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.

 

A cube shape UFO

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
timb3r,

I think if you looked up above at IsaacKoi's post you'd understand why this is worthy of being discussed in the Aliens and UFO's forum.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'm talking about the context of the document on it's merits. Not any hype, story or "hoo-ha".

What the document actually states is they think it to be an unmarked Satellite.

How this document is then previously taken, related in "research", books or anywhere else on the internet and turned into a possible UFO related document is beyond me.

To clarify, a small excerpt you hinted I should re-read:

The relevant document been around for years - it is not a recent fabrication. It has been discussed in several books, usually in connection with "Project Moon Dust".

It only confirms that OTHERS previous to the OP, have also taken this document out of context and put it into a UFO related one, because "a cubed UFO" probably sounds cool to readers. Not to mention "Project Moondust" has never been confirmed by anyone and if it even existed is commonly thought to be, and possibly still is, a foreign space debris program of the US; which had more relevance during the cold war.


Ok, I'm being flippant, but to me context is everything and something that doesn't go hand in hand with Ufology.


[edit on 7-6-2006 by timb3r]

[edit on 7-6-2006 by timb3r]




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Oh and for the record, I believe in UFO's


d1k

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
He found it wherever the hoaxers posted it.

Yes, it's a hoax. Someone's taken THIS image from Smoking Gun (or something very like it) and tweaked it:
www.thesmokinggun.com...

Notice that the real one (on TheSmokingGun.com) doesn't have image artifacts on it. It's also got various stamps on it, indicating who got it and so forth.

Secondly, the language is wrong. In sending telegraphs in that era, certain common words (a, the) are dropped.

But hoaxers wouldn't know this.

Another point is that if it was real, it would probably have been sent in code.


Or it could be the same form with different text on it. As far as the language...you got proof that shows you are correct in your statement?

I don't know why you feel the need to slam almost everything that is posted here in the UFO section as a hoax as soon as it's posted.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by d1k]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
UFO doesn't necessarily designate a spaceship, it just means something that flies and remains unidentified.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by timb3r"Project Moondust" has never been confirmed by anyone and if it even existed is commonly thought to be, and possibly still is, a foreign space debris program of the US; which had more relevance during the cold war.


Hi Timb3r,

I don't think that your comment that "Project Moondust has never been confirmed by anyone" is accurate, although I certainly agree with your other comment i.e. that it is commonly thought to be, and possibly still is, a foreign space debris program of the US. (Thus, I personally don't find the document referred to by the OP to be particularly interesting).

Although the US Air Force originally denied the existence of Project Moon Dust, it has since confirmed that it did exist. The US Air Force has stated that Project Moon Dust existed "to recover objects and debris from space vehicles that had survived re-entry from space to earth".

I've cut and pasted below references to some of the longer discussions of Project Moon Dust referred to in Koi Chrono Core:

15 pages - Randle, Kevin and Schmitt, Donald in their “The Truth About the UFO Crash At Roswell” (1994) at pages 96-101 (in Chapter 13) with images of relevant documents at pages 204-212 (in Appendix C) of the Evans hardback edition.

15 pages - Randle, Kevin D in his “A history of UFO crashes” (1995) at pages 155 (in the unnumbered chapter entitled “The Twining Letter”), 157-169 (in the unnumbered chapter entitled “Project Moon Dust”), 171 (in Appendix A) of the Avon paperback edition.

8 pages - Randle, Kevin D in his “Case MJ-12” (2002) at pages 60, 72 (in Chapter 3), 102-107 (in Chapter 5) of the Harper Torch paperback edition.

17 pages - Randle, Kevin D in his “Conspiracy of Silence” (1997) at page 178 (in Chapter 8), 186-199 (in Chapter 9), 232-233 (in Chapter 11) of the Avon paperback edition.

18 pages - Randle, Kevin D in his “Project Moon Dust” (1998) generally, particularly at pages 1-4 (in the Introduction), 135-136 (in Chapter 7), 151-162 (in Chapter 8) of the Avon softcover edition.

15 pages - Redfern, Nick in his “Cosmic Crashes” (1999) at pages 20 (in Chapter 1), 281-294 (in Chapter 14) of the Simon & Schuster hardback edition.

33 pages - Stone, Clifford E in his “UFOs are Real” (1997) at pages 9-10 (in Chapter 1), 34-38 and in Documents 6_1 - 6_17 (in Chapter 6), 50, 51 (in Chapter 8), 55-61 (in the Appendix) of the SPI softcover edition.


By the way, the most interesting and relevant part of Kevin Randle's book "Project Moon Dust" (1998), i.e. Chapter 8, can be read on the NICAP website at the link below:


All the best,

Isaac Koi
edit on 1-30-2015 by Springer because: Removed ad link



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Isaac Koi,

That certainly makes for interesting reading as I have several of the publications you've referred to - I have little time to read at the best of times


Regarding "Moondust", there doesn't seem to be any official documentation through "proper"* channels though. If an admission of it's previous existence and supporting material is commonly available.

*I do not include any UFO or conspiracy based sites/books for obvious reasons.

I've done the little Google "trick" in the search form:

inurl:mil filetype:pdf "moondust"
inurl:mil filetype:doc "moondust"
inurl:mil filetype:ppt "moondust"

Which has turned up nothing related to any released FOI documentation on this.

I would be most grateful, if you could point me in the direction of official released reading on this, which isn't from outside sources such as NICAP, Kevin Randle or an author with a book to sell (or has sold
). Such FOI documents are easily "adjusted" to make for more interesting reading and I've witnessed many changes previously made by respected Ufologists (normally claiming to be highlighting information in good faith.....)

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by timb3r
Isaac Koi,

I would be most grateful, if you could point me in the direction of official released reading on this, which isn't from outside sources such as NICAP, Kevin Randle or an author with a book to sell (or has sold
).



Mmm, not an unreasonable request.

I've had a bit of a look myself, and can't see any Project Moon Dust documents (or references) on Government websites.

However, I'd be very cautious in drawing any conclusions from this since only a _very_ small fraction of government documents are available on the websites of government agencies.

Documents which are _clearly_ UFO related are more likely than many other documents to be put onto Government websites. Agencies such as the CIA, FBI and the US Navy etc make such documents such documents available on their websites in an attempt to reduce the number of requests made for such documents.

I can give you references to an additional 5 or so books containing discussion of Project Moon Dust, but I know this is not what you want.

You could make a FOIA request yourself to the Department of State or other agencies and see what is supplied. (I presume that if I made such a request and obtained any relevant documents that you question the authenticity of anything I supplied).

All the best,

Isaac Koi



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   


Probably the BEST source around is VirtuallyStrange.net:

www.virtuallystrange.net...


I'd agree with that.

Another favorite of mine is majesticdocuments.com

I'd recommend sending it to them, and see what they think (if its not already there)...

Personally though, I tend to agree with Byrd. Why? Well, the main reason is that ALL of these kinds of documents from the era are usually covered with stamps, notations for filing, etc. (as they didn't keep computer files...all was paper). Without those, the document seems dubious. You can also see several examples that illustrate the omission of "a" and "the" in government telegrams, which is allegedly what this document is, so Byrd is right on the money there.

Yes, there are plenty of things under the sun that are legit in this subject. However, even the most ardent believer should realize there is more falsehood than truth, so to find the truth...one must really filter each discovery through the BS screening process....



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by timb3r
Isaac Koi,

I would be most grateful, if you could point me in the direction of official released reading on this, which isn't from outside sources such as NICAP, Kevin Randle or an author with a book to sell (or has sold
).


Sorry about the delay in getting back to you with a relevant official source but I'm pleased to report that I've finally found a copy of the document which started this thread on a website which I think meets your criteria.

I've found the relevant document on the Defence Intelligence Agency's website.

The document can be seen at page 52 of 148 at the link below:
www.dia.mil...

I'm not convinced by the reasons put forward in this thread for rejected it as a forgery (particularly given that it has now been confirmed to be present on the website of an official US Government agency). This does not mean, of course, that the facts stated in the document are accurate - nor that the document has anything to do with UFOs. As I said before, I don't think the document is particularly interesting.

By the way, in relation to your point that no documents on official websites appear to refer to Project Moon Dust, I'd note that several documents on the Defence Intelligence Agency website refer to Project Moon Dust. See, for example, pages 53 and 57 at the link above.

All the best,

Isaac Koi



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Thanks for that.

Ironically, I've seen it before and missed the moondust reference.

Whilst they don't actually say "Project Moondust", they do make references to the word "Moondust", which is good enough me.

I stand corrected



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Just a quick post to give a link to the thread below, since some of the information in that thread overlaps with issues arising in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   
bad fake.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Paul the seeker]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join