Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Robert Salas Takes Exception To My "UFO/Nukes" Review

I apparently ruffled Robert Salas with my review of Hastings' documentary/film.  Frank Warren was kind to post my blog post on his site:  The UFO Chronicles and Robert Salas posted a comment:

"In this article, Tim Hebert claims there is no evidence that the Oscar flight shutdowns during my UFO event in 1967 ever occurred. He is simply wrong in that assertion. I have testified in an affidavit, written two books that cover the incident in detail, and have spoken about it openly and answered any and all questions honestly and to the best of my ability for over twenty years. I am a graduate of the USAF Academy and served honorably for seven years. My testimony is evidence. My commander in the capsule, Col. Fred Meiwald, has validated the incident in oral and written testimony. The testimony of this highly respected career officer is evidence. The affidavit of Robert Jamison, another USAF officer who was in charge of the targeting team who confirmed all ten missiles of Oscar flight were disabled on March 24, 1967 is also evidence. This may not be enough evidence for some, like Herbert, but it is there. My motivation for presenting my story is not to convince everyone, it is simply to inform the public that I, and others were witness to this incident that is evidence of the UFO phenomenon.

Robert Hastings has produced an accurate depiction of my incident and that of many others in his recent video. I have known him for over twenty years. His work in interviewing witnesses, verifying their accounts, researching details has been exceptional and deserves the gratitude of anyone interested in uncovering the truth about this phenomenon. He has established himself as one of the most respected researchers in this field. Whatever the motives of a debunker like Herbert, he has no standing to discredit the honor of any of us witnesses or that of Robert Hastings."

Robert L. Salas 

And my reply:

Mr. Salas,

Interesting that you say that, "...a debunker like Herbert [Hebert], he has no standing to discredit the honor of any of us witnesses or that of Robert Hastings."

Nowhere have I questioned the honor of you or any of the witnesses that Hastings has brought forth either in the written word or on video. As compared to others, I've treated everyone with respect. You'll find that throughout my blog articles no one is branded as "liars."

What I've done is highlighted the numerous disconnects and confusion that have circulated for years regarding the UFO cases brought forth, by you and Robert Hastings. To be frank, there are many of these disconnects that you and Mr. Hastings have written as factual evidence which I disagree. I've highlighted these with links to my blog posts at the end of my review.

Let me be clear on this matter. I've intentionally avoided branding you and the other former officers as "liars" and "opportunist" in deference to your/their service. I served in the very squadron that you were assigned to...the 490th Strategic Missile Squadron.

Per Mr. Salas: "... Tim Hebert claims there is no evidence that the Oscar flight shutdowns during my UFO event in 1967 ever occurred. He is simply wrong in that assertion. I have testified in an affidavit, written two books that cover the incident in detail..."

Yes, I'm well aware that you have done so, but you misunderstand my point being that there is no official AF/SAC/FTD documentation that shows that an incident occurred at Oscar Flight. There is a Blue Book case on the Belt UFO sighting, roughly the same day as your allegation, but no investigation for Oscar Flight? This is odd, would you not agree? There is a full fledged engineering investigation for Echo Flight which happened a week prior, but nothing for Oscar. Again, this is odd, would you not agree? Now, combine your claim with the total absence of eye witnesses to come forward and corroborate your claim (FSC, site security teams, Facility Manager, etc). This is odd, would you not agree? Where are the AF-117s, the affidavits, the phone interviews, the on-camera segments for Hastings documentary? There are none. This is bizarre, would you not agree?

Approximately one year later there is a UFO incident at Minot AFB involving missile security, maintenance, and a B-52 overflying the flight area. Well over 100 plus pages of documentation is accumulated with written statements (AF-117), MFRs, SAC/FTD message traffic, etc. And...there is no documentation for Oscar. Do you now understand my skepticism?

I've corresponded with Frank Warren last week and gave my assurance that I would view Robert Hastings' documentary. I have done so and written a review. Keep in mind, I'm not an expert in film production, but viewed it as a casual individual. It was a quality production when it is compared to past UFO offerings...BTW, I enjoyed it. But the content broke no new ground to change my opinion. 

And it is my sole opinion. You and others may accept it or not just as you and Hastings ask me and others to accept your premise. 

All I am is a former Minuteman II launch officer/staff officer/Systems Command program manager that is offering an opinion based on reading and analyzing the claims made by you and others.

Kind regards,
Tim Hebert 

As of yet Mr. Salas has not responded to my comment, or the questions put forth by this writer.  But this begs the question:  "If I raise questions concerning the comments made by Hastings' select former military officers and enlisted personnel, is that to be construed that I am branding them as liars?"

I'm given the impression that I am to accept unconditionally what Hastings, Salas, and others state to be the truth.


  1. I would not consider them liars. In some cases, they may be but I think in most cases, they are recalling these stories as they remember them. That being said, memory is a strange thing. Elizabeth Loftus book on the subject should be required reading by everybody. She wrote:
    "During the time between an event and a witness’s recollection of that event -- a period often called the “retention interval” -- the bits and pieces of information that were acquired through perception do not passively reside in memory waiting to pulled out like fish from water. Rather, they are subject to numerous influences. External information provided from the outside can intrude into the witness’s memory, as can his own thoughts, and both can cause dramatic changes in his recollections.
    People’s memories are fragile things. It is important to realize how easily information can be introduced into memory, to understand why this happens, and to avoid it when it is undesirable."
    How many of these stories are the kinds of memories that can fall into this category? How many tell one story at the urging of Hastings (or other UFO promoters) and then tell a different story to others. Remember how Figel told Hastings one story and Carlson another? I am sure every one of these men would swear on a stack of bibles that they were telling the truth but that is not good enough. However, without proper verification, these memories are subject to error and are considered suspect.

  2. Well there's no doubt in my mind that Salas is a complete liar. He's changed his story far too many times, and he's repeatedly tried to reestablish his claims on the basis of witness reports that don't exist, military documents he has misread, misinterpreted, and purposely misapplied, particularly in the repetitive manner in which he discusses one paragraph, and reaches conclusions on the basis of that paragraph that are completely negated two paragraphs later! But he fails to mention that part. An honest man doesn't act that way. There's also the fact that he has repeatedly claimed that his little lies have been confirmed by my father, even after my father told him in very simple terms that he was wrong, and that the whole thing was a lie. I also liked the way he got early support by claiming to be the deputy commander of Echo Flight, while he was trying to convince the actual deputy commander of Echo Flight to come on board. His complete misreading of Meiwald's letter to him comes to mind as either an example of total dishonesty or a total break from reality -- either one of which makes sense, but neither of the two methods of self-conviction can be used in support of his claims.

    His false reliance on some weird form of "honor" to back up his claims is nothing short of obscene. I'd like him to go on the record as to why he completely ignored the best critics of his assertions until they died, at which point he publically eviscerated them and did everything possible to destroy their reputations. Hell of a lot of nobility in that foul move. His books are notable only because he ignored 90% of the documented record while nonetheless calling his own account the most "documented" UFO interference with nuclear weapons in history. The man has done nothing that deserves retention except to bring dishonor on himself and those he served with, by repeatedly lying about what they said and did merely to support his own lies regarding what he said and did. Frankly, I consider him a coward for refusing to answer any of the questions put to him by people who have a much better grasp of the facts than he has ever provided evidence of. His reliance on honor in the face of literally hundreds of unanswered questions is pathetic. If he had any honor, and any ability to establish his honesty with those who don't willingly offer up their belief without any need for evidence, he would confront those who have proven his dishonesty in a public forum, instead of cowering behind his pathetic claims of honesty and absolution. The man's a coward and an insult to integrity, and nothing more.

    As for Robert Hastings ... well, don't get me started about Robert Hastings. His self serving ridicule of skeptics in reference to his movie is transparent: the more "debunkers" attack his claims, the more idiots are going to pay to watch his crude little fictions unfold as their television screams.

    A man who changes his claims as often as these freaks do are not honest men and they don't deserve to be treated as such. They have instigated insidious little attacks that are absolutely full of lies every time somebody disagrees with what they have to say, and then they change their stories anyway to fit the new season of the "real". It's a gross distortion of reality, and they celebrate it until the new story fails as well. I personally find it hard to forget the way Robert Hastings gathered up all his witnesses for that little show in DC, and had them rewrite newly notarized claims to get rid of all the inconsistencies between them, so they fit together nicely as a series of well coordinated claims that never existed prior to his interference. If he had done that in a legal environment he would have been disbarred and shamed before the entire court. In Ufology, they just called it being well-prepared.

    James Carlson

  3. Hey James!

    Yes, I could have brought up all of what you wrote, but remember this was on the UFO Chronicles. I thought my response to be more to the point with brevity.

    I did post multiple links on the review for all to read which supported yours and my views. Looking at my Blogger Dashboard...very few took the opportunity to do so though Frank Warren did drive a lot of traffic my way...he did this by design which was very appreciable from my standpoint.

    As I posted on a Facebook page, at least Salas responded which is a rarity in itself as he usually ignores his detractors. But he did take a page from Hastings' playbook...question the "witnesses" then you are calling them liars.

    Notice that the term witnesses is in quotations as they saw NOTHING.

    Good to hear from you. I don't know if you had noticed but I've a new post as of yesterday, "The Malmstrom Trinity."


  4. I may not say a lot, but I always notice your work. It's always great fun to see you make a sharp point without losing your temper or the strength or your argument. As you well know, I'm not very good at that. I tend to measure arguments by the strength of their moral basis, and when their is none, I tend to react poorly. But I always enjoy your work, and I'm always interested in what you have to say. Quite a few of your articles, I find very moving. That's a skill few people have, because it takes peaceful orientation behind a will to be speak honestly -- very rare in this world.


  5. One quick P.S. - Salas states that he has "spoken about it openly and answered any and all questions honestly and to the best of my ability for over twenty years." That right there is a load of crap. I've asked him dozens of questions outright that he has chosen to completely ignore, so his claims that he has answered all questions honestly is just more of his bunk. His account of Oscar flight is not evidence, as he puts it. There's nothing documented about it, and he's convinced me that the only reason he keeps talking about Echo flight is the documentation -- of course, he's neglected to actually read much of it. The fact that he calls his testimony "evidence" is a joke, and he's shamed the memory of Meiwald who clearly disagreed with almost everything he has to say on the issue of Oscar flight. Hell, it took him 3 years to finally admit he wasn't at November flight! During that entire time, on every major point he was claiming, Meiwald and the documentation disagreed with him, and yet he claimed that both supported his claims! Does he really think people don't read? I still think my Dad's take is the fairest he could reasonably expect from anybody, God included: "he's either a liar or he's delusional." Personally, I wouldn't give him the excuse of "delusional" as a choice. He's proven repeatedly how dishonest he truly is.

    That's all -- I promise. I always look forward to your next work, regardless of the subject matter, so that's how I'll close. I'm looking forward to whatever comes next, and I've reached the point where I can comfortably expect that I'll enjoy it! Thanks for that.


  6. James,

    The "documentation" claims is what I had pressed him on. He claims that his books, statements/articles and affidavit qualifies as documentation that the event was real. I did take issue with this as you can see in my reply.

    Plus, I raised the spectra of the missing witnesses, FSC, security cops, etc who supposedly saw something but never came forward to corroborate the story.

    He brought up Meiwald as a witness, but you and I know that Meiwald never really corroborated the story. To parapharse Meiwald, "I remember things differently."

    Yes, your Dad's statements speak volumes to those who are willing to listen. But that's always been the problem...getting people to listen then draw a logical conclusion.

    Thanks for your kind words. It's much appreciable...believe me. Don't be such a stranger!


  7. So we are to discount what Salas says because it is not "evidence," but take what young Jimmy and his old man say at face value? Watching the two of you gleefully stroking each other's ego is sickening. Get a room already!

  8. Voice of Reason?

    You seem to be lumping apples together with oranges. Mr. Salas has yet to provide any hard evidence confirming his story while on alert at Oscar-01. If you have solid information that supports his claim, then let's here it.

    James Carlson and his father? This involves Echo Flight which Mr. Salas had nothing to do with...he was not there. Eric Carlson was the crew commander at Echo and provided his thoughts on the matter...he was physically there...so his views on the matter have relevance.

    Let's omit the Carlsons from the picture. The engineering analysis concerning the event supports a system malfunction internally and exclusively originating from the launch control center itself. VOR, this is crucial, there was never a UFO sighted over the launch Control Center, ergo, no UFO, no UFO causation...basic logic.

    VOR, please read the engineering analysis which is embedded in the Unit History.

  9. Well, the officers interviewed by Hastings are either liars, seriously disturbed individuals, or they are telling the truth.

    If we reject the stories they are telling it seems the burden then falls upon us to provide evidence they are lying or disturbed.

    Seeing no such evidence, and finding their reputations and demeanor to be credible, I've chosen to believe them. If new evidence arises which brings their character in to question, I'll of course review my conclusion at that point.

    It seems to me Hastings has proven that there have been craft of unknown origin in the vicinity of our nuclear bases. In this interview he seems pretty careful to state that any theories he has beyond that are merely his opinion and not proven fact.


    I think Hastings should be applauded for making a sincere serious effort to study this subject in a manner that is as professional as possible. He's provided us with information which, as he would say himself, we are free to do with as we please.

    Science ignores the UFO subject entirely, and most UFO "research" is dreamy wildly speculative trash.

    Hastings is attempting to do it right, and he deserves respect for the attempt, however one might regard his conclusions.

    A final thought. UFO believers only have to be right one time to win the day, whereas UFO skeptics have to defeat each and every one of the thousands of reports.

  10. Phil,

    Thanks for taking the time to comment. I'll provide a more in depth reply later in a blog post.

    Kind regards,

    Tim Hebert

  11. Hi Tim, look forward to your article and further discussion. Is there a way to subscribe to your blog via email?

  12. Tim, here's more fuel for your future article...

    To your knowledge has the Air Force ever demonstrated that it considers officers who make UFO reports to be untrustworthy or unreliable?

    Has any Air Force officer making UFO reports been reprimanded, demoted, reassigned, transferred, lost their security clearance etc?