August 7, 2011

Strategic Editing

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


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

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

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

Meiwald refuses outright to confirm any interviews with other official concerns, including OSI, and fails to note as well anything resembling a “non-disclosure statement” that had to be recognized and affirmed.  As we shall see, however, Robert Hastings has attempted to change this last indication in his recent interview with Col. Meiwald, although with some qualifying statements inserted, and some oddly dismissive assertions by Col. Meiwald, making it somewhat difficult to interpret.  As a result, it’s not easy to accept such new claims in light of his 1996 insistence that “I do not recall any follow-up activities by any Wing personnel”, even to the extent of what one would expect in the course of an actual UFO investigation by Lt. Col. Chase as would have been required.  As others critical of Robert Hastings’ methods have stated elsewhere, it’s not often that one’s memories of an event improve over time.

In any case, Robert Salas has been making these claims regarding OSI and the declaration of a non-disclosure agreement immediately following this incident since well before receiving this letter from Col. Meiwald.  In one form or another, this has been a part of his claims from the very beginning, even as far back as 1995, when he was originally insisting that he was at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967.  As we shall see, there are certain very exact and measured claims that Robert Salas has insisted upon from the very beginning of his evolving claims, aspects of his story that he has repeatedly attributed to Col. Meiwald’s 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 world’s attention or its conviction that such tales represent documented, factual events.

5.     Meiwald’s discussion of the UFO incident in his 1996 letter suggests a much later date for the event than March 1967:  Meiwald’s 1996 letter affirms that the “Command Post checklist, as I recall, just said to report any such incidents to civilian offices.”  In March 1967, however, this wasn’t true, a factor suggesting that perhaps his memories of the event should not be dated in March 1967, but sometime after the USAF abandoned official enquiry of every UFO report submitted, thereby transferring such responsibility “to civilian offices.”  In March 1967, active regulations dictated that any UFO sightings were to be reported to the command UFO officer, Lt. Col. Lewis Chase.  As a result of these regulations, no checklists in use anywhere at Malmstrom AFB during that period instructed personnel to report “such incidents to civilian offices.”  Given that Meiwald “left crew duty for the Command Post in early Nov 67,” as his letter states, it isn’t surprising that he would not only be familiar with the Command Post checklist, but might also associate that checklist with a directive to report such matters to civilian offices, which would be exactly the case if his duties were served at the Command Post when the USAF shut down Project Blue Book in 1969.  In fact, all of the particulars described in his letter could easily be accounted for if the sighting he describes occurred during a Command Post shift that he did not personally stand during this later period when Col. Meiwald was no longer serving as part of a two-man capsule crew.  More importantly still, if the UFO incident Meiwald describes in his 1996 letter occurred after he “left crew duty”, as his referral to “civilian offices” plainly indicates, than this incident cannot be associated with anything that Salas and Hastings have claimed.

6.     Meiwald’s 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 don’t have the date of upgrade to ‘R’. Our home site was Oscar. I left crew duty for the Command Post in early Nov 67.”  Robert Salas himself, however, insisted for another three years that the incident he has discussed took place at November Flight, not Oscar Flight, which would have placed him in an entirely different squadron, and chain of command.  While it would be nice to dismiss this entirely, since Meiwald has stated that “I have slightly different memories — which could easily be incorrect”, we should note as well that in regard to these claims, he specifically references “My records”, not his memories.  At a later point in the letter, he affirms again that “Related to the incident itself, I recall us being at the Oscar LCF.”  It would take another three years of research and the self-effacing recovery of lost memories for Salas to finally agree.  Throughout this three year period of time, however, he nonetheless insisted that Col. Meiwald had indeed confirmed all of the particulars of the story he told, including the date and location, somewhat significant details that he would continue to change over the following years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found out that I was not in Echo flight on the day of the incident, I was at some other flight; possibly November flight.  I spoke with the DMCC (deputy) of Echo and he confirmed that all his missiles shut down that night and that UFOs had been sighted (one at close range) by his maintenance team and his security team.  I am also sticking with my story that all of my missiles also shutdown that day and that my security guards at the LCF reported seeing UFOs and, in particular one hovering just outside the front gate.  One of my guards was also injured during this incident – not necessarily by the UFO – I don’t recall the details except that I remember that he was helicoptered out to the base.  This was a revelation to me because when we first started the FOIA activity, I could not recall the flight designator and when USAF released the E-Flt incident to us, we assumed that is where I was.  I did and do have a vivid recollection of my commander speaking to another flight that day and then saying to me that “… the same thing had happened at their flight.”  However, I had been under the impression up until now that what he had meant was that it happened to them at some other time period.  I now believe it was the same day because of the rapid response of the maintenance crews to our site.  I believe they had already been dispatched to Echo before our shutdown.

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

So, it appears that Robert Salas was pretty confident that all of the missiles failed while he was at November Flight, and that it happened on the same date as the Echo Flight Incident – March 16, 1967.  It’s equally apparent that even after discussing the matter with Col. Meiwald, and well after having received the now infamous 1996 letter in which Meiwald supposedly confirmed all of the associated details of that case, Robert Salas neglected to change any of the details he nonetheless insisted that Col. Meiwald had confirmed.  He claimed that Col. Meiwald confirmed the phone call establishing the date of March 16, 1967.  He claimed that Col. Meiwald confirmed the location of the incident at November Flight, a claim that he later adjusted somewhat, insisting three years later that Col. Meiwald had also confirmed the event location of the incident at Oscar Flight.  All of these points have been repeatedly denied by Col. Meiwald, even in his 1996 letter.  In light of this, it suggests that Robert Salas had no real use for anything that Meiwald told him. (Continues on page 3)


  1. avatar

    Another point I didn’t really put together until this morning:

    In his interview with Meiwald, Hastings states “Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander’s console—he 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 gate—my 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?”

    Compare that to the portion of his text that Hastings ultimately removed, because it was so damaging to his claims (and keep in mind that this is all part of the same interview):

    “Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t 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 Facility’s front gate.

    Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can’t remember it.”

    It’s established beyond any reasonable doubt, I believe, that Hastings’ use of the bracketed [after] and his easily and shamelessly determined efforts to get Meiwald to confirm the alleged UFO report to Salas represent another attempt to redefine this issue by showing that Meiwald’s claims represent a confirmation that Meiwald actually refused to grant. Meiwald clearly wasn’t having any of it, admitting in both affirmations that he couldn’t remember anything about a UFO report made coincident to the missile failures incident. This response strongly suggests that the UFO incident he recalls in the 1996 letter is completely separate from the missile failures event he’s allegedly addressed.

    It also strongly suggests that once again Robert Hastings is brazenly manipulating testimony to create an incident his witness failed to discuss.


    Comment by James Carlson — August 8, 2011 @ 3:47 am

  2. avatar

    Well James Carlson is featured in the latest theparacast interview — a show with Robert Hastings….

    There’s an interesting history to this show.

    I posted three “gold standard” (randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed) science studies in theparacast forum in a thread that was then shut down because no one was willing to engage with the evidence I presented. Then after the thread was shut down a long-time forum poster complained that the issue I had raised had been censored. So then I reposted the evidence and laughed at how theparacast says they are “the gold standard” of the paranormal but refuse to engage with the evidence of “gold standard” science.

    So then when researching theparacast a bit more I noticed their thread on supposed Malstrom UFO-Nukes…. and so I posted the latest information from Chris O’Brien, the co-host on theparacast, had mentioned he was reading Robert Hastings book and was impressed — he mentioned this on the previous show. That’s what piqued my interest.

    Now as people here know theparacast recently exposed Phil Imbrogno as having fake credentials but apparently another paranormal podcast show has taken this as an excuse to attack theparacast. I could care less about that debate since the information is very simple.

    But theparacast felt on the defensive due to their Phil Imbrogno mistake since they took his word on his credentials. So then when I critiqued theparacast’s “gold standard” then Gene, the host, also stepped in commenting about “ancient mysteries” (the topic of the thread that had been shut down) and tying it to the Phil Imbrogno snafu….Gene did this again when he announced that Robert Hastings would be the next show guest.

    O.K. so that’s way too much background information but it’s important to realize that when I then updated theparacast’s Robert Hastings thread — theparacast then signed up Robert Hastings as a guest and then Gene in the Hastings interview prominently mentions the “other” paranormal podcast show — I assume paratopia — attacking theparacast in regards to Phil Imbrogno. But clearly theparacast promoting Robert Hastings is an example of “anger displacement.”

    Literally James Carlson is the victim of theparacast’s anger displacement about theparacast being attacked in regards to their recent Phil Imbrogno imbroglio. If you listen to theparacast interview with Hastings it prominently features a big ad hominem dismissal of James Carlson — several times — and theparacast co-host Chris O’Brien even gets on it. Clearly they take no initiative to actually rely on Carlson’s research in order to critique Hastings.

    Comment by drew hempel — August 8, 2011 @ 4:49 am

  3. avatar

    I’m currently presenting Tim Herbert’s confirmation of Walt Figel’s email to James Carlson directly to Robert Hastings over on theparacast forum:

    Comment by drew hempel — August 8, 2011 @ 4:58 am

  4. avatar

    Sorry Tim Hebert.

    Comment by drew hempel — August 8, 2011 @ 4:59 am

  5. avatar


    Chances are that he will ignore it since you are invoking my name, but Robert may surprise me on this one. There are quite a few questions that I raised for Hastings such as if he had paid Figel for his interview, why no Figel affidavit, ect. Perhaps Robert may be willing to clarify some of those points as well. While were at it, since Robert’s book sales were built on the “backs” of his stable of interviewees, did he provide my brother officers with some, if any, profits from his book. It seems only fitting since he personally “soiled” their reputations.

    Comment by Tim Hebert — August 8, 2011 @ 7:50 am

  6. avatar

    [Admin Edit: The Paracast Forums]

    Originally Posted by Robert Hastings

    “Drew Hempel continues to misrepresent the facts about the Echo and Oscar Flight incidents, as the tapes of my conversations with Cols. Figel and Meiwald confirm. Both men support what Bob Salas and I say about a UFO presence during the missile shutdown incidents at Malmstrom in 1967. Drew’s own limited analytical abilities, as amply demonstrated at various blogs, make him susceptible to the many falsehoods perpetrated by James Carlson and his ilk. Personally, I am still waiting for Drew to spell “Malmstrom” correctly. Two years and counting…

    Once again, the taped conversations are at:

    [Admin Edit: The UFO Chronicles]

    As for Tim Hebert’s comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I’m sure that both men would like to know.

    I note that Hebert–and everyone else at RU–have thus far failed to provide evidence that either officer has contacted any of you to complain about my online presentation of their comments to me and Salas, or to challenge the authenticity of the tapes.

    Gee, I wonder why…”

    Comment by drew hempel — August 8, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

  7. avatar

    Per Robert Hastings at paracast forum:

    “As for Tim Hebert’s comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I’m sure that both men would like to know.

    I note that Hebert–and everyone else at RU–have thus far failed to provide evidence that either officer has contacted any of you to complain about my online presentation of their comments to me and Salas, or to challenge the authenticity of the tapes.”

    As far as your claims that you did not pay for Figel’s statements, I’ll gladly provide an addendum to my blog article for clarification.

    If, I use Robert’s standard as a guide then Figel’s non-response to my email would show that he concurs with it’s content and questions, which in the real world is ridiculous. It merely shows that all of the participants in this story are tired of rehashing the same thing over and over because Robert couldn’t get the original story or context straight, especially after looking at the discrepancies in Salas’ interview in 1996 and being unable to connect the dots.

    Comment by Tim Hebert — August 8, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

  8. avatar

    I just finished reading Robert’s response to the affidavits. Robert appears to think that I want them to sign one? No, I could care less about affidavits, but it is interesting that Figel never signed one as did all of the participants of the press conference in DC…why? Hastings and Salas seemed to think that affidavits would provide more veracity to the statements, yet the prime witness, or should I say star witness (and only one at that) did not do so. Odd, don’t you think?

    Comment by Tim Hebert — August 8, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

  9. avatar

    It’s also interesting that Hastings’ would discount my father’s claims on the basis of his supposedly “poor memory” even after my father stated plainly that he has no memory problems, and remembers the Echo Flight incident very well. Compare that to his insistence that Meiwald has confirmed all of Salas’ UFO claims, even after Meiwald has repeatedly insisted that he doesn’t remember anything about a UFO. In other words, he dismisses everything my father remembers so well, while advocating the establishment of the alleged UFO at Oscar Flight that Meiwald insists he has no memory of. Double standards or mere stupidity? You decide …

    Comment by James Carlson — August 9, 2011 @ 12:35 am

  10. avatar

    James: “How difficult is it to persuade such a stalwart witness to these incidents to simply state for the record that “8-10 missiles were lost to USAF deterrent forces at the same time that a UFO was reported” in association with such failures?”

    Indeed. Evidently it’s impossible because, pardon the pun on the name of Tim’s blog, it didn’t happen. Well done James, nothing like cutting right to the chase…

    You have to love Hastings’ claim that the “proof” he hasn’t blatantly misrepresented Figel and Miewald is the fact they refuse to talk him ever since he published those alleged “transcripts” last year.

    Seriously, how blind does Hastings and Salas think their followers are?

    Kudos and thanks again to Drew for trying to lead the horses to water…

    Comment by Access Denied — August 9, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

  11. avatar

    So a report has now been clarified by Hastings as a “verbal update” — nothing written down mind you, not a “report,” as it’s usually defined. How convenient. But wait? Is this “report” really just a “verbal update” — nope it was a joke as Figel stated. An unconfirmed joke, with one mention of the word UFO. Ah but Hastings says it’s a “report” — ooops I mean a “verbal update.” haha. Wait but Figel says there were no UFOs and Carlson says there was no call about UFOs. O.K. so we have Hastings taking a joke, as confirmed by the two people who were the direct witnesses. Hastings takes the joke confirmed by the direct witnesses and claims it’s a report about UFOs. And then when confronted about there being no report Hastings says everyone knows a verbal update means a report. haha. O.K. but does everyone know that this so-called verbal update was a joke — a one word reference as a joke? If not then they should. O.K. if you look up report in the dictionary it says an account — that’s the minimum definition. Sometimes it’s verbal — granted — but some dictionary definitions leave out the verbal account because report usually means

    “A formal account of the proceedings or transactions of a group.”
    as the freedictionary first definition for report states.

    Nope a one word joke is not an account and therefore not a report. So it is inaccurate to claim anyone gave a report about anything regarding the outlandish claims of Hastings.

    Let’s quote James Carlson on this in his masterpiece expose of Hastings:

    “So, although he was inside with the equipment where he could determine what the status of the missile was, and the security guard was outside with a 2-way radio, it was the maintenance crew member who called in to Figel to say that, yes, we have Channel 9 No-Go, my God, it must have been a UFO that did it. And he did so before the security guard mentioned anything at all, except at the very beginning of the conversation when he authenticated his own status to Figel sitting 60-feet underground at the LCC. It’s an absolute joke that we have to look at an open and shut case of two guys screwing around this closely simply because Robert Hastings is not bright enough to tell the difference between an “oh, wow, I’m just kidding” incident and an invasive attack on the nation’s most powerful means of waging war.”
    that’s page 66 of Americans, Credulous by James Carlson

    O.K. James Carlson goes into great detail about why the missiles went offline for real — why it was a just a one word joke mentioned by someone who had no visual ability to see anything.

    Again both Walt Figel and Eric Carlson were there and state there was nothing to back up Hastings wild claims that blow up a one word mention of his “obsession” as he stated in his theparacast interview.

    Comment by drew hempel — August 9, 2011 @ 4:59 pm

  12. avatar

    Hastings once again does an ad hominem attack without any evidence. “a priori”? No Ufology and More | Reality Uncovered lets the evidence speak for itself — if Hastings can present any “a priori” rejections of UFO-reality on realityuncovered please do so — otherwise Hastings claims are ad hominem labels without, as usual, addressing the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hastings

    “Hi Lauren,

    Unfortunately, Reality Uncovered (RU) is almost exclusively comprised of anti-UFO ideologs who have already rejected the idea of UFO-reality a priori. It’s no surprise that James Carlson has found a home there or that the group has warmly embraced his off-base and frequently unbalanced rants with open arms.

    Even one of the more lucid contributors to the group’s blog, Tim Hebert, is operating from a clearly biased pov. For example, he recently wrote: “[Given that] Robert’s book sales were built on the ‘backs’ of his stable of interviewees, did he provide my brother officers with some, if any, profits from his book?”

    First, book sales have never been a major concern for me, far from it, but anti-UFO “arguments” by debunkers usually contain this well-worn charge: He/she is in it for the money! In reality, with rare exceptions, UFO book authors can not expect to see much of a profit, if that is their goal. If I assigned a dollar value to the compensation I have received for my research, over 38 years, I have been working for far less than minimum wage. Not that this fact will resonate with the hysterical screamers over at RU.

    I will add here that I have posted a sizable quantity of material from my book at various websites over the past three years, for the purpose of public consciousness-raising, with no profit-motive in mind.

    Similarly, I hosted the UFO-Nukes Connection press conference last September, to generate media attention for the topic, and succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Nevertheless, despite generous financial contributions from supporters who helped make that event a reality, the undertaking cost me $2,480. Moreover, subsequent press releases that I issued via PRNewswire—one highlighting the current UFO activity at F.E. Warren AFB—have cost me an additional $2,000.

    In short, someone please let me know when I start getting rich from my research. At that point, I will mount a lawsuit against James Carlson for having called me a “liar and a fraud” countless times online.

    Second, all of my ex-military sources, including Hebert’s “brother officers” have enthusiatically supported and voluntarily assisted in my efforts to document the UFO-Nukes Connection. To suggest that I am doing all of this on their “backs” is simply inaccurate and an insult to them. I plan to forward Hebert’s comment about this to my list of source contacts and hopefully some of them will respond to his baseless charge. (Some have already told me privately of their disgust over the misguided, inaccurate and insulting remarks that RU’s regular contributors post on an ongoing basis about persons who have courageously come forward with their accounts of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites.)

    Now, for perspective, one will find an article at my website titled “Operation Bird Droppings” in which I praised RU’s efforts in exposing the many lies of retired AFOSI agent Richard Doty and others engaged in the MJ-12 and Serpo hoaxes. Indeed, members of the group and I exchanged information on the topic some years ago, given that I was the person who first exposed Doty’s shennigans in 1989. So, RU is capable of doing useful, credible work on occasion. Unfortunately, because of their overarching anti-UFO bias, those moments are few and far between.

    BTW, I applaud Lance Moody’s expose on the fraudulent claims by ufologist Philip Imbrogno, regarding his academic and military credentials. My own academic background is posted at my website.

    –Robert Hastings”

    Comment by drew hempel — August 9, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

  13. avatar

    I encourage Robert to contact his sources, as I had recently stated on Billy Cox’s DeVoid site, that all they have to do is contact me via my blog. But according to recent statements by Robert, it appears that Col Figel is reluctant to contact anyone. Robert, I did send Walter Figel an email, and similar to your recent release of updated interview material, Figel has not responded. Again, I ask, if you say that Figel’s silence is concurrance regarding your recent material, then can the same be true with his silence towards me? For the record, I’ve added an addendum to “Case Close” listing Robert’s statement that he did not pay for Figel’s interview…

    Comment by Tim Hebert — August 9, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

  14. avatar

    Ha! I know of at least three lawyers here in Albuquerque who would be willing to absorb any of the initial costs of mounting a lawsuit as long as there’s a remote chance of them winning it and recouping those losses. Only an idiot would believe he’s not suing me due to financial reasons. The truth of the matter is so much easier to understand than that: he’s not suing me because he is a liar and a fraud and he’s well aware that I can prove it in a heartbeat sufficient to prejudice any jury in the country!

    You hear that, Robert? It’s the big and loud bait call of the southwestern pro-bono legal services road-runner — y’hear him? Tweeee! You’re a liar and a fraud! Tweeee!

    Hang it up, pal — you’re embarrassing yourself …

    Comment by James Carlson — August 9, 2011 @ 8:11 pm

  15. avatar

    As usual the moderator at theparacast has threatened to cut me off — which is not balanced considering I’m the only one presenting evidence that blatantly makes Hastings’ arguments the empty facades they really are. People at theparacast — if you read the three threads I’ve posted in to counteract Hastings — are actually asking questions vis a vis the research done here at realityuncovered.

    So there has been a dent made — if anyone else wants to join in the fun feel free. It is a kind of pathetic past-time but then I do feel sorry for the suckers out there.

    Comment by drew hempel — August 9, 2011 @ 10:48 pm

  16. avatar

    No worries Drew, like I said, you can lead a horse to water…

    If people want to better inform themselves like you did and get the other side of the story Hastings is selling, thanks to you, they know where to drink now or gasp, ask the researchers questions first. If they don’t, then all I can say is P.T. Barnum was right.

    Ignorance truly is bliss (and more profitable) for some in which case there’s really nothing more you can do for them at this point so my advice for what it’s worth would be to leave them to theirs, try not to take it too personally, and live to fight the good fight another day.

    Comment by Access Denied — August 10, 2011 @ 2:39 am

  17. avatar

    IRT Hastings’ “I note that Hebert–and everyone else at RU–have thus far failed to provide evidence that either officer has contacted any of you to complain about my online presentation of their comments to me and Salas, or to challenge the authenticity of the tapes.”

    I was under the impression that the emails Figel sent Hastings substantiates “that either officer has contacted any of you to complain about my online presentation of their comments to me and Salas” pretty effectively, not to mention the numerous communications we’ve already established. As far as proceeding “to challenge the authenticity of the tapes”, maybe he’s not keeping track. The authenticity of the tapes has consistently proven itself useless (perhaps Robert should read this particular article as well). I wonder if this is merely a step back to his previous lies that I never contacted and discussed this matter with Figel or Meiwald. What a shame — I was hoping he would at least have affirmed all of that by now. I guess personal growth isn’t something he approves of, given that his moral lapses appear to be gaining in both length and reliance. But I guess if you’ve got nothing else — and Robert has nothing else — you might be more willing to grasp at the straws fraudulence and dishonesty seldom provide on their own.

    Comment by James Carlson — August 11, 2011 @ 12:37 am

  18. avatar

    Well, I decided to review all the paracast materials that Drew pointed us to, just to see what those guys consider “convincing” or “reckless”. I was a bit surprised that there were so few responders who were willing to analyze any of the claims made, and yet they were willing to base their own assertions on so little, such as what they personally would expect military leaders to resolve over the course of 50 years of unregulated events they are unable to even establish as factual. It was a bit disconcerting. It reminded me of how people around the world reacted to the “discovery” of St. Peter’s remains at the Vatican a few years ago (while Pius was still the Pope). When my wife and I went to Rome in the late 1990s, I picked up a few books regarding the archaeology behind this event, and was a bit surprised to find out that the evidence wasn’t exactly as clear-cut as everyone seemed to believe it was; there was also a show on cable this week that discussed the case a bit — I think it was called “The Naked Archaeologist”. One article I read went so far as to state that from a religious viewpoint (such as the Catholic Church’s) it didn’t even matter if it was really St. Peter or not. What mattered was whether it was a great story or not, the point being that religious belief systems are based primarily on tenets of faith that are recognized as being “more important” from a religious foundational point of view because belief comes about not as the result of a convincing argument, but as a result of one’s personal faith — a faith that can only be properly shared among those few who have been “chosen” (in the religious sense, as in “many are called, but few are chosen”). I’ve pointed out in the past how the development of UFOlogical points of view parallels in many ways the development of religious points of view, particularly in the case of developing doctrine, and that this disturbs me a bit, because it indicates that “well-developed arguments” and “evidence” will eventually be dismissed entirely as too damaging to the establishment of one’s personal belief. It’s really odd, but you can actually see this process in motion by simply analyzing what people are insisting upon and how they reach their conclusions. I’m sure we all remember what happened when Rome established a relatively “new” religion as the state-sanctioned faith: any attempts to apply reason and logic and analysis to that faith was tortured right out of the population pretty convincingly. You can see the development of that same sort of diametric response to personal belief in the anger so often directed at those who would dare to question such tenets of faith. I have little doubt that sooner or later some of those folks are going to at least look into forming their own militias; they’ve already found it very easy to dismiss common sense, applicable argument, and faithless conclusions. Defending their fact-free visions at the point of a gun is only a hop, skip, and a jump away …

    Comment by James Carlson — August 13, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

  19. avatar

    James — you get referred to again in the opening of the latest podcast. Of course they misrepresent you as some sort of stalker which just demonstrates how clueless these podcasts hosts are. I like Gene and Chris — but they are definitely not interested in taking up the actual issue on an indepth level. They don’t want to get involved and so they are defending the guest they chose. Still they pull back a little – Gene wonders if Hastings has “tunnel vision” — a mild way of saying delusional maybe?

    Comment by drew hempel — August 16, 2011 @ 7:20 am

  20. avatar

    Delusional? That would be my guess, too — I’ve discovered that most of the trash talkers out on the circuit these days haven’t even bothered to read what my claims are, and those few who insist they have are unable to repeat them without getting it wrong in one way or another. I’ve decided that there’s very little point arguing with most of them, because I spend way too much time simply correcting their errors. So they can say whatever they like — I have no interest in arguing with people who apparently don’t know what they’re arguing against. If it’s somebody like Hastings, of course, I’m all in, but most of these folks don’t have much of an audience, and very little influence so, for the most part, it’s a waste of time arguing with them unless I’m just feeling ornery for one reason or another. I’ll happily answer their questions and point out their errors, but for the most part, they aren’t looking for that — they just want people to know that they’re on the UFO bandwagon, and for a lot of them insulting those who are on “the other side” is a good way to do that.

    As for me, I don’t care a whole lot what a bunch of psychopaths think about me or my opinions; there are plenty of people out there who are willing to look at the evidence that’s been presented. I personally think that we’ve been extraordinarily successful at convincing them of the inherent dishonesty associated with Robert Hastings’ and Robert Salas’ claims since the very first time I posted on the “Disclosure Project” thread that you started. In those days, it simply wasn’t acceptable for the most part to come right out and state that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are a couple of con-men and liars who shouldn’t be trusted or believed, even in regard to simply repeating and interpreting what other people supposedly told them. Today, it’s a different story entirely, and public opinion regarding them and the things they’ve done in support of their claims drops another notch every day. I’m very proud and quite pleased that my work has had a little bit to do with that, even though their own actions and ill-advised conduct is responsible for a lot of the momentum.

    I don’t want to take away from the credit that others deserve either; it’s been a decidedly group effort getting as far as we’ve gone in such a fairly short period of time. I also don’t want to acknowledge that nothing more is really necessary. As you’ve pointed out more than once, there are still a whole lot of people out there who are significantly “bugged” by the whole business. They seem to think that there’s something truly outrageous on a moral level in regard to what we’ve accomplished, and that’s a shame. My guess is that you might feel the same way in regard to Gene and Chris, although I’m quite sure as well that they’re very likable guys — most folks usually are.

    It should be pointed out, however, that the fact that you believe Gene and Chris have felt it necessary to “pull back a little” is pretty significant, in my opinion, as are some of the responses you got on paracast; I’m pleased to see it, and I doubt we would have seen anything like it two years ago. Heck, two years ago NICAP and MUFON were openly stating that my father must be ashamed of me for “debunking” a case he supported so strongly! If nothing else, at least now they know that he’s NEVER supported it, and has repeatedly gone on the record to protest it, while insisting that Salas is either “lying or delusional”. So a lot of things have been cleared up since then, and it’s far more obvious today that Salas has lied about this one case from the very beginning.

    Still, as you say, a lot of folks do consider me “some sort of stalker”, and that means there’s still a lot of work to do, in my opinion. However, it’s also my opinion that I possess two singular qualities that are responsible for my very strong belief that there’s really no way we can lose this thing, however you want to define it: (1) I really, really hate liars, and (2) I really, really don’t give a damn what these people think about me. I assure you, at the end of the day, I have a smile on my face because of it!

    Comment by James Carlson — August 16, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

  21. avatar

    Too bad you have to login to post a comment on Micah Hanks website as he’s interviewed Hastings….

    Meanwhile the true believers at theparacast are wondering why Hastings disappeared from theparacast forum. haha.

    Comment by drew hempel — August 18, 2011 @ 6:25 am

  22. avatar

    Here’s Hastings’ answer for not answering the true believers’ questions:

    “No offense, but I can either do research or blog my time away. I am 61 and hear the clock ticking. So, every day I ask myself how much time I should devote to blogging, as opposed to my work. There are hundreds of persons writing about my research on various blogs and I simply don’t have time to answer them all. Again, no offense intended.”


    Comment by drew hempel — August 18, 2011 @ 6:30 am

  23. avatar

    I don’t think you can call what he does “research”. If he was actually conducting research, he would be able to defend his “work” — as he calls it — and he can’t. He’s still not answering any questions, or clarifying anything for his readers, he still refuses to discuss the issues with someone who actually understands them, and like Salas, he prefers to lecture, because he can do that without bothering to explain. When was the last time someone asked him any real probitive questions, such as “why do you consider Meiwald’s testimony to be a confirmation of Salas’ claims, when Meiwald has very clearly, during the course of your own interview with him, insisted that he doesn’t remember anything at all in reference to the UFO that remains to this day the central claim of Salas’ story?”

    What Hastings does cannot be called “research.” If it were “research”, it would contain verifiable facts, and the only thing that you can verify in Hastings’ “work” is his arrogant dishonesty. In the long run, his concerns about “the clock ticking” won’t mean squat, because the test of time necessitates examination, and the more you examine the crap that he publishes, the more you discuss the matter with his own witnesses, and the more you try to verify or otherwise confirm any of the ridiculously pathetic claims that he’s trying to establish, the more evident it becomes how poorly equipped he actually is to present what he claims. If he had a real case to make, he wouldn’t have to threaten the whole world with lawsuits to stifle the mass of criticism regarding his claims and his methods; he would be willing to clarify things, to throw some light on the subject instead of trying to stifle public debate, or to blind his audience with ugly masses of irrelevence and bluster.

    I read this yesterday, and thought it amusing enough to share: He’s making friends everywhere, it seems, and his methods are universally condemned. And he still refuses to answer any questions, even to simply say “I don’t know …” Watch the video — it’s good for a laugh.

    Comment by James Carlson — August 18, 2011 @ 6:29 pm

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