Some Declassified Files

reply to post by Skeptical Ed


I must be honest that when it comes down to csicop and mufon, I usually go mufon...

Not that you should by any means take that as an authoritative declaration LOL... It's just that I've found in my experience that mufon does a pretty good job at analysis.

Here is a link to Robert Wood's analysis of the Majestic Docs, that tends to lend credence (overall) to their authenticity...

www.majesticdocuments.com...

In that report, Wood analyzes the physical characteristics of the documents themselves, under the following criteria:

[The process of authentication proof with so many different documents includes a very wide range of considerations, such as:
· Physical dating of the ink, pencil and paper
· Dating by matching the reproductive process (typewriter or printer)
· Dating by use of language of the period
· Identification of authorship using linguistics
· Comparison of handwriting
· Comparison with known events of record
· Comparison with known styles and procedures of production
· Comparison with known or expected security procedures
· Logic of content
· Records of provenance]

After reading that report, and finding corroborating information in my own research (things mentioned in the documents that turn out to indeed exist and are testable...) I feel that the authenticity of the documents seems indeed likely.

I don't have direct proof, but access to the documents I've requested should provide further evidence to test against.

I've further submitted a FOIA request for these documents, the request is currently being processed. You can read about it in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks for the link to the csicop analysis, I'll certainly give it a read!

-WFA