UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 27

08-12-96: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:34:57 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:21:14 -0500
Subject: 08-12-96: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

This repost, also from 8/12/1996, touches on the issue of
relevancy. Does the alleged evidence being claimed by the
proponents support the authenticity of the claim, or is it just
more sound bytes?

It also contributes towards the demystification of the MJ-12
saga. The claim, as you will see, that outsiders could not have
fabricated the MJ-12 papers does not stand up to the historical
record and it is just as phony as the documents themselves.

The false implication that only insiders could have produced the
documents is argued by promoters of the documents to suggest the
only two possibilities open to reason are that the documents are
either genuine, or if not, a conspiracy to disinform. No other
alternatives are given, much less suggested, research or

The dichotomy presented above by MJ-12 proponents is a logical
fallacy known as exclusion of the middle. Absence of evidence
for one possibility does not imply evidence for the other
extreme possibility. The middle cannot be excluded and many
alternatives exist. Exploration of alternatives requires that
the issue of provenance/genesis be addressed. Something that
apparently is not a priority with the MJ-12 promoters.

With the above in mind let me repeat my original question in the
repost below from 1996 to the new batch of MJ-12 papers. Is
there anything in the new alleged evidence that establishes
multiple, independent, direct, link-by-link, verified chains of
evidence to show that MJ-12 is real, or that establishes the
genesis/provenance of the MJ-12 documents?

Ed Stewart

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 12:07:44 -0400
To: ianr@global-data.com
From: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ebk@nobelmed.com>
Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation

From: egs@netcom.com (Edward G. Stewart)
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: MJ-12 - An Estimate of the Situation
To: ebk@nobelmed.com (UFO UpDates - Toronto)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 17:34:31 -0700 (PDT)

Regarding: fsphys@brunswickmicro.nb.ca

>I have yet to see a poll of Ufologists showing their views
>about the documents, nor one showing how many have studied
>my report or later papers,

You are absolutely correct. I just took a quick inventory of all
of the articles provided to the mailing list as a chronological
history of MJ-12 as it was picked up by the UFO press, and not
one single scientific poll of serious Ufologists. You don't
suppose that may be because there just aren't that many serious
Ufologists in the world to validate the results of a poll?
Depending on the margin of error one would be willing to accept,
one would need to find between 1600 and 3000. In the absence of
a rigid, well constructed poll, one could always hop to Las
Vegas and get some kind of bet over there. Be curious to see
what kind of odds Nevada is offering on MJ-12? Nevertheless,
polls? I was under the impression that scientists were more
interested in being able to present multiple, independent,
link-by-link, verified chains of evidence. How does one get that
from a poll?

Nevertheless, I did come across quite a few articles that had
forums filled with serious Ufologists discussing their research
findings about the MJ-12 documents. You are in there yourself
presenting your viewpoint. Also, each of the four publications
provided quite extensive space to editorials and investigative
reporting regarding the MJ-12 documents. Over all, about 150
articles detailing the full spectrum of MJ-12 that provides a
substantive sample of what the editors', columnists', and
research writers' opinions were of the MJ-12 documents. Included
is also Richard H. Hall's personal skepticism towards the MJ-12
evidence after submittal of the "Final Report" to the Fund.

>or the data reported in 'Top Secret/Majic'.

I wouldn't mind opening up the discussion on it. I am perplexed,
though. It appears that your claim of providing a "detailed
review of the whole MJ-12 controversy" in an earlier marketing
post to the mailing list is highly selective and does not
include any mention of any of the below:

1. When the MJ-12 documents were first presented to the
Ufological community by Moore-Shandera-Friedman in 1987,
as evidence for MJ-12, they included the Aquarius Project,
CIA/MJ-5 memo, as well as others. The claim then was that
they all came from the same "sources". There is no mention
of them in your new book. All of those documents seem to
simply have disappeared from the face of the earth.
Care to discuss why?

2. It also became known that Bob Pratt was brought in by
Bill Moore to write a novel with him in Jan. 1982
with Moore providing the "technical details" from his
"sources" and passing those on to Pratt. The basis for
the novel was Project Aquarius and the working title was
MAJIK-12. This was a full two years before the alleged
MJ-12 documents were mailed to Shandera in 1984. Pratt
has never supported the "anonymous" MJ-12 documents.
There is no mention of this whole part of the MJ-12
documents controversy. Care to discuss why?

3. Is there some reason why only the first page of the
new MJ-12 Manual was photocopied, the remaining 17
pages were retyped into the book? Also, any reason
the entire manual as received was not printed to the
book? Is there something wrong with the manual pages
you decided not to use?

>I did for example, provide a list of more than 30 pieces of
>information that turned out to be true but were not known
>before the documents were received. These items are ignored in
>just about all the criticisms I have seen.

For one thing the more than 30 pieces of information that turn
out to be true are simply not relevant to either providing
direct link evidence to the claim that MJ-12 is real, or to
establish the genesis/provenance of the documents. But since I
brought these issues up in a prior missive and asked if there
was anything in your new book that established the
genesis/provenance of the book or provided direct link evidence
to the central claim that MJ-12 is real without getting a
response, lets move into some of these alleged details that you
claim "...were not known before the documents were received."

Let's take a closer look at this. Canadian Wilbur Smith's memo
was known to Ufologists since the late 70s that linked him to
Vannevar Bush. Friedman himself received a copy of this memo in
the late 70s from researcher Scott Foster. This memo created a
strong interest in Bush Many researchers followed up and tried
to find out as much as they could about Bush.

This interest/research could have uncovered many of Bush's
relationships before the arrival of the MJ-12 film to Shandera,
including the Bush-Menzel "connection". Friedman himself in IUR,
Vol. 13, No.1, Jan/Feb 1988 "The Secret Life of Donald H.
Menzel" stated:

"In checking my files on Vannevar Bush after hearing of the
briefing document from Shandera and Bill Moore I found a
letter to Bush from Robert Proctor..."

The Proctor letter establishes the Bush-Menzel connection as
well as the Menzel loyalty hearings. If Friedman already had
this information in his files before hearing of the MJ-12 film,
so could have other researchers interested in Vannevar Bush, as
also other researchers that had co-researched with Friedman in a
generous exchange of research material gathered. And one of them
may well have followed up on the Bush/Menzel lead also.

Also, an FOIA from researcher Robert Todd to the FBI requesting
Menzel's FBI file shows that anyone requesting Menzel's FBI file
would have received information establishing Menzel as a NSA
consultant as well as confirmation of the loyalty hearings
already established with the Proctor letter. Also, the FOIA FBI
file received by Robert Todd showed that Menzel himself
requested his own file shortly before he died in 1976, but died
before receiving it with the FBI sending it to his wife instead.
That means that his wife did know about her husband's NSA
involvement as well as the loyalty hearings since the FBI files
contained that information and more.

Also, many researchers knew that FOIA requests to the FBI were
producing some results. As an instance, Moore, himself in his
own catalogs and newsletters advertised for sale FOIA FBI files
on numerous UFO personalities that he himself secured from the
FBI through the FOIA. This establishes that researchers were
familiar with the process and that data was available on UFO
personalities from the FBI, or for that matter from Moore also.
If Moore wasn't selling a particular UFO personality at the
time, an FOIA to the FBI would have resulted in a reply.
Menzel's was available through the FBI.

As for all the "revelations" regarding Twinning. Twinning was
already a focus of research in ufology before 1984. Friedman
himself stated on page 92 of "Top Secret/Majic":

"As Bill read the memo to me over the phone, I was
immediately reminded of a July 13, 1953 Cutler-Twining
memo we had found in late 1981 at the Library of Congress
Manuscript Division."

And from page 101:

"First, Twining's schedules were unclassified - theoretically,
any private citizen could have requested them."

So, not only was Twining a subject of research by UFO
researchers before 1984, but his schedules were unclassified and
easily accessible by anyone.

On "special date" November 18, 1952 MJ-12 Eisenhower briefing.

"General Twinning was definitely at one of the Pentagon
briefings with Eisenhower." page 234.

Since Twinning's schedules were unclassified and easily
accessible and since he had been a major focus of UFO research
well before 1984, as established by the example offered of
Moore/Friedman 1981 archival research of Twinning, any date
associated with Twinning could well have been secured before the
arrival of the MJ-12 film and known to any researcher that was
interested in Twinning. The same holds true for the Sept 18 and
Sept 19 dates associated with Twinning claimed by Friedman as
"insider" only information, but not necessarily so.

On "special date" Sept 24, 1947, date of Truman-Forrestal memo.
Since this date relates also to Bush, who was a major focus of
research due to the 70's Wilbur B. Smith memo, anyone
researching Wilbur Smith/Bush connection during the first half
of the 1980s could have come across this date where he met
Truman. After all, according to Friedman the only date where
Vannevar Bush did meet with Truman in the last months of 1947
was the special date used in the Truman-Forrestal memo. An
outsider with the knowledge of this date may well have found it
extremely attractive since it also included Forrestal, but
Friedman claims only an insider could have known before 1984.
Well, contrary to Stanton Friedman's claim, this date was
already known to outsiders and not just insiders as Friedman
claims. >From page 101 of the 1982 MUFON PROCEEDINGS, William L.
Moore,"The Roswell Investigation: New Evidence In The Search For
A Crashed UFO" writes:

     "On September 24, he [Bush] and the new secretary of
    Defense, James Forrestal, met with President Truman
    at the White House - a meeting which resulted in
    Dr. Bush's appointment as Chairman of the new Research
    and Development Board of the National Military

And hold in behold, every outsider at that 1982 MUFON Conference
knew also of the "special date" that Friedman in 1996 claims
could only have been known by "insiders" before 1984.

I simply use the above examples to illustrate that Stanton T.
Friedman's claim of "insider information only" in his new book
and as re-stated in this mailing list is full of holes. The only
real surprise that came to most outsiders was Menzel. Many
Ufologists already had pencil connections to the alleged MJ-12
people, but not Menzel, so claims Friedman. Yet, by Friedman's
own admission the Bush-Menzel friendship and loyalty hearing
connection was already in his files before the arrival of the
Shandera film. If it was in his files, it may well also have
been in any of his associates' files and their associates'
files. Since there was a strong interest in Wilbur Smith, anyone
researching Bush could have stumbled across Menzel, or simply
have used the more direct approach and filed an FOIA with the
FBI, something that was being done by many "outsiders".

As I hope I have illustrated above, the "insider information not
known to UFO researchers" arguments are baseless in fact.

To see how an "outsider" could have arrived at a working
script of MJ-12, let's take a look at Bedell Smith.

On "special date" Aug 1, 1950, date of Walter Bedell Smith's
naming to MJ-12. If one was considering Bedell Smith for a role
with MJ-12 based on his future appointment to the CIA effective
Oct 7, 1950, one just needed to check and see what dates
Bedell/Truman had met together retroactively from Oct 7, 1950
and analyze the options. I certainly would not have picked a
date he did not "meet" with Truman. According to Friedman, the
only date in the first 10 months of 1950 that he met with Truman
was the Aug 1, 1950 alleged date of his MJ12 appointment. This
date would of have to been the only date, the only choice, for
either an "insider" as Friedman claims, or an "outsider" which
Friedman claims could not have known.

Friedman's logic in presenting his list of only "insider"
information possible is fallacious. The argument is claiming a
negative. "no outsider" could have known. I have shown that
"outsiders" could have known and in fact are on record as
knowing and being in possession of much of the critical data
regarding Menzel, Twinning and Bush years before the MJ-12 film
arrived at Shandera's mail box, including the entire 1982 MUFON
CONFERENCE "insider information special date of Sep 24, 1947",
courtesy of Bill Moore of the 1984-1987 Moore-Shandera-Friedman
dream team.

Let me repeat my original question. Is there anything in the new
book that establishes multiple, independent, direct,
link-by-link, verified chains of evidence to show that MJ-12 is
real, or that extablishes the genesis/provenance of the MJ-12

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