Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Special Operations Manual 1-01 - Part 1

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: jan@cyberzone.net (Jan Aldrich)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:29:59 -0800
Fwd Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:54:49 -0500
Subject: Special Operations Manual 1-01 - Part 1

Special Operations Manual 1-01,  Posting #1

During a visit to Washington, D. C. I stopped off at Richard Hall's home
and during my stay there he showed me a copy SOM 1-01.  I noticed a
number items in the publication atypical and unusual in military
writings.

The next day I discussed this manual with Don Berliner.  Since it
appeared to have the US Army seal on the cover, I urged him to send it to
the Army for security determination which I thought might prove very
interesting; especially any comments they might make.  He said he had
given it to the GAO Roswell investigators and felt that was the best
place to get further information on it.

Don Berliner can certainly speak for himself.  However, my impression was
that his attitude towards the authenticity of the manual was ambivalent.
 He had after all presented a talk at a MUFON symposium about how a
recovery team would retrieve crashed saucers.

Berliner mentioned that he had consulted with several experts and came
away with some conflicting opinions.  (I didn't extensive notes at the
time so I am relying on memory for the following.)  He asked someone from
the government printing office if they produced a manual like this and
was told that it appeared a sloppy job, but it well might have come from
them.  He consulted some military officers about the manual, and they
disagreed about whether it could be authentic.  He had also asked
archivists at Carlisle Barracks about the manual, and they had pointed
out that the publications list in the manual was correct for the date of
the manual.  However, just shortly after the manual date the publications
cited had changed, and the list would have contained incorrect
references just a month or so later.

Berliner and I heatedly disagreed about some of the problems in the
manual.  He told me that the manual had come in the mail from an unknown
source.  He did not feel that necessarily reflected on the authenticity.
He pointed out that the news media in Washington, DC live on leaks.
We also disagreed on the effect of the espionage laws in this case.  He
felt, as an aviation writer, that he was a member of the press and had no
responsibility to try to help the authorities identify the source of the
document--which since purported to be a security document of the US, a
security violation had occurred.

The Special Operations Manual tells retrieval teams how to conduct such
operations.  Manuals of this type would be used by the commander or team
leader (or whatever the designation) to develop Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), Operational Plans (OPlans) which would contained
detailed instructions and tasks on retrieval, and Operation Orders
(OPORD), which would apply the plan to a specific operation.  Oplans
can easily become OPORDs.  OPORD are used in specific situations:
if the thing came down in a swamp, this would require special techniques
and equipment and be addressed in the OPORD.  Of course, once the
location is known, the specifics of the area, (ie local population,
terrain, communication, etc., etc.) would be addressed in the OPORD.

To make sure that all necessary actions are accomplished correctly,
manuals are written to establish guidance and standards.  It is too late
when the event has taken place to research what should be done.  The
guidance on this is set out long in advance by people who careful
consider all aspects of the problem.  This guidance is used to craft
Oplans and OPORDs for specific situations and develop training.  When
unforeseen developments happen, there is feed back and the manuals are
revised as necessary.

Oplans and OPORDs address Administrative and Personnel, Security and
Intelligence, Operations, Logistics, Communications and Electronics and
other areas of concern as necessary.  (For example all modern Oplans and
ORORDs address Safety as a separate area--not so, of course, in 1954.)

So any reviewer of this document should keep in mine that it should
establish minimal standards for the tasks and goals planned.

Generally all publications in the military and other agencies solicit
recommendations for improvements and corrections of errors.  Drafts of
new publications are generally sent to activities having some interest
or expertise on the subject for coordination.  Generally such
coordinations improves the final product.  I worked in offices that
received such publications and from time to time and was tasked to
critique these publications.  The result was a long list of
discrepancies, errors, comments, and recommendations which was submitted
to the proponent agency.

I proposed to do such a review (a little less formal than when it was an
official duty) on SOM 1-01.  Some of the discrepancies, etc. are
impossible to address since the manual is fragmentary.  However, they are
included for future reference.  Items considered major discrepancies  are
indicated with an asterisk *.  A short analysis will be included at the
end of the list.  (Page numbers are those in Berliner's copy of the
document.)

Jan Aldrich