Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Former Military Personnel Claim Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes 498

Posted by samzenpus
from the klaatu-barada-nikto dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Military Personnel Claim Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes

Comments Filter:
  • by w00tsauce (1482311) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:33PM (#33668928)
    If we nuke everything, it's gonna be difficult for them to plunder our natural resources and turn us into sex slaves.
    • UFOs !=aliens (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Potor (658520) <farker1@g m a i l . c om> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:23PM (#33669586) Journal

      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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Nimey (114278)

        I admit I was wrong. kdawson no longer being here hasn't made the quality of /. submissions go up all that much.

      • Antarctic Nazis (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @03:09AM (#33672918) Homepage
        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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ascari (1400977)
      Wasn't really clear from the article but are these illegal aliens or do they have valid visas? If the former, is it OK to deport them?
    • by Brad1138 (590148)
      Just FYI, I could be used for snu-snu
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by pinkushun (1467193)

      Death by snu-snu!

  • Not a Reuters story (Score:5, Informative)

    by longacre (1090157) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:34PM (#33668948) Homepage
    This is a press release written by some guys hawking their book, it was not written by a journalist.
    • by clarkn0va (807617) <apt.get@gAAAmail.com minus threevowels> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:37PM (#33669002) Homepage
      Is there a difference any more?
      • by tsm_sf (545316) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:45PM (#33669116) Journal
        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?"
        • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:53PM (#33669238) Journal

          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.

          • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:19PM (#33669530) Journal

            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.

            I figured fact-checking was mostly for original work. If the byline is AP or Reuters, you'd think the paper would be off the hook when they print their retraction on page C35 right before the obituaries. Maybe that's just how they are doing it now.

            • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:37PM (#33669756) Journal

              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: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Lennie (16154)

              It's all a time-constraint (read:money) issue.

              I've seen figures for newspapers which says something like: if you compare the amount of work which is demanded/required from a journalist 10 years ago to now, a journalist now has to write 20 times more articles/text.

              That means that journalist used to do factchecking and so on, now, they will probably do a google search and a glance over on wikipedia and think, maybe this is ok and print it.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                This has little to do with journalistic integrity. Fact checking has one single purpose: it means that the newspaper can't be sued for printing falsehoods. In the current world, where channels like Fox have no legal obligation to say anything truthful at all and can still call it news, there are diminishing returns to fact checking.

                I guarantee that if the legal system makes it easier (or more profitable) to sue a news outlet whenever they print lies^H^H^H misrepresent the truth, then you'll see a strong

                • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:12PM (#33670134) Homepage Journal

                  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).

                  • RIP CJ Rehnquist (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by Alaren (682568) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:47PM (#33670422)

                    The Roberts Court is very pro-Corporation. They love corporations so much they'll even guarantee First Amendment rights above and beyond what most individual citizens are allowed.

                    FTFY.

                    Rest in Peace, Chief Justice Rehnquist.

                    (And a word of explanation for non-law-geeks: though conservative, Chief Justice Rehnquist frequently dissented in cases requiring the extension of individual freedoms to entities like corporations. Although the similarities between individuals and entities are important and permit our modern economy to function, there are also important differences, which most judges sadly fail to comprehend.)

                  • by Bartab (233395) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @07:37PM (#33670842)

                    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.

                    BS.

                    Prior to television, ALL news sources were biased, and wore their bias proudly. Search how many newspapers have "Union" in their name.

                    With the advance of television, and to a lesser extent radio, it became obvious that a limited availability of transmission capability - not to mention receiver channels - that all parties involved, stations and viewers both decided impartiality was a goal worth having.

                    Newspapers kinda got drug along for the ride.

                    Now, with the internet and 1000 television stations, the -mutual- incentive for impartiality is gone, and so the actual impartiality is gone.

                    I, for one, welcome bias. So long as the participants are clear they're not neutral. It's a shame Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", but it's a larger shame that CNN makes similar claims.

                  • 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.

                    So perhaps if the courts stuck to their original job of applying the law rather than writing the law then the legislators could go back to their job of writing laws and journalists could be made to return writing true stories to keep the courts and legislators honest....hmmm I think I see a flaw here.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by BitHive (578094)

            That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era, think of what would have happened to important new thinking about the gold standard, global cooling and the benefits of deregulation if jackbooted "fact checkers" had been there to strangle dissenting voices.

            • by spun (1352) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `yranoituloverevol'> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:41PM (#33669808) Journal

              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?

            • by fishexe (168879) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:37PM (#33670322) Homepage

              That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era...

              Since when is making shit up that happens to be false an opposing viewpoint? I hope you realize you're sounding a lot more 1984 than what you're criticizing.

          • by Dan541 (1032000)

            journalistic integrity...

            You just made that up.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by DNS-and-BIND (461968)

            Total bullshit. There never was such a position in the first place, it is a myth that journalists tell about themselves, to fulfil their own fantasies as Myrmidons of The Truth.

            A job I had a long time ago as a temp in a government office involved sending faxes out to the media. I got the list of phone numbers, and I typed up the fax on WordPerfect. I then sat by the fax machine and sent out fax after fax. To my great surprise, my words appeared in the newspaper the next day, verbatim (or edited for leng

            • by Quarters (18322) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:35PM (#33670300)
              Why would a newspaper call the submitter of an article to fact check the article? Your phone number should have been considered off limits because it was submitted with the article. That you never got a call does nothing to disprove the existence of fact checkers. If anything it bolsters the argument that there was real fact checking happening.
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                by bonch (38532)

                The fact newspapers didn't call the number to fact-check the article bolsters the argument that there was fact-checking happening? The hell?

            • by Daniel_Staal (609844) <DStaal@usa.net> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:46PM (#33670404)

              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.

          • by yelvington (8169) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:32PM (#33670284) Homepage

            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.

            • by lawpoop (604919) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:21PM (#33671508) Homepage Journal

              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?"

              I was on an eco-tour in Peru and one of the guys in the trip was a freelance journalist writing a piece about the experience. About a month after the trip,I got a call from his editor, who went through the most mundane details of the story, bit by bit, to confirm them with me. It was all basically correct, but I was really reaching to recall basic facts. Were the mats we slept on on the riverboat foam? Probably. Did that local guide say exactly that to the writer? I was only half-paying attention.

              It was pretty thorough, and this wasn't an investigative piece or anything, just entertainment/travelogue. So at least for those kinds of pieces, editors do check up. Or at least one did for one story.

          • by sortius_nod (1080919) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @08:05PM (#33671080) Homepage

            I laughed so hard reading your post. Having worked for a newspaper, I can assure you they don't fact check as often as you think. Some journos don't fact check at all.

            There's been plenty of hoaxes set up to expose how little fact checking there is.

    • by CarpetShark (865376) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:39PM (#33669022)

      it was not written by a journalist.

      Damn, so it DOES need proof to back it up then? ;)

      I mean, seriously... who cares who writes things? What matters is whether the arguments are valid, and the evidence they're based on is sound.

      Uhhh, which they're clearly not in this case. Just thought I'd tack that on for clarity ;)

    • by citylivin (1250770) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:41PM (#33669056)

      Indeed! from reddit:
      PR Newswire is NOT Reuters! [reddit.com]

       

    • by Megor1 (621918) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:41PM (#33669062) Homepage
      Anyone can send what they want out the PR newswire for $500
    • I'm surprised Reuters even picked it up, I just lost a little more respect for them (not that I have much respect for any news agency lately).
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Seumas (6865)

      Exactly. I don't understand why this is being covered (though the AP is always just relaying press releases with no thought or questioning, whatsoever). There are plenty of former military, government, or scientific individuals of various ranks who are simply fucking nuts. They typically become regular guests on the Art Bell show and talk to him about alien autopsies that they've witnessed and how Obama is secretly a grey.

  • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:34PM (#33668950)
    Clearly the aliens caught a broadcast of Independence Day and thought it was a war game simulation showing our defense strategy. Either that, or they saw Aliens and are worried that, if we ever do find aliens on another planet, we will just nuke them from orbit. Since, of course, it's the only way to be sure.
  • Correlation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iONiUM (530420) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:35PM (#33668960) Homepage Journal

    Well, one thing I noticed on the reuters article is that many of the witnesses are nuclear missile , as in, they worked closely on or near the nuclear weapons. Isn't there a chance that, considering almost all were in close contact with nuclear weapons, the radiation was screwing with their head? Or, possibly, whatever they use on nuclear missile bases were?

    I'm not discounting the fact that maybe aliens are indeed screwing with nuclear weapons for whatever reason, but it just seems more likely that all these people have something in common, and that commonality is causing them to believe what they saw..

    • Re:Correlation (Score:5, Informative)

      by jpapon (1877296) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:40PM (#33669034) Journal
      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.

    • by Hognoxious (631665) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:42PM (#33669070) Homepage Journal

      I'm not sure if radiation makes people delusional.

      But let's assume that it does - do you have an explanation for why they have the same delusion?

      [disclaimer: I am employed by the Illuminati as a unicorn trainer]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke (6130)

        You don't train unicorns. They train you.

        Even in Soviet Russia. That's the power of the unicorn.

    • Re:Correlation (Score:5, Informative)

      by CarpetShark (865376) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:42PM (#33669074)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lev13than (581686)
      Isn't there a chance that, considering almost all were in close contact with nuclear weapons, the radiation was screwing with their head? Or, possibly, whatever they use on nuclear missile bases were?

      It's human nature to see things in the shadows - the logic is hardwired into our brains. Exposure to popular culture makes the shadows look like aliens. No need to look for a radiation-based cause.
    • Re:Correlation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iamghetto (450099) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:20PM (#33669534) Homepage

      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.

      • Re:Correlation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sjames (1099) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:05PM (#33671416) Homepage

        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.

  • Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)

    by koterica (981373) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:35PM (#33668966) Journal
    I for one.... crap.
  • Don't Eat That! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ep32g79 (538056) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:35PM (#33668970)
    Get the foil out guys, it's gonna be a long night.
    • by NReitzel (77941) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:41PM (#33669050) Homepage

      Be very careful. Aluminium foil will not work effectively. On needs genuine tin foil to be safe.

    • Re:Don't Eat That! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Renraku (518261) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:49PM (#33669180) Homepage

      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.

  • Umm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jpapon (1877296) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:37PM (#33668986) Journal

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wcrowe (94389)

      I get that we want to think that military officers are supposed to be more reliable than your average Joe Schmuckatellii, but come on.

      No kidding. From my experience, military officers are just as prone to kookiness, chicanery, and mental illness as anyone else. L. Ron Hubbard is a notable example.

    • Re:Umm (Score:5, Interesting)

      by feidaykin (158035) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:47PM (#33669892) Journal

      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?

  • Now THIS is the right article for trying the robotic overlord RSS reader for the first time.

  • Fascinating how the aliens only seem to infest US Chair Force nuclear weapons sites and personnel... But not Navy or Army sites and personnel.

    • by thenextstevejobs (1586847) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @09:34PM (#33671572)
      Nonsense is present on that page according to Buzz Aldrin's wiki page [wikipedia.org]:

      In 2005, while being interviewed for a documentary titled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, Aldrin told an interviewer that they saw an unidentified flying object. Aldrin told David Morrison, an NAI Senior Scientist, that the documentary cut the crew's conclusion that they were probably seeing one of four detached spacecraft adapter panels. Their S-IVB upper stage was 6,000 miles away, but the four panels were jettisoned before the S-IVB made its separation maneuver so they would closely follow the Apollo 11 spacecraft until its first midcourse correction.[36] When Aldrin appeared on The Howard Stern Show on August 15, 2007, Stern asked him about the supposed UFO sighting. Aldrin confirmed that there was no such sighting of anything deemed extraterrestrial, and said they were and are "99.9 percent" sure that the object was the detached panel.[37][38][39]

  • Yeah, or... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rijnzael (1294596) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:39PM (#33669014)
    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.
    • by jpapon (1877296)
      Maybe they just want to come down and have tea. They just want to make sure we don't get the wrong idea and start shooting nukes at them.

      Or even better, maybe they've contacted nuclear civilizations on other planets, only to have the people panic and start shooting the nukes at eachother! Maybe they're trying to protect us!

      Either way, I guess I better grab my shovel and start digging my bunker.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DerekLyons (302214)

      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

      Your theory is trivially falsified, or at least cast into severe doubt, by the fact that at

  • credible disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by irving47 (73147) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:40PM (#33669032) Homepage

    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.

  • Keep in mind... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by javelinco (652113) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:43PM (#33669086) Journal
    This is a PRESS RELEASE at this point. It's not a news article. I don't know Reuter's policy in picking up press releases, but based on the content of this release, I'm guessing they will publish whatever they get. The press release is short on details, but claims that there will be experts, and declassified documents that back up their assertions. And a dead body in a storage freezer, as well, for those of you who like hairy plastic suits draped over carcasses. Enjoy!
  • by Billy the Mountain (225541) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:07PM (#33669394) Journal

    "The weapons malfunctioned": How? they tried to launch them toward a target and they veered off course and detonated nearby causing a horrible but remarkably suppressed nuclear accident?

    "A disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby": Wow, eerie. Oh, wait, that was just a mylar balloon on a string. I think it read "Happy Birthday"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BigSlowTarget (325940)

      This exactly.- What is malfunctioned supposed to mean for a nuclear weapon that is supposed to be sitting there quietly doing absolutely nothing? It decided to go for a walk?

      How do you know the weapon malfunctioned and that it wasn't just some instrument? Did you punch the big red button and get no earthshattering Kaboom?

  • by khallow (566160) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:09PM (#33669422)
    The fundamental problem I have with these claims is that:

    a) There's no physical evidence. You would expect these sorts of tall tales surrounding such a large scale secret operation. So merely having a lot of people, even experienced observers, detail unknown activity don't tell you whether the "UFOs" are truly unidentified or not. My view is that the intelligence services would actually encourage these sorts of tales precisely because they generate a lot of disinformation for free.

    b) If they're aliens, beings from the future, etc then why are they playing their hand? Why tell us, "We can screw with your nuclear weapons"? That'd be something like the US deliberately and frivolously overflying some country for decades. All it does is give the other guys a variety of ideas for shooting down your planes/UFOs, especially if you crash some planes.

    c) Where are the countermeasures? If the US has a UFO problem, then they should have some sort of countermeasures. I'd think there'd be some tools that would be kept secret and some tools, more decoys, which would be deliberately leaked. You know, just like the US did a lot of its Cold War strategy. But we should be hearing about weird missiles or other things, even if (perhaps especially if) they don't work.

    As it stands, if these reports reflect a true phenomena, let's say, Greys [wikipedia.org] conducting covert reconnaissance of the Earth for some reason, then why screw around with the most militarily sensitive spots on the planet? What do they gain from that activity over decades which balances the risk of getting caught? The thing is that there's a certain sloppiness to the UFOs in these stories. They're visible, they do stuff that's likely to get powerful organizations riled up, and there's the risk of technology falling into relatively capable hands.

    Let's give an example, suppose the US was overflying a bunch of cavemen and a plane crashed. From our experience with cavemen, they wouldn't be able to make anything of the crash. Perhaps pieces would be grabbed and used for relics or decoration.

    Now suppose these cavemen were bright and far enough ahead in philosophy and organization that they knew the scientific method and could throw the resources of hundreds of tribes cooperatively for generations at figuring out this strange vehicle from the air. You might find them flying jets in a century. They might even have known the principles of flight, industrialization, etc already, but not have incentive to use that knowledge before the sky gods came.

    That's the risk aliens take by doing these sorts of activities. Sure humanity can't use UFO technology now, but getting some could greatly hasten our progress towards UFO technology.
  • But wait.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by rickb928 (945187) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:20PM (#33669554) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • by Geek_Cop (930002) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:33PM (#33669718)
    I've been skeptically following a lot of this UFO traffic for a couple of years..because I really want to know. But I have a theory that these "aliens" aren't really aliens. Take for instance the increasing number of homosexuals in the world. If what they say is true, that homosexuality is a genetic inheritance, could it mean that the human race is slowly evolving to become hermaphrodites? How many alien sightings have said that the aliens had sexual organs? Anyways, say that in the future humans are hermaphroditic time travelers? And perhaps they are traveling back in time to prevent the inevitable? I don't know, but I sure am seeing an increase of lesbians on dating sites.
  • by moxley (895517) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:58PM (#33670010)

    This has happened many times since the late 60s and possibly before.

    These people are credible enough to handle launching nuclear ICBMs, including one who was a base commander at a foreign base where nuclear weapons were stored, yet some people still doubt their credibility?

    It's not just unidentified objects showing up at silos, they've been able to take all of the independent missile systems offline in a very particular way, which shouldn't be possible...In some cases when fighters have been scrambled the objects will lead the fighters many, many miles away then shoot back to where they were in an instant.

    I realize that a lot of people like to ridicule this stuff, because they're not used to credible people coming clean about this stuff. But UFOs are a reality, and these events did happen... Back in the 50s UFOs were in the press all of the time, without the added ridicule, there were days in July of 1952 where the capital was swarming with them.

    What the UFOs are and where they came from, who knows - but there is something to these reports, so why don't you get all of the facts before you make up your mind. Contempt prior to investigation is a sure way to remain ignorant.

    Sure, people will dismiss this and think it's about making money, but there are many, many crews that have stated this going back to the 60s, they're not selling books or anything else.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tom (822)

      What the UFOs are and where they came from, who knows

      More importantly, where did they go? The current patterns do make it look like a cultural phenomenon.

      but there is something to these reports

      Totally. The question is: What?

      The aliens on Earth theory has an incredible amount of holes and empty spaces once you accept it and look to the details. All its magic is in the base assumption. It's the modern day religion - God or UFOs sounds like an incredible thing to have, but every time someone starts to write down the details, it's a piece of crap literature full of continuity errors and outright nonse

  • by Simonetta (207550) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @07:29PM (#33670782)

    Just as ants have no concept of your foot squashing them being signs of an advanced intelligence (you), so would flying saucers be considered a sign of beings from another planet. If they exist, (a far more advanced intelligence on earth than humans) then they would be good at keeping themselves hidden and secret.

    Maybe they don't understand how we function any more than we understand how ants function.

    Maybe by messing with our nukes they are protecting themselves in the way that we brush away ants at our picnics.

    Or more realistically, the people who are in-charge of keeping the Dr. Strangelove characters from burning the earth are creating a collective hallucination of flying saucers and destroying the rogue nukes themselves. Since there has never been any real physical evidence of flying saucers actually existing, this is the most likely scenario.

    Anyway, we should thank these guys for protecting us from the psychopaths in the military who want to burn the world and rule the ashes.

    Do the Soviets (no I don't accept them as 'Russians'), the Chinese, the French, and the British have the same 'problem' with flying saucers fucking around with the nuclear bombs that we do?

  • by MikeFM (12491) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @10:07PM (#33671764) Homepage Journal

    Way back in college I had an electrical engineering professor that told us that when he worked for the military part of his job was maintaining the control systems for nukes. He said that a big problem they've repeatedly fought with is that the insulation used in many of the nukes breaks down with time so you'll get a bit of crossover and shorting. So the nukes will suddenly arm themselves and fun things like that. It wasn't just single nukes either - whole locations would go into launch mode all on their own. I think the point was to be careful how you built things because what is fine under normal conditions might end up being used harder and longer than you expect.

    I keep waiting for Armeggedon by glitch. The end of humanity because we insist on keeping around aging weapons that only an idiot would ever use anyway.

  • Covert (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GerryHattrick (1037764) on Thursday September 23, 2010 @05:26AM (#33673436)
    If I wanted to use covert drones to monitor enemies' installations, I think I'd test them out on my own first. And I probably wouldn't tell people first (or even afterwards).

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...