UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 23

Re: MJ-12 Redux

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:09:10 EDT
Archived: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 06:04:08 -0400
Subject: Re: MJ-12 Redux 

>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: Re: MJ-12 Redux

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: <mailto:post.nul>post.nul
>>Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:24:56 EDT
>>Subject: MJ-12 Redux [was: Shostak's Search Shift?]

>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>To: <mailto:post.nul>post.nul
>>>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift?

>>>>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul>
>>>>To: <mailto:post.nul>post.nul
>>>>Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:11:42 -0400
>>>>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift?

>>>>Hi David; Stanton,

>>>>Thank you both for your responses. My reply is once again combined
>>>>into a single message to you both:


>>>I would certainly acknowledge that there are many people on this
>>>List and elsewhere claiming that the EBD, CT, TF items are
>>>fraudulent. I believe I have dealt with all their arguments. I
>>>keep asking for refutations of my refutations. All I get is
>>>research by proclamation. "They are obvious frauds". I wish they
>>>would add "because A,B,C... which with STF hasn't dealt".

>>>I am off to a conference in Strasbourg... Back Monday.
>>>I won't hold my breath.

>>Stan, List, All -

>>I can't just let this go unchallenged. The consensus is that
>>MJ-12 is a hoax. Not a government disinformation campaign, not
>>something designed to keep us guessing and chasing phantoms, but
>>something created and designed to propel specific people back
>>into the spotlight. Or, as has been suggested by one of those
>>who released it into the world, to fool those who had knowledge
>>of the Roswell crash into revealing information that was, and
>>is, classified.

>Thank you for providing examples of just what I complained
>about: research by proclamation and a failure to examine
>what I have written. It was the consensus that flight was impossible,
>that space flight was impossible, that planes couldn't go faster than
>the speed of sound. Take note of "Science Was Wrong"

Wonderful promotion for your book, but irrelevant to the
argument at hand. Although I mentioned it later, I will point
out again, here, that Bill Moore said that he was thinking of
creating a Roswell related document because he had run into a
brick wall. He thought he might fool some people into revealing
what they knew. Not a proclamation by me but a look at the
history of MJ-12.

And nice attempt to divert the conversation away from the salient

>>Although Stan attempts to shout down those of us who do not
>>accept MJ-12 as authentic by suggesting that he has answered all
>>objections to MJ-12, he has done so only in his own mind. He has
>>not explained the lack of provenance, which contrary to what he
>>has said to me, is not an indicator of its authenticity but is
>>predictive of hoax.

>Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that if the documents
>are genuine, than the leaker is very much at risk for having
>released classified material to uncleared people without a need
>to know. Absence of evidence is Not evidence for

What you said on your 13 February, 2001 (just kidding with the
comma) letter to me was, "One might suggest that the lack of
provenance is an indication of genuineness."

In cases of leaked classified documents there is a trail back to
he, or she, who leaked them. Not so here and that is a huge
stumbling block that suggests fraud. This red flag is so huge it
would have flown over Red Square a couple of decades ago.

>>Those who have researched the type style of the various
>>components of MJ-12 (the Truman memo) say that it was created on
>>a typewriter that did not exist in 1952. This is based, not on
>>just a comparison of the upper and lower case letters, but on
>>the various numbers and symbols, done with the complete drawings
>>and specifications from the factory. It is evidence that the
>>typewriter did not exist in 1952... And yes, I know he will say
>>that Peter Tytell has not issued a formal written report but
>>will not remember to say that it was he who sent the material to
>>Tytell in the first place.

>You have changed your tune, but it is still off key.

>What you said in your book that Tytell had said was ; "It was
>just perfect because the whole thing of the 12 pages or however
>many pages it was. Most of the pages were just blank pages with
>just five words written on them like Top Secret or Appendix A or
>something like that". His memory was obviously very poor. There
>were 8 pages and only one, page 7(not included by Kevin) had
>"Appendix 8"... If there was a professional examination by
>Tytell, no one has seen it. However, Bob Wood did hire a
>forensic documents expert, James A. Black, to perform a
>professional examination. On November 13, 1998, Black stated "My
>knowledge of typewriter fonts permits me to conclude that the
>letter was likely to have been typed by an Underwood Standard
>Typewriter. The portions of the type font of the letter that can
>be clearly visualized match those of a typewriter exemplar of a
>Underwood Standard typed in May 1940". This statement is
>included in the very lengthy article (4 long segments ) on my
>web site for years now. It is also on page 227 of the 2nd
>edition of my book "TOP SECRET/MAJIC".That has been out for 5

Same song with a new chorus. You approached Tytell, and you know
what his opinion is. You just ignore it. Tytell said that you
needed a complete work up of the drawings for the fonts that
included the upper and lower case letters as well as all the
numbers and symbols... which he had and used... not a knowledge
of the fonts...

We now have dueling experts but it took fifteen years for you to
find one who shares your opinion.

>>I will note here that the information on the EBD is the state of
>>the investigation of crashed saucers in 1982 or 1983 and not
>>what it is today. This provides us with a clue as to when the
>>document was created and that is not 1952.

>How about saying what that information is, Kevin?. The reality
>is the reverse. We didn't find out that much information in the
>documents was true until long after the documents had been
>received.I have listed many items not known to be true until
>later.. such as Twining beginning his investigation on July 7.
>I found his Pilot log in a newly declassified box at the LCMD
>years later. I also found the log of his pilot.They matched.. We
>didn't know that Cutler was out of the country until years
>later. How did the hoaxer know not to put a signature on it?
>>etc etc

I did, on my blog. I didn't want to clutter all this up with a
lot of  minutia. You have said yourself that the document was

Oh, and you have said repeatedly that the research you and Bill
had done had identified all of this before you even saw the

>>I will note, though Stan will deny it, Bill Moore said, in the
>>early 1980s, that he was thinking of creating a Roswell document
>>to shake things loose. Moore said this to a number of people and
>>it has been widely reported. Then, the MJ-12 documents arrive at
>>the home of Moore's friend who was not well known in the UFO

>Not being well known to the UFO community means what???

If I was going to release classified UFO documents, I think I
would have picked the Lorenzens (though by the mid-1980s APRO
was done), or Allen Hynek because of his insider status and his
reputation, or even you. But Jaime Shandera? Why give these
documents to a guy who was not known inside of the UFO community
and who was or is Hollywood film producer?

>>It is interesting that here is a document that was created to
>>brief the President-Elect but is incomplete. It mentions nothing
>>about the Plains of San Agustin or Aztec, two of the crashes
>>that are now said to be real. There is no reasonable explanation
>>for these two events to be ignored if MJ-12 is real and those
>>events are real... but remember, in the early 80s almost no one
>>believed Aztec to be anything other than a hoax and Bill Moore
>>knew that the only connection to the Plains was the rather vague
>>information attributed to Fleck Danley. The Barney Barnett diary
>>(or actually the diary kept by Ruth Barnett) has nothing,
>>absolutely nothing, to suggest that Barney saw anything on the
>>Plains, or that he was out on the Plains on the right days.

>>And we have Herbert Dick, who was clearly on the Plains, in a
>>position to see any UFO crash there (he arrived on July 1
>>according to a letter he sent to a colleague in late 1947) but
>>reported nothing.

>Ruth's diary indeed did say Barney had often been out on the
>Plains including during the week in question. No Barney did not
>tell Ruth about it. He had been told to shut up and had been in
>the military. Kevin. let us not stretch the truth. Dick was only
>in the Plains 3 weeks that July.

Let's play the quote game. Do you remember your famous
38 false claims by Kevin Randle and Don Schmitt that became
38 false claims by Kevin Randle? I won't talk about claim no. 17.
which was, "That S.T. Friedman knows all about an RS [Randle/
Schmitt] alien tissue sample," which, of course is not a claim
that I ever made and makes it a false claim by you.

Instead I'll just mention no 6, "Anthropologists (Dick, Hibben,
etc.) were on the PSA in early July, 1947, and said there was no
crash there. (None were there!)". You might remember that I
showed you a letter from Herbert Dick in which he said he was on
the Plains starting on July 1... which means he would have been
there had the UFO crashed on any of the early dates suggested by
Bill Moore in his book or Gerald Anderson in his faked diaries.

So Stan, let's not stretch the truth. Dick was there, in a place
that gave him a panoramic view of the Plains and he didn't see
the crash and he didn't see the "battalion-sized" operation
claimed by Gerald Anderson.

In fact, according to the Barnett diary, the only days that do
work are for the crash on July 1 or July 8. On the date selected
by your buddy, Gerald, July 5, the diary puts Barnett in Socorro
buying window glass.

And before we leave this, Gerald Anderson has made the web site:


which outs those who claim service with any of the US military
special forces... It means that Anderson lied about being a SEAL
... and Stan, if you want to tell him I say he's a liar go right
ahead. Tell him to file suit. He lied about his military service
and he lied about the anthropology class.

And if you want to talk about stretching the truth, let's
examine your claim that I write romances... please give me the
title of one of those or withdraw the accusation.

And if you'd like to play it further, please explain the
insertion of the word black into an interview that Don Schmitt
and I conducted, reported in you book with neither credit nor
attribution. Why would you alter the meaning of the sentence to
provide corroboration for the tales told by Anderson? Wouldn't
this be a real stretching of the truth since Bill Brazel never
said the sergeant was black?

>Also I do not accept that you or anybody else we know is in a
>position to know what should or should not have been in the EBD.
>Are you conveniently forgetting that the EBD states "NOTE:This
>document has been prepared as a preliminary briefing only. It
>should be regarded as introductory to a full operations briefing
>intended to follow.": Last I heard, full and preliminary are not

Wonderful reason to explain the problems with it... And
let's change the debate into a contest of semantics. Sorry,
that really doesn't wash, except as an excuse to explain the
inaccuracies in the EBD.

>>But by the early 1980s, Bill Moore, among others, were
>>questioning the validity of suggesting that Barnett's story
>>had anything to do with July 1947.

>Skeptical people question the validity of everything.

Are you suggesting that you question the validity of MJ-12
because there is nothing and no one who can verify it?

>I question the validity of everything (rather than making
>proclamations) which is why, for example, I checked Forrestal's
>papers at Princeton and Menzel's very surprising papers at the
>Harvard Archives (and have been at 18 other archives, often more
>than once) and why I talked at length with George Elsey who
>worked for Truman the entire time he was in the White House. He
>was very helpful about James Lay (Exec. Secretary of the NSC)
>and Robert Cutler. I talked with family members of all but one
>of the MJ-12 group.There is a difference between investigating
>and proclaiming

More irrelevancies... You have not found a single document in
all those archives, in all those personal papers, in all that
searching that leads to MJ-12. Nothing. Nada. I admire your
tenacity in your fruitless searches, but the bottom line is that
you have found nothing.

>>So, the MJ-12 documents mention nothing about either the Plains
>>or Aztec because, in the early 1980s many knew that those two
>>events were not well documented.
>I am glad to know you are psychic and know what highly
>classified material exists. I am not and don't.

It's actually called deductive reasoning and not psychic
ability. And it explains why the Del Rio crash is mentioned when
there is but a single witness who was not who he claimed to be.
In other words, he was not a colonel, not a fighter pilot and
was not in a position to see the crash. Why is this faked crash,
that was not even talked about until 1968, in a document dated
1952... In fact, if you listen to Willingham's latest claims,
the Del Rio crash happened in 1955... talk about psychic
ability. The author of the EBD was able to predict the future to
include this case.

>Yes, I personally am convinced that indeed there was a crash in
>the Plains, and that the very very extensive research done by
>Scott and Suzanne Ramsey (soon to be published in a book)
>establishes that there was a crash of an almost intact saucer at
>Aztec in 1948. It is interesting that Roswell provided a mess of
>small pieces. Aztec and the Plains provided almost intact
>vehicles. Neither had extensive publicity in the 1940s. An
>intact saucer is a whole other matter.

Actually, it's interesting that we've come full circle again and
have to listen to the Aztec story one more time. I await the
book with baited breath.

>>Stan will say that I said I rejected MJ-12 because Admiral
>>Hillenkoetter got his rank wrong. I have told Stan this really
>>isn't important, though Stan has yet to find a document on
>>which Hillenkoetter got his rank wrong. Rather than address the
>>real issues, he'll attempt to divert the conversation to these
>>other points.

>Kevin, why not quote what you said in your book about Roscoe's
>wrong rank being the crucial argument? Why not quote what I say
>on my website and elsewhere that I found documents at the Ike
>Library (not that far from you) proving that it was standard
>practice at the White House to use generic ranks.? Ike's staff
>secretary, Brigadier General Goodpaster, used them when listing
>attendees at White House meetings including for himself "General
>Goodpaster". But signing Brigadier General. You asked me early
>on if I had found any other documents with Roscoe's signed rank
>being Admiral. I had to point out that There is no Hillenkoetter
>signature in the EBD I have shown that the White house calendars
>sometimes listed him as Admiral.rank, sometimes rear.

Yes, and I told you months ago that this was not an important
argument anymore. I have removed it from the updated version of
the book. It started me looking at this in-depth... and I will
remind you that you attempted to prove that Hillenkoetter was
the author of the document. But who cares?

>>I will say that no one has ever found a document, an authentic
>>document referring to MJ-12 in the 25 years since these were
>>announced. The Cutler-Twining Memo, found in the National
>>Archives was clearly planted there, something that Stan will
>>tell you. But if the document was planted, and there is again,
>>no provenance, then it does nothing to validate MJ-12. And
>>that's where we are today. There is nothing that validates MJ-
>>12. And the information we do have suggests that MJ-12 is a

>It is the information that validates not the absence. Don't
>forget Phil Klass paying me $1000. for proving him wrong about
>the typeface on the CT memo. Pages 243-246 list a bunch of items
>not previously known to be true. How did the hoaxer know?

I knew that you would have to bring up Phil's check to you. Nice
debate technique. Change the tone of the conversation.

>>Yes, I know that Stan will say that we have no evidence that
>>Bill Moore (and Richard Doty) were behind the MJ-12 documents,
>>but there are some good clues. The dating format used by Moore,
>>but not the US military or the US government is on them. Yes, it
>>is used in Europe and in NATO, but those arguments are

>I found the same dating format used by Hillenkoetter and Smith .

And it was used by Moore... who said he was going to create a
Roswell document... Which shows up at the home of his friend,
but who is not known to be a UFO researcher.

>>Normally, I don't get involved in these discussions because
>>they turn out the same way. But sometimes I just don't want to
>>let Stan get away with his proclamations about the validity of
>>MJ-12. I am surprised that he continues to defend MJ-12 when
>>even Bill Moore says that he finds many of those documents to be
>>of dubious provenance.

>>The thing is, no matter how often you argue for the authenticity
>>of MJ-12, it doesn't make it so. You need to have evidence and
>>there is precious little of that for MJ-12.

>>For a more comprehensive look at some of this, please go to:


>>So, let the game begin.


>Again I suggest looking at the MJ-12 article in 4 parts on
>my website:


>and in TOP SECRET/MAJIC.There is a great deal of evidence. You
>might learn something.

>ST Friedman

>[Exposer of false arguments against the validity of the EBD,TF,
>and CT and provider of proof that there are a bunch of false MJ-
>12 docs. Also not an acceptor of the false doctrine that Absence
>of evidence is Evidence of absence.]

I wonder if you shouldn't say [Peddler of false arguments for...]

And finally, there comes a point when absence of evidence is, in
fact evidence of absence. You've had decades to produce some
evidence for the authenticity of the MJ-12 documents, mentions
in other, real documents, notes by all those people whose papers
you've inspected, and there is still not a single corroborating
document. Nothing. Absence of evidence is finally evidence of


BTW; I notice there hasn't been a rush to join this conversation
which tells me there is little interest in this. I just thought
another point of view should be expressed.

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



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.