It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USAF General says UFO-USAF battled twice in Vietnam !!

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Thanks for your reply!

I agree with you that misquotes are damaging. Related astronauts stories are very often proof of what you are saying. While I still have a hard time thinking that the General was using humor, it could be a possibility. And unfortunately, we might never find out...




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
is this true?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnhancedInterrogator

After the 'lights' fled seaward, the first 'friendly fire' incident occurred shortly after midnight when the US Navy swift boat PCF-19 was sunk by three air-to-air missiles while patrolling some kilometres south of the DMZ. Five of the seven crew died (more about this later).



...
The IFF (Identication Friend of Foe) system indicated it was 'friendly' and the ship was attempting to establish further identity when a Sparrow air-to-air missile struck her amidships on the starboard (right) side. The missile penetrated the alluminum hull and exploded killing Ordinary Seaman R J Butterworth and wounding two others.



While the crew was rushing to Action Stations, two more air-to-air missiles penetrated the starboard side and killed Chief Electrician Hunt and wounded several others - and narrowly missed a magazine.



Forgive my ignorance of military hardware and ordinance, but how can a sparrow air to air missile target a boat?
edit on 17-6-2011 by Flux8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
This is a juicy UFO story from a credible witness ,I would like to know about what WEAPONRY was "SHOT" at the destroyer though ;was it a solid object like a projectile or was it like an explosive ,or was it plasma energy or the like?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
This is cool.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gchrome
This is a juicy UFO story from a credible witness ,I would like to know about what WEAPONRY was "SHOT" at the destroyer though ;was it a solid object like a projectile or was it like an explosive ,or was it plasma energy or the like?
You need to read the linked stories.
It was a friendly fire incident that involved a Canadian destroyer being hit, US swift boats being sunk and they were hit by US missiles apparently launched by a US plane.

There may or may not have been UFO's involved. That may have been what the US planes were firing missiles at. There was what was thought to be an 'enemy' helicopter (even though the enemy had no helos at the time) shot down by a swift boat.

Edit to add: The missiles that hit the destroyer were identified as sparrow missiles, which were the AIR TO AIR MISSILES that the US Air Force used at that time to shoot at hostile aircraft. It would seem that there were F-4 Phantom fighters firing these missiles at other aircraft.... and the ships were hit accidentally.
edit on 17-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
The missiles that hit the destroyer were identified as sparrow missiles, which were the AIR TO AIR MISSILES that the US Air Force used at that time to shoot at hostile aircraft. It would seem that there were F-4 Phantom fighters firing these missiles at other aircraft.... and the ships were hit accidentally.


That's an awefully coincidental, accurate accident. To my undertanding Sparrows (or all A-A missiles for that matter) have a very long range. They're meant for air targets. They have to have a lock before arming. If they launched an A-A missile at an airborn target, then lost the lock on that airborn target, they would not lock on to a ship in the sea instead.

I think something else may have happened, not necessarily UFO/ship related, but something else. The missile story just doesn't makemuch sense to me, but I'm no expert. Maybe some military weapons experts could chime in about Sparrows?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Fatgoblin
 


I am taking no side in this but I do want to agree with you that it is amusing to hear this gentleman question where you are obtaining this information pertaining to alien languages while at the same time claiming he possess an intimate knowledge of alien anatomy.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zookey
The scary part is, the American's FIGHT with UFO's.
Why must the US fight with everybody?

To be fair to the military, anything "unknown" wandering into a hostile war-zone ... you pretty much have to assume is hostile until you can confirm otherwise.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It's disinfo/distraction IMO

 


Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
Refrain from 1-line or very-minimal responses.
Edit-down your quoted posts to the important part.
Don't use "txting" shorthand in posts.
Use snippets and links for external content.
Provide meaningful comments for links, pictures, and videos.

edit on January 25th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Someone mentioned that UFO's likely have advanced technology that would render a literal "battle" obsolete, similar to a Marine facing a child with a stick. One gunshot and it's over.

Before I impart my partial analysis, I'd like to say that I don't lean toward belief or disbelief. This alleged testimony is merely a matter for future reference, and an interesting topic. Now...my response to this is that we're assuming the operators of these alien aircraft WANT to kill us. Generally, someone who is confronted by a gun-wielding miscreant will defend themselves before getting the hell out of there. Why? Because they don't desire confrontation.

Was it stated who engaged first? The military would probably say the aliens did, if it came out at all, so as to avoid the inevitable barking of the media. However, I would say that since this was during the Vietnam war, we probably fired first, or confronted them first.

Hence, a chase would likely be considered a battle, especially if shots were fired (no matter if there was retaliation or not). In other words, we fired or gave chase, and they fled. Confrontation was noted.

This is my take on it.
edit on CWednesdaypm323201f01America/Chicago25 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

edit on CWednesdaypm060602f02America/Chicago25 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Well, since we got sent here, the tale is actually quite old, the HMAS was the Hobart II, (that would have been known to videoman) and the event was in June 1968. George Filer, Director of the Mutual UFO Network worked under Brown at the time and corroborated the story at the time, (he later thought the UFO'S were updated Nazi technology) Now, there are puzzles. The Phantom pilots were grounded after the Hobart attack, so you have to assume that those pilots were engaged with something, be it helicopters or the Hobart, (to understand that, is to understand that their radar was clipped in some way that the signatures would be similar) That is supposed to be the MO at the time. So if the Phantom pilots were actually involved in the one-sided engagement with the Hobart, (the Hobart had recognised them as friendly) it has to be presumed that they were debriefed and that the weapons discharged were accounted for by the hits on the Hobart. So Browns story is also a puzzle, since he would be the man with all the accumulated information.
edit on 25-1-2012 by smurfy because: Text.







 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join