The U.F.O. skeptics are in denial

originally posted by: Harte

In other words, we got nothing.

Harte

Save your breath. Cellty thinks everything looks like this



when most know that the reality is somewhere between



and

a reply to: neoholographic
Still trying to stir the pot with your nonsense I see. Also making leaps of faith.
You seem to lack the understanding in your argument that even if your pilot sees something he doesn't understand, it doesn't automatically connect to it being piloted by an alien being. In your world of low-level anecdotal evidence it does. For some context, you're also someone who believes extraterrestrials came to Earth thousands of years ago and had sex with humans - HERE
Another claim that has absolutely has no scientific evidence. It demonstrates your mindset, line of thinking, and willingness to believe in other foolish claims. It gives others that read the silly convictive tone you have about UFOs/aliens an insight to how you think. In reality, you know no more than anyone else here and I've yet to see you provide anything convincing after being a member here for years.

I would make a safe bet that the skeptical on this forum have done far more deep investigation into cases than you have ever done. The sensationalized BS claims take very little research and are readily available online, that's what sells. To look into all sides of a case takes deep research and investigation.

THANK-YOU TTSA!









Have a wonderful day everyone!!!

originally posted by: celltypespecific
THANK-YOU TTSA!

Have a wonderful day everyone!!!

It's amazing to see the same pseudoskeptics saying the same thing since I registered at ATS in 2012. It's like they shield themselves in ignorance so they never have to examine the evidence.

If all Pilots are unreliable idiots then they don't have to take seriously what any Pilot is saying.

You have a mass sighting at a nuke plant where nukes malfunction and multiple eyewitness in the Military are reporting what they're seeing, the illogical pseudoskeptic shields themselves in ignorance and says all eyewitnesses are unreliable idiots so they don't have to take seriously anything the eywitnesses at the nuke site say.

Although most people are completely unaware of its existence, the UFO-Nukes Connection is now remarkably well-documented. U.S. Air Force, FBI, and CIA files declassified via the Freedom of Information Act establish a convincing, ongoing pattern of UFO activity at American nuclear weapons sites extending back to December 1948.

To date, Hastings has interviewed more than 150 military veterans who were involved in various UFO-related incidents at U.S. missile sites, weapons storage facilities, and nuclear bomb test ranges. The events described by these individuals leave little doubt that the U.S. nuclear weapons program is an ongoing source of interest to someone possessing vastly superior technology.

www.ufohastings.com...

Again, a pseudoskeptic has to shield themselves in ignorance. You have to say all of these Veterans are unreliable idiots and instead listen to the pseudoskeptic that wasn't there instead of the Veterans that are describing what they saw.

The evidence is overwhelming for extraterrestrial visitation.

GOODMORNING WONDERFUL PEOPLE!!!!!! Its such a lovely day!!!!!



www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

You

If all Pilots are unreliable idiots then they don't have to take seriously what any Pilot is saying.

Pilot Distraction

Distraction - the Human Factor
• We are hard-wired for distraction
• Engineered into the aircraft
• Bottom line – we respond to distractions every single time
• Any safety solutions we adopt must incorporate the assumption that pilots will be distracted

pacdeff.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

The evidence is overwhelming for extraterrestrial visitation.

No it isn't. Because none of that evidence is proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

MORE GOOD NEWS !!!!




twitter.com...

Looks like someone has been completely wrong for the last three years

originally posted by: neoholographic
Although most people are completely unaware of its existence, the UFO-Nukes Connection is now remarkably well-documented. U.S. Air Force, FBI, and CIA files declassified via the Freedom of Information Act establish a convincing, ongoing pattern of UFO activity at American nuclear weapons sites extending back to December 1948.

www.ufohastings.com...

Very few people have the patience to wade through all the minutia of Hastings' claims, and seeing how superficial your claims are, neoholographic, I doubt you'll ever look into it , but for anybody who wants a more balanced view of the subject, do what Tim Printy suggests. Read what Hastings has written, see his movie, and also read what the skeptics like him and others have said, and decide for yourself.

It's very difficult to summarize such a complex topic as that, but just for example, according to Tim Printy, the opening scene of Hastings' movie refers to an FBI document about green fireballs spotted in the Los Alamos area, so it's a real document, but sounds like meteors to him, so it's hardly proof of aliens. Two other authors have also written quite a bit about Hastings claims, so I'll provide links to all three for anybody who wants to learn the other side of the story; you can read about Hastings' side at the ufohastings.com link.

Tim Herbert's article, Echo Flight: The Makings of a UFO Myth

Tim Herbert's critique of Hastings' movie "UFOs and Nukes"

Hastings responded to Herbert's critique. This link covers that and Tim Herbert's reply

James Carlson's father, Eric Carlson, was at Malmstrom AFB when Hastings' witnesses say a UFO shot down some nuclear missiles. James Carlson claims to have evidence proving Hasting's story is a lie that has no basis in fact and lacks even the most liberal standards of proof. Carlson's father did not tell the same story as the other witnesses, a fact Hastings chooses to overlook, in fact Hastings is very selective about his evidence and anything that confirms his bias he includes, but he leaves out the evidence that contradicts his bias, which Tim Printy pointed out. You can download James Carlson's book for free, or read it for free at the link below. Carlson has no profit motive like Hastings does, and is only trying to get the truth out there.

Echo Flight UFO incident, March 1967, by James Carlson

In this manuscript I debunk completely the Echo Flight UFO Incident of March 16, 1967, and prove that the myth of UFO interference with the nuclear weapons systems at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 is a nothing but a poorly executed lie propogated by Robert Salas, James Klotz, Robert Hastings, Brad Sparks, CUFON, and NICAP -- a lie that has no basis in fact and lacks even the most liberal standards of proof. I've utilized newly discovered documents, in addition to the same documents, interviews, and published statements originally used and badly interpreted to support the belief in UFO interference with the Malmstrom missile systems, in order to destroy in minute, step-by-step detail, every aspect of the claims originally made by Robert Salas and James Klotz in their book "Faded Giant". Fully documented and footnoted, I examine in some detail all sides of this surprisingly well-documented event, reaching the only possible conclusion that UFOs had nothing at all to do with any of the events at Malmstrom in March, 1967 and nothing whatsoever to do with the missile failures that occurred. If you haven't read this book in its entirety, then you do not understand the events that occurred at Echo Flight and elsewhere that March.

I'm distributing this book completely free of charge in order to correct the historical record so badly maligned by the individuals named above, and because my father was the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. I believe that his entire, very honorable career has been co-opted by fools and liars as a footnote to their descriptions of an event that never occurred.

If you would rather download a copy of this book, it has been published at:
www.scribd.com...

Tim Printy has an excellent article with many links to both sides of the story, in his Sunlite publication.

Robert Hastings’ recently released film, “UFOs and Nukes: The secret link revealed”, has been praised, by Hastings himself, as presenting “overwhelming evidence” ...Without supporting documentation, it is hard to accept the more exotic details of these stories. This is why his claim that this is overwhelming evidence falls flat to individuals outside of the UFO community.
...
I encourage the reader to read my article, Tim Hebert’s critique, and, if possible, watch Hastings’ film. In my opinion, it is only after viewing all points of view, and doing one’s own research, can one make an accurate assessment of the claims Hastings has made.

Printy's article "Underwhelming Evidence" about Hastings' claims starts on page 7 of the pdf

In his opening presentation of evidence, Hastings presents us with a January 31, 1949 FBI memo that describes UFOs appearing in December of 1948 near Los Alamos. 5 The FBI memo does describe sightings around the Los Alamos area but most, if not all, of these are not observations of “Flying saucers” but “Green fireballs”. While many consider these something related to UFOs, I consider them nothing more than bright meteors, which can be green. No evidence has ever been presented that they were alien spaceships as Hastings suggests.

The evidence is overwhelming for extraterrestrial visitation.

Like the green meteors in Hastings' movie?

There's no scientific evidence for ET visitation that I have ever seen, but if you think you have some, show your best evidence. People seeing something they don't understand flying around certainly doesn't prove what they saw was alien, even though that's apparently what you seem to think. If Tim Printy is right that the opening scene in Hasting's movie is talking about what sounds like green meteors, they were green at least, like some meteors are, but not little green men.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
GOODMORNING WONDERFUL PEOPLE!!!!!! Its such a lovely day!!!!!

www.newsweek.com...

Ahhh, Lou Dobbs got the pee tape. Mystery solved.

Trump must be pretty worried if he's at the "Ill do what ever you say, just re-elect me" point in his campaign.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL, this is what you call evidence? An opinion shrouded in qyalifying statements? Here's some examples of your evidence.

After 44 years, none of the supposed eye witnesses have ever been identified, nor have these people ever came forward, concluding that they may never have existed in the first place.

This is just a lie. Witnesses did come forward and told the story as to what happened. There's not a shred of evidence that they made anything up. It's just his "conclusion" based on nothing. I can easily say it strengthens their case because you have people that saw a U.F.O. who just want to life their life. They don't want to be bothered with pseudoskeptics like you.

He made an accusation that Figel was paid for his interview. Hastings was asked about this:

"As for Tim Hebert's comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I'm sure that both men would like to know."

Let me repeat that because this is your evidence LOL!

"As for Tim Hebert's comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I'm sure that both men would like to know."

So this person conjured in his head that Figel was lying and was paid for an interview but it turns out he was wrong and the guys just didn't want to be involved more than they were. Who can blame them when rabid pseudoskeptics try to destroy them just because of what they're saying about U.F.O.'s. Here's more:

Walter Figel's perceived reluctance to publicly support Hastings' UFO theory, as evidence by, his absence from the D.C press conference, lack of an affidavit affirming his statements.

PERCEIVED RELUCTANCE???

He never talked to the man. He was reluctant because he didn't want to be involved more than he was but again, the genius you quoted "perceived reluctance" or it would be better to say he conjured this reluctance up in his head.

I just can't take you serious. You're a determined pseudoskeptic who says illogical things like all Pilots are unreliable. Nobody with a little common sense accepts such nonsense. Look at what you posted in bold letters.

While many consider these something related to UFOs, I consider them nothing more than bright meteors, which can be green. No evidence has ever been presented that they were alien spaceships as Hastings suggests.

Let me repeat this part:

While many consider these something related to UFOs

So the people who experienced these things and others relate this sighting to U.F.O.'s we're supposed to drop common sense and reason because he said:

I consider them nothing more than bright meteors, which can be green.

So were supposed to believe him despite what others say and despite the fact that he has nothing but a long post with no comments and a bunch of qualifying statements and outright lies?

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL, this is what you call evidence? An opinion shrouded in qyalifying statements? Here's some examples of your evidence.

After 44 years, none of the supposed eye witnesses have ever been identified, nor have these people ever came forward, concluding that they may never have existed in the first place.

This is just a lie. Witnesses did come forward and told the story as to what happened. There's not a shred of evidence that they made anything up. It's just his "conclusion" based on nothing. I can easily say it strengthens their case because you have people that saw a U.F.O. who just want to life their life. They don't want to be bothered with pseudoskeptics like you.

He made an accusation that Figel was paid for his interview.

Read what Tim Herbert said in context, since you have shown you like to twist words around and take things out of context like you are doing here. Figel was one of Hasting's star witnesses and Figel changed his story, and would not sign an affidavit, after which Hastings became agitated and Tim Herbert was trying to figure out why Hastings was making veiled threats against Figel, so he asked a question if maybe Figel had received payment from Hastings, which might give Hastings reason to do what he did:

Case Closed! A Re-Evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident

On 27 September 2010, Hastings and Salas gave a press conference in Washington D.C. (National Press Club). Up to seven former Air Force members provided affidavits affirming UFO activity over either Echo or Oscar flight. Notably missing from this group was Walter Figel. A check on Salas' Web page listed all of the signed affidavits and contents. No where was there listed a signed affidavit from Walter Figel affirming his story. In the past, I thought this to be a mystery, but in light of my new conclusion, it may fit perfectly well. If the UFO story had no truth to it, and Figel was aware of the story's exaggerations, it would be reasonable to assume that he would not have been willing to produce an affidavit affirming it, nor would he be willing to advance the exaggerations before a national audience by his presence.

This could further explain Hastings' public frustrations concerning Figel's lack of group conformity. In recent on-line postings, Hastings had chastised Figel's "back tracking" as timid and waffling since Figel's story was the corner stone to Hastings' UFO theory. In some of Hastings' posting, he had issued veiled threats of legal action against Figel. Why threats of legal action? Figel never signed an affidavit so he is not legally bound to Hastings in that regard. The only other way that Hastings could have a legal argument is if he had a personal contractual agreement with Figel. Did Robert Hastings pay for Figel's interview back in 2008? This would explain Hastings angst and legal threats if he indeed had such a contract with Figel.

He did try to ask Figel about this himself and posted his inquiry, asking Figel directly if he was paid by Hastings:

In an attempt to see if Figel would be willing to clarify my questions and assumptions, I personally sent the following email:

Col. Figel, my name is Tim Hebert. I, like you, am a former Minuteman crew member. I was assigned to Malmstrom AFB, 490th SMS, from 1981-1985, with a follow-on assignment to Grand Forks AFB, Wing Codes Division, from 1985 to 1988. I'm writing you in regards to the Echo Flight case which occurred back in 1967, as I have been following the history of the case and on-going points of contention between Robert Hastings and James Carlson. I was wondering if you would indulge a fellow Minuteman crew dog by my asking your opinion of the case. I am aware that the Echo Flight incident occurred some 40 years ago and that you have been asked numerous times for your recollections of that event, yet will spare me some of your time.
...
When Hastings and Salas gave their press conference in Washington D.C. back on 27 Sept. 2010, I noticed that you were not in attendance. This struck me as odd as for the past few years Mr. Hastings has used your interviews as the foundation to proffer his UFO theory. Did Mr. Hastings ever ask you to sign an affidavit similar to the other participants of that conference? If Hastings did ask and you declined, why so?

And lastly, did Mr. Hastings offer to pay you for your interview? Please forgive my directness, but if this was so, then this would explain Mr. Hastings on and off attitude towards you as he has recently stated in numerous articles that you were "timid" and "waffling" as far as his (Hastings) perceived weakening support for his UFO theory.

Your thoughts in these matters would be greatly appreciated. Quite honestly this would go along way towards the clearing up of a lot of confusion concerning this case. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Robert Hastings (he is not a fan of mine) as he tends to paint those of us that served honorably in SAC and on the crew force as pawns or dupes of the government. It appears that he may attempt to do the same regarding the recent events at FE Warren. Our command and government were not perfect by any means, but we all, including our leadership, attempted to do the best that was possible in the defense of the country.

So this person conjured in his head that Figel was lying and was paid for an interview but it turns out he was wrong and the guys just didn't want to be involved more than they were.

No this is another example of you twisting what was actually said.

He never talked to the man.

He tried. He asked Figel to clear things up, but Figel didn't reply.

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

Herbert worked at the same missile facility as Figel, Salas and Carlson, so he is a veteran himself, experienced with the missile facility Hastings tells his story about, and he has talked to lots of other missile veterans since he worked with them personally.

Robert Hastings questions the silence from the "debunkers/skeptics"

Hastings' 150 former military members? What of the silence of the tens of thousands of us who pulled nuclear alerts over the span of 5 decades?

You also twisted what Tim Printy said about the green meteors debunking all of Hastings claims. Printy wrote his blow-by-blow commentary on Hasting's movie, and the grteen meteors was only about that part of the film.

So the people who experienced these things and others relate this sighting to U.F.O.'s we're supposed to drop common sense and reason..

recognizing meteors for what they are is not dropping common sense. As for all the other stories from Hastings, Printy does not cite meteors, so again you're distorting what he said by implying green meteors debunks everything. I doubt you even read his article.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This was a lot of nothing!

You obfuscated and you didn't answer my question. I asked yoi another question like 8 times and you didn't answer that question. I guess this is round 2 of you avoiding questions.

Let's start with the question I asked:

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

Again, he assumed Figel was paid for his interview. Nobody told him this, he just conjured it up and Hastings was asked about this and responded this way.

"As for Tim Hebert's comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I'm sure that both men would like to know."

Why didn't Figel reach out to Herbert directly or indirectly and trash Hastings?

Again, Herbert is another illogical pseudoskeptic that makes inferences and turns them into facts in his own mind. Here's how one poster on his blog smacked him down in the very few comments he gets.

Let's look at the illogical statements of pseudoskeptics. You quoted Printy saying:

Hastings' 150 former military members? What of the silence of the tens of thousands of us who pulled nuclear alerts over the span of 5 decades?

Herbert said the same thing on his blog:

You mention 100 professionals that Hastings had interviewed, what of the 10,000 plus that offer no such testimony...me being one of them?

This is like saying 100 stores were robbed in the city but 1,000 stores were not robbed so we're not going to believe the 100 that were robbed because they must be lying LOL. This is the pseudoskeptic lack of common sense just like you said all Pilots are unreliable. It's what I talked about earlier, the shield of ignorance.

Again, I end with a question.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

The reason you will not answer this question is because the answer is...........ZERO

It's pseudoskeptic nonsense full of qualifying statements that shows he's conjured these things in his head.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

This was a lot of nothing!

You obfuscated and you didn't answer my question. I asked yoi another question like 8 times and you didn't answer that question. I guess this is round 2 of you avoiding questions.

Let's start with the question I asked:

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

Again, he assumed Figel was paid for his interview. Nobody told him this, he just conjured it up and Hastings was asked about this and responded this way.

"As for Tim Hebert's comments, no, Figel was not paid for his interviews with me, nor was Meiwald. Neither want to get further involved in the controversy and certainly will not provide affidavits. Are you saying that Cols. Figel and Meiwald are lying, Tim? I'm sure that both men would like to know."

Why didn't Figel reach out to Herbert directly or indirectly and trash Hastings?

Again, Herbert is another illogical pseudoskeptic that makes inferences and turns them into facts in his own mind. Here's how one poster on his blog smacked him down in the very few comments he gets.

Let's look at the illogical statements of pseudoskeptics. You quoted Printy saying:

Hastings' 150 former military members? What of the silence of the tens of thousands of us who pulled nuclear alerts over the span of 5 decades?

Herbert said the same thing on his blog:

You mention 100 professionals that Hastings had interviewed, what of the 10,000 plus that offer no such testimony...me being one of them?

This is like saying 100 stores were robbed in the city but 1,000 stores were not robbed so we're not going to believe the 100 that were robbed because they must be lying LOL. This is the pseudoskeptic lack of common sense just like you said all Pilots are unreliable. It's what I talked about earlier, the shield of ignorance.

Again, I end with a question.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

The reason you will not answer this question is because the answer is...........ZERO

It's pseudoskeptic nonsense full of qualifying statements that shows he's conjured these things in his head.

How many of these 150 Veterans came out and said they were lying and recanted their stament? How many came out and said Hastings is a liar so don't trust him?

I'm waiting for your answer...........

People who have told a lie don't typically recant until they are found out.

Harte

I have nearly zero doubt that there are many civilizations out there in the universe...even galaxy
I haven't been sold on the idea that they are checking up on us. Not saying they aren't, just no real evidence of aliens here.

UFOs are unidentified..and if its unidentified, then you can't then just decide to identify it as something that isn't even proven to exist.

I do love entertaining the notion though, and even though I know a lot of it is bogus, I love the concept of the ancient aliens stuff...fun subject to kick around, but again with that...its usually misrepresentations, debunked stuff, and just general light mysteries that you can't assign meaning to unless you want to (proof of: aliens, demons, jinn, ghosts, time travellers, etc).

originally posted by: neoholographic
How many of these 150 Veterans came out and said they were lying and recanted their stament? How many came out and said Hastings is a liar so don't trust him?

I'm waiting for your answer...........

originally posted by: Harte
People who have told a lie don't typically recant until they are found out.

Harte

That's sort of what happened with Hastings' star witnesses I think. If you say something that's not true, is that a lie? It depends on how you define lie I suppose. Of the 150 witnesses Hastings talks about, he's posted 7 affidavits on his website.

The number of Hastings' witnesses who have affidavits posted on his website is much smaller than 150, it's 7. The very first witness there, Robert Salas, first said something with UFOs and Nukes happened at one location, but there was a problem with his story, it wasn't true. The story was about something happening when he was on duty at November Flight. Then, he changed his story, and said, nope, my story about something happening at November flight wasn't true. So if it wasn't true, does that make it a lie? It's not me calling him a liar, this is from a site which says "This material is © Copyright 1999 by Robert Salas and Jim Klotz", where he admits he changed his story:

www.cufon.org...

This material is © Copyright 1999 by Robert Salas and Jim Klotz

Updated - 15-May-2000 - *please note that in previous versions of this presentation, we stated that Robert Salas was on duty in the November-Flight LCC. Later research and witness testimony has revealed that it was actually Oscar-Flight.*

So how reliable is a changing story like his when he apparently can't remember or got confused about which site was allegedly involved? This is compounded by the fact nobody has found any documentation supporting his story at either location.

We know that documentation exists of a shutdown at Echo flight, so if there was a shutdown, why would there only be documentation only at Echo flight, and not at November Flight, oops, I mean Oscar flight, unless he's wrong about that too?

I don't know if he was intentionally lying, maybe he just got confused, but whatever the cause, this doesn't do wonders for his credibility, plus that fact most of Hastings witnesses are trying to remember things that happened decades earlier. People can misremember things even a week after an event, and the problem of memory loss and distortion gets much greater after several decades.

So, the first story wasn't really true, and it was changed by the witness himself, and there's no documentation to back up either version of the story, like there was with Walt Figel's case, which had some documentation to back up that there was a shutdown of nukes at Echo flight, but he wouldn't sign an affidavit. Hastings also interviewed Figel's commander, Eric Carlson, who confirmed that yes there was a shutdown at Echo flight, but no it didn't have anything to do with a UFO. The documentation of a shutdown at Echo flight is consistent with Carlson's story.

The next witness is Charles Halt. Wow! Hastings must be really desperate for affidavits to include this man's debunked affidavit, because he also has changed his story. He can't even confirm there were nukes at his site but let's assume that there were nukes there he's not allowed to talk about. Still,the UFOs he saw had absolutely NOTHING to do with the supposed nukes. NOTHING. Some of the best evidence in his case is his own audiotape where he tells his men to look at the flashing light. Then 5 seconds later, he says there it is again. And it so happens that the interval of the orfordness lighthouse was 5 seconds, a perfect match for what's on his audiotape. You can hear Halt's audiotape superimposed with beeps at 5 second interval on this website:

The Orfordness lighthouse has an interval of 5 seconds. Now listen to the same exchange again; I've added a beep at exactly five second intervals:

Find that text on the link and listen to the audio right after it, it's Halt's own evidence that shows the 5-second interval, exactly.

As I said Hastings must really be desperate for affidavits to use Halt's affidavit, because Ian Ridpath has entire webpage exposing all the problems with Halt's affidavit, the same one that's on Hastings' website! Halt's own testimony puts him in front of the farmhouse when he saw the flashing light, and Halt's claim the Orfordness lighthouse is 40 degrees to the right can be and has been destroyed, in fact the lighthouse is right where Halt said the "UFO" or flashing light was!! It's really ballsy of Hastings to use something so thoroughly debunked; anybody who has looked into this thoroughly knows this affidavit about the Orfordness lighthouse being 40 degrees to the right is false and has been proven false with maps.

Other points involve Halt contradicting his own story that he told about 30 years earlier, so you don't even need to take Ridpath's word on those, just see Halt's early story or hear it on his audiotape, and compare that to his later story in the affidavit, and see for yourself how they contradict each other.

Col Halt - Rewriting history at Rendlesham


So there are only 7 affidavits I could find on Hastings' site, and the first two completely destroy their own credibility, by changing their own stories. Nobody even has to call them liars. Just read what they said initially, then read what the said later, and see they contradict themselves.

For the remaining 5, 4 did not see a UFO personally, but received calls about UFOs or heard about UFOs.

So only one other affidavit is from a witness who says he say a UFO personally, Patrick McDonough. But if you know the history of UFOs, you know that many thousands of UFOs have been seen and reported by thousands of people, all over the place. And Partrick McDonough appears to be one of those thousands of people who saw a UFO, and it happened to be in the vicinity of some nukes. But with UFOs being seen everywhere, it seems inevitable some would be seen by folks near nuke locations too.

But McDonough doesn't describe any interaction of the UFO with the nukes, just that he and some other people saw a UFO in the area, and there were nukes in the area. People see UFOs everywhere, why not near nukes too? I don't see anything special about his affidavit that establishes any connection between the UFO he saw and nukes, and I'm positive there's no connection between the "UFOs" Halt saw and the "nukes he can't confirm existed". Halt lied in his affidavit about the lighthouse location, to cover the fact he saw the lighthouse.

I can't speak to the remainder of the 150 witnesses Hastings talked to for which he provided no affidavits, but I would say Hastings' judgement is severely impaired if he things Halt's affidavit supports his case, it merely shows that Hastings will accept a demonstrably flawed account which isn't even consistent with what Halt recorded on his own audiotape, some of the best evidence in existence for what really happened.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL, I knew this is what you would do. Write a long post that doesn't answer the question and doesn't refute anything.

You are the perfect example of how illogical pseudoskeptics think. Everyone that talks about U.F.O.'s can't be credible. So all Pilots are unreliable idiots and the only thing that's reliable is the pseudoskeptics illogical and biased opinions.

First let's look at the questions I asked and then we will learn why you made this long post trying to obfuscate the issue. I figured the reason why it took you so long to answer because you couldn't answer the questions I asked so you think people are so gullible they will look at your post and forget you never answered the questions.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

What happened to Tim Herbert? There's no mention of Tim Herbert in your post. For your last few posts all you talked about was Herbert but now nothing. I said this:

The reason you will not answer this question is because the answer is...........ZERO

You're making me feel Psychic LOL!

I then asked this:

How many of these 150 Veterans came out and said they were lying and recanted their stament? How many came out and said Hastings is a liar so don't trust him?

Again, you didn't answer. This is because the answer will show how illogical pseudoskeptics are.

150 people + more he has talked to on his website and none of them has come out and said Hastings is a liar. Hastings isn't credible. Man that Hastings tried to pushe me to lie.

This is why you put together that long nothingburger of a post. I have asked you several questions on this thread and you dodge them with a long meaningless post that doesn't answer the question.

You think people are dumb. They're not going to say he's not credible because they know the pseudoskeptics illogical routine. You attack everyone that talks about U.F.O.'s as not credible. This is your shield of ignorance. If he's not credible then you don't have to think. If he's not credible and you find one or two things then you can shut out the other 100 things that he said. Most people are smarter than this. They're not going to discredit and disregard everything he says because a pseudoskeptic say he's not credible.

Again, 150 PEOPLE + INTERVIEWED AND SOME WITH AFFIDAVITS AND NOT ONE HAS CAME OUT AND SLAMMED HASTINGS AS NOt CREDIBLE.

This is the definition of credibility! When you can talk to this many people and nobody complains or calls you a liar, that refutes your desperate attempts to try to paint Hastings as not credible because the way the illogical pseudoskeptic thinks is everyone that talks about U.F.O.'s isn't credible.

You can't sell a product on Amazon and get 150 reviews without 2 or 3 bad ones. It's just human nature. Hear Hastings talked to all of these Veterans about U.F.O.'s. They joined him at a press briefing on this and NOT ONE HAS SUPPORTED YOUR ASSERTION THAT HASTING'S ISN' T CREDIBLE!

Here's Dwayne Arneson backing up Salas at a UFO and Nukes Press Conference. A 26 year Officer and Veteran that served in Vietnam. He also had top secret Crypto clearance.



Listen to what he says. Is he credible? Yes. What he's saying is in line with what the Navy and the Government today is starting to say about U.F.O.'s. These guys are Pioneers because they talked about U.F.O.'s when it wasn't a popular subject and you faced ridicule from your peers and illogical pseudoskeptics.

Here's Bob Salas testifying in front of Congress.



Here's Air Force Missle Commander Bill Jameson at the U.F.O. Nukes Press Conference.



Does he sound credible? Why would he lie? Why should you believe the illogical pseudoskeptic over these Veterans?

Here's video of the entire press conference hosted by Hastings.



I'm just glad that pseudoskeptics are really on the fringe when it comes to U.F.O.'s. Nobody takes them seriously because their illogical arguments make no sense.

If one Pilot misidentified a U.F.O. then that means all Pilots are unreliable. Who can take them seriously with that kind of illogical argument?

So stop obfuscating Arbitrageur and answer the questions directly. I don't want a long winded post that's a big nothingburger and has nothing to do with what I asked.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

Out of the 150 Veterans that Hastings talked to and some gave affidavits, how many did Tim Herbert talk to?

This is the evidence that you presented so you should know the answer. Please don't dodge the question.

Also:

How many of these 150 Veterans came out and said they were lying and recanted their stament? How many came out and said Hastings is a liar so don't trust him?

Again, you're trying to make the case that Hasting's isn't credible because in the illogical mind of the pseudoskeptic nobody that talks about U.F.O.'s can be credible. This clearly shows how asinine your arguments are and why you never directly answer questions.

If Hastings isn't credible give me the names of the people who have came out and said "Hastings isn't credible" Hastings tried to coerce me" "Hastings is a liar" "Don't trust Hastings he tried to dupe me."

He talked to all of these Veterans about U.F.O.'s and you're trying to make the case that he isn't credible so answer the question. Where's the Veterans that support what you're trying to imply about Hastings?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for posting. You are 100% incorrect, and I want to say you correct inconsistencies, so that would not make you incorrect , as usual.

Can I ask you, sir/madame, what your scientific background is and how it pertains to analysis of the UFO phenomena?


"I'm distributing this book completely free of charge in order to correct the historical record so badly maligned by the individuals named above, and because my father was the commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. I believe that his entire, very honorable career has been co-opted by fools and liars as a footnote to their descriptions of an event that never occurred."

Interesting, that there are many instances other than 16 March 67. My suspicion is the father was threatened or the son. I have seen it before.

I find this exchange interesting:
www.youtube.com...