Retired Col. Frederick Meiwald Confirms UFO Activity at Nuke Missile Site in Recent Interview

Greetings Forumerions,

A never-before-released audio interview conducted last May (2011) by researcher Robert Hastings with Colonel Fred Meiwald (Ret) (once again) affirms UFO activity at one of the nuclear missile launch facilities (LF) code-named Oscar while the nuclear missiles malfunctioned and went into a "no-go status."

This declaration supports what Robert Salas has stated for decades, which is the thesis of his book, Faded Giant. (Meiwald, was his commanding officer and was in the LF with him).

On September 27, 2010, seven U.S. Air Force veterans took part in a press conference in Washington D.C. during which they discussed dramatic UFO incursions at nuclear weapons facilities in the 1960s and ‘70s. . . .

One of the participants, former USAF Captain Robert Salas, spoke of being on duty as an ICBM launch officer at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, in March 1967, when a UFO disrupted key systems in each of the ten Minuteman nuclear missiles under his control. Although Salas first divulged the astonishing Oscar Flight UFO Incident in 1995, and had even discussed it at previous public events, the unprecedented, worldwide media coverage surrounding the September 2010 UFO-Nukes Connection press conference resulted in huge publicity for the still-classified case.

On the other hand, intriguing, corroborative statements by the other officer on duty during the Oscar missile-shutdown event, now-retired Colonel Frederick C. Meiwald, have received far less attention. Although Meiwald had candidly discussed it during a tape-recorded telephone conversation with Salas in 1996, his reluctance to talk about the subject further has been obvious.

Nevertheless, during a second telephone interview, conducted on May 6, 2011, Col. Meiwald cautiously confirmed to me that a “bright, flying object at low-level” had indeed been sighted near one of Oscar Flight’s missile silos during the disruption event. Then-Captain Meiwald had received the startling report from a two-man Security Alert Team . . .

The rest of the story . . .

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren

Thanks Frank for bringing this to our attention! Though I wonder how long before James Carlson comes swooping in, frothing at the mouth about how his latest drug induced psychedelic experience somehow confirms that none of this is real? The guy is a fruit basket. I remember a year ago several people asked him real nice to have his father, Eric Carlson, make a statement on the record. What does he do? He runs off and pretends like he has no obligation to confirm that he's properly representing his father's knowledge of what happened. So he not only has the balls to call another man a liar to his face. But when asked to even show a single shred of evidence that anything he's saying has even a modicum of truth to it ‒ he tucks tail and heads for the hills. I hope the bastard gets stuck with a libel charge and exposed as the fraudulent sack of you-know-what that he is.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Though I wonder how long before James Carlson comes swooping in, frothing at the mouth about how his latest drug induced psychedelic experience somehow confirms that none of this is real?

he had a hard time believing that 'ufos' were reported to walt figel.... because he believes that figel believed they were joking... and of course his dad never told him anything...

S+F. Thank-you once again Frank for bringing us some great info re: UFOs and Nukes. I had doubted Salas for quite a while due to some posts made by James Carlson on another site. I'm really curious as to his (James) agenda regarding all of this. Seems maybe Salas isn't the liar in the situation.

Good Day TM,

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Thanks Frank for bringing this to our attention! Though I wonder how long before James Carlson comes swooping in, frothing at the mouth about how his latest drug induced psychedelic experience somehow confirms that none of this is real? The guy is a fruit basket. I remember a year ago several people asked him real nice to have his father, Eric Carlson, make a statement on the record. What does he do? He runs off and pretends like he has no obligation to confirm that he's properly representing his father's knowledge of what happened. So he not only has the balls to call another man a liar to his face. But when asked to even show a single shred of evidence that anything he's saying has even a modicum of truth to it ‒ he tucks tail and heads for the hills. I hope the bastard gets stuck with a libel charge and exposed as the fraudulent sack of you-know-what that he is.

edit on 15-6-2011 by TheMalefactor because: spelling

Sagan said it best: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."

JC is a "believer" (ideologue) and he doesn't even know it. He also has a corrosive, irrational personality and engaging him is not only a waste of time, but a very vexing experience. I choose to ignore him and his ilk.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Kali

Originally posted by Kali74
S+F. Thank-you once again Frank for bringing us some great info re: UFOs and Nukes. I had doubted Salas for quite a while due to some posts made by James Carlson on another site. I'm really curious as to his (James) agenda regarding all of this. Seems maybe Salas isn't the liar in the situation.

What happens when ideologues get involved in research (unfortunately) is that the focus is put on the personalities (let's face they get loud), rather then the work, research, evidence etc.

It's my hope, that folks who are genuinely interested in Ufology as a whole, and the nuke/UFO connection will "look at the evidence," less the spin and come to their own conclusions based on the facts.

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Kali74


reply to post by Frank Warren


OK so you're not crazy about James Carlson.

What are your thoughts on Tim Herbert?

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Conclusion

As I conclude, I have attempted to show that there is overwhelming evidence that UFOs did not cause the shutdown of 10 Minuteman I ICBMs. The information that I have provided hinges on two points:

1. No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO.

2. An extensive investigation provided plausible evidence that a noise pulse EMP-like phenomena had likely caused the shut downs.

Regarding #2 I'm not sure if anyone knows the cause with certainty.

But regarding #1, I must admit that every account I've heard, it's always someone claiming that someone else saw a UFO, I've never read or heard an account from anyone who actually saw a UFO. So I find it difficult to argue with him about #1.

If there were any eyewitnesses to a UFO it would be nice to hear from them, but this latest account is apparently another hearsay account from someone who didn't actually see any UFO.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Kali74

 

reply to post by Frank Warren

 

OK so you're not crazy about James Carlson.

What are your thoughts on Tim Herbert?

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Conclusion

As I conclude, I have attempted to show that there is overwhelming evidence that UFOs did not cause the shutdown of 10 Minuteman I ICBMs. The information that I have provided hinges on two points:

1. No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO.

2. An extensive investigation provided plausible evidence that a noise pulse EMP-like phenomena had likely caused the shut downs.

Regarding #2 I'm not sure if anyone knows the cause with certainty.

But regarding #1, I must admit that every account I've heard, it's always someone claiming that someone else saw a UFO, I've never read or heard an account from anyone who actually saw a UFO. So I find it difficult to argue with him about #1.

If there were any eyewitnesses to a UFO it would be nice to hear from them, but this latest account is apparently another hearsay account from someone who didn't actually see any UFO.

edit on 19-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Not too familiar with Tim Herbert but as I read the article it echo's all debunking, and honestly it always comes down to there's no physical evidence and no one can refute that, at least no one has made progress doing so as of yet. Yet the very things we need in order to get science to take the UFO matter more seriously are reports like these, so tread carefully I say. Be skeptical always, dismissive...no.

What we seem to have is corroborating reports that officers and gaurds were reporting UFOs up the chain of command, now those men who allgedly saw these UFOs are not the ones talking, but we do have men who were in command such as Meiwald saying his men did in fact report UFOs. Now factor in the nuclear missles dropping to no-go status simultaneously with UFOs being reported up the chain of command.

How often do military personell report (joking or not) UFOs? How often do our nuclear missles (during the cold war none the less) drop to no-go status? What could have a caused a noise pulse EMP anyway? Were we testing black tech on our own missile defense system?

Think about it:
We have missiles that are part of our missle defense system during the cold war dropping to no-go.
We have gaurds and officers giving and hearing reports over radios of 1 or more UFOs hovering over silos.
We have a mysterious noise pulse EMP.
Odd and extremely rare all on their own, right? But each time, they happened simultaneously. Not just in the US but in the USSR as well. Not easily dismissed in my book.

Originally posted by Kali74
Not too familiar with Tim Herbert but as I read the article it echo's all debunking, and honestly it always comes down to there's no physical evidence and no one can refute that, at least no one has made progress doing so as of yet.

What could have a caused a noise pulse EMP anyway?

Did you read the article?

Because it answers that question.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Kali74
Not too familiar with Tim Herbert but as I read the article it echo's all debunking, and honestly it always comes down to there's no physical evidence and no one can refute that, at least no one has made progress doing so as of yet.

What could have a caused a noise pulse EMP anyway?

Did you read the article?

Because it answers that question.

I read it, read it before also and I'm not sure it was proven and the timing of it is pretty questionable. Either we have an amazing coincedence here or we have some questionable people around who think that when our missles go offline it's the perfect time for a joke. Are you going to reply to anything else I wrote or did you just stop at your assumption?

Originally posted by Kali74
Are you going to reply to anything else I wrote or did you just stop at your assumption?

I think you're asking questions that are answered in Herberts article, which makes me question how carefully you read it.

If you want to refute any of his claims, quote his claims from the article you want to refute and I'll respond to that. But he does address most of what you question so I didn't see the point in just retyping parts of the article here, when you said you've already read it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


He re-tells the story that many have re-told regarding this issue, I've given my opinions and laid out what I don't accept as answers. You are the one who asked me a question and I feel I've answered. If you don't wish to discuss it or don't particularly like my style, that's certainly your prerogative, no need to dictate.

Good Day Arbitrageur,

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Kali74

 

reply to post by Frank Warren

 

OK so you're not crazy about James Carlson.

What are your thoughts on Tim Herbert?

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Conclusion

As I conclude, I have attempted to show that there is overwhelming evidence that UFOs did not cause the shutdown of 10 Minuteman I ICBMs. The information that I have provided hinges on two points:

1. No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO.

2. An extensive investigation provided plausible evidence that a noise pulse EMP-like phenomena had likely caused the shut downs.

Regarding #2 I'm not sure if anyone knows the cause with certainty.

But regarding #1, I must admit that every account I've heard, it's always someone claiming that someone else saw a UFO, I've never read or heard an account from anyone who actually saw a UFO. So I find it difficult to argue with him about #1.

If there were any eyewitnesses to a UFO it would be nice to hear from them, but this latest account is apparently another hearsay account from someone who didn't actually see any UFO.

edit on 19-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

First and foremost, my "personal" experience with Tim, is that he makes his arguments in a civil tone, and in doing so–folks in general, along with myself will listen to his arguments, contrary to (what Stan would call) noisy negativists.

In fact we host his blog at The UFO Chronicles (re snippets and links to).

That said, I feel he comes (as we all have at one point) from a position of "cognitive bias"; although he claims agnosticism re Ufology, if one reads the preamble to the a fore mentioned article, he admits his bias re UFOs, for example he writes:

"I'm of the mind frame that you have to "show me the saucer" or better yet, I need to see one with my own eyes."

It's important to point out that during the events, at Oscar & Echo, both Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commanders (DMCC), i.e., Salas & Figel didn't "initially" take the men reporting UFOs to them seriously. (The latter, even though he confirms the events at Echo still poo-poos Ufology in general). The point being is that their initial reaction was based on their collective mindsets of the time, and that same bias is evident with Hebert and his penscript.

Ideologues operate from the notion that "it can't be," therefore the evidence is flawed; hence–they start with a conclusion and work backwards, "molding the facts" to fit the preconceived conclusions. [By the way, when I use the term "ideologue," this applies to both sides of the isle, i.e., debunkers and those that see aliens in their soup!)

Hebert writes: "No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO." Since Tim's article is entitled, "Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?", then in that vein, his statement is incorrect (see links below). Moreover, I don't believe it "would matter" for Tim et al, if one of the "direct" eyewitnesses (at Echo or Oscar) shared their experience or not–the declaration and or the witness would be discounted to fit their dogma (it can't be so it didn't happen).

Tim also writes: "An extensive investigation provided plausible evidence that a noise pulse EMP-like phenomena had likely caused the shut downs." If one reads the reports closely, one will find that this is "speculation." It is also speculation (albeit strong) that UFOs caused the shut down . . . as at this point (IMHO) the dots haven't been connected–this is in stark contrast to the preponderance of evidence in support of UFOs being present during the missile malfunctions.

Finally, another common fault of ideologues, is they put their respective blinders on; that is to say they ignore all of the other collateral evidence pertaining to the UFO phenomenon in general, and the UFO-Nuke phenomenon specifically:

• They ignore the fact that Hastings has interviewed over 120 former missileers who have shared UFO reports in some form or fashion.

• They ignore the fact that the reason we know of the incidents at Echo and Oscar at all is because some of the witnesses either spoke out or began researching and performing FOIAs (Fowler, Salas & Klotz).

• They ignore the fact that there is a long pattern and history of UFO activity at or in close proximity to nuclear weapons facilities and defense installations since 1947.

• They ignore the fact the government/military was–very early on, not only cognizant of this, but concerned as well.

• They ignore the fact that there is a long history and pattern of electromagnetic reports re UFOs and vehicles/planes etc., which appears like an "EMP."

Aside from the 3 out of 4 commanders of two nuclear Launch Control Centers (LCC) confirming UFO activity during (unprecedented) missile malfunctions–let us not forget that there were other witnesses and activity during the month of March, in 1967 in the Malmstrom missile fields–to site a few:

• The first public announcement acknowledging missile malfunctions coinciding with UFOs in close proximity to launch facilities occurred in 1973 and was initially published by the Christian Science Monitor

• The same witness, Ray Fowler mentioned in the a fore mentioned article, gives further details here.

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

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

•Investigation of UFO Reported Landing on 24 March 1967 Near Malmstrom AFB

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

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

• The Air Force Cover-Up: "Deception, Distortion, and Lying to The Public About the Reality of the UFO Phenomenon"

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
First and foremost, my "personal" experience with Tim, is that he makes his arguments in a civil tone, and in doing so–folks in general, along with myself will listen to his arguments, contrary to (what Stan would call) noisy negativists.

Hi Frank,

Yes I thought he's probably more civil than James Carlson at times.

And thanks for the thoughtful reply and the links. So far I've only read one of them, it will take me some time to read the others. This is the one I've read:

• They ignore the fact that there is a long pattern and history of UFO activity at or in close proximity to nuclear weapons facilities and defense installations since 1947.

• They ignore the fact the government/military was–very early on, not only cognizant of this, but concerned as well....

• They ignore the fact that Hastings has interviewed over 120 former missileers who have shared UFO reports in some form or fashion.

And yet he wasn't able to find the people who actually saw the UFO and interview them? The CIA had an explanation for this concentration of sightings, the same year as that article you linked to. Whether it's the right explanation or not I don't know, but it does have some plausibility:

The Air Force Stand on "Flying Saucers" -- as stated by CIA, in a briefing on 22 August 1952

II. (A) The Air Force denies that "flying saucers" are:

(1) U.S. secret weapons
(2) Soviet secret weapons
(3) Extra-terrestrial visitors

(B) It is believed that all sightings of "flying saucers" are:

(1) Well known objects such as balloons (over 4000 are released daily in the U.S.), aircraft,
meteors, clouds, etc. not recognized as such by the observer.

(2) Phenomena of the atmosphere which are at present poorly understood, e.g., refractions
and reflections caused by temperature inversions, ionization phenomena, ball lightning, etc.

III. Not a shred of evidence exist to substantiate the belief that "flying saucers" are material objects not falling into category IIB(1) above.

IV. A study of "flying saucer" sightings on a geographical basis showed them to be more frequent in the vicinity of atomic energy installations (which is explained by the greater security consciousness of persons in those areas). That by-products of atomic fission may in some way act catalytically to produce "flying saucers" has not been disproved. The greatest number of sightings has been made at or near Dayton, Ohio where the investigations are going on.

So is it because of greater security consciousness? I don't know. But there are some interesting correlations. One is that the air force says they think a lot of sightings were balloons, and the sightings had been taking place for 5 years, and wasn't it also about 5 years prior that they started the skyhook balloon program? Coincidence?

So I don't particularly doubt that UFOs were seen near atomic installations and perhaps as the CIA suggests it may have had some relationship to greater security awareness at such installations. But given the air force seemed to think a lot of those sightings were probably balloons (in addition to other manmade objects and natural phenomena). Since the timing of the sightings just happened to match the skyhook balloon program, I find it hard to rule out that many of the sightings could in fact have been balloons, though probably not all, I suspect there were multiple sources for the sightings.

The other interesting thing in that article is they said they were setting up 200 special cameras to photograph the UFOs, I wonder what ever came of that project? I thought that was interesting. You'd think if these things were visiting atomic installations, they'd want to try to get some pictures and set up some of the 200 cameras near those sites.

• They ignore the fact that there is a long history and pattern of electromagnetic reports re UFOs and vehicles/planes etc., which appears like an "EMP."

I've heard that said, but I've never seen any good evidence for that claim.

• They ignore the fact that the reason we know of the incidents at Echo and Oscar at all is because some of the witnesses either spoke out or began researching and performing FOIAs (Fowler, Salas & Klotz).

I guess I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make with that observation? It's not like I'd expect the military to put up billboards advertising a defense installation went offline, whatever the cause.

Hebert writes: "No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO." Since Tim's article is entitled, "Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?", then in that vein, his statement is incorrect (see links below). Moreover, I don't believe it "would matter" for Tim et al, if one of the "direct" eyewitnesses (at Echo or Oscar) shared their experience or not–the declaration and or the witness would be discounted to fit their dogma (it can't be so it didn't happen).

I thought he was after a direct witness, when he made that statement "No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO." But given what I know about the balloon timing, I would be very interested to hear specifics of the sighting firsthand to see if it could have been a manmade object like a skyhook balloon, or some other natural phenomena. (Or if it was a joke). On the other hand, if there were specifics about the sighting that seemed to rule those out, I'd find that interesting too.

Anyway, thanks again for the links, I'll look forward to reading them.

The idea these sites were knocked out by an EMP is so laughable as to make the theory it was UFOs did it, seem way way more sensible. EMP is just one of those phrases the ilk of Herbert throw out there to confuse and patronise those who don't actually bother to dig a little deeper. An EMP pulse, or at least the ones we know about and can produce our self, are not selective. If you hit a nuclear bunker with an EMP the lights go out , the phones are gone, anything involving an electrical circuit is dead meat and they don't *just start again*.

What they would have you actually believe is this. That someone directed an EMP along phone lines and other communication lines that selectively hit only certain systems. This at the same time the US is having it's military back side rudely spanked by a bunch of farmers with AK47s and sharp bamboo sticks. Why the hell didn;t they use this incredible technology to simply disable every last command post in Hanoi and force the North Vietnamese to sue for peace, rather than, screw up their own defenses?

Let me see if I am understanding this right. Rather than test this out on someone they didn't like, knowing if it can't be controlled it doesn't really matter, they risked banjaxing a mufti million dollar, brand new facility that formed an essential part of home land defense. Then having successfully tested the new *weapon* which would give them so much of a head start over the Russkis as to make them guaranteed winners in any conflict, they did absolutely jack all with it and just forgot about it?

On the other hand, whoever these saboteurs were, only ever did it to selective missile bases, never made any demands or made their full intentions clear and never went on to , effectively take over the world cos they could simply disable any electrical system in the world at will.

In tactical terms, a directional and controllable EMP weapon, it's a bit like giving Genghis Khan a squadron of F22s and a battalion of Challenger tanks to attack the world with in medieval times.

Then all you have to explain is how this happened to both Soviet and NATO missile silos and just who managed to wander in set it up, pull it off and then say absolutely nothing about it and make absolutely no demands. It's at that point I personally start thinking..."You know what? UFO's as an explanation doesn't seem quite as barmy as some of these skeptics theories"

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Frank Warren
• They ignore the fact that there is a long history and pattern of electromagnetic reports re UFOs and vehicles/planes etc., which appears like an "EMP."

I've heard that said, but I've never seen any good evidence for that claim.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good Day Arbitrageur,

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Frank Warren
First and foremost, my "personal" experience with Tim, is that he makes his arguments in a civil tone, and in doing so–folks in general, along with myself will listen to his arguments, contrary to (what Stan would call) noisy negativists.

Hi Frank,

Yes I thought he's probably more civil than James Carlson at times.

Re Hebert–note that I emphasized "personally"; he's always been civil to me, hence a reasonable dialogue can ensue, regardless of the opposing positions.

And thanks for the thoughtful reply and the links. So far I've only read one of them, it will take me some time to read the others. This is the one I've read:

Your very welcome. And those were some "off the cuff!"

• They ignore the fact that there is a long pattern and history of UFO activity at or in close proximity to nuclear weapons facilities and defense installations since 1947.

• They ignore the fact the government/military was–very early on, not only cognizant of this, but concerned as well....

• They ignore the fact that Hastings has interviewed over 120 former missileers who have shared UFO reports in some form or fashion.

And yet he wasn't able to find the people who actually saw the UFO and interview them?

If you're speaking "specifically" to Echo and or Oscar flights, it's not prudent to describe Robert's actions in the "definitive." Research is ongoing, (and not all is in the public domain) and it's important to remember that all concerned were debriefed and told not to talk about it. Additionally, not all feel that the public "has a right to know." Moreover, if you listen to the Meiwald interview some of the witnesses were pretty shook up.

In short, just because the declarations of any of the airmen top-side hasn't been brought to light, doesn't mean they won't be. Remember, "Roswell" is a house-hold name because a reporter was late to interview Stan Friedman in 1978; now, there are over 500 witnesses, collateral witnesses etc., that have been uncovered.

The CIA had an explanation for this concentration of sightings, the same year as that article you linked to. Whether it's the right explanation or not I don't know, but it does have some plausibility:

The summer of 1952 (IMHO) is the year that the PTB put "debunking" in high gear, e.g., trying to explain what pilots were chasing and what was being tracked by radar as "heat inversions" etc. The underlying importance, is the noted "concentration" of sightings at "atomic energy (and weapons) facilities, as well as the concern they had about it.

The Air Force Stand on "Flying Saucers" -- as stated by CIA, in a briefing on 22 August 1952

II. (A) The Air Force denies that "flying saucers" are:

(1) U.S. secret weapons
(2) Soviet secret weapons
(3) Extra-terrestrial visitors

(B) It is believed that all sightings of "flying saucers" are:

(1) Well known objects such as balloons (over 4000 are released daily in the U.S.), aircraft,
meteors, clouds, etc. not recognized as such by the observer.

(2) Phenomena of the atmosphere which are at present poorly understood, e.g., refractions
and reflections caused by temperature inversions, ionization phenomena, ball lightning, etc.

III. Not a shred of evidence exist to substantiate the belief that "flying saucers" are material objects not falling into category IIB(1) above.

IV. A study of "flying saucer" sightings on a geographical basis showed them to be more frequent in the vicinity of atomic energy installations (which is explained by the greater security consciousness of persons in those areas). That by-products of atomic fission may in some way act catalytically to produce "flying saucers" has not been disproved. The greatest number of sightings has been made at or near Dayton, Ohio where the investigations are going on.

So is it because of greater security consciousness? I don't know. But there are some interesting correlations. One is that the air force says they think a lot of sightings were balloons, and the sightings had been taking place for 5 years, and wasn't it also about 5 years prior that they started the skyhook balloon program? Coincidence?

So I don't particularly doubt that UFOs were seen near atomic installations and perhaps as the CIA suggests it may have had some relationship to greater security awareness at such installations. But given the air force seemed to think a lot of those sightings were probably balloons (in addition to other manmade objects and natural phenomena). Since the timing of the sightings just happened to match the skyhook balloon program, I find it hard to rule out that many of the sightings could in fact have been balloons, though probably not all, I suspect there were multiple sources for the sightings.

Much like it is with sightings in general, there is no doubt, that many of the UFO reports (particularly distant lights in the sky etc.) post investigation, could be attributed to conventional and or "natural origin"; however, at the same time (like general reports) some defy conventional explanations and remain "unknowns." For example:

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

• Carpio Grano, North Dakota: UFO Lands Near Minuteman Missile Base; Affects Radio Transmissions - Defensive Measures Taken!Investigation of UFO Reported Landing on 24 March 1967 Near Malmstrom AFB

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

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

• UFO & NUKES | F.E. WARREN AFB: UFOS Spotted Over Nuke Missile Sites; One Hits The Ground - Security Teams Dispatched!

• "The Bogey Appeared to Explode in Mid Air and Land in a Field”

• UFOs Reported 200 Ft Above Nike Missile Base HM-40 at Key Largo, Florida

• Altus Oklahoma: UFO Hovers Over Nuclear Missile Silo for 8 To 10 Minutes

• Moore, Montana: Security Guard at Nuclear Missile Site Reports UFO Near Complex

The other interesting thing in that article is they said they were setting up 200 special cameras to photograph the UFOs, I wonder what ever came of that project? I thought that was interesting. You'd think if these things were visiting atomic installations, they'd want to try to get some pictures and set up some of the 200 cameras near those sites.

Your in good company. Important to remember that we're dealing with matters of "national security" (i.e., nuclear missile facilities) and what little information that's in the public domain is the tip of the ice-berg.

• They ignore the fact that there is a long history and pattern of electromagnetic reports re UFOs and vehicles/planes etc., which appears like an "EMP."

I've heard that said, but I've never seen any good evidence for that claim.

Reports of "electromagnetic effects" have paralleled UFO reports since day one (remember Fred M Johnson's compass spinning wildly in the Arnold case).

A good place to start is right here at ATS:

56 Pilot Sightings Involving Electromagnetic Effects

Here's an interesting car case:

Mystery Object Called Inter-Planetary Craft 11-4-1957

See also:

The Challenge of Unidentified Flying Objects by Maney & Hall and Alfred Loedding & The Great Flying Saucer Waave of 1947 by Hall & Connors.

• They ignore the fact that the reason we know of the incidents at Echo and Oscar at all is because some of the witnesses either spoke out or began researching and performing FOIAs (Fowler, Salas & Klotz).

I guess I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make with that observation? It's not like I'd expect the military to put up billboards advertising a defense installation went offline, whatever the cause.

Unfortunately, most people that come into the Echo/Oscar events are overwhelmed by the squabble that is currently going on, and the facts/evidence takes a backseat; it's important to understand how this came to light . . . how it got started–which is due primarily to Salas & Klotz early research (after learning of Fowler's statements) and FOIA request (then later Hastings). For example, "341st Strategic Missile Wing unit history" was uncovered by FOIA request by S & K, and debunkers like to use it because it only mentioned "UFOs as rumors."

Hebert writes: "No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO." Since Tim's article is entitled, "Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?", then in that vein, his statement is incorrect (see links below). Moreover, I don't believe it "would matter" for Tim et al, if one of the "direct" eyewitnesses (at Echo or Oscar) shared their experience or not–the declaration and or the witness would be discounted to fit their dogma (it can't be so it didn't happen).

I thought he was after a direct witness, when he made that statement "No one has ever provided any accounting that they had physically seen a UFO." But given what I know about the balloon timing, I would be very interested to hear specifics of the sighting firsthand to see if it could have been a manmade object like a skyhook balloon, or some other natural phenomena. (Or if it was a joke). On the other hand, if there were specifics about the sighting that seemed to rule those out, I'd find that interesting too.

Anyway, thanks again for the links, I'll look forward to reading them.

This is why I referenced the title; there were several incidents at Malmstrom, and there was an abundance of evidence including eyewitnesses, documentary, physical evidence, radar etc.

Cheers,
Frank