RU debunked?
A picture is worth a thousand words ... and so are the pictures from real formerly classified documents, shown here with a handful of elements from the alleged MJ-12 TOP SECRET/MAJIC Eisenhower Briefing Document.
And make a mental note of the / following TOP SECRET: you'll find the slash followed by special caveats on documents from collections culled from the National Security Council. Many of those documents are classified by personal signature (see the larger image by clicking on it).
After reading the following list by a gentleman at RU claiming to be in the know because of his present-day clearance, take a good look at the image above and see if you can spot the few MAJIC markings against the real ones taken from handfuls of FOIA documents from different sources. At the end I incuded a few from the UK Ministry of Defence.
Among the claims made by REALITY UNCOVERED debunkers are:
1) Originally-classifed documents do NOT use the "TOP SECRET" with a block of asterisks around it as the original classification markings. That is so far off the rules that govern classification markings as to be laughable.
2) Because of these original classification marking rules, there is NEVER any need for a stamp such as that seen on this document saying "TOP SECRET/MAJIC".
3) The moniker "MAJIC" has a fundamental flaw with respect to rules of project codes names. I cannot give details but anyone who knows project code names knows what it is.
4) There is no "(U)" or "(C)" or "(S)" or "(TS)" portion marking on the "Warning" paragraph. There must be if it were real.
5) The very use of the term "WARNING!" in a classification statement is incorrect and laughable. The terms "WARNING" and "CAUTION" have VERY specific definitions and uses, especially in the military world. These relate to the potential for damage and/or bodily injury and/or the potential for death. The potential for litigation and/or criminal actions against you do NOT rise to the level of a CAUTION and certainly not a WARNING. These are just not used in classified data markings.
6) "TOP SECRET" is a used term, but not "EYES ONLY". That is never used. Now, it MAY be used in UK MOD, but I would not know and it would not matter to a US doc.
7) Any piece of information that was legitimately and originally classified (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) will NEVER be stamped with merely an "UNCLASSIFIED" stamp. It MUST have "downgrade information" attached to show when it was reviewed and downgraded and for what reason. Always. If the "UNCLASSIFIED T52-EXEMPT (E)" stamp is a real artifact from the US GOV (and it could be), then my hunch is that this stamp is basically telling anyone "this stuff never was classified" and the "T52-EXEMPT" could even specify something like "this is a hoax, and not GOV document"... Dunno that for sure.
8. The final statement about "reproduction" and the rest is flat-out wrong. Reproduction IS permitted on all levels of classified data, but under strict rules. Anything TOP SECRET that is reproduced gets it own unique control number for each copy. There are other aspects with respect to this that I cannot discuss.
9) "Majestic-12 clearance level" is also an amateurish misuse of terminology with respect to clearance levels. One's clearance level is never specifically attached to a project/program. Hence, you would never have a named clearance level with a program name. That causes many problems, which I cannot discuss. But should be easy for an intelligent person to figure out.
UPDATE 7-15-2009
Check out this link for a CIA 1954 document with a date using this style 08 APR 54
0 comments:
Post a Comment