It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Springer/Clifford Stone files a HOAX?

page: 2
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
It's probably just Project Moondust stuff.



+14 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Like I said, nothing came of it, we got busy with other things and never did anything with it. The documents are Clifford's and I imagine he still owns them, we never put them up or did anything with them, we're running a business and have to get an ROI on anything we pursue or the site goes away (welcome to the high cost of running a big site).

I'm happy to spell out what we found now but it's based on memory from 7 years ago (maybe 8) and I lost my copies of the documents when my house got robbed back in 2012, but, Crakeur might still have copies I don't know we haven't discussed it in forever...

The docs were both FOIA releases that Cliff managed to get. One was a CIA field report about a weird object that fell from the sky according to several eye witnesses and radar returns (if I remember right) in the African desert. The thing was obviously "made by someone or something", a big metallic CUBE and had some weird mesh looking material around it that had a bizarre geometrical pattern to it and was impervious to human attempts to remove it and it survived entry.

The interesting part of this is that this field report is from somewhere around 1955, definitely BEFORE the Soviets launched Sputnik and many years before we launched ANYTHING.

The "conspiracy" comes in like this...

We also found a FOIA document that had the transcripts from a Senators with Clearance ONLY, Closed, Senate Subcommittee Hearing on Space Junk safety around 1970 (or so). The American people were righteously concerned about all these satellites, orbiters and other things every big nation was sending up coming down and into their living room and smoking the family while Walter C. was on the evening news(Google it). The hearing was a review of ANYTHING that had fallen from the sky and landed ANYWHERE on the planet that could cause harm to people combined with the best and brightest explaining how they can mitigate the risk...

During this highest level hearing NOTHING was said of the obviously crafted "cube" satellite, that was the size of VW Microbus (I think, but it was big enough to trash a house for certain) that fell from the sky BEFORE humanity had started successfully launching anything. Now you tell me how in the hell the BIGGEST thing that had been found lying on the ground after entering the atmosphere and surviving the burn, was described as what sounded to me like a BORG unit of some sort (weird geometrical shapes in the "mesh" that surrounded it, etc...) doesn't get mentioned in this review during a closed Senate Hearing? They mentioned all kinds of mundane crap that fell from the sky, LOTS of things that we found in the FOIA docs, I'd say everything BUT this ONE THING...

That's all. I read another guy posting about it on a site I don't recall a few years ago so I know it's "out there now". What I've never seen is anyone put together the Senate Hearing with this report, that was the "magical moment" when Crakeur and I were at Cliffs house and poured through a small amount of the THOUSANDS of docs he had, he was kind enough to grab the best for us because he knew we only had a couple days.

I'll say this too, Cliff was astonished that we figured this out and selected the two documents we did, out of all the people he'd allowed into his collection he said he'd never shared that connection with anyone and Crakeur and I were the first to make it.

So there you go, that's what the "big deal" was, not such a big deal after all apparently.
edit on 1-30-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Um. WOW!!!!

I, for one, would LOVE to see that document!! That's pretty incredible!

( And a bummer that it is such a challenge to dig up!! *sigh*)

Thanks!

- AB



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   


big metallic CUBE


Wait, was it really a cube or more like a monolith?

(creepy Space Odyssey music in the background)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Really cool star for you. Is there any other info around the web about this cube from 1955?



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Wow, what a shame. Would have made a great thread for ATS.

I'm still confused though, when you say it wasn't a big deal after all is that because you found out what the object was? Or it wasn't really from before when we had stuff in space? Something manufactured crashing to the ground made before we launched stuff into space sounds like a big deal to me.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer


The interesting part of this is that this field report is from somewhere around 1955, definitely BEFORE the Soviets launched Sputnik and many years before we launched ANYTHING.

The question that always comes to my mind is, was it before we or Russia launched anything? Or should the statement be: ...before we officially launched any thing?

Either way, an interesting little story Springer. Thanks for sharing it.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
A friend of mine shared some documents, but they turned out to have an ATS/Clifford Stone stamp, so I tossed them.

What was this collection, and is it from a reputable source?
I thought Stone was a the Corso end of the credibility scale.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Is the user called Isaac koi aware of this and/or would he appreciate a nod in the direction of the info? Thank you op and thank you so.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

That is a really great example of how important discoveries can be made by people noticing what is 'missing' from the picture as opposed to focusing only on what can be seen within it...


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

The user called IsaacKoi does not find it interesting.



originally posted by: IsaacKoi
(Thus, I personally don't find the document referred to by the OP to be particularly interesting).

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That thread is a short, fun read. Some of the mods thought the document was a hoax.

The document UFO2.PDF (seriously, that's what they named it) used to be located at the DIA website but the link is dead.

I found a backup at the NOUFORS site - page 52 - www.noufors.com...




I'm no space historian but I notice the date on the document is 1967, not 1955. Was this whole thing a giant oopsie?
edit on 1 30 2015 by CosmicRay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CosmicRay


Thanks for posting that - very interesting..."little cubes" fastened together & covered in the mesh...
kind of scary, I imagine them splitting up and taking off in all directions!

So....yea...um....
where is it now?!



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Another UFO crash story....interesting...a cube with mesh material sounds like a cargo drop? I'd too like to hear more about this. It would be cool to see pictures too.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: CosmicRay

We couldn't get ANYONE (who could create an ROI for ATS) interested. That and THAT alone made it a non big deal for us. Reread what I wrote, this is a business that requires MUCH in the way of time and money, we just can't afford to indulge my personal interests no matter how "cool" and interesting they may be.

edit on 1-30-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

EXCELLENT question. I don't have an official answer to it yet beyond people who were in the business back then telling me it was BEFORE ANYTHING.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: CosmicRay

No, not an oopsie, beyond my recollection of the details (years and weight)...

That's the document (I told you all it was available), the three tons in 1967 was the key to my theory... NOBODY had launched anything near that weight (we humans didn't have rockets that could carry anything near that weight pre-1967) and Sputnik was only 183.9 pounds you have to think it was either a black project (which I don't believe or we wouldn't have taken TEN years to beat the Soviets in the space race) or something "else".

Combine that with the fact it was left out of a SECURE and classified hearing on ALL things that have fallen to earth that could harm people or property and it makes you think... It made me think at least.

Like I said, it's probably nothing and that's why the geniuses in Broadcast TV never showed any interest, I thought it was the schnizzle, but, I've been wrong more than I've been right.

I'd be happy to admit I was wrong then too if someone can prove it to me. I will accept all reasonable and sensible proof because I actually seek to disprove my own theories. That's the point of a theory after all.

edit on 1-30-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Thanks for all the replies guys. I apologize if I seemed brunt or abrupt. My blood sugar was a little low, so perhaps it could certainly have been worded differently. C'est la vie. It's really too bad that it turned out that way. I personally think that this is the kind of thing videos should be made of. It seems I may not be alone in that sentiment.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Chronogoblin

C'est la vie is a term I've learned to live with and embrace over my 51 years, it saves lots of angst...

No harm no foul, I'd have been extremely curious after all the years you pursued this too were I you. I apologize for not getting back to you sonner.


Best,

Mark...
edit on 1-30-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Springer
During this highest level hearing NOTHING was said of the obviously crafted "cube" satellite, that was the size of VW Microbus (I think, but it was big enough to trash a house for certain) that fell from the sky BEFORE humanity had started successfully launching anything. Now you tell me how in the hell the BIGGEST thing that had been found lying on the ground after entering the atmosphere and surviving the burn, was described as what sounded to me like a BORG unit of some sort (weird geometrical shapes in the "mesh" that surrounded it, etc...) doesn't get mentioned in this review during a closed Senate Hearing? They mentioned all kinds of mundane crap that fell from the sky, LOTS of things that we found in the FOIA docs, I'd say everything BUT this ONE THING...


The biggest assumption here is that it was in fact a satellite. Could it not have been something airdropped from high altitude or a suborbital test of some kind?

I'd question how sophisticated our ability to track incoming space debris to know that is what this was in 1967 (1955?). I am sure Jim Oberg would know more about this question.



I'll say this too, Cliff was astonished that we figured this out and selected the two documents we did, out of all the people he'd allowed into his collection he said he'd never shared that connection with anyone and Crakeur and I were the first to make it.

So there you go, that's what the "big deal" was, not such a big deal after all apparently.


It might not be a big deal if it turned out to be the instrument package from a Soviet high altitude stratospheric balloon which would explain why it would not have been in the hearing on space junk since it wouldn't have come from space, just near space.
edit on 31-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: CosmicRay

We couldn't get ANYONE (who could create an ROI for ATS) interested. That and THAT alone made it a non big deal for us. Reread what I wrote, this is a business that requires MUCH in the way of time and money, we just can't afford to indulge my personal interests no matter how "cool" and interesting they may be.


MUFON makes a lot of money but spends it on their yearly storytelling session. Maybe if they didn't they could have some left over to properly investigate this.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join