Bob Salas' letter to the ABQ Journal

Robert Hastings sent me this earlier today. It is Robert Salas' response to the Albuquerque Journal article.

Submitted by Robert Salas, 300 N. La Luna Ave., Ojai, CA

Re: Article by John Fleck,
*Book Links UFOs to Nukes*

In this article, Fleck relies on two so-called /experts/ to try and
discredit the excellent work of Robert Hastings. Any lawyer will tell
you that, if you find the right "expert" you can come up with any
conclusion you desire. In this instance, neither Kingston George nor
James Olberg are experts on the topic of UFOs because there are no
experts in the study of this phenomenon. In fact, they aren't even very
knowledgeable about what they are criticizing. Oberg states that the
events described in the book have 'plausible, prosaic explanations.'

I am one of the witnesses described in Hastings book, /UFOs and NUKES/.
I can and I have provided evidence for over twelve years that the events
of UFOs disabling nuclear missiles that occurred at Malmstrom AFB in
1967 have neither plausible nor prosaic explanations. When Oberg further
states that 'the umbrella of secrecy surrounding common nuclear weapons
system malfunctions in the past creates much of the uncertainty that
leads to UFO claims today', he is simply wrong. He is wrong because of
the evidence provided in my book, /Faded Giant. / In the Malmstrom case,
my co-author James Klotz and I broke through that umbrella of secrecy 13
years ago by acquiring documentation using the Freedom of Information
Act and with a lot of hard work contacting witnesses and collecting
their testimonies.

I know that Hastings has also worked tirelessly in developing and
verifying the material for his book. The evidence is there if
conscientious and open-minded people make the effort to look at it. The
evidence in both books is the kind that is valid in any court of law.
That evidence is verifiable documents and testimonies from credible
witnesses. It may not be as much evidence as some would desire but it is
valid and certainly enough evidence to take these claims seriously. It
is easy for skeptics to make broad generalizations to discount this
phenomenon without doing any substantial review of the material
presented. In his book, Hastings has done a thorough and even handed
review of Kingston George's analysis of the Big Sur incident. Hastings
clearly showed that George had made many serious errors in that
analysis. It is regrettable that Mr. Fleck has chosen to fall in line
with George and Oberg without reviewing the details.

Robert Salas