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

#31    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:30 AM

I think there were quite a few UFOs flying all over the place during these incidents at Malmstrom, and at very high speeds:



Arneson saw communications that UFOs had shut down missiles at Malmstrom in March 1967, but he didn't know what flight it was.  He later worked at Boeing where he knew Robert Kaminski, who had investigated the cause of the shutdowns.

Jamison was in charge of restarting the missiles at Oscar flight, and he was told that a UFO was hovering over Roy, Montana--near Lewiston--and all ten missiles went down.  He also knew about the UFO landing at Belt, Montana, which Air Force people saw sitting on the floor of the canyon.  Jamison was also told that another flight of missiles had been shut down by UFOs about a week earlier.

He was giving a special briefing about UFOs "messing with our missiles", and told what to do if they saw one.  There was quite a bit of "activity" out there in the field.  In any case, he had to travel 120 miles to Oscar flight and restart some of the missiles.

As for the UFO that landed at Belt, it took off straight up into the air at daylight.  I can believe it since I once saw one do just that.

Jamison further recalled that about a week after this, UFOs shut down more missiles at India flight, as he stated in his affidavit.


Needless to say, I can fully understand why the Air Force would order people not to discuss this--I would expect nothing else.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 03 July 2011 - 03:45 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#32    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 03 July 2011 - 03:58 AM

View Postbison, on 03 July 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

I watched and listened to the testimony of Lt. Jamison, and Col. Arneson in the Washington D.C. press conference earlier this year. I would like to accord them the respect they are due, and assume that they gave truthful accounts.  The latter also referred to substantiating conclusions of missile investigator Robert Kaminski, who reportedly found the malfunctions unexplainable by any conventional means.
Col. Arneson's story is absurd.  He has no date for an alleged message he saw, no oeiginating command, and no receiving command.  It's useless as anything, let alone evidence.  He can't even place it within the same season, and nobody has ever come forward to confirm the message actually existed. He saw nothing himself, and every single detail of the message he supposedly saw has been proven never to have occurred.  It's a ridiculous story with nothing at all to recommend it.

Kaminski was a lunatic -- which if you'd read his book, you would understand is not an insult, but a medical diagnosis.  Every single detail of the story he has told not only was refuted 30 years earlier by the Echo Flight investigation records, and by the testimonly of the same investigation tream that he claimed to have been a member of.  Not that it makes much difference.  The team he insists he was part of was only involved in the attempts to establish whether or not a failed transformer could have caused the failures.  This entailed a fairly thorough testing of the environmental conditions at the launch facilities, but had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation team that was looking into possible causes originating at the launch control center, where the capsule crew was located.  Well after Kaminsky's team was disbanded after having discovered nothing of significance aside from proving that no outside source (including a UFO, something Hastings and Salas have refused to detail sufficiently) was capable of shutting down all ten of the missiles.

In Kaminsky's letter, he states (30 years after the fact) that his team reached no helpful conclusions.  This isn't entirely true, however, since it was Kaminsky's team that originally proposed that the source of the noise signal must have originated in the LCC, because no other source could have shut down all ten missiles.  While his team was disbanded shortly afterward, the investigation absolutely did not end, and it later reported that they had "proven" that the source of the noise pulse was indeed in the LCC, and that it had shut down all ten missiles.  Kmainsky's claims are full of errors, are incomplete, and were written by a man who believed UFOs were the tools of Satan, who would shortly prove his dominance over the planet earth by bringing about an Armageddon that was supposed to destroy creation in his own lifetime.  His death, however, proved that his calculations were somewhat off a bit.

There is not one single witness who has been sufficiently explained or discussed by Hastings or Salas -- not one.  And none of their stories are worth the paper they've been printed on. You are welcome to grant them all the respect you like, but not one of them has produced any worthwhile testimony at all, not one of their stories has ever been confirmed, and the twists and spins that Hastings and Salas have applied to these stories is s0o obvious that a child could dismiss it.  Just because someone tells an interesting story is not reason enough to believe those stories. If you put some effort into trying to confirm what they've said, you'll find that they could not have possibly occurred as they insist -- and those that don't meet this qualification are worthless to start off with, such as Arneson's little fable.  Simply saying a UFO was reported is a waste of time if all fo the evidence that has ever been documented insists that no UFO was reported.  A story is meaningless without something to back it up.  Even that's not necessary, however, to dispute these claims, as it's very plain that nothing they've asserted can be confirmed, because not one of them ever SAW anything, or have produced any evidence or witnesses to even suggest that they did.

Between them, they've collected a stack of worthless stories that never happened.  More importantly, we can actually prove that they never happened, something Hastings and Salas might have been able to accomplish themselves had they possessed any real desire to determine the truth.  It's an absolute fact that between them both, they've IGNORED 95% percent of the available evidence, including over 80-pages of FOIA documentation, all ogf the ICBM histories -- Top Secret documents that were only declassified in 2004, numerous interviews with their own witnesses that they failed to properly conduct for themselves, and any understanding of military procedures and classified materials protocol that not only prove these events could not have possibly happened as they have claimed, they prove as well that nobody in the chain of command of either Malmstrom AFB or SAC believed that UFOs had aything at all to do with thjese missile failures.  They get basic facts wrong that a simple review of the documents has already proven, and they fill in the blanks with ridiculous claims that nobody who has ever served in a missile crew would ever assert unless hge or she was lying.

You don't have to believe me.  It's evident many people don't.  But if you do the research yourslef, simply try to confirm these stories with actual missleers, or in many cases just someone who knows something about USAF security.  If you do a thorough and honest job of it, I can guarantee that you will eventually conlude these stories are fictions that did not happen -- indeed, that could NOT have happened as Hastings and Salas have claimed.

As for the witnesses named above -- they say nothing!  They just tell a bunch of stories nobody who has served in such positions would accept as factual, and none of them have stated anything very interesting that even they can confirm.  Have you read Arneson's statement?  None of it can possibly be associated with a real event.  This message he discusses talks about a UFO event that both the ongoing and offgoing teams at a missle facility observed overhead!  This means a UFO supposedly hovered above the Echo Flight command facility for about 5-6 hours and the only response by ANYBODY in the entire country was a somewhat sedate and extraordinarily NORMAL watch turnover.  Do you really consider this believable testimony?  Especially since so many others (who can actually PROVE they were present) have publically insisted that it's all crap?

Since when is it a good idea to accept every story you're told as a point of fact without once bothering to EXAMINE it?


#33    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 July 2011 - 04:02 AM

I can see why Col. Chase was sent out to investigate the one that landed.  There wasn't much he could do about the ones that were just flying around, hovering briefly then darting away like they usually do.  When one came in for a landing, there was actually something for him to investigate, at least get a closer look at, but it took off before they could get to it.

Posted Image

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 03 July 2011 - 04:06 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#34    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM

View Postmcrom901, on 03 July 2011 - 03:26 AM, said:

hey james.... just a quick question.... did you get to see page 27 from the foia dox?
No I haven't seen it -- but I know what's on it.  That's been very easy to determine:  an UNCLASSIFIED discussion of a Strike Team conducting an evaluation of November Flight's LFs during the time of the missile failures at Echo Flight.

Interesting story there -- there had been a number of UFO rumors caused by one person having made a lot of phone calls to a lot of USAF offices, including Project Blue Book, attempting to establish a UFO association with the Echo Flight Incident. That person was Raymond Fowler.  He had no evidence, and there were no reports that had ever been made, so there was no cause to investigate a UFO at Echo Flight.  Without a UFO report, there could be no UFO investigation.  And since all they had was Raymond Fowler calling a bunch of people trying to INCITE an investigation, there was no evidence, no report, and no subsequent investigation.  There was nothing.

But being such an important command in such a high security environment during heightened tensions from both the Cold War and the Vietnam War, SAC couldn't very well IGNORE such reports, could they?  Of course not!!  That would be ineffectual, negligent, and irresponsible.  So Lt. Col. Chase, the UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB, determined that at the very least he should make enquiries to determine whether or not a UFO report SHOULD have been made, but was, for some reason NOT. Since this would have been towards the end of April, or the beginning of May, his options were few.  After all, nobody had ever come forward to state that they saw a UFO and wanted to file a UFO report, so he had to look for possible witnesses himself.  There was only one way he could go about doing this.

He checked all of the work records filed at Malmstrom AFB in that part of the state of Montana, and discovered that there was only one group who could be confirmed as being outside during the initial missile failures.  That one group was conducting an inspection of November Flight -- a fairly common thing to do that was conducted a number of times throughout every year, particularly during the period of such extensive repair and evaluation that typified 1966-1967.  We know it was an inspection unit, because the reference given in the command history states that the Mobile Strike Team, which was simply a group consisting of security and maintenance personnel, went to every LF associated at November Flight.  This would have been referenced in the engineering report, since this first report, filed by the team that Kaminsky was part of, was concerned with the outside environment, including the weather, since lightning had already been referred to, and their purpose was to establish whether or not the failed transformer could have been responsible, a failure that, at the time, they were unable to determine the cause of.  In any case, they were the only individuals who were outside at the time of the missile failures anywhere in the area, so they were asked if they saw anything odd that may have occurred that perhaps should have been reported.  They insisted that they did not.  They saw nothing.  In the absence of any witnesses, any UFO reports, and anybody who could confirm anything at all that Raymond Fowler had been calling so many people about, i.e., a UFO anywhere near Echo Flight during the time of the missile faults, the issue was dropped, and Chase's aborted inquiry was over.

The fact that it was all UNCLASSIFIED, as anybody familiar with classified materials protocol in 1967 can very easily confirm, is absolute proof that the commander of Malmstrom AFB and every officer in a position of authority below him was confident that there was no interference with any of the missiles on Malmstrom AFB by a UFO.  Any such belief would have required by law a completely different reaction.

As for Raymond Fowler's claims during this period, he was told by 2-3 of the individuals he worked with at Sylvania -- men who had absolutely nothing to do with anything that ever occurred at Echo Flight, since they were working at the time on the new squadron facilities on the other side of the state that were intended for Minuteman II missiles only (all other facilities at Malmstrom AFB, including Echo Flight, were equipped with only the Minuteman I missiles) -- that they had heard "reports" of UFOs at Echo Flight.  Not only did these men NOT have clearance sufficient to be told anything at all regarding the Echo Flight Incident, it's far more likely that they were simply screwing around with the local NICAP rep, being very much aware of Raymond Fowler's abiding interst in UFO investigation at the time.  Salas was even able to track down one of these men, and asked him about the UFOs that he had "reported" to Fowler.  This gentleman stated very earnestly that he didn't know anything at all about UFOs at Malmstrom AFB in 1967.  Robert Salas has neglected to discuss this point in his book, but he did mention it to Raymond Fowler, from whom I received numerous email communications beteween the two men in 1996-97, a period when Salas was attempting to get as much "support" from already established UFO investigators such as Raymond Fower for his erstwhile claims.

I have no doubt that this is exactly what page 27 of the (S) "Report of Engineering Investigation of Echo Flight Incident, Malmstrom AFB, Mont - 16 Mar 67," by Engineering Investigation Team, 23 Mar 67 refers to.  Lt. Col. Chase has confirmed the essentials, and the Mobile Strike Team presence outside is referenced in the command history.  Salas' assertions in 1997 that there was no need to interview anybody associated with November Flight, a claim he originally made to suggest that a similar event nobody else on the planet has ever established or discussed aside from him actually did occur at November Flight, was made by someone who is very evidently unfamiliar with simple USAF administrative procedures, including those introduced by a command to record important events for inclusion in the historical archive represented by command histories.  Of course, he only did so once he determined to claim that a similar event to Echo Flight had occurred, since his original claims that he was actually present at Echo Flight had been such a failure due to the fact that he wasn't ever at Echo Flight.  In order to claim that he was present at a similar event at November Flight, he was forced to ignore what his own commander had told him (which he did for another three years) and ad to "fudge" the November Flight discussion in the command history.  If you talk to someone who actually does know something about admin procedures, you'll find that his claims have no merit, as well as no confirmation with Meiwald as he claimed then (for November Flight) and now (for Oscar Flight).

On that point I intend to retire for the night and get some sleep, as I have a very early day ahead of me. Goodnight, gentlemen.

Edited by James Carlson, 03 July 2011 - 05:18 AM.


#35    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 July 2011 - 06:03 AM

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.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 03 July 2011 - 06:53 AM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#36    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,494 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 07:20 AM

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

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,”


I've had my character attacked in the Past for simply suggesting based on my own experience that I didn't think people would shoot guns at UFO's. The premise I disagreed with was that no-one shot at the UFO therefore this proves there was no UFO present otherwise it would have been shot at!

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

#37    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,549 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 08:02 AM

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.

So, what did the Security person describe?

Simply "a very large glowing object"? That is all the person saw from only 300 feet away? No details?

If the object was so bright that the glow of it obscured any viewing of details, and it was "very large", why was it only visible from 300 feet away?

How was the airman in any position to determine that firing on the object "wouldn't do any good", if all he could see was a bright light?

The story you quote lacks any credibility*, which at least is consistent with most of the stories regarding alleged UFO sightings connected with these incidents.

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.

Edited by Leonardo, 03 July 2011 - 08:05 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.

#38    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,082 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 03 July 2011 - 08:14 AM

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

So, what did the Security person describe?

Simply "a very large glowing object"? That is all the person saw from only 300 feet away? No details?

If the object was so bright that the glow of it obscured any viewing of details, and it was "very large", why was it only visible from 300 feet away?

How was the airman in any position to determine that firing on the object "wouldn't do any good", if all he could see was a bright light?

Well.... he may have gone round a corner and it just came into view. And if you saw a normous glowing orange thing in the sky above you, particularly if it was hovering over a nuclear missile facility, then personally, I'd rather hope that they would think twice before blasting away at it.  :hmm:

Edited by 747400, 03 July 2011 - 08:14 AM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#39    mcrom901

mcrom901

    plasmoid ninja

  • Member
  • 5,602 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:multiverse

  • space debris, decided to evolve and become us!

Posted 03 July 2011 - 08:20 AM

View PostJames Carlson, on 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

No I haven't seen it -- but I know what's on it.  That's been very easy to determine:  an UNCLASSIFIED discussion of a Strike Team conducting an evaluation of November Flight's LFs during the time of the missile failures at Echo Flight.

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

View PostJames Carlson, on 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

The fact that it was all UNCLASSIFIED, as anybody familiar with classified materials protocol in 1967 can very easily confirm, is absolute proof that the commander of Malmstrom AFB and every officer in a position of authority below him was confident that there was no interference with any of the missiles on Malmstrom AFB by a UFO.  Any such belief would have required by law a completely different reaction.

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...

View PostJames Carlson, on 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

Not only did these men NOT have clearance sufficient to be told anything at all regarding the Echo Flight Incident, it's far more likely that they were simply screwing around with the local NICAP rep, being very much aware of Raymond Fowler's abiding interst in UFO investigation at the time.

:o

View PostJames Carlson, on 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

Salas was even able to track down one of these men, and asked him about the UFOs that he had "reported" to Fowler.  This gentleman stated very earnestly that he didn't know anything at all about UFOs at Malmstrom AFB in 1967.

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

View PostJames Carlson, on 03 July 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

I have no doubt that this is exactly what page 27 of the (S) "Report of Engineering Investigation of Echo Flight Incident, Malmstrom AFB, Mont - 16 Mar 67," by Engineering Investigation Team, 23 Mar 67 refers to.  Lt. Col. Chase has confirmed the essentials, and the Mobile Strike Team presence outside is referenced in the command history.

in regards to lt. col. chase... i believe he was the person who was involved re the rb-47 ufo case.... My link


#40    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,549 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 08:23 AM

View Post747400, on 03 July 2011 - 08:14 AM, said:

Well.... he may have gone round a corner and it just came into view. And if you saw a normous glowing orange thing in the sky above you, particularly if it was hovering over a nuclear missile facility, then personally, I'd rather hope that they would think twice before blasting away at it.  :hmm:

So, how low was the object hovering, then? If it was "very large" it couldn't have been that low over the site.

Also, it is not at the airman's discretion to predetermine the vulnerability of a potentially hostile, unknown, object. His orders were to fire if the object committed any hostile action - his discretion was only to judge what constituted a 'hostile action'.

I can certainly understand a person being overwhelmed by such an occasion, but that would not make for a very good defense at any potential court-martial if there was, in fact, an unauthorised foreign power interfering with, or investigating, one of the US Military's sensitive missile sites.

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.

#41    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,494 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:11 AM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

So, how low was the object hovering, then? If it was "very large" it couldn't have been that low over the site.

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






View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:


Also, it is not at the airman's discretion to predetermine the vulnerability of a potentially hostile, unknown, object. His orders were to fire if the object committed any hostile action - his discretion was only to judge what constituted a 'hostile action'.

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



View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:


I can certainly understand a person being overwhelmed by such an occasion, but that would not make for a very good defense at any potential court-martial if there was, in fact, an unauthorised foreign power interfering with, or investigating, one of the US Military's sensitive missile sites.

Nonsense. Hynek had already described in detail a similar UFO sighting in his 1966 Saturday Evening Post article.

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

#42    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,082 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:21 AM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

So, how low was the object hovering, then? If it was "very large" it couldn't have been that low over the site.

Also, it is not at the airman's discretion to predetermine the vulnerability of a potentially hostile, unknown, object. His orders were to fire if the object committed any hostile action - his discretion was only to judge what constituted a 'hostile action'.

I can certainly understand a person being overwhelmed by such an occasion, but that would not make for a very good defense at any potential court-martial if there was, in fact, an unauthorised foreign power interfering with, or investigating, one of the US Military's sensitive missile sites.
I'm not trying to construct any hypotheses one way or the other, just offering some suggestions. My point regarding the shooting was that, if something large and glowing was hovering low over a missile site, then shooting at it might well provoke it into doing something such as shooting back, at you or the missile, or perhaps it might even blow it up. Either way, this would not seem to be a very wise course of action in close prosimity to a nuclear missile. Therefore, i'd very much hope that guards at such locations would very much think twice before adopting the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#43    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,494 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:27 AM

View Post747400, on 03 July 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I'm not trying to construct any hypotheses one way or the other, just offering some suggestions. My point regarding the shooting was that, if something large and glowing was hovering low over a missile site, then shooting at it might well provoke it into doing something such as shooting back, at you or the missile, or perhaps it might even blow it up. Either way, this would not seem to be a very wise course of action in close prosimity to a nuclear missile. Therefore, i'd very much hope that guards at such locations would very much think twice before adopting the shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach.


Well it appears that no-one has ever fired small arms at UFO's in similar reported situations despite the laments of certain UM members.

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

#44    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,549 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:38 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.

I base my opinion on things I actually know - that being a "very large" (and how large is "very large" - larger than a Chinook?) flying object cannot hover close to the ground, unless it is a helicopter which makes a lot of noise and would be clearly identifiable from 300 feet.

I make no claims about any alleged 'advanced technology' which has not been shown to exist, and so the capabilities of which cannot be ascertained. I do note, however, that you seem familiar with the 'technical capabilities' of such advanced technology?

Quote

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

I never claimed that single action "showed no UFO was present". My claim is that the story, complete with all the activities described, is inconsistent with the presence of an unknown and potentially hostile force being in close proximity to a very sensitive site of the US Military.

Quote

Nonsense. Hynek had already described in detail a similar UFO sighting in his 1966 Saturday Evening Post article.

Which suggests the meme of how a UFO sighting is described was present within the popular culture of the day. It states nothing about whether any of the sightings were actually genuinely of advanced, non-terrestrial technology; whether any of the alleged sightings actually occurred without eyewitness testimony to corroborate that; or that this advanced technology was able to pin-point specific military installations and interfere with/investigate them.

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.

#45    lost_shaman

lost_shaman

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,494 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:TEXAS

Posted 03 July 2011 - 10:17 AM

View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

I base my opinion on things I actually know - that being a "very large" (and how large is "very large" - larger than a Chinook?) flying object cannot hover close to the ground, unless it is a helicopter which makes a lot of noise and would be clearly identifiable from 300 feet.

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.




View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:


I make no claims about any alleged 'advanced technology' which has not been shown to exist, and so the capabilities of which cannot be ascertained. I do note, however, that you seem familiar with the 'technical capabilities' of such advanced technology?

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



View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:


I never claimed that single action "showed no UFO was present". My claim is that the story, complete with all the activities described, is inconsistent with the presence of an unknown and potentially hostile force being in close proximity to a very sensitive site of the US Military.


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.





View PostLeonardo, on 03 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:


Which suggests the meme of how a UFO sighting is described was present within the popular culture of the day. It states nothing about whether any of the sightings were actually genuinely of advanced, non-terrestrial technology; whether any of the alleged sightings actually occurred without eyewitness testimony to corroborate that; or that this advanced technology was able to pin-point specific military installations and interfere with/investigate them.


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

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users