August 7, 2011

Strategic Editing


As a consolation for being forced to examine Hastings’ dishonesty, his use of strategic editing, and his obviously poor interview skills, we at least have one honest indication from Col. Meiwald that tells us how far into these ridiculous UFO assertions he is clearly unwilling to go:

RH:      Okay. Well, to be redundant here, what you were involved in — and what the other 120 people [who] I’ve interviewed over the years were involved in at various bases — is dramatic history. I mean, it’s American history. It’s suppressed history but, hopefully at some point, you know, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, are going to read about it in the history books, because it’s real and it’s quite obviously important —

FM:      Okay, do you want to turn off the recorder, just for a moment? I have a side comment about something.

RH:      Sure. You have my word [that] it’s off.

Not that Hastings’ word is worth anything – we’ve seen what reliance can be placed on the claims he has exercised so loosely in the past.  The point has been stressed often enough to make his protests meaningless.  I can’t help but note, however, that the most interesting point yet raised by this self-serving interviewer can only be found in the words his witness didn’t say – words defined by Meiwald as a “side comment”.  Everything else is pretty much what those of us familiar with Hastings’ inability to address an issue have come to expect from him – stuttering nonsense, prevarications and misleading errors resulting from either his inability to get a decent audio recording or his refusal to ask an honest question.  You’d think by now, Hastings could produce something of worth, and yet, his failures are what he applauds the most.  To be redundant here, Robert Hastings has only suggested the confirmation of Salas’ story that he has assumed so noisily.  Any real examination of this pathetic and self-congratulatory series of non-assertions, however, reveals that he still doesn’t have it – and that, when judged on the basis of its revelatory merit, still isn’t worth very much.

Simply for the record, I’m including the text to a letter I wrote Col. Meiwald requesting some of the clarification Hastings has refused to provide.

Dear Col. Meiwald,

I’m not certain why you’ve decided not to clarify a few of the matters involving your days at Oscar Flight that are currently undefined or poorly measured by those who have thus far decided to chronicle them, but I suppose you must have your reasons.  If you would at least explain to me why you’ve decided upon this course, it would help me to properly discuss your refusal to do so.  Right now, I can only guess, and that clarifies nothing, as you’ve decided to use Robert Hastings as a middleman, and Robert Hastings cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  This is evident in his comments to you that he has recently published.  He repeatedly told you things about what Col. Figel has said and done that are completely false and easily proven as such.  He also told you utter lies regarding my father’s claims and my own.  This necessitates a response, and I’m having a difficult time measuring the extent of your own involvement in such matters, a difficulty highlighted by your evident refusal to clear up some of the many questions still remaining, none of which were cleared up as a result of Hastings’ recent interview with you.

I was hoping that at the very least you would be willing to correct any errors that I may have inadvertently included in the article below.  At the moment, it is my intention to publish it in a number of various venues simultaneously, but I would like to confirm some of the details, a confirmation that your dependence on Robert Hastings makes somewhat troublesome.  If you would speak merely of the accuracy of what I’ve written, it would be helpful.  People seem to think that I am attacking Hastings and Robert Salas without cause, but that is untrue.  Both men have liberally lied about incidents they know nothing about, and my intention is to correct the record.  The outward silence of those who possess the answers suggests to me conclusions that have yet to be properly asserted, and the fact that your most recent claims have been published by a deceitful man who has told a great many well-confirmed untruths is somewhat confusing.

Please understand, however, that the claims my father and I have established cannot be ignored simply because you’ve decided not to address the matter.  Those proper claims will be asserted, because they are a point of fact in an environment typified by the deceit and the numerous lies told by a couple of con men who are out to make as much money as possible from those lies, and have no concern at all with clarifying things — proof of this can be seen in Hastings recently published interview with you.

I have no intention of ceasing to respond to the lies that have been published about my family simply because one man has decided not to comment on the numerous conflicting assertions that have been made as a result of his alleged affirmations.  I am asking you to correct any errors that have been made, and I’ve asked you to clarify exactly what you’ve confirmed among those many conflicting claims, but if you refuse to answer those questions or clarify those currently undiscussed details, I will be forced to make educated guesses on the basis of what has been said, and what has been claimed.  I have no intention of making claims that I can’t substantiate, and when those claims are not completely supported by what we know of the facts, I will, of course, include that ambiguity in my discussions.  Please understand though, that your refusal to comment on any of this, or to correct inaccuracies as they arise, or to correct the historical record where conflicting claims have been made must, as a result of your past alleged testimony and the claims currently being expressed on the basis of that alleged testimony, be interpreted as exactly that: a refusal for unknown reasons to clarify the historical record.  Please understand as well that this is not commonly believed to be something one should be proud of, and any such discussions will likely not reflect very well on those who have decided, for whatever reason, not to clarify conflict, not to answer unanswered questions, and not to respond to requests intended to demystify what is currently so ambiguous and poorly chronicled.  Until you actually do make some clear assertions of your own, I have no intention of discussing your involvement in the same terms I’ve reserved for Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, but such silence is not flattering, nor is it generally interpeted as an expression of honesty, so please don’t be surprised if other analysts respond differently.  Your recent interview with Robert Hastings has not set your claims in stone, as he as colored it; his attempts to prove a point in the absence of confirmation by you is transparent, and my article below makes this clear.  In any case, this is your opportunity to correct any such errors, and if you refuse to do so, that’s perfectly fine, but please be prepared for a possibly negative response from others wishing to discuss these events in details not yet approached in the works of Hastings and Salas.

Please let me know what, if anything, should be corrected in the below article.  Any refusal to do so will be interpreted by me as your declaration that the points I’ve raised are accurate and reflect the actual facts detailing this matter.

Thanks for your time, and good day to you, sir. Unless you yourself initiate it, or unless you assert additional claims through Robert Hastings or Robert Salas, you won’t hear from me again.  I have no wish to correspond in such a one-way fashion.  Be aware, however, that I do not trust Hastings or Salas to tell the truth, so if they make further claims on the basis of what you have told them, I will be forced to try and confirm that you have indeed discussed the matter with them.  Please don’t consider this a reflection of my disrespect or doubts that you have been honest; it is completely due to the little respect and doubt that I have for the claims of Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, one that has been completely and utterly confirmed by their own actions and their published accounts on many different occasions.

With sincerity,

James Carlson

Albuquerque, NM

jtcarl@yahoo.com

In reference to the following communication:  “Please let me know what, if anything, should be corrected in the below article.  Any refusal to do so will be interpreted by me as your declaration that the points I’ve raised are accurate and reflect the actual facts detailing this matter”, it should be noted that Col. Meiwald has indeed refused to correct any of the points raised, forcing me to assume that no corrections are necessary.







23 Comments

  1. avatar

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

    In his interview with Meiwald, Hastings states “Okay. Now, when Bob, I think moments [after] he woke you up, or you got up and sat down at the commander’s console—he of course had received a call from the Flight Security Controller, saying that there was a bright red, oval-shaped object hovering over the security fence gate—my understanding is that is what he told you as soon as you were at your console, that he had received this call and, uh, that of course coincided with the missiles beginning to malfunction. Do you recall him telling you that?”

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

    “Meiwald then elaborated and said that he couldn’t support everything Salas has said about the incident because he had been resting/sleeping when the first missile or two dropped offline — which occurred moments after Salas received a report from the Oscar Flight Security Controller about a UFO hovering over the Launch Control Facility’s front gate.

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

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

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

    James

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

  2. avatar

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

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

    There’s an interesting history to this show.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  3. avatar

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

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

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

  4. avatar

    Sorry Tim Hebert.

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

  5. avatar

    Drew,

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

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

  6. avatar

    [Admin Edit: The Paracast Forums]

    Originally Posted by Robert Hastings

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

    Once again, the taped conversations are at:

    [Admin Edit: The UFO Chronicles]

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

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

    Gee, I wonder why…”

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

  7. avatar

    Per Robert Hastings at paracast forum:

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

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

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

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

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

  8. avatar

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

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

  9. avatar

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

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

  10. avatar

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. avatar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. avatar

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Hastings

    “Hi Lauren,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    –Robert Hastings”

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

  13. avatar

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

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

  14. avatar

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

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

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

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

  15. avatar

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

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

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

  16. avatar

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

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

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

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

  17. avatar

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

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

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

  18. avatar

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

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

  19. avatar

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

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

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

  20. avatar

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

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

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

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

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

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

  21. avatar

    Too bad you have to login to post a comment on Micah Hanks website as he’s interviewed Hastings….
    http://gralienreport.com/radio-interviews/the-gralien-report-podcast-for-august-15-2011/

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

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

  22. avatar

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

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

    Hilarious.

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

  23. avatar

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

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

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

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

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



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




RU Custom Search

Help support the continued growth of Reality Uncovered