Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Use this forum for getting organized research help from our members

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:42 am

jbondo,

No need to apologize! Reviewing your past posts, you are quite right about your questions pertaining to the subject matter of this thread. I've been mapping out the historical data that shows that the power supply system for both Minuteman I LCCs and LFs were marginal in meeting the system's requirements. Yet, as these problems were identified by the operational wings, SAC institued fixes. Some of these fixes worked, sometimes the "wheel" had to be re-invented.

Now, could a UFO disrupt power supply? I guess it could......according to the past episodes of the "Outer Limits", "Twilight Zone" and others.

Could a UFO initiate an unauthorized launch? Ah...I believe that this may be where your posts were leading to? Well believe it or not, Robert Hastings wrote in the ufochronicles.com, "Launch in Progress!". The article detailed the mysterious happenings at Minot AFB, ND, 1966-1967, where UFOs were causing an entire flight of Minuteman I missiles to show "Launch in Progress" on the LCC's status indication board. This UFO accounting is gut wrenching, on the edge of your seat type of stuff. The story is also full of unadulterated B.S. This is one of those subjects that needs to be looked at in a different thread and explored fully. Then you and I can explore the possibilities of unauthorized launch of a nuclear weapon. My last years in SAC, I was responsible for the launch and enable codes for the Minuteman III wing at Grand Forks AFB, ND. I KNOW how the enable command and launch command was initiated by the launch crew and processed and accepted by the Missile's guidance computer.

Best regards,

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


Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:20 pm

Tim & jbondo:

Just to tie-up a loose end that relates to the main reason I shared what I did about hardware interlocks, etc.:

The engineering process for anything that flies is extremely thorough, especially as it comes to failure modes, their probabilities, and design features that will mitigate them. It is for this very reason that one should not immediately jump to the "must be UFOs messing with our nukes" conclusion, but instead consider that a very low probability failure event happened to occur.

I realize that some might not see the logic in that, so I will offer an alternate explanation to help the understanding. ALL potential failure modes of an aerospace system are identified, analyzed, quantified, and dispositioned in some manner. For example, any failure mode in a commercial aircraft that could possibly lead to loss of the aircraft (and its souls on board) must be addressed and shown to have a probability of occurrence of less than 1E-9 per flight hour. To make sure people understand how small that probability is, that is a one in a billion chance of occurrence for every flight hour of that airplane's type design. If an analysis shows any failure mode has a higher probability of occurrence than this threshold, the design authority MUST show how the design mitigates and prevents that failure mode from causing loss of vehicle (often either through multiple redundant strings of control systems, or large factors of safety in structural designs). Therefore, if all the most common failure modes are addressed in the design, then it stands to reason that it is the HIGHLY UNCOMMON (low probability of occurrence) failure modes that WOULD and COULD eventually manifest, because all the more common ones are mitigated by the design.

This directly addresses the "true believer" argument that goes something like this: "How could something like this just be a coincidence? It is too low probability to be a coincidence. Hence, it must be caused by aliens." The only thing they are right about is that it is NOT a coincidence. It is no coincidence that the lowest probability events are the ones that manifest and lead to problems, because those are the EXACT failure modes that were deemed TOO LOW in probability to incorporate design mitigation. You will NOT see the common failure modes lead to trouble because the design incorporates features to prevent just that from happening!

Understand? This is exactly why the Malstrom incident does not even raise an eyebrow to aerospace engineers like myself. Especially given that the technology of electronics and redundancy back then in the ICBM engineering days is nothing compared to the sophistication we can employ nowadays. There are very good (engineering) reasons why it has continually gotten safer and safer for people to fly on commercial aircraft.
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:18 am

Ray,

I'm not an engineer, but what you have stated makes sense to me. The next phase of my posting will center around the actual engineering studies done by AF Systems Command, Boeing, Autonetics, and Ogden. These series of evaluations/tests were conducted over a one year period.

BTW Ray, I and assuming most of forum members, can follow your engineering rationale for failure analysis. What about the rest of the crowd that blindly takes it upon faith that other so-called "experts" state that of all of the available critical thinking choices, the choice that mentions UFOs is the most logical and rational answer?

Thanks for a great post,

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

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Access Denied » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:51 am

Back from vacation and (still) catching up…

Tim Hebert wrote:My four years on Minuteman crew, can easily be described as organized boredom interspersed with "interesting" events.

Air Force missile launch crew falls asleep

Tim Hebert wrote:During my four years on crew, there never was a change in DEFCON.

That’s a good thing, the ultimate weapon is the one you never have to use…

[err… again]

Tim Hebert wrote:Could a UFO initiate an unauthorized launch?

Without physically turning both launch keys… simultaneously?

Image

[never mind the Nuclear Football and required outside vote… but, as you pointed out, that’s a topic for another thread, or not]

Tim Hebert wrote:Next posting, I will discuss the actual Echo Flight shutdown as it was perceived and dealt with by SAC, Air Force, and DOD.

Looking forward to it, by all means please continue…
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: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby gunter » Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm

ALL potential failure modes of an aerospace system are identified, analyzed, quantified, and dispositioned in some manner.


Image
Whoops! Get Hudson on the phone!
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:12 pm

After the Echo Flight shutdown, SAC and other agencies began a comprehensive investigation. Bernard Nalty briefly gives a short accounting of the incident, USAF Ballistic Missile Program, 1967-1968 (pgs 16-17).

March 1967- entire flight of Minuteman I missiles at Malmstrom AFB abruptly drop off alert. Tests at Malmstrom, Ogden, and Boeing revealed the following:

1. Possible electronic noise pulse as probable causation.

2. Surge pulse was similar to an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) event.

3. Follow on test and evaluations showed that the MM I was most vulnerable to electronic noise pulses that interfered with the LF's Logic Coupler, located in the missile's MGS.

4. Further testing showed that the Minuteman II missile guidance system was equally vulnerable to noise pulses.

5. The recommended fixes via Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) was a system-wide installation of EMP filters for the suppression of EMP and other related "noise" pulses.

As I stated above, Nalty gives the incident a brief notation in his history, but it confirms that the event actually occured, but was there a cover-up? Nalty does not mention any other flights dropping off alert, ie, November or Oscar flights. This is where I have to give James Carlson credit for his research. James' debate with Hastings showed that he had "dug" into the "noise" pulse theory in a rather thorough manner. In fact, James was doing what Hastings and others should have been doing: ruling out other possible factors that could have caused the flight to drop off alert.

Tim
Last edited by Access Denied on Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: fixed link
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Jun 15, 2010 2:58 pm

gunter wrote:
ALL potential failure modes of an aerospace system are identified, analyzed, quantified, and dispositioned in some manner.


Whoops! Get Hudson on the phone!


Which is proof-positive why philosophers shouldn't stick their noses into technical issues. Because the failure mode represented in that picture (Challenger explosion) was, indeed, well-documented in the design data. Not only that, but the designers at Morton-Thiokol were ACTIVELY on the horn to NASA the night before that launch, TELLING the freaking managers not to fly, and that the O-rings on the boosters had never flown after that amount of cold-soak and ice formation.

The Challenger accident report made it excruciatingly clear, that this was a management decision failure, NOT a failure of engineering. The engineers were standing and waving the red flag, but they were minimalized, if not wholly ignored. So thanks for proving my point, in your own mind-twisted way, Toon. A little research into such things might help you avoid such moments.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:47 am

Via the Black Vault.com site's FOIA documents, UFO Case: Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident March 16, 1967 excerpts from the declassified 341st SMW Unit History.

"The 341st SMW and 341st Combat Support Group 1 Jan-30 Mar 1967" Prepared by A2C David B. Gamble.

The unit's history was initially classified SECRET to comply with SACR 210-1 and AFR 205-1. The reason for the unit's classified history was due to the revealing of the unit's current military capabilities and operational status.

Page 32, titled "Investigation of Echo Flight Incident" documents the actual shutdown and the wing's, SAC, AF, and other agencies response.

16 Mar 1967, 0845, all ten sorties of Echo Flight shutown with No-Go VRSA channels 9 and 12 indications. All of the sorties dropped off alert nearly simultaneously. Not other units were effected. A Guidance and Control channel 50 data dump was collected from LFs E-7 and E-08. All ten of the LFs were returned to strategic alert without the need for equipment replacement. All sorties showed that they were subjected to a "normal" controlled shutdown.

E-8 was previously experiencing intermittent operation of diesel generator. (on stand-by power not on commercial) Inspection of the LCC cables, communication cable lines from LCC to all 10 LFs, showed not descrepancies. The LCF/LCC had commercial power problems in the afternoon of 16 March. This resulted in the burnout of the 10HP ECS chiller compressor motor (Chiller provides cooling air to the LCCs equipment racks). Based upon the non-alert status of an entire missile flight, SAC HQ directed analysis by OOAMA (Ogeden/Hill AFB). A task force was set up involving OOMA, Boeing, Autonetics, and 15th AF. (Pg. 33)

Fault Isolator Test Tapes were extracted from bothe E-07 and E-08. (pg 34) The LCC crew was qestioned about the days events by the Wing Maintenance Evaluation Team, OOMA and Boeing on 16 March. (Figel had told Hastings that they were questioned only by squadron personnel. He omitted be questioned by members of the task force.) The crew reported that all ten sorties dropped off of alert within 10-40 seconds. On the commander's console to stand-by lights or fault lights were illuminated. (I am assuming what was meant is that prior to the sorties dropping off alert there were no fault indication lights illuminated. Once the sorties dropped off alert, there would have been a fault light illuminated, then the crew would have interogated for any active VRSA channels via the VRSA panel located on the deputy's console.) E-8 had previously had an active VRSA channel 26 which showed the the site was operating on back-up diesel generator. (pg 35)

The deputy commander (Figel) had awaken the commander (Carlson). The commander was first to see the faults on his console, the deputy commander had his back turned from the console. (pg 36) (Again, assuming that Figel received the radio reports from the maintenance teams and Carlson awoke just in time to see the fault indications on his console.) The Channel 50 data dump for E-7 and E-8 showed that both sites had shut down due to external influences to the Guidance and Control.

19 March, channel 50 data dump was obtained for E-02 and E-09. By then, both missiles had been returned to strategic alert. Both missile's Guidance and Control showed no previous No-Go loop. If a true No-Go situation had occured, both Guidance and Controls would have showned LFNA (not authenticating due to loss of codes) and only VRSA channel 9. Due to the lack of these indications and data, the No-Go theory was eliminated. All ten sorties had reported VRSA channels 9 and 12 (effecting the guidance and control and the logic coupler respectively). Only the logic coupler is capable of generating both VRSA 9 and 12, if an external generated signal is present. (pg 37)

Finally weather was ruled out as a factor.

On page 38, an interesting notation is made that UFO proponents, such as Hastings, Salas, Klotz, and others, have deemed as a "smoking gun" and the possible beginnings of a cover-up. A2C Gamble writes, "Rumors of UFOs at the time of incident disproven." (In a seperate post, I will show that UFO "sightings" were numerous leading up to 16 March and lasting until the Belt "sighting" on 24 March. These interesting reports set the stage for a "viral" rumor mill and possibally set up a potential practical joke that may have gotten out of hand.)

Again, the unit history states that UFO rumors were disproven, yet, in keeping with then Air Force protocal (Project Blue Book still in effect), a query was made into any unusual sightings out in the flight areas east of Malmstrom (10th SMS and 490th SMS). A Mobile Strike Team was in the November Flight area and reported that they saw no unusual activities or sightings. The 801st Radar Squadron, back at Malmstrom, saw nothing on radar for the Echo Flight area - no atmospheric interference problems. (pg 38)

All bold face and italics is by author of this post, Tim Hebert.

Next posting, I will reveal that a similar "shut down" incident happened in another flight involving the same crew. I will also discuss the "infamous" SAC letter to Ogden requesting assistance and expressing SAC's "grave concern" over the loss of 10 sorties off of alert status.

Tim

Update: Added link to theblackvault.com referencing 341st SMW Unit History.
Blue colored statements are Tim Hebert's not the articles author.
Last edited by Access Denied on Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed link/formatting
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:02 pm

My last post, I started to map out the responses to the Echo Flight shutdown by the wing, SAC, Boeing, and other agencies. With the forum's indulgence and patience, I'll continue:

Referencing the 341st SMW Unit History, 1 Jan - 30 Mar 1967, (pg 38-39), a review of the wing's maintenance history showed that a similar incident occured at the 10th SMS's Alpha Flight. On 19 December 1966, A-6, A-7, and A-10 experienced shutdowns. As in the Echo incident, there were similarities:

1. Carlson and Figel were the alert crew.
2. Weather was not a factor.
3. There were commercial power failures at the LCC after the LFs had shutdown.

This is probably why Carlson and Figel were questioned by the Wing Maintenance Evaluation Team. I find it interesting that Hastings, Salas, and Klotz, failed to mention this in their respective articles. In fact, Salas and Klotz only provided pages 32 -38 of the Unit History as references/links in their Cufon.org article, "The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident", http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htmThey omitted 20-25 pages of the Unit History that showed that SAC and other agencies had indeed conducted extensive test and evaluations in response to the incident. These evaluations would continue for almost a full year. They appeared to pick only those pages that would boister a UFO/coverup hypothesis.

The on-going investigation started to center around the HICS lines to and from the LCC and ten LF. These are hardend cable lines that are internally pressurized (pnuematically) and allow commands and status interrogations to be illicited back and forth from the LCC and LF. If a drop in pressure occured in the lines, then this would mean that a cable was accidentally cut, or in the extremes, "someone" was intentionally "tapping" into the system. This would trigger an alarm in the LCC and a security situation would be called requiring security personnel to search the flight for any "unusual" activity. (In Minuteman II, my system in the 1980s, the commands were encrypted. Any HICS line issues would result in a security situation and the entire flight, and if need be, the entire squadron to go into Anti-Jam Mode. The makings of a crappy alert.)

Referencing the 341st SMW Wing History, 1 Apr - 30 June 1967:

At Boeing, engineers established that a 30 micro second pulse (-10 to 0 volt square wave) Self Test Command at Coupler Logic Drawer Interface resulted in a shutdown with VRSA channel 9 and 12 No-Go 70 percent of the time. Autonetics' tests showed the a pulse generated long enough resulted in a Initiate Coupler Self Test. This caused a sequencing error between the Guidance and Control and Coupler modes. The sequencing error was deemed capable of initiating a Guidance and Control and Logic Coupler No-Go shutdown (VRSA 9 and 12). Boeing decided that they needed to determine the source and path of the noise pulse to the Logic Computer. (This was James Carlson's contention and his research alerted me to look at this issue closely.)

As Boeing was conducting their pulse pathway evaluations, they found that EMP issues via the Secure Intersite Network (SIN) lines were susceptable to noise-type pulses at Minuteman II wings. Since the SIN lines go only to and from the LCC and its ten LFs, this could explain a flight peculiar problem. Possible sources of the noise pulse at Echo Flight:

1. Transformer failure at the LCF
2. Ground current flow via the HICS cables, easily providing a pathway inducing voltage pulses on SIN lines to all of the flight's LFs.

Subsequent field tests showed that there were no significant problems with Echo's SIN lines. This lead Boeing to believe that the cause was more than likely not a power issue but more in line with an EMP nature. SAC would eventually ask Air Force Systems Command - Ballistic System Division to test Malmstrom"s units for EMP vulnerability.

341st SMW History, 1 July - 30 Sept 1967:

As noted in the previously mentioned history, Boeing's testing of noise pulses via the SIN lines to the Logic Coupler was disproven as the cause of the problem. With that said, Boeing did prove that the Logic Coupler was capable of receiving noise pulse irregularities. Boeing's lab test showed the following:

1. When tested in a lab environment, 60 percent of the time, the same shutdown response occured as did Echo Flight.

2. 85 perecent of the time this resulted in a missile sortie downgraded to "non-EWO" status. Basically, the missile sortie would drop off of strategic alert status. (EWO = Emergency War Orders, the ability to accept and recognize a valid launch command from one or more LCCs in a given flight)

Subsequent testing of Minuteman II wings showed that the logic couplers were susceptable to "noise" impulses which resulted in a sortie dropping off of alert. These noise impulses were later to be identified as EMPs. As concerns for EMP vulnerability became the prime culprit. SAC via Boeing, Ogden, and AF Systems Command would institute a Minuteman force-wide implementation of EMP filters.

A review of comments from current and former missile crews on the missileforums.com web site reveals that as of this date, no crew member has ever experience an unkown abrupt loss of all ten ICBMs in a flight. I, author of this post, count myself among those former crew members and concur with the general concensus.

I must apologize for the "dry" facts that I have provided in support of a system anomaly causation of the Echo Flight incident, but I feel that it is important for the forum to understand that "real" theories were tried and tested. Those theories that did not work out were rightfully eliminated.

Next post, we'll take a look at the infamous declassified SAC letter to Ogen that Hastings, Salas, Klotz and others cite as a potential 'smoking gun" for the UFO cover-up crowd.

Tim

Update: I stated above that Salas and Klotz omitted numerous pages from the 341st SMW's unit history. This can be readily determined that they had only posted links to 4 pages of that history. As you read further into their Cufon article, Salas and Klotz does go into some detail into the Boeing/Autonetics investigation. Further, the 10 volt pulse and EMP issue are noted in their article. I did not want to leave the impression that Salas and Klotz totally ignored the investigation. That they take issue that the noise pulse being the cause of the incident is of no doubt to this writer.

Tim
Last edited by Tim Hebert on Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:24 pm

As promised, the "infamous" SAC letter!

SAC Message to OOMA, Hill AFB, originally SECRET
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/sacmsg.htm

Upon review of the letter, it appears to be similar to the type of messages sent back and forth between AF commands, wings, and support agencies. I can make a "strong" assumption that the SAC message to Hill AFB is authentic. Based upon the content of the message, I can clearly understand why the message was classified SECRET but not for the reasons that UFO/cover-up crowd may believe.

The 341st SMW had already started an "in-house" evaluation and reported their premlinary results to SAC prior to this letter being generated. As of now those initial messages appear to either remain classified or lost. But what makes this letter classified SECRET?

SAC uses the following verbage:

"The fact that no apparent reason for the loss of ten missiles can be readily identified is cause for great concern to this headquarters."

SAC should have and did have "great concerns", because ten of it's ICBMs had abruptly dropped off of alert. This meant that SAC had 10 targets not covered under the then version of the Single Integrated Operational Plan, known as the SIOP. SAC planners would have been scrambling to look for other assests to cover those targets or would have had to do without coverage. So yes, SAC had GRAVE CONCERNS. This in itself justifies that the information in the message be classified SECRET.

The letter in its basic meaning, set in motion for OOMA, Boeing, Autonetics and 15th AF providing support to evaluate the situation and find a cause and correction as detailed in the 341st SMS Wing's history.

"We must have an in-depth analysis to determine cause and corrective action....."

The UFO theory backers have used the Malmstrom Incident to foster the notion that a portion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was neutralized by a UFO. True, ten ICBMs off alert for one to two days, but no damage to the ICBMs themselves. And most importantly, the RVs remained under positive control! There was no "Broken Arrow" called either by the 341st SMW or by SAC!

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

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:51 pm

Final thoughts on the Echo Flight shut down, 16 Mar 1967

With my postings on this thread, I've tried to attempt to show the forum that of the 10 Echo Flight ICBMs in question:

1. Shutdowns occured due to a then never seen electrical anomoly.

2. This anomoly was thoroughly evaluated by SAC, 15th Air Force, 341st SMW, Boeing, Autonetics, OOMA (Hill AFB), and AF Systems Command.

3. Due to the on-going investigation a serious weapon system vulnerability was discovered (EMP susceptability)

4. A fix was implemented force-wide.

5. After 16 Mar 1967, this type of anomoly would never again occur in any Minuteman wing/system.

6. The early Minuteman I system was in a constant state of evolution through upgrades and modifications. What started out to be a "simple" system became extremely complicated effecting command and control functions. As newer Minuteman II and III missiles came on line, the command and control structure changed to adapt to newer capabilities.

7. Information and any documentation describing a nuclear weapon system vulnerability would have been classified because the U.S. was heavily involved in the Cold War, hence, SAC would not have wanted to publicize to the USSR that we discovered a "weakness" in our on ICBM system.

Next post, I will discuss the possible psychological effect of UFO "sightings" in Montana during 1967. This will be my second hypothesis concerning the shutdown incident.

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

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:14 pm

"Rumor of UFOs at time of incident disproven."

So stated in the 341st SMW's Unit History, 1 Jan - 30 Mar 1967.

When one reads of the accounts of various UFO sightings as rendered by Robert Hastings, the facts are plain. There were a number of sightings of unexplained "objects" over Montana via nicap.org, http://www.nicap.org/waves/1967fullrep.htm

Jan 9, 1967: Malta, MT at 9pm, on family farm. Family alerted by dog, family saw a large rectangular object with glowing red light along the bottom and large amber light on top moving at high speed. The object landed in a field for approximately one hour. Oject suddenly disappeared as if it took off at at a high rate of speed. The next day, family went to the field were the object had landed. There were no tracks in the snow and no sign that anything had been there. (Billings Gazette, 1-20-67)

Jan 26, 1967: Havre, MT at 8:15pm. A man saw a yellow sphere with blinking yellow body lights which circled a mountain and flew off (nicap.org)

Feb 9, 1967: Chester, MT, 6:30am, Railroad foreman saw a saucer (disk) with bright body of light hovering over the railroad depot. The depot was engulfed in light, the object departed straight up. (Spokane Spokesman-Review, 2/12/67)

Feb 23, 1967 Glasgow AFB, MT, reported sighting by NICAP (no details listed)

Mar 22, 1967: Newspaper article (UPI), "UFOs Seen In Great Falls Vicinity", The Daily Inter Lake
Tuesday night, 7:45pm - 8:30pm, several persons reported seeing unidentified flying objects over the Great Falls, Vaughn, Fort Benton, and Manchester. White lights, big with a little one on top. The object was moving east to west then north to south.

Mar 23, 1967: Great Falls, MT, 9pm: Sherrifs deputies saw a yellow object with a red glow coming from top to bottom. Object hovered then flew away. Many sightings throughout the state. (Great Falls Leader, 3/24/67)

Mar 24, 1967: Belt, MT, 9pm, Truck driver outside of Belt, MT sees a dome shaped object showing bright lights and landing in a nearby ravine. ( Investigated by Project Blue Book)

Futher reviewing of NICAP's reported sightings revealed that after the Mar 24th sighting near Belt, no other reports would come in for Montana for the rest of 1967. That's approximately 9 full months of "nothing" observed nor reported by anyone!

Back in 1967, there were no laptop computers, internet, cell phones, or 24 hour news coverage on television. The military rank and file then as in the extended past was a virtual "factory" manufacturing rumors absent factual information. This was the obligatory rumor mill. It would be the same for my experience 14 years later as a young SAC missile launch officer! Based upon the numerous sights being reported in the local newspapers, it is certainly possible, if not probable, that the ideation of UFOs roaming uncontested over the Montana skies and the remote parts of the ICBM flights areas (100 to 150 miles away from Great Falls/Malmstrom AFB) could have been construed as real. This psychological environment could have also induced practical joking. Remember, the maintenance team member, in the missile silo, stating, "It must be a UFO hovering over the site." Lt Figel took this in a jokingly manner because it was presented as so!

But rumors must have persisted as well as the unsupported sightings of UFO through out that region of Montana. Everyone heard of the rumors of UFOs, yet, no one has testified that they actually saw a UFO, just rumors. Thus the beginnings of a non-descript electrical/EMP anomaly morphing into this great Orson Wells-like UFO "invasion."

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

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby jbondo » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:58 am

So Tim, would I be correct in assuming that several incidents similar to the missile malfunctions were in some way connected via the media to the rash of UFO sightings? Did the media propagate these connections on their own or with the help of the Military either directly or indirectly? I mean there are the obvious situations but I wonder just how far it went back then. I've read most of the more famous incidents of the military allowing UFO belief to work as a cover but I wonder if at any time the military would have actually called in false UFO sightings to initiate cover stories in some cases.

I apologize in advance if you've answered any of this already. I tried to read all of your data but you have to admit it's a lot to digest and remember, LOL!
jbondo
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:46 pm

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:03 pm

Good Morning jbondo! (morning for me)

You raise a good question. Concerning the Malmstrom incident, I think that the local and regional coverage of the numerous reported sightings probably played a major part in advancing the UFO "encounters" along with over acting imaginations.

Yes, I too have read of the possibility of the military intentionally use a UFO scenario as a means to provide cover for black R&D efforts...hiding in plain site. Whether SAC imployed this at Malmstrom and other missile wings is open to debate. In my opinion, SAC did not use UFOs as a means to provide cover for the discovery of a system vulnerability. It just doesn't fit the mold of the SAC that I well knew.

Did or does the government use the media as "useful idiots" in keeping classified projects under wraps? I can't help to believe that this is frequently the case, but I have no current information to back this up. So, I'll just call it speculation on my part.

Thanks for slogging through this thread. Cold hard facts are boring, but a UFO scenario is more exciting to read.

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

Re: Analysis of the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incidents 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:24 pm

As I conclude this thread, I have attempted to show that there is overwhelming evidence that UFOs did not cause the shutdown of 10 Minuteman I ICBMs. The information that I have provided hinges on two points:

1. No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO.

2. An extensive investigation provided plausable evidence that a noise pulse EMP-like phenomenom had likely caused the shut downs.

It was not my intention to either prove or disprove whether UFOs exist. That subject is beyond my capacity to tackle. All that I've attempted to do was to show that there are rational explainations that must be taken into account before going the route of UFO involvement.

Most forum members may feel that the Malmstrom AFB UFO Incident is not worth the effort to bother with. To a degree, I concur. But if you read the articles published by Hastings, Salas and others leave the impression that we that served in SAC were used as pawns or worse yet as stooges. This could not have been farther from the truth. We had a job to do and in my opinion did that job in an outstanding manner...and we continue to do so.

I want to thank Tom (Access Denied) for giving me the opportunity to express my view point. The next step will be for me to decide whether I should write a concise yet brief article for possible publication.

Thanks,

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

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Research Projects

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest