It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
The SOM1-01 manual claims to be from 1954 but it contains the font Helvetica which wasn't created until 1957.
3 year difference between " invention" and public use. This to me anyway is extremely fast. My tech background is analog and digital ..ranging from electronic warfare radar to digiac 3050 computers and its successors.
The first use of most if not all inventions are for military. It then will be disseninated for public use once the "ladder principal" has expired.
The "ladder principal" is as I was tought that our incremental secret improvemnts in technology will cost the foreign enemies 3x as much to make these incremental discoveries.
The idea was to drive them broke trying to keep up on trivial changes in technology by keeping it classified. It worked . See the wall falling down in Germany.
I can not discount the letter on the basis of dating of fonts. This would be trivializing the mushrooming technology of the time .
The most interesting discusssion is with IBM ..almost overnight moved from producing punch cards to hard drives
Originally posted by fbipeeper
Yea I'm glad so many of you found this so great....
Now go put a book on a copy machine and see how it prints.
Now take a photo of a book trying to match lighting.
Now go look at the OP pictures that the dark bold header is nice and straight, and the other text "curves" to the page.
Yea this is up and up bull crap and buying into it is just going to get in the way of if there really is stuff like this.
Oh hell "majic" should of been ur first clue suckers. NEXT FRAUD PLEASE
Originally posted by Sf18443
What rules out authenticity for me is simply the poor word choice and sloppy structure with which the document is written. I mean it really reads as if an 8th grader wrote this document.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by DocEmrick
The wording in the document is not "governmental." I'm sure if some of you read over it, and then read over an actual document prepared by a government agency you'll be able to tell the difference in grammar, contraction usage, and other nuances that actually lead me to believe this document is a forgery. The question is...was it a forgery from us...or a forgery from the disinfo machine?
With out reading every post in this thread,
can any one tell me if it was stated where the author of the thread obtained the manual he is showing?