It's always fun to examine Robert Hastings' most recent commentaries. He basically spends a whole lot of time saying nothing interesting, so content isn't even an issue. Personally, I find it fascinating how he manages to bring together so many paragraphs that neglect
everything that's important to know about his methods and any possible sense of redemption accompanying them. It's laughable how he can attempt to make critical assumptions without actually considering the character of his apparent
raison d'etre. I often find myself thinking
"okay, why the Hell did he show up?"And then he plumes and ruffles like he's done something truly magical ... go figure.
Thank you for bringing Mr. Taylor's statement to everyone's attention, Tim.
So, according to one of his former USAF colleagues, Minuteman targeting officer Bob Jamison was talking about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom AFB, in 1967, while he was at Chanute AFB in the late 1960s -- even though Taylor didn't take that seriously.
Robert, you've once again missed the point -- not surprising considering the fact that you've never really established one. Did you even bother to read Grant Taylor's commentary? He doesn't say that "Minuteman targeting officer Bob Jamison was talking about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom AFB, in 1967". He says he recalls the "occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom", adding that the "UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event."
I'm not surprised, Robert, that you would completely ignore any important aspects of the statement -- you do that a lot, like many other psychotics with tunnel vision. This is how you can tell the whole world that Frederick Meiwald confirms Robert Salas' story "100%" just before directly quoting Meiwald's insistence that he remembers nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight. This probably has something to do with your complete refusal to answer any detailed questions about the cases you want people to believe. After all, if you answer too many questions, it soon becomes evident that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about, and that's just not very good for business, is it?
Let me spell it out for you, okay? I'll use short words so you don't get too confused. Taylor states:
I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minuteman Missile Maintenance Officer's Course.
Shortly after this, he adds (in regard to the discussion "about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom":
No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.
Do you understand now? Take this leap of comprehension: "our instructor group" included Bob Jamison. Apparently, he wasn't making his little flying saucer claims at Chanute AFB.
You've also conveniently neglected to notice that it wasn't just Taylor who didn't take the UFO assessment seriously, which is how you've tried to color his recollections.
Is English your second language or something? Because someone with such a notably poor grasp of point-of-view shouldn't be attempting to explain to anybody what a simple sentence means in the context of paragraph structure. It's not like this is
Wuthering Heights we're talking about here. This is pretty simple. Please note:
And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique -- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.
Taylor is essentially stating that Jamison wasn't making any UFO claims in regard to Echo Flight (or even Oscar Flight, which never even occurred) at Chanute AFB, and he certainly wasn't taking the matter of UFO involvement seriously.
"The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay."Interesting. That's
exactly what everybody on Malmstrom AFB was saying -- everybody except Raymond Fowler, who was the actual originator of all the UFO rumors that surrounded the issue.
Gee, I'm confused. According to James Carlson, such claims didn't surface until the mid-1990s, when Bob Salas started making them up to help sell books on the topic.
Yes, you are confused, but I'm not surprised. It's probably a normal state of mind for you, isn't it? I'll bet you discuss in some depth all sorts of things you know nothing about; that sort of habitual hubris is bound to cause you a pretty high level of confusion sooner or later. The fact that you have little motivation to improve yourself or otherwise act in a manner more conducive to a thorough understanding of your place in the universe probably means you'll be confused about a lot of things for the remainder of your life. You might want to start getting used to it.
Your statement "According to James Carlson, such claims didn't surface until the mid-1990s, when Bob Salas started making them up to help sell books on the topic" is wrong. I've been discussing in some detail Raymond Fowler's 1967 contribution to your pathetic little mythos since May 2010 at the latest. You should catch up, pal. Maybe you'll learn something.
Predictably, James tries to spin Taylor's statement, saying, "He seems to imply at the very least that Bob Jamison never discussed the incident in any context with UFOs as early as 1969, and that he may, in fact, have gone on the record that early with a complete denial insofar as the whole alien schtick is concerned."
Only Carlson could come up with that interpretation of Taylor's statement. Such is the smell of desperation.
Taylor actually says that Jamison's account was not well received: "The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously--either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay."
Taylor doesn't discuss Jamison's account at all. But we've been over that, already. If you're going to
use the English language, you might want to
learn it first. Of course, such a handicap does provide you with a reasonable exit strategy if you decide to become the picture of an honest man. I'm sure lots of folks would believe you quite readily if you were to step back and say,
"oh, is that what I meant? I'm sorry -- I didn't understand those big words I was using."Once again: Taylor says:
And I do recall occasional office discussion about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom. Electrical and electronic glitches in the Minuteman System were not all that unique -- it was an extremely complex weapons system. The UFO part was, to my recollection, never taken seriously -- either a practical joke, misunderstood comment or strictly secondhand hearsay. No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.
Bob Jamison, of course, was a member of "our instructor group", and Taylor states very clearly "No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event."
Do you understand now, champ?I served with (then Capt.) Bob Jamison at Chanute AFB where we were both instructors in the Minuteman Missile Maintenance Officer's Course.
Shortly after this, he adds (in regard to the discussion "about a number of missiles suddenly going off Strategic Alert at Malmstrom":
No one in our instructor group seriously thought extraterrestrials were behind this event.
Do you understand?
I interviewed Jamison in 1992, three years before Salas went public with his account. Jamison's statement at that time was virtually identical to the one he later made in an affidavit he prepared for my September 27, 2010 press conference in Washington D.C. The latter may be read at:
http://www.ufohastings.com/documentsAs one will learn, the UFO aspect of the missile shutdown was not a joke or a secondhand account, as Taylor speculates. It was formally mentioned to Jamison and the assembled targeting teams at Malmstrom's MIMS hanger, both during their briefing and debriefing. I have no doubt that Jamison mentioned all of that to Taylor but that he has forgotten it with the passage of time. Or maybe his anti-UFO biases simply made him incapable of hearing what Jamison was telling the group of instructors.
Yeah, everybody's biased,
blah, blah, blah. This bias couldn't possibly be related to your habitual dishonesty, your inability to properly learn the language the rest of the country tends to use, your inability to conduct a proper interview, or your desire to make a point that nothing supports, could it? And if I remember the original claims made by Bob Jamison, he still hasn't confidently put a date or a location to his claims.
And why the Hell hasn't he ever tried to defend his own claims? You're obviously not up to the task, because you can't even get a single sentence right when it's written out in front of you! Why are you picking up the slack for a bunch of clowns who apparently can't establish their own memories with any of the consistency the rest of the world expects from a first person account? You come to attack my opinions that are based with logical validity on a few paragraphs of text, and you do it by making these weird leaps of the imagination -- which I really should expect by now, considering the source.
Where exactly do you get the gall to call Jamison's original claims and the claims you helped him rewrite in 2010 "virtually identical"? Are you completely brain dead? Is it "virtually identical" when you go from one of (at least) four possible flights accessible from Lewistown, Montana sometime in 1967 to Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967? Virtually identical?
Are you out of your mind?Robert, it doesn't matter that people can read your statements at
http://www.ufohastings.com/documents if those statements have been proven false or have no recognizable basis in real life. If you can't even tell the difference between "virtually identical" and completely different, there is no reason to examine your clams any further. For God's sake, your complete misunderstanding of Grant Taylor's assessment is the only evidence anybody will ever need to prove you incapable of the simple reasoning people expect from trustworthy sources of information. And you pull this crap
all the time! It's just another demonstration of your incapacity for sensible analysis. It's exactly like you writing that Frederick Meiwald's "complete confirmation" of Robert Salas Oscar Flight claims constitutes a full exoneration of this pathetic little folktale you keep trying to convince the world of, a "100%" confirmation of Salas' worthless account, even after you yourself wrote that he has no memory of a UFO at Oscar Flight, and even after Robert Salas has written that he's only ever confirmed at the most four missiles dropping offline. And, God knows, he never linked those missile failures to a UFO -- not once! Meiwald even stated in his 1996 letter that his memories were completely different from Salas', and yet you continue to consider his assessment some kind of a grand confirmation!
Do you really think you're up to the task of backing Jamison's claims, when even he himself won't try to defend them? Good God, what is the matter with you people? You talk in absolutes that you have no comprehension of, while Salas calls my father 'cause he's a little upset that he can't back up his sad little claims with the acceptable standards of Wikipedia! And now you want to back up Jamison using Taylor, when you can't even interpret a simple sentence?
You're not very convincing, you know that? The only thing I've ever needed to establish your complete inability to make a valid point is a
dictionary. You might try reading one someday, once you learn the language. If you want to convince people that you have a case to make, try answering a few questions once in awhile, instead of writing nonsensical nasties and running away like a frightened child who hears a twig snap in woods. Convince your witnesses to answer questions that haven't been screened first by local MUFON or NICAP punch uglies. Try learning a little bit about the military you daily assess, the classification protocols it uses, and the culture you have proven yourself to be so ignorant of. If you want to say there was a military cover-up, than produce something besides your ridiculous guesses on the basis of materials you lack any capacity to understand.
Interestingly, according to retired Captain David Schindele, a UFO apparently knocked several ICBMs offline at Minot AFB's November Flight in 1966, several months before the two shutdown incidents at Malmstrom. His statement was just posted at:
http://www.ufohastings.com/articles/ufo ... -minot-afb
So what?
And you say I'm desperate? All you've ever had was a couple guys coming forward to swap b.s. with you. And then when you publish it, they get to go home and tell all their buddies at the local VA club how they got a whole lot of nothing past you and how easy it was. You keep talking about this 130 veterans or so that you've discovered, and yet in the long run, when it really came down to it, you could only convince SEVEN to state their claims in public. And even then, it was so easy to prove that they were lying, that the only high profile professional journalist present took a couple of cookies and laughed his ass off -- all because you can't confirm squat.
Speaking of missileers, Col. Charles Simpson, Director of the Association of Air Force Missileers, recently published an article of mine in the June issue of the organization's newsletter--the third one in a decade. As in the past, my most recent appeal for former/retired officers to come forward with their UFO experiences in the missile field has resulted in new leads, including one from a retired colonel who says that a UFO hovered over one of his ICBMs at Minot AFB in 1980, knocking it offline. A full discussion of that incident, including the colonel's name, will be posted at my website in the months ahead.
I would love to stick around and watch RU's elite run in circles chasing their tails, in response to this post, but I have work to do. I am currently involved in a French television production that will feature my research, scheduled to air before the end of the year; a Mexican television documentary devoted to same, which will introduce the facts to Spanish-speaking audiences around the world, due to air in 2013; and, last but not least, my own, fully-funded, 90-minute documentary, titled UFOs and Nukes, to be directed by an Emmy Award-winning director, due out in 2014.
In short, the facts about UFO incursions at nuclear weapons sites are emerging, slowly but surely, to a global audience.
And that's a good thing.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Robert Hastings
You keep it coming. I've seen your waiting list of credits before, and they all shine up to nothing. I'm still waiting for all of the Figel materials you've promised, the interview that proves I never spoke to him, and the tape recordings that have him denouncing the claims my father has been making since 1967. Do you know why people expect only b.s. from you? Because that's all you've ever given them, even after promising them the world. It's all just more of your delusional garbage, and the only people willing to offer you a little credit are those guys who still don't know what you're actually claiming or trying to sell. Your main problem, Robert (aside from the whole language difficulty), is the fact that you are a dishonest fraud who just can't stand it when he's not the center of attention. That's why you never bother to read what your critics say about you --
it's just not flattering enough. Unfortunately, you can't control yourself enough to just shut up and let the criticisms come and then go away, like criticisms always will. Eventually, you have to step out of your imaginary little closet of bright shiny things to defend yourself against critics you don't understand, using a language you have no real connection to, in response to mild assessments you haven't bothered to read or try to comprehend with any real sense of satisfied grace. And that's about the same time that you make the same stupid mistakes that keep popping up in your life like fireflies in the late spring, the same self-promoting, pointless and irresponsible claims about what's going to happen, where it will first shine up in the light of a brand new, virginal morning's sun, and how brutally
reasonable everything will seem to even the most bourgeois of mammals in a grand, soon to be fully disclosed world of UFO consensus, all wrapped about and sparkling like a Christmas tree in Norway with all of the important, cosmic, and downright crucial and quintessential contributions that you, Robert Hastings, have made, and how someday the world will be seen differently by those people with more intuition, respect, and knowledge than those currently trying very hard not to laugh out loud at the simple banality of it all, but failing.
And that's about the time you step out of the empty, self-inflated
boudoir of self-control spinning like a mirrored disco ball just behind your eyes in order to start the whole thing over again.
Good luck with that. After all, you're your own worst enemy.