"This can't be good..."
I was not previously familiar with the Will Thomas whose articles are also mentioned in this article (and admittedly his stuff isn't the sort of material that freepers would normally read), but I had already come, independently, to the conclusion that the Minot incident was a Chinese intelligence operation, a shot across the bow of our defense establishment, to let them know that our security of our National Command Authority has been fully compromised. What say you?
It is best if this isn’t discussed. You’ll understand in the future why.
You probably didn’t have to excerpt it.
These weapons are very destructive and detonating a large multimegaton-sized warhead anywhere is asking for a nuclear winter. Just one might do the trick. The amount of fallout, if detonated in North America, could wipe out the entire U.S. Everything after that is overkill. Mutually Assured Destruction. [The W80, of course, is a smaller warhead.]
"This can't be good..."
I’m just getting into the interview, but 1 thing I notice right-off is that the airman/interviewee refers to “SAC”. I assume that means the now-defunct Strategic Air Command. Now that could mean this guy is an old-head who is using the old term for Air Combat Command, or it could be an indicator that this is all BS. Still reading...
I was a USAF munitions systems specialist in the 1990’s and all the procedures he describes are true. I even had the pleasure of getting “Jacked-Up” in the WSA!
"This incident is too complicated. The concern here is of course the utmost that we can have. Nuke weapons have been the most safeguarded items in history (except UFOs) because of what they could do if placed in the hands of the wrong people."
Everyone knows we guard our nukes better than we guard our UFOs.
“Nuke weapons have been the most safeguarded items in history (except UFOs) because of what they could do if placed in the hands of the wrong people”.
OK, I stopped reading right there. The guy is pretty plausible and I say that from being in the AF 20 years and having had the pleasure of serving in SAC for 2 of those years. The individual obviously has knowledge of the processes involved but as some other poster here noted, there is no SAC anymore. His reference to nuclear winter and UFO’s kind of finished off all credibility as far as I’m concerned.
Honestly it sounds like one hell of a tale, and reads like a Dale Brown novel.
I don’t have enough direct information to credit or discredit this story, and will leave that for ohters...
USAF ping
The procedural stuff is accurate.
The conjecture is all nonsense.
“...all the deaths associated with this.”
What “deaths”????
As I’ve previously posted on this subject, and as supported by the “controls” cited here, somewhere between one or two dozen screw ups, pointing to extreme lack of discipline, top to bottom.
Browsing around that site I find such other items that don’t provide me much reason to trust their credibility, such as their story about the murder of Gus Grissom:
(Gus) Grissom was also an outspoken critic of the program. Among his last words before he died, when there was a communications failure with the capsule just prior to the fire, were: “How are we going to get to the moon when we can’t communicate between two buildings?”
Moments later, the capsule burst into flames with the astronauts sealed inside. They were consumed by the fire with no chance to escape. His widow Betty and his son Scott both still maintain that the astronauts were killed deliberately by sabotage – and that their many questions have never been adequately answered.
Clark McClelland and John Lear insist that there was also a fourth astronaut who died in the capsule, a member of an alternative space program... the “real” one, employing top secret advanced technology, which was highly classified. After the fire, according to McClelland and Lear, a heavy cover-up ensued that continues to this day. (Please see Project Camelot’s interview with John Lear for more details. Lear states that the fourth astronaut’s name is known.)
or the UFO coverup murders including:
James V. Forrestal was America’s first Secretary of Defense, and chief architect of the modern US Department of Defense; reliable sources state that Forrestal was one of the initial members of the newly-formed MJ-12, his position on the committee being replaced subsequent to his death by General Walter Smith. Forrestal was an idealistic and religious man who believed that the public should be told the truth about the UFO problem. When he began to talk to leaders of the opposition party and leaders of the Congress about the alien problem, he was asked to resign by President Truman.
Many investigators consider Forrestal to have been one of the earliest victims of the Great UFO Cover-up which started in earnest after the Roswell crash of 1947.
Lots of such links. I’m enjoying them, conspiracy nuts are entertaining. But I’m not buying what they are selling.
I have thought the computers were attacked by hackers.
A quick look at this search, does not change my mind.
There is a great deal of hyperbole in Jack Carter’s commentary that is incorrect and affects his credibility.
First, the nuclear winter prediction is vastly inaccurate.
Fission-based weapons produce a lot of radioactive fallout.
Fusion-based weapons do produce some radioactive fallout but far less in comparison to their yield. The blast effect is the primary objective of these weapons. The resultant dust produced from a large thermonuclear blast is quite small in comparison to even a minor volcanic eruption.
Second, the “death count” he alludes to, but does not give details on, is a commonly used practice to arouse alarm and lend credibility to his narrative. The details are removed to prevent the curious from authenticating his account. This method allows the writer to imply to the reader that his own safety is in jeopardy if the facts become known.
If people are indeed being killed by some US government entity then more details need to be produced. If Jack has credible evidence that proves witnesses are being silenced via murder, and fears for his own personal safety, then he should report this through the proper chain of command for whistle blowers. If he doesn’t trust, or is afraid, to use the proper “whistle” channel to avoid revealing his identity then why does he go public at all. Email is extremely easily traced to its originator with the proper IT tools.
Third, the is no physical way for the Chinese, or anyone else, to hack into the US internal command and control network. It is completely secure; beyond breach.
Finally, any UFO comment made in the context of discussion of nuclear weapons mishandling totally voids the author’s credibility.