UFOs Confront Soldiers During War, Says Ex-Air Force Intelligence Officer

a reply to: draknoir2

I don't want to play games, you're being immature.

2nd

a reply to: In4ormant

Thank you for a response acknowledging you are looking, and others are too, that's great. You did quote my post where I agree with debunkers that there is no smoking gun evidence and claims are always from 2nd hand witnesses that are just pure fantasy land. Hopefully you didn't direct your post at me that I am forcing the masses to believe in boogey man stories, because I'm not. You also quoted me saying I think Ufology has gone down the toilet, hopefully you didn't overlook that too.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: In4ormant

Thank you for a response acknowledging you are looking, and others are too, that's great. You did quote my post where I agree with debunkers that there is no smoking gun evidence and claims are always from 2nd hand witnesses that are just pure fantasy land. Hopefully you didn't direct your post at me that I am forcing the masses to believe in boogey man stories, because I'm not. You also quoted me saying I think Ufology has gone down the toilet, hopefully you didn't overlook that too.

Nothing overlooked. Boogeyman stories are coming from everyone else.

a reply to: In4ormant

You know what annoys me is people who know the boogey man stories are bunk from reading the title, but go into the thread to debunk them anyway just to pat themselves on the shoulder. All they are doing is giving attention to bunk stories and bumping up the thread.

For example someone like Jamie Maussan resurfacing, I don't know why people post in those threads to inform others he's just a hoaxer still in 2015. The less posts in those threads the better, imo. That is my suggestion.

I think weeding out the hoaxers in Ufology is great, because the simple notion or idea of being visited has not been debunked imo. Maybe we'll uncover something in ufology after all, or maybe not, that still doesn't mean we have not been visited. I'm optimistic, but it should be clear as day to most people that regular science is way ahead of the alien life chase than Ufology when we have Nasa declaring alien life will be discovered in the next 10-30 years. Link

Unless science is going to drag us along for eons never finding anything like ufology has...wouldn't that be funny!

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: In4ormant

You know what annoys me is people who know the boogey man stories are bunk from reading the title, but go into the thread to debunk them anyway just to pat themselves on the shoulder. All they are doing is giving attention to bunk stories and bumping up the thread.

For example someone like Jamie Maussan resurfacing, I don't know why people post in those threads to inform others he's just a hoaxer still in 2015. The less posts in those threads the better, imo. That is my suggestion.

I think weeding out the hoaxers in Ufology is great, because the simple notion or idea of being visited has not been debunked imo. Maybe we'll uncover something in ufology after all, or maybe not, that still doesn't mean we have not been visited. I'm optimistic, but it should be clear as day to most people that regular science is way ahead of the alien life chase than Ufology when we have Nasa declaring alien life will be discovered in the next 10-30 years. Link

Unless science is going to drag us along for eons never finding anything like ufology has...wouldn't that be funny!

Sad really. A lot of amazing things happen on this one little dirt ball. Imagine what else could be out there.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: draknoir2

I don't want to play games, you're being immature.

2nd

True to your screen name.

I respect that.

Having followed the thread and finally making an account after lurking for roughly 10 years, I have to say the demeaning of someone else's experience is sort of alarming and a bit disappointing. I myself have had something weird concerning a UFO happen to me, and I can't explain it away as much as I'd like to. I specifically made this account to share this and will do so once I can post new topics.

In the meantime, just accept that people experience things that they do not understand that do not always fit into the neat little boxes everyone tries to contain them in. I don't mean open your mind so wide it fall out of your skull, but at least approach the topic with a semblance of civility. These are, after all, other human beings.

a reply to: draknoir2

My screen name is the famous line from the movie Aliens. Also a play on words like I'm a super hero of some sort, lol!

a reply to: mirageman

I'm done toying around in this thread because it's supposed to be a discussion about a UFO in the Vietnam war.

And that really sucks. There are a lot of different angles to approach this from and an opportunity to dispel some stereotypes and learn something about a really bad time in history.

I may be a fool, but Aliens, from my understanding, became a frequently present occurrence due to humanity dabbling in forces it should perhaps leave well alone before we can truly grasp the nature of which we are dabbling. Sure, they felt the necessity of intermittently arriving to tamper in our world events (usually via seamless genetic interference) but only to put us back on the straight & narrow when on occasion we steered off course. It's a straight in-and-out job, like the worst sex & the finest discretion reality has to offer, combined. If only our mechanics, plumbers & electricians were as efficient. Then again, what do I know, I'm just a fool.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman

I'm done toying around in this thread because it's supposed to be a discussion about a UFO in the Vietnam war.

And that really sucks. There are a lot of different angles to approach this from and an opportunity to dispel some stereotypes and learn something about a really bad time in history.

I haven't looked but is there any other similar instances reported that appear to be friendly fire in which unexplained occurrences were claimed?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman

I'm done toying around in this thread because it's supposed to be a discussion about a UFO in the Vietnam war.

And that really sucks. There are a lot of different angles to approach this from and an opportunity to dispel some stereotypes and learn something about a really bad time in history.

I haven't looked but is there any other similar instances reported that appear to be friendly fire in which unexplained occurrences were claimed?

That's what I am starting to wonder. I mean, what are we supposed to believe here? That aliens were fighting for the North Vietnamese? It just so happens that a UFO blew up a boat during a wartime mission? The only thing unexplained is why such a story exists at all. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of willing believers though. But to answer your question, I dont know.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

If you approach a Naval craft and ignore their warnings you will be fired upon. Maybe there was a warning no one picked up on. I highly doubt if an alien presence came here they'd "pick sides" in a human conflict.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: mirageman

I'm done toying around in this thread because it's supposed to be a discussion about a UFO in the Vietnam war.

And that really sucks. There are a lot of different angles to approach this from and an opportunity to dispel some stereotypes and learn something about a really bad time in history.

I haven't looked but is there any other similar instances reported that appear to be friendly fire in which unexplained occurrences were claimed?

That's what I am starting to wonder. I mean, what are we supposed to believe here? That aliens were fighting for the North Vietnamese? It just so happens that a boat that a UFO blew up a boat during a wartime mission? The only thing unexplained is why such a story exists at all. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of willing believers though. But to answer your question, I dont know.

Wonder if the other side had a record of it, confirmed kill type thing. Be worth looking into

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Now you change your claim to I IMPLIED "aliens are here because I know they are here"? Pure bull. Your credibility?

"Aliens are here", I've said that. And "I know aliens are here", I've said that.

I've made it very clear that I know aliens are here because I have had first hand contact with them. That's how I know aliens are here, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

Ohhhhh! I get it now! you said "I know aliens are here because I have had first hand contact with them" not "aliens are here because I know they are here"

Is condescending gibberish your first language?

Its all in the sentence structure apparently. Both statements are true but when combined....utterly false.

The English language is a wonderful thing. It really isn't all that complicated, and it is a very effective means of communication.

I'm not sure where your confusion stems from, or what exactly your accusations are based on. I have stated repeatedly that I know aliens are here because I have encountered them directly.

So, if you have a point, please, by all means, try to make it clear.

I was referring to your semantically challenged exchange with Cuckhooold earlier.

So then you don't have a point?

That your reduced to challenging grammar when you argument is riddled with holes. Keep up Champ

Keep up champ?

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Now you change your claim to I IMPLIED "aliens are here because I know they are here"? Pure bull. Your credibility?

"Aliens are here", I've said that. And "I know aliens are here", I've said that.

I've made it very clear that I know aliens are here because I have had first hand contact with them. That's how I know aliens are here, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

Ohhhhh! I get it now! you said "I know aliens are here because I have had first hand contact with them" not "aliens are here because I know they are here"

Is condescending gibberish your first language?

Its all in the sentence structure apparently. Both statements are true but when combined....utterly false.

The English language is a wonderful thing. It really isn't all that complicated, and it is a very effective means of communication.

I'm not sure where your confusion stems from, or what exactly your accusations are based on. I have stated repeatedly that I know aliens are here because I have encountered them directly.

So, if you have a point, please, by all means, try to make it clear.

I was referring to your semantically challenged exchange with Cuckhooold earlier.

So then you don't have a point?

That your reduced to challenging grammar when you argument is riddled with holes. Keep up Champ

Keep up champ?

I've moved on from you. I'm trying to find similar instances in the war. Good day to you sir

a reply to: InhaleExhale

information that shows what they are talking about is in fact factual and many service men were using.

And exactly what percentage of our servicemen were using heroin?

Any evidence at all that the servicemen killed in combat during this incident were on heroin at the time, as zeta alleges? No?

Were any traces of heroin found in their system during autopsy? No?

Hmmm. Sure doesn't sound like a "factual fact" then.

[SNIP]

a reply to: In4ormant
apparently it was a common occurrence? from the article in the OP.

I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not. They weren't called UFOs. The were called enemy helicopters. And they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68. And this resulted in quite a little battle.

And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer took a hit and we never found any enemy, we only found ourselves when this had all been sorted out. And this caused some shooting there, and there was no enemy at all involved, but we always reacted.

Always after dark, the same thing happened up at Pleiku at the Highlands in '69.

...and smart move on moving on. its attention seeking behavior.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Pathetic isn't a strong enough word for people like this poster, so eager to prop up his argument that he's willing to disgrace our Viet Nam era servicemen.

What argument? People died in combat? What in the world does that have to do with your beliefs in aliens? You want to believe they were killed by aliens? Well, that's sad.

"So it looks like we have an incident where half of the witnesses were possibly on heroin or other drugs", Zeta says, without a shred of evidence to support it.

Yes, they were possibly on heroin. I posted a link and quoted it twice. That doesn't help support your beliefs so you will ignore it, deny it and insult anyone that gets in your way. I really haven't found your low yet but you are getting there.

Responding to you IS my low. I don't plan on sinking to it again.

And let's make your BS nice and clear, you have absolutely no evidence that any serviceman involved in this incident was on heroin. Isn't that correct?

He doesn't need evidence. You have none and yet that is no restriction to you spouting your nonsense. Add hypocrite to delusional. Why must everyone else satisfy the burden of proof except you? At least he had a study supporting it with self admitted drug users. You have bright lights and a child's deductive reasoning skills.

You don't understand the definition of the word "hypocrite", apparently.

In order for me to be a hypocrite, you would have to cite examples where I, too, have accused American servicemen who fought and died in combat of being on heroin. Specifically, without any evidence that these serviceman were on heroin.

You claim I have a child's deductive reasoning skills, but your post calls your ability to reason into question, as well as your basic literacy.

I called you a hypocrite because you require no proof of your ET views and statements yet proclaim them true. You require proof of his post about drug users in Vietnam to establish its truth.

Should I wonder about your reading comprehension as well?

No, just yours.

Speaking honestly about my own personal experiences is not the same as accusing certain dead servicemen of being on heroin without evidence to support it.

Therefore, you accusation of hypocrisy is baseless. Grow up.

Declaring your ET statements as truth and his Vietnam statements as false, yet requiring him to satisfy stipulations you don't require of your own before you consider it truth makes you a hypocrite. Arguing this point makes you ignorant

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."
- Mark Twain

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: In4ormant
apparently it was a common occurrence? from the article in the OP.

I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not. They weren't called UFOs. The were called enemy helicopters. And they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68. And this resulted in quite a little battle.

And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer took a hit and we never found any enemy, we only found ourselves when this had all been sorted out. And this caused some shooting there, and there was no enemy at all involved, but we always reacted.

Always after dark, the same thing happened up at Pleiku at the Highlands in '69.

...and smart move on moving on. its attention seeking behavior.

There has to be more cases. Especially considering the guerilla tactics the enemy used and the great lengths they went to in remaining hidden.