From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:41:03 -0500
Archived: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:35:31 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review


>From: Stanton T. Friedman <fsphys.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:02:55 -0400
>Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review

>>From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:14:58 -0500
>>Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review

>>>From: John Velez <jvelez49.nul>
>>>To: post.nul
>>>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:53:36 -0500
>>>Subject: Re: 'Fourth Kind' Movie Review

><snip>

>>Most researchers who've been at this for a few decades believe
>>that most, if not all, of the MJ-12 documents have failed to
>>provide any provenance and or supporting evidence. But their
>>credibility has been promoted through numerous UFO documentaries
>>by their proponents on the History Channel.

>Steve,

>I would surely like to see data to support the above claim re
>MJ-12 Documents.

>I believe that I have done more research on the MJ-12 documents
>than anybody else and written more and provided a great deal of
>supporting evidence showing that the EBD,TF,CT, and SOM 1.01 are
>legitimate and a whole host more are not.

>Surely you realize that if these are legitimate, that the one
>who filmed and then sent them has broken the law, and is the one
>at risk. How could he or she go public?

>On the other hand where is the hoaxster saying "Gotcha"? How did
>the hoaxster know all those details that weren't known to be
>true until well after the documents were received.
>
>If I haven't covered and rebutted your "factual" objections in
>my books and papers, please put them in writing. Research by
>proclamation is hardly scientific.

Stan,

You're a good person in this field, but don't assume that
everyone is going to accept your level of evidence, which is
shown by the absolute rejection of the SOM-101 documents.

Show me any other military 'How To' manuals that go into so much
detail about why you are doing it.

But the real mess was started by the plethora of documents that
seem to have followed. If you believe that the MJ-12 is looked
with more favor than the AA 'Film', by most long term
ufologists, then I don't think you've been paying attention.

It's really up to those who promote a document or film to prove
that it's real, not to submit it as proof and rely on others to
prove that it's a fake. You've presented your evidence for the
MJ-12 and it was essentially circumstantial. Those who created
the early MJ-12 documents weren't fools and could well have done
the research that you followed through.

All this being said, I agree that there must have been a group
that was acting in a manner similar to MJ-12, throughout the
late 40s and 50s, but MJ-12 has too many flaws.


Steve



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/subscribers/

Your access info works there too...

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.