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.


"TEAM ATS" Is in Roswell, New Mexico TODAY, 11/29/2007

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 01:41 PM
Wow, I bookmarked this thread a few months ago, and gave up hope on anything coming from it... Good stuff

Mr. Stone, if you don't mind I have two very open ended questions... Would love if you had time to get as detailed as you can without getting yourself into any trouble...

1- Does the date December 21st, 2012 mean anything to you?

2- I think there is not enough attention given to USO's (unidentified submerged objects)... It is my opinion that ET life on this planet would have a much easier time hiding in our waters, than flying around in the air. I say this because as many people know, we as a people know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the depths of our oceans. What is your opinion on USO's in general?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by noslenwerd]

posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by anhinga
Please forgive this delay in responding to your question. I have been working on a child abuse case at the request of my Grand Daughter and this has kept me very busy. The object your are talking about is known as 1991VG. The following is from an unclassified document:

"Extraterrestrial Artifacts:
In 1991, Jim Scotti, Director of the University of Arizona's Spacewatch telescope found what he believed to be an asteroid. Designated 1991VG (-10 meter diameter), subsequent observations by other instruments found that 1991VG has some extraordinary properties and, according to some astronomers, may not be just another asteroid."
"Observations by Richard West and Oliver Hainaut made near the time of 1991 VG's closest Earth approach found that the object had a decidedly non-asteroidal signature. It exhibited very strong and rapid brightness variations that are normally associated with transient specular reflections from the surface of a rotating (shiny metallic or painted) spacecraft."
"In addition to its unusual optical properties, it is in a rather unique orbit. "Essentially, 1991VG is in a heliocentric orbit, almost precisely within the Earth's orbit plane and has a very high probability for impacting our planet. In fact, it will pass very close to Earth about every 16.75 years."
"This means that if the object were natural it could not have been in this orbit very long because the orbit is unstable. It would hit Earth or be ejected in a relatively short period of time. Given that it must have recently entered this orbit, one could wonder where it came from." "Scientists are debating two equally improbable possibilities: an old booster stage or early space probe, or an extraterrestrial space probe."

"Initially, you might think the first option the more likely; however according to Duncan Steel (Anglo-Australian Observatory and The University of Adelaide) the object does not fit the expected orbits of any known Earth-originating probes or rocket bodies. Since the orbit of 1991VG was accurately determined by observations from Kitt Peak observatory, Steel has been able to project the last time the object encountered the Earth. In its present orbit, that would have been in February 1975. Thus, if the object were an Earth spacecraft it would have had to be launched around that time. Steel has only been able to identify two probes (no rocket bodies) that could possibly fit the scenario: Helios 1 and Venera 9. However, correlation with either of these would require some non-gravitational influence to put them into the observed orbit of 1991VG (such as leaking fuels). In his opinion, the object is not either of these probes. With the known man-made objects accounted for, it would seem we are left with, at least a possibility that the object originated somewhere other than Earth."

"The debate over the origins of 1991VG are likely to continue for some time. Short of a rendezvous mission, we won't see it again for several years. The point of this discussion is that 1991VG was found by the Spacewatch telescope; the only system dedicated to finding asteroids and comets in the US. If there are extraterrestrial artifacts orbiting in the vicinity or Earth, a deep space surveillance network such as that proposed herein would greatly increase our probability of finding and recognizing them."

"Note: Given the risk of dropping the asteroid on an unsuspecting population there is no way the asteroid could be valuable enough to make such risk worth while. However, someday technology may allow us to reduce the risk to a very low level. Only then would it be safe to try bringing an asteroid home."

I hope this is responsive to your question.

God Bless,


posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by noslenwerd
Thank you for your questions. Yes, I am aware of December 12,2012. However, it is not my field and therefore, all I could give is my opinion and nothing more. You are correct, in your opinion that USO's are deserving of more investigation. I shall offer here but a few examples. In 1965, the U.S. Navy was conducting naval training involving some 30 ships of all kinds. They detected a target approaching their area operations at a speed of 7,000 MPH. Fighter jets were vectored to a location to intercept the object's course. As the object got closer to the the fighters, it dove into the ocean, going to a depth of 450 fathoms and sail off (underwater at that depth) at a speed of 150 knotts. In another incident in 1966/67 time frame, B-52 Bombers would take off from Guam to hit targets inside both North and South Vietnam. On both their run and return trips, objects would be detected coming out of the water and head on an intercept course with the bombers. Fighters were scrambled to intercept the unknown objects. However, as the fighters approached the targets, they would dive into the ocean. There are many such cases, mostly still classified. Strangely, there exist a unclassified document making reference to what I am telling you here. However, it is protected against public disclosure. Go figure? I trust this is somewhat responsive to the questions you posed.

God Bless


posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by CLIFFORD STONE

A sincere 'thank you' for responding, once again, and shedding some more light on 1991VG, considering how busy you are.... also, judging from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics page, they express a similar viewpoint:

The object might be a returning spacecraft.

In the Project Camelot interview, you mentioned 2016, whereas, on other 'net forums, people think this probe may 'return' earlier -- do you still consider 2016 as a relevant year and could you explain it's orbit in determining this date? From a NASA page, it appears that it's "orbital period" is a little over a year, and is pretty close to the Moon. I don't really understand how any of this is calculated since the object is in a "Earth-like orbit."

Could this be the answer to my question(s)?

Consequently, 1991 VG can be in its current orbit only if it recently (in astronomical terms) entered that orbit.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by anhinga]

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by anhinga
Thank you for your questions. Based on the best available information we have, 1991VG will make its next appearence and be the closest to earth in the year 2016. Due to its highly unusual nature, I believe the scientific world will be watching it closely. Given the information we currently have, 1991VG would had to enter our solar system around 1947/52 time frame. I hope this is responsive to your questions.

God Bless,


posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 09:30 AM
Mr Stone:

I have read an account of your involvement with a triangular craft in Germany circa 1989. Can you tell me whether you know what kind of radiation was detected in this incident? Beta or gamma? Both? I was myself a member of a CBR alpha team many years ago.

Thanks for your answers and for being here on ATS.

[edit on 3/19/2008 by TheAvenger]

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by William One Sac

are you pulling or is Conan pulling?

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 03:16 AM
I just wanted to post, and say I am very confident that Mr. Clifford Stone is doing great work.

OK, did the post to keep it active on my list, my, I'm a little selfish, I admit it!!

peace, on....


posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:12 PM
OMG, I've seen pics of aliens @ the Roswell crash.

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:24 PM
Mr Stone,

I just wanted to say that it an absolute honour to be working through the documents that you have acquired.

I am currently working on some of the larger files, so appear to have been inactive for a while, but nevertheless what you have done is out of this world. No pun intended.

Thank you, on behalf of so many,


posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 07:18 AM
Not been back to this thread for some time!

No more developments I take it?

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:55 AM
Roswell eh? not sure what happened there but a crashed UFO is unlikely. This alleged crash happened in 1947 and is referred to in many publications. There is conflicting evidence concerning this alleged crash.. Col. Corso in his book "The Day After Roswell" alleges there was an accident and the technolgy from reverse engineering seeded to favourable companies and industry. He does mention names and refers also to Dr. Vannavar Bush as leading the research into UFO's. Wilber Smith, the canadian, mentions in an uncontested official gov't memo that after having visited the americans that the UFO phenomenon is real, classified above top secret (higher than the A-bomb) and that it is being looked into by a small group headed by Dr. Bush (MJ 12?).
The conflict? Col.Keyhoe in his book aliens from space also names names, project numbers etc... however he seems to have been in the know and better connected than Corso and states many times in his book that right into the 50's (well after Roswell) they ( AF) headed by Dr. Bush was desperately trying to come up with a plan to either shoot down a UFO or capture one to reverse engineer it.
If in the 50's they were desperate to get a UFO and continued to put pilots at risk engaging these things, what happened at Roswell?, probably not a UFO since they were still trying to get one at all costs well after roswell occured.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 10:58 AM
Just to add to my previous post.... Keyho never even mentions Roswell in his book....a non event. Many other verified cases are mentioned, some I have never heard of before, but not Roswell....

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by microserf
Just to add to my previous post.... Keyho never even mentions Roswell in his book....a non event. Many other verified cases are mentioned, some I have never heard of before, but not Roswell....

Keyhoe relates both in his first book 'The Flying Saucers are Real' and his second 'Flying Saucers from Outer Space' rumors round The Pentagon, and throughout the Air Force that a saucer had crashed, and been recovered together with bodies of the Alien crew, somewhere in NM in 1947. He does not actually mention the name 'Roswell', presumably because the sources of the information didn't know or chose not to reveal the specific location. He was definitely outside the need-to-know loop, but did hear about it.

The accumulated evidence about the Roswell crash (not least the >600 military & civilian witnesses to aspects of it now on record) lead the average skeptical investigator to conclude that something extraordinary and not man-made did come down in 1947 - possibly 2 separate craft. It's the only conclusion which fits all the facts as known.

You're right there is plenty of evidence and testimony that the USAF (and other air forces) tried to shoot down UFOs many times in the early 1950s, and lost many good pilots as a consequence. There is fairly convincing evidence that more than one craft was downed and retrieved. The USAF suspected the ET craft were from more than one origin as the designs, size and characteristics differed so much - as did the propulsion technologies employed between the various types.

If 'insiders' are to be believed (from 'Disclosure' and other testimonies) at least five different propulsion technologies are/have been recovered on different craft, and at least one successfully back-engineered into a working and field-tested craft.

Steven Greer has his critics (justifiably in my view) about some of his messianic and ego-related issues, but he has nevertheless made a few observations both succinct and poignant. One such is a note in 'Disclosure' on p477:

'...the truth about this matter is so far outside of most people's reality that it is its own best cover. The truth covers itself even if placed in plain sight'

Sums it up, doesn't it?

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by microserf

All very good, this thread has nothing to do with the roswell incident though.

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 03:09 PM
....right, back on topic.... Mr. Stone, thanks again for your input on the 'satellite' in-question a couple of posts ago, that's appreciated.... I still happen to be curious about this, any progress?

....I will say that within the government documents I have, they speak of several types of entities. I am currently working on a major project (creating a PDF File from microfiche). This document is about 1500 pages and I work alone. I make every attempt to give each of the documents I create to a PDF File from microfiche or microfilm the TLC they deserve. Upon completion of this project, I promise, I will attempt to put some of those documents talking about the different types of entities that been reported together.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by anhinga]

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:02 PM
What's the word?

Any news from Crakeur or Springer?

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 05:01 AM
Well, this thread is kind of a let down. This was posted almost four month's ago, stickied, and never returned to again. Atleast tell us if you're still trying to talk to MSM or what the deal is?

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by Hyde70

Yes we are sill talking to the MSM.


posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:02 AM
reply to post by Springer

Thank you Springer, this is good to know.

I've been learning, here at ATS, that patience can sometimes be a virtue. Well, actually it is aslways a virtue, since opening mouth before engaging brain can lead to unintended consequences.

This project is in good hands, IMO


<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in