December 19, 2011

By their works shall ye know them… [Part 1]

Ramifications of the 2011 F.E. Warren AFB UFO Hoax

By James Carlson


At what point along the journey to create or influence convincing public concern does a community of those with common beliefs and similar goals as a result of that belief have to reach before individual members of that community begin to consider whether a more dishonest or deceptive approach might be necessary to satisfy those goals?  And what if the extent or the measure of this supposed necessity, as such individuals might imagine it, is a reflection of their personal belief that the failure to accomplish these goals may well endanger or at least setback for some indefinite period the potential growth and development – in a very real cosmic sense – of their own species?  As it turns out, it’s about 50 years… give or take a decade or so.  Being a question of morality, it would, of course, depend on the individual.  Being a question of morality, however, it’s not an indifferent question, and it should, for that reason, be explored a bit.

In June 2011, Robert Hastings, American chronicler of fables and folktales and currently the loudest and most self-promoting voice in UFO proponent communities world-wide, paid Reuters Newswire a nice sum to distribute a press release that he had authored, thereby borrowing the impression of the same high credibility that the network has labored at for decades in regard to its own work without actually having any more credibility than Hastings himself can muster on any given day – which isn’t very much.

The story Hastings wrote is entitled “Robert Hastings: Unidentified Aerial Object Sighted During October 2010 Nuclear Missile Incident”, a title typical of his vehement yet somewhat insipid self-promotion.  It supposedly establishes UFO interference with the now well-known incident of equipment failure that occurred on October 23, 2010, at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  During this incident, launch technicians temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50 of its Minuteman III missiles. The five Missile Alert Facilities responsible for those ICBMs would have been unable to fire them during the period of the disruption, although airborne commanders would still have been able to fire the weapons at will.

The credibility that Robert Hastings paid for, while nonexistent in and of itself, has nonetheless been assumed by those in the UFO proponent communities on the basis of Reuters’ reputation alone.  After all, as Reuters’ advertising department is fond of noting, with some truth, we should add, “Thomas Reuters is the world’s leading source of intelligent information for business and professionals.”  It should be stressed, however, that the content of this article came from Hastings alone, and had nothing at all to do with Reuters Newswire reporting.  They merely released the story upon payment.  One only has to examine the numerous reprints of this article of Hastings’ throughout the internet to measure the worth of the borrowed (or paid for) credibility that has been associated with these claims as a result of his apparent marketing savvy.

At, for instance, the first thing we note is that “It is a bit unusual to get a UFO story from the likes of Reuters but here is one such case.”  The author calls it “this incredible Reuters #UFO story”.  Reuters?  Well, they insisted that the article be printed only with the rider “Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.”  They were merely selling the distribution of Hastings’ article, not the content.

Huffington Post has published, to their credit, a much more detailed airing of the story at, but they also failed to examine the method itself that Robert Hastings has and continues to rely upon, a practice that allows him the freedom to invent whatever details he wants and call it “fact”.  It’s a freedom that has been allowed to take flight upon such airy and ill-imagined wings by other authors as well.

At, for example, Ray Larsen has also used this freedom to invent liberally, claiming that “a huge cigar-shaped craft was spotted by multiple witnesses, both civilian and military, hovering over the missile field and jamming communications with the missiles for 59 minutes.  The Air Force’s public face didn’t seem too upset about it, but some witnesses have reported receiving threats of severe penalties from their commanders for talking to reporters or researchers.”  It’s immediately notable that none of the above claims can be supported by anything at all aside from Hastings’ article, which pointedly fails to mention “multiple witnesses, both civilian and military” and merely implies (at best) that a UFO was “hovering over the missile field and jamming communications with the missiles”.  The rest of Larsen’s account in regard to Hastings “research” is equally devoid of anything that can actually be supported by more than the paranoia Hastings (and many others) are profiting from.  “I think the ETs, whoever they are, were close to ready for some form of contact, but now, I think they may be confused and have postponed their plans.  If they wanted to be a threat to this planet, I think they would have no problems in doing so, as their level of technology seems to still be beyond the understanding of our black budget scientists and engineers.”

Apparently the ETs aren’t the only ones who are confused…

It’s not the first time that Robert Hastings has performed this little con on the internet.  He did the same thing in the days leading up to his much (and very properly) ridiculed press conference of September 27, 2010.

At, for instance, we learned that “A major news organization says flying saucers are toying with American nuclear weapons, but you better read the byline and ‘article’”.  This author looked a little closer, and hats off to him:  “I am suspecting an automatic feed from PR Newswire to has created this most alarming of headlines to be prominently displayed on the organization’s home page (it’s the No. 2 most-popular article): U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects.

“If you stopped right there and didn’t read any further, you would fail to discover that this piece of information being presented as an ‘article’ is actually a paid-for advertisement (oh, I mean ‘press release’) for an upcoming news media conference of ex-military members who plan to discuss their experiences with unidentified flying objects.”

At, author Leslie Kean (who should know better and who will be discussed in more detail later for that very reason) notifies us that “Reuters has posted the press release about the upcoming press conference on U.S. nuclear weapons being compromised by unidentified aerial objects, organized by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, on Sept. 27th in Washington. The media needs to be alerted about this.”  Yes, I’m certain the media felt the same way immediately following that little rape of the truth.  The Washington Post reporter who attended that pathetic little example of Scrappy-doo show-boating was quite clear that the only thing of value he could find were the cookies that were made available to the press.  Those who watched the DVD that Salas and Hastings were trying to sell immediately afterwards didn’t even get that.  It’s a shame they couldn’t at least have included a coupon for 25 cents off a package of Toll House chocolate chip cookies, but these entrepreneurs simply aren’t the type to plan so far in advance.  Proof of this can be verified from any summary of losses incurred from their DVD sales of the event when potential customers discovered almost immediately that they could watch the conference on CNN for free, an unfortunate development when profiteers fail to weigh the future out-of-pocket costs to their budding business portfolio when the event they’ve planned in such detail so far in advance is freely open to all press and media representatives who might also wish to attend.  Not that it matters much; they’ll likely recoup their losses when the movie version is finally released, unless they do something completely boneheaded like bar any use of Muppets ® technology.  That’s not a joke either – those Muppets ® can turn almost any silly idea into a blockbuster summer release, if you give them a little lead time.

At, we read “Amazing that Reuters is reporting this as the major mainstream media do not usually report UFO activity.  What is reported in this story is NOT the first time a US missile system has been rendered nonfunctional while a UFO is in the area.”  Of course, this particular claim hasn’t been examined by the writer of the piece – he’s assuming that Hastings is telling the truth both here and in his book UFOs and Nukes, which purports to catalogue such events.  As a result, the writer’s assumption that the incident “is NOT the first time a US missile system has been rendered nonfunctional while a UFO is in the area” is based on nothing, certainly not Reuter’s credibility, which in this case has been bought and paid for by Robert Hastings as a way to establish credibility that he’s failed to establish with his writings alone.  It’s just more unconscious disinformation by people who are otherwise unable to back up their claims with anything more than “Hastings says it’s true.”  The writer of the article isn’t necessarily lying; he simply believes the claims of a charlatan and a fraud who is creating this belief for reasons of his own, reasons having nothing at all to do with an accurate accounting of the “incidents” he and others are associating with UFOs – incidents that simply cannot be substantiated by any jury outside of the imagination they’ve liberally applied to the subject at hand.

It isn’t the first time that Robert Hastings has attempted to make such claims.  In relation to a case of numerous missile failures that occurred in March 1967 at Malmstrom AFB, he attempted the same type of deception.  Fortunately for anybody insisting upon a measure of valid evidence, a true accounting of testimony, or a determined and faithfully assessed credibility in regard to that testimony, the witnesses he has used to establish these claims have insisted very clearly that he was lying and denounced entirely any interference, reporting, or investigation resulting from any UFO incident Robert Hastings or Robert Salas have proposed.  Both are merely being deceptive, a fact that was easily proven once the “witnesses” were reinterviewed by individuals with a more ethical concern for the truth than any possessed by these two UFOlogical frauds.

It should be pointed out, however, that Robert Hastings learned something very important from the subsequent and embarrassing exposé of his methods.  He learned that his “witnesses” can be tracked down and reinterviewed, at which point the truth can be made known.  And when the weak link in your claims happens to be inherent to your use of non-witness witnesses capped by an inability to properly interpret what testimony has been presented, the best recourse – for those wishing to continue with the presentation of such false claims – is to prevent others from gaining access to your witnesses, thereby removing any embarrassing revelations that might come about subsequent to the lie.  It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this is exactly what Robert Hastings has now done.  He purchased the apparently marketable commodity of credibility held by Reuters as a result of their own fine and professional conduct, because he knew that credibility would be necessary in order to freely assert another hoax regarding UFOs and nuclear missile failures.  He then followed up this sad little attempt at reputation repair by essentially taking the weak link represented by the witnesses and their testimony completely out of the equation.  That’s right, folks:  Robert Hastings went anonymous…

By adapting the witness to the lie, Hastings was able to rediscover for himself the Great Lesson of fashionable con-artists worldwide, from P.T. Barnum through a long line of hidden personalities trying to sell crack outside of Narcotics Anonymous meetings:  surprise! anonymity can protect not only his witnesses from being questioned about those little details that Robert Hastings invented out of nothing – tossing ‘em in just as the story starts to gel around the public’s perception with a slick panache guaranteed by addled, nameless used-car salesmen everywhere to make the story sound a little better than anything you’ve got in your pocket right now – but can also prevent the sad-eyed teamster leaning against the telephone pole downstairs from picking up the common knowledge of Hastings’ own fraudulent activities and exposing them to the Greek hooker on the stairway who doesn’t even give a damn about UFOs, and just wants a little iced tea and lemonade in a clean glass by the time The Simpsons come on.  It’s another one of those ageless “I can create an indefinable wall between me and those skeptical critics by inventing a witness, but keeping everything about him a secret” type of lessons.  This type of deception, however, requires a little extra on the other side of the equation, making the weight of established credibility of the sort Reuters has turned into a marketable commodity a great and necessary benefit when it’s associated by no fault of their own with attempts to use imaginary witnesses to establish a point of view that’s so essentially separate and unassociated with the author’s – this, of course, being Robert Hastings.

Hastings’ article not only makes this anonymity very clear, but emphasizes as well the use that only he is willing to put it to:

Regarding the recent situation at F.E. Warren AFB, Hastings emphasizes, “My sources have not said that the UFO sighted during the October 23, 2010 missile-communications disruption actually caused it. And it must be noted that the Air Force’s Global Strike Command has officially attributed the problem to an improperly-replaced circuit card in a weapons-system processor.”

 He adds, “Nevertheless, the intermittent presence of a huge, cigar-shaped aerial craft during the hours-long –- not minutes-long –- crisis was definitely noted and remarked upon by various technical teams working in the base’s missile field.”

And that’s how you take a lie and turn it into something all brand new and sparkly, like a box full of stars tossed up into the heavens.  It’s a shame these witnesses have refused to come forward, if they even exist at all.  In firm recognition of the dire importance Robert Hastings has placed on this issue of anonymity, without once focusing on the fact that he has again struck the hammer against the steel, sparks flying like tiny little abrasions in the wind, and has repeated old sins by making a number of spurious, pointless and fact-free claims without presenting anything at all in the way of validated evidence to back it up, that last supposition absolutely must be properly addressed.  The creation of such alleged witnesses, after all, encompasses an implied deception that many people – who are very willing to come forward – are quite certain that Hastings is more than capable of.  It also fits in very well with any collation of his past failures to build a case in the absence of the tools and materials necessary to do so honestly.  The facts of his past deceptions alone would establish quite handily his moral capabilities for such a strategy.  The ease with which his claims can be shattered, in many cases by simply analyzing his work for elements that cannot be reconciled with any of the internal conflicts typical of the military environment he limits himself to, and yet refuses to learn anything about, tends to support his capability for invention far more than his ability to uncover hidden facts that the rest of the world has failed – for whatever reasons – to notice.  Where anonymity describes the source, as it does here, Robert Hastings can say absolutely anything he likes.  The sad truth is, he’s done it before; invention is, after all, his forté.

The suspicions raised by the assumed anonymity of his only witnesses must to be examined if we’re to consider any of these recent claims credible at all, particularly when any attempts to confirm such claims – this search for confirmation beginning shortly after he broke this “big” story – instantly produce literally dozens of insistent, disgusted affirmations that there was no UFO in fact or rumor, nor was a UFO reported or investigated.  Most members of the military are justifiably proud of their accomplishments and their service, so when someone like Robert Hastings – who never served in the military – assumes the arrogance necessary to redefine those accomplishments and that service, doing so by trivializing their contributions to national defense, they generally respond with understandable anger and rancor, something that Hastings has never acknowledged, preferring by far to use unsustained anecdotes to establish a case that simply can’t be made honestly.  Anonymity must, therefore, be examined in accordance with its purpose – this purpose being the creation of a myth.

Part Two follows tomorrow.

Filed under: UFOlogy,Ufology History,UFOs — Tags: , , , — James Carlson @ 12:25 pm


  1. avatar

    Another excellent article James. Looking forward to part II!

    Comment by RyanDube — December 19, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

  2. avatar

    That’s a very well written piece there James. Sadly though most of the people who will read it need no convincing of his antics and those who will never read it can’t be convinced of his antics in any case.

    Particularly enjoyed the Muppets gag!

    Read you tomorrow!

    Comment by m0r1arty — December 19, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

  3. avatar

    Great article, looking forward to part II!…Tim Hebert

    Comment by Tim — December 19, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

  4. avatar

    Great article Mr Carlson.

    Comment by cripmeister — December 20, 2011 @ 2:29 am

  5. avatar

    James – you have put alot of work into this website… You are wasting your time

    I hate to tell you this buddy, but we share numerous joint bases with Extraterrestial visitors. A target near Pine Gap in Northern Australia at a destination called Mt Ziel is one such base. How do I know? I was stationed at Pine Gap throughout the late 1970s and debriefed many Visitors. Truth is stranger than fiction good buddy! God Bless All throughout the entire Universe

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 20, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

  6. avatar

    Hmm, how very strange that “Walt Markson” apparently shares the same email address as one Ray Bordon. I also find it very strange that a so-called Lt. Colonel would have an email address with freedomfighter_annunaki in it. Maybe that’s just me, eh?

    Comment by Stephen Broadbent — December 21, 2011 @ 12:39 am

  7. avatar

    Lt. Colonel Walt Markson…. seek help immediately!

    Comment by the|exx — December 21, 2011 @ 11:24 am

  8. avatar

    Lt. Colonel Walt Markson…. So introduce me, sport.

    P.S. I don’t put a lot of work into this website, pal; the OWNERS put a lot of work into this website. I just discuss a few little things I’ve noticed that they happen to be interested in as well. There’s no pressure, no expectations, and it sure as Hell doesn’t qualify as work…

    Comment by James Carlson — December 21, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

  9. avatar

    […] Part 1 of By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them, James Carlson guided us through the blurred reality of the Robert Hastings “Reuters” Press […]

    Pingback by By their works shall ye know them… [Part 2] « Reality Uncovered — December 21, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

  10. avatar

    […] essay exploring the many and varied ramifications of the 2011 F.E. Warren AFB UFO Hoax. In Part One, James guided us through the blurred reality of the Robert Hastings “Reuters” Press Release, […]

    Pingback by By their works shall ye know them… [Part Three] « Reality Uncovered — December 21, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

  11. avatar

    Have a little fun at Lt. Colonel Walt Markson’s expense: page search “Bordon”

    He’s also linked with Jim Marrs — Alien Agenda, pages 331-332; he’s been rumored to be dead on some websites.

    Guess he’s not…

    Comment by James Carlson — December 22, 2011 @ 1:23 am

  12. avatar

    Roy and I use the same email account. Big Deal. Does THAT mean Lord Marduk and Annunaki are not here amongst us?

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 23, 2011 @ 4:58 am

  13. avatar

    Yes … yes it does.

    Comment by James Carlson — December 23, 2011 @ 10:56 am

  14. avatar

    like i say pal…youre in for one helluva shock!

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 23, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

  15. avatar

    Three questions:
    1. what’s a Lt. Colonel doing sharing an email address with a confirmed lunatic?
    2. when did you decide to shorten your AKA from “Marduk’s son” to “Markson”?
    3. why don’t you bother somebody who doesn’t think you belong in a mental institute, Roy?

    Comment by James Carlson — December 23, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

  16. avatar

    Are you suggesting anyone who believes in the Extradimensional presence is a “lunatic”? ;o)

    What does it matter what my “name” is? Why do you care so much? Let us concern ourselves with the presence { or not } of interdimensional forms and whether these forms are perceived by other forms in Reality. { Or put it this way what was Frank Carlucci from the Carlyle Group doing visiting level 24 at the Pine Gap joint alien/human facility earlier this year }

    Your articles are amusing. How many man hours have you spent so far convincing yourself of what you believe but which may change your accordingly to what you may perceive in a future timeline?


    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 24, 2011 @ 10:22 am

  17. avatar

    … ?

    You need help, Roy. Now please leave me alone — you’re a waste of time and I have no intention of responding to your psychological stress any further. Get help or shoot yourself — I don’t care which — but leave me alone.

    You should learn to take a hint.

    Comment by James Carlson — December 24, 2011 @ 11:17 am

  18. avatar

    James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again: Reuters Was NOT Paid to Publicize Robert Hastings’ Investigation of UFO Activity at F.E. Warren AFB in October 2010

    Carlson’s latest posted nonsense about me is at and involves, among other things, his claim that I paid the prestigious Reuters news agency big bucks to publicize my article on UFO sightings during the October 23, 2010 missile communication disruption incident at F.E. Warren AFB.

    My exposé on that dramatic event may now be read at:

    Carlson claims that Reuters’ supposed paid endorsement of my investigation lent it an aura of legitimacy that it did not deserve. However, once again, James Carlson has only succeeded in demonstrating his inability to accurately state facts, in any given case he attempts to discuss authoritatively.

    In reality, I paid PRNewswire, a publicity-for-hire group, to post my press release on the incident at F.E. Warren whereupon Reuters, and many other news organizations, distributed it *on its merits* even though—as James correctly noted—all of my sources were, and remain, anonymous. (Just as all of the Watergate investigation sources’ names were initially kept confidential, until unfolding events resulted in their identities being made known by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.)

    The original PRNewswire press release is at:

    The Reuters version is at:

    I am perfectly aware that it would have been more credible to cite the F.E. Warren AFB sighting witnesses and my other sources by name, however, I didn’t have the option to do so in this particular case. (Approximately 95% of my ex-military sources over the years were identified in my book UFOs and Nukes. Carlson just calls all of *those* guys liars or otherwise unreliable. In other words, heads he wins, tails I lose. In Carlson’s eyes, none of my sources are reliable when they report their direct or indirect knowledge of UFO activity at USAF nuclear weapons sites.)

    A fuller discussion of this topic, including other examples of James Carlson’s unreliable and even bizarre behavior, may be found at:

    Comment by Robert Hastings — January 6, 2012 @ 11:11 pm

  19. avatar

    The gist of James’ assertion is still true. You paid to have your article distributed, it’s as simple as that really.
    This point was discussed in the forum, here:

    James states:

    “Absolutely, yes — that’s exactly what he did; he didn’t pay Reuters outright, however, just as Steve and Ryan have indicated. The distribution that included Reuters Newswire as the primary release manager, was handled by PR Newswire, United Business Media, which has been established on Hastings’ article (see Steve’s commentary above:”

    So, exactly how does he “get it wrong again”?

    Answer: he doesn’t – again!

    Comment by Stephen Broadbent — January 7, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

  20. avatar


    You take up an extraordinary amount of space to say nothing. Again.

    Thanks for the advertising,

    P.S. Regarding your UFO fantasies at F.E. Warren AFB (you know, another of your silly little UFOs that nobody ever reported or saw or discussed until you politely asked around for a handful of fool’s gold): prove it….

    Comment by James Carlson — January 7, 2012 @ 6:23 pm

  21. avatar

    Robert Hastings has tried to paint a picture of valid journalistic methods by comparing his “anonymous sources” to the anonymous sources that were used by the Washington Post in their reporting of Watergate, but this is merely more of his B.S. Washington Post reporters are required to abide by a set and written standard of ethics that their employers insist upon, exactly as Reuters requires of their own reporters. Both companies are willing to place their reputations in the hands of such men, because both companies require higher standards than Robert Hastings could ever possibly establish for himself. For instance, part of the ethical standards the Washington Post requires of their reporters is the establishment of multiple unrelated sources that confirm each other independently. Throughout their Watergate reporting, they are not allowed to utilize anonymous sources unless that qualification had been met. Robert Hastings, on the other hand, is not required by anybody to abide by any standards whatsoever. And, in fact, his anonymous sources are not independently confirmed. He has one anonymous source stating that another anonymous source actually saw a UFO; he only spoke to one man, and that man’s claims do not even apply to what he himself has witnessed. It is ludicrous for anybody with any knowledge of journalism to expect these claims to be published as NEWS by Reuters. And they were not, as Hastings is trying to assert. They were paid for as “advocacy group opinions”, and they were not picked up by Reuters on their own merits, as he claims. It is patently obvious that Hastings is once again lying — stupidly I should add, considering the numerous proven lies the man has been telling for so many years now.

    Reuters does not even consider Hastings’ article to be NEWS. As an advocacy group opinion, it requires no confirmation and no verification of the contents at all, let alone a confirmation of the claims established by an anonymous source. That’s because Hastings utilized PR Newswire, not PR Newswire for Journalists — which is a completely different service, one that provides free distribution of news content. PR Newswire is a public relations service provider — they distribute advocacy group opinions that are essentially “advertising” for their clients; they sell business-oriented media — publicity. And for Reuters to feature that publicity under their brand, they expect to paid. And they are.

    Comment by James Carlson — January 31, 2012 @ 5:37 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