Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:09 am

ryguy wrote:
James Carlson wrote:At the moment, however, I'm more concerned with the fact that your above post was number 1967 -- and God only knows what the Illuminati numerologists are going to say about that ... we could be looking at a sychronicity storm the likes of which this country hasn't seen since 1980, when ol' 666 himself was elected President. Thank God Stephen Hawking has a new book out. We might just make it through to Christmas.


Creepy! :shock:

Can you tell I have too much time on my hands?
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 Sep 12, 2010 5:36 am

I just want to get this down real quick, so if it sounds weird, excuse me. I just want to test something. I just now left the following response on UFOCHRONICLES' latest discussion involving Echo Flight at http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09 ... obert.html , local time Albuquerque, 9:57 pm:

You guys completely skipped over the part where he says he was on the field team, and that the field team didn't find out much related to the cause of the problem, because they were only looking at the LCs -- only one LC, actually -- while the problem that took out all the missiles originated in the LCF. You kind of missed that part, like you've missed everything else in regard to this event. Kaminsky had absolutely nothing to do with any of the investigation that continued for at least another 3 months, so he's not a very good source for anything. You also forgot to discuss all of the provable holes in his memory -- for instance, his entire discussion regarding the "blame" that was supposedly assigned to the capsule crew and Robert Hastings' ridiculous theory that this was the start of the big UFO "cover-up". Why is it, I wonder, that the very first thing the field team that Kaminsky was supposedly the team leader of, reported to the USAF, was their considered opinion that the capsule crew was not to blame in any way, shape, or form for the Echo Flight failures? Isn't it a little difficult to cover up anything using a story that you had already insisted was not true? There are plenty of documents from 1967 that report those findings of the field team -- and other findings as well, such as their considered opinion that the cause was not related to anything they could find at the launch facilities. You haven't mentioned, however, that another of that same field team's conclusions was that the electrical fault that caused the missiles to fail must have occurred at the launch control facility. You guys have a real bad habit of only giving part of the story and ignoring everything else. I would say that you're either not very good at this, or you're purposely trying to mislead people. What's your opinion?

This was in response to their article posted Friday, September 10, 2010 entitled "VIDCAST: Former Boeing Engineer, Robert Kaminski Confirms UFO Activity at Echo Flight Missile Launch Control Facility in 1967", which consists of an excerpt from a letter Kaminsky wrote to Jim Klotz dated 2-1-1997.

The last couple of times I responded to other misleading articles published at that website, they were all removed, and no mention was ever made of them, and none of the questions I asked were ever answered; I wanted to record the when and what regarding this attempt, because I think it's a damn shame that the people who mention to me the great respect they have for that website are often not aware that one of the reasons for that great respect is due -- in my opinion -- to the concerted efforts of those who ensure that any reasonable differences in the conclusions reached doesn't actually get to the readers unless they find it somewhere else. It's there now. I just want to see if it's still there three days from now.

In my opinion, Kaminsky's interpretation of an event that he has forgotten significant details regarding, in which he references details that are provably incorrect, and in which he admits the very limited role that he played, affirming that he had nothing at all to do with the actual reports that were drafted and turned over to the USAF, cannot be trusted as an accurate description of what that field team determined -- especially since it differs so markedly from the actual documentation produced by that same field team to describe this incident, and its investigation in 1967. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't neglecting to mention these little details ultimately result in arguable deception?

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 ryguy » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:00 am

Alas - this might help! Finally finished the interview with your dad, and it's up and published, hot off the press.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-carlson/

I hope everyone enjoys this interview as much as I did. Your dad is a cool cat, James.

-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 James Carlson » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:27 am

ryguy wrote:Alas - this might help! Finally finished the interview with your dad, and it's up and published, hot off the press.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-carlson/

I hope everyone enjoys this interview as much as I did. Your dad is a cool cat, James.

-Ryan

Just as great as I thought it might be! Thanks for doing this Ryan -- this is absolutely the facts, and It's way past time that my Dad's recollections be recognized. As you know, everybody's pretty much tried to forget that he was there, and that his memories simply aren't relevant -- and in my opinion, that's the very definition of deception. And you're right -- he is a cool cat.

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 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:40 am

After reading Eric Carlson's accounting on the RU blog, I can only come to the logical conclusion that Hastings and Salas have attempted a fraud and sham on an unsuspected public. Hastings written statements from Figel, as posted on various web sites and his book shows that either Figel lied outright, confabulated thru the years, or Hastings, by deceit, printed Figel's account totally out of context, or worse, made it completely up.

Hastings stated in emails to me, over a year ago, that Eric Carlson himself, through personal contact with Hastings, refused to give me James Carlsons' email address. Therefore, if Eric Carlson's assertion is true then Hastings lied to me and the rest of the forum members on the missileforums.com site.....ergo Hastings is a liar...nothing more, nothing less.

Tim

ETA: I learned from Hastings himself...I kept all of his email transactions for possible future use.
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 Sep 12, 2010 10:33 am

James Carlson wrote:I just want to get this down real quick, so if it sounds weird, excuse me. I just want to test something. I just now left the following response on UFOCHRONICLES' latest discussion involving Echo Flight at http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09 ... obert.html , local time Albuquerque, 9:57 pm:

You guys completely skipped over the part where he says he was on the field team, and that the field team didn't find out much related to the cause of the problem, because they were only looking at the LCs -- only one LC, actually -- while the problem that took out all the missiles originated in the LCF. You kind of missed that part, like you've missed everything else in regard to this event. Kaminsky had absolutely nothing to do with any of the investigation that continued for at least another 3 months, so he's not a very good source for anything. You also forgot to discuss all of the provable holes in his memory -- for instance, his entire discussion regarding the "blame" that was supposedly assigned to the capsule crew and Robert Hastings' ridiculous theory that this was the start of the big UFO "cover-up". Why is it, I wonder, that the very first thing the field team that Kaminsky was supposedly the team leader of, reported to the USAF, was their considered opinion that the capsule crew was not to blame in any way, shape, or form for the Echo Flight failures? Isn't it a little difficult to cover up anything using a story that you had already insisted was not true? There are plenty of documents from 1967 that report those findings of the field team -- and other findings as well, such as their considered opinion that the cause was not related to anything they could find at the launch facilities. You haven't mentioned, however, that another of that same field team's conclusions was that the electrical fault that caused the missiles to fail must have occurred at the launch control facility. You guys have a real bad habit of only giving part of the story and ignoring everything else. I would say that you're either not very good at this, or you're purposely trying to mislead people. What's your opinion?

This was in response to their article posted Friday, September 10, 2010 entitled "VIDCAST: Former Boeing Engineer, Robert Kaminski Confirms UFO Activity at Echo Flight Missile Launch Control Facility in 1967", which consists of an excerpt from a letter Kaminsky wrote to Jim Klotz dated 2-1-1997.

The last couple of times I responded to other misleading articles published at that website, they were all removed, and no mention was ever made of them, and none of the questions I asked were ever answered; I wanted to record the when and what regarding this attempt, because I think it's a damn shame that the people who mention to me the great respect they have for that website are often not aware that one of the reasons for that great respect is due -- in my opinion -- to the concerted efforts of those who ensure that any reasonable differences in the conclusions reached doesn't actually get to the readers unless they find it somewhere else. It's there now. I just want to see if it's still there three days from now.

In my opinion, Kaminsky's interpretation of an event that he has forgotten significant details regarding, in which he references details that are provably incorrect, and in which he admits the very limited role that he played, affirming that he had nothing at all to do with the actual reports that were drafted and turned over to the USAF, cannot be trusted as an accurate description of what that field team determined -- especially since it differs so markedly from the actual documentation produced by that same field team to describe this incident, and its investigation in 1967. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't neglecting to mention these little details ultimately result in arguable deception?

James Carlson

And it's a NEW WORLD RECORD!!! My commentary regarding Kaminsky's credibility has now been removed from UFOCHRONICLES!! With a local time of 2:59 am, the record of its existence is no more than five hours and a little change. Shouldn't there be some measure of shame for these people? Are they that frightened of open debate and discussion? Well, of course they are! What a silly question! Please note as well the attached jpg file:

Kaminsky commentary on UFOCHRONICLES_Page_04.jpg
Kaminsky commentary on UFOCHRONICLES
Kaminsky commentary on UFOCHRONICLES_Page_04.jpg (233.63 KiB) Viewed 4477 times
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 » Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:04 pm

ryguy wrote:Alas - this might help! Finally finished the interview with your dad, and it's up and published, hot off the press.

Thank you Ryan for filling in this very important missing piece of the puzzle. Well done (the whole series) and very professional.

Tim Hebert wrote:After reading Eric Carlson's accounting on the RU blog, I can only come to the logical conclusion that Hastings and Salas have attempted a fraud and sham on an unsuspected public. Hastings written statements from Figel, as posted on various web sites and his book shows that either Figel lied outright, confabulated thru the years, or Hastings, by deceit, printed Figel's account totally out of context, or worse, made it completely up.

Regardless, Figel’s account doesn’t actually support the claim that UFOs were actually involved…

“I told him [Hastings] that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously.

The questions remains, given that the official record states…

Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no unusual activity or sightings were observed.[83] (U)”

Why hasn’t whover was responsible for the rumors come forward?

Tim Hebert wrote:Hastings stated in emails to me, over a year ago, that Eric Carlson himself, through personal contact with Hastings, refused to give me James Carlsons' email address. Therefore, if Eric Carlson's assertion is true then Hastings lied to me and the rest of the forum members on the missileforums.com site.....ergo Hastings is a liar...nothing more, nothing less.

For what it’s worth, I can confirm those emails establish a very deliberate and obvious pattern of deception by Hastings that’s designed to prevent or stall any independent verification of the story as presented by himself and Salas.

James Carlson wrote:And it's a NEW WORLD RECORD!!! My commentary regarding Kaminsky's credibility has now been removed from UFOCHRONICLES!! With a local time of 2:59 am, the record of its existence is no more than five hours and a little change. Shouldn't there be some measure of shame for these people? Are they that frightened of open debate and discussion? Well, of course they are! What a silly question!

I was going to comment before this latest development that I thought you wrote a very objective and measured critique but now this… simply incredible! If there was any doubt before this that Frank Warren is a charlatan of the highest order, there shouldn’t be now…
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 ryguy » Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:42 pm

Re: Frank Warren,

Maybe the phenomenon people saw with post deletions and censorship over at OM isn't limited to just that one forum. Maybe the behavior is a symptom of the larger UFO community. Act as though you're interested in "disclosure" but shove your head in the sand and silence anything that discounts even just one small part of what you need to believe.

Sorry state of things in Ufology isn't it.

-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 DrDil » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:38 pm

User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:04 pm

DrDil wrote:(For the record.....)

http://blog.ufo-blog.com/2010/09/malmst ... ident.html


Cheers.

Fantastic! Clearly there are other folks out there who believe open discussion and debate are not only desirable aspects for the public review of truth, they are also vital to any real determination of truth. If you're in an information vacuum, where only one point of view is given voice, it stands to reason that the only conclusion given any veracity is the one that depends on that single voice. I think it's great, therefore, that ufo-blog.com closes out their article with a strong assertion that "Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence." Thanks, DrDil -- great stuff!
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 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:11 am

Access Denied wrote:
Tim Hebert wrote:After reading Eric Carlson's accounting on the RU blog, I can only come to the logical conclusion that Hastings and Salas have attempted a fraud and sham on an unsuspected public. Hastings written statements from Figel, as posted on various web sites and his book shows that either Figel lied outright, confabulated thru the years, or Hastings, by deceit, printed Figel's account totally out of context, or worse, made it completely up.

Regardless, Figel’s account doesn’t actually support the claim that UFOs were actually involved…

“I told him [Hastings] that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously.

Exactly -- it seems apparent to me that Robert Hastings simply, as Tim suggests, "by deceit, printed Figel's account totally out of context." I can confirm that Figel said "UFO", but I can also confirm that he didn't consider it important at all, and that it was never taken seriously by anybody, investigated further, logged down by anybody, followed up by anybody, or even discussed further by anybody. The communication was, in fact, never mentioned again, and never even reported further up the chain of command, something that both my father and Walt Figel would have been very much aware of had it occurred. I've said it many times in the past, and it bears repeating when necessary: if you don't give people all of the information they need to reach a viable conclusion, they will not do so. People aren't stupid, and they don't lack the capacity to figure things out; they're just being purposely kept in the dark by folks who insist that it's the U.S. government who turned out the lights. And while the government may well be guilty of turning out a few lights in regard to other incidents or subjects, I'm absolutely positive it didn't do so in relation to the Echo Flight incident. I like to think that all we're really doing is giving people enough information to reach an honest conclusion. We're illuminating a discussion that's been purposely kept in the dark for years.

Access Denied wrote:The questions remains, given that the official record states…

Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no unusual activity or sightings were observed.[83] (U)”

Why hasn’t whover was responsible for the rumors come forward?

I think we know that as well -- or we can at least make very good educated guess. Remember that during this same period, NICAP investigator Ray Fowler told Dr. Roy Craig, an investigator for the Condon Committee, that a UFO was involved with the missile failures at Echo Flight, and Craig came right out and asked Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase about it. Robert Salas has suggested that Fowler knew all about the incident, and had Craig only applied a little more effort, he would have discovered for himself this very important "UFO" related information. Salas suggests that Fowler found out all about the Echo Flight UFO as a result of his work with the Sylvania Minuteman Board, by whom he was employed and for which reason the Department of Defense granted him a very high security clearance. What Robert Salas neglects to say, however, is that Sylvania had only one task at Malmstrom AFB in 1967: they had received the contract to complete the ground electronics grid for the Minuteman II system being put in place at the new squadron on the other side of the state of Montana. Fowler never had the need-to-know anything at all in relation to any of the Minuteman I systems, including Echo Flight, which was manned by the 10th Squadron. He didn't know anything at all about Echo Flight, except what he may have picked up -- such as any rumors resulting from some offhanded mention of a bad joke told by a maintenance tech who had to be awakened by security at 0845 on the morning of March 16, 1967, after the missiles had already started going offline. We know for a fact that Fowler didn't know anything substantive regarding Echo Flight, because he told Dr. Roy Craig that he had heard the missiles failed coincident to a UFO sighting. Since the only UFO sighting reported to Project Blue Book -- which Fowler would have been aware of as a NICAP investigator -- was on March 24-25, 1967, he told Dr. Roy Craig that the Echo Flight incident happened on March 24-25, 1967, and that was the date for the incident that Craig later published in his memoirs of his work with the Condon Committee in 1995.

In my opinion, the rumors started because of a stupid remark/joke told by a maintenance tech that was then given a kick in the ass by a NICAP investigator who didn't know half as much as he thought he knew. We also know that the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB, the USAF intelligence group that ran Project Blue Book and everything else having to do with UFOs, wrote very shortly afterward to Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, the UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB, the following query: “Our office has been informed that during the sightings there were equipment malfunctions and abnormalities in the equipment. One individual stated that the USAF instructed both military and civilian personnel not to discuss what they had seen as it was a classified government experiment. Request information on the validity of such statements. If some type of experiment did occur on or about 24 March 1967, please advise.” Chase immediately wrote back that his original case files were accurate and that no equipment failures were reported for March 24-25, 1967. That seems to clear everything up admirably. Fowler was quite simply wrong.

But we still have those damn rumors that had popped up and eventually made their way to FTD: One individual stated that the USAF instructed both military and civilian personnel not to discuss what they had seen as it was a classified government experiment. So we ask ourselves, "who knew about the Echo Flight missile failures that the USAF was extremely concerned about keeping secret and believed them to be part of a UFO-associated event and associated that event mistakenly with the March 24-25, 1967 time frame?" There's only one answer: Raymond Fowler, NICAP investigator extraordinaire who didn't even know the actual date of the incident, but has firmly and prolifically exhibited his belief that UFOs were involved, even in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever, for many, many years. This is a man who actually admitted to me in a personal email that he had tested "the waters re releasing information about UFOs to the public when at NICAP. I chose one of the cases and gave the information to a reporter for the Christian Science Monitor", so I have no problem believing that he was probably the cause of these rumors as well, or at the very least the eventual impetus behind them. And on that note, I'd like to close with the last email letter I sent to Raymond Fowler -- the author, I believe, of the UFO rumors that have plagued this story since 1967. I don't feel particularly bad about this, since he still hasn't responded, and I don't expect he ever will.

According to to Roy Craig's book and to Robert Salas, you're the guy who told Roy Craig about Echo Flight. That was classified information and Craig didn't have a clearance. Salas implies that your position at the time gave you access to the Echo Flight incident investigation materials -- I wrote that you didn't have any "need-to-know" in regard to that information, and that's why you were unaware of the date on which it occurred, telling Craig that it happened March 24-25, 1967, which is the date given in his book. As a result of this, UFO rumors involving Echo Flight were given a tail-wind; anybody actually examining the FOIA documents, however, will see immediately that no UFO was ever reported in connection with this event, and that the ultimate cause of the missile failures was a rather prosaic one that also affected numerous single missiles and guidance and control modules across the nation. UFOs had nothing to do with it. Had you not taken the drastic and illegal step you took, there's a fair chance that the documents Salas eventually got hold of would not have mentioned UFOs at all, and he wouldn't have been able to invent this ridiculous "history" of his. I don't have anything against UFOs, but I absolutely deplore liars, and since 1995 when Salas first came out with this silly story, he's changed the location 3 times and the date twice. And the only "witnesses" he's brought in out of the cold have all, to a man, stated that they don't believe UFOs were to blame. He has said that my father, the commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, has confirmed his account, as did Walt Figel, the deputy commander of Echo Flight -- these are all bald-faced lies, but because American UFOlogy has refused to use any form of peer review or standard fact checks, this absolute dog of a case has been crowned one of the top ten UFO cases supported by the best evidence. All I've had to do is go back and double-check that evidence -- and guess what? None of it exists. Salas has used 4 or so pages of FOIA documentation to support this convoluted lie, while I have brought forth 80 pages of FOIA documents that say he's full of s^~t. I didn't get into this for a fun time, Mr. Fowler. I got into it, because my family has been repeatedly slandered by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas. And over the past 3-4 years, in my spare time, I have uncovered more than enough evidence to prove that these vicious lies have no basis in fact. I've done so alone, without any assistance, and with no real knowledge at all regarding UFOs or minuteman missiles, and yet I've managed to convince a large number of very well-educated individuals across our country and Europe. I'm not patting myself on the back here -- I started with one basic premise everybody else apparently has forgotten: I believed my father when he told me that no UFOs were involved. What I've done is the sort of thing UFOlogists should have done for themselves a long time ago. I've been telling people to please look at this a little closer since 2006, because what I was discovering was somewhat alarming. Do you know what I got for my troubles? I was roundly laughed at, and treated as a pariah by a bunch of flakeheads who don't give a damn whether their bedtime stories are true or not, as long as they've got flying saucers. I've gotten way past the point of caring what people who believe in UFOs think about me or what I've uncovered and written about. You guys have done this to yourselves -- you trusted people and put your confidence in people who do not deserve that trust or confidence; people like you have been ignoring everything I've had to say for years now; you've refused to try and confirm anything at all that Salas and Hastings have written, and you did so for no admirable reasons at all -- you just trusted them or were too lazy to double-check their research. My father and Walt Figel are still very much alive. Why hasn't anybody ever called them to confirm the things that Salas and Hastings have claimed? Even after I wrote a book on the subject, nobody was interested enough to call them and check whether Salas and Hastings were being completely open or not. You say "I do not want to get involved further in this argument and will just watch it play out. I just wanted to put what I remember in the record." Well all I'm doing is putting the people you ignored back in the record where they belong. And they are adamant that UFOs were not involved at Echo Flight. They were also the only ones present at the time. You can talk about tape recordings all you want -- but I have already talked to both Figel and my father, and they are very certain they know exactly what happened. And they're a heck of a lot more reliable and easier to trust then Robert Hastings and Robert Salas. And if you had bothered to look at the record itself, you would know that. This whole story is going to be discredited entirely, and it's going to happen because the sources I've used can be looked at twice, and confirmed for what they are. When was the last time you or anybody asked to look at the "proof" that Salas and Hastings have provided?

And one more thing: In Roy Craig's book, he states that the Echo Flight incident occured on March 24-25, 1967, the date, according to Robert Salas, that he got from you. March 24-25 represents the only UFO sighting in the entire month of March that was investigated by anybody or made public by anybody, so assuming that the Echo Flight incident occurred on that date isn't such a big deal, if you're going to insist that UFOs were involved. Echo Flight went down, of course, on March 16, 1967 -- a date easily confirmed, and one that has not been classified for any reason since 1979. In light of this, have you ever wondered why Robert Salas' first FOIA requests, filed for him by Dale Goudie and James Klotz, would have been for information regarding missile failures on or about March 24-25? If he knew all about this incident as you and many other people seem to believe, why would he get the date wrong in exactly the same way you got the date wrong? Keep in mind that he first told everyone that he was a member of the capsule crew at Echo Flight; when that was disproven, he changed it to November Flight -- the only other flight in the command history that is actually named -- and changed it again to Oscar Flight a few years later. He's given you more than enough reasons to doubt that he's been totally up front with everyone, so why hasn't anybody simply asked to see his confirmations? Or isn't that necessary these days? Do you guys normally believe everything you're told without weighing any of it at all? No offense, but you guys really dropped the ball on this one -- all because doing a little research in support of your own belief system would just take too much time, or because you "do not want to get involved further in this argument." You guys seriously need to work on figuring out the angles a little bit better, because right now, you're just taking ignorance and enveloping it. I hope you enjoy yourself on the pedestal -- but keep in mind you aren't doing anybody a lick of good up there; you're just waiting around for a miracle that passed you by years ago.


In light of thiese comments, I would also recommend that people take a quick look at what my father wrote in the comments section at the bottom of http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... t-part-ii/ .

I've gotta say, this is now a fun ride, and it didn't used to be. Thanks, Ryan... and everybody else here at RU as well!

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 ryguy » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:51 am

It was our pleasure. I only wish we were able to help out sooner, but I do think that now that the witness statements are out there in plain site where they'll be linked to and spread around the net (hopefully), then in time the truth about Echo Flight will find its way into every nook and cranny of the Ufology community. Many may ignore it, but it does feel good knowing that it will help to educate those people with open eyes, who otherwise wouldn't have had any idea that maybe the information that Salas is selling should be questioned.

Now I believe they will question it.

-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 James Carlson » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:35 am

I noted an interesting little parade of "let's try not to say anything really substantive" at ATS today, featuring a close friend from the past. It all stemmed from more advertising for The Hastings and Salas Show on ATS as delivered by Frank Warren: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread611444/pg1 -- more fun!

Originally posted by Kandinsky

I've been looking forward to this since late last year when Robert Hastings aired his plans.

There's a long history of UFO reports, mythology and discussion involving nuclear facilities. NICAP have a long list of reports going back to 1944 and many of them involve a variety of personnel ranging from base guards to scientists and senior staff.

UFO lists and forums are likely to approach meltdown and it's easy to predict how particular groups and researchers will react. Toys out of prams and ad-homs will be flying as familiar names jockey for the higher ground...

The epic disagreement between James Carlson and Robert Hastings (both ATS members) will be reignited from smouldering animosity. Personally, I'd like some sort of resolution in this battle of accounts of what did -or didn't- happen at Malmstrom AFB. Needless to say, if Malmstrom becomes undermined by questions of credibility, there still remains a number of other accounts to keep the UFO/nuke connection alive.


Response by Frank Warren

"The epic disagreement" as you've labeled it has never gone out; however, you'll pleased to know that in Robert's upcoming article, the pertinent telephonic interviews in question will be embedded in his penscript and Ufologists, UFO enthusiasts and skeptics alike can make up their respective minds regarding the evidence submitted by Robert Hastings, Bob Salas et al.

This "will clear the air" for most; however, I'm sure Carlson's diatribe will continue regardless.

Cheers,
Frank


I've gotta say, don't hold your breath; he's been promising this for five months now. And given the very definitive statements already made by my father and Figel, "some sort of resolution in this battle of accounts of what did -or didn't- happen at Malmstrom AFB" has already been reached. There isn't anybody else to speak to!

I also wonder why nobody's bothering to ask Warren why he continues to delete well-reasoned discussions and valid questions when they appear on UFOCHRONICLES in relation to the Echo Flight case? He's done this on four separate occasions with me alone, so I can't help but believe that the "resolution in this battle of accounts" that Kandinsky expresses a desire to eventually encounter is being actively and aggressively hindered by the actions of Frank Warren. Hey, Kandinsky! Why don't you ask him about that?

Warren apparently believes that the UFOs are "attracted to artificial star energy"; since there isn't that much "artificial star energy" detectable in a Minuteman I missile, especially in comparison to other sources, what exactly were they doing at Echo Flight? Oh, that's right -- you can't ascertain that either. Gimme a break, pal. If you didn't consciously lie and prevaricate and prevent any useful discussion involving this case, you wouldn't be able to put a UFO anywhere near Malmstrom AFB in 1967, so stop it already with this loser's game of blind man's bluff. How the Hell do these people live with themselves, anyway? If it isn't Ray Fowler insisting "I do not want to get involved further in this argument and will just watch it play out", it's Frank Warren refusing to even allow the valid discussions and questions of others, let alone acknowledge them; and if isn't that, it's Robert Hastings promising for five f---- months to respond to a single commentary by one of his own witnesses, a little chore that wouldn't take an honest man more than a couple of hours; and if it isn't that, it's Robert Salas refusing to even acknowledge that there's a growing number of witnesses that he keeps telling the world "they have confirmed my story" coming forward to say he's either a liar or delusional. Frankly, the world should be getting absolutely sick and disgusted with their actions and the way they've attempted to force this sad little story on the public mind. Quit stalling, for chrissake ... or are you just trying to get past your rude little dog and pony show on September 27, so you don't have to pray as hard that somebody won't see through your painful public extortions and sue your ass for accepting monetary donations on a false basis?

These guys aren't even a good conspiracy plot outline anymore -- they're just a bunch of cheap crooks trying not to get caught filching from the donations bowl at whatever church they're working this week. I guess public shame and humility doesn't carry with it the promise of salvation that it used to; either that or these guys fully expect to go to Hell, so why bother acting like a respectable humna being? The least they could do is answer a few questions when they're asked, instead of trying to hide them... The least they could do is tell the world what their definition of "highly credible" is, because I'm at a loss, since their use of it seems to equate in many ways to "a liar or delusional".

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 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:03 am

One quick note: if we've proven anything at all the past few weeks, it's the conscious, well-planned, and intentionally executed deception that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have relied upon in order to press forward a theory and its presentation that they know very well is little more than a now-fractured lie. I realize that my complete and utter contempt that has developed over the past few years for these allegedly selfless men will very likely never be matched by a substantial number of other individuals, but I am nonetheless astounded that anybody at all would conclude that their loss of credibility regarding the Echo Flight fiasco can be accepted as a badge of shame by those most atuned to American UFOlogy and its so-called merits without that loss of credibility reflecting upon any other cases they may have presented or discussed in the past. This applies particularly to Robert Hastings, who never lets anybody forget that his 30-years of "UFO study" places him on a higher plane or scope of "assumed expertise" than the rest of the human race. A well-documented, systematic, and self-willed strategy of lies, misdirection, disinformation, and mercenary unconcern for the effects such actions have on others would, in most cases regarding any other subject you care to name, extinguish the trust and confidence audiences normally bestow; and yet, where UFOlogy is concerned, only the case study under examination is affected. I'm actually stunned that this characteristic could even be acknowledged, be let alone adopted. Case in point: Kandinsky's comment at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread611444/pg1 asserting that even if "Malmstrom becomes undermined by questions of credibility, there still remains a number of other accounts to keep the UFO/nuke connection alive", which would naturally depend on Hastings' UFOs and Nukes to at least some extent. It suggests that those willing to believe in UFOs are functionally averse to anything else. Or am I missing something here?
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 astrophotographer » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:49 pm

I remember reading all of Figel's e-mails posted here. I am just curious what Hastings has Figel stating on his tapes that contradicts those e-mails. Either he is bluffing or he has found something on the tape, where he was able to get Figel to imply or state that there were UFOs present and that there was some form of debriefing. Since the e-mails are clear, I would have to wonder what context the question was worded in his interview (is he going to post a full transcript or is he just going to give the sections he wants to give?). Then again, a full transcript may not be enough based on what has been presented. Can we trust Hastings to tell us the truth at this point or do we question that Figel was wishy-washy enough in the interview to suggest Hastings/Salas may have been right?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron