Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

FranklinRoosevelt : Document Released From The Special Committee on ET Science and Technology [1944]

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 



No it would have to be a scan if the original document was real


Ofcourse , My Friend . Without Scanning the document how can we see them in Comp !!



why would you believe this?


Because the sources are Reliable




L
L the debunkers are having a bad/off day
very pitiful counterarguments

there was also some tnonsense regarding fonts, when the terms Type, Typeface, and/or Typeset should be used [as fonts is from the digital age]
which just goes to show you how much some people know
quite a few printers in my family so while i picked it up via osmosis i'm still correct in that regard
tactical flag and star
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)


The type set (or in modern terms "font") on the original document is Times New Roman. Times Roman the predecessor of times new roman was created and patented by linotype in 1943. In 1987 the pattern became available in the United States as "Times New Roman" patented by Monotype. Thus, since the original document is in Times New Roman, it was created in the United States after 1987.

Thus, the document is a fake.

Edit to add: Any questions?
edit on 3-12-2012 by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies because: Forgot to open my answer for questions




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Wow....this has made the rounds AGAIN????

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.mufon.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are more but I don't feel much like taking the time to copy and paste all of them right now.....



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Why did you post it again?

Still no authenticity, no proof and I debunked the Type Set as not even existing prior to 1987.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I cant find anything in relation to double top secret on the net.. only this video which is from a comedy film.





edit on 3-12-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 




just commenting on the poor job of debunking and seeming reaching being done here, lackluster to say the least.
checking vasa's links at the mo'

as for the "experts" on the classification scheme L
L,
their claims to know ALL the schemata of the classification system are preposterous and insulting to the intelligence.
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added comment
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 


Oops , your explanation is insufficient . Give us more scientific credible explanation to make it Fake



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
so....
1...no official seal. so it has to be a private letter
2...no clear signature
3...if it's an original document, it wouldn't look like it was copied a thousand times
4...FDR always put a "sincerely", or "regards" or a "something else" before signing
5....here are private letters, notice the differences
www.raabcollection.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 


Oops , your explanation is insufficient . Give us more scientific credible explanation to make it Fake


I did. The typeset didn't exist prior to 1987.

Science isn't needed as the evidence you provided is factually false.

The end.
edit on 3-12-2012 by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies because: crack don't smoke itself



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 




just commenting on the poor job of debunking and seeming reaching being done here, lackluster to say the least.
checking vasa's links at the mo'

as for the "experts" on the classification screen L
L,
their claims to know ALL the schemata of the classification system are preposterous and insulting to the intelligence.
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added comment


You are attempting to defend a typeset that did not exist prior to 1987. You are incorrect. That is all.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Jimmy... Apparently we aren't supposed to complicate the issue by using things like facts.

It is like talking to a religious fanatic who is holding a dinosaur bone and claiming the earth was created 5000 years ago with the bones already in the rocks.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 



I cant find anything in relation to double top secret on the net


I think you used Google to search that word ... Use other search Engine



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I see some people have mentioned the fact that the document was created in Times New Roman above: there's also the fact that the font is kerned as opposed to fixed-width, and all the letters are perfectly aligned. Even if you could find a Roman font close enough to Times New Roman on initial examination, it would be extremely unlikely to find these other attributes in a document from 1944. Thus, I concur that this document appears to be a hoax.

Diogenes



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DiogenesTheDog
 


I make my living with fraud/counterfeit detection as a major focus of my job. It is nice to see someone else look at the evidence objectively instead of contextually. It is important to know what the evidence IS before you know what it SAYS. And this evidence IS a fraud created post 1987.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DiogenesTheDog
 


oh Com'on.. You guys are New here .. Don't overuse your brain .. Save it for other Threads too
edit on 3-12-2012 by UltraMarine because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 




just commenting on the poor job of debunking and seeming reaching being done here, lackluster to say the least.
checking vasa's links at the mo'

as for the "experts" on the classification screen L
L,
their claims to know ALL the schemata of the classification system are preposterous and insulting to the intelligence.
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added comment


You are attempting to defend a typeset that did not exist prior to 1987. You are incorrect. That is all.


nope, just pointing out a crappy job of debunking which according to vasa's links was so obviously lifted from the prior threads, so much for scholarship and sources

[emphasis mine]


The type set (or in modern terms "font") on the original document is Times New Roman. Times Roman the predecessor of times new roman was created and patented by linotype in 1943. In 1987 the pattern became available in the United States as "Times New Roman" patented by Monotype. Thus, since the original document is in Times New Roman, it was created in the United States after 1987.



so? the doc is from 44 and would be in Times Roman
according to you monotype changed the name and patented it

doesn't mean it did not exist then [and you say it did, 1 year prior]
in fact your whole post looks like one of those logical fallacies from my college days [25yrs ago]

even down to the prejudged conclusion stated up front.

why not move on to another aspect and DO A BETTER JOB?

rather than repeating from another thread?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by UltraMarine
 


Why don't the dates even match up? "Original" is 22nd and re-write is 24th.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
 




just commenting on the poor job of debunking and seeming reaching being done here, lackluster to say the least.
checking vasa's links at the mo'

as for the "experts" on the classification screen L
L,
their claims to know ALL the schemata of the classification system are preposterous and insulting to the intelligence.
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added comment


You are attempting to defend a typeset that did not exist prior to 1987. You are incorrect. That is all.


nope, just pointing out a crappy job of debunking which according to vasa's links was so obviously lifted from the prior threads, so much for scholarship and sources

[emphasis mine]


The type set (or in modern terms "font") on the original document is Times New Roman. Times Roman the predecessor of times new roman was created and patented by linotype in 1943. In 1987 the pattern became available in the United States as "Times New Roman" patented by Monotype. Thus, since the original document is in Times New Roman, it was created in the United States after 1987.



so? the doc is from 44 and would be in Times Roman
according to you monotype changed the name and patented it

doesn't mean it did not exist then [and you say it did, 1 year prior]
in fact your whole post looks like one of those logical fallacies from my college days [25yrs ago]

even down to the prejudged conclusion stated up front.

why not move on to another aspect and DO A BETTER JOB?

rather than repeating from another thread?


Not repeating anything from another thread (because mainly I don't care that much). And times NEW roman had more than a name change. You would know that if you actually had any experience with document authentication - which you clearly don't. Sorry to piss in your wheaties, but this document is a fake. We can take it one step further if you wish. There are offices that I can forward this to have a formal investigation done as you seem to attest that these are indeed true and factual... shall I and we can get an answer from other professionals than myself on the matter?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 



I cant find anything in relation to double top secret on the net


I think you used Google to search that word ... Use other search Engine


Maybe you would like to provide the link to proof the double top secret is a real thing if think google is filtering it out and you know where it is



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DiogenesTheDog
I see some people have mentioned the fact that the document was created in Times New Roman above: there's also the fact that the font is kerned as opposed to fixed-width, and all the letters are perfectly aligned. Even if you could find a Roman font close enough to Times New Roman on initial examination, it would be extremely unlikely to find these other attributes in a document from 1944. Thus, I concur that this document appears to be a hoax.

Diogenes


ahhh! much better
somebody who can see the forest AND the trees!

how goes the search for an honest person?


and it's Times Roman, patented by Linotype in '43
as pointed out in a very confusing post where it's claimed:
to not have existed
edit on 3-12-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added comment






top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join