Â Â Â Really? This is the best you can do? I produce a long analysis of the MJ-12 mythology, complete with documentation and the best you can do is point out a mistake that is the result of a misplaced phrase and a computer glitch.* Of course I knew that Cutler had not signed the memo. You said so in your book. This is trivia.
Instead, letâs discuss the lack of provenance. In every other leak of classified material into the public arena, there is a provenance. The reporter, researcher, recipient of the material knows the source who is available to them for questions and authentication. With MJ-12 none of those factors are in evidence and in the world of leaked and questioned documents, this is a huge red flag. You are unable to provide the name of the source or a repository of the information that can be used to verify the authenticity. Without that, you have a work of fiction.
In fact, that could well be the genesis of MJ-12. Bill Moore, Bob Pratt, and probably Richard Doty collaborated on a novel that had the working title MAJIK â 12, but Moore changed the name to The Aquarius Project. It is the blueprint for MJ-12 and was written two YEARS before the film allegedly arrived at Jaime Shanderaâs house. When MJ-12 was revealed to the world, Bob Pratt thought it time to âdust offâ the novel and see if they could sell it. Isnât that an interesting coincidence?
And you must remember that Bill Moore talked to you about creating a âRoswellâ document in the hopes it would suggest to some witnesses it was now legal for them to talk about the classified research. Yes, you have denied this in the past, but Moore mentioned it to others so it is not from a single source, it is the genesis of MJ-12.
Letâs talk about Project Aquarius, which you ignore. This is, in fact, the original program that evolved into MJ-12. The first mention of MJ-12 is in a document that also mentions Project Aquarius, which it turns out, is a hoax. Isnât it interesting that this initial appearance of MJ-12 is a hoax? And I havenât even mentioned the MJ-5 fiasco.
And donât forget that you have said repeatedly that the Cutler/Twining memo was planted in the National Archives. We just disagree on who placed it there. You fail to mention that the carbon copy was folded as it would have been if mailed (and which makes it easier to conceal in the inside pocket of a suit jacket), but there is no reason to fold it because it would have been filed flat. To me it was planted to provide a provenance for an MJ-12 document as a way to blunt that argument. It failed in that respect.
I donât really care to argue about the trivia of the distances to the debris field but will say this. It would seem that in a document that includes a section of maps (unavailable to us) it would have the distances calculated precisely, especially from a military organization that contains a couple of dozen trained navigators. Their jobs were critical in combat, so they would have been able to provide precise distances and locations (grid coordinates) which should have been reflected in the body of the EBD but are not.
But the fatal flaw is the Robert Willingham nonsense. Here is something that reflects the state of UFO research in the mid-1980s. Many of us believed in the 1980s that Willinghamâs tale of seeing a crashed flying saucer was true when his affidavit appeared. We believed him because he was a high-ranking Air Force officer telling a tale that seemed to be plausible. We believed that Todd Zechel had verified Willinghamâs credentials, and now, in the EBD, there was further evidence that his story was true.
But the first version of Willinghamâs tale took place in 1948 and involved three objects, one of which crashed. This version was published in 1968 in Skylook and told us Willingham was a CAP officer as opposed to an Air Force officer. To make it worse, he claims to have been flying a fighter that wasnât operational in 1948.
In the version that appears in the MJ-12 document, the crash took place on December 6, 1950. This can be traced to Zechel and Moore and suggests the UFO was âincineratedâ upon impact. Willingham tacitly agreed with that date, but later changed it so that he could tell his ridiculous story about flying fighters in Korea in December 1950.
In the last version, Willingham said that the events took place in 1954 or 1955. If true, then the tale couldnât appear in a document created in 1952. And further research proved that Willingham had not been an Air Force officer nor was he a fighter pilot. His tale was invention and shouldnât appear in a document created at the highest levels for the president. They would have known it wasnât true if it had been told prior to the creation of the EBD, unless, of course, the EBD was created in the 1980s by those who werenât on the inside and believed the tale at the time.
There is absolutely no evidence of a crash in the El Indio – Guerrero area of Mexico. And before we have to hear that âabsence of evidence isnât evidence of absenceâ I should point out that I have searched everywhere for evidence of this event. Friends and colleagues have searched for anything related to this published in the right time frame or witnessed in the right time frame at the locations mentioned and have failed. There is nothing to suggest a UFO crash on December 6, 1950. At this point, given the situation, those advocating the authenticity of MJ-12 must present something other than the MJ-12 document as evidence that this crash happened and if unable to do so, should then reevaluate their opinion on MJ-12. Or, to put a point on it, absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.
In fact, letâs take it a step farther, if you are advocating a crash on the Plains of San Agustin in July 1947, then you must explain why that is not mentioned in the MJ-12 document. These two points seem to be mutually exclusive. If MJ-12 is real, then this crash must not have happened. If there was such a crash, then MJ-12 must be in error. There would be no reason to withhold this information from a document prepared for the president. Both canât be authentic and I suspect both are fraudulent.
Or, if you believe there was a crash in Aztec, NM in March 1948, then why wasnât it mentioned in the MJ-12 document? Doesnât its absence argue against the authenticity of the Aztec crash? Conversely, if Aztec is a real event, then doesnât that argue against the authenticity of MJ-12?
What we have in the MJ-12 document is the situation as it existed in the mid-1980s. At that time, those who faked the document didnât believe in Aztec or the Plains crash but did in the Willingham tale. They attempted to create a document that seemed to have been written in 1952, but these elements have helped us date it. Willinghamâs UFO crash tale is the real fatal flaw in MJ-12.
But rather than talk about these points critical to MJ-12, we delve into minutia of it with little regard to the overall picture. We engage in âgotchaâ argument rather than something of substance that actually helps us resolve this dilemma. So there is a minor error in my analysis? Does that negate the overall challenge to MJ-12? No, these arguments about it just obscure the truth.
I could drag in aspects of this in which you have made mistakes, including your belief that the signature on the Truman memo is an exact match until you learned that no two signatures are an exact match. Then you changed your tune, but overlooked the minor alteration to the stroke crossing the âTâ in Truman. The reason was Trumanâs signature habitually touched the text and it was necessary to carefully remove the evidence of where it bushed those letters.
And, I expect to hear about how Phil Klass paid you one thousand dollars because you provided samples of pica type on White House letters.
But if we wish to understand this MJ-12 mess, then it is necessary to understand the major issues arguing against authenticity rather than minor problems with the analysis. Letâs resolve the major issues before we begin with the minor and irrelevant ones.
*For those who have corresponded with me on a regular basis, you know that my computer regularly launches emails in the middle of sentences. It has to do with the way the touch pad is laid into the lap top. Iâm not sure what causes itâ¦ but this same flaw also will highlight text and delete as I type. I usually catch it and can recover it, but sometimes I donât see this happening. I catch it on proofreading because there are usually two sentences or two paragraphs jammed together that have no transition. In this case, it took out several paragraphs in which I was discussing, as you did, the sample from Cutlerâs office that had been signed. The flow seemed natural and I didnât catch the change which says that Cutler had signed the memo. Of course he hadnât and I knew that.
You can take it from there. I have no desire to prolong the agony.