Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

[Tim Hebert]

I've been following this off and on. Getting Robert to admit anything is akin to "pulling teeth." Walter Figel has, in my opinion, been Robert's problem all along.

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.”

And this was Robert's star witness. Funny, that Robert never mentioned the above personal thoughts as I tried to press him on The UFO Chronicles as to why Figel never attended the press conference or provide an affidavit. Robert told me that Figel "chose" not to participate. So now it appears that Robert chose for him.

[James Carlson]

Robert told me that Figel "chose" not to participate. So now it appears that Robert chose for him.

This is one facet of Hastings' actions that has been pretty well documented. He ALWAYS relies on the lie first. I honestly believe that this type of responsive hypocrisy is at an obsessional level with him; it's a part of his personality, an ingrained aspect of his mind that cannot be separated from anything that he says, acts, or thinks. We've documented so many incidents of this type; he lies about something, and then spins off. But the lie always comes first, and half the time it isn't even necessary for him to lie in order to make a point -- but he does it anyway. I swear to God, Tim, I've never seen anything quite like it. They aren't errors or mistakes of understanding; he knows what the truth is, but for reasons of his own, he prefers the lie. It's that imaginary creation that he's trying to establish that's determining his arguments, applying the issues, and calling the shots, but there's something else going on around here that I honestly can't see any motivation for. I can see why he might want to lie about Figel having been invited to participate in his UFO boy's club of America press conference under the stars and bars of Washington, DC, I really can. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why he would want to lie about my having contacted Figel in the first place. He had to know how easy it would be (and was) to prove the dishonesty inherent to that kind of position. After all, by that time, he had not only openly admitted to contacting Figel in order to determine whether or not the statement we originally released in regard to Figel's actual assertions was true or not, he had also written to the guys here at Reality Uncovered that Figel had disowned the conclusions we reached, and had denied the statements we attributed to him, calling my claims "flawed" and insisting that he would provide a "comprehensive rebuttal" to the statement we had originally published, a statement, I'd like to remind you, that consisted of ONLY Figel's own comments. And yet, that's the position he publically maintained for at least six months! These are lies that had no purpose. The only effect they could EVER have would be injurious to no one but HIMSELF. There is something truly self-destructive about his natural intent, something detrimental to his own campaign that makes absolutely no sense.

The only similar appraisal that I can compare it to -- one that is equally irresponsible and yet so easy to counter -- is Robert Salas' insistence that my father has confirmed all of his UFO claims, an insistence aggressively applied only three days after my father had publically affirmed that there was no UFO at Echo Flight! This is a claim that my father can establish all the way back to 1996 through both a journalist from Great Falls, Montana who had spoken to Salas and my father during roughly the same period, and through one of the producers of "Sightings" (an old UFO series on cable) in regard to an episode discussing Echo Flight that aired in March 1997. These lies also make no sense, and they are just as easy to prove. Where's the advantage in that? How is it NOT self-defeating? I admit, Salas was a little more slick about his application of these claims than Robert Hastings -- hell, he even had Francis Ridge and the rest of the dancing NICAP nuclear crew believing for YEARS that my father had confirmed his claims, and that I was applying an argument contrary to what my own father had allegedly affirmed. But none of that would have been possible if these self-appointed UFOlogists had simply attempted to confirm the claims that were so casually and egregiously inserted into their list of confirmed UFO reports. NICAP, if I remember correctly, has added three "confirmed" UFO reports to their database of March 1967 sightings stemming from the Salas/Hastings claims, none of which have ever been confirmed by the actual participants (outside of Salas), and none of which were ever seen or reported -- at least not by someone willing to state for the record, "yes, I saw a UFO on that date."

If this is what UFOlogy has degenerated into under the aegis of civilian investigation, than I see absolutely no reason for Congress to investigate anything dealing with UFOs. Why should they? These clowns can't even tell the difference between a real UFO and one that was invented wholly from the ridiculous musings of men and women with a political agenda. And they want Congress to allocate funds it simply doesn't have in order to establish the truth behind a stack full of claims they lack the ability to confirm made by men and women who can't be trusted to properly assess what their own sources have submitted to them? Yeah, that's gonna go far. The fact is that 45 years after civilian responsibility for UFO investigations was firmly instituted by a Department of Defense no longer interested in wasting its own alloted funds to no applicable purpose, these so-called UFOlogists have accomplished NOTHING; they've met NONE of their higher goals, and have engendered a culture in which only hoaxes and frauds have thrived. They've recorded and archived NO useful data to support their claims, have established NO video networks amongst believers intended to collect empirical data suggesting the supposedly ubiquitous nature of UFO incursions, and have failed completely to gather and assess UFO reports with any appreciable, contained standards, a goal that should have been met decades ago! What they've done instead is create an environment that seems designed to encourage lies, hoaxes, and fraudulent behavior that would never be tolerated in any scientific, technical, or statistical field of study demanded by any educational organization, even those paid for outright by single donors. They've allowed You-tube, their primary tool for educating those interested in or willing to examine their claims, to corrupt itself and deteriorate into a cannibal entity seemingly guaranteed to engender disinterest, ridicule, and the callous dismissal of their entire agenda by a public that simply does not and will not care about those matters UFOlogy considers to be so damn important that it demands complete and aggressive pursuit. It's pathetic. It's like a man playing Russian roulette with a squirt gun full of tap water that soaks him each and every time he pulls the trigger, and then claiming a grand victory over the personification of death.

This is exactly why they've decided to pursue the association of UFOs and nuclear armageddon. Without substantial public awareness and demand, they simply cannot reach that one goal -- full disclosure -- that could potentially justify not only their 45-year obsession with UFOs, but their open contempt for the public that dismisses so thoroughly their fears, beliefs, desires, suspicions, and -- most importantly -- their failure to produce something auspicious enough to validate decades of social and psychological sacrifice. Congress will never institute an investigation sufficient to support a policy of full disclosure without massive public attention, and the public will not focus its attention sufficient to meet these goals unless there is an element of personal and individual engagement. That's why the association of nuclear weapons and UFOs is so necessary.

Consider the creation of the new White House petition -- the third regarding full disclosure since September -- that was recently initiated by the Paradigm Research Group: "WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO ask Defense Secretary Panetta to respond to mounting evidence for nuclear weapons tampering by extraterrestrial craft." In explanation, it states:

Since 1991 government witnesses of high rank and station have been coming forward with evidence regarding incidents in which extraordinary craft of unknown origin have tampered with nuclear weapons facilities around the world. Despite extensive media coverage of these emerging testimonies since the Fall of 2010, the Obama administration has made no comment whatsoever regarding this evidence and its national security implications. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff to President Clinton during the Rockefeller Initiative, should respond to these testimonies.

The primary (only) research source listed is Robert Hastings. There are also links directing those interested to media coverage sites for further information at http://www.livescience.com/10146-ufos-d ... apons.html. For the most part, these are simply reports detailing Robert Hastings' claims and his little dog and pony show in Washngton, DC. While it includes links to Benjamin Radford's "Did UFOs Disarm Nuclear Weapons? And If So, Why?", there are no links at all pointing people to any of the reports developed here at Reality Uncovered. There are a number of articles by Billy Cox, and there is even a link to the article Hastings paid to have distributed via Reuters.

The first petition, initiated by the Paradigm Research Group shortly after the "We the People" project was established on September 22, 2011, called on the government to disclose any knowledge of or communication with extraterrestrial beings; it was signed by 5,387 people.

The second petition, initiated by the Paradigm Research Group on December 1, 2011, stated "WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO immediately investigate UFO/ET Disclosure efforts during the Clinton administration". It was allegedly signed by 6937 individuals. I say allegedly, because the Paradigm Research Group claimed that the petition resulted in 6937 signatures after 60-days. The White House, however, insists that as of October 11, 2011, 25,000 signatures within 30-days was necessary. 30-days later, the number of signatures hadn't even broken 2,000.

The third pettion initiated by the Paradigm Research Group asks Defense Secretary Panetta to respond "to mounting evidence for nuclear weapons tampering by extraterrestrial craft". It was created on March 25, 2012, and has thus far generated 382 signatures. It will assuredly fail to reach its goals, just as the previous two petitions failed to reach their goals. Its goal must also be met within 30-days.

One note of interest is the following statement published by the Paradigm Research Group:

PRG recognizes it is unlikely any future Disclosure petitions submitted to "We the People" will achieve a White House response. Nevertheless, for as long as the "We the People" project is open PRG will make sure there is at least one or two Disclosure petitions resident at the site. Why? The White House website is a powerful showcase for any issue. There is heavy traffic. The media can choose to jump into the Disclosure issue at any time.

This suggests that Hastings (possibly) and the Paradigm Research Group (most definitely) will be beating a dead horse for many years, seemingly reinventing themselves (essentially) as "spam". It's too bad that PRG, like NICAP, MUFON, and many other UFO proponent groups before it, has also failed to attempt any form of confirmation in regard to these claims. I can't help but wonder if they're aware that one element of the "We the People" project's Terms of Participation forbids any use of fraudulent claims.

Not that it matters...

[Tim Hebert]

I posted on my site concerning Robert's admitting to you that Walter Figel was shunned. I also added some other thoughts. As to why he runs around the truth, who knows. That Frank Warren and others would allow him to use their sites as platforms and knowing that he practices dishonesty in his "research" while using their venues speaks to the possibility that they have not looked at his data, or blindly embrace whatever he writes...whole cloth.

Good post above, James!

[James Carlson]

I posted on my site concerning Robert's admitting to you that Walter Figel was shunned. I also added some other thoughts. As to why he runs around the truth, who knows. That Frank Warren and others would allow him to use their sites as platforms and knowing that he practices dishonesty in his "research" while using their venues speaks to the possibility that they have not looked at his data, or blindly embrace whatever he writes...whole cloth.

I think they're aware of it, but they just don't care anymore. I think they've reached the point where the establishment of total chaos in regard to the extent of the public's general knowledge of UFOs is their best tool. As it stands right now, nobody knows what's real and what's fake, so they keep asking question to figure that out. I honestly believe that the best the UFO proponent communities can hope to do is create so much chaos, raise so many unfounded questions, and confuse as many people as possible, simply in order to maintain the issue as an unknown entity in the public's 21st century zeitgeist. That will keep the public asking questions, which they hope can be turned into demands for information from the government. Unfortunately for them, the only chaos they're capable of fomenting involves incidents and issues that are 30-70 years old! And these guys aren't bright enough to come up with new issues in regard to these old cases, so they're sitting on a shelf pointing at books that nobody cares about anymore. And it's really doubtful for those reasons that they will ever come up with something new or energizing enough to further their goals. They've tried it with the nuclear weapons scenario, and it just isn't there. I think they're very well aware that the facts are not capable of carrying their accusations very far, and I'm certain they're aware that they are now dealing with fictional assertions. They just don't care anymore.

They believe that their questions can be answered and their assessments vindicated by some form of Department of Defense disclosure, and that this disclosure will NEVER be achieved without public pressure being brought into the mix to press the issue. I just don't think they give much of a damn at all in regard to the creation of that pressure. They are now at the "anything goes" point of the scenario. They are completely sick of their failures, and no longer possess the natural moral repugnance necessary to prevent any reliance on such tools. They just want to make noise in the hopes that the American public will demand disclosure, even if it's just to shut them up. If anybody has any doubts whatsoever in regard to this systematic desire to "make noise", a single afternoon reading forum discussions between those with organized interest and investments in UFO protocol will dismiss those doubts pretty quickly. Case in point is Friedman's recent castigation of some comments Tim Printy wrote years ago! It's noise, and nothing but noise. He feels that insulted? Really? He should try reading what passes these days for a UFO argument! He should start with Robert Hastings; he might want to bring along a bucket to throw up in.

Look, these guys refuse to critique each other's work for a good reason. The quality of their work has been dropping for years, and they seem to believe that any valid critique would require shooting their own claims in the foot. The fact that they don't possess the moral compass necessary to apply criticism to arguments they may otherwise sympathize with proves pretty handily their inability to examine an issue without prejudice. It's easier for them to whine about those four-year old assessments in regard to the quality of their work than it is to make a moral stand on the issue of public lying by a bunch of untrustworthy buffoons trying to frighten Mr. and Mrs. Average American by insisting that aliens have taken control of the most destructive weapons systems this planet has ever produced. It's repugnant, I know, but that's what defines the field of their play.

They know there isn't a valid case to make, so they don't mind at all publishing the garbage that they've got if there's any chance that it might bring in a little more public concern. They're literally betting the farm on the disclosure issue, but they can't succeed without the fruits of false paranoia. Even then, it's doubtful -- the Department of Defense doesn't act in accordance with Congressional issues and debate, so even a Congressional investigation wouldn't be sufficient on its own merit; it could only be a start to anything, not an end in itself. And does anybody really think that any organized investigation wouldn't IMMEDIATELY dismiss with great prejudice everything that Robert Hastings has produced? He has thoroughly tainted his own pool of knowledge and research by his constant and deplorable lies. Have you read his book? In 30-years, he has produced nothing applicable to the needs of this sub-group of activists -- NOTHING! The only people willing to credit his research are those uneducated individuals without any knowledge of military culture or procedures, and those guys can't organize a Betty Crocker bake-off, let alone convince Congress to allocate funds for an investigation that could not possibly establish the authority to disclose anything under the control of the Executive branch of the government. Not that it matters; after all, their witness pool stinks of mediocrity, poor reporting, and the inability to assess real events, and it's their own fault.

Those lunatics over at PRG might find their desires a little easier to fulfill if they could actually produce some witnesses that haven't already committed some form of psychic hara kiri by tainting their own history. I'm stunned that they have provided only one website for interested researchers to confirm the spurious claims they've made associating nuclear weapons with UFOs, and I still laugh aloud at the news that their single site is Robert Hastings' home page! Interested researchers can simply spend a few hours on the internet and discover that Robert Hastings' research is so endlessly spoiled by his inability to establish the claims he say he has made, and his routine habit of reaching fictional conclusions on the basis of silly witness reports that have never been confirmed or have been confirmed as unsubstantiated. They aren't helping themselves at all by relying on Hastings to make the case for them. Of course, they don't have anybody else. They are unable to make their case, because they don't have one. Hastings can talk all he wants about the 130 witnesses he's tracked down, but the fact is, he has only presented 7 who were willing to make their claims publically, and at least four of those seven have atempted to make a case at Echo Flight without actually having witnessed anything at all. There's not a single eye-witness in the group, and nearly everything they've asserted cannot be confirmed or has been proven wrong. Even worse (for them), those trying to establish the case have changed their claims so much over the years that any testimony they've got is easily dismissed from the get-go. For the most part, Hastings is unable to even show that the missile failures he discusses actually occurred! These clowns are sinking themselves before they even get out of port! What a joke... it brings a smile to my face, anyway.

I read your article last night, and I smiled at that, too. You see what I mean when I say Robert Hastings always lies first, even when he doesn't have to? What exactly did he hope to gain from it? Did he honestly believe that we wouldn't simply ask Walt whether or not he was invited? After all, Walt was pretty clear in his original email that he didn't learn about it from Salas or Hastings, and that they didn't ask him to attend. So what's the advantage Hastings expected to achieve by lying about it? He always lies first -- this habit of his is extremely well-documented, and it shows that somewhat psychopathic streak to his nature. He really is a head-case, Tim, and yet PRG is nonetheless willing to list him as their only research source for their Disclosure Petition III, a move that shows some confidence in what Hastings has produced that is so obviously undeserved!

That says a lot about them, doesn't it?

[James Carlson]

I decided that somebody needed to respond to Robert Hastings' recent attack on the tools of science. If you're interested, you can skim through it at https://www.sott.net/articles/show/2434 ... mment66731.

Will this prevent him from trying to discuss things he doesn't understand? Of course not; he's a buffoon, and acts in accordance with his nature, just like snakes, scorpions, and other UFO frauds. Hopefully, though, others will read it and determine for themselves that a Robert Hastings who attempts to apply logic to arguments he doesn't understand is just as funny as a Robert Hastings who wants to spend his Sunday afternoons with a magnifying glass, trying to examine all of the angels and aliens dancing on the head of a pin.

Enjoy!

[James Carlson]

Tim Hebert has very recently posted a discussion on his blog of the testimony offered by Robert Jamison in regard to Salas' Oscar Flight claims. It's at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/04/o ... mison.html, and is well worth the reading. It would be nice, I think, if those witnesses trying to establish these claims would be willing to answer a few detailed questions regarding their assertions instead of merely lecturing to us. In our justice system, actual witnesses are expected to answer a few detailed questions from hostile attorneys in order to substantiate as "facts" those claims they have presented. I see no reason to ignore this judicial tradition merely because UFOs are involved. Hastings and Salas, et al, continuously insist that Congress investigate the issues they've proposed, which would, one assumes, require some form of Q&A-based discussion intended to confirm their assertions, so I don't necessarily see anything objectionable in suggesting an early commencement of this. I wouldn't expect it, however -- not a bit of it.

You see, I've noticed a little trend amongst the Echo Flight truth-secessionists (these are the witnesses, not the chroniclers, who tend to reach conclusions on the basis of incomplete and unproven "facts", a timid tremor of the research they have proven themselves incapable of consummating with thorough assessment; the truth-secessionists, on the other hand, find it unnecessary to reach any conclusions whatsoever, let alone those based on facts, because God knows making things up as they go along is so much easier). Thus far, only one of them (retired USAF Lt. Col. Dwynne Arneson) has been willing to stop by Reality Unconvered, for however brief a visit, to defend their claims with a willingness to answer a few questions that would either support their point-of-view, or establish in some way a measure of responsibility for the effects of their illustrious yet unproven, unimpressive, and unconfirmed assertions.

To some extent, I blame myself for this response. When retired USAF Lt. Col. Dwynne Arneson came to call, I was contemptuous of him and the story he has to relate. In my opinion, I had every reason to be so critical. His testimony had already been confirmed as irrelevant to any of the associated issues; it had already been confirmed that the command he originally insisted he had been attached to never even existed, and the messages he claims to have examined were full of provably false details. As far as I'm concerned, it's a waste of effort to be polite to people who have repeatedly muddied the case established by lying so poorly about the numerous points defining it. I have little respect for the man, and I don't usually hide my impressions and opinions about people who have already been recognized as dishonest hacks. However, a few people whose opinions and advice I trust and respond to completely explained to me that a less confrontational tone may well have resulted in forum conversations that would at least have offered an opportunity for Arneson to sink his own story in the details. Needless to say, that didn't happen. In my experience, people like that don't often discuss details at all, although they will often continue to insist that the "details" confirm their claims. I guess it's possible that they don't understand what constitutes "details", but I won't get into it. Suffice to say that I recognize how my contempt for Arneson may well have convinced him to run away from the questions of others that could have proven his deceit at some level.

In any case, I'd like to assure Robert Jamison here and now that if he is willing to defend his claims and answer a few questions from individuals who generally respect the rights of people to defend themselves without having to suffer the disdain their past statements may have engendered. I'll simply withdraw from the conversation and let others determine for themselves the extent of their contempt. You won't have to bother thinking about my contempt at all, because I will withdraw totally from any Q&A.

Note, however, that no defense of assertions by actual witnesses to the Malmstrom AFB 1967 incidents has ever taken place -- at least not at Reality Uncovered where an intelligent assessment and a full examination of any details revealed by such a Q&A can freely occur. To my mind, that little statistic suggests the inability of the witnesses to defend the case they've tried to establish, so I doubt that Robert Jamison is more willing to do so; it's possible, I guess, that he will prove me wrong, but I think I'll refer to it as "laughable possible" until it occurs.

Check out Tim's article; I've been looking forward to reading it ever since Tim first said he might examine Jamison's testimony. He did not disappoint me, and I wholeheartedly recommend it as "required reading" for those wanting to examine these issues in more detail. The evolution of Jamison's story is almost as thorough as Salas'. It's a fun read...

[Tim Hebert]

For those that are interested, I've added a short addendum to the Jamison story:

Addendum added 5 April 2012

Food for thought, if Jamison and his CCT team (presumably all missile maintenance teams and security personnel) received a special UFO briefing prior to dispatching to the field, why does Salas not say the same for him and Fred Meiwald...and other wing operational crews?

Salas, Meiwald, Figel, Barlow and Eric Carlson never mentioned being given special UFO briefings before being dispatched to the field. Salas and Meiwald would have completed several alert duties well after the 24th of March surpassing Jamison's special briefing claims. None of the above have ever mentioned receiving these special UFO briefings.

If Salas and Meiwald claim that they were questioned by the Air Force OSI, why was Jamison and his team left untouched? Surely the OSI would have wanted to debrief all personnel that had been dispatched to the field to ascertain what, if anything, they had witnessed.

Just a few more areas of the bizarre nature of the case.

Tim

[James Carlson]

Definitely "Food for thought" that hadn't even occurred to me. I don't think it's so prejudicial to expect multiple "witnesses" of the same incident to present corroborative testimonies. As you point out above, corroborative testimonies seem to be missing in this case. In addition, "special UFO briefings" would necessarily have included some form of presentation by Col. Lewis Chase, the command UFO officer; he never mentioned it either, an absence that Walt Figel confirms in one of the emails he sent to me. In it, he clearly affirms that he was unaware that Malmstrom AFB even had a UFO officer until it was mentioned to him within the context of our later interviews. I think it's safe to say that had there been an actual UFO investigation, he would have been very aware that such a position had been created to investigate UFOs. We see the opposite here.

Any investigation of UFO sightings on or near Malmstrom AFB would have also required a response from Chase. Once again, nobody ever took note of his presence, and they never tried to insert into their accounts the investigation he would have conducted. In fact, Chase told Roy Craig that UFOs had not been reported or investigated in relation to the Echo Flight incident. And before somebody states that the classification of the incident would have resulted in Chase making such a false claim, take into account the following:

(1) Maintaining classification does not require lying by those aware of the facts; lying is actually a form of security breach, since all the elements of the lie would have to conform with every aspect of the case under examination. In most cases, the replacement of the truth with the lie is impossible, because it requires just as much personnel interest, engagement, documentation, and behavioral substantiation as the original, truthful incident. This is one reason why the DoD will generally forbid this type of denial. A lie not only has to be coordinated, it also tends to betray too much information. In most cases, should someone suspect this type of response, disclosure is immanent. After all, it's very easy to determine the truth, when the lie falls apart. Saying nothing, therefore, is the only expected response, and that's how personnel are trained to react.

(2) The command history confirms that any mention of UFOs is completely unclassified. There is no command expectation of high security protocol assigned to the rumors, and thereby the presence, of a UFO. The command simply did not care about the UFO rumors, because they were not only unimportant and irrelevent to the examination of the incident, they weren't even considered worthy of investigation! Can you imagine?

(3) If the presence of a UFO could be associated with the missile failures, ALL of the documentation would have been classified TOP SECRET, and any documents even mentioning the word "UFO" would have been classified accordingly. It's obvious that the entire command dismissed in full all of the UFO rumors; nobody thought there was a connection, nobody anticipated further examination, and nobody cared much about the proliferation of such rumors. Security protocol required an initial investigation, but once the rumors were proven to be unassociated with the incident, and invalidated as an actual, physical craft, they were dismissed completely, and no further attention was necessary.

That went on longer than I intended. Suffice to say, that without corroborative testimonies -- an expected characteristic to claims established that can be applied to any incident or event -- the likelihood of deceit increases significantly, while any judgments of honesty are far less likely to be true. A real event consists of both internal and external structures that are well-defined. A lie can proliferate without any structure whatsoever.

[Tim Hebert]

Last night, James alerted me that Hastings had penned another Skeptics/Debunker manifesto on TUFOC. This Hastian prose had been picked up by UFO Updates as of this morning.

I provided a comment this morning on Frank Warren's site politely (because that's the way Frank likes it) calling to his readers attention that Hastings had made great effort to once again paint the false picture that Walter Figel had "chose" not to attend the 2010 DC press conference, yet, Robert is on record for the following, as written on the Marine Corp Times, 3/20/12:

Robert Hastings: "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.
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.

The above was Hastings' reply to James Carlson

I then closed out my comment asking which version was correct?

As of this posting, Warren has not posted my comment. Perhaps he may well do so. Hastings and his cult of followers/enablers have a conundrum: either way Hastings lied concerning Figel's invite and its evident for all to see, including Warren. If he lied about that what else has he lied about. As of right now FE Warren may have well blown up in his face soiling whatever self respect that he had left. (I'm betting that he had none to begin with)

Tim

[Tim Hebert]

As of mid-day, Warren did post my comment. Now I'll await and see if the "Great" one himself will attempt to pronounce a proclamation (spin). Should be interesting one way or the other.

[astrophotographer]

I am sure he will rationalize the two statements somehow or simply ignore it. This article was basically him rehashing several articles he had previously written. It is nothing new and his failure to address some issues about Big Sur is telling.

[James Carlson]

As Tim Hebert, at Reality Uncovered, at his own blog, Did It Really Happen? at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/, and at Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES (where Robert Hastings habitually deposits his leavings) has recently discussed (see : http://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/04 ... e-but.html), Hastings' desire to chronicle the history of his oppressive UFO-Nukes nonsense has once again revealed that the center of his claims have a lot in common with the center of a donut: you have to recognize that there's just nothing there before you can really enjoy any of it. The second you think it's real, you end up spending a whole lot of down-time wondering why that tasty, tasty sugar cake filler doesn't have a taste and is oddly unsatisfying to your appetite department. Welcome to "Chernobyl Diaries".

Basically, what Robert Hastings managed to do in the course of composing the ongoing chronicle of his personal "remembrance of things past" was to relate a course of events that is contrary to what he has always asserted prior to this attempt. He was uncharacteristically honest for once, but also managed to relate an incident that confirms (once again) how far from the truth he is willing to wander. He has been asked on a number of occasions by a number of different people why he never invited Col. Walt Figel -- a man he insists has repeatedly confirmed the UFO-related events at Echo Flight that Robert Salas invented some years ago -- to present his alleged "testimony" at the September 27, 2010 press conference he organized to publicize his UFO-Nukes folktales. After all, if his version of this event is so strongly confirmative of Salas' 1996 claims in regard to a command and an event that Salas never served at and was never associated with, such testimony by an individuals who actually DID serve at and WAS associated with said command and event would presumably have some value to the claims Hastings has made. Prior to his most recent affirmations, Hastings has insisted that he did indeed invite Walt Figel to present his claims at the conference, but Figel declined. Figel, on the other hand, as always insisted that he was never invited to speak and knew nothing at all about the press conference. So what we had was two conflicting accounts, one of which confirms the dishonest approach that Robert Hastings has always brought to the table when this subject has been broached.

Very recently, however, Robert Hastings made some assertions to me during a minor back and forth discussion at http://militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-r ... ent-142271 where it became evident that Robert was attempting to create from nothing another UFO incident. Had it not been a blog associated with the Military Times, I have little doubt that he would have let it go, but since the military represents his primary "resource" he must have felt a defense of his claims was warranted. He shouldn't have bothered. There was simply nothing there, a not untypical conclusion where his assertions generally take root. In any case, during the course of his defense, he made the following points that were recently assessed by Tim Hebert:

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.

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.

As Hebert notes above (and recently pointed out in his commentary to Hastings' recent reappraisal of his own personal "enemies list", that bit of tawdry nonsense "Science and UFOs: Part 4 – Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics Have Been Duped by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine" that was published at Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES), this commentary seems to contradict Hastings' previous insistence that Col. Figel was, in fact, invited to the Washington, DC press conference (presumably to affirm the presence of a UFO and thereby confirm Salas' claims in regard to Echo Flight), but had declined to participate. As Tim Hebert states on the commentary of his blog at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/04/o ... mment-form, "Hastings is on record as saying that he avoided Figel's participation due to his (Figel) lack of enthusiasm for the UFO theme surrounding Echo Flight." Specifically, his comments addressed at UFOCHRONICLES question Hastings' credibility on the grounds that his vitriolic response above illustrates notable deceit:

Robert states in his article, "Although I have roughly three hours of audio taped comments by Figel, he chose not to participate in the press conference."

I've asked Robert on at least two occasions to provide the reasons of Walter Figel's absence and he has stated to me that Figel "chose" not to attend.

How then does this published comment from Robert on the Marine Times (3-20-12) square with Figel's lack of participation.

This published comment being the same as the one noted above.

In response to this very appropriate question, Robert Hastings writes:

Tim Hebert didn't read my statement on the Marine Times blog carefully. Here it is again, with the key word highlighted in all caps:

"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'", adding that "after debunker James Carlson wrote to Figel, informing him of the press conference and copying me on the message, I emailed Figel and asked him to come, if he wished to participate. He was already working near Washington so I would not have to pay to fly him in, put him up in a hotel, etc., as I did with the other participants.

So, Tim, Figel was indeed invited, eventually, so there is no discrepancy with what I have written online. He chose not to participate, just I have said.

He's once again trying to rewrite his own history, and doing so in a very obvious manner, apparently forgetting that everything has already been documented. In Figel's email to me of September 24, 2010, it is obvious that he was not aware of the September 27 press conference until he read about it. That email was Figel's response to the 1996 tape transcripts Salas and Hastings had just released. In other words, three days prior to Hastings' press conference, Figel had still not been invited to make those imaginary UFO claims public. It was at that time, however, that both Ryan Dube and I began questioning the reason for Figel's noted absence in the list of witnesses presenting testimony at that press conference -- a list of witnesses that had already been established. So either Hastings' neglect of this witness (the only witness aside from Robert Salas that he has EVER used to confirm any incident whatsoever at Echo Flight) three days prior to his little masturbatory epic on the UFOs-Nukes theme was an oversight, or he never intended to invite Figel.

What I love most about Robert Hastings is the fact that we can so easily see how his weak little mind works by simply reading his own claims. The following is one of my favorites, posted at Reality Uncovered on September 26, 2010, the day before his press conference, in response to the publication of Col. Figel's complete rejection of everything Hastings and Salas have claimed in regard to Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. Please note that Hastings did NOTHING in response to a communication from me informing Figel of the press conference as he now claims. Figel raised the issue all on his own in an article published on September 26, 2010 at Reality Uncovered. I never even broached the issue with Figel; he did that all on his own after reading about it on September 24, 2010.

As for the "invitation" that Hastings refers to above, it wasn't extended to Figel until a few hours before that silly little press conference, as Hastings clearly established in his commentary to Figel's claims of September 26, 2010:

Walt Figel, who I assumed was in Colorado, can of course attend the press conference. He might learn something. I have added him to the non-media guest list. I have already printed up copies of “Witch Hunt” and will be distributing them at the event as needed. So, if he does show up, and decides to change his story – for whatever reason – he will be up against his own tape recorded words. That would be interesting. I think the media would love *that* story."
Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

So are we to believe that this is an invitation? I ask, because it sounds more like a threat. Or is it just another dismissal of anything at all that doesn't fit in with what Robert Hastings wants people to believe, but lacks the ability and the knowledge and the honesty to convince them of?

During that same vitriolic endeavor, Hastings also wrote:

Finally, I also have Figel on tape – from a March 2010 conversation – saying other things which are at variance with what he has written to James Carlson over time. Those taped excerpts will appear in an article at The UFOCHRONICLES in the near future. Walt gave me permission to disseminate those tapes as I saw fit and I will certainly do so.
Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

These are old claims. On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:48 PM, Hastings wrote:

Fortunately, both Bob Salas and I have Col. Figel on audio tape, and he confirms talking on the capsule phone with his guards and a missile maintenance team member at Echo Flight, all of whom reported seeing a "large, round" object hovering over one of Echo's Launch Facilities (silos) moments after the missiles began malfunctioning. Salas spoke with Figel in 1996 and earlier this year. I spoke with him in 2008 and earlier this year.

The conversations on the cassette tapes are currently being transferred to CDs and, once that's finished, and some transcribing is completed, both written word and links to the audio will be posted at the UFO Chronicles website. Cutting to the chase, on tape Figel contradicts 99% of James Carlson's online claims about what the colonel did or did not say.

This is completely untrue, as Figel confirmed on Thursday, September 2, 2010, writing:

Salas's mistake about the time and place should say something. Think about it, if you are that passionate about the subject, you would not forget any detail about such an incident and he was dead wrong. He was never there and never involved. Dick Evans was the flight commander at Kilo (Oscar's parent site) and he has no recollection about any incident at Oscar ever.

Is this the type of commentary that "contradicts 99% of James Carlson's online claims about what the colonel did or did not say"? In addition, Figel mentioned nothing at all about the press conference on that early date. But he hadn't yet read about it either, so, of course, he wouldn't have mentioned it. What he DID mention was another wholesale rejection of Salas' and Hastings' claims.

On September 19, 2010, Hastings wrote:

Former Minuteman missile launch officer Eric Carlson is claiming no UFO involvement in the missile shutdown at which he was present, at Echo Flight, outside of Malmstrom AFB on March 16, 1967, and further claims the UFO-related shutdown at Oscar Flight, on March 24, 2967, that Bob Salas reports on never happened at all.

Fortunately, Salas and I have the goods that support our version of events. I am working on an article with links to audio tapes of my and Salas' phone calls to Eric's missile commander, Walt Figel, who contradicts *everything* both Carlsons are saying. James Carlson just flat-out lies about all of Figel's input, even though he had the evidence presented to him by me in 2008. I have the tapes, James has empty claims.

This is also untrue, as Figel had already confirmed in the above assessment of September 2, 2010, 17 days before. He had, in fact, been rejecting those UFO fables steadily since March 2010 -- the same month that Hastings continues to prevaricate on:

I also have Figel on tape – from a March 2010 conversation – saying other things which are at variance with what he has written to James Carlson over time. Those taped excerpts will appear in an article at The UFOCHRONICLES in the near future. Walt gave me permission to disseminate those tapes as I saw fit and I will certainly do so.

That was two years ago, pal.

Also on September 19, 2010, Hastings wrote:

Then, in 2008, I interviewed, on tape, Eric's deputy missile commander at Echo, now-retired Col. Walt Figel, who told me that he did indeed get a report of a UFO hovering over an Echo missile, just as the entire flight went down. He said Eric overheard the call, was debriefed with him, was told never to discuss it, etc. so, basically, Figel completely contradicts Eric.

So, Eric is either very forgetful these days or he is keeping his silence. Anyway, because Bob and I are not backing down and because I have posted online the verbatim transcript of my conversation with Figel, in late 2008, James has been slandering and libeling me, Bob, and Jim Klotz for well over a year now. He has increased his activities online in anticipation of our press conference.

Once my new article and linked tapes are posted, people will be able to hear Figel tell me that a UFO was indeed reported hovering over one of his missiles, and also hear Salas' missile commander at Oscar, Fred Meiwald, say that Bob is telling the truth about the other incident at Oscar Flight.

Figel's March 2010 claims had already refuted these points, but for months Hastings had been claiming that none of those statements were accurate, and that I had lied about Figel's testimony. Is any of this getting through to you, Robert? On September 26, 2010, Figel wrote:

Your dad has not lied about anything nor do I 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.

Is this what Hastings was referring to when he stated that "basically, Figel completely contradicts Eric"?

It should be noted, once again, that to date Robert Hastings has failed completely to produce any of those March 2010 recordings that he has been promising to publish since March 2010.

So, what's the matter, Robert? That was over two f---- years ago, you pathetic lunatic!

Since then, those ridiculous alleged recordings from 1996 are the only thing he's bothered to produce at all these past couple of years, aside from the canker sores he gave to all those people who decided they would wait for him to present something, anything at all, that would show he's not merely a fraud without the ability or morality to present a simple case linking UFOs with the nuclear weapons at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. I find it hilarious that Hastings has been making these threats since March 2010, initiating this strategy in personal emails to the owners of Reality Uncovered in order to persuade them not to publish the information I had secured and written about. A simple phone call and an email to Col. Figel was all it took to convince everybody party to those communications that Hastings was indeed (and once again) lying about all of the contrary assertions Figel had supposedly made to him. And the fact that Robert Hastings had already promised to produce transcriptions and the actual recordings of that March 2010 conversation with Figel during which he supposedly made all those claims contrary to what we had already published -- claims that we already knew he did NOT make, being the completely false chimera of logistical corn flakes quivering within the sordid and fraudulent mind of Robert Hastings alone -- convinced me that Hastings was completely capable of doing exactly what he promised to do. Being so well acquainted by that time with his obsessive-compulsive need to lie about absolutely everything he has no immediate response to, the simple fact that he couldn't possibly produce such recordings without faking them wasn't even an issue. Col. Figel wrote to us and summarized everything that he told both Salas and Hastings, and that email -- one among many -- has been available for anyone to read since the day following Hastings' initial threat to publish the contents of that conversation. It is the "ghost" of that threat that he was once again channeling the day before his little dog and pony show at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

I think it's funny as Hell that Robert Hastings is once again trying to make claims that can be so easily revealed for the noise they actually represent by simply examining what he himself has written or said. This would never happen, if he were an honest man who refused to lie so publicly and so often -- but it seems to happen to him a lot.

Robert Hastings only invited Col. Walt Figel to his little press conference in Washington, DC because he was shamed into doing so by the interview with Figel that we published on September 26, 2010 -- one day before Hastings' pathetic circus with his seven inconsistent story-tellers who continue to change the "facts" of their claims whenever they publicly affirm the stories that are now little more than the group-authored compositions of whatever claim attracts the most attention with the least number of critical errors of fact -- a result of the unethical "troubleshooting" they have been practicing for years. These are not the "lies" that Robert Hastings insists we have been telling. They are statements and claims that he himself wrote or discussed in very public terms all by his lonesome self. It was only after he was shamed into "adding him to the non-media guest list" that his "invitation" was established at all, and it was done, as he readily admitted, only because he was made aware by the reporting of Ryan Dube at Reality Uncovered that Col. Figel was in Washington, DC at the same time. He makes it clear that he had at least considered the possibility that Figel might have been in town to ambush his little show, and he was prepared for that eventuality.

Walt Figel, who I assumed was in Colorado, can of course attend the press conference. He might learn something. I have added him to the non-media guest list. I have already printed up copies of “Witch Hunt” and will be distributing them at the event as needed. So, if he does show up, and decides to change his story – for whatever reason – he will be up against his own tape recorded words. That would be interesting. I think the media would love *that* story.
Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

Only Robert Hastings would have considered such an option, because only Robert Hastings is that goddamn paranoid. The rest of the world, Walt Figel included, was pretty much aware that "the media" wouldn't give a damn about that story, or indeed, about any story originating with Robert Hastings, which "the media" proved (and continues to prove) shortly after he and his "seven witnesses" packed up their bag of useless garbage and went home. Whatever ...

The point is, Hastings is once again rewriting history in a useless attempt to make himself seem somehow more respectable and therefore less likely to have made up these ridiculous UFO-Nuke fables he's been selling out of little more than the barely believable tales of old men looking for some extra attention and the well-inked remains of old H.G. Wells short stories scratched out on the low rag-content pulp of the 1920-30s. It's an unnecessary chore. His honesty -- or lack thereof -- is made clear in his own writings (which tend to make his insistence that my claims in regard to Walt Figel and Frederick Meiwald are all lies and fiction kind of a wasted effort, given that all I've done is examine HIS own works and publish what Meiwald and Figel have ACTUALLY said).

Get over it, Robert. If you want to know the source of the dishonesty we've brought into the light, try reading your own copy before you leave it scattered across the internet with the rest of your crap.

[James Carlson]

Robert Hastings has once again gone public; his claims haven't changed much, but he's once again making claims that have yet to be publically affirmed, a strategy of his that we've already seen him rely on in the past (see http://www.skeptic.com/doubtful-news/ar ... mment-6882):

Former Minuteman missile targeting officer Bob Jamison spoke at my press conference, to an international audience of millions, after first providing a notarized affidavit, in which he discussed the *other* missile shut down incident at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, at Oscar Flight.

As you already know, but will never truthfully discuss, both launch officers involved in that case–former Capt. Bob Salas and retired Col. Fred Meiwald–have gone on-the-record about a UFO presence during the shut down event which, we now know, occurred eight days after the Echo incident.

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

I'm still waiting for him to him to produce those March 2010 recordings of Figel disputing 99% of my assertions, as well as the parts of his conversation with Figel establishing the complete falsity of my father's claims.

Don't hold your breath...

[Tim Hebert]

James, you're correct, nothing new on this front. Hastings attempts to apply jumper cables to a worn out hypothesis. Touting Meiwald's poor recollection (or clarity based on 45 years that nothing significantly impacted him) is akin to using Ufology's version of a Ouija board to come up with answers.

On a related note, Nablator and Gilles F., over at Sceptic-Ovni, has posted a link, per my request, of Salas lecture given in Paris this past week. I've yet to review the link, but will do so later this weekend.

Thanks for the update.

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

On a related note, Nablator and Gilles F., over at Sceptic-Ovni, has posted a link, per my request, of Salas lecture given in Paris this past week. I've yet to review the link, but will do so later this weekend.

Thanks for the update.

Tim H.

Excellent! I wasn't aware that Salas' Paris show had already come and gone, so I'm really looking forward to reading your assessment. The past couple of times that he has attempted to insinuate his story into that of our nation's military forces, he has made a point of adding new details to his folk tales, instituting, thereby, an emotional aspect to those claims that he hoped, I'm sure, would translate into added credibility amongst those true believers who have no real need for evidence. For instance, he tried to rally support at one time by introducing a new character to the script, an enlisted man who was allegedly suffering great anguish as a result of the UFO presence made clear the night before who had come weeping and confused to his door, pleading for explanations. Salas supposedly told this enlisted man that the high classification of the incident forced him to remain silent, refusing that young man any comfort whatsoever (neglecting to take into account the fact that the serviceman, having already -- allegedly -- experienced the full import of these events, had both "need-to-know" and the security clearance necessary to allow Salas to comfort the lad in any way he saw fit).

Salas then made a point of resting his credibility upon the nation's undignified dismissal of the enlisted member's pain and woe, adding that the Department of Defense should immediately adopt a policy of Disclosure to avoid the horrors visited upon other servicemen and women who would find themselves in the midst of equally confusing events. Were these events true, it would be to Salas' shame that his inability to offer comfort did not originate with the classification of the incident, but with Salas himself, all because his knowledge of security protocol left him floundering in a sea of wasted quietude. This serviceman (if he existed, which I doubt very strongly) had already been given disclosure, but it did him no good, because the issue wasn't an issue based on secrets, but on ignorance and informal decrepitude made real in the flesh. After all, one assumes Salas would have understood the security protocols he worked under daily 50-years ago; only in his old age, when he invented from nothing this new character, would he so very clearly forget the protocols he once served, seemingly abandoning this supposed mental cripple to the darkness of post-traumatic stress disorder to make a wasted case for that oh-so-necessary full disclosure. All he actually accomplished in the process is far, far more suggestive of his primal dishonesty. It was not disclosure this young man needed -- it was leadership, leadership that Salas was poorly equipped to provide. Of course, had his fictional self circa March 1967 not been such incorrigible prick as his little folk tale suggests, he never could have tossed in that bit of emotive garbage supporting of full disclosure as a means to save future military personnel from the anguish of utter confusion and moral loss...

In any case, I'm looking forward to your assessment, and I'm curious to know whether Salas in Paris adds to his tale, or takes something away. I suspect a bit of both: adding to his account an emotive pillar of meaningless shame intended to rally subjective approval, while removing from the story anything possessing a "factual" quality that others can follow, wade through, and ultimately prove the worthlessness of.