Have you heard of Area 93 ?

[Derek Willis]

As ChrLzs said, the second document looks like it could be genuine, and hence is related to the Dyna-Soar project. In that case it seems the mention of Boeing relates to something they did at "Area 93" in relation to the project. The first document looks fake, and it is only in there that Area 93 - whatever and wherever that is - is linked to Malden Island.

[rashore]

22 hours ago, Konichiro Watanabe said:

Because it is impossible to photocopy documents absolutely straight up. ALL photocopies or scanned documents are like that.

That is not true. Cooked copy can and does happen when the person making the copies does not take time to make sure the paper is straight. Scanning can be crooked if the user does not make sure the tabs on the scanner are set correctly, or does not account for different types of paper or a low amount of paper being scanned. But it is indeed possible to photocopy documents absolutely straight up- I've done thousands of copies and scans perfectly straight. From individual pieces of paper, bound and not bound books, entire files of random types of paper or documents for uploading... Yes, it's possible to photocopy documents absolutely straight up.

Now to hazard some guessing based off my copying and scanning experiences. IF both documents are real.... The first one was probably a single page that was laid down on the glass face for copying. Due to the darkened corners and edges, the scan was done with the door open, and the paper just held in place. Probably scanned on portrait  because of where the darkened corners are. Probably an older copier too, pre-digital since a lot of digital printers now don't leave that same dark background the way the old copiers do. In the second one, it's a copy of a copy. The first copy was done straight, probably with a feeder or possibly on the glass plate with a backer paper and the door closed- and it was smaller than the standard 8 1/2x11 paper. You can tell that by the second copy, which is the crooked border around the outer edge and there is smudging between the border of the first document and the second copy area- and that is most likely from using a feeder that wasn't quite straight or possibly because the smaller paper was in a plastic sleeve crooked, and the outer edge is actually the edge of the sleeve. Again, the copier was probably pre-digital.

Something that does bother me about the first image is the stamp on it. Combination stamps aren't unusual, and that's clearly supposed to be a combination stamp. But there's just a couple things that seem off to me. But the date part of it looks like it's part of the stamp, and not a date stamper applied- and you don't make a combo stamper with only one date engraved in on it, it would be DATE to mark the box, but the date stamped or written in the box separately. Also somewhat unusual is the inclusion of the authorities printed names being part of the engraving. There's something about the small size, fineness of line, and style of font used that bothers me too- it should be closer to what the typed font is size and fineness of line wise on that page because that's about where stamping tec was at the time, and it's more like the detail we get out of more modern stamps or even when using printed labels, but the date on it is from Dec 1962.

[ChrLzs]

On 5/9/2017 at 1:12 PM, Konichiro Watanabe said:

 

According to a document a friend from England sent me (see below), the Island of Malden in the central Pacific was refered to as "Area 93" from the early sixties to the mid eighties. Apparently, Boeing conducted a number of tests there. Today, obviously, there are very few traces left. Just a few corroded containers and an abandoned airstrip.

 

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.  There are more reasons, but I'll hold a couple of cards to my chest for the moment....

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no other matching image anywhere on the web.  So, I think it's fair to ask the OP - please get back to your claimant and ask for provenance, or .. ask him why he's given you an altered document and didn't tell you that.

[Derek Willis]

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.  There are more reasons, but I'll hold a couple of cards to my chest for the moment....

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no other matching image anywhere on the web.  So, I think it's fair to ask the OP - please get back to your claimant and ask for provenance, or .. ask him why he's given you an altered document and didn't tell you that.

You've nailed it. An excellent piece of detective work!

[rashore]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.  There are more reasons, but I'll hold a couple of cards to my chest for the moment....

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no other matching image anywhere on the web.  So, I think it's fair to ask the OP - please get back to your claimant and ask for provenance, or .. ask him why he's given you an altered document and didn't tell you that.

I would argue that the corner black fading does make sense.... it's what happens when a paper like this is held into the corner with the cover up and paper laid in portrait.... but such is somewhat common to note. I've mucked single copies on older machines this way, lol. If it were the opposite corners it would indicate the document laid in landscape instead. If anything, the corners may indicate a mock up error, since most older copiers were glass set for landscape instead of portrait. But if I were faking an older document scan, Particularly of something marked to not copy... the indicated haste of the corner fades is a nice touch. 

Darn good catch with the 9's though... I didn't even notice I was staring at the copier marks and the general weird of the stamp so hard.

[freetoroam]

On 5/9/2017 at 7:01 AM, Konichiro Watanabe said:

It is what my friend from the UK told me. Apparently, his father was part of the British Navy Engineers who took back control of the island in the early 90s and did some clean-up work. The talk among them was that DYNA-SOAR was not in fact cancelled in 1963 as officially claimed but that it was moved out of sight to Malden Island and operated until the late 80s. It might have been the source of some of the AURORA sightings since some of the DYNA-SOAR vehicles landed on US airfields following emergencies.

He also told me that his father saw traces of a very large Launch complex which seemed quite big in comparison to what the Titan-launch DYNA-SOAR needed. So maybe other projects were conducted there as well.

By the way, what is wrong with the first document ?

In the UK we call him Uncle Albert:

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by freetoroam

[Barkinghorse]

Edited May 11, 2017 by Barkinghorse
Malden - 2015

[Barkinghorse]

Malden Island 2015..... nothing much to see

 

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, Barkinghorse said:

Malden Island 2015..... nothing much to see

 

The object on the beach at the left looks like a discarded nosecone from a Titan III rocket.

[quillius]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.  There are more reasons, but I'll hold a couple of cards to my chest for the moment....

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no other matching image anywhere on the web.  So, I think it's fair to ask the OP - please get back to your claimant and ask for provenance, or .. ask him why he's given you an altered document and didn't tell you that.

nice. looking at the second '9' you highlighted, it now looks like it used to be a '5'.... IMO

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

The object on the beach at the left looks like a discarded nosecone from a Titan III rocket.

The object in the middle also looks like Doctor Octopus.

Seems like this island does have secrets after all...

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, quillius said:

nice. looking at the second '9' you highlighted, it now looks like it used to be a '5'.... IMO

So is Area 53 a real place? Just up the road from Area 51?

[quillius]

15 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

So is Area 53 a real place? Just up the road from Area 51?

who knows Derek.

 

This old thread here on UM suggests yes...... 

but then again some of the old threads here suggest quite a few things  

[Barkinghorse]

5 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The object on the beach at the left looks like a discarded nosecone from a Titan III rocket.

It's an old crate.

 

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, Barkinghorse said:

It's an old crate.

 

I didn't really think it is part of a rocket ...

[RoofGardener]

What ? You DON'T ? It ISN'T ?

Damn... you had me going there. 

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Since I know Konichiro Watanabe have been reading this thread recently, I guess he isn't going to comment any further on this ?  

I wonder why ? 

[rashore]

35 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Since I know Konichiro Watanabe have been reading this thread recently, I guess he isn't going to comment any further on this ?  

I wonder why ? 

Perhaps he has just been reading, and isn't ready to comment yet. Maybe reading our responses and taking time to contact his friend that first sent him the pages? Or just checking because sometimes folks do that, even when they might not have a good response at the moment, but want to read anyway.
I'm trying to give a moment of a benefit of a doubt here... several of us have given some food for thought that the OP might want to mull over before responding.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, rashore said:

Perhaps he has just been reading, and isn't ready to comment yet. Maybe reading our responses and taking time to contact his friend that first sent him the pages? Or just checking because sometimes folks do that, even when they might not have a good response at the moment, but want to read anyway.
I'm trying to give a moment of a benefit of a doubt here... several of us have given some food for thought that the OP might want to mull over before responding.

Feel free to remove my last post if you please, I agree that it probably wasn't a good response.

[Derek Willis]

9 hours ago, rashore said:

Perhaps he has just been reading, and isn't ready to comment yet. Maybe reading our responses and taking time to contact his friend that first sent him the pages? Or just checking because sometimes folks do that, even when they might not have a good response at the moment, but want to read anyway.
I'm trying to give a moment of a benefit of a doubt here... several of us have given some food for thought that the OP might want to mull over before responding.

Whilst there is evidence the first document has been faked or "doctored", there is no evidence Konichiro is responsible. Konichiro may have received the document in good faith, and genuinely wants to know if there is any truth in the matter.

[Derek Willis]

On 5/10/2017 at 11:50 PM, ChrLzs said:

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.  There are more reasons, but I'll hold a couple of cards to my chest for the moment....

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no other matching image anywhere on the web.  So, I think it's fair to ask the OP - please get back to your claimant and ask for provenance, or .. ask him why he's given you an altered document and didn't tell you that.

Konichiro says that the document was sent to him by a friend. Whether he means the actual document or a scan is not clear. If it is the actual document, are there any suggestions you can make to help him determine whether it is a real document from 1962? For example, what were the paper sizes used in the USA back then? If he is an innocent party in the fake you have uncovered, then he will have no problems in providing some information. If not, then perhaps Notheverythingisaconspiracy may have a valid point ...  

[Pericynthion]

On 5/10/2017 at 5:50 PM, ChrLzs said:

I've now taken a long and much harder look at that document, especially given Rashore's excellent information, and the more I look at it, the more it shouts 'fake' to me.  The fading in the top and bottom corners makes little sense, and looks 'added'.  The stamp, which is indeed of strangely high quality and has those suspicious looking date figures/font, has that very odd loss of ink at top left, but finally, and in my opinion the most damaging, is that the 9 in the 'Area 93' is NOT original.  It does NOT match the shape of the other 9's in the document and if you zoom it up:

.. it is a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document.  I am convinced it was edited in afterwards.  Perhaps there was a faint real nine there once, but I'm sorry, I now reject that document.

I don't believe this document is authentic for a variety of reasons, but I disagree pretty strongly with your claims here that the 9 in "Area 93" is not original.  First of all, you haven't shown any actual evidence to back up those claims except to say that it looks different to you.  This appears to be a low resolution scan of a printed document, similar to the output of an older fax machine.  Characters don't often repeat identically in such scans.  There are usually at least a few pixels difference from one character to the next.  If you want to claim that this one particular 9 is not original, you need to show that it is different in some way beyond the normal character-to-character variations in a scan like this. I don't think it is.

There are four nines in the document.  I've enlarged them and placed them next to each other in the top row here:

The 9 at top left is the one you claim is "a string of crudely drawn single pixels, completely unlike any other character in the entire document."  In the bottom row, I've repeated the four nines, color-coded the one you think is fake in green, and overlaid it on the other three.  The main structure of all four characters appears to be extremely similar with just a few pixels difference from character to character.  If you were shown my image above out of the context of this discussion, would you still be willing to state definitively that the leftmost 9 is not authentic?  I wouldn't.  It could have been edited in later, but I don't think there's any real evidence here to prove that.

[Pericynthion]

On 5/8/2017 at 10:18 PM, Konichiro Watanabe said:

Apparently, this "Area 93" was referenced in a document summarizing the DYNA-SOAR programme just after its cancellation. But Boeing must have used the site for many other purposes since it remained active until the mid 80s apparently. Does anyone know what other projects were conducted there ?

Hello Konichiro.  Welcome to the forum.  I'm afraid the Dyna-Soar document you posted above has been altered.  There is no reference to "area 93" on that page in the original, which is available in the Defense Technical Information Center archives:

Source:  History of the X-20A Dyna-Soar, Volume 1 (Narrative), October 1963

 

The Step IIA and IIB studies mentioned on the above page were just paper studies conducted by Boeing.  There was no hardware involved which would have needed a remote, secret test site.

 

Source:  Review and Summary of X-20 Military Application Studies, 14 Dec 1963

Edited May 12, 2017 by Pericynthion
Problems with image linking

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, Pericynthion said:

Hello Konichiro.  Welcome to the forum.  I'm afraid the Dyna-Soar document you posted above has been altered.  There is no reference to "area 93" on that page in the original, which is available in the Defense Technical Information Center archives:

Source:  History of the X-20A Dyna-Soar, Volume 1 (Narrative), October 1963

 

The Step IIA and IIB studies mentioned on the above page were just paper studies conducted by Boeing.  There was no hardware involved which would have needed a remote, secret test site.

 

Source:  Review and Summary of X-20 Military Application Studies, 14 Dec 1963

That's an interesting point - literally. Each of the numbered points ends with a full stop (period) except the one mentioning Area 93.

So, one of the documents has been altered and the other has been faked - why?!

[Pericynthion]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

That's an interesting point - literally. Each of the numbered points ends with a full stop (period) except the one mentioning Area 93.

So, one of the documents has been altered and the other has been faked - why?!

(This image popped into my head when I read your question.  Did a quick Google search and there it was.  Yep, that's the internet.  )

Seriously, though, I suppose someone is just trying to create a cool new mystery.  I always figure the best thing to do in a situation like this is just politely point out the truth and hope the people asking the questions find it somewhat helpful.  And hey, I got to learn a bit about the Line Islands and found out we have a member who's actually been to Malden Island.  That's pretty cool.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Pericynthion