tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post6822177545866231209..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Hangar One and the Star SoldierKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77294592610920256912019-12-25T09:59:52.036-08:002019-12-25T09:59:52.036-08:00Agreed that it was a blemish on Hanger 1 to includ...Agreed that it was a blemish on Hanger 1 to include Capt. Randy Cramer story.<br />Even worse on 12/13/19 History Channel brought back the story as part of a 3 show series on UFOs. They again made the same mistake to include it.<br /><br />However, in general with the current knowledge (from the US Navy)that Alien UFO's are real, the show has been vindicated. Most other stories they covered appear to be (at least 50%) possible, with of course lots of enhancements. <br /><br />Another stunning event was a sailor's encounter on the Nimitz, where he witnessed a UFO, much larger than the Carrier, emerge from the Pacific, during a lock down (he was locked out). The guy was recently tracked down and to this date his story has not been debunked and he has not been discredited (passed lie detector tests). He seems really credible. He said there were 3 top brass witnesses, and so far none have come forward as a deathbed confession.<br />It is no longer crazy to expect a "mother ship" to be in the Pacific, home to all those Tic Tacs. What is more incredible is whether some top brass are working with the Aliens.jerry25https://www.blogger.com/profile/11890414631224872457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-30310138775373483442015-08-28T19:59:51.549-07:002015-08-28T19:59:51.549-07:00I actually feel dumber for having read these comme...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.Rusty L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02556831351656530532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-10311240758977552722015-08-26T06:51:17.036-07:002015-08-26T06:51:17.036-07:00Steve Sawyer..."It is difficult to get a man ...Steve Sawyer..."It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"<br /><br />An excellent quote, for sure! I immediately thought about SETI when I read it!Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88518624131120072282015-08-22T16:51:34.708-07:002015-08-22T16:51:34.708-07:00Don -
The last line in your now deleted post was ...Don -<br /><br />The last line in your now deleted post was over the line... it was fine until you added that last line.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6467568889653805232015-08-22T15:37:23.010-07:002015-08-22T15:37:23.010-07:00"And steve, I am sorry to be such an irration...<i>"And steve, I am sorry to be such an irrational."</i><br /><br />Yeah, I'm sorry you're "such an irrational" also, Don. <br /><br />I see no further point in responding to your unsubstantiated claims and opinions regarding the MJ-12 / SOM 1-01 hoaxed documents. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />I'll leave you though, FWIW, with this quote from the author Upton Sinclair:<br /><br /><i><b>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"</b></i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />You apparently don't even understand how and why you are wrong. <br /><br />Which is a sorry state of mind, I'm actually sad to have to say to you. <br /><br />But you not only "just don't get it," you are <i>unable</i> to "get it." <br /><br />So disheartening, and so common. Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-59012936695576623622015-08-22T07:12:11.873-07:002015-08-22T07:12:11.873-07:00CDA said:
"So I'd say the chances of you...CDA said:<br /><br /><b><i>"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."</i></b><br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83686979168199394182015-08-22T06:50:26.613-07:002015-08-22T06:50:26.613-07:00Steve Sawyer claimed:
"[It's already been...Steve Sawyer claimed:<br /><b><i>"[It's already been done, in the case of the SOM 1-01, by Rick Doty and Bill Moore.]"</i></b><br /><br />Bla, bla, bla, accusations without proof or admission by them. On the other hand, why are you using square parenthesis?<br /><br />Steve Sawyer further claimed:<br /><b><i>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."</i></b><br /><br />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:<br /><br />Bieri, R. (1964). Huminoids on other planets?. American scientist, 452-458.<br /><br />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 Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-1330428332804288732015-08-22T04:50:36.123-07:002015-08-22T04:50:36.123-07:00Don:
Regarding SOM1-01 you are heavily outnumbere...Don:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52324500408680983652015-08-22T04:37:57.483-07:002015-08-22T04:37:57.483-07:00"Hahaha, why don't you try to fake one fo...<i><b>"Hahaha, why don't you try to fake one for yourself?"</b></i><br /><br />Why try to reinvent the ouroborosian wheel of stupid fakery? <br /><br />[It's already been done, in the case of the SOM 1-01, by Rick Doty and Bill Moore.]<br /><br />[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.] <br /><br />I do suspect, though, it would take more than a "little effort." <br /><br />Moderate effort to somewhat difficult, IMHO. But definitely doable by one or two people. <br /><br />BTW, actual ET's would most probably look <i>nothing</i> 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."Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24484015869947579882015-08-21T18:00:46.349-07:002015-08-21T18:00:46.349-07:00"Anybody could fabricate body masses of suppo...<i><b>"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."</b></i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i><b>"Anyone in Ufology could fake such a document and probably better than this one with a little effort."</b></i><br /><br />Hahaha, why don't you try to fake one for yourself?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32857314448318340462015-08-21T15:45:19.783-07:002015-08-21T15:45:19.783-07:00@ Don
You found the body masses of the alien type...@ Don<br /><br />You found the body masses of the alien types found in SOM1-01 to be convincing?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You really are desperate to believe in this document.....<br /><br />Anyone in Ufology could fake such a document and probably better than this one with a little effort.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46272599948241126182015-08-21T13:03:12.500-07:002015-08-21T13:03:12.500-07:00Brian said:
The sources you cite continue to focus...Brian said:<br /><i><b>The sources you cite continue to focus on Woods' webpage on SOM1-01. Probably not the best way to back up your claims.</b></i><br /><br />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.<br />http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2015/01/05/downed-satellites-anachronism-as-cover-story-for-crashed-ufos/<br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-65715978616602269232015-08-21T12:56:02.271-07:002015-08-21T12:56:02.271-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-90108684394366999392015-08-21T12:54:57.726-07:002015-08-21T12:54:57.726-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-27092941349328813902015-08-21T10:40:39.181-07:002015-08-21T10:40:39.181-07:00@ CDA
Yes. After SOM1-01 was pronounced a fake in...@ CDA<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It all started there not to mention the entire batch of documents originated from Doty's USAF duty station address - Albuquerque, NM.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39970712879157684242015-08-21T08:47:17.976-07:002015-08-21T08:47:17.976-07:00Didn't a guy called Timothy Cooper produce a b...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.<br /><br />The story rolls on. The books, web-site 'revelations', and TV shows continue. <br /><br />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.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47347246741098095572015-08-21T05:55:12.824-07:002015-08-21T05:55:12.824-07:00@ Don
The sources you cite continue to focus on W...@ Don<br /><br />The sources you cite continue to focus on Woods' webpage on SOM1-01. Probably not the best way to back up your claims.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />To prove the document is legitimate you'll need outside sources to verify it's authenticity.<br /><br />Perhaps you should write Richard Doty whom many suggest is one possible author.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17144911940695952322015-08-20T21:29:22.972-07:002015-08-20T21:29:22.972-07:00Steve Sawyer:
I mean, even if you want to ignore...Steve Sawyer:<br /><br /><i><a rel="nofollow"> 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?</a></i> <br /><br />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:<br />http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2014/12/30/som1-01-overview-authentication/<br /><br />Regarding the downed satellites anachronism, here is a new link showing again that instead of anachronism, it strongly smells like synchronism.<br /><br />http://specialoperationsmanual.com/2015/01/05/downed-satellites-anachronism-as-cover-story-for-crashed-ufos/<br /><br />And steve, I am sorry to be such an irrational.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-48866892746665320612015-08-20T20:47:30.566-07:002015-08-20T20:47:30.566-07:00As far as the satellite question concerning the SO...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12035379587054006528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35400226910872872152015-08-20T19:29:41.891-07:002015-08-20T19:29:41.891-07:00"...I started my point saying that I was (and..."...I started my point saying that I was (and still am) almost convinced that the SOM1-01 is authentic."<br /><br />"...on the other hand I am not 100% sure."<br /><br />"Only the guys who say that they are not sure are free from presenting proof..."<br /><br />Wow. Talk about logical contradictions. <br /><br />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." <br /><br />That's called "wanting to have your cake and eat it too." <br /><br />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? <br /><br />Or that, as required by both national security law and policy, the SOM 1-01 has no Top Secret control number or copy number? <br /><br />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. <i><b>did not even exist at the time,</b></i> 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? <br /><br />Wouldn't you have to say that's an obvious "anachronism" or chronological inconsistency or contradiction in established fact? <br /><br />See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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." <br /><br />That's not only ridiculous, but logically contradictory and somewhat irrational. <br /><br />Believe what you want, even if it's a lie, a fraud, a hoax, and/or disinformation. <br /><br />But to do so also makes your completely unsubstantiated opinion both factually wrong and, well, you know... kind of delusional. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Enough!Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6905604800123505322015-08-20T19:21:46.492-07:002015-08-20T19:21:46.492-07:00Don:
You didn't claim Black Night was real? O...Don:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I don't know, maybe it's your English proficiency that needs a little buffing. You tell me.<br />Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57509131815033344362015-08-20T17:07:24.137-07:002015-08-20T17:07:24.137-07:00Don -
You don't understand. It is up to the p...Don -<br /><br />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.<br />KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-21966039651529639662015-08-20T15:59:52.579-07:002015-08-20T15:59:52.579-07:00Kevin said:
Finally, you are the one who is sugge...Kevin said:<br /><br /><i><a rel="nofollow">Finally, you are the one who is suggesting that the manual is authentic, not me.</a></i><br /><br />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.Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-60641075103397032212015-08-20T15:35:07.323-07:002015-08-20T15:35:07.323-07:00Dating - Wood claims he dated the paper and the in...<i><b>Dating - Wood claims he dated the paper and the ink. How? These are photos not the original document so it fails right there.</b></i><br /><br />Brian, have you considered the very small, unlikely, and tiny probability, THAT YOU READ IT ALL WRONG ??? (!!!)<br /><br /><br /><i><b>By the way why doesn't SOM1-01 reference the 13,000 year old Black Night?.</b></i><br /><br />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 Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38803092602965693482015-08-20T14:49:51.695-07:002015-08-20T14:49:51.695-07:00Don -
I have looked at the War Office Seal and lo...Don -<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.com