Before we move on to a summary of new information, let us mention some-
thing we neglected to state in our earlier ravings: Apparently long deceased
Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter was the most important member of this group
of twelve, because his name comes first on the list (he is referred to as “MJ-
1″) and because he was allegedly the briefing officer who presented this
startling information to president-elect Dwight Eisenhower on or about Nov.
18th, 1952. Hillenkoetter, after retirement from his position as first dir-
ector of the CIA, became a member of the board of directors of NICAP, circa
1957. Can anyone seriously believe he would have dared to OPENLY join a pro-
UFO organization if he had the KNOWLEDGE of UFO reality that the “MJ-12″
briefing document leads us to assume???

We have already published our exclusive information from Dr. Ernest
Taves, a very close friend of Dr. Donald Menzel, who apparently was “MJ-10″.
Taves, like others who knew Menzel well, cannot believe that the long-de-
ceased former director of Harvard Observatory could have had this above-men-
tioned knowledge of UFO reality and still have written 3 anti-saucer books,
and still have debunked UFOs emotionally at every opportunity. Yet Moore and
Friedman see nothing amiss here, and have in fact written long, detailed re-
buttals re the “Menzel Connection” and all other negative evidence that has
been brought up in regard to “MJ-12″. They do seem to believe what they are
saying!

CUFOS, in an editorial by Jerry Clark in the May-June issue of the “In-
ternational UFO Reporter”, and in a more recent press release, seems general-
ly supportive of “MJ-12″, and claims that the “verdict is still open.”

MUFON has expressed various opinions, swaying pro and con. They used our
Taves material in a recent issue of their Journal, and in the August issue of
their Newsletter, edited by MUFON’s Massachusetts director James Melesciuc,
they state: “The results of the MJ-12 circus created by Moore, Shandera and
Friedman could be detrimental to the future of document research. The hunger
for publicity or for financial gain by any type of self-styled expert can be
as damaging to the subject as the crackpots and fanatics. Moore and Friedman,
of all people, should realize that by promoting evidence loaded with loop-
holes, will cause people to question the quality of their research and would
be disastrous to their reputations….”

Needless to say, CSICOP, as personified by Phil Klass, issued a totally
negative press release, based on insufficient information, in our opinion.
Much more interesting than the CSICOP release is the September issue of “Just
Cause”, published by Lawrence Fawcett and Barry Greenwood. In an article en-
titled “The MJ-12 Fiasco,” they give a vast amount of detailed negative data
that no student of this matter should overlook. (Address: P. O. Box 218,
Coventry, CT., 16238). To this Bill Moore’s only comment (to us, by phone)
is: “Sour Grapes.”

“Just Cause” introduces into the fray the name of a present or former
intelligence officer named Richard Doty, assigned to Kirtland Air Force Base,
New Mexico. The magazine alleges that Doty may very likely be Moore’s source.
Alas, when we said in our last “Smear” that “we believe we have the name of
the probably perpetrator”, it was Doty to whom we were referring. We have
thus been “scooped”, but never mind: Moore admits knowing Doty, but denies
that Doty is his source. So the mystery deepens!

Phil Klass, relying largely on information from British researcher Chris-
topher Allan, has made a big deal out of the fact that the “MJ-12″ briefing
paper uses an unusual format in writing the dates, which happens to be ex-
actly the same unusual format that Bill Moore uses in writing HIS dates. Our
comment is: Whereas the notorious Straith Letter Hoax of 1957 DID reflect
Gray Barkers’ stylistic peculiarities, since it was written late one drunken
night with no forethought, Moore would have to be remarkably stupid or insane
to make such a naive mistake. If the dating similarity means anything, it
more likely means that the REAL hoaxter was trying deliberately to frame
Moore!

So, to get to the point: It appears that most thoughtful Ufologists be-
lieve “MJ-12″ is possibly or probably a hoax, and some Ufologists, plus all
of the debunkers, believe that Moore & Co. are behind it. Our position is
that, although “MJ-12″ is a hoax in all probability, Moore’s group is NOT
behind it. On to our exclusive information:

Your humble “Smear” editor spent large parts of three days with Moore
and Shandera recently (Sept. 23-25), in Burbank, California, discussing “MJ-
12″ and related topics. We were left with the strong impression that they
are, if anything VICTIMS of a complex sophisticated hoax that has engulfed
them for several years – a DISINFORMATION campaign of some sort, for what
purpose we do not know.

Ufologists don’t seem to realize that Moore has been involved since 1980
in the receipt of supposed “inside” government information from first one in-
formant, and eventually several, on a more or less continuing basis. Like
“Deep Throat” in the Watergate Scandal, these informants do not always hand
him answers, but they tell him where to look. As a result, Moore has given up
his literary career, which looked very promising after the publication of
“The Roswell Incident” (with Charles Berlitz) in 1980, and has devoted all of
his spare time to research related to these ufological matters. He earns a
bare living by selling UFO books and his own tracts by mail order.

Shandera joined Moore in the quest in 1982. He too has largely given up
his career, which was in film and broadcasting. His financial situation is
better than Moore’s however, as his wife has a very good job in the TV in-
dustry.

Friedman is, it seems, a more passive partner, in that he is merely kept
informed of information received by the other two. He continues to work at a
normal science-related job in his home town in Canada.

Another thing that Ufologists don’t seem to realize is that Moore’s evi-
dence consists of a great deal more than what he has released so far. (Appar-
ently his sources tell him what he can release, and were he to disobey, he
would blow the whole ongoing relationship.) There are other documents, includ-
ing one he claims was given to him for exactly 20 minutes to do what he want-
ed with, and then was taken back. He photographed it and read it into a tape
recorder, in the presence of the agent who lent it to him.

There are also several videotapes. We were allowed to see one 20-minute
tape and most of another. These consist of a supposed agent talking in a tot-
ally disguised voice, answering a list of questions from a supposed newsman.
The agent is disguised, and the newsman has his back to the camera. The prov-
en identities of these two are known to Moore and Shandera, they say. No one
was present at the tapings except these two, plus Moore, Shandera, and the
producer.

The contents of the tapes are Way Out – literally and figuratively. We
have been asked not to print anything about the contents, so we will merely
comment that we find the material literally incredible without further evi-
dence to back it up. Moore & Co. apparently have such evidence and expect to
get more.

The scenario is that by the end of this year, Moore’s informants will
either come forth with more information and public disclosures, or else Moore
will give up on his informants and go public, himself, with all the inform-
ation he has obtained so far. In either case, we are in for some interesting
times!

There is much more to all this, but Space prevents us from rambling fur-
ther in this issue. Re our continuing “MJ-12″ quest: Our sincere thanks to,
among others, Tommy Roy Blann (who now says he has suddenly withdrawn from
the UFO field!); to Jim Speiser of ParaNet; to Antonio Huneeus for material
on the deeply mysterious “Humo Papers” which he has not yet sent (See Next
Issue!); and to the alleged Space People for making all this madness pos-
sible.

Also a tip of the “Smear” sombrero to the various zines that have seen
fit to reprint or condense some of our “MJ-12″ material in earlier issues:
“California UFO”; “Would You Believe?”; “The MUFON Journal”; and (ugh!)
“Skeptical Inquirer”.

a

Organizations involved in controversial issues — particularly those who
encourage or assist members to commit civil disobedience — should be alert to
the possibility of surveillance and disruption by police or federal agencies.

During the last three decades, many individuals and organizations were spied
upon, wiretapped, their personal lives dirupted in an effort to draw them away
from their political work, and their organizations infiltrated. Hundreds of
thousands of pages of evidence from agencies such as the FBI and CIA were
obtained by Congressional inquiries headed by Senator Frank Church and
Representative Otis Pike, others were obtained through use of the Freedom of
Information Act and as a result of lawsuits seeking damages for First
Amendment violations.

Despite the public outcry to these revelations, the apparatus remains in place,
and federal agencies have been given increased powers by the Reagan
Administration.

Good organizers should be acquainted with this sordid part of American history,
and with the signs that may indicate their group is the target of an
investigation.

HOWEVER, DO NOT LET PARANOIA IMMOBILIZE YOU. The results of paranoia and
overreaction to evidence of surveillance can be just as disruptive to an
organization as an actual infiltrator or disruption campaign.

This document is a brief outline of what to look for — and what to do if you
think your group is the subject of an investigation. This is meant to suggest
possible actions, and is not intended to provide legal advice.

POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF government SPYING

|| OBVIOUS SURVEILLANCE

Look for:

* Visits by police or federal agents to politically involved individuals,
landlords, employers, family members or business associates. These visits may
be to ask for information, to encourage or create possibility of eviction or
termination of employment, or to create pressure for the person to stop his or
her political involvement.

* Uniformed or plainclothes officers taking pictures of people entering your
office or participating in your activities. Just before and during
demonstrations and other public events, check the area including windows and
rooftops for photographers. (Credentialling press can help to separate the
media from the spies.)

* People who seem out of place. If they come to your office or attend your
events, greet them as potential members. Try to determine if they are really
interested in your issues — or just your members!

* People writing down license plate numbers of cars and other vehicles in
the vicinity of your meetings and rallies.

Despite local legislation and several court orders limiting policy spying
activities, these investigatory practices have been generally found to be
legal unless significant “chilling” of constitutional rights can be proved.

|| TELEPHONE PROBLEMS:

Electronic surveillance equipment is now so sophisticated that you should not
be able to tell if your telephone converstaions are being monitored. Clicks,
whirrs, and other noises probably indicate a problem in the telephone line or
other equipment.

For example, the National Security Agency has the technology to monitor
microwave communications traffic, and to isolate all calls to or from a
particular line, or to listen for key words that activate a tape recording
device. Laser beams and “spike” microphones can detect sound waves hitting
walls and window panes, and then transmit those waves for recording. In these
cases, there is little chance that the subject would be able to find out about
the surveillance.

Among the possible signs you may find are:

* Hearing a tape recording of a conversation you, or someone else in your
home or office, have recently held.

* Hearing people talking about your activities when you try to use the
telephone.

* Losing service several days before major events.

government use of electronic surveillance is governed by two laws, the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. Warrants for such surveillance can be obtained if there is evidence of a
federal crime, such as murder, drug trafficking, or crimes characteristic of
organized crime, or for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence
information available within the U.S. In the latter case, an “agent of a
foreign power” can be defined as a representative of a foriegn government,
from a faction or opposition group, or foreign based political groups.

|| MAIL PROBLEMS:

Because of traditional difficulties with the US Postal Service, some problems
with mail delivery will occur, such as a machine catching an end of an envelope
and tearing it, or a bag getting lost and delaying delivery.

However, a pattern of problems may occur because of political intelligence
gathering:

* Envelopes may have been opened prior to reaching their destination;
contents were removed and/or switched with other mail. Remember that the glue
on envelopes doesn’t work as well when volume or bulk mailings are involved.

* Mail may arrive late, on a regular basis different from others in your
neighborhood.

* Mail may never arrive.

There are currently two kinds of surveillance permitted with regards to mail:
the mail cover, and opening of mail. The simplest, and least intrusive form is
the “mail cover” in which postal employees simply list any information that can
be obtained from the envelope, or opening second, third or fourth class mail.
Opening of first class mail requires a warrant unless it is believed to hold
drugs …. More leeway is given for opening first class international mail.

|| BURGLARIES:

A common practice during the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO)
was the use of surreptitious entries or “black bag jobs.” Bureau agents were
given special training in burglary, key reproduction, etc. for use in entering
homes and offices. In some cases, keys could be obtained from “loyal American”
landlords or building owners.

Typical indicators are:

* Files, including membership and financial reports, are rifled, copied or
stolen.

* Items of obvious financial value are left untouched.

* Equipment vital to the organization may be broken or stolen, such as
typewriters, printing machinery, and computers.

* Signs of a political motive are left, such as putting a membership list or
a poster from an important event in an obvious place.

Although warrantless domestic security searches are in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and any evidence obtained this way cannot be used in criminal
proceedings, the Reagan Administration and most recent Presidents (excepting
Carter) have asserted the inherent authority to conduct searches against those
viewed as agents of a foreign power.

|| INFORMERS AND INFILTRATORS:

Information about an organization or individual can also be obtined by placing
an informer or infiltrator. This person may be a police officer, employee of a
federal agency, someone who has been charged or convicted of criminal activity
and has agreed to “help” instead of serve time, or anyone from the public.

Once someone joins an organization for the purposes of gathering information,
the line between data gathering and participation blurs. Two types of
infiltrators result — those who are under “deep cover” and adapt to the
lifestyle of the people they are infiltrating, and agents provocateurs.
Deep-cover infiltrators may maintain their cover for many years, and an
organization may never know who these people are. Agents provocateurs are more
visible, because they will deliberately attempt to disrupt or lead the group
into illegal activites. They often become involved just as an event or crisis
is occurring, and leave town or drop out after the organizing slows down.

An agent may:

* Volunteer for tasks which provide access to important meetings and papers
such as financial records, membership lists, minutes and confidential files.

* Not follow through or complete tasks, or else do them poorly despite an
obvious ability to do good work.

* Cause problems for a group such as commiting it to activities or expenses
without following proper channels, or urge the group to plan activities that
divide group unity.

* Seem to create or be in the middle of personal or political difference that
slow the work of the group.

* Seek the public spotlight, in the name of your group, and then make
comments or present an image different from the rest of the group.

* Urge the use of violence or breaking the law, and provide information and
resources to enable such ventures.

* Have no obvious source of income over a period of time, or have more money
available than his or her job should pay.

* Charge other people with being agents (a process called snitch-jackets),
thereby diverting attention from him or herself, and draining the group’s
energy from other work.

THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY SIGNS, NOR IS A PERSON WHO FITS SEVERAL OF THESE
CATEGORIES NECESSARILY AN AGENT. BE EXTREMELY CAUTIONS AND DO NOT CALL ANOTHER
PERSON AN AGENT WITHOUT HAVING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Courts have consistently found that an invividual who provides information,
even if it is incriminating, to an informer has not had his or her
Constitutional rights violated. This includes the use of tape recorders or
electronic transmitters as well.

Lawsuits in Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere, alleging infiltration of lawful
political groups, have resulted in court orders limiting the use of police
informers and infiltrators. However, this does not affect activities of federal
agencies.

|| IF YOU FIND EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE:

* Hold a meeting to discuss spying and harassment

* Determine if any of your members have experienced any harassment or noticed
any surveillance activities that appear to be directed at the organization’s
activities. Carefully record all the details of these and see if any patterns
develop.

* Review past suspicious activities or difficulties in your group. Have one
or several people been involved in many of these events? List other possible
“evidence” of infiltration.

* Develop internal policy on how the group should respond to any possible
surveillance or suspicious actions. Decide who should be the contact person(s),
what information should be recorded, what process to follow during any event or
demonstration if disruption tactics are used.

* Consider holding a public meeting to discuss spying in your community and
around the country. Schedule a speaker or film discussing political
surveillance.

* Make sure to protect important documents or computer disks, by keeping a
second copy in a separate, secret location. Use fireproof, locked cabinets if
possible.

* Implement a sign-in policy for your office and/or meetings. This is helpful
for your organizing, developing a mailing list, and can provide evidence that
an infiltrator or informer was at your meeting. Appoint a contact for spying
concerns. This contact person or committee should implement the policy
developed above and should be given authority to act, to get others to respond
should any problems occur.

The contact should:

* Seek someone familiar with surveillance history and law, such as the local
chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
National Conference of Black Lawyers or the American Friends Service Committee.
Brief them about your evidence and suspicions. They will be able to make
suggestions about actions to take, as well as organizing and legal contacts.

* Maintain a file of all suspected or confirmed experiences of surveillance
and disruption. Include: date, place, time, who was present, a complete
description of everything that happened, and any comments explaining the
context of the event or showing what impact the event had on the individual or
organization. If this is put in deposition form and signed, it can be used as
evidence in court.

* Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, request any files
on the organization from federal agencies such as the FBI, CIA, Immigration and
Naturalization, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, etc. File similar
requests with local and state law enforcement agencies, if your state freedom
of information act applies.

|| PREPARE FOR MAJOR DEMONSTRATIONS AND EVENTS:

* Plan ahead; brief your legal workers on appropriate state and federal
statutes on police and federal officials spying. Discuss whether photographing
with still or video cameras is anticipated and decide if you want to challenge
it.

* If you anticipate surveillance, brief reporters who are expected to cover
the event, and provide them with materials about past surveillance by your
city’s police in the past, and/or against other activitists throughout the
country.

* Tell the participants when surveillance is anticipated and discuss what
the group’s response will be. Also, decide how to handle provocateurs, police
violence, etc. and incorporate this into any affinity group, marshall or other
training.

|| DURING THE EVENT:

* Carefully monitor the crowd, looking for surveillance or possible
disruption tactics. Photograph any suspicious or questionable activities.

* Approach police officer(s) seen engaging in questionable activities.
Consider having a legal worker and/or press person monitor their actions.

|| IF YOU SUSPECT SOMEONE IS AN INFILTRATOR:

* Try to obtain information about his or her background: where s/he attended
high school and college; place of employment, and other pieces of history.
Attempt to verify this information.

* Check public records which include employment; this can include voter
registation, mortgages or other debt filings, etc.

* Check listings of police academy graduates, if available.

|| ONCE YOU OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE IS AN INFILTRATOR:

* Confront him or her in a protected setting, such as a small meeting with
several other key members of your group (and an attorney if available).
Present the evidence and ask for the person’s response.

* You should plan how to inform your members about the infiltration,
gathering information about what the person did while a part of the group and
determining any additional impact s/he may have had.

* You should consider contacting the press with evidence of the infiltration.

|| IF YOU CAN ONLY GATHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BUT ARE CONCERNED THAT THE
PERSON IS DISRUPTING THE GROUP:

* Hold a strategy session with key leadership as to how to handle the
troublesome person.

* Confront the troublemaker, and lay out why the person is disrupting the
organization. Set guidelines for further involvement and carefully monitor the
person’s activities. If the problems continue, consider asking the person to
leave the organization.

* If sufficient evidence is then gathered which indicates s/he is an
infiltrator, confront the person with the information in front of witnesses
and carefully watch reactions.

* Request an investigation or make a formal complaint

* Report telephone difficulties to your local and long distance carriers.
Ask for a check on the lines to assure that the equipment is working properly.
Ask them to do a sweep/check to see if any wiretap equipment is attached
(Sometimes repair staff can be very helpful in this way.) If you can afford it,
request a sweep of your phone and office or home from a private security firm.
Remember this will only be good at the time that the sweep is done.

* File a formal complaint with the US Postal Service, specifying the problems
you have been experiencing, specific dates, and other details. If mail has
failed to arrive, ask the Post Office to trace the envelope or package.

* Request a formal inquiry by the police, if you have been the subject of
surveillance or infiltration. Describe any offending actions by police
officers and ask a variety of questions. If an activity was photographed, ask
what will be done with the pictures. Set a time when you expect a reply from
the police chief. Inform members of the City Council and the press of your
request.

* If you are not pleased with the results of the police chief’s reply, file
a complaint with the Police Board or other administrative body. Demand a full
investigation. Work with investigators to insure that all witnesses are
contacted. Monitor the investigation and respond publicy to the conclusions.

* Initiate a lawsuit if applicable federal or local statutes have been
violated. Before embarking on a lawsuit, remember that most suits take many
years to complete and require tremendous amounts of organizers’ and legal
workers’ energy and money.

* Always notify the press when you have a good story; keep interested
reporters updated on any new developments. They may be aware of other police
abuses, or be able to obtain further evidence of police practices. Press
coverage of spying activities is very important, because publicity-conscious
politicians and police chiefs will be held accountable for questionable
practices.

Prepared by:
Linda Lotz
American Friends Service Committee
980 North Fair Oaks Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91103

a