UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Aug > Aug 31

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:44:56 EDT
Archived: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:55:48 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:34:31 -0300
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:21:08 EDT
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>>From: Mary Castner <m.castner.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:46:01 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12


>>The point still remains that the MJ-12 Eisenhower Briefing is
>>identified in the Pratt files as "the original Aquarius
>>document" - with its absurd Jesus-was-an-alien hogwash - in
>>1981-2, three years before the Eisenhower document ever showed
>>up in Shandera's mailbox in 1984, regardless of who hoaxed it or



>I find it quite extraordinary that it can be claimed, apparently
>with a straight face, that The EBD is "the original Aquarius
>document" with its absurd Jesus-was-an-alien hogwash... When
>there is no mention of JC in the EBD.

I find it extraordinary that you evaded the entire explanation
clearly given in the Pratt files and described in my MUFON paper
(pp. 86, 88) that the allegedly 1952 Eisenhower Briefing or
"original Aqaurius document" was _updated_ through the years
until it became the allegedly 1977 Carter Aquarius Briefing with
Jesus Christ as an alien.

The EBD is merely the 1952 early or "original" version of the
1977 Jesus Christ-is-an-alien Carter Aquarius briefing.
Presumably MJ-12 had not yet figured out the story about Jesus
Christ in 1952, it had to wait for more 'research' until 1977
<tongue in cheek>. No one said the EBD and the Carter Aquarius
documents were identical despite my poor choice of words in the
UFO UpDates posting pounced on above. How could the Eisenhower
Briefing be revised if the document remained the same??

Anyway you had my MUFON paper talking about the revision process
of these alleged Eisenhower and Carter Briefings and knew what
my point was.

>Equally extraordinary in Brad's MUFON paper is the claim that
>the Cutler Twining memo is an emulation of a memo found earlier
>at the Library Of Congress Manuscript Division by Moore and
>myself, when the only similarity is the last sentence which is a
>standard clause indicating that if all is OK, no response
>necessary. The use of this strange bit (nothing else matches) is
>an indication of genuiness not fraud.

That isn't what you say in your various MJ-12 books and reports.
You don't say the one sentence is the "only similarity". You say
instead that the two Cutler Twining memos - the genuine 1953
memo and the supsect 1954 emulation - are very similar overall
and that the closing sentence is merely the most striking
example of the similarity, as I quoted you in my MUFON paper (p.
151 n. 15) which you dodge here on UFO UpDates:

I quote you saying "The CT memo has very similar language and
format" to this earlier-found genuine CT memo admits Friedman,
"even including ... the odd phrase 'Your concurrence in the
above arrangements is assumed'" (Friedman MJ-12 Update, Oct.
31, 1987, p. 3).

You don't say the similarity is "only including" the last
sentence, but "even including," which is a superlative of
comparison meaning it's the best example of the great
similarity, not the only example. You had said the similarity
extends to the overall "language and format" of the entire
document not one sentence.

I quote you saying the "similarity in wording" was so great that
these "concluding words of the two memos are virtually the same"
admits Friedman, _even_ to similarities in what the two memos
"say" and "don't say" (Friedman, TS/MAJIC 1996/ 2005, p. 93).
The pattern of what the memos say or "don't say" applies to the
whole document not one sentence or phrase.

I also quote you: Friedman writes, when "Bill [Moore] read the
memo to me over the phone, I was immediately reminded of" this
genuine CTM (TS/MAJIC 1996/2005, p. 92). You don't write in your
TS/MAJIC book that it was merely the last sentence that
"immediately reminded" you of the genuine CTM found years
earlier. You give the impression that Moore's reading of the
whole document is what struck you as similar.


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