UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 15

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:42:02 -0400
Archived: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:07:43 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:40:27 -0600
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:45:46 -0400
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>>From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:23:25 -0600
>>>Subject: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>>One of the most controversial topics covered at the Symposium
>>>was Brad Spark's presentation on the origins of MJ-12, revealing
>>>new information that calls into question the MJ-12 documents.

>>>In the interest of furthering UFO research on this topic, the
>>>MJ12 Symposium paper can be downloaded from mufon.com:


>>Hi James,

>>I appreciate your making this available, since the Brad Sparks
>>MUFON talk has generated a lot of discussion elsewhere regarding
>>his paper. My understanding is that it was too late to remove
>>Barry Greenwood's name from the MUFON Symposium publication, as


>Unfortunately I was on a tight deadline to get the Symposium
>Proceedings published in time for the conference. I did offer
>Barry an opportunity to follow up with an article in the MUFON

>I believe the point of contention between Brad and Barry is
>motive - Brad leans towards an official AFOSI disinformation
>campaign and Barry believes the perpetrators were motivated by
>money. From my point of view, the important thing is to release
>the Pratt documents for analysis and let folks make up their own
>mind re. motive. Regardless of motive, the Pratt papers still
>call into question the validity of MJ12.

I, too, thank Jim for posting this important document of
historical research.

My own comment at the moment is that I was one of the first to
actually hold the Cutler-Twining document in my hands. I also
photographed it. I will post scans of my slide photos this
weekend. However I have the following immediate comments:

I was impressed by the appearance of age of the document which
is a blue carbon copy of the original. I noted two things in
particular: the paper was yellowed around the edges and the
crease lines were 'perfectly' flat.

With regard to the latter, it appeared that the document had, at
one time, been tri-folded as if for insertion in an envelope.

The two crease lines were apparent when the document was held up
to a light. However, when rubbing my finger over the crease line
I could feel no bump that would occur if the paper had been
folded and then simply unfolded. The lack of a bump made me
think of pressure on the paper over a long period of time.

This observation also followed from the former observation
mentioned above, namely, the yellowing around the edges. My
immediate impression was of a sheet of paper that had spent
years in a stack of papers such that the air could get to the
edges of the document and oxidize, making the paper yellowish
around the edges. Some edges were more yellowed than others, but
the center did not seem yellowed (or so slightly as to be

My conclusion is that the paper itself was old.

Ergo, if a hoax the hoaxer had cleverly obtained old onionskin
paper and used it with blue carbon paper to create the document
(supposedly in the 1980's according to Sparks' reconstruction).

There is a red line through the security instructions at the
top. Stan discovered that this was a standard way that
declassifiers indicated that a document had been declassified.
He discovered this some time (years?) after the C-T memo itself
had been discovered by Moore and Shandara.

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast