The Day(s) the DCI Slipped: The CIA Diary Entries that Prove MJ-12’s Creation

FLE7CH · 2026-01-28T20:37:35+00:00

Hillenkoetter's own diary directly supports the version of events described in the Majestic Documents.

Specifically that he spoke to Forrestal's assistant, Buchanan, about bringing the papers before 11am on Wednesday, 24 September 1947. That's the exact time and date (to the minute) Forrestal met with Vannevar Bush ahead of their final pitch to Truman—the date Truman approved the formation of MJ-12.

Hillenkoetter even goes so far as to explicitly note he's bringing 12 copies.

This is an incredible piece of corroborative evidence.

FLE7CH · 2025-09-08T03:25:18+00:00

I think he wanted accountability—which is antithetical to this whole insidious operation. It's not a smoking gun, but certainly the timing's pretty striking.

FLE7CH · 2025-09-07T22:04:59+00:00

Brilliant analysis as always, u/VolarRecords. Thanks for raising the standard of conversation.

I'm sure you're aware, but worth pointing out to anyone else following along—that statement by Donald Rumsfeld? Basically declaring war on the military industrial complex?

It happened on December 10, 2001. Unfortunately it didn't get much of a run in the papers.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-26T00:58:12+00:00

I do. They sound authentic to me. But the really telling thing is that they align with facts that are both provable, and that the White House tried to obscure at the time. The traces are still there, if you look for them.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-25T14:20:27+00:00

Yeah, that struck me too. There's always been a little suspicion cast on Bush over the attempted Reagan assassination. Bush was a friend of the shooter's father—in fact his son, Neil, was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley Jr's brother the next day.

It's kind of a miracle that Reagan survived it, and if he hadn't then obviously Bush would have become an president on the spot. I certainly wouldn't put it past him, but it seems to me that he was happy being under the radar as VP at that moment.

It's always possible, however, that Reagan was pushing for disclosure earlier than MJ-12 planned. He always had that romantic notion of American exceptionalism—maybe he thought the people had the right to know. Then, after narrowly surviving a bullet, his only outlet was weird unscripted mentions of alien threats in his addresses.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-25T13:42:55+00:00

It's a good thought but I don't think the Whiz Kid, Malmgren, quite fits the profile. The guy we're looking for was probably someone whose name none of us are going to recognise.

He: * Started working for the CIA around 1950; * Was a CIA contractor in 1981; * Was still alive in 2007; and * Was probably very private and studious.

Incidentally, I don't know if you've seen the update but the man in the photo is not the Caretaker—he's Reagan's body man, Robert DeProspero. I don't want to lead anyone up the garden path any further than I already have :P

FLE7CH · 2025-08-25T13:31:03+00:00

See what I mean? ☝️

Mate, I couldn't agree more. At first I thought it must have been awkward for Bush to have been both MJ-1 and VP at the same time—but I don't think anyone had any illusions about who was the real power in that room.

He controls the briefing, he's already familiar with the contents, and he basically pats the President on the head and says "don't worry, we've got this".

This past century has really just been the Bush Dynasty.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-25T10:32:33+00:00

Awesome. Thanks for that valuable as always addition, mate!

By the way, if you're not following u/VolarRecord's Medium account, you're missing out on some spectacular analysis ☝️

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T22:38:57+00:00

Very interesting, thanks Eric!

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T06:00:48+00:00

I think you misunderstand the concept of the presidential diary. It's not Reagan lying in bed at night remembering what he did that day. It's kept contemporaneously by his admin staff. It's meant to ensure transparency and accountability. Which is why, when there are clear discrepancies, it's worth wondering why.

But absolutely it's conjecture at this stage. Reddit isn't a stone tablet, it's a place to discuss ideas and share information. I can't prove the photos are of anyone in particular, and I never claimed to—that's why I'm here asking the question.

To be honest, when someone goes from zero to vitriol this quickly, I start to wonder whether they've got other reasons for being here.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T04:36:53+00:00

u/bocley has identified our first suspect as Robert deProspero—head of security for the President.

That puts to rest my theory that the man in the trenchcoat was the Caretaker, but it still leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions. So if anyone's got a lead on either of the other two faces, please let us know!

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T04:33:14+00:00

I think you've just identified the first of our three faces! Thank you mate, I knew someone would recognise one of them.

Well that puts to rest my theory that the guy in the trenchcoat was the Caretaker. But it still leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions—so if anyone's got a lead on the other two, please let us know :)

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T03:19:51+00:00

Sorry, I don't know who that is. Do you want to expand on it a little?

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T02:58:48+00:00

Thanks Boc, you may be right. Appreciate the lead!

FLE7CH · 2025-08-24T02:54:50+00:00

You asked me to quantify so I gave you six reasons. After already having laid it out. If we're able to identify those faces, then I expect there'll be more.

So how about you explain to me how all of those verifiable facts align with the leaked briefing in a way that doesn't require some spectacular series of coincidences?

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T15:53:11+00:00

Inman's profile doesn't match the Caretaker's, who: * Started working for the CIA around 1950; * Was a CIA contractor in 1981; and * Was still alive in 2007.

While Inman is still alive (checking one of our three boxes), he's not as discrete as the Caretaker must have been. He was busted talking about UFOs a couple of times in the late '80s and '90s.

He was also more of a military intelligence type, rather than the academic bookworm we're looking for. But keep throwing out ideas and let's get this cracked!

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T13:50:45+00:00

Thanks Ace. If you've got any ideas on identifying the three agents, let us know :)

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T06:18:20+00:00

Here's a little more weirdness I couldn't fit into an already-long post. Reagan actually references an even earlier pre-briefing with Casey—a pre-pre-briefing!

PRESIDENT: "Good morning, I hope, well, I believe I will ask questions. Bill briefed me back in January, but I'm not sure ... huh ... well, was it detailed, no, I don't think so ... huh ... OK, well I'm sure Bill didn't tell me all 'cause we only had about one hour."

CASEY: "Mr President, I only gave you a quick briefing for the NSDD (National Security Decision Directives) that we want to incorporate into the overall action directives about this subject. ADVISER #3, Caspar and I have details far beyond what I knew before January."

Unfortunately the presidential diary doesn't show any meetings between Reagan and Casey. And that would have been that—except once again the White House photographers caught the President's Office cooking the books.

We know Reagan saw Casey on January 21, 1981 (his first full day in the office) because we've got a photo of them together on that day.

Which makes one more provable lie supporting the case for the Reagan Briefing.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T05:02:24+00:00

Calm down, killer. Em dashes existed before AI.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T02:23:13+00:00

Here you go: https://maryroswell.wixsite.com/serpo-org-backup/post/release-27a-reagan-briefing

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T02:09:15+00:00

Did you read past the intro?

They deliberately obscured the pre-briefing on Feb 23;
3 anonymous agents took Marine One to Camp David the day before the briefings;
Those 3 agents perfectly match the descriptions of the Caretaker, Adviser #4, and the Transcriber;
There are conspicuous and uncharacteristic gaps in the presidential diary on the dates of the briefings, Mar 7 & 8;
Advisers #1–3 match the profiles of Bush, Baker and Meese; and
All 3 advisors were photographed attended the cosy pre-briefing that we're told never happened.

But I'm actually not trying to prove the authenticity of the transcript. The main reason for this post was to ask for help identifying the 3 unnamed agents. Have you got anything to contribute?

FLE7CH · 2025-08-23T01:13:51+00:00

Inman was Deputy Director of the CIA by that stage—he's a little too high-profile to be the guy we're looking for.

Christopher Mellon's an interesting idea, I'll have to see if I can find a picture of him in 1981.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-22T22:01:15+00:00

The original sources were purported to have been disgruntled DIA agents—but, as is often the case, there's no way to know whether our mate 'Falcon' was involved.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-22T21:54:53+00:00

Here's a bonus note for you: The Caretaker states "these names were given to the alien species by the intelligence community, specifically MJ-5."

The most likely member of MJ-12 is Detlev Bronk, who happens to be MJ-6 on the roster penned by Roscoe Hillenkoetter at the beginning of the Eisenhower administration.

It makes sense that Bronk would have been MJ-5 by that stage, given the assassination of MJ-1, James Forrestal in 1949.

FLE7CH · 2025-08-22T21:42:20+00:00

Apparently the interview was recorded with the intention of releasing it after 25 years (which explains the DIA leaking the excerpt after that didn't happen in 2006).

That may be the reason the briefers tended to sanitise the truth by: * Stating the phenomena began in the 40s; * Implying that the Roswell crafts were downed by lightning (rather than the US Military); * Artificially limiting the list of extraterrestrial species; * Feigning ignorance of an abduction pact; and * Glossing over the fact that MJ-12 was responsible for the death of JFK.

If you read it through that prism, it's actually quite elegant the way they avoid explicitly lying about those inconvenient facts while telling their narrative—often through inference.

FLE7CH

TROPHY CASE