Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:12 am

James,

Very good points! What I find interesting, close to damning? is that Salas and Klotz only showed those documents that could have "hinted" at a cover-up. My next post on my thread shows that they omitted a hell of alot of documents that showed that Ogden, Boeing, Autonetics, and BMO investigated any and all possible causes for the shutdowns. Salas and Klotz posted 3 to 4 pages of the unit history, yet totally disregarded some 20-30 pages of documentation that eventually singled out a possible EMP noise issue.

Anyway, thanks for clearing up the issue of whether LtCol Chase had interviewed your father and Figel.

Tim
Last edited by Tim Hebert on Sat Jun 26, 2010 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:17 am

Hey, all,

I don't know how familiar you guys are with "De Void - The mainstream media's lonely UFO web log". It's written by Billy Cox on a Herald-Tribune.com blog. Mr. Cox is also a general assignment reporter for the Herald-Tribune. He posted an article today -- see http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1 ... mment-1669 -- entitled "Is a resume relevant?" in which he repeats attacks by Robert Hastings on well known UFO skeptics James Oberg and Kendrick Frazier. Hastings finds the two at fault for not having notified their readers of their past employment; Oberg was active duty military while Kendricks was on the staff of Sandia National Laboratories -- as if any of that is relevant to the articles both gentleman have published. Robert Hastings seem to have an issue with that, implying some aspect of dishonesty that Billy Cox doesn't mind repeating. I've encountered Mr. Cox before, and I find his generally worshipful regard of Robert Hastings particularly nauseating. I don't generally consider his work worthy of discussion, as he refuses to acknowledge errors regarding matters he himself has raised in the past. One personal point of interest -- he found fault and reason to criticize my own reticence to interview Col.(Ret.) Walter Figel, but when I did so, revealing thereby exactly how poorly Hastings can interpret his own witnesses and the extent that he will go to force acknowledgement of an issue nobody else can even see, he refused to acknowledge the matter at all -- acting, along with Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, for all the world as if nothing particularly interesting or noteworthy had occurred. The general arrogance of the article he wrote, including his treatment of those Hastings finds "annoying" -- a small group to which I have humbly presented my own application for membership -- motivated me to comment, something I all too often find myself doing when I don't particularly have the time to do so. I suspect Mr. Cox -- or De Void -- might very well ignore my comments entirely as he has done in the past, so I will simply print them here as well. At least that way I don't go to sleep tonight feeling I wasted my time today. Enjoy!

Dear Mr. Cox,

This is all par for the course as far as Robert Hastings is concerned. When he can't challenge someone on the issues, he attacks them personally. The idea that Oberg is hiding something by not mentioning that he was active duty military is ridiculous. Hastings implies, I suppose, that active duty military indicates the person he's challenging must be part of the huge military conspiracy and can't, therefore, be trusted. But he uses that same characteristic to imply that his own "non-witness witnesses" have a higher level of trustworthiness as a result of their being attached to military -- it's all convoluted foolishness that he abides by as a general rule. If he can't attack someone on the merits of their argument, he attacks them personally, making in the process some of the slimiest allegations and insinuations of character imagineable. Unfortunately, he attacks, but he still isn't commenting on the merits of the argument raised against him, arguments that, when looked at dispassionately, tend to show how generally irrelevant his unethical attacks are.

For instance, he has repeatedly attacked my own character, implying or saying outright that I have severe psychological problems, and yet he refuses to discuss the documented facts and confirmed eyewitness statements that I have in turn collected. The evidence itself refuting his many claims makes clear how irrelevant his attacks on character are, but he has no argument based on the issues, so he attacks the source itself. He's doing the same thing here. If the targets of his slimy allegations persist, however, he usually tries ignoring them, still refusing to answer valid criticisms of his work, and acting for all the world as if the criticisms made don't even exist. The point is, he viciously attacks first -- always.

You, Mr. Cox, act the same way on occassion -- attacking someone and then, when proven wrong, refusing to correct your bias, preferring instead to act as if no criticism occurred. For instance, you attacked the general worth and character of my own work on the Echo Flight Incident because I didn't feel that it was necessary to interview Col. Walt Figel, the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, his previous statements having been perfectly clear, I thought. You implied, and Robert Hastings said outright, that I was afraid to encounter the truth, because I didn't want the "fact" that my father, the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, had "lied" to me when he said there were no UFOs involved. These are insinuations that are intended to be an attack on character and honor, and have little to do with the actual documented facts that I have repeatedly brought forth to refute Robert Hastings' claims. They were, unfortunately, effective nonetheless. As a result, I did interview Col. Figel, on a couple occassions, and I published the results of those interviews. He completely confirmed everything my father and I have reported regarding this matter, and not only refuted Hasting's interpretation of the events, but discussed how he had in the past told Robert Hastings that he was wrong, told him that his work was full of errors, and told him that everything I've written on the subject was absolutely correct. Robert Hastings ignored him entirely and continues to assert without basis that UFOs were involved at Echo Flight, as does Robert Salas, the primary proponent of that ridiculous assumption. Hastings attacked on the basis of nothing, refused to recognize the fact that his own witnesses have publically affirmed his base incompetence as an honest historian, and now tries ignore that the conflict ever existed or was ever raised. After your attack on my work regarding Echo Flight -- all based on Hastings' claims that I had not interviewed Col. Figel -- I did interview him, and I wrote to you informing you of that and what the results of that interview were. You in turn acted as Hastings did, and chose to ignore that such steps were taken. This is dishonest, sir, just as Robert Hastings' insinuations and attacks on James Oberg and Kendrick Frazier are dishonest.

In my opinion, Hastings' attacks, and your implied allegations as a result of "reporting" those attacks, has little or nothing to do with the issues these gentleman and I have in the past raised. How exactly does an attack on character, which is what this is, reflect in any way on the documented facts that have in the past been raised regarding these issues? They don't. They are irrelevant. And they are the last tactical achievement of men who otherwise cannot discuss such matters on the basis of their own merits. Don't get me wrong -- character is indeed important. But Hastings raises issues of character only when he can't attack an argument on any issue of relevance. He proves this everytime he presents a new ex-military witness that he hasn't bothered to check out. He reatedly raises the matter of one witness -- "Hank" Barlow -- who has been unable to remember anything of relevance to the event he describes, and those descriptions are full of errors regarding points that Hastings considers to be of primary importance -- and these are errors that are easily disproven and checked! He repeatedly crows about another witness, Dwynne Arnesson (who I believe is one of those ex-military witnesses he's going to present at his little dog and pony show in September) who claims to have first-hand knowledge of the Echo Flight incident as a result of his being attached in a supervisory status to a command that has never, in the entire history of the United States military, even existed! These are points of character that, when raised, are relevant to the argument. Attacking Oberg's character by saying he didn't tell anybody he was active duty military -- implying that there's something wrong with that -- isn't even remotely relevant to the issues that Oberg has in the past raised. In addition, Kendrick Frazier’s past employment has absolutely nothing to do with the documented evidence Frazier has presented to his readers -- NOTHING! Raising these issues does not help Hastings' own argument -- so why raise them? He raises them because his arguments based on the facts are worthless. And by reporting this in the way you have, you are granting him the benefit of his insulting insinuations without making any counter-argument whatsoever. You allow these two men to defend themselves, but only to the point of saying they find the matter insulting. And it is insulting. Of course, you also give Hastings the last word on everything, but fail unerringly to pinpoint any relevance to the cases these gentlemen have made. Instead you let Hastings imply without further discussion that there is something dishonest about these guys because they didn't consider their employment relevant to their arguments. That's not only sad, it's extremely disheartening to see in a journalist of any repute.

You are personally allowing Hastings to raise insulting issues because he lacks the ability to make any points based on merit. Argue on the merits. Ask Hastings to tell us why he doesn't fact-check any of his witnesses. Ask him why his witnesses contradict each other regarding the same incident. Ask him why at least one major witness that he has repeatedly put such great emphasis on in the past has since come forward to assert that he misinterpreted his statements, that he lied regarding specific matters, and that he was told about errors he made that he has refused to correct or to even discuss further. Ask him why he has ignored totally the numerous witnesses to come forward and assert that he is mistaken, that he has trusted individuals who are provably wrong on numerous points of discussion, and are ignorant of important matters that they should not be ignorant of if they had truly witnessed the events they claim to have witnessed. And then ask him to take that focused eye of critical acclaim that makes him such a great judge of human character and turn it on himself for a few short minutes. Maybe he'll see what the rest of the world sees.

Sincerely,
James Carlson


I think even the most unimaginative of us can guess what it is I'm refering to when I state that "he'll see what the rest of the world sees." It sure as hell isn't a UFO floating over a field of minuteman missiles!

Aloha!
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 Access Denied » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:34 am

Billy Cox wrote:Is a resume relevant?

Taken right out of the UFOlogist’s playbook…

"1. What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them.

2. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people; it is easier.

4. Do one’s research by proclamation; investigation is too much trouble."


~ Stanton T. Friedman, Reverse Psychologist, Washed Up Nuclear Engineer and UFO Lecturer
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 lost_shaman » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:27 am

This is the same Billy Cox who's interview of Brig. Gen. Dubose so many years ago made many people question the credibility of Bill Moore and Jamie Shandera. Well shame on him after all these years of writing weekly columns and finally rubbing someone the wrong way!

Seriously, he took one simple issue from the book and discussed it (barely) in his weekly column. [-X

BTW, it's actually funny that after one of AD's first ad homonym attacks on me at ATS years ago now was followed by Jim Oberg saying this...

"That's nothing less than an Ad Hominem attack and personal snipe." - lost_shaman (to AD)

Oh, like the practice attacking people whose opinions you don't like as 'appointed NASA debunkers' and hired intellectual stooges? With no facts -- in fact, with demonstrably false allegations, but with the effect of biasing an argument.

Boo frigging hoo. -JimO


I never insinuated anything of the sort; whatever that's about came totally out of the blue. Maybe Jim has a guilty conscience but one thing I know for sure this was well before either Hastings had written his book or Cox writing this last weeks column.

But just for the hell of it lets recap what Jim told Billy in e-mail from the column.

“Keep in mind the undercurrent of the criticism — that my choice of career would provide evidence that I was a liar. Imagine my hand gesture.


Really? That's an interesting thing to say now Jim after you falsely acused me of saying something similar that I never ever did say or insinuate years ago. (I need another smiley!) #-o
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:41 am

That's all interesting, I admit, but it has no bearing whatsoever on Robert Hastings' and Billy Cox's apparent inability to argue a valid position dispassionately without eventually resorting to bias and emotion followed immediately by an inappropriate and complete disavowel of any counter-arguments made. Both men have failed completely to even examine the points presented in refutation of issues they themselves have raised. There is absolutely no doubt that both men have ignored completely the definitive statements of witnesses Hastings initially invested with infallibility who have now come forward to comment that Hastings is woefully unable to properly interpret accounts he had previously raised with such vigor. As of now, Hastings has chosen to ignore this embarassing and substantiated fact while refusing to correct the already proven errors he has incorporated in his book and interviews. That's plainly deceptive and gives one the impression of him having been blinded -- his retinas burned out -- because he was staring at a UFO that was actually the sun, and following this up by insisting, even in his blindness, that what he was looking at was not the sun, but was indeed a UFO, which purposely blinded him to prevent his further investigations of its activities. It's all very foolish and pathetic, because he refuses to examine the credibility of his own witnesses, nor his already proven and arrogant inability to correct such errors. Billy Cox is equally faulty and insulting because he accepts what Hastings tells him without following through and checking out the details of what he's been presented. That's pretty disgusting behavior for a journalist. And these points I've raised are not opinions -- they are fact. For years, Hastings emphasized the importance of Col. Figel's testimony, but when Col. Figel came out and stated very plainly that Hastings had distorted his account, refused to correct the errors Figel discussed with him after the fact, and still maintains that Figel's prior statements were reported properly and without bias on his part. I don't see how anybody can look at this and say, "that's not important -- he's just rubbing you the wrong way." Perhaps he is, but it doesn't alter the fact that he has presented as fact the testimony of men who later came forward and said, "you've got this all wrong, and you've interpreted my comments poorly." They either imply or report as fact that my father has lied to his own family regarding this matter; they either imply or report as fact that Col. Figel's account of Echo Flight proves that UFOs were involved, even after he came forward to point out that he never said that and the suppositions made were incorrect, while summarily confirming that everything my father has said about this incident is absolutely true; and they either imply or report as fact that all of those individuals who were actually at the LCC and can prove it are simply wrong regarding their recollections. I don't know what Billy Cox has said in the past, and I really don't care; what he's saying now is little more than a biased reflection of Hastings' own claims, and for a journalist who is supposed to examine all sides of an issue, and then report it accurately, that's a sad commentary, because what he's doing is merely reporting an unproven story at the expense of already proven facts.

James Carlson
Last edited by James Carlson on Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:17 pm

James,

I read your link to the Cox article. Interesting that he talks about the "Big Sur UFO Incident." I had questioned Hasting about his allegation of the "facts" that were represented in the article. This was my first encounter with Hastings on the missileforums.com site. Needless to say when I brought up Kingston George's accounting of the incident, the fecal material hit the proverbial fan. Everything about Hastings' philosophy is either guilt by association or guilt by reference.

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 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:10 pm

Hi, Tim,

I'm just disappointed that this man -- who is held up by his fans and cronies as a figure of untarnished respectability and virtue -- refuses to take into account the comments of a man he once crowed about so loudly and insistently that I was forced to interview the man himself simply to shut Hastings' ridicule machine off. I would never have guessed that Col.(Ret.) Figel would have responded, "yeah, I told these guys they had it wrong, but they apparently ignored it" (that's a paraphrase). The deeper you look at their reporting, the more dishonest and reprehensible their behavior seems. While I personally have no desire to do so, my interest being limited for the most part to the Echo Flight Incident, other researchers or journalists should seriously re-examine all of the evidence and witnesses that Hastings has put such effort into gathering. I have no doubts whatsoever that they would discover a great crowd of similar distortions, lies, and folklore, but precious little fact, should such a project be undertaken. There's nothing honest about what these guys have done -- there's just a lot of applause by people who so badly want to believe in something extraordinary that they're willing to throw away their own common sense and honest speculation in order to do so. The whole act just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth that has absolutely nothing to do with the leftover pizza I had for lunch. The whole thing becomes violently clear and focused for me upon the realization that even in the face of the eyewitnesses they themselves originally produced reporting definitively without any measure of doubt at all that their comments were taken out of context, misused, and poorly interpreted, coupled with the revelation that their investigations have been sloppy, misinformed, and downright deceitful, they nonetheless refuse to repair the accounts they've previously published, even to the extent of simply adding a footnote describing or even recognizing the existence of such a counter-argument. Is this what their fans call moral courage? If they had ten witnesses to an event one calls a UFO flyby, eight insist that the light in the sky was an aircraft preparing to land, and one was at the control tower and actually spoke to the pilot of the aircraft, they would still report it as a UFO, quoting extensively from the one man convinced of such and ignoring the other nine. And when someone comes along to interview those other nine witnesses, publishes an account, and insists that the one witness making UFO claims was absolutely wrong and may even have possible problems with his vision, they react with scorn, insults, slander, and disgust, attacking without cause his family and friends as a means to persuade him to cease screwing around with their little cash cow. Believe me, I've measured the breadth of their viciousness and their vile, and ultimately pointless dishonesty, and I don't expect them to ever rephrase their insistent messages of paranoia and irrational distrust, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing.

A couple/few days ago I asked Robert Salas some rather pointed questions at http://www.theufochronicles.com/2009/10 ... rtion.html -- questions he apparently isn't going to answer. So today I added:
Nothing? Well, Robert Hastings refuses to comment on his poor interpretation of Col. (Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr.'s ageless testimony -- testimony that he'd been hyping for years until someone came along and double-checked his research -- but I expected a little more than this disheartening silence from you. Peas in a pod, I guess. Have fun at your dog and pony show in September. With any luck, there'll be some real journalists there asking the sort of real questions you apparently feel no obligation to answer.


The problem is, there's no way to keep such people honest, and the UFO proponent community is apparently unprepared or unwilling to do so for themselves. I don't understand why they aren't desperately ashamed of these people. I went back and looked at some of the commentary on De Void's last entry at http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1 ... ant/?tc=ar (and he still hasn't posted my own comment -- which I kind of expected; these guys probably consider such well-measured criticism to be an "ad hominem" attack to justify their behavior -- God knows they use the phrase often enough), and I was stunned at the level of self-righteous anger displayed. They may or may not believe that a man's employment is relevant to the arguments he makes, but the fact that such men are skeptical of their cherished beliefs gives them all the reason they need to make the most outlandish suppositions regarding their character -- and given the opportunity to slander such a man's name and reputation, they're perfectly willing to do so. A couple lambasted James Oberg for being active duty military -- and I just don't comprehend that kind of unethical retaliation; they act for all the world like association with our country's military is something to be ashamed of, and the fact that James Oberg didn't mention it prior to expressing his stand on an issue having more to do with the interpretation of witness statements and the rationality of reasonable doubt was apparently all they needed to conclude that he was a hired gun for some black-ops Department of Defense unit out to shoot down the little guy's expression of truth, honesty and the freedom to believe every paranoid little sabre-shaker that comes along. If that's all it takes to attract their ire, hang up the phone -- these clowns have got some problems having little to do with their inability to make a realistic-looking weenie dog out of balloons. What a joke...

Here's an announcement for all you rejects from the cartoon factory: I spent a happy and industrious three years working at the Office of Naval Intelligence during my own military career. Now does that mean the documents I've uncovered and the witnesses I've interviewed and reinterviewed should all be reassessed? Keep in mind that the only resources I have ever looked at in relation to this matter are those already discussed and interviewed by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas. All I've done is point out the fallacies and contradictions that I've found in their own published works... And they are legion.

Arriverderci,
James
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 Jun 23, 2010 11:26 am

Got one quick question: Robert Hastings repeatedly claims that he has one-hundred plus, ex-military witnesses to UFO activity across the United States; he claims they all have substantive testimony, most of which from sources who have signed legal documents asserting the truth of what they can testify to. One-hundred plus...

Can someone tell me why he's only bringing seven of these "witnesses" to Washington, DC this September? You'd think if they were all honest, dramatic and on the up and up, that he would find it more convincing to saturate the National Press with such witnesses, but he's decided to allow questioning of only seven. Curious... He'll probably make the same claim as Robert Salas: they all died in Vietnam.

James
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 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:29 pm

I know that as of last month, Hastings was appealing to the "faithful" to donate funds to cover travel expenses for his "witnesses". Seems to me that there ought to be a Motel 6 in the D.C. area.

So how does Hastings legally "hog tie" these individuals? They gave telephone interviews for the most part. I'm not a lawyer, but Hastings could not have had them give a legal deposition......that would have been stupid for anyone to fall for. I've read some of Hastings' posting going back to the mid-1990s. Once you give Hastings a story that fits his line of thought, that's it. There is no way out. He refuses to retract any individuals "out of context" statement. My guess is that he may threaten an eye-witness with public redicule if they change their story.

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 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:51 am

I agree, Tim -- I don't see how he can maintain of rough facade of truth on the terms necessarily demanded by witnesses concerned for the interpretations of their own reports, and how those interpretations are used by Robert Hastings and others of his ilk. That is why I orignally warned those forum members at Ranchers.net's Bull Session -- where Hastings has been soliciting witness statements regarding cattle mutilations -- that they should be careful with what they say, because Robert Hastings has abused that trust in the past, for instance in his treatment of Col. Walt Figel's testimony, as well as the statements he solicited of my father, Maj.(Ret.) Eric D. Carlson. I was glad to do it, and was thanked by a rancher in western Utah for clearly laying that information out, and was received upon that short commentary exactly as I expected to be. I didn't ask for anything, and I made it very clear that I would not be returning to introduce ad lib commentaries in the future, that I just wanted to offer a word of advice from another angle -- a more legally focused angle.

You are completely accurate in your estimation of his ability to "legally 'hog tie' these individuals". I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a degree in paralegal studies, and I know exactly what goes into a legal deposition, and that isn't something you can generally do on a telephone without a great deal of preparation. In Hastings' commentary to the above-mentioned warning I left at the Bull Session -- and I seriously love that name for the forum at ranchers.net -- he writes:
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.

Of the one-hundred plus ex-military witnesses tha he has gathered, why is he bringing only eight to the National Press Club in September? Maybe it's because only eight have actually "sworn out legal affidavits attesting to UFO activity at nuclear missile sites". Granted that a "legal affidavit" is voluntarily made, but it is made without any cross-examination, and therefore differs a great deal from a "deposition", which is a record of examination that can be done either voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena, as if the testimonial were given in court under cross-examination. An affidavit is just a statement made -- there's no questioning of the witness, leaving whomever's running the show the sole freedom to determine the contents. And as you've pointed out in this forum, none of the witnesses that have been recorded by Robert Hastings regarding Echo Flight ever saw anything. An affidavit is always based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief -- and that's important, because belief can't be verified without convincing evidence, and Robert Hastings has no evidence -- convincing or otherwise. In a legal context "personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience." However, information and belief is whatever the affiant "feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge." These are standard legal definitions that you can find thousands of discussions of on various legal websites across the internet, so there's nothing new or imaginary here. The point I'm making here should be obvious at this point. These aren't depositions, and they don't have the same legal standing as "facts" recorded before a court. As I've pointed out in the past, "written affidavits and the witnesses' own verbal statements" are basically a crutch for fools and the ignorant -- and I include Robert Hastings in that estimation. After all, he spent years flashing his transcripts of conversations with Col. Walt Figel, and as I've said in the past, I'm sure those transcripts were accurate. But until somebody came along and added that very necessary factor of "cross examination", until some back and forth was put into the mix, the statements that Hastings crowed over so much were given a totally different interpretation. Somebody has to say, "what did you mean when you said -- " or "did you believe at the time that -- ", because without some context, a legal affidavitt is just a starting point -- and in a case without eyewitnesses -- which is pretty much all Hastings has ever presented regarding the Echo Flight Incident, a "legal affidavit" is no more convincing than an autistic nightmare of the future. Of course, folks who give Hastings the benefit of the doubt would probably call that "prophecy", but you see my point.

It should also be remembered that Robert Hastings is using hard legal terms to describe what is essentially a type of soft legal compact. In other words, he's got a statement admitted to in the presence of a notary public. The notary public can accept oaths, but his testimony doesn't speak for whether or not the affiant is telling the truth -- he's just taking a statement, not a statement of truth. In Hastings' case, there's no legal risk, no contractual obligation, and no means of confirmation. And that means it's not legally binding. There's no action necessitated by it. In fact, none of Hastings' so-called legal affidavits are given at legal risk because there's no legally binding force behind them. None. There's also no risk of liability. In any such context, it's always necessary to recognize the potential lying that can always result; the absence of binding force tends to attract personalities that don't consider lying about such an instrument unethical. They don't even consider the practice to be dishonest, because they aren't required to swear before a court. There's no committment, no guarantees, and no expectation of honesty. As a legal document, they're basically useless without an assumption of risk -- no conflict, no dispute and completely unenforceable, because there's no possibility of a breach. Legally, his affidavits have no standing with the court whatsoever, because they aren't necessary for the court to make a legal decision. It has no more value than the paper it's written on. There's no promises made, no negotiation, no contract or agreement, and absolutely no act in law. I'd be interested in knowing whether or not Hastings even filed his "affidavits" with a court clerk -- I suspect they would simply laugh at him.

Should Hastings ever publish something that was contrary to the information in the affidavit, he would have a risk of liability that could be acted on by the person making the original statement, but that's about it, and in such a case, the truth would be irrelevant. The only issue would be whether he had strayed significantly from the affidavit previously given. Even then, however, an examination would be required for the case to continue, and that means eventually a deposition or in-court testimony would be necessary to reach a decision. As things stand for the moment. I doubt very seriously whether they could be called "legal documents" at all.

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 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:18 am

While I've always assumed that Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES was a fixed enterprise, I now have proof. A few hours ago I posted a reasoned examination and critique of Robert Hastings' witness "Hank" Barlow, and it was removed in its entirety. You'll remember that Barlow was the man who claimed that all of the Echo Flight LF VRSAs had malfunctioned, and he found this right mysterious. Of course, to believe that Hank Barlow is correct, it's also necessary to accept that not only my father was lying, but that Col. Figel -- another of Hastings' witnesses -- was also lying. You'll remember that in all of Hastings' interviews with Figel -- the ones he always put so much stock in -- Figel insisted that the maintenance personnel for all of the flight LFs used the SIN telephone to report a Channel 9 No-go. These were verbal status reports phoned in and testified to. All of the command histories we've reviewed also assert that the LFs reported Channel 9 no-go, while the LCC indications reported channel 9 and 12 no-gos. This is significant, because the combination of these two errors at the LCC and the single error at the LFs proved to everybody, including those attached to the investigation, that the problem was associated with the on-board logic couplers. As such, it's an extremely important component of this case. As a result of its importance, it was discussed extensively in the associated message traffic, the command histories, and the ICBM histories. It's also discussed in the transcripts of Robert Hastings' own interviews with Figel. If the VRSA indicators were not working, the missile status could not have been reported by all of the teams in the field. If the VRSA indicators were not working, the investigative team could not have reached the conclusions they reported and examined almost immediately. If the VRSA indicators were not working, the investigation team would not have been able associate the Echo Flight Incident with a similar incident at Alpha Flight in 1966. If the VRSA indicators were not working, it would have been reported to the SAC via message report, as the Department of Defense regulations in use specifically ordered. If the VRSA indicators were not working, it would have been reported in the quarterly command histories -- another requirement governed by contemporary regulations.

In other words, either "Hank" Barlow is lying or he's mistaken about the date -- you can't accept the evidence posited by all of the above resources, if Barlow is correct, because they are in direct and immediate conflict. And yet, Hastings has crowed for years that both Figel's testimony and Barlow's testimony are true -- and that's impossible -- not "improbable, but impossible. Contradictions like this have to be noted to determine credibility, and the fact that Hastings apparently never bothered to compare two such statements involving -- supposedly -- the same incident suggests quite strongly that he doesn't care a whole lot about such things -- he just wants the statement that screams "UFO". Unfortunately, the contradictions are far too significant, which may very well be another reason that Hastings simply accepted Barlow's account without bothering to analyze it at all.

This is important ...

Now we know that Frank Warren, as well as Robert Hastings, is completely unwilling to examine any analysis that lies outside of the UFO milieu -- and it doesn't matter a lick how strong that opposing argument is, nor how badly strained Barlow's non-witness witness testimony may be. In this forum, we've discussed all of Robert Hastings' witnesses regarding Echo Flight, and they are all equally faulty -- and apparently that frightens both Hastings and Frank Warren, who won't even look at such reasoning and the associated issues. I admit, I was curious to see what the results would be should I submit almost verbatim, the only applicable analysis ever made regarding Barlow's account -- the one I posted above on March 26, 2010. And just as I suspected, Frank Warren or Robert Hastings had this very important and extremely enlightening discussion pulled completely from the UFOCHRONICLES website without even a whisper. Poof! and it's gone ...

They not only refuse to consider alternative and far more likely explanations of this incident, they refuse as well to allow anybody in their audience to be exposed to such a discussion. The questions that I asked Salas on the page for his most recent collection of fool's gold was also removed from Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES. This is the same one I re-posted above just a few days ago. You'll note that in both postings, I was polite, to the point, and discussed what anybody involved in any proper analysis of this case would agree are salient issues directly related to the credibility of the sources they've put so much emphasis in the past. Both web-pages state that "healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments 'to the issues' and salient muniments." This is now shown to be a fraudulent claim -- Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES is now provably and violently in opposition to issues and salient muniments unless they are in support of the UFO stories they are presenting ... which is exactly what I expected. These guys have no desire to analyze any of their reports or witnesses for credibility, and they will do whatever they can to prevent the public from doing so as well -- even to the point of preventing the publication of such analyses for others to consider.

Thank you Frank Warren and Robert Hastings and Robert Salas for wholeheartedly condemning yourselves as biased, prejudicial, and uncompromising proponents of your beliefs -- beliefs that you certainly know have little basis in fact, for a man who's confident of his own arguments is rarely averse to someone voicing an opposing sentiment. I guess now we all know that these hypocritical voices will always attempt to drown out any opposing point of view or reference, regardless of the salient character of such issues being presented. They aren't looking for the truth -- they're looking for something, for anything that supports their very obvious manipulations of fact. And they wholeheartedly refuse to listen to anything else.

The flotsam and jetsom of their betrayal of common sense and their associated irritability with honest analysis shows exactly the worth of their pointless and unproven pronouncements. By refusing to acknowledge the statements taken from their own transcripts, properly and conscientiously examined, these guys have done more to injure honest appraisals of their work, and has done more to publicize the true nature and extent of their deceit and the base quality of their inherent dishonesty than I ever could.

And that's the true definition of UFOlogy in America today ...

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 » Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:44 pm

James,

I always thought the opposite, that Warren was more "even handed." But, if he indeed deleted your post on his comment sections, then one has to wonder why. Yet, I have resisted the urge to post a comment on Hastings postings thinking that it was a "stacked deck."

There is a point of confusion as to the VRSA channels that were reported. I have reviewed my notes on Hastings' interview with Figel. In the interview Figel only stated that he received a VRSA 9 when he interogated VRSA at the LCC. VRSA 12 reportings were not mentioned in the interview. (I'll soil myself and go back on the UFO Chronicles site and look again.)

It is my understanding that the dual VRSA 9 and 12 first was mentioned in the unit history, yet it does not deliniate if the LCC showed both faults or only discovered after the channel 50 data dump was accomplisted at two of the LFs. I'm assuming that both reports would have been received at the LCC when the faults were indicated on the commanders status panel and subsequent interogation of the VRSA panel on the deputy commander's console. The only component that could have caused a channel 12 report was the Logic Coupler, as the channel 9 refered to the Guidance and Control.

The VRSA reports would have come via the HICS line, not the SIN lines. SIN was only used for voice communication from the crew in the LCC to a maintenance team either in the silo itself or in the Soft Support Building. Figel told Hastings that he had communicatied to the maintenance team via radio (VHF). Yet for the maintenance team to verify a VRSA report, he would have been in the silo itself since the only means of communications was via the SIN lines.

Since you talked to Figel, did he tell you that he received both channels 9 and 12? Nalty's ICBM history does not indicate the VRSA channels that were reported. I agree, if the VRSA reporting system had malfunctioned then it would have been mentioned in numerous documents. At no time does the unit histories of the 341st SMW or available SAC messages ever mentions the possiblility of the VRSA system malfunctioning. Boeing, Autonetics and OOMA never evaluated VRSA as a culprit. All ten ICBMs were brought back up to strategic alert without any equipment changes, most importantly no MGS swap outs were necessary.

So Barlow would have had to be mistaken or misinterpreted the results of the on-going investigation and final conclusion. Hastings' is not an expert in the Minuteman System and failed to ask the right questions when he conducted his interviews, points that I had pointed out to him on the missileforums.com forums site. Hastings' only reply to me was that he had read more "declassified" documents than I had, yet, I had access to more classified information based upon my then TOP SECRET ESI security clearance which I held for more than 7-8 years.

Tim


Updated: James, I went back to the UFO Chronicles, you are correct. When I last saw the comments section for Hastings' article, about two days ago, there were 17 comments. Now only 11 comments show, so 6 comments were deleted including your last postings.

On another note, I reviewed Hastings' interview with Figel. Indeed, Figel only mentions the VRSA channel 9. Being that this was some 40 odd years ago, It can be extremely difficult to recall this type of detail. I know that after 25 years, I have difficulty recalling the site that I pulled my last alert. It was Kilo, the Alternate Wing Command Post, but I had to dig for that info.

Figel stated that he talked to the maintenance team on radio. The security guard informed Figel that the team had yet to leave the camper. But, once the team penetrated the site, the only means of direct communications would have been via the SIN lines.

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 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:21 am

Hi, Tim,

Yeah, I expected more from Frank as well -- the couple of times I disputed with Hastings on UFOCHRONICLES I received some commentary from Frank, and he was doing a much more successful job trying to make an intelligent argument. He's much better at it than Hastings, who doesn't deal with credibility issues at all. My last postings -- up until yesterday -- on UFOCHRONICLES were removed as well, so I had a pretty good idea then that he wasn't immune from using such strategies to make a point on control. I was discussing military security protocol and why it isn't necessary or desirable for the Department of Defense to cover-up TOP SECRET information by lying about the facts and giving it a SECRET clearance. Not having any military background, and being in same boat as Hastings for that reason, he felt it was easier to delete the post and close out the thread, than carry out an intelligent conversation that shows immediately how little these guys actually understand about security clearance, protocol, and classification procedures. These guys always lose their concentration because they'd rather bulldoze than educate themselves. I've never met military or ex-military personnel who didn't eventually find their arguments "tedious and maladjusted" for this very reason.

If you don't want to wander off field too much, you can always take a look at the actual documents I've included in Americans, Credulous. I'm pretty sure I included everything that's available -- about 80 pgs worth. In fact, if you find anything that isn't there, I'd appreciate a heads-up. As far as Hastings' transcripts, I've included them verbatim on previous pages of this forum. Figel specifically states that he received a status report from the same maintenance personnel that Hastings claims made the first "report" of a UFO -- determining missile status was the primary reason he had communicated to the men already in the field, and to the standby teams that were sent out. Nobody reported VRSA malfunctions -- they all reported the same thing: VRSA 9 No-Go. He confirmed from the silo location -- the LF -- that he was reading a Channel 9 No-Go. Documents and messages associated with the event report that the LCC received both 9 and 12 No-Go errors. This enabled the investigators to narrow down the location of the original fault to the logic couplers. But Figel clearly states that the personnel he sent to the silos reported VRSA 9, and all of the message traffic and histories agree with this. Figel didn't mention VRSA 12, because those readings were only at the LCC; nobody reported them from the field, and that was the report he received on the SIN phone. This is part of the reason the investigation team was able to determine that the noise pulse originated not at the LFs, but at the LCC. This is also why Robert Salas' and Robert Hastings' reliance on the letter Kaminsky wrote to James Klotz is both incomplete and at fault as far as their conclusions are concerned. Kaminsky only worked on the field team that investigated the occurrences at the LFs -- Echo 8, for the most part. They only got half the story, which is why their conclusions are incorrect. Oddly enough, this is the only conclusions taken into account by Hastings and Salas, and it only represents a small part of the actual investigation. Looking at only part of investigation and getting your conclusions for everything from that isn't the result of a casual mistake -- they had the documents and they ignored them. That's one reason I'm so certain that they manufactured this event knowing that it was a lie going in -- one that they supported using only the evidence from Kaminsky's team. And all Kaminsky's team reported on and examined was the Channel 9 No-Go and the effects at the LFs. And of course, any team that was investigating only the LFs would conclude that they couldn't determine what caused the noise pulse -- the noise pulse originated outside of the LFs -- a point asserted in those resources that both Salas and Hastings refuse to take into account or to even mention. This is discussed in subsequent quarterly histories that Salas and Klotz didn't publish, and may not have even looked at. It's also mentioned in supporting message traffic. I don't know whether Hastings and Frank Warren have ever examined any of the supporting documents, but I do know that they refuse to discuss them, and as far as I'm concerned, they've tainted themselves with the same brush Salas used to paint his own fictional masterpiece of immoral slander, so they're conspirators after the fact.

You're right that Figel didn't receive the VRSA reports on the SIN line -- I may have been unclear regarding that as I tend to write quickly at times when I'm really bothered. Figel received a verbal report over the SIN telephone line regarding the status from the maintenance personnelman whom he had security wake up in order to accomplish that task. That phone call he got from maintenance was initiated underground, and that's one of the reasons I'm so certain he wasn't reporting a real UFO. If it had been real, security would have called it in on the already established comms they had with the LCC via the hand-held 2-ways. After all, that's the only reason they were there -- to provide security for the maintenance team.

Once maintenance got below to check the status, he called Figel back on the SIN telephone and reported a Channel 9 No-Go. He could not have done that had VRSA been incapable of rendering an error report. Figel told both Hastings and me that security had the two-way radios -- only security could use those, and open communications was set up for that reason. Security woke up maintenance, who were still asleep, instructed them to go below and check the missile status per Col.(Ret.) Figel's orders. Maintenance then called Figel on the SIN telephone, while still below in the silo, reported the status -- VRSA 9 No-Go -- and said, "yeah, it must be that UFO; I can see it right now." And therein lies the mighty squeak of history that changed the world and gave these gentleman reason to call my father a liar, me psychologically disturbed with anger management problems, and Echo Flight's electrical fault a UFO encounter covered up by the USAF for forty years. And these ducks accuse me of slander ... It's a merry world. ](*,)

Cheers,
James
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 27, 2010 6:07 am

Tim -- just a quick reference -- go to pages 74-79, 99-101, 104-105, and 109-112 of Americans, Credulous for the command history and messages discussing of the Channel 9 and 12 tests that were conducted, and the belief that the signal was conducted via the SIN lines from the LCF to the LFs. This could only happen if the noise pulse was generated internally at the LCF, although they also tested for external pulse generation as a result of the transformer that was blown on March 16. These tests, which is primarily what Kaminsky was involved with, were designed to simulate the creation of a ground current caused by the transformer being blown coupling with the HIC shielding on the network, and thereby generating an additional signal -- the noise pulse -- sufficient to be carried to the LFs on the SIN lines. EMP testing already being conducted as part of the system improvements package had already proven that there was significant coupling between the shields of the SIN lines and the STC line into the logic coupler, so their first step was check whether the blown transformer could conduct to the extent necessary. It couldn't. They suspected the shorting to ground would account for the failure, but were mistaken. Of course, none of this testing would have been initiated at all had they known a UFO was the actual culprit. You'll note as well that they started condicting a similar series of test on the 564th squadron in order to determine if there were similar vulnerabilities in the Minuteman II force. These were started at the end of September 1967, and the primary motivation for doing so was the Echo Flight Incident. They wanted to determine whether lightning strikes could generate a coupling signal that would effect the logic couplers on Minuteman II systems. Salas and Hastings have never discussed this at all, although Hasting mocked the idea that lightning strike tests had anything at all to do with Echo Flight -- another sad characteristic typical of people who can't grasp the technical side of the questions they are attempting to answer, and won't bother to learn something that might help them understand the world we live in a little bit better. As for Salas, he claims to be an electrical engineer, so his lies are far more blatant and less easy to forgive. He accepts that his primary audience is not educated in the necessary fields, and he simply doesn't give a damn about those who are. Either that, or he's woefully behind in his knowledge of electrical engineering. I picked up a book a couple weeks ago on "Integrated Circuits" written and published by Texas Instruments in 1969 (I try to use mainly -- when possible -- sources from the same time period, so I don't get lost using knowledge that the actual investigators would not have had; it sounds silly, I know, but it keeps me well grounded, pun definitely intended) and it's got a great discussion on noise pulses -- I think that Hastings and Salas should at least study up on noise pulses before claiming that a UFO using directed nuclear EMP technology shut down ten widely spaced out nuclear missile launch facilities at 0845 in the morning while invisible to the entire state of Montana. They definitely need a little grounding.

Anyway, EMP tests are discussed on 113-114. All of these page numbers are of xeros copies of actual Air Force documents -- some 80 pages worth. In the message on page 116, they discuss the "probability of recurrence" associated with Echo Flight and Alpha Flight, so these tests certainly weren't conducted with UFOs in mind, unless they expected them to return -- in addition, the fact that these guys refer to consistently to the "Force mod EMP fix" proves that they weren't talking about the EMP caused by a nuclear detonation, because there's no "fix" for that -- at least not to my understanding. If I'm wrong, tell me. In any case, throughout the message traffic, EMP tests are equivalent with nothing more than inducing voltage spikes and noise pulses into the equipment, so I doubt very seriously they considered this as testing for nuclear EMP. They were testing for pulse effects and that's it. The investigation team immediately associated the Echo Flight incident with a similar incident at Alpha Flight in 1966 -- I can't help but wonder why nobody else has mentioned this. Would they insist, do you think, that UFOs did that one, too?

Note as well that none of the information discussing the "only possible means" identified by the field team on page 76 takes into account anything that occured in the LCC, which is where they finally determined the noise pulse had to originate in order to shut off all of the LFs. This is the only part of the investigation that Salas and Hastings will discuss, and its the only part that Kaminsky can talk about -- that's why I consider their analysis of this matter incomplete and sloppy. The comment that "This was also quite remote for all ten couplers would have to have been partially reset in the same manner" is simply not true for a signal generated at the LCC, only if you assume that each LF was shut down at the physical location of the LF, which would, of course, imply ten separate noise pulses. Since they only looked at the LFs at this early stage of the investigation, this was the only conclusion they could actually use or act upon. They emphasize repeatedly in the message traffic that the first step of their investigation was to simulate the incident at the LF level, and that's all they could do at that point, because they weren't about to take down the LCC for testing. Now had a real UFO done the job, I suspect they would have done anything they could to find out how the system went offline, including shutting down the LCC and checking it out thoroughly as well, but they didn't think the problem was an unknown, attacking assailant, so they treated it differently -- they treated it as an unknown electrical fault, so it took longer to investigate thoroughly. They even state that "Further studies of this problem will be accomplished at the contractor's facility since a full engineering investigation is not feasible at this level." If a UFO attack was to blame, you can bet that "a full engineering investigation" would have been extremely feasible within a very short period of time.

James
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 Jun 30, 2010 11:28 pm

Posted yesterday by Frank Warren on his UFOCHRONICLES at http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/06 ... y-the.html :

Arguably, there isn’t anyone more erudite in regards to UFOs and or reports thereof in or around nuclear weapons facilities, e.g., missile bases etc., then Robert Hastings and or Bob Salas. Although they didn’t know it at the time, UFO events that occurred at or near Malmstrom AFB in 1967 would not only change their respective lives forever, but would later link them together in a life long search for the truth.

Hastings has built a reputation as an astute UFO researcher, lecturer and as of late book author: UFOs & Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites; he has interviewed over 120 former and or retired US Air Force personnel regarding their eyewitness accounts and involvement is such cases.

He is a popular speaker in the college lecture circuit having appeared at over 500 colleges across the continental United States, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, most recently as a guest on The Larry King Show with former missleer, witness and researcher Bob Salas.

Salas has been most active himself in the search for the truth and he too has penned a must read book pertaining to the UFO events that took place while on duty at a nuclear missile base entitled, Faded Giant, co-authored with Jim Klotz.

Together Hastings & Salas are organizing a presentation, bringing together for the first time several of the witnesses of UFO activity at various nuclear weapons bases; this event will be held later this year at The National Press Club in Washington D.C.

Join host Kevin Smith and these two distinguished guests as they explore this daunting topic of UFO encounters at our nations nuclear defense sites.

Show time: 10 pm EDT


I understand now why Frank Warren summarily removed my commentaries to UFOCHRONICLES with nary a whisper: I think he's on the #%$@*(& payroll! "A life long search for the truth"?? I think I'm going to go throw up now.

Comments? Observations? I'm disgusted -- I kind of expected a little more evenhandedness than this fawning portrait of these two charlatans and frauds. I guess Frank Warren's earning his pay.

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: Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 17 guests

cron