Wow, you've got issues. You say I am lying. I say I am not lying. I fail to see the lack of understanding or logic in that exchange.

There isn't a lack of understanding. You're stating your position and I'm stating mine.

Now, the NEXT part is to SUBSTANTIATE that position.

You claim to have HOW many years of post-high school education?

Lots of things happen that I don't witness. I really am not that important to the workings of the universe. Things don't require my oversight or permission to happen.

Exactly. I'd expect that kind of "logic" from a 14 year old. I wasn't talking about your permission. I was talking about your verification of such.

I don't have any physical evidence that I saw Secretary of State James Baker's underwear, either, but I did.

Is it possible for you to stay on topic?

Besides, if I had physical evidence, what would you say about it?

Hmmmm, let's see. Someone claims to have been abducted by aliens but has no physical evidence to support his claim because government agents took it from him.

You'd accept that claim.

I would not.

Now, suppose someone claimed to have been abducted by aliens and had a working space ship to prove it.

You'd accept that claim.

I would accept that claim.

Do you have a problem with "comprehension"?

The whole point is that your story has a series of unlikely occurances happening and the proof that they happened is taken by a secret agent.

Here's your task for today, post the definitions of the words "comprehension" and "substantiation".

Because I do have physical evidence that I attended West Point, was commissioned an officer, attended EOD school, was assigned to both EOD units in USASETAF - and you don't call that substantiation.

Again, as I posted earlier, if I claim to have been working on a secret underground submarine base in Arizona, and my only "proof" that I was was my DD214 showing I left the Marines.......

No, that is NOT substantiation for your story.

You'll understand why when you complete the task I've assigned you.

Quite possibly there is some record of it.

No. "some record of it" could mean "some record of it in the files of the secret government agency". Don't try to pull that bullshit with me.

If it happened, there'd be a record of at command.

But that would contradict the "it never happened" line.

I posted an account of a simliar situation that had come from a public source - a Turkish newspaper.

Again, (I'll see how long it takes you to post the definition for "comprehension") that supports MY case because NO ONE from a secret government agency was trying to clamp down on THAT information.

But it was very similar to the case YOU posted. Except for the massive violations required in your story.

So if that account was classified, then I would expect that intelligence operatives taking control of a chemical warhead in the same area, at the same time would also be a classified report.

Hmmm, I don't suppose telling you to read that report again will do much. You're still having problems with this "comprehension" thing.

It isn't that the account was classified. It is the presence of the secret government agent telling your soldier that "this never happened" and your soldier taking orders from that agent and violating SOP by not reporting it to his commander.

You know how the Nigerian scam works, right? You get a random email from someone you don't know. If you believe that, right, you are gullible. This story was related to me by someone I worked with closely, someone who I literally entrusted my life to. Now, are you telling me that my first sergeant was untrustworthy? I know differently.

Again, the "comprehension" thing. No. You BELIEVE your "first sergeant" was trustworthy. This gets even better. A first sergeant? That's a LOT of years in the army.

Suddenly, links are not substantiation.

So, I post a reference from a text on physics. I claim that is substantiation.

You post a reference from a Sgt. Rock comic book. Then you cry when I say that your reference isn't accurate.

Again, "comprehension". Try reading the other forums and learning what "substantiation" is.

Oh, I'm sorry. You've had 4 years of "West Point". I guess they never got around to explaining that to you.

You're 36 years old with 4 years of "West Point" and I've been over this multiple times and you STILL don't understand the concept of "substantiation"?

Yeah. Right.

Army EOD in Northern Iraq.

I never said there weren't. But that wasn't your story. Your story was the Man-In-Black taking a chemical munition from your "first sergeant" and telling him "this never happened". I'll call this #1.

Working with SF.

Again, #1.

Finding an old round without markings or identification.

#1.

That there were chemical rounds reported in the area.

#1.

That SF work with intelligence operatives in non-standard uniforms who collect intellgence material.

Is that the best attempt you have? "intellgence material"? That can be anything from jets to rumours. And the claim was that your "first sergeant" had a chemical munition taken from him by a Man-In-Black.

Again, try to address the points, not keep repeating generalized "facts".

1. The conditions you describe could not have existed. And yet, there they are.

No. I have never said that the US army was not in Iraq nor that Iraq did not use chemical munitions. This has been the ONLY information you have provided. Information that is NOT in question.

2. "That's not what the FM says." I still don't see how you can rely on a manual of policy and procedure and use it to state a fact.

This coming from someone who thinks a typo on a set of orders means that the FM's aren't being followed. No. You'll never see it.

I know that way better than you. When I taught EORA and explosive safety classes, the FACT that US sustained more casualties from UXO incidents following the Gulf War than we did in actual combat played prominently in my training.

And yet you'll believe that a command would cover up the presence of even MORE deadly munitions?

Yeah. Right. Whatever.

Look, this has been fun, but there is no way that you will be persuaded of the truth at this point, given the emotional and face investment you have in your vehement denouncement of me and the story I have related.

Let's skip "truth" and just stick to "facts". Facts are so much easier to determine.

In an ACTUAL situation such as you had described.
1. Unknown munition spotted.
2. Incident reported to command.
3. EOD team (2 or more people) are sent to investigate.
4. EOD believes chemical agent may be present.
5. Information is reported to command.
6. NBC team deployed with decon gear and replacement suits/filters.
7. NBC team sets up outside perimeter.
8. EOD does whatever EOD does and confirms chemical agent.
9. NBC team reports confirmed chemical agent.
10. NBC team contains contamination.
11. EOD stabilizes and prepares munition for transportation.
12. HQ issues instructions to OIC for transportation of munition.
13. Munition is handed over for transportation.
14. NBC decons EOD personel and site.
15. NBC decons NBC.
16. NBC marks site and closure report is sent.
17. HQ turns munition over to intelligence assets to determine whatever they can about it.
18. Intelligence reports back to HQ with whatever they can find.
19. HQ issues warnings about unexploded chemical munitions.

And that is how it would go.

And that is how the other references to the other EOD operations depict it.

Simple.

No strange circumstances.
No single person on site doing all the work.
No "unidentified" Men-In-Black.
No "this never happened".
No secrecy.

I've already linked to the specific portions of the specific FM's that would cover this situation. It's already been thought of, planned for, documented and included in the NBC training program.

Again, no "special" circumstances needed. No single "first sergeant" being sent alone to do all the work. No "unidentified" CIA agents telling the single "first sergeant" that "this never happened".

Instead, you have lots of people who know about it (and are ready to handle emergencies that arise) and lots of reports going back and forth and even warnings to uninvolved troops in the same AO.