UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Dec > Dec 3

Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 17:49:21 -0500
Archived: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:55:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs


>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:31:11 -0400
>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>From: Jan Aldrich <project1947.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>,
>>Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:02:50 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs
>
>>>From: Richard Hall <dh12.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:03:44 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: Melvin Brown And The MPs

>>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:05:03 EST
>>>>Subject: Melvin Brown And The MPs

><snip>

>My conversations with Melvin Brown's daughter indicate that he
>had a connection with some military intelligence function, as
>there were visits to such facilities as the Chicksands listening
>post in the UK, to which he had immediate access while the
>family waited outside.

>Have there been no instances of CIC or other people planted to
>check on scuttlebutt?

>As I recall Jan you falsely claimed that all TOP SECRET
>Documents had to have TOP SECRET Control numbers.


Stan,

No, Stan, you are falsely represented what I said about Top
Secret control number. My position stated stimply so you can
easily follow it is and has always been:

1. Regulations after WWII required Top Document unique controls.
Message centers uses other than TS control numbers to control
messages distributed to users, however, the system used readily
identify the copies.

2. Declassified documents may not show evidence of TS control
numbers, due to the declassification and santitation process so
examples plucked from National Archives or other publicly
available facilities are not necessarily proof that there is no
TS control numbers required.

3. Documents without TS control numbers? This indicates a
security violation. Laws against murder stop the crime from
being commited. (SOM 101 supposedly was an active document why
did not have such a number?)

4. The White House, although many historical documents state
that they will AR 380-5 (probably because of the Army White
House Communication Group), might have a different system.
However, I allowed that the White House itself might have
another unique system for tracking the TS documents consistant,
as with message centers operations, the President's executive
orders. I haven't research the White House aspect.

My position, same today as yesterday, if you don't believe that
check the UpDates Archive.

Examples of TS documents with control numbers and control
registers are available on the Project 1947 website.

What exactly is the source of your research which causes you to
try to debunk the use of TS control numbers. Actual references
please, not bluff and bluster. Do you believe that TS control
numbers and control registers are done just for no reason?

Brown could have been a CIC agent or a CID agent or any other
thing you want to think up. The problem here is proof. During
WWII CIC agents were assigned to duty in civilian facilities as
well as military facilities. Possibly uncover agents were
assigned to Roswell.

Firstly conversations with Brown's daughter are not proof of
anything, but assuming her story is true, maybe Brown during his
career went from cook to intelligence. (The opposite of Doty who
went from OSI agent to end his military career as a cook. Doty
lost his clearance, but he contended that it had nothing to do
with his UFO activity in letters to various ufologists.)

Any speculation on Brown's statis, is just that speculation.

Let's clear up other things about clearances while we're at it.
My arguments about MJ-12 cover many problems covering content,
format, and doctrine etc. no just security problems


I cited over 50 problems in my critique of SOM 1-01. T

This is a very silly document in which the supposed finest minds
in the country can't gives simple instructions as to how to
conceal recovery operations from view of either people on higher
ground or flying overhead.

Bill Hamilton and Ryan Wood have both claimed in writing that
various critics of MJ-12 etc. may be conversant with current
doctrine, they do not know what the doctrine and regulations in
effect in early post security matters. I understand that you
have also used this argument, but I have nothing in writing to
show me that is the case.

In any case it shows that Hamilton and Wood are not only
ufologists, but also mind readers. So I will answer this
objection here.

In my training we covered all presidential orders concerning
security information. Besides a number of formal courses while I
was assigned to an intellgience position, I took nearly every
correspondence course offered concerning intelligence, counter-
intelligence, signal intelligence, communications security,
etc. Also, while on active duty, I read extensive on the history
of intelligence and my research continuted after I left the
Service especially at the US Army History Institute in PA, the
Field Artillery School AJ Library at Fort Sill, the Air Force
Historical Research Agency, National Archives and Library of
Congress.

While on active I used several manuals issued in 1954, so I am
familar with formats and writing styles. Also during my
assignment to the Directorate of Training Developments I was
required to analyze in detail train requirements from such 1954
manuals still in use in the 1980s.

I am indeed familiar with security and manuals available in
1954.


Jan Aldrich




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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ 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