James Carlson wrote:It's over 5 months since Hastings first threatened anyone with "just wait 'til I compile these notes -- you'll get it then!" I think he's all bluff -- he's even stopped threatening to sue people! I think he really just wants to get past this dog and pony show slated for September 27, at which point he'll turn all disgusted and rude once more. You'll notice that he hasn't really said much of anything himself for quite a while, now. He just gets his stooges to do it for him. I'm wondering how many people will show up for this thing in DC -- the only folks invited, apparently, are credentialed news reps, and Congressional staff members, so I'm thinking ... maybe a dozen. Total. And just like Glenn Beck, they'll immediately up it to "what? a million? yeah, a million!"
James Carlson wrote:Hats off to Wayne Gerdes, who immediately assumed "Oh boy, someone is trying to sell a book."
Access Denied wrote:UFOs didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Congressional Staff Invited -- Issue of great importance to our country
National Press Club Press Conference
Congressional staff invited
*Witnesses have signed and notarized affidavits*
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects Ex-military men say unknown intruders have monitored and even tampered with American nuclear missiles
Group to call on U.S. Government to reveal the facts
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003. In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby. Six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about these events at the National Press Club and urge the government to publicly confirm their reality.
One of them, ICBM launch officer Captain Robert Salas, was on duty during one missile disruption incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base and was ordered to never discuss it. Another participant, retired Col. Charles Halt, observed a disc-shaped object directing beams of light down into the RAF Bentwaters airbase in England and heard on the radio that they landed in the nuclear weapons storage area. Both men will provide stunning details about these events, and reveal how the U.S. military responded.
Hastings and Salas wrote:In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby.
Hastings and Salas wrote:One of them, ICBM launch officer Captain Robert Salas, was on duty during one missile disruption incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base and was ordered to never discuss it.
Tim Hebert wrote:How "legal" is a notarized affidavit concerning attesting to UFO sightings, or simply just hearing about it from a third hand source? Who paid for the notary?
Of the one-hundred plus ex-military witnesses tha he has gathered, why is he bringing only eight to the National Press Club in September? Maybe it's because only eight have actually "sworn out legal affidavits attesting to UFO activity at nuclear missile sites". Granted that a "legal affidavit" is voluntarily made, but it is made without any cross-examination, and therefore differs a great deal from a "deposition", which is a record of examination that can be done either voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena, as if the testimonial were given in court under cross-examination. An affidavit is just a statement made -- there's no questioning of the witness, leaving whomever's running the show the sole freedom to determine the contents. And as you've pointed out in this forum, none of the witnesses that have been recorded by Robert Hastings regarding Echo Flight ever saw anything. An affidavit is always based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief -- and that's important, because belief can't be verified without convincing evidence, and Robert Hastings has no evidence -- convincing or otherwise. In a legal context "personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience." However, information and belief is whatever the affiant "feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge." These are standard legal definitions that you can find thousands of discussions of on various legal websites across the internet, so there's nothing new or imaginary here. The point I'm making here should be obvious at this point. These aren't depositions, and they don't have the same legal standing as "facts" recorded before a court. As I've pointed out in the past, "written affidavits and the witnesses' own verbal statements" are basically a crutch for fools and the ignorant -- and I include Robert Hastings in that estimation. After all, he spent years flashing his transcripts of conversations with Col. Walt Figel, and as I've said in the past, I'm sure those transcripts were accurate. But until somebody came along and added that very necessary factor of "cross examination", until some back and forth was put into the mix, the statements that Hastings crowed over so much were given a totally different interpretation. Somebody has to say, "what did you mean when you said -- " or "did you believe at the time that -- ", because without some context, a legal affidavitt is just a starting point -- and in a case without eyewitnesses -- which is pretty much all Hastings has ever presented regarding the Echo Flight Incident, a "legal affidavit" is no more convincing than an autistic nightmare of the future. Of course, folks who give Hastings the benefit of the doubt would probably call that "prophecy", but you see my point.
It should also be remembered that Robert Hastings is using hard legal terms to describe what is essentially a type of soft legal compact. In other words, he's got a statement admitted to in the presence of a notary public. The notary public can accept oaths, but his testimony doesn't speak for whether or not the affiant is telling the truth -- he's just taking a statement, not a statement of truth. In Hastings' case, there's no legal risk, no contractual obligation, and no means of confirmation. And that means it's not legally binding. There's no action necessitated by it. In fact, none of Hastings' so-called legal affidavits are given at legal risk because there's no legally binding force behind them. None. There's also no risk of liability. In any such context, it's always necessary to recognize the potential lying that can always result; the absence of binding force tends to attract personalities that don't consider lying about such an instrument unethical. They don't even consider the practice to be dishonest, because they aren't required to swear before a court. There's no committment, no guarantees, and no expectation of honesty. As a legal document, they're basically useless without an assumption of risk -- no conflict, no dispute and completely unenforceable, because there's no possibility of a breach. Legally, his affidavits have no standing with the court whatsoever, because they aren't necessary for the court to make a legal decision. It has no more value than the paper it's written on. There's no promises made, no negotiation, no contract or agreement, and absolutely no act in law. I'd be interested in knowing whether or not Hastings even filed his "affidavits" with a court clerk -- I suspect they would simply laugh at him.
Should Hastings ever publish something that was contrary to the information in the affidavit, he would have a risk of liability that could be acted on by the person making the original statement, but that's about it, and in such a case, the truth would be irrelevant. The only issue would be whether he had strayed significantly from the affidavit previously given. Even then, however, an examination would be required for the case to continue, and that means eventually a deposition or in-court testimony would be necessary to reach a decision. As things stand for the moment. I doubt very seriously whether they could be called "legal documents" at all.
Gary wrote:Fox News has picked up the story and is running it on their front homepage:
Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes, Worry Ex-Air Force Officers
Published September 23, 2010 | FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/ ... -officers/
Recent announcments RE: a September 27 press conference at the NPC, Washington, DC to address "the vital issue of UFO incursions at U.S. nuclear weapons sites" is a pathetic joke on the American public. The organizers of this sideshow, Robert Salas, co-author of "Faded Giant", and Robert Hastings, author of "UFOs and Nukes", claim to be witnesses to "one of the top ten UFO cases best supported by the evidence" -- the Echo Flight case analyzed in "Faded Giant" and a primary point of discussion for the announced conference. We have repeatedly proven that they have lied about this UFO case, and we're asking that representatives of the press and members of the Congressional staff invited to the conference examine the evidence that we have collected, in order to prepare themselves for this joke of a news conference.
The organizers claim that in March 1967, UFOs interfered with the operations of two silo complexes attached to Malmstrom AFB, Montana and armed with Minuteman I missiles. These events are said to have occurred at Echo Flight on March 16, and Oscar Flight on March 24. The USAF officers manning these launch facilities dispute those claims. To understand the actual events of March 1967, including the incidents at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight, we encourage you to examine without any cost whatsoever the narrative discussing these incidents at http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Amer ... es-Carlson, and more recent discussions at viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688, which will eventually be added to the original Americans, Credulous narrative. We strongly recommend examining the articles at http://www.realityuncovered.net, specifically the 4 recent articles by Ryan Dube.
The commander of Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, MAJ (Ret.) Eric D. Carlson, very recently released the following definitive statement:
"Let me start by stating that, as best as I can recall, my only contact with Salas and Hastings has been on the phone. ... I have talked to a newspaper writer in Great Falls, several years age, and a TV producer from one of those UFO shows. With both these individuals I denied any knowledge of any UFOs at Malmstrom. In addition, I stated that there was no, repeat no, incident at Oscar flight as Salas maintains. The man is either lying or delusional.
"My memory is quite good regarding the events at Malmstrom and there is no doubt in my mind that there were no reports of UFO's and no incident at Oscar flight. I will be willing to discuss this with anyone who is truly interested in the facts."
His deputy commander at Echo Flight, COL (Ret.) Walter Figel, Jr., has also insisted that UFOs were not involved, and adds that his version of this event has been distorted by both Robert Salas and Robert Hastings in order to give the impression that an actual UFO was involved. He asserts very strongly that no UFOs were involved, nor were UFOs ever reported.
Robert Salas' commander at Oscar Flight, Frederick Meiwald, insists that he doesn't even believe in UFOs -- a strange comment to make in light of Salas' insistence that a UFO took out the missiles at Oscar Flight during an incident that emptied completely the security command post of all armed personnel in order to face down this threat. One would probably expect the commander of Oscar Flight, after experiencing such a watch, would have changed his opinions regarding UFOs, and yet, it did not.
It is a remarkable and shameful measure of journalism in the world today that the press has largely ignored the insistences of these primary witnesses that no UFOs were involved with any equipment failures at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, preferring instead to rest their reporting with the prevarications of people like Hastings and Salas. On September 27, hold these men accountable for the paranoia they profit from, the lies they tell, the many lives they have been prepared to reduce in stature for their own aggrandizement, and the reputations they have consciously set out to diminish.
Please go to Reality Uncovered to read a recent interview with Capt. Eric Carlson who was on duty in the LCC at Echo Flight and also the statements made by (retired) Col. Walt Figel who was there in the capsule with him. These are the only two "witnesses" to the event and they present a very different side of the story…
Links to Figel’s comments—his actual, audiotaped words—appear later in this article, contradicting virtually every claim made by James Carlson who, in his own grossly distorted summary of the Echo Flight case, has consistently lied about the colonel’s various comments to researchers. This article will set the record straight.
The other launch officer at Echo that day, Captain Eric Carlson, is James’ father. The elder Carlson—whom I interviewed on audiotape as well—says he doesn’t recall any reports of UFOs at the time of the missile malfunctions, or recall having been debriefed about the incident back at Malmstrom, or recall being told by his squadron commander not to talk about the incident.
Nevertheless, as we will learn, Colonel Figel disputes all of Eric Carlson’s claims.
The Echo/Oscar Witch Hunt
WF: I remember I got a trip to Omaha to discuss [the Echo Flight shutdown] with CINCSAC (the office of the Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Air Command, Offutt AFB, Omaha , Nebraska ).
RS: Oh, you did?!
WF: Oh yeah. Someplace, if I look deep enough, I could probably find the TDY (Temporary Duty) orders to do that.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests