• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
…and more:

(http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/0...incursions-at-american-nuclear-weapons-sites/)

To save derailing, you could go to THIS THREAD where this particular subject (the news release, book and all players) is being discussed.
Why would this represent a derail for this thread? This is precisely the place to present such information. That there may be another thread discussing it is neither here nor there to me... good luck to the participants therein.
 
In response to tomi71 the UFO debunkers contend that the article he links (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915) has no content apart from being a promotional piece about an upcoming press conference. Aside from being a typical UFO debunker response (deny the evidence) it is an incorrect assessment. For example the article mentions:

Captain Robert Salas (ret.). He was involved in this incident:

The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident (16 Mar 1967)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm)
(http://www.nicap.org/malmstrom67dir.htm)
Video: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F08xJwA2qI&feature=related)
<snip>

Exactly...the article contains no evidence about UFO's. If you would be so kind to not post such junk links as the ones above, it would be easier to find the real data about the alleged incident. I only looked at the first of your links above and I won't look at the others before you have gone through them yourself to make sure they actually contain evidence and not hearsay and anectodes. It reflects badly on you and your case that you uncritically post links you claim contain evidence when in fact they do not.
 
In response to tomi71 the UFO debunkers contend that the article he links (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915) has no content apart from being a promotional piece about an upcoming press conference. Aside from being a typical UFO debunker response (deny the evidence) it is an incorrect assessment. For example the article mentions:

Captain Robert Salas (ret.). He was involved in this incident:

The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident (16 Mar 1967)
(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm)

An example of what I meant in my previous post (which I can't edit because of moderated thread) is this link above. There are in fact some official sources listed at the bottom of the page but the only mention of UFO's is in the last one where it says:

Rumours of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven..

Any comments?
 
I believe you are right. The satellite hypothesis just does not cut it.

Of course using MIR as a “zero point” reference is erroneous.

The irregularity of some of the objects is obvious. However, as there is debris going every which way (and must have been doing so for some time), I don’t know about the “originating from MIR and/or the shuttle”… but at the same time obviously the debris has to have come from somewhere and the shuttle/MIR is the obvious contender.

I am definitely leaning toward your “debris close to the camera” hypothesis …but that trajectory is just so unusual… because, for the first part of its travels it is going in a straight line, so at least initially it must have the same rotational momentum as the shuttle (compared to the background stars). But then things become a bit difficult to describe – especially a complete halt and the subsequent “impulse acceleration” (as you describe it). I have to get to actually measuring the background star movement and that should give us a better picture of what the shuttle is doing rotationwise (ughhh, time…).
About the impulse accelerations: What would you expect to see from a shuttle that is controlled by rocket bursts?
I would think you'd see particles change direction in an impulse-like manner. The amount they change apparent velocity is obviously a function of how far away they are, so you'll see different accelerations for different particles, but what you won't see is particles accelerating in opposite directions at the same moment.
 
…and more:

(http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/0...incursions-at-american-nuclear-weapons-sites/)


Why would this represent a derail for this thread? This is precisely the place to present such information. That there may be another thread discussing it is neither here nor there to me... good luck to the participants therein.

Since you insist, your links are incomplete (no surprise you only post the links that support the argument). Might I suggest another link from a blog that has investigated some of the claims by Salas/Hastings and found them to be "less than honest".

http://www.realityuncovered.net/index.php

Additionallly, Col. Halt has also been less than honest. Try:

http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

for starters.

If you want to discuss it further, go to the other thread. I thought this thread was about reviewing the evidence (as in evidence that can be verified!) and not about stories told by people who have trouble getting their facts right or who like to change their stories several times.
 
An example of what I meant in my previous post (which I can't edit because of moderated thread) is this link above. There are in fact some official sources listed at the bottom of the page but the only mention of UFO's is in the last one where it says:

Rumours of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of fault were disproven..

Any comments?

Okay, let’s start with that statement and see where it leads us.

We seem to have one primary witness who “broke” the story – Robert Salas. Let’s assume he is not telling the truth. Where else can we go?

Officially we know that 10 Echo Flight Minuteman missiles were inexplicably “lost” (went into an inoperable status) (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/sacmsg.htm)

Officially we know also (as above) that UFOs were somehow rumoured to be involved but that those rumours were (somehow) “disproven” (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/page38.htm).

…but Robert Salas could not have been the only other person involved – so who else is there that could confirm/deny his UFO story? Leaving out for the moment anyone directly mentioned by Salas (assuming he is an unreliable witness) it seems some attention and controversy has centred around a certain Col. Walter Figel (ret.) who was one of the missile launch officers on duty at Echo that day. Apparently he gave taped interviews confirming reports of UFOs as follows (in part):

“Then when the first [missile] went down, and I talked to the security [team] out there, they reported this UFO hovering over the site. I said, “Yeah, right. What have you guys been drinking out there?” And we [sent] Strike teams to both of the sites that had been occupied.”

…and:

“Well, I [reportedly] had them hovering over the sites, you know, and I said, “Right, I’m not a believer in that crap!” And that was reported over the secure line, and I told those guys to make no transmissions and, when the Strike Team got out there—they were on VHF back to me—and they had no idea in the world what I even told them to look for, and they reported them [too].”
(http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09/echooscar-witch-hunt.html).

Apparently later, Figel recanted. According to a Reality Uncovered blog:

“I admit to being a bit frustrated with Mr. Figel. Despite his recent comments clarifying the matter to James, it’s clear what he was saying to Hastings and Salas according to those recordings…”

But that:

“Robert Hastings and Robert Salas sure don’t want anyone to know what Walter Figel is now saying.”
(http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/)

So what is Figel now saying?

The first substantial point he makes is to deny Salas’ involvement in Echo Flight at the time. Okay, we are already assuming Salas is an unreliable witness. Second he denies the involvement of other flight’s missiles (Oscar and November). Okay – we are interested in Echo flight. Third he affirms his non-belief in UFOs. Fine, he’s a non-believer and he firmly stated that in his original taped testimony.

So far there is nothing in this that actually contradicts his original taped testimony indicating the involvement of UFOs.

He next talks about the log that he must have written at the time.

“I would think that if I wrote something like that in the log, there would be… (copies, classified, released with SAC messages and base reports with any UFO references included) ”

Notice here Figel is not actually denying he wrote any UFO references into his log – he is merely speculating that if he did, then that(those) reference(s) should have been released in the normal course of events. But of course this was far from a normal event and given the USAF track record in this area, Figel’s speculative conclusion in this regard is far from certain.

Fifth, Figel contend’s that he was “underwhelmed” at the time. Really? How can this be true? Ten missiles under his command enter a “no-go” status in rapid succession and he is “underwhelmed”? Even if we suppose no UFO involvement whatsoever, his self-reported response here is simply not believable.

Figel then makes some more general comments that cast doubt on the details of Salas’ story. Okay…we are accepting (for the moment at least) Salas to be an unreliable witness.

The bottom line is that nothing Figal stated above actually contradicts his original taped testimony! What we are left with is one unreliable witness (Salas) - who admits his memory of the details are possibly faulty - and one supposedly reliable witness who confirms reports of the involvement of UFOs and also confirms that Salas’ memory of the details might be in error. Critically Figel does not deny the substance of the case: That ten Echo Flight minutemen missiles went into “no-go” status in rapid succession and that there were reports of UFO involvement.

Next Reality Uncovered contacted Capt. Eric Carlson (ret.). There is some confusion about whether Carlson was actually at Oscar or Echo Flight at the time of the incident – but let’s assume for a moment he was at Echo with Figel.

First Carlson denies any (UFO) reports were “called in”. But note that Figel stated that he (Figel) called out to the security team and was told about the UFOs over a “secure line”. So Carlson could be telling the truth, no calls in with UFO information, but calls out could (and obviously according to Figel did) obtain those reports.

Carlson reiterates: “There was no call, at any time, telling us about any UFOs.”. Okay, we know, no inbound call informing of UFOs. Very neat sidestep.
Carlson’s interview testimony then goes on to confirm that the Echo Flight missiles did indeed malfunction, that there were no reports “at the time” of Oscar Flight missiles doing the same and that “I do not believe Lt Figel nor I had any emotional reaction other than perhaps surprise.”

Carlson states: “At no time were UFOs mentioned to me.” But this was subsequent to the incident – in other words no-one mentioned UFOs to him at social (or other) gatherings after the event. This rings true, if he like Figel made their denial of UFOs plain at the time, then no-one would bring it up to them subsequently.

Carlson also states: “I have never had any discussion with security personnel regarding UFOs.” But this was at the time and as we know, it was Figel who obtained that information from the security personnel.

The Carlson states: “I am sure that if Figel had any discussions with security personnel about UFOs that he would have mentioned it to me”. Maybe, maybe not, we cannot be certain on that score – it is certainly possible Figel did not mention UFOs to Carlson.

Tellingly, when given free reign to express his opinion Carlson states:

“I was contacted by both Salas and Hastings and would neither confirm or deny anything they told me.”. Why not? A simple denial of their story would have been easy to make, especially if he truly wanted to set the record straight. A simple “I will not confirm (anything you say)” would be sufficient. So what is Carlson’s excuse for not doing so?

“I really didn’t want to get involved in a pissing contest with either. “

What “pissing contest”? Carlson could have simply denied Salas’ story and subsequently stated to any interested party that his comments were now on the record and he has no further comment to make.

Not satisfied with Carlson’s equivocation (and who would be?) Reality Uncovered pressed on to obtain another statement from Carlson on the matter (via Carlson’s son).

Carlson’s key points in that further statement were basically to riterate his earlier statements - That when he was contacted by Salas and Hastings he “denied knowledge of any UFOs at Malmstrom”. But this is in direct contradiction to his earlier statements that he would “neither confirm nor deny” the story to those gentlemen when he was contacted by them.

In that further statement he also tells us that he told Salas and Hastings that “there was no, repeat no, incident at Oscar flight”. Sure, but we are accepting Salas as unreliable…

Finally: “My memory is quite good regarding the events at Malmstrom and there is no doubt in my mind that there were no reports of UFO’s and no incident at Oscar flight.” Well, his memory of what he told Salas and Hastings changed substantially between the first and second telling... “no doubt in his mind”? Possibly now there really is none.

Still not satisfied (and there is not a lot to be satisfied with so far) Reality Uncovered now goes back to Figel (via Carlson’s son again). Figel responded that he was not a “fan of Salas, Hastings, or the whole UFO crowd” (well of course, he does not believe in UFOs!); Figel has “never seen one and flatly don’t believe they exist at all (well we know that much at least), Figel also has “read both of their books” and “There are many inaccurate statements and events in the books” (sure, that much is obvious as well, but this does not deny the substance of the incident - that ten Echo Flight missiles malfunctioned and that UFOs were, by his own admission, reportedly involved). Figel then confirms that “Oscar flight NEVER had any problems and Salas was NEVER involved in any of them at all”[/I ( Sure and we are accepting Salas as unreliable…).

Reality Uncovered, still not satisfied, needs more (because nothing said so far actually constitutes a direct refutation of reported UFO involvement – both Carlson and Figel seem to be dancing around the issue).

So, Carlson’s son obtains another statement from Figel.

Figel now states that “I personally never did see a UFO at any time” (well sure, no-one is claiming he did!)

And: “I do not personally “believe” that UFOs had anything to do with Echo flight shutting down that year.” (Well sure, he can maintain that “belief’, but that doees not deny the reported UFO involvement – note also that Figel places “believe” in quotation marks…)

Figel then makes a number of statements denying the involvement of Oscar or November Flights. (Sure, Salas admitted his memory might be faulty)

Figel then denies he kept a “personal log”, only the “official log”, but that “Obviously I can not remember what I wrote that morning.” (Ah, I see, he cannot remember what he wrote in the log – now Figel’s memory is becoming unreliable too!)

Figel then makes a very, very interesting statement in reference to Carlson:

“I told him that when someone mentioned UFOs, I just laughed it off as a joke and assumed someone was just kidding around. I never took it seriously.”

…but Carlson flat out, point blank, denied that anyone mentioned UFOs to him! Huh, who’s telling the truth here?

This also confirms that Figel was informed about the UFOs! He just “assumed” they were kidding and “never took it seriously”.

Figel also states:

When your dad and I came topside the next day – no one ever said anything about UFOs and there was no “large gathering” of people on site that morning.
There may have been later that afternoon, but I would have no knowledge of that as we were long gone back to the base as usual.”


This seems to be a rather disingenuous statement. First if there was no-one about when they came “topside” then of course noone said anything about UFOs at that time (and of course given that Figel made it perfectly plain to the topside security guys in the phone call that he did not believe in such things – any of them still about would be disinclined to mention UFOs to his face at that time) . Yet “There may have been later that afternoon” but “but I would have no knowledge of that”. Strange. Why “may have been” if he has “no knowledge”? If he truly had no knowledge, then he would not have even been able to mentioned it!

Figel then goes on to some minor details but then claims:

“In addition, that was 43 years ago and memories fail – especially about things that were not especially important to me at the time.”

So on the one hand he refutes specific details of Salas story, supposedly having a good memory of those details, yet at the same time claims that his own memory might be faulty!

…and why this constant referral back to the event as “not especially important to me at the time.” This was a refrain from Carlson too. I simply don’t believe this. Why mention it at all? The loss of ten missiles was not an important event? Especially as Figel and Carlson were the commanding officers at the time. They would have been interviewed by their own command extensively - and must have provided information to all the investigations that we know took place. This would have been an important and unusual event in their careers – it is sounding more like that they were perhaps told to play it down?

So what are we left with?

Salas as perhaps an unreliable witness but his story (ten Echo Flight minutemen missiles malfunctioned with reported UFO involvement) is supported by Figel and not directly refuted by Carlson.

So Jocce, those are my comments. Any from you?
 
About the impulse accelerations: What would you expect to see from a shuttle that is controlled by rocket bursts?
I would think you'd see particles change direction in an impulse-like manner. The amount they change apparent velocity is obviously a function of how far away they are, so you'll see different accelerations for different particles, but what you won't see is particles accelerating in opposite directions at the same moment.

Actually, I believe you could, if the particles happened to be on opposite sides of a thruster. The expanding gas could drive them both away from the thruster. The rotation induced in the Shuttle would probably also affect the apparent motion.
 
Actually, I believe you could, if the particles happened to be on opposite sides of a thruster. The expanding gas could drive them both away from the thruster. The rotation induced in the Shuttle would probably also affect the apparent motion.
I can't see how, at the moment, but you could be right. I'll think about it.
 
So what are we left with?

Salas as perhaps an unreliable witness but his story (ten Echo Flight minutemen missiles malfunctioned with reported UFO involvement) is supported by Figel and not directly refuted by Carlson.
[sigh]

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for moderated thread.
please tell us after all that what makes you believe a) UFOs were actually seen by anybody and b) the “rumors” Figel confirms actually had anything to do with the shutdown of all ten missiles considering a) the first “sighting” wasn’t “reported” to Figel until some time after the missiles shutdown by someone Figel had requested to go underground at one of the LFs to confirm the missile’s “no-go” status and b) the cause of the shutdown was eventually traced to the LCF where no “rumors” of UFOs had been “reported”?

Extra Credit: What part of “We got a Channel 9 No-Go. It must be a UFO hovering over the site. I think I see one here.” does not sound like a joke to you?

Before you attempt to answer these questions, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the extensive research done by Eric Carlson’s son James that’s documented in his (free) book that answers all these questions and more…

Americans, Credulous by James Carlson
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Americans-Credulous-by-James-Carlson

AD
(Co-owner of Reality Uncovered)

P.S. Fantastic analysis Wollery… whatever it is, obviously it isn’t something from “beyond the borders of nature” or whatever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Jocce, those are my comments. Any from you?

Thank you for proving my point. In case you forgot, my point was that you are uncritically posting links to webpages that you claim contain evidence of UFOs, and sometimes "aliens".

I used your first link as an example (http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm) of something that contains nothing substantial at all, except for a note in one of the references that "rumours of UFO's were disproven".

I don't know why you felt obligated to post such a wall of text that is completely unrelated to my comment when a simple "I'll be more selective from now on" would suffice.
 
Actually, I believe you could, if the particles happened to be on opposite sides of a thruster. The expanding gas could drive them both away from the thruster. The rotation induced in the Shuttle would probably also affect the apparent motion.

I can't see how, at the moment, but you could be right. I'll think about it.
I've now thought about it, and it is possible to see two particles accelerating in opposing directions, but in that unlikely situation, the background stars would also accelerate, as it would necessarily involve a rotation as well as a translation of the shuttle.
 
Not necessarily. The opposing thruster could be used simultaneously to accomplish a translation.
 
Considering the object that appears at 6:17 in the following (STS74 - 1995) video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7EgRiU5Zo&feature=related) I have measured the background star movement as a zero reference point (using the middle star of Orion's Belt, drifting down the left of frame).

picture.php


Obviously the shuttle is manoeuvering substantially. Interestingly however, when we plot the X and Y components separately:

picture.php


picture.php


We can see that it is only the up/down rate of motion (Y axis or vertical rate of motion from our POV) that is really changing (Within the limits of error we cannot positively confirm any change in the rate of X axis drift).

I post this now without discussion so that others may contemplate the implications before I do that.
 
please tell us after all that what makes you believe a) UFOs were actually seen by anybody and b) the “rumors” Figel confirms actually had anything to do with the shutdown of all ten missiles considering a) the first “sighting” wasn’t “reported” to Figel until some time after the missiles shutdown by someone Figel had requested to go underground at one of the LFs to confirm the missile’s “no-go” status and b) the cause of the shutdown was eventually traced to the LCF where no “rumors” of UFOs had been “reported”?
I don’t “believe” anything. All I am interested in are the facts. The facts indicate the involvement of UFOs at the time of the shutdown. A number of people who were there on the day confirm the involvement of UFOs. Nothing I have seen in the statements of people who were there contradict the involvement of UFOs – can you point to any?

Regarding your reference to James Carlson (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Americans-Credulous-by-James-Carlson) he states:

“…the only actual evidence that’s ever been presented aside from Robert Salas’ personal word of honor dancing around the oral support of Robert Hastings, are the documents that led him to expose this supposedly intolerable interference by UFOs. These consist of a few pages from the 341st Strategic Missile Wing and 341st Combat Support Group HQ SAC DXIH 67-3922 Command History, Vol. 1, and attached copies of supporting message traffic. “

However we already know (and Mr Carlson obviously knows too), Col. Walter Figel (ret.), who was one of the missile launch officers on duty at Echo that day, provided a taped interview confirming the security team reported to him the involvement of UFOs. (http://www.theufochronicles.com/2010/09/echooscar-witch-hunt.html) and (http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/)

So now we know Carlson is a liar, how are we to suppose the rest of his article to have any veracity?
 
I commend you on your efforts in this regard.



And this is precisely where you go wrong.

The movement of MIR cannot be the “zero point” - as you calculate and use it - for three primary reasons:

First, the movements of MIR, the shuttle and the “satellite” are all independent of each other. While we can calculate the relation of MIR and the shuttle, we cannot do so also in relation to the “satellite” – that is, the whole shuttle/MIR “system” could be on a radically different path than the “satellite” (and probably is – IF it is a satellite), thus our FOV is no indicator of the true motion of the “satellite” in this regard.

This is not an easy concept to grasp. MIR drifts upward and to the right in our FOV. You then use that drift to “adjust” the observed motion of the “satellite”. But what if it is our FOV that stays related to the “satellite” and MIR is the one drifting off? The upward drift of MIR might then be totally incidental (have nothing to do whatsoever) with the observed motion of the satellite.

Second, you have not accounted for the “roll” of our FOV. We know that only “roll” (left/right and/or up/down) will cause the stars to move in our FOV (simple lateral movements without roll will not cause the stars to shift). But… adding another level of complexity to this, the stars may also shift depending on our orbit around the earth.

Third, as the “satellite” is travelling away from us, the movement of any MIR based “zero point” will have proportionately less and less affect on the true motion as distance increases.

Nevertheless, the only way you can obtain true a “zero point” is to use the background stars as an initial starting position and account for all three of the abovementioned factors. You have not done that at all... Simply, MIR is not and cannot be utilised as a “zero point” as you have attempted to use it.

Then… even if your “MIR as zero point” was able to be used as you use it… the latter section of the object’s trajectory simply does not fit with your projections. You simply skate over this with claims of poor resolution.

But critically you then make a major error. You claim shuttle rotation effects and claim these can be calculated from the changing perspective on MIR. This is incorrect. It is a translational movement of the shuttle in relation to MIR that we are seeing here – the rotational movement is indicated in the movement of the background stars!

You then proceed to state that this tells us that “the movement of the shuttle was not constant … which will obviously have a knock on effect”. Sure, but you don’t account for that affect as you did in the first part of your workings (other than merely stating it). This becomes critical because:

Finally you have forgotten to account for the fact that the object basically ceases all movement in our FOV - over FOUR time points - while you seemingly have it in your graph only as three (although I will admit that in plotting those points, two fall indistinguishably close together and so your failure to actually mention this was a simple oversight on your behalf I am sure). However, this cessation of movement is critical to your projections because while MIR (your zero point) continues to drift unabated through this period – critically so do the background stars! If MIR was the zero point – then MIR should also have stopped drifting during this period. It just does not do that (and neither do the stars).

The only way we can reconcile this is if the object is actually very close to us and so any change in our FOV to cause the cessation of motion does not translate to MIR or the stars because it is so small. In other words, if it is a “satellite”, at the point that the object halts, we know it is a lot further away from us than it initially was (it is much fainter and it will disappear altogether in a relatively short period) and so any movement of our FOV to cause a halt in motion, should also be visible on the movement of MIR or the stars.

Then you note some “spurious objects” indicating that this means “we can’t be certain that what we are looking at is the object in question”. You forget that what I sent you were snapshots taken at three second intervals. In the video, these “spurious objects” resolve as “debris” travelling at various speeds across the FOV and moreover, that in the video, we can track the object in question minutely from point to point so that we do not lose it at any point (until it actually does disappear…).

I am not contending that your actual measurements are incorrect, just that you have not accounted for the true zero point – or as close as we will ever come to one - the background stars.

So your conclusions that:

1. “…the measured position of the object does fit with the hypothesis that it's a satellite, within the errors.” has not been demonstrated because your calculations begin with a foundational error and this compounds by leaving out critical motion components.

2. …” That the position of the object is difficult to measure due to it's brightness, size & shape and the graininess of the film, and importantly it's most difficult to measure at the point where it appears to deviate significantly.” is misleading in the extreme because it is not difficult to measure the position of the object at all – in fact you had no trouble positioning it in your very first plot – and you skate over large deviations in the object’s trajectory by the sleight of hand of statistically based “polynomial curves” (I could fit a polynomial curve to a car turning a right angle corner, but it would not detract from the fact that the car actually did turn a right angle corner!)

3. “…the effects due to the change in the linear and rotational speeds of the shuttle are pretty much impossible to account for.” Yet you have just used such changes to support you satellite hypothesis! Either they ARE “impossible to account for” – in which case you cannot conclude as you have done – or you can account for them (and draw conclusions) – in which case, unfortunately, your accounting is in serious error.

4. ”The final conclusion, and bottom line of my analysis, is that it's impossible to tell what the hell this object is, or even if it's actually the same object throughout, although within the measurement errors it does fit reasonably well with the satellite hypothesis.”

This is not a “final conclusion, it is merely a summary of the above three unsafe conclusions. Unsafe because they are based on erroneous assumptions (as I have demonstrated).

I commend you on and appreciate your effort here Wollery, but the bottom line is you simply cannot uphold your satellite hypothesis based on your workings.
In other words, you know exactly what measurements are necesarry in order to calculate the path of the object, and what factors affect its path. You also seem to have enough knowledge to be able to estimate whether the object is closer or farther away than MIR.

The only question I have then is this - Why didn't you take those measurements and do those calculations yourself?

If you knew beforehand that a simple plot of the object's position was completely inadequate then why did you plot such and state that it couldn't be explained by a mundane object?
 
Correction and apology

In my previous post I mixed up the X and Y axis change graphs – I also managed to plot those graphs on different Y-axis scales, so a direct comparison of the changes between graphs as shown in the previous post is misleading - and should not have be undertaken.

Therefore please ignore that post and I will repost the correct analyses when I get time.

(The “Background star movement” graph is however accurate)

I apologise for any inconvenience – normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
 
So now we know Carlson is a liar, how are we to suppose the rest of his article to have any veracity?
Provide your evidence that anybody, including Figel, who was actually there (Salas wasn't) “confirms” UFOs were actually “involved” in the shutdown or retract you claim that Carlson is a liar.

Even Richard Dolan, a popular UFOlogist, doesn't agree with you as noted in his recent analysis of the case...

http://www.afterdisclosure.com/2010/09/malmstrom-analysis.html

First, writes Carlson, “no witnesses whatsoever ... admit to actually seeing a UFO.” I have to agree that this is important. He adds elsewhere, “to date, not even one of the security policemen has ever come forward to confirm Salas’ assertions.” Also important. Moreover, Carlson adds, Salas has never even given the names of these topside personnel. “It’s the anonymity of all of his supposed witnesses,” writes Carlson, “that protects [Salas] from being reproached as a ridiculous liar.”

Second, there is in fact no documentation indicating that a UFO ever was seen over Malmstrom in 1967. “All of the available records, written histories, and logs going back to the original incident itself,” he writes, “very clearly affirm that nothing involving UFO interference occurred throughout the course of the entire event.”

In other words, despite the claims of FOIA documentation confirming the UFO event, in fact there is no documentary support for this. The released files only describe events at Echo Flight, and only mention that the missiles went off-line with no reason given. No confirmation at all of UFOs.

Third, “UFOs were never reported by civilian or military observers on March 16, 1967 anywhere in the state of Montana.” Good point and I agree it’s worth noting.

Fourth, Carlson makes what I think is a strong argument about electronics.

[…]

Conclusion

Declassified U.S. government documents do not explicitly support the scenario that a UFO hovered over any of Malmstrom’s Flights in 1967. Moreover, I am personally not fully convinced about what happened at the Echo Flight. Hastings and Salas have argued that this was a UFO-related event. All I can say about that is, maybe it was. The evidence on the table currently is reasonable enough to say that there was not a UFO event there, despite one declassified document confirming that the missiles there did go off line.
Perhaps you would like to debate this with Carlson himself? That can be arranged…
 
In my previous post I mixed up the X and Y axis change graphs – I also managed to plot those graphs on different Y-axis scales, so a direct comparison of the changes between graphs as shown in the previous post is misleading - and should not have be undertaken.

Therefore please ignore that post and I will repost the correct analyses when I get time.

(The “Background star movement” graph is however accurate)

I apologise for any inconvenience – normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
Also, I see only one graph.

If I may, I'd like it if you could add scales to the graphs, because I suspect the size of a pixel will be relevant in the result, and possibly also a time marker for the respective positions.

Thanks in advance.
 
These reports go back in time,even in oral traditions.Practically all cultures speak of interaction with strange beings. It is one possible explanation of advanced knowledge of many cultures more or less popping up,out of no where. How did the Sumerians know of all the planets in the solar system,long before the telescope? To me if I go out on a star filled night and look,I am reminded of just how small I am,and how little I know. Hard evidence would be great,but maybe it is already here,but misinterpreted?
 
Salas as perhaps an unreliable witness but his story (ten Echo Flight minutemen missiles malfunctioned with reported UFO involvement) is supported by Figel and not directly refuted by Carlson.

1. Salas had nothing to do with Echo flight though he originally claimed he was part of it.

2. Salas testifies that the missiles at Oscar (or was it November - he kept changing his location to fit his story) shut down.

3. Salas' story is not verified by any documentation the way the echo flight was.

4. Figel and Eric Carlson are both on record as stating UFOs had nothing to do with the shutdown. The "rumor" of UFOs were just that... a rumor. There is no evidence to indicate the rumor was true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom