Strategic Editing

or

The Power of Positive Misdirection, Partial Transcripts, Electronic Hums, Soft Voices and Self-Promotion
by James Carlson I have reached the conclusion that an analysis of Robert Hastings' recent interview with Col. Frederick Meiwald is in order, primarily because I believe it demonstrates how Hastings' habitual reliance on audio recordings in lieu of written affidavits allows him to take one man's claims and twist them into a new meaning in support of old lies. Having already clarified most of the details regarding the below article with a number of missileers across the country who have made themselves available for such light tasks, I am personally convinced that my interpretation of the references below is correct and to the point. Unfortunately, I have been unable to convince Col. Meiwald to comment on the major points for the sake of clarity. This does not necessarily establish the assertions made by both Robert Salas and Robert Hastings as factual; it merely means that Col. Meiwald has decided not to comment on the many problems I've noted regarding his supposed statements to Salas and Hastings. This leaves the world with something of a hole in the accounts, because Robert Hastings cannot be trusted to tell the truth in regard to Meiwalds claims, has certainly mislead his audience in regard to those claims, and Robert Salas has changed his story so often and so significantly, that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth either. The only certain claim that can be

established is that thus far, Col. Meiwald has failed to make clear what exactly occurred during the incident under examination.

I certainly don't believe Col. Meiwald is lying (although Robert Hastings has very often charged me with calling Meiwald a liar; however, hes proven himself unable to get much of anything right, and has very often lied in regard to other aspects of this case, so I chalk it up to more of the same). On the other hand, I dont believe that he has

validated the UFO stories that have been so carelessly established either. It is my personal belief that he is simply unaware of the claims that have been associated with his memories, and has no interest in establishing for himself the honest claims of concern on their own merits. Like many men, he simply doesnt care about the petty squabbles of dishonest men attempting to establish UFO interference with the military systems they walked away from many years ago.

The facts regarding Meiwald's 1996 claims so loosely established and poorly analyzed by Robert Hastings are easily obtained by simply reading his statements, none of which confirm in simple language the claims of Hastings and Salas: that on March 24, 1967, a UFO was reported by USAF personnel coincidental to the failure of 8-10 missiles at Oscar Flight. The fact that Col. Meiwald has described an incident involving a UFO is insufficient to confirm the claims made on its basis, primarily because a UFO incident involving personnel that were not under the immediate command authority of the capsule crew cannot be associated with a missile failures incident. Nobody has ever argued the point that a UFO was not sighted by USAF personnel on March 24, 1967 (although for the sake of clarity, it should be mentioned that Col. Meiwald has refused to put a date to the incident he has described in a written document from 1996, and more recently to Robert Hastings). We are simply responding to the fact that he has

neglected to link this UFO sighting with the failure of 8-10 missiles at Oscar Flight. Our understanding of military procedure in 1967 has convinced us that the UFO incident described could not possibly be associated with a missile failures incident, as Hastings and Salas have maintained. The characteristics of this incident that Col. Meiwald first described in 1996 contains far too many details contrary to command acts during a missiles failures incident to believe that this is indeed what he is establishing. The fact that Robert Hastings' manipulation of the interview contents to suggest the existence of such command authority where it has not been expressed is so egregious and plain that it is impossible to believe that such a manipulation occurred completely by chance. This characteristic of Hastings' presentation of Meiwald's testimony, in fact, suggests an orderly, systematic and well-intended process of deceit and intentional dishonesty on the part of Robert Hastings to suggest qualities that were not intended by Meiwald, and

characteristics that were not voiced by Meiwald. A full discussion in support of these charges is included in the analysis below. Hastings failure to extract a simple

confirmation from his witnesses that includes all of the elements he and Salas have associated with these events suggests that such confirmation cannot and should not be assessed. His interview with Col. Meiwald, in fact, represents a dishonest attempt to combine two separate incidents into one where no such combination has been expressed. How difficult is it to persuade such a stalwart witness to these incidents to simply state for the record that 8-10 missiles were lost to USAF deterrent forces at the same time that a UFO was reported in association with such failures? Common sense tells us that it should be an easy statement to obtain, since according to Robert Hastings and Robert Salas such a statement represents the very confirmation already admitted to (allegedly) by this very same witness. And yet, since 1996 when Col. Meiwald drafted his confirmatory letter to Salas, he has never made such a claim not even once. Instead, he has discussed two separate events that could not have This is either a

occurred in tandem with each other as he has described them.

remarkable failure on the part of Meiwald, Salas, and Hastings, or Meiwald is unwilling to assert fictional claims merely to improve the credibility of a couple of UFO hoaxers who presently possess no credibility at all as a result of their prior dishonest attempts to establish fiction as fact.

Before detailing such claims, however, a simple review of the 1996 letter currently affirming the primary points established in 1996 by Col. Frederick Meiwald himself is in order.

1.

No missile failures have been established: Nowhere in this 1996 letter does The entire letter is basically a

Meiwald allude to any missile failures whatsoever.

discussion of the only UFO sighting he has any direct memory of, and there is no reason anywhere to assume that it also represents his personal description of a missile failures incident involving even one missile, let alone 8-10 missiles under his command. The mere sighting of a UFO is not the only element necessary to establish Robert Salas' claims. The single most important facet of his assertions is the failure of 8-10

missiles under Col. Meiwald's command, and nowhere has this ever been established. There is no documented evidence available to suggest such claims, and Meiwald has never confirmed such an event, regardless of what Salas and Hastings continue to insist.

2.

Command authority is not established: In his 1996 letter, Meiwald indicates

that the command authority over the security personnel who allegedly saw a UFO was not invested with the capsule crew, but with the Command Post, exactly as one would expect in regard to a relatively common security alert of the type that ordinarily occurred a few times weekly. This is why command authority over such matters was removed from the concerns of the capsule crew. During a missile failures incident, however, command authority was always and very necessarily in the hands of the flight commander and deputy commander. In his 1996 letter, Meiwald notes that "Topside security notified us the mobile team had reported observing the 'UFO' while responding (obviously at your direction) to a situation at an outlying LF". His assumption that Salas had directed the response is insufficient to establish such authority, because had it been the case, the outgoing security team would have reported directly to the capsule crew, exactly as was done during the missile failures at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. In this case, they were obviously responding directly to topside security. He insists as well that the outgoing team had "little or no direction from higher authority (Command Post or Alternate Command Post)," hardly the response one would expect from the actual authority within the command capsule. Hes plainly describing a situation absent of the capsule crews authority, not authority invested within himself or Salas.

On a side note, it should also be mentioned that Meiwald's 1996 reference to the "Command Post checklist" in lieu of the capsule crew's own checklist also suggests that command authority resided with the Command Post as discussed above. This 1996 letter is an insistent affirmation that during the UFO sighting discussed, command authority was not invested with the commander and the deputy commander of Oscar Flight. In order to establish this UFO story as coincident with the missile failures

incident Salas has linked it to, Robert Hastings absolutely has to put that command authority back in the hands of Meiwald and Salas, and he has to do so in such a way that it looks like it was put there by Col. Meiwald. If you examine his most recent interview with Meiwald with that single stricture in mind, the purpose in what hes now trying to accomplish is made very plain. This article will, in fact, do so with that point of view firmly and convincingly applied.

3.

The letter denies major points raised by Salas: Meiwald has refused to confirm

that an injured airman resulted from this event, and had to be evacuated by way of an emergency helicopter, as Salas has so often stated. He won't even confirm that a minor injury resulted from the event: "I do not recall personnel injury of any type but the two individuals were sent back to the support base early. I heard second-hand that one was released from security team duties." This is nowhere near the confirmation for an event during which the Command Post was emptied of all personnel, well armed and facing down a UFO floating right at the entranceway to the LCF, which Salas has insisted upon so often. In addition, we shall establish as well that Robert Salas was consciously lying about this very same aspect of Meiwalds claims at the same time Meiwald wrote the letter, thereby illustrating the level of deceit that typifies every detail of Robert Salas' discussion of this event.

4.

Follow-up actions of the chain of command consistently addressed by Salas Meiwald has refused to confirm any of the

are completely denied by Meiwald:

"follow-up activities" so often discussed by Robert Salas, including his claim that he and Meiwald personally briefed the Wing Commander, George W. Eldgridge, as well as a member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) on the incident. Whereas Salas has claimed that "All of us at the site, two LCC crewmembers and topside security guards, were thoroughly questioned by our commanders and Air Force investigators about the incident", and that "Our squadron commander was visibly shaken by this incident when he questioned me", Col. Meiwald's 1996 letter dismisses any such concern for the event evidenced by official enquiry, stating, "I do not recall any follow-up activities by any Wing personnel.

Meiwald refuses outright to confirm any interviews with other official concerns, including OSI, and fails to note as well anything resembling a "non-disclosure statement" that had to be recognized and affirmed. As we shall see, however, Robert Hastings has

attempted to change this last indication in his recent interview with Col. Meiwald, although with some qualifying statements inserted, and some oddly dismissive

assertions by Col. Meiwald, making it somewhat difficult to interpret. As a result, it's not easy to accept such new claims in light of his 1996 insistence that "I do not recall any follow-up activities by any Wing personnel", even to the extent of what one would expect in the course of an actual UFO investigation by Lt. Col. Chase as would have been required. As others critical of Robert Hastings methods have stated elsewhere, its not often that ones memories of an event improve over time.

In any case, Robert Salas has been making these claims regarding OSI and the declaration of a non-disclosure agreement immediately following this incident since well before receiving this letter from Col. Meiwald. In one form or another, this has been a part of his claims from the very beginning, even as far back as 1995, when he was originally insisting that he was at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. As we shall see, there are certain very exact and measured claims that Robert Salas has insisted upon from the very beginning of his evolving claims, aspects of his story that he has repeatedly attributed to Col. Meiwalds confirmation. These are also aspects of this story that Col. Meiwald has specifically denied during his own communications with both Hastings and Salas. All you have to do is read the claims that these men have made between 1996 and yesterday. It should be noted here that continuous change, reestablishment, and evolving story-lines aspects typical of folk stories and legends have proven to be consistently characteristic of both Hastings and Salas UFO claims, hardly a quality that deserves the worlds attention or its conviction that such tales represent documented, factual events.

5.

Meiwalds discussion of the UFO incident in his 1996 letter suggests a much

later date for the event than March 1967: Meiwalds 1996 letter affirms that the Command Post checklist, as I recall, just said to report any such incidents to civilian offices." In March 1967, however, this wasn't true, a factor suggesting that perhaps his memories of the event should not be dated in March 1967, but sometime after the USAF abandoned official enquiry of every UFO report submitted, thereby transferring such responsibility to civilian offices." In March 1967, active regulations dictated that any UFO sightings were to be reported to the command UFO officer, Lt. Col. Lewis

Chase. As a result of these regulations, no checklists in use anywhere at Malmstrom AFB during that period instructed personnel to report such incidents to civilian offices." Given that Meiwald left crew duty for the Command Post in early Nov 67, as his letter states, it isnt surprising that he would not only be familiar with the Command Post checklist, but might also associate that checklist with a directive to report such matters to civilian offices, which would be exactly the case if his duties were served at the Command Post when the USAF shut down Project Blue Book in 1969. In fact, all of the particulars described in his letter could easily be accounted for if the sighting he describes occurred during a Command Post shift that he did not personally stand during this later period when Col. Meiwald was no longer serving as part of a two-man capsule crew. More importantly still, if the UFO incident Meiwald describes in his 1996 letter occurred after he left crew duty, as his referral to civilian offices plainly indicates, than this incident cannot be associated with anything that Salas and Hastings have claimed.

6.

Meiwalds attitude throughout his 1996 letter indicates that there is indeed

nothing in it that Salas would find helpful, a conclusion that Salas responses also support. Meiwald seems almost apologetic in his 1996 letter to Salas, as if sorry he couldn't provide more assistance to his one-time deputy commander: "This probably does not assist your efforts in any way, but I applaud your continued interest in a fascinating area of interest." It's likely that Robert Salas himself placed little emphasis on the information Col. Meiwald offered him, since one of the first points the O-Flight commander mentioned was that "The info you provided is very interesting but I have slightly different memories -- which could easily be incorrect as they say, 'The memory is the second thing to go.' My records indicate that we were formed as a crew in Sep 66 in 'N' status. I dont have the date of upgrade to 'R'. Our home site was Oscar. I left crew duty for the Command Post in early Nov 67." Robert Salas himself, however, insisted for another three years that the incident he has discussed took place at November Flight, not Oscar Flight, which would have placed him in an entirely different squadron, and chain of command. While it would be nice to dismiss this entirely, since Meiwald has stated that "I have slightly different memories -- which could easily be incorrect", we

should note as well that in regard to these claims, he specifically references "My records", not his memories. At a later point in the letter, he affirms again that "Related to the incident itself, I recall us being at the Oscar LCF." It would take another three years of research and the self-effacing recovery of lost memories for Salas to finally agree. Throughout this three year period of time, however, he nonetheless insisted that Col. Meiwald had indeed confirmed all of the particulars of the story he told, including the date and location, somewhat significant details that he would continue to change over the following years.

One can only wonder whether Col. Meiwald ever anticipated that he would eventually represent not only Salas' sole confirmation for the account of a UFO causing the failure of 8-10 missiles at Oscar Flight, but would also represent his sole confirmation for the account of the entire flight of missiles at Echo Flight failing for the same reason. According to Robert Salas' claims between 1996 and 2004, it was Col. Meiwald alone who was able to confirm the date of March 16, 1967 for the failure of 8-10 missiles under his command, a confirmation that was based entirely on the contents of a single telephone call he received on that date informing him of the failure of Echo Flight's missiles when a UFO made its sudden appearance at that flight, an assertion contrary to the claims made by both the commander and the deputy commander of Echo Flight.

In an email communication Robert Salas sent to Raymond Fowler on August 14, 1996, Salas refers to some of the issues raised by Col. Meiwald in the letter he would draft and mail six weeks later, making the following observations:

I was lucky enough to locate the man who was my MCC on the day of the incidents. I spoke with him by phone, briefly. He certainly recalled the incident in the sequence I outlined with one exception. He believes we lost' four LFs instead of all. But our memories coincide on every other point. I didn't ask him what flight we were controlling, but it was probably November flight. He also added that he remembers receiving a call from one of the LFs where we had a roving security patrol that saw a UFO at very close range. He said these men were so traumatized by the experience that they never returned to security duty. I am

sending him the unit history report and he agreed to write back to me after trying to remember more details.

So, we now have made contact with all the members of the two crews who had missiles lose readiness status concurrent with close sightings of UFOs. And we all have verified that basic story. We are hoping that one or more of the security guards from either of our sites will contact us as a result of the Grt. Falls Tribune article.

The following points should be made here: (1) it seem apparent that Col. Meiwald not only failed to "remember more details", but seems instead to have forgotten some, such as the entire "incident in the sequence I outlined" with only one exception, as well as the fact that "these men were so traumatized by the experience that they never returned to security duty"; and (2) if "we now have made contact with all the members of the two crews who had missiles lose readiness status concurrent with close sightings of UFOs" and "we all have verified that basic story", then why have both the commander and the deputy commander of Echo Flight insisted for some years that Robert Salas is lying about this little detail, among numerous others?

Salas' discussion regarding the number of missiles he was willing to expound upon was apparently a fixed feature of his story having very little if anything to do with Col. Meiwald's memories of the event. In an earlier email written to Raymond Fowler, this one dated August 12, 1996, Salas makes the following claims:

Thru various means, I have had some pretty good luck locating and speaking with some of my old Air Force buddies who were with me at Malmstrom during the time of this incident. A major revelation came out of those conversations.

I found out that I was not in Echo flight on the day of the incident, I was at some other flight; possibly November flight. I spoke with the DMCC (deputy) of Echo and he confirmed that all his missiles shut down that night and that UFOs had been sighted (one at close range) by his maintenance team and his security team. I am also sticking with my story that all of my missiles also shutdown that

day and that my security guards at the LCF reported seeing UFOs and, in particular one hovering just outside the front gate. One of my guards was also injured during this incident not necessarily by the UFO I don't recall the details except that I remember that he was helicoptered out to the base. This was a revelation to me because when we first started the FOIA activity, I could not recall the flight designator and when USAF released the E-Flt incident to us, we assumed that is where I was. I did and do have a vivid recollection of my commander speaking to another flight that day and then saying to me that "... the same thing had happened at their flight." However, I had been under the

impression up until now that what he had meant was that it happened to them at some other time period. I now believe it was the same day because of the rapid response of the maintenance crews to our site. I believe they had already been dispatched to Echo before our shutdown.

So, what I believe we now have is an incident where two complete flights of missiles went NO-GO concurrent with close sightings of UFOs by many Air Force personnel.

So, it appears that Robert Salas was pretty confident that all of the missiles failed while he was at November Flight, and that it happened on the same date as the Echo Flight Incident March 16, 1967. It's equally apparent that even after discussing the matter with Col. Meiwald, and well after having received the now infamous 1996 letter in which Meiwald supposedly confirmed all of the associated details of that case, Robert Salas neglected to change any of the details he nonetheless insisted that Col. Meiwald had confirmed. He claimed that Col. Meiwald confirmed the phone call establishing the date of March 16, 1967. He claimed that Col. Meiwald confirmed the location of the incident at November Flight, a claim that he later adjusted somewhat, insisting three years later that Col. Meiwald had also confirmed the event location of the incident at Oscar Flight. All of these points have been repeatedly denied by Col. Meiwald, even in his 1996 letter. In light of this, it suggests that Robert Salas had no real use for anything that Meiwald told him.

Its difficult to believe these early claims of Salas, especially since almost all of them have never been verified by anybody. In fact, there are specific details that are so blatantly false, they can only be characterized as lies. For instance, he states in the above letter to Raymond Fowler that I spoke with the DMCC (deputy) of Echo and he confirmed that all his missiles shut down that night and that UFOs had been sighted (one at close range) by his maintenance team and his security team. Its difficult to accept his claim that Col. Walt Figel, the DMCC at Echo Flight, would have confirmed anything being shut down that night, in light of the documented fact that the Echo Flight missiles failed at 0845, two hours after sunrise a fact that Figel is very much aware of. Salas writings are full of similar examples so plentiful that its difficult to believe he ever discussed the matter with his alleged witnesses or even read the available documents regarding the Echo Flight incident. He had already determined for himself the story that he wanted to tell, and nothing, certainly not the facts, would be allowed to get in the way of that story. To solidify it in the public mind, however, he was perfectly willing to tell the world that he had made contact with all the members of the two crews who had missiles lose readiness status concurrent with close sightings of UFOs. And we all have verified that basic story. The fact that none of them are actually willing to make that claim is apparently unimportant, leading us to wonder why Robert Hastings is so willing to bend the facts of this case, so willing to blatantly lie in regard to this case, and so willing to question the integrity, honesty, and motivations of the many witnesses to this case merely to make Salas ridiculous UFO story sound less like the imaginary will o the wisp that it actually is. reputation. By doing so he lays waste his own

In addition to the above, its also true that after speaking to Col. Meiwald, Robert Salas was willing to publish what he claims to be Meiwald's assertions that he recalls only five missiles being forced into a No-Go state, his email to Raymond Fowler mentions that Meiwald was only willing to say there were four missile failures. Of course, Meiwald's 1996 letter to Salas doesn't mention any missile failures at all, and neither man has shown himself willing to clarify that lapse. As for Robert Salas' claims, they have not exactly been consistent. In 1996, he told Raymond Fowler that Meiwald would only

confirm four missile failures.

In 1997, he published that while Meiwald would only

confirm five failures, he himself remembered that more than half of the ten missiles actually failed. In an article Salas published in 1999, he stated that 6-8 missiles were lost, a number that was presumably confirmed by Col. Meiwald, a confirmation that became general for all of Salas' clams from this point on. In his interview with the Disclosure Project in 2000, the number of missiles failing remained at 6-8, but this apparent continuity didn't last long; in his book Faded Giant it jumps again to 8-10 missiles being forced into a No-Go status, all of which had allegedly been confirmed by Col. Frederick Meiwald. Unfortunately, the only document we have that can actually be confirmed as coming from Meiwald doesnt mention any missile failures at all, so were forced to rely on Salas own accounts, which have been decidedly inconsistent, and in many cases represent outright and easily distinguishable lies. Anyone desirous of a little enlightenment regarding the facts of this case find themselves forced to rely on materials that are inherently illogical, contrary to actual military procedures and documented facts, and contain elements that tend to contradict far more than corroborate each other.

But then some good news came out of the Hastings-Salas camp, eliciting a promise in the wind that some confirmed information might finally be made available. We were told that Robert Hastings was able to convince Col. Meiwald to finally go on the record, and make known to the public exactly what he was willing to confirm and not confirm. But then we read the somewhat abbreviated rendition that typifies the exchange between the two men, and realized almost immediately that once again, Robert Hastings purpose was not to throw a little light on the subject in order to reveal a few facts that have not yet been clarified, but was merely another attempt to foster abuse of those critical of his claims, to promote himself and his defective arguments, and to establish UFO interference with the nuclear weaponry at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 where no such interference can be rationally exposed. Its not such a stretch to believe that this cynical attempt to establish some kind of confirmation originating with Col. Meiwald is little more than a broadly biased and slipshod attempt to reestablish Hastings and Salas claims in the wake of the embarrassing revelations, consistently dishonest

assertions, and overreached conclusions that became obvious following the assessments authored by Col. Walt Figel, the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. The subsequent wreckage of Hastings and Salas Echo Flight claims has resulted in the effective dismissal of those claims, forcing them to put more effort into sustaining Col. Meiwalds alleged confirmation of an Oscar Flight incident. Examined from this point of view, it s no longer difficult to understand why Robert Hastings has neglected to raise such issues in his recent interview; to put it simply, he has no motivation to present or otherwise account for evidence that doesnt support his version of this event. He has no desire to present the truth, only the already

predetermined and biased conclusions that hes attempting to institute. The generally non-specific character of his interview with Meiwald, combined with his inability to ask questions intended to clarify the incident even a little bit, is the primary result of this flawed perspective.

Given that there is little reason to trust Salas' statements regarding the claims that he has made, the question of what exactly Col. Meiwald has confirmed in regard to those claims is one that has yet to be answered. The following analysis of Hastings interview with Meiwald suggests, however, that our hopes for clarity have once again been dashed, not only by Hastings' continued failure to ask questions best intended to determine the facts, but by his coordinated efforts to twist the honest answers he received into a series of assertions that I personally believe were unintended by Col. Meiwald. What follows is my critique of this interview, one that stresses the efforts undertaken by Hastings to suggest claims and details that have not yet been expressed by Col. Meiwald. To my mind, the best way to highlight the process under examination is a point-by-point analysis of the questions asked of Meiwald, and Hastings' dishonest representation of his replies:

Here again, read what Fred Meiwald said in his May 2011 interview. It's purely and simply FALSE that he denied the UFO reports or that he didn't back the story of Robert Salas 100% FALSE. And this interview is on tape, unlike those with Eric Carlson:

What follows is a partial transcript of my May 6, 2011 telephone interview with Col. Meiwald. Emphasized words are italicized; confidential comments have been excluded at Meiwalds request; numerous uh and um sounds, uttered by both of us, have been eliminated for easier reading, although I retained a few of them when appropriate.

Its fortunate that Robert Hastings has admitted up-front that his recordings have been liberally edited and are incomplete, but critics of his methods have noted that in the past, so his agreement with such assessments doesnt necessarily present such an admission as the opening round of an honest debate. The plain fact is that the

statements issued by Col. Meiwald have all been edited, and are incomplete, which is sufficient reason to doubt their veracity, especially in light of the numerous dishonest assertions and lies that have been authored by Robert Hastings in the past. It is also necessary for Hastings to use such methods, because the embarrassing fact that he has released numerous updated affidavits from other March 1967 witnesses such as Robert Jamison and Dwynne Arneson that are significantly different from their prior affidavits has already confirmed his dishonesty in that method of presentation. By

releasing audio tapes of supposedly self-assessed statements that dont require a notarized presentation, he has a created a means to control the statements of his witnesses, allowing him the uninterrupted freedom to change whatever he wants, including its significance, without having to rewrite everything for that single, notarized signature at the bottom. This not only allows him to make false claims regarding the commentary presented, it gives him the freedom to change those claims however he wants. The only real chore is to convince his audience that the transcripts hes provided (a necessary adjustment in light of the fact that he doesnt always provide the actual recordings he claims to have in his possession) represent a more reliable method of evidence presentation than a written statement, a claim he makes clear in his reference to the interview being on tape, unlike those with Eric Carlson. The fact that audio tapes represent a means of presentation that can be changed as often as he likes, while an affidavit is a permanent record that has been authored by the subject of that record does seem to escape many of those willing to extend to Hastings the benefit of the doubt in regard to this issue, but that number decreases daily, more so whenever he

presents another dollop of evidence that has been changed depending on the purpose for which it has been addressed. This is precisely why such evidence is only very rarely admitted in court, and then only after numerous qualifying statements being read into the trial records. The plain fact is that audio tapes do not represent an ideal means of witness statements; they never have. This became very well-established for the Robert Hastings

American mind during President Richard Nixons administration.

reliance on such devices is another con game presented by a man who simply cannot be trusted to deliver an accurate representation of his witness claims.

There are, in fact, numerous legal structures that must be met in order to allow the admittance of recorded testimony, ascertained by the fact that the Supreme Court has often weighed in on this issue. The following requirements must be established first, and I see no reason to ignore these points merely because Robert Hastings wishes to present tainted evidence in regard to UFOs:
1. The recording device must have been capable of taping the

conversation now offered in evidence [requirement met, existence of the tape recording alone proves that the recording device was functioning and capable of duplicating sounds; this requirement does not, however, reference the quality of the recording]. 2. The operator of the device must be competent to operate the device

[requirement met, assured by Robert Hastings own admission, proof of which resides in the fact that he successfully made the recordings, satisfying thereby the competency requirement; this does not, however, reference the level of expertise].

3.

The recording must be authentic and correct [requirement not met;

were forced to accept Hastings word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; the standard for correctness of a recording is whether "the possibility of misidentification and adulteration [is] eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter

of reasonable probability; Hastings past record as established by Col. Walt Figel renders this requirement not only unsatisfied, but doubtful as well]. 4. Changes, additions or deletions have not been made in the

recording [requirement not met, assured by Robert Hastings own admission see above; an aural overview of the tape allows the court to hear signs (i.e., gaps) which might indicate tampering; if there exist signs of tampering, a forensic expert is often consulted; if there are no signs of tampering, a proper chain of custody documentation may suffice; in relation to this issue, the tapes have not been made available; Hastings own admission, however, renders the test moot; his past record as established by Col. Walt Figel renders this requirement not only unsatisfied, but doubtful as well]. 5. The recording must have been preserved in a manner that is shown

to the court [requirement not met; were forced to accept Hastings word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; this fifth step has created stumbling blocks for proponents of admissibility; the proponent for the tape's admittance can assure the court that the item offered as evidence is substantially the same as it was originally by documenting its "chain of custody"; a proper chain of custody begins with consecutively numbered and dated tapes; careful logs are then kept which note the time of particular conversations and the locations on the tapes at the time of occurrence; these evidence tapes are sealed and stored in separate envelopes and appropriate chain of custody records are maintained by the evidence custodian; Hastings has provided nothing beyond his personal word, the proven worth of which is insufficient in light of his past conduct in regard to this issue; chain of custody is unreferenced and cannot be established]. 6. The speakers must be identified [requirement not met; were forced to

accept Hastings word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) states that: "Voice identification is adequate if made by a

witness having sufficient familiarity with the speaker's voice"; the rule goes on to clarify that familiarity may be obtained previous to or after listening to the recorded voice; this requirement has never been established by Robert Hastings, nor has the date-time group of any recordings admitted; in light of Col. Walt Figels insistence that he has never made specific claims that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have repeatedly presented to the contrary, voice identification has clearly not been sufficiently established]. 7. The conversation elicited was made voluntarily and in good faith,

without any kind of inducement [unknown; were forced to accept Hastings word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; in addition, without the requirement of identity having been established, the voluntary elicitation of the recorded conversation cannot be established sufficient for purposes of evidence presentation].

In light of Robert Hastings numerous failures in reference to the presentation of this alleged evidence, including his past record of dishonest manipulation of said evidence, its plain that his preference for audio recordings in place of a simple written document drafted by the individual making the claims represents an inferior means of presentation. The introduction of recorded evidence requires specific attendances that he has failed to meet. As we shall see, he has failed to meet these requirements for one reason and one reason only: it is not Robert Hastings intention to reveal the truth; his intention is merely to present evidence supporting his claims, and nothing more. The use of recorded testimony that can be manipulated in whatever means sufficient for his purposes contributes to that necessity. And as we shall see, he is not exactly shy about manipulating such evidence when he finds it necessary to do so.

After I introduced myself to Meiwald and described my association with his former deputy missile commander, Bob Salas, I asked Meiwald whether the telephone interview might be tape-recorded. He agreed and our conversation about the mass-missile shutdown incident at Malmstroms Oscar Flight, in March 1967, began.

(Unfortunately, an electronic hum mars the quality of the tape and makes Meiwalds soft voice hard to hear at times. However, if one reads the transcript below while listening to it, the colonels important comments are discernable.)

This is a demonstrably incorrect conclusion for Hastings to reach; Col. Meiwald's most important comments have actually been covered up -- not rendered clearer. And

sometimes, they don't even exist as anything more than the [bracketed] interpretations of a man who has proven to be incapable of inspiring trust, let alone accurately rendering the contents of a simple interview. His use of an induced electronic hum and the poor quality of the recording he has introduced has allowed Robert Hastings to reinterpret every single reference to command authority that exists in this interview, leaving the reader with the wrong conclusion in every single instance, a conclusion not reached by Col. Meiwald, the subject of this interview, but with Hastings, the fraudulent huckster who is interpreting the interview for his audience. Dont take my word for it; examine the materials for yourself. After all, its not like hes trying to hide anything; hes just not allowing the introduction of any actual clarification.

FM:

Okay, essentially, I was resting whether or not I was sound sleep I

dont recall but I know Bob got me up because we had unusual indications on the console, plus wed had a security violation and, uh, the response team that [inaudible] had gone out to investigate at one of the LFs. They reported unusual activity over there and by that time I was up and saw console indications. [I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back. As they came back we did lose radio contact for a short period of time, however, the flight [security] leader the person who was in charge at the time recognized the team as it was approaching the LCF and opened the gate so that his troops could get in.

So far all we've got are "unusual indications on the console", a statement that means nothing without further information. Meiwald says nothing about a UFO or anything about missiles failing. He says he knows "Bob got me up because we had unusual

indications on the console, plus wed had a security violation and, uh, the response team that [inaudible] had gone out to investigate at one of the LFs. They reported unusual activity over there and by that time I was up and saw console indications." So far, he can't say anything at all about what happened, because he hasn't been told anything except that there was apparently a team sent out for a security alert this is exactly what his 1996 letter says. In a security alert, he and "Bob" wouldn't be giving the orders, the Command Post would be, which is why Meiwald's 1996 letter discusses the check-off list for the Command Post and not the capsule crew. The capsule crew is not involved with common security alerts, primarily because they are so common.

Note as well the phrases that Meiwald uses: As they came back we did lose radio contact for a short period of time, however, the flight [security] leader the person who was in charge at the time recognized the team as it was approaching the LCF and opened the gate so that his troops could get in. This is a blatant admission that the person who was in charge at the time was not himself or Robert Salas, but a third person entirely, indicating that this could not possibly refer to a missile failures incident. If it had, he would have been in charge.

It's important to note here the incidentals of Hastings' excessive use of bracketing, which is not particularly useful when an oral interview is the intended target; after all, bracketing can only be used by the reader, and then only when a third person point of view is involved. It's useless if we're considering Meiwald's side of the issue, because bracketing establishes only how the interviewer interprets what's being said, while the most important interpretation should be Meiwald's, he being the subject of the interview. By inserting brackets into Meiwald's commentary, Robert Hastings is essentially redefining what Meiwald has stated, taking the responsibility for content and meaning away from the man who is actually establishing that side of the discussion. Hes telling the reader what they should understand, not Meiwald, who is the guy supposedly answering the questions. And in the case of Frederick Meiwald, this represents an exceptionally important and irresponsible breach of interview ethics. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized. The use of bracketing is a means of redefinition, and

in this particular case, it has been used by Robert Hastings to alter Meiwalds point-ofview regarding command authority. More importantly, Robert Hastings has exercised this method of redefinition every single time the question of command authority is assessed by the content of Meiwalds sentence structure. This fact alone is sufficient to doubt Hastings rendition of Col. Meiwalds intent. Lets be very clear here: Robert Hastings is essentially restructuring the content of Col. Meiwalds responses.

To illustrate this importance of this, take the following examples from that same interview excerpts above: "[I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back." Now ask yourself, did Col. Meiwald give the order as Hastings has indicated by his use of bracketing? This is an important aspect of the case, because in his 1996 letter Meiwald insists that he wasn't giving orders, the Command Post was. In the same excerpt, he plainly refers to the person who was in charge at the time. Simply ask yourself: did Col. Meiwald direct the strike team to return to the LCF, or did the person who was in charge at the time? If it wasnt Col. Meiwald who was giving the orders, than it wasnt a missile failures incident. And that means were talking about two separate incidents entirely, and Robert Hastings is once again lying to the public in order to support clams that cannot be otherwise asserted. It also proves that Robert Hastings cannot be trusted to render an accurate accounting of a recorded interview, a conclusion that draws attention to his apparent inability to prove a point in the absence of statements provided by his witness. This was the same problem he evinced in his accounts of Col. Figels testimony. He could solve this problem completely by simply asking his witnesses to write out a statement that presents the main points he is trying to substantiate.

For all of Hastings insistence that It's purely and simply FALSE that he [Meiwald] denied the UFO reports or that he didn't back the story of Robert Salas 100% FALSE, this interview certainly doesnt substantiate those claims. Robert Hastings failed to even ask about the missile failures, let alone clarify the issue, and has once again expended the majority of his efforts discussing a UFO nobody has really disputed, and failing to clarify any of the issues that have been raised in response to his poorly argued

claims. This is a bad habit of his, making it somewhat mystifying why anyone would consider him a genuine asset to UFOlogy or to those making claims in support of UFOlogy. Any examination of his interview with Meiwald cannot help but conclude that his actual intent has been to muddy the springs of retention, not to clarify any of the issues that have been established. Clarification is usually considered a primary goal for most chroniclers of any historically relevant happenstance, so his failure to ask any suitable questions in regard to Meiwalds testimony is a bit bothersome.

RH:

Okay. The letter that you sent Bob [on October 1,] 1996 elaborated on the

phone conversation that you and Bob had uh, I think it was in August 1996 in which you said that the persons, the Security Alert Team that had gone out at, I guess, Bobs direction, had seen something that scared them silly and they beat a hasty retreat back to the LCF. Do you remember that part of it?

FM:

Thats basically true. I cant remember [my] exact words, but they were

directed to come back to the LCF upon completion of their mission [inaudible].

RH:

Uh, they apparently described seeing an object in the sky. Do you

remember any of the details?

FM:

I remember them saying something along those lines [inaudible] to me.

Beyond that, I couldnt elaborate.

This is an interesting part of the interview for Hastings to insert an "[inaudible]", since it seems to indicate that the security team was talking directly to Meiwald. Unfortunately, if this is the same incident he referred to in his 1996 letter, as he states pretty clearly here, how do we explain the fact that the letter affirms that the security team was talking only to the Command Post, and not the capsule crew? Basically, Hastings' unfortunate placement of "[inaudible]" suggests that Meiwald is talking to the security team, while Col. Meiwald hasn't actually effected that point of view at all. He doesn't actually state that he's talking to the security team but Hastings' editing suggests that he is. This is

another example of Hastings strategic editing, one that enables an understanding that wasnt intended by the author of the statement. It is dishonest and it is intentional.

Where Robert Hastings adds the "[my]" to suggest that Meiwald is talking about a first person communication, he's doing the same thing again, establishing thereby a suggestion of first person communication that doesn't actually exist. He accomplished the same goal earlier as well, when he bracketed the first person singular "I", as in "[I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back." This isn't what his witness has claimed -- it's what Robert Hastings is telling us his witness has claimed; and that's a very different affirmation entirely. This is an extremely important part of the interview, and Robert Hastings is forcing us to consider only his interpretation of the claims, not Col. Meiwald's intent. If Meiwald wasn't talking to the security crew on call, then this incident was not a missile failures incident. And in his 1996 letter, the one which he confirms is the same incident as this one being described to Hastings, he is very clear regarding that intent:

Topside security notified us the mobile team had reported observing the UFO while responding (obviously at your direction) to a situation at an outlying LF -this particular one being located just east of Highway 19, the state highway which runs north from Grass Range to the Missouri River. With little or no direction from higher authority (Command Post or Alternate Command Post), the Security team was directed to return to the LCF, maintaining radio contact at all times, as the security system reset. While enroute back to the LCF, radio contact was lost and remained out until the security vehicle approached the LCF. Two very upset young men wasted no time getting back inside.

In other words, in 1996 Meiwald confirms only Salas' claim that he ordered them out, hence the expression "obviously at your direction". Everything else, however, goes through the Command Post he's not hearing about it on the 2-way radio for himself, as the situation was defined during the Echo Flight incident; he's getting it all second hand from topside security. And that means it isn't a missile failures incident. In a missile failures incident, he would have been in direct communication with the outgoing team,

and in the incident described, he simply isn't. He even states that there was "little or no direction from higher authority". In a missile failures incident, Meiwald would have been that higher authority!

It's decidedly odd, in my opinion, that the very details in the letter that insist this was not a missile failures incident that he's describing, i.e., no communications authority with the outgoing team, everything coming back second hand instead of communications established with Meiwald himself, are the very points in the interview that are the most questionable: "Thats basically true. I cant remember [my] exact words" were they really "[my]" exact words, or were they the exact words of the Command Post giving direction, which is how he insisted upon describing the incident in his 1996 letter?

"I remember them saying something along those lines [inaudible] to me. Beyond that, I couldnt elaborate." Were they saying them to Meiwald, or were they "saying something along those lines" to the Command Post, which is what he stated in 1996? We already know that Robert Hastings cannot be trusted, so why would anybody accept these tapes in their present condition as evidence of anything? We've just demonstrated how its very possible for someone like Hastings (as in someone who is dishonest and capable of "creating" evidence of this sort) to edit his audio tapes, suggesting thereby whatever he wants to suggest such as the establishment of the capsule crew's authority where such authority hasn't been definitively confirmed by Col. Meiwald himself. This aspect of Hastings inability to clarify matters under contention is typical of the evidence he prefers. It is not definitive, and it is dishonest.

By providing a simple written statement authored by Col. Meiwald, Hastings could easily do away with such criticisms. It is a mystery why he and Robert Salas have refused to provide such a traditionally well-accepted method of testimony from such an important witness; or it would be a mystery if we were not already convinced that his desire is not clarity but obfuscation. After all, obfuscation is necessary when youre trying to hide the fact that youve created evidence from nothing at all.

RH:

Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you

got up and sat down at the commanders consolehe of course had received a call from the Flight Security Controller, saying that there was a bright red, ovalshaped object hovering over the security fence gatemy understanding is that is what he told you as soon as you were at your console, that he had received this call and, uh, that of course coincided with the missiles beginning to malfunction. Do you recall him telling you that?

FM:

I really dont remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I

remember an unusual condition [but] as far as the details, uh, I cant elaborate on that.

Hastings is obviously trying to guide Meiwald into saying exactly what he wants him to say. Has Hastings ever asked someone to just "tell me what happened in your own words"? And yet, Meiwald nonetheless insists that he knows nothing about a UFO or "the bright object": "I really dont remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object." Thank you Col. Meiwald. This is hardly the confirmation of UFO interference that Hastings is trying to establish. Is this evidence for his claim that It's purely and simply FALSE that he [Meiwald] denied the UFO reports or that he didn't back the story of Robert Salas 100% FALSE? Because anybody who actually understands the English language would reach a different conclusion entirely, I assure you. His attempts to create first person testimony and authority by use of "sloppy" editing combined with Meiwald's repeated assurances that he remembers nothing "relative to the bright object" represents a transparent effort to establish claims where such claims were simply not affirmed. Surely this isnt the best he can do. Is it?

RH:

Okay. He of course has also said that you two were, uh, when you were

back at Malmstrom, you were debriefed by OSI and required to sign nondisclosure statements. Do you remember that?

FM:

I remember being directed to do that. But that was no problem. Ive been

one of these people, when told to forget something, I forget iteventually [inaudible].

RH:

Right, well, is that a polite way of saying that you really dont want to

discuss this, even though you know more than youre saying?

FM:

No, Im saying I dont remember.

RH:

Okay, well, its been 44 years. Thats right.

FM:

Thats right!

Well, that's nice and convenient of Col. Meiwald as well:

"No, Im saying I dont

remember." And note that Meiwald states clearly that "I remember being directed to do that", as in an act, a verb, such as don't disclose further information, but he doesn't very clearly insist that it was OSI who told him not to disclose classified materials not that it would matter much. People in a command environment will ALWAYS tell you not to disclose classified materials. The instruction itself indicates very little.

Hastings' further use of more [inaudible] statements to establish whatever he wants to establish is again plainly ubiquitous, but his offenses don't necessarily stop at mere suggestion. Hastings' use of blatantly biased and incorrect phrases has also been used in an attempt to foster complaints for any opposing point of view. Fortunately, Col. Meiwald was able to see right through this self-serving and dishonest intent adopted by Hastings, one that was incorporated into the discussion for only one reason: he wanted to publish a response from an allegedly impartial witness confirming his claims that Col. Walter Figel, my father, Capt. Eric D. Carlson, and I have underhanded motivations for collectively assessing his and Robert Salas' claims and finding them baseless, wanting, and deceptive. Unfortunately, in order to establish such principles, he was forced to lie to Col. Meiwald, and to assert a less than honest determination in the process.

RH:

Walt Figel, even though he has told me he was in the same situation

that Bob was, basically Eric Carlson was resting and Walt was at the [deputy commanders] console over at Echo and suddenly his first missile dropped

offline. When he called the security guard who was out at the site because the site was down overnight for maintenance; there was a two-man maintenance team there, and the security guard when Walt Figel called the security guard, to ask if the team was working on the missile, uh, at some point the security guard said there was a quote large, round object end quote hovering directly over the silo.

And, even though hes acknowledged all of that and even though he said that, uh, back at base, he and Carlson were debriefed and told not to talk about this, he nevertheless has gone on-the-record about there being a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down. Now, you may or may not know even though he admits that took place and that Echo was a real event and there was a UFO present when the missiles failedhe does not believe that the incident at Oscar ever took place. In fact, hes come just shy of calling Bob Salas a liar.

FM:

Oh, is that right?

This is a transparent attempt to prejudice Meiwald's assessment of Echo Flight, and he's using blatant lies about this case to do so: "Eric Carlson was resting and Walt was at the [deputy commanders] console over at Echo and suddenly his first missile dropped offline" is not true, representing another example of Hastings' refusal to familiarize himself with the case, or to get even the most basic facts correct. Robert Hastings lies a lot, and this is another example of that. My father, Eric Carlson, was the first one to notice that the missiles were going down at Echo Flight, and he was wide awake when it happened. It's all discussed in the command history, and both my father and Col. Figel have confirmed the point. My father was being debriefed by Figel, and was facing the console at the time. Then the missiles started going down, and he was the first to notice it. This establishes another of Hastings' bad habits: he never gets anything right the first time or even the tenth time.

In addition, "when Walt Figel called the security guard, to ask if the team was working on the missile, uh, at some point the security guard said there was a quote large, round

object end quote hovering directly over the silo" is also wrong another error that comes about when you fail to listen to what your own witnesses are telling you. Where Hastings says, "uh, at some point", Hastings neglects to mention that the first person to say "UFO" was the maintenance tech, and he did so only after cracking open the silo and climbing down into the equipment room where he could use the SIN telephone to call back about 45 minutes after the missiles went offline. It was only after this

comment that the security guard chimed in to say he saw one too! This scenario has already been confirmed by Col. Figel, so this silly game he's playing with testimony has been going on for awhile. And like a lot of Hastings assertions, it's also dishonest and unethical.

"And, even though hes acknowledged all of that" isn't completely true either. It's only what Robert Hastings says Figel has done. If you ask Col. Figel, he'll say -- as he has done on many occasions: "I have always maintained that I do not nor have I ever believed that UFOs exist in any form at any place at any time. I have never seen one or reported that I have seen one. I have always maintained that they had nothing to do with the shutdown of Echo flight in Montana."

This plainly doesn't qualify as "hes acknowledged all of that". It also doesn't qualify as "he nevertheless has gone on-the-record about there being a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down." In fact, he agrees pretty solidly that nobody even said "UFO" at all until well after the missiles started going down, so there certainly wasn't "a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down." In fact, "when it went down", even though the security team was awake and outside, they neglected to report anything at all, a point that he's proven himself incapable of examining in any detail whatsoever. Nobody even said "UFO" until the maintenance technicians were ten-feet underground. As for "even though he admits that took place and that Echo was a real event and there was a UFO present when the missiles failed he does not believe that the incident at Oscar ever took place. In fact, hes come just shy of calling Bob Salas a liar": Figel certainly admits that Echo was a real event, but there was no UFO and if you ask him, that's exactly what he'll tell you. Robert Hastings' main problem is that he's not very

honest with anybody even those he's trying to incite on the telephone. And just for the record, a lot of people have actually called Robert Salas a liar, no "just shy" of it at all, including me. And we do it, because he's told a whole lot of lies as has Robert Hastings. Neither of them are very good at it, which is why they keep getting caught.

RH:

Absolutely, and, you know, I know that you have confirmed Bobs

story...and yet Figel has just decided that this never happened. Um, so how would you respond to something like that? Youve described the Security Alert Team being out in the field, seeing this object, and beating a hasty retreat to the [LCF] and yet Figel says none of that ever took place.

This is also not true. Figel states merely that the 8-10 missiles did not fail at Oscar Flight as Salas insists. He has never raised the issue of a UFO in regard to Hastings and Salas claims, and has stated only that Salas was never involved in a full flight missile failures incident. Weve also noted that Hastings neglected to ask Meiwald about any of the missile failures claims made by Robert Salas and himself, but since this represents a strong difference between Meiwalds claims and Salas, were not very surprised. His interview and his analysis makes it very clear that he is not attempting to throw some light on the subject, so his erudite comments based on so very little actual evidence is typical of his many failures. Meiwald has clearly stated in other interviews with Salas that only 3-4 missiles failed during the one missile failures event he has recalled; he's NEVER stated outright that the UFO story he told Salas in 1996 had anything at all to do with missile failures, and the evidence insists that it did not; hes never even been mentioned the failures in the same context. All of the assurances Meiwald discussed in his 1996 letter illustrates only a common security alert, and had there been an actual missile failures incident in conjunction with the UFO story, everything that Meiwald has discussed would be very different, evidenced authority notwithstanding.

There are two incidents necessary to examine, and Hastings' use of displaced bracketing and poor audio quality allows him to redefine everything that Meiwald claimed in 1996, instead of doing what any ethical interviewer is supposed to do: get

the subject of the interview to discuss what took place in his own words. All Robert Hastings has done is tell Meiwald what to say and what to believe, and it is to Meiwalds credit that he refused to do so, forcing Hastings to take more immediate and obvious steps to confuse the issue instead of making it clear.

Robert Hastings has repeatedly failed to ask appropriate questions to establish without doubt a confirmation of missile failures in conjunction with the security team UFO being out in the field; all he's asking about is the security team and the UFO, which Meiwald has never clearly associated with missile failures. You can't help but wonder why

Hastings can't get Col. Meiwald to say "a UFO took out 8-10 missiles while I was on duty", or at least, "a UFO was sighted at the same time as we lost 8-10 missiles, and I was on duty when it happened." Is it that difficult? Why is it that he's failed to get a simple confirmation? This is pretty important as well, because I offered up nearly the same criticism about his interviews with Col. Walt Figel in 2010, and we all know how that ended. Hastings couldn't support the claims he made on the basis of Figel's

recorded testimony to him, because he didn't know anything about the subject he was trying to commandeer, and he couldn't get Figel to clearly establish what Hastings was telling the world. He was unable to establish that Figel confirmed that a UFO took out the missiles at Echo Flight. Getting a written confirmation from your witnesses

regarding what we have been told they've already asserted on audio tape should be easy. So why is it that Hastings repeatedly fails to get a clear statement from his witnesses? In what way is a clear and cohesive written affirmation of the events a difficult goal to approach if the witnesses have already established the claims on the telephone?

When he continued to bluster about Figel's confirmation of Salas' Echo Flight claims, I ended up calling Figel for myself, at which point he made it immediately very clear that Hastings and Salas had misappropriated his testimony and had been doing so for years. And once again, here's Hastings failing to get a clear affirmation that the two events that he discusses occurred at the same time, linking one indelibly with the other. He only asks Meiwald about one or the other and in Meiwald's 1996 letter, he's very

clear that a missile failures incident was not involved coincidental to the UFO sighting described. A confirmation of a UFO during a missile failures incident has to include both a UFO and missile failures, and since 1996, we've heard nothing from Meiwald that states this very plain and simple dichotomy. You can't help but wonder, "why?"

FM:

We had an incident in October [sic] Flight.

So, is this "in October" or "at Oscar Flight"? Once again, not much to go on or trust when all you've got are Hastings' tapes and Hastings' transcripts. Will somebody

please tell me again why these audio recordings represent a more believable and accurate account than a written affidavit composed by the witness himself? Is it even possible for Robert Hastings to remove himself from the communicative process and thereby get clear testimony of this alleged event?

Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea. What Walt Figel may have relayed [to Bob Salas, during a taped phone conversation] 15 years ago, versus what hes saying at the present time, I have no idea. I have no way of making a judgment upon what he has, uh, expressed whatsoever. I think since leaving Malmstrom I have only seen Walt Figel one time and, uh, not even to talk to him. So I cant verifyand I certainly dont know [his] motives. All I know is relative to the situation within Oscar Flight itself and, basically, what Bob Salas has relayed, relative to our actions at Oscar. I cant verify anything outside of that.

And so we see how Hastings' brackets assume a recorded conversation with Figel that has never been established or otherwise proven: "Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea. What Walt Figel may have relayed [to Bob Salas, during a taped phone conversation] ..." This is more unethical treatment, especially in light of the fact that he himself has repeatedly lied in reference to this same alleged conversation a conversation that Figel indicates did not actually occur. And so once again, Hastings establishes nothing while trying to make claims that Meiwald has not made. Are we supposed to believe that Meiwald intended for us to understand these preconditions? Or is Robert Hastings once again using bracketed commentary to suggest what hasn't

even been mentioned? Who in their right mind would NOT consider this a breach of journalistic ethics?

The question isn't necessarily what Figel may have told Salas, but what was told to Meiwald on March 16, 1967. For nearly ten years Salas was using Meiwald as

confirmation of the events at both November Flight and Oscar Flight, because either my father or someone else called Meiwald on March 16 and told him all about Echo Flight, so if Meiwald now indicates that he knew nothing about Echo Flight, as he seems to be saying here, than why would Salas make such claims for so long about what Meiwald was told regarding Echo Flight by the actual participants? For the record, everybody denies telling Meiwald or Salas anything including Robert Salas, who now insists he first heard about the Echo Flight incident the day after the incident he's described involving Oscar Flight. Of course, almost everybody else has stated that the whole base was aware of it almost by the next day, but that's a petty detail. The point is, for most of the time between 1996 and now, Salas used Meiwald as the confirmation of an event that Meiwald denies knowing anything about. More importantly, because all of the "witnesses" Salas and Hastings have gathered up to discuss this ridiculous bit of garbage rewrite their "sworn" affidavits every couple of years or so, and they do not remain consistent, changing their stories to weed out what's been proven false, how are we supposed to believe anything they've claimed? Meiwald says he knows nothing about Echo Flight, but he was Salas' confirmation for everything for nearly ten years. Are we really supposed to ignore that merely because Salas no longer makes the claim? A credibility issue exists that keeps getting worse every time these blatantly false stories are "updated". And when a confirming witness insists that he can't confirm anything of the sort, than by God somebody is lying and at this point, it doesn't matter who; the claim suffers, as well it should.

I'm a little curious, however, to know what happened to Hastings' earlier claims expressed at the Reality Uncovered website forum, claims that Hastings has now removed from the record of his original article:

Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldnt support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline - which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facilitys front gate.

Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he cant remember it.

Hastings own summary of the interview asserts that Meiwald knew nothing about a UFO! In fact, all of Meiwalds repeated assertions seem pretty clear. Why then does Hastings refuse to discuss the "very clear" parts of his docudrama, and publicizes only those parts that are "ambiguous at best"? It would be nice if Hastings would talk to Meiwald regarding what he confirmed about Salas' folk stories between 1996 and 2004, but I guess asking for anything that qualifies as "comprehensive" from a couple of guys who qualify as merely "we'll call it factual this week" is a bit much, considering the topic of discussion and their past history in regard to that topic.

RH:

Okay. But you will at least confirm that there were reports from the

Security Alert Team [at Oscar] of a UFO at the LF they were out at, is that correct?

FM:

Yes!

What about the missile failures again? Anything? And are we really certain that Col. Meiwald understood this question relative to "[at Oscar]", and if so, why put it in brackets? Wouldn't it have been easier and more to the point if Hastings had simply asked such yes or no questions with a bit more specificity? Or is he afraid that others might accuse him of ahem! micro-managing the testimony of his witnesses? In light of his numerous and well-documented attempts to create evidence where no such evidence has ever existed, this should probably not concern him very much; his

reputation is already indelibly stained with dishonesty. A little extra ridicule can hardly screw things up much more than his past record already reflects.

RH:

Okay, and it was quite clear that object was saucer-shaped or do you

recall what the description was, other than it being a UFO or a flying saucer? Do you have any sense of what they reported to you?

FM:

All I remember is a bright object; a bright, flying object at low-level.

Beyond that, uh, I cant say.

This is not exactly the big confirmation that Robert Salas has always colored Meiwald's testimony as being, is it? Considering that this is the same testimony that was used by Salas to establish the event at Echo Flight, its a bit gratuitous for Hastings to recognize so quickly that it deserves to be archived as the important and primary object of confirmation it apparently represents. But Hastings has never been a very efficient strategist, the title of this article notwithstanding.

RH:

But they were terribly frightened by their experience?

FM:

They were upset and were directed to come back to the LCF.

Not, "I directed them to come back to the LCF", but they "were directed to come back to the LCF", another indication that command authority was not invested in the person of Col. Meiwald.

FM:

Well, uh, one man I know was directed to go back to the base, at least

one of them was

RH:

Okay, and

FM:

Whether or not they flew a special helicopter out there to get him or

not, I dont recall that, but I know that he did go back to the base a very upset individual.

Same story: Meiwald tells the security team nothing, they were directed by others authority being invested within the Command Post in 1996, which indicates we're not talking about a missile failures incident, but a common security alert. And, once again, he says, "one man I know was directed," not "I directed one man ..." Please note as

well that this is all very different from Salas 1996 claims to Raymond Fowler that these men were so traumatized by the experience that they never returned to security duty.

For all of his bluster and commanding tone insisting to his readers that that Col. Meiwald has confirmed all of the important details inherent to Robert Salas' UFO tale, these being the fruit of his claims, to wit, a UFO reported in conjunction with the failure of 8-10 missiles at Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967, simply reading what Robert Hastings has actually provided proves only how woefully unprepared for the task of interviewing a witness Robert Hastings actually is. Please note the following:

1.

At every necessary point in which Meiwald refers to his first person affirmation of command authority over those unnamed individuals who allegedly reported a UFO, Robert Hastings has been forced to manipulate his witness' statement to establish that fact.

2.

Hastings has failed miserably to obtain a simple confirmation of Salas' Oscar Flight claims. To some, this was not unexpected. Hastings did exactly the same thing in connection with Col. Walt Figel's testimony. This is, in fact, Robert Hastings' modus operandi, one adopted in a transparent effort to force this story into a little box with a flying saucer inside.

3.

He has failed utterly to establish a case for Col. Meiwald's confirmation of a UFO interfering with and causing the failure of 8-10 nuclear missiles at Malmstrom AFB on March 24, 1967, exactly as he failed to accomplish with Col. Walt Figel's testimony regarding the incident at Echo Flight.

Why? What is the direct cause of Hastings failure to establish the simple confirmation that he insists Meiwalds testimony represents? How is it so difficult to simply ask the man "did 8-10 missiles fail at Oscar Flight at the same time that a UFO was reported?" What Robert Hastings has offered the world in place of this very simple affirmation is 100% irresponsible bluster and the pathetic and dishonest reconditioning of his own witness testimony. On the surface, regardless of Meiwald's claims or Robert

Hastings' that Salas' description of this event is mostly accurate, this interview with Meiwald has proven to be merely a confirmation of "unusual indications on the console, plus wed had a security violation." The following questions still need to be answered by Robert Hastings and/or Robert Salas:

1.

Why hasn't Col. Meiwald confirmed 8-10 missiles failing at Oscar Flight?

2.

Why hasnt Col. Meiwald expressed any actual knowledge regarding the UFO in question?

3.

Why does Col. Meiwald state outright that "I really dont remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition"?

4.

Why has Col. Meiwald affirmed that Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he cant remember it?

5.

How does any of this confirm Robert Salas' claims?

Even when asked about the innocuous business of OSI, Meiwald is eventually forced to correct another of Robert Hastings' silly assumptions: remember." "No, Im saying I dont

Although Robert Salas has liberally used Meiwald's assertions as a "confirmation" for everything he and Hastings have dictated in regard to the incident at Echo Flight on

March 16, 1967, Meiwald merely states with the same authority, "Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea."

As a consolation for being forced to examine Hastings' dishonesty, his use of strategic editing, and his obviously poor interview skills, we at least have one honest indication from Col. Meiwald that tells us how far into these ridiculous UFO assertions he is clearly unwilling to go:

RH:

Okay. Well, to be redundant here, what you were involved in and what

the other 120 people [who] Ive interviewed over the years were involved in at various bases is dramatic history. I mean, its American history. Its suppressed history but, hopefully at some point, you know, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, are going to read about it in the history books, because its real and its quite obviously important

FM:

Okay, do you want to turn off the recorder, just for a moment? I have a

side comment about something.

RH:

Sure. You have my word [that] its off.

Not that Hastings' word is worth anything we've seen what reliance can be placed on the claims he has exercised so loosely in the past. The point has been stressed often enough to make his protests meaningless. Its hard not to note, however, that the most interesting point yet raised by this self-serving interviewer can only be found in the words his witness didn't say words defined by Meiwald as a "side comment". Everything else is pretty much what those of us familiar with Hastings' inability to address an issue properly or to make a clear point have come to expect from him: stuttering nonsense, prevarications and misleading errors resulting from either his inability to get a decent audio recording or his refusal to ask an honest question. You'd think by now, Hastings could produce something of worth, and yet, his own failures are what he applauds the most. To be redundant here, Robert Hastings has only

suggested the confirmation of Salas' story that he has assumed so noisily. Any real

examination of this pathetic and self-congratulatory series of non-assertions, however, reveals that he still doesn't have it and that, when judged on the basis of its revelatory merit, still isn't worth very much.

Simply for the record, Im including at this point the text to a letter I wrote Col. Meiwald requesting some of the clarification that Robert Salas and Robert Hastings have refused to provide.

Dear Col. Meiwald,

I'm not certain why you've decided not to clarify a few of the matters involving your days at Oscar Flight that are currently undefined or poorly measured by those who have thus far decided to chronicle them, but I suppose you must have your reasons. If you would at least explain to me why you've decided upon this course, it would help me to properly discuss your refusal to do so. Right now, I can only guess, and that clarifies nothing, as you've decided to use Robert Hastings as a middleman, and Robert Hastings cannot be trusted to tell the truth. This is evident in his comments to you that he has recently published. He

repeatedly told you things about what Col. Figel has said and done that are completely false and easily proven as such. He also told you utter lies regarding my father's claims and my own. This necessitates a response, and I'm having a difficult time measuring the extent of your own involvement in such matters, a difficulty highlighted by your evident refusal to clear up some of the many questions still remaining, none of which were cleared up as a result of Hastings' recent interview with you.

I was hoping that at the very least you would be willing to correct any errors that I may have inadvertently included in the article below. At the moment, it is my intention to publish it in a number of various venues simultaneously, but I would like to confirm some of the details, a confirmation that your dependence on Robert Hastings makes somewhat troublesome. If you would speak merely of the accuracy of what I've written, it would be helpful. People seem to think that I am attacking Hastings and Robert Salas without cause, but that is untrue. Both

men have liberally lied about incidents they know nothing about, and my intention is to correct the record. The outward silence of those who possess the answers suggests to me conclusions that have yet to be properly asserted, and the fact that your most recent claims have been published by a deceitful man who has told a great many well-confirmed untruths is somewhat confusing.

Please understand, however, that the claims my father and I have established cannot be ignored simply because you've decided not to address the matter. Those proper claims will be asserted, because they are a point of fact in an environment typified by the deceit and the numerous lies told by a couple of con men who are out to make as much money as possible from those lies, and have no concern at all with clarifying things -- proof of this can be seen in Hastings recently published interview with you.

I have no intention of ceasing to respond to the lies that have been published about my family simply because one man has decided not to comment on the numerous conflicting assertions that have been made as a result of his alleged affirmations. I am asking you to correct any errors that have been made, and I've asked you to clarify exactly what you've confirmed among those many conflicting claims, but if you refuse to answer those questions or clarify those currently undiscussed details, I will be forced to make educated guesses on the basis of what has been said, and what has been claimed. I have no intention of making claims that I can't substantiate, and when those claims are not completely supported by what we know of the facts, I will, of course, include that ambiguity in my discussions. Please understand though, that your refusal to comment on any of this, or to correct inaccuracies as they arise, or to correct the historical record where conflicting claims have been made must, as a result of your past alleged testimony and the claims currently being expressed on the basis of that alleged testimony, be interpreted as exactly that: a refusal for unknown reasons to clarify the historical record. Please understand as well that this is not commonly

believed to be something one should be proud of, and any such discussions will likely not reflect very well on those who have decided, for whatever reason, not to clarify conflict, not to answer unanswered questions, and not to respond to requests intended to demystify what is currently so ambiguous and poorly

chronicled. Until you actually do make some clear assertions of your own, I have no intention of discussing your involvement in the same terms I've reserved for Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, but such silence is not flattering, nor is it generally interpeted as an expression of honesty, so please don't be surprised if other analysts respond differently. Your recent interview with Robert Hastings has not set your claims in stone, as he as colored it; his attempts to prove a point in the absence of confirmation by you is transparent, and my article below makes this clear. In any case, this is your opportunity to correct any such errors, and if you refuse to do so, that's perfectly fine, but please be prepared for a possibly negative response from others wishing to discuss these events in details not yet approached in the works of Hastings and Salas.

Please let me know what, if anything, should be corrected in the below article. Any refusal to do so will be interpreted by me as your declaration that the points I've raised are accurate and reflect the actual facts detailing this matter.

Thanks for your time, and good day to you, sir. Unless you yourself initiate it, or unless you assert additional claims through Robert Hastings or Robert Salas, you won't hear from me again. I have no wish to correspond in such a one-way fashion. Be aware, however, that I do not trust Hastings or Salas to tell the truth, so if they make further claims on the basis of what you have told them, I will be forced to try and confirm that you have indeed discussed the matter with them. Please don't consider this a reflection of my disrespect or doubts that you have been honest; it is completely due to the little respect and doubt that I have for the claims of Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, one that has been completely and utterly confirmed by their own actions and their published accounts on many different occasions.

With sincerity, James Carlson Albuquerque, NM jtcarl@yahoo.com

In reference to the following communication: Please let me know what, if anything, should be corrected in the below article. Any refusal to do so will be interpreted by me as your declaration that the points I've raised are accurate and reflect the actual facts detailing this matter, it should be noted that Col. Meiwald has indeed refused to correct any of the points raised, forcing me to assume that no corrections are necessary.