Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:48 pm

According to the request (aka begging) for donations, it will be on September 27th. Reserve your seats now. After seeing what happened with Figel, my guess is that Hastings and Salas tossed out a large net to see if they could find anybody with a UFO story. Many were probably like Figel. If they mentioned anything about UFOs (which apparently Figel did at one point), they were selectively quoted in order to paint a picture that agreed with the desired scenario. I also think a vast majority of individuals who were interviewed stated they knew nothing about UFOs or that UFOs did not shutdown any missiles. Since Hastings does not reveal negative responses, we probably will never know. He probably suggests they were sworn to secrecy or something equally ridiculous.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm


Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby ryguy » Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:32 pm

astrophotographer wrote:According to the request (aka begging) for donations, it will be on September 27th. Reserve your seats now.


If it's close enough I would be interested in trying to get in - particularly if questions will be accepted from the Press...evidence of those negative replies would obviously come in handy. :)

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:05 pm

ryguy wrote:If it's close enough I would be interested in trying to get in - particularly if questions will be accepted from the Press...evidence of those negative replies would obviously come in handy. :)



Well, I am sure he has had such replies but is not going to list them. I think James has been following his efforts to find people on the missileer forums or something like that. IMO, Figel's e-mail is telling evidence.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:55 pm

Most of the missileer websites -- those that support the missileer community and have public forums open to discussion -- are very aware of Robert Hastings claims and the information contained in his book. I know of at least two that regularly bar his input totally due to his methods of "communication", the insults he regularly dumps on those who disagree with him, and his habitual "saturation bombing" strategy that he employs when he lacks acceptable evidence to counter other arguments or issues. This amounts to the posting of dozens of irrelevant discussions and other material from his book "UFOs and Nukes". He's even posted nonsensical "witness" statements about events from the 1970s to support his claims about Echo Flight, March 1967. Eventually, he tends to meltdown and ignore, and I suspect that's what's happening here. He still hasn't answered any of the 49 or so questions I put to him many weeks ago regarding the claims he's made about Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 -- and he promised he'd get to that right after his trip to Alaska to spread the UFOnaut gospel. He's done this to me a number of times, promising to answer my questions or even just to make an argument based on verified fact, and he's failed to do so each time. Whenever I bring the matter up again, he always insists that he answered all of my questions, just as he's been able to answer any questions anybody has ever put to him. A quick review of the forums show unmistakably that he hasn't answered anything, so the process begins again anew. This is actually normal. In a few months, someone will ask him about his promise to answer the questions I've put to him, and he'll swear up and down that he's already answered them, and that I'm well aware of this, so why the insistence that he's neglected doing so? The bottom line is, he has no answers but he'll never admit it -- the absolute worst character fault anybody considering himself a valid journalist or historian can possibly adopt; and he's got it in spades. Hell, at least Robert Salas just ignores critics -- he never responds to answer questions or accusations. It's the same with James Klotz; they just keep hacking along. However, if you want to verify this regarding Hastings, just check out the forum within which I asked him the 49 questions (I think it was ATS). He insists completely that he's always responded to every point I've raised -- it's just nonsense. It's my guess that he's just going to ignore further criticism, at least from me, because he doesn't have any answers, just more noise.

James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed May 05, 2010 11:57 pm

Under the category of interesting stuff: Robert Hastings has made an appearance, posting the following commentary on http://themet.metrostudentmedia.com/fea ... talk-ufos/ about a week ago.
One could easily dismiss James T. Carlson as a blatantly dishonest hack were it not for his sadly delusional bent. In October 2008, James' own father, Eric Carlson, told me on the phone of James' psychological "problems." Eric has made similar comments to others, regarding his deep concern that James will someday experience "a nervous breakdown." When I recently asked James whether he was the same James T. Carlson who has used the cyber-name "Acid_Head" and expressed interest in "acid" on his social networking page, James declined to respond directly.

In any case, James has engaged in wholesale lying about virtually everything Bob Salas and I have publicly discussed and documented regarding the UFO incidents at Echo and Oscar Flights, at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in March 1967, as well as UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites in general.

I am currently transcribing lengthy audio tapes of conversations that Bob Salas and I independently had with now-retired USAF Col. Walter Figel, who was Eric Carlson's missile deputy commander on the day the Echo Flight missiles were apparently shut down by one or more UFOs. Figel's statements, which James has completely misrepresented on numerous occasions, will speak for themselves--literally.

Links to those audio tapes will appear in my next rebuttal to James' manic ranting, which I will post online sometime during the next few weeks. At the moment, I am rather busy with real life. Spending time refuting an obviously sick individual like James T. Carlson is just not a high priority for me.

Stunning isn't it, how Hastings continues to attack me on a personal basis with the most obscene garbage imagineable, and yet has nothing to say regarding or reflecting a substantive argument. I think this shows exactly how these guys think, how they assert their ridiculous lies, and how they deal with any organized opposition to their claims. Amazing, isn't it? And people actually believe these clowns? Thank you, Larry King!

No offense Robert -- but I don't have to defend myself to you. I know exactly what's true and what's a lie -- and you're not exactly the most inspiring leader the UFO-proponent community can come up with. I've said it before, and I'll say so until you change your tact to reflect a little base honesty: you're a blowhard, and you have nothing substantial to add to this discussion. My discussions with Col. Figel have only made that integral belief stronger. Like I said in the above commentary, you always resort to arguments like this, but you never follow through, so I'm not going to sweat any threat from you that you're "currently transcribing lengthy audio tapes of conversations that Bob Salas and I independently had with now-retired USAF Col. Walter Figel". You said you'd happily answer the 49 questions I put to you at ATS, but you never did. You said you'd answer all of my arguments at UFOCHRONICLES as well, and that was a couple years ago, but you never did. You're just smoke and talk, Bobby, and that's all you've ever been. You forget, I spoke with Col. Figel and I actually listened to him. He agrees that you and Salas are frauds, so please transcribe away, if you think it will help your argument any. But I won't be waiting for you to do so with any concern -- you've got nothing, and that's all you've ever had. In light of this, though, I'd be interested in knowing how much money you've been able to con on the public dole for your little dog and pony show. Any comments? I'm waiting ... but I've been waiting for something substantive out of you for years...

On a related note, "Leonardo" has made some very interesting arguments regarding Hastings' Echo Flight and Oscar Flight assertions at http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=176314 I would strongly recommend that people take a look -- his comments are well thought out and he's very logical in the conclusions reached.

I'll be happy to discuss any of the claims made by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, but only at this website. You might find comments made by me elsewhere, but these should be considered aberrations resulting from my "sadly delusional bent". Of course, that doesn't mean such comments are faulty. I don't lie on any websites -- period. But if you want in-depth discussion, come here to Reality Uncovered and I'll happily give you what you need in complete and candid honesty. And I'll even back it up with documented fact, which is a whole lot more than you'll ever get from Robert Hastings or Robert Salas!

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Chorlton » Thu May 06, 2010 9:54 am

Storm in a teacup.
There are no Aliens or Alien craft. Quite simple really.
Why does anyone with half a brain even continue any discussions with morons.?

Beats me.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby astrophotographer » Thu May 06, 2010 2:42 pm

Sounds like Hastings is trying to preach to the converted here. He is concerned that your revelations (and Figel's e-mail) have painted his research in a negative light. Many in UFOlogy will accept his nonsense but some might start questioning his work. He can't have that. He needs to keep any of the faithful on his side by attacking you personally and claiming Figel told him something different.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Tue May 18, 2010 11:34 pm

One of the guys that I met on one of the missileer websites tells me that he and another ex-missileer are currently drafting an "Echo Flight Response" to Hastings and Salas in order to get something a little more organized and sensible out to any journalists that may be in attendance at the National Press Club Conference that Hastings and Salas are currently planning for September. I don't want to give out their names or associations, because I don't have their permission to do so at this point, but I did want to let anybody who's interested know that there are some far more sensible arguments currently being composed by people who not only know better, but know better as a result of their past military experiences. I have to admit, I'm really looking forward to seeing what these two guys come up with. The one I've already met seems to be a very well-balanced individual with a lot more knowledge regarding the day-to-day routine of missileers than I will ever possess -- and he knows a lot of folks in the missileer community as well. I've discussed in the past how my limited knowledge of the missileer daily routine has possibly handicapped me somewhat, which in turn limits my arguments to more general applications, but these guys don't have that handicap, so I'm really looking forward to reading their "sane" summary when theyve completed it.

James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Fri May 21, 2010 4:46 am

I believe that I'm one of the former missile officers/missileforums member that James Carlson made mention in his above post.

My name is Tim Hebert and I am a former SAC missile crew commander. From 1981 to 1985, I was assigned to the 490th Strategic Missile Squadron, 341st Strategic Missile Wing, Malmstrom AFB, MT. By the end of my controlled tour as a Minuteman II ICBM Launch Officer, I had completed 295 alerts. Each alert lasted approximately 24 hours in the Launch Control Center (LCC).

After my crew duty time, I was assigned to the 321st SMW, Grand Forks AFB, ND, Wing Codes Division 1985 to 1988. The Codes Division was responsible for all of the Wing's Minuteman III launch and enable codes as well as its encryption codes. Towards the end of my tenure at Grand Forks, I was the Officer in Charge of all operational coding operations. This position allowed me to study extensively the operational characteristics of the MM III missile guidence system.

Kudos to James Carlson. His research into the Malmstrom UFO incident has been thorough. I had in the past expressed doubts about the incident. Most noteworthy, I had expressed my doubts in a debate with Robert Hastings last year on the missileforums site. No need to go into too much detail about Hastings' debating style. This style can be best described as "death by irrelevent factoids." Last year I posed a simple question to Hastings, "Did you, in the course of your research consider any viable alternative causations of the Echo Flight missile shutdowns before concluding that a UFO had single handidly dropped 10 ICBMs off of Strategic Alert?" Hastings only response was that his recorded statements from selected officers and enlisted personnel was all of what he needed to prove his UFO theory. This is not research. This is not formulating a credible hypothsis nor advancing a sound theory. Hastings is no more than a teller of folklores or myths. Hastings showed no evidence that he even pursued alternative theories, or worst yet, ignored key facts that would at a minimum called into question the UFO theory.

During my time at Malmstrom AFB, not one word was ever mentioned of any UFOs affecting missile sorties in 1967. My wife was a maintenance officer and she recalls that no one had ever made mention of the incident. The names of those mentioned by Hastings as witnesses were virtual unkowns to all of us on the crew force back in the early 1980s.

Lastly, if you read all of the statements provided to Hastings, you'll notice one important fact. Not one....I repeat....not one officer, including Robert Salas, saw a UFO. Everthing is second, third, even fourth hand information passed on to individuals.

I am in the process of writing up a critical analysis of the incident and hope to have it available on-line by the time that Hastings and Salas gives their press conference Sept 2010.

Tim Hebert
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Access Denied » Fri May 21, 2010 7:34 am

Tim, welcome to RU and thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter with us… very refreshing. To say that James has had to run the gauntlet on this would be an understatement. As one who wore the Missile Badge but who’s experience was limited to R&D as a 316X3, I couldn’t comment on the operational aspects of this story beyond the basics of what I was taught so I find your vote of confidence with respect to James’ research effort most encouraging… and no doubt much appreciated.

"Did you, in the course of your research consider any viable alternative causations of the Echo Flight missile shutdowns before concluding that a UFO had single handidly dropped 10 ICBMs off of Strategic Alert?"

Of course not, that would require something like intellectual honesty.

Looking forward to your analysis and in the meantime, please let us know if there’s anything we can do to help.

Regards,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Fri May 21, 2010 8:53 am

Thanks Tom for the welcome. I reviewed James' data independently, in other words, I was not a source for any of his information. Most of the 10 volt pulse approach to an "all call" shut down is referenced in detail in the declassified NSA documents relating to the history of the Minuteman system. The authors specifically mentions the March 16, 1967 Echo Flight shutdown and the possibility of an EMP-like pulse. SAC eventually would implement a force-wide fix by installing EMP filters in the Launch Facilities and Launch Control Centers. Though James did not serve as a launch officer or in a missile maintenance capacity, his research is sound.

I believe that the key to approach the incident is to look at all of the Montana UFO incidents that were reported starting in Jan 1967 and ending in March 1967. Yes, there were numerous reportings by the general public that saw odd things in the sky. All of this was reported in the local and regional newspapers. With the exception of one sighting, all of them were at night. The visual description of the objects varied in size, shape, color and so forth. All of the nighttime sightings happened around 9 PM. The lone day time sighting happened around 6 AM. BTW, after the Belt, MT sighting on the 24th of March (at 9 PM), there is no further mentioning of Montana UFO sitings for the rest of 1967, that's 7 months of nothing seen nor heard. I varified this through the NICAP, MUFON and Project Blue Book archives.

So, basically, what occured near Winifred, MT (Echo Flight, 10th SMS) March 16, 1967 may have been the combination of an electro-mechanical quirk and "old" fashioned psychology. Anyway, that's at least a good starting point for a hypothesis.

Oh, just for general information. Should one decide to debate Robert Hastings, you are not allowed to employ Occam's Razor. As Hastings had informed me Occam's Razor is valid for other issues, but does not work for UFOs.

Sincerely,

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Fri May 21, 2010 10:34 pm

Thanks very much, Tim, for your kind words regarding my research. I kind of had a head start at Echo Flight because my father was there, but I've also tried to at least mention other conclusons, and I've tried to make clear as well any conclusions I may have reached on the basis of possibly incomplete or unconfirmed information. Of course, I've also never tried to conceal my disdain for anything if enough of it was backed-up in my throat, but I don't consider that to be unfair -- just impolite. And sometimes, impolite is necessary. In any case, I fully intended to get your permission to discuss these matters further, but my PC crashed, very rudely, so I've been using the internet at the library for the past couple of weeks. This tends to limit my interaction with others a lot. I'm glad, however, that you've made acting upon my intentions unnecessary. I try to stick to some ethical guidelines while on the internet, because there's just so much unconfirmed crap out in the world these days, and very little ethical environment that people can depend on -- part of that means I don't discuss details regarding what other people have said and done without their permission to do so. It used to be that you could go to websites that prided themselves on publishing reliable, confirmed information when they were publishing what they considered to be "information". Sadly, that is no longer the case. About the same time that the Discovery Channel and the History Channel decided to dedicate their prior interest in facts and history to ghosthunters, UFOs, vampires, and werewolves, the internet pretty much followed suit (well, maybe it had a bit of a head start), so you never know what you're going to get -- only that it hasn't been confirmed and it was purposely slanted to attract a wider audience. I expect, however, that your discussion of Echo Flight is going to be a very sane response, and I'm sincerely looking forward to reading it. Thanks again.

James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:31 am

Being typically annoyed by waves of silence in an environment demanding explosive rounds of ridicule and disgust as a minimum reaction, I found myself this week unable to refrain any longer from responding to Robert Salas' latest salvo of self-absorbed righteousness, The Air Force Cover-Up: "Deception, Distortion, and Lying to The Public About the Reality of the UFO Phenomenon", currently posted by Salas at Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES: http://www.theufochronicles.com/2009/10 ... rtion.html . This is the J'accuse article Salas uses to decimate without cause the otherwise honorable reputation of Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, the UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB in March, 1967 whose quiet and unfortunately thankless death Salas and Robert Hastings waited out like cold-cut hyenas before attacking his memory with all the maliciousness of obscene sprites on drunken bender. I suspect he won't respond, maintaining his previously established behavior of simply ignoring those critical of his assertions, allowing Robert Hastings to smugly respond for him. In any case, I added two postings to his UFOCHRONICLES tirade:

jtcarl said...
You state: "I was unaware at that time that the entire flight of ten Minuteman I missiles was also disabled while UFOs were observed over the launch facilities of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967." Please comment on your insistence for over ten years that you learned about the Echo Flight incident from your commander, Lt.Col.(Ret.) Frederick Meiwald, on March 16, 1967 -- during your watch -- while he was reporting the alleged incident at Oscar Flight that you have detailed in your book. Also, why do you suppose Frederick Meiwald insists that he does not believe in UFOs? Is he part of the "cover-up"? And if so, why do you consider him to be an important source of information, as you affirm in your book?

One more short question: both the commander and the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 -- Maj.(Ret.) Eric D. Carlson and Lt.Col.(Ret.) Walt Figel, Jr. -- insist that UFOs were not even remotely involved with the missile failures incident at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. Both gentleman also assert that they also don't believe in UFOs -- like your commander, Frederick Meiwald. All affirm that -- contrary to your claims -- the Echo Flight incident was the result of a rather prosaic electrical event, well-documented and typical of the equipment in use. Oddly enough, all of the USAF records of the event, including those you have repeatedly misinterpreted, making errors no knowledgeable electrical engineer would ordinarily make, also indicate that the incident was the result of a common electrical event. And yet, in your writings you assert that all three gentlemen have confirmed your account. Would please tell me exactly how they "confirm" your version of these events?

Sincerely,
James Carlson

4:44 PM
jtcarl said...
In reference to Lt. Col. Chase's role in this alleged cover-up, you state that "Chase was obviously not disclosing the missile shutdown incidents even to another Air Force office, clearly the cover-up was ongoing and he was in the middle of it." The other Air Force office you are referring to here is the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB. Please comment regarding why Chase would have lied to them, in light of the fact that the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB was his direct supervisory contact in his position of UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB. The Foreign Technology Division ran EVERYTHING having to do with UFOs for the USAF, including Project Blue Book. They were also the Air Force's sole investigator of the effects of unknown weapons on U.S. weapons systems, including the missile systems at Malmstrom AFB. These are the guys who were in charge of reverse-engineering captured MIGs and would have been in charge of any investigation regarding the Echo Flight incident had UFOs actually been involved. If Chase lied to them, then he was not covering up an event -- he was committing treason in a way that his full chain of command would never have demanded. I don't believe you would be covering up an event by hiding it from those who are not only best equipped to investigate it, but are also required to do so by Air Force and Department of Defense Regulations. The Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB was airborne intelligence at the highest and most discreet levels of the Department of Defense. What possible reason is there for Lt. Col. Chase to LIE to them? I can understand lying to the press to cover something unpalatable up -- but FTD? REALLY?? How, exactly, does this contribute to a "cover-up"? It's far more likely that he was simply telling them the truth -- there were no equipment failures in relation to any UFO reports that occurred at Malmstrom AFB on March 24-25, 1967. And up until you decided that the incident you've related regarding Oscar Flight did not, as you previously reported for 7 years (at least) occur on March 16, but on March 24, nobody ever reported any equipment failures at all, let alone missile failures, for that date anywhere on Malmstrom AFB. Do you have any comments regarding the validity of your assertions regarding FTD? I'd like to respectfully point out, that until you published your claims, nobody ever asserted or otherwise suggested that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase was anything less than a properly concerned and conscientious USAF officer. He had a fine reputation as an honest man who was just as concerned about his professional reputation as any other moral and ethically obligated officer in the United States military. Frankly, everybody that knew him affirms that he was a good and honorable man. Your insistence that he was also a callous liar is the first blemish on his otherwise stainless reputation. Since you neglected to raise any of these issues until well after he had died, even though Roy Craig's book was first published in 1995, and neither Craig nor Chase are on record as having ever denied interviews with members of the press of interested researchers, I'd be interested in knowing -- why do you feel obligated to make these charges, thereby discoloring this USAF officer's reputation, at this time?

Thanks for your time.

James Carlson


Like I said, I don't expect him to break any records here and respond with any well-thought out impressions of import, because he doesn't do that -- any response would be difficult to support without coming right out and saying, "they were all lying" and "I'm the only one telling the truth", but I assume that if he does interest any real journalists in that ridiculous dog and pony show he's planning for September, part of their preparation research would include a review of his writings at Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES -- which is also where Robert Hastings tends to reside. And if they review his work there, they'll get a look at the little notes I added -- unless Salas arranges to have them removed. While I have little interest in the show he and Hastings are planning, I can't say the same regarding the general public response to their solemn affectations of paranoid responsibility. As a result, I intend to keep a wide eye out for appropriate criticism -- although I'd much rather prefer to see them cancel their little holiday plans as a result of complete disinterest or crowding ridicule.

So, crow boys, crow...

P.S. -- I noticed earlier in the week that Robert Hastings is once again soliciting "interviews" on the internet -- about as blatant an invitation to cranks and hoax hounds as anyone could imagine. This one is at http://www.ranchers.net/forum/post-468552.html and applies to cattle mutilations witnessed by members of Ranchers.net. He writes:
Hello All,

I have already started the topic "UFO Sightings by Ranchers" so please check it out, if the topic interests you.

I research UFO sightings at nuclear weapons sites, using declassified USAF documents and the testimony of former or retired Air Force personnel. I was on Larry King Live in July 2008, together with three former USAF officers who discussed their UFO experiences at ICBM sites in Montana and California.

Based on the testimony of ex-USAF personnel and law enforcement officers around the country, I have discovered a link between some UFO sightings and the cattle mutilation phenomenon. In future posts, I will present a bit of that information, as it appears in my book UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. However, before I do, I would like to get some feedback from ranchers who have experienced cattle mutilations among their herds.

There have been recent reports of mutilations in Montana. Can anyone tell me more about those and whether UFO sighting reports accompanied them? I am also interested in possible mutilations in NE Colorado, SE Wyoming, SW Nebraska and central North Dakota (or anywhere else, for that matter).

I will post again within 24 hours.

Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com


Having already noted Hasting's propensity for distorting the reports of his witnesses (note his interview with Lt.Col. Walt Figel as discussed above), I found myself issuing a warning to those about to subject their memories to similar treatment:
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:15 pm

Please be advised that Robert Hastings has a history of distorting the accounts received by individuals he has interviewed in the past, including those members of the military "missileer" communities that he has solicited on forum websites of the same type you gentleman have put together here. He's an amusing chat, but be cautioned -- you may wish to proof-read whatever he decides to create with whatever you decide to discuss with him before allowing him the complete freedom to publish whatever he wants. He has a tendency to reach conclusions that have little or nothing to do with the events that have been reported to him. Should you later reach your own conclusion that you would have been better off had you not talked with him at all, because he either got it all wrong or has published an account based on your statements that you insist is full of errors, he is not above ignoring your concerns completely in order to publish and be damned. If you'd like to know exactly the whens and wheres that such incidents have indeed occurred in the past, please feel free to contact me at jtcarl@yahoo.com and I will happily give you detailed accounts. Mr. Hastings has a habit of putting himself forward as some kind of a journalist, but what he actually publishes and discusses is provably full of errors and should not be considered "fact". He also has a habit of slandering those individuals who get into prolongued "debate" with him or simply disagree with his conclusions, and for that reason, I won't be discussing the matter any more on your forum. I simply wanted to warn you ahead of time to get some signed and legal guarantees from Mr. Hastings before discussing anything that might be distorted somewhere in his head just before he lets the rest of the world know everything you may (or may not) have said.

Sincerely,
James Carlson


Naturally, this brought out the ever-defensive tirades, irrelevances, and insistences from Hastings -- all accomplished in less than 6 hrs. of my original post:

Unfortunately, leanin' H, it is James Carlson who is being deceptive, but you could not be expected to know about his track record. Google my name and see what the vast majority of people say about the credibility of my work. Then Google James' name and see what most folks say about him.

James says that I misrepresent my ex-military sources' comments about UFOs. If that is so, why have they sworn out legal affidavits attesting to UFO activity at nuclear missile sites, just as I have portrayed in my lectures and my book? Those written affidavits and the witnesses' own verbal statements will be presented at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on September 27, 2010. Three of the eight former or retired Air Force personnel who will participate are colonels or lieutenent colonels. They will confirm that UFOs have hovered over ICBM sites just moments before those missiles malfunctioned. There will be a lot of publicity surrounding the event and I will update those posting here once the press conference has taken place.

Now, to the subject of cattle mutilations. Since James will do his thing on this forum and continue to misstate facts, I will simply ask those ranchers who have experienced mutilations to contact me privately at ufohastings@aol.com. I won't waste my time responding to James' version of reality.

I will now post most of my book's chapter on the subject of mutilations and trust that interested parties will investigate the sources I cite to verify that I have accurately reported what I and other researchers have been told by ranchers, law enforcement officers and ex-USAF personnel.

From the book UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites


Other than straightforward newspaper reports that reach no valid conclusions, the "accurately reported" accounts he cites originated at "MUFON", "Parascope", and the "National Institute for Discovery Science", this last, seemingly "official" organization being actually the cover of a group founded by Robert Bigelow as a way to channel funds into the purportedly scientific study of paranormal phenomena. They're also referred to as "UFO Hunters'. None of this can be considered impartial, independent resources necessary to establish any scientifically validated conclusions. It's like a researcher trying to examine the pack behavior of wolves by studying 16th century reports of werewolf activities in Germany. He also manages to reach conclusions that can't possibly be reached on the basis of poorly analyzed reports, incomplete accounts, and paraphrased interviews that take for granted UFO involvement -- before or in the place of -- an impartial examination. And yet, he insists that the accounts he's published are both believable and accurate, even, one supposes, in the case of Lt.Col.(Ret.) Walt Figel's testimony. He's insistently asserts that all of it is true, failing entirely to recognise that all he's done here is replace his own poorly interpreted and easily dismissed witness accounts with the poorly interpreted and easily dismissed witness accounts of other UFOlogist cranks at other websites. And once again, there are more reasons to doubt the accounts he's published than there are to trust them. And in light of his consistently error-prone conclusions -- such as that concerning Figel's or Arnneson's testimony -- he hardly deserves any trust at all.

I was appreciative, however, of his insistence that I would "do his thing on this forum and continue to misstate facts," in light of my comment that "I won't be discussing the matter any more on your forum" due to Hastings' "habit of slandering those individuals who get into prolongued "debate" with him or simply disagree with his conclusions".

As far as Ranchers.net goes, my work is done... \:D/

James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:35 pm

James,

I read Salas' article a few months back. Both Hastings and Salas allude that Chase's non-involvment in the Echo Flight shutdown, since he was the base UFO Officer, constituted evidence of a cover-up. Interesting that Chase appeared to spend time and resources investigating the Belt sighting a week later, 24/25 Mar, but their is no references (that I personally know of) that Chase investigated the event on 16 Mar. Blue Book makes no mentioning of the 16 March event, so the "logical" conclusion is a "cover-up", and to the casual reader this may readily appear so. Again, I come back with SAC's way of doing business. After spending 7-8 years in SAC, I am well aware personally of that environment.

SAC's main concern would have been strictly that 10 ICBMs abruptly dropped off of alert. This meant that 10 targets were not "covered" under the current SIOP. SAC planners would have had to scramble to cover those targets with other assests, be it bombers or other ICBMs from another wing, or to let the targets remain uncovered indefinitely.

After the initial evaluations of the incident, after debriefing your father and Figel, LtCol Chase would have had "nothing" to investigate. Yet, I suspect that Chase may have done an initial look based upon the declassified 341st SMS Wing History 1 Jan - 30 Mar 1967. A2C Gamble clearly wrote "the rumors of UFOs have been disproven." Disproven by who? This could only have been conducted by Chase and others. Once it was initially determined that a mechanical/electrical anomaly (still of unkown cause) was a probable culprit then Chase's office would have had no jurisdiction in the investigation.

You are correct that the FTD at Wright-Patterson was never contacted. The only Wright-Patterson unit contacted was the Ballistic Missile Division to assist with the testing and evaluation of theories of causation, yet Boeing and Autonetics appeared to be the lead agencies in the investigation.

Salas' problem, whether he has ever acknowledged it or not, is that his "incident" is not mentioned in any official document classified or declassified. SAC, DOD and others spent enormous time, effort, money and documentation on the Echo Flight issues, yet intenionally "ignored" a smilar situation at November Flight? I think not. If November ICBMs had mysteriously shut down on 24 Mar, then it would, as Echo, been mentioned in the same unit history documentation as well as in Nalty's ICBM History in the NSA archives.

Best Regards,

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:47 am

Hi, Tim,

According to my father and Walt Figel, Lt. Col. Chase never investigated anything in relation to the incident, as far as they know. There was no concentration or even discussion at all regarding UFOs. And Chase wouldn't have investigated an equipment malfunction at all, under any duty he served at Malmstrom AFB. Nobody ever specifically asked them about UFOs -- they simply reported what was said and when it was said throughout the course of the incident. Nobody at Malmstrom ever considered UFOs in any causal aspect whatsoever to the event of the missile failures. The fact that there were rumors is almost irrelevant. It should be mentioned as well that CUFON published the wrong cover sheet to the historical archive Salas and James Klotz used as a resource -- the one you mention in which A2C Gamble wrote "the rumors of UFOs have been disproven." The cover sheet they published was signed by A2C Gamble, showing that he approved the content of that history. This makes Gamble's claim that he was forced to edit out any real discussion of UFOs, and that the officers involved refused to discuss the matter with him all the more serious, because it suggests that this clerk with an E-2 paygrade was invested with more authority than he actually had. The correct cover sheet for the history of the event very clearly shows that Gamble had no authority to approve anything included in that document. When he was finally given the authority to approve such content in the following quarter, he screwed it up so badly that they fired him for it, replacing him with an individual two paygrades in advance. Salas and Klotz never performed a proper analysis of the available documentation, because doing so indicates that everything they've said and suggested in regard to this event is complete nonsense.

In Roy Craig's book alluded to in Salas' article, he states that he asked Lt.Col. Chase about Echo Flight. Raymond Fowler, a NICAP investigator and a member of Sylvania's Minuteman Board at Malmstrom AFB, had told Craig (who was an investigator for the Condon Committee) that he had heard rumors regarding UFOs in relation to missile failures that occurred at Malmstrom AFB. Salas implies without cause that since Fowler was a member of the Sylvania Minuteman Board, he must have known all about Echo Flight. Unfortunately for his suppositions, Fowler didn't know any of the details at all. The Sylvania Board was formed when Sylvania picked up the contract for the building and maintenance of the land power grid for the 564th SMS Minuteman II system then being installed for the new squadron on the other end of Malmstrom AFB, nearly 200 miles from Echo Flight. They had absolutely nothing to do with the Minuteman I systems already in place at Malmstrom AFB, including Echo Flight, because the power grid there was managed entirely by the Boeing Corporation. Sylvania did nothing at the other squadrons, and they received no classified materials whatsoever involving such matters. As a result, Fowler lacked the requisite "need-to-know", and therefore had no clearance for for any details whatsoever involving Echo Flight. He was privy only to rumor. We know this absolutely, because he told Roy Craig that the Echo Flight Incident occurred on March 24, not March 16, 1967. Chase, in his role as the Malmstrom AFB UFO officer (and as you describe above), had investigated a UFO sighting -- as Air Force Regulations required him to -- on March 24 and had filed a report for Project Blue Book -- as was his duty. Standing Air Force regulations put into effect in September 1966 required UFO officers at every Air Force command in the nation to conduct a preliminary investigation of every UFO reported to the command. Fowler must have assumed that the UFO of the rumors he heard was the one investigated for March 24, because there were no other UFOs reported. And if that was the only UFO reported, than the missile failures must have occurred on that date as well. They didn't. He didn't know the date, because no UFOs were reported on March 16 by anybody in the entire state of Montana. As a result, Chase conducted no investigation of a UFO on March 16. Fowler -- ignorant in the simple way as most NICAP investigators on the fringe of highly classified Department of Defense matters -- didn't know any details, because he wasn't cleared to receive any details. What little he did know, he told to Roy Craig. It's very obvious that he didn't know much, and what he did profess to know was incorrect. And yet Salas states outright in his article that Fowler was a knowledgeable and accurate source of information, and that Craig's laziness was the only reason he didn't get to the bottom of the Echo Flight rumor mill -- more b.s. from a master of the art.

Roy Craig, however, perhaps as a result of his poor motivation, went straight to Lt. Col. Chase and asked him about the Echo Flight incident in relation to UFOs, mistakenly attributing that incident to the March 24 date mentioned by Raymond Fowler. In his article, Salas states that Chase's refusal to correct Craig on the date was proof that he was covering this UFO incident up -- a ridiculous notion for a one-time USAF officer to affirm, since it's immediately obvious to anyone with experience in such matters that Chase didn't correct him on the date, because he wasn't cleared to receive such information. The investigation was still underway, and it was classified SECRET (which is another indication that UFOs were not involved; had they been, minimum classification would have been TOP SECRET, a requirement for any attack on the nuclear missile defenses of the United States by an unknown enemy or weapons system). Craig had no clearance and no "need-to-know", so Chase wasn't about to correct him on the date. He did, however, point out to Craig another USAF officer -- Major James H. Schraff -- and informed him that Schraff was the head of the investigation team for the Echo Flight Incident. Craig makes all of this very clear in his book, published 1995. He also states that after questioning Lt. Col. Chase, he was confident that the Echo Flight Incident had nothing at all to do with UFOs.

Had UFOs been involved, Robert Low -- another member of the Condon group -- would not have been denied access to the information as Salas insists, because Robert Low did have sufficient clearance, and his "need-to-know" was based entirely on the UFO aspect of the materials. The fact that he was also denied access is not proof of an ongoing "cover-up" -- it's proof only that UFOs were not involved. Because of this "non-involvment", Robert Low had no "need-to-know" and was denied access to any investigation reports. One detail all of these UFO proponents like Salas and Robert Hastings tend to ignore entirely, is that a "cover-up" simply isn't necessary when the entire matter has already been classified. In a "cover-up", the information is kept from the public -- not those who are required to know. And when the information is classified, by definition, it is controlled. If you don't want someone to know such information, you simply don't tell them. The whole concept of classification protocol was created for this purpose entirely -- it makes a cover-up irrelevant and unnecessary. There are -- as Salas well knows -- rules that have to be followed, hence the term protocol. And one of those rules requires that you don't correct any regarded errors that might be held by those without proper clearance, because if you correct them, you're presenting them with classified information. And if you do that, you are breaking the law and can be convicted of such and thrown into a federal prison. See, that's one of the reasons our government prefers classification protocol to indulging in a cover-up: contrary to what most Americans assume, a cover-up isn't illegal. If someone tells you to cover-up something, you can't be punished for it; if you divulge classified information, however, you can go to jail. In some cases, you can even be executed. Simply put, a cover-up is never instigated unless those doing so have already broken the law, and don't want to be caught and forced to bear responsibility for that act. Case in point: the Watergate scandal. Nothing at Echo Flight could possibly have required a cover-up to repair, because nobody broke any rules. Salas wants you to believe that a cover-up was initiated to prevent anybody from learning about the UFOs, and this is ridiculous, bordering on insane. The Department of Defense controls information by protecting it. If they don't the public to know about something, they just don't tell them. A cover-up, on the other hand, is bulky, hard to control, invariably sloppy, and carries no notion of threat to those who decide not to be part of the conspiracy. Classification protocol, on the other hand, is established and enforced, and carries with it a very real threat for those who decide not to comply. The fact that Salas insists a cover-up was put into effect is just plain silly, and as an ex-USAF officer, he should know better. The fact that he wasn't immediately arrested is proof positive that he didn't divulge any classified information when he first published his sad little tale. And that means his story is considered to be irrlevant, unimportant, and beneath comment by the Department of Defense. The fact that he's allowed to make money off of this fabulous lie is just another nail on the coffin housing anything important or factual in his account.

In any case, Robert Low, Roy Craig, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase and possibly even Raymond Fowler were all positive that UFOs were not involved with the incident of March 16, 1967. When asked outright by Craig whether UFOs were involved at Echo Flight, Chase was very clear: UFOs were not involved. He wasn't breaking any rules of classification protocol by saying this, because any possible relation to UFOs was not classified in the same way that the date was. Had UFOs been involved, that aspect of the incident would also have been classified, and Chase would have been forced to give no comment on the matter -- exactly as he did concerning the date. He didn't say the March 24 date assumed by Fowler and Craig was wrong and he didn't say it was correct. He simply refused to comment because the matter was classified SECRET at the time. He was able to tell Craig outright that UFOs were not involved, because the matter of UFOs in relation to the incident was UNCLASSIFIED -- as the historical documents Salas uses as a primary resource also make clear. Robert Low was told the same thing, and wasn't allowed access to the Echo Flight Investigation materials because the absence of UFO involvement negated entirely his "need-to-know". It's a very simple matter that Salas, James Klotz, Robert Hastings and others have confused utterly in a silly attempt to suggest associations that had nothing at all to do with the case. And so, the records and witness statements we have make it very clear that UFOs were not involved with the March 16, 1967 missile failures.

In addition to the above, when Lt. Col. Chase reported to the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB that there were no equipment failures in relation to the UFO reports of March 24-25, he proves for us that Salas' version of events involving Oscar Flight on March 24 is also without merit. This is supported as well in the memories of all those individuals I've since spoken to who can attest from personal experience what occurred in March 1967. Every one of them, to a man, insists that they were completely unaware of any missile failures that may have taken place elsewhere that March, whether at November Flight, Oscar Flight, India Flight, or any other flight of missiles attached to Malmstrom AFB. Initial knowledge of Echo Flight -- without details as such things go -- was almost immediate base-wide. Nobody ever heard of any such comparable failures happening anywhere else, although it is well-documented that individual missile failures were common -- contrary to what Salas has in the past insisted.

What we can say, in complete confidence, is that UFOs were not involved on March 16, and equipment failures did not occur on March 24-25. That pretty definitively wipes the Salas slate all clear as far as I'm concerned. And that's why I can say in full confidence that Hastings and Salas did not make a few errors in judgment, did not believe mistakenly in the stories told by others, trusting too willingly in the honesty of strangers, and did not get a few stray facts mixed up in a plethora of memory. They simply lied. Everything points to this conclusion, from the fact that CUFON published the wrong cover page to the documents used by Salas and Klotz, suggesting thereby that the author of the archived reports they used was an individual whose authority was inappropriately undermined when -- as he implied to James Klotz many years later -- he was "forced" to edit out any important mention of UFOs, to the fact that Salas has neglected entirely to discuss any important aspects of the Echo Flight investigation that took place after the field tests had proven that a blown transformer had nothing to do with the missile failures. There is nothing of any integrity in the story these men have manufactured. And instead of trying to prove or support the characteristics integral to this story they've invented, they prefer to attack those critical of their worth and honesty, until such a time as they are forced to change their story once again to fit a whole new set of facts describing it.

Ciao,
James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests

cron