Saturday, August 15, 2015

Hangar One and the Star Soldier

I have avoided talking about Hangar One sure that most people realized that it was more fiction than fact. I sometimes thought the lone fact was that there is an organization known as MUFON and everything else was pretty much invented for television ratings. That became more of a reality for me when I saw the latest episode, which is to say, the last one I saw but with the way they broadcast this stuff, I’m not sure what the last episode might have been.

Anyway, I was just doing a video lap which is pushing the remote channel button looking for something interesting when I heard about a “star soldier.” This was a guy who claimed, if I have this right, to have been serving with an alien race as some sort of soldier or mercenary. Okay, this tale is not really out there yet, or at least, not that far out until we learn the entire story. Seems that the fellow claimed that he was abducted as a seventeen-year-old high school student (I assume he was still in high school) and given training as a soldier before his eventual deployment to… Mars.

There he served for twenty years doing something that I failed to pick up on. I was more surprised by his claims of conscription into a military force that seemed to have no legal authority to draft him. I mean he couldn’t even run to Canada or somewhere else to avoid this service if he felt it against his personal code. He had no legal remedies to this forced servitude. He had no choice and he didn’t explain how he was compensated for his service.

Okay, this still isn’t as far out as it would get. He sat there, talking about this service, and I’m wondering what his parents did when he disappeared. I’m wondering if they called the police, if they put his pictures up around town asking for information or if they offered a reward for his safe return. I wondered how they felt when their child disappeared in the middle of the night with absolutely no clue about his fate.

I was also wondering what sort of skills he might have had to make him a target for alien conscription. Did he have some psychic ability? Some other special talent that is not obvious to us? Maybe he had a physical constitution that would allow him to survive in the thin atmosphere of Mars if they haven’t terraformed it to allow human life or if he was underground in some kind of artificial structure.

But he explained all that away. After twenty years of service, he was returned to his bed and in his seventeen-year-old body some fifteen minutes after he had vanished. His parents never knew he had been gone and I would imagine if it had been a school night, he returned to the classroom the next day believing he’d had a very vivid dream. After all, he wasn’t any older, had no physical scars that weren’t there before his service, no evidence that he had lived for twenty years off Earth and absolutely no evidence that anything he said was true. Or for those who care, anything he said was true in our shared reality.

As he spun this tale, I heard no laughing in the background. I heard no evidence that the producers of the program or that the alleged investigators of this tale thought of it as bogus. Here was this guy sitting there claiming that he had served on Mars for twenty years (or in alien service for twenty years) and had absolutely nothing to prove it. Apparently they thought it not that… unreal?

Oh, I know what will be said. The aliens can bend and distort time so that they are able to do this. Of course no one can prove any of this, but what the hell, it just proves how powerful the aliens are and what their technology can do. After all, why would someone lie about this? Why, indeed.


I don’t know why they would provide this guy any air time given the nature of his tale. If the producers wish to maintain any credibility they would have acknowledged the improbability of the tale, or better yet, not aired it at all. This is one of the better examples why rational people just don’t take ufology seriously. It seems there are those who actually believe this crap.

61 comments:

Terry the Censor said...

> I’m not sure what the last episode might have been

The episode you watched was from early in the season:

Hangar 1: The UFO Files: Season 2, Episode 4, "Far Side of the Moon," originally broadcast May 1 2015.

> his eventual deployment to… Mars.

Just this evening I watched Alternative 3, a UK mockumentary from 1977, wherein we are told that top people have left Earth for Mars, via the moon, to avoid catastrophes caused by the greenhouse effect. A secret US-Soviet space programme was built on the far side of the moon in the '50s. This base was used as a platform to secretly explore and terraform Mars. (Stolen footage shows a probe landing on Mars in 1961.) We are told nuclear explosions were then used to melt the Martian icecap and make the planet habitable for humans.

Was anything like this mentioned in Hangar 1?

(Though the credits indicate it is a work of fiction, Alternative 3 has been embraced as fact by the fringiest conspiracy mongers. Aliens are not mentioned anywhere in the programme.)

Bob Koford said...

Good morning.

I have enjoyed some of the Hanger 1 episodes, but when it came to this one in particular, I was mystified. I complerely agree that it strained credibility, and I couldn't grasp their intent. "Why would someone lie about this?" is at the core, surely.

Terry

As far as Alternative 3 goes, I personally think it was an attempt to explain the "brain drain"...several people of certain abilities did appear to disappear when organizations such as the AFSA were first pulled together. The supposed astronaut at the end who is being interviewed is something else. Its been awhile, but I remember how the book and mockumentery caused a stir.

As far as the Hanger 1 episode goes,
it does seem weird that MUFON wouldn't have been more careful when presenting this person and his claim.

Paul Young said...

This "star soldier" seems to have borrowed from a Star Trek episode where Captain Picard lives an alternate existence (40 years in the story)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inner_Light_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

I've not watched Hanger 1, but thanks for the heads up Kevin...it seems like another load of televisual dross that I can now avoid.

Steve Sawyer said...

"I don’t know why they would provide this guy any air time given the nature of his tale."

Because it's sensational and "entertaining," I suppose, to some people. It's all about the ratings, and corporate media business, to promote hype, not actual history.

And, for the subsequent advertising dollars gained via commercials.

Programs and TV series like this have no real credibility, and the connection to and association with MUFON (who gets publicity and some funds for lending their name) simply reminds me once again that MUFON, as an organization, also has no credibility or legitimacy. They are just... ridiculous.

jlmet said...

Kevin,

That was Randy Cramer, aka "Captain K" who served 15 minutes or 17 years, whatever, on Mars. I saw the same episode & realized this was the same character I've heard Clyde Lewis interview on his show. It's nothing but idiocy, pure & simple. Why did I watch it, I was too lazy to get the remote. Here's a link that "explains" this nonsense:

http://www.groundzeromedia.org/captain-k-of-mars/

jlmet said...

Here's a better site detailing Cramer's story. As dumb as the story is, I find the comments section even dumber. People don't really believe this stuff, do they?

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/mars-disclosure-randy-cramer-captain-k/

Terry the Censor said...

@jlmet

Your first link answers my question somewhat; that is, if Alternative 3 influenced Kramer's story.

That link, in explaining Kramer's claims, cites William Cooper, who is quoted as saying that we landed a probe on Mars on May 22, 1962. That is the exact same date of the Mars landing shown in Alternative 3 (see the 50-minute mark of online versions. NOTE: in my first comment, I said 1961, but I checked the Alt 3 video again and it is May 22, 1962).

I don't see Kramer citing the fictional Alternative 3 as fact, but Cooper did, and those promoting Kramer certainly do.

Wow!

Brian Bell said...

I have heard this guy before on Internet talk radio and video.

Boring.

He never gets around to any specifics and it's pretty clear he made this entire thing up for self promotion. He doesn't have any details and depends on the "wow" factor to impress audiences. Absolutely ridiculous.

As for MUFON their TV show is humorously entertaining but that's about it. Almost all their facts are completely wrong including details with well known cases supporting the ETH!

They have very little credibility and this show is not helping. At least get the case facts right...

Don Maor said...

I watched the "Hangar One" chapter which versed on the SOM1-01 and crash recoveries, and I frankly liked the show (understandable, given that I am almost convinced about the authenticity of the SOM1-01) plus the actress who was borrowing the files from the MUFON shelves was nice).

I can't understand why they are now showing this guy who seems to be a liar.

albert said...

@Kevin,
I saw that episode. My memories of 'Hanger 1' shows, fortunately, fall somewhere below the bottom of my 'important stuff' category. As far as the C(K)ramer story, the guy must be be either a fraud, or delusional. I can't see any other explanations, and you know I usually hedge my bets. It's fun to speculate on advanced technologies, but one can't just toss science out the window. There has to be a path to follow.
.
@ Don Maor,
If it was Melissa Tittl, I agree; she's a cutie:)
.
@All,
I don't know MUFONs exact relationship with the producers, but it would appear that they are essentially renting their name to the show. Please don't tell me MUFON actually believes this stuff.
.
. .. . .. o

John's Space said...

@Kevin,

What has happened to MUFON. I thought that was the best currently active UFO investigation groups. So why are they allowing there name to be put to all of this stuff?

Of course the Star Soldier show was one of the most incredible.

Another one was the story about how Richard Nixon drove the actor Jackie Gleason to Homestead AFB back in 1973 at midnight and showed him the alien bodies and recovered crash debits in a secure facility on the base. Can you imagine this: the president arrives at a AFB in the middle of the night with a passenger. No secret service, etc. and tells Airman First Class Jones the gate guard that he wants access to the special secure facility. The guard calls up the is superior and says "Sir, there a guy her who claims to be President Nixon and he want to take his passenger onto the base. What should I do, sir?"

The idea makes me laugh!

CommanderCronus said...

This sounds a lot like the claims made by Andrew D. Basiago, the self-proclaimed chrononaut who did a tour of duty on Mars alongside a young Barack Obama in the early eighties. Credible? No. But is he a liar? I have no idea. You see, whether it's satanic abuse or interstellar time travel, whenever so-called "recovered memories" are involved, all bets are off. Humans can delude themselves into believing pretty much anything.

Brian Bell said...

Gleason was actually interested in UFO's. He also was friends with Nixon. But no, the personal visit to see aliens never happened.

albert said...

@Brian,
You might remember the 'Honeymooners' episode the Ralph dressed up as "The Man from Space"*. Funny at the time; funnier knowing Gleasons background. That episode ran on December 31, 1955!
.
I wonder if a sitting President could enter a military base on his own. He is, after all, the CIC. I'd hate to be the Secret Service guys on duty _that_ night. :)
.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V2Wzk1JmRA (15:40)
. .. . .. o

albert said...

@CommanderCronus,

'Obama', no, but 'Trump' I would believe...Do recall the first time he mentioned Obama? Just curious.
.
"... Humans can delude themselves into believing pretty much anything...."
.
Amen!
. .. . .. o

KRandle said...

Don -

I tried to ignore your comment about the SOM1-01, but find I must say something since I am convinced it is a hoax, as is Don Berliner, the recipient. The War Department symbol on the front argues against authenticity, as does the idea that they use the excuse of a downed satellite since none would be launched for another three years...

All -

The Gleason story is untrue because there is no way that the President could get away like that to show any civilian something that highly classified. It makes no since and the minute the President showed up, unescorted, to a military base, the base commander and the senior officers would be alerted. I don't know why this has come up in this discussion, but it does not belong here.

John's Space said...

Kevin,

Sorry if I crossed a line but the Gleason episode was featured as true on Hangar 1 and I was just using it as another example of how sad it is that the premier UFO investigative organization has fallen to the level of endorsing such an absurdity. The specific Star Soldier episode is another example. I hope that my depiction was understood by all as satire.

Other episodes of Hangar 1 are a lot better but the program is uneven in its choice of cases to present.

One additional thought to support your view on SOM1-01 is that the cover looks like that of unclassified army field manual rather than the top secret document that it purports to be.

KRandle said...

John's Space -

Didn't know that Hangar 1 talked about this story, which makes it appropriate for this discussion no matter how ridiculous it is.

Don Maor said...

Kevin, regarding the SOM1-01 said:

"The War Department symbol on the front argues against authenticity"

How?

Moreover, what is the point in bringing the opinion of Don Berliner here? I want reasons, not claims.

"as does the idea that they use the excuse of a downed satellite since none would be launched for another three years..."

Artificial satellites were certainly in the mind of people and military personnel in 1954. There are two newspaper articles from may 1954, in which Donald Keyhoe himself is quoted saying that the there are two artificial satellites orbiting earth, and that "government scientists at white sands" were trying to locate the satellites. Check out the link:

http://zonnews.com/news/1052-13000-year-old-satellite-orbiting-earth-sending-radio-signals-video.html

The point is not whether Keyhoe was wrong or not, the point is that Keyhoe was speaking about artificial satellites in 1954. Any officer in charge of creating the SOM1-01 manual would have been aware of Keyhoe's claims and might have modified the SOM1-01 with a new idea for deceptive claims used to divert public atention from downed discs. According to the control page of the SOM1-01, the page containing the clause on satellites was replaced in 1955, so there was a lot of time for officers in charge to add the clause on downed satellites.
At this point, the claimed anachronism becomes more of a synchronism, arguing in favor of authenticity.

John Space said:

"One additional thought to support your view on SOM1-01 is that the cover looks like that of unclassified army field manual rather than the top secret document that it purports to be."

The definitive proof of hoax John, is not it?

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

Oh no, it's the Black Knight myth.... Don newspapers are not 100% correct about what they write - never have been. Newspaper stories are just that - stories to gather the interest of readers.

These artlces from the '50's are about Keyhoe's claims...not proven facts.

There are no 13,000 year old alien satellights in orbit. Here's what one astronomy website has to say:

"Black Knight is a jumble of completely unrelated stories; reports of unusual science observations, authors promoting fringe ideas, classified spy satellites and people over-interpreting photos. These ingredients have been chopped up, stirred together and stewed on the internet to one rambling and inconsistent dollop of myth. The Universe is big place, and astronomers are trying to find signs of other life, some have even searched for alien probes near Earth; however the Black Knight satellite is not the answer and it never has been."

cda said...

Re those alleged 'artificial satellites' of 1954 (i.e. artificial in the sense that they were made by ETs to study the earth), this arose out of a search for possible small natural objects orbiting the earth then being done by Clyde Tombaugh at White Sands. He was certainly NOT searching for orbiting UFOs!

I quote from Willy Ley's SATELLITES, ROCKETS AND OUTER SPACE (1962). "To complicate matters a little more, there came a report one day that Clyde Tombaugh had discovered a small moon at a distance of 400 miles from the ground and another one at a distance of 600 miles. To this day the origin of the report is a mystery but it is certain that it was a canard. When I asked Clyde Tombaugh about it he replied that not only had he not discovered any additional moons but that he had not yet even searched the regions 400 and 600 miles distant".

Keyhoe had simply seized on some bogus 'report' and had taken it as true.

Don Maor said...

Brian and CDA,
You are totally missing the point. My point was that in 1954, there was a lot of conversation about satellites, even Keyhoe was speculating about artificial ones.

The main point here is that there is NOT anachronism in the SOM1-01, what I see is synchronism with the topic of satellites. Sorry.

John's Space said...

@Don Maor,

Every classified document that I've ever scene (not working papers) has a distinctive cover sheet that says classified even before you get close enough to read the specific level. Usually the covers are color coded to indicate the level, i.e. confidential, secret, and top secret. Maybe they didn't do that in 1950s? My knowledge only goes back to the late 1970s.

So a document that is as sensitive a SOM 1-01 would be (if authentic) should have a cover sheet appropriate for a top secret document. Also, the format is very much like that of an unclassified military manual suggest this is a fake by someone who never had a security clearance or worked it that environment.

cda said...

I am positive Kevin does not want us to digress and go into SOM1-01. So I shall refrain from saying any more. If Don wants to go along with it and is "almost convinced" that it is authentic, we must let it be. Presumably he is "almost convinced" (or maybe completely convinced) that the MJ-12 documents are also genuine, since the latter go hand in hand with the SOM1-01.

We had better keep off both these topics, eh Kevin?

Don Maor said...

John:

"Maybe they didn't do that in 1950s? My knowledge only goes back to the late 1970s"

Yes John, let's leave it that way, plus the notion that things are the way they are and not the way one would like them to be.

CDA:
"Presumably he is "almost convinced" (or maybe completely convinced) that the MJ-12 documents are also genuine, since the latter go hand in hand with the SOM1-01."

I think the SOM1-01 is independent of the other MJ-12 documents.

Brian Bell said...

@ Don - Hanger 1 and SOM 101

When History aired the Hanger 1 episode that discussed SOM 101 I was underwhelmed. The show did nothing but endorse it's authenticy. Not even a shred of comparative analysis on either viewpoint.

You may wish to read more on why the document is a fake:

http://www.cufos.org/ros5.html

KRandle said...

All -

Although the original post was about the "Star Soldier," it was also, sort of, about the credibility of the program so the discussion of Gleason and the SOM1-01 is semi-appropriate. I don't really wish to get dragged into another useless discussion of the credibility of any of MJ-12, I will note that the first major problem with the manual is that there is no provenance for it. You cannot file a FOIA request and learn more about it. The problem with the War Department seal on the front is that by the time the manual was allegedly created there was no War Department. And to believe that in 1954 you could use the claim that what fell was an artificial satellite means you don't understand the news media. That claim would create more questions than it answered and that could lead right back to this ultra secret organization which is the very last thing they would want.

Don Maor said...

Kevin said:

"The problem with the War Department seal on the front is that by the time the manual was allegedly created there was no War Department."

The seal is of the War Office, which formally existed until 1947. However that means almost nothing. Even today, a company that changes its name or join other companies, might keep using the previous name or company symbol for some time.

"And to believe that in 1954 you could use the claim that what fell was an artificial satellite means you don't understand the news media."

The clause on the SOM1-01 on satellites is proposed as a bogus explanation, it is meant as a deception. Deceptive statements are not meant to be truth. There is no problem there, and certainly not anachronism.

Brian said:
"You may wish to read more on why the document is a fake:
http://www.cufos.org/ros5.html "


A lot of very weak arguments by some important ufologists, some claims even wrong.

cda said...

Don:

You sound like the perfect successor to Stanton Friedman. Are there already secret plans, such as messages between yourself and him, for you to replace him?

KRandle said...

Don -

When the manual was created, there was no War Department. It was the Department of Defense and that is the seal that should have been on the front.

And the last thing you want to do is give a reporter a bogus answer to a question because if he or she learns that it is bogus, they'll want to know what you're hiding. They won't stop digging until they get an answer. Therefore telling them it was a satellite is counter intuitive.

Finally, you have no provenance for the manual. You cannot prove that it came from any government agency and anyone dealing with questioned documents will tell you that it is a giant red flag.

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

Weak arguments? Hardly the case.

As stated there are content problems with the manual as well as forensic issues. Hard to verify authenticy of a problematic single copy rendition from 3rd or 4th generation photos of any document.

Why didn't the person just send the actual manual? Because it would have been verified as a fraud.

Don Maor said...

Brian claimed:

"Hard to verify authenticy of a problematic single copy rendition from 3rd or 4th generation photos of any document.

Why didn't the person just send the actual manual? Because it would have been verified as a fraud."


I don't know Brian, unlike you, I don't have psychic powers.

However, it seems to me that if the photos are 4th generation (as your psychic powers told you) that would explain automatically why the person did not send the actual manual... he did not have it.

On the other hand, maybe the person just wanted to preserve the original copy to himself...

But no, most probably your psychic powers trump my thinking.

Don Maor said...

Kevin said:

When the manual was created, there was no War Department. It was the Department of Defense and that is the seal that should have been on the front.

Kevin, the SOM01-01 has the logo of the War Office, not War Department, and according to Robert Wood's website, the War Office logo was used in documents until 1969, so there is no problem. Check the Wood’s website referring to this point.
http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2014/12/30/som1-01-overview-authentication/

"And the last thing you want to do is give a reporter a bogus answer to a question because if he or she learns that it is bogus, they'll want to know what you're hiding. They won't stop digging until they get an answer. Therefore telling them it was a satellite is counter intuitive."

Kevin, your point here is really disappointing. There are countless of UFO cases in which the journalists and general public have been fed with pure garbage by skeptibunkers or government, and journalists have swallowed it all. Don't forget about time traveling crash dummies, the mogul balloons or the weather balloons.

Finally, you have no provenance for the manual. You cannot prove that it came from any government agency and anyone dealing with questioned documents will tell you that it is a giant red flag.

Yes Kevin, but you also don't have provenance, you have no hoaxer identity, and given that 20 years have passed, this is a major problem. The purported hoaxer who created this impressive document (which probably took months or years to be created) is still silent and no clear reason for creating the hoax has been offered).

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

You must really love SOM1-01 Don. It's an interesting piece of fiction but that's it...fiction. Some of what Wood claims on his website demonstrates that this document can easily be faked.

Etymology - Buy dictionaries from 1950 and insert words that correspond with the era...quite easy to do.

Provenance - Wood says it's part of the authentication process yet he has no provenance.

Dating - Wood claims he dated the paper and the ink. How? These are photos not the original document so it fails right there.

I could go on but it's a waste of time. Your mind is made up. By the way why doesn't SOM1-01 reference the 13,000 year old Black Night?

cda said...

Brian:

Notice how the term 'EBE' keeps occurring in the SOM1-01 document. The term EBE was supposedly invented by Dr Detlev Bronk, one of the MJ-12 gang, sometime during his alleged study and 'analysis' of the bodies retrieved at Roswell. This term was obviously extracted from the MJ-12 papers and carried forward by the SOM forger.

There have been countless scientific papers on topics like exterrestrial life over many decades. Has anyone ever used the term 'EBE' therein? I do not think so! (Apart of course from certain UFO writers).

Although this is off topic, who actually invented EBE? Paul Bennewitz perhaps? We shall probably never know.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDC

Yes, which is why SOM1-01 is indeed linked to MJ12 documents. Part and parcel as they say.

It's a hoax, but the question remains by whom and for what reason?

1) Gag trick by one ufologist to another as payback, or out of jealousy, or professional competition and attempt to discredit?

2) A government or military disinformation campaign to drive attention away from other secret but real projects?

3) A deluded ET'er who's simply frustrated the evidence they want to see isn't there so they fill the gap with false info to close the void?

These are the aspects I would have thought History and Hanger One would have presented in that episode....but no...MUFON claims it's authentic.

Gal220 said...

Billy Cox also covered this episode a while back

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15285/and-thats-the-way-it-is/

Basically MUFON has given the production company free reign to go into their files and make the show as they see fit. Usually the show is loosely based on some kind of theme like Indian sightings.

You definitely chose the worst episode of the show, but even the best shows cover some incidents that hardly seem credible.

The sightings that do sound interesting, like the Alan Tafoya sighting in the Star People episode, has no follow up when you go to check MUFON's online database.

transcript of the Star People episode
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=hangar-1-the-ufo-files-2014&episode=s02e05

KRandle said...

Don -

I have looked at the War Office Seal and looked at the history of it, and it seems that the War Office Seal is one of the less likely candidates. The history is somewhat garbled, and the seal used in 1954 is not necessarily the correct one... not to mention that this document is labeled as coming from the Majestic-12 Group, so why would the War Office Seal be on it. Is this to suggest that MJ-12 is, in fact, an Army organization, and if so, why are all these others who are not members of the Army on it. Isn't MJ-12 supposed to be an inter-agency organization which mean the War Office Seal is inappropriate. (I note here that one of the copies I saw is a reconstruction of that sent on 35 mm file to Don Berliner but I saw no mention of this on the document).

If I'm a reporter in 1954 and have been alerted to something strange crashing, and if the people in charge told me it was an artificial satellite, I would have dozens of questions... which is the last thing you want if you're trying to hide something. The reporter would know that no artificial satellites have been launched by anyone so what really fell. Your example fails because in 1994 and later, at those press conferences, you were dealing with flying saucers and every reporter knows that there is no such thing... the programs mentioned existed and could be verified with a few telephone calls. But in 1954, there was no way to verify the artificial satellite story which meant that some of them would dig deeper until their questions were answered. This idea of artificial satellites is a non-starter and someone in 1954 wouldn't have been thinking in that direction anyway, no matter how many books by Keyhoe he might have read... not to mention all the science fiction stories about them.

Finally, you are the one who is suggesting that the manual is authentic, not me. You have no provenance for it, and in fact, there is no provenance for any of the MJ-12 documents. After more than thirty years of looking, no one has EVER found a document through records reviews and FOIA requests (and I don't count the Cutler/Twining memo because even Friedman says that it was planted in the National Archives). I can tell you who probably hoaxed the first documents, I can give you a timeline of their creation, prove that copies received by others were made on a specific copy machine using a strange dating sequence. But you can't tell me where any of them came from. You only know the manual was sent to Don Berliner. So I do not need to give you any speculation about the manual and who invented it and you cannot provide any provenance for it.

Don Maor said...

Dating - Wood claims he dated the paper and the ink. How? These are photos not the original document so it fails right there.

Brian, have you considered the very small, unlikely, and tiny probability, THAT YOU READ IT ALL WRONG ??? (!!!)


By the way why doesn't SOM1-01 reference the 13,000 year old Black Night?.

Bri, I never claimed that the Black Night was a real thing or event. This is just another sample that your reading compression ability is dangerously low.

Don Maor said...

Kevin said:

Finally, you are the one who is suggesting that the manual is authentic, not me.

Kevin, I started my point saying that I was (and still am) almost convinced that the SOM1-01 is authentic. I have given my reasons for believing so in other threads, but on the other hand I am not 100% sure. Any claim requires evidence, claims of hoax, and claims of authenticity. Only the guys who say that they are not sure are free from presenting proof, but of course, can look for evidence.

KRandle said...

Don -

You don't understand. It is up to the proponents of the manual (the Woods, Friedman, et. al.) to provide evidence that the manual is authentic. I have seen no persuasive evidence that it is. With all the other MJ-12 documents pretty much in the garbage, it is going to be difficult to prove authenticity. But the point is, I don't have to prove it a hoax. Those who believe it authentic must prove that it is.

Brian Bell said...

Don:

You didn't claim Black Night was real? Ok. Perhaps then you shouldn't direct readers to www.zonnews.com and specifically to a link about Black Night as evidence to support your claims about satellites.

Woods claims on authentication? Well again perhaps it's not wise to point people to a link where Woods clearly has a PowerPoint presentation stating that these are the known methods by which authentication of SOM1-01 was considered and determined to be genuine.

I don't know, maybe it's your English proficiency that needs a little buffing. You tell me.

Steve Sawyer said...

"...I started my point saying that I was (and still am) almost convinced that the SOM1-01 is authentic."

"...on the other hand I am not 100% sure."

"Only the guys who say that they are not sure are free from presenting proof..."

Wow. Talk about logical contradictions.

So, Don, you're "almost convinced" but "not 100% sure" that the SOM 1-01 is authentic, but you provide no evidence or proof because "only the guys who say that they are not sure are free from presenting proof."

That's called "wanting to have your cake and eat it too."

Are you aware that the unexposed roll of film sent to Don Berliner had an Albuquerque, New Mexico post mark on the envelope it was sent in? You know, near Kirtland AFB, where the notorious MJ-12 document hoaxer Richard C. Doty of the AFOSI was stationed at the time?

Or that, as required by both national security law and policy, the SOM 1-01 has no Top Secret control number or copy number?

I mean, even if you want to ignore the reference to "downed satellites" (supposedly in 1954?) and a long-obsolete "War Office" logo on the cover, explain to me how the SOM 1-101 also references "EBE" bodies allegedly being sent to "Area 51 S-4," when the Groom Lake facility known variously as "Dreamland," "Homey Airport," "Area 51," etc. did not even exist at the time, and in fact the USAF did not even acquire the land for the base and establish the beginning of the facility until April, 1955, originally obtained for prospective secret flight testing of the prototype U-2's?

Wouldn't you have to say that's an obvious "anachronism" or chronological inconsistency or contradiction in established fact?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51

That fact alone ought to trigger most honest, objective person's "cognitive dissonance" antenna, but apparently not everyone's. And, btw, "S-4" as an actual sub-section or operating area adjoining or near Area 51 has also never been proven.

Oh, I forgot -- all such "niggling details" don't have to be responded to or clearly and provably dealt with when one is "not 100% sure," although "almost convinced" the SOM 1-01 is genuine, since not being absolutely certain (despite all the evidence that SOM 1-01 is a fake) allows you to "be free from presenting proof."

That's not only ridiculous, but logically contradictory and somewhat irrational.

Believe what you want, even if it's a lie, a fraud, a hoax, and/or disinformation.

But to do so also makes your completely unsubstantiated opinion both factually wrong and, well, you know... kind of delusional.

At this point, I think we're being "trolled" here -- sort of like how another party on another of KR's recent blog posts persistently and monomaniacally keeps saying the dead Hopi child mummy of "Roswell slides" infamy is "not alien" but also "not human," with the obvious implication of this other person's unfounded belief that the "Alien Autopsy" film hoax shows, as do the slides, a "monotreme" or convergently evolved reptile, despite all the real, contradictory evidence now known in both cases. Just like how the "star soldier" story, the topic of this blog post, is also just another fabrication, confabulation, and/or deceptive lie.

Enough!

Larry Holcombe said...

As far as the satellite question concerning the SOM 1-01 one must consider that satellites were seriously discussed within the military as early as 1946. The Army Air Force and the Navy met in March of 1946 to discuss a combined effort on a rocket/satellite project. General LeMay quashed the idea and created RAND to study the feasibility of an orbiting space device.

It's beyond the pale to believe that 8 years later when earth orbiting satellites were ready to happen they would have not been included in the alleged SOM 1-01. In fact it may even give legitimacy to the document when you consider why a hoaxer would include the "satellite" reference.

It is said the that President Eisenhower received pressure from his military in the early 1950's to attempt to put a satellite in orbit. However, for political reasons he rejected the idea fearing the Soviets would think it was a spy satellite, which of course is exactly what it would have been. When the Soviets put up Sputnik he was elated and our own satellite program took off.

Don Maor said...

Steve Sawyer:

I mean, even if you want to ignore the reference to "downed satellites" (supposedly in 1954?) and a long-obsolete "War Office" logo on the cover, explain to me how the SOM 1-101 also references "EBE" bodies allegedly being sent to "Area 51 S-4," when the Groom Lake facility known variously as "Dreamland," "Homey Airport," "Area 51," etc. did not even exist at the time, and in fact the USAF did not even acquire the land for the base and establish the beginning of the facility until April, 1955, originally obtained for prospective secret flight testing of the prototype U-2's?

There is nothing to it Steve, the CIA's version of history is not that easy to trust. Desertic places are very big, some lands could have been acquired before 1955, some after. In his website, Robert Wood seems to have located evidence in a Las Vegas newspaper of a huge construction being made in 1951, posibly the construction of Area 51 (notice the coincidence of year number). Here it is the Woods website link:
http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2014/12/30/som1-01-overview-authentication/

Regarding the downed satellites anachronism, here is a new link showing again that instead of anachronism, it strongly smells like synchronism.

http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2015/01/05/downed-satellites-anachronism-as-cover-story-for-crashed-ufos/

And steve, I am sorry to be such an irrational.

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

The sources you cite continue to focus on Woods' webpage on SOM1-01. Probably not the best way to back up your claims.

What you are basing your argument on is the data equivalent of saying "SOM1-01 is authentic....I can prove it's authentic by quoting information from it."

You can't base the argument for it's defense on Woods' claims because Woods is typically quoting information from the document as well with questionable supporting data himself.

To prove the document is legitimate you'll need outside sources to verify it's authenticity.

Perhaps you should write Richard Doty whom many suggest is one possible author.

cda said...

Didn't a guy called Timothy Cooper produce a batch of crazy documents, said to have come from another mystery guy Thomas Cantwheel? Both seem to have dropped out of ufology. Thank goodness.

The story rolls on. The books, web-site 'revelations', and TV shows continue.

Meanwhile the people who really matter, the world's leading space scientists and exo-biologists, get on with their work and ignore all this flim-flam-flummery. Thank goodness, again.

Brian Bell said...

@ CDA

Yes. After SOM1-01 was pronounced a fake in 1999, yet another new batch of MJ12 documents were "found" by Cooper who released them with Woods and his son Ryan at a UFO conference where they were presenting on the legitimacy of MJ12 and SOM1-01.

Cooper's MJ12 documents apparently show the inherent flaws of a vintage typewriter owned by Cooper himself whom many believe to have fabricated the new documents to further support Woods' claim that SOM1-01 remains authentic.

MJ12 first appeared in a fake letter that Doty produced to decieve Paul Benewwitz (who was observing classified USAF) into thinking the aircraft he was observing were alien spaceships.

It all started there not to mention the entire batch of documents originated from Doty's USAF duty station address - Albuquerque, NM.

Don Maor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don Maor said...

Brian said:
The sources you cite continue to focus on Woods' webpage on SOM1-01. Probably not the best way to back up your claims.

The Woods have done a lot of research, much more than you or others. Should I back my conclusions in your claims Brian? Not really, judging from your last appalling interpretations of my posts. By the way, the new article on the downed satellites wrongly claimed "anachronism" is written by a researcher named Larry Lemke.
http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2015/01/05/downed-satellites-anachronism-as-cover-story-for-crashed-ufos/

I have made my own research on the some information of the SOM1-01, for instance the information of body masses of the alien types reported. I found that information was fairly consistent in at least three ways, so at the very least the information was put there by a very clever hoaxer. To me, this is what the Woods call a "zinger", a piece of evidence that strongly argues in favor of authenticity, or that at the very least requires a considerable effort to be hoaxed. The raised "z" in some parts of the document is also a "zinger", and now the downed satellite issue, in my opinion, has passed from purported anachronism to a new "Zinger". So we are in presence of an extremely clever hoaxer or staff of hoaxers, or, in my opinion, an authentic document.

Brian Bell said...

@ Don

You found the body masses of the alien types found in SOM1-01 to be convincing?

Once again you quote the document as the source for its own authenticy when no original manual exists and no other data corroborates your stupendously ridiculous claim.

Anybody could fabricate body masses of supposedly 4 foot tall aliens by simply substituting child body masses instead. Not hard at all and not very cleaver either.

You don't even have any comparative alien body mass data to prove your claim. And if you do, it wasn't even formulated from any alien that we know of...no body to even base that data on.

You really are desperate to believe in this document.....

Anyone in Ufology could fake such a document and probably better than this one with a little effort.

Don Maor said...

"Anybody could fabricate body masses of supposedly 4 foot tall aliens by simply substituting child body masses instead. Not hard at all and not very cleaver either."

Yes, it could be done that way, but these beings are suposedly somewhat slender than childs of the same height, so the question is (for example) how many pounds do the hoaxer had to discount to the weight of a child, to be credible? The other complexity is that information is given for more than one individual, so things get harder. For example, given a suposed alien of 4 feet of height with a body mass "X", what would be the body mass "Y" of a 4.5 feet tall alien? If you think that they weight must be proportional, you would be wrong, the recipe would be slightly different than proportionality.

On the other hand, information on weights and heigths is given on another type of alien (EBE Type 1), and I did try to find a suposed mathematical recipe that a hoaxer would have used. It turns out that IF the document is a hoax, the hoaxer did use different recipes for the EBE type 1 than for the EBE Type 2. So we have a very clever hoaxer which changes mathematical recipes (and provides rounded numbers) in order to not to be caught. So it is more likely to me that the document is real.

"Anyone in Ufology could fake such a document and probably better than this one with a little effort."

Hahaha, why don't you try to fake one for yourself?

Steve Sawyer said...

"Hahaha, why don't you try to fake one for yourself?"

Why try to reinvent the ouroborosian wheel of stupid fakery?

[It's already been done, in the case of the SOM 1-01, by Rick Doty and Bill Moore.]

[The latter MJ-12 plethora of docs courtesy Tim Cooper, who now denies any of the docs are genuine. And he should know, having fabricated most of them.]

I do suspect, though, it would take more than a "little effort."

Moderate effort to somewhat difficult, IMHO. But definitely doable by one or two people.

BTW, actual ET's would most probably look nothing like humanoids. Unless they wanted to appear as such, but that would simply be a mask, for our consumption and "relatibility", or as Vallee characterizes it, a "staged display."

cda said...

Don:

Regarding SOM1-01 you are heavily outnumbered, at least on this blog. This does not prove you are wrong, of course. The rest of us MAY have missed that vital clue that shows how right you are and how wrong we are.

However, since the said paper was allegedly prepared some 60 years ago it is inconceivable that something from official archives and from a known provenance would have not turned up by now to verify it, to say nothing of all the world's scientists searching for ET life still ignoring it, and other related stuff, after all this time.

So I'd say the chances of you being right about SOM1-01 are about the same as that of you trisecting the angle with ruler and compass. But keep trying, by all means. Notice I said "about the same", not exactly the same.

Don Maor said...

Steve Sawyer claimed:
"[It's already been done, in the case of the SOM 1-01, by Rick Doty and Bill Moore.]"

Bla, bla, bla, accusations without proof or admission by them. On the other hand, why are you using square parenthesis?

Steve Sawyer further claimed:
BTW, actual ET's would most probably look nothing like humanoids. Unless they wanted to appear as such, but that would simply be a mask, for our consumption and "relatibility", or as Vallee characterizes it, a "staged display."

Pure speculation on your part Steve. FYI, real scholars (like Simon Conway Morris for instance) have invested some time to the topic of the humanoid shape of aliens. They have concluded that IF alien civilizations exist, they should most probably be humanoid. See for example these papers:

Bieri, R. (1964). Huminoids on other planets?. American scientist, 452-458.

Morris, S. C. (2011). Predicting what extra-terrestrials will be like: and preparing for the worst. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1936), 555-571.

Don Maor said...

CDA said:

"So I'd say the chances of you being right about SOM1-01 are about the same as that of you trisecting the angle with ruler and compass. But keep trying, by all means. Notice I said "about the same", not exactly the same."

CDA, I have been reading this and previous posts from you, and I have refused responding because I have, during these years, understood your feelings and thinking. The perspectives of alien visitation afraid you, to some extent. Besides, your last three posts have been more or less reflexive, you are a senior aged Brit, I like British people, so I won't argue this time.

Steve Sawyer said...

"And steve, I am sorry to be such an irrational."

Yeah, I'm sorry you're "such an irrational" also, Don.

I see no further point in responding to your unsubstantiated claims and opinions regarding the MJ-12 / SOM 1-01 hoaxed documents.

You've shown by your statements that your beliefs in regard to such faked, thoroughly discredited documents, as if they "almost convince" you they are genuine, that you have an innate confirmation bias that has become a sort of "idée fixe" -- which is both irrational and sad.

You seem incapable of understanding the truth, history or facts that have been evident for over 25 years that the MJ-12 and SOM 1-01 docs are fabrications, and how, why, and who were responsible for this long-term con.

I've done the research, and provided you with links to many of the most substantial analyses available online, which you seem to ignore since they contradict with vetted evidence your belief or faith in these obvious and amateurish fabrications. So, I'm done with you.

I'll leave you though, FWIW, with this quote from the author Upton Sinclair:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

That quote is most applicable to Robert and Ryan Woods and their financial stake in promoting this old and decrepit hoax, but I'd add, in your case, and others, that some of the even more influential factors in "not understanding it" beyond just simply "salary" seem to include prior beliefs and public claims, inherent bias, lack of objective investigatory competence, ego, and an inability to admit error in reasoning, such as your cherry-picking support for your views from such discredited sources as the Woods.

You apparently don't even understand how and why you are wrong.

Which is a sorry state of mind, I'm actually sad to have to say to you.

But you not only "just don't get it," you are unable to "get it."

So disheartening, and so common.

KRandle said...

Don -

The last line in your now deleted post was over the line... it was fine until you added that last line.

Paul Young said...

Steve Sawyer..."It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

An excellent quote, for sure! I immediately thought about SETI when I read it!

Rusty Lingenfelter said...

I actually feel dumber for having read these comments. For my favorite AC, when I mentioned 'serious thinkers' some weeks ago, please cite as an example 'people who don't support the authenticity of any MJ-12 documents'. If anyone questions why most legitimate 'researchers' and 'investigators' shy away from ufology, this is a great example. Hence, there is a body of speculation, rather than knowledge. You can't use logic to refute the illogical.