Breaking News: Nuclear Weapons Personnel Go Public With Information On UFO Activity At Missle Launch

It was proven to be hoax no?

Mornin' Zeptepi,

Originally posted by Zeptepi
reply to post by Shere Khaan

 

But geez I resent clicking links to your website only to find no more information other than more information will be released on the actual paracast.

This is exactly why I read the member posts before
I click the links...what are they selling....sorry ...but true.
My time is not worth your reading my sig line either
are we even???
did you read it?
Peace

Edit to note : That Frank logged off 2 mins. after i posted this...Frank ....are you our friend?
nevermind ....we get it good night

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Zeptepi]

Shere was incorrect in her assessment, as "most" who have read the article along with the press release I think would agree; I rebutted her statement with several points in a "smart" fashion (nothing vindictive mind you); however she took offense, where none was meant; I was just mildly amused by the comment.

As I have stated to those who seem to believe that there is an ulterior motive for the post; my only only goal is to enlighten and provoke intelligent discourse; The UFO Chronicles "sells nothing," and has no advertisers . . . it's first purpose (as it was with Project Sign) is to collect, collate, evaluate, and disseminate all information concerning UFOs and related phenomenon.

We were given the nod to "break the news" about the two new witnesses, as well as the upcoming interview; after doing so, I immediately shared it here ( as I often do in these cases) and initiating the thread using ATS guidelines as I understand them in regards to "external sources."

AS mentioned to another poster I was/am taken aback by some of the comments towards the messenger (me) and lack of focus on the "theme of the thread" and its importance.

Frank ..as you know, the world and ATS is changing.
I am the biggest propellant (sic)of the enigma of UFO's...hell I remember when we had too spell it like U.F.O. with the period delineation ..seriously Frank, these kids today aren't buying the old "party line" buy my buick U.F.O. ...anymore. give these kids the credit they havent deserved yet..they are smarter then the stoners of 1979...really they are.


Is this the Petering out...of which you refer?
Peace
your friend
Zep

The beauty of ATS IMHO is the variety of topics and various categories; like channels on a TV, if one doesn't like the topic of a thread, or doesn't want ot participate in a positive manner, one can skip to the next one.

Personally, I can't fathom how anyone, UFO enthusiast or maven alike would not be interested in these two new witnesses and what they have to say!

In regards to the "old part-line" I would argue that there is no such thing; what's old is new again (vice versa), many new to the field often times feel they're starting something "new" or broaching the subject matter in a different way, only to find that its all been done before.

The "petering out" I was referring to is the fact "all threads" go to sleep eventually: I do my best to hang with any thread Ive initiated to give my support, thoughts, info etc.

Cheers,
Frank

Mornin' kor01,

Originally posted by kor01
It was proven to be hoax no?

No.

Cheers,
Frank

Mornin' Myrdyn,

Originally posted by Myrdyn
Nice thread Frank.. Interesting subject, but hardly 'breaking news'. Not wishing to advertise an external website (and therefore no link), but has nobody here watched the video of the Disclosure Project press conference that took place in the National Press Club on May 8th 2001?

Keep up the good work!

Thanks for the kind words!

The "breaking" part is the fact that these two (previously unknown) courageous witnesses i.e., Fenstermacher and McDonough are going public for the first time.

Cheers,
Frank

I would like to clarify a couple points here...

A few of the members have complained that the Opening Post of this thread appears to be nothing more than a promotion and a means to send traffic to Frank's site.

In a sense it is and they are right. BUT... Frank has proven over the years that he does stay with a thread and does engage in discussion on the topic here at ATS.

Additionally, Frank's site has absolutely no monetization so there is nothing for him to gain by having a couple thousand people click over to his site from here other than "getting the word/information out".

I have asked Frank to make sure he writes a brief synopsis of the subject in his opening posts going forward to avoid the perception that he is merely using ATS as a free advertising opportunity and he has agreed to do so.

I completely understand and appreciate the members who voiced their concern's perspective here, and normally I would agree with it and trash the thread.

But as I've said, Frank has proven himself an "Honest Agent" over the years...

So let's get back to and stick to the topic (new witnesses coming forward) please. It's all good.

Springer...

Sad, but if the president doesn't make a National Public Address disclosing presence of alien species, then they don't exist.

You are dealing with worms, ignorant morons. Tell them you're an expert, their human brain goes to sleep (off); disturb their belief-system/shake them out of their comfort zone, and they might kill you in thanks.

Humanity is a dull lump. Ever notice how children are destructive and break things, but cannot reassemble them? Get it?

Reveal until your blue in the face. Not one will be altered. Not one.

It's an entirely personal (subjective) experience until big daddy says it true, we've got aliens in our soup.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


We are all building a network of information that is not possible to effectively present in this linear site format. They've done a good job here but this is a jumping off point to real research.

The rules are guidelines to warn off misuse, not dogmatic blind justice. The Mod will decide if it is a commercial or private research site just taking advantage of the users. Un-organized links to random media YouTubes are not important to a good researcher. There is no data trail and source is not document quality or easily traceable. An OP website organized and making information accessible, available to corroborate and intelligently presented is almost always appreciated.

Some of us are here to listen for new information. We've heard the stories and seen the doc footage. Some people do good work for this cause with careful filtering and research. I appreciate their efforts and listen, consider and keep it to add to my understanding and information later.

So thanks Frank. and any others, taking the time and thoughtful efforts to help us understand. Use whatever mechanisms and graphic devices you need. Where else can we get information not filtered through retail driven media? Allow a bit of personal promotion. Just not overt ad sites.

There are those here who do real research and are not here for a SciFi thrills, and aren't pissed when you don't entertain their nanosecond attention spans. The best analogy I can come up with is wanting sex but not love. They want the thrill but not the commitment.

Our culture has changed to more often shallow levels of attention and perception due to childrens early media programming (short attention span networks). Banter from such is just noise anyway. Even religious zealots and literalists are noise when you want to focus on the actual important information. The smallest additional bit can catalyze a huge insight. Anyone truly interested in understanding knows this.

We have new information here. It is quite worthy of our attention.

Thanks Frank .

ZG

What is curious to me is how the military responds.

They know there is no hardening they can do to these installations. The idea that all the computerized mechanisms can be modulated remotely or in proximity through layers of steel and earth must be profoundly disturbing to those charged with the operation and security of our missile defense systems.

If I where in the staff of decision makers, I would start looking not at mechanisms, because clearly we are at a massive disadvantage and cannot begin to understand how such intrusion is possible yet, but maybe in the organization of how these sites are related and operated.

As far as I know there are no electromagnetic shields we can employ without souring our own systems.

Staff and people manning these site are also at a particular disadvantage. We know humans can easily be controlled by these beings/objects, their perceptions, memory or actual functions. So what is left?

Looking at policy changes in the facility management, if we can see such from the surface of public information would be the next step. Like the MX missle program where a series of launch positions are used like musical chairs to avoid disabling strikes, maybe the way people are compartmentalized and redundant systems based on tasks by people actually isolated from the functions. Like faux controls duplicated somewhere else. I can't yet think of how we could possibly avoid the control over our weapons. More creative thinking is needed.

Don't get me wrong, I do not subscribe in any way to these instruments of destruction or the policies that manage them. I want to understand military strategic thought and observe how they respond to this problem. It could reveal what we might have in our technology arsenal the public is not privy to.

I can see why policy for shooting down anything, or chasing them off is the only desperate choice left. We know that doesn't work either however.

Looking at major policy changes in the programs after the events might give insight to what is going on. If they know we cannot launch. The system is effectively broken. We can assume that they are fixing it. Or attempting to. Major overhauls, policy implementations or technology switching could be an indication of a response, and back up the actual reality of these events too.

Maybe these new witnesses will have some valuable insights into this. We already know these events are true. We need to look at the pathology of the events now. It could reveal much about the visitor/managers technology, and the inventiveness and technology of our military. Or lack therein.

I will be listening to the Paracast carefully.

ZG

reply to post by Frank Warren


I'm sorry I created such a storm Frank and detracted from your message (I did give you a thumbs up and appreciation of the content of your post in my original after all). Basically all I was suggesting was a brief synopsis would be a nice touch and come across less like a promotional ad.

Understand that when I say resent, not everyone checks these boards on a desktop. It is a royal PITA to go to some sites like that one on a phone just to try and get to the hype of the post title.

Afternoon Z!

reply to post by ZeroGhost


I have to say I was moved by your most considerate, salient, poignant, provocative pandect--bravo--well done!

You get it--thank you!

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Shere,

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

I'm sorry I created such a storm Frank and detracted from your message (I did give you a thumbs up and appreciation of the content of your post in my original after all). Basically all I was suggesting was a brief synopsis would be a nice touch and come across less like a promotional ad.

Understand that when I say resent, not everyone checks these boards on a desktop. It is a royal PITA to go to some sites like that one on a phone just to try and get to the hype of the post title.

No apology necessary; in your case I was merely trying to point out that I did in fact provide a lot of details in my piece, (not to mention the press release) and in that vein, I feel it's worth the mouse-click. Moreover, I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass . . . OK . . . maybe a little.

Separately, TUC has a lot of content on the main page, and is slow to load with dial-up connections . . . I couldn't even fathom attempting to load the site by phone.

Finally, as I attempted to explain to some others who may have felt that I ulterior motives: I am in my 4th decade of research in regards to Ufology; I don't take the subject matter lightly; as Springer pointed out, The UFO Chronicles doesn't sell anything; we're not dragging anyone across advertisements, or selling space etc., etc., we're primarily a "UFO news site" who often shares information here at ATS, presumably with those that have an interest in the topic.

In this particular instance I see the value with these two new witnesses, and I commend Robert (Hastings) for his efforts, and give kudos to Gene and David for providing the venue to explore their respective experiences.

Admittedly, I should have put more of my two cents in on the initial post; however, in my defense I never "post and run" and knew I would be chiming in within minutes.

In any event, as I told Springer, "I won't make that mistake again!"

Warmest Regards and Much . . .

Cheers,
Frank

Thanks for the heads up on the interview Frank. I'm looking forward to it. At least with this prior knowledge we all know to be suspicious if your site disappears along with the two witnesses!!

wrong not the first time... the disclosure project had one..

The thinly veiled adhominem attacks on Frank were completely unnecessary, imapired my enjoyment of reading this thread and detracted from the evidence and topic at hand. This tactic is far too common on ATS, and I think it is high time that there is a policy put in place against it.
I suggest a more evidence-focussed approach. When somebody shares some kind of evidence, such as Frank does with the military witnesses, focus on the actual evidence and not on the author themselves.

The following responses are examples of adhominem fallacies:

You're advertising your product, you're just trying to make money from us, you're lying, you''re deceiving us etc.

Another kind of response which is also far too common is what I call a null-hypothesis fallacy, setting up an arbitrary condition on what constitues evidence and what doesn't in accordance with ones worldview. Everything is evidence, but evidence is not proof. It is the job of the investigator or critic to investigate this evidence and evaluate it. So next time somebody presents you with evidence, investigate it, explore all the information being shared with you and then form an informed judgement from it.

The evidence Frank has shared with us is significant. Insider-Military witnesses from a high ranking position exposing secrets on UFO's and their activity related to Missile launch sites. Explore it, ask questions about it, gather as much information as you can and then judge it. If you are going to judge it even before investigating it, then consider not saying anyting at all, because your're not contributing anything. To maintain a high standard of intelligent and criticial discourse we need people to put effort in analysing the evidence presented and making points based on that analysis.

Anyway, Frank, I have a question: Many times before high level UFO witnesses, including military witnesses have come forward, but it appears that the status-quo on the mattersof ET/UFO has not changed. It still is the case that some either believe them and some don't. In which case do you think this fresh batch of military witnesses is going to change the status quo? What are your expectations?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Thank you for sharing this information. I will listen to the podcast this evening. I do like the fact these former military officers are coming forward. They dared not speak out while in the military, as it would have cost them promotions and their careers.

Hi IC,

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Anyway, Frank, I have a question: Many times before high level UFO witnesses, including military witnesses have come forward, but it appears that the status-quo on the mattersof ET/UFO has not changed. It still is the case that some either believe them and some don't. In which case do you think this fresh batch of military witnesses is going to change the status quo? What are your expectations?

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

(Thanks for your support) The short answer is "no," I don't feel that these two witnesses coming forward will change the status quo; however, what can eventually change it is the preponderance of evidence . . . the totality, which these two and what they have to say adds to . . . they're "cogs on the wheel."

The methodology works both in general for Ufology, and specifically in this sub-category, e.g., UFO activity at or near sensitive military areas and or missile bases. Along with these two new guys, so many former missileers have come forward to share their UFO experiences it cannot be denied (logically).

The "change" in the status quo or improved cultivation happens through acquisition of knowledge; continually educating the public re Ufology and adding to the pile of evidence ensures the eventuality of this goal in my view.

Cheers,
Frank

Afternoon KF,

Originally posted by kidflash2008
Thank you for sharing this information. I will listen to the podcast this evening. I do like the fact these former military officers are coming forward. They dared not speak out while in the military, as it would have cost them promotions and their careers.

It should be interesting. Moreover, my hat is off to both of them in coming forward even now; there is still risk involved in my view, and I applaud their courage for doing so!

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by SlinkyDFW
Frank, although I have enjoyed your posts in the past, this one seems to be more of a self pumping of your website. Are you trying to drive traffic up?

Can you not just post the videos and interviews after the fact, instead of pushing everyone there?

just curious...

33Stars and 44Flages for what????? ATS needs to have (Neg)-Stars as well.

So here I find this late breaking news has not even been told yet?
And Frank if you think I'm going to hear this on "The Paracast" your wrong.

I read ATS for information Not Website advertising .You have just lost a prospective listener.
More wasted time!
33Stars and 44Flages for what?

Zelong.

Greetings Forumerions,

Having listened to the interview I can say that it did not disappoint! Kudos to Robert for bringing these two additional witnesses to light, and a heartfelt thank you to them for having the courage to step forward and share their very important experiences. Finally, a shout out to Steinberg and Biedny for providing te venue and asking salient questions.

Cheers,
Frank