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 Aug 08, 2011 5:48 pm

Hi, Gilles;

I still intend to draft a more accessible discussion for translation as you've requested, so please be assured that I haven't forgotten my promise to you.

Don't be too disturbed over the above miscommunications -- paranoia goes with the territory, and as a result it's natural that some folks are more comfortable in the role of the eternal victim than others. Look at it this way: if it weren't for all of the self-possessed martyrs that UFOlogy has produced, examining their claims would represent a dry time-killer indeed. If nothing else, conflict makes the discussion at least sound more urgent than it really is.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:52 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:James, it's a good read, one of your best pieces to date!

Thanks, Tim -- I appreciate that. I think a lot of folks will consider it too long, even though I tried to limit it's length some, but at least I got in everything I wanted to point out, and that's the important thing.

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Gilles F. » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:44 pm

Well, again, it is "me" who thank you for the time and other ressources you have devoted regarding this famous case. What a new "input" you have made in "Ufology" and regarding one her top 10 case ! Well, Pro-ETH ufology have her own fashion and "vogue", you know ;)

I think ETH proponents regarding this famous case have cut themselves the fragile branch on which they sat, as on what their thesis was sitting on...
Your work deserves more than respect: It is a must for anyone REALLY interested on what is really pro-ETH ufology ;)
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby lost_shaman » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:03 am

Gilles F. wrote:
Greetings Lost-Shaman,

Hum ? I think with all your respects you are totaly interpreting my attention and goal here, sincerly. The choice of the word and in quotes "lost" have nothing to do with you. No one direct or indirect intention of my part to attack your character or to make a "words game", a "private joke" or "mockery" or dunno what against you and Lost-Shaman character. #-o It is for sure a misunderstanding.

[snip]

I hope you understand now, as I demonstrated, that the choice of this word "lost" is not an attack to your character :roll: But a pure coïncidence. Misunderstanding solved or you always have a doubt?

Sincerly,

Gilles Fernandez



Hey Gilles,

I accept this as a misunderstanding. Although, I do assume you follow this thread and can also understand my reaction to this amazing 'coincidence' as well?
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 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:24 am

James Carlson wrote:
Don't be too disturbed over the above miscommunications -- paranoia goes with the territory, and as a result it's natural that some folks are more comfortable in the role of the eternal victim than others.


Wow! That's really an extraordinary statement to make coming from the same guy who attempted to justify his own lack of 'class' and 'horrible' statements and claims about other people on perceived "attacks" against yourself by people who were not even present on UM!

Surely you remember that? If not maybe this will refresh your memory...

Sent 23 December 2010 - 03:04 AM
I've been looking over a number of posts from the past few days, and I've concluded that I owe you an apology. My behavior was needlessly hostile, and as a result, I neglected to give your arguments the respect they deserve. In my defense, I can only say that I've been subjected to more intolerant abuse by more people than was deserved -- abuse that I don't intend to discuss with anybody outside of a courtroom except to say that there a reason for my defensive posture, albeit not a very good or admirable one. In any case, the intolerance I exhibited toward you is exactly the kind of thing I despise in others when it's directed towards me; I regret that, and I'm sorry. Feel free to post this if you like as a public exoneration, as I will likely not logon for a bit.

James


Remember that? Too bad you had little to no intention of being sincere with that apology!
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 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:07 pm

Actually, I was very sincere. I assumed that if I made a gesture we could put that nastiness behind us, and get back to a normal conversation. Unfortunately, you proved yourself incapable of that, and I eventually concluded that you represent a waste of such efforts. Your conduct has since convinced me that my conclusions are sound, which is why I didn't address my comments to you.

And it's probably not a good idea to expect me to be so willing to answer any more of your questions.
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 » Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:36 pm

James Carlson wrote:Actually, I was very sincere. I assumed that if I made a gesture we could put that nastiness behind us, and get back to a normal conversation. Unfortunately, you proved yourself incapable of that, and I eventually concluded that you represent a waste of such efforts. Your conduct has since convinced me that my conclusions are sound, which is why I didn't address my comments to you.


Nonsense, I had simply replied to a post of yours later saying there was a scientific basis for a particular hypothesis out of Hessdalen as opposed to "word of Honor" that you mentioned in a post at which point you completely flipped out on me again and the UM Administrator had to come in and clean the thread of your nasty posts! Since then you continued in your old ways that required your apology in the first place.
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 » Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:06 am

I went ahead and published "The George Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead' Nuclear Mall Zombie UFO Believer's Syndrome" at http://www.scribd.com/doc/62024467/The- ... s-Syndrome -- if you want to look at the video on page two, download the document as a PDF file and then click on it to activate. It's an amusing little song and dance number, and nothing more, so skip it if you like.

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:04 am

I just noted another discrepancy in Salas' 1996 letters to Ray Fowler: he states “I spoke with the DMCC (deputy) of Echo and he confirmed that all his missiles shut down that night and that UFOs had been sighted (one at close range) by his maintenance team and his security team.” It’s difficult to accept his claim that Col. Walt Figel, the DMCC at Echo Flight, would have confirmed anything being “shut down that night”, in light of the documented fact that the Echo Flight missiles failed at 0845, two hours after sunrise – a fact that Figel is very much aware of. Salas' insistence through the years that the Echo incident occurred before the Oscar incident, which he has repeatedly described as a night time event is one reason that he was forced to change the date of his Oscar Flight claims. Of course, that doesn't let him off the hook for affirming that the March 16, 1967 date of the N-flight and O-Flight failures had been repeatedly verified by Col. Meiwald, who in turn insists that he doesn't remember anything at all about a UFO taking out the missiles at any flight at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, regardless of what Hastings has so recently published. Meiwald, to his credit, has been very clear about this -- not exactly the 100% corroboration of a UFO that Hastings has insisted Meiwald represents. Anyway, it might be appropriate to draft a full analysis of Salas' early communications with Fowler, since his claims in these communications are very different from any other assertions that he's made.

Salas’ writings are full of similar examples so plentiful that it’s difficult to believe he ever discussed the matter with his alleged witnesses or even read the available documents regarding the Echo Flight incident. Every time I read through his and Hastings' statements, I discover something new in the mix. That's rarely a good sign for someone who wants to be trusted, but I have to admit, I don't have a whole lot of pity for them. If I remember correctly, it was Richard Dolan who emphasized that ignorance of the details is one method of determining credibility, a method both Salas and Hastings have failed to appreciate sufficiently.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:10 am

I've been anonymously surfing through the missileforums website recently on Tim Hebert's recommendation, and it really is kinda funny, since Robert Hastings is once more conducting what he calls "research". You know, for a guy who claims to speak for those military personnel too pressured to make their claims and tell their tales for themselves, there's not a whole lot of respect for him that's very notable amongst the ex- and current military. For the most part, they've been polite but dismissive. Not surprising, really; we've been told that "they find Hastings' story as humorous, but nothing more than fiction and or fantasy." I guess they don't see the damage that his unfettered imagination and dishonesty can actually cause, which is great -- I hope they never do, as it would mean someone else's reputation is taking a drowning.

Hastings is once again resorting to the tried and true methods of communication: more spamming of whole chapters from his book, as if that's somehow supposed to represent a valid argument -- it's not exactly "evidence" considering how often he's lied about what his supposed witnesses saw, and tends to leave out any actual information that enables readers to reach valid conclusions on their own. I'm surprised every day that there are a few people out there who consider him an asset to UFOlogy, when all he's really doing is representing himself, telling numerous easily discernible lies, and acting as one of the supreme most embarrassing UFO investigators currently marketing their wares. And people think this is "good" for American UFOlogy? He's a disaster that those who are genuinely interested in the topic should be ashamed of -- he's really not doing them any favors ...

His brief forays on sites like missileforums does prove one thing quite satisfactorily: for a guy who spends so much time discussing military procedures, protocol, and command functions, he's proven pretty handily that he knows next to nothing at all of military culture and even less of actual protocols. As for the nuclear missiles that he harps on so constantly, he knows and understands very little of what they do and how they perform and what the technology is capable of. Given his current career choices, you'd think that would be something he might want to learn about enough to bamboozle at least a few people who have served their country well, but I guess he doesn't find it necessary. It's a pretty obvious hole in his background, though.
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 bewildered » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:43 am

Thanks for the research and the update, James. I would say that I feel embarrassed for Hastings, but that embarrassment is only reserved for those who actually deserve it. In his case, it is not deserved. I'm former military myself and there is a certain level of familiarity that comes along with being trained and exposed to procedure and protocol that sticks with you for the rest of your life, even long after you depart from the service. Some of that is universal to every branch and virtually every kind of assignment. My last assignment was a Patriot Missile Battery in the Air Defense Artillery (within a now-deactivated division, the 9th out of Ft. Lewis, WA). I was not part of such a critical and sensitive outfit as the one at Malmstrom, but being familiar with the standards the artillery personnel adhered to (I was in Communications), I can only imagine the level of readiness and exacting standards the service members at Malmstrom had to meet. In (then West) Germany in 1989, I was assigned to a post that housed a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons. That was a pretty big deal, and I knew many of the MPs from the company assigned to that facility. The procedures and protocols are clear, concise, and very demanding. Any deviation stands out like a sore thumb.

These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear. There's nothing quite like having "been there," and if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is.
bewildered
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:26 pm

bewildered wrote:Thanks for the research and the update, James. I would say that I feel embarrassed for Hastings, but that embarrassment is only reserved for those who actually deserve it. In his case, it is not deserved. I'm former military myself and there is a certain level of familiarity that comes along with being trained and exposed to procedure and protocol that sticks with you for the rest of your life, even long after you depart from the service. Some of that is universal to every branch and virtually every kind of assignment. My last assignment was a Patriot Missile Battery in the Air Defense Artillery (within a now-deactivated division, the 9th out of Ft. Lewis, WA). I was not part of such a critical and sensitive outfit as the one at Malmstrom, but being familiar with the standards the artillery personnel adhered to (I was in Communications), I can only imagine the level of readiness and exacting standards the service members at Malmstrom had to meet. In (then West) Germany in 1989, I was assigned to a post that housed a storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons. That was a pretty big deal, and I knew many of the MPs from the company assigned to that facility. The procedures and protocols are clear, concise, and very demanding. Any deviation stands out like a sore thumb.

These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear. There's nothing quite like having "been there," and if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is.


Thanks very much for your comments -- I have to say I agree with you 100%. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I would have responded earlier, having first read your comments last night; unfortunately, I also have to be up by 0300 for work, so I delayed it a bit.

You're dead on about military procedures and protocols. It's alsmost immediately notable upon reading Hastings' analysis of almost anything that he has no real knowledge of how the military resolves problems. It strikes me as a bit vainglorious that someone who presumes to redefine the measurement of military interaction with UFOs refuses to learn anything at all about life in the military, but it goes so much further than that in Hastings' case. Here's a guy who deals almost exclusively with classified materials finally released via FOIA, and yet he knows nothing at all about the classification system. It's absolutely hilarious to read his attempts to wrap his brain around an idea like "need-to-know", because it's so immediately apparent that he's reaching conclusions and dictating procedure as evidence regarding a complete fiction, this being his assumption of what "need-to-know" actually entails.

I see this "prejudiced ignorance" all the time throughout UFOlogy involving almost every issue, and as far as I'm concerned it's evidence of only one thing: intellectual laziness. These people are basically guessing, using as their only resource civilian knowledge and procedures, and frankly, they're not worth much in regard to issues involving the Department of Defense. It's immediately apparent whenever, for instance, someone actually believes that Robert Salas is telling the truth when he says that Col. Lewis Chase was lying to FTD when he sent them a written memo stating that there were no equipment failures at Malmstrom AFB March 24-25, 1967. Given that FTD, a powerful, DoD intelligence hub in charge of technical issues throughout the USAF, was responsible at the time for everything having to do with UFOs, including their investigation and resolution, any implication that Chase, the Malmstrom AFB UFO officer, was lying to them is patently ridiculous. I've never met a veteran with any real service time who agrees with this claim or is willing to accept it as having some real basis. It's just silly from a military point of view. Who the Hell lies to their own chain of command? That's the sort of thing you go to jail for -- but to actually write out your lies in an open memorandum? It's stupid, and it's an amazing measure of the man's hubris, that Salas would expect anybody in the world to believe it. It's obvious nonsense to anyone who has more than one enlistment under their belt. And Hastings has none -- he was a janitor at Malmstrom, for God's sake.

The emphasis that these supposed UFOlogists place on the Bollender Memo is another good example. They say the memo is proof that there was a completely different system for reporting UFOs that wasn't actually part of the Blue Book system, as if the USAF would create more than one method for investigating UFOs that ignored the system already in place! I can't believe that many people have actually read that memo, because it's very clear -- there's no mystery to it at all. It's basically little more than a collection of recommendations concerning how best to establish an investigation of UFOs after Blue Book was shut down, so it wasn't even a regulation -- it was just his thoughts on what regs should cover. Bollender recognized that after Blue Book was gone, there would be a hole in our ability to investigation enemy aircraft if such aircraft were only reported as UFOs. You're probably aware that Blue Book was intended to organize the investigation of all UFOs reported, even by civilian resources. The USAF was always interested in investigating validated reports of UFOs, but most of the UFOs reported to Blue Book didn't even come close to meeting that qualification, so the USAF got rid of it, and told everybody to quit reporting UFOs to the USAF. That doesn't mean that valid reports would be ignored; they were simply investigated under different grounds having little to do with the garbage that most civilians were reporting as UFOs. His recommendations detailed what should be done about UFOs that the USAF recognized as problematic -- they weren't going to ignore UFOs, as almost every civilian apparently believes; that would be ridiculous and amazingly stupid for any Department of Defense! And since none of it was ever intended to be used while Blue Book was still in effect, it's recognition of reporting outside of the Blue Book system has no real meaning as an additional system -- it's a replacement system being recommended.

Try explaining that to someone who considers Stanton Friedman the last word on the interpretation of military documents -- believe me, you get nowhere. They seem to think for some reason that Bollender recognizes reporting of UFOs under AFR 80-17 part of the time, and AFR 200-2 part of the time, with some super-secret UFO officer making the determination depending upon his or her whim -- it's a joke. AFR 200-2 went into effect in 1962. It was superceded in 1966 when AFR 80-17 went into effect. Bollender was merely recommending that when Blue Book shut down, thereby making 80-17 obsolete, 200-2 should be adopted once again, no big deal. It didn't really change that much either -- FTD was still in charge, but they wouldn't have to investigate every single nonsense UFO reported by some guy in his backyard with a pair of binoculars. Even worse, they all seem to believe that reporting under one means you don't report under the other. How do you explain to someone who refuses to do the research to learn that an active regulation still has to be followed -- you don't cancel one whenever you like, simply because you're reporting it under a different system -- a non-Blue Book system, for instance. Active regs have to be followed -- period! It's apparently a difficult subject for some civilians to grasp. The whole Bollender memo discussion these people keep bringing up is nothing but a red-herring. It's completely unimportant and can't be used to substantiate anything about UFO investigations -- it's silly really.

Your comment that "These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear" is absolutely the truth -- I'm pretty well convinced that's why so much of Hastings' "work" is anonymous. Every time he wants to "pull a Roswell" he starts off with anonymous reports, until he convinces someone to join his little club -- but look at his pattern: it's easy to see and it's easy to see how it works. Tim Hebert (check out his blog at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/) has been working on a series of analyses in regard to the technical and professional aspects of Echo Flight, and because of that point of view, he can be very convincing; it's a learning process that Hastings has proven himself unable to reliably counter, and it's primarily due to that "prejudiced ignorance" I mentioned above. As you say, "There's nothing quite like having 'been there'". Because of that degree of essential knowledge that Tim possesses, he can discuss matters head and shoulders above Hastings and his buddies, and do so with a cool head and a polite rejoinder to everything they try to toss at him. It's almost painful for me to watch him get the same results as I do at times by calmly discussing the facts, something that I don't have much of a reputation for accomplishing in regard to the same subject. Of course, our initial motivations are a bit different.

There's something very admirable to note in Tim Hebert's measured and politely structured responses to Hastings, but I believe that in addition to that, someone who's willing to comment on the issue has to come right out and very strongly insist (not merely suggest) that he and Salas are just bad liars who have consciously designed and supported a UFO hoax; I not only believe strongly that this is the case, I also don't mind doing it in the least, primarily because I don't give a damn what they think of me as long as they get the message. Part of me considers this to be a fairly effective strategy when associated with Hebert's methods -- it comes out to some extent as a good-cop, bad-cop system, one that I don't mind being a part of in the least, just as I don't mind honestly discussing it. I think the dichotomy our approaches represent is good for the issue and will eventually resolve the entire controversy. His point of view, particularly in regard to the more experiential technical matters only someone in the system can speak of with any real authority, meshes well with my own approach. He's a very reasonable man who understands the issue because of his past experience, whereas I'm a very angry man who understands the issue because my father was involved deeply with it, and I knew exactly what happened. As a result, both Tim and I were strongly motivated to conduct more research than Hastings and Salas have proven themselves capable of. In addition, we've both had a lot of experience with classified materials, and that too has been helpful.

The fact that both of us hold ourselves to a higher standard of honesty and trust is also important. I can't speak for Tim, but as for me, my military service and the trust the U.S. Navy had in me is an important part of that, and many civilians don't grasp that concept very well. They actually believe it when Hastings insists that ex-military personnel are taking the "more honorable" approach by lying about UFOs as a means to keep the matter secret, as they've been supposedly ordered to do. Anybody who has ever served in the military, regardless at what level, should be as pissed off about these slanders as I am. The military has never asked me or my father to lie about anything, and we don't do it. Anybody who has ever worked with classified materials is taught before anything else that lying about any subject, classified or not, is injurious -- it's a breach of security. You don't lie. You don't talk or discuss at all -- period. This is something that Hastings knows nothing about, and that means that once again, he's just "guessing", something he does a lot. I consider it an insult. And if you compare Hastings' approach to this entire issue to the approach used by both Tim and me, it's immediately apparent that what he's doing is an insult to both our military and our nation, and a painful one at that. Hastings doesn't possess any of the knowledge necessary to speak with authority in regard to those matters that Tim speaks with so fluently because Hastings is ignorant of the means and lacks the motivation to properly assess the details that define the issue; and he refuses, apparently, to educate himself any further in regard to his ignorance. I don't see that as a viable strategy at all, and I'm firmly convinced that his eventual failures will be due, at least in part, to that same conceit and handicap.

I've found it's a fairly easy point to make when I'm discussing the matter with others who have served in the military, even, in many cases, with civilian employees who served the Department of Defense on an administrative level. As you say, "if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is." It's a little more difficult explaining it to those who don't have the experience, but I'm very fortunate that I'm not the only one working at it. As a result, I'm pretty confident that we'll succeed. Most people are willing to accept the truth if you're willing to take the time to explain it, and most of us have that dedication, having been dedicated in the past to ideals that we believed were important and necessary to our service, whatever that may have been.

Thanks again for your response. Sorry if I came off so long-winded -- it's what I do!
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 bewildered » Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:01 am

James Carlson wrote:You're dead on about military procedures and protocols. It's alsmost immediately notable upon reading Hastings' analysis of almost anything that he has no real knowledge of how the military resolves problems. It strikes me as a bit vainglorious that someone who presumes to redefine the measurement of military interaction with UFOs refuses to learn anything at all about life in the military, but it goes so much further than that in Hastings' case. Here's a guy who deals almost exclusively with classified materials finally released via FOIA, and yet he knows nothing at all about the classification system. It's absolutely hilarious to read his attempts to wrap his brain around an idea like "need-to-know", because it's so immediately apparent that he's reaching conclusions and dictating procedure as evidence regarding a complete fiction, this being his assumption of what "need-to-know" actually entails.


A term I heard often when I was in sums it up well: his 5th point of contact is jammed into his 3rd point of contact. In Airborne parlance, the 3rd point of contact is one's rear, and while there is no "official" 5th point of contact (there's only 4 on the body as they relate to a proper parachute fall), the Airborne instructors at Ft. Benning liked to call one's head the 5th point of contact. "Do not under any circumstances utilize your 5th point of contact, Private! We would not want that to happen! It might hurt too much!" :lol:

Some people might express a form of understanding where need to know is concerned, James, but very few who lack the training and indoctrination actually grasp how it functions in the world of "our lives are on the line." It exists for very practical and sensible reasons...life and death kind of considerations. The kind of reasons worth giving one's life for. We learned some grim lessons during World War II. Operations Security is paramount to the success or failure of the force...and amongst such considerations, information security is there at the top. Since I was in communications, such a concern was critical to my function.

It's not my intention to veer off topic and turn my post into a discussion of the military, but you present a theme that should be emphasized and shouted from the rooftops: if you're going to deal with the military in an accurate and forthright manner, then you need to understand the military and put forth the effort to learn. I'm not going to claim that a civilian is constitutionally incapable of doing that. However, it has been my experience that most civilians really have no clue when it comes to the military...none at all. The naivete I have encountered at times has been flabbergasting. When I deployed to West Germany, an important part of my inprocessing dealt with the very real and present threat of Soviet intelligence efforts targeting young service members around installations and popular recreational spots on the economy, such as bars and night clubs. They were infamous for employing attractive members of either sex to wheedle information from vulnerable young men and women. It was more than a mere threat; it happened often enough to be a very real promise.

How can I forget my "SMLM" card? The popular term we had for it was "smell 'em": Soviet Military Liaison Mission. I might even still have it somewhere. It gave some pointers on how to behave on the economy, and what to look out for. 8)

I see this "prejudiced ignorance" all the time throughout UFOlogy involving almost every issue, and as far as I'm concerned it's evidence of only one thing: intellectual laziness. These people are basically guessing, using as their only resource civilian knowledge and procedures, and frankly, they're not worth much in regard to issues involving the Department of Defense. It's immediately apparent whenever, for instance, someone actually believes that Robert Salas is telling the truth when he says that Col. Lewis Chase was lying to FTD when he sent them a written memo stating that there were no equipment failures at Malmstrom AFB March 24-25, 1967. Given that FTD, a powerful, DoD intelligence hub in charge of technical issues throughout the USAF, was responsible at the time for everything having to do with UFOs, including their investigation and resolution, any implication that Chase, the Malmstrom AFB UFO officer, was lying to them is patently ridiculous. I've never met a veteran with any real service time who agrees with this claim or is willing to accept it as having some real basis. It's just silly from a military point of view. Who the Hell lies to their own chain of command? That's the sort of thing you go to jail for -- but to actually write out your lies in an open memorandum? It's stupid, and it's an amazing measure of the man's hubris, that Salas would expect anybody in the world to believe it. It's obvious nonsense to anyone who has more than one enlistment under their belt. And Hastings has none -- he was a janitor at Malmstrom, for God's sake.


Yes sir, you hit the nail on the head when you write: "Who the Hell lies to their own chain of command? That's the sort of thing you go to jail for -- but to actually write out your lies in an open memorandum?" It's beyond idiocy, I agree. It's basically begging for Leavenworth. Depending upon one's assignment and the nature of the material in question, one's residency there could be permanent. Misplacing the simple little SOI (Signal Operating Instructions) I was responsible for while I was on duty could land me in Leavenworth turning big rocks into smaller rocks. Believe you me, when that SOI was placed in my hands, it became a part of my body. I did nothing without it. Imagine fudging something dealing with the nuclear arsenal...a genius-level intellect is not required to successfully ponder the consequences of such a thing. Why, that's something even a Private could navigate. :wink:

The emphasis that these supposed UFOlogists place on the Bollender Memo is another good example. They say the memo is proof that there was a completely different system for reporting UFOs that wasn't actually part of the Blue Book system, as if the USAF would create more than one method for investigating UFOs that ignored the system already in place! I can't believe that many people have actually read that memo, because it's very clear -- there's no mystery to it at all. It's basically little more than a collection of recommendations concerning how best to establish an investigation of UFOs after Blue Book was shut down, so it wasn't even a regulation -- it was just his thoughts on what regs should cover. Bollender recognized that after Blue Book was gone, there would be a hole in our ability to investigation enemy aircraft if such aircraft were only reported as UFOs. You're probably aware that Blue Book was intended to organize the investigation of all UFOs reported, even by civilian resources. The USAF was always interested in investigating validated reports of UFOs, but most of the UFOs reported to Blue Book didn't even come close to meeting that qualification, so the USAF got rid of it, and told everybody to quit reporting UFOs to the USAF. That doesn't mean that valid reports would be ignored; they were simply investigated under different grounds having little to do with the garbage that most civilians were reporting as UFOs. His recommendations detailed what should be done about UFOs that the USAF recognized as problematic -- they weren't going to ignore UFOs, as almost every civilian apparently believes; that would be ridiculous and amazingly stupid for any Department of Defense! And since none of it was ever intended to be used while Blue Book was still in effect, it's recognition of reporting outside of the Blue Book system has no real meaning as an additional system -- it's a replacement system being recommended.


Blue Book was quite an effort. The clue regarding the claims of so-called ufologists lies in the plausibility of their claims. Anyone who has taken the time to learn knows that the military does not abandon a system unless it is officially deemed obsolete, and either replaced or terminated entirely. I never bought the malarkey the ufology crowd tries to pass off as "insider" knowledge regarding the reporting of UFOs in military procedure. Blue Book was ended because it was over, period. The information illustrated that it no longer needed to be continued. It really is as simple as that, as we know.

Your comment that "These guys would know if someone was blowing smoke out of their rear" is absolutely the truth -- I'm pretty well convinced that's why so much of Hastings' "work" is anonymous. Every time he wants to "pull a Roswell" he starts off with anonymous reports, until he convinces someone to join his little club -- but look at his pattern: it's easy to see and it's easy to see how it works. Tim Hebert (check out his blog at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/) has been working on a series of analyses in regard to the technical and professional aspects of Echo Flight, and because of that point of view, he can be very convincing; it's a learning process that Hastings has proven himself unable to reliably counter, and it's primarily due to that "prejudiced ignorance" I mentioned above. As you say, "There's nothing quite like having 'been there'". Because of that degree of essential knowledge that Tim possesses, he can discuss matters head and shoulders above Hastings and his buddies, and do so with a cool head and a polite rejoinder to everything they try to toss at him. It's almost painful for me to watch him get the same results as I do at times by calmly discussing the facts, something that I don't have much of a reputation for accomplishing in regard to the same subject. Of course, our initial motivations are a bit different.


The anonymous aspect has always struck me as foul, to be honest. There's no way to back up nor verify the claims these people supposedly make...so why the heck should anyone in their right mind even entertain these claims beyond one second of their life? Anything beyond one second is time irretrievably lost, in my opinion. What's to prevent anyone from claiming anything they so desire when there's no avenue of establishing veracity? Absolutely nothing, as we know. That's how people fall for cons...they don't think.

There's something very admirable to note in Tim Hebert's measured and politely structured responses to Hastings, but I believe that in addition to that, someone who's willing to comment on the issue has to come right out and very strongly insist (not merely suggest) that he and Salas are just bad liars who have consciously designed and supported a UFO hoax; I not only believe strongly that this is the case, I also don't mind doing it in the least, primarily because I don't give a damn what they think of me as long as they get the message. Part of me considers this to be a fairly effective strategy when associated with Hebert's methods -- it comes out to some extent as a good-cop, bad-cop system, one that I don't mind being a part of in the least, just as I don't mind honestly discussing it. I think the dichotomy our approaches represent is good for the issue and will eventually resolve the entire controversy. His point of view, particularly in regard to the more experiential technical matters only someone in the system can speak of with any real authority, meshes well with my own approach. He's a very reasonable man who understands the issue because of his past experience, whereas I'm a very angry man who understands the issue because my father was involved deeply with it, and I knew exactly what happened. As a result, both Tim and I were strongly motivated to conduct more research than Hastings and Salas have proven themselves capable of. In addition, we've both had a lot of experience with classified materials, and that too has been helpful.


Hats off to you both. It's been a pleasure reading your research and learning about operations in such a critical and sensitive area. There is hardly anything more demanding and serious in the military than safeguarding our nuclear arsenal. My father-in-law served on a submarine carrying Polaris missiles during the Vietnam era (the Daniel Webster)...nuclear weapons are serious business. Slackers don't last very long in that sort of duty.

The fact that both of us hold ourselves to a higher standard of honesty and trust is also important. I can't speak for Tim, but as for me, my military service and the trust the U.S. Navy had in me is an important part of that, and many civilians don't grasp that concept very well. They actually believe it when Hastings insists that ex-military personnel are taking the "more honorable" approach by lying about UFOs as a means to keep the matter secret, as they've been supposedly ordered to do. Anybody who has ever served in the military, regardless at what level, should be as pissed off about these slanders as I am. The military has never asked me or my father to lie about anything, and we don't do it. Anybody who has ever worked with classified materials is taught before anything else that lying about any subject, classified or not, is injurious -- it's a breach of security. You don't lie. You don't talk or discuss at all -- period. This is something that Hastings knows nothing about, and that means that once again, he's just "guessing", something he does a lot. I consider it an insult. And if you compare Hastings' approach to this entire issue to the approach used by both Tim and me, it's immediately apparent that what he's doing is an insult to both our military and our nation, and a painful one at that. Hastings doesn't possess any of the knowledge necessary to speak with authority in regard to those matters that Tim speaks with so fluently because Hastings is ignorant of the means and lacks the motivation to properly assess the details that define the issue; and he refuses, apparently, to educate himself any further in regard to his ignorance. I don't see that as a viable strategy at all, and I'm firmly convinced that his eventual failures will be due, at least in part, to that same conceit and handicap.


I can chime in with both agreement and outrage, James. My father served in the U.S. Army for 30 years, sometimes in classified installations such as Site R (he did a few tours there). My father never lied about anything and simply didn't discuss what he couldn't discuss. He did not make up stories nor did he ever violate operation security, not even at the dinner table. He was a good soldier and an honorable man. I myself was in for a brief hitch (4 years during Desert Storm), and would have remained in had I wanted to make a career out of it. I was in classified communications as well and like my father, I just didn't discuss what I couldn't discuss, "stories" or otherwise. It's very simple. To disparage the efforts of those who dedicated themselves to something such as the defense of our country is despicable, to say the very least.

I've found it's a fairly easy point to make when I'm discussing the matter with others who have served in the military, even, in many cases, with civilian employees who served the Department of Defense on an administrative level. As you say, "if the service members who serve (or served) in units responsible for these kinds of missiles smell B.S., I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that's precisely what it is." It's a little more difficult explaining it to those who don't have the experience, but I'm very fortunate that I'm not the only one working at it. As a result, I'm pretty confident that we'll succeed. Most people are willing to accept the truth if you're willing to take the time to explain it, and most of us have that dedication, having been dedicated in the past to ideals that we believed were important and necessary to our service, whatever that may have been.


I think so, James. Ufology as it is known is in most regards nothing more than a fad, gaining and losing popularity in a cyclic manner over the years (I remember the "Star People" and attendant New Age bruhaha when I was a teenager in the 80s). When you get right down to it - and that is a place where many of us like to focus our attention upon - it's all bark and no bite. I make a distinction between those who apply scientific methods to explore possibilities and the ones with an agenda to sell, and/or who believe something and set out to prove it. It sadly becomes necessary to counteract the latter before they can inflict any real and lasting damage. It's quite telling when the modus operandi of the self-styled ufologists oozes with the earmarks of persistent psychological pathology.

One characteristic of pathology is the inability to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality. It's interesting how psychological pathology behaves in a manner that mirrors physical pathology. Much like the common cold, if one does not take the necessary precautions to inoculate themselves against psychological manipulation, then one might find themselves the host of a psychological pathology. Memes are infectious, just like the flu is. Anyone can find themselves the victim of such a thing if they aren't careful - none of us are immune.

The internet and an empowered media are both a blessing and a curse. The dissemination of knowledge proceeds at a pace never matched before, but with a price. Snake-oil salesmen have been with us for a terribly long time. When market squares were invented, you would find them there plying their wares. They were ready and waiting when the printing press was invented. Radio was a fantastic way for them to reach more and more potential "customers." Television was arguably the greatest invention to fall into their hands until the advent of the internet. The bigger the crowd, the more successful their con could be. You can count on the deceivers to use whatever means necessary to spread their virulent disease to as many as possible. In a way, the Ufologists and their bedfellows, the conspiracy theorists, are the "Typhoid Mary" of our day and age. Some know they are full of it, and are simply out to make a buck. Others are the unfortunate carriers of psychological pathology and are unwitting "Johnny Appleseeds" of deceit.
bewildered
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:23 pm

I'd like to apply some of your comments to difficulties I've noticed that many civilians (including Robert Hastings) have understanding the classified events that reflect what was going on in regard to the Echo Flight incident of March 1967, as well as so many other classified incidents throughout our history. I think it can help people understand the security aspect of the problem if I use some of the conclusions or methods discussed by others, instead of continually relying on only my own knowledge of the environment. Hopefully, it will help others if we look at it from another point of view.

bewildered wrote:However, it has been my experience that most civilians really have no clue when it comes to the military...none at all. The naivete I have encountered at times has been flabbergasting. When I deployed to West Germany, an important part of my inprocessing dealt with the very real and present threat of Soviet intelligence efforts targeting young service members around installations and popular recreational spots on the economy, such as bars and night clubs. They were infamous for employing attractive members of either sex to wheedle information from vulnerable young men and women. It was more than a mere threat; it happened often enough to be a very real promise.

I have come across so many people who take it as a point of fact that the Department of Defense, and most active duty military personnel regularly lie to the public in regard to classified materials, doing so, apparently, under orders to prevent any possible convergence on the issue by uncleared personnel. Your mention of "the very real and present threat of Soviet intelligence efforts targeting young service members" seems to me an ideal way to illustrate why "lying" to the public as both Hastings and Salas have continually maintained is considered equally dangerous as telling them the truth.

When you lie to someone who is actively attempting to get the truth from you, the first assumption such people will make once they get you started talking is that you'll lie to them. The Soviet Union throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were not stupid, just as foreign intelligence outfits from Russia, China, Israel, or anyplace else today are not stupid. Nobody assumes that a person talking about matters everybody already knows they've been ordered NOT to talk about will start off telling the truth. The first story or admission or whatever, is never going to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. By telling a lie, you've already told them what the situation does NOT involve, which is often just as important as what it DOES involve. You might think you're being sneaky by making up a story instead of telling the truth, but you're not -- and as long as the opposition starts off with the assumption that you're lying, the more you talk, the more information you're giving them. Add that to the fact that when you've told these lies, you might very well be a little drunk, having met the quizmasters at a local bar, perhaps, and that what you're telling them may very well be interpeted by a well-trained psychologist, it's very possible that you've actually told them a lot more than you think you have. That's why you NEVER lie. You don't discuss classified matters at all. Lying is a breach of security. Period ... there is no discussion nor weighing of words and intent. If you lie about a classified matter, and it doesn't matter what the lie is or what your reference was, you've completed an illegal act. You broke the law, you've endangered your fellow troops, and you should be brough up on charges for it.

When someone like Robert Hastings comes around and starts talking about how USAF personnel like my father are actively and very consciously lying to the public when they insist UFOs were not involved with the missile failures at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, they're not saying -- as Hastings has recently done -- that they are taking what they consider to be the "more honorable" course by attempting to misdirect public scrutiny of the UFOs they have allegedly been ordered to keep secret; they're saying that they've consciously decided to break the law and to create a security breach -- a traitorous offense equated with treacherous and disloyal corruption -- that is completely and utterly contrary to any orders they have ever received. As a soldier, airman or a sailor, your first responsibility is to your country, and the second is to your comrades in arms (although it's very easy to switch those allegiances around), and any kind of security breach puts all of it at risk. And they wonder why some of us might get a little upset, and consider it a grievous insult when a slimy personality like Robert Hastings bounces out of his ignorant revelry to announce that everyone is lying except Robert Salas. I'm angry because he's calling my father a traitor, and insisting that this act of treachery, this betrayal of trust, is motivated by the mistaken belief that he's taking what he considers to be the more honorable and ethical course, as if lying could ever be something more than a breach of security harmful to everything that you've sworn to uphold and dedicated yourself to preserving.

If the UFOs that he's trying to establish at Malmstrom AFB were actually reported, still classifed, and still under the information blackout Hastings and so many other ignorant civilians have repeatedly assumed without ever providing real evidence to support such claims, the ONLY honorable course men like my father, Col. Walt Figel, and Col. Meiwald could reasonably expect to take would be that course defined by their complete silence. The fact that they're willing to discuss the matter at all is evidence that it's not classified and that UFOs were never involved.

bewildered wrote:The anonymous aspect has always struck me as foul, to be honest. There's no way to back up nor verify the claims these people supposedly make...so why the heck should anyone in their right mind even entertain these claims beyond one second of their life? Anything beyond one second is time irretrievably lost, in my opinion. What's to prevent anyone from claiming anything they so desire when there's no avenue of establishing veracity? Absolutely nothing, as we know. That's how people fall for cons...they don't think.

And yet that is Robert Hastings' stock in trade. I actually read an argument last night on one of those websites who give him the benefit of the doubt that anonymity is necessary to avoid losing your job, and even if you don't like the fact that these people are making claims without divulging their name, education, training, or military service, anonymity in and of itself cannot and should not be used to discount the claims that have been made. Never mind that every single military service in the United States today, the Coast Guard included, has adopted "whistleblower defense" laws that make such actions illegal (they even had a discussion of this on CSPAN today!), and never mind that not one single whistleblower originating within the Department of Defense (or any other department for that matter) has ever been fired from his or her job for discussing such matters involving UFOs that he or she was witness to, anonymous claims in regard to UFOs should nonetheless be believed regardless of the claims being made. I haven't heard any arguments that stupid in decades, literally! No kidding -- it is delusional to believe everything someone tells you about UFOs, and yet that's what they're doing. And people wonder why someone might create a UFO story out of nothing, only to sell it. When you have a marketplace full of people who will believe anything and are willing to pay you to tell them just that, it's not surprising that some folks will take advantage of the naivete of their potential audience and up the ante a bit. I admit, it's an amusing bit of delusion to watch, but in America, we try to take care of the mentally ill, whether they believe they're mentally ill or not. And the least invasive way to do that in this case, is to point out the hoaxers, the liars and the frauds. At least then some poor kid's Dad can say, "I'm not gonna buy you that book; the guy who wrote it is a fraud!"

bewildered wrote:One characteristic of pathology is the inability to distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality. It's interesting how psychological pathology behaves in a manner that mirrors physical pathology. Much like the common cold, if one does not take the necessary precautions to inoculate themselves against psychological manipulation, then one might find themselves the host of a psychological pathology. Memes are infectious, just like the flu is. Anyone can find themselves the victim of such a thing if they aren't careful - none of us are immune.

Very true -- but (to extend your metaphor a little bit further), I've discovered to my own satisfaction that more facts you have at your command, and the more aware you are in regard to how the world works, and this necessarily includes as well how the military functions, the less likely you are to fall victim to such infectious memes; in its way, knowledge and the ability to apply it acts like a healthy immune system. Unfortunately, for an immune system to work properly, it has to be exposed to some degree to those "infectious memes". And that indicates that those who have not been exposed have less immunity. It stands to reason that exposure to memes involving the military would likely necessitate some form of military service. It seems to me that a great majority of those who discuss the military's role in regard to its interaction with UFOs tend to have little experience to base their claims on. I may be wrong, but if so, the proclamation of any opposing opinion hasn't exactly been a resounding one.

bewildered wrote:The internet and an empowered media are both a blessing and a curse. The dissemination of knowledge proceeds at a pace never matched before, but with a price. Snake-oil salesmen have been with us for a terribly long time. When market squares were invented, you would find them there plying their wares. They were ready and waiting when the printing press was invented. Radio was a fantastic way for them to reach more and more potential "customers." Television was arguably the greatest invention to fall into their hands until the advent of the internet. The bigger the crowd, the more successful their con could be. You can count on the deceivers to use whatever means necessary to spread their virulent disease to as many as possible. In a way, the Ufologists and their bedfellows, the conspiracy theorists, are the "Typhoid Mary" of our day and age. Some know they are full of it, and are simply out to make a buck. Others are the unfortunate carriers of psychological pathology and are unwitting "Johnny Appleseeds" of deceit.

Brilliantly put -- and needs no further assessment from me. Thank you ...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:49 pm

Since this represents the first time in some months that Robert Hastings has shown himself willing to at least defend his claims in regard to Echo Flight, I consider it significant enough to make them available here as well. I believe that he has decided to do so because it is on a military website: Marine Times Battle Rattle, which is part of the Military Times network.

Anybody wanting to examine the original can do so at http://militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-r ... ent-142271. The following is a transcription of the comments.

James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:10 am

Robert Hastings’ insistence that this issue is a UFO-related matter is not surprising. Any well-conceived intention to research this man’s history will very quickly uncover a mass of evidence revealing his financial dependence on such claims, his fraudulent behavior in the support of such claims, and his habitual reliance on lies and subterfuge to popularize such idiotic claims. What is surprising is that this publication would actually seek him out as a well-intentioned resource instead of developing its own. Determining Robert Hastings’ take on any issue under the sun is a waste of time and effort. He cannot be trusted to present a balanced view or even a well-thought out review of the issues involved. He has repeatedly lied to the press in regard to UFO-related matters, and his reputation as a man who can claims some expertise on such matters is a result of his own easily revealed lies, his support of numerous UFO hoax stories, and his dishonest attempts to discuss these issues wherever and whenever possible. This publication should perhaps attempt a little research before publishing this tripe.

James Carlson
jtcarl@yahoo.com
Albuquerque, NM

19.Yawn Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 8:09 am

You’d like to think that they saw them move if they watched for 45 minutes, but maybe they were too excited at the supposed UFO’s that they missed that bit. Put it this way, if it looks exactly like what we saw on several occasions, in the same local area, with the same assets in the air, and the same ongoing conflict area… Yeah, it must be UFO’s because apparently these VERY SIMILAR floating objects didn’t move…

20.Robert Hastings Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 9:23 am

James Carlson’s father, Eric, is a former U.S. Air Force ICBM launch officer who was involved, decades ago, in a UFO incident at a missile site operated by Malmstrom AFB, Montana—although the elder Carlson continues to deny it.

Nevertheless, I’ve interviewed other former/retired officers and enlisted men who’ve stated that a UFO had indeed been hovering over one of the Echo Flight ICBMs early on the morning of March 16, 1967, when the entire flight of ten mysteriously malfunctioned.

I subsequently published those persons’ testimony and, still later, some of the actual tape recordings of their conversations with me—thereby convincingly contradicting Eric Carlson’s claims of no UFO-involvement in the incident.

In response, son James has been libeling me all over cyberspace ever since. His father is telling the truth, he claims, and all of those other officers are full of it.

My taped conversations with Eric Carlson’s former Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander, now-retired Col. Walter Figel, may be heard at:

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/the ... m-incident

Figel states that he did indeed receive a report from one of his guards of a “large, round object” hovering “directly over” one of the Echo ICBMs seconds after it dropped-off alert status and became unlaunchable. Figel further says that he and Eric Carlson were told not to talk about the incident by their squadron commander.

James Carlson continues to claim that Figel and others I have interviewed have disputed my published remarks, however, he never posts those supposed objections online. Gee, I wonder why?

Indeed, despite my repeated challenges to him, Carlson has failed to produce a single email or affidavit from Figel (or anyone else) in which he disavows my written summary of our conversations or, more importantly, my posting of our taped conversations.

Carlson has claimed that I doctored the tapes. If so, why hasn’t Figel said that online, in an affidavit, etc.?

The reason is because the tapes are legitimate and unaltered. I have recently challenged Carlson to pay for a professional analysis of the tapes, to verify all of this. He, of course, ignores my offer. It’s much easier to go on making unfounded claims about me and my work.

ufohastings@aol.com

21.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Robert, you are so full of it. Your own witnesses have repeatedly come out to say that you’ve mutilated their statements to suggest the presence of a UFO that was never present. You’ve point blank refused to discuss the many, many fallacies in your work, just as you’ve failed to explain why your witnesses have either disowned your intentions completely or have changed their stories so many times that their accounts cannot be trusted. You’ve mislead your audience on so many occasions that it is now an expected response whenever you come out of your hole to comment on these stains of the ridiculous. As far as your “doctoring” of tapes, you always fail to mention that it is your own witnesses, the topic of those recordings, who insist that they’ve been doctored and that you have left out portions of the interviews, failed to discuss in any way their own conclusions, and have gone so as to lie about their own claims! I’m not the only one making these assertions — your own witnesses have done this, and you repeatedly neglect to mention that little fact.

You’re a fraud and a liar, Robert. Your own emails prove that fact handily, as do your numerous pathetic attempts to defend your “theories”. Not once have you been able to make a claim that couldn’t be easily dismissed as fraudulent. The only thing people have to do to recognize the character of the garbage you spew is to talk to your own witnesses. In every case, they can’t prove a jot of their testimony, they resort to changing their stories when close and exact examination is applied, or they back off completely and insist that you’re a liar who can’t be trusted to publish their own accounts as they were originally given. And when critics point that out, your only response is to attack their credibility by publishing morbid lies about them, by making up stories that reflect poorly on your objectivity and your honesty, and by attempting to manipulate your audience sufficient to prevent any examination of the ridiculous stories you’re literally selling to them. You don’t have a port in a storm, pal, because you have told so many provable lies in the past that there is no reason for anyone familiar with that record to read any further once your name has been attached to the issues!

These are easy charges to prove. Take Echo Flight for instance: if you really think you can substantiate a UFO that nobody saw or reported or investigated on the basis of claims made by a man who was not there, who bases his conclusions on the confirmations of men who insist not only that he is wrong, but that he has been lying about the claims asserted since the very beginning of his warped little ministry, then knock yourself out, sport. It will solidify your reputation as an ignorant lunatic who lacks the ability to properly weigh the evidence provided in order to defend men who have perpetrated a UFO hoax. And the fact that you do it for money is just obscene! I still can’t help but laugh out loud every time I think about the article you published claiming that Fred Meiwald confirms that a UFO took out the missiles at Oscar Flight in 1967 when the transcripts of his comments in the same frigging article have him stating very clearly that he has no memory of a UFO at Oscar Flight! I swear, the first time I read it I was in tears. I couldn’t figure out if you were dangerously insane or just a complete idiot!

I would recommend that those who are truly interested in understanding something about Robert Hastings’ credibility go to the following URLs, where they can download for free several supporting articles discussing in some detail exactly how far he should be trusted:

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo ... es-Carlson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49495918/The- ... es-Carlson

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/

I would also recommend that you examine the numerous interviews and articles at the Reality Uncovered website: http://www.realityuncovered.net/ — many of the articles discuss the events and responses that Robert Hastings has tried to con the world into believing.

Robert Hastings refuses entirely to discuss the matter or answer any questions regarding the testimonies of the only men who were present during some of the alleged UFO incidents he has discussed, preferring instead to attack the integrity and credibility of those raising such issues. He refuses to offer anything substantial in the way of evidence, and fails entirely to explain the details of his claims or to answer any of the valid questions raised by his insistence. What he has done is rely on the craven use of blatant lies and baseless insults in regard to his critics without once managing to refute or even discuss their criticisms.

Hastings has even gone so far as to invent entirely the medical histories of his critics to suggest mental illness that has never existed! Meanwhile, he refuses to answer necessary questions regarding his numerous, proven lies, and has neglected as well to defend his own theories against numerous accusations of massive fraud and profiteering on a scale UFO proponent communities have only rarely been subjected to.

A lot information regarding these matters can be found at the Reality Uncovered forum, in particular the Echo Flight Incident thread: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688. Every single detail, digression, discussion or subject of argument asserted by him has been explained and discussed in great detail in the documents and on the websites you’ve been directed to. Not one question has been left unanswered, a statement that Hastings could never honestly affirm for himself. He has created fiction and called it fact, something anyone willing to actually do the research can determine very readily for himself, as some of the events he discusses — contrary to his claims — have been declassified since before 1980.

Tim Hebert, an ex-USAF missileer himself, has also written some enlightening articles regarding the case on his blog at: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/. You should take the time to read them.

The folk tales currently being spread by Robert Hastings have not merely been dismissed as one possible interpretation of the claims, they have been repeatedly dismantled and shredded — proven as lies by witness testimony and documented evidence that he is unwilling to discuss or explain. Witnesses that he has presented to the public have actually come forward to dispute the claims made. They insist that their statements were taken out of context and distorted purposely in order to suggest the presence of UFOs where no such presence could otherwise be established. Hastings has helped to perpetrate a UFO hoax of the worst sort, and has attempted to destroy the reputations and career service of better men than himself, all to sell his books and enable him to charge outrageous prices for his lectures.

He has told numerous lies to support his assertions, and that should be taken into consideration whenever he presents such doubtful claims as those above that have been repeatedly consigned to the public trough.

22.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 12:47 pm

IRT Walt Figel’s alleged testimony: why does he insist that Hastings has lied about his claims? Why does he very clearly assert that there was no UFO at Echo Flight? Robert, you’re just another con man who can’t get his story right. There is not one single withness who was at Echo Flight who says there was a UFO present — not one!! Walt Figel insists that you’re a liar and that he never made any UFO claims to you. How do you explain that? I urge anybody interested in these cases to do a little research for yourself before accepting what Robert says as factual. Every statement he has made above has been challenged by the same people he is using as a source! He says Figel reported a UFO, while Figel says he’s a lunatic and a liar. If you can explain that, you’ll go a long way to proving the point, I assure you. I suspect, however, that the only valid conclusion you’ll ever be able to reach is that Robert Hastings is a fraud, a liar, and a UFO hoaxer of rare repute. And that’s all…

23.Jeepster Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:31 pm

seems some people will forever keep their heads buried in the sand….makes “disclosure” more difficult, but not impossible since there are more of us who do believe we are not alone in the vast universe. Kudos to you Robert. Keep up the good work!

24.James Carlson Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 3:19 pm

Buried in the sand? That’s pretty insignificant given that Hastings’ own witnesses are the ones who have established his dishonesty, his reliance on partial evidence, his refusal or inability to argue the many criticisms that have been aligned against his claims, and his complete refusal to examine 95% of the evidence available. Tell me, does Walt Figel also have his head buried in the sand? What about Fred Meiwald? And if they do have their heads buried in the sand, why would Hastings rely on them to establish his UFO claims? The facts of this case are very easily affirmed: Figel insists that Hastings has purposely and consciously distorted his testimony to suggest the presence of a UFO that was not there; he insists that both Hastings and Salas have lied in regard to this case; Figel has repeatedly insisted that Hastings’ and Salas’ UFO claims are false, and that he told them this — a revelation that Hastings and Salas have chosen to ignore, just as they’ve ignored the many errors in their accounts that Figel pointed out to them. Was Fred Meiwald mistaken when he insisted that he remembers nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight? Was his head buried in the sand when he denied completely a number of acts affirmed by both Hastings and Salas? I dare say your conclusions — like Robert Hastings’ — are useless when weighed against actual fact, and that it is you who has his buried in the sand, a position easily proven by your refusal to properly examine the evidence available. You’ve adopted a UFO stance that refuses to account for witness testimony, ignores the actual charges made by the very men Hastings has used as a resource to “prove” his theories. You have apparently decided to neglect most of the evidence available; I guess that makes your conclusions irrelevant in regard to this issue. Perhaps you should educate yourself before dismissing the claims of Hastings’ own witness program; until you do, your opinions and conclusions are ineffectual and a wasted effort to consider.

25.Yawn Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 4:46 pm

I’m not even thinking of getting involved in the bun fight over the Carlson vs. Hastings crap. And disclosure cannot come soon enough, I am a firm believer what all the evidence points to… but unfortunately here there is no doubt for me. I have seen this happen first hand! It’s not a UFO if it can be explained, and certainly not mysterious if it slowly descends to terra firma guttering and burning out on the wind as high altitude flares have a tendancy of doing.

26.Robert Hastings Says:
March 22nd, 2012 at 9:52 pm

As I said, James Carlson has not, and can not, produce one email or one affidavit from the officers I have interviewed to support what he says.

Not one…

Listen to the Figel tapes, folks, if you want the facts.

27.James Carlson Says:
March 23rd, 2012 at 12:36 pm

That evidence and those emails have been published at Reality Uncovered for over a year, as you know very well, Robert. In fact, the first of those emails was sent to you as well, exactly as I requested of Walt Figel. You are so willing to lie about these matters that you don’t even bother to think about them any more. Your flagrant dishonesty, your reliance on slander, and your refusal to discuss these matters or even recognize their existence has added much to your reputation as possibly the single most incontinent researcher in this field.

Have you simply decided to ignore all these little gems?

Figel writes:

“There is no record about anything happening at November or Oscar except in people’s minds that are flawed beyond imagination. Salas has created events out of the thin air and can’t get the facts straight even then. My best friend to this day was the flight commander of the 10th SMS at the time. He and I have discussed this silly assertion in the past couple of years – he thinks it is all madeup nonsense for sure. I put both Salas and Hastings in touch with him and he has told them both that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. In addition he was subsequently stationed at Norton AFB where the engineers tested the possible problems. No little green men were responsible.”

Or this:

“I have always maintained that I do not nor have I ever believed that UFOs exist in any form at any place at any time. I have never seen one or reported that I have seen one. I have always maintained that they had nothing to do with the shutdown of Echo flight in Montana.”

How about Figel’s insistence in regard to yur book and Salas’ book: “I have read both of their books. There are many inaccurate statements and events in the books. I have told them both that.”

Do you remember Ryan’s interview with my father, the commander at Echo Flight? He was equally clear:

“Eric: I was contacted by both Salas and Hastings and would neither confirm or deny anything they told me. I really didn’t want to get involved in a pissing contest with either. Hastings told me he had written a book and I told him that sounded interesting. He sent me a copy and while I cannot attest or comment on anything other than the Malmstrom incident I found that particular incident full of errors. A producer for some UFO TV series contacted me one time and a reporter from the Great Fall newspaper also contacted me one time. There were no follow-ups from either.

“Ryan: This is interesting! Hastings only called to talk to you after he’d written the book? Or was he calling you while he was writing his book in order to confirm information he’d learned from Salas?

“Eric: Hastings called after he had written the book. I don’t know what his motive was.”

Funny how you were able to put this whole thing together without even once talking to the commander of the flight! You must have some great psychic powers to get such a clear story from a guy who wasn’t even there (i.e., Robert Salas).

My father has maintained the same story for decades, and yet people like you continue to use him as a source for this moronic UFO tale when he has very clearly insisted that there was no UFO. And then you went around telling the world that Walt Figel disputes everything my father has claimed since 1967! I asked Figel about that. You do remember his response, don’t you?

“First – your dad has not lied about anything nor do believe that he is even capable of lying about anything at all. He was, is, and always will be an honorable man. You should remember that always – I will.” Some refutation.

Don’t act like none of this has ever been publicized. It is everywhere and easily available for anyone with internet access. Walt Figel and his friend, Dick Evans, the flight commander of the 10th SMS, both agree that the UFO nonsense about Echo Flight is imaginary — invented. He told this to both you and Salas, and said as well that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. You’ve never bothered to tell people that little tale, have you?

You’ve also never discussed Figel’s insistence that when the missiles failed at Echo Flight “It was just another day with a unexpected event in our lives. It was rather underwhelming at the time. No one rushed out to see us, no one made us sign any papers, no one interrogated us for hours on end.” That’s a story markedly different from the one you’re currently selling to people these days, isn’t it, you fraudulent snake? Have you ever publically noted Figel’s claim that Robert Salas “has made a 15 year career pandering about the country talking about things he has no knowledge about”? Probably not…

Walt’s claims were published months ago, you clown. I guess you just decided to forget this part:

“Walt’s final statement was probably the most powerful…because he makes such an excellent and revealing point, as he writes:

“I did read about a briefing on the 27th here in DC. I am here in VA about 10 miles away. Interesting.” Upon seeing this comment, my eyes froze at that line. What an important point.

“Yes, indeed, why would Hastings and Salas hold a press conference on the 27th in DC, and not invite Walt Figel, one of their primary and most important witnesses to one of the allegedly largest nuclear missile silo UFO shutdowns in the history of Ufology? Why would they not have retired Lt. Walt Figel standing in front of the cameras admitting that yes, indeed, a UFO was involved at Echo Flight?

“At the time of the conference, he is located only 10 miles away, yet they didn’t invite him. I wonder why?”

I don’t wonder why, Robert. You’re a liar and a fraud and your own witnesses have made that very clear. You can pretend that thpose emails don’t exist, but you would once again be lying. I have the originals, and your name is all over them, so what you claim does not exist was actually sent to you at the time! How blatant a lie is the story you’re trying to put together! Fraudulent clown is a good look for you, but I doubt it will do much for your ultimate legacy unless it also happens to be the one facet of your life that you expect to be remembered for. Let me guess: this whole thing is an act in progress, yes? I hate to break it to you, pal, but your story hasn’t progressed much the past year… Although I am willing to admit that you have learned something from it all. You’re now willing to make claims without the benefit of witnesses! You’re a real buffoon at times, Robert! Every next step you take just about brings me to tears from laughing so much. Thanks for that!

28.James Carlson Says:
March 24th, 2012 at 4:17 am

Robert? C’mon, Robert; you’re so endearing when you lie… Robert? No more fibs? You’re becoming such a let down… And just when I was beginning to think that cheap entertainment of the type you have always supplied me with could be easily had on demand. *** sigh ***

29.Robert Hastings Says:
March 27th, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Col. Figel, per James:

“There is no record about anything happening at November or Oscar except in people’s minds that are flawed beyond imagination. Salas has created events out of the thin air and can’t get the facts straight even then. My best friend to this day was the flight commander of the 10th SMS at the time. He and I have discussed this silly assertion in the past couple of years – he thinks it is all made up nonsense for sure. I put both Salas and Hastings in touch with him and he has told them both that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. In addition he was subsequently stationed at Norton AFB where the engineers tested the possible problems. No little green men were responsible.”

Robert Hastings says:

So, James, *selectively* choosing your ammunition, as usual, to support your position.

Of course, you don’t mention that Figel admitted on tape—as anyone can hear—that his personal anti-UFO biases (Little Green Men, yuk yuk) had no bearing on the “serious” UFO report he received from his guards, but was skeptical of, regarding the “large, round object” hovering over one of his missiles when the entire flight failed at Echo.

Nor do you mention that I have Bob Salas’ former missile commander, Col. Fred Meiwald, on tape saying that Salas was entirely truthful and accurate when he reports a UFO at the other flight, Oscar, when those missiles went down.

Can you produce an email or affidavit from Meiwald, written after my May 6, 2011 conversation with him, contradicting any of this? If so, produce it here. (Don’t hold your breath, folks.)

Nor have you produced an email or affidavit from Figel on any date after I posted his taped conversations with me online. Of course, the reason is because he doesn’t dispute their authenticity, unlike you.

Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas’ statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald’s tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation.

Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns. The press conference video—streamed live by CNN—may be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUU4Z8QdHI

With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn’t want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn’t make the cut.

(Fortunately, lots of other expert testimony is available to substantiate the reality of UFO activity at nuclear missile sites, not to mention hundreds of declassified USAF, CIA and FBI documents summarizing these dramatic incidents.)

However, Figel did at least have the courage to say on tape that you were “off-base” and had “an ax to grind” regarding the events at Echo. Of course, you never mention that very crucial fact in your ceaseless tirades. But anyone can hear Figel say it on tape, if they choose to.

And, finally, I have spent the last few days engaged in productive activities relating to getting the facts out about the UFO-Nukes Connection. Several new projects are underway that will result in an even larger global audience for my well-documented research findings in the months ahead. Stay tuned.

Please keep spending your time on these little-read blog threads. It leaves the wider field of action wide open to my efforts with a minimum of interference from you. Keep up the good work, James!

30.James Carlson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 28th, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Robert, you have yet to establish that your tapes are actually of Walt Figel. Have you forgotten that? Figel has clearly asserted that your claims are meaningless. The fact that his testimony can be confirmed by the documented evidence, the testimony of my father, the testimony of the UFO officer onboard Malmstrom AFB, the summary reports of the Echo Flight investigation, all of the message traffic related to this issue, and your own published interviews with Figel and Meiwald proves pretty handily that you are either incapable of properly analyzing the incident in question, or your habit of “cherry picking” the evidence you want to use has once again gotten out of hand.

If those 1996 tapes you published are actually of Walt Figel, then perhaps you can clear a few points up for me:

(1) If Salas had tapes of Walt Figel, the deputy commander of Echo Flight, asserting the presence of a UFO at Echo Flight, why was Salas calmly telling the whole world at that time that he was the deputy commander of Echo Flight?

(2) Why did Robert Salas write in a 11/10/1996 personal email regarding the taping of “Sightings” to Ray Fowler: “I am a little concerned, however, that they won’t get one of the Echo crew on tape. I have their names and phone numbers. They contacted them both and the commander agreed to be interviewed but they are more interested in the deputy who seems to be balking at an interview.” We all know why they weren’t inerested in the commander — he refused to support their UFO tales, and is on record with the producers of “Sightings” as saying there was no UFO. But why did Figel refuse outright? He insisted to me that he never told anyone a UFO was at Echo Flght, and yet those are the claims you’ve tried to establish. It’s a shame that until 2010, Figel refused outright to go on the record with anybody about a UFO, and yet you’ve decided to ignore that. You expect people to believe this 1996 “recorded” testimony about a UFO, even when Salas has already established Figel’s complete unwillingness to do so on the record — even in 1996! Do you have any kind of written testimony in which Figel makes such claims? No … but I do — a whole lot of written testimony insisting that what you’ve published is a lie. Funny how most of it was written by Walt Figel!

(3) Why didn’t Salas use any of this 1996 information until 2010? If it was so irrefutable, why didn’t he even mention Figel’s name until 2000? Didn’t he consider these “recorded” statements to be valid testimony? Or did he just think it wasn’t very important until 2010?

(4) Why does Figel insist that he never made the claims you’ve established on those alleged “recordings”? Why does he insist that my father’s version of the invenmts is accurate, if those statements are true?

(5) Why do you insist that none of Figel’s statements are true except those that support YOUR case? It seems to me that without Figel’s testimony, YOU don’t have a case. But you’re certainly willing to invent one for your purposes, aren’t you? And you accuse me of using only partial bits of the evidence available? I’ve presented over 80 pages of FOIA documentation, and ICBM histories that were only declassified in 2004 to support my case. You’ve ignored all of that. I reinterviewed your witnesses, and they refute your claims. You’ve ignored all of that as well. I hardly think you’re in a position to establish fact from fiction, since you’ve been writing fiction all along. It’s a shame, I know, but you’re kind of stuck with it since no other witnesses have ever come forward, and the two that have come forward insist that you’re a liar and a fraud. And you’re still trying to spin 1996 testimony that has NEVER been validated and that the supposed source has indicated is false or at least edited to support claims he never made? You’re pathetic, Robert. Try acting like an adult for once in your life.

Let’s examine your claims point-by-point, shall we?

IRT: “Of course, you don’t mention that Figel admitted on tape—as anyone can hear—that his personal anti-UFO biases (Little Green Men, yuk yuk) had no bearing on the “serious” UFO report he received from his guards, but was skeptical of, regarding the “large, round object” hovering over one of his missiles when the entire flight failed at Echo.”

Figel says he never made such admissions EVER. That pretty well clears your invalid claims of consisting of any real truth. I can make fake recording just as easily as you, but I don’t use them. Unfortunately for you, we already know that you’re willing to use fake reports from your own comments. Or don’t you remember the following details?

You wrote to the owners of Reality Uncovered the following text, trying to convince them not to publish my claims, as they were untrue. This is what YOU wrote: “I re-interviewed Walt Figel on Monday evening. Salas re-interviewed him on Tuesday evening. We have both conversations on audiotape and we are currently transcribing them. We asked Figel to address James Carlson’s interpretation of his statements and position on various things. James will not like what Walt had to say.

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


Please note, Robert, that you have done NONE of that, because you were incapable of doing it. NOTHING that you stated in the above communication was true, and that was verified strongly by Walt Figel the very next day. Since Reality Uncovered was now positive — by your own testimony — that you are a liar and a fraud, clams that were immediately verified by Col. Walt Figel, they published all of Figel’s statements. Your response was not to immediately contact Figel and try to figure out where the disconnect was and how you could possibly have gotten such a clear statement from Figel so wrong — not at all! Your response was to state on the record for the next six months that I was lying, and had never even spoken to Col. Figel! You tell me what that says about your ethics and your high morals. None of these are unproven assumptions, Robert. They are facts.

Do you remember what Figel wrote when I told him about the above comments from you? Keep in mind that you were claiming “I re-interviewed Walt Figel on Monday evening. … We have both conversations on audiotape … We asked Figel to address James Carlson’s interpretation of his statements and position on various things. James will not like what Walt had to say. … I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James’ flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online.” Try your best to remember that you never published anything from that conversation with Figel, while promising for six months to do so, thereby proving your honesty and my lies. You posted none of it.

Figel wrote the following regarding this conversation with you: “I reasserted that I personally never did see a UFO at any time. I do not personally believe that UFOs had anything to do with Echo flight shutting down that year. I repeated that I never heard about an incident at November or Oscar flight and have no knowledge that they ever happened and that I doubted they did.”

He added, “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.”


Tell me, Robert, are these the claims that I allegedly would not like?

You never did post “a comprehensive rebuttal to James’ flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations.” You promised to do so for another six months, but published nothing except your insistence that I had never spoken to Figel. On the day before your September 27 dog and pony show at the Press Club in Washington, DC you FINALLY published a rebuttal of sorts, what you and Salas claim are recordings of Figel from 1996, only doing so, I believe, because you had been promising for so long to publish something, some form of rebuttal to what Figel and my father had been insisting upon for so long.

None of your assertions in that communication of yours are true, and yet you told Reality Uncovered that you would post transcripts and recordings of Figel making statements that were provably NEVER made, and you very likely would have done so had not we beat you to the punch by releasing Figel’s actual claims first. The point is, you threatened to do exactly what you are now denying in full knowledge that those statements would not be true, statements that Figel insists he NEVER made to you.

Why would you insist that “Figel has given Salas and me permission to publicize his statements as we see fit. I will post a comprehensive rebuttal to James’ flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations. I may even make key portions of the original audio tape available online”, if you were not prepared to do so? And yet, we have absolute proof that Figel never made the claims YOU insisted that he made. I think it’s reasonable to assume that a man preparing to publish “a comprehensive rebuttal to James’ flawed claims in the next few days, providing verbatim excerpts from the conversations” that never actually existed would have to forge a fake recording in order to do so.

Figel did not merely insist that he does not believe in UFOs. Every aspect of his claims refutes the presence of a real UFO, the sighting of a real UFO, the report of a real UFO, and the subsequent investigation of a real UFO, as does all of the remaining evidence, which you have shown a remarkable propensity to ignore. The fact that nobody on the planet has ever produced a UFO report in regard to this case is merely another of many reasons we have to consider you and Salas to be a couple of shamelessly dishonest cranks. And don’t think for a moment that I haven’t noted your tendency to ignore 95% of the evidence available, to argue only those little bits of the subject that you think you can actually get your head around — a supposition that disappears entirely when we take into account the well-substantiated fact that you have absolutely no real understanding of this case. After all, you’ve never defended it — you just attack those making contrary claims, while failing utterly to explain most of the facts that Tim Hebert, Tim Printy, Reality Uncovered and I have presented, choosing instead to say “everybody’s lying but me”, and “Figel’s testimony is crap — all except that little part that supports my claims!” You can’t possibly explain all of the facts of this case, because you don’t give a damn about facts in general!

IRT: “Nor do you mention that I have Bob Salas’ former missile commander, Col. Fred Meiwald, on tape saying that Salas was entirely truthful and accurate when he reports a UFO at the other flight, Oscar, when those missiles went down.”

I’ve mentioned it on numerous occasions, which you’ve decided to ignore. In fact, I’ve already published an in-depth article establishing your deceit in regard to Meiwlad’s claims entitled “Strategic Editing”. You might want to look at it before insisting that I’ve neglected to take his commentaries into account. You can find it at http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/ . More to the point, however, your own transcripts of the interview you had with Col. Meiwald establish pretty definitively that Fredf Meiwald has no memory at all of a UFO at Oscar Flight! Have you simply decided to ignore that aspect of his claims? Did you just forget the following part of your transcripts?

RH: Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander’s console—he of course had received a call from the Flight Security Controller, saying that there was a bright red, oval-shaped object hovering over the security fence gate—my understanding is that is what he told you as soon as you were at your console, that he had received this call and, uh, that of course coincided with the missiles beginning to malfunction. Do you recall him telling you that?

FM: I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition [but] as far as the details, uh, I can’t elaborate on that.


I like this part, too, since it shows how remarkably clumsy you can be when trying to establish fiction as fact:

RH: Okay. He of course has also said that you two were, uh, when you were back at Malmstrom, you were debriefed by OSI and required to sign non-disclosure statements. Do you remember that?

FM: I remember being directed to do that. But that was no problem. I’ve been one of these people, when told to forget something, I forget it—eventually [inaudible].

RH: Right, well, is that a polite way of saying that you really don’t want to discuss this, even though you know more than you’re saying?

FM: No, I’m saying I don’t remember.


Pretty remarkable, even for you, Robert. One question: do you remember the comments you left at Reality Uncovered? Because they establish pretty clearly as well just how far Meiwald is willing to go in ordfer to link missile failures at Oscar Flight with a UFO:

“Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline -— which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility’s front gate.

“Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can’t remember it.”


It seems to me that the only person here who is neglecting to examine evidence is YOU. But I established that years ago, claims that you shine a spotlight on every time you publish another set of easily proven lies and conclusions reached without evidence to back them up!

IRT: “Can you produce an email or affidavit from Meiwald, written after my May 6, 2011 conversation with him, contradicting any of this? If so, produce it here. (Don’t hold your breath, folks.)”

Trying reading your own article you incontinent fake! And try reading “Strategic Editing” at http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... c-editing/ ; it shows exactly how far you will go to publish a lie as having any basis in fact. I don’t have to produce anything from Meiwald. You’ve already done it, for chrissake. You just aren’t bright enough to realize that! More importantly, you’ve failed completely to link any missile failures with a UFO! Meiwald discusses two separate incidents: missile failures (which were common in 1967), and a UFO sighting that he only learned about second-hand. No where have you managed to link these two incidents, while I’ve published a large amount of materials indicating that they cannot be linked. You have been completely unable to get a statement from Meiwald stating very clearly “we had 8-10 missiles fail at the same time a UFO was reported at Oscar Flight”. How hard is it to get these simple, cohesive statements? You couldn’t get it with Figel, and you can’t get it with Meiwald. All you can get is a discussion of 2-4 missiles failing and a second-hand report of a UFO that he clearly doesn’t remember, which is a long way from 8-10 missiles failing due to a UFO incursion! It’s no wonder people don’t trust you; you’re either obtuse with little ability to conduct a simple interview, you’re a complete idiot, or you’re lying! No other outcome can be supported by the claims you’ve made. Maybe you should get the substantiation of your claims from your witnesses first, before trying to manipulate their testimony to suggest claims that haven’t actually been made.

IRT: “Nor have you produced an email or affidavit from Figel on any date after I posted his taped conversations with me online. Of course, the reason is because he doesn’t dispute their authenticity, unlike you.”

You are brain-dead. I’ve published numerous articles establishing exactly that, while you’ve failed to produce anything at all that was actually recorded after April 2011. In fact, the above letter that he wrote to me was drafted after you posted the alleged 1996 testimony! It is a response to your claims of what he supposedly said in 1996! You’ve ignored completely Figel’s own insistence that you’re a liar and a fraud. You can’t twist these dates around — I have the originals, and I know he sent you the same accounts he sent me. Your “evidence” is nothing more than your rehashing of old materials that he has already refuted! All you’ve done since then is publish lies that are little more than warped accounts of the original statements! For God’s sake, the last thing you posted was allegedly recorded in 1996! And Figel has already refuted all of it. I don’t need any more statements to prove you a liar and a buffoon. You do that quite well enough on your own.

IRT: “Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas’ statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald’s tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation.”

He wasn’t wrong! Salas lied and you’v emanipulated evidence to try and back it up, failing miserably, I might add. And as I’ve already established, Meiwald didn’t contradict anything Figel has asserted, and his comments are not a vindication of Salas. Calling an elephant a giraffe, doesn’t make it a giraffe. The fact is simple: you have not established any vindication of Salas, not through Meiwald, not through Figel, and not with your vivid imagination. You’re apparently too stupid to see that! Meiwald has clearly stated that he doesn’t remember anything about a UFO, but you’re so convoluted in your efforts of logic, that you see the denial of a UFO as a confirmation of a UFO. Try reading the testimony before judging its worth! Col. Meiwald supports Salas without reservation? You’re a fool if you believe that. Do you so quickly deny your own words? You wrote:

“Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline -— which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility’s front gate.

“Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can’t remember it.”


How do you get from “Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t support everything Salas has said” to “Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation”? You’re a head-case, pal. Personally, I think you’re just making all of this up and sounding like a total lunatic, because you would prefer that people think you’re delusional instead of a dishonest hoaxer and a conscious fraud, but either way, your case is unsupportable, and your witnesses will not salvage that loss. They either don’t remember a UFO or they deny that a UFO was ever reported. Your own deceit supports that conclusion.

IRT: “Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns. The press conference video—streamed live by CNN—may be viewed at: [Blah, blah, blah].

“With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn’t want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn’t make the cut.”


So you finally admit that Figel’s testimony is tainted. And yet, you insist that the portion allegedly supporting YOUR claims is true, while everything else is not. Perhaps you missed the part where Figel claims he never made those earlier assertions? What you call “Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth”, Figel makes very clear is his claims being warped and abused by you and Salas. He says he’s been consistent. You say he’s lying now that your tendency to mutilate witness claims has been established. Either way, you have still failed to establish your claims as having any basis in reality. As for those USAF veterans who “stuck to their stories”, I have to ask, which ones? Because they’ve very provably changed those stories on numerous occasions, which is one of the many reasons so many people dismiss your claims, and their “little folk tales”.

I’m glad, however, that you’ve finally admitted that Figel was not invited to your press conference. If you remember, the first time I asked you “why”, you told me he had been invited, and would have been welcome. I guess that’s just one more example of your habitual reliance on lies and subterfuge.

IRT: “However, Figel did at least have the courage to say on tape that you were “off-base” and had “an ax to grind” regarding the events at Echo. Of course, you never mention that very crucial fact in your ceaseless tirades. But anyone can hear Figel say it on tape, if they choose to.”

As if that’s relevant. You’ve told so many lies about what Figel and my father have allegedly told you on tape that you’ve failed to ever produce, that I just don’t care anymore. You always lie first, and you always end with irrelevant insults that can’t be supported by anything. You have a notable habit for discussing all of the evidence you have yet to produce. With some of it, as in the letter to Reality Uncovered above, we’ve been able to prove that it’s just more of your lies. It is this characteristic of your strategies that proves the ultimately worthless nature of your word. I know you’re lying, because I’ve been able to prove so many of your lies so easily.

IRT: “Keep up the good work, James!”

Count on it, pal. It’s my policy. Your credibility declines every time I answer your ridiculous claims with well-established facts. And every time you attempt to defend your claims, you fail, because at their core is the base dishonesty you have always relied upon. And I truly enjoy pointing that out to anybody who might otherwise want to give your claims an honest appraisal.

It's a shame that Robert has apparently decided not to ever discuss these matters in a more formal environment, but his refusal will not prevent anyone from critically examining his work or from responding to his dishonest attempts to subvert public opinion based on factual accounts and analysis. Even if nobody else will (and there are plenty of educated men and women willing to assess his nonsense, so I don't see this prediction having any real chance of occuring), I for one will continue addressing the issues of credibility and honesty wherever Hastings' nonsense rears its ugly, spineless little head. And I will enjoy doing so, I assure you.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron