Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Re: MJ-12 and Area 51

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ed Stewart <egs@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 19:40:53 -0800
Fwd Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:38:26 -0500
Subject: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51

> From: rudiak@garnet.berkeley.edu
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:17:57 -0800 (PST)
> To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
> Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51

> Yes, it would have been a very lousy cover story, which would have drawn a
> lot of unnecessary attention -- sort of like Roswell base putting out a
> captured flying disc story as a cover for a balloon crash.

Have you ever considered that the captured flying disc story may have
had as its purpose something totally separate from flying discs or
balloons? Can you think of a quicker way to bring to the attention of
the Russians, re-emphasing that we did indeed have an operational and
ready wing capable of delivering atom bombs, the presence of the 509th
in every major newspaper in the world without it looking obvious that we
were trying to get their attention? I find it interesting that Richard
Rhodes discloses in "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" that in
April, 1947 "in the heat of the burgeoning Cold War, the US had no
assembled atomic bombs in stock" and would not have for quite a few
months. The only thing we could do at that time was convince the
Russians that we were ready and capable. In other words, bluff them into
thinking that we could retaliate with atomic bombs should they move in
Europe. A dropped story in the New York Times about the 509th would have
been too obvious to an already paranoid Russia and could well have
backfired and alerted them of a possible ulterior motive for the
Americans to be publisizing the 509th. The Roswell flying disc context
may well someday turn out to be a total non-event for ufology. It
certainly didn't hurt or slow down Blanchard's career any. He went on
all the way to make General. True, he was one of General LeMay's
favorites and had his patronage, but doesn't the release of the Roswell
crashed disc story suggest a lack of good judgement on Blanchard's part
in the first place? Especially for a commander of the only atomic bomb
wing in the world which we now know had no bullets to fire throughout
the last half of 1947 and early 1948? Just food for thought and
speculation on my part. The above is rhetorical on my part.

> More importantly, Dr. Lincoln La Paz (of N.M. green fireball fame) wrote
> an article in the Feb., 1954 issue of the "Astronomical Society of the
> Pacific Journal" that astronomer Clyde Tombaugh had undertaken a telescope
> search for natural satellites.

The La Paz article had nothing to do with Tombaugh. The title of the
paper was: "Advances of the Perigees of Earth-Satellites Predicted by
General Relativity" and related to a suggestion made by Gilvarry for a
possible test of General Relativity. La Paz suggested that a possible
better test would be using earth-satellites and placed his speculation
into the future by stating:

	"Irrespective of whether or not satellites may be discovered at small
mean distances from the Earth, the present state of satellite-vehicle
research certainly justifies the belief that in the not distant future,
artificial satellites can be set in motion in prescribed orbits about
the Earth."

The reference to Tombaugh in La Paz's paper was a footnote to his
previous sentence:

	"That satellites of this sort may exist is strongly suggested by
several independent lines of arguments. Furthermore, until extended
systematic searches with properly designed equipment have been made at
observatories not too far from the equator, failure to discover such
bodies can have little significance.*"

The footnote:

	"* Clyde Tombaugh has just informed me that U.S. Army Ordnance Research
has agreed to sponsor a search for near-by satellites of the earth with
especially designed photographic equipment."

La Paz continues in his paper with the mathematics showing his line of
argument for inclusion of testing General Relativity using future
earth-satellites. That is what his paper was all about. It had nothing
to do with Tombaugh, or his efforts.

> This prompted a White Sands press release
> in March that Tombaugh would be looking for "moonlets" that have gone into
> orbit around Earth recently, but are assumed to be natural. [an
> impossibility!]  Allegedly they were being investigated as possible space
> station sites.

The White Sands press release was not prompted by La Paz's paper. It was
prompted by the reaction of the media to La Paz's footnote in the paper.

Also, Dr. La Paz certainly didn't think it was an impossibility for
natural objects to be captured in earth orbit. Maybe you know something
he didn't back in 1954. Care to elaborate?

> Donald Keyhoe claimed that what had really happened was
> that new long range radar had picked up two objects going into orbit
> around Earth back in 1953.

Keyhoe covers this whole subject from his own personal perspective and
speculation in the "The Flying Saucer Conspiracy", Chapter 8 "Satellite
Search". Must reading. Lots of good stuff on Keyhoe's mindset including
the possibility of us "harming" moon men and indiscriminantly starting
an interplanetary war based on Zwicki's project.

> Keyhoe's allegations are backed up somewhat by a story first reported by
> "Aviation Week" magazine on August 23.  They claimed that there were two
> objects orbiting Earth 400 and 600 miles out, which caused great
> consternation in the Air Force during the summer [Twining/Cutler MJ-12
> meeting, July 16???], until the objects were identified by Dr. Lincoln
> LaPaz as "natural" (captured meteors) and not artificial objects.

This is the Aviation Week "story" which appeared as one paragraph in the
"Washington Roundup" column on August 23, 1954:

	"SATELLITE SCARE
	 	Pentagon scare over the observance of two previously
		unobserved satellites orbiting the earth has dissipated
		with the identification of the objects as natural, not
		artificial satellites. Dr. Lincoln La Paz, expert on
		extraterristrial bodies from the University of New
		Mexico, headed the identification project. One satellite
		is orbiting at about 400 mi. out, while the other track
		is 600 mi. from the earth. Pentagon thought momentarily
		the Russians had beaten the U.S. to space explorations."

Nice for the Russians to be so anti-American during the Cold War era. It
provided the perfect cover to hide alleged MJ-12 meetings. After all,
that was the 50s and we all know now that it was just "Happy Days" with
nothing for our government to worry about except for aliens and keeping
MJ-12 out of the headlines. (GRIN) What evidence do you have that there
was ever a "Twining/Cutler MJ-12 meeting, July 16"? Inquiring minds
would like to know.

> In follow-up press stories (e.g., S.F. Chronicle on 8/24 and the N.Y.
> Times on 8/24 and 10/10/54) LaPaz, denied that he was involved, though not
> specifically denying the truth of the story, stating that the article "was
> false in every particular, in so far as reference to me is concerned."

It was after all Tombaugh's project. All he did was report that Tombaugh
had notified him of the project. But, we all know that the media never
gets anything wrong.

I don't have the S.F. Chronicle article of 8/24/54, but the NYT article
is actually longer than the original Aviation Week paragraph.
Interesting that they quote the Aviation Week article as stating "Threw
the Air Force into a flap". Their quote marks. I keep looking at the
Aviation Week article  posted above and I simply can't find that in
there. They also state that the Aviation Week publication said "The Air
Force had kept Dr. La Paz going back and forth between the missile test
center at White Sands, NM, and Palomar Obervatory in California until
the objects were identified as meteors..." I keep looking at the
Aviation Week paragraph and I don't find that in there either. I guess
the NYT times must of had there own reasons for making their version so
much longer and interesting than the original piece in Aviation Week.

The NYT October 10, 1954 piece is entitled "Scientist Denies Space Base
'Find'" and is quite lenghty. It goes into a lot of detail of what Dr.
La Paz's research interests were and the significance of having a space
platform in earth orbit in terms of world power and military advantage.

> Col. Walker Holler, C/O of the Army Office of Ordnance Research, said the
> story was false.  OOR was looking for such objects, with the aid of famed
> astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, but none had been discovered.  An unidentified
> source close to the OOR, however, told the Times the story was true and
> LaPaz was indeed involved. [N.Y. Times, 8/29/54]  La Paz reiterated that
> the purpose of the project was to look for natural space platforms.

Irrespective of every identifiable source stating that La Paz was not
involved, UP misquoting the original Aviation Week article and adding a
couple more interesting notes not found in the original, we have this
unidentified source "close" to the OOR that still gets quoted. What does
"close" mean? He sold pizza outsides the gates?"

What is imminently clear is that the media recognized that this story of
satellites, whether natural or artificial, was a story they wanted to
pursue. And all of the above resulted from La Paz stating in a simple
footnote in an obscure scientific journal (my apologies to Eric Green if
he is reading this) that Tombaugh advised him of a project that Tombaugh
was going to do with the Army. I wonder how the media would have reacted
SHOULD some government official hiding his true identity as MJ-12 told
the media that they had ACTUALLY recovered a "downed satellite"? I think
you made my point clear than I could have. Thank you.

> And if one wants to go back even further, ...

I don't, but I find this observation interesting.

> I would have to agree, except for the media stories of "natural objects"
> in orbit around the earth.  The "natural satellites" story could have been
> used as a cover for a saucer crash.  An artificial satellite crash,
> however, would have been a poor cover, since none existed in 1954 (unless
> Zwicky had secretly succeeded).

What are suggesting? That the MJ-12 think tank would have disclosed an
alleged "secret program" [for which there is nothing to substantiate it]
as a cover for their own MJ-12 operation? Well, not even the fabricators
of the hoaxed MJ-12 SOM thought that would fly. Read the SOM over again.

> Guess you screwed up, huh Ed?  (GRIN)

Yup.

> >Love can be blinding.
> So can wanton, unjustified Friedman bashing. (GRIN)
> David Rudiak

Last I looked, this thread was entitled "MJ-12 and Area 51", not
Friedman. If you wish to start a thread on "Friedman", be my guest. In
the meantime, if you wish to serve as an apologist for Friedman's
claims, this would be the place to post any arguments you wish to
present that you feel would provide his claims a vestige of supportive
real evidence. Friedman has yet to provide any himself. He simply keeps
ignoring the requests. Don't you think that the many Friedman supporters
on this list deserve some tangible evidence to support Friedman's claims
that MJ-12 is real? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Ed Stewart
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart - egs@netcom.com - | So Man, who here seems principal alone,
"There is                     | Perhaps acts second to some sphere
unknown.
 Something Going On!" ,>'?'<, | Touches some wheel, or verges to some
goal,
 -Salvador Freixedo-  ( O O ) | 'Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.
------------------ooOO-(_)-OOoo------- Alexander Pope, Essay on Man------