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 » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:47 am

Robert Hastings has once again decided that it's time to press the same old claims about Echo/November/Oscar Flight UFOs by repeating the same arguments that he's been unable to establish in past years. Is anybody else as bored with him as I am? See UFO CHRONICLES for more of the same. He once again insists that:

(1) Walt Figel confirms a UFO at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967;

(2) Kaminsky confirms that a UFO was responsible for the loss of missiles during "his" team's investigation of the missile failures;

(3) Frederick Meiwald confirms "100%" of Robert Salas' UFO claims at Oscar Flight a week later.

Really? Still this crap? Once again the fact that these claims of his have been proven to be false, and that most of his claims are easily shown to be another long litany of lies and half-truths is simply not relevant to the claims he wants to establish. He's proven nothing except his own obsession with establishing these fraudulent assessments that he and Robert Salas have invented. This fact, in my opinion, proves one thing quite handily: he is convinced that his "theories" in regard to UFOs and nukes apparently can't be promoted properly in the absence of Robert Salas' Echo/November/Oscar Flight claims. The fact that both men are forced to lie about the case and the "witnesses" who allegedly support that case is not even relevant. They seem to believe that without the Echo Flight foundation, the UFOs and nukes theory falls apart. It isn't even news anymore -- it's just pathetic and annoying.

So why do they continue to do it? Well, Echo Flight is the only mass failure of missiles that can be substantiated in FOIA documentation. No other UFO case they're pushing presents that class of evidence -- they're all fables and stories that establish nothing in and of themselves. Unfortunately, Salas' and Hastings' investments in the lie are too extensive for them to cut and run, so they have to keep supporting what everybody else knows is a fraudulent conclusion. That's why they have continued to change major aspects of the case study instead of dumping the whole thing on the roadside like any reasonable person would have done years ago.

Robert Salas appears to have reached a similar conclusion on his own. He has now decided that his status as a witness to UFO phenomena needs a little more "oomph!" to it than his Echo Flight claims alone can provide. His solution? He's now pressing claims that he was abducted by a UFO in 1985. Since there's no documentation or other evidence to support the claim, he can't possibly be criticized as a liar and a fraud on the basis of proven lies as in the Echo Flight case he has promoted and attempted to establish. It's an obvious and pathetic attempt to regain his past status as an important "witness" to a phenomenon that he cannot otherwise advance by telling the truth. As a result, only the dim reflections of unassociated details can now be aligned with actual events, none of which can possibly be used to absolve Salas, nor those aggressively promoting the false history he has attempted to create. He is now merely another silly and malfunctioning claimant to a form of reality that cannot be established, convinces no one, and fails to impress a world notably annoyed at the prospect of another failed UFO promotional program.

What's the matter, Robert? Too many people calling you a liar to your face? Amazing ... It's now in your best interest to create an easily dismissed fiction that relies entirely on the fact that it allegedly took place a quarter-century ago, and cannot be supported or otherwise confirmed with any evidence whatsoever. And therein lies the future of American UFOlogy. Next on the docket: full disclosure of the UFO in my pocket.

Robert Hastings, on the other hand, has never promoted himself as a witness to anything, so he's forced to stick with what he's got and has already published. Obviously, he believes that his credibility cannot be maintained if the cornerstone of his UFOs and nukes flim-flam -- the March 1967 UFO scams at Malmstrom AFB -- falls apart under the weight of his many lies, his unsupportable conclusions, and his laughably consistent attempts to publicize a case he has no real ability to even understand. As a result he continues to insist upon the truth of conclusions that his own witnesses -- Figel and Meiwald among them -- have completely denied and repeatedly affirmed the falsity of. Unfortunately for his dreams of being accepted by the world as an ethical and trustworthy salesman of UFO memorabilia, the obvious nature of his unethical attempts to forge such an egregiously false identity means that he will eventually die under a cloud of doubt and pathetic attempts to alleviate that doubt by doing nothing except insisting that black is white and true is false. These are lessons that children could learn, and yet he learns nothing. Unsurprising, really. He can't even understand the quality of the cases he tries to promote, so we can't expect much of him when it comes to the basic analysis of standardized, human technology. It's doubtful he even cares.

Read his newest article for yourself. He's once again insisting that everybody is lying about March 1967. Walt Figel confirms a UFO was sighted. Meiwald confirms a UFO at Oscar Flight. Kaminsky proves a UFO was at Echo Flight, even though every detail of his story has been proven wrong. Of course, only Robert Salas is willing to stand up and say "a UFO did it!" In fact, all of his supposed "witnesses" have been very clear: Salas and Hastings are both liars. Hastings is a fool who can't explain the events he attempts to establish because he doesn't understand the issues involved. His only real forte is self-promotion, and he's not really very good at that either. It would be sad and tragic if it weren't so damn funny.

In any case, there's no point in continuing to discuss the obvious. Unless there's some significant change to the strategy they've decided to use in order to press their case, there's not much more needing to be said. Hastings and Salas are a couple of jokes who believe they can scam the rest of the world by making idiotic claims they can't support. Enough people have come together to promote the truth that I don't need to comment on every ridiculous little story that Hastings and Salas come up with next. The point has been made and there's nothing left to do but laugh at the idiocy they've promoted. The proof is out there and easy to find if you're interested enough to look. It's a plain fact that if you believe the lies that are being promoted by these two con artists, your assessment has no real value. Try judging the issues before believing them. You might learn a thing or two.

Seriously -- these guys are complete idiots. If you accept their claims as truthful without even bothering to try and confirm any of it, then you're willingly accepting the burden that comes with being an idiot yourself. And until Hastings and Salas come up with something a little more intelligent than the crap they're still promoting, that's my last word on the subject. Read the information we've already published here at Reality Uncovered, and then decide whether or not these scam artists are worthy of your time and belief. And when you ultimately decide that they aren't, take a few minutes from your day and let them know how you feel. What they are doing is unethical and dishonest, and they don't deserve to profit from it.

As they say at Marvel Comics: 'Nuff said!!
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 Robert Hastings » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:09 pm

As predicted James, you still didn’t provide an actual link to the tape recorded conversations I had with Walt Figel (or that Bob Salas earlier had with Figel) to more easily facilitate other persons finding those.

Gee I wonder why?

In any case, one may find those links within my latest article about the Echo Flight UFO incident, which is at http://www.theufochronicles.com/2013/11 ... james.html.

Of course, James misrepresents the content of that article so, assuming that there are at least a handful of objective minds reading this blog thread, I have inserted it below so that one may remove the middle man, James, and read it without his disingenuous filter.

The reason I restated the key facts relating to the Echo Flight and Oscar Flight UFO incidents at this time was to provide some context for Bob Salas’ recent revelation regarding his apparent UFO abduction encounter in 1985—and to reveal that I have been approached in recent years by six other individuals with military backgrounds similar to Salas who have divulged having such experiences.

James fails to mention that fact because it undercuts his assertion that only a degenerate liar like Bob Salas would dare make such a claim after first discussing his involvement in a more nuts-and-bolts UFO experience at a nuclear weapons site.

In any case, the new article—sans active links—has been inserted below. The full-length audiotaped conversations involving Salas, Figel, Meiwald and myself are available at my website:

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/tel ... l-usaf-ret

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/the ... -incidents

http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/ech ... not-unique


The Echo Flight UFO Incident: James Carlson is Still Wrong After All These Years

Saying that the moon is made of green cheese doesn’t make it true, even if one repeats that claim over and over, hundreds of times, or finds a small band of like-minded believers who parrot the claim.

It’s not entirely clear why James Carlson continues to post countless comments online, denying the existence of UFO reports during the Echo Flight missile shutdown incident at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, on March 16, 1967, in the face of witness testimony to the contrary—including from one of the missile launch officers present that day.

Carlson knows about the tape recorded conversation between myself and now-retired Col. Walter Figel, the deputy missile commander at Echo during the incident, in which he told me that he had indeed received a radio call from a security guard at one of the Echo missile silos, saying that he was observing “a large, round object” hovering “directly over the site.”

Figel also confirmed that he had, in response to the call, sent out two Security Alert Teams to investigate the report and that at least one of them confirmed seeing the object hovering over the missile silo. Figel also said that he and James’ father, Captain Eric Carlson, had been debriefed back at Malmstrom and told not to talk about the incident.

While my recorded conversations with Col. Figel took place between 2008 and 2010, he had made nearly identical statements in another taped phone conversation, with former Minuteman missile launch officer Bob Salas, in 1996.

There are other U.S. Air Force veterans who have also gone on the record about a UFO involvement in the Echo Flight incident, as well as a Boeing Corporation engineer, Robert Kaminski, whose job it was to find out why the missiles malfunctioned.

In 1997, in a letter to researcher Jim Klotz, Kaminski wrote that, “There were no significant failures, engineering data or findings that would explain how ten missiles were knocked off alert. In other words there was no technical explanation that could explain the event.”

Kaminski also wrote, “Meanwhile I was contacted by our representative at OOAMA [Office, Ogden Air Material Area], Don Peterson, and told by him that the incident was reported as being a UFO event—that a UFO was seen by some airmen over the Launch Control Facility at the time E-Flight went down.”

Actually, the large round object sighted by the missile guard and reported to launch officer Lt. Walter Figel, had been hovering over one of the Echo missile silos, not the launch control facility itself. Nevertheless, Boeing engineer Kaminski’s revealing testimony essentially confirms Figel’s account of a UFO-presence during the incident.

Of course, if James Carlson were ever to admit that Kaminski’s letter is important, or that Figel’s tape recorded statements to me and Bob Salas do indeed contradict his father’s now-discredited claim that there were no UFOs reported at Echo Flight, he would in effect be admitting that he has been making a complete fool of himself online for the past several years, by championing his dad’s untenable position and, in doing so, viciously insulting the other veterans and researchers who dare challenge it.

This is one reason why Carlson will never, in his many online rants about Echo Flight, provide a link to the tape recorded admissions by Col. Figel that are available online.

After all, one can hear Figel tell me that, while he was skeptical of the UFO report he received from the security guard, it nevertheless did indeed occur. Figel also says, clearly on the tape, that while he thought the guard might be joking, that individual’s demeanor was calm and businesslike. “He seemed to be serious and I wasn’t taking him seriously,” Figel told me.

When I posted the transcript of this conversation-excerpt in 2008, James Carlson doubted it’s accuracy and chided me to post the actual tape recording. When I eventually did, Carlson then claimed that I had doctored it to make it prove my points. All challenges by me, to have a team of audio experts examine the tape—to verify that it is pristine and unaltered—have been ignored by Carlson and his supporters. Of course, they would have to pay for that expensive analysis so, it seems, they are not prepared to put some money where their skeptical mouths are.

Another reason James Carlson does not want others to listen to my tape recorded conversations with Col. Figel is because he refutes Carlson’s claims, calling them “off-base”. Figel also says that Carlson “has an ax to grind,” something that James certainly does not want others to hear—given that Carlson incessantly cites Figel as someone who supports his own position. Regardless, James’ relentless hate campaign is quite obvious to anyone who reads his breathless tirades against me and Bob Salas.

Even Carlson’s handful of supporters have urged him to tone it down, given the manic, often hysterical tone of his blog comment postings in which he wildly attacks anyone who supports the notion of a UFO presence at Echo Flight during the shutdown incident. Other, unaffiliated readers of his rants—who have no strong opinion about the case, one way or the other—have called him a “nut”, “wacko”, “fruitcake” and the like.

Years ago I myself accused James Carlson of “foaming at the mouth”. However, that was before I learned that he had been medically discharged from the U.S. Navy due to a diagnosis of epilepsy. One symptom sometimes exhibited during epileptic “fits” is indeed a frothing at the lips during the seizures. Once I had James’ medical situation brought to my attention, I never again used that unkind characterization of his online outbursts.

Nevertheless, James’ usually bizarre, over-the-top tirades against me and Bob Salas—he has called us “liars and frauds” countless times—raises the issue of his state of mind. When I spoke with his father Eric, in October 2008, he continued denying that UFOs had been reported at Echo Flight, however, when I asked why his son was so out of control in his online posts, Eric responded, “James has some problems.”

That same month, in a phone conversation with an associate of mine, Eric told him that he was concerned that James would “have a nervous breakdown.” (I am willing to testify under oath in a court of law that the elder Carlson’s comment to me was exactly as I have portrayed here, and that I have accurately related the other conversation as it was presented to me.)

So, does James Carlson incessantly lie about the facts relating to the UFO events at Malmstrom Air Force Base because he is psychologically unbalanced, or is it just due to his complete lack of ethics? Or both?

Regardless, the questions remain: Why is James Carlson so unwilling (or perhaps unable) to accept the fact that his father misled him when he said that there were no UFO reports at Echo Flight at the time of the mysterious, full-flight missile shutdown? Why does James continue to deny or, in some posts, twist Col. Figel’s candid, taped remarks to me and Bob Salas?

Similarly, why does Carlson repeatedly lie about Salas’ former missile commander, Col. Frederick Meiwald, who has made emphatic remarks supportive of Salas? In 2011, Meiwald told me during a taped conversation that UFOs were indeed present at a different flight—Oscar—when those missiles malfunctioned eight days after the Echo incident.

Although Meiwald had been on a rest break in the launch capsule when the ICBMs began “dropping off alert status”, once awoken by Salas, he witnessed most if not all of the missiles malfunctioning.

Meiwald also confirmed that moments later, in response to triggered alarms at one of the silos, Salas had dispatched a two-man Security Alert Team to the site. Those men, said Meiwald, saw “a bright, flying object at low-level.” near the missile silo and immediately fled back to the Oscar Launch Control Facility. One man was so distraught that he had to be transported to the base hospital before completing his shift.

James Carlson has for years loudly proclaimed that Salas was lying when he said that he had witnessed a UFO-related missile shutdown at Malmstrom in 1967. True, until Salas located Meiwald in 1996, he couldn’t remember the designation of the flight and thought that he might have been at Echo or November.

Nevertheless, by the time Carlson started his public vendetta against Salas in the late 1990s, Col. Meiwald had already discussed the UFO-related events at Oscar Flight with Salas during a taped telephone conversation. Meiwald later wrote him a follow-up letter containing more details.

Fortunately, James Carlson has a relatively small audience, even though he has posted hundreds of comments about these topics at various websites over time. Unfortunately, his hard core supporters, whose strong anti-UFO biases apparently allow them to endorse a delusional (or, perhaps, merely dishonest) person’s baseless charges, keep egging him on, rather than urging him to seek the help he obviously needs.

Now, in the wake of Bob Salas’ recent revelation about having had an apparent UFO abduction experience in 1985, the usual critics are gleefully sharpening their knives. Given their blanket rejection of anything UFO-related, Carlson and his crew can be expected to go after Salas with renewed viciousness.

Importantly, six other former U.S. Air Force personnel have provided similar accounts to me in recent years. Those individuals had previously been involved in a nuts-and-bolts UFO incident in one of the nuclear missile fields operated by various Strategic Air Command bases. Then, weeks, months or years later, they allegedly had an experience comparable to the one now being revealed by Bob Salas. In short, his account is not unique.

I will have more to say on this last subject at some point in the future. At the moment, I am still gathering data. While the number of military veterans who have told me of their strange follow-up experiences is quite small, compared with the number who make no such claim, their accounts obviously deserve serious, unbiased investigation.
Robert Hastings
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:55 am

You seriously want to to do this here? After all, you've been repeatedly spanked on this issue because you know nothing about missiles, nothing about history, nothing about this case, and nothing about how to conduct a simple analysis of historical accounts. You've shown a marked inability to get simple and untarnished answers from those you interview, you've released numerous audio files that are obviously re-edited, you've failed to learn anything at all about these cases, you've neglected entirely Meiwald's 1996 letter to Salas in which he states outright that his memories are very different from those Salas has published, and you apparently know nothing about the English language, because Meiwald clearly told you that he doesn't remember anything about the UFO Salas reports.

Your own witnesses insist that you and Salas are frauds who have invented a UFO from nothing. You have lied repeatedly about the conclusions reached by Figel and you've betrayed an apparent willingness to invent testimony that Figel has repeatedly denied. You've even rewritten testimony to limit internal conflicts and contradictions between witnesses. You have no substantive knowledge of classified materials protocol, you have refused to explain or even comment on the numerous contradictions between Salas' claims and the dozens of FOIA documents that have been released, and you continue to insist that Figel has rejected 100% of the testimony my father has presented, even though Figel has repeatedly confirmed that my father's assessment of these incidents are correct. You don't have any witnesses at all who will confirm this pathetic UFO obsession you've presented, and you've slandered and lied about anybody who disagrees with your assertions while ignoring completely the cases they have developed and the evidence offered that proves your dishonesty and the ridiculous lengths you will go to prevent such details from being discussed.

It's impossible for anybody who is familiar with these matters to conclude that your discussions present a valid, coherent case study to support your many pointless and egregiously fact-free claims. I can't tell whether you are merely an insulting and fraudulent liar or a deluded schizophrenic who should be hospitalized for his own safety, but I do know one thing: you are quite possibly the worst human I have ever had to deal with, and you lack completely any system of morals that might otherwise compel you to tell the truth. Instead, you've decided to make a case for UFO interference at Malmstrom AFB that pointedly ignores 95% of the evidence available. The fact remains that you have no witnesses, no documentation, and no means or desire to examine actual evidence, to properly interpret plain statements and denials, or to create a constructive assessment that explains the inherent facts describing these matters. I sometimes doubt that you have any capacity to understand these cases even from a layman's point of view, and I know for a fact that have no useful knowledge of the technology involved. You have even gone so far as to hire a public relations service to publicize your highly flawed interpretation of these incidents while publically insisting that those interpretations were reported on the basis of their merits.

You have no real case, Robert; you're merely a fraud who has been caught up in far too many lies to take you seriously or to suggest that any level of credibility be associated with your claims. You cannot be trusted to publish an honest appraisal of anything, let alone the issues related to Salas' claims. You might try learning something about military culture, but I doubt you ever will, because you seem to lack any desire to improve the pathetic state of your understanding. Not that it matters, of course; after all, you have no intention of ever answering any detailed questions or attempting to explain the dozens of contradictions that typify these cases, including Meiwald's assurances that he doesn't recollect any of the debriefing interviews or after-the-fact investigations that Salas has discussed. The fact is that Salas has insisted that Meiwald has confirmed his claims of an Oscar flight failure of all ten missiles after Meiwald told him outright that he remembers at the very most 3-4 missiles failing -- and even then, he has refused to associate those failures with a UFO.

You might try examining the evidence available before reaching ridiculous conclusions intended to support your claims when no such support has ever been established. You know nothing useful about these incidents, and your ignorance of the basic issues involved is palpable. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with these matters before making a complete and utter fool of yourself -- unfortunately, I suspect it's too late for that. You shot your load, missed the target, and now you're floundering like a child with punctured water wings in the deep end of a swimming pool.

I could go on like this for ages, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand any of it.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jan 13, 2014 3:23 am

I drafted a commentary to Tim Hebert's most recent blog entry "New Discovery Channel UFO Program's Segment on Robert Salas and Oscar Flight" (see: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2014/01/n ... grams.html), but due to my own desire to include as much worthy content as possible, I was forced to shorten it some. I've been sick lately, and didn't want to spend time editing, so I resolved instead to simply enter it here. Tim's assessment of Salas' crap shoot is well worth the visit, so please take a look. Anyway, my response to his examination follows:

"It's remarkable to me that this ridiculous UFO hoax is treated like the word of God. I always thought Canada was more sensible. I like your closing, Tim: "Lastly, there is a reference made that FAA radar had captured the Oscar Flight UFO on screen. This information supposedly obtained by way of FOIA. I've yet to come across this information as being mentioned by Salas and others. Could the program producers have mistaken this from a different incident?" Straight to the point as usual. The Discovery Channel let's us assume that there is sufficient evidence to support this practical joke for profit scheme, but they neglect to mention that there were no radar contacts within 120 miles, not one single report of a UFO anywhere near Oscar Flight, not even one confirmation of the incident from anybody, no witnesses, no documentation, no sighting reports, no investigation and no continuity to explain Salas' many different versions of this incident, including his original claim that it had occurred at Echo Flight, and the three years he insisted the event was at November Flight. This shameful mess is just another of many examples of Salas readjusting the facts for another payday. The best thing I can say about it, is to note that at least he's stepped back from discussing a "UFO" at Echo Flight.

"Keene and Randle, on the other hand, should be ashamed of themselves for contributing their names in order to "tweak" the credibility of this complete fiction. I wonder how much they were paid?

"The absolute worst aspect of this whole joker's exchange is one I discussed months ago: sooner or later, Salas would try to rewrite the claims Frederick Meiwald (his commander) had already established, but would do so only after he had died. He's done it before, and -- sadly -- he's now done it again in this TV drivel by associating Meiwald with an event Meiwald had clearly denied. After Meiwald's death on 8 August, 2012, you made it very clear (and properly so) that "Regardless of the UFO aspect, Fred Meiwald should be remembered for his service to his country first and foremost."

"I wonder if you remember my response (see viewtopic.php?p=37944#p37944 for the discussion, including Robert Hastings' fact free rebuttal)?

"I mentioned the UFO aspect for only one reason: Both Robert Salas and Robert Hastings viciously attacked Col. Lewis D. Chase, Dr. Roy Craig, and Mr. Robert Low for their supposed "cover up" of the Echo-November-Oscar Flight incidents, doing so only after they had died. This is unconscionable conduct, given that Salas, at least, has been very much aware of the claims these men were responsible for since 1996. All three were alive at that time, and would have willingly discussed this case with anybody. Dr. Craig's testimony, in fact, had already been publically aired in his book of memoirs, published by him in 1995. And yet, the point-of-view espoused by these men, the claims they made, and the importance these claims had in regard to the events at Echo-November-Oscar Flight were completely ignored by Hastings and Salas until after they had died. And at that point, all three men were viciously pilloried, their honesty called into question, and their reputations dragged like shattered plowshares through the mud of these pathetic UFO claims. We also shouldn't forget that Bob Kaminsky's claims regarding his involvement with a small, almost forgettable portion of the Echo Flight incident investigation were falsely associated with allegedly confirmatory testimony that was also never introduced until after his own death. More than once they've relied on the death of a witness to substantiate testimony they can't address during his lifetime; it's depressing and aggressively obscene every single time they pull this crap.

"Whenever we're dealing with the disgraceful strategies adopted by Roberts Hastings and Salas, it sometimes becomes necessary to establish more proactive assertions merely to set the record straight. Ideally, this needs to be undertaken before such common and insulting tactics can be employed so easily by those possessed of such mercenary contempt for both honor and truth."


Apparently Salas felt justified enough to reassert his claims that Meiwald confirmed all of this Oscar Flight garbage, when he very clearly did nothing of the sort. So now the Discovery Channel repeats this malicious and incorrect claim with the support of Keene and Randle, who once again have lent their names to a lamentable story that they have once again neglected to examine objectively. Just once, I'd like to see the moral support for Salas' hoaxed claims at least attempt to verify the nonsense they're being paid to support, but I imagine the paycheck alone applies the perspective adopted. That alone sparks a measure of the dishonesty I've come to expect of those trying to establish the UFO claims they've invented. To be honest, Keene's association was one I pretty much expected due to the claims about Echo Flight that she repeated in her poorly researched book. I expected more out of Kevin Randle, however, primarily because it's evident that he knows better. More to the point, the particulars and exhaustive analyses of Salas' claims are easily available to anyone desiring a critical, well-researched, thorough, definitive and consistently confirmed examination of these issues -- qualities and proof of character that is so patently absent when applied to the "testimony" of Robert Salas. Not that it matters; after all, the market determines the extent of the fraud.

Thanks for letting me vent. I was going to write up a critique myself, but I've got the flu, which tends to minimize my motivation.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:04 am

One other short point: until Ufology can operate with the same level of discipline and ethics in relation to claims made that they put into their pathetic evangelizing, their pleas to Congress are going to sound like the common bleating of so many sheep and easy to ignore. If they want to impress someone, they should try to confirm the claims they make before publication. They may still come off like delusional idiots, but at least they'll avoid coming across as dishonest, delusional idiots. Somewhere along the way, you'd think television producers wouldn't want to be associated with easily proven lies that they're putting forward as factual.

Salas STILL hasn't provided any confirmation for his claims, he still hasn't presented a single eye-witness to the claims made, and he still hasn't provided any documentation to support his claims. He has, on the other hand, told a large number of very consciously affirmed lies -- such has his claims about F. Meiwald as witness. You'd think that after so many years (since 1995), he could have at least come up with someone -- just one other person -- willing to assert a full flight failure of missiles at Oscar Flight in March 1967, but he's failed to do that as well. The man has absolutely no shame. There are numerous witnesses, on the other hand, who have repeatedly insisted that nothing happened at Oscar Flight, and that Salas wasn't involved in any missiles failures incident. With the huge amount of data available to anyone with the curiosity to examine it, you'd think the Discovery channel could have done all the legwork necessary to prove they were backing a dishonest story that fails any test of credibility you'd like to apply. I think it's very likely a point of fact that Ufology would have gone the way of the do-do had cable television not appeared when it did to make Ufology's false claims sound like the truth.

And they want people to take them seriously? That will never happen as long as they put up with the dishonest capering of liars and frauds. And WTF, Kevin Randle! You know better, man, and now you're just another name we can collectively ignore in the future as just another wasted point of view with the same compromised character as Salas and Keene. I expected more from you, but now you're a toss-off. Nice job!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:41 am

As mentioned in Tim Printy's most recent edition of his newsletter, SUNlite, Paul Kimball has republished his article discussing Robert Salas' Malmstrom AFB claims in the cointext of Salas' "confession" that he was abducted by a UFO in 1985. It's very much on point and asks a number of questions regarding credibility.

The original came right out of the blue, I thought, but it's nonetheless refreshing in light of the attention his "Best Evidence" documentary tends to get amongst UFO proponents. Make up your own mind at: http://beyonderstv.com/the-other-side-o ... gy/3484-2/

Cheers.
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 Jan 15, 2014 11:18 pm

James Carlson wrote:As mentioned in Tim Printy's most recent edition of his newsletter, SUNlite, Paul Kimball has republished his article discussing Robert Salas' Malmstrom AFB claims in the cointext of Salas' "confession" that he was abducted by a UFO in 1985. It's very much on point and asks a number of questions regarding credibility.


I had a blog article on this subject. I believe that the so-called abduction story came about when Salas underwent hypnosis in the late 1980s(?) Didn't hear that in the "Close Encounters" segment did we?

I had told Paul Kimball that the Malmstrom incidents were dead in the water, but he disagreed. Now I know why. Basically, the story will re-appear from time to time based on the new generation of people "just now" discovering the case. Similar to the cycle of infection, it keeps going around circles.

I had posted a Part II concerning the "Close Encounters" segment since the first article mainly dealt with the segments production qualities, or the lack of. Part II deals with my take on the entirety of the story...basically re-posted an older post since it presented my views...no sense in reinventing the wheel.

Did I hear correctly that Robert Hastings was/are is trying to put a movie together? Now that should provide some interesting production special effects...can't wait to see the visuals on that. If true, does Robert have to get your father's permission to being depicted or mentioned in such a film?
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 » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:58 pm

If someone is stupid enough to give him the money to actually film a project, I'm sure he'll do exactly what he's been doing since Figel set things straight: he'll tell everybody that the claims were confirmed by numerous USAF servicemen, leaving out any details that would enable someone to identify his resources. He'll just lie. He'll name people who aren't witnesses and say they are. You know his methods as well as anybody else.

Hastings' confirmatory witnesses are recycled regularly, so actual names and positions aren't that important. He's always got a backup. He's actually admitted (during the F.E. Warren brouhaha) going out to one of his USAF "contacts" to find out if he knew of anybody who witnessed something, only to find that his "contact" had actually seen something like a "blimp" for himself while driving in the area. Just bloody good luck, yes? He doesn't even have to mention names at all. We're talking about a guy with alleged sources protected by two layers of anonymity: one guy -- who remains unnamed -- discussing something that another guy -- who remains unnamed -- told him he actually witnessed. And as long as the true believers who live only to refresh their you-tube accounts every time some ludicrous idiot with another telephone video of a plastic garbage bag drifting ever so slowly about 200 feet off the ground posts what amounts to a new angle of an old film, he doesn't have to do anything except continue to say "I've been doing this for 35-years and I've discovered 130 ex-military witnesses who insist that you're not getting the whole story from your government." And Joe-Blow doesn't think for a moment that 130-witnesses (many who haven't even been named) amounts to only a fraction of those ex-military personnel who have been convicted for crimes involving the sale of military assets to citizens of foreign nations -- oh, no; all Joe-Blow thinks to himself just before the lamp goes out and sleep sinks in is "damn -- 130 witnesses; that's a lot!" And of course it isn't a lot at all...

Confirmation is never really necessary. Not when all you really need to do is pretend that you've got it if you need it.

More to the point, it's apparently ignoble as Hell to think that 130-witnesses (alleged) over 35-years might be lying for a lark, but it's okay to believe that the many tens of thousands of witnesses over 35-years who insist that it's all b.s. are lying because they were told to do so. In the long run, Hastings doesn't really need to confirm anything, because the people who believe his claims are morons. They assume first and foremost that everyone in the USAF is very different from them, when the truth is that we're all pretty much the same, and we respond to things in the same way. That's why world-shaking secrets are impossible to keep secret for very long.
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 » Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:57 pm

Robert Scheaffer recently posted on his blog, Bad UFOs, about the Discovery-Canada's "Close Encounters" segment depicting the Oscar Flight incident based on Salas' tale. His take that the security personnel may have mistaken Mars for their visual observation has problems. I had posted the following comment on his site:

Robert,

Appreciate that you've posted my thoughts on the Oscar Flight affair, as well as providing links to my blog site.

I found the opening of your post interesting that Mars could have played a roll in the security teams visual observations. That's all very well from a theoretical point of view, if it could be proven that the security personnel did in fact see and report something to Salas and Meiwald. There is nothing to support that such a thing happened other than what both officers stated some decades later. And, of course, both officers perceived different things on the night in question. Both were ignorant of each others story until years later when Salas had interviewed Meiwald for his book "Faded Giant". Thus one of the many morphing of the story.

Added to all of the above that after 45 years none of the security team members have ventured forth to confirm the story. With a minimum of 8 individuals topside, you would think that at least one of them would have come forward to verify the story. As of now, no one has come forward.

Recently, Salas had disclosed (Paul Kimball via Billy Cox?) that he had undergone hypnosis in the mid 1980s to help recall certain aspects of the incident, as well as claiming that he was abducted by aliens. I believe this further puts a stake in the heart of credibility in my opinion. Canadian viewers were not privy to that tid bit of info, were they?

From my stand point, Salas' claims stretches coherence to the nth degree and more and more moves into the realm of total confabulation or...an elaborate hoax was perpetrated on him while out in the field that day.

Again, thanks for the post, its much appreciated.


We tend to beat this dead horse...
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 » Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:43 am

Tim Hebert wrote:We tend to beat this dead horse...

Speak for yourself ... as far as I'm concerned, that dead horse was killed and then mutilated by a bunch of reptilian vacationers from Alpha Centauri who simply want to recondition a few strands of DNA preservative in the bloody soup of rendered farm mammals. Apparently, that's the only scientific recourse known to prevent the alien-human hybrids currently being developed in an underground bio-base just outside of the White Sands testing grounds in New Mexico from collapsing under the threat of their own ante-cellular waste.

But I'm not above kicking it a couple of times myself as long as I'm alone; that's just part of being human. As we all know (and to paraphrase David Icke): humanity endures ... until we piss off the Grays.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:37 am

More Robert Hastings' crap has recently been posted on UFOCHRONICLES (you already know the URL). It professes to be a review of Robert Sheaffer's recent criticisms of Discovery Canada's "Close Encounters" UFO series [see: http://badufos.blogspot.com/2014/01/dis ... -mars.html], but like most of his fact-free pronouncements and fraudulent claims, he uses it to attack those who have presented findings critical of his own. For instance, he finds fault in Sheaffer's write-up for citing "as evidence the demonstrably false pronouncements of James Carlson, the notorious, wild-eyed debunker."

I can't help but wonder why he continuously refers to "the demonstrably false pronouncements of James Carlson" without presenting a case detailing those "demonstrably false pronouncements." Anything labeled "demonstrably false" should, by definition, encompass a demonstration of evidence raising such a claim beyond that represented in contrary assessments. And yet Hastings either remains silent or presents a case already impeached by the statements of his own witnesses. Where the Hell is his demonstration that my "pronouncements" are false? It's possible, I suppose, that he's ignorant in regard to what constitutes a "demonstrably false" quality, but his own past behavior suggests that he's merely lying. Again.

The point is, after all, -- and this can't be over-emphasized -- that much of my examination of Hastings' and Salas' claims comes directly from Hastings' own writings -- particularly in the case of Frederick Meiwald who insisted for years that he has no memory of the UFO Hastings and Salas have been trying to establish. Hastings' own transcripts of his interview with Meiwald has made it very clear that he doesn't remember anything about a UFO, while Meiwald's 1996 letter to Salas insists that a number of the details Salas and Hastings have championed are contrary to Meiwald's own assessment. Meiwald even apologizes to Salas for his inability to provide a useful confirmation! Hastings' apparent inability to understand the English language in regard to Meiwald's assessments suggests the possibility of a mental health issue. Meiwald could not have possibly been more clear, and yet Hastings ignores all of it. Has Meiwald also presented "demonstrably false pronouncements" or is Hastings merely handicapped by his own hubris-inspired tunnel-vision?

And what about the assurances of Walt Figel and Eric Carlson, the only witnesses at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, that there was no UFO sighted, reported, or investigated? After all, Hastings has in the past relied on Figel's commentary to assert his own claims about a UFO at Echo Flight. Figel, of course, affirms that Hastings distorted his testimony to suggest a UFO that was simply not there. So has Figel also presented "demonstrably false pronouncements," or is Hastings asserting that only his own distorted interpretation of Figel's testimony is immune to the "demonstrably false" character, while everything else is false? These questions -- coupled with Hastings' inability to get any of his Echo/Oscar Flight witnesses to come right out and affirm UFO interference at Malmstrom AFB suggests that he simply cannot do so. This explains in full the twisted and labor-intensive character that Hastings' claims tend to rely on in order to even suggest some level of validity to his cases. And any case put forth by Hastings is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. In other words, any conclusion presented by Hastings (or anybody else) on the basis of organized evidence must represent a logical consequence of its premises. Given the character of those claims, including Hastings' well-substantiated denial or flamboyant ignorance of contrary arguments, the necessary validity becomes a distant dream at best.

And in the absence of validity, the resulting vacuum is most often filled with either uncontested errors or the reliance on consciously presented, fraudulent claims. Whichever quality is eventually adopted, the primary character of the argument can no longer be supported, especially when contrary arguments do show effective validity.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:57 pm

Tim Hebert has made some interesting observations in regard to Robert Hastings ill-advised defense of Salas' claims at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2014/02/r ... mment-form. As always, his comments are incisive and relevant. Granted, the inherent stupidity of Hastings' arguments makes any critical response easier, but the unique point of view Hebert brings to the table trashes completely Robert Hastings' claims (established over the years as a result of his methodical contempt for the truth) that he's merely the voice of military witnesses who want the "truth" to be known.

Tell me, Robert. If all you're doing is pulling the testimony of military witnesses into the light, why do their stories change significantly once they've gone through you? If all you're concerned with is publishing the truth, there shouldn't be any reason for you to change their stories in order to increase the confirmatory value of other witnesses. And yet, this tends to happen every time you've introduced the claims of another "witness".

You and Robert Salas have defined the word "fraudulent" by your acts taken to establish fiction as fact. I find it particularly interesting to note that there are no longer many people out there defending your "mission" in life. The silence is deafening. Perhaps this would change if you'd merely answer a few of the numerous questions that have come up in regard to this one case -- the Oscar Flight Incident. I doubt it. You really don't know enough about this case to answer detailed questions, and your knowledge of military culture is almost non-existent, so you can't even speak about the environment from which these claims originate. I know! Maybe you can convince Robert Salas to answer a few detailed questions. That way, when his answers also fail to prove anything beyond his own ignorance, you can come forward and save the day by inventing yet another witness to tie the loose ends together. I think we would all enjoy watching a meltdown of that caliber happen.

Well, regardless of what other critics say, I am genuinely thankful (not to you, of course -- you merely agitate) that the claims being addressed by Discovery Canada have no association whatsoever with the Echo Flight incident on March 16, 1967. How does it feel to realize that a Canadian television crew with standard access to resources easily examined by anybody else in the whole world has reached the conclusion that championing your old claims regarding a UFO at Echo Flight is just clear stupidity, especially given the fact that you don't have even a single witness to suggest confirmation unless you ignore completely the contents of their testimony (exactly as you've tried to do with Walt Figel and Fred Meiwald)? I guess you could dig up Raymond Fowler again -- the same guy whose reckless interference with the Echo Flight investigation and his subsequent disclosure of classified materials (a crime even in 1967) was the clear cause of the stupidity you've been using ever since to attract military "witnesses" to these pointless little fables like you were some pedophile in the park with ice cream and a balloon, but I honestly don't see how you could take it very far. After all, Fowler knew even less about the topic in 1967 than you do in 2014 -- and that's not a lot, as your writings have been proving with obvious turpitude for the past ten years.

Not that ignorance of the details and the arguments ever stopped you from saying something stupid. You've already proven that what you don't know you can easily invent. It might be more profitable for you in the future if you let your witnesses tell you what to say instead of the other way around. At least then you won't be blamed so much when the story falls apart under standard examination -- which they all seem to do when you're masterminding all of the confirmative statements and values. A bit of advice: you should find something that you do well and pursue that instead.

I know -- you can test polygraph machines!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:25 am

Just flipping through a few TV channels and came across this show called "The Unexplained Files". They were discussing the alleged connection between nuclear weapons and UFOs, and featured an interview by ex-Ministry of Defense investigator Nick Pope with Robert Salas, ex-deputy commander at Oscar Flight, Malmstrom AFB. Nick Pope's contribution to the "skeptical" side of things was to ask Salas whether or not the Aurora Borealis could have been the cause. How the Hell do these con artists sleep at night? Salas, of course, volunteered his conclusion that the Aurora Borealis isn't a valid explanation -- a conclusion reached on the basis of visual characteristics that he never observed, being 60 feet underground at the time.

I wonder why it is that so many of the statements he's been responsible for tend to require subsequent questioning to understand at a confident level. I came across a recent article that Salas wrote in which he stated he was more than happy to answer any questions put to him and was more than willing to cooperate in any kind of an investigation. I've been asking him very detailed questions about these alleged events for years and he's totally ignored them. A man so supposedly open to intelligent queries should either put up or shut up in my opinion. How do you get away with making such statements in public and then ignoring the numerous questions put forward in a public forum?

Well, this one TV show did suggest why he and others of that ilk continue to insist that an event at Echo Flight did occur on March 16, 1967 even when there isn't a single person who has come forward to make that claim and even though there isn't a single UFO report on that date to fall back on. I've suggested an explanation for that stance in the past, but I'm now 100% convinced that I'm correct. Without an Echo Flight incident, Salas has NOTHING to show that any missiles failures occurred at all, UFO-related or not. He explained to Pope that the "20 missiles" that apparently failed at the Echo and Oscar Flights may have been thoroughly investigated over the course of many months, but the results of those investigations were either covered up or lied about by the USAF. Without including Echo Flight into his personal mythos, Salas has no missile failures and no missile failures investigation that he can point at in order to show the "dishonesty" of those in the USAF trying to hide the cause of those missile failures. He can claim with some small measure of objectivity that there were missile failures at Malmstrom AFB that were followed by an extensive investigation only if he includes Echo Flight into his sordid little tale. The fact that the entire crew of Echo Flight has very clearly and definitively insisted that there were no UFOs and that he is merely lying is simply not relevant to his position. He has to have some level of "proof" to support his claims, and without Echo Flight he has nothing. His own commander not only refused entirely to confirm any part of the UFO claims Salas has made, he's also failed to confirm the "twenty missiles" asserted by Salas, affirming only 3-4 failed missiles at Oscar Flight, while admitting he knew nothing about Echo Flight. He even insisted that there was no extensive investigation and debriefing after the fact. On the other hand, nobody is needed to confirm missile failures and an investigation in regard to Echo Flight, because they have been discussed pretty thoroughly in numerous USAF documents. Of course, none of that stopped Salas from telling Pope that no explanation for those missile failures has ever been determined, even though those numerous USAF documents prove otherwise. The fact that Pope and the producers of that complete travesty of a supposed documentary cable series neglected to take a couple hours out of their day to examine the veracity of the claims being aired as "factual" on their own show doesn't exactly do much for their credibility, nor does it say much about the respect they have for their audience. Frankly, it's insulting.

Nick Pope should be ashamed of himself, if he's actually trying to reach valid conclusions in the manner he's established on this TV series. He proves once again that an intelligent man can be swayed in public by non-existent arguments based on the easily measured dishonesty of liars and scoundrels. He's either in on the con, or he's a complete idiot -- and I don't think the latter conclusion is accurate. I can't help but be reminded of Richard Dolan's own public conclusion regarding Salas' little fairy tales: he found the Oscar Flight claims more believable than those involving Echo Flight, yet neglected to mention that the only independent corroboration Salas can muster up is the USAF's declassified documentation of ten failed missiles at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 and the many, many months of the USAF investigation that followed. Apparently, the most believable aspects of the claims being made by Robert Salas are those that have produced no objective or forensic evidence whatsoever to suggest their very existence -- not even the second tier evidence represented by the confirmatory testimony of another witness.

No surprises there...
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 Robert Hastings » Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:42 pm

Persons who have followed this thread over time may be interested to know that an excerpt from my nearly-completed documentary film, UFOs and Nukes: The Secret Link Revealed, has been posted at my website: http://www.ufohastings.com/support.

The budget for the project is nearly exhausted and my colleagues and I have just implemented an appeal for public funding to help complete it. This approach was utilized in 2010, in conjunction with my “UFOs and Nukes” press conference in Washington D.C. which CNN streamed live. A full-length video of the event may be viewed at http://www.ufohastings.com.

As with the press conference, the film presents the on-camera testimony of several U.S. Air Force veterans who were involved in incidents during which UFOs maneuvered near and hovered over nuclear missile sites. In some cases, the ICBMs inexplicably malfunctioned when the disc-shaped craft were in the vicinity.

One such incident, at Malmstrom AFB’s Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, resulted in all ten missiles malfunctioning. One of the launch officers on alert that day, now-retired Col. Walter Figel, has confirmed on audio tape—on four separate occasions—that he received a report from one of his missile guards of a “large, round object” hovering “directly over” one of the missile launch facilities, also known as silos, just as the missiles began dropping off alert status.

RU regulars know that a frequent contributor to this site, James Carlson, has endlessly claimed that nothing of the sort happened. His father, Eric Carlson, was the other launch officer at Echo during the incident, and the elder Carlson has denied that the launch crew received any UFO reports that day.

Despite these claims by the father-and-son duo, Col. Figel has made it quite clear that he did indeed receive such a report—of a UFO hovering at low altitude over one of his missiles—and that the report was confirmed by members of a Security Alert Team that he had sent out to investigate. Figel further states that he and Eric Carlson were debriefed back at Malmstrom AFB later that day and told never to discuss the incident.

Col. Figel’s 1996 telephone conversation with another former USAF missileer, Robert Salas, and his 2008 telephone conversation with me, may be heard at http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/the ... witch-hunt. All of the statements made above are confirmed in one or both of the taped excerpts.

Unfortunately, Figel later waffled on some of his previously-recorded statements—telling me that he did not want to be thrust between James Carlson and myself during our ongoing online dispute. Nevertheless, the colonel’s taped statements are on-the-record and he has never asked me to take down the links to them at my website. (One of his comments about UFO activity at Echo Flight appears in my upcoming film.)

James Carlson’s unending stream of reality-detached utterances—claiming that Salas and I are liars and frauds; that Figel never said that he had received a UFO report; that Salas’ missile commander, that the late Col. Fred Meiwald never supported the accuracy of Salas’ comments regarding their own UFO-related missile shutdown experience, at Malmstrom’s Oscar Flight, eight days later—are unsupportable fantasies.

Carlson also avoids mentioning the fact that Col. Figel, in a 2009 telephone conversation with me, stated that James “has an ax to grind” and that his claims are “off-base”. Nevertheless, one may hear those comments to me at http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/tel ... l-usaf-ret.

Now, I recently came across a post that James Carlson had made at another website, claiming that I have publicly said that his family is concerned that he will kill himself. This is simply untrue. What I have stated, and will again state under oath, is that during an October 2008 telephone conversation with his father, Eric told me that “James has some problems”. That comment was in response to my question, “Why is James so over the top when he attacks me and Bob Salas?”

Furthermore, that same month, a colleague of mine also spoke with Eric on the phone, at which time Eric said that he was “concerned that James will have a nervous breakdown.”

While James presumably knows whether his family is concerned about him harming himself, I certainly don’t, and have never made any statement whatsoever regarding the matter.

But, for what it’s worth, James’ latest unfounded claim about me may be read at http://worldufos.com/2014/07/nuclear-fa ... -and-ufos/.

BTW, I have noticed in some of James’ recent posts, at various blogs, he still maintains that his father is being truthful when he says that no UFO reports were received by the launch crew at Echo Flight.

However, in other posts, James admits that Walt Figel did in fact receive a UFO report that day but, according to James, the guard who called Figel was supposedly only joking about the “large, round object” hovering “directly over” one of the Echo missiles.

So, James, how does that work exactly? On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, your dad is correct when he says that no UFO reports were received by either he or Figel, but on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, Figel did get the call from the joking guard?

What a complicated universe you live in, James.

—Robert Hastings
http://www.ufohastings.com
Robert Hastings
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Malmstrom AFB Missile/UFO Incident, March 1967

Postby James Carlson » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:45 am

You don't have any evidence, you don't have a case, you don't have any witnesses, and you sure as hell don't have any credibility. You did all of this yourself by telling numerous lies, avoiding confrontation, and failing to get a straight answer or a common confirmation from anybody during interviews that you yourself conducted. You've presented such a meaningless argument on every point you've chosen to examine that a great number of people now feel sorry for you. I'm not one of those; I know for a fact that you're a very willing liar and a fraud, and that you rely on such tactics because you have nothing else to rely on. If you could present an actual case argument, you would have done so already. That fact that you're still presenting a case that has been so liberally shredded that it no longer qualifies as an argument is just pathetic. People no longer defend your assessments or your claims, because -- like you -- they're unable to counter facts with anything even remotely approaching a valid argument. So they've given up.

Maybe you should also find a different toy to play with, since you've broken this one.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron