UFO’s and Nukes: the Secret ink Revealed - The UFO Documentary You're Not Supposed To See

As usual, before I started this topic I did a search for the title with no results. If this is new here and to you, enjoy. At YouTube there are many videos but since it seems to be one of those videos you have to pay Vimeo to view, YouTube offers only many short-sequence samples. I cannot agree with the claims presented because there have never been world-shaking news to corroborate, only hearsay with possibly some of the reports having any validity. The UFO "community" has not been shaken by these kind of revelations and, to me, it's always the same-o, same-o. I wish one of these days we could get some real, out-of-this world news about UFOs. But I'm not holding my breath and I doubt that anything new will be disclosed before I leave this world. But you young people, keep hoping.

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE
December 29, 2017
www.wakingtimes.com...




All Caps – Please Review This Link.

a reply to: Lathroper

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE

And that is why it is on youtube.

Lots of gimmicks in this one.

So your last thread on the subject poo pooed it all and in this thread you want us to believe.

We are watching.

Lol

P

I'm not going to invest 49 minutes of my life in watching a UFO video from a guy named Buck Rogers.

Just show me the proof and skip all the fluff.

a reply to: pheonix358

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE

it gets sillier when you ask the simple question :

why was a documentary " you are not supposed to see " even made ??????????????

a reply to: Lathroper

The full documentary is available on YouTube, at least for now:


I haven't watched it yet...

It's a good documentary and worth seeing, but nothing that I didn't know already, but still I never get tired of revisiting any, or all information I have heard before. Even in the '60's my family and insider friends knew about these incidents taking place on military bases and SAC bases.
Misinformation and counter intelligence efforts were being pushed a lot harder back then than they are today, because back then, teachers and academic types weren't as fearful of resisting the ridicule, and would ask questions anyway, until later when (lost) jobs and other repercussions began taking place to curb the "too" curious ones.

Some of the early UFO documentaries (60's and 70's) ones were shown in theaters (but during project Blue Book) just like regular movies were, and when the good sightings with real motion picture footage were shown, and some Air Force official would say this one, or that one, was "ball lightning" or a "temperature inversion" causing the illusion of "flying saucers" The audiences would ROAR with laughter. Back then people knew when they were being lied to seemingly much more than they do, or care about today.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: pheonix358

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE

it gets sillier when you ask the simple question :

why was a documentary " you are not supposed to see " even made ??????????????

It has always been human nature to "Do" things people are not supposed to do.

That's why people made it.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Lathroper

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE

And that is why it is on youtube.

Lots of gimmicks in this one.

So your last thread on the subject poo pooed it all and in this thread you want us to believe.

We are watching.

Lol

P

The video is NOT on YouTube or I would have included it. YouTube only has multiple short segments. I don't want you to believe anything, doing so is your poor choice. No one is forcing you to do anything. My last thread was on UFOs, they are all different. And I do it only for the fun that may ensue in good and bad replies, such as yours. If you had become aware of this article before I did you might have posted and you would have opened yourself up to your type of reply. Why don't you address the subject instead of being sarcastic which seems to be a trend here. And what's wrong with pooh-poohing?

originally posted by: LookingForABetterLife
I'm not going to invest 49 minutes of my life in watching a UFO video from a guy named Buck Rogers.

Just show me the proof and skip all the fluff.

So you're missing out because of the guy's name? Would you hold that against President Reagan who was nicknamed "The Gipper"?

The only source of knowledge is experience. Albert Einstein

From Wikipedia

The phrase "Win one for the Gipper" was later used as a political slogan by Ronald Reagan, who in 1940 portrayed Gipp in Knute Rockne, All American and was often referred to as "The Gipper". His most famous use of the phrase was at the Republican National Convention in 1988 in New Orleans, when he told Vice President Bush, "George, go out there and win one for the Gipper."[17] The term was also used by President George W. Bush at the 2004 convention in New York City, when he honored the recently deceased President Reagan by stating, "this time we can truly win one for the Gipper."

Just show you the proof? How would you recognize the truth?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: pheonix358

THE UFO DOCUMENTARY YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE

it gets sillier when you ask the simple question :

why was a documentary " you are not supposed to see " even made ??????????????

You picked the right nom de plume, ignorant ape! There may be tons of unreleased documentaries that are in storage and have not been released for one reason or another, depending on the subject and subject to certain authorities who may be in control or, TPTB. Perhaps...

originally posted by: seattlerat
a reply to: Lathroper

snip

I haven't watched it yet...

In my search at YouTube for the video I became aware of the video you include but because it didn't have an appropriate title I didn't view it. I started to watch it but because right at the beginning it says: "U.S. government documents reveal shocking UFO incidents at American nuclear missile sites." We all know about this subject and I Googled "
"ufos at american nuclear missile sites" and got "About 1,490,000 results (0.79 seconds)". So the info is out there and somebody just wants to cash in on the alleged over-the-top "mystery", obviously Robert Hastings.

I apologize to all members from bringing this onboard.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
It's a good documentary and worth seeing, but nothing that I didn't know already, but still I never get tired of revisiting any, or all information I have heard before. Even in the '60's my family and insider friends knew about these incidents taking place on military bases and SAC bases.
Misinformation and counter intelligence efforts were being pushed a lot harder back then than they are today, because back then, teachers and academic types weren't as fearful of resisting the ridicule, and would ask questions anyway, until later when (lost) jobs and other repercussions began taking place to curb the "too" curious ones.

Some of the early UFO documentaries (60's and 70's) ones were shown in theaters (but during project Blue Book) just like regular movies were, and when the good sightings with real motion picture footage were shown, and some Air Force official would say this one, or that one, was "ball lightning" or a "temperature inversion" causing the illusion of "flying saucers" The audiences would ROAR with laughter. Back then people knew when they were being lied to seemingly much more than they do, or care about today.

Enjoyable reply, thanks. And you're right about "Back then ..." This forum is a good example of that opinion. Too many unquestioning believers without a skeptical bone in their body. Especially the "ball lightning" explanation which was always shown as happening only in sophisticated laboratory equipment and nothing that was ever produced could pass muster. I can understand some witnesses making a visual mistake with some lenticular cloud such as this one:


and I'm sure they've been reported as UFOs. But they don't move, unless the witness was traveling in a vehicle and didn't see the cloud dissipate. That's why my UFO sightings pass muster, they were solid sightings. BTW, I was in SAC for 4 quiet years!

a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

I'm going to watch it because it is presented by a guy named Buck Rogers.

a reply to: Lathroper

That is what's called"click bait" to get hits on a video,how does one blogger come up with secret information,in the windmills of his mind

I like the video, a great documentary with more confirmation from reliable people.

But what truly amazes me are the negative comments here. Gold coins walking into your front door wouldn't put a smile on your face, I guess.

originally posted by: SacredLore
I like the video, a great documentary with more confirmation from reliable people.

But what truly amazes me are the negative comments here. Gold coins walking into your front door wouldn't put a smile on your face, I guess.

The problem is, with some of us enthusiasts, is that we know enough about the subject to be satisfied and not need anymore of the same-o, same-o. Someone new to the topic, possibly you, would find the "new" info presented as a valuable addition to your growing knowledge base. To the rest of us "veterans", we've been there, done that.

It's good to read positive replies. Makes the effort worth it.

a reply to: Lathroper
It's a film by Robert Hastings, who has made a career about UFOs and Nukes but has never produced even one single witness who saw the UFOs he talks about at Malmstrom. When other people asked the secondary witness, the man who said "someone else told me they saw a UFO" they go on to say "but I thought it was a joke" and Hastings leaves that last part out of his story. It's been discredited but Hastings continues to thrive on the gullible who will never bother to do research and investigate to learn the truth for themselves, they just want to pay Hastings to tell them a good "story" and that's what they are getting, a "story" with no real verification. I mean in most UFO cases we at least have a witness to the UFO but in this case we don't have any for his Malmstrom claims.

There is an article about Hastings claims here:

www.livescience.com...

Despite claims that the airmen were "breaking their silence," there was very little new information presented at the press conference; in fact many of the UFO reports they cited date back 30 or 40 years, and had appeared in magazine articles, books, and websites. Instead of any new evidence or real proof they offered merely a rehashing of old, discredited reports that didn't yield any significant evidence when they were originally reported decades ago.

There's the Rendlesham "UFOs" which according to Ian Ridpath consisted of a meteor, followed by sightings of a lighthouse' followed by sightings of "starlike-objects" that were stars. Regarding the latter, I suspect Halt was probably seeing artifacts on a star scope, and his primary verification witness (his boss) directly contradicts his claim about beams coming near the weapons storage area:

drdavidclarke.co.uk...

Note: Thanks to UFOlogist Robert Hastings, at this stage it is worth quoting from a transcript of an interview with Col Halt taken from the US TV programme Unsolved Mysteries, shown on 18 September 1991, more than a decade after the events. On the programme Halt says: “We could very clearly see [the UFO]…I noticed other beams of light coming down from the same object, falling on different places on the base. My boss [Col Ted Conrad] was standing in his front yard in Woodbridge and he could see the beams of light falling down...

Contrast Halt’s recollections in 1991 with Conrad’s 2010 statement which continues:

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground.

Now why would Halt say his boss would verify his beam claims when his boss does exactly the opposite. I would note that Halt is selling books on the topic and no beams means low book sales, so as usual, follow the money.

This is really much ado about absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, but hey it's a living off the gullible for Hastings.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
It's a good documentary and worth seeing, but nothing that I didn't know already, but still I never get tired of revisiting any, or all information I have heard before. Even in the '60's my family and insider friends knew about these incidents taking place on military bases and SAC bases.
Misinformation and counter intelligence efforts were being pushed a lot harder back then than they are today, because back then, teachers and academic types weren't as fearful of resisting the ridicule, and would ask questions anyway, until later when (lost) jobs and other repercussions began taking place to curb the "too" curious ones.

Some of the early UFO documentaries (60's and 70's) ones were shown in theaters (but during project Blue Book) just like regular movies were, and when the good sightings with real motion picture footage were shown, and some Air Force official would say this one, or that one, was "ball lightning" or a "temperature inversion" causing the illusion of "flying saucers" The audiences would ROAR with laughter. Back then people knew when they were being lied to seemingly much more than they do, or care about today.

Enjoyable reply, thanks. And you're right about "Back then ..." This forum is a good example of that opinion. Too many unquestioning believers without a skeptical bone in their body. Especially the "ball lightning" explanation which was always shown as happening only in sophisticated laboratory equipment and nothing that was ever produced could pass muster. I can understand some witnesses making a visual mistake with some lenticular cloud such as this one:

and I'm sure they've been reported as UFOs. But they don't move, unless the witness was traveling in a vehicle and didn't see the cloud dissipate. That's why my UFO sightings pass muster, they were solid sightings. BTW, I was in SAC for 4 quiet years!

You won't believe this! In my comments above the lenticular cloud photo I state: "I can understand some witnesses making a visual mistake with some lenticular cloud such as this one:" A few minutes ago I was surfing and found myself at UFO Sightings Daily and, lo and behold, the lead story was about a photographer who took a photo of a lenticular cloud over Crete last week and they're claiming it's of a cloacked UFO! Have a look or go to www.ufosightingsdaily.com...
for the full size page and more text.

Am i almost prescient or what!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Lathroper
It's a film by Robert Hastings, who has made a career about UFOs and Nukes but has never produced even one single witness who saw the UFOs he talks about at Malmstrom. When other people asked the secondary witness, the man who said "someone else told me they saw a UFO" they go on to say "but I thought it was a joke" and Hastings leaves that last part out of his story. It's been discredited but Hastings continues to thrive on the gullible who will never bother to do research and investigate to learn the truth for themselves, they just want to pay Hastings to tell them a good "story" and that's what they are getting, a "story" with no real verification. I mean in most UFO cases we at least have a witness to the UFO but in this case we don't have any for his Malmstrom claims.

There is an article about Hastings claims here:

www.livescience.com...

Despite claims that the airmen were "breaking their silence," there was very little new information presented at the press conference; in fact many of the UFO reports they cited date back 30 or 40 years, and had appeared in magazine articles, books, and websites. Instead of any new evidence or real proof they offered merely a rehashing of old, discredited reports that didn't yield any significant evidence when they were originally reported decades ago.

There's the Rendlesham "UFOs" which according to Ian Ridpath consisted of a meteor, followed by sightings of a lighthouse' followed by sightings of "starlike-objects" that were stars. Regarding the latter, I suspect Halt was probably seeing artifacts on a star scope, and his primary verification witness (his boss) directly contradicts his claim about beams coming near the weapons storage area:

drdavidclarke.co.uk...

Note: Thanks to UFOlogist Robert Hastings, at this stage it is worth quoting from a transcript of an interview with Col Halt taken from the US TV programme Unsolved Mysteries, shown on 18 September 1991, more than a decade after the events. On the programme Halt says: “We could very clearly see [the UFO]…I noticed other beams of light coming down from the same object, falling on different places on the base. My boss [Col Ted Conrad] was standing in his front yard in Woodbridge and he could see the beams of light falling down...

Contrast Halt’s recollections in 1991 with Conrad’s 2010 statement which continues:

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground.

Now why would Halt say his boss would verify his beam claims when his boss does exactly the opposite. I would note that Halt is selling books on the topic and no beams means low book sales, so as usual, follow the money.

This is really much ado about absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, but hey it's a living off the gullible for Hastings.

Robert Hastings is a very good man who was clawing to cobble together pennies to get the bare minimum to put that movie out.

I can assure you that he doesn't put anything out about anything without checking with all he can check with and rejects many more claims than he investigates and publishes.

One thing I know concretely, he doesn't publish any story that he doesn't believe that guys are telling him the truth regarding what they saw. Ive met him and spoken to him several times about the amount of work he puts into investigating the stuff he publishes. he also was extremely generous in helping me along without any sort of gain to him.

Last, the more respected people in the UFO community respect Hastings, and though that's not ever definitive, it does indicate something

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Lathroper
It's a film by Robert Hastings, who has made a career about UFOs and Nukes but has never produced even one single witness who saw the UFOs he talks about at Malmstrom. When other people asked the secondary witness, the man who said "someone else told me they saw a UFO" they go on to say "but I thought it was a joke" and Hastings leaves that last part out of his story. It's been discredited but Hastings continues to thrive on the gullible who will never bother to do research and investigate to learn the truth for themselves, they just want to pay Hastings to tell them a good "story" and that's what they are getting, a "story" with no real verification. I mean in most UFO cases we at least have a witness to the UFO but in this case we don't have any for his Malmstrom claims.

There is an article about Hastings claims here:

www.livescience.com...

Despite claims that the airmen were "breaking their silence," there was very little new information presented at the press conference; in fact many of the UFO reports they cited date back 30 or 40 years, and had appeared in magazine articles, books, and websites. Instead of any new evidence or real proof they offered merely a rehashing of old, discredited reports that didn't yield any significant evidence when they were originally reported decades ago.

Hastings is just another UFO con man who has discovered the power of bs has on gullible minds. He is not alone and the line at the bank must be long. He would possibly stand behind Stanton Friedman, Donald Schmitt, Leslie Kean, John Keel, Whitley Strieber, Kevin Randle, William Moore, Jenny Randles, and lots others. Authors who have no shame and put out the canon of UFOlogy fantasyland. I read all of their books and because I was a skeptic from the day I was born I was not affected or influenced by the crap their books contain. I failed to contribute my effort at discouraging abduction books when I wrote a totally negative review of Budd Hopkins first abduction book "Missing Time" especially because I had been an excellent hypnotist and I could see all the flaws and errors Budd was guilty of. But my review was so negative that it was not accepted for publication and the rest is history. The industry took off.

There's the Rendlesham "UFOs" which according to Ian Ridpath consisted of a meteor, followed by sightings of a lighthouse' followed by sightings of "starlike-objects" that were stars. Regarding the latter, I suspect Halt was probably seeing artifacts on a star scope, and his primary verification witness (his boss) directly contradicts his claim about beams coming near the weapons storage area:

drdavidclarke.co.uk...

Note: Thanks to UFOlogist Robert Hastings, at this stage it is worth quoting from a transcript of an interview with Col Halt taken from the US TV programme Unsolved Mysteries, shown on 18 September 1991, more than a decade after the events. On the programme Halt says: “We could very clearly see [the UFO]…I noticed other beams of light coming down from the same object, falling on different places on the base. My boss [Col Ted Conrad] was standing in his front yard in Woodbridge and he could see the beams of light falling down...

Contrast Halt’s recollections in 1991 with Conrad’s 2010 statement which continues:

“Lt Col Halt’s report of more lights both on the ground and in the sky brought quite a few people out of their houses at Woodbridge to see what was there. These people included myself, my wife, Lt Col Sawyer (the Director of Personnel), his wife, and several others listening to my radio and looking for the lights Halt was describing. Despite a sparkling, clear, cloudless, fogless night with a good field of view in all directions, we saw nothing that resembled Lt Col Halt’s descriptions either in the sky or on the ground.

Now why would Halt say his boss would verify his beam claims when his boss does exactly the opposite. I would note that Halt is selling books on the topic and no beams means low book sales, so as usual, follow the money.

This is really much ado about absolutely nothing as far as I can tell, but hey it's a living off the gullible for Hastings.

The Rendelsham is a sham! When one reads Ian Ridpath's analysis of the Halt tape or read Halt's letter one can see that despite their education and miltary status one has to wonder how they achieved their positions for one can clearly see that Halt was not operating with a clear mind. This guy didn't have leadership material if he wound up being so "lost in the woods"! Again, to my skeptical mind the report smelt. And some sites compare Rendelsham with Roswell as if there was anything similar to connect them!

Rendelsham, Roswell, Phoenix, low points in UFOlogy. But high in the minds of the gullible.