posted on Aug, 25 2013 @ 03:38 PM
I say it is simply a case of diminishing the credibility of those who have witnessed significant ufo events over their respective duty stations. The
number of sightings over nuclear missile silos is verifiable, even if what was witnessed is not, so it stands to reason that if a specific command
such as the one in Montana had a significant event take place above it then those involved would need to be dealt with in one way or another.
By destroying their credibility they effectively reduce the impact of anything these soldiers or the commander specifically will have when they
inevitably try and report this encounter. Most major news organizations won't take them seriously at this point, and frankly neither would most of us,
which is precisely why they are reported on such a large scale. By publishing this information widely they allow anyone who is investigating the
matter to do a quick google search on the person disclosing the information and when it is revealed that they were relieved of duty because it the
higher ups were no longer confident in their ability to maintain command anyone who sees that information will immediately lose confidence in the
person reporting it.
Are there any reports of UFO activity in recent weeks/months over the area where this commander served?
If so then that might be your answer.
Malmstrom UFO - 1967
See this has already been reported at that specific location once before, and in interesting detail no less.
So if the theory that nuclear materials in missiles or power stations is to be believed then these areas become hot spots for activity.
UFO's and Nuclear power
If that activity has taken place then the person most likely to have the greatest amount of information regarding the incident would logically be the
commander in charge of the site, and since we live in a modern and constantly connected world then the fear that he might reveal something to everyone
after his attempts to uncover the truth through official channels is met with criticism or immediate denial would require him to be effectively
discredited so that fewer people will listen and investigate his claims.
edit on 25-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)