Strategic Editing by James Carlson

8/4/2019 Strategic Editing by James Carlson

1/41

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


2/41

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 suggestthe 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


3/41

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 reportedin 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

occurred in tandem with each other as he has described them. This is either a

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

Meiwald allude to any missile failures whatsoever. The entire letter is basically a

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


4/41

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.


5/41

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 absentof 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.


6/41


7/41

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 improveover 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


8/41

Chase. As a result of these regulations, no checklists in use anywhereat 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 afterhe 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


9/41

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


10/41

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


11/41

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.


12/41

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. By doing so he lays waste his own

reputation.

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 fourmissile 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


13/41

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 missileswere

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

missilesbeing 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 notto 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


14/41

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:


15/41

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 referenceto 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


16/41

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

American mind during President Richard Nixons administration. Robert Hastings

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


17/41

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


18/41

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.


19/41

(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


20/41

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 areso 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, hewould 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. Hestelling

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


21/41

in this particular case, it has been used by Robert Hastings to alter Meiwalds point-of-

view regarding command authority. More importantly, Robert Hastings has exercised

this method of redefinition every single time the question of command authority is

assessedby the content of Meiwalds sentence structure. This fact aloneis 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 havebeen raised in response to his poorly argued


22/41

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 beata 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


23/41

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 ushis 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 nota 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,


24/41

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 isdishonest.

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.


25/41

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, oval-

shaped 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 theEnglish 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 non-

disclosure 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].


26/41

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 usedin 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


27/41

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


28/41

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 aftercracking 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 saysFigel 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


29/41

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 neverraised 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 authoritynotwithstanding.

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


30/41

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


31/41

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


32/41

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:


33/41

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 thatcorrect?

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


34/41

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.


35/41

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.


36/41

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

2. Whyhasnt Col. Meiwald expressed any actual knowledge regarding the

UFO in question?

3. Whydoes 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. Howdoes 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: "No, Im saying I dont

remember."

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


37/41

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


38/41

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 bythose 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 regardingmy 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


39/41

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 ma

Documents

Strategic Editing by James Carlson