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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I see nothing inconsistent about previous posts.

And as to the information, on different states of conciousness, decomposition, ect, as I stated before, looking at the manual, it appears pages from the document could be missing. Changes, updates, ect, do appear to be missing. From the looks of the manual, it looks like it was a basic copy, one that is issued standard, the change pages, which are issued seperately as the Unit publications coordinator must order them.

So what we are looking at is perhaps an old, very basic copy of a manual that was taken as is, with all its errors, omissions, ect, which by the way, does happen even in highly classified materials. There are probably many pages of updates and changes to the manual that whatever unit uses it, will have, added to the manual, as they become available.

I have this file on my computer, looking at the page you keep bringing up, and I am still trying to see what your arguement is, as I still do not see anything wrong or illogical about it. I have actually seen alot worse inconsistancies in Field manuals and many technical manuals, far more than this one. The only problem I see here are alot of missing sections and appendices.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
By the way, Popular mechanics, I wish i had a scanner and my Psy-ops manual that I have from when I took a course in psychological operations. I wished I could show you so you could better see how these things are set up.

I have decided instead, when I get the time, to find a link to a website that will have such SOMs and FMs and such, where you can read it, and see what I mean.

Im not saying you do not have any good points, just not a very strong one when one examines the nature of manuals themselves.

I shall search for some links and post them here for you. I am not saying the MJ-12 SOM is 100% legit, But to me, it looks 85% certain to be a possibility, the remaining 15% of doubt due to the lack the changes, additions, ect, that are missing. Since this Manual was alledgedly published in 1954, I would imagine it would have many updates and changes, omissions ect. But I dont see anything to that nature.

However, if you do want a freebie from me, Ill give you a little better ground to attack the authenticity of this manual.

Notice in the manual, where it says locations where the crashed craft are to be shipped to Area 51/S-4........Area 51 wasnt even a base back in 54. The Groom Lake facility wasnt even started Until about 1955, and I am not sure, But according to most offical accounts, Area 51 did not recieve that designation until 1956. This manual seems to be published in 54 according to the cover. Now, that in itself is not proof it is fake, as such information could have been added to the manual via a Change sheet. There is the dilema. I do not see a change identifier on the page, though I cannot see the whole page and it could be not visible in the photo. However, judging by the photograph of the page, it seems this manual is in its original binding, thus, no changes added, and that sheet would be original, which would indeed throw alot more doubt on its legitimacy, but not totally. For one, we do not know for certain when Area 51 was designated as such by the AEC, and whether or not there wewre already buildings in S-4. Since it says S-4, that helps a bit. Lockeed built its facility on Groom Lake, and S-4 is in Papoose lake, which in `1954 could have very well had an unknown facility there to store the craft.

This is where my 15% doubt comes from. Again, that is where, if I were you, would attack from, as that is the strongest argument against the manual. The other stuff you have brought up arent very good arguements against it. Just trying to help you out here, as I do prefer to debate people when they have solid arguements against mine, which I think you are probably caspable of, with a bit of guidance.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I see nothing inconsistent about previous posts.

looking at the manual, it appears pages from the document could be missing. Changes, updates, ect, do appear to be missing. (...) it looks like it was a basic copy, one that is issued standard, the change pages, which are issued seperately as the Unit publications coordinator must order them. (...) So what we are looking at is perhaps an old, very basic copy of a manual that was taken as is, with all its errors, omissions, ect (...) The only problem I see here are alot of missing sections and appendices.


If you look at it that way, it's nonsense to discuss the manual at all.

But at least the first issue did definitvely not give any advice on how to determine the states of consciousness.
If you look at the table of contents, you will see that the chapter discussing living and non-living organisms consisted of 3 pages (17-19). These pages are included with the pdf.
The subject would have belonged here.
And you agreed with me that it's an essential issue, so the author's motiviation should have been to give general instruction at least, like "try triggering reflexes" or whatever.
But this sensitive topic has been ignored, or forgotten completely.
That's not usual for any kind of manual, even your VRC documentation tells you to check the power plug if the device is not working.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
You are still missing the point.

Simply because the manual did not definitively give how to check for coinscious aliens, does not mean anything: that is where changes and addition to manuals come in. Since they did not include it in the first printing of the manual, and realized their error, they would have probably added it to a later version of it.

Thats where the importance of the missing pages comes in. This is something that could make or break certain things. Since there seems to be missing parts of the manual, I cannot give a definitive answer on whether or not its real or fake, since pages and documents are missing from it.

It is never pointless to discuss this manual or any other document. I do not waste time discussing pointless things. This document remains controversial, and thus, is a very valid thing to discuss.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

However, if you do want a freebie from me, Ill give you a little better ground to attack the authenticity of this manual.


You got me-

I always bag the freebies!



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You are still missing the point.

Simply because the manual did not definitively give how to check for coinscious aliens, does not mean anything: that is where changes and addition to manuals come in. Since they did not include it in the first printing of the manual, and realized their error, they would have probably added it to a later version of it. It is never pointless to discuss this manual or any other document. I do not waste time discussing pointless things. This document remains controversial, and thus, is a very valid thing to discuss.


The first manual did definitively not give how to check for conscious aliens.

If your point is that major flaws might have been ironed out in later printings-
rest assured, I did not miss it.

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Thats exactly my point. If this manual is legit, it could have been such data was probably added in a change or appendix later on.


Thats why I wish I had more data. Wish there were the changes made available to view, if any, or better photos/copies of the document really.

Anyway, what I am explaining to you are possibilities, as well as a better understanding of military manuals, what they contain, why, ect. The legitamacy of this document still remains wide open for speculation, even I am not full convinced, although I still give it an 85% rating for the possibility.

The part I just told you about area 51 is the only really highly suspect area of the document that I have found, and it is the strongest arguement against the manual, though not totally. Again, missing information here makes to hard for me to pass a final judgement on it.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
As for area 51, the "base" was there at least as early as '51 (oddly enough). It was commonly called "Watertown" then, and in '54.

The official recognition of the area as "Area 51" by the AEC was in '58, but there is evidence that A-51 was used (at least in documentation), much earlier than this, and this would fit within procedure for such areas, as far as I'm familiar with.


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:


I highly doubt Vannevar Bush and General Twining, etc. were down on their hands and knees picking up the Roswell crash debris, hehe...the manual wasn't for the likes of them....


As for a framed copy of SOM1-01 over my bed....no, but I do have a framed front page of the newspaper, Roswell Record with the headline that the RAAF recovered a flying disc, hanging in the bathroom!



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


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:


I highly doubt Vannevar Bush and General Twining, etc. were down on their hands and knees picking up the Roswell crash debris, hehe...the manual wasn't for the likes of them....




I realize I have to be careful with this kind of rhetoric in the future.

Let me put it this way:

The manual is classified "TOP SECRET/ MAJIC EYES ONLY"

In my imagination, "MAJIC EYES" would belong to a person of decent education and intelligence.

The authors of the manual would also have some brains at command, since in my imagination, they belong to the board of the scientists who conducted the investigations relevant to the topics discussed in the manual.

They would not bother about their newbies priorizing clearance of debris over body recovery.

So why did they feel the need to mention the fact that cadavers may rot fast in the sun, if not predators eat them before?
I'm not sure- are predators interested in cadavers at all?

Even if they wanted to point out that decomposition might not be beneficial-
Then the simple instruction "body recovery has priority" would be sufficient, and more typical for a (military) manual.
There is no need to mention random reasons of accelerated decomposition-
unless these reasons apply specifically to aliens.

Anyway, I highly doubt they would have forgotten to give advice on how to proceed if the newbie stumbles upon a creature that's obviously unconscious, but not necessarily dead.

I expected a hint like "In this case, the site has to be evacuated a.s.a.p., and retained in quarantine, as described in manual XY. Risk assessment has to be made with consultation of medical personnel. If medical personnel is not available etc pp.

But they did not take this highly probable scenario into consideration-
as I have proven in a previous post.

Sincerely,
*Pop*

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Ok, am I the only one who gets an odd error message when i click on the link? Is the link down, or is it just me?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Did you try it here:

www.majesticdocuments.com... ?

(Scroll down to "SOM1-01")

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 15-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I see what you were saying now, what you were getting at. You were thinking the manual was meant for the actual MJ-12 committee, for the likes of Bush, Twinning, ect. No............

The manual was designed for teams in the field who actually had to go out, secure the site, collect the crap. Thus, they would need an offical refrence to how to conduct the operation. Everything one does in the military, from starting up a 15kw generator to flight paths of stealth bombers, to even wiping ones rear end, is covered in some sort of regulation/document. Manuals are simply a how to refrence for this.

I would strongly recommend, Popular Mechanics, that you go and pick up a few military manuals, whether they are TMs, FMs, or SOMs, and see exactly how such things are written, the type of info they contain relative to their purpose, ect. It would give you a better understanding of what Ive been trying to tell you, that the point you are arguing isnt really a point at all, if you understand manuals and stuff.

The govornment has different ideas of what the reader of a manual should know about what they are doing, what you imagine would be in a manual and the wording are very different from what actualy is.

A good research project would be to find out for certain what year the Atomic Energy Commision designated Area 51. The Nevada test site on AEC maps when they took it over to test bombs was divided up into areas with number desginations, but one must know exactly when this was done for certain. While the Groom Lake facility wasnt offically built until 55 for Lockeed to build and test the U-2, Papoose Lake, where S-4 is, still remains an unknow, and is well within the boundaries of Area 51 as a whole. If proof from say maps the AEC printed in 1950 and before 54', that the designation area 51 was indeed already there, then that could at least argue in favor of that part of the manual.

If it was discovered that the AEC did not give the designation till well after 54, that could basically kill the authenticity of this paticular ma nual, unless proof could be brought that that payticular part was part of a change added later.

Also, if this manual is real, this version we see more than likely is now obselete, as military manuals get re-printed and re issued every so often, when the number of changes are too great, that its time to re-issue a new one with all changed data. So, I am positive, if this manual is legit, that its an outdated one, and newer manuals probably exist.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I see what you were saying now, what you were getting at. You were thinking the manual was meant for the actual MJ-12 committee, for the likes of Bush, Twinning, ect. No............

The manual was designed for teams in the field who actually had to go out, secure the site, collect the crap. Thus, they would need an offical refrence to how to conduct the operation.


I have explained above that the manual was written exclusively for any GI, or general possessing "MAJIC-12 CLEARANCE LEVEL" (Front page of the manual).

Certainly they do "need an offical refrence on how to conduct the operation" .

Also, they do need a manual on how to determine alien species and ships.

Due to vivid imagination, but practical experience as well, I believe that the manual does not satisfy these needs, at least concernig the conduction of recovery operations .

The logic organization, esp. for military manuals, is always the same:

Any general information -the intersection of all variations of the given task- will be discussed in a general manual, in order to set the same standards for every unit that executes the same order.
Specific variations of this task will be treated in separate appendices, which adress to specialized units only.
Manuals are strictly task oriented, so identification and recovery of aliens (or their vehicles) would not be discussed in the same document.

I was trying to point out that the ample need of advice would not have been issued in the form of the document we're looking at-

There would be an independent manual on "Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology", since "teams in the field who actually had to go out, secure the site, collect the crap" should not waste time speculating on the origin of the "crap".

And the recovery proceedings would be defined in general manuals, perhaps named "Recovery of Adventurous Stuff" and "Recovery of Adventurous Organisms", with appendices for "Top Secret Stuff" and finally "Majestic Stuff", only available to units of appropriate clearance.

The basic structuring is always the same.

The 30 pages in question do not, and cannot meet the needs of form and function.

Though the shipping and handling part is truly extensive-
A great read for any ebay-seller, but not very helpful for spaceship recovery.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by popular mechanics]

[edit on 16-1-2005 by popular mechanics]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join