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 -> 1999 -> Feb -> MJ-12 Fiasco - Just Cause [Part 1] #13 (9/1987)

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Ed Stewart <ufoindex@jps.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 07:41:08 -0800
Fwd Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:29:43 -0500
Subject: MJ-12 Fiasco - Just Cause [Part 1] #13 (9/1987)

Excerpts from JUST CAUSE #13, New Series, September 1987

The MJ-12 Fiasco
****************

We can now report to you that, regretably, the MJ-12 affair
appears to be a grand deception and, consequently, a giant black
eye on the face of UFOlogy.  This conclusion did not come
lightly and was the result of extensive inquiries by CAUS.  We
did have high hopes that perhaps our initial doubts, as reported
in our last issue, would have been allayed by additional
releases and that a proper explanation would be found for the
problems.  It was not to be.  The deeper we looked, the worse it
became.

In dealing with government documents it is vitally important
that we know where information comes from.  Otherwise, how can
one possibly vouch for it's authenticity.  It is why CAUS
regards cover letters from agency releases almost as important
as the releases themselves.

In the case of MJ-12, Moore, Shandera and Friedman (herein
referred to as MSF) have not provided this most basic element.
The material, save for the 1954 Cutler memo, was sent to Jaime
Shandera anonymously on undeveloped 35mm film which was later
made into hardcopy.  Who is the source? MSF doesn't say.  Where
did it come from?  They don't say that either.  This by itself
should raise suspicions, but there is much more.

Why did Shandera receive the film? He is not exactly a
well-known person in UFOlogy.  We have a situation where a
"government source" finds it important to release very
sensitive, still-classified documents on crashed discs, Roswell,
and alien bodies, certainly the story of the century!  To whom
does he go? Walter Cronkite? Dan Rather? Carl Sagan? No, he goes
to MSF who are clearly in the pro-Roswell camp already and need
no convincing.  And they do have much to gain from these
"documents" being made public.  It sounds pretty self-serving
that someone should anonymously drop proof of Roswell into the
laps of only it's chief supporters and no one else who may have
more influence in uncovering the "truth."

Why, at the MUFON Symposium in June, did Moore declare that the
burden of proof is on those suggesting a hoax (in front of a
press conference) while saying in a Ft. Walton Beach, Florida
newspaper that he has found no undeniable proof that the
document is genuine?  In a true scientific investigation the
burden of proof is _always_ on the proponent to prove his case,
not on the opponent to disprove.

Why did MSF alter the appearance of the MJ-12 documents in their
first release of the Focus newsletter without explanation?
Whole sections were deleted, giving the appearance of government
censorship, but actually was performed by MSF as they _later_
admitted.  It smacked of a sensationalist technique to arouse
interest.

These are only minor quibbles over technique.  The major
problems follow.

The Documents *************

The core of MSF's case lies in the documents which have been
"released."  These are what must survive scrutiny if we are to
accept MJ-12 as genuine.  Since we have described them in our
previous issue, we will report on our study of the papers
without extensive re-quoting.

-- The "Project Aquarius" report - A three-page extract of a
larger document with title page and two pages of text. Source
and date are unknown and no other information is traceable.  We
direct your attention to the title page (Exhibit 1).

You see in large print "EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE" and below in
typescript is "Executive Briefing."  Looks impressive doesn't
it? It implies an important presidential paper with the bold
phrase "EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE." However, there is a problem
as you will see next.

Exhibit 2 is a reproduction of a sample sheet of stationery with
a clear, plastic cover that had accidentally been sent with an
FOIA release to Robert Todd in 1979.  The cover says "EXECUTIVE
CORRESPONDENCE" at the top and on the bottom is says "DO NOT
WRITE ON THIS COVER AS IT IS INTENDED FOR RE-USE. RETURN IT WITH
THE FILE COPIES TO ORIGINATING OFFICE." It is a plastic file
cover used internally by various agencies in transmitting and
filing paperwork. The bottom portion of the cover takes away
much of the presidential flavor of the top phrase.

Now note Exhibit 1 again.  While the plastic cover in Exhiabit 2
shows the top and bottom printing at the _very_ top and bottom,
the Aquarius paper shows "EXECUTIVE CORRESPONDENCE" dropped down
about an inch or so, resulting in the bottom phrase vanishing.
We believe that this was a deliberate deception to give the
paper an appearance of being presidential by moving the top
wording downward to cause the more mundane bottom phrasing to
disappear off the photocopy.

The emblem on the cover of the Aquarius paper has more the
appearance of being drawn on rather that printed on the page. A
felt-tipped pen could have done just as well.

Of the various projects mentioned on page 2 of the Aquarius
text, one, "Pounce", has appeared in UFO history.  It was said
to be a proposal for investigating UFOs by Kirtland AFB, New
Mexico, according to the CIA's 1953 Robertson Panel. No
explanation of "Pounce" appears in the Aquarius paper.

Additionally, "Project Sigma" in the Aquarius paper (said to be
an Air Force effort to communicate with aliens) has been located
in the massive, two-volume CODE NAME DIRECTORY by the Defense
Marketing Services of Greenwich, Connecticut, 1986 edition.  It
is listed as a "Top Secret Air Force program involving Rockwell
International."

If the DMS "Sigma" is not the same as the Aquarius "Sigma," then
Aquarius Sigma is probably wrong because duplication of code
names in a close time frame is not within normal military
procedure. Obviously, two programs with the same code name
within the same branch of service (Air Force) would be confused.
That's why selection lists of code names exist.

If the two projects are the same, where is the massive security
for Aquarius "Sigma" that it appears in a commercially available
directory?

Project Snowbird, in a previous issue of Just Cause, was
described as a "Joint Army/Air Force peacetime military exercise
in the sub-artic region, 1955," according to Gale Research's
CODE NAMES DICTIONARY, 1963. No connection to UFOs is apparent
here and certainly not in the context of the Aquarius paper's
description. Snowbird was a training exercise for Army and Air
Force units under arctic conditions.

Finally, our last issue dealt with the short-lived confirmation
of an Air Force "Project Aquarius" by the NSA.  The revelation
fizzled however when the NSA retracted its's confirmation based
upon a false assumption.

No other independent confirmation of the Project Aquarius
document has been possible.


-- The CIA "MJ-5" memo - A one-page document (Exhibit 3) on CIA
letterhead, but not released through FOIA.  Source and year of
memo are unknown. Deletions by MSF. This document first appeared
in Moore's newletter Focus.  It has not appeared in any
subsequent discussion of MJ-12.

The MJ-5 memo is a real problem. Type style, placement of
security markings, use of CIA letter stationery instead of
internal forms and language are all atypical of CIA standards.
The executive order number quoted in the memo is non-existant.
The deletion by MSF of the year forbids accurate follow-up and
implies an attempt to cover a deception. We were informed by MSF
in a June phone conversation about various points in favor of
MJ-12.  When discussion focused upon the MJ-5 memo, we stated
our concern over the flaws in this paper.  A response from the
CIA regarding the authenticity of the memo was entirely
negative, the CIA labeling the memo a "poorly made fabrication."
When informed of this, MSF's only response was, "You believe
them?" Indeed we do if the statement agrees with what we can see
with our own eyes!

It is notable that MSF have let the memo quietly disappear from
later presentations of evidence on MJ-12, even though, according
to MSF's phone conversation, it came from the same source as the
other documents.  Why is this memo no longer being discussed?
Suspicious as well is the similarity of the type style in the
MJ-5 memo, written on CIA letterhead, and the Aquarius paper,
written by the MJ-12 group. If the MJ-5 memo is no longer valid
to present as evidence of MJ-12, and it came from the same
source as the other documents, then what does this say about the
Aquarius paper, or indeed the rest of the evidence?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 -------