By their works shall ye know them...

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:54 pm

Tell me, is it customary for bloggers to delete all of the comments regarding a posted article? I ask only because Billy Cox seems to have done exactly that, and I've never noted a similar approach to defuse criticism:

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1 ... es-debate/

His article raises a number of false issues, supporting as it does, Hastings' and Salas' accounts of Echo Flight, and reaches conclusions that he has failed to support -- conclusions that I effectively dismissed in a very extensive commentary.

That commentary has now been deleted, the results being an airing of insulting claims that are one-sided and prejudicial, having been published without the valid criticisms attached. Those who originally suggested that the only reason Cox had not deleted the rebuttal when it first appeared is due to the discussion of that same article and my responses at Reality Uncovered. Apparently they were correct, albeit mistaken as to the time-frame.

Of course, this type of behavior to hype a point-of-view with little supporting evidence is one of the methods used to establish a fiction as a fact as discussed in my recent essay. Can't say I'm surprised -- he's part and parcel of that same little cabal I've discussed in my essay that has decided a dishonest approach to the issue is necessary to promote the demand for full disclosure.

Has anybody seen this sort of blog management anywhere else? It's a strategy addressed by Robert Hastings and Frank Warren as well, so I'm a little curious.

Cox also did this at http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/1 ... -a-monday/, the result being another airing of Hastings' comments in regard to my work minus the appropriate response I originally established in the same comments section.

He's definitely part of the coalition of the dishonest, relying on knowingly false assertions to try and make a point that cannot, by itself, be established. I suspect he'll be the subject of one of the follow-up articles I promised to draft in the essay affirmed in this thread -- another example of conscious misleading behavior willingly approached in order to establish what they believe are higher goals.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby Tim Hebert » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:04 am

I did initially notice that the link that was provided in the comments section of your article directing back to Billy Cox's Devoid column did not have any comment section of its own. I did call up Cox's site independently and found that there was comments listed, 3 at the time earlier this morning. It appears that Cox's site has been changed since I last visited it.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:09 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:I did initially notice that the link that was provided in the comments section of your article directing back to Billy Cox's Devoid column did not have any comment section of its own. I did call up Cox's site independently and found that there was comments listed, 3 at the time earlier this morning. It appears that Cox's site has been changed since I last visited it.

Tim

It all seems a bit obvious, don't you think?
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby Tim Hebert » Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:51 pm

James Carlson wrote:It all seems a bit obvious, don't you think?

Depends on a lot of factors. When did Cox change the site format? From looking at the comment section it appears to be his "regulars" that post. And...does it really matter? As far as Frank Warren, I've noticed that when I post comments concerning Hastings or others, those individuals use Frank as a "go between", never really addressing me directly. BTW, its been well over a year and Frank and company have yet to provide the promised "corrections" to my first article blog article. It appears to be the general modus operandi...ignore and remain quiet and all will eventually go away.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:34 pm

Tim Hebert wrote:From looking at the comment section it appears to be his "regulars" that post. And...does it really matter?

It doesn't matter at all, really -- it's just annoying. He made a number of insulting charges, all of which I spent a lot of time responding to; I also defended actual facts against the ignorant responses of others who chimed in, Hastings included. It went on for a couple of days, and I was of the opinion that every issue had been properly dealt with and every charge burned out. I even got Billy Cox himself to admit that the way he went about drafting that article and the irresponsible conclusions he reached without once attempting to verify any of the conditions he defined with either my father or me was an example of poor journalism that ignored completely any of the ethical considerations most journalists try to adhere to when drafting an article that makes such claims. When I discovered that he had not only "fixed" the archive of his story by deleting every argument I had established in addition to the responses others had provided, while keeping intact every false claim he had originally published, it seemed to me pretty evident that he was merely following the example of Hastings and Warren, e.g., establish an argument and when specific charges are made or points raised in response showing the erroneous character of that argument, refuse to acknowledge them entirely, even if it means removing them from the archived work. It's a dishonest way to go about creating a point of view, or establishing the fictional aspects of that viewpoint as if they had some basis in fact -- which they do not. It's an example of conscious, willful deceit intended to help create an issue, an environment favorable to the fictional claims necessary to evoke public paranoia sufficient to provoke demands for disclosure. It's become very apparent to me that these people are willing to lie and distort facts to whatever extent may be necessary in order to frighten enough people into believing there's a valid nuclear threat within our own borders that demands for full disclosure will become commonplace, and thereby force the government into compliance. I admit it's unlikely, and it's not going to pressure the DoD into disclosing anything, but I'm certain that's what they're trying to do. It's not just Hastings, and it not just Cox -- there are quite a few people out there trying to establish these same claims, to create this same environment, and to an extent, they're allied with each other -- loosely, I admit, but they're aware of each other and what they need to do to get the results they want: those results being full disclosure.

I don't think it will ever happen, but it doesn't alter the fact that trying to create this environment they want is an example of conscious deceit at a political level -- a public relations ploy that uses fear and paranoia to create a public accord. Other than making that clear, I guess it doesn't really matter at all. I certainly don't think they have a chance in Hell of succeeding, but they've proven to me that they don't mind managing their corruption to this singular purpose, and the fact that they all know each other, and to a measurable extent establish their distorted viewpoints right out of Frank Warren's own website suggests that there is indeed some united purpose. I think I know what that purpose is, and I think their actions support that belief, but you may very well disagree. All that aside, however, the fact that they seem to practice a very conscious method of persuasion characterized primarily by their own deceit seems to me pretty apparent, whatever their ultimate goals may be. They are creating -- or attempting to create -- public opinion, and they aren't doing it openly, honestly, or ethically.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby Tim Hebert » Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:20 pm

James Carlson wrote:It doesn't matter at all, really -- it's just annoying

Understandable...yet, you should be use to this by now. I read the on-going dialogue in the Collegiate Times, all of the attacks on you were as if written from a script? BTW, Hastings perpetrated slander against you...yet again.

James Carlson wrote:It's not just Hastings, and it not just Cox -- there are quite a few people out there trying to establish these same claims, to create this same environment, and to an extent, they're allied with each other -- loosely, I admit, but they're aware of each other and what they need to do to get the results they want: those results being full disclosure.

Only for the "true" believers...and how many, percentage-wise is that? I suspect that most ride the "disclosure horse" as a means to an end...money, as in book sales. Disclosure is no different than the JFK conspiracy ideation, an industry to itself...a cottage industry that is doing quite well after 49 years. Those individuals have no vested interest in that crime being solved, nor do most associated with any government disclosure. Coast-to-Coast and other venues would quickly dry-up with programing material. MUFON...out of business. Hastings and others...nothing to write about.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:49 am

I agree with you completely -- it's very apparent that nothing will come of it, and the true believers simply aren't a large enough or convincing enough group to accomplish any of their goals. But I don't think that Hastings, etc. are doing this solely for them -- the believers. I'm pretty certain most of them understand well enough that their size is far too small to accomplish what they imagine to be higher achievements with an ultimately greater purpose. I also think they're trying to change that, and they've decided that after sixty-odd years of well-publicized failure using what they consider to be honest arguments, it's now become necessary to use dishonest arguments. They're betting everything they've got left that full disclosure will exonerate their beliefs. Being so small in number, however, they also know there's no chance of convincing the Department of Defense to comply with their needs -- which are essentially based in the desire for self-validation. They need larger numbers to effect change of that sort -- much larger numbers. I'm fairly positive that they've decided -- very consciously -- to create those numbers by scaring the Hell out of people, thereby convincing them to demand what they haven't been able to persuade the government to willingly divulge. I also think it's an obvious sign of desperation on their part, but that doesn't make it any less deceitful or ultimately damaging to the people they do succeed in misleading. And their reckless use of the internet as a primary means of reaching new audiences tends to increase that number significantly, especially since the DoD will never respond in any more effective or positive way than they have in the past. It's a very specific kind of hoax they've decided to engineer, but they're doing it for reasons they believe are worth the deception and the effort. It's a true believers vs. the rest of the world type of strategy, one that has been a very common catalyst for upheaval and change -- both positive and negative -- throughout our social history (and by true believers, I don't mean merely in UFOs -- I mean true believers in anything that motivates a man to compel those he can't convince).

Unfortunately, what they're demanding of the government is essentially religious validation, which, as I'm sure you already know, is impossible; it just can't be accomplished in the presence of actual conviction that avoids or ignores any attempts to develop or otherwise change. In most cases, religious belief is non-negotiable without secular administration or support, especially at the formative stage. And that means this method of instituting paranoia by deceit has no real purpose. It's purely destructive. You can't say that about a whole lot of human acts. Even murder, in most cases, accomplishes something. That doesn't mean these guys are the equal of Bonnie and Clyde, or anything like that; Hastings himself is an ignorant man with little imagination and no real ability to justify himself without the conviction of others. But the same was true of Hitler -- all he had to do was tell people what they wanted to hear, and provide them with a target for their aggression. Granted, that level of metaphor is unnecessary, as I don't consider Hastings a leader or any sort of focus for what's actually going on with these people. They aren't very well organized, and they don't seem to have any sort of structured assessment of the world -- they just agree with each other on some of the more basic conditions of the claims they're trying to establish, and some of that is very likely accidental. I'm not trying to posit an secret society or even a "conspiracy of dunces" -- I just want you to understand why I feel so disgusted with what they've decided to do with whatever gifts they've developed or God gave them.

I mentioned a long, long time ago that there was nothing good in what these people have willingly set up for themselves. It's all rooted in arrogance, hypocrisy, fraudulent occlusion, and ruination asserted without real purpose. When wise men used to refer to the curse of vanity, as it's used in Ecclesiastes, this is exactly what they were talking about -- it's a precise measure of conceit, a grand design of nothing having no point or purpose, a flavor of life that has no relevance to the rest of the world, or even to the local community. Vanity of this sort is wasted effort taken to the most worthless extreme. They believe that full disclosure will provide them with everything they've failed to provide for themselves, but they have to screw with everybody else to get it. They figure that since disclosure will prove they're correct in their assumptions, the lies won't cause any damage. Any actual effect will simply be dismissed as more USAF-authored false assurances in the face of what will undoubtedly establish for them "a great reckoning in a small room." But they're also wrong to believe this.

Granted, it's a ludicrous plan promising little more than eventual depression for everybody involved, but I assure you, they will never admit failure, nor will they quit trying to establish this new theme in their grand conspiracy Guignol. They've essentially bet the whole house, so they'll never fold. They'll just hang on until endgame. I don't see anything good coming out of it for anybody. I've met people who consider religion the greatest and most expressive delusion of humanity, and while I definitely do not feel that way, believing very strongly that hope itself creates a system in which greater natures than man can develop, I am quite positive that any externally-focused impulse such as this whole UFO thing actually represents does nothing good for anybody and will not establish admirable solutions to human life; mix that with the anti-authoritarian and anti-government references these people are ultimately relying on to validate their own weak appropriations of despair, and I promise you that people will eventually be hurt by it. There are just far too many historical parallels to ignore in the belief that a few cranks with moon-envy couldn't possibly succeed in acquiring any of their over-reaching ambitions. They don't have to succeed in order to cause other people physical pain or mental anguish; all they have to do is think they can succeed.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:27 am

Hmmmm...I think Mr. Hastings has taken offense at your article:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/01/james-carlson-gets-it-wrong-again.html
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby Zep Tepi » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:14 pm

He also posted a comment on the blog (Part 1).
Quite how he can say James got it wrong is beyond me. We have come to expect it though, haven't we?

Unbelievable...
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:34 pm

Reading the article, I see that his sources from the military got discharged (probably a general discharge from the military and not honorable/dishonorable) or punished for their sending e-mails to Hastings or another person about the missile shutdown. Hastings makes it sound as if the received this because they talked about UFOs being present. I think the reason this occurred is because they ignored warnings by their superiors not to spread rumors and for violating their security oaths regarding events of the missile shutdown. Since Hastings stated publicly that he had military sources, then it probably did not take much figuring by military investigators to identify the individuals. He was partly responsible for what happened to them! However, the primary responsibility lies with the individuals themselves and their "go-between".
The bottom line was they had security oaths they had signed and they violated. It is not about UFOs, bigfoot, or anything like that. It is about the technical aspects they had apparently passed on that caused them to be disciplined/discharged.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:05 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Reading the article, I see that his sources from the military got discharged (probably a general discharge from the military and not honorable/dishonorable) or punished for their sending e-mails to Hastings or another person about the missile shutdown. Hastings makes it sound as if the received this because they talked about UFOs being present. I think the reason this occurred is because they ignored warnings by their superiors not to spread rumors and for violating their security oaths regarding events of the missile shutdown. Since Hastings stated publicly that he had military sources, then it probably did not take much figuring by military investigators to identify the individuals. He was partly responsible for what happened to them! However, the primary responsibility lies with the individuals themselves and their "go-between".
The bottom line was they had security oaths they had signed and they violated. It is not about UFOs, bigfoot, or anything like that. It is about the technical aspects they had apparently passed on that caused them to be disciplined/discharged.

That's very possible, I agree. On the other hand, I can't help but at least consider the possibility that he just made it all up in some lame attempt to disprove my assessment of current whistleblower protection laws. He's certainly capable of any deception at that level; his assertions regarding his and Salas' interview with Figel following my own tends to support that suspicion, and I'll always be very pleased that we thought so little of his base honesty that we found it prudent to preemptively release Figel's true discussion of those phone calls Hastings mentioned. I have no doubt whatsoever that had we not done so, Hastings and/or Salas would have presented a fictional account of the matter supporting their original claims , i.e., those conclusions he sent to RU beforehand.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby James Carlson » Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:41 am

Robert Hastings' recent attempts to whitewash his character by establishing another inaccurate series of disconnected comments regarding my own recent work demands a response. My thanks to Stephen Broadbent, who did so ably in the below comments directed at Hastings.

The gist of James’ assertion is still true. You paid to have your article distributed, it’s as simple as that really.
This point was discussed in the forum, here: viewtopic.php?p=37341#p37341

James states:

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

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

Answer: he doesn’t – again!

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

Thank you Stephen...

And thank you, too, Robert, for once again establishing your inability to properly assess claims countering your own; I guess that means you're still a fraudulent huckster willing to make brainless charges regarding arguments establishing that fact. Nothing is more plain than your attempt to retreat from accusations that the money you spent to distribute your irresponsible and fact-free testimonies of men you have never actually presented was ultimately paid in turn to Reuters -- another digression that earns you nothing; your witnesses are still anonymous, and you are still a fraud, a liar, and a hoaxer. I can't wait to see what meaningless claims you come up with next, but I think I can guarantee that they will be useless and unproven and imaginary, just like everything else you've said on the subject.

Perhaps you should retire before you really screw yourself up...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:01 am

Hastings sounds like a man, who has payed for sex but does not want to admit it.

Q: Did you pay the woman for sex?
A: No I would never pay a woman for sex. However, I did pay the man who introduced us. He told me we could have sex as long as I paid him.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby Tim Hebert » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:10 am

This is a good case in point as to why I never contacted the actual crew/crews that were on duty on the day in question at FE Warren. Some post on the missileforums.com site, but all have observed (as they should) OPSEC policies concerning any status of a given wing/squadron/flight operational status.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: By their works shall ye know them...

Postby astrophotographer » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:19 pm

IMO, Hastings bears some responsibility. He basically "outed" them in his press release. His mentioning that he had military sources just made it obvious that somebody was talking about the shutdown that should not have. These individauls probably saw all the nonsense that Hastings was peddling on youtube and figured they would be able to make a "book deal" or get some headlines like Salas by mentioning UFOs (the same can be said for their "go-between guy).

HIs reference to them as patriots is a joke. He used them plain and simple for his own gain. Now they have been punished, he is washing his hands of responsibility and blaming the government using the UFO cover-up as an excuse. The man has no shame.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests

cron