From: Christopher Allan <cda.nul>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 09:54:35 +0100
Fwd Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:08:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Friedman/Shostak Debate - Allan


>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:53:18 -0300
>Subject: Re: Friedman/Shostak Debate

>>From: Kyle King <kyleking.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:07:18 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Friedman/Shostak Debate

>>I agree with you that this field would be improved by having a
>>set of fundamental understood ideas about the origin,
>>technology, and motives.

<snip>

>>I can imagine a "think-tank" style institute... how about
>>ITISAUFO... Institute for Technical Investigation and Scientific
>>Analysis of UFOs. A "Brookings Institute" for UFO studies.

>>I fear you are right in thinking that it would fall by bickering
>>and in-fighting. It's not a money issue.

>Sounds to me like work statements for Operation Majestic 12:

>1. Evaluate wreckage seeking understanding and new knowledge
>about materials, technological capabaility of devices, etc.
>These data would be classified

What for?

>2. Collect and evaluate instrumental data on flight behavior
>including acceleration, change in em signatures as a function of
>changes in direction.etc.These data would be classified.

Again, what for?

>3. Collect and evaluate data from physical trace cases. check on
>means for effecting soil etc. - again in secret.

Still operating in secret after 57 years? Why?

>4. Theoretical evaluation putting 1, 2, 3 together.

But still in secret I presume.

>5. Evaluation of alien behavior in abductions and in probable
>events such as the April 1964 landing at Holloman, and in cases
>such as the Cuban MIG case and other destructions of attacking
>aircraft such as in 1952. When did they destroy.. after what
>actions on our part?

>Ought to keep a nice Black program busy for a long time.

Very black indeed by now.

>Do note my latest MJ-12 paper at:

>http://www.stanfriedman.com


I have duly noted this paper.

Not hearing the Friedman/Shostak debate I assume that Stan kept
MJ-12 out of it (very wise man).

I have examined Stan's latest MJ-12 paper of April 2004. This
contains, among other things, repeats of his earlier paper in
December 2002 where he reviews Randle's book "Case MJ-12....."

STF is still convinced the three original MJ-12 papers are
genuine, even if the later ones are obvious fakes. I am utterly
baffled by his treatment of the Truman-Forrestal memo of Sept
24, 1947.

>From his two papers above, his conclusions on the T-F memo
may be summarised thus:

1. The numeric part of the date, "24, 1947." is offset a little.
Agreed. This presents Stan with an awkward dilemma. He concludes
that this part was added later by someone. Agreed. There is also
a period (full stop) after the date. It was not Truman's
practice to put a period after a date, but it was Bush's
practice. Therefore, says Stan, Bush must have seen the letter
before it was sent to Forrestal, and added the numeric part
himself , with the period, thus explaining why the two parts of
the date are not quite lined up. Truman, or his secretary, typed
the "September", whilst Bush, or his secretary, added the "24,
1947".

Is this really credible? Is a date ever (even in official
circles) split in this way, by different people?

Or is it Stan's ingenious way round a very awkward dilemma?

He then says the document cannot be a forgery because no forger
would ever use two typewriters in one memo. Quite right. He
wouldn't and didn't.

2. Truman's signature. Stan first refuses to admit it is
identical, as far as the eye can see, to one on a genuine Truman
memo written to Bush on Oct.1, 1947. (It was Stan who first drew
attention to the fact that one "matched" the other in an IUR
article in 1988. Had he kept his mouth shut, the genuine Truman-
Bush memo would most certainly never have been found).

He now says the original T-F memo was signed but none of the
carbon copies were. This is entirely possible. However, Stan
tells us that because Forrestal had died in 1949 his (original)
was apparently lost. By 1952 Hillenkoetter thought Ike would
like to see a signed executive order from president Truman to go
with the briefing he (Hillenkoetter) was preparing for Ike in
November 1952. But the original, signed, T-F memo was nowhere to
be found. This does not worry Stan, who proposes that, in order
to fill this void, Hillenkoetter, or possibly W.Bedell Smith,
asked the CIA to get hold of a Truman signature somehow. The CIA
then decided to lift Truman's signature from the genuine Bush
memo of Oct 1, 1947 and copy it onto the unsigned carbon copy of
the Sept 24, 1947 T-F memo before Hillenkoetter passed it to Ike
in the notorious Nov '52 briefing paper!! He says "the CIA would
have its disinformation people transfer it".

(I wonder what Truman's reaction would be had he discovered that
some smart guy in the CIA had, without permission, transferred
his signature from one document to another! Remember Truman was
still President at this time.)

According to STF, this accounts for the two signatures being
(almost) identical.

Does anyone follow all this? A trifle confusing perhaps? More
important: Is such a scenario, once again, really credible ?

In my view it belongs in the world of pure fantasy.

Anyone wanting to know how the "September 24, 1947" date was
actually composed can look at Moore & Shandera's "The MJ-12
Documents, An Analytical Report", p.53 . The forger simply
lifted the numeric part of the date on document D and pasted it
onto C, offsetting it very slightly against "September".

Hence only one typewriter was used, not two.

As to why the forger needed to split the date like this, people
can work this out for themselves, if they are still interested.

Finally:

Regarding "Linguistics", STF omits to tell readers that
Dr Roger Wescott (who was chosen to do the analysis
because of his known pro-UFO beliefs) later
changed his mind about endorsing the Hillenkoetter briefing.
I have his letter to researchers on this.

"What the public doesn't know, I wont tell them".

Exactly.


CDA