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

No new majestic 12 docs have been released since 97. Most of the documents over the years have been proven fraudulent. So i wouldn't out much stock in it.

reply to post by LiveForever8


A Govt. Agency deeming it false is not a qualifying factor, in my opinion. In fact just the opposite. If there lips are moving ........

link stopped comp..seems we will never hear any facts from our leaders..
seems we are lead by hand outs, dis info, and bent over sheep...
lets see that change,change that don,t come from your pocket..seems the facts are there.. but the folks.in USA and im in florida are not smart,cant think,
or on ADD MEDS PLEASE WAKE UP..

I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at those who are arguing about type writers and the keys and fonts they used. Having worked in the publishing/Printing industry, I can tell you that looking at that document, it most certainly was not 'typed' up on a type writer of any sort. It was most certainly printed, probably using Lithography or letter press printing machines. Looking at the text itself to me suggests it would be done by lithographic printing standards of some sort.
None of this suggests to me that its is new, or old, or fake or real of course, since lithographic printing has been around a long time now. But can we please not go on about type writers? documents like that are made in small bulk runs and therefore not typed up.

Hello,

This is a hoax. I spotted the forgery immediately. My photographic analysis indicated that the documents have been photoshopped, as you can see the pasted sections of text. Please mark thread as HOAX.

To conduct similar test on your own, simply load the photos onto any image editor and adjust the brightness and contrast variables, until sections of forgery are revealed as pasted rectangular areas.

The Scientist



[edit on 10-5-2010 by TheScientist]

reply to post by TheScientist


yes , looks dodgy...
Why do people go to such great length for lies and deception?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by TheOracle]

What rules out authenticity for me is simply the poor word choice and sloppy structure with which the document is written. I mean it really reads as if an 8th grader wrote this document.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I think this is a great find too but remember, the US government used to publicly acknowledge the UFOs. General...Shelton? I think it may have been, saying something to the effect of "They aren't ours, they aren't the Russians, we don't know who they are" regarding the widely seen UFOs over Washington DC in the 50's. That there were handbooks, commercials, public announcements, interviews, cannot be refuted, secret or otherwise, nor under the past circumstances when the government admitted the facts that there was something else out there should those printed works be surprising at all. What is perhaps more discomforting is the change of face in the government. Now it is denial, coercion, blatant lies, coverup, and blackmail regarding any information on UFOs. As a government intended to be responsive to the public, we now have a government that treats us as children and decides what we can and cannot have access to. If the worry is about a change in our society and our way of life and possible chaos, I suggest that abrupt change is worse than gradual acknowledgment of a new paradigm on its way.

Hmmm... I don't know gang. The cover looks Photoshopped. Poorly I might add.

Is there any other military manuel made by the same "supposed" office we may be able to look at and compare wording patterns and lithography

page 14 of both parts clearly shows its part of some sort of mail-order paranormal magazine swill. because they both have an order page for the book that we are looking at.

320 pages is not that much when you think about it as a context for a story.

reply to post by LiveForever8


A few other possible aspects of the document that may indicate it is not an actual document from 1954 as suggested:

A government "RED Team" is a typical name in the industry but is an internal review team; a RED Team would never be an onsite team. More likely it would have been called a "Survey"

Umbrella terms in the industry (such as the suggested Majestic-12, Bowsprit, Echelon, etc) are always limited to seven letters and never contain numbers. (Source is an individual I personally know who wishes to remain anonymous but I assume this can be checked)

Sign-in/sign-out pages were the same on EVERY gov't document from the 50s to 70s when the person I spoke with was involved in high level work. The sign in sheet doesn't look legit, does not have all the required fields, and is typed instead of handwritten.

o ooo it's majic... sorry could'ny resist

reply to post by jaxnmarko

I think this is a great find too but remember, the US government used to publicly acknowledge the UFOs. General...Shelton? I think it may have been, saying something to the effect of "They aren't ours, they aren't the Russians, we don't know who they are" regarding the widely seen UFOs over Washington DC in the 50's. That there were handbooks, commercials, public announcements, interviews, cannot be refuted, secret or otherwise, nor under the past circumstances when the government admitted the facts that there was something else out there should those printed works be surprising at all. What is perhaps more discomforting is the change of face in the government. Now it is denial, coercion, blatant lies, coverup, and blackmail regarding any information on UFOs. As a government intended to be responsive to the public, we now have a government that treats us as children and decides what we can and cannot have access to. If the worry is about a change in our society and our way of life and possible chaos, I suggest that abrupt change is worse than gradual acknowledgment of a new paradigm on its way.

Agreed I have seen that press conference video, which I believe is the only time the military has had a serious press conference on ET and UFO's.

It is a bit strange that the military would come out and say we have seen some weird stuff in the sky and it isn’t ours and not anyone else’s and the next week say nothing to see here people just keep on walking just gas n balloons, This back flip intrigues me and I think that if these docs are true, which I believe portions are, it wouldn’t be that difficult to Hoax a hoax if you know what I mean.

My opinion the truth scared the s**t outta the PTB in the 50s and to this day they properly have no idea what to do besides what humans do best defense, defense and more defense throw in some wars and a whole heap of mis information and your left with the present day situation.

I hope it all comes crashing down in my life... lies and deception i mean.



[edit on 11-5-2010 by deenuu]

This document has been around for years (ten at least) to my knowledge.
Whether its authentic or not your/our goverment will NEVEr own up to it.
There many issues with this document, the type face used is not the same as used for the period, classified documents at this level have embedded identifiers in the paper, the construction or template used is questionable.
And thats just from an amateur.

Originally posted by fnord
page 14 of both parts clearly shows its part of some sort of mail-order paranormal magazine swill. because they both have an order page for the book that we are looking at.

320 pages is not that much when you think about it as a context for a story.

All documents from www.majesticdocuments.com has this order form. Funny thing, this document and the Eisenhower Briefing Document both max out on the authenticity ranking. Coincidence? I think not.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by cripmeister]

reply to post by TheScientist


wow way to self change that image to say its forged.....wowowowowow sad attempt at dis-info.

as for those of you still wondering the authenticity, if you remember correctly john lear and william cooper both said that the REAL mj-12 documents were made in 1954 and that fake ones later arrived in 1955.

ive read through the whole document which i have and do believe its real as judging from the other mj-12 documents ive seen, i would say this is real but you can stil do your research like me and come up with your own conclusions

reply to post by Helmkat


I noticed that the left hand page of the open booklet is identical in every image.

Is it common practice in the US for classified documents to carry a security warning on every left hand page?

The SOM1-01 manual claims to be from 1954 but it contains the font Helvetica which wasn't created until 1957.

For example, look at this section of page 4 of the manual -




Now here it is with the Helvetica typeface next to it and layed over top.




That lines up pretty good considering it's a piece of paper being photographed at an angle and the paper isn't completely flat.





majicbar posted a link to a .pdf file that claims, despite showing any visual evidence to back it up with, that Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic are better matches than Helvetica to what's in the SOM1-01 manual.

After comparing the different fonts I can see why they didn't include a single example.

Here is the same text in the Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic typefaces for comparison.




You can see that Franklin Gothic is thicker than the type in the manual, and various characters have different features, such as the E,R,O and 1.





Square Gothic is thinner, has different spacing, and the E,R,A,S,C,G,D,P,O and 1 characters look noticably different.

I won't go into all of these characters, but one of the key indicators that the font used is Helvetica is the R's.

The right side of the Helvetica R has a rounded tail, while the Franklin Gothic and Square Gothic R's both have a straight tail.



The R's in the SOM1-01 manual are the same as the Helvetica R's.








Another indicator that Helvetica was used is the 1's.

Square Gothic is missing the curve at the top, Franklin Gothic has it, but it also has the extra pieces at the bottom that aren't seen in the SOM1-01 manual.



Only Helvetica has a similar 1 to what's used in the manual.




Can we put this silly manual to rest now and move this to the hoax forum?









[edit on 11-5-2010 by freelance_zenarchist]

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist


I think we can. Good work