Slashdot Mirror


Former Military Personnel Claim Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes

An anonymous reader quotes Reuters "Witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003. In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby. Six former US Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about these events at the National Press Club and urge the government to publicly confirm their reality." I won't worry until Gort shows up.

498 comments

  1. Of course they are by w00tsauce · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we nuke everything, it's gonna be difficult for them to plunder our natural resources and turn us into sex slaves.

    1. Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be so cool to be a sex slave. I have my hand up.

    2. Re:Of course they are by nevillethedevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have your hand up what?

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
    3. Re:Of course they are by ascari · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wasn't really clear from the article but are these illegal aliens or do they have valid visas? If the former, is it OK to deport them?

    4. Re:Of course they are by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Since your volunteering, please refer to Goatse for demonstration of the orificial requirements.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Of course they are by grub · · Score: 1


      That's fine for you, Mr.Goatse. However this is a serious concern for we mortals with anuses in sizes nature intended.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:Of course they are by eggheeet · · Score: 1

      No worries the aliens contacted me last night in a vivid dream and told me we're currently too "diseased" (that was the specific term they used) a species to be considered even for intergalactic trade (tier sub-a-1z of membership). They'll get back to us in about 100k of our years and check again, if we're still here, which they highly doubt will be the case. Humiliating, I know, but there it is. Oh I had proof this was an actual communication because in my dream I kept changing my underwear only to find it was still on, always a sign of valid communication. As to former military and aviation being reliable witnesses, in fact they're just the opposite, as they're trained to confirm positive ID on any noticeable artifacts or variants from the norm, for safety and intel reasons, so they're very much more likely to see things there that aren't. Also fact. Back to your regular programming, ideally in straight, conventional c.

    7. Re:Of course they are by Brad1138 · · Score: 2

      Just FYI, I could be used for snu-snu

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    8. Re:Of course they are by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, so our nukes in Arizona are safe.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:Of course they are by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The willingness to be used for snu-snu marks you as being genetically unfit for being used for snu-snu.

      "That's some catch, Doc."

      "Catch-23. It's the best we've got."

      (or words to that effect)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:Of course they are by thygate · · Score: 1

      Death by snu snu !

    11. Re:Of course they are by pinkushun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Death by snu-snu!

    12. Re:Of course they are by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Sex slaves? They are in it for our organs! Namely, spleens!

    13. Re:Of course they are by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Wait, I'm finally going to get laid? Roll on with the aliens.

    14. Re:Of course they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we nuke everything, it's gonna be difficult for them to plunder our natural resources and turn us into sex slaves.

      But we'd get to have sex, right? I'm just saying that it's not all a downside...

    15. Re:Of course they are by mldi · · Score: 1

      A crushed pelvis is your kink, eh?

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  2. Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... really. Come ON.

    1. Re:Slashdot... by nstlgc · · Score: 1

      They've made a big mistake...

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
  3. Not a Reuters story by longacre · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a press release written by some guys hawking their book, it was not written by a journalist.

    1. Re:Not a Reuters story by clarkn0va · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there a difference any more?

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    2. Re:Not a Reuters story by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it was not written by a journalist.

      Damn, so it DOES need proof to back it up then? ;)

      I mean, seriously... who cares who writes things? What matters is whether the arguments are valid, and the evidence they're based on is sound.

      Uhhh, which they're clearly not in this case. Just thought I'd tack that on for clarity ;)

    3. Re:Not a Reuters story by citylivin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed! from reddit:
      PR Newswire is NOT Reuters!

       

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    4. Re:Not a Reuters story by Megor1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyone can send what they want out the PR newswire for $500

      --
      Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
    5. Re:Not a Reuters story by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised Reuters even picked it up, I just lost a little more respect for them (not that I have much respect for any news agency lately).

    6. Re:Not a Reuters story by Seumas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly. I don't understand why this is being covered (though the AP is always just relaying press releases with no thought or questioning, whatsoever). There are plenty of former military, government, or scientific individuals of various ranks who are simply fucking nuts. They typically become regular guests on the Art Bell show and talk to him about alien autopsies that they've witnessed and how Obama is secretly a grey.

    7. Re:Not a Reuters story by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was there a difference in the first place? "He's just selling a book!" "You're just selling a paper" "Well, he doesn't have, um, quite as large a staff as I do?"

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    8. Re:Not a Reuters story by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      Coast To Coast AM can be pretty awesome. I particularly the use of call-ins during the game Prey.

    9. Re:Not a Reuters story by DanTheStone · · Score: 1

      I particularly enjoyed, I mean.

    10. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker" and rather than just reprinting corporate and political press releases verbatim, they fact checked them first and would write a story about the release, pointing out any falsehoods. It isn't about book sales versus newspaper sales, it is about journalistic integrity.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 1

      We what you were talking about, even though you it wrong.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:Not a Reuters story by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 1

      Anyone can send what they want out the /. newswire for free...

    13. Re:Not a Reuters story by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Anyone can send what they want out the PR newswire for $500

      Yep - like this one: "Obama Orders Full Investigation of General Mills Supply Chain Following Food Recalls"

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:Not a Reuters story by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker" and rather than just reprinting corporate and political press releases verbatim, they fact checked them first and would write a story about the release, pointing out any falsehoods. It isn't about book sales versus newspaper sales, it is about journalistic integrity.

      I figured fact-checking was mostly for original work. If the byline is AP or Reuters, you'd think the paper would be off the hook when they print their retraction on page C35 right before the obituaries. Maybe that's just how they are doing it now.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Not a Reuters story by BitHive · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era, think of what would have happened to important new thinking about the gold standard, global cooling and the benefits of deregulation if jackbooted "fact checkers" had been there to strangle dissenting voices.

    16. Re:Not a Reuters story by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker" and rather than just reprinting corporate and political press releases verbatim, they fact checked them first and would write a story about the release, pointing out any falsehoods. It isn't about book sales versus newspaper sales, it is about journalistic integrity.

      Mwahahaha! what planet are you from? Here on corporate-world, things have always been the same and there's never been such an air of suspicion that facts need checking before printing.

    17. Re:Not a Reuters story by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I mean, seriously... who cares who writes things? What matters is whether the arguments are valid, and the evidence they're based on is sound.

      Omg; more craziness. Next you'll be suggesting that we extend your logic to politics where politicans would discuss policies and make arguments for their choices. That shit is never going to fly on this planet - weirdo!

    18. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious. I stopped visiting slashdot once I found reddit.

    19. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe my rosy colored memories of a more honest and ethical journalism are simply nostalgia for a good old days that never were.

      Now get off my lawn and let me ruminate in peace.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:Not a Reuters story by Lennie · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's all a time-constraint (read:money) issue.

      I've seen figures for newspapers which says something like: if you compare the amount of work which is demanded/required from a journalist 10 years ago to now, a journalist now has to write 20 times more articles/text.

      That means that journalist used to do factchecking and so on, now, they will probably do a google search and a glance over on wikipedia and think, maybe this is ok and print it.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    21. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Facts are not viewpoints. When did JFK die, and how? Is that a viewpoint or a fact? When a politician says, "My policies saved over $2,000,000 last year" is that a fact or a viewpoint? If a company says, "We have reduced air pollution at our factories by fifty percent," is that a fact or a viewpoint? Facts can be checked. Statements of fact are either true or false, and I believe that the reason people find news media valuable is that they report the truth.

      It sounds like you think that people should have the right to defraud others. I don't think you'll find much support for that idea.

      One final question, do you understand what my sig means?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    22. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Read some of the other replies to my post. We've got some libertarian arguing that facts are just opinions and it is some kind of jack booted fascism to insist that there is one true reality that can be verified.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:Not a Reuters story by Unkyjar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure the parent was being sarcastic.

    24. Re:Not a Reuters story by easyTree · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yah; one can only hope that it's irony, as suggested.

      PS. I'd love to see a meat-space version of this discussion :D

    25. Re:Not a Reuters story by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This has little to do with journalistic integrity. Fact checking has one single purpose: it means that the newspaper can't be sued for printing falsehoods. In the current world, where channels like Fox have no legal obligation to say anything truthful at all and can still call it news, there are diminishing returns to fact checking.

      I guarantee that if the legal system makes it easier (or more profitable) to sue a news outlet whenever they print lies^H^H^H misrepresent the truth, then you'll see a strong resurgence on fact checking.

    26. Re:Not a Reuters story by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Total bullshit. There never was such a position in the first place, it is a myth that journalists tell about themselves, to fulfil their own fantasies as Myrmidons of The Truth.

      A job I had a long time ago as a temp in a government office involved sending faxes out to the media. I got the list of phone numbers, and I typed up the fax on WordPerfect. I then sat by the fax machine and sent out fax after fax. To my great surprise, my words appeared in the newspaper the next day, verbatim (or edited for length, which omitted crucial information). My office phone was listed at the bottom of the fax. I never, ever received so much as a single call to verify the information. As the job went on, I sent out more and more of these faxes, and saw them in the newspaper the next day, and NOBODY EVER CALLED TO CHECK IF THE INFORMATION WAS CORRECT. Therefore, I call bullshit on this whole "fact-checking" myth, as it obviously never existed, according to my own personal experience. Obviously, I must be lying, otherwise this entire myth of "journalistic integrity" could not exist (file this phrase right next to "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp" in the list of oxymorons.)

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:Not a Reuters story by catmistake · · Score: 1

      This is a press release written by some guys hawking their book, it was not written by a journalist.

      Of course not, silly, jounalists are extinct. They were overrun by the vastly inferior bloggers, that somehow had the edge on reproduction.

    28. Re:Not a Reuters story by bball99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      saying there is ethics in Journalism is like saying there is virtue among whores

    29. Re:Not a Reuters story by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would a newspaper call the submitter of an article to fact check the article? Your phone number should have been considered off limits because it was submitted with the article. That you never got a call does nothing to disprove the existence of fact checkers. If anything it bolsters the argument that there was real fact checking happening.

    30. Re:Not a Reuters story by fishexe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era...

      Since when is making shit up that happens to be false an opposing viewpoint? I hope you realize you're sounding a lot more 1984 than what you're criticizing.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    31. Re:Not a Reuters story by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting
    32. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never worked at a newspaper with a separate "fact checker" position, but that used to be something that ALL reporters and editors were supposed to do... as part of our JOBS.

    33. Re:Not a Reuters story by grasshoppa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What you call "sarcasm" I have actually witnessed in a fox news fan.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    34. Re:Not a Reuters story by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they truly wanted to check whether the facts were correct, they wouldn't have called you. After all, you just sent it out, so of course you'd say it was correct.

      If they wanted to check the facts correctly, they'd go to someone else and see if the facts agreed.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    35. Re:Not a Reuters story by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't watch The Colbert Report. That show will confuse the living hell out of you.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    36. Re:Not a Reuters story by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe that the reason people find news media valuable is that they report the truth.

      hahahahahahah Good one.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's just what you aliens would do to discredit the story.

    38. Re:Not a Reuters story by budgenator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would it be off-limits to call a submitter to request a list of original sources for verification?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    39. Re:Not a Reuters story by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not quite. You still want to verify the submission: make sure that the submitter stands by their words. If they do, but your checking shows that they lied, you have a double whammy. So GP is half-right.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    40. Re:Not a Reuters story by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I laughed so hard reading your post. Having worked for a newspaper, I can assure you they don't fact check as often as you think. Some journos don't fact check at all.

      There's been plenty of hoaxes set up to expose how little fact checking there is.

    41. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said.

    42. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually heard this story before too. Not just on Coast to Coast, the "fringe" websites, or the more "interesting" forums like ATS. (This particular type of story has been bouncing around those places for years now.)

      As a kid I was more curious about UFOs and such than I am now. I had an uncle in the Air Force. So knowing that they tend to keep an eye on the sky and had done things in the past like Project Blue Book... I asked him about it. He said that officially he can't confirm or deny. (Likely signed an NDA in order to obtain clearances.) But he did have very similar story about working at an SAC post where "something unusual" showed up over the base and having the missiles cycle through a test sequence and readiness stage before shutting back down. It was pretty much an "OH SHIT!" moment for everyone at that command. From what I get it took place sometime in the 1970's as he enlisted just as the Vietnam War was winding down.

      But you can take this story or leave it. Since I'm keeping it anonymous.

    43. Re:Not a Reuters story by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You might, at the very least, confirm that the fax was sent by the person who's phone number is listed as the sender. That information is pretty easy to spoof.

    44. Re:Not a Reuters story by bonch · · Score: 2, Funny

      The fact newspapers didn't call the number to fact-check the article bolsters the argument that there was fact-checking happening? The hell?

    45. Re:Not a Reuters story by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have people gone stupid? The very first thing you should do is verify that the person claiming to have sent you the fax is who they say they are and not someone pretending.

    46. Re:Not a Reuters story by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      One final question, do you understand what my sig means?

      Does anybody read sigs? They are rarely relevant to the discussion, so I set my preferences to filter them out.

    47. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent Summary:

      "In my specific position over the specific period that I worked I did not encounter a fact-checker calling me directly, and in my specific articles I never noticed a change aside from items, sometimes crucial items, being removed purely for length considerations. Therefore fact-checkers can not have possibly existed now or ever."

    48. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the blinking tags on his post.

    49. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sarcasm* tags. Silly /. eating less-than and greater-than :(

    50. Re:Not a Reuters story by Trails · · Score: 1

      This story is clearly false because no one uses word perfect

    51. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an odd comparison. According to the list on wikipedia about virtue, whores have many virtues, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do their work well. And I am sure they still have them when they hang out together.

      Or are you saying the Journalism is very ethical.

    52. Re:Not a Reuters story by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck what mainstream media journalist have to say today? Go dig on a Florida beach.

    53. Re:Not a Reuters story by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      In theory the police is there to help and protect you as well and that too _may_ have been the case in earlier times. Nowadays we know the realities quiet well. As far as journalistic integrity goes, that has been turned and twisted into "resonsible journalism'. I glance through your mainstream shit to know where we are at in the story book but hey I know how this plantation works I've already been here for a whlie.

    54. Re:Not a Reuters story by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > let me ruminate in peace

      I suspect grass may be at the basis of this book, yes.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    55. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed so hard reading your post. Having worked for a newspaper, I can assure you they don't fact check as often as you think. Some journos don't fact check at all.

      There's been plenty of hoaxes set up to expose how little fact checking there is.

      In fact, most of them take whatever is on the AP wire and reprint it. Or they take a press release or public statement and just print it verbatim.

      A few months ago in my town, there was a front page photo of a car wreck. In the foreground was a wrecked Chevy truck, with the large Chevy logo featured very prominently on the front of the grill. The newspaper reported it was a "mid-size Ford pickup truck" instead of the VERY obvious Chevy full-size with Duelies on it. Because that's what the cops wrote down, and despite have a reporter and camera crew on scene nobody bothered to question anything on the report.

    56. Re:Not a Reuters story by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's a question of reputation. If you're selling a book, as a one-off, then you don't care so much about your reputation. If you say something sensationalist and it turns out to be nonsense, you've made a lot of money and you can retire. If a newspaper publishes nonsense then people start to stop trusting them. If they keep doing it, people move to other news sources. At least, in theory.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    57. Re:Not a Reuters story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a politician says, "My policies saved over $2,000,000 last year" is that a fact or a viewpoint? If a company says, "We have reduced air pollution at our factories by fifty percent," is that a fact or a viewpoint?

      Both. It all depends on the viewpoint.

      A Fact would be "We have emitted 50% less of specific particle X into the atmosphere compared to last year". A viewpoint would be "We have reduced air poolution by fifty percent". They both seem like facts, but the first is raw data, the second is an interpretation of that data. All kinds of statistical tricks can be played. For example, they might not have actually reduced the pollution, but found a way to convert it into a different type of pollution so now they can claim that X pollution was reduced by Y%.

      Statements of fact are either true or false, and I believe that the reason people find news media valuable is that they report the truth.

      HAHAHAHA.

      Ok, I could produce examples until Slashdot closes down. So I'll only give a couple for illustration.
      - Recently there has been much debate about a building which is being referred to, by ALL the major news papers and TV channels, as "The Mosque at Ground Zero". It's not AT or ON "ground zero", and in FACT it hasn't even been built. It's not an outright lie, but it IS carefully worded to incite the viewers/readers.
      - Recently a lady with the Deptartment of Agriculture was fired after ALL the major news outlets ran a video clip of allegedly racist remarks she made at a NAACP speech some years ago. Had any of them bothered to watch the actual clip for another 10 SECONDS, they would have understood the context and the FACT that the story wasn't racist at all. The tickers and splash screens screamed "Racism in the Department of Agriculture!".

      Look, there isn't such thing as "Truth". There are facts, but those should not be confused with truth, although the two appear quite similar they are not the same. If I believe something, then I am telling the Truth, even if the Facts show that I'm completely wrong. Newspapers supposedly tell the Truth, and are supposed to check their facts to ensure they really are telling the truth, but in reality facts either fall by the wayside or are fiddled with until they support whatever 'Truth' the reporter is saying.

    58. Re:Not a Reuters story by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      When did JFK die, and how? Is that a viewpoint or a fact?

      It's a viewpoint.

      In my view, JFK did not die, but was transported out of his body by the flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage.

    59. Re:Not a Reuters story by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      The very first thing you should do is verify that the person claiming to have sent you the fax is who they say they are and not someone pretending.

      By taking your own DNA samples to compare against your own database? By checking the 8192-bit signature on the fax paper?

      Most people trust the authorship of documents in the absence of evidence against it, because there's little realistic alternative.

    60. Re:Not a Reuters story by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. :)

    61. Re:Not a Reuters story by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Yeh, the journos generally just pull stories from the wire services, change the odd word and then submit it. I don't blame them seeing as editors don't care what the content of the paper is, so long as there's a lot of it.

    62. Re:Not a Reuters story by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Maybe my rosy colored memories of a more honest and ethical journalism are simply nostalgia for a good old days that never were.

      Do the names Woodward and Bernstein mean anything to you?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:Not a Reuters story by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What you call "sarcasm" I have actually witnessed in a fox news fan.

      Also, check out any slashdot thread for the phrases "gold standard" to see plenty of examples of insanity beyond the reach of satire.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:Not a Reuters story by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker"

      No wonder the newspapers are bleeding cash!

      It's not the facts that need checking, it's the lies and exaggerations!

    65. Re:Not a Reuters story by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Have people gone stupid?

      Yes, they have. Especially if they think calling said person and asking them if they're sure they really are who they say they are a 2nd time is a better way of accomplishing that then calling someone else to get independent verification.

    66. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly (based on my inability to see the sarcasm in BitHive's post), I get that Colbert is not a real journalist.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:Not a Reuters story by BitHive · · Score: 1

      lighten up big guy, of course i was joking

    68. Re:Not a Reuters story by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Now get off my lawn and let me ruminate in peace.

      I'm not sure I don't have a few years on you. But I'll respect your lawn anyway, since that's just the type of guy I am.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    69. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, and more importantly, a man who respects the lawn and understands why those damn kids must get off it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    70. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 1

      Oh, I got that, about thirty seconds after I posted. That's what I hate about politics today, it's so outrageous that it is really hard to tell sarcasm from real opinion.

      I was trying to say, you know, since I didn't get your sarcasm, it is a bit surprising that I get Colbert's.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    71. Re:Not a Reuters story by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I learned the lesson the hard way -- rock salt from a shotgun when I was a kid. That's a lesson quite a few younguns could use -- although I deplore the use of violence, I am very tempted sometimes.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    72. Re:Not a Reuters story by spun · · Score: 1

      My goodness. I suspect I may be the one who, being the younger, needs to remove himself from your lawn. Even in the backwoods of West Virginia circa 1975, the year I turned five and was old enough to inhabit lawns on my own, neighbors did not use shotguns with rocksalt. But maybe that's just because people are very polite in WV.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  4. Intercepted TV transmissions by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly the aliens caught a broadcast of Independence Day and thought it was a war game simulation showing our defense strategy. Either that, or they saw Aliens and are worried that, if we ever do find aliens on another planet, we will just nuke them from orbit. Since, of course, it's the only way to be sure.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Intercepted TV transmissions by Bobb9000 · · Score: 1

      Clearly the aliens caught a broadcast of Independence Day and thought it was a war game simulation showing our defense strategy.

      Hmm...if that's the case, the aliens aren't very smart. They should have just taken out Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum from orbit and been done with it.

      And cue the "and nothing of value was lost" in 3...2...1...

      --
      Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
      Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
    2. Re:Intercepted TV transmissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We intercepted no transmissions this is a councilors ship.

    3. Re:Intercepted TV transmissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The line is, "This is a consular ship", not "councilor's ship". Turn in your geek card...

    4. Re:Intercepted TV transmissions by meglon · · Score: 1

      They're waiting for the sequel to see how to successfully counterattack.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:Intercepted TV transmissions by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      Well, if they really watched a transmission, they shouldn't be worrying about the nukes, the RIAA is about to fuck them, without lube.

  5. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our Silently Hovering Overlords.

  6. Correlation by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, one thing I noticed on the reuters article is that many of the witnesses are nuclear missile , as in, they worked closely on or near the nuclear weapons. Isn't there a chance that, considering almost all were in close contact with nuclear weapons, the radiation was screwing with their head? Or, possibly, whatever they use on nuclear missile bases were?

    I'm not discounting the fact that maybe aliens are indeed screwing with nuclear weapons for whatever reason, but it just seems more likely that all these people have something in common, and that commonality is causing them to believe what they saw..

    1. Re:Correlation by WEqR0lDRR6I · · Score: 1

      I prefer the explanation that humanity's mass unconsciousness' collective fear about nuclear weapons forced unexplainable physical anomalies to occur. Aliens are sooo 20th century.

    2. Re:Correlation by jpapon · · Score: 4, Informative
      Working near nuclear missiles doesn't expose you to higher levels of radiation.

      For example, you are actually exposed to less radiation while onboard a US nuclear sub than you would receive on the surface.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:Correlation by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not sure if radiation makes people delusional.

      But let's assume that it does - do you have an explanation for why they have the same delusion?

      [disclaimer: I am employed by the Illuminati as a unicorn trainer]

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Correlation by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't there a chance that, considering almost all were in close contact with nuclear weapons, the radiation was screwing with their head?

      Nuclear radiation isn't known to cause that kind of delusion as far as I know. I think you're onto something with the common factor though; being responsible for a nuclear missile might well cause a lot of people to become paranoid, and perhaps even to imagine some higher power taking the responsibility/functionality away from them.

    5. Re:Correlation by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No.
      Nuclear weapons are not that radio active. Plutonium is far more dangerous because it is a toxic heavy metal than because of it's radiation.
      Also none of these people spent much time at all with the actual weapons.

      More likley a bunch of people that want some money and fame.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Correlation by Lev13than · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't there a chance that, considering almost all were in close contact with nuclear weapons, the radiation was screwing with their head? Or, possibly, whatever they use on nuclear missile bases were?

      It's human nature to see things in the shadows - the logic is hardwired into our brains. Exposure to popular culture makes the shadows look like aliens. No need to look for a radiation-based cause.

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    7. Re:Correlation by AbbyNormal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe something to do with the God Helmet?

      --
      Sig it.
    8. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the explanation that humanity's mass unconsciousness' collective fear about nuclear weapons forced unexplainable physical anomalies to occur

      What if the entire universe is one conscience. So your expression of this occurence is equally my subconscience as your conclusion.

      Further, my reply is for you, as an entity, the recursive confirmation of yourself. So you and I could be the same.

      By proxy, it is you, me, us, and our projection others might fear nuclear weapons which manifests forces disabling it that makes it so.

      Aliens are sooo 20th century.

      Or since the X-files and other Science-fiction opera's, we've been such adapted to the idea it bores us rather as to scare us.

      I suspect they will present themselves any moment now, as people are conditioned and grown to be ok with the idea of otherearthly sentient beings. (compared to the 60s scary spooky doomy SciFi.)

    9. Re:Correlation by dredwerker · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if radiation makes people delusional.

      But let's assume that it does - do you have an explanation for why they have the same delusion?

      [disclaimer: I am employed by the Illuminati as a unicorn trainer]

      The illuminati and unicorn bit made me chuckle out loud :)

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    10. Re:Correlation by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Radiation doesn't really screw with your head. Not to mention the nuclear facilities would be reasonable safe from levels that would harm you in the short term. The worst case scenario is that you would end up with brain cancer and start hallucinating, but by that time you would be so fucked up anyway you probably wouldn't be working at the facility.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    11. Re:Correlation by iamghetto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a major series of incidents at RAF Bentwaters installation (a base in the UK, ran by the US). Numerous people, including the base commander are on record saying that they've seen. Recorded audio of the objects being observed by the tower. Radar pings of the object. Photos of the landed object. Sketches done immediately after the landing.

      I believe their are 13 people from the base who have gone on record speaking about the incidents that happened over a number of days.

      To assume that all military personnel on the base, including the base commander are someone mistaken or crazy seems irrational.

    12. Re:Correlation by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      For example, you are actually exposed to less radiation while onboard a US nuclear sub than you would receive on the surface.

      This is especially true after all the missiles have been launched.

    13. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that or the malfunctions were blamed on aliens since the people did not want to take credit for their horrible handy work?

      "Wait, you mean another one malfunctioned and they said it was aliens. Well, this one had to be aliens as well. There is no way that I did something wrong"

    14. Re:Correlation by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

      It's human nature to see things in the shadows - the logic is hardwired into our brains. Exposure to popular culture makes the shadows look like aliens. No need to look for a radiation-based cause.

      As I like to say fuzzy logic gone awry.
      Fuzzy

    15. Re:Correlation by Jimbookis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been interested in UFOs since I was a kid but have become very incredulous as I have become older. Even when investigating UFO reports for a UFO group I was in demonstrated to me that most people are not very good logical thinkers and also have no idea what they are looking at in the sky and will frame what they see against their own limited experiences. I am currently reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted Worlds - long overdue for me and a highly recommended read. Aliens, if indeed they are visiting the bases, have to be the absolute last resort explanation until all other more earthly possibilities are exhausted. I wonder how hard the guys involved in this book have worked at testing and eliminating all the sensible hypothesis they can come up with before arriving at aliens?

    16. Re:Correlation by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Working near nuclear missiles doesn't expose you to higher levels of radiation.

      That depends on how near to which parts of them.
       

      For example, you are actually exposed to less radiation while onboard a US nuclear sub than you would receive on the surface.

      That's true - so long as you don't spend any time near the reactor compartment or any nuclear weapons that may be onboard. </neitherconfirmnordeny>

      Why yes, I *am* a former SSBN crewman - why do you ask?

    17. Re:Correlation by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Damn aliens, always trying to sap our precious bodily fluids. I don't know about you, but I deny them my essence.

    18. Re:Correlation by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Working near nuclear missiles doesn't expose you to higher levels of radiation.

      That depends on how near to which parts of them.

      For example, you are actually exposed to less radiation while onboard a US nuclear sub than you would receive on the surface.

      That's true - so long as you don't spend any time near the reactor compartment or any nuclear weapons that may be onboard. </neitherconfirmnordeny>

      Why yes, I *am* a former SSBN crewman - why do you ask?

      If you take prototype readings as a proxy for normal ops you probably do get less; since we subtracted background from our TLD readings which resulted in almost zero exposure; since the boat would lack normal background readings and our exposures were extremely low it's not unreasonable to think background would be greater than operational exposure. Of course, teh artilce just confirms teh opinion that most USAF types are crazy anyway - who wants to live in an fixed concrete silo when you could go to sea instead?

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Correlation by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to being stuck in a submerged steel tube for 3-6 months?

    20. Re:Correlation by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Who said little green men are responsible...you? Is that psychological projection working, eh? From the article (it's from Reuters, so don't trust it), it says merely that unknown aerial objects were observed in the vicinity when the malfunctions occurred. Any connection between this and Teh Greys (ZOMG!) are of your invention only and are not supported by anyone. But please go ahead and scream "aliens" whenever you feel.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    21. Re:Correlation by warrior · · Score: 1

      Dan Brown, is that you?

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    22. Re:Correlation by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying someone is controlling their delusions?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    23. Re:Correlation by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1

      Moving targets are harder to hit/locate. Also they serve the best meals aboard submarines.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    24. Re:Correlation by DougF · · Score: 1

      Well, I spent a number of years loading nukes on aircraft and eventually was in charge of a weapons storage area with 80 of those little "Let's make cities and populations glow in the dark" objects.
      I know for a fact I'm not insane, ...oh my, look at the pretty light outside my window...

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
    25. Re:Correlation by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Demon Haunted Worlds" - I second that recommendation! In fact I think it should be compulsory reading for all HS students.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:Correlation by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

      Another pertinent question to ask is, "Who gains by doing this?" Tin-foil hatters always forget that bit. It is possible that the Aliens are up to something, but really, if the Aliens have the tech to come here, they probably have nukes themselves and don't need any help in disabling our defences. So then the question turns into, "Why bother pulling pranks?" There may be lots of answers to that one, but surely there must be more interesting things to do in the galaxy than punk some backwater, pre-stellar world.

      So then you go back to the first question, "Who?" Well, if it even happened at all, it's probably a more terrestrial source. Certain other superpowers might be trying to see what they can get away with. Seems a lot more plausible to me. Hell, it might be the U.S. They might even be trying to see what they can get away with; useful against others.

      --
      Bibo Ergo Sum.
    27. Re:Correlation by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt want to go there, but THAT at least is somewhat plausible, and you dont even need chemicals or MIB.

      Good old fashioned social engineering techniques can cause people to have a shared/similar delusional state.
      (Just look at Fox News...)

    28. Re:Correlation by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      I did 8 years on 637 class fast attacks. Maybe you served on subs as well and had a different experience, but that whole "better meals" thing is a myth. As anyone who ever cranked can tell you (or heck, anybody who ever did a stores load, which is basically everybody), there's not that much storage space and especially not much refrigerated storage space. Meals were OK for the first few weeks, maybe, but they quickly went to crap. We ran out of pretty much everything and had to food ration a couple of times, but those were admittedly extenuating circumstances.

    29. Re:Correlation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't train unicorns. They train you.

      Even in Soviet Russia. That's the power of the unicorn.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    30. Re:Correlation by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

      I am only responding to the headline's assertion that it's aliens - which has the wrong assumption that UFO are other worldly craft.

    31. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but on the surface it's a dry radiation.

    32. Re:Correlation by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To assume that all military personnel on the base, including the base commander are someone mistaken or crazy seems irrational.

      Anyone who doesn't want to believe that some sort of unidentified flying object is buzzing around interfering with our nuclear missiles should try the alternative on for size: The people who are in control of the nuclear missiles are paranoid schizophrenics having delusional episodes while on duty. Somehow, the alien theory seems to be the more comforting alternative.

    33. Re:Correlation by pokechop · · Score: 1

      I'll second that- subs have the best chow.

      --
      xoviquom, ogdeuns
    34. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely wrong.
      The energy of x-rays, gamma rays, and neutrons emitted from beta decay and spontaneous fission of the physics package of nuclear weapons is not detected with any significant efficiency by US Navy dosimetry. Typical doses on missile technicians is 0mRem per quarter.
      The typical doses to nuclear operators and maintenance technicians is 100mRem per year, and with few exceptions does not exceed 350mRem per year. The highest local control levels assessed in the navy are 500mRem, which is less than the new IUPAC average background dose assesment.

      Why yes, I *am* a former manager of dosimetry processing operations on an SSBN - why do you ask?

    35. Re:Correlation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'll second that- subs have the best chow

      In my book, subs are the best chow. Real ones made at the Jersey Shore, not nasty national chain stores, of course.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:Correlation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's true - so long as you don't spend any time near the reactor compartment or any nuclear weapons that may be onboard.

      Alpha and beta are easy enough to shield - so they're leaking gamma?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    37. Re:Correlation by levicivita · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse matters. Water fluoridation is a well known Communist plot.

    38. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll second that- subs have the best chow.

      I assume food has been thawed, frozen, thawed, frozen, stepped on, flashbaked (burnt on the outside, still frozen on the inside) and served w/ a side of weevil infested rice is you prefered meal?

      FTN

    39. Re:Correlation by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      ...the radiation was screwing with their head?

      My grandfather was a nuclear chemist at Oak Ridge National Labratory. He handled plutonium and many other ludicrously toxic radioactive materials for decades. He died at the ripe old age of 97 with all of his mental faculties intact.

      Yes, radiation can be dangerous, but the government does not trifle with it.

    40. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, they could all just be making it all up.

    41. Re:Correlation by sjames · · Score: 1

      Which would make them far from the sort of sober-minded person we want in control of a nuclear weapon!

    42. Re:Correlation by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      But let's assume that it does - do you have an explanation for why they have the same delusion?

      Yup, this is actually a well-documented phenomenon in human psychology. You can do a simple test yourself. Let a group of people briefly witness something, then quickly question them about it. You will get a lot of conflicting reports, even though they saw the same thing. Now do it again, but this time question them all in the same room, so they can hear each other's story. Start with someone who was planted in the group, knows what happened, and is just making stuff up. The rest will quickly start confirming his explanation and will honestly believe that they saw the same thing.

      This mechanism used to have provide a serious evolutionary benefit. When a pack of animals with relatively poor eyesight were hunting, none of them would see the prey clearly all of the time. It was important to be able to quickly build up a composite picture of the environment from the noises that other members of the pack made. The animals that did aggressive filtering of the input for accuracy starved to death. The ones that only did a little bit of checking became the ancestors of humanity. The ones that did none at all became the ancestors of Fox News viewers.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    43. Re:Correlation by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The alternative is that 120 of the people in one of the most stressful jobs in the world (i.e. where you have the potential to be required to kill millions of people and have the responsibility to make sure that this doesn't happen accidentally) have, at some point over the last few decades, had a stress-related hallucination.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation is not like in the movies. None of these guys will turn into the Hulk or Spiderman, nor will they hallucinate similar objects in the sky.

    45. Re:Correlation by einar2 · · Score: 1

      No, radiation is not making you delusional.
      There is an interesting book by Gregori Medwedew, one of the engineers involved in building the reactor of Tchernobyl. He also visited the site during the clean up after the catastrophe. He went so far as entering the reactor building to check what actually went wrong. He describes nothing about delusions but claims that in high radiation zones the air has a metallic scent.

    46. Re:Correlation by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      > For example, you are actually exposed to less radiation while onboard a US nuclear sub than you would receive on the surface.

      Is it true also in the Soviet Russia ?!?

    47. Re:Correlation by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      I thought about that too, at first, but then when I thought about the frequency... not so much.

      --
      Here be signatures
    48. Re:Correlation by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      I'd go further than that and call it Quantum Logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

      Avarages, avarages, avarages...

      --
      Here be signatures
    49. Re:Correlation by meglon · · Score: 1

      The aliens of course...

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    50. Re:Correlation by jambox · · Score: 1

      oh yes clearly there are very many photographs of such.

      Seriously though, I'd love to see a picture of that... do you have one?

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    51. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize UFO doesn't have to mean little green aliens, right? UFO just means it flies and we aren't able to identify the aircraft.

    52. Re:Correlation by gknoy · · Score: 1

      A hallucination of an event which they all claim to have seen? I find it hard to believe that people would all be hallucinating the same thing at the same time.

    53. Re:Correlation by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's an improvement? People with their fingers on the button having fear based hallucinations? What if they had seen Soviet invaders or convinced themselves they were GO for launch?

    54. Re:Correlation by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes. Let me tell you, I would feel SO much better if it's just super secret Chinese aircraft using super advanced propulsion and stealth disabling our nukes!

      Really, there isn't a plausible (or implausible) scenario where this looks like everything is and was just fine.

    55. Re:Correlation by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      Hell, it might be the U.S. They might even be trying to see what they can get away with; useful against others.

      That would be my first guess. Not every random Lt. Col. is going to be privy to every test and experiment being conducted. Perhaps the USAF was just checking to see what sort of RFI the nukes might be vulnerable to?

  7. Obligatory by koterica · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one.... crap.

    1. Re:Obligatory by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I did too, about an hour and a half ago. Damn jalapenos.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    2. Re:Obligatory by WillDraven · · Score: 4, Funny

      I haven't yet, but think I've got one coming up in the next half hour.

      Wait, I thought we were supposed to be doing this on Twitter not Slashdot....?

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Obligatory by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      A ring of fire?

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  8. Don't Eat That! by ep32g79 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get the foil out guys, it's gonna be a long night.

    1. Re:Don't Eat That! by NReitzel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Be very careful. Aluminium foil will not work effectively. On needs genuine tin foil to be safe.

      --

      Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    2. Re:Don't Eat That! by Renraku · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I, for one, am interested in hearing what they have to say. Sure, it'll probably turn out to be something simple, but what if it really IS UFOs? We can't disregard every crazy-sounding theory.

      Remember, the earth isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, AND things smaller than they eye can see actually exist.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Don't Eat That! by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Cookware will work in a pinch thou.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    4. Re:Don't Eat That! by spun · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am interested in hearing what they have to say. Sure, it'll probably turn out to be something simple, but what if it really IS UFOs? We can't disregard every crazy-sounding theory.

      Remember, the earth isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, AND things smaller than they eye can see actually exist.

      But how do you know that? Are you a wizard?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Don't Eat That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to build a proper Faraday cage (the intent of a tinfoil hat), you would need to encase your entire brain in foil. The only way to do this while your brain is still in your body is to craft a tinfoil suit for yourself.

    6. Re:Don't Eat That! by jpapon · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's why I have a giant wok in my kitchen, made from solid iron.

      I know what you're thinking - "But J, wouldn't a copper pot work better due to better conductivity and therefore shallower skin depth?" Yes, of course it would... but you just can't beat the snazzy style of a wok hat.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    7. Re:Don't Eat That! by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      We can't disregard every crazy-sounding theory.

      So we pick and choose which crazy-sounding theories to disregard and which crazy theories to investigate. How do we distinguish? Hint: if it's about aliens, Big Foot, or ESP, it goes on the bottom of a very large pile.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    8. Re:Don't Eat That! by jpapon · · Score: 1
      We don't need to disregard what they say, it's just that such outlandish claims require careful analysis. Until they show us their "proof" is, all they're doing is drumming up PR for some crackpot's book.

      That, and giving us some excellent fodder for fun /. threads.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    9. Re:Don't Eat That! by careysub · · Score: 1

      Be very careful. Aluminium foil will not work effectively. On needs genuine tin foil to be safe.

      Ooo! Ooo! You're right! Tin foil! Only true tin foil will protect! But where can you get genuine CERTIFIED tin foil?

      I see a market dying to be served! Open a business to supply pure tin foil to provide the maximum amount of protection, with an embossed certificate of purity -- call the business "Tinline". There is this really gifted pitch man on this cable news network I've seen who is currently working with Goldline, I'll bet he would be more than happy to add Tinline to his marketing spiel - he has already cultivated an audience who will understand the value of Tinline Pure Tinfoil Protection (TM).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Don't Eat That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tinfoil suit for your house?

    11. Re:Don't Eat That! by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      I just want to know what fucking insane politician allowed them to use the congressional offices to hold their "expose".

    12. Re:Don't Eat That! by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Don't be ridiculous! Everybody knows that the savvy consumer goes for Copperwork's Proactive Copperfoil Defense (TM).

      And now, here to fill you in on the merits of our exclusive Copper Electro-Insulating Technology (TM), the ghost of Billy Mays!

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    13. Re:Don't Eat That! by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Probably the ghost of Ted Stevens.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    14. Re:Don't Eat That! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      I prefer lead foil.

    15. Re:Don't Eat That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UFOs are real. The Air Force doesn't exist.

    16. Re:Don't Eat That! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "UFO" merely means "unidentified". If the Air Force is doing its job, there should always have been plenty of "UFOs" that the public have no idea about.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:Don't Eat That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't identify it, it is a UFO.
      Of course we shouldn't disregard every crazy-sounding "theory" (really you should have said "claim"). Claims that have evidence should be examined. No one has any good evidence to think they are space aliens.

      I think they are ghosts of giant turtles. I have no evidence to this claim but you better not disregard it.

    18. Re:Don't Eat That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if it really IS UFOs? That doesn't mean it's aliens. If UFO automatically = alien in your mind, then you're not in touch with likely reality.

    19. Re:Don't Eat That! by adamchou · · Score: 1

      If it was a story about UFO's flying by other aircraft or spotted in some war zone, I might believe these military personnel. But, these guys are claiming that they're visiting US nuclear weapon silos and possibly even venturing in there? Even if some UFO is able to fly up to one, I highly doubt that the military personnel are just going to sit around and gawk in amazement. I'm pretty sure jets are scrambling and bullets are flying. This sounds like total bullshit to me.

    20. Re:Don't Eat That! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Aliens and ESP I can see doing that with, but Bigfoot's major "objection" from the scientific community is along the lines of "If an ape that big lived out there, we would have found it by now."

      I call hubris for several reasons:

      1) Large macro-species are discovered all the time in remote locations; Northern Territories has a population density of below 1 person per 10 miles, and is inhospitable to modern transit. Thus "remote." Not that long ago a large "Dog sized" rat was discovered in Papua New Guinea.

      2) It is silly to presume that other homnids besides early modern humans failed to cross the migratory passageway from Asia to the north american contintent, while humans did. (Hell, horses, dromedaries, and others did too, finding their way all the way to south america.)

      3) "Esteemed Scientists" said the same thing about the then "Apochryphal" "Orangutan", or "Old man of the forest." Now just about every zoo has one. For a very long time (in the era of the 20s, or there abouts) it was equal "Crackpottery" to go looking for Orangutans as it is to look for "Bigfoot" now.

      Given the track record, I refuse to rule out the potential for a large ape species that would fit the physical description of "bigfoot", just because somebody with a PHD has an opinion about him/herself, and their abilities.

      Now, if you pose an argument like "There is insufficient nutritional sources to support a large hominid of that description in the area, making their being there undiscovered unlikely", that I would go for, since it makes a rational case for being skeptical. The "We would have found it by now" rhetoric does not, and expects us to accept on faith, rather than reason. That's why I reject it. It is similarly why I reject the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that the earth is the center of the universe.

      Parent has the right idea.

    21. Re:Don't Eat That! by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll make my standard, flamewar-ish response to those three points. 1) Maybe as big as a chihuahua. And with a lot of ground cover. But you're right---there likely are a lot of species that haven't been discovered yet that aren't bugs and microbes. 2) Well, the Neaderthals, to our best knowledge, were already dead, and the hobbits from Indonesia aren't exactly Bigfoot. It's hardly a silly notion--the evidence we have indicates that it didn't happen. 3) Zoos started breeding orangutans in the 1920s, but there had been orangutans in captivity, in the West, for quite some time by then. In any case, I'll admit that the Bigfoot claims aren't as preposterous as government conspiracies about flying saucers and mind-reading---they're at least plausible, if ill-conceived.

      And there's nothing wrong with the "we would have found it" argument, not when so many dedicated people have been looking. Montana isn't exactly the Amazon. I was looking for my scientific calculator a few days ago, I was sure that it was in my living room, so I looked around for about fifteen minutes and didn't find it. So I reasonably concluded that it was actually somewhere else.

      The difference between myself and the cryptozoologist is that the cryptozoologist concludes that the calculator must just be really good at hiding from people who are looking for calculators, and starts looking for clues that may lead to the ultimate discovery of the calculator in my living room. Since the existence of Bigfoot can be verified, but never falsified, they keep on going no matter how bleak the prospects. The argument: who knows? The calculator might be under the futon or something.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    22. Re:Don't Eat That! by put_it_down · · Score: 0

      Had to go smoke a cigarette after reading that.

    23. Re:Don't Eat That! by meglon · · Score: 1

      Another part of that "we would have found it by now" argument is that we're not looking for one creature, we're looking for a significantly large population of the creatures that would be able to sustain it's population (genetically that's 5-10 thousand?) for a very, very long time.... and inhabit a multitude of of far reaching areas (so a significant number of areas, throughout the world, with populations of 5-10 thousand each). And it's not like Bigfoot is claimed to be dog-sized; it's claimed to be larger than a human.

      And yet, we have found no evidence.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    24. Re:Don't Eat That! by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      (looks both ways) ...and you'll notice that THEY'VE made it much, much harder to find authentic tinfoil in the grocery store anymore?

      --
      -Styopa
    25. Re:Don't Eat That! by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      "UFO" merely means "unidentified"

      And "flying". And "object".

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    26. Re:Don't Eat That! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      1) Note the quotes around "Dog sized"-- ;) (It was a poorly performed jab at the media, who spun it as that large.)

      2) Hominids as a class cover more than just H Erectus, Cro-magnon, and pals; It also covers other apes, like the asian mountain gorrilas, (which is where the presumed "yeti" comes from, since gorillas do exhibit hair coloration adaptation in northern/mountainous areas of their asian habitats.) The migratory passageway existed a LONG time ago, plenty of time for micro-adaptation for such an itinerant species. Note, I said a large ape that meets the description of bigfoot in my prior post, not "Bigfoot."

      3) Who said anything about Montana? Last I checked I was talking about Canada. (Namely Alberta , Brittish Columbia, and the Northwest Territories provinces. There have been several sightings there, as well as a blood sample collected from a trap placed near a summer cabin near Snellgrove lake. (It's mtDNA was sequenced by Dr. Curt Nelson (University of Minnesota, PhD), Guess what, it WASN'T a bear. Skin and hair samples were also collected in the same sample. Sample size was too small (statistically) for a paper. (only a single source was obtained.)) These locations are less hospitable to having weekend "researchers" stumble around like bull elephants, and are substantially less populated by humans than other sightings areas. (The number of "Sightings" in the US increases as a factor of the increase in total population, and has more to do with the number of eyes looking for what they want to see than what is actually there; EG, There wont be sightings in places where people dont live or go, because nobody is there to see them.)

      Also, concerning calculators and searching; Your "typical" cryptozologist is operating on a minimalist budget, since they most frequently have a need for a day job. That means that their "Searches" are usually restricted to areas that are at least reasonably accessible by modern transportation, within your typical 1 week vacation time; such as highways. As pointed out, the population density of the Northern Territories is LESS than 1 person per 10 square miles, AND unfriendly to modern transportation. (Helicopter blades freeze up, roads become impassible, etc.) It is less about ruling out "Living room" so much as it is ruling out "Top shelf of walk-in closet", or "At my friend's house", and citing that you peeked up there and didnt see it, or that you looked in your friend's living room and concluded that it wasn't in his house. Or, if you insist on staying in the living room-- Its like saying you looked on the coffee table and didnt find it, so it must not be in the living room.

    27. Re:Don't Eat That! by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      No, we are a rich enough country that having, say, one trained anthropologist paid to examine Big Foot data using actual scientific methods is a fairly cheap social investment with a low probability, high potential reward if one is actually found.

    28. Re:Don't Eat That! by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      So my copper wok is the best of both worlds?

  9. Why think aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If (and it's a big if, I don't believe them) these people are telling the truth about something interfering with nuclear weapons from a nearby aircraft, why think aliens? Why not $STATE_ENEMY_OF_CHOICE?

    1. Re:Why think aliens by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If (and it's a big if, I don't believe them) these people are telling the truth about something interfering with nuclear weapons from a nearby aircraft, why think aliens? Why not $STATE_ENEMY_OF_CHOICE?

      Maybe because they're not in denial.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  10. Umm by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Captain Salas notes, "The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it."

    This isn't news until they present their supposed "proof".

    I get that we want to think that military officers are supposed to be more reliable than your average Joe Schmuckatellii, but come on.

    I don't care who you are, if you can't show proof, I'm not gonna believe you. I mean, I don't believe what the pope says, and he has billions of people who think he's reliable.

    --
    -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    1. Re:Umm by wcrowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get that we want to think that military officers are supposed to be more reliable than your average Joe Schmuckatellii, but come on.

      No kidding. From my experience, military officers are just as prone to kookiness, chicanery, and mental illness as anyone else. L. Ron Hubbard is a notable example.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    2. Re:Umm by guyminuslife · · Score: 1
      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    3. Re:Umm by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I don't care who you are, if you can't show proof, I'm not gonna believe you.

      I'm disregarding your statement until I have proof of its veracity...

    4. Re:Umm by feidaykin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I get that we want to think that military officers are supposed to be more reliable than your average Joe Schmuckatellii, but come on.

      Everyone thinks that because it sounds like a "common sense" notion, right? But guess what actual, scientific studies on the subject of eyewitness testimony has shown? The answer: It does not matter who you are or what you do for a living, your brain is subject to the same logical fallacies as anyone else, and eyewitness testimony from air force pilots is statistically on equal footing as the testimony from cab drivers.

      Here's a big problem that comes from interviewing eyewitnesses. If you interview them more than once, you get more data. However that data is almost always unintentionally fabricated. The human mind likes to subconsciously add details that fit a particular cognitive narrative. For example, say you witness a flock of geese but are convinced they are alien spacecraft. Your mind will then add subtle details to your recollections in an effort to more closely fit that narrative.

      And herein lies the problem with most UFO "researchers" when it comes to eyewitness testimony. They do not attempt to filter out the cognitive bias at all. The typical "research" consists of 1) listen to fantastic story of UFO sighting and 2) believe story. That's not research.

      UFO proponents always gripe that science doesn't take UFOs seriously, but that's exactly what the scientific community does when it applies harsh critiques to eyewitness testimony. Should we not apply the same techniques to filter out unreliable eyewitness accounts that we apply to aircraft accidents or murder trials? So really, when the UFO crowd says science isn't taking it seriously, what they mean is, we're applying too harsh a standard - a scientific standard - to their fantasies. They would rather we lower the bar so that speculation, supposition and circular reasoning all substitute for real science.

      In the 50 odd years since modern UFO proponents have been trying to prove their case they have come no closer to proving anything. In that same time human beings have landed men on the Moon, remotely explored the outer solar system, and unraveled the history of the universe to its infant stages. And it didn't require a lower standard of proof to do any of those things. So why apply it to UFOs?

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    5. Re:Umm by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ever seen the press conference by Disclosure Project? Ignore the actor (don't think I've ever even seen him before) introducing at the beginning. I think it's the first witness, who was a high ranking FAA official, who at the end of his testimony hauls out two or three really good pieces of evidence for anyone to go over, right there at the podium. Radar tapes, audio transcripts, etc. Nice stuff. http://www.youtube.com/user/csetiweb#p/a/u/0/lkswXVmG4xM

    6. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the pope rides in the popemobile is proof that he doe not have enough faith in his god. He is supposed to be his gods representative on Earth, and does not have enough faith that his god will use his magic to keep him from being assassinated. And before you go on about how it would be the (christian) devil's work, christians say that their god is all powerful, so that logic does not hold water.

      If the pope does not even have enough beleif in his god, then how are other catholics supposed to believe anything he says regarding said god.

    7. Re: Umm by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      L. Ron Hubbard is a notable example.

      And he was an Admiral!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:Umm by sjames · · Score: 1

      Including the ones who have their fingers on "the button"!

    9. Re: Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No I don't believe he was. His military career was pretty much substandard and he never rose very high in the ranks. He was as much a douche then as he ever was, but as usual the Church of Scientology would have you believe anything but the truth:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard

    10. Re: Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he was, he was head of the Admiralty, he just had to create his own navy first, the Sea Org. Which reminds me, does any other 'church' out there have its own navy?

    11. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sorry but your theory is incorrect. While statistically it might be the same in the real world its not. A pilot for example would be a more credible witness than a taxi cab driver involving something in the sky because thats what they do for a living. They know what is normal and what is not normal in that field.

    12. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally i would think it would be much easier to get a bunch of military people to tell the same lie in concert than another group of people. This would be a REAL argument against this story being reliable. What you present is not.

      When it comes to eyewitness testimony, if you attempt too much to "filter out the cognitive bias", what you are left with is nothing. No statement at all. You did not observe these people that you call researchers-in-quotes while they did their job, you are just assuming, or lying. No, you did not observe all of them, nobody did. So your whole "that's not research" is just rubbish.

      When it comes to why these things are never "proven", the rumor is that such proofs are being repressed by governments. I am not going to second guess why they would want to do this, and neither should you. The question is not whether we can guess their reasons, sometimes people have reasons that are hard to figure out. The possibility they are doing this is still there. If governments are oppressing these news, any proof given will be "discredited" by any means possible. And really, it seems that sometimes they don't even bother to do a proper coverup. When you hear people "actually saw swamp gas", you have to be extremely gullible to accept the official story.

      As for your last paragraph, just because some things can be achieved with this "standard", it does not mean that all things can. The fact you cannot use this "standard" does not prove it is not real. Also I question whether you actually did this.

      If you look at for example crop circles... They are not proof of any one simple theory. But the sheer size of the things suggest a few drunken irishmen with a stick did not make them. It has not been shown how someone could do the really big ones with simple tools like that. And there are so many of them, and they have been around for too long for it to seem meaningful that men have been making them. Why would men be making crop circles several hundred years ago ? The way I see it, the proof that "something is being covered up or something is being manufactured by someone very powerful" is there, if you only care to look. The current trend is that being "scientific" is to ignore all such proof and follow the herd, citing rather silly statements from others that "oh this entire group of people were part of the same mass hallucination". This just does not happen.

      There is however another explanation, and that is a big governent operation. Maybe those guys want us to believe there are aliens out there. They could definitely put on a big show for us in one way of the other. But that would be the only group that could. So either way there seems to be a government conspiracy here. Either they cover up the "aliens made them" story, or they are making them themselves.

      Yes, I said conspiracy. So now I must be a nut, cause conspiracies don't exist right ? We know there are loads of people willing to take part in conspiracies, we know there are loads of people having the means to pull them off, and we know there are things like military grade nondisclosure agreements that would effectively make people shut up about the things. But of course they don't exist, cause then we would have proof right ? With this high standard that got us to the moon right ?

    13. Re:Umm by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Captain Salas notes, "The U.S. Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it."

      This isn't news until they present their supposed "proof".

      If you'd made it to the second page, you might have noted that this is to take place on Monday. This is an announcement of the press conference, containing the topic, who will be presenting, who will be permitted, and when it will take place.

      But don't let me stop you from doubting it before you've seen it. :)

    14. Re:Umm by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      eyewitness testimony from air force pilots is statistically on equal footing as the testimony from cab drivers.

      Actually it's quite a bit worse than that. Pilots, military pilots even more so, are trained to make the most worrying assumptions possible. Strange noise coming from engine 1 doesn't mean engine 1 needs a tune up, it means engine 1 is going to fail and you should take immediate action to mitigate that. Bright light in the sky isn't Venus, it's a hostile aircraft (and there are optical illusions that can cause even 100% stable celestial objects to appear to zip about the sky when you're flying an aircraft).

      Now take the same vigilance and paranoia and crank it up to 11, these people guard the most powerful weapons humanity has ever produced. I'd be willing to bet that they get weekly briefings on how important their job is and how crucial it is to guard those weapons from all enemies. Given a constant state of vigilance, a constantly reinforced sense of danger and importance, it isn't surprising that they might see things that in other circumstances would be brushed off with a perfectly normal explanation.

    15. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah! because everything true always has proper evidence.

    16. Re:Umm by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      It does not matter who you are or what you do for a living, your brain is subject to the same logical fallacies as anyone else, and eyewitness testimony from air force pilots is statistically on equal footing as the testimony from cab drivers.

      Yeah, there's a reason why logicians call that fallacy an argument from (or appeal to) authority. We should always remember that even the brightest among us are fallible, yet when we reason using authoritative sources, we generally do not.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
  11. Doubtful by acalltoreason · · Score: 0

    Seriously? This is ridiculous. While I'm sure aliens exist somewhere light years away. 2 things come to mind. 1 Why the hell do we feel so important that other species would want to come and bother us and 2 its probably some terrestrial experiment, probably designed to destroy nukes.

    --
    Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
    1. Re:Doubtful by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Seriously? This is ridiculous. While I'm sure aliens exist somewhere light years away. 2 things come to mind. 1 Why the hell do we feel so important that other species would want to come and bother us and 2 its probably some terrestrial experiment, probably designed to destroy nukes.

      Your assumptions are hopelessly under-informed. Smarter people than you have asked those obvious questions and have spent years hunting through the paper work to determine their answers.

      You could do very well for yourself by looking at the results of their research so that you don't have to do the big hunt on your own.

      Don't feel too bad; 90% of the eye-rollingly silly remarks made here are just as ill-informed. It seems to be a common fall-back position when new information is made available which upsets the orthodoxy. People grasp.

      -FL

    2. Re:Doubtful by acalltoreason · · Score: 0

      Yes I am sure they have. All I was doing was making a point while in the middle of my class on the Sociology of Deviant Behavior so I apologize that it was not up to your high standards. But just a hint, when posting try not to sound like a pompous ass. Just for your information, I am a member of Mensa.

      --
      Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
    3. Re:Doubtful by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Yes I am sure they have. All I was doing was making a point while in the middle of my class on the Sociology of Deviant Behavior so I apologize that it was not up to your high standards. But just a hint, when posting try not to sound like a pompous ass. Just for your information, I am a member of Mensa.

      You were writing with dismissive arrogance on a subject you didn't know anything about and I was responding appropriately. Actually, I was being quite nice about it, given the social norms of this forum.

      I would ask, "Why are people so easily offended when it is pointed out that they don't know something?" but I already know the answer. -And it's many times worse when you happen to be crammed among high IQs competing for the little scraps of love and respect handed down to the smartest kids in class.

      -FL

    4. Re:Doubtful by acalltoreason · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with the fact that I don't know something, in fact I have no problem admitting I don't know something. What I was saying, if you bothered to think about my post instead of immediately looking for what is wrong with it, is if you apply occam's razor, chances are it isn't aliens.

      --
      Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
  12. Aha! by peacefinder · · Score: 1

    Now THIS is the right article for trying the robotic overlord RSS reader for the first time.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  13. Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Fascinating how the aliens only seem to infest US Chair Force nuclear weapons sites and personnel... But not Navy or Army sites and personnel.

    1. Re:Interesting by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Hard to get a UAV under the ocean, and we just haven't heard the reports of the bunker hovering UAVs over Navy and Army depots.

    2. Re:Interesting by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Army has an nukes anymore. All their nuclear capable systems where retired a while ago.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The article discusses alien intervention "running back to the 1940's", and the Navy certainly still has nukes... Even though they've given up most of them, there's still the missile facilities at Bangor and King's Bay.

    4. Re:Interesting by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. But frankly I just think these are some guys trying to make a buck.
      The nukes in the navy now are at sub bases. The folks on subs are nuts to start with. If Aliens did show up at a sub base crewmen would ask them out for drinks and still not say a word about it. Unless they could shock them.
      I had a friend that was a nuke that went back to college. He was just batty. Went to an air show and there was a Lamps crew there. He went up and asked what their active detection range was on a Sturgeon class boat in from the front aspect. They about had a fit cow.
      Of course I messed with a guy at work that was just out of the Army and was a Sigint guy.
      I used the names of classified satellites as server names and passwords. Get I was out of clearance but he wasn't.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. But frankly I just think these are some guys trying to make a buck.

      Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that your objection didn't quite hold water.
       

      The nukes in the navy now are at sub bases. The folks on subs are nuts to start with. If Aliens did show up at a sub base crewmen would ask them out for drinks and still not say a word about it. Unless they could shock them.

      You do know you're talking to a former sub crewman? :) :)

    6. Re:Interesting by nsaspook · · Score: 1

      Fascinating how the aliens only seem to infest US Chair Force nuclear weapons sites and personnel... But not Navy or Army sites and personnel.

      --
      In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    7. Re:Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      You forgot an actual reply... :)

    8. Re:Interesting by nsaspook · · Score: 1

      You forgot an actual reply... :)

      I know, self-censored.
      Some things are better left unsaid anyway.

      --
      In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    9. Re:Interesting by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And Am I right?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. :)

    11. Re:Interesting by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea my friend was a nut case.
      He left and was a nuke.
      He built a schematic of his ships reactor an propulsion system out of dried pasta because he wanted a piece of macaroni art that was classified.
      He also built a six foot long model of the F-14 from balsa. Including drawing the plans for it.
      Nice guy but a little odd.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:Interesting by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Normal people don't volunteer to climb into a sewer pipe built by the lowest bidder and deliberately sink... :) :)

    13. Re:Interesting by FrankHS · · Score: 1

      We in the army were taking LSD a lot during the long, boring guard duty. So when we saw thing hovering in the sky, we just figured it was part of the trip.

      Yes, I do know this from personal experience!

  14. NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by macfanboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Of course UFOs are real - people see Unidentified Flying Objects all the time.

        That doesn't mean that the UFOs are aliens, or anything else, just that they are Unidentified Flying Objects.

        That aside, why would alien spacecraft be hovering around missile bases making missiles malfunction? Don't they better things to do, like abducting hillbillies, dissecting cattle, or making mysterious circles in farmer's fields? Don't the heads of the Homo Sap Studies Department know that those wild joyriding xenobiology students could get shot down? Might have a bad effect on the next orbit's departmental budget...

      SB

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given your username I'm already inclined not to believe you.

    3. Re:NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by thenextstevejobs · · Score: 3, Informative
      Nonsense is present on that page according to Buzz Aldrin's wiki page:

      In 2005, while being interviewed for a documentary titled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, Aldrin told an interviewer that they saw an unidentified flying object. Aldrin told David Morrison, an NAI Senior Scientist, that the documentary cut the crew's conclusion that they were probably seeing one of four detached spacecraft adapter panels. Their S-IVB upper stage was 6,000 miles away, but the four panels were jettisoned before the S-IVB made its separation maneuver so they would closely follow the Apollo 11 spacecraft until its first midcourse correction.[36] When Aldrin appeared on The Howard Stern Show on August 15, 2007, Stern asked him about the supposed UFO sighting. Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.[37][38][39]

      --
      Long live the BSD license
    4. Re:NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what Aldrin says, but what about Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell who both speak a lot more clearly about these things?

    5. Re:NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Of course UFOs are real. Do you really think we are able to identify every flying object?

      Guess what, unexplained phenomena exist too

  15. Yeah, or... by Rijnzael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not saying I believe the premise of this submission, as it seems pretty far fetched, but...

    Say I want to verify that some anti-nuke weapon system can disable nuclear weapons. Say I've tested it to every extent possible, and now I want to verify its effectiveness against real weapon systems. Do you test it against the enemy and risk an actual nuclear war? Nope, you test it on your own weapons. The US has plenty, so one or two missiles at a time being disabled isn't going to be much of a tactical disadvantage, and it could be well planned in advance such that a real nuclear launch is impossible (by placing "real deal" missiles into silos, while subtracting the fissile material) in the case of malfunction as a result of your anti-nuke weapon system.

    Unlikely, sure. But much more likely than the combination of aliens having made contact with Earth, the government having kept it from us, and the aliens having an interest in our nuclear weapon systems, as presumably species which can travel such distances would already have the tech to wipe us away and then some.

    1. Re:Yeah, or... by jpapon · · Score: 1
      Maybe they just want to come down and have tea. They just want to make sure we don't get the wrong idea and start shooting nukes at them.

      Or even better, maybe they've contacted nuclear civilizations on other planets, only to have the people panic and start shooting the nukes at eachother! Maybe they're trying to protect us!

      Either way, I guess I better grab my shovel and start digging my bunker.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    2. Re:Yeah, or... by magarity · · Score: 1

      Do you test it against the enemy and risk an actual nuclear war?
       
      You only run that risk if the enemy can trace it back to you. Unless there's a "USAF" label on the thing then the source is hard to locate if you can't track its flight.

    3. Re:Yeah, or... by Lundse · · Score: 1

      Not that I find the theory particularly convincing, but for the sake of argument...

      If you did have a gizmo that disabled nuclear missiles, you wouldn't want to advertise that fact to anyone before you were ready and sure it worked, could be replicated, you had enough, etc. And if some missile fails somewhere, suspicion is going to fall on the big nations, leading to increasing spying (that might work, without labelling the thing USAF), international tension, what have you.

      The main thing wrong with this theory is; why test it in secret? Why expose personnel who have not been cleared at the highest level to any part of the testing procedure. And testing whether you can stop fission, activation, guidance, or whatever in no way necessitates a test where some fraction of the personnel is not "in on it"...

      --
      IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
    4. Re:Yeah, or... by greenguy · · Score: 1

      See, I didn't assume these hypothetical aliens were worried about us destroying them. I assumed they were trying to prevent us from destroying ourselves.

      It's also (hypothetically) possible these are humans from the future trying to ensure their own existence by avoiding some catastrophe.

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
    5. Re:Yeah, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, all of these are premises that run pretty thin. But, aliens already being here is an explanation of the weaknesses of the Fermi Paradox, it's just hard to fathom that anyone could keep it secret. So the answer there would have to be, if there are aliens here, world governments couldn't know (someone would leak that info.)

      The other, just as thinly rationalized, theories suck too, but the easiest one is the ostrich theory: Believe Fermi was right and there are no aliens we'll ever be able to talk to.

    6. Re:Yeah, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooOoOOo what if.. the aliens are testing anti nuke technology on us to ensure that when they DO invade us that we have nothing to fight back with?

    7. Re:Yeah, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I find the theory particularly convincing, but for the sake of argument...

      If you did have a gizmo that disabled nuclear missiles, you wouldn't want to advertise that fact to anyone before you were ready and sure it worked, could be replicated, you had enough, etc.

      In fact, the deployment of such a system would be illegal under current ABM treaties. So, the risk would be even higher.

    8. Re:Yeah, or... by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Say I want to verify that some anti-nuke weapon system can disable nuclear weapons. Say I've tested it to every extent possible, and now I want to verify its effectiveness against real weapon systems. Do you test it against the enemy and risk an actual nuclear war? Nope, you test it on your own weapons. The US has plenty, so one or two missiles at a time being disabled isn't going to be much of a tactical disadvantage

      Your theory is trivially falsified, or at least cast into severe doubt, by the fact that at least one of the 'interventions' took place in the UK and involved what were almost certainly storage sites for gravity bombs.

      Next, you have to consider that if the US *did* have such a device - they almost certainly wouldn't test it against deployed operational missiles. They'd use the silos at Vandenberg. (And the control centers would be manned by handpicked personnel rather than random joes in either case.) Not to mention is it completely against the rules to play games with 'live' weapons.

    9. Re:Yeah, or... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Actually that is an interesting idea. It would at least explain why they would only target a handful of missiles instead of all of them at once or at least a large number. So then it just goes back to how implausible the whole idea of aliens being here actually is.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    10. Re:Yeah, or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that was my thoughts. Not Alien. USAF.

    11. Re:Yeah, or... by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      In some cases it makes sense to run tests with "random Joe's" as opposed to personnel that have been read into what is going on so you can see how they react to an unknown situation. One of the better ways to judge operational effectiveness.

    12. Re:Yeah, or... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In some cases it makes sense to run tests with "random Joe's" as opposed to personnel that have been read into what is going on so you can see how they react to an unknown situation.

      This wouldn't be one of those cases - as the procedures for dealing with a failed weapon are well known, well trained, well tested, etc., etc..
       

      One of the better ways to judge operational effectiveness.

      Not without extensive debriefing of the "random joe's" afterwards - which has the side effect of tipping them off to the fact that Something Was Up.

    13. Re:Yeah, or... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just want to come down and have tea

      If they land in the USA, the best they're like to get is something that is almost, but not quite, exactly unlike tea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Yeah, or... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      From an anthropological point of view, those weapons are the single greatest thing invented, in terms of their impact on human culture.

      Why would an outsider NOT be interested in them??

      Especially if they hadn't ever had that particular flash of innovation before? It could well be like chocolate to Cortez. Nothing beyond their current capabilities, yet still novel enough to inspire great enthusiasm about it.

  16. Precious bodily fluids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me thinks someone may not have had enough water but too much whiskey.

  17. credible disclosure by irving47 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    roll your eyes and mock all you want, but don't forget that a lot of these guys had Top Secret SCI clearances they don't exactly hand out to every random Jethro.
    There was a Disclosure Project event at the National Press Club in early 2001 that had well over a hundred witnesses that were pilots, former military officers, etc... that were willing to break their oaths and testify in front of congress if called about these events.
    Some people think 9/11 was a reaction/distraction. I'm NOT going that far, but it still makes me wonder.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:credible disclosure by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, we don't know the true credentials of any of these guys. I mean they claim to have held the positions they held, but who really knows?

      And basically, if you're clean cut, reliable, and do not have a criminal record, a top secret clearance is not that hard to get. I know a guy right now who had a top secret clearance, and I wouldn't trust him further than I could toss him. Within the context of military secrets, he could probably be relied upon, but outside of that, he's a shyster through and through.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    2. Re:credible disclosure by irving47 · · Score: 1

      True enough but don't forget there is a big difference between Secret and Top Secret SCI. Most people do just kind of merge the two together... Plus, we're talking about over a hundred of these guys.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    3. Re:credible disclosure by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, there are 2,455,837 "total" military personnel in the USA. Do you find it as statistically interesting when phrased like this: "0.4% of the military was willing to break their oaths and testify in front of congress"?

      The interest the government has in granting security clearances is in whether or not you can be bought or blackmailed, not whether or not you are rational or follow orders perfectly. Furthermore, being told not to talk about something doesn't necessarily constitute an oath. Does it seem far-fetched that a superior officer would tell a subordinate not to talk about a weird hallucination they had? Would that not jive better with suppression and accusation of destroyed evidence, which probably never existed in the first place?

      In any event, what would make these stories more compelling is greater detail and internal consistency. The vague stuff we get in PR dispatches like this intentionally leave out a lot of the detail, both to make it creepier and to hide inconsistencies between different reports.

    4. Re:credible disclosure by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I went to school with a few kids that have Top Secret security clearances now. I know it's a personal anecdote, but I wouldn't trust a couple of those kids to successfully identify their head from their ass. Don't get me wrong, each one was absolutely genius at whatever particular interest/field they worked in. They were not able to be classified as socially normal, non-paranoid, or generally sane individuals by most folk however. One of the things that gets you a Top Secret clearance fast is having a very strong intellect and being capable of actually working hard. One of the negative side effects of working hard and having a very strong intellect is that you tend to be under a lot of stress and pressure. Years of constant stress and pressure can have an effect on a person's mental health.

      I'm not saying all these folks were total wackos. I will say, however, that enough of them were extremely eccentric in their own manner that I could easily see them making a mistake in observation and blowing it way out of proportion without thinking twice. That's just been my experience though.

    5. Re:credible disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will they provide any physical proofs to back their claims? No? Well, then their words are without any weight as it becomes a matter of (religious) belief, and doesn't belong anywhere near a sane conversation or science.

    6. Re:credible disclosure by Corbets · · Score: 1

      roll your eyes and mock all you want, but don't forget that a lot of these guys had Top Secret SCI clearances they don't exactly hand out to every random Jethro.
      There was a Disclosure Project event at the National Press Club in early 2001 that had well over a hundred witnesses that were pilots, former military officers, etc... that were willing to break their oaths and testify in front of congress if called about these events.

      But if people are willing to break their sworn oath to secrecy for the purpose of releasing a book, how can you trust their word anyway? I'll go back to mocking and rolling my eyes, thanks.

    7. Re:credible disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roll your eyes and mock all you want, but don't forget that a lot of these guys had Top Secret SCI clearances they don't exactly hand out to every random Jethro.

      I do have a TS/SCI. Please reference the username above.

    8. Re:credible disclosure by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      Plus, we're talking about over a hundred of these guys.

      Well, the article is misleading. Actually there will only be six people at the meeting.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    9. Re:credible disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. They hand those out for honesty, not for having particularly good perception or logic.

  18. Hopefully they have a UFO expert speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    basically an expert at being unable to identify something

  19. You wish. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose Slashdot has its xenophiles.

  20. gort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That picture of Gort made me laugh.

  21. Wessels! by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    Can you direct me to your nearest nulear wessel?

    w-e-s-s-e-l nuclear wessel.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  22. Keep in mind... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a PRESS RELEASE at this point. It's not a news article. I don't know Reuter's policy in picking up press releases, but based on the content of this release, I'm guessing they will publish whatever they get. The press release is short on details, but claims that there will be experts, and declassified documents that back up their assertions. And a dead body in a storage freezer, as well, for those of you who like hairy plastic suits draped over carcasses. Enjoy!

    1. Re:Keep in mind... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, it's a press release.. STFW?
      It's exactly what's going to be happening next monday at the national press club. That it's going to be happening and what it is about is fairly interesting to some people. I don't see the problem.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    2. Re:Keep in mind... by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. Is that really your .SIG?
      The catch-cry of the tyrant? The dictator?
      No. It is not my job to prove you wrong.
      It is your job. You have the responsibility to critically review and re-appraise your own position every time new evidence comes to light
      Each new piece of evidence needs to be assessed for validity and then factored into your world view
      Let me guess... you're religious, right? That level of pompous, self serving statement is usually only ever reserved for the fanatic.
      Why am I wasting my fingerprints on this? It is very difficult to convince someone who isn't thinking straight that they aren't thinking straight.
      Good luck with that whole god complex thing.
      Oh, btw, did you have a point to make in your post? I never got to read it.

    3. Re:Keep in mind... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      Do you understand the massive amount of assumptions inherent in your post? You are arguing very strongly against an attitude that isn't in the least present in the quote itself. You seem to believe that I am stating that I will not be attempting to understand where and how I am mistaken without the input of others. You seem to believe the quote says "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. Otherwise, shut the F*** up, 'cause if you don't take the time to prove it, it ain't so." Why do you make that assumption? What's going on for you that you responded so strongly to a quote that you ended up adding an "or else I'll remain ignorant" to the end of it? I see the quote as a promise - that, given a disagreement, I will listen with the expectation of hearing something that will change or broaden my perspective and understanding. That I will hear you, and discuss with you, a subject with an open mind and a willingness to not only admit when I'm mistaken, but to actually change my mind when I find myself in that position. It's not an attempt to force the responsibility for the validity of my worldview on other people - on the contrary. It merely states that if you believe you are right, and wish to change my viewpoint to match yours - I am open to that, and here's some grounds for doing so. I absolutely do not see anything inherent in that statement that says "I will ONLY change my mind if you can find a way to force me to acknowledge I was wrong." So, I'm actually quite stunned at your reaction. I'd really like to hear where it came from - so if you have a bit of time, and will indulge me - I WILL appreciate it - and I will listen.

  23. Implausible story from UFO nut by 0111+1110 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since when did Reuters report on National Inquirer stories? The source is a UFO nut. The story itself is pretty implausible. Why would aliens travel many light years just to malfunction a few nuclear missiles from time to time? Nothing about it makes sense. If they are advanced enough to build an interstellar spacecraft they are probably also advanced enough to shut down or even disappear every nuclear weapon on the planet.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    1. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if they did fly here since the first nukes were detonated, then we have a bounds on where they might have come from. Anything interesting 30 lyrs away?

    2. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you see a young kid running around with a pair of scissors, you take the scissors off them before they hurt themselves. One day however they will need to learn to cut something, and you have to let them experiments with the scissors.

      I'm not saying the story is suddenly credible, but I don't think it can be dismissed with; "If they are so powerful/intelligent/masterful why would they bother doing menial tasks?" What if flying hundreds of thousands of light years to them is the equivalent for us walking to the back door of our house? Would you walk to your back door occasionally when there is a spider building a web or a bird building a nest in visible range?

    3. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Maybe these UFO's are experimental aircraft from a foreign nation being used to disable our nuclear arsenal. It would make sense to do it in small numbers so as to not get your aircraft caught and examined. I am more on the side that this press release is bullshit.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by jpapon · · Score: 1
      What, it took them 35 years to get off their lazy arses to investigate?

      Or can they only travel at half the speed of light?

      If that's the case, pshh not interested. Tell them to come back when they've perfected their tech, I never buy first gen products.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes more sense they are probing our capabilities. They probably think our greatest threat to them is our nuclear capability, and they are developing methods to thwart our attacks.

      I for one welcome our Space Alien Prankster Overlords.

    6. Re:Implausible story from UFO nut by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Since when did Reuters report on National Inquirer stories?

      I think this may actually be below National Enquirer standards now. After all they reported the John Edwards scandal weeks before the "respectable" news media.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  24. Logic quizes by owlstead · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should send them lots and lots of books with logic quizzes or tell them to read encyclopedia articles or something - sounds to me they are bored out of their skulls.

  25. UFO doesn't mean aliens. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a TLA UAV if it's anything.

  26. Excited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The aliens prefer severely-chaffed orifices. Something about the blood and chunks of tissue rubbing against their bladed tentacles really does it.

    1. Re:Excited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ugh

    2. Re:Excited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slowly putting my hand down.

    3. Re:Excited? by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      You speak from experience, I would presume, or is it that you wish to monopolize all the pleasure for yourself and your ilk? However, from your description you are well versed in the techniques of extreme S&M, in that case I will gladly give it a pass.

    4. Re:Excited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, Blowjob girl should be very popular.

  27. Screw ET, how about malfunctioning missiles? by alangerow · · Score: 1

    I'm more concerned that a number greater than 0 of nuclear missiles can simultaneously and inexplicably malfunction more than I am of an extra-terrestrial probing me. We have weapons that can obliterate an entire city ... and they can mysteriously malfunction? You'd think they'd work out the bugs BEFORE creating enough arsenal to destroy the entire habitability of our planet. I'm not a perfect coder, but I can say with all honesty that my code isn't putting billions of lives at risk.

    1. Re:Screw ET, how about malfunctioning missiles? by jpapon · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Malfunction" and "Arm, Launch, Acquire Target, and Detonate" are hardly the same thing.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    2. Re:Screw ET, how about malfunctioning missiles? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about a nuclear weapon accidentally malfunctioning. The reason we have them and very few other countries do is because it's fucking HARD to make a nuke explode. If anything, be worried if they accidentally function.

  28. mars needs women! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    mars needs women

    1. Re:mars needs women! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      angry red women?

    2. Re:mars needs women! by Unkyjar · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    3. Re:mars needs women! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angry Red Women?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT9QOvCPyDg

  29. Midnight Star: I Want To Know (I Want To Know) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliens from outer space are sleeping in my car!

  30. Re:Another theory by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    These are not UFOs! These are UAOs! They are TOTALLY different!

    (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  31. The Plan: +1 , Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Find sunken U.S. and Soviet nuclear submarines.
    2. Recover reactor fuel.
    3. Sell reactor fuel on Slashdot.
    4. Profit !

    Yours In Guam,
    K. Trout

  32. SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by HockeyGuy · · Score: 0

    People really want there to be space aliens but the fact is space travel is impossible.
    The nearest closest planet that may MAY be able to support life is 45 thousand light years away.
    That means if the human body which can not last more then 5 years in space because of bone loss was to make this trip you would have to do it at somewhere around 9,000 times the speed of light...
    Now this is only to the very closest MAYBE planet but if you want to travel to planets farther away you are talking 2x 5x 10x the speed ...
    Now we all love startrek but warp 9,000 or 10,000 for 5 years or 10 year or warp 5MILLION what does it matter because there is not enough PROPELLENT in the earths ocean if we used all the H and O in the Water of all the oceans...


    SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE AND DONT START THE WORMHOLE BS OR DIMENSIONAL TRAVEL
    GIVE IT UP! Mars is as good as we will ever get and that is just about impossible...

    1. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by SecurityGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      What a relief! I was afraid we were going to actually have to discover all of physics and cosmology. You may not realize it, but you've saved us a vast sum of money and the productive lives of scientists who can now skip all that and play facebook games instead.

    2. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by jpapon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People really want there to be space aliens but the fact is space travel is impossible using current technology and with our current understanding of physics.

      There you go. Carry on.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    3. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you travel at the speed of light, and you go to a place 45,000 light years away, you arrive the moment you left. No time passes. Just for the rest of us it seems like it takes a long time to get there, but for you in the craft, speed is infinite. If you want to get there in 5 minutes, you have to go a bit slower. If you want to arrive yesterday, then you'll have to go even faster than the speed of light....

    4. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by jpapon · · Score: 1

      If you want to arrive yesterday, then you'll have to go even faster than the speed of light....

      Well, that, and you'd need (infinity + k) energy.

      Of course, as every time traveler knows, you need to scale k based on how far in the past you want to go.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Huh? We are already doing space travel. Lots of it. While no human has traveled farther than the moon, lots of our unmanned ships have traveled much farther. To the edge of the solar system and beyond. Of course interstellar space travel is a very different story, but is also not impossible just very difficult and time consuming. Even Voyager, traveling at around 37000 mph, will reach Proxima Centauri in 80,000 years. An Orion style nuclear pulse driven ship could reach that system much sooner. Even with current tech I think we could launch an unmanned ship which could make it to Proxima Centauri in only 5000 years.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    6. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by jpapon · · Score: 1

      People really want there to be space aliens but the fact is interstellar space travel is impossible using current technology and with our current understanding of physics.

      Happy now? Jeez.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    7. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by khallow · · Score: 1

      Huh? We are already doing space travel. Lots of it. While no human has traveled farther than the moon, lots of our unmanned ships have traveled much farther. To the edge of the solar system and beyond. Of course interstellar space travel is a very different story, but is also not impossible just very difficult and time consuming. Even Voyager, traveling at around 37000 mph, will reach Proxima Centauri in 80,000 years. An Orion style nuclear pulse driven ship could reach that system much sooner. Even with current tech I think we could launch an unmanned ship which could make it to Proxima Centauri in only 5000 years.

      It's worth noting that the Sun moves through the galaxy, completing a trip in roughly a quarter of a billion years. So do all other objects in the galaxy. Thus, all you need to do to colonize the galaxy is occasionally hop on star systems that pass particularly close to you.

    8. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Still not happy. You have to also add something like "within a single generation" or "within our lifetime" interstellar space travel. Actually, upon rereading the latest version of the Project Orion wikipedia article it looks like it has been estimated that it would only take about 36 days for an unmanned ship (at a near constant 1 g acceleration) to reach 0.1c. At that speed it would only take 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri within a human lifetime. So existing tech really is good enough for for interstellar travel. It's just hugely expensive and Alpha Centuari is not expected to be all that interesting. We'd much rather go to Gliese 581 d about 20 light years away and that would take about 200 years at 0.1c. Even after the ship arrived at its destination it would take another 20 years for the photo and/or video to reach us with the stunning images of the Gliese 581 system. Building an Orion ship large enough to hold enough payload to reach 0.1c would be very expensive. Dyson's estimates were for a 100 meter long vessel weighing 100,000 tons with a 300,000 ton payload. Getting all that mass into space where it can safely be launched would not be cheap. Of course if you could just launch the thing from earth that would not be a problem. And before the Nuclear Test Ban treaty that is precisely what Dyson assumed in his cost estimates.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    9. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by wiak · · Score: 1

      well, our technology is irrelevant there is a bigger possibility that there is aliens out there than god, allah, jesus, and all those gods from the old times we might be aliens for what we know

    10. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      You tell him!

      -SockpuppetGuy

    11. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      To get over the lameness filter built in by slashdot regarding your quote, I've added this sentence.

      SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE AND DONT START THE WORMHOLE BS OR DIMENSIONAL TRAVEL

      I agree!

      Space travel is impossible, for us.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    12. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a space ship traveling at 99.999% of the speed of light toward a planet that is 45,000 light years away left Earth, then from the point of view of an observer on Earth, it would take 45,000 years to get there. However,due to space-time dilation a traveler abort the ship would experience the trip taking a much much shorter time.

    13. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go suck a dick, aspie

    14. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      I’ve got hope for quantum entanglement communication. Twist one electron and its partner twists the same way.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    15. Re:SPACE TRAVEL IS IMPOSSIBLE! Stop the Garbage by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      A lot of people said travelling to the moon was impossible as well. Just because you would never be able to find a way to create a bubble of space time around a space ship to enable ftl travel, doesn’t mean some one else won’t.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
  33. Will they start straightening the Tower of Pisa? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Will they start straightening the Tower of Pisa?

  34. so maybe there's a reason... by airdrummer · · Score: 1

    they're all_former_military?-)

    1. Re:so maybe there's a reason... by scouris · · Score: 1

      The Military has greater control over _current_ personnel. This is why you rarely see current military officers making public statements, unless it's in their job description.

  35. The obligatory... by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new (alien) robot overlords.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  36. So I guess the real story here... by macraig · · Score: 1

    ... is that a few ex-soldiers are unhappy with their pensions and figure to supplement them with kickbacks from a whackjob book author? I think the mercenary life would have been a better supplement....

  37. Forget Gort by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

    I won't worry until Gork and Mork show up

  38. Gort... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > I won't worry until Gort shows up.

    Will that be old Gort or new Gort?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  39. Why would there be UFOS? by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Why would there be Unidentified flying objects near nuclear missile sites? Its not like any country would send out UADs to see where America keeps its missiles would it? Nobody on earth cares about the location of missiles which can end all life on earth...

  40. At least someon'e watching our nukes. by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    Considering the USAF's recent record, it's a relief to know someone is watching our nukes.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  41. Jam packed with details by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The weapons malfunctioned": How? they tried to launch them toward a target and they veered off course and detonated nearby causing a horrible but remarkably suppressed nuclear accident?

    "A disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby": Wow, eerie. Oh, wait, that was just a mylar balloon on a string. I think it read "Happy Birthday"

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
    1. Re:Jam packed with details by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This exactly.- What is malfunctioned supposed to mean for a nuclear weapon that is supposed to be sitting there quietly doing absolutely nothing? It decided to go for a walk?

      How do you know the weapon malfunctioned and that it wasn't just some instrument? Did you punch the big red button and get no earthshattering Kaboom?

    2. Re:Jam packed with details by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      "The weapons malfunctioned": How? they tried to launch them toward a target and they veered off course and detonated nearby causing a horrible but remarkably suppressed nuclear accident?

      Even sitting in the silo, you can have malfunctions in the guidance and electrical systems (which are active), or faults in the monitoring systems, or faults in the hydraulic systems (detected by the monitoring system), etc., etc..

    3. Re:Jam packed with details by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes from standby/idle to scrambled? Like a desktop computer that's supposed to be idling but bluescreens instead?

      Standby power goes offline? Worse, it goes from standby to active?

      It's not like they are completely inert until you push the launch button.

    4. Re:Jam packed with details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An IBCM on standby is considered to be malfunctioning when it is not in the proper standby state any more. Since it can't be launched if it's not in standby, it is malfunctioning.

    5. Re:Jam packed with details by EvilDroid · · Score: 1

      Just a guess but I would assume that the weapon monitoring systems either stopped working, indicated the weapons were malfunctioning, or else showed some anomalous readings. You don't need a launch to have a malfunction...

  42. Baradei! by Voline · · Score: 1

    The IAEA has become increasingly technologically sophisticated.

  43. Kinda scary... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1
    If its not us...

    Reuters is a pretty reliable site - so right now i'm kinda wishing it were April 1st!

    Its kinda (really) scary because that means whatever is in those disks is probably Russians, Koreans, the Japanese, or India - or aliens. Maybe aside from one or two other countries, those are the ones listed with the tech to have surpassed us.

    Or, we could have developed something that just happens to look like things that have been reported to be flying around since the 50's.

  44. Gort vs Cocoon Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's when I really start worrying.

    As for all the other natural disasters, maybe they like - or need - global warming. You know, to feel more comfy.

    Although Tschernobyl seems to indicate a low-level nuclear exchange could greatly benefit nature and wildlife - clearing away most of the predatory humans. Sort of like what BP tried on the southern U.S. But without harming wildlife as much. Plus, the "nuclear fall" would help cool the planet and rebuild the ice-caps, shelfs, glaciers, top off the old mountain ranges... etc.

    Rumors that the financial and political "elites" have sold humanity out to them, and theyra coming with the cattle-cars are - of course - mere fabrication. :)

  45. my beef with these claims by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fundamental problem I have with these claims is that:

    a) There's no physical evidence. You would expect these sorts of tall tales surrounding such a large scale secret operation. So merely having a lot of people, even experienced observers, detail unknown activity don't tell you whether the "UFOs" are truly unidentified or not. My view is that the intelligence services would actually encourage these sorts of tales precisely because they generate a lot of disinformation for free.

    b) If they're aliens, beings from the future, etc then why are they playing their hand? Why tell us, "We can screw with your nuclear weapons"? That'd be something like the US deliberately and frivolously overflying some country for decades. All it does is give the other guys a variety of ideas for shooting down your planes/UFOs, especially if you crash some planes.

    c) Where are the countermeasures? If the US has a UFO problem, then they should have some sort of countermeasures. I'd think there'd be some tools that would be kept secret and some tools, more decoys, which would be deliberately leaked. You know, just like the US did a lot of its Cold War strategy. But we should be hearing about weird missiles or other things, even if (perhaps especially if) they don't work.

    As it stands, if these reports reflect a true phenomena, let's say, Greys conducting covert reconnaissance of the Earth for some reason, then why screw around with the most militarily sensitive spots on the planet? What do they gain from that activity over decades which balances the risk of getting caught? The thing is that there's a certain sloppiness to the UFOs in these stories. They're visible, they do stuff that's likely to get powerful organizations riled up, and there's the risk of technology falling into relatively capable hands.

    Let's give an example, suppose the US was overflying a bunch of cavemen and a plane crashed. From our experience with cavemen, they wouldn't be able to make anything of the crash. Perhaps pieces would be grabbed and used for relics or decoration.

    Now suppose these cavemen were bright and far enough ahead in philosophy and organization that they knew the scientific method and could throw the resources of hundreds of tribes cooperatively for generations at figuring out this strange vehicle from the air. You might find them flying jets in a century. They might even have known the principles of flight, industrialization, etc already, but not have incentive to use that knowledge before the sky gods came.

    That's the risk aliens take by doing these sorts of activities. Sure humanity can't use UFO technology now, but getting some could greatly hasten our progress towards UFO technology.

    1. Re:my beef with these claims by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      As it stands, if these reports reflect a true phenomena, let's say, Greys conducting covert reconnaissance of the Earth for some reason, then why screw around with the most militarily sensitive spots on the planet? What do they gain from that activity over decades which balances the risk of getting caught? The thing is that there's a certain sloppiness to the UFOs in these stories. They're visible, they do stuff that's likely to get powerful organizations riled up, and there's the risk of technology falling into relatively capable hands.

      Think of it this way; it's not the U.S. overflying a bunch of cavemen. It's the U.S. overflying a bunch of mice. The prevailing thought among people who know what they are talking about, is that this is not a nuts & bolts activity and that aliens are not confined to traveling through time the way we do; they exist in a different state where the illusion of time simply isn't there. There's about as much danger from us unraveling their technology as there is of cows learning how to work the tractor. We don't have the genetic capability or awareness.

      Screwing with a missile silo might be on par with curiously poking an ant war with a stick. Our own government would cover it up simply because it is unacceptable for us to feel unsafe or that there is an enemy out there which simply cannot be fought, negotiated or bargained with.

      One of the basic items which comes up when you dig deep enough is that we are food; anxiety, pain and high emotion provide a type of energy which can be consumed and that the human race has been bred up into the billions, history has been sculpted for the end purpose of drawing off this energy in one vast harvest.

      It's hard to grasp, but while we require physical food, we can also certainly consume this same energetic stuff in a limited way; think of popularity cliques in schools. People feel good when they bully others; it's an energetic transfer and this on higher levels of reality apparently offers substantial benefit. There's a reason we've been gradually tuning ourselves racially to not just accept things like torture and warfare, but to crave it.

      -FL

    2. Re:my beef with these claims by reiisi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is not genetics that is the problem, but the limits of the imposed illusion of time?

      I am familiar with a number of SF novels that interpret the whole religion/aliens question as if we were cattle, and I toyed with the idea for a while, but it has since lost its fascination. Paranoia, like the illusion of time, is limited in its usefulness.

      --
      Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    3. Re:my beef with these claims by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is not genetics that is the problem, but the limits of the imposed illusion of time?

      Our perception of time is the direct result of our genetic make-up.

      The way I think of it is this...

      1. You existed five minutes ago.
      2. You exist now.
      3. Your brain took in information from both those moments and all the intervening ones. It just happens to process that information in serial rather than parallel.

      Genetics of a higher order capable of parallel processing of incoming information would offer a wildly different perception of reality. Time travel would not have anything to do with wormholes and such, but rather simply the focusing of attention on your body ten years ago the same way you might focus on your finger rather than your shoulder.

      In any case, paranoia is only paranoia when it isn't based on anything. I'm not making this stuff up out of thin air.

      -FL

    4. Re:my beef with these claims by Coraon · · Score: 1

      How about simply as a show of force? a kind of "We are here, we can do whatever we want and we want to remind you of this so (do the following, keep your end of the deal, ect)" I know it implies that these critters think like us, but without another frame of reference what else can we go on? I also think that we are not dealing with one group of aliens, if we take encounters with creditable witnesses seriously. If you look at all the events out there together its too disjointed. It stands to reason that they don't have one singular government or agenda, I mean we don't. Look, all I really want to say is weather its true or not doesn't really matter, the fact is it should be investigated LIKE it's at least possible and we be given the real truth of the situation. I think I would actually sleep better knowing the real truth rather then knowing a "truth" this being handled without any oversight at all.

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    5. Re:my beef with these claims by khallow · · Score: 1

      The prevailing thought among people who know what they are talking about, is that this is not a nuts & bolts activity and that aliens are not confined to traveling through time the way we do; they exist in a different state where the illusion of time simply isn't there.

      That's nice except that the "know what they are talking about" crowd probably has zero intersection with humanity. My view is that there could be supernatural things, which could be sentient in some sense, but their interaction with our universe has to respect the rules of the universe, that is, maintain the "illusion". That includes such things as casualty, the ordering of time as we see it.

    6. Re:my beef with these claims by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      That's nice except that the "know what they are talking about" crowd probably has zero intersection with humanity.

      I don't know if you meant this facetiously or not, but there is some truth to that. Compare the honors engineering graduate to the average Walmart shopper whose knowledge is soundly based on Fox News, and how much awkwardness there would be if you place one in a party of the other's choosing, (in either direction).

      Same thing here, but more so, especially considering that increasing awareness in these directions includes learning how humans function. After a certain point, it becomes hard to not see other people as relatively simple machines, constantly going through the same automatic routines which they mistake for real thought and free will. (The solution is recognizing that everybody is on a learning curve which we must all go through, and being encouraging rather than impatient. But it's a helluva trick at times.)

      My view is that there could be supernatural things, which could be sentient in some sense, but their interaction with our universe has to respect the rules of the universe, that is, maintain the "illusion". That includes such things as casualty, the ordering of time as we see it.

      If your time line had been altered thousands of times so that your existence was trained to grow in a certain direction, like a vine or bonsai tree, how would you recognize that this was happening? The closest we get to an awareness of this is the experience of Deja Vu, which can in some instances indicate a significant point of choosing visited numerous times before and recognized on a soul level. Causality is only a problem with time travel in the "Back to the Future" sense, which is not the issue here since that's not how it works.

      Since there is no time, and it's all just a matter of the world being manipulated along the axis we experience as 'time', then no action can break any rules of causality. (That's a mouthful. Sorry. Let me put it this way: To a two-dimensional creature, it would appear that we can perform magic, but we're not breaking any rules by manipulating objects in the 3rd dimension. The same holds true one step up the awareness ladder. Causality is automatically self-regulating).

      Though coincidences can certainly seem to pile up. --It's awfully convenient, for instance, that the three major religions happen to be rigged the way they are.

      -FL

    7. Re:my beef with these claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a. We have no physical proof of black holes yet they're believed in by astronomers. As for UFO's if some of the reports are to be believed physical proof lies in the hands of governments around the world. However even without physical evidence we still have more proof of UFO's existing than we do for black holes (witnesses, radar and video evidence). Yet one is readily believed and another isn't no matter how credible the witnesses happen to be (e.g., military pilots and astronauts).

      b. Perhaps it's a demonstration of power to show the US that they can't stop their missiles from being deactivated anytime the beings feel like doing so.

      c. What countermeasures could a species such as ours develope against a race of beings possibly thousands of years more advanced than us? For whom interstellar space travel is as easy as oceanic travel is for us.

      As to the last point it is always a possibility that the natives one is visiting might get their hands on advanced technology if one of your craft happens to crash, but considering that thousands of years separates you, it would be like a stealth bomber crashing in 7th Century Europe. How many centuries would it take them to figure it out? Assuming they didn't consider the whole matter to be witchcraft and destroy all the entire craft.

    8. Re:my beef with these claims by khallow · · Score: 1

      Though coincidences can certainly seem to pile up. --It's awfully convenient, for instance, that the three major religions happen to be rigged the way they are.

      Keep in mind that the three major religions (and a fair number of minor ones) all have the same origin. So these "coincidences" are of the form of easily explained cause and effect. Further, it's vanishingly small chance that we'd have this particular group dominating world religions (if we could somehow restart human civilization from scratch a bunch of times), but some set of religions would be there. That turns the observation into an insignificant one.

      As to the rest of your claims, you need evidence. What I mean by that is facts or observations that can distinguish between your tale and mundane explanations (like a heaping lot of wishful thinking). For example, 120 eye witnesses to UFOs in the nuclear weapons program? Expected whether or not there's something X-files behind the phenomena or not. So it's not evidence. A Grey parks their flying saucer right outside the Empire State building and goes for a smoke. That's evidence. I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, but the point is that you can come up with a pile of stuff and still not have evidence simply because human psychology is such that this sort of thing would happen anyway. It's going to be hard, in part because if there is something out there, it obviously doesn't want to be spotted. But nothing less will do.

    9. Re:my beef with these claims by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      One of the basic items which comes up when you dig deep enough is that we are food; anxiety, pain and high emotion provide a type of energy which can be consumed and that the human race has been bred up into the billions, history has been sculpted for the end purpose of drawing off this energy in one vast harvest.

      This is a variant of the gnostic blind god, or PKD's black iron prison.

      Let me take this as an axiom, for a moment.

      I don't think it is one vast harvest, as you say. It appears to be more like - different beings are "ripe" at different points in our timeline and get harvested at that point in time. It may be that they cycle through our timeline over and over, with us reliving every experience (as you said, leaving behind small traces of this) to cause this. Of course, from a viewpoint outside of time it may be an all at once view, but I think that "they" have their own serial type processing as well, on those planes.

      Part of the problem with their approach is that although our consciousnesses are not normally predisposed to interact with those levels, we are no less immanent there than they (thou art god). I would posit that these beings also live in a higher level system, and I don't believe that Karma is so limited in scope. Sheer force to survive, combined with the base reality of change means that eventually this type of activity must stop or they will be destroyed.

      To believe that they are perfect, or somehow able to fully control our consciousnesses is folly. Every system has vulnerabilities.

      Think - poisoned food, establishing "Legal" Consciousness in that system, or even the ever popular "leapfrog" (now, your are OUR food) as possible strategies.

      That said, this could all be a metaphor for what we are doing to ourselves (who would YOU want to shape yourself towards divinity?).

      Namaste.

    10. Re:my beef with these claims by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      I think we're on the same page, except that your reading of it is a bit more clear.

      Good points.

      -FL

    11. Re:my beef with these claims by khallow · · Score: 1

      We have no physical proof of black holes

      That is incorrect. We have evidence ("physical proof" if you will) of masses with the necessary density to be black holes. Astronomers have measured the rotational velocities of stars and gas around these objects sufficiently well to get estimates of mass and density consistent with black holes. As you note, in comparison we don't have physical evidence for UFOs as phenomena beyond the literal label.

    12. Re:my beef with these claims by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      a) There's no physical evidence.

      Does radar count? There's plenty of cases where a pilot ( and people on the ground ) report classical ufos ( saucers, cigars, triangles ) and these objects show up on radar.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    13. Re:my beef with these claims by reiisi · · Score: 1

      Your genetic makeup defines your perception of time?

      Hmm. So, dogs should be hungry after they eat, and not hungry before, or something?

      To the extent that your dna is composed of atoms that are subject to entropy, sure, your sense of time as sequential is derived from your dna.

      To the extent that your dna makes you small enough that relativistic distances aren't involved in getting signals around your nervous system, sure.

      As far as paranoia goes, have you actually seen UFOs? Non-terrestrial intelligent beings? Have they abducted you and done bad things to you?

      I won't argue that there are not immortal beings. I also won't argue that there are not evil immortal beings. But I won't agree with the idea that all immortal beings are evil and/or inimical to the human race. Or even most.

      Our current mass techniques of raising animals for food are a serious aberration, and a reflection of a lot of individuals giving in to avarice, not the end product of evolution. And evolution tends to work against entropy, FWIW.

      --
      Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    14. Re:my beef with these claims by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Your points are entirely fair.

      Keep in mind that the three major religions (and a fair number of minor ones) all have the same origin. So these "coincidences" are of the form of easily explained cause and effect. Further, it's vanishingly small chance that we'd have this particular group dominating world religions (if we could somehow restart human civilization from scratch a bunch of times), but some set of religions would be there. That turns the observation into an insignificant one.

      I wasn't presenting the current volatile setup of religions as proof of hyperdimensional tinkering. Rather I was suggesting that it is an end result of tinkering we have been told has taken place if certain working theories are accepted. Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But then you can't prove that anything exists outside the room you are in while you are inside it. 'Proof' is a matter of reaching agreement using certain base assumptions, which we make and agree are reasonable despite our ability to actually prove them. No scientist can ever prove that s/he actually exists or that the world is not a dream, so a base assumption we work from is to simply accept this paradox and move on. It's the base assumptions which are in question, and those need to be built up from elemental blocks to provide the workings of a belief system.

      One of the base elements I accept is that communication with aliens is on-going through channeling experiments. (And through which it has been described that history is regularly tampered with.) This base element assumption, (that of communication with aliens or that channeling works as advertised), must be examined and broken down into pieces which must be accepted or not accepted on the weight of smaller bits of observation which, if they don't break down logically, serve that end. Since most of that discussion falls outside the accepted parameters of common science, such assumptions remain off the table for most people and so the claim that "History is regularly tampered with" has nothing to back it up in terms of acceptable proof. An exploration of non-orthodox assumptions, and a personal sifting and logical analysis is required before one can proceed.

      Interestingly, when one does take the time to explore this stuff, the weight of the many types of observation and supporting observation does build up quite quickly into a body of work which is hard to ignore, but many will never take the time to step outside the boundaries of official science, and so will never gain the observations required to move ahead.

      One of the things we have been told is that this, (the nature of official knowledge), like the state of religion, is also arranged by design in order to prevent people from learning about their predicament.

      As to the rest of your claims, you need evidence. What I mean by that is facts or observations that can distinguish between your tale and mundane explanations (like a heaping lot of wishful thinking). For example, 120 eye witnesses to UFOs in the nuclear weapons program?

      Why 120? Is that a magic number where witness testimony is suddenly reliable? Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that you believe it to be so. But it does raise an interesting point. The more observers agree on an observation, the more ready we are to accept it.

      As it happens, there are FAR more than 120 witnesses to UFO related events. Richard Dolan, (look him up), took the time to research and document events taken only from multiple witness accounts where the witnesses were pilots, police officers, military officers and various other people occupying positions of authority requiring them to document their observations and maintain a serious, rational state of mind. Often there are accompanying recordings in the form of radar records, film from gun cameras on aircraft and similar. The weight of this body of evidence is enough for some people to start taking the next steps toward agreeing upon acce

  46. I've seen lot's of UFO's by SloWave · · Score: 1

    Send me some money and I'll tell you all about them. I'll even wear some dark aviator shades and a UFO cap while I do so.

  47. Re:Will they start straightening the Tower of Pisa by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

    Don't be such a homophobe. (I am joking, no need to mod me down)

  48. Re:Another theory by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If you were a responsible person in a position of power, perhaps in some covert US task force, or some other friendly but worried power, and saw an idiot like bush in control at the whitehouse... wouldn't you take it upon yourself organise a disarmament too?"

    Uh, no. For one thing, despite your pandering, our former president was not an idiot, by definition. Second, he did not show nor was described as showing any inclination to use nuclear weapons that I am aware of, and since he was vilified by the press nonstop for 8 years for every imagined manner of atrocity, negligence, idiocy, and megalomania, this would not have escaped our attention.

    Look, he's back at his ranch, out of office. You can let up now. No one cares.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  49. So they can shut down our nukes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But can they fix Idle? Still broken.

  50. But wait.... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This was a panel discussion held at the National Press Club.

    Not a meeting of the National Press Club.

    Big difference. They rented the room...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:But wait.... by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Was?

      How about will be.

      It's going to be on Monday, September 27th, 2010.

    2. Re:But wait.... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well everyone was talking like the NPC was going to be there, and I got carried away.

      And they will hold it in some room, I don't evern know if it is the main room that all those great NPC meetings are held in nowadays. Those were the best thing NPR ever did. I took lunch late to hear those.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  51. UFOs !=aliens by Potor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    UFO means unidentified flying object. The article makes no reference to aliens.

    You'd think a slashdot summary would recognize such a distinction. This is not the National Inquirer.

    If there were bogeys, they were almost certainly terrestrial.

    1. Re:UFOs !=aliens by Nimey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I admit I was wrong. kdawson no longer being here hasn't made the quality of /. submissions go up all that much.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:UFOs !=aliens by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      This is not the National Inquirer.

      That's true - the Inquirer at least pretends to have standards.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:UFOs !=aliens by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      He's gone? I guess I don't need to block him from the front page anymore then. The quality in idle is always pretty bad (oddly enough, I have blocked idle from the front page, but I still see this story). Pretty much all of the Slashdot editors post things without checking facts or basic English, but kdawson was the only one who posted things that were deliberate trolls to the exclusion of all else.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:UFOs !=aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think a slashdot summary would recognize such a distinction.

      You must be new here.

    5. Re:UFOs !=aliens by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Really? What makes you so sure?

      Which is more likely:

      * A world power has been able to keep "top secret" projects and crafts capable of (at the least) noiseless levitation and operation, capable of avoiding radar and (likely) able to traverse from the stellar system. These crafts are able to remotely disrupt the operation of any and all known planetary technologies, including nukes inside bunkers. They have kept these things from the prying eyes of civilians and government officials to the extent that nobody has ever presented evidence as to the existence of the crafts or the programs, despite the many, many specialized people who would have to work on such a project over a long period of time to make it functionally viable.
      * That there is extraterrestrial life capable of space faring with similar technology.

      In terms of probability, I suspect the later wins out - especially since these "bogeys" have been seen since the WWII era (in the form of the foofighters).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:UFOs !=aliens by Potor · · Score: 1

      The former.

      And of course, you are just assuming these craft are secret from, say, the American government. Or even that this in fact is not an American test. And why do you think they can travel the "stellar" system? I thought nuclear bunkers were at issue here.

      You just make the latter seem simple to form some ill-conceived reductio ad absurdum.

      Anyway I don't buy the story, period (which is why I said "if"). I was just saying that the alien angle is not part of the official story.

    7. Re:UFOs !=aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of probability, I suspect the later wins out - especially since these "bogeys" have been seen since the WWII era (in the form of the foofighters).

      Wrong. These "bogeyes" have been seen throughout all of mankind's history. They frequently show up in paintings as far back as the 14th century and in literature and tapestries, from well known and respected artists and authors.

      Cultures including the Mayans and Egyptians both have ships, aliens, and astronauts depicted throughout their recorded history.

      Hell, there are even references to them in the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah, and by extension, the Qua-ran.

      India even has a whole book which proclaims to document an interstellar battle in the skies above, long ago, for control of Earth.

    8. Re:UFOs !=aliens by nelk · · Score: 1

      ...(oddly enough, I have blocked idle from the front page, but I still see this story)

      Were there any disc-shaped objects silently hovering nearby while you loaded the page?

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
    9. Re:UFOs !=aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silently hovering disc shaped objects that moved at amazing speeds and have been around since the 60's. So how is that you can state with such certainty that they are terrestrial?

      Oh, I see. Its your opinion. Based on just what you want to believe. Well that's not very useful at all.

    10. Re:UFOs !=aliens by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      Everyone please look here for a moment------->(***), you've just been flashy thinged. That was not a UFO you saw. Swamp gas from a weather balloon refracted the light from Venus. Thank you. I now return you to your regularly scheduled /. story already in progress. Have a nice day.

    11. Re:UFOs !=aliens by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      You aren't thinking this through.

      If it were the American government, don't you think they'd probably leverage such technologies to, I dunno, not lose wars?

      Clearly this technology is above and beyond what is even comprehensible by the common public (as well as many scientifically minded people). How has it been kept secret?

      if it is some higher echelon amongst the US government, why have we not seen internal conflict (w/in the US gov't) for control thereof?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  52. Just working for the govt make you go mental. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear radiation isn't known to cause that kind of delusion as far as I know. I think you're onto something with the common factor though; being responsible for a nuclear missile might well cause a lot of people to become paranoid, and perhaps even to imagine some higher power taking the responsibility/functionality away from them.

    I think that just simply working for the govt, especially in any kind of top secret/military position, must have a strong affect on the mental health and foster a tendency to become paranoid.

  53. Can someone then please explain by TranceThrust · · Score: 1

    why this piece of PR-made-to-look-like-a-news-item actually ended up on a news site? Seriously?

    1. Re:Can someone then please explain by longacre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reuters publishes press releases on their site, which is fine. They should, however, do more to differentiate their appearance from the real news.

  54. Time Travelers by Geek_Cop · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been skeptically following a lot of this UFO traffic for a couple of years..because I really want to know. But I have a theory that these "aliens" aren't really aliens. Take for instance the increasing number of homosexuals in the world. If what they say is true, that homosexuality is a genetic inheritance, could it mean that the human race is slowly evolving to become hermaphrodites? How many alien sightings have said that the aliens had sexual organs? Anyways, say that in the future humans are hermaphroditic time travelers? And perhaps they are traveling back in time to prevent the inevitable? I don't know, but I sure am seeing an increase of lesbians on dating sites.

    1. Re:Time Travelers by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If what they say is true, that homosexuality is a genetic inheritance,

            Right. Please explain how homosexuals pass this gene on to their children... Oh wait.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re: Time Travelers by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Please explain how homosexuals pass this gene on to their children... Oh wait.

      Traditionally, many homosexuals got married and had kids.

      But AIUI, it's developmental rather than genetic.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Time Travelers by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I've been skeptically following a lot of this UFO traffic for a couple of years..because I really want to know. ...
      I don't know, but I sure am seeing an increase of lesbians on dating sites.

      You didn't notice all the aliens on there?

  55. Yet Another theory by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

    Hypothetically, let us say we knew of two adjacent colonies of bratty orangutan idiots. Each had the capability of utterly destroying the other with trebuchets. Would it not behoove us to zap parts of each trebuchets with a laser to let them know that they cannot rely upon their weapons? This would lessen the chance of that the idiot orangutans would use their weapons, because a first strike could quite likely fail.

  56. An absolute must! by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    Gort Damno oinkyo!
    Klaatu barada nikkto!
    Barengi daegus!
    Gort barenga.

    Gee whiz Mr. Carpenter!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  57. journalistic integrity? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    journalistic integrity...

    You just made that up.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    1. Re:journalistic integrity? by sharkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look it up, it's in the dictionary: right next to "Slashdot Editor".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  58. Alien Interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey....First, have any of you ever read Alien Interview? If not, i suggest reading as it is a good read. If you have read it, and in a sense, believe some of what is written in it to be true or a possible valid reality(since everyones perception and reality is different based on life experiences and enviroment), than you should know that if there were aliens, flying around, they def would not nukes in the nethervoid. Lately, I believe more in Aliens than I believe in god or religion. Yea, you can call me a loon or crazy, but I think I am just keeping an open mind as to the possibilities out there.

    Anyway, there have been previous press releases and videos on this such thing, so I wouldn't exactly go knocking it before you actually do some research and listen to what these people have to say with an open mind.

    1. Re:Alien Interview by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

      I just read it and it sounds a lot like Scientology. And it's very hard to believe anything that's written in it: the universe is trillions of years old. This alien claims to be billions of years old, 600 million years ago worked at a bio tech company that worked to create life for earth.. We're all immortal souls. There's no evolution, all life on earth was created by various intergalactic corporations, and the best part... it's all patented. Earth is a prison planet where undesirables of alien civilizations are banished to live in eternity. No self respecting alien civilization would inhabit earth: it has heavy gravity, dense atmosphere, volcanoes, earth quakes, the landmass moves too much.

      Hmm what else... This area of our galaxy is under control of a force field, created by the evil 'old empire,' that erases our memory after death so that we are reborn with no knowledge. Apparently this old empire doesn't value free thinkers, scientists, inventors, etc and banishes them to earth. Along with their civilizations murderers, rapists, etc. We humans must work to find these force field generators and destroy them to free ourselves. Also the old empire has or had a base underground on mars.

      google "alien interview" and read the PDF. It's "interesting" lol

  59. Re:Another theory by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    Second, he did not show nor was described as showing any inclination to use nuclear weapons that I am aware of

    Except for revising US strategic nuclear doctrine to include preemptive strikes, of course. As CinC, Bush was accountable, if not directly responsible, for this initiative

    No one cares.

    Yeah, I think that was pretty much the whole problem.

  60. I effing love this shizzle!! by boriquajake · · Score: 0

    This is easily the best slashdot story ever. I freaking love it. There is no way this isn't awesome. Either these guys are batshit crazy or it's true. We can't lose.

    --
    I only scored 35% on the Nerd Test, I'm sorry.
  61. This has happened many times since the late 60s by moxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has happened many times since the late 60s and possibly before.

    These people are credible enough to handle launching nuclear ICBMs, including one who was a base commander at a foreign base where nuclear weapons were stored, yet some people still doubt their credibility?

    It's not just unidentified objects showing up at silos, they've been able to take all of the independent missile systems offline in a very particular way, which shouldn't be possible...In some cases when fighters have been scrambled the objects will lead the fighters many, many miles away then shoot back to where they were in an instant.

    I realize that a lot of people like to ridicule this stuff, because they're not used to credible people coming clean about this stuff. But UFOs are a reality, and these events did happen... Back in the 50s UFOs were in the press all of the time, without the added ridicule, there were days in July of 1952 where the capital was swarming with them.

    What the UFOs are and where they came from, who knows - but there is something to these reports, so why don't you get all of the facts before you make up your mind. Contempt prior to investigation is a sure way to remain ignorant.

    Sure, people will dismiss this and think it's about making money, but there are many, many crews that have stated this going back to the 60s, they're not selling books or anything else.

    1. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by avatar139 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This has happened many times since the late 60s and possibly before.

      These people are credible enough to handle launching nuclear ICBMs, including one who was a base commander at a foreign base where nuclear weapons were stored, yet some people still doubt their credibility?

      It's not just unidentified objects showing up at silos, they've been able to take all of the independent missile systems offline in a very particular way, which shouldn't be possible...In some cases when fighters have been scrambled the objects will lead the fighters many, many miles away then shoot back to where they were in an instant.

      I realize that a lot of people like to ridicule this stuff, because they're not used to credible people coming clean about this stuff. But UFOs are a reality, and these events did happen... Back in the 50s UFOs were in the press all of the time, without the added ridicule, there were days in July of 1952 where the capital was swarming with them.

      What the UFOs are and where they came from, who knows - but there is something to these reports, so why don't you get all of the facts before you make up your mind. Contempt prior to investigation is a sure way to remain ignorant.

      Sure, people will dismiss this and think it's about making money, but there are many, many crews that have stated this going back to the 60s, they're not selling books or anything else.

      Actually instances of UFOs monitoring military activities occurred even before the 50s as Foo Fighters were a fairly well documented phenomena during World War II and interestingly enough several of those accompanied at least one of the two flights that dropped the nuclear bombs on the Japanese (I'm not sure about the second flight off the top of my head though)...

      --
      I'm honest enough to admit I lie to myself.
    2. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a scientist. I'd like to know the details of this. What does it take to take a missile system offline? Were they taken offline the same way each time? If not, what were the differences? Was there an object spotted every time this occurred? Who else saw it? What did the object look like? How did it move? Were there any lights on it? If yes, what was the shape of the lights? Did they blink? What was the pattern? These are some of the things I would expect to be documented. But they simply aren't. You can bet your ass that if an unauthorized human being came within a mile of a silo, it would be documented! So why aren't these things?

    3. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by bobgap · · Score: 1

      As for reliability, the missile silo guys are vetted more than just about anyone in the country. Too many reliable individuals have seen UFOs for there not to be something going on. Donahue had a retired Major on the program in about 1979-1980 who described picking up dead bodies of small, alien looking individuals at Rosswell. He also described picking up a piece of metal, thin as aluminum foil, but he couldn't dent it with a sledgehammer.

    4. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by lennier · · Score: 1

      Indeed, if you study the literature of the 40s-50s sightings this kind of stuff is not new. Documented military UFO sightings are fun reading, though I pity whatever intelligence unit got lumped with trying to make sense of them. There are definite patterns in the sightings, but the phenomena don't really fit either any known terrestial technology, weather effect, hallucination, or optical illusion. Whether that implies 'aliens' in the Steven Spielberg sense is anyone's guess - I would suggest probably 'not' - but it seems to be a thing which happens, which can't really be categorised, but is real nonetheless.

      'These phenomena are not apparently harmful to national security' is the most sensible box to file them under... until they do things like taking missile silos offline. Then it's like, wtf, we still don't know what these things/events are, and they don't really seem that organised a threat (or even sentient - sometimes they really do act like optical illusions or dumb playful animals/insects), but they appear to have done something we can't control to systems we can't afford to admit we can't control. But still with no apparent intelligent pattern we can discern.

      This is not something any smart military wants to be forced to admit, and fortunately the laugh-it-off reflex generally covers everyone's butt. But even military guys get old and start talking eventually (whether they are saying the truth is another matter). This book/conference is another instance of this.

      It's really quite fun if you get into it. The X-Files 'Jose Chung's "From Outer Space"' pretty much summed up the vibe of the actual reports. Whatever you think you understand about what UFOs are, the actual sighting reports probably don't fit your hypothesis. They're not quite real, not quite not-real either, they haven't (so far) invaded us and carried away our womenfolk in their slavering mandibles (apart from abduction experiences, which seem to be something else again and mostly occuring in a dreamstate).

      One thing I sure as heck don't believe is that we've ever shot one down, despite the constant (and contradictory) Roswell rumours. Witnessed "landings", yes, but not dented them with slugthrower shrapnel. We're not even sure these things are physical in the same sense we are, they don't seem to play by gravity, they might not even be actually present, so why would our bullets do anything?

      Saturday Night Uforia is a blog which has covered a lot of the original source material - well worth reading IMO if you like strange-coloured piils.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a foreign intelligence official. I'd like to know the details of this. What does it take to take a missile system offline? Were they taken offline the same way each time? If not, what were the differences? Was there an object spotted every time this occurred? Who else saw it? What did the object look like? How did it move? Were there any lights on it? If yes, what was the shape of the lights? Did they blink? What was the pattern? These are some of the things I would expect to be documented. But they simply aren't. You can bet your ass that if an unauthorized human being came within a mile of a silo, it would be documented! So why aren't these things?

      Here you go, I've fixed that for you. This is called "elicitation" and the non-bold parts are used to mask the useful intelligence that you are trying to gather, so that nobody notices exactly what you're after.

    6. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What the UFOs are and where they came from, who knows

      More importantly, where did they go? The current patterns do make it look like a cultural phenomenon.

      but there is something to these reports

      Totally. The question is: What?

      The aliens on Earth theory has an incredible amount of holes and empty spaces once you accept it and look to the details. All its magic is in the base assumption. It's the modern day religion - God or UFOs sounds like an incredible thing to have, but every time someone starts to write down the details, it's a piece of crap literature full of continuity errors and outright nonsense.

      I personally think these people are completely honest. Just the same way certain religious people are completely honest when talking about how Jesus talks to them. They really believe what they say. That just doesn't make it true.

      But for both cases, psychology, not conspiracy theory, gives the most likely explanations as to why they truly believe what has no outside verification.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      mod parent up. if unexplained phenomena take place at military instalations, there are good reasons the details aren't given to the public.
      on the other hand, the public is only hearing "something I can't talk about happened in this place I can't talk about. you gotta believe me!"; even though we understand you can't talk about it because you only knew the minimum required to do your job, it's difficult.

      --
      new sig
    8. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      I liked this video very much http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html , because it explains a lot.

      the thing is that throughout human history, strange things have been reported by a lot of people. at some point in time, "people with both feet on the ground" started to control technology and science, because money started being involved. My problem is that research into the "paranormal" is generally made by overexcited idiots or people who don't care about having a scientific career (once you put "UFO investigator" on your CV, there's a certain image...). Is this because "no nonsense" people control science, or because there are no paranormal phenomena?
      As a scientist who needs money, I am forced to do what society pays me to do, and I have no way of deciding if there is any truth in these reports, because I can't trust the investigators who give positive results, and when trustworthy people say things, they don't have any proof, with a good reason for not having proof. I admit I am a bit frustrated that I can't study these things myself, to be sure...
      For instance, I've seen UFOs: something that looks like stars, moving in the sky in straight lines, sometimes disapearing. I assume they're satelites. At some point, I've seen three of these lights moving in formation (again in a straight line, no weirdness), so I've begun to think some of them are high altitude planes (what would be the point of 3 satelites moving in formation? also, I didn't see these disapear), but I also know that plane lights usually flicker. to me they are UFOs because I'm not sure what they are, but there's nothing supernatural about them.
      What I would like is to be able to type "night UFO" in google (or another search engine), and be directed to the website of a respectable astronomical institute, where they list the types of moving lights that can be seen in the nightsky, with example photos and films. What I do find when searching "moving lights nightsky" is "unexplained-mysteries.com" (I didn't even click on it) and the like. So I'm a bit disapointed. I have to search "satellite night sky" to find the explanation, which means I already know the answer.

      --
      new sig
    9. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by master_p · · Score: 1

      Ok, but please show us **one** real video of UFOs.

      Actually, you can't do that, because there is none.

    10. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by runbadscott · · Score: 1

      A big one was the Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident that happened in 1967...(GTS!)

      --
      0100111001100101011100100110010000100001
    11. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Drekkahn · · Score: 0

      If I tell you I saw a UFO, then blame my physchology. If a radar and other eye witnesses see the same UFO then that would be outside verification...wouldnt it. If I see a guy who I know died come back to life, and other witnesses see it then that would be outside verification. Not all of the accounts in religion and in UFO's fit neatly into your phychology theory.

    12. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by moxley · · Score: 1

      Yeah - and those guys had everything to lose and nothing to gain by talking about it.

    13. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people are credible enough to handle launching nuclear ICBMs, including one who was a base commander at a foreign base where nuclear weapons were stored, yet some people still doubt their credibility?

      What does credibility have to do with being a soldier who obeys orders well? Does it take some kind of superior intellect to sit in an ICBM facility and follow orders? I'd rather believe the scientist over the military grunt.

    14. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by strikethree · · Score: 1

      meh. ok, there are definitely unidentified flying objects. are they aliens or are they of terrestrial origin?

      just because these objects can do things that seem to defy physics, that does not automatically imply that they have to be piloted by non-terrestrial beings or that the technology is not of terrestrial origins.

      seriously, if someone had to guess and was being rational, which option is the most likely:

      Aliens, who have never revealed themselves to the general populace, are flying around.

      Some group (probably governmental) is using experimental, possibly unmanned, technology.

      strike
       

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    15. Re:This has happened many times since the late 60s by Tom · · Score: 1

      A radar does not print "alien object detected" on the screen anywhere except the movies. It shows a radar echo. That is pretty good evidence that something is out there. At the same time, it is no evidence whatsoever that said something is of alien origin.

      Eye witnesses... well, the unreliability of eye witnesses is an open secret. The human power of perception is pretty pathetic, and memory even worse. There are tons of experiments out there where you can reliably and repeatably make people remember things that weren't there, see things that aren't there, or miss blatantly obvious things.

      If I see a guy who I know died come back to life, and other witnesses see it then that would be outside verification.

      And what is more likely? That the diagnosis of death was wrong, or that one of the thousand gods mankind has invented has reversed the order of chemical and physical processes just for the fun of it?

      Not all of the accounts in religion and in UFO's fit neatly into your phychology theory.

      Probably not. But it is a lot more likely that a different psychological theory fits them than that gods are real or aliens are visiting us. Once more: Where did all the curious aliens from the 60s go? Left earth because we made their favourite drugs illegal in the 70s?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  62. And the surprise is about what ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    5-10 thousand nukes on the planet, late ones of which are able to exterminate life in a portion of the planet and eventually entire planet due to its ecological consequences, and NO accident of any sort happened up till this day, no madmen, no terrorists, no psychopaths, no other complication, but 10 k nukes majority of which with multi warheads that were designed to destroy 12 major cities on the planet in one single missile launch, just stood in their ready to launch state without any issues for decades ....

    just take a look at everything else going on our planet. check the accident/disaster percentages. check their scale. the chances of a major catastrophe through nuclear weapons in the last few decades not happening are as low as none. its a miracle that we are still alive.

    1. Re:And the surprise is about what ? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and NO accident of any sort happened up till this day

      There have actually been lots of accidents involving nukes. But none that exploded, that I know of.

      no madmen, no terrorists, no psychopaths

      Partly because so far they've only been affordable by stable nation states, partly because we've been lucky that none of those states or their militaries have been governed by sufficiently whack whackjobs.

      However, it's hard to doubt that Hitler would have launched his entire arsenal just before committing suicide. MAD is only as stable as the people playing the game.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  63. It's either Aliens or Insurance Fraud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are consistent reports of the Nuclear warheads degrading to neutral abilities and there being UFO sightings ABOVE the premises of the SILO's housing the warhead-tipped missiles.

    Either they are defective manufacture that isn't covered on Insurance claims, or they are being ATTACKED by ALIENS and thus warrants a claim to their Insurance.

  64. TS/SCI doesn't mean smart by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It doesn't mean good observer, it doesn't mean critical thinker. It means only one thing: "We find it extremely unlikely this person will revel secret information given to them."

    Mostly it is based on making sure you have no connections to a foreign government, and in making sure you have no skeletons in your closet or bad habits that could be used as leverage to make you betray your country.

    So TS/SCI doesn't mean you don't believe in alien visitation, just that you aren't likely to give those visitors classified information :).

    1. Re:TS/SCI doesn't mean smart by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It means only one thing: "We find it extremely unlikely this person will revel secret information given to them."

      ...

      ...and in making sure you have no skeletons in your closet or bad habits that could be used as leverage to make you betray your country.

      It likely means that this person has good enough judgement to remain that way as well, does it not? I mean if it were apparent that the guy were a total whackjob, who only hadn't screwed up so far, do we really think the clearance would be granted?

      If so, someone please go fix that ASAP...

  65. How did it malfunction? by slapout · · Score: 1

    "several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned"

    Wouldn't a malfunction mean that it didn't explode? Wouldn't that mean someone was trying to fire it? :-)

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  66. Journalism used to be a profession by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fact checking has one single purpose: it means that the newspaper can't be sued for printing falsehoods.

    There's more to it than that. As journalism became a profession in the middle of the last century, news organizations would actually compete to be seen as the most factual and least biased sources of news. I know, it sounds incredible, but there were actual market forces at work compelling news organizations to check facts before publishing them.

    The impact of libel law on news organizations has remained relatively constant, even in the era of Fox News and The Random Angry Blogger. While many "news" organizations are happy to cannibalize the profession of journalism in their race for the bottom, there are still media outlets both old and new that are holding on to journalistic ethics because they know there are still readers who will pay for the privilege of reading news that has actual facts in it.

    Tilting libel in favor of plaintiffs would surely create more fact-checking, but I wouldn't bet on that happening any time in the near future. The Roberts Court is very pro-First Amendment. They love it so much they'll guarantee it for entities like corporations that aren't even human.

    I wouldn't be surprised, though, if in a decade we find a small, robust core of truly journalistic organizations thriving in the face of widespread devaluation of news. They'll survive not because of the law, but because there will always be people who value straightforward reporting and will pay for it (not necessarily directly, but in some fashion).

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by Bartab · · Score: 3, Funny

      There's more to it than that. As journalism became a profession in the middle of the last century, news organizations would actually compete to be seen as the most factual and least biased sources of news.

      BS.

      Prior to television, ALL news sources were biased, and wore their bias proudly. Search how many newspapers have "Union" in their name.

      With the advance of television, and to a lesser extent radio, it became obvious that a limited availability of transmission capability - not to mention receiver channels - that all parties involved, stations and viewers both decided impartiality was a goal worth having.

      Newspapers kinda got drug along for the ride.

      Now, with the internet and 1000 television stations, the -mutual- incentive for impartiality is gone, and so the actual impartiality is gone.

      I, for one, welcome bias. So long as the participants are clear they're not neutral. It's a shame Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", but it's a larger shame that CNN makes similar claims.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    2. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. "Journalism" has always been subject to the bias of the reporter.

    3. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Funny

      CNN Makes claims? I thought they just showed water skiing chipmunks all day.

    4. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      For once, the correct book to cite is not 1984, it's Fahrenheit 451. In this book, as news sources had to appeal to a larger and larger audience, they gradually reduced the amount of material that could be considered offensive to anyone, until they were reporting things that were so bland that they didn't count as news. Entertainment went the same way. Sound familiar?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      They'll survive not because of the law, but because there will always be people who value straightforward reporting and will pay for it

      Except that the majority of people will be consuming crap, and these guys won't have enough money to fund a flight, let alone an investigative report on the abuses in a foreign country.

    6. Re:Journalism used to be a profession by bluie- · · Score: 1

      The problem to me seems that too many people don't value good reporting at all. They'd rather tune in to something that feels right to them, facts be damned.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
  67. As a matter of fact: Nope, no fact-checkers by yelvington · · Score: 4, Informative

    Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker" .

    As a matter of fact, they did not.

    While newspapers conventionally have had editors who often checked facts, they weren't called fact-checkers, and their primary function usually was to fix bad writing (sometimes the job was more like translation) and to write headlines to fit layouts. The position was usually called "copy editor" or "copyreader" in the United States and "subeditor" in the UK. The primary responsibility for getting things right has always been placed on the reporter, whose job is to gather information and put it into something resembling the written word.

    I've been in journalism for 40 years, and my dad was a newspaper editor before me. The only time I've encountered a "fact checker" has been in connection with a magazine article. Magazine articles often are outsourced to freelancers, whose butts are not necessarily available for kicking the next morning if something is wrong, so fact-checkers are employed to verify information before it's published. Typically they'll call a news source: "Is your name really Heywood Jablome?" There''s no time for that in a daily newsroom.

    Of course, the cited "story" is not journalism at all, but rather an announcement pushed out by PR Newswire, which is a publicity release distribution service. Reuters carries PR Newswire because often the "press releases" contain legitimate and useful information, but it fails to adequately label the content for what it really is.

    So any perceived decline in the profession of journalism can't be blamed for this wacky crap.

    1. Re:As a matter of fact: Nope, no fact-checkers by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only time I've encountered a "fact checker" has been in connection with a magazine article. Magazine articles often are outsourced to freelancers, whose butts are not necessarily available for kicking the next morning if something is wrong, so fact-checkers are employed to verify information before it's published. Typically they'll call a news source: "Is your name really Heywood Jablome?"

      I was on an eco-tour in Peru and one of the guys in the trip was a freelance journalist writing a piece about the experience. About a month after the trip,I got a call from his editor, who went through the most mundane details of the story, bit by bit, to confirm them with me. It was all basically correct, but I was really reaching to recall basic facts. Were the mats we slept on on the riverboat foam? Probably. Did that local guide say exactly that to the writer? I was only half-paying attention.

      It was pretty thorough, and this wasn't an investigative piece or anything, just entertainment/travelogue. So at least for those kinds of pieces, editors do check up. Or at least one did for one story.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  68. I call bulls***t on this by BudAaron · · Score: 1

    I spent several years first testing nuclear weapons and later as a quality control inspector. In fact the information on some of the test shots I worked on has recently been declassified. Do a search for Operation Upshot Knothole or Operation Buster Jangle. We instrumented these shots (using pressure gauges, displacement tests and strain gauges among others). This is just by way of letting you know that I DO have some direct experience with the weapons involved. As close as I was to all of this rumors DO circulate and I heard a BUNCH of them but NO ONE ever implied or suggested that we were being watched by aliens! That includes Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine forces involved in various things. Hell I even got foolish (with a buddy of mine) and drove up to Groom Lake to get a better view of one test. Now Groom Lake is connected with many stories of an Area 51 but I never saw anything even suggesting a major installation there. Oh our testing operations operated out of Nellis Airforce base. On the flip side of this coin I was in the US Navy going to Electronics school in San Francisco in 1945. Part of my boot camp training involved heavy training in aircraft identification so I had a fair knowledge of all man made flying objects in the world if you like. One evening at twilight I went down from our apartment to empty the trash. I looked in the direction of Moffett Field and saw (several miles away) something that looked like it might be a blimp with a row of lights down its long axis. I finished emptying the trash and looked up just in time to see 3 objects appear to detach themselves and start flying toward me. By this time I was truly puzzled because what I thought I was seeing made no sense. So I watched these 3 objects continue coming toward me quite slowly. As they got close enough to make out they turned out to be disk shaped but the angle was such that I could not make out anything on top of them. They were flying at what could best be described as "hovering" speed. The bottoms were convex and looked for all the world like a banked glowing coal fire. I had time to call my wife and ask her to come down. When she arrived they were directly overhead and I said "What are those?" She answered in an amazed tone of voice, "My god - flying saucers!" I would guess that they were between one and two thousand feet altitude and about 100 feet in diameter but I have no certainty of either the distance or the size. Now I had never before seen nor have I seen since anything that looked remotely like these craft. To this day I have NO idea what they were, where they came from or where they went. What I DO know is they had no resemblance to any flying craft I had seen during my aircraft recognition classes and I have never seen anything that resmbled them since. So although I know WHAT I saw - I try not to speculate on who might have been flying them but I frankly don't believe that anyone with that kind of technology would have a worry in the world about us because we will never leave this planet in the next hundred or more years in any manner to be a threat to others in the universe.

  69. simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned by dameron · · Score: 1

    Much better than simultaneously and inexplicably functioning.

  70. Bat shit crazy! by mevets · · Score: 1

    I love it. Everybody is way too serious, so even if this has an onionesque pedigree, it is a relief to find a bunch of wackos going public with their insane fantasies. Compared with the usual military stories about which oil nation to attack next, this is like a breath of fresh air.
    Shine on you crazy bastards....

  71. Same guy who has been on Missile Forums for a year by NouberNou · · Score: 1

    I think this is the same guy who has been hocking his book on http://www.missileforums.com/ which is a forum for former and current USAF missile crews and their related departments. Pretty much all of the responses from the people on there are "bullshit" and these are people that were in the LCC pulling shifts for 3 decades.

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new nuclear warhead disarming overlords.

  74. First they came for my Nukes, I did not complain.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..I don't know which proposition is scarier, that there is *a force out there*, preventing us from commiting the ultimate madness.. ..or that there isn't one.

  75. PR Newswire by kindbud · · Score: 0

    PR Newswire publishes press releases for a fee. Reuters reprints PR Newswire releases. Nobody in the chain fact-checks a damn thing.

    Press conferences are not evidence. Testimony is not evidence. If they don't bring a body or a spaceship to this press conference, then there is absolutely nothing new here at all.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  76. This bears repeating... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    UFOs != Alien intelligence

    A more likely explanation is that it was/is a foreign gov. Or even someone on the home-team...

  77. UAO? by fire113 · · Score: 1

    Since when did they start calling UFO's UAO's? WTF is the difference between an Unidentified Aerial Object and an Unidentified Flying Object?? I think there's more to this story...

  78. It must be the reapers by microbee · · Score: 1

    Time to call up the Normandy!

  79. In all honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another useless UFO story(ies) isn't going nowhere and won't be that much of a money making scam nowadays, but what i wanted to just write and let is out is, i really, really hope while im alive, some type of intellectual alien life could come to us to do whatever, really, enslave us, kill us or just peacefully live among us.

    It just would make life allot more interesting. (yes im bored as i type this)

  80. Why Assume these are extraterrestials? by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just as ants have no concept of your foot squashing them being signs of an advanced intelligence (you), so would flying saucers be considered a sign of beings from another planet. If they exist, (a far more advanced intelligence on earth than humans) then they would be good at keeping themselves hidden and secret.

    Maybe they don't understand how we function any more than we understand how ants function.

    Maybe by messing with our nukes they are protecting themselves in the way that we brush away ants at our picnics.

    Or more realistically, the people who are in-charge of keeping the Dr. Strangelove characters from burning the earth are creating a collective hallucination of flying saucers and destroying the rogue nukes themselves. Since there has never been any real physical evidence of flying saucers actually existing, this is the most likely scenario.

    Anyway, we should thank these guys for protecting us from the psychopaths in the military who want to burn the world and rule the ashes.

    Do the Soviets (no I don't accept them as 'Russians'), the Chinese, the French, and the British have the same 'problem' with flying saucers fucking around with the nuclear bombs that we do?

    1. Re:Why Assume these are extraterrestials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the Soviets (no I don't accept them as 'Russians'),[...]

      I like how you can't stop yourself from hinting that you believe other crazy things as well.

      Even when Russia was called Soviet Union, a Russian was still a Russian. A soviet has never been used to refer to the people living in Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_(disambiguation)

  81. Gort!? by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    I would prefer Gorts cold hard logic. Zim is who I fear.

    I've heard this before on Coast to Coast AM, not sure what to think of it ...

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  82. The implicit higher technology. by reiisi · · Score: 1

    I mean, who wants to believe that $enemy_of_choice is so far advanced beyond us?

    What (sometimes, sort of) surprises me is that no one seems to be seeing this as evidence of, erm, angels?

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  83. Your comment is interesting. by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Your comment is interesting. I implies that the nukes may not exist, because if they did, and there was the ability to destroy life on earth and these systems were kept on hair-trigger readiness, then something would have happened already by now after @60 years.

      I suspect that there is an "Omnicide Prevention Group" among the nuclear powers that works to identify 'Dr. Strangelove' characters and is enpowered to prevent them for creating 'Earth Burning' situations from happening.

      Or we have been extremely lucky to have principled and moral men in the military guarding against these situations. Guys like the officer played by Denzel Washington in the movie Crimson Tide.

        I'm anti-war, anti-military myself, but I salute these guys for being able to keep the peace since WWII.

  84. Consistent reports of rising Paranormal Acts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone gets all the money discussing about the Aliens and the War stories, but not enough discuss the incidents of fossils recovered from graves throughout America and the rest of the world. These fossils are key to health longevity, strength, mental capacity, and perhaps even paranormal abilities. Much of this documentation is pooled for free in various small "cultish" repositories, while some render it in brevity for a small price for a hardback book.

    Look around http://www.lamarzulli.net/ for this one author who has a discussion on AmericanVoiceRadio.Com and consider the more historical references ( http://www.burlingtonnews.net/giantkossuth.html ) ( http://www.burlingtonnews.net/alienraces3.html )

  85. Why Does the Govt Keep Denying??? by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    One word: MONEY.

    Think about it. Think logically.

    They've already got people who measure the thixotropic response of ketchup in the USDA, and we don't even have enough money for them. Do you really think they're going to shell out the money for alien research, alien watch towers, alien hotlines for reporting, Department of Orbital Defense, alien-encouter insurance, abduction insurance, abduction lawsuits, implant removal surgery? Do we even wanna think about how you'd write up the MSDS sheet on a removed alien implant?

    Better to keep pooh-poohing it and save all the tech you glean for yourself.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  86. sounds like BS by sittingQuietly · · Score: 0

    as if it was designed to keep the UFO meme in the public consciousness. A strategy which works. Much of the public think conspiracy buffs are crackpots. with UFO tales priming the pump. I see all the time statements like "you are saying the ___ was a lie and the ___ was not real, LOL. What's next, UFOs?"

    Overall UFO tales are a way for folks who grow up in authoritarian backgrounds, who sense something is amiss, to dissent in a safe way (in their minds).

  87. What a relief by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    I'm glad someone besides humans are watching the store. I welcome our alien masters

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  88. Obvious Barnhouse Effect by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

    This is the work of Professor Arthur Barnhouse no doubt.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  89. Re:RIP CJ Rehnquist by russotto · · Score: 3, Funny

    Chief Justice Rehnquist frequently dissented in cases requiring the extension of individual freedoms to entities like corporations.

    That is merely because Chief Justice Rehnquist was pretty much against individual freedom full stop.

  90. Another possibity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't have to be an alien weapons system, the purpose could be to prevent us from exterminating ourselves.

    I'd humbly suggest that the scientific value of a living Earth w/human race is immense to an alien species at any conceivable level of technological development, and if such an alien species has discovered us, they won't likely allow us to destroy ourselves or the planet.

  91. Yes, but also No. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Good point.

    The fact of the matter is that this group of high-ranking witnesses has been around for several years now, pumping this same line. If you know where to find them, then sure, they've got a lot of fascinating notes to share. But the media has ignored them.

    The interesting thing now is that this is receiving actual main-stream attention with the possibility of official acknowledgment. Now THAT'S spooky. It means somebody, somewhere is planning something. You don't turn on that big a switch in the public mind without wanting to get something out of it on the other side.

    Consider; this same week, a new and high production-value TV program aired called, "The Event" just aired. It's also about aliens and conspiracies and government cover-ups. Reuters and Hollywood are simply output pipes on the same media machine and the timing for this kind of social engineering is impeccable given that the planet is about to start freezing and starving. I'm noticing other similar trends in the societal mind share on this topic.

    Something is definitely up. Whether it is going to be a bait & switch kind of maneuver designed to lock down thinking patters, (like the fake moon landing con), or if it is simply time to wake people up to new masters or whatever. . , who the heck knows?

    But it'll be neat to see how it all plays out.

    -FL

  92. Actually, it's... by the_rajah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The National Enquirer, spelled starting with an E. I know a couple of people that have written for them. The Enquirer has an army of fact checkers since they've been sued so often in the past. Their stock in trade is, of course, celebrity gossip, but the stories are accurate. Each is checked to within an inch of it's life before it hits the press.

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Actually, it's... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      The same NE that a number of years ago had a title page about a giant bird abducting passenger planes over the Andes? (That's one of the lasting impressions from my first US trip.)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    2. Re:Actually, it's... by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that was the National Enquirer? As the other guy said, the Enquirer is a trashy gossip rag, but usually accurate -- in fact they are often the first news source to uncover the illicit affairs of politician's, which then, rightly or wrongly, become major political scandals.

      The headline you described sounds like something from the Weekly World News -- a hilarious source of completely fabricated B-movie-grade sci-fi, which is sadly no longer printed, but lives on in web-only form.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    3. Re:Actually, it's... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      It was a long time ago, I was not always sober during that trip, and I would not bet on it, but I'm pretty sure. OTOH, if what I say makes no sense at all then I am probably wrong.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    4. Re:Actually, it's... by thefixer(tm) · · Score: 1

      Funny, cause a friend of mine used to do graphic design work for them and some of the other trash rags. Of course, this was years ago, so maybe things have changed, but he explained that his job was to take a photo and tweak it to make something outrageous. The difference being that the enquirer would take a pot bellied Madonna and have the headline "Madonna Preggers?" whereas the other rags would be "Madonna to have 3 headed alien baby"...

  93. Since when does UFO = aliens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and not something more obvious like foreign spy craft, manned or unmanned? The linked article makes no mention of extra-terrestrials at all, only security breaches by small craft. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? As an aside, it seems like lately I've seen more and more inaccurate headlines on Slashdot sometimes seemingly for sensationalism, other times seemingly to denigrate Americans or our lifestyle.

  94. Uh, no by phorm · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since pretty much *anyone* can send a fax and claim it was from somebody else, then the first step would, in fact, likely be to confirm that the information is actually coming from the claimed source ...

    I could send a fax right now with the return # of Obama's press agent and claim that I'm implementing a new 15% sales tax to fund healthcare, and the press would be *fools* if they didn't at least check with the real press agent (or whatever the equivalent position is actually called)

  95. Re: Another theory by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    For one thing, despite your pandering, our former president was not an idiot, by definition.

    Which definition is that?

    If Sarah Palin gets elected, will she suddenly stop being an idiot?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  96. Mediator by BraksDad · · Score: 1

    Let them monitor us and everyone else. I bow to our alien overlords declaration of quantities as long as they provide us the numbers with a pretty slide show.

    --
    Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  97. Dad was an AF pilot and saw a UFO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad was a pilot in the nuclear US AF. He saw a UFO as did the copilot and flight engineer. They didn't discuss it at the time and each wrote up their version to compare later. The stories were almost exactly the same. They decided that turning in those reports would be detrimental to their careers, so they didn't.

    Dad was fairly highly decorated, promoted to full Col., and held multiple commands over his career.

    After Dad died, Mom told me the story and it explained why their two best friends had been friends for so long. They were in that crew. At the time, it was strange to stay in contact with people over a 30 yr military career.

    UFO just means they didn't know what it was, not necessarily that it was from another planet.

  98. So long and thanks for all the fish. by MikeFM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Way back in college I had an electrical engineering professor that told us that when he worked for the military part of his job was maintaining the control systems for nukes. He said that a big problem they've repeatedly fought with is that the insulation used in many of the nukes breaks down with time so you'll get a bit of crossover and shorting. So the nukes will suddenly arm themselves and fun things like that. It wasn't just single nukes either - whole locations would go into launch mode all on their own. I think the point was to be careful how you built things because what is fine under normal conditions might end up being used harder and longer than you expect.

    I keep waiting for Armeggedon by glitch. The end of humanity because we insist on keeping around aging weapons that only an idiot would ever use anyway.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:So long and thanks for all the fish. by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      That's actually why the US Navy created the Preventative Maintenance System, or PMS for short.

      It's a very detailed, VERY extensive system, with detailed maintenance cards, procedures, verifications, safety, fail-safes and regular inspections. The cards quite literally tell you every item you'll need, from tools to dishwashing liquid. (You use soapy water to check for pressure leaks on things.)

      Some of the maintenance can be dangerous, such as working aloft, but that's all covered too, from soup to nuts, A to Z.

      It is why our navy stays in such good shape, all things considered.

      That said, I think having an Titan II pulling a Dark Star would definitely ruin my day...

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:So long and thanks for all the fish. by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Have you come across the Soviet "Dead Hand" system?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

    3. Re:So long and thanks for all the fish. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Even if they are looking out for it it still scares the crap out of me. My experience with complex systems is that even if you think you've thought of every possible problem that you'll always miss at least one and it'll hit at exactly the wrong time. It's just incredibly stupid to keep around a system that could kill us all if such a glitch happens.

      Also it's one reason I believe we need to work on colonizing space. If some natural disaster or war doesn't kill us all then a computer glitch might. Something we can't deal with will happen eventually. The more we spread out the better chance we have of surviving as a species.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  99. Re:Another theory by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Obama's NPR seems to have differed slightly from Bush's 2002 NPR. How it differs is important. It limits contingency plans for nuclear strikes against other states to Iran and North Korea. Very magnanimous of him. It does however rule out attacks against states that are signatories of the NPT. Much more specific and limited than Bush's NPR.

    Having a policy is not the same as exercising every component of it. There's more to this.

    To be more specific, the Bush doctrine might permit a nuclear response to other types of WMDs. We may want the felxibility, but Obama is willing to forego that, at least in writing.

    For the record, I'm in favor of a concerted effort to eliminate nuclear weapons. We should lead the way, pay for the dismantling and storage of nuclear weapons material, and we should press this to ostracize the few states that will refuse to participate. Will the Russians? Will the Chinese?

    The real question is will Israel? They don't really even admit to having any, so this would be fun. But from a position of disarmament, we have a better place to compel states such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their plans. And if they won't, we can make a case for isolation.

    Not likely to happen, because verification with states such as Israel and China is pretty much pointless. Russia is transparent compared to China.

    You can't so easily put the toothpaste back in the tube.

    Back to your point, however, as if Bush was looking forward to exercising a preemptive nuclear strike. You are delusional. I trust you don't use knives in the kitchen, because by your logic, having a knife makes you prone to use it premptively to silence an enemy. You're not like that, are you? No, of course not. But all the rest of us maybe. Maybe.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  100. Re: Another theory by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I was about to reply, but that's unworthy of comment.

    I do understand. Really.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  101. Professions doing their jobs by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tilting libel in favor of plaintiffs would surely create more fact-checking, but I wouldn't bet on that happening any time in the near future. The Roberts Court is very pro-First Amendment.

    So perhaps if the courts stuck to their original job of applying the law rather than writing the law then the legislators could go back to their job of writing laws and journalists could be made to return writing true stories to keep the courts and legislators honest....hmmm I think I see a flaw here.

    1. Re:Professions doing their jobs by Boronx · · Score: 1

      In the common law system judges create law. That's the kind of system America uses.

    2. Re:Professions doing their jobs by mhelander · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought legislators (politicians) were supposed to create law, and the legal system (judges) were there to interpret the law.

    3. Re:Professions doing their jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a common misconception spread by people who want to attack judges who don't rule how they like. Some systems work like that, but ours gives judges way more leeway.

  102. Galactic orcs by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    I've often thought that if any of these alien witessings are actually true, then aliens appear to be pretty fragile, clever and more technologically advanced compared to us.
    That would make us the galactic equivalent of orcs... driving around with clunky combustion powered vehicles, just starting out with remote communication, managing to get to the moon and back, once, by placing 3 people on tonnes of explosives... and then being proud of those achievements. We can't stop brutal violence in our societies, and even accept it as normal to a degree (perhaps they do too) and we often even idolise violence. (Hey, even I like my martial arts.) Sounds just like orks in WH40K, or orcs in general.

    So, if aliens did exist, and this view of us as being the galactic equivalent of orcs is even somewhat accurate, then I wouldn't blame aliens for being shy from us, and closely monitoring our most powerful weapons.
    In their position, I would be rather cautious too.

  103. Really Bad Idea to talk about this. by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    Some shit just needs to be left alone.

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  104. yes we know by SQLz · · Score: 1

    There are aliens, its obvious. We're probably some common 6th grade alien science fair project where the kids have to terraform a planet and then create semi-intelligent beings. Extra credit if they don't destroy each other within 100 years after nuclear technology.

  105. Back to the Future by double07 · · Score: 1

    I always liked the idea that 'UFO's' and 'Aliens' weren't from another distant planet, but infact highly evolved humans from - say a million - years in the future traveling back in time to study their ancestors.

  106. Damn UFO's... by SwampChicken · · Score: 1

    It's time for me to get back at them.... *wave fist* ... {reinstalls x-com}

  107. If i had a techonlogy to travel light-years by drolli · · Score: 1

    I would also monitor the most dangerous weapons on the planet i am visiting. But if i had a technology for traveling light-years, i probably would not do that visibly.

    1. Re:If i had a techonlogy to travel light-years by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      let's rephrase that. If I had an aicraft that could handle 30g and move very fast, I would use it to monitor the most dangerous weapons of other countries in the world. I can't make it invisible yet...

      --
      new sig
  108. ufos heh by luther349 · · Score: 1

    i rember when upn first became a network they did a huge thing on ufos. a remake of a close encounter of a family that went missing. crazy stuff. but the problem with ufos is the footage has always been crap even with modern cameras. so i call it bs. show me clear hd shots of them where they cant be discredited. i rember when are stealth bomber was still in the classified stage everyone thought it was a ufo. till the air force stepped up and said no its a aircraft. and in the 50s we did experiment with flying saucers but at least they clame they never got them to fly more then a few feet off the ground barly. of course we all know rosewell happond way to many people saw it to say no it didn't. but the fact was it man made or alien was never told. as for this story disabling nukes would be quite easy with a good emp blast. emp would fry the computers leaving the nuke useless to launch.

  109. Class clowns by Flentil · · Score: 1

    I wish there was filter on slashdot that would let me skip past the initial flurry of posts on every article made by clowns trying too hard to be funny.

  110. Re: Another theory by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    If Sarah Palin gets elected, will she suddenly stop being an idiot?

    You have demonstrated the GP's point, of course, by shifting the target of your irrational hatred from Bush to a new object. How's the two-minute hate thing working out for you?

    One of the highlights of all the political arguments I've been in was to catch a liberal friend of mine going on about conservative hate. I told him if we really wanted to see hate in action, I'd get him started talking about Sarah Palin.

    To his credit, the message was understood.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  111. Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby.

    It really sounds so much more sensationalist if you imagine it being spoken with a British accent.

  112. Antarctic Nazis by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed, there are some interesting tidbits floating around out there:

    Operation Highjump:
    Operation Highjump (OpHjp), officially titled The United States Navy Antarctic Developments Program, 1946-47, was a United States Navy operation organized by Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd in Antarctica under the command of Richard Cruzen, which was launched on 26 August 1946 and ended abruptly in late February 1947, six months earlier than planned. The massive Antarctic task force included 4,700 men, 13 ships, and multiple aircraft.

    The next bit is mostly reputed:
    On March 5, 1947 the "El Mercurio" newspaper of Santiago, Chile, had a headline article "On Board the Mount Olympus on the High Seas" which quoted Byrd in an interview with Lee van Atta: "Adm. Byrd declared today that it was imperative for the United States to initiate immediate defense measures against hostile regions.

    The admiral further stated that he didn't want to frighten anyone unduly but that it was a bitter reality that in case of a new war the continental United States would be attacked by flying objects which could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds. [Earlier he had recommended defense bases AT the NORTH Pole.] Admiral Byrd repeated the above points of view, resulting from his personal knowledge gathered both at the north and south poles, before a news conference held for International News Service." When Byrd returned to the States, he was hospitalized and was not allowed to hold any more press conferences. In March 1955, he was placed in charge of Operation Deepfreeze which was part of the International Geophysical Year [1957-1958] exploration of the Antarctic.

    There's a lot more than that, including Nazi submarines surrendering months after the war to Argentina, an incident a couple of decades after about unidentified submarines easily evading the entire Argentinian navy for a month, and the verifiable fact that Nazis were working on disc shaped aircraft. During the Nuremberg Trials, Dönitz spoke of "an invisible fortification, in midst of the eternal ice." The we have a reputed British flotilla commander who encountered a massive u-boat fleet heading south, can't find the reference now.

    I personally give little credence to any of the above, but it is fascinating.

  113. Re:Another theory by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    our former president was not an idiot

    Citation needed.

    by definition.

    New definition of definition needed.

  114. Many people believe the government. Covered it up by dugeen · · Score: 1

    I'd love these accounts to be true, but it puzzles me that the CIA/whoever could successfully cover UFO stories up for decades, while failing to prevent stuff like Abu Ghraib from coming out within a few months of it happening.

  115. RE: .... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    I'm recieving even less radiation from reading /. in my mom's basement, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Here be signatures
  116. Eh? The RULES? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    A US airforce commander, Bomber Harris sent US nuclear bombers on recon flights over the USSR with no way for russians to know wether they were there on a recon flight or an attack.

    The rules don't mean much when you get insane people making their own policies.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Eh? The RULES? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      A US airforce commander, Bomber Harris sent US nuclear bombers on recon flights over the USSR with no way for russians to know wether they were there on a recon flight or an attack.

      ROTFLMAO. 'Bomber' Harris was a WWII RAF commander.

  117. Please don't kill us all... yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    All I got to say about the aliens is that, if they loved us less, we'd be dead by now.

    And yeah, I really know, earthlings.

  118. Re:Many people believe the government. Covered it by jsebrech · · Score: 1

    Maybe they release a scandal now and then to distract us from the real cover-up?

  119. Covert by GerryHattrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I wanted to use covert drones to monitor enemies' installations, I think I'd test them out on my own first. And I probably wouldn't tell people first (or even afterwards).

  120. Re:Many people believe the government. Covered it by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    but it puzzles me that the CIA/whoever could successfully cover UFO stories up for decades, while failing to prevent stuff like Abu Ghraib from coming out within a few months of it happening.

    What's so puzzling?

    There's tons of information out there, photographs, accounts, dead cows, crop circles. . . Has been for years.

    The fact of the matter is that people have been trained to ignore that which the talking heads on TV have not sanctified with the wand of authoritative recognition and acceptance into "Official Reality".

    It's true that you can't keep a secret. There are always leaks. However, you CAN keep the public from wanting to look or think about that secret. It's quite easy, actually. You just say, "X is uncool. Only losers think about X." We didn't go to school to learn math and science. We wen to school to learn our social programming.

    It's the genius of mind-control.

    Seriously; the particular group of people in this story have been around for quite a few years now, speaking the same message about UFOs. The only difference is that the news media looks like it consider validating them. That's the only thing which has changed.

    That people's filters can be so immediately altered with such a subtle shift speaks volumes about how terribly programmed our society is.

    It would be pathetic if it weren't also so very dangerous.

    -FL

  121. LGM's by meglon · · Score: 2, Funny

    As someone famous once said, it's not the Little Green Men we have to worry about, it's the Large Green Motherfuckers.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  122. Alien Invasion by Maclir · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to enter "about:robots" in the FireFox address line....

  123. Oh dear by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    The maximum Young's Modulus for any material is ultimately determined by the strength of the strongest possible covalent bond. A foil that could not be dented with a sledgehammer could not be made of ordinary matter, and anything not made of ordinary matter would only interact weakly with it (and by extension us.) Or, expressed more technically, your Major is writing fecal matter deriving from an animal of genus bos.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Oh dear by bobgap · · Score: 1

      1. He wasn't writing this, he was describing it on Donahue, during an interview. It is too long ago for me to recall if he was hawking a book, but I don't believe that he was. 2. There are a gazillion items surrounding us today that would have elicited a similar "fecal" remark 100 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago. Just as a "for instance", contemplate strands of nanotubes, metallically sealed, perhaps in a honeycomb structure, perhaps bonded through a metallic core. Even if the strength of each strand was slight, imagine 10^15 strands. Might be quite strong, lightweight, and thin? But I suppose a bigger issue is that we cannot fly about as UFOs are described. But what about in 500 years? 10,000? 100,000?

  124. Dan Raather by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Newspapers used to have a position called a "fact-checker" and rather than just reprinting corporate and political press releases verbatim, they fact checked them first and would write a story about the release, pointing out any falsehoods. It isn't about book sales versus newspaper sales, it is about journalistic integrity.

    That stopped being true a long time ago with newspaper running the ideological gamut to the detriment of journalistic integrity. It only took a long time (starting with Dan Rather) for people to realize journalistic integrity is, for the most part, not a guaranteed attribute.

  125. "From Reuters" is deceptive. by Nephroth · · Score: 1

    An anonymous reader quotes a press release on Reuters for crackpot author's book tour.

    --
    Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  126. Yes, we *are* closer to proof. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't think that the recent foo fighter videos shown on Mexico City TV news, shot from many different people, many phone cameras, and different vantage points don't constitute "closer" to proof, I don't know what to tell you.

    Unlike the vast majority of history when we had to rely on firsthand accounts or worse, we're finally in an age where the average person DOES have a video camera available at a moment's notice, turned on, with everlasting 'film' at hand. And now as a result we are seeing videos of these "unidentified flying objects" we've been hearing about for 500 (not 50) years. So it becomes harder to dismiss these events as "speculation".

  127. Humans are dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the nukes (and our bizarre idea of stashing attack weapons for "maintaining peace") are the simple reason aliens aren't saying hello...
    I mean, we are an aggressive ape species that stash bombs that can destroy 10 planets 2 times over. With that and the history of human response to
    foreigners in mind - the only logical Alien action is "We'd better keep off that planet... otherwise, the humans may start nuke-terrorism against us"

  128. Radiation does create delusions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure if radiation makes people delusional.

    It does.
    For proof I suggest you Google "Jane Fonda".

  129. Gr8!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gr8!!!!
    I feel much more safe now, thanks!

  130. Re: Another theory by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

    Come on, you don't have to have "liberal hate" to think someone is an idiot, even if that person happens to be a popular conservative politician. It is entirely possible to disapprove of someone that has opposing political views for reasons that have nothing to do with those political views. I don't know Sarah Palin, never met her, so can't really comment on her mental capacities. But she certainly comes across as an idiot in the media. The fact that she was elected to a position of authority doesn't strike me as counter evidence.

    --
    ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  131. Not one or the other by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Legislators create laws, which require interpretation by judges. It is virtually impossible to create a statute that doesn't require some degree of interpretation. To create one that addressed every possible situation would place us in a society so rule-bound that we'd all have to consult the statute book before crossing the street.

    Judges look to the intent of the law as well as the the language of the law, and they incorporate precedent (the outcome of prior related cases) into their interpretation. In so doing, they create further precedent. So yes, judges shape the law, but they do not create it out of nothing.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Not one or the other by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Judges look to the intent of the law as well as the the language of the law

      That's the theory at least. However since US judges are effectively running for political office and are even members of a political party the impression is that they are more interested in what they think the law should mean rather than what the legislators who passed it intended. Obviously some bias is inevitable when anyone interprets the law but when it is actively encouraged justice becomes doubtful and legislators are rendered relatively powerless.

  132. Lead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My God you are unimaginative.

  133. Re: Another theory by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    I told him if we really wanted to see hate in action, I'd get him started talking about Sarah Palin.

    Hate has its uses. A little hate at the right place and time might have stopped Hitler. The possibility of someone like Palin gaining the US Presidency is worth fighting against with every weapon at civilization's disposal. If that includes hate, well, so be it.

  134. I am Lrrr. Ruler of Omicron Persei 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prepare to be eaten.

    Regards,

    Lrrr

  135. Re: Another theory by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Hate has its uses. A little hate at the right place and time might have stopped Hitler.

    You seem to understand a rather narrow slice of human emotional capacity. Hate is unnecessary, and an emotionally stunted 'position' to take. It's not a product of someone on an even keel, but that of an emotionally excitable juvenile.

    One can understand that someone is wrong for the country, that their positions will be destructive if implemented, and work with resolve to defeat them- but hate is found nowhere in this mature spectrum. If you're a cynical manipulator, drumming up hate in a sea of useful idiots- such as yourself- might advance your goals. But it's not an emotion that leads to anything good.

    So, have fun with that.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  136. Re: Another theory by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    But she certainly comes across as an idiot in the media.

    And if you see what portion of the establishment media is 'liberal', you might suspect that portraying Palin as an idiot is an intentional product of their political tastes.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  137. Re: Another theory by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

    And if you see what portion of the establishment media is 'liberal', you might suspect that portraying Palin as an idiot is an intentional product of their political tastes.

    "What magazines do you read?"
    "All of them"

    Yeah. Liberal bias.

  138. Precedence != Law by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    In the common law system judges create law.

    No - judges create precedence, not law i.e. they interpret the law one way and then that way is supposed to be followed in later trials for consistency. They are NOT supposed to go around making up laws or interpreting things the way they want them. They are supposed to attempt to interpret the law in the way intended by the legislators when they passed it or as society would expect it to be interpreted.

  139. the nazis are back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in all honesty though, its going to be a long damn time before we get the rest of their secrets.

  140. +1hr yt coverage of NPC conference by CNN by tentontoby · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmpaM0PqyI Undeniably riveting testimony, even without any questions by the mainstream media houses present.

  141. Occam by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    What I was saying, if you bothered to think about my post instead of immediately looking for what is wrong with it, is if you apply occam's razor, chances are it isn't aliens.

    The problem is that Occam's razor is improperly understood and often used as a casual dismissal in lieu of more challenging thought exercises.

    The basic misuse of Occam I see occurs when people measure what they believe may or may not be more likely based on incomplete knowledge and pre-existing biases. For example, when Alexander Graham Bell announced to the world that he could send voices down thin copper wire, there was outrage. I remember reading a large essay from a news archive, published in a big, respected paper of the day, complete with illustrations and accurate maths, stating that it was impossible for voices to carry down metal tubes of the diameter Bell was using in his experiments. -The sceptics of the day were thinking about the known models for voice transfer through tubes, commonly used on ships, and so in their eyes, had they applied Occam's Razor, they would pulled up a negative result because their knowledge structure at that time did not include electricity in the way Bell was using it.

    This is the problem with Occam. Its users rely on self-referential data and known quantities to establish probability.

    When one explores sufficiently the vast wells of data available regarding UFOs and similar, Occam's Razor cuts in the other direction.

    -FL

    1. Re:Occam by acalltoreason · · Score: 0

      Well I can't argue with someone who believes every conspiracy theory he or she hears. I am a Freemason, I bet you believe everything about them too. Most UFO (any object in the sky that cant be identified is a UFO) sightings are a result of X-series Air Force aircraft. X meaning experimental. Occam's Razor does not cut in the other direction. What is more plausible. Aliens are secretly monitoring us and blowing up our nukes? Or that someone, on Earth, has created and is testing an anti-nuke system.

      --
      Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
    2. Re:Occam by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Well I can't argue with someone who believes every conspiracy theory he or she hears. I am a Freemason, I bet you believe everything about them too. Most UFO (any object in the sky that cant be identified is a UFO) sightings are a result of X-series Air Force aircraft. X meaning experimental. Occam's Razor does not cut in the other direction. What is more plausible. Aliens are secretly monitoring us and blowing up our nukes? Or that someone, on Earth, has created and is testing an anti-nuke system.

      You seem to have ignored the two main points in my previous post. Those being. . ,

      1. The specific manner in which Occam's razor fails. (You just demonstrated it, with a silly exaggeration no less.)

      2. That there is a lot of information you need to know before you are able to render a judgment about UFOs. Especially like the one you just offered.

      You said before that, "in fact I have no problem admitting I don't know something." but you're not demonstrating it. You seem to have limited knowledge in this subject, and you sound pre-judgmental. You would do well to read up on the subject. It won't bite, and once you get into the data, you'll be kicking yourself for not having done so sooner. It's like learning math for the first time. Look up Richard Dolan.

      -FL