Talk:Majestic 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Majestic 12 article.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Article bias

This article is biased in the extreme (repeated use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is one example), full of factual errors (e.g. MJ-12 was allegedly established in 1947, not 1952), and is far removed from the usual accounts about MJ-12. Where does all the junk about the Illuminati, Masons, and world domination come from? No sources are provided. Why is the garbage about Dan Burisch thrown in there? That too is far removed from the usual accounts. Who says the President is still in charge and is codenamed Majesty? Where did they get the list of the later MJ-12 group? Again no sources. Certainly none of this rubbish comes from the listed sources at the bottom, such as FBI's FOIA page and majesticdocuments.com, or traditional treatments such as Stanton Friedman's Top Secret/Majic.

The proper and more neutral way to write this up is to give the history and contents of the various "documents" that led to the theory of MJ-12 and the various disputes concerning their authenticity. Much more should be given on the men cited as the original MJ-12 and the historical circumstances that allegedly led to the establishment of MJ-12. All the rest about Illuminati, Masons, Burisch, world domination, etc. is crap and should be dropped altogether or lumped into a subgroup of fringe MJ-12 theories, with sources of the theories properly cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.135.19 (talk • contribs) 19:18, May 24, 2005.

whilst this may be true in one sense, one cannot help but find the 'Arguments Against' section lacking and much more circumstantial than anything else. It is my opinion that the whole article needs to be re-written by a neutral source in a neutral fashion. Jonomacdrones 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I added NPOV to the article - it is far from neutral. Bubba73 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite specific passages that are non-neutral? Better yet, would you be willing to propose ways these sections could be better?--chris.lawson 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Not specific passages, but overall, basically:
  • All nine of the sources given are pro-MJ 12.
  • There is overwhelming evidence that the whole MJ-12 is a fake or hoax, yet little is said about this. The article basically says that the government denies it and that the FBI concluded that the papers were fake, that's all. No details are given.
  • the non-encyclopedic nature of the article. Would a legitimate print encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica publish something this one-sided? I don't think so. Bubba73 (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be fairly thorough discussion of the FBI investigation and multiple mentions that the whole thing is thought to be a hoax or fake. If you think this article is so non-encyclopedic, I would encourage you to nominate it for deletion on Articles for Deletion.--chris.lawson 01:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added what I think should go in there. I think I overreacted originally. I probably shouldn't have called it NPOV, but I didn't know a better term. All of the sources I knew were on the pro side. All of the stuff from the National Archives really applies to just the Cutler memo - not the main papers; and that was all there was in the "arguements against" I thought the main papers needed to be addressed specifically. I wanted more than just saying that the FBI says that it is fake, I thought details should go in there - why it is thought to be a fake. The article may be too long now because I included the text of the documents - perhaps that should be in a different article. It also needs to be cleaned up and there are some redundancies. Bubba73 (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"There is overwhelming evidence that the whole MJ-12 is a fake or hoax"...What evidence? Or do you actually believe the lies and crap the Northerner government churns out? -Alex, Confederate. 12.220.157.93 02:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

[edit] spelling errors in original

At least some of the spelling errors in the documents that were corrected on November 14, 2005 were in the original source. Should these be restored to the original, with [sic] after them? Bubba73 [[User_talk:Bubba73|(talk)]] 22:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Without looking at exactly where these happened...are they in direct quotes, or are they in paraphrases? If they're in quotes, they need to be exact quotes, errors and all (preferably with [sic] inserted after each error so well-meaning folks don't think we've totally lost it).--chris.lawson 22:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I think I've restored all the spelling errors that were put in before 14 November. Were they *all* present in the original documents? I thought some were errors of transcription. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea. If some are transcription errors, we need to account for that.--chris.lawson 13:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I know that balloon was misspelled as baloon [sic] in the original. Other errors may have been in the original or may have been transcription errors, I'm not sure. I'd need to get a better copy of the original to check it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I fixed a spelling error... skeptics was spelled "skepticts" Jhayes94 21:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] restored error in date format

I restored the erroneous comma in the date 24 September, 1947 in the second paragraph, since the original is this way, and that is some of the evidence of a hoax. Bubba73 (talk), 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag to the article, it's way too long and contains a number of non-wikified sections.--Cuchullain 23:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't very strong evidence at all as there have been many proven authentic documents that have the exact stylistic errors. There is even a document with the same format by Roscoe Hillenkoetter himself. The date format doesn't really prove anything, one way or the other.

[edit] 1954 manual

The primary new MJ-12 document is a lengthy, linotype-set manual dating from 1954. It deals primarily with the handling of crash debris and alien bodies. Objections to its authenticity usually center on questions of style and some historical anachronisms.

I wonder if we should elaborate further on this? I'm sure there are more, but one of the biggest flaws I noticed while reading this is the suggestion that agents should attempt to hide/deceive by issuing a report of a downed satellite. Given that this was 1954, before even Sputnik had been launched or indeed either the Soviets or the Americans had announced plans to launch satellites (see satellite), this is just plain silly. Some defenders have pointed out that science fiction authors had discussed artifical satellites before but this is besides the point. Reporting a downed satellite when as far as everyone was concerned there were no artifical satellites nor any attempts to make them would be a thing sure to draw the attention of everyone. Nil Einne 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I came across this page which summarises nicely the flaws:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1996/dec/m18-008.shtml Nil Einne 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these errors have long since been taken into consideration by the MJ-12 proponents such as Stanton Friedman in the past. None of these arguments have proved to be detrimental to the validity of the operations manual, only to those of whom do very litte research to verify such questionable arguments.

Another obvious concern was the mention of "downed satellites" on page 8 as one of several acceptable "Deceptive Statements" to distribute to help provide cover. Considering that the first Sputnik wasn't launched until 1957, was this a goof by a forger? I dug out some pre-1954 books about space flight and checked back issues of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature for uses of the term satellite. I found several articles that used the term for a manufactured object in orbit around the earth prior to April 1954. There had also been an active program led by Clyde Tombaugh, who had discovered Pluto as a very young amateur astronomer in 1930, to search for artificial satellites near earth. And the manual used the term UFOB, instead of UFO, for unidentified flying object. I checked some old government documents and found that in 1954, UFOB was used, even though it was out of favor within a short time.

Source of quote: TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stanton Friedman, Chapter 9 "The Majestic-12 Operations Manual," page 164, paragraphs 2 and 3.

71.225.20.130 19:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Archives

The information on the NA document is rather lacking. Although it goes into great detail about the investigaion into the authenticiy of the document, it doesn't really seem to discuss how the NA think they ended up with a fake document. If I was part of the NA, I would be quite worried that we had a fake document. It seems rather odd to me that this isn't a major issue, but then I'm not American so perhaps it's usually for your NA to have fake documents? Nil Einne 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian documents

Since the Canadian documents are apparently unquestionably authentic, more attention needs to be paid to them. They aren't really discussed much other then in the mention in the overview and a few brief mentions elsewhere. A quick study suggests all the really reveal is that the at least one Canadian, Wilbert Smith was convinced UFOs existed and the USA was studying them. This doesn't of course prove they do or that the USA was, Wilbert could simply be nuts, confused or have been mislead. However they do seem an important part of this puzzle since clearly they provide a very early link of many of these names to supposed studies of UFOs. Nil Einne 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, and what's relevant is that Wilbert Smith was informed that Dr. Vannevar Bush was heading up a small group to deal with the UFO issue, which was classified "higher than even the H-bomb," and Bush, of course, was one of the supposed heads of MJ-12--a small group allegedly set up to deal with the UFO issue. For more on Smith and the MJ-12 connection, go here. Kosmocentric 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 54/12 Group

I'm surprised the article so far doesn't contain any reference to the '54/12 Special Group' subcommittee of the National Security Council created by President Eisenhower in 1954 (hence the name). Granted, that's after 1947, but the hypothetical MJ-12 and the very real 54/12 group are often linked in the UFO underground literature, and it seems plausible to me that if any US Government group in the 1950s were interested in the UFO phenomenon from a national security viewpoint (whether or not they believed there was any substance to the reality of sightings) it would be 54/12. Like the NSA, the existence of 54/12 was initially secret but later became known. I'll try to add what I can but I agree this article should be reformatted to try to separate out the various elements of the MJ-12 mythos and what documents/authors they arise from. Natecull 10:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

54/12 Group article added. Natecull 14:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section is very bad and needs editing

The reference section is useless. There is no way of knowing which reference is being cited. This is going to need a clean up. If people here can not match the references properly then the whole article might have to come down.

The way to do this is as follows.

(1)Click edit page above and see what the text source for the next quote looks like.

"Dr. xxxxx and the editors of the Oxford & Harper Collins translations, contend that the number of Roman emperor Nero is 92. [1], a view that is also supported by Elvis [2]."

This way the reference will automatically be given a number and entered into the notes section at the end of the article also automatically. I have prepared that notes section already. Whatever gets into that notes section stays in the article and whatever doesn't needs to be cited in the above manner or will eventually go. (Simonapro 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

You might want to see how these changes look on Unidentified flying object (Simonapro 08:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Formatting & Aesthetic Issues

I've gone in and done a major reformatting (tables, etc.) of the Eisenhower briefing document featured on the page, plus the two others (Truman and Cutler memos). But in general, the page could really use some clean-up, especially near the top. I noticed slight typographical errors in the MJ-12 documents, which someone might want to go through more closely. Misplaced commas are important on this particular topic!

In general, it'd be good to move a lot of the stuff at the top lower on the page, into the History section, and just have a shorter, overarching summary before the page nav.

Kosmocentric 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Startling New Evidence

This site has some great new UFO Video Evidence that must be considered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arltomem (talk • contribs) 04:58, August 20, 2006.

[edit] Text section

The section should be moved to wikisource if liscensing permits. PoptartKing 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

—I don't see why not...there's no licensing. They're alleged to be government documents; nobody owns a copyright. 66.155.208.3 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's because this sort of thing doesn't belong in an article. Move them to Wikisource, and leave a link to that at the bottome of the article. --InShaneee 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very Suggestive, Biased Material with Obvious Factual Errors

Breifing Document and Truman Letter 1:The typewriter used -The typewriter used for the Truman letter was a Smith Corona model which did not exist until 1962 - fifteen years after the document was allegedly written.

Issues with the typeface are nothing new. Here is an example of the ignorance and lack of thorough research by MJ-12 debunkers as Phil Klass paid the price ($1,000) for making an unsubstantiated proclamation about the typeface of the Cutler-Twining Memo:

Academics have found it necessary to jump into the fray as well, often without benefit of any research. For example, Carl Sagan (Ref.10) said "The Air Force says the documents are bogus. And UFO expert Philip J. Klass and others find lexicographic inconsistencies that suggest the whole thing is a hoax." He seemed to be unaware of the fact that Klass had paid me $1000.00 for providing more than fourteen documents done in exactly the same Pica typeface as the Cutler-Twining Memo though Klass, on the basis of nine Elite Typeface documents (obtained by him by mail, he had never been to the Ike Library) of the 250,000 pages of NSC material at the Ike Library, had insisted the CTM should have been done in Elite! Some lexicographic research! Our correspondence and a copy of his check to me are in Ref. 2. [my emphasis] Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/mj12_update1.html, about half way down.

Tytell, the original typewriter expert making this false proclamation had MANY arguments against the documents, but demonstrated his bias from the start. He wouldn't even prepare a formal statement because he wanted to be paid to do so.

Tytell demonstrated his ignorance and bias with the following statement: "It was just perfect because the whole thing of the twelve pages or however many pages it was. Most of the pages were just blank pages with just five words written on them, like Top Secret or Appendix A or something like that." The fact of the matter is there were eight pages, not twelve, and only one of them, the missing page 7, had "APPENDIX A" on it as well as security markings.

James A. Black, another typewriter expert was paid to perform a professional analysis of the typeface of the MJ-12 documents. In November 13, 1998, Black said, "My knowledge of typewriter fonts permits me to conclude that the letter was likely to have been typed by an Underwood Standard typewriter. The portions of the type font of the letter that can be clearly visualized match those of a typewriter exemplar of an Underwood Standard typed in May 1940."

Black, however, seems to take issue with the Truman signature as well, which brings me to my next point.

2: The Truman Signature -The signature of Harry Truman on the alleged letter to Forrestal is identical to the one known to be authentic on a letter to Vannevar Bush on October 1, 1947. The one on the briefing document is 3-4% larger and bolder, but this is explained by the fact that photocopiers don't reproduce things at exactly the same size. They match when the size is corrected and one is laid over the other. -Both signatures show a unique slip of the pen when starting the "H". -The "T" in the October 1, 1947 signature intersected the final "s" in "Sincerely yours". The same point on the Forrestal letter is slightly thinner, as if the intersection with the "s" had been modified with liquid paper or the like before photocopying. -This shows that the authentic Truman signature from the letter to Bush was copied onto the bogus letter to Forrestal, which was then photocopied.

First of all, it should be noted, that the document that is allegedly a perfect match was unavailable when the MJ-12 documents were found and the similarities were FIRST pointed out by Stanton Friedman, NOT debunkers!

The two signatures were NOT identical. Segment lengths did not have the same length ratio. When held up to a light one behind the other, as Phil Klass recommended, they do not match. Even if the signature was supposedly "stretched", the Truman-Forrestal Harry is 1.012 longer than the Truman-Bush Harry, the Truman-Forrestal Truman is 1.032-1.04 times longer than the Truman-Bush Truman. At the same time, however, the letter head is identical. If it was photocopied, the typed text would have to be stretched by the same ratio on all parts of the paper. The thickness of the ink mark by the H in each memo is different. In addition, Stan has copies of at least 3 authentic Truman signatures that all have the same kind of mark by the H.

Truman signed thousands of letters, memos, and documents. In a family letter after his election, Truman noted that he was signing thank-you notes at the rate of 500 an hour. If there are other signature pairs that are very similar, then the closeness of the Truman-Forrestal and Truman-Bush signature means nothing. Albert S. Osborn was an expert referred to by Phil Klass to attempt to debunk the documents. Klass used many excerpts of the book Questioned Documents. Klass quotes, "The fact that two signatures are very nearly alike is not alone necessarily an indication of forgery of one or both, but the question is whether they are suspiciously alike [Klass's emphasis]." Later Klass quotes, "It should be understood that suspicious identity [Osborn's emphasis] is that which suggests the tracing process and which is not inconsistent with the theory of tracing." (Provided information in the preceding paragraphs regarding the Truman signature can be verified in Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 4, pages 84 and 85.)

Klass ignored the footnotes to the sentence he quoted, to legal references from 1903, 1904, 1900 and 1879. The first one deals with four identical signatures on a will by a man more than 80 years old! None of this has to do with legitimate signatures by people who sign loads of documents every working day. Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 4 "Authenticating the Majestic-12 Briefing Documents", Page 85, Paragraph 3

Osborn even admits, on the SAME page that Klass quoted from, "In some cases such [identical] signatures can be found" [Osborn's emphasis]

3: Date Format and Name Format in the Briefing Document -The dates have a superfluous comma after the month, e.g. "18 November, 1952". A comma is not used after the month in this date format. Every date in the briefing document has this error. -Days of the month with single digits have a zero prepended, e.g. "01 August'". This was not common practice in the military until years later. Every single-digit day of the month has this erroneous format. -No known authentic letters or memos from Hillenkoetter has the error of the superfluous comma and none used the prepended zero. -All known authentic Hillenkoetter letters and memos use "R. H. Hillenkoetter" as the author's name, whereas the briefing document uses "Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter".

Fist things first, it should be noted that Stanton Friedman has collected MANY documents with the SAME formatting errors.

You raise the query that the prefix "0" as in "02 July 1947" was not used until modern computer technology was developed. I beg most strongly to differ. Certainly my experience in wartime in the Navy was that the "0" was a vital prefix whether in the date as in "02 July" or the hour as in "0300." I should think such methods were still used in NATO. NATO documents always used the "0" in front of single-digit figures in my day, but I do not know when it started. Top Secret/Majic, Chapter 7 "The MJ-12 Debunkers", page 122, paragraph 2 and 3 quoting Tim Good in his book Above Top Secret

One such government document found with the SAME inconsitencies was written by Hillenkoetter himself! Another reference to authentic government documents with the SAME style and formatting inconsistencies can be found in the Alsos Mission by Colonel Boris T. Pash on pages 84 and 98. There are also numerous examples of the MJ-12 date format in Ewen Montagu's book The Man Who Never Was and declassified files of the Canadian Defence Research Board. Also, Nick Redfern has found numerous examples of "nonstanard" date formats, including the same format in the briefing documents.

Randle claims that the most convincing reason for saying the EBD is a fraud is the fact that it lists "Briefing Officer: Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter." But RHH was only a rear admiral and certainly would never have called himself Admiral, Randle claims. Randle admits that generic titles (General for Brigadier, Major or Lieutenant General; Colonel for Lt. Colonel and Colonel, etc.) are used, but surely not in this instance! However, in a group of half civilians and half military (Army and Navy and Air Force), rank would not matter. MJ-12 member Sydney Souers was listed as Admiral, but was not as a full Admiral. Generals Twining, Vandenberg, Montague and Smith were all called General, but none had four stars in l947. An earlier complaint by Philip Klass about Hillenkoetter was that he is listed as Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, but that he signed his letters RH Hillenkoetter (which I had supplied him) and didn't like the name Roscoe. The Truman Library had sent me several pages from the White House Appointment Logs. The name Roscoe is very prominent. On some of the same log entries, it says Admiral, rather than Rear Admiral, Roscoe Hillenkoetter. If it is good enough for the White House, a copy one-of-one TOP SECRET/MAJIC EYES ONLY Briefing for the President Elect can also say Admiral in a rank-doesn't-matter situation. Surely one wouldn't single out only one man for use of real, rather than generic, ranking? Ike himself often used generic ranks in his writing. At least Kevin no longer asks for me to supply "other" instances where RHH signed his name Admiral, since there is no RHH signature in the EBD. Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html, 3/4 of the way down, "ADMIRAL HILLENKOETTER'S RANK"

-James Mosley, who personally knew alleged MJ-12 member Menzel found evidence that Menzel and alleged co-member Hillenkoetter did not know each other.

Actually, there are ties between Menzel and ALL of the alleged MJ-12 members. See Chapter 2 of Top Secret/Majic, "The Double Life of Dr. Menzel".

In the Air Force files it clearly indicates that Menzel had a copy of Project Blue Book Special Report 14, but he never once mentioned it publicly or in any of his three books or numerous papers. Also, there is proof that Menzel did highly classified consulting work for federal intelligence agencies, primarily the NSA and more than 30 other corporations. Surely, you don't need top secret clearance to be an astronomer at Harvard!

Speaking of the NSA and it's predecessor U.S. Navy agency in an August 13, 1960 letter, Menzel said, "I have been associated with this activity for almost 30 years and probably have the longest continuous record of association of any person in the country. I still keep my close association with them. Properly cleared to one another, I should be able to help in this sensitive area." And, as stated previous, and I can prove this again if needed, the NSA has a very strong UFO connection.

In reality, there are proven authentic letters between Hillenkoetter and Menzel. There may be no proof as of yet that they met personally, but obviously this is not to say that they never did. One thing we do know for certain is that Menzel did associate with Hillenkoetter through a series of letters.

The document uses "media" instead of "press", "extra-terrestrial" instead of "alien", and uses "impacted" as a verb--these words were not in common use until the 1960s.

This is another false claim. Take a look at any Oxford Dictionary of the time period and you will see that the words in question were infact in use in the time the documents were supposedly written. This is also stated by Stan Friedman in the afterword of Top Secret/Majic.

The typewriter ribbon was worn and the keys were dirty. Truman documents from the period that are known to be authentic used fresh ribbons and clean keys.

This statement is also false. This claim was made by infamous debunker Phil Klass as one of many arguments presented regarding the MJ-12 documents -- all of which were easily disproven. Klass was proven wrong about almost all of his petty arguments in which he presented and as pointed out before even cost him $1,000 based on a challenge he issued after doing very little research. The statement that all Truman documents from the given time period used fresh ribbons and clean keys is false!

5: Record searches. Other than the questioned Cutler memo, no other document mentioning MJ-12 has been found (not even the original briefing document).

And your point is... they don't exist? Well, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of documents yet to be released to the public or even submitted to government archives this statement means absolutley nothing!

-The National Archives found no record of a NSC meeting on July 16, 1954. A search of all NSC meetings for July 1954 did not find any mention of MJ-12 or Majestic. -A branch of the National Archives searched NSC records for any listing of MJ-12 or Majestic and found none.

Of course it wouldn't find any mention of MJ-12 or Majestic. You can't be serious? A Top Secret group such as this would NEVER be listed!!!

Former CIA Chief of Operations Richard Bissell, for example, commented, "The document certainly looks authentic. On the basis of the material you have sent me, I personally have little doubt that it is authentic." Others who seem to concur are former Truman administrative assistant David Stowe and former National Security Council planning and board member Robert R. Bowie. UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973, Chapter 3, "Saucers in the Skies: 1947", Pages 45 and 46.

Phil Klass actually challanged Friedman to produce authentic White House letters or memos by Cutler or Lay between 1953 and 1955 which used the typeface indentical in size and style to the Cutler-Twining memo. Klass offered Friedman $100 for each verified document, to a maximum of $1,000. Friedman immediately found and mailed twenty, then another fourteen the following month. He received his $1,000. UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941-1973, Chapter 3, "Saucers in the Skies: 1947", Page 49, last paragraph.

I also contact Stanton Friedman regarding Wikipedia's misrepresentation of the MJ-12 documents. He had this to say:

Thanks. I wondered who was repeating these old chestnuts. Should have known it was Wikipedia. Their article about me also has many mistakes. I did a quick look and found many many errors in this one.. some, I am sure you will note, that I discussed. Some are treated in my 106 page "Final Report on Operation Majestic 12" published back in 1990 and including, for example, many secondary documents that didn't appear in TOP SECRET/MAJIC. I will try to go through it and comment.Sounds like CSICOP's Joe Nickell repeating false Phil Klass arguments and his own false arguments.. Guess I am going to have to contact Wikipedia. Stan Friedman

It was also claimed that the Cutler-Twining Memo was a fake because Robert Cutler was out of the country at the time it was sent. However, coincidentally there is no signature and no /s/ (original signed by) on the memo. Robert Cutler was out of the country on July 14, 1954, so a signature or /s/ would have meant the document was a fraud. So then, if this was a Cutler memo, but Cutler was not in the country, who wrote it?

Cutler sent a detailed memo to James P. Lay, Executive Secretary of the NSC, to keep things moving out of his in-basket while he was gone to Europe. Stan was able to obtain Lay's July 16, 1954 memo to Cutler while Cutler was in Europe. The last paragraph states, "Hope you will recuperate, rest, and enjoy yourself for few days before returning. Will try to have everything tidy and not too much pressure upon you when you arrive." Obviously Lay was taking care of things for Cutler during Cutler's absence.

Stan then discovered that Lay had met with Ike in the early afternoon on July 14, 1954 at the White House and there had been a brief telephone conversation after 4:30 P.M. It is probable that this is when the change of plans for the special meeting of which the original CT memo was meant for took place. It was up to Lay to contact Twining under Cutler's name to inform him of the change in plans, hence the lack of a signature. Lay and Cutler worked very closely together, each usually getting copies of the others memos. They sat next to each other at NSC meetings. George Elsey said that of course Lay would have notified Twining. This would account for the absence of a signature or /s/. Lay, as Executive Secretary of the NSC (having been groomed by and succeeding Admiral Souers in that post), would have had clearances, as would Cutler, for just about everything at the White House.

... the CT memo is an original sheet of onionskin paper -- the only original paper MJ-12 document available. If you hold it up to the light at the National Archives, you can see a Dictation Onionskin watermark from the Fox Paper Company. Fox indicated many years ago that the paper was made in bid lots only, between 1953 and the early 1970s, and that the government bought lots of it. It was not available in stationery stores. Furthermore, the original has a slant red pencil mark through the security marking. I was told, after seeing a number of such marks at the Eisenhower Library, that it was standard practice for declassifiers to do exactly that (mark a slant red pencil mark through the security marking) when they were marking original documents for declassification. How many hoaxers would have obtained the proper paper and known about the slant red pencil mark? At first the Eisenhower library had claimed that all of Cutler's onionskin copies were made on onionskin with an Eagle watermark. This was corrected by them when I showed copies in the files made on onion skin with either different or no watermarks. Source: http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html, about 80% of the way down about 1/4 of the way through the 4th paragraph from the bottom, under sub category "CUTLER-TWINING MEMO".

It is also interesting to note that the last sentence of the CT memo is "Your concurrence in the above change of arrangements is assumed". This is strikingly similar to the last sentence of an authentic TOP SECRET memo from Robert Cutler, found in General Twining's papers in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division (not available in National Archives): "It is understood that in the absence of contrary word your concurrence in the above arrangements is assumed." General Twining's pilot (also his aide) later confirmed that the comment was a typical one that meant no reply was required, if this meets with your approval.

References for Cutler-Twining Memo Info:

Top Secret/Majic, by Stanton T. Friedman http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/mj12_update1.html http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfrandle_book1.html

Obviously, I could go on and on regarding other errors and facts not pointed out. Things like Top Secret Restricted etc. Your sources, whoever they may be, seem to be ill-informed and as a result this article has fallin victim to very poor research... I have seen this article listed various times on numerous websites and forums across the web claiming to be proof of an MJ-12 hoax despite all the discrepencies. I am not attempting to be overly harsh or critical or putting out personal attacks, I am only attempting to provoke future change in the article for the better so as not to misinform the public regarding the controversial MJ-12 documents. The documents should certainly not be written off without a second thought as being a hoax until all supporting arguments are efficiently refuted, which they are not.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/j/Talk%7EMajestic_12_904c.html"