December 21, 2011

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


This is a continuation of James Carlson’s fascinating 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, along with a thorough explanation of the F.E. Warren AFB hoax and the methods used by Hastings in order to further his agenda. In Part Two, James explained the real reasons behind the use of anonymous sources and concludes by examining the true motives of those behind the hoaxes.

Part Three continues below with another hard-hitting and refreshingly honest view from James Carlson.


Liar LiarI am currently exploring the numerous works of a select few UFO authors and investigators widely connected to the events they’ve attempted to manufacture and chronicle; they call themselves UFOlogists, so I shall too.  I believe the evidence is plentiful enough to establish their membership in an informal coalition, a loose cabal of similar minded individuals who have shown themselves more than willing to lie, to dissemble, to disable context in order to neglect content, to knowingly reach unsubstantiated conclusions on the basis of faulty information, to remain silent in regard to the known lies and errors in fact committed by other members of the coalition, and to express public support for the unsubstantiated conclusions of these same individuals in order to establish a united front against criticism and to forge a false aura of infallibility surrounding their enterprises and the value of their claims.  These individuals are united by their singular motivation for the deceit they have practiced:  they want to convince the world at large that USAF and DoD officials were knowingly lying when they insisted for years that UFOs as defined by J. Allen Hynek do not exist and are therefore not a threat to the security of the United States of America.  It’s that simple.

Their habits are notable to anyone paying attention to what they do and having the will to examine the same witnesses and evidence that they have made the subject of their claims.  Primarily, they convince those willing to be convinced by showing a united front, giving the false appearance of infallibility by assuming a point of view with vested opinions held by numerous “scholars” and “scientists” and “journalists” and “military witnesses” and “historians” from all over the world, supposedly “independent” minds reaching a natural accord on the basis of well-studied facts and consistent claims.

In actuality, this showboating is simply a pathetic lie that results from their collaborative failure to examine with any honesty the assertions and claims made by those who hold opinions of public regard for their own work and claims.  In other words, they refuse to criticize or otherwise examine the impact of bad research, false justifications, poorly established conclusions and blatant lies whenever such poorly integrated tales and inundations of wasted hours at a word processor support the general tone and structure of their own works and/or beliefs.  By resorting to such tepid strategies, they replace the common standards of peer review with worthless head nodding like nodding dogs on a particularly bumpy road [thanks to Stephen Broadbent for the markedly visual phrase].

Many examples of this behavior and other details of these somewhat erratic attempts to manufacture history will be discussed over the next few weeks in a series of articles divulging the machinations of the like-minded members of this cabal as the clearest method to reveal and condemn their methods.  They are legion, and that fact necessitates a more structured approach to the claims they’ve made.  It insists that relationships be explored and resonant claims appealing more to a unified vision than to actual events be dissected in order to discover the few facts they’ve either tried to hide because they reveal the dishonest core of their claims, or carelessly addressed without knowing the ultimate cost such claims would eventually weigh against their integrity and the worth of their claims.

One example of this behavior, however, will be presented now, because I want to define this aspect of their preferred methodology due to the reliance on its use being so common within the group that it can be measured and calculated upon their own aggressive allegations.  Basically, the act is universal and simple:  when one member reacts to criticism of his own personal claims by changing specific details of his story, other members of this united coalition act as if there were no changes made whatsoever.  They simply agree with whatever the current story on the record is.  The practice is, as I’ve said, common, and for that reason is easily established, and its purpose easily revealed.

Robert JamisonFor example, when Robert Jamison claimed that UFOs were reported over Malmstrom AFB in correlation with his claims in regard to Oscar Flight missile failures alleged by Robert Salas, members of the cabal were notable and united in their insistence that reports of UFOs over Malmstrom AFB supported Jamison’s claims, and thereby Salas’.  This was accepted as evidence of mutual claims asserted, and was discussed as acceptable evidence of an actual event by other members of the group, such as Richard M. Dolan, author of “A.D. After Disclosure: The People’s Guide to Life After Contact”.  Dolan, in fact, found the measure of worth so valuable, that he later insisted the evidence for Salas’ Oscar Flight claims surpassed even those Salas has addressed for an Echo Flight incident, even though there has never been presented any documented evidence or reasonable assessment of any such event having ever occurred at Oscar Flight.  The circular perambulations these people rely on to make such a weak point could carve tornadoes into the sun.

Unfortunately for those claims, Oscar Flight is at least a hundred miles away from the UFOs reported at Malmstrom AFB, which couldn’t possibly be used to reflect any related claims whatsoever.  When this became public knowledge as a result of critical assessments, Robert Jamison changed his story (not for the first time nor the last) and announced that UFOs were reported over Lewistown in correlation with his claims in regard to the same Oscar Flight missile failures.  He dutifully drafted a new affidavit for Robert Hastings to use and the event was thereby set in stone, another worthless claim for the insensible few who weren’t paying attention to first principles.  Following this, members of the cabal acted as if there was no change at all in his story, and simply insisted that the UFO reports over Lewistown had confirmed Jamison’s claims.

Sadly, this immediately became the group lie currently expressed as another modest truth by the entire group psyche.  How do we know it’s a lie?  Because there are no UFO reports over Lewistown, and there never were.  Jamison, or more probably Robert Hastings, simply changed the location of those reports that were made.  Members of the cabal, however, continue to assert these false claims, and simply ignore critical review of the stories that have been told.  They would have done themselves a great favor if they had simply not said anything at all.  Changing the location with nothing to establish such a change was reckless and foolish (which is why I’m personally convinced that Robert Hastings demanded it of Jamison, his witness).  And yet, even when such egregious instability within the story’s structure is so immediately apparent, they remain united throughout; every time one of them mentions the numerous confirmations made, all of them nod their heads in agreement, as if there was actually a form of peer review taking place.  But there is no peer review – there’s just ten people telling the same lie, and failing completely to note the change that has occurred.

This is a very common occurrence within the group itself, and those with the patience to pick apart the claims they’ve made and the lies they’ve told can discover it for themselves.  Unfortunately, those willing to give the claims a little credit have no need to confirm any of them, for the same reason that many Americans have no need to confirm prophecy expressed in the Bible or historical features alluded to in the four gospels of the New Testament:  their faith in the honesty of their new prophets is all they need.  Fortunately, their numbers are small, which is why those with the same goals as Robert Hastings and other members of this tawdry little group of malcontents are working so hard to convince the rest of America that they should be afraid… very afraid.  They should be so afraid, in fact, that only one response from their government and their Department of Defense will suffice to calm their shattered nerves:  full disclosure, which is already assumed to be an active, consistent expression of fact used to refute or dismiss critical assessments without confronting or explaining the arguments used to establish that criticism in the first place.  Note, for instance, Robert Hastings’ dismissive and arrogant rejection of opposing arguments that he’s willing to offer up to the public while neglecting completely to refute, explain or otherwise discuss the veracity of such opposing claims (see http://www.ufodigest.com/article/ufos-nukes-researcher-robert-hastings-refutes-debunker):  “So, rest assured, the facts will all come out, sooner or later, and James Carlson will become nothing more than a historical footnote once UFO Disclosure has occurred, and a not-very flattering one at that.”

I don’t think I need to worry about that a whole lot, but that’s not the point – certainly not for Robert Hastings.  After all, his dismissal of criticism works best when he refuses to discuss it or otherwise attempt to establish opposing arguments as false.  Like all pedagogues who limit themselves to the law of the lesson, he doesn’t concern himself with evidence or proof, which means he can’t refute it when it’s placed before him.  This not only gives him the freedom to dismiss the issue entirely until full disclosure occurs – which means he has no intention of saying anything at all constructive or evidential – it allows him to use an event that has not yet occurred, and will very likely never occur as the final argument supporting his ridiculous claims.  It’s just another indication of his delusional hubris that allows him to establish an argument based primarily on nothing – no facts, no footnotes, and no inquiry, just another example of Hastings’ overused reliance on a mantra that is instantly recognized by those who have examined his past history and his responses to past criticism:  he attempts to establish an argument using events that haven’t occurred, recordings he hasn’t produced, affidavits he hasn’t requested, questions he hasn’t answered and refuses to discuss, and a long line of promises to produce definitive “proof” that he has failed to uphold.  He has lied about witnesses, he has lied about evidence, and he has lied about those presenting opposing views in a worthless attempt to attack credibility while ignoring every evidential aspect of the views that have been presented.

Contrary to the headline of the little piece discussed above, Robert Hastings refutes nothing; he merely insists without discussion or association that his is the only honest voice on the planet while everybody else is lying.  This is also why he refuses to discuss in any detail the claims of witnesses who insist that he is merely a weak liar without evidence to present, one who relies instead on his own persistence.  He refuses to discuss or debate, but he loves to lecture.  That is the primary character of his aggression; truth becomes a lie that must be suppressed, even as the argument he’s attempting to validate continues to evolve into shattered sentences that eventually hold no meaning.

In regard to the methods used in the example of Robert Jamison above, it is particularly easy to effect evolving storylines on the internet, possibly the most effective architecture yet developed for the propagation of incipient deceit.  The offenders simply edit the original works, something men like Robert Salas and Robert Hastings are significantly well-practiced at.  This strategy – to their shame – has also been adopted at times by authors like Richard M. Dolan and website moguls like Frank Warren.  As strategies go, it isn’t completely ineffectual.  Unless someone manages to make a copy of such works when they first appear, nobody would ever know that major changes have been made to the storyline.  The adoption of changes that are afterwards discussed as if having a lifespan measuring back to the original argument creates a false aspect in the narrative suggesting the absence of change.  Change instills doubt, so they ignore it.  Although some individuals might mention an “evolving tale of events”, the cycle of change becomes much harder to examine or to even document when commonly expressed attitudes or truth and falsity imply its absence.

Similar problems arise when affidavits are used in an environment otherwise bereft of legal record-keeping or forensic standardization.  An affidavit is nothing more than an account given by a witness under no legal coercion to tell the truth.  It’s a notarized statement of no more worth than a letter written by a person who has signed his name at the bottom.  Robert Hastings is famous for his use of such worthless indicators of his witnesses’ “honesty”, an investment in credibility that costs him little, yet depends entirely upon the ignorance of his primary audience in regard to what are essentially pointless public relations maneuvers.  The concrete measure of his credibility, in fact, depends almost entirely on the poor education of the audience representing the target of his UFO hoaxes and false claims, a point easily established by the fact that they are the only ones actually willing to pay for the privilege of being lied to.  The affidavits acknowledged as “proof” of honesty by his audience, however, are of little worth, given that these same witnesses continue recording various affidavits when asked by Hastings to do so – new affidavits that change those “points of fact” carelessly discussed in prior versions, yet now proven to be false.  It is this practice that defined the need for brand new affidavits submitted by his witnesses just prior to the 27 September, 2010 news conference organized by Hastings and Robert Salas to highlight their claims of UFO interest in nuclear facilities.  And those affidavits were not the same as the affidavits produced beforehand; they had, in fact, been corrected.  It has become very clear that in Robert Hastings’ case, credibility is a commodity that can be bought and sold, but is only rarely earned.

It presents an interesting dichotomy to the culture of these UFO-Nukes assertions that every witness Robert Hastings has ever discussed in relation to Robert Salas’ Malmstrom AFB Echo Flight UFO claims has refused outright since 1995 to provide an affidavit of any sort that establishes a UFO presence.  As a result, all of the evidence used by these two charlatans consists of recorded “testimony” from telephone conversations that all such witnesses have subsequently denounced, charging that they have been liberally edited, are incomplete, contain phrases and conclusions that have been taken out context, and neglect entirely their common and insistent confirmation that UFOs were not reported, were not investigated, and had no role to play at all in the course of that incident.  It is, in fact, the character of his deceit in relation to that single case that led to his adoption of different strategies in regard to new cases, such as the use of anonymous sources defining his reporting of UFO interference at F.E. Warren AFB in October 2010.  The common factor in both, of course, is deception.

Unfortunately, while critics can – and do – claim that the most recent affidavits detailing the events of a particular story are completely different from the witness’ earlier versions of that story, or different from earlier affidavits established in regard to that story, if the only affidavits publically available on numerous related websites are the same, i.e., the most recent, who is going to pay attention?  This aspect of the assertions that have been made can sometimes make revelations of change difficult to establish unless the person desiring to document such evolving storylines reads and regularly monitors and copies the numerous and insistent doctrines on a nearly daily basis.  I can assure you from personal experience that conducting research in this tiresome and repetitive way produces within the heart a very defeatist attitude, one that inhibits greatly any will to challenge affirmations discussed as a continuous and straightforward chronicle of fact instead of the constantly evolving folktale that it actually represents.  It’s impossible (or at least exceedingly difficult) for a single person to thoroughly and properly investigate the issue when it’s been applied so liberally as a group strategy.  Having attempted to do so in regard to claims made by Robert Salas, I can say with complete candor that a community of investigators is absolutely essential for any thorough examination of such practices when their use is so consistently employed.  Unfortunately, it is merely one more factor supporting the disregard that most people have for organized UFOlogy as respectful, scientific field of endeavor that those who believe so strongly in the relative truth behind UFO phenomena seem to have no intention or even desire to police the field of UFO claims for themselves, the primary result of which is the proliferation of false claims, aggressive hoaxing, fraudulent profiteering, unverified or outcome-dependent research, manufactured histories, and recycled myth-building on a scale unmatched by any other field of human knowledge – all of which contributes to an environment directly responsible for the criminal misconduct and scientific deceit of men like Robert Hastings and the paranoia and fear they often represent.  In a community that freely concedes with well-addressed sincerity that at least 95-percent of all UFO reports are misidentifications of commonly encountered objects, materials, or natural occurrences, it is absolutely stunning that nearly all UFO reports are accepted as factual until proven otherwise – and in many cases appropriate proof itself is denied or discarded in favor of the myth.  I personally have no doubts whatsoever that this complex characteristic of UFO studies is often the primary motivation for those adopting such strategies as evolving storylines or anonymous sources of information.

In answer to an as yet unasked query, yes, this is a dishonest way to establish claims.  The members of this coalition, however, are typically of dishonest character, and they simply don’t care; they can’t afford to, not after they’ve already tossed every cent they have on the table.  Were they to start raking the chips in now, it would only serve to make more noticeable those many counterfeit coins mingled with those very few possessing some actual value.  The plain fact is that this strategy represents a systematic and purposeful rejection of honest debate and common integrity adopted by men and women who believe they have nothing more to lose in regard to establishing their national policy goals.  They believe – sincerely in my opinion – that their dishonesty promotes the truth.  They have already justified their lies as an acceptable means to an end – that end being the full disclosure of UFO-related documents held by the USAF and DoD, a demand promoted hand-in-hand with their contention that the security classification of such materials is irrelevant.  It is a cynical business that they are in, one that I believe they have justified to themselves as a last resort to effect national policy goals after fifty years of UFO belief and honest systems of investigation and analysis amounted to nothing.  This is what happens when one’s honest commitment produces little of substance beyond failure.  Social analysis of the phenomena very clearly suggests that the resolution to establish beliefs that cannot be supported by definitive evidence, credible witnesses, or documented efforts has already been breached by many believers who are justifiably tired of that same failure.  In their minds, full disclosure cannot be achieved without substantial public opinion brought to bear upon the government, a conviction tempered with the complete certainty that substantial public opinion cannot be properly effected without belief.  Even the most jaded analysis is forced to recognize this aspect of the controversy.

The solution these individuals have settled on is the steely, determined resolution to create that belief by any means possible, and the fact that the tools they have selected will establish a purely artificial level of belief is simply not relevant.  The only thing they care about is the end of the story – full disclosure.  This process represents the already acknowledged observance that what they have demanded of the government cannot be executed in a democratic nation without massive public demand, and such an insistent necessity cannot occur without massive public belief to compel it forward.  Fortunately for any honest appraisal, some of these conspirators are not terribly bright.  These few individuals tend to make a lot of mistakes and these mistakes can be noted by those who find their methods just as distasteful as their claims.

Part Four follows tomorrow*
(Edit to add: Part Four now follows on the 28th December)







8 Comments

  1. avatar

    god are you in for a shock

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 23, 2011 @ 4:49 am

  2. avatar

    I’m not God, sport. God’s the one who gave you a brain to use, and then made you tie it in knots so the rest of the world would have an object lesson about the hallucinatory dangers of incipient conjunctivitis. Seriously, who shares email addresses? You ever heard of yahoo.com? Nice try, Roy. Now be a good boy, and go home and play with your trucks. If you’re good, you can have a cookie…

    Comment by James Carlson — December 23, 2011 @ 11:12 am

  3. avatar

    we share email addresses as we are “out of the system” 100% – { but not t.w.e.p. } – I am currently using a number of email addresses and proxy servers. I am based down under at Pine Gap – a joint ET/human base – there is another base a few hundred miles west from here at Mount Ziel { or under Mount Ziel to be more precise Sir} Interesting how much time and effort you put in to denying a phenomenon that the Vedas, Buddhism, the Koran and the Bible have written about in some detail – as well as an old comrade from the Christic Institute – Daniel Sheehan – And what about our ol’ old cowboy pal Sarbacher -who confirmed in mine and others presence that there had been a briefing on crashed saucers at Wright Field attended by members of the R&DB and identified good ol Dr. Eric Walker as one of those who attended { all the briefings }.. But anyway please continue with disproving the phenomenon once and for all… Remember dear Sir – all matter essentially is a dimensionless point { read this as THERE IS NOTHING ACTUALLY THERE! ] ;o)

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 24, 2011 @ 5:30 am

  4. avatar

    press button *click*

    { undechiperable }

    Then the saucers exist?

    RIS: Yes, they exist.

    Do they operate as ——— suggests on magnetic principle?

    RIS: We have not been able to duplicate their performance.

    : So they come from some other planet?

    RIS: All we know is, that we didn’t make them, and it’s pretty certain they didn’t originate on the earth.

    I understand the whole subject of saucers is classified.

    RIS: Yes, it is classified two points higher than the H-bomb. In fact. it is the most highly classified subject in the U.S. government at the present time.

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 24, 2011 @ 5:35 am

  5. 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 @ 11:18 am

  6. avatar

    Sad Mr Carlson – If only you had a MAJI 33 clearance! JAJAJAAAAJAJJAAJAJAJAJAJAAJ

    Comment by Lt. Colonel Walt Markson — December 24, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

  7. avatar

    Wow.. this ‘Lt. Colonel Walt Markson’ sounds exactly like a nutbag (reconpilot) from ATS that used to fixate on me when I used to call him out on his crap around the forums… almost identical BS story too. All I can say is that mental health care is in a sad state of disrepair when assclowns like this are allowed to mix amongst regular folk. Don’t feed the troll James… It only serves to feed his delusion that he can play with the big boys.

    Comment by the|exx — December 25, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

  8. avatar

    The assertion attacked by Robert Hastings (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) in response to my work holds true. Robert Hastings paid to have his article distributed, just as we established in the forum at RU, days before he published his meaningless and incorrect assessment, here: http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37341#p37341

    “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: http://www.prnewswire.com/).”

    So, how did I “get it wrong again”?

    Answer: I didn’t – again!

    (Thanks to Stephen Broadbent for the original comments in response to Hastings’ inability to assess meaning within the english language, a failure that applies as well to his interview with Col. Meiwald, in which Meiwald insists that he knows nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight — a denial that Hastings characterizes as a full confirmation of his and Salas’ depiction of that alleged incident; perhaps he should be more diligent in his gathering of information — he embarrases himself like this repeatedly by refusing to examine in full the evidence arrayed against him, a habit that indicates either his delusional outlook, his arrogant laziness, or his dishonest character — pick one; they all fit.)

    Comment by James Carlson — January 8, 2012 @ 1:14 am

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