The intent of this section is to provide the reader with an overview of authentication, not a step-by-step march through all the logic and supporting materials that we have developed and uncovered in this ongoing and authentication effort. We are in the process of writing a book, making a documentary and expanding our research.

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Where is the evidence?” That quotation from Carl Sagan captures the essence of skepticism by scientists today, and they're looking for more proof than they can get from fuzzy photographs and from testimony based on distant memories. What we have here is the evidence. We have scores of documents, hundreds of thousands of words, hundreds of pages, of which most are top secret code word. Not just photocopies, but originals with real inks, watermarks and testable paper. The vast majority has never been seen before.

We present here the detailed documentation that seems to place the stamp of reality upon the recovery of crashed extraterrestrial vehicles by the United States from 1947–1954. This validates what most people already accept: there is extraterrestrial life and we are not alone. This presentation by Dr. Robert M. and Ryan S. Wood follows chronologically a paper evidence trail left by former Presidents, military and intelligence leaders of the time. It tells what they did to keep the alien artifacts from our enemies, to learn the secrets of alien technology, and to advance science. While many might say that today's secrecy is unethical, evil and unconstitutional it can be cogently argued that the original men were patriots not only for our country, but also for all mankind by reducing the risk of nuclear war. However, equally powerful arguments build the case that the leaders are criminals for abrogating the Constitution and for denying the entire planet of significant advances in standard of living and quality of life for the least 30 years.

Research on the authenticity of this rich set of documents is a continuing process, and equally important is the search for witnesses willing to share their first hand experience and to confirm the accuracy of the documentation.

On the issue of authenticity, we'd also like to note that in ufology there has been a lot of friction and animosity and people jumping up and saying “Well, you can't prove it's real because...,” and this “might have been,” or it “should have been,” or it “could have been...” What we like to do is to deal with facts and specifics, not generalities. You'll see this theme as we proceed. But we admit that authenticity is never certain, even with an original. If you can't date the paper, you can't ever say for sure that it's authentic. And we don't have original documents yet. But, the kind of question you have to ask is how do you tell the difference between the real and the fake? This is where Bob's experience and background come into play. During the 1970s, his job at McDonnell Douglas was to design radar algorithms that would help recognize the difference between a large re-entry vehicle containing a nuclear weapon and a small decoy designed to fool the radar. He developed several successful discriminants that, when applied, yielded statistically significant accuracy in distinguishing between true RVs and decoys. It is these same techniques that we're trying to use in principle here to tell the difference between fake documents and genuine documents. There is no a priori reason to favor one over the other before applying some logical tests. The net result should be something that you could take to a courtroom and say something like, “The probability is ten to the minus four that these documents are not genuine.”

The criteria that we use are quite specific, and there are five. First, is anything we know about the original — whatever that is, even if it's a roll of film, it is the original for us, even though it might have come from some earlier original. Second, you look at the typography, namely the type, the style, the paper, the insignia and the chirography and evaluate the handwriting and signatures. Third, look for things that are out of place chronologically. Fourth, check the content and its links and consistency with other classified documents and between documents in the outside world. And fifth, then look at provenance — provenance of course dealing with the origination of the documents and the chain of ownership that has occurred. Now, our weakest link is the provenance because we can't prove that Timothy Cooper got these documents out of his mailbox the way he says he did. Overall, there are some things we call “zingers,” and this is something we'll discuss later. An example is the raised “z” in one of the documents. A “zinger” is one argument so impressive that — all alone — it says the document is authentic.