Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Echo Flight


  • Please log in to reply
755 replies to this topic

#706    Tim Hebert

Tim Hebert

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 103 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2011

Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 10 August 2011 - 04:50 AM, said:

Hey Tim

I have been over the blog several times now, I am still sorting out between the onsite teams and what LS is saying, but you seem to make a pretty good case with the explanation of the SIN line, I did find that additional information superb to help illustrate the events. I am not overly concerned with Figel as his changing version is detrimental to the tale as a whole, even though I admit you did a stirling job reporting his version of events and his stance. Did he ever reply to your email? Alternative theories was indeed a nice way to finish the piece, I cannot fault the article myself, and can only say that I agree with it and it is logical. Figel not being invited the the 2010 conference was some dirty laundry that indeed needed airing, but I still remain stunned at the wiring configuration that you have described. This physically proves that the UFO did not affect 10 missiles at ones, and that it would be impossible to do so with a single line fault, which is by all counts what happened. And I would say this is the diamond in your blog. For me, this wiring configuration validates the title of case closed. ET could have been dancing on the nosecones, he still would have not been responsible for the shutdown.

The article certainly is a happy meal (It has it all) and I like that you seem to have broached every aspect of the case in it. From Figel to Carlson to responding to Hastings to what I feel is the actual nail in ET's coffin. Perhaps I was a little hard on Tim in his appraisal as the piece is indeed excellent, however, I would ask that if the both of you could consider the criticisms I laid out earlier as they were not due to the quality of either yours or Tim's work, but the general condition of the industry as a whole.
And scrap the perhaps above. I was too hard on the presentation. Sorry about that.

Cheers.
Reviewing the Unit History for the 100th time, I was startled that no mentioning of maintenance on any of Echo's sites.  I was equally startled that I had missed this over a year ago.  I simply fell into the trap of thinking that the History inferred the teams, but as you can see nothing is mentioned.  True, LS and I debated his stance that teams could have been on site to run the Fault Isolation Tapes, but it's my opinion that those were run later by teams responding to the shutdowns.  If my assertions are true, then I have effectively neutralized Hastings interpretation of SIN/VHF UFO reports, but this still leaves the issue of the UFO rumors, and there is evidence that there were indeed rumors, but from who and where?

But you are correct in your observation, my main point was the LF connectivity isolation, it trumps everything in my opinion.  Combine that with the only Echo's flight being involved and the final EMP suppression fix then the evidence from a systems design stand point heavily rules out UFO involvement.

You asked an earlier question concerning the secondary actuating door motor on E-2.  This motor was used to roll back the launcher closure door during specific maintenance activities: guidance system and RV swap outs and pulling/placing the missile into the launch tube (silo).  During an actual launch, explosive charges would propel the door, which is on rails, through the LF fence and out in the field clearing the site for missile launch.  During maintenance, that I described above, a special van/trailer was parked directly over the open silo to perform the swap outs.  SAC's policy was to avoid at all possible leaving the site uncovered and exposing the RV and missile to Soviet satellite photographing. Probably more information than you asked for.


#707    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 12 August 2011 - 05:47 AM

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

Reviewing the Unit History for the 100th time, I was startled that no mentioning of maintenance on any of Echo's sites.  I was equally startled that I had missed this over a year ago.  I simply fell into the trap of thinking that the History inferred the teams, but as you can see nothing is mentioned.  True, LS and I debated his stance that teams could have been on site to run the Fault Isolation Tapes, but it's my opinion that those were run later by teams responding to the shutdowns.  If my assertions are true, then I have effectively neutralized Hastings interpretation of SIN/VHF UFO reports, but this still leaves the issue of the UFO rumors, and there is evidence that there were indeed rumors, but from who and where?

He is darn good at those point most of us overlook that Lost Shaman. He gets a hard time often because he is neither ETH nor Skeptic but mindsets are. He just tries to point out anomalies to solve riddles as best he can, and he does a darn good job at finding these errant snippets. I mention his Roswell hypothesis often, he seems to have bases well covered there.

After reading what you had about the SIN line, it seems to make good sense and hold together well.

Yes, I wondered about the rumour as well, and spoke of it earlier here. The way it is worded I believe that Figel was accurate in his statement that No UFO is mentioned in the report. Perhaps these rumours are the ones started by Skyeagle409 and his compatriots? That seems quite possible, a year after the event, he claims to have been there, and that it was discussed as a UFO incident then. Perhaps all this nonsense stemmed from those very conversations.

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

But you are correct in your observation, my main point was the LF connectivity isolation, it trumps everything in my opinion.  Combine that with the only Echo's flight being involved and the final EMP suppression fix then the evidence from a systems design stand point heavily rules out UFO involvement.

I do believe you have found the "crown jewel" in this case. This is hard proof that a UFO did not take out all ten missiles. It simply cannot have physically happened because of the wiring configuration. As far as I am concerned, your blog title is 100% correct. Case Closed.

How is Hastings taking this news?

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

You asked an earlier question concerning the secondary actuating door motor on E-2.  This motor was used to roll back the launcher closure door during specific maintenance activities: guidance system and RV swap outs and pulling/placing the missile into the launch tube (silo).  During an actual launch, explosive charges would propel the door, which is on rails, through the LF fence and out in the field clearing the site for missile launch.  During maintenance, that I described above, a special van/trailer was parked directly over the open silo to perform the swap outs.  SAC's policy was to avoid at all possible leaving the site uncovered and exposing the RV and missile to Soviet satellite photographing. Probably more information than you asked for.


Not at all too much, thank you very much for the detail, I appreciate learning about the systems and have found your in depth description on your site excellent and very interesting, electrical works being my forte`.  I have been Googling motors for specs since yesterday, but have not found anything concrete yet, but if I do find we had a Variable Frequency Drive on site, I will make sure I let you know, as this would have serious ramifications with regards to the generation of the pulse that pulled the systems down on unshielded cables.

Edited by psyche101, 12 August 2011 - 05:48 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#708    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:24 PM

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

Reviewing the Unit History for the 100th time, I was startled that no mentioning of maintenance on any of Echo's sites.

that, + the inconsistencies in the various interviews from figel... proves that he has indeed lost a few marbles...  :yes:

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

I was equally startled that I had missed this over a year ago. I simply fell into the trap of thinking that the History inferred the teams, but as you can see nothing is mentioned.

maybe because your then prosaic argument required them to be on site?

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

True, LS and I debated his stance that teams could have been on site to run the Fault Isolation Tapes, but it's my opinion that those were run later by teams responding to the shutdowns. If my assertions are true, then I have effectively neutralized Hastings interpretation of SIN/VHF UFO reports, but this still leaves the issue of the UFO rumors, and there is evidence that there were indeed rumors, but from who and where?

you don't have to worry about that.... perhaps the mentioning about rumours were caused by typos in the referenced source?

View PostTim Hebert, on 10 August 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:

But you are correct in your observation, my main point was the LF connectivity isolation, it trumps everything in my opinion.  Combine that with the only Echo's flight being involved and the final EMP suppression fix then the evidence from a systems design stand point heavily rules out UFO involvement.

hmmm... i'm not sure... but how does that technically rule out an emp, say, from an uap source?  :unsure2:


#709    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 04:52 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 12 August 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

hmmm... i'm not sure... but how does that technically rule out an emp, say, from an uap source?  :unsure2:


Because you then need ten UAP's taking out ten missiles, or the UAP to go to each one individually and take them out one at a time. With a star point, you cannot get from point a to point c without passing point b. Point a being UFO/missile being "taken out", point B being the central location - programable logic computer or similar, and then point c is the next missile in line. You cannot hit points a and c without point B. Point B breaks if you try to push something from point a backwards to points c and beyond.

Tall and short of it is, it cannot have been a UFO over one missile taking out all ten due to the wiring configuration. Physical wiring between the missiles simply did not exist for the fault to travel upon. They all went back to one point. Tim is right, this is case closed. It simply cannot possibly have physically happened the way Hastings/Salas says it did.

I cannot find specs for operating requirements of the motors, but have not had the time for as much of a look as I would like. If the power company did not simply "dodge a bullet" then I bet the the fault would have been generated by a variable frequency drive for motors. I just have to find it.

This one is ready for archiving.

Edited by psyche101, 16 August 2011 - 04:53 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#710    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 16 August 2011 - 08:23 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 August 2011 - 04:52 AM, said:

Because you then need ten UAP's taking out ten missiles, or the UAP to go to each one individually and take them out one at a time. With a star point, you cannot get from point a to point c without passing point b. Point a being UFO/missile being "taken out", point B being the central location - programable logic computer or similar, and then point c is the next missile in line. You cannot hit points a and c without point B. Point B breaks if you try to push something from point a backwards to points c and beyond.

Tall and short of it is, it cannot have been a UFO over one missile taking out all ten due to the wiring configuration. Physical wiring between the missiles simply did not exist for the fault to travel upon. They all went back to one point. Tim is right, this is case closed. It simply cannot possibly have physically happened the way Hastings/Salas says it did.

I cannot find specs for operating requirements of the motors, but have not had the time for as much of a look as I would like. If the power company did not simply "dodge a bullet" then I bet the the fault would have been generated by a variable frequency drive for motors. I just have to find it.

This one is ready for archiving.

thanks mate... appreciate your explanations.... but if the pathway for the noise hasn't been determined (or as you mention that there were no pathways to begin with!) how is it that all 10 of the lf's suffered the same identical fault... moreover how is it that the experiments revealed a single point through the logic coupler?

Posted Image


#711    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 16 August 2011 - 08:34 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 August 2011 - 04:52 AM, said:

Because you then need ten UAP's taking out ten missiles, or the UAP to go to each one individually and take them out one at a time. With a star point, you cannot get from point a to point c without passing point b. Point a being UFO/missile being "taken out", point B being the central location - programable logic computer or similar, and then point c is the next missile in line. You cannot hit points a and c without point B. Point B breaks if you try to push something from point a backwards to points c and beyond.

Wait! I thought Tim was saying the 'Fault' had to simply happen at the LCC? That being the connection between the Ten LF's? Is that not correct?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#712    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 08:52 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 16 August 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

thanks mate... appreciate your explanations.... but if the pathway for the noise hasn't been determined (or as you mention that there were no pathways to begin with!) how is it that all 10 of the lf's suffered the same identical fault... moreover how is it that the experiments revealed a single point through the logic coupler?

Posted Image


Because the logic coupler is not in the field, it will be back at "point b"  You could get a fault behind the PLC (point b ), that could potentially shut down all ten, but not from one of the missiles themselves.  It would have to go from a missile back to point b, then to the next missile, back to point b, than of to the next missile and so on. the coupler at point b would be fried before you could get the second one down I would imagine.

But, if you are behind the PLC, the current flow is expected, so you could get to all ten from "the right direction" with one pulse.

Edited by psyche101, 16 August 2011 - 08:57 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#713    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 08:54 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 16 August 2011 - 08:34 AM, said:

Wait! I thought Tim was saying the 'Fault' had to simply happen at the LCC? That being the connection between the Ten LF's? Is that not correct?


What I get from the wiring configuration is the each missile was effectively isolated from each other except by the logical computer, so the pulse would have to come from the central command center, it could not come from the field to hit all ten.

Edited by psyche101, 16 August 2011 - 08:55 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#714    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,547 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:01 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 August 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

Because the logic coupler is not in the field, it will be back at "point b"  You could get a fault behind the PLC (point b ), that could potentially shut down all ten, but not from one of the missiles themselves.  It would have to go from a missile back to point b, then to the next missile, back to point b, than of to the next missile and so on. the coupler at point b would be fried before you could get the second one down I would imagine.

But, if you are behind the PLC, the current flow is expected, so you could get to all ten from "the right direction" with one pulse.

but i don't think that still rules out the uap-emp possibility....

Posted Image


#715    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,052 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:12 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 August 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

What I get from the wiring configuration is the each missile was effectively isolated from each other except by the logical computer, so the pulse would have to come from the central command center, it could not come from the field to hit all ten.

So if the whole Valley was charged we are simply talking about a 10 volt spark somewhere between the LCC and the Ten LF's?

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#716    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:26 AM

Salas himself has said that the missiles were independent of each other, and no one could figure out how a EMP could be separately injected into each one and shut them down.  How many UFOs were reported on the nights in question anyway?  Just don't say "none" because I simply don't believe that:

"THE BOEING INVESTIGATORS CONCLUDED AND THIS IS READING FROM YOUR 1999 SUMMARY TO REPRODUCE THE EFFECTS ON THE ICBMS THAT WENT DOWN, A 10-VOLT PULSE WOULD HAVE TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THE DATA LINE, HOW DID THEY REACH THAT CONCLUSION?

One of the Boeing engineers, Mr. (Robert) Rigert, did a bench test on the guidance and control package. We got information when the missiles went down that we had guidance and control system failure and logic coupler failure. The logic coupler is part of the computer system that helps orient the missile in flight on target. So, I think he (Rigert) did a bench test in other words, he had the equipment on a bench and input a certain signal or wavelength and was able to shut the system down.



We have a USAF document stating that this signal they used the generic term of EMP, or Electromagnetic Pulse, would have to have been an external signal. So, this is one of the conclusions the Boeing investigative team came to -  the internal system could not have generated such a signal.

They also said that all the missiles were independent. This signal would have to have been sent to each missile separately!  OK? These missiles are about a mile and a half from the Launch Control Center (LCC) where I was located. There was buried cable that was triple-shielded underground about 60 feet. So this EMP signal would have to have been injected into each of the missiles separately, go through triple-shielded cable and sent to a specific point at each missile."


http://messageboards...eply=1&is_ref=1

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#717    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:29 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 16 August 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

but i don't think that still rules out the uap-emp possibility....

Posted Image


It does if the claim is that the UAP created, and sent the fault from one missile in the field to the others. It had to come from, or behind the command centre.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#718    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:30 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 16 August 2011 - 09:12 AM, said:

So if the whole Valley was charged we are simply talking about a 10 volt spark somewhere between the LCC and the Ten LF's?


Yep, pretty much what the wiring dictates.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#719    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:39 AM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 16 August 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Salas himself has said that the missiles were independent of each other, and no one could figure out how a EMP could be separately injected into each one and shut them down.  How many UFOs were reported on the nights in question anyway?  Just don't say "none" because I simply don't believe that:

"THE BOEING INVESTIGATORS CONCLUDED AND THIS IS READING FROM YOUR 1999 SUMMARY TO REPRODUCE THE EFFECTS ON THE ICBMS THAT WENT DOWN, A 10-VOLT PULSE WOULD HAVE TO BE INTRODUCED INTO THE DATA LINE, HOW DID THEY REACH THAT CONCLUSION?

One of the Boeing engineers, Mr. (Robert) Rigert, did a bench test on the guidance and control package. We got information when the missiles went down that we had guidance and control system failure and logic coupler failure. The logic coupler is part of the computer system that helps orient the missile in flight on target. So, I think he (Rigert) did a bench test in other words, he had the equipment on a bench and input a certain signal or wavelength and was able to shut the system down.



We have a USAF document stating that this signal they used the generic term of EMP, or Electromagnetic Pulse, would have to have been an external signal. So, this is one of the conclusions the Boeing investigative team came to -  the internal system could not have generated such a signal.

They also said that all the missiles were independent. This signal would have to have been sent to each missile separately!  OK? These missiles are about a mile and a half from the Launch Control Center (LCC) where I was located. There was buried cable that was triple-shielded underground about 60 feet. So this EMP signal would have to have been injected into each of the missiles separately, go through triple-shielded cable and sent to a specific point at each missile."


http://messageboards...eply=1&is_ref=1


When did Salas say this? Why was it not brought up earlier. It makes the fault as described not possible. Unless there were ten UFO's each one over each missile, and I have not heard that version from any person, have you?
I have to say I am stunned that I missed the Salas comment, because this would have shut down this debate a long time ago. It makes the fault physically impossible.

If there was a UFO there, a Plasma would explain the situation very well.

Cables buried at 60 feet deep? WTF? To each location????? For what distance? For what reason?? That seems rather over the top, and a nightmare to install and maintain. Not to mention an unnecessary over the top cost. Usually about 3 feet suffices in most defense construction. I bet the triple shield was also for vermin protection, you do not need more than a decent foil and braid to deflect interference. I feel that this is most likely steel wire armored cable described, but that is merely a guess.

So if you do believe a UFO caused this, it cannot have been from above a missile, is there any reports of a UFO over the command centre?

Edited by psyche101, 16 August 2011 - 09:41 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#720    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 August 2011 - 09:51 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 16 August 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

When did Salas say this? Why was it not brought up earlier. It makes the fault as described not possible. Unless there were ten UFO's each one over each missile, and I have not heard that version from any person, have you?
I have to say I am stunned that I missed the Salas comment, because this would have shut down this debate a long time ago. It makes the fault physically impossible.

If there was a UFO there, a Plasma would explain the situation very well.

Cables buried at 60 feet deep? WTF? To each location????? For what distance? For what reason?? That seems rather over the top, and a nightmare to install and maintain. Not to mention an unnecessary over the top cost. Usually about 3 feet suffices in most defense construction. I bet the triple shield was also for vermin protection, you do not need more than a decent foil and braid to deflect interference. I feel that this is most likely steel wire armored cable described, but that is merely a guess.

So if you do believe a UFO caused this, it cannot have been from above a missile, is there any reports of a UFO over the command centre?


The date on the website is October 2010.  I don't know how many UFOs were reported, but it was probably more than one.  These places were constructed with a nuclear war in mind, so they might have wanted to make this secure enough to survive even a blast like that:



"Absolutely Not Terrestrial Aircraft

DID YOU ALL KNOW AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DEALING WITH SOMETHING FROM OUTER SPACE THAT WAS NOT HUMAN?

Absolutely we knew it! These were not aircraft. We even discussed this in that first phone conversation I had with the guards. They assured me these were not airplanes! So they knew they were something from elsewhere.

IN FACT IN MARCH 1967, ONE OF THE ECHO FLIGHT SECURITY POLICEMEN AND IM QUOTING FROM YOUR 1999 SUMMARY OF ALL THIS BY ROBERT SALAS AND JIM KLOTZ . YOU REPORTED THAT ONE OF THE SECURITY POLICEMEN WAS SO AFFECTED BY HIS ENCOUNTER WITH ONE OF THE BIG, RED, GLOWING OBJECTS IN THE SKY THAT HE NEVER RETURNED TO MISSILE SECURITY DUTY.

Thats true. In fact, that happened not only at ECHO Flight, but at OSCAR Flight. I know at least one case where one of the security guards lost control of himself and wandered off. They had to bring people out to pick him up and take him to the base hospital. He was just out of it!

HOW WERE THE SAT (Security Alert) TEAM DESCRIBING WHAT THEY WERE SEEING?

It was a reddish-orange, pulsating object. It was about 30 feet in diameter and it was just sitting there (in the air). It had all the guards out there with their weapons out and they were frightened. Very frightened!

YOU WERE GETTING THESE DESCRIPTIONS DOWN UNDERGROUND ABOUT HOW DEEP?

Yeah, I was sixty feet underground. We were locked in. We were obligated to stay there until we were relieved by another crew - obviously because we were in control of ten nuclear weapons."


http://messageboards...eply=1&is_ref=1

"The stuff that dreams are made of"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users