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

page: 9
196
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


The Wiki article is not good... For your eyes only, only for your... (song)


Joke. No offence, cripmeister.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Where did you get this? What site did you get the pictures from?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 



I agree with you as i also been in the military I have seen Military Manuals of all kinds of degrees and documents to articles and they are mostly Coded!!! to another Source Reference!! but your right... the wording is not something you would see in a Official military Government document the majority would be chapters ,bulletins sections a-z 1-9 etc.. roman numerals picture figures but im talking about manuals from the mid 80s to early 90s of what i have seen I seen some 60s 70s manuals of first prints ! same as the 80s and 90s manuals tho..

then again this is not your basic manual Military Government Manual per say and we have not seen the whole MJ12 manual ! the big question is to ask if anyone of the National press Conference.. Xcon , Project Disclosure
(Steven Greers contacts ... ) as actually seen this manual or something similar

note this looks to be copied off and hole punched and metal bind barred as it shows from what i seen

as one say that some Fonts did not exists in 1954 as i cannot argue as im not a Font Expert as on particular ATS Member is or seam's to be about this Top Secret Ufo MJ12 Manual .. a Hoax? not sure but I hope in the future that someone can show something thats more like it .. a more clearer doc and official!

but here is something i do not think anyone has asked ! is this document er Manual ! the First Printing ! if not that would defiantly would explain the fonts... ! if this came from a spy cam film!!! i want to see the negatives!
the dating of the film ! that would be the Answer!

edited for Spelling and missing words Opps ..

ohh thanks op for showing the Firefighter Field disaster control manual

i wonder is there a way to purchase or even get it in pdf format or even a brief sample .. as i have been searching for it ..

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


i didn't think i said i was a Font expert as you seem to be

I said that the font could be around before it went public ,

then again is this document really the First Printing ! or a later on printing after the late 1950s! ? Who knows what edition printing this MJ12 Ufo extraterrestrial Manual / Doc is !



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Here it is on Google Books.

Here is a link to purchase in Amazon

If you go to buy the book, make sure you ask for the SECOND EDITION. It is the one with the chapter which you reference.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It has been years since I purchased Friedman's copy of that manual. My impression is that it is fraudlent. I ticked him off royaly when I explained that he--not that I meant that he did it--could have produced such a work in an evenings work from a far more standard manual.

There seemed little that was especially suited for the preparing and shipping of ET materials. After all, we would expect the manual to be thick binder, fully complete to primarily deal with the handling of dead ETs and the containment of captured ETs.

As for hardware, we would expect a huge section on how to arrange for heavy equipment to be obtained to load and haul a recovered UFO to whatever distination so deemed, and the concealment of such. But this manual, if memory serves would maybe be useful if a landing skid fell off a UFO and a plywood crate was needed to pack it safely with appropriate labels.

That said, I'm full convinced that there are contingency plans and instructions fully in existance for such procedures (and have been implemented as necessary in the past).



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Wow. Chapter 13 of that firefighters manual is a good read. I highly recommend it. It is almost chilling how matter-of-factly it is written.

Although it does not come outright and say "UFO's exist" it is easy enough to read between the lines. The author uses many credible accounts to impress upon the reader the reality that they probably do exist, and to be prepared for an encounter.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by TattarrattaT]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


SOM1-01 was what everyone interested in the Roswell/MJ12/Area51 mythos was waiting for in the early 1990s.


What you saying here is nothing more than your own opinion right or can you back that up?


Originally posted by cripmeister
It shows a drawing of a triangle which looks exactly like the 1990 Belgium triangle.


You mentioned that earlier, but that’s makes it even more interesting in my opinion, because that gives the impression that the same kinds of crafts where already flying around here back then and the military where as it seems aware of that?


Originally posted by cripmeister
Here are more discrepancies that haven't been addressed in this thread yet.

7. “Eyes Only” is not a security classification. It is sometimes used as a communication procedure and sometimes as custom in the military. It sounds very “James Bond.” However, when used in communication it is generally directed to one named individual. I would very much like to see a security manual that covers “Eyes Only".

And on.

Source


I did see that whole list of comments, or as you name them discrepancies, but that doesn’t proof in any way that the documents are falsified, and that’s why they did come with this conclusion.


Is it possible that this manual is real? Possible yes, but highly unlikely.


So despite it is highly unlikely it’s still possible.



How about an alternate more likely possibility. An Air Force buck Sgt. with some intelligence training (but who probably fell asleep in technical intelligence class) and some friends cut and pasted this little number from a military packing manual. The buck Sgt. was too young to have been around in 1954 so there are so many anachronisms.

I have no proof, of course. Just a little possibility.....


Regarding the overall picture of the documents and the extreme sensitive information they contain these kinds of documents have no doubt in my mind the absolutely highest level of secrecy, therefore I think that this “alternate more likely possibility” is in my opinion really highly unlikely.


Originally posted by cripmeister
The fact that this document received the highest authenticity rating from majesticdocuments.com means that those guys are either gullible or knowingly spreading hoaxed material.


But there is no 100% proof that it is hoaxed material right.

And if it was, then I think it’s quite obvious that the real perpetrators of that all must be coming out of the military in my opinion.

And how would you make them gullible for knowingly spreading hoaxed material?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
The first time i read through this i noticed that it talks about "downed satellites" in 1954? sounds kinda sketchy to me. seeing as how we didnt have satellites until the late 50s.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
It is fake on my opinion. I have read numerous US Government manuals, their print is completely different. This one, looking at its typography was produced on some laser printer, than copied on xerox, then binded. Besides, bindings looks Russian (Soviet style), not American.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Antor
 


Sorry, OP. I think you've been UFO-Rolled!

Did anyone notice that the facing page (supposedly facing the "reading" page on the photocopier) is identical for each page? Not just the same text, but the same cutoff angle?

Did anyone notice the use of "material" instead of "materiel"? Materiel is standard military speak for non-living assets or potential assets.

my BS meter is dancing. Not pegged, but dancing.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
is this the same document that i had found long ago?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

just curious



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
First of all, from these pictures alone, there is nothing to prove the authenticity of the document. Nothing at all. For all you know, I typed this thing up myself, posted pictures of it and am laughing myself to death as you read this.

Two -- as mentioned earlier, it discusses downed satelites... before we had satelites. Although we MAY have had satelites earlier than originally believed, we would have no reason to keep it a secret durring the Cold War. It was all about being better than the Soviets, and you can't do that with secrets.

Three -- The font and layout are completely different from any other military manual I have read or seen (from the 40's through modern day).

Four -- Source of the material? Where was it printed? Who was the writer? Who put it on the internet, and how did this person get a hold of it? If you can't make even a shaky paper trail back to someone/ somewhere legitimate, then your "evidence" is nothing more than a picture on the internet... and no -- the internet is not a credible source.

Get someone to aquire a physical copy, and have testing done on the paper, font and style of the document. Then have a secondary source conduct the same tests and reach the same conclusion. Then I'll believe the validity of this document.

All other MJ12 documents that have been acquired in physical form and tested have been proven to be fakes, multiple times over. Unless this one can prove otherwise, it's nothing more than a pretty picture.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


That's the "retyped" version, but yeah it's the same.
Isn't it strange how your thread got 0 replies and this one has over 100 stars/flags and is now a featured thread in the ATS newsletter, even though it's just a regurgitated version of past threads.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by freelance_zenarchist
 


That happens A LOT on ATS. At least in the last 5 years I've been coming here.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

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.

For example, look at this section of page 4 of the manual -




Now here it is with the Helvetica typeface next to it and layed over top.




That lines up pretty good considering it's a piece of paper being photographed at an angle and the paper isn't completely flat.





majicbar posted a link to a .pdf file that claims, despite showing any visual evidence to back it up with, that Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic are better matches than Helvetica to what's in the SOM1-01 manual.

After comparing the different fonts I can see why they didn't include a single example.


Here is the same text in the Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic typefaces for comparison.




You can see that Franklin Gothic is thicker than the type in the manual, and various characters have different features, such as the E,R,O and 1.





Square Gothic is thinner, has different spacing, and the E,R,A,S,C,G,D,P,O and 1 characters look noticably different.

I won't go into all of these characters, but one of the key indicators that the font used is Helvetica is the R's.

The right side of the Helvetica R has a rounded tail, while the Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic R's both have a straight tail.



The R's in the SOM1-01 manual are the same as the Helvetica R's.








Another indicator that Helvetica was used is the 1's.

Square Gothic is missing the curve at the top, Franklin Gothic has it, but it also has the extra pieces at the bottom that aren't seen in the SOM1-01 manual.



Only Helvetica has a similar 1 to what's used in the manual.




Can we put this silly manual to rest now and move this to the hoax forum?




Hey Mods, any thoughts on moving this to the hoax forum?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
For those interested in this subject, there is a very good book about some of these documents called "Out There" by journalist Howard Blum. Mr Blum is not a ufologist, but is a well known journalist who was given a small bit of information by an informant about UFOs and NORAD. The book does deal with his research and following the paper trail of the MJ-12 documents. It is also interesting that the FBI was not able to confirm they were real or if they were forgeries.

I was able to get a copy of the book at my library, but Amazon has a few available:

www.amazon.com...=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=howard+blum+out+there&x=0&y=0

While no real answers are found, Mr Blum does find out that the mystery and cover-up goes very deep.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


SOM1-01 was what everyone interested in the Roswell/MJ12/Area51 mythos was waiting for in the early 1990s.


What you saying here is nothing more than your own opinion right or can you back that up?


Just my opinion, agree or disagree.


Originally posted by cripmeister
It shows a drawing of a triangle which looks exactly like the 1990 Belgium triangle.

You mentioned that earlier, but that’s makes it even more interesting in my opinion, because that gives the impression that the same kinds of crafts where already flying around here back then and the military where as it seems aware of that?


Back when?


Originally posted by cripmeister
The fact that this document received the highest authenticity rating from majesticdocuments.com means that those guys are either gullible or knowingly spreading hoaxed material.



But there is no 100% proof that it is hoaxed material right.


freelance_zenarchists finds are pretty convincing but they need to be confirmed for a 100% official de-bunk of the manual.


And if it was, then I think it’s quite obvious that the real perpetrators of that all must be coming out of the military in my opinion.


Not to me. Knowledge (someone to ask perhaps) and equipment would do imo.


And how would you make them gullible for knowingly spreading hoaxed material?


They are either gullible or they are knowingly spreading hoaxed material.

*edited a bunch of times because people keep interrupting me (I am at work)

[edit on 20-5-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
one of the pages say that one of the UFO's crashed landed because the military shot it down, this confirms what the canadian minister said, during his disclosure speech





new topics
top topics
 
196
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join