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.

37 of 498 comments (clear)

  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 nevillethedevil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have your hand up what?

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
  2. 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 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
    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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 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. NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real by macfanboy · · Score: 5, Interesting
  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  19. 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
  20. 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.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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.