It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On p. 4, SOM 1-01 instructs MJ-12 UFO-recovery units on how to keep the press and the public from learning that any UFOs are ET craft by falsely explaining UFO sightings and crashed saucers as "meteors, downed satellites, weather balloons and military aircraft..." (Emphasis added.) But as of April 1954, no man-made earth satellite had ever been launched and more than three years would elapse before the first satellite was launched by the USSR on Oct. 4, 1957.
Some of the discrepancies are a bit subtle. For example, a "Current Situation" status report on p. 3 states that as of early 1954, "Several dead entities have been recovered along with a substantial amount of wreckage and devices from downed craft....One of the crashes was the result of direct military action" (but no details are provided). The Eisenhower briefing document states that four dead ETs were recovered in New Mexico in mid-1947, while two of the Cooper documents report five ET bodies. But nearly seven years later, only "several dead" ETs have been recovered?? SOM 1-01 reports two types of ETs:
SOM 1-01 contains a chart purportedly showing where recovered ET technology should be sent. Seven of the ll categories, including "aircraft" and "powerplant," were to be sent to "Area 51 S4," rather than to Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio where the USAF's aeronautical and propulsion experts were then located. (Thus SOM 1-01 seems to confirm recent-vintage claims that Area 51, located in Nevada and part of Nellis Air Force Base, is used to test and reverse-engineer captured UFOs.) But in 1954, when SOM 1-01 allegedly was printed, that site was known as "Watertown." The "Site 51" terminology was first used in 1958. In Dr. Wood's October UFO talk, he said that SOM 1-01 critics "claim that Area 51 did not exist in 1954." He quoted a Jan. 1951 newspaper article which said "Indian Springs Project Keyed To Defense Plans," but it made no mention of "Area 51."
SOM 1-01's Table of Contents lists "Photographs" on p. 31, but that page was one of those missing from the film received by Berliner. Dr. Wood said that "all those photographs were removed by order of MJ-12 on the 12th of April, 1955," but he did not disclose the source of this information. Wood speculated that the photos showed ETs which MJ-12 officials considered far too sensitive to be included in a document even so highly classified as "TOP SECRET/MAJIC EYES ONLY."
One SOM 1-01 page showed sketches of four predominant UFO configurations. At the time SOM 1-01 (allegedly) was written, the Battelle Memorial Institute (under Project Blue Book contract) was analyzing 1,700 UFO reports which had been submitted to the USAF from 1947 to 1952. When the Battelle report was published in 1955, it cited four different UFO shapes which seemed to defy prosaic explanation. NONE of the four was triangular shaped. But one of the four UFO shapes cited in SOM 1-01 which attracted SUN's attention was triangular in shape with lights at each apex, which closely resembled the triangular-shaped "UFO" photo taken in Belgium in April 1990. Prior to the Belgian UFO photo, which achieved international fame (and the counterfeiter's attention), reports of triangular-shaped UFOs were extremely rare. Another of the UFO configurations cited in SOM 1-01 was shaped like an ice-cream cone, which Wood admitted was unfamiliar to him. "
" As a result of numerous flaws in SOM 1-01, a statement denouncing it as counterfeit was released on March 14, 1999. It was signed by Berliner and several other prominent pro-UFOlogists. By this time, a new batch of more than a dozen Majestic documents obtained from Tim Cooper had recently been made public by Robert Wood and his son Ryan at a UFO conference in Connecticut. They had strongly endorsed the authenticity of the documents, although Wood admitted that there were flaws in them. But he claimed that these anomalies "tend to indicate authenticity. . . . [Document] hoaxers generally try to make sure they are perfect. "
Originally posted by popular mechanics
Did they need so many examples of alternative causes ("meteors, downed satellites, weather balloons and military aircraft...")
"Don't worry, you saw a satellite crashing last night. In a couple of years you will even know what a satellite is"
If Thirddensity can prove him being a "disinformation agent",
then I will certainly skip anything he (Klass) wrote in my future researches!
so you think the explicit directive of using "Cover Up Stories" was necessary to give Majestic members a legitamition for deliberate falsehood?
maybe that's just a "friendly reminder".
But why so many suggestions for a good Cover Story?
You might have read a lot of secret manuals, but I say that's needless and uncommon.
Did you find any references concerning the missing pages during your research?
Originally posted by Gazrok
And yet, no listing of these apparent flaws, or other UFOlogists who signed?
(1) Documents and materials with high classifications have special provisions attached to them to ensure the ability to trace them at all times and to verify their integrity, until they are destroyed or declassified. The security markings on the SOM 1-01 document do not conform to required security procedures established for all agencies by presidential executive orders. In some instances they are totally contrary to established security procedures. No internal evidence exists in the document to show that proper accountability was exercised by the document's custodians.
(2) The inclusion of some accurate information has been cited as proof of authenticity, whereas it could equally well be interpreted as a cut-and-paste job to lend an air of authenticity. Partially legitimate but altered UFO-related documents are already known to exist.
(3) The content of the manual is strikingly inappropriate for its stated purpose. A field manual for dealing with crashed craft and alien bodies would have no reason to include (a) information on UFO history, (b) a chart of UFO types, (c) information concerning radar detection of UFOs, (d) a list of natural and artificial aerial phenomena which can be mistaken for UFOs.
(4) Military manuals of this type establish standards and define tasks which must be performed to accomplish the mission. The manual fails to establish such standards and is completely silent on personnel qualifications and equipment requirements. Furthermore, the methods of recovery and site security described inthe manual are inadequate and tactically unsound. Regulations, materials, and training publication references cited are grossly inadequate or completely missing
Jan L. Aldrich-
Master Sergeant, U.S. Army, retired. Intelligence NCO (and Acting S-2) in European Theater; Security Manager, Top Secret Control Officer, Cosmic Top Secret Control Officer, Communications Security (COMSEC) Custodian, Classified Document Custodian, and Nuclear Release Authentication System. Familiar with protocols for establishing tactical bivouac areas with exclusion areas, operational security, and nuclear weapon accident/incident operations during field deployments. Fort Sill, Okla., Directorate of Training Development, analyzing and developing training manuals and materials.
I do remember that the US has used the term 'Area' and a number to signify different maps of the continental US but, I can not find anything about when they first began using this terminology.