Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers.

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
Sounds like to me that if a person was inclined to increase one's chance of seeing a magnetic/plasma type craft or UFO....they should keep an eye on the local Military base or Nuclear plant.

And also they can meditate and work at overcoming any belief systems that allow them to think this world is ok, and people should be starving if they don't work for big corporations, and that exploiting animals and nature is natural and a God given right. Because if you're way ahead of this in your world view and meditate and ask out under the stars, I'll think it wont be long before flashes that respond to your thoughts and even sitings of crafts begins.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Unity_99]

Atomic: IMO, Hastings is one of the few that I trust in this UFO field. Anyone that calls out Michael Salla's shoddy nonsense, like he does, will always have my respect.

RH: Sad to say, many people think that Salla is a credible source of information on the subject of UFOs and nukes. He is nothing of the sort and I told him so, after he wrote about my research in one of his articles, in July 2009, and then mingled my findings with a hoax perpetrated by a well-known fraud and con artist, Bill Knell, involving a supposed incident during which newsman Walter Cronkite allegedly saw a UFO shoot down an ICBM. The story was made up by Knell.

Salla, being the thoroughly incompetent "researcher" that he is, swallowed the tale without any attempt to verify its veracity and posted it online, where it was quickly picked up and disseminated by other websites.

Similar inexcusable gaffes by Salla can be found in abundance, far too many for me to address here. One especially grievous example is his blind acceptance of the MJ-12 hoax, which I first exposed in 1989 as an USAF Office of Special Investigations disinformation scheme, involving ex-OSI agent Richard Doty and now-discredited UFO researcher Bill Moore.

While Moore long ago slunk away into well-deserved oblivion, Doty and fellow disinformation specialist Robert Collins are still gleefully spreading their lies on the Internet. As noted earlier, my most recent expose on the subject is the article "Operation Bird Droppings" which may be found at the UFO Chronicles website and elsewhere.

In short, Michael Salla's uninformed rants muddy the waters and, therefore, complicate the inevitable disclosure of the reality of the UFO phenomenon by the U.S. government and other governments worldwide. It is difficult enough for the average person to weigh claims and counterclaims, in an effort to separate fact from fiction, without useless hacks like Salla creating more problems for them.

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Once we believe in a pattern, everything falls into place.

The blinking in and out of the anomaly, for instance...

If when it disappeared, it reappeared in front of another human, that human would assume that they were its "target".

I would only say "I'm the object's target" if it happened numerous times, after I had changed position in a manner that was discontinuous. Which is what we see with the RB-47 case.

Not saying that happened, btw., but that when we start believing things our entire world-view tends to mould to our beliefs.

Not matter what reality actually ... well... is.

This is an inevitable problem with humans projecting & trying to force an idea "to fit it in to the shoe." A common approach to get around this is to use computer modeling, applying a consistent approach on a large set of data, to see what falls out.

I understand you have developed methods you trust, when you evaluate information, and that's admirable, but unless this happens repeatedly we already have "all the available information" on this case. The rest is supposition based on our beliefs and our passions and our desire.

The age old, "If it's not repeatable it can't be said to be true" problem. This is a huge hurdle. I've put together a proposal to resolve this issue in a scientifically rigorous manner as I somewhat touch on below ...

I'm not saying your wrong, per se, but that we can't know, probably ever, what "right" is/was in this case.

So that's not good enough for me to make "definitive" claims.

And that, at the core, is my problem with the OP.

Your point demonstrates the difficulty of dealing with anecdotal evidence. However most people are intelligent enough that they can distinguish earnest accounts from fluff. Absolutely some people are schizophrenic. Others so badly want for their observation to be something extraordinary that they jump to the conclusion that it must be alien despite other possible mundane explanations. This is why the AF, in 1952, stopped giving credence to many UFO reports simply because it required a considerable amount of time sifting through peoples biases / perceptual errors. It's well known that 90-95% of all UFO observations are mundane, but the residue of truly astonishing accounts is what's interesting and worth narrowing in on.

Where the subject of UFOs becomes truly compelling is when there's objective evidence supporting the notion of an airborne object.

Annecdotal accounts, though not rigorous, have scientific value. More to the point I was even able to demonstrate how anecdotal UFO reports have tangibly benefited science. The trick is making those anecdotal accounts as objectively rigorous as possible to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.

Furthermore at the heart of your post is that as people collect data, they often try to fill in the "holes" with various hypotheses to rationalize the observation. Something that ufologists need to learn is to separate hypotheses from identifications and keep the facts separate from pet theories.

The study of UFOs is effectively what intelligence analysts deal with on a daily basis. They gather imperfect information, make an assessment, and then pipe data reduction reports to various governmental departments.

Much the same science still has lots of swiss-cheese sized holes and we have to take our leads wherever we get them (anecdotal or otherwise). Defining UFO as a "process to identify an unidentified aerial sighting" correctly illustrates the notion of how we as humans deal with incomplete information and how we go about gaining clarity.

In the cases where UFO sightings aren't simply misidentifications, the concept of UFOs as a process to identify the sighting provides a mental framework so the information derived from rigorous analysis reveals unassailable properties about the sighting.

The details that "fall out" of this process potentially highlight a new phenomenon. Thereby giving scientists in all areas of study ideas on how to induce / better study it.

In my view the study of UFOs can be thought of as "Intelligence gathering for Science." So at the heart of the "Ufology" is the need for an automated "process to identify an unidentified aerial object." I've been working on an application to perform this function and I've been courting NAS, NSF, & various other agencies to gain further funding.

Proof is in the eye-of-the-beholder. Thankfully scientific processes makes the bar very high. So we can say with a great deal of confidence what we know is true.

My goal is to decrease the time we spend bickering about what is and what isn't by simply ruling out what is. Then we can focus on the facts of these truly astonishing cases & try to answer for ourselves what they might represent.

To be honest I would be much happier if UFOs that exhibit craft-like properties DO NOT represent non-human or non-present-day human crafts. I'm strongly against the idea of spraying radio signals out in to space. We simply have no idea what we're exposing ourselves to. The longer we can isolate ourselves the better.

If, and I say a big IF, some UFOs represent a non-terrestrial intelligence, I can't help but think we're f##ked.

Besides, as you pointed out, very often things we ascribe somewhat incredible properties to often turn out to have more down-to-earth explanations. I'm all for this type of thinking.

Even if we're only encountering a new physical aspect of reality (ha! - only), it's still useful to our understanding of the world around us. It's the very point of science to explain things & to rigorously ascertain aspects of our reality.

The second science stops answering peoples questions in an unbiased manner, it's no longer serving its function. Furthermore it's the point of government to ensure its people safety. Many people, myself included, are floored at the utter irresponsibility of the DOD flatly stating,

No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security." www.dod.mil...

This is blatant misinformation and patently false.

Thanks to Mr. Hastings we know that on Mar. 16, 1967 in Montana at the Malmstrom AFB Minutemen Missile Launch Control Center (LCC), a perimeter security guard phoned the on-staff Deputy Crew Commander (DMCCC), Cpt. Robert Salas, in the LCC capsule to report a glowing-red orb floating over the facility. Salas not believing this instructed the man to "call [back] when something more significant happened."

5 to 10 minutes later, following another distressed security call, the alarm klaxon sounded and lights at the commander's station flashed indicating missiles were entering a "no-go," or unlaunchable, condition. Oscar-flight lost 6 to 8 missiles that morning. Several miles away at Echo-flight, under similar circumstances, another LCC crew lost all 10 missiles.

The loss of 1 nuclear missile let alone 18 is unprecedented.

According to FOIA declassified Strategic Missile Wing documents and interviews with ex-Boeing engineers’ tests were unable to identify a pathway for missile shutdowns. Mr. Salas has since gone before the National Press Club and stated that he’s willing to testify before Congress to the truthfulness of this account.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Xtraeme]

So I find this subject to be of the utmost importance not only to our understanding of the world around us, but as it relates to our very survival. The extremes of what these reported phenomena possibly represent are so dramatic that they practically scream for real scientific analysis & governmental involvement.

reply to post by Robert Hastings


Thanks for that Robert , I am aware of the incident with the dummy warhead and have seen various interviews with Robert Jacobs , who seems to me to be a take it or leave it kind of guy , Level headed and convinced of what he saw .
I appreciate the extra detail on the case and will check out the article on your site .
Keep up the good work

Traditionaldrummer: An "informed opinion" is still an opinion. Bring us some facts, something we can touch and test and verify beyond a reasonable doubt.

RH: There are thousands of facts on my website and in my book. Although the vast majority of Americans are completely unaware of *this* fact, hundreds of U.S. Air Force, FBI, and CIA documents—declassified via the Freedom of Information Act—establish a convincing pattern of UFO incursions at U.S. nuclear weapons sites, decade after decade, beginning in December 1948.

These dramatic events have occurred at missile launch sites, bomb and missile warhead storage facilities, nuclear development laboratories, and weapons test sites in Nevada and the Pacific.


Over the past 37 years, I have taken the testimony of more than 120 ex-Air Force personnel—ranging from former airmen to retired colonels—who report extraordinary encounters at nuclear weapons sites which have obvious national security implications. In fact, taken to their logical conclusion, the incidents described have *planetary* implications, given the horrific consequences of a full-scale, global nuclear war.

While most of the reported UFO incidents apparently involved mere surveillance, a few of them resulted in the shutdown of large numbers of nuclear missiles, according to former and retired U.S. Air Force personnel interviewed by myself and other researchers. Upon inspection, the missiles’ guidance and control systems were found to have been disrupted in an unknown manner, requiring the complete replacement of key components.

The most terrifying nukes-related UFO incident occurred at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, in the mid-1960s, according to former Minuteman launch officer David H. Schuur, who says that a UFO temporarily *activated* most of his missiles, requiring the immediate implementation of emergency procedures to abort their unauthorized launch!

A nearly-identical incident occurred in Soviet Ukraine in 1982, according to two retired Soviet Army officers interviewed by ABC News in 1994.

Now, granted, none of these facts are testable, per se. Nevertheless, we now have dozens of ex-USAF personnel--individuals trusted by the U.S. government to operate or guard weapons of mass destruction--coming forward and revealing that UFOs have long monitored, and sometimes tampered with, our nuclear missiles. And, according to the Soviet Army officers referenced above, the Russians have apparently had the same problem.

True, all of this is anecdotal. If you want *empirical* data related to UFOs, search websites devoted to the radar tracking evidence. For example, www.narcap.org...

Also, Ted Phillips' physical trace data website, at www.ufophysical.com...

reply to post by Robert Hastings


Welcome Mr. Hastings, just so happens I am listening to an interview you did with George Knapp on July 26, 2009 to refresh my memory.

can anyone tell me what the point of finding all this evidence is if you know the gov will never cop to it? you know practically speaking that you will never convince the masses...for lots of obvious reasons. So...practically speaking what does anyone have to gain by trying to convince anyone of anything? especially in this age when no one trusts anything because everything can be faked to a very believable degree for 99% of those who even care enough to read anything beyond a headline.

Im sorry, i totally respect the intellectual and argumentative capacity of you guys.....and this is coming from a person that believes in 'ufos' per se. I just dont think anything short of an actual invasion scenario will mean dick to the average joe or jane.

usually when i try to 'enlighten' someone to fringe technology (and i think ufo's might qualify) i like to do some background historical stuff on people and things they have never heard of but should....like Tesla and all the tech he helped create or influence. Then ill cover a few other ppl like Agnew Bahnson and T.T. Brown, Viktor Schauberger etc. ...all people and things that are pretty easy to document and prove are/were real. By this time most ppls heads are spinning and i didnt even really get to the ufo subject, albeit perhaps obliquely through some of those characters.

and whats more is....lets say i manage to, by some feat of sound reasoning, convince my audience there is somethin to all of this...... *clears throat* now what? 99% of my audience wont have the time, money, or anything else necessary to do anything to change anything....and even if that isnt true in reality.....its often already true in ppls minds....so they wont even try. This is why the whole theme, it seems....is largely a philosophical discussion/argument among those that actually care about the subject.

anyway....

What I can't stand is that people have never settled one revolving argument!


First we know our government is corrupt. If you just watch the billions of dollars that spin through our politician's offices everday, that is quite literally all the evidence you would need to understand that there is an agenda and those who dictate are those with the largest wallets. Second we think that all Politicians have no code of ethics and lie through their teeth from every angle. Henceforth all the BS that comes from campaigning and seemingly never gets achieved once in office.

So NOW all of a sudden this freedom of information act happens, which I think is a clever ploy at a seeminly clever moment in time, and we are all there waiting with our drueling mouths hanging open to cut through a whole lot of nothing, only to draw large inferences from a group of people that we already know are full of crap. WOW!

You can have your UFO dream! IMO this is crap flung from one side of the room to the other. Legitimacy is earned I think when the information presented provides a real benefit, NOT a mountain of paperwork that our bueracratic system shoveled out that seemingly leaves us scratching our heads.

As for the professor guy at IDAHO STATE! LOL! get a life your grabbing at straw this guy looks like a 78 year old wash out who is just now finally hitting the height of his career because he is to unwilling to admit that his years of research has gotten him nowhere.

Robert Hastings -- thanks again for providing so much detailed information in your responses.

By "current technology" I did mean in relation to the UFO sightings -- not just to "present" time -- but then it is possible that technology exists which actually bends spacetime.

Also I, myself, had a very close encounter with a big black equilateral triangle in the summer of 1997. I was watching X files with my sister. The show ended. She said -- there's those lights I've seen before. We go out on the deck -- there's balls of light -- each a different color -- doing wild formations on the horizon. She gets bored and goes in. I stand there and determine what it's not -- I rule out helicopter, airplane, headlights, tower lights. Then I see the lights are on a craft heading towards our house!

The craft appears over the woods of our neighbors -- slowly flying. It then goes right over our hill and then over the tree next to the hill -- so I could triangulate its size and height in the sky. It's equilateral, no fuselage, and making a humming noise, lights on each corner.

Now when I saw this I could have hit it with a rock! But I didn't dare take my eyes off it. I had already been investigating UFOs a bit -- I had read John Keel's Operation Trojan Horse and I had read Jacque Vallee. Still I had no other witnesses but my immediate reaction was this was a secret military craft.

So I told my family and my mom ran the local legal newspaper and one of the workers showed me her 3-ringed binder of all the local clippings from a mass sighting in 1978. I recently got those articles from her -- and guess what -- same craft -- a triangle. She had told me that there were cattle mutilations and one rancher even moved away. She said we "lived in a military flight test corridor."

O.K. then I discovered on rense.com that there had been many SAME sightings -- humming noise -- equilateral craft -- no fuselage. But more so -- these craft can accelerate incredibly fast!!

Robert Hastings -- have you seen the youtube footage of these triangles? About a third of them are actually the secret spy satellite which makes a triangle -- not the actual triangle craft. But there is some footage of the triangle craft actually accelerating!! It is amazing and just like you describe for the D.C. mass sighting.

O.K. I emailed this info -- most of it -- to Nick Redfern back around 2005. Redfern then told me that he had documented a triangle craft - just as all these other sightings -- equilateral - no fuselage -- only this was at a military base in the U.K. -- a U.S. military base -- 1949 I think. It was in the late 1940s.

Then I studied the articles for the local 1978 mass sighting -- Brad Ayers came out from J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO studies -- to take witness statements. A lady had missing time. She was hypnotized and she stated she had been abducted into the craft.

So what is "current technology"? Nazi technology? Tesla technology? Tesla was working on electromagnetic propulsion systems as were John Keely and Victor Schauberger, etc. Electrogravitics is a documented field for propulsion, as are ion thrusters and various other plasma designs.

Now I don't expect there to be some hard evidence that in fact this technology is military and not extraterrestrial. In fact I expect that even the military does not know. The black operations budget is HUGE and the military is so compartmentalized that no one really knows what is going on.



reply to post by Robert Hastings




[edit on 24-1-2010 by drew hempel]

Originally posted by gortex
"There is a distinct and fundamental difference between having an opinion and having an informed opinion. I've done the research for 30 years and they haven't. If they wish to indulge themselves with their uninformed opinion there is nothing I can do about that," said Hastings.

So he wasted 30 years trying to prove aliens exist, unsuccesffully and now demands rest of us do the same before we come to the conclusion they don't?

Well, I do believe they exist somewhere in the universe..without any doubt.
But..do they visit Earth? I don't think so.

reply to post by BlackShark


The song in your sig is absolutely hilarious!

I vote you internet troll of the year.





[edit on 24-1-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by seethelight


LOL...I'm not sure your definition of "serious" is acceptable, but apparently mine was not to you. I doubt I can change that seeing how if the real UFO proof existed then this message board would not exist-nor would our discussion. So let's not go down that road of "give me what I want or you're a fool" talk. We're not at a Eagles vs Giants game where you need to shout down everyone that isn't rooting for your team. I'm not rooting for anyone, but I do like to see a good player perform and Hastings, I believe is moving the yardsticks. He's opening doors that may lead to more revelations...I consider that a sign of a serious researcher.

This board can wear on you if you let it get to you...not everyone is a star child lover looking for magic aliens, or a "follower" of some UFO investigator.
I take it for what it is; a possibility that other living conscious creatures evolved before us somewhere in this universe (sorry just an opinion, I can't produce one for you). There were lifeforms on our own planet 500 million years ago...nothing says other planets haven't done the same and evolved intelligent creatures ahead of us. I try to keep a universal view and not a human centric one of "our time" being equal to "life's time".

I'm not here to defend Hastings. But I love that he is going after those that have plagued us with disinformation and their kooky bull----. His conclusions are his, I'm not 100% sure of anything.

Another factor to keep in mind about this type of "government reports" research is the "Double Bubble" technique:

cannonfire.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Atomic

reply to post by drew hempel


I find it hard to believe that Our Technology accounts for the phenomena that has been going on for so long. It probably accounts for a lot of it, but not all of it. The amount of sightings the world-over would require an *enormous* production of such craft and resources and to have been kept up for so long.

Some of the sightings occur in remote areas while others not, some occur right over people's homes and to fly such "sensitive craft" so close to "home" is not only dangerous but foolish should something go wrong, it could leave something for the "enemy" or claims of negligence by people who could be injured if such a thing like a crash happened.

Can you imagine the consequences of "toying" with "nuclear missiles?"

It seems to me that the most reasonable explanation of the facts is that the craft(some of) we are witnessing are indeed not from here.





[edit on 24-1-2010 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by drew hempel

 

I find it hard to believe that Our Technology accounts for the phenomena that has been going on for so long.

DH:

Are you implying that these sightings are the same as ancient sky sightings?

It probably accounts for a lot of it, but not all of it. The amount of sightings the world-over would require an *enormous* production of such craft and resources and to have been kept up for so long.

DH:

If we do not know what happened it doesn't mean it's extraterrestrial craft

Some of the sightings occur in remote areas while others not, some occur right over people's homes and to fly such "sensitive craft" so close to "home" is not only dangerous but foolish should something go wrong, it could leave something for the "enemy" or claims of negligence by people who could be injured if such a thing like a crash happened.

DH:

Nuclear weapons are foolish. Possible modern males are foolish in general. Take the toys away from the boys according to Dr. Helen Caldicott's book, "Missile Envy"

Can you imagine the consequences of "toying" with "nuclear missiles?"

It seems to me that the most reasonable explanation of the facts is that the craft(some of) we are witnessing are indeed not from here.

DH:

"not from here" just means we don't know. We don't know about a lot of nuclear weapon accidents even! There's a lot we don't know about nuclear weapons.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by talisman]

reply to post by drew hempel


That is why we rely on inductive reasoning for the "best explanation" of the facts. It doesn't have to "prove" something, only offer an explanation that better answers the data at present so one could reasonably hold a theory of such.

I mean, there are many things we can't really "prove" but accept because the reasonableness of such seems correct.

I just think it highly likely given what has happened, the interest of these craft in passenger planes and nuclear missile sites, that we have something probing us, something very advanced and intelligent that has with it enormous resource.

More like the ultimate example of techno-spiritual psychological projection. Nuclear weapons are the cutting edge of the destruction of Earth's ecology. We ignore the reality of life on earth while assuming that extraterrestrial life happen to have advanced human technology and are humanoids, etc. It's a total testimony to the idiocy of so-called "high technology" which requires our leaders to hide underground. haha.

reply to post by talisman

Originally posted by ikonspyre
can anyone tell me what the point of finding all this evidence is if you know the gov will never cop to it? you know practically speaking that you will never convince the masses...

I don't know anyone who primarily researches this stuff for the purpose of trying to 'convince the masses'.


Edit:


Hey Mr Hastings,

I'm glad you stopped by (I just realized it was you).

Thanks for all that research you did over these years. There are plenty of us here who appreciate what you've done and the way you approach the subject. Good stuff.


Now I gotta go think of a good question for you.


[edit on 25-1-2010 by Exuberant1]

Mr Hastings,

I have often wondered about how I would treat the UFO problem, were I in charge of deciding on the courses of action to be taken with regards to it.

However, you probably have a great deal more experience with the phenomena and how it has related to military issues than this researcher, so I'd like to get your answer to the following question:


Do you think we (the United States) should be making attempts to shoot them down, or should we be passively observing the phenomena and gathering data on it that way?




*I cannot remember if you have already answered a similiar question elsewhere. I hope I'm being original here.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Exuberant1]