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: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: generalspecific

I absolutely agree that's a possibility, like I said, everything is on the table as a possibility.

Unfortunately all we have to go by is a short communique that was classified and distributed to some very interesting people. If it were something that fell out of a plane (does that happen more than I think it does?) that belonged to us or the Soviets I'd think we'd be able to identify what it was by researching military equipment that matches the description of this thing.

Someone with a background in military equipment of the 1950's and 1960's should be able to get a sense for what the thing was, how many 3 ton cubes with weird coatings were being employed for whatever reason back in the 1960's? That's a great angle to pursue this from, we just might solve the mystery yet.




posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Whoever wrote "oblong cubes" has an odd sense of the word "cube"! I wonder where this item is now. If it was brought to the US, logistics would need working out. If it's still in Sudan, wow.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: generalspecific

Someone with a background in military equipment of the 1950's and 1960's should be able to get a sense for what the thing was, how many 3 ton cubes with weird coatings were being employed for whatever reason back in the 1960's? That's a great angle to pursue this from, we just might solve the mystery yet.


Well, the other interesting thing as far as the question of what it might have been - is that it wasn't actually a "3 ton cube"...

...It was 3 tons 'of' small (1 x 2 inch) 'cubes', all fastened together into a cube "shaped" object.

So, I wonder how many 'cubes' that size it takes to weigh in at 3 tons?


Actually, now I'm wondering how accurate the description was - the telegram seems as if written by someone who had been told what it looked like, rather than someone who had seen it first hand...

edit on 1-2-2015 by lostgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostgirl

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: generalspecific

...It was 3 tons 'of' small (1 x 2 inch) 'cubes', all fastened together into a cube "shaped" object.





Super 8 ?

edit on 1/2/2015 by Catch_a_Fire because: Messed up quotation!.......it's been a while.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I haven't really done any work into this one and so may be well of course here. Just an idea that sprang to mind.

But what if it was something like this being tested in the atmosphere to see how it would react?



Perhaps a forerunner to the heat shields use on spacecraft like the Shuttle (of which a tile is shown left)?






edit on 1/2/15 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: lostgirl

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: generalspecific

Someone with a background in military equipment of the 1950's and 1960's should be able to get a sense for what the thing was, how many 3 ton cubes with weird coatings were being employed for whatever reason back in the 1960's? That's a great angle to pursue this from, we just might solve the mystery yet.


Well, the other interesting thing as far as the question of what it might have been - is that it wasn't actually a "3 ton cube"...

...It was 3 tons 'of' small (1 x 2 inch) 'cubes', all fastened together into a cube "shaped" object.

So, I wonder how many 'cubes' that size it takes to weigh in at 3 tons?


Actually, now I'm wondering how accurate the description was - the telegram seems as if written by someone who had been told what it looked like, rather than someone who had seen it first hand...


My first impressio is that the telegram couldn't be the first hand investigation because the description was very much vague.

And I also highly doubt the claim that the big cubic satellite was composed of tightly fastened smaller ones of 1x2 inches cubes because it was found to be “with difficulty cut samples". It seems to me that neither small cubes could be seperated from the big one nor the satellite could be cut apart. Considering the satellite did not fall apart, therefore I assume that the right description may be the big one LOOKED LIKE composed of smaller ones, which, if true, means that the big satellite had neatly cut deep grooves on its body.

Further, it is quite strange the telegraph described the material of the satellite looked like light aluminium. But how could light aluminum difficult to cut? It must be some other materials.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: lindalinda
Whoever wrote "oblong cubes" has an odd sense of the word "cube"! I wonder where this item is now. If it was brought to the US, logistics would need working out. If it's still in Sudan, wow.


It really senses strange. Because the satellite was described as a cubic one as a whole, while the smaller ones were oblong cubes. Could oblong cubes mean round corner cubes? If so, I am very curious how those round corner cubes were "tightly fastened" together so as to it was quite difficult to cut? Nobody would do stupid things to tighten things that are meant to be cut loose to an extend that nobody could cut them loose, wouldn't he?

Silky material does SOUND like parachute or balloon, but how could soft materials are difficult to cut? Anyway either the telegram was too vague to cast any light to identify that object or the thing was too strange.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Always thought Stone was as genuine as they come. He shows conviction when he speaks. I always wondered about the 57 cataloged species of ET's he mentioned. He never went in to great detail besides them mostly being bipedal. He was pretty vague about it , when we want to get to the meat and potatoes of it. Seems he is holding back. Perhaps due to ridicule or fear of gov retaliation.

Have not seen much of him in recent years. He is getting up in his years though. I hope he is doing well.
edit on 1-2-2015 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Fascinating ! One question. Did the FOIA mention where this cube went ? Such as a military base ?


Not that the public would ever get to see it



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CosmicRay
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?



MAJ 12 all over again



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer

No, I'm confident it disappeared into the great vault of "otherworldly" crap the USG has stashed...
edit on 2-2-2015 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket

It could be just the tubes that were difficult to cut. The telegram doesn't go into detail.

"Local authority in El Fasher" Well I googled and it is also spelled El Fashir half the time. It's the capital of North Darfur region of Sudan. That's the last place we know it was, and any photos of it.

By US standards it looks pretty sad, but one site says the town is one of the nicest in Sudan. Notably, there is a museum, the Sultan Ali Dinar Palace Museum, and a Sudan Archaeological Research Society. Along with the local government, those would be interesting to check, assuming we can contact any of them.

I found an article about a visit to El Fashir by the US ambassador's office, probably a few years ago, and looked around the embassy website but they only list a local telephone, no email.

Some other possible resources: El Fasher University (in Arabic), Sudan News Agency, El Fasher Radio, which may be the same as Radio Dabanga, and the governor ("wali") of North Darfur state (supposedly English but not really), who was , Osman Moammed Yousif Kiber in Nov 2013.

Anybody want to dig?

edit on 2/3/2015 by lindalinda because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: lindalinda

The telegram also said local authority took photos and my intuition is that intelligent agencies may have approached at least those photos,
which would remain little for digging the original source. If the object is valuable for the US or Soviet, each party would have transported it to somewhere else. Therefore I think it would be more interesting to investigate possible military engagement/existence in Sudan between 1967-1968 after the communication if that satellite was something interesting.

The term SATELLITE is quite interesting though!



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

umm...1967?

I seem to remember a trip to the moon. (EM OH OH ENN spells moon) Apollo, saturn rockets...

We had the capability of sending rather large and weighty objects into orbit in '67....

I am cornfuzed.....



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Paperjacket

Not to mention that aluminum would not survive an entry from any reasonable earth orbit. It would be a ball of molten aluminum at best, burnt up in the atmosphere more likely.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

I wondered how they knew it came from the sky. Could it have just been some weird building materials or something?



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Paperjacket

Not to mention that aluminum would not survive an entry from any reasonable earth orbit. It would be a ball of molten aluminum at best, burnt up in the atmosphere more likely.


I can almost tell that it could not be aluminium no matter if it was a sattelite or something falling down from aircrafts or balloons.

Also I would like to rule out the possiblity of balloons flying in stratosphere because I see no high value targets at that latitude.

Fell out from a plane? I guess Sudan government would know who was flying through that area and if nobldy could identify that object, neither can I figure out why such a spooky plane would fly in that area and where could possibly be the destiny. I doubt it.

Then back to satellite. It was the time of 10 years after human sending the first satellite to outer space. Local residents may have some perception of satellites. But I could not find big CUBIC satellite back then (maybe there were some and just I don't know about them).

Anyway, due to my ignorance, I simply can not figure out what it could possibly be and I have to say the telegram is just too vague for proper speculation.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: CosmicRay
a reply to: Jonjonj


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?


And the document casually refers to it as a satellite.
edit on 4-2-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Yup, the Saturn V was in operation from '67 to '73 and a total of 13 of them were launched during that time period and had a payload of 260,000 pounds. Taking that into account 3 tons seems rather small. That being said, I still have no idea what this was, it's just that there certainly was plenty of capability to launch something of that size at that time.

www.space.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Pimpish

That was my point, we were at the very beginning of testing launchers for large payloads. Obviously the military could have been launching large payloads prior to '67 and we'd not know about it. That could be an interesting FOIA request...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join