by their works shall ye know them: ramifications of the 2011 f.e. warren afb ufo hoax by james...

8/3/2019 By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them: Ramifications of the 2011 F.E. Warren AFB UFO Hoax by James Carlson

1/41

By their works shall ye know them...

Ramifications of the 2011 F.E. Warren AFB UFO Hoax

By James Carlson

At what point along the journey to create or influence convincing public concern does a

community of those with common beliefs and similar goals as a result of those beliefs

have to reach before individual members of that community begin to consider whether a


2/41

more dishonest or deceptive approach might be necessary to satisfy those goals? And

what if the extent or the measure of this supposed necessity, as such individuals might

imagine it, is a reflection of their personal belief that the failure to accomplish these

goals may well endanger or at least setback for some indefinite period the potential

growth and development in a very real cosmic sense of their own species? As it

turns out, it's about 50 years... give or take a decade or so. Being a question of

morality, it would, of course, depend on the individuals. Being a question of morality,

however, it's not an indifferent question, and it should, for that reason, be explored a bit.

In June 2011, Robert Hastings, American chronicler of fables and folktales and currently

the loudest and most self-promoting voice in UFO proponent communities world-wide,

paid Reuters Newswire a nice sum to distribute a press release that he had authored,

thereby borrowing the impression of the same high credibility that the network has

labored at for decades in regard to its own work without actually having any more

credibility than Hastings himself can muster on any given day which isn't very much.

The story Hastings wrote is entitled

"Robert Hastings: Unidentified Aerial

Object Sighted During October 2010

Nuclear Missile Incident", a title typical of

his vehement yet somewhat insipid self-

promotion. It supposedly establishes UFO

interference with the now well-known

incident of equipment failure that occurred

on October 23, 2010, at F.E. Warren Air

Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

During this incident, launch technicians

temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50 of its Minuteman III missiles. The five

Missile Alert Facilities responsible for those ICBMs would have been unable to fire them

during the period of the disruption, although airborne commanders would still have been

able to fire the weapons at will.


3/41

The credibility that Robert Hastings paid for, while nonexistent in and of itself, has

nonetheless been assumed by those in the UFO proponent communities on the basis of

Reuters reputation alone. After all, as Reuters' advertising department is fond of

noting, with some truth, we should add, "Thomas Reuters is the world's leading source

of intelligent information for business and professionals." It should be stressed,

however, that the content of this article came from Hastings alone, and had nothing at

all to do with Reuters Newswire reporting. They merely released the story upon

payment. One only has to examine the numerous reprints of this article of Hastings'

throughout the internet to measure the worth of the borrowed (or paid for) credibility that

has been associated with these claims as a result of his apparent marketing savvy.

At http://warlords2010.blogspot.com/2011/09/check-out-this-incredible-reuters-ufo.html ,

for instance, the first thing we note is that "It is a bit unusual to get a UFO story from the

likes of Reuters but here is one such case." The author calls it "this incredible Reuters

#UFO story". Reuters? Well, they insisted that the article be printed only with the rider

"Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." They were merely

selling the distribution of Hastings' article, not the content.

Huffington Posthas published, to their credit, a much more detailed airing of the story at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/ufos-at-nuclear-missile-site-eyewitnesses-

afraid-to-talk_n_881802.html , but they also failed to examine the method itself that

Robert Hastings has and continues to rely upon, a practice that allows him the freedom

to invent whatever details he wants and call it "fact". It's a freedom that has been

allowed to take flight upon such airy and ill-imagined wings by other authors as well.

At http://earthstar.tripod.com/TSB_dir/2011/Radio0811.html , for example, Ray Larsen

has also used this freedom to invent liberally, claiming that "a huge cigar-shaped craft

was spotted by multiple witnesses, both civilian and military, hovering over the missile

field and jamming communications with the missiles for 59 minutes. The Air Forces

public face didnt seem too upset about it, but some witnesses have reported receiving


4/41

threats of severe penalties from their commanders for talking to reporters or

researchers." Its immediately notable that none of the above claims can be supported

by anything at all aside from Hastings' article, which pointedly fails to mention "multiple

witnesses, both civilian and military" and merely implies (at best) that a UFO was

"hovering over the missile field and jamming communications with the missiles". The

rest of Larsens account in regard to Hastings "research" is equally devoid of anything

that can actually be supported by more than the paranoia Hastings (and many others)

are profiting from. "I think the ETs, whoever they are, were close to ready for some

form of contact, but now, I think they may be confused and have postponed their plans.

If they wanted to be a threat to this

planet, I think they would have no

problems in doing so, as their level of

technology seems to still be beyond

the understanding of our black budget

scientists and engineers."

Apparently the ETs aren't the only

ones who are confused

It's not the first time that Robert

Hastings has performed this little con

on the internet. He did the same thing

in the days leading up to his much

(and very properly) ridiculed press

conference of September 27, 2010.

At http://flyingflashlight.com/tag/robert-hastings/ , for instance, we learned that "A major

news organization says flying saucers are toying with American nuclear weapons, but

you better read the byline and article". This author looked a little closer, and hats off to

him: "I am suspecting an automatic feed from PR Newswire to Reuters.com has

created this most alarming of headlines to be prominently displayed on the


5/41

organizations home page (its the No. 2 most-popular article): U.S. Nuclear Weapons

Have Been Compromised byUnidentified Aerial Objects.

"If you stopped right there and didnt read any further, you would fail to discover that this

piece of information being presented as an 'article' is actually a paid-for advertisement

(oh, I mean 'press release') for an upcoming news media conference of ex-military

members who plan to discuss their experiences with unidentified flying objects."

At http://www.facebook.com/lesliekean/posts/143133802389746 , author Leslie Kean

(who should know better and who will be discussed in more detail later for that very

reason) notifies us that "Reuters has posted the press release about the upcoming

press conference on U.S. nuclear weapons being compromised by unidentified aerial

objects, organized byRobert Hastings andRobert Salas, on Sept. 27th in Washington.

The media needs to be alerted about this." Yes, I'm certain the media felt the same way

immediately following that little rape of the truth. The Washington Post reporter who

attended that pathetic little example of Scrappy-doo show-boating was quite clear that

the only thing of value he could find were the cookies that were made available to the

press. Those who watched the DVD that Salas and Hastings were trying to sell

immediately afterwards didnt even get that. Its a shame they couldnt at least have

included a coupon for 25 cents off a package of Toll House chocolate chip cookies, but

these entrepreneurs simply arent the type to plan so far in advance. Proof of this can

be verified from any summary of losses incurred from their DVD sales of the event when

potential customers discovered almost immediately that they could watch the

conference on CNN for free, an unfortunate development when profiteers fail to weigh

the future out-of-pocket costs to their budding business portfolio when the event theyve

planned in such detail so far in advance is freely open to all press and media

representatives who might also wish to attend. Not that it matters much; theyll likely

recoup their losses when the movie version is finally released, unless they do

something completely boneheaded like bar any use of Muppets technology. Thats

not a joke either those Muppets can turn almost any silly idea into a blockbuster

summer release, if you give them a little lead time.


6/41

At http://roblorinov.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/robert-hastings-unidentified-aerial-object-

sighted-during-october-2010-nuclear-missile-incident-reuters/ , we read "Amazing that

Reuters is reporting this as the major mainstream media do not usually report UFO

activity. What is reported in this story is NOT the first time a US missile system has

been rendered nonfunctional while a UFO is in the area." Of course, this particular

claim hasn't been examined by the writer of the piece he's assuming that Hastings is

telling the truth both here and in his book UFOs and Nukes, which purports to catalogue

such events. As a result, the writer's assumption that the incident "is NOT the first time

a US missile system has been rendered nonfunctional while a UFO is in the area" is

based on nothing, certainly not Reuter's credibility, which in this case has been bought

and paid for by Robert Hastings as a way to establish credibility that he's failed to

establish with his writings alone. It's just more unconscious disinformation by people

who are otherwise unable to back up their claims with anything more than "Hastings

says it's true." The writer of the article isn't necessarily lying; he simply believes the

claims of a charlatan and a fraud who is creating this belief for reasons of his own,

reasons having nothing at all to do with an accurate accounting of the "incidents" he and

others are associating with UFOs incidents that simply cannot be substantiated by any

jury outside of the imagination theyve liberally applied to the subject at hand.

It isn't the first time that Robert Hastings has attempted to make such claims. In relation

to a case of numerous missile failures that occurred in March 1967 at Malmstrom AFB,

he attempted the same type of deception. Fortunately for anybody insisting upon a

measure of valid evidence, a true accounting of testimony, or a determined and faithfully

assessed credibility in regard to that testimony, the witnesses he has used to establish

these claims have insisted very clearly that he was lying and denounced entirely any

interference, reporting, or investigation resulting from any UFO incident Robert Hastings

or Robert Salas have proposed. Both are merely being deceptive, a fact that was easily

proven once the "witnesses" were reinterviewed by individuals with a more ethical

concern for the truth than any possessed by these two UFOlogical frauds.


7/41

It should be pointed out, however, that Robert Hastings learned something very

important from the subsequent and embarrassing expos of his methods. He learned

that his "witnesses" can be tracked down and reinterviewed, at which point the truth can

be made known. And when the weak link in your claims happens to be inherent to your

use of non-witness witnesses capped by an inability to properly interpret what testimony

has been presented, the best recourse for those wishing to continue with the

presentation of such false claims is to prevent others from gaining access to your

witnesses, thereby removing any embarrassing revelations that might come about

subsequent to the lie. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this is exactlywhat

Robert Hastings has now done. He purchased the apparently marketable commodity of

credibility held by Reuters as a result of their own fine and professional conduct,

because he knew that credibility would be necessary in order to freely assert another

hoax regarding UFOs and nuclear missile failures. He then followed up this sad little

attempt at reputation repair by essentially taking the weak link represented by the

witnesses and their testimonycompletely out of the equation. Thats right, folks: Robert

Hastings went anonymous

By adapting the witness to the lie, Hastings was able to rediscover for himself the Great

Lesson of fashionable con-artists worldwide, from P.T. Barnum through a long line of

hidden personalities trying to sell crack outside of Narcotics Anonymous meetings:

surprise! anonymity can protect not only his witnesses from being questioned about

those little details that Robert Hastings invented out of nothing tossing em in just as

the story starts to gel around the publics perception with a slick panache guaranteed by

addled, nameless used-car salesmen everywhere to make the story sound a little better

than anything youve got in your pocket right now but can also prevent the sad-eyed

teamster leaning against the telephone pole downstairs from picking up the common

knowledge of Hastings own fraudulent activities and exposing them to the Greek

hooker on the stairway who doesnt even give a damn about UFOs, and just wants a

little iced tea and lemonade in a clean glass by the time The Simpsons come on. Its

another one of those ageless I can create an indefinable wall between me and those

skeptical critics by inventing a witness, but keeping everything about him a secrettype


8/41

of lessons. This type of deception, however, requires a little extra on the other side of

the equation, making the weight of established credibility of the sort Reuters has turned

into a marketable commodity a great and necessary benefit when its associated by no

fault of their own with attempts to use imaginary witnesses to establish a point of view

thats so essentially separate and unassociated with the authors this, of course, being

Robert Hastings.

Hastings article not only makes this anonymity very clear, but emphasizes as well the

use that only he is willing to put it to:

Regarding the recent situation at F.E. Warren AFB, Hastings emphasizes, "My sources

have not said that the UFO sighted during the October 23, 2010 missile-communicationsdisruption actually caused it. And it must be noted that the Air Force's Global Strike

Command has officially attributed the problem to an improperly-replaced circuit card in a

weapons-system processor."

He adds, "Nevertheless, the intermittent presence of a huge, cigar-shaped aerial craft

during the hours-long - not minutes-long - crisis was definitely noted and remarked

upon by various technical teams working in the base's missile field."

And thats how you take a lie and turn it into something all brand new and sparkly, like a

box full of stars tossed up into the heavens. It's a shame these witnesses have refused

to come forward, if they even exist at all. In firm recognition of the dire importance

Robert Hastings has placed on this issue of anonymity, without once focusing on the

fact that he has again struck the hammer against the steel, sparks flying like tiny little

abrasions in the wind, and has repeated old sins by making a number of spurious,

pointless and fact-free claims without presenting anything at all in the way of validated

evidence to back it up, that last supposition absolutely must be properly addressed.The creation of such alleged witnesses, after all, encompasses an implied deception

that many people who are very willing to come forward are quite certain that

Hastings is more than capable of. It also fits in very well with any collation of his past

failures to build a case in the absence of the tools and materials necessary to do so

honestly. The facts of his past deceptions alone would establish quite handily his moral


9/41

capabilities for such a strategy. The ease with which his claims can be shattered, in

many cases by simply analyzing his work for elements that cannot be reconciled with

any of the internal conflicts typical of the military environment he limits himself to, and

yet refuses to learn anything about, tends to support his capability for invention far more

than his ability to uncover hidden facts that the rest of the world has failed for

whatever reasons to notice. Where anonymity describes the source, as it does here,

Robert Hastings can say absolutely anything he likes. The sad truth is, he's done it

before; invention is, after all, his fort.

The suspicions raised by the assumed anonymity of his only witnesses must to be

examined if we're to consider any of these recent claims credible at all, particularly

when any attempts to confirm such claims this search for confirmation beginning

shortly after he broke this big story instantly produce literally dozens of insistent,

disgusted affirmations that there was no UFO in fact or rumor, nor was a UFO reported

or investigated. Most members of the military are justifiably proud of their

accomplishments and their service, so when someone like Robert Hastings who never

served in the military assumes the arrogance necessary to redefine those

accomplishments and that service, doing so by trivializing their contributions to national

defense, they generally respond with understandable anger and rancor, something that

Hastings has never acknowledged, preferring by far to use unsustained anecdotes to

establish a case that simply cant be made honestly. Anonymity must, therefore, be

examined in accordance with its purpose this purpose being the creation of a myth.

The first step in this process, of course, is to question why anonymity has been relied

upon in the first place. After all, this isn't the 1960s, and anonymity isn't necessary in

most cases not when there's a gamut of whistleblower protection laws intended to

protect such individuals. The point is, in most cases particularly in the military where

official acts are only rarely independent of command justification anonymity is

unnecessary. It does, however, establish the proposition that the individual is either

afraid of retaliation, or afraid of having his name associated with claims that are untrue.


10/41

In this particular case, Hastings is using anonymous sources to affirm the following

points:

1. The U.S. Air Force lied when it insisted that the communications breakdown at

F.E. Warren AFB lasted only 59 minutes. According to Hastings' anonymous

sources, "the communications issue, while intermittent, actually persisted over

several hours."

2. These same anonymous sources reported that there were sightings by

"numerous teams" of an enormous, cigar-shaped craft that maneuvered high

above the missile field on the day of the disruption. "The huge UFO appeared

similar to a World War I German Zeppelin but had no passenger gondola or

advertising on its hull, as would a commercial blimp."

3. These same anonymous sources also allegedly reported "that their squadron

commander has warned witnesses not to talk to journalists or researchers about

'the things they may or may not have seen' in the sky and has threatened severe

penalties for anyone violating security. Consequently, these persons must

remain anonymous at this time."

Any review of current whistleblower protection laws and military regulations, however,

not only insists that the third statement regarding the need for anonymity is completely

untrue, but that any honest indications that the first two statements were true are

protected by federal law should they be revealed by those with actual knowledge of the

events. Moreover, if those events can substantiate an ordered and progressive attempt

by the Air Force to establish in the public mind a system of national defense that does

not, in fact, exist, the justification for exposure of that fact increases significantly. With

this in mind, it's very difficult to conceive of any valid reason for anonymity if this incident

really happened as Robert Hastings has described it. Any revelation by parties involved

would be protected by federal law, making any retaliation of the type he suggests

these "threatened severe penalties for anyone violating security" an illegal act,


11/41

particularly if the UFO that his alleged sources have described had anything at allto do

with the missile failures, as Hastings obviously wants the world to conclude. In fact, any

examination of this incident leaves one with the unmistakable impression that actual

anonymity would only be useful if the claims being established were untrue.

The facts are very clear. Robert Hastings has once again shown the world that he lacks

the necessary substantive knowledge of security protocol to convincingly make claims

of UFO interference during actual military incidents. His foolishness is persistent, but

that doesn't make it believable.

Retaliation against actual witnesses in

a case of this magnitude would be

illegal as long as the subject

reasonably believes the information

being disclosed shows that the USAF

has knowingly violated any laws, rules,

or regulations, including trying to cover

up an event that may have placed

civilian personnel or residents in a

possibly life endangering environment.

Retaliation would also be illegal if the

subject reasonably believes the

information being disclosed shows an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific

danger to public health or safety. The anonymity Robert Hastings relies upon simply

isn't necessary. All it does is allow Hastings to make claims on the basis of eyewitness

reports that very likely don't even exist. And by definition, that's a scam.

It's illegal for a federal employee, including members of the military, to make false

statements in an investigation related to a security breach, so any revelation that such

statements were made and established as a point of fact, particularly when that breach

involves nuclear weapons armed for defensive actions within our nation's sovereign


12/41

territory, establishes as well the legal protection of those making such claims. For

instance, the Whistleblower Protection Act only one among many avenues ensuring

legally protected status is very explicit regarding the extent of that protection. This

one statute alone is significantly wide-ranging in regard to what disclosures qualify for

protection, and that protection is common knowledge amongst personnel holding

supervisory positions within all branches of the Department of Defense. Hastings'

assertion "that their squadron commander has warned witnesses not to talk to

journalists or researchers about 'the things they may or may not have seen' in the sky

and has threatened severe penalties for anyone violating security" is a complete and

utter lie that has no bearing on these discussions at all. In fact, any attempts to cover-

up an incident involving the purposeful shutdown by enemy aircraft of nuclear missiles

armed within the sovereign borders of the United States by threatening the witnesses of

such an event is itself very arguably an illegal act. Anybody wanting proof of this only

needs to look at the example provided by Robert Salas, who disclosed alleged

classified materials (according to Salas himself) detailing exactly the same type of

security violations Robert Hastings is now using to protect the identity of his sources.

It is complete and utter nonsense. Where was the retaliation in the case of Salas?

What severe penalties was Salas subjected to? Once again, Hastings own actions and

conclusions reveal nothing more than his own dishonesty, his own lies, and the pathetic

build-up of this hoax that he has engineered. Its just another one of his UFO scams.

The plain fact is that any command reprisals against those individuals who would assert

these claims are strictly forbidden, if the claims are true, negating any fears adopted by

those who report such incidents. The MilitaryReprisal Investigations (MRI) directorate

has the statutory responsibility to investigate allegations of whistleblower reprisal filed

by military members, DoD non-appropriated fund employees, and DoD contractor

employees. They take their job very seriously, making anonymity essentially obsolete.

Anonymity, however, certainly isn't the only factor involved in this little myth-making

exercise that points to this whole muddy little folktale being a hoax not by a long shot.


13/41

In addition to the above points, we also need to note that "an enormous, cigar-shaped

craft that maneuvered high above the missile field on the day of the disruption"would

have been noted as well by civilian administrative employees at F.E. Warren AFB and

by a large number of individuals who aren't even associated with the USAF. A craft like

this doesn't disappear to the entire world with the minor exception of a couple of

freewheeling military technicians; it is an obvious hoax a subterfuge that Robert

Hastings must be aware of and very likely had a hand in creating. After all, the extent of

the lie itself is very easily measured. USAF missile bases enforce fly-over zones and

systematic security alert protocols that would make an incident like this common

knowledge to nearly everybody on base within a matter of hours. Does Robert Hastings

expect the world to believe him on the basis of this ridiculous and anonymous

testimony? Is he truly that egregiously ignorant? Or is he merely and once again

simply lying? Given his history of protracted dishonesty and baseless interpretations of

procedures and protocols that he very obviously has no substantive knowledge of, any

other conclusion must be very low in a ranked list of probable extrapolations. In other

words, Hell, yes, he's lying it's become an unconscious habit and a quickly reached

resolution to every unanswered question his cases represent. Its what he does

The fact that Robert Hastings has made these public claims on the basis ofnothing is

bad enough, but the fact that this ridiculous story has been reprinted so often that it's

now a staple argument on the UFO-Nukes portfolio that not one interested blogger has

reprinted with anything even approaching the doubt and exasperated disgust that

should be the primary reaction is far worse, because it shows how absolutely bereft of

sense this group of chroniclers, or collectors of UFO incidents has become. It is this

very color of jaded behavior that will ultimately sink any hope they may have of being

taken seriously by the rest of the world. Are we expected to accept on faith alone that

Robert Hastings an inveterate liar purchased the assumed credibility of Reuters

Newswire to exult in the testimony of a couple of anonymous sources, and its all true?


14/41

Really!!?? Somebody please let the rest of the world know when its safe to plug-in the

hardware, because assertions at this level of unbelievable nonsense and media-driven

stupidity has to be the effect of a virus or software glitch.

If Hastings has got actual anonymous witnesses, which I strongly doubt, he should be

pressured to reveal them or they should be pressured to reveal themselves. There's

absolutely no reason an incident like this should be kept hidden and secret by

UFOlogists of his pathetic reputation it's pretty damn hypocritical for one thing in light

of his insistence that the USAF disclose all of their secrets. But making these huge

claims on the basis ofabsolutely nothing, which is essentially what's being done here, is

just another example of the worst kind of pandering imaginable. Basically, Robert

Hastings has been taught by the world of American UFOlogy that he can make up

whatever kind of story he likes, publish it as an eyewitness report, reach conclusions on

the strength of that unchallenged mediocrity, and sell a couple dozen copies of his book

all on groundwork proposed and theorized by a couple of non-existent jokers that blew

up in the back of his brain one night after a little bout of indigestion. Once again,

Hastings' abilities and conducted analyses of these alleged UFO-Nuclear events have

shown us his true colors: he's a miserable fraud who isn't doing educated and

trustworthyUFOlogists any favors whatsoever. He's simply providing more obstacles

for valid researchers to overcome if they intend to establish their claims within this

sphere of influence and endeavor; he's the regressive-researcher, the anti-UFOlogist,

and nothing more a pitiable joke.

Let me be very clear here: ifRobert Hastings is going to continue making such claims,

he should be required to back them up with something substantial, or be treated like a

really bad comedian booed, coughed at, and forced offstage by someone with a very

big hook.

So, what exactly did happen? According to very real sources in the USAF who have

come forward and are notanonymous, the incident at F.E. Warren AFB was the result

of maintenance that was conducted in one of the Launch Control Centers (LCC),


15/41

involving the swap out of a circuit card in the Weapon System Processor (WSP). The

WSP is basically the "brain" of the command and control system. All information sent to

and from the LCC and the separate Launch Facilities (LF) begins and ends at the WSP.

Each WSP within each squadron LCC interfaces with one another, which allows one

LCC to have access to another LCC's status and, if need be, control over that LCC's

missiles. This enables any LCC within the same squadron the ability to launch missiles

normally monitored by another crew. One squadron has control over fifty missiles

grouped within five flights of ten missiles each Alpha Flight through Echo Flight.

Should any single LCC become disabled for whatever reason, the commander of any

other flight within that squadron would still have the capability to launch all the missiles


16/41

assigned to and controlled by the disabled LCC, allowing for full weapons response

even when the squadron is not at full flight capability. The loss of all fifty missiles at F.E

Warren's 319 Missile Squadron was the result of one of the five WSPs losing

synchronicity during or very shortly after the maintenance that had been conducted.

This caused an interface issue with the other four LCCs that had no actual effect on the

squadron's fifty missiles. In other words, the missiles did not drop off of alert;

communications between the LCCs and the missiles alone had malfunctioned, an

incident that took away the squadron's ability to launch those missiles from the LCCs for

59 minutes. Airborne launch platforms, however, still retained access if the need to

launch had arisen during that period of time. The communications malfunction affected

only the LCCs, not the missiles themselves.

According to USAF sources, the probable cause of the malfunction was an improperly

inserted circuit card in the WSP that occurred during the scheduled maintenance. The

communications outage lasted no more than 60 minutes, and affected only the WSP

interfacing between the LCC and its LFs.

The missiles never went off alert, and there was no loss of missiles extending to the

command only to the squadron. No other systems, including radio communication,

video feedback, and security systems affiliated with all fifty launch facilities, were

affected. It's also very likely that this was not the first time such an incident has

occurred it's simply the first time the press got wind of it.

It's a fact of life that Robert Hastings' missteps, badly maligned references, and rock-

bottom investigative skills have done much to force him into taking such steps as the

adoption of anonymous sources when the environment itself makes such sources

doubtful and easily recognizable as mere signatures of deceit. Any sane analyst,

however, can instantly see that there's something more going on here than little Bobby

trying to tell another lie, even if the target of his chicanery is a community of belief so

basely treated in the past that they are now unable to differentiate between the truth and

such aggressive malignancy. The fact that there is a core of associated authors and


17/41

investigators who are willing to overlook, and in many cases to applaudsuch blatant

irresponsibility indicates that there is indeed something very odd going on here and it

isn't the "something very odd going on" that is normally the result of an aggressor trying

to sell the world something that isn't worth spit. If that was all it was, the environment

wouldn't be so thick with the silence of those individuals who know better, or who

understand the supreme worthlessness of the evidence being presented. You wouldn't

see this type of misinformed applause resulting from the presentation of absolutely

nothing. You wouldn't see intelligent people like Leslie Kean or John B. Alexander

subverting their own common sense and marketability to announce with little fanfare

and fewer facts that UFO interference with nuclear weapons systems worldwide is

apparently one of the most important stories of the century. If they aren't merely selling

books, then what is it that motivates them to make such ridiculous claims so publically?

I've never been an admirer of Robert Hastings' intellect, but even he is not the

completely witless chimera that he has publically melded his reputation to. So what

exactly is his motivation?

He's actually taken great pains to reveal this aspect of his little mission, and it isn't

entirely a reflection of the shameless self-promotion that he normally excels at:

Hastings concludes, "The UFO sightings near F.E. Warren's missile sites in recent

months - by Air Force personnel and civilians - represent the latest chapter in the UFO-

Nukes Connection saga. Its well-documented history, as revealed in declassified U.S.

government files and military eyewitness testimony, extends back to December 1948.

Countless official denials about the reality of the situation have been issued over the

years but, sooner or later, this amazing story will break wide open. What we need now is

a courageous government whistleblower to come forward with the facts, and some daring

journalists willing to treat the story seriously and write about it."

That's all this little cabal of newsmakers has ever wanted: "sooner or later, this amazing

story will break wide open." That's the claim; that's the story; that's the lie. It is this

assertion that brings us full-circle to the worldview that motivates individuals such as

Robert Hastings to resort to such obviously dishonest means to create or influence the


18/41

convincing public concern alluded to in the first paragraph of this article. Their goal is

simple: they demand full disclosure. I'm certain they believe it's necessary and they

believe it will reveal extraterrestrial involvement at every level of human society. They

are certainly not stupid they realize completely that the disclosure they insist upon will

never occur without massive public demand and support, and this makes their mission

essentially a political one. It is a mission that has evolved for nearly fifty years,

originating like some legendary and socially incapacitating national curse from a single

burst of anger and depression and dismay that darkened the group soul of true

believers when the USAF and, by association, the Department of Defense and the

government of the United States of America, insisted very publically that not only were

UFOs not a threat to the national security of this country, they weren't even worth

investigating for reasons of military defense. As far as the USAF is concerned, UFOs

are a waste of time, effort, and most particularly money.

As a result of this, NICAP, MUFON, and everybody associated with those few

individuals who insist "I know what I saw", and "I don't care if you don't believe me, and

you're just wasting space trying to discuss it as a psychological phenomenon instead of

a physical fact of human existence", quite literally lost their freaking minds...

What resulted was a heartfelt implosion of will and belief and faith having more in

common with religious aggression than with anything else imaginable ever since. And

in the same way that religions will eventually engender the strategic collusion of wills

impatient enough to manufacture fraudulent "proof" of those claims best defining the

highest character of their belief, those individuals who insist upon receiving the U.S.

government's validation of their belief by way of worthless and impossible demands for

full disclosure have reached the same point. They are willing to rely on dishonesty and

lies to forcibly compel those who could not otherwise be persuaded or convinced.

Their intent is plain to anybody who examines the claims they've publically made, and

the tools they've used to do so. If full disclosure will not be given when it has been so


19/41

politely requested, it will be taken when their demands are enforced by massive public

concern.

And if public concern cannot be established by honestmeans, it will be established by

dishonestmeans. They've been trying to create this body of mass concern since 1947,

and they have failed... miserably. They have created merely a cultural mystery, an odd

little feature of the horizon used by more creative minds as building blocks for novels,

movies, and other forms of mass media entertainment. Public concern used to make

demands on government and military defense organizations requires much more it

requires an organized and well-steeled effort to persuade an uncaring public to join the

fray and rain aggressive impulse and fear of angry and unfailing numbers upon those

targeted government and military defense organizations. And like many such

imperatives in the past history of this nation, it's just not going to happen... not unless

the public made up of those mass numbers of politically sensitive and demanding

people with the power of democracy behind them is afraid. They want Americans to

believe that not only was the USAF lying to them when it insisted from 1966 to 1969 that

UFOs have never been a national security threat and are not worth the effort to

examine, they want Americans to believe that the threat is great and still exists today,

nearly fifty years later. They believe that if they can accomplish that, they can demand

and receive full disclosure. That's the goal. That's the method to see it through. It

would be kind of funny if it wasnt so sickeningly despotic and dishonest.

Robert Hastings wants the world to believe that UFOs are interfering with nuclear

weapons in the United States and around the world, because it's the most paranoid

example of the dreaded existential UFO juju involving the United States Department of

Defense that his otherwise helpless mind can come up with. And he doesn't mind lying

to the world like a crche thief dreaming up new and bitter biographies as long as his

claims are accepted. The end justifies the means.

And he's not alone, either Thats the saddest part of this whole wallflower convention.


20/41

I am currently exploring the numerous works of a select few UFO authors and

investigators widely connected to the events they've attempted to manufacture and

chronicle; they call themselves UFOlogists, so I shall too. I believe the evidence is

plentiful enough to establish their membership in an informal coalition, a loose cabal of

similar minded individuals who have shown themselves more than willing to lie, to

dissemble, to disable context in order to neglect content, to knowingly reach

unsubstantiated conclusions on the basis of faulty information, to remain silent in regard

to the known lies and errors in fact committed by other members of the coalition, and to

express public support for the unsubstantiated conclusions of these same individuals in

order to establish a united front against criticism and to forge a false aura of infallibility

surrounding their enterprises and the value of their claims. These individuals are united

by their singular motivation for the deceit they have practiced: they want to convince

the world at large thatUSAF and DoD officials were knowingly lying when they insisted

for years thatUFOs as defined by J. Allen Hynek do not exist and are therefore not a

threat to the security of the United States of America. Its that simple.

Their habits are notable to anyone paying attention to what they do and having the will

to examine the same witnesses and evidence that they have made the subject of their

claims. Primarily, they convince those willing to be convinced by showing a united front,

giving the false appearance of infallibility by assuming a point of view with vested

opinions held by numerous "scholars" and "scientists" and "journalists" and "military

witnesses" and "historians" from all over the world, supposedly "independent" minds

reaching a natural accord on the basis of well-studied facts and consistent claims.

In actuality, this showboating is simply a pathetic lie that results from their collaborative

failure to examine with any honesty the assertions and claims made by those who hold

opinions of public regard for their own work and claims. In other words, they refuse to

criticize or otherwise examine the impact of bad research, false justifications, poorly

established conclusions and blatant lies whenever such poorly integrated tales and

inundations of wasted hours at a word processor support the general tone and structure

of their own works and/or beliefs. By resorting to such tepid strategies, they replace the


21/41

common standards of peer review with worthless head nodding like nodding dogs on a

particularly bumpy road [thanks to Zep Tepifor the markedly visual phrase].

Many examples of this behavior and other details of these somewhat erratic attempts to

manufacture history will be discussed over the next few weeks in a series of articles

divulging the machinations of the like-minded members of this cabal as the clearest

method to reveal and condemn their methods. They are legion, and that fact

necessitates a more structured approach to the claims they've made. It insists that

relationships be explored and resonant claims appealing more to a unified vision than to

actual events be dissected in order to discover the few facts theyve either tried to hide

because they reveal the dishonest core of their claims, or carelessly addressed without

knowing the ultimate cost such claims would eventually weigh against their integrity and

the worth of their claims.

One example of this behavior, however, will be presented now, because I want to define

this aspect of their preferred methodology due to the reliance on its use being so

common within the group that it can be measured and calculated upon their own

aggressive allegations. Basically, the act is universal and simple: when one member

reacts to criticism of his own personal claims by changing specific details of his story,

other members of this united coalition act as if there were no changes made

whatsoever. They simply agree with whatever the current story on the record is. The

practice is, as I've said, common, and for that reason is easily established, and its

purpose easily revealed.

For example, when Robert Jamison claimed that UFOs were reported over Malmstrom

AFB in correlation with his claims in regard to Oscar Flight missile failures alleged by

Robert Salas, members of the cabal were notable and united in their insistence that

reports of UFOs over Malmstrom AFB supported Jamison's claims, and thereby Salas.

This was accepted as evidence of mutual claims asserted, and was discussed as

acceptable evidence of an actual event by other members of the group, such as Richard

M. Dolan, author of "A.D. After Disclosure: The People's Guide to Life After Contact".


22/41

Dolan, in fact, found the measure of worth so valuable, that he later insisted the

evidence for Salas Oscar Flight claims surpassed even those Salas has addressed for

an Echo Flight incident, even though there has never been presented any documented

evidence or reasonable assessment of any such event having everoccurred at Oscar

Flight. The circular perambulations these people rely on to make such a weak point

could carve tornadoes into the sun.

Unfortunately for those claims, Oscar Flight is at least a hundred miles away from the

UFOs reported at Malmstrom AFB, which couldnt possibly be used to reflect any

related claims whatsoever. When this became public knowledge as a result of critical

assessments, Robert Jamison changed his story (not for the first time nor the last) and

announced that UFOs were reported over Lewistown in correlation with his claims in

regard to the same Oscar Flight missile failures. He dutifully drafted a new affidavit for

Robert Hastings to use and the event was thereby set in stone, another worthless claim

for the insensible few who werent paying attention to first principles. Following this,

members of the cabal acted as if there was no change at all in his story, and simply

insisted that the UFO reports over Lewistown had confirmed Jamisons claims.

Sadly, this immediately became the group lie currently expressed as another modest

truth by the entire group psyche. How do we know it's a lie? Because there are no

UFO reports over Lewistown, and there never were. Jamison, or more probably Robert

Hastings, simply changed the location of those reports that were made. Members of the

cabal, however, continue to assert these false claims, and simply ignore critical review

of the stories that have been told. They would have done themselves a great favor if

they had simply not said anything at all. Changing the location with nothing to establish

such a change was reckless and foolish (which is why Im personally convinced that

Robert Hastings demanded it of Jamison, his witness). And yet, even when such

egregious instability within the storys structure is so immediately apparent, they remain

united throughout; every time one of them mentions the numerous confirmations made,

all of them nod their heads in agreement, as if there was actually a form of peer review


23/41

taking place. But there is no peer review there's just ten people telling the same lie,

and failing completely to note the change that has occurred.

This is a very common occurrence within the group itself, and those with the patience to

pick apart the claims they've made and the lies they've told can discover it for

themselves. Unfortunately, those willing to give the claims a little credit have no need to

confirm any of them, for the same reason that many Americans have no need to confirm

prophecy expressed in the Bible or historical features alluded to in the four gospels of

the New Testament: their faith in the honesty of their new prophets is all they need.

Fortunately, their numbers are small, which is why those with the same goals as Robert

Hastings and other members of this tawdry little group of malcontents are working so

hard to convince the rest of America that they should be afraid... very afraid. They

should be so afraid, in fact, that only one response from their government and their

Department of Defense will suffice to calm their shattered nerves: full disclosure, which

is already assumed to be an active, consistent expression of fact used to refute or

dismiss critical assessments without confronting or explaining the arguments used to

establish that criticism in the first place. Note, for instance, Robert Hastings' dismissive

and arrogant rejection of opposing arguments that hes willing to offer up to the public

while neglecting completely to refute, explain or otherwise discuss the veracity of such

opposing claims (see http://www.ufodigest.com/article/ufos-nukes-researcher-robert-

hastings-refutes-debunker): "So, rest assured, the facts will all come out, sooner or

later, and James Carlson will become nothing more than a historical footnote once UFO

Disclosure has occurred, and a not-very flattering one at that."

I don't think I need to worry about that a whole lot, but that's not the point certainly not

for Robert Hastings. After all, his dismissal of criticism works best when he refuses to

discuss it or otherwise attempt to establish opposing arguments as false. Like all

pedagogues who limit themselves to the law of the lesson, he doesn't concern himself

with evidence or proof, which means he can't refute it when it's placed before him. This

not only gives him the freedom to dismiss the issue entirely until full disclosure occurs

which means he has no intention of saying anything at all constructive or evidential it


24/41

allows him to use an event that has not yet occurred, and will very likely neveroccur as

the final argument supporting his ridiculous claims. Its just another indication of his

delusional hubris that allows him to establish an argument based primarily on nothing

no facts, no footnotes, and no inquiry, just another example of Hastings overused

reliance on a mantra that is instantly recognized by those who have examined his past

history and his responses to past criticism: he attempts to establish an argument using

events that havent occurred, recordings he hasnt produced, affidavits he hasnt

requested, questions he hasnt answered and refuses to discuss, and a long line of

promises to produce definitive proof that he has failed to uphold. He has lied about

witnesses, he has lied about evidence, and he has lied about those presenting opposing

views in a worthless attempt to attack credibility while ignoring every evidential aspect of

the views that have been presented.

Contrary to the headline of the little piece discussed above, Robert Hastings refutes

nothing; he merely insists without discussion or association that his is the only honest

voice on the planet while everybody else is lying. This is also why he refuses to discuss

in any detail the claims of witnesses who insist that he is merely a weak liar without

evidence to present, one who relies instead on his own persistence. He refuses to

discuss or debate, but he loves to lecture. That is the primary character of his

aggression; truth becomes a lie that must be suppressed, even as the argument he's

attempting to validate continues to evolve into shattered sentences that eventually hold

no meaning.

In regard to the methods used in the example of Robert Jamison above, it is particularly

easy to effect evolving storylines on the internet, possibly the most effective architecture

yet developed for the propagation of incipient deceit. The offenders simply edit the

original works, something men like Robert Salas and Robert Hastings are significantly

well-practiced at. This strategy to their shame has also been adopted at times by

authors like Richard M. Dolan and website moguls like Frank Warren. As strategies go,

it isn't completely ineffectual. Unless someone manages to make a copy of such works

when they first appear, nobody would ever know that major changes have been made


25/41

to the storyline. The adoption of changes that are afterwards discussed as if having a

lifespan measuring back to the original argument creates a false aspect in the narrative

suggesting the absence of change. Change instills doubt, so they ignore it. Although

some individuals might mention an "evolving tale of events", the cycle of change

becomes much harder to examine or to even document when commonly expressed

attitudes or truth and falsity imply its absence.

Similar problems arise when affidavits are used in an environment otherwise bereft of

legal record-keeping or forensic standardization. An affidavit is nothing more than an

account given by a witness under no legal coercion to tell the truth. It's a notarized

statement of no more worth than a letter written by a person who has signed his name

at the bottom. Robert Hastings is famous for his use of such worthless indicators of his

witnesses' honesty, an investment in credibility that costs him little, yet depends

entirely upon the ignorance of his primary audience in regard to what are essentially

pointless public relations maneuvers. The concrete measure of his credibility, in fact,

depends almost entirely on the poor education of the audience representing the target

of his UFO hoaxes and false claims, a point easily established by the fact that they are

the only ones actually willing to pay for the privilege of being lied to. The affidavits

acknowledged as proof of honesty by his audience, however, are of little worth, given

that these same witnesses continue recording various affidavits when asked by

Hastings to do so new affidavits that change those "points of fact" carelessly

discussed in prior versions, yet now proven to be false. It is this practice that defined

the need for brand new affidavits submitted by his witnesses just prior to the 27

September, 2010 news conference organized by Hastings and Robert Salas to highlight

their claims of UFO interest in nuclear facilities. And those affidavits were not the same

as the affidavits produced beforehand; they had, in fact, been corrected. It has become

very clear that in Robert Hastings case, credibility is a commodity that can be bought

and sold, but is only rarely earned.

It presents an interesting dichotomy to the culture of these UFO-Nukes assertions that

every witness Robert Hastings has ever discussed in relation to Robert Salas'


26/41

Malmstrom AFB Echo Flight UFO claims has refused outright since 1995 to provide an

affidavit of any sort that establishes a UFO presence. As a result, all of the evidence

used by these two charlatans consists of recorded "testimony" from telephone

conversations that all such witnesses have subsequently denounced, charging that they

have been liberally edited, are incomplete, contain phrases and conclusions that have

been taken out context, and neglect entirely their common and insistent confirmation

that UFOs were notreported, were notinvestigated, and had no role to play at allin the

course of that incident. It is, in fact, the character of his deceit in relation to that single

case that led to his adoption of different strategies in regard to new cases, such as the

use of anonymous sources defining his reporting of UFO interference at F.E. Warren

AFB in October 2010. The common factor in both, of course, is deception.

Unfortunately, while critics can and do claim that the most recent affidavits detailing

the events of a particular story are completely different from the witness earlier versions

of that story, or different from earlier affidavits established in regard to that story, if the

only affidavits publically available on numerous related websites are the same, i.e., the

most recent, who is going to pay attention? This aspect of the assertions that have

been made can sometimes make revelations of change difficult to establish unless the

person desiring to document such evolving storylines reads and regularly monitors and

copies the numerous and insistent doctrines on a nearly daily basis. I can assure you

from personal experience that conducting research in this tiresome and repetitive way

produces within the heart a very defeatist attitude, one that inhibits greatly any will to

challenge affirmations discussed as a continuous and straightforward chronicle of fact

instead of the constantly evolving folktale that it actually represents. It's impossible (or

at least exceedingly difficult) for a single person to thoroughly and properly investigate

the issue when it's been applied so liberally as a group strategy. Having attempted to

do so in regard to claims made by Robert Salas, I can say with complete candor that a

community of investigators is absolutely essential for any thorough examination of such

practices when their use is so consistently employed. Unfortunately, it is merely one

more factor supporting the disregard that most people have for organized UFOlogy as

respectful, scientific field of endeavor that those who believe so strongly in the relative


27/41

truth behind UFO phenomena seem to have no intention or even desire to police the

field of UFO claims for themselves, the primary result of which is the proliferation of

false claims, aggressive hoaxing, fraudulent profiteering, unverified or outcome-

dependent research, manufactured histories, and recycled myth-building on a scale

unmatched by any other field of human knowledge all of which contributes to an

environment directly responsible for the criminal misconduct and scientific deceit of men

like Robert Hastings and the paranoia and fear they often represent. In a community

that freely concedes with well-addressed sincerity that at least 95-percent of all UFO

reports are misidentifications of commonly encountered objects, materials, or natural

occurrences, it is absolutely stunningthat nearly all UFO reports are accepted as factual

until proven otherwise and in many cases appropriate proof itself is denied or

discarded in favor of the myth. I personally have no doubts whatsoever that this

complex characteristic of UFO studies is often the primary motivation for those adopting

such strategies as evolving storylines or anonymous sources of information.

In answer to an as yet unasked query, yes, this is a dishonest way to establish claims.

The members of this coalition, however, are typically of dishonest character, and they

simply don't care; they can't afford to, not after theyve already tossed every cent they

have on the table. Were they to start raking the chips in now, it would only serve to

make more noticeable those many counterfeit coins mingled with those very few

possessing some actual value. The plain fact is that this strategy represents a

systematic and purposeful rejection of honest debate and common integrity adopted by

men and women who believe they have nothing more to lose in regard to establishing

their national policy goals. They believe sincerely in my opinion that their

dishonesty promotes the truth. They have already justified their lies as an acceptable

means to an end that end being the full disclosure of UFO-related documents held by

the USAF and DoD, a demand promoted hand-in-hand with their contention that the

security classification of such materials is irrelevant. It is a cynical business that they

are in, one that I believe they have justified to themselves as a last resort to effect

national policy goals after fifty years of UFO belief and honest systems of investigation

and analysis amounted to nothing. This is what happens when one's honest


28/41

commitment produces little of substance beyond failure. Social analysis of the

phenomena very clearly suggests that the resolution to establish beliefs that cannot be

supported by definitive evidence, credible witnesses, or documented efforts has already

been breached by many believers who are justifiably tired of that same failure. In their

minds, full disclosure cannot be achieved without substantial public opinion brought to

bear upon the government, a conviction tempered with the complete certainty that

substantial public opinion cannot be properly effected without belief. Even the most

jaded analysis is forced to recognize this aspect of the controversy.

The solution these individuals have

settled on is the steely, determined

resolution to create that belief by

any means possible, and the fact

that the tools they have selected

will establish a purely artificial level

of belief is simply not relevant. The

only thing they care about is the

end of the story full disclosure.

This process represents the already

acknowledged observance that

what they have demanded of the

government cannot be executed in a democratic nation without massive public demand,

and such an insistent necessity cannot occur without massive public belief to compel it

forward. Fortunately for any honest appraisal, some of these conspirators are not

terribly bright. These few individuals tend to make a lot of mistakes and these mistakes

can be noted by those who find their methods just as distasteful as their claims.

The fascinating point that needs to be recognized here is not the fact that Robert

Hastings and his like-minded fellow conspirators have concluded that their goals cannot

be reliably established as an unrealized yet historical presence, an all-encompassing

worldview, without the use of dishonest and false and abrasive, socially regressive tools


29/41

developed for that singular purpose. It is the fact that they are very clearly and

insistently using as their starting point the assumption of full disclosure as already

accomplished history a history that the USAF, the Department of Defense, and the

government of the United States very effectively dismissed and buried in 1969. Taking

into consideration the fact that the character of their mission is essentially one of

westernized religious impulse, it becomes very clear that their goals necessitate the

redefinition of Washington, DC as the NewRome, with the Pentagon representing the

Colosseum, the Amphitheatrum Flavium, an inaugural symbol of Christian martyrdom,

and the celebrated birthplace of Christianity's own eventually triumphant worldview. Not

even this aspect of the foundations of belief that are being forged upon the emotive

consciousness of a social psyche being manipulated by the strategic planting of lies is a

very original concept, however. Washington, DC as the New Rome is a powerful theme

stressed within the same complex dynamics of social engineering in the numerous

works of science fiction author Philip K. Dick. The ascension of religious symbology

and its subsequent influence on human belief is a common tool with historical relevance

for those desiring to harness the commitment and energy of aggressive faith in order to

make real their own desires. More importantly, if the effects of religious impulse have

taught the world anything, it is that idealists are most dangerous to those around them

when they make the decision to forsake morality in order to ensure that their vision of

history is the only one addressed to future generations. In direct contrast to Hastings

and his professional cohorts, most men of ethics simply find it abhorrent to withhold

sufficient information to reach valid conclusions, and then tell you what you should

believe and demand of others on the basis of that purposely instituted ignorance. At its

most primal level, it is this compulsion to control the opinions and motivations of others

that drives men like Robert Hastings to assert such malignant hostility in pursuit of their

own goals.

The true nature of their compulsion is obvious: Hastings and his paranoid interests are

trying to ignite a common, fearful demand for full disclosure; they have consciously

elected to fill the minds of as many individuals as possible with fear and paranoia in

regard to the unknown. They are doing this for political reasons, having convinced


30/41

themselves that full disclosure is an absolute necessity. It is not. It is merely an

arbitrary goal born of religious impulse with the same type of emotive conviction behind

it. Although their faith that the results of this disclosure will make clear and establish for

all time the existence of extraterrestrial interference on this planet we inhabit may be a

conviction they refuse to discard, it is nonetheless misplaced. It has failed to justify the

single and restless burst of anger that followed the United States Air Force's very

general dismissal of UFO claims in 1969, just as it has failed to justify their self-serving

belief that full disclosure will eventually negate all of their exhibited impotence and their

inability to make concrete the willful, blanketed collusion of that belief and their faith.

They cannot establish the fruits of their claims by their own efforts and have convinced

themselves that this failure is the fault of others; they are not to blame for their

weaknesses, because the USAF and the Department of Defense have effectively

hidden the truth from them, establishing thereby an occultic authority. It isnt even

relevantthat their failures are the result of their own acts and their inability to establish

anything more substantial than rumor and innuendo and consistent failure to realize any

genuine goals. When examined from an objective point of view, they have nothing in

the absence of conviction, and it is for that reason alone that they rely on subjective

viewpoints based entirely on conviction, and nothing else.

The only other socially relevant human experience that can be described in this way is

our very human reliance on religious impulse. The aggressive instincts commonly

raised by these issues are due to the mistaken yet resolute conviction that this is a

discussion best suited for scientific assessment. It is not. There is no scientific

assessment capable of resolving this issue for the same reason that there is no

scientific assessment capable of resolving the issues raised in regard to beliefs

establishing life after death or how best to approach the concept of immortality in a finite

universe. These UFO true believers have created from nothingan issue that relies

almost entirely on antiauthoritarian developments and expressions raised throughout

the 1960s and early 1970s and washed in the explosive anger, selfishness, and fiscal

irresponsibility of the 1980s and 1990s. It is a social movement that they have failed

completely to validate or otherwise objectify for the rest of the world, and they are now


31/41

reacting in the only way possible that will still enable them to believe in some measure

of personal, scientific accomplishment.

They demand of the world validation of their assessments, their faith, their belief, and

the importance of their struggle. Their intent is to achieve this goal by forcing the

government of the United States to cow before mass insistence and public pressure,

thereby admitting that Hynek, Ruppelt, Fowler, McDonald, Tombaugh, Keyhoe, Valle,

Gene-freaking Roddenberry and, by association, Robert Salas and Robert Hastings,

were all fully justified in their painstaking concern and oft expressed desire for the

release of classified, documented proof of their commitment, whether that proof exists

or not. They have retired to a position that leaves only one option: convince the world

or accept the grievous judgment inherent to all wasted efforts. To avoid the latter

infliction, the willingness to invent what cannot be reasonably established by more

honest means has become for them the only way to validate their faith. The scope of

their inflexibility as measured in their "group-think" response to recent pronouncements

by the White House that "The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists

outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any

member of the human race," fundamentally represents a wholesale rejection of any

explanation whatsoever excepting the one they have promoted for decades, an

explanation that essentially allows them to announce in full confidence, See? I told you

so (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45176460/ns/technology_and_science-space

for further details regarding the White Houses pronouncements).

More significantly, at least in regard to the paranoid assertions of Robert Hastings,

Robert Salas and that whole little coterie of conspirators they associate with, the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy insisted as well that "there is no

credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the publics eye."

It is their sullen and dismissive reaction to this particular assertion that shows best their

conscious attempts to lay waste the numerous contributions at every level of American

society that members of the military have selflessly exhibited, in the hopes, one

supposes, of deflating with their anabolic corruption the open contempt the great


32/41

majority of these veterans have for such self-centered interests as those Hastings and

his ilk currently espouse.

Unfortunately, given that various polls conducted within the past few years seem to

indicate that upwards of 50 percent of the United States population nonetheless believe

that the government is covering up information regarding UFOs, the conclusion that

there has been some notable success regarding what is essentially a public relations

program in search of political clout, influence, and public confidence is a little difficult to

dismiss. The fact that there is no threat is simply not relevant to their cause. It is,

however, relevant to the nation. After all, if there is no threat, only belief in the threat,

which is essentially the end result of this group's reliance on conspiratorial and

dishonest connivance, the result will always be the same: to some degree, their

machinations will engender doubt in elected leaders, doubt in their ability to govern,

doubtin the nation's military leadership and abilities to conduct itself honorably, doubtin

the assigned caretakers of our nuclear arsenal and facilities, doubtin the nation's ability

to defend itself from both open insurrection and open contempt for the sovereignty of

our nation, doubt in the desire

the government has for open

and national conversations with

the citizens it represents

involving all of the above in

recognition of the due contract a

government naturally and

necessarily binds itself to with

the nation's citizenry in

accordance with beliefs held

and honored since its original

conception, and doubt in the very process of democracy by highlighting its inability to

resolve such "important" issues. These self-serving ideologues will and have

encouraged the growth of unjustified fear and paranoia and all of the happy little

singularities that follow such impulses around like a brothel follows an army on the


33/41

move. Nothing about the ultimate effect of their aggression is good; it produces

dissatisfaction, an overwhelming sense of failure, and an ultimate reliance on self-

justified anarchy and crime, all resulting from dishonest attempts to secure national

policy goals, victimizing associated security issues while justifying the necessity to make

a target of military administration and protocol, and very obviously and obscenely using

the internet as a tool for emotional terrorism. Frankly, it's sickening to see the process

in action.

While it's difficult to deny the ultimate chaos and social divisions establishing the

destructive character of the strategies these men and women have adopted, they are

nonetheless notalone; there are enough of them actively at work, communicating with

each other, publishing at the same venues, and actively conspiring to provide support

both moral and overt, to establish, at the very least, the primary differences between

them. Their specific contributions to this destructive cause, for instance, tend to

separate them into two detached classes united by similar goals and the desire to

create change within the structures of group dynamics and social conditioning:

witnesses and chroniclers, or collectors, one group to provide the flame and one group

to fan it.

For the most part, the proposed "witnesses" and "chroniclers, or collectors" who are

affiliated with this loosely organized cabal share some common characteristics:

1. They change their stories significantly over time; the incidents they've

elected to describe tend to evolve through the years.

Those individuals who honestly attempt to describe actual events that they have

witnessed will only rarely change the basic facts and the character behind their claims;

the members of this coalition of claimants, however, do so consistently. This is true

even for those individuals who have submitted affidavits attesting to the "honest"

character of their affirmations. They merely submit newaffidavits when the changes

they've made demand it. For the most part, these changes are necessitated by the


34/41

valid criticism of the events they've described. When it becomes impossible to continue

telling the same ridiculous little folktale as a result of critical assessments that prove

robust elements theyve depicted as integral to their claims could not possibly have

occurred as they were described, they merely change the description.

Consider the questioning of a suspect for burglary: the offender insists loudly and

repeatedly that he did not burglarize the residence in question, because he was at

home watching "C.S.I." at the same time the crime allegedly took place. He couldn't

possibly have committed the offense in question. Every attempt to accuse the suspect

of burglary is met with the same refrain: "I was at home watching 'C.S.I.' I remember it

very well, because it was the first episode in which Laurence Fishburne appeared

great show, great episode!"

After hours of these withering yet senseless claims that fail utterly to provide the alibi or

some form of confirmation that the suspect desperately needs, the questioning officer

presents to the suspect a copy ofT.V. Guide for the week in question: "'C.S.I.' wasn't

even aired on the date of the burglary; you're clearly lying, and you're doing so with the

same absence of shame any child would have. Do you have an alibi for the night in

question or not?"

"Did I say 'C.S.I.'? I meant to say an old rerun of 'Green Acres' on Nickelodeon. I

remember it well, because it was the episode in which Arnold the Piggy ran away from

home great show, great episode! Sorry about that, I get the two shows mixed up all

the time..."

"They're not even remotely similar! How is it possible to get them mixed up?"

"Did I say the two shows? I meant the characters, the actors I got them mixed up."

"Laurence Fishburne and Arnold the Piggy? You got them mixed up?"


35/41

"Yeah..." And still, the suspect presents nothing that smells like proof. He just tells

more stories, changing them repeatedly until people stop asking silly questions, like "are

you sure you're telling the truth and not just making this up as you go along?"

2. In order to convince those skeptical of their claims that they are indeed

telling the truth, they pepper their claims with dramatic effects intended to

evince the deeply personal aspect of their claims, as if their tales represent

a psychological and evaluative, yet remarkably inconsistent, revelation.

For instance, they might insist that upon first confronting this new revelation that they

were skeptical, but were nonetheless forced to accept the truth of what they were

witnessing due to the transformative and unique qualities inherent to the incident. The

reality of the event has nothing to do with the "witness"; it is as separate from him as it

is from any possible interpretation that he (or anyone critical of his claims) might

otherwise adopt. His impressions are irrelevant, just as the impressions of anyone

critical of his claims are irrelevant. An actual witness to any event, however, does not

separate his impressions of the incident from the incident itself, and that deeply

personal aspect of their claimsdoes not change every time the witness is forced to

reconsider those claims. For instance, a witness does not insist that a revelatory event

he failed to discuss for thirty years, because he just never gave it much thought until

one day, he did, must now be discussed ad infinitum as an important element of

national policy because the effects of that incident, not only on him, but on those around

him as well, was so striking and difficult for him to get past thirty years ago when it

originally occurred. The inconsistent focus of his impressions, as much as the

inconsistent content of his claims, indicates the falsity hes trying to hide every single

time he smiles at the audience and raises the issue one more time: If you want to truly

understand the deceit that our government engages in, the damage it causes to its own

citizenry, and the explosive revelations that it refuses to openly affirm, you have to buy

my book.


36/41

3. Only very rarely are the most explosive revelations of testimony based on

personal observation.

For the most part, these individuals discuss only second-hand testimony and poorly-

defined rumors to establish their claims, none of which can be definitively associated

with the primary element of this testimony: UFO interference with nuclear weapons and

facilities. In many cases, they arent even familiar enough with the arguments theyve

chosen to discuss to simply present in a public way the incidents selected in a neutral,

non-judgmental and fact-based manner. Its apparently the absolute and primary

character of this charade to never make oneself the legal originator of the most

ridiculous elements involved, especially if someone with less intelligence and self-

respect is willing to do so. Its almost as if they were concerned that there might be

legal constrictions involved, although even the most cursory examination of their claims

almost instantly reveals that legal complaints would be a waste of time to even file. Not

that it matters, of course. The targets of their false claims have very clearly disclosed

an inclination to believe, so I hardly think legal measures will ever be examined, let

alone pursued. In any case, its just as profitable for them to say, Well, it was this other

guy who told me, and he was being completely honest, and I trust him implicitly, but for

the life of me, I just cant remember his name. Maybe someday, with a little luck and

some spare testosterone, that guy will grow some cojones like mine, and come

forward

4. When documented evidence is presented, its either poorly understood by

those attempting to use it as a resource, or its incomplete.

This aspect of their conspiracy to deceive is particularly problematic. If the evidence

presented is poorly understood, as is often the case when military documentation is

involved, the conclusions reached are far more likely to be unsupportable. Not

everybody understands classified materials protocol or military procedures, however, so

this is an understandable error that doesnt necessarily reflect poorly on the education,

the applicable knowledge, or the morality of those attempting to interpret the evidence


37/41

for the public. On the other hand, there are many "witnesses" and "chroniclers, or

collectors" who present interpretations that are so egregiously wrong that the only

conclusion to be reached insists that these individuals were merely creating a reason

from nothing, allowing them to dismiss with prejudice skeptical issues or accounts,

whether they could be properly justified or not, or are forcing their interpretation to

encompass the possibility of UFO interference where it plainly does not belong, both of

which are most definitelymoral issues.

This same dichotomy applies if the documented accounts are incomplete. If this is due

to the failure to reveal in full the remainder of such accounts as a result of poor research

or the incomplete declassification of the documents being used, no blame can be

attached. On the other hand, if documented evidence has been recovered, and those

presenting such evidence purposely neglected to exa

by their works shall ye know them: ramifications of the 2011 f.e. warren afb ufo hoax by james...

Documents