The Bunny's Retort by James Carlson

8/7/2019 The Bunny's Retort by James Carlson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-bunnys-retort-by-james-carlson 1/63

The Bunny's Retort By

James Carlson

I'd like to respond to recent comments published by Robert Hastings under the

title James Carlson: The New Energizer Bunny? It's probably easiest just to do this in a

point-counterpoint style, because once again he's said so much that can be so easily

refuted, that rather than confuse people with stylistic mannerisms, and a long list of

counter-arguments proving that his imagination far outweighs his understanding of the

real world, I can address each issue in the order he brings it up. For the most part,

everything that he's discussed is believable only in the absence of sufficient information;



he's very good at misleading people in that way ² he paints a picture that has a lot of

nice colors in it, but you don't see that he's constantly going out of the lines, or using the

wrong colors like a child would, using a green crayon for the little dog's fur, orange

crayon for the eyes, most of which people don't notice, because he doesn't show it to

anybody until the lights have been metaphorically t urned off . Using a point-counterpoint

style, I can effectively turn the lights back on, and show people exac t ly how he's

perpetrating this con game, and how he's been able to convince a few ignorant people

that he's got some valid points to make. But he doesn't have any valid points, not really

² he's just got a style of doing things that takes his audience's attention away from the

center of the act, and forces them to look into the shadows at edge of the stage, as if

that's going to highlight in some way the world we all live in or direct a spotlight at the

events we¶re trying to examine. Life doesn't work that way, and his point of view is one

of misdirection; nobody can see the real world by looking in the shadows while ignoring

everything else. What I'm going to do is direct a spotlight at the center act on the stage:

Rober t Hast ings himself and the story he¶s narrating; as a result of this, the audience

will be able to see very clearly that Robert Hastings is hiding things in his pockets and

behind his back, things that have no business being on stage, because he put them

together in his basement with glue and twine ² cheap special effects that need to be

pointed out before he walks away and all the senseless annotations he¶s drawing

attention to can come into focus.

Each section of the whole is preceded in bold type, followed by the charges and

commentary recently published by Robert Hastings. I intend to respond to each; you

can blame the structure and at least some of the length on Robert Hastings. He thinks

that if he throws a lot of not hing into the argument, some of it will stick, ignoring, for the

moment, the fact that every issue he highlights has already been shattered. In any

case, I don¶t mind reviewing his poor judgment, his dishonesty, his incomplete claims,

and his inability to foster a cohesive case study of these events; it isn¶t terribly hard, and

nobody can call it unfair to Hastings, since the issues have already been defined by

Hastings. In addition, this method of critique enables readers already familiar with the

issues, to skip over that section and read instead only those portions that he or she is

less familiar with. Suffice to say that no arguments Robert Hastings and Robert Salas



have ever raised have gone unanswered. In fact,every claim that Robert Hastings has

ever made in reference to this particular issue has already been proven false, and he

has not hing else. That's why every detailed rebuttal he has ever produced starts and

ends with "everybody's lying but me."

Once I¶ve completed showing exactly why he has no case, after presenting as

well a few indisputable facts I¶ve neglected raising in the past that bear directly on his

credibility, the value of his word, and the worth of his honesty, Robert Hastings¶ insistent

reliance on the shadows in the corner of the stage will no longer be supportable ±

certainly not by me. At that point, his claims can be effectively dismissed, as can he;

that is, in any case, what I intend to do. He¶s failed to raise any valid or new arguments;

he¶s neglected to throw any light on the issues explored; and he¶s failed completely to

explain his own moral lapses and the impotence inherent to his claims. Men of that

nature deserve to be dismissed, and so I shall do so, unless he comes up with

something new, that can be associated with more meaning than he currently

possesses. However, he¶s already loaded his guns with everything he¶s got and fired it

all in a poor attempt to make a last stand, so once I¶ve answered all of his accusations

and petty charges, I intend to dismiss him entirely; he¶s not very interesting, and he

really doesn¶t have anything interesting to say. Frankly, he bores the Hell out of me.

In any case, I think I¶ll destroy his case first, while pointing out the character of

his duplicity, in terms nobody ± not even he ± can fail to understand.

I'm confident that anybody who looks at the evidence available ² evidence that

both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas still refuse to acknowledge ² and takes the

time to do so in full awareness of the product that these men have put together and are

now selling, will be convinced of the deceit they've evinced that I've tried to document.

There are, however, a lot of folks who are still on the fence, and these men and women

shouldn't be neglected. For those on the fence, therefore, Hastings' and Salas' obvious

lies need to be pointed out, and the numerous well-documented and repeatedly

confirmed facts defining this case discussed far more openly than both men have

shown themselves willing to do. And their reliance on a strategy of attack and alienate

to prevent that discussion needs to be affirmed and conceded in recognition of their



intolerance for dispute. Simplyignoring such matters, as they evidently want the world

to do, will eventually result in the complete disavowal of American UFOlogy as a clear

and well-defined system of human discourse with a clear and well-defined goal: t he

det erminat ion of t rut h whenever and wherever possible.

Robert Hastings writes: When James Carlson says he has ³proof´ he means, ³I

really, really believe this is true, therefore, it must be.´ I note here that he claimed

he had ³proof´ that Bob Salas was never involved in a UFO-related missile

shutdown at Malmstrom AFB in 1967, and wrote that for years in countless posts.

I wrote that Robert Salas is lying because he has lied on numerous occasions,

lies that I've catalogued extensively and can indeed prove the existence of. As for

showing that Salas was "never involved in a UFO-related missile shutdown at

Malmstrom AFB in 1967", I've said so because the evidence insist s upon it, which

Robert Hastings might have been aware of if he had bothered to examine any of it.

There are no documents anywhere that have ever discussed or even suggested such

an event occurring at November Flight or Oscar Flight, both of which Robert Salas has

claimed at one time or another. The only event of such magnitude that hasever been

documented by the USAF occurred at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, and the

documentation of that event was extremely thorough and voluminous, and was still

being referred to in official documentation for years afterward. There is no ment ion of

any t hing similar in ex t ent occurring anywhere else. They made it up ± it is an invent ion.

Every single missileer that I've ever spoken to who was at Malmstrom AFB in

1967 is cer t ain that no such event ever occurred at Oscar Flight or November Flight.

They also insist ² as does every single document that has ever been created under the

aegis of the USAF, including every FOIA document ever released or requested ² that

the only comparable incident to occur at Malmstrom AFB throughout the entire decade

under examination was at Echo Flight, and Echo Flight alone. There have been

numerous single missile failures, even two and three missile failures, particularly during

the period we're discussing, but no full flight failures. The only missile failures that even

came close to being a full flight failure occurred at Alpha Flight in December 1966.



Three missiles failed at t hat t ime, and had to be brought back online. More importantly,

neither Robert Salas nor Frederick Meiwald was on duty at that time, suggesting very

strongly that Robert Salas and Robert Hastings invent ed the Oscar Flight missile

failures; every witness who has ever come forward, including the witnesses that

Hastings has introduced to the world, have been unable to show that such an event

ever occurred. Robert Hastings is very good at telling peoplewhat they should believe,

but his abilities to explain why they should believe are nonexistent. He is complet ely

unable t o show t hat t his incident ever occurred. If the general public would simply

examine the evidence he has produced, instead of simply taking his word for it, they

would instantly reach the same conclusion. Neither Robert Salas nor Robert Hastings

has made a simple error regarding the wrong flight ² t hey are simply lying t o you, and

are unable to prove otherwise. Please keep reading: I will show youexac t ly what

they've said and done, and why they think it's necessary to attack me and my family on

the moral grounds they have resorted to without any provision of evidence.

Robert Hastings, just as much as Robert Salas, has also relied upon lies to

present a story that can't be established with facts. His lying, however, is far more

pathological, as a result of which, it is also easier to find examples of. This pathological

character is suggested by the fact that he often resorts to lying when he has no need to

do so. He doesn't even think twice about telling lies anymore, and that's one of the

reasons it's so very easy to find examples of his duplicity, and his immoral character. I'd

venture that anybody could do it, but it would mean having to surround themselves with

his poor excuses and all too criminal understanding of human motivation for an

extended period, and most people refuse to do so when it concerns a subject so

irrelevant to modern life as his thoughts regarding an incident that took place in 1967.

There's just no eventual payoff for most people. I'm willing to do it, because both Salas

and Hastings have targeted my family with their assertions of dishonesty and the

apparent enjoyment of ignoble pursuits. I know firsthand the balance of their

characters, the worthlessness of their thoughts, and the sad extent of their credibility,

and I¶m perfectly willing to admit, as well, that I enjoy watching such people destroy

themselves on public forums. I hope, in fact, that Robert Hastings will eventually carry



out his numerous threats to take me to court so I can watch him take himself apart in

front of a jury. I fear that won¶t happen, however, because he doesn't threaten people to

persuade them to perform in a manner he finds more appropriate; he threatens people

as a public gesture, to convince his audience that he has the legal means to carry out

his threats, and the ability and evidence to win such a case. But if the audience he is

performing for will simply remember that he is, in fact, a pathological liar, a far more

accurate picture of his goals and reactions to adversity can be predicted, including that

of nearly every option he is willing to carry out. Taking his nonexistent case to court will

never happen, because he's very much aware of its nonexist ence. And that means he's

not threatening a lawsuit to persuade me to cease my claims or suffer the wrath of legal

recourse, but for the benefit of you, his audience; once you're aware of that, you can

judge his reactions for yourself. You¶ll find i t infallible, I assure you.

Proving that Robert Hastings is indeed a liar is easy. He does it all the time to

sound convincing to his audience, and in a strategic manner to convince his audience

that the claims of his critics are groundless. For instance, Hastings has written on

numerous occasions that my father told him that I have mental problems my family is

deeply concerned about, and that my claims regarding both the research I¶ve conducted

and the extent of his dishonesty should be discounted for that reason. That 's a lie ² an

easily provable lie that he has published in a sad attempt to ruin my reputation, and

convince his audience that my assertions are those of a man who should be on

medication in a mental hospital.

In addition, he has also suggested that I use illegal drugs, another unsupportable

accusation that he resorted to in his reprehensible attempts to discredit my arguments.

This, t oo, is a lie. Ask yourself: are t hese t he argument s present ed and t he issues

raised in response t o cri t ical review by an honest man capable of defending his

posi t ion? And then examine his work, and ask yourself another question: has he even

t ried to introduce evidence to refute the documents and the interviews that I¶ve already

produced, proving his lies? For God¶s sake, he isn¶t even willing to answer a few

questions on the subject.

My father has already addressed the first issue above, so I won't linger on it; as

for his introduction of possible drug use into an argument that he's failed completely to



defend on its own merits, I can only point it out in the hope that those learning of it will

conclude that these tactics are not among those considered by honest men ² t hey are

t he t ac t ics of charlat ans. I have no intention of attempting to prove that I am not a drug

user who should be imprisoned; I¶m simply asking his audience whether or not a man

who makes such suggestions in the place of any effective counter-argument should be

trusted to actually possess such an argument. His failure to present it suggests that he

should not. The actions of Robert Hastings are not those of an honest man, as he

insists ² they are the actions of a self-serving liar trying to create for his own benefit a

climate of animosity between the United States government and its citizens on the basis

of his fictional UFO claims. And a man willing to lie about the acts of other men simply

to create fear should be treated with the same repugnance he so willingly and

dishonestly discusses as characteristic of others.

Hastings has often said that "Figel complet ely cont radic t s Eric Carlson¶s claim

t hat no UFOs were involved" at Echo Flight on Malmstrom AFB on March 16, 1967.

Examples of this claim of his can be found t hroughout his published works. And yet, at

that pathetic dog and pony show he and Salas arranged for September 27 last, Robert

Salas stood up and said that both Figel and my father, Captain Eric Carlson, had

confirmed his arrogant myth of a UFO at Echo Flight. It's apparent that either Hastings

or Salas was lying upon making their assertions; either my father confirms the presence

of UFOs, or he does not. Bot h men cannot be t elling t he t rut h. However, both men

have also contradicted their own claims on many occasions, indicating that their lies are

appropriate to their audience, so the audience needs to be taken into consideration as

well as those facts expressed and provable amidst the author¶s int ent . Hastings¶ intent

at the time he made his initial claims was to convince his audience that Colonel Figel¶s

claims regarding Echo Flight were opposed to the claims my father has made for many

years that no UFOs were ever reported in reference to that event. As a result,"Figel

complet ely cont radic t s Eric Carlson¶s claim t hat no UFOs were involved." Unfortunately

for Robert Hastings¶ credibility, that conclusion is one he can assert only as long as

nobody attempts to confirm what Figel¶s claims actually are.



Robert Salas, however, was answering a question presented by the press

regarding the ex t ent of the confirmation of his own claims. Obviously, to such an

audience, the higher the number of confirmations made, the more accurate the claims

will seem. As a result, Robert Salas has lied regarding theamount of confirmation,

insisting that bot h my father and Figel have provided such. Again, the claims upon

which his credibility is determined can only be truthfully asserted on the condition that

nobody attempts to confirm whether or not they have actually been established. And,

clearly, they have not.

The only means to determine the truth, in this case, would be to ask both Colonel

Figel and my father, which had actually been done two days prior to the press

conference referred to above. In response, both my father and Colonel Figel were very

clear that they have never believed UFOs were involved at Echo Flight, and have never

t old anybody that UFOs were involved at Echo Flight. It¶s pretty clear that both Robert

Hastings and Robert Salas are lying to their audience, when the subjects of those lies

are asked to respond for themselves instead of allowing others to do so for them. This

isn't difficult for people to figure out, but they require sufficient information to do so, and

neither Hastings nor Salas are inclined to present that information. They refuse to tell

their audience that both Carlson and Figel have made these claims ² they tell you that

Figel reported UFOs and Carlson has lied about it ever since. And yet, to another

audience, they are willing to claim that bot h Carlson and Figel have confirmed UFOs,

and that they have proof of this. In my opinion, the general audience should examine

that proof, or should at least ask to do so; I have examined i t , and i t is insufficient t o

reach t he conclusions bot h men have applied. Salas says my father confirmed UFOs in

a personal letter to him ² he made that same claim again on September 27 at his press

conference. But he has never produced that letter; he has only produced a nice

conversational letter my father wrote that dismisses his claims and suggests he

examines the documents available, none of which discuss UFOs at Echo Flight. So

where is this evidence he has claimed to possess for fifteen years? I t doesn' t exist .

And yet, he continues to insist it does exist. Bear in mind that if you speak to both

Carlson and Figel, t he only t wo men present at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967, they will

tell you exactly the same story. And yet Hastings says: "Figel complet ely cont radic t s



Eric Carlson¶s claim t hat no UFOs were involved." And Salas says: "Colonel Figel and

Capt ain Carlson bot h confirmed t he presence of UFOs at Echo Flight on March 16,

1967." It¶s evident that not hing embarrasses either of the two Bobs, and yet Hastings

refers to me as the Energizer Bunny.

Ask yourself: are t hese t he words and ac t s of honest men? This isn't a rare

incident of lies expressed; both men react this way all t he t ime, particularly when they're

criticized for the absence of evidence regarding their claims. They can't even keep their

lies straight anymore, and that's why it's so easy to find examples when you go looking

for them.

For years, Hastings and Salas have been crowing about Colonel Walt Figel's

confirmation of the UFOs at Echo Flight ² for years! Colonel Figel, however, notably

never said anything himself ² Salas and Hastings did it for him, publishing supposedly

unedited transcripts of conversations that Figel himself insists have been distorted to

suggest elements to the story that he would never himself suggest. They've reached

conclusions on the basis of lies and distorted features of the interviews they've

conducted, and they've done so consciously . They insist that these charges are lies

that I cannot prove, but they are lying to you when they say that as well. The proof is

extremely easy to come by, and anybody can do it. It took me only five minutes to

prove that they were lying ² all I had to do was ask Colonel Figel himself. The proof

was immediate, and it came right from the same sources they've been attempting to use

to convince you, their audience, that they are telling the truth. They thought they could

get away with this, because Figel never wanted to get involved in this matter at all, and

he made that very clear to both of them. He considers it a meaningless waste of his

time, and he refused to go public with any claims whatsoever for that reason until I

contacted him, and showed him what Hastings and Salas have been doing to his

reputation. I discovered very quickly that he was not unconcerned aboutt hat aspect of

the lies Salas and Hastings have been telling you. He was pissed off, and he has good

reason to be. He issued a very clear statement immediat ely ² one he wrote himself,

that leaves no doubt at all what lengths Salas and Hastings have gone to in order to

support their claims. He didn't need to be coaxed to do so. His disgust with what



they've done was apparent in every word he wrote, and in every sentence he uttered on

the phone. We had a very nice, lengthy conversation, and he told meexac t ly what

happened, and I told him exac t ly what Hastings and Salas have concluded, using both

him and my father as the primary sources of those conclusions. Colonel Figel has since

then issued additional statements that cannot be reconciled with what Hastings and

Salas have been insisting upon since 1995. He has even issued a statement that

comes right out and says that t hose claiming t he my t h of UFOs at Malmst rom AFB in

March 1967 are lying t o you. So how does Robert Hastings respond to this? Are his

responses consistent with those of the honest man he claims to be? Well, let's look at

those responses for just a moment, and then you, his primary audience, can judge for

yourself if he's been an honest man or not.

After I first interviewed Walt Figel last March, and he made it very clear to me

what lengths that Hastings and Salas have gone to make it appear as if a UFO was

involved at Echo Flight, Hastings called him on the telephone the very next business

day, which was Monday, 8 March, 2010. Doubtful for whatever reasons that I had

actually spoken to Figel, he felt it was necessary to confirm whether or not I had indeed

done so. Even before confirming this fact, however, Robert Hastings¶ communications

with the owners of Reali t y Uncovered revealed his ultimate intentions and how, exactly,

he was going to respond to the Echo Flight deputy commander¶s revelations: ³I am not

t he only one who has not iced James' selec t ive and misleading edi t ing (or paraphrasing)

at ot her blogs of what Figel has said. For t unat ely, I have Figel on audiot ape. Does

James claim t o have t aped him, wi t h his permission, as I did, or is he only t elling you

what Figel supposedly t old him?´

Apparently, Hastings had decided that it was necessary to convince Reali t y

Uncovered that my claims could not be trusted, suggesting that it would not be fruitful

for them to look in the direction I was pointing. His first strategic act, therefore, to the

publication of Figel¶s denial of UFO interference, was an attempt to attach doubt to my

claims of having discussed this matter with him. There¶s nothing intrinsically wrong with

this; he had not yet confirmed that what I had published actually originated with Colonel

Figel. In any case, this was not an effective response in the first place, primarily



because Colonel Figel drafted his own statement in his own writing. My claims were

relevant only to the establishment of the source, the identity of Colonel Figel himself,

which by then had been confidently verified many times over. Hastings¶ attempts to

foment doubt in my assertions by suggesting that Figel¶s comments weren¶t of any value

unless they were recorded is a fairly pathetic bulwark in light of the fact that Figel wrote

the statement himself, but that¶s usually the first recourse of people who want others to

believe that they alone are capable of reviewing evidence and producing witnesses.

What¶s more surprising, however, is that not even once did Robert Hastings attempt to

answer any of the many questions posed by Figel¶s statements; his only purpose was to

create doubt regarding my claims. His intent here was plain; he wanted to cast doubt

on my role in revealing Figel¶s revelations in order to convince others not to examine

them, a meaningless gesture, and nothing more. ³In your own post on t he subjec t , you

say t hat you can "confirm" t hat James Carlson recent ly called Col. Wal t Figel. How do

you know t hat ? Have you verified t his wi t h Figel yourself or are you just t aking James'

word for i t ?´ The response may have been pett y , but it was not necessarily unet hical .

That character of his response to misfortune was not, however, consistent. Neither

were his attempts to discover the truth.

Upon calling Colonel Figel on the first business day following publication of his

assertions, this particular aspect of Hastings¶ strategic actions proved to me and to

everybody at Reali t y Uncovered the true value of his claims. After all, upon talking

directly to Figel, Hastings knew exac t ly what Figel was claiming and he knew for a fact

that Colonel Figel was the actual source of the offending comments. And yet he

continued the same line of attack, attempting to convince those who were willing to

credit my research that it was entirely groundless, even though he knew the opposite

was true. An examination of his strategies before and after his discussion of this matter

with Colonel Figel is somewhat enlightening, in that it reveals the ethical restraints, or

lack thereof, that Robert Hastings intended to put into play in order to ensure that his

version of the Echo Flight Incident would be accepted as the most reasonable

explanation for what actually occurred. What ac t ually occurred , however, was not

considered a tremendously important aspect of his claims; his version of t he Echo Flight

incident , on the other hand, was. Nobody , not even Colonel Walt Figel, was going to



prevent Robert Hastings from doing everything he could, ethical or not, to see that his

claims were considered foremost. This was no longer a search to determine thet rut h; it

had become, at least for Robert Hastings, a means to forcibly encapsulate that truth into

his singular vision, whether doing so could be supported by the known facts or not; and

t hat meant the conversation was no longer about the Echo Flight Incident ± the

conversation was now all about Rober t Hast ings.

Upon speaking directly to Colonel Figel the following Monday, Robert Hastings

was well-aware that I had indeed spoken with him and that my interpretation of his

claims was accurate. He knew this, because that¶s exactly what Colonel Figelt old him.

His claims since last March, nearly a year ago, that everything I¶ve reported regarding

Figel¶s assessment of this event is incorrect, and that I have been lying continuously

since then, has been a strategic attempt to destroy whatever credibility I may have ±

not hing more. The fact that heknew this line of attack could not be supported, and was,

in fact, unt rue had no bearing on the matter. Robert Hastings does not differentiate

between what¶s t rue and what is false; there is only what suppor t s his claims, and what

does not . Essentially, once he had confirmed everything I discussed with Colonel Figel,

he still attempted to raise doubts regarding the issue of my credibility even though my

credibility was no longer in question ± I was simply reporting what Colonel Figel told me.

Both Hastings and Salas, however, still wanted to use the testimony of Walt Figel to

assert their misleading allegations, so it became necessary to cast doubt on my claims

while persuading others to reject examination of them altogether. Any attempts to

attack the credibility of Colonel Walt Figel would work against their goals, because he

was still the only witness they had who could, with some authority, discuss the events of

March 16, 1967.

In order to accomplish this two-fold goal, Robert Hastings resorted to more

obvious lies, telling Reali t y Uncovered that Figel had informed both him and Salas that

my claims ² those I had already attributed to Colonel Figel himself ² were untrue, and

that both men had recorded a new interview with Figel, the transcripts of which he

intended to publish. He also insisted that this interview would prove beyond any doubt

that all of the claims I had made regarding his and Salas' lies were false, once again

attempting to persuade them that supporting my assertions would eventually damage



their own reputations, another meaningless attempt that refuses to account for the

claims that Colonel Figel himself had made, and reveals a preference for preventing

those claims from being publically assessed: ³So, you only have his word for what Figel

supposedly t old him´ , even though he had already spoken with Figel, and knew without

any doubt whatsoever that what Figel ³supposedly´ told me was completely true.

Taking into account the explanation above that one¶s audience and intent can also

reveal the lies one resorts to, it¶s become apparent that in this case Robert Hastings

was trying to convince his audience ± the founders and owners of Reali t y Uncovered ±

that the trust they had expressed in my words and my conclusions was unfounded, and

that their pursuits would be better applied to other arguments, and more trustworthy

issues such as those he and Salas have discussed.

Specifically, on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, Robert Hastings wrote:

I re-int erviewed Wal t Figel on Monday evening. Salas re-int erviewed him

on Tuesday evening. We have bot h conversat ions on audiot ape and we are

current ly t ranscribing t hem. We asked Figel t o address James Carlson's

int erpret at ion of his st at ement s and posi t ion on various t hings. James will not like

what Wal t had t o say.

Figel has given Salas and me permission t o publicize his st at ement s as

we see fi t . I will post a comprehensive rebutt al t o James' flawed claims in t he

nex t few days, providing verbat im excerpt s from t he conversat ions. I may even

make key por t ions of t he original audio t ape available online.

For the record, neither Robert Hastings nor Robert Salas ever published that

comprehensive rebuttal, only general assertions insisting that I was lying about

every t hing Colonel Figel told me. In addition, Figel never did address my supposedly

"flawed" claims, as Hastings had promised. Instead Figel released another statement,

worded very strongly, that relates without any doubt or necessary discussion his first

person asserted belief that both Hastings and Salas are well-confirmed liars who have

attempted to distort his claims, and suggest the presence of a UFO where no such

presence could be established.



I'm certain that if you're familiar with Hastings' claims, you already know the

overall punch-line this portion of the narrative is leading to. That recent interview that

Robert Hastings was so proud of was never published, because Figel's claims did not

have the character that Hastings had invested them with. And yet for the next six

months he continued to insist nonetheless that every t hing I wrote regarding Figel's

claims was untrue, and that I was lying about all of i t , even though I was only providing,

for the most part, the well-documented, written responses of Colonel Figel himself. The

intent was the same as it has always been ± retain any credibility that the deputy

commander of Echo Flight may or may not have, and destroy the credibility of the

conduit for his most recent claims: James Carlson. By this time, there was no longer

any need to convince Reali t y Uncovered that I was misleading them; they had already

confirmed that I was telling the truth about everything I¶ve discussed, so Hastings

abandoned the effort to convince them otherwise. As a result of this, it became

necessary to readjust his lies to his new audience: t he American public . There was no

further need to attack my claims on the basis of specific strategies, such as his prior

insistence that there was no proof that I had actually and honestly engaged the interest

of Colonel Figel, or that my interpretation of his statements were groundless and would

eventually embarrass those who had been misled by my intemperate lies and

exaggerations. His new audience, after all, hadn¶t yet been convinced that Colonel

Figel¶s assertions were factual, as his previous audience, Reali t y Uncovered , had been.

Robert Hastings¶ new claims were consequently far less specific. He simply insist ed

t hat I was lying ± that I had never contacted Colonel Figel, and the responses I had

attributed to him were complete and utter lies, from beginning to end. Without the need

for specific lies intended to convince those who already knew that my communications

with Figel had actually taken place, he simply abandoned the argument altogether, and

merely insisted my claims in general were those of a very general liar. Nothing else

was necessary when communicating to the American public at large.

Even worse, he did all of this ² six months worth of well-established and very

easily proven libel ² in full knowledge that these assertions were incorrec t , a claim that

is also easily proven, because Colonel Figel sent him the very same statement that he

sent me last March. Hastings waspersonally aware at every step that his accusations



not only were groundless, but were impossible under the circumstances. Colonel Figel

was the genuine author of the refutations made to Reali t y Uncovered , as were the

interpretations expressed therein. In other words, both Robert Hastings and Robert

Salas have been aware since last March, nearly a full year ago, that their claims

regarding Colonel Figel¶s interpretations of the events of March 16, 1967 have no

evidential value, and yet they continue to rely on them in full knowledge of their

worthless character, their only purpose being the destruction of my credibility and the

credibility of my father, allowing them to retain the alleged version of events they had

always attributed to Colonel Walt Figel. The fact that Colonel Figel has insisted very

plainly and very clearly that the claims they had previously attributed to him were an

unwarranted distortion of his true intent was ignored , a factor hinting at the actual

psychosis or disconnect with human reality that Robert Hastings consistently works

under, and is an equally informative assertion of the pathological quality inherent to both

his lies and his incessant, silly little attempts to destroy the credibility of men possessed

of far more integrity than he or Robert Salas.

Are these the actions of an honest man? Rober t Hast ings was lying for six

mont hs t o absolut ely no purpose and is st ill lying t oday . Is there any way a less

confused individual could have expected to get away with acts that are t his dishonest

and yet, at the same time, so irrevocably meaningless? Only the most deranged of men

would have found it necessary to lie about these instances as Robert Hastings has so

clearly and provably done. There was li tt le or no cause for any of i t , and even if the

recipients of these lies had actually believed what he had to say, any gains he may

have collected as a result would have been temporary at the very best. This type of

behavior is particularly common to individuals afflicted with either Compulsive Liar

Disorder or Pat hological Liar Disorder . A little research, however, show us that while a

pathological liar will lie to manipulate people, a compulsive liar lies more out of habit and

never with the intention of gaining personal benefits out of that act. In contrast,

pathological liars are generally more cunning and self centered individuals who tend to

lie in order to benefit from the act. Clearly, Robert Hastings¶ character is best met by

the latter description. In both cases, however,lying wi t hout apparent necessi t y is

typical, and that¶s what we¶re looking at here. Robert Hastings¶ first response to



adversity and illumination by those opposing his claims is to lie about every t hing ; this is

not my opinion ± i t is a proven fac t established by his own emails and his own voice.

My opinion is that Robert Hastings is deranged , and likely requires many years of

counseling before he can be trusted to tell the truth about any t hing , let alone the

irresponsible and paranoid claims about UFOs that he¶s trying to lay the groundwork for.

Hastings has never provided a single element of proof ² transcripts, recordings,

or even a suggestive whisper ² that reveals a recent and eye-opening interview with

Colonel Figel, a man he often invested with near Saint-hood for his ³honesty´ regarding

the UFOs at Echo Flight. If you don't believe me, read his past works on the subject;

they can be found all over t he int ernet , because he doesn¶t possess the sense of shame

that most Americans would immediately fall prey to had they been as self-serving and

as dishonest as he has been. You'd be surprised how much deceit becomes plain upon

examining all of it at once. Almost immediately after Colonel Walt Figel released a

statement insisting that both Hastings and Salas have knowingly lied about this event

for years, that both men have knowingly distorted his claims for their own benefit, and

that both men have never voiced a single fac t involving actual UFOs as a result of his

experiences, Robert Hastings turned his false face to the audience he's been trying to

manipulate for so many years and stated uncategorically that Figel had not made those

claims, insisting instead that every t hing Figel said, and every t hing that I have published

in response to what Figel has said are lies that originated not with Colonel Figel, but

with me, James Carlson. Robert Hastings has made these claims for one reason, and

one reason only: he still wants to use Walt Figel¶s alleged testimony regarding UFOs at

Echo Flight, so he can¶t necessarily destroy the man¶s credibility. What hecan do,

however, is destroy the credibility of the man who telephoned Walt Figel and asked him,

³did you really say all t his crap? Because, I¶ve got t o t ell you, t his isn¶ t t he same st ory I

was t old.´ Most people would say that goal is a long shot, but his intent is to at least t ry.

The truth, however, is very easy to determine by anybody with the true desire to

illuminate it. All you have to do is examine the statements Walt Figel has written and

compare them with the statements that the two Bobs have attributed to him and the

conclusions they have publically asserted as a result. And at that point, you should ask

yourself: are t hese t he ac t s of honest men? Would such men, if they were indeed



honest and had the ability to answer with facts the assertions of their critics not only

avoid discussing those facts like they were the plague, but instead insist for mont hs that

their critics are lying, while promising to reveal those lies with a new and supposedly

revealing interview that they are completely unable to provide? The fact that I'm forced

to defend myself against such utter st upidi t y should be an alarming red-flag to anybody

who still thinks that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are telling the truth. The lies are

obvious, and they are too plentiful to be erased by Hastings¶ insipid attempts to destroy

what has already been so effectively explored and catalogued. The absence of

evidence t o suppor t his claims cannot be blamed on ot hers, as Hastings has repeatedly

attempted. His inability to conduct a proper investigation, combined with his tendency

to present information that hasn¶t been verified and witnesses who haven¶t been

appropriately vetted has left him with few options; he cannot defend his position, and he

cannot call back the poor judgment that allowed him to report incidents contrary to the

assertions of his own original sources. The only blame for t his condi t ion rest s at his

own feet and t he feet of Rober t Salas, and yet his attempts to correct the damage done

to his credibility by unjustifiably attacking everybody else is the natural response of a

man who is already very much aware of the scarcity of evidence related to his claims.

They are the responses of a man who has been caught in so many lies that any

discussion of actual facts would naturally stress the point, revealing thereby the

shambles of an argument based entirely on false pretenses, poor judgment, and silly

little innuendoes of no worth whatsoever. Instead of trying to repair his poor reputation

by acknowledging the arguments gathered against him, and attempting to make a case

on those grounds, Robert Hastings, true to form, has set out to do whatever damage is

possible to those who have present ed such arguments. Not only do these actsnot

represent the defensive attributes of an honest man, they don¶t even represent the acts

of a rat ional man. Every dishonest communication that Robert Hastings has, in his

swollen mediocrity, either published or used as a means to manipulate the primary

recipients of his poor conclusions, his numerous lies, and his egregious attempts to

govern the testimony related to the incident in question cannot be blamed on everybody

else in t he manner he is now att empt ing. Honesty, after all, is useful . If you are honest,

you don¶t have to continuously backtrack in order to assess your own claims ± there is



only one story that you have to remember: t he t rue one. And yet, the primary factor

that has become inescapable for anyone attempting a rational analysis of the Echo

Flight Incident is the fact that both Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have continuously

changed every aspect of their own claims over and over and over again. Backtracking

is not only necessary; i t has come t o represent t heir very way of life.

The plain fact is, Robert Hastings and Robert Salas lie all t he t ime, and it is

extremely easy to prove it. I'd be happy to share with anybody all of my research and

all of my communications at any time. I don't withhold anything I uncover, particularly if

it reflects upon my own character. I served my nation for many years, and I'm very

proud of it; that service could be easily tarnished by lies and dishonesty, so I abjure

bot h. If you suspect me of lying about these instances as Hastings clearly wants the

general public to believe, than compare my private emails with his. I'm not afraid to

reveal my thoughts to anybody , because not only do I not give a damn what other

people think of me having such thoughts, I'm not a dishonest man, and every

communication that I have ever had with anybody will prove that. Dishonesty only

enters into an issue when the author of that dishonesty has something to hide, and

because I don¶t care what people think of me and the opinions that I hold, I don¶ t lie

about t hem. Robert Hastings and Robert Salas cannot make that claim, as their own

written works clearly affirm. They are consistently attempting to reconcile their public

visage with their private ruminations, and any examination of both will prove this, just as

my analysis above has proven the constant character of the lies Robert Hastings is

willing to rely on in order to manipulate whatever audience he happens to be addressing

at the moment. Their management of this issue does nothing to convince people of the

honesty of their claims, because they prefer to ignore every argument made that is

contrary to those claims, having resolved a long, long time ago that the best counter-

argument is a groundless attack directed against the cri t ic , not the cri t icism. That is the

sum total of their defense of the folk tale they've tried to establish as fact.

But this story gets so much better. In the absence of anything at all to support

the lies they've told, they had to come up with somet hing . After all, for six months they

had repeatedly claimed that I was lying about every t hing , while promising that they

would soon present the updated musings of Colonel Walt Figel that would prove not



only that I had lied about everything, but that Figel's own words were unt rue. After six

months, it was no surprise that people were eagerly awaiting this testimony that didn't

exist, and it was starting to become a rather shameful cause célèbre for Robert

Hastings to deal with, particularly since the press conference he and Salas had

organized in Washington, DC was soon to come to fruition. Rather than just drop the

subject as a momentary moral lapse, and continue with their press conference as

normal people would do, their solution shows exactly how desperate for validation both

men had become. On 26 September,one day prior to their silly little press conference,

they published the recordings and transcripts of an interview supposedly obtained in

1996 ² an interview that had never been made public, never proved as originating with

Figel, never discussed by anybody else at any given time in the intervening fifteen

years, and was so obviously edited and pulled out of context to such a ridiculous extent

that it can't possibly be confirmed as anything at all, let alone the type of convincing and

well-established proof of my duplicity and Colonel Figel's full confirmation of my deceit

that Hast ings had been promising for six fucking mont hs.

This entire story that Hastings and Salas are literally selling to America is an

irresponsible and poorly executed fiction, and the very best proof of that can be easily

measured in their own writings and their own acts. Ask yourself what the value of the

evidence they've presented is, and compare that to the efforts they have made to

counter what I've presented. Have they accounted for the nearly 85 pages of FOIA

documents that have been released in relation to the Echo Flight Incident? Have they

presented any real evidence that wasn't consciously and obviously manufactured by

them? Have they made any real examination of the investigation of the incident? Have

they been able to produce a single wi t ness who actually saw a UFO anywhere in 1967?

Have they attempted to account for the extreme disparity between the security

classifications of all aspects of the Echo Flight Incident in comparison to what that

classification would have been, had this event they've described actually taken place?

Have they explained in any det ail what soever why the testimony of the few witnesses

they've produced is so demonstrably contrary not only to the events that have been

repeatedly documented, but to the well-known and oft documented military procedures

that were actually in effect? And what about the literallydozens of military personnel



who have insisted that the incident and the associated events they've described is

completely absurd? Have they presented any detailed evidence at all, or otherwise

explained the absence of detail that typifies their claims? Most analysts who are tasked

to describe an actual, historical event are very much aware of the details, and those

details can usually be described sufficient to enable belief. In the case of Echo Flight,

Salas and Hastings are completely unable to provide a detailed account, because

details raise questions, and those questions need to be answered. I have provided a

very thorough and detailed account of this matter, and those details are not only

supported by documented evidence, they take into account the civilian reports, the

active regulations, and the military protocols in use at Malmstrom AFB in 1967 ± none of

which is true of the accounts presented by Salas and Hastings. Even if I was unable to

prove the conscious lying that originated with them, the evidence required to support the

claims I've made would still be so overwhelming, that any conclusions reached on their

basis would still insist that these two men are lying to their audience ² lying t o you.

Their refusal to present a detailed and well-confirmed version of events will

eventually prove both the inadequacy typical of their moral characters and the character

of their allegations; for that reason, while Hastings and Salas may not be aware of it,

they have already proven that their assertions are groundless. This conclusion, in fact,

has already been appropriated in many circles and virtual communities throughout the

internet, and I'm not talking about only skeptical audiences, here. For example, I

received a private email from Mark W. Allin, one of the owners of "Above Top Secret"

thanking me for having illuminated so clearly the facts of this case: "... unt il I st ar t ed

reading your count erpoint s t o Rober t Hast ings' st ories I was qui t e impressed wi t h his

UFOs/Nukes scht ick. Af t er reading what Wal t Figel REALLY t hinks, from his own

keyboard not Hast ings', I am very glad I did not get involved wi t h Hast ings." That's only

one of many, many emails and forum responses that I've received from people who at

one time considered Robert Hastings and Robert Salas to be honest men. And very

often, this same conclusion was reached in response to the vile acts these two men

have committed in their attempts to reduce the credibility of those who direct attention to

their dishonesty. After all,honest men do not of t en find i t necessary or even

appropriat e t o consist ent ly att ack t heir cri t ics while ignoring for t he most par t t hose



element s discussed by t heir cri t ics. The fact is, if you ignore the direction and the tone

of Robert Salas¶ and Robert Hastings¶ response to criticism, you will be ignoring t he

quali t y and t he disposi t ion of t heir claims.

The two Bobs have already alienated many people as a direct result of their ill-

advised refusal to explain the numerous holes that have been poked into their little

myth-making attempts, and by their failure to acknowledge or otherwise explain what is

already obvious to most other investigators: t hey have lied about Figel, t hey've lied

about my fat her, and t hey've lied about me. And their attempts to erase all of this from

their attention by relying on insults and vile insinuations in the place of logic, confirmed

information, and consistent witness accounts marks them as unwor t hy of t rust . It's very

plain that both men are creatures of habit. Unfortunately, they have a lot of bad habits,

none of which are very admirable when examined from outside of the moral character

they've adopted to mask their true personalities.

As for me, I've lied about not hing , the truth of which has been repeatedly affirmed

by Colonel Walt Figel, my father, and the many, many missileers I've discussed this

matter with. The moral turpitude that Robert Hastings in particular has attempted to

invest my research with, suggests very strongly that they don't deserve trust, they don't

understand honor, and they prefer to use tactics of ridicule and attack when their own

abilities to investigate the truth and to determine the facts are suborned to their desire to

creat e a fic t ion and establish it as a fact.

Robert Hastings writes: Then, when Salas¶ former missile commander, now-retired

Col. Fredrick Meiwald, came forward and confirmed his and Salas¶ involvement in

such a shutdown, at Oscar Flight, Carlson quickly switched gears and said he

³wondered´ if that were really true. (Meiwald provided Salas with the correct flight

designation, since Salas thought that he and Meiwald had been at another one,

Echo, or perhaps November, and further provided Salas with other details he had

forgotten about the decades-old incident.)



I think Robert Hastings should actually t alk to Frederick Meiwald before making

nonexistent points such as those above. Frederick Meiwald was very clear with me

exactly how far he was willing to go to confirm this business of Oscar Flight missiles

being disabled by a UFO. He doesn' t remember any t hing like t hat ever happening.

Meiwald refused to confirm any of Hastings' and Salas' UFO claims, with the only

exception being the letter he wrote Salas in 1996, a letter in which he very carefully

added the qualifier ³I have slight ly different memories ± which could easily be incorrec t

as t hey say, µThe memory is t he second t hing t o go.¶´ In fact, his exact words to me

voiced a similar sentiment: ³Trying t o remember event s of over 40 years ago is not my

for t e'.´ One can¶t help but note how remarkable it is that Hastings and Salas have been

completely unable to produce a single primary wi t ness, meaning someone who was

actually present in the capsule during the alleged missile failures they continue to blame

on UFOs, who will actually tell the same story t wice. In comparison with the repeated

assurances I have received from the witnesses I¶ve presented, and their willingness to

repeat those assurances to anybody who asks them, I hardly think that any t hing Robert

Hastings has to say is worthy of belief. Is it normal, for someone to change their story

when they¶ve been asked to discuss it more t han once, or is it more likely that they¶re

telling the truth when they say, ³no the first guy got it wrong ± he¶s lying ́? Why is it that

neither Walt Figel nor Frederick Meiwald are willing to repeat the stories that Hastings

and Salas have attributed to them? It¶s not some paranoid fear of punishment, I assure

you. If that were a real fear and not misdirection, Salas would be the first guy on the

chopping block, not Meiwald or Figel. Anybody looking at this objectively can only

reach one possible conclusion: Rober t Hast ings and Rober t Salas are lying ± exactly

as I¶ve insisted and most of those in a position to witness the events have insisted for

years.

As for the letter Meiwald wrote to Salas that Robert Hastings puts so much

emphasis on in his review of the subject on Frank Warren's UFOCHRONICLES, we

should examine its contents in order to determine exactly what type of confirmation it

actually represents, if it is indeed a confirmation, as Hastings claims. By throwing a little

light on the subject, we can tell instantly how much value should be assigned to

Meiwald¶s claims. Our first reading instantly reveals of couple of very pertinent details



that neither Salas nor Hastings has bothered to address. For instance, it says not hing at

all about missiles failing anywhere ² Echo Flight, Oscar Flight, November Flight; pick

one, it's irrelevant which: missile failures are not discussed. There's a very good

reason for this, one that Meiwald actually alludes to in the same letter: "This probably

does not assist your effor t s in any way, but I applaud your cont inued int erest in a

fascinat ing area of int erest ." Does this sound like the sentiments of a man who has just

confirmed for his one-time junior officer the existence of the UFO that supposedly

caused nearly a full flight of missiles to be taken offline? I t does not . In fact, the entire

tone of this letter has more in common with an old friend stating that "the only UFO story

I can tell you is this little bit here, and it's all second and third person related, so it's not

much good. And I'm sorry I can't help you out, but keep digging ² you might find

something someday." The fact that many years later Robert Salas and Robert Hastings

have presented this letter to the public as a confirmation of their claims proves

immediately how little value their claims actually have.

Robert Hastings¶ analysis of that letter is so full of faults and fallacies that I only

need to apply the same lessons taught to him by Colonel Figel to prove exactly how silly

his claims actually are. After Meiwald sent Salas that letter stating definitively that they

were actually at Oscar Flight, the very same letter referred to here, Salas neglected to

take any of its assertions into account until he eventually decided to move his little folk

story from November Flight to Oscar Flight over three years later. This response pretty

definitively supports my own supposition that Salas and Hastings agreed with Meiwald¶s

belief that he couldn¶t help them out regarding this matter: "This probably does not

assist your effor t s in any way.´ Over the course of those three years, Salas would only

say that Meiwald had confirmed everything he was claiming, exactly as Robert Hastings

is doing today. They don't feel the necessity to discuss in any way the details that

normally throw light on descriptions of historical events, and since Meiwald's letter is a

very strong indication that neither he nor Robert Salas was ever assigned duty at Echo

Flight or November Flight, those details were ignored, and the letter¶s contents

remained unexplored. After all, it would necessarily detract a bit from Salas¶ credibility if

he was claiming that Meiwald and he were at November Flight while he was in



possession of evidence proving they were at Oscar Flight. This, of course, isexac t ly

what happened. In addition, throughout this entire period, he was also insisting that

Meiwald had confirmed everything else he claimed as well. But if you talk to Meiwald,

you'll find that his recollections are very different . Hastings' and Salas' reliance on a

man who professes to have very few memories of the event is about what I've learned

to expect from them, particularly Hastings, who has repeatedly introduced evidence and

statements that contradict the statements and evidence produced by other witnesses he

has interviewed. None of this, apparently, gives him cause to doubt what he's being

told by these people ² he just writes it up, asks them if they're being truthful, and

before waiting on a response, publishes it as fac t . His methods are no longer under

suspicion of carelessness ² the abundant proof regarding the tactics that both Hastings

and Salas have adopted to keep their lies and the fictional exploits of their very few

witnesses in the public eye prove without any doubt whatsoever the wor t hlessness of

their claims. They are not making mistakes; t hey are lying t o you, and they have done

so in full knowledge of the facts. And anybody, I suspect, can prove this for themselves

by simply t alking to those men they have named as the primary confirmative witnesses

of their otherwise ill-reasoned stories.

The fact is that Frederick Meiwald didn't envision that letter as being a

confirmation of any t hing that Salas has claimed, and for a good three years, nei t her did

Rober t Salas. This was the three years during which Salas was telling the entire world

that he and Meiwald were at November Flight . These claims, of course, were all made

while Salas was in possession of this letter that very clearly asserts they were at Oscar

Flight, not November. Yet he continued making those November Flight claims until it

became apparent that he couldn't maintain that fiction in light of the numerous lies he

had already told that had proven to be so ill-advised. For instance, in one way or

another he had been saying for five years that my father, Captain Eric Carlson, had

called Meiwald on the phone the day of his little UFO attack in order to inform him that

Echo Flight went down earlier that day as a result of UFO interference. My father insists

he never made such a call, and there would, in any case, have been no reason to call

someone in another squadron in the first place. That was SAC's job, not his. Figel

agrees that that they would never have called November Flight in order to tell them



about anything having to do with Echo Flight. More importantly, Meiwald says he

doesn't remember what happened, so why would he tell Salas that Echo Flight called,

enabling Salas to confirm a date that couldn't otherwise be confirmed? It is in the

numerous det ails of Salas' story that prove the sound reasoning he has since adopted

that any discussion of the details will reveal his and Robert Hastings' lies. What is even

more remarkable is the well-established fact that anybody can confirm the very many

lies these two men have repeatedly told the world simply by t alking t o t hose individuals

t hey name as t he source of t hose lies.

If Robert Hastings and Robert Salas want to continue using Meiwald as a

confirmation of this event, they're more than welcome to do so, but before insulting and

damning those people who have spoken to Frederick Meiwald, and have reached valid

conclusions as a result of those communications, Robert Hastings might want to talk to

him first. He refuses t o confirm Salas' st ory of t hese event s. However, if Robert

Hastings wants to rely on the letter that Frederick Meiwald wrote to Robert Salas as a

confirmation for the lies he's told, than he should get used to people telling him he's a

foolish old man. Not only does Meiwald express regret that nothing in his recollections

can be used to verify the incident that Salas clearly had asked him to confirm, he

mentions NOTHING at all about any missile failures having taken place in relation to the

one UFO event he is willing to discuss. But there are more problems with that

supposition than are immediately notable, and Hastings, typical to his personality, has

ignored t hem complet ely as well.

If missile failures had indeed taken place as he and Salas are attempting to use

this letter to confirm, Meiwald and Salas would have been calling all of the shots as far

as the teams being sent out to investigate, just as Figel and my father were calling all of

the shots at Echo Flight. And it is very clear in Meiwald's letter that the Command Post

was calling the shots as far as the one security team Meiwald seems willing to talk

about. This is a firm indicat ion t hat t here were NO missile failures involved in t his

incident . Meiwald even mentions the fact that he wasn't getting any reports directly from

the strike team ² every t hing went through the Command Post first. This is very

different from the event that my father and Figel have described during the confirmed

missile failures at Echo Flight ² very different , because at Echo Flight, the capsule



crew was directing both security and maintenance, as their checklists and their duties

required. In Meiwald's letter, he mentions only the Command Post checklist, which is a

confirmation that the capsule crew was not involved. And if the capsule crew was not

involved in the direction of any of the personnel sent out, then there were no missile

failures. That is an absolute rule of military procedure that can't be dismissed simply

because Robert Hastings has a wild imagination. Meiwald is very clearly describing a

mild security alert of the same type that happened all the time, such as when eagles

would light on the fencing, thereby setting off the intruder alerts, or when one of the kids

who lived in the region set the alarms off on purpose so they could hitch a ride back with

the two security guys required to drive to the LF, check it out., and reset the security

systems in use. I t was a very common sor t of breach, and was for that reason removed

from the attentions of the capsule crew, unlike actual missile failures that the capsule

crew was necessarily in charge of. In all of Figel's and my father's statements regarding

Echo Flight, one feature common to both is that they were in complete communications

with security and maintenance at all t imes, and were directing bot h as required.

Meiwald's story is very different, in that neither he nor Salas were directing the efforts

undertaken and were not once in direct and open communications with the outgoing

teams. In the place of this, however, Meiwald's story asserts that the outgoing teams

were in communication with the Command Post alone. Topside security informed the

capsule crew what was happening, and topside security was directing the two security

personnel outgoing. In addition, had there been missile failures associated with this

event he¶s described, the security personnel would have been augmented with

maintenance personnel necessary to determine the status of the missiles, exac t ly as the

situation at Echo Flight developed. Securi t y cannot manage t hat t asking wi t hout t hem,

and they were, in fact, required to accompany security by system and command

regulations in effect. There isnot hing about this incident he¶s described for us that can

be associated with any t hing Salas and Hastings have been trying to claim. He has no

date for the incident either, so it certainly can¶t be associated by any type of timetable.

He doesn't recall "personnel injury of any type"; and he doesn't recall "any follow-up

activities by any Wing personnel". He does recall, however, "being at the Oscar LCF",

and is firm about that aspect of the story he's telling.



It seems a little odd to me that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have used this

letter to confirm the events that Meiwald clearly states he does not recall, while ignoring

for three years the one aspect of the tale that Meiwald clearly does remember! I am

certain that any analysis conducted as sloppily as this one has been would never be

used to assert their claims if they had anything else to suggest the type of confirmation

that Salas has been claiming for fifteen years. The fact that nobody felt it necessary to

call him on this garbage is not a valid reason to believe that his claims are true. The

only reason this letter was ever released in the first place is due to the complete

absence of anything else from Meiwald that can be used as a confirmation. This is

generally what happens when someone like Salas or Hastings makes open ended

claims that ³Meiwald confirms every t hing,´ while failing to be more specific. It is this

kind of dishonest analysis that allows Robert Salas to claim for fifteen years that Colonel

Walt Figel and Captain Eric Carlson have confirmed the presence of UFOs at Echo

Flight, when both men have insisted very clearly that they did nothing of the sort. But

I¶m being much too understanding of Salas¶ difficulties when I refer to his actions with

such a general adjective as ³dishonest´ ± far too understanding and far too generous.

The truth is very plain: he has been lying about having est ablished confirmat ions for t he

alleged Oscar Flight and Echo Flight UFO incident s for t he past fif t een years. He has

no confirmation, and Robert Hastings is very well aware of that. The dishonesty

inherent to Salas¶ and Hastings¶ UFO claims is so plain and so easily determined that a

child could do it. The fact that Robert Hastings is evenatt empt ing to defend this load of

codswallop says far more about him than it does about this case. If this is the quality of

analysis he has applied to all of the cases in his little science fiction novel, it¶s no

surprise that his theories have been dismissed so widely by actual journalists. The

intellectual dishonesty alone that he has manifested in his defense of Robert Salas is

reason enough to dismiss his conclusions with prejudice. The fact that they have been

forced to introduce this letter as evidence for a confirmation of a missile failures incident

that Frederick Meiwald has very clearly never established as an actual, historical event

should see them drummed with pipes right out of every UFOlogical organization on the

planet; the fact that this hasn¶t occurred doesn¶t necessarily fill one with confidence in



the abilities and attention span of such groups, not when they laud such tales of daring-

do, without bothering to measure the value of their claims first.

I have a recommendation for Robert Hastings; if he honestly believes that

Meiwald has confirmed Salas' version of these events, then he should call Meiwald and

get him to make a statement that actually says so ² because that's something that

Meiwald has never done. Of course, Hastings probably remembers that in 2008 I

recommended that he do this with Colonel Figel as well, because as things stood at that

time, he had nothing that could be confidently asserted as a confirmation of UFO

interference from Figel either. At that time, Robert Hastings resolved to do just that, and

telephoned Colonel Figel in order to get a firm statement regarding the claims he's been

making for years, and once again, failed completely to do so, preferring to discuss

instead the inability of James Carlson to determine t rut h. Furthermore, as a result of his

well-studied inability to conduct a decent interview or to get a simple verification of the

outrageous and inaccurate story he has been trying to sell for so long, while failing so

inexorably to do on so many occasions, I was forced to call him myself, at which point

Colonel Figel made it very clear almost immediat ely what kind of lying, deceitful person

Hastings truly is. Why haven¶t the two Bobs been able to get a simple statement from

Meiwald that clearly says ³I was there when the 8-10 missiles that Salas says were

taken offline due to a UFO, and I confirm that this is indeed what happened; a man was

injured and had to be evacuated by helicopter, and it took a full day to bring all the

missiles back online´? He has been making these claims for fifteen years, and every

time someone attempts to get a confirmative statement from one of the primary

witnesses he¶s discussed, they¶ve been unable to do so. Every time someone attempts

to confirm these events with documentation, they either find nothing, or they find

something so strongly suggestive of deceit that the two Bobs are forced to change

some major aspect of their story « once again. How hard is it to get a clearly

confirmative statement from one of these witnesses that they have been discussing for

the past fifteen years? They are all still alive, so why won¶t they provide something a

little more specific than Salas¶ judgment that ³they¶ve confirmed everything´? Is it so

hard for them to get that one little statement? Apparently,yes ± it is so hard, because

they¶ve failed to do so.



It's unfortunate for Robert Hastings that his grasping nature forces him to rely on

any t hing at all in the place of not hing , even though not hing would actually help his

cause more. In any case, Meiwald is certainlynot a confirmation of this fictitious event.

He doesn't remember anything even resembling this event that the two Bobs have

created, and that's why he apologized to Salas in the letter itself for not being able to

help him out. Of course that didn't stop the Bobs from lying about his place in the

history of this event, so I'm sure that by now he regrets ever hearing of their silly little

cause, just as I and many others do. After all, nobody invites dishonesty, reckless

behavior, and inadequate excuses for poor behavior into their lives, and that's pretty

much all Hastings and Salas represent at this point.

Robert Hastings writes: In other words, Carlson libels Salas countless times²

saying that Bob completely made up the story of his involvement in a UFO-related

missile shutdown just to sell books ² but when the other person present for the

Oscar incident, Col. Meiwald, finally goes on the record and says that Salas¶

summary of the event is ³100%´ truthful, Carlson calls Meiwald a liar too. As I

have often said, it is hard to tell whether Carlson is delusional or merely

dishonest.

It's a shame that Hastings has refused to even learn what my assertions are

before so recklessly insisting upon what is so easy for me to disprove. I haven't called

Meiwald a liar. All I had to do was track him down and talk to him ² something Robert

Hastings has apparently refused to do. And the fact that I'm the only person here who

is willing to discuss this matter in any detail at all is just more proof that he doesn't have

a case. I'm perfectly willing to tell the world exactly where the two Bobs have lied,

where they've been stupid, and where they've reached invalid conclusions based on

bad information. Robert Hastings, on the other hand, simply tells everyone I'm lying and

that I'm dishonest. Why doesn't he ever tell me exactly what lies I've told, so I can

prove how wrong he is? After all, everything I've stated, and everything I've written is

on the record, and in public; it can be checked for validity anytime by anybody ² unlike

Hastings' claims, that tend to change like Salas' every time someone raises a doubt



regarding some aspect of their crazy little folk tale. Hastings' accusations are general

attacks on my character that he's refused to back up, withdraw or specify, making it

impossible to defend against, but also taking away from his own credibility. He's

refused outright to debate this subject on at least three occasions that I know of, just as

he's refused to specify what claims I've made aren't truthful. In fact, his natural

defenses of every counter argument related to this issue are little more than the

defensive maneuvers of a crook ² he insists, in the same paranoid tone people like him

are known for, that his enemies are all out to get him. "Every t hing Carlson says is a lie."

These are the acts of a coward unconfident that his own position can withstand the

slings and arrows of accusative misfortune. The truth is, if he specifies his charges, he

knows very well that I can tear it apart instantly, so he refuses to do so. He relies on

attacks that are general, and for that reason are easily seen through by anybody with an

actual brain to use that hasn't been warped by years of self-abuse. Because of that

reliance, Rober t Hast ings has become his own worst enemy.

Robert Hastings writes: This pattern of abhorrent behavior is years-old. In the mid-

1990s, when Salas first spoke out and began to write about the UFO incidents at

Malmstrom, Carlson said Salas was lying. Then, when former Minuteman missile

targeting officer Bob Jamison came forward and revealed that he had been

involved in the retargeting of the Oscar missiles after the incident²and that his

team was explicitly told that UFOs had caused their shutdown²Carlson said that

Salas and Jamison were both lying.

Is i t so hard for Rober t Hast ings t o get his fac t s right ? Or is this just another

example of Hastings¶ many lies, this one intended to attack his critics and somehow

absolve his own standard sins of mediocrity and impulse? In the mid-1990s I didn¶t

make any claims at all in relation to this incident. It wasn¶t until years later, well after the

millennium had started, that I said anything at all regarding what was claimed by others

and what was invented. And the fact that Robert Hastings can¶t even get simple facts

like the dates in his diatribes right doesn¶t say a whole lot about his ability to report the

facts accurately, now does it? What itdoes prove is that Robert Hastings is capable of



invent ing t est imony for his own benefi t , something he¶s pretty good at by now, having

had so much practice. To support this conclusion, let¶s examine Jamison¶s testimony,

because Hastings has not been very forthcoming about t hat testimony either.

Using good ol' Bob Jamison doesn't give the Bobs much of a confirmation for

their manufactured UFO event either. Jamison, after all, didn't come forward and

confirm missiles failing at Oscar Flight, as Robert Hastings continues to suggest. It's

been well-established that Jamison originally told Robert Hastings he could not

remember the date of the occurrence he was establishing claims for, only that it was

sometime between 1966 and 1967² a two year period. Hastings has himself asserted

that same time-line on numerous occasions in numerous forum discussions in a sad

attempt to sell his ridiculous little musings. In addition, Jamison never said anything

about Oscar Flight until Robert Hastings convinced him ± another solution they had to

develop together since neither could do so alone. He said only that he couldn't

remember the location, but it was one of the flights served by Lewistown, which applies

to five or six different flights, Echo Flight and November Flight included. So once again,

Robert Hastings' own claims are working against him. We know this is true, because

Hastings actually bragged about it all over the internet, obviously wanting credit for

coming up with the solution that could save Salas from the mediocrity his own circle of

lies had already established for him and the numerous facts he couldn¶t straighten out

on his own. There certainly isn¶t anythingbelievable in what Jamison has to say. After

all, he was just answering an advertisement for UFO stories already spelled out by

Robert Hastings before he ever contacted him. These two guys got together in order to

combine their talents and create a solution for Salas¶ many credibility problems, and

now they want credit for originality? Sorry, but that¶s not going to happen evenaf t er the

world stops laughing. It took Hastings and Jamison a goodt welve years before they

were able to eventually reach a storyline for Oscar Flight on March 24-25, 1967; and

during most of that time, Robert Hastings was shuffling off from here to there in a

downright frenzy of lost opportunities, because Jamison represented nothing more to

him than another name to add to the list of people he was adding to his book who

couldn¶t get their facts straight, couldn¶t come up with a believable story, and couldn¶t



get the attention of anybody who ever worked at one time or another at Malmstrom AFB

with actual missiles instead of emptying wastepaper baskets for the FAA tower crew.

Here¶s a question for Robert Hastings (although I doubt he will ever answer it

honestly, since he¶s refused to answer so many of other questions put to him): how

many t imes did Bob Jamison even mention t he words ³Oscar Flight ́ bet ween 1992 and

2004?

There¶s a very good reason that information developed in the method Hastings

and Jamison have so transparently exploited for their own gain isn¶t allowed in court

cases to establish points of fact; it¶s called ³undue influence of a prejudicial nat ure´ and

it will be ruled against every time it¶s attempted. You are not allowed to create

testimony of fact on the basis of combining witness solutions af t er t he fac t , because

doing so tends to result in testimony fixed for a specific purpose, and that¶s exactly what

Hastings and Jamison are trying to do: creat e t est imony int ended t o solve Rober t

Salas¶ t imet able problems. And if you go by what Jamison claimed before the undue

influence represented by Hastings¶ input and interpretations have been combined with

Jamison¶s willingness to express that eureka! moment that modern psychology tells us

is far more likely to be a result of persuasive co-creation that a genuine, new memory,

you end up with far less useful information, and far more opportunities for Robert

Hastings to paint Jamison¶s testimony in whatever colors he wants. This garbage

doesn¶t qualify as ³evidence´; it¶s very clearly a group effort intended to rescue Robert

Salas from the numerous problems his March 16, 1967 lies had already wrapped his

UFO hoax in well before Jamison¶s testimony was re-discovered by Hastings in the new

light of a new location. Jamison didnot hing but introduce to the world a poorly wrought

reason for Salas to stop ignoring Meiwald, and plant his case at Oscar Flight as

Meiwald had insisted three years earlier. And the fact that Robert Hastings now wants

to reestablish this nonsense at Oscar Flight on the basis of the not hing that Jamison

actually came forward to discuss in 1992 is just one more reason for us to place this

whole story in the crapper where it belongs.

There¶s just no other word other than lies for the unregulated yet systematic

invention that Salas and Hastings have perpetrated on the American public. They are

not making mistakes, and they are not misinterpreting the evidence, and they are not



reevaluating the testimony offered up by Bob Jamison in 1992. They are lying t o you on

a scale unprecedented in either American jurisprudence or any other social-slash-

professional division you might want to recognize ± lying , and nothing else. It is

invention on a scale this country has not seen since the Book of Mormon was first

conceived. And when one of the two Bobs starts referring to himself as aprophet , you¶ll

be able to go home and say to your kids, ³yep, t hat Carlson is an ast ut e man.´

It also doesn't help that the description Jamison has presented is very different

from what we already know happened in March 1967 as a result of both newspaper

articles and the UFO investigation conducted in accordance with USAF regulations on

March 24-25. Robert Hastings might want to read up on the subject someday, because

once again, he is apparently relying on (or creating) bad information. Jamison's story

could almost be considered irrelevant, since there are numerous aspects to it that

simply don't match the already confirmed testimony regarding the events of March 24-

25, 1967. The fact that the details enabling Hastings and Jamison to narrow down the

time frame of Jamison¶s account so severely only appeared after subsequent interviews

strongly suggests that Robert Hastings ² never one to examine details the first time he

encounters them ² convinced Jamison of the date and location, not the other way

around as testimony is normally required to function. When witness testimony is

adjusted by the witness in order to fit into a hypothesis suggested by the interviewer,

that testimony is suspect ² always. That¶s why doing so in a forensic context is more

than enough reason to dismiss charges. It's acredibili t y issue that Hastings tends to

ignore. And when the elements of a case are adjusted so dramatically, as Jamison's

testimony has been, that testimony is more often than not a response to a third party

suggestion. In other words, the bigeureka! moment during which Jamison could

effectively turn ³one of the flights closest to Lewistown sometime between 1966 and

1967´ into ³Oscar Flight on March 24, 1967´ was not the result of a vision quest from

God, but was the result of a suggest ion from Robert Hastings, exactly as Hastings

reported in his now famous NICAP article that gave Salas the opportunity to exit

completely from the dozens of lies he had told that put him in such a bad place by the

time the year 2000 had rolled around. For God¶s sake, Hastings was so proud of

himself that he was bouncing all over the internet telling the whole world what a great



new thing he had finally discovered hidden in the previously ³throw away´ testimony

presented by Bob Jamison nearly ten years earlier. And we¶re supposed todance,

because he took a little bit of nothing and put a bright new shining date and location on

it and hung it around the neck of Robert Salas like an Olympic gold medal? No, t hanks,

Rober t . Common sense should tell you that if you take a pile of steaming crap and

paint it gold, it¶s still just crap ± all you¶ve done is add a little color to it before the rest of

the world decides to flush it away with the potato peels and the onion skins.

Robert Hastings is obviously coaching witnesses in order to create testimony that

fits his agenda, at the cost of his wi t ness' credibility. How else does testimony affirmed

for a two-year stretch turn into testimony affirmed for a specific date? How does

testimony offered in relation to five or so different locations turn into testimony at Oscar

Flight? This is a ludicrous si t uat ion, and he wants to turn it into the surprise witness

segment of Perry Mason, for God¶s sake. But use your common sense, and look at the

bad habits he¶s got and the methods he¶s used in the past to make a point that doesn¶t

exist. You¶ll figure it out eventually, because he hasn¶t actually done anythingnew in

decades. He just paints it gold, loads it with cheap whistlers and noise pops and tosses

it up for everyone to look at, and go oooohhhh!! and aaaahhhh!! and hear the fireworks

crack and blow so loud they forget to look down where he¶s busy loading up another

whistler. But as soon as you start looking for somethingsolid to look at, some testimony

that doesn¶t keep changing, or something that can actually be documented, you realize

pretty quickly that there is just not hing there, and that Robert Hastings has once again

created something intangible that just whispers away in the wind, because there¶s

nothing in it that¶s real . Rober t Hast ings is int roducing wi t ness t est imony t hat mat ches

Rober t Hast ings' agenda. And none of it has the real weight and the body and the

measured assessment of motion that real events have. Real events don¶t disappear

when one man walks out of the room ± but every t hing Robert Hastings is trying to

substantiate not only disappears from the absence of real life and measureable data, it

literally floats away from the world and out of our ken as a result of its weightless nature

and the fact that it has no grounding in real life. It¶s not due to antigravity devices

developed around the lifespan of another sun; it¶s due to the fact that he¶s pulling things



out of the thin air and calling them real ± and t hey are not . If the events that his

witnesses appear to affirm were actually real , the thunderous confirmation of it would

have been noticed by every American who has ever served in the military since 1950.

But instead of this, he¶s pulling out people like Bob Jamison, a man he basically ignored

(with good reason) for almost ten years before deciding he could do something with that

testimony to help Robert Salas out of the mess he was in.

Most of the witnesses that Robert Hastings has uncovered over the past 35

years responded to advertisements that he seeded USAF bases with; he basically told

them exactly what he was looking for before anybody actually testified to any t hing . Is

there any type of evidence anywhere on this planet that is more t aint ed? His evidence

is the equivalent of police arranging a lineup of individuals for a witness to identify, and

then telling the witness beforehand that "by t he way, we've arrest ed number 3 in t he

lineup, and we're prett y sure he's guil t y, but we want you t o pick out t he guy you saw

commi t t he crime you know, number 3 in t he line-up." Any judge in the country would

immediately dismiss an identification of this sort; and we can safely do the same with

Jamison's testimony, because none of it can be verified, and most of it is so contrary to

what dozens of other confirmed witnesses remember that it easily qualifies as a

ridiculous and somehow sad-hearted aberration.

More importantly, the fact that Bob Jamison himself has nothing to report exceptsecond-hand rumors of UFOs and some military procedures that are both questionable

and unverified pretty well sets his testimony exactly where it belongs: with all of the

other rumors that Robert Hastings has collected over the years. Clearly, Jamison¶s

testimony is so tainted by the interference of Robert Hastings that it can not only be

dismissed ± it should be dismissed, on moral grounds.

Does anybody else see a patt ern developing here? None of Hastings' witnesses

saw anything or heard anything that didn¶t actually originate with someone else; and

these individuals ± t hese someone elses t hat can¶ t be named or ot herwise described ±

not only haven¶t come forward, their very exist ence can¶t even be confirmed. And that

means, both by definition and by the use of the common sense that both Robert

Hastings and Robert Salas seem to have abandoned at some point over the years, that



their witnesses are unable to accurately testify to any t hing . You combine this

conclusion with substantiated proof that the events Robert Salas has described did not

occur on March 24-25, 1967, and the odds that Bob Jamison is presenting an accurate

picture of events for March 24-25, 1967 drops to not hing . Zero. The accounts that both

men have offered now depend on each ot her for verificat ion. If you disprove one, the

other falls as well. And I don¶t intend to offend anyone here, but REAL LIFE DOES

NOT WORK THAT WAY. Confirmat ive evidence does not hinge on t he fac t s t hat i t

allegedly confirms. That¶s one of the ways that we use to determine whether a story is

being manufac t ured or not. And in this case, Robert Hastings has failed the test of real

life He didn¶t go looking for an event that would confirm Bob Jamison¶s silly little story;

he gave Robert Salas the means to recreate his own, even though none of it can be

confirmed on its own merits. The nonsense of i t is pervasive. This isn¶t simply an

offense against the value of evidentiary fac t in modern day America, it¶s an offense

against common sense itself, and the odd little curiosity that there may be a few dozen

people out there who actually believe any of it would probably be affirmed as a

validated, biblical sign of the End Times if we didn¶t already know how much wishful

t hinking can oftentimes account for human belief.

But we can do so much better than that. After all, Jamison's story is so very

easily shown to be absurd . We're supposed to believe that the command he worked for

had insisted that no personnel at Malmstrom AFB respond to a nuclear missile failure

incident until all reports of UFOs had ceased , even though the location of the duty they

were tasked with was over a hundred miles from any reports of UFOs anywhere on the

alleged date, and not one person in t he ent ire count ry is willing t o confirm t his command

decision. I've made this argument before; the only UFOs reported on March 24-25,

1967 were within a fifteen mile radius of the Malmstrom AFB administrative areas, well

over a hundred miles from Oscar Flight, or indeed any of the eastern flights served from

Lewistown. More importantly (and this is really,REALLY important), there has never

been a commander anywhere in the United States who would be willing to withhold

maintenance personnel required to determine the actual st at us of a nuclear missile that

had been unexplainably taken offline simply because UFOs were being reported a



hundred miles away . If anything, they would have provided Jamison with a much faster

and far more dependable means of getting there. It's an embarrassinglyst upid

conclusion for Robert Hastings to reach, and amazingly laughable that he would

consider Jamison to be a credible witness on the basis of it. We¶re talking about a

nuclear missile in a silo that¶s been mysteriously removed from the control of those

USAF personnel 60-feet underground in the capsule who now have no idea what the

status of the missile is, whether or not it can be fired remotely from another location, or

even if it is still capable of establishing a target. The urgent need t o det ermine t hat

missile¶s current st at us overrides every ot her concern. Does anybody really think the

USAF would put that urgent need on hold for a few hours as a result of UFO reports

more than a hundred miles away that not only hadn¶t been confirmed , but hadn¶t even

been invest igat ed? People don¶t need to take my word for it ± they can go to any of the

missileer community websites on the internet and ask the missileers themselves.

Those guys are more than willing to tell you how stupid, nonsensical, and absent of fact

the story that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are trying to sell actually is. And the

fact the Hastings and Salas are completely unable to offer a detailed account that

includes the motivation for the acts asserted in the environment that¶s been defined

supports that interpretation alone.

Another amusing factor to their case is the groupt hink character considered in

relation to the criticisms raised above. When I pointed out how silly this testimony was

as a result of the distance between the duty Jamison affirms and the sightings of UFOs

reported, Jamison immediat ely changed his story, insisting that the UFO reports that

prevented the command from sending out maintenance teams in response to missile

failures were located around the Lewist own area, not the Malmstrom AFB administrative

center. Of course, there are problems with that story as well:no UFOs were repor t ed

by anybody in t he Lewist own area. And that absence of UFO reports suggests that

Jamison is lying in order to make his story seem more believable (as if that would help).

Considering his past record of accomplishments, it¶s a little hard not to suspect that

Robert Hastings had something to do with this little change in Jamison¶s story. After all,

issue management is supposed to be his for t é.



Equally intriguing in relation to these alleged UFO reports over Lewistown, is the

fact that scores of people were outside all over the state looking for UFOs as a result of

radio news updates. This fact was mentioned to Lt. Col. Chase by the sheriff of Belt,

Montana during his investigation of a UFO reported to have descended into a ravine on

the evening of March 24, 1967. Oddly enough, it was this incident that apparently

convinced Robert Hastings that the incident originally reported to him by Bob Jamison

occurred on March 24-25, at Oscar Flight, 120 or so miles away. As a result, the same

techniques of continuous readjustment to the witness statements they are both the

aut hor and the recipient of have now been applied by Bob Jamison as well. I for one

am not surprised by this behavior. It ist ypical of the personalities I have been forced

into contact with simply to tell a true story without the embellishment others have relied

upon. In any case, there weredozens of men and women outside that evening,

consciously and int ent ly searching t he skies for UFO ac t ivi t y , but not one report of a

UFO was made in relation to the Lewistown area. It appears that even when Hastings'

witnesses adjust their stories to the criticism they receive, a fairly accurate means of

determining falsi t y , in my opinion, they are st ill unable to affirm anything at all credible.

Jamison's testimony provides us with nothing at all useful, excepting as an indicator of

the extent of either Robert Hastings' duplicity, or Robert Hastings' stupidity ² not hing

more. But you have to expect that sort of thing when you advertise for UFO accounts

on the internet. There are a lot of cranks out there who are more than willing to make

overtures to the source of such ads simply to see how much they can get away with,

making Hastings either the author or the recipient of a hoax . Personally, I think he's the

aut hor , that conclusion having been reached as a result of everything else this case

provides, although I do recognize the possibility that Hastings may be both deceitful and

remarkably stupid.

Jamison's story is absurd, and anybody who has served in the military (clowns

like Lehmberg with an ax to grind discounted, of course) and reads these stories that

the two Bobs created will almost immediately realize that it amounts to little more than

noise. There's no need for anybody to take my word for it, because it's easy enough to

prove. Simply go to any of the missileer community websites and start asking those



individuals any of the many questions that Hastings and Salas refuse to answer. For

the most part they will laugh, although many of the site moderators will likely respond

with a little more disgust, as they've encountered Hastings on many occasions already.

If you encounter some anger, therefore, don't worry about it ² just ask them politely

what the reason is; they may prefer to answer your questions in private. Moderators at

the missileer websites have often been forced to kick Robert Hastings off of their forums

and bandwidth; reasons include spamming his book, refusal to answer questions and

making up stories that he's failed to substantiate with facts. Many forum discussions on

UFO related websites tend to accept his manipulations with few questions, so an

examination of his claims on such sites may give the impression that his assertions

carry more weight than the actual subjects of his lies are willing to affirm. This is natural

for any community that has already acknowledged the existence of UFOs. True

believers, in fact, have little reason to even examine his claims, which is why they don¶ t

² after all, he's validating their already strong beliefs. An actual picture of his true

reputation, however, can be obtained by discussing his claims with the subjects of his

scrutiny: t he missileers t hemselves. These men can discuss the side of the coin that

Salas and Hastings tend to neglect, which is the side of the coin that isn¶ t paying their

bills. Their very general descriptions fall apart entirely when a detailed examination is

conducted by those possessed of the experiential knowledge necessary to do so

properly in a context that Robert Hastings, at least, can only allude to. And those men

and women are not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt typical of those surfing

through UFO-oriented websites. Ac t ual missileers demand ac t ual and convincing

evidence, something the two Bobs have always been unable to deliver. When the

community they claim to represent dumps their assertions as fictional nonsense, their

credibility, or lack thereof, comes into very sharp focus, something Hastings and Salas

are completely unable to provide for their own claims. It also doesn't help that Hastings¶

and Salas¶ supporting witnesses tend to update their claims whenever Robert Salas

changes his little UFO story; actual missileers look at defining characteristics like that

and assume that those pressing the case are doing so on tenets of faith alone ± and

they don¶t have a whole lot of belief in UFOs, let alone fai t h.



Robert Hastings writes: Then, when former Minuteman missile maintenance team

member Hank Barlow came forward and said that he had been involved in

restarting the missiles at Echo Flight (where Carlson¶s father was when the

ICBMs all failed) and that he had been told that UFOs caused the malfunctions,

James Carlson said that Barlow was lying too, in addition to Salas and Jamison.

Yes, I am certain that he's lying, and I did indeed say so, one of the reasons for

which centers around his claim that VRSA (Voice Reporting Signal Assemble) wasn't

working at any of the LFs at Echo Flight, an element that is not only easy to counter, but

also contradicts other witnesses Hastings has introduced, and every FOIA document

ever released. Not hing supports his testimony as VRSA was demonstrably working and

reporting just fine. That status, in fact, has been exceedingly well-documented since

1967, whereas none of Barlow's claims have ever been verified by anybody , including

everyone who was actually at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 and can prove it. The

only phenomenon that we're observing here is Robert Hastings' inability to vet his own

witnesses. And the fact that Hastings continues to rely on testimony that can be

immediately dismissed, says more about his desperation to float his claims than

anything else. As for his apparent willingness to invest Barlow's story with any

credibility at all, it is st age-wor t hy hilarious.

Barlow even asserts that UFOs were seen by everybody all the time, and were

always taking down missiles ² Malmstrom AFB was a regular alien holiday locale,

according to Barlow, but nobody who has ever served at Malmstrom AFB would

consider it more than a joke that Robert Hastings either fell for, or has decided to assist

the propagation of. As a result, his repetitive claims on the basis of garbage like this

say nothing about the actual conditions at Malmstrom AFB in 1967. If one man comes

forward and says the electromagnetic character on the base caused firelight to "bend"

whenever the temperature dropped below freezing, so that lit candlewicks burned up

the wick, while the flame burned horizontal, but a thousand men came forward and said,

"this guy's obviously high ² nothing like that ever happened, and candles burn

normally," would you believe the one guy making the outrageous claims simply because

it justifies your childlike fear of burning candles? Of course, not , but that's essentially



what Robert Hastings is insisting upon. We're supposed tobelieve the outrageous

claims of a few people he found who are willing to tell the stories he wants them to tell,

all dressed up and pretty with claims and characteristics that can be instantly dismissed

by anybody who actually has some knowledge of the events, even when the literally

hundreds of everybody else who was at Malmstrom AFB at the time are perfectly willing

to tell you how stupid the very thought of it is. And his only response is equally

ludicrous: everybody else is lying because t he USAF is covering up t he fac t t hat UFOs

shut down dozens of missiles in March 1967. And yet, the USAF nonetheless

completely declassified everything about those missile shutdowns decades ago. This is

not only a very clearly open and shut case, it's an open and shut case that was opened

and shut a long, long, long time ago. More importantly, we can actually prove this is the

case, because most of the "facts" that Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have

discussed regarding this little piece of crap story they've unloaded on the American

public are demonstrably untrue. The fact that their witnesses keep changing the stories

they tell, are completely unable to show any documented evidence to support their

claims, and tell a disorganized story that everybody else asserts is complete nonsense

should clue the rest of the world in a bit.

Hank Barlow's st ory is absurd ² it¶s an absolute mess of an accounting with

numerous details that are provably false, contradict other witnesses Hastings has also

introduced, can't possibly be verified or objectively confirmed, and are intrinsically

useless as anything more than a nice bedtime story for children ² oh, wai t , let me take

that back; the lack of any organized plot structure or character development guarantees

that it doesn't even make a decent story for kids. And Hastings expects the world to

accept these baseless, incoherent claims as evidence of UFO interference on a USAF

base? Frankly, I'd prefer someone to come forward and explain why all of these

witnesses that we're supposed to put so much faith in only started telling their senseless

little tugs on God's earlobe after Robert Hastings posted a few dozen advertisements on

the friggin' internet asking specifically for the stories they are now telling him, allowing

him thereby to chronicle their claims in that colorful codswallop of a science fiction novel

that he gets so red in the face and irate over when those capable of insightful

observations on a socially relevant level refer to it as a science fic t ion novel . Do that



one thing for me, Robert, and I'll willingly tell the world that you're capable of at least

one useful function: you can sat isfy t he mild curiosi t y raised by your adherence t o t hose

doc t rines of fai t h t hat are only eclipsed by your own imaginat ion.

The fact that Robert Hastings elbowed himself into the Echo Flight mythos could

have been forgotten entirely had he not provided a raison d'êt re for Robert Salas,

allowing him as a result to get out of his own bad place. The fact of the matter is that

Robert Salas was completely unable to continue making the assertions he's made

without moving everything he'd been claiming for years completely out of March 16,

1967, and into just about anyplace or any when else. After all, his prior claims had a

few very notable problems, including (and this is already on the record):

(1) as a result of the alleged telephone calls from the commander of Echo

Flight on March 16, 1967, Salas was able to claim that the event he

remembers so well happened on March 16, 1967; the commander of Echo

Flight has always denied making such a call, the truth of which has been

verified by the deputy-commander of Echo Flight as well;

(2) as a result of the alleged telephone calls from an unidentified LCC on

March 16, 1967, Salas was able to claim that the event he remembers so

well happened on March 16, 1967; no commander or deputy commander

of any LCC has ever come forward to confirm this claim, and it was never

even asserted until the commander of Echo Flight went on the record to

deny the assertions made in (1) above;

(3) as a result of the alleged telephone calls from SAC on March 16, 1967,

Salas was able to claim that the event he remembers so well happened on

March 16, 1967; not a single officer from SAC has ever come forward to

confirm this claim, and it was never even asserted until actual missileers

pointed out that both (1) and (2) above would have never occurred in any

circumstances whatsoever, as it was SAC¶s job to do so, not another LCC

commander¶s;



(4) as a result of the alleged confirmation authored by Colonel Frederick

Meiwald, Salas was able to claim that a telephone call from the

commander of Echo Flight, or the commander of an unidentified LCC, or

an officer at SAC had confirmed directly to Meiwald that the date of the

event he remembers so well was on March 16, 1967; his commander,

Frederick Meiwald, denies confirming this telephone call, however,

insisting that he doesn¶t remember the incident discussed by Salas;

(5) as a result of the alleged confirmation authored by Colonel Frederick

Meiwald, Salas was able to claim for three years that the event he

remembers so well on March 16, 1967, occurred at November Flight,

another blatant lie, since he was also in possession since 1996 of a letter

from Meiwald asserting that they were at Oscar Flight; Meiwald has never

claimed an incident at November Flight, and yet he was the confirming

resource Salas has repeatedly relied on to assert these claims;

(6) as a result of Robert Hastings' claims, Salas was able to explain the time-

scale problems above by dumping all of the confirmations he had used

since 1996, claiming instead that the event he remembers so well

happened on March 24-25, 1967, a date, oddly enough, that Meiwald

again (allegedly) confirmed for Salas, albeit years later, during which time,

he also insisted that he couldn¶t remember the event Salas has discussed.

Doesn' t anybody find i t a li tt le odd t hat Salas and Hast ings have changed t heir

claims and t heir st ories on numerous occasions, and yet have always used t he same

t hree wi t nesses t o confirm t heir claims? Evidently Meiwald, Figel, and Carlson have, as

a result of the telephone calls above, confirmed both November Flight, and Oscar Flight

at one time or another. Equally surprising, Meiwald, Figel, and Carlson, as a result of

the telephone calls above, appear to have confirmed both March 16, 1967 and March

24, 1967 as the date of the event Salas has addressed. How exactly does Salas



establish an event during which Meiwald, Figel, and Carlson, at one time or another,

have confirmed both calling Meiwald at November Flight to establish date and location,

and not finding it necessary to call anybody at November Flight or Oscar Flight? If an

infant looked at this story from beginning to end and threw up on his Mom¶s shoulder,

people wouldn¶t respond by saying ³oh, poor baby, he¶s got gas,´ or ³he must be coming

down wi t h somet hing.´ They would say, ³damn, t hat ¶s a smar t kid,´ because it¶s so

freaking obvious, and represents such a probable response from anybody else.

Tell me, is this what qualifies as credible testimony these days? Of course not ²

this is what qualifies as t roubleshoot ing , and nothing more. It's just an adjustment to

criticisms and fallacies spelled out by others. Robert Hastings' contributions allowed

Robert Salas to escape from the hole he dug for himself over the years ² not hing

more. Once Salas decided that he could move everything in his story to Oscar Flight on

March 24-25, 1967, he was effectively isolating himself from all documented evidence,

hanging out like a sheet in the breeze with the new found freedom to say whatever he

wants, to make claims as ridiculous as he chooses, and to bring in whatever cast of

fictional characters he feels is necessary to define the moment through, because

Meiwald doesn't remember it, and nobody who actually saw something has ever come

forward to champion his lies. The problem is a typical one for Hastings and Salas:

t here is not hing about t his matt er t hat is credible. I t 's just a collec t ion of one wast ed

breat h af t er anot her.

When Hastings came out of la-la land to say that Barlow's and Jamison's stories

reflect very real events on March 24-25, 1967, when they very clearly do nothing of the

sort, Salas got his breat her . It doesn't make the story true, however, and it sure as Hell

doesn't invest any of the Bobs' claims with any added credibility, and I'm not the only

one to make that observation. Every missileer community I have ever gone to for

information has responded in the same way, and all of them insist as well that Hastings

and Salas are liars seeking to make claims that cannot be supported. All of them have

observed as well that the "witnesses" Robert Hastings has lined up are jokes who have

either successfully conned both of them, or have decided to publicize these lies for their

own selfish motives. And the fact that they had to go to Robert Hastings in order to do



so is not considered very surprising by anybody; Hell, t hat ¶s a service he provides at no

added cost . People can just chalk it up to the standard level of bullshit that comes

along with the territory; it¶s just UFOs, so who really cares?

I¶ll tell you who cares: t he decent people who have had t heir reput at ions, honor,

and ent ire mili t ary careers dragged t hrough t he sullied mire of Hast ings¶ and Salas¶ mad

dog publici t y mill of grays on t he brain, alien invasion scenarios, nonsense, ridicule,

sensat ionalism, and lies.

And in some cases their families aren¶t too thrilled about it either.

Robert Hastings writes: Then, when the former Officer-in-Charge of Malmstrom¶s

Communication Center in 1967, retired Lt. Col. Dwynne Arneson, came forward

and said that he had once read a classified message about a UFO hovering over a

missile silo moments before an entire flight of 10 simultaneously failed, Carlson

said that Arneson was also lying²in addition to Salas, Jamison and Barlow.

I really love this guy; Arneson just screams credibili t y . Let me tell you a story

about him, and every word of it is true and easily verified: I didn't need to call Arneson a

liar, because Arneson made himself irrelevant when he told Robert Hastings in

reference to that classified message about a UFO hovering over a missile silo moments

before an entire flight of 10 simultaneously failed: "I cannot quot e t he dat e, where i t

came from, where i t was going t o, but I do recall reading i t and seeing i t ." Never mind

that there's no confirmation for anything he¶s told Hastings, the testimony itself is

useless ² he doesn't even have an indication of what classification or precedence

could be associated with that pathetic little message. It's justnoise; once again (do you

see the pattern yet?), Robert Hastings has taken generalized, unconfirmed, single

witness accounts that only barely meet the definition of t est imony , let alone evidence,

and turned it into a specific, poorly examined incident of a single place and time. It's

uncanny how he assigns credibility to any of this, when none of it can be depended on.

This pathetic, non-event that he's using can't even be assigned a locat ion, since

Arneson also insists "I was in charge of t he Communicat ion Cent er, t he Twent iet h Air

Division at Malmst rom Air Force Base, Mont ana," even though the 20th AD has never ,



in the entire history of this nation, had offices at Malmstrom AFB. This t est imony is

clearly insignificant and wor t hless. It can't even be confirmed at the message level,

since neither Hastings, nor Arneson can "quot e t he dat e, where i t came from, where i t

was going t o" . This is useful?Hell, no ² i t 's crap, just like all of Hastings witnesses. In

the absence of date, originator, and addressee, which is what Arneson is describing,

such a message could easily have been sent INFO only, in which case it could refer to

literally any USAF command in t he ent ire world . If this is the average value of Hastings'

testimonial evidence throughout his book, I think it's safe to say that he's wast ed his life

collecting it all.

And yet, Robert Hastings nonetheless expects people to believe that this

message nobody has ever confirmed from an unknown command going to an unknown

addressee on an unknown date observed in an office that has never exist ed is a

reference to Echo Flight on March 16, 1967. Please note that in addition to all of the

garbage above that Arneson has "sworn" to, he also asserts that this imaginary

message "said t hat t he crew going on dut y and t he crew coming off dut y all saw t he

UFO just hovering in mid-air." This indicates that the oncoming crew saw it when they

were going in, apparently floating over Echo 1, and the off-going crew, an hour later saw

it as well, still floating over Echo 1, and not one person in the entire USAF did anything

at all in response to what would be a daylight UFO sighting over the Echo 1 nuclear

missile facility just hovering there for over an hour. And since the turnover between

crews at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 didn't take place until about three hours after

the missiles went down, Robert Hastings is apparently insisting that the alleged UFO

shut down the missiles and then hung around for about four hours, during which time

nobody responded in any way, shape, or form except by conducting an otherwise

normal watch turnover. This idiocy is t ypical of Rober t Hast ings¶ claims. There's

nothing there to analyze or examine, so he creat es it. It's ludicrous, and he should be

laughed right off of the internet and off of the airwaves as a bad joke.

I don' t need t o call Arneson a liar ² all I need to do is tell everyone what he said,

and the natural response is always going to be the same: Hast ings is a complet e fool if

he ac t ually believes t his crap. Is it so difficult for him to remember that neither my

father, nor Colonel Figel, nor Don Crawford, the oncoming deputy commander, nor



anybody else with an actual name saw any t hing at all? And either Hastings or Salas

has supposedly interviewed all t hree men! The only question worth asking is common

to a lot of other "witnesses" Hastings has presented: why does he believe a st ory t his

ridiculous and irrelevant has any t hing at all t o do wi t h Echo Flight ? He's proven again,

quite handily, that he doesn't give a damn for details, and lacks completely any ability to

analyze an incident properly, or even conduct an informative interview. He just jumps

when people say "UFO" and expects the world to jump in time with him. Well, count me

out ² I'm not into fairy tales and nonsense and Peter Pan saying we can all fly if we just

have good thoughts and sprinkle a little Tinkerbelle dust over our heads. The bottom

line is much simpler and a whole lot easier to remember: none of us can fly, and if we

jump off of a t all building t o prove t he point , t hat t rut h is very easily det ermined in t he

broken body we'll leave in t he st reet below.

Robert Hastings writes: Then, when it became known that Boeing engineer Robert

Kaminski had once written to researcher Jim Klotz, saying that no prosaic cause

for the Echo Flight incident could be found, once he had conducted his

investigation of it, and that other Boeing employees had told him about reports of

UFOs being present at the time of the shutdown, Carlson said that Kaminski was

lying as well²in addition to Salas, Jamison, Barlow and Arneson.

Let's take a closer look at Kaminski's work with the same searing eye for detail

that Hastings has never once applied, and figure out why I can say with such great

confidence that Kaminski was lying, had little memory of the actual events in 1967, or,

more probably, was suffering from some psychosis that prevented him from discussing

those events honestly. I find it interesting, for instance, that both Robert Hastings and

Robert Kaminski insist that the cover-up of UFO involvement at Echo Flight started

when Don Peterson, one of Kaminski's military liaisons, told him some months after his

own role in the Echo Flight investigation had already ended that the USAF was going to

blame the capsule crew for the missile failures. Now I'm going to explain why that

commentary proves either lying or psychosis: t he Echo Flight invest igat ion t eam t hat

Rober t Kaminski was allegedly a member of evaluat ed t he capsule crew t he first week



of t heir invest igat ion, and t hey document ed repeat edly af t erwards t hat t hey had proven

sufficient ly for Depar t ment of Defense purposes t hat t he capsule crew was NOT t o

blame. So explain, please, how exactly do you start a cover-up of any t hing , by making

claims that have already been discounted by your own participation, documented by

your own team, and recognized as acceptable fact by everybody months before any

decision to initiate a cover-up would have been made? The whole series of

suppositions that Hastings uses to reach this conclusion is nothing but vivid absurdi t y ,

and is well-deserving of the disgust in his methods that I¶ve responded with. And

Robert Hastings is well aware of the facts he¶s refused to take into account, because

the contemporary documentation discussing this aspect of the investigation¶s

conclusions was declassified decades ago, and has been available to anyone willing to

conduct the research. More importantly, I have pointed this out to Hastings on many

occasions, and he has decided to ignore the information completely. One can hardly

blame him; after all, he isn't trying to uncover the truth, he¶s t rying t o suppor t his claims

t hat a UFO was involved, when it clearly was not. If his research was intended to

determine what actually happened on March 16, 1967, it would be a bit difficult to fault

him for it, since it would show only that Robert Hastings is mist aken, and is not the

manipulative and dishonest personality his mind actually represents. You can't be

angry with people who lack the intelligence to reach their goals; you can only feel sorry

for them and try to present the information you possess that disproves their claims in as

simple a manner as possible, hoping that someday, preferably sooner than later, they'll

find that eureka! moment within, and gain some understanding of the event thereby.

But that isn¶t really the definition of what we¶re looking at here, and this single chapter of

Kaminski and t he Case of t he Missing UFO gets so much more intriguing the deeper

into it we look.

Almost every det ail of Robert Kaminski's statements in the letter Hastings refers

to above is demonstrably wrong . First, Kaminski claims that "There were no significant

failures, engineering data or findings that would explain how ten missiles were knocked

off alert." Even the command history states that a similar event had occurred at Alpha

Flight in December 1966, and this failure convinced the investigative team that the

incident was a Wing I unique event. This is why no tests were ever conducted at



OOAMA: "OOAMA decided t o send a t ask group t o Malmst rom for st udy of t he incident

at Echo Flight because t he problem per t ained peculiarly t o Wing I. I t was also decided

t o make t he st udies and t est s t here because OOAMA was not equipped wi t h Wing I

equipment ." All of this was apparently forgotten by Kaminski ² convenient for Hastings

really, although not necessary. Hastings, after all, is quite prepared to lie about this

matter, as we've discussed in some detail above. No significant failures? It's obvious

that the "significant failure" at Alpha Flight played an important role during the initial

troubleshooting of the event ² t roubleshoot ing conduc t ed by Kaminski's own t eam! So

is he lying, delusional, or senile? Hell, I don't care ²pick one. They all suggest the

same thing: Kaminski didn¶ t know what he was t alking about when he wrot e t hat lett er.

Kaminski's belief that "engineering data or findings that would explain how ten

missiles were knocked off alert" was never affirmed is also incorrect, and we've been

over this numerous times. All of the ICBM histories and command histories that discuss

this incident are very clear that the cause was an electronic noise pulse; in fact, there

are numerous contemporary assertions that make this claim, including one that actually

states the investigative team "proved" that a noise pulse was responsible.

Conclusions? Either Kaminski is lying, or he can't remember what the team he was a

part of actually concluded. Do you needmore evidence? That¶s fine, becausewe've

got i t . We¶re not making any guesses here, and we¶re not trying to prove a

presupposed conclusion like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have been doing.

We¶re examining all of the evidence, and not picking out one or two little details to

support our otherwise spurious claims.

Kaminski insists that "The use of backup power syst ems and ot her t echnical

syst em circui t operat ional redundancy st rongly suggest s t hat t his kind of event is

vir t ually impossible once t he syst em was up and running and on line wi t h ot her LCF's

and LF's int erconnec t ivi t y." Virtually impossible? Really? This is also demonstrably

wrong, and this guy is supposed to be an engineer. His statements sure as Hell don¶t

satisfy us that he was a very good one, if that was his actual profession of choice. The

backup power syst ems were failing cont inuously across all of t he Wings, and had been

since 1965. The problem was considered to be so severe that it took years and the

numerous in-depth testing of various components to finally determine what the cause



was and how best to correct it. They eventually discovered that "other technical system

circuit operational redundancy" was insufficient to correct the numerous failures that had

already occurred system-wide. All of this was very well documented, as was the

eventual cause that associated the failures with the contractor's overzealous

employment of microcircuitry advancements before such new technology was

completely understood. Kaminski's asser t ions are fundament ally wrong in every way;

and again, t his has been very well document ed for decades. All anybody has to do to

prove Kaminski's failure to report or remember accurately the events of 1967 is conduct

a little standard research that is apparently beyond the skills of Hastings and Salas. It's

been proven, documented, understood and believed for decades that "once the system

was up and running and on line with other LCF's and LF's interconnectivity" every

Minuteman missile armed Wing in the USAF nonetheless continued to experience far

too many failures. This is especially well-documented in the ICBM histories declassified

in 2004, well documented, defined, and in-depth histories that the Bobs have chosen to

ignore.

In any case, I doubt very seriously that Kaminski was ever qualified to utter an

opinion not tainted in some way by his own beliefs regarding UFOs. Before his death,

he insisted that UFOs were tools of Satan intended to convince mankind to reject God:

"The old t rickst er, Lucifer, has lef t no st one unt urned in t his att empt t o delude mankind

int o accept ing t hat which is not suppor t ed by God's Word." He associates the entire

UFO phenomenon with the "many paths to God" teachings typical of new age

personalities or movements, asserting " t he impor t ance of prot ec t ing your mind from

decept ive awareness and higher level consciousness experiences." He also believed

himself to be a vessel of God at a fateful time in history with a specific mission: "At key

moment s in hist ory, God provides ex t raordinary spiri t ual insight meant t o aler t mankind

t o dest ruc t ive forces engulfing His creat ion. We are now at t hat t hreshold in t ime where

we can ei t her respond t o t he warning of God's wisdom or be drawn away by t he allure

of lying wonders spoken of in Paul's lett er t o t he Thessalonians." Guess what his

spiritual insight revealed in relation to UFOs? Apparently, his extraordinary insight

inspired within him the conviction that while UFOs might exhibit seemingly wondrous

abilities, they are nonetheless lies meant to increase mankind's distance from the truth



of God, and that eventually all such lies would be revealed to mankind, "even he whose

coming is according t o t he work of Sat an wi t h all power and signs and lying wonders,

and wi t h all decei t of unright eousness for t hose who are perishing, because t hey

received not t he love of t he t rut h t hat t hey might be saved." That¶s why Kaminski

referred to UFOs as ³Lying Wonders´. By the time Kaminski wrote that letter that

Robert Hastings puts so much emphasis on, he was a confirmed lunatic who couldn¶t

possibly be considered impartial enough ± or even ment ally balanced enough ± to give

a factual, knowledgeable and lucid account of the events central to the Echo Flight

investigation thirty years earlier.

As for the mention in Kaminski¶s letter regarding Don Peterson's apparent claims

that "the incident was reported as being a UFO event," it's simply unt rue. Active USAF

regulations required every UFO report to be investigated by the command's UFO officer

² and this officer, Lt. Col. Lewis Chase, confirmed repeatedly that he did not

investigate any UFO events in association with Echo Flight. I t did not happen. There

were no UFO reports, because nobody ever saw a UFO and reported it. If it had been

reported as a UFO event, it would have been investigated by representatives of the

Foreign Technology Division, and they were never even not ified that the incident

occurred. Neither the commander nor the deputy commander at Echo Flight wereever

questioned by any investigative programs regarding any t hing involving a UFO, and both

men have repeatedly said so. Kaminski's claims are simply incorrec t and easily proven

so; he was either lying, he had a deep-seated psychosis that needed treatment, or he

was trying to sell his own UFO book, Lying Wonders, by attaching himself to this event,

much like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have also done.

Kaminski also claims that no final engineering report was ever submitted; this is

also incorrect and easily shown to be. The actual report is even used as a source of

information throughout the command history and on message traffic; it's titled, "Report

of Engineering Investigation of Echo Flight Incident, Malmstrom AFB, Mont. ² 16 Mar

67," and was submitted by Kaminski's team. In fact, there's very little in Kaminski that

can be verified, and much of it is easily proven to be incorrect. Had Hastings cared

enough about the truth, he could have discovered all of this for himself. Unfortunately,

not only is Hastings unconcerned about facts in contrast to fictions, having an easily



determined agenda to publicize, he is also incapable of conducting in-depth research of

any type, preferring his practice of accepting testimony as fact without attempting to

confirm it first. Why bot her? After all, Kaminski was making claims that enable

Hastings to sell his book all the more ² and besides, Hastings really isn't too concerned

with "confirmation"; his trick in trade is to sell UFOs and frighten people enough so

they¶ll believe that there¶s a valid connection between UFOs and nuclear missile

facilities. As long as someone is pointing and exclaiming "UFO!" anything else is

insignificant, just broken and confusing details that shouldn't be brooded over, much like

the "insignificant failures" referred to by Kaminski himself.

The bottom line with Robert Hastings has been proven time and again: credibili t y

doesn¶ t even need t o be looked at . Let others deal with whether or not the stories he¶s

collected are true if they want to ± with him, i t ¶s all about t he numbers, baby.

Robert Hastings writes: Most recently, when former Sylvania Corporation

Minuteman missile program supervisor Raymond Fowler confirmed that he had

inside information about UFOs shutting down missiles at Malmstrom in 1967 ²

something he first wrote about in 1974, in one of his books, and later elaborated

on in a second 1981 book²Carlson said that Fowler was lying, of course²in

addition to Salas, Jamison, Barlow, Arneson and Kaminski.

I guess Robert Hastings hasn't had the opportunity to read Fowler's original

notes of the case; those that Fowler sent to me state pretty clearly that all he had were

a couple of rumors based on what a couple of men who worked with him told him, and

he was completely unable to confirm any t hing in those accounts. Salas even tried to

track them down later, but the one guy he found admitted that he had no idea what

Salas was talking about, but there certainly weren't any UFOs at Malmstrom AFB in

1967. More to the point,I¶ve never accused Raymond Fowler of lying, as Hastings

insists ± why would I? His entire testimony is completely absent of any actual UFOs. In

fact, I wrote as part of an article some weeks ago that I consider Raymond Fowler to be

an honest man, and that I believe sincerely that he has not lied about anything; he even

wrot e me t o say t hat he appreciat ed t he t hings I had said about him, making Hastings¶



assertion that ³Carlson said t hat Fowler was lying, of course´ a lie itself. That¶s a little

ironic isn¶t it? It¶s also pretty stark evidence that Robert Hastings can¶t even be trusted

to tell the truth about his own assertions ± his whole life is little more than warped

dishonesty, consisting of lies, lies, and lies. In fact, throughout Robert Hastings¶

commentary about my supposed lapses, he has told more provable lies regarding what

I have supposedly said and done than any actual packaging of evidence that he¶s

capable of presenting. This last ridiculous commentary of his onlyproves what kind of

pathological liar inhabits his soul, and shows so vividly why he cannot be trusted to

review this or any other case honestly, whether UFOs are involved or not. For God¶s

sake, is it t hat difficult to find out what my claims are before insisting that I¶ve lied about

them? Robert Hastings is a pathetic and very deeplydist urbed old man who probably

needs psychological counseling. I would put him in touch with my father, who now does

just that, but I suspect Hastings would be unable to apply even the thin veneer of

honest y that most professional psychologists demand of their clients.

As for Fowler, God, where do we st ar t ? Hastings¶ continuing insistence that

Fowler¶s employment as the Sylvania Corporation Minuteman missile program

supervisor at Malmstrom AFB gave him some kind of insight regarding this issue is a

meaningless bit of drivel that has no bearing on this case. When Hastings says Fowler

was privy to ³inside information,´ he¶s just selling another lie, spreading more

disinformation regarding an incident he has refused to discuss with any honesty for

years. Fowler had no ³inside information´; he was a Sylvania employee who got

pranked by his own co-workers. The only thing Sylvania was tasked with at Malmstrom

AFB was the 564th Squadron development that took place over 200 miles west of Echo

Flight, a fact that Hastings would know, if he had done any real research at all, instead

of relying on the same silly crap his book is so full of. Sylvania worked on t he

deployment of Minut eman II missiles; and the 564th was the only squadron at

Malmstrom AFB equipped to handle Minuteman II¶s. As a result of hisemployment ,

therefore, Fowler¶s security clearance was insufficient to examine the incident reports

about Echo Flight or anything at all having to do with the invest igat ion of Echo Flight.

He knew nex t t o not hing about t he subjec t . He didn¶t even know the dat e, and insisted

for years that the Echo Flight incident occurred on March 24-25, 1967 instead of March



16, 1967, and the only reason he¶s ever given for this assumption is the fact that there

were actually UFO reports that were made on March 24-25 ± there were none on March

16, which is the actual date of the Echo Flight Incident. That¶s why heassumed the

date was a week later. All Fowler did was assign an incorrect date to the event due to

his own apparently incorruptible belief that a UFO was involved, which is no better than

a guess. Hell, you can¶t even call it aneducat ed guess, because he didn¶t possess any

actual information. If Robert Hastings was capable of conducting a balanced

investigation of this case, instead of applying his old and often relied upon rules of

ignore and invent , he could have figured this all out for himself years ago; it¶s not like

anybody was trying to hide the information.

As the result of a fairly in-depth examination of the notes that Raymond Fowler

took so much time to write regarding his suspicions about Echo Flight, it's been pretty

well substantiated that Raymond Fowler is the probable aut hor of all the UFO rumors

involving Echo Flight that were so popular in 1967 in the first place. This is a guy who

was very probably pranked by three of the men he worked with, when they told him all

the stuff that he mentions in his notes, men that knew he was involved with UFOs and

NICAP, and likely thought they¶d have some fun at his expense. Not having sufficient

clearance to know any t hing at all on the subject of Echo Flight, the only information he

could have received, even had these three co-workers of his been telling the truth, was

a collection of rumors. Considering Fowler¶s apparent fanaticism on the subject of

UFOs, however, a prank is far more likely. In any case, the fact that Fowler thought the

Echo Flight Incident had occurred on March 24-25 instead of the actual date of March

16, tells us that the ³single´ source referred to by the Foreign Technology Division in its

memorandum to Lt. Col. Chase, the Malmstrom AFB UFO officer, regarding the

³rumors´ they had heard involving equipment failures on March 24-25, 1967 was almost

certainly Raymond Fowler himself. Nobody else on the entire planet was aware of the

Echo Flight Incident, believed that UFOs were involved, and believed that the incident

had occurred on March 24 ± nobody except Raymond Fowler. In addition, the detailed

notes he took at the time match up almost exac t ly with the details discussed by FTD in

their memorandum. The odds, therefore, thatsomebody else was responsible for the



UFO rumors mentioned in the command history is insurmount able, because nobody

else was calling his contacts, revealing classified information to uncleared individuals,

and pretty much doing everything he could get someone interested in Echo Flight as a

UFO incident instead of the electrical malfunction it actually was. Add that to FTD¶s

insistence regarding a ³single´ source, and the conclusion that he was the guy on the

phone is pretty damn definitive, in my opinion. Unfortunately for Fowler¶s claims, the

credibility of Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, and their future capability to attract

belief in their lies and disinformation, you can¶t start a UFO investigation without a

wi t ness, something Raymond Fowler was never able to provide. That¶s why his claims

were considered to be ³rumors´ by the entire USAF. In the absence of awi t ness, you

can¶t have a UFO repor t . They even attempted to verify the ³rumors´ that Fowler kept

bringing up in relation to Echo Flight, by going to the only group of personnel who were

actually out side during the incident ± a strike team that was out performing an

inspection of all the November Flight LFs ± and asked them if they saw anything at all

that was odd or otherwise airborne. They reported that they noticed nothing strange or

out of place, and as a result of the queries made, it was reported in the command

history: ³Rumors of Unident ified Flying Objec t s (UFO) around t he area of Echo Flight

during t he t ime of faul t were disproven. A Mobile S t rike Team, which had checked all

November Flight ¶s LFs on t he morning of 16 March 67, were quest ioned and st at ed t hat

no unusual ac t ivi t y or sight ings were observed.´ The facts are very easily determined,

as long as you remember a couple of very small details: Rober t Hast ings and Rober t

Salas are lying t o you about t his event .

One can't help but wonder whether or not Robert Hastings understands what a

"rumor" is; he seems to believe that "rumor" is a synonym for "fact". This is incorrec t ,

Rober t . "Rumors" are those things that happen when you keep calling up the USAF to

notify them in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that UFOs were involved at

Echo Flight. It becomes "rumor" as soon as the USAF confirms that not only were no

UFOs repor t ed on March 16, 1967 ² making any such investigation a little difficult to

complete ² but none of the personnel confirmed as being outside during this period

saw anything strange at all when they were asked about it. Robert Hastings might

understand the events that actually took place a little better if he would simply read the



documentation and witness assertions available to him as a result of numerous FOIA

requests, especially as the available resources establish pretty strongly that his theories

don't even deserve to be discussed . Where I come from,garbage is sorted for recycling

and is then thrown out. I guess one could recycle the Echo Flight garbage as an

equally unreported incident at November Flight or Oscar Flight, as the two Bobs are

very evidently trying to do, but since their claims encompass both Echo Flight and

November/Oscar Flight, it¶s evident that no recycling is taking place, only invention.

The most interesting point regarding Raymond Fowler¶s notes ± and a detail that

Robert Salas and Robert Hastings both tend to ignore with the intensity they so rarely

apply to anything else ± are the little details that Fowler doesn¶ t discuss. For instance,

among all of the rumors that he was so busily chronicling for future benefit, there¶s

absolutely not hing that even suggests an additional full flight failure, whether at

November Flight or Oscar Flight. As my father and Colonel Figel have both stated,

everybody was aware of the incident at Echo Flight. According to my father, the³event

at Echo became what could be referred t o as t he t alk of t he t own. Everyone knew

about i t and many crew members kidded me about i t .´ The fact that Fowler picked up

on it isn¶t surprising at all, but he obviously didn¶t know any details, including the date.

However, he also didn¶t note anything at all about a similar event at another flight ± such

as the one the two Bobs have tried to establish at November Flight or Oscar Flight; not

even a rumor. Pretty much everybody else who was at Malmstrom AFB at that time

agrees that neither of those two postulated incidents ever took place. So once again,

Hastings and Salas are making claims regarding an incident that simply did not happen.

So, let¶s sum up a bit, here. Robert Hastings¶ only response to the very orderly

and systematic rendition of events that has been detailed above, the only argument he¶s

willing to raise, is to say that ³Carlson is lying about every t hing.´ And, once again,

Hastings¶ lies are easily proven, and obvious to anyone examining his behavior. He

doesn¶t have to lie, but he does anyway; it¶s the first counter-argument he relies on, and

he always returns to it like a dog to its own sick.

When the Hell is he going to answer the dozens of questions I¶ve put to him in

the past? He¶s even promised to do so, but almost a year has gone by and he¶s done



not hing except publically lambast me and my family without once providing anything

even approaching valid evidence to support his own claims. I t hink he¶s a sickening

human being and I¶ve got numerous reasons for believing that, and all of them are an

effect of his own character-based flaws as a man ± and all of them can be supported by

exact and well-measured reasons. What the Hell does Robert Hastings have to say

other than ³Carlson¶s a liar´?

All of the assertions I¶ve spelled out in some detail pretty well prove that Robert

Hastings has no legitimate witnesses, and not a single story that can be confirmed by

anybody as being more than an odd affectation initiated by him to sell more books. The

only witnesses that have come forward to dictate a believable story that has been

consistent for years ² my fat her and Wal t Figel ² have said repeatedly that Hastings

and Salas are both liars and a con artists trying to perpetrate a hoax . In the absence of

credible testimony, the fictional excesses that the Bobs are currently standing in up to

their knees, proves only one thing: my fat her and Wal t Figel are correc t in t heir

assumpt ion of t he t wo Bobs¶ immoral charac t ers. I suspect the Bobs will continue to

express their opinions and perpetrate this UFO hoax, but if they can't come up with any

valid evidence (which they've failed to do thus far), I doubt anybody will remember their

claims. All of t he evidence t hey've got has been shatt ered ; everything else is just glitter

on a macaroni sculpture that they¶re attempting to portray as Leonardo da Vinci¶s ³Last

Supper´. And that¶s just not going to do it, whether you¶re standing in downtown

Albuquerque or Rome, Italy. People should expect more than noise ±and Hast ings and

Salas haven¶ t even declared an appropriat e whisper.

Robert Hastings writes: Does anyone see a pattern here? According to James

Carlson, his daddy, Eric, has always told the truth about the incidents at

Malmstrom (no UFOs were involved) but everyone else who disputes that claim is

a liar.

If there is indeed a pattern here, it's the one that has developed naturally from

Robert Hastings' use of irreconcilable witnesses, witnesses whose claims are

incomplete, unstudied, and lacking in the details necessary for the simplest structure of



belief, and from his own stupidity and inability to analyze a simple commentary. These

witnesses lack any of the necessary qualities required for trust, as do Robert Hastings

and Robert Salas. These men are obviously lying , and the fact that Robert Hastings

seems to trust that the general public is willing to set aside all normal restraints required

to suspend belief for even an instant does not qualify as "proof" of his belief that he is

smarter than the general public, better able to determine quality from garbage than the

general public, and more advanced in the use of critical thinking tools and mental

acrobatics than the general public, none of which is t rue, a fact easily determined by the

simple analysis of the stories he's presented. Rober t Hast ings is a liar; he is trying to

con the public into believing stories that are obviously untrue, and have nothing at all to

recommend them. He and Robert Salas are attempting to create a UFO hoax that will

enable them to adopt the heroic personas of concerned Americans in the complete

absence of such reputation and abili t y , and they are attempting to do so by ruining the

reputations and well-substantiated honor and trustworthiness of better men than they.

And if he were able to take an unbiased and objective mental photograph of the

opinions of Americans across the country, he would realize this instantly as the only

viable explanation for his current reputation as a very poor liar as opposed to a very

good liar.

Robert Hastings writes: At this point, one might easily conclude that James

Carlson is indeed in deep, near-delusional denial. The problem is this: As his post

above confirms, Carlson continues to lie about his father¶s deputy commander¶s

statements about the Echo Flight incident, claiming that Col. Walt Figel agrees

with the elder Carlson. In reality, Figel has actually confirmed on audio tape that a

UFO was indeed present when the Echo missiles went down. Read my

³Echo/Oscar Witch Hunt´ article if you don¶t believe me; there are audio links to

Figel¶s admissions. Figel¶s more recent weasel-worded statements on the subject

change nothing. Once I release the entire audio record of his earlier comments to

me²the actual tapes, not just transcripts²he will have a lot of explaining to do.



All that Robert Hastings has ever done in relation to the hundreds of pages of

criticism heaped upon his story thus far is to continue telling people "just wai t unt il I

release all of t he real evidence I've got ; t hen you'll see how everybody else except me is

lying t o you; just wai t , people of America and t he world: I'mt elling t he t rut h, and just as

soon as I've collat ed all of t he dat a I'm current ly in possession of, I'll release i t , and t hen

you'll all see t he world for what i t is ² fright ening wi t h UFOs all over t he place, going

crazy over bot h our nuclear weapons and our peaceful use of nuclear power alike."

It's getting a bit old at this point, isn't it? It's been nearly a full YEAR since Robert

Hastings promised to reveal the new interviews with Walt Figel that would prove how

much of a liar James Carlson is; it's been nearly a full YEAR since Hastings first claimed

to be willing to answer any and all questions regarding this case that I've put to him in

numerous internet forums, all of which he has ignored completely in favor of making a

bid for honesty and reputation that he is incapable of establishing; it's been well over a

YEAR since he first started reacting to intimately detailed criticism and documented

proof of his and Salas¶ numerous lies with the general accusation of "liar" without once

detailing exactly what those lies purportedly are; and it's been well over a YEAR since

Robert Hastings first intimated a willingness to discuss and debate this issue in a

detailed fashion, aligning his "evidence" against the criticisms and numerous facts

weighed against him, all the while refusing every request from outside publishers,

journalists, and well-known UFO proponents to do so. His infinitely poor attempts to

justify his self-serving acts and to support his own claims amounts to nothing more than

ignoring the massive holes in the case he's presented, all the while pointing a single

finger dramatically at his audience while stating in a low, curt tone, "wai t ... just wai t ."

I for one am getting sick of it ² sick of his nonsensical acts and his consistent

refusal to present a valid argument to support his petty claims and extremely well-

substantiated lies. All Robert Hastings has ever represented to this field of study is

another extended excuse to attack those who actually understand the depths of his own

psychosis and dishonesty.

For chrissake, Rober t ² grow up! If you can prove your case, do so, but this

unappreciated revelation of garbage and waste is far more indicative of your inability to



raise anything at all suggestive of "proof", your habitual reliance on already disproven

assertions from the testimonies of useless old men who have nothing even remotely

interesting to say, and your ill-reasoned reliance on general attacks to counter specific

arguments raised against your claims. Your attempts to float a complex theory on the

backs of simple-minded lies and easily disproven assertions is laughable and shows the

entire world that you are nothing but another worthless UFO profiteer with nothing even

slightly appropriate to the issues that you can lay claim to; you are unable to explain the

numerous, well-documented problems inherent to your case and the claims of your

witnesses, and you in fact refuse t o do so most of t he t ime, preferring to watch the

structure of your ideas teeter and fall with each and every fac t introduced beneath them.

This threat of Robert Hastings¶ that ³Once I release t he ent ire audio record of his

earlier comment s t o me ² t he ac t ual t apes, not just t ranscript s ² he will have a lot of

explaining t o do´ is no different from every other defense of his claims that he¶s ever

mounted. He keeps saying the same thing: just wai t unt il I¶ve must ered my resources.

For God¶s sake, it¶s like he has no pride at all! He always makes this kind of claim, and

he never produces any t hing . I¶ve called him on it in the past, so it certainly isn¶t the first

time he¶s made public claims while being unable to actually produce something worth

examining. I presented him with a list of 49 questions regarding the Echo Flight Incident

that requires an intimate knowledge of the already documented details to answer, and

for months he kept saying the same thing: I¶ll answer t hem all, don¶ t worry ± but he¶s

produced nothing but noise. I gave up believing that he¶d eventually come through with

an answer on Saturday, March 6, 2010, when he sent us an email stating ³Three

development s ± t wo of t hem direc t ly relat ed t o t he ongoing exchange bet ween James

Carlson and myself ± will delay, by up t o t wo weeks, my post ing my responses t o

James' quest ions. When I do respond,t he informat ion I will provide should leave no

doubt as t o who is accurat ely repor t ing on t he event s occurring at Echo Flight , on March

16, 1967, and who is not ." And he hasn¶t produced a damn thing since then except the

various remunerations to the few individuals left in this world willing to credit his opinion

that ³every t hing Carlson says is a lie!´ He did the same thing when I first published

Colonel Figel's claims, lying without any reason to do so when he insisted that his and



Salas' March 2010 phone call with Figel would prove how wrong my assertions were

and that Figel's actual claims were completely contrary to what was reported. He

promised to supply ample proof then as well, but produced not hing for six months

except libel, finally providing, on the day before his screwed up, pathetic monstrosity of

a press conference, the questionable interview with Figel from 1996. This pathological

lying about the evidence he can produce, the validated statements of witnesses he has

on hand, and the overwhelming proof that's available to him but hasn't yet been

presented is typical of him. It's a shameful display of nothing more than his ownhubris,

and the complete absence of a believable story.

If Robert Hastings can't defend his own claims, and it's becoming increasingly

obvious to the entire world that he cannot, than I recommend he pick up his toys and go

home; at this point the only way that he can eke out even a symbolic victory on this field

is to abandon it. Rober t Hast ings has not present ed a case wor t hy of considerat ion. His

numerous lies regarding the incidents at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 ² many of

which have been ent irely unnecessary even t o score an imaginary point ² suggest not

only that his claims regarding this single issue cannot be defended, but suggest as well

that not a single case he¶s discussed in his book of folk-tales can be relied upon for

credibility's sake. He is, after all, a proven liar, sowhy should the world trust any of his

claims and stories? Whatever credibility or trustworthiness Robert Hastings may once

have had, his worthless arguments and irreconcilable reliance on numerous lies in the

place of measurable evidence has quite effectively expended it. I personally wouldn't

trust him to give the world an accurate version of his most recent meal , let alone a

believable one.

Robert Hastings writes: As for Tim Herbert¶s, ahem, ³authoritative´ summary of the

missile shutdown incidents, Carlson is dreaming if he thinks that Hebert²who

was not present when the events occurred²can explain them away. I will provide

Hebert with former missile maintenance tech Hank Barlow¶s email address²if he

will write to me and ask for it²so that he can learn the facts from someone who

was actually involved in the Echo shutdown aftermath. Again, Barlow says he

was explicitly told that UFOs had caused the malfunctions. (Just as former



targeting team officer Bob Jamison was told that the Oscar missiles had met the

same fate. I will forward Jamison¶s email address to Hebert as well.)

As Hebert told me in an email last year, he first became aware of the events

at Malmstrom while writing a post-graduate psychology paper on ³delusional

thinking.´ (Rather ironic that he should now be supporting James Carlson¶s

rants, eh?) Hebert¶s remarks made quite clear his own anti-UFO biases. Is it any

wonder he and James Carlson are such pals?

I'm not going to touch this ² I'm pretty sure Tim Hebert can take Robert Hastings

apart as efficiently and effectively as I can, and I'm sure he'll enjoy it as much I do. In

fact, I¶ll enjoy watching Hastings¶ growing insignificance at the hands of another person

just as much as I enjoy being a party to it. After all, a new point of view is always

valuable, regardless of the subject's spiritual and moral ugliness.

I will say one thing: in Robert Hastings¶ discussions with Tim Hebert via email

that he alludes to above, Hebert noticed, as did Colonel Walt Figel during his own

interview, that instead of discussing the case and the evidence it presents, Hastings

spent a lot of time talking about me, and what a horribly vile person he thinks I am. This

obsession he has for att acking his cri t ics inst ead of t heir argument s has been not ed by

many individuals, and it¶s equally plain that he does so because it represents the only

thing he can produce. As I've said repeatedly in the past, there would be no argument if

he had a valid case to make. His case, however, is in shambles, and he has essentially

lost . He should learn to live with that, using the same coping skills that adul t s use.

Robert Hastings writes: Meanwhile, the truth about the UFO-Nukes Connection

continues to spread like a wildfire on the Internet. If one searches the subject,

using the title of the press release announcing my September 27, 2010 press

conference in Washington D.C. (³U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised

by Unidentified Aerial Objects´) one will find up to 4 million results, depending on

which search engine is used. (Googling will yield 1.65 million results.) In addition,

thousands of articles have been written about the dramatic revelations divulged



at the event²by Salas and three other persons who were at Malmstrom in 1966-

67, as well as other former USAF officers who had similar experiences at other

bases in between 1964 and 1980.

Because some people believe what Hastings has to say is not evidence that

what he¶s saying is t rue. One has nothing to do with the other. The same holds true

regarding what people choose to talk about. It¶s the equivalent of people discussing

John Wayne Gacy¶s claims to being innocent. It doesn¶t mean they believe he was

innocent; it was just means he was a topic of conversation. As for Hastings, facts are

facts, and he doesn¶t have any to add to this conversation.

Anybody who examines in detail Robert Hastings¶ and Robert Salas¶ assertions

will immediately recognize the absence of actual evidence that they have presented;

most will conclude, as I have, and as many others have, that their "research" is

worthless, their books are a ridiculous stack of lies and insults, and Robert Hastings in

particular has very effectively wasted the last 34 years or so of his life.

He should get used t o being irrelevant .

Robert Hastings writes: So, rest assured, the facts will all come out, sooner or

later, and James Carlson will become nothing more than a historical footnote

once UFO Disclosure has occurred, and a not-very flattering one at that.

Yeah ... "once UFO Disclosure has occurred" . That¶s a good qualifying

statement; we'll all be waiting for that single moment with bated breath, I'm sure, just as

we¶re currently awaiting all of the other incidentals that Robert Hastings has promised,

yet come up short of actually providing. As a result of his own weak arguments, he has

made the fate of his insignificance unavoidable, and we can all continue with some

dignity the process of forgetting that he or his theories ever existed. It¶s well past the

time to dismiss in full the claims he¶s wasted so much of his life pursuing

Documents

The Bunny's Retort by James Carlson