August 7, 2011

Strategic Editing


It’s also true that after speaking to Col. Meiwald, Robert Salas was willing to publish what he claims to be Meiwald’s assertions that he recalls only five missiles being forced into a No-Go state, his email to Raymond Fowler mentions that Meiwald was only willing to say there were four missile failures.  Of course, Meiwald’s 1996 letter to Salas doesn’t mention any missile failures at all, and neither man has shown himself willing to clarify that lapse.  As for Robert Salas’ claims, they have not exactly been consistent.  In 1996, he told Raymond Fowler that Meiwald would only confirm four missile failures.  In 1997, he published that while Meiwald would only confirm five failures, he himself remembered that more than half of the ten missiles actually failed.  In an article Salas published in 1999, he stated that 6-8 missiles were lost, a number that was presumably confirmed by Col. Meiwald, a confirmation that became general for all of Salas’ clams from this point on.  In his interview with the Disclosure Project in 2000, the number of missiles failing remained at 6-8, but this apparent continuity didn’t last long; in his book Faded Giant it jumps again to 8-10 missiles being forced into a No-Go status, all of which had allegedly been confirmed by Col. Frederick Meiwald.  Unfortunately, the only document we have that can actually be confirmed as coming from Meiwald doesn’t mention any missile failures at all, so we’re forced to rely on Salas’ own accounts, which have been decidedly inconsistent, and in many cases represent outright and easily distinguishable lies.  Anyone desirous of a little enlightenment regarding the facts of this case find themselves forced to rely on materials that are inherently illogical, contrary to actual military procedures, and contain elements that tend to contradict far more than corroborate each other.

But then some good news came out of the Hastings-Salas camp, eliciting a promise in the wind that some confirmed information might finally be made available.  We were told that Robert Hastings was able to convince Col. Meiwald to finally go on the record, and make known to the public exactly what he was willing to confirm and not confirm.  But then we read the somewhat abbreviated rendition that typifies the exchange between the two men, and realized almost immediately that once again, Robert Hastings’ purpose was not to throw a little light on the subject in order to reveal a few facts that have not yet been clarified, but was merely another attempt to foster abuse of those critical of his claims, to promote himself and his defective arguments, and to establish UFO interference with the nuclear weaponry at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 where no such interference can be rationally exposed.  It’s difficult to believe that this cynical attempt to establish some kind of confirmation originating with Col. Meiwald is little more than a broadly biased and slipshod attempt to reestablish Hastings’ and Salas’ claims in the wake of the embarrassing revelations, consistently dishonest assertions, and overreached conclusions that became obvious following the assessments authored by Col. Walt Figel, the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967.  The subsequent wreckage of Hastings’ and Salas’ Echo Flight claims has resulted in the effective dismissal of those claims, forcing them to put more effort into sustaining Col. Meiwald’s alleged confirmation of an Oscar Flight incident.  Examined from this point of view, it ‘s no longer difficult to understand why Robert Hastings has neglected to raise such issues in his recent interview; he simply has no motivation to present or otherwise account for evidence that doesn’t support his version of this event.  He has no desire to present the truth, only the already predetermined and biased conclusions that he’s attempting to institute.  The generally non-specific character of his interview with Meiwald, combined with his inability to ask questions intended to clarify the incident even a little bit, is the primary result of this flawed perspective.

Given that there is little reason to trust Salas’ statements regarding the claims that he has made, the question of what exactly Col. Meiwald has confirmed in regard to those claims is one that has yet to be answered.  The following analysis of that interview suggests, however, that our hopes for clarity have once again been dashed, not only by Hastings’ continued failure to ask questions best intended to determine the facts, but by his coordinated efforts to twist the honest answers he received into a series of assertions that I personally believe were unintended by Col. Meiwald.  What follows is my critique of this interview, one that stresses the efforts undertaken by Hastings to suggest claims and details that have not yet been expressed by Col. Meiwald.  To my mind, the best way to highlight the process under examination is a point-by-point analysis of the questions asked of Meiwald, and Hastings’ dishonest representation of his replies:

Here again, read what Fred Meiwald said in his May 2011 interview. It’s purely and simply FALSE that he denied the UFO reports or that he didn’t back the story of Robert Salas – 100% FALSE. And this interview is on tape, unlike those with Eric Carlson:

What follows is a partial transcript of my May 6, 2011 telephone interview with Col. Meiwald. Emphasized words are italicized; confidential comments have been excluded at Meiwald’s request; numerous “uh” and “um” sounds, uttered by both of us, have been eliminated for easier reading, although I retained a few of them when appropriate.

It’s fortunate that Robert Hastings has admitted up-front that his recordings have been liberally edited and are incomplete, but critics of his methods have noted that in the past, so his agreement with such assessments doesn’t necessarily present such an admission as the opening round of an honest debate.  The plain fact is that the statements issued by Col. Meiwald have all been edited, and are incomplete, which is sufficient reason to doubt their veracity, especially in light of the numerous dishonest assertions and lies that have been authored by Robert Hastings in the past.  It is also necessary for Hastings to use such methods, because the embarrassing fact that he has released numerous updated affidavits from other Echo Flight witnesses – such as Robert Jamison and Dwynne Arneson – that are significantly different from their prior affidavits has already confirmed his dishonesty in that method of presentation.  By releasing audio tapes of supposedly self-assessed statements that don’t require a notarized presentation, he has a created a means to control the statements of his witnesses, allowing him the uninterrupted freedom to change whatever he wants, including its significance, without having to rewrite everything for that single, notarized signature at the bottom.  This not only allows him to make false claims regarding the commentary presented, it gives him the freedom to change those claims however he wants.  The only real chore is to convince his audience that the transcripts he’s provided (a necessary adjustment in light of the fact that he doesn’t always provide the actual recordings he claims to have in his possession) represent a more reliable method of evidence presentation than a written statement, a claim he makes clear in his reference to the interview being “on tape, unlike those with Eric Carlson.”  The fact that audio tapes represent a means of presentation that can be changed as often as he likes, while an affidavit is a permanent record that has been authored by the subject of that record does seem to escape many of those willing to extend to Hastings the benefit of the doubt in regard to this issue, but that number decreases daily, more so whenever he presents another dollop of evidence that has been changed depending on the purpose for which it has been addressed.  This is precisely why such evidence is only very rarely admitted in court, and then only after numerous qualifying statements being read into the trial records.  The plain fact is that audio tapes do not represent an ideal means of witness statements; they never have.  This became very well-established for the American mind during President Richard Nixon’s administration.  Robert Hastings’ reliance on such devices is another con game presented by a man who simply cannot be trusted to deliver an accurate representation of his witness’ claims.

There are, in fact, numerous legal structures that must be met in order to allow the admittance of recorded testimony, ascertained by the fact that the Supreme Court has often weighed in on this issue.  The following requirements must be established first, and I see no reason to ignore these points merely because Robert Hastings wishes to present tainted evidence in regard to UFOs:

1.         The recording device must have been capable of taping the conversation now offered in evidence [requirement met, existence of the tape recording alone proves that the recording device was functioning and capable of duplicating sounds; this requirement does not, however, reference the quality of the recording].

2.         The operator of the device must be competent to operate the device [requirement met, assured by Robert Hastings’ own admission, proof of which resides in the fact that he successfully made the recordings, satisfying thereby the competency requirement; this does not, however, reference the level of expertise].

3.         The recording must be authentic and correct [unknown; we’re forced to accept Hastings’ word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; the standard for correctness of a recording is whether “the possibility of misidentification and adulteration [is] eliminated, not absolutely, but as a matter of reasonable probability”; Hastings’ past record as established by Col. Walt Figel renders this requirement not only unsatisfied, but doubtful as well].

4.         Changes, additions or deletions have not been made in the recording [requirement not met, assured by Robert Hastings’ own admission – see above; an aural overview of the tape allows the court to hear signs (i.e., gaps) which might indicate tampering; if there exist signs of tampering, a forensic expert is often consulted; if there are no signs of tampering, a proper chain of custody documentation may suffice; in relation to this issue, the tapes have not been made available; Hastings’ own admission, however, renders the test moot; his past record as established by Col. Walt Figel renders this requirement not only unsatisfied, but doubtful as well].

5.         The recording must have been preserved in a manner that is shown to the court [unknown; we’re forced to accept Hastings’ word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; this fifth step has created stumbling blocks for proponents of admissibility; the proponent for the tape’s admittance can assure the court that the item offered as evidence is substantially the same as it was originally by documenting its “chain of custody”; a proper chain of custody begins with consecutively numbered and dated tapes; careful logs are then kept which note the time of particular conversations and the locations on the tapes at the time of occurrence; these evidence tapes are sealed and stored in separate envelopes and appropriate chain of custody records are maintained by the evidence custodian; Hastings has provided nothing beyond his personal word, the proven worth of which is insufficient in light of his past conduct in regard to this issue; chain of custody is unreferenced and cannot be established].

6.         The speakers must be identified [unknown; we’re forced to accept Hastings’ word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) states that: “Voice identification is adequate if made by a witness having sufficient familiarity with the speaker’s voice”; the rule goes on to clarify that familiarity may be obtained previous to or after listening to the recorded voice; this requirement has never been established by Robert Hastings, nor has the date-time group of any recordings admitted; in light of Col. Walt Figel’s insistence that he has never made specific claims that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have repeatedly presented to the contrary, voice identification has clearly not been sufficiently established].

7.         The conversation elicited was made voluntarily and in good faith, without any kind of inducement [unknown; we’re forced to accept Hastings’ word in regard to this matter, and this has proven to be problematic in the past; he has no credibility and his past dishonesty and numerous lies assures us that his word alone is insufficient; in addition, without the requirement of identity having been established, the voluntary elicitation of the recorded conversation cannot be established sufficient for purposes of evidence presentation].

In light of Robert Hastings’ numerous failures in reference to the presentation of this alleged “evidence”, including his past record of dishonest manipulation of said evidence, it’s plain that his preference for audio recordings in place of a simple written document drafted by the individual making the claims represents a superior means of presentation.  The introduction of recorded evidence requires specific attendances that he has failed to meet.  As we shall see, he has failed to meet these requirements for one reason and one reason only:  it is not Robert Hastings’ intention to reveal the truth; his intention is merely to present evidence supporting his claims, and nothing more.  The use of recorded testimony that can be manipulated in whatever means sufficient for his purposes contributes to that necessity.  And as we shall see, he is not exactly “shy” about manipulating such evidence when he finds it necessary to do so.

After I introduced myself to Meiwald and described my association with his former deputy missile commander, Bob Salas, I asked Meiwald whether the telephone interview might be tape-recorded. He agreed and our conversation about the mass-missile shutdown incident at Malmstrom’s Oscar Flight, in March 1967, began.

(Unfortunately, an electronic hum mars the quality of the tape and makes Meiwald’s soft voice hard to hear at times. However, if one reads the transcript below while listening to it, the colonel’s important comments are discernable.)

This is a demonstrably incorrect conclusion for Hastings to reach; Col. Meiwald’s most important comments have actually been covered up — not rendered clearer.  And sometimes, they don’t even exist as anything more than the [bracketed] interpretations of a man who has proven to be incapable of inspiring trust, let alone accurately rendering the contents of a simple interview.  His use of an induced electronic hum and the poor quality of the recording he has introduced has allowed Robert Hastings to reinterpret every single reference to command authority that exists in this interview, leaving the reader with the wrong conclusion in every single instance, a conclusion not reached by Col. Meiwald, the subject of this interview, but with Hastings, the fraudulent huckster who is interpreting the interview for his audience.  Don’t take my word for it; examine the materials for yourself.  After all, it’s not like he’s trying to hide anything; he’s just not allowing the introduction of any actual clarification.

FM:      Okay, essentially, I was resting — whether or not I was sound sleep I don’t recall — but I know Bob got me up because we had unusual indications on the console, plus we’d had a security violation and, uh, the response team that [inaudible] had gone out to investigate at one of the LFs. They reported unusual activity over there and — by that time I was up — and saw console indications.  […I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back. As they came back we did lose radio contact for a short period of time, however, the flight [security] leader — the person who was in charge at the time — recognized the team as it was approaching the LCF and opened the gate so that his troops could get in.

So far all we’ve got are “unusual indications on the console”, a statement that means nothing without further information.  Meiwald says nothing about a UFO or anything about missiles failing.  He says he knows “Bob got me up because we had unusual indications on the console, plus we’d had a security violation and, uh, the response team that [inaudible] had gone out to investigate at one of the LFs. They reported unusual activity over there and — by that time I was up — and saw console indications.”  So far, he can’t say anything at all about what happened, because he hasn’t been told anything except that there was apparently a team sent out for a security alert – this is exactly what his 1996 letter says.  In a security alert, he and “Bob” wouldn’t be giving the orders, the Command Post would be, which is why Meiwald’s 1996 letter discusses the check-off list for the Command Post and not the capsule crew.  The capsule crew is not involved with common security alerts, primarily because they are so common.

Note as well the phrases that Meiwald uses:  “As they came back we did lose radio contact for a short period of time, however, the flight [security] leader — the person who was in charge at the time — recognized the team as it was approaching the LCF and opened the gate so that his troops could get in.”  This is a blatant admission that “the person who was in charge at the time” was not himself or Robert Salas, but a third person entirely, indicating that this could not possibly refer to a missile failures incident.  If it had, he would have been in charge.
It’s important to note here the incidentals of Hastings’ excessive use of bracketing, which is not particularly useful when an oral interview is the intended target; after all, bracketing can only be used by the reader, and then only when a third person point of view is involved.  It’s useless if we’re considering Meiwald’s side of the issue, because bracketing establishes only how the interviewer interprets what’s being said, while the most important interpretation should be Meiwald’s, he being the subject of the interview.  By inserting brackets into Meiwald’s commentary, Robert Hastings is essentially redefining what Meiwald has stated, taking the responsibility for content and meaning away from the man who is actually establishing that side of the discussion.  He’s telling the reader what they should understand, not Meiwald, who is the guy supposedly answering the questions.  And in the case of Frederick Meiwald, this represents an exceptionally important and irresponsible breach of interview ethics.  The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized.  The use of bracketing is a means of redefinition, and in this particular case, it has been used by Robert Hastings to alter Meiwald’s point-of-view regarding command authority.  More importantly, Robert Hastings has exercised this method of redefinition every single time the question of command authority is assessed by the content of Meiwald’s sentence structure.  This fact alone is sufficient to doubt Hastings’ rendition of Col. Meiwald’s intent.  Let’s be very clear here:  Robert Hastings is essentially restructuring the content of Col. Meiwald’s responses. (Continues on page 4)







23 Comments

  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.

    James

    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….

    http://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_110807.mp3

    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 realityuncovered.net 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:

    http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/7589-Never-Before-Published-Audio-Taped-Interviews-Affirms-UFO-Activity-at-Nuke-Missile-S/page2

    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

    Drew,

    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

    http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/7589-Never-Before-Published-Audio-Taped-Interviews-Affirms-UFO-Activity-at-Nuke-Missile-S/page2?p=121209#post121209

    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.

    http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/3077-UFOs-and-Nukes/page43?p=121214#post121214

    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

    http://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_110814.mp3

    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….
    http://gralienreport.com/radio-interviews/the-gralien-report-podcast-for-august-15-2011/

    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.”

    Hilarious.

    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: http://ivansnapsalong.com/ufo-nuclear-missiles/ 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