Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
quillius

Echo Flight

756 posts in this topic

Honestly, James became tired arguing the case. That's when I decided to step into the discussions.

Personally, I think James left because he was told to stop his nasty personal attacks on other UM members by the Mod's and instead of discussing the case here he ran to RU where he could continue to get away with it. Once you stepped in he dropped out in order to let the heat die down.

As far as your alternative theory, perhaps UM is a better place to develop it more fully, as there is more diversity in view points here. You do realize that you need to be challenged on your key points as this will help you to firm up any weak areas.

I have ZERO problem with that. This isn't my first Alternative hypothesis to present or even argue against.

I'll look at the past threads and see what was discussed...if you don't mind maybe you could provide me a quick link? And also your discussion with Printy?

See the Best Evidence Threads here on UM. You'll need to use the Search function because they are so large and there are Two previous besides the one that is currently open.

On RU, see... Stalked by a UFO Skeptic" [Anthony Bragalia]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months ago, myself, access denied, and Tim Printy were discussing Ray Fowler's connection to the case. Access Denied (Tom)vaguely mentioned about the possibility of each LF being isolated from one another. It was forgotten, until I had a "holy crap" moment and remembered that it was an important facet to this case. Remember, I pulled my last alert in 1985 and left the Codes Division of the 321st SMW (Minuteman IIIs) in 1988. I simply had forgotten about connectivity isolation system.

I further developed this thought by envisioning different scenarios...my article, "Two Alternative UFO Theories" was a test vehicle for the idea. It should have been brought up well over a year ago...especially by me, but my memories need to be triggered at times.

When you have the time, I would appreciate feed back on "Case Close."

Hey Tim

I am going through the blog, and referencing back to this thread as I do not want to ask the same question twice, one thing I have come across is this line

failure of the secondary actuating door motor at E-02.

Do you know if many motors were on site? I notice the backup generator was Diesel, and that the recommendation from the evaluation was shielded cables. I know a motor can create such an effect, even the generator might be a suspect, but what I really wanted to ask was would any motors have been on site that required frequency modulation? Were there any lifts on site? I had a background sneaking suspicion that the local electrical company might have been part of the cause, despite the denial. Not that admitting to such would be good for them, they may have ended up liable for the investigation costs. But a VFD with unshielded cables would almost certainly cause such a pulse. Even if it cannot be proven the means can be proven to have been there. Not really what we have been looking at, but a personal avenue.

Interesting on the crime scene scenario. As you say that would not happen for an electrical fault, the place where the damage happened would not need to be taped off, it would probably be pretty pointless considering the cables will be in ducts and conduits mostly in that sort of construction, perhaps the post investigation was just blown out of proportion. Not seeing too many questions for you, just going back and forth about the on site teams and what was said here. I too find it astounding that no individual has come forth from these teams.

I will have a proper response at some stage, just still wandering back and forth. Though I would ask the above before I forget.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny isn't it how this thread was re-opened 9 months later to go after Bragalia again after my discussion was shut down by closing the thread and claiming the AAF continued to exist well after September 1947? Seems to me the truth (and any Alternative position) is just a "speed bump" when comes to going after ETH'ers on the RU "enemies list". :blush:

ETA: Of course the thread listed above is a perfect example that shows no-one is going to be allowed to disagree with a "pet" member on RU as the Admin. is perfectly willing to run interference, use questionable tactics, distort History, and even close a Thread and take discussions to PMs before "pet" members are allowed to capitulate. At least when it's lost_shaman making an Alternative argument.

Edited by lost_shaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a prime example of what you have been talking about for some time Quillius. "The other side" that is just as bad as the one in our faces calling ET. I find this turn of events saddening.

exactly :tu:

Respectfully, what isolation technique, again, review the time lines of posting on this thread and who posted. And since there appears to be some activity, I'm more than willing to discuss this case on this forum. Home field advantage of LS...respectfully no problems with me.

Hello Tim, firstly its good to see you back here also. The isolation technique I allude to is with regards to James leaving when it was obvious the majority of support was not with him. The only member here that also partcipates in the Echo thred at RU was LS. And I believe he seemed to be alone there trying to voice his opinion but seemed to be responded to with some venom.

It shouldnt be a case of 'home advantage' it should be some intelligent people questioning everything in search of the truth. Ru (on that thread) gave the same impression some other sites give where its heavily one sided with say believers.....this reminds me of the blind leading the blind.

Discussions have to be heated, have to be opposing and balanced for any progress to be made IMO. As I have mentioned before its hard enough trying to wade through all the c**p that muddies the water whilst battling the disinformation from the other side. When I see too much 'back patting' I always think the truth will not be found, but the desired biased 'conclusion' will be reached no matter what.

This is really for Quillius, as promised with updates:Yesterday, Drew Hempel, brought up to Robert Hastings, my questions concerning Figel's lack of affidavit at the DC press conference and whether Hastings had paid for Figel's interview back in 2008.And my reply via RUs blog site:Robert rarely addresses me directly...

Much appreciated. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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?

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?

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

44d38fbbc2b4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

44d38fbbc2b4.png

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

mal2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=988563&func=5&boardId=544978&inc_reply=1&is_ref=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

mal2.gif

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=988563&func=5&boardId=544978&inc_reply=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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=988563&func=5&boardId=544978&inc_reply=1&is_ref=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look on that website, there are even stranger reports than that about the Malmstrom missiles, like some of the concrete covers had been blown off the silos and the nuclear material inside the warheads was dead--deactivated.

I'd certainly like to know more details about stories like those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

where did 'outer space' come from?

hurr-durr-derp-face-i-dont-know-therefore-aliens.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?articleId=988563&func=5&boardId=544978&inc_reply=1&is_ref=1

The Primary sources are being attacked. It can only be considerered defensive why allow it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did 'outer space' come from?

Sometimes I think they're just here to mess with our minds, to shake us out of our comfort zones and tidy little versions of "reality".

593654.jpg

Edited by TheMcGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Primary sources are being attacked. It can only be considerered defensive why allow it?

In this case, the few primary sources we have are "incomplete" at best, and may well have been edited or altered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.