Frank Warren, who I highly respect, seems to be missing the point. Yes, I have not seen Robert Hastings' documentary, but I did see one of his trailers some time back. I even wrote a short blog piece regarding the trailer...it was positive based on what I saw.
Frank seems to think that I'm disturbed that Hastings is charging $4.99 to view the documentary. This is simply not the case as I commented that Robert has every right to recoup his expenses to cover whatever costs that he incurred to produce the documentary. I'm well aware that he had been working very hard to bring his project to fruition. It would appear that he has been successful. Good for him.
BTW, just this last week I spent $2.99 to rent and watch "Platoon" which I've already seen numerous times over the past decade or two. So, I'm not averse towards spending a small amount of cash for my viewing pleasure.
But, am I obligated to look at Robert's documentary?
Hastings had asked the question, "Where are the comments from the debunkers and skeptics?" I provided my personal reply which apparently did not sit well with Frank. I have no idea of Hastings' thoughts since he provided no reply as was to be expected.
Frank, you wrote: "The arguments that both you and Tim are making is akin to anyone condemning your latest book (thanks again for my copy), without reading it–assuming they know what's in it.
Either example is simply nonsensical."
What is really nonsensical is that prior to Robert Hastings' article being post on your site, he and is documentary was not on anyone's radar from a skeptic's take. I personally had lost any interest. Look at my blog, I've not posted anything Hastings-wise for well over a year, if not longer.
The truth for most of us is that his Nukes and UFO meme grew tiresome. And my own rebuttals grew equally tiresome as I was engaging in a circular argument with myself. Robert rarely engages in anything that is polar opposite of his viewpoints.
Case in point, this dialog on your site is between me, Robert Scheaffer and you. Where is the actual author of the article to answer the comments?
It's the same old pattern. You answer Hastings mail and he might come down from the Mount to answer, but usually you are the Oracle.
Simply, as I originally told Robert Scheaffer in his email...who really cares. Most of us are, are have, moving on to other things. Hastings has his audience and his documentary should satisfy the bulk of them.
And unfortunately I'm helping to promote his film just by engaging in these comments.
Kind regards,
Tim Hebert
The truth of the matter is that I personally lost track of Robert's documentary. I've other obligations that demand my attention such as my current professional career. This also includes obligations towards my family. I've other hobbies and interest that I engage in. The subject of UFOs is NOT a central item of interest, nor does the subject matter dictates how I run my life. Again, my blog shows this as there are periodic gaps between postings. Some of these gaps stretch out over a few months.
Despite the above, my main premise remains that the silence from skeptics and debunkers regarding Robert's documentary may be akin to throwing back the very silence that he provided towards us. You can call it poetic justice.
Frank, when I say "I don't care," Perhaps it should be looked at from this point: Does Robert truly care if I watch his flick? Does he really value my opinion one way or another?
Does Robert Hastings care?
If Hastings wants certain people to review the work, he should provide it to them and ask for the review.
ReplyDeleteCrowing that no one gives a sh*t about his work is bizarre.
I changed my original comments since I was probably too harsh towards Frank Warren, really unfair on my part.
ReplyDeleteHastings' continues with his "normal" fair. And I seriously doubt that he is/was interested in any input from me. I'm rather low on the spectrum of skeptics...a minor player, if you will, carrying little weight.
I noticed that he had posted a comment on Rich Reynolds' site hawking his article on The UFO Chronicles.
Mornin' Tim,
DeleteThanks for the kind words (in your piece) and for the record I wasn't/am not offended by any of your comments in our colloquy.
Although I can't speak for Robert, I would imagine he puts your opinion above others because of your past service/employment (thank you by the way); given that several, if not all the witnesses who went on camera and detailed their experiences are all of your former compadres, generally speaking. Your opinion/thoughts are apropos in that regard.
Cheers,
Frank
It doesn't matter who specifically Hastings is thinking about.
ReplyDeleteIf I wrote a book about Zika-infected bowling balls and didn't send out review copies, I would have no warrant to claim, "THEY are too afraid to face the TRUTH in my book!"
Terry,
ReplyDeleteAs I replied over at TUFOC to your similar comment, Hastings isn't asking for certain people to review his work, nor is he crowing about anyone not giving a sh#t re his work. Both statements are simply disingenuous. He merely was/is making an observation, and expressing his befuddlement–which I personally share.
I think most people who pay attention to such things would all agree that it was expected the regular critics of Robert's work and position would pounce on the film. Moreover, I think it's safe to say that Robert doesn't care either way whether his regular critics chime in or not, I certainly don't, aside from the fact that I believe a healthy debate and civil conversation of learned folk re the subject matter is a healthy, helpful endeavor.
Respectfully,
Frank
Good Morning Frank,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to comment. I believe that Terry makes a decent point with his comments on your site. Rather than a provoking comments in his usual fashion, Robert could have offered a personal invitation for a select few to view his documentary of critical evaluation. This would have signaled most of us that his documentary was up and running. Again, I and others had simply lost track of his project.
I'll probably view it within the next couple of weeks as my work schedule will allow me to devote the appropriate time to look at it.
My daughter works in media, so I'll ask her to look at it from a production point of view. She does view this blog from time to time...rarely makes any comments.
While we're at it, Robert could help himself by being less bombastic and narcissistic...throw in being dismissive of other viewpoints as well. I'll give my dialog with Tom Tulien as a good example when we discuss the 1968 Minot case on this site. We certainly don't agree with everything, but we are civil about it.
Again, thanks for the comments.
Kind regards,
Tim
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete— continued from above —
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're obsessed with Ufology as some are; however, your repetitive activity indicates a keen interest. Moreover, given your contemplative article re Robert’s documentary, with focus on the trailer(s) specifically writing:
"I'm especially looking forward to the Malmstrom segments. [my emphasis] My views on Malmstrom is peppered throughout this blog and two others (see blog side bar for both Echo and Oscar flight's blogs). At this point, I'm more interested in Robert's presentation. [my emphasis]"
Certainly, based on your patterned behavior (and I don’t mean that as a pejorative) specific to Robert Hastings and his work, it can’t be a surprise to anyone that there was an expectation for commentary on your part, et al.
Finally, you wrote:
“Despite the above, my main premise remains that the silence from skeptics and debunkers regarding Robert's documentary may be akin to throwing back the very silence that he provided towards us. You can call it poetic justice.”
As I stated to Bob (Sheaffer), Robert has replied to critics often and sometimes to the point of ad nauseam (as many are probably feeling about my multiple replies about now); I offered up several links as an examples and anyone can view his column or use the site’s search engine to see for themselves.
You ended with:
“ Frank, when I say "I don't care," Perhaps it should be looked at from this point: Does Robert truly care if I watch his flick? Does he really value my opinion one way or another? ”
The short answer is—he doesn’t care if you watch the film (IMHO); however, I think he values your opinion above others given your previous service/employment as mentioned previously—I know I certainly do.
Respectfully,
Frank
Ooops that was meant to "complimentative article re Robert’s documentary" above ....
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteTim Printy just published his latest SunLite edition. He does have a very short segment regarding Robert's documentary. I assume that he will provide more commentary in a later edition.
Tim
Tim,
DeleteIronically, I checked Printy's e-mag yesterday or the day before; an issue or two ago he wrote:
""Robert Hastings, UFOs and Nukes, film is now available for download at Vimeo. After asking for money to produce the film, Hastings is now asking for money to view the film. One would think that if he was interested in presenting this information to the general public to “benefit humanity”, he would simply have put it up for all to see. Instead, it appears that it is going to be “pay per view”. "
Sad that vocal skeptics re Hastings' work have an issue with $4.99. Moreover, it appears that Robert called it when he wrote:
"This crowd will never admit—even to themselves—that their misguided, weak arguments are now untenable. Maybe they are just lying low, realizing that they have nothing to gain by critiquing the film, in light of the overwhelming evidence it presents. (Now that I have written this article, look for some of them to claim that they didn’t want to pay five bucks to support my “nonsense”, which gives them a convenient excuse not to comment.)" [my emphasis]
Unfortunately, what might be helpful debate/discourse always seems to get lost to ideologies. :^(
Cheers,
Frank
Frank wrote: "nor is [Hastings] crowing about anyone not giving a sh#t re his work"
DeleteBut Hastings disproved this when he wrote: "This crowd will never admit—even to themselves—that their misguided, weak arguments are now untenable. Maybe they are just lying low, realizing that they have nothing to gain by critiquing the film, in light of the overwhelming evidence it presents."
Frank, your defence of Hastings on this issue is -- what would be the most apt phrase? -- "simply disingenuous."
Frank,
ReplyDeleteHastings' quote(?) "This crowd will never admit—even to themselves—that their misguided, weak arguments are now untenable. Maybe they are just lying low, realizing that they have nothing to gain by critiquing the film, in light of the overwhelming evidence it presents. (Now that I have written this article, look for some of them to claim that they didn’t want to pay five bucks to support my “nonsense”, which gives them a convenient excuse not to comment.)
I can only smile as I type, but for me the simple answer is I forgot about his film...not that I'm misguided, have weak arguments that are untenable...I simply forgot about his film.
A little over dramatic on Robert's part...or, wishful thinking.
Tim H.
Mornin' Tim,
ReplyDeleteIn answer to why you didn't watch the film, you wrote (yesterday):
"...I simply forgot about his film."
A very valid reason for not watching; same as not wanting to, or whatever; however, in your initial response a couple days ago you wrote:
"Sorry to disappoint, but unfortunately you provide no compelling evidence that refutes my previous view points concerning your Minuteman ICBM stories.
It's been some 6 to 7 years since I started out to rebut your Malmstrom and Minot claims, specifically Echo and Oscar Flight, and to this date I seen nothing to change my opinion. Thus the silence on my part."
These two statements are obviously contradictory; same for the latter part of the above commentary, as you previously wrote:
"After viewing his trailers, I have to commend Robert for his providing of stock footage for his Minuteman ICBM segment. Though I'm in disagreement with Robert's theory, I at the least, applaud his efforts for putting the weapon system in proper context and moving away from the docu-drama products that had been put forth in the past by the likes of Discovery Channel-Canada and others.
I'm especially looking forward to the Malmstrom segments. My views on Malmstrom is peppered throughout this blog and two others (see blog side bar for both Echo and Oscar flight's blogs). At this point, I'm more interested in Robert's presentation."
No offense, but this is getting confusing.
Cheers,
Frank