A little understood point concerning history, science and politics/corruption/cover-ups. This 4 min interview discusses US Air Force Project Blue Book Special Report#14 undertaken in the mid 50s that looked at reports where unknown aerial objects had been seen (by pilots, radar operators, ground technicians etc). The KEY POINT being raised here is that the BETTER the observation (ie long duration, clear sky, multiple witnesses, radar correlation etc) the more likely the report could not be explained away as conventional phenomena (ie aircraft, balloon, meteor, star/planet etc). ie it was considered that what was seen was a genuine unknown.
This is the opposite of what you would expect if all the unidentified objects were simply misidentified aircraft, balloons etc. ie If the sighting conditions were good then the percentage of unknowns would be very low. This pattern indicates that the trained observers making these reports were actually seeing unique phenomena a significant amount of the time that could not be categorised in a conventional manner.
The summary of this Report stated that only 3% of cases could not be identifed, but this is not true. (Here we have the politics/corruption/cover-up part of the story). The real number was over 20%. The summary, which most people will look at rather than read the whole thing, outright lies about the content. I have a copy of this report and it does confirm everything that is said in the video.
Official lying about things has been going on for a long time (just think about WW2 deceptions for instance).
Furthermore, in the late 60s there was another Air Force sponsored report, which closed down Project Blue Book, 'The Condon Report' where they used the same stunt: a false-conclusion-to-the-data ploy. This was then sold to the media/public and so ended any officially acknowledged interest in these unknowns. And yet through FOIA we have a number of documents that show official interest continued within the US intelligence community.
Just thought to share that for those who might be interested.
Debunking UFO Debunkers