It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by James Carlson
Hastings wrote:

"When I told Bob Salas about my call to Carlson, he called Eric himself two days later (10/8/08). Salas then emailed me and wrote, "I just finished speaking with Eric Carlson... What he told me is that he could not say for sure if UFOs were responsible for his missiles being shutdown. He said there were so many reports of UFOs from security guards that he could not say for sure that they received such reports on that day. Of course, he was not the guy on 'Alert' duty at the time of the shutdowns. Walt Figel was the one who was awake and was speaking with the maintenance and security teams at the time of the shutdowns. While he said he did not recall being interviewed by any ‘top brass’ he did say he received a call from the senior controller at SAC headquarters after the event. He said that because it was so long ago, he does not recall if Figel told him about the UFOs during the shutdowns or not. It is important to note that this statement by Carlson does not negate or contradict Figel’s statements."

Once again -- everything wrong, this time by both Hastings and Salas. My father was awake, he was the first to noice that the missiles were going offline, and he was right next to Figel when all of the calls came in. Figel also agrees with all of this, and the FOIA documents note as well that my father was the first person to see the missiles going offline. No reports of UFOs came in prior to the missiles going offline, anbd everything these guys have said on the subject is slanted to make them appear honest, and they are not.

Hastings wrote:

"The facts of the matter as stated by Col. Meiwald, Lt. Col Figel, Boeing engineer Robert Kaminski, to name a few—fully support Salas’ (and Klotz’) published material on the Malmstrom cases. Too bad you also did not buy Faded Giant either, but instead accepted the rantings ("smelly butt" "abortion") of the younger Carlson who, by the way, also talks in his posts of lightning at Malmstrom and computer failures at Echo, neither of which were reported by the Air Force or Boeing in their reports relating to the causes of shutdowns."

Col. Meiwald does not believe UFOs shut down the missiles ANYWHERE -- he does not believe in UFOs period. Robert Kaminski's quotes by Hastings and Salas are incomplete, but also support in whole the actual version of what went down on March 16, as reported by the investigating team that detail in my narrative. And, although I have discussed lightning at the site, it was only to point out that the lightning can cause as well an electromagnetic pulse sufficient to shut down electrical systems, and that weather reports were fully investigated by the Echo Flight team in order to ensure that lightning was NOT present and could nopt have been a factor in the shutdowns. What I wrote was "The investigation even went into full radar and atmospheric characteristics, because they needed to know whether a lightning strike may have caused the power surge; all of the radar and atmospheric reports were also negative." Lightning effects, were, however, tested for by the investigating team at Echo Flight, as was the transformer failure, because both incidents could have potentially been a source for the electronic noise pulse that actually shut down the system. All of this is spelled out very clearly in the FOIA documents, all of which I've included in my narrative. The CUFON website, however, has only published pages 32-34 and page 38 of only one quarter from the command history, and doesn't discuss most of the ongoing investigation at all.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by James Carlson

Hastings wrote:

"When I asked Jim Klotz about the claim of a computer failure, he responded, "As for a computer being ‘faulty,’ this is not the case. I base this on many things, not the least of which is that no equipment was changed out after the incident and before the (E) flight was completely back on strat alert. True, it was a ‘fault’ in the logic coupler which could loosely be called a computer (by today's understanding of that word) (presumably) caused by the mysterious "noise" that somehow got into the system. The term ‘fault’ is a technical computer term that (in this case) implies nothing wrong with the system, but refers to an unexpected behavior of the system in response to an un-planned-for ‘noise’ or signal being supplied to a system input. Perhaps the junior Carlson is confusing these ideas."

I haven't confused anything. I never said a computer error caused the failure of the missiles. What I wrote was, "Salas wants us to believe that the government didn't publish a final report because they wanted to cover up the incident, but you and I both know that the government doesn't cover up an incident by ignoring it -- they publish a report of an investigation that says the reason the missiles shut down was something very conventional, like a computer error." Everything this individuals say on the subject is slanted to attack their opponents -- it's absolutely sickening they way they go about it. Anmd yet people oln this forum don't understand why I refere to thrm as "liars." I don't say it lightly -- I say it because it's a proven fact.

Hastings wrote:

"Here are the actual facts: Salas approached researcher Jim Klotz in 1995 and asked him to file FOIA requests, regarding the Malmstrom incidents, on his behalf, in an effort to find out whether his own experience had been recorded in the wing history. When the history was finally declassified, acknowledging a full-flight missile shutdown at Echo, on March 16, 1967, and also referencing UFO sightings at November (supposedly disproven, but we now know the truth from the historian himself) Salas assumed that he and his missile commander, Fred Meiwald, were at November Flight, the other flight mentioned in the history, because the two launch officers at Echo, Figel and Carlson, had already been identified."

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by James Carlson

Salas was telling radio audiences that he was at Echo Flight in 1995. He wasn't. The history that Hastings refers top was declassified automatically in 1979 -- not as a result of anything Salas did. This is proven. There was no reference in anything from 1967 referencing UFOs seen a November Flight. Those individuals were all questioned and all agreed that they saw nothing odd. This is all in the FOIA documents requested by Salas. Nowhere is there mention anywhere that UFOs were seen at November Flight. These references Hastings discusses simply don't exist. Klotz and Hastings both refer to "the Wing Historian" David Gamble, who supposedly confirmed that lots of UFOs were seen but every mention he put into the command history were removed by his superiors. But if you actually examione the FOIA documents that I've included in my narrative -- ALL of the documents -- you'll immediately note that Klotz and CUFON and gang published the WRONG cover sheet those very few pages they actually discuss. The cover page that actually belongs with all of the entries involving the actual Echo Flight Incident do not show that anything was actually approved for inclusion by David Gamble, who -- as Wing Historian -- was simply an E-2 clerk in the Information Office, who had no authority, no rank, and had been in the Air Force for only a year or so. Subsequent command histories also indicate that when he was finally given the authority to approve content and draft the command histories himself, he did such a bad job of it, that he was replaced by an E-4 Sgt. So whatever Gamble has to say, is irrelevant as comments by an incompetent clerk in the Information Office. I've also documented all of this my narrative.

Hastings wrote:

"Salas’ conclusion was based on two things: When Meiwald called the command center to report the Oscar missiles going off alert status, he was told (according to Col. Meiwald himself) that the same thing "simultaneous, multiple missile failures" had happened earlier at another flight. Once the wing history was declassified, Salas initially assumed (correctly) that the earlier flight was Echo and also assumed (incorrectly) that he and Meiwald had been at November, since that was the other flight mentioned in the history. At that point, Salas had not yet located Meiwald to confirm the facts. That happened later on, after the Salas/Klotz article was published online in 1996."

Not even Salas says that now -- Salas now claims that he didn't find out about Echo Flight going down until March 25, when someone told him that "the same thing happened at Echo Flight". Originally he said my father called to tell him while they were still on watch; then he said another LCF called to tell his commander, and finally, that Meiwald was told by SAC when he first started reporting the incident at November-Oscar Flight -- an incident that still has not been confirmed, since there's no mention of it anywhere, and nobody except Salas is willing to go on the record that a UFO was ever seen by anyone near Oscar Flight -- which is about 120 miles away from all of the sightings made at Malmstrom on March 24-25. In any case, he now says he didn't find out about Echo Flight until after his watch was over and he had gotten some sleep -- a week or so after the Echo Flight missiles were taken offline.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by James Carlson

Hastings wrote:

Because 341st SMW Historian David Gamble stated "the UFO aspect of the incident" was rewritten, that is, the "rumors" of the presence of UFOs were portrayed as unfounded by his superiors in the Wing History, Salas reasonably concluded that UFOs had indeed been sighted at November Flight and, therefore, that was the flight he was at. However, when Salas’ missile commander that day, Col. Meiwald, was finally located and interviewed by both Salas and Klotz, Meiwald insisted that the second full-flight shutdown -- the one he and Salas had been involved in -- was at Oscar, not November Flight. So, Salas deferred to Meiwald’s recollection of the flight’s designation. As noted earlier, with the exception of the number of missiles that malfunctioned, Col. Meiwald completely endorses Salas’ account."

Except for the date, which he isn't certain of, and the fact that UFOs were involved. These guys don't know how to tell the truth.

Look don't believe me -- look for yourselvers; I tell you exactly where to look, and in many cases, I give you the internet link. Please -- take a look, judge for yourself. I'm willing to let you see everything, not just a few pages, and know exactly what these people have said, not just my version of it. If you still believe what they're telling you -- fine. At least now you'll be able to back it up with a few facts and not just their summations aqnd conjectures.

My narrative is available for free at:

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Xtraeme

James, I don't think you realize that summaries on websites are frequently wrong and written by people who are less than in the know. What you did in that section is unabashedly manipulate what Salas said to frame it in a way that was convenient for your argument.

No, I'm referring to a joint statement made on the CUFON website by the same 2 guys who wrote a book on the subject. If they got it wrong -- they should have removed it. Unfortunately, as of last week, it's been up since 1999.

The only reason I even bother to mention November flight and Echo flight is to show the man clearly recognizes the chain of command as you've described it, though you obviously have a spin here.

You're talking about the statements he made in a section that discusses his attempts to find confirmation, while I'm talking about statements he made describing what was actually going on on March 16, 1967. I'm trying to show that the only reason he settled on a date of March 16 and not some other date is because of his claims that my father called him at the LCF on March 16, 1967

You're not an idiot James.

No, I'm not. And I understand when somebody makes a statement they intend to make. And I know exactly what I said and what I was reffereing to. He lied about what my father told him on the phone call that never happened, and he lied about what my father told him years later when he was supposedly looking for confirmation. And he has said repeatedly that my father confirms his ridiculous story about UFOs, and he has not done so. The only person who seems to be confused about what's been said here is you. I know exactly what my father told him, and I know exactly what he SAYS my father told him. And Salas has been all over the place on this one issue -- as well es every other issue related to this ONE event. Are you trying to tell me that I should ignore all internet commentary that discusses members of my family if it's on the internet, because it's probably not true? I gotta to tell, I don't see your point. I'm not putting a "spin" on anything. I'm taking direct quotes from a guy who should know better. He's given three different versions of one phone call, and two of another 30 years later, so which one am I supposed to concern myself with? I think I'll take the most logical choice and concern myself with ALL of them.

If this was put before a judge you'd get slammed with libel. This is so clearly a misinterpretation of what's written that it's blatantly obvious to any fact-checker.

It's a shame you don't understand the law a bit better. I guess that's one thing you have in common with all the other conspiracy junkies -- you talk a fine game about the law, but you don't understand it very well. Keep in mind, that my book is also distributed only on the internet. And keep in mindf that I haven't lied ONCE about anything. And I don't need legal counsel -- I can find by myself. And I don't need legal protection, because I can easily prove every word I've included.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by James Carlson

And because I'm the sort of guy who likes to position all of this information together, and because Xtraeme mentioned in an earlier section that I should collect what Hastings has said that I dispute, because it would make my argument stronger, here's another statement he made, this time on this website.

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.

--- of course, prior to this he was telling everyone my father was asleep, but here he's just telling everyone that my father thinks I have "psychological problems" as he stated on another website. These clowns do whatever they think is necessary to stifle debate, regardless what the source is. I for one am sick of it -- but I think everybody knows that by now. Of course, by Xtraeme's logic, I can't even call this a lie, because it was said on the internet. So I'll just call it obscene, and leave it at that.

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Robert Hastings
I will print out your list of questions, read them on the flight, and have answers for you sometime over the weekend.

Three developments--two of them directly related to the ongoing exchange between James Carlson and myself--will delay, by up to two weeks, my posting my responses to James' questions. When I do respond, the information I will provide should leave no doubt as to who is accurately reporting on the events occurring at Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, and who is not.

In the interim, as time permits, I may post additional exerpts from my book which confirm that the type of events described by former Minuteman missile launch officer Bob Salas occurred at several Strategic Air Command ICBM and bomber bases, both prior to and following the UFO-related incidents at Malmstrom AFB, in March 1967.

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:51 PM
From my book UFOs and Nukes:

In 2002, I interviewed retired USAF Colonel John W. Haley III, who had been assigned to Strategic Air Command Headquarters in the mid-1970s. Before discussing the Northern Tier cases, Haley described an earlier assignment:

"I was the 5th MMS (Munitions Maintenance Squadron) Commander 5th Bomb Wing from June 1973 to August 1975, at Minot AFB, North Dakota. My Squadron loaded [nuclear] weapons on the B52H [bombers] and serviced, stored and provided Reentry Vehicles/Reentry systems to the 91st Strategic Missile Wing. We had no anomalous UFO sightings during this period. However, the incident I am going to relay to you occurred shortly after I returned to SAC Headquarters in 1975."

"From June 1975 to December 1977, I was again stationed—it was my second tour—at Headquarters, SAC, at Bellevue, Nebraska, as a Munitions Staff Officer. A daily report, assembled by the Office of Information—of any information that might be of interest to the General Officers—was circulated first to the generals and then to the total staff."

"In the fall of 1975—September, I believe—a series of UFO sighting reports, at the Loring AFB Weapons Storage Area and the Malmstrom AFB ICBM field, were detailed in the daily report for at least a week. The Loring incident [involved] a UFO that periodically hovered over the WSA and was reported to be taking radiation readings. I do not know how this was determined."

"At Malmstrom, a UFO followed, at low altitude, a missile crew on its way to a site. They were told by radio not to proceed with the changeover [of the personnel on duty], but to drive around. Meanwhile, an F-106 from the 5th [Fighter Interceptor Squadron] at Minot AFB was scrambled for an intercept. The pilot did get the UFO on radar and [had a] visual but was outdistanced and could not achieve a lock for firing. The intercept was broken off due to low fuel. The UFO returned. Another F-106 was scrambled with the same results. This took several hours. Years later, I asked the Malmstrom area Air Division Commander what he knew of this incident. He would not discuss it and neither would any of the HQ SAC generals at the time."

I asked Haley if he could recall the exact title of the daily report he had mentioned. Researcher Jim Klotz had volunteered to file an FOIA request for it, but needed that information to do so. Haley replied, “The report was known as the daily recap but did not have a formal name and, surprisingly, did not have an official cover letter. It did have a SAC staff routing page for the applicable deputy—Deputy Chief of Staff/Logistics, for instance. Each directorate received their [own] copy to route to the branches and their individual staffers. The report was quite crude, with different sizes of paper, copies of cut-out newspaper articles, logs, and command and control reports—anything the Office of Information thought the staff might be interested in.”

I then asked Haley if he recalled any details regarding the reported UFOs. He replied, “I do not recall any description being given other than metallic objects that hovered or zoomed away.”

Finally, I asked Haley about the UFO hovering over the Loring AFB Weapons Storage Area, where nuclear bombs were stockpiled. I wondered whether the written reference to the radiation-monitoring had been speculative, or expressed as a certainty. He replied, “I think it was conjecture, based on the assumption that radiation was the only signature of the nuclear weapons that could have been monitored. This presumes that looking into buildings and bunkers was not possible—which was probably a naïve assumption.”

Haley’s perspective as an insider is invaluable. His recollection of the incidents having occurred in “September” 1975 is in error, but understandable given the passage of decades. The documented incidents at the Loring AFB Weapons Storage Area occurred on October 27th and 28th. On the other hand, his description of the two attempted fighter intercepts may be a previously unknown case. I am unaware of any declassified reference to fighters being launched from Minot AFB, North Dakota, in the fall of 1975, to intercept any of the UFOs reportedly maneuvering over the missile field in Montana. All of the fighters had been scrambled from Great Falls International Airport, because Malmstrom AFB’s lone runway was under repairs during that period. If the intercept incident did indeed occur as Haley remembers, the reason for the launches from Minot, rather than Malmstrom or Great Falls, remains unclear.

--Robert Hastings

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Robert Hastings]

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:37 PM
From my book UFOs and Nukes:

Although the following incidents were not as dramatic as the two missile shutdowns which occurred at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, they do indicate continuing UFO activity at ICBM bases as the 1970s unfolded—including reports of missile tampering—as well as at SAC nuclear bomber bases and even one U.S. Army tactical nuclear weapons storage depot.

Retired USAF Security Policeman ---- ----- told me, “I was assigned to Malmstrom from 1962 to 1964, and again from 1969 to 1972, and finally from 1975 to 1977. I was in the Security Police Group all three times. I worked several positions in missile security: Standboard section, Scheduling, and as flight security supervisor.”

“I can’t recall any occasion when I had a personal experience with UFO activity, but there was a location in the 490th Strategic Missile Squadron, generally referred to as the Kilo Triangle by security forces working in this area. This location was from the Kilo-1 [Launch Control Facility] to the Launch Facility at M-6 and another LF in the Mike Flight area—I can’t recall [its designation]—that formed a triangle. I had heard several strange events had occurred in this area.”

He continued, “One particular event I heard about happened to a Camper Alert Team (CAT) at the LF M-6. This LF is located south of Eddie’s Corner near U.S. 87 and U.S. 191, along the boundary of the Lewis & Clark National Forest. Supposedly they had experienced an incident where a very bright light from the sky—possibly coming from an object—had illuminated the site and scared the hell out of the team in the early morning hours of darkness. I also heard the site may have gone off alert about this same time.”

“Allegedly one of the Camper Team guards had taken Polaroid photos of the light. I never heard what happened to the photos. The incident was reported to the command post, but I never heard anymore about it—it wasn’t publicized. This was in the spring of 1972. I was not working in that area, but I was a Standboard evaluator and we made trips to the field to evaluate the security forces and [that’s when] we heard these stories. I never paid much attention to them until years later when UFOs became an item of interest.”

Finally, referring to the reported UFO sightings at missile facilities, ----- said, “I have no doubt the security personnel [accurately] reported what they had seen, and I can understand why commanders would suppress the information, to keep the public from learning of a possible threat to military resources when there was virtually no way to defend against it.”

--Robert Hastings

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
From my book UFOs and Nukes:

I have interviewed two individuals who reported UFOs near Atlas missile silos at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, during the early 1960s. One of them, Airman First Class Arthur McEnaney was an Air Policeman assigned to the 809th Combat Defense Squadron, which provided security for the 566th Strategic Missile Squadron at F.E. Warren AFB.

In August 1964, McEnaney and his fellow guards sighted a UFO above the four-silo Atlas launch complex they were patrolling. “We were at Site 1, Pad 1,” said McEnaney, “Around midnight we saw an object hovering over the site. It was round and shone brightly. After we reported it to the NCOIC (Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge), we were informed that interceptors had been dispatched from Denver and reported it to be a weather balloon. The only problem with that explanation was that no aircraft were seen in the area, and we were later told to keep quiet about it as it was national security. Our NCOIC, Staff Sergeant Fred Coffer told us that.”

Another SAC missile base, Altus AFB, Oklahoma, also experienced a UFO hovering over at least one of its Atlas sites in 1964. The base commander, Colonel Raymond J. Lacombe, reported the incident to the Air Force’s Foreign Technology Division (FTD) at Wright-Patterson AFB. Such sighting reports were mandatory according to Air Force Regulation (AFR) 200-2. The terse heading on the now-declassified document reads, “Missile Site 7, Altus AFB, Oklahoma” and states in part:

UFO report from SAC. Received at 1135Z at SAC Command Post. At 1030Z Missile Site 6, Altus, Oklahoma reported a large bright light (size of aircraft) overhead, below 10,000 feet, directly over silo. Light was bright enough to light silocap. Reported to people in silo, and crew silo commander sent a maintenance man up, who saw light and verified it being there. By the time he got there it had moved to an extremely high altitude. Moved vertically in NW direction…6

According to the report, an Air Force investigator later spoke with various missile personnel who had been on-site at the time of the sighting, at which time it was determined that the missile site involved was Site 6, not 7.

In 2002, I interviewed former Air Force Security Policeman (SP) Terry Stuck, who related similar experiences near F.E. Warren AFB in “late summer of 1965.” By that time, the obsolete Atlas missiles had been replaced by Minuteman missiles.

Stuck had reported for duty at the Oscar Flight LCF one morning, and was informed about a UFO sighting by the departing night-shift guards. “The night team had observed fast moving lights or objects,” said Stuck, “vehicles moving with incredible speed.” Apparently, during the shift-change, the departing security team leader also informed the arriving missile commander about the UFOs. Stuck overheard the exchange. “The OIC (Officer in Charge) was a Captain. I don’t recall his name,” said Stuck, “I do remember him saying that he had been a pilot in Korea and had observed UFOs and had reported the incident. He said they had sent him to the base psychiatrist and had basically put a stop on advancements in his career.”

The moral of this story was clear to Stuck and the departing security team leader: Be careful what you report because there may be repercussions. Stuck did not know whether the team leader had ever filed an official report about the incident. In any event, the Oscar Flight UFO sighting incident is not mentioned in the Project Blue Book memorandum quoted above. Perhaps it took place on another date during that period or, perhaps, it did indeed occur on August 1st, but went unreported.

A few days after these events, Stuck had his own UFO sighting, again at the Oscar Flight LCF. “The observations,” he recalled, “were actually made in front of the launch control security facility which was at ground level, facing the access gate of the main launch control facility. I was never able to determine the size or shapes [of the UFOs]. When I saw them, they were at extreme distances and were doing right [-angle] turns at unbelievable speeds. I never heard any sounds.”

Another UFO report at F.E. Warren during that period appears in the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) sighting database. The report was filed by an unidentified individual who had seen a UFO in the Foxtrot Flight area on an unspecified date in August 1965. Although the source remains anonymous, because the sighting occurred within the missile field itself, he was probably an Air Force security policeman. The witness reports observing a dark boomerang-shaped object with two yellow lights, one on each wingtip. He wrote, “When it took off it went so fast that the lights on the ends appeared as two continuous streaks of light for an instant.” The UFO was described as silent and “very big”.

--Robert Hastings

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:46 PM
reply to post by James Carlson

Originally posted by James Carlson
6. If UFOs were present, why did Lt. Col. Chase, the Malmstrom UFO officer, affirm repeatedly that UFOs were not involved?

I'd like to point out a few things here. In 1957 Chase piloted an RB-47 that encountered an unidentified object that followed the aircraft in-trail across several states as they did a test run of the ECM/ELINT gear. Chase made clear that they had been recording flight communications made by the SIGINT operator including interphone and command position conversations. Chase was very specific that there should have been a permanent magnetic tape recording made from the wire recording plus a written report.

No such recording has ever been released, not to the Condon committee which investigated the '57 RB-47 incident, not to McDonald, Klass, no one, not even till this day has access to that recording.

In a similar instance involving another RB-47 that received radar jamming signals from unidentified aircraft over Canada in 1955, resulted in a highly classified investigation by the Air Force Special Security Office (AFSSO), which then forwarded the results to the AFSS and NSA. Nothing from the AFSSO investigation was sent to Project Blue Book.

This somewhat starts to touch on this question:

30. If UFOs were involved in the Echo Flight Incident, why was NSA not involved in the investigation?

In 1980, CAUS sued the NSA for access to files as they might relate to UFOs. The Agency admitted it was sitting on 239 documents, 156 of which were communications intelligence reports gathered from 1958-1979. The NSA’s Office of Policy Chief Eugene Yeates submitted a 21-page summary of its reasoning in federal court, refusing the judge access to any of the material. CAUS sued for release of Yeates’ synopsis. In 1982, a federal judge ruled that releasing an unredacted summary would undermine national security. Eventually what CAUS ultimately got its hands on were so many blacked out pages — each one stamped “Top Secret Umbra” — the feds’ insistence it wasn’t hiding anything about UFOs became a laughing stock. (

The point being such a thing may exist, but it may still be classified.

But getting back to my main thought...

Since you believe so strongly in corroborating documentation as necessary evidence to confirm the authenticity of human testimony, by your logic we have this either-or scenario:

* Chase is a liar (since no magnetic-recording was reported to ever exist) XOR the USAF is lying.

Based on the below quote it's obvious you believe Col. Chase is an admirable and trustworthy person,

Salas, however, doesn't discuss any of this until 15 years later, after both Roy Craig and Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase have died and can no longer discuss the matter or defend their reputations. And his take on the whole thing amounts to one, inflammatory statement: Lt. Col. Lewis D. Chase LIED to FTD to avoid discussing missile failures with a military unit outside of his chain of command!! And all of this when FTD WAS his chain of command.

Which I agree with! This then implies that the USAF is guilty of public misinformation. As you note in your book on pg 16-17,

... [Salas] was in completely virgin territory, here – territory that should have been a warning to him, because legally (if he was an honest man and we actually had any reason to believe that he was telling the truth) he should have assumed that whatever true facts he was about to make public were still highly classified, and as far as the Department of Defense was concerned, it really didn’t matter what his reasons were for breaking the law,


But if he was telling the truth... well, someone representing either the Department of Defense or the U.S. Marshals Service would have visited him.


And the fact that the Air Force apparently decided not to prosecute him for what they usually consider to be a very serious crime doesn’t really add much to his credibility.

This entire segment shows you clearly recognize that not all documents are assigned an immediate declassification schedule and furthermore that you're well aware of the possibility of there being some form of Special Access Project (SAP) tied to the investigation of the event, potentially explaining why Kaminski relates that they didn't submit the final engineering report.

Now we both know the whole idea behind a SAP is plausible deniability. Officially reprimanding Salas would blow any chance of that out the window. Furthermore it potentially explains the reference to a UFO in the Echo flight report.

I understand that all you care about proving is that Salas is a liar. However, I think you should tread with caution here because as noted on at least one missileer forum,

I made a quick scan of the provided literature and can say at least this much: your writing style is far, FAR too informal; If you're attempting to discredit something, don't use incessant hyperbole, statements of opinion, or vulgar language (unless quoted); it would also behoove you to heavily edit your writing when dealing with the Salas individual; I get the impression you have a vendetta, and your point will most certainly be lost on people if they think your sole purpose is to drag the man through the mud. I have particular tastes when it comes to presentation and writing style, and I find that the inclusion of such techniques tend to a.) make me uninterested or b.) discredit the work, as it strikes me as unprofessional, and with a potential axe to grind. Take it for what you will.

So take your pick.

Either Chase is a confirmed liar with the RB-47 incident and therefore no longer useful for your argument; or we've got something else going on here.

If there's something else going on then the remainder of your questions become somewhat rhetorical.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Xtraeme]

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 09:35 PM
As previously noted, Col. Walt Figel told me that at least one missile maintenance team member working at one of Echo Flight's missile sites reported seeing a UFO at the time the flight's 10 missiles simultaneously malfuntioned.

From my book UFOs and Nukes:

Other reports from former members of the missile maintenance and targeting teams, who were actually out in the field restarting the missiles, are also intriguing. Regarding the full-flight missile shutdown at Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, N. Henry “Hank” Barlow told me,

I arrived at Malmstrom in October 1966 and left in November 1967. I was on Electro-Mechanical Team 24 at the time [the Echo Flight shutdown] happened. We had to go out to Mike-1 for about four or five days. We had to stay out there and cover the sites. The day we were supposed to return [to base,] my team chief called Job Control to see if we could come in because it was really starting to snow. It was really miserable out, windy and all. Job Control said, ‘Yeah, come on in, there’s nothing going on, everything seems okay.’ So we packed up and started back to the base.

Then Job Control called us on the radio and said, ‘Hey, we’ve got a problem here, part of Echo Flight has shut down, so we want you to go to the nearest site.’ I think that was Echo-6, but I’m not sure. Anyway, somewhere around that area. We checked VRSA and there was nothing on it. [That] was a unit in each launch facility, with something like 19 or 20 channels on it. [Actually, VRSA or Voice Reporting Signal Assembly had 23 channels, one for each problem area.] If the missile went down for any reason, or if there was some other problem, Job Control back at Malmstrom would know about it, know what is was, from the kind of signal it sent. But when we got to the site, there was nothing on [VRSA] to indicate the reason for the missile shutting down. That in itself was unusual. I had never seen that before.

(RH: Col. Walter Figel recalls getting a Channel 9 No-Go in the launch capsule, but Barlow says here that there was no indication of the *type* of failure--the channel number--at the missile site itself. James Carlson makes much of this discrepancy, claiming that it confirms that Barlow is lying. Of course, James makes lots of claims--almost all of them bogus--and Barlow's comment, while puzzling, does not negate the legitimacy of his testimony. )

So Job Control said, do a start-up, which takes about four hours. After you initiate the startup, you can back out of there and leave because its automatic after a certain point. Usually, if there was nothing else going on, we would stay at the site to make sure everything was working fine. But that night, Job Control said go to the next site, whatever that was. So we did that, and [restarted] three or four missiles before going back to [Echo-1]. Of all ten missiles that went down, only one wouldn’t come back up, but that was due to something that was going to [fail] anyway, like a Logic Coupler Drawer, or something like that. But none of the missiles had anything on VRSA.

[When we got back to Echo-1] we heard what happened. At Echo-2, there was a team in there earlier that afternoon that could not get the security [telemetry] to set-up, through the parabolic antenna or the soft support building or something like that. So, they put an Air Police team out there, in a camper, two guys. Anyway, one of the guys went out to take a leak, and he noticed that it wasn’t snowing over top of his head. The perimeter lights were on and he could see the snow coming down all around him so he looked up and saw a ring of lights right over top of him. He was scared stiff, so he went back to the camper and woke up his team partner.

When this other guy came out, he had a camera with him, which they weren’t suppose to have, but guys would do stuff like that. By then this thing had moved off the perimeter fence and he took pictures of it. [When the security team was debriefed back at the base,] the Air Force confiscated the camera and film. I was told all of this back at Echo-1. We had passed our ‘timelines’ because we had worked 16 hours, or something like that, and could not go back to the base so we had to go back to Echo. [During that era, maintenance teams were left out in the field for four to five days, working a maximum of 16 hours per day—the timeline. If a team got close to reaching that limit, it was sent to the nearest Launch Control Facility for Remain Over Night, or RON status.] When we got back there, there was brass all over the place. They were from Offutt AFB—SAC Headquarters—they had brought them in. There were just a lot of high-ranking officers there.

I asked Barlow who had told him about the incident involving the Camper Alert Team. He responded, “I don’t remember. I don’t know if it was one of the security guys or someone else. I was so tired when we got back to Echo 1. We had worked long hours, we had been out almost a week by that time and we were just pooped. All I remember is that there were lots of people there and there was no place to lie down. But we were told that it was a UFO shutdown—that UFOs had been responsible—and that’s why all those guys were there.”

I asked Barlow if he had been surprised or shocked or skeptical when he was informed that UFOs had shutdown the missiles. He replied,

Oh no! On many other occasions, we were out at the sites when Job Control called and told us that, you know, there are reports of UFOs in the area, so keep your eyes open. That happened many, many times. And I saw them! I would see a light in the sky and it would make a right-angle turn. Or it would make two different right-angle turns, one after the other. I saw that more than once. They were much faster than a helicopter and we certainly knew that aircraft [couldn’t] do that.

I once saw a light come straight down, hover at maybe 1000-feet, and then shoot straight off [horizontally] and out of sight. It was crazy! Job Control always called us first, before we saw anything. They would call and say, you know, heads-up. Then, most of the time, we would see something a little while later. So, they were getting reports from somewhere, and maybe they had [the UFOs] on radar, but I don’t know for sure. Sometimes, when the call came in, we were down in the missile [silo] and we would talk to the guard topside about what he was seeing. I remember one time, the guard was just a nervous wreck. Job Control had called and said UFOs were sighted in the area. Then, I’m not sure, but I think he saw some lights himself. But anyway, he was just scared out of his wits. He wanted to come down in the silo with us. But the guards weren’t allowed to do that.

One time, [probably during the summer of 1967,] we were at one of the Bravo sites when we got a call from Job Control saying that there were UFO sightings in our area. Then, a short time later, we saw a green light come straight down out of the sky and land on this hill. Then two lights separated from it, straight out to each side. We were sitting in the pick up truck, eating our box lunches, when we saw this, along with another team we were training, plus the guard. We reported it to Job Control. They told us to close up the site and go check that out. We told them that we didn’t think we were qualified to do that! [Laughs] This was around 4 a.m. When it got light, we were amazed how far away the hill was, where this thing had landed. It was far, far away. We thought it was much closer, so the light was really bright.

I asked Barlow if he had later been debriefed about the incident at Echo Flight. He said, “No, never! It was almost kind of a joke, we would all laugh about it. Now, it wasn’t a joke [with all the missiles down] but it was a joke because nobody would believe it if you told them about it.”

--Robert Hastings

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 11:55 PM
I would like to say that Mr. Hastings, given the obvious amount of work he has put into this, deserves more attention than he is getting imo. I have been researching the unexplained for many years and this man has put in so much effort that it is truly admired by someone such as myself. I have only just now become a member of ATS, and that is to reply to this post, and show Mr. Hastings that there are many of us out there that admire your work and appreciate it very much.

I am a believer in life outside what we know, and I have for a long time felt we are not alone. Reading through your work and the countless interviews with credible sources, one must be ignorant, naive, in denial or a combination of the sort to not understand what is going on here.

The Governments of this world can only hold the cork on the bottle so long. I see little bits of slipping and sliding and the inability to hold these secrets becoming evident every day that passes. We are in the Information Age and what do you know...we are getting more and more info leaked all the time and works such as this will only receive more attention and the credibility they deserve when it all hits the fan so to speak. We need more people that truly dedicate their efforts to the cause to take action like Robert Hastings has.

Thank you Mr. Hastings for all your work.

posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 12:03 AM
Thanks, Roses. Much appreciated. Yes, the Big Secret can only be kept for so long. We Earthlings are all in for a very interesting future. Hope I live long enough to see a bit of it.

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by Robert Hastings

Is this what you call "answering questions"? 90 percent of this is a complete data dump that has nothing to do with March 1967, and the remainder is absurd information that cannot be documented in any way except by those individuals who have told you their little nonsense stories that cannot be confirmed by anybody. How can you possibly say that an event attested to by Lewis D. Chase from 1957 has any bearing at all on his trustworthiness? The only relevant point is that Chase reported this incident, and that report is still on file. Whether or not something happened to his tapes is meaningless because it doesn't speak to his honesty and efforts -- only those who lost or his the tapes he submitted. The point is something you've completely missed once again: he reported the incident, and there are records of the incident as a result of his report. There is nothing indicating a UFO investigation took place in reference to Echo Flight, and standing orders required that such a report be made in conjunction with such an investigation. As the UFO officer, Chase would have been conducting that investigation. Plainly, he did not do so, and he repeatedly affirmed that Echo Flight was not investigated by him because it wasn't a UFO incident. There were rumors of UFOs in relation to Echo Flight, but I have shown in my narrative that these rumors were very likely the result of discussions between Raymond Fowler, a NICAP investigator employed by Sylvania Corporation, and Roy Craig, an investigator with the Condon committe tasked by the Air Force with studying UFO phenomena, such rumors stemming from the fact that Raymond Fowler didn't know as much about Echo Flight as he thought, including the date on which it occurred. All of this has been documented since 1995, as I discuss in my narrative. As for your absurd sources, they don't even agree with each other; most of the time, they don't remember the date, they discuss events that would not have occurred in a highly classifed military environment, and they never saw anything. You continuously affirm nothing except your witness' and your own ignorance of military culture and classification protocol, and you continue to say nothing relevant that even comes close to answering the questions I have continuously put to you. What you do isn't research -- it's folklore at best. It would be a change of pace for you simply to answer a few questions, but you continuously fail to do so. You attack, but you can't support. What possible relevance to March 1967 can events from the 1950s and 1970s and etc. have? They have none. You never answer questions, you refuse to acknowledge events documented continuously since the incident itself, and your conclusions simply cannot be supported in any way whatsoever. You're worse than a politician with nothing to say, because nearly everything you say, all that you insist is evidence, cannot be corroberated at all. I asked you 50 questions that you promised to answer; in return you discuss events that cannot in any way at all be considered a substantive argument, most of which isn't related at all to the incident at Echo Flight or to 1967. Is it impossible for you to at least remain somewhere in the ballpark? If you advertised a need to interview shape-changing werewolves, you'd very likely get the opportunity to discuss in some detail the characteristics of a werewolf from the werewolf's own mouth, but that doesn't mean you've been talking to actual werewolves -- it just means someone told you a story that can't be confirmed.

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Robert Hastings
Yes, the Big Secret can only be kept for so long. We Earthlings are all in for a very interesting future. Hope I live long enough to see a bit of it.

You won't.

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 01:26 PM
James Carlson: Is this what you call "answering questions"? 90 percent of this is a complete data dump that has nothing to do with March 1967...

RH: As noted earlier, I have a couple of things in the works which are germane to my answering your questions. You won't like or accept the outcome but, once I post the next installment in this debate, others posting here will have an even clearer sense of just how deluded you really are.

BTW, there is a James T. Carlson living in Albuquerque (as you do) who uses the cyber name "acid_head" and lists one of his interests as "acid." Would that be you, James?

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by Robert Hastings

Yeah, that's about the response I expected -- we've played this little game of yours before, so if you don't mind, I'm not going to hold my breath or anything waiting for you to say something relevant.

In the meantime, please note the following:

Figel doesn't confirm anything that Hastings claims, and certainly doesn't indicate that anything very strange occurred. Everything that Hastings posits as "evidence" is no more than his own insistence -- even to Figel -- that the UFO was actually a real object, and not just an example of witless banter. And, in fact, everything that Figel asserts is more evidence that NOTHING was actually seen by anybody. Let's just look at this event in some detail, shall we? This is something that Salas and Hastings have both repeatedly refused to even contemplate, preferring instead to attack the problems that I've noted in their tales with little more than personal attacks directed at me, not my argument, which I've put down in some detail in my narrative. Now the following interpretation depends to a great extent upon the input I've received from various members of the missileer community. Since most of the readers of this forum are, I believe, intelligent enough to follow a military discussion, I'd like to ask you in particular to note this exchange and tell me whether or not my interpretation is the more likely, or did a UFO take out the missiles at Echo Flight?

On March 16, 1967, while on watch with Walt Figel at Echo Flight, shortly after he awoke from his sleep period, and during the time Figel was debriefing him on the mundane events of the previous night, my father, CAPT Eric D. Carlson, the MCCC at Echo Flight that morning, noticed that the missiles started going offline, because he happened to be the one facing the monitors. He didn't remember who specifically checked, or if it was the two of them together, but the VRSA indications showed that a specific series of errors -- channel 9 and 12 faults according to the command histories -- had taken down all of the missiles in the flight within ten seconds or so. To his knowledge, that had never happened before. In the command histories that were drafted every three months, and in the message traffic used as sources for those histories, are indications that these same errors -- contrary to what Kaminski told Salas some thirty years later -- had occurred once before, at Alpha Flight on December 19, 1966, taking down three of the ten missiles. It was due to this that the Boeing contractors had a fairly good idea what the cause was, or at least where they should start looking. These records were ignored by Salas and Hastings, and were purposely left out of the list of documents they have published on the CUFON website, even though they published other pages from the very same quarterly history in support of their version of these events.

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by James Carlson

Also contrary to what Salas has written in his various articles, and as the Top Secret Norforn ICBM histories that were only declassified a few short years ago, all assert quite plainly and with complete and unconfusing rhetoric, equipment failures, especially in the guidance and control units, that resulted in the failures of missiles in their silos, happened all the time between 1965 and 1969, when the contractors finally got everything under control. From what Figel states and as the command histories affirm, there were a number of maintenance crews that had gone out the night before, spending the night in the field. It was one of these crews that Figel asserts -- again plainly and with no confusion -- first mentioned a UFO; and it is this conversation that Hastings claims to be an actual UFO report. My father told me that there was no UFO, that the crew on the ground was just screwing around. But let's take a look at what transpired, because I believe the events make very plain what happened -- events that have been detailed by Walt Figel to Hastings, and that I believe Hastings has poorly interpreted due to his own insistence that a UFO was involved.

From what I gather and from what I've read in the documents I've examined (all of which I've made available in my narrative to whomever wants to examine them in turn), there were three teams out who spent the night in the field, not four. That's what the command histories assert. When the missiles went offline it became necessary to determine the status of as many of those missiles as possible and as quickly as possible -- the VRSA indications read channels 9 and 12 No-Go from the LCC, but they needed to find out what errors were noted at the LFs as well, because if they're different they can indicate what kind of problem is registering; so the missile status has to be checked. There's no need to send out a team to check the three silos that already have teams present, so they determined to call those outcamping teams and have them check the actual status of the missiles at the LFs, since they were already there. Keep in mind that the missiles went offline at 0845 -- not terribly late in the day, but definitely after the work day has begun, and about two hours after the sun went up.

Each maintenance team was accompanied by a Security Escort Team who were there to provide protection, if necessary, and more importantly, to provide continuous communications via the 2-way radios that only the security personnel carried. Figel confirms all of this. So a little after 0845, Figel contacted security on the 2-way, established open comms and asked if the maintenance team was up yet; security said no, so he told security to get the maintenance guys up and have them check the missile status. Keep in mind that according to Hastings, a UFO has already shut down the missiles, doing so at 0845. Security was awake, but they saw and reported nothing. Maintenance was still asleep. Nobody has even said "UFO" yet, and the missiles are all officially offline.

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:53 AM
reply to post by James Carlson

In order to check the missile status, the maintainer has to go into the launcher equipment room which is 6-10 feet underground and can only be accessed from above by using the personnel access hatch -- this is very heavy and has to be unlocked and cranked open with a manual screwjack, which can take from 10 to 15 mins, in order to open it; but it can't be cranked open until a circuit lock adjacent to the access hatch has been removed first -- and that means a huge lock pin that's set inside the circuit lock has to be manually cranked up and removed, and that also adds another 5 minutes or so to the process, at least. The security personnel normally remove the lock pin, but that doesn't make the process go any faster, because you can't even start cranking open the access hatch until the lock pin has been removed. And before cranking open the the access hatch, which weighs almost a ton (although at the website, it says the access hatches at Ellsworth were 8 tons), a little cage of "barrier poles" also has to be set up, which looks kind of like the safety barrier that city workers put up surrounding a manhole whenever work is done underneath a road in the city. Now if it's cold outside, everything's frozen up, and this can add another few minutes to the process. And sometimes there's corrosion or rust -- it all depends on the last time the hatch was opened. Once it's open, the maintenance personnelman sets up the access ladder, and then he can climb down into the upper level of the launch equipment room. Once he's in the launch equipment room, only then can he check on the status of the missile in the silo, because everything that's necessary to do so is underground.

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in