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.


Skeptical Inquirer magazine: Published by UFO Skeptics or Disinformation Agents?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:34 AM
The events at Malmstrom in March 1967 were only the tip of the iceberg. Many other UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites have been documented by the US military and intelligence community:

Nuclear Labs and Fissile Material Production Sites, 1948-50

Los Alamos, December 1948 (FBI memorandum)

Hanford Plutonium Production Site, July-August 1950 (US Army memo)

Los Alamos and Sandia Labs, August 23, 1950 (FBI memorandum) -23-1950.jpg

F.E. Warren AFB, August 1, 1965
(USAF report)

Page 1 yoming%2B%2528A%2529%2BAugust%2B1965

Page 2 yoming%2B%2528B%2529%2BAugust%2B1965

Page 3 yoming%2B%2528C%2529%2BAugust%2B1965

Minot AFB, August 25, 1966
(USAF report)

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Malmstrom AFB, March 16, 1967 (Echo Flight shutdown):

Robert Kaminski, Boeing Company Minuteman Missile Engineer
Audio interview

Malmstrom AFB, October-November 1975
(FOIA-Released USAF letter containing NORAD log entries)

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

edit on 29-4-2012 by Robert Hastings because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Robert Hastings

For what purpose, and why in such a short window of a few years would most of all this happen? I flew nukes all over the world for 5 years in the 80s and with 1000s of hours in the air with them in the back of my C-141 I never experinced anything ....ever.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM
How silly. So, every nukes-related operation will be monitored by UFOs? Not likely. So you didn't see anything. So what? Go to my website, and read the audiotaped testimony of those veterans who did. My list here is but a small excerpt from the total number of known events.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Robert Hastings because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:14 AM

edit on 29-4-2012 by zigoapex because: delete

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Robert Hastings, you must be having a real hard sell for your part of the echo flight nonsense these days.

For anybody interested in facts, google James Carlson echo flight, it makes for an interesting read.

Carlson was never there,it was his father who admitted that something happened and then changed his story.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Robert Hastings
How silly. So, every nukes-related operation will be monitored by UFOs? Not likely. So you didn't see anything. So what? Go to my website, and read the audiotaped testimony of those veterans who did. My list here is but a small excerpt from the total number of known events.
edit on 29-4-2012 by Robert Hastings because: (no reason given)

It's not just me, but everyone I dealt with never had an experience, so my question was why did all this happen mostly within a few short years, and to what purpose? Aliens were all interested in us in the 50s but in the 80s they were not?

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by zigoapex

I will let the facts speak for themselves on the matter.

I would also comment that I find Robert Hastings Internet campaign to support his part of the Malmstrom UFO fairy tale cash cow to be despicable obfuscations of truth and bilious character assassinations.



Anyone interested in this case should read Echo Flights of Fantasy - Anatomy of a UFO Hoax by James Carlson. Carlsons manifesto is meticulously detailed and quite damning to Hastings claims.

The author of this article, James Carlson, is the son of Captain (Retired) Eric D. Carlson, the commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. All of the details and descriptions of events and reports that his father would have been witness to have been confirmed by him as accurate.

There is a wealth of information here as well...

Case Closed? A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident

In an effort to get to the bottom of all this and make sure everybody had all sides of the story, RU’s Ryan Dube took it upon himself to dig through all of the claims and counter claims and this resulted in a number of articles published right here at Reality Uncovered (shown below).

He interviewed, – for the first time anywhere – one of the two key “witnesses” in this case, James’ father Eric Carlson and also helped to facilitate the dissemination of James’ correspondence with the other key witness, Walter Figel.

With all of this information to hand, it was now much easier for everyone to make their own minds up about the case and not have to rely on dubious sources or rumour:

Further reading Regarding Hastings... FE Warren: The New Echo Flight?...Not Hardly

For the past few months, I've been following, off and on, the speculations surrounding FE Warren's 319th Missile Squadron's loss of communications with all 50 of it's Minuteman III ICBMs back on 23 Oct 2010.

Robert Hastings has apparently been in the fore front driving the most wildest of those speculations citing from the obligatory "anonymous sources" that a cigar-shaped object was seen hovering in the vicinity of the 319th's flight area.

Hastings "exhaustive" quasi-conclusions can be read on numerous blog sites including Frank Warren's UFOChronicles website. Hastings latest can be accessed at Frank's site using the provided link:

Hastings has proven an old James Carville axiom to be aptly valid: "If you drag a fifty dollar bill through a trailer park, there's no telling what you'll come up with." (I'm paraphrasing here, but it's fairly accurate from Carville).

As I said, the facts tell a much different story than Hastings is (literally) selling.

posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by boncho

Debunking and making up all possible explanations about something you don't know just to not sound too crazy isn't hard AT ALL...

Now on the theme: So mr Menzel was a scientist but talks about 'mirage of Sirius'? Seriously? Then why would he call it a UFO/Saucer in the first place or is it a self-support self-debunk case so that it explicitly shows some sort of disinfo, making sure the idea of sightings is ridiculed. This is a good point by the article. Also there has been real cases showing aircraft so the idea that CLOUDS, Lightings and such are all the time, is ridiculous in the first place and this is a FACT not belief.

And the green glow the crew witnessed as the UFO allegedly flew over their helicopter came from the tinted glass at the fringe of the cockpit. The red glow of the UFO was that of the surmised fireball.

Ok still, this looks like trying hard to make sure it sounds explainable by all means, even if this is not exactly the case and they are not sure of this is the case - I think a lot of ATS 'debunkers' here do that method

I see some blatant way of calling everything was - the sun, the reflection, the fireballthat didn't happen, I think some are thinking people and PILOTS are so stupid that they can't identify a reflection? Seriously?

So the idea that some videos posted to call it UFO could be an idea to ridicule people who do true research is possible. For example: I post a flying balloon and call it a UFO, others are flame/troll about it. My purpose is my claims to look so silly that the whole idea gets ridiculed and people change their thoughts and deny everything because no one would believe real things after lots of fakes. The mission of misleading people - successful!

I do not want to quote names but I think this has worked for some ATS members, they were successfully distracted from the problem, and this is a very nasty way of disinfo.I am NOT discussing whether a certain case was hoax or not, I am talking about trying to debunk completely unreasonably real cases in general
edit on 29-4-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by Imtor

Imtor, thought you made some fair points there mate and I also thought Terry Hansen brought up some intriguing points about CSICOP in Mr Hasting's article -I don't know if you've seen it before but he's conducted some extensive research into the corporate media's involvement with the UFO subject and there's a good presentation by him below that's well worth a watch.

Google Video Link

Hansen continues, “CSICOP can accurately be described as a propaganda organization because it does not take anything approaching an objective position regarding UFOs. The organization’s stance is militantly anti-UFO research and it works hard to see that the news media broadcast its views whenever possible. When the subject of UFOs surfaces, either in the news media or any other public forum, CSICOP members turn out rapidly to add their own spin to whatever is being said. Through its ‘Council for Media Integrity’ CSICOP maintains close ties with the editorial staffs of such influential science publications as Scientific American, Nature, and New Scientist. Consequently, it’s not too hard to understand why balanced UFO articles seldom appear in those [magazines].”



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 09:44 PM
Very relevant video, karl12, clarifying an important aspect of the UFO question in general.
Thanks for posting.

And the thread title somewhat interesting, raising the question of the motives of disinformation agents (those who believe UFOs are real yet work to convince the public otherwise) who pose as sincere skeptics. Is it just following orders, good pay, true belief that the public must be protected from this information, some combination of those, the notion that if ET wants to stay hidden it’s probably wise, in some cases something more sinister, or what?

edit on 1-5-2012 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
Drunkenparrot, who posted an excerpt from the 341st Wing History (I incorrectly called it a preliminary report in a previous post) relating to the Echo Flight shutdowns, in which it was claimed that "Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven..." won't be interested in the facts surrounding this officially-sanctioned sleight-of-hand--since his mind is made up--but others reading this post might benefit from the following excerpt from my book:


Regarding the supposed non-involvement of UFOs in the incident, [researcher Jim] Klotz eventually located and interviewed the wing historian, David Gamble, who had actually written the lengthy document. Gamble told Klotz that while compiling material for the history, he had in fact learned of reports of UFO activity within Malmstrom’s missile field. However, when he inquired about those reports, Gamble said he had received “no cooperation” from those in-the-know and, furthermore, stated that written changes regarding “the UFO aspect of the missile shutdown incident” had later been made by his superiors.

Consequently, official version of the wing history states, “Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of the fault were disproven.”


In other words, the passage in the document was a deliberate effort by Gamble's superiors to squelch rumors of UFO activity at Echo. On the other hand, those who say that UFOs were indeed present at the time of the shutdown include Col. Walter Figel--one of the launch officers on duty, who took the call from the guard who was observing the "large, round object" hovering "directly over" one of the Echo missile sites--as well as missile maintenance tech Hank Barlow, who brought up some of the missiles, who says that he was explicitly told of a UFO-involvement by persons at the Echo Launch Control Facility just hours after the shutdown. And, of course, there is the link to the audiotaped statement by Boeing engineer Robert Kaminski that I posted earler, in which he says he was told of a UFO-involvement in the Echo shutdowns by his liaison at Malmstrom.

Anyone who has not actually listened to my taped conversations with Figel, available at my website, is spinning his wheels. And people wonder why I don't spend a lot of time posting on blogs. Let's see: do I spend time researching, on the one hand, or waste time arguing with biased people too lazy to do their own research or even review my documented work, on the other.

Hmmmmm. Tough choice...

BTW, Xtrozeo, who said there was no nukes-related UFO activity in the 1980s? You didn't experience it, but others did. You can't even spend a few minutes reading the articles at my website to learn how wrong you are. It's much easier to just post another of your uninformed comebacks. The "for what purpose?" question has been answered--as best as possible, given the fragmentary data currently available--on my About page.
edit on 2-5-2012 by Robert Hastings because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2012 by Robert Hastings because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Oh you don't do you, well I most certainly do and believe most skeptics fall into that category myself and a host of others as well.

The vast majority of people on all the polls are believers by the way.

So to actually want proof of something or debunk something means you're a disinformation agent? The internet is teeming with disinformation very little of it from the sceptical crowd.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in