In an effort to clarify some confusion between Peter Gersten and Robert Stephens, the following summary has been provided by Robert Stephens as it relates to implants, UFOs, and NASA.
Gersten: Just a few questions if you don't mind. You stated in a prior e-mail that 'over 40 years there has been documented over 1.3 million implants worldwide of unknown construct.' From where is this information obtained?
Stephens: This information was obtained by medical, science, universities, military, other academia, world wide--all nations, over 40 years or longer, since the first non-Earth implant was discovered in a patient's forearm, a young woman, 17, in Chunking, China in July of 1937.
Gersten: First off, exactly what "medical, science, universities, military, other academia" institutions have this data? And exactly where did you get the startling figure of 1.3 million implants? Where specifically is the data on "the first non-Earth implant" that "was discovered in a patient's forearm, a young woman, 17, in Chunking, China in July of 1937?" Please be very specific here. Who discovered and analyzed that so-called first non-Earth implant?
Stephens: It was posted in the book of military history, entitled, 'Sons of Bushido', 1950, Raybon Press-Nippon, Tokyo, Japan, English translation by Garden Press, San Francisco, 1951. The tome was the coverage of the intended and actual insurgency of Japaneses forces in and around Chunking China during the epoch of warfare when Japanese forces pushed deep into Chinese territory between the years of 1931-1939 and on into WW2. In so doing, as described, there was the details of findings by Japanese medical personnel of documentation in the city archives of the 'unknown medical implantation of metal rice grains' in said victim. The fact of implants of non-Earth origin began here unless shown otherwise. This information was then trafficked within the medical field over the years in obscure fashion, much to the dismay of those that follow such things. I found this data by two different sources long ago, both unrelated. At the time, I had no interest in such. First, during the mid 70s I researched in great meas
ure all locations where my father was in the pacific during WW2, thus traveled throughout the Pacific rim, garnering information. Upon finding the above tome I was interested in the military aspects, not the issue of the 'implant' data. This, I skimmed over. I recall it only because of my related interest. The book mentioned, was in the Free People's Public Library, Taipei, Taiwan, in 1981, the last time I was in Taiwan. Second, is the ongoing bantering of this information from Chunking in various medical and science circles that too, have a fleeting interest in the topic, that I have registered in my mind as data of interest over 30 years. For this moment, I wish I had the very tome in front of me and the other information for posting online. Before another 500 emails come forth, I am not a 'researcher' in this field. I know nothing about it.
Gersten: Who is being implanted?
Stephens: There is no set pattern or corollary as to a defined group. Implants appear in anyone, everyone. All nations, all humanities. It is unknown as to why. They are also found in some animals but this is inconclusive. Golden Retrievers, to name one species, is a favored host, inexplicably.
Gersten: Do you have the veterinary reports on the surgical removal and pathological analysis of these particular Golden Retriever implants?
Stephens: I do not have the names or the addresses or the phone numbers of the veterinary personnel who have extracted or verified these removals from these canines.
Gersten: You have stated that 'there are now over 100 sightings of unknown craft in Earth space per day, worldwide.' Where is this information from?
Stephens: NORAD/Fence Database via SAC Command, Omaha, NE, and the NRO.
Gersten: Do we know where these craft are from?
Stephens: We do not know origins for these and all unknown intruders into near or far Earth space at this time.
Gersten: How is it that you, a NASA sub-contractor, have access to such highly classified NORAD/Fence Database data?
Stephens: This information-source is not 'highly classified' by DoD. It is, however, not available to the public, nor is it available online, nor is it available by hardcopy from Omaha. NORAD database is available to anyone who is involved with aerospace and who works with airframes, modifications, structural changes, etc, of vehicles that are being tested in flight. The Fence database is an addition to this. Its availability is not for sampling every unknown intruder, but to track all air vehicles, with 'unknowns' a part of this registration. This availability of this source is not exceptional to me or to anyone that is involved with aerospace-flight testing of airframes that is related to NASA-DoD et, al.
Gersten: Is our military involved?
Stephens: Yes. DoD and NRO assets are summoned to any and all intruder assessments where conventional ground assets may or may not make visual interpretation of intruder after it is confirmed by elements of NORAD that we have a visitor. This includes reported visuals by pilots and gun camera footage. However, and the Montana UFO is no exception, 96% of all intruder assessments evade all attempts for conventional surveillance or interpretation. Thus, clandestine look-down technology from Earth's space is deployed. In this, generally, further assessment results. However, in 100% of the cases thus confirmed, conclusive data is never confirmed and the reconnaissance initiative is always a failure for immutable evidence. The assessment then, 100% of the time, in another words, confirms the presence of the intruder, but reveals no other compelling data in knowing who or what they are.
Gersten: What sources are responsible for the previous statement? "However, in 100% of the cases thus confirmed, conclusive data is never confirmed and the reconnaissance initiative is always a failure for immutable evidence. The assessment then, 100% of the time, in another words, confirms the presence of the intruder, but reveals no other compelling data in knowing who or what they are."
Stephens: The Sources are DoD and others, for protocol for intercept.
Gersten: Are you telling us that our military intelligence and reconnaissance assets are incapable of ascertaining the nature of near Earth intruders 100% of the time? This sounds preposterous, on its face, and certainly does not inspire confidence in our defense posture.
Stephens: That is exactly what I am saying. For those intruders that are unknown, the government does not know what they are 100% of the time. Still don't. Just that they are there. The second part of the question whereby this sounds 'preposterous' is not subject to assessment. It is the way it is. No, it does not instill 'confidence' in our defense posture. This last fact could, in part, lend credence to the secrecy, dis-information, silence, among other reasons, why we know so little from the very sources that have way more resources to know what is happening to us than Everyman. Since government, in fact, does not know.
Stephens: There is no garnered technology from these intruders used or deployed by human factors. There is no 'pact' or otherwise volitional involvement with these intruders by the U.S. Government at this time. There is 'seeded' technology out there from sources of non-earth origin back in the early 50s (not Roswell). This technology is unknown at this time for the following reasons: those that were involved are dead. The NRO and its core forerunner, the OSS, has never divulged this data to anyone under the Truman dictate of 1950. DoD does not have access nor utilization of this 'seeded' technology at this time. Though they would obviously like to.
Gersten: How do you know there is "seeded technology?" And if "this technology is unknown at this time for the following reasons: those that were involved are dead," then you've just contradicted yourself. Are we to assume they are ALL dead by natural causes, or something more sinister, perhaps? A number of red flags are starting to wave here.
Stephens: I do not know who our how they died by what causes. They are dead now. The seeded technologies so mentioned is from the report published detailing such 'unknown source' technologies to the intelligence community sources of interest in 1957 by the RAND corporation at George Washington University. Red flags in naval parlance means pirates are attacking.
Stephens: DoD budget is at 245 billion per annum. 19-24% of this monies at this time is deployed in off Earth or look down reconnaissance. It is not known conclusively at this time why.
Gersten: As far as I know, the amount of monies devoted to look down reconnaissance is highly classified in and of itself. Where do you get the figure of 19-24% of 245 billion?
Stephens: From DoD and other related sources. Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, known as 'AV Week', and Jane's Weekly, both the preeminent publications for anything regarding aerospace are the prime sources for this information. Along with these sources are published accounting data available at various aerospace agencies both in and out of government, published annually.
Stephens: The only public--lay persons database that is available to Everyman that is remotely related to the element of the intruders is NASA's just formed Advanced Propulsion Physics Lab, headed by NASA's Marc Millus. This, alone, is a direct and admitted response to the intruder phenomenon under the auspices that under present propulsion technologies as understood, based on present physics as understood, if nothing is forthcoming otherwise, we, as a species, are marooned in Sol space.
Gersten: It was my understanding that the NASA Breathrough Propulsion Physics Working Group is specifically devoted to the development of promising theoretical approaches to rapid, propellentless deep space flight, NOT the identification of near Earth intruders. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that. And what specific database at Marc Millis's working group "that is available to Everyman" are you talking about? There are a lot of people out there who would very much like to have access to such a database, should it in fact exist.
Stephens: Please read my answer above again. I do not understand the mystery of my answer. By the formation of the Advanced Propulsion Physics Lab, this bold step is an admitted advancement in query for faster than light travel, and other as yet unavailable technologies, and still other technologies Mark's office covers beyond known technology. That, unless we are shown otherwise technologies such as the intruders exhibit in their fleeting demonstrations as documented, and unless we can garner these advanced applications for ourselves, we are marooned here.
Gersten: You state that 'on 12-4-1998, Fence picked up a 'Gray' (unknown intruder) over the Shander Sugar plantation in western Cuba for 1 hour, witnessed by dozens, and then the intruder fled.' What was the craft?
Stephens: A large triangular craft, silver-dark gray in color, no markings, approximately 200 meters on a side, shaped as a true equilateral triangle, silent in operation, stationary in repose, and of unknown origin. Intruder Fence number #119,266. 12-4-1998, sighted and logged @ 1721 hours EST.
Gersten: Again, why do you, a simple NASA sub-contractor, have access to such highly classified DoD 'Fence' data? And if you do, why are you releasing this data to the public, knowing full well that this would be in serious violation of federal law?
Stephens: It is not in violation of federal law. It was intentionally released on my part to counter the claim there was a space ship landing from the Pegasi star system in central Arizona on 12-7-1998. It was also an intentional release of data on my part verifying that what the 600+ residents of my home county, Lake, county 15, state of Montana, was in fact there to behold as a unknown origin vehicle in our space. I have read carefully the statutes regarding national security protocols for all that work in and around government in any form. I am a free contractor. I chose on my own volition to release the information I have as I have deemed that it in no way violates the national security of the United States of America or any data therein so described. Fu
rther, in 70 days since I first reported NORAD/Fence data regarding the Montana UFO and other 'Gray's as listed, no representatives of the U.S. Government have come to my home, written me by email, phone, or lettered me, advising me to cease and desist releasae of this information. NORAD/Fence has been in the public domain since first being covered in depth by Jane's Weekly in 1982. Covered in more depth and for public release by AV Week in 1984 and 1985.
Gersten: As for this lowly, proto-human, illiterate, stupid, nobody sub contractor being privy in his possession such dark and forbidden secrets of 'Top Secret?' classification, black-ops data as Fence database, etc., and then using said data in the reckless, irresponsible way he has, I would contact your local representative and have those esoteric forbidden privileges revoked at once from said simple contractor.
Gersten: Where did it go?
Stephens: After 1 hour, it moved upwards slowly at approximately 30 knots for 8 seconds, then left Earth's space vertically at Mach 30 until is was out of our biome for registration.
Gersten: In reference to the Montana UFO, what was this object?
Stephens: It is unknown at this time. Fence #177,443. I have not personally witnessed this object. 600+ witnesses in this county have. They describe it as a craft, 600 feet on a side, triangular, hovering motionless in clear night air, at 17000 feet ASL. It appeared nearly every night from 10-16-1998, to 11-16-1998. Due to weather conditions it is not possible to make a visible sight if this intruder is still there. It was not there during daylight hours, during the reported dates.
Gersten: Again, you have provided detailed Fence registration numbers, dates, numbers of witnesses, altitudes, physical dimensions, etc. Where does all this data come from? And why is it that you have been suddenly 'allowed' to release it to the public?
Stephens: Read above.
Gersten: Can NORAD/Fence also detect 'gray' objects leaving an area?
Stephens: Yes. Once registration has been determined, the Fence number abides with the listed intruder until it vanishes or physically leaves Earth space out to 100,000 miles. After that egress distance we do not have the ability to track an intruder's movements.
Gersten: How do you know what NORAD/Fence detects?
Stephens: I have real time access to its tracking database compiler if I so wish to access it.
Gersten: And the DoD-NRO has no problems with a civilian contractor accessing their tracking database compiler, and releasing data from it to the general public? What's wrong with this picture? Now the alarms are going off, in addition to the red flags.
Stephens: I do not know what is wrong with this picture. I do not know what alarms are being referenced. Red flags in naval parlance indicates pirates are attacking. I have real time access to its tracking compiler if I so wish to access it. Rarely do I since it has nothing whatsoever to do with my work.
Gersten: If you were me, what and where would you be looking at now?
Stephens: The National Reconnaissance Office. I would do it however, to use a U.S. Navy SEAL axiom, from an attack from within---i.e., I would first write to them. Get a dialog going with someone on the inside on a non- truculent, non-aveering topic. From there, nurture trust. From this standpoint, anything and everything is plausible. This is how everything in this field of study must be pursued. Government or not, they have the conclusive data--for whatever it is. And like you and I, they no more like to be attacked than anyone else.
Gersten: As far as I know, NRO officers and employees are required by law not to discuss ANY ASPECT OF THEIR WORK WITH ANYONE. Any NRO employee who decided to become a Deep Throat would most definitely be violating another Navy SEAL axiom: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Painfully Poor Performance, in my estimation. That would be tantamount to sentencing onself to a very long federal prison term.
Stephens: You very well may be right. I have chosen to release the information I have under my own volition. Should this be something the powers that be wish to address, they have had 70 plus days to do so. I have violated nothing that constitutes endangering the safety or the security of the United States of America, unless all of you have some deep seated conviction that said data is a threat to you somehow. Then, get ahold of those congressman and get those privileges revoked for said simple contractor. That will help the cause immeasurably, I'm certain. This one main thread, this attacking without foundational fact, must cease. Your approach, from a legal standpoint, should be the matrix for deployment when all else fails. Anything outside of your past approaches, which is the way it should be done, will not work, ultimately. The vice of non-disclosure will tighten considerably I fear should this caveat not be adhered to. Let it be known: I, Robert A.M. Stephens, am a conservative, in the truest consti
tutional form. Thus, from the beginning, I do not subscribe to non-disclosure of public funded and thus garnered information from Everyman. If the public can't handle the truth, so be it. Or to use a NASA moniker: 'let 'er rip'. Meaning: If one finds themselves out over the yawning red maw of risk, then, go all the way since it is doubtful at that point to reverse back out and away from harm. So, unless under war conditions, and the intruders under their very own elected profile for dealing in utter stealth our species with the abductions, implants, their own non-disclosure, may well fall under this umbrella---that aside, tell it all. Secrets only work up to a point. After a time, the ones withheld information, will come and burn down your empire. Government should keep this immutable fact in mind. This is my strictest personal opinion, which I offer rarely. You have my complete support on that position. But the number of red flags raised in your previous statements, raise serious concerns as to your veracity
and true intentions regarding the release of this admittedly compelling information. Are you really who you say you are, Mr. Stephens? Sincerely, Kim Burrafato
Stephens: This is baffling to me. Upon reporting on the Montana UFO on 10-16-1998, my first of this nature and last, I listed my resume' (Mitch Battros-Earth Changes TV and Claude at UFO-network) phone numbers at NASA, phone numbers and addresses at home here, all phone and contacts for the media, the newspaper that asked me to report this story online, phone numbers of witnesses, and on and on. Since then I have done the same thing for another 150+ people who have written me for the same information. Yet, these very people will write me with nothing more than a name (Kim Burrafato for an example) or 'Earth Angel' or 'WebcatUFO' or 'SEX-n'Space' dot com. I have answered each and re-sent my data. I will not do it anymore. I do not have time. I am not a switchboard personnel director for myself. Lastly, before I click 'send' I have reviewed what I have written above and some data is vague because I do not know how to answer more than what I have. Some I have re-answered pretty well. I have reported what I ha
ve been exposed to over 30 years of interfacing with government in one form or another. And keep in mind, I am not a UFO guy. I will be back soon doing what I do and a month from now I'll be but a passing memory. After the Montana UFO bears some form of fruition one way or another, I wish no more involvement in this field of study. Thus, you may want to hold the very ones in this industry who claim the mighty things they do, up to at least the same standard you hold me, and I came into this with all verification screaming, and the way you hold NASA and other agencies up to scrutiny. And since by the nature of this industry, it is you, all of you, who have such bold need of inquiry, can at least put your email address and phone number and real name on your queries, Like Michael Theroux at Borderlands Research does and Peter Gersten at CAUS. At least that much. Tomorrow night (12-23-1998) I am suppose to appear on Art Bell's show, by his phone request to me last night (12-21-1998), to debate Richard Hoagland, t
entatively if Richard Hoagland can be 'reached' for this appointment. I have been told by several mails today this is a trap by Bell, Hoagland, and Peter Gersten to trick me and trap me and make me the bad guy somehow. This would be fine. (this is odd--I have tried since 10-18-1998 to personally get ahold of Richard Hoagland for obvious reasons but since there is no way to do so--I have failed in this endeavor) It will be fun, at any rate, regardless of the motives. If the 5 or 6 million folks listening think I am in gross error somehow, well that leaves another 240 million Americans who do not. If it is a negative, then it brings this flight of the 'cuckoo over the nest' to a close that much quicker. This morning I had a very nice phone call from a Dr. Richard Sauder. He was very interesting and very intriguing. He informed me he thought I was a drunk, (I do not drink) a liar, and that I would fail in dealing with Mr. Hoagland in any fashion including on air with Mr. Bell. That my data was flawed and after t
rying to explain some data on orbital mechanics to him I was a fool and illiterate and I knew nothing what I was talking about. Probably so. In closing, police yourselves a little. Or no information from the very sources you wish to garner access to will be forthcoming. The vice will close down further--probably on both sides of the UFO enigma. Bring your own data as presented, like this very mail, up to some form of professionalism that you expect---demand, from others---like an email address or phone number, so that you are taken seriously in the end when someone does respond. And too, demand the same as you asked herein, from those many that have far wilder claims of truth than the outrageous things I've stated even in this 'preposterous' mail. Just a thought. To you, 'Kim Burrafato', whomever you are, and the rest happy holidays.
Robert A.M. Stephens, Contractor
NASA Shuttle Documentation Program