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 » Sat Aug 06, 2011 8:26 am

Access Denied wrote:
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.



How is that? UAP are not E.T. Spaceships. And what "illogic" is that? Many of those who remember some involvement in this case also seem to remember some UFO involvment. Take Barlow for an example. Or the FACT that the Unit History mentions such.
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 Zep Tepi » Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:22 am

lost_shaman wrote:
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 said his blog articles were targeted at one specific individual and later stated the intention was to refute his (Hastings) claims. This much was obvious from the articles themselves and from Tim's posts here.

How does that compare to my stating you [appeared to be] "arguing for arguments sake"? There is no comparison and there is no hypocrisy.

As for your UAP hypothesis wrt this case, the leaps of faith and logic required in order to reach such a conclusion just beggar belief, in my opinion.
.
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 » Sat Aug 06, 2011 9:49 am

lost_shaman wrote:How is that? UAP are not E.T. Spaceships. And what "illogic" is that? Many of those who remember some involvement in this case also seem to remember some UFO involvment. Take Barlow for an example. Or the FACT that the Unit History mentions such


Again, at least, it's an alternative theory for consideration, but it needs to be developed see where it leads, if at all. I know that portion of Montana had many small airfields, some private, that ranchers used to check on cattle and farmers used for crop dusting service. Whether this was the original source of the rumors is any body's guess, but its a reasonable hypothesis that can be looked at...but difficult to prove, in my opinion.

lost_shaman wrote: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.


Good, that should clear up the issue of my blog, and again either pro or con, I invite people to post comments. I'll give you credit for at least discussing it with me as opposed to Hastings...yes, he reads my work.

lost_shaman wrote: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


Yet, due to the history not being specific about anyone being on site or sites, I feel obliged to maintain my position. Let's just say, that we will politely disagree. Should things develop that makes my position incorrect then I will accordingly adjust my theory or chunk it all together, at least that part of it. I still have 8 points that supports my over all conclusion...in my opinion.

lost_shaman wrote: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.


The main crux of my argument stems from the flight uniqueness of the shutdowns and the system design of LF connectivity isolation. The lack of mentioning of any maintenance team was a later "discovery". Honestly, embarrassing for me, since I had poured over the unit history and other documents and missed it...I was "myopic" in my interpretation over a year ago. It would only be considered fallacious it my intent was to totally deceive, which was not my intention. If that were the case then I doubt that RU would mention my last article in their own blog.

lost_shaman wrote: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!


I admit nothing of the sort. If you thought that I was making things up, then you and others at UM would have noticed and responded accordingly...as well as the moderators and admin here at RU. Notice that I use my real name, not a moniker, that's because I'm willing to put my credibility and reputation as a former AF officer on the line. My former and current missile peers are also aware of my endeavors and the arguments that I make. I assure you, what they think is more important than what you, UM, RU, or Hastings think.
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 10:11 am

Zep Tepi wrote:Tim said his blog articles were targeted at one specific individual and later stated the intention was to refute his (Hastings) claims. This much was obvious from the articles themselves and from Tim's posts here.

How does that compare to my stating you [appeared to be] "arguing for arguments sake"? There is no comparison and there is no hypocrisy.


It does compare becaue I have at least one Alternative Hypothesis to pro-offer, and I offer it for the benifit of all! Not simply in hopes an "advasary" will read it!


Zep Tepi wrote:As for your UAP hypothesis wrt this case, the leaps of faith and logic required in order to reach such a conclusion just beggar belief, in my opinion.


How so? What do you "believe" exactly that falsifies my argument?

Wait! Do you even have a clue what I've argued? I doubt it.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:06 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 11:13 am

Tim Hebert wrote:Again, at least, it's an alternative theory for consideration, but it needs to be developed see where it leads, if at all. I know that portion of Montana had many small airfields, some private, that ranchers used to check on cattle and farmers used for crop dusting service. Whether this was the original source of the rumors is any body's guess, but its a reasonable hypothesis that can be looked at...but difficult to prove, in my opinion.


Not much different at all from North Texas.

That said, UAP are not Aircraft.


Tim Hebert wrote:Good, that should clear up the issue of my blog, and again either pro or con, I invite people to post comments. I'll give you credit for at least discussing it with me as opposed to Hastings...yes, he reads my work.


Thanks. I'm not afraid to discuss these things even if my good character is accosted constantly!


Tim Hebert wrote:Yet, due to the history not being specific about anyone being on site or sites, I feel obliged to maintain my position. Let's just say, that we will politely disagree.


BUT, on the same Token, you understand that I have good reason to maintain my position as well. Yes?


Tim Hebert wrote:The main crux of my argument stems from the flight uniqueness of the shutdowns and the system design of LF connectivity isolation. The lack of mentioning of any maintenance team was a later "discovery". Honestly, embarrassing for me, since I had poured over the unit history and other documents and missed it...I was "myopic" in my interpretation over a year ago. It would only be considered fallacious it my intent was to totally deceive, which was not my intention. If that were the case then I doubt that RU would mention my last article in their own blog.


Your mention in an RU blog does not prove anything. And I've discussed the FACT that the Unit history fails to be specific.


Tim Hebert wrote:I admit nothing of the sort. If you thought that I was making things up, then you and others at UM would have noticed and responded accordingly...as well as the moderators and admin here at RU. Notice that I use my real name, not a moniker, that's because I'm willing to put my credibility and reputation as a former AF officer on the line. My former and current missile peers are also aware of my endeavors and the arguments that I make. I assure you, what they think is more important than what you, UM, RU, or Hastings think.



I feel exactly the opposite. I think people who use their real names want some recognition. I've never hidden my name, for example Access Denied knows my name. I used my real name when I was referenced by NARCAP in their "O Hare" UAP report. But I like to use my Moniker even though it means people won't know who I am unless they research and want to know who I am. I don't 'flaunt' my real name, nor do I hide it.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:10 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 » Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:47 pm

LS, I realize you like to hear yourself talk but please, at least address this point that you so far have ignored…

Access Denied wrote:Please present some contemporary evidence that establishes:

a) any maintenance crews were on-site overnight

[snip]

Or retract it as uninformed speculation.

Preferably on Tim’s blog as he requested. Thank you.

lost_shaman wrote:I've discussed the FACT that the Unit history fails to be specific.

Tim’s point exactly. You’re merely speculating that there was anything specific (an actual UFO/UAP sighting by anybody at Echo or Oscar to discuss in the first place) despite the FACT the Unit History states the RUMORS of UFOs “around the areas” of Echo were DISPROVEN.

lost_shaman wrote:That said, UAP are not Aircraft.

This is why, just like the ETH proponents, you have zero credibility. The U in UAP stands for UNINDENTIFIED yet here you are claiming to know what UAP are not. How do you KNOW the P in UAP is not attributable to mundane causes like 95% or more of all reports?

Also, please make some effort to trim your unnecessarily large quotes and make you posts more readable for our guests by not inserting so many extra blank lines into them. I just went back and cleaned them up for you.
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 Tim Hebert » Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:17 pm

lost_shaman wrote:That said, UAP are not Aircraft.

Then you've got some work to do.....

lost_shaman wrote:BUT, on the same Token, you understand that I have good reason to maintain my position as well. Yes?

Of course you do! And you understand why for my position....yes?

lost_shaman wrote:Your mention in an RU blog does not prove anything.

As opposed to say...UM?

lost_shaman wrote:I feel exactly the opposite. I think people who use their real names want some recognition. I've never hidden my name, for example Access Denied knows my name. I used my real name when I was referenced by NARCAP in their "O Hare" UAP report. But I like to use my Moniker even though it means people won't know who I am unless they research and want to know who I am. I don't 'flaunt' my real name, nor do I hide it.

I have no problem with people using monikers (and nice avatars), my decision to use my full name was based upon my credibility in the subject of Minuteman ICBM operations. This allowed, over a year ago, for the moderators and admin here at RU to research my identity/claims should they wished to. I had my DD 214 ready if they had requested. So, it appears that you think that I strictly want some recognition or notoriety...because I use my full name? Funny, I was raised in West Texas and portions of the deep South where it was held that in the end all that one had was his "good" name.
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 » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:52 am

Access Denied wrote:LS, I realize you like to hear yourself talk but please, at least address this point that you so far have ignored…

Access Denied wrote:Please present some contemporary evidence that establishes:

a) any maintenance crews were on-site overnight

[snip]

Or retract it as uninformed speculation.

Preferably on Tim’s blog as he requested. Thank you.


Honestly, I missed your post from Thurs. The statement you are wanting me to retract simply meant the Crews Figel says were on-site would have been in a PHYSICAL position to have extracted the Channel 50 data. How you managed to read so much more into it than that is beyond me. Now I've clarified the statement.

Also, Tim never asked me to retract it here or on his blog.


Access Denied wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:That said, UAP are not Aircraft.

This is why, just like the ETH proponents, you have zero credibility. The U in UAP stands for UNINDENTIFIED yet here you are claiming to know what UAP are not. How do you KNOW the P in UAP is not attributable to mundane causes like 95% or more of all reports?


When I said UAP I meant Plasma, as in Unexplained Atmopheric Plasma.


Access Denied wrote:
Also, please make some effort to trim your unnecessarily large quotes and make you posts more readable for our guests by not inserting so many extra blank lines into them. I just went back and cleaned them up for you.


For some reason some strange things have been happening at RU when I try to post. The site keeps adding in extra end-quote tags for instance that I too keep having to go back and correct. If there are also extra blank lines in my posts I'm not seeing them here on my end.
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 » Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:41 am

Tim Hebert wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:BUT, on the same Token, you understand that I have good reason to maintain my position as well. Yes?

Of course you do! And you understand why for my position....yes?


Sure. We understand eachother.


Tim Hebert wrote:
lost_shaman wrote:Your mention in an RU blog does not prove anything.

As opposed to say...UM?


Not sure what that would prove either.

Tim Hebert wrote:
I have no problem with people using monikers (and nice avatars), my decision to use my full name was based upon my credibility in the subject of Minuteman ICBM operations. This allowed, over a year ago, for the moderators and admin here at RU to research my identity/claims should they wished to. I had my DD 214 ready if they had requested.


Fair enough.

Tim Hebert wrote:
So, it appears that you think that I strictly want some recognition or notoriety...because I use my full name? Funny, I was raised in West Texas and portions of the deep South where it was held that in the end all that one had was his "good" name.


No I don't think that now that you've clarified. I'm from North Texas so I completely understand the concept of a Mans "good" name. That said I use my moniker on every forum I post in so it is very much like a second name. Having my character attacked as lost_shaman is just as bad to me as having my character attacked if I was using my real name!
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 Zep Tepi » Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:30 pm

James Carlson has written a new article in response to Robert Hastings "Echo Flight UFO Incident Not Unique: Retired Col. Frederick Meiwald Says "Bright Object" Also Sighted During OSCAR Flight Missile Malfunctions", which was published in June of this year.

With "Strategic Editing", we think James asks some very important questions regarding Hastings' new methodology of presenting alleged "witness testimony" and Robert Salas' claims in general that need to be answered.

Put the kettle on and get some sandwiches in, at over 14000 words this is a monster read, but absolutely well worth the effort.

Strategic Editing
.
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 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:13 am

James, it's a good read, one of your best pieces to date!
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 Gilles F. » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:56 am

Greetings,

Thx you very much for the 2 recent reads : I humblely think too last Tim and James articles are ones the two best you wrote, Dears. Tim one, because it is imho an impressing and concise summerize about the (non) case for the ones a little "lost" by all the controversy and texts ; and James last one because it points again important questions regarding the fallacious methodoly used or confirmation bias in pro-HET ufology and for this case in particular.

It have been of course relayed in France.

Thank you again Tim and James (as RU team of course).

Cheers,

Gilles F.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:30 am

Gilles F. wrote:. Tim one, because it is imho an impressing and concise summerize about the (non) case for the ones a little "lost" by all the controversy and texts ; [snip]


Really Gilles? That's an amazing choice of words; that you put "lost" in quotes isn't it?

Anyone else care to take digs at me or attack my character while we are at it and trying to be popular? I wouldn't want anyone to be left out! :roll:

ETA: Why don't you guys just go straight to my hate mail?

Send to: ihatelost_shaman@yahoo.com
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 Gilles F. » Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:46 pm

lost_shaman wrote:
Gilles F. wrote:. Tim one, because it is imho an impressing and concise summerize about the (non) case for the ones a little "lost" by all the controversy and texts ; [snip]


Really Gilles? That's an amazing choice of words; that you put "lost" in quotes isn't it?

Anyone else care to take digs at me or attack my character while we are at it and trying to be popular? I wouldn't want anyone to be left out! :roll:

ETA: Why don't you guys just go straight to my hate mail?

Send to: ihatelost_shaman@yahoo.com


Greetings Lost-Shaman,

Hum ? I think with all your respects you are totaly interpreting my attention and goal here, sincerly. The choice of the word and in quotes "lost" have nothing to do with you. No one direct or indirect intention of my part to attack your character or to make a "words game", a "private joke" or "mockery" or dunno what against you and Lost-Shaman character. #-o It is for sure a misunderstanding.

For my defense - sic - : May I ask you to go in the page #31 of this thread and to read my reply of Sun Jun 12 1.00 pm. I wrote here too :

But it is very long and hard to follow cause the elements are scaterred like the Roswell debris (hihi) in several threads, replies, etc. And I think our readers are probably a little "lost".


viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688&start=450

OK ? So, in other words, I was asking in this old my reply if RU team, James and/or Tim should write something I could translate in French summerizing the controversy for our french readers a little "lost" by the tons of topics here or there about the case and regarding the controversy... That's hard to follow for "neophytes" and many french readers are "lost" then.
Tim Hebert's last article is perfectly "responding" to my humble demand when I read it to have a summerize for people a little "lost" about this important controversy (in Ufology). That's all and simple. There is nothing more to see or understand in my choice and the quote "lost" !

I hope you understand now, as I demonstrated, that the choice of this word "lost" is not an attack to your character :roll: But a pure coïncidence. Misunderstanding solved or you always have a doubt?

Sincerly,

Gilles Fernandez
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:30 pm

Gilles,
Thank you for your kind words expressed here and at Sceptic Ovni concerning my last blog article. Yes, I hope that my way of writing is comprehensive enough for my French cousins. Hope all is well with Nablator and Nemrod, as I follow their work as well!

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

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests