It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

SOM1-01 (Majestic -12 Group Special Operation Manual)

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I'm sorry for bringing this up again.(Yes I've used the search function) There were just some unanswered questions that I had. I tried bringing them up in the mother file which I will link to. Yet the thread was so long dead that my burning questions did not get answered. so here goes.

Why were you all so quick to dismiss the manual for such reasons as you did? I have got to ask this. I'm aware that many of you have never served in the Army so you might not know about some of our manuals. Some have to be updated weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, some times yearly until the unit orders a newer version of the manual. Until who ever is writing the manual comes out with the new version you end up with a pretty messed up looking book even if you keep it in good condition.

For instance, we had a manual for the 50 cal machine gun. That was printed in 1965 and we never got a newer version until I ordered one, they just kept getting the packets that allowed you to update the manual. That is why if you notice if you go to the ATS thread I'm going to link to after I'm done.

You will see the that the front of the manual has sort of a metal lock, it means that it can be updated. Its a living document. You can add new information to it until a newer version comes out.


I want your guys thoughts has my new information changed any ones views on this manual? knowing now that it can be altered does that change your view on the subject? does it now merit new intrest and scrutiny?

My final thoughts on the manual itself, Now the reason I would think that it is so odd, is that it belongs to a highly classified unit so creating a manual for them would be hard in and of its self. They may only just get the packets due to the amount of secrecy involved in there day to day operations.

I hope I haven't mad any one angry with me bring this dino back from the dead sort of. I just needed some answers and what better place to get them than from the best people for this sort of stuff?


The original ATS thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you for your time

The Grim Reaper




posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Im on the fence regarding the MJ12 papers.Im not so quick to dismiss them as some folks are (including Kevin Randle)

The common denominators that debunkers state is the paper that the documents were on and how some of the dates and times and such do match the right criteria for the time.

I like Friedman. I think hes up near the top of the food chain regarding the "good guys" in Ufology. So if this is a hoax, he does not know about it and he is caught in some web of lies and is being used to spread a huge disinformation campaign unbeknownst to him.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by -Blackout-
Im on the fence regarding the MJ12 papers.Im not so quick to dismiss them as some folks are (including Kevin Randle)

The common denominators that debunkers state is the paper that the documents were on and how some of the dates and times and such do match the right criteria for the time.

I like Friedman. I think hes up near the top of the food chain regarding the "good guys" in Ufology. So if this is a hoax, he does not know about it and he is caught in some web of lies and is being used to spread a huge disinformation campaign unbeknownst to him.


The very reason I started this thread was to counter the whole wrong paper, dates bit.. they are living manuals.. meaning they change on a regular basis



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Its not the dates themselves that debunkers question, its how the dates are lined up.

I dont know the exact example...but the best I can do is....

Say....11/12/1999 vs 11-12-99 or something like that.....im off big time here, but maybe someone else can help me out. Maybe Phage or Kandinsky can.

There was a certain variance in how the dates read that debunkers point toward. This is one of Kevin Randles huge arguments regarding them being a hoax.

And also, the actual paper that the documents were on was another.
edit on 23-12-2011 by -Blackout- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
thanks for the feed back.. I can some what understand about dates as well.. but the paper thing? eh,,, some times you get good paper some times you wonder if they sent you a cardboard box either way you are told to put it in the manual even if it does look like #



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
the $30 price tag to order the complete manual may be a hint of the authors motives.

but, maybe the obama bill to detain american citizens has more to do with ufo's than terrorism.

unfortunately our heavily censored msm and the internet providers like google will follow strict guidelines, or find themselves out of the loop and eating at denny's instead of white house state dinners.

all information of the outside world is either from the media or the internet, unless you physically go there or have trusted contacts like relatives.

america is not much different than n.korea. only the content is different.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


You can get the complete/entire manual in most of Friedman's books. Especially the MJ12 specific book. The entire index is the manual basically.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Dr Robert Wood

The Majestic Documents
www.majesticdocuments.com...

All free PDF format the complete set

Who is Dr Robert Woods? He hired Stanton Friedman

UFO Conversations - Dr. Robert Wood




edit on 23-12-2011 by zorgon because: Gremlins did it :shk:



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Friedman shared this manual with me several years ago before it went on sale. I don't accept it as legitimate in the way it is presented. I really pissed him off and never heard from him again when I suggested that the manual actually contains nothing special. It is not a smoking gun. It could easily be a typical overly done military manual fudged into being for ET devices and entities. I precisely said that a half-way knowledgeable person such as himself could create the manual in an evening's time. (I think he took that personally which was not my intent. I think he is sincere in his UFO work.)

If I were to elaborate on definite reasons why I don't accept the manual, I would bother to state that there are special teams that would swoop in and handle any such chores involved in securing and removing the items. The key word in recovery operations would be SECURING. This is ultral-top-secret business! The job of packing the materials would not fall to some lowly enlisted person in the mail room or where ever. Any suspect item found anywhere would probably call forth a C-130 fully equipped with an elite team to secure, contain and remove (ship) the item(s) found as soon as possible.

After all, any situation involving ET bodies or artifacts would be potentially the biggest blow to the whole damned cover up of half a century standing. It would not be a crating and shipping problem, but a military intelligence problem. (And honestly, to whom would this manual be sent, to every military supply and shipping room?) The teams on the recovery C-130s will know exactly what to do and have their equipment and containers at hand.

(Lacking something too big to stuff into a C-130, perhaps they would truck it through Kansas on a flatbead semi with lights flashing...a clever reversal of SOPs.) Who knows? Not me!




edit on 23-12-2011 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The manual is fake. Sorry but it needs saying without the BS.

Feidman has done some good research but he diminishes his credibility by supporting this document.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I never said that manual was not fake. I just had new information that should have been taken into consideration. Also, Even an ultra-secret team has low ranking people in it. Each unit, manual had different slang/ language in it. That is important to the subject matter.

I know of manuals from the 1960's that are still in use, that haven't been changed. It may be a reprinted manual for use that was smuggled out. There are manuals that you can pick up and an army navy store, that are from 1940-1999 that look brand new, yet are the real deal. Why do I say that? because manuals are reprinted time and again.

The fact that some of you bring up this petty things about how the manual is this or that. Is really irrelevant manuals can be reprinted and I can stress this enough they are living books. So a manual from 1965 if the equipment is still in use will have a manual that states its from 1965 yet look like it was made in 2009. with older pages from 1965 itself will remain in the book if it was updated by hand.

Some of the weirdest looking books you can find are manual. I challenge any one to go to their nearest guard base and ask for a look at a non classified manual and you will see first hand what I've been trying to say.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
One of your "retyped" versions came from this guy.




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”.


You know "Source A" aka Richard Theilmann is a giant fibber (aka HOAXER) right?


So is the other version the original 1954 document, (which defies the space-time continuum by containing at least one font that wasn't created until 3 years later),
or is it another "retyped" copy?

It's a waste of time to discuss something that could have been typed up by any goofball with a PC and inkjet printer. It's like trying to convince the guy at the convenience store that your photocopied winning lotto ticket is totally legit.



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
this is interesting any more info on it?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
One of your "retyped" versions came from this guy.




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”.


You know "Source A" aka Richard Theilmann is a giant fibber (aka HOAXER) right?


So is the other version the original 1954 document, (which defies the space-time continuum by containing at least one font that wasn't created until 3 years later),
or is it another "retyped" copy?

It's a waste of time to discuss something that could have been typed up by any goofball with a PC and inkjet printer. It's like trying to convince the guy at the convenience store that your photocopied winning lotto ticket is totally legit.


So did you just choose to ignore that fact that I brought up that military manuals are living documents? or what because all I see is a dumb picture that is kinda funny..




top topics



 
1

log in

join