UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Sep > Sep 5

Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12

From: Stan Friedman <fsphys.nul>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 17:16:43 -0300
Archived: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:43:40 -0400
Subject: Re: New Revelations On Origins Of MJ-12 

>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:37:06 EDT
>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


>>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.


Of course Doty was a candidate... how many OSI names did we

Sorry Brad, but both your arguments about the EBD are

You have noted, I am sure, that the parenthetical (see Attachment
B or C or D or E or F or G) is not preceded by a name in any of
these six cases.

You, for whatever reason, chose to leave out (see Attachment
"E")just after the comment about the symbols. In all cases there
is no name preceding the (See__). When names are used such as
Bronk or Menzel, they are not followed by a (See attachment--)
Clearly Hillenkoetter followed a pattern of giving major info in
the Attachments and less significant info in the EBD Text.

Furthermore you claim that the OSI fakers didn't put Menzel in
because I hadn't yet found out about Menzel's cryptography. So
why would they have included Menzel's name at all if they didn't
have the info I later located about him? Did they know or didn't
they about his highly classified work for the NSA? CIA, etc?

Surely all of us were very suspicious about his name being on
the list, right? If they knew, why not use it? If they didn't
know, why mention him at all? I listed other details not known
until later. Were these guys brilliant or not too bright and
just accidentally hit on the right dates and other details not
known until later?

About the "approximately 75 miles". I brought up the landing
strip because its distance from RAAF was neither 62 nor 102. So
the proper answer would have to be "It depends on how you go
there". 75 sounds like a rounded off approximation of no
significance other than it is not 20 or 30 or 150 Or 200.. But
approximately 75.

I still very strenuously object to your characteri- zation of
the 1954 CT memo as an emulation of the much longer 1953 CT memo
with all kinds of differences. Similarities? Sure.

They were from the same office to the same person. If you want
to see real emulations, as opposed to this pseudoemulation you
propose, please review my Majestic Documents Update of April
2004 on my Website at:


There are seven examples given having far more details in common
than in your forced emulation.

Stan Friedman
Off for a week, or so, to West Virginia & Pennsylvania

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



[ 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