October 1, 2012

The Aggressive Pursuit of Ignorance


(More Attempts to Establish UFO Claims by Neglecting the Details)

By James Carlson

Wikipedia LogoTim Hebert [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/] should be congratulated for attempting (and, for the most part, succeeding) to chronicle the recent attempts of UFO-nuke proponents to establish a case of UFO interference with nuclear missiles at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 by recounting the most doubtful of their claims under new titles accessible via Wikipedia. Given a field of play that resulted in a great many changes to the published content over a relatively short period, Hebert’s desire to report progress in a chronologically lucid manner could not have been an easy task, but his perseverance resulted in an interesting and somewhat enlightening series of articles published on his blog.

Hints of the attempts by the unknown researchers were first accorded some attention in the Comments section of Hebert’s July 14, 2012 blog entry “The Oscar Flight Mystery: A Tree Falling in a UFO Forest” [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/07/o ... ng-in.html]. This recounts attempts to publish two articles on Wikipedia, “Oscar Flight UFO/Missile Incident” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Flig … e_Incident and “Echo Flight UFO/Missile Incident” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Fligh … e_Incident. Both attempted to establish full flight failures of the missiles at each of the two flights (ten missiles for each) coincident to UFO sightings over the silos of each.

Establishing credibility for the claims must have seemed like an easy task for whomever the ultimate author(s) were, given Wikipedia’s liberal policy of reader participation in what is generally thought to be an associate editor role. Unfortunately, the author(s) were less acquainted with the need for accessible references required, and ultimately these attempts proved to be more damaging to the cases they were trying to illuminate than originally anticipated. As a result, the Echo Flight article, after a short period of debate, was ultimately deleted in full. Due to the fact that there are no references clearly insisting that the missiles at Oscar Flight did NOT fail, the Oscar Flight claims were allowed a further period of respite. It was eventually decided that the issue did not deserve an article of its own, and the the information was instead merged with the general article about Malmstrom AFB [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmstrom_ ... O_incident]. Anybody interested in reviewing the entire process, as well as the arguments applied should not neglect the “Talk” pages running in tandem with all of the Wikipedia entries. A great deal more information has been published there [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malms ... Force_Base].

 
Hebert continued his reporting of the attempts to substantiate Oscar Flight UFO claims on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 with “Oscar and Echo Flights: Wikipedia’s UFO Conundrum” [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/07/o ... s-ufo.html] ; on Thursday, August 9, 2012 with “Wikipedia Oscar Flight UFO Update” [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/08/w ... pdate.html] ; on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 with “Oscar Flight Gone from Wikipedia” [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/08/o ... pedia.html] ; and most recently on Monday, September 3, 2012 with “Better Than Nothing…Wikipedia and Oscar Flight’s UFO Saga” [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/09/b ... oscar.html].

Tim Hebert’s last article presents all of the earmarks of a final report, since no Wikipedia editors nor interested public individuals have yet established any form of protest or dialogue in regard to the claims now asserted, all of which contain the appropriate references required of sourced materials in use on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, without due vigilance, the aggressive approach some individuals apply to fostering the beliefs and the doubts of others tends to rear an ugly and irresponsible headache for those who would merely engender an honest assessment hopefully leading towards the actual illumination of human history and its attendant cultures. Attempts to retard the accumulation of knowledge in favor of repetitious, unsupported, and irresponsibly egregious designs on the weight of frenzied and paranoid suppositions that purposely leave out relevant information necessary to reach valid conclusions will always work against this primary function of human intent and the cultural desire to justify that intent. As such, this is a moral issue, not a scientific issue. Ultimately, the need for human development requires honesty, not the misleading detours of charlatans and the fraudulent practices they employ.

Construction of Launch Control Facility at Malstrom AFBInterested readers can note for themselves the lengths men like Robert Salas and Robert Hastings are willing to go in order to establish their UFO claims, a mission that proposes nothing less than a false rewriting of history. The paragraph that had most recently been inserted into the general article on Malmstrom AFB is a short one that was drafted and then published — on August 17, 2012 — without the application of even a single word of truth:

“On March 24, 1967, ten of the base’s Minuteman ICBMs known as Oscar Flight became inoperative, allegedly after UFOs were seen hovering over them. Personnel who have reported witnessing the UFOs include Captain (then First Lieutenant) Robert Salas, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, First Lieutenant Robert C. Jamison, and Staff Sergeant Louis D. Kenneweg.”

After appropriate editing highlighted by the necessary additions of qualifying facts, the most recently published discussion, now bearing the descriptive label “Alleged UFO incident”, only now presents — as noted in Tim Hebert’s Monday, September 3, 2012 blog entry “Better Than Nothing…Wikipedia and Oscar Flight’s UFO Saga” — the necessary “counter-argument so that readers may be able to make up their minds regarding the factual nature of the story” as follows:

“On March 24, 1967, it is alleged that ten of the base’s Minuteman ICBMs known as Oscar Flight became inoperative, supposedly after UFOs were seen hovering over them. Personnel who have reported the UFOs include Captain (then First Lieutenant) Robert Salas, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, First Lieutenant Robert C. Jamison, and Staff Sergeant Louis D. Kenneweg.

“For the record, it should be noted, however, that none of these men actually saw anything themselves, so all of the information in regard to the alleged UFOs is second-hand. In most cases, the information originated with unnamed individuals who have never come forward to speak on their own behalf, making the claims of these so-called “witnesses” impossible to verify. It’s true as well that none of the men listed reported the alleged UFOs within the first quarter-century after the fact. There is also no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that any of the Oscar Flight missiles actually failed in 1967 (or on any other date, for that matter).

“First Lieutenant Robert C. Jamison claims to have overheard mention by a conveniently unnamed individual that a UFO had been sighted by Air Force Security Police at one of the missile silos. He never voiced this claim prior to 1992, and it wasn’t until 2006 that he decided the incident took place at Oscar Flight, having been persuaded to reach that conclusion by UFO researcher Robert Hastings. He asserts as well that he overheard mention on a nearby two-way radio that a second UFO had been “sighted on the ground in a canyon near the town of Belt”.

“Regarding the failure of all ten missiles at the flight, Jamison apparently has no direct knowledge of that alleged “fact”, having participated in the restarting of only 3-4 missiles. He claims to have heard from an unnamed NCO that the entire flight had been disabled, but this testimony was never mentioned prior to July 2010, just before Robert Hastings and Robert Salas started openly taking donations for a September 2010 press conference in Washington, DC that Jamison also participated in. Although Jamison claimed before this that an entire flight of missiles — which he confidently assigned not merely to Oscar Flight, but to one of four possible locations — had failed, the introduction of the originating source of this information — the unnamed NCO — had never been discussed prior to July 2010.

“In addition to Jamison, Robert Salas has also claimed that the entire flight of ten missiles failed, but it is a matter of record that his story has changed significantly since he first went public with his claims in 1996. It is no exaggeration to assert that Salas’ documented inconsistency is the only consistent aspect of his claims. He has changed the date of the incident, the location of the incident, the number of missiles involved, the time of the incident, the order of events, the details of telephone calls made both during and after the incident, the number as well as the names of the individuals who either initiated or participated in the communication of those details (both during and after the incident), both the personal and official responses to the incident, as well as the complete record of USAF personnel who have allegedly confirmed the claims he has made. It’s also very hard to ignore the fact that Robert Salas’ commander at Oscar Flight, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, has stated that he remembers no more than four missiles ever failing while he was on duty.

“Staff Sergeant Louis D. Kenneweg, who is admittedly uncertain in regard to the date, has not associated the incident he recalls with any specific flight. His entire testimony, in fact, is somewhat ambiguous. He states only that “[o]ne of the guys” mentioned that “some very weird things were going on”. It wasn’t until later, at the barracks well after completing his assigned tasks, that he “heard a story that [UFOs] were seen on radar, then they were gone.” His testimony, for the most past, is useless.

“Even the Oscar Flight location of the incident is in doubt. Robert Salas originally claimed to have been on duty at Echo Flight, and later at November Flight, when the incident he has affirmed took place. It should be noted that during the three years he claimed to have been on duty at November Flight, he was notably aware that his commander, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, had — since October 1996 — strongly insisted that he, at least, had only served duty at Oscar Flight. During this entire 3-year period, Salas nonetheless insisted that Meiwald, as his commander, had confirmed his story of a UFO coincident to the failure of missiles at November Flight, where Frederick Meiwald never served.

“As for Jamison, for at least fourteen years he claimed that he could not recall the exact location of the first UFO — this being the one that was apparently never sighted, reported, or investigated by the USAF. He could only state that he was “certain” the incident occurred at one of the flights near Lewistown, Montana, which could indicate Echo Flight, November Flight, Mike Flight, or Oscar Flight.

“All of the above changes to the details of this alleged event does, however, prove without even the slightest doubt one salient fact: Colonel Frederick Meiwald is the only witness testifying to this incident who has insisted from the very beginning that the location was Oscar Flight. None of the other witnesses can make this claim. Unfortunately, Meiwald also insists that he remembers nothing in regard to a UFO sighted during a missile failures incident, which apparently occurred on a date he also does not recall.

“It should be noted as well that it was only upon the instigation of UFO researcher Robert Hastings that Jamison and Salas finally agreed that the event they recalled took place at Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967. This suggests that any analysis of testimony that concludes with an apparent confirmation by Jamison of the story originally presented by Salas reveals a group effort to establish these claims. This in turn suggests that the resultant changes these men eventually adopted could very easily have been applied in order to invent confirmatory testimony that never actually existed prior to 2006.

“The fact that there is nothing to indicate or otherwise suggest that the slightest iota of reason supports the claims addressed above does not reflect the same dearth of evidence in regard to contrary arguments. It is very easy, for instance, to establish the falsity of the March 24, 1967 date so clumsily recommended by researcher Robert Hastings. All that’s required is the most cursory examination of USAF Project Blue Book records available since July 1967. These records state very clearly that there were no equipment failures throughout Malmstrom AFB on March 24, 1967. These records have been unclassified since their inception. Add to this the remarkably conflicting details reported by these alleged “witnesses”, even between those isolated together within the small, underground capsule of the Oscar Flight launch control center, and the resulting obstacle of utter disbelief becomes excessively difficult for even the most brazenly credulous analyst to overcome.”

Personally, I prefer this to the original article that didn’t mention the allegations at all. I believe this new assessment makes very clear the extent that those proponents of this “rewrite” of military history are willing to go in order to establish their dishonest claims. It makes clear as well the reasons that I, for one, am so willing to characterize these same men as merely liars, hoaxers and frauds (oh, my!). The next step, of course, is to persuade mass media publications, especially respectable ones such as “The Huffington Post”, to quit publishing their tripe without noting the associated and clear indictment of these methods on the basis of ethical conclusions. It’s all well and good to discuss these claims as contrary to known scientific views of human reality, but I am of the opinion that establishing their claims as being grounded in the unethical and immoral practices they truly represent would be a far more effective strategy. It’s an easy thing to insist that you made a minor error in scientific reasoning, especially when one has already proposed any number of “exit strategies” such as time travel, alternate universes, and multiple dimensions that enable any and every possible argument to move forward, regardless of its scientific character or impression. It’s somewhat more difficult to defend your point of view when it can be proven to the satisfaction of most people that you merely lied and invented evidence or the structure of proposed events from nothing more than the desire for notoriety.

It is my affirmed belief that the chronicle of processes utilized to assert public claims is every bit as important as the claims themselves. When important issues are recognized, questioned, argued, and present conclusions thereby rendered in mass-market publications while being ignored by well-respected journals — with reputations upheld by many decades worth of responsible endeavor — the question “why” needs to be approached at some level. In a great many cases, the procedures leading to publication will suitably answer those questions. In the case of the Oscar Flight UFO claims, for instance, the process very clearly gives the world a taste of the values assessed by those seeking the publication of their claims. Attempts to accrue publication credits by discussing the claims published on the many reformative reservoirs of knowledge that now and will continue to attract attention throughout the internet represent nothing less than the potential association of those claims with the immediate credibility that a great many people assume to be true on the strength of those credits alone. This credibility is the primary purpose for such efforts, and it is for this reason that the vigilance applied by those like Tim Hebert must be undertaken and suitably lauded when it is.

In order to reach responsible goals dressed in honest validity, the complacency of average men must be eradicated, otherwise the result will all too often be the unwarranted creation of cultural belief awakened in the absence of reason. Unfortunately, this is not an easy thing to do, when those attempting to create a functional paradigm are willing to do so using all of human history as both the template and the resources. Take for instance the acknowledged attempts to link UFOs with nuclear facilities. It’s very possible to prove the errors of logic and reason associated with many of the claims being made, but this simply can’t be done with all of them, not when an individual with little compulsion to apply genuine theory, actual research, or knowledgeable intent is willing to link UFOs with every single nuclear incident that has ever been recorded. Such a description must be necessarily applied to men like Robert Hastings, who has shown himself willing to suspend his own disbelief in order to influence the beliefs of others. Even worse, his inability to conduct actual research is rarely noticed as long as he can convince others to simply make up eyewitness descriptions that he can later manage and mold until his own purposes have been satisfied. This is, in fact, not necessarily the handicap it would represent for most researchers. He doesn’t have to be good at what he’s trying to establish — he just needs to find that one person out of twenty willing to make up a funny story and run with it. And that’s exactly what he’s done. It’s ALL he’s done.

Wherever you find his claims published, you’ll find his self-congratulatory hubris noting the 150 or so ex-military “witnesses” he’s tracked down over the past 35 years. It may sound like something genuinely admirable to a guy who has failed to learn how to critically judged the worth of others, but all it really amounts to is finding 4-5 people a year who are willing to make up silly stories about flying saucers and get them published without having to actually write it down themselves. Given the desire for the extreme self-promotion that Robert Hastings specializes in, this unworthy goal would not, I venture, be an entirely difficult one to achieve — not when you’re willing, like Robert Hastings, to flatter and cajole those men and women that you’ve targeted, such as Bob Jamison and Robert Salas, both of whom have attempted to turn their twisted little tales into cash cows worthy of Hastings’ starry-eyed imagination, and both of whom have shown themselves more than willing to change the significant details of their supposed “memories” in order to sound more convincing, or to create confirmatory testimony that didn’t exist prior to those changes they’ve adopted — all at the behest of that supposed master hoaxer Robert Hastings. With any other man, it might actually be a difficult thing to inspire others to doubt their achievements, but as we’ve already made very clear in the past, Robert Hastings is not exactly worthy of the high esteem he willingly applies to himself. It’s also very true that a man with “little compulsion to apply genuine theory, actual research, or knowledgeable intent” as described above, tends to be a man without the ability to convince more intelligent men of the accuracy or the truthfulness of his claims. It is this inability that represents his real handicap. Such a man is forced to rely all too often on his imagination — and that means he tends to rely on the only real tool he possesses: his dishonesty.

It is this factor alone that enables the only real argument that proves effective against such men. Robert Hastings may very well continue to find those 4-5 men every year who are willing to make ridiculous claims on the basis of so very little, but if he stares into the eyes of reality and blinks, it is all over. If his dishonest attributes can be proven for one claim that he has attempted to stabilize and make real, it will discolor and stain every other folk tale that he has ever attempted to force through the stigmata of his unapproachable pride into this real world of men and ill-defined intent. I believe we have already accomplished this goal as noted by his introduction and swiftly appropriated defense of Robert Salas and the short, twisted roots of the clams they have both adapted to Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. We’re just waiting for the magnetic resonance of their crosstalk to fade away.



Filed under: UFOlogy,UFOs — Tags: , , , , — James Carlson @ 7:55 pm




6 Comments

  1. avatar

    My own feeling is this issue goes to the heart of cold war conflict and UFO disinformation. May I assume from this comprehensive post that there’s no good evidence UFO’s have ever switched off nukes? I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

    Comment by Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) — October 2, 2012 @ 7:12 am

  2. avatar

    Yes, sir — your assumption is absolutely correct. Not only is there “no good evidence UFO’s have ever switched off nukes”, there’s no valid evidence whatsoever to even suggest that UFOs have even been there to observe our nukes switching off of there own accord! This entire thesis introduced by UFO proponents worldwide is a massive con game that has been introduced to frighten people, to make them feel so unsafe and paranoid in the face of unknown threats with the ability to screw around with the most advanced and destructive weapons our world has ever conceived of that they will en masse demand the release of all classified documentation and other media by the U.S. Department of Defense that even mentions UFOs. Their goal is full disclosure, and if you’ve read any of the numerous manifestos currently polluting the internet, you’ll notice that many of these UFO proponents — men like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, and organizations like NICAP, MUFON, CUFON have already established to their own satisfaction exactly what full disclosure would reveal. They’ve also promoted a point-of-view that such disclosure is immanent, a point-of-view that I imagine they are now wishing they had not promoted so insistently, as every year when it doesn’t happen they come off as seemingly less and less knowledgeable or authoritative in regard to the assumption. The truth is, full disclosure will never occur — and if it did occur, UFO proponents worldwide would not accept it, because it wouldn’t reveal any of the great secrets they’ve been promoting and selling to everybody with a regular paycheck and a little curiosity about the subject for the past 60 years.

    The bottom line is very simple — kind of like those promoting it: they are lying to you. They are a bunch of frauds without any real ability to maintain the interest of others in their chosen field unless they fictionalize it substantially. They also understand very well the high cost of failure. Even those authors and theorists who are honest men merely trying to throw a little light on the issues recognize their ultimate reliance on the fictions of others. For example, Raymond Fowler, an author of numerous books who has tried to promote some form of intelligent discussion of the matter, was pulled into the Echo Flight story very early on by both Robert Salas and James Klotz, who wrote a number of letters and emails to him prior to publishing their own claims in 1996. Now Fowler is an honest man, eminently so, a conclusion strongly supported by the clear fact that he was the man who arranged to have all of his materials and papers regarding Malmstrom AFB in 1967 (and afterward) sent to me. I have always asserted this point-of-view even when other “analysts” (we’ll call them that even though their results belay the point) insistently maintained that I was calling him and all other honest investigators liars and frauds. Even Fowler, however, an honest man confronted with both the insistent facts and in the face of massive evidence that Salas and Klotz had lied to him personally, and were trying to use his past research and assessments for their own benefit wrote to me with very clear attention to the details that he had no desire to enter into the controversy in any role whatsoever, and would not express even his opinions or judgments, but would merely “observe” the fray from an unbiased distance. That’s all well and good if you don’t care about the issues, but it strikes me as a bit disingenuous when your input and research is being used to express so obviously the fraudulent claims and conclusions of others.

    The conclusions I’ve reached were not established in a vacuum, and I’m not the only one who has reached them. Even “Fortean Times” magazine, for many years the seemingly attendant profiler of such themes in mass media marketplace, has repeatedly come out with expressions of disdain for most of the UFO promotional events marketed on such a wide scale by folks like Hastings and Salas. Dr. David Clarke, for many years an accepted expert regarding the British military forces’ investigations of the UFO phenomenon for many years, has also discussed this case in the context of the “UFO and Nukes” connection asserted by author Robert Hastings. You can read his article on the subject at http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/11/flat-earth-nukes.html. His articles are regularly profiled and/or published by the “Fortean Times”, and they raise many questions regarding the honesty of the very many frauds out there in the world today.

    Unfortunately, other reporters like Leslie Kean and Billy Cox have taken advantage of the massive reliance on poor research and aggressively dishonest assessments in order to stake their own claims on the marketplace, while Frank Warren’s profit-driven, wholesale support via his “UFO Chronicles” website allows them to propagate this foolishness extensively. And God forbid, I don’t even want to mention the noise being sustained on nationwide radio discussions. I gave up listening to that crap almost immediately, even for research purposes. They will quite literally spotlight anything you want and treat it as factual as long as it stands outside the norm.

    The point to make is apparent: they have no facts to establish their claims — NONE. And the facts are relatively easy to gather, so there’s no real excuse to ignore them so egregiously. The Echo Flight incident was automatically declassified in 1979, so anyone desiring the information had only to ask for it. Other investigators had looked at these supposed incidents and ignored them, because they were so clearly accounted for! This is why Robert Salas was forced to create a new incident entirely from nothing — this Oscar Flight garbage. People can research the matter for themselves, but a lot of people are simply lazy, and they would rather believe the fantasy. I’ve always thought that folks should simply ask the missileers themselves, but even that’s apparently too difficult. There are missileer websites all over the internet, and I have still not encountered a single veteran of that service who is unwilling to discuss their careers or the details of their accomplishments. They’re rightfully proud of what they’ve done with their lives for the benefit of their nation and the population of Americans they have served. You only have to read the notable works of Tim Hebert (see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/), an ex-missileer in his own right, to recognize this quality almost instantly. Unfortunately, everybody trying to force the UFO issue regularly asserts that all of these men are either lying or refuse to tell the truth due to the highly classified nature of the secrets being guarded — a response that anybody who has any real knowledge of classified materials and their protection will instantly recognize as a voice of desperation intended to denounce the protests. There is no organized response to the many facts being argued against these UFO nuke claims, because they have nothing to argue. That’s why these UFO proponents continue to respond with personal attacks and reliance on arguments like “it’s all classified, that’s why there are so few courageous people willing to tell the truth.” I’ve actually had people try to convince me that my father was being an brave American citizen when he supposedly lied to his family for 40 years about the events at Echo Flight! It’s always one or the other: he’s lying to protect the secrets, and therefore isn’t courageous enough to tell the truth, or he’s lying to his family in order to maintain his military orders, showing how courageous he is maintain a lie even in the face of exposure. It’s all insulting rhetoric that anyone with access to the internet and the will to conduct a little research can easily determine for themselves.

    I had no interest in any of this until around 2006-7 when Robert Hastings decided to abuse my family for daring to insist that the Echo Flight UFO claims were a myth, and my first response was to figure out what these people were actually trying to substantiate. I was stunned that anybody would believe them, but the facts were clear — a lot of people believed them, and wanted to “fix” the alleged problems involving the legacy of soul-crushing secrecy our nation supposedly thrives on! Well, it’s nonsense. You and a lot of other Americans are being lied to regularly by people who see those lies as the last resort to either profit from or to explain their own personal failures to establish any profound belief or acceptance in the UFO myths they are spreading. I would advocate to anyone that they limit their beliefs to what they can prove, but they respond that they have faith in UFOs. Well, go figure.

    In any case, I’m more than willing to call out a liar when I can prove it. These people are liars, they are frauds, and it has been proven. UFOs have never switched off nukes, and there’s no good reason or evidence to believe that they have. On the other hand, there is a great deal of validated evidence to suggest that those making these claims are nowhere near as honest as some people want to believe they are. They are quite literally being paid to lie to you and everybody else, and this interest makes them somewhat averse to the real tools of their trade being so publically apprised.

    I hope this feedback helps to provide some further assessment and reason for questioning what’s being claimed by these people, instead of merely accepting it.

    James Carlson

    Comment by James Carlson — October 3, 2012 @ 1:59 am

  3. avatar

    Yes, sir — your assumption is absolutely correct. Not only is there “no good evidence UFO’s have ever switched off nukes”, there’s no valid evidence whatsoever to even suggest that UFOs have even been there to observe our nukes switching off of there own accord! This entire thesis introduced by UFO proponents worldwide is a massive con game that has been introduced to frighten people, to make them feel so unsafe and paranoid in the face of unknown threats with the ability to screw around with the most advanced and destructive weapons our world has ever conceived of that they will en masse demand the release of all classified documentation and other media by the U.S. Department of Defense that even mentions UFOs. Their goal is full disclosure, and if you’ve read any of the numerous manifestos currently polluting the internet, you’ll notice that many of these UFO proponents — men like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, and organizations like NICAP, MUFON, CUFON have already established to their own satisfaction exactly what full disclosure would reveal. They’ve also promoted a point-of-view that such disclosure is immanent, a point-of-view that I imagine they are now wishing they had not promoted so insistently, as every year when it doesn’t happen they come off as seemingly less and less knowledgeable or authoritative in regard to the assumption. The truth is, full disclosure will never occur — and if it did occur, UFO proponents worldwide would not accept it, because it wouldn’t reveal any of the great secrets they’ve been promoting and selling to everybody with a regular paycheck and a little curiosity about the subject for the past 60 years.

    The bottom line is very simple — kind of like those promoting it: they are lying to you. They are a bunch of frauds without any real ability to maintain the interest of others in their chosen field unless they fictionalize it substantially. They also understand very well the high cost of failure. Even those authors and theorists who are honest men merely trying to throw a little light on the issues recognize their ultimate reliance on the fictions of others. For example, Raymond Fowler, an author of numerous books who has tried to promote some form of intelligent discussion of the matter, was pulled into the Echo Flight story very early on by both Robert Salas and James Klotz, who wrote a number of letters and emails to him prior to publishing their own claims in 1996. Now Fowler is an honest man, eminently so, a conclusion strongly supported by the clear fact that he was the man who arranged to have all of his materials and papers regarding Malmstrom AFB in 1967 (and afterward) sent to me. I have always asserted this point-of-view even when other “analysts” (we’ll call them that even though their results belay the point) insistently maintained that I was calling him and all other honest investigators liars and frauds. Even Fowler, however, an honest man confronted with both the insistent facts and in the face of massive evidence that Salas and Klotz had lied to him personally, and were trying to use his past research and assessments for their own benefit wrote to me with very clear attention to the details that he had no desire to enter into the controversy in any role whatsoever, and would not express even his opinions or judgments, but would merely “observe” the fray from an unbiased distance. That’s all well and good if you don’t care about the issues, but it strikes me as a bit disingenuous when your input and research is being used to express so obviously the fraudulent claims and conclusions of others.

    The conclusions I’ve reached were not established in a vacuum, and I’m not the only one who has reached them. Even “Fortean Times” magazine, for many years the seemingly attendant profiler of such themes in mass media marketplace, has repeatedly come out with expressions of disdain for most of the UFO promotional events marketed on such a wide scale by folks like Hastings and Salas. Dr. David Clarke, for many years an accepted expert regarding the British military forces’ investigations of the UFO phenomenon for many years, has also discussed this case in the context of the “UFO and Nukes” connection asserted by author Robert Hastings. You can read his article on the subject at http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/11/flat-earth-nukes.html. His articles are regularly profiled and/or published by the “Fortean Times”, and they raise many questions regarding the honesty of the very many frauds out there in the world today.

    Unfortunately, other reporters like Leslie Kean and Billy Cox have taken advantage of the massive reliance on poor research and aggressively dishonest assessments in order to stake their own claims on the marketplace, while Frank Warren’s profit-driven, wholesale support via his “UFO Chronicles” website allows them to propagate this foolishness extensively. And God forbid, I don’t even want to mention the noise being sustained on nationwide radio discussions. I gave up listening to that crap almost immediately, even for research purposes. They will quite literally spotlight anything you want and treat it as factual as long as it stands outside the norm.

    The point to make is apparent: they have no facts to establish their claims — NONE. And the facts are relatively easy to gather, so there’s no real excuse to ignore them so egregiously. The Echo Flight incident was automatically declassified in 1979, so anyone desiring the information had only to ask for it. Other investigators had looked at these supposed incidents and ignored them, because they were so clearly accounted for! This is why Robert Salas was forced to create a new incident entirely from nothing — this Oscar Flight garbage. People can research the matter for themselves, but a lot of people are simply lazy, and they would rather believe the fantasy. I’ve always thought that folks should simply ask the missileers themselves, but even that’s apparently too difficult. There are missileer websites all over the internet, and I have still not encountered a single veteran of that service who is unwilling to discuss their careers or the details of their accomplishments. They’re rightfully proud of what they’ve done with their lives for the benefit of their nation and the population of Americans they have served. You only have to read the notable works of Tim Hebert (see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/), an ex-missileer in his own right, to recognize this quality almost instantly. Unfortunately, everybody trying to force the UFO issue regularly asserts that all of these men are either lying or refuse to tell the truth due to the highly classified nature of the secrets being guarded — a response that anybody who has any real knowledge of classified materials and their protection will instantly recognize as a voice of desperation intended to denounce the protests. There is no organized response to the many facts being argued against these UFO nuke claims, because they have nothing to argue. That’s why these UFO proponents continue to respond with personal attacks and reliance on arguments like “it’s all classified, that’s why there are so few courageous people willing to tell the truth.” I’ve actually had people try to convince me that my father was being an brave American citizen when he supposedly lied to his family for 40 years about the events at Echo Flight! It’s always one or the other: he’s lying to protect the secrets, and therefore isn’t courageous enough to tell the truth, or he’s lying to his family in order to maintain his military orders, showing how courageous he is maintain a lie even in the face of exposure. It’s all insulting rhetoric that anyone with access to the internet and the will to conduct a little research can easily determine for themselves.

    I had no interest in any of this until around 2006-7 when Robert Hastings decided to abuse my family for daring to insist that the Echo Flight UFO claims were a myth, and my first response was to figure out what these people were actually trying to substantiate. I was stunned that anybody would believe them, but the facts were clear — a lot of people believed them, and wanted to “fix” the alleged problems involving the legacy of soul-crushing secrecy our nation supposedly thrives on! Well, it’s nonsense. You and a lot of other Americans are being lied to regularly by people who see those lies as the last resort to either profit from or to explain their own personal failures to establish any profound belief or acceptance in the UFO myths they are spreading. I would advocate to anyone that they limit their beliefs to what they can prove, but they respond that they have faith in UFOs. Well, go figure.

    In any case, I’m more than willing to call out a liar when I can prove it. These people are liars, they are frauds, and it has been proven. UFOs have never switched off nukes, and there’s no good reason or evidence to believe that they have. On the other hand, there is a great deal of validated evidence to suggest that those making these claims are nowhere near as honest as some people want to believe they are. They are quite literally being paid to lie to you and everybody else, and this interest makes them somewhat averse to the real tools of their trade being so publically apprised.

    I hope this feedback helps to provide some further assessment and reason for questioning what’s being claimed by these people, instead of the habitual response many have to merely accepting it.

    James Carlson

    Comment by James Carlson — October 3, 2012 @ 6:57 am

  4. avatar

    IRT: Comment by Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) — October 2, 2012 @ 7:12 am

    I realize my response to your question is somewhat general. If you want a little more specificity, please ask. I have no problem answering any questions whatsoever regarding the claims I’ve made and the conclusions I’ve reached, and if I don’t have an answer for you or don’t have enough information to reach a validated conclusion, I’ll tell you outright instead of stringing you along with platitudes and portent. Credibility represents a character issue that I take very seriously, because it’s a reflection of personal honor and integrity that tends to define a man, not merely describe him. For that reason, I don’t avoid questions, and I don’t bullshit my way through them. If you have any further questions or concerns, I will confront them with the complete candor and openness they deserve. I don’t ignore issues like so many of those individuals I’ve discussed above, and I will always defend my point-of-view and the conclusions I’ve reached openly. I think if you conduct a little research of your own, you will discover almost immediately that those men I am most contemptuous of — those at the forefront of the whole UFO and nuclear facilities schtick — tend toward the other extreme. Their habitual silence regarding all manner of criticisms is deafening, and a man who refuses to confront his antagonists or defend his assertions when they have been so readily countered with such attention to detail that their own ignorance has been spotlighted in conjunction with their worthless fictions is merely a man who lacks the knowledge to do so. And when you don’t have enough understanding of the issues you’ve raised to even attempt some form of defense when that “understanding” has been so extensively shattered and diminished, then you don’t even have a case to make — all you’ve got are silly little whispers in the dark that deserve our contempt.

    Comment by James Carlson — October 3, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

  5. avatar

    James, I’m a bit late with a comment and wanted to thank you for the lead in to your article though I doubt that I had any influence with Wiki. All I did was document in three short blog posts about the curious “drama” concerning Wiki’s handling of the Oscar Flight article. I would submit that your interaction with Wiki’s editors had more of an influence.

    I still believe that the Echo entry should have been the article left to stand since there is/was ample evidence followed by supporting documentation that something did indeed occur in that flight…a noise pulse generated from the launch control center that went out through the HICS cable to all of the flight’s launch facilities. I won’t delve into the non-UFO theory that you and I have well developed over the past couple of years since we have documented our thoughts on my blog, RU forum and other on-line venues.

    What people should take into consideration for both alleged UFO incidents is that there have been no new developments that have advanced Hastings’ and Salas’ claims…the emergence of actual eye witnesses. I do wonder that within the next ten years or so, someone will be rummaging through items in a dusty attic in Great Falls and come across either a letter, diary, or photo attributed to the events back in March of 1967…possible, but as of now highly unlikely.

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

  6. avatar

    I recently exposed a researcher promoting “truth” through his trivium studies yet creating a fake quote as a fake proclamation of Albert Pike. I don’t want to change topics so I won’t mention names but my point is that people do seem to be more than willing to “read into” their own desire to prove something to the extent they create their own fantasy reality. Then any challenges to this fantasy reality — especially when it’s their main income source or their claim to fame, etc. — requires total vehemence as if: Doth protest too much? haha.

    Congratulations on wiki becoming a standard now to redirect the latest victims of this E.T. nuke disinfo. Actually James now that I think of it — Michael Ruppert was on coasttocoastam recently and guess what? Ruppert said his dad was high level CIA and his dad told Ruppert that some of the radar readings are “not ours.” Michael Ruppert then said that his new close neighbor is….drum roll… Robert Hastings. Ruppert then went on to say he thought the E.T.s were preventing humans from destroying the planet and Ruppert deferred to New Age luminaries like Dolores Cannon, David Icke, Greg Bradden, etc. Well I wanted to contact Ruppert asap to inform him about the delusions of his new neighbor who apparently has made a point to press his views onto Ruppert, a man with a definite large audience, via Ruppert’s 9/11 and CIA drug dealing exposes. Anyway Ruppert only gave his snail mail address for contact – the show should be on youtube now…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2rexujaMGI Yeah here it is — he starts in the 2nd hour I think.

    So now we can just refer Michael Ruppert to the wiki entry.

    Comment by drew hempel — October 17, 2012 @ 5:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



Reality Uncovered Social Networking
Visit us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Reality Uncovered on You Tube




RU Custom Search

Help support the continued growth of Reality Uncovered