Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:26 pm

It occurred to me that some of the difficulty people may be having with this Channel 9 No-Go affirmation is a result of one of Figel's earlier letters, specifically the one in which he states,

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

Let me tell you how that came about first, because it's relevant.

In March 2010 after I published here at Reality Uncovered the first discussion of Figel's claims to me regarding Echo Flight, Hastings and Salas immediately called him to confirm what he had reported (it was within two days, I believe, possibly three). Right after doing so, Hastings contacted the owners of Reality Uncovered and told them that I had been lying about what Figel told me, and that he would (within a few days) post the audio tapes and transcripts of his discussion with Figel, proving that he had not denounced the Echo Flight UFO nor his and Salas' discussion of it, but had reaffirmed its and their importance to the case. He promised as well to release a "comprehensive rebuttal" to the whole incident of Figel's alleged denunciation of the UFO claims as I had published it.

As soon as I was told about this email from Hastings, I immediately contacted Figel and asked him what he told Hastings and Salas and whether he had indeed denied what he had told me only a few days earlier. The quote above is from his reply, a response that is basically a summary of everything he told Hastings and Salas on the telephone during that conversation Hastings referred to. The quote above indicating "They said that the maintenance crews had no such report at the LF" is a reference to the testimony of Hastings' witness Barlow, who stated that VRSA was not working at all at the LFs. This is a factually incorrect statement. The documents discuss VRSA as working just fine, and indicate that it was due to VRSA that the investigation's suppositions regarding the LCC logic couplers first came to light.

It was obvious from the questions that Hastings and salas had asked him that they were trying to determine whether his recent denunciation would affect in any way the statements of their remaining witnesses (it wouldn't have made much difference; their other witnesses have far more problems with their testimony than anything Figel could hint at). For instance, they probably asked him if he could prove that no such event happened at Oscar Flight. He stated "I repeated that I never heard about an incident at November or Oscar flight and have no knowledge that they ever happened and that I doubted they did. That is obviously a personal opinion as I can not prove the negative. I repeated that Colonel Dick Evans was at the alternate command post at Kilo which is in the same squadron as November and Oscar and he never mentioned anything about a shutdown at either of these two flights. If it did happen, I personally don’t know anything about it."

They may have asked him about the problems with the chronology that I had mentioned elsewhere, and he responded, "One of the books says that the flight shut down in “seconds” – that is not an exactly accurate statement. It obviously took some time for your dad and I to run the appropriate checklists and make all the calls that we had to make to the command post and maintenance. We were near the end of the checklist when the second missile shut down and shortly threafter the rest of them followed suit."

They asked him about the alleged UFO, and the supposed debriefing that he received afterwards, including going to Omaha. He repsonded, "I told him that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously.

"I also told them that no one from any UFO office in the Air Force ever interviewed/deriefed your dad and/or me and that I do not remember ever signing any papers about anything. In fact, I told them that until he mentioned it, I did not even know there was an office that monitored sightings of 'UFOs' in the Air Force.

"When your dad and I came topside the next day – no one ever said anything about UFOs and there was no 'large gathering' of people on site that morning."

They probably asked him about Jamison's testimony and whether or not he was claiming that Jamison's testimony could not be trusted. He responded, "I did not know the targeting office’s name or even know that he was there." Since Jamison claims to have been at Oscar Flight a week later, this seems irrelevant, but I don't remember any other targeting officer being mentioned by anybody off the top of my head, so maybe it refers to someone else.

As I said above, they asked about VRSA at the LFs to substantiate Barlow's testimony; it was a useless attempt; VRSA has been well documented, and Barlow's an obvious flake, so there's nothing there either.

He closed by saying "As you can see, I cc’d Hastings so that you both have the same piece of paper. I don’t think that there are any inconsistencies in what I said to either of you. If there are, I’m sorry, that is not my intention at all." Hastings insisted for nearly a year afterwards that I had never spoken to Col. Figel, which is a proven lie, so in my opinion, nothing he says can be trusted -- he's shown far too much reliance on lies to merely trust his claims without something to back them up.

As for VRSA, Figel has never indicated that there was a problem with VRSA, and I'm sure Hastings simply intended to use Figel's ignorance regarding how VRSA worked in combination with Barlow's charges that VRSA was not working to establish an argument involving Figel's admission that he didn't know how VRSA worked. Obviously, that's an opinion. The argument wouldn't have worked due to the great importance VRSA played in the troubleshooting process, but Hastings is not terribly bright, so I'm sure this was what he was ultimately intending -- this or something similar to cast doubt on what Figel had already said. Anyway, I published Figel's summary of his discussions with Hastings and Salas as soon as I could, and Hastings never did publish any phone call transcripts nor a "comprehensive rebuttal" of anything. I'm convinced he would have tried had I not beaten him to the punch. He probably would ave had recrded audio as well, just like he's published everywhere else in regard to this case. I doubt they can be trusted, however, and the fact that he threatened to produce such materials, but failed to do so only after I published first an account of what those phone calls actually dealt with should come as no surprise to anybody who has held such suspicions in regard to Hastings' "evidence".

As for the VRSA reporting, it indicated both a Channel 9 No-Go and a Channel 12 No-Go in the LCC; at the LFs there were only Channel 9 No-Go reports. This indicated that there was a problem within the logic coupler at the LCC, and that's precisley where the investigation concentrated its efforts once they had satisfied themselves that an outside source could not possibly have shut down all ten missiles in the flight.

The first thing the capsule crew needed to accomplish (aside from making all of the necessary phone calls notifying the chain of command regarding the loss of the missiles from deterrent forces) was to get an accurate confirmation of missile status from the LFs, and that was Figel's primary responsibility. During my first phone call with him, I reiterated the incident of the Channel 9 No-Go confirmation, and he confirmed all of it. He said it took another 3-4 hours befoe the shift ended, and most of that time they were making telephone calls and issuing orders, but he was very clear that the first thing they needed to do was to confirm the missile status at as many of the LFs as possible. Those at which strike teams had been encamped at were, of course, dealt with first, and that is exactly what Hastings' transcripts state as well. I honestly don't know why there would be any discussion of the process, unless you doubt as well that VRSA was operating properly, as Barlow has stated. If that's the case, just let me know and I'll look up the exact references discussing VRSA in the FOIA materials.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:47 pm

I know that in some of my past postings I had tried to give the readers a taste of what it was like pulling a Minuteman alert back in the early 1980s. A year and a half ago, on the missile forums site. Gregg O. who goes by AE posted an entry in the Kilo-01 Captain's Log by Guy Martell. I remember Guy quite well as he had arrived on station approximately a year before my arrival. Greg O. was still a deputy assigned to Kilo when I left for Grand Forks, ND. It would appear that Gregg was able to secure Kilo's Captains Log as he is able to pull this gem out for all to read and enjoy. I remember reading Guy's entry while on alert myself at Kilo. I was at Kilo for the last year of my Malmstrom tour. As you read keep in mind that Kilo is the 490th's Squadron Command Post and the Alternate Wing Command Post. Though most of our alerts were quiet, there were times when the crap hit the fan. Below is an example of the physics of fecal material colliding with said fan. Contrast this with Walter Figels interview with Hastings and Salas.


Captain's Log Entry: Capsule Date, 23 Feb 1981
by AE on Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:45 am

I copied the following from the Kilo (ACP) Captain's Log at Malmstrom. Reading entries like these not only made alerts less boring, it also provided a larger and better degree of understanding and continuity--beyond what a changeover briefing delivers. I understand that Captain's Logs are no longer allowed? Sad, if true. Okay, what follows is a word-for-word transcription, edited only so as not to offend the sensibilities of readers whose definition of propriety might differ from that of the authors who made these entries:

What a great alert! I arrived just in time to run a Giant Ball while the SACCS equipment goes crazy. No biggie, just a normal Kilo alert. However, some clown at 15th decided to see how many tests of the Primary Alerting System he could do in an hour during the Giant Ball. If that wasn't bad enough, ALCC was in a rush to do the LFRTs and get back to Ellsworth. In his final run, we had more sorties fail to report than did report. I hate reporting 35 "NRs" so I talked to ALCC and we decided to ignore most of them. Finally, with the Giant Ball finished, I was able to concentrate on the SACCS, kick it a few times, and get it back up. I called Comm Job and told them my SACCS was fixed and I could get traffic and send messages. They cancelled the MMICS and said something about 15th checking out the circuits. Just as I hung up, we got weather -- POOR timing. Things settled down for a little while. Then, out of the blue, I get a phone call from the FSC: "Sir, Comm 363 is at the gate. Are you ready for the dispatch?" Who?? Well, it seems that the guy at Comm Job forgot to tell the mnx team that SACCS had been fixed. Well, I couldn't let them waste a trip so we let them replace a few drawers and the crypto rack died. No lights, no power -- nothing. Well, I asked the simple question, "WHAT THE **** DID YOU DO!?" Of course, I got the standard answer, "Sir we don't know." Well, I made the next obvious statement: "FIX IT!!" Of course, I got the standard answer for that, too. "Sir, we only work on SACCS. We don't fix crypto drawers." Great!! Well, I decided if it wasn't going to get fixed by them, I'd have to do it myself. Surprisingly, it worked! It came back up and stayed fixed. Well, it surprised the SACCS team so they packed up and bid us farewell. I ordered supper and was eagerly awaiting a great meal (we have some of the best cooks around out here). Right after the VCN, we had a bitch of a power failure. ALL the LCCs and ALL of the 490th LFs lost power. Well, setting my priorities straight, I went straight to the door and opened it. I figured the 'vator had made it about 6 feet down the elevator shaft before the power failure. Well, I was off by about 4 feet. There was the elevator, 10' down from the top. My food on it. I figured that I could kiss my hot (warm, maybe) meal goodbye. I know the cops out here are good troops, but I underestimated them a little bit. While I was forlornly looking at the stalled elevator, I heard a yell from above. Then I heard some loud slamming and banging. One of the cops had helped another one onto the top of the elevator and he climbed through the elevator roof and retrieved my food through to a 3rd cop who was climbing down the emergency ladder. I, of course, was cheering the performance. Shortly thereafter, my meal was delivered to me. The cops would only say that they provided service with a smile to their crews. I can only say that those guys did a great job -- my mashed potatoes were still warm. By the time I got back with the food, we were just in time to watch all of the LFs come back. The LCC came back up about 10 min. later. It is now only 6 pm. I can hardly wait for the rest of the alert, It should be a doosey. --Guy Martell

Continued: It is now midnight and, if anything, this alert is more ****** up than ever. Three of the power failures never did clear, the SACCS replacement drawer has gone to **** several times, but the biggie is the following situation topside: It had just gotten dark, about 7 pm, when the FSC happened to look out the window in the direction of the chopper pad and notice an individual sneaking around the fence. He also noticed that this individual was armed. After scraping himself off the floor, he had the SRT respond. When the SRT went up the road to the helicopter pad, they noticed a pickup with a mounted spotlight which swung to cover them. Gunfire was then heard, directed near the SRT. While the SRT team was trying to clutch Mother Nature's womb, the bastards drove off, trying to circle K01. By this time, the FSC had awakened the day ART and a Mobile Fire Team in rest status. By the time the pickup circled K01, they had two M-60 machine guns set up covering the access road and highway. They sandwiched the truck on the access road and forced the occupants to vacate the vehicle at gun-point. Upon inspection of the vehicle, they found three loaded weapons with rounds in the chambers -- an M-1 carbine and two .22s. The ART also found an open bottle of wine. The cops upstairs were UPSET! They had barely avoided a shoot or be shot situation. It turned out that the individuals in the truck were two teenage boys from Harlowton that came up here to "bait" the cops topside. The dumb bastards didn't realize they could be corpses by now if the K01 cops didn't have their act together. As it turns out, one of the bastards (his name is Tierny) has a father who is the Sherrif's Dept. dispatcher and also owns the land adjacent to K01. He said that they were using the spotlight to hunt rabbits on their own land and nobody could stop them. The a**holes were extremely mouthy to the cops upstairs. When the Sheriff's Department arrived, they "counseled" the teenagers and released them on their own recognasense (?). It seems that the Harlowton Sheriff's department doesn't consider it illegal to: (1) spotlight game at night (a violation of federal games laws); (2) Have open booze in the front seat of the truck; and (3) Have loaded weapons in the driving compartment of the vehicle. Of course, it is only allowed if you or your father work for the Harlowton Sherrif's Dept. We decided that those bastards needed a good AF-type screwing so we have forwarded a report on to the OSI for investigation and informed the State Wildlife Commission of the verified, witnessed flagrant violation of Montana game laws. All of the topside personnel have filled out full statements for the OSI, and we are writing the cops up for an AF Commendation Medal for risking their lives and not blowing away the civilians (though the a**holes deserved it) in the performance of their duties. The cops involved were: FSC - TSgt Ruotolo (490-3); SRT - A1Cs Kenny & King; ART - A1Cs Ferrier & Geesey; Day FSC - SSgt Phillips; MFT #2 - SSgt Huddleston, SRA Rastall, A1Cs Xepps & Rankin. This ****'s gotta stop! We're only halfway thru with the damned alert. --Martelle

Further note: For the entire alert I have had a shop crew and a 12th crew insist on my coming up for hold-offs. The silly ****s obviously don't understand how busy I am. Well, I have come upon a decision worthy of the great Dave Boggie -- delegate that responsibility. I have given the responsibility of "Hold-off Monitor" to the shop crew and told them that he is SOLELY responsible for ALL hold-offs. So far, so good. I haven't been bothered for the last 2-3 hold-offs. I hope it lasts.

Last entry -- The crowning touch. At 9 am Col Zachary, Col Bender, plus 7 arrived to go on a tour through the LCC. I guess it never ends. I've had worse alerts -- but not often.


Okay, that's it for the log entries for that day/alert ... this is AE writing now. I made the following note at the bottom of the transcript: "A fellow crew member, after reading the above entry, said it sounded like crew of the month material. Guy's [subsequent] response was 'Thanks, but I would never put in for crew of the month for actions done by others....' "
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:27 am

Access Denied wrote:Hey Boon, I think LS is going to find out he should have read Tim’s blog first… :)

(and this thread where we’ve already been over all that)


Too bad the conversation didn't play out so conclusively.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Jul 27, 2011 10:58 am

lost_shaman wrote:
Access Denied wrote:Hey Boon, I think LS is going to find out he should have read Tim’s blog first… :)

(and this thread where we’ve already been over all that)


Too bad the conversation didn't play out so conclusively.

It's only inconclusive when you examine it one sentence at a time ...

Try reading all of it for a change, instead of the tiny fraction that you're trying to dispute. It's pretty damn conclusive then, pal ...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:51 pm

I just, hopefully, posted my last blog post for Echo. It's my last theory, but it makes sense and is fully defensible. Its taken some months to come to my final conclusions, but it is, what it is!

Enjoy, refute, agree, burn me in effigy....

Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident
The Makings of a UFO Myth

First, let me start off by saying that the Malmstrom AFB Echo Flight case is a great UFO story. It's the perfect storm for UFO buffs in that there are reports, documents, and "witnesses." Its listed in the top ten of UFO cases. People have been interviewed to the extent that every surviving individuals cerebral memory capacity has been extracted, evaluated, discarded and re-extracted for what ever purpose in the attempt to prove or disprove individual pet theories. In short, it's a ufologists dream come true...or is it.

But for all it's bells and whistles, Echo Flight proves only to be an illusion...a distant mirage in Ufology's desolate desert. Researching this case is akin to walking into a thick and dense forest making it difficult to see ahead as you hack your way through it's thick foliage. It lures you into a trance as you bog down into it's minutia. Its loaded with perceived facts that take you down potentially promising paths only to wind up at a dead end. It's a siren song. It's proponents take the view, "If looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then..." Yet I find my self yelling at them, "Don't fall for it, open your eyes, it's a f****ing dog!"


See the rest athttp://www.timhebert.blogspot.com/...now it's on to Salas and Oscar with layovers at Minot 1968!!

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:38 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:It's proponents take the view, "If looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then..." Yet I find my self yelling at them, "Don't fall for it, open your eyes, it's a f****ing dog!"

Me too!! Of course, the imagery isn't as visceral as yours ... we're on the same page though. In reference to "yelling at them," unfortunately, with some folks that's all you can do, and yet they still won't hear what you've got to say. Great article -- thanks!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:30 am

James Carlson wrote:It's only inconclusive when you examine it one sentence at a time ...


You mean when we look at Figel's interviews? The same you say are Fake.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:12 am

lost_shaman wrote:
James Carlson wrote:It's only inconclusive when you examine it one sentence at a time ...


You mean when we look at Figel's interviews? The same you say are Fake.

You have an annoying habit of saying I've said things that I haven't said. Why don't you try examining my statements before attempting to dispute them? That's your biggest failure -- you don't even try to figure out what the other side is saying before attacking.

People spend more time correcting you than discussing the points being debated, which makes your hit and run tactics of argument the reliance of another fool who merely wants to stifle and insult, not discuss. You're just like Hastings -- no argument, no understanding, and no ability to analyze.

Go home, LS You don't have anything intelligent to say, and you aren't worth the time it takes to correct your many dysfunctions. You're just one petty insinuation after another without the will or ability to understand the issues under examination. Talking to you is like arguing with a child; you never get anything right, you refuse to examine anything on its own merits, your arguments never take into account context or substance, you don't care about the subject enough to try and understand your references, you have no concept nor resolution of accuracy, you have no knowledge of the materials being discussed and yet you base your arguments on these same materials (EWO-1, EWO-2), and in the big picture, you represent little more than a waste of time and effort, because your arguments are devoid of fact or enterprise, a quality obvious to everyone. That being said, you don't represent a threat, you're not interesting enough to compel discussion, and you aren't impressive enough to make the effort of correcting your many failures interpreting both fact and argument. I have no desire nor fancy for arguing with children, so go home and let the adults work things out; you're primarily a waste of bandwidth, so go away.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:49 pm

James, consider this your second and final warning regarding violations of Rule 1...

“Personal attacks upon other posters are prohibited. While lively discussion is encouraged, all posters are expected to maintain a courteous decorum toward others, even when expressing an opposing viewpoint.”

Another violation will result in a suspension of your posting privileges here. This is not what RU is about.


ETA:

Tim Hebert wrote:I just, hopefully, posted my last blog post for Echo. It's my last theory, but it makes sense and is fully defensible. Its taken some months to come to my final conclusions, but it is, what it is!

Enjoy, refute, agree, burn me in effigy....

I posted a comment on your blog and here’s the permalink to your article for reference…

Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident
http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2011/07/c ... -echo.html
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:05 pm

The thing is, what he writes isn't true, and I shouldn't have to keep correcting his errors. He doesn't stick around long enough to even pay attention, so he's basically attacking without even caring about the response. I don't think I wrote anything that wasn't true, and I don't see how it's a bad thing for me to tell someone like LS why I think he should quit being so damn annoying, and how he can manage to do so successfully. Do you think his past two assertions had any real purpose other than to piss people off? And did he even attempt to back up his statements with anything? If he's going to put forth some effort in order to act like a petty and annoying child, why can't I tell him that he's succeeding? I will, of course, abide by your recommendations, but it should be noted for the record that he's failed to even make an argument, and it's pretty apparent that doing so was not his intention. If he's going to make claims regarding what my arguments are, and what I've written and asserted and maintained, I don't think a little accuracy is asking too much. If I don't respond, it looks like I'm agreeing with him, and if I do respond -- as often as this guy resorts to this type of discussion -- no real discussion takes place. And he does this all the time. I'll be the first person in line to admit to being a jerk, but when I build an argument, I don't discuss what others have claimed without knowing what those claims are. I don't think it's asking too much for others to do the same.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Zep Tepi » Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:31 pm

If I could make an observation...

James, your arguments against what Hastings and Salas are pushing are not in question. Anyone who has followed this since last year can see that for themselves.

One thing I have noticed however, is how easy it is for your detractors to wind you up and force the discussion into one of decorum and perceptions. They cannot argue against the evidence. You and Tim Hebert (and others) have effectively and convincingly destroyed Hastings' claims. When they can't argue against the evidence, they will argue against the man. Your challenge has got to be not to rise to the bait. Stick to the facts and try and not to let your emotions be used against you.

Lost Shaman's last two posts have been nothing more than drive-by postings with the sole intention being to wind you up and watch you fly. After all, how better to hold us to our moderation policy?

The moderation policy works both ways btw...

Lost Shaman: Further one liners will not be tolerated, If you're going to state something as fact, please have the good grace to back it up with details. Thank you.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:34 pm

if i may add..

its not really my business but, james, you are an exceptional poster and have done a fantastic job with this case. dont let these people wind you up.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:36 am

Zep Tepi wrote:Lost Shaman's last two posts have been nothing more than drive-by postings with the sole intention being to wind you up and watch you fly. After all, how better to hold us to our moderation policy?



Hold on! I've had my character attacked by James on UM multiple times and over an extended period of Time! I've ignored James attacks to the point that I should be considered a freakin Saint!



Zep Tepi wrote:
The moderation policy works both ways btw...

Lost Shaman: Further one liners will not be tolerated, If you're going to state something as fact, please have the good grace to back it up with details. Thank you.

Cheers,
Steve



I was replying to a two liner. One of those two lines was directed at me personally. I ignored it.

My one line response to this two line post is "fact" because it is what James said on UM!
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:24 am

James Carlson wrote:
The thing is, what he writes isn't true,


What I write is true. I call things the way I see them. You don't even argue that I'm wrong, you argue that I'm a horrible person!

James Carlson wrote:
and I shouldn't have to keep correcting his errors.



That's just a strange way to pretend you don't have to defend your own arguments.

James Carlson wrote: He doesn't stick around long enough to even pay attention, so he's basically attacking without even caring about the response.


I haven't gone anywhere since 2002. I've never hidden from a conversation in that time. Even Tom will tell you that's not true.

James Carlson wrote:
I don't think I wrote anything that wasn't true, and I don't see how it's a bad thing for me to tell someone like LS why I think he should quit being so damn annoying, and how he can manage to do so successfully. Do you think his past two assertions had any real purpose other than to piss people off?


You've attacked me personally more than anyone else in almost 10 years of discussing the UFO Phenoemena. Do you really think my few replies to you are a conspiracy to "annoy" you and get you to treat me like s^~t? :?

Unbelievable!


James Carlson wrote:
And did he even attempt to back up his statements with anything?


Oh, you mean like when I asked you point blank if you were saying that Figel's interviews were Fake on UM?

Would you consider that backing up my statements?


James Carlson wrote:

If he's going to put forth some effort in order to act like a petty and annoying child, why can't I tell him that he's succeeding? [snip]


Love the ad hominem! It adds a bit of color to the place if you ask me.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Access Denied » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:37 pm

OK guys please, now that we all know where everybody stands, let’s discuss the case, not each other…

Does anybody have a problem with any of these points raised by Tim H. in his conclusion?

Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident
http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-closed-re-evaluation-of-echo.html

I believe that I have shown that there is now enough evidence to strongly support that UFO/s could not have caused Echo's ICBMs to shut down. The following strongly supports my conclusion:

1. High probability that no maintenance teams were out on any of Echo's sites during shutdowns.
2. No maintenance or security teams mentioned in the Unit History.
3. After 44 years, none of the supposed eye witnesses have ever been identified, nor have these people ever came forward, concluding that they may never have existed in the first place.
4. Walter Figel's inconsistency from both Hastings and Salas' interviews.
5. Walter Figel's perceived reluctance to publicly support Hastings' UFO theory, as evidence by, his absence from the D.C press conference, lack of an affidavit affirming his statements.
6. Eric Carlson's strong denial of receiving any UFO reports from security personnel.
7. No intercept missions flown by the Montana National Guard against any unknown radar contacts.
8. Minuteman LF design of connectivity isolation precludes any one event (UFO included) from affecting the remaining ICBMs in a given flight.
9. Echo was a flight specific event with no other adjoining flight effected
10. The only plausible UFO scenario would have been a UFO over/near Echo's LCF/LCC. This never occurred and no reports or rumors ever comes close to supporting this scenario.
11. The Boeing ECP and final installation of EMP suppression fixes resulting in no Echo-like situation from ever happening again for all SAC missile wings (Minuteman and Titan).

I would take a slight exception to point 2 in that we do have this UNCLASSIFIED portion from the declassified Unit History…

Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the areas of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no usual activity or sightings were observed.

And in reference to this I previously stated my interpretation was…

Access Denied wrote:Presumably the Mobile Strike Team (MST) questioned was the source of the rumors and the reference to November Flight is either a typo (unlikely in my opinion) or where the MST was when Figel contacted them to check out the (unoccupied) LFs at Echo.

Granted there’s no mention of anyone at Echo and that interpretation does support point 1 so minor detail perhaps.

That said, purely speculation on my part but what if Figel did mention that the MST was at November when he first contacted them and they joked about UFOs and Hastings and Salas neglected to mention this “minor” detail? That might explain why they never tried to use his conflicting “testimony” allegedly recorded in 1996 by Salas and in 2008 by Hastings to support their case before 2010. Conversely, I suppose it’s also possible that Figel neglected to mention this to them but I find that highly unlikely given the way this has all played out…

At any rate, the ball is now firmly placed in Figel’s court to come forward and respond to these questions in public as he sees fit… or not.

Thoughts?


ETA: I posted a new article about Tim's conclusion on the blog...

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/07/case-closed-a-re-evaluation-of-the-echo-flight-incident/
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]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 23 guests

cron