If we reject the stories they are telling it seems the burden then falls upon us to provide evidence they are lying or disturbed.
Seeing no such evidence, and finding their reputations and demeanor to be credible, I've chosen to believe them. If new evidence arises which brings their character in to question, I'll of course review my conclusion at that point.
It seems to me Hastings has proven that there have been craft of unknown origin in the vicinity of our nuclear bases. In this interview he seems pretty careful to state that any theories he has beyond that are merely his opinion and not proven fact.
https://vimeo.com/80881015
I think Hastings should be applauded for making a sincere serious effort to study this subject in a manner that is as professional as possible. He's provided us with information which, as he would say himself, we are free to do with as we please.
Science ignores the UFO subject entirely, and most UFO "research" is dreamy wildly speculative trash.
Hastings is attempting to do it right, and he deserves respect for the attempt, however one might regard his conclusions.
A final thought. UFO believers only have to be right one time to win the day, whereas UFO skeptics have to defeat each and every one of the thousands of reports.
First, the burden falls squarely on the shoulders of those who make a claim. It is the inability to qualify the claim which causes me to reject the story. That I had taken considerable personal time to research such claims was a means to satisfy my professional curiosity and shows a respectful deference to those officer's that had made the claims. In other words, I gave numerous stories due consideration and in the end have rejected them for the various reasons mentioned in the many blog posts listed on this site. I might add that all were free to make comment on this blog, but had chosen to be silent...that of course is their right.
As far as Hastings' "sincere serious effort to study this subject..." That depends on the cases which he chooses to propagate. The few which I've looked in depth at leaves me unconvinced due to the distortion of memories over time, the changing nature of the individual narratives and his lack of understanding of the weapon systems involved. Frankly, Mr. Hastings has the tendency to pound a round peg into a square hole.
Despite my misgivings about Hastings' research, I do agree that in the end one must look at his information and be free to do with as one please. I merely provide alternative possibilities to the alleged UFO encounters involving our nuclear ICBM forces. This information I provide and one is free to do with it as pleased.
"A final thought. UFO believers only have to be right one time to win the day, whereas UFO skeptics have to defeat each and every one of the thousands of reports."
The problem is that UFO believers state that they are right all of the time, yet provide, at best, poor evidence to support their claim. BTW, you commented on a post involving Robert Salas. Curious, you made no defense of his claim. Salas is a prime example of offering a decades old story that has morphed so many times over the years. There is no documentation that supports his story nor have anyone come forward that provided support for his story. There would have been at a minimum 8 people above ground at Salas' alert facility. The devil's in the details, Mr. Tanny, or in this case the lack of details.
I'll provide more of Mr. Tanny's comments in a later post.
