It depends on who is doing the reporting.

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
From www.aolnews.com
(Sept. 28) -- UFOs have monitored and occasionally tampered with nuclear weapons sites, both in the U.S. and abroad, for nearly 60 years.

That was the allegation based on eyewitness testimony of several former Air Force officers who came together Monday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to tell their remarkable stories and to urge the government to finally make this information available to the public.

Co-host of the news conference, author and researcher Robert Hastings, told AOL News, "The purpose of the press conference was to draw worldwide media attention to the reality of UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites, which have been going on since the 1940s."
It is very easy to dismiss a bunch of idiots staring at stars until they have convinced themselves that the stars are UFOs, but this is quite different.
 
Werbung:
From www.aolnews.com

It is very easy to dismiss a bunch of idiots staring at stars until they have convinced themselves that the stars are UFOs, but this is quite different.

As a member of another group of "idiots" who stare at stars all night (amateur astronomers), I can say unequivacably that whether it is farmer Bob in Kansas or a General in the Pentagon, we still need physical evidence that ET has landed. Anecdotal evidence is not science.
 
As a member of another group of "idiots" who stare at stars all night (amateur astronomers), I can say unequivacably that whether it is farmer Bob in Kansas or a General in the Pentagon, we still need physical evidence that ET has landed. Anecdotal evidence is not science.
The article was not about proving the existence of ET. It was to get the government to admit that it has known about those incidents at USAF facilities since the 40's. Further, the article was not about converting skeptics. Therefore, the question the article seems to be asking is; Will the government admit that there have been incidents as described by the former officers and the officers were required to sign non-disclosure statements.
 
The article was not about proving the existence of ET. It was to get the government to admit that it has known about those incidents at USAF facilities since the 40's. Further, the article was not about converting skeptics. Therefore, the question the article seems to be asking is; Will the government admit that there have been incidents as described by the former officers and the officers were required to sign non-disclosure statements.

The government cannot admit that UFOS had anything to do with those incidents when there is no evidence that ET has ever visited us. Again, anecdotal evidence is not science.
 
The government cannot admit that UFOS had anything to do with those incidents when there is no evidence that ET has ever visited us. Again, anecdotal evidence is not science.

Uh..."unexplained incidents"? It would seem that "something" happened.
Anecdotal evidence is science...sociology.
Even if the military came out and stated it was ET, that is not scientific proof. Nobody says it is. I just want more from the government. If they say nothing happened, I want them to explain to the public how they could have placed delusional people (in several/many instances), in a missile silo with keys. If they say something happened, but it is not understood what. Then I want to know what their best evidence points to. If they did indeed require officers to sign non-disclosure statements after a non-incident; why? And, I agree; none of the described incidents could be considered proof of ET's existence. It could have been just as well as been an anomaly in space/time ala Stephen Hawking.
 
Uh..."unexplained incidents"? It would seem that "something" happened.
Anecdotal evidence is science...sociology.
Even if the military came out and stated it was ET, that is not scientific proof. Nobody says it is. I just want more from the government. If they say nothing happened, I want them to explain to the public how they could have placed delusional people (in several/many instances), in a missile silo with keys. If they say something happened, but it is not understood what. Then I want to know what their best evidence points to. If they did indeed require officers to sign non-disclosure statements after a non-incident; why? And, I agree; none of the described incidents could be considered proof of ET's existence. It could have been just as well as been an anomaly in space/time ala Stephen Hawking.

Sorry. Anecdotal evidence is never science. Personal revelation is, by defintion, first person. As such, no one is obliged to believe my first person revelation any more than they are obliged to believe any one elses. Without physical evidence, it is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. From a military standpoint, it would be nice to know what was going on there, if anything. That's about it.
 
From a military standpoint, it would be nice to know what was going on there, if anything. That's about it.

Nice? NICE?! Either these officers are demonstrating that the government is covering up something that is of vital importance or they are off their rockers (with there finger on the nuclear button). Either way, the American people should be up in arms demanding to know. You seem to be stuck in the minimize the event thing.
 
Werbung:
Nice? NICE?! Either these officers are demonstrating that the government is covering up something that is of vital importance or they are off their rockers (with there finger on the nuclear button). Either way, the American people should be up in arms demanding to know. You seem to be stuck in the minimize the event thing.

Or they are looking to make a buck just like every UFO nut out there is doing. I don't see anything for the American people to be up in arms about. There is no credible threat to our national security. ET isn't out to get us. There are no body snatchers, no little green men, no flying saucers. I've been an avid observer of the skies for over 41 years and have never seen anything I couldn't explain or find an explanation for.
 
Back
Top