By Robert SalasEditors Note: Recently an article, penned by a staff-writer appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, entitled, Book Links UFOs to Nukes; as is often the case the reporter was ignorant to the subject matter at hand and apparently made no attempt to do any homework. Robert Hastings dutifully amended the erroneous statements by the author in his rejoinder, and eyewitness Robert Salas follows in that vein from his perspective--FW
In this article, Fleck relies on two so-called /experts/ to try and discredit the excellent work of Robert Hastings. Any lawyer will tell you that, if you find the right "expert" you can come up with any conclusion you desire. In this instance, neither Kingston George nor James Olberg are experts on the topic of UFOs because there are no experts in the study of this phenomenon. In fact, they aren't even very knowledgeable about what they are criticizing. Oberg states that the events described in the book have 'plausible, prosaic explanations.'
I am one of the witnesses described in Hastings book, /UFOs and NUKES/. I can and I have provided evidence for over twelve years that the events of UFOs disabling nuclear missiles that occurred at Malmstrom AFB in 1967 have neither plausible nor prosaic explanations. When Oberg further states that 'the umbrella of secrecy surrounding common nuclear weapons system malfunctions in the past creates much of the uncertainty that leads to UFO claims today', he is simply wrong. He is wrong because of the evidence provided in my book, /Faded Giant. / In the Malmstrom case, my co-author James Klotz and I broke through that umbrella of secrecy 13 years ago by acquiring documentation using the Freedom of Information Act and with a lot of hard work contacting witnesses and collecting their testimonies.
I know that Hastings has also worked tirelessly in developing and verifying the material for his book. The evidence is there if conscientious and open-minded people make the effort to look at it. The evidence in both books is the kind that is valid in any court of law. That evidence is verifiable documents and testimonies from credible witnesses. It may not be as much evidence as some would desire but it is valid and certainly enough evidence to take these claims seriously. It is easy for skeptics to make broad generalizations to discount this phenomenon without doing any substantial review of the material presented. In his book, Hastings has done a thorough and even handed review of Kingston George's analysis of the Big Sur incident. Hastings clearly showed that George had made many serious errors in that analysis. It is regrettable that Mr. Fleck has chosen to fall in line with George and Oberg without reviewing the details.