Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:16 pm

One of the editors admitted to me outright that false references or references without the qualities necessary to establish simple fact are common, and that some untrue assertions or poorly based assessments will remain literally untouched or unexamined for years. Even worse, there's very little motivation for anyone to fix what's obviously broken. When someone has a strong, personal motivation to correct any deficiencies, there's an immediate recommendation to prevent that person from clearing up excessive errors due to Conflict of Interest. Basically, anybody who has independent knowledge due to prior publication of claims, personal experience necessitating a high interest in the final assessment, or even just a desire to publish the truth that happens to be stronger than Wikipedia's desire for a balanced accounting can be prevented from making changes by charging Conflict of Interest. It can theoretically create an odd little point of view. They seem to be insisting that only those individuals without any real interest in the outcome are allowed to assess arguments. But disinterested judges are often careless in regard to things like references used. When all editors are volunteers, and those with any investment (personal or financial) in the outcome are discouraged from presenting arguments, you're left with a recipe for carelessness and laziness.

Look what happened with Oscar Flight -- they didn't bother to look at any of the claims made in regard to the references published and the requirements necessary to grade those references until a year later someone got pissed off enough to apply those rules. And these are the rules they came up with to prevent the sort of garbage they ended up being responsible for preserving! They wanted to create a system intended to place a severe limitation on dispute while allowing for the maximum interaction of the most readers, but because they've done so while purposely alienating almost completely anything that could be represented as "expert testimony" -- supposedly a reasonable way to limit dispute -- the ended up creating a system that had little means to determine the value of whatever they ended up with, all because they don't consider a review of the references used to be as important as the number of references used. It's the type of system that could eventually be used for things like Holocaust denial, but I really don't think those volunteer editors see it. If they did, they would consider it far more appropriate to examine in some detail the claims being made instead of those making the claims. In the long run, if your facts can be well-established, any conflict of interest loses its relevance pretty quickly. And if your claims are not backed up by the references you've used, than those claims should be rejected. Of course, you'd never see that if you haven't examined the references. You still need a judge, and disinterested judges, in my opinion, are not the best. Well, it's their system. It will eventually succeed or fail on its own merits.

As for me, I certainly agree with Tim and sentry579 in regard to a saner balanced assessment -- if such a thing is possible, and I'm not certain the first claims were. That's the primary reason I wanted Wikipedia to delete them entirely; there was no possible balance to work on -- the claims made were completely false and could not be reassessed even with new facts introduced. The original claims they tried to establish started with the presumption that Oscar Flight suffered a full flight failure on March 24, 1967, and that's complete and utter B.S. You can't balance that sort of presumed environment. It was a falsification similar to someone trying to claim that Kennedy was shot because he wanted to start a war with Eskimos who had emigrated to British Columbia by stating, "On November 22, 1963, the same date that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Inuit warriors who had that very day taken the train from the frozen wastelands of the new Territorial Leprosy Colony of Hawaii . . ." Anything that follows shouldn't even be considered. I was told repeatedly that it couldn't be done simply because I insisted the original presumption was wrong. They refused completely to reexamine the references upon which the presumption was based, and insisted that there could be no original dispute because the claims were already referenced. That's why I ended up having to change everything by adding all new information. There's an inbred preservation of original claims regardless of their veracity that's endemic to the system they've put in place. Eventually, that became the only thing worth depending on. You can't find bad information by getting rid of it. At least you can't do it without ruffling a few feathers.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:48 am

Paul Kimball has once again reassessed his take on Echo Flight [see: http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... 0-ufo.html]. I'm glad that he's finally issued a more concrete opinion than he has in the past, but a bit disappointed in the way he's done it. He pretty much dismissed the case we've made in regard to Salas' claims. He states that both Robert Hastings and I are "bonkers," following up this conclusion with his own assessment, preceded by "Focusing on the case instead of the feud". This implies that while his own determination has been made after a review of the facts, the case we've presented was not based in fact, but was merely argumentative.

Worse than this, however, is Kimball's outright statement that Robert Salas' claims are simply wrong, not because he's repeatedly lied about the cases he's tried to promote, but because he made innocent mistakes that were probably the result of hypnosis he allegedly underwent to recover his memories of the incident. Of course, he only has Salas' word that there was some reliance on hypnosis, and he's managed to reach his conclusion that Salas "is an honest man" who "made a genuine effort to remember things as they happened" by ignoring the many claims Salas tried to establish that have been absolutely proven to be lies. One example of this is Salas' insistence that both my father and Walt Figel have confirmed his UFO claims well after both men very publically denied ever having done so.

There's also Salas' problematic insistence -- a claim he maintained for three years -- that the "incident" he recalls took place at November Flight, even though he was in possession of a letter from his erstwhile commander that they had only served together at Oscar Flight, a letter he held for that entire three-year period. These are not mere "mistakes" that Salas made while attempting to establish his claims. These are proven instances of corruption. In addition, Salas made repeated claims that the USAF was never able to determine the cause of the missile failures, an assessment that could only be reached by ignoring most of the command history that Salas also had in his possession from day-one. He insisted repeatedly that the Echo Flight incident investigation ended after the investigation of the launch facilities, even though the history made it very clear that the investigation continued for months afterwards. He stated plainly that the investigation team was unable to reach any useful conclusions when the documents he was already in possession of had established that the noise pulse that had actually caused the missile failures could not have originated from outside the launch facilities, a finding that the investigation team used to conclude that the pulse must have originated within the launch control facility -- and that's a pretty important conclusion to reach! Salas was unable to use it, however, because his claims necessitated an origin outside of the electrical system in use. These are lies as well.

Salas also insisted (in a claim that he was ultimately forced to abandon) that the "Echo MCCC related to me that prior to the shutdown of all his missiles he had received more than one report from security patrols and maintenance crews that they had seen UFOs." The Echo MCCC, however, insists that no such communication took place. In fact, he affirmed in 1996 that there was no UFO reports nor UFO sightings.

Salas also stated that the "Echo crew confirmed that they had spoken to my commander that day and told him of their incident." The Echo crew denied this repeatedly beginning in 1996. Salas' commander insisted as well that no such communication took place.

"The Echo DMCCC also informed me that he had written an extensive log of the Incident and turned that over to staff officers at SAC headquarters." In fact, the DMCCC has made it very clear that there was no mention at all of UFOs in his log. And while Salas states that they "certainly did report the UFO sightings and their guards and maintenance personnel were interviewed about their sightings by Air Force investigators" both of the crewmen at Echo insist that he is lying, that there was no UFO sighting and that no such interviews ever took place.

Salas has also affirmed on more than one occasion that his commander, Frederick "Meiwald also verified that it was the crew of Echo Flight who had called him on March 16, 1967, after which the commander told Salas, "the same thing had happened at their flight." The entire crew at Echo and Salas' own commander, Meiwald, have repeatedly insisted that this, too, did not occur. And yet, Salas continued making these claims for years.

This is just a short collection of lies; there are literally dozens of such examples. None of these can be dismissed as honest "mistakes." They are very obviously lies that Kimball has decided to ignore. This decision allows him to state plainly that "I like Bob Salas (the primary witness) as a person, and think he is an honest man, but I also think that while he's made a genuine effort to remember things as they happened, he's got it wrong."

Salas, it seems, is not the only one who "got it wrong." Of course, both men have been (and are still being} compensated via the sale of these claims. Instead of looking for something that sells, they should have been testing their claims and looking for the truth. Kimball gets partial credit here -- partial because he now believes that Salas' claims are simply wrong, affirming that "I can't buy Malmstrom as anything other than a missile failure due to prosaic reasons, and some tall tales that he has absorbed as a truthful narrative."

Unfortunately, he's still selling that so-called "documentary" that states in some detail the complete opposite of the conclusions he's now apparently reached.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:28 pm

You should not get so worked up over this James. Kimball has his opinion and that is fine with me and should be with you as well. It is a case of disagreeing with what conclusions that are drawn. The interesting point is that he finds many of the cases he presented in this film not very compelling. I can take issue with the remainder that he presents but I see no point in it. ALL of these UFO cases are a matter of interpretation of what is said to have occurred. In many cases, there are no real facts/data to work with other than the memories of the participants. Even the beloved RB-47 case has a meager amount of information that can interpreted different ways as I tried to demonstrate in SUNlite 4-1.
The bottom line of the Malmstrom incident investigation is that there is no data/documentation to support the claims of Salas and there is a reasonable explanation for the Echo flight shutdown. Neither require any UFOs to have been present affecting the missile systems.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Aug 18, 2013 9:27 pm

James, per Kimball, Salas' tale is based on some sort of regressed memory brought forth by hypnosis. In other words, Oscar Flight existed purely in a hypnotic trance. Kimball agreed with my premise that Salas may have been a victim of a hoax and we have touched on that scenario. Its not far fetched of a theory, as I'm still inclined to move in that direction...what else is there?

BTW, you know that you have ruffled some feathers and for the most part that has been a good thing as it exposes the likes of Hastings and others. Please consider Tim Printy's advice.
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:58 am

Don't get me wrong -- I'm definitely not worked up over this thing. I just don't see how Salas could possibly have made all the claims he's made and still be trusted. As for the hypnosis thing, that's just a dream pulled out of a hat. It's meaningless. It's also a new introduction to an old story. Hypnosis is only mentioned 16-17 years after the fact? All Kimball's doing is pointing Salas to an exit sign that doesn't immediately lead to a cliff, and I don't buy it for a second.

In addition, Kimball's point of view suggests that he's the only one who's actually examined any facts, at least 65% of which I've been pointing out to to people like him for the past 3 years. It's disingenuous and insulting at best.

Salas' claims are not the result of hypnotic suggestion, and any attempt to affirm such a condition would be reckless in my opinion. He has changed his story far too many times to rely on hypnosis as an excuse. I know, Tim H., that in your field you've probably had more cause than most to examine the testimony of subjects under the weight of hypnotic suggestion. So has my Dad. He's a psychologist who has used hypnosis on many occasions. While I haven't had cause to use hypnosis professionally, I do know quite a lot about it, more than most educated men, I'd wager, and it's ridiculous to assume that Salas' claims can be rested with such a dubious excuse.

In any case, none of it proves Salas' honesty, and the fact that Kimball "likes" the guy doesn't make his eyes shine up in the cosmos. The man's a liar, his telephone calls to my Dad notwithstanding, and Kimball's newly addressed look at the issues is not a compelling one. It's just an insult to his own intelligence as well as mine. The fact that he's willing to insist upon the man's honesty while ignoring everything that man has said and done since 1995 is pathetic. You've read Salas' 1996 emails to Raymond Fowler. How exactly does a man make those claims without being a lunatic or a liar? Keep in mind that we're talking about a man who was apparently enthusiastic about having finally tracked down the deputy commander of Echo Flight at the same time he was publically claiming to be the deputy commander of Echo Flight!

We're talking about a "witness" who has repeatedly -- over the course of at least 15 years -- deconstructed and reinvented himself in public for only one reason: to convince military witnesses to come forward with the claims that he and CUFON just knew had to exist. The fact that James Klotz pulled out when the stories got so ridiculously fantastic under the hasty tweaking of Robert Hastings doesn't exonerate him and Dale Goudie and Salas for planning this whole con in advance. It just means Klotz noted Hastings' injurious paranoia, craven dishonesty, and willingness to say anything at all to promote his barely fluent conjectures and ideals (with his own name at the forefront, of course) a little bit sooner than Salas did. And keep in mind that they had already discussed in some detail the possibility of creating a believable UFO hoax merely to show how fast the USAF would react to shut it down. I always thought it was just a bit of preemptive reputation protection that after more than a few years CUFON announced the details of this con just a bit prior to Salas' initial claims. It's a confirmed point of fact that the primary goal Salas had was to convince other military witnesses to come forward with UFO claims (more than a little prepared, I'd venture, to let them fight their own legal battles should they actually reveal classified information -- a legal conflict Salas himself would never have to face, given that his claims have never had any factual basis that might require actual criminal charges).

The only way hypnosis could ever be blamed for Salas' story would be if he continued to be under hypnosis periodically for 12 years or more. If this represents Kimball's "Focusing on the case instead of the feud", he should probably consider refocusing. Once again, he's merely pulling back a bit from the irresponsible rhetoric that can no longer stand on its own as a result of the overwhelming contrary evidence that's been presented, while getting paid to publically assert a contrary point of view -- one that has already convinced an audience with little knowledge or will to attempt some sort of objective confirmation of those claims. Absolute belief is so much easier to maintain from the cheap seats when objectivity has no real value; the same holds true when that point of view is examined without any sort of contrary assessment, making it not only unbalanced at its core, but irresponsibly one-sided. The fact that the more worthless of the two stories Paul Kimball has now presented is also far more likely to be examined and commented on than this contextually new revelation he's so recently adopted tends to allow him the easy means to have his cake and eat it too.

In all sincerity, I'm gratified that he's at least willing to reach the same applied conclusion that I invited him to examine years ago, but his attempts to exonerate a man who has been so egregiously dishonest for so many years and in so many ways is just another worthless vindication of general UFOlogy. Salas isn't the perpetrator of a vainglorious UFO hoax; he's merely a good man who made a few mistakes. Salas hasn't willfully invented a tale of UFO interference with our nation's first line of nuclear defense; he's merely another victim who can't be held responsible for the ugly and contemptible attacks he's tried to foster upon this nation and those men and women who have elected to devote their best years to that nation's defense. We all know that UFO claims aren't the mere hoaxes they so often resemble; they're just little errors that take nothing away from the ethical position of men and women with a military background who witness and report UFOs, often at the price of their own reputations, because we all know what heroes they really are. Well, Salas isn't a hero -- he's just a cheap little liar who has been selling those lies since 1996, and he's done so while attacking and attempting to diminish in every way the reputations and careers of far better and more honorable men than he is, in many cases waiting years until those men have died before publically eviscerating them.

In any case, I'm perfectly willing to watch Kimball's little tap dancing through a warehouse of actual evidence he's all but refused to examine, but I think I'll also reserve the right to criticize his abilities and point out his blatant hypocrisy every time he hits the boards face down.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:55 am

James,

I was unable to reply fully earlier as I had to head off to work. I think that the more rational way to look at Kimball's statement is that he is giving the impression that there is nothing to any of the Malmstrom claims. He is just many of a growing list that sees the shine off the bloom of Hastings' and Salas' claims. Did Kimball come to that conclusion all on his own? I seriously doubt that. And, is it important at all how he reached his conclusions? That's not important. The fact is that Malmstrom has been a dead issue for quite some time.

I personally have no proof that Salas is intentionally lying or being fraudulent in his current and past claims...I have no evidence of such. Yet, per Kimball's assertion that Salas is fair and honorable, I have no proof or evidence that such is the case either. What I do know is that Salas has made numerous claims that are completely contradictory of each other and that it is possible from a psychological angle that he has confabulated to the point of a type of fix delusional state.

Kimball's claims that Salas (supposedly, for I have no proof of that) under went hypnosis raises questions about the Oscar affair regardless of what version he has presented. If we take Kimball's statements at face value, he supposedly talked to Salas, and say that this is true, then the mystery is much clearer and explains the following:

1. Why he was initially confused at his alert location.
2. Why no one that was present on the LCF came forward to support his claims
3. Why Fred Meiwald wrote the 1996 letter stating that he remembered things differently
4. Add in anything you want to at this point.

I'm reminded of a fairly recent blog post on Kevin Randle's blog where he basically paints Salas as a broken or lone figure. At least that's my impression.

If Kimball is wrong on all accounts, then the above 4 points still apply.

Therefore, this tortuous argument is irrelevant and merely becomes circular in nature with no end or conclusion to anyone's satisfaction. I firmly believe that we are at the end of this saga and yours and mine hold true based on the weight of the evidence.

Kind regards,

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:47 am

I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I had a bit of a back and forth at Illumination Everywhere [see: http://kirkomrik.wordpress.com/2013/08/ ... mment-2265]; it wasn't an extremely big deal, but I didn't want to waste the opportunity to set a record straight when there are so many people around who are critical of your work for all the wrong reasons. And as you know, I don't like to ignore matters when people actually take the time to ask good questions.

I have given your response above some thought, however, and writing out the comments I've made at Illumination Everywhere has also reminded of a number of things that Salas has said and done since first presenting his stories in 1995. It is due to those many ways that Salas has continued to press his claims that I have to disagree with your own conclusions. One habit of his in particular has always bothered me, and makes the excuse of hypnosis regression unlikely to have a basis in fact. You remember the emails he sent to Ray Fowler in 1996-7? He discusses in those communications how hard he had been working to track down the Echo crew and his own commander, and how this had an effect on his own memories, bringing everything back to him and making him more sure of the mission he had given himself. He told Fowler how his commander (Meiwald) had slightly different memories than his own, and would not admit to all ten missiles failing -- only 4 or so. His first article also insists that there was no full flight failure at November (later Oscar). It was in increments over the years that he raised the number of missiles. He didn't do it at once -- he did it over time, and now he's at ten missiles. That is not the behavior someone would have if they had undergone hypnosis regression. In fact, nothing he says gives us reason to suspect that he underwent hypnosis regression, including the fact that he didn't bother to mention it to anybody in those early years. Why would he ignore such an important part of his memory retrieval process? Why would he fail to mention it to Ray Fowler, or James Klotz, and why would he fail to discuss it in any way to those interviewing him?

So he only mentions it to Paul Kimball? And Kimball says that this immediately brought out (for him) the warning flags that something may not be entirely kosher about the story, and yet, he says and does nothing?? No, Kimball just waits around until the story starts to fall apart many years later, and folks start to question him about his own integrity. He acts rudely and dismissive at first, but then other folks start coming forward with their own stories and claims, and Salas' silence and the insanity and repeated lies of those trying to support him begin to raze the support he once had. And at this particular time, Kimball decides to re-release the new DVD of the "documentary" that put Salas on such a pathetic pedestal in the first place, which is when he breaks the hypnosis story. Sorry -- I just don't buy it. PK is just being coldly manipulative, just like he's been in regard to this matter from day one. "Oh, I never believed for minute that the story had wings, but what could I do with his name on the list?" He starts crying that it wasn't his fault, and now he's saying it wasn't Salas' fault either.

Nope. This is just another case where a few people got together to press their ridiculous claims. Then when the party started to fall apart, they pulled together to make as much money as possible while doing everything possible to place the blame on somebody else. This is what con men have done throughout all of history. As long as you can still go on Amazon and purchase the crap that they now admit is untrue, then they are still responsible.

As for hypnosis, if that's to blame for the story, then Salas would have had to undergo that hypnosis every time he changed his story -- and as you well know, that's a whole lot of times! How does hypnosis make a man insist for years that all of his so-called confirmative witnesses agree with him when they don't? Would someone under hypnosis read Meiwald's 1996 letter, and just ignore it? And if he did, would James Klotz?

The four points you've raised don't make the mystery clearer -- they make it much harder to understand. The ONLY explanation that clears up everything and corrects all the problems that we've noted through 17 years of Salas' claims and counter claims is the most obvious: he's a liar. Hypnosis doesn't cause a man to understand a statement given to him, and the next day tell everybody something completely different. It would require hypnosis every time he recorded another man's statement for that to happen. I think it's far more likely that Kimball is tossing out silly explanations to explain behavior that is deplorable conduct -- anything at all to get rid of the responsibility people have to be honest.

These are not honest men, Tim. They are highly flawed men who got caught abusing everybody who ever trusted them, as well as everybody who ever had their reputations turned to mud because people kept telling lies about them for 17 years. They don't get let off the hook by insisting that they're just the victims of hypnosis regression therapy. They get let off the hook only when they apologize, stop selling their crap, and admit to what they've done.

And frankly, the fact that Kimball is trying to explain his own bad judgment and profiteering in a field already well-known for its irresponsible, incompetent, and downright insulting behavior by introducing a new explanation that allows everybody to walk away from the obnoxious remains of their little experiment in mass market slander without the weight of personal responsibility is very possibly the worst thing this little group has done. I can't help but remember all the horrible and despicable things that Salas said about Lewis D. Chase, Dr. Roy Craig, and Robert Low, only waiting for them to die before trashing their reputations. We know from Fowler that Salas was very much aware of Dr. Craig's discussions regarding Echo Flight from 1996 on, and yet he made no appropriate attempts to discuss the matter with him. It was only after Craig's death that Salas decided it was time to confront this threat to his claims, doing so only when Craig could not possibly have raised some kind of protest or defense in regard to to these matters. Salas has a history of unrestrained and deceitful behavior intended to press his claims, and has consistently changed the details of those claims every time someone successfully countered them, doing so for over 15 years. I just don't believe his character or his cynicism can be explained by hypnosis -- he's been far too methodical and careful in regard to the strategic handling of his claims over time.

I certainly could be wrong, but I really don't think I am. Also, I agree with you that we're "at the end of this saga," but I think it's poor behavior for people to pull up stakes and distance themselves from the controversy when they're partially responsible for it. The fact that someone can reach such a conclusion and yet is still willing to sell the very means of propagation of the original fiction suggests that the motivation for adopting this new viewpoint is probably not one that's governed by a heartfelt and sincere rejection of Salas' claims.

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby Tim Hebert » Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:25 am

James,

I think you misunderstand my stance on the hypnosis claim by Salas (per Kimball's blog post). I am no where implying that this explains all of the claims that Salas has made concerning Oscar. I have no proof that such a thing was said to Kimball in the first place. But...but, if true, then it may well be a factor...but certainly not the cause of the full scope of Salas' claim.

Kimball wrote a comment on my blog post, then deleted the comment while I was composing a reply. Why he did so, I've no earthly idea, but my reply is still there. The Salas claim was not in the documentary, but he stated to me that he has that segment that was edited out where Salas states that he underwent hypnosis to "remember" the event. To me, not you, but to me that is important for it readily shows that he had no rational thoughts about anything happening.

I've always suspected that the Oscar Flight BS was the by product of confabulatory thinking. I do believe that you told me that your father thought so too.

You give me the impression that I'm giving Salas a pass, when it is really the opposite. I only note the the hypnosis angle is another bizarre component of this story, if...if, it is true. Yet, it does not change my conclusion one bit.

Anyway, if you hadn't yet, read my latest blog posting and my comment to Kimball (which his is self-deleted).

I've got work to do with the Minot case and Malmstrom was a walk in the park compared to this one, but I labor on.

Tim H.

PS, I went to the link provided and read the article and comments section. So now your dealing with a conspiracy nut, at least that's how it reads. Good luck with that. TH
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:35 am

Looking back, I think I probably did misinterpret your viewpoint. It sounded to me like you were indeed giving Salas a pass on the grounds that hypnosis relieves one of responsibility for their actions. The timing of Kimball's account seems to me to be problematic. He could have mentioned it years ago, as could Salas, and yet this is the first time I've ever heard of it. I can't help but be a little suspicious when such an exit strategy is proposed. And like you said, I have no way of knowing whether the story is true or not. Part of my suspicions are the result of Kimball's dismissal of everything except the claims he helped to advance. And when he finally does commit a reversal, he does so with contempt for the settlement and exoneration for Salas. I think he's two-faced, because he acts that way.

You're absolutely right regarding the hypnosis angle being another bizarre component of the story. Given the source, I can't help but feel he's making excuses, especially given the timing of his DVD's re-release. I got the impression a long time ago that he really didn't care one way or another whether his documentary is truthful or not, so his turn around is annoying more than anything else. It's a little disconcerting as well that while adopting a point-of-view I've been promoting for some years, he's nonetheless insulting me while relegating my work to the same level as Hastings'. Two things I'd like to know: he says his new point-of-view is the result of examining the case history; well, I'd like to know what information he's used to establish this reversal, because I can guarantee he isn't relying on anything Hastings has produced. His insulting commentary and conclusion that I'm "bonkers" suggests that the case I've made is one he finds unconvincing, so what exactly changed his mind? His refusal to even examine the case history combined with his notable contempt for the one I made 3 years ago means the case that finally convinced him had to come from somewhere else -- so where? Secondly, I'd like to know how Salas reacted to Kimball's new revelations.

Regardless, however, I think he's a hypocrite who has no real concerns at all for the truth. The fact that he's still trying to exonerate Salas of his responsibility is sickening, but I've come to accept that in light of the source.

I did go back and read your response to his deleted comments. Thank you for that -- you had some very kind words to say and they didn't go unnoticed. You're a good and loyal friend, Tim, and that means a lot. Thanks for correcting me above. I still think Kimball's just whitewashing so nobody has to be responsible for a situation that I find personally offensive, but I'm gratified that you're examining it with a little more objectivity. For the record, I think Salas is a bit delusional as well, but that probably doesn't mean much given that I'm so bonkers.

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

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:50 am

Interesting article at TOP SECRET WRITERS entitled,"Robert Hastings: Scam Artist or Ufology Expert Misunderstood?" [see: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/08 ... d/#respond]. There's some interesting conclusions even though I believe the author may not have been aware of some of Hastings more annoying qualities. The article itself, however, is well-executed and his conclusions are a little more insightful than most websites discussing similar topics. Our good friend Ryan Dube is the founder of Top Secret Writers -- it's an interesting website...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby nablator » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:27 pm

James Carlson wrote:Interesting article at TOP SECRET WRITERS entitled,"Robert Hastings: Scam Artist or Ufology Expert Misunderstood?" [see: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/08 ... d/#respond]. There's some interesting conclusions even though I believe the author may not have been aware of some of Hastings more annoying qualities.

Hello James,

Reading your long commentary at http://www.topsecretwriters.com I am curious about your source for the quotes, allegedly by Robert Hastings in which he, "while evincing sympathy, had nonetheless destroyed the man's reputation and credibility in public, refusing to accept Bennewitz's claims as anything other than the symptoms of a severe mental disorder."

"In public"... was it a lecture, conference or interview? Your version is nearly the same as the one in "Associated Investigator's Report #1" dated 20 Aug 1993 but there are two more elements in it, so your source must be somewhere else.

Have you read Chris Lambright's book that conveniently helps Robert Hastings salvage the supposed UFO-nukes connection from the Bennewitz case? I was disappointed to find only ultra-weak "I want to believe" arguments in it, tenuously linking Paul Bennewitz's UFOs over the Manzano Weapons Storage Area to Ray Stanford's UFO and to some speculations about UFO (vehicles — UFOs must be vehicles) propulsion.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:39 am

Hi, nablator -- it's been awhile.

You should take a look at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_c ... o01g_a.htm under the heading "Dr. Maccabee, Bill Moore & MJ-12". As for the original source,I suspect Hastings sent copies to a large number of UFO proponents. He does tend to promote himself as a matter of course, and he's done it before. It would certainly fit his personality.

Cheers,
James

P.S. Thinking back, the original may well have been posted to one or more of the UFO electronic message boards that used to be all the rage. If so, I may have the original somewhere (I have a number of CD-ROM message board archives that I picked up a year or so ago). Give me a couple of days to look around, and I'll get back to you.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby nablator » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:30 pm

James Carlson wrote:You should take a look at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_c ... o01g_a.htm

That is the one and only "AIR report #1". According to Bruce Maccabee, the author is Todd Zechel. Robert Hastings included parts of the text page 487 in his UFOs and Nukes and made a passing reference to Zechel's misguided attack against Bruce Maccabee p. 503. It is possible that the feud between crashologists could have led to all sorts of exaggerated claims and I would not take anything any of them wrote for granted without independent corroboration.

Sources:
AIR report #1 http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/cia.research
B. Maccabee's rebuttal http://textfiles.vistech.net/ufo/UFOBBS/2000/2535.ufo
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:42 pm

nablator wrote:
James Carlson wrote:You should take a look at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_c ... o01g_a.htm

That is the one and only "AIR report #1". According to Bruce Maccabee, the author is Todd Zechel. Robert Hastings included parts of the text page 487 in his UFOs and Nukes and made a passing reference to Zechel's misguided attack against Bruce Maccabee p. 503. It is possible that the feud between crashologists could have led to all sorts of exaggerated claims and I would not take anything any of them wrote for granted without independent corroboration.

Sources:
AIR report #1 http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/cia.research
B. Maccabee's rebuttal http://textfiles.vistech.net/ufo/UFOBBS/2000/2535.ufo

Thanks for the heads-up on this one. I'll have to see if I can find the original document (presumably by Robert Hastings). What is it with these guys in the UFO world? Apparently they have reasons not to trust anybody, even those who may actually agree with their basic premise. Are they always this paranoid, or are they constantly arguing with allies and foes alike? I'll look for that "independent corroboration" you mention -- thanks again for pointing these out to me.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby nablator » Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:41 am

James Carlson wrote: I'll have to see if I can find the original document (presumably by Robert Hastings).

Thank you!

I wonder what Robert Hastings was thinking in 1989, when he said absolutely nothing about the credibility of the Bennewitz photo/video material:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/hastings.htm

20 years later he wrote :
According to Moore, Bennewitz had become a target for this disinformation and harassment after he informed OSI, in October 1980, that he had photographed UFOs over the Manzano [Nuclear] Weapons Storage Area, located just east of Kirtland AFB, on several occasions during the previous 15 months. Soon-to-be-released evidence, collected and analyzed by another researcher, will prove that this was indeed true.
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2009/04 ... pings.html

UFOs, there, means extraterrestrial vehicles and the 'proof' is, of course, Chris Lambright's X descending book...

Are they always this paranoid, or are they constantly arguing with allies and foes alike?

:lol:
A very interesting collection of letters from/to Todd Zechel uploaded on scribd last year by James Carrion:
http://www.slashdocs.com/inxstw/todd-zechel.html
or
http://scribd.com/doc/95202743/Todd-Zechel
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron