November 10, 2010

The James Carlson Malmstrom Problem


If I’ve ever said to anyone that Ufologists could never do anything that would surprise me, I suppose I have to take it back. In light of Robert Hastings recent comments regarding James Carlson recently, I have to say that I am very surprised.

I’m surprised not only by his insistence in ignoring the clear evidence that James Carlson has laid out in his book, as well as the evidence in the form of two very recent interviews with Malmstrom 1967 witnesses, right here on RU. You’ve seen their statements circa 2010 with your very own eyes – and both men have said in no uncertain terms that they do not believe that UFOs ever played a part in the 1967 Echo Flight silo shutdown. Yet the Hastings/Salas charade continues as though everything’s quite alright. They’re only two guys, right?

I actually feel that Hastings is a decent writer, and might even strike some real gold in his research related to the Nuclear/UFO issue. Unfortunately, what these recent events show is that, like many old-school Ufologists throughout the decades, they’ve drawn so many conclusions with such die-hard certainty that they can not incorporate new facts, when those evidence-based facts counter what they want or need to believe must be true.

Tim Printy covered much of Hastings’ illogical argument in his latest issue of SUNlite as well.

The funniest thing I’ve ever seen come from Hastings was a posting on October 25 at UFO Chronicles, titled “The James T. Carlson Problem.”

In this post, Hastings posts several false statements about Carlson. Such as this one:

“…a UFO debunker named James T. Carlson has been posting countless items online over the past two years, calling these veterans (and others who were involved in the missile shutdown incidents) liars, or worse.”

As anyone who has followed along at RU knows, this is an outright lie. James has only called Hastings and Salas liars. Hastings continues:

In any case, the time has come for me to take inventory, in preparation for a possible legal action: While I am aware of numerous posts by James Carlson about all of this—on blogs at several websites—I’m certain that I’ve missed many more, given that they run into the hundreds at this point. So, I am seeking the reader’s assistance:

I am asking that persons who want to the truth about the incidents at Malmstrom AFB in 1967 to be established—once and for all—to scour the Internet and locate posts in which Carlson has referred to me (or Bob Salas) as a “fraud”, a “liar” a “hoaxer” or similar defamatory terms. I am also interested in posts where James claims that he has “proved” that Mr. Salas and I have misrepresented the facts. Those willing to assist me in this regard should send me links to the offending posts via ufohastings@aol.com.

I was literally in tears from laughing after reading this. As everyone knows, James has made it a point to always point out everywhere he’s posted about this issue, that they can find him, and read about the real truth concerning Echo Flight, his father and Walt Figel, right here at RealityUncovered – nowhere else.

Hastings’ statement above comes across like a paranoid and delusional breakdown – a victim mentality – where the attacks are coming from all sides and from all quarters. No, Mr. Hastings, you know exactly where the truth is – and readers can get it for absolutely free. Here, it doesn’t cost $29.95. Unlike the much-touted “press conference” now offered at Bob Salas’ website. Posted recently on UFO Chronicles:

“It’s a collectible item, so don’t break the seal! You might want to get two! And the details? It’s basically a … … full, uncut DVD of the National Press Club event.The DVD includes a presentation from all 12 of our panelists plus Q & A with the media. $29.95″

Unfortunately, neither Walt Figel or Eric Carlson were there to offer their version of events at Echo Flight. But you can get their version right here at RU for a whopping $0.00!

In response to Hastings’ legal threats, James Carlson penned the following powerful and provocative response – please enjoy:

James Carlson’s Open Letter to Robert Hastings

Since Robert Hastings refuses all emails from me, regularly discards any comments I post regarding his claims on UFOCHRONICLES, and refuses entirely to comment or present arguments in relation to the issues I’ve raised, a tactic contrary in every way to prior assertions welcoming public discourse and debate, I have decided to post this response to his consideration of legal action targeting me for insisting that he and Salas are liars, frauds, and hoaxers, and that I can prove it.

Dear Robert Hastings,

In light of your recent public appeals for examples of internet-based “libel” authored by me — statements that you imply can be proven as such sufficient to sway popular opinion within the suitable confines of a court of law — I have the following statement, and request a response:

First, you have loudly and persistently affirmed since March 2010 that the written statements I received from Colonel (Retired) Walter Figel, Jr. were false statements, and that my claims of having interviewed him were simply lies intended to basically raise doubts regarding your interpretations of your own interviews with him.

In your September 26, 2010 article, “The Echo/Oscar Witch Hunt“, for instance, you assert that:

“James Carlson …has consistently lied about the colonel’s various comments to researchers.”

You also claim that

“Colonel Figel disputes all of Eric Carlson’s claims.”

In light of the fact that both you and Robert Salas called Figel the day following my first interview with him in March, and that the written statement detailing his opinions regarding your poor interpretation of the events he experienced was also sent to you, do you still insist that I have been lying since last March, and that I have, in fact, never spoken to Colonel Figel, as you have told others?

Follow-up questions to this line of thought include:

(1) Since your transcripts of your interviews with Figel are obviously incomplete, why don’t they include any complete assertions regarding the presence of a UFO? Nowhere in your transcripts is there a clear and definitive statement regarding any report of a UFO. In the interviews and written statements that he was immediately willing to share with me, his statements are very definitive: there was no UFO reported, no UFO was involved, and no investigation of a UFO was undertaken. He was very clear in this regard — with me. Why not with you, or did you just edit that part out of your transcripts in order to create the impression of a UFO where none could be otherwise reasonably established?

That’s why I asked for and received a written statement from him that was complete and to the point.

(2) Did you ever follow up your investigation with Dick Evans, as Figel suggested? He was, after all, a witness to both the personnel portion of the incident, and was later involved with the actual investigation as well, so his comments would be very interesting to your readers, I would think, unless, of course, he told you the same thing that Figel insists he told both you and Salas, this being the fundamentals of what he also told me and Ryan Dube — that there were no UFOs involved in the incident.

In general, I’d like to know exactly what I’ve allegedly lied about. Was my interview with Figel a lie? Or was it Ryan Dube who lied? Because, remember, Figel addressed his questions as well. Or maybe I should ask, and this is the fun part, am I lying when I insist that I can easily prove how badly you’ve maligned this issue, how blatantly you’ve misin‌terpreted Figel’s statements to you in the past, and how often you yourself have lied and twisted this issue around, and that I can do so by simply asking Walt Figel what happened?

Because that’s exactly what I did prior to his last statement — you know, the strongly worded one in which he insists that Robert Salas has been lying about this matter since 1995.

You remember, don’t you? It’s that written statement of his that can’t possibly be misinterpreted by anybody, even you — the statment that I couldn’t possibly twist around to make it seem somehow less damaging to your story; it’s that statment of Figel’s that you seem to blaiming on me to such an extent that you’re considering (and I find this particularly laughable) legal action.

Tell me, do you intend to sue Figel and my father as well? ‘Cause I’ve got to tell you, they’ve said the same things I have, but they’ve done so with a Hell of a lot more authority than I could ever muster.

Tell me, are all of your UFO investigations conducted so dishonestly, in order to create an issue that doesn’t otherwise exist? Why do you consistently refuse to answer any of the questions put to you about this one case? Why do you regularly delete my commentaries on UFOCHRONICLES rather than comment on them as any honest man would? Why is it so easy to confirm your complete and utter disregard for the facts by simply interviewing your own witnesses?

What exactly are you trying to hide, and why do you even bother, when destroying your case is as easy as conducting a fairly general conversation with intelligent men? Or is it the “intelligent men” part that throws you off?

Humor me, please, with another line of thought:

During the press conference you and Salas organized for September 27, 2010 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, did Robert Salas publically proclaim, in answer to one of the questions presented by a member of the audience, that both my father, Captain (Retired) Eric D. Carlson, the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and his deputy commander on that date, Colonel (Retired) Walter Figel, Jr., confirmed his testimony regarding UFO interference on that date?

This bit strikes me as particularly odd, because only rarely will someone make such a claim only two days after both men had very publically and definitively insisted otherwise. Was that just a “brain fart”, or is he just lying again to make another worthless point in front of the press?

That’s all I’ve got for you — just a few little questions. An answer would be appreciated, although I admit, it’s a little difficult to even ask you these questions for the reasons I’ve already indicated above.

I am curious to know why you profess to believe in the necessity for public discourse where issues involving UFOs are concerned, while your every act shows the opposite — or does public discourse only apply to the USAF, and not those individuals who are trying to substantiate a ridiculous UFO hoax of this nature?

It looks to me like you do a whole lot of running away from questions, as if answering them would somehow show you to be the ridiculous little liar and fraud that I’ve already shown you to be. You know, Robert, you don’t need to ask other people to do your research for you — although I understand that’s what you’re used to doing; you know, like advertising for UFO stories on the Internet, so you can write them up and call them “facts”, and insist that the USAF needs to come clean on UFOs. Isn’t that your modus operandi?

Let me make this easier for you — that way you don’t have to bother all the nice people who read your tripe to bring you examples of my slanders and libel. I’ll just give you what you want, because it’s so much easier, and because I’d really like to get you to actually sue me — I think litigation would be a suitably pathetic way for you to go down in history as the ineffectual UFO “researcher” you really are if you did it all by yourself in front of a jury!

Now then, what are the words I’m looking for? Oh, yeah!

You, Robert Hastings, currently a resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico, are a liar, a fraud, and a UFO hoaxer of the worst kind, and I can and have proven this to be true. I really hope you challenge me in court, because I would enjoy destroying what little worth your current reputation can lay claim to.

You’re a ridiculous scoundrel, and the fact that you are completely unable to answer any detailed questions regarding the events you have proposed simply adds to the mess that your own lies have created for you. The fact that you seem to think you’re believable enough to take this matter to court is absolutely hilarious, and I look forward to the article you will eventually write and publish on UFOCHRONICLES insisting that you have no intention of taking me to court, because you’re the better man, or some such silly B.S., leaving out the part where you finally realized doing so would humiliate you completely.

I give you 30 days.

Most sincerely,

James Carlson



Filed under: UFOlogy — Tags: , , , — RyanDube @ 5:23 pm




32 Comments

  1. avatar

    James is not one to mince words is he? The question now is will “renowned UFO researcher” Robert Hastings finally “man up” and respond here at RU to James’ criticism as he assured me he would so long ago or will he continue to shrink from an open debate on a level playing field?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    Comment by Access Denied — November 11, 2010 @ 5:25 am

  2. avatar

    Thanks so much for that outstanding intro — this is great. Love it! I’m a bit curious, I admit, to know whether or not he’ll actually read it … maybe he’ll ask someone to summarize it for him. He spends so much time purposely avoiding the issue, it’s a little hard to know. I swear to God, if they would just act like normal human beings instead of pretending that they’re in the cast of “Twin Peaks” or some such thing, this wouldn’t be half as much fun! It makes perfect sense when looked at from that particular fantasists’ angle that he would threaten a law suit before even thinking of making an honest appraisal of the matter. It would probably be asking way too much of God to actually receive some of the litigation he threatens, but I guess nobody gets ALL of the public ridicule they deserve, hmmm?

    Comment by James Carlson — November 11, 2010 @ 5:44 am

  3. avatar

    Why do Americans always have to make a mountain out of a molehill? make a drama out of nothing? rattle the sabre’s, flash their huge gonads? You blokes DO realise it makes you look more stupid every time you do it?

    I would call anyone who states they have seen an ‘Alien Craft’ a liar. I would call anyone who sees something unidentified and calls it an ‘Alien Craft’ mistaken. So sue me. Any judge worth his salt would fine all of you for wasting public time.

    There are no Alien craft, because there are no Aliens. Simple really. Therefore anything allegedly interferring with the death distributing US missiles were from good old earth.

    Nothing more here other than some fools examining their Navels. And if you call me a Liar? I’ll scream and shout and stamp my feet in a little girly fit.
    FFS people GROW up.

    Comment by Chorlton — November 11, 2010 @ 9:08 am

  4. avatar

    Chorlton, how have you been doing? BTW Hastings will be giving a lecture at Oxford. Maybe you can drop in and observe if he is examining his navel. I hear that its standing room only.

    Comment by Tim — November 11, 2010 @ 5:55 pm

  5. avatar

    I wonder if all of the screaming and shouting and stamping of feet in a little girly fit, and the breaking of windows, and violent protests of “nattering nabobs”, and the shattering of faiths, and the realization that human ignorance is going to become far more universal as the result of education’s skyrocketing costs will affect in any way the number of people willing to pay thirty pounds a shot to listen to Robert Hastings expound on the virtues of disclosure as only an American making a mountain out of a molehill could possibly do. Human behavior is universal, pal, and being an American has nothing to do with it. When someone spends a good ten years of their life insisting that the people you love and admire are liars, forgetful fools, or lack the singular characteristics of honor and nobility that are apparently necessary to tell the USAF to go to Hell, “I’m not going to follow your orders anymore,” and they do so in a public forum examined around the entire world, silence is no longer an option, unless you just don’t give a damn what other people think about those you care for. And if you don’t give a damn about a person’s reputation, than as far as I’m concerned, you don’t give a damn about the person. We wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if those who were aware of the truth in 1995 had not decided to simply let Salas and Klotz get away with the garbage they were spouting, because the subject wasn’t important enough to worry about. Well it was important, because the story can and has destroyed reputations, and has been used by the most unworthy of men to attack the most worthy. When you in turn make pronouncements of the nature you’ve made, you’re insisting that a man’s beliefs are unimportant, his reputation is not worth defending, and the acts he commits in support of his beliefs are insignificant. I think you’ll find, if you examine your world history a bit more forcefully than you have thus far, that men’s beliefs have driven them to more than a few extremely significant actions with wide ranging consequences, and that many of these acts occurred because those who knew better did nothing. When good men decide to remain silent, because others think the subject matter isn’t worthy of public discourse, that silence will ultimately be filled with the ravings of fools. It was Winston Chrchill who insisted that “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber,” and I don’t think his intention was to raise the status of parrots.

    It is never a waste of one’s time and energy to point out the public lies of mountebanks and charlatans. And it’s a criminal act against the entire world when the lies of such men are discounted entirely simply because the subject matter seems a bit silly to others. How many people 2,000 years ago might have insisted that a man coming back to life after being tortured to death simply to show a few of his friends that it was possible, and then to disappear entirely after casually insisting, “I’ll be back” was a silly idea, one not worthy of consideration or public discussion — an idea that anybody at all with any sense would discount entirely as a waste of said discussion? Ironic, isn’t it, that this idea has shown some remarkable staying power and has exerted influence few ancient peoples would have ever thought possible under the circumstances. Your condescending tone is more than annoying — it’s insulting. But I suspect that was your motivation in the first place, which is not exactly the most mature reason in the world to tell someone else to “grow up,” and the fact that you used it as an opportunity to belittle an entire nation is equally telling. Maybe you should think your opinions out a bit more before attempting to adopt such an attitude of superiority in the wake of your own failures to embrace the history of your own nation. Just something to consider …

    Comment by James Carlson — November 11, 2010 @ 11:28 pm

  6. avatar

    Please take a moment to check out my most recent article regarding the Echo Flight inmcident. Below is is the link for “Echo Flights of Fantasy – Anatomy of a UFO Hoax” by James Carlson [me]:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo-Flights-of-Fantasy-Anatomy-of-a-UFO-Hoax-by-James-Carlson

    My intention was to account for the UFO rumors mentioned in the original command history, and then discounted in relation to the missile failures; I’m certain in my own mind that my analysis is correct and my conclusions are sound, and I’m equally certain that my examination proves the duplicity of Robert Salas and James Klotz during the foundational period of their little UFO hoax. The email correspondance between Robert Salas and Raymond Fowler shows unquestionably the extent they were willing to go and the lies they were willing to tell at a very early point in order to establish their foundations of their claims. The article also addresses the irresponsible and undeniable dishonesty inherent to Robert Hastings’ attempts to support these fallacious claims. I hope you enjoy reading it. As always, I’m perfectly willing to discuss the matter and address any issues others may have at any time.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 13, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

  7. avatar

    Storm in a teacup? more like storm in an eggcup.
    The point you fail to realise James, is that in the whole big story of the universe et al, your little spat simply doesnt matter, outside of your own insignificant little area of interest. That this Forum chose to publicise it also shows that there is little else happening in the world of UFO’s as more and more people slowly wake up and see that most of the UFO crap that comes out of the mouths of Ufologists is for one reason only, Money!

    He said this, You said that, handbags at dawn would settle the matter more easily. Even the most feeble minded can see that Hasting is an idiot but you have downgraded your integrity by being sucked in by his bullshit, a more cynical person might have whispered that the whole thing was contrived to get bigger audiences for Hastings public diatribes ?? Now theres a thought eh?

    Yes it might be a big deal to YOU and the other idiot but what’s it got to do with anyone else? Who cares? No one. IT DOESNT MATTER !
    Why cant you have your little spat in Bumsqueeze Arizona or the like?. The thing that tickles me is that you and the other halfwit actually thinks that any more than a handfull of people actualy give a stuff about what you and he have done, think or do, or of who said what to whom. Of course its important to you and the other fool but few others. Or would you have us all start posting to the world every time some brain dead screams “Mum ? MUUUUUM!!!!!! he called me a liar, boo hoo hoo”

    So you dispute his claim, BIG DEAL! Anyone with more than half a brain is already laughing at the halfwits for saying they saw UFO’s in the first place. Pull your thumb out of your arse and wake up, people arent laughing with you, theyre laughing at you for taking the bait in the first place.
    Your integrity was hurt the moment you responded to his idiocy, you were doing fine right up untill that moment, you didnt have to say or post anything more than you did, your reports were credible and factual. but as soon as you took the bait…..he won.
    Go and buy some haemmorhoid cream, maybe you can borrow some of AD’s I hear hes got lots of it..

    And you, a lowly colonial, wants to throw Churchillian quotes at me sir? (thats a joke in case you missed it) Bring it on sunshine, youre on a hiding to nothing.

    How about:
    “There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true.”
    Quite relevant here?

    Or then again:
    “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”
    Touche, Eh ?

    But in your case this is most relevant:
    “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”

    And, for Tim, someone only has to fart in Oxford for them to have a discussion about it. I wouldnt waste the petrol money or even consider contributing to the coffers of a charlatan like Hastings.
    Oxford is the most boring place in the world (similar to Hull : )) ), apart from the Isis/Canal junction where I have sat for many hours watching the clowns in boats, (rather than the stunts of the c**ts in punts in Cambridge)

    Now, Ive got a broken foot and 4 broken fingers to nurse along to todays Remembrance Sunday service.
    Please excuse me.

    Comment by Chorlton — November 14, 2010 @ 9:42 am

  8. avatar

    Well, that’s a nice nihilistic tirade — you’re coming from a different direction entirely; I happen to think people are important. As far as your insistence that none of this matters except to me, as in “what’s it got to do with anyone else?” and “Who cares?” the fact that I care is the only reason I need — and nobody forced you to read any of it, so if you don’t care, go read something else. It’s not like I’m charging admission. If it’s a waste of your time, than get the fuck out — the solution’s that easy. I think if you look around a bit you’ll soon find that people care more about what I’ve written than they do about whatever you think about what I’ve written. You come onto a forum and complain about the content because it doesn’t come equipped with enough reason for you to care. What does that say about you? If you don’t care about it, than go read a magazine or something. If you put a little thought behind it, I’m sure you’ll eventually find something that you do care about. I don’t care a whole lot about Star Trek conventions, but I don’t go to them just to tell everyone that they’re wasting my time, and that in the long run, Star Trek isn’t worth the effort to turn on the television at the same hour every week. What would be the point in that? It doesn’t do anything except insult a bunch a folks that I don’t know and don’t care about — and if I don’t care about it, why bother? On the other hand, I’m doing something that I do care about, while you’re being rude and ill-mannered because what I’m doing doesn’t interest you. Who cares? I’m not doing it for you; I’m doing it for me. And if that motivation isn’t appropriate enough for you, tough — go read a book.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 14, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

  9. avatar

    ‘People’ per se are important, individuals private gripes arent. It would also seem you have an amazingly high opinion of yourself and your posts than others have?, and Im using the same criteria for that, that you have used in your post, so forgive me if I dont bow in your general direction.

    Alien Craft, as such described by Hasting dont exist. fact. As a seemingly intelligent person you would have known that and withdrawn from any public debate on the matter after your clear and concise explanation of events, thereby keeping your position abundantly clear. BUT, you decided to enter the public shitfest by posting what you did and contesting Hastings and Sala, and in doing so opened it up to everyone.
    You post on a public forum, sweetcheeks, you take the flak from the public. Dont like it? then stop crying into your knickers and get on with your life and kindly refrain from telling me where and when I can post.

    I dont like Hastings much at all but it seems he’s managed to push all your buttons hasnt he? and in that respect certainly has got one up on you. He’s the one laughing now.

    Comment by Chorlton — November 14, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

  10. avatar

    Chorlton – James has a very good point. He does what he does because he believes in the cause, not to earn anyone’s respect. He certainly never asked you to “bow” in his general direction. In fact he appears could care less whether you or anyone else likes him – he believes in publishing the real story when he sees someone publishing a false story, regardless of the size of audience.

    He’s certainly not crying as you try to imply – he makes an excellent point. If you don’t like the topic or the activity, and if you feel that all of this is a waste of time – they why the hell are you here? It seems that you’re more interested in telling people that they’re wasting their time with a particular activity rather than finding something that you, yourself, find fulfilling or satisfying (if that’s even possible for someone with such a monstrous chip on their shoulder.)

    I would take his advice. If you have nothing constructive to add to either side of the debate, then what exactly is your point of posting anything?

    Comment by RyanDube — November 14, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

  11. avatar

    Chorlton, you heard wrong…

    What’s the matter, feeling irrelevant lately?

    Have you finally given up on your crusade to save the world from the likes of Barry King and Gridkeeper?

    Oh look what we have here…

    Listen to a Fool. Barry King

    Gridkeeper finally outed

    James Casbolt loses it……Totally

    “My one serious question is, should idiots like Casbolt be allowed out in public?”

    Project much?

    Comment by Access Denied — November 14, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

  12. avatar

    Chorlton, you must forgive my “Yank” humor concerning the Oxford lecture. Whether one is allowed to “fart” at Oxford is not the issue. I assume that one is allowed to fart at Berkley or Harvard, which institution would be more dignified about it is debatable. I can assume that you WILL NOT be attending Hastings’ lecture…pity. It would have been nice to have “boots on the ground”.

    Yes James has been persistent in his endeavors and abrasive at times by his own admission. To me, as a former ICBM crew commander, I look at facts and do the facts correlate to my working knowledge of the military base, the weapon system, and the people that where involved in the system and the event. In other words, my interest is strictly from a historical and professional standpoint. The outcome of this debate has no direct impact on me. I lose no sleep one way or the other. James’ interest is different involving his father and quite frankly his reputation. His facts correlate to my working knowledge of the weapon system (Minuteman) and its supporting structure and command and control. My research, I formulated two working hypothese independent of James Carlson’s work, validates James’ view. I looked closely at Hastings and Salas work and could not conclude that it is plausible.

    Hope your foot heals, my ankle, post operatively, is healing with the usual stiffness in the mornings. I feel like the Tin Man in the Wizard of OZ.

    Comment by Tim — November 14, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

  13. avatar

    Ryan et al
    Please read what I posted.
    I have no problems at all with what Carslon *did*. But to now attempt to stand toe to toe and argue the toss with an idiot who believes in UFO’s is a folly of the highest order.
    As I stated, Carlson had explained his position concisely and clearly yet fell to the bait dangled by Hastings. That was the biggest mistake there. He didnt need to, as anyone with one iota of sense would have seen that his explanation was the most credible one. Let Hastings scream and shout and dont rise to the bait, by doing so, Carlson devalued his own explanation and entered the fray of the bunfight, almost begging people to take sides, and, as has been shown, they have done.

    Maybe its all a typical neat ploy to increase book sales and lecture bums on seats? That wouldnt surprise me at all. Has anyone even considered that? Wouldnt be the first time its happened.

    And Ryan, Ive been doing something very fulfilling and interesting in a certain EU country in the last few weeks that unfortunatley put me in Hospital with broken bones and other injuries. probably my last ever investigation. But thanks for your interest. And whats my point of posting? well someone from here kindly emailed me the basis of what was going on and as this is a public forum I am entitled to expound my opinion. As somneone who has himself been involved in UFO research for over 40 years I also have an interest along those lines, and as I consider that 90% of ‘disclosure’ that comes from the US is done for nothing more than money I also have an interest.
    If I had posted in total support of Carlson I suspect my posts would have been welcomed but I always look at things laterally or from a different angle than a lot of people.
    I bow to no one, I dont tow anyones line, I say it as I see it, you might not like that but even you must consider I have every right to respond on a public forum where someone has posted something?
    and in my opinion (which I have to remind you, I AM entitled to) the whole thing is like two children in a playground bickering. Take it or leave it but my argument is a valid as anyone else’s

    There are two differing opinions/explanations which have both been eloquently publicised by both parties. To start a bitchslapping fight as in my opinion, Carslon has done, has seriously devalued his position. Hastings cant devalue his position any more, other than for maybe the few fools who believe his tripe. Apart from which anyone with a hairstyle like that should be put into an old folks home.

    And AD I’m never irrelevant dear boy, its yourself in that mirror mate, you know, the one that cant think outside the box?. You just keep buying the music and paying your Performing rights payments and I’ll be OK thanks.
    But whats your point eh? I exposed several Hoaxers (You missed out John Lear too, my hatchet job on him was quite good? You also missed my early stuff on Billy Meier but as you probably werent even born then youre excused), but I didnt go on TV or write books about it or do lecture tours about it or financially capitalise on it in any way, though I have sufficient paperwork to probably write several books. Have I hounded them around the Internet as I could have done? Nope. I posted the evidence in sufficient places and left it at that, only bringing it up when they were mentioned. Maybe it doesnt matter to you over in the US but it matters to us in the UK. Whilst Gridkeeper does continue to post his rubbish, he’s being laughed at so much he’s irrelevant. Lear is a laughing stock, Casbolt and King are now quiet, having been sufficiently exposed to make anything they say giggled at.

    Hi Tim. I think you actually missed my attempt at humour? Never mind. Oxford is a real pain. It used to be a beautiful place untill they brought in the one way system and the bloody busses. My stab at humour was, that one only has to bring up anything different in Oxford and some tree hugger will arrange a lecture about it. It was suggested in the early 90′s that myself and little group of researchers/investigators do a series of lectures about UFO Hoaxes their reasoning and the paranoia associated with them but I was under specific contracts with 2 rather large recording companies who banned me from any public ‘performance’ other than music.
    But lets get it straight. I have no problems with Carlson’s stuff at all. Hastings and Salas are fools. I met Hasting some time ago and my opinion of him then wasnt that high at all. His latest rubbish is, I suspect just another attempt to drum up bigger audiences for his lectures, I just find it sad that fawning idiots in the UK are being subjected to his bullshit but I suspect we are a little more suspicious of charlatans like him and will take his rubbish with a large pinch of salt.

    I now sit back and wait for the usual missinterpretted attacks upon me. I have a broad back. But I WILL continue to post my opinions on a public open forum untill I am banned or I’m dead. The latter isnt too far off anyway.

    Cheers all and Happy Christmas (NOT, bloody ‘Happy Holidays)

    Comment by Chorlton — November 15, 2010 @ 9:44 am

  14. avatar

    IRT: “Maybe its all a typical neat ploy to increase book sales and lecture bums on seats? That wouldnt surprise me at all. Has anyone even considered that? Wouldnt be the first time its happened.”

    I’ve been saying that for years, and I’ve been pretty open about it.

    IRT: “anyone with one iota of sense would have seen that his explanation was the most credible one. Let Hastings scream and shout and dont rise to the bait, by doing so, Carlson devalued his own explanation and entered the fray of the bunfight, almost begging people to take sides, and, as has been shown, they have done.”

    Even those without “one iota of sense” enable Salas and Hastings to make money off of an insult to my family, and I’m going to do all I can to take that away from them. And I’m quite happy with people choosing sides — it shows that what I’ve been doing is effective. I’ve met a great many people who believe strongly in UFOs, and are eager to find evidence of such, who have told me they used believe with little examination the missile stories Salas and Hastings tell, but have changed their mind and now agree that they’re just con men. I’m pleased about that, too. The bottom line is that a lot of people who believe in UFOs don’t often correct the specifics of that belief — they don’t question what Salas and Hastings discuss, so I question it for them, and persuade them to look. And that strategy has resulted in the very thing I’m trying to accomplish, because now a lot of people are questioning it. I don’t have a problem with that at all. The number of people who have in the past insisted that Echo Flight is one of the top ten UFO events supported by the best evidence decreases every day — and that happens as a result of my analysis, not because people suddently started looking into the case for the first time in 15 years. Those who believe Salas’ story have done so without examining it, so all I’m doing is giving them something more reasonable to believe. Those people, however, are also looking to Salas and Hastings to support their case — and both men have done so by lying. I can point out those lies very easily, and I’ll continue doing so, because it makes my analysis easier to accept, while lowering Hastings’ and Salas’ credibility. The whole point is to stop them, not make an argument and put it out there for everyone to see and accept at some future date. If I don’t see them stop, or their profits severely dropped, I’m just wasting my time. This has nothing to do with UFOs, and it has nothing to do with the arguments I’ve made or the issues I’ve raised — it’s about people making money by telling lies about my family. That’s it in a nutshell.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 16, 2010 @ 11:27 am

  15. avatar

    Tim commented: “Hastings will be giving a lecture at Oxford….I hear that its [sic] standing room only.”
    Dunno who told you that. According to an informant, Hastings has just sent out this message:
    “At the moment, ticket sales are only up to 20, in a hall that
    seats 200. So, despite my press release being distributed last
    week, the word does not seem to be getting out to the public.
    (I can’t believe that there aren’t at least 200 interested
    people in the UK who live within driving distance of Oxford.)”

    What Hastings seemingly forgot is that people in Oxford are smart.

    I wonder if the Great Rendlesham Forest 30th anniversary gathering on Dec 28 will fare any better?

    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 19, 2010 @ 1:06 am

  16. avatar

    Hello Ian, the “standing room only” comes from the press release posted on theufochronicles website. It was tongue and cheek on my part in my reply to Chorlton. For all that I know, this lecture could be scheduled in a closet.

    Tim

    Comment by Tim — November 19, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

  17. avatar

    Tim explained: “the “standing room only” comes from the press release posted on theufochronicles website.”
    Sounds like a bit of kite-flying by Hastings (surprise).
    I think he overestimated his fame. No one over here cares about his UFOs and nukes stuff.
    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 19, 2010 @ 10:05 pm

  18. avatar

    “What Hastings seemingly forgot is that people in Oxford are smart.”

    Bravo, Ian! My hat’s off to you, sir … 20 sounds about right. If I remember correctly, those are the Americans on holiday trying to get directions.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 20, 2010 @ 1:33 am

  19. avatar

    Ian: “Sounds like a bit of kite-flying by Hastings (surprise).”

    No doubt a kite missing it’s tail.

    Tim

    Comment by Tim — November 20, 2010 @ 6:21 am

  20. avatar

    James Carlson cheered: “Bravo, Ian! My hat’s off to you, sir”.

    Thanks for your kind words. In turn, may I say how much I admire your courage and determination in standing up to Hastings over the Malmstrom business.

    I don’t know if you have looked into any of the other cases that Hastings uses to bolster his UFOs and nukes fantasies, but one of them is particularly well known to me: the Rendlesham Forest incident of December 1980 (just coming up to its 30th anniversary).

    The main witness of this event, Col Charles Halt, was one of those who spoke at Hastings’ UFOs and nukes press conference recently. As with all the main participants at that event, Hastings had him produce a signed affidavit. Unfortunately the contents of that affidavit are seriously at odds with what we know actually happened. Thus the statement is worthless as evidence and makes Halt look an unreliable witness. I have dealt with the shortcomings of this document in some detail here
    http://www.ianridpath.com/ufo/Halt_affidavit.htm

    Hastings’ apparent lack of concern over the contradictions between Halt’s current story and what he said at the time discredit his abilities as an investigator. It seems that Hastings’ distortion of the truth contaminates more than just the Malmstrom case.

    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 21, 2010 @ 12:30 am

  21. avatar

    Ian — great to see you taking notice of James Carlson’s awesome expose on Hastings and Salas. Yeah I had requested anomalist.com post your amazing recent UnConvention presentation on Rendlesham via CFZ. Truly brilliant research. Instead anomalist.com keeps posting the “latest” from UFOchronicles and has ignored this latest from realityuncovered.net

    I think it’s all alien bubbles in the wake of C2C with their ETH agenda. It is about book sales, etc. relying on spooky stories but also there’s the CIA stargate conspiracy (Prince and Picknett) going on. The New Age myth is the perfect set up for mass mind control — since the extraterrestrials will save us, etc. haha.

    I mean the black triangles are real secret military technology and their not just blimps — I saw one up close. So extraterrestrials continue to make the perfect cover-up for secret military technology. I had thought Rendlesham was a military triangle craft — but now I realize it was a confabulation. Maybe it was U.S. disinfo to coverup the real triangle craft….

    Comment by drew hempel — November 21, 2010 @ 12:44 am

  22. avatar

    Before reading Tim Printy’s take on your own research regarding Rendlesham, I knew nothing about it at all, so the fact that modern analysts have taken a significantly closer look at it is somewhat comforting. I know something about what it’s like to stand out alone and in the wind with only your convictions, and I assure you, it’s much more enjoyable when you have a few friends who are publically insisting that your arguments need to be examined in more detail. Tim was the first to do so for me, and I’m thankful for it. As for Hastings’ “affadvits”, we’ve had a couple of discussions in the forum regarding their actual legal worth in comparison to their worth as indicators of honesty, and the fact remains that any document, legal or otherwise, that is produced without risk of penalty and without allowing for a two-way discussion of its contents has nothing more to recommend it than a Ray Bradbury short story, other than expectations of notably less poetic expression therein. It certainly has no additional legal standing invested in it. It’s useless as little more than a story told by a man who insists to a notary that he’s telling the truth, and the affadavit itself attests only to the words of the notary, not the claimant; the notary asserts that the story is the same as that told to him, and that the claimant has indicated its truthful value. It certainly can’t be accepted in court as the claimant’s truthful and proven assertions, because it isn’t; it’s merely a story that a notary agrees was presented to him as fact, but was done without any outside examination whatsoever as to its contents. It has no more worth than the original claims, so Hastings’ reliance on them has a public relations intent and nothing more. The fact that you’ve been able to show how Colonel Halt’s affadavit claims have evolved somewhat through the years doesn’t surprise me at all, although I’m happy to see it. I’ve pointed out in some detail on many different occasions how Robert Salas’ claims have evolved through the years as well — these people very obviously don’t care for the facts, because they keep changing them every time someone points to a fallacy. It’s ridiculous that anyone could examine their histories and still insist that they’ve been honest throughout. In a recent article I wrote, entitled “Echo Flights of Fantasy – Anatomy of a UFO Hoax” (you can find it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo-Flights-of-Fantasy-Anatomy-of-a-UFO-Hoax-by-James-Carlson), I’ve pointed out how Robert Salas has insisted that his claims since 1995 were consistently “confirmed” by his commander at Oscar Flight, Colonel (Retired) Frederick Meiwald, even though Salas’ own version of this event has changed significantly over the years, and even after Meiwald wrote to Salas, stating that he regretted his own memories couldn’t be of any real use to Salas, memories that Salas himself, to a great extent, ignored for three years as being so error-prone they couldn’t even get the location right! Are we supposed to believe that Meiwald also changed his version of these events, changes that coincidentally enough, happened at the same time Salas also changed his story? Salas has insisted for years that Meiwald confirms his version of the events, but he has never offered up any details of that confirmation, leaving one to wonder what it is exactly that Meiwald confirms. When people change their stories so often over so many years, the truth can’t help but be highlighted a bit, because facts don’t change — they tend to remain constant. Your discussion of Halt’s affadavit prove this to be a consistent factor in the quality of other claimants brought forth by Robert Hastings as well. The more they change their stories, the more obvious it becomes that they’ve been lying from the very beginning, and Hastings’ support of their sad insistences proves only the unreliability and desperation inherent to his own judgment, and the base disregard for honesty inherent to his character. It doesn’t surprise me in the least, although I confess I’m very pleased to see it happen. The same character should append as well to the claims of another of his Echo Flight witnesses, a fellow named Jamison. He started out with a silly little story — one immediately seen as absurd to anyone who has served any substantial length of time in the U.S. military — that he could only date as around 1966-67, and a location at somewhere around Lewisburg, Montana, making it one of six or seven different possible flights of missiles, and he is now insisting, apparently at the urging of Robert Hastings, that the story centers around Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967, and all of it is a complete joke! He reported happily for some time that the event he recalls happened during a period of UFO reports at Malmstrom AFB that have been verified in the newspapers and by some additional witnesses, but when I pointed out that the location of these claims were around 120 miles from Oscar Flight and didn’t match in any way at all with the original claims he made to Robert Hastings, he changed his story, stating at the press conference on September 27, 2010 that it coincided with numerous UFO reports around Lewisburg, Montana. Even the slightest examination of these assertions, however, shows that there were no such reports around Lewisburg, at any time, let alone on the date he and Hastings now insist upon. In other words, he — along with Salas and Halt — has now changed his story in response to specific claims of dishonesty by his critics. That is not what I would call a good sign that he’s an honest man. I’ve said so repeatedly in the past, and I’ll say it again here: every UFO case Robert Hastings has championed and discussed should be examined in great detail, and his witnesses queried by more honest men. I’m sure it will prove to be a worthy undertaking that will tear down more than a few rotting branches of the “mighty oak” of UFO interest in nuclear facilties that he has been attempting to build, lacking the ability, it seems, to grow one naturally by any normal examination of human and/or non-human history. You have my thanks for adding another strike to the column rating his most egregious attempts to rewrite history for his own benefit. In my opinion, it’s a worthy calling.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 21, 2010 @ 3:44 am

  23. avatar

    Hi, Drew — didn’t know you were on. In my above comment where I state, “I assure you, it’s much more enjoyable when you have a few friends who are publically insisting that your arguments need to be examined in more detail. Tim was the first to do so for me, and I’m thankful for it”, I should have said “one of the first”. You were the first, by a very long shot, and I’ve always been thankful for that.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 21, 2010 @ 3:52 am

  24. avatar

    Another riposte to Hastings, by the ever-excellent Dr David Clarke:
    http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/11/flat-earth-nukes.html

    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 21, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

  25. avatar

    Outstanding!! That was a fun read — thanks for the link, Ian.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 21, 2010 @ 10:27 pm

  26. avatar

    I know that you’ve seen this hilarious spoof video, James, but for those who haven’t – be prepared to bust a gut:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O62jCLzylJw

    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 22, 2010 @ 12:06 am

  27. avatar

    James, Going back to your long post above, I agree entirely that an affidavit of the sort produced by Hastings’ witnesses is almost entirely without merit in terms of evidence. To get to the truth, these guys would need to be on oath, in a witness box, subject to cross-examination.

    You say “The more they change their stories, the more obvious it becomes that they’ve been lying from the very beginning”. In the case of the Rendlesham witnesses, this is an unfair charge because it’s clear that something genuinely did happen, and they tried to describe it as accurately as they could at the time. What makes the case so special is that we have contemporary documentary evidence in the form of written records and even a real-time tape recording.

    In fact, their descriptions are good enough for us to be able to work out what the explanations are for the various things they reported. The witness’s stories have changed over the years for a number of reasons, and not simply failure of memory. Partly it has been an attempt to escape from my explanations; partly it has been in response to the urgings of the makers of pseudo-documentaries to sex it up; and partly because they themselves have realized that the more exciting the story, the more attention they get.

    Also, of course, some of what you see in print and on the internet has been created not by the witnesses at all but by the proponents of the case for whom sensation is more important than fact. And we can all name some of those who fall into that category.

    Ian

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — November 22, 2010 @ 2:37 am

  28. avatar

    For the most part, you’re right, of course. But in my experience, if someone changes significant elements of a story they’ve decided to go public with, and they’re doing so with conscious regard for those changes, a deceptive act has been undertaken. I understand your position completely, but as far as I’m concerned, conscious regard indicative of deception is a lie. Your fairness regarding your interpretation of Rendlesham is admirable, and I admit completely that I don’t know very much about the case, investing your interpretation with a heck of a lot more authority than my own. All the same, there’s a lot of deception attached to UFO discussions, reports, and examinations, and I haven’t seen such indications originating with skeptical analysts. In any case, I personally consider such deceptions no different from lies, so that’s what I call them. It’s particularly dishonest to change your story in relation to critical examinatio, such as those provided by Jamison at Echo Flight, or those presented in “an attempt to escape from my explanations” at Rendlesham. It probably doesn’t matter much in the long run, but I’ve catalogued a great many provable lies from both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, so that’s the point of view I usually resort to; none of this , however, proves anything at all for Rendlesham, but in the absence of “failure of memory”, additional explanations are just lies, at least for rme. And both Hastings and Salas have that in spades.

    Comment by James Carlson — November 22, 2010 @ 8:17 am

  29. avatar

    Yeah I posted Ian Ridpath’s UnConvention presentation link from CFZ over at UFOmystic’s blogpost promoting the Rendlesham 30th Anniversary. I was commenting about Ian joining up with James Carlson’s excellent expose on the Malstrom Malfeasance.

    Well my comment to UFOmystic got disappeared. But hey the Rendlesham Sham has been decisively determined, thanks to Ridpath.

    http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010/11/unconvention-2010-ian-ridpath.html

    Comment by drew hempel — November 24, 2010 @ 10:56 pm

  30. avatar

    O.K. my ufomystic comment on Carlson and Ridpath finally got posted…after a few days. Nick’s a busy man especially with his new NASA book out….

    Comment by drew hempel — November 26, 2010 @ 1:57 am

  31. avatar

    James I appreciate all that you have done to expose this hoax and encourage you to stay on Hasting’s. case and not let him get away with anything. Persistence is important and I hope it won’t be long before this hoax is common knowledge.

    Comment by pigswillfly — December 1, 2010 @ 9:48 am

  32. avatar

    I’ll be honest with you, I’ve wanted to just call it quits more than once, because sometimes, it’s just a pain in the ass to have to deal with people who believe I’m a government agent or something, but then I think that these are people who believe my credibility as a human being decreases simply because I served in the military for a few years. That’s such an unfair and illogical conclusion to reach! I’ve been reading on how these various groups dismiss entirely everything that James Oberg has asserted because of his employment profile! If they can’t attack the assertions you’ve made or the facts you’ve raised, they attack you because of who has employed you, and these days, when no employment at all is certain for a great many people, that kind of opinion is so uncalled for that it just sickens me. And that’s just one of many reasons I’ve told myself, “don’t quit — you’re in it, now, so just don’t quit.” I expect that even on the worst of days, it’s that stubborness that will prevail — that and the absolute disgust I have for the people that have perpetrated these hoaxes for the basest of reasons.

    Thanks very much for saying so — if the only people who have written to tell me what they think were those who say I’m a traitor, or that I’m a government agent or whatever, I probably would have quit. The first email I received upon first posting “Americans, Credulous” on the Scribd website was from a guy who said that he was certain I worked for the CIA, because “nobody writes a book and then gives it away for free”. But the second was from a guy who said, “thanks — it’s about time somebody decided to tell the truth.” Well, I remember those the best, so thank you.

    Comment by James Carlson — December 4, 2010 @ 5:07 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



Reality Uncovered Social Networking
Visit us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Reality Uncovered on You Tube




RU Custom Search

Help support the continued growth of Reality Uncovered