April 28, 2012

How to Demand Redress By Shooting Yourself in the Foot


Upon reading Robert Hastings’ most recent article — “Science and UFOs: Part 4 – Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics Have Been Duped by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine”, online as usual at UFO Chronicles — the daughter of a close friend of mine asked me if Hastings was truly as dishonest as I have often maintained.  It’s a good question, one that social responsibility intermixed with a desire to inform demands I address.  And so I have:

In light of his confirmed and irresponsible, dishonest approach to UFOlogical matters, Hastings’ attempts to once again find faults with the methods used by “Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics” has once again done little more than prove to the world his own desire to reach conclusions on the basis of tired logic, false pretenses, and complete lies and idiocy.  The only good news to come out of his most recent wasted attempt to brainwash normal people everywhere is his admission that his newest bit of blather is the “fourth and final installment”.  Thank God for small favors…

Hastings consistent attempts to infuse so much self-promotion into his discussion of irrelevant points intended to bring forth a logical conclusion that doesn’t even exist in the ill-defined strictures of common law is absolutely hilarious.  He would have done much better had he simply hired a public relations firm and then concentrated on the supposed central ideas behind his article.  It’s hard not to notice that his first point of discussion, contrary to being an evidential assessment detailing how “Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics Have Been Duped by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine” as promised in the title of his most recent attempt to influence the most irrational of his ever-diminishing coterie of fans, is merely another tired attempt to rewrite history.  He seems to be justifying his need to approach this issue on the basis of his ill-conceived and poorly executed September 27, 2010 “UFOs and Nukes” press conference — a press conference that was resoundingly ignored by almost every major press organization on the planet, and treated as a joke by almost everybody else.

I know it’s difficult to remember such an uncoordinated and inconclusive effort, but Hastings once again manages to bring up and then congratulate himself for playing a part in this exercise of futility:  “On September 27, 2010, I co-sponsored the ‘UFOs and Nukes’ press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., during which seven U.S. Air Force (USAF) veterans spoke about their UFO encounters at nuclear weapons sites, including incidents involving large numbers of ICBMs mysteriously malfunctioning at a time when disc-shaped craft were observed silently hovering near their launch facilities by Air Force Security Police.”  Although 3 of those 7 gentlemen were present to discuss a single incident that never occurred, the most impressive associated figure hasn’t even been mentioned in passing by Hastings and crew:  he has made it a point a pride that he has himself produced by diligent research the claims of over 130 ex-servicemen that support his “UFOs and Nukes” hypothesis, but was unable — after a year or more of prior planning — to actually produce any more than 7, 3 of which discuss a single incident, and none of whom were actually present to attest to the alleged “facts” he’s trying to establish!  He should, perhaps, try to establish the presence of the UFOs first.  After all, his “witnesses” are, for the most part, unable to establish such craft on their own.  More importantly, while he has indeed brought forth 7 witnesses to publically affirm his assertions, he has still failed completely to explain the litrerally hundreds of witnesses who have since come forward to indicate by their wholesale laughter that the incidents he wishes to discuss simply did not occur, many relying on phrases such as “it’s all fiction”.  This is not surprising.  He NEVER discusses those details that prove the parochial character and false conclusions inherent to his basic argument.  And to this day, both he and his 7 “witnesses” have also failed completely to explain the many changes they have instituted over the years, the numerous errors of fact that have been erased from their claims, as well as those that still remain, the abject poverty of arguments established on the basis of mistaken suppositions, disproven facts, fundamental misunderstandings of the culture from which their assertions arise, and the notable failure that all of these men — and most often Robert Hastings himself — have exhibited to answer any of the many detailed questions that have already been repeatedly asked of them.

As for Hastings’ most recent load of codswallup, it’s hard not to notice that, contrary to the title of his piece, he has once again decided to first expend his efforts discussing claims that have nothing at all to do with “Skeptical Inquirer Magazine”, attempting instead to rewrite modern history.  He is one again falling back on the argument that his published “interviews” (allegedly) with Walt Figel and Frederick Meiwald somehow prove the case he’s tried to make in regard to Echo Flight and Oscar Flight at Malmstrom AFB in 1967; it matters not that Figel has come forward repeatedly to reject the claims that Hastings has made for him, he is still firmly relying on a witness that has completely disowned his erroneous assumptions.  He has also repeatedly failed to note Meiwald’s insistence (as detailed by Hastings himself!) that he has no memory of any of the events concerning a UFO at Oscar Flight in conjunction with any missile failures.  Only rarely has an argument so lacking in evidential value ever been presented to a public so eager to ignore it.  It’s hard not to find fault in the author of such claims, either a fault typified most by its articulate dishonesty, or one noted by the sadly delusional aspects of personality that are undeniably applicable.

The opportunity to review his marvelous career was one he apparently couldn’t ignore.  What’s particularly amusing about it all, however, is his continued insistence that Figel chose not to participate in his pathetic dog and pony show that he seems so wont to discuss.  This is merely another of his well-proven lies intended to correct past errors.  The truth is not that Figel “chose not to participate”, but that Figel was purposely excluded, and knew nothing at all about it until the day before it was held.  Not only is this what Figel has repeatedly asserted, it’s also what Hastings himself has claimed!  At http://militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-rattle/2012/03/20/ufo-deployed-to-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-142271, Hastings very clearly insists that “Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns. … With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn’t want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further?  That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn’t make the cut.”  And yet, that “wishy-washy” attitude is the only thing that Hastings has ever used to confirm his and Robert Salas’ ridiculous claims regarding a UFO at Echo Flight, claims that Figel has repeatedly insisted are not true.  It’s nice to see that Hastings is still capable of lying to the public whenever he gets the chance.  I would hate for him to be forced to admit that a “delusional state” is the reason for his inconsistent and poorly supported views.  It’s so much easier for the world to judge him as a complete fraud and a consistent liar than to lean on suspicions that he’s merely another head case for the world to dismiss with some prejudice.

Unsurprisingly, Hastings is half-way through his little article before he even mentions the “Skeptical Inquirer”, the supposed point of focus for his senseless meanderings.  He apparently wants to associate skeptical authors published by the magazine with more conspiratorial garbage concerning the U.S. Department of Defense or the intelligence apparatus for the nation.  What a vivid imagination he has!  He leads his paranoia firstly to Kendrick C. Frazier, finding fault that the man was employed at Sandia National Laboratories.  The fact that Frazier still publishes skeptical materials even though he retired long ago is apparently not relevent.  Hastings finds his past employment “highly significant”, for no reason aside from Sandia National Laboratories’ “ordinance engineering” of components used for bomb and missile warhead systems.  This makes about as much sense as rejecting Hastings’ own claims as being the associated ramblings originating within a conspiracy of garbage disposal professionals who are trying to secure a DoD contract by blackmailing the USAF over its alleged UFO dealings simply because he was once a janitor at Malmstrom AFB.  The fact that Frazier was a Public Relations Specialist and would not have possessed the “need-to-know” for access to any of the highly classified materials Hastings associates with his paranoid suspicions is beside the point.  The only thing he needs to denigrate the work of the man is his prior employment.  Frankly, while this type of strategy is recognizably obscene, it also suits his personality.  He attacks Frazier’s credibility on the basis of his employment without even ONCE discussing the man’s claims!  That characteristic of his work is absolutely typical of Hastings’ past efforts in the field, one notably easy to confirm given that he has failed miserably to answer any detailed questions whatsoever in regard to his own assertions.  I note that Hastings has little to say in regard to Frazier’s voluminous work on other subjects — only the UFO-oriented materials, none of which is he apparently willing to discuss the details of.

It’s understandable, of course, that Hastings would find particular fault with Frazier’s view that “The UFO believers don’t give you a clear and true idea of what these government documents reveal. They exaggerate the idea that there is a big UFO cover-up.”  After all, this is exactly what Hastings himself has done in the past, insisting over the past couple of years alone that the one mention of “UFO” in the command history he relies upon to make his case regarding Echo Flight “proves” that there was a conspiracy to cover-up that incident, one that was accomplished, apparently, by making all mention of “UFOs” completely UNCLASSIFIED.  It also “proves” that a UFO incident at Oscar Flight was also covered up, this “proof” having been established by the fact that the command history doesn’t even address the issue!  I can’t help but wonder whether or not Hastings has even bothered to READ the documents he associates with these matters, given that most of them were classified for reasons having absolutely NOTHING to do with the UFO aspects they are so tangentially associated with.  No matter common sense, though.  Frazier’s employment alone si the only factor Hastings is willing to bring to this discussion.  His employment is under suspicion, not his claims, and that employment factors only upon the arguments established against those UFO claims made by Hastings:  the whole UFO-Nukes shtick.

His next target is James Oberg (and make no mistake, this is nothing but a pigeon-shoot for Hastings; there are no essential truths or important matters to discuss, here — it’s just another dismissal of those on his personal UFO enemies list).  Oberg’s great sin also appears to be limited to his past employment.  Hastings finds fault, apparently, in Oberg’s duties as a USAF officer in 1970-72, duties that he fulfilled many years prior to publishing anything at all about UFOs.  My God, the conspiratorial reach of these criminals at the “Skeptical Inquirer” is beyond human comprehension!  It’s absolutely dumbfounding that they were able to secure the cooperation of such a rabid skeptic, and thank God Robert Hastings was able to ferret out Oberg’s hidden connection to the cover-up machine by discovering his role as a “Security Officer” at the Battle Environments Branch, Air Force Weapons Laboratory from 1970-72.  Granted, this assignment was admitted to by Oberg years ago (part of his resume, I believe), and was hardly something that Hastings dug up and published as a result of his own abilities, and granted as well that Oberg’s duties were limited to assessing “airborne laser weapons performance using math modeling and computer simulation of aerodynamic, laser, and nuclear effects”, and that his duties as “Security Officer”, a relatively junior-level assignment requiring him to monitor, as Hastings admits, “the security procedures used to safeguard the classified documents generated by his group”, it nonetheless represents something of an investigative coup for the man, albeit a useless and meaningless one.  Of course, Hastings does neglect to mention that such duties would not have automatically granted “need-to-know” to Oberg, and could not be used to actually examine any of those documents referred to.

Hastings also faults Oberg for “chastising Jacobs [Bob Jacobs, who has discussed the "Big Sur UFO Incident" in the past] for revealing ‘top secret’ information”.  Like many of Hastings’ claims, he has, however, distorted the facts of the case.  Oberg did not chastise “Jacobs for revealing ‘top secret’ information”.  He actually told Jacobs that “Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data, what would you be willing to say about other top secret aspects of the Atlas warhead which you alluded to briefly?” — an appropriate question in light of Jacobs’ claim that “he had broken his silence” in regard to a classified matter.  It questions Jacobs assertions that what he was revealing represented “top secret UFO data”; if he was willing to freely admit to such a crime, why would he only allude to other classified matters when “breaking his silence” on those points as well could only strengthen his claims?  It suggests that he is wary of divulging such matters, because doing so would be illegal. a supposition that in turn suggests that the details he has already revealed may not have been classified at all.  It should be noted as well that any fictional claims in regard to this matter would, of course, be unclassified.

If Jacobs was telling the truth regarding the classification of an incident requiring him to break his silence, it would be useful to know why he hasn’t “broken his silence” in regard to other classified matters — classified matters that would necessarily require criminal charges be pursued.  Jacobs’ reticence to do so suggests that the incident he has come forward to discuss was not actually classified at the time he discussed it.  It also explains why Jacobs wasn’t arrested for revealing TOP SECRET information.  If the information was unclassifed (or fictional), there would be no grounds for legal action.  Oberg was merely detailing a supposition that tends to define possible deceit.

Hastings, however, maintains that Jacob was unaware of the classification of the materials he discussed:  “Jacobs has correctly noted that because the USAF officer who had shown him the film of the UFO encounter, Major Florenze J. Mansmann, subsequently told him with a figurative-wink that the incident had “never happened”—not that it was Top Secret”.

Unfortunately, this is also not completely true, and has in fact been distorted by both Jacobs and Hastings:  “Florenz Mansmann has confirmed that ‘he ordered Jacobs not to discuss the incident with anyone ‘… because of the nature of the launch, the failure of the launch mission and the probability that the optical instrumentation (the film) showed an interference with normal launch patterns.’”  This indicates that Jacobs at the very least knew not to divulge anything based on those elements, reasons hardly associated with UFO interference.  Jacobs can claim all he wants that he was unaware of the classification of the incident itself, but this was never relevent to the issue.  Mansmann insists outright that Jacobs was “ordered not to discuss any of what was seen or discussed during the screenings”, an appropriate assertion given Mansmann’s role as “the ranking optical instrumentation officer.”  The screenings themselves were classified, and Jacobs knew this intimately, making Hastings’ claims that Jacob was unaware of the classified details essentially meaningless; given Hastings’ past history, however, this is not a bit surprising.

Hastings’ continued distortion of actual events twisted to create a UFO incident that did not actually occur is characteristic of his methods.  For Hastings to use these ineffectual claims to suggest that Oberg had mistakenly confirmed the TOP SECRET aspect of UFOs on the basis of his statement to Jacobs that “Since you obviously feel free to discuss top secret UFO data” is beyond the ridiculous even for him.  A suggestion regarding Jacobs’ admitted attempt to divulge “top secret UFO data” is not an indication that “top secret UFO data” actually exists.  It’s merely an assessment of Jacobs’ credibility originating in his claims that the classified materials in question represent “top secret UFO data” as opposed to materials that were originally classifed “because of the nature of the launch, the failure of the launch mission and the probability that the optical instrumentation (the film) showed an interference with normal launch patterns” — information having nothing whatsoever to do with UFOs as unclassified records have since established.  Oberg never criticized Jacobs, as Hastings claims, “for exposing ‘top secret UFO data’”, and it’s a stretch of the record to suggest he did.  He merely wanted to know whether Jacobs was equally prepared to divulge provably classified “aspects of the Atlas warhead” that he had previously alluded to, a question intended to define the scope of Jacobs’ intimations of an actual crime that he was responsible for fostering.

Does Hastings offer any objective information whatsoever to back his claims that “Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics Have Been Duped by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine”?  No, of course not.  He never goes into details, because details can be questioned, analyzed, and proven — his claims are not.  Does Hastings present any actual evidence that the conclusions he has reached should be examined further?  Given that his interpretations of such events are obviously based on his ignorance of the military and his oft-relied upon strategy of attacking those who see through his pathetic, and unbalanced claims, it’s difficult to see what exactly CAN be examined, let alone examined further.  Are we supposed to examine the “Skeptical Inquirer Magazine” for showing how little evidence is required to assert UFO interference where UFOs patently do not belong?  Or should we examine the ever-changing and evolving aspects of the UFO claims that Hastings himself has presented?  Are we supposed to question the credibility of men who make these UFO claims?  Because the facts of their inconsistent approach to the issues suggest that any real examination would hardly work to Hastings’ advantage.  After all, the men he attacks above have never changed their claims on the basis of evidence refuting them, while his own witnesses have done so repeatedly.  If one actually examines Hastings’ methods and the “testimony” offered by his witnesses, it’s hard not to walk away thinking, “is this all?”  The proof of fraudulent claims is usually fairly easy to come by when a detailed examination has been undertaken.  Is this why Hastings has refused to examine in such detail the cases presented?  Or is he merely an agitator focused on raising doubts by attacking those he’s fixated on while ignoring completely any of the materials or cases they’ve presented?  Does he truly believe that further examination will support his baseless assumptions?

Given Hastings tendency to avoid examination to the point of refusing to answer detailed questions regarding his proposed incidents, refusing to take into account the actual contents of the FOIA documents he relies on to “prove” his UFO claims, his preference for attacking those who disagree with him instead of concentrating on the array of facts such men use to refute the nonsense he in turn posits, and his utter inability to present an argument that doesn’t ultimately rely on conjecture, assumption, poor interpretation, and complete ignorance, it’s probably safe to conclude that he is either delusional or dishonest.  Having proven his dishonesty so thoroughly and with such easily discovered evidence supporting this conclusion, I think it’s safe to say that his personal beliefs have yet to be affirmed, while his fraudulent approach to the issue is so obvious and so nicely defines his true bearing that it can be recognized in an instant.  Hastings once again plays word games to reach an irrelevant conclusion that is worth nothing on its own merit.  He is once again using a discussion of apples and oranges to define a duck-billed platypus, all of it merely to attack his critics.  He’s like the Spiro Agnew of American UFOlogy.

And so we come full circle, and I am now prepared to answer that young girl’s question — as attested to above — regarding the character of the man making these sad little assertions that he is now forced to defend on the basis of so very little:  “Yes, Virginia; Robert Hastings is indeed a fraud.”



Filed under: UFOlogy,UFOs — Tags: , , , , , , — James Carlson @ 3:16 pm




14 Comments

  1. avatar

    UFOs are not all flown by true extraterrestrials, the majority of them are owned and operated by our advanced Repto Sapien cousins, who share the Earth with us as their ancestral home world. They are historically cited in about 80 places in the Bible, being described as a SERPENT THAT WALKS UPRIGHT ON TWO LEGS AND IS AS TALL AS A CAMEL (8 FEET TALL). There are statues and temple paintings of them in nearly every ancient society. This has nothing to do with “religious beliefs.” It is a proven historical and archaeological fact. That’s why I wrote a book showing all of the real world evidence.

    Publisher’s site to order my book in paperback or Ebook

    http://booklocker.com/books/1417.html

    WARNING reveals a frightening alien agenda, a long-term program of social domination and periodic controlled genocide. Mankind is now in great danger. We have a terrible problem to overcome. Resolution requires international solidarity, then forcible negotiation with the aliens.

    Some artwork from my book. Click on each image for larger view:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/antigray45/Artwork02

    Website: http://antigraywarning.webs.com/

    Art Greenfield

    Comment by Art Greenfield — April 29, 2012 @ 1:29 am

  2. avatar

    As Tim Hebert, at Reality Uncovered, at his own blog, Did It Really Happen? at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/, and at Frank Warren’s UFOCHRONICLES (where Robert Hastings habitually deposits his leavings) has recently discussed (see : http://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/04/science-and-ufos-part-4-sincere-but.html), Hastings’ desire to chronicle the history of his oppressive UFO-Nukes nonsense has once again revealed that the center of his claims have a lot in common with the center of a donut: you have to recognize that there’s just nothing there before you can really enjoy any of it. The second you think it’s real, you end up spending a whole lot of down-time wondering why that tasty, tasy sugar cake filler doesn’t have a taste and is oddly unsatisfying to your appetite department. Welcome to “Chernobyl Diaries”.

    Basically, what Robert Hastings managed to do in the course of composing the ongoing chronicle of his personal “remembrance of things past” was to relate a course of events that is contrary to what he has always asserted prior to this attempt. He was uncharacteristically honest for once, but also managed to relate an incident that confirms (once again) how far from the truth he is willing to wander. He has been asked on a number of occasions by a number of different people why he never invited Col. Walt Figel — a man he insists has repeatedly confirmed the UFO-related events at Echo Flight that Robert Salas invented some years ago — to present his alleged “testimony” at the September 27, 2010 press conference he organized to publicize his UFO-Nukes folktales. After all, if his version of this event is so strongly confirmative of Salas’ 1996 claims in regard to a command and an event that Salas never served at and was never associated with, such testimony by an individuals who actually DID serve at and WAS associated with said command and event would presumably have some value to the claims Hastings has made. Prior to his most recent affirmations, Hastings has insisted that he did indeed invite Walt Figel to present his claims at the conference, but Figel declined. Figel, on the other hand, as always insisted that he was never invited to speak and knew nothing at all about the press conference. So what we had was two conflicting accounts, one of which confirms the dishonest approach that Robert Hastings has always brought to the table when this subject has been broached.

    Very recently, however, Robert Hastings made some assertions to me during a minor back and forth discussion at http://militarytimes.com/blogs/battle-rattle/2012/03/20/ufo-deployed-to-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-142271 where it became evident that Robert was attempting to create from nothing another UFO incident. Had it not been a blog associated with the Military Times, I have little doubt that he would have let it go, but since the military represents his primary “resource” he must have felt a defense of his claims was warranted. He shouldn’t have bothered. There was simply nothing there, a not untypical conclusion where his assertions generally take root. In any case, during the course of his defense, he made the following points that were recently assessed by Tim Hebert:

    “Figel, after accusing Salas of making up the UFO-related events at Oscar, as you mention above, never acknowledged that he had been wrong when he said that Salas’ statements were fiction, never called Col. Meiwald (whose number I provided to him) to verify the authenticity of Meiwald’s tape recorded comments in support of Salas—which contradicted his own uninformed opinions entirely—and frankly, never had the decency to apologize to Salas, even after Col. Meiwald supported Salas without reservation.

    “Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not initially invited to participate in my press conference—where seven USAF veterans *with backbone* stuck to their stories and talked in detail about multiple UFO encounters at ICBM sites, including the Echo and Oscar shutdowns.

    “With this caliber of witness (seven of them, actually) at the press conference, why would I include Figel, who told me on tape that he didn’t want to get caught up in the debate between you and me and fan the controversy further? That kind of wishy-washy attitude didn’t make the cut.”

    As Hebert notes above (and recently pointed out in his commentary to Hastings’ recent reappraisal of his own personal “enemies list”, that bit of tawdry nonsense “Science and UFOs: Part 4 – Sincere but Uninformed Skeptics Have Been Duped by Skeptical Inquirer Magazine” that was published at Frank Warren’s UFOCHRONICLES), this commentary seems to contradict Hastings’ previous insistence that Col. Figel was, in fact, invited to the Washington, DC press conference (presumably to affirm the presence of a UFO and thereby confirm Salas’ claims in regard to Echo Flight), but had declined to participate. As Tim Hebert states on the commentary of his blog at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2012/04/oscar-flight-mystery-dwynne-arneson.html#comment-form, “Hastings is on record as saying that he avoided Figel’s participation due to his (Figel) lack of enthusiasm for the UFO theme surrounding Echo Flight.” Specifically, his comments addressed at UFOCHRONICLES question Hastings’ credibility on the grounds that his vitriolic response above illustrates notable deceit:

    “Robert states in his article, “Although I have roughly three hours of audio taped comments by Figel, he chose not to participate in the press conference.”

    “I’ve asked Robert on at least two occasions to provide the reasons of Walter Figel’s absence and he has stated to me that Figel “chose” not to attend.

    “How then does this published comment from Robert on the Marine Times (3-20-12) square with Figel’s lack of participation”, this published comment being the same as the one noted above.

    In response to this very appropriate question, Robert Hastings writes:

    “Tim Hebert didn’t read my statement on the Marine Times blog carefully. Here it is again, with the key word highlighted in all caps:

    “‘Figel’s tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth is one of the reasons he was not INITIALLY invited to participate in my press conference’”, adding that “after debunker James Carlson wrote to Figel, informing him of the press conference and copying me on the message, I emailed Figel and asked him to come, if he wished to participate. He was already working near Washington so I would not have to pay to fly him in, put him up in a hotel, etc., as I did with the other participants.

    “So, Tim, Figel was indeed invited, eventually, so there is no discrepancy with what I have written online. He chose not to participate, just I have said.”

    He’s once again trying to rewrite his own history, and doing so in a very obvious manner, apparently forgetting that everything has already been documented. In Figel’s email to me of September 24, 2010, it is obvious that he was not aware of the September 27 press conference until he read about it. That email was Figel’s response to the 1996 tape transcripts Salas and Hastings had just released. In other words, three days prior to Hastings’ press conference, Figel had still not been invited to make those imaginary UFO claims public. It was at that time, however, that both Ryan Dube and I began questioning the reason for Figel’s noted absence in the list of witnesses presenting testimony at that press conference — a list of witnesses that had already been established. So either Hastings’ neglect of this witness (the only witness aside from Robert Salas that he has EVER used to confirm any incident whatsoever at Echo Flight) three days prior to his little masturbatory epic on the UFOs-Nukes theme was an oversight, or he never intended to invite Figel.

    What I love most about Robert Hastings is the fact that we can so easily see how his weak little mind works by simply reading his own claims. The following is one of my favorites, posted at Reality Uncovered on September 26, 2010, the day before his press conference, in response to the publication of Col. Figel’s complete rejection of everything Hastings and Salas have claimed in regard to Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. Please note that Hastings did NOTHING in response to a communication from me informing Figel of the press conference as he now claims. Figel raised the issue all on his own in an article published on September 26, 2010 at Reality Uncovered. I never even broached the issue with Figel; he did that all on his own after reading about it on September 24, 2010.

    As for the “invitation” that Hastings refers to above, it wasn’t extended to Figel until a few hours before that silly little press conference, as Hastings clearly established in his commentary to Figel’s claims of September 26, 2010:

    “Walt Figel, who I assumed was in Colorado, can of course attend the press conference. He might learn something. I have added him to the non-media guest list. I have already printed up copies of “Witch Hunt” and will be distributing them at the event as needed. So, if he does show up, and decides to change his story – for whatever reason – he will be up against his own tape recorded words. That would be interesting. I think the media would love *that* story.”
    Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

    So are we to believe that this is an invitation? I ask, because it sounds more like a threat. Or is it just another dismissal of anything at all that doesn’t fit in with what Robert Hastings wants people to believe, but lacks the ability and the knowledge and the honesty to convince them of?

    During that same vitriolic endeavor, Hastings also wrote: “Finally, I also have Figel on tape – from a March 2010 conversation – saying other things which are at variance with what he has written to James Carlson over time. Those taped excerpts will appear in an article at The UFOCHRONICLES in the near future. Walt gave me permission to disseminate those tapes as I saw fit and I will certainly do so.”
    Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

    These are old claims. On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 1:48 PM, Hastings wrote, “Fortunately, both Bob Salas and I have Col. Figel on audio tape, and he confirms talking on the capsule phone with his guards and a missile maintenance team member at Echo Flight, all of whom reported seeing a “large, round” object hovering over one of Echo’s Launch Facilities (silos) moments after the missiles began malfunctioning. Salas spoke with Figel in 1996 and earlier this year. I spoke with him in 2008 and earlier this year.

    “The conversations on the cassette tapes are currently being transferred to CDs and, once that’s finished, and some transcribing is completed, both written word and links to the audio will be posted at the UFO Chronicles website. Cutting to the chase, on tape Figel contradicts 99% of James Carlson’s online claims about what the colonel did or did not say.”

    This is completely untrue, as Figel confirmed on Thursday, September 2, 2010, writing “Salas’s mistake about the time and place should say something. Think about it, if you are that passionate about the subject, you would not forget any detail about such an incident and he was dead wrong. He was never there and never involved. Dick Evans was the flight commander at Kilo (Oscar’s parent site) and he has no recollection about any incident at Oscar ever.” Is this the type of commentary that “contradicts 99% of James Carlson’s online claims about what the colonel did or did not say”? In addition, Figel mentioned nothing at all about the press conference on that early date. But he hadn’t yet read about it either, so, of course, he wouldn’t have mentioned it. What he DID mention was another wholesale rejection of Salas’ and Hastings’ claims.

    On September 19, 2010, Hastings wrote, “Former Minuteman missile launch officer Eric Carlson is claiming no UFO involvement in the missile shutdown at which he was present, at Echo Flight, outside of Malmstrom AFB on March 16, 1967, and further claims the UFO-related shutdown at Oscar Flight, on March 24, 2967, that Bob Salas reports on never happened at all.

    “Fortunately, Salas and I have the goods that support our version of events. I am working on an article with links to audio tapes of my and Salas’ phone calls to Eric’s missile commander, Walt Figel, who contradicts *everything* both Carlsons are saying. James Carlson just flat-out lies about all of Figel’s input, even though he had the evidence presented to him by me in 2008. I have the tapes, James has empty claims.” This is also untrue, as Figel had already confirmed in the above assessment of September 2, 2010, 17 days before. He had, in fact, been rejecting those UFO fables steadily since March 2010 — the same month that Hastings continues to prevaricate on: “I also have Figel on tape – from a March 2010 conversation – saying other things which are at variance with what he has written to James Carlson over time. Those taped excerpts will appear in an article at The UFOCHRONICLES in the near future. Walt gave me permission to disseminate those tapes as I saw fit and I will certainly do so.” That was two years ago, pal.

    Also on September 19, 2010, Hastings wrote, “Then, in 2008, I interviewed, on tape, Eric’s deputy missile commander at Echo, now-retired Col. Walt Figel, who told me that he did indeed get a report of a UFO hovering over an Echo missile, just as the entire flight went down. He said Eric overheard the call, was debriefed with him, was told never to discuss it, etc. so, basically, Figel completely contradicts Eric.

    “So, Eric is either very forgetful these days or he is keeping his silence. Anyway, because Bob and I are not backing down and because I have posted online the verbatim transcript of my conversation with Figel, in late 2008, James has been slandering and libeling me, Bob, and Jim Klotz for well over a year now. He has increased his activities online in anticipation of our press conference.

    “Once my new article and linked tapes are posted, people will be able to hear Figel tell me that a UFO was indeed reported hovering over one of his missiles, and also hear Salas’ missile commander at Oscar, Fred Meiwald, say that Bob is telling the truth about the other incident at Oscar Flight.”

    Figel’s March 2010 claims had already refuted these points, but for months Hastings had been claiming that none of those statements were accurate, and that I had lied about Figel’s testimony. Is any of this getting through to you, Robert? On September 26, 2010, Figel wrote, “your dad has not lied about anything nor do I believe that he is even capable of lying about anything at all. He was, is, and always will be an honorable man. You should remember that always – I will.” Is this what Hastings was referring to when he stated that “basically, Figel completely contradicts Eric”?

    It should be noted, once again, that to date Robert Hastings has failed completely to produce any of those March 2010 recordings that he has been promising to publish since March 2010.

    So, what’s the matter, Robert? That was over two fucking years ago, you pathetic lunatic!

    Since then, those ridiculous alleged recordings from 1996 are the only thing he’s bothered to produce at all these past couple of years, aside from the canker sores he gave to all those people who decided they would wait for him to present something, anything at all, that would show he’s not merely a fraud without the ability or morality to present a simple case linking UFOs with the nuclear weapons at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967. I find it hilarious that Hastings has been making these threats since March 2010, initiating this strategy in personal emails to the owners of Reality Uncovered in order to persuade them not to publish the information I had secured and written about. A simple phone call and an email to Col. Figel was all it took to convince everybody party to those communications that Hastings was indeed (and once again) lying about all of the contrary assertions Figel had supposedly made to him. And the fact that Robert Hastings had already promised to produce transcriptions and the actual recordings of that March 2010 conversation with Figel during which he supposedly made all those claims contrary to what we had already published — claims that we already knew he did NOT make, being the completely false chimera of logistical corn flakes quivering within the sordid and fraudulent mind of Robert Hastings alone — convinced me that Hastings was completely capable of doing exactly what he promised to do. Being so well acquainted by that time with his obsessive-compulsive need to lie about absolutely everything he has no immediate response to, the simple fact that he couldn’t possibly produce such recordings without faking them wasn’t even an issue. Col. Figel wrote to us and summarized everything that he told both Salas and Hastings, and that email — one among many — has been available for anyone to read since the day following Hastings’ initial threat to publish the contents of that conversation. It is the “ghost” of that threat that he was once again channeling the day before his little dog and pony show at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

    I think it’s funny as Hell that Robert Hastings is once again trying to make claims that can be so easily revealed for the noise they actually represent by simply examining what he himself has written or said. This would never happen, if he were an honest man who refused to lie so publicly and so often — but it seems to happen to him a lot.

    Robert Hastings only invited Col. Walt Figel to his little press conference in Washington, DC because he was shamed into doing so by the interview with Figel that we published on September 26, 2010 — one day before Hastings’ pathetic circus with his seven inconsistent story-tellers who continue to change the “facts” of their claims whenever they publicly affirm the stories that are now little more than the group-authored compositions of whatever claim attracts the most attention with the least number of critical errors of fact — a result of the unethical “troubleshooting” they have been practicing for years. These are not the “lies” that Robert Hastings insists we have been telling. They are statements and claims that he himself wrote or discussed in very public terms all by his lonesome self. It was only after he was shamed into “adding him to the non-media guest list” that his “invitation” was established at all, and it was done, as he readily admitted, only because he was made aware by the reporting of Ryan Dube at Reality Uncovered that Col. Figel was in Washington, DC at the same time. He makes it clear that he had at least considered the possibility that Figel might have been in town to ambush his little show, and he was prepared for that eventuality.

    “Walt Figel, who I assumed was in Colorado, can of course attend the press conference. He might learn something. I have added him to the non-media guest list. I have already printed up copies of “Witch Hunt” and will be distributing them at the event as needed. So, if he does show up, and decides to change his story – for whatever reason – he will be up against his own tape recorded words. That would be interesting. I think the media would love *that* story.”
    Comment by Robert — September 26, 2010 @ 4:05 pm

    Only Robert Hastings would have considered such an option, because only Robert Hastings is that goddamn paranoid. The rest of the world, Walt Figel included, was pretty much aware that “the media” wouldn’t give a damn about that story, or indeed, about any story originating with Robert Hastings, which “the media” proved (and continues to prove) shortly after he and his “seven witnesses” packed up their bag of useless garbage and went home. Whatever …

    The point is, Hastings is once again rewriting history in a useless attempt to make himself seem somehow more respectable and therefore less likely to have made up these ridiculous UFO-Nuke fables he’s been selling out of little more than the barely believable tales of old men looking for some extra attention and the well-inked remains of old H.G. Wells short stories scratched out on the low rag-content pulp of the 1920-30s. It’s an unnecessary chore. His honesty — or lack thereof — is made clear in his own writings (which tend to make his insistence that my claims in regard to Walt Figel and Frederick Meiwald are all lies and fiction kind of a wasted effort, given that all I’ve done is examine HIS own works and publish what Meiwald and Figel have ACTUALLY said).

    Get over it, Robert. If you want to know the source of the dishonesty we’ve brought into the light, try reading your own copy before you leave it scattered across the internet with the rest of your crap.

    Comment by James Carlson — May 1, 2012 @ 8:38 am

  3. avatar

    In response to Comment by Art Greenfield: I don’t like being a conduit for your advertising, and I think you’re either a lunatic or you have no moral objection to taking advantage of lunatics for you’re own benefit. Hawk your science fiction crap elsewhere please; I don’t suffer fools gladly.

    Comment by James Carlson — May 1, 2012 @ 9:28 pm

  4. avatar

    so much effort trying to disprove and debunk the phenomena.. Its more interesting than the Visitors themselves! JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJ

    Comment by Dr Roy W Gordon — May 2, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

  5. avatar

    What effort? You guys are the ones tap-dancing, jumping through hoops, and trying so hard to ignore a history of complete failure that you can no longer be called objective or original. For God’s sake, do yourself a favor and turn off the History Channel. Read a book someday that doesn’t tell you exactly what you want to hear on the basis of what you’ve refused to study. It’s not an “effort” prove lunacy — not when the focus of that lunacy is so game to summarize his or her efforts; all I need do is let you try and support your claims. Given enough rope, you tend to hang your own arguments — case in point being Robert Hastings’ own write-ups.

    Comment by James Carlson` — May 2, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

  6. avatar

    Recall also that Hastings’ prime witness in the Rendlesham case, Col Charles Halt, has signed an affidavit that is so at variance with what he said at the time of the incident that we cannot trust anything the man now says. By continuing to use Halt’s much-changed story as “evidence”, Hastings discredits both of them.

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — May 3, 2012 @ 10:35 am

  7. avatar

    Ian, a disturbing trait concerning Hastings et al, using affidavits to support their claims. Most, if not all of the current affidavits do not reflect the original story as told by the claimants. I believe that this tool is used to offset the variances that cannot be explained. Simply, “forget about lapse memories, distortions, and factual inadequacies. We are now telling a different story and it’s affirmed by the affidavits.”

    In the cases of Hastings use of affidavits…they are simply legally nonbinding and worthless based on the numerous Notaries that I had contacted. Yet, it provides “red meat” to the faithful.

    What is interesting is the number of individuals involved in any of Hastings’ claims THAT HAVE NOT SIGNED AFFIDAVITS.

    Comment by Tim — May 3, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

  8. avatar

    In addition, affidavits cannot even be used in court to establish argued truth; they hold no provision for questioning nor for the presentation of doubt. As you said, they’re worthless. All of these “witnesses” would be better off if they a standard, vocal oath; at least then there would be no written record to display their inconsistencies and prove their duplicity.

    This quality of affidavits allows Hastings and the Magnificent Seven to establish a pseudo-case file expressing their claims while preventing any rude opportunities for doubters to affix their doubt by asking questions Hastings and Company don’t wish to answer. It’s just another cheap shot milking alleged credibility where it fails to exist on its own merit.

    Comment by James Carlson — May 4, 2012 @ 2:13 am

  9. avatar

    If anyone doubts the E.T. UFO bandwagon is being marketed as rational research just check out Richard Dolan’s new interview with Daniel Pinchbeck. http://www.realitysandwich.com/transformer_interview_richard_dolan I’m glad Dolan can feel comfortable embracing Hastings’ hilarious and heinous heresy.

    Comment by drew hempel — May 4, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

  10. avatar

    Drew, I read through that interview with Dolan. It reads like a send-up. It _is_ a send-up, isn’t it?

    Comment by Ian Ridpath — May 5, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

  11. avatar

    What else? “I have interviewed scientists from the NSA who say they had computers in the early 1960s that were more than thirty years ahead of their time.” Really? And this was at the same time that they couldn’t figure out that all of the guidance computers they were using on their missile defense systems nationwide were failing because the new micro-technology they were using was responsible for generating spontaneous voltage spikes? These scientists at NSA allowed three astronauts to burn to death as a result fo this same poor understanding of micro-technology? Either Dolan is an idiot, or he thinks everybody else is. Computers “more than thirty years ahead of their time” would not have worked, making their study a bit problematic even for “scientists from the NSA”. We didn’t even understand the hardware we were already using, and the scientists who developed it were the very best the nation had. Hell, we couldn’t understand the technology we already had well enough to prevent system failures that had both NASA and the entire Department of Defense losing their freaking minds for almost three years during this same period, so I hardly think any scientists at NSA who were using computer systems the rest of the world didn’t find out about until the 1990s would have been able to keep it a secret. Dolan’s an ass…

    “It is conceivable that in the classified world, the development of technology has leapfrogged.” No, it isn’t! The “classified world” is not the big secret universe Dolan seems to think it is. There is ALWAYS somebody else who knows; they may have more authority, or they may just have a “need-to-know”. Because of this, any secret that has dual uses is shared. This is the way we do things in this country, because that’s the way you solve or prevent problems. You don’t keep technology a secret with the NSA when that technology can mean the difference from winning or losing a nuclear war. That’s why we were using the same micro-technology and the same components in our nuclear missile systems that we were using in NASA’s space exploration attempts. We needed the best for both, and NSA would have been part of it.

    Dolan’s just another psychotic who can write well enough to hold one’s attention from one paragraph to the next; people believe it, because they don’t understand military secrecy, and that vacuum they have in their heads is just waiting to be filled. Anyone who gives it a little thought can figure out that he’s basically talking about nothing that has any bearing in real life. His admission that it all started (for him) with Timothy Good is a pretty importantr clue regarding its real worth. His book “Above Top Secret” is the same one that inspired Robert Salas’ garbage about Echo Flight, proving that all you need is “classified event”, and you can create anything you want around it, simply because the Department of Defense doesn’t correct mistaken impressions about classified materials. They’ll arrest you if you disclose it, but if you’re inventing it as you go along, they leave you alone. because making a public claim that gives out information regarding what a particular classified incident is NOT, is considered as much of a security breach as giving out information regarding what a particular classified incident actually IS. Without denial, they can make up anything they want, and so they do. And then they sell it to any idiot willing to pay for it.

    As for Timothy Good’s methods, I’ll give one example: his book “Above Top Secret” contains a reference to some notes describing the “research” conducted by “NICAP investigator” Raymond Fowler. The notes by Fowler indicate that someone told him about rumors of a UFO incident that happened sometime “during the week of 20 March, 1967″. He didn’t talk to an eyewitness, and the two people who mentioned it to him worked with him on the other side of Malmstrom AFB, about 200 miles from the supposed UFO activity. There were no witnesses or names of witnesses — nothing that could be investigated, although Fowler certainly tried to look into it. He got nowhere. He found nothing — just these statements that could have been a joke, or a hoax, or a rumor. He gave the information to Dr. Roy Craig, who was an investigator with the Condon UFO Study at the University of Colorado. Craig looked into it as well, and also discovered nothing. He even talked to the UFO officer at Malmstrom AFB, and was told there was no UFO involved in the incident that Fowler had associated it with — a highly classified incident that Fowler had disclosed details of illegally. In any case, both Craig and Fowler looked into it and found nothing. NOTHING. They never even found an actual witness. A week later, another co-worker of Fowler’s told him that he had heard that a “nearly identical” incident had occurred the previous year. Again, there was no witness, and no further details could be tracked down. They found nothing, even though they were within 200 miles of the location of this incident, and worked for a corporation holding a contract for highly classified work with the USAF. They never talked to a single witness, because there weren’t any, and they never found anything to indicate an actual event had taken place. And yet, on the basis of these notes Fowler took, Timothy Good concludes that while neither of these two incidents could ever be associated with a UFO event, and even though no witness had ever been tracked down and interviewed or had come forward or had even been named as a “person of interest”, and even though Good himself didn’t even try to confirm any of it sufficient to put a simple DATE to either event, he saw “no reason to doubt” that these two UFO incidents had occurred just as Fowler had described them.

    Sometimes God gives us the means and the intelligence to figure things out for ourselves. Unfortunately, I find it hard to hard to believe that Dolan or Good have even bothered to try. They discovered an audience and, therefore, a market, willing to believe literally ANYTHING they might want to discuss, and they’ve been milking it ever since. To be frank, I wouldn’t normally care that much about a couple of guys who just wanted to make an easy buck, but I’ve reached the conclusion that what they’re doing is dangerous. They are telling a few million people that their government is lying to them. What is Dolan claiming? “There is no upside for the powers-that-be in disclosing ET information.” I think NASA, a government organization that continues to have its budget slashed every year, would probably disagree. If they could prove that UFOs are real, their budget would skyrocket overnight, so I think there’s a very defintite “upside” for them, but that’s beside the point. Dolan doesn’t know what’s in those classified documents he and the disclsure fanatics are demanding the release of, so he has no idea whether there’s an “upside” or not, and yet he’s willing — on the basis of NOTHING — to make such a claim that there’s no upside for the government. Really? Based on what? He’s an ignorant man making claims on the basis of that ignorance — and he’s doing so to a bunch of people who are already dangerously close to considering that their government wants to keep them in the dark about what they are certain is the most important event in the world’s history! This is exactly the sort of thing that people riot over — that people take hostages to discover. It’s for reasons like this that people gather together and start wars over — and if you doubt that, then I ask you to look a little closer at this world’s history. You might start looking at one city’s history: Jerusalem. These clowns are trying to manipulate belief systems, and they are doing it for the worst of reasons on the basis of little to nothing. It’s offensive, and it’s insulting.

    You’ve read what they’re saying. “Recently, the Obama administration reiterated that there is no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe and no evidence of a UFO coverup. The response remains lame and predictable. If they had said that there was a genuine mystery here, it would have caused an explosion.”

    This isn’t true. The Obama administration said nothing at all in regard to “evidence of life elsewhere in the universe”. The White House statement merely affirms that “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet”, a far more limited scope. UFO proponents tend to do this a lot. They all too often distort those arguments contrary to their own as a means of attracting support from those who find it ridiculous to even consider such unsupported and meaningless claims such as “there is no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe”.

    In the same manner, the White House did not assert that there was “no evidence of a UFO coverup”. The actual statement insists that “there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye”, the key word being “credible”. Given the quality of the “evidence” presented, in conjunction with the FOIA documents thus far released, this is not an innacurate assessment, making the response far from “lame and predictable”. What’s lame and predictable are the distorted arguments and elements falsely attributed to everyone who finds the subject of UFOs unworthy of further attention. These are arguments applauded by UFO proponents too lazy to confirm any claims made so long as they are in agreement.

    There’s not much useful information in any of the claims thereby established.

    Comment by James Carlson — May 5, 2012 @ 9:36 pm

  12. avatar

    Hi Ian and James – thanks for the reply on Dolan. When I read his National Security State books I could already tell his logic was faulty but he hadn’t quite cross the line yet into total error — he just seemed to be pushing his argument so I’m not too surprised to see this happen.

    I do have to state though that the “big black equilateral triangle” unidentified craft is one I did see up close — it flew from the horizon toward our house, close over a hill and over the trees — the craft going slowly and making a humming noise. It didn’t look like a dirigible although there are dirigibles with a similar triangle design. But according to the Belgian “big black triangle” mass sighting these craft are not dirigibles and do indeed involve some yet undisclosed technology — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

    I mean when I saw the craft in 1997 it was exactly like described in that wiki article on the Belgian sighting — at first I saw three lights on the horizon doing inexplicable manuevers. I had my sister look at them but she got bored. I ruled out any explanation I could think off but then the lights seemed to form into a triangle which I saw then moving slowly towards our land — the craft low just over the tree line, about 75 feet to 100 feet off the ground. Then it flew over this hill on our land and then over the trees off our yard — so I could have hit it with a slingshot but I didn’t dare take my eyes off it. The craft was a perfect equilateral triangle with no fuselage and lights on each corner.

    Anyway at that time, that night, my sister and I had just finished watching an episode of the X-files and then later I learned that X-Files had actually shown this craft on it, but I had never seen it before. So at that time I had read a few UFO books starting with John Keel’s Operation Trojan Horse and Jacque Vallee books. Anyway I found Curt Sutherly’s book covering the big black triangle sightings and then I started finding stuff online. When I saw the craft I immediately thought it was a secret military craft and then my mom’s former worker at the newspaper showed me the local news clippings from a mass UFO sighting in our area in 1978. That got enough coverage because it also involved cattle mutilations and a lady was hypnotized after she had missing time and then she claimed she had been abducted by the aliens — based on someone from Hynek’s group out of Chicago.

    So I do think there is some definite strangeness going on besides the flim-flam ET marketing to make a quick buck based on lies. I mean I think hypnosis is not credible for investigation and the cattle mutilations caused the rancher to move out but it’s too strange that they were reported along with the UFO sightings in 1978. Anyway Nick Redfern did email me that he has documentation of a triangle UFO sighting on a U.S. airforce base in the U.K. in 1952. So I do think there is some secret military technology going on but that’s only in the “unidentified” sense and in no way the “extraterrestrial” sense.

    I’m not one to argue about compartmentalization in the military as I’ve been arrested half a dozen times protesting against U.S. corporate-state policies and so I can only defer to those with a more objective viewpoint. haha. I just think it’s tragic that such obvious lies about ETs are being spread for whatever reason people have. When Dolan says “I believe” then he is really throwing away his whole rationalist demeanor — maybe he’s a “post-modernist” scholar now. If Dolan wants to believe that’s fine but he shouldn’t twist around the evidence as he did by backing Hastings.

    Comment by drew hempel — May 6, 2012 @ 3:59 am

  13. avatar

    Drew;

    As a species, we don’t know half of what we think we know, and I do recognize that. More importantly, for me at least, is the fact that you’ve related this story on many occasions over the past few years, and have done so without changing any of the details. There’s no reason not to trust that you’ve related an accurate version of the events noted from your point-of-view. I also haven’t seen any evidence that you’ve attempted to capitalize on it; you’re not trying to sell it to a fan club willing to believe all the details even after you’ve changed them. I certainly don’t put you in the same boat as I do those people who deserve and warrant such criticism. They’ve earned distrust — you have not. To my mind, that’s a very important difference.

    I don’t know everything about modern technology and I don’t pretend to. But I do know how to test a man’s word, and you haven’t failed any such tests.

    Personally, I think cattle mutilations are an effect of natural decomposition most of the time, and committed by humans the rest of the time. There is, in fact, a history of people doing exactly this type of criminal act for kicks — look up “horse-ripping” on Google for many, many examples of the phenomena. Abduction scenarios are also a very well-known psychological symptom going back thousands of years, and I happen to think they are easier to explain as a cultural facet of mental disturbance than an actual incident of criminal assault, although criminal assault would invariably have to be considered as well. On the other hand, given the weird world we inhabit, only a fool would immediately discount an explanation merely because of the “strangeness” that characterizes it, unless evidence of dishonesty and fraud has been properly assessed.

    The incidents we’ve discussed are not examples of strange events or odd little quirks noted in the world today. They are examples of fraudulent behavior that has been proven on numerous occasions — proof that I for one am perfectly satisfied with. Evidence for distrust that is so overwhelming needs something more than the accounts we’ve been forced to listen to or reflect upon as a defense for such foolishness, and simply changing those details that necessarily lead one to doubt such claims does not qualify. In my opinion, only an idiot judges the story alone. We judge character, and we do it, because it’s an important factor in human communication and relationships. Every time a person relates an experience, his character is being measured, and that’s a good thing, because eyewitnesses of anything rarely have the knowledge and the data sufficient to reach useful conclusions. But character can be measured, and it can be properly and accurately assessed, and we know that because we do it every day in our mediocre discussions about something we’ve read in the newspaper and in our more important assessments that are made behind the doors of a courtroom. It’s how we learn what people can be trusted, and what people should be ignored as dangerously subversive or merely provincial liars, whether it’s obsessive behavior or not.

    It isn’t difficult for me to trust another person’s accounting of an event. It’s extremely more problematic, however, when they reach socially actionable conclusions on the basis of those accounts, and then — sometimes over the course of years — tend to change the details of the original accounts in order to maintain the conclusions they’ve reached. When that happens, a character flaw has been revealed, and a revelation like that needs judgment, not understanding — at least in my opinion. Understanding does not give one the freedom to judge appropriately; it just gives you the desire to sympathize. And, frankly, sympathy is something is that I think has to be earned. Once you’ve decided to target an individual or your government, or the military that necessarily defends that government, sympathy is just a crutch to carry leniency further than one’s judgment would ordinarily allow. That’s why I’ve never bothered to try and “understand” what Hastings et al are doing; I’ve never tried to soften the blow by advising that it’s just possible they made a few errors and went off in the wrong direction. That’s just undeserved leniency, and it’s not functionally accurate. They lied. They have acted fraudulently. They have created and have profited from a hoax. That’s judgment — it’s accurate and it’s true.

    I promise you, Drew — you are nowhere near that point, and it’s easy to trust your accounting of the incident you’ve related. One very simple reason for that is the plain fact that you let others reach their own conclusions. Dolan, Hastings, etc. do not. Their conclusions are the main point of the phenomena they’ve described, and they have proven themselves more than capable of making the most irresponsible, gut-wrenching and insulting accusations and leaps of untamed, oppressive, and imaginary feats of logic and mindless discourse to ensure that those conclusions are as universal as possible. And they very willingly change the facts of their little folk tales to maintain those conclusions. As I’ve said above, it’s an offense that’s also damn insulting. More importantly, the last paragraph of your previous comment tells me that you understand this as well.

    Comment by James Carlson — May 6, 2012 @ 6:04 pm

  14. avatar

    Yep http://radiomisterioso.com makes note of Robert Hastings’ latest yahoo-filled fantasy land.

    drew hempel says:
    June 3, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Greg as listener #51 just thought you’d want the heads up on your Bennewitz book being “rewritten” in this thread http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread825493/pg1
    There’s a new Bennewitz book out that does a 180 on yours. Amazing how the “true believers” will do anything to twist reality around. But anyway thanks for the new Moseley interview.
    Reply
    Paul Kimball says:
    June 3, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Hmm… anything with Ray “I have evidence but will never present it” Stanford is suspect right off the start.

    As for Bennewitz, Greg wrote the definitive account. Short of some shocking new revelations that would alter a reasonable person’s view of the case, Project Beta is the one and only source required.

    Comment by drew hempel — June 4, 2012 @ 3:58 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