Anybody else ever notice this about the "security manual"?

I don't know if we can make a reliable connection between the alphanumeric codes for destinations and actual bases. 'S-4' is near Groom lake, right, which is near rachel nevada, which is near Indian Springs aux. field... yet 'S-4' doesn't connect with any known name for a location in those parts. It's more likely just a name for a part of a grid... let's say area S, square '4' or whatever. In the same way, those other destinations might just signify a numbered square within a closed region.

...now, that's me being skeptical. personally, I feel like Wright and Kirtland factor into this... Wright certainly fits into the larger mythos of the Roswell story. I do have to point out, though, that, prior to the 80s, Norton AFB in CA was usually associated with crashed UFO stories. this was before word on Area 51 got out to the public.

If I were, off hand, to put together a quick list of sites UFO debris would have been shipped to in the 40s/50s, it would include:

The Naval Observatory outside of Washington DC
Wright Field/Wright Patterson AFB
Sandia labs
Los Alamos

Now, if the theory that the Navy handles UFO recovery is true (this would be likely, I believe, only if the first UFO recovery really was the one that was rumored to have taken place offshore during WW2), materials might have been shipped to major naval development centers (wasn't Groton CT the main research site in WW2 for the Navy?).

I've always heard that the Air Force or any Government agency for that matter do not refer to the Groom Lake facility as "Area 51", that is a name given to the base by the UFO community due to the location of the base on the grid map and the only people who call that location "Area 51" are UFO reseachers, fans, hangers on, etc.

If that's the case then that document would have to be deemed a fake because of the use of the "Area 51" moniker in it, right?

I've always heard that the Air Force or any Government agency for that matter do not refer to the Groom Lake facility as "Area 51", that is a name given to the base by the UFO community due to the location of the base on the grid map and the only people who call that location "Area 51" are UFO reseachers, fans, hangers on, etc.

If that's the case then that document would have to be deemed a fake because of the use of the "Area 51" moniker in it, right?

Nope.

It was unofficially referred to as Area 51 long before the base was known by the public... (I'm a Lockheed brat, in case you were wondering....as well as an Army brat, Coast Guard brat, etc.)... Area 51 was a map denotation on a military map...that's where it came from. As I mentioned, the earliest note I found calling it Area 51 was quite some time ago, and the proof positive of it was in the '62 Lockheed trainer for the U2 program....

S-4, is said to be "Site 4" by Lazar, and as I mentioned, it's existence would fit the time frame. The important part of all this, is that this one little page, which so far I haven't seen discussed much, seems to bolster both the Lazar claims, and accounts of Roswell...and fits what we assume of the mythos....

The manual uses terms and monikers in use at the time (UFOB being a good example)...as well as bases that did exist at the time (Wright, Kirtland)....

We also have Naval Intelligence alluded to, which also fits what we assume of the mythos....OPNAC...

There was an "insider" story associated with Kirtland if I remember right....it's on the tip of my brain...have to check into that one again now....

How about OPeration No ACcess?? Would fit all the instances of it's use, and it appears quite logical when one thinks about it. Just a thought.

Well, I went to a page of nothing but military acronyms....

OP was Operations almost every single time...

NA was Naval almost every time, and C was Command almost every time...

There were also some acronyms that were close to OPNAC that had the same elements, so I'm about as certain as I can be...

The one sure fire way to find out is to purchase the Civil Affairs manual with the same OPNAC designation, and see what it means then, hehe...

reply to post by Xeven


OP NAC?? =
fssi.asrcfederal.com... (Min. of Defense)

in the 50's - 70's maybe OPeration National Airspace Control??

Defense refers to aliens as EBE's so the wudnt use the word alien in an officille name.

Gazrock,

FM 27-5 is an Army and Navy Field Manual that deal with the civil affairs operations of an occupying force. This manual is one of 2 manuals, FM 27-10 that deal with an occupying force. These were written in the 1940's as a guide for occupying Europe and Germany in both war and post war time. OPNAC is Operation Naval Command with the OPNAC support unit being located at Fort Ritchie.

I am not sure if this helps at all.

reply to post by Gazrok


Gaz. Great post as always. Im trying to get a hold of a hi-res version of the first Doc u posted (not the SOM-101) I have that. Any resources? Thanks in advance.

I just want to revive this thread, don't know if any of the posters still post but it would be interesting to know what is known now about this compared to 05.

Originally posted by Gazrok

Again, stressing that this manual was made public BEFORE Lazar's claims, therefore as above either 1) Lazar was aware of the manual, and used it to bolster his story...(while logical, it's strange that he would have never mentioned this connection, and it doesn't fit what I know of the guy), or 2) that he was honestly telling what he believed to be the truth.

This document came out in 1994, about five years AFTER Bob Lazar's claims of S-4.

Don Berliner's Mailbox Alexandria Virginia (March, 1994)

Quillan Pharmacy � LaCrosse, Wisconsin

I have yet to find anything convincing that S-4 exits.

Originally posted by Baguette
I just want to revive this thread, don't know if any of the posters still post but it would be interesting to know what is known now about this compared to 05.

Baguette you might find this post I made in another SOM1-01 manual thread interesting, it proves the US military was in possession of time traveling typewriters in 1954. Nah, just kidding, I think the manual is a bunch of baloney.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pretty valid points actually. I was thinking it was part of a different release of docs, but no, this was in 1994, so after Lazar's claims.

The Helvetica font does seem to be the real nail in the coffin of this doc, as it was indeed developed years after the alleged date of the manual.