SOM1-01: Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and Disposal

I read most of this manual in Majesticdocuments.com(some parts seemed fairly illegible) and found it very impressive. It has the highest authenticity rating (don't know the procentage, only that it looks like this: )
It stated that the references on the last page were genuine, and I suppose this is part of the evidence for it being real.
Now, does anyone know something more about this manual (where it first appeared etc) and if it is likely to be credible?

Part 1: 209.132.68.98...

Part 2: 209.132.68.98...

This document might seem legit, but there is a high probability this is bunk though.

Just look at the UFO diagrams, the Triangle was not reported until the 1989 event and onwards.

Gazrok can give a final statement.

BTW, do a search next time to see if there was already something posted about this, there has been posts about SOM1-01.

Just look at the UFO diagrams, the Triangle was not reported until the 1989 event and onwards.

Not exactly a great example as that can go both ways.

Don Berliner's Mailbox Alexandria Virginia (March, 1994)
Quillan Pharmacy — LaCrosse, Wisconsin

Another document that just showed up one day. Funny thing, even people who believe the government has been picking up aliens for decades tend to start with the assumption it is fake. If the government does anything more than once they make a manual on it.

Our very natures are used against us in this whole matter. What a defense, real documents are released and are promptly pronounced fakes by people with their own agendas. Considering the number of people who take an interest in UFOs that means that no document will ever get a 100% seal of approval. We refused to learn real truths sometimes simply because of our fears of being taken in by some wicked human.

I have never read anything about the manual that convinced me it was a hoax, to the contrary there is much to prove it authentic. You should of course, as you are now doing, dig in and decide for yourself as always.


A.T
(-)

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
This document might seem legit, but there is a high probability this is bunk though.

Just look at the UFO diagrams, the Triangle was not reported until the 1989 event and onwards.

Gazrok can give a final statement.

BTW, do a search next time to see if there was already something posted about this, there has been posts about SOM1-01.

Acctually I did a search, and no results Maybe I did something wrong, I dunno

And, I agree, Gazrok, any thoughts?

Yep, I've looked at the manual, and only one problem with it really...

It mentions using the explanation of a crashed satellite for debris retrieval, when the manual was put out a couple years before Sputnik as I recall, so this would have hardly been a good cover story, nor would the term be familiar to the public, so again, pretty bad cover story.

True, it is only one point, but it's a biggie....

I suppose it could be a revision copy, and that isn't exactly uncommon (for manual updates to have just a few pages updated, then reissued, etc.), but I didn't see any evidence stating such a revision (and such are usually an appendage, such as revision B, etc.)

The interesting thing for me with the manual is the page designating where things were supposed to go, etc. Kirtland AFB, Wright Patterson AFB, Area 51, S-4, etc. Though of course, UFOlogists would know these locales.

Still on the fence with this one....

Here's a past thread on it, may have some more info...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-4-2005 by Gazrok]

Gazrok wrote:

"It mentions using the explanation of a crashed satellite for debris retrieval, when the manual was put out a couple years before Sputnik as I recall, so this would have hardly been a good cover story, nor would the term be familiar to the public, so again, pretty bad cover story. "

That is a type of point I have always wondered about, and since I generally agree with your views that makes you a good person to ask.
At least I know you will respond from a point of view that I can undertand and relate to.

The people who would be preparing these sorts of document would be as aware as possible of many things the average person would not. Planning and concepts for something as big as Sputnik went on for many years, plenty of time for the word to get out to intelligence agencies.

I grant at the original time of printing the idea was not the best, but very shortly thereafter it became the perfect, logical, cover-story. To me this suggests that the people doing the creation on the manual were both knowledgeable about things kept secret, and were thinking ahead a bit.

There is a similar claim about the EBD, centering on the word 'media'. Eventually credit for some words is given to a specific person or place. In some technical fields a word does indeed originate at known place and time, but in most cases the beginning of use is a guess.

Again, the people creating the EBD had access to a lot of information, and involved with the various UFO projects were some of the best and brightest. So it just seems to me that saying because the word 'media' was used somewhat before it's time does not really say anything about the authenticity of the document. And when you look at it, in a way, use of words in this manner kinda supports the idea they are real.


A.T
(-)

The people who would be preparing these sorts of document would be as aware as possible of many things the average person would not. Planning and concepts for something as big as Sputnik went on for many years, plenty of time for the word to get out to intelligence agencies.

I grant at the original time of printing the idea was not the best, but very shortly thereafter it became the perfect, logical, cover-story. To me this suggests that the people doing the creation on the manual were both knowledgeable about things kept secret, and were thinking ahead a bit.

Yes, I've considered that...but it still leaves more questions than answers...

As I said, still on the fence with this one....but you asked for my opinion, so there it is..

its bunk I could tell right away, while there may be some truth in the background document, it is quite obvious that someone has put new tags and titles and headings over the original text, even the first page the "top secret" blah blah is darker and of a more defined font than the background text.

What you have here is photo manipulation with text inserted to make it sound more appealing. Even the page 2 and 3 which shows the dated call logs you can see that there was an attempt to insert a string of text that appears to be on another level from that of the original handwritten entries.

IMO major Bunk.

Originally posted by robertfenix
its bunk I could tell right away, while there may be some truth in the background document, it is quite obvious that someone has put new tags and titles and headings over the original text, even the first page the "top secret" blah blah is darker and of a more defined font than the background text.

What you have here is photo manipulation with text inserted to make it sound more appealing. Even the page 2 and 3 which shows the dated call logs you can see that there was an attempt to insert a string of text that appears to be on another level from that of the original handwritten entries.

IMO major Bunk.

I also question the "construction of the manual" ... just something about how all the content is shown on the right hand page. And on the left there seems to be the same page repeated throughout. This left hand page has some REALLY bold typefaces... (which theoretically would be the back of the right hand pages- would the ink show through? How is this bound?Hmmm)

I dunno, maybe I'm way-off but being a designer who has designed MANY maunels... it just struck me as "off" when i initailly looked at it.

Peace

The page back, or left page, simply repeats the classification warning, etc. Nothing really funny about that.

There are plenty of other sticky points though. I'm not a trained expert in image analysis, so I can't confirm/deny robertfenix' points.... Perhaps some others would chime in and confirm/refute?

The "satellite" bit is still what sticks out in my mind on this one, and while I respect the majesticdocuments project, I think they ranked this one a notch or two too high on the confidence scale.

Your probally right about the pages. Initially it just seemed "off" to me- if that makes sense.

Also, that's a pretty small manuel for such an important doc. no? ... why would it be that size? To fit in a pocket/glove compartment??. Is it intended to be carried around? Field manual? Seems "too classified" to carry around. I dunno- just brainstorm'in.

Peace

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Serum39]

If genuine, my guess is that it'd be glove compartment material, and of secured vehicles. Then we get to another sticking point of the manual. Is the info in there really that hard to remember? Most manuals are written to describe complex procedures. The shipping procedures outlined really aren't ones that couldn't easily be committed to memory, same with what goes where....especially for guys you'd think would be top notch g-men.

Granted, all such manuals are written to be "simple for stupid" though. Still, seems like very limited "UFO Types" and "Alien Types", and the triangle reference is odd, as in '54, these were hardly "common" reported types.

Originally posted by GAZROK:

Is the info in there really that hard to remember? ( .... ) especially for guys you'd think would be top notch g-men.

Apparently, it was indeed necessary to sum up the history and basic routines of MJ-12 for MJ-12 units in 1954, even though the drill and practical experience of seven years of duty should far exceed the banal content of SOM 1-01.

According to the manual, the Majestic Group had already recovered, and studied remains of "several dead entities" and "a substantial amount of wreckage and devices from downed craft" . They were in possession of samples "not composed of any materials known to terrestrial science" ... "strength not obtainable by any means known to modern industry" -

but in spite of everything the author(s) of the manual still felt the need to explicitly emphasize that "MJ-12 takes the subject of UFOBs, Extraterrestrial Technology, and Extraterrestrial Biological Entities seriously" .

I have no idea how this curiosity can be explained, but here's a theory to answer Gazrok's rhetorical question:

Of course the recovery units are "top notch g-men", but eventually only fetch- and carry men for OPNAC operations. When OPNAC received the first Neuralyzer prototypes in 1952, they decided to routinely reset the recovery guys when the job was done, in order to minimize potential security lacks. Due to the infamous waywardness of the early Binford Neuralyzers, this treatment might have affected the recollection of details concerning MJ-12 and related knowledge considerably, and it could very well be possible that after some resets, unit members became increasingly unsure about the goals of the group, or were no longer able to recite the 10-step packaging procedure correctly. My hypothesis is that in 1954 the problem became obvious, and the administration decided to issue a written manual, along with the order to internalize it before and after every mission.





[edit on 26-4-2005 by popular mechanics]

That is an interesting theory alright...hehe... Binford huh?
Tim the Toolman Taylor would be proud...(some will get it).

OPNAC = Operations Naval Command, for those who didn't know. I remember trying to look that one up before...

Originally posted by GAZROK:

OPNAC = Operations Naval Command, for those who didn't know.

Is that safe to say? I remember that you tried to get this confirmed by Mr. Friedman, but he did not react to it.




[edit on 26-4-2005 by popular mechanics]

I'm 99.9% sure that's it. (also confirmed it with some naval buddies, just asked them what it stood for, and they said the above with no prompting)

I don't know why it isn't listed as an official acronym. It seemed pretty obvious to them.

I was more curious as to his (Friedman's) reaction, than looking for confirmation

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm 99.9% sure that's it. (also confirmed it with some naval buddies, just asked them what it stood for, and they said the above with no prompting)

I don't know why it isn't listed as an official acronym. It seemed pretty obvious to them.

I was more curious as to his (Friedman's) reaction, than looking for confirmation

[edit on 26-4-2005 by Gazrok]

How did he react?

I believe he ended his participation before answering...as I recall.

Just as a lark, searched on it, and found this also:

SELRES Officer Recall Opportunities Page 3
Navy Personnel Command: Bureau of Naval Personnel, FAQ | Site Map | Log In ... • 23X5/ LCDR (Lt. Commander) needed as Operational Support Officer, OPNAC, Washington, DC. ...
www.npc.navy.mil... [Found on Google]

The job doesn't seem open anymore, as the link is now 404.....

[edit on 27-4-2005 by Gazrok]

Originally posted by Gazrok
I believe he ended his participation before answering...as I recall.

Just as a lark, searched on it, and found this also:

SELRES Officer Recall Opportunities Page 3
Navy Personnel Command: Bureau of Naval Personnel, FAQ | Site Map | Log In ... • 23X5/ LCDR (Lt. Commander) needed as Operational Support Officer, OPNAC, Washington, DC. ...
www.npc.navy.mil... [Found on Google]

The job doesn't seem open anymore, as the link is now 404.....

[edit on 27-4-2005 by Gazrok]

Any idea why he ended the participation? I don't really get what the deal was