UFO Press Conference (Full Video) - September 27th, 2010

reply to post by askbaby

Significant - yes
Disclosure - no
The topic of UFOs/Aliens takes one small step towards credibility in the major news media - yes

Hello there, very well said.

I would never "drink the kool-aid just because my father did." What I do know is that we, as human beings, all have a natural credibility filter. This is why we are naturally more inclined to believe family members, close friends, academics, people of prominence, etc.......and less inclined to believe some random drunk on the street.

Yeah maybe older folks don't check their email as often and don't own an iphone, but we shouldn't count them out. Life is short. It won't be long and they will be gone and you will their age. These things they talk about ring true to me and pass my credibility filter. I.E. in this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UR3w7UhIs @9:38 Retired USAF COL Charles Halt talks about military documentation before the digital age.

He talks of employees being "very resistant to modern technology." He notes "they were transitioning from typewriters to word processors." This is familiar to me because I work for the government. I have not worked for the federal government, but I have worked at the City, County, and State levels of Gov't. I can attest that the people I have worked with are just ordinary people. They get upset when they have to transition from one email client to another they are not familiar with. I can tell you that I currently work for a city of approximately 102,000 people. We're currently still in the process of transitioning our utility drawings to the digital age (from microfische to .pdf files available on a network). You won't believe how many old documents a city has to go through and keep track of. I can only imagine the insane amount of paperwork the federal gov't has and is trying to modernize. The military is no different. We are all human and we are all using (more or less) the same technology.

The reason these people are coming forward is because they understand that what they experienced can't be explained in terms of what is considered normal. They obviously have drawn the same logical conclusions that most of us on ATS have! They see an object that:

A) Displays intelligence
B) Displays capabilities far beyond our civilization
C) Leaves physical effects. Imagination can't turn off nuclear missiles. Imagination does not generate noticable radiation effects on a geiger counter. Imagination does not show up on radar.

What conclusion should an intelligent being draw from those things? Probably that there are "others." The reason those folks come on camera and risk looking like loons is because they understand that our ego-centric civilization generally scoffs at the mention of UFOs. They are trying to change that. They are trying to facilitate a climate where humans can talk about these unexplainable events without getting ridiculed. Something they probably never had. Imagine how hard it must be to keep quiet about their experience for decade after decade..

Originally posted by Utopian
It seems to me that now would be the perfect time for MSM to cover UFO phenomenon as this will divert attention away from Ahmadinejad's statement regarding 911. Once the 911 issue has died down so will the UFO coverage.

The only thing Ahmadinejads statement created was laughter and amazement that a person that crazy is handed a microphone at the UN. If your so consumed with the Truthers that you ascribe it to every topic you read, it's maybe time to step back and take a breath?

Amazing how quickly the Straw Man argument attempts popped up on this thread. Even an America hater managed to divert the thread even though this thread has nothing to do with that either.

When people react this way it suggests fear to me, otherwise why try and divert the conversation to some other nonsense like how terrible America is or the lunacy from the Truthers, neither of which are in any way relevant to this topic.

On topic-

I'd have to agree with the concept that if we are being visited or monitored, the observers likely could give a crap less about us, any more than a researcher in a lab gives a crap about the fruit flies in his experiments or the cultures in his petri dishes.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
That is like if I was a bank guard and just watched some homeless guy wander into the vault and leave with bags of money and did nothing about it.

Yeah just like that!

To answer your question: They watch the skies with radar. There are only so many roads into the compound. So... no a homeless guy could not breach the base.

Let's get back to why you're spewing lies when we are trying to deny ignorance tigpoppa?

who would bring these issues to the front prior to their dismissal or as they call it "retirement".

They are retired. Don't try and turn this into they got dismissed and they're trying to smear the military. They are retired. That's a fact. If you don't believe that they are retired, then gather your information and present your case to ATS. Don't just make blanket manipulative statements which aren't true.

All of the people in the video are also kind of old meaning their not very smart

Don't even take it there dude. My father is nearly 67, born in germany, immigrated to the US, has better command of the english language than you or I, served in the US army as a medic, was a private pilot instructor, before receiving his PhD in the Wildlife sciences. He has represented the State of Washington in court because of his credentials. I will put his smarts against yours anyday. He will shut you down son. More so than I already have...

reply to post by Scramjet76


Please just ignore his extremely lame efforts to debunk.

I took the time to find some of the reports related to the military pushing for new nukes and how the Congress is telling them NO!

Congressional Research Service Report RS21619
Nuclear Weapons and U.S. National Security: A Need for
New Weapons Programs?
Updated September 15, 2003

file....__._/file/crs/RS21619.pdf

In the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, the Bush Administration outlined a new role
forU.S. nuclear weapons that goes beyond the concept of deterrence from the ColdWar.
It also identified a newtargeting strategy thatwould seek to threaten specific capabilities
in adversary nations. Furthermore, the Administration has pledged to restore and
enhance the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure, as part of the U.S. effort to deter the
emergence of new threats in the future. In implementing the NPR, the Administration
has requested funding for studies on new types of nuclear weapons. The Administration
claims these projects, if they eventually produce new weapons, would enhance
deterrence; critics claim they will make nuclear use more likely and undermine U.S.
nonproliferation goals. This report will be updated as needed.

The BushAdministration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), completed at the end of
2001, sought to adjust the U.S. nuclear posture to reflect, on the one hand, the emergence
of a more cooperative relationship between the United States and Russia, and, on the
other hand, increasing threats from other states and non-state actors, particularly those
armed with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons (weapons of mass destruction or
WMD). The Administration has highlighted these changes in the international security
environment in several documents, including the U.S. National Security Strategy and the
Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Administration has also
emphasized that the United States will use any means necessary to deter or defeat the use
of WMD by rogue nations or terrorist groups. One of the issues highlighted in the
Nuclear Posture Review is the role that nuclear weapons might play in addressing these
emerging threats.1

Congress told him No!

Congressional Research Service
Report RL33748
Nuclear Warheads: The Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program and the Life Extension Program
December 3, 2007

file....__._/file/crs/RL33748.pdf

Congressional Research Service
Report RL32929
The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program: Background
and Current Developments
September 12, 2008

file....__._/file/crs/RL32929.pdf

Most current U.S. nuclear warheads were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are
being retained longer than was planned. Yet they deteriorate and must be maintained.
To correct problems, a Life Extension Program (LEP), part of a larger Stockpile
Stewardship Program (SSP), replaces components. Modifying some components
would require a nuclear test, but the United States has observed a test moratorium
since 1992. Congress and the Administration prefer to avoid a return to testing, so
LEP rebuilds these components as closely as possible to original specifications. With
this approach, the Secretaries of Defense and Energy have certified stockpile safety
and reliability for the past 12 years without nuclear testing.

If you read through the report you will see where the DOD wants new nukes the request it in ever bill. Bush would support the DOD in wanting new nukes. But Congress has repeatedly said No! Now the DOD does not have Bush to help push for new nukes because Obama is with Congress on saying No! So what does the DOD do the turn to propaganda about UFOs making them useless. Now we just have to wait to see where they go next with this approach?

Just to show you how often Bush and the DOD pushed for new nukes.

12/01/08 — A study by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States, established by the conference version of H.R.
1585, FY2008 defense authorization bill, section 1062, is due.
08/08/08 — NNSA delivered to Congress a report on using existing pits for the
RRW program, required by P.L. 110-181, FY2008 National Defense
Authorization Act, section 3121.
05/22/08 — The House defeated, 145-271, H.Amdt. 1052 to H.R. 5658, the
FY2009 defense authorization bill, to add $10.0 million to NNSA’s
budget for RRW.
05/16/08 — The House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 5658, the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009.
05/05/08 — The Secretaries of Defense and Energy transmitted “Report on the
Feasibility and Implementation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead
Program” to Congress. Congress required the report in the FY2006
National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 108-163, Section 3111.
12/26/07 — President Bush signed P.L. 110-161, FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, into law. The measure contains no NNSA funds
to develop RRW.
12/12/07 — The House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 1585, the defense
authorization bill, 370-49.
12/06/07 — The conference report on H.R. 1585, the national defense
authorization bill, was ordered to be printed. It contains several
provisions on RRW, as described above.
11/06/07 — Conferees on the Department of Defense appropriations bill filed
their report, which included $15.0 million for the Navy for RRW.
09/28/07 — NNSA delivered to Congress a JASON report on RRW that was
required by the House Appropriations Committee’s report on FY2007
energy and water appropriations.
09/14/07 — The Senate Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 3222, the
Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.
07/17/07 — The House passed the FY2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, 312-112, leaving RRW provisions unchanged.
07/09/07 — The Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1751, the Energy
and Water Development Bill.
http://__._/wiki/CRS-RL32929
CRS-53
06/06/07 — The House Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2008 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill. The committee
recommended eliminating NNSA funds for RRW and directed the
Administration to prepare a comprehensive nuclear planning
assessment, which it views “as a necessary condition before
considering additional funding for Complex 2030 and RRW
activities.”
05/25/07 — The Senate Armed Services Committee’s mark of S. 567, FY2008
National Defense Authorization Bill, reduced the total RRW request
(NNSA and Navy) by $43 million and limited FY2008 activities for
the RRW program to Phase 2A activities.
05/23/07 — The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Subcommittee’s mark of the FY2008 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill eliminated NNSA funds for RRW.
05/17/07 — The House passed H.R. 1585, the FY2008 defense authorization bill,
397-27. The bill reduced RRW funding for by $20.0 million and for
the Navy by $25.0 million, kept the program for the first RRW in
Phase 2A for FY2008, and required several studies related to RRW.
04/24/07 — The American Association for the Advancement of Science released
a report, “The United States Nuclear Weapons Program: The Role of
the Reliable Replacement Warhead.”
03/02/07 — NNSA announced that the Nuclear Weapons Council selected the
design by Livermore and Sandia-California as the winner of the RRW
design competition.
03/01/07 — The Secretary of Energy and Secretary of Defense are to submit a
final report to congressional defense committees on feasibility and
implementation of the RRW program, as required by P.L. 109-163,
FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 3111.
02/18/07 — A committee of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science delivered an interim progress report, “The United States
Nuclear Weapons Program: The Role of the Reliable Replacement
Warhead.”
01/31/07 — NNSA released its “Report on the Plan for Transformation of the
National Nuclear Security Administration Nuclear Weapons
Complex,” as required by P.L. 109-364, the FY2007 National
Defense Authorization Act, Section 3111. An objective of the plan
is “To prepare to produce replacement warheads under the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program....”

I dont beleive you are heading in the right direction here, as one earlier poster said, what this means is that Nukes are redundant, the power you think they bring, they dont if a UFO can cancell them out.

So it seems that now we are heading towards the US upgrading its Nukes, well if thats the case and if you dont know how the UFO disabled them, how can you prove that they need to be upgraded and that the upgrades would work?

And as for the rude guy who thinks he is a patriot, you should really understand what being a patriot means, I think you are confusing Patriotism with Racism, Facism and Terrorism, mind you they are all the same anyway, just different perspectives. Sir, you are a Racist Terrorist, not a Patriot.

This is the background to the Conference from Robert hastings, notice its 2006 so probably done the rounds already but an interesting read all the same:

www.nicap.org...

I just cant see how so many people can be so wrong and yet still the government keep quiet.

Heres a picture of the locations of ICBM launch sites around Minot Air Force Base. If you didn't notice the distance from the Air Force Base to the nearest ICBM launch areas it would be about 10 miles from the base its to the nearest one. In the 60's the thought behind these launch sites was to make them blend into the area to hide them. The launch control facility would be under ground with a hidden entrance. The launch facilities where the ICBM missles would be were under ground and hidden. Both would have no watch towers or gaurd stations around them to help hide them. So if a base gaurd did see a UFO around a launch site he would be seeing something atleast 10 miles away if not more. He would then have to travel high way 83 to highway 2 or high way 52 and travel atleast 50 miles to get to where the launch site would be to get vlose to the UFO. To me something smells about stories of seeing UFOs over lauch sites as they were gaurding Minot Air Force Base. They would only see a light in the sky miles away.




You can check it to www.bing.com... or maps.google.com... just search for Minot Air Force Base and look to the left for Highways 2 and 52 for the area where the launch sites are or were?

More iformation on the base here.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Jesus that is some facility, 15 launch controlls each housing what, 2 maybe 3 Airforce Staff, with each facility having 10 missiles, got to be a large number of other personell to support that, a bomber wing and its support staff, base facilities, nuclear security, your looking at a few thousand people.

So one of the guys says in his statement that the power was lost from the grid, the diesel generators and the back up batteries were flat, if the base is as the picture shows, that is a lot of people affected.

Compared to those coming forward it seems disproportionate.

I just dont know what to think, I dont think they are liars at all but it doesnt seem quite right, there would be too many people involved to cover it up.

reply to post by tigpoppa

divulging knowledge that our country is weak to a foreign invader which is not true because america is the most powerful nation on earth since everyone wants to live here and not in a corrupt society of intolerance.

Tell that to the victims of 9/11

Originally posted by JBA2848To me something smells about stories of seeing UFOs over lauch sites as they were gaurding Minot Air Force Base. They would only see a light in the sky miles away.

Hmmm misdirection perhaps? Divert attention from something else?

maybe

possibly main agenda... government wants new weapons, so they bring patriots out of mothballs to push the people to give them what they want for THEIR national security?

first and foremost UNKLE SAMMY, it doesnt matter what technology you're trying to sell the people, the fact will always be that aliens have all the answers and can counter every move you make on the chess board before it ever sinks in your silly lil brains...HAHAHAHA

the dog dont hunt

Originally posted by MisterBurns
I just cant see how so many people can be so wrong and yet still the government keep quiet.

The government does't have to say anything... Just look at the replies in these threads.They end up going nowhere and slowly derail with off topic rhetoric. Look how many posts went to respond to the instigator.

The gov. can just sit back and say nada and watch and laugh at out antics, knowing nothing will come of it...

If they then toss a few fibs into the mix... pay some troll to feed discontent in a thread... bingo instant confusion and any secret is safe



All this concern over the nukes, when nothing happened that was more than curiosty on the part of the 'UFO's. Iys 50 years later and they are still curious ;lol: almost as if each year there were new 'kids' on the block, curious about the neighborhood

Originally posted by aliengenes
possibly main agenda... government wants new weapons, so they bring patriots out of mothballs to push the people to give them what they want for THEIR national security?

They have new weapons... Nukes are passe... TRILLIONS of dollars are unaccounted for annually, fiscal year 2009 9 TRILLION unaccounted for by the federal reserve alone.

Starwars never was shelved

Cover of Visions 2020 new weapons presentation...



Notice the target in the presentation?



Only thing is that "Vision' for 2020 was launched on STS44. STS-44 was a Space Shuttle mission on Atlantis that launched November 24, 1991. It was a U.S. Department of Defense space mission.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cea8ed03fae7.jpg[/atsimg]




So who needs Nukes

Originally posted by CHA0S
And I think this sudden change in attitude which seems to signal coming disclosure is because they know they can't hide it for much longer. IMO, they would never intentionally allow disclosure to happen unless they were forced to, and they don't want to look like the bad guys so before that can happen, they need to shift our mentality, and act as if this was some huge "new" discovery. Something is going to make it impossible for them to hide the truth for much longer...the question is, what is it?

edit on 28/9/10 by CHA0S because: (no reason given)

This is exactly my opinion, too. I think they don't want to look like the bad guys although they really are.

The reason why it happens? There a several possible reasons...

1) Look at private space travel. This might open up seeing UFOs from space for the avarage millionaire. And there are many of them. Not all of them will shut up and hence tell others about their sightings. This will uncover a lot of the stories being true from the conspiracy theorists... and this brings us the rolling stone

2) The aliens themselves are in contact with some earthlings... and THEY force them to disclose because they WANT to show up SOON.

3) 2012 will be something earth shattering... they already know it. This change might be the reason for disclosing things now.

4) They want to mislead us. Yes, they want to assure that we know there are aliens out there. But they want us to see them as a threat for the planned space war.

Dunno which one is correct Personally (my gut feeling) I would say all 1-3 are correct at the same time. You can make up your own mind about that...

ignore the derailers they are here to do a job. anyway UFO's are in my opinion not even a debatable issue. you would have to have rocks in your head to not see something is going on. the question i want to know is what it is. military tech, alien tech or something far more mysterious. hmmmm time will tell... or will it.

reply to post by JBA2848


I sure love where I live

reply to post by JBA2848


I will also tell you these launch sites are still manned(some not sure if all). I will say they run random convoys with a semi I assume hauling a missile and a whole bunch of gunners behind them. They also when changing shifts bring a jeep with a manned I assume they are 50cal out the top when changing shifts. I don't know if some are unmanned. I do know the ones that are manned are very obvious to know where they are located when you drive by them.

Originally posted by MisterBurns
This is the background to the Conference from Robert hastings, notice its 2006 so probably done the rounds already but an interesting read all the same:

www.nicap.org...

I just cant see how so many people can be so wrong and yet still the government keep quiet.

It's not hard to see really. I can't tell you how many college classes I have sat in where the professor said something that no one understood and it was followed by silence. It's psychological. No one wants to ask "a dumb question." I can't tell you how many times one person (usually the 30-40 something in a room full of 20 year olds) got the courage to raise their hand and ask. Thus over time our culture has developed the saying "the only dumb question is the one you don't ask." This is what I've been trying to get people to understand here on ATS. While looking/feeling dumb is one reason to avoid bringing odd topics (like UFOs) up around your peers, as human beings we have an extra incentive. What if you lose your job? No money can equal bad times for most. What kind of person wants to lose their job over some story that no one will believe anyways? What kind of person wants to be discharged from the military over some story that no one will believe anyways? In many ways, my crude college classroom example of people unwilling to raise their hands, is a microcosm for the why UFOs are such a tricky topic in our society.


Now let's get back to these ICBMs--

First off, these ICBMs are located in underground silos. These silos are fairly spread out for the most part. Yes they are located close to an AFB. Yes they are located within 5000 miles of the former Soviet Union. These were the basic requirements when the military first realized that the V2 rocket was too archaic for the post-WWII era.

The whole idea with "nukes" to begin with is that they replace the need for many airforce personnel (because they single handedly can deliver so much destruction in one blow). As for guarding them, I'm no 4-star general, but I do know how the military thinks. The first thing they would do is set up a defensive perimeter. One defensive perimeter is for anything in the sky. Does that mean the USAF is constantly burning through fuel and circling fighter jets around the missile silos 24/7/365? No. It means that our whole country's first defensive perimeter in 60s and 70s would be radar tracking of possible enemy missiles and airplanes. Radar is what allows people to set up warning systems so that we have time to scramble in case of emergency. The other part of the perimeter is keeping people away from these sites on the ground. This doesn't require thousands of expensive personnel sitting around like a SWAT team. It requires just a few guards to keep the local kooks from snooping around what is off-limits to civilians. Ultimately, even if an "A-Team" could breach the defensive perimeter and take out the guards, they wouldnt be unable to access the Silo. Even if they could breach the Silo compound, they wouldn't be able to activate the missile without the launch codes/sequences or whatever is used to launch these things (I'm assuming it's a little harder than simply pushing a red button). Also, fission missiles are very difficult to detonate. Even walking in with many lbs of TNT in hopes of starting the conventional process (which ultimately triggers atomic core of the bomb) would not work.

And as you can see, the military's strategy worked perfectly. No commies disturbed the missiles. No homeless person walked in and pushed any red button. They did their job correctly. However, what people can't account for is something beyond the human experience, which is what these gentlemen at this press conference are claiming.

Also, for those who are really interested in the topic (of UFOs and ICBMs) I suggest you read this book: The Missing Times by Terry Hansen. First chapter jumps right into the ICBM Malmstrom incident in the mid 70s. Very well written book. Something I can't say for the majority of my posts lol but I try.

Originally posted by DevilJonah
There wasn't anything earth shattering, by any means. But what I find very interesting is the main stream media's sudden interest in the taboo topic of UFO's and such.

As an older person, I can tell you that this happens to some degree every late summer when a lot of the usual news crews take vacations. Real news is light, and the media tends to put on these human interest stories to fill time. So there's really no reason to get too excited about it. Nobody knows or is telling anything new. This is just filler to give the interns something to do.