Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi
James Carlson wrote:Everybody's having a good time...
Hoaxes involving military incidents
A new category -- Hoaxes involving military incidents -- was added to this listing by James Carlson; the category includes two entries: "The Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967)" and "The Oscar Flight UFO Incident (March 24, 1967)". Full sourcing and references have been included, so there are no grounds for deletion of the entries, as was applied 18 May 2013. The deletion was completed by unknown individual(s) in order to facilitate the continuation of these hoaxes to the public via a national press conference review organized under the title "Citizen Hearing on Disclosure" (http://www.citizenhearing.org). The main perpetrator of these two hoaxes, Mr. Robert Salas, is still trying to present his claims, and is a part of this hearing on disclosure.
Make no mistake, however. These two events meet all of the requirements necessary to be included in this list of UFO hoaxes, and they have been fully referenced and discussed. The acts of those perpetrating these hoaxes have been fully documented and make very clear not only their intentions in regard to UFO hoaxes, but the fallacious quality of their claims in the first place, part of which is their silent attempt to edit this listing without cause or explanation. There are no grounds for their deletion, and no attempt was made to explain their possible reasons for doing so. The fact that the perpetrators of a UFO hoax are still attempting to present their spurious claims to the public is not sufficient reason to delete these incidents from this list of UFO hoaxes, and unless a proper challenge is at some point adjudicated by the administrators and editors of Wikipedia, any further attempts to advance the fictional claims they have addressed by attempting to hide the qualities of those claims that reveal their true character will be equally useless, because I'll simply put everything back the way it was, and is.
Part of the unique quality of Wikipedia that makes it such a valued resource is the protocol it has developed to reach considerations and accord regarding what can be supported as fact, and what cannot. By ignoring such protocol in order to practice the deceit represented by hiding dispute and the facts that negate their ridiculous claims, those perpetrating UFO hoaxes make very clear the absence of foundation to their assertions. When claims are established by hiding the proof of their falsity, they -- and those attempting to use such means -- deserve to be packed off into the garbage to which we customarily dispose of useless things, thoughts, and impressions. Let them present a case instead of trying to hide proof of their lies. Every point I've addressed in this listing has been properly referenced, and properly applied. As such, they should only be deleted with cause, and that cause has yet to be presented.
Hoaxes involving military incidents
The Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967)
Once considered to be among the top ten UFO incidents supported by the most reliable evidence (as determined by a board of UFO experts), the Echo Flight incident of March 16, 1967 has been proven to be a hoax originally initiated by Robert Salas and James Klotz of CUFON, and was primarily disseminated through numerous web-based articles, radio interviews, and their book "Faded Giant", which is still available for purchase on Amazon and other web-based venues. Specific points intended to support the UFO aspect of the claims were later inserted into the original case study by UFO researcher Robert Hastings in order to increase credibility of the hoax. These points were later published by Hastings in his own book, "UFOs and Nukes", which is also still available for purchase. Based on an actual incident during which an entire flight of ten Minuteman Missiles was disabled by an electronic noise pulse within the logic coupler located in the launch control center of Echo Flight at Malmstrom AFB in Montana, the claims of Salas, Klotz, and Hastings that the incident was the result of a UFO incursion was once considered highly reliable even though there were no actual eyewitnesses to support the claims established. The Echo Flight incident UFO hoax was discovered only when an attempt to confirm the claims of the alleged witnesses was undertaken. All of the confirmatory witnesses named by Salas, Klotz, and Hastings insist that the claims made were false, and that they never confirmed the UFO claims attributed to them. They insist as well that no UFOs were sighted, reported, or investigated, and that the actual cause of the missile failures was well established as an electrical malfunction by those charged to investigate the incident. The fact that no attempts to confirm the UFO aspect of the claims were undertaken by anybody for the first fifteen years that the hoax was perpetrated, even though the UFO aspect of the claims was only inserted into the case 30-years after the fact, there were no eyewitnesses, there was no documented report of a UFO, and there was no investigation undertaken of a UFO as required by active military directives at the time supports the contention of skeptics that UFO proponents are far less inclined to test or otherwise confirm UFO claims than those assessing claims established in regard to other, perhaps more scientific, fields of study.
The Oscar Flight UFO Incident (March 24, 1967)
The identification of this case as a hoax became clear when the primary witnesses to the alleged event were brought together by UFO researcher Robert Hastings for the purpose of changing essential elements of their claims, the establishment of which were intended to create corroborative testimony where such testimony did not originally exist. The Oscar Flight UFO Incident as promoted by these men includes numerous details that were not part of their original claims, while specific elements included in their original claims that contradicted the new assertions of the group were removed.
Upon publication of claims regarding the Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967), Robert Salas, James Klotz, and Robert Hastings, together with a small coterie of alleged witnesses, attempted to assert parallel claims regarding another UFO incident that allegedly shut down another full flight of nuclear missiles, this one occurring a week later, on March 24, 1967, at Oscar Flight on Malmstrom AFB. It is alleged that all ten of Oscar Flight's Minuteman ICBMs became inoperative, supposedly after UFOs were seen hovering over them. The personnel responsible for perpetrating this hoax include Captain (then First Lieutenant) Robert Salas, Colonel Frederick Meiwald (named as a confirmation to the UFO claims asserted by Salas and Hastings, charges he has refuted), and Robert C. Jamison. For the record, it should be noted that none of these men actually witnessed anything themselves, making all of their testimony in regard to the alleged UFOs second-hand. All of them admit that the information originated with unnamed individuals who have never come forward to speak on their own behalf, making their claims impossible to verify, and dubious at best. None of the men reported these UFOs within 25-years of the alleged incident, and they have presented no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that any of the Oscar Flight missiles actually failed in 1967 (or on any other date, for that matter).
First Lieutenant Robert C. Jamison claims to have overheard mention by an unnamed individual that a UFO had been sighted by Air Force Security Police at one of the missile silos. He never voiced this claim prior to 1992, and it wasn't until 2006 that he decided the incident took place at Oscar Flight, having been persuaded to reach that conclusion by UFO researcher Robert Hastings. For at least fourteen years he claimed that he could not recall the exact location of the first UFO -- this being the one that was apparently never sighted, reported, or investigated by the USAF. He could only state that he was "certain" the incident occurred at one of the flights near Lewistown, Montana, which could indicate Echo Flight, November Flight, Mike Flight, or Oscar Flight. He asserts as well that he overheard mention on a nearby two-way radio that a second UFO had been "sighted on the ground in a canyon near the town of Belt".
Regarding the failure of all ten missiles at the flight, Jamison apparently has no direct knowledge of that alleged "fact", having participated in the restarting of only 3-4 missiles, a not uncommon task in 1967 given the unexpectedly high number of documented missile failures later proven to have been due to faults in the guidance systems. He claims to have heard from an unnamed NCO that the entire flight had been disabled, but this testimony was never mentioned prior to July 2010, just before Robert Hastings and Robert Salas started openly taking donations for a September 2010 press conference in Washington, DC that Jamison also participated in. Although Jamison claimed before this that an entire flight of missiles -- which he confidently assigned not merely to Oscar Flight, but to one of four possible locations -- had failed, the introduction of the originating source of this information -- the unnamed NCO -- had never been discussed prior to July 2010.
In addition to Jamison, Robert Salas has also claimed that the entire flight of ten missiles failed, but it is a matter of record that his story has changed significantly since he first went public with his claims in 1996. It is no exaggeration to assert that Salas' documented inconsistency is the only consistent aspect of his claims. He has changed the date of the incident, the location of the incident, the number of missiles involved, the time of the incident, the order of events, the details of telephone calls made both during and after the incident, the number as well as the names of the individuals who either initiated or participated in the communication of those details (both during and after the incident), both the personal and official responses to the incident, as well as the complete record of USAF personnel who have allegedly confirmed the claims he has made. His involvement (with Robert Hastings and James Klotz) in the perpetration of the Echo Flight Incident UFO Hoax tends to lessen his credibility in regard to this matter as well. It's also very hard to ignore the fact that the one man Robert Salas has named to confirm his account of a UFO at Oscar Flight, his unit commander, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, has stated that he remembers no more than four missiles ever failing while he was on duty. More to the point, Meiwald also insists that he remembers nothing in regard to a UFO sighted during a missile failures incident, which apparently occurred on a date he also does not recall, all of which he admitted outright to Robert Hastings during a telephone interview, the clear contents of which Hastings chose to ignore, insisting instead that Meiwald had confirmed 100% of Salas' UFO assertions.
In regard to the Oscar Flight location of the incident, Robert Salas originally claimed to have been on duty at Echo Flight (see: The Echo Flight UFO Incident above), and later at November Flight, when the alleged incident took place. It should be noted that during the three years Salas claimed to have been on duty at November Flight when the incident occurred, he was in possession of an October 1996 letter from Meiwald insisting strongly that they had only served at Oscar Flight. During this entire 3-year period, Salas knowingly claimed that Meiwald confirmed his story of a UFO coincident to the failure of missiles at November Flight, where Frederick Meiwald admits they had never served. All of the above changes to the details of this alleged event does, however, prove without even the slightest doubt one salient fact: Colonel Frederick Meiwald is the only witness testifying to this incident who has insisted from the very beginning that the location was Oscar Flight. None of the other witnesses can make this claim. Unfortunately, he also stated more than once that he remembers nothing about a UFO sighted during this or any other missile failures incident.
It should be noted that it was only upon the instigation of UFO researcher Robert Hastings that Jamison and Salas finally agreed that the event they recalled took place at Oscar Flight on 24 March 1967. James Klotz, co-author with Salas of "Faded Giant" and party to the creation of the Echo Flight UFO Incident (March 16, 1967), has refused to endorse the new date so clumsily attached to the Oscar Flight claims. Given that a cursory examination of USAF Project Blue Book records available since July 1967 proves that there were no equipment failures throughout Malmstrom AFB on 24 March 1967, this refusal to attach his name to another hoax of the same type was probably a good idea when such a hoax can be so easily refuted.
It's also very hard to ignore the fact that the one man Robert Salas has named to confirm his account of a UFO at Oscar Flight, his unit commander, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, has stated that he remembers no more than four missiles ever failing while he was on duty. More to the point, Meiwald also insists that he remembers nothing in regard to a UFO sighted during a missile failures incident, which apparently occurred on a date he also does not recall, all of which he admitted outright to Robert Hastings during a telephone interview, the clear contents of which Hastings chose to ignore, insisting instead that Meiwald had confirmed 100% of Salas' UFO assertions.
It's also very hard to ignore the fact that the one man Robert Salas has named to confirm his account of a UFO at Oscar Flight, his unit commander, Colonel Frederick Meiwald, has stated that he remembers no more than four missiles ever failing while he was on duty. Meiwald confirmed 100% of Salas' UFO assertions.
Tim Hebert wrote:It's all interesting to see the "forces" at play. Prior to posting here, I took a look at the wiki article for Malmstrom and saw the "Alleged UFO Incident" and see that it appears to be basically the same since I last saw it.
Recent complete deletion of all UFO report references
I just have a couple of things to note:
1. Since I started trying (since July 2012) to get you people here at Wikipedia to refrain from publishing the UFO nonsense that you have liberally littered the internet with, there is one very consistent complaint that you have have continuously assailed me with: you repeatedly insisted that any editorial changes I've made must also have an associated summary detailing the changes I've made and why they were necessary.
After a series of communications from last night, I've noted that editors apparently found it necessary to delete the entire discussion of The Oscar Flight UFO Incident from this article (general article on Malmstrom AFB), and to delete about two-thirds to three-fourths of the contents of another article, "List of UFO-related hoaxes" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UF ... _incidents. I couldn't help but notice that no justification for or detailed explanation of these sweeping changes has been posted. It seems more like someone simply deleted what they didn't like (or didn't want to justify) and refused to explain it -- and these were HUGE changes, large swaths of the articles in question simply REMOVED.
Is this simply more arbitrary b.s. that you don't feel needs to be explained? I have to tell you, the dancing that Wikipedia editors have forced me to go through this past year without reason or real cause, and without bothering to even examine the materials I've presented to justify the claims I've made and the changes I've requested you to assert have left me with a really sour taste in my mouth. To note that other editors seem to have no respect for the detailed negotiations and regulations that I've been forced to abide by tends to lessen the casual respect the lot of you labor under the impression you actually deserve. So my question is: do you believe that the protocols you've instituted serve as a means to enforce good order and consistent change, or is just a way to discourage people from correcting the most egregious errors and blatant lies that you've chosen to promote?
2. If you had simply deleted the single paragraph regarding an alleged Oscar Flight UFO incident from this one general article about Malmstrom AFB as I had originally requested nearly a year ago on the grounds that it represented a complete lie that never occurred and that those attempting to publish had failed to substantiate, you might have saved yourself a lot of grief, poor publicity, and a growing reputation based on the disdain of those who now see that you really don't stand for much of anything in the line of high principles until somebody craps all over your parade. You could have saved yourself from all of this by simply examining the references that were included with the original paragraph you decided to publish when it was first submitted, or when I asked you to do so in July 2012.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm thankful you finally decided to do just that, something I put a lot of effort in trying to convince you to do, but it's a little hard to ignore the fact that it took you nearly a full year, and that you seem to have adopted this remedy simply to avoid the chore of actually examining the somewhat lengthy repercussions of allowing publication of that original paragraph in the first place.
The past couple of days I've been informed that self-published works do not qualify as a valid reference. The primary references of that original paragraph were all self published works. I've been informed that references that do not have a reputation for error-checking and the substantiation of claims addressed do not qualify as a valid reference. None of the references to that original paragraph can assume that reputation, and all, in fact, have been properly assessed as sources that have no published assertion of such ethical admission and -- by their noted failure to apply such rules -- have been charged regularly with publishing completely false and misleading accounts. I've also been informed -- and this is the funniest thing -- that an article should represent the views of the mainstream academic community towards the subject of the article and does not present original research ideas and concepts of the Wikipedia editors or others whose ideas are outside of the standard academic and scientific views of the subject. The standard academic views in regard to a UFO taking out 20 missiles at Malmstrom AFB are NOT on the side of those making such a claim. In fact, the standard view of the mainstream academic community is universal: IT IS BUNK THAT HAS NO BASIS IN HUMAN REALITY. When these ridiculous assertions were made in Washington, DC, the only comment coming from the "Washington Post" reporter who was present as the ONLY representative of those evincing the standard academic and scientific views of the subject was that the cookies they served were good!
Why did it take nearly a full year for you people to address these issues?
I sincerely hope I never have cause to correct your grievous errors again. I have been told that I never should have been involved in the first place, because MY attempts to correct YOUR admitted errors constituted a Conflict of Interest. In light of the facts addressed above, perhaps you should reexamine that Conflict of Interest clause, because it looks to me that if someone has no exceptional reason to desire the correction of your numerous errors of fact, application, and irresponsible need to publish claims that have no redeeming characteristics at all and cannot possibly be asserted without the publication of blatant lies and false conclusions, you would today be known as the publishers of a UFO account that has been claimed by one man who has been selling it and denounced by dozens who were actually there. In such a case, YOU would become the perpetrators of the fraud simply because YOU refused to conduct any of the fact checking you expect of the references used by your editors, something you could have avoided had you merely examined those references in the first place as I repeatedly asked you to do.
sentry579 wrote:I think your goal in editing and contributing should be to see that some balancing sourced statemants are made, and that you provide links to where a reader can find objective factual information on the topic.
A few weeks ago both Echo and Oscar Flights were listed in the wiki article as hoaxes or complete fabrications...that appears to have disappeared from the article. At least that's how I remembered the initial article. Perhaps Carlson will be able to shed some light on my memory of the editing events.
What's the best way to deal with the issues with Wikipedia? The best approach, one that I had proposed in a past blog post when I became aware of the Wikipedia articles on the Malmstrom UFO incidents, is to have two sections to any given UFO wiki entry. That is one can present evidence (with citations) supporting the UFO hypothesis and a separate section could present a dissenting view point (with citations) with an alternative hypothesis. This way both sides can be heard/read in a fair and consistent way. Let the reader decide which side presents the credible point of view.
I do not believe that there should be any form of censorship regardless of who is presenting their respective points of view. Hastings and Salas, and others, should be freely able to have their viewpoints aired out in Wikipedia's format as well as that of James Carlson...or me, for that matter. Its up to the reader to decide who makes the better case.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests