Thursday, September 30, 2010

Military Members Speak Out About UFOs

Writer Robert Hastings managed to get his UFO/Nukes press conference off the ground. Yesterday, at the National Press Club in DC, former military officers addressed the press to announce that not only were UFOs real, but they present a viable threat to national security. Hastings has long written about the connection between UFO sightings and military installations, particularly those housing atomic facilities or nuclear arsenals.


Autumnforest said...

Chilling story. When many of these things happened in the height of the Cold War, it seems Americans were very conservative about talking. They had a loyalty that included not telling about such events. It's good to hear some speaking about it before they pass on and those stories are lost.

James Carlson said...

Your discussion of the Echo Flight Incident as a UFO-related event is woefully inaccurate and leaves out a good 95% of the available information, including over 80-pages of FOIA documentation. The results tend to elevate Robert Salas as some kind of credible expert on UFOs as a result of his alleged experiences at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight in March 1967, but you've failed utterly to take his poor credibility and numerous proven lies into account. The events in question simply did not occur as you have discussed and as many others are using in their attempts to effect public, political discourse. There were no UFOs involved at Echo Flight at all, and the incident at Oscar Flight never even happened. The men who have spread these lies, primarily Robert Salas and Robert Hastings, have done so for their own benefit, and they have been proven wrong on numerous occasions in numerous ways. In fact, both the commander and the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 have repeatedly come forward to state that UFOs were not involved. They also insist, as do many dozens of other witnesses who were at Malmstrom AFB on the dates in question, that the incident at Oscar Flight never even occurred, and there is no record anywhere suggesting that such an incident did occur. I would recommend that if you are truly interested in knowing what actually did take place at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 you go to the following URLs, where you can download at no cost the book and supporting articles discussing the case:

I would also recommend that you examine the numerous interviews and articles at the Reality Uncovered website: -- seven of the top nine articles all discuss the events at Echo Flight in March 1967, and include interviews with both the commander and the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 when the missiles were taken offline by an electronic noise pulse, an incident that was thoroughly investigated and very well documented.

A lot information regarding this incident can also be found at the Reality Uncovered forum, in particular the Echo Flight Incident thread:

Tim Hebert, an ex-USAF missileer himself, has also written some enlightening articles regarding the case on his blog at:

Dr. David Clarke, for many years an accepted expert regarding the British military forces' investigations of the UFO phenomenon for many years, has also discussed this case in the context of the "UFO and Nukes" connection asserted by author Robert Hastings. You can read his article on the subject at

The lies currently being spread by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have not merely been dismissed as one possible interpretation of their claims, they have been repeatedly proven as lies by witness testimony and documented evidence. There is no doubt whatsoever that they created this case for their own benefit. There were no UFOs involved -- it is a lie, and nothing more.

As for other possible UFO cases, I doubt that alien spacecraft were involved, but other than that, I really have no opinion. Frankly, I don't know very much about other cases, and would never, for that reason, venture to put forth my own opinions as more viable than another's.

Thank you,
James Carlson
Albuquerque, NM

Cullan Hudson said...

While I appreciate you taking a moment to publicize your own work on my blog (so heavily), I must confess. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you had bothered to read this post (or the other linked to it), you would know that I think his work is highly flawed and that the event you reference (which I don't even mention in this post) is likely a hoax as well. In the post that DOES touch upon that subject I say nothing more than point out the obvious holes in the argument that there was in anyway a UFO/Govt Conspiracy involved. So, what are you even talking about by saying it is "woefully" inaccurate, especially when you go on to claim the very thing I just said: the incident was a hoax (or at least the anlaysis thereafter). I've only posted your comment, which Blogger smartly placed in the spam folder (doubtlessly because of the egregious number of links you've dropped) so that other may see this discourse in a more public arena. To me, it seems like something that you've copied and are dropping down into blogs and websites all over that even obliquely mention this guy or that incident. To wit, I feel you've written me little more than spam in order to route traffic your way. If that was all you wanted, all you had to do was say pretty please.

James Carlson said...

It wasn't my intention to come across as a nuisance, so if my comments bothered you any, I apologize. I wasn't so much commenting on your own work as I was responding to the previous comment; in retrospect, I didn't make that clear at all, so I can see why you may have interpreted them as a criticism of your work. I'm so used to airing arguments on forum discussions, that I fell into the habit of responding to immediate claims made, i.e., previous statements.

As for your work and the conclusions you've reached, I think your assessment has been both fair and logical, something you don't see a lot of. You're correct that my response seems to have been written in advance. It's my policy to refute Hastings' and Salas' claims wherever I find them. Both men have very openly insulted my family on many occasions, so I've found it necessary to counter such as often as possible, giving readers enough information to reach a valid conclusion, part of which has an exonerating quality. Unfortunately, the claims made are linked to a very large number of blogs and forums, so a "form" letter of some sort is necessary for me to refute more claims than I could otherwise account for by responding solely to the original posts. I have about six of these letters that I use liberally, depending upon the content of the conflicting accounts I'm responding to.

In the case of "Autumnforest" (author of the prior comments above), every detail of her response was insulting, so I believed it needed to be countered. The only claims that Robert Salas has made (he being the subject of the video that was posted) involve two flights of missiles in March 1967, so that's the incident my response discusses. I hope you weren't bothered by my intersession too much -- I want to be very clear about this: I like your website, I think you've taken an extremely large pool of topics to discuss and have done so without falling into logic-traps or assessments based on "intuition", and I have absolutely no criticisms to address in regard to your website or the contents of your discussions. I'm thankful, in fact, that your own point of view encompasses so well the same character that I'm attempting (poorly at times) to establish. I wish everybody had the same opinions you do, because they allow for a far more accurate assessment of my father's USAF career; he was the commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and I find it intolerable that so many individuals around the world associate his many years of honorable service with an event that never took place, one that has been used to advance the personal economy of two men I have little more than contempt and disdain for. The fact that he's been accused of lying about this matter and pilloried so often in public simply because he's told the truth about something he was present to witness is more than enough motivation to compel my responses to any suggestions depleting the quality of his service or his reputation. I've discovered that the best way to accomplish these goals is to include the URLs of websites that discuss in great detail the established facts of the matter. Most of the articles weren't authored by me; I wrote those published on scrib'd, of course, but I only use it to provide a no-cost method that allows anyone to download those documents if they really want to understand the issues. I have no background in internet studies, but I do want to expose these views as much as possible to the public. Upon more closely examining your point of view, however, I can readily see why you consider my posts as "spam", but I promise you, that was not my intent.

And again, I apologize for giving you the impression that I found your articles more worthy of criticism than an intelligent assessment would otherwise require; this simply isn't true, and I should have addressed my comments with a little more clarity.