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

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 selfpromotion. 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.

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 Post has 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-eyewitnessesafraid-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

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

organizations home page (its the No. 2 most-popular article): U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified 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 by Robert Hastings and Robert 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.

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

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 exactly what 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 testimony completely 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 secret type

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-communications disruption 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

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.

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. remain anonymous at this time." Consequently, these persons must

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,

particularly if the UFO that his alleged sources have described had anything at all to 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

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 coverup 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 Military Reprisal 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.

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 of nothing 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?

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 of absolutely 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

trustworthy UFOlogists 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: if Robert 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 not anonymous, the incident at F.E. Warren AFB was the result of maintenance that was conducted in one of the Launch Control Centers (LCC),

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

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 rockbottom 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

investigators who are willing to overlook, and in many cases to applaud such 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 UFONukes 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

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

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

And if public concern cannot be established by honest means, it will be established by dishonest means. 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.

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 that USAF and DoD officials were knowingly lying when they insisted for years that UFOs 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

common standards of peer review with worthless head nodding like nodding dogs on a particularly bumpy road [thanks to Zep Tepi for 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".

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 ever occurred 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

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-roberthastings-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

allows him to use an event that has not yet occurred, and will very likely never occur 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

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'

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 not reported, were not investigated, and had no role to play at all in 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

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 outcomedependent 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 stunning that 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

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

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 New Rome, 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

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 relevant that 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 nothing an 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

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

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, doubt in the nation's military leadership and abilities to conduct itself honorably, doubt in the assigned caretakers of our nuclear arsenal and facilities, doubt in 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

move.

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

dissatisfaction, an overwhelming sense of failure, and an ultimate reliance on selfjustified 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 not alone; 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 new affidavits when the changes they've made demand it. For the most part, these changes are necessitated by the

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 of T.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?"

"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 claims does 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.

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 poorlydefined 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 selfrespect 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

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 definitely moral 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 examine it, whether it detracts from the conclusions they are most eager to establish or not, a moral issue is once again raised. Men like Robert Hastings, Robert Salas, and many of their like-minded coconspirators tend to embrace the lie; we are well aware of the documents theyve examined, and what pages of those documents theyve used to press their case, and what pages theyve chosen not to present. When the pages theyve chosen not to present are heavily indicative of the falsity of their claims, theres a big problem with the case theyve presented, and once again, it raises the issue of personal responsibility and morality. Theyre pushing the lie, fully conscious that the position theyve adopted is a lie. It doesnt get much more unquestionably moral an issue than that.

5.

They prefer to lecture, exhibiting a general reluctance to answer in-depth questions, to debate, or to properly defend their own claims.

This gives such individuals reason to ignore opposing arguments refuting the evidence theyve discussed. Lectures without questions are merely one-way conversations

defined entirely by those presenting them. In many cases, these individuals refuse to even acknowledge opposing arguments or criticism of this nature, a manipulative

strategy that puts them in complete control of the message while protecting their audience from exposure to competing accounts and explanations.

6.

The primary strategy adopted by these people for answering the assertions of those critical of their conclusions and the cases theyve tried to establish is to attack the credibility or the intent of anyone disputing their claims, while stepping away from the issues raised and the facts established.

This type of defensive response gives them the opportunity to establish claims and discuss them in whatever detail they decide without being forced to counter opposing yet effective arguments. Once again, the conversation is one-way, thereby establishing complete control of the message while attempting to damage opposing claims and those making them.

7.

Their reliance on complete objectivity is assumed but never asserted, thereby allowing persuasive influence based on emotional factors to take the place of well-reasoned arguments that are, at times, never even presented.

These faith-mongers regularly contend that their conclusions are consistent with logical assessment, but they fail to establish this in any acceptable, objective way, offering instead emotional arguments intended to sustain political self-righteousness at the cost of true impartiality. This is an attempt to gain emotional support for aspirations separate and oftentimes only loosely related to their initial assertions. The expression of their claims will always be secondary to greater goals, an implication that their personal assertions are ultimately irrelevant, while the higher goals and the need to finalize them successfully are predominant. The story isnt the issue, because ultimately their higher purpose must be established through persuasion. Objectivity will never be enough to realize that intent, so it isnt the primary means to effect the success desired. What they say and what they do cannot be reconciled.

8.

They very loudly insist that public trust in their integrity is well deserved, because they are merely presenting the basic facts and validated, truthful claims inherent to their cause; meanwhile, they pick and choose what facts need interpretation and what that interpretation should consist of all at the high cost of ignoring most of the facts actually available to them.

They outwardly insist that no sensible arguments can possibly be promoted by those who are critical of their claims, because their own assertions represent mere facts, and there is nothing left to discuss when only facts are presented. The classic example of this type of hypocrisy and burying of the issue by dismissing without cause 95-percent of the opposing argument is author Jim Marrs contention that The controversy over the existence of UFOs is over. UFOs are real. Unfortunately, they neglect to actually examine these "facts" theyve presented, and they refuse to apply any relevant discussion that might mistakenly distort the audience's interpretation as defined by them alone of those "facts".

For instance, they might assert that, according to one particular witness, thirty people "saw" the UFO in question, neglecting to mention that only two people thought it represented anything at all out of the ordinary, and only one of those referred to it as a "UFO". Elements that only they insist are worthy of interpretation are thereby

presented, while numerous counter-arguments are effectively ignored, essentially addressing the issues from a sole point of view that dismisses entirely the evidence disputing that point of view. This is generally how the planet Venus at times magically turns into a flying saucer. Using the same example as above, we can see that the effect is one that is essentially deceitful: "Bob told me that thirty people saw the UFO at the very same time he saw it. He personally told me, and I quote, 'it was a flying saucer, and we all saw it.'" This would ensure that their audience would absorb the "fact" that thirty witnesses saw the UFO, but would never learn that that only two of them thought it represented anything out of the ordinary, while only one of those would later actually

call it a "UFO". This is a normal practice for the individual members of the little UFOoriented coalition under discussion a group typified by their adoption of all of the above qualities and ill-reasoned strategies.

The primary result of the adoption of the above qualities by those desiring to stake their claims in public in association with Robert Hastings and the cabal currently under examination that he has staked his reputation on is an oppressive one: anyone critical of the claims being established for any case being argued by these people is forced to reinvestigate that case in its entirety, including reinterviewing all of the witnesses, reestablishing any requests for FOIA documentation, reinterpreting those documents, and then researching once again all of the issues that these individuals have merely dictated without application of the appropriate background discussions establishing their importance. Not many people have the patience or the desire to surround themselves with such a high level of ultimately trivial matters, arguments and individuals, but it is necessary for those wanting to address this primary issue of dishonesty and profiteering that these men and women apply so liberally to the UFOlogical field of study.

In the weeks ahead, I intend to discuss and focus on the other members of this loose coalition of UFOlogists, analyzing the extent of their reliance on the above traits and qualities, while detailing in the process exactly why their claims cannot be accepted as "facts", and why they should not be trusted in regard to these issues. Until then, those who believe that UFOs were sighted in conjunction with the missile failures at F.E. Warren AFB as proposed by Robert Hastings would be serving both themselves and their cause well if they simply examined such claims on the basis of credibility, rejecting anonymous sources that have little or nothing to recommend them. UFOlogy-based investigations should not begin and end on Robert Hastings' use of absolutely nothing to plant paranoia and fear in the hopes of eventually harvesting full disclosure. A good rule of thumb would apply here: if youve found reason to question his honesty in relation to past claims, than it would behoove you to question his honesty in relation to future claims. It doesnt get much simpler than that.

Those who fail to see how Hastings and his like-minded co-conspirators are destroying any viable reasons to examine UFO phenomena will eventually measure the cost of it in wasted time and personal disgust, so good luck with that. I for one can't see how UFOlogy will ever be accorded anything beyond disrespect, disgust, and dismissal as a result of the very recklessness exhibited by Robert Hastings and his paranoid interests.

Maybe you can do better...