Substantiated as being unknown, not as being ET.

Best,
Badeskov

And, unknown simply means there were no earthly explanation for those flying saucers the aircrews and radar technicians were talking about, which were evident in the data evidence and performance characteristics.

No earthly explanation that we know yet. But that rules out neither ET nor atmospheric phenomena.

Best,
Badeskov

Yes it does, especially since the aircrews described metallic, artificial flying objects that had nothing to do with natural phenomena, as noted by the aircrews themselves, radar technicians and experts, and meteorologist, and even the Air Force's own 1969 report, which effectively dismissed natural phenomena as reponsible for many UFO incidents, and in fact, in its own words; that it would have been "impossible."

I beg to differ! Sure, mirages or the like were not the culprit, we can agree on that. However, many other atmospheric phenomena exists that could be the responsible, some of these only recently discovered. Honestly, I don't give a report from almost 40 years ago to much value in that respect. The report concludes what it isn't (mirages), not what it is. And, obviously, the report does not include data on any atmospheric phenomena discovered later.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I don't, and the reason being, so-called debunkers tried to debunk UFO cases as atmospheric phenomena, only to find that after investigations were concluded, atmospheric phenomena had nothing to do with the UFOs. That is what made CSICOP and Phil Klass the laughing stock in the media again, after their first failed attempt to explain away the UFOs as planets, they then claimed that ice clouds were responsible, which investigations had proved them wrong once again.

All they had to do was to review the data to see that they were wrong on all counts, in both instances, but then again, they were attempting to debunk an incident as they were doing on other occasions, which were met with utter faliure on their part.



But, there were some skeptics who were still pushing mirages as responsible despite the fact that I told them why that was not possible.



I don't think that you are going to convince any aircrew members that the metallic, saucer-shaped, and domed, flying objects with portholes and rotating beacon lights, were plasmas nor any atmospheric phenomena for that matter.

That is like trying to convince yourself that the black and white car whose flashing lights are evident in your rearview mirror, is nothing more than atmospheric phenomena.



There are very important reasons as to why atmospheric phenomena had been ruled out in the UFO case files in quesition and why the 1969 Air Force's study concluded that it was impossible, which would explain why commercial and military aircrews, and radar technicians were stating that the UFO incidents they were involved in, were those of artificial objects, not planets nor atmospheric phenomena.

This is so hypocritical... ANYONE can print a book based on misinformation, even one about disinformation. Until you can scan some "declassified documents" supporting your claims, your books are just as unreliable as that Wikipedia entry.

All I ask is that you stop quoting lengthy passages from books, and actually provide primary evidence

i.e. declassified documents straight from the source (not from a book commenting on them), video evidence, or audio recordings.

And don't reply to my comment with "ufoligists do the same thing," because two wrongs don't make a right. If we are ever to discover some semblance of the truth, we need to stop believing what everyone says and just look at the facts. I'm not saying that everything you're saying is false, only that you haven't provided any actual evidence to back your claims.

EDIT: I just noticed the OP is long gone, oh well... I needed to say something by page 8, he was really getting on my nerves