UFO’s and Nukes: the Secret ink Revealed - The UFO Documentary You're Not Supposed To See

originally posted by: Scrubdog
One thing I know concretely, he doesn't publish any story that he doesn't believe that guys are telling him the truth regarding what they saw.

But his biggest story about a UFO at Malmstrom, he has no witnesses who saw the UFO. So there can be nobody telling him the truth about the UFO they saw if he has no witnesses who saw the UFO!

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Of all of the individuals that Hastings had interviewed, the people that supposedly saw the UFO remain unknown to this day.

Nobody can accuse any witnesses to the UFO of not telling the truth if there aren't any such witnesses.

Last, the more respected people in the UFO community respect Hastings, and though that's not ever definitive, it does indicate something

Have you read what James Carlson said?

How to Demand Redress By Shooting Yourself in the Foot

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Scrubdog
One thing I know concretely, he doesn't publish any story that he doesn't believe that guys are telling him the truth regarding what they saw.

But his biggest story about a UFO at Malmstrom, he has no witnesses who saw the UFO. So there can be nobody telling him the truth about the UFO they saw if he has no witnesses who saw the UFO!

Did UFOs Disable Minuteman Missiles at Malmstrom AFB in 1967?

Of all of the individuals that Hastings had interviewed, the people that supposedly saw the UFO remain unknown to this day.

Nobody can accuse any witnesses to the UFO of not telling the truth if there aren't any such witnesses.

Last, the more respected people in the UFO community respect Hastings, and though that's not ever definitive, it does indicate something

Have you read what James Carlson said?

How to Demand Redress By Shooting Yourself in the Foot

As for Hastings’ most recent load of codswallup,

codswallup = nonsense

I laughed my arse off!

a reply to: Lathroper
Jacobs claims to have witnessed something unusual on a film he shot of supposedly a UFO firing lasers at a missile and of course Hastings turns that into a big story about how aliens are messing with our nukes, which is more codswallup.

If anybody wants to know what really happened I suggest the article by this expert in the field will give you a much more informed account than you'll get from either Jacobs or Hastings:

‘Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again

An early morning ICBM launch in 1964 was photographed from a nearby mountain site, uncovering a design flaw that resulted in tight security and a UFO myth that refuses to die.

But you don't really need to be much of an expert to conclude that Jacob's account is flawed, because as that article explains:

Perhaps readers are familiar with the roar of the Starship Enterprise passing through space and the brightly visible laser beams traded with Klingon cruisers. The vacuum of space does not permit sound travel or colorful side-visible rays of any kind. In his MUFON exposition, Jacobs suggests “energy beams” of some sort, but the type doesn’t matter. Dust particles, ionized particles, or sustained gas clouds are required to detect a focused laser or energy beam, such as when a mist is displayed to identify lasers in a jewelry heist movie. What one might see if a laser was used in space would be a hot spot or meltdown of the outer skin of a target.

The article is right, you can't see "energy beams" from the side, though it makes for good special effects in Star Trek science fiction. The Jewelry heist movie is more accurate in portraying lasers as invisible until some mist is sprayed so they have something to reflect against.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Great reply! And reading Kingston A. George's "Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again" article was a hoot! I was especially pleased that the link takes one to CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry ), one of my favorite websites to go to when I want to "douche" my brain!

One wonders what happens to minds such as Jacobs', Gordon Cooper's, Edgar Mitchell's, et al, when they lose it and go off the edge becoming spinners of tales that are not acceptable because they simply are unbelievable. And, of course, Hastings is unbelievable from the get go. This is why the UFO "community" is in such disarray. One tells a tale, unsupported by evidence, but the minds of believers don't need evidence. Didn't any one of them ever watch Sgt Friday say, "Just the facts, ma'am".

I always react loudly to my wife when they show on TV/movies flames in space as if there was anything flammable to activate. But, Hollywood has to make the mundane, non-interesting into a salable, interesting product or some production companies would have to close. But I take that back 'cause the "History" Channel continues to exist.

I wonder how many UFO and missile site reports are truthful, seeing as how they are hearsay reports only without a single, reliable guard/soldier whipping out his/her cellphone or whatever recording medium may have been available such as security cameras.

a reply to: Lathroper

ah - the thinly veiled ad hom

lots of material is " un released " for various reasons

some because it was so bad that no one would buy it

others because it was only meant to be released in response to an event that never happened

but you seem confused by basic english

so again - attempt to answer the question :

and this time - understand the difference between un released and not supposed to be seen