Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The USAF 'Factsheet' on UFOs.

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
USAF Factsheet:





The decision to discontinue UFO investigations was based on an evaluation of a report prepared by the University of Colorado entitled, "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects;" a review of the University of Colorado's report by the National Academy of Sciences; past UFO studies: ad Air Force experience investigating UFO reports for two decades..


PDF File Documents



If the U.S. Government is not in the business of collecting and studying information on the UFO phenomenon since the termination of Bluebook in 1970, then why did various agencies receive a U.S. Government report about the Tehran case from 1976?

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency describes the case as "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon." and recipients of the report included the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Secretary of State, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, the White House and the Chief of Naval Operations.




THE TEHERAN 1976 CASE:

A declassified document related to the famous Teheran UFO and jet fighter encounter in 1976.

This is a capital case, acknowleged by a US intelligence agency, where a UFO encountered an aircraft, and reacted in a superior ant intelligent manner to the aircraft's interception attempt by shutting down temporarily the aircraft's weapons system.

The DIA evaluation termed this "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon." The analysis called the UFO performance "awesome," noting that the objects displayed "an inordinate amount of maneuverability."


REFERENCES:

Title: DIA Defense Information Evaluation Report IR No. 6846013976
To: Censored
Author: Major Roland B. Evans, USAF, Military Capability Analyst.
Date: September 22, 1976
Length: 5 pages.
Classification: Top secret, Declassified
CC: None.

Document One

Document Two

Document Three

Document Four
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Not read through it all yet, but I'd be very skeptical. Wouldn't be surprised if this was some kind if misinformation double-bluff.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mookid
Not read through it all yet, but I'd be very skeptical. Wouldn't be surprised if this was some kind if misinformation double-bluff.


Not sure what you're talking about. These are legit documents regarding an actual case that occurred in Iran. Here is one of the pilots involved in the incident talking about the experience at the National Press Club in 2007:




The documents have been out for quite a while. Maybe I'm not understanding you.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mookid
 


Well no, the incident actually happened (if that's what you mean) and there's a good thread here with plenty more information on the contents of the documents and an interview with the pilot.

John Greenewald Junior also makes some excellent points in this presentation and basically shows the contents of the USAF fact sheet are completely untrue just by citing the U.S. Government's own documents.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Hey bud, there's also this document from the Department of Defense that shouldn't really exist if we're to believe the contents of the USAF fact sheet.



Pilot Interview:





U.S. Department of Defense document:

Document


Commander with the Peruvian Air Force (FAP), Ret. Specialization as an Air Force fighter jet pilot. In 1980, while a FAP Lieutenant, he encountered a UFO while flying his SU-22 "SUKOI" jet over the La Joya Military Base. He fired at the object, strafing it with sixty-four 30mm rounds, but the UFO remained unaffected.

A US Department of Defense document for the CIA and the NSA, titled “UFO Sighted in Peru,” describes the incident. “The Peruvian Air Force tried to intercept and destroy the UFO, but without success," it states, adding that the vehicle’s origin remains unknown. CMDT Santa Maris is currently a Flight Safety and Accident Prevention Consultant for the airline industry.


Thread
edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


It's refreshing to see a good post in this topic. I hope it gets noticed.

Clearly any UFO will always be of interest in a military sense, no matter what they say.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Great topic to bring up, karl. This document is an absolute piece of garbage, and it's surreal that the United States Air Force is still sending this to people who ask for information about UFOs.

Along with the quote you posted about the Condon Report, a glance at the "fact sheet" reveals this little nugget:


No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;


However, you then have the Bolender memo of 1969:


Robert Todd obtained the release of the Bolender memo in Jan 1979. The implications of this memo, issued in order to justify the shutdown of Project Blue Book, is clear, and is found on page 2: "... reports of unidentified flying objects which could affect national security are made in accordance with JANAP 146 or Air Force Manual 55-11, and are not part of the Blue Book system."


Of course, the Air Force never mentions this. Here's a nice little summary of the matter by our own isaackoi.

You will also find this statement in the Air Force fact sheet:


There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge


Oh really? Well in that case it seems strange that in the text of the Condon Report, on which the decision to scuttle Blue Book (no big loss, by the way) was based, we find this:


This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses


Here's the Condon Report's analysis of the McMinnville, Oregon, photographic case of 1950.

Apparently, disk-shaped flying objects tens of meters in diameter were well within the range of scientific knowledge in 1950.

And not to belabor the dishonesty displayed in this document still in use by the government of the United States of America, but...


Of a total of 12,618 sightings reported to Project Blue Book, 701 remained "unidentified."


What they don't mention is that a ton of the reports in the "Identified" stack, were not really identified at all:




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   




If the U.S. Government is not in the business of collecting and studying information on the UFO phenomenon since the termination of Bluebook in 1970, then why did various agencies receive a U.S. Government report about the Tehran case from 1976?




Karl about the tehran incident

i think the reason the usaf was so interested is because the plane involved was american,and because at first they believed it was coming from russia.

I think they were perplexed about the dying of the electronics of the plane



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by IMSAM


Karl about the tehran incident

i think the reason the usaf was so interested is because the plane involved was american,and because at first they believed it was coming from russia.

I think they were perplexed about the dying of the electronics of the plane


I'm sorry to differ, but:


The DIA evaluation termed this "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon." The analysis called the UFO performance "awesome," noting that the objects displayed "an inordinate amount of maneuverability."


The Defense Intelligence Agency, not the Air Force, is the interested party here, distributing this information to several other interested parties, and plainly stating the desirability of data on which to base "a valid study of the UFO phenomenon". Seems that the plane being American was not of primary concern.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
@orkojoker

You are right,i completely misread the firs post.IF it is the Dia then its definetly interesting.I thought they were out of the business



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
John Greenewald, Jr. also pointed out that the operation manuals of even new U.S. military aircraft have instructions on how to file a UFO report. Apparently that section was removed from one after he publically and loudly pointed that out. I don't have a llnk or exact details handy, but they are in some ATS (probably karl12) thread, maybe in one of his presentations.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
John Greenewald, Jr. also pointed out that the operation manuals of even new U.S. military aircraft have instructions on how to file a UFO report. Apparently that section was removed from one after he publically and loudly pointed that out. I don't have a llnk or exact details handy, but they are in some ATS (probably karl12) thread, maybe in one of his presentations.


Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but it's quite a "coincidence".


The military deleted a passage about unidentified flying objects from a 2008 Air Force personnel manual just days after The Huffington Post asked Pentagon officials about the purpose of the UFO section.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Here, in detail, from 23:20:

www.youtube.com...
edit on 9-5-2012 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


Hey great link, xpoq! This guy is what doctors call "the real deal". One of my top favorite UFO-related speakers and a smart guy who totally brings the facts to the fore. Anyone who is unfamiliar with U.S. government and military attitudes toward UFOs should stop what they're doing and listen to him.

So apparently this kind of redaction of UFO references in Air Force documents following public inquiry is not an isolated incident. The plot thickens, eh?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
You know with all of these documents being released and read by the general public I have a strong feeling there are a great number of people who are on the side of truth behind the scenes



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Ah yes, re-hashes of way old documents sitting on myriad "incidents" that have been part of any interested hobbyist collective for decades. Congrats on bringing it back up as if it means something in these modern times and will actually mean someone and will lead someone.

But hey, your names up in lights again, so keep digging into the treasure trove of older material that anyone who's been around has and post it every now and again to make yourself look good. Don't bother with modern stuff, because you know that stuff is total bunk. Much harder to debunk your religion...er....excuse me, your evidence when there is nothing left to investigate.

Good game your playing chap, and your surround by those too ignorant to see through it!



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Great topic to bring up, karl. This document is an absolute piece of garbage, and it's surreal that the United States Air Force is still sending this to people who ask for information about UFOs.

Along with the quote you posted about the Condon Report, a glance at the "fact sheet" reveals this little nugget:


No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;



Orkojoker, that's a great post and when it comes to the subject of National Security, there's an interesting government document taken from the PDF file in the OP that may have caused some concern as it describes a very strange object over a USAF Tactical Command Base in 1976.




Cannon USAF TAC Base -UFO Document.


Full


Objects being described as "25 yards in diameter, gold or silver in color with blue light on top, hole in middle, and red light on bottom".



As for the research of John Greenewald Junior and the U.S. Government's claim that 'no government agency has ever taken an interest in UFOs since the closure of Project Bluebook', I think it's been pretty well established that they are lying through their teeth - I also like the part of the presentation where NORAD (who are completely exempt from the FOIA) informed him 'in good faith' that they did not collect and collate CIRVIS UFO reports from miltary and civilian pilots only for him to prove them wrong by going through the channels of Canada's Access Of Information Act and presenting them with their own documents -classic stuff.


Cheers.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by gameisupman
Ah yes, re-hashes of way old documents sitting on myriad "incidents" that have been part of any interested hobbyist collective for decades. Congrats on bringing it back up as if it means something in these modern times and will actually mean someone and will lead someone.

But hey, your names up in lights again, so keep digging into the treasure trove of older material that anyone who's been around has and post it every now and again to make yourself look good. Don't bother with modern stuff, because you know that stuff is total bunk. Much harder to debunk your religion...er....excuse me, your evidence when there is nothing left to investigate.

Good game your playing chap, and your surround by those too ignorant to see through it!


Actually it is a good game he's playing. Karl12 is one of a small handful of individuals to actually make good use of this forum. I'm curious what suggests to you that he creates his threads because he wants to make himself "look good" rather than because he is interested in the subject and wants to steer people who are also interested in it onto the right path. Contrary to what you imply, most of the people on this forum don't have a clue how much compelling information is available on this topic. People like the OP are helping to remedy that situation one thread at a time.

Additionally, I fail to see how the passage of a few years makes the content of these documents any less relevant.

And finally, what have you contributed to this forum aside from the presence of one more douche?



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


Orkojoker. I don't know why 'Gameisupman' feels so threatened by the posting of Government UFO documents and the contradictory nature of U.S. policy but I thought TeaAndStrumpets made some good points here about the need to treat him with kid gloves.

As for the highly dubious USAF explanations mentioned in your vid, there are some other case examples below and I found it telling that Bluebook's chief scientist even debunked the official explanation for the Portage County incident but was completely ignored - you really couldn't make it up if you tried.



The Minot B-52 UFO incident.

The Portage County incident, 1966.

The Edwards Air force base, 1965.

The Redmond Oregon Incident, 1959.

The Kirtland Air Force Base Incident, 1957.

The Dayton UFO Incident, 1950.

The Goose Bay UFO Incident, 1948.

The Chorwon, Korea Incident, 1952.

The Michigan UFO Case, 1966.

The Selfridge AFB Incident, 1950.

The Levelland UFO sightings. 1957.

The White Sands Jeep Patrol Incident, 1957.

The Griffiss AFB Airliner Incident, 1956.

The Red Bluff Incident, 1960.

The Exeter UFO Sightings, 1965.

The Paris Radar/Visual Case, 1956.

The Davis-Monthan AFB Incident, 1952.

The Flatwood UFO Incident, 1952.

The MV Coolsingel Incident, 1958.

The SS Danfjord Incident, 1956.

link


Cheers.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


I read the post by teaandstrumpets, and the point is well taken. I sometimes forget how disturbing this concept can be. Thanks for the reminder.






top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join