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

Re: Greenwood on MJ-12

From: Jan Aldrich <jan@cyberzone.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:00:24 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:04:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Greenwood on MJ-12


>From: Ryan S. Wood <rswood@igc.apc.org>
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:35:48 -0800
>Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:35:58 -0500
>Subject: Re: Greenwood on MJ-12

[Non-Subscriber Post]

>Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:43:56 -0800
>From: Jan Aldrich <jan@CYBERZONE.NET>
>Subject: Greenwood on MJ-12
>To: PROJECT-1947@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

Greetings,

I must say this is quite a reaction to the announcement the next
UFO Historical Revue. Seems to me that Barry's audience compared
to Art Bell's is infinitesimal. The flea stings the elephant!

>Dear Mr. Aldrich:

>In the interest of clarity let me respond to your
>comments in CAPS and hopefully ease your mind and others
>about the authenticity efforts by Wood & Wood around the MJ-12
>documents. Our focus is on quality, thoroughness and validation.

>Jan Aldrich writes:

>>>The MJ-12 Saga Continues, Greenwood Addresses New MJ-12
>>>Documents In The Next UHR

>>>Once again, extraordinary claims are being made involving
>>>a number of documents shoved into Tim Cooper's mail box.

>REALLY, WHAT CLAIMS ARE THOSE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE DOCUMENTS
>THEMSELVES?

That they are authentic. Of course, if they are authentic all
the material, ie events in the documents are true. The
documents represent extraordinary events.

>>>These second generation MJ-12 document highly promoted by
>>>Dr. Robert Wood and his son attract new people to the MJ-12
>>>morass. The Woods claim that by looking at the content of the
>>>documents they can determine the authenticity of the material.
>>>Provenance is irrelevant to these proponents.

>This is statement is inaccurate. we are looking at
>all aspects of authenticity, typography, content, style
>chirography, provenance

Glad to hear it, but again that establishes nothing conclusive
on authenticity. Fakery can be established, however.

>and difficulty in fakery.

This is silly. After six weeks training most military clerks can
produce military documents. The idea that it is difficult to
mimic someone's style or load documents with obscure facts is
ludicrous. One only has to look at the Howard Hughes and Hitler
forgeries, which were indeed first certified by experts to see
that. As far as producing type fonts and other items I guess the
implication is that there were no forgeries until computers came
along.


>in no way are we focusing on only a few elements. Now
>you may believe that we are because that is all the
>information you have seen or understood.

Of course, the content of the documents involves all these thing
mentioned about. Unless you find flaws, this tells you little
about the authenticity of the documents.


>Let me say that we have hundreds of pages of further
>detailed analysis that we have not yet published.

>On the provence front, Tim Cooper just agreed to take
>a lie detector test on The Mike Jarmus Show after BOb
>Durant Asked him to.

I think no one disputes that Tim Cooper found the documents in
his mail box or got information for the shadowy Cantwheel. This
establishes nothing about the provenance of the documents.


>>All doubt has been
>>answered about the MJ-12 documents, or so we are to believe.

>Were do you get that impression? There are still many man
>years of additional work to be done. do you want some
>assignments?

Now, if you re-read what you wrote below it seems to me
that is exactly what you are saying: that in your two
year study you have checked all possible serious objections
and you have foreseen all the problems. So which is it?
Man years of further analysis or everything already so
neatly established that nearly all serious objections have
been foreseen and answered.

>How about find every soldier in the 9393 TSU (400+) in 1947
>and interview them or there children. There are other
>less daunting tasks as well.

It would seem that this answer the above question, but why
go to that trouble based on questionable documents.?

>>>So while most of ufology does not yet accept the extravagant
>>>claims for the new MJ-12 documents, there are many new people
>>>who find these documents compelling.
>
>Excuse me, Aldrich...Most of ufology? Who are you to
>speak for ufology? Did you do a survey and have
>a majority opinion?

My statement was based on the discussions on UFO UpDates and
other places. I was not implying that it was based on a survey
of everyone who considers himself a ufologist.


>The documents are actively
>>>promoted on Art Bell and on other radio shows, and on the
>>>Internet.

>This is a good thing. It allows everyone to read and
>understand for themselves.

>>>Barry Greenwood will devote the next UFO Historical Revue to
>>>problems and flaws in the new MJ-12 documents. It will probably
>>>be in the mail next week.
>
>We look forward to any serious objections, i doubt very
>much that any objection that may be raised we have not
>already heard of before. Very likely we will have already
>performed a detailed analysis that addresses serious
>objections.
>
>Remember that we have been studying and researching
>these documents for nearly two years.
>
>It is sad in my mind that Greenwood has not contacted us
>to further clarification of his opinions and investigations
>So that the ufo community can continue to have the
>best possible information discussed in public forums
>such as UHR.
>>>
>>>UHR, P. O. Box 176, Stoneham, MA 02180, $15/year US, $20/year
>>>outside the US.

UHR should be out in a few days; so you will get your wish. In
the meantime here are some of my objections:

1. Provenance. These document all appeared in people's mailboxes
or came from shadowy figures. Recently, the workings of MJ-12
are expounded in fictional works, because it is okay for people
with security clearance to discuss classified information as
long as it is in the form of fiction. This last is poppycock!

If you can't establish provenance, nearly all other work is a
waste of time and effort. Hoaxers and forgers can create just
about anything. These documents are at least second or third
generation copies. Most efforts to determine a cut and paste job
is wasted.

The origin of the documents cannot not be established. What's to
say rather than chronicles of real events created in some
government office, they would the work of people in trying fool
someone?

2. Security Markings. Top Secret is not Secret with the word
"Top" stuck in front of it. Silly statement, but it is necessary
to drive home the point that Top Secret material is handled
completely different than other material.

It seems that there is almost complete *ignorance* of the proper
procedures for handling Top Secret in the UFO community. There
is certain such among the MJ-12 advocates. So much so that they
debunk the use of Top Secret Control Numbers and other Top
Secret procedures. For those who wish to know the procedures
here they are:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5/vii.htm

This section for Army Regulation 350-5 describes generally the
procedure for handling Top Secret information. Specific
implementation instruction are elsewhere.

[Some people who have actually had clearance try to exploit the
UFO public's ignorance with tall-tales, but that's another tale
which has been told elsewhere.]

Ah, but the MJ-12ers say, this is an Army procedure, every
agency has their own. Beside that, procedures have changed over
the years. This is more exposition of the *ingnorance* I
mentioned. Each agency may implement the instructions with some
variations but their results must be the same.

Documents must have control numbers, a unique number that is
used for the continuous accountability in that office. All of
the MJ-12 documents are missing this vital item. Most are
missing other required items.

Ah, but the retort comes, these documents originated years ago.

Yes, and despite the debunking by MJ-12 advocates of the Top
Secret control procedures, the procedures have remain little
changed since the post-World War II era. This is something that
the great MJ-12 researchers seem to have missed in their
extensive research.

A document cover properly exhibiting Top Secret control
information may be found at:

http://www.iufog.org/project1947/fig/1948air.htm

The SOM 1-01 should have displayed similar markings on the
cover: a Top Secret control number and the which of copy of the
total number of copies.

Why is this? Because the fabricators of MJ-12 did not even know
the proper Top Secret control procedures. They thought that Top
Secret documents were controlled and maintained just as the
lower Secret and Confidential documents.

(For those really interested, I can provide a sample of
declassified Top Secret documents from the era. They show the
Top Secret control numbers, implementation of the procedures in
different fashions and how TS control numbers sometimes get
obliterated during the declassification/FOIA process. Send me a
self address 55-cent stamped (or international reply) and a #10
(business) envelope--don't request this by E-mail--and I will
provide you with samples.)

Instead of the "difficulty of fakery," how about "the silliness
of content," because the silliness of some of these documents
should be readily apparent:

SOM 1-01, for example.

Berliner provide the change sheet for the publication. Are
there any indications in the text of the changes being made?

There are none!

If MJ-12 is composed of the brightest and the best minds around
how come they can't figure out:

o That the recovery team has to guard against overhead
  observation

o How to establish an exclusion area (something typical
  for the Army, but probably not for a Sergeant in the Air
  Force)

o Prevention of taking souvenirs

o Actual procedures, equipment, and specially trained personnel
  needed to accomplish a recovery?

The manual does tell one how to construct a box, something could
have been referred to SOM reader in another publication.

BTW The "TO" number on the manual's cover refers to an Air Force
technical manual. If someone wanted to do research on the item
for authenticity purposes, they would find the Air Force
Technical Order index for 1954 and look up the number. My bet is
that it belongs to a packing manual! [Not doubt with multiple
changes through the years--another avenue of investigation.
Since the manual came from Kirkland, is there anyone else we
know who was associated with Kirkland? --Just a thought.]

The silliest thing in the SOM 1-01 is the cover story for the
recovery operation being a downed satellite! In 1954 there were
not satellites. The purpose of the cover story is to keep the
press and presumedly foreign intelligence agents away. If it
was announced in 1954 or even in the late 1950s after some
satellites were launched that a satellite had come down it would
cause a sensation and attract every reporter every spy around.
Such a cover story would cause both the press and spies to
redouble their efforts to find out what was going on! What a
*stupid* cover story! Multiple Jerks-12!

One could go on, but what is the point?  Manuals of this type
are supposed to establish standards of performance, detail how
procedure are done and establish equipment, personnel and
training necessary to accomplish the tasks. This manual is an
outright failure in these regards; it does, however, tell one
how to construct a shipping crate.

MJ-12 seems a red-herring dragged across the track of ufologists
which takes us far away from the study of UFOs.

Jan Aldrich


[ 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