UFOs Disable Nuclear Missiles And Weapons Systems

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
Here is my favorite case told by professor Robert Jacobs of a nuclear warhead being intercepted and disabled in sub space by a UFO.

Just another silly UFO story, only 1 ICBM has been fired with a live warhead, and that was fired from a submarine. If he cannot get a simple fact like that correct why should anything he says be considered true?

en.wikipedia.org...

Also as comments are disabled for that video that shows that they are not interested in their lies being pointed out!

How about you get your facts straight. It wasn't a live warhead:

We weren’t launching real nuclear weapons we were launching dummy warheads. They were the exact size, shape, dimension and weight of a nuclear warhead. In those days we called them ICBM’s, inter-county ballistic missiles, because most of them blew up on launch.

Disclosure Project Briefing

And that youtube account by Nicholas Jedrzejewski where I got the video from, has other videos where the comments are disabled, even a music video, so I guess that's a lie or fabricated as well right?

Could these incidents be top secret black projects that were testing their capabilities unbeknownst to everyone but the very upper echelons of the military. I mean what better way to gauge capabilities and reactions to such an event. Just throwing it out there.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: TrueMessiah

...there are UFOs (non CIA related, I saw the link ) shutting these missles down.

Yeah, because the people seeing them didn't know what they were seeing, hence the name.

JIm points out very clearly that it was ECM, CIA or not, Jacobes mistook what he saw, and so did Mansmann who was only offering his opinion of what he saw too.

No aliens here.

So the CIA goes around disabling missiles and shutting down weapons systems with these UFOs. Great, tell em I said thanks.

You're really telling me this was an ECM (electronic countermeasure) with no mention of radar in this case at all? Sometimes I really wonder just who is it the CIA is intending to fool here.

And you too are offering an opinion that they were mistaken in what they saw. BTW, why don't you try formulating your own arguments instead of using "Jim" so much. Don't you have a mind of your own?

It's very conspicuous how you are vehemently attacking this one particular case. This thread is about more than just what happened at Vandenberg Air Force Base, how about you try attacking some other cases to disprove the overall phenomenon? Or do you need Jim's help for that too?

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
How about you get your facts straight. It wasn't a live warhead:

I know it wasn't, I was simply replying to the OP's claim....

Here is my favorite case told by professor Robert Jacobs of a nuclear warhead being intercepted and disabled in sub space by a UFO

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
How about you get your facts straight. It wasn't a live warhead:

I know it wasn't, I was simply replying to the OP's claim....

Here is my favorite case told by professor Robert Jacobs of a nuclear warhead being intercepted and disabled in sub space by a UFO

I should have been clearer in the OP but I didn't say it was a live ICBM in particular.
Since you already knew, then why question Jacobs on his "facts"?

a reply to: universalbri

With the supposed involvement of UFO's when it comes to nuclear weapons it makes one wonder..

What we are seeing now, with Ukraine, Nato, Russia, the US, etc... Maybe this is a way to force alien disclosure by bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation in order to force an intervention from UFO's.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
but I didn't say it was a live ICBM in particular.

Yes you did....

of a nuclear warhead being intercepted and disabled in sub space by a UFO

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Could these incidents be top secret black projects that were testing their capabilities unbeknownst to everyone but the very upper echelons of the military.

They'd have no reason to do it against themselves, no. If the characteristics of the craft resemble those in other cases then they'd be back-engineered.

yes it's true we are being monitored by off-planet watchers and have been for a really long time
the watchers might change now and then
we're pretty much just actors on a global stage
the real stuff everyone thinks about and hopes for is somewhere else not here
it's too bad the needless suffering and pain we cause each other for no reason

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
but I didn't say it was a live ICBM in particular.

Yes you did....

of a nuclear warhead being intercepted and disabled in sub space by a UFO

Why cling on to me not being entirely clear when it's already been addressed in my last post?
If you already knew it was a dummy warhead, why are you making this debate circular?

Your flimsy attempt at debunking this by using my quote stating that Jacobs can't get his facts straight in order to invalidate him being truthful, despite you already knowing it was a dummy warhead, was absurd. Almost as absurd as you using "comments disabled" to try and justify that this user (who even has a music video disabled) was evading some type of exposure on Jacobs behalf.

I'm not wasting anymore time with this, now moving on.....

From a physics point of view, there are a good many number of ways an external energy source could disrupt electronic systems. The first would be through HF magnetic fields. Another way would be through ionizing radiation such as radio-waves or microwaves. The third would be through the emission of sub-atomic particles such as neutrinos (which are known to be emitted by nuclear reactors).

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

It wouldn't be too farfetched to suggest it was possible to build a portable neutrino emission/gamma-ray scanner.

Here is the letter written in 1987 by Major Mansmann which corroborates what Jacobs saw.

Given what is happening at the moment in Russia and with Putin threatening to use nukes, I very much hope the same ET's who switched off the nukes are still around to switch them off. Better still I would love to see ET remove him altogether along with Kim and other world "leaders" who need their brains re wiring!

a reply to: TrueMessiah

BTW, why don't you try formulating your own arguments instead of using "Jim" so much. Don't you have a mind of your own?

Here, let me just share my own discovery process concerning Jim's article and how it relates to Jacob's story with you:

I saw your thread and I am familiar with the subject matter of UFOs/Nukes, but I have never heard Jacob's story, ever, so I'm fresh meat. You state in your OP that his story is central to your thread and really the thing that motivated you to write it up and post it.

So, I watch the video, Easy peasy; 20 minutes, and I am home on a Saturday night too, so why not.

For quite some time now one of the main points covered in threads I have been participating in at ATS, and also a personal interest of study for me when it comes to understanding the UFO phenomenon is this "ECM + CIA = UFO" thing, on the one hand, and Project Condign on the other. Both of which are heavily involved with radar.

Knowing about that stuff, as I am watching the video, I realize, "There we go again: Jacobs is a vcitim of some sort of military ECM/Radar shennanigans". Then I realize that he is calling out Oberg as having "harassed" him, and I am thinking, "Hmmm, I wonder what Oberg had to say about it, anyway", so I go to look and Bam! sure enough there it is in Oberg's csicop report, which I have also never seen before, and it's "ECM + CIA = UFO", or at least "ECM = UFO".

That's low hanging fruit, man. My experience at ATS combined with Jim Oberg making his experience available to us all allowed me to square away Jacobs' misunderstanding in, like, 20 minutes, tops.

And no, I could not have done that under my own steam. Who could? You need people like Jim Oberg that have that sort of experience to draw from.

No one person crafted this basilica of deceit that attempts to keep people believing in aliens, no one person is going to be able to deconstruct it. That's why we have a forum full of people to work on it.

The dorks that make up the UFO stories have whole teams with names like "The Aviary", but I'm supposed to go it alone?

Not a chance.

Happy Easter!

originally posted by: Bybyots


For quite some time now one of the main points covered in threads I have been participating in at ATS, and also a personal interest of study for me when it comes to understanding the UFO phenomenon is this "ECM + CIA = UFO" thing, on the one hand, and Project Condign on the other. Both of which are heavily involved with radar.

Knowing about that stuff, as I am watching the video, I realize, "There we go again: Jacobs is a vcitim of some sort of military ECM/Radar shennanigans". Then I realize that he is calling out Oberg as having "harassed" him, and I am thinking, "Hmmm, I wonder what Oberg had to say about it, anyway", so I go to look and Bam! sure enough there it is in Oberg's csicop report, which I have also never seen before, and it's "ECM + CIA = UFO", or at least "ECM = UFO".

That's low hanging fruit, man. My experience at ATS combined with Jim Oberg making his experience available to us all allowed me to square away Jacobs' misunderstanding in, like, 20 minutes, tops.

And no, I could not have done that under my own steam. Who could? You need people like Jim Oberg that have that sort of experience to draw from.

For the record Jacobs mentions a James Oberg, not Jim.

It seems you have a preconceived notion to dismiss Jacobs. I say this because if you actually analyzed the video, or more specifically the case, you would realize that THERE WAS NO RADAR INVOLVED. Yet you insist on pushing this EMC=UFO theory. Now what is EMC, this is from The Gut's thread where a definition is given:

Davidson pointed out that as early as 1945, mechanical countermeasures against radar had become publicly known – and used. It was known that these could cause blips on the radar screen, resulting in incorrect range, speed, or heading. This was called Electronic Countermeasures.....Davidson drew the infamous equation: ECM+CIA=UFO, suggesting that the CIA were creating ECM signals on radars

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nowhere in this case is a radar mentioned at all. In fact what was used to view what happened to the missile was an experimental, state-of-the-art, video-equipped telescope called the BU for short, which was assembled by Boston University. This fact alone renders your EMC+CIA=UFO or EMC=UFO theory null and void I'm afraid.

But you say you had it all squared away in 20 minutes tops?

No one person crafted this basilica of deceit that attempts to keep people believing in aliens, no one person is going to be able to deconstruct it. That's why we have a forum full of people to work on it.

The dorks that make up the UFO stories have whole teams with names like "The Aviary", but I'm supposed to go it alone?

Not a chance.

Happy Easter!

No one person crafted this basilica of deceit that attempts to keep people disbelieving in aliens, in due time, more than one person is going to be able to deconstruct it. That's why we have a forum full of people to work on it.

The dorks that make up discrediting UFO stories have whole teams with names like "CIA, AOFSI, NSA", but I'm sure I'm not going at it alone. Not a chance.

Happy Easter!

Fixed for accuracy.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TrueMessiah

It could also be "Ball lightening" Getting close to an electrical source and doing a EMP. on it. Which would tend to cause a rapid shutdown. The same effect could short circuit the brain, and as we all know, the gaps would get filled in with all types of dream sequences. Again its all a bit ambiguous, and might even be designed to look that way.

Ball lightening? Not the most probable cause. There are no reports of these incidents occurring during thunderstorms where ball lightening is prevalent. To add, here is Hastings at the conference attesting to interviewing up to 120 military personnel and their descriptions of the UFOs sighted during the disabling (hovering, silent, navigation defying the laws of physics) don't match ball lightening at all.

Yes but what about the psychological effects on the observers, if the electrical effect, interfered with the observers perception, it wouldn't be to long before they came to a consensus on reality. I can see that an orb zigzagging at a distance can be fairly innocuous, but when electrical disruption of an observers brain becomes relevant. Then all observations are compromised. The first thing would be agreed was that it was a UFO. which indeed it was. Their may or may not, be missing time as, it would be if consciousness was disrupted.

You still sticking with ball lightening? That's a pretty unorthodox theory don't you think? Especially there were no storms during these incidences.

Their doesn't need to be thunderstorms around for it to occur . In many reports it also seems to emit microwave radiation . Anything in this category, which stimulated any area of the brain, would make you think that you saw the Virgin Mary, to an intergalactic spaceship hovering . It might depend on the amount of metals in the brain cells etc., we are composed of forty eight elements, many are metals . Which would respond to even low dose microwave, or electrical stimulation . The amount of electrical fog out there these days, even from radar towers could be suspect. Just saying that this is a probability that shouldn't be dismissed at least until we get hard evidence and not the industrialised conjecture, because if these things , exist as intelligently guided forms, either the form is conscious intelligence, or the form, is guided by conscious intelligence. Either way after all these years we haven't one piece of hard evidence.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: TrueMessiah

It could also be "Ball lightening" Getting close to an electrical source and doing a EMP. on it. Which would tend to cause a rapid shutdown. The same effect could short circuit the brain, and as we all know, the gaps would get filled in with all types of dream sequences. Again its all a bit ambiguous, and might even be designed to look that way.

Ball lightening? Not the most probable cause. There are no reports of these incidents occurring during thunderstorms where ball lightening is prevalent. To add, here is Hastings at the conference attesting to interviewing up to 120 military personnel and their descriptions of the UFOs sighted during the disabling (hovering, silent, navigation defying the laws of physics) don't match ball lightening at all.

Yes but what about the psychological effects on the observers, if the electrical effect, interfered with the observers perception, it wouldn't be to long before they came to a consensus on reality. I can see that an orb zigzagging at a distance can be fairly innocuous, but when electrical disruption of an observers brain becomes relevant. Then all observations are compromised. The first thing would be agreed was that it was a UFO. which indeed it was. Their may or may not, be missing time as, it would be if consciousness was disrupted.

You still sticking with ball lightening? That's a pretty unorthodox theory don't you think? Especially there were no storms during these incidences.

Their doesn't need to be thunderstorms around for it to occur . In many reports it also seems to emit microwave radiation . Anything in this category, which stimulated any area of the brain, would make you think that you saw the Virgin Mary, to an intergalactic spaceship hovering . It might depend on the amount of metals in the brain cells etc., we are composed of forty eight elements, many are metals . Which would respond to even low dose microwave, or electrical stimulation . The amount of electrical fog out there these days, even from radar towers could be suspect. Just saying that this is a probability that shouldn't be dismissed at least until we get hard evidence and not the industrialised conjecture, because if these things , exist as intelligently guided forms, either the form is conscious intelligence, or the form, is guided by conscious intelligence. Either way after all these years we haven't one piece of hard evidence.

True it doesn't need to be a thunderstorm around for it to occur but without the storm, it does lessen the frequency of occurrence. You mentioned electrical fog as a precursor but to my knowledge, there were no incidences of fog in these cases either.

As for a lack of evidence, I believe it is here, but it's being suppressed. That's another topic but with that being said, I have more reason to believe the testimony and witness sightings of these personnel. While you're right in saying the lightening is a probability (a small one minus the storms and fog), I tend to believe that these officials and pilots actually saw these crafts as is, without distortion from outside influences like your ball lightening, which to me would be considered an extreme unconventional cause under the circumstances surrounding these encounters.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

...you would realize that THERE WAS NO RADAR INVOLVED.

Nowhere in this case is a radar mentioned at all.

Our photography showed that the decoys did not deploy properly after the main propulsion phase ended and were surrounded by pieces of Styrofoam packing from their launch tubes.

www.csicop.org...

Jacobs didn't need radar to see the ECM decoys and their Styrofoam packing.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: TrueMessiah

...you would realize that THERE WAS NO RADAR INVOLVED.

Nowhere in this case is a radar mentioned at all.

Our photography showed that the decoys did not deploy properly after the main propulsion phase ended and were surrounded by pieces of Styrofoam packing from their launch tubes.

www.csicop.org...

Jacobs didn't need radar to see the ECM decoys and their Styrofoam packing.

You just can't let that term ECM go can you?
Yeah and they classified the film top secret and non reviewable because of that, yeah right. This is disinfo spouted by the author of that article Kingston George:

Kingston George's latest attempt to debunk the Big Sur UFO Incident employs the same sleight-of-hand tricks, distortions, and outright falsehoods he trotted out in his first attempt to discredit the case. Either he is in deep denial or he is knowingly participating in a disinformation scheme—aided and abetted by long-time government public relations professional Kendrick Frazier—designed to discredit Dr. Jacobs' and Mansmann's statements on the case.

The article I got that from even calls out all the others on this disino campaign:

So, to recap, among CSICOP/CSI's top UFO "skeptics" we have a long-time PR Specialist (Frazier) who worked for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program for over two decades; a journalist (Klass) who worked for decades for an intelligence community-friendly publication, Aviation Week, who privately cited as character references two of the top figures in the NSA and CIA; and a former Air Force officer (Oberg) whose job it was to protect nuclear weapons-related secrets. And, supposedly, all three of these individuals object to Jacobs and Mansmann's revelations about the Big Sur UFO Incident only because they are "skeptical" that it actually happened.
Hmmmm …

Disinfo Campaign Exposed

Hmmmmm indeed.
You have been bamboozled.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

At the moment all possibilities , seem to be on the table. Trying to figure out what these real anomalies are , is very difficult. We haven't really got a clear idea of what reality is, except what is observed is considered real in our limited sensory frame. It may be that they come from different sources, and what is an off world craft. Could very well exist within a reality where time storms occur, along with perceptual mistakes due to electrical interference with brains.

It to my way of thinking has to be taken , in with the whole orchestra of the anomalies tables of reported events, Including the paranormal, we might be dealing with many. But human Perception, of what is possible various from person to person, so one persons interpretation of what was observed has got to fit in with their Paradigm. Just mentioning the New Guinea natives Cargo Cult, thinking aircraft were Gods way of delivering goodies, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to set up a shrine to worship the God who's shape is that of an aircraft. Where animals are concerned, the more limited niche of their perception, might be more reliable than ours . As the fear response at least confirms something has actually happened.

The thing with humans is, once a Meme has been established it becomes set , just look at half the world thinking Biblical fairy tales, are the facts . The other half, believing in science and physical theory, which in the end both break down to woo in the end, what will it be quantum woo?, or fairy tale woo? at least Quantum woo is tested, in the scientific method. But for all that it is still set in the Memes of our times.

A bag of rules has to be set , to establish the context of the reality that we are trying to fathom . In the one case if the human body , is a fabrication, made from the common elements as a bio electrical machine to walk our personal consciousness around the physical dimensions of this planet . Then consciousness, and its implications has to be explored , even to the point on asking how it can inhabit and ambulate common matter , and ask the questions , does personal consciousness exist when it isn't inhabiting common matter . If as it seems it does, then all bets are off, because the next question is what are the environmental, conditions of consciousness when it isn't locked down in matter?. Would we in our physical state even be able to comprehend a fraction of the infinite possibilities, probably because the anomalies might be the fraction that we can comprehend, and of course it makes little sense with no conclusion.