BREAKING: CNN to air Live Broadcast of UFO-Nukes Press Conference

reply to post by ugie1028


very good essay UGIE..

Right on..

history is full of blindsides.

reply to post by Phage


Well Phage, its still credible, and like he said, basically the populace or the media, just takes it lightly, and turns the dancing with the stars back on..

Ah yes ignorance is bliss..

I hear YOU too Phage.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ugie1028

 

First. Some of the systems of some nuclear missiles went down.

Ok, we agree. What evidence are *you* using to confirm this? I'm sure, whatever it is Phage, it's satisfactory enough for you to conclude this.

There are unsubstantiated, second hand claims that unidentified lights were seen around the time this happened. There is no evidence to support the second hand claims. There is no evidence that the missile glitches were related to the unsubstantiated claims of unidentified lights.

There was also nothing different presented on Monday than there was in 2001.

Wait. So these "second hand claims" aren't the same sources you are using as evidence of "Some of the systems of some nuclear missiles went down." Ok, got it. (you said it, not me!)

So, you believe the evidence that the missle sites went down (my bad, the SYSTEMS of SOME missle sites went down)... from whatever source you obtained, but you don't believe the people who were *on site* because they are making "unsubstantiated claims of unidentified lights". Hmm.



Got it. Not really!

reply to post by Wookiep

Though I haven't seen them, I accept that there are FOIA documents presented as evidence of the system failures. But because I haven't seen them, I withhold judgment on what those documents say about the failures. Salas has not claimed that there is reference to UFO activity in the documents.

There are only the statements from Salas regarding reports he received from security patrols about UFO activity. There is no corroboration for those reports. Inconsistencies in Salas' story as shown by James Carlson are enough to (at least) cast doubt on the validity of Salas' claims.

reply to post by Phage


I don't think that's fair, but let's assume it is. What would *you* like in terms of evidence? Dozens (well thousands in the case of UFOS in general BUT) of testimonies aren't enough for you...so what do you want? Screen shots submitted by the CIA? Would you like the Gov't to provide you with links via google? I'm just curious what you would find as "evidence".

reply to post by Wookiep

Fair? This isn't a game of backgammon.
What would I like? What would I find more convincing? I thought I made that clear. Corroborating evidence of UFO activity related to the failures.

FOIA release of the failure of nuclear weapons systems is not a minor thing. I don't see any reason why reports of lights (which is all Salas claims) would be more "damaging". As you say, there are many of such reports released as a result of FOIA requests. But none for this case. If there were such reports would they convince me? I can't answer that. I haven't seen them.

But lights in the sky are not evidence of extraterrestrials. Nor are nuclear missile system failures.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

And people wonder why full disclosure is not a socially viable option.

This planet has issues,
ET

For those who still are basing on their own individual 5 senses to make sense of what 15 MILLION OTHER HUMANS had witness and experience, and discounting it is nothing short of hubric ignorance at best. The point of discusssing whether UFOs are real or not had been long past, akin to debating if Earth is flat or round.

As for Esoteric Teacher's post, my reply to you is that as long as the inept shadow govts around the world still maintain a tight lid on extra-terresterials' intentions on Earth, then the issues you speak of will exponentially rise, for the human mind will only go on the defensive and fight against what they do not comprehend

And it is not possible to comprehend or rationalize without FULL Disclosure of Extra-Terresterial intentions, of which the US govt of the 50s and then the shadow govt has the full details, based upon the numerous witnesses, whistleblowers and deathbed confessions on their secret arrangements.

The more the shadow govt or our masters puppets delay, the more harm and hurt will come to each other. And time is running out.....

Hmm. I see Hastings has posted audio recordings of Figel saying something completely different than what he is claiming now. Carlson's entire argument is crap.

Audio recordings of Figel impeaching himself: www.theufochronicles.com...

Excerpt: WF: Then when the first [missile] went down, and I talked to the security [team] out there, they reported this UFO hovering over the site. I said, “Yeah, right. What have you guys been drinking out there?” And we [sent] Strike teams to both of the sites that had been occupied.

Hmm, indeed.

What I find funny is that the main guy at the discolure press conference DEBUNKS their own claims... he says something about how if they were government craft then why aren't they using them by now... the obvious reason is that this technology is even more deadly and dangerous and destructive than nukes.

Not only is the tech that makes these aircaft possible more dengerous than nukes.. it would also completely destroy our economic system. We would probably have to go to a completely socialist type of system. This may be why our country villified socialism.. because that is the type of system we would HAVE to live under if this technology became possible necause it would destroy so many jobs.

I think they are wrong though. I think there are solutions.. and if the general population can't handle this tech then neither can the military. So there is no point keeping it from us.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wookiep

 

Fair? This isn't a game of backgammon.

Good point. Maybe I should have included "chutes and ladders"

What would I like? What would I find more convincing? I thought I made that clear. Corroborating evidence of UFO activity related to the failures.

Ok, WHAT_WOULD_THAT_BE? Again, do you want a written letter addressed to you by the CIA? Common Phage, I'm sure you could obtain this one as smart as you are...yet...oh NVM.

FOIA release of the failure of nuclear weapons systems is not a minor thing.

Thanks. I don't think so either.

I don't see any reason why reports of lights (which is all Salas claims) would be more "damaging". As you say, there are many of such reports released as a result of FOIA requests. But none for this case. If there were such reports would they convince me? I can't answer that. I haven't seen them.

So you havent even bothered to check the testimonies of thousands of people? That says a lot to me. Thanks! They won't convince you because you haven't seen them IRL, (bothered to listen to the accounts of those ex USAF personnel) and you're not willing to listen to them. This tells me a lot about your character. Thanks pal!

But lights in the sky are not evidence of extraterrestrials. Nor are nuclear missile system failures.

No they aren't, but we aren't just talking about "blue lights". Oh wait, you wouldn't know that because the personal testimonies of others means nothing to you. Gotcha. Thanks!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wookiep

 

Fair? This isn't a game of backgammon.
What would I like? What would I find more convincing? I thought I made that clear. Corroborating evidence of UFO activity related to the failures.

FOIA release of the failure of nuclear weapons systems is not a minor thing. I don't see any reason why reports of lights (which is all Salas claims) would be more "damaging". As you say, there are many of such reports released as a result of FOIA requests. But none for this case. If there were such reports would they convince me? I can't answer that. I haven't seen them.

But lights in the sky are not evidence of extraterrestrials. Nor are nuclear missile system failures.

edit on 9/29/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I posted this in another reply, but I wanted to reply to these assertions by Phage directly. You claim that the evidence is clear enough for you that nuclear missiles were disabled. Then you claim there is no corroborating evidence for UFO involvement beyond Salas's story.

You then claim that the basis for your skepticism is because of Carlson and Figel and how they have questioned Salas's story thus disconnecting the UFO from the missiles being disabled.

Only problem is that Hastings and Salas have Walter Figel on tape saying there were UFO's involved in the incident, and that he was debriefed by command where he relayed said information to them.

Are you going to apply your same skepticism of Salas's claims to Carlson and Figel now? Salas and Hastings have Figel on tape saying he doesn't know why Carlson would claim that he didn't know about the UFO reports because he was SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM when they came in.

Excerpt of Hastings and Figel talking about Carlson's claims in 2008:

WF: Did Eric say anything else that was a discontinuity [relative to what I’ve said]?

RH: ...Well, I [told Eric] that you had [heard from] a guard or a maintenance person that there was an object above the site, which you’ve confirmed today—

WF: Yes.

RH: —And I asked Eric if he remembered any of that, and he said that he did not. And, um, I asked him why his son would have written this very negative, scathing summary which I will send [to] you, about the event—

WF: That will be interesting.

RH: —calling Salas a liar, and so on and so forth.

WF: Well, I didn’t do that.

RH: Well, I know, but his son, you know, for whatever reason, his son, James Carlson, has got a bug up his nose and said that nothing happened, there were no reports of UFOs, which you told me is incorrect because you got one.

WF: I did!

RH: Well, according to James, it was all bull and Salas was basically pulling it out of the air. [Eric] Carlson just, he didn’t really want to talk about it, frankly, but he did answer my questions. He just was kind of circumspect. I can’t say that he’s not being truthful when he says he doesn’t remember talking to you about UFOs, but that’s what he told me.

WF: I’m sure we had a long conversation [right after it happened]. I mean, I reported everything to him that I heard or was told. I mean, we were together, you know? [Laughs]

...

RH: Uh, did you discuss the report with Mr. Carlson—that you were being told that there was a UFO at one of the sites?

WF: Um, he could hear it, uh, I mean he was sitting right there, two feet away from me—

RH: So—

WF: Anything I would have said, he would have heard.

From: www.theufochronicles.com...

That is pretty damning evidence. I would like to hear what you think about Carlson now?

reply to post by Crimelab

I think that tape offers nothing new and I think it is taken out of context to the situation.

You might be interested in reading this. It includes a letter from Figel to Carlson dated September 24, 2010. Among other things.
www.realityuncovered.net...

An excerpt regarding the tapes (duh..duh...duhnnnnnn!)
(not from the letter)

Robert, have you not read James’ book or actually read the transcripts that you posted and understood what Figel is actually saying? The first guy to “report” a UFO at 0930 at the latest was a maintenance team member who had to be woken up by the security team after the missiles went down and Figel called them and then he had to go underground to get to the SIN phone to tell Figel “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.”

Obviously this was a joke and the security team was in on it. Where was the UFO before he went underground and why didn’t the first security team report it?

CNN? The MSM? Are they gonna show those UFOs? Nope! Just another discussion on the same old tired claims! So, what's new? Yawwwwwn!

reply to post by Phage

But lights in the sky are not evidence of extraterrestrials. Nor are nuclear missile system failures.

Phage I hear what you are saying , it isn't the holy grail, but mate if you hear these ol boys, why would they ? , You have followed this crap as long as most, why would these ol boys discredit themselves, and more importantly their family when they die

There has been a shed load of comments/ data / reading /history about nuclear missiles sites around the globe involving ufo's why ?

Phage you have to admit this is intriguing

And I will add it all could be military from different countries, but its still a very interesting topic never the less

wal

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ugie1028

 

First. Some of the systems of some nuclear missiles went down.
There are unsubstantiated, second hand claims that unidentified lights were seen around the time this happened. There is no evidence to support the second hand claims. There is no evidence that the missile glitches were related to the unsubstantiated claims of unidentified lights.

There was also nothing different presented on Monday than there was in 2001.

edit on 9/29/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes because that makes sense.
We are not sure why the nukes went down but lets go on tv and tell the world it was ufos so we can be laughed at and make a joke of our careers.
I guess these guys are complete morons.Thankfuly then where only in charge of nukes and not something that could do some real damage.
You know my computer crashed the other day, must have been a light in the sky.I best ring the papers.

Originally posted by Lucidliving
Second guy says he's been studying UFO's for over 60 years? But looks just about 60 years old, wtf?

www.necn.com...

He mentioned the date 1965. Assuming he was 35 at the time. He would be 75 in 2005, 80 today. Back off 60 yeaars, he was 20 when he started studing UFO's. I'm 73 and look about his age.

Originally posted by auswally
reply to post by Phage

 

But lights in the sky are not evidence of extraterrestrials. Nor are nuclear missile system failures.

Phage I hear what you are saying , it isn't the holy grail, but mate if you hear these ol boys, why would they ? , You have followed this crap as long as most, why would these ol boys discredit themselves, and more importantly their family when they die

There has been a shed load of comments/ data / reading /history about nuclear missiles sites around the globe involving ufo's why ?

Phage you have to admit this is intriguing

And I will add it all could be military from different countries, but its still a very interesting topic never the less

wal

Just realize.. it could be our own government too. When the US was developing the nuclear bomb the only people that knew aobut it were the people directly involved and the president. People think that because the military has some secret tech that everyone in the military and government knows aobut it.. they don't.. and they likely have to go to extrordinary lengths to keep it from the loose lips in our own government and military. This is why I belive it is our own government hiding this tech and aliens aren't involved. whether these guys know that or not I don't know.

Is this conference available anywhere for download yet?

lights in the sky?

lights that make 90 degrees turns
at full speed on record for over thirty years
did u even watch it tjeezz


quote;There was also nothing different presented on Monday than there was in 2001.

reply:i take it u were there?

I dont think anyone should disregard the idea that these unexplained lights and object....as well as the actions that are tied to them....could not be our own kind, our fellow man, another nation.

If so, I find that more terrifying then some aliens telling us not to play with weapons. If so, its much more of a concern that another nation could shut down our weapons while launching at us all at the same time.

I dont doubt that we have such technologies ourselves. Even the top of the top may not know about it.

Keeping an open mind....
LV