View Single Post
  #1  
Old September 24th 10, 03:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,rec.aviation.military
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects

WARNING! The original post contains an invalid Followup-To in an
attempt to suppress responses to it!

It was posted to the newsgroups

alt.aliens.they-are-here, rec.aviation.military,
alt.conspiracy.area51, alt.conspiracy.new-world-order,
alt.alien.research, alt.alien.visitors, alt.education,
alt.mindcontrol, alt.conspiracy, sci.astro, sci.physics,
sci.astro.amateur, alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters,
alt.paranet.metaphysics, alt.metaphysics.alchemy,
alt.paranet.metaphysics, talk.philosophy.metaphysics,
alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.alien.vampire

On Sep 24, 5:30*am, Bob LaCasse quoted, in
part:

In some cases, several nuclear missiles
simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object
silently hovered nearby. Six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former
enlisted man will break their silence about these events at the National
Press Club and urge the government to publicly confirm their reality.


Hmm. And this was reported on Reuters. But, as we all know, flying
saucers are illusions caused by temperature inversions, not alien or
interdimensional craft with the ability to jam missiles.

How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction?

Ah. These six former USAF officers and one former enlisted man are
real people, but they're also... mistaken... at the least. Perhaps the
stress of their work got to them, perhaps they think that they'll fool
enough people with this baloney to bring about world peace, perhaps
the Reds have spiked their drinks and then brainwashed them into
remembering these imaginary incidents.

Now, maybe this is unfair, and flying saucers really are tampering
with our missiles. But I would hesitate to think just how much
evidence of that is going to be needed before sober and sensible
people are going to accept that as the most likely explanation.

John Savard