Scientists Revisit the Question of Aliens Before National UFO Day

[...]

I have always been interested in UFOs. Of course, there was the excitement that there could be aliens and other living worlds. But more exciting to me was the possibility that interstellar travel was technologically achievable. In 1988,

By Kevin Knuth www.sfchronicle.com 6-28-18

during my second week of graduate school at Montana State University, several students and I were discussing a recent cattle mutilation that was associated with UFOs. A physics professor joined the conversation and told us that he had colleagues working at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana, where they were having problems with UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles. At the time I thought this professor was talking nonsense. But 20 years later, I was stunned to see a recording of a press conference featuring several former US Air Force personnel, with a couple from Malmstrom AFB, describing similar occurrences in the 1960s. Clearly there must be something to this.

With July 2 being World UFO Day, it is a good time for society to address the unsettling and refreshing fact we may not be alone. I believe we need to face the possibility that some of the strange flying objects that outperform the best aircraft in our inventory and defy explanation may indeed be visitors from afar – and there’s plenty of evidence to support UFO sightings.

[...]

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

UFOs Reported by Civilians Living Within Malmstrom AFB’s Nuclear Missile Field: Sightings Occurred in July and August 2013

UFOS & NUKES | U.S. Air Force Fighters Chased UFOs at Malmstrom AFB in the 1960s and ‘70s

Malmstrom Air Force Base Picks Up UFO on Radar; "Sabotage Alert Team Located Another UFO Directly Over The Base"

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

CSICOP, Now CSI: CSI’s “Scientific” Analysis of UFOs: Thanks, but No Thanks!

Another excerpt from Robert Hastings’ book
UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites

By Robert Hastings
© 8-31-08

     (This is Part 3 of an earlier posting, titled, “Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers” in which I described how Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck was badly misled about the reality of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites, by two of the leading UFO debunkers affiliated with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), who dismissed my own well-documented findings.)

I earlier mentioned journalist Terry Hansen’s excellent book, The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up, which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to better understand how the type of information contained in my own book could have been successfully kept from the American people—scientists and laypersons alike—for so long.

Regarding CSICOP [now CSI], Hansen examines the possibility that the skeptical organization was infiltrated early on by a small but determined group of U.S. government-affiliated operatives, whose true motives have far more to do with disinformation than skepticism. He writes, “[The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is an organization of people who oppose what they contend is pseudo-science...CSICOP, contrary to its impressive-sounding title, does not sponsor scientific research. On the contrary, it’s main function has been to oppose scientific research, especially in areas such as psychic phenomena and UFOs, two topics that, coincidentally or not, have been of demonstrated interest to the U.S. intelligence community over the decades. Instead, CSICOP devotes nearly all of its resources to influencing the American public via the mass media.”

Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its “Council for Media Integrity” CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].”

Hansen further notes, “CSICOP’s public stance on UFOs is best personified by [the late] Philip J. Klass, head of the organization’s UFO Subcommittee. Klass isn’t a scientist. In fact, his education is in electrical engineering. After graduation from Iowa State University in 1941, he went to work for the avionics division of General Electric, one of the nation’s largest weapons and nuclear energy contractors. In 1952, Klass joined the aerospace trade publication Aviation Week & Space Technology, where he has often written about ‘black budget’ military projects such as those covertly funded by the CIA...Over the decades, Klass has made a name for himself publicly sparring with UFO researchers and injecting his particular spin on UFOs into the mass media at every opportunity, not always accurately or with much scientific merit...Despite his lack of scientific credentials, Klass has enjoyed remarkable popularity with the news media.”

Hansen might have added that Klass’ long-time employer, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, has a remarkable track-record of scooping its competition by publishing articles based, in part, on information provided by government insiders. Indeed, Aviation Week may be considered as a conduit to the public for information originating from many of the key players in the aptly-named military/industrial complex.

To illustrate the rather cozy relationship between the magazine and the intelligence community, in particular, I earlier noted that Klass once boasted in a private letter that he could cite as character references both Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In the letter, Klass stated that “Both men have worked with me and gotten to know me [through] my efforts for Aviation Week.”

Hansen, whose diligent journalistic investigation of CSICOP goes well beyond that conducted by any UFO researcher, observes, “If the [CIA’s] Robertson Panel had wanted to set up a front organization to debunk the UFO phenomenon, it could have hardly done a better job than to infiltrate CSICOP and encourage its media management activities. Perhaps its not surprising, then, that Philip Klass has occasionally been charged with being a covert government agent, a charge he has vigorously denied...”

Hansen goes on to note that during a 1994 confrontation with Klass, at a CSICOP meeting in Seattle, the UFO debunker first said that an official UFO cover-up would not be possible because the U.S. government could not keep such an important secret. When Hansen challenged that assertion, and cited examples of other important secrets which the government had successfully kept from public view—such as decades-old cryptographic-related programs—Klass apparently reversed himself and admitted that some secrets could indeed be kept long-term. Then, in what was arguably a very telling comment, Klass told Hansen that some secrets should be kept, for reasons relating to national security. He went on to mention that his employer, Aviation Week, had once agreed to keep secret its knowledge of the SR-71 spy plane, at the government’s request. If nothing else, this admission by Klass only further illustrates the magazine’s cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationship with the various agencies and departments of the U.S. government—in which one hand washes the other, so to speak.

“So,” Hanson summarized, “under cross-examination, Klass had gone from claiming the government can’t keep secrets to saying that it can, it must, and even that his own publication had been complicit in keeping government secrets. Klass did not appear very happy about the course this conversation had taken and he soon reverted back to his [initial] claim that UFOs did not exist...A charitable view of Klass is that he is simply a zealot, another of those for whom scientific dogma supplies the reassuring psychological bedrock that others find in religious fundamentalism. When confronted with evidence that calls into question his core beliefs, Klass responds—as any fundamentalist would—by rejecting the evidence. Thus, his duplicity can be accounted for by human nature. One does not need to resort to more conspiratorial explanations.”

“On the other hand,” Hanson continued, “Klass also has many of the qualifications one would expect in a deep-cover propagandist. He has a history of working for the secretive military-industrial complex, a demonstrated aptitude for duplicity, a District of Columbia address, remarkable mass-media savvy and success, an evident belief in the necessity of government secrecy and, of course, cover as a journalist with Aviation Week.”

Hanson has much more to say in his book regarding the U.S. government’s routine use of the mass media to spin or suppress information it wishes to keep from the public. The Missing Times is a remarkably well-documented exposé and should be read by UFO proponents, skeptics and debunkers alike, not to mention any American citizen who has ever suspected that the news offered by the national media—the “free press”—is not always what it appears to be.

My own opinion regarding CSICOP (or, now, CSI) is that if one is going to accept at face-value the many unfounded and dismissive claims about UFOs made by some of the key members of this “skeptical” organization, one should at least be aware of those persons’ longstanding professional affiliations with the U.S. government or government-influenced publications. To summarize:

Kendrick Frazier: Employed as a Public Relations Specialist, for more than two decades, at Sandia National Laboratories, one of the U.S. government’s leading nuclear weapons labs. During the same period, Frazier served as Executive Editor for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a position he continues to hold today.

James Oberg: A former U.S. Air Force officer who once did classified work related to nuclear weapons, and a long-time employee of NASA. Before his retirement, Oberg worked on the Space Shuttle program (1975-97); he currently serves as a space science consultant for NBC News and continues to promote his anti-UFO position.

Philip Klass: Now deceased, Klass was employed, for over two decades, at a U.S. intelligence community-friendly aerospace publication. By his own admission, Klass had developed close professional ties with at least two top-level intelligence officers—U.S. Navy Admiral Bobby Inman and U.S. Army General Daniel Graham—both of whom held, at various times, high-ranking positions with the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and/or the National Security Agency.

Well, call me paranoid, but I think I see a pattern here. For an organization ostensibly created to scientifically investigate paranormal subjects, including UFOs, CSICOP—especially its UFO Subcommittee—seems to be completely lacking in UFO experts with truly scientific credentials, but is conspicuously top-heavy with individuals having U.S. government connections, of one kind or another. The reader may draw his or her own conclusions but, personally, I believe that one would be well-advised to assiduously avoid the highly-suspect spin regularly offered up by the UFO “experts” at CSICOP/CSI and, instead, consult other, genuine sources of scientifically-credible information on UFOs.

Let me be clear: I am not accusing the leading UFO debunkers affiliated with CSICOP/CSI and its publication Skeptical Inquirer of being government-sanctioned covert agents, or even UFO cover-up sympathizers—“assets” in intelligence parlance—who have engaged in a disinformation campaign designed to discredit UFOs, as well as those who report or investigate them. The reason I am not accusing them is because I have no proof to back up my personal mistrust of their motives.

However, having said that, I do make the observation that most of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers—that is, those who have served as members of the organization’s staff—share a very interesting and, I would argue, rather suspicious camaraderie relating to their professional backgrounds.

For whatever reason, these individuals are intent on claiming that there are no UFOs and, therefore, no U.S. government cover-up of them. In view of their rather interesting affiliations, I merely ask: Wouldn’t Kendrick Frazier’s statements be more credible had he not spent his career doing public relations work for the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program? Shouldn’t Philip Klass—having worked for more than two decades as a journalist for one of the U.S. intelligence community’s most valued media conduits—been more carefully scrutinized by the media, for a conflict of interest, when he tirelessly insisted that there is no government UFO cover-up? Even James Oberg’s own classified nuclear weapons-related work while with the Air Force, as well as his later involvement with the U.S. government’s space program, seems to fit this pattern of direct or indirect governmental ties on the part of those who ostensibly dismiss UFOs on purely scientific grounds, but who seem arguably more intent on dismissing the notion that there is an official UFO cover-up.

(Yes, admittedly, almost all of my own sources have military backgrounds too. Importantly, however, unlike the highly-vocal UFO debunkers at CSICOP, most of them have divulged their UFO-related secrets only reluctantly, when pressed by myself or other researchers to do so. Therefore, as a rule, they have very cautiously presented their insiders’ perspective on national security-related UFO activity. This is, of course, entirely dissimilar in approach to the relentless, high-profile, anti-UFO public relations campaign undertaken by CSICOP’s debunkers over the years. I might also add that my own ex-military sources present their accounts in a simple, straightforward manner—and rarely insist that anyone believe them—whereas, in my view, the ongoing UFO-debunking pronouncements by the CSI-COPs are routinely jam-packed with classic propaganda devices, obviously designed to influence public opinion.)

In any event, the question being asked here is whether or not CSICOP/CSI has had within its ranks a few persons who have a hidden agenda on UFOs, which has nothing to do with genuine scientific skepticism. While I don’t know the answer to this question, given the extreme, unscientific anti-UFO track-record of the organization, I think it needs to be asked. Regardless, whatever these debunkers’ affiliations and motives may be, the reader doesn’t need what they have to offer unless, of course, you actually enjoy being misled by pseudoscientific propaganda, government-inspired or not.

It goes without saying that the statements above do not apply to the CSICOP/CSI membership in general. It’s only natural and to be expected that an organization which bills itself as “skeptical” in orientation will attract persons with a similar philosophical outlook. CSICOP/CSI counts among its membership many world-renowned scientists and other respected intellectuals. There is no question that a great many of these persons share a sincerely incredulous outlook on various subjects classified as “paranormal”, including UFOs.

Therefore, the fact that many of CSICOP’s members have rejected the validity of the UFO phenomenon—a subject about which they know little or nothing, and are not qualified to discuss authoritatively—certainly does not mean that they are secretly working for the CIA. Bias and presumption, rather than ulterior motives, account for these self-appointed UFO experts’ flawed perspective on the phenomenon. Consequently, if they have been misled by CSICOP’s top UFO debunkers, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I’ll conclude this chapter by simply saying that if one is sincerely seeking an objective, unbiased scientific assessment of the UFO phenomenon, one should bypass the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious misinformation foisted on us all by Klass, Oberg, Frazier, and other debunkers affiliated with CSICOP/CSI. Instead, one would do well to read anything ever written on the subject by Dr. James McDonald or Dr. J. Allen Hynek—at least, anything written by Hynek during his post-Project Blue Book period, when his scientific investigation of UFOs was not hampered by the official restrictions under which he labored while affiliated with the U.S. Air Force.

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but, who knows, once acquainted with some legitimate data on the UFO phenomenon—including that gathered decades ago by McDonald and Hynek—a few of the daring scientific skeptics reading this book [UFOs and Nukes] might actually begin practicing their profession, when addressing the subject of UFOs, instead of just offering lip service to that practice.

--Robert Hastings--

http://ufohastings.com

Hastings444@att.net

Part II: CSICOP, now CSI: UFO Debunkers Kendrick Frazier and James Oberg

See Also:

REPORTER DUPED BY UFO DEBUNKERS

Excerpt From UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings: 'Like a Diamond in the Sky'

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

CSICOP, now CSI: UFO Debunkers Kendrick Frazier and James Oberg

By Robert Hastings
© 8-31-08

From Robert Hastings’ new book
UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites

     (This is Part 2 of an earlier posting, titled, “Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers”, in which I described how Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck was badly misled about the reality of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites, by two of the leading UFO debunkers affiliated with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who dismissed my own well-documented findings.)

Over the years, I have found that a great many of the debunkers in my UFO lecture audiences had one thing in common: they had read one or more of the supposedly objective articles on UFOs which routinely appear in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)—which has recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

Although most of the debunkers I encounter tout Skeptical Inquirer as a source of credible, scientific information on UFOs—which it is not—when I question them, I find that virtually none of these UFO critics know anything about those responsible for publishing this “skeptical” magazine. I, on the other hand, made it my business long ago to find out exactly who was so intent on fervently debunking UFOs, year after year, decade after decade. I must say, what I discovered surprised me. At the same time, I was not at all surprised.

As noted in an earlier posting, the Executive Editor of Skeptical Inquirer is Kendrick C. Frazier. Many years ago, I discovered that Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America’s nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its “ordinance engineering” of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.

In my opinion, Frazier’s affiliation with Sandia Labs—he recently retired after working there for over two decades—is highly significant, given the hundreds of references in declassified government documents, and in the many statements by former military personnel, which address ongoing UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites over the past six decades.

Considering these disclosures—which clearly establish a link between UFOs and nuclear weapons—I find it interesting, to say the least, that the longtime editor of the leading debunking magazine—whose pages routinely feature articles discrediting UFOs and those who report them—worked for over 20 years as a public relations spokesman for one of the leading nuclear weapons labs in the United States.

Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or “masthead”, which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highly-secretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed.

Over the years, Frazier has been quick to dismiss the astonishing revelations about UFOs contained in government documents declassified via the Freedom of Information Act. He claims that researchers who have accessed thousands of U.S. Air Force, CIA, and FBI files have consistently misrepresented their contents. In one interview he stated, “The UFO believers don't give you a clear and true idea of what these government documents reveal. They exaggerate the idea that there is a big UFO cover-up.”

Just as Frazier strives to minimize the significance of the declassified revelations about UFOs, it is likely he will also attempt to downplay the relevancy of his former employment with one of the U.S. government's top nuclear weapons labs, as it pertained to his magazine's relentless debunking of UFOs. He will presumably assert that his skeptical views on the subject are personal and sincere, and were in no way related to, or influenced by, his public relations position at Sandia National Laboratories.

However, regardless of his response, I believe that Frazier’s long-term employment at Sandia is very relevant, and raises questions about his impartiality, if nothing else, given his long track-record of publishing stridently anti-UFO articles in Skeptical Inquirer.

One such article, an attempted debunking of the Big Sur UFO Incident, was earlier discussed at length. As noted, two former U.S. Air Force officers have unequivocally stated that, during a 1964 weapon systems test, a UFO disabled an experimental dummy nuclear warhead in mid-flight as it raced downrange toward its intended target. My own well-documented investigation of the dramatic incident has now thoroughly discredited the factually-inaccurate article by Kingston A. George featured earlier in Skeptical Inquirer. If one compares the first-person accounts provided by the two former Air Force officers with the badly-flawed, highly-misleading synopsis of the incident published by Sandia Labs PR Specialist Frazier, one might reasonably ask whether a cover-up of sorts—a disinformation scheme—was behind the debunking article. But the reader may judge for him- or herself.

Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located on Kirtland AFB, less than a mile from Sandia Labs. From 1970-72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons—according to one of Oberg’s own online resumes.

Oberg had also been a “Security Officer” while at the weapons lab, meaning that he was responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group. As I discuss in my chapter on the Big Sur UFO Incident, Oberg once privately chastised Dr. Bob Jacobs—one of the former Air Force officers who leaked the amazing story—for releasing “top secret” information relating to the case. Once a security officer, always a security officer, I guess.

After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing “top secret” information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, “I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent ‘mouthpiece’ for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, ‘Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly...?’ I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism.”

Despite Oberg’s charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter “never happened”, he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.

In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing “top secret UFO data”, had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don’t even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss “other” top secret aspects of the missile test…

I first became aware of Oberg’s “skeptical” stance on UFOs after he wrote an article for the December 1978 issue of OMNI magazine, in a column called “UFO Update”. A superficial review of Oberg’s comments in that article might lend the impression that he was even-handedly covering the UFO controversy. Far from it. A closer examination reveals Oberg’s subtle but persistent use of anti-UFO propaganda, not to mention his failure to identify himself to OMNI’s readers as an active-duty Air Force officer.

Fortunately, these tactics and omissions did not go unnoticed. In the following issue of OMNI, in a letter to the editor, Robert Barrow wrote, “C’mon James Oberg. If you plan to continue writing your skeptical UFO articles under the guise of proper scientific literature, please be fair. First, the OMNI readership should be aware that not only are you working with NASA but you are a U.S. Air Force officer in fine standing as well. In fact, while I knew you as Captain Oberg, I shouldn’t doubt you are now Major Oberg. As a former USAF staff sergeant, I can appreciate that and wish to congratulate you if you have achieved a higher rank...Your consistently skeptical articles are probably making some of your superiors far happier than anything you might write to the contrary...”

Not surprisingly, Oberg’s published response to Barrow’s letter rejected the inference that he was writing skeptical articles about UFOs to please his superiors. He wrote, “...I don’t have any idea what my Air Force superiors think about my UFO activity, since I have never had any directives, one way or another. It’s easy to reject any unwelcome opinions as part of a ‘government plot’, and you’re welcomed to that paranoia if it suits you. It also is a direct smear on my honesty and motives…”

Well, first, Barrow did not say that Oberg was a part of any government plot. He was merely pointing out that, given the longstanding controversy over the U.S. Air Force’s handing of the UFO problem, Oberg should have candidly acknowledged his affiliation with the Air Force in his OMNI article—in which he debunked UFOs, exactly as the Air Force had for decades. As such, Barrow’s comment was a perfectly valid criticism. I might also note here that Oberg’s failure to inform OMNI’s readers about his active-duty military status—until after it had been exposed by Barrow—is reminiscent of Kendrick Frazer’s own failure to inform Skeptical Inquirer’s readers of his two-decade-long affiliation with the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program—in the magazine’s masthead, which appears in each issue—at the same time he was publishing article after article debunking UFOs, including at least one highly important sighting directly related to nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Oberg’s indignation over being “smeared” by Barrow is laughable, given his own countless public attacks on UFO proponents over the years, in which he frequently questions the sincerity and motives of those who report or investigate UFOs.

In another letter responding to Oberg’s article, journalist Terry Hansen, wrote, “How sad to see such a poor article on UFOs in OMNI’s first issue. James Oberg is certainly [not an objective] authority on the subject. His article tries to come across as unbiased, but even someone with a superficial knowledge of the issue can see that it is laced with distortion and innuendo...If ‘UFO Update’ is representative of the type of coverage controversial issues will receive in the future, then OMNI has little to offer a questioning mind.”

Years later, Hansen later went on to write an excellent book titled, The Missing Times: News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-up, which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to better understand how the type of information contained in my own book could have been successfully kept from the American people—scientists and laypersons alike—for so long. In fact, I put Hansen’s book on my short list of “must-reads” as far as the official government cover-up of UFOs is concerned.

Part 3 of my examination of CSICOP/CSI will be posted in the near future.

--Robert Hastings--

http://ufohastings.com

Hastings444@att.net

More . . .

See Also:

Excerpt From UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings: 'Like a Diamond in the Sky'

Launch in Progress!

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

REPORTER DUPED BY UFO DEBUNKERS

By Robert Hastings
http://ufohastings.com/
© 8-27-08

     On August 11, 2008, I sat down with Albuquerque Journal reporter John Fleck to discuss my extensive research on nuclear weapons-related UFO activity and the publication of my 600-page book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites. Over the last 35 years, I have interviewed nearly 100 former or retired U.S. Air Force nuclear missile personnel, including launch officers, targeting officers, maintenance personnel and security guards. These individuals report ongoing UFO surveillance of our strategic weapons sites, as well as the occasional disruption of those weapons’ functionality, just after UFOs were observed to be in their vicinity.

To verify these veterans’ statements to me, I provided reporter Fleck with copies of verbatim testimony from a few of them, a copy of my book which contained the testimony of a great many more, and four pages of USAF/NORAD documents, declassified via the Freedom of Information Act, which describe multiple UFO incursions at Minuteman missile sites outside of Malmstrom AFB, Montana, in November 1975.

In spite of this well-documented presentation, Fleck subsequently wrote an exceedingly biased and dismissive article about my research, titled “Book Links UFOs to Nukes,” in the August 25, 2008 issue of the Journal, which concluded that my contentions of a UFO-Nukes Connection were “wrong” based on the statements of “independent experts.” More on those alleged experts in a moment.

During my interview with him, Fleck told me that he was especially interested in the so-called Big Sur UFO case. which I will now briefly summarize: Early one morning in September 1964, an Atlas D Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) was launched from Vandenberg AFB, California, carrying aloft an experimental enemy radar-defeating system and dummy nuclear warhead. Shortly after nosecone-separation, as the warhead raced toward a targeted splash-down at Eniwetok Lagoon, in the Pacific Ocean, it was approached by a disc-shaped UFO. As the saucer chased and then circled the warhead, four bright flashes of light emanated from the unknown craft whereupon the warhead began to tumble, eventually falling into the ocean hundreds of miles short of its intended target downrange.

Science fiction? Not according to the former USAF officer tasked with filming the Atlas launch through a high-powered telescope located at Big Sur, California. Then Lt. (now Dr.) Bob Jacobs—who was assigned to the 1369th Photographic Squadron at Vandenberg, and held the title Officer-in-Charge of Photo-instrumentation—states that the entire encounter was captured on motion picture film. According to Jacobs, while the UFO’s maneuvers were readily discernable, other minute details—including the object’s domed disc-shape—were only discovered during a in-depth optical analysis conducted at Vandenberg.

Following the dramatic incident, says Jacobs, a 16-mm version of the amazing film was shown to a small, select group at Vandenberg. At the conclusion of this meeting, which he attended, he was told to “forget” the filmed events and to never mention them again. Years later, Jacobs learned that after he left the room, the crucial frames were cut out and quickly confiscated by two “government agents”—possibly working for the CIA—who had been among those in attendance.

Importantly, Jacobs’ account—relating to both the UFO incident itself and the subsequent cover-up—has been entirely endorsed by another officer, retired Major (later Dr.) Florenze J. Mansmann, Jr. At the time, Mansmann had been assigned to Vandenberg AFB’s Office of the Chief Scientist, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division. It was Mansmann who had carefully analyzed the amazing film which, he said, showed a “classic disc” shaped object circling the dummy warhead, shooting four beams of light at the warhead as it did so. It was also Mansmann who had ordered Lt. Jacobs to attend the restricted screening of the film in his office at the division’s headquarters building.

Because reporter Fleck expressed interest in this case, I provided him with copies of private correspondence between Jacobs and Mansmann, from the early 1980s. In those letters, Jacobs and Mansmann were obviously still stunned by, and marveling over, the Big Sur UFO incident—some 20 years later. It is important to note that this correspondence was never intended for publication, to support the validity of the case. Rather, it represents the private musings of two former USAF officers—involved and knowledgeable insiders—who had experienced what was obviously a life-changing event for each of them.

At the conclusion of my interview with Fleck, he told me that he would be contacting Kendrick Frazier, the longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine—which has for decades featured articles debunking UFOs and the notion of a U.S. government UFO cover-up—to get Frazier’s point-of-view on the Big Sur case. Skeptical Inquirer is the publication of the self-styled Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) which recently renamed itself the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

One of the articles published by the debunking magazine, written by Kingston George, an engineer who worked with Bob Jacobs on the telescope project at Vandenberg AFB, claimed that Jacobs’ statements about having filmed a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead were just “ weird claims” having no basis in reality.

However, when I researched the Big Sur case myself, I discovered that George had badly misrepresented Jacobs’ remarks, repeatedly, and had made other crucial factual errors. Indeed, if one compares his article with Jacobs’ and Mansmann’s published and private statements on the Big Sur incident, it becomes glaringly obvious how erroneous and misleading George’s article really is. Nevertheless, Skeptical Inquirer editor Frazier published the badly-flawed piece, apparently without comparing George’s claims about what Jacobs’ supposedly had said with what he actually had said. Curiously, George’s debunking article contains not a single word about Major Mansmann’s unequivocal endorsement of Jacobs’ account.

Frazier subsequently included Kingston George’s badly-flawed article in one of his own books devoted to debunking UFOs, thereby further disseminating George’s misstatements and factual errors to an unsuspecting public. Incompetence all around, at the very least, on the part of the debunkers—if not something more suspicious. As I write in my book:

“I consider it noteworthy that George’s article was published in CSICOP’s in-house magazine, Skeptical Inquirer. At first glance, this is hardly surprising, given CSICOP’s tireless crusade to discredit UFOs. However, because the Big Sur incident reportedly involved a UFO disabling—shooting down—one of the U.S. military’s experimental nuclear warhead systems, Skeptical Inquirer’s strong endorsement of George’s attempted debunking of the incident is particularly interesting.

Why? Many years ago, I discovered that Kendrick Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America’s nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its “ordinance engineering” of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.

Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or “masthead”, which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highly-secretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed.

Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed, two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program!

…Ironically, over the years, a great many UFO skeptics have used the supposedly accurate “facts” presented in George’s article to dismiss the UFO link with nuclear weapons in general, and the Big Sur UFO Incident in particular. Needless to say, very few of those same skeptics will ever buy a book called, UFOs and Nukes, so they will mistakenly continue to believe that Kingston George’s article is the last word on the Big Sur case.

Furthermore, the CSICOP-Nukes Connection does not end with Kendrick Frazier. James Oberg, one of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers, once did classified work relating to nuclear weapons at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory, located at Kirtland AFB, just down the road from Sandia Labs.

From 1970-72, Oberg was an Air Force officer whose assignments with the Battle Environments Branch at the weapons lab involved the development and utilization of computer codes related to the modeling of laser and nuclear weapons. Oberg also served as a “Security Officer” while at the weapons lab and was, therefore, responsible for monitoring the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group.

After Bob Jacobs went public with the UFO shoot-down story, Oberg wrote to him, chastising Jacobs for revealing “top secret” information. In his MUFON UFO Journal article, Jacobs wrote that after he broke his silence, “I was contacted by a variety of investigators, buffs, cranks, proponents and detractors alike. James Oberg, a frequent ‘mouthpiece’ for certain NASA projects and self-styled UFO Debunker wrote to disparage my story and to ask provocatively, ‘Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly...?’ I told Mr. Oberg where to put his misplaced cynicism.”

Despite Oberg’s charge, Jacobs has correctly pointed out that because Major Mansmann had told him that the UFO encounter “never happened”, he had no personal knowledge of the classification level attached to the incident.

In any event, it is almost certain that Oberg would not have criticized Jacobs for exposing “top secret UFO data”, had he known that Jacobs would subsequently publish his remark. So, here we have one of CSICOP’s leading UFO debunkers—whose public stance is that UFOs don’t even exist—angrily asking Jacobs in a private letter whether he would also openly discuss “other” top secret aspects of the missile test…

For his part, CSICOP’s chief UFO-debunker, the late Philip J. Klass, aggressively hounded Dr. Jacobs after he published the warhead shoot-down story, going so far as to write a derisive letter to Jacobs’ department chairman—Dr. R. Steven Craig, Department of Journalism and Broadcasting, University of Maine—in which Klass accusingly questioned professor Jacobs’ fitness as a representative of the academic community.

Jacobs’ understandably indignant response to Klass, titled, Low Klass: A Rejoinder, may be found online. It is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the behind-the-scenes battle that ensued after Jacobs went public with the UFO incident.

Among other subjects, the rejoinder touches on acrimonious correspondence between Jacobs and Klass. At one point, after Dr. Jacobs ignored Klass’ repeated demands that he respond to the debunker’s charges, Klass offered character references, citing Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Klass not only provided Jacobs with their names, but home addresses as well, and told him, “Both men have worked with me and gotten to know me in my efforts for Aviation Week."

The character references provided by Klass are certainly interesting, given his stock response over the years to those who questioned his motives. Whenever he was confronted with the charge that he was not really a UFO skeptic, but a disinformation agent for the U.S. government, Klass would always recoil indignantly and ridicule the notion. So who does he choose to present as character references in his letter to Jacobs? Two of the top intelligence officers in the U.S. government.”
Major Florenze Mansmann’s last written remarks on the Big Sur UFO incident are to be found in a letter to Curt Collier, a producer for the television series, Sightings. Dated November 15, 1995, the letter began, “Dear Mr. Collier, Responding to your Fed Ex letter of November 14, 1995 regarding the validity of the January 1989 MUFON [UFO] Journal story by Dr. Robert Jacobs, it is all true as presented. And yes, I have also responded to other researchers in the past, but only after Dr. Jacobs released the details of these sightings [sic] negating my secrecy bond.”

Mansmann continued, “The Image Orthicon camera system we used in capturing the Unidentified Flying Object on film had the capacity to photograph the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the missile launch and its super sonic flight...In retrospect, I now regret not being able to evaluate the film for more than 3 showings. The only people in attendance of the viewing were: The Director of the Office of the Chief Scientist and his assistant, two Government Agents, Lieutenant Jacobs and myself. [i.e. Kingston George was NOT present! –RH] The two Government Agents confiscated the film and placed it in a briefcase and departed after I had checked their authorization to leave with the film. I was instructed later by the Office of the Chief Scientist, the Judge Advocate General’s office and my Commanding Officer to consider the incident top secret.” Mansmann concluded his letter to Collier, “I am writing to confirm Dr. Jacobs’ account...”

In other words, more than 30 years after the top secret incident and more than six years after Jacobs’ article appeared in the MUFON UFO Journal, Dr. Mansmann was once again unreservedly verifying Bob Jacobs’ report of a UFO shooting down a dummy nuclear warhead over the Pacific Ocean, in September 1964.

Florenz J. Mansmann, Jr. died on July 4, 2000, but he remained adamant to the end that the extraordinary encounter—involving an extraterrestrial spacecraft—had occurred and was classified Top Secret.

My own definitive, extremely well-documented article on the Big Sur incident is available at my website, ufohastings.com/. Had reporter John Fleck read it, or the Jacobs-Mansmann letters I provided him, before he wrote his inept and biased article on my research, he would have saved himself a lot of criticism and embarrassment.

Although Fleck knows almost nothing about UFOs, he seems unwilling to learn about the subject, even when provided with credible and documented information derived from declassified government files and the testimony of former military personnel. Instead, he readily swallows the unfounded and suspiciously spun claims of Frazier, Oberg and their ilk—hook, line and sinker. In short, Fleck is the perfect mark—uninformed and vulnerable to misinformation—just the way UFO debunkers prefer their journalists to be.

Robert Hastings hastings444@att.net

More . . .

See Also:

Excerpt From UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings: 'Like a Diamond in the Sky'

Launch in Progress!

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

UFOs & Nukes: Robert Hastings Sets The Record Straight!

By Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com
8-26-08

Editors Note: Recently an article, penned by a staff-writer appeared in the Albuquerque Journal, entitled, Book Links UFOs to Nukes; as is often the case the reporter was ignorant to the subject matter at hand and apparently made no attempt to do any homework.

The piece was filled with erroneous statements, innuendo and the writer’s predisposition was transparent. Although this is commonplace for mainstream media, in this instance I view it as “aftereffects” of Robert Hastings efforts in regards to disseminating information regarding the activity pertaining to UFO activity at US military installations—specifically—nuclear bases! In short he continues to make waves!

Unfortunately, as it was by his recent appearance on The Larry King Show, with guest skeptic, “Bill Nye,” Mr. Hastings has to waste time attempting to educate the unwitting, as is the case here. For clarity’s sake regarding Mr. Hastings’ rejoinder the a fore mentioned article is published in toto—FW

Book Links UFOs to Nukes

By John Fleck
The Albuquerque Journal
Journal Staff Writer
8-25-08


Robert Hastings is nothing if not persistent in his pursuit of a connection between UFOs and the world's nuclear weapons programs.

For more than three decades, the Albuquerque resident has collected evidence and spoken around the country. He self-published a book of his findings this year, "UFO and Nukes." Last month he appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The core of his argument is that visitors from space are monitoring our nuclear weapons operations, likely trying to warn us about their dangers, and that the government is covering it up.

"I believe the American public has a right to know the facts," Hastings said in an interview.

The problem, according to independent experts, is that Hastings
is wrong.

"It's preposterous," said Kingston George, a retired physicist and engineer who worked on weapons systems in the 1960s and is an eyewitness to one of Hastings' favorite cases.

The events Hastings describes have "plausible, prosaic explanations," said noted space historian James Oberg.

Oberg, who has studied much of the same space and nuclear history as Hastings, says the umbrella of secrecy surrounding common nuclear weapons system malfunctions in the past creates much of the uncertainty that leads to UFO claims today.

People responsible for secrecy surrounding nuclear weapon system malfunctions were happy to have them misinterpreted as UFO incidents because it made keeping the real secret easier, Oberg said.

The Big Sur Incident

Hastings says his UFO curiosity began as a teenager, when his father worked at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Hastings worked three nights a week in a radar tower, and one night he watched as a radar operator tracked five unknown objects. "That sparked my interest," he said.

To Hastings, an event off the coast of California in September 1964 is one of the most important events of the nuclear age. He believes an alien spaceship destroyed a dummy nuclear warhead during a U.S. missile test. The story has dark undertones of Central Intelligence Agency operatives and disappearing film.

It is, Hastings wrote last year in an article in the International UFO Reporter, "an unparalleled example of UFO interest in — and interference with — our nuclear missile systems."

George, now retired and living in Santa Maria, Calif., has heard this before. In 1964, he headed up the team responsible for filming the missile test.

Fifteen years ago, George first tried to explain what he says really happened — a missile malfunction, misunderstood and amplified in the retelling until it has taken a place in UFO lore.

Unbowed, Hastings was on "Larry King Live" last month, talking about how the missile test fits what, in an interview, he called "a systematic pattern of activity at nuclear sites."

The Big Sur Incident, Hastings' telegenic case, happened when an Air Force team led by George set up a telescope at Big Sur on the California coast to film missile tests from Vandenberg Air Force Base.

According to an account by Air Force photographic team member Bob Jacobs, the film showed an alien spacecraft darting around the missile as it flew, ultimately sending it tumbling into the sea short of its target.

In 1993, George wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer, which describes itself as "the magazine for science and reason," offering a more prosaic explanation.

George was in charge of the photographic team and held a higher security clearance than Jacobs. According to George's account, the film actually showed a malfunction that would have left the missile vulnerable to Soviet countermeasures. When the problem was discovered, the film and information about the event was immediately classified "top secret," according to George.

That explains the extreme secrecy imposed on the film, according to George. Without the proper security clearance, according to George, Jacobs would never have been given the real reason.

A tough sell

Hastings' largest area of research involves UFO incidents at U.S. nuclear missile bases. He claims repeated incidents in which UFOs were reported at bases at the same time missile systems malfunctioned.

Oberg, an expert on the history of U.S. and Soviet missile technology, calls Hastings' missile malfunction cases "intriguing," but not for the same reason as Hastings.

A more likely explanation for the malfunctions, Oberg said, is the "persnickety" launch control systems of the day.

At the time, unusual sights in the sky were not uncommon, and in the distance of history, the two linked, Oberg argues.

"They connect the two in the time-honored logic that people have," Oberg said.

Hastings acknowledges he has no documentary evidence linking the alleged UFOs and the missile malfunctions for any of the cases described in his 602-page book.

He said he stopped filing federal Freedom of Information Act requests in 1984 after concluding that the government was withholding information about the events in which he was interested.

Instead, Hastings said, he has focused on finding former military personnel willing to describe their experiences.

He acknowledged that his thes is is sometimes a tough sell. "People resist new ideas," he said.

Hasting's Response
What an inaccurate, misleading article! I guess I will have to go on a few radio and TV shows to straighten things out. I am scheduled for two major national interviews in the near future and will definitely mention your inept and biased reporting. I will now begin calling the local Albuquerque stations too.

You quote Kingston George, who made lots of factual errors in his Skeptical Inquirer article on the Big Sur incident—as documented in my IUR article, which you have, but obviously did not read carefully—but failed to note that Major Florenze Mansmann, Vandenberg AFB's photographic interpretation officer said that his own contemporary analysis of the film showed "a classic disc" shaped object with a dome circling the dummy warhead and shooting beams of light at it. He also said that CIA agents confiscated the film.

Jacobs corroborates all of that. Can Kingston George produce another witness who viewed the film to support his take on things? Nope! Don't you "professional" media guys prefer a corroborating source for stories? Jacobs has his! Where's George's?

You also failed to mention that Skeptical Inquirer's editor, Kendrick Frazier, was a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program, at Sandia Labs, at the time he gladly published George's attempted debunking of the Big Sur case. Frazier consistently failed to mention that fact in his skeptical magazine's masthead—for the entire 20-plus years he worked at Sandia—and in his own online biography, both facts I mentioned to you. In my view, he seemed to be shy about acknowledging having a PR job with the U.S. nukes program the whole time he was feverishly debunking UFOs and the government's cover-up of them. I wonder why?

On another topic, you said that I had no documentation for any of the cases I mentioned in my book. Do you recall the four pages of USAF/NORAD logs, released via the FOIA, which describe in detail UFOs hovering over Minuteman missile sites at Malmstrom AFB in November 1975? As you know, the jets sent up to chase away the UFOs were unable to intercept them. I devote an entire chapter in my book to those cases. I even gave you a hard copy of those logs. And yet, rather than acknowledging the Air Force's and NORAD's own declassified information—by devoting a few words to the logs—you chose to quote debunker James Oberg, who has never investigated those cases. Or did he tell you that he had?

I will simply end my email with a relevant excerpt from my book:

Americans cannot rely on our media institutions to routinely cover UFO sightings, or with the same degree of objectivity [found in the foreign press]. I earlier mentioned the book, The Missing Times, journalist Terry Hansen’s excellent exposé on the negatively-biased and uninformed coverage on UFOs typically offered up by the elite American media. Hansen’s book should be required reading for any professional reporter, especially those working for the high-profile organizations based in New York and Washington. Will that ever happen? Probably not. Regardless, if the pundits ever decide to become serious about covering, and perhaps actually investigating, the topic of UFOs, rather than knowingly or unwittingly serving as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA (which appears to be their current role) they can begin by interviewing the ex-military personnel who were directly involved in one nuclear weapons-related UFO incident or another.

To that end, I will happily provide my sources’ contact information to any reporter or assignment editor who asks for it. But I won’t hold my breath while waiting for those inquiries. Perhaps I am wrong, but I suspect that most of the alleged reporters-of-record will instead continue to dismiss the accounts by military UFO sighting witnesses as being either fanciful or fraudulent. If they do, those journalists will betray the public they supposedly serve, and history’s verdict on their complacency—or, in some cases, complicity—is bound to be harsh.

More . . .

See Also:

Excerpt From UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hastings: 'Like a Diamond in the Sky'


Launch in Progress!


SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

↑ Grab this Headline Animator