It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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



page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 03:56 PM
Request Letter
What is either an incredibly interesting or incredibly boring 40 pages.

Document date: 1996-03-28
Department: Washington National Records Center and NASA
Author: Valencia K. Chance, Chief, Reference Service Branch WNRC
Document type: letter and catalog
pages: 40


Archivist's Notes: This packet of 40 pages starts of with a letter from the WNRC.

This letter is evidently in response to Mr. Willis' request on two boxes of records labeled "(NASA)Fragology Files" and given the ascension number 255-68A-2062. Which seems to be the boxes containing information on space debris investigated by NASA or other military/federal angencies during the years 1962 - 1967.

Ms. Chance states that the boxes have been indentified as missing since 1987, she goes on to state that most likely the WNRC will not be able to locate the boxes after already completely a lengthy search.

This is then followed by what appears to be an old form listing the contents/incidents of the "fragology file" documentation on specific incidents. This form originated from NASA and sent to the Federal Records Center. Form has two dates on it, Sept. 25(23?)1967 and Jan. 26, 1968.

The type on this old document is smudged and tough to read but there are some interesting tidbit there in my opinion. Though kecksburg doesn't seem to be mentioned specifically.

This is then followed by 37 pages of what appears to be a catalog that shows available materials on space and orbital debris.

Some of the incredibly exciting titles include:

"Estimation of decayed satellite reentry trajectories", "Comparison of shaped charge liner cone and recovered jet fragment microstructures to elucidate dynamic recrystallization phenomena" and "Procedures for estimating orbital debris risks" to name a few.

Most are organised per event or type. Under Kecksburg(page 38 of packet) the catalog refers the reader back to Cosmos 96 (page 6 of packet).

It should be noted that Kecksburg is also referred to as KLECKSBURG, "Klecksburg Incident" or "ACME and...

This is either a perfect example of beauracrats behaving perfectly or beauracrats behaving badly.

There is also contradictory reports on when and where cosmos 96 came down. These contradictions come from official and unofficial (ie civillian sources).

Honestly I'm not sure what to make of this packet, but why would out of all of the materials and debris available would two boxes that would include kecksburg data be the only ones missing?

Some intersting things(for me anyway) that stand out on page two and three of the packet are as follows:

F19 Southern Ontario, Canada and F33 Venezuela object


posted on Nov, 27 2007 @ 06:16 PM
In my opinion there is much here that needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb and data mined for clues and further information. Because the information has been summarized so well in the initial posting, I will not go into too many aspects of what might be found by breaking down some of the leads sure to come from this. Instead I will simply point out a couple of things that stood out for me while viewing this.

But before going further, I would suggest that those unfamiliar with the "Kecksburg Crash" use the search function here on ATS to gain some understanding of what the event entailed. Another source, aside from Wikipedia, is this one from the Pittsburgh Tribune:

The first thing is the security classification on page two. While not 'Top Secret' or 'Eyes only' or something else from a spy novel, it is still very emphatic. "Highest classification CONFIDENTIAL To be released only upon authorization of NASA." Pretty strong way of saying it wasn't to be treated lightly.

On this same page is a listing under "Description of Records" of recovered space debris from 1962 to 1967. It is evident from the security classification that these were all items of importance in our space race with the USSR. For the Kecksburg records to be included means that it was of equal or greater importance than some piece of sheet metal from Argentina.

Then, very near the end, the Kecksburg (Acme) incident is mentioned. It seems strangely out of place, almost as if it were inserted at another time. There is not the discussions that other incidents had; only citations to newspaper articles. The word "presumably" is used to further downplay it's value. But if it was so unimportant, why include it at all in a heavily restricted document along with so many other important incidents? A very odd way to treat this "presumed" UFO.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:22 AM

Originally posted by
[ Form has two dates on it, Sept. 25(23?)1967 and Jan. 26, 1968.


It should be noted that Kecksburg is also referred to as KLECKSBURG, "Klecksburg Incident" or "ACME and...

The same document is also availble from the UFOcasebook
the quality is slightly better therfore the date is recognizable:
September 25 1967

Now with Kecksburg vs. Klecksburg...
I assume this has to do with the word "Klecks" - with this in the german language, meaning "blotch/spot". I believe they used it as a ‘blotch or spot’ fell from the sky. Therefore Klecksburg or "blotchcastle".
(Side note:"Klecks" is used in the German language for spilling ink on a paper)

On the other hand there is the use of Kecksburg and Kecksberg?
Again here "burg" = castle and "berg" = mountain (germ.)

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:03 PM
A search on Cosmos 96 turns up an article which is quite emphatic that this object has no relation to the K-incident, however you spell it.

In addition, to me, having these articles and papers is nice but since they are in a graphic format, there is no ability to search or index or catalog these.

Though it would be a lot of work, istm that the most important papers from the collection should be considered for OCR scanning, or hand re-writing, enabling the search feature.

Again, to me, assigning 120 people to look over these and comment in a widely variable manner doesn't add much. If you have several thousand or maybe several hundred people who are willing to work on them, why not take advantage of this and have each person transcribe their bundles?

In fact the ones I've seen doing the examining aren't even summarizing, so I have to wonder just what the 'instructions' are.

In addition it's also not clear to me what we hope to gain by going through them, again, with highly variable styles of 'analysis' or 'commentary', or in some cases, not much at all.

Maybe someone could explain?

I've transcribed some truly massive works, one being a set of 20 loose leaf manuals with several hundred pages each. It took me about 9 months to do, working 8 hours per day (I was being paid), yet that's not a long time, and I've done it twice (two different projects).

ISTM it would be a snap if you have several thousand members. (I forget how big the collection is, but not every document requires nor is legible enough to permit OCR.

Obviously the original docs have signatures and formats and stamps and pictures, but again, it's not clear if any transcription or search enabling is being considered, thus my question.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:11 PM
Another question might be why have a completely illegible copy of 'NASA Casi Price Tables included, when a quick search shows a perfectly legible OCR version, here:

Is there some evidentiary significance to the illegible copy?

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by Badge01

Are not all the people who view these able to go over them at will? I realize that they can't actually touch the paper, but these are just copies sent from certain archives anyway, and not the originals, so how would your method help?

There will be tens of thousands of people, over the years, look at these, not just the few that initially post about them.

I admit that my take on what these documents say is limited to my own perceptions, but that is where the threads broaden the view. Everyone can see them in the same way and context as myself, and comment just as I and a few others did.

I fail to see where these need to be in the hands of specialists.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by NGC2736]

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:52 PM
A great FOIA document, some links within this thread and the documents themselves have some further research potential... on one of the first pages, there's a clip about 'spacecraft parts' that seems interesting. Have all of the ones mentioned been in "public" space missions? I didn't recognize all the names. . .

posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 10:38 PM
An interesting find I stumbled upon while searching for something else entirely on the net is this:

I. NASA’s FOIA Searches
This action arises from plaintiff’s request for historical
documents concerning an object that allegedly fell from the sky
and crashed in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania in 1965. On January 31,
2003, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to NASA seeking
documents related or referring to Kecksburg, the December 9, 1965
incident, the “Fragology Files” for 1962 to 1967, Richard M.
Schulherr, Project Moon Dust, and “Cosmos 96.” NASA has conducted
four searches pursuant to this FOIA request, which plaintiff
argues have been insufficient.

Interesting court case of plantiff suing NASA over these files
Data Mined for your pleasure.

posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 12:47 PM
After reading your opening remarks I decide to google in Fragology, and came up with 2 pieces I would like to enter into his discussion.

What correlation is there to Kecksberg missing files and Project Moondust?

Also CFI won their day in court November 2007, So is it possible that the 'lost' files will be returned and if so how many blackouts will there be to contend with?

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 11:15 AM
If that doesn't make you speculate it was another failed x-perimental craft
by NASA nothing will convince the average UFO researcher that its all a fabrication to hide the technology.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Skydancer]

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:50 AM
The NASA court case concluded. No mention of any reports, clippings, sightings or investigation was found. Three boxes of the frag files were checked out by a NASA employee (now retired) and never returned. NASA has expressed no interest whatsoever in reclaiming the records.

Amongst many interesting points raised by the lawsuit...this one stands out. Although NASA kept detailed files on all reports, clippings and sightings of phenomena and space debris...they missed the national coverage that was generated by Kecksburg.

It’s worth noting that NASA sent no news articles or clippings about this fireball that was seen over at least four states; was noted by astronomers; and was considered to be a spectacular meteor when it occurred. Seen by thousands, it was covered in major papers all over North America - in Boston, Toronto, Ohio, San Jose, for example - and of course throughout Pennsylvania. NASA did send newspaper stories about other meteors and fireballs and related events around this time, but not this one. Yet, I suspect this was a bigger, more widely reported story than the ones I was sent. The story of the brilliant orange fireball was widely distributed through UPI and the Associated Press – even picked up by the New York Times – and also made it into the Times of London. Why were none of these news stories in NASA’s files, even though clippings of much lesser, but similar, events were?
NASA Lawsuit conclusions (pdf).

The document is a thought-provoking personal response by Leslie Kean.

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 11:49 PM
Note #2: F36 "Moon Dust"
Project Moon Dust

top topics


log in