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.
Get the foil out guys, it's gonna be a long night.
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
Is there a difference any more?
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
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.
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.
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
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
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.
You have your hand up what?
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
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
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.