "the
celestrial states present new problems."

This sounds very much like thinking related to an outer space
treaty between space colonies or nations and has NOTHING to do
with ET's coming to earth.

Para 27: Aside from poor sentence construction this paragraph
makes sense. It says that estraterrestrial territories such as
the moon belong to no one. (Hence it is available for occupation
by colonization by terrestrial states. HOwever, terrestrial
states might have to divide the moon into zones or else fight
over control of the moon.) However, if a celestial body were
found to have an indigenous race, then no single terrestrial
nation could claim it. Instead it would be considered as
communal property of all "celestrial states." Of course, this
has nothing to do with EBEs taking over the earth.

Para 28: change in subject: are "celestrial astroplanes" flying
around in our atmosphere because of of atomic testing? The
implication here is that there have been a number of flying
saucer sightings already by the time of this document in June
1947, enough sightings to cause an alarm. Another implication is
that there were none before the first bomb (Aug. 1945). This
implication contradicts the implied or explicit claims in other
documents that there was "hard evidence" such as crashed saucers
before 1947 and even before 1945 (e.g., in 1943).

Para 29: This paragraph says that the military accepts the
reality of "unidentified space craft flying in our atmosphere"
and "possibly maintaining orbits about our planet." Ostensibly
written in June, 1947, this is certainly premature from the
conventional history point of view which is that, publically,
the AF has never acknowledged "unidentified space craft." But,
more to the point, there is little evidence of the acceptance of
UFO reality by the AF top brass until early 1952. IN 1952
Stephen Possony wrote a document which includes the sentence,
"The Air Force cannot simply assume that flying saucers are
estraterrestrial." Possony, a top level civilian consultant to
the Air Force was in a position to know what the top brass was
thinking. Evidently the brass was thinking "ET." But this is
1952 after a lot of water had flowed, and a lot of saucers had
flown, over the dam.

Para 30: The sentence structure of this paragraph (one sentence)
seems more convoluted than any of the previous. Was it by the
same writer(s)? It almost makes sense as written. IF the words
"...and the exclusion of" which follow the word "disarm" are
removed the sentence becomes understandable. This paragraph says
that efforts to reach agreements to disarm or discontinue
testing of nuclear "weapons that are too destructive" have been
unsuccessful despite the "lamentations of philosophers, the
efforts of politicians and th conferences of diplomats."
However, " by some miracle we cannot explain" there have been
agreements on chemicals in warfare.

Para 31: This paragraph introduces the idea of an atomic bomb
carried by a "space vehicle." This makes sense in the
conventional way if we assume the writer was thinking of atomic
bombs on ballistic missiles..rockets which would go far enough
above the earth to be in outer space for at least part of the
journey. We know that in early 1949 Lincoln La Paz (famous
meteoricist - who studied meteors) was already warning the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations that green fireballs
might be Russian missiles which we could call "fractional
orbital bombs" but without the bombs. (However, he predicted
that bombs would be added later.) "The use of the atomic bomb
combined with space vehicles poses a threat on a scale which
makes it absolutely necessary to come to an agreement in this
area." The writer(s) then refers to the appearance of
"unidentified space vehicles (opinions are divided as to their
origins) over the skies of Europe and the United states has
sustained an ineradical (sic) fear, an anxiety about security,
that is driving the great powers to make an effort to find a
solution to the threat." Note: this sounds as if it COULD have
been written in 1949, 1950 or so when the missile race was
really on and after there had been enough saucer and green
fireball sightings so that it would make sense to worry about
distinguishing between a ballistic missile and a saucer. This
sort of reason sounds really premature for a June 1947 document.

Para 32: This paragraph makes complete sense as it stands
alone./ There is no reference to EBEs or unidentified space
craft. This is simply an analysis of the military situation that
could be caused by the proliferation of "nukes" (nuclear tipped
ballistic missiles) which are described as the "ultimate weapon
of war" because they would strike very quickly and come from
above so the "bombee" wouldn't necessarily know when to expect
it or where "bomber" was located. Also, impossible to defend

Para 33. This paragraph points out that at the time of writing
(1947?) only slow moving bombers were available for weapon
transport. HOwever, looking ahead ten years (1957) "When
artificial satellites and missiles find their place in space we
must consider the potential threat that" (here is where the
paragraph gets a little "wacky") " unidentified space craft
pose. One must consider the fact that mis-identification of the
space craft for a (sic) intercontinental missile in a re-entry
phase of clight could lead to accidental nuclear war with
horrible consequences." Wrong.
 So what if they misidentified a "space craft" (an alien flying
vehicle - flying saucer) as an intercontinental missile. If the
object were a missile, it would be only minutes to seconds
between the (radar) detection and the explosion. IN other words
they would have very little time to wait to find out whether
they had detected a missile or a space craft. IF after, say, 5
minutes there was no explosion, then they could safely say they
detected (by radar) a "space craft." Now, admittedly from the
time of first detection to the time of identification as either
a space craft (no explosion) or a missile/bomb (big explosion)
they would be wondering what to do about it. But only in a
"launch on detect" scenario would we be likely to mount a
retaliation - leading to "horrible consequences" - before
waiting to see whether it was a missile or a "space craft."
Also, of course, unless the space craft were following a
ballistic trajectory from a reasonably likely source (e.g., from
te direction of the Soviet Union), it would be rejected as an
atomic threat. In other words the fear that an "space craft"
would be mistaken for an intercontinental missile was unfounded
in 1947 and in years later. Recall that in 1953 the CIA did
suggest that saucer sightings could clog communication channels.
And, in earlier years, there could well have been a fear that
SOVIET BOMBERS might be misidentified as"space craft." But, of
course, the solution to this problem was to scramble jets at the
first contact and identify the radar targets. (This actually
happened Dec. 6, 1950 at about 10 AM when unknown radar targets
were detected coming from the north near Greenland. see "THE
UFO/FBI CONNECTION/ the REAL X-files by B. Maccabee).

Para 34: the preceding 3 paragraphs were more concerned with
nudlear and war affairs on the earth. Now we get back to the
ET's....or do we? "Lastly, we should consider the possibility
that our atmospheric tests of late could have influenced the
arrival of celestrial scrutiny. They could have been curious or
even alarmed by such activity (and rightly so, for the Russians
would make every effort to observe and record such tests)."
What? The Russians? What do they have to do with "celestrial
scrutiny?" There is no doubt that the "Russians would make every
effort to observe and record such tests." But that doesn't mean
that the EBEs would "observe and record such tests." They might
not give a damn. Or they might. This sounds very much like the
ORIGINAL writer of this paragraph was concerned with some PEOPLE
(Soviets or friends of the Soviets?) observing tests.

Para 35: "In conclusion it is our professional opinion based on
submitted data that this situation is extremely perilous and
measures must be taken to rectify a very serious problem are
very apparent." Huh? Leave off the last three words, please. OK,
so this writing was ostensibly based on "submitted data." So E
and O didn't have their own data to go on? They were handed what
data they needed in order to write this? And they describe the
situation as "extremely perilous?" What situation? The "stealth
takeover" of the earth by EBEs? The situation with the atomic
bombs on ballistic missiles would be perilous in the future, but
not at the time of writing when only bombers could carry bombs.
So, what situation is "extremely perilous?"


Having read every word of this document and having tried to make
some sense of it I suggest

1) Ostensibly this is about relationships between humans and
"estraterrestrial men" or non-humans (EBEs). However, the paper
does not follow what I,at least, would consider to be a logical
flow. The first part starts off with international law and how
it might apply to relationships with "extraterrestrial men"
(humans?) and EBEs coming to earth. But then it inserts comments
that could apply to humans occupying other "celestrial" bodies.
Finally, it switches to a military threat, not from the EBEs but
from the Russians.

2) there are numerous misspellings and several paragraphs have
poor sentence construction

3) many of the statements seem to make no sense in the context
in which one supposes they are to be taken

4) the stamp TOP SECRET seems to have been made on a small
rectangle of paper attached to the top of the typed document.

5) I think E and O could have done a LOT better than this if
they were really concerned about the impact of EBE colonization
of the earth

6) I think this document could have been created by modifying a
real document that discusses the problems of colonization by
humans of over "bodies" in the solar system, including the
problems that could arise if such colonies decided to become
independent. There may also have been a real document discussing
the problems created by atomic warfare.

Bottom line: I don't buy it.


Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:49:45 -0800
To: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
From: Ryan S. Wood <rswood@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Authenticity of the Oppenheimer/Einstein draft
Cc: Bob Wood <drbobwood@aol.com>

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your detailed comments on this letter. I will read
them over and comment on them hopefully soon. In the meantime,
let me provide you with some addtional discussion that we have
prepared that may address some of your concerns.

Assessment of originals. Since typewriters are six lines per
inch if the paper is not slipping, it is possible to enlarge or
reduce copies to the exact size of the original. Then, on pages
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 one can measure the width of the original
remnant of paper edge to be 8.0 inches. The paper size of 8 x
10.5 inches was used during the war.

Chronology. Both draft authors were at Princeton at the time,
although some records for 1947 are missing from various files.

Type and handwriting. The top secret markings are done with
paste-on labels, also consistent with the period. This would be
consistent with having been typed before the classification was
applied. The type shows p=92s, o=92s, m=92s and other letters with
small spaces filled in, thereby indicating a carbon copy. If so,
the classification would have had to be a paste-on label. The
initials of Vannevar Bush are similar to exemplars of his

Content and authorship. A comparison of the language of this
draft with writings of J. Robert Oppenheimer shows clearly that
he did not dictate it or write it, since his work is quite
sophisticated and urbane. The misspelling of the word
"celestial" as "celestrial" would be consistent with a
circumstance of a secretary taking down dictation =97 and the
secretary not being knowledgeable in astronomy. With Einstein
dictating, with his German accent, several of the misspelled
words become more reasonable. The misspelling of the word
basically in the second sentence may suggest that the secretary
was not working from dictation but directly from Einstein=92s
words. This would also favor security, since the dictation pad
would not exist to have to be classified. The content of this
piece can be compared against what Einstein might have said if
he were given a specific request. The five asterisks separating
the sections appear to be separating hypothetical questions.
They are consistent with the answers to the following seven

	What relations should we have with extraterrestrial men?
	Where might they be coming from?
	What should we do if they want to settle here?
	What does international law say about this problem?
	Do they have a right to move into unsettled territories?
	Do we have more rights to settle on the moon than they do?
	Has our testing of atomic weapons caused the presence of
     the visitors?

Reference 1 says that when Einstein executed his first contract
for Dr. Vannevar Bush in late 1941, Bush required Einstein to
submit his written report to Bush directly in Einstein=92s own
handwriting so that no typist or other assistant would see it.
This work pertained to uranium isotope separation, an early
difficult problem. This historical piece of information would be
consistent with the idea of there being no dictation pad. This
is consistent with not correcting the typing errors.

Bush himself =97 consistent with the awkward beginning of the
sentence =97 possibly typed the note at the end. The intent is
less clear, except Bush did not want Oppenheimer talking to
President Truman on this topic.

As far as the overall message of the draft is concern, it is
unclear. Einstein says that that the "measures to be taken to
rectify a very serious problem are apparent." It is certainly
not apparent to us what he was recommending.

Some have noted the presence of phrases that seem to be of a
more modern era, such as, "at any rate," to the point where,"
"in any case," or "to a certain extent." A literary analysis of
the piece, looking at sentence structure, sentence beginnings
and endings, shows consistency with other examples of draft
Einstein material of the era. A comprehensive set of comparisons
is in preparation.

In summary, clues from the original, the chronology, the type,
the handwriting, the authorship and the content all favor

1. Sayen, J. (1985). Einstein in America. Crown Publishers, New York.
Dr. Robert M. & Ryan S. Wood
Majestic Doucments Investigators | Researchers
PO Box 2272, Redwood City CA 94064


My comment on the response: aside from misspelling and some poor
sentence construction, which MIGHT be explained as resulting
from translation from German to English in a draft, the document
seems to contain too much illogic and not enough continuity of
subject matter to have been written by a couple of geniuses. The
response is not sufficient to convince me.


[ 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