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.

 

FOIA: White Sands Missle Expert Sees Flying Saucer

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
How could they call in a Navy Missle expert in 1947 when the V2 rocket launches predated the U.S. having missles? The work done with the V2 rocket was research for the development of U.S. missle technology. So something is odd the credentials of the expert witness.




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Page 1. I'm unsure whether this is relevant but the filing cover sheet is dated "Sep 63" bottom LHS page 1. Why would the authorities be reviewing such UFO reports 16 years after the original report ? Or was it perhaps just a simple weeding exercise carried out at the time to review the document's security classification ?

The White Sands report is dated 29th June 1947.

Kenneth Arnold, the guy who observed the classic circular shaped UFO's and who brought "flying saucers" into the public consciousness, made his report only 5 days earlier on 24th June 1947. I guess his observations were by the 29th all over the newspapers.

The subject was interviewed by the Army Liaison Office and made no mention of the UFO being circular. Yet in the newspaper reports he is quoted as describing it as a "silvery disc whirling through the unclouded sky" and that it was "elliptical in shape". Why the difference in the accounts he gave the military and those he gave the newspapers ? UFO fever perhaps ?

It's also quite revealing to see the level of dissatisfaction of Air Material Command with the stencil type questionnaire that the military investigators have been using when interviewing UFO witnesses. Basically they're telling the military investigators that their questionnaires aren't worth the paper they're written on .... so it'll be interesting to see whether these questionnaires get amended later in 1947.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Big UPs for transcribing some of these! This is the one bit that stands out:



[illegible] of balloon release No. 46 of 9 April 1945 at Alamogordo. [illegible] the time of the reported incident (1506 CST) is about ½ hour before the time of balloon release (1432 [illegible]ST), thus the incident could not have been that balloon.


I imagine by the new year, we'll be getting slammed w/ a lot of these judging from the initial thread. So far, pretty interesting.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Hi Hal, thanks for pointing those out - looking at it 'stereoscopic' should of been obvious
- problem is now the edit tab does not appear on those two posts, maybe there is a time limit on when you can edit? Any way thanks for the corrections.

Peace!



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by led sled
How could they call in a Navy Missle expert in 1947 when the V2 rocket launches predated the U.S. having missles? The work done with the V2 rocket was research for the development of U.S. missle technology. So something is odd the credentials of the expert witness.


Maybe because the Navy 'recruited' NAZI rocket scientists? They launched V2's from the deck of the USS Midway



www.thespacereview.com...

Here is an actual newsreel of the launch from the USS Midway Museum...

Called PROJECT SANDY

www.cv41.org...

[edit on 26-11-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
On and off topic,

Has anyone noticed that each of these fourteen documents has an "X" through it?

I suspect that the "X" is either taped or stenciled onto the copy machine in order to align the papers for copying, as each "X" seems to be identical to each other and in the same location on each document.

I bring this up for two reasons:

One, I was informed in the Chicago O'Hare UFO thread that using the "Curves..." function in Paint Shop (or Photoshop) was basically a waste of time when trying to highlight "hidden" data within an image... and yet here is an instance where that process has clearly shown what may be important information that was otherwise hidden from the unaided eye.

Two, this may be a way to further "vet" various documents. All of these documents appear to have the "X", but suppose one or two didn't? What would that tell us?

I have noticed various "alignment" marks on other FIOA documents, usually some type of "L" bracket in the corners, that have only become visible (to me) when adjusting the "Curves..." settings within an art program such as Paint Shop or Photoshop.

Perhaps, along with examining the contents of these (and other) FIOA documents a Graphic Analysis of the image of the document would also be in order to help determine if sets of documents were all copied on the same machine / at the same time or if certain documents were perhaps copied on other machines / other times.

While the "forensic" side of investigating FIOA documents is far less exciting than the actual content of the documents, it is, of course, just as (and perhaps even more) important than the contents. It doesn't matter how "amazing" the contents of a document are if the document itself is a fake, yes?

Here are a few examples of the "X"




Further 'graphic analysis' may reveal additional information about these documents.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by daystrom]



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 

I think the "X" is part of the watermark the archivists are putting in. It includes the ATS info along the sides. It is just a way of showing where the pdf file came from. As far as doing any analysis on the document, there is probably nothing that can be extracted from the pdf because it is an image of a copy of the original document. Some of these are being adjusted to fit a format size and file size so even the pdf may not be the original.

If you are interested in any particular document you could get your own copy through the FOIA.



posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
All PDF. pages are “Watermarked” by ATS
for copyright reasons ( I believe)….therefore the mysterious X
on each page……
nothing hidden here


PS: Hal9000 did beat me by seconds, again

Same thing happened a few times when I replied to the FOIA documents…


(edit PS)

[edit on 27-11-2007 by frozen_snowman]



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Interesting.

So both of you feel that any type of 'forensic' study of these (and perhaps other) documents would be a waste of time, yes? It would seem that most of the things that interest me are deemed a waste of time. Well, no matter.

I also seem to have fallen into the nasty habit of making myself unclear. A fault I am trying to correct but it seems to be slow in coming, my apologies.

As I stated above, I have Seen this type of marking before in FIOA documents (pdf, gif, and jpg) Usually I see what look like "L" brackets in the corners of the document, upon occasion I've seen this "X" before and also a cross like a plus sign "+".

Unless the staff jumps in and states that they did indeed hide an "X" in these documents I am going to to continue to function under my original assumption that these are artifacts generated by the original copying process and NOT 'watermarks' added by the staff of ATS.

Looking at these, it seems rather obvious to me that the staff of ATS went to great lengths to 'watermark' these documents on the outside edges, in the margins, as far away from the actual text of the documents as possible. I find it hard to believe that after making such efforts they would then turn around and muddy the works with a great big "X" right through the middle of valuable information and data, wouldn't you agree?

And how would an "X" through the middle of a document tie it to ATS in any way?

No.

The ATS 'watermarks' are clearly visible without enhancement, are carefully placed in order to Not damage the contents, and there is nothing hidden or 'mysterious' about them.

The "X", on the other hand, is only visible if we convert the pdf into some format recognized by an art program and then manipulated by that art program.

I do this with all FIOA documents. Sometimes I am able to pull a word or two out of areas that have been 'blacked out', at others I have been able to reveal indentation writings... how to explain... you know how when you write a note on a pad of paper and then tear the top sheet off of the pad there is still a faint indentation of your note left on the second sheet of paper, yes? And with the proper application of a pencil or charcoal you can reveal the indentations and read the note that was written on the other sheet of paper.

If no one else is interested in examining these (and other) documents in this manner that is fine by me. I made my original post regarding this subject to illustrate why I feel these documents to be genuine, not mysterious, and worthy of further examination.

Again I apologize for my inability to communicate that clearly and thank you both for your timely and in-depth replies.



posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by daystrom
Interesting.
So both of you feel that any type of 'forensic' study of these (and perhaps other) documents would be a waste of time, yes? .


Not at all.
I stated "nothing hidden here" with looking at the watermarked "X"

We wouldn’t spend hours on the documents if they where not interesting
...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
It would seem that I am once again in error and for that I apologize. Upon further examination I see that this particular "X" is in ALL of the ats / foia documents...

If ats is adding this 'hidden watermark' "X" through the center of each document along with the clearly visible ats information in the margins then I have no choice but to say 'bad move'.

This added "X" is not preservation but rather desecration and is adding to the 'noise' of the documents, making it even more difficult to pull out useful information.

Many positive points for making these documents available to us.

Many negative points for adding mess to already messy documents.

Do the 'special people' who are working with these documents have clean versions to work with or are they too cursed with the added noise of hidden watermarks?

It would be very sad if product endorsement, name branding, and the almighty dollar became more important than the facts that only raw data can provide.

No matter. Praise to the powers that be for making these documents (despite the added noise) available to us.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think the "X" is part of the watermark the archivists are putting in. It includes the ATS info along the sides. It is just a way of showing where the pdf file came from.


Yes about that 'watermark' Is that legal? These are public documents with no copyrights attached or implied... I have found several of them from original sources (not hard with text search)

I have also seen many government sites state that such documents are free to distribute but I did not know you could then add your own "watermark' onto the papers, which to some people indicate ownership.

I would appreciate clarification on this please.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join