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

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:30:09 -0300
Archived: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:23:19 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12


>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:38:28 EDT
>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:49:09 -0300
>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

>>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:44:56 EDT
>>>Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

<snip>

>>Brad

>>The memory chord was struck by the "Your concurrence" line which seemed
>>a strong and unusual line to write to a 4 star general. I discuss real
>>emulations in the Majestic 12 paper on my website...

>Stan,

>Yet Cutler said that "strong and unusual line" to a 4-star General (Twining)
>in the genuine 1953 document, so what? The AFOSI hoaxers emulated the 1953
>genuine Cutler-Twining Memo to fabricate the 1954 emulation. Why is that
>such a problem?

>>There is no way that the CT is an emulation of the earlier much longer
>>memo.

>Again you are ignoring what you yourself have written Stan, about the strong
>similarities between the 1953 genuine Cutler-  Twining Memos and the (fake)
>1954 Cutler-Twining Memo, some of which I've quoted in my postg here as well
>as in the MUFON paper (p. 151 n. 15).

>>From Friedman's TOP SECRET/MAJIC book (pp. 92-93) where he takes
>the genuine CTM (written in the singular here for simplicity even though
>there are at least two known) and he compares it with the "very similar"
>MJ-12 CTM:

>"Besides the paper checking out, the language, style, format, and typeface
>of the memo appear to be genuine, especially when compared to other memos
>from Cutler that are known to be valid.

>"As Bill read the memo to me over the phone, I was immediately reminded of a
>July 13, 1953 Cutler-Twining memo we had found in late 1981 in General
>Twining's papers at the Library of Congress...

>"The concluding words of the two memos are virtually the same.

>"Another similarity in wording is the indication that specific details will
>be given at the meeting only. The June 25, 1953 [second genuine
>Cutler-Twining] memo says, 'The program will be explained in detail at the
>meeting'; the 1954 [MJ-12 Cutler- Twining] memo says, 'More precise
>arrangements will be explained to you upon arrival.'

>"In addition to similarities in what the memos say, there are similarities
>in what they don't say. Neither gives any clue as to the subject of the
>meetings to which they refer...."

>In Friedman's MJ-12 Update (Oct. 31, 1987, p. 3) he calls the authentic CTM
>and the MJ-12 version "very similar".

>Moore certainly passed these genuine CTM's on to AFOSI in 1981-2 along with
>every scrap of his and Friedman's Roswell investigation data, as he told me
>he was doing at that very time. There at AFOSI the genuine 1953 CTM's would
>have been good emulation models to follow and emulate in forging the MJ-12
>CTM.

>>Let us not forget the slant red pencil mark through the unusual typed
>>security indication, the absence of "Subject",

>Citing a trivial red pencil mark is a sign of real desperation in trying to
>salvage the MJ-12 documents from impending doom. It is undisputed that the
>CTM was "planted" in the National Archives for Moore and Shandera to find,
>and that word "planted"
>is the word Stan himself uses, as I quote him using in his TS/MAJIC book,
>and quoted in my MUFON article.

>Here are Stan's own words:

>"I am certainly convinced that it [the CTM] had indeed been planted [<--NOTE
>HIS WORD] in the box during the [declassification] review, as we should have
>realized after receipt of poetic postcards... with return addresses noting
>Box 189." (MJ-12 Update, Oct. 31, 1987, p. 2).

>Clues had been sent to Moore and Shandera in "riddle postcards"
>which according to Stan "certainly pointed them towards the Archives" and
>"all but directed" them to "Box 189" in the National Archives, where it was
>eventually found (Friedman, TS/MAJIC, pp. 89-92; MUFON 1989 Symposium MJ-12
>paper, p. 97; MUFON 1992 Symposium paper, p. 272).

>Moore agrees "that someone planted it amidst the papers in Record Group 341
>knowing that there was a strong chance we would find it there" (Moore, MUFON
>1989 MJ-12 statement, MUJ, Dec.
>1989, p. 13bc). Moore states "someone deliberately planted it there ... so
>Shandera and Moore would find it" (Moore- Shandera
>MJ-12 Report pp. 98-99).

>According to Stan himself those "planting" the CTM in the National Archives
>for Moore and Shandera to find were certainly familiar with the AF's
>declassification review process, including the use of a red pencil to slash
>through the security markings.

>Why then is there any problem with AF personnel knowing about AF
>declassification reviews with red pencil, AF personnel like AFOSI agents
>engaged in a disinformation hoax?? There is no need to postulate that the AF
>reviewers themselves planted the CTM.

>Writes Stan Friedman (TS/MAJIC p. 97) about the red pencils:

>"Whoever put it [the CTM] in Box 189 at the National Archives was apparently
>well aware of the red pencil convention. It would have been a perfectly
>natural thing for somebody accustomed to such matters to do...."

>There are two ways the AFOSI hoaxers could have come to put the red pencil
>slash through the CTM:

>1. The AFOSI agents didn't know what exactly the red pencil slashes were for
>but they saw many documents in boxes of AF- reviewed files that had the red
>pencil marks, (just like Friedman saw at the Eisenhower Library) so they
>figured red pencil was part of the emulation they needed to follow.

>The AFOSI disinformation hoaxers had picked out Box 189 many months in
>advance, sent the weird postcards to Moore and company, and waited till Box
>189 was reviewed by the AF review team before going in and planting the CTM,
>to make it look like it had been a legitimate document just reviewed by the
>AF team.

>Or:

>2. The AFOSI agents observed the AF review team at work, in
>order to familiarize themselves with how to make a forged CTM
>look reasonably genuine, and saw that the AF reviewers used the
>red pencil. Why the heck would they _not_ imitate the red pencil
>marks??

>And let me remind UFO UpDates readers what Stan said about how
>the CTM and EBD "must" have been "created by an insider" and he
>then names "Richard Doty of the OSI" (TS/MAJIC pp. 138-9):

>"Whether the [MJ-12] documents are valid or not, they must have
>been created by an insider, and Jaime and Bill had been having
>conversations with insiders (including Richard Doty of the OSI)
>for years before Jaime got the [Eisenhower and Cutler-Twining]
>film."

>>the absence of a signature or /s/.

>>The latter is fortunate since Cutler was out of the country.

>>Please tell us how Doty knew that at the time?

>Please tell us how AFOSI would have to know that? There is
>nothing in the MJ-12 CTM that says anything at all about Cutler
>being out of the country. There is no notation saying something
>like 'sent in Cutler's absence' or anything at all like that.
>Being un-signed is proof of nothing, it was a carbon, carbons
>often are un-signed.

>The MJ-12 CTM is unsigned because it is a carbon, not the
>supposed "original," thus making it easier to forge without
>having to hassle with forging signatures which are more
>difficult. Carbon copies of government letters often do not have
>signatures or even an /s/ mark, just like the genuine CTM of
>June 25, 1953, which you found unsigned.

>Historian Dr. Larry Bland at the Marshall Foundation said that
>he could "find the correct stationery and an appropriate
>typewriter" to "fake the MJ-12 documents" such as the CTM,
>the only one with the stationery even known (Friedman, TS/MAJIC,
>p. 153).

>Case closed my friend!

Sorry Brad, but the case isn't closed. There were some surprises
in your paper:

1. Your very strong antipathy to Doty, Moore, Shandera, MJ-12,
Roswell.

2. Your apparent great psychic skills in being able to intuit
who did or didn't do certain things and why, without evidence.

3. Your unconvincing attacks on both the EBD and CT.

Why in a huge paper did you not show the 2 Cutler Memos side by
side so the reader would realize that the notion of one being an
emulation of the other is  totally unconvincing?

The reader would have seen the big differences in size, in
layout, in security markings.

The 1953 has a large rubber stamped TOP SECRET over rs Security
Information in the upper right and lower right corners.

The 1954 has typed (not rubber stamped) TOP SECRET RESTRICTED
over typed SECURITY INFORMATION and only in the upper right
side.

Many had tried to say this meant the memo was a fake because TSR
was not used at the time. The GAO much later found a number of
documents with TSR.

Why would clever fakers use marking they would have thought was
fraudulent? 1953 has a Big EYES ONLY rubber stamped near the
bottom. NO EO in 1954. The 1953 has no slant red pencil mark.
Why would a faker put it on 1954? 1953 has the date in the
middle at the top. 1953 has the date in the right upper part.

Clever fakers could easily have added the '/s/'. Don't disinfo
specialists do that or fake the signature all the time? James
Lay very likely prepared the 1954 for reasons I have spelled
out. Why does a 6 line memo  have a "Subject.."line and the 1953
one not have any?

You mentioned that The Archives put out a list of 10 comments
about the CT memo but not that several were changed when I
pointed out the errors. Surely disinfo experts wouldn't have done
such a rotten job. Since Doty et al didn't know Cutler was out
of the country they should have put an /s/ or a signature as in
1953.

Re. the EBD, you claim the fatal error is that it states the
distance to the crash site was "approximately 75 miles northwest
of Roswell Army Air Base" since the actual driving distance is
102 miles and the GPS distance is about 62 miles. What don't you
understand about "approximately"? What difference does it make?

You don't mention the air strip near the gas line pumping
station not too far from the Debris Field and the fact that
there were Piper Cub aircraft on the base. Surely they would
have been used to get appropriate officers and scientists there
after Marcel and Cavitt came back to town.

Then in your special intuitive fashion you try to make a big
deal out of "Numerous examples of what appear to be a form of
writing were found in the wreckage. Efforts to decipher these
have remained largely unsuccessful" You say it should have
stated that Menzel was involved in this work, but the fakers
didn't because I hadn't found out about Menzel's work in
cryptography until later.

Whose mind did you read? How convenient that you omitted the
item that followed, "(See Attachment E)". A reasonable person
would think that would likely be the place where details were
given, or why mention it?

Thus your two big objections to the EBD also fall far short when
examined dispassionately.

Yes, your case against the EBD and CT is closed and fails.


Stan Friedman



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

See:

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


[ 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