Air Force Veterans Who Are UFO True Believers Return to Newly Attentive Washington

Air Force Veterans Who Are UFO True Believers Return to Newly Attentive Washington

Source: www.military.com...

….” 19 Oct 2021
Military.com | By Travis Tritten

Three aging Air Force veterans came to Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to again tell their strange and extraordinary stories. A fourth veteran was piped into the National Press Club conference by video feed from the Ozark Mountains in Missouri.

Each veteran's story is different, but all share one central claim: In the 1960s, UFOs tampered with nuclear weapons managed by the Air Force, both terrifying and mystifying the airmen who experienced the encounters. Some remained silent for decades, they say.”…..

Well the UFO Nuclear threat is back in swing again…..the usual suspects…..Salas, Schindele, and Jacobs (remotely) in attendance.

Perhaps Zondo and Mellon will join the ‘Nuclear Threat” narrative forces with the three (four?) retirees.

If anyone finds a vid….please post.


👽🤓

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Here’s a short segment mentioning the Conference plus some additional info…….but not a vid of the Conference itself.

video.foxnews.com...=show-clips

That’s funny …..”Shocking New Claims”…….perhaps to mainstream news outlets…But not to the member posters of this ATS Aliens and UFOs Forum. Huh!!

👽🤓

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Well the UFO Nuclear threat is back in swing again…..the usual suspects…..Salas, Schindele, and Jacobs (remotely) in attendance.

So Jacobs is still embarrassing himself with his story, when the truth of what really happened has already been revealed by someone who had the clearance to know (which Jacobs didn't have the clearance required so he was never told). This is the real story from Kingston George. Jacobs was there, but his story is rather distorted and now that we know what was seen in the film, I don't think we can call it a UFO anymore.

The Big Sur ‘UFO’: An Identified Flying Object, by Kingston George
I think that sadly, Jacobs is only embarassing himself now that Kingston George has identified what was in the film, but some people won't do their homework and will still believe Jacobs' "fake news" about a "UFO" that's no longer unidentified.

Robert Salas wasn't even there for the documented nuke event, according to the men who were there, Eric Carlson and Walter Figel, and Carlson says there was no UFO involved in that documented event. Carlson also says Salas is either lying or delusional talking about some other event for which there's no documentation of it happening nor any investigation. A bunch of nukes going offline would get documented and investigated, which is exactly what happened in the real event Carlson was involved with. More info including Carlson's statement about Salas was posted in another thread but bears repeating for this one:

I think the only people who believe Robert Salas (pictured) haven't done their homework. If you want to do your homework, read the links below, which say that Eric Carlson was there and he says Salas wasn't even there and his stories about the UFO shutting down the nukes didn't happen (the nukes did go offline at echo flight during Carlson's watch, but not because of a UFO, and there is no record of any such event at Oscar flight as claimed by Salas).



Reality Uncovered Articles
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...

Carlson was definitely there, and he clearly says Salas is either lying or delusional.

web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...

Refers to Tim Herbert's blog
web.archive.org...

Tim Herbert's blog: Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967? and other articles.
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...
web.archive.org...

Sounds like the same stories that came out of the disclosure project way back..
I wonder if it is the same people again

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Next time post a tl;dr: "propaganda of a plant to discredit witness"

Your tripe, Little Mickey, is old, dull, and boring.

originally posted by: Type1338
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Next time post a tl;dr: "propaganda of a plant to discredit witness"

Your tripe, Little Mickey, is old, dull, and boring.

Why don't you post something meaningful?

Are you disputing the fact that Eric Carlson was there when the nukes shut down?

Even Hastings doesn't deny that, but he never invites Carlson to speak; he invites Salas instead, who wasn't even there!

Carlson is not discredited, he's the real witness, and it's Carlson who discredits Salas, not me (I wasn't there either). Carlson offers to tell people the truth, as the witness who was actualy there when it happened, but some people don't want to hear the truth.

Jacobs isn't so much discredited as just failing to admit that his "UFO" has been identified by Kingston George who had the clearance to learn what it was in Jacobs' film (clearance which Jacobs didn't have), so it's no longer a UFO.

It's actually content-free posts like yours that are boring.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


Here is a recent counter-example of what in old-days could have been taken by UFOs messing around with silos:

Computer problem blamed for missile site malfunction

From the article (year 2010):

it appears the computer hardware problem is very similar to problems in the late 1990s at the two other Air Force bases that control America's intercontinental ballistic missile forces: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Ophiuchus1


Here is a recent counter-example of what in old-days could have been taken by UFOs messing around with silos:

Computer problem blamed for missile site malfunction

From the article (year 2010):

it appears the computer hardware problem is very similar to problems in the late 1990s at the two other Air Force bases that control America's intercontinental ballistic missile forces: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

Good stuff…..pretty straight forward. If I understood it correctly …..it appears that all 5 centers are, in a sense, a daisy chain in series …so to speak. If one goes down they all go down. Hardware glitches are screwy….it’s even worse when they are hard to locate because of being an intermittent failure , popping up once in a while.

Interesting that Malstrom and Minot are called out as possibly suffering the same technical difficulties.

UFO’s aren’t entertained as a possibility.

From the article:

…….“Once the fifth launch control center was isolated, the other four established communications with all 50 missiles, and the squadron was back to normal, Thomas explained. The process of isolating the problem and getting the other control centers linked back to the missiles took more than an hour, he said. Because of redundancies in the nuclear force, several military officials have said, the president always had the ability to order the missiles to launch.

As for the cause, Thomas said it appears the computer hardware problem is very similar to problems in the late 1990s at the two other Air Force bases that control America's intercontinental ballistic missile forces: Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota and Malstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The circumstances of those incidents were much like what happened at the Warren base, he said.

The Air Force and Strategic Command, which would take charge of the missiles if the president were ready to launch them, is investigating the incident. Thomas said that right now, investigators are "not ruling anything out." But he said there is "no indication of intentional of malicious activity."…..

👽👍🏼🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Since this morning…… I’ve found at least 5 news outlets carrying the story

Here are different vids links …..


news.google.com...




news.google.com...


👽🤓

Greer promoted these same stories in his Unacknowledged mockumentary going back quite a few years. Which I covered in this post 4 years ago and Arbie has posted about above.

Maybe these stories were originally used to cover up some serious technical and/or human deficiencies during the Cold War. But eventually these old timers just enjoyed the limelight a bit too much when a new generation of gullible believers arrive. So here we are more than 50 years later with the rise of the "Cult of Zondo" and the same old yarns are being trotted out once again.

If there was a real threat in the 1960s from aliens then why did all of the nuclear powers back then ignore it?

The US, USSR, Russia, UK and France continue to test and develop weapons. With India, Israel North Korea South Africa and Pakistan even developing their own nuclear weapons after these incidents took place.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Type1338
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Next time post a tl;dr: "propaganda of a plant to discredit witness"

Your tripe, Little Mickey, is old, dull, and boring.

It's actually content-free posts like yours that are boring.

My content is calling out your non-stop BS shill posts of misdirection on post event plants designed to discredit eyewitness testimony. You are dull and outdated and your counter arguments are always a straw man.

a reply to: Type1338


This is nothing more than a fact free rant and emotional outburst.

If you want to be taken seriously then please tell us all, within the context of this thread, how is Arbitrageur actually discrediting witnesses such as Eric Carlson and Walter Figel?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you think Eric Carlson is telling the truth? You haven't explained why is his testimony any more veridical than Jacobs?

Its mostly a rhetorical question, I know your real answer... its that anyone who's seen a UFO is a liar, and people who say there was no UFO are incapable of lying and are the bacon of honesty.

I guess ALL the hundreds of testimony's in Robert Hastings research.... every single one of them is a liar and or misidentification...all of them! And that must be true because UFOs aren't real.

Edit: Additional research shows that it is impossible that Carlson is spreading misinformation at the behest of the government, so that's more proof that what he says is the flat truth and what the other witnesses say is a flat lie.

originally posted by: aairman23
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you think Eric Carlson is telling the truth? You haven't explained why is his testimony any more veridical than Jacobs?

You apparently haven't comprehend what is posted in this thread, so I assume your research on this topic is very poor.

It's Carlson versus Salas, not Jacobs. There is documentation to back up the event at echo flight Carlson was involved with.

Not only is there no documentation to back up claims of a similar event at oscar flight as claimed by Salas, but Salas has come out with multiple versions of his story, it's not even consistent, which by itself is not a good indicator of veracity. Couple that with the lack of documentation, and Carlson's statement and the claim by Salas falls apart completely.

Its mostly a rhetorical question, I know your real answer... its that anyone who's seen a UFO is a liar, and people who say there was no UFO are incapable of lying and are the bacon of honesty.

As I said your research skills are so incredibly dismal you apparently have not read or comprehended this thread you chose to post in. The story about Jacobs I posted undoubtedly indicates that the film Jacobs made did show something that Jacobs could not identify, so to him it was a UFO. I already explained this was because he didnt have the clearance to be told what it was. What he filmed was something very sensitive, as explained in the article by Kingston George.

So it's obviously not true that I'm saying Jacobs never saw any UFO in his film, I'm sure he did, and if you read the thread and had any comprehension skills you would know that. The problem with Jacobs was that he failed to acknowledge that Kingston George who was given security clearance to know what was in the film (the filming was his project after all, though I think it was Jacobs who actually operated the photographic equipment), and George identified what was seen in the film so it's no longer unidentified.

Of course Jacob's embellishment of what he saw is not unusual for any UFO eyewitness whether intentional or even unintentional. The mind interprets the data it receives from the eyes, with opportunities for some distortion in that process. One such example is earlier stories by Jacobs that he could see the UFO firing a laser at the missile, but lasers firing in a clear sky at altitude wouldn't show anything like they do in science fiction shows like Star Trek, the beams are invisible if the sky is clear. The sky had to be clear, if not he wouldn't have been able to film it so high. Eventually I think Jacobs tried to change that part of his story but it's just an example of the type of interpretation eyewitnesses can provide that shouldn't be taken at face value. Once we account for such distortions, we can see what Kingston George explains is what Jacobs saw on the film.

I guess ALL the hundreds of testimony's in Robert Hastings research.... every single one of them is a liar and or misidentification...all of them! And that must be true because UFOs aren't real.

Again we have an interpretation issue here in some cases, like the infamous Rendlesham Forest case. Lt Col Halt was using a star scope and those light amplifiers can produce artifacts, so it's entirely possible he saw what looked to him like "beams" someing from the "star-like" objects he was looking at (which otherwise behaved pretty much like stars).

But his boss the base commander, Ted Conrad, was monitoring Halt's communications about the lights, and Conrad and several other observers trying to see what Halt's fuss was about didn't see any of that despite clear skies, but they were not looking through devices that can produce artifacts like Halt was.

So Halt's story is somewhat convoluted, that he didn't press the issue of beams being fired at the nuclear weapon storage area at the time, which Conrad and other observers could not confirm. So the fact that no action was taken to protect the nuclear weapons from the "attack" by the "beams" just doesn't stand up to any logic except to perhaps some UFO believer who doesn't have any logic and will buy whatever crap Hastings is selling.

I think the simple explanation is that if Halt saw any beams they were simply artifacts made by his star scope he was looking through. So that doesn't exactly make him a liar for saying he saw beams, but it also doesn't make his boss the base commander Ted Conrad a liar for saying he was watching the sky and he could not see what Halt was reporting in spite of great visibility and watching the same sky.

Then Halt's affadavit contains numerous discrepancies with his earlier account including his own audio recording of events. So that is not me calling Halt a liar, that is Halt contradicting himself, and his own earlier statements and audio tape! And that affadavit with the contradictions is one of the most featured on Hastings' website. (Hastings makes claims of many witnesses but the number of affadavits on his website is rather limited). So getting to the truth can be complicated and it's not just as simple as accepting everyting Hastings, or Halt tell us at face value. Even if you wanted to believe Halt, which one would you believe, the one in 1980? Or the one in 2010 who changed his story? The 2010 version is more exciting to UFO buffs, but most investigators will tell you the closer in time to the event you ask about, the better than chances for accuracy, though Halt wasn't that great on accuracy even at the time...the memo he sent to the MOD had the wrong dates on it!

So the problems with Halts story you could call different things, but whatever you decide to call the problems, they are problems, and Halt is one of Hasting's star witnesses.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Nothing in that article proves anything. It's all conjecture with what Jacob is or is not lying about (he said/she said).

What tech explains what Jacobs saw? The article doesn't explain what craft at that time could do exactly what Jacobs and his boss saw.

originally posted by: aairman23
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nothing in that article proves anything. It's all conjecture with what Jacob is or is not lying about (he said/she said).

Again, it's not exactly lying if Jacobs sees something that he says looked to him like a "a beam of energy", that's simply Jacobs lack of technical expertise to not be able to realize that seeing such a thing in clear skies is not possible. So we can say he's mistaken. What did he actually see? According to Kingston George the resolution of the video is lower than Jacobs would like to infer it is, so if he led you to believe he was looking at a clear video, he wasn't. My guess is that he might have seen the packing material and or a little cloud of debris that was associated with the warheads as they deployed, and at such low resolution imagined they might be some kind of "energy beam".

I think this binary "lying or not lying" categorization you attempt to use is disingenuous and shows you are not interested in learning the truth. Quite often UFO witnesses are telling the truth as they think they saw it or as they think they remember it, but to assume that's actually what happened is not supported by evidence of the unreliability of eyewitnesses. (just look at reports of the satellite re-entry over Hawaii a year ago, where eyewitnesses said it was changing course. It was not changing course, but that doesn't mean the witnesses were necessarily lying, it means eyewitness perception is notoriously unreliable).

If you think energy beams can be seen in clear skies then perhaps you are as technically incompetent as Jacobs, but that doesn't mean either of you are lying, it's just a sign of incompetence on the subject matter, not a form of dishonesty.

I thought Kingston George's explanation was good, but if you are unable to comprehend it, the problem may be with your cognitive abilities in both understanding his explanation and in understanding why Jacobs' story must be interpreted, and not taken exactly at face value for reasons like the one I just explained in detail about why energy beams simply can't be seen in clear skies at that altitude, so it wasn't an energy beam.

Preface….you would think that, at least in the 80’s … anyone who had a story to tell about a UFO and Missile event to an organization, let’s say, such as MUFON, would want to be as accurate and precise about the details as best as possible and not to mince words when it came to the technical aspects witnessed.

And now…..

Below is the telling of the UFO Atlas Missile event as told by MUFON Director/Writer T. Scott Crain for the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, Number 225, January 1987.

Is it possible, that over time, …. Four Flashes of light, entered into the telephone game, and changed to what is now being referred to as an Energy Beam?

The story presented by MUFON, specifically states Flashes of Light, also Strobe like flashes …..not an Energy Beam. Jacobs was even told by his Commanding Officer Maj. Florenz J. Mansmann…if he ever was asked by anyone, say it was caused by Laser tracking….

I believe he saw what he saw as he remembered it, and as he describes in detail (at least as far as 1987)..four Flashes of Light and even goes on to breakdown at what point were the flashes seen to flash….(which were not altogether in a sequence, one right after the other).

I would find it hard to believe that Jacobs would not be truthful to MUFON….to be specific when mentioning he saw Flashes of Light, as oppose to try and say it was an “Energy Beam”.

Below I have highlighted points of interest…..quite interesting….read the whole thing.



👽🤓

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Is it possible, that over time, …. Four Flashes of light, entered into the telephone game, and changed to what is now being referred to as an Energy Beam?

The story presented by MUFON, specifically states Flashes of Light, also Strobe like flashes …..not an Energy Beam. Jacobs was even told by his Commanding Officer Maj. Florenz J. Mansmann…if he ever was asked by anyone, say it was caused by Laser tracking….

I believe he saw what he saw as he remembered it, and as he describes in detail (at least as far as 1987)..four Flashes of Light and even goes on to breakdown at what point were the flashes seen to flash….(which were not altogether in a sequence, one right after the other).

Great research Ophi! This is the kind of research that really carries the discussion forward, looking at how consistent the witness observations are over time. But if you read the Kingston George article, the four flashes of light are mentioned separately from the energy beam, so the question you posed still remains: Why didn't Jacobs mention this energy beam in the earlier 1987 version of his story told to Scott Crain? Was the energy beam later embellishment to his story that Jacobs added two years later in 1989?

Following are two of Jacobs' conclusions in the 1989 version of his story in the MUFON UFO Journal, inside the quotation marks, with Kingston George's comments added after the quotes, regarding the energy beam and the four flashes:

The Big Sur ‘UFO’: An Identified Flying Object

He provides details of his weird claims in an article for the MUFON UFO Journal (Jacobs 1989). What we saw WAS indeed unique and startling, but it definitely does NOT require invoking UFOs with purposeful goals and advanced weapons.

The Threat to National Security

The immediate success of the 1964 project led to a serious problem; we not only could see and gather data on the missile anomalies as hoped, but we also were viewing details of warhead separation and decoy deployment that were considered by the Air Force to be highly classified.

Of course this national security issue is the reason Jacobs was told not to talk about it, not because it had anything to do with aliens or UFOs. More on this later...

Jacobs Conclusion 2: "It emitted a beam of energy, possibly a plasma beam at our dummy warhead and caused a malfunction." As noted above, the fact is that energy beams cannot be seen unless they hit something or pass through an atmosphere. We might see a target begin to glow with heat if we were close enough.
...
Jacobs Conclusion 4: "The flashing strikes of light we recorded on film were not from laser tracking devices. Such devices did not exist then aside from small-scale laboratory models." In 1962 I evaluated the feasibility of using a carbon-dioxide laser to illuminate launch vehicles hundreds of miles away! In the late sixties the Range Measurement Laboratory at the Eastern Test Range operated two high-powered lasers in the visible spectrum for imaging space objects at night on a regular basis. But Bob is correct in saying that the observations in 1964 did not involve lasers -- and, I would add, neither intra- nor extra- terrestrial.

There are other interesting details in the story, like the fact that Bob Jacobs told Scott Crain the object looked like a "small point of light". What's interesting about this, is that it was his commanding officer directing Jacobs to give false information about "laser tracking", and it was his commanding officer who claims he saw more detail in the object shape, than the "small point of light".

Remember the story of Paul Bennewicz? He was intercepting electronic communications that were of a sensitive nature, and the story is that Rick Doty "leaked" information to Bennewicz that the communications were from aliens but don't tell. This was to hide the real nature of the secret by planting the false story that aliens were involved somehow. I suppose this is because if foreign spies learned Bennewicz had recorded secret military communications, they might try to steal the data from him, but if his story involved aliens, the foreign spies wouldn't take him seriously and wouldn't be interested in his communications with aliens from outer space, since the spies were interested in more terrestrial information.

So now I read in that Scott Crain article that Jacobs saw a "small point of light". It was his CO, trying to provide cover stories like the fictitious "laser tracking", who told Jacobs he could see with a magnifier the object was "saucer-shaped with a dome on top". Was this an attempt by Jacobs CO to increase security by further obfuscating the event by mentioning the saucer-shape? Sort of like they planted the idea of aliens with Bennewicz? I can't be sure but I wouldn't rule it out. Again Jacob's "point of light" description sounds more plausible and I have no reason to doubt that, given the low resolution of the imaging described here:

Jacobs reports in the MUFON article that he witnessed a saucerlike UFO circle the Atlas warhead, then direct a laser beam at it that bumped it out of the way and caused it to tumble out of orbit [sic] and miss the intended target by hundreds of miles. There are several fundamental flaws in that statement. To begin with, the Atlas was sub-orbital, as all ICBMs are, and it did not miss the target.

Note, it wasn't supposed to go into orbit and it didn't miss the target. It wasn't even a real nuclear warhead, and it's not a UFO anymore, so it hadnothing to do with "UFOs and Nukes", contrary to claims by Hastings.

The image of the warhead, even if viewed exactly side-on, would be less than six-thousandths of an inch long on the image orthicon face, or between two and three scan lines. We could not resolve an image of the warhead under these conditions; what is detected is the specular reflection of sunlight: as though caught by a mirror. Practically all the data collected by the B.U. Scope on hard objects was through specular reflection. The same principle is involved in the little hand mirrors provided to military pilots so that an air search can find them by the glint of reflected sunlight if necessary.

Since the dummy warhead image was only 2-3 scan lines, you simply won't get much detail out of that. In animations of Jacob's story the UFO was even smaller than the warhead, more consistent with Jacob's "point of light" description, which would then be at most only one single scan line on the imager. You can't get details like "saucer-shaped with a dome on top" from a single scan line obviously, so this is why I suspect this description of the shape might be more disinformation from Jacobs' CO like the fake story about laser tracking from his CO.

Regarding the "flashes of light", The Kingston George article specifies exactly what caused those flashes, it was the explosions of small charges that released the decoys:

We could also see the engine exhaust as a large gaseous plume that dissipated rapidly outside the earth's atmosphere. The small charges that released the decoys were seen as short flashes about as bright as a dim star.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What's known ---- MUFON Director/Writer T. Scott Crain for the MUFON UFO JOURNAL, Number 225, January 1987.

"UFO Intercepts Rocket"
..........................................................

I found the OMNI Magazine article mentioned by the Scott Crain in the MUFON article.

Eric Mishara for OMNI Magazine, Antimatter Section, Volume 7, Number 4, January 1985.

"UFO Cover-up?"



In combination with both articles....

Between OMNI January 1985 and MUFON January 1987..... The technical characteristics of the story remains consistent, ...."flashes of strobe like lights"... No mention, or injection of the words "Energy Beam".

Arbi states ...."Was the energy beam later embellishment to his story that Jacobs added two years later in 1989?"....

In terms of the "Energy Beam" characteristic....IMO, I believe that it is embellishment/exaggeration as well, over time....

If you think about it ..... over time the story becomes a "15 minutes of fame" hot topic....So if your looking to capitalize, what would sound better for your story? Saying that the lights were due to Laser Tracking? (as his CO mentioned for him to say)...ahhh not exciting enough and a bit boring...a laser beam?...nahhh, perhaps an Energy Beam...now your talking!

In retrospect, Maj. Mansmann, Jacobs CO, more than likely, watched the film several times with the 2 CIA agents before calling upon Jacobs to meet with them, for a "are you seeing, what I'm seeing" type of talk... but without giving his opinion first, and within the presence of all four men he shows the film to Jacobs to get his opinion....Jacobs mentions the object as a "very small point of light", and goes on to mention flashing lights, even strobe like, in characteristics.... Energy Beam not mentioned even in the 1985 OMNI article. ....."Mansmann asked Jacobs if he had any idea what those brilliant "strobe like" flashes were...to which neither man could make a decision, except that it was a UFO". Also, whereas Mansmann had the opportunity to see the film multiple times ......"Jacobs saw the film once and said after that one quick viewing the object"....

I suspect that "UFO" is in the literal context of Unidentified Flying Object, and would be the label given to "very small point of light" that seen aloft in the air... as far as Jacobs is concerned.

For CIA purposes, Jacobs was told by his CO in the presence of the CIA, "tell no one about this" "it never happened" and "if you are questioned about it you're to say that it was caused by laser tracking" ..."Mansmann ordered him to forget about the incident, because of the "provisions of the security act".... For secrecy, the CIA were fat dumb and happy....and of course the film had to go with them.

Remember, all Jacobs saw "once" and "quick" was just a "very small point of light". Post military, I suspect Jacobs latched onto Mansmann's in depth study of the film, to run with turning the very small point of light into a "saucer-shaped with a dome on top" like Mansmann described. I’m not seeing where Mansmann ever mentions seeing any type of beam at all.

So far, in my point of view... there was NO Energy Beam at least in wording between Mansmann and Jacobs ....and I suspect it was Mansmann who influenced Jacobs about a Flying Saucer craft.

Jacobs was and is an attention seeker. (You can’t build a fan base on just flashing strobe like lights).

It is Mansmann's description ..."the shape as saucer-shaped with a dome on top"....that begs for scrutiny of what he described from his in "depth" study of the film before the CIA took possession of the…never to be seen again film.

Alas….I suspect Mansmann is taking a dirt nap…. and unless he did a deathbed confession, we will never really know if he actually saw those details in the film. It’s his word against the worlds……no need beating a dead horse.

Btw…. Eric Mishara writer for OMNI mentions contacting the Air Force to see the film…..of course that didn’t happen. I checked OMNI Magazines from the date Eric Mishara wrote the article until MUFON published its article. Eric Mishara never gave an update to any issue since his initial article.

Imagine that! The Air Force ignoring civilians on the subject of UFO’s…..how dare they! 😆

Hope this makes some sort of sense.

👽🧐🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Yep….he’s been taking a dirt nap since Independence Day, Jul 4 2000…..he was 80 years ripe… His wife and only son, have also expired. He was a Vietnam wartime Hero. A Salute to him. R.I.P.