I have just found this that seem a more likely story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series1/alien-abduction.shtml

I was just about to post that link. As you can see it includes a comment from one of Captain Schaffner’s sons. The ‘Foxtrot 94’ transcript on the UFO link that you posted is utter gibberish. Where do these people get off inventing things like that?!

Cheers

TJ

More than likely the thread will be locked soon.

1MAN,
No need to go looking on the web. Is this the sort of gibberish that you believe in? Have a re-read – enough said! :rolleyes: All those NATO losses in equipment and manpower under Clinton and Blair and still everyone is keeping quiet? :rolleyes:

‘Defense & Foreign Affairs April 1999

NATO LOSSES AND THE MILITARY COSTS’

http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg38683.html

‘British Uncover Operation in Basra: Agents Provocateurs?’

http://physics911.ca/Compilation:_British_Forces_Conduct_False-Flag_Bombings_in_Iraq

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOW20050923&articleId=990

TJ

1MAN,

Explain why the IAEA are still very much interested in the site? If it is non-nuclear why has the IAEA taken so much interest in the images revealed by the CIA? Do you not think that the North Koreans have some explaining to do as to the evidence that a nuclear scientist was in Syria.

Do you not think that the US will provide evidence to the U.N. of visits by NK nuclear scientists to Syria in relation to this project? What will the NK explanation be? The commercial sat imagery is available to anyone wishing to buy it. ISIS did it and so can the U.N. and IAEA. Again the question still arises as to why the Syrians undertook a massive clean up of an ‘unused military warehouse’?

Why haven’t ISIS blown the cover on your conspiracy theory?

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/syria/SyriaUpdate_24April2008.pdf

TJ

What I was saying is a building was bombed but it was not a Nuke plant.
You posted the article here it is: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/syria-more-ques.html now look at the pic at the top of this thread, notice the top pic corisponds to the L.A. Times CGI pic, but the bottom pic doesn’t, this is WHY they couldn’t show a side view of the pic because one could easily tell it was fake, so they had to only show a:
1. “pefect top view”
2. make sure it was only in black&white
3. Also the video of the bombing was not shown to the public because it would show that it was different than the top picture.
4. Notice that the shadow is FAKE it’s not natural, but CGI shaded in.
5. On the bottom pic notice there’s some sort of building (probably a trailer house/building) to the top left, but in the top pic it isn’t there.
6. If all this was true, the U.S. would have also used this oportunaty to say,” This nuke building, aslo proves that our reports in 04/05 that Iraq moved thier WMD’s to Syria are correct”

Thanks Sean for the info on the SA-6 site.

1MAN,

They are clearly taken at different times of the day and from different perspectives and therefore have different shadows. Has it not crossed your mind that the images are from commercial imagery and sharpened up? The Syrian U.S. Ambassador stated that he was shown commercial satellite images of the site.

The colour images is from a GCI video presentation. It is a representation. It was never put forward as a real-time satellite image.

The strike video will be in Israeli hands. It was more than likely an LGB attack and the video would be from that. In years to come the Israeli’s might possibly release it. At that resolution it won’t show anything else but what you can see in the black and white images – a rectangular building.

Again, rambling non-sense in your last question. If the Syrians had nothing to hide then they would have invited the IAEA and journalists in within days of the bombing. Remember they did this when the Ayn Shabab site was struck back in 2003? What did the Syrians do this time? They took journalists to a completely random site and claimed that this was the site that the Israeli’s had bombed.

If the building was just an innocent ‘warehouse’ then why didn’t they take the journalists directly there? Why did the Syrians invest a lot of money and time into sanatising the site and builiding a new building directly on top of the original building site? Why didn’t the Syrians show images of the destroyed warehouse before they demolished it? An unused military site with a warehouse on it isn’t exactly going to breach Syrian national security, now is it?

The Syrian U.S. Ambassador has claimed that they will prove that the site was nothing but an ‘unused military warehouse’. The IAEA revealed that they wanted to visit the site, but the Syrians have still not taken them to it. Why? The Syrians will either try to let it ride or go for the full media frenzy. Possibly expect an IAEA visit with full media hype with the Syrians proudly showing off the site and their new build military warehouse.

TJ

The soviets bombed massive corridors along their routes during their phased withdrawal. I’m sure every available bomber had to be bore down onto the afghan theatre to sustain the removal of their troops. A couple years back I asked if anyone had details of how the Bear bombers were used during the withdrawals and nobody could find references to their use in literature. Details of the actual operations seem to be few and far between. Think about the monster bureaucracy that was the soviet union and how much paperwork their should have been.

In the later years of Soviet involvement in Afghanistan the Tu-22M Backfire was used exstensively. Images at the time, on the run-up to the withdrawal, show Backfires being escorted by flare deploying Flankers. Tu-16 Badgers were also used during Afghanistan. I don’t think that Tu-95s were used in that role during Afghanistan? Although I sit to be corrected!

TJ

I bothered already and say it again the solo a/c plexi is aged, telling anyone this aircraft is not airworthy a long time. Not to mention it was supposed to be Czech junk grounded in mid nineties. Now it found its way to the US and will serve as a static display forever. Looking at the new paint job, covering dielectric covers(fiberglass laminate) and alluminum around with the same topcoat, missing any working aerials needful to gain FAA certificate of airworthiness….

Well, are those Floggers airworthy or not?

It is plainly obvious that those are reflective covers inside the canopies. No chemical reaction on the single seater and the two-seaters canopy is intact.

TJ

1MAN wrote

Sorry but L.A.Times already exposed the bombing as a fraud the reason the pictures are ion Black and White is because the bottom pic is a real building that was destroyed but the top pic is a photoshop, I’ll post the link latter on, they Isreal/U.S. had to keep it black and white because the color pic clearly shows it’s a photoshop, U.S. has had color sat imaging for a longtime, and all of a sudden this is black and white, HA!! anyways when I post the link you’ll understand.

Can’t wait. In fact we all can’t wait! :rolleyes:

Have you actually read the responses after the article?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/syria-more-ques.html

Go back and play the first video of Syrian Ambassador to U.S., Imad Moustapha

“3 Israeli jet fighters penetrated deep into Syrian airspace and bombarded a military target in Syria. By the way those three jet fighters were US made…….”

This is the same target that the Syrians refer to in the desert that had no air defences or security fences etc. Even the Syrians admit that the building was bombed.

TJ

Thanks for sharing those, ARAman. Love the Spit. What a beast!

Cheers

TJ