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 » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:22 pm

Access Denied wrote:I would take a slight exception to point 2 in that we do have this UNCLASSIFIED portion from the declassified Unit History…


First, thanks for the write up in the RU Blog...much appreciated!

Point of clarification, what was meant in the article is that no maintenance and/or security was mentioned as being on any of Echo's sites. True, the November Mobile Fire Team was questioned (to what extent and purpose is unknown) but this appears to pertain only for the November Flight area. Why was that? Perhaps as a precautionary task to rule out sabotage in some of the adjoining flights...it's left to speculation. Does it pertain to any content of the missing 23 March 1967 Engineering Report? Could be, but again to what extent other than to rule out possible sabotage...again hard to base a conclusion on something that is "unknown."

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 Access Denied » Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:45 pm

You’re welcome Tim.

On the other hand, if there was no maintenance and/or security at Echo it would seem to make sense to ask the November team if they saw anything in order to disprove the rumors of UFOs “around the areas” of Echo…

Either way the conclusion is the same.
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 » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:30 am

I disagreed weeks ago when I discussed this on UM. I postulated that the 23 March 'Engineering report' may state that the Top-side personnel at Echo's LFs were the source of the UFO. That would make sense then that the Unit History doesn't mention them but references a statement in the 'report' that November Top-side personnel didn't see anything as evidence to 'disprove' them. The Unit History also references the 'report' discussing RADAR and Weather so the 'report' has several pages discussing things that seem consistent with attemting to rule out a UFO among other things.



pp 25. Ref. 82. A check with Communication maintenance verified that there was no unusual activity with EWO-1 or EWO-2 at the time of the incident.

pp 26. Ref. 84. The 801st Radar Squadron, Malmstrom AFB, gave a negative report on any radar or atmospheric interference problems related to Echo Flight.

pp 27. Ref. 83. 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.

pp 28. Ref. 81. In the researching of other possibilities, weather was ruled out as a contributing factor in the incident.

pp 30. Ref. 80. This was also quite remote for all 10 couplers would have to have been partially reset in the same manner.


Keep in mind that somewhere here in these 5 pages of this 'report' a UFO seems to have been discussed. The top-side personnel Figel talked about seem to be the logical source considering the Time frame that this 'report' was written, within the week.
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 » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:39 pm

lost_shaman wrote:I disagreed weeks ago when I discussed this on UM. I postulated that the 23 March 'Engineering report' may state that the Top-side personnel at Echo's LFs were the source of the UFO. That would make sense then that the Unit History doesn't mention them but references a statement in the 'report' that November Top-side personnel didn't see anything as evidence to 'disprove' them. The Unit History also references the 'report' discussing RADAR and Weather so the 'report' has several pages discussing things that seem consistent with attemting to rule out a UFO among other things


LS, please review the first section of the Unit History when the Echo incident is first mentioned. It states that E-02 and E08 had known issues. These were minor issues that did NOT affect the alert status of either missiles. If there were maintenance teams affiliated with these two sites ( and others as well) it would have been listed in this area, not buried deep into the rest of the Unit History. Again, why does the launch crew get all of the attention, but supposedly the maintenance teams go unnoticed?

Radar: no contacts. And this was NORAD

Weather: not a factor

other: atmospheric issues? Could be looking at the possibility of solar flares/fluxes? Ruled out because none of the surrounding flights were affected? Remember, Echo was a flight specific event that did not affect any other adjoining flight's LFs.

Please see my post on UM concerning the complaint that I'm avoiding the thread and please review our past conversation concerning the missing engineering report. Frankly, I don't know how to be clearer in that regards.

Homework for you: 1. Tell me how many Mobile Fire Teams were/are usually assigned in a flight/s area. The answer might well surprise you. 2. In all of the 80 plus page Unit History, show me where it states unequivocally that there were maintenance teams on site before and during the shutdowns.

Regards,

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:14 am

Tim Hebert wrote:LS, please review the first section of the Unit History when the Echo incident is first mentioned. It states that E-02 and E08 had known issues. These were minor issues that did NOT affect the alert status of either missiles. If there were maintenance teams affiliated with these two sites ( and others as well) it would have been listed in this area, not buried deep into the rest of the Unit History.


I disagree. The History is just a short summary of the 23 March report. We need that report in order to understand exactly how it reads.

Tim Hebert wrote:
Again, why does the launch crew get all of the attention, but supposedly the maintenance teams go unnoticed?



Let me point out that the History does state that Channel 50 data was extracted from LF sites E-7 and E-8 immediately after the shutdown.

Channel 50 data was extracted from sites E-7 and E-8 immediately after the shutdown of the entire flight.


Emphasis mine. Seems to me this is consistent with Figel's memory of crews being on-site at some of the sites. Right after the shutdowns in Figel's interview he says to the Maintenance (Chief) on one of the sites, "I said, you know, we have to get somebody to look at this [No-Go]."

Also this couldn't be the November crew that extracted the Channel 50 data because they were busy checking the November Flights LFs on the morning in question.


ETA: Fix quote tags. Twice.
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 » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:27 am

lost_shaman wrote:I disagree. The History is just a short summary of the 23 March report. We need that report in order to understand exactly how it reads.


Agree, but understand that Echo was just a portion of the contents of the History as there was other things going on in the wing.

lost_shaman wrote:Let me point out that the History does state that Channel 50 data was extracted from LF sites E-7 and E-8 immediately after the shutdown.


True, but the channel 50 data was extracted by those EMT (Electro-Mechanical Team) teams that responded as a RESULT of the shutdowns, that is, after all of the reports were called in and channeled up through the command structure, ie, Hank Barlow's story, as his EMT team supposedly was at Mike-01 which was less than an hours drive away from the Echo flight area and responded to the shutdowns. Not every team that dispatched to the field had access to Fault Isolation Tapes this was purely an EMT or Wing Mnx Eval team responsibility and the History does not even hint to that fact. Please read further in the History, as not all of Echo's LFs had channel 50 data extractions, some of the sites were done well after being brought up to alert status (3 to 4 days later) Figel, based on his interviews has no total recall as to who was on his sites and what maintenance, if any, was being performed. "Can" changes vs routine maintenance...a big difference.

lost_shaman wrote:Emphasis mine. Seems to me this is consistent with Figel's memory of crews being on-site at some of the sites. Right after the shutdowns in Figel's interview he says to the Maintenance (Chief) on one of the sites, "I said, you know, we have to get somebody to look at this [No-Go]."


Based on his memory? What version Hastings' or Salas', stark difference and not backed up by any solid documentation. Read Barlow's statements to Hastings...Hastings believes this to be gospel...but if Barlow is right then Figel is wrong.

lost_shaman wrote:Also this couldn't be the November crew that extracted the Channel 50 data because they were busy checking the November Flights LFs on the morning in question.


No, November had nothing to do with anything as far as data extraction. The Mobile Fire Team, a heavily armed security detail, was apparently in the November flight area...well over an hour and a half away from Echo.

Tim

ETA: Fault Isolation Tape channel 50 data dumps were brought back to the base for evaluation by TAD (Technical Analysis Division) this is evident by the discovery of the VRSA ch 12 No-Go indications that were not apparent when the crew received their VRSA reports of ch 9 only. You can not analyze this data on site, only back at a lab located 120 miles away back at Malmstrom.

ETA: LS, please review pg. 39 of the History as the evaluation located the where abouts of Boeing Contractors doing work in other flight areas, and Echo was not one of them...so, contractors are mentioned and verified, don't you think that the evaluators would have located and mentioned any maintenance teams on any Echo LF? This further leads to a strong conclusion that there may have never been any teams on any of the sites.
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 lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:26 am

Tim Hebert wrote:
Agree, but understand that Echo was just a portion of the contents of the History as there was other things going on in the wing.


Of course, but we are only concerned with the part of the History that discusses the Echo Flight shutdown and almost all of that is referenced to the 23 March report.



Tim Hebert wrote:
True, but the channel 50 data was extracted by those EMT (Electro-Mechanical Team) teams that responded as a RESULT of the shutdowns, that is, after all of the reports were called in and channeled up through the command structure, ie, Hank Barlow's story, as his EMT team supposedly was at Mike-01 which was less than an hours drive away from the Echo flight area and responded to the shutdowns. Not every team that dispatched to the field had access to Fault Isolation Tapes this was purely an EMT or Wing Mnx Eval team responsibility and the History does not even hint to that fact. Please read further in the History, as not all of Echo's LFs had channel 50 data extractions, some of the sites were done well after being brought up to alert status (3 to 4 days later) Figel, based on his interviews has no total recall as to who was on his sites and what maintenance, if any, was being performed. "Can" changes vs routine maintenance...a big difference.


How do you know an EMT team extracted that data? The History doesn't say that. You guys have been saying for quite a while that the Maintenance crews on-site verified the VRSA No-Go to Figel on the SIN line inside the Silo while joking about a UFO until I punched a hole in that line of thought a couple of weeks ago on UM. The History states that the sites had Channel 9 & 12 No-Go's at the LF's so who then verified this if not Maintenance on-site after Figel called them? It wasn't Barlow based on what he said to Hastings.




Tim Hebert wrote:ETA: Fault Isolation Tape channel 50 data dumps were brought back to the base for evaluation by TAD (Technical Analysis Division) this is evident by the discovery of the VRSA ch 12 No-Go indications that were not apparent when the crew received their VRSA reports of ch 9 only. You can not analyze this data on site, only back at a lab located 120 miles away back at Malmstrom.



So Maintenance on-site could not have seen or noted a Ch. 12 No-Go inside the silo, only the Ch. 9 No-Go?


Tim Hebert wrote:
ETA: LS, please review pg. 39 of the History as the evaluation located the where abouts of Boeing Contractors doing work in other flight areas, and Echo was not one of them...so, contractors are mentioned and verified, don't you think that the evaluators would have located and mentioned any maintenance teams on any Echo LF? This further leads to a strong conclusion that there may have never been any teams on any of the sites.


The History didn't tell us who extracted the Ch. 50 data. If the History was going to tell us who did what, then that is a perfect example to show that "who" wasn't considered important.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:17 am

lost_shaman wrote:How do you know an EMT team extracted that data? The History doesn't say that. You guys have been saying for quite a while that the Maintenance crews on-site verified the VRSA No-Go to Figel on the SIN line inside the Silo while joking about a UFO until I punched a hole in that line of thought a couple of weeks ago on UM. The History states that the sites had Channel 9 & 12 No-Go's at the LF's so who then verified this if not Maintenance on-site after Figel called them? It wasn't Barlow based on what he said to Hastings.


Well, I'm familiar with who does what. EMT, MMT, Missile civil engineering, comm teams, civilian contractors, snow removal teams, etc. These are all examples of the different types of teams that could perform certain types of maintenance on a site. EMT or TAD or the OOMA evaluation team from Hill AFB could have extracted the channel 50 data dump, but then this data would have been sent back to Malmstrom for further evaluation in one of the labs. As far as verifying the VRSA reporting on an LF, this was easily accomplished by any team that had access to the VRSA panel located in one of the equipment racks...normally done by an EMT team but could be easily accomplished by anyone inside the LF.

Figel and Eric Carlson both state in one fashion or another that they had only VRSA ch 9s...No-Go affecting the guidance and control. It was only discovered later that there was also a discrete VRSA ch 12 affecting the logic coupler...so that you are aware, the launch crew has a VRSA panel in the capsule that they use to check on any reporting channels. It's uncommon to have an LF drop no-go while maintenance is on site, unless it is done intentionally by the team as part of their maintenance protocol and is coordinated with the missile crew, command post all the way up the chain to SAC HQ.

LS, in the past we have all argued, in one fashion or another, concerning a team verifying VRSA at one of the LFs. I have stated in my blog article that this, in my opinion, may not be correct due to Figel's erratic statements (Salas vs Hastings) and the total omission of any maintenance team reference in the Unit History.

.
lost_shaman wrote:So Maintenance on-site could not have seen or noted a Ch. 12 No-Go inside the silo, only the Ch. 9 No-Go?


Apparently not...ch 12 only discovered later when the data was analyzed back at Malmstrom, after the fault isolation tapes were run. If there were indeed a maintenance team on site then they could have verified the ch 9. I'm now of the opinion that the only ones who verified the ch 9s was the missile crew themselves supposing that no maintenance was on any of the sites.
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re:

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:58 am

Tim Hebert wrote:Well, I'm familiar with who does what. EMT, MMT, Missile civil engineering, comm teams, civilian contractors, snow removal teams, etc. These are all examples of the different types of teams that could perform certain types of maintenance on a site. EMT or TAD or the OOMA evaluation team from Hill AFB could have extracted the channel 50 data dump, but then this data would have been sent back to Malmstrom for further evaluation in one of the labs.


Not at all. The History says the Ch. 50 dumps at E-7 and E-8 were done "immediately" after the shutdown, then the missiles were all returned to alert status and the investigation was suspended until the 19th when" a team" did a Ch. 50 data 'dump' at E-2 and E-9.

Also the History says that E-8 was in the middle of a restart. I'm summarizing, it says " the G&C at E-8 had completed an itinerary report that only occurs 2 hours and 30 mins. into a restart."
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re:

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:24 am

Tim Hebert wrote:
so that you are aware, the launch crew has a VRSA panel in the capsule that they use to check on any reporting channels.


FYI, I said many times on UM that Figel told the Maintenance crews of the No-Go. That isn't something I'm "blissfully" unaware of. :roll:


Tim Hebert wrote:
It's uncommon to have an LF drop no-go while maintenance is on site, unless it is done intentionally by the team as part of their maintenance protocol and is coordinated with the missile crew, command post all the way up the chain to SAC HQ.


Isn't that why the History suggests E-2 and E-9 were chosen for ch. 50 data on the 19th?

On Sunday, 19 March 67, a team was dispatched to sites E-2 and E-9 to dump channel 50 data. These two sites were in strategic alert at this time but were selected because they had never experienced a restart since the last time that a maintenance tape had been used."


Emphasis mine.

ETA: Note here that the History has a perfect oppertunity to tell us "who" did what, but it doesn't. We are told a "team" was dispatched on the 19th to E-2 and E-9.
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 » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:41 pm

lost_shaman wrote:FYI, I said many times on UM that Figel told the Maintenance crews of the No-Go. That isn't something I'm "blissfully" unaware of.


Sorry, my apology, I didn't realize that you knew the checklist procedures and how we did things.....

lost_shaman wrote:Isn't that why the History suggests E-2 and E-9 were chosen for ch. 50 data on the 19th?


No...read on pg 36 the rationale, then rephrase your question.

lost_shaman wrote:ETA: Note here that the History has a perfect oppertunity to tell us "who" did what, but it doesn't. We are told a "team" was dispatched on the 19th to E-2 and E-9


And it could have been an EMT team with OOMA personnel on site. But, you need to tell me why these two sites were targeted...give me your take.

lost_shaman wrote:Also the History says that E-8 was in the middle of a restart. I'm summarizing, it says " the G&C at E-8 had completed an itinerary report that only occurs 2 hours and 30 mins. into a restart."


No, you misunderstand what is being said...it is possible that E-8 went through a calibration sequence...at some time prior to the shutdown.
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 lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:02 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:
Sorry, my apology, I didn't realize that you knew the checklist procedures and how we did things.....


No,... I'm just looking at the same History and testimony you are looking at buddy.

Tim Hebert wrote:
No...read on pg 36 the rationale, then rephrase your question.



I meant to tell you this earlier... I don't take 'homework assignments' like I'm a child. If you want to discuss something fine, otherwise you know which way the wind is blowing!


Tim Hebert wrote:
And it could have been an EMT team with OOMA personnel on site. But, you need to tell me why these two sites were targeted...give me your take.



They were there "immediately" after the shutdown? Maybe they reported a UFO then? What's your take?


Tim Hebert wrote:
No, you misunderstand what is being said...it is possible that E-8 went through a calibration sequence...at some time prior to the shutdown.


The History states the E-8 LF was no later than 2 hours 30 minutes into a restart.
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 » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:18 pm

LS, I've notice that we are now talking about teams dispatched well after the shutdowns. Your original contention was that of my changed stance concerning the "high probability of no maintenance teams present at the time of shut downs" and we seemed to have advanced past that. This will be an area were we will have to agree to disagree. While I respect your argument, and one that may well be correct should further hard evidence surface, I will hold stead fast to my new hypothesis. Ref. my last post on UM, I would be willing to further alter my conclusions as the evidence leads, but as of now the hard evidence leads me to my current conclusions.

I read Quillius' last posting on UM and I am content that he agrees with the recent lack of participation on the Echo thread. But all at UM and even here at RU, must understand, the positions that I proffer via my blog are mine only. I'm beholding to no one. No one, save for one individual here at RU was aware of my new theory, and that individual was keenly aware that I had been mulling over this for the past 3 months. I'm also aware that my changing views may not be totally accepted by the small group here at RU that has been working on the Echo case for the past year...that's alright, as new thoughts spur more critical thinking.

LS, honestly, my blog articles are specifically targeted towards one individual. That person will not publicly acknowledge my thoughts on the matter nor will he debate my issues that I raise. But he does read my work and that is the whole exercise for my blog.

I offer 11 points for my conclusions...perhaps we can discuss some of those that remain?
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 Tim Hebert » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:34 pm

lost_shaman wrote:I meant to tell you this earlier... I don't take 'homework assignments' like I'm a child. If you want to discuss something fine, otherwise you know which way the wind is blowing!


Then what's the point if your just "throwing" things on the wall and seeing what, if any, sticks? Your views are definitely at variance with mine, so I'm attempting to see how and why you come up with your questions and conclusions.

lost_shaman wrote:They were there "immediately" after the shutdown? Maybe they reported a UFO then? What's your take?


Again, in my "formally" professional opinion, "immediately" after the shutdowns refers to the wing maintenance deputate marshaling of those teams eventually sent out to Echo. Some teams were readily available, ie, Barlow's team standing by at Mike-01 and there may have been others diverted from other flights as well. Did they report a UFO, perhaps or perhaps not, as there exist no hard evidence to support any actual UFO sighting...other than rumors of such. I am consistent in this regard.
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 lost_shaman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:01 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:

Then what's the point if your just "throwing" things on the wall and seeing what, if any, sticks? Your views are definitely at variance with mine, so I'm attempting to see how and why you come up with your questions and conclusions.



Ahem... Your position is what I poked holes in. My position didn't change, it seems to me your are throwing everything at the walls in hopes that something sticks.


Tim Hebert wrote:
Again, in my "formally" professional opinion, "immediately" after the shutdowns refers to the wing maintenance deputate marshaling of those teams eventually sent out to Echo. Some teams were readily available, ie, Barlow's team standing by at Mike-01 and there may have been others diverted from other flights as well. Did they report a UFO, perhaps or perhaps not, as there exist no hard evidence to support any actual UFO sighting...other than rumors of such. I am consistent in this regard.


You can't support that from the Unit History. And Barlow could have been sent to Echo on the 19th, and besides he talked about a UFO too and Maintenance crews at the LFs. Do you need a Basket to carry all the Cherries you are picking?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron