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

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

but science is way in the lead on the alien hunt.

Sorry. but if it's a race, I won back in 1966. Science will have to settle for the silver.

And when they give me the gold medal, I'm going to put my fist in the air like that black guy did in the 1968 Olympics.

Actually, Barney and Betty beated you in 1961, soyou'll have to settle with Silver and Science... well, whatever is next to the other many cases after that. I suppose no prize at all?

originally posted by: buddah6
This is somewhat off topic but I must ask. Why does UFOs always reveal themselves to Military Intelligence officers? I was a MI officer for 17 of my 24 years of military service and no UFO has ever contacted me. Maybe they only contact air force or navy MI officers. I find it unusual that such a small group would be singled out for contact. MI personnel only account for about 1/1000th of military strength. Why are UFOs so selective? It's not because of our intellectual prowess because I've seen smarter infantry officers. Maybe, it just sounds more impressive in the narrative.

I need to write a book like LtC. Corso and make some wild statements to make the naive of the Ufologist buy my books.

Well I hope you work on your grammar before you write your book.

I don't think rank or even being in the military at all is a factor the aliens consider when revealing themselves, or even initiating contact. My mother and brothers and I were not in the military and they were very interested in us for whatever reason, they don't really offer a lot of information to contactees and abductees. Although, my brother both rose to fairly prominent positions as adults, but not in the military.

a reply to: buddah6

This is somewhat off topic but I must ask.

Well, you are in the correct thread.

Maybe, it just sounds more impressive in the narrative.

That is the obvious answer.

I need to write a book like LtC. Corso and make some wild statements to make the naive of the Ufologist buy my books.

There certainly is no shortage of people that will believe anything you say as long as you throw in the words "aliens are real" every now and again. I must admit, If I had some credentials like that, I would be tempted spin up a story and make some cash. Even if you are found to be a fraud, there will be people still wiling to believe you and give you money. In fact, those people already probably think you are lying right now and that aliens must have contacted you anyway. Tell them what they want to here and collect their money!

Oh and don't worry about the grammar comments because once you confirm that "aliens are real", grammar is no longer an issue. Just look at the post after yours.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Well I hope you work on your grammar before you write your book.

You first, Einstein.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Although, my brother both rose to fairly prominent positions as adults, but not in the military.

a reply to: Scdfa

Well, my grammar is hopeless at this point! I'm a product of a public school system and many years of medication...lol.

a reply to: draknoir2

Heh, I saw that two!

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I would love to see a UFO but after flying for 50 years I think it ain't going to happen.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I would love to see a UFO but after flying for 50 years I think it ain't going to happen.

Believe me, whenever I fly, Im on the lookout. Im not a pilot though. Were you a fighter pilot? If so, I have a lot of questions.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I would love to see a UFO but after flying for 50 years I think it ain't going to happen.

You may be at the wrong altitude. Although there are 40,000 pilot reported UFO sightings, the great majority of substantive sightings are much lower to the ground. I've never seen an alien ship higher than a couple hundred feet in altitude, and I've seen many at treetop level. Of course, that may be because they were either abducting us or bringing us back at the time, but they tend to stay very low.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, I flew an OV-1D for the army and a Canadair Regional Jet for a local commuter airline as a civilian. I haven't flown for 20 years since I broke my back.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I would love to see a UFO but after flying for 50 years I think it ain't going to happen.

Your butt must be sore.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, I flew an OV-1D for the army and a Canadair Regional Jet for a local commuter airline as a civilian. I haven't flown for 20 years since I broke my back.

Had to look that one up. Did you fly in Vietnam?

a reply to: Scdfa

I think the majority of sightings by pilots were in the early years of the U-2 and SR-71 programs. They saw aircraft flying higher than their cruising altitudes. The pilots were under the misconception that we had aircraft that could fly 30,000 feet higher than their jets.

However, there are a few sighting that need further investigations. The one that comes to mind, is the Anchorage JAL incident. The pilot and radar both observed a large UFO.

Let's just say seeing an UFO is on my bucket list and I'll keep an open mind until then.

My earlier comments were pointed directly at the people who qualify any sighting with the "SPOOK APPROACH." They first say the information comes from an intel officer with a super-secret clearance. Any aspect of their information that doesn't have a good basis in fact then the info is classified or secreted away. As a MI type with a top secret clearance I must say things do not work the way implied by people like Colonel Corso. Intelligence is so compartmentalized that very very few get to see the final product. I have collected intel that I couldn't tell you why or what for even with my clearance.

As I read UFO reports I catch myself falling back to my MI background and putting the information gathered into different categories. We used a method of rating intel accuracy by an "A-1" (absolutely true) to "F-5" (absolutely false) scale. At this point, I stand at "C-1" (50/50)...open minded.

The things that down rates the intel are things like this OP. Let's call it "a little spook told me" or it came from an intel person for no obvious reason. Another is the airplane was a "Piper Cub" scenario where any single engine airplane is a Piper Cub. This indicated that the person reporting is not a trained observer. If it was a true Cub it is as rare as seeing a UFO. That's why police and pilots are such good reports. They give you "EEI" elements of essential information necessary for rating the information.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

No, I flew an OV-1D for the army and a Canadair Regional Jet for a local commuter airline as a civilian. I haven't flown for 20 years since I broke my back.

Had to look that one up. Did you fly in Vietnam?

I didn't on my first tour and did on my second.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I would love to see a UFO but after flying for 50 years I think it ain't going to happen.

Your butt must be sore.

lmao!

It's a fascinating incident and given the combat between the remaining PCF12 and the "unknown hovering aircraft" lasted over an hour, then I doubt very much they could have been helicopters. I believe also that on the same night, in reply to the attack originally, the Navy demanded the area be cleared of all American aircraft in an attempt to identify what was going on. it transpired there were no American aircraft in the area at the time. It is interesting that, the official Navy log as recent as 2006 ,claims that the loss of PCF19 was due to friendly fire. That is rather strange given it was reported that there were no American Planes in the area at the time of the incident.

Some do argue that the action, being in close proximity to a Vietnamese base called "Tiger Island", was the result of a helicopter attack, the duration of the incident would argue against that and furthermore, 1960s helicopters were noisy and created a considerable wake and downdraft when hovering stationary over a target.

It did strike me that , just maybe it was a helicopter dropping marker flares or using a searchlight to spot for a shore battery on Tiger Island and that heavy round from a shore battery took out the 50 foot long PCF19. There is a huge problem with this explanation though. Given they had the range and an hour to shoot at the second PCF how come there is not one single report of being engaged by any heavy shore battery by PCF12 or for that matter hearing of spotting the round that took out their sister PCF?

Let's say PCF19 was destroyed by hitting a mine, then that begs why the crew of PCF12 didn't just enter into rescue mode and high tail it out of there, before they quite possibly suffered the same fate?

Surely there must have been radio traffic between PCF12 and their CAC? If so, there seems to be no record of it, or any witnesses ever stepped forward to lay this one to rest? it is strange that the Navy seems to have deliberately wrongly logged two separate actions on two consecutive nights, the second of which, resulted in American planes firing on friendly , Australian, ships. The implied suggestion with the official Naval records being that, PCF19 was destroyed accidentally by the same aircraft, on the same night, that accidentally hit the Australian ships.

When the Navy implies something by wrongly logging incidents it does indeed suggest that there was something about the destruction of PCF19 that they simply wished not to talk about then or now.

I suspect should one wish to then, filing a FOIR for the logs of ships in the area that night might give closure if they 1 still exist and 2 the Navy is willing to divvy them up? As it stands it does seem to bare the hallmarks of one of those cases the military just wished would quietly slip into history without further comment. That they felt the need to "cook the books" about it only serves to make the incident more interesting. If it was a secret weapons test by the USA, then why did they not immediately tell the remaining PCF boat to pick up survivors and leave the area as it was "all under control" rather than. leave them out there chucking ordinance into the night sky in an attempt to shoot down whatever was behind the lights they were seeing? Would you really want your secret weapon being fired at for an hour?

originally posted by: buddah6
This is somewhat off topic but I must ask. Why does UFOs always reveal themselves to Military Intelligence officers? I was a MI officer for 17 of my 24 years of military service and no UFO has ever contacted me. Maybe they only contact air force or navy MI officers. I find it unusual that such a small group would be singled out for contact. MI personnel only account for about 1/1000th of military strength. Why are UFOs so selective? It's not because of our intellectual prowess because I've seen smarter infantry officers. Maybe, it just sounds more impressive in the narrative.

I need to write a book like LtC. Corso and make some wild statements to make the naive of the Ufologist buy my books.

You're viewing through the wrong end of the telescope. The information in my first post on this thread I dug up some years ago, before my tenure on this site. I found it after a mate of mine went to stay with someone he knew who ,once my mate had known him for some time, told him he had worked in military intelligence and even been involved in some "black ops". Now, it perfectly fair to say ..."Oh, here we go again another person cliaming they know stuff from an insider's point of view". However, in this case when I said exactly that, my mate replied; "Truth is, a couple of times he's told me stuff that was only made public some time later, nothing world shattering however, he's been spot on with everything he's felt free to tell me".

Anyway my mate knowing my interests simply said ; "Is there anything you;d like to ask them?; me being me, I said, ask him;" UFOs anything in it?" A few weeks alter on my mate's return he contacted me and said "Well here goes". Their mate had said something along the lines of the following. "Well, a lot of hoohah about nothing at times and then there's those which are ours however, there are some which aren't ours, aren't anyone else's and I will just say this. During my time in Nam, there were at least three incidents that fell into that final category that I am aware of".

As you might imagine I was immediately off rooting around online to try and see if I could find anything that might support what they had said. This was one of two incidents I came across that seemed to possibly fall into the category they had mentioned. There is a third incident however, the jury for me anyway is still very much out on that one, as it does seem to have a few classic "urban myths" elements attached to it. As such, I think at times, you have to view it like this. If an ex Intelligence officer tells a journalist about an incident they were made aware of , almost certainly for "contemporary operational reasons", by the time it's passed a sub editor, an editor and a headline writer, to give it bit of extra "oomph and gravitas" the source has moved from "being aware/briefed about it" to being "involved in the incident" and often, the first the original writer and source will know of this change, is when it appears in print. or other media.

In other words, when weird stuff happened in a conflict like Vietnam then, a whole slew of Intelligence officers would have been made aware of the details in order to nip rumours in the bud both within their own forces and the world press. if there's a cover story that needs to be disseminated through the appropriate channels then they are the people charged with that responsibility. That's why intelligence officers are often the source, not that they were party to a specific incident per se rather, they were party to the "clean up" and as such had some knowledge of what really happened. of course, human nature being what it is and with retirement and the time passed, some officers will tend to relate these tales as personal experience when in reality, it probably wasn't.

By the way, anyone who has any thoughts on the "third incident" I'd be interested to hear. there's this one, the incident with the lights on the "aggressive patrol" where the North Vietnamese had fled from their fortified position leaving half eaten meals. The third I've tracked down, as i say, seems to be a little too fuzzy in the detail to be anything more than a Vietnamese War urban myth.

In all my time in MI I was never in the position to know about the events that you're talking about. One thing that I was aware, was there were many more "players" in the Vietnam conflict that is generally known by the public. The events at Tiger Island have many more possibilities than just ETs. Can I speak about this with any authority...NO!

The only thing that was known was an American F-4 attacked a PCF that killed two sailors. This was not from an official source but a TV documentary from several years ago. The authors indicated that the aircraft was after North Vietnamese junks that there resupplying the VC in that area. I would have to classify this as "OEI" other elements of information only to be used or considered when the overall picture of these events are better understood.

a reply to: buddah6

I cannot find a single trace of the F4 incident either online or elsewhere. The information I posted was collated from semi official , official and American Naval ex personnel sites. The ma\in reason they know the Australian ships were hit by friendly fire is that, they had part of the casing of an ordinance that hit them and identified it from that.

I don't really see the "A" word being mentioned here by most people. What I do see, from the Navy's own records and those of the people who were actually there is that, this incident remains an "unexplained event". Your F4 story simply doesn't make sense. Given that, the Navy has tried to shoehorn another friendly fire incident to explain the sinking of PCF19 then why would they do that if they actually knew it was the F4 that did it? That simply makes no sense whatsoever.

As you're ex military I'd be interested to know your take on how many naval ship combats at sea, not inland or in the coastal marsh areas, lasted continuously for an hour throughout the whole of the Vietnamese war? One also has to assume that PCF12 didn't have the ammunition onboard to last sixty minutes of continual action so, post rescuing such crew they could from PCF19, just why did they spend an hour in that particular area?

a reply to: FireMoon

Like I said, my only knowledge was from a TV documentary. You can't put any value to it's accuracy because it's made for entertainment not truth.

Most of the naval warfare in South Vietnam was littoral in nature. We were constantly trying to interdict junks resupplying the enemy along the coast. I had heard rumors of submarines and large ocean-going ships unloading off the coast but like I said it was a rumor.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the only open ocean combat that I am aware. However, the validity is in question as to what actually happened between the DD Turner Joy and the North Vietnamese PT boats.