"What, Mr. Hebert, no response to my comments regarding what Col. Figel *actually* said about the nature and location of the reports he got from those on-site?! Nice side-step.
As I recall, you refused to accept former Minuteman missile launch officer David Schuur’s email address directly from me and found it elsewhere on your own. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. And, after posting Schuur’s response to you at your website, you tried to explain his experience away in prosaic terms.
Moreover, you never accepted my offer to provide you with Hank Barlow’s email address. Barlow helped restart the Echo Flight missiles and reports a UFO involvement in their shutdown.
It was/is your game-playing and this kind of disingenuousness that makes me thoroughly disinterested in your alleged background and supposed insights." (bold type by Hebert)
and my response:
"...As far as Schurr’s email address, I used what you had provided me. Prove that I used another source! Let’s not forget that I requested James Carlson’s email address which you refused to give me because you stated that you had contacted Eric Carlson and he did not want the address given to me. (I have that very email). BTW, you never contacted Eric Carlson, did you? James was your smoking gun, no use in giving that wealth of information to a former ICBM crew dog that was “snooping” around. So you fabricated Eric Carlson’s “request”. You even went so far as to state to those on the missileforums site that I was a government agent, after I turned the tables on “your” silly assed snipe hunt. That precious bit of comedy can easily be had from the administrators of the missileforums site.
1. Prove to me that I received Schurrs email address from another source.
2. Prove to me that you actually contacted Eric Carlson concernin my request for James Carlson’s email address..."
and more of Robert Hastings:
"... Mr. Hebert, regarding the Schuur issue, you say you have my emails. It’s up to you, not me, to prove that you got his email address directly from me. If I did send it, which I doubt, then I will stand corrected..."
So Hastings makes a claim which I ask that he provides proof to back it up and yet he refuses to do so. Well Robert, your wrong! Let's take a trip down memory lane:
From: hastings444@worldnet.att.net
To: timh_37@msn.com
Subject: Re: Special request
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:29:31 -0600
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:44 PM
Subject: RE: Special request
Thanks Robert, I'll contact Schuur, when he confirms to you of said contact, then perhaps we can discuss Carlson's address? No need to reply, I know that you are a man of your word.
Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hastings444@worldnet.att.net
To: timh_37@msn.com
Subject: Re: Special request
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:55:35 -0600
Did you email Dave Schuur yet? You won't get anymore assistance from me until you do. I have told him to expect your email because I know you are a seeker of facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And:
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:32 PM
Subject: RE: Special request
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Robert, above is my proof. Do you still deny it? I would expect a written retraction via post on Cox's blog, that is if you have any sense of integrity and honor.
As far as my Minot article featuring Schuur, I treated Schuur with the utmost respect. My actual email contact and Schuur's reply in listed in the article. Your seemingly problem with the article is that I didn't endorse your point of view, plain and simple. If Mr. Schuur has a problem with the article then he is most welcome to comment...that is, if you'll let him.
The same goes with Henry Barlow, his comments are certainly welcomed here, again, if you'll let him. BTW, my Barlow article was taken from your interview with him. Was your article inaccurate?
I also would like a clarification concerning your claims that you had direct contact with Eric Carlson regarding your releasing James Carlson's email per my request. I have direct information that you never contacted the elder Carlson and used a fabrication as an excuse in not giving me the email address.
Most of my readers will probably find the above disagreement childish, which I have to agree in part. Even after my exchanges with Hastings, I had to shake my head and smile. Two grown men arguing over an email address. Yet after all of this, what did it really matter if I had received Schuur's email address from a source other than Hastings? Rather juvenile behavior coming from such an esteem UFO researcher, at least, that's the impression. And the same can easily be said about me. Perhaps Hastings merely forgot about giving me the address, after all it was nearly two years ago. But this brings up a salient point, if Hastings can forget about this one little two year old email exchange, how can he expect that Figel, Meiwald, Jamison, Barlow and others can remember the finer details of something that happened 40-plus years ago.
