Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Echo Flight


  • Please log in to reply
755 replies to this topic

#46    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,066 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:25 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 03 July 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

You do understand that by definition a UFO defies Prosaic explanation. i.e. A UFO could be larger than a Chinook and make no sound.






I consider myself quite well versed in most subjects that involve UFO's and Atmospheric plasmas. Why do you ask?






And this is 'inconsistent' because you believe it should be the way you imagine? The truth is historically people do not tend to fire guns at UFO's.








I like to think Plasmas explain most 'unknown' UFO sightings. Of course that totally undermines your 'xenophobic' reply.

This thread is not about 'historic attitudes towards UFO sightings', it is about the alleged UFO involvement with missile shutdowns at US Military missile sites in March 1967. My posts have been consistent with this context.

Given that the UFO's in the topic are alleged to have actually materially interfered with electronic circuitry in hardened, underground, missile sites, would you still consider atmospheric plasmas to be the most likely explanation?

If not, would you like to venture the actual technology that would be able to effect such an event, whilst leaving no trace of it's use, and which the US Military was able to harden it's sites against with a simple upgrade to electronic circuitry in the late 1960's?

Edited by Leonardo, 03 July 2011 - 10:28 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#47    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,305 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:42 AM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:

This thread is not about 'historic attitudes towards UFO sightings', it is about the alleged UFO involvement with missile shutdowns at US Military missile sites in March 1967. My posts have been consistent with this context.

So have my own posts. Is it really that hard to believe that someone could disagree with you and still be honest?


View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:


Given that the UFO's in the topic are alleged to have actually materially interfered with electronic circuitry in hardened, underground, missile sites, would you still consider atmospheric plasmas to be the most likely explanation?


Yes! Didn't you bother to look up and read the (1966) Saturday Evening Post article by Hynek that I referenced?


View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:


If not, would you like to venture the actual technology that would be able to effect such an event, whilst leaving no trace of it's use, and which the US Military was able to harden it's sites against with a simple upgrade to electronic circuitry in the late 1960's?

Again, could Atmospheric Plasma not fit the bill despite your own 'xenophobia'?

Edited by lost_shaman, 03 July 2011 - 10:46 AM.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#48    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,600 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:58 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 03 July 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

Is it really that hard to believe that someone could disagree with you and still be honest?

lol.... love that bit there which i can relate to based on some personal experiences... but to highlight the perceived xenophobia, i would like to quote xenomorph from the demagoguery of the obscurants...



i.e. based on the 'rule books' idealized here... plasmas could start off ww3? :wacko:


#49    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,066 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 11:02 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 03 July 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

So have my own posts. Is it really that hard to believe that someone could disagree with you and still be honest?





Yes! Didn't you bother to look up and read the (1966) Saturday Evening Post article by Hynek that I referenced?




Again, could Atmospheric Plasma not fit the bill despite your own 'xenophobia'?

Are you referring to the reference by Hynek of interference to a radio transmission?

Might I point out that no reference was made to any interference of the equipment in the underground bunker, but of interference to the signal - which is a transmission through the atmosphere. Hynek's article in no way validates the premise that such a phenomenon can materially affect equipment in a hardened, underground, bunker.

So, no, imo atmospheric plasma cannot "fit the bill".

Lastly, I have not questioned your honesty, LS, simply your focus on the actual topic.

Also, could we please refrain from personal attacks and false characterisations such as 'xenophobia'. Use the context of the topic of discussion - that of interference by an unknown force to a nuclear missile site of the US Military - and conclude the reaction of the US Military (not base this on 'historical reaction to public sightings', or Military reactions to non-interfering UFO phenomena) to such interference. Thank you.

Edited by Leonardo, 03 July 2011 - 11:06 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#50    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 July 2011 - 05:02 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:


So, I will ask you directly, McGuffin. Do we have any eyewitness testimony of any UFO activity at Echo and Oscar flights, near Lewistown, Montana, on the dates of the missile shutdowns at Echo and Oscar flights in March 1967?

Do we have any corroborating testimony from any other reliable mechanical source, such as radar, of any UFO sightings at Echo and Oscar flights, near Lewistown, Montana, on the dates of the missile shutdowns at Echo and Oscar flights in March 1967?

* Alternatively, Don Crawford was the victim of a prank carried out in light of the previous rumours of UFO activity.


See my posts #26 and #27, since we have Air Force documents and newspaper accounts about numerous UFO sightings at the time and how they were tracked on radar, and we also have records about one UFO actually landing.  

I don't think anything about this incident is being made up, and I'm not sure what other evidence we could produce to show that it really happened. Plus we have all these Air Force officers coming forward--more than just about any other case that I know of, including Rendlesham Forest.  If these men are all liars or loonies, then that says something very disturbing about the type of people who literally have their fingers on the nuclear button--or the nuclear keys.

My impression is that these guys are 100% straight arrows, not given to making up stories like these.  They all had long careers in the Air Force, or for military contractors or civilian agencies, and they just have nothing to gain by lying or fabricating stories like this.

I think they are recounting the UFO incidents as best they remember them, and they say that there was more than one missile shutdown at several different flights.  Moreover, the UFOs visited Malmstrom in 1966, 1975 and later dates.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 03 July 2011 - 05:02 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#51    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,066 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 05:28 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 03 July 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

See my posts #26 and #27, since we have Air Force documents and newspaper accounts about numerous UFO sightings at the time and how they were tracked on radar, and we also have records about one UFO actually landing.  

I don't think anything about this incident is being made up, and I'm not sure what other evidence we could produce to show that it really happened. Plus we have all these Air Force officers coming forward--more than just about any other case that I know of, including Rendlesham Forest.  If these men are all liars or loonies, then that says something very disturbing about the type of people who literally have their fingers on the nuclear button--or the nuclear keys.

My impression is that these guys are 100% straight arrows, not given to making up stories like these.  They all had long careers in the Air Force, or for military contractors or civilian agencies, and they just have nothing to gain by lying or fabricating stories like this.

I think they are recounting the UFO incidents as best they remember them, and they say that there was more than one missile shutdown at several different flights.  Moreover, the UFOs visited Malmstrom in 1966, 1975 and later dates.

So, that would be a "No, Leo, there are no eyewitness testimonies of any UFO involvement in the missile shutdowns at Echo and Oscar flights, Malmstrom AFB, March 1967. Nor is there any other hard evidence of such involvement."

Thank you, McGuffin.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#52    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 July 2011 - 05:51 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

So, that would be a "No, Leo, there are no eyewitness testimonies of any UFO involvement in the missile shutdowns at Echo and Oscar flights, Malmstrom AFB, March 1967. Nor is there any other hard evidence of such involvement."

Thank you, McGuffin.

No, Leo, that's the exact opposite of what I've been saying, but I'm not sure what other evidence I could post here that would convince you.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#53    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,066 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 05:55 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 03 July 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

No, Leo, that's the exact opposite of what I've been saying, but I'm not sure what other evidence I could post here that would convince you.

You could post the eyewitness testimonies - or the data from radar, etc - that corroborates UFO activity at Echo flight, Malmstrom AFB on 24/25 March 1967 (not some allleged radar tracking of an event 120 miles away.)

If you don't have such eyewitness testimonies, or the data, why are you claiming they exist?

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#54    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:02 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

You could post the eyewitness testimonies - or the data from radar, etc - that corroborates UFO activity at Echo flight, Malmstrom AFB on 24/25 March 1967 (not some allleged radar tracking of an event 120 miles away.)

If you don't have such eyewitness testimonies, or the data, why are you claiming they exist?

They exist all right.  We have reports about them even in the declassified records--numerous UFOs flying all over the place there at Malmstrom, sometimes hovering, sometimes moving at high speed--and these things can move 120 miles in a second whenever they feel like it.

This is just a fact, and they were seen by many witnesses and tracked on radar.  I don't know what else I can say, short of getting a UFO on the radio and asking them to land.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#55    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,066 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:06 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 03 July 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

They exist all right.  We have reports about them even in the declassified records--numerous UFOs flying all over the place there at Malmstrom, sometimes hovering, sometimes moving at high speed--and these things can move 120 miles in a second whenever they feel like it.

This is just a fact, and they were seen by many witnesses and tracked on radar.  I don't know what else I can say, short of getting a UFO on the radio and asking them to land.

Where?

No-one has posted any testimony from an eyewitness to those events at Echo flight (or Oscar Flight), nor has any relevant data from mechanical sources corroborating the existence of UFO activity at the sites in question, on the dates in question, been posted. If these exist, please locate them and post them (or link them) here - otherwise admit they actually do not exist and stop your bluffing.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#56    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,305 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:05 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:

Are you referring to the reference by Hynek of interference to a radio transmission?

Might I point out that no reference was made to any interference of the equipment in the underground bunker, but of interference to the signal - which is a transmission through the atmosphere. Hynek's article in no way validates the premise that such a phenomenon can materially affect equipment in a hardened, underground, bunker.

So, no, imo atmospheric plasma cannot "fit the bill".

Yeah, Plasma can 'fit the bill'. I posted the reference to Hynek's article to point out that similar UFO sightings have taken place. Not to prove that a UFO shut down Missles. I don't even think a UFO caused the shut down, only that a UFO was reported.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

#57    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:16 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 03 July 2011 - 06:03 AM, said:

When Don Crawford was at Echo Flight in March 1967, he reported this incident:

"Also in March a two person security team, assigned to Echo Flight, was performing a routine check of the missile launch facilities a few miles north of Lewistown, Montana. As they approached one of the launch facilities, an amazing sight caused the driver to slam on his brakes. They watched stunned as, about 300 feet ahead, a very large glowing object hovered silently directly over the launch facility. One of them picked up his VHF hand microphone and called Captain Don Crawford who was the DMCCC on duty that evening.

“Sir, you wouldn’t believe what I’m looking at,” he said.

He described what they were seeing. Crawford didn’t believe him at first but the young airman insisted he was telling the truth, his voice revealing his emotional state. Eventually Crawford took him seriously enough to call the Command Post to report it. The officer on duty at the Command Post refused to accept the report and simply stated, “We no longer record those kinds of reports,” indicating he didn’t want to hear about the UFO. Crawford unsure of what to tell his shaken security guard, decided to give the guard his permission to fire his weapon at the object if it seemed hostile.

“Thanks, sir, but I really don’t think it would do any good,”

A few seconds later the object silently flew away.

http://www.mtpioneer...strom-UFOs.html



I don't think it would have done any good, either.
Wow.  I once saw Al Pacino climb into the back seat of an old Volkswagen van with a pale skinned woman who spoke with a German accent.  I saw a flash of light come out of the back window, and when I went over to look inside there was just this old Irish Setter sleeping on a ragged bit of blanket.  But, he spoke with a Scottish accent.  It might have been Sean Connery in disguise.

Doesn't it ever bother you guys that these stories that people tell have never been confirmed?  Crawford has never said a single thing that can be backed up with solid evidence of any sort.  Has anybody even TRIED to track down his commander in order to see what he says?  How about anybody in the command post?

Crawford tells a nice story, because he had to say SOMETHING in order to prove himself a viable feature on "Sightings" in March 1997.  They introduced him and his consistent B.S. because my father and Col. Walt Figel refused to come on and say a UFO took out the missiles at Echo Flight.  And that "something" he came up with has never been verified, was never logged down, and has never even been mentioned by anybody else in all the years intervening, because it's a stupid little story he needed to tell to try and make Salas' claims sound more believable.  By itself, it's the same garbage it's always been.

These points need to be taken into accont:

1.  Two person security teams never performed a "routine check of the missile launch facilities" unless they were accompanied by maineance technicians.  They can't check anything except local security by themselves, and this was what the two man teams were almost exclusivly used for.

2.  VHF hand microphones weren't used by the security teams.  They used standard two-way radios only.

3.  Two man security teams didn't communicate at all with the capsule crew unless there was a missile-oriented event, and those groups were always accompanied by maintenance technicians who were doing the actual work.  Security was there to see to their protection and to ensure proper two-man integrity if it was necessary to descend into the silo.  When this was done, they communicated directly with capsule crew.  Every other time, such as during standard and very common security alerts, they communicated with the command post alone -- not the capsule crew.  If a two-man security team was out, they didn't communicate with the capsule crew -- they talked to their direct chain of command in the command post.

4.  Crawford would ever have needed to call the command post, because the command post would have been receiving any and all updates -- not Crawford.  The command post would ave been callng HIM if there was any need to discuss what was being communicated.  Most of the time, there wasn't.  Why would Crawford have to report anything to the command post?  He wasn't even the guy making the report -- in this sort of incident, he's just the middleman, so why would HE be reporting ANYTHING?  He wouldn't.  He wouldn't even be involved.

5.  Why would the command post refuse to take the report?  Maybe because Crawford didn't see squat himself?  The whole story is nonsense, and only a fool would credit it as anything except an excuse to get on television.

6.  Crawford didn't need to give permission to anybody to use firearms.  He was 60 feet underground and was NOT in charge.  The command post was in charge of security details, and their personnel had already been trained on when, how, and why to use firearms, and none of it includes asking permisson ot use their arms.  They provided tier one security on a nuclear missle command during the Cold War and the Vietnam War, so getting "permission" to use those arms from a guy who didn't even represent their primary chain of command isn't even part of the picture.  

There is nothing in this story of Crawford's that is believable, and the fact that once again there's a report regarding a UFO being made by a guy who didn't see anything, and has no statements from those involved regarding a UFO that was never reported, wasn't investigated, and that nobody else ever heard of before, including the commanbder of the flight on duty, the two men on patrol and anybody at all in the entire command post, supports the contention that it's just another silly fiction told by a guy who wanted to be on T.V.

This is exactly the sort of crap that Robert Hastings' book is so full of.


#58    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined:05 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 July 2011 - 11:36 PM

In this story, I choose to believe the witnesses who were actually there during these UFO incidents at Malmstrom, and the overwhelming majority of them who have come forward stated that it really happened and that UFOs shut down the missiles.

I see no real evidence that that are lying and almost no one who was there saying that there stories are untrue.

Add the that all the reports about UFOs flying around, being tracked on radar and at least one even landing, then this comes together as a very solid and convincing case.  I have looked at all the evidence objectively, and that's my conclusion.  I can't think of much more to add.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#59    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 July 2011 - 12:09 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 03 July 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

thanks for your detailed response, but if those sections were 'unclassified'; then how come they were not released?



i suppose the actual presence of said ufos are a matter of contention here, jumping to the conclusion that they were directly responsible in regards to the shutdowns is a different issue all together...



:o



that's bad :td: not even anything about the jokes?



in regards to lt. col. chase... i believe he was the person who was involved re the rb-47 ufo case.... My link
IRT:  "thanks for your detailed response, but if those sections were 'unclassified'; then how come they were not released?"

They may have been; we just don't know/.  A lkot of classified documents were simply thrown away once they were declassifed.  I've looked everywhere for that particular report, and I've been told by everybody, including Boeing and other contractors, that they don't have copies of it.  Classified materials are treated very differently now than they used to be.  There's a lot more control of materials today, and a lot more consideration for archived materials. There didn't used to be. The decision as to whether or not a particular document was worth archiving was very often being made by low ranking enlisted personnel.  There was no substantial training on what should or should not be saved, and most administrative officers didn't consider it very important.

The document you're referring to was not conclusive, because it only dealt with the first week or so of an investigation that continued for many, many more months. Other documents represented the same information and gave more details, including all of the interim reports that were released.  We simply don't know.  We do know, however, that it was never saved, because if it had been, all of the people looking for it would not have been repeated;ly told that it has not been found at any of the repositories mentioned in any of the requests.  It's not even listed as an archived document, which is why I suspect it was destroyed.

We would like to believe that any administrative body would preserve in some way all of the documents that it has produced for reference, but the plain fact is that they don't -- particularly the military.  The number of documents produced is too large to save, which is one reason we instituted command histories as a form of summary documentation.  This is also one reason that the ICBM histories were originally drafted.  I think you'll find that almost every command, less so now than in the 1960s and 1970s, handle their archival duties differently.  

It wasn't until Ronald Reagan became President that substantial changes in the handling of classified materials was actually instituted.  Before his changes went into effect, automatic declassification of documents was normal, in accordance with the originating agency's decision upon first classifying any materials.  During Reagan's administration, it was noted that the importance of classified materials' status changed often after the original classification was made, and very often this could only be determined by the command responsible for assigning the original classification.  So what Reagan introduced basically amounted to getting rid of automatic declassification.  The new rule was that a classified document could not be declassified unless the originating agency first responsible for assigning classification had advised that declassification procedures be adopted.  This was huge. Before this point, it was considered the duty of all administrative officers to limit the number of classified documents under their control.  There was so much, that there just wasn't enough administrative will to archive; it became accepted that the "job" necessitated both declassification and the destruction of materials, and this represented the corporate mindset of the day. Reagan changed that mindset by making declassification and destruction far more difficult.  Of course, that didn't happen until well after the Echo Flight incident had already been declassified; so finding almost anything is not as easy as most people think.  A lot of materials have simply been lost and destroyed.

IRT:  "i suppose the actual presence of said ufos are a matter of contention here, jumping to the conclusion that they were directly responsible in regards to the shutdowns is a different issue all together..."

I agree completely.  In regard to Echo Flight, there were rumors -- that's been well-established.  I've tried to account for those rumors, and the Raymond Fowler testimony is, I believe, a suitable explanation for this.  NMore importantly, the classification of the materials is not an aspect of the case that can be used to support an actual UFO, because a real UFO would not have been treated so casually by the command.  It's illegal to classify an actual threat to a nuclear missile command any lower than Top Secret, so the fact that everything related to a UFO in this instance is Unclassified (and nothing involving the incident in general is classified above Secret) is more than sufficient reason to believe that the command never considered the UFO to be actual or to represent an actual threat.

In this case, Malmstrom AFB would have been the originating agency, so their classification of any part of the materials associated carries with it a tremendous responsibility.  In 1967, President Kennedy's executive order increasing the emphasis of underclassification of materials was still in effect, and the charges related to such an act were very serious.  If a charge of underclassification of materials was made against the commanding officer (and it was his responsibility alone, since he appointed all of his junior officer positions), it would have ended his career.  There is just no reason to assume that an actual UFO would have been mentioned in an Unclassifed status if it were a genuine threat.  That sort of carelessness would have changed everything.  Kennedy's E.O., however, lowered any official rebukes for the overclassification of materials.  The commanding officer's career would never have been threatened by establishing a higher than appropriate classification, because Kennedy wasn't very concerned about that aspect of the process, and rightfully so.  It's far better to make a mistake that protects a document too much than one that protects a document too little.  Reagan recognized this as well, which is why he didn't mind increasing so substantially the amount of maintenance and archived materials that he was instituting. Administrative officials before these changes were of the opinion that doing this would increase so subtstantially the amount of work required to protect these materials that there would be far more incidents of mistaken disclosures as a result. Reagan believed, again rightfully in my opinion, that this was a dangerous assumption to make that would ultimately result in disclosure occurring anyway, since it was an effect of not enough importance of overall protection being stressed by those who manage such materials.  Basically, he told them that if it looked like there would be too much work involved, they should hire more people to do that work. He stressed the importance of protection over declassification and destruction.  That changed everything, and can't be overemphasized.

IRT:  "that's bad  not even anything about the jokes?"

He said he didn't remember anything at all, according to what Salas told Fowler in his email.  Secifically, he said "Unfortunately, he had no recollection (he said) of the radar visuals or sighting of the UFOs at Malmstrom."

Personally, I think Fowler was just being screwed around with.  His interest in UFOs was well-known, as were his somewhat intense opinions regarding USAF conduct in regard to such matters.  It is my belief that he made a target of himself.  Whether he did or not, however, is ultimately not extremely relevant, since this individual apparently didn't remember anything at all about these matters, according to what Salas told Fowler.  So far, the only person I've found who remembers any of it is Raymond Fowler, and even though he was there at the time, working at Malmstrom AFB and actively investigating the matter, he was unable to find anything at all, including someone who even cared what he thought about it.  In my opinion, that's pretty significant.


#60    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Joined:03 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 July 2011 - 12:16 AM

View Postlost_shaman, on 03 July 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

What are you basing that on? Technically there is no real limit that says large UFO's can't be close to ground level.








If that's true then how does this show no UFO was present?





Nonsense. Hynek had already described in detail a similar UFO sighting in his 1966 Saturday Evening Post article.
Exactly.  And nobody tried to hide the case, or otherwise cover it up.  All of the records are available and the investigation was easily tracked.  And yet, we have NOTHING in relation to Oscar Flight at all, and NOTHING related to a UFO at Echo Flight.

We also have numerous witnesses who insist that there was no UFO, no UFO reported, and no UFO investigated.  I believe these differences are significant; they suggest there was never anything at all to what Salas has been claiming since 1995.  And the fact that we can actually point to a great many aspects of his claims, and prove that this isn't true, and that never happened, and he couldn't possibly know about that, naturally leads to the supposition (at least it should) that he's not being entirely honest with anybody, and hasn't been since 1995.

Edited by James Carlson, 04 July 2011 - 12:26 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users