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.

Comments

Of course they are

[w00tsauce]

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

Not a Reuters story

[longacre]

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

Re:Not a Reuters story

[clarkn0va]

Is there a difference any more?

Re:Not a Reuters story

[tsm_sf]

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?"

Re:Not a Reuters story

[spun]

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.

Re:Not a Reuters story

[spun]

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.

Re:Not a Reuters story

[spun]

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?

Re:Not a Reuters story

[Daniel_Staal]

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.

Don't Eat That!

[ep32g79]

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

NASA astronauts admit on video UFOs are real

[macfanboy]

http://www.ufohqs.com/?page_id=108

UFOs !=aliens

[Potor]

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.

Re:Correlation

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Journalism used to be a profession

[Infonaut]

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).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Correlation

[sjames]

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.