August 7, 2011

Strategic Editing

RH:      Absolutely, and, you know, I know that you have confirmed Bob’s story…and yet Figel has just decided that this never happened. Um, so how would you respond to something like that? You’ve described the Security Alert Team being out in the field, seeing this object, and beating a hasty retreat to the [LCF] and yet Figel says none of that ever took place.

This is also not true.  Figel states merely that the 8-10 missiles did not fail at Oscar Flight as Salas insists.  He has never raised the issue of a UFO in regard to Hastings’ and Salas’ claims, and has stated only that Salas was never involved in a full flight missile failures incident.  We’ve also noted that Hastings neglected to ask Meiwald about any of the missile failures claims made by Robert Salas and himself, but since this represents a strong difference between Meiwald’s claims and Salas’, we’re not very surprised.  His interview and his analysis makes it very clear that he not attempting to throw some light on the subject, so his erudite comments based on so very little actual evidence is typical of his many failures.  Meiwald has clearly stated in other interviews with Salas that only 3-4 missiles failed during the one missile failures event he has recalled; he’s NEVER stated outright that the UFO story he told Salas in 1996 had anything at all to do with missile failures, and the evidence insists that it did not; he’s never even been mentioned the failures in the same context.  All of the assurances Meiwald discussed in his 1996 letter illustrates only a common security alert, and had there been an actual missile failures incident in conjunction with the UFO story, everything that Meiwald has discussed would be very different, evidenced authority notwithstanding.

There are two incidents necessary to examine, and Hastings’ use of displaced bracketing and poor audio quality allows him to redefine everything that Meiwald claimed in 1996, instead of doing what any ethical interviewer is supposed to do:  get the subject of the interview to discuss what took place in his own words.  All Robert Hastings has done is tell Meiwald what to say and what to believe, and it is to Meiwald’s credit that he refused to do so, forcing Hastings to take more immediate and obvious steps to confuse the issue instead of making it clear.

Robert Hastings has repeatedly failed to ask appropriate questions to establish without doubt a confirmation of missile failures in conjunction with the security team UFO being out in the field; all he’s asking about is the security team and the UFO, which Meiwald has never clearly associated with missile failures.  You can’t help but wonder why Hastings can’t get Col. Meiwald to say “a UFO took out 8-10 missiles while I was on duty”, or at least, “a UFO was sighted at the same time as we lost 8-10 missiles, and I was on duty when it happened.”  Is it that difficult?  Why is it that he’s failed to get a simple confirmation?  This is pretty important as well, because I offered up nearly the same criticism about his interviews with Col. Walt Figel in 2010, and we all know how that ended.  Hastings couldn’t support the claims he made on the basis of Figel’s recorded testimony to him, because he didn’t know anything about the subject he was trying to commandeer, and he couldn’t get Figel to clearly establish what Hastings was telling the world.  He was unable to establish that Figel confirmed that a UFO took out the missiles at Echo Flight.  Getting a written confirmation from your witnesses regarding what we have been told they’ve already asserted on audio tape should be easy.  So why is it that Hastings repeatedly fails to get a clear statement from his witnesses?  In what way is a clear and cohesive written affirmation of the events a difficult goal to approach if the witnesses have already established the claims on the telephone?

When he continued to bluster about Figel’s confirmation of Salas’ Echo Flight claims, I ended up calling Figel for myself, at which point he made it immediately very clear that Hastings and Salas had misappropriated his testimony and had been doing so for years.  And once again, here’s Hastings failing to get a clear affirmation that the two events that he discusses occurred at the same time, linking one indelibly with the other.  He only asks Meiwald about one or the other – and in Meiwald’s 1996 letter, he’s very clear that a missile failures incident was not involved coincidental to the UFO sighting described.  A confirmation of a UFO during a missile failures incident has to include both a UFO and missile failures, and since 1996, we’ve heard nothing from Meiwald that states this very plain and simple dichotomy.  You can’t help but wonder, “why?”

FM:      We had an incident in October [sic] Flight.

So, is this “in October” or “at Oscar Flight”?  Once again, not much to go on or trust when all you’ve got are Hastings’ tapes and Hastings’ transcripts.  Will somebody please tell me again why these audio recordings represent a more believable and accurate account than a written affidavit composed by the witness himself?  Is it even possible for Robert Hastings to remove himself from the communicative process and thereby get clear testimony of this alleged event?

Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea. What Walt Figel may have relayed [to Bob Salas, during a taped phone conversation] 15 years ago, versus what he’s saying at the present time, I have no idea. I have no way of making a judgment upon what he has, uh, expressed whatsoever. I think since leaving Malmstrom I have only seen Walt Figel one time and, uh, not even to talk to him. So I can’t verify—and I certainly don’t know [his] motives. All I know is relative to the situation within Oscar Flight itself and, basically, what Bob Salas has relayed, relative to our actions at Oscar. I can’t verify anything outside of that.

And so we see how Hastings’ brackets assume a recorded conversation with Figel that has never been established or otherwise proven:  “Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea. What Walt Figel may have relayed [to Bob Salas, during a taped phone conversation] …”  This is more unethical treatment, especially in light of the fact that he himself has repeatedly lied in reference to this same alleged conversation – a conversation that Figel indicates did not actually occur.  And so once again, Hastings establishes nothing while trying to make claims that Meiwald has not made.  Are we supposed to believe that Meiwald intended for us to understand these preconditions?  Or is Robert Hastings once again using bracketed commentary to suggest what hasn’t even been mentioned?  Who in their right mind would NOT consider this a breach of journalistic ethics?

The question isn’t necessarily what Figel may have told Salas, but what was told to Meiwald on March 16, 1967.  For nearly ten years Salas was using Meiwald as confirmation of the events at both November Flight and Oscar Flight, because either my father or someone else called Meiwald on March 16 and told him all about Echo Flight, so if Meiwald now indicates that he knew nothing about Echo Flight, as he seems to be saying here, than why would Salas make such claims for so long about what Meiwald was told regarding Echo Flight by the actual participants?  For the record, everybody denies telling Meiwald or Salas anything – including Robert Salas, who now insists he first heard about the Echo Flight incident the day after the incident he’s described involving Oscar Flight.  Of course, almost everybody else has stated that the whole base was aware of it almost by the next day, but that’s a petty detail.  The point is, for most of the time between 1996 and now, Salas used Meiwald as the confirmation of an event that Meiwald denies knowing anything about.  More importantly, because all of the “witnesses” Salas and Hastings have gathered up to discuss this ridiculous bit of garbage rewrite their “sworn” affidavits every couple of years or so, and they do not remain consistent, changing their stories to weed out what’s been proven false, how are we supposed to believe anything they’ve claimed?  Meiwald says he knows nothing about Echo Flight, but he was Salas’ confirmation for everything for nearly ten years.  Are we really supposed to ignore that merely because Salas no longer makes the claim?  A credibility issue exists that keeps getting worse every time these blatantly false stories are “updated”.  And when a confirming witness insists that he can’t confirm anything of the sort, than by God somebody is lying – and at this point, it doesn’t matter who; the claim suffers, as well it should.

I’m a little curious, however, to know what happened to Hastings’ earlier claims at Reality Uncovered, claims that Hastings has now removed from the record:

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.

That comment also seems pretty clear.  So why does Hastings refuse to discuss the “very clear” parts of his docudrama, and publicizes only those parts that are “ambiguous at best”?  It would be nice if Hastings would talk to Meiwald regarding what he confirmed about Salas’ folk stories between 1996 and 2004, but I guess asking for anything that qualifies as “comprehensive” from a couple of guys who qualify as merely “we’ll call it factual this week” is a bit much, considering the topic of discussion and their past history in regard to that topic.

RH:      Okay. But you will at least confirm that there were reports from the Security Alert Team [at Oscar] of a UFO at the LF they were out at, is that correct?

FM:      Yes!

What about the missile failures again?  Anything?  And are we really certain that Col. Meiwald understood this question relative to “[at Oscar]”, and if so, why put it in brackets?  Wouldn’t it have been easier and more to the point if Hastings had simply asked such yes or no questions with a bit more specificity?  Or is he afraid that others might accuse him of – ahem! – micromanaging the testimony of his witnesses?  In light of his numerous and well-documented attempts to create evidence where no such evidence has ever existed, this should probably not concern him very much; his reputation is already indelibly stained with dishonesty.  A little extra ridicule can hardly screw things up much more than his past record already reflects.

RH:      Okay, and it was quite clear that object was saucer-shaped — or do you recall what the description was, other than it being a UFO or a flying saucer? Do you have any sense of what they reported to you?

FM:      All I remember is a bright object; a bright, flying object at low-level. Beyond that, uh, I can’t say.

This is not exactly the big confirmation that Robert Salas has always colored Meiwald’s testimony as being, is it?  Considering that this is the same testimony that was used by Salas to establish the event at Echo Flight, it’s a bit gratuitous for Hastings to recognize so quickly that it deserves to be archived as the important and primary object of confirmation it apparently represents.  But Hastings has ever been a very efficient strategist, the title of this article notwithstanding.

RH:      But they were terribly frightened by their experience?

FM:      They were upset and were directed to come back to the LCF.

Not, “I directed them to come back to the LCF”, but they “were directed to come back to the LCF”, another indication that command authority was not invested in the person of Col. Meiwald.

FM:      Well, uh, one man I know was directed to go back to the base, at least one of them was —

RH:      Okay, and —

FM:      — Whether or not they flew a special helicopter out there to get him or not, I don’t recall that, but I know that he did go back to the base a very upset individual.

Same story:  Meiwald tells the security team nothing, they were directed by others – authority being invested within the Command Post in 1996, which indicates we’re not talking about a missile failures incident, but a common security alert.  And, once again, he says, “one man I know was directed,” not “I directed one man …”   Please note as well that this is all very different from Salas’ 1996 claims to Raymond Fowler that “these men were so traumatized by the experience that they never returned to security duty.”

For all of his bluster and commanding tone insisting to his readers that that Col. Meiwald has confirmed all of the important details inherent to Robert Salas’ UFO tale, these being the fruit of his claims, to wit, a UFO reported in conjunction with the failure of 8-10 missiles at Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967, simply reading what Robert Hastings has actually provided proves only how woefully unprepared for the task of interviewing a witness Robert Hastings actually is.  Please note the following:

1.         At every necessary point in which Meiwald refers to his first person affirmation of command authority over those unnamed individuals who allegedly reported a UFO, Robert Hastings has been forced to manipulate his witness’ statement to establish that fact.

2.         Hastings has failed miserably to obtain a simple confirmation of Salas’ Oscar Flight claims.  To some, this was not unexpected.  Hastings did exactly the same thing in connection with Col. Walt Figel’s testimony.  This is, in fact, Robert Hastings’ modus operandi, one adopted in a transparent effort to force this story into a little box with a flying saucer inside.

3.         He has failed utterly to establish a case for Col. Meiwald’s confirmation of a UFO interfering with and causing the failure of 8-10 nuclear missiles at Malmstrom AFB on March 24, 1967, exactly as he failed to accomplish with Col. Walt Figel’s testimony regarding the incident at Echo Flight.

Why?  What is the direct cause of Hastings’ failure to establish the simple confirmation that he insists Meiwald’s testimony represents?  How is it so difficult to simply ask the man “did 8-10 missiles fail at Oscar Flight at the same time that a UFO was reported?”  What Robert Hastings has offered the world in place of this very simple affirmation is 100% irresponsible bluster and the pathetic and dishonest reconditioning of his own witness’ testimony.  On the surface, regardless of Meiwald’s claims – or Robert Hastings’ – that Salas’ description of this event is mostly accurate, this interview with Meiwald has proven to be merely a confirmation of “unusual indications on the console, plus we’d had a security violation.”  The following questions still need to be answered by Robert Hastings and/or Robert Salas:

1.         Why hasn’t Col. Meiwald confirmed 8-10 missiles failing at Oscar Flight?

2.         Why hasn’t Col. Meiwald expressed any actual knowledge regarding the UFO in question?

3.         Why does Col. Meiwald state outright that “I really don’t remember that portion of it, relative to the bright object. I remember an unusual condition”?

4.         Why has Col. Meiwald affirmed that “Although Salas had quickly told Meiwald about that telephone conversation, Meiwald says that he can’t remember it”?

5.         How does any of this confirm Robert Salas’ claims?

Even when asked about the innocuous business of OSI, Meiwald is eventually forced to correct another of Robert Hastings’ silly assumptions:  “No, I’m saying I don’t remember.”

Although Robert Salas has liberally used Meiwald’s assertions as a “confirmation” for everything he and Hastings have dictated in regard to the incident at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, Meiwald merely states with some authority, “Whatever happened over at Echo, I have no idea.” (Continued on page 6)


  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