Wednesday, October 10, 2012

UFO Activity Results in Nuclear Missile Sites Being Put On Alert; Reports Pour in From Launch Control Facilities | UFO & NUKES

Bookmark and Share

Eyewitness Sketch of UFO Near Nuke Missile Base (Warren AFB Missile Field) (Edt 400 px) 8-3-1965

UFO Report at  Missile Sites, F E Warren AFB Wyoming (A)


UFO Report at  Missile Sites, F E Warren AFB Wyoming (C)

UFO Report at  Missile Sites, F E Warren AFB Wyoming (D) August 1965



See Also:

Air Force Personnel Observe UFOs Near Minuteman Missile Silo (Golf Launch) in Nebraska
8-26-1965


UFO & NUKES | F.E. WARREN AFB: UFOS Spotted Over Nuke Missile Sites; One Hits The Ground - Security Teams Dispatched!

UFOS & NUKES | Concentrations of UFO Sightings Near Vital Defense Installations Alarmed The Pentagon


SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

   HELP SUPPORT THIS SITE   

ABOUT DONATIONS

THE UFO CHRONICLES
↑Grab this Headline Animator
~~BOOK SALE~~

6 comments :

  1. Frank,

    A little over dramatic with your title? If your readers look at the first page of the letter, it clearly states that the missile facility personnel were to be "alerted" about the sightings.

    The missile wing's facilities were always on alert, regardless of the sightings or not.

    I further noted that the letter sent to FTD at Wright-Patterson was "For Official Use Only" which appears to be for informational use only. I if the 90th SMW's CC was concerned, I would have thought the letter to be classified at least "SECRET" if not "TOP SECRET".

    I would have assumed that SAC HQ would have approved the 90th to send out this letter to FTD, or was SAC circumvented? That's an interesting question, wouldn't you think?

    Best Regards,

    Tim Hebert

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tim,


    Thanks for taking time to make comment.

    You wrote:

    "A little over dramatic with your title? If your readers look at the first page of the letter, it clearly states that the missile facility personnel were to be "alerted" about the sightings."

    First, in my view "Unidentified Flying Objects" over or near our nuclear defenses is "dramatic." Moreover, if you look at the first page you mention it reads: "All missile sites were immediately contacted and alerted to be on the watch for such objects." [My emphasis]

    By definition (as a noun) alert means: "condition of heightened watchfulness or preparation for action"; in short, I think the use of the noun alert, in the way I used it was/is appropriate.

    You wrote:

    I further noted that the letter sent to FTD at Wright-Patterson was "For Official Use Only" which appears to be for informational use only. I if the 90th SMW's CC was concerned, I would have thought the letter to be classified at least "SECRET" if not "TOP SECRET".

    Pursuant to the latest version of AFR 200 of that time, the written notification or initial report(s) were kept to a minimum and were a matter of protocol (AF 200-2 12b); this doesn't mean there weren't "classified reports, and or communiques" sent regarding these events.

    That said, and not to be rude, but would it really matter to you if the these docs were in fact classified "secret or above?" I'm relatively certain that a TS or above classification wouldn't change your position on UFOs & nukes.

    You wrote:

    I would have assumed that SAC HQ would have approved the 90th to send out this letter to FTD, or was SAC circumvented? That's an interesting question, wouldn't you think?

    Again the letter was sent pursuant to Air Force Regulation.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank, thanks for the reply. As far as the title, let's just say it's the "eye of the beholder."

    No, I don't think that your being rude. I merely thought it to be interesting that such a report was listed as "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" as this was generally for all AF letters typed with official letter head, for example, a base supply officer ordering toilet paper for the unit. With that said, I'm sure that FE Warren sent a version of the same letter, or message, to SAC HQ.

    And you are correct, as things stand for now, I'm not totally convinced of the UFO Nuke connection.

    Again, Best Regards,

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mornin' tim,

    You wrote:

    Frank, thanks for the reply. As far as the title, let's just say it's the "eye of the beholder."

    Yes,I was thinking the same thing, e.g., po-tay-to po-tah-to.

    It dawned on me last night after my reply that perhaps you perceived the title's meaning (or my intent) as a reference to the respective missile site's readiness ("being put on alert") for a "nuclear launch"; that of course was not my intent, and it certainly wasn't the case. It simply was a description of UFO reports/activity which precipitated Command to "contact all missile sites to be on the watch [alert] for UFOs."

    You wrote:

    I merely thought it to be interesting that such a report was listed as "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" as this was generally for all AF letters typed with official letter head, for example, a base supply officer ordering toilet paper for the unit. With that said, I'm sure that FE Warren sent a version of the same letter, or message, to SAC HQ.

    In my view the "initial" written briefs pursuant to AFR 200 carried the same weight as an order for toilet paper, and "weren't classified" by the same mandate (AFR 200-2 paragraph 18). At the same time, there were exclusions to this, if the author of the report included sensitive information of various flavors, e.g., personnel, intelligence procedures, locations of classified items, etc., etc.

    Given the activity and location (nuke missile fields) et al during that period as well as the various reports that were borne from the events it's safe bet that there were "classified reports." I'm sure you'd agree that it wouldn't take much to necessitate reports to be classified–which in my view would neither enhance or detract from the weight of their thesis (UFOs) at face value.

    You wrote:

    And you are correct, as things stand for now, I'm not totally convinced of the UFO Nuke connection.

    In my view, in order to better assimilate UFO data, it's prudent to detach oneself from the cognitive bias that exists on the subject matter. The first step is to realize that UFO, does not mean "alien spacecraft."

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frank,

    You make an excellent point as to the what constitutes the term "UFO". I generally looked at it from the "ET" description of the question because that is how it is initially presented in the context of most, if not all, UFO sightings. Rarely is it portrayed as something other than "alien."

    As far as "cognitive bias", ironically it initially starts from the teller of the tale thus leaving the receipient to view the story in the same vein. Basically it's a double edge sword that cuts both ways.

    If someone wants to make a logical argument that an incident (Malmstrom's Echo/Oscar?)could possibly be an earthly encounter by domestic and/or foreign advanced technology, then I'm more apt to be persuaded by a rational and well thought out argument.

    With that said, I've quietly been considering a non-ET source, eg, James Carrion's theory and other's. Spanish researcher, Jose Caravaca, has been developing his "Distortion Theory" which has interesting cognitive/visual aspects that should be given due consideration.

    As far as the letter that you provided, I don't discount the fact that people saw something. It's always the question of what was seen, the conditions, and the context of the given sighting. It would appear the letter's author was attempting to do just that.

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mornin' Tim,

    You wrote:

    You make an excellent point as to the what constitutes the term "UFO". I generally looked at it from the "ET" description of the question because that is how it is initially presented in the context of most, if not all, UFO sightings. Rarely is it portrayed as something other than "alien."

    First, I would disagree that "most, if not all, UFO sightings" are initially presented with an ET description–quite the contrary; for example, in taking a quick sampling of approximately 50 recent UFO reports from NUFORC & MUFON–not one mentions ET, alien, alien spaceship etc. Conversely, most were described as "lights." Of course this is not to say this doesn't happen and herein lies the problem, which is exemplar of my last paragraph above; arguing "ET" in association with an "unidentified" objects and or lights in the sky is akin to putting the cart before the horse (to put it mildly). Forgetting Ufology, and speaking generally (and to the point), offering a conclusion or theorem before analysis or investigation is nonsensical.

    You wrote:

    As far as "cognitive bias", ironically it initially starts from the teller of the tale thus leaving the receipient to view the story in the same vein. Basically it's a double edge sword that cuts both ways.

    Again, re initial UFO “sightings/reports” the empirical data doesn’t support your argument as a rule—it is the exception; however, to your example cognitive bias is detrimental to UFO research/investigation—period.

    You wrote:

    If someone wants to make a logical argument that an incident (Malmstrom's Echo/Oscar?)could possibly be an earthly encounter by domestic and/or foreign advanced technology, then I'm more apt to be persuaded by a rational and well thought out argument.

    Forgive me Tim, as I have an impish grin on my face as I type this; however, your statement above is a “prima facie example” of cognitive bias. The inference is that if an argument doesn’t fall under your attributional bias, then it’s not “logical or rational.”

    We are all the sum of our parental upbringing and societal programming, thus we all come to the table on any subject with embedded bias; the further the subject matter is away from what we deem “normal,” the stronger that prejudice is. As stated above, re UFO research—it’s prudent to shed any biases and begin at “ground zero” to better understand the UFO phenomenon . . . assuming that is the goal of course.


    You wrote:

    With that said, I've quietly been considering a non-ET source, eg, James Carrion's theory and other's. Spanish researcher, Jose Caravaca, has been developing his "Distortion Theory" which has interesting cognitive/visual aspects that should be given due consideration.

    Agreed.

    You wrote:

    As far as the letter that you provided, I don't discount the fact that people saw something. It's always the question of what was seen, the conditions, and the context of the given sighting. It would appear the letter's author was attempting to do just that.

    Bingo! In Ufology, that is the first step—a question, “what did they see?” Staying in “context,” and to be clear: the letter was in fact an abstract report as mandated by AFR 200-2 regarding UFO sightings. It was the tip of the ice-berg in regards to what would later be labeled as a "UFO flap" in the summer of 1965.

    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