UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 30

Majestic-12 Follies Returns (Barry Greenwood)

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:57:12 -0800
Fwd Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:28:38 -0500
Subject:  Majestic-12 Follies Returns (Barry Greenwood)

U.F.O Historical Revue #3, January 1999

Editor: Barry Greenwood
Box 176
Stoneham, MA  02180

Online comments and correspondence addressed to Barry Greenwood
can either be sent to me at ufoindex@jps.net, or to Jan Aldrich
at jan@cyberzone.net. All such online correspondence will be
relayed to Barry Greenwood the same day received.

Ed Stewart

                U.F.O HISTORICAL REVUE
                    #3 January 1999


     ( I had planned on a follow-up on long-duration
     meteors for this number of UHR, but recent
     developments on an MJ-12 revival warranted
     timely comment.  The historical reason for this?
     The documents are claimed to originate from the
     1940s through the 1960s, and are touted as
     genuine by believers in aliens visiting Earth.)

I was surprised to find in late 1998 that attempts were being
made by several individuals, primarily a Dr. Robert Wood, an
engineer, and his son Ryan, a marketing and sales specialist in
the computer industry, to resurrect the MJ-12 controversy. They
have claimed to have received new documents supporting the
notion the U.S. government actually investigated alien
spacecraft beginning in the 1940s, under the banner of
"Majestic- 12, supposedly a panel of eminent scientists and
government officials.

Readers familiar with this editor's involvement a decade ago
recall that I had published information as far back as 1985,
puzzling over the rumors of the possible existence of such a
group.  However, when physical evidence of the alleged group's
reality surfaced in the form of documents leaked from the
government by anonymous sources, I, and other researchers, had
concluded that the rumors of MJ-12 were false.  This conclusion
was based upon months of detailed analysis of the papers,
published in my previous journal, Just Cause, between 1987 and
1990.  Much of the UFO community at the time balked at the
suggestion that MJ-12 was a hoax and, despite the serious
problems described by researchers familiar with government
documents, happily endorsed MJ-12 as part of real history.  This
eventually led to books, a plot line in a TV series as well as
film, lectures, etc.

As we all know, making outrageous claims in today's world is
fashionable, chic and rewarding.  Even if such claims don't make
piles of money for the perpetrators, at least they became a
major topic of attention.  And if they are orchestrated well,
they can attract the media (the sponge in society that hungrily
soaks up outrageousness!)

MJ-12 led to a prominent novelist, Whitley Strieber, producing a
work (Majestic).  It led to an appearance by its promoters on
many television shows, including one of the top rated of its
time (Nightline).

MJ-12 eventually lost steam due to the torrent of problems that
became increasingly evident in the documents, the lack of any
independent confirmation from even a single documented
government source, and the lack of candor and cooperation of its
"discoverers," primarily William Moore and Jaime Shandera.  And
that is not to mention the questionable claims of being an
"unpaid government agent," along with other peculiar statements
by William Moore in a 1989 speech given in Las Vegas (Just
Cause, September 1989).

The key issue, the one overwhelming problem with the original
papers was their lack of provenance.  All the documents, save
one, came from an anonymous source.  The one document that was
"discovered" at the National Archives by Moore and Shandera (the
Cutler/Twining memo) was made known to the archives under such
suspicious circumstances that the chief of the Military Archives
Division was forced to issue a 10-point list of "problems" with
the document in an official letter dated July 22, 1987.  The
rest of the documents were not even originals but were sent to
the claimants on photographic film from which paper
reproductions were made.

Anything, anything at all that issues from an anonymous source,
particularly something claiming very unorthodox information,
must be regarded with the highest degree of suspicion.  If the
source won't even reveal an identity, what don't you know about
them, what do they hold back from you? What are the true motives
of the source, not the assumed motives that the recipient
ascribes to him.  If you find a T-bone steak wrapped in brown
paper sitting in your yard, do you take it in the house, cook
and eat it without question?  Unfortunately, that is what a lot
of the reading public did with MJ-12.

MJ-12 claims quieted down in the 1990s, in spite of efforts by
one of MJ-12's last vocal adherents, Stanton Friedman, to keep
it alive. It remained dormant until 1998.


I was told that on October 11, 1998, a father and son research
team, Dr. Robert Wood and son Ryan, gave a speech at the Omega
Communications UFO conference, in which they claimed to have new
MJ-12 documents not previously made public.  These documents
were said to have come from another researcher, Timothy Cooper
of California, who in turn received the documents in his post
office box back in 1992 from a mysterious, unknown source named
"Cantwheel," who was said to have since passed away.

It was an all-so-familiar scenario: anonymous sources sending
sensational UFO stuff through the mail to little-known
individuals for unstated reasons, much the same as in the
original MJ-12.  But this seemed to have no impact at all on the
Woods as I was told that they had already endorsed the documents
as authentic.

Sometime later I was informed by researchers Ed Stewart and Jan
Aldrich that the documents were reproduced on the Internet.  In
late December, Stewart kindly sent me copies of the lot, along
with a transcript of the Woods' speech, to see why they would
come to such an extraordinary conclusion in light of the earlier
destruction on MJ-12.

There are some 15 documents, or 96 pages, used in the Woods'
study, well beyond what I can hope to deal with in this
publication.  So I will only deal with a selection of the most
notable curiosities.

As with the original papers, I look at these new documents
within the boundaries of the fact that they are from anonymous
sources and, as such, are of very suspicious origin. Nothing is
taken for granted except that they are suspicious. When one
looks at the papers once this is understood, the next question
is are what you are seeing beyond any possibility of being
faked?  If you have no original document, no source, no official
release authority, and if you know that authentic-looking fakes
can be created through compute technology, photocopy forgery
techniques (such as laying false text over a real, signed copy
of a document, and then recopying the whole, whitening out the
tell-tale seams of the overlay), or retyping whole documents
using vintage equipment and blank letterhead stationery (an
example of this in UFO history is the Straith letter hoax,
perpetrated by Gray Barker and James Moseley, with some inside
help from a supplier of State Department stationery), then any
investigation of these documents must have a low degree of
confidence in any positive conclusion.

The Woods even acknowledge this, to a point, in their speech,
"..we admit that authenticity is never certain" (Speech
transcript, page 4).  Yet in the same speech, "..we're going to
summarize why the documents are not fakes."  Commenting on one
document, the Oppenheimer/Einstein draft," the Woods say,
..there is one unusual authentication feature that ensures they
are genuine."  And further on, "We believe they're genuine."  So
there is little doubt about where the Woods are coming from in
this investigation.  Rather than be cautious about undocumented
sources, they are opting to "believe" in the documents.

In their discussion of the "Interplanetary Phenomena Unit"
document, describing crashed-disc recovery procedures, the Woods
argue that a mention of John F. Kennedy being knowledgeable
about a UFO recovery operation, due to his involvement with
Naval Intelligence, is impressive to the document's
authenticity.  This because, according to the Woods, few knew of
Kennedy's intelligence connection in 1947.  They add, "So the
person who wrote this, if it was in 1947, was one of perhaps 12
people in the country who knew this obscure fact." Do the Woods
here have a concern about the document dating from 1947?  If
they do, they don't say why.

And certainly, if the document were written in 1947 by a
government official, then we wouldn't be debating this at all.
But it is as plausible that a more recent faker would have read
a later book mentioning this and included it in his creation, at
least one citation of which the Woods acknowledge exists.  A
hoaxer would have had many years to research his topic.  For
this unofficially released, source-unknown document, the Woods
don't even raise the possibility that the later scenario could
have occurred, and instead declare this information to be a
"zinger," which according to the Woods, says almost by itself
that the document is genuine.  We are beginning to see an
erosion of objectivity in these few examples.

In their discussion of the "Air Accident Report," an alleged
document by General Nathan Twining describing the inside of the
crashed remains of a flying saucer in detail, the Woods spend
much time on document letterhead, logos, format and paper size
being consistent with the era written (1947).  In wondering
about a couple of the logo details, "These two things are so
obscure that unless you were digging around the National
Archives, you wouldn't know to pout this in a fake document. You
must ask yourself, why go to all this trouble."

Did the Woods even consider that prior to the original release
of the MJ-12 papers in 1987, there were a number of individuals
who had the following things in common:

     1) Spent long periods of time at the National Archives.
     2) Were knowledgeable, as a result of the Archives visits,
         with government formats, letterheads, logos, dating
         styles, paper sizes, etc.
     3) Were very knowledgeable about UFOs.
     4) Who latter promoted MJ-12 as real.

In one case, I showed how one MJ-12 promoter, William Moore, in
retyping unclear photocopies of green fireball documents for
sale, changed the dating style of the original documents to his
own peculiar dating style in four cases, which just so happened
to be the same, non-standard dating style used in the original
MJ-12 Briefing document (Just Cause, June 1990)!

Curiously, the Woods, in their 1998 speech, raise the most
questions about the Briefing Paper (not one of their Cooper
releases but the 1987 release).  They say, 'it seems reasonable
to conjecture that the Eisenhower Briefing Document might have
been a cleverly crafted piece of disinformation aimed at the
Soviets, and therefore the only document presented here that is
not entirely genuine, even though it contains much that is
precisely true."

Yet the Briefing was wholeheartedly endorsed as genuine by the
original team of researchers, Moore, Shandera and Friedman, and
still is by Friedman.  Whose years-long, professional detailed
analysis is correct? Or might we create a new category of
document authenticity: the falsely genuine!

In perusing chapter 8 of Friedman's book, Top Secret/Majic, we
find that Timothy Cooper supplied Friedman with copies of
several new MJ-12 documents a number of years ago, including a
February 1948 "Memorandum for the President" by Roscoe
Hillenkoetter, a September 25, 1947 memo to President Truman
from General George Marshall and a July 9, 1947 Truman to
Twining memo.  The later two were included in the Woods'
document package presented at Omega, and called genuine.
Friedman appeared to be noncommitted to those documents, but he
was clearly not impressed with the 1948 document, saying that it
was "really a doctored version of a memo that would have been
sent to President Roosevelt during World War 2."

This document was one of the first sent to Friedman by Cooper,
the same source as the Woods' papers.  Yet the 1948 document was
not included in the Woods' analysis.  Why?  They can't claim
ignorance of it because it was quoted in Friedman's 1996 book,
in the midst of the Woods' years long investigation. Did they
not want the public to know that some of the supply from
Cooper/Cantwheel were transparent fakes that couldn't make the
cut?  Some of the Supply? Yes, there were other problem papers.

Friedman alluded to "another bunch of documents" from Tim Cooper
(TS/Majic, pgs. 158-9) condemning one September 27, 1947
document as an outright fraud, and adding that "several other
items were retyped and slightly changed versions of old memos
and letters."  Neither were these Cooper/Cantwheel documents
dealt with in the Woods' analysis. Why?

Smells like a cover-up to me!

This particular situation is reminiscent of Moore, Shandera and
Friedman's handling of MJ-12 in the 1980s.  Then, too, documents
were withheld.  Does anyone recall the CIA "MJ- 5" document? Or
others like it?  They were ridiculous fakes, one of which was
part of the original release of MJ-12 documents by William Moore
in his "Focus" newsletter in 1987.  I had pointed out numerous
flaws in the document (Just Cause, September 1987, pg. 3).
Thereafter, it was dropped, along with companion documents, from
subsequent discussion by MJ-12 promoters. Why aren't they
mentioned in Friedman's 1996 book?

There is also, in both the old and new MJ-12 documents,
unaccountable censorship evident, text blacked out for no
apparent reason.  It is rather odd behavior for a government
source, leaking highly-classified papers to get the truth out
about alien contacts.  How may one know the truth by deleting
information?  In the case of the old MJ-12 documents, William
Moore subsequently admitted self-censoring his own releases,
evidently to give them a more mysterious, governmental
appearance.  I wonder who may have done this to the new

More needs to be said about signed documents.  The Woods make
much of the fact that signatures appearing in some of the papers
look real.  Indeed that is likely.  The signatures may well be
authentic for whom they are supposed to represent. However, the
Woods pay astonishingly little attention to the likelihood that
photocopy forgeries are responsible, especially given the
conditions under which Tim Cooper, and then the Woods, received
their copies (no originals, generations-removed photocopies).  I
had once investigated, while with CAUS, an alleged letter by a
University of Chicago professor, on university letterhead,
claiming knowledge of alien autopsies.  After I sent the
photocopied letter to the professor for comment, I had received
a midnight phone call from the university's attorney, asking for
the source of the copy.  The professor informed the attorney
that someone had placed false text over a real, signed letter of
his and recopied it.  He was quite upset that his academic
reputation would have been damaged if people believed what was
written.  It takes only minutes to create a document in this
way, and it can be done to anyone at any time who has written
and signed a document.  A reason to doubt photocopied evidence
from unknown sources?  Here it is! Friedman cites the February
1948 memo as containing a handwritten Truman signature and
Vannevar Bush initials, and calls it "doctored" (TS/Majic,  pg.
159), establishing that photocopied forgeries did come from the
Woods' source, Tim Cooper, and ultimately the mysterious

Many UFO adherents have shown more than a willingness to accept
unsubstantiated statements attributed to an individual than
substantiated statements probably from that individual.  Albert
Einstein is already on the record as having a disinterest in the
UFO controversy, expressed shortly before his death.

In Exhibit 3 is a portion of a strange statement on
extraterrestrial life, allegedly by two of the most prominent
physicists in history, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert
Einstein. Crude phrasing and spelling are attributed by the
Woods in their analysis to "a secretary who couldn't spell."
(Oppenheimer/Einstein document, pg. 4)

With an incompetent secretary injecting so much of herself into
the text, Woods go on to claim, "Literary analysis compares
favorably with other Albert Einstein pieces during period of
interest."  How can the Woods say that this crude piece of work
is typical of Einstein writing, without providing any sort of
substantiation whatsoever for this alleged comparative analysis,
or claim it was Einstein at all if the secretary was such an
incompetent writer?  Did the document go to any Einstein
authorities for comment?  Any archive?  Any library holding
large amounts of Einstein writing?  Imagine Einstein or
Oppenheimer hiring a secretary who couldn't spell, given the
precise language and computative requirements of a physicist!
Imagine both approving of such a paper to be filed under their
names (it was in MJ-12's files, according to the Woods). If
Einstein were studying "Celestrial" matters under such
conditions, history would have been saddled with the famous


Another astonishing statement from the Woods in this regard,
"..forensic examiners find that errors present in documents tend
to indicate authenticity instead of lack of authenticity."
"Fakers usually try to make sure they're perfect." (!) So, the
Woods are trying to convince us that the more errors a document
contains, the more genuine it is! "Don't believe what makes
sense and believe in nonsense" is the logical extrapolation from
that.  The only problem is that non-fakers try to make sure that
their documents are perfect too.

So, if Albert Einstein has written a perfect document, we should
doubt it in favor of the error-riddled nonsense that the Woods
try to convince us is representative of one of the great minds
of history?

Is this what UFO "research" claims to be now ?

What of the Eisenhower Briefing Document mentioned earlier.  The
Woods reject it as "not entirely genuine," due to its perceived
errors (i.e. contradictions of fact with the new documents).  I
thought that errors indicated genuineness?  What happened to
that standard?  It was rejected because it disagreed with the
new documents, in which the Woods have chosen to believe.  By
what standard of fact do we judge the content of these
documents.  Both the Briefing Paper and the Woods' papers come
from anonymous sources.  How do the Woods know they don't come
from the same source? (after all, someone is dipping into the
master MJ-12 file and shooting the documents all over the
place!) What happened to security for the, claimed, most closely
guarded secret in world history?  Or why doesn't it all go to
CBS, NBC, New York Times, or even the Podunk Advocate to give
the info some corporate clout with money to do a good
investigation, instead of to measly UFOlogists who, as a group,
are no longer particularly respected or believed by outlets that
could do the topic the most good?

If the documents come from the same source, them both sets of
documents are supposed to be genuine.  How do the Woods explain
the contradiction of facts between the two sets in that case?
There is evidence for linkage you know.

If the Cooper-supplied documents are genuine, then they draw
information from the already-questioned Eisenhower Briefing.
How do I Know?  Because in Friedman's "Top Secret/Majic (pg.
145) he cites a Cooper-sourced document, the 1948 Memorandum for
the President, which the Woods inexplicably did not include in
their analysis.  The document references "092447" in the upper
corner, a clear allusion to the so-called "So-called Classified
Executive Order" (SCEO) listed as attachment to the Eisenhower
Briefing.  This was the Truman order initiating MJ-12.  Friedman
has already rejected this as a doctored version of a real,
non-UFO memo.  The SCEO, as I had discussed in my original MJ-12
report (Just Cause, September 1987), has no basis in fact, being
a fantasy creation by Friedman to explain the presence of the
suspect Truman document.  Real executive orders follow a
sequential numbering system, not a date-based system, and they
may be classified as the president sees fit, rendering "SCEOs"
as redundant.  To date, after intense research, no MJ-12
proponent have established the existence of SCEOs in real life.

Another problem with the Woods' assertion about the Briefing
being official disinformation: They say it could have been
created to mislead the Russians.  Yet it includes the SCEO in
full and references it in the text.  The Woods accept the SCEO
as authentic, "..the two big concerns about the type and the
signature: they've evaporated for Attachment A" (the SCEO). (the
Woods speech, 1998)

But they don't explain why one of the most highly secretive
documents in U.S. history is allowed to be given over to the
Russians freely when it has never been made available, even 50
years later, to U.S. citizens.  If the Russians have it, why
should it be a secret anymore?  It circulates in public now (by
a "leak") but not a single agency can document its existence.

So, if the Woods say that the Briefing is not entirely genuine,
we can't have confidence in what it says, despite Friedman's
support of it.  And if Friedman says some documents from the
Woods' source are fraudulent, we can't have much confidence in
that source of information, despite the Woods declaring their
papers to be genuine.  Both these parties support MJ-12 and are
in serious conflict here!  Why don't the Woods mention this in
their analysis, or mention their "missing" documents?

But there is more to come!

                     A FATAL FLAW

One of the most detailed documents in the Woods' collection is
"Majestic 12 Project - 1st Annual Report" (hereon referred to as
the "Annual").  They express their belief that the document is
genuine.  That in the several years of study that Woods have
performed, it has provided "no indication of fakery at all."
Seventeen pages of "specific, checkable details" are described
as the "mother lode" by the Woods.  They add that it will take
several man years to validate every phrase and claim. It didn't
take that long to notice a curiosity about its content.

Important to this discussion is when the document was said to
have been produced.  It is undated.  The Woods believe it to
date from the summer of 1952.  The inclusion in the panel list
(see Exhibit 1) of Dr. Hugh Dryden as Director of Aeronautical
Research, NACA, definitely places the document in the 1950s.
Dryden served as Director from August 1947 through 1958 when
NACA was absorbed by NASA.  Also on page 16 is a reference that,
"During recent NATO maneuvers, the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt has
been trailed by numerous UFOs..." clearly making reference to
the North Sea "Operation Mainbrace" naval maneuvers, during
which UFOs were seen, and photographed, in September 1952.
"Recent" doesn't place the document too much in time beyond that

The Annual discusses a series of UFO and other strange incidents
in its "Annex C."  One was particularly noteworthy as I had an
interest in it as far back as the early 1970s.  Exhibit 4
reproduces that portion of the Annual referencing the
disappearance of the One Fourth Norfolk Regiment into a strange

             Exhibit Four: Annual Extract

     In the annuls of warfare mass disappearances of
     soldiers and their equipment are rare but are on
     record.  In the eighteenth century during the
     Spanish War of Succession, 4,000 soldiers were
     reported to have disappeared, together with their
     weapons and equipment (horses included).  In
     1885, about 600 French colonial soldiers
     disappeared near Saigon, French Indo-China,
     without a trace of them nor their equipment.  On
     August 21 1915, members of the New Zealand
     Army Corps' First Field Company sighed sworn
     statements that they saw the One Fourth Norfolk
     Regiment disappear in a unusually thick brown
     cloud which seemed to move and rose upward and
     vanished.  There were no traces of the regiment
     nor their equipment.  No explanation can be found
     in the historical records of the Imperial War
     Museum archives.  In 1939, over 2,900 Chinese
     Nationalists troops were reported missing from
     their camp, just south of Nanking.  Again, men,
     equipment, guns, were missing though camp fires
     and mess tents were undisturbed.  During the
     Pacific campaign, there have been instances where
     whole platoons and larger units seemed to have
     disappeared without any sign of combat or a
     struggle.  Men, equipment, weapons --- vanish
     without a trace.  In all instances the
     disappearances occurred in tropical climate and in
     the heat of battle or near combat scenes.

But there was something seriously wrong with this!

The disappearance of the One Fourth Norfolk in Turkey during
World War I has been a staple of UFO pulp literature for many
years, having been cited pretty much as reproduced in the MJ-12
Annual through the 1960s and 1970s.  Even recently I have seen
it written up in tabloid papers.  It was this kind of
sensational treatment that led me and a friend to look into the
tale for a brief time in 1972.

A former co-worker in my regular job who had emigrated from
Britain to the U.S., and who was a British military history
buff, was fascinated when I told him about the disappearance. He
decided to send a letter to the Public Records Office in London,
asking for confirmation of the details.  His response, from J.L.
Walford, dated June 9, 1972, said:

     "According to the War Diary (WO 95/4325) for
     August 1915, the regiment underwent some light
     shelling on 14th August, but was otherwise
     entirely engaged on routine operations.  No
     casualties are reported for the month."

 I was rather surprised and disappointed that such an
interesting story didn't seem to have any substantiation for the
very strange disappearance of hundreds of men.  I attributed the
story to more sensation-mongering by writers on UFOs, and went
on to other matters.

It was not until some years later that I discovered the source
of the story.  In purchasing back numbers of old UFO
publications, I found that the first details on the
disappearance of the One Fourth Norfolk were published in an
affidavit signed by three former soldiers of the ANZAC landing
at Gallipoli, Turkey.  The festivities were held on April 25,
1965.  (see "Spaceview" - a New Zealand UFO publication,
September- October 1965, "Incident at Gallipoli" - where the
affidavit was reproduced, and February-March 1966, "Research on
'Incident at Gallipoli'")

First reported in 1965?!  There is more.

In August 1978, the magazine "Fortean Times" published a
detailed investigation of the Gallipoli disappearance by Paul
Begg.  Begg had conducted extensive document research in an
attempt to determine if the incident had occurred as written,
using military sources most likely to be able to document what
had happened.  His results:

     1)  The First-Fourth Norfolk was not a regiment
          but a battalion within the Royal Norfolk
     2)  The First-Fourth Norfolk did not disappear at
          Gallipoli in August 1915 or at any other time.
     3)  It was an undisputed fact that a sister battalion,
          the First-Fifth Norfolk did disappear, but not
          on the date or in the manner said to have
          happened to the First-Fourth.

Begg described the disappearance of the First-Fifth Norfolk from
the "Final Report of the Dardanelles Commission, CMD 371" (1917)
as an advance by the battalion on August 12, 1915 at 445 PM into
a wooded area and amid a pitched battle, pushing the Turks ahead
of them.  The charge into the woods was the last heard of the
First-Fifth battalion as a unit. "Not one ever came back," said
the report.

However, according to Begg, they did not actually vanish. At the
end of the war a soldier of the occupation, upon touring the
battlefield, found an emblem of the Royal Norfolk Regiment. It
was learned later that a Turkish farmer found decomposing bodies
of British soldiers on his land upon returning after the battle.
The bodies were dumped into a ravine where they were later
discovered.  Of the 180 bodies found, 122 were of the
First-Fifth Norfolk.  Other members of the battalion weren't
found, but given battle conditions at Gallipoli, some possibly
taken prisoner and others having returned to camp after the
advance, not being lost at all, the lack of accounting for
around 100 men is far from mysterious.

Begg asked the New Zealand Ministry of Defense about the story,
whose representative, I.C. MacGibbon, responded, "if Reichardt
and his fellow Gallipoli veterans saw a 'bread-shaped cloud of
light grey color' lower itself into the path of the 1/5
Norfolks, why did they wait until 1965 before signing an
affidavit to this effect?"

Finally, on the strange cloud.  According to the Final Report of
the Dardanelles Commission, a reference was made to an
unexpected mist on August 21, that was unseasonable but
otherwise not unusual.  During an offensive that day the
Sherwood Rangers advanced into the mist and were destroyed by
Turks placed on the hills above the mist who had spotted the
Rangers' advance.

The disappearance and rediscovery of the First-Fifth Norfolk is
accurately recounted in Harold Wilkins' "Strange Mysteries of
Time and Space" page 162 (1958).  Wilkins was aware of the
disappearance but his reporting in no way resembled the telling
of the story in the affidavit.

It is apparent that the soldiers signing the affidavit had
confused a number of real events (documented) for a weird tale
(undocumented), not at all surprising at a 50th reunion of
elderly soldiers.

The First -Fourth Norfolks did not disappear.  The First- Fifth
Norfolks did disappear on August 12, 1915.  A strange mist did
appear on the 21st, but no one disappeared.

Now in light of these facts, how is it that a 1952 MJ-12
document recounts a flawed version of a story, which was unknown
before 1965, in fact a story unique to 1965, 13 years after the
document's claimed authorship?????  The MJ-12 version is based
more upon 1960s UFO pulp and newsletter accounts than it is on
historical record.  And we can probably eliminate the original
publication of the affidavit in "Spaceview" as a source because
it cites the 28th of August as the date of the disappearance.
In fact, I do recall seeing versions of the other disappearances
mentioned in the MJ-12 Annual's page 13 in UFO pulp literature
that I had read during that era.

One cannot avoid the conclusion that the Annual is a complete
fake.  How is it that the Woods did not notice this in their
years-long investigation? What does it say of the Woods'
investigation?  For all of the impressive appearance and content
of the Annual, one small mention of an alleged 1915
disappearance brings it crashing down in a heap, an anachronism
to the power of 12, MJ that is!  Claims by the Woods about type
style, language, format, security makings, signatures, and
"zingers" supporting the documents now have a hollow quality. It
makes one think that the legitimate use of such investigative
techniques under more normal circumstances, and in more skilled
hands, is worthless if they didn't work very well here.

But we should remember that, according to the Woods, errors tend
to support authenticity.  With that, this gaping error in the
Annual must prove its reality beyond all shadow of doubt!

The Woods state that the Annual's discussion on control and
denial is "possibly the most egregious outrage yet perpetrated
on the world public."  I can think of one other that comes
close: the new MJ-12 document investigation by its supporters.
For now, MJ-12 is again being promoted as genuine in lectures,
on radio, on the Internet, and in a forthcoming book, with
document copies being sold to an unsuspecting public.

An old adage applies here, "He who does not learn from the
mistakes of history is doomed to repeat them!"  A fantasy world
of revisionist history is being promoted by the Woods, fed by
unknown sources with suspicious paperwork.  It remains to be
seen how many more  years it will continue to distract
consumers from reality.

 --- Barry Greenwood ---
Box 176
Stoneham, MA 02180
$15 per year
$20 foreign

The following referenced exhibits can be found on the web
wherever the new MJ-12 documents are being promoted or

     Exhibit One: The MJ-12 Annual [First Page]
     Exhibit Two: Example of Irrelevant Censorship - The
     11/12/63 John F. Kennedy/CIA Memorandum]
     Exhibit Three: Extract from the Oppenheimer/Einstein
     Exhibit Four: Annual extract [retyped into this essay]

Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something         |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
   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 -----

[ 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