Midnight in the Desert releases new Majestic 12 Docs

whats that part about a landing pad built 115 years before the crash at Aztec on the Isle of Pines , in the pacific

a reply to: bluemooone2

0850]Jonjonj[/post]

The almost violent dismissals we find in this thread are to be expected. Most are from those that know not at all the full spectrum of UFO activity toward us. 'Reminds me of the current political scene where screams of "He's not my President," defies rational logic displaying a mindset more of negative paranoia than any semblance of decent thinking. But he deniers of UFOs have had half a century of attempting to prove that you can prove a negative by ignoring the legitimate evidence and hand-picking holes that they find.

The wisdom of ET thinking displayed in the "quoted" conversations with the ETI may be manufactured by an entirely human mind, but I tell you this: you will not find a better general rational from a superior and benolevent ETI than what is presented.

Here is the situation in one paragraph from page 0-6-7:

"The problem with direct contact was stated early in our relationship by one of ETI's 'Right now there are people this planet who do not now that your moon circles your world or how long it takes your world to orbit your star (sun). I am not speaking of a small number, but perhaps as many as half of the global population. We have been mistaken for being gods or devils in your past and this sort of slow education is best. As a cultural myth, we stand the best chance of acceptance by the masses of your citizens.'"

Thus, the problem, the mass ignorance both at the basic,factual levels about our Universe, and then the denial of those with better, but stuck minds, that should know better as they also ignore scientific efforts currently being made across several fields to find evidence of other life forms (which indicates that blanket denials are yesterday's views).

The term used in the quoted words above "cultural myth" is not used lightly, whether by a genuine ETI or one schooled in this whole business of contact. In the last half century the concept of what the term "UFO" fully means is gradually embedding itself into the human psyche. And I'm pleased to tell anyone that has the slightest bit of interest in this thread or any aspect of the term "UFOs," that they are parties of the myth building which is the most painless way for humanity to bridge the enormous gap that remains between the way the Universe really is and the way some of would contain it.

a reply to: Outlier13

Well, I'll give you an easy way to debunk it. It follows NONE, I repeat, NONE of the rules for classification.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Outlier13

Well, I'll give you an easy way to debunk it. It follows NONE, I repeat, NONE of the rules for classification. I concur with Jaden. Even the cover page is presented wrong. I was not in crypto, but but​ as a former Ranger, I've seen my share of documents.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Outlier13

Well, I'll give you an easy way to debunk it. It follows NONE, I repeat, NONE of the rules for classification.

Jaden

Exactly, in all my experience, I have never, ever, seen Classification done that way

I'm skeptical of all these docs... they just don't "feel" right in some respects... and there have been so many disinfo operations that it gets ridiculous (being the point).

In these, the ETs seem more like smart humans without the cultural trappings of the time... rather like plain ol' human intellectuals who've been exposed to counter cultural ideals and/or somehow obtaining a bird's eye view of their cultures ... say through experiential hallucinogen ingestion popular in such circles/time periods?

Though the mention of the (former) Isle of Pines (New Caladonia) was nifty and brought back a long ago read report on strange cement cylinders being found and carbon dated to 13,000 bp .. along with the only Pine Trees in the area, might support their allegations... if one were a crank, that is!

More MJ trolling.

This is 100% fake, dates are all wrong and has verbiage from modern military literature, Joint Publications, Regulations, Air Force Instructions, which they had no inkling off at the supposed dating in 1959. Case in point, I had a Top Secret SIOP Clearance, which is the doomsday nuke plans, which existed from 1961 to 2003 that they claim as the USAF's level of clearance. A full 3 year's difference from 1961. I did 5 years of Presidential Security, with currently 22 years of Active Duty USAF experience and can honestly tell you, the pages are covered with incorrect classification markings and completely made up classifications across the different services. Much of the content is also derived from dreamed up B.S that's been peddled over he last 15-20 years... Believe me, there's crazy stuff in this universe, stuff you wouldn't/couldn't believe, but this whole document is a poorly fabicated POS. You'd get better UFO stuff from the History Channel's Ancient Aliens, which isn't too far off the mark, in many respects.
a reply to: bluemooone2

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Outlier13

Well, I'll give you an easy way to debunk it. It follows NONE, I repeat, NONE of the rules for classification.

Jaden

So you are saying you have experience with the rules for classification at the time this document was supposedly created? And more specifically with respects to the specific classification level claimed?

originally posted by: privatepilotuk

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Outlier13

Well, I'll give you an easy way to debunk it. It follows NONE, I repeat, NONE of the rules for classification.

Jaden

Exactly, in all my experience, I have never, ever, seen Classification done that way

I'm not disagreeing with anyone here about the inconsistencies of these documents. But like I said in an earlier post. There are 4 words in a combination that could only exist from someone who was / is intimately familiar with the use of those 4 words in a highly classified and highly sensitive scenario. Now it could be whomever the author of this document is was fed those 4 words by someone with very high level security clearance or they are someone with very high level security clearance.

I know one thing for sure is the 4 words I am referring to are not a random accidental occurrence or something conjured up out of the author's imagination.

a reply to: Outlier13

We can wonder if this isn't just another disinfo presentation which is intended to blur the whole damned issue. Created to be taken as genuine by some but filled with enough inaccuracies and mistakes to show under the analysis of public discussion that it is phony. That, of course, is not a new tactic that TPTB have used on the UFO situation since day one. It is SOP from the Roswell crash if not earlier. Our government has one Hell of a lot of explaining to do at some point. They are running the clock out on abductees of the 1960s-1990s as they do with war veterans. A common tactic.

So this "new" piece of the puzzle can be another aspect of the intentional building of the UFO myth according to the true meaning of the term "myth."

My first question is on the third page is the date...01 January 1969. With that in mind on page 4 the bottom in the notice it says..this is within the meaning of the scope of the right to privacy act...Was that not passed in 1974 and not 1969?

I think i might be persnickety but they list COl. William Blanchard as being in the Air Tactical Command. No such entity has ever existed it was Tactical Air Command and established in 1946 also he was a SAC base Commander. Strategic Air Command. to me this is important since if I am correct that is two glaring errors.

Ugh the more I read this the worse it gets. Reading the interview where the EBE says "It was in all the papers"..really? LOL.

L

a reply to: Aliensun

Yes. This is precisely what is bothering me. Very similar to how I was once taught to lie. Stay as close to the truth with subtle changes placed well enough to ensure the ruse is accepted. And if questioned as a ruse...have enough truth involved to create doubt of the question of a ruse. Both a truth and a lie. Such a beautiful paradox.

originally posted by: Darkstar12
My first question is on the third page is the date...01 January 1969. With that in mind on page 4 the bottom in the notice it says..this is within the meaning of the scope of the right to privacy act...Was that not passed in 1974 and not 1969?

I think i might be persnickety but they list COl. William Blanchard as being in the Air Tactical Command. No such entity has ever existed it was Tactical Air Command and established in 1946 also he was a SAC base Commander. Strategic Air Command. to me this is important since if I am correct that is two glaring errors.

L

Those are good findings. I am sure that Stanton will catch those as well, and a few others. They need to be explained, and I am looking forward to any comments he has about them.

ANYTHING dealing with or referencing MJ12, is in my opinion BS and/or disinformation.

originally posted by: johnthejedi24
ANYTHING dealing with or referencing MJ12, is in my opinion BS and/or disinformation.

In retrospect, the more recent documents released by FBI, CIA... show this may not be the case, unless they have fake references to MJ12. Stanton is the resident world expert on MJ12 documentation, whatever it may or not be... I would value his opinion on any of it.

More piling on at the Kevin Randle blog.

a reply to: SecretsoftheBlueApples

This is a correct assessment (that this is a hoax). I urge readers to take a look at Matilda O'Donnell Macelory's interpretation of the Roswell EBE. Her story is most probably correct;-)

There are not 'benevolent human ETs', the only human like alien beings are the ones manufactured by the aliens, the hybrids. These beings have been created more and more human like in every iteration in order to achieve perfect blending.

They have been introducing the beings for at least 20 years.

The way I look at it is someone on the inside is not happy with Stanton Friedman's new book. Which is a good read. I believe he ruffled a few feathers with his in depth investigating. They might want to discredit the last major contributor to this field.