• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Tim Good's Source For The Original MJ 12 Papers?

Off track because the journalists concerned have no greater relevance than us (collectively) sharing our thoughts and ideas. What dropped through their mailbox was probably fake. A minor footnote in dis-information, with bits of truth in the mix.
 
I think we've gone a bit off topic here. In an effort to get us back on track I thought I'd ask if anyone knows what Vallee thought/thinks of the the original MJ 12 documents (ie the ones provided to Shandera and Tim Good)?

Also, what was/is his view, in general, of the parties that appeared to be at the centre of a number of important events in the annals of Ufology during the 1980s ie Moore/Shandera/Doty/Bennewitz etc)?

I think he addresses some of these issues in his book 'Revelations' but I can't recall specific comments. You can probably.find a cheap copy online
From what I can recall and online info he thought the FBI thought they were fakes and weren't all that interested though the FBI did eventually look into them and said they were a hoax.
 
Last edited:
I think we've gone a bit off topic here. In an effort to get us back on track I thought I'd ask if anyone knows what Vallee thought/thinks of the the original MJ 12 documents (ie the ones provided to Shandera and Tim Good)?

Also, what was/is his view, in general, of the parties that appeared to be at the centre of a number of important events in the annals of Ufology during the 1980s ie Moore/Shandera/Doty/Bennewitz etc)?
If you read his book Revelations, you will see that Vallee demolishes the whole MJ12 episode very effectively. He thought (and I tend to agree) that all these alleged disclosures were outright disinformation, aimed at destabilising ufology and discouraging scientists from getting seriously involved in UFO research. And if that is the case it has succeeded brilliantly.
 
If you read his book Revelations, you will see that Vallee demolishes the whole MJ12 episode very effectively. He thought (and I tend to agree) that all these alleged disclosures were outright disinformation, aimed at destabilising ufology and discouraging scientists from getting seriously involved in UFO research. And if that is the case it has succeeded brilliantly.
But then one has to ask what were their motivations for this 'disinformation'...? Did they have something to hide about ufos then or did they just w ant to screw with the civilian world for fun and games? Did they just want people to stay out of their territory.?
 
I don't think Dr Vallee needs to be defended...his contributions and efforts to uncovering the ufo enigma are well known.
Everyone makes mistakes in life and has other aspects to who they are, , but for someone ,probably with little to no experience, on a forum to call him a liar is a great disservice not to mention offensive as was mentioned above.
Thanks, Doc. Some of this just makes me go "Oh please" and roll my eyes.
 
But then one has to ask what were their motivations for this 'disinformation'...? Did they have something to hide about ufos then or did they just w ant to screw with the civilian world for fun and games? Did they just want people to stay out of their territory.?
Probably they have black projects to hide and by making UFOs a laughing stock anyone seeing a weird thing in the sky would be less likely to report it. The Kecksburg case is a good example -- it was evidently a test of the Nazi's Bell device that went terribly wrong, they quickly recovered it and then spread the usual disinformation about "little alien bodies."
 
Probably they have black projects to hide and by making UFOs a laughing stock anyone seeing a weird thing in the sky would be less likely to report it. The Kecksburg case is a good example -- it was evidently a test of the Nazi's Bell device that went terribly wrong, they quickly recovered it and then spread the usual disinformation about "little alien bodies."

I agree, I think because security agencies did not understand the phenomenon they feared a loss of "control". My feeling is that their was also rivalry between Agencies, which means disinformation was sometimes aimed at the public, sometimes emerging UFOligists and in some cases to test each other. It now looks like a giant game - which created much confusion (even amongst each other).

Initially the biggest fear must have been of Soviet involvement - so I suspect they wanted to create uncertainty amongst Soviet Agencies too. Who probably wondered if UFOs were American military developments.

I also think that the amount of public interest in UFOs along with the variety of cults and cranks that sprang up, must have caused a fear of a loss of political control and religious influence of the populace.
 
I agree, I think because security agencies did not understand the phenomenon they feared a loss of "control". My feeling is that their was also rivalry between Agencies, which means disinformation was sometimes aimed at the public, sometimes emerging UFOligists and in some cases to test each other. It now looks like a giant game - which created much confusion (even amongst each other).

Initially the biggest fear must have been of Soviet involvement - so I suspect they wanted to create uncertainty amongst Soviet Agencies too. Who probably wondered if UFOs were American military developments.

I also think that the amount of public interest in UFOs along with the variety of cults and cranks that sprang up, must have caused a fear of a loss of political control and religious influence of the populace.
Yes, a lot of things probably happening, and with the rivalry and lack of communication between the different agencies (which had disastrous consequences in 9/11) I wouldn't be surprised if they were playing games with each other. But comparing ufology as it was in the 60s-70s with the crazy business of today suggests that much of the disinformation has been frighteningly successful. The ironic thing is that what we wanted in the period before the 80s was to get more public recognition of the phenomenon, and we now have it today -- but interest in the wrong things! And there has been a clever rewriting of the phenomenon -- e.g. in one wild TV programme I heard the claim that the Hills' alleged abduction was the first to feature the greys! Tall human beings with long narrow eyes are now apparently small big-headed humanoids with huge black eyes...
 
Most people don't want their paradigms upset. A lot of folks don't even want to know about the UFO phenomenon, or refuse to believe; they must have "lunch with an alien" (lunchers), or have them land on their heads (headlanders). It scares them. This is as much contact as we can handle.
 
I have been studying the UFO phenomenon for fifty years now, and I reserve the right to call Jacques Vallee an idiot. He has lead a lot of researchers down the rabbithole of the multidimensional hypothesis, an 'explanation' that is untestable and can accomodate any data, no matter how ridiculous. But, to give him credit, he has never fallen for the MJ12 bullshit.
 
Probably they have black projects to hide and by making UFOs a laughing stock anyone seeing a weird thing in the sky would be less likely to report it. The Kecksburg case is a good example -- it was evidently a test of the Nazi's Bell device that went terribly wrong, they quickly recovered it and then spread the usual disinformation about "little alien bodies."
Black projects.....perhaps.....but it seems like a waste of time to create all of these ufo disinformation campaigns...and based on researchers there have been several. It would seem smarter to just say and do nothing and ignore the public over the years that are into the ufo scene...and they are not that large nor very influential..imo.
 
I have been studying the UFO phenomenon for fifty years now, and I reserve the right to call Jacques Vallee an idiot. He has lead a lot of researchers down the rabbithole of the multidimensional hypothesis, an 'explanation' that is untestable and can accomodate any data, no matter how ridiculous. But, to give him credit, he has never fallen for the MJ12 bullshit.
Well... I also have been studying the ufo enigma for over 50 years.....not as a field agent but as an amateur( though I was asked to join MUFON once inh the late 80's and had all the paperwork and manuals...but decided not to in the end).......so then can I call you an idiot..?

btw... I hope that doesn't get me in trouble with the mod squad..
;)
 
I have been studying the UFO phenomenon for fifty years now, and I reserve the right to call Jacques Vallee an idiot. He has lead a lot of researchers down the rabbithole of the multidimensional hypothesis, an 'explanation' that is untestable and can accomodate any data, no matter how ridiculous. But, to give him credit, he has never fallen for the MJ12 bullshit.
I've been studying -- or at least thinking about -- UFOs for nearly 60 years, and I haven't heard any better theory. It's untestable in any simple way, but it's the only approach that takes into account all of the strange elements and antiphysical aspects of UFOs that the simple ETH ignores. Both Keel and Vallee have considered this approach, and if nothing else it broadens the perspectives. I don't think you can get away with calling Vallee an idiot without coming up with a better theory yourself.
 
Black projects.....perhaps.....but it seems like a waste of time to create all of these ufo disinformation campaigns...and based on researchers there have been several. It would seem smarter to just say and do nothing and ignore the public over the years that are into the ufo scene...and they are not that large nor very influential..imo.
I think the disinformation began with Roswell, as a purely off the cuff response to a black project crash, and proved so effective that it has been used again and again. I suspect that there may be something going on connected with UFOs in some way that they want to take our attention off, but I'm not sure what. I was impressed by the claims of von Braun's aide from 1974 until his death that he often spoke of a long term plan to weaponise space by focusing attention on three apparent threats: terrorism (which has certainly taken centre stage since 9/11); asteroid impacts (and a high percentage of Sky documentaries focus on that); and alien invasion. If that is so it maybe explains one of the weirdest bits on disinformation, Corso's Day After Roswell.
 
I haven't heard any better theory. It's untestable in any simple way, but it's the only approach that takes into account all of the strange elements and antiphysical aspects of UFOs that the simple ETH ignores.

The psychosocial hypothesis explains all these 'antiphysical' aspects far better, and is consistent with the complete lack of any testable physical evidence for UFOs. If Vallee claims to be interested in the use of science in studying UFOs, he would have been better off studying the psychology of perception.

NOTE:

The extended discussion on the psychosocial hypothesis (PSH) has been spun off into its own dedicated thread:

https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-psychosocial-hypothesis-psh.65842/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, here goes.

1. "Real" UFOs represent an extremely advanced non-human technology utilising programmable matter in the form of living machines; devices that can repair themselves, change shape and replicate. These devices are under the control of an extremely advanced intelligence that is similar to sentient godlike AI. They exist in a world of information beyond our time and place (even from the future) as a natural part of developing propulsion and associated technologies. UFOs can be associated with synchronicities or other bizarre occurrences where individuals are approached in isolation or at specific moments; for such an intelligence dealing with arrogant primitive, narcissistic simians, it's no problem, it's like a game.

2. This is the level of contact WE are capable of. Take a look at the map of UFO sightings. That's a lotof experiences.. We can barely accept other humans with different skin colors; few people can tolerate up-close interaction with alien devices on a regular basis. UFOs have maintained a level of contact over a very long time, without causing a "tipping point". Mission accomplished! The governments and militaries of the world know they are real, and growing numbers of the population. It's a game that maintains a certain level of acclimation. I believe these devices have been here for a very long time. Periodically they pass through our area, and it is easy for them to get here. We are an oasis of life that they have discovered or watched evolve.

3. If one supposes the intelligence has a deep understanding of reality, and one accepts the reality of the panop!y of "paranormal" phenomena, there is no reason to suppose it wouldn't have an understanding of that, too.

The trouble with this is our understanding and hypothesis is based on our current knowledge. It changes all the time. Would you have written the same first paragraph 50 year ago? No, because we had no concept of machines that could replicate and repair themselves back then.
 
... Would you have written the same first paragraph 50 year ago? No, because we had no concept of machines that could replicate and repair themselves back then.

Allusions to machines that could reproduce themselves date back prior to the 20th century.

John von Neumann's abstract conceptual model of a self-replicating machine was formulated in the late 1940's.

Self-replicating machines were common subjects of (e.g.) theoretical research and science fiction tropes in the 1950's.
 
Allusions to machines that could reproduce themselves date back prior to the 20th century.

John von Neumann's abstract conceptual model of a self-replicating machine was formulated in the late 1940's.

Self-replicating machines were common subjects of (e.g.) theoretical research and science fiction tropes in the 1950's.

but in popular culture, newspapers, radio, etc?
 
but in popular culture, newspapers, radio, etc?

Other than pre-20th century (figurative) citations in literature, the 1950's would be the first decade in which the concept could be claimed to have popular familiarity.
 
Other than pre-20th century (figurative) citations in literature, the 1950's would be the first decade in which the concept could be claimed to have popular familiarity.

Precisely - so people from Idaho seeing airships in 1830?
 
Precisely - so people from Idaho seeing airships in 1830?

Clues, please ... I have no idea what your point may be. Are you referring to some specific incident?
 
Back
Top