tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2470503722492636104..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: "Truth," MJ-12 and Fatal FlawsKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-66966634961183713612016-09-15T14:40:45.644-07:002016-09-15T14:40:45.644-07:00I asked about the term EBE (Extraterrestrial Biolo...I asked about the term EBE (Extraterrestrial Biological Entities). Upon reading Kevin's latest book "Roswell in the 21st Century" I see a footnote on p.252 which states:<br /><br />"It is in this document [The MJ-12/Aquarius Hoax, published 1989 by W. Todd Zechel] that Zechel claims that Paul Bennewitz came up with the term Extraterrestrial Biological Entity (EBE), which would figure prominently later in the Eisenhower Briefing Document".<br /><br />However, we still do not know exactly when Bennewitz "came up" with the term EBE. It may have been his own invention, in which case I would expect it to have first turned up in the early 1980s. But unfortunately this is unknown. <br /><br />If this matter could be definitely resolved, it would demolish the SOM1-01 document forever. <br /><br />What does Kevin have to say about this Zechel paper, and is the original Bennewitz paper still extant? I suspect not.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36395653328983245662016-09-14T19:40:00.313-07:002016-09-14T19:40:00.313-07:00Kevin said:
"The Area 51 reference on the ma...Kevin said:<br /><i> "The Area 51 reference on the maps and aeronautical charts refers to a restricted area and not a ground-based facility."</i><br /><br />I already mentioned it in this thread, I estimated the Area 51 to be a rectangle of about 11 miles x 14 miles based on those old maps . Such a large area could have had various unconnected (or connected) facilities inside, among them the S-4.<br /><br /><i>" We have statements from reliable men who were on the ground at Groom Lake in April 1955 who describe what they saw, which was an abandoned airstrip. You postulate, with absolutely no evidence an AEC very secret base before 1955 and then, with no evidence that a CIA historian was obligated to invent a different story."</i><br /><br />Although one can always doubt about the reliability of guys connected to CIA, this is not about how reliable were the guys there at 1955 or how honest are the CIA historians. It is their jobs to protect secrets of other agencies or national secrets, it is their job to lie or tell half-truths.<br /><br /><i>"You twist yourself into a pretzel to explain away evidence you do not like and invent reasons that will allow you to continue to believe in nonsense."</i><br /><br />Kevin, look, you are doing a fine job analyzing this key point about the origins of Area 51. This topic is not nonsense. At worst, the SOM1-01 is an elaborate and very good hoax, and at best the SOM1-01 document is authentic. In any case, it definitely IS NOT "nonsense".<br /><br /><i>"What you have is a requirement in a document created in 1954 and updated in 1955 requiring that debris and alien creatures be transported to a base that did not exist in that time frame. You seem unable to grasp this simple fact and would rather suggest that I see the glass as half empty when, in fact, there is no glass at all."</i><br /><br />Kevin, this is not to fight. According to the change control page of the SOM1-01, the specific page mentioning Area 51 S-4 was not updated in 1955, so this specific page would just be from 1954. Another important point, the SOM1-01 does NOT mention at all that the recovered bodies should go to S-4 base. That is claptrap by people who does not care to read the SOM1-01 carefully. The SOM1-1 is pretty clear and consistent on that: only technological remains were to be sent to S-4, everything related to biological remains or dead bodies were to be sent to blue lab in Wright-Patterson. This is another VERY consistent point with what we currently know about facilities in Area 51. We currently know that the whole area was used in 1955 for secret technological developments and tests, and that is pretty close to what the SOM1-01 is telling us, technological analysis of extraterrestrial crafts and technological stuff. This consistent trend is very far of being "nonsense" as you usually claim.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1007938468521256522016-09-14T09:10:49.999-07:002016-09-14T09:10:49.999-07:00Don -
I think the problem is your obsession with ...Don -<br /><br />I think the problem is your obsession with ignoring the facts that do not fit into your world view. BTW, what color is the sky in your world?<br /><br />The Area 51 reference on the maps and aeronautical charts refers to a restricted area and not a ground-based facility. We have statements from reliable men who were on the ground at Groom Lake in April 1955 who describe what they saw, which was an abandoned airstrip. You postulate, with absolutely no evidence an AEC very secret base before 1955 and then, with no evidence that a CIA historian was obligated to invent a different story. We have a document that was previously classified, with an actual provenance, that tells us there was nothing there, but you'd rather belief in secret bases and a document with no provenance whatsoever. You twist yourself into a pretzel to explain away evidence you do not like and invent reasons that will allow you to continue to believe in nonsense.<br /><br />What you have is a requirement in a document created in 1954 and updated in 1955 requiring that debris and alien creatures be transported to a base that did not exist in that time frame. You seem unable to grasp this simple fact and would rather suggest that I see the glass as half empty when, in fact, there is no glass at all.<br /><br />I will quote a line from The Great Escape... this is close to insanity.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54955088479562090922016-09-13T19:11:19.097-07:002016-09-13T19:11:19.097-07:00Kevin, I think the problem is your obsession with ...Kevin, I think the problem is your obsession with always looking at the half empty glass.<br /><br />Let us look at the filled half of the glass. First, The SOM1-01 mentions Area 51 - S4, this is, it is specifying a location with more references than just Area 51. This is notable because another reference I gave mentioned that the site at the Groom Lake was known as Site II, possibly a different place than S4. (Notice the SOM's mention of S4 predates by 6 years the book by Curtis Peebles (2000) which mentions Site II as a synonym to the Groom Lake test site.)<br /><br />Second. It seems to me that the word "known", in the quote you brought here, is clearly stating that the designation "Area 51" was ALREADY in use in maps during the Eisenhower Era. <br /><br />Third and most important, the Woods have some reasons to believe that the place mentioned in the SOM was constructed in 1951. One reason they found is a costly and discreet construction in the Nevada Desert announced in a Nevada Newspaper in 1951. I am sure they have more reasons if you ask them directly.<br /><br />Regarding the quoted story that the land was abandoned when Bissel and Ritland flew above it in aircraft, yes I have read it, but it seems to me like more or less a cover-up story. If there was an AEC very secret base in there before 1955, let's say 1951, the CIA historian in charge would have been obliged to invent a different story. We might be reading now a sanitized version of the history of the Area 51 facilities. The other possibility is that the Site 4 was located in a different place of the Area 51, possibly camouflaged (as Bob Lazar described it), and Bissel and Ritland simply did not see it when they flew near to it in 1955.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-56044256081765945202016-09-13T12:46:31.019-07:002016-09-13T12:46:31.019-07:00Kevin,
The more I read from you and everyone rega...Kevin,<br /><br />The more I read from you and everyone regarding the MJ-12 and SOM1-01, the more I question the Wood's involvement. There are flaws in the contents as you mentioned and there have been others including myself about the creation and production of the documents.<br /><br />All of this goes back to Robert Woods and son. Before I say that they are part scam (selling their copies of the documents), I would like to read their comments here on our turf.<br /><br />Could you invited the Wood's to respond to our comments?<br />Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24879772702311421212016-09-13T12:26:12.448-07:002016-09-13T12:26:12.448-07:00Don -
Did you actually read the reference you sen...Don -<br /><br />Did you actually read the reference you sent?<br /><br />I could argue that this a docuament created after 1980 because footnotes make reference to documents written in the 1980s, and that the use of Area 51 was for the ease of communicating. It doesn't prove that the term was being used in the early 1950s. This is an argument of semantics and we'd never agree on the interpretation. That doesn't really matter because the reference gives away the store. I'll even concede the point because it becomes irrelevant... but will note that they do call it Groom Lake...<br /><br />They're talking about the development of the U-2 and tell us "On 12 April 1955 Richard Bissell and Col. Osmund Ritland... flew over Nevada with Kelly Johnson in small Beechcraft plane piloted by Lockheed's chief test pilot, Tony LeVier. They spotted what appeared to be an airstrip by a salt flat known as Groom Lake, near the northeast corner of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Nevada Proving Ground. After debating about landing on the old strip, LeVier set the plane down on the lakebed, and all four walked over to examine the strip. The facility had been used during World War II as an aerial gunnery range for Army Air Corps pilots. From the air the strip appeared to be paved, but on closer inspection it turned out to have originally been fashioned from compacted earth that had turned to ankle-deep dust after more than a decade of disuse. If LeVier had attempted to land on the airstrip, the plane would probably had nosed over when the wheels sank into the loose soil, killing or injuring all of the key figures in the U-2 project.<br /><br />Bissel and his colleagues all agreed that Groom Lake would make an ideal site for testing the U-2 and training its pilots. Upon returning to Washington, Bissell discovered that Groom Lake was not part of the AEC proving ground. After consulting with Dulles, Bissell and Miller asked the Atomic Energy Commission to add the Groom Lake area to its real estate holdings in Nevada. AEC Chairman Adm. Lewis Strauss readily agreed, and President Eisenhower also approved the addition of this strip of wasteland, known by its map designation as Area 51 to the Nevada Test Site."<br /><br />So, while the name does surface here, you seemed to have missed the description of the site as abandoned with an airstrip that had not been used in a decade. There were no facilities there and the projected use, at that time, was for testing the U-2 and training the pilots. In 1955, there was nothing there to house any recovered alien spacecraft or alien creatures meaning that a manual created in 1954 and updated in 1955 would have no reason to suggest the recovered material, whatever it might be, should be transported to this abandoned airstrip in the middle of Nevada. <br /><br />That makes it an anachronism and a fatal flaw... You might argue that later, much later, as the facility was actually build and other secret projects were housed there, it might make sense... you could even argue that materials recovered in the late 1940s would be taken there for security reasons, but you can't make the argument that this would have been the policy in 1955 (which is the latest date in the manual) because the facility didn't exist. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81555284642796985902016-09-12T06:26:10.058-07:002016-09-12T06:26:10.058-07:00To raise a point I mentioned before:
Does anyone ...To raise a point I mentioned before:<br /><br />Does anyone know the origin of the term EBE, i.e. Extraterrestrial Biological Entities?<br /><br />Don Maor will presumably tell us it was suggested by Dr Detlev Bronk in 1947, or thereabouts, after his group had examined the Roswell ETs, as revealed in the main MJ-12 document.<br /><br />However, I distinctly recall someone (forget who) saying the term was in fact invented by Paul Bennewitz of Albuquerque, in one of his weird UFO writings c. 1980 - 81.<br /><br />A final answer on this would settle once and for all the question of SOM1-01. Is the term EBE used anywhere at all, outside the realms of ufology? Presumably not. <br /><br />What became of the 'Bennewitz papers' anyway?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-76182311832186633802016-09-11T17:25:46.653-07:002016-09-11T17:25:46.653-07:00All,
I went through the document again. The origi...All,<br /><br />I went through the document again. The original one on this file:<br />http://www.majesticdocuments.com/pdf/som101_part1.pdf<br /><br />There was a couple of things that stood out to me about how the booklet was produced. First off, I was looking at the "how" SOM1-01 was either copied or photographed. This appears strongly that the booklet was photograph. <br /><br />I double checked if this could have possibly been a "Xerox" copy? Not impossible but not likely. Here is the Wiki page about the history of Photocopiers:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocopier<br />The timeline when the Xerox suggest that it's possible for the mid 1950's but was introduced in 1959. Interestingly, the Battelle Memorial Institute, was involved in it's ownership. <br /><br />With that said, I believe it was photographed with a camera. Here's why, the focus was off on a handful of pages. This alone is not a major problem. However the worse of the pages was sign-in or type-in forms. For this to be a real sign-in or type-in booklet, each time there was an entry, it would have to be disassembled, typed, then reassembled. This would have created some noticeable page crease wear. I am not seeing this. This was also the beginning the book which the page crease wear would be more likely seen because the whole booklet wouldn't have been disassembled.<br /><br />However there are two thing that stand out to me. First, is the margins. Most if nearly all secret rated documents had far wider margins. Especially on the inside margins where the two ring binding system was. This being the case, the security on the warning on the left hand side or the backside pages were over by over half inch. <br /><br />There are two very big question marks to me. Page 7 has no footer or page number. This same page 7 looks photocopied and not photograph. There are no fingers holding down the page and the shadowing is inconsistent on this page.<br /><br />Then on the front page with the Woods:<br />http://specialoperationsmanual.com/the-manual/<br />This has the obviously specially created header with the oversize double printed letters. This would have had to be been created on printing press. The same goes with the round emblem in the footer. There is not logical reason to go through a long process of creating photo print plates just for just a header and footer. However this could have been made years later on a computer far easier. Think about it... Why risk another potential security risk for just a single header and footer?<br /><br />Last, I have had questions about the Woods' and the amount of money they have made off all of the UFO documents they offered for sale. Yet, we are suppose to believe all of them just showed up. Maybe they will come up with documents telling us about the tooth fairy. <br /><br />Take my thoughts apart. But the people I would love to read from is the Woods to defend all of the comments.<br />Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-91817232824226345202016-09-11T13:27:32.144-07:002016-09-11T13:27:32.144-07:00David Rudiak wrote:
"I have other issues wit...David Rudiak wrote:<br /><br /><i>"I have other issues with the SOM. E.g., stylistically the language doesn't sound military or bureaucratic enough to my "ear." It is a bit TOO informal and clearly written. But that alone doesn't prove anything."</i><br /><br />David, first thanks for your chronological account of the satellite development in the news around 1954. I always enjoy your informative posts.<br /><br />I see the SOM as a manual of important ideas and guidelines, prepared by very high ranking officers and government leaders/top scientists, to be used by other high ranking officers in charge of operations for recovery of crashed UFOs. In this regard, the important messages carried by the SOM are: UFOs are real, they are ET, extreme secrecy must be applied, the matter is extremely serious, cover-ups must be performed at any costs, etc. Given that the SOM was presumably prepared by very high ranking officers, government leaders and top scientists, one can expect the bureaucratic and military minutia to be basically by-passed. Those guys were interested in big ideas.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-34823453146397784112016-09-11T12:46:59.548-07:002016-09-11T12:46:59.548-07:00CDA spoke with certainity:
"The truth is tha...CDA spoke with certainity:<br /><br /><i>"The truth is that the forger of this document (SOM1-01) hadn't a clue what to write, so he invented a vague, meaningless paragraph (or two paragrapns) containing pure high-sounding waffle. There is nothing in this waffle about the real actions to be taken, nothing at all."</i><br /><br />Mentioned paragraphs are not meaningless, they clearly seem to be serious concerns and seeds for future trials.<br /><br />But CDA wants specific actions to be taken by USA militaries in another countries to retrieve UFOs? Sorry CDA, but that is a difficult topic and probably those guys in 1954 did not know at that time how to exactly do that. Probably there WAS NOT ((and there is not today) a single or simple procedure to enter into a foreign territory to retrieve a crashed UFO, and even today USA cannot enter any country they want. Moreover, those were the first years of cold war so probably USA was not so confident about sniffing with their nose in every place they wanted to. They were just learning at that time how to interfere with another countries and make spy ops, etc, so much that in 1962 they did an incredibly stupid thing such as the Bahia Pigs invasion(!) in Cuba. Of course, CDA has a cristall ball and knows what must be included in an instruction manual and what not. Pfffff.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61323063592386734372016-09-11T08:38:46.133-07:002016-09-11T08:38:46.133-07:00DR wrote:
"Wettlaufer would later talk about...DR wrote:<br /><br />"Wettlaufer would later talk about LaPaz discussing with him the extraterrestrial probe origins of the Roswell object." <br /><br />Which 'Roswell object'?<br /><br />La Paz was referring to the great green fireball of Jan 30, 1949 which was seen by many in and around Roswell. He was not talking about the July 1947 affair. <br /><br />Rickett was certainly involved in the Jan '49 case, and is mentioned in a report on it (written by La Paz) which I have.<br /><br />La Paz certainly had a very open mind on UFOs, fireballs and possible ETs, but there is no way of knowing for certain which 'Roswell incident' he was talking about here. The evidence points to the fireball case. Can you prove otherwise, or that he was ever involved in the July 1947 affair? You are probably relying too much on the distant memories of Wettlaufer.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21561000001387391452016-09-11T08:15:47.360-07:002016-09-11T08:15:47.360-07:00The paragraphs Don quotes about the US recovery te...The paragraphs Don quotes about the US recovery teams' ability to retrieve & recover UFOs and 'bodies' that have crashed in enemy foreign countries tell us absolutely zilch about EXACTLY HOW they are to carry out such a task. Sure, "the recovery and study by the US has been given high priority" sounds great, and the "Establishment and administration of covert operations" is another piece of marvellous English prose, i.e. both are simply C--P. <br /><br />The truth is that the forger of this document (SOM1-01) hadn't a clue what to write, so he invented a vague, meaningless paragraph (or two paragrapns) containing pure high-sounding waffle. There is nothing in this waffle about the real actions to be taken, nothing at all. <br /><br />And I'd love to see the US recovery teams travel to Siberia or China in the 1950s and dare to try and recover ET material that had fallen on enemy ground. By the time they got there (assuming they were ever allowed to) the dreaded secret would be out and the whole mission rendered useless. Of course in those days it may be that the US military thought themselves so powerful that the recovery of a crashed ET craft in another country would be a piece of cake. <br /><br />Think of the U-2 affair if you want a comparison. <br /><br />Admit it, Don. That SOM1-01 'instruction manual' can be summed up in one four letter word, C--P.<br /><br />Fill in the missing letters yourself!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17931195943461091682016-09-10T21:20:34.959-07:002016-09-10T21:20:34.959-07:00Craig wrote:
"However, I don't recall an...Craig wrote:<br /><br /><i>"However, I don't recall anything in SOM1-01 in dealing with creating an immediate cover or cover-up story. After any down craft's location was found, the craft was retrieved, then a cover story would have been a very important part of SOM1-01 I would think."</i><br /><br />Craig, you are both right and wrong. You are Right in the sense that there should be inside the SOM1-01 a section dedicated to cover-up stories for UFO retrievals, but you are wrong when you believe that the SOM1-01 does not have such section, because it HAS such sections, and they, I think, are the most important parts of the manual (see the SOM1-01 in sections 12 and 13 in Chapter 3, page 8).<br /><br />Your other concerns seem to be either irrelevant or based on your own speculation.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31628424721663142052016-09-10T21:05:59.578-07:002016-09-10T21:05:59.578-07:00CDA asked:
So, Don: Please fill in this omission ...CDA asked:<br /><br /><i>So, Don: Please fill in this omission and tell us what would the recovery team do in such an event? I am particularly interested in how the US agencies and military would be able to follow the procedures in paragraphs 12 and 13, were the crash to take place in a hostile country such as China or Russia. (i.e. hostile in 1954)</i><br /><br />The SOM1-01, for your surprise, CLEARLY mentions this concern, in Section 5, page 3:<br /><br /><b><i>"The greatest threat at this time arises from the acquisition and study of such advanced technology by foreign powers unfriendly to the United States. It is for this reason that the recovery and study of this type of material by the United States has been given such a high priority." </i></b><br /><br />Or even worst for CDA, in Section 3, letter (e)<br /><br /><b><i> e. Establishment and administration of covert operations to be carried out in concert with Central Intelligence to effect the recovery for the United States of extraterrestrial technology and entities which may come down inside the territory of or fall into the possession of foreign powers.</i></b><br /><br />So, CDA, when you will come to admit the SOM1-01 is the real thing? Never I guess.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-18935118999359690062016-09-10T20:45:52.215-07:002016-09-10T20:45:52.215-07:00Kevin wrote:
"You reject the idea of Helveti...Kevin wrote:<br /><br /><i>"You reject the idea of Helvetica sans serif because you could find no source for the idea it was created in 1957. Did you look at Wikipedia, which states, clearly, that it was created in 1957? Do you reject that as a source? If so, why?"</i><br /><br />No Kevin, I did not reject that, I easily saw the same just by one click in Wikipedia. I rejected the primary claim, i.e. that the font in the SOM1-01 was helvetica sans serif. The argument tries to establish the difference between two very similar fonts, claiming that some very subtle details seem to point that the font is 1957's Helvetica. My request is knowing who is the researcher claiming that, what is his name, what are the details and the images and comparissons he made, etc. We have nothing on that, no name of researcher who reached such conclusion, no analysis, nothing. It is garbage, it is not even in wikipedia anymore. It was probably made by a clownish debunker.<br /><br />Kevin wrote:<br /><i>Do you find it ironic to argue that you claim "the label 'REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM IS FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL LAW' may have something to do with making the owner to be so cautious," but that is exactly what he did, that is, reproduce it </i><br /><br />Sorry Kevin, I am not a psychic nor a psychologist. I do not know why the owner made just one copy and never another one or did not send the original. Many people do things one time and then go on to to other things. Maybe he thought that he should have done it, regreted and decided to shut-up for ever. People have parents, kids, jobs. He maybe had the courage to reproduce it just one time, as a favor because he liked Don Berliner's persona, but was not thinking to keep making such favors for ever. Heck Kevin, I don't know that, sorry but I am not a psychic.<br /><br />Kevin asked:<br /><br /><i>"The question is, "Why, in 1954, did they not use the real name of the base rather than a name that seems to have been created in the 1960s?" I can find no reference to Area 51 in the 1950s."</i><br /><br />What is was the real name Kevin? There were various. Acording to wikipedia: "Groom lake test site" "Paradise Ranch", "The Ranch", "Site II".<br /><br />The AEC used a numeric designation of areas starting from year 1950, for a grid of rectangles ranging from Area 1 to Area 30; all of them included inside the Nevada Test Site zone.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site<br /><br />So the designation of the Area 51, which is adjacent to the Nevada Test Site, might have been used just a little later than year 1950. We don't know when this rectangular land started to be designated as Area 51, but it was at LEAST in year 1955, according to this link:<br /><br />http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB434/docs/U2%20-%20Chapter%202.pdf<br /><br />Therefore the designation "Area 51" for the rectangular land might have started in any moment between 1950 and 1955. We know that CIA's facility "The Ranch", inside Area 51, was established in April 1955 in order to develop the Lockheed's U-2. And, acording to the book Shadow Flights by Curtis Peebles (2000), "The Ranch" was also called "Site II".<br /><br />The SOM1-01 mentions the place to send technological remains of flying saucers as "Area 51 - S4", which means a facility named S4 or probably Site 4, whithin the "Area 51" rectangle. Probably a different place than Site II.<br /><br />We have to keep in mind that the history of the Area 51 is extremely secret, and most probably the origins of the facilities inside Area 51 are still classified.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49558845016360139202016-09-10T18:35:41.197-07:002016-09-10T18:35:41.197-07:00It also occurs to me that "satellites" m...It also occurs to me that "satellites" might be included in a document like the 1954 SOM as a cover story for a crashed UFO in anticipation of FUTURE U.S. satellites, then projected to be launched in 1958. Use something else until then, then role in "satellites" cover story once real satellites were being sent up. If reporters ask which satellite, tell them secret military one, classified, no further comment.<br /><br />There may be actual "fatal flaws" in the SOM document, but I don't consider use of "satellite" cover stories to be one of them.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33063826575537992102016-09-10T15:47:58.022-07:002016-09-10T15:47:58.022-07:00Craig McDaniel:
"However, I don't recall...Craig McDaniel:<br /><br />"However, I don't recall anything in SOM1-01 in dealing with creating an immediate cover or cover-up story."<br /><br />Four were suggested: Meteor, satellite, weather balloon, or military aircraft. What cover story would get chosen would obviously depend on circumstances, with details filled as the situation demanded. <br /><br />Possible UFO crashes:<br />1947 Roswell: initially called a "flying disc", quickly changed to weather balloon. 1949- Green fireballs: either unusual meteor fireballs or Russian probes. April 18, 1962 fireball explosion Utah/Nevada: Meteor fireball + U-2 spy plane. 1965 Kecksburg: First meteor being searched for, then allegedly nothing found. 1967 Shag Harbour: Internally actually labeled a "UFO" by Canadian documents (but not publicly revealed); allegedly nothing found; story also put out in Canadian press it was a secret U.S. craft. <br /><br />Actual secret aircraft crashes:<br />1960 CIA U-2 crash Russia: errant NASA U-2 high-altitude "weather" plane. 1963 CIA A-12 spy plane prototype crash out of Area 51: A conventional F-105 crash out of Nellis AFB, Las Vegas; locals told plane carried a nuke to keep them away. (The cover F-105 crash STILL remains the official story on the books.) July 11, 1986 F-117A stealth crash near Bakersfield: public not told anything about what crashed, just stay away, or else. Area heavily cordoned off and carefully cleansed of crash debris, then remains of F-101A Voodoo were scattered over area to confuse curiosity seekers after military departed area.<br /><br />Cover stories like these have been used for conventional secret aircraft crashes like the U-2, A-12, or F-117, or recovered space debris of our or Russian origin, but can equally well be extended to unconventional aircraft not of our making, or UFOs. The secret program Project Moon Dust for recovery of space debris (ours, or you know, the other guys) dealt with the latter two situations.<br /><br />I have other issues with the SOM. E.g., stylistically the language doesn't sound military or bureaucratic enough to my "ear." It is a bit TOO informal and clearly written. But that alone doesn't prove anything.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54148738043881507342016-09-10T15:35:18.429-07:002016-09-10T15:35:18.429-07:00David,
Thanks for the informative information abo...David,<br /><br />Thanks for the informative information about the downed "natural satellites" stories. Have you ever tried to match up the dates of the so-called stories with the dates of possible suspected down UFO crafts?<br /><br />I guess we could say Roswell was the first government "balloon" instead of satellite story with downed UFO. What would be next?<br /> Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36870632955276441662016-09-10T14:38:52.016-07:002016-09-10T14:38:52.016-07:00(part 2 of 2)
In a less controlled situation, you ...(part 2 of 2)<br />In a less controlled situation, you could say it was one of those "natural satellites" mentioned in the press recently, or basically a meteor, another of the SOM-suggested cover stories. You could add that the military was keeping it and studying it because it might assist them in future artificial satellite tracking and recovery. This would be BS, but again, what would the average person know?<br /><br />We know of instances 1947-1949 where La Paz was involved with the Army in tracking down bright fireballs as potential crashed saucers. As I wrote on your blog in 2010:<br /><br /><i>The first of these I know about was the large fireball seen in the Four Corners area near Shiprock, N.M. in Nov. 1948. La Paz, assisted by his student Boyd Wettlaufer and the CIC were looking for it. Allan Grant of LIFE Magazine was flown in to cover it. (However, Grant later insisted this was a distinctly different incident from Roswell, which he was also flown in for.) Wettlaufer would later talk about LaPaz discussing with him the extraterrestrial probe origins of the Roswell object.<br /><br />The second instance was the famous Kansas/Nebraska fireball of Feb. 1948. Again the CIC assisted La Paz, until La Paz figured out it really WAS a meteor fireball, at which point the CIC wasn't interested anymore. But what were they interested in initially? La Paz eventually recovered a ton of valuable meteorite fragments that August...<br /><br />And then, starting in Dec. 1948, La Paz was hired by the military to go chasing after the mysterious green fireballs. The most notable of these early incidents was the great green fireball of Jan. 30, 1949, in which CIC, AFOSI, and the FBI assisted La Paz in interviewing hundreds of eyewitnesses from northern N.M. and west Texas. It is also notable that there is a CIC document stating they were looking for a possible crashed saucer. As far as we know, they never found the remains of a green fireball, but they were definitely looking. La Paz was also on record saying the green fireballs were almost definitely artificial objects.</i><br /><br />I might add that La Paz also publicly said the green fireballs might be Russian probes. Call them anything. Say they're Russian, or secret U.S. satellites, or "natural" ones, or meteor fireballs. Just don't call them flying saucers. (E.g., Tombaugh and the sponsoring Army OOR made sure to deny the "natural satellite" search had anything to do with flying saucers.)<br />David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68666783381679247602016-09-10T14:36:46.637-07:002016-09-10T14:36:46.637-07:00Kevin wrote: (part 1 of 2)
No one was saying that ...Kevin wrote: (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>No one was saying that there was no discussion about artificial satellites in the early 1950s, but nothing you have presented actually addresses the problem with using that as an excuse for some sort of crash. Prior to 1957, if you suggested that this was the recovery of a downed artificial satellite, you have opened the door to all sorts of questions that couldn't be answered. At the time the manual was written, there were no artificial satellites in orbit and when we get to 1957, those satellites are extremely small. Put yourself into 1954 and ask yourself if this is a plausible cover story, or does it simply create a greater mystery. And if you have created a greater mystery, do you believe the reporters would have let go without some sort of better explanation. Using an artificial satellite as the excuse would expose the real answer at some point.</i><br /><br />However, the fact remains that a nonexistent artificial U.S. satellite story WAS being put out by Popular Mechanics magazine in 1955 in response to the orbiting satellite stories printed in the press the year before, which were then called "natural" and recently acquired. Of course, denials then followed that anything had been found. <br /><br />WELL BEFORE the Tombaugh/La Paz search for so-called "natural satellites" was publicly announced, Keyhoe said he was already aware that military radar had picked up two such objects in irregular orbits, thus were artificial. This is what prompted the Tombaugh/La Paz optical search paid for by the Army Office of Ordnance Research, though the public was never told this. Keyhoe only learned because some Pentagon officer he knew improperly told him about it. <br /><br />Thus the "natural satellite" story for the search and eventual announcement that two such "natural satellites" had been found, appears to be a cover story for the artificial orbiting objects initially picked up on radar, or UFOs. Tombaugh was already a "believer" because of his own multiple UFO sightings, and Hynek documented that in 1952 Tombaugh offered the military use of his telescopes to hunt for UFOs. A year later he was obviously searching for them with his telescopes, paid for by the Army. <br /><br />This was followed yet another year later by the equally bogus Popular Mechanics stories of a rumored U.S. secret orbiting satellite, i.e. classified, citing multiple unnamed sources. To me this sounds like a second cover story for the reported orbiting satellites the year before. Tombaugh then admitted at the end of 1955 that if he ever found anything with his search, security regulations would prevent him from announcing anything.<br /><br />Admittedly, using "satellite" as an actual crash object instead of a remote orbiting one becomes more problematical, and what cover story gets chosen depends on location and control of the scene. (Remember, the SOM suggests four possibilities, and I'm sure even more could be dreamed up depending on the circumstances.) <br /><br />In a very isolated area, you could still use a story that a classified, unannounced U.S. artificial satellite had crashed (like the P.M. orbiting U.S. satellite story). We can't tell you any more, because, well, it's classified, and we don't want to disclose anything more to the Russians. This also circumvents any size discrepancies between an actual crash object and early satellites because you don't need to report anything. If you did, you can lie, and what would the average person back in the early 1950s know about artificial satellite size in any case?<br />(continued next post)David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90255861740003808442016-09-10T14:17:11.987-07:002016-09-10T14:17:11.987-07:00Kevin and Don:
Is not one over-riding reason why ...Kevin and Don:<br /><br />Is not one over-riding reason why the SOM1-01 instruction manual is a fake the fact that there is no provision for the action to be taken should a UFO crash take place in a foreign country. Suppose that a crash occurred in India, China or Russia, for example. Are we to believe that a genuine 'instruction manual' would omit this very real possibility?<br /><br />So, Don: Please fill in this omission and tell us what would the recovery team do in such an event? I am particularly interested in how the US agencies and military would be able to follow the procedures in paragraphs 12 and 13, were the crash to take place in a hostile country such as China or Russia. (i.e. hostile in 1954)<br /><br />I'd love to see Mao or Stalin's reactions!cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-42061162644604234692016-09-10T13:13:07.361-07:002016-09-10T13:13:07.361-07:00Don,
Mr. Hastings, who has a history of quality r...Don,<br /><br />Mr. Hastings, who has a history of quality research, gave 50 points about SOM1-01. You questioned several which Kevin gave a very convince argument that I believe is correct. You still have 47 additional points of Mr. Hastings to discuss. Maybe Kevin will take the time to further discuss any of your concerns.<br /><br />Last on SOM1-01. I am not convinced this was real for other reasons. First, just one only photo copy? Common sense suggest that military NEVER issue just one booklet on something like UFO retrieval operations. I would believe that because the US is three thousand miles wide, there would have been multiple teams. Example like the Navy SEALS in San Diego and Virginia. <br /><br />The important point here is time would have been critical if a UFO did go down. No one in the government or military would want a team of press people with cameras and people picking up wreckage.<br /><br />In reading Dave Rudiak's comment about the NCS, clearly there were a series of improvements, changes in security methods in dealing with the press. Deception and misinformation was clearly a part of this. However, I don't recall anything in SOM1-01 in dealing with creating an immediate cover or cover-up story. After any down craft's location was found, the craft was retrieved, then a cover story would have been a very important part of SOM1-01 I would think.<br /><br />Second, with nearly every part of the government or military, nothing is done perfect the first time. Simply go back 4,000 years and the Egyptians. They made 4 ore more different types of pyramids before the final three at Giza. The point is that if there was a crash retrieval booklet, there would have likely been several previous versions by the mid 1950's. Mr. Sweepyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966969362028196312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27430525895098354452016-09-10T12:10:16.549-07:002016-09-10T12:10:16.549-07:00David -
No one was saying that there was no discu...David -<br /><br />No one was saying that there was no discussion about artificial satellites in the early 1950s, but nothing you have presented actually addresses the problem with using that as an excuse for some sort of crash. Prior to 1957, if you suggested that this was the recovery of a downed artificial satellite, you have opened the door to all sorts of questions that couldn't be answered. At the time the manual was written, there were no artificial satellites in orbit and when we get to 1957, those satellites are extremely small. Put yourself into 1954 and ask yourself if this is a plausible cover story, or does it simply create a greater mystery. And if you have created a greater mystery, do you believe the reporters would have let go without some sort of better explanation. Using an artificial satellite as the excuse would expose the real answer at some point.<br /><br />Don -<br /><br />You reject the idea of Helvetica sans serif because you could find no source for the idea it was created in 1957. Did you look at Wikipedia, which states, clearly, that it was created in 1957? Do you reject that as a source? If so, why?<br /><br />Do you find it ironic that you reject the idea of Helvetica sans serif because you can find no provenance for the claim but you accept the SOM 1-01 manual for which you have no provenance? I mean, both are a matter of provenance, though we do have that with the Wikipedia entry for which you have provided no reason to reject.<br /><br />Do you find it ironic to argue that you claim "the label 'REPRODUCTION IN ANY FORM IS FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL LAW' may have something to do with making the owner to be so cautious," but that is exactly what he did, that is, reproduce it. When we deal with leaks from the government, even those of high classified information, there is a provenance, except here, with MJ-12. You have nothing but a copy of a document that can't be verified in the way that questioned documents are vetted. You can argue until you are blue int he face and your head explodes, but you have nothing other than opinion, some of which is not very informed.<br /><br />Oh, yes, no one is saying there were no plans to build the base at Groomlake, and in fact, during WW II, there were a couple of runways there, and the area was used as a bombing and gunnery range. The question is, "Why, in 1954, did they not use the real name of the base rather than a name that seems to have been created in the 1960s?" I can find no reference to Area 51 in the 1950s. I can, however, find the real name of the base, though the facilities were somewhat primitive in the early 1950s.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35374534711938324682016-09-10T10:35:09.508-07:002016-09-10T10:35:09.508-07:00I wrote:
At the same time as the May 1955 PM stor...I wrote:<br /><br /><i>At the same time as the May 1955 PM story, columnist Joseph Alsop on May 25 repeated the previous year's story that two satellites had indeed been found, causing a Pentagon "flap" supposedly fearing they were Russian, until they were supposedly IDed as being "natural". Apparently the story was leaked by two NSC members who were friends of Alsop,</i><br /><br />CORRECTIONS: <br />It was Stewart Alsop, not brother Joseph who wrote the column. They often authored columns together. Hard to keep Tweedledum separate from Tweedledee.<br /><br />Also the 2 friends of Stewart Alsop who leaked him information were not on the NSC per se. Their boss was, of some agency that Alsop wouldn't name, possibly the CIA. Alsop wrote in a later column they were forbidden to socialize with him in the future. Alsop complained the administration's censorship of the press was counterproductive.<br /><br />NSC minutes the day after the column DID record that there had been an unauthorized release of classified information. I think it was again Keyhoe who mentioned the Alsop column and that it made NSC head/Eisenhower National Security Advisor Robert Cutler furious.<br /><br />According to the NASA website chronicling the development of the U.S. satellite program, "...on 26 May the Security Council endorsed a satellite program, the recommendation carried two conditions: the peaceful purposes of the undertaking must be stressed, and it must not interrupt work on intermediate-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles." So maybe Alsop's column about the lackadaisical U.S. satellite program stung a little bit and moved the NSC into action promoting it.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73887268614814285632016-09-10T08:22:55.515-07:002016-09-10T08:22:55.515-07:00As an exercise I looked up the 4 telephone intervi...As an exercise I looked up the 4 telephone interviews involving Dr Eric Walker on Grant Cameron's website. The transcripts are all there: 3 are from calls between Walker and Dr Henry Azadehdel and one between Walker and William Steinman. I invite anyone interested to read these transcripts. They are about the most useless and uninformative phone transcripts imaginable.<br /><br />Far from confirming that Walker ever looked in on any MJ-12 committee meetings he merely skirts around the topic, evades any coherent answers and at one point even denies that such a committee existed. He also contradicts himself at times. He considers the whole matter (of ETs and crashed UFOs) to be of very minor importance!<br /><br />How he got involved in this rigmarole (for that is all it amounts to) we cannot say, but how anyone can use these Walker transcripts as evidence for the existence of MJ-12 (or any other such group) back in 1947 is beyond me.<br /><br />It seems Walker's name was supplied by Sarbacher to Steinman, and things followed from this. And yes, Walker did know, or know of, Vannevar Bush in the late 40s and early 50s. Big deal.<br /><br />Anyway, I repeat what I said before: The idea that Dr Eric Walker has, or had, anything useful to contribute to the MJ-12 debate, is fatuous in the extreme, and can be safely ignored. <br /><br />However, at one point he said he had written a book. Does anyone know the title and what it contains? Any pictures of ETs, maybe (real ones for a change)?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com