Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:39 am

Tim Hebert wrote:ETA: I notice that you still have not acknowledge that I had "thanked you" for your clarification on UM's dumping of Jame's posts...hard thing to do?


Are you kidding me? You said some really nasty things about UM. That is why I stepped in. Because I disagreed with you about UM, do you believe I now owe you an apology! Unbelievable!
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 Tim Hebert » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:10 pm

LS, AXIS II traits starting to show? :)

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 ryguy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:28 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
James Carlson wrote:You don't have to lack critical thinking skills to be wrong -- you just have to be wrong. And your recent round of discussion at UM shows that you're not only wrong, it shows you can't even figure out the basic facts of this case from the start. Do you know why I hate talking to you, LS?


What is this? Like a celebrity 'Roast'? No, this is quite entertaining. Please carry on.


Celebrity? Are you kidding?
---
"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 » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:07 pm

lost_shaman wrote:This is how things are supposed to work. No-one has an obligation to agree with you without examining the evidence. Are you saying I have 'no right' to examine any evidence in this case without consulting you first? No that won't happen.

You're right -- no one has an obligation to agree with me, but they have an obligation to get what I've said correct in the first place, and you've proven you can't do that. Even here you're doing the same thing! I never said you had to agree with me, but you're acting as if I did. What I said was you don't examine the evidence, and when you do, you get my intent all screwed up, so I end up having to correct every single argument you make. It's ridiculous. Right after I explained to you and everybody else where the UFO rumors at Echo Flight came from, stating that it was a combination of of witnesses unnamed and Raymond Fowler, you came back and said that I blamed all the UFO rumors on David Gamble. How stupid is that? You don't examine anything, you just criticize points without bothering to examine context or intent. That's why it's such an annoying waste of time to talk to you -- you don't listen, you just criticize. It's petty and irritating, so get over it. People will think you have nothing intelligent to say if all of your arguments have to be corrected. And they do!

lost_shaman wrote:Figel doesn't make a big deal of it, only you do. Do you really believe that Figel waited for minutes to talk to the Maintenance Crew while they got up and out of the 'Camper' and then went 'underground' when Figel said he told them about the 'No-Go' first and told them to go check it after?

Yes! That's exactly what happened, and he confirmed it as well. What you're looking at are edited transcripts provided by Robert Hastings, a dishonest man who has repeatedly lied! You can't depend on his accounts, so I asked Figel myself. He gave his orders, and 45 minutes later the maintenance team called him back on the SIN line and told him what the status of the missile was. You would know that if you had bothered to examine all of the evidence instead of a couple of chunks Robert Hastings provided you with! You have to be corrected on EVERYTHING, and it's a chore! And the only reason it has to be done is because you're inconsistent and lazy. Try collecting the data and then asking your stupid questions. Maybe you'll learn something. For God's sake, I wrote a book and a bucket full of articles so I wouldn't have to keep explaining everything to a bunch of airheads who refuse to do the legwork themselves. There is more than the one interview with Figel that you used -- trying examining everything for a change. The facts that I've outlined were all confirmed by Walt Figel -- but you'd never know that if the only thing you examined was a single interview with Robert Hastings! Not that it even matters in this case! Hell, if you just examined ALL of that one interview, you'd be able to tell what happened, but you only examine things one sentence at at a time, ignoring everything else.

The only 2-way radio in use was held by the security team leader; the maintenance team was ordered to determine the status of the missile. There is only one way to do that -- descend into the silo. So when maintenance called back, he was on the SIN line. Try examining what's already been established once in your life; try looking at all the evidence on occassion -- you might be surprised what you discover.

lost_shaman wrote:I have a thick skin. I really don't care about what you are saying about me. I'm not 'twisting your arm' and forcing you to 'argue' the evidence with me. As far as I'm concerned the evidence I've looked at doesn't seem to be as 'Solid' or as 'clear cut' as you originally presented it. I think that is why you 'hate' me because you have no experience arguing your evidence or having someone disagree with you.

I'm not talking about your skin, pal. I'm talking about your inablity to gather and examine the evidence -- see? Even here I have to correct you, becase you fail to see the point that's being made! You don't examine all of the evidence -- you only look at the couple of chunks that make your pathetic attempts to define the moment seem somehow appropriate, and yet, it's a meaningless attempt, because you only look at part of the story -- the little piece that you associate with your attempts to make a decent argument. Why do you think you have to be corrected all the time? Haven't you figured it out yet? The evidence doesn't seem solid and clear cut to you, because you've failed to examine all of it. Try reading all of Figel's interviews instead of just one, and then do a little research on the basic structures and requirements necessary to conduct the acts that he so casually mentions. You don't conduct analysis, because you don't use all of the resources available. And that means "screw you" -- you don't understand what evidence is solid or clear cut, because you lack the ability and/or the desire to conduct an appropriate examination of the evidence.

And I'm well aware that you're not twisting my arm or forcing me to argue the evidence. What you're doing is worse -- you're saying that I've made claims and created arguments, but when you describe them you don't get them right! You're forcing me to correct your errors, because your poor understanding of my arguments and claims turns them into something they're NOT -- indefensilble! Your inability to get my claims right, to reflect a little bit of accuracy when you're discussing them gives me only two choices: let you publically turn my well-thought out and extensively researched conclusions and systematic analysis of this event into a pile of batshit, or correct the many errors you've made in your discussion of them!

lost_shaman wrote:'Petty Points' like whether these events happened at 8:45 or 9:30 am? Figel did say those who reported this first were above ground and he told them of the 'No-Go'.

Yes, he did tell them that, but once again, you aren't looking at all the evidence. You're making assumptions based on one interview with Robert Hastings -- something that should have told you immediately that the data was incomplete. He told them that he had a channel 9 no-go and ordered them to check the status of the missile. You apparently decided that "check the status of the missile" could be done as easily as telling the time, but it can't. You can't check the status of the missile without going underground to do so, a point I've explained to you until I'm blue in the face, and yet you ignore it entirely. You don't bother to check and see if I'm right, you don't bother to look at everything else Figel has said, and you don't bother to confirm whether or not Figel may have gone into more detail regarding this matter in other interviews with Hastings or with other people -- you just assume on the basis of nothing that what little you've examined is all that's necessary to make a point -- and it clearly isn't!

Why would you consider Robert Hastings a good resource? The fact that you apparently do after the evidence provided is absolutely pathetic.

Why would you insist on the basis of so little that the research I've conducted is worth so little? The bias you've exhibited without reflecting on the evidence I've provided is equally pathetic. That's why cleaning up after you is so tiring, a chore that isn't worth the payoff, since you're not going to be persuaded regardless the value of the evidence provided. You can't get my arguments right, you can't get the facts right, and what little you do examine is so barely analysed that what you should be looking at has been avoided like the plague.

lost_shaman wrote:Who said they didn't? My point was that Figel said he told them about the 'No-Go' then the UFO was reported.

And I have to correct you again! Do you have any idea how annoying this is? Read what's available:

Walt Figel wrote:WF: [When] the missiles dropped off alert, I started calling the maintenance people out there on the radio to talk to them. I had the security guard authenticate so I know I’m talking to a security guard and, you know, [I asked] “What’s going on? Is maintenance trying to get into the silo?” [The guard said,] “No, they’re still in the camper.” [So, I said,] “Get ‘em up, I want to talk to them.” Then I tried to tell them what I had was a Channel 9 No-Go.

RH: Uh huh.

Nobody has gone into the silo at all -- they're still in the camper. Two man integrity procedures tell us that the silo hasn't yet been opened, but we know the missiles have already started going offline, and since he has to go through authentication with the security team leader, they're probably all down by now. In any case, Figel tells them he has a channel 9 no-go.

Walt Figel wrote:WF: Uh, we did that with the sites that were there, that [had maintenance teams and their guards on site] and I sent Strike Teams to two other sites. There’s no sense sending them where I [already] have a guard and a gun and an authenticate.

RH: Right.

WF: Uh—

RH: So far in this narrative, you haven’t mentioned UFOs.

WF: [Laughs] That’s correct. Um, somewhere along the way, um, one of the maintenance people—cause he didn’t know what was going on any place else either, they have no capability of talking to each other [at different launch sites], in other words, they can talk to the [launch] capsule but they can’t talk to each other—

RH: Right

WF: —unless they were on the radio and no one was using the radio except the security police. And the guy says, “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.”

The break is created by Hastings, not Figel. What Figel states is that "somewhere along the way, um, one of the maintenance people" using the only communication system available to him -- not the 2-way radios in use by security only, but the SIN telephone in the silo, a system that allows ONLY communication between the capsule and the maintenance technician, exactly as Figel has described, a system that is only available after you've opened up the silo and descended into the equipment room -- confirms the missile status: And the guy says, “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.”

But because you refuse to examine or analyse the evidence placed in front of you, preferring to make petty arguments that cannot be justified if you would simply read the evidence as it's given instead of the one sentence that you use to reach a conclusion, you end up arguing about nothing except those petty ridiculous details that you've focused on. And that means you have to be corrected -- AGAIN ... just like every other time you can't get simple facts right. For God's sake, LS, do you ave any idea what a chore it is to constantly correct you because you aren't familiar with the evidence, and refuse to really look at it? And you do this all the time!!

Between you and skyeagle and Religious Hoax and theMcGuffin, any attempt to try and explain these details that you would otherwise ignore in favor of the incomplete and pre-edited, spoon-sized portions of crap that you get from Robert Hastings turns into an incredibly tiring and angry exercise in futility, one that is the result of your own incapacity for analysis. Having to correct your every assault on the facts of this story is just not worth the trouble. I'm happy to explain, and I'll offer up whatever assistance anybody could ever want on the analysis of the data, providing footnotes and well-researched conclusions for you to accept or not, however you want it, but I'm not to going spend 6-8 hours out of the day merely correcting your errors. I don't have the patience and I don't have the need to do it; there are plenty of people out there who are willing to listen to what I've got to say for me to try to balance my will with your incessant and annoying desire to poke at things without bothering to look at them first. So get over your constant desire to argue about things you haven't even looked at! It is pathetic, and it is not good quality to still be saddled with as an adult who is supposedly willing to reach conclusions on the basis of their own merit.
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 lost_shaman » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:40 am

ryguy wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:What is this? Like a celebrity 'Roast'? No, this is quite entertaining. Please carry on.


Celebrity? Are you kidding?



No I'm not kidding, the reference is to a Celebrity Roast. I'm just confused about who exactly the 'roastmaster' is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roast_(comedy)

A roast is an event in which an individual is subjected to a public presentation of comedic insults, praise, outlandish true and untrue stories, and heartwarming tributes, the implication being that the roastee is able to take the jokes in good humor and not as serious criticism or insult, and therefore, show their good nature. It is seen by some as a great honor to be roasted, as the individual is surrounded by friends, fans, and well-wishers, who can receive some of the same treatment as well during the course of the evening. The party and presentation itself are both referred to as a roast. The host of the event is called the roastmaster. Anyone who is honored in such a way is said to have been "roasted".
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 Access Denied » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:54 am

lost_shaman wrote:What is this? Like a celebrity 'Roast'?

No, guest village idiot.

[D-list stand in for Hastings]

Superb rebuttal James. =D>

It never ceases to amaze me how easily the phenomenon of confirmation bias can be exploited with cherry picking…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

ETA: Cognitive dissonance rears it's ugly head in 3, 2, 1...

ETA+1:

James Carlson wrote:Why would you consider Robert Hastings a good resource?

[raises hand]

Umm… because he tells him what he wants to hear?

[and not what either doesn’t]
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 » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:54 am

Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:What is this? Like a celebrity 'Roast'?

No, guest village idiot.

[D-list stand in for Hastings]

Superb rebuttal James. =D>


Ha! So you did get the 'Roast' and 'roastmaster' references.
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 Tim Hebert » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:10 pm

Recently, the question over the use of the Secure Intersite Network (SIN) line has come up as a point of interest. I've provided a short description, use, and case importance of the SIN on my blog. Hopefully this may clarify some of the issues that has come up.

Note that in Figel's interview with Salas circa. 1996 the use of VHF radio contact is prominent. Yet, in Hastings' 2008 interview the maintenance team's use of the SIN line comes into play.

Points to ponder, certainly the maintenance team could have been using the SIN line connection located in the soft support building and feasibly be able to have a visual sighting (I not totally convinced if a clear line of sight could be had), but then the team would not have been in the right physical location to verify the VRSA Ch. 9. So this, in my mind, negates this possibility.

No where does Figel states that he actually talked to the team via radio. After the team was awoken, the team chief would have simply walked over and accessed the soft support building and contacted Figel via SIN line and then would have started his procedures to lower the B-plug to gain access to the silo itself and eventually contacted the missile crew by using the SIN line connection in the silo, thus validating the VRSA Ch. 9.

Sometimes it's like herding cats. :)

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 astrophotographer » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:49 pm

Very informative Tim. I think you said that they blew into the microphone to activate the line. That sounds like the sound powered phones we used in the navy. They had no external power supply and you just connected into a jack (or picked up a handset) and you could talk on the circuit. It was sort of a fancy two tin cans and a string setup except it worked better and was very reliable. Were these similar?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:00 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Very informative Tim. I think you said that they blew into the microphone to activate the line. That sounds like the sound powered phones we used in the navy. They had no external power supply and you just connected into a jack (or picked up a handset) and you could talk on the circuit. It was sort of a fancy two tin cans and a string setup except it worked better and was very reliable. Were these similar?


That's fairly accurate. One SIN connection was on the equipment platform inside of the LF and I believe another was located some where near or inside of the launch tube (silo). blowing into the mic simply activated the ring mechanism to the LCC. Minuteman was originally designed to be a very simple system.

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 Jul 17, 2011 10:24 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:What is this? Like a celebrity 'Roast'?

No, guest village idiot.

[D-list stand in for Hastings]

Superb rebuttal James. =D>


Ha! So you did get the 'Roast' and 'roastmaster' references.

For the sake of argument regarding your baseless insistence that a UFO report doesn't necessarily have to be a written document, I'd like to bring to your attention paragraph 3c of AFR 80-17 A, which went into effect on 8 November, 1966: "3c. EXCEPTIONS: FTD at Wright-Patterson... for separate investigations. The University of Colorado will, under a research agreement with the Air Force, conduct a study of UFOs. This program (to run approximately 15 months) will be conducted independently and without restrictions. The university will enlist the assistance of other conveniently located institutions that can field investigative teams. All UFO reports will be submitted to the University of Colorado, which will be given the fullest cooperation of all UFO Investigating Officers. Every effort will be made to keep all UFO reports unclassified. However, if it is necessary to classify a report because of method of detection or other factors not related to the UFO, a separate report including all possible information will be sent to the University of Colorado." All of this would, of course, necessitate a written report be drafted.

Given that the original regulation clearly states "The usefulness of a UFO report depends largely on accuracy, timeliness, skill and resourcefulness of the person who receives the initial information and makes the report. Following are aids for screening, evaluating and reporting sightings:

a. Activities receiving initial reports of aerial objects and phenomena will screen the information to determine if the report concerns a valid UFO as defined in paragraph ]a. Reports not falling, within that definition do not require further action. Aircraft flares, jet exhausts, condensation trails, blinking or steady lights observed at night, lights circling near airports and airways, and other aircraft phenomena should not be reported as they do not fall within the definition of a UFO", I think we can all agree that a written report would indeed be necessary.

Whether you consider that Col. Figel was responsible for drafting the report, or the individual who sighted the UFO was responsible, the fact remains that no such report was ever made, supporting the conclusion that there was no UFO report, no UFPO investigations, and no UFO.

In addition, paragraph 8 discussing the "Transmittal of Reports" advises personnel to "Report all information on UFOs promptly. Electrical transmission with a 'Priority' precedence is authorized." Since precedence cannot be assigned to a telephone call, we can see that electrical transmission of reports must first establish a written document. The fact that all such reports must be submitted as well to ADC; the Nearest Air Division (Defense); FTD WPAFB. (First line of text: FOR TDETR.); CSAF. (First line of text: FOR AFRDC.); and OSAF. (First line of text: FOR SAF-OI.) also necessitates a written report. The fact that FTD was not even considered important enough to warrant an INFO only addressee for any of the details associated with the Echo Flight incident also supports the contention that there was no UFO report.

Sometimes it's necessary to use common sense to properly interpret a military regulation, even one that details the formatting, structure, and contents of a UFO report.
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 booN » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:23 am

Interesting additional information James. It does seem that a written report would be in order for it to be considered "official." Now, I do agree that there was probably no written report for this event, and we certainly don't have one in hand to refer to, but what if this is all confusion about terminology? After all, the word "report" is used in many different ways. This includes usage for a strictly verbal capacity.

So if we say that the maintenance crew and/or a guard on site "reported" a UFO, it could equally mean that they just mentioned it. That is my take anyway.

But, as I'm sure you are aware, Hastings and Salas maintain that there probably was a written report. A "secret" report filed by OSI or some other group. Of course they cite the famous "Bollender memo" for their reasoning behind this assumption. What is your take on that?

By the way, I hope that you didn't vacate from UM solely because of what I had said. I wasn't asking you to leave, just to tone down the venom. :?
booN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby booN » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:43 am

Likewise I invite you to poke any holes in the current interpretation of events being discussed over at UM. Personally, I agree with LS in regards to the lack of anything on the table pointing to maintenance being in the silo confirming the Channel 9 No-Go. I think they were topside for that conversation after reviewing everything that I've been able to track down.

At first I agreed with your interpretation. It seemed to make sense. But in light of more information it makes less and less sense.

It certainly doesn't lend credence to the notion that a UFO was there, or that a UFO shut down the missiles. In fact, it lends more credence to the idea that the mention of UFO was all a joke in my opinion. But that doesn't negate the value presented by lost_shaman's perspective regarding the timing and mode of communication with on-site maintenance.
booN
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:26 am

Hey Boon, I think LS is going to find out he should have read Tim’s blog first… :)

(and this thread where we’ve already been over all that)

Nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel though if it actually leads to better understanding.
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 James Carlson » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:28 am

booN wrote:Likewise I invite you to poke any holes in the current interpretation of events being discussed over at UM. Personally, I agree with LS in regards to the lack of anything on the table pointing to maintenance being in the silo confirming the Channel 9 No-Go. I think they were topside for that conversation after reviewing everything that I've been able to track down.

At first I agreed with your interpretation. It seemed to make sense. But in light of more information it makes less and less sense.

It certainly doesn't lend credence to the notion that a UFO was there, or that a UFO shut down the missiles. In fact, it lends more credence to the idea that the mention of UFO was all a joke in my opinion. But that doesn't negate the value presented by lost_shaman's perspective regarding the timing and mode of communication with on-site maintenance.

Hiya, booN -- believe me, I didn't vacate UM for anything you said at all; I was frustrated that I had to keep correcting so many people who, it seems to me, had no interest in discussing genuine arguments for and against, but simply wanted to dig at anything I said. I have neither the time nor the patience to continuously correct their many errors; I don't mind substantiating my claims, but when folks won't even bother to get my claims right, it becomes immediately apparent that I'm just wasting my time. I've put a lot of thought into my arguments, and I'm prepared to defend them, but I have no intention of spending so much time correcting mistaken impressions for people who won't even bother to figure out what my discussions entail. And trust me, that's a far cry from anything you've said, so don't worry about it. I don't mind responding to people who disagree with me -- that's never represented something that bugs me; a lot of people disagree with me, so I don't worry about it much. I just hate it when people criticize arguments that I've never made, and use points I've never established to do so. Frankly, it's insulting, and I refuse to be put on the defensive over claims I've never made presented by people who really don't care very much about anything I have to say in the first place. Be assured, it has nothing to do with you. In fact, you're part of the reason that I'm not too concerned about taking this step: you're perfectly able to establish and discuss the claims I've made without me being there, so consider it a sign of trust. I know I do.

As to your discussion of terminology, I have considered it. That's why I tried to make such a point clear that a "report" is a term used to descrinbe an actual document that in turn demands a specific response from those who receive it. I certainly thought I made it clear, but if you don't think I did, please let me know. I know that was my intent when I first suggested that a "report" is a pre-defined, specific document requiring a pre-defined, specific response. The fact that I had to keep stating that while the argument that was being made was basically a petty argument to start off with was a bit troublesome. After all, the argument being made was one asserted in the absence of anything even resembling a proper report, and there was no response at all from anybody to substantiate any actual report. To me it just seemed like one more petty attack was being established to no purpose -- it was just a petty charge intended to put me on the defensive, and I don't intend to play that gamme with people who have no intention of confirming their own claims before making them. I don't mind honest dispute, but I saw precious little of honest dispute being acted upon -- just people poking at it. I found the whole thing exhausting -- people attemting to dispute claims have the responsibility to at least get those claims right, and it wasn't happening. It's hard to discuss my own claims when I'm spending so much time correcting those who don't even bother to represent my claims accurately. I hope you understand that.

As for OSI, they were only concerned with criminal issues in 1967 -- it was FTD who should have been investigating any actual UFOs reported, and nobody even bothered to tell them about it. OSI worked on issues of espionage, such as ELINT and data protection, so if they were genuinely involved -- and Salas claims only that OSI was at Oscar Flight; the only investigation of Echo Flight was that involving an electrical problem -- than we're not looking at a UFO investigation, we're looking at a criminal investigation. OSI was modeled on the FBI, and their main concern was with criminal matters; they didn't investigate UFOs at all. The classification of the matter isn't even relevant; there were plenty of provisions for classified investigations already established by FTD; an OSI presence wouldn't have affected that at all. FTD was required to investigate all UFO reports, period, classified or not. It's a moot point -- FTD was one of the most respected and powerful intelligence hubs in the Department of Defense. Any discussion suggesting they wouldn't have been involved in a highly classified UFO investigation is just not true, and there is no evidence anywhere to suggest that it is. In any case, both my father and Col. Figel have been very positive that there was no such investigation, whether it was conducted by OSI or FTD. The only investigation was an engineering investigation intended to determine the cause of the failures, and make recommendations to prevent such an incident from ever recurring. Examined under those conditions, it was very successful.

In regard to the Bollender Memo, it's something of a red herring. These points apply: (1) it wasn't drafted until 1969, well after Echo Flight; (2) it's only a collection of recommendations concerning how best to establish an investigation of UFOs effected due to the possibility that the UFO under consideration may be hostile or a new foreign air vehicle of unconventional design; Bollender recognized that there would be a hole in our ability to investigation enemy aircraft if such aircraft were only reported as UFOs, and his recommendations were intended to establish such matters after Blue Book was shut down. Blue Book was intended to organize the investigation of all UFOs reported, even by civilian resources; so many investigations were intitiated to no purpose, meaning that the USAF couldn't investigate such matters effectively. The USAF was still very interested in investigating validated reports of UFOs, but most of the UFOs reported to Blue Book didn't even come close to meeting that qualification, so the USAF got rid of it, and told everybody to quit reporting UFOs to the USAF. That doesn't mean that valid reports would be ignored; they were simply investigated under different grounds having little to do with the garbage that most civilians were reporting as UFOs. The requirements of this new system, however, did not do away with the need for such reports to be thoroughly investigated by FTD. FTD was still at the center of such investigations, just as they were under Blue Book. In any case, the Bollender Memo doesn't say that active regulations were to be ignored, it simply said that high interest targets were to be investigated under a different system. Regulations are always folowed if they are active, so any new requirements were not intended to replace the old requirements unless it was specifically stated. As long as the old requirements were still in effect, and the regulations were still active, they would be followed as well. The differences, however, were so minor that there wouldn't be that much additonal tasking undertaken. It was still an FTD show, and they were still in charge. All the Bollender Memo recommeded was that once AFR 80-17 was cancelled at the same time Blue Book was also cancelled, any further needs for an invesigation would revert to the same regulations in effect before being superceded by 80-17 -- and this was AFR 200-2 that originally went into effect in 1962. It was superceded in 1966 when 80-17 was released, and Bollender was merely recommneding that it be adopted again when 80-17 was cancelled -- it really wasn't much of a big deal at the time, regardless the importance placed on it by others, such as S. Friedman. Those guys tend to consider it proof that the USAF was indeed interested in investigating UFOs that represented a threat to national security, even though they had determined that no UFOs have been established as an actual threat in the first place. It really isn't proof that the USAF considered UFOs to be a threat to national security, contrary to the claims made upon the cancellation of Blue Book; it's basically a silly argument. The USAF has always investigated possible airborne threats, and they had never had any intention to ignore such matters in the future. They just didn't want to investigate every single report coming in from civilian sources, because doing so was a waste of time and manpower. The USAF wanted to integrate the ability to decide for itself what should or should not be investigated, and the Blue Book reporting structure made this impossible; under Blue Book the USAF had to investigate all reports, while under the system that replaced Blue Book, they had the ability to decide what they wanted to investigate and what they could ignore. It really wasn't such a big deal -- it was just a recognition that most reports made under Blue Book were garbage.

In regard to the channel 9 no-go confirmation, Figel has already confirmed it. He ordered them to check the status of the missile, and they could only do that by descending into the silo. He said they reported it without using the 2-way radios, and there was only one other method possible -- the SIN phone. And it's pretty obvious that this is what happened:

RH: So far in this narrative, you haven’t mentioned UFOs.

WF: [Laughs] That’s correct. Um, somewhere along the way, um, one of the maintenance people—cause he didn’t know what was going on any place else either, they have no capability of talking to each other [at different launch sites], in other words, they can talk to the [launch] capsule but they can’t talk to each other—

RH: Right

WF: —unless they were on the radio and no one was using the radio except the security police. And the guy says, “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.”

He couldn't very well report that "We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here”, if he hadn't checked to see whether or not he actually did have a Channel 9 No-Go. And he couldn't do that unless he went into the silo first. It's actually a lot less complicated than people have tried to make it. Figel has always maintained that the maintenance technician determined the missile's status, just as he was ordered to do. You don't have to believe it, of course, butit is what happened.
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: No registered users and 13 guests

cron