Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers.

Regarding Drew Hempel's claims about Stan Deyo, this blog nicely illustrates the typically low caliber of Drew's sources.

www.computernewbie.info...


3Philip Ross:

October 25th, 2008 at 1:46 am


I came across Stan Deyo when a friend who is a conservative, Pentecostal Christian, tried to tell me that Einstein’s theories of relativity had been proven wrong. I asked him for the reference and he handed me a book called “The Cosmic Conspiracy.”

I have degrees in engineering, law and arts. I practice as a lawyer, mainly in litigation, and I am well accustomed to rigorous technical analysis, both in civil litigation and in a research project in which I was involved several years ago. My first impression of the book was that nobody would take it seriously. It is poorly written, disjoint, made many extravagant claims on an unsatisfactory evidential basis and published what purported to be a set of equations which “proved” Einstein had made an error. I do not recall the precise details and I have long since thrown the book into the rubbish, but as I recall Deyo made a fairly obvious mistake by trying to equate a Newtonian formula with a relativistic one. As Newtonian mechanics is merely an approximation of relativity in circumstances where relativistic effects are minimal, it is hardly surprising that he found inconsistency.

I did find it odd that anyone would take this nonsense seriously and I wondered about his background. Not particularly surprising was the dearth of detail about his background and qualifications in the book. There was reference to involvement in secret projects, but no detail, and of course such claims are easily made but impossible to prove or disprove. Most significantly there were no records of qualifications from any recognized university or research institute and nothing I saw that suggested that he was qualified in any field.

I knew nothing of his supposed status as an “expert” on earthquake prediction until I stumbled across this website but I think he can safely be regarded as a charlatan. If there were a correlation between ocean surface temperature and earthquake incidence one might imagine that the records of recent earthquakes in coastal areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Kobe (Japan), Indonesia and in other countries (including my own country, New Zealand) could be correlated. I am not aware that anyone has established a statistically significant link and I cannot see any scientific justification for supposing that one exists.

reply to post by Robert Hastings


Thanks for your take on Stan Deyo, I also bought his book
“The Cosmic Conspiracy.” way back when and it totally confused me, could never figure him out, what was the deal with him living in Australia, he said something to the effect at that time he couldn't come back to the U.S., never got why that was if it was true or not???

reply to post by Robert Hastings


Before you rush into complete agreement with sloppy researchers like Hastings, you may want to consider all of the evidence. You should at least consider the facts. My recent narrative "Americans, Credulous - or - The Arrogance of Congenital Liars & Other Character Defects - Establishing the Truth Behind the Echo Flight UFO Incident of March 16, 1967" proves that the Echo Flight UFO Incident of March 16, 1967 is a non-event, and the myth of UFO interference with the nuclear weapons systems at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 is a nothing but a poorly executed lie that has no basis in fact and lacks even the most liberal standards of proof. Fully documented and footnoted, I examine in some detail all sides of this surprisingly well-documented event, reaching the only possible conclusion that UFOs had nothing at all to do with any of the events at Malmstrom in March, 1967 and nothing whatsoever to do with the missile failures that occurred. I'm distributing this book completely free of charge in order to correct the historical record that's been so badly maligned by people like Robert Hastings, and because my father was the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. I believe that his entire, very honorable career has been co-opted by fools and liars as a footnote to their descriptions of an event that never occurred. You can download a copy of this book for free, at www.scribd.com... -- to ignore everything in blind acceptance and ill advised faith is nothing more than a refuge for the blindly subservient, and a signal that concern for the message is more important than concern for the truth.

reply to post by James Carlson


Funny thing is I was actually interested to read your book, that is until I saw the first several pages were little more than snipes and jabs. If you really care about "the truth" stick to the facts and remove the personal innuendo.

I also find it a bit questionable that you're willing to defer to official records when it suits your position, but when the more anomalous aspects of the event come in to play (i.e. ex-Boeing engineers’ failing to identify a pathway for missile shutdowns) you relegate the subject-matter to the end of the book and address it in a rather superficial, non-technical way.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

Thanks James -- I'll be reading your book asap.

reply to post by James Carlson

O.K. I just read the first 20 pages and already it's a damning expose on Robert Salas -- the strongest "witness" in Hastings book.

Thanks for your research James Carlson -- and I look forward to the rest of the book.

reply to post by James Carlson


On page 9, you assert,

Contrary to suggestions by a number of individuals that he has confirmed their insulting and ridiculous assertions, he firmly believes that one or more UFOs had absolutely nothing to do with the malfunctions that did occur on that date, a claim supported by the undeniable fact that UFOs were never reported by civilian or military observers on March 16, 1967 anywhere in the state of Montana. That deserves to be repeated: there were no UFOs reported on March 16, 1967 by anybody.

If this were the case then why does this FOIA document state,

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c27ea082397e.png[/atsimg]

If there were no reports, what was there to disprove?

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by James Carlson

... my father has never changed his story, while Salas, as we’ll see, has done so, repeatedly, while losing little credibility with the true believers and other confused individuals who have decided that it is apparently more likely that UFOs completely shut down the nuclear missiles manned by members of our military forces forty years ago – an incident that was never even hinted at during the course of more than three of those four decades – then it is for Robert Salas to have lied about the matter, lies that eventually forced him to step back a bit from that precipice of his self-righteousness in order to declare that he was mistaken when he convinced himself that he was at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and assert instead that he was at November Flight, and that the missiles failed there, as well. No matter that his own resource, the command history already alluded to, specifically states that "No other Wing I configuration lost strategic alert at that time", or that this statement refers the reader to a classified SECRET message originating with SAC, "Subj: Loss of Strategic Alert Echo Flight, Malmstrom AFB, 17 Mar 67" stating the same. Robert L. Salas knows better – and we can trust him.

While I'm not questioning the factualness of this segment, I do think it's worth pointing out that the military does hush-up unpleasant aspects of the record,

• The disaster that may have saved D-Day
  Hushed up for decades: How 749 U.S. troops died in practice for Utah Beach
  
  

  
  Nathan Resnick, who was aboard one of the other landing craft in the attacked convoy, said: "We were told not to say anything. I was married for 40-something years and never told my wife a word."
  
  Frank Derby, a gunner's mate 3rd class who now lives in Fallston, Md., added: "Our officers made it very clear that we'd be court-martialed if we breathed a word of it. That scared the hell out of all of us."

The fact that the command history mentions UFOs, that a pathway for failure was never found, and then Salas as well as other military men from yet-other circumstances have come forward (e.g. Bruce Fenstermacher and Patrick McDonough) does raise an eyebrow.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Since when do "Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects" constitute a UFO report? They don't -- they never have. There were rumors, because nobody was willing to come forward and actually report a UFO. During the investigation, my father and his deputy, Walt Figel were required to account for everything that occurred over the course of their watch -- particularly and in some detail the events surrounding the actual failure of the missiles. During the previous evening, three maintenance teams had been sent out to work on three of the silos -- this happened a lot, because equipment failed all the time from '65-'68, and needed to be replaced or upgraded. These three teams, each made up of maintenance personnel and security personnel who were there to protect the maintenance folks and to maintain continuous radio comms, were out all night, and they didn't report a thing. A couple hours after sunrise, when the missiles went offline, instead of sending out additional teams to silos where personnel were already encamped, my Dad and Figel simply radioed the security teams with each of the three maintenance groups and told them to check the status of the missiles -- they were looking for channel 9 & 12 No-Go indications, because that was what VRSA pointed at when the missiles went down. The first mention of UFOs was made by a member of the maintenance team on the landline -- at the same time he reported the status of the missile, he said something to the effect of "Yeah, we've got a channel 9 No-Go -- it must be that UFO floating over the silo." Now this report was on the landline, which means the guy reporting the missile status was about six feet underground at the time -- he was with the equipment, reporting the status of the missile. He was screwing around, and that's exactly what Figel and my Dad believed -- Figel said the guy was yanking his chain, and he was right. If this had been a genuine report of a UFO, why was there no reaction from the security detail who was actually on the surface? Y'know the guy with the radio who was maintaining continuous comms? The security detail didn't report it, and didn't fire on it as they were trained to do, because there was nothing there. The fact that it was never mentioned again proves that there was nothing there. The fact that Robert Hastings isn't bright enough to figure this out is the only reason we're even discussing it. THIS is what constitutes a rumor -- because when everyone was questioned about the matter later, they all said the same thing -- there was nothing there. That is NOT a UFO report -- it's a couple of guys screwing around. In addition, there were standing orders throughout the Air Force that any UFOs reported to or by the military had to be reported to Project Blue Book -- there were no exceptions to this, and nobody at Malmstrom AFB or SAC had the authority to circumvent those orders. And yet, there were no reports made to Project Blue Book. None. If there had been, the Malmstrom UFO officer, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, would have been required to investigate the matter for Blue Book, and he did not do this, because there were no reports made. By anybody -- civilian or military.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by James Carlson

 

While I'm not questioning the factualness of this segment, I do think it's worth pointing out that the military does hush-up unpleasant aspects of the record,

• The disaster that may have saved D-Day
  Hushed up for decades: How 749 U.S. troops died in practice for Utah Beach
  
  

  
  Nathan Resnick, who was aboard one of the other landing craft in the attacked convoy, said: "We were told not to say anything. I was married for 40-something years and never told my wife a word."
  
  Frank Derby, a gunner's mate 3rd class who now lives in Fallston, Md., added: "Our officers made it very clear that we'd be court-martialed if we breathed a word of it. That scared the hell out of all of us."

The fact that the command history mentions UFOs, that a pathway for failure was never found, and then Salas as well as other military men from yet-other circumstances have come forward (e.g. Bruce Fenstermacher and Patrick McDonough) does raise an eyebrow.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

A pathway for the failure was found -- but those documents were ignored by Salas, Klotz, and Hastings for years. They were able to reproduce the failure exactly -- and they know they found the correct reason for the failure, because it gave them the same channel 9 & 12 No-Go indication; the 9 & 12 indication had never happened before at any other Wing -- that's because most of the field electrical systems at the other Wings had been contracted out to other companies, and because the equipment used was different than at Wing I. Channel 9 & 12 indicators had happened before at Malmstrom, shutting down silos at Alpha Flight in December 1966. This was pretty much the same thing, so the investigators knew exactly what they were looking at. NO UFOs were ever mentioned at Alpha Flight, because there weren't any maintenance teams out screwing around like there were at Echo Flight. The documents in my narrative explain exactly what happened, but everybody seems to want to ignore what actually happened. Does the military keep secrets? Yes, absolutely. But they don't LIE about it. They just classify and then refuse to discuss the matter -- they tell everybody involved not to discuss it, and tell them that if they do, they'll be arrested, because disclosure of classified information is a crime. But they don't create fake documents to explain an equipment malfunction, give those documents a high security classification, and then declassify them 10 or so years later. Anybody who believes that this is what happened doesn't need me telling them that they're wrong -- they need a doctor. As for Salas -- the man's a liar, and I've proved that already. You mention other witnesses, but there aren't any. Neither Bruce Fenstermacher nor Patrick McDonough have anything at all to say about Echo Flight or the events at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, so they're irrelevant. And nobody else has anythng at all to say that hasn't been totally disproven. We know what happened because it was thoroughly investigated. If you prefer not to believe what's been repeatedly proven and documented, then don't. But to simply ignore it is insane. And to consciously HIDE everything, which is what Salas and Klotz have done at the CUFON website, is pretty much begging for people not to trust you or rely on your word. Everything I've said is true, and I've proven it -- everything Salas has said he's changed more than once, and can't verify any of it. But don't take my word for it; after all, you don't know me. Read the book -- it's FREE. Decide for yourself. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind about UFOs -- only March 1967, because that's all I know about it. But, please, at least look at the evidence. You hurt yourself not to.

First I'd like to say I appreciate the great attention to detail you included in your reply, thank you!

Originally posted by James Carlson
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Since when do "Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects" constitute a UFO report? They don't -- they never have. There were rumors, because nobody was willing to come forward and actually report a UFO.

Not to mince words, but a report can be either formal or informal. A rumor is what most would consider an informal report.

... THIS is what constitutes a rumor -- because when everyone was questioned about the matter later, they all said the same thing -- there was nothing there. That is NOT a UFO report -- it's a couple of guys screwing around. In addition, there were standing orders throughout the Air Force that any UFOs reported to or by the military had to be reported to Project Blue Book -- there were no exceptions to this, and nobody at Malmstrom AFB or SAC had the authority to circumvent those orders. And yet, there were no reports made to Project Blue Book. None. If there had been, the Malmstrom UFO officer, Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, would have been required to investigate the matter for Blue Book, and he did not do this, because there were no reports made. By anybody -- civilian or military.

As for the remainder of your rebuttal let me share a little story,

There were two particular cases which intrigued [Dr. James E.] McDonald, and which he planned to look up at a Blue Book. The first was a report by Maj. Rudolph Pestalozzi, a Tucson resident. Pestalozzi had been an air intelligence officer who, from about 1950 to 1960, was stationed at Davis Monthan (D-M) AFB, just south of Tucson. Upon occasion, in the course of his duties, Pestalozzi made "Air Intelligence Information Reports" regarding UFO sightings by military personnel. He'd talked with McDonald on more than one occasion about a sighting on which he stated he'd "filed the thickest report he'd ever filed on a UFO." The main observers were the crew of an airborne B-36 which was passing over Davis-Monthan AFB at the time of the encounter. Pestalozzi said he also had seen the objects near the B-36 while he was standing on the steps of the Base Hospital with another airman. The two ground-based witnesses saw two round metallic UFOs approach the airborne B-36 and overtake it at 3-4 times its speed. Reducing speed, they paced the aircraft for approximately 3-5 minutes. One object flew behind the port side of the aircraft while the other stationed itself on the starboard side, fitting rather snugly between the right engines and the leading edge of the tail.

The 10-man crew, thoroughly shaken up, requested permission to land at Davis-Monthan after the UFO departed, and Pestalozzi personally interrogated them. All but the pilot had ample time to get to the starboard side of the B-36 to view the UFO up close. The object was symmetrically convex top and bottom, about 10-12 feet thick at the middle, quite sharp at the edge and approximately 20-25 feet in diameter. The crew stated that the object did not interfere with navigation and radio equipment on their aircraft.

To the best of his recollection, Pestalozzi thought the incident had occurred in June 1953. The B-36 was on route from Carswell AFB in Texas headed to March AFB in California at the time of the sighting. He suggested that the incident was probably in the files of Project Blue Book under those names.

(p. 42 - 43)

...

While Lt. Marley watched from his corner, McDonald decided to try to track down Rudy Pestalozzi's report, in which he had become vitally interested and had even discussed with NASA personnel. Working from Rudy's estimated date of June 1953, Quintanilla, Jones and McDonald searched through all the 1953 cases arranged chronologically, and in another cross-file which McDonald guessed was geographical. They failed to find the B-36 case about which Pestalozzi had told him. ...

(p. 62)

...

At McDonald's urging, Major Dolan began searching for Rudy Pestalozzi's B-36 case. He dug out a February 1953 case at Ft. Worth, which involved radar frequencies from a B-36. McDonald found this information extremely interesting and put the data in his notes for future reference. The case did not match Pestalozzi's precise description of the startling objects which had reportedly paced the B-36 over Davis-Monthan AFB, and Major Dolan went back to his search ....

(p. 138)

...

"We all along debated the cover-up vs. foul-up thing," says Dick Hall, who shared, in part, McDonald's skepticism regarding a widespread "conspiracy." "He did acknowledge that some of the things we came up with shook his faith a little bit" (1 [Author's interview with Dick Hall, 7 May 1994])

At times, McDonald conceded that particular situations in to which he'd stumbled didn't really fit his foul-up theory, but were more like a cover-up. He'd found cases where the documentation had vanished, such as the B-36 case which Rudy Pestalozzi had described to him. On each of his visits to Project Blue Book, McDonald tried to locate that particular report in the Air Force files, and each time came up empty.

(p. 361)

Source: Druffel, Ann (2003). Firestorm: Dr. James E. McDonald's Fight for UFO Science. Columbus, NC: Wild Flower Press. ISBN 0-926524-58-5.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by James Carlson

 

Funny thing is I was actually interested to read your book, that is until I saw the first several pages were little more than snipes and jabs. If you really care about "the truth" stick to the facts and remove the personal innuendo.

I also find it a bit questionable that you're willing to defer to official records when it suits your position, but when the more anomalous aspects of the event come in to play (i.e. ex-Boeing engineers’ failing to identify a pathway for missile shutdowns) you relegate the subject-matter to the end of the book and address it in a rather superficial, non-technical way.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

If you read it, you'll see there's more than just snipes and jabs. These individuals I've targeted have been calling me and my father a liar or crazy for years. When I published this book, the very first response from Hastings was an email sent out to a bunch of military and ex-military at Malmstrom stating that I was "psychologically disturbed." He's said that my father has alzheimers or other memory problems, and recently that he's just a liar. None of this is true. I detest Hastings and the entire group of these guys, and I have no intention of hiding that because you're upset at snipes and jabs. These people have been lying to Americans for 15 years now, and they've done everything they could to try and profit from it, selling their books, going on TV, speaking at MUFON conferences, doing videos and documentaries -- and the entire time they've been lying, and it disgusts me and it should disgust you. I don't make a cent off of any of this and I have no intentions of doing so. I'm giving it away for free and distributing it myself to anybody who wants it. Part of that is due to the way I feel about these absolutely sickening individuals -- and I haven't even mentioned HALF of what they've said and done.

As for official documents -- I defer to them because they aren't anecdotal. There is NOTHING to suggest that Salas and Company are correct except their little list of people they say they've spoken with who confirm their story. But they've said that my father confirms their story, too -- how ridiculous is that? Hastings doesn't even bother to let us know exactly what his witnesses say -- he tells us himself. Frankly, he could be imagining it and nobody would know. Anecdotal evidence is nothing. If Salas come forward and says "I saw a UFO at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967" and I have an official document that says he was not even there, which evidence are you going to believe? I defer to official documents, because it's documented history -- I admit, I would probably defer to ANYTHING in reference to Robert Salas, because I already know, and can prove, that he's repeatedly lied in the past about this very subject. If you think that's a problem, I'm sorry, but I've no intention of pulling back. I've had a number of people come to me and say "don't you think think you're being too personal? Maybe you should stick with 'he's mistaken' instead of 'he's a liar'." But I believe he's a liar, I believe I've proven it, so I might as well say so. As for Hastings, I DON'T think he's lying -- I'm fairly sure he believes about everything he's written. That doesn't make him terribly bright or a good judge of character, but it doesn't make him a liar either. He does refuse to consider other evidence even when it's shoved down his throat, but I think that's an ego problem more than anything. He's certainly not doing mankind any service here. Look, I don't want to change anybody's mind about UFOs or whether they target nuclear facilities -- I really don't know or care much about UFOs. But I do know a lot about Echo Flight, Minuteman missiles, and Malmstrom in March 67, and UFOs just weren't involved there and then.

Originally posted by James Carlson
A pathway for the failure was found -- but those documents were ignored by Salas, Klotz, and Hastings for years. They were able to reproduce the failure exactly -- and they know they found the correct reason for the failure, because it gave them the same channel 9 & 12 No-Go indication; the 9 & 12 indication had never happened before at any other Wing -- that's because most of the field electrical systems at the other Wings had been contracted out to other companies, and because the equipment used was different than at Wing I. Channel 9 & 12 indicators had happened before at Malmstrom, shutting down silos at Alpha Flight in December 1966. This was pretty much the same thing, so the investigators knew exactly what they were looking at.

Actually Salas does mention that there were localized reproductions. Quoting FOIA documentation published in Faded Giant,

In mid-April, tests run in the Seattle Test Facility by The Boeing Company revealed that an induced electronic pulse "noise" introduced into the Wing I C53P logic coupler could cause the system to shut down. Also, recent tests at Hill AFB by OOAMA have revealed that the Wings II through V C53D logic coupler reacts in a similar manner when this noise is introduced into that coupler.

So I think in this instance you're misrepresenting Salas when you say they were "ignored."

Reading the remainder of the page you'll note that the report distinguishes between what "could" have happened versus what did happen:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44d38fbbc2b4.png[/atsimg]

Does the military keep secrets? Yes, absolutely. But they don't LIE about it. They just classify and then refuse to discuss the matter -- they tell everybody involved not to discuss it, and tell them that if they do, they'll be arrested, because disclosure of classified information is a crime. But they don't create fake documents to explain an equipment malfunction, give those documents a high security classification, and then declassify them 10 or so years later. Anybody who believes that this is what happened doesn't need me telling them that they're wrong -- they need a doctor.

Not discussing something is a lie by omission, but again that's splitting hairs. I think the MSNBC article that I linked to previously captures my view-point nicely,

While historians dismiss claims of a cover-up by pointing out that some details of the Exercise Tiger deaths were released in August 1944 and highlighting that many documents relating to it were declassified long ago, some survivors have more questions than answers about what happened that night.

So I hope to god you're right!

I'd like to give our military the benefit of the doubt, but if you do any real research in to the Robertson Panel's Durant Report you'll see there were two versions: the SECRET copy and the readily available unclassified print-out. Indicating that the mode of operation was "misinform" on one hand and keep the full-truth tucked away in the other.

Which doesn't bode well ...

As for Salas -- the man's a liar, and I've proved that already. ... Everything I've said is true, and I've proven it -- everything Salas has said he's changed more than once, and can't verify any of it. But don't take my word for it; after all, you don't know me. Read the book -- it's FREE. Decide for yourself. I'm not trying to change anybody's mind about UFOs -- only March 1967, because that's all I know about it. But, please, at least look at the evidence. You hurt yourself not to.

I'll definitely read the remainder of your book. I'm just saying the way you've written it really makes it look like an op. ed. rather than a cool-headed, objective assessment.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Unless somebody says "I saw a UFO", there is no report. That's the case of March 16, 1967; nobody reported -- formally or informally -- a UFO on March 16. The "rumors" was 2 guys screwing around; it was admitted, and everybody knew they were screwing around, but it had been said on the landline and had to be accounted for by the investigating team. It was accounted for, and then properly dismissed.

As for the B-36 case, they did find the original write up. It was May 1, 1952 and the report is accounted for, along with the letters by McDonald and Pestalozzi in the Project Blue Book Files. Go to: www.bluebookarchive.org...

The quality isn't very good, but it's good enough to tell that the earlier parts of the file are the original report made by the UFO officer. The point, however, isn't that the file may have been lost or the date was wrong or somebody had a hard time tracking it down 15 years later. The point is that the UFO officer investigated the matter, was very honest about it because it was his duty, and did a report -- he understood exactly what he did, why and how he did it, and it was on record as having been done.

The UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB on March 16 was Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase, and he emphatically did NOT investigate any UFOs on March 16, and denied in full that UFOs were involved with the Echo Flight Incident. He also reported, very insistently, to Project Blue Book that his investigation of the Belt UFO sighting on March 24 had established that there were no equipment malfunctions whatsoever, so we know that missile failures didn't occur on the 24th as well, which is what Salas now claims. If Salas and Hastings are right about Oscar Flight (he no longer claims he was at Echo Flight or November Flight) going down due to UFO interference on March 24-25, then Lt. Col. Chase must have lied to his immediate superior officers at Blue Book when he told them no malfunction of equipment occurred. Salas, in fact, states that Chase lied to FTD in order to keep the missile failures at Oscar Flight a secret. It's very apparent from his write up that he was unaware that FTD (Foreign Technology Division at Wright-Patterson AFB) was in charge of Project Blue Book. Before FTD at Wright-Patterson AFB was called the Foreign Technology Division, it was the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), and was under the direct command of the Air Materiel Control Department. The Foreign Technology Division would later become the National Air and Space Intelligence Center. It was in 1961 that ATIC became the Foreign Technology Division (FTD); at that time it was also reassigned to Air Force Systems Command. As ATIC, it was in charge of Projects Sign and Grudge. As the Foreign Technology Division, it was in charge of Project Blue Book. By the spring of 1967, when Headquarters Research and Technology Division staff was also consolidated with Air Force Systems Command, all of the high technology research and development laboratories were interconnected all the way to the top of the Air Force authority structure via Air Force Systems Command, with the FTD running everything having to do with UFOs. This meant all of the development by civil contractors of the Minuteman II and III missile systems were consolidated with AFSC, who ran FTD, who ran Blue Book, who ran Lt. Col. Chase. He would NEVER have lied to FTD about equipment malfunctions caused by UFOs; there would have been no need, because they were the ones giving him his orders, and they would have been involved in any investigation had it occurred.

In March 67, UFOs had NOTHING to do with any of the missile failures at Malmstrom AFB. There are people who want you to believe that UFOs were involved, and they've refused to discuss any of this. But please, do the research -- it's all readily available.

Originally posted by James Carlson
If you read it, you'll see there's more than just snipes and jabs. These individuals I've targeted have been calling me and my father a liar or crazy for years. When I published this book, the very first response from Hastings was an email sent out to a bunch of military and ex-military at Malmstrom stating that I was "psychologically disturbed." He's said that my father has alzheimers or other memory problems, and recently that he's just a liar. None of this is true. I detest Hastings and the entire group of these guys, and I have no intention of hiding that because you're upset at snipes and jabs.

Hey if you have evidence of this by all means, please, expose these emails. It would bolster your case.

These people have been lying to Americans for 15 years now, and they've done everything they could to try and profit from it, selling their books, going on TV, speaking at MUFON conferences, doing videos and documentaries -- and the entire time they've been lying, and it disgusts me and it should disgust you.

I have zero patience for people who waste my time. There are snake-oil salesman out there and I loathe them. What I don't do however is write people off wholesale because of a potentially misconstrued comment, difficulties in communication, or due to fuzzy memory. I've had more than my fair share of tiffs with people due to failure to communicate effectively and it's ended up causing much-ado over nothing.

Basically my approach to this particular case is rather simple.

If Robert Salas wants to give his testimony under oath, then I'd absolutely love to see everyone that's still alive from Echo & Oscar Flight subpoenaed before Congress.

I don't make a cent off of any of this and I have no intentions of doing so. I'm giving it away for free and distributing it myself to anybody who wants it.

And it's much appreciated!

As for official documents -- I defer to them because they aren't anecdotal.

Sadly these official documents are anecdotal, the write-ups aren't necessarily peer-reviewed nor are the results reproducible. The only thing that gives official documentation any weight is that there's an implied legal obligation when a contractor or government-official prepares a report.

But they've said that my father confirms their story, too -- how ridiculous is that? Hastings doesn't even bother to let us know exactly what his witnesses say -- he tells us himself.

Couldn't the same be said for you? You're speaking in your father's place.

I'm sorry, but I've no intention of pulling back. I've had a number of people come to me and say "don't you think think you're being too personal? Maybe you should stick with 'he's mistaken' instead of 'he's a liar'." But I believe he's a liar, I believe I've proven it, so I might as well say so.

It's understandable that you're going to have an emotional investment in all this; and clearly you've put a lot of time and effort in to explaining your position. You simply do yourself a disservice when you put yourself in the role of an attack-dog because for me, as a reader, I have a hard time discerning where all this vehemence is coming from; and since you don't make it immediately obvious in the first chapter of your book it can be slightly off-putting.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


You're probably right -- but I can live with that.

Well there's one aspect that I haven't notice James Carlson mention -- the government does LIE to coverup lack of UFO evidence. For example Greg Bishop's book on Project Beta -- or Jacque Vallee's "Messengers of Deception" book or Prince and Picknett's book "The Stargate Conspiracy" or Nick Redfern's "Body Snatchers" book on Roswell.

The fact is the CIA has promoted the ETH to cover up secret military technology. So when someone does make the "extraordinary" claim that UFOs could not be secret military craft and must be extraterrestrial, etc. then their claim is promoted by the corporate media due to the massive amounts of propaganda already out there.

So James Carlson has done an excellent job showing that Salas is internally inconsistent -- and therefore his testimony is not valid. Beyond that, the statements on record at the time are not based on visual witnesses -- so there's no way the sighting could have happened. The only explanation is the one that was given at the time -- it was a joke.

As for the cause of the shut down -- James Carlson has also provided the details.

That's just in the first 20 pages of his book! So to claim that James Carlson's book is an op-ed is not accurate -- he's giving plenty of detailed evidence and documentation, despite any stylistic presentation.

So will James Carlson be on Larry King? I doubt it -- because the expose of James Carlson goes the opposite direction of the CIA propaganda promoting the aliens as the ETH.

reply to post by Xtraeme

In a recent email exchange, James Carlson claimed that I had never provided detailed responses to his criticisms. Actually, I posted two lengthy responses to his nonsense at:

www.theufochronicles.com...

and

www.theufochronicles.com...

Please note that James continues to sidestep the fact that he still refuses to call his father’s deputy missile commander, retired Col. Walter Figel, to hear what actually happened in the Echo Flight launch capsule when his father’s missiles shut down. (Even though I offered to provide Figel’s phone number to James over a year ago!)

As noted in my posted rebuttals, Figel completely contradicts Eric Carlson’s claim that no UFOs were involved.

Nevertheless, I called Figel, and taped the conversation with his permission. One key excerpt from my initial rebuttal to James (the first link inserted above) concerns the transcript of that phone call:

EXCERPT BEGINS HERE

Below are pertinent excerpts from my taped telephone conversation on 10/20/08 with retired Col. Walter Figel (USAF Ret.). Figel was Eric Carlson’s deputy missile commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967:

WF: [At the time of the Echo Flight shutdown] what was unusual was that several of the missiles were open...for some routine maintenance. I don’t remember why. But, uh, at least two of them were running on diesel power so they were not connected to the power grid. I don’t remember if it was three open or four open [but] it was just routine maintenance. Nothing had happened [to the missiles]. It was just the time of the year for routine maintenance. Um, and the day before, there were maintenance teams out there. They had stayed overnight—

RH: Do you know how many maintenance teams were out overnight?

WF: You know, I think it was four. It was the two sites that had diesels running and two others. And when maintenance stays overnight they...stay in a camper...When you have maintenance on the site and they’re going to stay overnight, you have a security team on the site.

RH: Right.

(Break. Figel goes into detail about security procedures.)

WF: [When] the missiles dropped off alert, I started calling the maintenance people out there on the radio to talk to them. I had the security guard authenticate so I know I’m talking to a security guard and, you know, [I asked] “What’s going on? Is maintenance trying to get into the silo?” [The guard said,] “No, they’re still in the camper.” [So, I said,] “Get ‘em up, I want to talk to them.” Then I tried to tell them what I had was a Channel 9 No-Go.

RH: Uh huh.

WF: Uh, we did that with the sites that were there, that [had maintenance teams and their guards on site] and I sent Strike Teams to two other sites. There’s no sense sending them where I [already] have a guard and a gun and an authenticate.

RH: Right.

WF: Uh—

RH: So far in this narrative, you haven’t mentioned UFOs.

WF: [Laughs] That’s correct. Um, somewhere along the way, um, one of the maintenance people—cause he didn’t know what was going on any place else either, they have no capability of talking to each other [at different launch sites], in other words, they can talk to the [launch] capsule but they can’t talk to each other—

RH: Right

WF: —unless they were on the radio and no one was using the radio except the security police. And the guy says, “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.” [I said,] “Yeah, right, whatever. What were you drinking?” And he tried to convince me of something and I said, well, I basically, you know, didn’t believe him. [Laughs] I said, you know, we have to get somebody to look at this [No-Go]. [A short time later] one of the Strike Teams that went out, one of the two, claimed that they saw something over the site.

RH: How did they describe that?

WF: Oh, on radio, [they said,] “There’s this large object hovering over the site!” I’ve always been a non-believer [in UFOs] so I said, “Right, sure you do.” [They responded,] “Yeah! Yeah, we do!” So, [I said,] “There’s two of you there, saying so, so write it down in your report.” [The Strike Team leader] said, “What do you want us to do?” [I said,] “Follow your checklist. Go to the site, open it up, and call me.”

RH: What was the demeanor of the guard you were talking to?

WF: Um, you know, I wouldn’t say panicked, or anything [like that]. I was thinking he was yanking my chain more than anything else.

RH: But he seemed to be serious to you?

WF: He seemed to be serious and I wasn’t taking him seriously.

RH: Alright. If it was a large object, did he describe the shape of the object?

WF: He just said a large round object.

RH: Directly over the LF?

WF: Directly over the site.

(BREAK. Figel describes hearing from the maintenance man about his opening up the silo, going down into it, and reporting that even though the missile was offline, nothing was visually damaged or otherwise amiss at the site.)

RH: Did he describe the object leaving the scene?

WF: No. He never said anything about it again.

(BREAK. Figel describes telling all the maintenance teams to stay at their sites until relieved, and not to attempt repairs until told to do so, since the missile silos were in effect “crime scenes”.)

RH: When you got the first call, well, when the missiles went down, you didn’t have an inkling of an alleged UFO-involvement until you got the report back from the first Strike Team member?

WF: That’s correct. (RH: Actually, upon reviewing the taped conversation with Figel, I realized that the missile maintenance man had apparently mentioned seeing the UFO first.)

RH: Okay, uh, and only one of the two teams reported seeing an object?

WF: Right.

RH: Uh, did you discuss the report with Mr. Carlson—that you were being told that there was a UFO at one of the sites?

WF: Um, he could hear it, uh, I mean he was sitting right there, two feet away from me—

RH: So—

WF: Whatever I said, he would have heard.

(Break. Figel describes going back to Malmstrom with Carlson and being debriefed by “everybody and his brother.”)

RH: Did any of the conversations back at squadron headquarters, uh, was there any mention of UFOs?

WF: I told them everything everyone told me. No one made any comments or inquiries—

RH: So you did mention the report that you got from the Strike Team?

WF: Yes.

RH: And no one asked any questions about UFOs per se?

WF: No.

RH: Did they act skeptically or negatively when you mentioned [the Strike Team’s UFO report]?

WF: They just wrote things down.

RH: [Laughs] That sounds right. Poker-faced and—

WF: [Laughs] Poker-faced and wrote things down. They just said, “Thank you very much. Don’t talk about it.” I didn’t sign anything, I can tell you that.

(Break. Hastings describes similar testimony from other missileers who were debriefed at Malmstrom and other Strategic Air Command bases, following UFO-related incidents in the missile fields.)

WF: What did Eric [Carlson] have to say [about the shutdown incident]? (RH had interviewed Carlson two weeks earlier, on 10/6/08)

RH: Uh, he said that he couldn’t recall any UFO-involvement in the incident. He couldn’t remember if you had mentioned UFOs, one way or another. His son [James] has now [posted] on a blog, a web log, a couple of lengthy statements in which he defamed Salas, said Salas was a liar, [and said] there was nothing involving UFOs at Echo...

WF: Did Eric say anything else that was a discontinuity [relative to what I’ve said]?

RH: ...Well, I [told Eric] that you had [heard from] a guard or a maintenance person that there was an object above the site, which you’ve confirmed today—

WF: Yes.

RH: —And I asked Eric if he remembered any of that, and he said that he did not. And, um, I asked him why his son would have written this scathing, very negative summary, which I will send [to] you, about the event—

WF: That will be interesting.

RH: —calling Salas a liar, and so on and so forth.

WF: Well, I didn’t do that.

RH: Well, I know, but his son, you know, for whatever reason, his son, James Carlson, has got a bug up his nose and said that nothing happened, there were no reports of UFOs, which you told me is incorrect because you got one.

WF: I did!

RH: Well, according to James, it was all bull and Salas was basically pulling it out of the air. [Eric] Carlson just, he didn’t really want to talk about it, frankly, but he did answer my questions. He just was kind of circumspect. I can’t say that he’s not being truthful when he says he doesn’t remember talking to you about UFOs, but that’s what he told me.

WF: I’m sure we had a long conversation [right after it happened]. I mean, I reported everything to him that I heard or was told. I mean, we were together, you know? [Laughs]

RH: Well, it has been 40 years, so we have to take that into account. [That is, the possibility of faded memories.]

END OF TELEPHONE TRANSCRIPT

So, folks, James Carlson has it all wrong, according to his father’s deputy missile commander that day at Echo Flight, now retired Col. Walter Figel. Actually, James, the presence of a UFO at one of Echo’s missiles was indeed reported to Figel, by both a missile maintenance technician and a Security Alert Team (or Strike Team) member. It was described as a “large, round object”, hovering directly over the launch facility. Moreover, Figel insists that your father was fully aware of the situation, given that he was sitting “two feet away” from Figel during his phone calls with the on-site maintenance man and the responding missile security policeman. As to why your father can not, or will not, confirm Figel’s story, I won’t speculate.

So, James, will you also now call Col. Figel a liar, just as you have called the other honorable Air Force veterans liars, simply because they have come forward and spoken the truth about UFO activity at ICBM sites? If you would like to speak to Col. Figel yourself, please email me at [email protected] and I will provide you with his telephone number.

END OF EXCERPT

BTW, James Carlson also conveniently neglects to mention that Robert Kaminski, the Boeing Corporation engineer responsible for investigating the Minuteman missile shutdowns at Echo Flight, wrote to researcher James Klotz on February 1, 1997, and told Klotz what actually happened after his team began their inquiry.

KAMINSKI’S LETTER TO JAMES KLOTZ

“Hi James,

I received your package of information on Tuesday January 28,
1997. After reviewing the information it sure revived
memories concerning the Malmstrom AFB E-Flight investigation
of which I was the Boeing in-house project engineer for the
field team investigation. Per your request I have documented
my direct involvement as I recall the event and give names
and other information not previously covered in my book, "
Lying Wonders."

As I previously mentioned to Bob Salas and others, I never
submitted a final report from Boeing to the Air Force. A
final report was generated but not submitted. This will
become clear as you will see in my recollection noted below.
The same engineering report you refer to is in all
probability in Boeing archives. I'm not sure how to get
access to it at this time--however I will make a few suggestions.

Report of E-Flight Incident
by Robert Kaminski

At the time of the incident, I was an engineer in the MIP/CNP
(Material Improvement Project/Controlled Numbered Problem)
group. This was a Logistics Engineering group. The group
was contracted by the Air Force so that Boeing could respond
to specific Air Force Minuteman Missiles problems that
occurred in the field. The assignments came from the OOAMA
Air Material Command. Our group was made up of a small unit
of engineers that were knowledgeable of, and had worked on
the Minuteman Missile program. The supervisor of the group
at the time was a person named Donald Heck.

We were usually notified by our OOAMA Boeing contact (located
at Hill AFB) when a request was coming in from the Air Force.
Don Peterson, was our Boeing OOAMA contact. The requests
came usually in two forms. One was a MIP request that
covered a variety of things. These would range from quality
problems, corrosion problems or the unavailability of parts
needed for maintenance and so forth. The second type was
called a Controlled Numbered Problem. These types requested
Boeing engineering support for a particular problem. The E Flight
incident fell into this second type--It was a Controlled Numbered Problem.

I was handed the E-Flight CNP assignment when it arrived by
the group supervisor. As the internal Boeing project
engineer I arranged meetings necessary with management and
technical personnel required to determine a course of action
to be taken, in exploring why 10 missiles had suddenly fallen
from alert status,--green--to red, with no explanation for
it. This was an unusual request and we had no prior similar
incident or experience to this kind of anomaly. At the time
of the request, no mention was made of an UFO involvement.
Meetings were held with parties from Test Engineering, and
Systems Engineering along with Logistics who ran the meeting.
This project was not classified~

Since this was a field site peculiar incident, a
determination was made to send out an investigation team to
survey the LCF and the LFs to determine what failures or
related incidents could be found to explain the cause. The
team was made up of qualified engineers and technicians
headed by scientific person who was a glaciologist. There
were about 5 persons in all that were sent out. 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. This
indeed turned out to be a rare event and not encountered
before. 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 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. 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.

Days later, I asked our Boeing OOAMA rep what was going on.
His reply to me--off the record---was that the LCF capsule
jockeys were suspected of causing the problem somehow by
something they did to one of the digital racks in the LCF.
The Air Force capsule officers apparently were quietly
removed from their job as LCF officers. This part of the
story can not be verified by me, as it was hearsay.

Other information [:]

I also know that OOAMA conducted some engineering tests on
their own, in their HETF (Hill Engineering Test Facility) at
Hill AFB. The results of those tests were not made known to
group I worked for. The HETF was a place where OONE-engineering
at Hill AFB did some of their own analysis.

Boeing did however have engineering support at Hill AFB and
assisted them as requested. Don Peterson our Boeing rep at
Hill AFB is probably the key to uncovering this information.
Another Boeing person there was Bob Blair.

Other engineering testing was conducted by Boeing at their
Network Resolution Analysis (NRA) facility in Seattle. There
was probably a report generated on that work and is referred
to in the papers you sent me. However, as I recall nothing
explained the anomaly at E-Flight. The location of this
effort is also probably in Boeing archives. Current Boeing
Minuteman personnel may shed light on prior activity.

Don Peterson the Boeing Rep at Hill AFB may have additional
leads on who the Airmen were that reported the original UFO
story. I never had that information. I would think that
Malmstrom AFB is the place where that information resides. I
have not talked to Don Peterson for some years but will make
an attempt to contact him for you. He may have other leads
and personnel names.

Don Peterson is believed to have retired in the Ogden area.
Donald Heck did live in the Juanita area of Lake Washington
several years ago. As I remember key other names I will let
you know.

Sincerely Yours;

z~~ [Robert Kaminski]

END OF LETTER TO KLOTZ

In summary, the Air Force eventually lied about the reasons for the Echo Flight shutdown by telling Boeing rep Don Peterson that the launch officers (James’ father and Walt Figel) had screwed up and had been relieved of their positions. We now know that was a cover story. Kaminski had earlier learned the truth—about airmen reporting UFOs at E Flight—from Peterson.

In short, while James Carlson’s deluded misrepresentations about the Echo Flight may fool a few uninformed persons, the facts are available for anyone who wishes to pursue them.

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

reply to post by Robert Hastings


Thank you so much for this very telling transcript. You have more than demonstrated your excellence at research and presenting the information, and this is really revealing.

Unity_99: Thank you so much for this very telling transcript. You have more than demonstrated your excellence at research and presenting the information, and this is really revealing.

RH: Thanks. I know that James Carlson will continue to spew his wild, inaccurate claims. When he does, I hope that others posting on this thread will ask him, repeatedly, "Hey, James, have you called Col. Figel yet?" He never will, of course, because Figel destroys his entire argument.

And then there is Kaminski's input, confirming that airmen did indeed report UFOs at Echo, just as Figel states.