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

reply to post by James Carlson

Who do you think you are to question my motives?

news flash...i am allowed to question anyone's motives.

i have every right to question everything about this event including you

You seem to be interested in why I haven't called up Walt Figel to discuss the matter,

yea i am interested because you haven't and from what has been presented there seems to be two different stories here.

also from what i understand you weren't there that day and Figel was.

so what am i to think about that ? should i believe someone like you that wasn't even there ?

maybe you should spend a little time reading up on the incident

read what ?? just because something is available to read doesn't mean it is the truth. so do tell me where i can get this information that are the facts about the events of that day that can be validated as the truth other than what you and your father or Figel are saying did or did not happen.

I don't know this person Figel and have never spoken him and probably never will but IF his side of the story has any shred of truth to it then yea i will question your motives.

you have taken my thoughts about what was presented in this thread out of context and my speculative comments were only based on what i was presented with.

and just so you know , your attack on me has given me reason to suspect you even more.

have a nice day



[edit on 10-1-2009 by easynow]

And this is how disinformation is spread throughout the internet. There are not two different stories here -- only one. The only people who were at Echo-Flight on March 16, 1967 and therefore the only people who can assert any possible authority for the event, were Walt Figel and my father, who was in charge. And both deny the presence of UFOs at Echo-Flight. And if my defense of my father's reputation and honesty is all it takes to increase your suspicion of a conspiracy in the absence of any other evidence whatsoever, you should be aware that a stand of such characater is indicative not of an altruistic, well-intentioned search for truth, but of an unreasonable paranoia. You've made suppositions purely on the basis of a slanted description of events introduced by men who keep changing their version of the subject, have no witnesses to affirm it, and have applied little effort to investigate or otherwise explain it. It makes as much sense as someone insisting they have been to the Land of Oz simply because they dreamed about it one night as a child. As for questioning my motivation, you certainly have the right to do so, but the absence of any accurate information whatsoever will nonetheless make such questioning futile and irrelevant. While I congratulate you on your opinion that any given version of events could very well be false, it nonetheless bothers me that the version of events you seem most ready to accept (ie., "i mean why would he go out of his way to say what he did when the other people confirmed that there was a UFO event there that day ? i really thought this case was pretty solid evidence of UFO's and it seems maybe that would be a good reason to try and discredit the people involved ?") is the only one that can't be confirmed by anybody; you accept on the basis of nothing that "other people confirmed that there was a UFO event there that day". The only report, however, of UFOs at Echo-Flight on March 16 is the one Robert Salas made thirty years later. And when he made that assertion, he claimed the authority to do so was bestowed as a result of his being deputy commander at Echo-Flight that night. When it was pointed that his command never had responsibility for Echo-Flight, he changed his story to insist that he was actually at November-Flight. He claims that at the time he was at November-Flight he was able to confirm the March 16 date, because an unnamed individual at the command post told him on the phone that the missiles went down at another Flight as well, and he assumed the unnamed individual on the phone whom nobody else encountered or spoke with was talking about Echo-Flight. When it was pointed out that the loss at Echo-Flight was widely reported in the press, fully investigated by military and civil resources, absent entirely of any testimony by an eyewitness to the presence of UFOs, and absent as well of any March 16 sightings by anybody, military or civilian, he was forced to retract the date, and now claims that the event he reported occurred about a week later. When it was pointed out that he had also never worked at November-Flight, he changed his story again to affirm that he was at Oscar-Flight. All of this information is easily available to anybody who knows how to do a Google search. You, however, reached the unsupported conclusion that "this case was pretty solid evidence of UFO's" and suggested I was out to "discredit the people involved" for that reason alone. When you questioned my motives, you did so on the very edge of slander, reaching your conclusion with insufficient knowledge of the events you based it on. And when you wondered "what his true motives are," you made a congnitive leap that the motives I have already given were false, assuming thereby that I was lying. Don't talk to me about attacks; I've been attacked by people like you, ignorant and absent of any desire to correct that ignorance -- for years, just because I trust my father.

reply to post by James Carlson

While I congratulate you on your opinion that any given version of events could very well be false, it nonetheless bothers me that the version of events you seem most ready to accept (ie., "i mean why would he go out of his way to say what he did when the other people confirmed that there was a UFO event there that day ?

Umm...if you are congratulating me on my opinion that any given version of this story could be false then why are you assuming that i have sided with one or the other just because i postulated a speculative hypothesis ?

here's another News Flash for you...

just because i said i thought this case was pretty solid evidence of UFO's does not mean i believed in it one hundred percent.

even though my unannounced but NEUTRAL curiosity of this event caused me to speculate on one side of this discussion does not give you the right to keep using my speculative remarks taken out of their proper context to further your agenda.

And when you wondered "what his true motives are," you made a congnitive leap that the motives I have already given were false, assuming thereby that I was lying.

another news flash for you sir,

it was a speculative leap

and did it ever even cross your mind that the statement i made about what your true motives are was actually in my mind a reason to question the opposing side of your story ?

no i am sure you didn't even think about that because you are too busy launching an attack on me.

My advice to you sir, is to attack the people that have instigated or promoted the opposing side of your story and not me.

Go on Larry King and set the record straight if you are so interested in stamping out ignorance.

Go to Steven Greer and make him openly state that Mr. Salas has lied when he testified at the Disclosure Project event.

Start a thread here on ATS about people that are making things up concerning this case with your evidence properly displayed.

here.... this is what you really should be concentrating on and not me...










that is where your battle is....not with me, your barking up the wrong tree.

Goodbye and good luck




[edit on 11-1-2009 by easynow]

James, Et Al,

At present I don't have time to address your comments in a proper and comprehensive fashion; however, I will do so in the near future; in the mean time, and in short:

For those who've followed the tête-à-tête between James Carlson and Robert Hastings, the latter's latest rebuttal is here:

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

James, between your vitriolic, ad hominem attacks and innuendo against "everyone who disagrees with you," I acquiesce to the notion, that in general, for layperson you have brought salient points to the table; however, you've shored them up with erroneous statements. Moreover, contrary to what you say, Robert has addressed them all, continues do so, and has done so in an expeditious fashion since the beginning of your colloquy.

A good portion of your argument is based on what you say "your father told you," which is in direct contrast to what what Robert Hastings, Bob Salas, Walt Figel and Robert Jamison says, ([just for starters] all of whom were there, even Hastings for that matter--at Malmstrom AFB observing UFOs on RADAR).

The irony is your father is on record stating that "he received reports re UFOs," and in another instance he said, "he couldn’t recall whether there had been any mention of UFOs."

Finally, you insinuate that any connection your father may or may not have had with a UFO incident would sully his career in some way--this is patently ludicrous. Moreover, although you herald your father's career and service, and rightfully so, let us not forget the men that you so easily call liars "served with him," and honorably I might add.

These veterans and their respective service to their country is no less significant to your father's contribution.

Both sides of the argument can be found at the a fore mentioned link, and links to previous comments are contained within; I invite the reader to evaluate the content and come to their own conclusions.

More Later,
Frank


[edit on 11-1-2009 by Frank Warren]

Frank,

You're so pretty when you get self-righteous. Most of my case is NOT based on what my father told me, as you say here. Most of my case is based on the arguments made by Hastings, Salas, and you that supposedly support the supposition that a UFO took down the missiles at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. It's a little difficult to notice this, sometimes, because a lot of my arguments were removed from the forum where I first posted them -- removed without cause, simply because someone thought a summary conclusion that my arguments were invalid would be much easier to proclaim if my arguments could not be examined.

For instance, you created something of a stir by noting that my insistence that no eye-witnesses had ever reported UFOs at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 was incorrect, and named a number of gentlemen who had been eye-witnesses of said UFOs. When I countered that none of the witnesses you named had ever reported seeing a UFO before March 24-25, and asserted that for this reason their testimony was irrelevant and should not, therefore, be used to prove an event that took place a week prior to the "evidence" you and Hastings were more inclined to discuss, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

You insisted that my argument that the classification of material records at Malmstrom AFB shows that nobody in the Malmstrom AFB chain of command had ever reached the conclusion that UFOs had anything at all to do with the failure of the Echo Flight missiles on March 16, 1967 was faulty because the classification of the document I used to validate this claim was not UNCLASSIFIED, as I had argued, but SECRET. When I in turn pointed out that your understanding of the Department of Defense classification process was minimal, and showed definitively that the information under discussion had never been classified SECRET, and had -- since the very first draft of the document -- been UNCLASSIFIED, and could be easily verified as UNCLASSIFIED by anybody who knew anything at all about the military classification process, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

You pointed out that witnesses Robert Hastings had interviewed had indeed discussed the presence of UFOs on March 16, and that this testimony could not be impeached simply because they disagreed with each other on key events. When I countered that the only two witnesses that Robert Hastings had named who had anything at all to say on the matter of the Echo Flight missile failures had not reported seeing a UFO for themselves, and, in fact, had nothing substantive to say at all regarding UFOs, and also discussed why variances in the stories told by separate witnesses to the same even could indeed be used to impeach their testimony, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When you requested that I supply witnesses to these events who could testify to the absence of UFOs on March 16, 1967, I countered by asking you what you knew about the concept of "burden of proof", and replied that I wasn't the nut asserting UFOs had brought down one of the highest security missile systems in the world, and did not, therefore need to produce any witnesses as all, excepting the commonly accepted reports offered by the U.S. Air Force from the time of the event to now. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I insisted that Hastings and your own discussion of these events were for the most part irrelevant, because they did not discuss the event so much as they did my relationship with my father, my "vitriolic, ad hominem attacks and innuendo", and my willingness to call Robert Salas a liar, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

(continued)

When you pointed out that Hastings' interviews with Walt Figel proved he had received a genuine UFO report, I countered that it did no such thing, referring to quotes from the interviews and showing thereby that Figel had not considered it to be a valid report, that the security personnel had not considered it to be a valid report, and that the actions taken by everyone involved show that NOBODY had ever considered it to be a valid report. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When you pointed out the interviews Robert Hastings had completed in the past showed that Robert Salas was not the first witness to come foward and report that a UFO had taken down the missiles at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and that my assertion, therefore, that Salas' later claim that he knew nothing of the events at Echo Flight on March 16, and had simply made another one of his very many mistakes was a significant retraction, acually carried no weight at all, I countered that any examination of Hastings earlier interviews showed clearly that he had said nothing at all regarding Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 before Robert Salas had done so. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When you stated that there were radar reports and newspaper reports of UFO incidents/sightings in the month of March 1967, "in over and around Malmstrom AFB", I countered that none of these were relevant, since none of them had any reference at all to March 16 -- all took place weeks later; I also pointed out that the radar reports for March 16 were all negative, and that this information was never classified, and could have been checked by anybody at any time. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I suggested that Hastings' and your own insistence that the Echo Flight shutdown of missiles on March 16, 1967 was caused by UFOs is necessary for the history you're trying to recreate, since the Echo Flight missiles failure is the only officially documented shutdown of missiles in March, 1967, and that without it, those who claim missile stations were shutdown by UFOs have no official documentation at all and little credibility with which to support the belief that numerous shutdowns actually occurred --only a small handfull of witnesses who have claimed that missile station shutdowns happened, but give us no reasons to trust the ridiculous stories they tell -- my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I stated that Salas' belief (for which he offers no corresponding evidence whatsoever) that the missiles failure at Oscar-Flight "wasn't mentioned later ... because by then the Air Force wanted to keep a secrecy lid on it and avoid the possibility of a leak by the indication of a growing and continuing problem” is a little ridiculous in light of the fact that anything having to do with UFOs in conjunction with Echo Flight was considered UNCLASSIFIED information by Malmstrom AFB command even as late as July, 1967, and had NEVER been reclassified higher, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I showed that Bob Jamison, a witness produced by Hastings and used by Salas to support his version of these events, had nothing whatsoever to say about the events at Echo Flight on March 16 and that his entire testimony is, therefore, irrelevant to the issue, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I pointed out that Hastings refuses to address the only issue at hand: did a UFO cause the missile shutdown at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967? and showed exactly how he has claimed to make such a point without actually making any points, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

(continued)

When I showed definitively that Hastings' entire argument for the most part had nothing at all to say regarding the Echo Flight shutdowns of March 16, 1967, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I noted that Hastings statement that "According to a declassified USAF document, Echo went down at 8:30 a.m. on March 16th; according to Bob Jamison, Oscar went down sometime after 10 p.m. on the 24th, and perhaps even later, sometime in the early hours of the 25th" fails utterly to examine the question of why a declassified USAF document details the Echo Flight failures on March 16th, while no such corresponding document exists regarding the missile failures at other sites in March, 1967, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

Upon your contention that "one of the strengths of the case is/are the declarations of several of the witnesses 'who were there'", I pointed out that NOBODY is on record regarding Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and challenged you to produce them if you were so sure of this, adding that you have been unable to do so in the past, and you are unable to do so now. I added, once again, that all you've got is people saying "I heard this" or "someone told me that", and in response to your assertion that this "doesn't negate their respective involvement with the incident and reactions to it," pointed out that it certainly does, because it substantiates the existence of nothing more than "rumors" -- "rumors" which are "on the record" and were reported and investigated and discussed by the command at the time. The only thing you're doing is repeating these rumors, and reaching the conclusion that they were actually true events, and were responsible for the missiles going offline, and you're doing so without the benefit of the investigation that the Air Force conducted. I stated then that you're basically claiming that the Air Force lied without giving any reason why we should believe that the Air Force lied, pointing out as well that the Air Force has been a lot more consistent on this matter than you have, and certainly more so than Robert Salas. All you've done is to produce more rumors. I asserted that while you keep saying you have numerous witnesses, you've produced NOTHING, and that this is the most ridiculous case of NOTHING that I think I've ever seen. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

You stated that "each respective witness' statement has their own merit," to which I countered that unless you can examine a witness, and his or her evidence, that witness' statement has NO merit, and that you are therefore reporting only rumors. I pointed out that you and Hastings have yet to produce a single witness who claims to have seen a UFO on March 16, 1967 over the Echo Flight silos or, indeed, anywhere near Malmstrom AFB. My argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

You stated that I've made this argument all about "Salas," (although here you say that a "good portion of your argument is based on what you say 'your father told you,') and that I discount "all of the other witnesses," and that "When you do address the others (albeit reluctantly) you prefer to believe that there is some grand conspiracy with these individuals; perhaps the millions they'll make in book royalties. ab absurdum." Yet when I countered that neither you nor Hastings have produced any witnesses whatsoever that are relevant in any way to the events of March 16, 1967, and that you have produced no real evidence at all -- only second hand rumors that were discounted "on the record" 40 years ago, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

(continued)

You asserted that "it's important to point out that for those of us that do research, this case is is "ongoing"; witnesses are still being sought; documents are being culled; in fact, because of your intervention "new material" has been discovered (thank you); although, I feel your arguments are weak, and readily disputable, 'my position is soluble' and I go where the evidence takes me." When I responded that the main reason that you and others still consider this case "open", is entirely due to the fact that you have no convincing evidence whatsoever, that you have no eye-witnesses, that you have no empirical evidence, that you have no documentation, that you have NOTHING upon which any conclusion at all can be based, let alone the conclusion that a UFO brought down the Echo Flight missiles on March 16, 1967, and that I'm pretty sure that you would love more than anything to "close" this case, but you can't because it's based entirely on rumors that have already been investigated, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

When I pointed out that if you can't put a UFO at Echo Flight, you can't assume that a UFO shut Echo Flight down, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours.

That's all pretty damning, Frank, in light of your assertion that "my position is soluble" and "I go where the evidence takes me." If you and Hastings and Robert Salas had any intellectual honesty at all, you would at least be willing to examine your own evidence. You would at least be willing to look at the dates of the newspaper articles that you claim support your argument. Your disgusting reliance on semantics to support your position, such as using my father's statements as evidence of UFOs at Malmstrom AFB when my father has made it very clear to everybody that he does not believe in UFOs, has never seen a UFO, and has never received a valid UFO report from anybody that he took seriously is a fool's definition of evidence, and carries no weight at all in the real world where the rest of us live. The fact that you or the people you support are so quickly willing to remove entirely any opposing viewpoints is fascist in character and un-American in quality.

You have argued that the individual who first brought forth the claim that UFOs brought down the missile silos at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 still adheres to that claim, and that I should not condemn him for this, nor discount his story. Unfortunately, when I countered and proved that the individual who originally brought the case forth does NOT still adhere to it, as you claim, and that the individual who brought the case forth now claims that he has NO knowledge of the events on March 16, 1967, and that I condemn him solely because he has REPEATEDLY changed his story so much that his credibility has effectively absented itself from any possible discussion, and that every witness that you, Hastings, or Robert Salas have EVER mentioned in support of this abortion of a case have been unable to offer any first hand accounts of the supposed March 16, 1967 UFO event, and that because of this, there is really NOTHING I need to discount, my argument was removed from that forum within 24 hours. I guess that says a lot for your intellectual honesty, doesn't it?

(continued)

The only issues regarding March 16, 1967 that you or Hastings seem willing to discuss is my relationship with my father, my father's memory of events, Walt Figel's already quoted at length denial that he did not consider the phone call he received to be a valid UFO report, and the ever-present eye-witness reports from personnel you and Hastings cannot name, have not interviewed, have never come forward, and were never documented by ANYBODY throughout a chain of command that considered such reports throughout March, April, May, June and July of 1967 to be UNCLASSIFIED information, and therefore had no motive to hide or cover-up. Hastings tells us that his own interviews with Figel indicate that when Figel received the now famous phone call/UFO report on March 16, that Figel "wasn’t taking him seriously.” He tells us that Figel thought that security was "yanking my chain". He tells us that Figel did NOT log down the event, but that he told the security detail to do so if they were so sure of the incident, since two men "saw" the UFO, a comment that the security detail apparently did not consider a lawful order, since they did NOT log the sighting down, as their duty to the nation and the USAF demanded they do if such an event had occurred. He tells us that according to Figel, there was no further mention of UFOs at Echo Flight. Do I have to go on? Neither of you can produce any evidence related to March 16, 1967, and both of you have refused to address these valid questions, preferring instead to simple-mindedly maintain -- without the honesty of allowing me to respond in any way whatsoever -- that I was not "there that day, talking to the Strike Team leader," as if you or Hastings could ever claim differently. Yes, Walt Figel spoke to the Strike Team Leader, but Walt Figel also states that he didn't take the mention of UFOs seriously -- NOBODY did. How is that a valid report of an actual UFO? NOBODY believed in it, NOBODY documented it, and NOBODY addressed any issue of UFOs at all in conjunction with the Echo Flight failure of March 16, 1967, except to mention that there were "rumors" that had been investigated and found to be groundless -- an investigation that was UNCLASSIFIED from its inception -- until Salas, and later, Hastings (with your apparent support and applause evidenced by more response to valid arguments than Hastings has been willing to come up with), came around to regurgitate and turn into an invalidated and unsupported UFO incident 40 years or so later! And since Salas has now retracted these ridiculous claims that he first addressed, there is only you and Hastings left to argue that a UFO was responsible for shutting down the Echo Flight missile system on March 16, 1967 -- a claim that you cannot verify, that there is no documentation of, that interviews with the men involved prove were not thought to be valid, and that NOBODY -- a decidedly inconvenient character of this entire false premise -- can be examined or questioned about, because NOBODY is willing to go on the record about this mess of a UFO intervention excepting the United States Air Force, who went on the record 40 years ago when it said there were "rumors" of UFOs which were investigated and found to be groundless. Once again, Hastings and you have produced NOTHING except foolishness and a complete, 100% corroboration of the original, UNCLASSIFIED USAF point of view. For men who can talk so much with so much self-righteousness, you have managed to say precious little of any applicable import anywhere on this forum or any other forum, preferring instead to simply deny the expression of opposing views. After all, there's no point in arguing against an opposing issue or point of view, when you can simply erase it, and pretend it was never raised. You know, Frank, it's like I'm trying to talk to children here.

James Carlson

Hmmm.. I was born March 17th, at 5:30 in the morning, 1967.. about 120 miles from where this occurred. I always had a feeling I was an alien!

I think I saw a special on this case, I'm going to read into it further. I've always thought that our testing of nuclear weapons was the catalyst that started the 'observation' of our planet. Consider that the Roswell case was VERY near the location of the first nuclear test site (Trinity), and 2 years after the test.

That was followed by sightings over nuclear bases, the supposed shut down of bases, and the disabling of in-flight missiles. Probably exactly what I'd expect an alien race might do, if they were observing a potential dangerous species on the cusp of interstellar travel, as it were.

You've raised some important and valid points; the only thing I would add is that in 1967 we weren't really on the cusp of interstellar travel, having barely managed to send any men into outer space at all. Afterwards, and to date, a little more than half a lifetime later, only one nation has ever placed a man on the moon. In 1967, we were talking about colonies on other planets, but we've never been close to actually carrying any such plans out. Interstellar travel is still just a pipe dream, and the closest we've ever come is to send out an old, very dated satellite that really doesn't do anything except send out radio signals. By any real standards, we're not a threat to anybody in the universe except ourselves, so ask yourself, "what would be the purpose of shutting down a nuclear missile site for no extensive amount of time?" I could easily understand reasons for observation, but what possible reason is there to shut down a few silos for a few hours? I could also understand it -- somewhat, but not as much -- if they thought it important to shut down the silos in order to prevent them from being fired during a moment when hot heads might prevail before calmer responses could be elicited, but nothing untoward ever occurred or was claimed to have happened during times when we were actually close to firing the missiles in reaction to a supposed threat, and at those times that have been claimed to be the result of UFO intervention, we were under no more nor less of a threat than at any other time. There just isn't a good reason to shut any of the silos down -- at least none that I've been able to note. Now, of course, this might just mean that there's a very good reason, and I'm just not bright enough or have enough information to ferret it out, but to tell you the truth, I really doubt it; there's just no point in initiating an action that can't be interpreted in the way you intend. For instance, if you fired a rocket over the bow of an approaching ship as a warning that the ship should not continue further, or it stood the chance of being attacked, and the Captain of that ship interpreted the warning shot as an actual attack on his ship and responded by firing everything he had without even attempting a concourse, or other reasonable reaction, the entire point of an over-the-bow warning shot is lost. How exactly are we supposed to react to a few silos being shut down for a few hours? At its worst, it was an inconvenience that did little to effect our overall defensive (or offensive, for that matter) capability. It might make some sense if it was being done by Russia or France, but as far as the Echo Flight shutdown of March 16, 1967 is concerned, nobody ever thought that Russia, France, or any other nation was involved, because if they had, the matter would not have been considered UNCLASSIFIED information. If someone at Malmstrom AFB thought another nation was involved, it would have been classified TOP SECRET at a minimum, and it wasn't. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that very few people have ever questioned these otherwise ridiculous assertions. I find it strange that those individuals who make these claims have never been able to come up with a believable reason that such an obvious intervention would even be initiated by someone capable of building and piloting a UFO. What possible threat could we pose to someone capable of interstellar travel, and the demonstrated ability to travel unmolested anywhere on Earth? Nothing was ever secured, nothing was taken, very little was demonstrated, and as far as we know no communications were ever made to explain why such intervention occurred. If there was a more believable motivation and premise than what we've been offered, I would be less inclined to doubt everything these guys assert, but to date they've offered us nothing except their own insistence based on the statements of a few witnesses we have no reason to believe.

James Carlson wrote: And this is how disinformation is spread throughout the internet. There are not two different stories here -- only one. The only people who were at Echo-Flight on March 16, 1967 and therefore the only people who can assert any possible authority for the event, were Walt Figel and my father, who was in charge. And both deny the presence of UFOs at Echo-Flight.

Robert Hastings: This is a complete lie, James, and you know it. I have Walt Figel on audiotape saying that UFOs were indeed reported by one Security Alert Team member and one missile maintenance technician. Further, he said that your father was sitting "two feet away" when he took both calls about a UFO hovering over one of Echo's missile sites. Figel further stated that your father was also sitting next to him back at Malmstrom during their debriefing, at which time both officers were told not to discuss the incident. All of Figel's comments have been posted on UFO Chronicles, as you well know.

Walt Figel and I accept that fact that your father chose to lie to you, given his secrecy requirement, but you are free to believe what you wish. However, when you tell bold-faced lies about Figel, you become a con artist. You haven't called Figel to confirm what he told me, despite my pleas for you to do so, because you are afraid to learn the truth: Your father lied to you, you believed him, and have chosen to smear the reputations of anyone who has attempted to expose that lie.

As your own father told me during my taped interview with him: You have some "problems." Get some professional help, James, and spare the rest of the world your delusional rants.

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

Very important thread.

Dr John Alexander covers the incident in his book UFOs . .

He talked with Salas and many other officers, including the contract engineers from Boeing who investigated the incident.

Alexander’s account confirms Hastings’s account, corrects some earlier mistakes and adds important input from the Boeing technical investigator who suggested EMP (electromagnetic pulse) might have triggered the shutdowns.

According to Alexander's book, P 169-70:

In Central Montana Echo and Oscar flight each controlled ten ICBM

March 16 1967 Echo flight. At about 8.30 in morning, each missile went offline, one by one. All ten down in short order, because of faults in guidance and control system, but no loss in power. Unprecedented situation.

Guard reported UFO hovering over launch site, maintenance personnel observed UFOs hovering over two of the sites.

March 16 1967 Oscar Flight. Before dawn airmen saw UFOs maneuvering in sky. Objects reported to streak across sky, stop, change direction, then return to position overhead. This information reported to Salas, in his bunker. Soon after, Salas received call from security NCO that UFO was hovering by front gate. Salas woke his colleague Lt Fred Meiwald, to brief him , but klaxon went off alerting them with their missiles. Within a few seconds, six to eight of the ten Oscar flight missiles had gone offline.

At least sixteen missiles total were now offline, reportedly driving SAC frantic.

A Boeing technical representative led an extensive investigation into the missile failures. Told Alexander that the best guess for the cause of the failures was that some form of EMP, electromagnetic pulse, had been employed. But Boeing man could not understand how that could have been achieved, as large equipment would have to have been placed close to the silos.


To me, the Boeing man’s suggestion of EMP is intriguing. Perhaps ET probes emitted ‘solid light beams’ of a kind observed on several occasions, e.g

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Professor August Meessen has suggested beams may be ionic plasma waves. Perhaps intended merely to gather information, the beams could have had effects similar to those caused by EMP, and inadvertently shut down the missile control systems.

IMHO Salas and Hastings over interpret the evidence, by talking of visitation by humanoid aliens with humanlike motives. This kind of talk plays into the hands of debunkers and disinformation agents. Read Chris Lambright’s X Descending

a reply to: Lowneck

I can confirm that UFOs were involved in the shutdown of our Minuteman missiles. I was stationed at Hill AFB, UT, which was a depot for the Minuteman missile. My base was involved in the Malmstrom AFB missile incident and it was confirmed that UFOs were seen over the missile fields. In fact, UFOs were seen again over Malmstrom AFB and over other SAC missile sites in the years following the Malmstrom AFB incidents of 1967.