Significantly, these same individuals report multiple sightings by "numerous [Air Force] teams" of an enormous cigar-shaped craft maneuvering high above the missile field on the day of the disruption, as well as the following day. The huge UFO was described as appearing similar to a World War I German Zeppelin, but had no passenger gondola or advertising on its hull, as would a commercial blimp."
In addition to the military reports I have received, there is also persuasive testimony from a number of civilian witnesses relating to ongoing UFO activity within F.E. Warren's huge missile field, which sprawls across the tri-state convergence of southeast Wyoming, southwest Nebraska and northeast Colorado. Between late September 2010 and early April 2011, there have been credible reports of cigar, cylinder, spherical and triangular-shaped objects maneuvering near and even hovering low over various missile silos in Banner, Kimball, Cheyenne and Morrill Counties in Nebraska. Other sightings occurred in Laramie County, Wyoming, north and east of the city of Cheyenne...
So, for the moment, I will say only this: On October 23–24, 2010, one or more "huge" cigar-shaped objects were observed by active duty Air Force personnel in the field. The actual number of UFOs is uncertain because it is not known whether a single object was observed more than once—at different, widely-separated locations as it maneuvered above the missile field—or whether multiple objects of the same size and configuration were involved over the two-day period of the sightings...
In any case, in addition to those active duty USAF observers, a retired missile maintenance technician—someone I have relied on in the past due to his accurate, informed testimony—happened to be driving through Cheyenne, Wyoming on the morning of October 23rd and reports seeing one of these unidentified aerial objects himself. He described the situation this way: "I saw a huge dirigible east of Cheyenne on the morning of the 23rd. I saw Goodyear blimps in Meridian and Torrington, Wyoming, later that same morning. I have no idea what the other thing was, only that it was huge, and shaped like a cigar. I thought someone had resurrected an old Zeppelin and was touring the country. I didn't think anything of it when I saw it, only wished I had my camera with me."...
When I asked him to elaborate, he responded, "I left Ft. Collins [Colorado] at approximately 0800, so I would have been in West Cheyenne around 0830 or so … The airship—or whatever I saw—was east-northeast of I-80, at least 10 miles away. I've seen Goodyear blimps in person, [directly] overhead, and they are 'blimp' shaped. [However] what I saw was very long and I don't remember seeing any structures under it. It didn't appear shiny, but dull and gray … I would guess it was 7:1, or seven [units] long to one [unit] wide, or so it looked. It was tapered on both ends and very big. It was not short and squat like normal blimps. It appeared to be moving northerly and was over the buttes east of town."...
He continued, "Now, I've driven all over America and have never spotted three blimps in one day. I talked to the gas station attendant in Torrington and he said the Goodyear blimp [had been] flying over the area for the past several days—along with another 'Hindenburg'—his quote, not mine."
Hastings sources provided descriptions of possible blimp-like airships. Most descriptions of the UFO were described as cigar-shaped. Interestingly enough, one of Robert's sources did state that a Goodyear blimp or blimps were sighted in the area. Whether he was referring to an actual Goodyear blimp or another, ie, Metlife blimp is difficult to tell from the narrative.
According to Hastings' source, a gas station attendant saw a Goodyear blimp fly over the Torrington area for at least the past few days leading up to the sightings. As far as what he meant about another Hindenburg, that's open for speculation. But as you will see there may have been an airship that may have been a "Hindenburg" flying in the area.
What kind of blimps are flying in the U.S on a day by day basis? And what do they actually look like?
So as can be seen, there are numerous examples of different types of airships that could have been over the the Cheyenne and FE Warren area that fit the description of huge cigar-shaped aircraft. Could the P-791 been in the area? Granted, this is more speculation on my part, but at least I'm providing a line up of suspects.
"Significantly, these same individuals report multiple sightings by 'numerous [Air Force] teams' of an enormous cigar-shaped craft maneuvering high above the missile field on the day of the disruption, as well as the following day."
ReplyDeleteInteresting that not one person reported multiple sightings "of an enormous cigar-shaped craft", even though "numerous [Air Force] teams" allegedly witnessed this craft -- not one. This is particularly problematic given that Hastings' only source for these claims is an anonymous individual who was introduced as an eye-witness by another anonymous individual, thereby making this suspect testimony not only an unconfirmed, second-hand account that is impossible to examine, but one that also lacks credibility due to the numerous filters between the claims and Hastings himself, essentially forcing any audience to rely on Hastings alone for the story. Interested readers must trust the one man who is in a position to answer questions: Robert Hastings. Given Hastings propensity for employing dishonest means to support such claims in the past, this whole discussion is basically useless.
"In addition to the military reports I have received, there is also persuasive testimony from a number of civilian witnesses relating to ongoing UFO activity."
Now we have even more testimony that can't be confirmed or questioned. We're forced to trust Hastings judgment that this testimony is indeed "persuasive". We also have to consider the fact that these "witnesses" neglected to report this "ongoing UFO activity", a worrisome conclusion given that we're talking about "a number of civilian witnesses" who can't be compelled to remain silent, rendering this testimony useless as well.
"Between late September 2010 and early April 2011, there have been credible reports of cigar, cylinder, spherical and triangular-shaped objects maneuvering near and even hovering low over various missile silos in Banner, Kimball, Cheyenne and Morrill Counties in Nebraska."
Credible according to whom -- more anonymous "witnesses" who can't be properly examined? And how, exactly, are reports from "late September 2010 and early April 2011" even relevant to this issue? You can't establish anything at F.E. Warren AFB without first proving "reports of cigar, cylinder, spherical and triangular-shaped objects maneuvering near and even hovering low over various missile silos in Banner, Kimball, Cheyenne and Morrill Counties in Nebraska." Where did these claims originate, and why can't we examine such testimony for ourselves? It is this grade of assumption, in fact, that determines credibility. Once again, we have to rely on Hastings' assessment alone; and this type of assessment is believable only to the extent of the trust earned by the person making such claims in public. Credibility has to be earned, not assumed -- and Robert Hastings has done nothing to earn our trust. On the contrary, he's done much to deserve distrust.
James, the irony of Hastings' claim is that his own sources qualify the blimp angle. I stated that it's "Hastings' claim" because his relying only on anonymous sources means that he, Hastings,is the claimant, no one else.
ReplyDeleteYou have to wonder if Robert intentionally disregarded the gas station attendant's story, which is of course a narrative built into another sources' narrative.
That's a very good point -- my problem, however, is that I can't find a single good reason to suppose he's telling the truth about anything. Ever...
DeleteI'm amazed that another dozen or so "witnesses" popped up just after critical analyses of this incident suggested that 1-2 witnesses (depending on whether or not you believe one anonymous source was actually presenting the honest evaluation of another anonymous source -- I think that's right) would be worthless for someone trying to substantiate a real incident.
One quick question: in your experience, what do you think the USAF would do if 1-3 "blimps" were "maneuvering" above their missile silos? Would they just ignore it?
I like your article, by the way. It's a firm, knowledgeable summary that presents a very common sense-based conclusion. Of course, someone trying to cut their own throat with Occam's razor might not notice it so quickly...
"On October 23–24, 2010, one or more 'huge' cigar-shaped objects were observed by active duty Air Force personnel in the field."
ReplyDeleteOnce more, we have nothing that can be confirmed or examined, forcing us to trust Hastings' version of of this incident, even though his dishonest methods have made such trust impossible to assume. This whole mess is criminal stupidity.
"In any case, in addition to those active duty USAF observers, a retired missile maintenance technician—someone I have relied on in the past due to his accurate, informed testimony—happened to be driving through Cheyenne, Wyoming on the morning of October 23rd and reports seeing one of these unidentified aerial objects himself."
Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd -- a little too convenient -- that "a retired missile maintenance technician—someone I have relied on in the past due to his accurate, informed testimony" just "happened to be driving through Cheyenne, Wyoming on the morning of October 23rd" just in time to witness and confirm an incident reported by anonymous sources? And how, exactly, can we accept Hastings' assessment that this new "witness" has presented "accurate, informed testimony"? Nobody in their right mind would accept this testimony as anything worthy of belief, just as nobody can trust him to tell the truth in regard to his claims -- not with his record.
"I didn't think anything of it when I saw it, only wished I had my camera with me."
Typical -- another critical element to explain Hastings' complete failure to present any evidence at all to support his pathetic claims. We have nothing to examine, nothing confirmed, and nothing to explain F.E. Warren's failure to scramble fighters in order to force an encounter with a supposedly unknown aircraft maneuvering over a field of nuclear missile silos.
I for one smell a rat...
James, I had to laugh out loud reading your comment concerning the "retired missile tech". I have a feeling who that this was Mills (Miller?) that provided Hastings with some Ellsworth stories.
ReplyDeleteHe was the same guy that Hastings' was trying to use as a witness to UFOs disrupting Vandenburg Glory launches. I did get him to admit that what was seen was lint on the camera lens...this was on Warren's site.
Yes this gentleman's passing through the Cheyenne area at the exact time of the "sightings" and comm outage is "fortunate" for Hastings!
As far as the AF's reaction to 1-3 blimps flying over an LF, that depends. If it was reported in to the WCP by civilians, then the ART may have been dispatched.
ReplyDeleteA missile wing's flight area is not a no-fly zone. Remember our last phone conversation when I told you that Chinese and Russian airliners routinely over-flew the 341st? We simply went into COMSEC mode for a short duration of time until the over pass ended.
The same could be said if a number of blimps were over flying the FE Warren area. There would have probably been advanced notice via flight plans and such.
The main problem with this story is that not a single utterance of "UFO" was mentioned until Robert hit the scene. It was a forgone conclusion that he would "find" something. I couldn't see Hastings shacking up in a Motel 6 and dining at a Waffle House for a week and coming up empty handed.
True, but I can certainly see him sitting at home in a lounge chair kicking back with a warm can of Schlitz and a plate full of cheese sticks and coming up with the very same details that he produced during this alleged visit to Wyoming. He's given nobody any reason at all to believe the claims he's made. He could have received these "accounts" of his over the phone! Heck, for all we know, he could have invented this entire little folktale; it's not like he's given anybody a good reason to trust his account as factual. I'd believe a circus clown's discussion of quantum physics delivered in iambic pentameter song before I'd believe anything at all originating with Robert Hastings, including whether or not he's ever been to Wyoming. After all we're talking about a man who insists his interview with Frederick Meiwald represents a confirmation of Robert Salas' UFO claims, even though his own transcripts of that interview have Meiwald asserting pretty firmly that he doesn't remember anything at all about a UFO. Twice!! It's like he's gone off his meds or something, so now he can't tell the difference between reading the back cover blurb on an old paperback of Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" and an honest-to-god walk across the parking lot of that Motel 6 in the happy town of Cheyenne.
ReplyDeleteI swear, Tim, sometimes I can't stop myself from laughing everytime I think of him actually "investigating" anything at all. I get these visions of some sad old retirement-style action figure of Richard Nixon walking on the beach with a plastic, high-beeping metal detector accessory and wearing these big old shorts and a Hawaiian shirt wth a couple of buttons missing, pausing every 30-40 seconds to slap the hell out of the side of the metal detector, bang it down hard on the sand, grunt just a little bit, yawn, and then continue on down the beach with a deep, utterly meaningles sigh. That's about the point when my wife says, "will you please quit it? I'm trying to watch 'Two and a Half Men' and it's not that funny!" I ask you: Is that my fault?
One point: if there actually were 1-3 blimps in the area, and F.E. Warren AFB was indeed notified in advance in regard to those flight plans, would that information still be available? Who on base, or what official do you think we could ask about something like that? I'm guessing a Public Affairs Officer of some sort, but I'm certainly not positive about it. If they were public flights, I'm assuming there wouldn't be a classified materials issue, and I also don't recall Robert Hastings ever trying to confirm the mediocrity of any incident he's tried to inflate beyond the recommended safety margins of that particular product, so it's possible that doing so might be productive -- unless, of course, my first suspicions were correct, and he simply invented all of the witness statements and the contents of the interviews he claims to have conducted. It would be interesting, however, from an analytical point-of-view, if we could at least confirm that there either was or was not an advance notice of civilian aircraft in the area for three days or so before and after the F.E. Warren incident. Which leads nicely into my next question: if there was no advance notice of a civilian aircraft of some sort flying over the silo fields, and reports started coming in regarding an unknown aircraft in the area for three days or so, how would the USAF respond, and would the absence of such a response suggest in turn the absence of an unknown aircraft?
ReplyDeleteThe way I look at it, Hastings' account of the incident might actually prove a far more mediocre solution, thereby destroying his UFO claims, while the absence of an appropriate response by the USAF to an unidentified aircraft would do the same. Is there anything credible about this conclusion? I'm just trying to establish whether the factual elements of the above suggestion could very well indicate either mediocrity or complete invention.
One short comment that I probably should have added a while ago: In one of your previous articles, you print a copy of a communication from Robert Hastings in which he seems to formally refuse cooperating with the establishment of your suspicions by ignoring your requests for further information, saying something to the effect of "why should I? All you'll do is find faults with it..." (that's a paraphrase, and not an exact wording). I've noted that he does this sort of thing a lot, so my question is: do you think he'll EVER try to defend his own point-of-view and his own work? Or will he let an ignorant rabble (rabble, rabble) of insignificant fan-boys who can't even manage to get the basic facts of the incidents or even Hastings' own claims right go ahead and make the arguments and establish the issues for him? I've never met anybody involved in any field of research or theoretical logistics or even playtime bullying at recess for the younger kids out there (except, of course, for Robert Salas) who blanketly refuses to support, explain, or otherwise attempt to influence public opinion by defending his own work -- his own theories. Is this how UFO historians normally go about establishing their assessments? Because if it is, I think they've decided that they've already lost the public debate, and that's not the sort of conclusion that motivates folks to buy your books, follow your career, and contribute to the website through which you've announced your mission in life. After all, for Hastings it's a career choice, and his refusal to discuss these points on a clear field with intelligent men and women who know more about the actual issues than he does can't possibly help him to maintain a consistent sales record -- or am I just missing an argument or two that he's been working on?
ReplyDeleteOne has to have a position based on solid ground in order to defend said position. Hell, you, I and others are doing his damn research for him. For example, whether or not that blimps were over the Cheyenne area,in itself, is not the issue, the fact that he totaly ignored his own sources descriptions of a bonafide blimp speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteYou can't formulate a hypothesis or theory solely based on anecdotal information, which may or may not be based in fact. You have to have an inkling of evidence to support any given position.
In regard to his apparent ignorance of those witness statements about a blimp that were apparently made to him, it's more than a little bit strange; it's like over-weird ... he seems to have totally ignored as well Meiwald's repeated insistence that he doesn't remember anything at all about a UFO at Oscar Flight. It's like he's made an unconscious effort to "not hear" or to "not understand" anything that doesn't point to a real UFO; he writes it down, he records it, and people can point at it and discuss it, but to Hastings, it doesn't exist -- it's invisible, just a few extra white spaces in the text and some weird white-noise jibber-jabber on the audio tapes he recorded. Maybe he really is off his meds!
ReplyDeleteI can't help but wonder if this possible mental affliction is just as evident in the other cases he's tried to establish in his book. After all, he keeps insisting that he's chronicled 110 or so ex-military witnesses who have allegedly seen UFOs at numerous nuclear sites, and yet when it came down to making public claims, only seven answered the clarion call. I'd like to know why. After all, he's included Figel and Meiwald in his list of witnesses, and yet they insist otherwise. What if there are another 101 "witnesses" out there who believe they've never reported the UFOs that Hastings believes they did indeed report? It could be Hastings is just deranged...
"101" witnesses? If we take into account everyone who has pulled SAC alerts in the past and including all of the support personnel, tens of thousands?, then Hastings is left only with a fraction of a percent that has reported "something". Pretty glaring disconnect in my mind.
ReplyDeleteAfter re-reading Hastings' article and looking at his civilian witness statements, I noticed that one of his witnesses had provided a drawing of an "object", yet Robert has not provided a copy of this drawing. The drawing would be helpful to identify what was actually or perceived to have been sighted.
ReplyDeleteAnother account describes what could have been oil drilling platforms/derricks with lights on for night-time operations. I checked on oil producing wells for Nebraska and found that quiet a few where located in the sighting area. Most of these sightings were from a great distance so its easy to see how this could have contributed towards eye witness distortion.