Springer, any word on the Stone documents?

reply to post by icybluebeing

---

As Springer said it takes time AND money to keep the site maintained and bring to light the issues we are discussing in the MSM.

A little advertising here and there never hurt anyone

This is one of the millions of problems when dealing with the UFO subject matter. What to believe and what not to believe. Who to believe and who not to believe.

Nowhere in Springer's post does he say that he personally believes everything that Clifford Stone claims. Nowhere in Springer's post does he say that the AboveTopSecret Network holds all of Stone's claims to be 100% true.



This statement by Springer pretty much sums it up. Everything is available here for anyone to do their own research. Obviously one has to be very careful when researching this data and arriving at conclusions. One misstep could cost ATS a lot of credibility and thus perhaps a lot of money. The fact is, we live in a world of money. ATS needs money to operate effectively.

There might not be much on the Kecksburg file for example. Project MoonDust and Operation Blue Fly might be retrieval programs... not for aliens spaceships but for space debris- possibily our own technological hardware or that of Soviet (or some other nation) design. That alone could warrant classifiying them as ultra-top secret.

The overall point is that Mr. Stone made several FOIA requests in the 1980s and thus his name is forever linked to UFOs and government documents. This has led ATS to dealings with Mr. Stone, but does not mean that ATS believes everything Stone believes. However, the fact remains that all government agencies have records departments. I can assure you there are vaults of records in some basement collecting dust not because they are hiding information on aliens, but because they are OLD. I know this because I work for a local government agency, and we have some very old records, sitting in dust covered boxes. We aren't "hiding" any of this information from the public. We simply are busy with current projects and records, and therefore no staff has been assigned to reviewing these old documents to see what we should keep and what can be tossed.

Check out this Letter dated 1987 to a US Senator:

source

ATS might be working with Mr. Stone to help (monetarily) obtain as much information as they can. You certainly can't fault ATS for working with someone who has high level contacts (US Senators) like Mr. Stone has. Furthermore, it is clear (and has been stated) that there is no "smoking gun" single FOIA document. The goal I believe is to demonstrate a history of conflicting statements by the USAF, NSA, etc in regards to the UFO subject matter. Personal beliefs/theories of Mr. Stone, Springer, or anyone else have nothing to do with this goal.

The frustrating thing is the MSMedia's inability to read between the lines>>> FOIA is on the CIA government website so you must assume the documents are legit>>> there are ample cases therein which summarize events which contradict official government statements.

The problem is how to approach the handling of this information. One wrong word (i.e. little green man) can put ATS in the same boat that many members have already put Mr. Stone in.

I would love to see an effort from ATS members to sift through the Government archives, documenting contradictions made by the government instead of all the fantastic claims of ancient stargates and youtubes of lights in the sky.

reply to post by Scramjet76

---

I'm sorry...
But the FOIA documents in question have not been released on this site or any where else. What the hell made you think they were available for us to look at???

The MSM is into instant gratification. They don't want to make viewers think, it's why you don't see really interesting thought provoking documentaries with lots of research to digest on the main channels.

And contrary to appearances the MSM is only interested in the surface UFO phenomenon, the last thing they want to do is get bogged down in government conspiracies or actual details. If you want proof just look at Stephenville: world wide media attention numerous articles and news stories. The radar report that factually demonstrated this sighting and an orchestrated government cover-up? Nothing.

I guess I suspected this might be the outcome, when you look at the successful UFO shows they have to be sensationalist and melodramatic like the UFO hunters to capture airtime these days. This subject has substance but requires the ability to see the picture all the puzzle pieces make.

Keep up the good work Springer, for every negative comment there are 10 silently supporting your projects.

I totally agree with that...

My frustration is at the way this has been handled really.

As others have said, If ATS/Springer present/s something worthwhile, i will be gracious and humble and have nothing but praise for them/him.

I just feel, along with many, many others on here, that we have been led up the garden path on the whole cliff stone docuuments thing.
I do not see that as negative... Skeptical..Wary... perhaps.

reply to post by SKUNK2

---

Because Springer said everything is available from FOIA. We have the FOIA documents.

The lack of any other documents can be attributed to:

1) Like my previous post says: They are waiting on something (possibly $$) to devote time/resources to finding the documents in question.

2) The documents will never surface because ATS, Mr. Stone, or whoever are simply not privy to the dataset.

reply to post by blupblup

---

Why do you feel this way though? What exactly do you want ATS to do? Magically lift a "smoking gun" from the pages of FOIA documents?

Keep in mind alot of these documents are very old (before the computer age). If Mr. Stone was the first to successfully begin compiling documents on UFOs, I'm assuming somone had to help pay for scanning them to .pdfs right? Now someone has to research them and figure out what message they want to get out to the public regarding the subject matter. Any talk of aliens will not work. We have thrown around the alien hypothesis for decades and we are nowhere closer to the truth then we were in 1960s (with bluebook). I believe ATS is looking for a different angle on disseminating the information. No I don't speak for ATS but I just gather that based on what Springer has said in the past.

reply to post by Scramjet76

---

I'm guessing you were not actually on, or haven't read the thread, that this response pertains to.
Go have a little read through.... it would really help.

I don't want any magic doing by ATS.

very true. i'm happy enough to wait too.
bit disappointed at some of the negative comments as well. boo!

reply to post by blupblup

---

Yes I know a previous post by you (on this thread) points to Springers post from over a year ago regarding the FOIA documents. I believe it's this thread?

This is taken directly from that thread and is exactly what I'm saying in my posts:



As for the Clifford Stone answers everything thread, I'm not going to go through all of that. I was never involved in that thread. I can tell you the thread is in Skunkworks which might tell you the staff is divided on Mr. Stone's beliefs..

Here is more from this thread...



I apologize for missing this earlier post by Springer. It still all amounts to the same thing. None of these documents are going to mean anything. It is the overall presentation which must be done correctly to peak people's interest. Going through that amount of data and putting together a presentation, making a 30 min video, etc takes ALOT of time and money.

I wouldn't be let down if I were you. ATS wanted to sit down with the MSM. They thumbed their noses at ATS. So now they have to present the information themselves which will take more time. Hynek went his whole life looking for answers. I think we can give ATS a bit more time.

reply to post by Scramjet76

---

That by no means was my point. I personally don’t care about Springer’s involvement with Mr. Stone, I don’t believe in “guilt by association”. It is the long list of claims that makes me skeptical and I’m amazed at people’s willingness to simply accept them, and the way ATS has been reacting to those who question them lately. This coupled with other threads and other people they associate with is what worries me in relation to the sites business endeavor’s conflicting with denying ignores.

My point is simply this: If someone made a new account on this site today and made this long list of claims without a stitch of evidence, involving someone who has made a career off of a long list of claims with no evidence as well, the community would remain skeptical and critical depending on how the release of information or promised release of information is handled.

I’ll continue doing this when it comes to the site’s creators, staff, and associate’s claims. Otherwise I wouldn’t be respecting the site’s slogan.


[edit on 10-1-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Springer:

Just sent you a U2U on this subject which may interest you. Look forwards to hearing back

Good work on the site!

J

By the way, those wanting to see C Stone making this statement about 57 species being cataloged, in 2001:

www.youtube.com...

Good post, Scramjet76, and I'm sure not picking on you but wanted to take a second to clarify a couple of things. First of all, although everyone on staff has the utmost respect and admiration for each other, I can't think of a single ATS topic where there isn't a difference of opinion among the staff. Opinions on staff are just as varied and diverse as they are among the general membership. Maybe because all of us are from the general membership.

And PLEASE don't read anything pejorative into a thread being in Skunk Works. That's not the intent at all. The origin of the Skunk Works term can be found here. To us, it means it's a forum designed for the more speculative subjects. Not, "Hey this is nonsense, park it in Skunk Works".

Thanks for the opportunity to address these points.

Carry on.

Any news yet??? What are the MSM doing? Or are you just going to give us the FOIA files?

The MSM haven't played ball so far. Here is Springer's last words on this:



It is still not quite the end of first quarter, but either way it won't happen for while as the production needs ot be made.

[edit on 18/3/09 by Shere Khaan]

Springer do you have any news on the FOIA documents??? I'm like a drug addict waiting for this stuff....

Timothy Good makes some interesting comments about Clifford Stone in this interview
(around 49:07) :
video.google.com...

It's nearly been a year since Springer locked the original thread, and alas, there has yet to be an update.

Sounds like a sham to me.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Double Eights]