The Real UFO's

As usual, lights and radar blips and nothing more. If it had a radar signature of a C135 (757) it was probably a C135.

Nothing more??? Would you please stop lying, Acquiunk. There is much more than just "blips" here.

And then, the NSA docs are corroborated by live witnesses

Reading is fundamental

fluid,

Caustic comments are a tough way to sell an already outlandish claim.

This entire forum is a trap. Shame on the propagandists for staining their precious lives. You could have done some good in this world. Instead you chose the way of the coward, hiding behind your ridiculous agency contract.

Shiny unhappy people.

You now think I have a contract with the CIA?

Reading is fundamental

fluid,

People disagree on less controversial things than UFOs. Don't you think it's unhelpful to label anyone who disagrees as stupid?

Fluid1959, I agree with you completely.

Stupidity is so stupid. Stupid people too. They are stupid. It's very stupid. You are stupid too. Stupidity is all there is with people who are stupid. How can you be so stupid? Don't you know how stupid you are? The stupidness here is stupendous. Why do you have to be stupid? I look at you and your ideas are stupid. I read your words and they are stupid. I'm drowning in all the stupidity of stupid people everywhere I look and I never look at myself.

There. I hope my logic regarding our UFO topic is clear to someone as stupid as you, but obviously people are too stupid to understand anything I just said.



Is this really how you want others to discuss your topic? Next!

Stupid is as Stupid Does
traveling down the stupid path is a precarious endeavor since one person's "stupidity if funny" is another's "stupidity is just dumb and intolerable."

Reading is fundamental
No alternate view or information is given. No link to a website that disputes this report. Debate the issues with facts. Instead of antagonistic
response's to legitimate data.
Reading is fundamental, !. Everyone talks about fighting the good fight. Yet comment after comment from people with out fundamentals gets tedious. I didnt write the report. No comment was made to dispute any item, but thee entire post. Reading is fundamental

OK. How about a full review of the evidence? I always like to start with a very good example from Iran in 1976.

Note that all links are directly to the US National Security Agency.

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

Also:
Joint Chiefs of Staff report concerning the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976,
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf

"Now You See It, Now You Don't" by Captain Henry S. Shields, HQ
USAFE/INOMP
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo16.pdf

fluid,

I read the links. I note that it contains documents where people claim to have seen UFOs.

Unless anyone is contesting that people have claimed to see UFOs I fail to see the relevance.

I think this report is a virtual smoking gun. Considering that in 1976 the Iranian military was an arm of US military power - note the F4s being used - and considering the distribution of these documents to nearly all of the highest levels of government, it is clear that this is not just an unsubstantiated wild report from an unreliable source. Clearly a report like this gets investigated before it goes to the White House, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the NSA, CIA, the Secretary of Defense, and the many other offices listed on the routing list.

Next, the report indicates the source is highly reliable - page two.
Then we have the summary:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) [not readable]...necessary for a valid study of a UFO phenomenon.

[not readable]

b) The credibility of the many witnesses was high (an air force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators).

c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar.

d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft.

e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e. loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object).

f) An inordinate amount of maneuver-ability was displayed by the UFO's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Although we don't have the radar data and other specifics of the incident, clearly we have sufficient cause to argue that something was observed that apparently cannot be explained using the known boundaries of science.
Originally posted by IVAN SEEKING

I believe it can't be explained due to the boundaries of science. Namely that science has boundaries, one of which is the data that is input.

There is insufficient data therein to draw a conclusion. It matters very little how "highly reliable" a source is considered to be.

Before I post any further I'd like to make an earnest request:

Can you tell me if you also think I have a contract with the CIA? I'd not like to pursue this if we are on those terms.

outlandish claims
Reading is fundamental

I didn't catch your answer. The reason I ask is because earlier in this thread wolf implied that I have a contract with the CIA (see quote below).

If that is what I am dealing with this is pointless because everything I'd say would be part of a conspiracy.

MY bad
You know it is my fault.
Due to my excitement, I assumed that most have investigated as I have.
Unlike many "some" realize the vast importance of such information.

So in an effort to prove to myself one way or the another concerning ET craft and their existence or non existence, I have spent countless hours reading and researching.

Using "forums" such as this to hear ideas that may not have initially been
thought of was my intention.

What I found is Reading is fundamental

UFO SURVIVAL HANDBOOK
UFO SURVIVAL HANDBOOK
Reading is fundamental
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo35.pdf