File:Masterstroke Document.png

Summary
The dubious but quite compelling 'Masterstroke' document available here (May 2018) It was sourced by Voltaire from Argentinian journalist Stella Calloni who published it May 9, 2018 As commentators on Eric Zeusse's May 2019 article for OffGuardian note the style of language is not plausibly that of a native english speaker, also it doesnt use american date format.

Zeusse later commented:

I discovered this document late on May 1st, when Guaido’s coup-attempt was in progress, and I was so flabbergasted that a document which had been around since at least May 2018 and which had been ignored for all this time, could have so accurately described news-events since that time. On May 2nd, when I had just submitted the article to Off-Guardian, reader-comments raised questions immediately about the document’s authenticity, so I sent the article to John Helmer for his opinion on it, and he quickly expressed the view that no one in Tidd’s rank would write like this. I then promptly did some web-searching for examples of Tidd’s writing and speaking, and concluded that Helmer is probably right. I sent him this: — Re: ?authenticity of https://www.voltairenet.org/article201100.html ? Because of https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/02/leaked-usas-feb-2018-plan-for-coup-in-venezuela/ etc., I’m getting questions of the document’s authenticity. It’s not written at all in Tidd’s style. Did Stella Calloni https://www.voltairenet.org/article201159.html and http://www.resumenlatinoamericano.org/2018/05/09/el-golpe-maestro-de-estados-unidos-contra-venezuela-documento-del-comando-sur/ deceive us? She presented a photo of this alleged document, which photo was of a paper document typed in very bad English but was alleged to have been written in English written by a highly literate man, Tidd. See his spontaneous testimony at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg24274/pdf/CHRG-114shrg24274.pdf If it’s fraudulent, I need to know. What is Stella Calloni’s email? Do you know? — The elderly Argentinian Stella Calloni is a trusted source for Thierry Meyssan, and I’ve never yet found any article from Meyssan to be untrustworthy. Calloni is also a hero to Argentina’s anti-fascists and a highly respected journalist there. For example, see this: https://www.ecured.cu/Stella_Calloni Perhaps she didn’t want to expose her own source who had supplied to her such a document as this, and so changed its language (and back again) in order to hide its leaker’s identity. I would have retracted this article, except that its seemingly accurate and detailed description of future events has, thus far, persuaded me not to. Sources of a leak such as this, normally hide. Consider Assange, etc. The apparent prescience of this document outweighs for me other considerations, but my judgment could be wrong here. I feel that each individual should make the decision what to think of it. Different people will come to different conclusions about it. For me, only if someone can point out some major events described in this document which never happened will I request its retraction, but I’m not yet aware of any such. I wrote to Meyssan for Calloni’s email-address, and he hasn’t answered. Probably he never will. For me, the document’s apparent prescience is its authentication. But that’s all.

The 'leaked' document is classified top secret but lacks a 'Classified by' line as per this Pentagon April 1997 Guidance for marked classified documents Although this is not sufficient to discredit its origin. --Diagonal (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed style of it seems dubious. I am not fit to do linguistic analysis, but it seems light/wishy-washy on military side, heavy on political side (Dictator, 2 bla, etc), and have strange to me bits like (basification...of choppers ..., page 7). Is it for the military to plan regime change at all? I would think politicians + 3 letter agencies (who are civilians and not under rules of war, so have more liberties) --Resup (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The document spells the United Nations as "UNO". This is the form used by Voltaire Net even in their English language translations. The origin of the fake must be somewhere nearby. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)