Showing posts with label Robert Salas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Salas. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

UFOs at Missile Base: AARO Deputy Director Misstates Facts

UFOs at Missile Base: AARO Deputy Director Misstates Facts - www.theufochronicles.com



     Below is an email that I recently sent to former and current members of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO):

Title: ICBM Shutdowns at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967

From: ufohastings@aol.com
To: [Redacted]
Mon, Aug 4 at 8:34 AM

By Robert Hastings
The UFO Chronicles
8-6-2025
Due to my extensive research on UFO (UAP) activity at nuclear weapons sites, investigative journalist Marik von Rennenkampff asked me to review his findings regarding two major incidents, presented below, and to direct them to members of AARO, former and current.

—Robert Hastings

[-begin email from Marik von Rennenkampff-]
To Whom It May Concern,

In two recent interviews, former All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) Deputy Director Timothy Phillips stated that AARO will address select reports of incidents involving UFOs and nuclear weapons in a forthcoming historical report. According to Phillips, AARO determined that a “cascading transformer failure” triggered by an “electrical storm”, and not UFO activity, led to the March 1967 shutdown of a 10-missile “flight” of nuclear-armed Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.

Conversely, a 6 June 2025 Wall Street Journal story, citing AARO officials, states that an unannounced Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) test caused the shutdown.

However, official unit histories of the 341st Strategic Missile Wing (SMW), other U.S. government documents, and witness testimony flatly contradict both explanations.

Phillips also stated that AARO “did not see any evidence of UAP or UFO activity in the journals or logs” of airfields and radar installations in the vicinity of Malmstrom Air Force Base during the incidents in question. This, too, is contradicted by official U.S. government documents, contemporaneous media reporting, and witness testimony.

Of note, there are two incidents in question:

(1) The shutdown of Echo Flight on 16 March 1967

(2) The shutdown of Oscar Flight on 24 March 1967

Significant official documentation exists in the public domain regarding the former, while none exists regarding the latter. This is likely due to the non-disclosure agreements that the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) required missile launch officer 1st Lt. Robert Salas, his then-missile commander, 1st Lt. Frederick Meiwald, and, presumably, other witnesses to the 24 March 1967 incident to sign.

Beyond the March 1967 incidents at Malmstrom AFB, official U.S. government documents, contemporaneous media reporting, and witness testimony suggest that at least one other similar incident occurred at Minot AFB in 1966.

Malmstrom AFB:

Immediately after the 16 March 1967 shutdown of Echo Flight, testing began at Malmstrom to determine the cause of the incident. Official 341st SMW unit histories state that, following initial testing, “the investigation teams at Malmstrom were unable to determine a logical cause for the incident.”

Contrary to Phillips’ statements (and AARO’s apparent findings), the 341st SMW unit history spanning 1 January – 31 March 1967 states that, “After performing the tests, it was decided that commercial power switching operations were not the cause of the Echo shutdown.” (Emphasis added; see appendices for full sourcing).

Following additional testing at contractor facilities throughout mid-1967 and final testing again at Malmstrom, official 341st SMW unit histories, some written nearly a year after the incident, rule out an electrical fault or power issue. Instead, engineers and contractors speculated that an Electromagnetic Pulse may have caused the shutdown.

See:

“Due to the fact that the power tests were essentially negative, it appears that the cause of the Echo Flight problem was of the EMP or electrostatic nature.” (Emphasis added) (1 April – 30 June 1967 341st SMW Unit History; PDF p. 38)

“A primary cause always associated with Echo Flight Incident has been connected with some type of adverse power affect [sic]. Tests have been conducted time and time again to determine this, but have always lead [sic] to a negative result.” (Emphasis added) (1 July – 30 September 1967 341st SMW Unit History; PDF p. 51)

“One of the primary theorys [sic] of the Echo Flight incident was connected with some type of adverse power effect. All test [sic] conducted toward this end proved negative results. (Emphasis added) (1 October – 31 December 1967 341st SMW Unit History; PDF p. 77)

“OOAMA thought that the cause of the incident was of the Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) noise or electrostatic nature.” (1 July – 30 September 1967 341st SMW Unit History; PDF p. 48)

“The EMP tests at Sierra-39 were considered to be the final series of tests in this area.” (1 October – 31 December 1967 341st SMW Unit History; PDF p. 77)

Additionally, as noted in the 1 January – 31 March 1967 341st SMW unit history, and contrary to Phillips’ assertion, “weather was ruled out as a contributing factor” in the 16 March Echo Flight shutdown. (See also: “Weather condition and Capsule crew have been eliminated as causes of the incident.”)

Similarly, according to the unit history, the Echo Flight shutdown occurred before (at “0845”) any reported transformer malfunctions. The first documented power failure occurred when a “7.2 KV transformer shorted in the line to site E-3 at 1450, 16 March 67.” (Emphasis added)

Beyond official unit histories, former Boeing engineer Robert Kaminski, who served as the Boeing in-house project engineer for the investigation of the Echo Flight shutdown, wrote in a 1 February 1997 letter (attached) to researcher James Klotz that, “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.” (Emphasis added)

According to Kaminski, “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. The only thing that even came close to a failure was that a transformer on a commercial power pole down the road from one of the sites was in the process of failing. It exhibited a[n] intermittent transient type of failure that could have generated noise spikes on the power line. This in itself could not have caused the problem at E-Flight. The problem was reported to the local power company who took action to replace the transformer. 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.” (Emphasis added)

Kaminski continued, “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 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.” (Emphasis added)

Beyond Kaminski’s account, Robert Hastings, author of UFOs & Nukes, has documented witness accounts from missile launch control and targeting officers, as well as other persons involved in both the 16 March and 24 March incidents. These include Col Walt Figel (Echo Flight, missile launch deputy commander), T/Sgt N. Henry “Hank” Barlow (Echo Flight, electro-mechanical team), Col Frederick Meiwald (Oscar Flight, missile commander), Capt Robert Jamison (Oscar Flight, missile targeting officer), LtCol Dwynne Arneson (Officer-in-Charge, Malmstrom AFB communications center), and 1st Lt Robert Salas (Oscar Flight, missile launch deputy commander). All of them attest to UFO activity coincident with both the Echo and Oscar missile flight shutdowns. (Robert Hastings)

Moreover, contrary to Phillips’ claim that no UFO activity was reported during the incidents, extensive Project Blue Book files document such activity on 24 March 1967. A Telex from Malmstrom AFB to Wright-Patterson AFB and various Air Force offices in Washington, D.C., for example, states that “Between the hours of 2100 and 0400 MST numerous reports were received by Malmstrom AFB agencies of UFO sightings in the Great Falls, Montana area. Reports of a UFO landing near Belt, Montana were received from several sources including deputies of Cascade County Sheriff’s Office.” (National Archives)

Contemporaneous news reporting also contradicts Phillips’ assertion that no UFO activity was recorded at local airfields or radar stations. A 26 March 1967 Great Falls Tribune article on the reported UFO landing near Belt, MT, titled “UFO Breaks Monotony of Run,” states that “Airmen at Malmstrom Air Force Base reported sighting a UFO about 5 to 10 miles northeast of the base at 3:30 a.m. Saturday. FAA radar picked up the object at 3:42 a.m. to the northwest and reported it was off the radar at 4:26 a.m.” (Emphasis added) (Newspapers.com)

For additional details, see: “Malmstrom Air Force Base Picks Up UFO on Radar; Sabotage Alert Team Located Another UFO Directly Over The Base,” 25 March 1967, Great Falls Leader (The UFO Chronicles)

In short, a significant amount of official U.S. government documentation, contemporaneous media reporting, and witness testimony directly contradicts Phillips’ statements (and, apparently, AARO’s conclusions) regarding the 1967 Malmstrom AFB incidents.

Minot Air Force Base 1966:

Recommend AARO review the following:

19 August 1966: U.S. Border Patrol Officer Donald Flickinger observes a disk-shaped UFO at close range along the western edge of Minot AFB’s Mike missile flight. Flickinger draws detailed sketches (See: National Archives). Note, also, static interference with Flickinger’s radio. (National Archives; Saturday Evening Post; Minot Daily News)

25 August 1966: Minot Air Force Base tracks two UFOs over Mike missile flight. Per official U.S. government documentation, missile commander “on duty at Missile Site (MIKE Flt)… indicated that radio transmission was being interrupted by static, this static was accompanied by the UFO coming close to the missile site (MIKE Flt). When UFO climbed, static stopped.”

Additionally: “Strike team reported UFO descending, checked with Radar Site they also verified this. The UFO then began to swoop and dive. It then appeared to land 10 to 15 miles South of MIKE 6. ‘MIKE 6’ missile site control sent a strike team to check. When the team was about 10 miles from the landing sight [sic], static disrupted radio contact with them [emphasis original]… Another UFO was visually sighted and confirmed by radar. The one that was first sighted passed beneath the second. Radar also confirmed this.” (Saturday Evening Post; Minot Daily News; Robert Hastings)

25 September 1966: Former Minot Air Force Base missile launch control officer Capt. David Schindele arrives at November Flight (adjacent to Mike Flight) Launch Control Facility to see that all 10 November Flight missiles are off-alert status following a close-range UFO incident the previous night. Per Schindele, Air Force OSI instructed him to never speak of the incident. (Schindele testimony)



Sincerely,

Marik von Rennenkampff

Appendix A: Tim Phillips Comments

“There was some work done with the national labs dealing with a cascading transformer failure at one of the missile ranges [Malmstrom]… The missile silos were actually connected to the commercial grid for power. They did have their critical power, they had their own generators but for cost-savings they were connected to the commercial grid; dual-power feeds. There was an electrical disturbance, there were some storms, and the filtering, the capacitors that would have shielded the critical systems in the missile silos from an energy surge coming through the commercial grid failed and actually took some of the missile silos down.” (Interview with Mick West, 17 June 2025)

“There’s been new stories about an EMP test that I was not privy to when I was still in the government. What I knew about was a report of a cascading transformer failure where there was [an] electrical storm and the silos were actually connected to the commercial power grid, however they did have their own generators and critical power and they would switch off to their own generators so power would not be interrupted. There was some electrical disturbance that actually defeated those filters, and the silos themselves were taken offline by a cascading transformer failure.” (Interview with John Michael Godier, 2 July 2025)

“There were also some reports of security personnel who were up above who, in some of the stories, they saw UFOs or things that they could not understand. We were able to get logs at the various towers and we did not see any evidence of UAP or UFO activity in the journals and logs that AARO actually got to investigate.” (Interview with John Michael Godier, 2 July 2025)

Appendix B: Excerpts from 341st Strategic Missile Wing Unit Histories

1 January – 31 March 1967:

“On 16 March 1967 at 0845, all sites in Echo (E) Flight, Malmstrom AFB, shutdown with No-Go Indication of Channels 9 and 12 on Voice Reporting Signal Assemble (VRSA). (PDF p. 7)

“The initial time of the incident, decided by the crew, could be no more than two or three minutes earlier than the official log of 0845.” (PDF p. 11)

“Weather was ruled out as a contributing factor in the incident.” (PDF p. 14)

“Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of the fault were disproven.” (PDF p. 14)

“The power outage that affected E-1 at 1453 on 16 March 67, occurred on the 7.2/12.5 kilo volts (KV) transmission line from Winifred Substation.” (PDF p. 16)

“Weather condition and Capsule crew have been eliminated as causes of the incident.” (PDF p. 16)

“A 7.2 KV transformer shorted in the line to site E-3 at 1450, 16 March 67.” (PDF p. 20)

“On 28 March 67, the 341st SMW in conjunction with the Montana Power Company conducted a switching test on the 50 KV high voltage line between the Harlowton and Glengarry substations. The test was performed at the request of OOAMA/OONE as a part of the initial Echo Flight incident investigation performed at Malmstrom. The intent of the test was to verify correlation, if possible, between high voltage switching and launch facility shutdown or other launch facility faults.” (PDF p. 20)

“After performing the tests, it was decided that commercial power switching operations were not the cause of the Echo shutdown.” (PDF p. 21)

“The investigation teams at Malmstrom, were unable to determine a logical cause for the incident.” (PDF p. 21)

1 April – 30 June 1967:

“A test plan was reviewed to accomplish the transformer failure simulation tests at Malmstrom. Boeing had co-ordinated with the power company, and had received their approval for the tests.” (PDF p. 35)

“The power tests were accomplished at Malmstrom AFB during the week of 15 May 67… Information on the Sensitive Information Network lines and on the commercial primary power lines showed no significant noise propagation as a result of simulating the transformer failure.” (PDF p. 36)

“Due to the fact that the power tests were essentially negative, it appears that the cause of the Echo Flight problem was of the EMP or electrostatic nature.” (PDF p. 38)

1 July – 30 September 1967:

“OOAMA thought that the cause of the incident was of the Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) noise or electrostatic nature.” (PDF p. 48)

“A primary cause always associated with Echo Flight Incident has been connected with some type of adverse power affect [sic]. Tests have been conducted time and time again to determine this, but have always lead [sic] to a negative result.” (PDF p. 51)

“On 28 September 1967, Sierra 39, 564th SMS, was depostured and turned over to Boeing for EMP tests.” (PDF p. 51)

1 October – 31 December 1967:

“In direct relation to the Echo Flight incident as covered in the April – June 1967 History of the 341st SMW was the Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) testing conducted throughout the quarter.” (PDF p. 76)

“One of the primary theorys [sic] of the Echo Flight incident was connected with some type of adverse power effect. All test [sic] conducted toward this end proved negative results. The EMP tests at Sierra-39 were considered to be the final series of tests in this area.” (PDF p. 77)

Appendix C: Power Distribution to Echo, Delta, Mike, Oscar Flights

Launch Facilities (LFs) E-2-6, E-9-11 Supplied by Different Substations than E-7, E-8

(PDF p. 17)

Kaminski To Klotz Letter 2-1-1997

Sunday, July 06, 2025

The Black Vault Lays Bare the Fallacies of the WSJ Articles

The Black Vault Lays Bare the Fallacies of the WJS Articles  - www.theufochronicles.com



     The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), long considered a bastion of serious journalism, as readers know recently published a two-part series on UFOs/UAP. For those of us paying attention to these matters, on its face it, prior to the read it was presumed given
By The UFO Chronicles
6-30-2025
WSJ’s long-held good standing that they would approach the topic with journalistic neutrality, being fair and balanced (no pun intended) if you will; however, rather than serving as a balanced entry into a complex field, the articles—according to veteran researcher John Greenewald (and many others) of The Black Vault—represent a glaring case study in narrative bias, selective sourcing, and evidentiary omission.

John Greenewald - www.theufochronicles.com
Greenewald’s critique (video below) delivered in a detailed livestream dated June 28, 2025, raises several scientifically and journalistically significant concerns. His experience—as an extensively interviewed source who saw none of his evidence-based input included—offers a unique vantage point for assessing not only the WSJ’s reporting, but the broader implications for public understanding of UAP data.

Misdirection by Design: Framing the UAP Topic as Disinformation

At the heart of Greenewald’s critique lies the assertion that the WSJ framed the entire UAP issue as an orchestrated disinformation campaign—primarily by the U.S. military to mask classified aerospace technologies. This framing is not novel; Cold War-era narratives often suggested that UAP sightings were encouraged to conceal stealth aircraft like the U-2 or SR-71.

What is problematic, Greenewald contends, is not the inclusion of this hypothesis but its presentation as the primary explanatory model, unsupported by robust sourcing. The series leaned heavily on anecdotal recollections, such as a story of an Air Force colonel allegedly planting fake UFO photos in a Nevada bar. According to Greenewald, such stories were offered without corroborating documentation, effectively reducing decades of global UAP data to the level of rumor and myth.

Selective Silence: Ignoring Documented, Declassified Evidence

Perhaps the most serious allegation Greenewald levels against the WSJ is the deliberate omission of government-verified documentation. According to Greenewald, he provided the paper’s reporters with hundreds of pages of primary source material—obtained legally through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)—showing long-term, classified interest in UAPs across multiple agencies including the DIA, CIA, NSA, and DoD.

These “heavily redacted and classified UFO specific documents” span decades before and beyond Project Blue Book’s official closure in 1969. Greenewald emphasizes that if UAPs were nothing more than Cold War-era misidentifications or misinformation, such persistent classification—well into the 2000s and beyond—would make little logical sense.

By omitting these materials, the WSJ not only narrowed the scope of the article but arguably misled its readers about the state of official knowledge and concern. The result is a narrative vacuum—one that falsely suggests there is no "there" there, when in fact substantial government documentation confirms otherwise.

The “Yankee Blue” Incident: Reporting Without Verification

The WSJ series introduced a claim about “Yankee Blue,” an alleged Air Force hazing ritual in which personnel were tricked into believing they were part of a classified UAP retrieval program. The articles claimed this practice was so persuasive that it led individuals to whistleblow under false assumptions, and that even Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines was briefed and stunned by the discovery.

While intriguing, Greenewald sought to verify this account by filing multiple FOIA requests with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) and other oversight agencies. As of his broadcast, no records confirming investigations or official documentation of Yankee Blue were found.

Again, the WSJ’s failure to corroborate this sensational claim—or even provide the alleged memo—violates basic journalistic standards. In the absence of documentation, presenting such narratives as fact risks crossing the line from skepticism to disinformation by omission.

Ignoring the Global Scope: The Helicopter & Nuclear Incursions

Another significant gap in the WSJ reporting was the failure to address documented incidents of UFO/UAP incursions over nuclear facilities and military installations, both in the U.S. and internationally. Greenewald referenced declassified reports from the 1970s describing encounters with unidentified helicopters and craft over Strategic Air Command bases and nuclear storage facilities.

Whether these were terrestrial, foreign adversary, or genuinely unknown in origin, they represent verifiable, unresolved cases involving national security infrastructure. The WSJ not only ignored these cases but also failed to investigate how often UAP sightings involve highly restricted airspace—an analytical dimension critical to any good-faith inquiry.

Instead, the paper chose to cast doubt on one well-known nuclear incident involving Robert Salas in 1967, by citing an EMP weapons test document that was not contemporaneous with the event and appears to misalign with the technological timeline. No sourcing or technical analysis was provided to support the implication that EMP testing could explain the missile shutdowns.

Bias by Comparison: Hypocrisy in Evidentiary Standards

Greenewald also highlights a double standard in how evidence is weighed. Critics of whistleblowers like David Grusch and Luis Elizondo often decry the lack of hard documentation supporting their claims. Yet many of those same critics celebrated the WSJ article, which itself provided no documentation to substantiate its central claims about misinformation campaigns, safe contents, or hazing rituals.

Misused Authority: Mistaking Mastheads for Truth

Perhaps the most important theme in Greenewald’s video-editorial is the misplaced trust in journalistic prestige. The Wall Street Journal, he notes, is a masthead that commands credibility. But when that reputation is used to publish poorly sourced claims under the guise of investigative reporting, it becomes a vehicle for institutional bias rather than public service.

Greenewald makes clear that the WSJ had every opportunity to tell a more complete, balanced story. They had interviews with researchers, access to primary source documentation, and ample time to investigate claims. That they did not reflects not a lack of information, but a lack of editorial will.

The call for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant since the birth of modern day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, this is goal has been led by independent researchers, such as John Greenewald and or Independent UFO organizations along the way—the Fourth Estate which should be the spearhead in this endeavor has been a hindrance at best and or erroneous propaganda machine at its worst. The Wall Street Journal’s recent articles, as criticized by John Greenewald continue in this vein.

Conclusion: A Call for Scientific Integrity in Journalism

The call for UFO/UAPs transparency has been extant since the birth of modern day Ufology in 1947. Conversely, this is goal has been led by independent researchers, such as John Greenewald and or Independent UFO organizations along the way—the Fourth Estate which should be the spearhead in this endeavor has been a hindrance at best and or erroneous propaganda machine at its worst. The Wall Street Journal’s recent articles, as criticized by John Greenewald continue in this vein.

They present a narrow hypothesis (disinformation) as definitive explanation. They ignore decades of declassified documentation. They promote unverified anecdotes over publicly available evidence. And they selectively report claims that align with their narrative, while excluding equally credible counterpoints.

In doing so, the WSJ has not advanced the public conversation—it has obscured it. And that is perhaps the greatest disservice of all: Not the conclusion the paper drew, but the conversation it chose not to have.

As Greenewald reminds us, skepticism is not the rejection of possibility. It is the insistence on evidence—consistently applied, transparently sourced, and fairly examined. That principle must guide all inquiry into UFOs/UAPs, from FOIA requests to front-page stories. Anything less is not journalism. It’s misdirection.

Thursday, June 19, 2025

UFOs and Nukes Researcher Robert Hastings Refutes WSJ Article

New Wall Street Journal UFO Article Badly Misses the Mark - www.theufochronicles.com

New Wall Street Journal UFO Article Badly Misses the Mark


     In a recent article titled, “The Pentagon Disinformation That Fueled America’s UFO Mythology”, the Wall Street Journal attempts to foist its own disinformation on all of us. Several knowledgeable persons have already indignantly responded on X, or in podcasts such as WEAPONIZED, hosted by journalist George Knapp and researcher Jeremy Corbell.

I have instead directed an email to the Journal’s Correspondence and Corrections Editor, Judi Walsh, also copying the article’s two authors, criticizing one particular part of the factually-inaccurate, arguably-absurd piece. It has been inserted below. Thus far, I have not received a response from Walsh or the authors.
Robert Hastings - www.theufochronicles.com
By Robert Hastings
The UFO Chronicles
6-12-2025
My email:
From: ufohastings@aol.com

To: judi.walsh@wsj.com, wsjcontact@wsj.com

Cc: joel.schectman@wsj.com, aruna.viswanatha@wsj.com

Tue, Jun 10 at 6:25 AM

Ms. Walsh,

I am the leading civilian researcher on the topic of UFO/UAP activity at US nuclear weapons sites, as described in declassified US Air Force documents and the testimony of 167 vetted USAF veterans who were involved in such incidents at various bases during the Cold War era and beyond. Those individuals were independently interviewed by me between 1973 and 2010.

CNN's livestreamed coverage of my September 27, 2010 "UFOs and Nukes" press conference in Washington D.C. is available at http://www.ufohastings.com, on the homepage. Seven of the veterans participated, and most are still available for questioning by the WSJ's reporters, should they be interested in doing that.

At the press conference, a former Minuteman missile targeting officer stationed at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, Captain Robert C. Jamison, revealed his team's involvement in retargeting ten ICBMs that had been simultaneously knocked-offline on the evening of March 24, 1967. This missile-shutdown event was the one mentioned in your recent article, in which the authors wildly speculated that the missiles' mysterious loss of functionality was due to a test involving an Electromagnetic Pulse generator, meant to demonstrate their vulnerability to EMP during wartime. As [redacted] has already brought to your attention, the available facts easily debunk this groundless claim.

According to Captain Jamison, multiple targeting teams, including his, were given an unprecedented "special UFO briefing" prior to being released to the field, during which it was stated that a "UFO" had caused the multiple-missile failures. The teams were instructed to report a UFO to their command post, should one be sighted while they traveled to the full-flight shutdown site at Oscar Flight, near Roy, Montana. They were further instructed that, should a UFO appear while they were on-site at one of the Launch Facilities--underground missile silos--they were to quickly enter the silo and close the personnel access hatch, while leaving their Security Police escort above ground so that he could provide updates to the base via a two-way radio.

The other Air Force veterans appearing at my press conference provided similar accounts of their own UFO-related experiences, at other bases, during different time-frames.

Indeed, as my four-decade-long research project has convincingly established, bona fide UFO incursions at US nuclear weapons sites—fissile material production plants, weapons test ranges and storage facilities, nuclear bomber and missile bases—occurred as early as January 1945, and as recently as October 2010, and the incidents over that period numbered in the hundreds.

Nevertheless, given the embarrassing lack of factual rigor evident in your reporters’ recent effort, I rather doubt that my research findings will be of much assistance to them. Assuming that the article was not an intentional attempt at disinformation, their profound ignorance of the UAP topic, coupled with their clearly unjournalistic bias, renders them unqualified to educate your readers.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Hastings

So, we will see whether I receive a response from any of the Wall Street Journal staff members, and/or whether my email is posted online by their website. I’ll update those reading this post.

Friday, March 31, 2023

30 Nuclear Missiles Disabled by UFOs, Says Former USAF Captain

Artwork by www.theufochronicles.com showing a UFO Hovering Over Nuclear Missile Silo

"'Within a span of six months, we lost 30 nuclear missiles to UFOs,' said Salas, who provided an air force document declassified in 1996 regarding the March 16 incident at Malmstrom, east of Great Falls."



     On the night of March 24, 1967, Robert Salas was a 26-year-old U.S. Air Force lieutenant cocooned 20 metres below the Montana prairie overseeing weaponry that could obliterate millions.

Instead, without any warning, Salas said his menacing cluster of 10 Minutemen 1 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) burrowed beneath the Malmstrom Air Force base a five-hour drive southeast of Calgary seemed to be prey.

Sunday, February 26, 2023

AARO Interviews 'UFOs and Nukes' Witnesses

Artwork by www.theufochronicles.com, for the article AARO Interviews 'UFOs and Nukes' Witnesses


The Pentagon’s new UAP investigations group takes testimony from US military veterans who encountered UFOs at nuclear weapons sites

     On January 3, 2023, I was contacted by Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the newly-established UAP (UFO) investigations group at the Pentagon—the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)—that was recently mandated by Congress. An investigator on Capitol Hill, who I will not identify at his request, had read my book, UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites (ad), and brought it to Kirkpatrick’s attention, noting its examination of more than a hundred UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites during the Cold War era and beyond, as reported by the military veterans who had witnessed the incidents.

Since 1973, I have interviewed 167 of those veterans regarding their experiences. Kirkpatrick asked whether I would be able to contact the individuals with whom I am still in touch, to learn whether they would be willing to testify before AARO staffers. I readily agreed to do so and spent a few days reaching out to them.

A telephone conference was subsequently arranged for January 13th, between Kirkpatrick, two of AARO’s staffers, the Congressional investigator, and myself. I informed the other participants that I had contacted the veterans—mostly former/retired US Air Force personnel—and that eleven had agreed to testify before AARO. At that point, I was asked to prioritize the witnesses, in terms of their importance. Kirkpatrick explained that his group had already been contacted by many other veterans who wished to testify—regarding other types of UFO-related events—and that it would be awhile before AARO could interview all of the eleven I had recommended.

In response, I said that while each of the vets was important, I suggested that Kirkpatrick’s staff first contact former US Air Force ICBM launch officer Bob Salas, who had been on duty during an incident at Malmstrom AFB, Montana, on March 24/25, 1967, when an orange, disc-shaped UFO had briefly hovered over the front gate at the Oscar Flight Launch Control Facility (LCF). The underground Launch Control Center beneath the LCF controlled ten Minuteman-1 missiles.

Seconds after one of Salas’ Security Police guards frantically called down to the launch capsule to report the UFO to him, all ten of the ICBMs dropped offline, one after the other. In other words, they were unlaunchable and it took several hours to repair and retarget them. (Another of my sources, Robert Jamison, had been a missile targeting officer at Malmstrom and had assisted in bringing the Oscar Flight ICBMs back to full functionality. Jamison said that he and his team received a special “UFO briefing” before leaving for the field, instructing them what to do should another UFO appear while they worked.)

Following the incident, Salas and his missile commander, the late Col. Frederick Meiwald, were debriefed by an Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) agent and required to sign national security non-disclosure agreements that stipulated severe penalties and fines should they violate security.

Salas kept his silence until 1996, when he went public in an article, co-written with researcher Jim Klotz. Years later, on September 27, 2010, Salas and I co-sponsored the UFOs and Nukes press conference in Washington D.C., which was live-streamed by CNN. At that event, he and six other US Air Force veterans who I had interviewed over the years described their involvement in nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents. Their disclosures received extensive, worldwide media coverage.

The second former USAF officer who I recommended to AARO as a high-priority interviewee was Dr. Bob Jacobs, who was involved in an amazing incident at Vandenberg AFB, California, in September 1964. Jacobs had been the photographic instrumentation officer-in-charge of a telescopic camera team tasked with filming missile test launches at the base. To achieve a side-view perspective of events, the telescope site was actually located roughly a hundred miles northwest of VAFB, up the California coast, on a hilltop at Big Sur.

During one such launch, on September 15th, the film crew inadvertently captured a UFO on film, as it approached and circled the missile’s separated dummy nuclear warhead, which was flying downrange over the Pacific Ocean. Suddenly, the UFO—a domed-disc—directed four bright beams of light at the warhead. Seconds after being struck by them, the warhead began tumbling and quickly fell out of sub-orbit hundreds of miles short of its target.

The film of the astonishing incident was soon viewed by Vandenberg’s photo-interpretation officer, Major Florenze J. Mansmann, Lieutenant Jacobs, and two CIA officers who confiscated it and classified the incident Top Secret. Jacobs finally revealed the event in a magazine article in 1982, after which he received numerous anonymous death threats over the telephone. (Skeptics, using demonstrably inaccurate information, have unsuccessfully attempted to debunk this case. The authoritative, documented summary of it appears in my book.)

Anyway, Jacobs testified about the incident to an AARO staffer on February 10, 2023; Salas testified about his 1967 experience at Malmstrom AFB on February 15th.

I have been lecturing about the UFO-Nukes Connection at American colleges and universities since 1981. My opinion is that all of humankind needs know about what has been occurring at the ICBM sites, in both the US and the USSR/Russia, for decades. Those who operate the UFOs may be dropping a “heavy hint” to the nuclear powers to get rid of their nukes. If so, does any government justifiably have the right to suppress the facts indefinitely?

Since 2017, Luis Elizondo, the former director of the Pentagon’s earlier UFO investigations group, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), has repeatedly, publicly referred to UFO/UAP activity at nuclear sites during television and newspaper interviews and podcasts. In one, he said that his Pentagon group had utilized UFOs and Nukes as a resource, and that I had done “a fantastic job” researching the subject.

Additionally, AATIP’s scientific consultant, Dr. Hal Puthoff, has also confirmed in interviews a longstanding and widespread pattern of UFO activity at nuclear sites, as has former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon.

Moreover, the late US Senator Harry Reid, who had secretly secured funding for AATIP, also publicly discussed the UFO-nukes link during interviews. According to journalist George Knapp, Reid had read my book and was stunned by the testimony of the veterans contained in it. (He no doubt had his own military sources as well). Reid, Elizondo, Mellon and Puthoff became Disclosure advocates in recent years, believing that the US government should be more candid with the American public on the topic of UFOs.

Hopefully, the rest of the veterans who I recommended to AARO will be interviewed soon and, more importantly, their testimony regarding the reality and obvious importance of UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites will be brought to the attention of Congress.


VISIT ROBERT's SITE ►

See Also:

A snippet of the The New UFO - UAP Law Codifying Investigations, Research and Reporting
The New UFO / UAP Law Codifying Field Investigations, Research and Reporting
Faded Giant Book Cover
My Evidence: The Account of Minute-Man Missiles Being Disabled, While UFOs Hovered Over The Launch Facilities
Faded Giant Cover
The Echo Flight ICBM Incident: Retired USAF Officer Confirms Receiving A UFO Report Just as the Missiles Failed

Did UFOs Cause the Shutdown of ICBMs at Malmstrom AFB, in March 1967?

The Echo/Oscar Witch Hunt

UFOs Did Shutdown Minuteman Missiles at Echo Flight . . .

VIDCAST: Former Boeing Engineer, Robert Kaminski Confirms UFO Activity at Echo Flight Missile Launch Control Facility in 1967

My Evidence: The Account of Minute-Man Missiles Being Disabled, While UFOs Hovered Over The Launch Facilities

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

UFO Lands Near Minuteman Missile Base; Affects Radio Transmissions - Defensive Measures Taken!

UFO Sightings at ICBM Sites and Nuclear Weapons Storage Areas

Air Force Staff Message: Malmstrom AFB Receives Multiple Reports of UFOs in The Great Falls, Montana Area

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

Whatever It Is The Air Force Must-Hunt For The Flying Saucer

UFOs & NUKES | Missile Shut Down at Malmstrom Confirmed By (Civilian) Veteran of Minuteman Program

UFOs & NUKES | UFOs Have Penetrated Restricted Air Space Over Nuclear Missile Sites; Jammed Vital Electronic Equipment & Eluded Fighter Aircraft





REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE



Saturday, October 23, 2021