Hangar 14 and Wright-Patterson reminds me of Maurice Chatelain, considered by the debunkers a hoaxer, but one of the most credibles "disclosers" to me, but then, what do i know? S&F

[edit on 21-10-2009 by mcmauro]

There is something really fake looking about that scan.

The text is way too crisp for all the other copy machine like imperfections.

As being someone who was alive many more years than computers and photoshop have been around, I have used copy machines to xerox book pages all the way up through college. That's how you took information home from reference books, which you couldn't check out, before about 1995.

Unscientifically, I know what those pages should look like from experience and when the page is darkened and turned like that the text doesn't look crisp at all. The letters should be fuzzy and running together a bit more than they are. Also, the large title seems to be floating above the paper, not printed right on it. Maybe it's the lack of texture of the paper in the large letters that has me thinking that it looks a little off... just a little TOO sharp. There should be a paper like texture. This looks more like a book PDF than a photocopied page.

Nice try, but I think whomever photoshopped this together needs a little more practice in making realistic looking docs. I'm guessing it's someone under the age of 30, and thus hasn't seen thousands of photocoppied book pages like us old folk have. I'm 41. Hasn't been real long since the card catalog and copy machines was the norm.

Originally posted by exposethosesecrets

Originally posted by draknoir2
It seems to be a real pub with a postscript entitled "The Saga Continues", but based on the mundane subject matter of the rest of the publication, I find the "scan" highly suspect. So until I read it in an actual copy, I'm calling it intentional deception.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by draknoir2]

Now why would I lie??? Geez

I also scanned the cover. The book is in the reference section, so it can't be checked out.

Notice the library stamp below the word Advantage?
And the gov doc #.

I'll admit, the page is oddly written, but there is no joking about it.
I had to do a double take myself.

Sorry... thought you were linking a third party scan. In that case, I'm inclined to believe that it is intended as satire. The SGLPFE acronym is kind of a giveaway.

Great find, OP! Thanks for going through the trouble of scanning and uploading that info. to share with us. Whether it's satire or not, it's still interesting and worth archiving for future reference.

I have to agree that it is probably some sort of joke or satire. This paragraph stood out in that regard...

Access remains so restricted because ASC History Office personnel, who made the initial discovery at McCook Field, have since developed what can only be described as "odd" behaviors. The intensity of peculiarities appearing in personnel is proportional with the amount of of direct contact they had with the specimen. Abnormal behaviors observed include an increased proclivity to nocturnal AM radio, long hours devoted to web searches, unfocused wandering of stream tunnels and sewers beneath Wright Field, unexplained attacks on computers and related equipment, muttering, and an obsessive desire to write Volume 3 of the U.S. Air Force's Roswell report, first issued in 1997.

The text does remind me of something in the News World Report, like:

...baby Elvis found in swamps of Louisiana. He's an alien!

Originally posted by JonInMichigan


There is something really fake looking about that scan.

The text is way too crisp for all the other copy machine like imperfections.

As being someone who was alive many more years than computers and photoshop have been around, I have used copy machines to xerox book pages all the way up through college. That's how you took information home from reference books, which you couldn't check out, before about 1995.

Unscientifically, I know what those pages should look like from experience and when the page is darkened and turned like that the text doesn't look crisp at all. The letters should be fuzzy and running together a bit more than they are. Also, the large title seems to be floating above the paper, not printed right on it. Maybe it's the lack of texture of the paper in the large letters that has me thinking that it looks a little off... just a little TOO sharp. There should be a paper like texture. This looks more like a book PDF than a photocopied page.

Nice try, but I think whomever photoshopped this together needs a little more practice in making realistic looking docs. I'm guessing it's someone under the age of 30, and thus hasn't seen thousands of photocoppied book pages like us old folk have. I'm 41. Hasn't been real long since the card catalog and copy machines was the norm.

Why oh why can you give someone a star for a GREAT post but can't give them a thumbs-down on idoitic, factless ramblings. Damn the world!

After 41 years, you should know better then to out-right say that what he is presenting is a fabrication. If you learned nothing but how to be decent to someone else, you make sure you have solid proof that disproves their statement before you open your pie hole. In this case, I don't see anything that proves your claim except words and memories. At least the OP took the time to copy/scan this document and put it out there. Until you have something concrete to offer, you and your ramblings are free to derail other threads.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Roadblockx]

all those claiming the page to be a poor photoshop attempt, stand aside and repent. i'm holding the book right now.

the book is real, the page is legitimately rendered here for you all (word-for-word match to the original scan, far as i can tell). the edition i'm seeing also has it at page 291.

i've got some pictures of the book taken from my laptop's camera and flipped so as not to appear backward, but i'm still working on figuring out how to upload photos to posts. this is only my 2nd. however--as the text is labeled as a "postscript" to the book, found right before the endnotes begin, and with a picture of little-green-men toys being found on the opposite page, i think it's intended as a joke.

let's see if i can get those pictures up.

Wow. This is very interesting. While reading the pages, I am cross- referencing online to make sure all the infomation is accurate and everyting seems spot on. I never knew much about Katherine Wright, but I will certainly read more about her now.

This is some highly factual satire if that is the case. Really good reading material nonetheless.

It seems people are prone to making wrong assumptions, without the author being available for commentary on his/her work. In most cases people just estimate others intentions in recording events, based on their own set of parameters on the issue in question, not taking into account what was actually meant by the author.

Speculation is healthy, but usually wrong, when people tell me what I mean by a statement.

Wow.........Is about all i can think at the moment.

Anyone else notice the Monarch butterfly?