The UFO/Nuke Fallacy

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

The UFO/Nuke Fallacy

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:51 pm

I recently posted a blog article looking at the claims that UFOs have disrupted the operations of the US's nuclear ICBM sites.

The UFO ICBM/Nuke Connect: Does It Really Exist?

UFOs causing havoc over US ICBM sites? This tends to be an off/on subject raised on various Internet sites. The prevailing thought among a few noted Ufologist is that UFOs have been overflying nuclear weapon sites (ICBMs) for a number of decades. Do the facts support this premise, or is it merely the case of relying solely on subjective vs. that of the available objective data?...

Currently, the most vocal proponent of UFO/Nukes connection is Robert Hastings. Hastings has devoted almost 40 years developing the theory that UFOs have been overflying our nuclear ICBM sites for years and in some cases deliberately causing operational disruptions. He bases his "proof" on the statements given by some 130 former active duty personnel. Hastings has conceded, on some occasions, to provide the qualifier that his work has been based solely on "anecdotal" information, i.e., the unverifiable words of witnesses providing statements. In short, Hastings has constructed a correlation hypothesis bases on the words of his sources. Below is a brief outline of Hastings' work, much from his book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites..

I researched all of the major accidents/events that would have, in some fashion or another, hampered the operational status of the US's ICBM weapon systems, this included: Atlas, Titan I, Titan II, and Minuteman I, II, III.

With the exception of the Malmstrom and FE Warren events, none of the Atlas and Titan events had a UFO component to the story. The only true Broken Arrow event would have been the Damascus, Arkansas incident since it involved a real nuclear RV and again, no one has ever come forward to claim a UFO as it's causation or spotted one in the vicinity of the site. The UFO story component for the 2010 FE Warren incident only came into being after Robert Hastings had visited the area some two to three months after the incident. I touched on FE Warren's emergent UFO lore in a couple of previous blog post.

and concluding with:

Is there credible evidence that UFO's disrupted the operations of US ICBMs? The facts appear not to support this hypothesis. All documented mishaps and problems have been attributed mostly to human error in dealing with complex systems. The major ICBM weapon systems have evolved solely based on the concepts of system reliability and economic cost factors. Missiles/rockets that relied on liquid propellants and oxidizers gave way to safer solid propellants thus reducing mishaps. Individuals such as Robert Hastings have presented anecdotal evidence that "strange" lights of an undetermined nature have been sighted over and near US ICBM sites, but he has failed to demonstrate that this phenomena resulted in the operational disruption of our nuclear missile forces. We, as humans, have been quite adapt at disrupting our ICBMs with out needing help from ET.

If you find this topic of interest, you can access the full article at

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

Re: The UFO/Nuke Fallacy

Postby James Carlson » Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:56 am

Now we're getting to the real nitty-gritty! If UFOs are making a mess of our nuclear weapons facilities, embarrassing the hundreds (or even thousands) of USAF and (at a possibly less direct level) Army and Navy personnel manning such facilities, it would seem logical to assume that there would be mention of it somewhere, or, at the very least, mention of the progress they've made shutting those systems down. And yet, the only instances in which those nuclear facilities have actually and verifiably failed -- these being the Echo Flight and FE Warren AFB incidents that you mention in your article -- consist of commands for which we have repeatedly established (here at Reality Uncovered as well as at your Did It Really Happen? blog, Tim) not only the easily amplified non-involvement of UFOs in relation to those failures, but the complete and utter dishonesty of those attempting to establish such UFO links!

Of course, there is some disagreement with this claim. Robert Hastings, for instance, has repeatedly attempted to swing the public momentum of his UFO assertions in a more favorable direction than the one assumed by actual revelation and fact by introducing evidence that has not yet been established (something most people would forgivably assume to be an impossible task). For instance, he has most recently published claims [see: ... -security/] stating that

in May, in a studio near Chicago, I conducted 20 hours of videotaped interviews with other veterans who were involved in either the Echo or Oscar incidents–or in other nukes-related UFO cases–in preparation for the documentary film I am currently organizing. At some point, hopefully in a year or so, the whole world will be able to view that witness testimony–thereby further discrediting your father’s dismissive, no-UFOs-were-involved statements about Echo.

He continually neglects to mention that even those witnesses he wants to discuss have also issued -- on numerous occasions -- their own "dismissive, no-UFOs-were-involved statements about Echo." As the primary result of this apparent oversight, we've been waiting over two years now for the recordings Hastings continues to insist he possesses of Col. Walt Figel disputing “99% of Carlson’s claims” from March 2010 -- recordings he's been promising to publish since then. He's also been promising for over two years to publish Figel’s alleged March 2010 account of the event at Echo Flight that is the complete antithesis of the story my father, as the commander of Echo Flight in March 1967, has been openly asserting since Robert Salas first published his ridiculous story of UFOs and nukes in 1996. The fact that Figel has very openly confirmed my father’s account, insisting as well that these alleged recordings do not exist is beside the point. Hastings insists he has them, and that they "prove" his claims, and as soon as he gets around to compiling them in full, he’ll publish them and show the whole world what an honest fellow he truly is! Does anybody else feel a twinge of nausea whenever he starts to use arguments like this?

The truth is much simpler to explain away than his numerous prevarications on this single theme: Robert Hastings is a fraud and a liar who manufactures evidence to make his past lies seem somehow less insulting to the intelligence of his readers.

This is supported by the fact that he routinely abandons his pathetic and ultimately meaningless arguments every time someone starts to ask him for more details, refusing to attempt any defense against the charges associated with his claims, refusing to explain in any way the assertions, commentaries, records, or well-established facts on the record that recognizably destroy his arguments, and refusing to discuss anything that approaches the recovery of “new” evidence, excepting his old and oft-relied upon insistence that “new” evidence and witnesses will indeed be available for examination once he gets around to transcribing it and properly publishing it for the world to one-day admire. And then, to punctuate the point, he spams the Hell of whatever website forum he happens to be on to punish the temerity of those who would dare openly defy the holy writ of UFOs and Nukes!

This is exactly the same tactic he has relied upon so often in the well-documented past. Unfortunately, the admiring world will have to wait, because the process of collation and publication is a lengthy one, and could, as he insists above, take a little time to complete: “hopefully in a year or so, the whole world will be able to view that witness testimony”. Hastings' reliance on evidence and testimony that doesn’t yet exist is just one more attempt to con the world with nothing. As such, it deserves nothing but the contempt and ridicule from the entire world that he invariably attracts.

It's not only Robert Hastings who continues to agonize over the details of his lies -- an element that unfortunately requires the continuation of his reliance on some measure of dishonest defense to support the otherwise indefensible tenets of his very artificial religious ideals. Note the following exchange via email my father recently initiated [included are my responses, a couple of which refer to the very question of UFOs and their interference with nuclear facilities so poorly assessed yet publically aggrandized by Robert Hastings and his ilk]:

Date: Friday, September 7, 2012, 5:03 PM

Have you done anything to piss off Salas. Got a phone call from him today asking if I agreed with you. Don't know what you said so can't agree or disagree. Did tell him when he asked that there were no repeat no UFO's. If you did anything to get him riled up keep up the good work.

Date: Saturday, September 8, 2012, 9:14 PM

Hi, Dad,

I think I know what he's upset about. Hastings and Salas were trying to get 2 articles added to Wikipedia -- one on Echo Flight UFOs and the other on Oscar Flight UFOs. Wikipedia deleted almost immediately the article on Echo Flight, because it's obvious nothing was there. In regard to Oscar Flight, they decided to merge one paragraph about UFOs and a full flight failure at Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967 to the general article on Malmstrom AFB. Well, there wasn't a single word in that one paragraph that was true and verified, so I tried to persuade Wikipedia to dump that part of the Malmstrom article, but found it to be an incredible chore that would very likely take awhile to be approved, since it had already been added, which would require an examination by a few of the editors; it didn't look like that would happen immediately. What I could do, however, was to insert additional paragraphs qualifying the claims made, so that's exactly what I did -- I edited the paragraph by adding a number of details that are necessary to reach a viable conclusion. Everything I added was properly referenced, and easily proven. You can read it at ... O_incident ; the first paragraph of that particular section was basically the same original paragraph that had been merged with the Malmstrom article. Everything else -- text that qualifies the original statement, but had been neglected by whomever drafted it -- is what I added to the paragraph, which was then established as a separate section. I just didn't think it would be very fair to make false claims by leaving out all of the information that proves their little bit of deceit. In any case, Salas does not come out of it unscathed -- not by a long shot.

I think he'll be angrier in just a couple days, though. I decided that the issue was newsworthy enough to chronicle this attempt to publish a bunch of lies in one of the single most popular and utilized websites out on the internet, so I wrote up an article discussing all the details of this attempt to publish garbage as if it was history, and how we were able to "fix" the errors by merely offering more information not previously included. I stressed the point that my interpretation of the matter rested on one public assessment: what they tried to accomplish did not fail because it was a scientific issue they refused to properly research and reference, suggesting merely an error on their part; it was a moral issue entirely that failed because they very purposely lied to establish claims they knew were wrong.

It's interesting that Salas actually responded to the arguments I've tried to establish. For the most part, it's the first time he's responded to anything I've written about him. I can't help but wonder if his response is due to the tremendous popularity and use of Wikipedia. I certainly hope so -- it would indicate that we're finally getting through to him. I hope he's worried -- he should be. I'm currently working on an analysis of his 1996-97 email communications with a UFO author named Raymond Fowler, and my analysis is not going to be a kind one.

Date: Sunday, September 9, 2012, 8:38 AM

I really don't understand this guy. Oscar never shut down, for any reason, and Echo had no UFO attack. I can only surmise that he has told the same story so long that he actually believes it.

Date: Monday, September 10, 2012, 1:44 PM

I'd probably agree with you if he kept telling the same story -- he's changed it so often, though, that I doubt he'd convince himself. He certainly doesn't convince people familiar with the whole story. I think he's just a simple-minded fraud who doesn't like people questioning his apparent "expertise". He's part of a large group of UFO believers who are convinced that UFOs are real, and the Department of Defense has access to all of the proof necessary to support 60 years worth of insistent UFO folk tales. Basically these UFO proponents have presented nothing at all concrete to convince the rest of the world that they're right; they've failed miserably to establish anything at all in the way of real evidence, and they blame that failure on the USAF and DoD for keeping all of the real "proof" highly classified.

They been demanding full disclosure for over ten years now, and they've finally realized that it's not going to happen without some outside pressure being put on the military to ensure it. At the same time, they keep publishing these insistent articles that disclosure is immanent, so they feel like something drastic has to be done. What they've apparently decided (and keep in mind, this is all just a theory of mine based on their actions over the past ten years), is to try and create a mass media-based movement intended to support public demand for the full disclosure of classified materials involving UFOs. And that's just not going to happen unless they can create panic. That's why they've been trying to link UFOs with nuclear facilities.

After 60 years of failure, they've decided that they now have to create an issue, even if it means lying about it. The only problem is that they are not a very bright bunch of guys. They've decided to lie, but they're really bad at it -- just as they've been really bad at trying to convince people that UFOs exist (as aliens from another planet/dimension/time -- not classified weapons of some sort). They've actually done this sort of thing in the past. The group that Salas was originally affiliated with -- CUFON (Computer UFO Network) -- was co-founded by James Klotz, the guy who co-wrote Salas' book, and helped him gather all of the FOIA documentation that he first used (and then later ignored so he could create this Oscar Flight incident from absolutely nothing) to convince others that UFOs caused the Echo Flight missile failures. CUFON was involved with something they called "Project Mask" that was basically a fake UFO landing and the capture of an alien that later died. They wanted to use Hollywood special effects wizards to create this whole systematic "movie" set in order to catch the U.S. government trying to hide it all under the same veil of super secrecy they use to hide all of the "real" UFO materials. Well, it was a brainless idea that was basically under consideration and then planning for nearly ten years. At the same time that Salas was collecting materials for his Echo Flight story, CUFON decided to out the whole Project Mask story, and made it public. They said they did it only to "create a dialogue" on the ethics of fraudulent claims, but they had known about the whole thing for ten years, so I think they outed the story, because they finally concluded it was a stupid idea, and because they intended to try a new strategy, one based on Salas' Echo Flight claims. If they had any ethics in regard to Mask, they wouldn't have sat on the story for ten years, helping the original planners to "tweak" it every so often. I think they just decided on another strategy, and figured that if someone found out about Project Mask, it would make them look like a bunch of silly UFO conspirators at a time when they really needed to seem like ethical individuals who would never tell a lie or create a UFO hoax. So they broke the Project Mask story themselves a couple months before Salas started shopping out Echo Flight. The whole thing was just another way to show how devious and sneaky the government has been about UFOs. In Salas' 1996-97 emails to Raymond Fowler, he actually comes right out and admits that his main goal was to persuade USAF witnesses of UFO incursions that were all hushed up and classified -- actual UFO events, not the fictional event he's been attempting to create since 1995 -- to go public and open up about all the DoD secrets they've been protecting for 60-odd years. It didn't quite work as well as he'd hoped. He hasn't convinced anybody to "come clean on UFOs" for one very good reason: there's not a whole lot there worth talking about, something the USAF had been very strongly insisting since 1965, which eventually led them to drop investigating UFOs entirely from 1969 on.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons there are so many UFO hoaxes. Folks like Salas and Robert Hastings and CUFON just resent the USAF dismissal of their claims in 1969. They just can't believe their strongly held beliefs could be so casually ignored by the government, so they don't. They insist that the government is secretly investigating all the UFOs to this day, that their so-called "pull out" of any investigation of the phenomenon was for the benefit of the public so the USAF or DoD or some other more secretive organization (these days, the CIA is at the top of their list of suspects) would be able to deny interest while investigating the matter in great detail. They're just a bunch of paranoid freaks who have decided that the only way to reach their goals -- full disclosure of all UFO materials -- is to make the rest of the world just as paranoid as they are, and they're trying to do it by scaring the hell out of everybody using a fraudulent link between UFOs and nuclear weapons. Every major UFO proponent organization in the world has now accepted this basic strategy as a viable marketing of UFO interest, and a lot of them have been very successful. There are dozens of authors who publish the same crap, and dozens of magazines who deal it to the public. Unfortunately for them, they are still a bunch of failures. The only people they've really fired up are in the entertainment industry -- bad TV shows and not terribly interesting movies. The fact is, there just isn't much there. As for all of the ex-military "witnesses" they still think have all the secrets, they just haven't turned up. Most seem to be like Salas -- they don't have a very interesting story to tell, and it is absolutely riddled with holes.

I'll have a new article published at Reality Uncovered soon -- I've already turned it in, so it's just waiting to be reviewed, I'm sure. It will be nice to see what effect it has. It's funny -- I mentioned to Ruth that this timid little incident is the first time that I know of that Salas has ever responded to anything at all that I've written. She said, "yeah, and he called your Daddy -- what does that say about him?" I'm 50-years old for God's sake! This is the first time since Disco died that anybody's felt it necessary to tell my parents what a bad boy I've been. I swear, I find it more difficult as each day goes by to take anything these UFO people do very seriously. On an intellectual level, I recognize immediately that what they've been trying to do cannot possibly be defended on any moral or ethical plane whatsoever, but they're just so very bad at it, that in the long run I'm still in it -- at least partly -- for the kicks and giggles.

Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2012, 9:15 AM

I'm with you. I don't see how anyone with any intelligence can take these folks seriously. If they keep Hollywood cranking out SciFi movies I guess that's OK. I do wish they were better, however. I'm looking forward to reading your article. Will it be on line?

Yes, it will be -- right here at Reality Uncovered -- within a couple of days or so.

I'm so glad you started this thread, Tim. I'm been debating how best to release the above exchange of emails with my Dad, because I believe it has some public worth, as well as private interest. A thread discussion of UFOs and Nukes fits those guidelines precisely. It's a shame, however, that none of those publically proclaiming any linking of UFOs with nuclear facilities will ever attempt to defend their claims here in a public setting. As we've already noted, those having the greatest interest in establishing their claims are also at the top of the list of those who most often refuse to answer any detailed questions about them. If you can't (or won't) answer any questions by others who are as familiar (or more so) with the assessments and arguments made as they themselves are, what real hope do you have that those claims will ever be discussed by anybody after you've given way to the ultimate silence of the grave? Unless, of course, you happen to be Gene Roddenberry. On the other hand, he was always a bit more interested in discussing the fictional aspects of his many and varied interests.

We should remember, however, that by the time you've encountered the effects of that ultimate silence on a much more personal basis, you wouldn't exactly be much concerned with the profits you've successfully bilked a few naive individuals of during your oh so brief sojourn on the planet Earth, nor the effect your foolish claims may have had on United States Department of Defense policies regarding the classification of material records and documents, so what the Hell? You might as well just stay silent, refuse to answer questions, and accept as your due whatever you can collect from the foolish and the uneducated. If you're lucky, you'll die before anybody decides to sue your ass for being such an irresponsibly malignant fellow with such accessibly deep pockets.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The UFO/Nuke Fallacy

Postby James Carlson » Wed Oct 03, 2012 3:07 am

I tried to raise this issue a bit more qualitatively in the comments section to the article about Tim Hebert's discussion of the Wikipedia claims just published here at "Reality Uncovered". Any further attention to such matters should be discussed or apprised wherever possible. It's not just Hastings and Salas -- all of these UFO proponent groups have also campaigned aggressively to establish these claims. The facts, however, are very clear if people will just examine them: people like Hastings and Salas are telling a lot of lies, and that's why there are so many changes throughout the years in even the most basic points of their claims. I would say it's obvious, but apparently it isn't, or so many folks wouldn't accept these claims so stridently without cause or good reason.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests