Just Cause - 1988 03 - No 15 - New Series

Magazine Overview

Title: JUST CAUSE
Issue: 15
Volume: NEW SERIES
Date: March 1988
Publisher: Lawrence Fawcett
Editor: Barry Greenwood
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue of JUST CAUSE, number 15 in its New Series, dated March 1988, is primarily dedicated to a detailed editorial response to a two-page rebuttal by Stanton Friedman concerning the magazine's stance on the MJ-12 documents. The editorial, written by the publication, addresses a 36-point list of assumptions attributed to CAUS by Friedman, which Friedman claims are false. CAUS aims to clarify its position, address distortions, and explain its persistent problems with the MJ-12 claims.

Editorial: Rebuttal to Stanton Friedman

The editorial begins by noting the diminished press coverage of MJ-12 and the lack of new evidence from sources like MSF (Majestic Security Force or similar). It criticizes Moore's newsletter, Focus, for primarily reprinting press releases and appealing for funds for analysis, suggesting that only the Cutler/Twining memo is amenable to scientific testing, but even that is a carbon copy without authenticating signatures, making its analysis questionable.

Friedman's article in the September/October 1987 International UFO Reporter, titled "MJ-12: The Evidence So Far," is a focal point. While largely critical of Philip Klass, it also targets the editor of Just Cause. CAUS states it will address most of Friedman's points in its comments on his 36-point list.

A key point of contention is CAUS's skepticism towards anonymous sources. Friedman compares this to police work and the Watergate investigation, where anonymous tips were crucial. CAUS counters that in police work, anonymous tips require a proven track record of reliability, citing the 'Deep Throat' source in Watergate as an example of producing irrefutable facts. The magazine directs readers to publisher Larry Fawcett, a police lieutenant, for further clarification on dealing with anonymous sources.

The editorial reiterates CAUS's policy statement from the previous bulletin regarding concerns with anonymous sources, referencing the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." They expect this to be their last extended statement on the MJ-12 documents unless new information surfaces.

CAUS RESPONSE to Friedman's 36-Point List

The bulk of the editorial is a point-by-point response to Friedman's "Basic assumptions of CAUS."

1. Friedman's Assumption: The Truman and Eisenhower libraries and the National Archives have complete files of all papers from those administrations.
CAUS Response: "We never said nor implied this."

2. Friedman's Assumption: No anonymous leaked documents will be considered in the search for truth about UFOs or national security matters.
CAUS Response: CAUS clarifies it never said it wouldn't *consider* anonymous or "leaked" documents, but if they don't survive scrutiny, they will be rejected as proof.

3. Friedman's Assumption: Big names like Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Carl Sagan are in an excellent position to provide an objective review of UFOs and MJ-12.
CAUS Response: CAUS questions why, if MJ-12 is a strong case, these prominent figures aren't already championing it. They ask why MSF's source, if leaking "authentic" documentation, can't convince media sources if CAUS believes the story has problems.

4. Friedman's Assumption: Everything said by the Archives is totally true and cannot be checked for accuracy.
CAUS Response: "Nonsense! We never said nor implied this."

5. Friedman's Assumption: There is no danger to persons leaking filmed documents or "planting" the Cutler-Twining memo.
CAUS Response: CAUS states that leaking classified information carries risk. The question is whether the MJ-12 papers *are* authentic classified documents, which they argue hasn't been established. If not authentic, the source could manipulate them.

6. Friedman's Assumption: Ed Reece's office is the location where Archive Documents are brought for review by researchers.
CAUS Response: CAUS uses the example of a meeting in Reese's office to illustrate how an outsider could plant a false paper. They cite a New York Times story about security issues at the Archives and Library of Congress, noting that body searches were rejected as "unseemly." CAUS suggests planting a document would be relatively easy. They also reference archivist Ed Reese stating such seeding couldn't be prevented.

7. Friedman's Assumption: There has been only negative press coverage of the MJ-12 documents.
CAUS Response: CAUS states that two of the three press stories they reproduced in their MJ-12 report were favorable, but later coverage became generally negative.

8. Friedman's Assumption: There is no point in checking document contents, dates, or relationships between persons named.
CAUS Response: CAUS argues that Friedman's claim that officials allegedly in MJ-12 knew each other doesn't confirm the panel's existence. They state that interrelationships among top officials are common and don't prove UFO-related activity. Such meetings need to be shown to be UFO-related.

9. Friedman's Assumption: Friedman, Moore, and Shandera had a great deal to gain from releasing phony documents.
CAUS Response: CAUS argues that MSF has much to gain from the documents being accepted as real, not from knowingly releasing fakes. They suggest substantial gains in books and media appearances would follow general acceptance. They describe such a revelation as a major historical event.

10. Friedman's Assumption: MSF obviously didn't send out copies in 1984 or July 1985.
CAUS Response: CAUS states that if MSF sent copies in 1984-85, they kept it secret. Moore, a CAUS board member, never informed them of any findings. During a 1985 call, Moore wanted a planned December 1985 JC article on MJ-12 halted, refusing to explain why.

11. Friedman's Assumption: Friedman's surprising findings about Donald Menzel are irrelevant.
CAUS Response: CAUS questions Menzel's credentials and asks for evidence linking him to UFO belief and MJ-12 beyond suspect documents.

12. Friedman's Assumption: Everyone well-known in ufology is a persistent and careful researcher who could be depended upon for a thorough investigation of the Roswell Incident.
CAUS Response: "Who said this? We didn't."

13. Friedman's Assumption: There is no point in checking with MSF about important document aspects because they know a lot.
CAUS Response: CAUS questions why Friedman suggests going to agencies withholding information for authentication, when MSF will authenticate them. They ask why not go to unbiased sources like the Ike Library or Archives.

14. Friedman's Assumption: If a story in the briefing disagrees with other versions of what might be the same story (e.g., crash of Dec. 6, 1950), the briefing is a forgery.
CAUS Response: CAUS asks why Friedman doesn't use this space to explain the anomaly instead of ridiculing CAUS for bringing it up.

15. Friedman's Assumption: If a story in the briefing agrees with already investigated versions, the briefing is a forgery.
CAUS Response: CAUS suggests the Roswell story could have been manufactured from existing reports. They question why the scientific data in the BP attachment is missing, suggesting it might be too difficult to fake. They ask if it's truly impossible that the story was manufactured.

16. Friedman's Assumption: Trivial data such as the Sept. 24, 1947 meeting between Bush, Forrestal, and Truman is irrelevant.
CAUS Response: CAUS asks what these meetings were about, suggesting they might relate to the fledgling CIA or other Truman administration concerns. They state that a hint that the meetings dealt with UFOs is necessary before inferring anything.

17. Friedman's Assumption: The subject of Ike's meeting is irrelevant.
CAUS Response: CAUS asks about the subject of the meeting and how a briefing on a top-secret UFO matter could get into the New York Times, suggesting such briefings should be in total secrecy.

18-20. Friedman's Assumption: A non-UFO memo by Mr. Lay, written the same day as the C-T memo, with Lay's name and position, is irrelevant.
CAUS Response: CAUS questions why Lay or Coyne didn't take responsibility for the C-T memo if they produced it. They note Lay signed other correspondence. They question the lack of records for instructions if Cutler transmitted changes, or if Lay/Coyne acted without Cutler's knowledge. They suggest a subordinate acting without approval and signing Cutler's name would be embarrassing.

21-23. Friedman's Assumption: Unexamined files in the Truman and Eisenhower years are not proof of MJ-12.
CAUS Response: CAUS acknowledges not all scraps of paper have been examined but insists proof must be found to support MJ-12, not assumed to be in unexamined files.

24. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS stated something not true.
CAUS Response: "Where did we say this? An untrue, baseless statement."

25. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: "More baloney! We never said this, as is documented in 200+ pages of CLEAR INTENT and Just Cause and CAUS Bulletin."

26. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: "See remarks in point 8."

27. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: "See remarks in points 18-20."

28. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: CAUS finds it interesting Friedman agrees the C-T memo seems like a "plant." They state proving a link between Air Force classification review people and the planting is another matter. They accuse Friedman of "conclusion-jumping" in his IUR piece, calling this situation a clear example.

29. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: CAUS argues that extensive library research without producing proof is for naught. They question Friedman's argument that more hours spent researching equates to winning.

30. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: "Prove it! Also referring back to points 18-20, if it is Friedman's belief that Lay's office was responsible for the C-T memo, as is clear in Friedman's comment, where is Lay's typewritten signature as it appeared on other correspondence of that same day?"

31. Friedman's Assumption: The Truman memo has not been verified by any authority.
CAUS Response: CAUS states the Truman memo has not been verified by any authority, despite seeming provable. They note its status as an executive order is unverified, as no executive orders were registered on Sept. 24, 1947, according to the Truman Library. They question the original document's whereabouts and the authenticity of the signature and stationery. They ask if a hoaxer could have used a genuine memo as a model.

32-33. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS said Moore forged the BP, C-T memo, or the Truman memo.
CAUS Response: CAUS denies saying Moore forged them, but doesn't exclude it. They indicated OSI agent Richard Doty was a logical suspect due to past involvement in suspicious events, and that others may be involved. They state Moore could clarify issues but has chosen not to, allowing the ball to keep rolling with promises of new information and documents that disappear.

34. Friedman's Assumption: The Cutler-Twining memo is unsigned carbon and irrelevant.
CAUS Response: CAUS states the C-T memo being an unsigned carbon is relevant but not in the way MSF indicates. The absence of a signature makes it less valuable. Friedman's allowance that it's a "possible" plant isn't helpful. Unless firmly linked to the White House staff, it remains suspect.

35. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS made a claim documented elsewhere.
CAUS Response: CAUS notes Linda Howe fingered Doty as a source and references her version of a meeting. They question where they said Howe's testimony was irrelevant. They refer to a Jerome Clark article in Fate Magazine, which they urge readers to digest, as proving how bizarre MSF's story is. They mention the inclusion of Marjorie Fish's research into Betty Hill's aliens (Zeta Reticuli) as fact by Moore's "Falcon" character, suggesting this might be bait for Friedman, who defended such speculation in the 1970s.

36. Friedman's Assumption: CAUS said something not true.
CAUS Response: "We never said this either. However, in this case where is the disinformation coming from? Is it from all the sources unable to verify an MJ-12, or is it MSF's source?"

The page also notes that the next page contains a copy of a non-UFO memo by James Lay.

Included Document: Declassified Memorandum

A declassified memorandum dated July 14, 1954, from the Executive Office of the President, National Security Council, Washington, is included. It is addressed to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, with the subject "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program." The memorandum, signed by James S. Lay, Jr., Executive Secretary, states that the President has been advised that no revisions are seen appropriate in NSC Action No. 770. Accordingly, the President decided that action by the National Security Council regarding the memorandum is not necessary and that the matter should be handled through regular procedures, including budgetary review. The President also asked the Atomic Energy Commission, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to transmit an appropriate reply to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

The document is stamped "DECLASSIFIED MR 88-251" with an authority and date, and also bears the "UNCLASSIFIED/SECRET" marking.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the authenticity of the MJ-12 documents, the reliability of anonymous sources in investigations, and the critical analysis of evidence presented by proponents of the MJ-12 hypothesis. The editorial stance of JUST CAUSE is one of skepticism towards claims lacking robust, verifiable evidence, particularly when those claims rely heavily on leaked or anonymous materials. The publication emphasizes a rigorous, evidence-based approach, contrasting it with what they perceive as speculative or unproven assertions within the UFO community, specifically from figures like Stanton Friedman and organizations like MSF. They advocate for transparency and verifiable proof, questioning the motives and methods of those promoting the MJ-12 narrative.