Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

[Tim Hebert]

Just received this interesting comment on my blog. I've posted a new blog entry highlighting former Air Force officer Grant Taylor's comment.

Thanks for a most interesting report. I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minutemnan Missile Maintenance Officer's Course. And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event. But the Air Force DID take EMP seriously. I was sent TDY to Boeing in 1969 for training on a new EMP detection system to be installed in each LCF. The training message was that ALL EMPs, not just those of a nuclear nature, were cause for concern. Grant Taylor Cabot, VT on Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Sort of interesting, don't you think?

[James Carlson]

Sort of interesting, don't you think?

It's a lot more than interesting, I think! He seems to imply at the very least that Bob Jamison never discussed the incident in any context with UFOs as early as 1969, and that he may, in fact, have gone on the record that early with a complete denial insofar as the whole alien schtick is concerned -- possibly joining in with the general ridicule the subject apparently deserved. Given the UNCLASSIFIED status of the UFO rumors as established in the original command histories, Jamison can't even defend his apparent silence or mirth with any possible status associated with security clearance or need-to-know...

Mr. Cabot confirms as well the general environment of realized electrical "glitches" that all of the ICBM histories also make clear, as well as (and this is the part I really love) the concern that the USAF had in regard to "ALL EMPs, not just those of a nuclear nature". It's a bit problematic for Salas' version of these events, given his insistence that the EMP mentioned in the command histories in relation to the ultimate cause of the Echo Flight Incident (and as discussed in some detail by the little coterie of witnesses associated with University of Colorado UFO Study) could not possibly be anything other than a nuclear EMP -- a supposition he introduced to suggest that the ultimate cause of the Echo Flight incident must have been some form of extraordinary interference. After all, it's a well-known fact that there were no above-ground nuclear detonations anywhere near Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 -- a measure of the times that Salas tends to emphasize a lot while neglecting every other form of EMP that he must surely have been aware of. This confirmed concern acted upon by the USAF in the two-plus years following Echo Flight does tend to support all of those EMP studies and projects that Salas and Hastings have apparently decided to ignore as an associated investigation of high interest not only to the USAF, but also to all of those corporations still developing and improving the entire, vast field of experimental micro-circuitry that the missile programs depended upon to such a great extent.

This is brilliant stuff, Tim! I'd love to have other veterans of our missile crews with the same technical knowledge and background as you and Mr. Cabot and my father and Col. Figel come forward as well (although I certainly understand why most have decided not to; as you well know, it's not a whole lot of fun to be constantly victimized and publically insulted by a crowd of psychopaths like Robert Hastings). I've had private conversations with quite a few veteran missileers who applaud our efforts, just as I'm certain you have, but every time one or another comes forward to publically refute the UFO claims made, or even just to add a couple of revealing comments to the mix that serve to enlighten the murkier sides of the issue, I can't help but think of it as a nice, early Christmas present. Mr. Cabot's couple of revealing memories does that, and as you've said, they are indeed "[s]ort of interesting". I just can't help but love fun stuff -- and this very easily qualifies.

And as soon as I feed the cats and go pick up my wife, I'm going to read your article with the full expectation that it will be "fun stuff" as well!

[Tim Hebert]

James, I didn't write anything extensive, rather letting Mr. Taylor's comment speak for itself. You and I (and others) have been making the case for an EMP cause, and being ridiculed for doing so. Mr. Taylor makes it plain and clear that EMPs were of an interest. And yes, nuclear resources such as ICBMs did malfunction on occasion. Sometimes "crap does happen" regardless of what the critics think.

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

Well, I guess even the hint of an unsupported case is forbidden in the world of De Void. In a comment to his article at http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1 ... ere/?tc=ar, I merely stated that Congress might take the affidavits referred to at the above link more seriously if those composing such stellar examples of truth and justice didn't change their story (and associated affidavits) every time evidence contrary to their claims is made public. I mentioned as well that the proven use of "group testimony" by the authors of the affidavits is also a means of producing tainted testimony, adding that in a forensic environment such testimony would be immediately thrown out of court as prejudicial to the case being established. This is a legal tactic that the Supreme Court has very consistently denounced as a form of evidential presentation, and its use has been forbidden for decades. I also mentioned that because an affidavit can only establish origin, not truthfulness, and because the author of such an account cannot be compelled to answer questions, whether pro or con, it's use as a legal structure has little value.

My comment was two paragraphs in length, and it ran for two days before being deleted. This is a tactic that Billy Cox has relied upon in the past, and it can have only one purpose: to prevent the presentation of any response contrary to his own. There certainly does seem to be a cover-up in progress, but not a cover-up to hide the presence of UFOs -- it's a cover-up used to prevent any discussion of the provincial and mediocre explanations for UFO phenomena. It's just one more example among many that those responsible for establishing the evidence in favor of UFOs have reached a breaking point in their history, one that assures the use of any method, including those that are blatantly dishonest and prejudicial. These UFO proponents -- many of which seem to be closely affiliated with UFOCHRONICLES -- appear to have adopted a point-of-view that ignores any ethical treatment of their arguments. They no longer care to establish arguments of merit. Their strategy is to press the issue by any means possible, a tactic that will, in the long run, convince the general public that the only appropriate response to UFOlogy is one of contempt; and this assumption by the public will be fully justified.

[James Carlson]

Tim Hebert has written an absolutely damning summary of Salas' Oscar Flight UFO claims entitled The Oscar Flight Mystery: A Tree Falling in a UFO Forest. It's at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/07/o ... 7455920684 and is strongly recommended for those who want a quick summary outlining the basic flaws in the whole UFO claim that Robert Salas and Robert Hastings have made "concerning Oscar Flight back on 24 March 1967". With the same sense of standard logic that Tim has brought to other such topics, he very succinctly proposes a reasonable standard upon which to balance our belief, one that very sensibly depends not so much on the claims being made, but on the reliability of the sources used based on patterns of military behavior already established by the response of the same chain of command to a nearly identical incident occurring within a few days of the first. He is merely asking us to examine the already confirmed response of a military administration that was hardly renowned for its abuse of protocol, and to then apply it to the UFO claims that have already been made. Regardless of what you might currently believe insofar as UFOs in general might be, when judging the reliability of individual cases, it's not a matter of "faith" to expect the military to follow active orders in accordance with protocol and standard rules of conduct and behavior. The military does not "experiment" with procedure, and it doesn't play around with operational expectations. If you currently believe the claims that Hastings and Salas are attempting to establish, than you have to believe as well that in March 1967, a USAF contingent within the sovereign territory of the United States and commanding the single most powerful weapons system that this entire planet has ever produced responded to a technical incursion of that system without any administrative or security-based forbearance, without any sense of standardized, mission-based protocol, and without any real desire to approach a solution based on the careful, deductive reasoning and objective-oriented methods that have highlighted America's pursuit of supremacy and self-determination since 1776. The answer, I believe, is obvious...

[Gilles F.]

Hello,
Holliday times, less attention regarding UFO new articles, so discovering yesterday July the 14th Tim Hebert's article
Impressing concise article, summerizing the main points making Oscar alleged incident and assertions delivered by Hastings/Salas very suspect!
I specialy liked the "seven deadly sins" as I present them with irony, in the conclusion of the article.
Thank you for your work!
Amitiés,
Gilles

[Robert Hastings]

Thank you for bringing Mr. Taylor's statement to everyone's attention, Tim.

So, according to one of his former USAF colleagues, Minuteman targeting officer Bob Jamison was talking about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom AFB, in 1967, while he was at Chanute AFB in the late 1960s--even though Taylor didn't take that seriously.

Gee, I'm confused. According to James Carlson, such claims didn't surface until the mid-1990s, when Bob Salas started making them up to help sell books on the topic.

Predictably, James tries to spin Taylor's statement, saying, "He seems to imply at the very least that Bob Jamison never discussed the incident in any context with UFOs as early as 1969, and that he may, in fact, have gone on the record that early with a complete denial insofar as the whole alien schtick is concerned."

Only Carlson could come up with that interpretation of Taylor's statement. Such is the smell of desperation.

Taylor actually says that Jamison's account was not well received: "The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously--either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay."

I interviewed Jamison in 1992, three years before Salas went public with his account. Jamison's statement at that time was virtually identical to the one he later made in an affidavit he prepared for my September 27, 2010 press conference in Washington D.C. The latter may be read at:

http://www.ufohastings.com/documents

As one will learn, the UFO aspect of the missile shutdown was not a joke or a secondhand account, as Taylor speculates. It was formally mentioned to Jamison and the assembled targeting teams at Malmstrom's MIMS hanger, both during their briefing and debriefing. I have no doubt that Jamison mentioned all of that to Taylor but that he has forgotten it with the passage of time. Or maybe his anti-UFO biases simply made him incapable of hearing what Jamison was telling the group of instructors.

Interestingly, according to retired Captain David Schindele, a UFO apparently knocked several ICBMs offline at Minot AFB's November Flight in 1966, several months before the two shutdown incidents at Malmstrom. His statement was just posted at:

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/ufo ... -minot-afb

Speaking of missileers, Col. Charles Simpson, Director of the Association of Air Force Missileers, recently published an article of mine in the June issue of the organization's newsletter--the third one in a decade. As in the past, my most recent appeal for former/retired officers to come forward with their UFO experiences in the missile field has resulted in new leads, including one from a retired colonel who says that a UFO hovered over one of his ICBMs at Minot AFB in 1980, knocking it offline. A full discussion of that incident, including the colonel's name, will be posted at my website in the months ahead.

I would love to stick around and watch RU's elite run in circles chasing their tails, in response to this post, but I have work to do. I am currently involved in a French television production that will feature my research, scheduled to air before the end of the year; a Mexican television documentary devoted to same, which will introduce the facts to Spanish-speaking audiences around the world, due to air in 2013; and, last but not least, my own, fully-funded, 90-minute documentary, titled UFOs and Nukes, to be directed by an Emmy Award-winning director, due out in 2014.

In short, the facts about UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites are emerging, slowly but surely, to a global audience.

And that's a good thing.

Talk amongst yourselves.

--Robert Hastings
http://www.ufohastings.com

[Tim Hebert]

Robert, I wonder if you'll actually stick around for a few, rather than doing your customary hit and run tactic? Taylor confirms that the topic of Malmstrom was discussed at the missile maintenance school located on Chanute AFB, IL. He further states that the topic of UFOs did come up. Could that had been due to the rampant rumors? Taylor appears to have the opinion that it was only talk and most not taking it seriously. And he gives the appearance that such talk was occasional but not a hot topic.

Taylor never states that Jamison actually talked about the Malmstrom incident. We may infer that it was a possibility that Jamison said something, or simply it was common knowledge that Echo had dropped off alert, just like Eric Carlson had stated in his interview to Ryan Dube.

Kind of strange that all those people at Chanute were talking about a "highly classified" UFO encounter that others supposedly had been told not to, and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements ie, Figel, Salas and others.

There was another component to Taylor's comments to my blog article, that is the AF's increased interest in EMPs. That was of interest to me, and should be for you, as the AFs description for EMP varied.

Thanks for a most interesting report. I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minutemnan Missile Maintenance Officer's Course. And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event. But the Air Force DID take EMP seriously. I was sent TDY to Boeing in 1969 for training on a new EMP detection system to be installed in each LCF. The training message was that ALL EMPs, not just those of a nuclear nature, were cause for concern. Grant Taylor Cabot, VT on Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

I did ask Taylor if he would be willing to provide anymore information as to Jamison's take while he was at Chanute. So far no response.

Suggest that you read my blog article on Jamison's story, it has a little bit for everyone...even support's a little bit of your take, but not quite connecting the dots concerning your finale conclusion.

BTW, did Taylor ever contact you?

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

Just once, I think it would be enlightening if you [Robert] would explain why your witnesses keep changing their stories. It doesn't do a whole lot for your already questionable credibility. You spend a lot of time trying to establish some sort of explanation for the numerous fallacies your stretch of the imagination has resulted in, and invariably it's just another simple-minded attack directed at your many critics. You attack on the basis of credibility while ignoring everything else. Why, for instance, do you refuse to discuss Meiwald's point of view as anything other than a complete exoneration of Salas' claims when Meiwald has already admitted to you that he doesn't remember anything about a UFO? Why have you linked a small missile failures incident of 4 missiles at best with a UFO sighting that Meiwald refuses to confirm? Why have you repeatedly lied about Figel's claims even after he has very simply and very strongly rejected everything that you have tried to affirm? Why do you continue with these weak-minded attacks in regard to such a very small assertion while refusing completely to discuss any of the very large reservoir of facts that insists you have liberally man-handled the testimonies you've published in order to suggest the presence of a UFO that was never sighted, reported, or investigated by anybody? Do you really expect people to believe you after so many inconsistent claims presented in such an egregiously dishonest fashion? Do you expect these folktales that fall apart so easily upon examination will someday turn into facts because you keep repeating them? If that's all you've got, than you're a failure. When you keep telling the same old sad stories that the entire world has repeatedly rejected on the basis of your blatant dishonesty and your inability to conduct a proper interview, you prove little more than your own handicaps and paranoid obsessions. But you're a special case, pal, because you continue this strategy ad infinitum while expecting a different response each time! And each time, you get torn at by barbs of simple facts that you ignore as unimportant. You are a psychologically inept human being with no will for discovery or truth, attacking little targets that express mere suppositions, while refusing to comment on the very well-documented points of fact that are already part of the record -- and have been for decades. Even better (and this is the point that I just love to discuss, because it's so typical of your reliance on nothing structural, recognized or even consistent), you continue to make claims on the basis of evidence you haven't yet presented. And I find that just funny as Hell, because it reveals as nothing else can the surety of your desperation, and your willingness to rely on imagination when actual analysis and documented facts prove to be so obviously beyond your capabilities to explain or otherwise discuss. The way you have tried to handle and troubleshoot the Figel revelations has already proven your tendency to lie and to use fraudulent means to press a point that you've neglected to establish with any honest application of real analysis; the fact that you continue to use your above-mentioned criticism of such an irrelevant supposition as my opinion, while retaining your silence in regard to the literally dozens of documents, interviews, established facts, military culture and protocols, and the simple application of proper handling instructions for classified materials is just adorable. You are literally making my goal to prove your commanding and insistent use of the lie and the hoax to press your assertions almost unnecessary -- you're doing such a great job of it yourself! Just for the record, it's people like you and Robert Salas who do the most harm to organized UFOlogy and strident belief. In the long run, the world will grow silent and annoyed in regard to UFO theory, and it will happen because you manage to greatly offend even those individuals who are steadfast and confident in their shimmering belief. I didn't bring your tarnished and cowardly dishonesty to the forefront of this discussion -- that's something you did all on your own. And you've managed to do it so well and with such a floundering application of false integrity in the midst of your insistent and focused rejection of your own witnesses' claims, that I suspect that it's all part of a currently undiagnosed medical condition. You should probably look into that. A large part of the charm associated with destroying your claims so easily by the mere application of confirmatory assessment is centered around your impotence and responsive aggression. I suspect any further examination of your claims would quite literally bore me to tears if you weren't around to apply that measure of charm I've come to rely on. We need you healthy yet nonetheless psychotic, Robert. Without your obsessive compulsion to lie and invent such oppressive strategies in your attempts to counter the actual use of facts and recorded history to make the simple point of exposing your egregious and deformed intent, it wouldn't be half the fun it is today...

[James Carlson]

Don't you just love this guy, Tim?

"Just you wait -- we've got lots of evidence, lots of proof. We're just waiting for the right time to publish it. You'll see ... someday you'll all see. I'm relevant, damn you! You can't just dismiss me, like I'm some kind of a joke."

Hey, Robert -- we're still waiting for you to publish all of the 2010 materials you've been talking about for the past two years. What about all those promises you've failed to keep? And now you're making a documentary, hmm? I can hardly wait ... more of nothing from the peanut gallery.

You're embarrassing yourself, Robert. If you weren't so good at it, I'd probably feel sorry for you...

[Tim Hebert]

Well you can say that he's consistent...I liken his tactics to the neighbor's dog who craps on my front yard in the dead of night and scampers back to his own house.

Anyway, I notice that Robert appears to think that Jamison may have told Taylor about his experience, but that Taylor may have forgotten about the conversations due to the passage of time? Yet, everyone else in Hastings' fantasy has crisp and clear memories...like Meiwald.

Nothing like pounding a round plug into a square hole.

I could go on, but we would be rehashing the same old crap.

On a new, yet similar note, I working on a new blog post looking at Boeing's ECP issued after Echo's incident. Might be able to post it by the end of the week.

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

Anyway, I notice that Robert appears to think that Jamison may have told Taylor about his experience, but that Taylor may have forgotten about the conversations due to the passage of time? Yet, everyone else in Hastings' fantasy has crisp and clear memories...like Meiwald.

I've always found it kind of amusing that those witnesses who haven't rejected his assessments and conclusions outright tend to remember many more very specific details as the years go by. Most people reflect a failure of memory over the years, not a marked improvement.

On a new, yet similar note, I working on a new blog post looking at Boeing's ECP issued after Echo's incident. Might be able to post it by the end of the week.

I'm very much looking forward to reading it.

[James Carlson]

It's always fun to examine Robert Hastings' most recent commentaries. He basically spends a whole lot of time saying nothing interesting, so content isn't even an issue. Personally, I find it fascinating how he manages to bring together so many paragraphs that neglect everything that's important to know about his methods and any possible sense of redemption accompanying them. It's laughable how he can attempt to make critical assumptions without actually considering the character of his apparent raison d'etre. I often find myself thinking "okay, why the Hell did he show up?"

And then he plumes and ruffles like he's done something truly magical ... go figure.

Thank you for bringing Mr. Taylor's statement to everyone's attention, Tim.

So, according to one of his former USAF colleagues, Minuteman targeting officer Bob Jamison was talking about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom AFB, in 1967, while he was at Chanute AFB in the late 1960s -- even though Taylor didn't take that seriously.

Robert, you've once again missed the point -- not surprising considering the fact that you've never really established one. Did you even bother to read Grant Taylor's commentary? He doesn't say that "Minuteman targeting officer Bob Jamison was talking about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom AFB, in 1967". He says he recalls the "occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom", adding that the "UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event."

I'm not surprised, Robert, that you would completely ignore any important aspects of the statement -- you do that a lot, like many other psychotics with tunnel vision. This is how you can tell the whole world that Frederick Meiwald confirms Robert Salas' story "100%" just before directly quoting Meiwald's insistence that he remembers nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight. This probably has something to do with your complete refusal to answer any detailed questions about the cases you want people to believe. After all, if you answer too many questions, it soon becomes evident that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and that's just not very good for business, is it?

Let me spell it out for you, okay? I'll use short words so you don't get too confused. Taylor states:

I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minuteman Missile Maintenance Officer's Course.

Shortly after this, he adds (in regard to the discussion "about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom":

No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.

Do you understand now? Take this leap of comprehension: "our instructor group" included Bob Jamison. Apparently, he wasn't making his little flying saucer claims at Chanute AFB.

You've also conveniently neglected to notice that it wasn't just Taylor who didn't take the UFO assessment seriously, which is how you've tried to color his recollections. Is English your second language or something? Because someone with such a notably poor grasp of point-of-view shouldn't be attempting to explain to anybody what a simple sentence means in the context of paragraph structure. It's not like this is Wuthering Heights we're talking about here. This is pretty simple. Please note:

And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique -- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.

Taylor is essentially stating that Jamison wasn't making any UFO claims in regard to Echo Flight (or even Oscar Flight, which never even occurred) at Chanute AFB, and he certainly wasn't taking the matter of UFO involvement seriously. "The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay."

Interesting. That's exactly what everybody on Malmstrom AFB was saying -- everybody except Raymond Fowler, who was the actual originator of all the UFO rumors that surrounded the issue.

Gee, I'm confused. According to James Carlson, such claims didn't surface until the mid-1990s, when Bob Salas started making them up to help sell books on the topic.

Yes, you are confused, but I'm not surprised. It's probably a normal state of mind for you, isn't it? I'll bet you discuss in some depth all sorts of things you know nothing about; that sort of habitual hubris is bound to cause you a pretty high level of confusion sooner or later. The fact that you have little motivation to improve yourself or otherwise act in a manner more conducive to a thorough understanding of your place in the universe probably means you'll be confused about a lot of things for the remainder of your life. You might want to start getting used to it.

Your statement "According to James Carlson, such claims didn't surface until the mid-1990s, when Bob Salas started making them up to help sell books on the topic" is wrong. I've been discussing in some detail Raymond Fowler's 1967 contribution to your pathetic little mythos since May 2010 at the latest. You should catch up, pal. Maybe you'll learn something.

Predictably, James tries to spin Taylor's statement, saying, "He seems to imply at the very least that Bob Jamison never discussed the incident in any context with UFOs as early as 1969, and that he may, in fact, have gone on the record that early with a complete denial insofar as the whole alien schtick is concerned."

Only Carlson could come up with that interpretation of Taylor's statement. Such is the smell of desperation.

Taylor actually says that Jamison's account was not well received: "The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously--either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay."

Taylor doesn't discuss Jamison's account at all. But we've been over that, already. If you're going to use the English language, you might want to learn it first. Of course, such a handicap does provide you with a reasonable exit strategy if you decide to become the picture of an honest man. I'm sure lots of folks would believe you quite readily if you were to step back and say, "oh, is that what I meant? I'm sorry -- I didn't understand those big words I was using."

Once again: Taylor says:

And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique -- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.

Bob Jamison, of course, was a member of "our instructor group", and Taylor states very clearly "No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event." Do you understand now, champ?

I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minuteman Missile Maintenance Officer's Course.

Shortly after this, he adds (in regard to the discussion "about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom":

No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.

Do you understand?

I interviewed Jamison in 1992, three years before Salas went public with his account. Jamison's statement at that time was virtually identical to the one he later made in an affidavit he prepared for my September 27, 2010 press conference in Washington D.C. The latter may be read at:

http://www.ufohastings.com/documents

As one will learn, the UFO aspect of the missile shutdown was not a joke or a secondhand account, as Taylor speculates. It was formally mentioned to Jamison and the assembled targeting teams at Malmstrom's MIMS hanger, both during their briefing and debriefing. I have no doubt that Jamison mentioned all of that to Taylor but that he has forgotten it with the passage of time. Or maybe his anti-UFO biases simply made him incapable of hearing what Jamison was telling the group of instructors.

Yeah, everybody's biased, blah, blah, blah. This bias couldn't possibly be related to your habitual dishonesty, your inability to properly learn the language the rest of the country tends to use, your inability to conduct a proper interview, or your desire to make a point that nothing supports, could it? And if I remember the original claims made by Bob Jamison, he still hasn't confidently put a date or a location to his claims. And why the Hell hasn't he ever tried to defend his own claims? You're obviously not up to the task, because you can't even get a single sentence right when it's written out in front of you! Why are you picking up the slack for a bunch of clowns who apparently can't establish their own memories with any of the consistency the rest of the world expects from a first person account? You come to attack my opinions that are based with logical validity on a few paragraphs of text, and you do it by making these weird leaps of the imagination -- which I really should expect by now, considering the source.

Where exactly do you get the gall to call Jamison's original claims and the claims you helped him rewrite in 2010 "virtually identical"? Are you completely brain dead? Is it "virtually identical" when you go from one of (at least) four possible flights accessible from Lewistown, Montana sometime in 1967 to Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967? Virtually identical? Are you out of your mind?

Robert, it doesn't matter that people can read your statements at http://www.ufohastings.com/documents if those statements have been proven false or have no recognizable basis in real life. If you can't even tell the difference between "virtually identical" and completely different, there is no reason to examine your clams any further. For God's sake, your complete misunderstanding of Grant Taylor's assessment is the only evidence anybody will ever need to prove you incapable of the simple reasoning people expect from trustworthy sources of information. And you pull this crap all the time! It's just another demonstration of your incapacity for sensible analysis. It's exactly like you writing that Frederick Meiwald's "complete confirmation" of Robert Salas Oscar Flight claims constitutes a full exoneration of this pathetic little folktale you keep trying to convince the world of, a "100%" confirmation of Salas' worthless account, even after you yourself wrote that he has no memory of a UFO at Oscar Flight, and even after Robert Salas has written that he's only ever confirmed at the most four missiles dropping offline. And, God knows, he never linked those missile failures to a UFO -- not once! Meiwald even stated in his 1996 letter that his memories were completely different from Salas', and yet you continue to consider his assessment some kind of a grand confirmation!

Do you really think you're up to the task of backing Jamison's claims, when even he himself won't try to defend them? Good God, what is the matter with you people? You talk in absolutes that you have no comprehension of, while Salas calls my father 'cause he's a little upset that he can't back up his sad little claims with the acceptable standards of Wikipedia! And now you want to back up Jamison using Taylor, when you can't even interpret a simple sentence?

You're not very convincing, you know that? The only thing I've ever needed to establish your complete inability to make a valid point is a dictionary. You might try reading one someday, once you learn the language. If you want to convince people that you have a case to make, try answering a few questions once in awhile, instead of writing nonsensical nasties and running away like a frightened child who hears a twig snap in woods. Convince your witnesses to answer questions that haven't been screened first by local MUFON or NICAP punch uglies. Try learning a little bit about the military you daily assess, the classification protocols it uses, and the culture you have proven yourself to be so ignorant of. If you want to say there was a military cover-up, than produce something besides your ridiculous guesses on the basis of materials you lack any capacity to understand.

Interestingly, according to retired Captain David Schindele, a UFO apparently knocked several ICBMs offline at Minot AFB's November Flight in 1966, several months before the two shutdown incidents at Malmstrom. His statement was just posted at:

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/ufo ... -minot-afb

So what? And you say I'm desperate? All you've ever had was a couple guys coming forward to swap b.s. with you. And then when you publish it, they get to go home and tell all their buddies at the local VA club how they got a whole lot of nothing past you and how easy it was. You keep talking about this 130 veterans or so that you've discovered, and yet in the long run, when it really came down to it, you could only convince SEVEN to state their claims in public. And even then, it was so easy to prove that they were lying, that the only high profile professional journalist present took a couple of cookies and laughed his ass off -- all because you can't confirm squat.

Speaking of missileers, Col. Charles Simpson, Director of the Association of Air Force Missileers, recently published an article of mine in the June issue of the organization's newsletter--the third one in a decade. As in the past, my most recent appeal for former/retired officers to come forward with their UFO experiences in the missile field has resulted in new leads, including one from a retired colonel who says that a UFO hovered over one of his ICBMs at Minot AFB in 1980, knocking it offline. A full discussion of that incident, including the colonel's name, will be posted at my website in the months ahead.

I would love to stick around and watch RU's elite run in circles chasing their tails, in response to this post, but I have work to do. I am currently involved in a French television production that will feature my research, scheduled to air before the end of the year; a Mexican television documentary devoted to same, which will introduce the facts to Spanish-speaking audiences around the world, due to air in 2013; and, last but not least, my own, fully-funded, 90-minute documentary, titled UFOs and Nukes, to be directed by an Emmy Award-winning director, due out in 2014.

In short, the facts about UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites are emerging, slowly but surely, to a global audience.

And that's a good thing.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Robert Hastings

You keep it coming. I've seen your waiting list of credits before, and they all shine up to nothing. I'm still waiting for all of the Figel materials you've promised, the interview that proves I never spoke to him, and the tape recordings that have him denouncing the claims my father has been making since 1967. Do you know why people expect only b.s. from you? Because that's all you've ever given them, even after promising them the world. It's all just more of your delusional garbage, and the only people willing to offer you a little credit are those guys who still don't know what you're actually claiming or trying to sell. Your main problem, Robert (aside from the whole language difficulty), is the fact that you are a dishonest fraud who just can't stand it when he's not the center of attention. That's why you never bother to read what your critics say about you -- it's just not flattering enough. Unfortunately, you can't control yourself enough to just shut up and let the criticisms come and then go away, like criticisms always will. Eventually, you have to step out of your imaginary little closet of bright shiny things to defend yourself against critics you don't understand, using a language you have no real connection to, in response to mild assessments you haven't bothered to read or try to comprehend with any real sense of satisfied grace. And that's about the same time that you make the same stupid mistakes that keep popping up in your life like fireflies in the late spring, the same self-promoting, pointless and irresponsible claims about what's going to happen, where it will first shine up in the light of a brand new, virginal morning's sun, and how brutally reasonable everything will seem to even the most bourgeois of mammals in a grand, soon to be fully disclosed world of UFO consensus, all wrapped about and sparkling like a Christmas tree in Norway with all of the important, cosmic, and downright crucial and quintessential contributions that you, Robert Hastings, have made, and how someday the world will be seen differently by those people with more intuition, respect, and knowledge than those currently trying very hard not to laugh out loud at the simple banality of it all, but failing.

And that's about the time you step out of the empty, self-inflated boudoir of self-control spinning like a mirrored disco ball just behind your eyes in order to start the whole thing over again. Good luck with that. After all, you're your own worst enemy.

[Tim Hebert]

Odd how one person's comment on my blog would generate this much talk and analysis.

Taylor never says with any degree of certainty that Jamison talked about UFOs at Malmstrom. As I replied, a waste of time, to Hastings was that one may infer that the subject may have came from Jamison. Taylor makes it clear that UFOs were talked about, but no one took this seriously. If Jamison was the source of the Malmstrom UFO story, was he ridiculed by his peers, or was the story always out there as proof of a rampant rumor mill/folklore?

Of significance is the fact that all of these officers were discussing a supposedly highly classified UFO event that supposedly occurred at Malmstrom. This shoots down any argument that there was a cover-up and further provides credence that your father was correct that everyone knew of the Echo shutdowns.

And in an "off handed" attempt to discredit Taylor, Hastings labels him as biased or having poor memory. One has to wonder how many other former missile officers contacted Hastings arguing that they had never encountered UFOs during their tour of duty? I know that I'm not the only one...there are others.

Curious as to what happened to Hastings' major story concerning FE Warren?

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

Robert Hastings' abandonment of any point-of-view resembling a balanced assessment of his claims and those of his alleged "witnesses" was recently discussed on Tim Hebert's blog [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com for his examination of Hastings' most recent work]. Unfortunately, Hastings is merely repeating himself while refusing to examine any of the contrary arguments and documented facts arrayed against him. This is typical of Hastings, a conclusion shared by Hebert, who has identified very plainly Hastings' total reliance on "the same old story." Hebert's assessment of these obsessive compulsions is crystal: "There is nothing new, nothing has changed....simply it's staled old bread. Robert attempts to resurrect the same cast of characters as if their story will change the final outcome. Not a chance." Using the same evidence while expecting a different reception each time is essentially an indication of Hastings' complete inability to counter the evidence already established, while his continued assault on human intelligence advances unchanged. He is simply ratcheting up the volume a bit.

Plainly put, every time Robert Hastings publishes another spectacle diatribe on Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles, he is making it clear that he can no longer work his way past the public criticism that has pretty much devastated his version of events in regard to Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. I suspect this is little more than the reflection of a conceited and angry schizophrenic who had the essence of his character ripped out from beneath him and made clear to the whole world. Everyone has their dirty secrets; his is nothing less than the ultimate lie that he has based his reputation on. His claims and assessments have been repeatedly shocked into revelation with a spotlight and held up for public examination and ridicule -- and he's gotten it in spades. Having no place to go, poor Robert has instead elected to remain where he is -- a stagnant position that tends to dismiss everything except the same claims that he has always presented, all of which represent conclusions that have repeatedly been addressed and subsequently destroyed.

We could compare Hastings' inner turmoil to that of cockroach caught in the self-effacing glare of a child's flashlight. He's stuck between wanting to freeze and wanting to flee. Imagine Hugh Hefner going slowly insane from syphilis and having no goals beyond keeping that little tawdry bit of news out of the public's often glaring and beady little red eye. After all . . .

(it's a secret).

You can imagine how Hef might react if the whole story was made clear one Sunday morning on the front page of the New York Times. I doubt very seriously that he would have much input when it came time to select December's Playboy Bunny of the Month if a well-supported series of syphilitic revelations were so widely acknowledged (I know Hugh Hefner is currently retired, but this is a metaphor, so try to keep up please; use your imagination). Take away Hefner's brilliance, enlightened humility, self-control, ability to communicate, his often frightening intelligence, grace, good humor, and the numerous resources at his command, replace his Bunny of the Month with the UFO travesties and ill-ruminated fables, slanders, kicking of the dead, and outright lies that Robert Hastings has so clearly surrendered to and you might get the reflection of an idea as to how and why Hastings has failed to advance past the Echo Flight failures of his ill-conceived youth. Hefner, at least, has his billions of dollars, his fine reputation as a publisher of some renown, his Playboy Mansion, and his Grotto to fall back on. Hastings has merely the sad ramblings of a few of old men who are either lying with very little imagination or have clearly forgotten what actually happened to them forty-five years ago. I opt for the big lie, primarily the result of their consistent attempts to attack those more willing to address actual issues in concert with their unceasing reliance on easily proven lies engendered to promote such ridiculous claims. Others, however, may opt for a more medical explanation, i.e., they've simply forgotten, or their memories have been affected and made useless by disease, psychological malformation, aggressive insanity, simple and unconditional stupidity, or the tissue mutation or generation caused by solar flares or the nuclear tectonics inherent to weapons testing, all of which are far more likely to have occurred than the stories these men have been trying to support as factual incidents. And failing to do so . . .

Regardless of what side of the story you may eventually decide to believe, there is no doubt whatsoever that Robert Hastings has produced absolutely nothing worthy of real interest for over two years now. And this is a man who has no real job at all to take up his time! What he's doing is ALL he's doing, and yet, he hasn't managed to produce squat in a very long time, because he's still stuck at that crossroads between reality and imagination represented by his attempts to establish a UFO presence that has repeatedly been proven as baseless. Since March 2010, the only thing (of dubious merit) that Robert Hastings has managed to assess was that nonsense about a UFO at F.E. Warren AFB last year, and that wretched pile of doggerel melted down pretty thoroughly under the incandescent nuclear rage of anonymous witnesses and ill-restrained stupidity. He's produced nothing new to support his Echo Flight folk tales beyond the same old standbys he's fallen back on in the past: he's currently collating data that will prove his claims are completely true, so "just wait, you skeptical scoundrels, until it's been properly compiled, edited, and published. Then you'll see. Then you'll ALL see."

Yeah, okay, pal . . . tell me another one. We've already had that excuse. It meant nothing then, and it means a damn sight less now. Like most of Robert Hastings' claims of the past two years, it's mere jokery, which I suppose he assumes must carry more weight with the masses than the intolerable blank slate he actually holds. I suspect he's wrong in this assessment, but he is providing a little cheap entertainment, so hopefully he'll continue. What am I saying? Of course he'll continue. His obsession with the public evaluation of his character demands such continuity. He can't get past the Echo Flight revelations, because they make very clear his own failures as a UFO pundit, while tending to illuminate with razor sharpness the absence of fact supporting his faltering vision of UFOs and Nukes. His psycho-social weaknesses demand a response, even one as impotent as "just wait until my new evidence has been properly compiled, edited, and published." It is, after all, a little difficult sometimes to judge what amounts to a work in progress.

Any work in progress, however, requires the presentation of something new on occasion, and when that something new fails to appear, it's difficult not to judge the work wanting. Regarding Hastings' noisy claims, judgement comes with particular ease, because he has chosen to rely on the promise of grandeur without even the presentation of garbage. His "work in progress" has been relieved of its command -- a joint decision reached upon our recognition that he has produced nothing original or new with which to assess his Echo Flight claims since he decided to consciously ignore the testimony of his own witnesses. Add to this the very incessant response of actual history, and it becomes clear that the best assessment Hastings can possibly provide amounts to no more than the clamoring, temper-driven whines of a petty, noisy child who has been told "no" upon demanding Fruit Loops for dinner. He's attempting to replace the great lie with evidence that does not yet exist, expecting the world to let loose a single a sigh and accept his claims blindly: "whew! Thank God for that; for just a moment I was afraid that he wouldn't be able to properly counter these skeptical assessments. and thank God Hastings will soon release incontrovertible proof of these worrisome UFOs screwing around with our nuclear missile programs."

Good God, what is he waiting for?

In summary, I think we can limit most of our conclusions to one of the many simple yet hard-hitting criticisms expressed by Tim Hebert in his important series of very detailed, experiential responses to Hastings' whole theme-based nonsense represented by his UFOs and Nukes storyline [see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com]: "Where's that solid research going for him these days?" Why, exactly, is Robert Hastings still unable to support his past research with anything except the pathetic admonitions of old fables that have so little to recommend them?

The more Hastings' work is examined, the more it falls apart, and good research does not possess such an ephemeral quality. For an example of this, interested readers need only examine the summary of Hastings' and Robert Salas' Oscar Flight claims on Wikipedia: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmstrom_ ... O_incident (it should be noted at this point that all attempts to publish on Wikipedia a summary of UFO interference with the missiles at Echo Flight in the same manner referenced here to the alleged interference at Oscar Flight was refused publication on the grounds that it was a complete fiction).

In his defense, however, Hastings periodically admonishes us that he has yet to present the sum total of all his research. Of course, this type of defense also brings us back to the discussion of works in progress. More to the point, this may not be the best line of trenches for Hastings to retreat towards, given that his apparent definition of a "work in progress" is merely a work that becomes less accessible due to the increasing amounts of verifiable data that the author ignores as time goes by. Robert Hastings has proven himself to be somewhat adept at this strategy. He publishes his take on the events he's decided to reconcile with his UFOs and Nukes theme over and over again, each time leaving out a little more actual information, until he's reached that point of rest that allows him to venture forth into the purely psycho-dramatic world of fiction-based hypothesis that he so "cleverly" disguises as documented proof. This point of reference is most typically the point at which he resorts to paraphrasing the evidence allegedly received from his witnesses and other sources. The actual facts, however, betray this tactical retreat from reality. When we get right down to the brass tacks of the issue, his aggressive attempts to maneuver an audience already willing to suspend disbelief becomes inescapably clear: Robert Hastings is very consciously refusing to present enough information for his readers to reach a valid conclusion. More to the point, when others do so, his responses are always similar in character: they consist of personal attacks that neglect to discuss any of the actual arguments presented, and when ultimately pressed, he insists that more important testimony and more reliable information is currently being compiled, and will be revealed shortly, at which point any doubts in his veracity, character, and the reliability of his research will become meaningless.

A thorough review of his scribblings over the past few years proves with some finality that he has failed completely to follow through with these "threats", so I wouldn't recommend you hold your breath waiting for these revelations to be brought forth from the darkness. It becomes increasingly apparent as the years go by that the very big skeleton hidden in Robert Hastings' very little closet is the unfortunate news that there has never been much of anything to hold our interest in Robert Hastings' closet.

And what a damn shame that would be if we actually cared . . .