UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 30

Re: New Revelations on the Origins of MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:27:34 EDT
Archived: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:10:47 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations on the Origins of MJ-12

>From: Barry Greenwood <uhrhistory.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:26:40 -0500
>Subject: Re: New Revelations on the Origins of MJ-12


>The following paragraph, among others, was deleted without my
>permission by Brad Sparks from the draft manuscript for the 2007
>MUFON Symposium paper on Robert Pratt's records on the early
>years of MJ-12. The information was originally reported in my
>newsletter "Just Cause," September 1989, page 10, almost 20
>years ago:

Note that this is the first time that Barry has provided the
date and pagination info on the CAUS newsletter in the 1-1/2
months that I have been asking him for it. That is basic
documentation which Barry never bothered to provide until now,
August 29, 2007. He never provided it before the MUFON Symposium
article was due, even though I asked numerous times. He has yet
to supply the date of the alleged conversation with Moore and
admitted in July that he (Barry) in fact did _not_ speak to
Moore at all, that it's just hearsay. This whole dispute is over
a piece of irrelevant hearsay!

I also asked for a copy of the article so I could see the full
details (if there are any) and context, especially since it
turned out that Barry misrepresented the facts in his draft by
indicating that two witnesses, both Barry and Larry Fawcett, had
heard Moore say this, when in fact it was only Fawcett (assuming
the story was relayed accurately and now I have my doubts
because of the incredible difficulty in getting Barry to supply
any documentation and his false and misleading characterization
of the alleged remark, see his quote from his May 11 MUFON
Symposium article draft, below).

>"After Moore released the first wave of MJ-12 documents
>in 1987, CAUS, [<-- meaning Barry] and particularly Larry
>Fawcett, spoke to Moore about cooperation in researching
>the story in the form of filing FOIA requests, etc. as an
>effort to flesh out information. Moore rejected the offer,
>adding that he wanted to "put bread on my table."

You neatly omitted the potentially libelous sentence just
_before_ this paragraph, which introduces it, where you say:

"There were other disturbing hints that the quest for money was
a significant focus."

Then you gave your "bread on my table" example after that.

Thus your undocumented allegation of a "disturbing ... quest for
money" was immediately followed by your example of the
undocumented hearsay about Moore allegedly saying he just wanted
to "put bread on my table." You would not provide any
documentation without being asked and you would not when I
repeatedly asked, so that makes it "undocumented." Now that you
grudgingly drag out a citation, but without the whole article
and without the full details and date of Moore's alleged
comment, raises it only to "grossly inadequately documented."

I told you at the time why I removed the whole passage, which
you withhold from readers here on UFO UpDates, that it was

(a) Moore was not an AFOSI agent, so his alleged greed
motivation has _no relevance_ to your thesis of greedy out-of-
control "rogue" AFOSI agents seeking monetary gain.

(b) You did not document your assertion with the "Just Cause"
publication and page numbers, or a copy to show the context, or
the date and circimstances of Moore's alleged comment. You
provide the Sept 1989 date and page 10 only now, long after the
MUFON Proceedings article was published. Still no copy of the
article and still no date or details of when Moore allegedly
made the "bread on my table" remark.

(c) On questioning from me you admitted that only Larry Fawcett
supposedly heard Moore say this, not you, so it was undocumented
hearsay (you don't even have a date for the conversation with
Moore, was it in person? was it by phone? I still don't know and
you don't say, as UFO UpDates readers can see from reading your
posting). This was grossly substandard scholarship, actually
non- scholarship.

(d) Your article draft had misleadingly indicated you and
Fawcett had both heard this from Moore (see quote above), two
witnesses, when in fact it was only one, and only known via you,
through your hearsay, and you'd proven your unreliability by
falsely insinuating there were two witnesses. This made me very
doubtful about the whole thing, as it would any prudent person,
and I didn't want my name on any part of it.

(e) I personally found the use of the alleged remark by Moore
(we don't even know if he even really said it) to be personally
offensive to me for the crass mentality it shows in making an
issue of it, especially in Barry's context (going out from the
one paragraph a few sentences before and after) of a publication
that Barry intended to use as a platform to charge people with
criminal financial fraud (selling forgeries or faking US
Government documents for profit is a crime).

Again, it wasn't the paragraph I found potentailly libelous but
the introductory sentence and the context, calling it an example
of the "disturbing .. quest for money." I was offended by the
paragraph, and I found the surrounding paragraphs potentially

Just because Barry didn't use the words "criminal" or "crime"
when he made these baseless charges doesn't make it non-
 libelous and it is all still without a shred of proof from
Barry, months later after his MUFON article draft and almost 20
years later after his CAUS newsletter. Not too good a track
record for substantiating reckless assertions for print.

(f) From even what little context was provided it clearly seemed
to me that Moore was simply defending his not wanting to
cooperate with a competitor org (assuming the quote is correct).
Moore headed the Fair Witness Project (FWP). Barry then headed
the Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). FWP and CAUS were
competitors in uncovering government UFO secrets. Barry
conveniently omits that salient fact here and in his draft, just
one of many reasons I rejected this material.

I stand by my points (a) through (f) and I would do it again. I
should not have had to waste precious time explaining all this
to you Barry just before the final drop-dead publication
deadline, which took precious time away from working on the
MUFON article itself. You could have solved the problem by
proving your claims. You didn't, obviously because you can't.

>Along with a slew of personal mischaracterizations and ad
>hominems in his e-mails to me, Sparks claimed that this
>paragraph was libelous

I never said this one paragraph was libelous, I said the
surrounding context contained the libel, such stuff as claiming
the "bread on my table" offhand remark was evidence of some kind
of "disturbing ... quest for money" by Moore and associates
(such as Friedman) and all the sly insinuations of criminal
financial fraud, while you cleverly refrained from using the
actual word "criminal."

Here is some of that surrounding context from your MUFON
Symposium draft of May 11 (p. 17). I won't quote the whole
dreadfully long and dull run-on paragraph that starts the page,
just pertinent parts, with bracketed insertions by me to
translate Barry's innuendo into plain English and point out the
most outrageous undocumented assertions:

"... Bill Moore had admitted that Doty forged the Ellsworth UFO
document [<-- sic!!! TOTALLY UNDOCUMENTED]. Doty's stories to
different UFO researchers had changed numerous times. It is fair
to say that Doty has a credibility problem.... Moore admitted to
an audience in 1989 that he helped to spread false information
at the behest of Doty and knowingly asserted that the
information was true to the faces of skeptical researchers,
including myself. It would be fair to say that Moore has a
credibility problem. ... are they trying to salvage a plan gone
awry, a plan to capitalize [<-- = money-motivation] on their
view of the answer to UFOs, bolstered by much false material?
[<-- = fraud with money] ... A fiction novel seems to serve no
other purpose than to garner a modest income [<-- = money-
motivation] .... Maybe a film production [<-- = big bucks
motivation for fraud] could be in the future? There were other
disturbing hints that the quest for money [<-- = monetary fraud]
was a significant focus.

"After Moore released the first wave of MJ-12 documents in 1987,
CAUS, [sic] and particularly Larry Fawcett, spoke to Moore about
cooperation in researching the story in the form of filing FOIA
requests; etc. in an effort to flesh out information. Moore
rejected the offer, adding that he wanted to "put bread on my
table." ...

"The original MJ-12 research team of Moore and Stanton Friedman
included a third promoter [<-- = a greedy conman not a
researcher] of the story, Jaime Shandera. Shandera's primary
skill was as a film producer [<-- = big moneybags], not as a
forensic document analyst or government operations specialist,
both of which would have been far more useful to researching and
screening the incoming information. If MJ-12 became much more
accepted than it actually did due to the withering criticisms of
other researchers, is there any doubt that Shandera was there to
put the story into film production? [<-- = big Hollywood bucks]
Or was he just along for the ride? And apparently Richard Doty
approved of a film producer being involved because he sent
[sic!!!] the photographic film of the MJ-12 documents to
Shandera's address."

Barry does not explain why Doty made no effort to seek out
Shandera from 1980 to 1984 if he was so greedy for money.
I had pointed this out. Notice Barry has no footnotes and
no citations or other documentation.

Barry Greenwood simply made up the assertion that Moore
"admitted" Doty hoaxed the Ellsworth document, like it was some
kind of confession by a fellow crook in a criminal conspiracy to
defraud others of money. Barry also made up the implication that
Doty in turn had admitted the hoax to his supposed co-
conspirator Moore, as if they were all partners in the financial
fraud Barry was insinuating they were perpetrating. I asked
Barry many times for any shred of documentation for this
assertion but he never provided a thing and to date never has.

Unlike Barry, I investigated the matter and many others in
the little time remaining to finish the MUFON paper. I found
that Moore said in his Moore-Shandera MJ-12 Analytical
Report (p. 5), and largely confirmed in his January 2, 1982,
memo to Bob Pratt, that Doty told him he knew of the
Ellsworth operation but that he was not directly involved and
didn't hoax the Ellsworth document. I put that in the MUFON
Symposium paper (pp. 112-113, 154 nn. 52-53) because
I could _document_ it. Those are the facts available and if
Barry has a shred of any evidence to the contrary he
needed to put it in his May 11 MUFON draft in a timely
fashion and provide it when I asked for it again and again
(to no avail).

Barry also made up the assertion that Doty "sent" the MJ-12
document film to Shandera. This is news to me! If we actually
"knew" that as a fact we would have the whole MJ-12 hoax wrapped
up. But Barry thinks he doesn't have to cite any facts or
documents or interviews. He just makes it up! He makes up this
"admitted" Ellsworth hoax by supplying the alleged (but
apparently nonexistent) confession of the hoaxer(s).

Barry flatout asserts Doty "sent" the MJ-12 documents to
Shandera, in December 1984 postmarked from Albuquerque, NM (the
postmark is discussed on p. 19 of Barry's draft).

But Barry doesn't bother to deal with minor little annoying
things called "facts," like the fact that Doty was no longer
assigned to AFOSI in Albuquerque but was transferred to _West
Germany_ from mid-1984 to mid-1986. Barry knew this because it
was the subject of numerous emails between us and Mary, and we
discussed the effect of Doty's posting to Lindsey AFB,
Wiesbaden, on Doty's ability to carry on an MJ-12 hoax in New
Mexico. Barry makes no mention of this Doty-located-in-Germany
problem for his Doty-mailing- MJ-12-from-Albuquerque allegation,
which he simply asserted as a fact when he knew there was a
serious problem with the assertion and chose to withhold that
fact from his draft. It is fair to say that Barry Greenwood has
a "credibility problem."

>and tried to frighten MUFON into
>believing that they were liable for any damages that he
>perceived would come of it. He forced MUFON into conceding to
>his demand not to include this information in the paper or he
>would not have delivered his speech.

I stand by my points (a) through (f) and I would do it again
today. You tried to make me your unwilling partner in your
libelous assertions of criminal fraud and I refused to have my
name in any way involved. You had plenty of opportunity to dig
up facts, not speculation, and not opinions dressed up as facts,
for 5 months from January 2007 to May 11, 2007, in drafting the
MUFON article, and over 3 months since that time. But you

You were given the opportunity to put all your supposedly
"censored" non-libelous assertions into a MUFON Journal article,
as James Carrion informed you on July 15, but you withhold that
fact, that very generous MUFON offer, from UFO Updates readers
as does Mary Castner. You act like you can't get a hearing. Well
not over my name you won't! Put your own name on your smears and
leave me out of it. Let me explain further:

You want to smear people with baseless fraud assertions, maybe
hoping someone else would do your homework for you and document
your smears with facts, and you want to play games with words to
try to skirt the libel laws, well you do it under your own name,
not my name, and don't try to force me or anyone else with
tricks like foisting off a draft at the last minute so there
would be no time to think or check out every issue among the
hundreds raised by your appallingly error-filled draft. Like
submitting your draft on May 11 with the deadline then 4 days
away on May 15, as if I was going to just roll over and not
check it carefully because of shortness of time. Nice try, but
it didn't work.

>I asked a key proponent in the original MJ-12 team who was
>involved in a libel issue, Stanton Friedman, who had filed and
>won a libel case in Britain against Jenny Randles, if this
>information was libelous. His response, in an e-mail dated
>August 23, 2007 was "No, I don't consider it Libelous..."

You omitted to tell Stan what you had said _before_ and _after_
the one paragraph that you slyly selected to read to him on the
phone and then emailed him about. The intro to that paragraph
explained this was an example of the "disturbing ... quest for
money" by Moore and company, which includes Friedman, whom you
name a few sentences later.

Did you supply Stan with all of your defamatory insinuations
about him, in your attacks on the Moore-Shadera-Friedman
"original MJ-12 team" with your innuendo about greedy
profiteering and hoaxing of MJ-12 documents? Words you wanted me
to put my name on.

Like this from p. 19 of your draft:

"The idea of MJ-12 ... didn't make the original promoters very
much in the way of fame, though perhaps notoriety, or profit,
save for Stanton Friedman publishing a book and several
monographs, as they surely must have expected should happen."

So in your convoluted way you're saying Stan Friedman was
someone who did make some, maybe "much," profit from MJ-12
whereas the others "didn't make ... very much." Why don't you
just ask Stan how much money he actually made off of his MJ-12
books and papers since you're in such good contact with him on
this. I doubt it is very much but hey, you need to start
documenting _your_ claims with facts, and here is your
opportunity. Ask him whether a little money in the 1990's gave
motivation back in time to 1984 to forge MJ-12 documents.
Psychic crooks are you suggesting? They just knew in 1984 that
many years later they would make some pennies from MJ-12!

We had an email argument when I asked what evidence of
profiteering you had against Doty-Moore-Friedman or whomever.
All you could come up with was a few sales of the $29.95 video
interview of Doty -- sold in 1989! That was Doty's dollar-sign
motivation in 1984 for hoaxing MJ-12 according to you! And you
don't even know that Doty got a penny of it! Oh, that's right,
you don't have to actually _investigate_ before you charge

You keep dragging in Stan Friedman into the Doty-Moore
story like you are just begging Stan to issue a stern legal
warning to you.

>One might also check the following link:


>For here you will find that even if libel did exist, which it
>doesn't by any stretch, the statute of limitations would not
>allow any action. Otherwise, Abraham Lincoln's relatives could
>be suing newspapers for perceived slurs 144 years ago!

Your dangerous misunderstanding of the law is another good
reason to have been cautious about using your undocumented
assertions. The libel statute of limitations begins to run from
the date of _publication_, in this case 2007.

The libel was not in Moore's alleged comment, it isn't Moore who
was libeling someone by saying he was "putting bread on my
table," it was _you_ saying that that was some kind of
"evidence" of a Moore-Friedman con game. _You_ in 2007. You
can't even keep straight who the actors are in the libel. It's
the one making the defamatory claims that damage someone else's
reputation. Moore and his associates are the ones who are
damaged in their reputation by your innuendoes of their criminal
fraud. Your comments, when "published," in 2007. One-year
statute of limitations (in California for example) runs from the
2007 publication.

It is you in 2007 who asserts a "disturbing ... quest for money"
by Moore, and thus by the Moore-Shandera- Friedman MJ-12 "team"
you referred to yourself in your draft article a few sentences
later. It is _your_ 2007 insinuations of criminal fraud, which
you wanted published by MUFON with my name on them, to join me
in your baseless charges.

>Also, for more background:


>Judge for yourselves if this is libel. If not, then where is the
>justification for trying to censor and silence me in the

Again you conceal from UFO UpDates readers the offer from MUFON
to print your full article, assuming they will risk the libel
laws on your behalf (I wouldn't recommend it based on your poor
grasp of libel law, let alone your penchant for not documenting
your claims, and your vendetta against anyone you deem to be
making pennies off of MJ-12).

Besides your gross ignorance of the concept of the libel statute
of limitations, and when it starts running, as I just showed
above, you might carefully consider this paragraph from the
libel law webpage you yourself cited, before spouting off
further legal nonsense and attracting legal liability for
yourself and others you try to snare in your trap:

"Sometimes people erroneously believe that they are protected
from a defamation suit if they have omitted the name, but if
readers (even a few) can identify the person defamed from other
information in the story, the plaintiff can sue even though his
name was not used."

Brad Sparks

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