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: KRandle993@aol.com
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 15:37:03 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 17:21:03 -0500
Subject: Re: MJ-12 and Area 51

Stan Friedman wrote:
<Kevin: Now you are being ridiculous. I said that you had not referenced 29
<of 30 papers I had published about Roswell/MJ-12 in your long list in " The
Truth
<about UCR". That is a true statement.You said they were self published.That
<is a false statement. I noted that there were 3 other papers that were
indeed self
<published.Meaning I wrote them and had them printed, and distributed them
and
<nobody  else was involved.The profit has been as good as though I had been
paid
<to write them. Now you are defining self published  as in a journal with a
<circulation over 5000.Are you suggesting that all the other referenced
papers
<met that criteria?? Ex post facto statement.

Nope. I'm suggesting that if you offer for sale copies of papers you wrote in
the form of xeroxed copies, whether as copied from a limited access public
source such as the IUR, or straight from your typewriter, then you are, in
effect self-publishing those papers. They fact that IUR printed them first is
irrelevent. If you are selling whole copies of the magazine in which they
appeared, copies of books in which they might have appeared, then you are
acting as a wholesaler for the material that has been published. Please don't
misunderstand as you often do, I'm not criticising the self-promotion. You
are the top master of it. I'm merely pointing out that your papers are
self-published... and that includes the three to which you referred in this
thread.


<Did I say professional?No. You did.And  I didn't say published in any
<particular size journal. After all none of the MJ 12 papers referenced by ED
Stewart fill
<that bill, do they? I suspect that my long unreferenced by Ed paper in a
book
<edited by Tim Good does though.. and so does TOP SECRET/MAJIC. I clearly
said
<papers related to Roswell/MJ-12. The "more than 70 papers" cover many other
<aspects of UFOs.Yes, of course Fate isn't the ultimate nor Saga. Nor UFO
<Universe,(you have published there, too) but it has a larger circulation
than
<5000 as do both UFO Magazines.. That doesn't include nuclear papers in
Atlantic
<Advocate ,Ascent, Nickel, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society,
<Science, etc.

True, you said nothing about professionally published work. However, you did
take Russ Estes to task for not being able to find all of your work, even
though he was defending your point of view. His point, and mine, was the vast
majority of your work is not readily available in the main stream. Besides,
what did reading all your papers have to do with answering the legitimate
questions raised. The magazines in which the lion's share of your work has
appeared are not professional journals (please forgive the characterization
Jerry and Dennis). And, you took Ed Steward to task for suggesting that JUST
CAUSE had refuted some of your MJ-12 claims. You suggested that it was not a
refereed science journal. You therefore brought an element of professionalism
into the discussion. I merely picked up the ball and ran with it.

The point of this thread, however, was not to discuss the finer points of
self-published papers, but to address some questions about MJ-12 that haven't
been adequately answered. I started this thread hoping to learn some of the
facts about the investigation you have conducted, and see if we all couldn't
find some common ground. After all, we are all searching for the truth.

There has been no evidence presented that shows any type of governmental or
military activity in the location now commonly referred to as Area 51 prior
to 1955, and no evidence that the designation of Area 51 was in use prior to
1960. If such is the case, then the Operations Manual would seem to be a
fake. In response you have suggested a secret facility there that we would
know nothing about because it was secret. But you have offered nothing to
substantiate this claim other than a "quiet" source which you disavowed
within twenty-four hours. And, we do seem to know quite a bit about Area 51
even though it is still a secret facility.

Jan Aldrich seems to have put together a long shopping list of problems with
the Operations Manual that must be addressed. It seems that this manual was
not created inside the government but was just another forgery offered to
suggest the MJ-12 committee existed. No proof has been offered.

We still have not dealt with the problem of the two question document experts
you claim exist. You have offered no evidence that they exist or that we
should accept their expertise in the matter. You have implied that you have a
written report from one or both of them. I have offered to pay the copying
costs, up to $50.00 American (for our Canadian friends that is merely a
reference to the different rates of exchange and certainly is not meant as a
comment on the economic health of Canada), for a copy of that report as long
as it was not one created by Moore and Shandera, neither of whom are
qualified document examiners.

I have asked for any evidence that PT was wrong in is accessment of the
Truman memo, including the fact he says the signature was lifted from a
authentic Truman document and placed uncharacteristically low on the Truman
memo. I have asked for any evidence that the typewriter used to draft the
Truman memo existed prior to 1966. You know who PT is, you spoke to him, sent
him copies of the MJ-12 documents, and then reveal nothing about his negative
findings.

These are the real questions that this thread was intended to answer, not
comments about your self-published papers and endevors in the nuclear physics
industry.

 <I am not trying to compete with you as a writer. Not many can.  As you
<know I have often mentioned in awe  your more than 77 books of fiction. An
<impressive mumber indeed.

At least my works of fiction are clearly labeled as such. Too bad you can't
make a similar comment. Or am I supposed to believe the fiction of Bill
Brazel and the "n" word. I've never heard him use it. I was at the meeting
with Berliner and didn't hear it there. And, I doubt that Berliner heard it.
Besides, Bill Brazel has said that he never said it because all the people in
the group that came to see him were white. Offer any evidence that Brazel did
say there was a black, or admit that you made a mistake here in your attempt
to support the collapsing Gerald Anderson nonsense.

< Why not just say you made a mistake or should have
<put <grin> after the phrase. If you really want a list. I will send one.

I made no mistake here and wouldn't put a grin after it because there is
nothing funny here. I haven't called you an agent of disinformation, nor have
I written to your publisher suggesting that you had taken my work and used it
as your own. I merely point to the Bill Brazel interview in your book, which
I conducted with Bill Brazel in Feb. 1989, and you used, and altered at your
whim. Seems to me that you took my work and published it as your own.

Kevin, failing to grin, Randle