Monday, February 3, 2014

Robert Hastings Responds to Robert Sheaffer's UFO vs Mars...or something like that

It took a while, but Ufology's "emanate" researcher, Robert Hastings has decide to descend from Mount Olympus and render his judgment regarding Robert Sheaffer's Oscar Flight's UFO vs Mars.

Hastings has trouble with Sheaffer's Mars hypothesis which should come as no surprise. Ironically, I too have issues with Mars being a culprit in the story, but my objections come with a further twist of proposing Mars as a possibility, Sheaffer is being way too "kind" to Hastings and Robert Salas.   A Mars sighting lends a certain degree of credibility to the story giving it the possibility that there is/was evidence rendering support that people saw something either topside at Oscar-01 or at one of Oscar's launch facilities.

At this point in time there is no supporting documentation or statements from security personnel corroborating the claims for what, if anything, was observed out in the field. If Robert Hastings has such evidence he should present it, but after 45 years, he has nothing...nada.

Curiously, Hastings failed to mention the new side-story that Robert Salas had undergone hypnosis to recover some of his lost memories pertaining to the Oscar incident and a follow-on alien abduction encounter.  I don't recall that information listed in his 2010 affidavit.

Following are excerpt from Hastings' article pertaining to me:

Robert Sheaffer cites other “evidence” in his article to support the claim that there was no UFO activity at Oscar Flight by quoting former USAF missileer and skeptic Tim Hebert. Even though Hebert was not present for the incident, or any of the other UFO events discussed by my many ex-missileer sources, he has concluded that the UFO-Nukes Connection is non-existent and that all of his former Air Force colleagues who have publicly discussed dramatic UFO incursions at one Strategic Air Command base or another during the Cold War are, at best, misguided. 

I agree with Robert that I wasn't present at any or all of his so-called UFO events, but neither was he, so this is irrelevant; a mere slight of hand tactic with the vain hopes of distracting away from the issue.  If you listen or read Robert, one would think that he was out there pulling the alerts.  The difference between Robert and I is that I actually pulled alerts at those very same sites that the story takes place.  

True, I do discount a UFO-Nuke connection.  We have all of those Minuteman stories, but what of the Titan II stories?  I've yet to come across those.  That in itself puts a dent into that theory.

Hebert also maintains that I have “used” these witnesses for my own allegedly nefarious purposes. I won’t repeat here what those former missileers have said about Hebert to me in confidence, but I recently “used” seven of those ex-military sources again, when I interviewed them for the documentary film I am currently producing. As I have previously mentioned in various articles, all of these gentlemen have repeatedly and profusely thanked me over the years for my dogged efforts to get the facts out, despite the resistance I have encountered in some quarters 

Of course Hastings has "used" them for his needed props, book subjects and his "up and coming" documentary film.  I'm assuming that all have agreed to this type of exposure and have no problems being associated with Hastings.  That's their right to do so.  BTW, do any of the group get a portion of your book profits?  That would seem fair as without them you have no subject matter to write about...let alone produce a documentary film.

I won't repeat here what other former missileers have told me in confidence regarding Hastings' UFO/Nukes theory.  Hastings and others are free to provide comment on this blog at anytime if there are issues with what I write...none have found it necessary at this point in time.

To support his skeptical argument regarding the Oscar Flight incident, Hebert cites the 341st Missile Wing’s official history, which makes no mention of it, as if the ICBM shutdown event never happened. However, both officers on alert that night have said that they were told by an OSI agent that their event was classified Secret. Still-classified material would never appear in a wing history. Hebert knows this, or should know it, so his distorted commentary is most curious. Given that this problematic fact doesn’t mesh with his own skeptical thesis, he has apparently decided to ignore it

The unit history is the very same document which Hastings had used to prop up his Echo Flight fantasy, yet my using it as a source document shows that there is nothing in it to support an Oscar Flight incident...what's wrong with that?  Robert is free to use it, but I'm not?  That's the impression I get.  Yet, when he does cite from it, he mis-interprets what it is saying.  Most importantly, he fails to grasp what it is not saying.  Poor research methodology on his part.

If Robert(s) Hastings and Salas are correct, then has any former SAC or 15th Air Force command post controllers provided statements to Hastings (even in confidence) supporting that reports of missiles mysteriously dropping off alert at Oscar were up channeled as would have been required?  What about Malmstrom Job Control controllers?  Wing Security controllers? I've yet seen such evidence presented by anyone.

Why wouldn't classified information be mentioned in the unit history?  The document itself was classified SECRET due to the nature of it showing the day to day operational status of the wing.  It covered the Echo Flight investigation in detail.  If a situation had occurred at Oscar within a week of Echo, it is reasonable to assume that such reporting and engineering analysis would have also occurred.   

I'll grant this, Hastings tends to come up with interesting stories and I do love a good story, but the plot and characters associated with his stories falls apart when looked at up close.  That's a problem when presenting anecdotal experiences with nothing solid to back it up...they all remain interesting stories, nothing more.  

Those are some of the issues that I have with the case.  We don't need Mars as a "fall guy" for this story. The history of the ever changing story lines and narratives are well enough to cast serious doubt.  Hastings demands that we be subjugated to his views and pet theories, but I choose not to be.


  1. Hastings' insistence that "both officers on alert that night have said that they were told by an OSI agent that their event was classified Secret" has problems as well. Presumably, the other officer was Frederick Meiwald, but In Meiwald's 1996 letter to Salas, he states very clearly that "I do not recall any follow-up activities by any Wing personnel. The Command Post checklist, as I recall, just said to report any such incidents to civilian offices." So when exactly was he supposed to have been debriefed by OSI? OSI doesn't investigate equipment failures -- they were primarily concerned with electronic intelligence in 1967, which would explain why they weren't interested in any of this. Given that he insists outright that there were no follow-up activities, perhaps Robert can tell us what exactly they were doing debriefing everyone excepting the commander? And why is it that neither Hastings nor Salas are willing to be consistent? Have they now decided to ignore that 1996 letter that Salas originally published to suggest some weird confirmation of an event that Meiwald had no memory of?

    Another point: Meiwald's assertion that "[t]he Command Post checklist, as I recall, just said to report any such incidents to civilian offices", is a very blatant reference that establishes a time-frame that Hastings and Salas have chosen to ignore. It didn't become policy to "report any such incidents to civilian offices" until 1969. In that same 1996 letter, Meiwald states, "I left crew duty for the Command Post in early Nov 67." You take these two statements into account, and all of a sudden, we're talking about an incident that would have occurred in 1969, when Meiwald was pulling duty at the Command Post. That's why he remembers what the Command Post checklist would have required -- he was assigned duty there well after the March 24, 1967 date that Hastings and Salas are still attempting to apply to this ridiculous non-event. And that Command Post checklist wouldn't even have been considered if he was referencing an incident that occurred while he was commander of the capsule crew. He and Salas would have had there own checklist to worry about. Given the fact that he has never linked this UFO "tale" with anything at all having to do with missile failures, one can't help but wonder why Hastings and Salas are now trying to do so on the basis of an incident that Salas had absolutely nothing to do with, and that Meiwald heard about second-hand (which he actually confirms in that same letter). In any case, it's easily shown that Hastings' reference to an OSI debrief has never been confirmed by the commander of Oscar Flight. His stunning leaps of logic are once again proving his inability to examine and analyze anything at all having to do with this case. And he says my pronouncements are demonstrably false!

    One last point: Hastings once again proves that his own case has no merit, and lacks the credibility needed to hold it up for examination; his statement that "both officers on alert that night have said that they were told by an OSI agent that their event was classified Secret" is problematic in light of Meiwald's early claims, but it is also problematic in point of fact. 1967 USAF regulations active since John F. Kennedy was the President are very clear that any such incident as described by Hastings and Salas would have required a minimum classification of TOP SECRET -- not SECRET as he contends. And the failure to properly classify an incident of such importance -- especially when that classification has been configured to ensure the disclosure of TOP SECRET materials due to under-classification -- would have resulted in the Commanding Officer's prosecution and the abrupt end of his career.

  2. Once again, Hastings and Salas have decided to ignore actual facts, documented evidence and contemporary testimony to put forth and prop up a theory that has no legs, and is completely contrary to the absolute facts that they should have taken into account. Instead, these two irresponsible frauds are basing their claims on non-existent information that they've shown absolutely no ability to understand, let alone analyze.

    As for specifics, once again, Hastings is trying to establish a case on information that doesn't even exist, as in his references to a documentary that hasn't been made, and comments by USAF personnel that haven't been named, in regard to assessments that have never been discussed. This is the equivalent of insisting that he's already proven the reality of Santa Claus because he has the testimony of eight tiny reindeer that he intends to publicize once he's finished translating those claims into English. And any doubts you may have that proof of Santa Claus is therefore imminent shouldn't even be voiced, because the elves that work in Santa's North Pole workshop have had some pretty nasty things to say about you and your negative skepticism, while publically thanking me for finally getting the word out! This narcissistic buffoon has used this same strategy many times in the past, and he's failed completely to make public any of the claims he keeps referring to. You and I will be proven wrong in so many ways once his non-existent proof finally exists! I can't help but conclude that in addition to being a lying fraud who wouldn't understand actual evidence if he had it in his breast pocket, he's also a complete and utter moron without the good graces to at least attempt to explain the numerous problems inherent to his case (such as those outlined above -- and the dozens of other problems we've discussed in the past).

    Does he really believe that a SECRET classification would be sufficient to protect information regarding an attack on a nuclear weapons facility by an unknown aircraft during the Cold War? I swear, Tim, I just don't have any patience left for these pathetic clowns -- they're both idiots who have no idea what they're talking about, and they're attempting to explain it to the world by neglecting completely those incidents and treatments that have already been proven factual. It's like they're in a completely paranoid panic mode, because they saw a report on CNN that Saddam Hussein may have once attempted to purchase fissionable materials to shore up his currently non-existent nuclear missile program, and are now running around like a pair of idiots who accidently set their own pants on fire while wondering where on God's green earth we're going to get the money to sink a bomb shelter deep enough beneath the roiling crust of the planet's surface so we'll be safe from the weapons system he's surely aiming at us right now, all of this while somehow forgetting that this particular despot has been just about as dead as road kill for years. You try to tell them that they're just a couple of complete fools who should have probably considered suicide a long, long time ago to protect the gene pool, but they're too busy trying to figure out how deep it is to the magma level to take three minutes out of the day to look up a freaking obituary!

    And my wife wonders why UFOs piss me off... I think it's probably the company they keep.

  3. James, all your points are spot on. I only posted the article as a rebuttal based on what Hastings had said of me. Otherwise, I'd had left it be since we all get into the same inane loop. I've other projects going on and Hastings is a mere distraction for the time being, but I had to twist his tail for principle sake.

    Perfect timing though for me to have provided a separate blog for Oscar Flight...

    1. I wonder if Hastings realizes what a truly exceptional motivator he has become. We've now reached the point of minimum solvency necessary to define the confirmed elements of this case, thereby destroying the essence of his own. The arguments are on record, and not much else is required of us outside of promoting these arguments to increase public awareness. There's not much more that we need to do.

      On the other hand, the egregiously dishonest, factually inappropriate, and morally irresponsible character of Hastings' attempts to refute established fact creates within us an almost compulsive desire to address the issues -- at least with me. His rhetoric -- not the case he's trying to invent -- demands a response, if only to throw light on his very consciously applied lies and his blatant misinterpretation of military culture. He tends to create a momentary distraction that has little to do with the case and everything to do with his stupidity and ignorance. He doesn't answer probative questions and he refuses to address his claims in regard to any detailed assessment for only one reason: in the absence of contrary testimony, it's easier to make a case when the number of elements examined is less than the number of elements necessary to establish that case as both valid and factual. More to the point, any attempt to establish a valid case in the presence of detailed information that can't be reconciled and contrary testimony that can't be denied will always fail -- and it will fail while focusing on the character flaws and moral culpability of those trying to make such a poor case. Hastings lost this case when he decided to refute contrary claims by lying about the details he's ignored up to now, and by attempting to destroy the credibility of those who have presented contrary claims while ignoring the claims themselves. He's just another pathetic buffoon who would do more to help his case if he simply remained silent. He's proven that he can't do that -- and that makes him a mental case and his assessment a liability. It's not like he's presenting new evidence. He's just drawing attention to his own failures -- failures that were naturally established a couple years ago. It's not exactly a rebuttal he's advancing either -- it's just an advertisement of his own ignorance and stupidity nicely wrapped up in a thin skin of dishonesty. That's right: his case is merely a rotten burrito that he neglected to take out of the microwave.

  4. Tim Hebert wrote: It took a while, but Ufology's "emanate" [sic] researcher, Robert Hastings has decide [sic] to descend from Mount Olympus and render his judgment regarding Robert Sheaffer's Oscar Flight's UFO vs. Mars.

    Interesting projection on your part, Tim. Actually, responding to Sheaffer (or you or Printy or Carlson) is pointless. Nevertheless, every now and then, I feel the need. In this case, your comment, repeated yet again, that I have “used” the veterans who confide in me, led me to decide to chime in at this time.

    You wrote, “Of course Hastings has ‘used’ them for his needed props, book subjects and his ‘up and coming’ [sic] documentary film. I'm assuming that all have agreed to this type of exposure and have no problems being associated with Hastings. That's their right to do so. BTW, do any of the group get a portion of your book profits? That would seem fair as without them you have no subject matter to write about...let alone produce a documentary film.”

    When I mentioned this to one of my ex-USAF missileer sources, Phil Moore, he responded:

    There will always be naysayers...some with an agenda, some simply & honestly unable to accept what's going on in front of them. Anyway, you know that I believe in what you're doing & respect the thorough way you do it. I do not feel used. On the contrary, I feel like my small contributions to the overall objective are necessary. Happy to support your efforts...bring on a joint statement [of support by my many ex-USAF sources] or whatever else might help.


    P.S. I don't want any royalties – Ha Ha

    Upon receiving this response, I asked Phil to summarize his Air Force career. He responded:

    Philip E. Moore is a retired USAF Lt. Colonel who spent the bulk of his 28-year military career working with Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles in five different launch systems, rising from launch crew officer in the earliest ICBM, Atlas, through increasingly responsible command and staff positions to Commander of the 321st Strategic Missile Squadron at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming where he was directly responsible for 50 Minuteman ICBMs and 150 nuclear warheads in 1978-79. His final Air Force assignment before retiring with honors in 1989 was Director of Missile Operations at the 19th Air Division with oversight of two Titan II Wings and a Minuteman II Wing.

    Moore is only one of the 140 or so veterans who have wholeheartedly supported my work. He and 11 others will appear in my film, discussing ongoing UFO activity at ICBM sites over the years. Walt Figel, a reluctant witness, will appear in an audiotaped segment, discussing the UFO reported to him at Malmstrom’s Echo Flight on March 16, 1967.

    I’m sure that if I had 1,400 or 14,000 veterans reporting UFO activity at ICBM sites, you would still know better than all of them, Tim. (I know I have just scratched the surface with my research thus far. Hopefully the film, once it’s broadcast, will prompt many more veterans to disclose their experiences. My contact information will appear in it.)

    My understanding is that you are a mental health professional these days. If that’s true, I hope that you have privately counseled James Carlson to seek help. While he is convinced that his countless manic rants online help his case, nearly everyone understands that the opposite is true and seem rather dumbfounded by his apparently uncontrollable antics. Ironically, I suppose I should welcome his outbursts, given that they only serve my purposes—as a great many persons have told me—but it is nevertheless almost painful to watch his public unraveling.

    Regardless, my upcoming film is proceeding nicely and will eventually garner a worldwide audience of millions, thereby furthering my goal of educating people about the reality of the UFO-Nukes Connection. Meanwhile, you and your few associates will continue to talk among yourselves, with very little public support. In short, things are moving in the right direction.

    --Robert Hastings

  5. I look forward to your up and coming film debut:)

  6. More than a bit late to this party, but here goes...

    Imho, it's a mistake to focus too much on any one incident, or any one researcher. What's convincing to me is the sheer number of UFO reports from credible people.

    Could some of these reports be wrong? Of course. Could some of those making the reports be mistaken, confused, or even lying? Sure, that's likely, indeed probably certain. Is UFO culture generally a huge pile of sloppy speculative junk? Yes, it is. However...

    The relevant question would seem to be, is every single one of these UFO reports from credible witnesses in some way wrong? Every single one?

    This seems to be what UFO skeptics are claiming, and personally I don't find that to be a credible claim.