UFO attack left US guards "screaming and babbling"

[Timothy]

@skyeagle409 it’s about time you realise that what makes you believe isn’t enough to make others believe.

If you have something new or compelling, start a new thread.

Stop rehashing all of this old BS that’s been done to death.

It’s okay that you believe, but stop spamming what makes you believe on every thread.

[Hankenhunter]

On 5/28/2023 at 1:57 PM, Golden Duck said:

How is that germane to whether, or not, content on woo sites is reliable?  And, how is it germane to the fact that you tried to pass it off as material YOU obtained under FOIA?

We've already seen how these sites are prepared to spread lies about even the Chas Tilden Smith report.

How disingenuous can you get? Answer the question instead of your sad diversionary posts. What the hell does it matter? A woo site? The link is legit no matter who got the foi info. You're just nit picking because you have nothing.

[Hankenhunter]

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

@skyeagle409 it’s about time you realise that what makes you believe isn’t enough to make others believe.

If you have something new or compelling, start a new thread.

Stop rehashing all of this old BS that’s been done to death.

It’s okay that you believe, but stop spamming what makes you believe on every thread.

Why should he? He's doing a hell of a job compared to the distinct lack of anything resembling a rebuttle from the deniers. No one is forcing you to read this thread. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

What puzzles me is why did the power come back on right after the UFO's left? Also, don't the silos have at least one or more back up systems? ie, generators. The silos were designed to have multiple power back ups. So what happened then? 

It's about how long it would take to replace the fuse and reinstate the HV ring. 10-30 minutes depending on immediate conditions. 

The same thing would happen with backup generators at that time. Cascading relay drop outs that is. There is still a drop out when the emergency power kicks in. I've designed some data centres that have extremely sensitive triple redundant systems to overcome this problem. One fascinating piece of equipment is called a static uninterruptible power supply. It's basically a big heavy flywheel that turns constantly while power is on. How they work is when power cuts out, the heavy flywheel maintains momentum to generate power for the micro seconds before battery UPSs kick in and then the generator. 

It's a tremendous cost to compensate for what is literally micro seconds.

Interruptions were normal proceedure till about the early nineties. The description fits a classic transformer malfunction.

As I say, it just seems way too convenient that this very fault happened in the vicinity at the time. 

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

How disingenuous can you get? Answer the question instead of your sad diversionary posts. What the hell does it matter? A woo site? The link is legit no matter who got the foi info. You're just nit picking because you have nothing.

LOL.  Are you saying a non sequitur is proof?

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

LOL.  Are you saying a non sequitur is proof?

No, I'm saying what you're doing is denying the link info isn't legit. You're just obfuscation.

[Golden Duck]

40 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

No, I'm saying what you're doing is denying the link info isn't legit. You're just obfuscation.

The audience was told it was obtained under FOIA.  Clearly it wasn't.

The ettiquette on this site is to cite your sources.  While it isn't compulsory, it's not a good look.

As we've seen woo sites aree unreliable. The woo sites state Chas Smith saw a triangle in 1912.  That's a lie that is easily revealed by reading his letter in Nature.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Golden Duck

[skyeagle409]

6 hours ago, Timothy said:

@skyeagle409 it’s about time you realise that what makes you believe isn’t enough to make others believe.

If you have something new or compelling, start a new thread.

Stop rehashing all of this old BS that’s been done to death.

It’s okay that you believe, but stop spamming what makes you believe on every thread.

I deal in facts, not fantasy. And, it seems there are those who don't understand that if an enemy missile knocks out one missile silo, the other 9 missiles will remain unaffected. Our missiles are independent of one another so that even if a missile silo is struck by an enemy missile and another enemy missile takes out the underground launch control center (LCC) the remaining 9 missiles can still be launched by a special aircraft despite the disabling of the underground LCC. When I see folks claiming that an electrical failure was the cause of the disabling all 10 missiles, that simply tells me they haven't a clue as to how our missile systems are designed. 

To put their claim in perspective, I will once again call upon my 10 dominoes and this time place them 10 feet from one another and proceed to knock down domino #1. Because each domino is made independent by placing them 10 feet from one another, knocking down domino #1 will not affect the other 9 dominoes. However, there are folks who will argue that it doesn't matter how far I place each domino from one another because knocking down domino #1 will knocked down the other 9 dominos at the same time regardless, even if placed a mile apart. Basically speaking, that is exactly what happened during the incidents involving Echo Flight and Oscar Flight where in both cases a UFO was reported overhead when their missiles were disabled in seconds by EMP from a source outside the shielded cables.

I hope I have made it very simple as to how our missile systems are designed and remember, Echo Flight's missiles were disabled on March 16, 1967 and Echo Flight's missiles were disabled on March 24, 1967.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

28 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The audience was told it was obtained under FOIA.  Clearly it wasn't.

The ettiquette on this site is to cite your sources.  While it isn't compulsory, it's not a good look.

As we've seen woo sites aree unreliable. The woo sites state Chas Smith saw a triangle in 1912.  That's a lie that is easily revealed by reading his letter in Nature.

It was obtained by FOIA. And, it was no secret that a triangular UFO were sighted in April 1912. Goes to show how far UFO debunkers are willing to go in order the post false information.

Edited May 30, 2023 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

1 hour ago, Hankenhunter said:

No, I'm saying what you're doing is denying the link info isn't legit. You're just obfuscation.

Just goes to show the UFO debunker is just here to have fun and not interested in facts.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, skyeagle409 said:

It was obtained by FOIA. And, it was no secret that a triangular UFO were sighted in April 1912. Goes to show how far UFO debunkers are willing to go in order the post false information.

Purporting that a Charles Tilden Smith witnessed a triangular UFO is simply a lie.  You try to support that lie by quoting the lies from a woo site.  Even when the woo site provides a clue to original source, the woo site still peddles a falsehood.  The woo sites is after a particular audience.  An audience so gullible they would fall for scams such as the Spanish Prisoner or Nigerian Prince.

When anyone reads that Charles ("Chas") Tilden Smith - of "Chisbury," Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire - wrote to Nature to report what he saw in the western sky of the evening of Easter Monday in 1912, it should relatively easy - even for someone purporting to be an historian - to find the full original letter as published in the 15 April issue, that same year.  For anyone - including a purported historian - reading an electronic version, should also be relatively easy to verify that Chas did not use any form of word triangle.

This doesn't have anything to do with debunking.  It's corroborating information.  It is false information to purport that Chas of Chisbury reported he saw a triangular phenomenon - a lie.

It's really easy not to lie, so why do to woo sites do it?  To catch the "true believers."

Oh, and Sky please find the source for the letter, as it was originally published, below:

• SMITH, C. Clouds and Shadows. Nature 89, 168 (1912). https://doi.org/10.1038/089168a0

PS.  It's also really easy to site the source.  The journals usually tell you how.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Golden Duck

[Trelane]

13 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Why should he? He's doing a hell of a job compared to the distinct lack of anything resembling a rebuttle from the deniers. No one is forcing you to read this thread. 

"Deniers" have provided logical and rational explanations, thy have also provided links to documents that have directly contradicted his (and your) assertions of alien contact/interaction. Whether you or Sky believe that or not is ultimately irrelevant. It's silly that you two only accept certain reports or bits of reports to fit your narrative. The full FOIA report on Malmstrom succinctly answered all matters. It's up to you to read it and understand it. 

You two go on abut this alien stuff based off of assumptions and one man's story. A story that has had some notable changes made to it over the years I might add.

I was going to dig into the separate DoD IG investigation of the event, but the juice really isn't worth the squeeze since you two ignore anything contrary to your opinions.

[skyeagle409]

3 hours ago, Trelane said:

"Deniers" have provided logical and rational explanations, thy have also provided links to documents that have directly contradicted his (and your) assertions of alien contact/interaction. Whether you or Sky believe that or not is ultimately irrelevant. It's silly that you two only accept certain reports or bits of reports to fit your narrative. The full FOIA report on Malmstrom succinctly answered all matters. It's up to you to read it and understand it. 

You two go on abut this alien stuff based off of assumptions and one man's story. A story that has had some notable changes made to it over the years I might add.

I was going to dig into the separate DoD IG investigation of the event, but the juice really isn't worth the squeeze since you two ignore anything contrary to your opinions.

Just like UFO deniers who'd claimed the Navy's UAP videos were faked after I told them the videos were real. About Malmstrom AFB, the UFOs were confirmed and investigators have stated for the record that no systems failures were found. 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Purporting that a Charles Tilden Smith witnessed a triangular UFO is simply a lie.  You try to support that lie by quoting the lies from a woo site.  Even when the woo site provides a clue to original source, the woo site still peddles a falsehood.  The woo sites is after a particular audience.  An audience so gullible they would fall for scams such as the Spanish Prisoner or Nigerian Prince.

When anyone reads that Charles ("Chas") Tilden Smith - of "Chisbury," Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire - wrote to Nature to report what he saw in the western sky of the evening of Easter Monday in 1912, it should relatively easy - even for someone purporting to be an historian - to find the full original letter as published in the 15 April issue, that same year.  For anyone - including a purported historian - reading an electronic version, should also be relatively easy to verify that Chas did not use any form of word triangle.

This doesn't have anything to do with debunking.  It's corroborating information.  It is false information to purport that Chas of Chisbury reported he saw a triangular phenomenon - a lie.

It's really easy not to lie, so why do to woo sites do it?  To catch the "true believers."

Oh, and Sky please find the source for the letter, as it was originally published, below:

• SMITH, C. Clouds and Shadows. Nature 89, 168 (1912). https://doi.org/10.1038/089168a0

PS.  It's also really easy to site the source.  The journals usually tell you how.

Apparently, he reported two triangular objects, objects that were also reported years earlier. I  guess you were unaware of that fact. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by skyeagle409

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

Apparently, he reported two triangular objects, objects that were also reported years earlier. I  guess you were unaware of that fact. 

Cool!  If that's "apparently" true, then you should be able to cite the letter.  After all, I've shown you how.

[skyeagle409]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Cool!  If that's "apparently" true, then you should be able to cite the letter.  After all, I've shown you how.

I had already known that such objects were reported years before his sighting and I even posted that fact before.

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, skyeagle409 said:

I had already known that such objects were reported years before his sighting and I even posted that fact before.

That's great Sky.  If you've already cited the Chas of Chisbury letters, as originally published then, as I've shown you, it's really easy to post the citation again.

You should understand it raises an apprehension that you didn't simply provide the citation in your post.  We're all looking forward to you rectifying that.  It's really easy.  I've shown you how.

[Trelane]

28 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Cool!  If that's "apparently" true, then you should be able to cite the letter.  After all, I've shown you how.

He simply doesn't understand what the definition of a fact actually is. As I've said before, trying to explain the logical explanations to him and his pals is like trying to staple water to a tree.

[Dejarma]

34 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

We're all looking forward to you rectifying that.

yeah wonderful, fab.. i'm so full of anticipation i feel my head will fall off into a bucket of custard- oh joy.. real Devon Custard of course, not this packet mix rubbish 

[Dejarma]

23 minutes ago, Trelane said:

He simply doesn't understand what the definition of a fact actually is

none of them do! It really is fascinating when people think something is a fact because they believe it to be...

Having said that I also find it fascinating how people with this kinda perception of what's going on around them get into power... Seems to me it's criteria these days

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, skyeagle409 said:

Apparently, he reported two triangular objects, objects that were also reported years earlier. I  guess you were unaware of that fact. 

is it Apparently or fact? 

[skyeagle409]

10 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Cool!  If that's "apparently" true, then you should be able to cite the letter.  After all, I've shown you how.

You should be able to find a bit about triangular UFOs in the 1800s which I posted.  In case you can't remember, here it is again. 

 

Understanding Triangular UFOs Since 19th Century

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/...fos-since.html

Edited May 31, 2023 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

10 hours ago, Trelane said:

He simply doesn't understand what the definition of a fact actually is. As I've said before, trying to explain the logical explanations to him and his pals is like trying to staple water to a tree.

 

I watched UFO debunkers go into debunk mode before I revealed the rest of the story. Simply amazing!! 

https://files.secure.website/wscfus/10582237/26186165/triangular-ufos-an-estimate-of-the-situation-by-david-marler-john-b-alexander-richard-m-dolan-mark-rodeghier-sam-maranto-george-wingfield-omar-fowler-team-enki-free-pdf.pdf

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by skyeagle409

[Golden Duck]

7 minutes ago, skyeagle409 said:

You should be able to find a bit in Scientific American (vol. 46 pg. 49) regarding two triangles in 1882

You were saying Chas from Chisbury apparently reported triangles in 1910.

Now you are moving the goalposts back to 1882.

And you still can't cite articles adequately, even after I showed you how.

[skyeagle409]

13 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You were saying Chas from Chisbury apparently reported triangles in 1910.

Now you are moving the goalposts back to 1882.

And you still can't cite articles adequately, even after I showed you how.

Seems you missed the boat, so here it is agan.

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/...fos-since.html