Once again, it appears we will be facing questions concerning the bona fides of certain UFO documents purporting to be of government origin. What can be said without knowledge of the specifics?

Concerning the so-called 'MJ-12' documents, the informed opinion is that these were fakes. But now, just suppose that more 'MJ-12' documents were to surface. Could this do anything to change our views?

How much 'better' would these documents have to be in order to overcome the pall of skepticism cast by its predecessors? Could we not just suppose that the original hoaxer had simply had additional time in which to hone his art?

There is no way to prove the authenticity of any artifact. It is only ever a matter of considered opinion. The opinions will be heavily influenced by speculations concerning human behavior. We cannot venture into that territory without heeding Pascal's warning that "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: we know this in countless ways."

Consider for instance crop circles, the shroud of Turin and Theodore Kasczynski. We have examples of probable major hoaxes juxtaposed with the dedicated anonymous fanatic. With these as a base line, it would be difficult to imagine any artifact that could transcend suspicion. In the case of MJ-12 type documents we would have also to consider the motivations of organizations such as the CIA, KGB, Scientology, etc., just to add to our witches brew.

We come to the conclusion that the provenance of any artifact is not the ultimate issue. The behavior or phenomena that gave rise to the artifact is ultimately moot. The only significant issue is the behavior that an artifact generates. It is either ignored or it is not. Very few individuals can claim to have been able to ignore the original MJ-12 documents. Those documents have left an indelible imprint on the modern psyche. Should we expect anything less of their erstwhile successors?

.

rev. 5/14/98