Battle for Los Angeles - New Leaked Evidence

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
www.mufon.com...

The above link will take you to Mufon...The pdf shows that someone leaked classified files to an FOIA request on the Battle in Los Angeles. Amongst the leaked documents the President at the time writes a memo to make sure Russia is not told about the incident and other memos and documents show that apparently information was obtained during the event of some sort of super technology that required secrecy to ensure American superiority.

The document is a short read only a few pages so please do read and comment about the documents.




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
That memo is wrong and doesn't appear to be in the same format that the government uses. Either the author of the memo didn't write it to standard, or it is a fake. In fact, I would bet on the latter, as opposed to the former. It just doesn't look like anything written by a military or government clerk, especially seeing how high up in the chain it would have to be.

--airspoon



[edit on 18-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You are more than correct sir. These documents from the president are fake as those are computer generated typefaces and NOT time period physical typefaces or patterns. MUFON gets hoaxed again. I believe something happened over LA that evening, but these docs are garbage and so full of holes and misrepresentations, at least the MJ-12 documents took the effort to LOOK like official communiques.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
That memo is wrong and doesn't appear to be in the same format that the government uses. Either the author of the memo didn't write it to standard, or it is a fake.

--airspoon

[edit on 18-8-2010 by airspoon]


Well the very first one looks right to me. Granted my experice with classfied document do not come that era, however the formats do not change much. Other than the first one, all the others do not seem right. Again not an expert in that eras documents but, the very first one seems to fit. The others not so much.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


The first one doesn't fit either. Look at the spacing, signature block and date, just for starters. The siganture block alone should have three lines. Furthermore, the date should be on the same line as the "file-number". Also, the spacing on the start of each paragraph should only be three spaces. There are many more inconsistencies as well.

As far as the differences in memorandum formats, they weren't any different from that time period until computer relaced type-writers. I forget the name of the filing method used back then but it was an acronym for something.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
That memo is wrong and doesn't appear to be in the same format that the government uses. Either the author of the memo didn't write it to standard, or it is a fake. In fact, I would bet on the latter, as opposed to the former. It just doesn't look like anything written by a military or government clerk, especially seeing how high up in the chain it would have to be.

--airspoon



[edit on 18-8-2010 by airspoon]


I don't think they used the same formats back in the '40's as we do today. It looks like it could be authentic to me.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Why did George Marshall want to go back to 1897 for
unconventional aircraft???



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


I don't know. I did find that Vannevar Bush mentioned in the memo by the President was the inventor of: This MIT engineer developed the first modern analog computer to solve complex equations. It weighed 100 tons and incorporated 150 motors and some 200 miles (about 300 km) of wire.

Read more: 205.188.238.181...

Maybe he was trying to back engineer something found?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by alpha chino
 


This is my assumption too, unless someone here is thoroughly familiar with 1940's Top Secret memo writing. Isn't it possible someone simply wrote a letter to another without following the exact protocol for the heading?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad
Why did George Marshall want to go back to 1897 for
unconventional aircraft???


I assume he was talking about the nationwide Mystery Airship sightings of the end of the 19th Century. Provided that they weren't just examples of local newspapers "spinning yarns" inspired by Jules Verne to increase circulation, they were sightings of unusual and apparently technologically advanced flying machines.

Where's the Tesla guy? He'll gladly tell you all about it from his unique and unvarying perspective.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Military memo writing has been the same from WWII, as far as formatting goes, at least until computers replaced typewriters. With that being said, it is likely that someone could have not followed the standard in memo writing, though unlikely at the echelon in question. Could it have just been sloppy formatting? Sure, but given the subject matter, I would have to call these fakes.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   
My disinfo phone was just rattled off the hook by the sheer magnitude of the severity of this and so I had to rush over here and keep the illusion that ATS actually researches things and isn't just here to cover it all up through scepticism whilst maintaining a gruff sceptical exterior to myself.

Well perhaps...The FOIA papers were purposefully leaked as modern forgeries because those who leaked them know that there are real, and much more embarrassing, originals out there which obviously show the president receiving a lap dance from an Orion slave girl which means we're all under control of the Orion Slave Syndicate.

Or perhaps I'm battling this silly concept out there to further ridicule those who would take the premise of it but then find more concrete theories to latch onto it...

-m0r

[ATS DISINFOBOT: REPORT: $ynt@x £rr0r - REBOOTING]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


the USA used thier first computers to calculate artilery tables , code breaking [ japanese ciphers ] and physics calculations for atomic weapon programs

where do you get the notion that they were used for " reverse enginnering "

and how ???



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Guys...and maybe gals...not sure who are behind the screen names...lol. Has anyone here used MSWord on any regular basis? There are 2 documents in the OP that MAY BE original simply becuse they look like they were scanned in. The others have MSWord New Times Roman Type Face. Period typewriters had 1 typeface. You CANNOT change it.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I concur. They are fake. Simple as that.

First, I don't believe the COS would write a memo to FDR about such a find and second, I can't believe that FDR would send a written reply within the following day.

Just getting it to the White House for inclusion in a daily briefing folder would take more time than that, especially during the 1940's, not to mention the time to formulate, dictate, type and log the TOP SECRET reply unless of course FDR and his staff had nothing else on their plate that day.

Hmmm! Maybe we can find some other FDR signed memos from the same period and compare to end the great format debate?

We were still using "Onion skin" paper to make carbon copies even in the early 1970's and one of the doc's is labeled as (copy). If that's the case then there would definitely be a distribution list at the bottom left to identify where all the copies are.

Besides that.....Any TOP SECRET documents released under the FOIA will clearly be stamped "FOIA considered" and it will be stamped as "downgraded and under whose authority".

These documents are a joke. Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You're right. They are fake. They bear no similarity to any old classified documents I used to work with. Military writing style guides are frequently republished, but something never change like the size and positioning of classified document markings just to name one.

Here is the one that I think is current as an example for all to see.

Military Writing Style Guidelines



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
HMM...





posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
This is Probably VIRAL ADVERTISING to promote Sony Pictures upcoming movie Battle: Los Angeles.

You should expect to see a lot more annoying CGI hoaxes etc. as we get closer tot he film's release. This type of advertising is exactly what studios do nowadays to try to get the Internet geeks interested in their products.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
According to the The California State Military Museum, this was Roosevelt's answer.




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 
I guess that one didn't need a top secret classification.

I'm not an authority on top secret document authenticity, but the people that say the documents in the OP are fake won't have a hard time convincing me. However, I have to ask, is there (or was there) really such a classification of "double top secret" as stated on one of those OP documents?

I found this but it doesn't really clear anything up for me:

www.majesticdocuments.com...


Most knowledgeable document researchers would reject the reality of classifications SUPER SECRET and DOUBLE TOP SECRET, but Wood & Wood have authentic examples of the use of these classifications.
So who's right, the document experts, or Wood & Wood?





top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join