The alternate "SOM 1-01" Top Secret/MAJIC document

The 'Alternate' "SOM 1-01" document .pdf

On the 7th March 1994 UFO researcher Don Berliner received an unexpected package in the post which contained a roll of undeveloped 35mm negatives, when the images were finally developed and published they would create discussion and debate which continues to this day. The photos, now available on the internet, depict what appear to be pages from a classified US Government document from April 1954. The Special Operations Manual (SOM 1-01) is classified TOP SECRET/MAJIC EYES ONLY and is subtitled; Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and Disposal.

...

The alternate version contains no such “zingers” and is most likely a retyped copy, or possibly a (draft?) revision, of the exact same document which was photographed and leaked in 1994. It is significant that according to "Source A", he copied his version in a Captain’s office at an undisclosed base in the early 1980's - at least ten years before the package arrived on Don Berliner's doorstep.

from the "Source"...

"Source arrived at ******* and went into captain's office. The captain told Source that he was going to leave the office for awhile, making it obvious that Source was welcomed to look at contents inside an open safe. When we asked why the Captain breeched such security, Source stated that this was the Captain's way of offering a perspective as to why Source was held for three days, all the while maintaining the Captain's plausible deniability. [...] Source saw 4 manuals in safe. They were field manuals. The top manual was in pristine condition. Source knew from experience that one should never look at the top document. Moreover, he felt uneasy about disturbing the manuals, especially any manual in pristine condition. He conveyed that when a pristine book is open, it can never retain its original state. Source illustrated for us that creases and finger oils are often left on documents that are disturbed. Therefore, Source took 3rd manual from the top and made a copy of it. This manual was quite worn, obviously from previous use. This is the document which was copied. Source believed that the two manuals above the third (the one chosen) were of a newer print. Also, Source noted that the newer manuals had the DOD stamp on the covers, not the Department of War stamp exhibited on the copied document, SOM 1-01."

openmindsforum.com...

an important thread regarding the document, on the Open Minds Forum...

well other than slight editing and formatting, there doesn't appear to be much difference between the two documents. i'm still reading through them myself, as i just came across this the other day on the Open Minds Forum. by the way, i'd like to thank "ufonaut" over there for granting me permission to post this on ATS!

i highly recommend you all take a look at the page dedicated to this on Open Minds - it explains it all more thoroughly, and contains many informative links!

what's everyone's opinion of this?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by adrenochrome]

i can't seem to get that link to the thread working... why won't it work, mods?

...so i'll put it here:
lucianarchy.proboards21.com...

...and now that STILL won't work?! what the hell's going on??? is that site banned on ATS or something?!?!?!

...the site only seems to show in the text box when i "quote" or "edit", but it won't show up in the thread?? what gives?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by adrenochrome]

this update was posted on the 21st by "ufonaut" over at the Open Minds Forum:

I have noticed that the cover page of Source A's "alternate version" contains a 'noise pattern' which is almost identical to the one reproduced on page 357 of Linda's book. This image could only be a photocopy of Berliner's 1994 photos, with the 'noise pattern' almost certainly introduced during copying.

I contacted Linda who kindly confirmed that the image was indeed taken from the Berliner photos. Obviously this is vastly at odds with the testimony from Source A in which he claims to have copied the document in the early 1980's.

Additionally there are anomalies with the reference page supplied by Source A. As I noted in the article under "Concerns", the "alternate" version does not contain any information which is obscured, due to a fold, in the original photos. Strange if it were an official copy of the original manual.

In what may be a glaring error, the "alternate" reference page is an exact copy of Dr Woods replica, albeit retyped, (which is also reproduced on page 383 of Linda's book), even including a note at the top which reads "there is some writing here". Again casting serious doubt that it is an official copy of the original manual.

...it touches on the "noise patterns" in the ink on the original and "alternate" versions of the document, complete with photos.

read their thread, which seems to be expanding daily! (for some reason, that forum will NOT display properly on ATS....... YOU HAVE TO "QUOTE" THIS POST TO VIEW THE FULL LINK, and it shows up there just fine...
lucianarchy.proboards21.com...

[edit on 23-10-2008 by adrenochrome]