Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
markprice

UFO Briefing Document

175 posts in this topic

I haven't read it yet. But I'll check it later, maybe I'll find it worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just scrolled through the whole thing a few times then started with the 1976: UFO DOG-FIGHT OVER TEHRAN.

Edited by markprice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just scrolled through the whole thing a few times then started with the 1976: UFO DOG-FIGHT OVER TEHRAN.

you mentioned that it's 'the best available evidence'..... evidence for what? ufos? or aliens?

which one do you think is the best one?

Part 2 Case Histories

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 18

15th CENTURY ART ..................................................................................................... 19

1944-45: "FOO FIGHTERS" OVER EUROPE AND ASIA ............................................. 21

1946: "GHOST ROCKETS" OVER SCANDINAVIA ...................................................... 23

1947: FIRST AMERICAN SIGHTING WAVE ................................................................ 25

1952: SECOND AMERICAN SIGHTING WAVE ........................................................... 29

1956: RADAR/VISUAL JET CHASE OVER ENGLAND ................................................ 32

1957: THIRD AMERICAN SIGHTING WAVE ................................................................ 34

1958: BRAZILIAN NAVY PHOTOGRAPHIC CASE ...................................................... 36

1964: LANDING CASE AT SOCORRO, NEW MEXICO ............................................... 41

1967: PHYSIOLOGICAL CASE AT FALCON LAKE, CANADA .................................... 44

1975: STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND BASES UFO ALERT ........................................... 48

1976: MULTIPLE WITNESS CASE IN THE CANARY ISLANDS .................................. 50

1976: UFO DOG-FIGHT OVER TEHRAN ..................................................................... 56

1980: UFO INCIDENTS AT RENDLESHAM FOREST, ENGLAND .............................. 60

1981: PHYSICAL TRACE CASE IN TRANS-EN-PROVENCE, FRANCE ..................... 65

1986: JET CHASE OVER BRAZIL ................................................................................ 71

1986: JAPAN AIRLINES 747 OVER ALASKA .............................................................. 75

1989: MULTIPLE WITNESS CASE AT RUSSIAN MISSILE BASE ............................... 79

1989-1990: UFO SIGHTING WAVE IN BELGIUM ........................................................ 83

1991-1994: RECENT CASES ....................................................................................... 89

CASE HISTORIES SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 91

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite the compilation - lots of reading there if one has the time.

It could use some updating though, as we now know the "famous" Belgium Triangle shot was faked.

One thing in particular jumped out at me in the beginning, as I remember this FOIA request and the fact it was stonewalled by the NSA and the judge who reviewed the request:

"Such is the case for top secret UFO information. In 1980, for example, researchers requesting

information through the FOIA learned of the existence of 156 top secret UFO-related documents

held by the National Security Agency (NSA). This lead was not found through the NSA itself, but

through internal references in UFO-related documents held by other government agencies. When

the researchers filed a FOIA request for the 156 NSA UFO documents, they were denied access

to all of them. They appealed, but Judge Gerhard Gesell of the First Federal Court, District of

Columbia, after reviewing the 21-page written argument submitted by the NSA, denied their

appeal. The 21-page summary was later released, but even in this summary most of the

information was blacked out".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could use some updating though, as we now know the "famous" Belgium Triangle shot was faked.

I figured it would be like a field day for debunkers.

you mentioned that it's 'the best available evidence'..... evidence for what? ufos? or aliens?

That's the subtitle of the report.

which one do you think is the best one?

I like the Iranian dog-fight, but that's the only one I read so far. Next up: "ghost rockets" over Scandinavia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could use some updating though, as we now know the "famous" Belgium Triangle shot was faked.

I followed the Belgium case from the very beginning and corresponded with the chief investigator of the SOBEPS at the time. That picture was controversial even at the time and some local skeptics showed that it could easily be reproduced. Unfortunately, the media wants pictures to attract the public's attention so used it extensively and it took a disproportionate amount of importance in relation to the events of the Belgium wave even though it was quite insignificant compared to the immense body of sighting reports.

That happens all the time simply because the media will always favor the clear pictures that have public appeal. Ironically, nearly all clear shots of UFOs throughout UFO history have turned out to be hoaxes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, nearly all clear shots of UFOs throughout UFO history have turned out to be hoaxes.

I would think even more so these days. What I'm finding interesting is hundreds of witnesses in some cases with radar and official recognition reported then later played down, which is the opposite of how a hoax functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think even more so these days.

One of the major differences between now and then is that today, most UFO pictures and clips are posted anonymously to the internet. But back in the fifties and sixties, most people who claimed to have taken pictures of UFOs would identify themselves and get their picture published in the newspapers or magazines. So people claiming to photograph UFOs (whether real or not) did risk some backlash. Nowadays everyone is hidden behind a moniker, therefore there is no more risk involved in publishing hoaxes.... and there is instant money to be made via YT !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed the Belgium case from the very beginning and corresponded with the chief investigator of the SOBEPS at the time. That picture was controversial even at the time and some local skeptics showed that it could easily be reproduced. Unfortunately, the media wants pictures to attract the public's attention so used it extensively and it took a disproportionate amount of importance in relation to the events of the Belgium wave even though it was quite insignificant compared to the immense body of sighting reports.

That happens all the time simply because the media will always favor the clear pictures that have public appeal. Ironically, nearly all clear shots of UFOs throughout UFO history have turned out to be hoaxes.

I just googled that and got this:

138806-controversial-belgian-ufo-image-confirmed-a-hoax-after-two-decades.jpg

They made it out of polystyrene which fooled the scientific community for decades.

I would say that's one ridiculously successful hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just googled that and got this:

138806-controversial-belgian-ufo-image-confirmed-a-hoax-after-two-decades.jpg

They made it out of polystyrene which fooled the scientific community for decades.

I would say that's one ridiculously successful hoax.

Well actually, this is a copycat picture made by somebody else. The original photograph (also fake) is this one:

post-69129-0-52019700-1390100791_thumb.j

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I find interesting about the radar tracking of UFOs is the lack of acceleration; they reach speeds of over 10,000mph instantly (p.32) and to me that explains why a zero BS sighting reported the light not fading but vanishing:

. I don't know if anyone else has made that connection but I include it here because I know the witness is credible among other witnesses reporting the same event.

I'm not sensing a whole lot of interest in UFO evidence which it makes me wonder... I guess it takes a personal experience witnessing a UFO to generate interest in people like myself who were not previously interested. Anyway, I'll continue going through the evidence one case at a time, then see if I agree with the case histories summary.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I find interesting about the radar tracking of UFOs is the lack of acceleration; they reach speeds of over 10,000mph instantly (p.32) and to me that explains why a zero BS sighting reported the light not fading but vanishing:

. I don't know if anyone else has made that connection but I include it here because I know the witness is credible among other witnesses reporting the same event.

I'm not sensing a whole lot of interest in UFO evidence which it makes me wonder... I guess it takes a personal experience witnessing a UFO to generate interest in people like myself who were not previously interested. Anyway, I'll continue going through the evidence one case at a time, then see if I agree with the case histories summary.

Yes... the 'lack of acceleration' is a great observation! It seems the speeds are variable, but instantaneous in execution. What ever 'they' are, it's a great technology. Also, i'm fascinated by the reports of light beams that extend and contract, like a telescope. I think you know the case i'm thinking about... the long-distance telescopic filming of a missile test on the west coast? where the ufo 'zapped' the dummy warhead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool.the goverment should just come out and tell us there real people won't be freaked out most of the people know the thruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Belgian Photo was shown to be a hoax, as has been pointed out to you, you know part of this report has been proven false already, you totally dismiss Ian Ridpath (if you know who he is) and yet you still hold hope.

The eye of God is being completely misrepresented in that report as a Ancient UFO. That is what this:

Madonna_PalVecchio_nube_p.jpg

actually is. It was a common theme in medieval art.

See this link for more detail.

Foo Fighters were the size of Basketballs and sometimes passed right through planes. Not an aliens spaceship.

It makes out that Kenneth Arnold thought he saw Alien spaceships, yet he thought that his sighting was military, and was so concerned he wrote to the Government about it.

See

arnold_gram.jpg

The Trinindad UFO?

Trinnindade.jpg

I have to admire your optimism!! I do not see it as convincing as you do. Teheran is an interesting case I think it may bear the hallmarks of Plasma.

What browser are you using? You should be able to just "save as" and keep a PDF copy on your desktop. Otherwise right click the link to it and "save target as".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth Arnold just might of seen something, Who knows,but I do believe Kenneth did.

Its all in the way that one decides to Look at it ! :tu::alien::yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trinidad Island UFO was a hoax. The photographer explained step by step how to fake a UFO photo by using a mask over the film to compose a shadow on the exposed image in the camera. That explains why the UFO is grainier than the surrounding clouds -- it was from an already developed strip of film. Most of the witnesses on the boat never claimed to see a UFO.

In the 70's this was portrayed as the best UFO sighting ever. There was more than one photo of it, it was witnessed (supposedly) by trained observers, the photos were taken by an experienced photographer, and the UFO was visible on the untampered negative which back then meant the photo couldn't have been hoaxed. It took several years to figure out how he did it.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth Arnold just might of seen something, Who knows,but I do believe Kenneth did.

Its all in the way that one decides to Look at it ! :tu::alien::yes:

I do not doubt for a second that he did, I doubt the extraordinary interpretations UFOlogists have applied to it when he directly wrote to the Government saying he believed what he saw was ours. He did not at all say he thought it was ET, but UFOlogists seem to insist he did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not doubt for a second that he did, I doubt the extraordinary interpretations UFOlogists have applied to it when he directly wrote to the Government saying he believed what he saw was ours. He did not at all say he thought it was ET, but UFOlogists seem to insist he did.

After seeing the German wing`s ITs possible that IT was some of those also ? But Who knows ? ITs the best part of the unknown, Looking for the answers !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... the 'lack of acceleration' is a great observation! It seems the speeds are variable, but instantaneous in execution. What ever 'they' are, it's a great technology. Also, i'm fascinated by the reports of light beams that extend and contract, like a telescope. I think you know the case i'm thinking about... the long-distance telescopic filming of a missile test on the west coast? where the ufo 'zapped' the dummy warhead?

Actually I had not heard that a warhead was zapped by light? They filmed it?

The lack of acceleration to thousands of mph makes my head spin just thinking about it. The light going out so fast might be a clue to how that is done. Warp speed?

The Trinidad Island UFO was a hoax. The photographer explained step by step how to fake a UFO photo by using a mask over the film to compose a shadow on the exposed image in the camera. That explains why the UFO is grainier than the surrounding clouds -- it was from an already developed strip of film. Most of the witnesses on the boat never claimed to see a UFO.

Photographic montage they called it (that was admitted in the document). 48 witnesses of all kinds lends more credibility; the film tricks could be the guy thinking he could take it up a notch which backfired.

In the 70's this was portrayed as the best UFO sighting ever. There was more than one photo of it, it was witnessed (supposedly) by trained observers, the photos were taken by an experienced photographer, and the UFO was visible on the untampered negative which back then meant the photo couldn't have been hoaxed. It took several years to figure out how he did it.

Apparently too experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Belgian Photo was shown to be a hoax, as has been pointed out to you, you know part of this report has been proven false already, you totally dismiss Ian Ridpath (if you know who he is) and yet you still hold hope.

The eye of God is being completely misrepresented in that report as a Ancient UFO. That is what this:

Madonna_PalVecchio_nube_p.jpg

actually is. It was a common theme in medieval art.

Okay, but the old man in the sky might have been an alien, manifested as the sun to others.

Foo Fighters were the size of Basketballs and sometimes passed right through planes. Not an aliens spaceship.

So you are going with St. Elmo's Fire on that? The last paragraph in that section states: in order to accept that theory you would have to discount the observational skills of scores of veteran combat pilots and their crew members...

I have to admire your optimism!! I do not see it as convincing as you do. Teheran is an interesting case I think it may bear the hallmarks of Plasma.

What browser are you using? You should be able to just "save as" and keep a PDF copy on your desktop. Otherwise right click the link to it and "save target as".

I don't know if I like UFOs. They don't seem to be good omens-- theory being after you see one bad things happen (wonder if that's accurate?). This is a chromebook; it's all the same in the cloud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but the old man in the sky might have been an alien, manifested as the sun to others.

So you are going with St. Elmo's Fire on that? The last paragraph in that section states: in order to accept that theory you would have to discount the observational skills of scores of veteran combat pilots and their crew members...

I don't know if I like UFOs. They don't seem to be good omens-- theory being after you see one bad things happen (wonder if that's accurate?). This is a chromebook; it's all the same in the cloud.

Yeah... it's a cool case.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but the old man in the sky might have been an alien, manifested as the sun to others.

It is a recurring medieval theme. God God man, The eye of God is not=w an alien starship? Would you like another straw to grasp at?

Renaissance artists were all UFO buffs were they? And only depicted aliens in religious paintings? Did you read the link at all???

We can therefore safely identify in the Madonna and Child with the Infant St. John exposed in Palazzo Vecchio the same announcement scene which is described by the Gospel of Luke. But one might wonder, since there is no talk of "luminous clouds" in Luke, whence could this particular have come from?

In the Renaissance sacred art, there were represented not only scenes taken from the four canonical Gospels. Artists, often,took their inspirations from more recent devotional texts, containing characters and situations with more popular and narrative streaks. To these texts we owe Mary's Presentation to the Temple, or the Virgin's Wedding, painted by Giotto; the encounter between Jesus and Saint John the Baptist painted by Leonardo in "The virgin of the rocks"; are all subjects deriving from sources extraneous to the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. Painters (and their employers, who decided the subjects) often mixed scenes and situations from heterogeneous texts, for example the "Golden Legend", by Jacopo da Varazze, or the several apocryphal gospels.

Seriously, your suggestion is nothing short of ridiculous.

Is that the dead set best you can do with all the information and historical record I gave you? I dunno, maybe it was God? Seriously?

So you are going with St. Elmo's Fire on that? The last paragraph in that section states: in order to accept that theory you would have to discount the observational skills of scores of veteran combat pilots and their crew members...

Of that site, but how many actual foo fight reports have you actually read? Not the rehashed woo recollection, actual reports?

Pilot Lt. David Mcfalls: At 0600 hours [6 A. M ] near Hagenau, at 10,000 feet altitude, two very bright lights climbed towards us from the ground. They levelled off and stayed on the tail of our 'plane. They were huge, bright orange lights. They stayed there for two minutes. . . . They were under perfect control. Then they turned away from us, and the fire seemed to go out."

They would "stick" to the wings of planes, sometimes they would trail like detached balls following ships, sometimes they would pass right through the fuselage. Aand largely they would just "go out" - sound familiar??

Do you know how the term came about? A 30's comic strip about a goofy firefighter. The saying was "Where there is Foo there is fire!" Why would the pilots themselves think to liken the event to Fire do you think? They were also called "Kraut Fireballs" Some of the balls came straight up from the ground (Like Naga Balls) and were mistaken for Tracer fire.

How many aliens spaceships pass directly through planes? And, for the most part, they were the size of basketballs.

Not much exists, but here is a rare USAF photo of a Foo Fighter encounter:

foofighter.jpg

Is that how you imagined them?

I don't know if I like UFOs. They don't seem to be good omens-- theory being after you see one bad things happen (wonder if that's accurate?). This is a chromebook; it's all the same in the cloud.

Nonsense, I have seen a UFO, and then Zoser joined UM...... hang on....... maybe you have a point there..............

Seriously though, Foo Fighters are not alien spaceships, its just woo again.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I had not heard that a warhead was zapped by light? They filmed it?

No, someone says a film exists and the military are hiding it. Standard UFO fare.

The lack of acceleration to thousands of mph makes my head spin just thinking about it. The light going out so fast might be a clue to how that is done. Warp speed?

It should not, UAP are more than capable of doing this, and from what we understand of the phenomena at Hessdalen, there is no reason these things could not move at incredible speeds and make amazing changes in direction as they are suspected to have little is any mass. And they could be appearing to be under intelligent control due to their known electrical properties.

Photographic montage they called it (that was admitted in the document). 48 witnesses of all kinds lends more credibility; the film tricks could be the guy thinking he could take it up a notch which backfired.

Apparently too experienced.

And not an uncommon thing to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITs all in the Way the C.T`s See it right?

post-68971-0-24944900-1390615373_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.