Did I see a UFO? In the truest sense, what I initially observed fit the criteria. This past Wednesday night, I was out in my backyard doing a little star gazing. My wife was busying packing for a next day trip to China which is part of her Executive MBA program with the University of California at Irvine. Not wanting to get in the way of this carefully orchestrated packing ritual, I retreated outside...a ploy that has served me well for the past 31 years of marriage.
I had taken to the backyard with a pair of binoculars and my three dachshunds, I opted not to haul out the telescope for this night. The night sky was clear and I was casually looking at the fading summertime constellations. I was mostly interested in viewing Ursa Major, particularly the double star, Mizar, and it's optical double, Alcor. Both stellar objects appear as one star to the naked eye, but are easily distinguished as doubles with binoculars. Arcturus was low in the western part of the sky, but readily noticeable.
So it was that I began to casually scan the southern direction of the sky. I had been observing for no more than thirty minutes when a brief flash of light entered into my binocular's field of view. I could make out a fast moving object traveling approximately from the north in a southerly direction. Then I completely lost track of the object.
The following is information based on recall (this is now Friday morning two days later):
Date and Time: 28 August 2013 approximately 2030.
Duration of siting: Approximately 5 seconds.
Conditions: Night was clear with no cloud cover. No moon was visible. Temperature was approximately in the low 80s F. Slight wind breeze.
Brief Description of the Observation: At approximately 8:30 pm, I was casually observing the night sky with a pair of binoculars. I was observing generally in a southerly direction approximately 50 degrees above the horizon I caught a glimpse of a flash of light and the brief outlines of an object moving at a high rate of speed. After about 5 seconds (or less) I lost track of the object. It appeared to be moving from generally a north to south direction. Immediately afterwards, I observed three objects in the northern portion of the sky moving in formation with flashing red and green lights. All three objects made a noise similar to that of a helicopter or propeller driven aircraft. These three objects were moving in an apparent west to east direction and were visible and audible for approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
If we look at my description of the brief events, my observations are vague and open to interpretation. I'm positive of the date of occurrence, but "iffy" on the exact time as it could have easily been more closer to 2100, yet I'm not quiet sure. I may be in the general ball park, but what is that ball park? The same can be held as true for the immediate timing of the follow-on three objects observed in the northern sky.
What of the conditions? It's true that the sky was clear with no hint of clouds, and the moon was nowhere to be seen, but what of the temperature? It was simply an estimation on my part. Rather than being in the 80sF, it could have easily been in the mid 70sF. Is the temperature relevant in this case? Probably not.
If we look at my description of observation, I'm somewhat vague in that area. I use the terms "approximately", "generally", and "apparent" in my narrative. Though I'm quite certain of what I saw for a brief few seconds, I'm not quiet sure of the other details that I mention above.
Did I see the object for 5 seconds? Even that is debatable as I could have only been visibly exposed for 2 to 3 seconds, by now judging from looking at my wrist watch sweep hand. Simply, 5 seconds of visual exposure to the object is now totally in doubt. The observation of the three flying objects in the northern sky is probably more of an accurate time of exposure since these objects were moving at slower speed based on my point of observation.
What had I observed? Since the object gave the appearance of emitting a brief flash of light and remained at a constant rate of speed I can probably rule out military or commercial aircraft. It's entirely possible that I observed a satellite in a low orbit, but equally probable was that I had observed a meteor. The other three objects were definitely military aircraft, either helicopters or Osprey's flying in formation at a much slower rate of speed as my "UFO" plus the audible noise of Mil-spec engines differentiates from commercial craft. The flashing red and green strobe lights are further tells.
My classification of the object in the southern sky did fit the definition of a UFO...I was unable to initially identify the object. Subsequent logical explanations were thought of and my above logical candidates were chosen as the likely culprit. The other three objects north of my location were immediately identified as military aircraft flying in formation probably originating from Marimar Marine Corps Air Station (20 southwest of my location) heading east towards either China Lake or Yuma, AZ. Again the sound of the Mil-spec engines and flashing strobe lights were a give-away. But, what type of aircraft remains undetermined as I could not make out the aircraft features.
This was a good personal experiment (not originally the intention) showing the lack of detail that we normally see in UFO reports from casual observers. Most important, it showed that I'm not immune to observational discrepancies. I've now made it a point to bring out a note book during my night sky viewing times so that I might be able to provide more accurate detail should I come across "odd" observations.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Another Quick View Point About the Oscar Hypnosis Story
It appeared that my last post caused a quiet uproar and ruffled some feathers. James Carlson misunderstood my position concerning Paul Kimball's revelation that Robert Salas underwent hypnosis to reclaim memories of the Oscar event. Again, Salas told this to Paul Kimball and Paul had merely had it as an aside of his re-look at the cases presented in the top ten UFO cases listed in a film which he produced.
It's important to add that Paul did not provide the list for the film as he was only the producer. Paul made this clear in other on-line venues. The importance of the last blog posting was Paul's take on the Malmstrom cases and it should be of no surprise that I would find that of interest regardless of Paul's opinion, but I found it gratifying that he seemed to hold the same opinion as I, as well as others.
Paul had left a good comment on the last post, but chose to delete it while I was in the midst of typing out a reply. I don't know the reason why, but that's his prerogative to do so and I'll leave it at that.
Back to the Salas hypnosis angle. Since the psychological angle of UFOs is the main driving force that spurs my interest, the hypnotic angle is of importance for due consideration. It is potential evidence or another potential piece of a puzzle. To discard this puzzle piece without critical examination is intellectual dishonesty in my view. Notice that I use the term "potential" for I've no direct knowledge nor have I seen Kimball's film segment which Salas so states. I believe, from Paul's deleted comment, that this segment was edited out due to time constraints, but Paul has that edited section...as I seem to recall.
Why is the hypnosis angle of importance? It simply goes to show his state of mind at a given point in time. It may also be part of the foundation of confabulatory thinking in which he constructed the UFO scenario and his seeking of validation for his belief. This may explained why he drew others into the mix both real and imaginary.
Should Salas get a free pass from me based on "recovered memories" via hypnosis? No, I'm afraid I can't logically and intellectually do that. The recovery process of regressed memories through hypnosis is highly controversial in its own right, and in some cases, its highly dubious.
Under what conditions was the hypnotic therapy administered to Salas? Who did the therapy and when was this accomplished? These are questions which I've no answer, but are relevant to ask.
I am curious as to which one of the numerous versions that Salas has put forth were the results of hypnosis. There are quite a few to be considered. How does his final version which he sealed as official fact via an affidavit compare to the hypnotic induced version? Lot's of questions regarding that angle.
Regardless of the issue of hypnosis, Salas had researched his case for quite some time even teaming up with researcher Jim Klotz. He, like I and others, would have discovered that no official/unofficial documents existed to support his claim. The only documents that Klotz had secured via FOIA was the Echo Flight shutdown...with no mentioning of an Oscar incident. Further, other missile crew members could not support Salas' claims...missiles off alert and UFO reports. One does not need hypnosis to figure that out.
Eric Carlson and Walter Figel had on countless times stated that no such incident at Oscar took place. Salas' crew commander, Fred Meiwald stated in a personal letter to Salas (1996) that he had different memories that were contrary to Salas' claims.
This should have been a wake-up call, but instead Salas has pressed on furthering the cementing of a disjointed confabulation and selling it as reality. Yet, its reality that should have steered him in the opposite and only logical direction. Why he has chosen to do so only he knows. So while the hypnosis revelation is interesting, it does not change the outcome nor does it redefine the conclusions.
It's important to add that Paul did not provide the list for the film as he was only the producer. Paul made this clear in other on-line venues. The importance of the last blog posting was Paul's take on the Malmstrom cases and it should be of no surprise that I would find that of interest regardless of Paul's opinion, but I found it gratifying that he seemed to hold the same opinion as I, as well as others.
Paul had left a good comment on the last post, but chose to delete it while I was in the midst of typing out a reply. I don't know the reason why, but that's his prerogative to do so and I'll leave it at that.
Back to the Salas hypnosis angle. Since the psychological angle of UFOs is the main driving force that spurs my interest, the hypnotic angle is of importance for due consideration. It is potential evidence or another potential piece of a puzzle. To discard this puzzle piece without critical examination is intellectual dishonesty in my view. Notice that I use the term "potential" for I've no direct knowledge nor have I seen Kimball's film segment which Salas so states. I believe, from Paul's deleted comment, that this segment was edited out due to time constraints, but Paul has that edited section...as I seem to recall.
Why is the hypnosis angle of importance? It simply goes to show his state of mind at a given point in time. It may also be part of the foundation of confabulatory thinking in which he constructed the UFO scenario and his seeking of validation for his belief. This may explained why he drew others into the mix both real and imaginary.
Should Salas get a free pass from me based on "recovered memories" via hypnosis? No, I'm afraid I can't logically and intellectually do that. The recovery process of regressed memories through hypnosis is highly controversial in its own right, and in some cases, its highly dubious.
Under what conditions was the hypnotic therapy administered to Salas? Who did the therapy and when was this accomplished? These are questions which I've no answer, but are relevant to ask.
I am curious as to which one of the numerous versions that Salas has put forth were the results of hypnosis. There are quite a few to be considered. How does his final version which he sealed as official fact via an affidavit compare to the hypnotic induced version? Lot's of questions regarding that angle.
Regardless of the issue of hypnosis, Salas had researched his case for quite some time even teaming up with researcher Jim Klotz. He, like I and others, would have discovered that no official/unofficial documents existed to support his claim. The only documents that Klotz had secured via FOIA was the Echo Flight shutdown...with no mentioning of an Oscar incident. Further, other missile crew members could not support Salas' claims...missiles off alert and UFO reports. One does not need hypnosis to figure that out.
Eric Carlson and Walter Figel had on countless times stated that no such incident at Oscar took place. Salas' crew commander, Fred Meiwald stated in a personal letter to Salas (1996) that he had different memories that were contrary to Salas' claims.
This should have been a wake-up call, but instead Salas has pressed on furthering the cementing of a disjointed confabulation and selling it as reality. Yet, its reality that should have steered him in the opposite and only logical direction. Why he has chosen to do so only he knows. So while the hypnosis revelation is interesting, it does not change the outcome nor does it redefine the conclusions.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Was Malmstrom's Oscar Flight the Results of a Hypnotic Trance?
This past weekend, I was browsing through the UFO Iconoclast(s) site. Rich Reynolds had a blog article linking to Paul Kimball's website, "The Other Side of Truth." The topic was Kimball's top ten UFO cases that he had compiled some time ago and his reappraisal of those ten cases.
I knew that Kimball had listed Malmstrom's incidents in his top ten so I was naturally curious about his rationale, or thoughts about the case. In short, I was surprised by his current views regarding the Oscar Flight story and Robert Salas in general.
First, I have to admit, Kimball's interview with Robert Salas was totally unknown to me...this was the first that I knew of it.
Second, I had never seen nor read anything concerning Salas having to undergo hypnosis to recover memories of the incident. I readily admit that I was stunned to learn this. And yes, Paul Kimball was right about his instincts with "alarm bells ringing."
My good friend, James Carlson had a few choice words concerning Kimball's article on the forums of Realityuncovered which can be seen here and here. James does not buy the hypnosis angle, but I must somewhat disagree with my good friend.
The issue of the use of hypnosis does explain a lot since the Oscar case has always been a mystery, a disjointed tale with so many convoluted components. And quite honestly Robert Salas has always been a perplexing figure filled with contradictions and finally (shrewdly?) tying all of those contradictions into one self proclaimed "legal" affidavit. The truth hammered on an anvil of confabulations has always been my thought.
I offered, last night, a point of reflection for James:
James,
I was unable to reply fully earlier as I had to head off to work. I think that the more rational way to look at Kimball's statement is that he is giving the impression that there is nothing to any of the Malmstrom claims. He is just many of a growing list that sees the shine off the bloom of Hastings' and Salas' claims. Did Kimball come to that conclusion all on his own? I seriously doubt that. And, is it important at all how he reached his conclusions? That's not important. The fact is that Malmstrom has been a dead issue for quite some time.
I personally have no proof that Salas is intentionally lying or being fraudulent in his current and past claims...I have no evidence of such. Yet, per Kimball's assertion that Salas is fair and honorable, I have no proof or evidence that such is the case either. What I do know is that Salas has made numerous claims that are completely contradictory of each other and that it is possible from a psychological angle that he has confabulated to the point of a type of fix delusional state.
Kimball's claims that Salas (supposedly, for I have no proof of that) under went hypnosis raises questions about the Oscar affair regardless of what version he has presented. If we take Kimball's statements at face value, he supposedly talked to Salas, and say that this is true, then the mystery is much clearer and explains the following:
1. Why he was initially confused at his alert location.
2. Why no one that was present on the LCF came forward to support his claims
3. Why Fred Meiwald wrote the 1996 letter stating that he remembered things differently
4. Add in anything you want to at this point.
I'm reminded of a fairly recent blog post on Kevin Randle's blog where he basically paints Salas as a broken or lone figure. At least that's my impression.
If Kimball is wrong on all accounts, then the above 4 points still apply.
Therefore, this tortuous argument is irrelevant and merely becomes circular in nature with no end or conclusion to anyone's satisfaction. I firmly believe that we are at the end of this saga and yours and mine hold true based on the weight of the evidence.
Kind regards,
Tim H.
A final word on James Carlson. James has more knowledge on the Malmstrom AFB case than anyone that I know...that includes me. When I first started looking into the case, I came across James' work and his research methodology. Quiet frankly, I thought it was the work of someone who had been a missile maintenance technician. I simply set out to verify his findings and found that his argument against the pro-UFO component of the Malmstrom saga was decidedly sound....James' argument had merit.
Initially this alternative, and the only logical, view point was intentionally embargoed on various UFO websites. There would be no outlet for due consideration as certain individuals claiming to be in search of truth showed themselves to merely be narcissistic hypocrites. Malmstrom had become a "sacred cow" for some and the truth about the incident had to be suppressed.
That suppression of the truth is over as I, James Carlson, Tim Printy, and others have ripped a hole in this fantasy...this myth. The Malmstrom UFO incident of 1967 is now part of folklore and nothing more. Sure, others will cling to it, for they have a belief or the need to believe. Some may have a financial angle with the sole purpose to exploit the gullible, but one cannot milk a dead or dying cow.
I knew that Kimball had listed Malmstrom's incidents in his top ten so I was naturally curious about his rationale, or thoughts about the case. In short, I was surprised by his current views regarding the Oscar Flight story and Robert Salas in general.
7. Malmstrom AFB, 1967 - This case has generated more publicity than any of the others within ufology, if not the general public (Rendlesham is much better known there), largely because of the feud between "UFOs at Missile Bases" proponent Robert Hastings and James Carlson, the son of one of the officers allegedly involved in it all. I think they deserve each other, because they are both bonkers in my book. Focusing on the case instead of the feud, I don't buy it. I like Bob Salas (the primary witness) as a person, and think he is an honest man, but I also think that while he's made a genuine effort to remember things as they happened, he's got it wrong. When I interviewed him in 2006, he told me that he underwent hypnosis to recover his memories of the incident, which always rings alarm bells with me. There are no other witnesses or documents which corroborate his story - and there should be. Where are any of the soldiers who were topside who reportedly saw the UFO? I admire Bob for his advocacy of a nuclear free world, but I can't buy Malmstrom as anything other than a missile failure due to prosaic reasons, and some tall tales that he has absorbed as a truthful narrative."
First, I have to admit, Kimball's interview with Robert Salas was totally unknown to me...this was the first that I knew of it.
Second, I had never seen nor read anything concerning Salas having to undergo hypnosis to recover memories of the incident. I readily admit that I was stunned to learn this. And yes, Paul Kimball was right about his instincts with "alarm bells ringing."
My good friend, James Carlson had a few choice words concerning Kimball's article on the forums of Realityuncovered which can be seen here and here. James does not buy the hypnosis angle, but I must somewhat disagree with my good friend.
The issue of the use of hypnosis does explain a lot since the Oscar case has always been a mystery, a disjointed tale with so many convoluted components. And quite honestly Robert Salas has always been a perplexing figure filled with contradictions and finally (shrewdly?) tying all of those contradictions into one self proclaimed "legal" affidavit. The truth hammered on an anvil of confabulations has always been my thought.
I offered, last night, a point of reflection for James:
James,
I was unable to reply fully earlier as I had to head off to work. I think that the more rational way to look at Kimball's statement is that he is giving the impression that there is nothing to any of the Malmstrom claims. He is just many of a growing list that sees the shine off the bloom of Hastings' and Salas' claims. Did Kimball come to that conclusion all on his own? I seriously doubt that. And, is it important at all how he reached his conclusions? That's not important. The fact is that Malmstrom has been a dead issue for quite some time.
I personally have no proof that Salas is intentionally lying or being fraudulent in his current and past claims...I have no evidence of such. Yet, per Kimball's assertion that Salas is fair and honorable, I have no proof or evidence that such is the case either. What I do know is that Salas has made numerous claims that are completely contradictory of each other and that it is possible from a psychological angle that he has confabulated to the point of a type of fix delusional state.
Kimball's claims that Salas (supposedly, for I have no proof of that) under went hypnosis raises questions about the Oscar affair regardless of what version he has presented. If we take Kimball's statements at face value, he supposedly talked to Salas, and say that this is true, then the mystery is much clearer and explains the following:
1. Why he was initially confused at his alert location.
2. Why no one that was present on the LCF came forward to support his claims
3. Why Fred Meiwald wrote the 1996 letter stating that he remembered things differently
4. Add in anything you want to at this point.
I'm reminded of a fairly recent blog post on Kevin Randle's blog where he basically paints Salas as a broken or lone figure. At least that's my impression.
If Kimball is wrong on all accounts, then the above 4 points still apply.
Therefore, this tortuous argument is irrelevant and merely becomes circular in nature with no end or conclusion to anyone's satisfaction. I firmly believe that we are at the end of this saga and yours and mine hold true based on the weight of the evidence.
Kind regards,
Tim H.
A final word on James Carlson. James has more knowledge on the Malmstrom AFB case than anyone that I know...that includes me. When I first started looking into the case, I came across James' work and his research methodology. Quiet frankly, I thought it was the work of someone who had been a missile maintenance technician. I simply set out to verify his findings and found that his argument against the pro-UFO component of the Malmstrom saga was decidedly sound....James' argument had merit.
Initially this alternative, and the only logical, view point was intentionally embargoed on various UFO websites. There would be no outlet for due consideration as certain individuals claiming to be in search of truth showed themselves to merely be narcissistic hypocrites. Malmstrom had become a "sacred cow" for some and the truth about the incident had to be suppressed.
That suppression of the truth is over as I, James Carlson, Tim Printy, and others have ripped a hole in this fantasy...this myth. The Malmstrom UFO incident of 1967 is now part of folklore and nothing more. Sure, others will cling to it, for they have a belief or the need to believe. Some may have a financial angle with the sole purpose to exploit the gullible, but one cannot milk a dead or dying cow.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Great Moments in Ufology History
Liang's efforts may have well been the beginning's of the modern day UFO source. Ufology owes a debt of gratitude for this archaic, yet festive "fiery" balloon.
.jpg)
The invention of the automobile hubcap was a vast developmental milestone in Ufology. The mundane hubcap has advanced the general public's ability to photograph this aerial enigma thus adding to the growing scientific database of UFO design and performance specifications.
.jpg)
Demonstrated above is the UFO's capability to operate in precision formation. This photo further baffles ufologist as the proposed anti-gravity propulsion systems allows the UFOs to fly seemingly attached to one another. This could account for the UFO to appear as one object in the sky then abruptly separating into multiple objects. It is possible that military investigators have reversed engineered this capability and adapted this technology to the precision aerial demonstrations by such units as the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels.
.jpg)
Here is a demonstration of a multiple landing of UFOs. Should a higher advance extraterrestrial race attempt to invade the earth, this may be the strategic formation used in such an aerial assault. Again, noticed the precision of the formation which would allow ET forces to off load troops and supplies. This is very similar to the Greek phalanx used in ancient military tactics. This has led some ufologist to suggest that UFOs have indeed visited the earth during the time of Antiquity.
.jpg)
Here is an example of strange markings that have been seen on UFOs. What could it mean?Such galactic symbols continue to frustrate ufologist who specialize in extraterrestrial linguistic studies. Those dedicated scientific-minded individuals continue to labor to this very day attempting to discover the universal Rosetta Stone that may one day unlock this mystery.
There you have it. Those of us that follow the on-going saga of the UFO phenomena need to be reminded of the past achievements and developmental studies that have advance our knowledge of UFOs. There should be no doubt that the Chinese Lantern and the hubcap deserve to be recognized and celebrated due to the contributions both have had in the advancement of UFO studies.
Note all images provided from wikipedia and google image search. TH
Note: Yes, I'm working on the Minot case and hope to have the first installment soon. TH
Monday, July 22, 2013
Minot's 1968 UFO Sighting: Methodology Approach
Hopefully this is not construed as overkill for previewing the Minot AFB case of 1968, but I thought this important to post as an overall approach to studying the case. I'm basically setting the table with an overview of a proposed methodology.
I've chosen to break up the case in sections or parts which is very similar to my approach to the Malmstrom Oscar Flight write up on this blog. I believe that most readers will stay with my presentations if I provide several meaningful posts that describes a given situation in a moderately length article rather than a long drawn out single post which boarders on the perception of a manifesto or novella. Simply, I'm trying to avoid reader fatigue.
The reader needs to keep in mind that this is a simple blog and not the place to park a research paper, nor am I intending to write a research paper. For example, I've not attempted to contact and interview the key players in the Minot sighting because that has already been done by Tom Tulien and others. Those interviews are conveniently available on numerous websites and the appropriate links and excerpts will be cited.
The Minot 1968 case can be broken up into several parts.
1. The missile maintenance team in route to N-07.
2. The missile security teams (FSCs and site security teams).
3. The diverted B-52 component (crew visuals, radar returns, UHF radio issues)
4. The O-07 intrusion.
5. Minot's UFO officer's (LtCol Werlich) investigation.
6. Blue Book's responses and final conclusion.
Each of the above areas may have subsets. These subsets may include data from Minot's base operations, wing security control, input from other launch control facilities and relevant information from the Memo for Records.
Most know that my view of the Malmstrom (Echo and Oscar) interviews conducted by Hastings and Salas was/is highly critical based on the nature of the cases and the major participants and the lack of others who remained in the shadows. The main participants (Figel, Meiwald and Salas) had no credible visual observations and we're left with the reminiscences of phone calls and poor recall of said phone calls some 45 years later. One has official documentation of the event, but the other exists purely in the mind of another individual leaving us to debate it's actual occurrence.
The Minot story is a different animal as there are written accounts based on the AF-117s plus interviews that were conducted years later of the actual eye witnesses. The AF-117s reveal what each participant experienced or perceived to have happened during the early morning hours of 24 October 1968. The witnesses saw something and there is no doubt in that regard, but what did they actually see? The interview statements given some 30-35 years later contain what is to be expected, that is difficult recall in certain areas, yet interesting information in other areas.
So I'll present the case in a multi-part format. How many parts is yet to be determined. I'll have to see how the case progresses.
I've chosen to break up the case in sections or parts which is very similar to my approach to the Malmstrom Oscar Flight write up on this blog. I believe that most readers will stay with my presentations if I provide several meaningful posts that describes a given situation in a moderately length article rather than a long drawn out single post which boarders on the perception of a manifesto or novella. Simply, I'm trying to avoid reader fatigue.
The reader needs to keep in mind that this is a simple blog and not the place to park a research paper, nor am I intending to write a research paper. For example, I've not attempted to contact and interview the key players in the Minot sighting because that has already been done by Tom Tulien and others. Those interviews are conveniently available on numerous websites and the appropriate links and excerpts will be cited.
The Minot 1968 case can be broken up into several parts.
1. The missile maintenance team in route to N-07.
2. The missile security teams (FSCs and site security teams).
3. The diverted B-52 component (crew visuals, radar returns, UHF radio issues)
4. The O-07 intrusion.
5. Minot's UFO officer's (LtCol Werlich) investigation.
6. Blue Book's responses and final conclusion.
Each of the above areas may have subsets. These subsets may include data from Minot's base operations, wing security control, input from other launch control facilities and relevant information from the Memo for Records.
Most know that my view of the Malmstrom (Echo and Oscar) interviews conducted by Hastings and Salas was/is highly critical based on the nature of the cases and the major participants and the lack of others who remained in the shadows. The main participants (Figel, Meiwald and Salas) had no credible visual observations and we're left with the reminiscences of phone calls and poor recall of said phone calls some 45 years later. One has official documentation of the event, but the other exists purely in the mind of another individual leaving us to debate it's actual occurrence.
The Minot story is a different animal as there are written accounts based on the AF-117s plus interviews that were conducted years later of the actual eye witnesses. The AF-117s reveal what each participant experienced or perceived to have happened during the early morning hours of 24 October 1968. The witnesses saw something and there is no doubt in that regard, but what did they actually see? The interview statements given some 30-35 years later contain what is to be expected, that is difficult recall in certain areas, yet interesting information in other areas.
So I'll present the case in a multi-part format. How many parts is yet to be determined. I'll have to see how the case progresses.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
A Preview of the Minot UFO Event: Oct 24, 1968
With the above excuses/justifications said, the reader should review the case as presented in various reports. Thomas Tulien has produced an impressive body of work for the Sign Oral History Project. Tulien's in depth work can be accessed here.
UFO Casebook Files has a rudimentary description of the B-52 radio transmissions, but falls short of providing any meaningful context to the incident. Further, missing is the missile maintenance personnel's written accounts per their AF-117s. Yet, somewhere in the Casebook Files, I thought that more had been written about this case.
The 90-plus pages of the official Blue Book investigation can be accessed at Fold3. The numerous completed AF-117s provided by the eye witnesses are available. Also included are the official message traffic generated by SAC, ADC, and FTD (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH). Of equal, if not compelling value, are the Memo for Records generated from the numerous phone calls between Minot, SAC HQ, and FTD.
I suggest that to save yourself the time and aggravation just go to Tulien's site as he has incorporated all of the Blue Book documents (and more) in a more friendlier format for easier reading. I've verified that Tulien has all of the documents and pertinent maps as listed on Fold3.com.
The focus of my work will center around the final Blue Book conclusions. That is, does the final conclusions make logical sense. My initial read of BBs 13 Nov 1968 conclusions leaves me with the sense that it's somewhat wanting for the most part. When I read the entire report, I couldn't help but see the lack of follow-up by both FTD and Minot's UFO Officer, LtCol Werlich.
The reader also needs to understand that I was not a pilot or navigator. My knowledge of radar operations is relatively poor. I did have the opportunity to sit in the pilot's seat of a B-52D at March AFB back in the late 1970s, but that does not qualify for any meaningful knowledge base of practical experience other than to provide knowledge of the cramp confines of the flight deck. I do have experience in using UHF radio equipment since the missile launch control centers were equipped with numerous radio systems, including UHF.
Below is the key points of BB's conclusion:
1. Ground visuals appear to be the star Sirius and the over flying B-52. The missile maintenance teams AF-117s show that this may indeed be possible as stellar objects tend to be misidentified and the characteristics of the phenomena observed was that of the B-52. Yet the question remains, did they misinterpret stars and the aircraft for a UFO(s)?
2. The B-52 radar contact and temporary loss of UHF transmission could be attributed to plasma/ball lightning. This one bothers me due to the rarity of such a phenomena. I get the impression (right/wrong) that this contributory theory was just thrown into the mix.
3. The B-52 visual observation was the star Vega, ground light, or plasma. This is an odd set of conclusions, but I believe that I have a good candidate for what was actually seen from the cockpit of the B-52. The clues are embedded in the case files and appeared to have been glossed over during the investigation. Plus there is a psychological component that was innocently introduced.
4. The break in of Oscar-07 was not related to the event. I tentatively agree with this conclusion.
So, there you have it! A brief preview of the case and hint of methodology. Hopefully, I'll be able to present my final product in the coming weeks barring any distractions.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
The Covert Wikipedia UFO Wars Continue to Rage
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)