Last week, Robert Sheaffer posted on his blog concerning the need to provide proper context to wikipedia articles. He highlighted the efforts of Susan Gerbic related to the late skeptic Phillip Klass' wiki article, "Guerilla Skepticism-Now We Have Klass' Wikipedia Back."
I had provided two comments on Sheaffer's blog referencing the efforts of James Carlson and his on-going efforts to provide alternative thoughts/points of view to the Wikipedia articles concerning the two Malmstrom AFB alleged UFO incidents back in 1967. In one of my comments, I had mentioned the wiki editing process as that of a "sausage making factory."
To see how this editing process occurs, one only has to click on the "Talk" portion of any given wiki article. The Malmstrom UFO section shows how the internal debates rage and underscores how any given Wikipedia entry, regardless of subject, changes over time. It further proves a valid point that Wikipedia articles should be held in suspect dependent of the references cited. I'm aware that wiki attempts to provide a neutral point of view, but that concept appears to be a difficult to implement.
Earlier to today, I had nine hits on my blog from Wikipedia's "Talk" section concerning "UFO Hoaxes" which Carlson has, for now, been able to list Hastings and Salas as either hoaxers or pranksters. I'm assuming that some of the editors were looking at references for citation that James had provided to back up his assertions.
A few weeks ago both Echo and Oscar Flights were listed in the wiki article as hoaxes or complete fabrications...that appears to have disappeared from the article. At least that's how I remembered the initial article. Perhaps Carlson will be able to shed some light on my memory of the editing events.
What's the best way to deal with the issues with Wikipedia? The best approach, one that I had proposed in a past blog post when I became aware of the Wikipedia articles on the Malmstrom UFO incidents, is to have two sections to any given UFO wiki entry. That is one can present evidence (with citations) supporting the UFO hypothesis and a separate section could present a dissenting view point (with citations) with an alternative hypothesis. This way both sides can be heard/read in a fair and consistent way. Let the reader decide which side presents the credible point of view.
I do not believe that there should be any form of censorship regardless of who is presenting their respective points of view. Hastings and Salas, and others, should be freely able to have their viewpoints aired out in Wikipedia's format as well as that of James Carlson...or me, for that matter. Its up to the reader to decide who makes the better case.
On my previous Arneson post, James Carlson and I were trading comments. James made a keen point concerning the current government scandals sweeping the U.S. I thought it was noteworthy because he drives home a point.
James Carlson: "On a slightly related side note, have you seen the news RE: Edward Snowden? I don't want to get into a long discussion about what folks may or may not believe about the legal impressions that have been made thus far today, but I did want to make one small, pointed observation. Given the current freak-out we're noting at the NSA, the CIA, and all points in-between in regard to secrets maintained to protect government access to email accounts and telephone records, does anybody really believe that there would be no reaction whatsoever to some ex-USAF whistle-blower telling the world all about the concern that UFOs and the denizens of other planets have about our nuclear interests if there was any truth at all to those claims? Or that there would continue to be no interest exhibited by the government through four Presidential administrations? I am amazed at the credulity exhibited by apparently intelligent American comic-book fans everywhere..."
BTW, I personally know of no one affiliated with the military that either was reprimanded, or lost their retirement pension because they had come out endorsing the sighting of a UFO encounter. Case in point, none of the principle individuals involved with the Malmstrom alleged incidents suffered career-wise. All either had successful military careers or excelled outside of the military.
James wrote is comment yesterday, as of today, Snowden has apparently disappeared from the scene...for now. Supposedly, the US government is in the process of conducting an international dragnet for this poor bastard (as well as, the Chinese and Russians). Yet we are free (for now) to write about UFO encounters around "secret" military sites or nuclear bases with impunity. I guess that some "disclosures" are more important than others.
Or to put it in a more Orwellian tone: all disclosures are equal, some are more equal than others.
Gotta go...I think the NSA is calling me on my cell phone...
I've been researching the Minot October 1968 UFO incident and came across information that appears to clarify Col. Arneson's statements concerning his receipt of a message relating to "UFO(s) sighted around missile silos." My blog post, "The Oscar Flight Mystery: Dwynne Arneson" covers his affidavit that was presented back in 2010.
It is readily apparent that all UFO sightings/reports were sent to the affected region's ADC Air Division regardless of the command making the report. Since Minot AFB, ND was in the 28th Air Division's jurisdiction all of it's UFO reports were sent to Malmstrom (28th's location).
With this in mind, Col Arneson's recollection of a message listing a UFO(s) sighting would have been consistent with the protocols in place during his tenure at Malmstrom. Based on Arneson's responsibilities within the air division, he would have had access to these types of message traffic.
The Minot message sent to Malmstrom (October time frame of 1968) was "Unclassified."I'll post a copy of the Minot message with a future blog post on that specific incident once the article is completed.
I was looking at Frank Warren's site today and came across Robert Hasting's article relaying that David Schuur had passed on 31 May 2013.
Mr. Schuur had provided an interview to Robert Hastings back in 2008 describing a UFO encounter while on alert duty at Minot AFB back in the mid to late 1960s. I had written a blog post regarding Mr. Schuur's experience back in December, 2010: "Did a UFO Attempt to Launch Minot AFB ICBMs?"
Recently, prior to Mr. Schuur's death, I had updated the post:
Update: 5/23/2013
David Schuur's interview to Robert Hastings brought up the idea that he had tapes to turn into his squadron and/or other base personnel.
I had downplayed this as confusion centering around printed tapes that would have recorded commands issued and received by the crew and that this capability was non-existent for the Minuteman I system.
Frankly, the confusion is mine. David Schuur in all probability turned in recorded tapes after his alert cycle. I came across a web page that detailed Minuteman alert crews back in 1967-68. This apparently was an Air Force promotional spot that may have either aired on TV back in the 67-68 time frame or was a promotional film that was shown to civic gatherings.
In the film, it details a 12 SMS crew at Malmstrom AFB. The film and it's narrator makes a point to show the voice tape recording system that was installed in the LCC. Per the narrator, this was supposed to be activated during a higher state of readiness and in preparation to launching the flight's ICBMs. Basically, it would have been a voice record of the event since there were no other capability to have a written trail to show the actions of the crew.
Obviously, by the time Minuteman II had been fielded, upgrades resulted in a printer system that recorded day to day actions of the crew. These tapes had to be turned into the squadron hq when the crew returned to base.
Tim Hebert
I thought this to be an important item that I had discovered which clarified Mr. Schuur's statements regarding the issue of tapes.
My sincere condolences to the Schuur family.
