It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

military UFO manual

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   


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.


As a military manual, it was meant to be in use for quite a while. The term satellite is hardly surprising, as this is only three years prior to a satellite launch. Do you really think they came up with the concept, built, and then launched a functional satellite all within three years? No, hell, they even had ideas about bases on the moon this early. So the idea of a satellite soon being a viable explanation is not out of scope here. Nor does this compare to the other aspects of the document which point to authenticity.


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:


Well, first off, SOME of the docs mentioned are not as highly regarded, so factoring them in, is basically then an assumption on the debunker that THOSE docs are genuine!
So basically, he's trying to use the same kinds of documents he's trying to debunk, to support the debunking of another such document! Talk about circular logic! And just how much is "several" anyhow. Lets assume the docs are all correct, giving us nine bodies. I'd say "several" is a pretty accurate term. What else would one use? Dozens? Well that wouldn't be accurate, now would it? So, the next argument is blown to hell also...


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."


Well, as a former Lockheed brat, I can tell you that it was denoted on maps and docs as A-51 pretty much since it's inception. Likewise, it appears on a blackboard in a Lockheed U-2 training film (though I can't recall the year, I believe it was earlier than that...)


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."


So now the absence of information is cited as evidence of debunking?
Priceless! Page 12 is missing also btw...


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. "


Extremely rare, but not unheard of...again, proves nada. Supposedly, the manual was put out by those in the know of such things, so they're much more likely to be familiar with such craft than Wood or Klass, hehe....

BTW, Klass is pretty much a known debunker, who accepts any mundane explanation that even partially fits the facts.


" 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. "


And yet, no listing of these apparent flaws, or other UFOlogists who signed? No doubt some of the Majestic documents are frauds....but as I pointed out in another thread, there are LOTS of documents pointing to their existence.

I too believe the Alien Autopsy video to be a fake...but I also believe it may be possible disinfo. Made as a fake, for plausible deniability, but at the same time, including factual details. I keep asking myself, why go to the detail of the eye membranes? Where'd the idea come from?

As for Corso, he's not just some chump. We're talking about a Pentagon Major here, who worked with very covert R&D projects. We're talking about an underling of General Trudeau (highly connected to UFO events, almost as much as Twining), and well known to Senator Thurmond (highly connected to Roswell). (whom, if I recall, wrote the foreword to Corso's book).




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Thirddensity and Gazrok:

Yes, I'm a newbie.

But Mr. Klass' articles where the most extensive I could find so far.
I only wanted to pass along the info to the group and see what happens.

If Thirddensity can prove him being a "disinformation agent",
then I will certainly skip anything he (Klass) wrote in my future researches!

Actually, Gazrok's insider knowledge in regard to Watertown's map denotation prior to 1958 has pretty much done the job-

but how would I know about this if I hadn't taken the freedom of posting my findings.

Still I think the satellite argument is valid:

Is'nt it strange that SOM 1-01 even contains the directive of convincing UFO witnesses of other explanations?
Wouldn't this go without saying for Majestic agents?
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"



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen. I was wondering if anyone has taken a look through the various .pdf UFO documents available @ the NSA's site here > www.nsa.gov...
Im just about to sit down with a few beers and read through some of them.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

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"


They are called "cover stories". These are stories that are thought up by the powers that be to suppress the truth in anything that they choose.

An example from Scientific America:

Cover stories may be established for unacknowledged programs in order to protect the integrity of the program from individuals who do not have a need to know. Cover stories must be believable and cannot reveal any information regarding the true nature of the contract. Cover stories for Special Access Programs must have the approval of the PSO [Program Security Officer] prior to dissemination.

Full article: www.chrononhotonthologos.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
so you think the explicit directive of using "Cover Up Stories" was necessary to give Majestic members a legitamition for deliberate falsehood?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Of course I meant "Cover Stories" . Not "Cover Up Stories" !



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   

If Thirddensity can prove him being a "disinformation agent",
then I will certainly skip anything he (Klass) wrote in my future researches!


I know there's some good stuff out there about this, I may get around to that before 3rd density.

As for "Watertown", that was mostly CIA calling it that (after Dulles' hometown)
A-51 had a lot of nicknames, "The Farm", "The Skunkworks", "Paradise Ranch", etc. (just off the top of my head). As far as I know, most that I've heard from about being there, just called it "Groom", but the A-51 was used whenever it had to be in written form, from pretty early on....

I can certainly understand the skepticism on the use of the term "satellite" but I still think that is easily owed to forward thinking. Writers of the manual probably thought we'd have satellites up within months, not years, just as 10 years ago we were sure we'd have a station on the moon by now... Then again, for all we know, the first satellites might have been military, and could have gone up (from either or both sides), earlier than Sputnik for all we know....

I'm not sure if this has been done (but I'll sure check on it), but it occurs to me that one of the ways of authenticating this, might lie with the document references mentioned in the manual. If one can find documents that were only recently declassified, but with matching numbers to that mentioned in the manual, you'd certainly have a winner.



so you think the explicit directive of using "Cover Up Stories" was necessary to give Majestic members a legitamition for deliberate falsehood?


If anything, it was probably only a friendly reminder...hardly uncommon in military manuals. I'm sure the Blue Team needed no such reminder, but I'm not surprised to see it in there.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
... and LEGITIMATION .
I need to calm down.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'll get to the Klass stuff when I get home for you.

Another note on the satellites. Could the term satellite be a form of obfuscation in itself? Isn't a satellite someting that orbits a planet? If the UFO was orbiting earth, then the use of the word satellite is perfectly clear.

So a disinformation artist would know that we had no man made satellites and use this fact to disprove the document while disregarding the definition of satellite being something that orbits a planet.

Therefore, I have no problem with the term satellite being used. Are you with me?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

maybe that's just a "friendly reminder".
But why so many suggestions for a good Cover Story?


I don't think they were suggestions, as much as just reminders of some common things that were policy.


You might have read a lot of secret manuals, but I say that's needless and uncommon.


Not really, but I have read quite a few military manuals, and it often seems that the manual writers are convinced that the GIs reading them are complete idiots for some reason....



Did you find any references concerning the missing pages during your research?


I did actually look again last night. I even found a site that had a separate link to each page....including 12! But, it was a dead link
All the other pages were there (the standard ones), but not the missing ones. As of yet, I've been unable to find them, as I don't think the person receiving them ever got all of them...



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I'm not with you at this point, but I appreciate any effort you undertake to convince me.
No need to hurry, I will quit for today since it's bedtime for me here in Germany.

Until I fall asleep, I will still wonder why the pages with the alien pics have not been sent to Mr. Berliner.

Probably they are too disturbing.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
As far as the term "Area 51" is concerned, anyone that actually passed the Land-Nav course in the military will tell you that it is a specific map of a location in the US. The US defense mapping agency broke the US down into 'areas' that are numbered for simple ease of use. There is actually an "Area 52" which is around Dugway, Utah but has absolutely nothing to do with Aliens or UFO's, well as far as we know anyways. Area 52 was an area that had something to do with chem/bio stuff during the cold war. If I remember right, and I could be wrong, the mapping agency has had this system of map 'areas' sometime around WWI.

[edit on 12-1-2005 by n01ukn0w]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
the manual was not written for GIs, right?

May I conclude from the fact that you are still searching for the missing pages, that you believe Berliner was not the only "Debunker" who obtained the document?

Best,
*Pop*



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Thank you,

do you know if this mapping system was in effect prior to 1958 already?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Gazrok saved the day for me


I was completely convinced for a sec that document was de-bunked


Aren't many asteroids called satelites as well?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


And yet, no listing of these apparent flaws, or other UFOlogists who signed?


" We believe this to be a hoax document; a deliberate fake designed to mislead the public and to plant false information in the UFO research community by person or persons whose motives are unknown. Deliberately planted false information ("disinformation") such as this forces investigators to waste their time checking on its validity rather than on more productive efforts. Our general reasons for concluding that the manual is a hoax are outlined below (for more specific details, contact the individuals):


(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.

The undersigned parties take UFO reports seriously and advocate thorough scientific investigation. However, when it comes to analysis of 2nd and 3rd and nth generation copies of documents, forensic analysis is almost impossible. Content analysis already has shown serious problems with MJ-12 related documents.

The only way SOM 1-01 and other alleged "documentary proof" of MJ-12 could conceivably be authenticated would be by locating a documentary paper trail of certifiably original documents in government archives, or in private papers of important people. Even then, allegedly authentic documents would need to be subjected to forensic examination to determine such things as the age of the paper. And document experts would need to examine them for internal accuracy and style. Given the track record of fake documents and shoddy scholarship, rigorous peer review is essential.


Signed:

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.

Donald L. Berliner-
Aviation writer and historian. Chairman, Fund for UFO Research. Former U.S. Air Force communications specialist with "crypto" security clearance. Newspaper reporter-photographer, and Capitol Hill correspondent for group of scientific newsletters. Staff member, National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1965-1968.

Thomas P. Deuley-
Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy,retired. Served 14 years in the naval Nuclear Power and Naval Submarine Weapons program. Seven years as a Naval Cryptologic Officer. One year as a Communications Officer in charge of a 24-hour secure communications facility. Six years as a Communications Security (COMSEC) Custodian, Collections Officer, Analyst, and Auditor, and finally as a COMSEC electronics engineer.

Richard H. Hall-
Writer and editor. Former Chairman, Fund for UFO Research. Retired from Congressional Information Service; duties included analyzing and abstracting government documents and reports. Familiarity with Federal Government agencies and activities. Extensive knowledge of all aspects of UFO history. Former Acting Director, National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.

Mark Rodeghier-
PhD, sociology. Consultant in survey research, statistical analysis, and research design. Scientific Director, J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies. Extensive UFO research experience, including participation in investigation of the Roswellcase, and collection and analysis of government documents.


Note: Additional signers may be added at a later date. "

SOURCE: www.cufos.org...

[edit on 13-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 13-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I was mistaken in my history about the US Defense Mapping Agency. The US DMA was officially started in 1972. The new agency is the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. The US has been doing mapping surveys since 1803 when the US purchased the Louisiana territory from France.

See history of the US NGIA here www.nga.mil....

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. When I was in the US Marines, during the Land-Nav classroom training someone brought up the subject about Area 51 and where the numbers came from, as we were using one for the Camp Lejeune, NC area and that map had it's own area number as well. They had a map of the US with it broken down into the different areas. Now I can't remember exactly what the instructor told us about that other than the system has been in place for a long time. Something does however keep popping up in my head about WW1 or maybe even WW2.

I'm sorry if this has further confused anyone. Does anyone else remember anything from their military days?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I see you have edited your original post-

Now the reader will think I associate WW1 with the time period of the late fifties ...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Written for GIs? Yes, given the folklore about the "Blue Team", which are essentially GIs trained for crash site retrieval. Someone had to comb all over the Roswell site and pick up every little piece. You don't think the suits did it do you?



(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.


We're dealing with an agency outside of normal security protocals. None of this was intended to be viewed by anyone outside MAJIC if it exists. The ability to trace or verify them was not needed nor desired. As for conforming to presidential orders, I wasn't aware the debunker was privy to the classified versus public executive orders of past presidents?
So far, pretty flimsy...


(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.


So now accurate information means it's false? Wow, great effort so far!



(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.


No, it would include things like how to box things up, ship them, where to ship them to....oh wait, it has all that doesn't it?
Wouldn't include things mistaken for UFOs? Of course it would! To aid with cover stories! The back history is simply to satisfy curiousity so they can get to the point of the manual. If you were looking at a manual for a Hawk missile system, you'd see a backstory behind it as well.


(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


If you're reading the book (i.e. TS/MAJIC clearance), then you're qualified, hehe... Oh, and I suppose the debunker knows the best way to crate up alien hardware or bodies? Do, pray tell! Actually, the references by the way, DO check out, and reference real (non-classified) documents, and this is what has impressed many researchers the most about them.


Signed:

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.


Am I the only one that caught the COSMIC TOP SECRET reference here? C'mon! That's like having the fox guard the hen house folks!!!

A great effort by Klass and company, but not biting....



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.


Well, "officially", the AEC used the "area" designations there in '58, but as far as I know, it was merely an acknowledgement of existing numbered test areas, such as those used at Nellis. I can't recall ever seeing the nicknames used in writing (but have heard them used in training videos...especially Lockheed's favorite, "Skunk Works" from some old comic strip as I recall). I'm pretty certain they used the map designations or number designations. For example, our compound in Saudi was often called "the Reservation" or "the Oasis", though in writing, it was always L-160 (L for Lockheed, 160 because I believe it had 160 villas I think).

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Gazrok]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join