I've had my strong suspicions concerning his silence. In the world of ufology, if something is a pain in the ass, simply ignore it and hopefully it will go away. Simply, silence from your protractors tend to be a sign that your on solid ground. To test my theory, I asked Robert Hastings via Frank Warren's UFO Chronicles in a portion of a comment that I had posted:
"Thanks your response concerning Walter Figel's lack of affidavit and participation at the press conference. As far as labeling me as a "debunker"...whatever. "
"It's been approximately five months since I posted "Case Closed! A Re-evaluation of the Echo Flight Incident" and wondered if you had any thoughts concerning the points that I had raised?"
"Thanks Frank for relaying this for me."
Robert Hastings response:
"Why should I, Tim? It would be a waste of my time. You are incapable of objectively evaluating the data you are presented with. For example, your starting position is that I am "using my ex-military sources to make money" when, in reality, they are my most ardent supporters. Did you see me holding a gun to the heads of the guys who participated in my press conference?!"Your input and, ahem, "insights" just go downhill from there. I will respond on a case-by-case basis to your posts, when it suits me and I am in the mood."
So, Robert's only weak and impotent answer is..."You are incapable of objectively evaluating the data you are presented"...Ninety five percent of this blog's content has been dedicated towards evaluating the data that was "presented" to me, plus the added value of my experience with the Minuteman weapon system. I've painstakingly broken down the Echo incident into numerous subsections so as to look at all the different layers of strata formulating an ongoing basis for my eventual final conclusion and this evaluation was accomplished in broad daylight for all to see...total transparency.
Each segment of my research was presented on my blog. I provided what resources that was used. For the most part I had used the very same data that Hastings had used to shore up his conclusion. In the case of using my missile crew experiences, I had provided the readers with an in-depth explanation. And throughout this transparent process, not one word of critique from Hastings. Why was that? Could it be for the simple reason that he had no solid foundation to do so?
Here is a classic Hastings trait (one of many), the art of deflection..."For example, your starting position is that I am "using my ex-military sources to make money"...No Robert, that was not my starting position. This was my actual starting position:
"UFO(s) caused ten Minuteman ICBM to drop off alert at Malmstrom AFB, March 16, 1967" solely based on the statements made by one man that he received a report from "someone" that a UFO was spotted over one of the LFs.Does the above look familiar? That happens to be Hastings starting point as well. Robert Hastings had framed a hypothesis solely supported by someone hearing about UFOs and subsequent rumors of UFO activity. My investigation proved Hastings' hypothesis wrong and his supporting arguments lacking of any sound foundations, especially since after 40 years, no one has ever come forward as an eye witness to the incident. More to the point, here are my 11 points that support my claim of no UFOs in or near the Echo Flight area:
1. High probability that no maintenance teams were out on any of Echo's sites during shutdowns.
2. No maintenance or security teams mentioned in the Unit History.
3. After 44 years, none of the supposed eye witnesses have ever been identified, nor have these people ever came forward, concluding that they may never have existed in the first place.
4. Walter Figel's inconsistency from both Hastings and Salas' interviews.
5. Walter Figel's perceived reluctance to publicly support Hastings' UFO theory, as evidence by, his absence from the D.C press conference, lack of an affidavit affirming his statements.
6. Eric Carlson's strong denial of receiving any UFO reports from security personnel.
7. No intercept missions flown by the Montana National Guard against any unknown radar contacts.
8. Minuteman LF design of connectivity isolation precludes any one event (UFO included) from affecting the remaining ICBMs in a given flight.
9. Echo was a flight specific event with no other adjoining flight effected
10. The only plausible UFO scenario would have been a UFO over/near Echo's LCF/LCC. This never occurred and no reports or rumors ever comes close to supporting this scenario.
11. The Boeing ECP and final installation of EMP suppression fixes resulting in no Echo-like situation from ever happening again for all SAC missile wings (Minuteman and Titan).
So as can be seen, Hastings assertion of my being"...incapable of objectively evaluating the data you are presented with"...is a severe attempt at deflecting away from from the question put to him. Notice that he provides no examples to back his assertion.
I did respond to Hastings' comment, and as of this date, Frank Warren has not posted it on his site. But I'm sure that at a minimum, Frank has relayed it to Hastings. I'm assuming that Frank thought my comment to be a personal attack...Frank tends to frown on those sorts of things...except for Robert's attacks of course. Par for the course, but it's Frank's site and his rules and that's the way it is.
Here is the actual comment sent to Hastings:
"Robert, you practice the art of deflection rather well. Your reluctance to even half-hearted rebut my arguments speak volumes as to your capacity to do so."
"For instance, you will go to great lengths to engage in and antagonize James Carlson, whom you view as mentally ill (your words) yet avoid my more "coherent" arguments. Why is that? I suppose that you enjoy easy targets...plucking at the lower hanging fruit."
"I told you almost two years ago when we played our email game of "contact the Hastings sources" that I actually found you quite fascinating as far as your strongly held view points and I have always wondered why that was so. What happened to you back in 1967 while at Malmstrom? Why does a man, who holds his father in high esteem, viciously attack a man such as James Carlson who equally holds the same towards his father? It is kind of odd, in a strange twist, that you and James have common ground."
"As far as your commenting on my site, your always welcome to do so...on a case by case basis of course. "
"I have things coming down the pike for you...your case by case basis may be coming at you rather quickly."On second thought Robert has answered in detail my question. Silence is not bad after all.
0 comments:
Post a Comment