UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 4

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:37:06 EDT
Archived: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 08:10:49 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12


>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:30:09 -0300
>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


<snip>

>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...] film."

>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.

Sorry Stan but after I went to great lengths to defend Moore and
you from spurious charges of criminal fraud, you must be really
losing it or losing the argument to say my paper shows "very
strong antipathy."

Don't _you _oppose_ government disinformation directed against
UFO researchers in violation of their civil rights?? Or do you
just ignore the violation of civil rights of freedom of thought
and speech and association and seize on some absurd government
claim that some UFO personality might possibly by a remote leap
of tenuous illogic be unwittingly "helping" the Russians? Like
the very existence of a UFO researcher is a threat to national
security.

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

You mean _your_ great mindreading skills in knowing exactly the
"thought" (see your posting farther down) that fakers must have
had in mind in making the red pencil markings?

All I did was suggest _two_ reasonable ways that AFOSI
disinformation hoaxers would naturally pick up on the need to
apply red pencil markings to their hoax emulation CTM. If I'm
such a "great psychic" why don't I know which of the two ways it
was?

I agree with you when you say in your TS/MAJIC book that the
"planted" CTM was red penciled by someone who was "apparently
well aware of the red pencil convention" used by AF document
reviewers and that the red pencil was a "perfectly natural thing
for somebody accustomed to such" security review matters to use
(p. 97), namely AFOSI agents heavily involved in security
matters. I agree with you there.

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

It can only be "attacks"? It's not scholarly "criticism," in the
most heavily footnoted and documeneted article in MUFON history?
Methinks your antipathy is showing in your word choice.

>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 2 Cutler memos were literally a minor footnote in my paper
on the Pratt file revelations on MJ-12, that's why.

And because I agreed with you Stan on how "very similar" the
genuine and the "planted" MJ-12 versions of the Cutler Memo
were. I agree with you when you used those words (Friedman, MJ-
12 Update, Oct. 31, 1987, p. 3; TS/Majic p. 91).

I agree with you when you list in your TS/Majic book all the
many ways the Cutler Memos are so "very similar." You wrote that
"the language, style, format, and typeface" checked out (p. 92).
The Cutler Memos were so similar that when you first heard the
MJ-12 version read you "immediately reminded" of the genuine
Cutler Memo. I agree with you.

I agree with you when you say that the "concluding words of the
two memos are virtually the same." (TS/Majic p. 93)

I agree with you when you say "Another similarity in wording is
the indication that specific details will be given at the
meeting only." (TS/Majic p. 93) I agree with you there on the
"similarity," your word.

I agree with you when you point out that "In addition to
similarities [<- YOUR WORD AGAIN] in what the memos say, there
are similarities [<- YOUR WORD STILL AGAIN] in what they don't
say." For an example of similarity in what they don't say, you
write that "Neither gives any clue as to the subject of the
meetings to which they refer...." (TS/Majic p. 93)

I agree with you on the many ways the genuine and the "planted"
Cutler Memos were so "very similar":

1. language
2. style
3. format
4. typeface
5. overall impression ("immediately reminded" you of genuine CTM)
6. concluding words
7. specific details to be given only at the meeting
8. similarities in what they "don't say" as well as what they do say

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

Now you contradict yourself and contradict your TS/Majic book
which states correctly that the Cutler Memos were very similar
in "language, style, format" (p. 92). Your alleged "differences"
are trivial matters for a hoaxer who is _emulating_ not rigidly
_copying_ a genuine document in a hoax.

>Why would clever fakers use marking they would have thought was
>fraudulent?

Aren't _you_ now mindreading their "thought" Stan, my psychic
friend? :)

I told you that AF hoaxers would have had to learn about the AF
security reviewers' work in order to carefully "plant" the CTM.
You yourself said the Cutler memo was "planted" by knowledgeable
AF personnel. I am just agreeing with you when you make sense,
and not agreeing with your self-contradictions that don't make
sense.

>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?

The 75-mile figure in MJ-12 comes from a blunder in the Roswell
Incident book (1980), there is no other source, since it is
unreal, it can't be obtained from the real world or a map. AFOSI
contacted Bill Moore during his Roswell Incident book promotion
tour in September 1980 so they had copies of the book.

The correct 62-mile distance is "approximately" 60, not 75. The
hoaxer naively took the mistaken 75-mile figure right out of the
original Roswell book by Berlitz and Moore and didn't realize
there was an error - there is no other source for the mistaken
75-mile figure. They couldn't get it from a map, since it's
wrong. They didn't pick it out from a range of discrepant
figures since the only figure available in the 80's was Moore's
75-mile distance, a gross error.

So we _know_ where the dunderheaded 75-mile figure came from,
and we don't need psychic powers to know that Moore's book was
the only source for the mistaken number. It's a unique error,
like a fingerprint, and can only have come from Moore's book.

But hey if you want to give me $75 in exchange for me giving you
$62 I will be happy to do so - over and over again as I rack up
the $13 differences. I would be delighted.

>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.

You lost me. It is undisputed that the air distance from the
Debris Field to Roswell base is 62 miles. Now you tell me
something about how such an air distance might actually have
been determined. So what? Does that change the 62 miles?

>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)".

The Eisenhower Briefing both _names_ an alleged MJ-12 member's
work on the Roswell crash investigation (Bronk) _and_ refers to
an attached November 30, 1947, report by Bronk and his team
(Attachments B and C, two parts of the same November 30, 1947,
report), but doesn't use that as an excuse to avoid naming Bronk
and his work just because the report is attached and can
supposedly be read (none of the eight listed attachments are
actually attached except one; must have been too much work for a
forger to forge them all).

There was no taboo against mentioning Menzel in the alleged MJ-
12 report, since he _is_ named on this same page on his
astronomy views, just not on the cryptanalysis of the alien
writings also discussed on this same page, in the next sentence.

If Menzel is named in one paragraph, on astronomy, then why not
mention Menzel in the next paragraph after that, to tell the
President-elect Eisenhower who was intimately familiar with
wartime codebreaking work and its supreme importance in winning
the war, that a top expert on code breaking, Menzel, was working
on the vitally important effort to break the alien codes? It
makes no sense from the perspective of a genuine MJ-12. There
was no taboo against mentioning an MJ-12 member twice, Bronk was
named twice, right above this.

It looks like the MJ-12 author (hoaxer) just didn't know
anything about Menzel's NSA-type cryptanalysis work and thus
couldn't mention it, because when the hoaxer forged the MJ-12
document in 1984 no one yet knew about Menzel's NSA work. You
didn't uncover Menzel's "secret life" until 1986.

In the law of evidence, when someone withholds a fact they ought
to know about and mention when a subject comes up, but do not,
it leads to the inference that the fact is false or not credible
or that they do not have knowledge of the fact at all.

For example, if a police officer testifies in court about a
traffic ticket but fails to mention anything about using a
radar, then it must be presumed there was no such radar evidence
known to the one person who ought to know, so then radar can't
be claimed later or slipped into evidence.

>A reasonable person >would think that would likely be the place
where details were >given, or why mention it?

A reasonable person would see that Menzel is named for an
astronomy point in the MJ-12 document but not for the
cryptanalysis point made right after it, and would conclude the
MJ-12 author or hoaxer just didn't know about Menzel's
cryptanalysis background and thus couldn't mention it where it
would have been highly relevant in view of Menzel's great
codebreaking expertise which you love to trumpet.

But you actually claim in your TS/Majic book that Menzel's
cryptanalysis background _was_ mentioned in the MJ-12 Eisenhower
Document. That would solve your whole problem! Just quote where
the EBD refers to Menzel's great codebreaking skills.

You claim in TS/Majic, p. 67, that "there are many details in
the briefing [the EBD] that were not known to any of us on the
outside at the time. (See Appendix C.)" I looked up your
Appendix C to find out what "details" in the EBD were mentioned
that no one knew about before.

Your Appendix C lists Menzel's Connections and Talents,
including "association with NSA and predecessor Navy agency" and
"Expert cryptanalyst; taught cryptanalysis."

So where are these Menzel NSA connections and cryptanalysis
talents mentioned in the EBD, Stan? By reading just the EBD how
would anyone know that _Menzel_ had any such code cracking
talents?

>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.

But I agree with you when you wrote in TS/Majic that the EBD and
CTM "must have been created" by an "insider" and you named
"insider... Richard Doty of OSI" - who was active in the 1980's
not the the 1950's. If the MJ-12 documents were only created in
the 80's then their 1952 and 1954 dates are false and the
documents are frauds. I agree. You need to agree with yourself
and close the case.


Brad




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