August 7, 2011

Strategic Editing

To illustrate this importance of this, take the following examples from that same interview excerpts above:  “[…I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back.”  Now ask yourself, did Col. Meiwald give the order as Hastings has indicated by his use of bracketing?  This is an important aspect of the case, because in his 1996 letter Meiwald insists that he wasn’t giving orders, the Command Post was.  In the same excerpt, he plainly refers to “the person who was in charge at the time”.  Simply ask yourself:  did Col. Meiwald direct the strike team to return to the LCF, or did the person who was in charge at the time?  If it wasn’t Col. Meiwald who was giving the orders, than it wasn’t a missile failures incident.  And that means we’re talking about two separate incidents entirely, and Robert Hastings is once again lying to the public in order to support clams that cannot be otherwise asserted.  It also proves that Robert Hastings cannot be trusted to render an accurate accounting of a recorded interview, a conclusion that draws attention to his apparent inability to prove a point in the absence of statements provided by his witness.  This was the same problem he evinced in his accounts of Col. Figel’s testimony.  He could solve this problem completely by simply asking his witnesses to write out a statement that presents the main points he is trying to substantiate.

For all of Hastings’ insistence that “It’s purely and simply FALSE that he [Meiwald] denied the UFO reports or that he didn’t back the story of Robert Salas – 100% FALSE”, this interview certainly doesn’t substantiate those claims.  Robert Hastings failed to even ask about the missile failures, let alone clarify the issue, and has once again expended the majority of his efforts discussing a UFO nobody has really disputed, and failing to clarify any of the issues that have been raised in response to his poorly argued claims.  This is a bad habit of his, making it somewhat mystifying why anyone would consider him a genuine asset to UFOlogy or to those making claims in support of UFOlogy.  Any examination of his interview with Meiwald cannot help but conclude that his actual intent has been to muddy the springs of retention, not to clarify any of the issues that have been established.  Clarification is usually considered a primary goal for most chroniclers of any historically relevant happenstance, so his failure to ask any suitable questions in regard to Meiwald’s testimony is a bit bothersome.

RH:      Okay. The letter that you sent Bob [on October 1,] 1996 elaborated on the phone conversation that you and Bob had — uh, I think it was in August 1996 — in which you said that the persons, the Security Alert Team that had gone out at, I guess, Bob’s direction, had seen something that scared them silly and they beat a hasty retreat back to the LCF. Do you remember that part of it?

FM:      That’s basically true. I can’t remember [my] exact words, but they were directed to come back to the LCF upon completion of their mission [inaudible].

RH:      Uh, they apparently described seeing an object in the sky. Do you remember any of the details?

FM:      I remember them saying something along those lines [inaudible] to me. Beyond that, I couldn’t elaborate.

This is an interesting part of the interview for Hastings to insert an “[inaudible]”, since it seems to indicate that the security team was talking directly to Meiwald.  Unfortunately, if this is the same incident he referred to in his 1996 letter, as he states pretty clearly here, how do we explain the fact that the letter affirms that the security team was talking only to the Command Post, and not the capsule crew?  Basically, Hastings’ unfortunate placement of “[inaudible]” suggests that Meiwald is talking to the security team, while Col. Meiwald hasn’t actually effected that point of view at all.  He doesn’t actually state that he’s talking to the security team – but Hastings’ editing suggests that he is.  This is another example of Hastings’ strategic editing, one that enables an understanding that wasn’t intended by the author of the statement.  It is dishonest and it is intentional.

Where Robert Hastings adds the “[my]” to suggest that Meiwald is talking about a first person communication, he’s doing the same thing again, establishing thereby a suggestion of first person communication that doesn’t actually exist.  He accomplished the same goal earlier as well, when he bracketed the first person singular “I”, as in “[…I] also directed that the strike team return to the LCF while maintaining radio contact on the way back.”  This isn’t what his witness has claimed — it’s what Robert Hastings is telling us his witness has claimed; and that’s a very different affirmation entirely.  This is an extremely important part of the interview, and Robert Hastings is forcing us to consider only his interpretation of the claims, not Col. Meiwald’s intent.  If Meiwald wasn’t talking to the security crew on call, then this incident was not a missile failures incident.  And in his 1996 letter, the one which he confirms is the same incident as this one being described to Hastings, he is very clear regarding that intent:

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 — this particular one being located just east of Highway 19, the state highway which runs north from Grass Range to the Missouri River. With little or no direction from higher authority (Command Post or Alternate Command Post), the Security team was directed to return to the LCF, maintaining radio contact at all times, as the security system reset.  While enroute back to the LCF, radio contact was lost and remained out until the security vehicle approached the LCF. Two very upset young men wasted no time getting back inside.

 In other words, in 1996 Meiwald confirms only Salas’ claim that he ordered them out, hence the expression “obviously at your direction”. Everything else, however, goes through the Command Post – he’s not hearing about it on the 2-way radio for himself, as the situation was defined during the Echo Flight incident; he’s getting it all second hand from topside security.  And that means it isn’t a missile failures incident.  In a missile failures incident, he would have been in direct communication with the outgoing team, and in the incident described, he simply isn’t.  He even states that there was “little or no direction from higher authority”.  In a missile failures incident, Meiwald would have been that higher authority!

It’s decidedly odd, in my opinion, that the very details in the letter that insist this was not a missile failures incident that he’s describing, i.e., no communications authority with the outgoing team, everything coming back second hand instead of communications established with Meiwald himself, are the very points in the interview that are the most questionable:  “That’s basically true. I can’t remember [my] exact words” – were they really “[my]” exact words, or were they the exact words of the Command Post giving direction, which is how he insisted upon describing the incident in his 1996 letter?

“I remember them saying something along those lines [inaudible] to me. Beyond that, I couldn’t elaborate.”  Were they saying them to Meiwald, or were they “saying something along those lines” to the Command Post, which is what he stated in 1996?  We already know that Robert Hastings cannot be trusted, so why would anybody accept these tapes in their present condition as evidence of anything?  We’ve just demonstrated how it’s very possible for someone like Hastings (as in someone who is dishonest and capable of “creating” evidence of this sort) to edit his audio tapes, suggesting thereby whatever he wants to suggest – such as the establishment of the capsule crew’s authority where such authority hasn’t been definitively confirmed by Col. Meiwald himself.  This aspect of Hastings’ inability to clarify matters under contention is typical of the evidence he prefers.  It is not definitive, and it is dishonest.

By providing a simple written statement authored by Col. Meiwald, Hastings could easily do away with such criticisms.  It is a mystery why he and Robert Salas have refused to provide such a traditionally well-accepted method of testimony from such an important witness; or it would be a mystery if we were not already convinced that his desire is not clarity but obfuscation.  After all, obfuscation is necessary when you’re trying to hide the fact that you’ve created evidence from nothing at all.

RH:      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?

FM:      I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition [but] as far as the details, uh, I can’t elaborate on that.

Hastings is obviously trying to guide Meiwald into saying exactly what he wants him to say.  Has Hastings ever asked someone to just “tell me what happened in your own words”?  And yet, Meiwald nonetheless insists that he knows nothing about a UFO – or “the bright object”: “I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object.”  Thank you Col. Meiwald. This is hardly the confirmation of UFO interference that Hastings is trying to establish.  Is this evidence for his claim that “It’s purely and simply FALSE that he [Meiwald] denied the UFO reports or that he didn’t back the story of Robert Salas – 100% FALSE”?  Because anybody who actually understands the English language would reach a different conclusion entirely, I assure you.  His attempts to create first person testimony and authority by use of “sloppy” editing combined with Meiwald’s repeated assurances that he remembers nothing “relative to the bright object” represents a transparent effort to establish claims where such claims were simply not affirmed.  Surely this isn’t the best he can do.  Is it?

RH:      Okay. He of course has also said that you two were, uh, when you were back at Malmstrom, you were debriefed by OSI and required to sign non-disclosure statements. Do you remember that?

FM:      I remember being directed to do that. But that was no problem. I’ve been one of these people, when told to forget something, I forget it—eventually [inaudible].

RH:      Right, well, is that a polite way of saying that you really don’t want to discuss this, even though you know more than you’re saying?

FM:      No, I’m saying I don’t remember.

RH:      Okay, well, it’s been 44 years. That’s right.

FM:      That’s right!

Well, that’s nice and convenient of Col. Meiwald as well:  “No, I’m saying I don’t remember.”  And note that Meiwald states clearly that “I remember being directed to do that”, as in an act, a verb, such as don’t disclose further information, but he doesn’t very clearly insist that it was OSI who told him not to disclose classified materials – not that it would matter much.  People in a command environment will ALWAYS tell you not to disclose classified materials.  The instruction itself indicates very little.

Hastings’ further use of more [inaudible] statements to establish whatever he wants to establish is again plainly ubiquitous, but his offenses don’t necessarily stop at mere suggestion.  Hastings’ use of blatantly biased and incorrect phrases has also been used in an attempt to foster complaints for any opposing point of view.  Fortunately, Col. Meiwald was able to see right through this self-serving and dishonest intent adopted by Hastings, one that was incorporated into the discussion for only one reason:  he wanted to publish a response from an allegedly impartial witness confirming his claims that Col. Walter Figel, my father, Capt. Eric D. Carlson, and I have underhanded motivations for collectively assessing his and Robert Salas’ claims and finding them baseless, wanting, and deceptive.  Unfortunately, in order to establish such principles, he was forced to lie to Col. Meiwald, and to assert a less than honest determination in the process.

RH:      Walt Figel, even though he has told me — he was in the same situation that Bob was, basically — Eric Carlson was resting and Walt was at the [deputy commander’s] console over at Echo and suddenly his first missile dropped offline. When he called the security guard who was out at the site — because the site was down overnight for maintenance; there was a two-man maintenance team there, and the security guard — when Walt Figel called the security guard, to ask if the team was working on the missile, uh, at some point the security guard said there was a quote large, round object end quote hovering directly over the silo.

And, even though he’s acknowledged all of that and even though he said that, uh, back at base, he and Carlson were debriefed and told not to talk about this, he nevertheless has gone on-the-record about there being a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down. Now, you may or may not know — even though he admits that took place and that Echo was a real event and there was a UFO present when the missiles failed—he does not believe that the incident at Oscar ever took place. In fact, he’s come just shy of calling Bob Salas a liar.

FM:      Oh, is that right?

This is a transparent attempt to prejudice Meiwald’s assessment of Echo Flight, and he’s using blatant lies about this case to do so: “Eric Carlson was resting and Walt was at the [deputy commander’s] console over at Echo and suddenly his first missile dropped offline” is not true, representing another example of Hastings’ refusal to familiarize himself with the case, or to get even the most basic facts correct.  Robert Hastings lies a lot, and this is another example of that.  My father, Eric Carlson, was the first one to notice that the missiles were going down at Echo Flight, and he was wide awake when it happened.  It’s all discussed in the command history, and both my father and Col. Figel have confirmed the point.  My father was being debriefed by Figel, and was facing the console at the time.  Then the missiles started going down, and he was the first to notice it.  This establishes another of Hastings’ bad habits:  he never gets anything right the first time – or even the tenth time.

In addition, “when Walt Figel called the security guard, to ask if the team was working on the missile, uh, at some point the security guard said there was a quote large, round object end quote hovering directly over the silo” is also wrong – another error that comes about when you fail to listen to what your own witnesses are telling you.  Where Hastings says, “uh, at some point”, Hastings neglects to mention that the first person to say “UFO” was the maintenance tech, and he did so only after cracking open the silo and climbing down into the equipment room where he could use the SIN telephone to call back about 45 minutes after the missiles went offline.  It was only after this comment that the security guard chimed in to say he saw one too!  This scenario has already been confirmed by Col. Figel, so this silly game he’s playing with testimony has been going on for awhile.  And like a lot of Hastings’ assertions, it’s also dishonest and unethical.

“And, even though he’s acknowledged all of that” isn’t completely true either. It’s only what Robert Hastings says Figel has done.  If you ask Col. Figel, he’ll say — as he has done on many occasions:  “I have always maintained that I do not nor have I ever believed that UFOs exist in any form at any place at any time. I have never seen one or reported that I have seen one. I have always maintained that they had nothing to do with the shutdown of Echo flight in Montana.”

This plainly doesn’t qualify as “he’s acknowledged all of that”.  It also doesn’t qualify as “he nevertheless has gone on-the-record about there being a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down.”  In fact, he agrees pretty solidly that nobody even said “UFO” at all until well after the missiles started going down, so there certainly wasn’t “a UFO hovering above the missile when it went down.”  In fact, “when it went down”, even though the security team was awake and outside, they neglected to report anything at all, a point that he’s proven himself incapable of examining in any detail whatsoever.  Nobody even said “UFO” until the maintenance technicians were ten-feet underground.  As for “even though he admits that took place and that Echo was a real event and there was a UFO present when the missiles failed — he does not believe that the incident at Oscar ever took place. In fact, he’s come just shy of calling Bob Salas a liar”:  Figel certainly admits that Echo was a real event, but there was no UFO and if you ask him, that’s exactly what he’ll tell you.  Robert Hastings’ main problem is that he’s not very honest with anybody – even those he’s trying to incite on the telephone.  And just for the record, a lot of people have actually called Robert Salas a liar, no “just shy” of it at all, including me.  And we do it, because he’s told a whole lot of lies – as has Robert Hastings.  Neither of them are very good at it, which is why they keep getting caught. (Continues on page 5)


  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