march 16th 1967 - robert salas was a missile launch technician at malmstrom afb in great falls montana (he was situated in a capsule 60ft underground and in charge of 10 nuclear tipped minuteman missiles). he received a call from the gate security office to tell him that there were unusual lights in the sky above the base. salas told the guard to call him back when he had any more significant details. within a few mins, the security guard called him back (this time with more urgency in his voice) to tell salas that there was now an orange/red oval shaped object hovering above the front security gate. salas the called his superior to inform him of the 'intrusion' - just then,one by one, the minuteman missiles went into a 'no-go' state - in all, he lost between 6 and 8 missiles that morning. he later discovered that weeks earlier, the same thing had happened at 'echo flight' also in the great falls area, where a ufo had caused the disablement of all 10 missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaeIO5aEEWI

We have discussed this case quite extensively in your absence, in this thread;
1944 The World turned nut (?)...the UFO era.
the relevant post are from #827 onwards, and could perhaps be usefully moved to this thread. Some very interesting points have been made.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

youtube again...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

yes i've read them and someone suggested creating a new thread... so voila!

can anyone move the relevant posts or is it up to me? or a moderator?

i've noticed that there's a few people on here complaining about youtube links - what's the problem?

Some of us can't access youtube, because of work firewall restrictions, bandwidth restrictions, computer restrictions, or other reasons. Also, videos on youtube often contain copyrighted material, and forum rules do not allow posting that here.

Aside from that, I prefer to read. No need for distracting images, no dramatic camera shots, no waiting until the person finally gets done making his point. No music! Plus, it's difficult to get a proper quote from it, you have to write it down running the risk of introducing errors or paraphrasing.

There's nothing wrong using youtube (barring copyright issues!) if for some reason video imagery is crucial to the story, but even then, describe what's in the link, and preferably state the time into the video that something can be seen. It's very annoying to have to watch a 13 minute youtube video trying to figure out what the heck a poster means when he says "watch this!!11".

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

The problem is that not all people are able to watch these videos.
Either because of bandwith limitations or because youtube is blocked at their site (like at my site).

On the other side those youtube post most of the time look like:
CONSPIRACY: WATCH THIS!!!!
followed by a youtube link.
The poster does not even tell you what he is talking about, what the whole alleged conspiracy would be, and he is ecpecially not presenting any evidence to backup the claims made in the video . That just lazy and disrespectful.

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Another factor is that unless the poster is the video maker, the opinions expressed in the video are those of it's creator, not the poster. Those opinions rarely have a way to confirm them, so they can't be used as evidence.

Two examples. Let's say Bob robs the store where Jill is working. She hits him with one of those huge stale licorice ropes and he gets knocked out.

If the actual security footage were to appear on YouTube, unedited, it might be useful as evidence that Bob got taken out by licorice.

If I post a video talking about what I saw on the security video, maybe with a couple of clips but not showing the entire thing, it's not evidence. It's my interpretation of an event, and quite possibly one slanted by the fact that Bob is my friend and Jill is my Ex, so I want to see her go down for assault, though none of that would actually be in my video that shows this poor guy walk into a store and get pummeled by a psycho.

Unless that video is actually of the incident, it's not evidence.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

And since no one else has said it... because much of what is on YouTube is absolute nonsense. But people seem to think that if it is in video format it has more truth than if people wrote the words out on a webpage.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Not that it means a lot if it is written on a webpage...
RCH does write a webpage too...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Why open this thread if you do not contest the conclusions we arrived to in the other thread?

Further to this, I believe CT proponents are using this posting method as a means of abdicating responsibility for the views espoused.

It leaves an "out". If a CT proponent posts a youtube video, then they can always claim they posted the video was someone elses views and thus evade the requirement to defend the contents.

In other words it allows the proponent to propose a hypothesis, while simultaneously evading any responsibility for defending it.

I, for one, have followed too many of these, only to be left with some frothing believer in some insane theory, who never posted here and which the poster refuses to defend, claiming "I didnt do the icky". I cant be bothered following such YT links anymore, they are a waste of time.

YT allows anyone to propose any insane theory while severely limiting (comment length) responses, and stifling debate (banning for disagreement).

The format is not only the antithesis of learning, it actively encourages ignorance, albeit not intended on YTs part.

And if you wish to see it in action, just search on YT for "greenmagoos".

Or "Jarrah White".

It has a certain comedic value.

__________________
Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

Posting links to YouTube videos is simply lazy. Unless you produced the video, you're simply identifying something that someone else has said and believed, and expressing that you agree with it and believe it too. That doesn't make a case. That simply states your belief, it doesn't provide any reason why that belief should be considered correct.

So when you can tell us what you did to verify the material presented in the video you cite, then perhaps you will be taken seriously.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

this video shows robert salas testifying to the national press club in washington - either he's lying, or he aint - what can i do to verify the material in this vid?

Presumably, he gives details; those details can be looked into. If he doesn't, why should you believe him anyway?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

If you looked at the other thread, there is a contention that he is lying.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/c...rticle&id=1447

Just once I would like to see all of the people involved on both sides of the argument take lie detector tests. They may not be totally accurate but with the number of people involved there would certainly be a strong indication of who was telling the truth and who wasn't. It will never happen so we will never know for sure I guess, but someone is fibbing big time either way--joe

yes - from a poster on a forum who 'claims' to be the son of eric carlson

why not 'out' this guy and see if he's prepared to testify under oath to what he's claiming

(btw - how come the U.S. armed forces seem to be crammed with liars, hoaxers, money-grabbing crooks, people with unreliable memories etc etc? - i dont know how you lot can get to sleep at night)

these are not my assertions - these are implications made by posters on this forum - and i suppose phil klass donated all of the money he made off his books to charity eh?

As a vet, my suggestion to you is to tread carefully there with due consideration to the forum rules and good argumentative form.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Not a nice allegation. Provide examples of how it is "crammed".

__________________
Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

I think he was asking (how?) with a bit of irony. My take on it is he doesn't believe that this could be true about all those people in the military--joe

either he's lying, or he aint - what can i do to verify the material in this vid?

Nothing. That's why the video is useless. Salas is either lying or he isn't, and there's no way to verify his absolutely fantastic story.

Salas didn't see any UFOs. He says a security guard, who cannot be produced for testimony, told him about them.

Salas wasn't even stationed at the missile flight that's talked about in the documentary evidence. He was at another flight. And he says, without providing any documentary evidence, that his flight also went off-alert. Only he didn't make that correction until someone "outed" him as not having been attached to the incident flight.

For those reasons I don't believe Salas. What else you got?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

why not 'out' this guy and see if he's prepared to testify under oath to what he's claiming

Salas is the one making the farfetched, extraordinary claims. He has the burden of proof. Someone simply disputing him does not shoulder an affirmative burden to the contrary.

(btw - how come the U.S. armed forces seem to be crammed with liars, hoaxers, money-grabbing crooks, people with unreliable memories etc etc? - i dont know how you lot can get to sleep at night)

these are not my assertions - these are implications made by posters on this forum...

No, this is you trying to paint the forum with a broad brush of having made outrageous accusations, so that you can more easily dismiss its convergent opinion. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who have served honorably in the armed forces since the 1960s, one will naturally find a handful of ne'er-do-wells. The notion that the armed forces are "crammed" with such people is your argument, and yours alone.

The very few individuals you have cited have serious credibility issues. Do you intend to address the disputation of their credibility? Or do you intend to continue insinuating that it's wrong to examine the credibility of people making very outrageous claims?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

To make this really clear:

Addendum: and why would the air force only document the November (Echo) flight and not the Oscar flight? Logical conclusion: because nothing happened....

That sounds about as close to the truth as we have experienced thus far--good job--joe

His points appear to be very valid and can be checked. Why are you so against accepting the possibility that he may be correct?

Again, we are faced with two different scenarios. One requires alien spaceships to disable the missiles. The other requires an electrical transient of some kind and indicates the individual telling the other story is not being 100% truthful.

I am not sure how we are going to find him. He left no email address. Maybe you should go check him out right after you talk to Kingston George.

another question joe - how come you're the only one who can see this?

as scientists, you will be familiar with statistics.

i have mentioned a relatively small 'sample' of witnesses in my posts (most of them from the armed forces of the united states) yet every single one of these witneses (including the participants in the disclosure project, which apparently you dont hold in high regard..... yawn yawn yawn.... ) has had their credibility questioned by people on this forum (and that's putting it mildly) - now i shouldn't have to spell it out to you clever folk what this means statistically, so the word 'crammed' would be an accurate description if you lot are all correct in your assertions.

but once again, for the benefit of people who didnt see what i actually wrote:

****** THESE ARE NOT MY ASSERTIONS ******

i can go back through the relevant posts and put the search light on the guilty offenders if required (for the benefit of the veterans who feel offended by these accusations) or we can just move on and assume (as i do) that the majority of these witnesses are simply testifying to their experiences and are not lying.

so in future, when making unfounded and scurrilous accusations (which may be beneficial to your agenda at the time) , bare in mind the possible consequences of your assertions.

As always, you only hear about the bad apples. They are the ones that grab headlines are easy to remember. The majority do their jobs and leave the service as graceful as they served. Unfortunately, there are always a few who want to lie about their service (I think the SEALS have a web page devoted to exposing individuals who claim they were SEALS but were not) and tell extraordinary tales about what they did. As an ex-Navy submariner of over twenty years, I find it disgraceful but it does happen.

Have you ever seen the movie "Patton"? Remember when he talks about soldiers in his army talking to their grandchildren years later. He stated they should be thankful that they did not have to say "They shoveled **** in Louisiana". I think that line fits many of the reasons why some exaggerate or lie about their military careers and it may apply here.

This is because these stories are exotic and unlikely.

Let me put it this way...If somebody says they saw fairies in the backyard, would you question there integrity? What if another person who was there, said they saw only rabbits? Which one would you consider more reliable? Obviously, the rabbit story is more likely so you begin to question the fairy story until they can provide better evidence that leds credibility to the fairy story.

Provide better evidence than just a story told on Youtube.