Monday, January 12, 2009

UFOs Did Shutdown Minuteman Missiles at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967


By Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com
© 1-10-09

     Those of you who have followed the ongoing online exchange between James T. Carlson and myself, regarding the UFO-related missile shutdowns at one of the U.S. Air Force’s Strategic Air Command bases in 1967, already know Carlson’s take on things, as well as my own. For those of you just joining the fray, Carlson’s father, Eric, had been the missile launch commander at one of the two Minuteman missile “flights”, Echo, when all ten of the missiles malfunctioned. Carlson Sr. told his son, James, that no UFOs were present when the incident occurred, despite the testimony of the deputy missile commander that day, now-retired Col. Walter Figel, who states that he did indeed receive two separate reports of a UFO hovering over one of Echo’s missiles at the time of the shutdowns. Figel first confirmed this to another former missile launch officer, Bob Salas, and his research associate, Jim Klotz, in the mid-1990s. More recently, in October 2008, Figel confirmed it to me as well, in a taped telephone conversation. All of this has prompted a flurry of posts from James, over the last few years, directed at Salas and everyone else who disputes what his father told him. Now that I have challenged the accuracy of what the senior Carlson has said, James is after my hide too.

A review of James Carlson’s online posts to date will reveal a sometimes reasonable, but mostly overly-emotional response to my own posts. The moderator of this blog, Frank Warren, already modified one of Carlson’s responses, deleting a passage in which James told me to go f*** myself. I simply mention this fact because, behind the scenes, Carlson has made the following statements to me via email:
JTC’s email to RH on 12/30: “…you were so sloppy and careless…a piss-poor writer and researcher…you're really just a pathetic, egotistical nothing of a person, an unhealthy canker sore on the world, and, even worse, you know that, you're actually conscious of exactly how pathetic you really are, and how unimportant and worthless your thoughts and theories are to the rest of the world, and how your scheming and lying in the long run will compare less favorably to the average ambitions of an otherwise ignorant man…

And since you're not a very honest individual -- even to yourself (after all, a man who is as pathetic as you are and realizes the true extent of that must lie an awful lot to himself on a regular basis just to get through the day -- I bet you hate mirrors) -- you tell yourself that one more little worthless expression of your will is all you need to make this heretic admit that he was wrong and that the liar is after all telling the truth…

After all of this explanation regarding your personality flaws and your motivations and the effect your own bad writing and research has on your point of view and why it's so necessary for you to get the last word in, so you can feel for one bare-headed moment in time that maybe you're not the pathetic loser your every second on earth shouts out to the universe that you are, it's ironic that tomorrow morning, I'll still be the only one of us telling the truth, and you'll still be the idiot who has to re-interview his sources before answering a few questions on a subject he's already written a book about. And so, the world keeps turning, and we both greet the morning sun, each of us fully aware that you really are a sad and pathetic piece of shit.”

JTC’s email to RH on 12/31: “I knew you'd never be able to stop yourself from writing back. You're just so damn easy -- of course, being an uncontrollable whore helps some, doesn't it? You just keep on doing whatever you're doing, 'cause you're being publicly spanked all over the place, and I'm just enjoying the shit out of it.”

Ciao, Bitch,
James Carlson
Robert Hastings responds:
Whew! So, according to James, I’m dishonest, a piss-poor writer and researcher, an idiot, a pathetic, egotistical nothing of a person, an unhealthy canker sore on the world, a bitch, a piece of shit, a whore, and a pathetic loser. For those of you who are keeping score, that’s two pathetics. (In the interest of fairness, I hereby confess that somewhere in the midst of that two-day tirade, I called James a “putz”. Look it up.)

I’m confident that most of the people reading this are hoping, as I am, that James will seek some help. I have already recommended that he take an anger management course, try deep breathing exercises, or begin meditation.

Well, not that it will ever matter to James T. Carlson, but for those of you who might be interested, I have developed additional information about the two UFO-related, full-flight missile shutdowns at Malmstrom AFB, in March 1967, which further clarifies what occurred and, therefore, assists in providing the most probable scenario regarding the timing of the two events. Actually, those findings have been online since 2006, at:
http://tinyurl.com/9lwj5q

In any case, here is an important piece of the puzzle. Excerpting from the above-reference article:

My Sources

Malmstrom AFB, Montana (1966-67):
1st Lt. Robert C. Jamison—Former USAF Minuteman ICBM targeting officer (Combat Targeting Team Commander), 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron, Malmstrom AFB, Montana:

Jamison states that he assisted in the re-start of an entire "flight" of ten Minuteman ICBMs which had simultaneously and inexplicably shut down immediately after a UFO was sighted in their vicinity by Air Force Security Police. Jamison is certain that the incident occurred at one of the missile flights located near Lewistown, Montana, perhaps Oscar Flight. This event probably occurred on the night of March 24/25, 1967, based on Jamison’s portrayal of related events.

Jamison said that while his and other teams were preparing to respond to the stricken flight, they were ordered—as a precaution—to remain at Malmstrom until all UFO reports from the field had ceased. He further states that his team received a special briefing prior to being dispatched, during which it was directed to immediately report any UFO sighted while traveling to or from the missile field. In the event that a UFO appeared at one of the missile silos during the re-start procedure, the team was directed to enter the silo's personnel hatch, and remain underground until the UFO had left the vicinity. According to Jamison, the Air Police guard accompanying the team was to remain outside and relay information about the UFO to the base Command Post. Jamison’s own team re-started three or four missiles but did not observe any unusual aerial activity.

Jamison said that while he was at the missile maintenance hangar, waiting to be dispatched to the field, he overheard two-way radio communications at the temporary Command Post, relating to another UFO having been sighted on the ground in a canyon near the town of Belt. He states he recalls hearing that a top commander—either Malmstrom’s base commander, or the 341st Strategic Missile Wing commander—was on-site with other personnel. Based on these recollections, it appears that Jamison is describing the well-documented Belt, Montana UFO sighting of March 24/25, 1967.

Jamison said that immediately after the missile shutdown incident, for a period of approximately two weeks, his team received a special UFO briefing, identical to the one described above, before being dispatched to the field.

Jamison said that approximately two weeks after the full-flight missile shutdown, his team responded to another, partial shutdown—involving four or five ICBMs. Prior to being dispatched, Jamison’s team received a report that the missile failures had occurred immediately after a UFO was sighted over the flight's Launch Control Facility. Jamison recalls that this incident took place at a flight located south or southwest of Great Falls, possibly India Flight, and during daylight hours...

If Jamison’s recollections are correct, and he did indeed respond to a large-scale missile shutdown at Oscar Flight on the same date as the well-documented Belt UFO sighting, then the date proposed for the Oscar event by Salas and Klotz—March 16, 1967—would seem to be in error. Salas has now acknowledged this possibility, however, Klotz remains skeptical about the alternate date…

Salas said, “I [now] think it is more likely that Oscar Flight went down on some date after the Echo Flight [shutdown] and that it could very well have been on the same day as the Belt sighting. One of the factors that lead me to that 'opinion' is the lack of comment about two flights going down in the [now-declassified] telex that went out, and in the unit history. If the two had gone down on the same day, that would have been mentioned. The reason, I think, Oscar wasn't mentioned later is because by then the Air Force wanted to keep a secrecy lid on it and avoid the possibility of a leak by the indication of a growing and continuing problem. That would have made quite some headlines in the press.”

In conclusion, Jamison’s statements are important because they indicate that the Air Force was fully aware of UFO involvement in at least two missile flight shutdown incidents [most likely at Oscar and India] prior to dispatching the missile maintenance teams to restart the ICBMs. Specifically, according to Jamison, the 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron undertook certain precautions and formally implemented various procedures to protect the teams’ safety while in the field. In this respect, his testimony is unprecedented.

END OF EXCERPT

So, given this testimony, it seems likely that Oscar went down on the evening of March 24th. By the way, James, I first interviewed Bob Jamison in 1992, some four years before Salas and Klotz posted their article online. I was not in touch with Salas until 1998, or with Klotz until 2002, so neither of them was aware of Jamison’s statements to me until well after they had posted their article online. Consequently, the former Combat Targeting Team Commander’s statements regarding his response to a UFO-related, full-flight missile shutdown were already on-the-record well before Salas attempted to reconstruct, circa 1995, the exact flight he had been at and the date of the shutdown he witnessed in 1967. Jamison’s own written statement, sent to Bob Salas in 2004, appears here.

So, anyway, here we have a former missile targeting team officer, Bob Jamison, reporting that he responded to a UFO-related, full-flight shutdown, probably at Oscar Flight (I am being cautious, Jamison told me he was certain it was Oscar when we spoke) on the same night of the well-document incident of March 24/25, 1967, when a UFO landed in a canyon near Belt, Montana. This information also makes moot James Carlson’s criticisms about the weather conditions reported by Salas at the time Oscar’s missiles went down (a clear, starry night) conflicting with those mentioned by Electro-Mechanical technician Hank Barlow who reported windy, snowy conditions at the time Echo’s missiles went down. The conditions were different because the two shutdowns occurred on different days. According to a declassified USAF document, Echo went down at 8:30 a.m. on March 16th; according to Bob Jamison, Oscar went down sometime after 10 p.m. on the 24th, and perhaps even later, sometime in the early hours of the 25th.

I know, James, I know: Jamison is a liar too. Or he doesn’t remember clearly. Unlike your own father, who would never shade the truth to protect national security, and whose memory of the events at Echo Flight are of course crystal clear after 40 years and unimpeachable. (Well, you get points for being a loyal, if perhaps too gullible son. By the way, James, your father told me that he hadn’t talked to you in years, and didn’t even have your phone number. Maybe it’s time for another father-to-son talk about all of this. You should call him.)

Additionally, James, your father’s missile deputy commander at Echo, now Col. Walt Figel, is rather puzzled by your posted statements—which I sent to him—given that you have publicly misrepresented what he told me in a taped telephone conversation on 10/20/08. You wouldn’t know that of course, because you’re too timid to call him, to hear the facts from his own mouth, about the very serious, eyewitness reports he received from a missile maintenance man and security team leader, of a UFO hovering over one of the Echo missile sites at the time the whole ten-missile flight shut down.

As you know, you’ve attempted to spin those facts, by incorrectly portraying the Strike Team leader’s report of a “large, round object hovering directly over the site” as a joke. Figel doesn’t claim that it was a joke, only you do. Actually, Figel told me that the team leader “was serious but I wasn’t taking him seriously.” So, no matter what you say, James, it was no joke, as Figel made quite clear to me (and to Bob Salas and Jim Klotz, over ten years ago, when they interviewed him). You weren’t there that day, talking to the Strike Team leader, James, but Figel was.

In my latest phone call to Figel, earlier today, he told me that while he didn’t know what your motivation was for misrepresenting his earlier statements to me, he thought that you “seem to have an ax to grind.” I hereby offer, once again, to give you Figel’s phone number, if you are interested in hearing all of this directly. (By the way, Figel asked me to call him after the holidays, hence my delay in posting this. I only needed to re-interview him because I wanted his reaction to your misplaced interpretation of his comments to me. Of course, in your most recent posts, you claimed that I needed to re-interview Figel because I had failed to ask the right questions the first time around, and also claimed that my delay in responding to your posts was because I was afraid to address your accusations. None of which is true.)

Interestingly, your own father, Eric Carlson, told me in a 10/6/08 telephone conversation that he himself had previously received reports from missile security guards of UFOs during other missile alerts he had pulled at Malmstrom, but that he didn’t take them seriously either. He told me, “you take an 18-year-old kid and stick him out there for days, with nothing but TV dinners, and they have a tendency to see things.” Did your father ever tell you that, James, that he had indeed received UFO sighting reports from missile guards at one time or another, but disbelieved them? If he did, you have never mentioned it publicly.

Gee, I wonder what else your father didn’t tell you...

So, James, the actual eyewitnesses—the ones that you are always ranting on about as being the only true witnesses—were in fact reporting the sighting of UFOs in Malmstrom’s missile field, during one alert or another, to both Col. Figel and your father. Just because the two launch officers didn’t take the reports seriously does not mean that they weren’t valid reports. (Bob Salas didn’t take his Flight Security Controller—his top guard—seriously either, when he was told of a UFO hovering over the security fence gate at Oscar’s Launch Control Facility. So, there’s another thing your father and Salas have in common.)

As you know, Col. Figel also told me that your father was sitting “two feet away” from him when he was talking to the Strike Team leader on the phone about the UFO, and was also sitting next to him back at squadron headquarters, later that day, when Figel told the squadron commanders and others of receiving reports of UFO activity at Echo Flight. In fact, Figel told me that he “told them everything everyone [at the launch facility] told me. No one made any comments or inquiries.” Figel said that his comments were not treated with disbelief or contempt but that everything he said was written down. (That’s a report, James, just like the report Figel told the Strike Team leader to make in his own log, after sighting the UFO.) Figel further told me that he is “almost certain” that your father was questioned as well but, regardless, he certainly did not contradict anything Figel was saying to the commanders about having received UFO reports from the missile maintenance man and the Strike Team leader. (When I asked your father about the phone call Figel had with the Strike Team leader, during which a UFO was reported over one of the missile sites, he first said that he “had no knowledge” of UFOs being reported, however, later on he said that he couldn’t “recall” whether there had been any mention of UFOs.)

Regardless, neither Figel nor your father were relieved of their positions as missile commander and deputy commander, despite the highly unusual nature of their report. So, the reports they made to their superiors were treated seriously, probably because such reports of UFOs near missile sites had already been generated at Minot AFB—another Strategic Air Command base, months earlier, in August 1966—as now-declassified USAF documents confirm. I also have eyewitness reports from two security guards at Malmstrom who reported UFOs at other flights in 1966-67. Consequently, your father’s commanders probably already knew about such reports and did not think of him, or Figel, or the maintenance man or the Strike Team leader, as deranged or unreliable, simply because there had been reports of a UFO hovering over one of Echo Flight’s missiles when the flight went down.

Instead, after being debriefed, Figel was told, “Thank you very much. Don’t talk about it.” Given that Figel says your father was sitting right next to him during the debriefing, he would have been told the same thing. Maybe that’s why your father didn’t tell you any of these things, James. Maybe he felt that he couldn’t tell you the truth, even decades later, because of national security. If that’s the case, his motives are understandable. Unfortunately, because of your public defaming of everyone else involved with the two separate, full-flight shutdowns at Malmstrom in March 1967, you have created a situation where I must challenge your flawed, sad, self-delusional display. But I haven’t made a fool of you, James. You did that to yourself, although you seem oblivious to that fact.

On the other hand, maybe your dad didn’t mislead you. Maybe his memory is not what it once was. That’s quite possible of course. In any case, Col. Figel seemed very sharp, intelligent and articulate when I spoke with him and he was clearly puzzled by your father’s claim of having no memory of the conversation he had to have overheard in the capsule, since he was sitting “two feet away” from Figel when it occurred.

Ah, others will ask: But what about Salas’ reconstruction of what he initially presumed to be his involvement in the Echo missile shutdown incident? James Carlson makes much of Salas later modifying his first published statements on the shutdowns, and says that proves that Salas is a liar.

Actually, Salas’ evolving account is understandable and easily explained. Well, it’s readily explainable to reasonable, unbiased, non-hysterical listeners. Here are the facts: Salas approached researcher Jim Klotz in 1995 and asked him to file FOIA requests regarding the Malmstrom missile shutdown incidents on his behalf. When part of the 341st Strategic Missile Wing history was declassified and released to Klotz, it acknowledged a full-flight missile shutdown at Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, and also referenced UFO sightings at November Flight. Salas first assumed that he and his missile commander, now-retired Col. Fred Meiwald, had been at Echo because that was the only full-flight shutdown the Air Force would admit to.

However, at that point, Salas had not yet located Meiwald, so he had only hunches and educated guesses to go on. However, eventually the two launch officers who were actually at Echo during that shutdown, Walt Figel and Eric Carlson, were identified—as a result of Klotz’ ongoing investigation—at which point Salas assumed that he and Meiwald had actually been at November Flight, the only flight mentioned in the wing history where UFOs had been reported.

Now, here is something else James does not seem to know, even though it has been public for years: Because 341st SMW Historian David Gamble explicitly told Jim Klotz that “the UFO aspect” of his report in the wing history had later been rewritten by his superiors—that is, the sighting reports at November were officially portrayed as unfounded “rumors”—Salas reasonably concluded that this amounted to a cover-up and that UFOs had indeed been sighted at November Flight and, therefore, that was the flight he had been at. However, this second assumption about the flight in question also proved to be incorrect later on when Salas’ former missile commander, Col. Meiwald, was finally located and interviewed by both Salas and Klotz. Meiwald himself (not Salas, as James Carlson erroneously claims) insisted that the second full-flight shutdown—the one he and Salas had been involved in—was at Oscar, not November Flight. Given this development, Salas understandably deferred to Meiwald’s recollection of the flight’s designation.

Significantly, with the exception of the number of missiles that malfunctioned at Oscar, Col. Meiwald completely endorses Salas’ account. (Moreover, as we now know, missile targeting officer Bob Jamison had already gone on-the-record about having responded to a UFO-related, full-flight shutdown at Oscar, probably in the early hours of March 25th—a fact unknown to both Salas and Meiwald at the time they were reunited and began comparing notes.)

Salas has written, “With regards to how many birds went down at Oscar, I have always deferred to my missile commander Miewald [who recalled] something less than ten. However, my own gut tells me it was all of them. I just can’t remember for sure and Miewald seems to be certain.”

Meiwald also told Salas that when he had reported the Oscar shutdowns to the missile command post by phone, he had been told that the same thing had happened “earlier” at another flight. It was this recollection that initially led Salas to believe that another flight had shutdown earlier that day. Because the wing history mentioned a large-scale shutdown at Echo, on March 16, 1967, Salas reasonably assumed that Echo had to have been the “earlier” flight Meiwald was told about. In fact, Salas held this view for years, until I presented him with former targeting officer Bob Jamison’s testimony regarding a full-flight shutdown on the night of March 24/25. Armed with this new information, Salas made further inquires on his own:
In another email to me, Salas wrote, “I recently spoke with Dick Evans...who I also knew back in the days of Malmstrom. He was also a DMCCC at the time of the Echo shutdowns. In fact he told me he was at Kilo Flight the morning of the Echo Shutdown...Kilo Flight was the 'Command Flight' for the 490th Squadron, which included Oscar Flight. [Evans] told me that he has no recollection of Oscar shutting down or having any problems on that morning. He would have certainly been notified. I just received this information a few days ago...[my emphasis –RH] That info plus the other witnesses already mentioned [primarily Jamison --RH] make for a strong case that Oscar did not go down on [March] 16th.”

In other words, as more and more information became available to Klotz and Salas over time, their knowledge of the facts—the flights involved, the dates they went down—understandably changed. James Carlson would have you believe that this is somehow sinister, and that Salas is lying about, well, everything. Why does James insist on this? Well, first and foremost, Salas had the unmitigated gall to publicly state that Col. Walt Figel had confirmed to him and Jim Klotz that a UFO was indeed reported at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and since James’ father, Eric Carlson, had told him otherwise, well, Salas just had to be a liar. That started the ball rolling...

In any case, James, and everybody else, that is the actual chain of events regarding Bob Salas’ evolving public account of the Oscar shutdown incident. In short, James Carlson’s supposed “facts” are incorrect and his “logic” is flawed when he emotionally interprets Salas’ actions and motives. This is an excellent example of an armchair expert’s inept and tainted use of logic—rather than actually interviewing witnesses—resulting in a wrong conclusion. Even as I write this, James is refusing to contact Walt Figel, to hear the facts about the Echo shutdowns from the man who actually received the UFO sighting reports from one of his own Strike Teams, even though I have repeatedly offered Figel’s phone number to James. This is the type of irrational stubbornness James Carlson brings to this debate. His blind acceptance of his father’s version of events is all he needed before commencing his wild tirade online, attacking anyone who disputes what his daddy told him. Unfortunately, in the process, James has smeared the reputation of a number of honorable former or retired Air Force officers.

True, James was/is working under a handicap: His father, Eric Carlson, either intentionally misled him about the actual UFO-related events at Echo, as divulged ten years ago to Klotz and Salas, and more recently to me, by his father’s deputy missile commander, Col. Walt Figel, or the elder Carlson’s memory is now somewhat impaired regarding the events at Echo Flight.

The alternative to one of these two possibilities is this implausible scenario: Eric Carlson has a great memory nowadays and he was entirely truthful when he told his son James that no UFOs were involved at Echo Flight. Therefore, Col. Walt Figel lied, Col. Fred Meiwald lied, former Lt. Bob Jamison lied, former Captain Bob Salas lied, missile technician Hank Barlow lied, wing historian David Gamble lied, researcher Jim Klotz lied and, last but not least, I have been lying.

The reader may draw his or her own conclusions about the merits of James Carlson’s arguments and charges, relative to the information I have presented here.

Now, as if any more testimony were actually needed to support the idea of UFO-involvement in the Echo Flight shutdown incident, after Col. Figel’s statements on the matter, I will now excerpt a February 1, 1997 letter written by Robert Kaminski to Jim Klotz. Kaminski headed-up the team of Boeing engineers who were responsible for investigating the Echo malfunctions. (Despite what James Carlson says, the team never concluded that a failing logic coupler had caused the shutdowns—nor did power failures, nor any other prosaic cause, as Kaminski himself clearly states below.) He writes:
“Since this was a field site peculiar incident, a determination was made to send out an investigation team to survey the LCF [Echo Launch Control Facility] and the LFs [Launch Facilities, or silos] to determine what failures or related incidents could be found to explain the cause. The team was made up of qualified engineers and technicians headed by scientific person who was a glaciologist. There were about 5 persons in all that were sent out. After a week in the field the team returned and pooled their data. At the outset the team quickly noticed a lack of anything that would come close to explain why the event occurred. There were no significant failures, engineering data or findings that would explain how ten missiles were knocked off alert. This indeed turned out to be a rare event and not encountered before. The use of backup power systems and other technical system circuit operational redundancy strongly suggests that this kind of event is virtually impossible once the system was up and running and on line with other LCF's and LF's interconnectivity.

[After months of investigation,] the team met with me to report their findings and it was decided that the final report would have nothing significant in it to explain what happened at E-Flight. In other words there was no technical explanation that could explain the event. The team went off to do the report. Meanwhile I was contacted by our representative at OOAMA (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 LCF [sic] at the time E-Flight went down.

Subsequently, we were notified a few days later, that a stop work order was on the way from OOAMA to stop any further effort on this project. We stopped. We were also told that we were not to submit the final engineering report. This was most unusual since all of our work required review by the customer and the submittal of a final Engineering report to OOAMA.”

I have a copy of Kaminski’s letter. So, James, the Boeing engineers were told to stop their work, and not to submit a report—an unprecedented request on the part of the Air Force. And what was the reason given to Kaminski for this unusual situation? Why, there had indeed been UFO involvement in the Echo Flight shutdowns!

I know, James, I know: Kaminski is lying too. Right?

Because of the extreme sensitivity of these two missile shutdown incidents, even now, formal Air Force reports—from the Strike Team leader, from Carlson and Figel’s squadron commanders, from SAC headquarters, from the Pentagon—will obviously not be forthcoming for the foreseeable future. James Carlson will cling to this last straw and continue to claim that no evidence, that is, no official reports of UFO involvement in the Echo and Oscar Flight shutdowns, exist to prove what Walt Figel, Fred Meiwald, Bob Salas, Hank Barlow and the others have now finally revealed. Other debunkers will undoubtedly be satisfied with this faux argument as well and continue to hold up James Carlson’s, ahem, astute statements on the issue as reasonable and informed debate. Such is life…

One of these days, James, you really ought to apologize to Salas, Klotz, Meiwald, and the others you have so recklessly and needlessly defamed. But I won’t hold my breath. Actually, I still have a lot of research to do, relating to other UFO activity at Malmstrom and other former SAC missile bases, from the 1960s up to nearly the present day, so I won’t continue this public exchange, except when it pleases me to do so. So rant on, James. And, for Pete’s sake, call your father one of these years.
Jamison Statement

ROBERT C. JAMISON                        October 27, 2004
XXXX Xxxxxx
Xxxxxx, XX XXXXX


BOB SALAS
XXX X. Xx Xxxx Xxx.
Xxxx, XX XXXXX

Bob Salas:

The following is the best of my recollection regarding the Malmstrom AFB Missile-UFO incident of March 1967. This incident occurred 37 years ago and time can compress and warp memories. However, I remember this incident quite well and offer the following:

In 1967, I was a Second Lieutenant in the USAF, later promoted to First Lieutenant by the time of the UFO incident. I was assigned to the 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron (MIMS) at Malmstrom AFB in Montana as a Missile Targeting Officer. Essentially, my job was to point the missile in the right direction. In addition, we were dispatched to restart a missile which, for any reason, went off strategic alert or was down for other maintenance, such as replacement of missile, the guidance and control systems, RV (re-entry vehicle or war head) or any other activity requiring the missile to be taken off alert status. Missiles must be on alert status at all times, ready for immediate use if necessary. Alert status meant the gyros in the guidance section are on and other functions remain active.

We were mostly on stand-by status and ready to respond whenever needed. On certain occasions we would be dispatched on a scheduled task. These would primarily be target related missions (usually retargeting). We were on a six day schedule. The first day we would be on stand-by, or dispatched, in the mornings, the second day in the afternoon and the third day in the evenings which usually extended into the fourth day. The remaining two days were either days off or training days. In the event we were not dispatched we may be required to report for other house cleaning type duties.

On the day of the UFO events in Oscar Flight in March 1967 I was on evening stand-by, I received a call from Job Control (they are the unit that keeps track of the missile status and dispatches maintenance teams as needed). I was told that a missile in Oscar Flight had gone off alert and required a restart. No other information was given, which was not unusual. I called my team members (two enlisted personnel: an NCO and an Airman). Upon arriving at the MIMS hanger to prepare for the dispatch, a friend (I don't remember who) approached me and asked me if I knew what was happening. I did not. I was told a UFO was seen over Oscar Flight and the whole flight went off alert. I then went to job control to find out what was going on. They confirmed what I had been told and that I would have to restart 3 or 4 missiles that night but stick around until they were sure that the event was over.

I mentioned that I thought that was unusual, or something to that effect. They told me something even more unusual. A truck driver reported a UFO going into a canyon south of Great Falls. At this location, near a town named Belt, was a long, straight down grade fill section with steep sides. On the south side was a small canyon. I was told that several people from the base, including either the Base Commander of the Wing Commander, I don't remember which, was also on site. They reported strange lights on the floor of the canyon. The sides of the canyon were rather steep and not safe for scaling until, at least, daylight. Also two helicopters were dispatched to the area to keep their eyes on the thing until daylight. Again, because of the steep sides and narrowness of the site, they were not permitted to descend in the dark. I was told that I could possibly get more information at a temporary Command Post set up in the Daily Briefing Room. I was let in but didn't get much information as nothing much was going on at the time. They were in radio communication with those at the scene. I did hear descriptions of lights on the bottom of the canyon. Other than that, it was pretty boring. I stood in the back of the small room as I had no input to offer. I was there for probably 45 minutes when one of my crew members came in and told me that no new incidents have occurred and that we were to dispatch. Prior to dispatch I was told to attend a short briefing, involving only my crew (other crews were given the same briefing, separately, when they were dispatched). We were told to keep our eyes open for any unusual aerial activity. If anything was seen en route to or from any of the sites, report immediately by radio. If we were at the site and the site was open we were to enter the silo with the targeting tapes which we carried to the site and close the personnel hatch. (Although the missiles were more or less "pointed" in the right direction we had to program the missile's computer, using the tapes, with other information such as the launch code (partial), range data and blast type. The tapes were optically encoded and classified secret/crypto. They were to be guarded at all times). The SAT guard (accompanying us to the sites at all times) was to be left outside. At that time, he was the only one armed. Later, the Targeting Team members (officer and NCO only) were issued .38s (but not as a result of the UFO activities). The missiles in Oscar Flight averaged about 160 miles from the base. With the Air Force vehicles, we spent 7 to 8 hours traveling time and about two hours for each restart procedure but no activities were seen and the remainder of the night was uneventful.

Upon return to the base, about mid-day the next day, I reported for trip debriefing. All dispatches, including those prior to the incident required a debriefing upon return to the base. Not surprisingly, the main topic was the UFO incident. I reported that I saw nothing unusual. I also inquired about the trapped UFO. I was told that at daybreak the UFO in the canyon rose up out of the canyon, between the two helicopters, and sped away. Later I found out that the area in the canyon was investigated. Weeds and brush in the canyon appeared to have been disturbed but I don't know how much or to what extent or the nature of the disturbance.
I talked to several people, mostly SAT members, who personally witnessed these events. They obviously saw something and were visibly shaken. I remember one telling of seeing two small red lights off at a distance. They then began to close in toward the missile site, then he broke down so I don't know what happened. I thought it best not to pursue the matter further. I never even mentioned it to him later. Rumor had it that several people went bonkers, but I don't know who and I seriously doubt it. In these types of events, exaggeration and fancy take their toll.

A short time following these events (I don't remember how long) a UFO was seen over India Flight and several, but not all, missiles went off alert. As in the Oscar event, I was called upon to restore alert status to these missiles. I also heard that a similar event occurred over Echo Flight. I don't remember this event. This may have occurred during one of my off-duty days when I try to have as little contact with MIMS as possible. These are the days I reserve for myself and my family.

Several weeks after the above events, I was assigned to accompany Boeing technicians to visit the sites to query the guidance and control sections. They were not permitted to be at the site unless accompanied by authorized personnel. I asked then to include the UFO incident in their final report and they said they would! The final report was classified and I can't confirm that this was done.

I hope this helps. I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. Not only was I involved in wringing the last bit out of the summer vacation period I wanted to give this report plenty of thought so that the information is complete and correct to the best of my recollection. My signature below gives you permission to use the above information in any way which may assist you in your endeavors. Keep in touch,

Jamison

16 comments :

  1. Dear Mr. Hastings,

    Okay, let's cut out all of the extraneous garbage and see exactly what you've got.

    1. "If Jamison’s recollections are correct, and he did indeed respond to a large-scale missile shutdown at Oscar Flight on the same date as the well-documented Belt UFO sighting, then the date proposed for the Oscar event by Salas and Klotz—March 16, 1967—would seem to be in error. Salas has now acknowledged this possibility..."

    2. "Salas said, “I [now] think it is more likely that Oscar Flight went down on some date after the Echo Flight [shutdown] and that it could very well have been on the same day as the Belt sighting. One of the factors that lead me to that 'opinion' is the lack of comment about two flights going down in the [now-declassified] telex that went out, and in the unit history. If the two had gone down on the same day, that would have been mentioned. The reason, I think, Oscar wasn't mentioned later is because by then the Air Force wanted to keep a secrecy lid on it and avoid the possibility of a leak by the indication of a growing and continuing problem. That would have made quite some headlines in the press.” Nice little supposition there, Bobby, and a damn fine excuse for why nobody has ever reported or mentioned or discussed the matter before you did... by I digress.

    3. Hastings' own interviews with Figel reveal that he did not take the UFO reports seriously because he figured the guards were just fooling around. The fact the guards gave no signs of panic, fear, or any assumption of danger -- as the guards apparently and very dramatically did in Salas' evolving version of events -- supports this, as does the fact that nobody logged the sighting even after Figel told them to do so, since they agreed with each other so much. Figel also insists that he did not sign any statements, logs, etc., at any time reporting UFOs, a claim Salas had made for him in the past.

    4. "According to a declassified USAF document, Echo went down at 8:30 a.m. on March 16th; according to Bob Jamison, Oscar went down sometime after 10 p.m. on the 24th, and perhaps even later, sometime in the early hours of the 25th." So, now Jamison, like Salas before him, says nothing about the March 16 Echo-Flight shutdown just when I thought you were about to counter an argument of mine. This news flash, of course, comes out well after Salas' original claim that my father confirmed that UFOs took down the Echo-Flight missiles on March 16, something my father has always denied.

    5. Walt Figel has also denied that UFOs were responsible for the failure on March 16. He reports a prank call that mentioned UFOs, and after that no further mention was ever made of them, and no reason has ever been given by anybody to assert that there was any reason to believe UFOs were actually hovering over the Echo-Flight silos.

    6. "Interestingly, your own father, Eric Carlson, told me in a 10/6/08 telephone conversation that he himself had previously received reports from missile security guards of UFOs during other missile alerts he had pulled at Malmstrom, but that he didn’t take them seriously either." Nobody took them seriously -- not even the guards. That's why none of your witnesses have ever reported seeing a UFO themselves. They ALL report that someone else told them about it, or they heard another person mention it in another conversation, or an unnamed guard called me and reported it; funny how all your eyewitnesses are unnamed and have never come forward -- they might as well have all been blind, for all the worth their testimony actually offers.

    7. The command history also mentions this talk of UFOs, saying that rumors were present and investigated, and found to be nothing more -- simply rumors -- just this and nothing more. The entire discussion of UFOs was never taken seriously by anybody, a point of view confirmed by the fact that while the unit history as a whole was classified, none of the discussion related to UFOs was. Every mention of UFOs in the discussion of the Echo-Flight missiles shutdown of March 16, 1967 immediately stands out from other discussions because it's UNCLASSIFIED, and well-marked as such. That alone supports the absence of any conspiracy. It's a little hard for the government to cover-up something they never bothered to classify.

    8. "In another email to me, Salas wrote, 'I recently spoke with Dick Evans...who I also knew back in the days of Malmstrom. He was also a DMCCC at the time of the Echo shutdowns. In fact he told me he was at Kilo Flight the morning of the Echo Shutdown...Kilo Flight was the 'Command Flight' for the 490th Squadron, which included Oscar Flight. [Evans] told me that he has no recollection of Oscar shutting down or having any problems on that morning. He would have certainly been notified. I just received this information a few days ago...[my emphasis –RH] That info plus the other witnesses already mentioned [primarily Jamison --RH] make for a strong case that Oscar did not go down on [March] 16th.'"

    9. All of the evidence you've given to support your position supports remarkably well exactly what I've been telling you idiots for years: UFOs had nothing whatsoever to do with the failure of the missile systems on March 16, 1967, and there's no valid reason to assume they ever did. I've been extraordinarily consistent with my claims, while Robert Salas has been extraordinarily inconsistent with his own. He has repeatedly changed his version of events, and has repeatedly retracted numerous outrageous claims, with the end result being that you now agree with everything I have ever said.

    When I first rebuked Mr. Salas for his story it was because he claimed to have been on duty at Echo-Flight on March 16, 1967. He was not. He then claimed to have been at November-Flight, but later retracted that upon being rebuked by someone else. I've continuously stated for a dozen or so months now that he also had the date of March 16 wrong, with the result being that he has now retracted that claim as well.

    Mr. Hastings, you and Frank Warren started this claim-counterclaim when you attacked an argument I made a year ago on a completely different forum, and acted as if I had personally attacked you, when I didn't even know who you were! That's why it took some months for me to respond -- I was simply not aware I had been attacked by a coward. Frank Warren has recently attacked me in a similar manner on another website forum in which he makes suppositions regarding my motives, and refers to me as "a victim of the 'cognitive bias' that permeates our society", a ridiculous comment coming from someone who knows exactly where my opinions come from and that they have absolutely nothing to do with anything that's derived from a social construct. And then you act surprised that I tell you to go f*** yourself? You people are absolutely stunning in light of the fact that I have never publically rebuked anybody except Robert Salas until your irresponsible defense of statements even he now admits are erroneous!

    In defending my position and my statements, it appears, though, that I should have just waited in silence, because now your claims -- and Salas', apparently -- are the same as my own! The only difference between my claims and those you now profess to have is that I believe the "evolution" of Salas story indicates that he's lying, while you prefer to claim that he was repeatedly mistaken time after time after time!

    Regardless of what opinions you may have regarding UFOs, my possible "anger" issues, or the claims of my father and Walt Figel, by your own admission, nothing related to UFOs has yet been convincingly asserted in regards to the missiles shutdown at Echo-Flight on March 16, 1967, yet these claims are nonetheless repeatedly made without any evidence to support them. As for the events at Oscar-Flight, I really don't care about them -- I have no opinion regarding that event, although I do find it odd that there was such a public response to and investigation of the shutdown at Echo-Flight, but no confirming evidence at all regarding an Oscar-Flight shutdown. I also find it interesting to note that you, Salas, and Frank Warren have been unable to come up with a single eye-witness to a UFO over any of the Malmstrom Flights that supposedly went offline. You can't name one person who saw anything. All of your eyewitnesses are "the security guard", "a guy who called" or some such other garbage. It's always convenient for you when you can claim a lot of people saw something, but unfortunately we don't know who they are and they can't be questioned about the spooky UFO they saw. In any case, in the years I've been discussing the matter and defending the honesty of my father, I have never had much of an opinion regarding later sightings of UFos, and in my emails to you, Mr. Hastings, I have said as much repeatedly. If the only arguments of mine that you are willing to print are my angry responses to your own foolishness, I will, of course, come out the weaker for it. It's interesting that you've yet to respond to any of the valid points I've made in public on this very forum. Regardless, you know I don't give a damn about anything other than March 16, because I've told you as much. When commentators like yourself state that my father confirmed that UFOs brought down the missiles of March 16, than I get involved, because I happen to know that is a lie. He has never confirmed anything of the sort, and you and Frank Warren are both very aware of that. It's a point of fact that I have never rebuked any such statements on a website unless my father is mentioned by name, and even then I ask simply that our claims be aired as well, or my father's name removed from the discussion. Since both you and Frank Warren initiated mention of my father with an attack on my credibility, you pretty much took away any reason for me to make any such requests of you.

    Whatever. On this point, I'm pretty satisfied that you now agree with everything I said when you started this little crap shoot. Whether Robert Salas lied over and over again for a year or more or was simply mistaken over and over again for a year or more, it's pretty amusing to me that you now publically admit I was correct when I said that UFOs did not shut down the Echo-Flight missiles on March 16, 1967. I'm happy to have finally convinced you.

    James Carlson

    ReplyDelete
  2. James,

    Since you have chosen to include me in your colloquy with Robert, I'll respond in kind, working backwards:

    you wrote:

    Mr. Hastings, you and Frank Warren started this claim-counterclaim when you attacked an argument I made a year ago on a completely different forum, and acted as if I had personally attacked you, when I didn't even know who you were! . . . I was simply not aware I had been attacked by a coward.

    Not so James; this dialogue was started by an individual going by the handle of Great Galactic Ghoul; he wrote in part:

    "I'm reposting this from a website forum (http://unexplainedmysteries.com) where I debated several posters on this issue and then the following was posted for clarification. This is very important information on this issue:"

    At the end it was signed, "James Carlson." Naturally, "I" presumed it was you, and as a courtesy to the "author" (Robert Hastings who penned the piece Launch in Progress to which the comment was associated) I forwarded it to Robert.

    What you call "an attack to an argument in a completely different forum" was Robert's rebuttal to your declaration, made in the comment section here at the UFO Chronicles, at the time, presumably by you.

    Additionally, in Robert's rejoinder he provided names of witnesses, as well as their respective declarations. As a "retort" to your allegations that Bob Salas is a liar, he posed the question(s) after presenting each respective witness, "is that person a 'liar' too?"

    By no means can anyone suggest this was an "attack" of any sort. It was what it was meant to be, "a rebuttal" to your allegations with factual information supplied therein. I might add that there weren't any ad hominem, vitriolic attacks either.

    You wrote:

    Frank Warren has recently attacked me in a similar manner on another website forum in which he makes suppositions regarding my motives, and refers to me as "a victim of the 'cognitive bias' that permeates our society"

    This of course is patently ludicrous; again what you call an "attack" was me responding to a forum member who posed the question, that you might have "hidden motives" in regards to your attempts to discredit people."

    I specifically wrote:

    "I don't think Carlson has a hidden agenda; I believe he's just a victim of the "cognitive bias" that permeates our society. "

    Again, "a supposition?" Certainly! An "attack?" Not hardly!

    You wrote:

    I also find it interesting to note that you, Salas, and Frank Warren have been unable to come up with a single eye-witness to a UFO over any of the Malmstrom Flights that supposedly went offline.

    Since the first response from Robert, all he has done is provide you with witnesses!

    In your first reply to Robert in the "very first paragraph" you wrote:

    You've asked me via this forum whether I would call these "witnesses" you've dug up liars.

    Yes. I would. Definitely.


    Initially, you "acknowledge witnesses," now you just call the witnesses "liars," . . . which is it?

    You wrote:

    When commentators like yourself state that my father confirmed that UFOs brought down the missiles of March 16, than I get involved, because I happen to know that is a lie. He has never confirmed anything of the sort, and you and Frank Warren are both very aware of that.

    Once "again" James "your statement" doesn't jibe with the facts! No where, from the beginning of your colloquy with Robert, up to his latest response, has he stated, "your father confirmed that UFOs brought down the missiles of March 16 . . ."

    What he has done, is recounted his (your father's) statements that he made during a "recorded telephonic interview" with him which certainly don't coincide with "your declarations" as to what he told you.

    You wrote:

    Since both you and Frank Warren initiated mention of my father with an attack on my credibility, you pretty much took away any reason for me to make any such requests of you.

    As usual James your statement is delusive! The first mention of your father was made by the commenter that both Robert and I assumed was "you" and who by the way quoted you "word for word." The next mention of your father was in fact made by "you" in your first response to Robert.

    Additionally, in that same "first" response to a man (Robert Hastings) that you admittedly didn't know, you called the witnesses he offered all liars, only to later say that he couldn't find any!

    In regards to some of the witnesses you wrote:

    " . . . why would anybody trust anything he says? Lying or

    senile? You choose."


    Concerning another you wrote:

    As for Mr. Psolka, who gives a damn what he says?

    You ended your first response to Robert by writing:

    You guys believe without questioning anything, a quality that is more typical of fools than researchers. It's no wonder people question your

    conclusions -- they're ridiculous, sloppy, and misinformed.


    You further write:

    It's a point of fact that I have never rebuked any such statements on a website unless my father is mentioned by name, and even then I ask simply that our claims be aired as well

    Sorry James, once again "your facts" are wrong! As stated previously "you" were the first one to "cite" your father by name and reference. Moreover, with the exception of one of your more vitriol attacks against Robert, as the moderator here I have allowed "all" your comments/arguments to be published.

    In conclusion:

    Your comments from the very "get go" have been filled with sarcasm, innuendo and ad hominem attacks, which have increasingly become worse in tone and acrimony; at one point one commentary was so distasteful I had to remove it.

    You ask for witnesses, then when they're presented, rather then offer an argument to their respective declarations, you call them liars; later you just claim there are none.

    Additionally, as shown here you have a tendency to "spin" the facts as you choose, ignoring or perhaps forgetting your previous contrary comments.

    You don't seem to want to be bothered with evidence when it's offered; and "your defense" of your position is to "attack the person presenting the opposition," by name-calling, sarcasm and innuendo, rather then "argue the merits" of your side of the disputation.

    This behavior does nothing for your case, or character but diminish it.

    When called on the carpet for this behavior as Robert has done in his defense and rebuttal, you then pose as the "victim" and act as if you are the recipient of ad hominem attacks opposed to the other way around as is the case evidenced by your own writings.

    Finally, and with great irony, the UFO activity that took place in the month of March in 1967 is the very reason that Robert Hastings has spent his life investigating the phenomenon. He has literally interviewed several dozen former or retired USAF "missileers" and missile security police who have confirmed ongoing UFO activity at ICBM sites; this aside from interviews of over 100 military personnel for UFO incidents in general. You criticized Robert for "re-interviewing some of the witnesses" after getting involved in this colloquy, you insinuated that this was a "bad thing"; however, this is what a good researcher does, he verifies, checks and vets evidence and witnesses--this is what Robert Hastings ascribes to, and this is what he is--a good researcher/investigator!

    At the end of the day James, I don't believe there is any evidence that can be presented to you to shift your position--your mind is made up, and evidence appears to be nothing but a hindrance.

    Respectfully,
    Frank Warren

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Frank -- it seems I owe you an apology; I took it for granted that since Mr. Hastings has actually written a book on these types of sightings, that both of you were familiar with the evidence, and therefore had some substantive knowledge regarding Salas' early claims that my father had confirmed the matter.

    When Salas first reported these stories of his, he claimed to have worked at Echo-Flight; he was forced to retract this and claimed instead to have been at November-Flight (which he also later retracted). This was about the time I first started telling people that Salas was overstating many of the facts in his testimony, including my father's confirmation. And since that time, Salas has continued to make post-facto changes in his story. I'll take you at your word that you are apparently unaware of this, so I stand corrected, and I hope you'll accept my apologies; I'll simply defer to your admitted ignorance, and we can leave it at that, if you like.

    As for your statements regarding my interpretation of what was said on the other forum you have mentioned, I accept that as well. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I come across as over-sensitive at times, but I've been going over these claims of Salas' and the stories that are continuously reprinted and retold in very public forums for years now, and I have had to put up with some of the most ridiculous attacks on my own character, honesty, and integrity, as well the same of my father's -- all of this on the basis of statements made my Robert Salas that he has since retracted. You've probably noted that, regarding this matter, I tend to react with anger first, but I've been going over these points for years, and the same views nonetheless persist. To this day, Jeff Rense's site continues to make claims nobody else affirms, with the end result being an acceptance of crap as fact by a wide range of people who consider themselves properly "educated" on the subject, simply because they've done so much research on the internet. Possibly my rush to defend myself was over-hasty. In fact, I've since concluded that the forum we've been discussing hasn't really published anything more than a few temporary opinions, so I very likely will not even page over there again; there are far too many people out there writing books and applying their diligence to a far greater range of public exposure, such as the Dislosure Project.

    Now to a bit of something more important: you write that "Since the first response from Robert, all he has done is provide you with witnesses!" This leaves people with the wrong bit of assumption, since I specified that you [and we'll read just Hastings here, since I'm satisfied that you haven't presented any of the evidence in question] have been unable to come up with a single eye-witness to a UFO over any of the Malmstrom Flights that supposedly went offline." And that is true. None of his "witnesses" claim to have seen anything at all, certainly not UFOs. They all claim the same standby that Salas has always maintained: an unnamed person on the phone told me; it was mentioned in a report nobody else has ever seen; it was logged down by an unnamed person who has never come forward, but he didn't actually sign the log and the log, in fact, has never been admitted or photocopied or seen by anybody else; or we were told that a UFO was seen, but we don't know who told us, and nobody has come forward to admit it was really there. Do you see a pattern here, because I've been looking at this same pattern for years now, and it has never changed. There are no eye-witnesses to anything. That's why I refer to them all as non-witness witnesses. Nobody that actually saw anything can be examined dispassionately, and they have left behind no documentation to assert even their very existence as real people. And when the witnesses that Mr. Hastings does name report very contrary versions of what happened, versions that in turn are contrary to the statements that Salas has already made, I have no choice but to assume they are lying. I've said as much in this forum and my emails to Hastings. What am I supposed to say? If you accept the events as dictated by one of his witnesses, you have to discount two others. There's less agreement among his witnesses than between the GOP and Dems in Congress! So, yeah, I call them liars -- what am I supposed to say? They all differ in their non-agreement on key points? Hell, I couldn't live with myself if I did that!

    So on the basis of witnesses alone, it's impossible to reach any conclusion regarding UFOs, because nobody ever saw one -- everything is anecdotal. As for physical evidence, Jim Klotz has apparently questioned my understanding of the characteristics of security shielding on the silo computer systems, primarily my insistence that the cause of the shutdown was an "overvoltage event," his point being that such an event could not occur, and that I possibly did not understand that the actual failure could not be determined. He's very wrong on th‬is point -- I understand exactly what happened and why. I was a computer technician for many, many years with the U.S. Navy, and I held a Top Secret clearance for most of that same period. I know exactly how dependable a classified system is, and I know exactly how "overvoltage events" can affect an otherwise closed system, and how it can be injected into such a system. Perhaps Mr. Klotz does not understand the mechanics involved. No shielding in 1967 was 100% reliable, and a power surge can be caused by a very large number of normal, expected conditions. That's what Boeing's contractor investigation showed, and that's why the shutdown occurred. There's nothing magic in all of this -- it's just mechanical error.

    I've got to ask this next question, because it applies so well to the matter at hand: Does Hastings and/or you really believe that it's possible to convince people that UFOs shut down our country's missile defense system without first convincing them that UFOs were seen hovering over the silos? Because that's exactly what Hastings is attempting to do when his entire argument is characterized by its total absence of eye-witness testimony. He's been unable these past weeks to name one, single person who actually saw a UFO; the only reasons given to substantiate these claims is a series of rumors, and those rumors were acknowledged, investigated and found to be groundless in 1967! It's no wonder the scientific community considers these types of evidential argument as having originated with whack-jobs and buffoons -- nobody has presented any objective reason for anyone to believe otherwise. Hell, Hastings has been promising for weeks to outline his case evidence in a convincing way, and to answer the issues I've raised, but he has utterly failed to do anything except bring forth testimony that agrees with and supports the issues I've been raising for years, although lightly salted with absolutely irrelevant details like my "anger" issues, my relationship with my father, and the whole avoidance issue concerning how many civilians reported UFOs on dates other than March 16.

    Tell me, does he have a valid argument at all to make? Can he do so coherently? I ask this only because he has not bothered to do so yet.

    I've got to tell you, Until he can put a flying saucer over the silos, his entire argument is impotent. And he's been apparently unable to do this. He's presents crap about an unnamed guy on the telephone, or I heard about it in the barracks, or a friend mentioned it to me while we were eating lunch; his whole case, everything he apparently bases his conclusions on, proves only that there were rumors, and that simply does not meet any accepted standard of proof. He's been unable to attest to anything that wasn't already declared and cleared in 1967. My God, he can't even say that other missile sites actually went offline like they did at Echo-Flight, because there is no record of it occurring or evidence of any investigation that would have taken place had such an event actually transpired. By his own admission, Robert Salas' ridiculous little story "evolved" over a period of years, during which the details of his story changed continuously; Salas, too, has never actually named an eye-witness to these events, simply admitting that "the security guard told me". He has failed completely to provide even the very lowest standard of proof for these outrageous claims, and when others disagree with his conclusions, he doesn't counter this with any intelligent argument or valid points; he prefers instead to attack and ridicule those who disagree with him. He has yet to answer any of the issues that I've raised, and he refuses much of the time to discuss his own claims with any intellectual honesty. And now, he's actually reached the point where his arguments support my own at the expense of Salas' credibility. Even the most cursory analysis of his latest conclusions lends little weight to his professed intentions to counter the arguments I've set forth.

    Does Hastings understand what he's supposed to be doing here? He's supposed to be convincing people that UFOs shut down our nation's missile defense system. If he cannot do that, he should quit trying. Please -- convince me. Give me the name of someone who actually saw a UFO over the silos so I can examine their story for its merits. Show me some physical evidence proving that the systems that went offline did so for reasons we don't already fully understand. Show me why he believes that any missile station other than Echo-Flight went down in March, 1967, when there's no record of it. Show me why UFOs are more likely to have done the deed than an "overvoltage event". Tell me why Robert Salas has changed his story every time I or someone else has raised an issue in dispute of his tall tale, and yet he still considers himself knowledgable enough and with sufficient memory of events to write a book on the subject. Can this be done? Can he build some kind of argument that is more convincing and carries more weight than "some guy -- I don't know his name and he hasn't come forward, but I'm convinced that he exists -- told me it happened, and I believe him."

    It is so very obvious that he doesn't have any evidence to support his version of events, or he would have brought it out by now, if only to shut me up. I'm begging you guys, please -- tell me why you believe what you believe, because so far the only thing I can come up with is that you believe UFOs did the job at Malmstrom, because (1) you're confident out government lied to us, but you have nothing to base that on, and (2) you all seem confident that the rumors involving UFOs that were acknowledged and investigated and found to be groundless in 1967 were actually true, but there's nothing to base that on.

    I don't really expect any effective answers to these questions, since he's failed completely to discuss with any intelligence the questions and issues I've already raised in this forum. But I'm willing to wait and see what you guys come up with. It should be amusing to see how relevant the issues he'll come back with actually are.

    James Carlson

    ReplyDelete
  4. James,

    You wrote:

    "Well, Frank -- it seems I owe you an apology; I took it for granted that since Mr. Hastings has actually written a book on these types of sightings, that both of you were familiar with the evidence, and therefore had some substantive knowledge regarding Salas' early claims that my father had confirmed the matter."

    First, "apology accepted!" Second, in my rejoinder I addressed the comments you made directly about me, or ones that included me, which by default included Robert--I wasn't talking about Salas.

    You wrote:

    " . . . Salas has continued to make post-facto changes in his story. I'll take you at your word that you are apparently unaware of this, so I stand corrected, and I hope you'll accept my apologies; I'll simply defer to your admitted ignorance, and we can leave it at that, if you like."

    Again I accept your apologies; however, once again James you are in error. I never said or admitted any such thing, and I invite you to go back up a page or two and reread my missive.

    Other then quoting your allegations of him (Salas)being a liar, and noting Robert's responses to your initial comment by providing the names of other witnesses and their respective declarations, I didn't address Salas or his statements; I addressed yours, pertaining to me, directly or by association.

    You write:

    Now to a bit of something more important: you write that "Since the first response from Robert, all he has done is provide you with witnesses!" This leaves people with the wrong bit of assumption, since I specified that you [and we'll read just Hastings here, since I'm satisfied that you haven't presented any of the evidence in question] have been unable to come up with a single eye-witness to a UFO over any of the Malmstrom Flights that supposedly went offline." And that is true. None of his "witnesses" claim to have seen anything at all, certainly not UFOs.

    Robert has provided witnesses that have confirmed UFO events, as well as the "brass" not only being cognizant of it, but taking action in response to it. I cede the fact that the witnesses mentioned did not see the UFO directly, and I also cede the notion that this is a salient point; however, that does not lessen the significance of their respective declarations; for example, Barlow said:

    "I was on Electro-Mechanical Team 24 at the time [the Echo Flight shutdown] happened. . . . [When we got back to Echo-1] we heard what happened. . . . The perimeter lights were on and he could see the snow coming down all around him so he looked up and saw a ring of lights right over top of him. He was scared stiff, so he went back to the camper and woke up his team partner.

    When this other guy came out, he had a camera with him, which they weren’t suppose to have, but guys would do stuff like that. By then this thing had moved off the perimeter fence and he took pictures of it. [When the security team was debriefed back at the base,] the Air Force confiscated the camera and film. I was told all of this back at Echo-1."


    Additionally, Henry Psolka said:

    "We were in the barracks one day, I think it was on a weekend or so, and it was like in March, I remember snow outside, and somebody came and said, “Hey! A UFO just strafed the flight line!’ We all went outside to see and there was nothing there, you know so, but maybe a day went by and we were scheduled for a dispatch and all of a sudden we got called for the Section. Now Major Ingold was in charge of the Targeting Section. . . . Captain Harrison briefed us and he said, 'We have to go out to Echo Flight,' he said, 'there’s been a shutdown and they think the UFOs shut it down.' 'Wow,' we said, 'the UFOs!'..."

    I might also add that Malmstrom is on record for doing a "UFO investigation" in the month of March, 1967; furthermore they tracked it on radar.

    Obviously, "direct eyewitnesses" are paramount as evidence in any case, and it would seem that your stance is hinged to the "lack of" to that end, I offer a few:

    Airman Second Class Richard Moore

    Airman third Class Richard Johnson

    Airman Second Class Warren Mahoney


    Although I don't have the names in front of me, a "sabotage alert team" were also "direct eyewitnesses.

    Additionally in the "written report" to Wright Pat, Lt Colonel Chase (Chief of Operations Malmstrom) stated that there were "numerous sightings" in the area.

    You wrote:

    And when the witnesses that Mr. Hastings does name report very contrary versions of what happened, versions that in turn are contrary to the statements that Salas has already made, I have no choice but to assume they are lying.

    It seems to me that one of your very complaints is "supposition" James; however, it appears you have no problems employing it; shouldn't the rules apply both ways?

    Reports of UFOs in close proximity to sensitive military installations (including nuclear sites, i.e., Los Alamos, Hanford, Oak Ridge etc.) is "common," and has been reported since the beginning of what we call "modern day Ufology. Moreover, "electro magnetic effects" is also commonplace regarding UFOs reported in close proximity to the respective witnesses and the afflicted contrivances.

    Stating that you have "no choice" but to believe these people are lying simply is inaccurate, and quite frankly is nonsensical.

    What about the men you are so easily quick to call liars, whom by the way served with your father? These patriots were also on the first line of defense in the event of the unthinkable, i.e., a nuclear attack. Shouldn't these veterans be afforded the same respect and honor you demand for your father? How do you think the son's of these men would feel if they knew you can so easily "call them liars." Doesn't there respective service command the same respect that you deem "your father" deserves?

    you wrote:

    I've got to ask this next question, because it applies so well to the matter at hand: Does Hastings and/or you really believe that it's possible to convince people that UFOs shut down our country's missile defense system without first convincing them that UFOs were seen hovering over the silos?

    Aside from the witnesses, the official report states that there were numerous sightings over and around Malmstrom AFB in the month of March 1967 (which were also tracked by radar. Not to mention the newspaper reports). So being in the area isn't in question. A myriad of witnesses who were there indicate that there was a concern with UFOs in close proximity to these missiles, etc. Thirdly, there is a pattern of UFOs being reported at such sites, and or other military installations, as well as electro-magnetic effects. Finally by your own admission, you indicate how archaic the systems were and how susceptible they were to minor problems, e.g., "over voltage events" etc.

    In my view "the preponderance" of evidence indicates that UFOs affected missiles in nearby bases near Malmstrom Air Force Base, in the month of March 1967.

    Let me finish with a question James:

    (In all seriousness)

    If you were to talk to a witness who saw a "flying saucer" over one of the silos . . . would it make a difference?

    Respectfully,
    Frank Warren

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi, Frank,

    All points well-taken. I'm really not being specific, here, and I wasn't trying to be specific in my last. Generally -- not specifically -- you seemed to be suggesting that my accusations were uncalled for because Hastings was not aware that my "original" communication was written so long ago, so he was under the impression that I had come in out of nowhere to attack his account of events, etc., and that none of the statements I directed at Hastings, you and Salas together were could be properly interpreted by all three of you, because you don't all share the same amount of or extent of the knowledge I presumed you all shared -- you're three people, and I should have directed more specific matters to each as the extent of knowledge you have or don't have dictates. I accept that -- you're absolutely right. Like I said, I assumed you were all familiar with the points of a case I've been familiar with for years based on an assumption that you all read the same case in whichever of two books I know have discussed it. It was a dumb assumption to make, and I shouldn't have done so. Anyway, when I said "I'll take you at your word that you are apparently unaware of this" I was referring to your denial that anybody -- i.e., neither you nor Mr. Hastings -- had said my father had confirmed that UFOs brought down the system on March 16. Since I didn't make that up, and it's been stated since Salas first reported his little story, I took it for granted that you were aware of the matter, and I shouldn't have. Basically, my argument was general and yours was specific; you seemed to be saying that it was unfair of me to be angry regarding general characteristics that had not been stated, and I agreed. The statements were made by Salas, and later retracted by Salas, but people still negotiate through the matter as a general perspective, and that's the point-of-view I feel obligated to take. I do recognize that you, specifically, didn't make any such claims, but as a general rule, many websites that do discuss the matter in any detail -- such as this one -- tend to either repeat it, repeat some of Crawford's early claims, or mention my father in a context that supports the assumption of a confirmation. I'd just a soon remove the entire context -- a general reaction to what you seem to interpret as necessitating a far more specific response. Well, you're right, it does, so I apologize.

    As for Mr. Hastings' "witnesses" -- I don't now what else to say. He still doesn't have a single witness who saw anything, which means he's still just discussing "rumors". And it is far more than just a "salient point". It's mighty convenient for him (and Salas), and decidedly inconvenient for everybody else that nobody can be questioned about the matter, nobody can tell us "I was just screwing around," or "I saw a real flying saucer." In light of such "testimony" the only thing available to investigators -- whether believers or doubters or whatever -- is to go over the second tier witness accounts and compare them with what we know and what other second tier witnesses have reported. Do this with the witnesses named by Mr. Hastings, and you have a lot of reasons to doubt they're telling the truth, and no reason whatsoever to believe them. Add this to the fact that none of them claim to have actually seen a UFO, and you don't have a believable account from anybody. You point out that the lac of an eye-witness at any point in the story does "not lessen the significance of their respective declarations." I respectfully disagree, as would anybody with a background in law enforcement. It is for this reason that our nation as a whole -- not just a few States, but the entire country -- recognizes the general weakness of circumstantial evidence. This is a chacteristic recognized and accepted so universally amongst Americans -- both jurors and jurists -- that the death penalty "curve" shows such a significant difference between the two, that defense lawyers will often refuse to plea bargain if circumstantial evidence is all the prosecution has; odds are good that his or her client will be acquitted. And if they are convicted, jurors are loath to award the death penalty. In this case, however, the absence of eye-witnesses is particularly notable, because the command recognized UFO rumors shortly afterwards. No eye-witnesses makes the existence of rumors all the more likely. In Barlow's case, his memories are so complex and detailed, that the likelihood of its being a memory is comparatively low. In addition, the whole bit about the camera is particularly unlikely, since the individuals that supposedly saw this UFO would probably not repeat it; this is exactly the kind of action that forces the command to pull the guard's security clearance. And that can ruin one's career. He would be an idiot to tell anyone. And if he didn't tell anyone, the camera and the film would not have been confiscated.

    Psolka's story is even more doubtful. He mentions hearing about UFO's strafing the flight line, but he doesn't say who said that, and the fact that they were at the barracks makes it extremely unlikely anybody will ever find out who it was. And the bit about Captain Harrison saying "there’s been a shutdown and they think the UFOs shut it down" is almost impossible to imagine, since Psolka -- and everybody else at his level in the chain of command -- would not have had any "need to know", a classification construct no Captain in such a high level command environment would ignore. He would never have mentioned it, briefing only the fact that that they had a job to do. This is all standard security practice in a military environment.

    The contrary versions observation is undeniable, and I've already discussed those -- trouble-shooting equipment notable woring fine for one, but not the other; heavy snow from one account, clear but cold in the other. And, of course, neither one could attest to an actually observed UFO -- just other people discussing UFOs. I absolutely call them liars, because it's unlikely that someone telling the truth would have so many details opposed to statements or conditions of others who also claimed to have been there. I don't know, but I would certainly be willing to bet that there's no definitive evidence proving these gentlemen were actually there in the first place. Everything all of these witness attest to points to a poorly organized fiction. It would at least help a little bit if they could testify to each other being there at the time, but again, we have nothing to support that -- only stories of incidents observed by others. It's almost perverse, since it wasn't so long ago that the memories of the event would change so intolerably. Although you might see a pattern of sightings developed over the month, the point remains that there were no reports for March 16, 1967 -- and there were a number of people outside who should have seen the UFO if it were there, but nobody has come forward to admit that. And, frankly, the pattern of UFOs being reported at such sites is irrelevant, because you can't assume a fact on the basis of a pattern observed elsewhere. To assume a fact, you need an eye-witness. As I told Mr. Hastings, you can say a million UFOs were floating around Malmstrom on the 24th, 25th, or 29th, and their existence or non-existence would still have nothing at all to do with Echo-Flight on March 16, 1967. If you can't put a UFO there, you can't claim that same UFO shutdown all of our missiles. You can say "evidence indicates that UFOs affected missiles in nearby bases near Malmstrom Air Force Base, in the month of March 1967" until the oceans dry up, and it would still have nothing to do with what happened on March 16. A pattern can't be used to recommend an act, unless that act has been determined to be part of the pattern -- and nobody's been able to do that. I agree that the systems were archaic and "suceptible they were to minor problems, e.g., "over voltage events". This alone makes the failures far more likely to have been caused by an internal error vice UFOs that can't be confirmed on a decent standard of proof.

    You add that "Malmstrom is on record for doing a 'UFO investigation' in the month of March, 1967; furthermore they tracked it on radar." But this certainly wasn't the case on March 16, according to the unit history. For instance, consider the following issue, possibly the most definitive from the command point of view: in the unit history that Salas relies on so much, the 801st Radar Squadron, Malmstrom AFB response to the investigation of the Echo-Flight failures is a noted negative report on any radar or atmospheric interference problems related to Echo-Flight. This paragraph is UNCLASSIFIED and has been since it was first drafted. The paragraph preceding this one reads, "Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo-Flight during the time of the fault were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no unusual activity or sightings were observed." This paragraph is also UNCLASSIFIED and has been since it was first drafted. Taken as a whole, it's apparent that there was nothing there. More importantly and to the point, the fact that these paragraphs are UNCLASSIFIED is a gold-standard indication that the chain of command at Malmstrom AFB was extremely confident that the entire argument involving UFOs was a red-herring, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the failures at Echo-Flight.

    If anybody in the chain of command suspected that UFOs were involved, that classification would either not have been UNCLASSIFIED, or it would have been changed. Neither was done. The command knew the UFOs -- i.e., the rumors of -- had nothing to do with anything that went on at Echo-Flight. If there had been some suspicion that UFOs were involved, the minimum classification would have been SECRET, equal to the overall classification of the full document itself. This is all standard classification manual instruction, and Salas should have known about it. This classification brouhaha is important. Can you think of anything more negligent than an UNCLASSIFIED assignment to these findings if UFOs really were responsible? In 1967 during the pinnacle of the Cold War? An UNCLASSIFIED assignment would have never been allowed to stand, regardless of any other content on the page, and a SECRET -- or probably a TOP SECRET -- designation would have been slapped on that paragraph and page so quickly, there would have been no time to scratch out the (U). But Salas deals with this classification hangup deftly, by simply stating that "The incident was classified but is no longer classified as a result of obtaining these documents", a statement that isn't exactly as thorough as it should be, particularly since that classification he mentions doesn't apply to the actual paragraphs, which are given their own classification, a practice adopted to enable commanders in the field or at a unit level to quickly declassify a document, should it become necessary.

    Salas adds, however (and note the emphasis), that "In one previously classified message, SAC Headquarters described the E-Flight incident as: loss of strategic alert of all ten missiles within ten seconds of each other for no apparent reason and a '…cause for grave concern…(to SAC headquarters).' (emphasis ours)" It should be noted that "cause for grave concern" is a very common phrase that is specifically used by the U.S. military to justify a SECRET classification of an entire document, and cannot be applied to UNCLASSIFIED paragraphs within that document. All mention of UFOs, atmospheric interference, radar, and anything that may or may not have been observed by members of the Mobile Strike team instructed to check out "November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67" was UNCLASSIFIED. It's interesting to note that the UFOs were given the same classification as observations made by members of the Mobile Strike team at November-Flight, observations made hours before the shutdown at Echo-Flight and at a different station entirely. Only someone with a very vivid imagination would ever see any need whatsoever to include anything originating with the Mobile Strike team at November-Flight; what could they possibly add to an investigation of the Echo-Flight missile failures? But, they were out there, and the command -- in a remarkably thorough mindset that it should be commended for -- apparently felt that there ought be some mention of them, possibly thinking that since they were on record as being on duty during the same 24-hour period as the failure of missiles at Echo-Flight, there should be mention of what they were doing and where. Of course, "what they were doing and where" was in reality insignificant, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the missile failures. It is interesting to note that these insignificant details that had nothing to do with the missile failures at Echo-Flight are listed and included along with the only mention of UFOs in relation to the Echo-Flight failures -- and all are given the same classification: UNCLASSIFIED. Apparently, nobody on a command level thought the UFOs were significant at all. At least not until Robert Salas came around to stir up interest in these insignificant details some 30 or so years later.

    You suggest that a "sabotage alert team" were eye-witnesses to the event, but I've never read their statements asserting this, and there's no record of such a team being deployed (unless, of course, this reference was intended to define the Mobil Strike Team, in which case this team observed nothing unusual; if such a team had been deployed, then it should have been part of both the unit history and the investigation, but there's no mention of it anywhere that I've seen. Sabotage alert teams were regularly deployed for training assignments; I can say from personal experience this would be one of the very few reasons such a deployment would not have been included. I'm not familiar with the statements made by Airman Second Class Richard Moore, Airman third Class Richard Johnson, Airman Second Class Warren Mahoney, or the Chief of Operations Malmstrom's memorandum to "Wright Pat", and would be interested in seeing their accounts, but if they represent definitive eye-witnessed events, why weren't they mentioned by Mr. Hastings, even after I explained to him why Barlow's and Psolka's claims do not represent believable testimony? Additionally, impeaching the testimony of actors due to internal fallacies in their claims, i.e., contrary to each other and statements made by Salas, is not supposition; supposition would be impeaching the testimony of actors without viable cause. I didn't establish these variances -- they did when they submitted their claims. All I did was notice that those claims can't be established without negating key points from their testimony, and these were pretty significant fallacies that Mr. Hastings has yet to comment on.

    In closing you ask, "If you were to talk to a witness who saw a 'flying saucer' over one of the silos . . . would it make a difference?" so I'll close here as well: Yes, it would make a difference, but I honestly don't expect this to ever be applied to March 16, 1967. And although it would make a difference, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. The preponderance of evidence suggests that the March 16 UFO incident was manufactured; if Salas had not published his recollections of the incident, nobody would have claimed the incident was UFO driven, even though rumors of UFOs had already been established. If his recollections had not been so full of holes, and blatantly erroneous -- if he had not been incorrect -- or if he had not lied about his role in the missile failures over an extended period -- the date of March 16 that he originally attached to his claims would never have been assumed; any reading of contemporary accounts would naturally accord the date of UFO interference a week to two weeks later, as this represents the best odds for UFO interference to occur, because it had a much higher accounting of UFO sightings in comparison to March 16. That's one reason I have for not trusting Salas or his little fiction. I'm well-convinced that Salas assigned the date simply because there is no evidence of missile failures at any other time. March 16 is the only confirmed missile failure that can asserted for March, 1967; it represents the only investigation for March, 1967. Salas wanted that confirmation, because more than anything else, it represents the possibility of a "smoking gun" when all he really possessed was a role of caps. He didn't just want that characteristic attached to his claims -- he needed it. Without it, he lost a lot of credibility.

    James Carlson

    ReplyDelete
  6. James,

    Robert is still having problems posting directly, and I have been swamped; on his behalf I'm late in posting the following:

    Robert Hasting wrote:

    So, James, you are now convinced that I have finally agreed with you that no UFOs were involved in the Echo Flight shutdowns on March 16, 1967. If this is indeed the case, then you truly are delusional, in addition to your other painfully obvious problems. Please seek professional help for your own good.

    Robert Hastings

    ReplyDelete
  7. James,

    You Wrote:

    " you seemed to be suggesting that my accusations were uncalled for because Hastings was not aware that my "original" communication was written so long ago, so he was under the impression that I had come in out of nowhere to attack his account of events, etc., and that none of the statements I directed at Hastings, you and Salas together were could be properly interpreted by all three of you, because you don't all share the same amount of or extent of the knowledge I presumed you all shared -- you're three people, and I should have directed more specific matters to each as the extent of knowledge you have or don't have dictates. I accept that -- you're absolutely right."

    Not to be rude; however, I'm not "suggesting" anything; I'm being "direct and to the point."

    I have presented examples, by using your "direct quotes" to illustrate your errors. (See my previous comments).

    I don't presume to speak for Robert, nor Bob Salas nor can I. Moreover, I cede the fact that I don't share the same knowledge that they possess regarding "UFOs at nuclear facilities."

    Additionally, "it's a given" that one should direct comments to the specific individual that it pertains to, rather then to "blanket them, or "us" in this specific instance.

    You wrote:

    ". . .when I said "I'll take you at your word that you are apparently unaware of this" I was referring to your denial that anybody -- i.e., neither you nor Mr. Hastings -- had said my father had confirmed that UFOs brought down the system on March 16."

    No need to take my word for it James; just do what I did and go back and check . . . t'is the advantage of the "written word."

    You wrote:

    "Since I didn't make that up, and it's been stated since Salas first reported his little story, I took it for granted that you were aware of the matter, and I shouldn't have."

    James what "I was aware of or not" is not relevant as "I wasn't talking about Salas"; I was responding to your accusations that you made "about me."

    You wrote:

    "I do recognize that you, specifically, didn't make any such claims, but as a general rule, many websites that do discuss the matter in any detail -- such as this one -- tend to either repeat it, repeat some of Crawford's early claims, or mention my father in a context that supports the assumption of a confirmation. I'd just a soon remove the entire context -- a general reaction to what you seem to interpret as necessitating a far more specific response. Well, you're right, it does, so I apologize."

    Again, as Robert pointed out in his first response (which he and I both presumed was you) the article where comments were first made were concerning an incident at "Minot AFB."

    Again I accept your apology and appreciate it.

    You wrote:

    "As for Mr. Hastings' 'witnesses' -- I don't now what else to say. He still doesn't have a single witness who saw anything, which means he's still just discussing 'rumors'."

    As stated previously "there are 'direct eyewitnesses' (names of which I provided in my previous missive above); there is/was an investigation by the Air Force; there is/was radar reports and there are newspaper reports of UFO incidents/sightings in the month of March 1967, in over and around Malmstrom AFB; there is/was "radar reports." Let us not forget the public (and private) statements by the "Boeing Engineer" (who was tasked to investigate the cause of the incident) Robert Kaminski who has gone on record in stating that be believes UFOs were responsible for shutting down the missiles; finally, there is a "history" (decades) before and since (right up until present times) of sightings in and around "sensitive" military installations and or including those that contain nuclear weapons, or power plants.

    You wrote:

    "It's mighty convenient for him (and Salas), and decidedly inconvenient for everybody else that nobody can be questioned about the matter, nobody can tell us 'I was just screwing around,' or 'I saw a real flying saucer.' "

    Again James, this is delusive; one of the strengths of the case is/are the declarations of several of the witnesses "who were there."

    Before you reiterate the fact that these witnesses didn't see the craft "directly," that doesn't negate their respective involvement with the incident and reactions to it. Your own father is on record acknowledging that "he received UFO reports" from other missile alerts re Malmstrom.

    You wrote:

    "You point out that the lac of an eye-witness at any point in the story does 'not lessen the significance of their respective declarations.' I respectfully disagree, as would anybody with a background in law enforcement. "

    That's not what I exemplified at all. My point was that each respective witness' statement has their own merit.

    You wrote:

    "You add that 'Malmstrom is on record for doing a 'UFO investigation' in the month of March, 1967; furthermore they tracked it on radar.' But this certainly wasn't the case on March 16, according to the unit history."

    I believe "it was the case"; moreover the unit's history doesn't mention the extensive UFO investigation they did later that month either, or the post report (as required by statute) or the the fact that a report was sent to the Condon Committee.

    Additionally, I feel that "considerable response" was in part because of the UFO activity earlier in the month, i.e., the topic of our conversation.

    You wrote:

    "in the unit history that Salas relies on so much, the 801st Radar Squadron, Malmstrom AFB response to the investigation of the Echo-Flight failures is a noted negative report on any radar or atmospheric interference problems related to Echo-Flight. This paragraph is UNCLASSIFIED and has been since it was first drafted. The paragraph preceding this one reads, 'Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo-Flight during the time of the fault were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight's LFs on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no unusual activity or sightings were observed.'"

    You repeatedly, throughout this colloquy have highlighted the fact that the names of the "direct eyewitnesses" have yet to be brought to light; that the fact that they can't be interviewed, and cross examined almost by itself is reason enough to discount the claims of so many men; in that same vein, I ask you the same: "who were the men that were interviewed that claimed these were just rumors?" What are the names of the men in the "Strike Team" that made this claim?

    Hastings has provided names, and recorded interviews; these witnesses can (and have) been questioned by others and "re-questioned" by Robert which was precipitated by the dialogue. Have you talked to any of these men? Can you provide the names of any of these people so that we can locate and interview them? Can you provide "any witnesses" to support this claim?

    You wrote:

    " . . . the fact that these paragraphs are UNCLASSIFIED is a gold-standard indication that the chain of command at Malmstrom AFB was extremely confident that the entire argument involving UFOs was a red-herring, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the failures at Echo-Flight."

    First off James, the original classification was "SECRET"; the documents were later "declassified." It's safe a bet that "any" report regarding "missile bases" of the United States will be "classified" at some level, UFOs or no.

    Additionally, "declassifying" soft ball documents years later by another agency is indicative of nothing, other then perhaps the military can conform to the law periodically when requested to do so.

    You wrote:

    "You suggest that a 'sabotage alert team' were eye-witnesses to the event, but I've never read their statements asserting this, and there's no record of such a team being deployed (unless, of course, this reference was intended to define the Mobil Strike Team, in which case this team observed nothing unusual; if such a team had been deployed, then it should have been part of both the unit history and the investigation, but there's no mention of it anywhere that I've seen."

    What I wrote (above) was:

    I might also add that Malmstrom is on record for doing a "UFO investigation" in the month of March, 1967; furthermore they tracked it on radar. . . . Although I don't have the names in front of me, a "sabotage alert team" were also "direct eyewitnesses.

    The sighting by the "Sabotage Alert Team" was reported by the Great Falls Leader on March 25, 1967.

    Interesting that such a major incident, which you acknowledge, "should be in the unit history" . . . but isn't!

    Why is that do you suppose?

    You wrote:

    "Additionally, impeaching the testimony of actors due to internal fallacies in their claims, i.e., contrary to each other and statements made by Salas, is not supposition; supposition would be impeaching the testimony of actors without viable cause. I didn't establish these variances -- they did when they submitted their claims. All I did was notice that those claims can't be established without negating key points from their testimony, and these were pretty significant fallacies that Mr. Hastings has yet to comment on."

    Discrepancies in statements about an event is not grounds for "impeachment." Stating that these men are "actors" or "liars" solely because of said discrepancies is supposition and not prudent I might add.

    You wrote:

    "In closing you ask, 'If you were to talk to a witness who saw a 'flying saucer' over one of the silos . . . would it make a difference?' so I'll close here as well: Yes, it would make a difference, but I honestly don't expect this to ever be applied to March 16, 1967. And although it would make a difference, it wouldn't make that much of a difference."

    Not to be crass, but I anticipated that response. You ballyhoo about "eyewitnesses" to the "craft(s) itself," yet in the end you admit that "your mind is made up" irregardless of the potential evidence.

    You wrote:

    "The preponderance of evidence suggests that the March 16 UFO incident was manufactured;"

    Au contraire James! Just the opposite in fact, as evidenced by the plethora of information provided here in this dialogue between you and I as well as Robert, and the articles he penned precipitated by this colloquy.

    "if Salas had not published his recollections of the incident, nobody would have claimed the incident was UFO driven, even though rumors of UFOs had already been established. If his recollections had not been so full of holes, and blatantly erroneous -- if he had not been incorrect -- or if he had not lied about his role in the missile failures over an extended period -- the date of March 16 that he originally attached to his claims would never have been assumed;"

    Again, not so! Hastings has been investigating these types of events for over 35 years and has uncovered evidence independent of Salas and Klotz.

    "any reading of contemporary accounts would naturally accord the date of UFO interference a week to two weeks later, as this represents the best odds for UFO interference to occur, because it had a much higher accounting of UFO sightings in comparison to March 16. That's one reason I have for not trusting Salas or his little fiction. I'm well-convinced that Salas assigned the date simply because there is no evidence of missile failures at any other time. March 16 is the only confirmed missile failure that can asserted for March, 1967; it represents the only investigation for March, 1967. Salas wanted that confirmation, because more than anything else, it represents the possibility of a 'smoking gun' when all he really possessed was a role of caps. He didn't just want that characteristic attached to his claims -- he needed it. Without it, he lost a lot of credibility."

    Again, you make this all about "Salas," and discount "all of the other witnesses." When you do address the others (albeit reluctantly) you prefer to believe that there is some grand conspiracy with these individuals; perhaps the millions they'll make in book royalties. ab absurdum

    It seems clear to me that no matter the evidence your mind is made up; you've created a scenario and anything that is in conflict with it, you immediately condemn without giving it a second thought, usually, by condemning the individual whose brought it forward or adheres to it.

    Your quick to call men you don't know liars, because they don't conform to your conceptualizations; this is discomforting as well as imprudent in regards to unbiased analysis of a historical event.

    From your very first comment you have hurled pejoratives, ad hominem attacks and innuendo; you've since apologized (to me) and "toned down the rhetoric" substantially; for this I'm grateful.

    People can passionately disagree and still be civil. Moreover, in doing so, readers of this tête-à-tête can evaluate and draw conclusions based on the facts (or lack thereof), rather then sift through the rhetoric and "decipher" the salient points (or lack thereof).

    One final note: although your mind is made up, and as you say, it's doubtful that an eyewitness "to the craft" would change your mind, and I would wager "any other evidence," it's important to point out that for those of us that do research, this case is is "ongoing"; witnesses are still being sought; documents are being culled; in fact, because of your intervention "new material" has been discovered (thank you); although, I feel your arguments are weak, and readily disputable, "my position is soluble" and I go where the evidence takes me.

    In that vein, if you have spoken to, or have any names of witnesses who were there in '67 "who dispute the UFO connection" I would love to talk to them.

    Respectfully,
    Frank Warren

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's pretty obvious to me what "jtcarl's" purpose is here.

    Robert and Frank credit a bogus exchange by entering in to it at all, actually, when they are forced to engage in same, regardless, or signal an inability to address said "charges." I endure a similar if more vitriolic offense myself, Roundly and Revoltingly.

    A poor analogy is wrestling with the pig only because the pig enjoys it and doesn't mind getting dirty. In the time honored fashion of "garbage in garbage out" you elevate the specious mutterings of a "jtcarl" and imply a credit to his... utterings-sans-consistent-citation-and-in-no-way-valuble.

    For my part, the first sneer, _remotely_ uttered, would facilitate a "jtcarl's" literary hair, teeth, and eyeballs scattered on the published plane for bird food and plant fertilizer. When I wrestle the "pig," I'm coming back with "bacon" for my trouble.

    Sorry, not, that the data points somewhere outside a "jtcarl's" facile little box and his otherwise unearned and arrogant anthropomorphism is rattled, but that's why the dodo went extinct and where the ufological bear goes through the paranormal buckwheat, nes't se pas?

    He's had his run, eh, and failed to place. Cast off hard a'port and leave a "jtcarl's" sand-bar a'stern... the air's getting a little "close," you think?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't fault Mr. Carlson for defending his father's version of events. Having slogged through every word of this debate, however, I still find Robert Hastings' position far more credible. In fact, it's not even close.

    Unless Mr. Carlson has something new to add to this debate, please do us a favor: note his objections and move on. Re-hashing the same points ad nauseum isn't useful, and it certainly isn't interesting.

    By the way: I think there is plenty of blame to go around here for slinging ad hominem remarks. It's amazing that people will say things online that they wouldn't dare say to one another in person. Deny that if you want, but both of you know that it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm at a loss to understand Mr Carlson, despite numerous offer of evidence and names plus official documents confirming the story he still just seems to be calling people liars and refusing to accept anything..

    Seems pointless to continue communications.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Seems pointless to continue communications," _is_ the correct course, of course, unless, of course, the horse (distorts!) has an ax is to be ground... and an "escalation" is necessary to satisfy the rubric that the voluminous, more often articulated, and angriest meme —even if a lie "in a good cause"— is the history to be remembered.

    That's the history.

    Sure, it's a sword cutting both ways... but I suspect that the person without a dog in the hunt sees how said sword slashes here — from proponent _and_ opponent— as you, and others, point out, eh?

    alienview@roadrunner.com
    > www.AlienView.net
    >> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
    >>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good Day Mclane,

    Thank you for taking time to make comment.

    Unfortunately, Carlson's demeanor is not uncommon; we're all brought up to adhere to the status quo.

    Stan's famous line comes to mind re Carlson:

    "Don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up!"

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  15. First off, Wow! I also sifted through every line of this after reading somewhere online that Mr. Salas was a liar. My journey brought me here and i guess you could say to the very nest of this nasty little hornet itself.
    I was concerned that Mr. Salas had been discredited somehow and just needed to find out why and what it was all about. Now after completing this incredibly drawn out and back and forth debate between Mr. Hastings, Mr. Carlson Jr and to a lesser extent Mr. Warren, there is no other conclusion to reach other than the one i myself have come to, and that is Mr. Carson Jr. is yet another shining example of a stubborn, obstinate, obdurate human being. Whats really unfortunate here is that Mr. Carlson Jr isnt at all uncommon in the field of Ufology at all. In fact, every time there is a confirmed radar report of something unidentifiable, a credible witness report from a high ranking government official, military officer or pilot, there are a hundred James Carlson Jr's waiting around the corner to make ridiculous counter claims and start waving the liar flag around. For all the impressive use of large words and educated language that appeared in his posts, one only has to look a little deeper to find a sad, delusional, misinformed shadow of a man with very little interest in finding out what happened on the date in question. On another note, Mr. Hastings rebuttal to James at one point during the discussion was pretty hilarious and also what i feel to be extremely telling information when taken into context. After all this time arguing back and forth with Mr. Hastings, slamming his credibility, dismissing the witnesses and their statements and waving the liar flag around at anybody who dared to say anything different than what "Dad" said, we come to find out that "Dad" hadn't spoken to James in years, and didn't even have his telephone number. There were some questions as to the fallibility of Carlson Sr's memory, but i think the real question to ask is how James' memory is after all this time not speaking to his ONLY source material. Also, once i became aware of the language used in the emails to Robert Hastings by James Carlson Jr. Any and all credibility went out the window there for me. He went from barely having a point to sounding like a child trolling for a reaction. That is al. Now hopefully James has talked to dad and made peace with the fact hes a knucklehead

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good Day Steve,

    Happy Holidays.

    Thank you for taking time to make comment, a pithy one at that.

    With the initial comments found here: http://tinyurl.com/myqqn6c in Robert's Launch in Progress article and those above in this piece–you have inadvertently stumbled across the birth of the crusade against Robert Hastings, by James Carlson which has become a career for him. The latter has produced volumes upon volumes of incessant rants anywhere he can and next month will mark 5 years of this compulsive, odious behavior.

    For me it became clear early on, that facts didn’t matter to this individual; nothing was going to chink his ideology. Moreover, this symptomatic conduct was so distasteful, like so many that were paying attention at the time, I just ignored the ravings; however, the irony is that Carlson never stops and so much has been piled on since these initial colloquies most folks that are aware of the Carlson tirades, like you, have never read his initial ramblings.

    In that vein you are now in a smaller group of the informed.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW






LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON