Official Manual Top Secret/Majic Eyes Only: Extraterrestrial Entities and Technology, Recovery and D

reply to post by Antor


---
Antor
Hey Stuffs probably real? Be cool if you have and then posted all the pages Sir. Looking forward to that...

Decoy

reply to post by Decoy


I will make of my best...

Originally posted by Decoy
reply to post by Antor

 

---
Antor
Hey Stuffs probably real? Be cool if you have and then posted all the pages Sir. Looking forward to that...

Decoy

Read the entire thing here. Part 1 Part 2

For those who are interested in the "alternate" copy of these documents, you may also be interested in the recent thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This shows that "Source A", who supposedly acquired an alternate copy of these documents has been proven to be a hoaxer.

This does not in anyway discredit the facts of the original docs, but it is interesting nonetheless.

I recently found the below website regarding the MJ-12. It has both official UFO docs and investigations with PDF files. It also rates the probability of authenticity of the documents.

www.majesticdocuments.com...

This thread shows some hope for this section of ATS, I have to admit.

Its old and ancient but its something.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by Wolfenz
ohh about the Font many people claimed not to exist it could very well be just not spread out to the public eye until 1957

So that's how it's going to be, eh?
You're going to be stubborn about it and make up all sorts of nonsense because the evidence in front of you doesn't fit with your belief that this document is real.

Well fine then, all I can do is show you that Helvetica is one of the most popular, widely used and documented fonts ever made.

It was not used by the United States Military prior to 1957 and then later leaked to the public. It didn't reach the US until the 1960's, and it wasn't even commisioned until 1956, so there is no way that it could be in a publication from 1954.

Font Designer - Max Miedinger

Fonts: Pro Arte (1954), Haas-Grotesk, Helvetica (1957 onwards), Horizontal (1965).

1956: Eduard Hoffmann, the director of the Haas’sche Schriftgießerei, commissions Miedinger to develop a new sans-serif typeface.


Source: www.linotype.com...

Helvetica Bold, 36 point
Max Miedinger (Swiss, 1910-1980) and Edouard Hoffmann (Swiss)

1956-1957. Lead and wood tray, 1 7/8 x 10 5/8 x 24 3/4" (4.8 x 27 x 62.9 cm). Gift of Lars Müller and Stampa Didot, Switzerland

Date: 1956-1957


Source: The Museum of Modern Art - www.moma.org...

In 1957, Swiss typographer Max Miedinger (1910-1980) was commissioned by his former employer, Haas'schen Typesetters, to design a new font. A German company then took it on. It was originally marketed as Haas-Grotesk but rebranded as Helvetica - derived from Helvetia, the Latin name for Switzerland - in 1960.


Source: www.switzerland.com...

About the Film

Helvetica is a feature-length independent film about typography, graphic design and global visual culture. It looks at the proliferation of one typeface (which celebrated its 50th birthday in 2007) as part of a larger conversation about the way type affects our lives.


2007 - 50 = 1957 by the way

About the Typeface

Helvetica was developed by Max Miedinger with Edüard Hoffmann in 1957 for the Haas Type Foundry in Münchenstein, Switzerland.


...Haas' German parent companies Stempel and Linotype began marketing the font internationally in 1961.


Source: www.helveticafilm.com...

Background

Helvetica was developed in 1957 by Max Miedinger with Eduard Hoffmann at the Haas’sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas type foundry) of Münchenstein, Switzerland.


Source: typedia.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you for REAL? that is why you are basing the fact that you think is fake? Have you ever been in the military? have you ever had to update a manual before? the fact that the font is wrong is irelevant speaking from my experience and as any one in the military who has had to deal with the books will tell you.

is that one a week or bi weekly or even monthly or bi-monthly you get add ons redaction's and so forth that can be different fonts and they will continue to do this until a new edition comes out. the fact that some of the terms are out of date due to a time frame of 1954 is also irelevant as well as I can also tell you that the military can and has used the same books for years doing the above living edits. so the terms and font don't make this a fake and cannot be used to verify its authenticity good eye tho and good job with the pictures but it doesn't prove any thing

So no one has yet proven conclusively this handbook is a fake?

The "font" attempt at debunking was just shot down above. Anyone read the whole manual yet?

a reply to: Antor

Have you considered that "OPNAC" is a counter intelligence keyword.. To monitor overseas Intel gathering.

Or..

Once they realised the manual had been released into the public domain and was impossible to cover up, have removed as much linking to that manual as possible.

a reply to: Havick007

Why are we resurrecting this ancient thread. The SOM1-01 "manual" was an obvious fake. Many of the flaws have been pointed out in earlier posts. Personally, I believe that one of the most glaringly obvious anachronisms is the use of the term "Area 51."

This manual was supposedly published in April 1954. Construction of the top-secret facility at Groom Lake, Nevada, was not even started until May 1955, and it was not designated Area 51 until the summer of 1959.

originally posted by: anon72
Well done.

Either this stuff is true or there is one heck of a good band of story writers on this Earth.

I'll stick with it being true. Sounds just like a military book/writing.

Should be interesting to see what the Debunkers say. S&F

ANY way you can put up Chapter 6 Section III? Very interesting indeed.

[edit on 5/10/2010 by anon72]

Yeah, this. I can't think of one reason, except the cia creating disinfo because they want people to believe in flying saucers because THEY are the ones flying them. But even so, there's a guy in Texas who is known for verifying the validity of gov't documents, and he has stated years ago, that this particular document appears genuine, so...forget the guys name but if you do a search for 'ufo document verfication texas' you should be able to find him.

Either way, I am beyond gobsmacked at this point how anyone could still have their heads in the sand about ufos. They are most obviously real, and many are from another dimension, not necessarily another star system. But you can't deny they exist, just who is operating them...

hasn't this been proven fake?

I'm not so sure we can throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
The Aviary group (the source of this manual) is well known for mixing true and false elements for disinfo...so the items that "prove" it fake could just be there for such deniability, or it could all be fake. There are still a lot of other elements for it too...so while there are some notable red flags, I'm personally not ready to say it's all bogus.

I recently found the below website regarding the MJ-12. It has both official UFO docs and investigations with PDF files. It also rates the probability of authenticity of the documents

I actually ordered it all and went through it. Most of it is all on their site anyhow, but it is nice to have it in case the site goes poof one day.