It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Official Manual Top Secret/Majic Eyes Only: Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and D

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:06 PM
old but goods news I have gathered this in Pdf Format 10+ years ago same thing claim to be taken from a Mini Spy camera

is it legit ! it look like it could be

the thing i am after right now is the NY NJ Firefighter Handbook ! (DISASTER CONTROL) that has what to do in case of a Alien Threat!!! I have seen the pics of the handbook but not the Actual Handbook

a news channel ! talking about the Book!!!!

right here the Source!!

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok

This manual has been around for some time.... It was originally supplied to UFO researcher Don Berliner from an anonymous source (as a roll of film)...

thanks for the info. Ok so it started as a roll of micro film, and some where down the road got printed off some where. That much is good to know. Has the researcher Don Berliner said anything about it?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:31 PM
As many have stated, it's difficult to say whether these documents are authentic or not. However, if you are someone who believes that we have been visited and would need to deal with occurrences described in these documents, there is no doubt that a group such as MJ-12 does exist. Of course it would amazing if we could authenticate these documents but chances are that wont happen. From what I've gathered in the last couple years (I'm only 19 and therefore in no way consider myself an expert), there has been visitation, crashes and interactions by extraterrestrials and Earth. By that logic, there must be some sort of clandestine task force which operates by certain guidelines. If these documents are indeed a hoax, I must applaud those responsible for a rather impressive effort.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Your_Number_One_Fan

The MJ 12 documents have been out for a few years now.
When i first read them , i was dumbstruck.
However, over the past couple of years a few people have come out saying they don`t think all of them are legit but doesn`t that mean they must think at least some of them are!
I myself, think that there`s definitely some truth to them.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:01 PM
Hi Antor, here is some other and in my opinion quite stunning information that has all to do with the SOM1-01 documents which were received by Don Berliner in 1994.
I never saw it before myself and I thought it was not mentioned here earlier.
If it was, I will delete this post immediately.

This time it’s about a so called alternate version provided by a source called “A” and it is really an amazing read.

Due searching on the net, I found it here.

Therefore all credits goes to them.

Therefore I only post this small introduction part because the rest of can be read on the site.

Click on the download under this text.

For the first time we offer this document, along with an extensive background from Source A/The Pickerings and a preliminary analysis from Dr Robert Wood. Right click the link below to download the file:

The ‘Alternate SOM 1-01’ The following document has been provided by New York based researchers Clay and Shawn Pickering. It was given to them in 2006 by their contact – a United States Naval Officer - known publicly as “Source A”.

The document itself appears to be a retyped (or revised) version of the SOM1-01, which was received by Don Berliner in 1994, and has been widely discussed within the UFO community.

This particular version was viewed and copied by “Source A” in
the mid-eighties, and contains numerous subtle differences.

Clay and Shawn Pickering have very kindly provided an extensive background, along with notes from a recent interview with the source, which continues below:

You also find some updates and some possible concerns.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM
The artifacts visible when adjusting contrast is really not a good way to discern a fake since it is usually caused by jpeg compression.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:14 PM

Originally posted by anon72
Well done.

Either this stuff is true or there is one heck of a good band of story writers on this Earth.

I'll stick with it being true. Sounds just like a military book/writing.

Should be interesting to see what the Debunkers say. S&F

ANY way you can put up Chapter 6 Section III? Very interesting indeed.

[edit on 5/10/2010 by anon72]

I will comment that I am a recently retired senior NCO...and I will attest that the format that you have shown there is SPOT ON with military publications that I resourced in my 20+ career. And yes I do have a TS/SCI full scope clearance. Good find indeed!! Click+Save before those examples should ever forever become lost! Thanks!

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by Antor

The only possible "discrepancies" that I noticed is that...yes our nations warfare publications (both US and Allied NATO) have the initial similar classification markings on the outer front cover of the pub, and even at the tops and bottoms of the pages, HOWEVER these pics do seem to have been copied very quickly as the pages were not unbounded in order to make clearer/better copies.

And it is in that which raises suspect in that 1st off...the chapter being listed in both numbers and pages (which we do not get to see the page numbers here, only the chapter numbers) do not seem to jive with the index/glossary.

2nd...each opposite page (indicating that the entire publication was only SINGLE PAGED), was basically classification/markings (disclaimer) info on each of the opposite paged examples you provided. I had NEVER worked with a military publication that was not BOTH front and back sided info. Also if those represent one sided only (cause granted this WAS back in the 50's whereas I was active duty from '89 to '09), but EVEN THEN that means THIS....THIS publication which would need to address radiation concerns, covert operations, scene policing for the cleansing of any traces....CERTAINLY could not have all been contained in a pub of only 32 pages.

But I could be wrong. I am not flat out discounting your found possible evidence as I am a true wanting to believe believer...especially as my own family has now recently had their very own UFO sighting just last month, but I would question any possible ulterior motives/hidden agendas with the "releasing" of this info type.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:38 PM

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Antor

One of the problems that some people had with this document was the word satellite was used as an explanation in 1954 and the first satellite was not put into orbit until 1957. I have have found that the word satellite was used in 1954, but I still have problems with the document using the excuse of a crashed satellite when there were no satellites in orbit during that time frame.
Could it be that it was used in a more general sense?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:56 PM
ok this is kinda of disturbing right from the Som101_part2.pdf 10th page

it shows pictures of the ufos from the known saucers to the cigar shaped until ...

i saw the Triangle Ufo the 3 circles and the circle in the center as this been around allover Earth and just start to get more noticed around in the last decade as it was though to be the supersonic jet Auroa which it cant be if this MJ!@ doc is really legit

ohh about the Font many people claimed not to exist it could very well be just not spread out to the public eye until 1957

a video of the Ufo triangles

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Wolfenz
ohh about the Font many people claimed not to exist it could very well be just not spread out to the public eye until 1957

So that's how it's going to be, eh?
You're going to be stubborn about it and make up all sorts of nonsense because the evidence in front of you doesn't fit with your belief that this document is real.

Well fine then, all I can do is show you that Helvetica is one of the most popular, widely used and documented fonts ever made.

It was not used by the United States Military prior to 1957 and then later leaked to the public. It didn't reach the US until the 1960's, and it wasn't even commisioned until 1956, so there is no way that it could be in a publication from 1954.

Font Designer - Max Miedinger

Fonts: Pro Arte (1954), Haas-Grotesk, Helvetica (1957 onwards), Horizontal (1965).

1956: Eduard Hoffmann, the director of the Haas’sche Schriftgießerei, commissions Miedinger to develop a new sans-serif typeface.


Helvetica Bold, 36 point
Max Miedinger (Swiss, 1910-1980) and Edouard Hoffmann (Swiss)

1956-1957. Lead and wood tray, 1 7/8 x 10 5/8 x 24 3/4" (4.8 x 27 x 62.9 cm). Gift of Lars Müller and Stampa Didot, Switzerland

Date: 1956-1957

Source: The Museum of Modern Art -

In 1957, Swiss typographer Max Miedinger (1910-1980) was commissioned by his former employer, Haas'schen Typesetters, to design a new font. A German company then took it on. It was originally marketed as Haas-Grotesk but rebranded as Helvetica - derived from Helvetia, the Latin name for Switzerland - in 1960.


About the Film

Helvetica is a feature-length independent film about typography, graphic design and global visual culture. It looks at the proliferation of one typeface (which celebrated its 50th birthday in 2007) as part of a larger conversation about the way type affects our lives.

2007 - 50 = 1957 by the way

About the Typeface

Helvetica was developed by Max Miedinger with Edüard Hoffmann in 1957 for the Haas Type Foundry in Münchenstein, Switzerland.

...Haas' German parent companies Stempel and Linotype began marketing the font internationally in 1961.



Helvetica was developed in 1957 by Max Miedinger with Eduard Hoffmann at the Haas’sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas type foundry) of Münchenstein, Switzerland.


posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:03 PM
how did the documents come to be?

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:05 PM
Modern Digital Fonts. More than one typeface in a book is very rare. I say FAKE! Somebody with a word processor spent lot of time in their basement.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by lazimodo

thats what im saying!

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by spacevisitor

Just to clarify. The SOM1-01 in the OP is not the "revised" SOM1-01 found on OMF. By the way here's an interesting read of what former MUFON man James Carrion has to say about Open minds forum.

On page 20 in SOM1-01 there's a drawing of a triangle shaped craft and it looks exactly like the "Belgium triangle". SOM1-01 surfaced after the black triangle craze began in the early 1990s. Anectdotal I know, but there are just too many coincidences.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:50 PM
I would like to see page 31 please.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by Antor

If this is fake, then its one of the best hoaxes I've ever seen.

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by Antor

The lower level headings (e.g., "5. Cleaning the Scene") appear to be in a font that didn't exist at the putative time of issue of the document shown. The font in question appears to be part of the Arial text family.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Murky]

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:45 PM

Originally posted by lazimodo
Modern Digital Fonts. More than one typeface in a book is very rare. I say FAKE! Somebody with a word processor spent lot of time in their basement.

That's not necessarily true. The Government Publication Office laid up a lot of the Armed Forces' field manuals and other documents in multi-font formats long ago. My copy of the US Army version of Glasstone and Dolan's "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" resembles this document in that respect, and I've seen things like the formal reports of Japanese war crimes trials (in cloth-bound hard cover book form) that had multiple fonts of this type and were probably printed and issued in the 1950s.

There is, however, a lower-level set of headings in the purported MAJIC document printed in a font that resembles Arial, which I don't think existed when this document was supposed to have been created.

It's a shame, because otherwise this was a masterful fake.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 12:54 AM
Came across these docs sometime ago on i think on dan burisch subject.
IMO, these are not the work of a prankster and seemingly the theme looks like throw all in and shake it all about. I i think the fbi is still in a tail spin over these, though they don't necessariliy admit it.

Hollywood should take the cue as it is a good movie making material. for a 007 tale. I love the James Bond movies immensely


top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in