Sunday, May 21, 2017

Existing in Different Realities

Reality is an interesting concept.  Basically its the mental question that we ask on a second by second basis: "What is real?"

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, not as it appears or as it is imagined.  Are UFOs a reality?  That depends on how you view reality which in turn goes to state of mind.  And most importantly, that reality may be intractably imbedded in relativism.  I'll touch on the concept of relativism in a later post, but it is the biggest obstacle we face when discussing the UFO subject both from a skeptical and believer point of view.

Can we exist in different competing realities?  The obvious answer is yes.  I use a personal example of living in two different versions of reality...and both were real, existing side by side, but one totally hidden from the other, yet meeting the textbook definition of reality.

Most know by now that back in the early 1980s I was a missile officer for the old Strategic Air Command...I was on a Minuteman II launch crew pulling nuclear alerts at Malmstrom AFB, MT.  Rather than live on base, my wife and I lived in the local community of Great Falls proper.

We initially lived in an apartment then saved up to buy a small home.  Along the way my daughter was born.  During this time I was subjected to the realities that come with living in a local economy.  I had rent/mortgage to pay along with the usual utility bills.  Gas was $1.15 per gallon and I bitched and moaned about that.  Social outlets were movies, occasional eating out at local restaurants, and road trips around that beautiful state called Montana.  This was the normal reality that most Americans were living in.

Contrast that to going out on nuclear alerts.  Getting up at 5 or 6 am depending if I had packed my crew bag the night before.  Pre-departure briefing at 7 am.  Because I was in the 490th SMS, I could anticipate a 2 to 3 hour drive to the site.  Once the alert commenced time changed as I was no longer clocking time in Pacific Standard local, but now under Zulu [GMT].  There was no visual references for day or night.  It was noisy as cold air was being blown into the equipment racks to keep them from overheating.

There would be a constant flow of message traffic [we were in a higher state of DEFCON] via the Primary Alerting System.  A warble tone...deedle, deedle, deedle ..."Sky Bird, Sky Bird, the is the SAC Airborne Command Post with a test of the primary alerting system...acknowledge."  This would go on with SAC HQ, 15th Air Force HQ and 8th Air Force HQ...all day and that does not include the myriad of Emergency Alert Messages that hit the command net.  I was surrounded by motor generator noise, radio traffic, communication racks discharging messages, buzzers and ringing bells.  Throw in the constant SAC exercises for good measure to complete the picture.

The above two mentioned realities co-existed side by side, yet one was totally hidden from the other.  So yes it is possible for two different realities to exist as both reflected things as they actually existed despite appearances and one's imagination.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Are UFOs a Product of a Quantum Mental State?

That's the question posed by Rich Reynolds.  Can the UFO phenomena be understood from a quantum mechanics standpoint based on human observation?


"The quantum bromide that quantum particles in a superposition state, do or do not exist until they are measured (observed), allegorized in the Schrödinger “thought experiment” of the cat in a box, applies to UFOs.




"That is, UFOs do not exist until they are observed, but does that observation create the UFO sighting or does the UFO event exist before it is observed?"


"And how does consciousness enter into the equation? Is there a psychological component integral to UFOs, or even a neurological component?"

Rich presents some interesting thoughts, but in the above we are dealing with a micro sub particle concept and attempting to marry it to macro physiological system called the brain.

One question to ask is why do some segments of society see UFOs and the other doesn't?  In this post I refer to UFO as something airborne that cannot be identified as terrestrial by nature.

The structures of the brain can be reduced down to the billions of neurons and the numerous neurotransmitters all the way down to the sub particle realm where quantum mechanics would be in play.

But quantum physics provides no answer for defining the mind and thoughts.  We can identify and understand the various areas of cognition, but the concept of actual consciousness is still allusive.

Thus a humanistic neurological quantum state is not the answer to human observation of UFOs since this has no impact on consciousness.  But cognitive states may provide some clues.

Behaviorism provides some insight in the UFO phenomena.  Behaviorism revolves around cognitive functioning that develops through learned experience, memory, reasoning and a myriad of other areas of executive functioning. 

Behaviorism also includes the effects of conditioning. I proffer that conditioning is a prime factor that contributes towards the "observer's" perception. Conditioning occurs through various mechanisms, such as, being exposed from an early age to UFO books, TV programs, and movies.

It is through conditioning that provides a possible answers to the question regarding the observer's relationship to UFOs.  It is a cognitive perception exercise that has no metaphoric quantum observational meaning. 

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Skeptical Desconstructionism Regarding UFO Claims

My last post, I mentioned the term "deconstructionism" in the context of a skeptical approach to looking at the subjects of UFOs.  If this is to be the name of my approach, then I'm obligated to define the term, or if you will this personal "philosophy."

I must also freely admit that this term may have already been coined by someone else, as I've come to believe that original thinking is somewhat rare nowadays.  Or, I may be describing something that has been well established, but I'm providing a different label.  This is not unusual, the history of psychology is a good example of relabeling or repackaging a discipline to fit the current times.

Deconstruction does exist in the philosophical realm as it was proposed by the French philosopher Jacque Derrida.  Derrida developed the use of deconstruction as a critical outlook over the relationship between text and meaning.

Looking at Derrida's work, I'm not too far off the beaten path, but Derrida was not involved with the subject matter covered in this blog. 

Deconstructionism [my variation] is not limited to the subjects of UFOs, but can be adequately used as a process to look at any questionable claims...ghost hauntings, government conspiracy (pick your choice on this one) and the like.

Deconstructionism is the process(es) of initially viewing a claim as a completed jigsaw puzzle, yet somehow the puzzle appears disjointed or distorted usually minutely in its presentation.  The viewer sees the completed puzzle as a mental picture, but his/her mind consciously brushes over slight imperfections that go unnoticed.

The claim, the seemingly completed jigsaw puzzle, must be taken apart piece by piece.  Each piece must be individually assessed until the structure of the puzzle is no more.  Then the puzzle is pieced back together. 

Does the reconstructed puzzle still hold the original image?  If it is a different image, then the answer to the perplexing question of "Why?" lies in the independent analysis of the individual puzzle pieces themselves. 

Simple, right?  Not necessarily as the process of deconstruction requires time and effort that many are unwilling to invest.  Thus, the original claim is then held as acceptable and goes forth as the truth and the inherent flaws remain hidden from view.

If you take the time to peruse this blog and look at the UFO cases presented, you will see that each case took months, and in certain cases, well over a year to analyze.  Hence even for me briefly succumbing to the "burnout" factor.

Coming up next:  The use of objective and subjective criteria for UFO analysis.  Yes, I've harped on this before, but I will preach this gospel yet again!

To the family of Jacques Derrida, my apologies for linking, even subtly, deconstruction to UFO claims...I could call my approach Hebertism, but then I would be acting like an egocentric asshat and God knows that there are many of those who write on this subject.  

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

A New Approach...

I had put this blog in temporary storage with the thought of revamping it for future use.  That future is now...the present.  Rather than change the name, I believe its best to keep things as they are...marketing, laughable but true.

The subject may change from time to time.  The skeptical view regarding UFOs will be the same...ironclad and resolute.  I've spent near a decade looking at cases and still conclude that there is nothing there.  That approach involved "deconstruction" and looking at individual pieces.

There...I coined my brand of UFO skeptical philosophy...deconstructionism.

Quick thoughts on previous cases discussed here:

Echo Flight...my views have not changed and nothing new has been proffered to alter that view so it is a waste of valuable time to go in that direction. 

Oscar Flight...read the above.

Minot 1968...an interesting and complicated case, but the results lead to mis-identification and outright fabrication by outside sources.  The participants in the case appear truthful, but lacking of proof.  It's an example of a "good" investigation under circumstances, but a lackadaisical follow-up effort by Project Blue Book.  But in the end this case brings us no closer to resolving the questions of UFOs observing US ICBMs.  A waste of time, in my opinion.

This blog will look at the more complicated issues regarding the psychological aspects of UFOs in general.  I make my living using observation as a tool set.  That my profession deals with behavior issues and the effects of cognitive functions due to neural assaults, this gives me great latitude to look at the UFO subject from a different direction.  

I'm a pragmatist by nature, viewing the world as it is in the present state, but understanding that "truth" may very well be so imbedded in the concept of relativism that mere discussions concerning UFOs even from the skeptical point of view become totally useless.

I hope to have new blog postings soon. We shall see how this new approach works.  Comments will always be welcome, but I don't view comments as a benchmark for judging the success of a blog.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

It's a wrap...for now.

This looks like the end for this blog...for now.  Frankly I've run out of interest and energy so it would seem that the only reasonable thing to do is put this blog in "mothball" status.  I'll leave the site up for those new comers to read and either enjoy or curse my musings.

I'll obviously keep the option open to reactivate this site should other things develop that warrant any ramblings from me.

I've enjoyed this blog and am quite please with its accomplishments.  It has far exceeded my original intentions.

I want to take this opportunity to thanks those who have supported my efforts:

James Carlson...the true all knowing expert on the Malmstrom UFO mythology...I was merely his technical advisor.

Tim Printy...this man inspired me with his research discipline...Tim's RB-47 UFO efforts still awe me to this very day.  If not the gold standard, then pretty darn close.

I've a particular project that I'm in the initial stage of working through.  It has nothing to do with UFOs, but will delve into the psychological make up of command decisions during the American Civil War.  I've wanting to do this for ten years now so its either now or never.

So it's now good bye and a gratifying thank you.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Robert Salas stumbled upon four Malmstrom witnesses?



Thanks to James Carlson giving me a heads up on this topic.  Apparently in October, Robert Salas started a GoFundMe effort to raise $15K for the purpose of introducing four new witnesses to the soon to be 50 year anniversary of the Malmstrom 1967 UFO "incidents."

https://www.gofundme.com/malmstrom67-ufo-press-conference-2v7jxdca

Per Salas:

"I am asking for your donations to help fund a press conference of four important witnesses to the 1967 Malmstrom AFB, Montana UFO/Missile shutdown incidents.  The press conference will be held at the National Press Club, Washington DC, and is scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 2017. 
 I am only doing this because I think it would make a difference in our quest for public disclosure of the UFO phenomenon. I think it is an opportune time to again present the Malmstrom UFO incidents to the public. I and other witnesses have briefly spoken of these incidents at prior press conferences. However, this one will focus only on the 1967 Malmstrom incidents. March 16, 2017 will be the 50th anniversary of the Echo Flight UFO incident, which preceded my UFO missile shut-down incident at Oscar Flight about 7 days later on March 24th. Importantly, Hillary Clinton, should she be elected President, has publicly committed to initiating an investigation of government records on the UFO phenomenon. Our presentation will press her to follow-through with that investigation. 
The Malmstrom UFO incidents are the most significant and verifiable incidents related to the nuclear weapons connection with UFOs. These highly credible witnesses who are scheduled to present were directly involved, and their testimonies will be supported by documentation. In addition, the intent and methods used to cover-up these incidents by government agencies will be presented in detail. 
Although press conferences such as this have been held in the past, it is important to emphasize that at this point in time that we have a potential President of the United States who has stated a willingness to validate this highly consequential phenomenon. 
If you contribute, I assure you your contribution will be important toward the cause of disclosure of this phenomenon and will be solely and effectively used to provide travel accommodations and expenses for the speakers. Having presented in many similar press conferences of this kind and co-organized one in 2010, I am experienced in organizing successful press conferences of this kind. You can be assured that any amount in excess of what is needed for the expense of this project, will be donated to a worthy non-profit organization engaged in disclosure projects. 
We would be very grateful for any and all contributions to support this timely campaign."



Sounds great!  Why trot out these four new witnesses in a circus-like atmosphere when a reasonable approach would be to post their names and statements/experience on a respectable internet site? 

I'm assuming that Salas will have them sign an affidavit which is par for the course so that the narrative is in line with the pro-UFO zeitgeist.


Problem with Salas' frame of thought is that Clinton lost the election and I see no Trump agenda for blowing the lid off for UFO disclosure as 60 million voters tend to be more worried about jobs.  We've effectively been probed for the last 8 years, but not by ET.  Disclosure tends to be a fantasy/luxury that gains delusional confabulations that's proportionate to the increase of one's discretionary income.


Salas has yet to come clean in any public forum about how the Oscar Flight story may have more of a sounder foundation based upon his undergoing hypnosis some decades back that revealed the "traumatic" events during the night in question. 


I had posted an article regarding the hypnosis angle:


http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2013/08/was-malmstroms-oscar-flight-results-of.html


That certainly puts a dent in one's credibility.  So I'll await the results and compelling stories that will be put forth coming this March of 2017.



Note to reader:  Sorry for the type font and size.  I've tried to correct things but am unable to be successful at this time...Tim Hebert

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Hastings' Critique of the Critique: Convenient Omissions



Robert Hastings has responded to my review of "UFOs and Nukes" and not surprisingly he takes exceptions to my commentary.  I had praised Robert for the efforts that he and his production crew had put into the project, yet this aspect of my review either went unnoticed or ignored.  Overall, Hastings' reply was a delightful read.

Rather than comment on all of the elements of Hastings' response, I wanted to focus on two individuals that appear to be the major thrust of his reply:  Walter Figel and Henry Barlow.

Both Figel and Barlow play a pivotal role in Hastings' Echo Flight story.  Walter Figel, the Echo Flight Deputy Crew Commander, made statements to Hastings that he received a UFO sighting report via SIN line from a maintenance team member while Echo's launch facilities were dropping into No-Go status.  He would further claim that one of his security response teams would later report a UFO hovering near or over one of the launch facilities. Which LF in particular is never made known.

Robert Hastings brings up the numerous statements of Walter Figel that he had taped and presented on his own site UFOs and Nukes and that on theufochronicles.com.  What Hastings failed to note was that Walter Figel would later change his story.  I've provided a few blog articles that revealed this inconvenient fact.  There apparently was a riff between Hastings and Figel as shown below, more than likely due to the conflicting accounts given to Robert Salas and Robert Hastings.  Below is from a series of questions that I had posed to Hastings some while back on an article posted on the UFO Chronicles.

 Robert Hastings:  "Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas’ statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald’s tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation.
Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns.
With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn’t want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn’t make the cut. (all bold typed by TH)

TH:  Why was Walter Figel missing at the press conference, since he is Robert's star witness? Perhaps Robert would be willing to explain this oddity as this has been a mystery to me and others.

RH:  Figel chose not to attend the event, despite a written invitation from me to do so. (TH's emphasis) Following his detailed, tape-recorded admissions to me--in 2008, 2009, and 2010--about a UFO presence during the Echo Flight shutdown incident, he explicitly told me, after the last conversation, that he didn't want to get further involved in my disclosure efforts, which is his prerogative. Hence no affidavit from him and no participation in the press conference.

Nevertheless, every time I posted our taped conversations online, Figel was immediately provided with the link to them. He never objected to my doing so or disputed anything I posted, written or taped, relating to his remarks to me. His silence these days--toward me and James Carlson--is indicative of his desire to say no more.

Jesus, like he needs to! Listen to the tapes, Tim. He has already provided the facts and stands by what he says.

BTW, only you and James Carlson call Figel my "star witness". Actually, most of the other individuals who participated in the press conference had more important things to say than Figel. The same goes for dozens of other veterans--among the nearly 130 I have interviewed since 1973--who have gone on-the-record about the UFO-Nukes Connection.

That said, Figel is indeed the most important source relating to the Echo Flight shutdown, given that he was there, and took the call, when the guard reported the UFO hovering over one of the missiles, just as he was there during the debriefing when he and Eric Carlson were told by their squadron commander not to discuss the incident. Which, by the way, is the reason debunkers like you and James Carlson are desperately attempting to discredit Figel's candid statements to me.


So this from our "film maker" who stands solidly behind by one of his solid witnesses.  I'm wondering how this treatment would be viewed by Hastings' other witlessness, or... are we dealing with Ufology's version of Stockholm Syndrome...one can go figure.

I've always contended that Walter Figel's absence at the 2010 press conference was suspect and possibly due to a riff with Hastings.  His story was only that he had heard of a UFO sighting by a maintenance team on one of Echo's Launch Facilities (LF).  Walter Figel saw nothing himself.

Robert Hastings has "pasted" together a UFO story based solely on Figel's receipt of a phone call (SIN line).   Who and when was the phone call issued is still a mystery.  The 341st Strategic Missile Wing's Unit History makes no mentioning of any maintenance teams in the flight area during the shutdown.  The Unit History goes into depth concerning the the launch crew (Carlson and Figel) as far as debriefings by wing evaluation personnel, yet nothing is mentioned about the debriefing of any missile maintenance teams or site security teams.  Were there any teams actually on site?  Or, perhaps Figel received the call from one of the responding maintenance teams, such as H. Barlow's, thus setting off a possible prank morphing Echo into missile folklore?

This brings up the statements made by Hank Barlow who was an EMT team member responding to the Echo Flight shutdown.  One must understand that my opinion has somewhat changed over the past few years based on an in-depth reading of the 341st SMW Unit History.  Nowhere in the Unit History is there ever a mentioning of maintenance and/or security teams out in the flight area during the shutdowns.

Hank Barlow's statements now need to be re-evaluated in lieu of the lack of no maintenance teams in the Echo flight area.  By being at Mike-01, his team was only approximately an hour away from Echo and may indeed have been one of the first EMT teams to arrive in the flight area.  Barlow's team could have easily left Mike around 0900 and arrived at the first Echo launch facility between 1000 and 1030.  Carlson and Figel would have still been on duty.  If Barlow's team was being processed onto one of Echo's launch facilities, then Eric Carlson would have been involved and heard the radio/SIN line conversations.  This would explain why Carlson never heard of any UFO reports.  Per Barlow, his team never saw anything unusual and went about their task unhindered though dead tired at the end of the day.  In a strange twist of irony, Hastings may well be right (for the wrong reason) that Hank Barlow's team was the first to arrive in the Echo flight area.  Barlow still remains one of many who heard of rumors of UFOs from a long forgotten source, yet he admitted that he saw nothing.  During the 27 September 2010 press conference held in D.C., Barlow was absent and it now appears that he never signed an affidavit affirming his story.  Was he asked by Robert Hastings?  If so, did he refuse?  It is highly possible that Barlow knew that his team was initially the only maintenance team on any of Echo's LFs which further calls into questions Figel's interview statements recalling maintenance teams on his sites prior to and during the shutdowns.

Robert Hastings conveniently hides another series of facts from his readers and documentary viewers regarding the Echo Flight crew commander, Eric Carlson.  Hastings and Salas paint this picture of a lone Walter Figel battling UFO reports striking down 10 nuclear tipped ICBMs forgetting that there was someone who was in command of the situation.  Hint:  it was not Walter Figel.

For years Eric Carlson has been silent on the issue of UFO activity.  He has consistently denied any UFO reports or involvement in the shut down of the ten ICBMs.  In the 2008 Hastings interview, Figel is notably interested in the contents of a phone conversation which Hastings had with Carlson.  Per Hastings, Carlson said little other than to state that UFOs were not the cause of the shutdowns, but Figel's noticeably interest in the phone conversation as to what Eric Carlson specifically said is interesting.  The response from Figel gives the appearance that he was uncomfortable about Eric Carlson's reaction.  Was Figel concerned that Carlson would contradict his version of events?  It would appear so.

Carlson did provide an interview with Ryan Dube of Realityuncovered. Carlson stated that no reports were called in.  He did not receive any calls radio/SIN related to the sighting of a UFO over any of his launch facilities, this also includes any conversations with security personnel.  For all of the focus on Figel's activities on 16 March 1967, per the Unit History (pg. 36) Carlson was the first to see the faults and subsequent No-Go indications.  He told Dube that he was actively running his checklist and making the applicable reports.  One interesting bit of information is Carlson's relating to a call from SAC HQ querying the launch status of the ten ICBMs.  Contrast this to Figel's interview with Salas where he states that he (Figel) was sent to Offutt AFB to brief SAC officials on the shutdowns.  Carlson never makes that claim.  Carlson goes on to state that by the end of the day everyone (Malmstrom and Great Falls) was aware of the shutdowns, "talk of the town" and he was playfully subjected to innocent teasing from his peers.  Could this squadron camaraderie have been the initial source of playful UFO "rumors" that eventually filtrated back to maintenance teams, contractors and security personnel out in the field, or those soon to have dispatch to the flight area?

Robert Hastings states in his reply to my review:  "...Tim Hebert, wrote a critique which, not surprisingly, contains a number of factual errors, convenient omissions and other misrepresentations."  I've provided a few tid bits of facts for people to look at for their consideration.  Facts that Hastings has kept hidden.  His "convenient" omissions.


Note to reader:  re-established Hank (Henry) Barlow link, or:

http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2011/02/robert-hastings-swiss-cheese.html