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 Jul 27, 2010 3:30 am

Yeah, Hastings needs to sell books. Since he could not find a publisher he had to self publish. Try contacting his "editor" on his website and you get.....Hastings! Tried to get him to sell me his book at a reduced price, price is a little stiff for my liking, but he refused stating that he had practically posted two-thirds of it on various forum sites. I was disappointed since I thought we were "tight."

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


Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:25 am

With all of the recent interest in Wikileaks RE: the War in Afghanistan Papers, I was motivated enough to take a look at their website -- it took forever to get on successfully. I decided to look up "UFO" and thought I'd share what I found (it was originally posted in 2007, and there's not much else more recent):

The UFO Iconoclast(s): Wikileaks and UFOs
Link - http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2007/01/wiki ... -ufos.html
By - "RRRGroup"
Date - Wednesday, January 24, 2007

UFO investigators, grasping at straws to remain (or become) relevant might get a chance with the new Wikileaks momentum.

Wikileaks, as outlined by Scott Bradner in Network World [Page 41, 1/22/07], is a collaboration that provides an “uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document-leaking and analysis.”

The broadside, supported by 1.2 million documents already, will “avoid legal attacks, at least in the West, by initially focusing on ‘non-Western authoritarian regimes” Bradner writes.

Bradner’s colleague at Network World, Paul McNamara, sees Wikileaks as a horrible idea [Page 42, same issue] because it will allow “Chinese dissident[s and] the disgruntled/recently fired nincompoop” to post material anonymously, without anyone checking the veracity of their contribution.

For ufologists, that lonely, usually inept group of investigators, the idea that someone in government, abroad or here, eventually, might disclose the cover-up about UFOs that they contend is rampant, and can do so anonymously, should come as heaven-sent, now that UFOs have been put on the backburner for almost every normal person in the United States, despite the recent O’Hare “sighting.”

In the UFO community, any material, no matter how bizarre or imaginary, is grist for study, and ongoing debate(s). The subject matter, UFOs, doesn’t rely on truth-seeking as such; it subsists on the basis of rumor and the scantiest information extant, no matter how loony that information is.

Wikileaks, like Wikipedia, is ideal for prolonging the idea that UFOs have been captured and some governments of the world have kept that information to themselves.

Maybe someone, somewhere, will disclose the documents that prove, once and for all, that the mythology of alien visitation and their downed flying saucers are facts held in abeyance by those in power, for nefarious (or other arcane) reasons.

We bet the UFO crowd will go gaga once they hear about this new Wiki thrust. They need something, anything, to keep their delusion alive.

posted by RRRGroup at Wednesday, January 24, 2007


That, of course, is a reprint of a review, but there was precious little else regarding UFOs, just a promise and a wink (a wikileaks link). So, although they've been online for a fairly decent amount of time, nobody's come forward to leak details of the international conspiracy to cover-up the existence of and the interference with nuclear sites and weaponry by Unidentified Flying Objects. How long can they keep this a secret? Oh, my!

James
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:31 am

Gentlemen, and Ladies,

In some discussions I've had with people in other forums, I've discovered that there a lot of people out in the world who are convinced that I have not had any discussions with COL.(Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., and that my declarations to the contrary are lies. Robert Hastings has apparently decided that this is going to be stand he takes. In a recent commentary, he has stated - as he has for months - that I have never spoken with Walt Figel, who has confirmed everything that Robert Hastings has asserted regarding the Echo Flight Incident on March 16, 1967. This is patently untrue and can be easily shown as such.

Robert Hastings has knowingly published versions of this event that he has been told are false by both my father and walt Figel, and his claims to the contrary are little more than silly attacks that are intended to delay the ruination of his and Robert Salas' Echo Flight claims until after his pathetic little dog and pony show at the National Press Club in Washington, DC next month. The fact that he would do so at the expense of another man's reputation doesn't surprise me. He and Robert Salas have done this before. The fact that he would do such a thing that is so easily countered also doesn't surprise me, for reasons I won't go into. I think everybody knows my opinion of him. It would very, very easy for Hastings and Salas to prove that I am lying by simply contacting Walt Figel, and getting a statement from him that I have been lying about his assertions for the past four-and-a-half months, but neither man has done this. In fact, some months ago Robert Hastings insisted that he would - within a matter of days - release statements and transcripts of his discussions with Walt Figel that would prove his case. He has failed to do so, not because he's too busy (frankly, it wouldn't take that long), but because he can't. He know exactly what Walt Figel told me, because he and Robert Salas called him the very next day.

It was my certainty that these two have made claims that not only could not be supported, but were transparently contrary to the witness statements that they have published in support of their claims, that originally motivated me to call Walt Figel in the first place - that and Hastings' insistence that I was afraid to all Figel, because Figel would tell me that my Dad had lied to me. I wanted to confirm my conviction that he had never made the claims regarding UFO interference that Hastings and Salas have consciously and knowingly misrepresented in order to make their claims seem more likely. This is deceptive - a judgment I reached immediately upon discussing the matter with Walt Figel, who insisted that not only were UFOs not involved at Echo Flight in March 1967, but that he has discussed this with both Hastings and Salas, and was ignored. That escalates the entire incident beyond simple deceit to one of conscious and knowing invention, an invention that has lent their claims greater support among those factions demanding public disclosure of classified documents. Using a blatant "lie" to give support to such factions is, in my opinion, nearly to the point of a treasonable offense.

For these reasons, I have decided to publish the totality of my communications with both Walt Figel, the deputy commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and Frederick Meiwald, who, according to Robert Salas, was the commander of Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967, which is when Salas asserts a UFO took 8-10 missiles offline, an event that emptied the command post of all armed security personnel, and ultimately resulted in the injury of one security policeman to such an extent that he had to be evacuated from the site by helicopter. You would think that if a man was injured by a UFO during his watch after that same UFO had emptied the command post of personnel, so they could confront the UFO, fully armed, that he would probably believe that the UFO was not a figment of the entire command post's group imagination. That's not the case, though. Meiwald isn't exactly the brilliant confirmation of these events that Salas has made him out to be.

Robert Hastings has recently claimed - again - that my interview with Walt Figel did not occur. He claims that Walt Figel has confirmed his entire UFO story regarding Echo Flight, and that my father has been lying about this incident for forty years. If this is true, it should be extremely easy to prove by simply calling Walt Figel, and asking him. In fact, when I first gave details of my interview with Figel last March, Hastings stated that he could easily prove that he was correct and I was either lying or being deceptive, and that he could, and would, prove this within a matter of days. He said this in an email to the gentlemen who operate this website, Reality Uncovered, stating specifically "I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online." That was four-and-a-half months ago, and he hasn't even provided a muted summary.

Since then he has continued to insist that he would prove the errors in my assertions, saying, at one time or another that I was lying, was being deceptive, misunderstood what Figel was saying, etc., etc. So prove it, Robert. Or are you just a lot of talk, without any evidence at all? Four-and-a-half months, Robert, and you've done nothing except call me names and insist that I'm a liar. If you are indeed a paragon of virtue, then prove it - if I'm lying, then certainly Walt Figel would agree with you, yes? How much time would it take to simply confirm that one part of your slanders? A couple of minutes? One telephone call? Do what you claimed you could easily do months ago - or are you just making noise and killing time so that those people who donated money for the fraudulent dog and pony show that you and Salas are organizing for the National Press Club in Washington, DC next month won't have grounds to sue you? After all, if someone could show that you solicited donations based on assertions that you knew were false, which is pretty much what Walt Figel's statements to me assert, then you've been soliciting funds on false pretenses, haven't you? And not just you - Robert Salas, too.

If Walt Figel was aware - as Hastings has continuously asserted for some years now - that a UFO shut down the missiles at Echo Flight, and that my father was aware of this as well and has simply lied about the event, while Figel told the truth, then I challenge him to prove it. Call Walt Figel, Robert, as you have promised to do time and again for the past four-and-a-half months. Your problem has come about because nobody has ever required any real standards of proof from you as a result of your ridiculous and silly claims. You've never attempted to apply any form of peer review to your assertions, and you've grown lazy because most people who have adopted your point-of-view don't require proof and don't need confirmation. The rest of the world still does, Robert, and you are unable to provide it, or you would have done so already. If I'm wrong, show me - prove it. Make another phone call to your primary witness at Echo Flight, and show the world that Walt Figel says there was a real UFO at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and that my father has been lying about this for over forty years. Frankly, I'm sick of your crap, and your slanders and attacks and your continuous claims that I'm lying and that you can prove it, but you don't have the will or the time or anything else you might think is necessary to do so. I've got some news for you - you knowingly lied about what Figel told you regarding Echo Flight. You've repeatedly claimed that he confirms your UFO myth, and that my father has been lying about the event for years. You've claimed over and over and over again that my assertions are lies and bluff, and that you can prove this easily, and yet, in the four-and-a-half months since I spoke to him, you've produced NOTHING.

You and Robert Salas are frauds - you have knowingly lied to your audience about UFOs at Echo Flight. You knew long ago that Figel's discussion of this event did not "prove" UFOs were involved at Echo Flight, but you have repeatedly claimed that they do, and your primary source for this - according to your own statements - is Walt Figel. You've also claimed that Walt Figel's assertions are proof that my father has lied about this event, and you knew that wasn't true as well.

You once offered to give me Walt Figel's phone number so I could speak to him and thereby discover that my father had lied to me about this event. I didn't need it, because it was easy enough to track him down on my own. But, maybe you should use it now. Do what you have been insisting you could do for the past few months and prove to the world that I haven't spoken to Figel and that Figel hasn't personally refuted every one of your conclusions regarding this incident. So far you're just a lot of talk, and a lot of insulting rhetoric. In light of your prior comments, that's pretty pathetic, don't you think?

I have been 100% honest with the members and readers of this forum. I have outlined a complete record of the events in March, 1967, and I have backed that up with both documented evidence and the testimony of those individuals who were actually involved in that event. I have asserted and proven that previous versions of this very real incident are incomplete, factually incorrect at times, and improperly confirmed to such an irresponsible and incredible extent that the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that these individuals have very carefully and very consciously distorted the facts in order to create a paradigm supporting an event that they have invented - for whatever reason. I think they did it for money, but maybe they did it for other reasons. The fact that they DID it, however, can't be denied by anyone who looks at the evidence, unless they just dismiss everything to insist that I'm lying - which is what Hastings has recently suggested. I suspect that after reading the complete record of my communications with both Walt Figel and Frederick Meiwald below, he will alter his claims to suggest that Walt Figel, Frederick Meiwald, my father, and I are ALL lying, and that Robert Salas is as honest and golden as the sunrise.

No ... He'll just claim I'm lying and that he'll prove his point someday, but he doesn't have the time to do so right now, to make that one phone call and to write that one short statement that he once insisted would be done within "the next few days." And that was four-and-a-half months ago...

Please keep in mind that ALL of this has been part of the record since last March at the latest. If you still think I'm lying, it should be very easy to confirm, so do so. I am absolutely sick of people suggesting that I have lied about this matter without once attempting to confirm such slanderous assumptions. Robert Salas, Robert Hastings - even Frank Warren - don't want an open discussion or dialogue regarding this matter; they want people to think I'm lying, even when such claims can't be supported by any evidence at all! In fact, Hastings' commentaries generally start with that assumption! When was the last time someone demanded any affirmations of the degree they've demanded of me from someone who claimed they SAW a UFO? I'm willing to bet Hastings has NEVER demanded such a level of proof - I'll bet he simply accepted their claims without examination. I know for a fact he hasn't applied any such need for immediate proof to Robert Salas, because if he had, Salas could never have been so inconsistent regarding his own claims - and inconsistency is the single most consistent and common factor characterizing those claims!

Please find attached the complete text of my written communications with COL.(Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., currently living in Colorado. Whenever available, I've included copies of my own emails to him, but I know that at least one of these is not available because he uses a different email system and software than I do. We discussed these events in some detail on the telephone as well, but as I discuss in the emails, my recordings failed due to the poor quality tap equipment that I was using. I remember very well what he said, but due to the fact that I don't have any record other than my own notes taken during those conversations, I have tried not to use anything except the written record Figel has provided me with. I would like to point out, however, that although I've decided not to use these conversations, the use of notes taken during a telephone conversation has sufficed very well to indicate both the confirmation that such communications have taken place, as well as the contents of those conversations, not only when put to use by reporters for newspapers across the United States, including such well known and respected outfits as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian-Science Monitor, and The Wall Street Journal, but has also been accepted as evidence in court trials across the country whenever such evidence was available.

I have also included my communications with LTCOL.(Ret.) Frederick Meiwald, the commander of Oscar Flight who Robert Salas insists was with him the day the missiles at Osar Flight supposedly failed as the result of extreme interference by a UFO that emptied the command post of all security personnel during an armed event, and injured one security policeman to such an extent that he required a medical evacuation via helicopter. He asserts as well that he doesn't believe in UFOs, which is a strange thing to say in light of Salas' claims that a man under his command was injured and evacuated as a result of said injury by a UFO. In any case, in my final letter to him, I extended my sympathies regarding his mother, and promised not to disturb him again. I haven't written to him, nor have I heard from him since.


Request
Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:10 PM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Fri Feb 19 01:10:36 2010

James

First - you are not bothering me at all
Second - you are welcome to call me any time that you would like
Third - Your dad and I always got along and there is no problem between us at all that I am aware of
Fourth - If I can be of any help to you, please ask away

I hope that your dad is well

Home phone [WALT FIGEL'S HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER]
Cell [WALT FIGEL'S PRIMARY CELL TELEPHONE NUMBER]

I am retired from CSC but I still do some consulting for them
I am home this week
Please feel free to call any time to about 10:00 pm
I am home this evening
I will be home all day Friday except from 11:30-13:30 for a lunch appointment
I will be at my son's house Sat and out to dinner that evening
Sunday I'll be in Colorado Springs with the boys for an art exhibit
Monday I fly to Albany

Walt




On Fri, 2/19/10, James T. Carlson <jtcarl@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: James T. Carlson <jtcarl@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Request
To: " Jr.Walter Figel" < [WALT FIGEL'S EMAIL ADDRESS] >
Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 5:33 PM

Dear Col. Figel,

I'm very relieved to hear that you're so open to discussion with me. From what my father has said, I should have realized that you would be, but the past two years I have found it particularly hard to be open to anybody about this very matter, since every time I've said anything at all contrary to what's been published, the immediate reaction has been some of the most virulent nonsense imaginable. I've seen first hand how some people consider it a tactical movement to destroy another man's reputation and honor, simply to make their own argument look stronger. My first reaction to such measures has always been to stand in defense of those whom I trust and care for, and to see them publically manhandled and pilloried like so much waste simply to make my position seem less valid absolutely disgusts me. My father's been called a liar; I've been called worse -- and all because of my insistence that the Echo Flight Incident was no more than a prosaic electrical event that has been either misunderstood or given more attention than it deserves. Don't get me wrong -- I've said some equally angry words and I'm responsible for more insulting rhetoric than I should be, but I tried very hard to keep all of that limited to private correspondance, at which point it was made public in order to score points and to suggest that I have "psychological problems", that I need counseling, and that none of my arguments are worth considering for that reason. At times, it's hard not to be overly cautious when the results can ruin a man, and I promised myself that I won't let what happened to Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase's reputation happen to my father's, simply to make Mr. Robert Salas or Mr. Robert Hastings look more heroic to their admirers. Had they simply agreed to keep my family's name out of it when I first broached the subject, there would be no problems. But obviously that didn't occur.

I'm writing all of this as opposed to calling you for a couple of reasons -- first, it's easier for me to organize my thoughts regarding a fairly complex undertaking, but primarily because I'm a bit late on the phone bill, and I determined to keep the internet up this week at the cost of the phone. I have a cell phone, but I only use it to speak with my wife, as we pay for the minutes in advance -- there's just not enough time on it for any real conversation.

Thank you very much for asking about my father. He's doing well, in spite of some health problems he's had. He's almost completely deaf, so it's very difficult to speak with him on the phone, and he's been having memory problems since undergoing heart surgery a couple years ago. He seems to be doing okay, according to one of my brothers, who lives very near and sees him often. I live on the other side of the country and rarely see him, but everyone says he's fine, and his health is much improved since his aforementioned surgery. Because of his hearing problems and the fact that we live so far away from each other, I rarely hear from him anymore, and it honestly gets us nowhere if I call him. But I do hear at about his health and concerns from the rest of the family, and they all agree that he's currently doing very well, which is great to hear, since just prior to his surgery, I was receiving different updates entirely.

My father has always said that you were an honest man, and I've never read anything that would indicate that wasn't true; all of your previous statements regarding the occurrences at Echo Flight always seemed to me to be very exact and determined statements, and all of them pretty much agree with what my father has told me, so I don't understand why my father's version of these events has been discounted as a result of your version of these events. From what I can see, they're basically the same story! It's all very odd to me, and I can't help but think sometimes that something that I said has caused this weird rupture to occur -- and it may well be; I've said and written a lot, but I don't think I've misinterpreted your statements regarding the matter. If I have, please tell me. I've tried to be very thorough and exact, but I also find it difficult to separate my anger from my argument -- and while I realize that by doing so I have probably built a number of walls separating what I want people to realize, and what they immediately ascertain for themselves from my tone and demeanor, I fail to see why many people nonetheless tend to believe that not only am I not telling the truth, but my father is not telling the truth. Very recently Robert Hastings has written that my argument is based entirely upon lies that my father told me, and that I was too stubborn and trusting not to recognize that, implying, I suppose, that people should feel sorry for me for not realizing that my father is simply keeping secrets that the Air Force ordered him to keep some 45 years ago. This is just intolerable for me, especially because I'm very certain in my own mind, as my father has been in his, that I know exactly what happened, even though I wasn't, like you and my father, actually there (being only 5 years old, that would have been difficult).

When I first asked my father about it, he told me basically the same thing as I've interpreted your statements to be. I'll tell you what I was told many years ago, around 1999-2000 time frame. My father told me that in the late 1960s he used to hear UFO reports all the time, at both Malmstrom AFB and in New Mexico, and this escalated the more that UFOs were in the news and discussed on television. He also said that to his knowledge not one UFO ever reported to him turned out to be anything to be concerned with, and that most of time it was just lights in the sky that the kids who were on watch would imagine to be more mysterious than they actually were. He said a point was reached when it happened so often that he was certain folks were reporting UFOs when there was nothing to report just to be funny or amusing, and that a lot of this was due to television. I got interested in that portion of it, because like any other kid who grew up in the 60s and 70s, I spent a lot of time in front of the TV, so just for kicks I looked up what was on TV for March 1967, and was surprised to notice that there was a lot of mention of UFOs in the Sci-Fi shows like Star Trek, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Lost in Space, and The Invaders, crime shows like the Green Hornet, and comedies like Green Acres -- and this was just between March 9 and March 15 -- and all of them dealt with flying saucers, either as real Sci-Fi threats or as hoaxes. I was particularly amused to find out that on March 15, 1967, Green Acres aired an episode called "The Saucer Season" about a UFO hoax investigated by an Air Force Lt. played by Robert Hastings, who was a regular on McHale's Navy. I used to love those shows!

My father told me that on March 16, 1967 while on watch with you at Echo Flight, shortly after he awoke, and during that morning, while you were briefing him on the events of the night, he noticed that the missiles started going offline, because he happened to be the one facing the monitors. He didn't remember who specifically checked, or if it was both of you, but the indications were that a series of errors had taken down all of the missiles in the flight -- and to his knowledge, that had never happened before. In some of the documents I have since seen, it mentions that the exact same errors had occurred once before -- at Alpha Flight on December 19, 1966, taking down three of the ten missiles, and it was due to this that the Boeing contractors had a fairly good idea what the cause was, or at least where they should start looking. These same documents also state that the capsule crew was the same, but I never asked my father about it, assuming that he probably wouldn't remember that incident at all, since the ICBM histories all agree that equipment failures, especially in the guidance and control units, happened all the time between 1966 and 1968, when the contractors finally got everything under control. From what he could remember and what the command histories indicate, there were a number of maintenance crews that had gone out the night before, spending the night in the field. He said one of these crews called on the telephone at the silo to report on the status of the missile, and added something to the effect of "I guess it was a UFO that did it." He added that nobody considered it to be a valid sighting, and he figured they were just having fun -- screwing around on the line. He said that nobody afterwards ever thought UFOs had anything to do with it, and his recollections are that the investigation didn't know exactly how the problem had shut down the missiles, but they were more concerned with making sure it didn't happen again. It had nothing to do with him or how ell he performed, so he didn't pay it much attention. But he never heard of anything similar ever happening again.

The research that I've done all points to the same thing as the cause -- an electronic noise pulse that was probably generated internally either in the microcircuitry adjacent to the logic coupler or in the logic coupler itself. All of the logic couplers used by Autonetics throughout both the Minuteman I and the Minuteman II systems were highly susceptible to noise pulse, and when such an EMP was injected into the logic coupler, 7 out of 10 times the result was the same series of errors noted at Echo Flight, and the everything was taken offline. A transformer had apparently blown around the time as the actual incident, so a lot of testing was conducted in an attempt to determine whether or not the transformer voltage could have coupled with the shielding in use on the LF cabling, but all the testing was negative. This indicated that the transient voltage spike affecting the logic coupler had to have originated somewhere adjacent to the LCF. Since no such testing could really be done to prove where the noise came from without taking down an LCF, and even then it was doubtful that they'd find anything positive for the money they'd have to spend, it was decided to correct the problem at the logic coupler by removing it's susceptibility to EMP noise -- a fix which, thankfully, was already scheduled system wide as part of the Minuteman II Force Modernization -- they had been testing EMP affects on the electrical grid and LCF to LF cable systems at Hill AFB, Warren AFB, and contractor facilities since 1965 as part of plans to upgrade the EMP defenses, and had made suggestions that would shield the logic couplers from electromagnetic interference of all kinds, and they were certain this would also also prevent electromagnetic noise from entering the logic couplers of the Minuteman I systems. So they just ordered the fix to Minuteman I as well, as part of the new Force Mod. By July 1968, all the changes had been made, and so the problem never occurred again. All of the command histories indicate that this is what happened, and the Top Secret Noforn ICBM Histories that the Air Force declassified a couple of years ago all say the same thing. The ICBM histories don't even mention UFOs in relation to any equipment problems at Malmstrom AFB (they might mention them elsewhere, but I only looked at the late 1960s at Malmstrom AFB -- but they're all online now at Georgetown University, so maybe I'll check someday, just for fun).


The TOP SECRET NOFORN ICBM Histories that I mention here are actually maintained online at George Washington University, not Georgetown University. This is an error I made in the letter to Col. Figel. These histories are, however, available online -- at George Washington University's website. They were forcibly declassified by the courts in 2004, as a result of numerous FOIA lawsuits filed by a number of groups across the country who are certain that proof of UFOs can be found in documents classified by the Department of Defense.

Now from the outside, that's what it looks like to me. Maybe I got some details wrong, but I don't see the USAF spending so much money to conduct all of those tests if they knew a UFO had actually shut down the missiles. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I gather, your version of these events is pretty much the same. I'll tell you how I've interpreted what you told Mr. Hastings, and why I think he is neglecting a more common sense explanation in favor of something he desperately wants to believe in. And if I'm wrong, please tell me -- because I'll apologize and correct everything in a heartbeat, if I'm mistaken; I will probably still believe my father's version of these events, but I promise, I will absolutely apologize for the things I've said to Robert Hastings and to Robert Salas for my insistence that they have misinterpreted what you have told them. I have no wish for my argument to prevail on the basis of my own stubborn adherence to an explanation that can't be otherwise supported. Anyway, part of the information for this I got from my father and part of it I got from a couple of folks I communicated with via the forums at http://www.missileforums.com and from the online archive of the AAFM -- newsletters and forums. Most of it, however, is simply based on my interpretations of your commentaries with Mr. Hastings.

Anyway, what follows is my interpretation of your comments -- if I've gotten any of this wrong, please let me know so I can clarify things and make some amends if it's necessary. From what I gather and from what I've read in the documents I've uncovered, there were three teams out who spent the night in the field. When the missiles went offline it became necessary to determine the status of as many of the missiles as possible and as quickly as possible -- the VRSA indications read channels 9 and 12 No-Go from the LCF, but you needed to find out what the errors noted at the LFs as well, because if they're different they can indicate what kind of problem is registering; so the missile status has to be checked. There's no need to send out a team to check the three silos that already have teams present, so you determined to call the teams and have them check the actual status of the missiles at the LFs, since they were already there. Each maintenance team was accompanied by a Security Escort Team who were there to provide protection, if necessary, for the maintenance teams, and more importantly, to provide continuous communications via the 2-way radios, that only the security personnel carried. So you contacted security on the 2-way, and asked if the maintenance team was up yet; security said no, so you told security to get the maintenance guys up and have them check the missile status. From what I understand, in order to check the missile status, the maintainer has to go into the launcher equipment room which is 6-10 feet underground and can only be accessed from above by using the personnel access hatch -- this is very heavy and has to be unlocked and cranked open with a manual screwjack, which can take from 5 to 15 mins, to open it; but it can't be cranked open until a circuit lock adjacent to the Access Hatch has been removed first -- and that means a huge lock pin that's set inside the circuit lock has to be manually cranked up and removed, and that also adds another 5 minutes or so to the process; from what I understand, the security personnel remove the lock pin, but that doesn't make the process go any faster, because you can't even start cranking open the access hatch until the lock pin has been removed. And before cranking open the the access hatch, which weighs almost a ton (at the siloworld.com website, it says the access hatches at Ellsworth were 8 tons!), a little cage of "barrier poles" also has to be set up, which looks kind of like the safety barrier that city workers put up surrounding a manhole whenever work is done underneath a road in the city. Now if it's cold outlside, everything's frozen up, and this can add another few minutes to the process. And sometimes there's corrosion or rust -- it all depends on the last time the hatch was opened. Once it's open, maintenance sets up the access ladder, and then he can climb down into the upper level of the launch equipment room. Once he's in the launch equipment room, only then can he check on the status of the missile in the silo, because everything's underground.

What I don't know about the process, and what nobody else has mentioned to me, is whether or not the crews that were camping out at the launch facility needed to be re-authenticated to get access to LER-1, the upper level of the launch equipment room. When they were camping out, were they inside or outside the fence? As I understand it, if they were outside, they need to be reauthenticated in order to be allowed access to the LER. Now if they need to be reauthenticated, this can add an extra half-hour to the process; if they don't need to be reauthenticated, we're still looking at about 15-20 minutes average just to get down into LER-1 to check on the status of the missile, unless it wass opened the night before and left open throughout the night. That doesn't seem very likely to me for security reasons, but if I'm wrong, please tell me. I also don't know whether or not the team member going below into the underground LER-1 still has to "safe" the site before checking the missile status -- and that's kind of important, since below ground in the silo is a "No-Lone-Zone", and whoever goes below can't be alone with the equipment, except for a very brief time, because by doing so, he's breaking visual contact with the security crew or other maintenance crew members above ground. If he's still required to safe the site, then he's got to click in a digital safety switch in order to disarm all of the explosive devices on the site, at which point he has to reestablish immediately visual contact with another member of his maintenance team or security. I don't know whether it was done or not, but I can't think of any good reason why 2 men wouldn't have gone below, so this might be entirely negligible to the actual process. However this is done, though, the security team still remains on the surface with the 2-way radio.

Once the status has been checked underground, the only way that maintenance can report to you is by using the SIN telephone that's underground with all the equipment, since the security personnel stay on the surface, and they're the only guys with the 2-way radios. This whole process is the major reason why I don't believe that the mention of UFOs to you on the telephone was a valid report. And that's why I remain convinced that they were just screwing around -- security wakes them up, they throw on their clothes unless they slept rugged, and then they take 15-20 minutes to open up the access hatch and climb down into LER-1 and check the status of the missile. Maintenance then calls you on the SIN telephone below ground, and says something to the effect of, "yeah, we've got indication of a channel 9 No-Go -- I guess the UFO that's up there must have shut down the missile." And he says this while the security crew is still on the surface with the 2-way radio on which they've already established comms with the LCF. And yet, the first mention of a UFO comes from maintenance on the SIN telephone underground, and not by the security team on the surface with the supposed UFO and communications already established and open via the 2-way. Once the guy underground has said this, it's overheard by the team leader of one of the other security teams who are with another maintenance group at another silo, because they're also required to monitor the 2-ways -- that means they can overhear everything that's being said -- he pops in with "yeah, there's one out here too!" and all of a sudden it's a regular holiday crowd of UFOs on the comms side, but no actual UFOs on site. Had there been a real UFO present, security would have notified you immediately, to determine whether you wanted them to still go below, wait for a strike team or what. However the event occurred though, it would never have been reported to you first by the maintenance crew underground -- I believe you would have heard about it immediately from security on the surface, because that's their job -- they aren't checking the status of the missile -- they're looking after the maintenance team.

Everything that you've said to Hastings in every interview he's done, sounds exactly like this to me -- just a couple of guys screwing around, which according to some guys I've met at different missileer websites used to happen a lot. Just yesterday, I got an email from a guy who was somewhat familiar with a hoax story out of 490th SMS in 1970-71, and he was told (by a drunken team member at a local watering hole, so you decide how accurate the story is) about a hoax that even ended up reported in a UFO magazine -- which were also extremely plentiful at the time -- more so than now, because UFOs were a lot more culturally relevant then -- you couldn't turn on the TV without hearing about UFOs, watching a show about UFOs, or listening to people talk about UFOs. And so we end up with a repeat of the Green Acres episode "The Saucer Season" just a few hours after it had originally aired.

That's my interpretation, based on what I've read from your statement, what my father has told me, what I've discussed with other missileers elsewhere, and what I've read and uncovered through research. It would seem hasty for anyone to to judge that your version of these events describes an actual UFO sighting, but these guys are used to doing exactly that -- all of the confirmations Robert Salas has gathered to "prove" his story are, for the most part, nonsense. He claims confirmation by my father, which is bunk -- my father doesn't even believe in UFOs, and he's said this on numerous occassions. I communicated very shortly with Salas' watch commander -- Mr. Frederick Meiwald -- and although he didn't want to go into any details for personal reasons having nothing to do with the story itself (a health related issue), he did tell me that, like my father, he doesn't believe in UFOs either. What kind of confirmation is that? I've assumed for a very long time, that you felt the same way. Unfortunately, that's no longer sufficient for me, for the reasons I've already discussed. I promised you that I would only bother you for a couple of questions, and I have no desire to keep having you tell this same story over and over and over again; I don't know about you, but I'm always very annoyed when that sort of thing happens to me with something that's already on the record. So what I'd like to ask you, Col., is whether or not my interpretation is wrong. How much time elapsed between your instructions to check the status of the missile and when that status was actually reported? Did you at any time for however many years believe that a UFO had shut down the missiles at Echo Flight? Did you believe that what you heard on the 2-way and the SIN telephone correlated with an actual report of a UFO, and did you respond by doing anything different than what you would normally have done? Are there any errors in the scenario I outlined above? Other than to clear UFOs as having anything at all to do with the missile failures, due to UFO rumors, did the investigators or anybody else spend a lot of time discussing the mention of UFOs? Did the Malmstrom UFO officer, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, question you regarding UFOs, or did he investigate any UFOs in relation to Echo Flight? Did anybody at all seem concerned about a UFO having somehow caused a flight of missiles to drop into a No-Go state? When you were debriefed later, did anybody tell you not to discuss the matter of UFOs? Were you ever debriefed by anybody specifically about UFOs, or was everything focused on Echo Flight equipment and the electrical environment? Was there any serious response from anybody at all resulting from what seems to be an offhanded mention of UFOs?

Please believe me, sir, I have no intentions of disputing with anybody the existence of UFOs or even whether UFOs are overly fascinated with nuclear facilities. Frankly, I'm not much interested in UFOs, and what I know about them is almost entirely the result of research stemming from this one incident. I don't know whether or not you believe in UFOs, and I'm not even sure whether that's relevant. But I do believe that your past statements have been grievously misinterpreted by people who are more concerned with finding UFOs than they are with finding out what really happened. Because of this, I think they're blinded to what you've been telling them from day one -- of course, the same mught be said of me, and if that's the case, please tell me so. Like I've said previously, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize -- I have no desire to win an argument by trying to hide actual facts and events, or by lying about something, and I'll concede the field entirely if I'm that far off. I would still believe what my father claims, but I would absolutely quit saying that you've been misinterpreted, and I would go out publically and state that my suppositions regarding your version of events was in error. And that would require an apology to Mr. Hastings that I absolutely dread, because I detest the man -- but I would still aplogize and try to put things right. I'm not a dishonest person, and I don't intend to give others reason to make such a claim. I know words and phrases like "personal honor" aren't particularly popular these days, but some people do take character seriously, and I like to think that I'm one of those people, and that my actions show this. If I need to make amends, than I'll make amends -- I promise you that.

I don't believe it will come to that. I've been confident for a long time now that my interpretation of these events you've shared with Mr. Hastings is correct, but there are many individuals, including Mr. Hastings, who maintain that my argument is invalid -- and that I am very much aware of this -- on the basis of my refusal to contact you. The truth of the matter is that I didn't find it necessary -- everything you've said was, I thought, very straightforward, and didn't need any input from me at all. I've always felt it odd that Mr. Hastings' last (that I know of) discussion with you was intiated as a result of the many questions I put to him last year; since he wrote a book on the subject, I just assumed that he already knew what your previous statements were -- and I still believe that you were just as clear and informative the second time around, because you really didn't change any significant details, and those you added simply put some color to what you had already told him. Unfortunately, that lapse has apparently convinced some individuals that I am very much aware of major fallacies in my argument, which in turn has led to a general assault questioning my integrity -- and thereby my father's. I assure you, I had no intention to interrupt your life until the day before yesterday, when I first got on the internet in order to find your email address. While I'm certain that I have offended the two Roberts Salas and Hastings at one time or another, I'm also certain that their shameful tactics to stifle any opposing discussion deserved it. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Mr. Salas' most recent writing, but he has trashed completely any reputation that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase had as an honest man, and he did so using information available to him since 1995 -- which means, or so I believe, that he did so only after the man had died and could no longer defend himself. I think this is sickening, and I have no intention of letting the same thing happen to my father or to me. A man's reputation just isn't something honorable men screw around with simply to make a point.

I want to thank you again for being so open with me. I've always believed that proof of what happened at Echo Flight is already on the record, and therefore requires no embellishment; I've also felt that all I needed to do was to show people what the record already contains in order to press the issue, but I guess I was wrong about that. The slightest suggestion from anybody that UFOs were involved is all it takes for some people to write a book and go on tour with the MUFON conferences, but the first person to point out that the slightest suggestion of UFOs doesn't necessarily mean UFOs were involved, or even represents a very likely explanation for an otherwise well-documented incident, and God forbid -- there's going to be a backlash a mile wide. Thanks again, Col., and I am sorry things came to this point, and I appreciate very much your candor and consideration. There's no need to hurry any response you may have -- please enjoy your time with your family, and don't worry about a response; I'm absolutely in no rush. I would like your permission to show whatever response you do make to others, whether as reason to advance an apology, should it be necessary, or to show that I have indeed taken your version of the events into account. But that's all, and I'm no hurry to get it.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM



There was very evidently a communication from Col. Figel in between these two; I didn't receive it, but I certainly believe he wrote and emailed one.



Re: Request
Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:14 PMFrom: "James T. Carlson" <jtcarl@yahoo.com>To: " Jr.Walter Figel" < [WALT FIGEL'S EMAIL ADDRESS] >

Dear Mr. Figel,

If you don't have the time or desire to contact me again regarding this matter, please tell me. Robert Hastings is now stating "As for Col. Walt Figel not confirming what I've written, how would you know, given that you have been too cowardly to call him, to hear what he told me directly, despite my pleas that you do so? His comments posted on this thread are verbatim excerpts from my taped conversation with him. As others posting here have previously noted, you are the *only* one who thinks that Figel agrees with your position. Talk about deep denial. (Drew Clueless doesn't count here, given his 100/1 inaccuracy-to-accuracy ratio when attempting to interpret anything anyone else has posted here.)"

Some kind of response from you would be appreciated, particularly some discussion regarding the issues I asked you about on 2/19, but if you don't intend to respond, knowing that would be helpful as well.

Thanks in advance.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM




Re: Request
Monday, March 1, 2010 6:11 PM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Mon Mar 1 23:11:44 2010

Message contains attachments1 File (7KB)
Re: Request.eml

Hi

I did respond to your email immediately
See attached copy
In any case I am in Virginia this week
Right now I'm off to dinner
Will be in my hotel by 8:00 ET
Which I think is about 6:00 pm your time
If you want to call my cell I'd be more than pleased to talk to you

Walt




Forwarded Message: Fw: Re: Request
Fw: Re: Request
Monday, March 1, 2010 8:59 PM
From: "James T. Carlson" <jtcarl@yahoo.com>To: [WALT FIGEL'S EMAIL ADDRESS]

Dear Mr. Figel,

Attached is a copy of the email I sent to you on 2/19. I cannot afford to call you on the telephone; that's why I sent you the email on 2/19 explaining my position and why I believe your statements have been badly misinterpreted. If I am wrong, then please tell me. Hastings and Salas have already ruined the reputations of men who are now dead and cannot defend themsleves, and I will not allow them to do the same to me or my father. I've been accused of cowardice, my father and I have both been called liars in public, and the general level of filth and bad sentiment that I have been subjected to both privately and publically cannot go unanswered. I have no intention of making assertions that I can't defend, but it would make my answers to this ridiculous level of BS far more effective if you would please answer the few questions I sent you 10 days ago. If you decide that you don't want to answer those few questions, that's entirely your decision and I certainly won't think less of you for doing so -- I've already spoken to a number of missileers like you and my father who refuse to say anything at all, primarily because Mr. Hastings is very capable at trying to destroy people's reputations -- he's done it before and he's good at it. So if you don't want to answer my questions, that's fine -- I understand perfectly. Just please let me know, and I won't bother you ever again.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM




Re: Re: Request
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 9:27 AM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Tue Mar 2 14:27:05 2010

Message contains attachments1 File (68KB)
Fw: Re: Request.eml

James

I am more than willing to speak to you
Not a problem at all

If you would provide a phone number and a time you are available I'll call you
I'll be back at the hotel around 8:00 this evening and you can ask all the questions that you would like to ask
That's about 6:00 pm your time if that is convenient
My long distance charges are free on both my home and mobile phones
So that is not a problem at all
It is the least I can do for you

I am not a fan of Salas, Hastings, or the whole UFO crowd
I have never seen one and flatly don't believe they exist at all
I just want you to be clear of my position on UFOs
They make good science fiction - nothing more

I have read both of their books
There are many inaccurate statements and events in the books
I have told them both that
For instance, Oscar flight NEVER had any problems and Salas was NEVER involved in any of them at all just for starters

I think that they are just enjoying the notariety of the situation

Let me know when to call and I will do so tonight

Regards

Walt




Re: Re: Request
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 4:24 PM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Tue Mar 2 21:24:03 2010

Message contains attachments1 File (68KB)
Fw: Re: Request.eml

James

I will be leaving this facility in about an hour and will not access the computer again until tomorrow morning.
If you want me to call you can do one of several things:

1. Provide a number today before I leave
2. Call [WALT FIGEL'S PRIMARY CELL TELEPHONE NUMBER] and I will immediately call you back
3. Provide a number later tonight and I will call tomorrow evening

Best regards
I look forward to speaking to you soon

Walt



[CONTINUED BELOW]
Last edited by James Carlson on Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:07 am

[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]


Forwarded Message: Re: telephone conversation
Re: telephone conversation
Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:26 AM
From: "James T. Carlson" <jtcarl@yahoo.com>To: " Jr.Walter Figel" < [WALT FIGEL'S EMAIL ADDRESS] >

Dear Col. Figel,

I've had a couple of emails from different people today regarding some statements I wrote; specifically Robert Hastings wrote them a letter stating the following:

"I re-interviewed Walt Figel on Monday evening. Salas re-interviewed him on Tuesday evening. We have both conversations on audiotape and we are currently transcribing them. We asked Figel to address James Carlson's interpretation of his statements and position on various things. James will not like what Walt had to say.

Figel has given Salas and me permission to publicize his statements as we see fit. I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James' flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online."



Please note that none of this has been done - in the months since I published Figel’s responses, Hastings has done nothing except promise to discuss my lies based on Figel’s testimony. This was on March 11. I personally don't believe he can rebut anything I’ve said unless he just claims I'm lying outright without attempting to prove I'm lying outright, and still continue to use Figel as a source. As soon as he calls Figel, it becomes obvious that he's making claims nobody could possibly support, and did so knowing they couldn't be supported. Early last week he proved the accuracy of this belief when he claimed that Figel confirms everything he has ever claimed regarding Echo Flight, and that I was lying when I insisted that I had spoken to Figel on numerous occasions. So we know where he's going with this: more noise and accusations, at least until after his National Press Club show. C'mon, Robert - if I'm lying, prove it.


Now, of course, a number of people who trusted me when I assured them that there was no valid UFO report on March 16, 1967 -- exactly as my father told me, and as you told me -- are now very concerned that I have been lying to them. I try very hard to be an honest man, Walt, so if I misunderstood what you asserted on the phone, please tell me. This is exactly why I wanted to get a response in writing. The first email you sent me was very definitive, and I certainly appreciated that, more than you could know, but the fact that my recording of our conversation failed so badly is now being used by Hastings as "proof" that I am hiding something, and that is just plain offensive.

If I made a mistake, I can correct it, and I don't mind doing that if I'm wrong. I didn't think I was wrong, but if I am, please tell me. I wrote that you had affirmed what my father said, that there was no UFO and that nobody thought there was a UFO; I wrote that you confirmed my scenario of the events of March 16, 1967, and that this scenario indicates again that there was no UFO, because had there been a UFO, security would have reported it on the 2-way, and not maintenance from the SIN telephone underground after taking 30 mins to get where he could check the missile status. If you don't believe this scenario is accurate, I really need to know. Right now, I expect these gentleman are circling the wagons and preparing to release a public statement that either suggests or states outright that my father and I are liars -- and I'm not. Of course, maybe this is just more of Hastings' BS. That was my first response.

If you don't care what anybody says, and you don't want to be involved, that's fine too -- I'm not trying to get you to do something you don't want to do. I've been dealing with these clowns for years now, before you and I ever spoke, and I can continue to do so without assistance. I won't lie to you, your first email to me was very welcome, and I was thrilled that your opinions seemed to match my own; your help thus far has been very, VERY effective and very welcome, but I also understand entirely that this was after all 40 years ago and you really don't care much about it right now. My Dad feels the same way, so I honestly do understand. But it would also be very helpful if you would write out a statement or speak with somebody other than Robert Salas or Robert Hastings, because I'm confident that they will twist whatever you said to them to make a point you haven't made. They've done so in the past. The same could perhaps be said of me -- I don't know how, but possibly I misunderstood what you stated in your email and on the phone. If that's true, please tell me.

There are some gentleman I know -- I assure you, they are honest, and they are thorough -- and maybe it would be better if you spoke with them; I'm not used to interviewing people, and maybe I missed something or didn't ask the right questions or something, and this led me to misunderstand what you were asserting. They are Tim Printy" ( [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] ) Ryan Dube ( [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] ), and Stephen Broadbent ( [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] ). I mentioned the last two in my last email, and requested that you let them arrange a telephone interview. They are all better at this than I am, and would perhaps get more out of a conversation than I would. If you don't want to talk to them, that's fine, too. I promise you, I'm not trying to make your life harder, so if you just don't want to be in the discussion at all, please tell me, and I will never mention it again (although I hope you would still not mind if I kept in touch minus the UFOs).

If you would like to get in touch with my father, that can be done; like I told you on the phone, I haven't spoken to him in awhile, due to his hearing, but my brother lives just down the road from him. If you'd like to call him, his name is Kier Carlson, and his phone number is [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] . I've told Kier that you might call, but might not, because I sent you Dad's mailing address as well (see below). Anyway, Kier can give you a current email address, if Dad has one. I don't know what it is, but Kier will. My Dad's mailing address is [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] . If you do want to call, and try to speak with him, or talk to my stepmother, Marty (she's a writer with the city newspaper -- she's got a terrific political column), their phone number is [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] . Dad's a marriage and family therapist now, and his phone number at the office is still listed -- it's [PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED] ; I don't know how much he'll speak on the phone, because his hearing is poor, and he relies a whole lot on face to face communication, but you can certainly try.

If you would please send me a quick email or telephone me, I would very much appreciate it. I've told the above gentlemen what I believe to be the truth, and that the email from Robert Hastings is probably just more of his garbage, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to know, so I can correct my errors. And if my acts got you more involved in a discussion you didn't want to get further involved with, I am sincerely sorry for that. Tell me what I can do to fix it, and I promise you I will do so -- whatever it is; just tell me how you'd like it done.

Regards,
James Carlson
[PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED]
Albuquerque, NM




Re: telephone conversation
Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:03 AM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Thu Mar 11 14:03:27 2010

Message contains attachments1 File (17KB)
Re: telephone conversation.eml

James

I guess you must have posted something somewhere that got Hastings attention
He did call and we did speak for a bit, so did Salas.
You should know that both calls were very cordial as was ours.
However, I think you guys have a pissing contest going that I would rather not get in the middle of. I have no vested or financial interests in UFOs and actually not even a passing interest in them. Guess I am different from most people. But, I could really care less about the subject.

I reasserted that I personally never did see a UFO at any time.
I do not personally "believe" that UFOs had anything to do with Echo flight shutting down that year.
I repeated that I never heard about an incident at November or Oscar flight and have no knowledge that they ever happened and that I doubted they did.
That is obviously a personal opinion as I can not prove the negative.
I repeated that Colonel Dick Evans was at the alternate command post at Kilo which is in the same squadron as November and Oscar and he never mentioned anything about a shutdown at either of these two flights.
If it did happen, I personally don't know anything about it.

One of their books said I had a personal log - I did not.
The only log I ever filled out was the official log that all flights kept and that I do not and never did have a copy of that log. Obviously I can not remember what I wrote that morning.

One of the books says that the flight shut down in "seconds" - that is not an exactly accurate statement.
It obviously took some time for your dad and I to run the appropriate checklists and make all the calls that we had to make to the command post and maintenance. We were near the end of the checklist when the second missile shut down and shortly threafter the rest of them followed suit.
That sequence of events took several minutes not seconds, but that is all a very minor point in fact and doesn't change the facts of the overall sequence of events that morning.

I told him that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously.
I also told them that no one from any UFO office in the Air Force ever interviewed/deriefed your dad and/or me and that I do not remember ever signing any papers about anything.
In fact, I told them that until he mentioned it, I did not even know there was an office that monitored sightings of "UFOs" in the Air Force.

When your dad and I came topside the next day - no one ever said anything about UFOs and there was no "large gathering" of people on site that morning.
There may have been later that afternoon, but I would have no knowledge of that as we were long gone back to the base as usual.

I did not know the targeting office's name or even know that he was there.

I did say there was a VRSA recording reporting a "Channel 9 - NO GO" reported.
They said that the maintenance crews had no such report at the LF.
I told him that I did not know how the system worked at the missile site so that I do not know if that is possible or not.



NOTE: It is not possible - the fact that the maintenance crew member reported a channel 9 "no-go" to Col. Figel is absolute proof that VRSA was working just fine. I’m guessing that it was Hastings who mentioned this to Figel, as Hastings discusses another witness named "Hank" Barlow who claims that none of the VRSA indicators were working. He said, once, that he might be taking Barlow with him (or was trying to) to discuss Echo Flight at the National Press Club in Washington, DC next month. This testimony - as well as the testimony Figel has repeatedly given Hastings in the past - proves that Barlow’s story about Echo Flight is either a lie or does not discuss Echo Flight's missile failures on March 16, 1967. it's also another indication that Hastings' methods do not include fact-checking or the proper vetting of witnesses, even to the extent of comparing one witness' account of an event with another witness' account of the same event - or what Hastings insists are the same event; it represents another indication that Hastings will discuss testimony from two individuals, and insist that both are valid, even though they contradict each other to an impossible extent. And I think that's just as funny as Hell! Let's all hear it for "peer review"! Cheers, baby. James Carlson


I have always maintained that I do not personally believe in UFOs.
I am not convinced that November or Oscar ever happened.
But these are obviously personal opinions and I can not state them as facts or prove them - they are my personal beliefs.

I also believe these statements are accurate.
I also believe that is what I said 2 years ago, but I don't have recordings.
So my knowledge is very slim and I have no records about anything at all.
In addition, that was 43 years ago and memories fail - especially about things that were not especially important to me at the time.
Today, I can't remember what time my wedding was and that I assure you is more important to me then and now. And that was in 1971.

So if this is a help, so be it.
But I would rather stay out of any long standing debate about UFOs and leave that to the experts and researchers and those who know or at least truely believe that they know. After all they may be right and proven so some day.
As for me, I'll just go my way as a skeptic until proven wrong.

As you can see, I cc'd Hastings so that you both have the same piece of paper. I don't think that there are any inconsistencies in what I said to either of you. If there are, I'm sorry, that is not my intention at all.

Good luck in your pursuits. Stay professional and all will benefit.
Regards to your dad, I wish him well. It's been many years.

With that said, I hope that this tug of war is over and the three of you can resolve your differences about the whole affair.

Walt




Forwarded Message: Re: telephone conversation
Re: telephone conversation
Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:19 PM
From: "James T. Carlson" <jtcarl@yahoo.com>To: " Jr.Walter Figel" < [WALT FIGEL'S EMAIL ADDRESS] >

Dear Col. Figel,

That is exactly what I thought, and I thank you very much for clarifying everything. You're absolutely right about this being a pissing contest, but if they had simply left my father's name out of it when I asked them to some years ago, it would have died and gone away. But they didn't. They said he lied, and were very insulting, and my father's isn't a liar, and I don't intend to let anybody get away with saying something like that.

But I appreciate very much your clarity, and as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to say anything more, and I'll tell that to those men who wanted to interview you. Your prior statements have always been very clear to me, as I told you on the phone; you can be assured as well that I won't pass your email address or phone numbers to anybody, and I'll tell everybody who asks to respect your privacy, that you don't care about UFOs, and you don't want to keep being asked about this one incident by anybody.

I really do appreciate your honesty and your openness regarding this whole thing. If you ever feel like contacting my Dad, and decide to do so through Kier, I have mentioned the possibility to him, so although he's not expecting you to call, if you do, he'll know why. And please don't worry about being contacted again regarding this thing 40 years ago; as far as I'm concerned it's a dead issue, and I'll make certain that everybody I discuss the matter with is aware of that. I have to be honest with you -- I have never thought that your take on all this was ambiguous in any way. Everything you've ever said, whether on the phone to me or in the transcripts Robert has circulated, have been very straightforward and consistent, and they've been consistent with my Dad's accounting as well.

Best regards,
James Carlson
[PRIVATE INFORMATION DELETED]
Albuquerque, NM




Re: telephone conversation
Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:55 PM
From Walter Figel, Jr. Thu Mar 11 18:55:16 2010

Message contains attachments1 File (17KB)
Re: telephone conversation.eml

James

You are quite welcome
I am glad that I was able to help you
Good luck in your ventures

You have my e-mail and numbers if you ever need them

Walt



And that is the complete record that I have regarding my discussions with COL. Figel. As you can see, I haven't strayed from this commentary (and if you decide I have, then please tell me, and if I agree, I'm perfectly willing to say so. I don't mind admitting that I've made a mistake, if I've made a mistake). I haven't held back anything. I've been completely honest and open across the board. It is, however, intolerable for me to be a subject of doubt or suspected dishonesty anywhere, especially in regard to this event, when no evidence for these suspicions have been voiced, and no evidence at all for the claims made by Salas and Hastings have been introduced. EVERYTHING depends on believing what Salas has said. Hastings has introduced no valid, supported evidence at all except his poor interpretation of statements made by Figel, that even Figel asserts did not happen as Hastings insists. And he apparently told this to Hastings as well, but Hastings is too dishonest to affirm these statements, and refuses to admit that he made a mistake in this case. It is this, more than anything else, that has convinced me that the rest of the evidence he has presented for UFO interest in nuclear facilities is very likely misinterpreted or poorly handled as well. He has refused completely to argue any of my assertions with anything other than "Carlson is lying," and yet refuses as well to confirm that I have lied in such a disgraceful manner with Walt Figel, which would be tremendously easy to do if I were really lying.

Figel asserts that Hastings' interpretation of what he told him is wrong. Figel insists as well that Salas in wrong, and that he told him this. If you want to believe Salas, fine, but recognize that he is making claims that have been disputed by the public record, in unclassified documents, and in highly classified documents, and that numerous individuals have come forward to state that he is wrong, and that no event such as he describes occurred at all in March 1967 at Malmstrom AFB. He has presented no evidence to support his claims, while I have presented evidence of all sorts, including discussions from the memoirs of people who never served in the military, and yet investigated this event - in 1967 - as a possible UFO related incident, concluding that no UFOs were involved. NICAP even looked into this matter, and they supposedly had the names and descriptions of the people who actually saw a UFO (according to Salas) as well as numerous military contacts on base, civilian operatives involved in the investigation, and the means to investigate all classified reports that may have been made at any level. They found nothing and were forced for that reason to abandon their inquiries. In fact, I've been able to track the UFO rumors discussed in the command history that to date remains the only document discussed by Salas in support of his claims to this same aborted investigation by NICAP. This event, as designed and created by Robert Salas and Robert Hastings, very plainly did not happen, and nobody has yet presented any convincing evidence to show that it did.

I'm providing the following text, because it represents a communication that someone might eventually sum up as a "lie", just as Hastings has summed up my communications with Figel. These represent all of my communications with Frederick Meiwald, who Robert Salas' claims was his commander at Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967.


Re: Mr. Fred Meiwald
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 5:30 PM
From F C Meiwald Wed Sep 2 21:30:34 2009

Dear Mr. Carlson,

I understand your frustration with the situation involving your father's role in the "UFO " incident at Malmstrom. As far as I can recall, without exception, all crews on duty did what was required of them IAW established checklists and Command Post direction.

Did this situation involve "UFOs"? I don't know. I personally have never seen one and really have doubts about their existence, but who am I to question others' "observations"?

I will reread the information which you provided, and make further comment as I can recall. I do remember your father as an outstanding crew member.

I do not have access to the documentation relative to this incident and have no suggestions as to how one may get 100 percent of what would be needed to reconstruct the entire matter. As a past unit commander, I can recall how several times information critical to a decision was somehow no longer available, so can relate to the quandry here.

Please keep in touch. I'll try to dig deeper into the memory banks.

Fred M.




Re: Mr. Fred Meiwald
Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:01 PM
From F C Meiwald Thu Sep 17 20:01:49 2009

Dear Mr. Carlson,

I have been very involved in caring for my extremely ill mother for the past month and, therefore, have not been able to do any thing further on your request. In fact, after being home for a few days, I am departing in less than three hours for Montana, where she is, again for an undetermined length of time.

I quickly read your latest letter and can recognize your concerns over inconsistencies in various reports. I will try to help once I get these personal family problems resolved.

Trying to remember events of over 40 years ago is not my forte'.

Resectfully,

Fred Meiwald



And there you have it - all of my communications with these two men, excepting my three phone calls with Walt Figel, which I haven't used as a resource for the reasons delineated above.

Throughout this extended discussion, Robert Hastings, and others, have refused outright to examine the evidence I've produced, or to argue on the basis of that evidence with anything other than an unfounded assertion that I'm lying. Others make sweeping statements that nothing I've claimed even matters, because everyone knows the government is lying about UFOs, to which I can only surrender completely to the psychopaths in the hospital ward. I can only defend myself so far to the idiots and mentally abused that Hastings and Salas have collected around them. When an intelligent man like Paul Kimball whines that nobody will listen to my claims because I am "mean spirited", failing to take into account or even mention, not only my justified anger at the strategies and slanders piled on by people who have ALREADY been shown to be dishonest and deceitful, but the fact, as well, that he has made money and a reputation from his ridiculous and unsupportable claims that the Echo Flight Incident is one of the ten best supported UFO incidents known (which shows only that he failed miserably to confirm anything at all that he was told, or to make even the shallowest possible examination of contrary evidence that was available), he has proven only one thing: the people that have made money from this incident are willing to say whatever they can to ensure the money won't permanently go away. And, frankly, I expected that - that's why I don't care a whole lot what they say; the motivation to make idiotic statements that can't be supported is already assumed. If he were to actually examine the evidence before offering his idiotic, unfounded and whining opinions that I'm a big meany, THAT would be a surprise. Hey, Paul, if it's any consolation, you're right. I AM mean-spirited - but I'm only mean-spirited to people who deserve it - people like Robert Hastings who has repeatedly called me a liar - and worse! - and my father a liar, without ONCE introducing any evidence at all to support such slanders - well, except for Walt Figel, who asserts pretty strongly that Hastings was lying when he used him as a source for that. So, kiss it, pal.

If I've been dishonest in any way, conduct your own investigation and prove it. Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have both done so. And as you can see, when the evidence is actually looked at, it becomes obvious that both have repeatedly lied - and whether they ORIGINALLY did it for money or not, they are nonetheless making money off of those lies.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Last edited by James Carlson on Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Access Denied » Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:34 am

James, do you mind if I edit your posts to remove the header information for readability? If there’s any doubt about the authenticity of the emails from Mr. Figel, I as well as others have copies of the original emails with the headers intact that can be provided to investigators and journalists on request.


To Robert Salas, Robert Hastings, Frank Warren, and anyone else promoting this case,

Seriously, do you people have no shame? James is obviously very troubled by all this and simply wants the record set straight about his father. Do the right thing and acknowledge the fact that neither Carlson’s or Figel’s accounts can be used as confirmation of Salas’ claims. For the love of humanity give the man some peace of mind…

Surely you can make your case some other way that doesn’t involve ignoring the evidence to the contrary and driving a family member of the “accused” to their wit’s end in the process?

Thank you,

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:29 am

No, I don't mind at all - I tried to edit out anything identifying, but if you think something else needs to be removed please feel free to do so.

James
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:05 am

James,

The response from Col Figel is both telling and compelling. People of both open and sound minds will evaluate your work on its own merit and should be able to come to a logical and rational conclusion. With that said, those that truly believe in the works of Hastings, Salas and others, may never come around to your's, and even my, conclusions. Stay on an even keel and don't fall into the trappings of Hastings' psycho-drama.

An ardent supporter,

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:57 pm

James,

With your permission I would like to re-post your posting above as an article, written by you, on our blog.

I would like to edit it down a little to make it readable for the typical blog reader, but I will make sure to keep the essence of what you wrote intact.

May I do so?

-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 Zep Tepi » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:14 pm

I was going to suggest something similar, once I've invented the 48 hour day that is... ;)

Methinks it would be useful to have a recorded conversation with Walt, anyone agree?
.
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 astrophotographer » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:38 pm

I find it amusing that UFOlogists are only skeptical of anecdotal testimony if it does not agree with what they want to find.

James, I really would not care what some people say as long as you are being open and honest. I have seen the e-mails and discussions by you and Figel and I am certain that Hastings has too. There seems to be little room to interpret what Figel states in his "final" email that you presented some time ago. He also sent this to Hastings. Did Hastings ever acknowledge receiving this e-mail? Not that I am aware of. Hastings recent blow-up with Dr. Clarke on the UFO files is most telling about how he likes to interpret things.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:05 pm

ryguy wrote:James,

With your permission I would like to re-post your posting above as an article, written by you, on our blog.

I would like to edit it down a little to make it readable for the typical blog reader, but I will make sure to keep the essence of what you wrote intact.

May I do so?

-Ryan


Absolutely. Feel free to use anything I've ever written or any evidence I have ever presented for anything you like, whether you put my name on it or not. I've reported everything I could so people would discuss it; what offends me most is that people feel they can make ethical or personal judgments regarding my character on the basis of what I've said and written without once commenting on the actual content of what I've said and written. That's insulting on a whole new level -- if I've been rude, you can rest assured that I have a damn good reason for it. After all, I'm not accusing these guys of making a little mistake, or an error of judgment -- I'm saying, and believe that I've proven, that they are very consciously and knowingly deceiving people. And the fact that they are doing so while taking monetary donations from people who trust them is criminal fraud, and should be prosecuted as such. Do they respond by formulating an argument that expresses why people should trust them, or one that expresses why the evidence I've presented does NOT indicate fraud? No. Salas remains silent, and Hastings simply says, "he's lying, and someday I'll prove it..." In light of the fact that they're still collecting money to present a collection of their sadly misinformed witnesses in Washington, DC next month, while refusing to correct ANY of the egregious errors of fact, even those that simply can't be denied or dismissed -- such as Dwynne Arnesson's claim that he was stationed at a command adjacent to Malmstrom AFB that, in truth, has never even existed -- is deplorable conduct, evidence of which should be as widely disseminated as possible. So please, feel free to do so with anything I've been responsible for. If Hastings, Salas, or any of the duped millions resent it later, they can chalk it up to my being "mean spirited", dismiss the evidence entirely, and we'll see how far it takes them.

James Carlson
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:26 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:I was going to suggest something similar, once I've invented the 48 hour day that is... ;)

Methinks it would be useful to have a recorded conversation with Walt, anyone agree?


I agree, it would be nice. But I won't have any part of that, because I already promised him I wouldn't, and that I would respect his privacy. Others are free to do as they like. They can get the phone numbers, etc., from Hastings, who has repeatedly offered to give me the same information. I didn't need it, because it was very easy to find him without Hastings' input, but the fact that he offered on numerous occasions to do so says something.

In my opinion, however, people should leave Col. Figel alone. He was very clear that he didn't want to get involved in a situation he referred to as a "pissing contest", and I think people should respect that and leave him be. I'm convinced as well that this is one of the reasons that Hastings publically affirms that I lied, and that I never contacted Figel, and yet refuses to confirm that by calling Figel himself -- a remarkably easy way to prove to everybody that I did indeed lie. He knows very well I didn't lie, and he knows as well that Figel doesn't want to discuss the matter any further with him, either. So Hastings tells everyone "Carlson is a liar", but won't prove that by calling Walt Figel himself. Frankly, that just makes him look more like a weasel, in the long and the short run. Every strategic commentary he comes up with is just one more sickening word after another, leading off into a world of his own invention, and only very rarely coming to rest at a period.

James
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:49 pm

James Carlson wrote:In my opinion, however, people should leave Col. Figel alone. He was very clear that he didn't want to get involved in a situation he referred to as a "pissing contest", and I think people should respect that and leave him be. I'm convinced as well that this is one of the reasons that Hastings publically affirms that I lied, and that I never contacted Figel, and yet refuses to confirm that by calling Figel himself -- a remarkably easy way to prove to everybody that I did indeed lie. He knows very well I didn't lie, and he knows as well that Figel doesn't want to discuss the matter any further with him, either. So Hastings tells everyone "Carlson is a liar", but won't prove that by calling Walt Figel himself.


I agree with Steve that it would make for a pretty nice summary, getting Figel on record, but he repeated to you personally that he didn't want to get involved again. The fact that you did call him, and he is certainly still alive and available to confirm that fact for anyone who needs to confirm it, lends credibility to what you report he told you. I for one believe you based on the evidence you forwarded to us previously, and I am very surprised by Hastings behavior in this case. My first impression when he initially contacted us long before this was that he was a decent guy. But I find his behavior in this case, and the refusal to face the facts as they arise, to be very troubling.

Thanks for the permission - I'll get this published tonight if I can, tomorrow the latest.

Thanks James!
-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 Gilles F. » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:11 pm

Greetings Mister James Carlson,

Sorry for my english. You posted some messages in our french forum "sceptic ovni" (Skeptic ufo) some monthes ago, "surprised" you was we relayed your awesome and fantastic work. It is still in translation/summerize by our team (very occupated by french super non explicated UFO cases - sic -). Not by me for the work to translate/summerize your document, cause I'm more "ET Roswell case" (non event) focused on, in France, as counter-ton.

I just wanted to say you "hello" and "courage" from our team, as to tell you again we are well following your exchanges in different networks against your contradictors.

Respects,

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 James Carlson » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:45 am

Gilles F. wrote:Greetings Mister James Carlson,

Sorry for my english. You posted some messages in our french forum "sceptic ovni" (Skeptic ufo) some monthes ago, "surprised" you was we relayed your awesome and fantastic work. It is still in translation/summerize by our team (very occupated by french super non explicated UFO cases - sic -). Not by me for the work to translate/summerize your document, cause I'm more "ET Roswell case" (non event) focused on, in France, as counter-ton.

I just wanted to say you "hello" and "courage" from our team, as to tell you again we are well following your exchanges in different networks against your contradictors.

Respects,

Gilles F.


Thank you, Gilles. When I first discovered "Sceptic Ovni" on the internet, I was very pleasantly surprised and thankful that you and your colleagues were taking my work seriously enough to work on translating some of it. I know there have been some difficulties as a result of our language differences, but your support and enthusiasm were immediately apparent, and very much appreciated. Thank you.

James
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron