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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I provided the exact info you asked for-

A transcript of the document in question, with a complete list of the signers.

Different researchers have different priorities, but the accusation of "Deliberately planted false information" certainly can not be justified , and does not comply with scientific standards of argumentation.

This applies to the conclusions of Philip Klass, the posse around Don Berliner, and finally to your statements, Mr. Gazrok!

Still it speaks for even Mr. Klass that he obviously was not tempted to support his arguments by the use of tiny grimacing icons.




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Maybe someone would be able to let us have a looksy at a more general recovery manual for comparision?


d1k

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Can someone please post a new working link to this pdf, the OP's link is broken. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Check my link, it works...


Well Gazrok-

I provided the exact info you asked for-

A transcript of the document in question, with a complete list of the signers.

Different researchers have different priorities, but the accusation of "Deliberately planted false information" certainly can not be justified , and does not comply with scientific standards of argumentation.

This applies to the conclusions of Philip Klass, the posse around Don Berliner, and finally to your statements, Mr. Gazrok!

Still it speaks for even Mr. Klass that he obviously was not tempted to support his arguments by the use of tiny grimacing icons.


Yes, you provided what was requested, thank you.

All I'm saying is, is the inclusion of verifiable factual information evidence of a forgery? That seems to be one of Klass' claims, and I'd hardly say that complies with scientific standards. Additional evidence of fraud is likewise assumption based on assumption. Personally, the most troubling thing about Klass' debunking crew, is the inclusion of someone acknowledging "Cosmic" level clearance. As most UFOlogists know, this is as good as saying "look at me, I'm "majestic", hehe..." As for the icons, perhaps Mr. Klass simply has grossly underestimated the power of the humble smiley....alas...*sigh*


Interesting idea, for the comparison... Unfortunately, it would be like apples and oranges. Let's take a recovery manual for foreign aircraft for example. It would state agencies to contact, involving the local authorities, etc. None of this would be comparable with the recovery of a UFO. You can't call the local police, or anyone else for that matter. It'd have to be much more self-reliant.

I'm not saying it's genuine either, just that the evidence pointing to it being a fraud, is less than solid. Honestly, the one glaring point for me is the "satellite" reference. While it could be forward thinking, it is a valid argument nonetheless. As for satellite referring to celestial objects in general, that doesn't wash, as it specifically states "downed" satellites, implying they are manmade. If not genuine though, then perhaps disinformation. The ommission of the photos supports this hypothesis perhaps. I'm just not so sure either way on this, but there are still many who are much more knowledgable in this field, and so far, I've seen more stating high confidence in the document, than those denouncing it.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
As for satellite referring to celestial objects in general, that doesn't wash, as it specifically states "downed" satellites, implying they are manmade.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Gazrok]



I expected a very harsh reaction from you, now I'm surprised.

Still I think the comparision would not be like apples and oranges, but between pip fruits.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
....If not genuine though, then perhaps disinformation. The ommission of the photos supports this hypothesis perhaps. I'm just not so sure either way on this, but there are still many who are much more knowledgable in this field, and so far, I've seen more stating high confidence in the document, than those denouncing it.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Gazrok]


I'm in total greement with you about this document.

There is one other little trail, essentially, its origin.

If I recall correctly, this was first sent as a roll of film to Don Berliner ?

Lets all take a sec to read a brief overview of the history of this document, and the man who received it, here

If I read that right, then Don Berliner himself considers it a hoax.

In any case, is it a tad weird that the authors of Crash at Corona, Don & Stanton, both are implicated in the reception of MJ12 papers from anonymous sources?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

If I recall correctly, this was first sent as a roll of film to Don Berliner ?

Lets all take a sec to read a brief overview of the history of this document, and the man who received it, here

If I read that right, then Don Berliner himself considers it a hoax.

In any case, is it a tad weird that the authors of Crash at Corona, Don & Stanton, both are implicated in the reception of MJ12 papers from anonymous sources?


You are correct. As for MJ12 though, in my current research of going through FOIA files, I have seen references to a "working group" that fits all of the criteria of MJ12, just not named as such. The project is still in progress, but I'm still going through the thousands of documents. (and in "spare" time, which isn't much, hehe...)

Personally, I'm more intrigued with the doc that actually spells out what the MAJIC anagram stands for...(Military Assessment of Joint Intelligence Committee). Such a group would be about right considering this was right before the creation of the CIA, and this could have served as the precursor to the idea of central intelligence, in light of the alien problem. The dates of the Roswell recovery, the MAJIC being established, as well as Security Act creating the Air Force and the CIA, all add up.


I expected a very harsh reaction from you, now I'm surprised.


Just calling it like I see it. I think that if the manual isn't genuine, it was put out as disinfo from a source who knows more than they're telling, and that it contains more fact than fiction. I still think there's more pointing to authenticity than otherwise, but yes, the satellite reference does cast some doubt. I'm comfortable with the A-51 reference, for reasons I've already stated. Watertown was the usually referred to name of the base in '54, but I can't recall ever seeing that in print anywhere officially...and A-51, S-4 would fit the convention better.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Gazrok]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

but yes, the satellite reference does cast some doubt. I'm comfortable with the A-51 reference, for reasons I've already stated. Watertown was the usually referred to name of the base in '54, but I can't recall ever seeing that in print anywhere officially...and A-51, S-4 would fit the convention better.


I'm glad you agree with me in regard to the satellite part.

I must have mistaken you partially as I always thought you were someone who has a framed copy of SOM 1-01 hanging over his bed ...
English is not my mother tongue, you know.

Anyway I wonder why Mr. Klass claims that the synonym "Area 51" had not been used before 1958, and adduces this as a main reason for the manual being a fake.
From what I've read here, it does not seem to be too difficult to prove him wrong in this matter-
so why did he fail to verify his claim if he was seriously trying to debunk the document, or did not develop more subtle strategies if his mission is to confuse?
Whatever his motivation may be, how can a rather smart man make such a dumb move?

Also I have noticed that the joint statement includes an interesting invitation:

"Our general reasons for concluding that the manual is a hoax are outlined below (for more specific details, contact the individuals)"

Don Berliner, 703/684-6032

Richard Hall, 301/779-8683

Did anyone ever try that?
I would certainly call if I could speak their language better!
(These are telephone numbers, no?)

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Military manuals are a bit of a specialty for me. I used to take care of my sections manuals, since we were system maintainence, and assisted the NCOIC of the Tech library in maintaining manuals.

A few things to keep in mind about manuals. When new info or whatever comes along, and must be changed in the manuals, they do not print a new manual. They print changes. Those changes are published, and added to the appropriate section of the manual, so one can see what the original proceedure, specs, ect was, and what the new one is. Until a new manual is published, changes are simply added. Since many manuals are usually cut from their binding and put into 3 ring binders, making changes easier to put in, missing pages, or pages that do not seem to follow their proper order, are actually VERY common. Even in classified manuals, which i WORKED WITH A BIT TOO. yOUD BE SURPRISED, THAT EVEN IN CLASSIFIED MANUALS, TYPOS AND ERRORS ARE ALSO QUITE COMMON, HENCE, THIS IS WHY CHANGES ARE OFTEN ADDED TO THEM AS WELL.

Needless to say, I personally was VERY impressed with the MJ-12 manual, as from my own experience with technical manuals, and field manuals....I didnt really find anything inconsistant. For those who think theres too much info in them to be real, you obviously have never seen a real military manual. They spend 20 pages alone listing regulations and other manuals simply explaining the authority for that document. Manuals are written with as much information as possible, step by step, because they are going to be read by people of varying levels of comprhension and intelligence, and thus, must be easy for even idiots to use.

A good example is in the Chemical and biological survival section of the standard field manual. One section tells you, step by step, the proper proceedure for taking a crap in a chemical, biological, or nuclear environment, while wearing your protrective suit. It even includes the step, once your in position, that reads: step 5: eliminate waste.

So, as you can see, there really isnt as much deviation as you think, and Ill say it again, when I downloaded this manual and read it, I was pretty damn impressed. If this is a hoax, it was one deliberately and masterfully perpetrated by the US govornment higher ups, by their own publications people.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
They spend 20 pages alone listing regulations and other manuals simply explaining the authority for that document. Manuals are written with as much information as possible, step by step, because they are going to be read by people of varying levels of comprhension and intelligence, and thus, must be easy for even idiots to use.


Your statement can be used against the SOM manual as well.

It's seems to consist of only 30 pages, with lots of background information, and a lack of detailed step-by-step information. Rather short I would think.
When I was in the service, we had a manual on how to attach loudspeakers to the helicopters, which had about 80 pages for example.
I reject the argument that a super-duper top secret manual has to be understandable for people of varying levels of comprehension and intelligence", especially "idiots" Majestic idiots?
Also, the satellite reference could easily have been added in later updates. And still it would be needless.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Yes, idiots. Even in the "black" world, you still have newbies who still need everything laid down for them.

Military manuals are also designed to leave nothing open to interpretation. They are there to lay everything out so there leaves little to chance, and even repetive or seemingly unecessary information is posted to ensure total clarification on everything. When such gaps are found, changes and additions are added.

From what I have seen of the manual, the 30 pages it shows does not seem that odd to me, as it appears that the latter section, with all refrences, regs, ect, and the index, is missing. It seems we only have part of the manual, minus the changes, additions, ect.

I still dont see any good arguements made here against its legitimacy. And I myself have questioned the orginal MJ-12 documents.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Yes, If the manual is for newbies, then I have less problems concerning the content.
But it's "For Majestic Eyes Only"-
and I'm sure these eyes would be basically trained in order to determine "triangular shaped Ufos" from "cigar shaped UFOs" before they would see a crash site.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Not necessarily. Those eyes who see the crash sites have to be trained sometime. As people retire, move on, ect, replacements must be trained as well. standard military tour within a single unit is usualy 2-3 years. and this is over 50 years ago. That means ALOT of new blood has to be added to the team over time. And those newbies have to start somewhere.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Hey mrk


Interesting thread indeed. I clicked on your link but got this response.



Not Found
The requested URL /mrk/root/temp/ufomanual.pdf was not found on this server.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apache Server at www.fixit-4u.net Port 80






Can someone click on the link and get it. It maybe my computer or something is shutting down this link.

If you have success great if not then hopefully someone has save this document.

You can U2U me instead of replying to this link.

thanks guys.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Yes...there exists a manual for 'contact' procedures in the military.........
If extra terrestrials were NOT actually coming here, I doubt there would be such a manual.
I think the existance of this PROCEDURE OUTLINE is as close to proof as they are willing to devuldge. Proof, meaning that they REALLY exist......and are really coming to this planet.....



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Not necessarily. Those eyes who see the crash sites have to be trained sometime. As people retire, move on, ect, replacements must be trained as well. standard military tour within a single unit is usualy 2-3 years. and this is over 50 years ago. That means ALOT of new blood has to be added to the team over time. And those newbies have to start somewhere.


Well, I was browsing the "Majestic Personnel" section on Majesticdocuments.com yesterday-
I think when these guys joined the group, they were not the kind of newbie you are speaking of ...
wouldn't they have smashed the manual into the corner if they had to learn:

"The degree of decomposition of organic remains will vary depending on the length of time the remains have been lying in the open unprotected and may be accelerated by both local weather conditions and action by predators" ?

(From Section II - Non-Living Organisms, page 19)


[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Of course not. Doesnt matter. They may have had varying specialties and knowldge in different areas.

But to the whole majestic project, to the reality of Alien life, ect...they were newbies.

A biologist, for example, might be the best in his field. However, he is going to be totally unfamiliar with alien life forms, for, more than likely, he probably never believed they existed.

Thus, once he is in the fold, he needs to learn how the powers that be do things, their standard operating proceedures, ect. He will have to go through a course, to familairize himself with everything dealing with ETs and such.

More thAn likely, those drafted into the MJ-12 team came from various special forces groups, who were picked for perhaps their efficency, inteeligence, and ability to keep their mouths shut.

They then must be trained. Familiarized with what they will be dealing with. Contrary to what many people think, soldiers arent necessarily braindead grunts. Depending on their specialties, their military training will include basic physics, basic biology, ect. We DO learn more than just blowing things up you know.

An SO manuals is designed to give a standard, easy refrence to leave no question to what must be done or what is expected. The information in the manual is not out of character with what such an operation might entail. Special units dealing with retrievals need to know this stuff, since they will be retrieving shipping, packing, and handling the stuff, so, they must learn how quick dead ETs decay, what sorts of radiation/contamination, ect, so they can better ensure the stuff is handled and packed properly so it will make it to the lab or whever as usable material.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
they must learn how quick dead ETs decay... ect, so they can better ensure the stuff is handled and packed properly


Obviously, they do not have to learn how to distinguish dead aliens from living, or temporarily unconscious aliens ...

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Yes they do, so they dont accidentally pack a barely living but revivable alien into a corpse freezer.

Military field manuals for medics describe what to look for to determine if a human is living or dead. If medics must betrained to know this fundimental difference on humans, than special ops certain need to know how to determine it it alien life forms. Because perhaps death is different in aliens, who might appear to be alive, or a living alien, in a state of suspended animation, perhaps from some sort of onboard device, will not end up being put in a morgue and dissected while still alive.

Again, you dont understand military manuals, how very nitpicky they are, and how specific. Nothing is left to chance. See exampkle above about crapping in a biological environment.

The proceedure for that, to simplify it, is dropping your chemical pants and regular uniform, taking a dump or piss without touching anything, then using a decon wipe on your ass to clean off contamination, then pulling the pants back up. Yet this simple proceedure takes a page and a half to explain, and about 12 steps to do, including the step, instructing the soldier to "eliminate his waste".

The manuals leave nothing open to interpretation, even the act of crapping must be outlined in a specific step and detailed. If that much info is needed in the military's eyes to instruct soldiers in the proper way to piss in MOPP 4, then its easy to see what they would want to explain to soldiers handling possible dead or living aliens.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Yes they do, so they dont accidentally pack a barely living but revivable alien into a corpse freezer.

Military field manuals for medics describe what to look for to determine if a human is living or dead. If medics must betrained to know this fundimental difference on humans, than special ops certain need to know how to determine it it alien life forms.


I'm with you, so why does the manual not treat the topic?

It explicitly adresses to "non-medical personnel"(Section II #5, page 18), discusses states of decomposition, but not the states of consciousness.

That doesn't make sense, and is as inconsistent as your previous two posts.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join