Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
quillius

Echo Flight

756 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/March-Malstrom-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

If these accounts are from March 1967, or detail events in March 1967, I would be very interested in looking at them. Would tou please point them out to me? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I would say that since EVERYBODY who was at Echo Flight insists that there was no UFO, anybody else making such claims should probably not be considered so credible, and their accounts should not be given such precedence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

IRT Robert Salas, that's not exactly true. He served the minimum duty to receive the education he got, and then left the USAF to establish a civil career that he changed more than once. As for more UFOs at Malmstrom, I'm still waiting for that information if it has something to do with 1967. You say 1966 as well, but I can't find anything for that either. You say you think they're being honest, but I can point to dozens of acts that suggest otherwise, including numerous outright lies that have been confirmed as such many times over. Someone who is a 100% straight arrow shouldn't find it necessary to resort to such actions in order to make a point that isn't otherwise established by fact.

In any case, it doesn't matter how they act if they have nothing to support their stories. And since not a single one of them can assure us with first person testimony, I don't see how it matters one way or another what you might believe. The fact of the matter is simple: they have nothing to support their claims, they didn't see anything for themselves, no witnesses have ever come forward to support their claims, dozens of witnesses insist they are wrong, documented evidence not only shows that they are wrong, but plainly insists that they don't even have basic historical facts correct, they have been remarkably and abnormally inconsistent regarding their claims, and they have given no one any good reasons to believe them. In fact, some individuals have gone out of their way to diminish the reputations of those who have come forward to present evidence contrary to their claims, have manifested as well a distinctly uncooperative and aggressively combative attitude to those attempting to uncover more information, and have even gone so far as make public appeals on the basis of insulting and blatantly untrue slanders to prevent others from even examining information contrary to their assertions. The fact that they've done so while attempting to literally sell their own point of view sufficient to provide for themselves a career should not be completely ignored.

I can't help but note that my father, Col. Walt Figel and I have all had very long military careers, and yet your response has not exactly been indicative of any level of respect at all; and although you may feel that "they just have nothing to gain by lying or fabricating stories like this", the fact remains that some of them, including Robert Salas, have made a great deal of money and have been able to establish second careers for themselves on the basis of their claims, none of which have been suitably or even convincingly established. And it has to be considered as well that perhaps the motivation here isn't a monetary one. I believe that the attitude adopted by many UFO groups can arguably evince a motivation intended to prove the USAF's long established public viewpoint that UFOs have never represented a threat to national security is a lie. Any evidence of such could easily be used to establish the groundwork for legislative action affecting the disposition of classified materials involving UFOs. This has already been established as a primary goal in many groups, including the Disclosure Project. In fact, Robert Salas has mentioned this particular aspect of his goals very often since 1996, including in his private emails to Raymond Fowler. Monetary profit isn't exactly necessary to establish "gain by lying or fabricating stories like this." All that's really necessary is something to gain, and that "something" can literally be represented by "anything desired."

IRT: "the UFOs visited Malmstrom in 1966, 1975 and later dates", your use of the definitive article seems to suggest that they all come from the same place, or are at least associated by a similar need to "visit" Malmstrom AFB, something I don't think anybody has ever attempted to establish. I just mention that in passing, though. Outside of anything happening at Malmstrom AFB outside of March 1967, I find it difficult to muster up any interest in it at all. If you are suggesting that they are all related, I'd be interested in knowing why, but it's a fleeting interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Gentlemen,

I just wanted to quickly apologise for my delayed responses after instigating this thread. I have some personal issues I need to deal with before I can get more fully involved.

Also to add a quick thanks to James, McGuffin, Leonardo and others who have posted some very interesting information and for keeping the debate very amicable.

Speak soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IRT: "I personally find it hard to believe that a security team would 'joke' about UFO's at such a serious time, in addition I find the fact that they returned 'scared' and were relieved of duty quite interesting also."

There is no testimony from anybody that any of the guards at Echo Flight were "scared". You're thinking of Meiwald's testimony regarding Oscar Flight.

I received the following email from the signed respondent as a result of queries I made at the Missile Forums, a website for retired and active duty missileers:

It was likely late 1970 at a 490th SMS Dinning Out that I heard the story, A specific crew commander believed in UFOs. And when he went on alert, other crew members in the same squadron on alert at the same time called the the Flight Security Controller at the LCF and pretending to be a local farmer saying there was a glowing object of some significant size hovering over a specific Launch Facility. the FSC notified the LCC crew where the UFO believer is and he relates the phone call or patches him in to the caller, not sure of the details. as it is a multi-handed story embellished to make it sound better and the people telling it have had a few drinks any way. The information is relayed to wing command post and eventually SAC CP. I don't know if the flight security was dispatched our not to check the site out, they likely would have been and would have found nothing. So the story was likely spun the the object had left before the call was made to the FSC by the other crew member. Any way it was enough after the fact that the story was written up in one of the UFO magazines and the perpetrators had a big laugh over it.

A little Background about the the prior 490th Squadron Commander. He was a full Col. who had been offered the Wing Commander Position and turned it down and he had date of rank on all wing staff. So he could get away with a lot and one one on base could touch him. His crews knew it and he did not let any one else mess with his crew member either. So the 490th SMS had a reputation as being a very undisciplined squadron where a lot of pranks were pulled. After the 490th Commander retired all of the operations branch officers were replaced and the new squadron commander was supposed to rain in the missile crews which happened to some extent after Gerald G. Falls became Wing Commander if the 341st Strategic Missile Wing.

So this is about as much as I can relay to you, the story was told by by inebriated personnel at a squadron dining out and embellished to make it a better story so you can't put a great deal of credence in any of it. but knowing the reputation of the 490th under the former squadron commander it sounds highly likely that such a stunt would have been pulled as there were a number of tricks pulled on crew members even after that in the 490th while I was on crew between June 1970 and April 1974.

Good luck with your project.

Phil C. Walton, Captain USAFR (Ret.)

Jokes are very common in the military, as anybody who has ever served will tell you. Your doubts regarding such matters aren't supportable, and they represent an invalid argument.

There are those who think that the Echo Flight incident was a result of a joke, but the Echo Flight incident had nothing to do with any jokes. Boeing is not in the business of investigating jokes at around missile fields. Apparenty, they was still taking about the incident when I came aboard a year later.

i will have more to say about that, but right now, I am currently staying in Phoenix for a short time and using a public computer.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wanted to also mention that saucers have been reported on the Great Falls area for years, and, Malmstrom AFB was just one SAC base of severay that has been the focus of UFOs. IN the 1975 incident, jets were scrambled and, NORAD was tracking them on radar as well, so UFOs over Malmstrom AFB was nothing new.

In the 1967 Echo Flight incident, the Air Force sought to cover-up the incident.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't want to get involved in yet another of these infinite loops of round-the-houses arguing, but just to pick up on something Q said in your opening P;

"I find it hard to believe that a security team would 'joke' about UFO's at such a serious time,"; I could believe it. Surely joking in times of tension is a well-known human characteristic, it probably serves a purpose in relaxing tension. I think the whole thing was probably an off-hand remark made by someone that was picked up by someone. Probably similar to the way someone suggested that maybe the Roswell debris was a weather balloon; I bet they never thought that that would be taken seriously. ( :P )

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.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also have numerous witnesses who insist that there was no UFO, no UFO reported, and no UFO investigated.

Speaking of this, why didn't Figel specifically deny the allegation that he did the interview with Salas in 1996 as you specifically asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello James,

I have finally had time to read through the posts and I wanted to just to ask a few things. I have copied below the conversation you had with Figel and the points raised: I have made some notes in bold for your comment-where appropriate

"First – your dad has not lied about anything nor do believe that he is even capable of lying about anything at all. He was, is, and always will be an honorable man. You should remember that always – I will.

I dont think this has been debated or suggested, maybe only by default however misunderstanding can possibly account for this

"Second – Bob Salas was never associated with any shutdown of any missiles at any time in any flight and you can take that to the bank. Just think about this for a split second. He is a person wrapped up in UFOs to the Nth degree. Yet he could not remember he was not at Echo. Then he thought he was at November – wrong again. Then he thought he was at Oscar – wrong again.

Is he saying that Salas was not at Oscar flight at the time of question, I personally thought this was fact, obviously I could be wrong

"Third – There is no record about anything happening at November or Oscar except in people’s minds that are flawed beyond imagination. Salas has created events out of the thin air and can’t get the facts straight even then. My best friend to this day was the flight commander of the 10th SMS at the time. He and I have discussed this silly assertion in the past couple of years – he thinks it is all madeup nonsense for sure. I put both Salas and Hastings in touch with him and he has told them both that an incident at November or Oscar never happened. In addition he was subsequently stationed at Norton AFB where the engineers tested the possible problems. No little green men were responsible.

again to confirm, he is saying that missiles at Oscar never went down at all...correct

"Fourth – I have always maintained that I do not nor have I ever believed that UFOs exist in any form at any place at any time. I have never seen one or reported that I have seen one. I have always maintained that they had nothing to do with the shutdown of Echo flight in Montana.

I dont think anyone disputes these comments either. We know he doesnt believe in UFO's (I assume he means ET flying UFO's) and no one has suggested he has seen one either. The last comment about nothing to with the shutdown is purely opinion based (considering he thought they were 'yanking his chain' to start with) unless ofcourse he has evidence that determiones the fault/reason

"Fifth – The event at Malmstrom has a hand written log from me that was turned in just like all the other logs that I wrote over several years. I would think that if I wrote something like that in the log, there would be copies, it would have been classified at the beginning and then released along with the classified SAC messages and base reports. Nothing in that urgent SAC message even hints of UFOs at all and I think that it would if the official logs or telephone calls had referenced that fact.

I am a little confused here as is he not on record for saying soemone reported seeing a UFO hovering to him? if so why does he say 'nothing even hints of UFO's??

"Sixth – When it happened, neither your dad nor I were “visibly shaken” by the events. It was just another day with a unexpected event in our lives. It was rather underwhelming at the time. No one rushed out to see us, no one made us sign any papers, no one interrogated us for hours on end.

I do not see why they would be visibly shaken? they never saw the UFO, they never believed the reports...so why would they be shaken by the events??

anyway these are just a few initial points and would welcome your feedback.

KInd regards

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's significant that we know exactly what happened in regard to that UFO, and what the investigation determined; we know this because it was required in accordance with active regulations that were mandatory -- not voluntary. We also know that a complete engineering investigation took place as a result of the Echo Flight incident, but there were no UFO reports, no UFO investigation (which was a requirement, a legal order), and no resolution of a UFO investigation. We also know that there was NONE OF THE ABOVE in relation to November Flight or Oscar Flight.

You're presupposing a historical event, development, and process that cannot be confirmed, while I'm merely pointing out that in the complete absence of evidence, it's necessary to rely at least in part on precedent, which is what this qualifies as. Precedent is hardly insignificant, a point supported by the strong reliance our entire legal system has on the high relevence of precedent.

As for your UFO rumors, I have never said they were made up in 1995. I know exactly where they came from -- a NICAP investigator who knew far less than he thought he knew kept calling people in the USAF trying to force through some official action regarding a UFO at Echo Flight, something he started doing within days of the incident. Unfortunately, he knew next to nothing, including the actual date of the event, which doesn't make the information he had very reliable, in my opinion. More importantly, since he wasn't a witness to anything, he was unable to make an actual UFO report (another requirement for personnel witnessing such an event). As a result of this, there was no investigation on the basis of his telephone calls and interference in an official matter he had no clearance to study, and no knowledge to communicate. There was an attempt to determine whether or not a report should have been generated by someone and for whatever reason was not, but in the absence of an actual UFO report (which can only be filed by a witness, not someone who merely believes a UFO was involved), or any evidence to support the contention that a UFO should have been reported, all you end up with are UFO rumors. And that will never be enough for anyone to declare that a UFO was involved.

Rumors of UFOs were dismissed, because nobody was willing to say, "yeah, I saw a UFO". The USAF even went out and asked those personnel who were outside at the same time, and not one of them was willing to admit seeing a UFO. Those rumors were generated by a guy who didn't know much of anything, including the date of the event, and yet nonetheless started telephoning everybody he could think of who might be able to figure out whether a UFO was involved or not. He even broke his oath regarding classified materials and called contacts of his who were involved in the Condon UFO Study. He was eventually told to knock it off, because he was more annoying than anything else. I don't know where you get the idea that this was "made up in 1995". I've never said that, and it isn't true. All of the above happened within days of the Echo Flight Incident, in 1967, not 1995.

Anyway, that's why all we have to go on today are UFO "rumors" instead of UFO "reports". Your attempts to recognize these rumors as some form of actual incident in the complete absence of ANYTHING else, when something more tangible is required to establish anything actual that a person can see and use as the basis for a "report" is adorable, but not much of anything else. It certainly isn't relevant, just as rumors that Elvis Presley faked his death so he could become a DEA investigator aren't relevant or even significant. At least they aren't relevant or significant to those who saw his corpse or reported seeing his corpse. What you're doing is very similar. You're looking at NOTHING and calling it SOMETHING, and it isn't. In fact, if anybody's looking at something that was "made up in 1995", it's you, since you seem to want to ignore everything except Salas' little folk stories, all of which were "made up in 1995". If you go by the evidence that was considered relevant in 1967, you'll very quickly determine that the only thing related to UFOs in regard to this incident were "rumors", and they were examined and dismissed as untrue -- all of it in 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who think that the Echo Flight incident was a result of a joke, but the Echo Flight incident had nothing to do with any jokes. Boeing is not in the business of investigating jokes at around missile fields. Apparenty, they was still taking about the incident when I came aboard a year later.

i will have more to say about that, but right now, I am currently staying in Phoenix for a short time and using a public computer.

Boeing didn't investigate a UFO, pal. They never questioned anybody about a UFO, and they never made any claims on the basis of a UFO. In fact, if you look at what the contractors' did investigate, did conclude, and made recommendations to prevent similar problems in the future, I'll think you'll discover pretty quickly that they never even considered a UFO as a possible source of the problem. In fact, as Col. Walt Figel pointed out, in dozens of official messages and related traffic generated as a result of this incident, not one even mentions a UFO. It's only mentioned in passing in the command history, which was drafted by an E-2 enlisted airman who was eventually dismissed from his post as a result if the numerous errors he added to offical histories a few months later. Until Salas came along, NOBODY considered this a UFO incident, including those individuals who were actually there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to also mention that saucers have been reported on the Great Falls area for years, and, Malmstrom AFB was just one SAC base of severay that has been the focus of UFOs. IN the 1975 incident, jets were scrambled and, NORAD was tracking them on radar as well, so UFOs over Malmstrom AFB was nothing new.

In the 1967 Echo Flight incident, the Air Force sought to cover-up the incident.

You have quite an imagination, but nothing else -- certainly nothing to support such a charge. As for what you "believe" may have happened in 1975 or any other date, I'm not interested. It's neither significant nor relevant. In my opinion, it's not even remotely amusing as something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.