Thursday, October 09, 2014

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Stanton Friedman Counters

Bookmark and Share

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Stanton Friedman Counters

MJ-12 Debate Continues: Stanton Friedman Counters

By Stanton Friedman
The UFO Chronicles
© 10-8-14


     Thank you for once again demonstrating your illogicality and inaccuracy with regard to the MJ-12 documents. Your basic rule is: Absence of evidence is evidence for absence which is illogical. Let me be specific, though as you know from previous items I have written, I provided a long list of examples. You bring up Willingham again for reasons unknown. I have never said that his story proves anything. Of course I don't have any evidence that there was a saucer crash at el Indio Guerrero. on 06 December, 1950.The document says ...."By the time the search team arrived, what remained of the object had been almost totally incinerated. Such material as could be recovered was transported to the A.E.C. facility at Sandia, New Mexico, for study." That was a nuclear weapons lab. As you are well aware, I do not have access to classified information about the results of that study or anything else. That surely doesn't mean that there was no study done. I suspect that the search team was there because "the long trajectory" was observed on radar and would also have provided classified information.

You have described the response of Peter Tytel, a noted forensic Documents examiner to whom I had sent a copy of the EBD "it was just perfect because the whole thing of the twelve pages or however many pages it was. Most of the pages were blank pages with just five words written on them like TOP SECRET or Appendix A or something like that." The fact is the EBD was 7 pages (plus the TF memo) and only one (page 7) had just Appendix A on it. Strangely you did not even include that page in your book. You quoted Tytel's off hand remark that the typewriter was of much later vintage. A full professional evaluation by James Black paid for by Dr. Robert M Wood stated the typeface was from an Underwood Standard from May 1940.

Several authorities claimed that TOP SECRET Restricted was not used during Ike's terms. The GAO found examples and said so. Blind Luck? The date of the TF was the only day in a many month period when Truman, Bush and Forrestal met. Blind Luck? The hoaxer threw a dart at a dart board and found the one time when Cutler was out of the country so didn't sign the CT or put a /s/. Of course he blindly knew that Menzel would pass muster though nobody else did. He knew to put a period after the date on TF knowing that Bush always did. He knew that James Lay had been instructed to keep things moving out of Cutler's in Basket. George Elsey, who worked for Truman all the time he was President , said Lay would have written the memo for Cutler (after I pointed out Lay's instructions from Cutler and found that there was nothing wrong with the 3 documents, etc., ad nauseum). Also chose an unusual carbon paper but knew it would eventually pass muster.

Another example is that you claimed truly that nowhere did I find any mention of MJ-12 in Donald Menzel's papers ... no Marginal notes, no oblique references etc. Menzel according to his own words to Jack Kennedy had been connected to the NSA and its Navy predecessor for decades. I have seen no reference to this connection predating my discovery in his papers at the Harvard Archives. You expect him to have left classified notes and information lying around? There were no classified papers there. His secretary assured me that he was very careful about security. Remember that the 156 pages of NSA UFO documents finally released were classified TOP SECRET UMBRA and one could only read 1 line per page.

You are now claiming that Dr. Buskirk claimed that Gerald Anderson was in his anthro Albuquerque High School. I have trouble believing that he did so claim. You will recall that I visited the high school and twice talked by phone to the student whom you claimed recalled Gerald from that class. He denied it even after I sent him and another student a copy of a picture of Gerald from the High School yearbook. Your evidence please—not your wishful thinking.

I have as you know, noted many pieces of data not known to be true until after we received the CT,TF, and EBD . How did a hoaxer know those?? Time travel such as invoked by the USAF when claiming Crash Test Dummies not dropped until 6 years after Roswell accounted for the Body stories? Why do you falsely claim that I said the TF signature "exactly matches" one on a Truman Bush letter? You made that up. I said "matches" not "exactly matches." That is as bad as Klass saying Letter 9 times for the TF MEMO and his falsely claiming Pica Type wasn't used at the NSC. He paid me $1000.00 for proving him wrong about that after I provided 14 examples.

Why don't you mention the findings of world class linguistics expert Dr. Roger Wescott who reviewed 27 examples of Hillenkoetter writings including the EBD and said "in my opinion there is no compelling reason to regard any of these communications as fraudulent or to believe that any of them were written by any one other than Hillenkoetter himself. This statement holds for the controversial presidential briefing memorandum of November 18, 1952 ...." You talk about drafts being destroyed. Onionskin copies were all over the place. None of the three is a draft. "Preliminary briefing" is not a draft.

The person who filmed the TOP SECRET MAJIC briefing and distributed the film to a person without a clearance or need to know was guilty of a crime. A hoaxer would have finally said gotcha. Provenance is a silly argument. Want a written confession, too? You have a solid military background, but still falsely claimed that calling Hillenkoetter Admiral (instead of rear admiral) meant the EBD was phony. You asked for another item by him with a signature. There is no signature by RHH on the EBD In fact it was standard practice to use generic ranks as you would have known if you had gone to the Ike Library. It is a lot closer to you than it is to me.
Time to throw in the towel. The 3 items are genuine.


  1. When you resort to suggesting that the lack of provenance is a silly argument, that is the point where I bow out. This is going nowhere and I have a book to complete rather than say the same things over and over to you so that you can ignore them.

    I will respond to one item. I have a letter from Dr. Winfred Buskirk dated August 30, 1991, in hisown handwriting that says, "Anderson was in my Anthropology class the 1st semester, then, according to his transcript, took a French class the second semester." I had avoided using this until now because those who supplied the information were still employed by the Albuquerque school system and could have gotten into trouble. Now that situation has worked itself out.

    I also have a letter dated August 8, 1991, again written in Buskirk's own hand that says, "Now - at Albuquerque High he was enrolled for a semester of Anthropology. This was a course I taught in the fall, so he must have taken it in 1957 - 1958 and, I presumed passed it with credit (I failed no one if I could help it.)... You will probably want to call Mrs. [left the name out to protect the innocent], .[second name left out] and [third name left out] for a verification." This I did, but after Anderson called the school to demand that they release no information about him, I kept this to myself.

    Here is the interesting part of that letter by Buskirk, "They [the names that I had removed] had been contacted by Friedman, and both had referred him to her... But Friedman has not contacted her." The question is, did you ever contact her and what did you learn? Did she tell you the same things that I learned?

    Once again, I have the letters in hand and there is even my handwritten note of a telephone number for one of these people whom I did call. He said that he was looking at the transcript as we talked. By the way, Anderson did, in a letter to me, confirm some of the information that came
    from those sources. He's dead in the water on this, and I have the proof.

    I have noticed that he misinterpreted my comments about Peter Tytell and attempt to switch the conversation from the EBD and the Truman Memo to that nutty NSA document you carry around. You don't seem to get that I talked to Tytell, so I might answer that as well... or I might not. I do have a book due here and this is now taking too much time. I don't think there are
    many out there who are buying these arguments anyway.

  2. This document (MJ-12 cover) from the 35mm film, looks as though it was FRESHLY PRINTED, has NEVER been opened before. The 35mm film (undeveloped) showed up in the mid 80's. Therefore it HAD to have been recently shot. If it was 25 y/o undeveloped film, it wouldn't look clean/clear.

    This whole thing falls completely apart from page 1, ignore EVERYTHING else.

  3. If there is one thing I have learned with investigations, it is what my forensic instructor told us, NEVER rule anything out. Put what you have in order of most likely to least likely. Its not like the old TV show Dragnet, with the detective Joe Friday saying to someone 'Just the facts Ma'am" you get that person to talk as much as they can and even encourage them. Then sort things out as best you can. Eyewitness testimony can , and often is flawed, yet you want as much of it as you can get, for that actually is the best evidence you can get. Then you go with gathering up the 'Forensic evidence' or rather physical evidence that you have and comparing everything.

    Sometimes the truth is inbetween two arguments.

  4. Anonymous1:09 AM

    Majestic-12 is a PSY-OP people, stop spinning your wheels and chasing your tail for this planted piece of half truth deception and hoax, spend your tie and energies trying to uncover new and factual evidence. They want you to busy yourself with this or to realize it is fake and thus loose interest; that is their goal.


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo