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

#76    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 July 2011 - 06:45 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 05 July 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

As I said in post 27, the Air Force did receive "numerous reports" of UFOs, which it stated in its own documents.  That's just a fact, and the witnesses cornfirm it.


And the Air Force did receive "numerous reports" of UFOs at Malmstrom on March 24, 1967

http://3.bp.blogspot...ch+1967+%28A%29


http://1.bp.blogspot...ch+1967+%28B%29


And we know for certain that Col. Chase was sent to investigate the one that landed. I don't think this was the first or last time that UFOs visited Malmstrom, since witnesses have said they were interested in it from even before the time that missiles were installed there. Patrick McDonough testified to that at the National Press Club in 2010.

I am glad that they didn't decide to fire off one of those missiles just to see what would happen, since we have evidence that they have they capability of doing so if that was their intention.
Your links are broken McGuffin.  Here you go...

http://3.bp.blogspot... March 1967 (A)

http://1.bp.blogspot... March 1967 (B)

I seem to recall that James addressed this somewhere, but I don't recall exactly where.  Of course, I could be remembering wrong.


#77    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:08 PM

And Col. Chase did file a report of the UFO landing at Belt, Montana with project Blue Book, and it's still listed as one of their unknowns.  So I think it's a fact that UFOs at Malmstrom were indeed reported "officially" in March 1967.

http://www.nicap.org...ok/bluelist.htm


These were not simply stories made up out on thin air, having no reality at all, or why did Col. Chase report that a UFO few over the base and even landed?

This is why people from the Condon Committee showed up there in the first place and started asking questions about UFOs, based on events that were already known in 1967, and had even been reported in the newspapers.

For that reason, I stated that the UFOs really existed and that they were reported and investigated at the time, although we still don't know all the details.  This is also why I believe the other witnesses when they also recalled seeing or hearing about UFO reports at the time.

I think these witnesses like Salas were just giving a more complete version of events than the Condon Committee people were able to find, but Roy Craig and the others from the Condon Committee would never have shown up there at all in 1967 had there not been UFO reports on file.

I don't think Col. Chase lied to them.  There were just certain things that he could not discuss for security reasons, which is not the same as lying.

For that matter, I think the other witnesses who are reluctant to discuss this are also doing this for security reasons as they understand it, not because they are lying.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 07:35 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#78    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:19 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 July 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

Your links are broken McGuffin.  Here you go...

http://3.bp.blogspot... March 1967 (A)

http://1.bp.blogspot... March 1967 (B)

I seem to recall that James addressed this somewhere, but I don't recall exactly where.  Of course, I could be remembering wrong.


Thanks, boon, I didn't check them to see that they were working.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#79    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:21 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 05 July 2011 - 05:43 AM, said:

Apparentlyi, the investigation team never saw it as a joke and was told by the tech representive who was stationed at my base that the report was going to be reported as a UFO report but then, the Air Force stepped in and the rest became  history.
Perhaps, if you take anything that Kaminsky had to say thirty years after the fact as more than just the ravings of a befuddled old lunatic who couldn't even remember what his own team did during the original investigation and what conclusions that team actually reached, typed up and submitted to the USAF.  I don't.  Nothing he said has ever been proven, and nobody has ever come forward to confirm any of it.  And a lot of it is completely contrary to the recorded actions and conclusions reached by the same team he insisted that he was a member of.  Basically we've got a guy who's saying things nobody else has ever supported or otherwise confirmed that in many cases can be proven as contrary to the reports, updates, and contemporary documentation produced by the same team he was supposedly a member of.  More importantly, the team that he claims to have been a part of ended its involvement many, many months before the engineering investigation was atually concluded, so anything at all that he has to say in regard to this incident is so premature as to be useless.  

As for your belief that "the investigation team never saw it as a joke", where do you get that from?  The investigation team weren't investigating a UFO, so they didn't even hear about it!  Figel didn't tell them, because he wasn't asked about UFOs -- ditto for my father.  THERE WAS NO UFO INVESTIGATION.  They were asked about the appliances that were plugged in and operating when the missiles started failing, for God's sake!  If you're going to reach conclusions on the basis of what the investigating team thought about, believed, or considered, you're going to have to do a lot better than the crap Kaminsky had to say.  Kaminsky's role in the investigation ENDED when his team determined that a blown transformer could not have knocked off all ten missiles, and he apparently couldn't remember most of that, so anything he has to say isn't even relevant to most of the investigation.  In any case, Kaminsky's little letter that he sent to Salas can't be used to determine anything that the investigating team did or believed, because he speaks only of himself and what he was told by his military liaison in a one-on-one interview, not information given to the whole team, and that means NONE of it can be confirmed (which tends to be true about a lot of things that Salas discusses).  He doesn't talk about the investigation or the investigating team very much at all, and most of what he does have to say about it is wrong (and not wrong as in "wrong in my opinion", but wrong as in "wrong as in the basic facts revealed when his claims are compared to the reports and conclusions drafted and submitted by the same investigating team" that he says he was a member of).

And as for what was said and done at your command, for Pete's sake, just drop it already.  This is just garbage; someone "was told by the tech representive who was stationed at my base that the report was going to be reported as a UFO report but then, the Air Force stepped in and the rest became history."  Prove it, for God's sake.  Bring in a statement we can use, talk to the "tech representive", find an actual report or dated memorandum, get a statement -- anything less in meaningless.  "It was going to be reported as a UFO."  Really!?  On the basis of what?  You think they could call it a UFO report when there was no investigation of a UFO?  When nobody ever questioned the capsule crew regarding a UFO?  When nobody ever reported a UFO?  Why is it that anybody examining this particular UFO case is forced to rely on crap stories like this to reach a conclusion?  Why can't anybody find any actual evidence of a UFO?  You have no witnesses, no reports, no memos discussing it -- NOTHING until Salas puts it all together in 1995, and yet continues to change his story everytime somebody says, "sorry, pal -- you got it wrong."  Why is it ythere was no UFO reported in the entire state of Montana on March 16, 1967?  It should have been seen by every civilian working on that base -- they would have been driving to work; you think nobody would have seen a UFO anywhere in Montana if this event was real?  And look at the evidence you're basing this on.  Tell me how a UFO as described by a small handful of people who WEREN'T EVEN THERE qualifies as believable when they can't get their story right until they've changed it so often that it no longer resembles anything that can be confirmed.  I'd be genuinely interested in hearing that.  

Why is it that nobody is willing to produce anything at all about this UFO that comes from 1967 except a single mention in the context of RUMORS?  Generally, people need more than that to establish a historical event.  All you've got are a handful of suspicions, like "the Air Force stepped in and the rest became history."  The USAF didn't step-in -- they were ALWAYS there, and they recorded everything that was important or relevant, just as they did with dozens of UFO reports that were investigated elsewhere.  Do you know why they did that?  Because they HAD to; it was a requirement, a legal order.  It wasn't something they did as a clerical exercise.  And do you know what it means when there is no such UFO report, when there is no UFO investigation, when the only thing anybody ever had to discuss was a bunch of rumors that happened because a guy who didn't know half as much as he thought he knew wouldn't quit bothering everybody, and had to be told to shut up already, because he was annoying everybody about a UFO at Echo Flight, when he couldn't even get the date right?  It means there was no UFO.


#80    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:28 PM

View Postlost_shaman, on 05 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

In a perfect world where the USAF objectively investigated every case it would be quite significant. Since that isn't the case I don't think it's quite as significant as you do.

Also the declassified report on the missile failure clearly mentions 'rumors of UFOs' being dismissed but we don't know who was talked to or how that conclusion was reached but it does show that some mention of a UFO was contemporary. i.e. Not made up in 1995.


And we also know that there were other investigations besides Blue Book--more secret investigations at higher levels--but we don't have those records.  We wouldn't even know about the 1975 UFO incidents at Malmstrom and other bases had someone at the DIA not leaked the documents and showed UFO researchers where to look.  I wonder if there are any records from the DIA and other agencies about what happened in 1967?  We may never know.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#81    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 07:52 PM

In fact, it could be that Col. Chase was following the regulations exactly, with "regular" UFO reports going to Blue Book, while reports of other kinds of UFOs that might have national security implications being reported to the other investigation--the real one.  We now know that the real investigation had nothing to do with the Condon Committee.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 07:53 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#82    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 08:22 PM

Note that the Blue Book files did contain reports about this incident and similar ones from 1966-67, all listed as unknowns.  Two Malmstrom UFO reports from March 16, 1967, still listed as unknowns, were probably pulled from the Blue Book files and sent to the other investigation because of their unusual nature.



Aug. 24, 1966. Minot AFB [Grano? Carpio?], North
Dakota. 10 p.m. Airman saw and reported by radio a
multi-colored light high in the sky. Strike team sent to his
location confirmed the object. Second object, white, was
seen to pass in front of clouds. Radar detected and tracked
an object. Sightings made by 3 different Minuteman
ICBM missile sites. Radio interference was noted by
teams sent to locations where object was hovering at
ground level.


March 5, 1967. Minot AFB, North Dakota. ADC radar
tracked an unidentified target descending over the
Minuteman ICBM missile silos of the 91st Strategic
Missile Wing. Base security teams saw a metallic, discshaped
object ringed with bright flashing lights moving
slowly, maneuvering, then stopping and hovering about
500 ft above ground. Object circled directly over the
launch control facility. F-106 fighters were scrambled but
at that moment object climbed straight up and disappeared
at high speed.


March 16, 1967. Near Roy (about 30 miles NE of
Lewistown), Montana. Oscar (“O”) Flight [November
Flight?] of Malmstrom AFB, USAF 341st Strategic
Missile Wing, had unexplained deactivation of 6-8
Minuteman nuclear ICBM's within several secs of each
other during UFO close encounters involving a red saucershaped
object in early morning hours. USAF security
guard injured and medivacked out. Capt. Robert Salas
was Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander on duty at
O Flight. Similar event occurred with Echo Flight later in
the morning.


March 16, 1967. 15 miles N of Lewistown, Montana.
8:45 a.m. Echo (“E”) Flight of 10 Minuteman nuclear
ICBM's of Malmstrom AFB, USAF 341st Strategic
Missile Wing, SAC, were inexplicably deactivated within
10 secs of each other and for 1 day after UFO's hovered
near 2 missile silos. Followed a series of UFO sightings
during early morning hours by USAF security teams.
Similar unexplained deactivation of Minutemans occurred
with O-Flight earlier in the morning.


March 24 [26?], 1967. Belt, Montana. 9 p.m. Truck
driver Ken Williams saw a dome-shaped object, emitting a
bright light, land in a ravine. As he approached, it took off
and settled back, hidden from the highway. Numerous
other reports came in from this area and at dawn police
and a Malmstrom AFB helicopter made a search without
success.


April 16, 1967. Shoreline at NE corner of Ramey AFB,
Puerto Rico. Bet. 5 and 6 a.m. (EST). USAF Airman/2nd
Guillermo Padilla and Airman Henry, 72nd Bombardment
Wing, SAC, saw a disc shaped object with two levels and
a reddish band slightly above midesection, floating or
hovering just above the water. Object went left to right
and back a short distance then rose from right to left, and
Padilla took a photo. Object reversed path and
disappeared.



http://www.cufos.org/BB_Unknowns.pdf


As to whether all these UFOs over the years come from the same place or many different places is something I could only guess at--although I tend to think they are from more than just one place.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 08:24 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#83    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 08:32 PM

View Postlost_shaman, on 05 July 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

Speaking of this, why didn't Figel specifically deny the allegation that he did the interview with Salas in 1996 as you specifically asked?
You should ask him.  Personally, I thought what he had to say was pretty definitive.  And I didn't "specifically" ask him to "deny the allegation that he did the interview with Salas in 1996."  I told him that transcripts of an interview he had allegedly conducted with Robert Salas in 1996 had been released by Robert Hastings, and that those transcripts seemed to indicate that he had told Salas there was an actual UFO at Echo Flight.  I sent him the links to the article Robert Hastings published, and I asked him to respond.  His response was exactly what he had told me in previous discussions; he said he had never told anybody that a UFO was involved at Echo Flight, and that he never believed a UFO was involved at Echo Flight. He also said that everything my father has said on the topic was dead-on, and that he hadn't lied to anybody, as Robert Hastings has repeatedly stated.  I thought he was pretty clear.  He gave me a response that was pretty much what I expected.

I did not ask him to deny the allegations, and he did not do so.  He commented on the article Hastings wrote, and said he was wrong.  I suggested in public, and I still believe, that those audio tapes were fixed, edited, whatever you want to call it; they may have been manufactured, but I don't know for sure. The thing is, Salas and Hastings produced those recordings the day before their NPC press conference in Washington, DC, and Robert Hastings had been insisting for six months that everything I had attributed to Col. Walt Figel was a lie, that I had never interviewed him, and had never communicated with him.  He had promised the owners of Reality Uncovered that Col. Figel himself had refuted everything I wrote, and that he was in possession of more recorded audio tapes from March 2010 proving this, and would publish the transcripts and possibly make the recordings themselves available.  The fact that he never did this bothered me a bit, especially after he had repeatedly insisted that I was a liar who had never interviewed Col. Figel.  So when he produced those alleged tapes from 1996, my first reaction, one that I'm still convinced is appropriate, was to doubt that they were real, especially in light of Col. Figel's response to those tapes and Hastings' article.

What I don't understand is why ANYBODY would accept those tapes as real without any guarantee that they were real, without any actual provenance, without knowing whether they had been liberally edited or not, without anything at all to substantiate the claims made on the basis of those tapes, even after Hastings finally admitted that they weren't complete and had indeed been edited (for clarity, according to Hastings).  Why would anybody accept them as real?  Salas never even mentioned having them before September 2010; he didn't produce them as any form of evidence on any videotapes that he's tried to sell, on any television shows on which he's tried to establish his claims, not even in the March 1997 appearance on "Sightings" which gave him his first national audience, about which he told Raymond Fowler that it was absolutely necessary to have someone who was at Echo Flight present to confirm his claims; he even told Fowler that the deputy commander of Echo Flight had confirmed everything about the UFO and was willing to be on the show, so why didn't he ever bring up these tapes then?  He never even mentioned Col. Figel by name as a witness until many, many years later.  And yet, all of you people accepted these tapes as actual recordings without so much as a word of protest, a query of contents, or a question of identity.  Why would you assume they represented everything Hastings and Salas insist they represent, when Hastings had been promising for months to produce proof of a March 2010 interview that would show Figel's complete denial of any interpretation of this incident as UFO-free, proof that I had distorted his claims and that I was a horrendous liar who had never even talked to him?  Instead they whip out these 1996 recordings and everybody accepts them as proof of a UFO.  WHY???

I don't get it. Figel obviously insists that he didn't make all the claims Hastings and Salas say he made. He has very clearly denounced the entire UFO myth as baseless, and yet very few people have even expressed mild curiosity as to why Hastings and Salas have been unable to produce a single, cohesive statement from any of the witnesses they continue to insist have confirmed this train-wreck of a UFO case.  And yet, I'm supposed to prove that Figel didn't make those claims in 1996?  Screw that!!  Hastings and Salas are the ones presenting the evidence, so they need to prove that Col. Figel DID make those claims.  As far as I'm concerned, they've failed entirely to do that, and Col. Figel seems to agree, since he's already said that he never told anybody a UFO was involved.  Now that's contrary to everything Salas and Hastings have been insisting for so long, and I'm very comfortable with it.  If you believe those tapes are actual, unedited evidence of what happened in 1967, you go ahead and believe it.  But very little about any of the tapes that Hastings has released has ever been confirmed or proven, and the fact that so very few people have ever asked for such confirmation or proof, simply believing what they've been told by a couple of guys who have repeatedly offered up statements regarding this case and their examination of this case that have been repeatedly confirmed as untrue, is somewhat of an aggravation, from my point of view. People seem to think that I need to prove that there was no UFO at Echo Flight -- and that's not the case as I see it, not when nobody has produced any valid evidence at all that there WAS a UFO at Echo Flight.

I shouldn't be asked to prove that every little aspect of their claims are false, when they've repeatedly failed to prove that any aspect of their claims are true. And I have no intention of even trying.  If you don't believe that Col. Figel has been completely open or hasn't provided enough testimony already, you're free to ask him.  He's already answered my questions, and he's been pretty square about it the entire time.  If you want every little detail of his claims made public and explained in even more and more detail, adding more every single time someone says "he's lying now, but he wasn't then", then in my opinion you should apply that burden to Hastings and Salas as well, and I don't see anything at all that convinces me that any of you people have the intention of doing so.  It's a point of fact that they have repeatedly lied about this case, and have used some of the most obscene and vicious tactics I've ever come across to convince the general public to ignore anything that's contrary to their story.  If you don't consider that reason enough to question what they've produced, I doubt anything else will.  In any case, Col. Figel has, in my opinion, already responded to what Hastings and Salas have tried to establish on the basis of his testimony, and the fact that neither of them has tried to produce anything else to prove their assertions are true beyond the "everybody's lying except me" argument supports that.  If you're not satisfied, then track Col. Figel down and ask him, just as I did.


#84    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 08:43 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 05 July 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

As I said in post 27, the Air Force did receive "numerous reports" of UFOs, which it stated in its own documents.  That's just a fact, and the witnesses cornfirm it.


And the Air Force did receive "numerous reports" of UFOs at Malmstrom on March 24, 1967

http://3.bp.blogspot...ch+1967+%28A%29


http://1.bp.blogspot...ch+1967+%28B%29


And we know for certain that Col. Chase was sent to investigate the one that landed. I don't think this was the first or last time that UFOs visited Malmstrom, since witnesses have said they were interested in it from even before the time that missiles were installed there. Patrick McDonough testified to that at the National Press Club in 2010.

I am glad that they didn't decide to fire off one of those missiles just to see what would happen, since we have evidence that they have they capability of doing so if that was their intention.
And not one of those sightings was within 120 miles of Oscar Flight.  In addition, the majority of them resembled the hoax UFOs that had been established and proven for the previous two months.  They didn't do anything; they moved at a walking pace, like a balloon would, and they eventually just drifted away with the wind.  In any case, there were hundreds of people throughout the entire state actively looking for UFOs as a result of the radio reports, and nobody saw anything anywhere near Lewistown or Oscar Flight, and nothing that was reported was even moving at that snail's pace in the general direction as Oscar Flight.

There were no reports at all by anybody on March 16, 1967. The only reports that month were on March 24, 1967, and in my opinion, since they don't relate to anything anywhere near Lewistown or Oscar Flight, they are also meaningless.

Your claims that "As I said in post 27, the Air Force did receive 'numerous reports' of UFOs, which it stated in its own documents.  That's just a fact, and the witnesses cornfirm it" is also meaningless.  You can say whatever you want, but since you've produced nothng at all that indicates your claims are factual or have any basis in reality, I think I'm just going to ignore what you have to say.  That's easier than trying to argue with somebody else's imagination.


#85    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 08:46 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 05 July 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

Additionally, I have heard that "noise pulse" was responsible for the missile shutdowns. That is not possible by the way the system was designed. The designers were much smarter to design a system where 10 missiles could not be shut down at the same time.

Another way of looking at it: .Imagine  10 automobiles shuting down at the same time on the same stretch of highway within 10 miles and within seconds of one another.
Well now you're just talking crap.  You got any references?  Anything other than Salas?  Gimme a break; have you even read the FOIA documents or are you just wasting everybody's time with more baseless commentary?


#86    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 09:02 PM

In my experience, it's no great trick for UFOs to move 120 miles in a second or two, although for one of them to actually land and be officially reported by the base UFO officer (Col. Chase) is not so common.

In any case, I don't think Blue Book handled the Malmstrom case--the secret UFO investigation took over.  Chase was just following orders.

In fact, personally I think Chase was one of those officers who were sympathetic to the ETH and tried to help UFO researchers when he could, like Col. William Coleman did at the Pentagon.  That's why Chase went into detail about his own famous UFO sighting in 1957--the RB-47 case--and Coleman discussed his own UFO sighting.  They spoke about these many times, in fact, so obviously these UFO incidents were not being kept very secret--not all of them.  

Even so, they still worked for the Air Force and had to obey orders from their superiors, and obviously this was considered a national security matter.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 09:19 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#87    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 10:17 PM

Moreover, at least Salas and Hastings have video and audiotapes confirming what they and their witnesses say, but I have yet to see a single one from anybody who denies their claims--not one.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 10:17 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#88    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 July 2011 - 10:34 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 05 July 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

Moreover, at least Salas and Hastings have video and audiotapes confirming what they and their witnesses say, but I have yet to see a single one from anybody who denies their claims--not one.
Whether it is written, spoken into an audio recorder, or in front of camera matters little if the claims remain unevidenced and unsubstantiated.  I still don't see how there is any legitimate case here for UFO interference with nukes.  Sorry.


#89    TheMcGuffin

TheMcGuffin

    Government Agent

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 10:54 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 05 July 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

Whether it is written, spoken into an audio recorder, or in front of camera matters little if the claims remain unevidenced and unsubstantiated.  I still don't see how there is any legitimate case here for UFO interference with nukes.  Sorry.

After going through all this again and again, looking at all the available evidence, I just don't see very much on the other side here as opposed to the records we have of UFO reports going back to 1967 and all the witnesses who came forward.

I think it's a very strong UFO case, and if there are others who want to come forward and deny that UFOs were involved in all this, I just haven't seen anything substantial from them--no press conferences, no affidavits, no documents, nothing.

I just don't see it.

Edited by TheMcGuffin, 05 July 2011 - 10:55 PM.

"The stuff that dreams are made of"

#90    James Carlson

James Carlson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 05 July 2011 - 11:46 PM

View PostTheMcGuffin, on 05 July 2011 - 08:22 PM, said:

Note that the Blue Book files did contain reports about this incident and similar ones from 1966-67, all listed as unknowns.  Two Malmstrom UFO reports from March 16, 1967, still listed as unknowns, were probably pulled from the Blue Book files and sent to the other investigation because of their unusual nature.



Aug. 24, 1966. Minot AFB [Grano? Carpio?], North
Dakota. 10 p.m. Airman saw and reported by radio a
multi-colored light high in the sky. Strike team sent to his
location confirmed the object. Second object, white, was
seen to pass in front of clouds. Radar detected and tracked
an object. Sightings made by 3 different Minuteman
ICBM missile sites. Radio interference was noted by
teams sent to locations where object was hovering at
ground level.


March 5, 1967. Minot AFB, North Dakota. ADC radar
tracked an unidentified target descending over the
Minuteman ICBM missile silos of the 91st Strategic
Missile Wing. Base security teams saw a metallic, discshaped
object ringed with bright flashing lights moving
slowly, maneuvering, then stopping and hovering about
500 ft above ground. Object circled directly over the
launch control facility. F-106 fighters were scrambled but
at that moment object climbed straight up and disappeared
at high speed.


March 16, 1967. Near Roy (about 30 miles NE of
Lewistown), Montana. Oscar (O) Flight [November
Flight?] of Malmstrom AFB, USAF 341st Strategic
Missile Wing, had unexplained deactivation of 6-8
Minuteman nuclear ICBM's within several secs of each
other during UFO close encounters involving a red saucershaped
object in early morning hours. USAF security
guard injured and medivacked out. Capt. Robert Salas
was Deputy Missile Combat Crew Commander on duty at
O Flight. Similar event occurred with Echo Flight later in
the morning.


March 16, 1967. 15 miles N of Lewistown, Montana.
8:45 a.m. Echo (E) Flight of 10 Minuteman nuclear
ICBM's of Malmstrom AFB, USAF 341st Strategic
Missile Wing, SAC, were inexplicably deactivated within
10 secs of each other and for 1 day after UFO's hovered
near 2 missile silos. Followed a series of UFO sightings
during early morning hours by USAF security teams.
Similar unexplained deactivation of Minutemans occurred
with O-Flight earlier in the morning.


March 24 [26?], 1967. Belt, Montana. 9 p.m. Truck
driver Ken Williams saw a dome-shaped object, emitting a
bright light, land in a ravine. As he approached, it took off
and settled back, hidden from the highway. Numerous
other reports came in from this area and at dawn police
and a Malmstrom AFB helicopter made a search without
success.


April 16, 1967. Shoreline at NE corner of Ramey AFB,
Puerto Rico. Bet. 5 and 6 a.m. (EST). USAF Airman/2nd
Guillermo Padilla and Airman Henry, 72nd Bombardment
Wing, SAC, saw a disc shaped object with two levels and
a reddish band slightly above midesection, floating or
hovering just above the water. Object went left to right
and back a short distance then rose from right to left, and
Padilla took a photo. Object reversed path and
disappeared.



http://www.cufos.org/BB_Unknowns.pdf


As to whether all these UFOs over the years come from the same place or many different places is something I could only guess at--although I tend to think they are from more than just one place.
Funny how many sightings in this list were only discussed after Blue Book was cancelled.  And it's interesting that you've listed sightings at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 when everybody who was actually at Echo Flight disagrees so fundamentally, and no UFOs were sighted anywhere in the entire state of Montana.  Are you seriously suggesting that Blue Book investigated a UFO that NOBODY saw?  One that Lt. Col. Chase confirmed repeatedly did not exist?  One that nobody was questioned about or debriefed regarding? And you assume that the fact there is no report or investigation means the USAF was covering it up?  Maybe you can tell me why the USAF would try to cover up something that was already classified and in command control? After all, the whole purpose of classified materials is to keep other people from examining them.  You don't cover up something that's already a secret; it's a ridiculous and incorrect assumption -- and pretty silly since you have no records, memos, or witness statements suggesting it might be true.  As the originating command, Malmstrom AFB could have prevented anyone looking at such materials in the first place.  What kind of cover-up is that?  An non-existent one.

If you're going to continue this attitude that evidence hinting at a UFO is a valid sighting, but the absence of any such evidence is also a valid sighting, because it's the result of a USAF cover-up, there's no point in discussing this any further.  It's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.  Acknowledging a condition that you basically threw out and is only hypothetical in the first place as an actual historical event is a little foolish, isn't it?  You think you can improve you position by throwing out a bunch of irrelevant flack and hope nobody looks at the argument?

Assuming a UFO report was "probably pulled from the Blue Book files and sent to the other investigation because of their unusual nature" on the basis of absolutely nothing does not make it real.  And what kind of "unusual nature" are you talking about?  After all, UFO sightings at other nuclear missiles commands were investigated.

You're just making an argument based on your own assumptions and wishful thinking -- it's a real stretch.  How can you establish an argument based on NOTHING -- you suspicions alone?  This isn't even an adult conversation anymore; you're just making a guess and calling it "real".  It's a wasted effort.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users