Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

[James Carlson]

Here's an amusing little update: see http://www.google.com/url?q=http://ufoc ... VYfRvagx3w

It appears that Robert Hastings is once again telling everyone what a chronic little liar I am, with one small addition: now he's telling everyone that even Walt Figel says I'm a liar! He states, "His name is James Carlson, and he is a chronic, discredited liar. Even his father's deputy missile commander, Col. Walt Figel, says so."

I think I'll have to respond eventually, but it's just hilarious that this is the only tactic he ever uses. Not once has he ever discussed the evidence I've presented or the arguments I've published and discussed in some detail. Apparently I'm just a liar . . .

This is classic denial and persecute, a response that further solidifies his kinship with criminal classes. I honestly can't wait to see what he publishes next. He's basically at a standstill for a con man, so his repeat and deny is kind of a funny thing to watch on a real-time basis. It's like he's imploding in slow motion. Hats off to the individual in the forum above who says, "I've never even heard of you." That's the absolute perfect response, and it just rips into RH every time someone says it.

It's turning into a really good day!

[James Carlson]

Well, the past few days have been a bit exhausting, as I've been trying to point out a few relevant details regarding the Echo and Oscar Flight events at "UFO Casebook". I've actually been pretty surprised at their willingness to examine some of the details I've been trying to concentrate on; for the most part they've been extremely and unexpectedly open-minded about all of it, and I know for a fact that they've found the process to be a somewhat difficult chore -- one of them stated "Also, this is what happens when you're brain gets turned inside out. I feel like a goddamned hippy in a zen state right now. (sorry, hippies)" -- and given the details, I can definitely sympathize. I am thankful, however. They've been going at it like troopers, and in my experience, that's kind of rare. I'd like to say that it's all because I've tried to remain open, calm, and willing to answer all of their questions, but while that's probably helpful, I suspect it's more likely because they really want answers, and they're not getting any from the Hastings and Salas camp.

I don't think there's any doubt that the forum members are closer in opinion and outlook to UFO true believers than the skeptics crowd, but they're also somewhat dissatisfied with the claims made by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, since they don't seem to be answering any real questions -- just hit and run. They've also noticed in particular the weak case made by Hastings that seems to depend so much on grandstanding and blatant lies, so I think their examination is more due to that aspect of the issues than anything I may have done. In any case, I do think I've learned to simply answer questions and follow-up without sounding too insulting, and although it's their instincts that have lead them to look at the cases a bit closer, their judgment doesn't necessarily depend on their beliefs when valid evidence is actually presented. And for that I'm thankful (Happy Thanksgiving Day).

I'm pleased to see Tim Hebert has joined the discussion. He always adds a refreshing and calming bit of logical insight, so he's always most welcome. All in all, the entire thread is one of the sanest discussions I've yet been a part of, very much like the "Unexplained Mysteries" threads I've been pleased to be a part of in the past couple of years. It definitely makes for some interesting reading. The thread starts at http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index. ... 1352954005 if anybody else is interested. Robert Hastings makes a couple of pointed appearances. His reception by the forum members was remarkable, and most unexpected. Everybody's having a good time...

[James Carlson]

Everybody's having a good time...

Except the two Bobs . . .

[James Carlson]

Some websites do not allow you to post URLs until you've posted a number of other points. To remedy that, I'm submitting the below message to be pointed to at these other sites, thereby getting rid of the URLs in their forums.

I recently noted the above comments regarding UFO interference with ICBM sites at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, and decided to correct a few misconceptions Robert Salas and Robert Hastings seem to be so obsessed with. This apparently stems, for the most part, from their refusal to accept the claims of the only two people who were present at Echo Flight: Eric Carlson, the commander of Echo Flight, and Walt Figel, his deputy commander. Both men have repeatedly asserted that UFOs were not involved with those events in 1967. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, but Robert Salas, author of "Faded Giant", and Robert Hastings, author of "UFOs and Nukes" have been repeatedly accused of lying about and/or embellishing details of these incidents by those military veterans who served their nation well during the hottest period of the Vietnam War and the coldest of the Cold War.

If you wish to know exactly what happened in 1967, and why the missiles at Echo Flight actually failed, and why the Oscar Flight claims are so pointless, I encourage you to examine without cost the following narratives:

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo ... es-Carlson [this one is an examination of the issues for those unfamiliar with the case]

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

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

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... -the-foot/

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/20 ... ignorance/

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 at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight in March 1967, and include interviews with both the commander and the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. To this day, Robert Salas insists that both men confirm his claims of UFO interference, which both men deny strongly. Robert Hastings refuses entirely to discuss these matters in detail or answer any questions regarding the testimonies of these two men, preferring instead to attack the integrity and credibility of those publically 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 titles and alleged contents of various non-existent books relating epilepsy to paranoia and mental illness in order to suggest that one of his many critics shouldn't be trusted because of the epilepsy he has been afflicted with. Incredibly, he has also publically defamed the author of this missive by insisting that his own father "told him" about a nervous breakdown that has apparently been an ongoing crisis for over three years! Meanwhile, he refuses to answer necessary questions regarding his own 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 this incident 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 both men 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 neither Hastings nor Salas can honestly affirm. Both men, in fact, are proven liars who have created fiction and called it fact, something anyone willing to actually do the research can determine very readily for himself, as the events -- contrary to the claims of Hastings and Salas -- 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.

Dr. David Clarke, for many years an accepted expert regarding the British military forces' investigations of the UFO phenomenon, has also discussed this case in the context of the "UFO and Nukes" connection asserted by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas. You can read his article on the subject at http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/ ... nukes.html.

The folk tales currently being spread by Hastings and Salas have not merely been dismissed as one possible interpretation of their claims; they have been repeatedly dismantled and shredded -- proven as lies by witness testimony and documented evidence. There is no doubt whatsoever that they created this case outright. There were no UFOs involved -- it is a lie, and nothing more. Witnesses that both men have presented to the public have actually come forward to dispute the claims these men have 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. Salas and Hastings have perpetrated a UFO hoax of the worst sort, and have attempted to destroy the reputations and career service of better men than themselves.

The commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, CAPT (Ret.) Eric D. Carlson, has released the following definitive statement:

"Let me start by stating that, as best as I can recall, my only contact with Salas and Hastings has been on the phone. I did tell Salas that he could release my name to whomever he wished, don't know why he needed my permission. I have talked to a newspaper writer in Great Falls, several years age, and a TV producer from one of those UFO shows. With both these individuals I denied any knowledge of any UFO's at Malmstrom. In addition, I stated that there was no, repeat no, incident at Oscar flight as Salas maintains. The man is either lying or delusional.

"My only contact with Hastings was a call I received from him regarding his book. I stated that his book sounded interesting and he later sent me a copy which I read and gave away .... At no time did I mention anyone's mental status; yours, mine, his, or Salas', although in retrospect I could comment on Salas'.

"My memory is quite good regarding the events at Malmstrom and there is no doubt in my mind that there were no reports of UFO's and no incident at Oscar flight. I will be willing to discuss this with anyone who is truly interested in the facts."

His deputy commander at Echo Flight, COL (Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., has insisted as well that UFOs were not involved, and adds that his version of this event has been distorted by both Robert Salas and Robert Hastings in order to give the impression that an actual UFO was involved. He asserts very strongly that no UFOs were involved, nor were UFOs ever reported. Regarding the comments made on your website by Robert Hastings, COL. Figel has never, throughout the years I've known him, accused me of lying, and has, in fact, been refreshingly open and definitive in regard to the events of March 1967, and has repeatedly confirmed all of the aspects of this story that I've made available and that my father, Eric Carlson, has repeatedly confirmed. It's all just more of Hastings' pathetic nonsense.

Walt Figel has released numerous comments regarding the incidents of March 1967, including the following definitive statement:

"James,

"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.

"Second – Bob Salas was never associated with any shutdown of any missiles at any time in any flight and you can take that to the bank. Just think about this for a split second. He is a person wrapped up in UFOs to the Nth degree. Yet he could not remember he was not at Echo. Then he thought he was at November – wrong again. Then he thought he was at Oscar – wrong again.

"Third – 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.

"Fourth – 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.

"Fifth – The event at Malmstrom has a hand written log from me that was turned in just like all the other logs that I wrote over several years. I would think that if I wrote something like that in the log, there would be copies, it would have been classified at the beginning and then released along with the classified SAC messages and base reports. Nothing in that urgent SAC message even hints of UFOs at all and I think that it would if the official logs or telephone calls had referenced that fact.

"Sixth – When it happened, neither your dad nor I were “visibly shaken” by the events. 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.

"There is no Air Force “cover-up” [of the events of March 1967]; it just did not happen the way Salas and has portrayed the course of events. I am sorry that you are all caught up in a pissing contest with these people, I really am. They are just not going to let go no matter what you say or do. He has made a 15 year career pandering about the country talking about things he has no knowledge about. I am not at all interested in taking them on – it’s not worth my effort – I have more important things to do with my life. I much rather just stay out of it.

"Hopefully, we can move on. I did read about a briefing on the 27th here in DC. I am here in VA about 10 miles away. Interesting. Hopefully this helps you and confirms to you at least that your dad is a straight shooter and does not lie to anyone."

Robert Salas' commander at Oscar Flight, Frederick Meiwald, insists that he doesn't even believe in UFOs -- a strange comment to make in light of Salas' insistence that a UFO took out the missiles at Oscar Flight during an incident that resulted in an injury to one non-commissioned officer, requiring that man to be evacuated from the site by helicopter. When interviewed by Robert Hastings, he stated unequivocably that he doesn't remember anything at all about a UFO. In fact, Robert Hastings himself has written:

“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.”

In another interview conducted by Hastings, Meiwald is equally clear:

"RH: Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander’s consol—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 consol, 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."

The following exchange is also revealing:

"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."

For nearly ten years Salas was using Meiwald as confirmation of the events at both November Flight and Oscar Flight, stating that either my father or someone else called Meiwald on March 16 and told him all about Echo Flight. When interviewed by Hastings, Meiwald stated, "Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea." He has rebuffed completely the attempts by Hastings and Salas to establish confirmation for the UFOs they've invented.

Meiwald has also clearly stated in other interviews with Salas that only 3-4 missiles failed during the one missile failures event he has recalled; he's NEVER stated outright that the UFO story he told Salas in 1996 had anything at all to do with missile failures; it's never even been mentioned in context.

My father, the commander of Echo Flight in March 1967, was present when all ten missiles were taken off of strategic alert by an electronic noise pulse generated internally at the launch control facility. This pulse interfered with the normal operation of the logic coupler on the guidance and control module for that facility, causing thereby the failure of the missiles, which were, in effect, simply turned off. The incident was very well documented and was thoroughly investigated, and every word that Robert Salas and Robert Hastings have ever said on the subject has been repeatedly discounted or proven outright to be little more than lies and embellishments created for the purpose of making money from the sales of their books, the sales of associated videos, and the speaking fees they charge as a matter of course when retelling their ridiculous little folk tales.

I'm not asking you to believe these points I've outlined. It isn't necessary, as they're already included in the public record and can be examined by anyone who's interested in the subject. I do ask, however, that you give some further thought to claims you've discussed. You should be aware that there is another point of view in regard to this matter -- one that has been repeatedly confirmed by those men who were actually involved with this singular event in USAF history, has been very well-documented through the years, and was very thoroughly investigated by the USAF for some months after the incident itself.

There were only two witnesses at Echo Flight in March 1967: the commander of the flight, CAPT Eric D. Carlson, and the deputy commander, COL Walter Figel, Jr. Both men have publically afirmed that there was no UFO. Robert Hastings is merely an agitator -- a liar and a fraud who has repeatedly misrepresented the claims of the men involved in these incidents. He started utilizing this methodology years ago, found out it was convincing to a few ignorant people, and continues his path of slander and disruption as a result of this minor success. He's just a petty con-man and a fraudulent huckster -- nothing more.

Most sincerely,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

[James Carlson]

I thought it would be appropriate to have the alleged incidents at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight included in a list of hoaxes. To that end, I have done so -- interested individuals can read the entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UF ... 2C_1967.29 under the heading "Hoaxes involving military incidents".

Have fun -- it's an interesting list.

[Tim Hebert]

James, well done!

Yes, it's both interesting and fun. On to the next...

Best Regards,

Tim

[James Carlson]

Just a bit of an amusement here, included only because Robert Salas had some comments at the bottom of the page. In any case, this one's a bit of fun: http://www.examiner.com/article/bassett ... re-private

Don't forget to read the comments section, where Salas explains his absence to a bunch of people who just don't care. Talking about trying to take the high ground. Keep looking closely enough, and someday you just might get to see them eat each other in a cannibalistic orgy of "please don't rain on my parade".

Paul Kimball, however, supports Salas' stand (see: https://www.facebook.com/othersideoftruth) -- nothing wrong with that, of course. It's pretty amusing, however, that he also insists "The one thing that I'll give Greer - he's a showman, and he's entertaining. He's also a complete nutter / conman (one or the other, or perhaps a bit of both), but he puts on a fascinating performance." Oh, well. At least he's got the whole self-righteous thing going for him.

I guess it's a different story with Robert Salas than with Greer. Perhaps Salas isn't yet a "complete nutter."

[James Carlson]

Don't let anyone convince you otherwise -- those attempting to address their little UFO claims see it as a public relations ploy and nothing more. The little games they play, such as the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, is just more of the same. They play at public relations the way most people play at checkers -- they're successful if they can jump a few red chips and prevent others from noticing the big picture for a few turns.

In line with the latter point of strategy, some unknown individual managed to delete the Echo Flight and Oscar Flight incidents from Wikipedia's list of UFO hoaxes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes. Rest assured, everything has been returned to its natural and well reasoned state. I only mention it, because it seems a bit deceitful on someone's part to simply delete the entries without attempting to justify the act. I had no problem setting everything right, and I left the following account in the Talk pages Wikipedia makes available for all entries (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_ ... ted_hoaxes).

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.

The Wikipedia article is actually a lot of fun to read, and I recommend it heartily. As for the section under apparently "hidden" dispute (what else can you call it when someone merely deletes those paragraphs they don't particularly like), I've printed them below as a quiet reminder of those features Robert Salas has such a hard time appreciating in full.

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.

[James Carlson]

I think we've discussed often enough that Robert Hastings and/or Robert Salas have repeatedly relied upon deceit and subterfuge to establish their silly little UFO claims regarding incidents at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight in March 1967. It appears that once again it is this strategy that they unerringly use the most. The above Wikipedia article that I made a point to correct after its partial deletion yesterday was once again edited in order to establish claims that can't be supported without censoring well-documented assessments that prove otherwise.

The original presentation of The Oscar Flight UFO Incident (March 24, 1967) summary that I corrected yesterday states:

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.

That same paragraph was edited sometime yesterday evening to read:

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.

The pathetic reliance of some people on the obvious distortion of well-documented facts will never surprise me -- we've seen it so often in regard to these same cases. Given that the only paragraph that was screwed around with demonstrates not only Robert Hastings' inability to examine material evidence properly, but also his complete and utter dishonesty represented by his insistence that Meiwald's wholesale rejection of his and Salas' UFO claims has instead "confirmed 100% of Salas' UFO assertions."

One interjection here: I have no problem reaching the conclusion that this underhanded attempt to publish complete lies and distortions was authored by Robert Hastings. After all, he's practiced exactly this type of of deception in the past, the details of which have also been thoroughly documented. The fact is he's been a practicing and obvious fraud for years! Experience tells us that he's not beyond utilizing such tools to make himself more credible in the eyes of his audience -- a credibility he certainly doesn't deserve. This scenario is also supported by the odd circumstance that none of the damaging appraisals addressing Salas' and Jamison's claims were even touched -- and there were plenty of 'em, too! Whoever determined to "hide" the injurious facts proving the falsity of the Oscar Flight incident seems to have been primarily concerned with the public examination of those very points establishing Hastings' errors of fact and his failure to actually read the transcripts of his own interview with Col. Meiwald.

I suppose it must be somewhere between hard and impossible to take Meiwald's clear and intentional insistence that "I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object," then curl it, slice it, and scatter the words and letters liberally across the internet in such a wide enough arc of presentation that he can suggest without being forced to defend the conclusion that "Meiwald had confirmed 100% of Salas' UFO assertions." I guess he figured that by distorting only one small portion of a paragraph discussing the singular history of Meiwald's testimony, that it wouldn't be noticed, and he wouldn't be forced to face up to his own dismal failure to address the case he's been trying to make for years now in the honest and forthright manner that people generally expect.

I had hoped that just once Robert Salas and/or Robert Hastings would finally take the opportunity to defend their silly little UFO claims in the traditional method of evidential arguments presented in a point/counterpoint format highlighted by the willingness to answer a few pointed questions -- all of which would represent his best opportunity to establish his UFO claims. If he's got a valid case to make, he could easily defend his claims on Wikipedia. The editors and administrators would be forced to at least consider his claims. Of course, this approach would probably represent a pretty severe setback to his cause if he has no actual evidence to submit.

History suggests the truth of this assessment. Clearly he has no real case to present. That would, of course, explain his continued reliance on utter deceit, lies, and the aggressive intent to respond to criticism and contrary arguments with overtures of complete silence. Why argue when your primary strategies are represented by attacks on those presenting such arguments, and the wasted attempts to censor opposing views.

Thanks, Robert. Your histrionics have done more to destroy your case and credibility than anything I've been able to put together. Your dishonesty may represent to you a possible means to address the issues, but to everyone else it's just more evidence in support of the proposition that your claims should be summarily dismissed.

[James Carlson]

You gotta loved the guy! He's so consistently stupid... Once again, he's relying on censorship to press an account in lieu of evidence and a confirmed case study. I guess he figures he can promote his claims by trying to forcibly prevent others from responding to his egregious lies and ill-gotten testimonies.

That's right -- he checks wikipedia everyday and tries to delete what he can't argue against.

God, he's a lot of fun, isn't he? So predictably unsavory...

[Tim Hebert]

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.

Don't understand why they don't list the Echo shut down. Even without the UFO angle it's a good story...and it really happened and is well documented.

Tim H.

[James Carlson]

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.

I agree -- it's a little odd for someone to be interested in one wiki article that is almost word for word the same as another wiki article that for one reason or another has never been vandalized. And yet, there it is. I find it's easy enough to restore the original text, so this sort of "force" at play is almost uniquely futile. Who in God's name can attain some sort of satisfaction from committing such a useless and irrelevant act? I find that as I get older, my capacity for real pleasure due to the meaningless yet amusing little protests of others has increased. And I seriously get a huge kick at some of the little petty annoyances people come up with to exercise their belief in UFO conspiracies.

From my point of view, the futility of such protests is especially amusing, because every time I restore to original what these petty little so-and-sos inserted or edited, I always find something new yet logically apparent to add -- all of it due to the interesting protocol used at Wikipedia. For instance, upon restoring the last bit of vandalism (which is the term Wikipedia uses -- strangely appropriate, isn't it?), I discovered another list that demanded attention. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes, for instance, a couple of additions were recently inserted. Just for fun, see if you can find what was added (here's a hint: look under "Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors").

I realize the whole thing seems a bit tedious, but I'm hoping to get at least one of the two irate enough to take part in an organized debate of some sort, during which they could attempt to defend their claims, while I would find myself in a position to ask direct questions that they will in turn feel obligated to answer. I've always found it fascinating that after all these years, neither Salas nor Hastings has proven himself willing to answer questions and explain evident conclusions. Wikipedia would, due to their organized protocol, be ideal for such a confrontation.

Of course, I don't expect it...

[James Carlson]

More Wikipedia Updates

I don't know how long it will last, but it seems that at least one editor at Wikipedia has reached the same conclusion I addressed almost a year ago (July 2012), and made the following sweeping edits (more to justify, I think, his desire to see me go away than anything else -- but I'm good with it):

1. At the general article on Malmstrom Air Force Base (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmstrom_Air_Force_Base), the entire subsection devoted to the alleged UFO at Oscar Flight was deleted.

2. At the associated article List of UFO-related hoaxes (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes), nearly two-thirds to three-fourths of the entire listing was deleted, including those I entered for the Echo Flight and Oscar Flight incidents. I'm actually okay with this, although I did raise a lot of discussion in the TALK pages in regard to the inconsistency evinced by Wikipedia editors when it came to changes instituted in the past three days. I figure I got exactly what I had originally demanded: removal of the offending paragraphs in the general article on Malmstrom AFB.

Review of the TALK pages, however, do show a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to Wikipedia's desire to delete what they want and to justify it. I don't think they were able to do so properly, because I don't think they bothered to examine any of the references cited -- particularly those that were originally used to justify inclusion of the Oscar Flight UFO claims in the Malmstrom AFB article. If you do decide to examine those TALK pages, you'll see why I think they're a bunch of officious -- well, you know.

In any case, it looks like they decided to address the issue one last time by simply getting rid of all of it. One point was made I couldn't help laughing at -- long and for more than a fewe minutes, which brought a coughing jag that nearly choked me to death. Oneof the editors critical of the inclusions I made to the "List of UFO-related hoaxes" mentioned that the contents included had to be verifiable "as having been previously published by a reliable source and presented in a neutral point of view so that the article represents 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."

That was apparently the motivation offered up to prevent my attempts to discourage deletion of the claims that the Echo Flight UFO Incident was a hoax. Yeah. This seems to imply that Roberts Hastings and Salas represent a "reliable source" while also representing "the views of the mainstream academic community towards the subject" of UFOs. It implies as well that their claims do "not present original research ideas and concepts" that are "outside of the standard academic and scientific views of the subject." You see, I hope, why I found his excuses amusing.

He also insisted that the "anonymous IP was generally correct in removing larges swaths of materials that have not been published by reliable third party publishers with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." The section referenced was all the stuff that Hastings published about Meiwald. I was merely showing that Meiwald had actually told Hastings twice in the course of his interview that he didn't remember anything about a UFO. So it seems that in accordance with Wikipedia policy, Hastings' UFO claims were good enough to assert Meiwald as a confirmative witness in line with "standard academic and scientific views of the subject", but my attempts to use the very same third party reference should be deleted, because it wasn't "published by reliable third party publishers with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy."

I kid you not... I, too, was stunned to read it.

In any case, I'm satisfied that someone came along and decided to delete everything about these matters in both articles, but I felt compelled to include the following addition to the TALK pages in the general article on Malmstrom AFB (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmstrom_Air_Force_Base):

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.

On a somewhat related side note (and I find this part the absolute funniest of all) my inclusion of Robert Hastings and Robert Salas in the list of Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ho ... _impostors) has not yet been removed, so at the end of nearly an entire year's worth of effort, we can say that there is no mention of a UFO anywhere at Malmstrom AFB that can be associated with Salas and Hastings, while both men are, to date, notably present (so far) on a list of Known pranksters, scam artists and impostors.

I'm good with it...

[sentry579]

My opinion is that Wikipedia is bastardized information and it should not be a substitute for quality sources. Sadly for many, it is.
Secondly, Wikipedia (due to user input) frequently has bloated entries on topics a real encyclopedia woud never cover in such detail.

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.

[Tim Hebert]

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.

I tend to agree with the above. I recently posted a blog article on the internal workings of Wiki editorial processes highlighting some of the issues with its articles. Below is a portion from that post:

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.

Hopefully will see better editorial control from Wikipedia, but I'm afraid that the project has grown exponentially so that proper editorial moderation is almost impossible.

Tim H.