Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Minot AFB 1968 UFO Incident: The November Flight Security Response Team, Part 4

The last Minot posting looked at the observation given by the November Flight Security Controller, SSgt James Bond.  At some given time of the observations by the missile maintenance team enroute to N-07, Bond would have dispatched his security response team, A1C Joseph Jablonski and Gregory Adams.

When reviewing SSgt Bond's AF-117 and later 2005 interview by Tom Tulien, there is a matter of confusion regarding the actual physical location of the Adams and Jablonski. Bond's AF-117 gives the impression that both men were physically located on N-01, the Launch Control Facility.  Bond's interview with Tulien states that both men were off site.

If we are to go by A1C Jablonski's AF-117, he makes it clear that he and Adams are on N-01 which confoms to Bond's AF-117.  In a 2005 interview, Jablonski states that he and others (Adams, and off duty SAT) where outside looking at the lights.  Based on this information, it can be assumed that both Adams and Jablonski were physically on N-01 prior to being dispatched to N-07.

Adam's AF-117

I've chosen not to delve into Adams AF-117 content due to it being almost identical to that of Joseph Jablonski's observation.  My initial comparison of the two led me to believe that Adams merely copied Jablonski's AF-117.  Tom Tulien and I have discussed this in the past and I believe there is agreement that this was more than likely probable.  Adams' AF-117 can be viewed here

Jablonski's AF-117

His AF-117 annotates that he first saw the object at 0308 and his visual observation ended at 0518.  Per a diagram which he drew the object/light was first observed some 9 miles S/E of N-01 [N-07 would have been seen somewhat in the S/E, 10 miles away from N-01].  A second diagram shows the object/light 2-3 miles S/E when he and Adams either arrived at, or where on site at N-07.

Per Jablonski, the first observation showed the object/light to be 30 degrees above the horizon in a SSE direction.  His last observation showed the object/light to have descended 15 degrees above the horizon in a WSW direction [assuming this vantage point from N-07?].

Jablonski, dispatched to N-07, is the passenger in the vehicle moving at 30 mph.  He and Adams apparently stopped along the way and object/light not affected by the actually movement of the vehicle. [This assumes that Adams is driving and both agree to make a quick stop for visual observations]

Annotated is the fact that he is aware that a B-52 has been diverted to the general area. The aircraft is first seen and heard approximately 35 minutes after the first sighting of the object. [approximately 0343?].  The object stayed basically to the SE, while the B-52 was in the direction of S/W.

Duration of the sighting lasted approximately 2 hours off and on.  Jablonski based this time line on the length of time while out on dispatch.  The object appeared as orange-red, seemingly switching to almost completely white with some green also seen.  This pattern was not always the same.

The object first appeared to hover then move slowly.  It would speed up alternating in color. The light would vanish but return some 5 minutes later.

When first dispatched to N-07, another object exactly the same appeared out of the east and had picked up speed in a path moving towards the other.  Jablonski never saw the tow objects join or meet as the second object disappeared and no longer could be seen. [the B-52?]

The night was clear with a few stars visible.  There was no moon light.  Major sources of illumination was the vehicle head lights and the site lights on N-07.  The object was self luminous with glowing orange-red, white and green which alternated at times.  The object appeared solid although not very wide and slender is shape.  The edges were fuzzy.  The lights were much too bright to determine an exact shape.  This object appeared much too bright to be a star.

What drew Jablonski's attention to the object/light was other people had brought it to his attention.  Although he had not seen it immediately, others gave a good estimate of location. It reappeared 3 or 4 minutes later and was quite bright and gradually weakened.

Prior to returning to N-01, it caught our attention again.  This time WSW in location.  It appeared as before starting bright orange-red to white and finally to green.  The object was stationary at times appearing 1000 feet above ground.  Green light started to diminish slowly till no longer seen.

Just prior to his sighting, the diverted B-52 in the WSW, the object had descended gradually and for 1 to 2 minutes had appeared to be obstructed by trees.  [The B-52 is seen WSW. Jablonski is the first witness to describe that something on the ground blocked the view of the object:  trees.]

The object appeared to be solid matter.  The illumination rendered no logical shape to be determined.  It appeared quiet slim and not very wide. [Description of B-52?]  Object appeared to move more the westerly direction until the last and final illuminations at 0510. Lasting until approximately 0518 when it could no longer be seen.  Estimated speed of the object was 70 knots with a distance of 3-5 miles.  The object made no noise and left no physical trace.

As to the alternating illumination, particularly the white, it appeared as two or three automobile headlights.  When the B-52 had flown its search, it had been using its landing lights which were quite similar in nature.  As to avoid confusion between the plane and the object, Base Ops had pointed out where and when we saw the B-52.  Must add that the B-52's engines could be easily heard while the UFO made  no sounds to be heard at the same distance.

The object had various maneuvers which occurred basically in one general area.  It stayed pretty well SSE of the launch facility, but had several times started northwards and westwards always returning to its previous SSE position.  For some reason it appeared to be traveling (trying to), but never did see it take the direct path. 

When the B-52 flew in the vicinity (SSE) it was no longer seen in that location. [Assuming he meant the object]  When he started leaving back to N-01, B-52 already left the area.  Object approximately west.  Object remained until it finally disappeared about 15 minutes later. 

Jablonski lists on AF-117 that A1C Adams, SSgt Bond, A1C O'Connor where with him. [Bond while at the LCF]

Report made to SSgt Bond on 24 Oct 1968.  AF-117 completed 25 Oct 1968 

End of AF-117 content.

Notes of interest

1.  Sighting duration lasted about 2 hours, 0308-0518.

2.  Object seen from the LCF and LF in a S/E direction.

3.  May have been seen SSE, then last seen WSW.  Isley's AF-117 states that object seen due East then S/E.  Isley states that object last seen from N-07 SE of site.  Why the difference, as both Jablonski and Isley were on N-07 together and would have been observing the same object(s)?  Different object versus that of confusing the B-52 as the object?  The object stayed in the S/E while the B-52 was primarily in the S/W.

4.  Object changed colors, orange-red, white then green.  Jablonski could not discern any shape.

5.  Object appeared to stop/hover.

6.  Jablonski says the night is clear.  What happened to the hazy conditions as previously reported?

7.  N-07 had its site lights on with head lights from vehicle.  Did these sources of light pollution hamper the observation of the object in question?

8.  Object disappeared in WSW location.  Noted to be the same general area as that of the B-52.

9.  When comparing AF-117s of those who where on or near N-07, there is apparent confusion of the object versus that of the B-52.  Jablonski's AF-117 does not match up with the maintenance team's observation, yet all were eventually on N-07 observing something in the sky.

10.  Jablonski's entry in section 15 appears to describe the profile of the B-52 with its landing lights illuminated.  The B-52 made noise, as well it would, but no noise came from the object/light.  Is it reasonable to infer a stellar source or something else?

Jablonski's AF-117 provides good details of what he saw that night.  Granted, its different from O'Connor and Isley's observation in many ways.  It's unfortunate that A1C Adams did not render an independent description of his own observation as this could have provided other details that either corroborated or differed based on his perception of the event.

Its interesting that there is some disagreements with the direction of the observations.  I'm not overly concerned whether someone observed something S/E of their location while another saw the same phenomena SSE.  Both directions tend to be basically the same to the casual observer, plus I'm sure that Jablonski/Adams and O'Connor/Isley did not have a compass on hand obtaining precise coordinates.  

The same could be said of the elevations listed above the horizon.  These figures were more than likely established through best estimation and/or using a possible landmark as a frame of reference.  Not to mention that these figures were derived some days after the incident relying then on memory recall.  In a memo for record, LtCol Werlich provides some details as explaining to the ground observers how to estimate elevation and direction.

What did strike me was that four individuals differed as to the final location of the sighted object.  Jablonski/Adams state the object is last seen WSW of N-07, while O'Connor/Isley saw the object last S/E.  The two directions are significantly different and to add to the mix that the B-52 was either S/W or WSW of N-07 leads to the possibility that the aircraft may have visually supplanted the initial observed object.

After another review of Jablonski's and Isley's AF-117s and plotting the initial and last observations on a map the observations may actually be fairly similar respective to both observers.  It becomes readily apparent that both are describing an initial observed object (East or S/E of N-07) and then go on to describe an object flying south of N-07 in a westerly direction.  The only difference is the final observation point listed by both individuals.

Comparing Lloyd Isley's and Joeseph Jablonski's Sightings.

Above is the estimated point of initial observation of the object/light that O'Connor and Isley observed approximately midway between N-01 and N-07 (5 miles).  The object/light was seen due east of their location apparently moving south at slow speed.

Above is the initial observation by Jablonski and others while on the LCF, N-01.  Object/light observed to be SE of the LCF.

The above is the initial observation (A) SE, and last observation (B) WSW of Jablonski and Adams while both on N-07.

The above is a overlay of both initial and last observations by O'Connor/Isley and Jablonski/Adams.  Note that I've included the due east initial observation that O'Connor/Isley stated in their AF-117, but the reader should know that this initial observation point was actually 5 miles north of N-07.

Yellow:  Joseph Jablonski's observational area.  A= first sighting, B= last sighting.
Red:  Lloyd Isley's observational area.  A= first sighting, B= last sighting.
Red Oval:  Isley's description of object in a circular orbit south of N-07.  Actual area size is questionable (could be larger) based on Isley's diagram on his AF-117.

Lloyd Isley states in his AF-117 that object first sighted due east while he and O'Connor where enroute to N-07.  While on N-07, he describes the object south of the launch facility in a circular pattern which I dubbed a "racetrack" or orbit.  Isley is very much aware that a B-52 is in the area.  It is possible that Isley is describing the flight of the B-52 which may have visually supplanted the object which he first observed.  Notice that the potential flight path of the object closely corresponds to the flight path of the aircraft which accomplished two passes near the launch facility, moving  SE towards the West then returning to the SE. Could this possibly have been the aircraft returning back to base?

From lloyd Isley's AF-117:

"We first saw the object to the east of us while we were traveling toward the site.  It started moving south.  We arrived at the site and then started observing the object from outside the truck.  It was moving in a large circular area to the south."

"The object had lights on the front like head lights or landing lights.  It had green flashing light toward the middle or rear.  I could not tell any shape or size."

"It came within hearing distance twice.  The sound was that of jet engines.  It was in this same area for two or three hours."

"When we last saw it, the object was in the SE and went low and out of sight."

Jablonski initially saw the object 2-3 miles SE or SSE of N-07.  He last observed the object WSW of N-07.

"The object had various maneuvers which occurred basically in one general area.  It stayed pretty well SSE of the launch facility, but had several times started northwards and westwards, always returning to its previous SSE position.  For some reason it appeared to be traveling but never did see it take the direct path."

"When the B-52 flew in the vacinity (SSE) it was no longer seen in that location."

What was being observed?

When taking into account the above information, we are left with three options:

1.  Stellar component which was proposed by Project Blue Book, yet later to be discarded by  Jablonski, Isley and O'Connor.  Sirius was prominent in the East and Rigel in the SE at 1 AM.  By 0300, Sirius would have been seen in the S/E and Rigel approximately due South. By 0500, Sirius would have been seen in the SSE and Rigel in the SSW. Both teams differ as to the elevation above the horizon for their respective reports. 

2.  The possibility that the first observed object eventually is visually merged with the presence of the B-52 which would account for the SE to W movement of the object. This could easily explain the observations that the initial object split into two separate objects seen south of N-07. 

3.  The object/light was neither a misidentified star nor the B-52.  This would correspond to what was perceived by all of the ground observers.  All readily acknowledged the presence of the B-52.  All stated that they would be able to discern a bright light to that of a star.

Another question arises from the combined observations.  All described the speed of the object/light as being slow or moving at 70 knots.  Later on in this blog series the B-52's radar would show that the UFO was maneuvering at a speed exceeding 3000 mph.  How does this conform to the ground personnel that did not describe an object moving at such high speeds?

Friday, September 12, 2014

Next Minot Installment

Just to let those interested in the 1968 Minot story know that I've soon to complete the next installment, or part 4.  This segment covers Joseph Jablonski's observations.

Then A1C Josep Jablonski was the SAT team leader that was dispatched to N-07 following the missile maintenance team's report.  Covered is his AF-117 contents.

I've also included a portion of the post comparing his observations with that of Lloyd Isley. At first glance, there appears to be a disconnect when comparing both individuals observation.  After plotting observational data on a map, I've determined that both may be describing the same observations...in their own way based on visual perception. 

Despite this, there remains some disconnects with comparison.  Jablonski actually clears up some questions that may not be of interest to the casual reader, but satisfy a professional curiosity that I had.

I'm cleaning up the post and should have it posted within a few days. 

Thursday, August 14, 2014

A Repeat Performance of Big Sur: 20 Years Later?

Peace Keeper ICBM RVs impacting near Kwajalein

Tim Printy's write up of the 1964 Big Sur UFO story jogged my memory of another story propagated by Robert Hastings regarding a 1984 test launch out of Vandenberg AFB involving a Minuteman III ICBM.  In this story, UFOs evidently snatched up two out of three RVs dropping in on Kwagalein Atoll.   Like the Big Sur incident, the culprit is supposedly caught on film.  But did it really happen the way Hastings imagined it?

Excerpts from Robert Hastings' "UFOs Are Stalking and Intercepting Dummy Nuclear Warheads During Test Flights":

The incident in question was obviously the same one that Mills had briefly mentioned to me in 2006, before moving on to other topics. Now, when I asked for details, he responded, "A small white object was [recorded] as it maneuvered near the MIRVs. I saw the filmage, very classified, following the launch [when] contractors showed it to me."
Startled by this answer, and understanding its significance and relevance to the Big Sur case, I then asked Mills if I could call him and discuss the incident. Excerpts from our tape-recorded conversation follow here, which I've interspersed with comments from his emails on the topic, so as to create a more complete narrative...

John W. Mills, retired missile maintenance technician, provided Hastings with his description of the event that occurred circa 1984 involving a Follow On Test and Evaluation (FOTE) launch of a Minuteman III ICBM out of Vandenburg:

[The MIRVs] were going from lower right to upper left on the screen and they were still attached to the RV platform. It looked like a single blob of light. It was [well] downrange and not like looking at a high-def image. It was like looking at a TV picture, and this was in the '80s so the platform was even less [resolved]. But this thing—we thought it might be lint on the camera lens was whipping around the RV platform; something moving around it. 

Then a cloud [in the foreground, well below the altitude of the ascending RV platform, obscured it]. When it emerged from the cloud the engineers [watching the film with us] said only one RV remained on the platform. We watched the platform pass behind the cloud with this little white speck near it. Three RVs went behind the cloud but only one came out. That's why the contractors were upset with us.

Later, post-apogee, when the platform released the RVs, only one shot off it. Later, when they checked the [recovered platform at Kwajalein] nothing was on it. If the other two hadn't released for some reason, they should have been there, attached to it.

Three cameras were involved [in these tests], one at Vandenberg, one up the coast at Big Sur and then the one aboard the Orion. But the Orion film takes days to arrive and the Big Sur film takes awhile too. What I saw was a 30 to 40-second segment, taken from the camera at Vandenberg.

So in a brief summary, a Minuteman III ICBM is launch from Vandenberg AFB on a flight path towards the Kwajalein test range in the Pacific.  The missile is carrying 3 test RVs.  On camera, a white object is seen moving about the RV platform.  Only one RV separates from the platform and splashes down in the Pacific.  There is no indication that the other two RVs had separated and upon recovery of the platform the 2 RVs in question are not mounted on the platform but are missing.

When asked by Hastings for his take on the incident, Mills, to his credit, lists the possibility of lint on the camera lens and/or burn off of monomethylhydrazine.  It was not until Hastings plants the 1964 Big Sur UFO story that Mills starts to see a possible UFO angle.

Since Hastings' website offers no ability to directly comment on articles, I was fortunate that Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles website carried the same article.  Frank allows comments so off I went querying about the case.  Note to reader, Frank Warren is providing Hastings' and Mills' comments.  Both never interact directly with me, but only thru Frank. 

Tim H:  Frank,

Robert has written an interesting piece. I see that he has referenced the Big Sur incident, I do recall that Kingston George had a slightly different slant to that story, but lacking any of the actual footage that was shot, were left to two opposing view points.

As far as the 1984 FOTE shot from Vandenberg involving a Minuteman III MIRV evaluation. Did Robert and Mr. Miller take into account of the Army's Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) that was conducted on June 10, 1984? This was a classified launching of a Minuteman I with test RV from Vandenberg, coupled with another Minuteman I with intercept capability that was launched from the Kwajaleins and successfully intercepted the test RV. The launch occurred from Vandenberg's LF-06. Mr. Miller seems to be fixed on LF-26 for the MM III launches that occurred on 8 Apr and 19 Sept, 1984. LF-26 or LF-06, possible confusion? Anyway, I'm sure that Robert took the HOE tests into consideration. BTW, Robert might be interested in looking at the photos from Bob Hampton who was stationed on the Kwajalein islands about the time of the UFO intercepts that Robert and Mr. Miller refers to.

Mr. Hampton's photos clearly show the glowing cloud of the platform bus following along the path of 3 separated RVs (granted not the test shot mentioned in Robert's article).

Mr. Hampton's site: http://www.thunderstruckobservatory.com/rv.html

Thanks Frank, hope all is well with you.

Frank Warren:  Tim, 

This in from John Mills:

I worked on Homing Overlay from the Vandenburg end and no we didn't launch Minuteman I's; we used II's. They launched from LF 04 exclusively. A Minuteman I and II carry a single RV not a MIRV and homing overlay's interceptor was basically an inversed umbrella (it worked very well) and destroyed RV after RV, but was not used in MM III's. I'm not aware of any Homing Overlay launch that intercepted MIRVs and I worked all the launches from 81 through 85.

Tim H:  Mr Mills,

My apologies for misspelling your name in my first comments. I did read the documents, those that were available, and concur that HOE tests were not directed at MM III MIRVs, however, the history of Vandenberg launches do in fact show that a Minuteman I was launched from LF-06 as the HOE target on 10 June 1984. This would have been the 4th and final HOE test. Of course, the history showing the launches could have it wrong as far as the particular LF used in the launch. The documents that I reviewed does mention the use of a Minuteman I launched from VAFB and the "interceptor" launched from the Kwajaleins as a modified Minuteman I.

Since your conversation with Robert Hastings centered around two possible Glory Trip launches, both MM IIIs, and I believe that you stated either 101GB or 104GB, launched 8 Apr and 19 Sept 1984, and both from LF-26 (per VAFB launch history) were involved with a possible UFO intercept, could the cloud and or bright light that you or others observed been the platform bus?

I thought that your original assessment of monomethylhydrazine burning off was a plausible explanation.

And lastly, could it have been possible for only one RV to separate from the bus leaving the other two still attached, thus only one RV impacting?

Kind regards

Tim Hebert

Tim H:  Frank, apparently I was in error pertaining to the VAFB launch history. It appears that LF-03 was used for the last HOE target launch, not LF-06. This is annotated in the launch history for Vandenberg. BTW, this last test launch and intercept, 10 June 1984 was the only successful intercept, according to documents that I have reviewed.



Tim H:   Frank,

My apologies that you found my comments "pithy", but pleased that you found them "insightful" and "courteous". Do you think that you might be able to contact Robert or Mr. Mills regarding Mr. Hampton's Kwagalein photos? Those pics (nice photos BTW) showing the platform bus (cloudy and bright) might shed some light on the UFO intercept question.

Oh, least I forget, does Mr. Mills/Hastings have an opinion concerning the possibility that only one RV separated from the platform bus leaving the other two remaining with the bus?

Kind regards,


Frank Warren:  Tim, 

This in from John:


The LF 03 and LF 06 launches were by Space Data Corp, a division of Boeing now. Their launches were classified and I only worked them once, and not for Homing Overlay. The Minuteman I's that launched out of those sites may have been Homing Overlay, I don't know.

I worked the LF 04 and LF 21 launches for the project. I do know the first two launches failed, but the third worked. I had nothing to do with the other launches, so I would not have any information regarding their success or failure. I was aware the contractors bought everyone dinner at the O-club after the success of the 3rd launch. Normally, enlisted are prohibited from entering the club, and this was a really big deal, so the rules were bent a tad.

Regarding your question, that has always been a plausible arguement and I never said it was a UFO that buzzed around the platform. The engineers were saying it was either lint, or something on the lense or film that caused the activity. They also hypothesized that the platform bus had misfired or was leaking. Two RV's were never recovered as to my understanding. Three went up, one came down and a small (tiny) white blob moved around the platform. I know the navy searched for a long time looking for the other rv's. They have radio packages installed and will run for a long time underwater, but nothing was found.

Regarding the Peacekeeper (MX) launch, what I heard was purely hearsay and was never validated either.


Frank Warren:  Robert Hastings writes:

"Mills explicitly said that they were not on the platform when it was recovered from the lagoon."

Tim H:  Robert and/or Mr. Mills,

Since the platform bus is designed/programed to trail the MIRVs, after RV release, and act as a de facto penetration aid, is it possible that upon impact with the ocean that the platform bus could have dislodged any remaining RVs? Further, could the force of the impact completely destroy the bus and any remaining RVs?


At this point in the "conversation" it abruptly ends with neither Robert Hastings or Mills answering my last question.  I'm assuming that I had exhausted their patience.  But what was important from the series of above comments is that Mills states, or gives the impression that no UFO was involved in this story...only probable lint or the ejection of propellant from the bus platform.  It appears to me that only Hastings was actually talking UFOs.  Hastings own expert witness sinks the UFO story. 

I had mentioned photos from Bob Hampton, but unfortunately his site no longer exists.  Such a shame as he had posted outstanding photos of RV impacts near Kwajalein.  However, I was able to obtain others that provide context for this blog post.

The above photo shows three RVs mounted on to the bus platform.  The bus would sit atop the missile guidance system.  The missile guidance system would contain the propellant monomethylhydrazine for the vernier jets used for programed terminal flight adjustments prior to release of the RVs.  The propellant could easily account for the white object/blob seen moving about or surrounding the RV platform as seen on camera by Mills and the associated contractors.

This photo shows the re-entry of RVs from two Minuteman III missiles over Kwajalein.  In the top right corner of the photo you will see the ejection or burn off of monomethylhydrazine associated from the two bus platforms.  The associated white cloud appearance surrounding the platforms is consistent with most photos depicting RV releases over Kwajalein.

A similar photo can be seen here.  The photo at the top of this blog article shows a similar pattern with a Peace Keeper ICBM RVs incoming near Kwajalein.

What about Hastings and Mills two missing RVs?  Is it not plausible that the two RVs failed via mechanical failure to separate from the bus?  If we take into consideration that the bus and remaining RVs continue on a trajectory into the Pacific traveling even at subsonic speeds due to the combined weight of the platform and RVs.  Then it is feasible to infer that the shear impact could have dislodged the RVs from the platform...f=ma.

So there you have it.  Interesting tale of an anomaly involving a probable mechanical failure, lint on a camera lens and white clouds of propellant...but dare I say...no UFOs.

Friday, August 8, 2014

The 1964 Big Sur UFO Incident: Tim Printy Provides a Solution.

I had briefly mentioned in a recent blog post that Tim Printy provided an extensive write-up concerning the 1964 Big Sur UFO incident.  Printy provides answers to this case, but the bulk of the research data came from the late Joel Carpenter.  Read "Mr. Carpenter's Missing Opus"

Back in 1964, a series of test launches involving the Atlas ICBM took place out of Vandenburg AFB, CA.  One of these launches, "Butterfly Net", was video taped by an Air Force photography crew headed by then Lt. Robert Jacobs.  As the story goes, the video tape allegedly shows a UFO(s) interfering with the simulated warhead knocking it off course.  Jacobs would, and still does, state that after being allowed to view the video tape, the tape was then confiscated by the CIA or AFOSI and never to be seen again.

UFO researcher Robert Hastings has long been a Jacobs supporter and on occasion will resurrect the story to help propagate his UFO/Nukes theory regardless of compelling evidence that supports no UFOs, but merely a malfunctioning of the penetration aids associated with the test.  In the world of UFO proponents the term "malfunction" is conveniently missing from their lexicon.  

Kingston George provided a rebuttal to Hastings assertions, but of course anyone affiliated with the actual launch of the ICBM in question and did not see UFOs in the tape is/was branded as a government shill with the attempt to suppress the "truth."  Sounds familiar?

As he provided for the 1957 RB-47 case, Printy provides extensive documents and rationale for the Big Sur case utilizing the foundation set in place by the late Joel Carpenter.  Tim wanted to present the case as Carpenter would have should he had lived to do so.  I believe that Tim has done so in a marvelous fashion.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Running Background Checks on Bloggers and Commentators: Ethical or not?

I've posted over 100 articles on this site since 2010 which has generated a decent amount of comments from readers.  I've allowed all comments to stand, regardless of view point, with the exception of those who have attempted to bombard the site with personal advertisements to sell products.

I'll occasionally look at someone's blog profile to get a sense of where he/she is coming from and what personal interests influence their point of view.  I'll even visit their website, if listed on their profile...people simply interest me from all walks of life and I find that we may hold similar interest out side of UFOs.  But that's where it ends for me.  I go no further.

Recently, an interesting [and equally disturbing on a number of fronts] story has emerged surrounding a couple of blog posts on Rich Reynold's "UFO Iconoclasts" blog site.  Over the past weekend Rich posted the writings of one of his regular commentators that apparently caught the attention of Anthony Bragalia.  I don't know if Tony or this particular individual got in a debating pissing contests, but for whatever the motivation, Tony did a Google check on this individual and came across information that showed that said individual had a criminal record...a very disturbing record.

For the record, I enjoy reading most of the posts listed on The UFO Iconoclasts.   Rich has built a blog that provides thought provoking elements to the discussion of UFOs.  Yet, it continues to amaze me how things can quickly get out of hand on a site such as his that handles a thousand times more traffic than my little blog.  I guess it goes with the territory.

Apparently, Tony emailed Reynolds, who abruptly deleted the individual's post and certain comments.  Since Paul Kimball had linked to the origianal post on his site, Reynolds had emailed Kimball with an explanation on why the post and comments had been deleted.  [I sense this to be the case based on Paul Kimball's Facebook entry and a since deleted UFO Iconoclasts post.]

Here is Reynolds take on the issue,  "The Horns of a Dilemma"  still listed on Beforeitsnews.com:

Our friend and colleague Anthony Bragalia came across, during a Google check of a UFO Iconoclast(s) contributor’s background, an aberrant moment that incurred a criminal record, causing me to delete a contribution and some comments by the person Mr. Bragalia’s search discovered.
The “infraction” considered to be serious by some persons who frequent this blog and whose opinions I also take seriously thought it would be wise to distance the blog from the person and “infraction” so as not to taint the blog, which has enough goofy notoriety already.
I notified Paul Kimball, also a friend, who had linked to this blog’s contribution of Mr. Bragalia’s discovery.
Mr. Kimball thanked me for the heads-up but was disturbed to think that Mr. Bragalia was running background checks on persons who comment on his (Mr. Bragalia's) blog posts here or references to his UFO research.
Mr. Bragalia told me (and Mr. Kimball) that he wasn’t running background checks on anyone (although his business is geared to do just that as he’s a headhunter for government and businesses).
Mr. Bragalia, it seems, was just interested in the credentials of a person who was posting here and often commenting on posts by him and others. Mr. Bragalia merely, he wrote, found the incrimination by a superficial Google search, wherein the “infraction” showed up.
Mr. Kimball didn’t accept that and wrote me that he (Mr. Kimball) would disassociate himself from me and this blog if I continued to maintain Mr. Bragalia as a team-member and contributor here.
What to do?
Scrap Mr. Bragalia who has been tolerant of my mischief about his (often) private disclosures to me about Roswell, Socorro, Nitinol, et cetera and helpful during some recent serious illnesses I was subject to?
Accept Mr. Kimball’s decision to abandon our 10 year friendship during which he has provided books and information that has been invaluable, about UFOs and other topics that interest me?
Do I need to lose either or both Mr. Bragalia or Paul Kimball in this matter?
What do you think – and be serious, please?

Paul Kimball's concerns goes a little further than that as Paul has posted on his site that Tony had threatened to do a "background check" on him since Paul's questioning of Tony's motives and ethical behavior demonstrated that Paul had something to hide.  Apparently, Tony heads a company that specializes in doing background checks for private and government agencies...that from Tony.

 To be clear, Bragalia threatened me with a full background check, because - as he noted in an e-mail that was forwarded to me (with his permission) - if I opposed background checks then I must have something to hide. I want folks to know exactly who they're dealing with, so here is what Bragalia wrote: 

"It is concerning me and has me wondering now just what Paul himself is hiding. He protests too much. There is something PK is worried that Iwill find out. Not sure just what it is, but let him know that I aim to find out...he will be the third person that I vet and investigate. And I mean it... Pass this on to him.

 TPS Does the man even know what I do for a living? Does he know that I
am paid to find out about people and that my skills in doing just that
are unexcelled? He will soon see."

He later backed off... allegedly. But can anyone take him at his word that he has only done it once, when (a) his first instinct is to threaten me with a background check, and (b) his claimed reasons for having run one this "one time" are thoroughly specious? 

I should hope not. People should avoid any and all contact with him. He is dangerous, both in principle and in practice.

Or maybe folks don't see it as a problem. Fair enough. As I said before, Caveat Emptor - don't say you weren't warned.


The question remains as to what motivated Tony to do such a thing.  Should anyone disagree with his point of view does he do more than a simple Google search and use the full force and means of his company to find any bits and pieces of dirt simply because someone disagrees with his UFO stance?  It causes me to wonder.  Paul's questioning, when taking into account my question, raises a valid argument as to the ethical behavior demonstrated by Tony.

BTW, getting background information on anyone is quite legal and easily had for a nominal fee to various websites.  What Tony did was not illegal, but based on motivation could be construed as unethical and based on Tony's email threat concerning Paul makes it equally disturbing that Tony would be willing to intentionally data-mine for personal information as a form of personal retribution.

Let's take this theme a little further, how does the above resources at Tony's beckon call influence Roswell witnesses, or family of witnesses since he is heavily engaged in the Roswell story?  If the story-line/testimony of said witnesses do not conform to Tony's point of view, would he be tempted to use the fore mentioned practice of digging up dirt on these individuals?

I'm not saying that Tony has done this regarding his Roswell research and there is no evidence that he has done so, but based on the personal resources available and the comments to Paul Kimball it does make me to wonder....

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A Glorious Few Months without UFOs

Yes, I've been missing for a few months.  To be sure most is due to other tangible issues consuming my personal time.

First, I succumbed to one of my true loves...the Civil War.  I started reading a couple of biographys on James Longstreet, one being by Longstreet's chief of staff, Moxely Sorrel. The rest is history as they say.

Like my interest in the UFO phenomena from a psychological frame of work,  the Civil War holds a similar pattern as leaders from both sides had physical and psychological issues that impacted judgement and decision making.

Second, I happened to slice my knee open on plate glass requiring 7 sutures to close.  That in itself is a small matter, it was the wound infection that followed that put me out of commission for almost a month.

So for the past month, I had been immersed in true reality...no UFOs...and I didn't miss it, nor did it miss me.  In the grand scheme of things both it and I are irrelevant as these past few months have borne witness.

So now it's catch-up time. 

Last month Tim Printy wrote an outstanding piece in his SUNlite webzine, regarding the Big Sur UFO case of 1964. Printy attempted to piece together the works of the late Joel Carpenter concerning the case and did a very good job of it, IMHO.

The Big Sur case revolved around the launch of an Atlas ICBM from Vandenburg AFB, CA back in 1964.  The apparent intent of the launch was to test out the use of a penetration aid package to mask the re-entry vehicle from radar detection.  In other words, instead of one target showing on a radar screen, three, four ect, would show forcing the Soviets to play a nuclear "three card monty" when deciding what target(s) to intercept.  

As the story goes, the mission is video taped and allegedly a UFO disrupts the flight path of the re-entry vehicle.  Said video is allegedly confiscated by the CIA and never to see the light of day.  So says Robert Jacobs and Robert Hastings.  But that is not quiet what happened...

Speaking of Robert Hastings, he posted a comment on of my past posts:

Tim Hebert wrote: It took a while, but Ufology's "emanate" [sic] researcher, Robert Hastings has decide [sic] to descend from Mount Olympus and render his judgment regarding Robert Sheaffer's Oscar Flight's UFO vs. Mars.

Interesting projection on your part, Tim. Actually, responding to Sheaffer (or you or Printy or Carlson) is pointless. Nevertheless, every now and then, I feel the need. In this case, your comment, repeated yet again, that I have “used” the veterans who confide in me, led me to decide to chime in at this time.

You wrote, “Of course Hastings has ‘used’ them for his needed props, book subjects and his ‘up and coming’ [sic] documentary film. I'm assuming that all have agreed to this type of exposure and have no problems being associated with Hastings. That's their right to do so. BTW, do any of the group get a portion of your book profits? That would seem fair as without them you have no subject matter to write about...let alone produce a documentary film.”

When I mentioned this to one of my ex-USAF missileer sources, Phil Moore, he responded:

There will always be naysayers...some with an agenda, some simply & honestly unable to accept what's going on in front of them. Anyway, you know that I believe in what you're doing & respect the thorough way you do it. I do not feel used. On the contrary, I feel like my small contributions to the overall objective are necessary. Happy to support your efforts...bring on a joint statement [of support by my many ex-USAF sources] or whatever else might help. 


P.S. I don't want any royalties – Ha Ha

Upon receiving this response, I asked Phil to summarize his Air Force career. He responded:

Philip E. Moore is a retired USAF Lt. Colonel who spent the bulk of his 28-year military career working with Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in five different launch systems, rising from launch crew officer in the earliest ICBM, Atlas, through increasingly responsible command and staff positions to Commander of the 321st Strategic Missile Squadron at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming where he was directly responsible for 50 Minuteman ICBMs and 150 nuclear warheads in 1978-79. His final Air Force assignment before retiring with honors in 1989 was Director of Missile Operations at the 19th Air Division with oversight of two Titan II Wings and a Minuteman II Wing. 

Moore is only one of the 140 or so veterans who have wholeheartedly supported my work. He and 11 others will appear in my film, discussing ongoing UFO activity at ICBM sites over the years. Walt Figel, a reluctant witness, will appear in an audiotaped segment, discussing the UFO reported to him at Malmstrom’s Echo Flight on March 16, 1967.

I’m sure that if I had 1,400 or 14,000 veterans reporting UFO activity at ICBM sites, you would still know better than all of them, Tim. (I know I have just scratched the surface with my research thus far. Hopefully the film, once it’s broadcast, will prompt many more veterans to disclose their experiences. My contact information will appear in it.)

My understanding is that you are a mental health professional these days. If that’s true, I hope that you have privately counseled James Carlson to seek help. While he is convinced that his countless manic rants online help his case, nearly everyone understands that the opposite is true and seem rather dumbfounded by his apparently uncontrollable antics. Ironically, I suppose I should welcome his outbursts, given that they only serve my purposes—as a great many persons have told me—but it is nevertheless almost painful to watch his public unraveling. 

Regardless, my upcoming film is proceeding nicely and will eventually garner a worldwide audience of millions, thereby furthering my goal of educating people about the reality of the UFO-Nukes Connection. Meanwhile, you and your few associates will continue to talk among yourselves, with very little public support. In short, things are moving in the right direction.

--Robert Hastings

Oh well, I've learned to never argue with a mad man.  Robert gives the impression that his derriere warmed the commander's/deputy's seat at Echo and/or Oscar.  So Robert has 140 ex-military types on his list, still a couple of thousand to go, if not more. Mean while I await Robert's grand cinema production  

As far as the Minot case, I plan to jump back into it.  My apologies to Tom Tulien, but I tend to get distracted with other things in life.  Yet I find that stepping back from things allows me to clear the head and re-look and re-focus.

I'll start back up in a little bit.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

I'm a rodeo clown... per recent comment...

In a show of good faith and intellectual honesty, I wanted to provide the contents of a comment that was recently posted on one of my past blog articles here.  

The National Guard never ran intercept missions : BECAUSE- the 29th Fighter.Interceptor.Squadron. AIR DEFENSE COMMAND was tenants at the base with 21- F101 B-VooDoo's we were full time airman not week-end warriors----we launched 2 air craft that night, I was a crew chief working alert--I was there when the pilots were debriefed in a nut shell, yes, my friend-this was not the first sighting but it was the the first for MMS as part of the flight crew this was not our first rodeo and you are not are first rodeo clown we would launch at least once a week on UFO that crossed are radar---remember we are above ground and work the sky you are in a hole in the ground,-----now go back and get your facts straight-A.F.PROUD (30 YRS CMSGT)

The above comment highlights one of the problems with the Malmstrom incident in March of 1967.  The "Chief" is correct as far as what ADC aircraft where assigned to Malmstrom AFB during that time period.  In that regard, I erroneously assumed an air guard responsibility for intercepts of unknown targets in that sector.  So with that said, I have no problem putting on my clown face and jumping in the barrel for the next rodeo...

Despite getting the correct ADC unit and aircraft assigned for the time period, I'm still left with no verifiable data to confirm that intercepts were actually launched on the 16th of March.  The "Chief" is no different than anybody else as he merely provides anecdotal commentary as none of the available documents supports any intercept missions.  That's not to say the the "Chief" is in error as intercepts may well have occurred during the day in question, but nothing at this time solidly confirms such a mission.

What day is the "Chief" referring to...the 16th...the 25th...months earlier?  I notice that for someone that was supposedly present at the "debrief," the "Chief" provides no details as to what was discussed, or what target(s) where intercepted, if any.  This leads to the absurd thinking for some that all unknown targets where(are) UFOs of the ET variety.

So if the "Chief" wants me to get my facts right, then I suggest that he provide me hard facts to counter the argument.  Unfortunately, his comment provide no compelling reasons to change my opinion of the case.

PS:  I applaud and congratulate the 30 years service put in by the CMSgt...NCO's were, and still are, the backbone of the Air Force...Tim Hebert