UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Feb > Feb 23

Re: Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:26:20 -0500 (EST)
Archived: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:17:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:01:06 -0400
>Subject: Re: Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:44:56 -0500 (EST)
>>Subject: Re: Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

>>>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:42:49 -0400
>>>Subject: Re: Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

>>>>Source: Kevin Randle's A different Perspective Blog


>>>>Friday, February 17, 2012

>>>>Wilbert Smith And Project Magnet

>>>>For some bizarre reason, the Wilbert Smith documents have gained
>>>>new life and I'm not sure why. Smith was a Canadian radio
>>>>engineer who worked with, or for the government and was well
>>>>thought of. He was, for example, the Senior Engineer at the
>>>>Canadian Department of Transport. He also, according to
>>>>researcher Grant Cameron, was responsible for "Radio Ottawa"
>>>>where the Canadian "spies" reported in and which also monitored
>>>>Soviet communications. Yes, I wondered about Canadian spies as
>>>>well, but that something for another time.

>>>>According to the latest information, this memo, written by Smith
>>>>on November 21, 1950, has just been recovered from the Archives
>>>>of the University of Ottawa. I guess that means that the
>>>>document was found in their collection, but it has been
>>>>available for a long time. Though originally classified as Top
>>>>Secret, it has been downgraded over the years so that it is no
>>>>longer classified (which means only that its classification was
>>>>downgraded and says nothing about the importance of the
>>>>information included in it.) The complete text says:


>>Stan, All

>>>There is more to Smith than he is given credit for in this blog
>>>post. He was well thought of indeed.

>>Thought I made it clear that he was well thought of... wondered
>>about the idea of Canadian spies... who do they spy on? But,
>>that is something for another day.

>>>I had a copy from Canadian Scott Foster in 1979 and viewed the
>>>memo in the Arthur Bray files at the U. of Ottawa many years
>>>ago. I also met with Smith's boss Dr. Solandt and located and
>>>met with Robert Sarbacher his American source for the comments
>>>given about Bush.

>>Yes, yes. We all get it. You've been to archives. You've
>>interviewed people. Sarbacher talked about this (and wasn't it
>>Steinman who found Sarbacher and interviewed him first? That's
>>what he said in his book...) And you had a copy before the MJ-12
>>papers surfaced... interesting.

>>>Smith was not just a teller of tales like, for example, Frank
>>>Kaufmann who had nothing to back up his fiction. CD Allan
>>>naturally got his facts wrong in his anti-MJ-12 zeal. We did not
>>>find all the names in Bush's papers.

>>Why is it you always have to make snarky little comments?
>>Couldn't you have said he wasn't a teller of tales like Gerald
>>Anderson, the wannabe SEAL who was not. And was it three dead
>>aliens and one injured or was it two dead, one injured and one
>>not? Why did he invent the phone bill... to make me look bad
>>because I was saying he was a liar, so to prove me wrong, he
>>forged a telephone bill. Please explain the logic in that? Tell
>>us again how the fact that Buskirk taught at the Albuquerque
>>High School where your buddy, Anderson, was a student is
>>irrelevant. Oh yes, Buskirk is the liar not Anderson. I mention
>>these things because you have a habit of tromping off into
>>irrelevancies to the particular discussions.

>>>There was a lot of useful info at the Truman Library, the Ike
>>>Library, the Harvard Archives, Reagan library etc.Of course some
>>>of the people were well known to Bush... no surprise considering
>>>>his major role in science and government policy during and after
>>>WW II. Chairman of committees etc. Much more in the way of solid
>>>infomation re MJ-12 can be found in my TOP SECRET/MAJIC and
>>>in a long piece at my web site:


>>Yes, tell us again how the lack of a provenance for MJ-12 is
>>really a proof that the documents are real. Please explain why,
>>if there was a crash on the Plains of San Agustin, there is no
>>mention of it in the briefing for the President-elect. Please
>>explain why the Aztec crash is left out, but the El Indio
>>fiction, invented by Robert Willingham is included.

>>>Good idea to have facts in hand before putting computer in gear

>>Sound advice Stan, maybe you should take it... I mean, you
>>invented a black sergeant to visit Bill Brazel, you said that
>>none of the various archaeologists were on the Plains to see the
>>crash when documentation puts Herbert Dick in the perfect
>>location. You published 38 false claims by Don Schmitt and me
>>but later attributed them all to me... even when I wasn't
>>involved... Explain what you meant when you wrote that you knew
>>about the alien tissue sample that Don and I had.

>>All I did was suggest that the Smith document was a document
>>created by a man giving his opinion and it was based on such
>>credible sources as Behind The Flying Saucers. I tried to make
>>it clear that Smith was a respected man, but his report left a
>>little to be desired from the standpoint of evidence.

>Kevin et al

>I have always admired your ability to create loads of fiction.
>How many dozen fiction books is it now? More than 7 I would
>guess. But I have often been bothered by your frequent attempts
>to pass off fiction as fact as in the above using false
>reasoning and the strange notion that absence of evidence is
>evidence of absence.

Always with the snarky little comments... do you say the same
thing about Bruce Maccabee, Nick Pope or Whitley Streiber? Seems
they all write fiction. Does this disqualify them?

I do notice that you didn't mind using my research (well, the
research that Don and I did) in your book... You changed it
around so that some of it would help corroborate the nonsense of
Gerald Anderson... Do you really still believe him after he
created the fiction of the telephone bill? Identified his high
school anthropology teacher as the leader of the archaeologists?
And after he created a diary that he attempted to pass off as
belonging to a relative? How come you dodged all the questions
about Anderson? And remember, Anderson annoyed the Navy SEALs by
claiming to be one when he was not... I gave you the
documentation on this.

>Here are three specific examples:.

>1. You mention the Plains of San Agustin and claim that if it
>had been real, it would have been mentioned in the EBD. Why? The
>EBD doesn't say it is a complete accounting of all UFO events.
>To the contrary, it specifically states "This document has been
>prepared as a preliminary briefing only. It should be regarded
>as introductory to a full operations briefing intended to
>follow". Many brief briefings were crammed in to the Ike
>briefing at the Pentagon on Nov. 18, 1952. Ike wouldn't be
>inaugurated until a couple of months later.

Because you are briefing the President-elect about UFO events.
Why would you leave out the Plains, if it was real? And even if
you didn't mention it orally, during the briefing, why would you
leave it out of the written document? Wouldn't you want that
document to be complete?  The inclusion of the nonsense about El
Indio suggests that you would want the document to be
complete... And remember, in 1984, when the document appeared,
many of us believed that this crash was authentic, based on the
testimony of an alleged Air Force colonel.

All you have to do is look at the mention of this other crash,
in December 1950. It's included and there was no national
attention to it. There was nothing about it until Willingham
made it up. >Furthermore, as you know while Roswell had coast to
coast >publicity, the PSA case had none. It involved an almost
intact >craft as opposed to just pieces. Ditto for Aztec. Scott
and >Suzanne Ramsey's book about Aztec "Aztec Incident" should
get >rid of the doubts (Mid April watch for it.) They did
exceptional >research rather than make proclamations

Hope they managed to find some first-hand witnesses who have not
changed their stories after all these years. Hope they do a
better job of it than Steinman did in his attempt to prove that
something  fell at Aztec... Hope they can explain Silas Newton
better than Steinman did...

Proclamations... like your saying, "Randle writes romances..."
or "Randle's just in it for the money..." or "Randle was an
English major..." (Well, that's sort of true. I was an American
major until I was promoted). All proclamations without any

>2. I have no idea why you link Willingham and El Indio and the
>EBD. I have never said Willingham's testimony had anything to do
>with any conclusions.

Well, maybe it's because the date given in 1977 was the December
1950 date, it happened just across the Texas-Mexican border and
it was the location that Todd Zechel talked about when he was in
communication with Bill Moore. After all, Moore does mention
Zechel's work in his book. Did you forget that Bill Moore talked
about creating a Roswell-type document to draw out other
witnesses? And then, suddenly, he has one.

>Are you suggesting he wrote the Eisenhower Briefing Document?
>Furthermore there was a national security alert at the time of
>El Indio which undoubtedly made the rounds of the military.
>Having been to Sandia,I would not expect to get anything from
>them. Absence of data in my hands does not prove it didn't
>happen. Willingham's not telling the truth doesn't either.

Of course Willingham didn't write the document. The security
alert is irrelevant... other than to suggest a date for the
alleged crash. Of course Willingham's lies prove it because
without Willingham, you have no El Indio crash... that he later
changed the date and the location proves there was no crash.

>3. I did not say lack of Provenance makes the document genuine.
>I have loudly said that whoever released the film and planted
>the CT memo was guilty of violatng the laws about providing
>highly classified material to people not having an appropriate
>clearance and need to know. A hoaxer could stand up and say
>Gotcha. The real McCoy could not.

In a letter to me, dated January 13, 2001, you wrote, "One might
suggest that the lack of provenance is an indication of
genuineness." Seems to me that you are suggesting that this lack
of provenance indicates it is real.

I might point out that in other cases of leaked documents, we do
have the provenance because without it, you have broken the
chain of evidence. I can't verify the reality of the document
because I don't know from where it came. It is as real as the
Hitler diaries and the Howard Hughes will... both faked and in
neither case did the forger "...stand up and say Gotcha."

>Journalists often get over the transom stuff.

Yes, and they don't run with it until they have the facts...
Well, except for Dan Rather when he got the Bush documents over
the transom... too bad he didn't attempt to verify the
provenance. Rather believed them true, much to his horror...
should have check the authenticity of the documents. (And I
don't really need to start a discussion on whether Bush
fulfilled his Air Guard obligation... the documents were faked).
>By the way, I did discover Sarbacher after talking to Arthur
>Bray in Canada. I found Sarbacher listed in a "Who is Who in
>Science", contacted him and visited him on his yacht during a
>trip to see my retired parents in Florida. I had told Bill
Moore >who talked to Steinman. Ask Steinman. He is still around.

I read Steinman's book about it. He said that he told Bill Moore
about it, who told you.  He lays out the sequence of events that
lead him to Sarbarcher starting on page 305 of his book and
explains that he gave a copy of his letter to Moore and told him
to share it with you...

>Where did a I say a black sergeant visited Brazel? I did list
>38 false claims; whether you or you and Don deserve the credit
>is far less important than that they were false.

Well, let's see... In your book you use the testimony that Don
and I gathered but insert the word black, in brackets, in front
of the word sergeant, but Brazel made no mention of a racial
identity to any of those people. Later you were contacted by
another UFO researcher and told him, when asked, that Brazel had
used a racially charged word to describe the sergeant and you
didn't want to use it in your book. So there would be two places
where you claimed that Brazel had identified the sergeant as
black and, of course, it is a fiction created by you.

Except that many of them weren't false... The archaeologists,
who you wrote were not on the Plains in early July (including
Herbert Dick), except in a letter, were there. Dick said he
arrived there on July 1. You know this because I gave you a copy
of the letter. That means this one wasn't a false claim, but the
truth. The only false claim was yours...

Would you like another example? In your review of our book on
Roswell, you suggested that we were government agents attempting
to divert attention from the Plains... Yes, you did take it
back, but you also slung the allegation and then said it was a
false claim that we had made. Nope, wrong again.

And some of them were simple trivia. I had said that Don
Berliner was on the helicopter when Anderson was flown around
looking for his fake site (he offered five or six before he
settled on Horse Springs and you know that he had now moved it
again)... Apparently Don Berliner was not invited on the flight
though that is the impression I had... so I got this wrong, but
then, who really cares about it.

You said it was false that I had claimed to have talked to six
people who saw bodies... I can give you more than six names, not
a false claim by me...

But I tire of this game. There aren't 38 false claims, just your
opinion about some things that has been proven in error on a
number of occasions.

>I do wish you and Listers would review my long review of your
>MJ-12 book.

Yes, your review is a nice bit of fiction. And I do wish you
would stop making claims that have been proven false... Where
will it end?


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.

[ 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