From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:39:26 -0800
Fwd Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 07:47:08 -0500
Subject: Re: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document
>From: Stan Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document
>Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:33:43 -0400
>>Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:42:01 -0800
>>From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>Subject: 8/27/96 Re: MJ-12 Document
>Let us get facts straight:
Since Stanton Friedman seems to be interested in "let us get
facts straight", a few corrections are in order because
everytime Stanton Friedman speaks on security matters, only his
ignorance and lack of relevant information becomes apparent.
>1. I have never claimed to have had a TOP SECRET CLearance
>although I did have a Q which gave me access to Secret
>Restricted Data.
A 'Q' only allows an individual access to nuclear data
irrespective of what level clearance an individual has. A 'Q' by
itself did not give Stanton Friedman access to Secret Restricted
Data as alleged. To have access at that level, Friedman would
have required a Secret clearance independent of 'Q'.
Irrespective of the above, if Stanton Friedman had done his
homework and researched that he alleges to have done after
visiting 18 archives, he would have known that Top Secret
documents have their own rules of handling. Any personal/virtual
experience that may have been gained being exposed to
confidential or secret documents is totally irrelevant to what
is required securing Top Secret Documents. Stanton Friedman did
not even know the regulations and executive orders that were
applicable until I posted them to the list. It has been
intellectually dishonest of Friedman to posture that his past
"experience" working for various defense contractors was the
basis for his professed "authority" on Top Secret documents. He
brought that intellectual dishonesty to this mailing list when
discussing Top Secret document procedures when he alleged and
alluded to creating documents with no control numbers. That is a
fact that is now part of the archive and can be independently
verified by anyone on the internet.
Also, Stanton Friedman elevated himself, from simply being
intellectually dishonest when he states above:
"I have never claimed to have had a TOP SECRET CLearance"
Yet, from page 138 of _Crash at Corona_, Friedman claims:
"Both authors handled materials classified top secret
and higher, Friedman when in the nuclear industry and
Berliner when in the air force."
The logical inference is that Friedman had a TS clearance.
Otherwise, he wouldn't have been authorized to "handle" "top
secret and higher" materials. Not only does Friedman infer that
he had a TS clearance, he also infers that he had clearance for
Top Secret/code word materials (as in "higher' than TS).
That is a fact that is now part of the archive and can be
independently verified by anyone on the internet.
>2. I have seen loads of formerly TOP SECRET Documents during my
>many visits to Archives (18 at least count)
So what? You never bothered to research what regulations were
applicable to those documents when they were classified Top
Secret for at least 20 years that you claim to be doing archive
research in 18 different archives. I had to post that info to
this mailing list because you were pleading ignorance of the
fact and alluding to your "authority" on the subject which
everybody now knows was a false appeal to authority that you
never had. That is a fact that is now part of the archive and
can be independently verified by anyone on the internet.
>3. I published in my "Final Report on Operation Majestic 12" 5
>formerly TS documents which did not have Control numbers,
>whether Ed Stewart likes it or not.
It is not relevant what I like or not. The fact these Top Secret
documents don't have control numbers indicates that proper
procedures were not followed and are suggestive that the
documents are either breaches of security, as previously
explained, or bogus. None of those five documents originated
from the same place as the Cutler-Twining memo; that is, none of
those five documents was found among the TS records in Record
Group 341 (Air Force Headquarters). Friedman's argument is
irrelevant, and deliberately misleading. In over twenty years of
archival "research", Stanton Friedman was not aware of the
mentioned inconsistencies to ever research the genesis or
provenance of those documents any further. As a matter of fact,
when it comes to the genesis and provenance of the alleged MJ-12
documents, Stanton Friedman runs for cover and becomes
"unavailable". Since the introduction of the alleged MJ-12
documents by Moore, Shandera, and Friedman, Friedman has refused
to research and discuss the genesis/provenance of these alleged
government documents. Yet, with no ownership ever having been
established, that should be the first priority of anyone trying
to authenticate the MJ-12 papers.
>4. Judging by the Cutler Twining Memo, we are dealing with a
>NSC/MJ-12 Special Studies Group. This is not part of the
>Department of Defense. The NSC serves the President.
So what? What you say has no relevance to anything under
discussion. Your statement above employs circular logic. You are
using a bogus document that at best is highly suspicious to make
an assertion for the alleged validity of your statement which in
itself is not relevant even if true. First of all, the fact that
if the alleged Cutler Twining memo was an NSC document, it would
have had to been declassified by the NSC in the first place
before it could have been "mysteriously found" in the archives
by your research associate William Moore. No such documentation
exists, therefore supporting the alleged document to be bogus.
Second, even you have admitted in the past that the alleged
document had to have been improperly "placed" in the archives
and then "mysteriously found by William Moore" on cue. The
National Archives is on record as the alleged document not
belonging where it was allegedly "found" and is on record as to
its improprieties.
What is relevant and important is where the record allegedly was
"found" by Bill Moore and/or Jaime Shandera. If one or the
other didn't plant it in the Archives, it would have had a TS
control number assigned to it. The number would have been
assigned by the Air Force, not the NSC or White House because of
the location it was "found". Of course, Friedman contends
somebody on the Air Force declassification team planted the memo
in the Archives for Moore/Shandera to find. It doesn't seem to
matter to Friedman that the records in question were reviewed
for declassification by Air Force _and_ National Archives
personnel both, and at no time did the memo surface -- and it
would have surfaced because NSC materials require special
handling. And, by Friedman's own admission, Moore and Shandera
were the first researchers to review these records following
declassification review. How odd! You won't research the
genesis/provenance of this alleged document even though all the
leads point to none other than your own research associates.
Despite the improprieties with the Cutler Twinning memo, you
conveniently "forget" that the NSC is part of the executive
branch of the government and the applicable National Security
Information Program executive orders that apply to the
Department of Defense would also apply to the NSC. In other
words, the argument for control numbers of Top Secret documents
would still be valid either way making your statements above
irrelevant and further evidence the Cutler Twinning memo is
bogus.
>5. It is simply too bad that Ed doesn't like my arguments. I
>deal with the real world as it is and as it is testified to be
>by Archivists who handle classified and fomerly classified
>documents all the time. I realize that Ed believes he knows
>more than they do and assumes that the rules about such matters
>are identical and always adhered to in all governmental
>agencies. This is false.
Whether I like or dislike your proclamations is irrelevant. I
have provided documentation that can be independently verified
as to source, validity and context by anyone that is serious
enough to verify my statements. What you allege above is
entirely new. Name the alleged archivists that support your
arguments for the alleged validity of the MJ-12 documents and
provide copies of whatever letters you have substantiating this
claim of yours instead of alleging general proclamations. I
have copies of the archival letters received on MJ-12 by many of
the researchers going back to the 1980s. Not one archivist is on
record supporting your arguments.
>6. I have on several occasions found "classified" documents in
>boxes that had supposedly been declassiified. They were
>sometimes not marked declassified. That is the real world
So what? What relevance or linkage does the above proclamation
have to do with the MJ-12 documents? I have on several occasions
shown you to be intellectually dishonest, not only here but also
in your book. Now, that is a fact, relevant to this discussion
and unfortunately the real world.
>7. Perhaps to soothe Ed I should have said when a memo goes from
>an individual to his boss instead of from me to my boss so no
>one could even think I was talking f my handling TS material..
>As indicated.
The fact remains you didn't. You were got caught red-handed
posturing on this mailing list alleging to be an authority based
on your "experience" which you never had and are not!
>8. Ed tells us that a TS Executive Order doesn't get a number
>until it is declassified.
No! I don't!
I cited and quoted the Congressional Information Service as the
source and it did not differentiate to levels of classified
executive orders. If you would have read the quoted source
carefully, you would see that it applied to any classified
executive order, not just Top Secret. If you don't wish to
independently verify the source documentation yourself, at least
make the proper attribution instead of paraphrasing what amounts
to be false statements and attributing them to me.
>Since there is no indication that the
>Truman Forrestal memo was declassified, could that not easily
>explain why it did NOT have a normal number on it and the term
>"special classified executive order" ( which seems to me a very
>accurate description) was used to give it a useful
>identification in a listing on a preliminary Briefing document.
The document has been shown to be bogus in various independent
ways previously by different researchers. Live with it. It is
the real world. Bogus documents don't get classified or
"declassified". The easiest explanation already has been
provided for its improprieties. It has been shown to be bogus.
No need to elicit a larger conspiracy.
>I use the date when I invoice people as part of the invoice
>number. The State Department uses the date as part of their
>filing system number for a document.. I am sorry that dosn't
>meet with Ed's approval, but that is the way it is.
It is irrelevant whether it meets with my approval or not. A
pound sign _#_ means number, not date. A pound sign _#_ was
used. That is the real world! Not Stanton Friedman's alleged
accounting techniques, or the alleged State Department
procedures. Both are totally irrelevant to his argument for the
validity of the alleged MJ-12 documents.
>9. Obviously it would be useful if we had formerly highly
>classified Briefings and special classified executive orders for
>comparison. I have been unable to obtain even the 4 briefings
>known to have been given by DCI Walter .B. Smith to Ike between
>Nov. 4, 1952 and Jan. 9, l953.
So what? The above is simply posturing without being able to
show linkage or relevance to any argument related to MJ-12
discussions. No linkage has ever been shown by any MJ-12
supporter to any real document, person, resource or organization
as having any connection to MJ-12. That is a fact and that is
the real world.
>Perhaps Ed with all his knowledge
>about such matters can find some good examples.
I have provided source documentation information to this list
that can be independently researched and verified by any
inclined list reader. The documentation provided supports my
argument that the MJ-12 documents are bogus. All you have done
is posture, display your ignorance on security procedures, and
display a contemptible level of arrogance by attempting to pass
off your intellectual dishonesty as alleged valid "research".
You have been doing this to the ufological community for years.
No more.
Ed Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stewart ufoindex@jps.net|So Man, who here seems principal alone,
There Is Something |Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown.
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 ------
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com