Putting speculation aside, lets look at the actual facts as currently known. The Air Force Times gives a description of the incident (yes, I realize that some in ufology equates the AF Times to a version of Pravda) and the article is found here: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/03/air-force-warren-equipment-failure-cited-030511w/ So here is the classic match-up: UFO vs circuit card, or possibility vs probability. I suggest folks dust off and review their text books on Inferential Analysis to assist with making a decision on this one.
As for Hastings "anonymous" sources, let's look at the opinions of those "young guns" actually familiar with the situation, ie those lads/lasses that are actually pulling the nuclear alerts in the defense of our country:
"The article didn't mention why maintenance was done on the card, so I won't either. But as the article says, yeah. Maintenance removed the card, and it wasn't properly locked back in. The report also mentions changes to the WSP hardware and T.O.s, so it's not a simple "They obviously didn't lock in it place." Minot crew member
'I believe the original maintenance on the WSP wasn't due to a bad card, but due to RIVET MILE scheduled periodic maintenance." Malmstrom crew member
"I already forgot most of what they said in T3 last month when they explained it, but yeah, the original maintenance wasn't related to the comm problem." FE Warren crew member
"hard to figure out what one can say, but bravo was down for a contracted set of tests that isolated it and tests were performed on the site (not rivit mile), when that was done, things were not quite right so it was mmoc was changing cards thinking that was what was wrong." FE Warren crew member
As can be gleaned from the above statements, it appears that the LCC in question may have experienced maintenance early on prior to the problem occurring, yet in the end, it all boils down to a circuit card not properly inserted into the Weapon System Processor causing an interface issue with the other four squadron LCCs. Is this a new occurrence that has never happened before, or to use a Hastings term "unprecedented"? I'm afraid that I'm going to burst the Hastings Bubble:
"Had a similar incident in the late 90's. Two LCCs down for mnx. One came up with a new WSP. As soon as they told us they turned it on we started losing comms and eventually 17 of my LFs (and most of the rest) went LFDN in the 6 or so minutes it took us to convince the crew to 'damn the T.O. and just pull power' from the new WSP. Despite not even getting to the point where the crew could select a time slot the new drawer was transmitting on it's own continuously. The next few days were long ones for the cops." Former missile crew/maintenance
Whats forgotten due to all of the "noise" being generated by Hastings is that all 50 ICBMs remained on alert and were monitored by back-up systems such as...ALCC, the air borne platforms that are a secondary monitoring platform for any and all of our ICBMs.
Daily Report eNewsletter Air Force Magazine.Com
Thursday October 28, 2010
Missile Unit Experienced Communications Disruption: The 319th Missile Squadron headquartered at FE Warren AFB, Wyo., overseer of 50 Minuteman III ICBMs, experienced "a disruption of communications" between its five launch control centers and the missiles this past Saturday, Lt. Col. John Thomas, Air Force Global Strike Command spokesman, told the Daily Report Wednesday. He said the evidence so far points to a mechanical part failure associated with the missile complex's primary communications system. Somehow the electronic queries that the LCCs send out to each missile to verify its health and status got out of sync and created a transmissions logjam, kind of like 50 people trying to speak simultaneously on the same walkie-talkie frequency. Thomas said it took the missileers about 45 minutes to diagnose and isolate the issue. They switched control of all 50 missiles to one of the LCCs. (Normally each LCC controls 10 missiles.) In short order, all but one of the LCCs were back in the network. However, one of the squadron's LCCs remains offline for additional study of the anomaly, he said. Thomas said there's no evidence of tampering or malicious conduct. USAF technical experts think the issue is similar to ones that occurred in the late 1990s at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., and Minot AFB, N.D., he said. The missile crews at FE Warren had multiple safety, security, and command and control systems that were available throughout this event. Thomas said there was never any danger of unauthorized missile launch and the missiles' wartime capability "was never affected." And there was no outright outage of communications or power as some press reports have indicated. (See also Associated Press report and AFPS report by Terri Moon Cronk.)
Thursday October 28, 2010
Missile Unit Experienced Communications Disruption: The 319th Missile Squadron headquartered at FE Warren AFB, Wyo., overseer of 50 Minuteman III ICBMs, experienced "a disruption of communications" between its five launch control centers and the missiles this past Saturday, Lt. Col. John Thomas, Air Force Global Strike Command spokesman, told the Daily Report Wednesday. He said the evidence so far points to a mechanical part failure associated with the missile complex's primary communications system. Somehow the electronic queries that the LCCs send out to each missile to verify its health and status got out of sync and created a transmissions logjam, kind of like 50 people trying to speak simultaneously on the same walkie-talkie frequency. Thomas said it took the missileers about 45 minutes to diagnose and isolate the issue. They switched control of all 50 missiles to one of the LCCs. (Normally each LCC controls 10 missiles.) In short order, all but one of the LCCs were back in the network. However, one of the squadron's LCCs remains offline for additional study of the anomaly, he said. Thomas said there's no evidence of tampering or malicious conduct. USAF technical experts think the issue is similar to ones that occurred in the late 1990s at Malmstrom AFB, Mont., and Minot AFB, N.D., he said. The missile crews at FE Warren had multiple safety, security, and command and control systems that were available throughout this event. Thomas said there was never any danger of unauthorized missile launch and the missiles' wartime capability "was never affected." And there was no outright outage of communications or power as some press reports have indicated. (See also Associated Press report and AFPS report by Terri Moon Cronk.)
So, there you have it...and...Did It Really Happen?
Sources cited from: The Mercinary Missileer-Association of Air Force Missileers
Sources cited from: The Mercinary Missileer-Association of Air Force Missileers
Tim Hebert has unreservedly swallowed the sanitized USAF announcement about the comm disruption including the officially-stated 59-minute duration of the incident. (It actually lasted some 26 hours.)
ReplyDeleteAll of the other comments, from the various missile maintenance technicians, are also based on the official version of events, as reported in the media.
Below are the real facts, from persons who were actually there, as provided to me via a retired missile maintenance technician. The last paragraph is especially interesting:
-----Original Message-----
From: ---------------------
To: ufohastings
Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 8:32 am
Subject: Re: Time of glitch
Robert,
I just got another email from one of the guys who actually responded that night…
The new information indicates the problems arose on Friday night [October 22, 2010] and Alpha-1 experienced the first problems around 2100 that night. The capsule crew reset the computer and everything returned to normal. Around 0300 on Saturday morning, Alpha-1 experienced the same problems, as did Delta-1.
Both crews reset their computers and everything returned to normal until crew change, which was around 1400. At that time, Charlie was reporting communication problems with three missiles in its flight, and had intermittent comm problems with the rest of the squadron.
Job Control apparently told Charlie to reboot their computer (REACT), which may have started a cascade failure of the squadron. Charlie-1 did as they were instructed and then Delta went off line. After 15 minutes, everything was restored and life returned to normal.
At approximately 1945 hours, Delta-1 went off line again, and a team had already been dispatched by Job Control...When they arrived at Delta-1, they reported the REACT computer was not communicating with anything, and after repeated calls to technical engineering, TEAD (technical engineering analysis division) suggested an entire squadron reboot, which began at approximately 2050 and lasted till after midnight.
Eventually, the sites returned to normal around 2330 hours, which somewhat matches with ----‘s account. I always wonder when people have exact times listed, because after working in Minuteman, I can't tell you squat what I did at what time, other than what I didn't do or where I was...
What ---- did say, is that everyone was talking about the “huge blimp” seen by numerous teams all weekend long. Nobody thought it was a Goodyear blimp, which had been seen on local TV.
I think I saw the same thing [while driving through Cheyenne on the morning of October 23rd]. I swear it was a WWII German Zeppelin, but again it was at least 10-20 miles away and high up. My friend does not want to be questioned further, and feels he is telling secrets and is a bit worried.
END OF EMAIL
The full article about the incident is at my website:
http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/huge-ufo-sighted-near-nuclear-missiles-during-october-2010-launch-system-disruption
Please note that the report of the "huge blimp" (which had no passenger gondola or advertising on its hull) is only one of a large number of UFO sightings in the F.E. Warren missile field over the past 15 months--by USAF personnel, local law enforcement personnel and civilians.
--Robert Hastings
Now, regarding Hebert's implied insinuation that the media, including Reuters, prostituted themselves by distributing my press release on this matter (which I paid a PR firm to post online) nothing could be further from the truth.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals, corporations, and governments all pay PR firms to post press releases on one thing or another. Most of those are completely ignored by the media. The fact that mine was picked up by Reuters et al relates only to the fact that the media found it had merit and deserved widespread circulation in cyberspace and print.
This assessment by Reuters was probably influenced by the fact that an earlier press release issued by me and former USAF Captain Bob Salas in Sept. 2010, announcing our UFOs and Nukes press conference in Washington D.C., resulted in huge media coverage worldwide, including the live streaming of the event by CNN.
A full-length video of the press conference, at which seven USAF veterans spoke of UFO incursions at ICBM sites and nuclear Weapons Storage Areas (WSAs), including cases when the missiles malfunctioned concurrent with the UFOs' presence, may be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUU4Z8QdHI
It's clear that the credible testimony of the veterans--which was covered objectively by the media--influenced Reuters and the other new organizations to pick up the later press release issued by me, regarding UFO sightings during the 10/23/10 event at F.E. Warren.
It's as simple as that, folks.
Tim Hebert has amply demonstated his anti-UFO bias on this blog and elsewhere. He has claimed that I am "using" my ex-USAF sources to make money by publishing their accounts online and in my book UFOs and Nukes. In reality, all of those persons wholeheartedly support my work and have thanked me repeatedly for presenting their accounts to the public. Like myself, they believe that the facts should come out--finally.
--Robert Hastings
So, Tim, you don't want the facts published here? Or is there another explanation for why my two comments appeared only briefly before disappearing? You realize, of course, that you have just furnished me with material for my next article, don't you?
ReplyDeleteOh, right, like Robert Hastings is going to start using facts to make a point. Why would he start doing so now when he's had such delightful success as an author of fiction? Hey, Bobby -- try presenting some real witnesses someday; I for one am getting really tired trying to connect your habitual crap with real events. Not surprising though. Anonymity Rules!!
ReplyDeleteChug a beer ... everybody throws up!!
ReplyDeleteI never hide behind an "anonymous" tag. Your unwillingness to stand up in public for your own opinions speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteThe deleted comments will appear at UFO Chronicles soon.
Sorry Robert concerning two of your comments not being posted. Blogger had listed them as spam and I just returned home from running an errand. I've unblocked them for all to see. Sorry for any inconvenience. I'll review your posted comments and reply accordingly. BTW, your kind of of the beaten path to be commenting on my blog?
ReplyDeleteA blimp-like object? So what, perhaps it was a blimp? Hot air balloon? BTW, in one of your articles you state that you are still evaluating the credibility of one of those or another sighting?
ReplyDeleteYou have me confused with James Carlson concerning who paid what to whom for Reuters to carry your article. Personally I don't care, but you did admit that you paid a fee to someone. Your beef should be with Carlson on that note.
Lastly, was it Delta or Bravo that started the cascading effect? The devil is in the details Robert, a lessen that you seem to have to learn and relearn and....
And lastly, since some of your anonymous sources were smacked down (per your accounting) by the Air Force for divulging possible sensitive information, I see no reason as to why they should remain "anonymous." They have nothing to lose at this point...thanks to you.
Oh...Robert, if you were inferring that I was the one commenting as "anonymous" and plan on writing an expose about my devious behavior...don't make a fool of yourself. Check all of the sites that I comment on. I AWAYS us my full name. I have nothing to hide and you have always known where I stand concerning your work...for the most part.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I've now posted the sources' private comments about the actual duration of the comm disruption incident--and the UFO sightings that occurred during the same period--is because they had indeed been discovered by their superiors and chastised, as I discussed in detail in my "James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again" article at UFO Chronicles. If they now choose to publicly identify themselves, that's their decision, not mine or yours.
ReplyDeleteRe: the "blimp", you are forgetting that the same techs told my go-between that their commander had admonished their entire squadron not to discuss the "things they may or may not have seen" in the sky the day of the comm snafu, and threatened severe penalties for those who violated security. Funny thing to say if the object was only a blimp.
No, Tim, I wasn't inferring that you were "anonymous" in this case. I know that cyberspace is replete with cowards who strike from the bushes. The now-retired missile maintenance techs have every right to their anonymity, if that's their choice. They've paid the price for their honesty. Cyber-Anons, on the other hand, are invariably armchair experts who have no facts to back up their charges, just uninformed opinions.
Now, back to work. Lots of new developments to pursue, at F.E. Warren, Malmstrom and Minot.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Excuse me but how can military personnel who have been punished be allowed to retire? You use the term "now-retired" as if they were allowed to retire with full honors. If they had committed an offense, where they were punished, as you claim, how would they be allowed to retire? In my experience, that kind of offense results in a loss of retirement/benefits.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, if they were just "missile techs", it implies they were no more than E-4 to E-5 (Correct if I am wrong here Tim). That indicates they were junior or middle enlisted and not supervisory personnel. It seems unlikely they would be at retirement age. Call me skeptical but, based on military experience, they sound like some mid-grade enlisted personnel who were discharged for leaking classified information they were not supposed to leak. Calling them "retired" is being generous.
Tim P., good point about the retirement status of the individuals that Robert refers to. I should have pressed further along those lines, but I did raise the fact that since these people were now retired and had direct involvement or knowledge (there is a marked difference between the two) then why would they remain under the cloud of anonymous status? From what I recalled from Robert's earlier articles, he received initial information from a "retired" source, meaning that this individual was already retired from the AF.
ReplyDeleteRobert tends to use the term "missile tech" rather loosely. Missile maintenance was broken down into various branches of expertise: MMT, EMT, and so on. Similar to what you would have had in the Navy. Again, what type of "missile tech" does make a difference in the story.
I'll watch and see what other developments that Robert brings up. I am curious as to the cigar shaped object that some have, per Hastings, seen.
Tim Printy is off-base on all of his comments. Nothing new there, given his track record on critiquing my work and the UFO-Nukes Connection in general. He clearly has not read the details I've already provided in my "James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again" article at UFO Chronicles. Any further commentary on my part in response to Printy's remarks would be a waste of time.
ReplyDeletePrinty off base Robert? He raises good questions. What did you mean in your article when you raised concerns about your anonymous sources being disciplined and their DD214s being flagged? Were they forced out and separated with a general discharge? Or did they reach a point where they could actually retire and be eligible for a retirement pension?
ReplyDeleteI only raise these questions because it was unclear as to their actual status per your article. Perhaps you'll clarify this for us?
And once again, Robert Hastings retires from the field without offering anything at all in the way of interesting evidence. He hasn't even proven that his "non-witness witnesses" even exist! Although I couldn't help but notice that the allegedly "full" story he has offered now indicates that we won't be hearing from his witnesses anymore. I've also noted that he has refused to comment on the fact that his payment of fees to ensure his "newsworthy article" gets distributed by Reuters Newswire is the only way to get a such an article published under the Reuters header without being compelled to abide by the journalistic rules and ethics involving facts and how to establish them to a public audience. In other words, his only confirmation that the story he has published has any real basis in fact comes from a couple of anonymous, low-ranked military personnel who will apparently never be heard from again! Well done, Robert! Another flawless, jaded, unethical performance that we've all come to expect from you.
ReplyDeleteYou've produced only one eye-witness who nobody knows or can identify except for one man -- who is himself anonymous -- who refuses to confirm the story except to say he may have seen the UFO as well, but he isn't sure because it was 20 miles away! You consider this steaming pile of crap newsworthy enough to publish, but the article you announce this great pile of crap in neglects to mention the little details such as unconfirmed and unworthy of military attention, but you figure that it's important enough to require a Reuters header to give it that added bump of credibility, a necessary expedient given that you've presented them as completely anonymous actors. And now, you're withholding their names, after I call you out and insist you present something valud for a change, on the grounds that they've been punished by the USAF for contacting you, and the matter is now out of your hands?
You are a poathetic liar, Robert, and your reliance on these idiotic claims are proof of that...
James Carlson
Like most of Robert's claims, the idea that I am "off base" is what I refer to as "an exaggeration" to the extreme. I asked the question, which he ran away from, as expected.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about military personnel here. IMO, I believe his "sources" are junior enlisted personnel, who were discharged for communicating classified information about missile operations (and nothing to do with UFOs). Because Hastings decided to blab about how he had "inside sources" in his press release, the military found their leakers, which they have every right to do IF they are revealing classified information. They can not be punished for telling UFO stories if they are true or not. This is because if the UFO stories were true, the AF would have to admit they are true in a courts martial (which these enlisted men had a right to request if they feel they were wronged by NJP (Non-judicial punishment) and wanted a fair hearing!) or they would be punishing them for something that was not accurate. Even the AF is not that stupid to walk into either scenario. Therefore, the reason they apparently were punished is because they leaked classified information about missile operations, which is a no-no!
So, come clean with us Mr. Hastings. Were they discharged or did they retire? Do you know the difference? My guess, by the way you talk is you don't. Maybe you could reveal what their paygrades were. You already got them canned with your press release, so you can't do much more harm as it is.
Oh btw, did you find that quart of strawberries? I think I know where the key might be located.
As for the "cigar shaped" UFO, it is important to note that when this first happened over a year ago, I had examined all the MUFON and NUFORC reports from the time period and could find not a single UFO report that described such a UFO.
ReplyDeleteNow, after dragging his five dollar bill through the trailer parks, Hastings claims to have witnesses to this particular UFO. It is possible, that the MUFON and NUFORC databases may now be contaiminated by this news (bringing out the "me too" individuals). The funny thing about all of this is that I have yet to see any detailed reports about the UFO UNTIL NOW when I read his comment. Does not sound very convincing if you ask me. Why could this one individual "think" he saw it and the tens, hundreds, or thousands of others people in Cheyenne at the time miss it?
Yet again, Tim Printy raises good points. What Robert fails to realized is that some of us had been quietly following this case from the start. Robert made clear last year that he was going to "investigate" (I use the term loosely) and see if UFO activity was involved. From what I had gathered, Robert was never contacted before hand. Hence why I had used the James Carville quote in my article. (Robert may have thought that I was referring to his payment for the Reuter's release)
ReplyDeleteMay I remind Robert that even Billy Cox thought that this was a risky gambit to push a story with only anonymous sources (See Billy Cox's DeVoid Blog site). And this from a hardened supporter of Robert's POV.
And Printy is further spot on about the "cigar" shaped object. Whence did this tidbit originate? Is MUFON's Wyoming resources so totally lacking in gathering this information? Ironically, only after Robert had turned over ever rock and looked between the sage brushes on the outskirts of Cheyenne did he stumble across this "information."
It's hard not to note that this is exactly how Hastings eventually came up with Jamison's testimony regarding Oscar Flight, March 1967. Originally, Jamison couldn't come up with either a date or a location (aside from Malmstrom AFB sometime between 1966-69), but as we all know, since linking up with Hastings' far more public sideshow some 10 years later, further details are just screaming to be recognized as valid memories (that Jamison was, for some odd reason, incapable of recalling for nearly ten years; and before someone says, "maybe he had hypnosis therapy," I'd like to add that LSD and/or a vivid imagination are just as easy to rely on). It's been suggested that these new "valid memories" are merely the dictated accoutrements of Hastings' own dishonest character. I suspect that the same thing holds true in regard to his recent F.E. Warren AFB UFO hoax, with one slight difference: this time, he doesn't even have a face or name to bear the brunt of the world's very appropriate and reasonable accusations of fraud! I guess this time he'll just have to soak up the responsibility for his silly little UFO lies all by himself.
ReplyDelete