Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

[James Carlson]

Well, if he's in surgery, let's hope it isn't anything major. Still working on Barlow -- I'll post it when I'm done.

[Access Denied]

Well now this is interesting, I notice just two hours before I posted this…

Now that you mention it though, I also recall him mentioning that he was scheduled to have some surgery done this Monday (today) I believe and he promised to post something after recovering so I guess we should be patient for now…

Hastings posted this at ATS…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... pid8338178

JC: Robert Hastings has presented at least one witness who has claimed an event from the vantage of a military command that has never existed, the "vetting" of which would have taken no more than 5 minutes to conduct.

RH: And who would this be?

Apparently he’s recovered from surgery quicker than he said he would. Not only that but Hastings knows James will only debate him here at RU and he’s told me at least twice now he would be posting something for him here… the first time only if I answered his questions regarding my vetting of James’ communications with Figel first, which I did.

Anyway…

James, I presume you’re referring to Greer’s Disclosure Project “witness” Dwynne Arneson? If so, 5 minutes of research turns up Arneson endorsing a known hoax in the Disclosure Project “Briefing Document” here…

[now only $5 from Greer’s site]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/discl ... sure07.htm

I had various opportunities to see things that come through my perusal. One instance was back in 1962 when I was a lieutenant at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. I was the crypto officer for the entire Ramstein Air Base. I was a top-secret control officer. And in that capacity, I happened to see a classified message go through my com center, which said that "A UFO has crashed on the Island of Spitsbergen, Norway, and a team of scientists are coming to investigate it."

I do not recall where the message came from, where it was going to, because in that capacity we were oftentimes told, "What you see here, leave here." But I can recall seeing that.

See this thread about Spitzbergen in "Famous Hoaxes" by RU researcher LHC here…

Spitzbergen Crash
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1592

There’s no way he could have seen a classified message about it “go through” in 1962… all the classified messages are from 1952.

Funny that apparently nobody at ATS even bothered to research this guy's claims after Hastings posted it... I guess they're willing to take whatever "evidence" Hastings presents as gospel, that or they’re simply afraid to openly question such a “noted” researcher.

That said, I’ll let James speak to Arneson’s Malmstrom claims…

[longhaircowboy]

Mr. Carlson I applaud your setting the record straight regarding Malmstrom. Hastings and Salas are just posers. But I was wondering if you could clarify Don Crawfords role in the episode. I have seen him listed as a Capt. or Col. depending on which source you read. Supposedly his crew relieved your fathers and he is said to recall them being visibly shaken by what had happened. No mention of what happened.
Also there was an earlier UFO incident in February there. Is it possible that they may be getting confused. Or is there confusion with Malmstrom and Minot where there was a radar sighting in either 1966 or 1967(depending on source). Confusion does seem to play a role in a lot of these things as in Spitzbergen.
Anyway thanks for what you've done.

[James Carlson]

I was wondering if you could clarify Don Crawfords role in the episode. I have seen him listed as a Capt. or Col. depending on which source you read. Supposedly his crew relieved your fathers and he is said to recall them being visibly shaken by what had happened. No mention of what happened.
Also there was an earlier UFO incident in February there. Is it possible that they may be getting confused. Or is there confusion with Malmstrom and Minot where there was a radar sighting in either 1966 or 1967(depending on source). Confusion does seem to play a role in a lot of these things as in Spitzbergen.
Anyway thanks for what you've done.

I've never considered Crawford's testimony as even relevant to Echo Flight. If he does remember what happened, he doesn't remember it very well. Nobody was "visibly shaken" about what occurred -- they were just very, very tired and a little annoyed that they couldn't go right home, that they needed to answer some questions first. In other words, they acted just like anybody else would act upon finding out they couldn't immediately call it a day at the end of their shift. In my opinion, Crawford is just another one of these guys, like Salas himself, who wants to hang his hat on a significant event that he was only peripherally involved with. Crawford has nothing at all to say about the events at Echo Flight, but he does manage to get out that he too was on watch once when UFOs came by and visited -- and just like all of these other non-witness witnesses Hastings and Salas have brought together, Crawford doesn't give us any useful information at all -- like names and dates; he just gives us more "definitive" UFO testimony that can't be investigated and offers us nothing positive to add to the historical record except his name. So he's a human "flop" basically. If this event really happened the way Salas and Hastings claim it happened, why won't any of their non-witness witnesses go on the record with this thing? They're the most wishy-washy source of fact or fiction I've ever come across -- Hell, even the Watergate plumbers were eventually willing to put a human face and a date on their involvement. These guys, almost to a man, don't know the dates of the events they've supposedly witnessed, can't name another individual involved in the matter who's willing to back up their testimony, and refuse to acknowledge events, times and details that have already been repeatedly proven by the testimony of numerous other individuals, and well-documented in official correspondence and permanent records and archives. Do they really expect everyone to just take their word for it? Yeah, there are a lot of people out there willing to do so -- that's obvious, but I think it's just because these people don't believe that they should be the ones who have to go back and conduct honest fact-checks and interviews that folks like Salas and Hastings should have done from the very beginning. For whatever reason, they trust these guys -- and they don't want to believe that they've been lied to in a cynical attempt to take their money.

As for February, 1967, there were reports in Michigan on February 16: a dozen or more UFOs were sighted by police and civilians, and most witness descriptions were similar: "a bright orange object ... intermittently ejecting a stream of fire", "orange in color. Light seemed to be very bright. Object's life duration was approximately 10 minutes. When it reached this peak it would eject a stream of fire from underneath and then the main portion would snuff out." Within a day, "a telephone caller told police that a friend of his was launching weather balloons with flares attached", and police closed out the case investigation. There were other sightings in February throughout the nation that weren't dismissed as quickly, but none of them were very astounding -- lights in the sky, you know? Nothing remarkable, and nothing worth spending a lot of time on to investigate either. We know for certain that throughout the begining of 1967 UFO hoaxes were extremely common -- and they got a lot of press, as well. The more press the hoaxes get, particularly when they go into some detail regarding the methods used by the hoaxers, the more additional hoaxes are carried out. In fact, nearly all of the reports made out of Malmstrom AFB on March 24-25, particularly the Belt sighting that Hastings and Salas put such great emphasis on, are very similar to the sightings of the hoax UFO on February 16 -- which was also reported nationally. While I certainly can't prove it, I believe that those UFO sightings were hoaxes of the same type. None of those reported were going very fast -- a few mph at best, and all of the maneuvers made were exactly the type you'd expect from a balloon with a light source attached. It doesn't take much now, and it took even less in 1967, for people to scream UFO. All you needed then was a candle and a cleaning bag. And if the UFO propenents in this country would simply come forward and confirm that most of the sightings people freak out over sound more like the numerous descriptions we have on record today of verified and doubtless UFO hoaxes than anything at all deserving a second glance, they would come off as far more reliable for doing it. In the 1950s and 1960s, this seemed to be the way NICAP wanted people to see them -- as more concerned with the truth then the story. NICAP today is a joke in comparison -- anything with a light on it comes from Venus. Go figure...

As for your idea that maybe people are confusing Minot with Malmstrom, it certainly seems probable. I'm not personally familiar at all with the sightings at Minot, but from what I've heard, they were far more deserving of some investigation. I couldn't give a very good opinion, of course, but it certainly sounds credible. A lot of these guys, however, that claim to be witnesses, also claim to have been stationed at Minot or Malmstrom. I find it far less likely that someone who was stationed at Minot AFB might have gotten mixed up and believe the events they witnessed at Minot actually occurred at Malmstrom. Maybe if you spent your military service bouncing between the two commands, but in my experience, people don't mix up events they witnessed with their location during such events -- particularly not if they know the date. There were, of course, radar hits at Malmstrom on March 24-25, but the hits were on a very slow moving object; on March 16, however, radar examinations showed nothing. I understand that there were some questionable hits at Minot AFB, but again -- I don't know much about Minot. Outside observers could very easily get Minot and Malmstrom mixed up, but I think it becomes less likely when we're talking about someone who actually served at one of the two bases.

James Carlson

[James Carlson]

Gentlemen, and Ladies,

I'd like to continue with more discussions and issues from the Echo Flight front. The following comments were made by Robert Hastings at http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/fo ... pic=176314 .

Posted 04 March 2010 - 10:09 PM

From my book UFOs and Nukes:

Regarding the full-flight missile shutdown at Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, N. Henry “Hank” Barlow told me,

"I arrived at Malmstrom in October 1966 and left in November 1967. I was on Electro-Mechanical Team 24 at the time [the Echo Flight shutdown] happened. We had to go out to Mike-1 for about four or five days. We had to stay out there and cover the sites. The day we were supposed to return [to base,] my team chief called Job Control to see if we could come in because it was really starting to snow. It was really miserable out, windy and all. Job Control said, ‘Yeah, come on in, there’s nothing going on, everything seems okay.’ So we packed up and started back to the base.

Then Job Control called us on the radio and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got a problem here, part of Echo Flight has shut down, so we want you to go to the nearest site.’ I think that was Echo-6, but I’m not sure. Anyway, somewhere around that area. We checked VRSA and there was nothing on it. [That] was a unit in each launch facility, with something like 19 or 20 channels on it. [Actually, VRSA or Voice Reporting Signal Assembly had 23 channels, one for each problem area.] If the missile went down for any reason, or if there was some other problem, Job Control back at Malmstrom would know about it, know what is was, from the kind of signal it sent. But when we got to the site, there was nothing on [VRSA] to indicate the reason for the missile shutting down. That in itself was unusual. I had never seen that before.

Oddly enough, this little event is completely contrary to what the investigation team at Echo Flight discovered, pretty much everything that was recorded in the command history, and every single statement by every single eyewitness who can actually confirm their presence at Echo Flight. There has been no mention at all of any problems with VRSA by any of the above sources, all of which tend to agree with each other. In fact, VRSA worked just as it was intended to. Indications at the LFs revealed a channel 9 No-Go, while indications at the LCC read channel 9 and 12 No-Go. The investigation team ultimately concluded that the channel 9 No-Go at the LFs was a false signal sent from the LCC, and caused by a signal fault that registered the channel 12 No-Go at the LCC. This indicated a fault in the logic coupler. Testing ultimately showed that this was indeed an accurate assessment. There was no mention anywhere that any of the VRSA indicators were faulty, and this would have been recorded in a number of places had there actually been such a problem, particularly in light of the importance placed on the VRSA indicators from the very beginning. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, so obviously, this witness is thinking of something else -- definitely NOT Echo Flight -- or he's lying ... pick an excuse, either one -- it doesn't matter; the bottom line is pretty hardcore established that this witness is WRONG. There's very clear documentation and witness testimony to assert that the missile status was checked and the registered VRSA indications properly recorded, but I guess Robert Hastings didn't think that it was necessary to confirm anything at all that Mr. Barlow told him -- which is a failing typical of the man, and one that we have repeatedly proven in this dialogue.

I wonder if Robert Hastings has even bothered to confirm that N. Henry “Hank” Barlow was ever attached to Malmstrom AFB in the first place? After all, we've established that at least one other witness that he places so much faith in simply invented the command he was attached to -- and having served in the military myself, I can assure the readers of this commentary that one doesn't normally forget completely the command where one served his nation -- although I am well aware that Robert Salas claims to have "forgotten" either the flight or the squadron he was attached to on at least two separate occasions.

So Job Control said, do a start-up, which takes about four hours. After you initiate the startup, you can back out of there and leave because its automatic after a certain point. Usually, if there was nothing else going on, we would stay at the site to make sure everything was working fine. But that night, Job Control said go to the next site, whatever that was. So we did that, and [restarted] three or four missiles before going back to [Echo-1]. Of all ten missiles that went down, only one wouldn’t come back up, but that was due to something that was going to [fail] anyway, like a Logic Coupler Drawer, or something like that. But none of the missiles had anything on VRSA.

Another wrong statement -- VRSA worked fine on all of the missiles; there's plenty of witness testimony and documented proof of that, including the statements of Col.(Ret.) Walt Figel that Robert Hastings put such faith in for so many years. We know as well that none of the missiles at Echo Flight were brought back up without checking and calling in the status first. In fact, that's one of the reasons we are so confident that there was no problem with VRSA -- because status was checked. Also, none of the missiles were brought back online without the work crew staying to confirm, because that was not only standard operating procedure, it was a required part of the job in a fault situation of any sort, especially one requiring an investigation as this one did. There were no shortcuts taken, and everything was done exactly by the checklist procedures. And yet, Barlow claims that his team brought up four missiles without confirming the fact for the LCC. And he states that VRSA wasn't working on any of them. This is beyond nonsense, and Robert Hastings would know that if he had bothered to do even the minimum amount of research that most people expect non-fiction authors to conduct.

[When we got back to Echo-1] we heard what happened. At Echo-2, there was a team in there earlier that afternoon that could not get the security [telemetry] to set-up, through the parabolic antenna or the soft support building or something like that. So, they put an Air Police team out there, in a camper, two guys. Anyway, one of the guys went out to take a leak, and he noticed that it wasn’t snowing over top of his head. The perimeter lights were on and he could see the snow coming down all around him so he looked up and saw a ring of lights right over top of him. He was scared stiff, so he went back to the camper and woke up his team partner.

So once again, Hastings gives us absurd testimony that doesn't fit any of the known facts -- such as the time of the event and the event itself. Barlow is very obviously describing an event that occurred either well after Echo Flight went offline -- on the night following the incident itself -- or he's describing an event that took place some hours before the missiles went offline, which was at 0845, two hours after sunrise, when the perimeter lights were shut off. And the fact that this silly little X-Files UFO story was related to Barlow by an individual Barlow is unable to name, regarding another two individuals Barlow is unable to name, and that none of these three individuals have come forward in the intervening forty years since the event supposedly occurred may well have escaped Robert Hastings notice, but I sure you, it hasn't escaped anybody else's attention. Credibility, therefore, has to be questioned. Unfortunately, it was Hastings role in this affair to do the questioning -- and he failed to do so once again, in exactly the same way he failed in regards to every other non-witness witness to this event that he has ever chronicled. That doesn't make him a reporter of otherwise unchronicled events; it makes him a failure as a reporter of otherwise unchronicled events.

Barlow mentions setting up security "through the parabolic antenna or the soft support building or something like that", so up to this point, it almost seems like an interesting account. But then Barlow slams his testimony shut and states that he's not really a witness to anything at all; somebody he doesn't name tells him a story, which means that once again, all we've got are "rumors" of UFOs. And once again, we can easily demonstrate that there was no UFO, because had there been a real UFO, Lt. Col. Chase would have initiated an investigation, as was his duty, exactly as he did on March 24-25 when a UFO was reported on the road to Belt, Montana. In this weird, hearsay testimony from Barlow, however, he didn't do any investigating of anything at all, therefore, there was no UFO -- at least, there was no UFO reported, which was clearly an odd oversight, in light of the dozen or so witnesses present, if we are to believe Barlow's statement (which I, for one, do not, for a dozen or so very valid reasons). In the long run, therefore, Robert Hastings once again goes to very great lengths to provide his readers with ... NOTHING. "The perimeter lights were on and he could see the snow coming down all around him so he looked up and saw a ring of lights right over top of him"; just another commercial for the X-Files.

Like all of Hastings' non-witness witnesses, Barlow represents nothing more than another sad case of "I didn't see anything, but I heard about this guy -- I don't know who -- from another guy -- who's name escapes me -- who did say he thought he saw a UFO." So once more we have an event that very clearly qualifies at best as more RUMOR -- which we've already established -- and at worst another ridiculous lie by the I-C-A-UFO squad. Once again, Robert Hastings has brought nothing to table except what we've already ascertained was already there; in most games, players are forced out for doing something like that, but Robert Hastings apparently believes this sort of thing entitles him to a National Press Club review. Yaaawwwnnn.

I just want to know whether Hastings will ever come up with a witness who's willing to go on the record about this crap. Because all he's ever offered as "evidence" qualifies only as "rumor" at best, and even then, most of these guys apparently lack the ability to tell the time. So, all we've got is another non-witness witness to a story about another incident that nobody saw or recorded on the date it supposedly occurred, and when they do have the ability to tell the time, they unfortunately lack the ability to look at a calendar. The bottom line here is always the same: had they reported the event within a week or so of its occurrence, instead of waiting the apparently requisite forty years, the result would have been a genuine investigation, because that was the duty of the UFO officer in 1967. But not in these cases.

We should also bear in mind that the command histories don't mention anywhere that an air police team was encamped anywhere near Echo Flight because maintenance was unable to set up security in relation to this matter. What we do have are records and testimony that there were three maintenance teams encamped, and they didn't mention anything about a UFO until well after the missiles went offline on March 16 at 0845. And as we've also repeatedly demonstrated, they were just kidding around, and nobody in the entire history of the planet ever thought they were doing anything more than kidding around until Robert Salas and Robert Hastings came forward thirty years later and started lying in public in order to make money. And even then, corroberating testimony never came up, although a lot of folks came forward to dispute the matter so much, that Salas had to rewrite his little fiction a number of times, finally asserting that he doesn't know what happened at Echo Flight, because he wasn't there, and didn't even hear about it until March 25. Oh, and we've also gotten another fine, off-the-cuff demonstration of Robert Hastings' enthusiasm for absolutely nothing.

When this other guy came out, he had a camera with him, which they weren’t suppose to have, but guys would do stuff like that. By then this thing had moved off the perimeter fence and he took pictures of it. [When the security team was debriefed back at the base,] the Air Force confiscated the camera and film. I was told all of this back at Echo-1. We had passed our ‘timelines’ because we had worked 16 hours, or something like that, and could not go back to the base so we had to go back to Echo. [During that era, maintenance teams were left out in the field for four to five days, working a maximum of 16 hours per day—the timeline. If a team got close to reaching that limit, it was sent to the nearest Launch Control Facility for Remain Over Night, or RON status.] When we got back there, there was brass all over the place. They were from Offutt AFB—SAC Headquarters—they had brought them in. There were just a lot of high-ranking officers there."

Photographs ... right. So it was security who saw the UFO first -- not maintenance like my father and Col. Figel claim, and that Robert Hastings also asserted for years was factual testimony. And security actually saw the UFO late at night, apparently, but I could be wrong because none of Hastings' witnesses seem to have the ability to tell the time -- but definitely nowhere around 0845, two hours after sunrise, when the Echo Flight Incident actually occurred. So it was two air security policemen who saw it late at night, but they didn't bother to call it in at all, as standing orders for security personnel on a nuclear missile command has always dictated, because if they had, it would have been confirmed by Col. Figel, my father, Capt. Bradshaw at the command post, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, who was the staff UFO officer, or even ... well, hell, a lot of folks could have confirmed it really ... if it hadn't been so damn imaginary. And this story isn't told by one of the actor/witnesses of this little midnight drama, or even someone we can confirm was actually on hand to hear it, no indeed -- we've learned about it from Hank Barlow, who didn't see anything, and can't tell us much more about it except for the "rumors" he heard, and when he can tell us something that he saw himself, and can testify to himself -- he gets it all wrong, like the broken VRSA indicators at all of the LF sites that were actually working so well, and the fact that "there was brass all over the place. They were from Offutt AFB—SAC Headquarters—they had brought them in. There were just a lot of high-ranking officers there", when we know from the eyewitnesses who we can actually prove were there that there weren't a lot of officers around, let alone high-ranking officers, and why would there be? High-ranking officers were at SAC or at the Malmstrom offices -- not in the field at Echo Flight. There was nothing for them to see or do there, and when crew members are questioned or debriefed, it was never done at the flight, at E-1, which was a work area. Everything about this story is provably ridiculous. And for those individuals who have no military experience and might therefore believe some of it, I implore you -- go to the missileer community websites, and there are a couple of very good ones that you can easily find in 30 seconds or less with a Google search. Go there. Ask the men who actually worked in the flights and can tell you all about the daily efforts of these missileers who Robert Hastings and Robert Salas continuously lie about -- ask them! They'll happily explain to you how silly these accounts really are. In fact, many of them are probably eagerly waiting for your questions just so they can do so.

Tell me, Robert, did it just sound good to you? Is that why you believed it? Did you think it was a nice bedtime story for some weird little kid with feet pajamas and an ulcer?

I asked Barlow who had told him about the incident involving the Camper Alert Team. He responded, “I don’t remember. I don’t know if it was one of the security guys or someone else. I was so tired when we got back to Echo 1. We had worked long hours, we had been out almost a week by that time and we were just pooped. All I remember is that there were lots of people there and there was no place to lie down. But we were told that it was a UFO shutdown—that UFOs had been responsible—and that’s why all those guys were there.”

Yeah ... right. "I don’t remember. I don’t know if it was one of the security guys or someone else. I was so tired when we got back to Echo 1. We had worked long hours, we had been out almost a week by that time and we were just pooped." Well at least he used the right word to describe it: pooped. It should be very clear that nobody else is willing to make statements like this, because this event did not occur. "I was so tired ..." Tell me Robert, is this one of the guys you want to parade in front of the National Press Club? Do you really think the gentlemen and ladies at the Press Club are going to let you get away with making a ridiculous little speech that the entire world -- except for a few dozen fans you picked up in Peoria -- will instantly know is just a meaningless little breath of blow? Here's an idea! You should televise it and sell the videos to Ladies and Gentleman, it's Saturday Night Live! And tonight's guest host -- another poorly informed individual!

I asked Barlow if he had been surprised or shocked or skeptical when he was informed that UFOs had shutdown the missiles. He replied, "Oh no! On many other occasions, we were out at the sites when Job Control called and told us that, you know, there are reports of UFOs in the area, so keep your eyes open. That happened many, many times. And I saw them! I would see a light in the sky and it would make a right-angle turn. Or it would make two different right-angle turns, one after the other. I saw that more than once. They were much faster than a helicopter and we certainly knew that aircraft [couldn’t] do that.

Yeah, those damn pesky UFOs were all over the place -- everybody saw 'em; damn things were like a cloud of fireflies. It's a shame that all of the people who were actually there, and can prove that they were there never saw one of 'em. It's decidedly confusing that among all of those pesky UFOs, Col.(Ret.) Walt Figel, Maj.(Ret.) Eric D. Carlson and Lt.Col.(Ret.) Frederick Meiwald still -- to this day -- affirm strongly that they don't even believe in UFOs. You'd think that if there were that many UFOs floating around Great Falls, Montana, at least one of the individuals observing this sad, little circus would believe they were there. Just one! And you'd think as well that somebody would have reported them. Sadly, that didn't happen. Because if it had really occurred ... yeah, Lt. Col. Chase -- he probably would have mentioned it. Maybe they could only be seen by junior enlisted security personnel who just forgot to report them, what with having so much to do in those campers at night? You remember them -- the guys who carried cameras around taking pictures of flying saucers in 1967 at the height of the Cold War on a nuclear missiles base when doing so, carrying those cameras around, would result in your security clearance being instantly pulled and you being instantly out of a really good job, and probably under immediate investigation for espionage. Yeah -- those guys ... I had a ridiculously high security clearance at one time, and I remember those guys pretty well. You are aware, aren't you Robert, that the Department of Defense requires incidents like that be included in the command history when they occur? Just checking ...

I once saw a light come straight down, hover at maybe 1000-feet, and then shoot straight off [horizontally] and out of sight. It was crazy! Job Control always called us first, before we saw anything. They would call and say, you know, heads-up. Then, most of the time, we would see something a little while later. So, they were getting reports from somewhere, and maybe they had [the UFOs] on radar, but I don’t know for sure. Sometimes, when the call came in, we were down in the missile [silo] and we would talk to the guard topside about what he was seeing. I remember one time, the guard was just a nervous wreck. Job Control had called and said UFOs were sighted in the area. Then, I’m not sure, but I think he saw some lights himself. But anyway, he was just scared out of his wits. He wanted to come down in the silo with us. But the guards weren’t allowed to do that.

One time, [probably during the summer of 1967,] [and since that date is in brackets, it was probably settled on by Robert Hastings, not his witness, Hank Barlow; Robert tends to do that a lot, like with Jamison, for instance, another one of his solid gold witnesses] we were at one of the Bravo sites when we got a call from Job Control saying that there were UFO sightings in our area. Then, a short time later, we saw a green light come straight down out of the sky and land on this hill. Then two lights separated from it, straight out to each side. We were sitting in the pick up truck, eating our box lunches, when we saw this, along with another team we were training, plus the guard. We reported it to Job Control. [Wow, all those people and in forty years only Barlow mentions it -- wonder what the odds of that are?]. They told us to close up the site and go check that out. We told them that we didn’t think we were qualified to do that! [Laughs] [Yeah, that is funny ...] This was around 4 a.m. When it got light, we were amazed how far away the hill was, where this thing had landed. It was far, far away. We thought it was much closer, so the light was really bright.

Yeah, so damn bright! You'd think more of these little lights and flying saucers and such would have been reported -- even if only by the civilian communities all around Malmstrom AFB. Something that bright a thousand feet up should have been seen forever! This didn't happen, though. I guess they just weren't looking up, eating their box lunches, at the right time. Tell me, Bobby, did it ever occur to you that this guy might have been just pulling your leg? I've gotta ask, because the only incident that he's willing to set a date on is the one with all of the easily provable errors in the account. Y'know, the same one that's been so very well documented by everybody else that we can instantly tell which of your witnesses doesn't have any idea what actually happened on March 16, 1967 ... which is all of them, so far.

I asked Barlow if he had later been debriefed about the incident at Echo Flight. He said, “No, never! It was almost kind of a joke, we would all laugh about it. Now, it wasn’t a joke [with all the missiles down] but it was a joke because nobody would believe it if you told them about it.”

Wow. He actually admits that the UFOs were "almost kind of a joke, we would all laugh about it. Now, it wasn’t a joke, but it was a joke because nobody would believe it if you told them about it.” Of course not! And no debrief either? I could understand not being debriefed for an event like Echo Flight (after all, my father and Col. Figel were hardly debriefed regarding that famous and well-documented incident at all), but to not be debriefed for an event like Echo Flight brought about by UFOs is a little much, Bobby. I can understand why you might believe that, having never had that much experience within the military, but to expect everybody else to believe it is just, well ... it's just sad.

I asked Barlow if he had heard about the Oscar Flight missiles shutting down around the same time as the Echo Flight shutdowns. He said “No, I never knew about that...I wasn’t qualified to work there.”

And yet, he was apparently qualified to work at Echo Flight. I wonder ... could it be that he wasn't aware of anything happening at Oscar Flight, because nothing happened at Oscar Flight? I don't actually think he's a credible witness for anything else that he's said, but to add on top of all the nonsense we've heard from this witness thus far, to deny that he heard of anything at all from Oscar Flight is somewhat telling. Everything that he's said about Echo Flight -- all of it wrong, of course -- can easily be attributed to those already confirmed "rumors". But we don't even have "rumors" in relation to Oscar Flight -- we don't have anything at all. We don't have anything "believable", that is. Not even "rumors".

As noted earlier in this thread, retired Boeing engineer Robert Kaminski has confirmed in writing that UFOs had been reported by unspecified "airmen" at Echo Flight during the incident, and that his team had been ordered to suspend its investigation--an unprecidented development--because the full-flight shutdown was being catagorized as a "UFO event."

END OF BOOK EXCERPT

So, James Carlson, rant on. I suppose that Barlow is lying too, right?

--Robert Hastings

No supposing about it at all! Yeah, he's lying! I don't know anybody who would believe this drivel. Did it ever occur to you to try and confirm anything this clown told you, that you sucked right up like it was golden truth juice from an opium poppy or something? Hell, yes, he was lying -- he not only got everything wrong (just like Kaminsky did in writing), but he told you an outrageous story that would have been terrifically easy to confirm if it were true! The funniest, most hilarious thing about this whole conversation is that you've written and published a grand (in size, not entertainment) science fiction novel and you don't even know it!

Another one of Hastings witnesses is shown to have very little to add to this conversation. And yet, Bobby finds this convincing. I just can't wait until you get this guy in front of a bunch of journalists willing to ask the really penetrating and incisive questions ... and to do so without the uncontrollable laughing typical of so many other normal Americans right about now.

I'll happily discuss Robert Hastings' other supposed "witnesses" on another day, but only on this forum. It would be so much more fun, though, if somebody would please throw me a bone, here -- a "believeable" bone, not a figment of somebody else's imagination.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[James Carlson]

Well now this is interesting, I notice just two hours before I posted this…

Now that you mention it though, I also recall him mentioning that he was scheduled to have some surgery done this Monday (today) I believe and he promised to post something after recovering so I guess we should be patient for now…

Hastings posted this at ATS…

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... pid8338178

JC: Robert Hastings has presented at least one witness who has claimed an event from the vantage of a military command that has never existed, the "vetting" of which would have taken no more than 5 minutes to conduct.

RH: And who would this be?

Access Denied is quite right regarding Dwynne Arnesson -- and it is Arnesson that I refer to in the above reference as well. He claims to have been attached to the communications office of the 20th Air Division at Malmstrom AFB in 1967 when he came across a message regarding UFOs taking down a missile flight, presumably at Echo Flight (actually, like all of Hastings' non-witness witnesses, Arnesson qualifies that a bit by admitting that he doesn't remember the date or the location of the incident referred to -- only that he saw it). Unfortunately, the 20th AD never had offices at Malmstrom AFB in 1967, nor at any other time, so once again we have a witness brought forward in reference to this whole UFOs at Malmstrom thing who has provably lied about the incident he's claiming to verify. And a little "vetting" -- five minutes worth of the type Robert Hastings claims to conduct -- would have instantly revealed that the 20th AD wasn't at Malmstrom AFB. This isn't a simple, little error made because it happened so long ago. After all, who the Hell forgets what command they were attached to? Or what state they lived in? Granted, Robert Salas does -- but we've pretty well established that he's a liar, a guy caught up so deeply in his new post-retirement career and all that he "forgot" on a number of occasions what squadron he was attached to and where he was when such important events he was witness to were supposed to be occurring. And now we can say the same thing about Dwynne Arnesson, making up so much crap willy nilly that it's immediately apparent the guy's telling lies and tales only a fool would accept as real. Tell me Robert, if you're so thorough "vetting" the stories these guys relate to you, why is it you're always missing the most obvious details in their ridiculous little "memories" -- things like the command they claim to have been attached to -- which we've been able to disprove entirely after a quick five minutes on Google? Very careless, pal, particularly from someone who wants to be taken seriously as a "UFO" journalist...

You're being publically spanked all over the place on this thing, Robert -- are you ever going to defend your own work, or do you just intend to let it fly by and hope the rest of the world forgets to notice that your book is little more than the fictions typical of fools and flybys?

Very sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[Access Denied]

Another one of Hastings witnesses is shown to have very little to add to this conversation. And yet, Bobby finds this convincing. I just can't wait until you get this guy in front of a bunch of journalists willing to ask the really penetrating and incisive questions ... and to do so without the uncontrollable laughing typical of so many other normal Americans right about now.

That’s it in a nutshell right there.

(pardonn the pun)

Let’s see, we have…

a) Salas’ book

b) Salas’ appearance during Greer’s press conference at the National Press Club in 2001

(and all the mainstream media coverage that came out of it)

c) Hastings’ book

d) Hastings’ and Salas’ appearance on Larry King Live

etc. etc.

And not one credible journalist, member of Congress, or military official has called for an investigation as a result? Let me guess, they’re all in on it?

(you know, the highly compartmentalized secret known to a select few that everybody’s talking about)

And now Hastings and Salas want more money to “raise awareness”?

Funny how not one of these so-called “whistle blowers” can actually name anybody responsible for the alleged “cover-up” isn’t it? You know, like something somebody could actually follow-up on? Names, dates, locations…

Where’s the evidence Mr. Hastings?

[James Carlson]

Well, it looks like Robert Salas is now selling Disclosure DVDs and shilling for the coin at Public Education and Empowerment Resource Service (PEERS) through their WanttoKnow.info website (for reference, please note http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/robert_salas_ufo). These are the guys who supposedly provide "Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups and a call to work together for the good of all." In other words they're allowing him to publish his lies and inventions in order to help good Americans everywhere. They consider themselves "whistleblowers", but oddly enough expressed no interest at all when I blew the whistle on Salas' integrity. Fred Burks at WanttoKnow.info even tried to convince me that "there is very little to no money to be made as a whistleblower." When I informed him about the various means by which Robert Salas was making a tidy little profit as a "whistleblower", he was completely uninterested, stating that "You and I see the world through different lenses." He made it very clear, however, exactly what lenses he was looking through when he stated that "I don't have time to read the entire thread you recommend, so if you can send me any solid evidence that specific claims Salas makes are not true, I will consider them." I sent Burks "solid evidence" as he requested, and I sent him as well solid "proof" of Salas' repeated lies, and the man was completely dismissive. I guess "whistleblowers" don't like it when others blow the whistle on their own little cash cows. For a man so dedicated to truth and harmony that he considers himself a "whistleblower" of high integrity, it's absolutely stunning that he refuses to even read the incontrovertible evidence that he's shilling for a known and proven fraud like Robert Salas. I would think that a man of such integrity would at least look at the information before dismissing it entirely. After all, isn't that what "whistleblowers" do? But instead, Burks is letting Salas get away with slandering men who can no longer defend their own reputations -- men who served their nation well throughout a period of extreme conflict.

The PEERS network that Salas is now associated with seems to have a fairly large internet presence, claiming to:

Explore the mind and heart expanding websites managed by the nonprofit PEERS network:
http://www.peerservice.org - PEERS websites: Spreading inspiration, education, & empowerment
http://www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net - Dynamic online courses powerfully expand your horizons
http://www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
http://www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all

I guess they don't feel that it's necessary to police their own claims -- only those of the government and corporate interests that they believe are contrary to their own. And what are those interests? Glad you asked. "PEERS provides important but often overlooked news from reliable sources, as well as inspirational stories, exercises, and community-building ideas designed to promote social harmony and inspire people to join in transforming our world into a better place for all members of our human family." Of course, if you question the reliability of their sources, they won't even take the time to read your claims, assuming instead that "You and I see the world through different lenses," an odd claim to make in light of the fact that they refuse to even look at the evidence that their sources include liars and con-men working on the national level that Robert Salas does. WantToKnow.info, where Salas' claims are now being published, describes itself as follows: "Using reliable, verifiable sources such as key news articles from the major media and revealing government documents, this unique educational website exposes hidden forces and agendas which too often lead to increased conflict, war, and injustice in our world. This highly praised website is also a call for all of us to work together for the good of all." Wow. You'd think that an "educational" website claiming to expose cover-ups that lead to "increased conflict, war, and injustice in our world" would want to be certain that the sources they publically advocate are accurate. Maybe not. After all, Stephen Greer, the founder of Disclosure Project, is also a proud member of the WantToKnow.info team.

Fred Burks, the founder of WantToKnow.info, and the PEERS Executive Director, "served as an interpreter in the Indonesian language for Presidents Bush and Clinton, Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney, Secretaries of State Powell and Albright, and numerous other top officials over the years". When the conditions of his further employment included his signature on a secrecy clause of his contract stating that he would "not communicate to any person or organization any information known to them by reason of their performance of services that has not been made public,” unless written approval is obtained from his superiors, he self-righteously resigned. Very admirable, I'm sure, except that he's now publishing Robert Salas' undeserved condemnation of Roy Craig, an investigator for the Condon Committee in 1967, for basically doing the same thing. Roy Craig, you'll remember, is the investigator who refused a Department of Defense security clearance because he wanted complete control of his own investigations. By accepting a security clearance, he would be forced to abide by the national laws encompassing any information he learned as a result of obtaining that clearance. He wanted complete control of any information he learned in the course of an investigation, which would be impossible if he accepted a DoD clearance. Only now, Burks' WantToKnow.info website states -- in reference to Salas' warped view of the Echo Flight Incident -- that "It is important to emphasize that, although he was charged with investigating this incident, Craig failed to conduct or document interviews with any principal witnesses, including me. This is verified by his notes and his own book. By his own admission he simply took the word of Col. Chase that there was no UFO involvement and did not pursue an in-depth investigation as he was authorized and responsible to do." Unfortunately, there's no mention on this website that Craig was not authorized to pursue an investigation of Echo Flight, because Craig did not have the security clearance required to do so. In addition, it was not his responsibility to investigate the matter, because there were no UFOs involved -- and that was his only reason to investigate anything at all. The only reason Craig asked about Echo Flight in the first place was because a NICAP investigator named Raymond Fowler had told him that he heard UFOs were involved. Unfortunately, Raymond Fowler didn't know anything about Echo Flight, not even the date upon which it occurred. As a result of this ignorance, he confused the March 24-25 Belt, Montana UFO sightings investigated by Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase with the March 16 Echo Flight Incident and the UFO rumors that came about as a result of maintenance crew members screwing around on the SIN telephones. Salas concludes, and discusses these conclusions on Burks' WantToKnow.info website, that Craig was a failure as an investigator. Except Craig didn't fail. He didn't have a security clearance, which he refused for the exactly the same reasons that Fred Burks resigned as an interpreter -- a reason that Burks wants us to believe is a result of his high integrity. "This new contract sadly reflects the rampant secrecy which has been growing over recent years in government. Realizing that because of this growing trend my resignation might be of interest to the media, I sent an email to my press contacts, and received some good coverage." I guess he doesn't believe this "good coverage" should be equally applied to Roy Craig.

Fred Burks asked me as well whether I believed that the memos referred to by Salas and photographed on Burks' own website are false, seeming to imply that because Salas has presented official memorandums and portions of Roy Craig's own communications in lieu of evidence, that they should be trusted as infallible. I'm certainly willing to do that. After all, I'm the only one maintaining that the memorandums in question are responsible documents that indicate the depth of Robert Salas' lies and deceit. Salas himself claims that the memorandums are false, indicating thereby that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase lied to the Foreign Technology Division -- the guys in the USAF who ran everything having to do with UFOs and the effects of new technology on U.S. weapons systems, a fact that both Fred Burks and Robert Salas are clearly unaware of -- when he informed them that there were no mechanical failures at all at Malmstrom AFB in relation to the UFO sightings on March 24-25, 1967, a fact we can easily confirm, because that memo is one of those displayed on Burks' websight, proving thereby that Robert Salas is lying about the Oscar Flight failures that he claims were the result of UFO interference on that date [see: http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufos/ufos_nu ... s_shutdown]. Never mind that nobody ever documented such failures until Robert Salas did so forty years later. Never mind that Col.(Ret.) Frederick Meiwald, the officer Robert Salas claims was his commander at Oscar Flight when the UFOs took out the missiles in this invasive act that has never been documented until Robert Salas did so forty years later has been very clear pronouncing his belief that UFOs had nothing to do with any missile failures at all at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. Never mind that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase maintained until his death that the incident at Echo Flight had no connection with UFOs whatsoever as Robert Hastings and Robert Salas both insist. Never mind that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase failed to investigate any UFOs whatsoever at Echo Flight or Oscar Flight as his position as UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB would have required him to do had there been such reports IAW AFR 80-17 that went into effect in December 1966. Never mind that the Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB -- a military command that was once called Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), was under the direct command of the Air Materiel Control Department who were represented at the Echo Flight investigation, and later became the National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- were Lt. Col. Chase's direct supervisory command as a result of his billet as the command UFO officer, and were also the absolutely last command he would have lied to about anything, because they would have been in charge of any investigation that came about as a result of UFO interference with anything IAW Air Force regulations brought into effect less than a year before. Never mind all of this. Because Robert Salas -- and apparently Fred Burks of PEERS as well -- would have us believe that the memos they put such faith in are actually lies that show only the cover-up propogated by Lt. Col. Chase -- a cover-up that starts with him lying to his own chain of command, an illegal act that would have had him drummed out of the USAF faster than Fred Burks can say "whistleblower" had it actually occurred. It's patently ridiculous to even consider this noise. I can't believe Burks would put such faith in official documentation from the command UFO officer to his direct supervisory control, but only as proof that Chase lied to his direct supervisory control, because if he was telling his supervisor the truth, if that memorandum was a factual document as everybody has always maintained until Robert Salas came around to sully the name and career of a man who is now dead and cannot defend himself or his reputation, well ... that would mean that Robert Salas is lying about everything that he claims happened at Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967. And that would mean that this "nut" who is the son of Maj. (Ret.) Eric D. Carlson, the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, is right, and has been telling people the truth about Robert Salas for years.

It's hard to get a handle on Fred Burks. A lot of people consider him a very honorable man who quit his job with the government for laudable reasons. However, his testimony was also instrumental in the aquittal for terrorism of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, the man our government believes was responsible for the Bali bombing on October 12, 2002, killing 202 people. Intelligence agencies and the United Nations both claim that Ba'asyir is the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiyah (also known as JI) and has links with Al-Qaeda. Burks disgust with official secrecy led him to testify to the court regarding the Bush Administration's failed attempts to persuade the Indonesian government to turn over Abu Bakar Ba'asyir to American forces. This gave Ba'asyir sympathy that many analysts believe to be instrumental in his acquittal for the commission of acts of terror, and the "slap on the wrist" sentence he eventually received in connection to the case. It should be noted, however, that this all came about not as a result of Burks' desire to protect those who commit criminal acts, but as a result of his somewhat understandable aversion to official secrecy of all kinds that eventually led as well to his resignation.

In addition, Fred Burks has had some problems in the federal court system, due to the fact that he took a 10-day vacation to Cuba for which he was originally fined $7,900. His commentary regarding this topic indicates that he believes and wanted to show that "this travel ban is clearly unconstitutional." While that is all well and good, any first year law student could have told him that the travel ban to Cuba has been challenged on the grounds of constitutionality in the past, and although it is plainly and commonly known that travel by private citizens to Cuba is illegal, it is also very constitutional and there are no such grounds at all on which to challenge the ban. In addition, it's plain that he wasn't concerned about the constitutionality related to the case, because he never challenged it on those grounds from the very beginning. His defense was based entirely on the fact that "he hadn't realized that Americans were barred from going to Cuba." [for reference, please note http://www.weboflove.org/050226fredburkswsj ] Pleading ignorance of the law isn't exactly a legal challenge on constitutionality -- it's a cop-out reserved for those who want to have their fine lowered. And asserting that he was unaware of the travel ban doesn't exactly fill me with confidence regarding his "whistleblower" activities, especially since the ban has been in effect, for the most part, since 1963. In addition, Burks could only have traveled to Cuba from a different country (such as Mexico, The Bahamas or Canada), so circumvention alone suggests that he was well aware of the illegality inherent to the act. In the final analysis, I can't consider him a hero trying to challenge an unjust law -- he just got caught doing it and wanted to have his very legal fine lowered as much as possible. Asserting at a later date that he's trying to change an unconstitutional ban is just a joke. The truth is far more likely that he wanted to go to Cuba for his vacation, and he did so. Now he's trying to convince people that he's a martyr to an unjust restriction of American rights. Sorry, but I don't buy into it.

Doubts of this sort are consistently raised as result of his own actions. His websites seem to indicate that he is a conscientious individual who believes we are all responsible for the completion of good works, and that love and community are necessary commodities to foster in the world, and yet he asserts with some intensity the same claims as Robert Salas, refusing to even look at information that indicates the level of deceit Salas is committed to. This suggests that something else entirely is going on here, and none of it has to do with personal integrity. A man with high ethics doesn't allow himself to become the spokesperson for a man who has already proven the extent of his unethical actions, and when evidence of such actions are brought to his attention, he doesn't simply ignore it and refuse to look. An ethical man should be more willing to espouse the views of honest people than dishonest people, and when evidence of wrongdoing is brought to his attention, such a man doesn't promote the values he claims to possess by refusing to look, acting the ostrich for the tiger.

PEERS claims that it was incorporated in early 2006 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, making them a tax exempt group, so all of their website pages ask for donors' tax-free contributions to their efforts -- kind of ridiculous in light of the money Salas and others continue to make as a result fo their lies and cons. On the page discussing Salas' ridiculous UFO claims, there are a number of "help your community" guides:

What you can do:
• Inform your media and political representatives of this important information. To contact those close to you, click here. Urge them to explore what's really going on with this Malmstrom AFB incident and with the UFO question in general.
• Read concise summaries of revealing major media reports on UFOs available here.
• Explore other fascinating, well researched articles suggesting a UFO cover-up at this link.
• Learn more about the intriguing UFO question and its implications in this powerful lesson from the free Hidden Knowledge Course.
• Visit our UFO Information Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/ufoinformation.
• For a UFO research website recommended personally by Capt. Salas, click here.
• Spread this news to your friends and colleagues, and spread the word on by email and on websites, so that we can fill the role at which the major media is sadly failing. Together, we can make a difference.

Among the "click here" links thereby provided are Robert Hastings' website and Fred Burks' Examiner website/blog. Community involvement is just the best, isn't it? But WantToKnow.info isn't just about cover-ups and personal freedom. "WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/inspirational for an abundance of uplifting material." See, they really like maintaining that tax exempt status, so it's always good to throw in a little bit of something inspiring -- and it's easy, too, because it's free. Tax free! "Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly to support this important work. To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order: http://www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk". And all of this, much of it laudable, I'm sure, nonetheless promotes in full the very non-spiritual lies and cons of Robert Salas.

Is it just me, or does anybody else want to vomit in response to this sort of shameless sanctity that Robert Salas is now using to sell his story?

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[James Carlson]

Gentlemen, and Ladies,

I have a few additional details regarding Robert Salas' latest foray into the tax-exempt status of PEERS. According to the IRS, "501(c)(3) exemptions apply to corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals." PEERS' tax exempt status is based on its claim of being an educational corporation, although until December 31, 2010, their advance ruling ending date, PEERS will be treated as a public charity with 509(a)(2) status.

In order to retain their tax exempt status after the advance ruling ending date, there are a number of guidelines that PEERS has to commit itself to. For instance, "all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." That's just one of the better known examples of the guidelines that exist. I'm perfectly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on just about everything that they have accomplished. After all, the IRS "provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand" the various prohibitions that apply, and as part of the examination program the IRS undertakes -- which ends for PEERS on December 31, 2010 -- "the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying" with the various prohibitions and requirements necessary to retain tax exempt status. But that doesn't mean I don't have some very valid concerns regarding PEERS' activities on behalf of Robert Salas, including Fred Burks' refusal to even examine the arguments and issues that I and other individuals have raised regarding this matter. It's important for us to remember that tax exempt organizations have some very important responsibilities, and these responsibilities, codified in U.S. tax law, are taken very seriously by the citizens of this nation as represented by the IRS.

I, for one, am particularly concerned with PEERS tax-exempt claims as an "educational" corporation. After all, the IRS is very insistent that the "mere presentation of unsupported opinion is not educational", which tells us that PEERS should be able to back up at least some of their claims and assertions with very real and measureable facts. It's also very plain that when we take into account their presentation of Robert Salas' claims, this absolutely cannot be done, because Salas' claims are based entirely on his own insistence, and only his insistence, that the documented facts and memorandums that have been accepted for forty years as archived, historically accurate assertions are actually untrue. And the point of view that he continues to insist is "accurate" is entirely limited to his own insistence. In fact, he offers no documentation, no witnesses, no contemporary opinion, and no reasons to doubt the already established history of what actually occurred at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. He has written and said nothing that comes anywhere near meeting the requirements necessary for the IRS to classify what PEERS has published on his behalf as "educational". He has nothing... And PEERS, through its Executive Director Fred Burks, has refused to take any of this into account, electing instead to believe what Robert Salas claims without any evidence whatsoever to back those claims up.

The following guidelines set forth by the IRS for tax exempt organizations are also important:

The method used by an organization to develop and present its views is a factor in determining if an organization qualifies as educational within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). The following factors may indicate that the method is not educational.

1. The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant part of the organization's communications.

2. The facts that support the viewpoints are distorted.

3. The organization's presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of emotion than of objective evaluations.

4. The approach used is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the audience because it does not consider their background or training.

Factor number 1, in relation to Robert Salas' claims, has been examined already in some detail. In my narrative, Americans, Credulous (freely available for anyone to download at http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Amer ... es-Carlson), I have shown exactly how Salas' claims are completely unsupported by facts. His witnesses, upon review, all assert, to a man, that Robert Salas' claims are incorrect, and that the assertions he and James Klotz have made in their book, Faded Giant, are false, and cannot be supported by any available evidence at all. Even the commander, Col. (Ret.) Frederick Meiwald, who Salas claims was with him at Oscar Flight when UFOs supposedly took a number of nuclear missiles offline on March 24-25, 1967, has asserted that he does not believe in UFOs, and that UFOs had nothing to do with any of the missile failures that took place at Malmstrom AFB. Other witnesses have repeatedly asserted that there were no missile failures at Oscar Flight on March 24-25 or on any other date, and that Robert Salas was not present during any of the missile failures that did occur. U.S. Air Force historical documents and message traffic retained since March 1967 support these assertions as well. Robert Salas has offered nothing to refute this, and has not commented publically regarding these charges, something of an anomaly if he's telling the truth. There are no documents at all that support his claim of missile failures at Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967, but there are documents that state outright that there were no equipment failures at Malmstrom AFB during this period. Robert Salas claims that these documents are outright lies, but offers us no reason at all to accept this as true except his own insistence.

Factor number 2, in relation to Robert Salas' claims, has also been examined here and elsewhere. Robert Salas has repeatedly distorted the facts of this case, and continues to do so today. In Americans, Credulous, I have outlined in some detail the history of his claims, and how he has repeatedly changed his story whenever the facts got in the way. This has been very well documented, and he lacks entirely any grounds to deny this fact. He has changed the date and the location of his story. He has made claims that are completely contrary to previously asserted and documented facts, such as his insistence that civilian representatives from Sylvania Corporation were privy to the information that was only available to the Echo Flight Incident investigation team, and that Raymond Fowler possessed extensive information regarding Echo Flight, when Fowler knew only the basest of rumors, being unaware entirely even of the date on which the missiles failed at Echo Flight. Salas has repeatedly asserted that those individuals who were told that an electromagnetic pulse was the cause of the Echo Flight failures should have known immediately that this was a lie perpetrated by the USAF, because an EMP is caused by nuclear detonations, and there were no nuclear detonations anywhere in the United States in March 1967, failing to assert, however, that not only is an electromagnetic pulse only very rarely caused by nuclear detonation, and is, in fact, a fairly common phenomenon otherwise, but that none of the witnesses who were actually privy to the details included in the Echo Flight Incident investigation report ever reported that the problem was caused by EMP; every report, in fact, insists that the cause of the incident was an electromagnetic noise-pulse, similar in effect to EMP. At every point in his version of these events, Robert Salas distorts the facts.

I have also examined factor number 3, in relation to Robert Salas' claims. He has publically asserted that Lewis D. Chase was a liar: "These are blatantly false statements since I and others can attest that we were ordered not to talk to anyone about our incident and that our equipment certainly did malfunction." However, he fails to name who these mysterious "others" are, and the individuals who we can confirm were present, to a man, assert that they were only reminded not to discuss matters that were classified. All of these individuals assert as well that there were no equipment malfunctions on March 24-25, 1967, and that Robert Salas was never involved with any of the missile failures that did occur. He uses his total lack of any confirming witnesses or documentation as "proof" that a cover-up was undertaken, when it's apparent to anyone who actually examines the complete record that he has invented entirely this otherwise undocumented incident at Oscar Flight, asserting as well that Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase filed false reports to his direct chain of command in order to perpetrate a cover-up that cannot be otherwise supported. These false charges and the damage he has purposely inflicted on the previously pristine reputation of a U.S. officer who can no longer defend himself easily qualifies as "inflammatory and disparaging terms" that have no basis in fact.

Factor number 4 is of particular interest to Americans who have served in the military. The approach used by Robert Salas, and therefore, Fred Burks, is "not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the audience because it does not consider their background or training", an easily proven charge based on the fact that numerous assumptions he has repeatedly made regarding the security aspects of the matter fail to take into account the ignorance of most of his audience regarding Department of Defense classification and security protocol. For instance, he has repeatedly asserted that Roy Craig failed in his mission to properly investigate the Echo Flight Incident, when the actual truth of the matter reflects that Craig could not have done so, because the matter was highly classified, and Craig did not have a security clearance. Salas states that Lewis Chase refused to correct the mistaken assumption that Roy Craig had regarding the date of the Echo Flight Incident because he was covering up a UFO incident for the Air Force, but the truth of the matter is that the incident was highly classified, and Chase would have been breaking the law if he had corrected this mistaken assumption. Salas fails as well to explain to his audience that the determination of access to secured information is two-fold: in addition to the proper security clearance, an individual must also possess the appropriate "need-to-know". By neglecting to explain this, Robert Salas leaves his audience with the mistaken impression that Lt. Col. Chase and the U.S. Air Force were instigating a cover-up when they refused to discuss the Echo Flight Incident with Robert Low or any of the investigators with the Condon Committee, when they actually refused to do so, because the Echo Flight Incident had nothing to do with UFOs. In the absence of UFO-related information, it would have been illegal for anybody subject to security protocol to discuss the matter with anybody on the Condon Committee, because they would have lacked the necessary "need-to-know" required for access. Nowhere does Salas discuss the important facet of security protocol in any of his writings, leaving every member of his audience who are unfamiliar with such details in a state of ignorance that makes it much easier to convince them that events that did not occur, actually did occur. This is dishonest and misleading. Anybody with a background involving classified materials protocol immediately sees the fallacies inherent to his claims and arguments, but most Americans do not possess such a background, a characteristic that Salas, and apparently Fred Burks, fails to take into account. They fail as well to take into account the well-established fact that had an unidentified craft taken a nuclear missiles system offline, as they propose, the minimum classification of such an incident would have been TOP SECRET, not SECRET as everything having to do with the Echo Flight Incident was actually classified. This is also knowledge that most of their audience is ignorant of.

Upon any serious examination, I can only assert that Robert Salas' strategy throughout his entire discussion of the missile failures at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 fails completely to meet the minimum requirements necessary to maintain a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status for an educational corporate body. Although it's true that I have no interest in anything else that PEERS advocates, and therefore can't say with any certainty whether or not their other claims are equally lacking in the qualities demanded by the IRS, the fact that they have been so careless in their proposals regarding this one event, refusing even to consider the charges of fraud or examine the evidence that I have brought to their attention, does not leave me with the impression that they have the ability or even the desire to strictly police their work to the extent demanded, their association with Stephen Greer, founder of the Disclosure Project, notwithstanding. In any case, looking into it further might represent an interesting diversion for another day.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[astrophotographer]

It appears that the Malmstrom incident will not go away in UFO land and I am not sure if Salas et. al. are going to drop this charade (assuming this is the case) anytime soon. Until they can provide any real evidence (i.e. physical records the way the Echo flight event was recorded), then most of the story seems to have been:

1) Made up completely to start with by Salas and then various interviews producing tidbits that seem to confirm his story are hyped the way Figel's words seemed to have been. Occassionally, you will find a few extra individuals, who will claim, "I was there" (see Roswell for excellent examples) or "improve" their recollections to conform to the existing story. They will make it appear that the story is accurate. It could also include some memories from #2.
2) A scramble of memories that are not quite accurate that have their origins with the Echo flight event and rumors of UFOs.
3) An actual missile shutdown by an alien spaceship.

#3 has no evidence and relies heavily on Salas. #2 is probable but it seems that Salas would be able to realize that his memories were incorrect once presented the records. If it were something that innocent, he probably would have suggested that he was mistaken. He has convinced himself that these events happened the way he remembers and tells everyone, which leads us to scenario #1. This seems to be the case as it stands now, unfortunately. Again, to push it back to #3, something concrete needs to be presented. Until then, I think we are at #1. Just my two cents.

[James Carlson]

Without originally intending to do so, I find myself in the position of taking an active interest in the local affairs of communities in which I don't reside. The reason for this is that individuals supporting the distorted and factually groundless point-of-view of Robert Salas and Robert Hastings are using the information they've provided, as well as the fact-free information provided by Mr. Stephen Greer, founder of the Disclosure Project, in an attempt to convince the voters of Denver, Colorado to favor a specific, politically motivated goal.

There is a ballot initiative currently being discussed in Denver, Colorado, and set be decided upon in August 2010, calling for the creation of an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission (see http://www.extracampaign.org/). The reasoning of those requesting such a vote of the Denver communities depends to a very great extent on the baseless assertions of Robert Hastings -- misrepresented as factual in his somewhat lengthy collection of fictional short stories, UFOs and Nukes -- and the Disclosure Movement, which continues to support the completely discredited accounts (at least four different accounts, so far) of Robert Salas, none of which are supported by any of the actual, proven witnesses to the occurrence, all of whom he relies upon at one point or another throughout his and James Klotz's fictional account of the Echo Flight Incident, Faded Giant. While I have little interest in the events being decided in Denver, Colorado in August, I nonetheless believe that voters in any municipality anywhere in the nation deserve the chance to make such decisions based on the facts alone, free of the distortions and outright lies publicized by Hastings, Salas, and Stephen Greer. In recognition of this, I have posted the following letter to all of the major newspapers in Denver, Colorado:

Gentlemen, and Ladies,

The Denver ballot initiative campaign to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission will be decided in August 2010. Those who have proposed this "remedy" to the secrecy of the Department of Defense continue to use the Disclosure Project as part of the reasoning behind this political movement. Normally, I am averse to taking a stand in local politics anywhwere outside my own residential area, but in this case, I feel that it's necessary because the groups calling for the creation of this Commission continue to use witnesses to UFO related events that have been completely discreditied in order to reach their goals and persuade the Denver community to take unnecessary steps to solve a nonexistent problem. By doing so, they are denying Denver communities the information necessary to reach an educated opinion. While I have no desire to involve myself in any major efforts to affirm local opinion based on the facts, I nonetheless feel duty-bound as an American to correct a public record based on poorly interpreted or nonexistent evidence. That is the case here.

The individuals proposing this issue insist that it is "time to go over the heads of elected public servants directly to the voters. James Madison, American's fourth President, wrote that 'The People are the only legitimate fountain of power'" ( http://www.extracampaign.org/ ), as if this were reason enough to assume a state of continuous security risk and paranoia under the threat of civilizations and technology that no one has ever managed to even confirm the existence of. The absence of facts supporting their claims is easy enough to propose, but people in general demand proof, and that is what these groups claim they have cobbled together over the years in their creation of a public threat. According to the proponents of this measure, the Disclosure Project reveals the testimony of "over 500 whistleblowers who worked on top secret U.S. government projects" who have witnessed UFO or extraterrestrial-related events that show the extent of the national security endangerment that we blindly live through each and every day. This is their "proof" and their motivation to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission.

I have no intentions of disputing these claims. They are too many, and I don't have the time or inclination to do so. I have, however, looked very closely at one case: The Echo Flight Incident and related missile failures at Malmstrom AFB, Montana in March 1967, and believe that this case is representative of most of the cases discussed by the Disclosure Project. As such, my findings have some bearing on the subject currently under review by Denver communities. My research started on the proposition that Robert Salas, the primary "witness" to these events, made up the story of UFO interference with the nuclear missiles at Echo Flight and elsewhere entirely. I am certain of this, because my father was the commander on record at Echo Flight when the missiles went offline, and he told me exactly what happened. I have spoken to every actual confirmed witness to these events, and I have examined all of the documents discussing this event, and I have repeatedly shown that UFOs were not involved. In fact, some witnesses have stated that Robert Salas was not even present to observe the events that he claims to have observed.

This is far too much evidence for me to go over in this one letter. I have, however, written a 357 page book regarding this incident, and it is freely available to anyone with access to the internet at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Amer ... es-Carlson

For 15 years this event has been used to redefine a paradigm of UFO interference at nuclear sites worldwide, and it is nothing more than one long lie put forth by Robert Salas and continuously discussed as proof of a national security threat publically unacknowledged by the U.S. government by individuals such as Stephen Greer of the Disclosure Project and Robert Hastings, author of UFOs and Nukes. Robert Hastings is currently scheduled for appearance at Denver and Colorado locations to discuss his "evidence", the Echo Flight Incident included. One venue has recently stated that the "evidence being presented by Hastings is a major focus of the campaign to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission in Denver through a ballot initiative. The initiative will go before voters in the August 2010 Denver election."

I have examined all of the witnesses that Hastings claims in support of his misguided version of the events at Echo Flight, and not one of them can be taken seriously -- not one. Should you wish, you can examine these critiques for yourself at:

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688&start=0

In some cases, these witnesses are the same ones currently put forward by the Disclosure Project as evidence of UFO interference, and to a man they are unworthy of anybody's trust or confidence. They discuss events at military commands that have never existed or were not responsible for tasks they insist were undertaken; many discuss events that have been proven not to have occurred by contemporary message traffic and documented events, and most of their proposals would be remarkably easy to confirm if they had actually happened as described. Most Americans are not familiar with security classification protocol or military regulations, and due to this, they are unaware that the events discussed could not possibly have happened as described. People like Robert Salas, Robert Hastings, and Stephen Greer use this ignorance to advance ideas and proposals that are not only "dangerous" in some case, but are entirely unnecessary, and they do so in order to make a profit from the sale of books and videos, and from the fees they raise every year on these speaking tours they complete. Robert Salas, for instance, was in the Air Force for only seven years. He then worked for many years in the private sector. And yet, he never mentioned UFOs at Malmstrom AFB until 1994-95, after his retirement. And he created a new career for himself by doing so. This is all done very consciously to make money from duped individuals who simply don't know better. And I have no doubt whatsoever the same is true for most of the Disclosure Project witnesses as well.

This is all a very well-rehearsed and orderly manipulation of U.S. military history. And, please, make no mistake about it -- this is a political movement demanding full disclosure of UFO information. But there's a twist. You see these people are already on the record stating that the U.S. government will occasionally release drips and drabs of information describing these events, but they will be false, because there is a vested military investment in keeping the population of this country ignorant of the facts. How cynical is that? They are stating that whatever the government claims regarding these events, it is going to be false. This ensures that the money they continue to make off of the ignorance of civilians who believe in UFOs will never dry up, because whatever the government claims is irrelevant. The only thing Americans have to believe is that we are living under a continuous threat that the government will never confirm or attempt to pull us out from under. That paradigm ensures these cynical a--holes get a paycheck. But it doesn't stop there.

Bond measures like the one being decided by Denver voters ensure them of more paydays to come. And they are attempting to do this all over the country. Organizations like PEERS (http://www.peerservice.org), the guys who run the WanttoKnow.info web presence already have a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status as an educational organization, and they are also boning up for this political change. In fact, Stephen Greer of the Disclosure Project is on the WanttoKnow.info team, and they're currently taking tax-free donations as a public charity.

When I started investigating these matters, all I was concerned about was the Echo Flight Incident of March 1967. I was very angry because these people had repeatedly (and still do) denounced my father, calling him a liar, and someone who had his own reasons for wanting to keep Americans ignorant, or claiming that he had Alzheimer's disease. I was outraged, and I still am, over this offence. In fact, the book I wrote makes my disgust and repugnance for these people very clear. The facts, however, are undeniable, which is why these people have never attacked the facts that I've put together. They've attacked me, often enough, claiming I have obvious mental problems, and claiming that my own father is concerned about my mental illness -- all of which are nothing but lies intended to prevent people from looking at the arguments and issues that I've raised. The truth of the matter is that they have a cash cow that they don't want messed with. And they continuously raise issues such as the Denver ballot initiative to keep on "earning" their fees. Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are currently taking donations to conduct another National Press Club review in Washington, DC regarding these issues. And yet they refuse to answer any of the questions I have repeatedly put to them regarding Echo Flight or the numerous non-witness witnesses they have brought up to support this ridiculous fable of theirs.

My research into this matter has convinced me of a number of points: (1) most of these individuals genuinely believe that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials visiting Earth (I'm sure Robert Hastings does, although I'm equally certain that Robert Salas does not -- he's simply in it for the money); (2) these same individuals are convinced that the U.S. government and the Department of Defense have proof of this visitation; (3) they are confident that neither the U.S. government nor the Department of Defense will ever willingly release this information unless forced to do so by the American people; and (4) they believe that, because the U.S. government and the Department of Defense continuously lie to the American public in order to maintain UFO secrecy, there is nothing morally wrong if they lie to the American public as well, in order to gain support to force the government to comply with their wishes. This is a political movement with definitive goals and strategies, and a lot of people, like Robert Salas, are getting involved in order to make money.

If you don't care about this, I'm sorry to have taken up so much of your time. I'm well aware that a lot of people think it's just a silly little bunch of children's stories, and I'm not into trying to convince people to change their minds or force them to express concerns they don't have. Personally, I'm offended by the lies they've told, but it's a very personal offense regarding what they've asserted about my family. Upon coming across evidence of their current tax exempt status and their testimonial input to the Denver ballot initiative campaign to create an Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission, I concluded that my own findings, offered freely and requiring no expenditure whatsoever, might be welcomed by some. And to those ends, I've completed my interference in your local affairs, and I hope I've added something valuable to your ruminations. Thanks for reading this far, and I hope you have a good week.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

It is my hope that these Denver venues will take advantage of the actual facts that I and others have provided, and will inform the voters deciding the question that their point-of-view is being manipulated by individuals who have consistently lied about and distorted the facts regarding this political issue, and are doing so in order to improve the worth of their own personal economies.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[astrophotographer]

I am just curious if anything new has come to light on all of this. I see that Salas and Hastings are going to have a press conference of some kind but that seems to be the usual dog and pony show so they can get face time in front of the cameras. The last I knew, Hastings was going to reveal that his phone call to Figel was going to demonstrate that Carlson was not accurate. When Figel's e-mail appeared, the Salas/Hastings camp fell silent. Has anybody heard anything?

[murnut]

Someone at OMF just posted this...but I did not listen

Robert Hastings was recently guest on the "Eye to the Sky"-radio show:

http://paranormalradionetwork.org/2010/ ... tings.aspx

[Access Denied]

Has anybody heard anything?

Not a peep...

Default judgment in favor of plaintiff.

[ryguy]

I am just curious if anything new has come to light on all of this. I see that Salas and Hastings are going to have a press conference of some kind but that seems to be the usual dog and pony show so they can get face time in front of the cameras. The last I knew, Hastings was going to reveal that his phone call to Figel was going to demonstrate that Carlson was not accurate. When Figel's e-mail appeared, the Salas/Hastings camp fell silent. Has anybody heard anything?

Anyone know when/where the press conference is going to be?