The other day, I received a comment posted on Did-ufos-disable-minuteman-missiles-at Malmstrom. It's an interesting comment and deserved posting here along with my reply. As I stated in my reply to the comment, it did not deserve to be buried in a 5 year old post. Besides, this gives me the chance to discuss something other than UFO inspired music tracks and the Roswell Slides disaster (yes it was a total disaster that was FUBAR).
Here is the comment from "nsurround":
"There was never a final public conclusion to what actually caused the no-go events. However the EMP suppression fixes did seem to stop these events from happening again or so they say. That being said, it really gives no clue as to what actually happened. What ever the cause it had to be localized. That in itself leaves the UFO option on the table considering the chatter in the control room by persons you do not seem to give much credit to. If the cause was known it should have been repeatable using a test set up by engineers etc. You say, that analysis would have been classified and so cannot be known to persons such as yourself. Your main point now seems to be that no witnesses (security guards) who actually say they saw the UFO(s) have come forward with their testimony. That is a good point but does not necessarily refute the testimony of some in the underground control area. In fact your whole analysis still leaves open the possibility of a UFO type event. The only person that does not seem to understand this is yourself."
I don't know if "nsurround" was aware that I had slightly changed my theory as put forth in "Echo Flight: The Makings of a UFO Myth", but the basic premise of the original post still holds true. The difference being that the investigation gave no credence that missile maintenance teams were ever in the Echo Flight area during the full flight shutdown.
"nsurround", it is true that their was never a final public conclusion as to what actually caused the no-go event due to the investigation efforts being classified. The classified status seems to bother people, but when one puts the event into proper context, ie, the height of the the Cold War then the classification rationale makes total sense. Yet with that said, the Echo crew commander, Eric Carlson, has repeatedly stated that the entire wing personnel and the citizens of Great Falls were aware of the missile sorties shutting down so the event itself was not classified...only the investigation.
The EMP suppression fix, ECP 1221, that was installed at ALL missile wings did perform as advertised as there is no evidence that such an occurrence was repeated both in a large or small scale. EMP vulnerability was not a Malmstrom specific issue and this was borne out in the engineering analysis and report for those who want to take the time to read it. To say that the cause was not localized is simply not true. The focus centered on the G & C coupler/Logic Drawer.
Recently, I've come to believe that the issue was more than likely an inherent fault with the Sensitive Command Network (SCN) which interfaced with the logic coupler. This information was in the engineering analysis, but again appears to have been washed aside by those seeking to "understand" the causes. Issues with the SCN was implicated with the Minuteman II system causing the same logic coupler issues resulting in No-Go indications.
"nsurround" seems to think that I've give no consideration to the "chatter" of those individuals in the launch control center. How he comes to such a conclusion puzzles me as Walter Figel's accounting (different accounting) is prominent in my assessment since he is the only one who mentioned "UFO" concerning one of the LFs. I also give equal if not greater weight to the statements of the crew commander, Eric Carlson, who had repeatedly stated that a UFO was not the cause of the shut downs. BTW, Walter Figel has on numerous occasions recanted his original story now maintaining that there was no UFO activity. Read some of Robert Hastings' comments concerning Figel and you get the gist.
Now we come to the crux of my current belief. Nowhere in the unit history and in the engineering report states that maintenance and security personnel that supposedly were out in the flight area were questioned. To me this is a striking bit of information since it would have been more important to question those individuals who would have been out on the LFs (inside the silo itself) as the sites where dropping No-Go, yet this potentially crucial first hand testimony is not there. Could it be possible that there were no maintenance/security personnel out there to begin with? The evidence leads to support the non-existence of such individuals. And one has to remember that the UFO sighting supposedly came from a maintenance team member "deep inside" a closed up missile silo. How can anyone see anything while inside a closed up silo? Worse yet, how can anyone make a claim if there was never anyone out there to begin with?
More importantly, all ten of the flights launch facilities were electrically isolated from one another with only individual HICS cabling for command and control purposes going to and from the launch control center. There was no direct interfacing with one launch facility to another. So the claim that one event at one launch facility would cause the rest of the flight's launch facilities to go No-Go is a total impossibility.
This leads to the LCC as being the source of the problem as only from the LCC could an event such as an EMP be generated to effect all ten missile launch facilities. Since topside personnel, security personnel and facility manager, never made a report of a UFO sighting near or over the site, then the UFO angle is totally sunk. And yes, "nsurround", no one has ever come forward to support the sighting of a UFO in the Echo flight area after what? 48 years.
There is NO area of my analysis that leads to even the most remote possibility of a UFO event. With that said, I have to seriously ask, "Did it really happen?"
The EMP suppression fix, ECP 1221, that was installed at ALL missile wings did perform as advertised as there is no evidence that such an occurrence was repeated both in a large or small scale. EMP vulnerability was not a Malmstrom specific issue and this was borne out in the engineering analysis and report for those who want to take the time to read it. To say that the cause was not localized is simply not true. The focus centered on the G & C coupler/Logic Drawer.
Recently, I've come to believe that the issue was more than likely an inherent fault with the Sensitive Command Network (SCN) which interfaced with the logic coupler. This information was in the engineering analysis, but again appears to have been washed aside by those seeking to "understand" the causes. Issues with the SCN was implicated with the Minuteman II system causing the same logic coupler issues resulting in No-Go indications.
"nsurround" seems to think that I've give no consideration to the "chatter" of those individuals in the launch control center. How he comes to such a conclusion puzzles me as Walter Figel's accounting (different accounting) is prominent in my assessment since he is the only one who mentioned "UFO" concerning one of the LFs. I also give equal if not greater weight to the statements of the crew commander, Eric Carlson, who had repeatedly stated that a UFO was not the cause of the shut downs. BTW, Walter Figel has on numerous occasions recanted his original story now maintaining that there was no UFO activity. Read some of Robert Hastings' comments concerning Figel and you get the gist.
Now we come to the crux of my current belief. Nowhere in the unit history and in the engineering report states that maintenance and security personnel that supposedly were out in the flight area were questioned. To me this is a striking bit of information since it would have been more important to question those individuals who would have been out on the LFs (inside the silo itself) as the sites where dropping No-Go, yet this potentially crucial first hand testimony is not there. Could it be possible that there were no maintenance/security personnel out there to begin with? The evidence leads to support the non-existence of such individuals. And one has to remember that the UFO sighting supposedly came from a maintenance team member "deep inside" a closed up missile silo. How can anyone see anything while inside a closed up silo? Worse yet, how can anyone make a claim if there was never anyone out there to begin with?
More importantly, all ten of the flights launch facilities were electrically isolated from one another with only individual HICS cabling for command and control purposes going to and from the launch control center. There was no direct interfacing with one launch facility to another. So the claim that one event at one launch facility would cause the rest of the flight's launch facilities to go No-Go is a total impossibility.
This leads to the LCC as being the source of the problem as only from the LCC could an event such as an EMP be generated to effect all ten missile launch facilities. Since topside personnel, security personnel and facility manager, never made a report of a UFO sighting near or over the site, then the UFO angle is totally sunk. And yes, "nsurround", no one has ever come forward to support the sighting of a UFO in the Echo flight area after what? 48 years.
There is NO area of my analysis that leads to even the most remote possibility of a UFO event. With that said, I have to seriously ask, "Did it really happen?"
Well done ... it would be nice if critics would at least take the time to examine the evidence, documents, interviews, etc. before reaching invalid conclusions. When it comes to Echo Flight, the amount of data and the credibility of the case is so overwhelming as to leave no room for doubt, and this doesn't even take into account the absolutely ridiculous statements made by the two Bobs, Salas and Hastings. A massive amount of evidence on one side, and zero evidence on the other precludes any UFO theory imaginable.
ReplyDeleteJames Carlson
James, great to hear from you! Hope all is well with you and your family.
ReplyDeleteJames, has anybody attempted to actually refute your's or my assessment on a line by line basis? I gotta hand it to "nsurround" as he at least has the balls to comment on my site and I welcome dissenting views...it doesn't bother me at all. Just would be nice if someone would try at least gives a run for our money.
Anyway, it's nice to see you stop by. I've been busy for the past month so maybe I'll post more in the coming months.
Best regards,
Tim
Nobody has attempted to argue the case by a thorough examination of the evidence. At best, people are willing to argue one or two aspects of the case, but end up proving how little they understand the issues. Robert Salas hasn't even considered arguing the details, and he's never tried to refute any of it in defense of his own claims. Hastings tends to rely on nothing outside of Walt Figel, and has refused to make any attempt to assess the technical or documented aspects of the case. He has knowingly lied on numerous occasions, and his only attempt to dispute actual witnesses is limited to a "they're all lying, and Salas is not" argument that's hidden behind his vicious slanders and false accusations intended to ruin the credibility of those holding contrary opinions. Both men have egregiously neglected to explain any aspects of the evidence arrayed against them, and this includes over 80 pages of FOIA documentation and numerous witness testimonies proving the extent of their dishonesty on one side, and their complete ignorance of military culture, classified materials protocol, and fairly standard technological applications on the other. I'm still waiting for Robert Hastings to answer the 49 or so questions I put to him a couple years ago that he promised to discuss. His own interviews and recordings tend to refute his claims, and he has failed to explain those matters as well. Salas answers criticism with silence, while Hastings relies on personal attacks, evidence that has already been completely refuted and shredded, and technical arguments that he obviously has no understanding of. Both continue to insist that an EMP can only be applied in the context of a nuclear explosion, for God's sake, and since there was no such detonation, a UFO must have been the ultimate cause! I have never in my life come across such a sloppy, unethical, basely ignorant, and irresponsible application of poorly understood evidence expected to convince others that their claims are superior. If the lies they have told and continue to tell weren't so strongly obvious, the only conclusion I could possibly reach would have to be based on their near total stupidity. Since 1995 they have refused to account for nearly 95% of the evidence available, and yet they continue to insist that their arguments are not only historically accurate, but plainly and clearly superior to any other assessment of the facts. For the engineer that Salas polished up his biography with, his only attempts to examine the technical details express instead a seemingly total application of ignorance. They can't even meet the scientific standards expected of a high school sophomore! And it needs to be said again, because it's so utterly unbelievable, that Robert Hastings has failed to take into account the easily interpreted testimony of witnesses that he interviewed himself, while Salas has done the same in regard to the 1996 written statement sent to him by his own commander.
ReplyDelete(continued)
I think I can very confidently and easily prove that both Bobs have been entirely dishonest in regard to the claims they've tried to establish, while at the same time have acted upon and interpreted the evidence available to them while under the spell of complete and easily apparent idiocy. Salas keeps telling the world that he's a credible witness because of his military history, and yet has shown no understanding at all in regard to classified materials, missile crew protocol, or even the basic electrical engineering applied in the context of the missile silos he helped to command, And neither of the two have even acknowledged Nalty's ICBM histories, and those documents represent the highest security classification this case has ever produced.
ReplyDeleteHas anybody ever refuted this case on a line by line basis? Heck, Tim, I don't believe that anybody has tried to refute our assessments at all. For the most part, the arguments they have elected to apply can't even be realistically interpreted as evidence, which is fully understandable given the near total reliance on dishonesty and idiocy that's been adopted by those who initiated the case in the first place. From my point of view, I think the very best example of this weird dichotomy was made plain during the protest of a couple alleged UFO "experts" who tried to bully me into silence by suggesting how ashamed and upset my father must be at my attempts to dispute his surely validated support of Salas' UFO claims! And this was attempted well after my father had already expressed his opinion that Robert Salas was either lying or delusional.
It would almost be funny if I wasn't already dismayed that our nation's system of government gives these people the right to vote.
James Carlson
James, true to all of the above. Hastings, et al, have always omitted the unit history and the embedded engineering reports, well they cherry picked from it to support their position. But you have to give credit to most of the guys over at the unexplained mysteries forum as they have attempted to look closely at the reports, but in the end it always comes down to the same conclusion, that is nothing discussed there has changed my position.
ReplyDeleteBTW, what are you up to these days?
I'm sorry it took so long to get back to you. I updated my system to Windows 10 and when it automatically updated some files, I lost everything for a day or so. Thanks for asking, though. Ruth and I are doing great -- I got a new job (finally), so I'm actually doing something I have a degree for, and I love it. And Ruth says she loves it, because I'm less annoying. Good times...
DeleteWe hope you're doing well as well. And thanks very much for the kind words in your more recent posts. I may not comment all the time, but I regularly read every post you put up, and I always enjoy it!
Best,
James Carlson