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 » Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Ah, LS, your demeanor has changed? Very well...

lost_shaman wrote: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.


You consistently argue from a position of not really knowing what the Unit History alludes to with regards to the engineering reports. You "poked holes"...in an attempt with blind folds on and regrettably missed the mark entirely. I have asked you numerous times to show me where it states that maintenance was actually on site during the shutdowns...you respond with nothing other than segments describing teams that were dispatched well after the incident. You choose to ask me questions which I answer, regardless if you accept my answers, yet get upset if I ask you questions...which I can only take as being uncomfortable with coming up with a logical answer. Your position is based upon pure speculation and, admittedly, you argue well from a pure speculative point of view...when you stay on topic. Here is a test case:

If I am the one throwing things on the wall, then provide examples?

Tell me what was unusual about the possible calibration mode that the missile guidance system at E-08 ran some time (days before?) BTW, you brought that up, and the answer is in the Unit History, but you have to know what the hell they are talking about...Hint, its an indication that the crew stated that they did not see back at the LCC.

lost_shaman wrote: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


No, by the 19th all of the sorties were on strat alert...read the Unit History and try to show me that you have some sense of comprehension. Barlow was involved with the efforts to generate the flight back up to alert status. And yes there would have been a maximum effort, hence, why all the teams on the various sites and at the LCF. Yes, he too heard of rumors, as did everyone else, but saw nothing...and like the rest, could not pin point who had actually told him of the rumor. You appear to be the one cherry picking, not I.
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 Zep Tepi » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:39 pm

I have asked you numerous times to show me where it states that maintenance was actually on site during the shutdowns...you respond with nothing other than segments describing teams that were dispatched well after the incident.


Quoted for Truth.

LS, you appear to be arguing for arguments sake and in the process you are making a number of schoolboy errors.
You might fool some people some of the time, but that is not likely to happen here.

Carry on and have a nice day. :)
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:26 am

Tim Hebert wrote: I have asked you numerous times to show me where it states that maintenance was actually on site during the shutdowns...


Yes and that's a Strawman argument because I've never claimed the Unit History says that. I've said for the last month that the 23 March Engineering report that this part of the History in based upon "likely" and "probably" names Top-side personnel at Echo as the source for the UFO that mentioned in the History.


Tim Hebert wrote:you respond with nothing other than segments describing teams that were dispatched well after the incident.


You are misconstruing what the History actually says. It says the channel 50 data was extracted from sites E-7 and E-8 "immediately" after the shutdowns. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest this was done by a "team" dispatched "well after" the shutdowns. The Maintenance crews on-site, as per Figel's statements, would have been in a position to "immediately" extract the channel 50 data. You know that good and well because, until now, you've argued that they "verified" the No-Go status from inside the Silo Carlson and Figel saw at the LCC.


Tim Hebert wrote:You choose to ask me questions which I answer, regardless if you accept my answers, yet get upset if I ask you questions...which I can only take as being uncomfortable with coming up with a logical answer.


I've answered your questions, the ones that are reasonable, when you've asked them. What Irks me are open ended questions you've been asking, as opposed to making a case for your own arguments.

You want examples:

Tim: In reviewing the unit history as a whole, with exception to the UFO rumors, what things are NOT said in its content?

l_s: As a synopsis of several classified documents I'm sure there are many things not said that are present in the original documents and I'm sure there are many things not said that occur outside of the scope of these referenced documents.


Tim Hebert wrote:Your position is based upon pure speculation and, admittedly, you argue well from a pure speculative point of view...when you stay on topic. Here is a test case:

If I am the one throwing things on the wall, then provide examples?


Will the most glaring example not do? The FACT that you've just changed your argument when your first argument "didn't stick"! That's exactly what the"spaghetti" Metaphor refers to. Of course you made this claim about me first despite the lack of glaring examples that I've changed my argument.


Tim Hebert wrote:Tell me what was unusual about the possible calibration mode that the missile guidance system at E-08 ran some time (days before?)


What "possible calibration mode" that took place days before? Here again you are asking questions as opposed to making your own case. If you have evidence that E-8 was 'days' into a "calibration mode" then post it! If you have the evidence for that then this certainly doesn't support your case because the Unit History doesn't say that! I've argued all this time that the Unit History isn't all inclusive!

The only thing the Unit History says about it is that E-8 was 2:30 hours into a restart, and then it says E-8 was one of the LF sites that had channel 50 data extracted "immediately" after the shutdowns.


Tim Hebert wrote:
lost_shaman wrote: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

No, by the 19th all of the sorties were on strat alert...read the Unit History and try to show me that you have some sense of comprehension.


Right like when I said this yesterday?

l_s said: "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."

Maybe you are not the best judge of reading comprehension?


Tim Hebert wrote:Barlow was involved with the efforts to generate the flight back up to alert status.


You have ZERO evidence of that other than his testimony. That said, he remembers hearing about the UFO aspect and he doesn't say a damn thing about extracting channel 50 data. He also states that restarts were automatic after a certain time, this would explain why a Maintenance crew at E-8 which was restarted at ~6:15 am might be in a camper napping at 8:45 am when the Flight shutdown!
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: trimmed quotes and removed extra blank lines
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 lost_shaman » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:43 am

Zep Tepi wrote:LS, you appear to be arguing for arguments sake and in the process you are making a number of schoolboy errors.
You might fool some people some of the time, but that is not likely to happen here.

Carry on and have a nice day. :)


Hey Steve,

Funny isn't it? You say this about me and think so poorly of me simply because I'm discussing this case, when Tim just said on RU his only reason for posting his Blog is to argue with one person!

Tim said: LS, honestly, my blog articles are specifically targeted towards one individual.

I suppose you missed that.

BTW, I did have a good day. Thanks for the well wishes.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat Aug 06, 2011 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: trimmed quotes and removed extra blank lines
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 Aug 04, 2011 9:47 am

lost_shaman wrote:You are misconstruing what the History actually says. It says the channel 50 data was extracted from sites E-7 and E-8 "immediately" after the shutdowns. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest this was done by a "team" dispatched "well after" the shutdowns. The Maintenance crews on-site, as per Figel's statements, would have been in a position to "immediately" extract the channel 50 data. You know that good and well because, until now, you've argued that they "verified" the No-Go status from inside the Silo Carlson and Figel saw at the LCC.

Tell us LS, were maintenance crews qualified (trained) to extract said data or would that require a different team in your opinion?

Just wondering since you seem to think you know so know so much about the weapon system in question…

lost_shaman wrote:Maybe you are not the best judge of reading comprehension?

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” - Matthew 7:5

AD
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 Aug 04, 2011 10:53 am

Access Denied wrote:
Tell us LS, were maintenance crews qualified (trained) to extract said data or would that require a different team in your opinion?



Here we go again. A question in place of an argument.

I have no reason to think Maintenance couldn't extract channel 50 data. Do you personally have evidence that Maintenance crews on sites E-7 and E-8 were not qualified to do so?


Access Denied wrote:
Just wondering since you seem to think you know so know so much about the weapon system in question…


Care to back up that statement by showing where I "claimed" to "know so much about the weapon system"?

Of course not! Because I never claimed that.

Simply discussing a case does not mean people are claiming to be "authorities". :roll:
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 Aug 04, 2011 5:44 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Here we go again. A question in place of an argument.

I have no reason to think Maintenance couldn't extract channel 50 data. Do you personally have evidence that Maintenance crews on sites E-7 and E-8 were not qualified to do so?

In other words, you have absolutely no clue as usual and expect us to do your homework for you.

I won’t but here’s three current possibilities for the makeup of any alleged maintenance teams on site overnight, depending of course on what they supposedly were there to work on…

Missile and Space Facilities Maintenance (AFSC 2M0X3)
http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/ ... intenance/

Missile and Space Systems Maintenance (AFSC 2M0X2)
http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/ ... intenance/

Missile and Space Systems Electronic Maintenance (AFSC 2M0X1)
http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/ ... intenance/

However, it should be noted for example that I was in the Missile Instrumentation (AFSC 316X3) career field, which has since gone way of the dodo and was merged into the latter field (AFSC 2M0X1) when the Air Force went to the new AFSC system in 1993…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Specialty_Code

In October 1993, the Air Force implemented a new system of AFSCs, aligning occupations with the forcewide restructuring that was implemented under Merrill McPeak. These reduced officer AFSCs from 216 to 123 and enlisted AFSCs from 203 to 176.

So LS, looks like you have some homework to do first…

Please present some contemporary evidence that establishes:

a) any maintenance crews were on-site overnight

b) what they were there to work on

c) what those crew's AFSCs were

d) what they were qualified to work on

In order to backup your claim that…

“The Maintenance crews on-site, as per Figel's statements, would have been in a position to "immediately" extract the channel 50 data.”

Or retract it as uniformed speculation.

lost_shaman wrote:Care to back up that statement by showing where I "claimed" to "know so much about the weapon system"?

Of course not! Because I never claimed that.

Sure you did…

“The Maintenance crews on-site, as per Figel's statements, would have been in a position to "immediately" extract the channel 50 data.”

lost_shaman wrote:Simply discussing a case does not mean people are claiming to be "authorities". :roll:

So then what are you doing here criticizing one, talking out your ass again?
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 Zep Tepi » Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:23 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Hey Steve,

Funny isn't it? You say this about me and think so poorly of me simply because I'm discussing this case, when Tim just said on RU his only reason for posting his Blog is to argue with one person!


Well, for one thing I didn't say I think so poorly of you and for another, my point wasn't referring to the fact that you are discussing this case, but the manner in which you are doing it!

You appear to be using every tactic in the book in order to detract from what certain people have stated - usually information that is backed up by solid hard facts and a huge amount of experience with regard to this material. It appears to me that you are not interested in searching for answers, because every time you receive one you either ignore it completely or shout it down!

Why don't you show the same "passion" with respect to Hastings and Salas' claims? It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have lied, multiple times about this case, yet you are more interested in going after those that proved they lied in the first place?

How very odd.

...when Tim just said on RU his only reason for posting his Blog is to argue with one person!

Tim said: LS, honestly, my blog articles are specifically targeted towards one individual.

I suppose you missed that.


Eh? What difference does it make? Tim can argue with the weather if he wants to, it's his blog!

BTW, I did have a good day. Thanks for the well wishes.


Excellent, I'm pleased to hear it :)

I'm getting married at the end of this month so every day is just wonderful... ;)
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:07 pm

lost_shaman wrote:Funny isn't it? You say this about me and think so poorly of me simply because I'm discussing this case, when Tim just said on RU his only reason for posting his Blog is to argue with one person


True, my blog was strictly a vehicle to refute Robert Hastings' claims...seriously, you didn't think I was referring about you? If you don't like my blog, then say so in the blog's comment section.

lost_shaman wrote:Yes and that's a Strawman argument because I've never claimed the Unit History says that. I've said for the last month that the 23 March Engineering report that this part of the History in based upon "likely" and "probably" names Top-side personnel at Echo as the source for the UFO that mentioned in the History.


And you have nothing to back that up...please explain what you mean by top-side personnel at Echo, who and where?

lost_shaman wrote:You are misconstruing what the History actually says. It says the channel 50 data was extracted from sites E-7 and E-8 "immediately" after the shutdowns. You don't have a shred of evidence to suggest this was done by a "team" dispatched "well after" the shutdowns. The Maintenance crews on-site, as per Figel's statements, would have been in a position to "immediately" extract the channel 50 data. You know that good and well because, until now, you've argued that they "verified" the No-Go status from inside the Silo Carlson and Figel saw at the LCC.


Again, no hard documented evidence that teams were on any site. E-7 and E-8 could have easily had fault isolation tapes run by teams such as Barlow's that were within an hours drive to the sites. If a team where on E-8, they would have been strictly working on diesel generator, VRSA ch 26, this team, if they existed at all, could have been a missile civil engineering team with no access to the insides of the LF since the work required working only in the soft support building, but the unit history does not show that any team was on site during the shutdowns. BTW, I'm allowed to change my argument when I have new data available that alters my original conclusions, I believe that's acceptable as long as my new information provides strong evidence to do so. Simply accept or reject my new premise and move on with your life.

lost_shaman wrote:I've answered your questions, the ones that are reasonable, when you've asked them. What Irks me are open ended questions you've been asking, as opposed to making a case for your own arguments.

You want examples:

Tim: In reviewing the unit history as a whole, with exception to the UFO rumors, what things are NOT said in its content?


My questions merely provided me a way to judge your thought content and thought process as to how you approach this subject.

lost_shaman wrote:Will the most glaring example not do? The FACT that you've just changed your argument when your first argument "didn't stick"! That's exactly what the"spaghetti" Metaphor refers to. Of course you made this claim about me first despite the lack of glaring examples that I've changed my argument


You are just pissed off because I pulled the rug out of your "SIN/VHF/ who was where and heard what" discussion and that I did not post my new theory on UM...please read my past UM posts, I practically held your hand as I was gauging reactions from the very theory that I now proffer...you missed it, or failed to grasp the implication as all of you were myopic in your arguments.

lost_shaman wrote:What "possible calibration mode" that took place days before? Here again you are asking questions as opposed to making your own case. If you have evidence that E-8 was 'days' into a "calibration mode" then post it! If you have the evidence for that then this certainly doesn't support your case because the Unit History doesn't say that! I've argued all this time that the Unit History isn't all inclusive!

The only thing the Unit History says about it is that E-8 was 2:30 hours into a restart, and then it says E-8 was one of the LF sites that had channel 50 data extracted "immediately" after the shutdowns.


Again, you have to know what is being described. The unit history states:

Although E- 8 had indications of a previous monitor
check No- Go it was not the cause of shutdown at this time . This
was determined by information contained in sector 54 which said
that subsequent to the last No-Go the C&C had completed an
iteration routine which is performed approximately 2 hours and
30 minutes into a restart .


This means that at one time, prior to the shutdown on 16 Mar, the missile guidance system detected a potential problem (monitor check no-go, that's what the system is supposed to do on daily basis) and dropped the sortie into a calibration mode (iteration). Calibration modes (IMU and SAT) generally take place as a command from the crew or the guidance system itself "protects" itself by automatically dropping into calibration (iteration routine). I had this happen on occasions while out on alert. I also commanded (by wing job control's direction), from my control panel for sorties to perform various calibrations...some calibrations lasted well over 4 hours.

What does this tell me about E-8? I know that this calibration happened well before the shutdown, because the launch crew stated that they saw no "standby" lights on there console. Standby illumination was the indication that a sortie had been dropped into calibration mode. In short...its irrelevant to E-8 dropping off alert on the 16th of March.

lost_shaman wrote:Maybe you are not the best judge of reading comprehension?


What ever you wish to perceive...

When I was assigned to Grand Forks' 321 SMW, Codes Division, I was eventually the OIC Operations Branch. I and my troops produced the then version of the "maintenance tapes" and other critical components. Then, we produced LF Load Cartridges that contained flights, ground, IMU data, SAC's executive programs (targeting info) and half of the launch code. The other half was coded into a permutation plug that fitted on top of the guidance system. Only EMTs could carry the load cartridges and only MMTs could handle the permutation plug, this kept the full launch code separated. MMT was also the teams that demated the RVs from the guidance system and allowed the EMT teams to swap out the guidance systems. Basically the same in MM I back in 1967. Shows you that you had to have quite a few different teams involved during a routine No-Go checkout and follow-on maintenance. This is why I'm able to infer alot from the unit history based upon that portion of my background. You can accept that or not, doesn't really matter at this point.

What is revealed in the unit history, though it does not tell you, is that quite a few of Echo's LFs were brought up to strat alert well before ch. 50 data extractions were accomplished, why was that? Simply, SAC's primary priority was covering 10 targets in the USSR. The cause of the shutdowns (EMPs, UFOs, gremlins) was of a secondary importance...important, yet meeting the requirements of the SIOP was where people made or broke careers. There's your cover-up!
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 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:10 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:Why don't you show the same "passion" with respect to Hastings and Salas' claims? It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have lied, multiple times about this case, yet you are more interested in going after those that proved they lied in the first place?

How very odd.


I agree - I admit to following this thread closely but haven't felt compelled to get in the middle of the debate. There's enough fire-power on both sides for good entertainment, but I have to say that one thing that is blatantly obvious - and you've hit on it here Steve - is that LS is suffering from a very clear case of "confirmation bias."

It's an easy trap to fall into, and it's painful to watch people suffering from it, completely unaware that it is affecting them. But of course that's pretty much par for the course in this field 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 lost_shaman » Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:40 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:
Why don't you show the same "passion" with respect to Hastings and Salas' claims? It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have lied, multiple times about this case, yet you are more interested in going after those that proved they lied in the first place?

How very odd.


I have. I've said many times that I don't believe a UFO, as in an E.T. Spaecraft, came down and shutdown Echo Flight. But that someone may have seen and or reported a UFO, as in UAP, at or around the time. That puts me clearly at odds with BOTH Camps!

That said, Hastings and Salas have never publicly cursed me out or vehemently attacked my character as the other Camp has and continues to do. Seems to me there is plenty of "passion" when it comes to assaulting my character!



Zep Tepi wrote:
I'm getting married at the end of this month so every day is just wonderful... ;)


Congratulations.
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 Aug 05, 2011 8:09 pm

lost_shaman wrote:I have. I've said many times that I don't believe a UFO, as in an E.T. Spaecraft, came down and shutdown Echo Flight. But that someone may have seen and or reported a UFO, as in UAP, at or around the time. That puts me clearly at odds with BOTH Camps!


An EXELLENT alternative theory for you to develop! Should you pursue it diligently and come up with feasible data, then it is a good area to discuss. Your premise of UAP may very well provide a piece of the Oscar puzzle, which I hope to start on in the near future.

lost_shaman wrote:Zep Tepi wrote:

I'm getting married at the end of this month so every day is just wonderful...


Congrats! My wife and I will be celebrating our 29th anniversary later this month...feels like 50 sometimes...
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 » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:17 am

Tim Hebert wrote:True, my blog was strictly a vehicle to refute Robert Hastings' claims...seriously, you didn't think I was referring about you? If you don't like my blog, then say so in the blog's comment section.


No, I knew good and well you were not referring to me. I assumed it was for Hastings, not Salas. Personally I have no problem with your blog, but I was accused of "arguing only for the sake of arguing" and I found that odd to accuse me of after you had admitted the reason for posting your blog, yet that was ignored. It really was not meant to be a 'dig' against you, but rather to point out a small bit of hypocrisy here being directed towards me.


Tim Hebert wrote:And you have nothing to back that up...please explain what you mean by top-side personnel at Echo, who and where?


Just for clarity, the same Maintenance and Security personnel we've been discussing in this case for years now.


Tim Hebert wrote:Again, no hard documented evidence that teams were on any site. E-7 and E-8 could have easily had fault isolation tapes run by teams such as Barlow's that were within an hours drive to the sites. If a team where on E-8, they would have been strictly working on diesel generator, VRSA ch 26, this team, if they existed at all, could have been a missile civil engineering team with no access to the insides of the LF since the work required working only in the soft support building, but the unit history does not show that any team was on site during the shutdowns.


Yes, and again, there is no statement that there were no crews or Security at Echo LF's at the time of the shutdown. Barlow, didn't say anything about extracting Channel 50 data. And the fact that a generator kicked on, causing a VRSA Ch. 26 in and of itself doesn't exclude a Maintenance crew being on-site nor would that necessarily require their attention.


Tim Hebert wrote: BTW, I'm allowed to change my argument when I have new data available that alters my original conclusions, I believe that's acceptable as long as my new information provides strong evidence to do so. Simply accept or reject my new premise and move on with your life.


Of course you are 'allowed' to do so as we all are, however doing so amid a discussion tends to be considered fallacious as in "moving the Goal Post" or "throwing things against the wall". You shouldn't fault me for assuming this was the case considering the circumstances of 'our' UM discussion and the fact that I have no idea what "new data" you are talking about and that you say you've considered this for 3 Months prior but only privately mentioned it to one person. IMO, my reaction to your change in argument was reasonable considering that typically the way you went about it would be considered fallacious.

Tim Hebert wrote:My questions merely provided me a way to judge your thought content and thought process as to how you approach this subject.


I saw straight through this, were you able to tell?


Tim Hebert wrote:You are just pissed off because I pulled the rug out of your "SIN/VHF/ who was where and heard what" discussion and that I did not post my new theory on UM...please read my past UM posts, I practically held your hand as I was gauging reactions from the very theory that I now proffer...you missed it, or failed to grasp the implication as all of you were myopic in your arguments.


Honestly, I don't think your "new" position detracts from that argument at all. I didn't actually need you to make my case, but if you are admitting to "making things up" in order to "hold my hand" or "fool" the UM community that speaks to your credibility not mine!
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: trimmed quotes and removed extra blank lines
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 lost_shaman » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:27 am

Tim Hebert wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:I have. I've said many times that I don't believe a UFO, as in an E.T. Spaecraft, came down and shutdown Echo Flight. But that someone may have seen and or reported a UFO, as in UAP, at or around the time. That puts me clearly at odds with BOTH Camps!


An EXELLENT alternative theory for you to develop! Should you pursue it diligently and come up with feasible data, then it is a good area to discuss. Your premise of UAP may very well provide a piece of the Oscar puzzle, which I hope to start on in the near future.


I agree it's a great alternative hypothesis, but it still places me at odds with BOTH Camps! I don't have anyone to "attack" those who disagree with me. I don't have anyone to argue I'm correct when I'm "off-line".
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 » Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:47 am

lost_shaman wrote:I agree it's a great alternative hypothesis, but it still places me at odds with BOTH Camps!

I don’t think Tim thinks it’s “great” for the same reason you do and I’m sorry to say but your UAP hypothesis doesn’t put you at odds with the ET camp…

It’s equally unevidenced and relies on the exact same illogic.
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]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron