In a msg to All on , George Jiri Opletal of 3:632/562 writes:
 GJO>        You would of notice a great deal of supposed information which 
 GJO> attempts to discredit the Majestic-12 documents (not discussing the 
 GJO> Extraterrestrial recovery manual).  The person that posted it comes 
 GJO> from the skeptics echo 
"Comes from the skeptics echo"?  George, I know you're not up on your UFO 
echo history, but I was here LONG before you were.  Heck, I used to be the 
Assistant Moderator of this echo!
 GJO> and does not reply to my answer in this echo, 
Sure I did -- I posted those articles, didn't I?  
 GJO> thus I have debunked these posts in skeptics. 
ROFL!  "Debunked"?  No, you've made CLAIMS that they are wrong.
 GJO> Here is the summary of where mainly Philip Klass got it wrong...
 GJO>        1) Claimed identical signatures provided evidence of photocopy 
 GJO> and that a 3% increase in one signature is similar to a photocopying 
 GJO> standard enlargement.
 GJO>        However, the signatures are not identical, In the 
 GJO> truman-forrestal document 'Harry' is 1.012 times longer than in the 
 GJO> truman-bush document. Also the surmname, in the truman forrestal memo 
 GJO> the 'Truman' is 1.032-1.04 times longer than the truman-bush memo.  
Okay, so here we have a claim from you.  Where is this information from?  So 
far, I see a claim by Klass (backed up by demonstrations in one of his books 
or articles) and a claim by George backed up by...nothing.
 GJO> The letterheard is also unchanged in all documents.  Thus the claim of 
 GJO> photocoping is void.
The claim is void because George SAYS it's void?  Wow.  I wish I had that 
kind of power.  "Your claim is void.  I have spoken."
 GJO>        2) The claim the Cutler could not have written the 
Cutler-Twining 
 GJO> memo since he was in Europe is also a extremely bad arguement.
 GJO>        The actually document has no signature on it from Cutler or the 
 GJO> /s? symbol.
Again, we have only your word for these things.
 GJO>        3) The waterpaper is wrong on the Cutler-Twining memo document.
 GJO>        Wrong...the paper used was Fox paper as denoted on the 
 GJO> document.  Fox paper was contacted and it stated that it made this 
 GJO> paper between 1953 and early 1970's.  The document was dated 1954.
 GJO>        The were other claims of false classification and marks, and 
 GJO> other number issue, which however provided little serious evidence to 
 GJO> class the documents a hoax (not including the later supposed 
 GJO> Majestic-12 recovery manual).
Read:  Anything you don't want to talk about is "little serious evidence."
 GJO>        What it does clear show is that skeptics are just as much 
 GJO> susceptible to excepting lies as are the extreme U.F.O groupies. 
So far we have only YOUR word that they are "lies," George.  Meanwhile, most 
of the rest of the UFOlogical community has long since properly categorized 
MJ-12 as a blatant hoax.  Actually, the repeated discussion of such obvious 
nonsense was one of the reasons I grew tired of this echo, resigned as 
Assistant Moderator, and left a while ago.  Frankly, I have even less time to 
spend on such things now than I did then, and I've probably spent more time 
than MJ-12 is worth already.  That said, if you are serious about discussing 
this and actually provide evidence to back your claims, I am quite willing to 
serve as a go-between with you and Phil Klass.  It may take some time, but I 
have sent him snail mail before regarding claims made here (the Friedman bet, 
for example) and would be willing to do so again -- as I said, IF you provide 
some backing for your claims.
When I was here, it seemed no progress was ever made in UFOlogy.  I was 
hoping that maybe some things had changed.  But in UFOlogy, it seems that 
almost never happens.  :-(  A well-known skeptic (though I can't recall which 
one) said it best:  For UFOlogy, it will always be 1947.
--- msgedsq 2.0.5
---------------