Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers.

reply to post by James Carlson

So are you so certain he's telling the truth because you've looked at all the evidence carefully, because you like the guy and figure he needs a break, or is it because you just want to believe that UFOs were involved?

James I've gone through your book and attempted to maintain an objective POV looking at both sides of this. For the record I've debunked a number of UFO cases (to give an example), so believe me I'm looking for the truth, whatever that might be. As I look at your side of the story here's what bothers me:

1. Early on I mentioned several areas where you were clearly embellishing the details, both in your online dialogue and in your book as adumbrated here and here. You've also flip-flopped on certain issues, which I find a bit disconcerting, as pointed out by another member here.
   
   
2. I asked you, here, to show the emails where Salas or Hastings has defamed you.
   
   You ignored this.
   
   If you had done this, I, and others, might have a better picture of how you've arrived at your rather venomous position. You've alluded to these messages, but you haven't posted them in full-detail (screenshots with internet header information) nor have you provided corroboration by other people on the mailing list.
   
   While you may point to Hastings asking you, here, about your potential interest in what's commonly seen as a dangerous mind altering narcotic. I'd point out that asking a question is about as non-confrontational as it gets, especially compared to the accusations and emotional vitriol I've seen coming from your end in this mud-slinging contest. (here, here, here).
   
   
3. I've also asked you, here, again very nicely, to give a statement from your father either notarized or on camera, so we can hear his position from his own mouth.
   
   You ignored this.
   
   Hastings has provided Figel's commentary in its original audio format, as well as the full exchanges, with signature, from Kaminski.
   
   

4. 
   Frankly, I've never needed his assitance to contact Col. Figel -- I've managed to do so quite easily on my own. The fact that I have been reticent to discuss the matter in more detail has very little to do with cowardice. I have, in fact, contacted Col. Figel, but didn't feel that it would be very ethical to discuss in detail the event he recalls without securing first his complete cooperation, authority, and permission to do so. Having secured that this very evening, I am now prepared to discuss the matter in full.

   
   After having gone through your book, I admit, I'm a little concerned about the way you selectively pick and choose what to paraphrase from your sources (detailed here). So I'd much rather have the whole dialogue in its original format, rather than your interpretation of that conversation.
   
   Posting the original audio transmission or email exchange, as a series of screenshots, with full internet header, would strengthen your case.
   
   
5. At least twice now on this forum you've massaged or misunderstood what people were saying, whether this was intentional, or more a strategy to reframe the debate, I don't know. But I find it odd that a person who's usually fairly precise in his thinking and wording would, on several occasions, distort peoples questions and statements. ex./
   1. reply #1
   2. reply #2 -- you mention, "You once asked me why I defer to official documents" when I did nothing of the sort I stated,

      
      I find it a bit questionable that you're willing to defer to official records when it suits your position, but when the more anomalous aspects of the event come in to play (i.e. ex-Boeing engineers’ failing to identify a pathway for missile shutdowns) you relegate the subject-matter to the end of the book and address it in a rather superficial, non-technical way. (1)

      That wasn't me asking why you "defer to official documents" it was me asking why you're selective in what you choose to discuss.
   
   
   To an outside observer it looks like you're trying to misdirect people.
   
   
6. Throughout your book (and on this forum) you keep portraying Salas and Hastings as though they feel this was a direct and/or intentional attack on US soil and then proceed to mock them due to the implications you believe this would have in the "real world." To give a few choice examples,

   
   It's an absolute joke that we have to look at an open and shut case of two guys screwing around this closely simply because Robert Hastings is not bright enough to tell the difference between an "oh, wow, I'm just kidding" incident and an invasive attack on the nation's most powerful means of waging war. (p.66)

   
   

   
   Why does the military in ALL of your stories refuse to act in the way expected if a nuclear facility were attacked ... (2)

   
   You make such a large point of this issue you even go out of your way to describe McNamara's offensive strategies during WWII (pg. 193) and from this purport to induce how he would've dealt with a flying-saucer threat.
   
   Salas and Hastings concede the possibility this was a shot-over-the-bow, but more often then not they refrain from speculating about the nature of transients. If, and this as a big if, there was something in the air (perhaps a hitherto unknown atmospheric phenomenon) it could have easily been an entirely passive effect. If such an object was present then it may have naturally emitted an EM pulse triggering the defect in the coupler by virtue of its presence rather than as an act of hostility or intention to cause the "no-go" condition.
   
   This is a legitimate possibility especially when you consider there are countless reports (ex.) from military personnel describing anomalous circumstances where a vehicle has shutdown in the presence of a UFO. Hell the 'War of Worlds' movie even alludes to this bit of trivia when the cars are knocked-out by the tripod's EMP blast and Tom Cruise suggests to his mechanic buddy, "replace the solenoid!"
   
   So I find your reducing the debate to "an attack" to be trivializing the possibilities, and therefore reducing your logic to a very specific line of thinking potentially leading you to an assessment that had nothing to do with the actual circumstances.
   
   To give an example of how bad this logic really is, you keep saying, "The security detail didn't ... fire on it as they were trained to do, because there was nothing there."(3)
   
   Should guards fire at every "unknown" thing they come across? Would you seriously want military personnel shooting at lenticular clouds and other unfamiliar phenomena?
   
   A UFO is just that an unidentified, anomalous observation.

(continued...)

1. Your attempts to deride people in the UFO community by portraying them as though they're hiding information, for some ulterior purpose, makes you look silly.
   
   

   
   The CUFON website, however, has only published pages 32-34 and page 38 of only one quarter from the command history, and doesn't discuss most of the ongoing investigation at all. (4)

   
   
   You yourself admit the majority of the official documentation in your book wasn't due to your own leg work (as noted on pg.67), but rather pulled from the Black Vault (a pro-UFO website).
   
   That should be enough to tell anyone here the information isn't being "hidden" by UFO advocates attempting to do away with information that might go contrary to their beliefs.
   
   
2. Your rebuttal to my commentary about Chase is wanting,
   
   

   
   How can you possibly say that an event attested to by Lewis D. Chase from 1957 has any bearing at all on his trustworthiness?

   
   
   Isn't the very basis of trustworthiness built on the integrity and reliability of the persons past actions and deeds?
   
   

   
   The only relevant point is that Chase reported this incident, and that report is still on file. Whether or not something happened to his tapes is meaningless because it doesn't speak to his honesty and efforts -- only those who lost or his the tapes he submitted.

   
   
   Is it common for the USAF to lose data from, then, TS equipment? Perhaps if this is a regular occurrence in the military it's possible to say someone lost the report detailing Salas' description of the Oscar flight incident? Because, after all, the fact that another person may have misplaced the material evidence "doesn't speak to his honesty or efforts."
   
   While you may look at this and think I'm being facetious, I'm not.
   
   You simply can't have it both ways without exposing yourself as being biased beyond reason. As I mentioned previously,
   
   

   
   Since you believe so strongly in corroborating documentation as necessary evidence to confirm the authenticity of human testimony, by your logic we have this either-or scenario:
   
   * Chase is a liar (since no magnetic-recording was reported to ever exist) XOR the USAF is lying. ...
   
   [T]ake your pick.
   
   Either Chase is a confirmed liar with the RB-47 incident and therefore no longer useful for your argument; or we've got something else going on here.
   
   If there's something else going on then the remainder of your questions become somewhat rhetorical.

Now you don't have to believe that -- you don't have to believe anything I've said, and that's fine -- but when you find yourself with an extra few minutes, please ask yourself -- WHY do I believe what Salas is claiming?

I'll be perfectly clear I tilt towards Salas if only because he's given his testimony on camera, publicly in front of the world, and stated unambiguously he's willing to testify before Congress. If your father were willing to do the same I'd be much more amenable to believe you're speaking out of a sense of integrity and honesty rather than simply acting out hostility due to a bruised ego or perhaps to fulfill some other personal or professional agenda.

Given the opportunity I'd ask your father the following questions, with the caveat, that since certain lines of inquiry might violate a oath, putting your father in a position where he might feel it wouldn't be possible to answer honestly, or even in the case where he might feel uncomfortable addressing a given topic, that he simply state, "next question."

1. Do you know how many maintenance teams were out overnight?
   
2. Who was the first person to respond to the missiles going offline? You or Figel?
   
3. What happened before and after the missiles went off alert?
   
4. Do you remember hearing mention of UFOs over the comms?
   
5. What was the demeanor of the people you heard over the comms?
   
6. If there was mention of UFOs, did you take this to be a joke?
   
7. If you took it to be a joke, why? Did they frequently play pranks? Was it due to the tonality of their voice? Or was this attitude simply based on disbelief?
   
8. If there was mention of a UFO, did you receive this report about the UFO pre- or post- "no-go"?
   
9. If there would have been an eye-witness to this event who would that have been? Even if you don't remember their name could you relate their position or some other identifiable characteristic?
   
10. Were you friendly with Walt Figel at this time?
    
11. Are there other shortwave communication techniques that would allow one LCC to learn the status of another, indirectly, rather than from the usual chain of command?
    
12. Do you remember any communication at all between LCCs? Rather than up and down the chain to SAC or the MAFs?
    
13. If so, do you remember which LCC you were communicating with and who specifically?
    
14. Were you, or Figel, asked to fill out a report?
    
15. Was there any mention of a UFO in that report?
    
16. Do you remember if there was any briefing after the fact (whether with SAC, squadron hq, or elsewhere)?
    
17. Did you speak with OSI after the fact?
    
18. If so, was there any mention of UFOs during the debriefing(s)?
    
19. Did you have to sign any "nondisclosure" agreements?
    
20. Did you or anyone else related to the incident ever speak with Lewis Chase about this event?
    
21. If you did speak with Chase, could you relate the conversation?
    
22. Did you or anyone else speak to the Condon Committee (perhaps Roy Craig rings a bell) about this incident?
    
23. Did anyone from Blue Book get involved that you're aware of?
    
24. Do you remember the names of any of the guards or maintenance men on duty?
    
25. How common or infrequent was it for DMCCC's and MCCC's to man other LCCs?
    
26. How often did missiles fail during this time period?
    
27. Is it fair to say that 10 missiles all simultaneously going into a no-go condition was rare?
    
28. Were you ever given an explanation as to why the missiles went into a "no-go" status.
    
29. Did Hastings talk with you at any point?
    
30. If so, when you spoke with Hastings, did you mention to him, even if only cavalierly, that your son had issues of any sort (mental, emotional, etc.)?
    
31. Did Salas or Klotz contact you around '97?
    
32. Are you still friendly with Walt Figel to this day, or has anything changed?
    
33. Would you testify to these statements under oath, that everything you've stated here is true to the best of your knowledge, under penalty of perjury, so help you God?

I'm sure I'll come up with more questions later.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by Xtraeme]

In response to James Carlson's claims of no UFO involvement in the shutdown of nuclear missiles at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967, I offer the following verbatim excerpt from the testimony of retired USAF Lt. Col. Dwynne Arneson. The full statement may be found at:

www.bibliotec...yades.net... ... sure07.htm

EXCERPT:

My name is Dwynne Arneson. I was born in Rochester, Minnesota back in 1937, and went to Rochester High School. From there I graduated and went on to St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota where I got my degree in physics and math. Upon graduation, I competed for Officer’s Training School in the Air Force and then was selected to get a commission, went to Officer’s Training School, and was commissioned back in 1962. I went on to spend twenty-six years in the U.S. Air Force as a communication-electronics officer and retired in 1986.

I held a top-secret SCI-TK clearance. That means Special Compartmented Tango Kilo information, which is above top secret, if you will. It takes a special investigation to get that sort of a clearance. Upon getting out of the Air Force, and retiring as a colonel in 1986, I applied for work at Boeing, and I came to work for Boeing as a computer systems analyst, and I’ve been working since 1987 in that capacity with Boeing. I retired in 1986 as Director of Logistics at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

...The next thing that comes to mind is one that took place in 1967. I was in charge of the Communication Center, the Twentieth Air Division at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. I was again the top-secret control officer there. I dispatched all the nuclear launch authentications to the SAC missile crews, so I had a very good top-secret background. One day, I happened to see a message that came through my communications center. There again, I cannot quote the date, where it came from, where it was going to, but I do recall reading it and seeing it. It said, basically, that "A UFO was seen near missile silos" and it was hovering. It said that the crew going on duty and the crew coming off duty all saw the UFO just hovering in mid-air. It was a metallic circular object and from what I understand, the missiles were all shut down...What I mean by "missiles going down," is that they went dead. And something turned those missiles off, and so they could not be put in a mode for launching.

END OF EXCERPT

James Carlson always claims that those who disagree with his take on things are lying. He will no doubt do the same with Lt. Col. Arneson.

Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

I've followed this thread with great interest...who wouldn't? I've starred many posts including some by Carlson...I try to remain objective.

I'm looking forward to Robert Hastings' forthcoming Press Conference when a collection of former-US Airforce personnel will share their experiences. Having followed Hastings' research with interest...I know he'll be vetting the witnesses. No Greer-style fantasists undermining the evidence with demonstrable lies.

For anyone interested in hearing more about Malmstrom and other incidents...

May 24, 2009 — Robert Hastings and Don Ecker

UFO investigators Robert Hastings and Don Ecker discuss UFOs and disinformation. They will cover such issues as how the spread of false information has hindered efforts to get to the bottom of the mystery. One of the key topics dealt with during this discussion is whether or not some of the people who are perpetrating UFO hoaxes and spreading disinformation might be, in fact, government agents who are acting with official sanction.

Paracast Interview

March 29, 2009 — Robert Hastings, Bruce Fenstermacher, Patrick McDonough and Robert Salas

Longtime UFO/Nukes connection researcher Robert Hastings joins The Paracast as guest co-host to bring two new military witnesses forward to describe — for the very first time publicly — their experiences with UFOs sighted over sensitive nuclear missile launch sites. Our special guests include Bruce Fenstermacher and Patrick McDonough. Also joining the show will be former USAF Captain Robert Salas, who will be discussing his well-known encounter at Malmstrom AFB in 1967.

Paracast Interview

Have a listen and make your own mind up.

(To Robert Hastings...I dispute the Valsequillo assertions in the May Paracast interview! Otherwise, great work in publicising the UFO accounts/incidents centred around nuclear facilities. You're certainly amongst the cream of credible UFO researchers...I look forward to your next Paracast interview )

Kandinski: To Robert Hastings...I dispute the Valsequillo assertions in the May Paracast interview!

RH: This name doesn't ring a bell. Is this the proper spelling? Is this something I mentioned? If so, what's the context?

Thanks for your support, for the missileers who will be speaking in Washington later this year, as well as for myself.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Robert Hastings]

Originally posted by Robert Hastings
Kandinski: To Robert Hastings...I dispute the Valsequillo assertions in the May Paracast interview!

RH: This name doesn't ring a bell. Is this the proper spelling? Is this something I mentioned? If so, what's the context?

Thanks for your support, for the missileers who will be speaking in Washington later this year, as well as for myself.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Robert Hastings]

You and Don Ecker referred to an archaeological site in Mexico that ruined someone's career...it's Virginia Steen-McIntyre and the Valsequillo site. Pre-Clovis etc. The debate continues about the earliest settlers in the Americas.

It's incidental, but stuck in my craw as an ex-history teacher

As for the Washington Conference...I'm not alone in saying the anticipation is running high. Hopefully, the press will seize on the accounts and generate a lot of interest. In a perfect world you'll also break even after organizing it all and maybe come out on top. In my opinion, it's the event of 2010 for anyone interested in UFOs.

Kandinski: You and Don Ecker referred to an archaeological site in Mexico that ruined someone's career...

RH: I have no memory of that. I only know a little about pre-Clovis sites and certainly wouldn't have spoken about that on the air. Don must have done all of the talking.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I'm looking forward to Robert Hastings' forthcoming Press Conference when a collection of former-US Airforce personnel will share their experiences. Having followed Hastings' research with interest...I know he'll be vetting the witnesses. No Greer-style fantasists undermining the evidence with demonstrable lies.

I'm surprised that anybody would willingly make a statement like this, when Robert Hastings very clearly hasn't vetted any of the witnesses that he's used in the past. You should examine the most recent discussions that have been posted on www.realityuncovered.net... instead of lining up with "donations" to publicize the views of men who have provably lied about and distorted the very well-documented events they claim to have valid information regarding. You'll see exactly how careless Hastings is at "vetting the witnesses" and why he shouldn't be trusted to do so regarding his masturbatory goals for a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. It would be laughable were it not for his insistence that this dreck be paraded about in front of an American public already distressed and fearful about terrorism and the wars we're currently involved in. You should be ashamed of yourselves for patting him on the back and enabling this garbage to continue.

James Carlson

reply to post by James Carlson
'Ashamed,' 'garbage,' 'masturbatory' and 'laughable?' Thanks for a reasonable response to my post.

I'm likely the only guy to have starred your posts in this thread.

Hastings has lined up a number of witnesses with credible backgrounds and will stand or fall according to the response they get. In spite of your contempt, people will draw their own conclusions.

Reality Uncovered is a credible site and their research is superb. I've linked the site several times. That you and AccessDenied agree on the interpretation of Malmstrom doesn't preclude other opinions...it doesn't become fact.

I'll wait and see what information sees the light and form an opinion. Until then, I'm skeptical. I look forward to the Hastings conference...he comes across as more rational than you do...fewer insults too




[edit on 13-3-2010 by Kandinsky]

Robert Hastings has presented at least one witness who has claimed an event from the vantage of a military command that has never existed, the "vetting" of which would have taken no more than 5 minutes to conduct. He paraded for years the testimony of Col.(Ret.) Walt Figel as "proof" of the interference by UFOs with the nuclear weapons at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 when a single phone call proved in a moment the foolishness of such a claim. Most of the non-witness witnesses he has presented are easily shown to be little more than the foolish affectations of man who has shown no ability to examine even the simplest of claims made. He has habitually attacked and viciously attempted to destroy the reputations of men who are now dead and can no longer defend themsleves or their families, and he has attacked as well with personal insults and suggestions disparaging their abilities and sanity anybody who disputes what he claims, attacking as well their families and those they care about who have done nothing except disagree with him. He has published private emails in order to achieve these goals more than once with more one individual. Because of this combative behavior he has been locked out of numerous forums, including those run by the missileers he claims to speak for. He and Robert Salas are now soliciting funds to present such witnesses at a national press conference in Washington, D.C. during a period of high interest and national security fears brought about by terrorism and our controversial involvement in two wars -- all of this in order to increase the money received from the sale of books and videos and for discussing nonsense theories in front of paying audiences. And while it's very true that the tone of the narrative I have made freely available to anyone with internet access who desires to read it is generally negative and lacks objectivity, I have also never claimed that it was an objective document. In fact I have repeatedly insisted that objectivity is, for me, impossible due to the many years I have been ridiculed and insulted and attacked by these people for asserting that their claims have no basis whatsoever in fact. They have publically asserted that my own father is a liar, who has lied to his own family for forty years, and that he has publically acknowledged as well, that I have serious mental problems -- all of which is not only more lies, but is also entirely irrelevant to the documented facts I have presented. In the face of these sickening personality defects, the only sane response I can offer to those who assert that the "witnesses" Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are collecting to publically campaign their high caliber nonsense to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. are bound to be well vetted, as if they've done such a great job of that in the past, is the same one that you have determined to speak out against: you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. By taking this stand, in this place, at this time, you are enabling a sad, easily disputed and insultingly illogical conclusion to be reached by a larger number of people who do not possess the skills to do so for themselves. I don't wish to offend you, but I've given up on politesse and courteous dispute in this case -- it doesn't work with people like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas. I have already measured the breadth of their viciousness and I will not allow them to destroy the reputations of people I care about in the way they have already done with others. And if I can do anything to discredit this insane little dog & pony show that they have proposed and that they are soliciting money from people who cannot afford to give it in order to bring about, I intend to do so. These men are liars and they have not vetted any witnesses whatsoever -- and it is my opinion that I have already proven it.

reply to post by James Carlson

the only sane response I can offer to those who assert that the "witnesses" Robert Hastings and Robert Salas are collecting to publically campaign their high caliber nonsense to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. are bound to be well vetted, as if they've done such a great job of that in the past, is the same one that you have determined to speak out against: you guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

Stephen Greer's Press Club witnesses have mostly been revealed as liars, fantasists and miscreants. Greer is seen, by most, as a contemptible fraud seeking to rip off the public and validate his crazy fantasies.

In this light, Robert Hastings will also come under greater scrutiny and his witnesses will be critically dissected. Just one disreputable witness will undermine the credibility of the conference.

By taking this stand, in this place, at this time, you are enabling a sad, easily disputed and insultingly illogical conclusion to be reached by a larger number of people who do not possess the skills to do so for themselves.

Come on! The general public have been drawing crazy opinions for ever. Withholding information to protect them from thinking is what's created this whole mess about UFOs in the first place. Whether you 'believe' in UFOs or not, people keep on reporting sightings.

My apologies -- like I said, this is a very personal reckoning for me. I often find, as a result, that many believe my tone and my reactive acts are aimed at them, and to an extent, I regret that. It has, however, been my experience that many of Hastings' supporters tend to accept his accounting of particular events without any attempt to confirm such folk-tales or to even consider alternate discussions. While it's true that I have an emotional investment in this matter, Robert Salas and Robert Hastings have a financial one, and in my opinion the unethical things they've said and done solely to increase the results of that financial investment. It wasn't my intention to direct the contempt that I hold for them at anybody else, but I'm very willing to accept opposing criticism in order to publically advance that derision toward these men; I assure you, I recognize in myself the tendency to over-react at times when arguments and issues that I believe are advanced in blind acceptance of the proposals submitted by Hastings without even the simplest motivation to examine their faults and the scenarios they have advanced. I do so because I believe what Salas and Hastings are attempting is far more offensive in nature than the acts of Stephen Greer, because Greer has never, to my knowledge, attempted to systematically destroy the reputations of those who dispute his claims. While my disdain is notable, it wasn't wholly directed at you -- certainly nowhere near the level directed at Hastings and Salas. I'm exceptionally angry and bitter regarding this entire matter, and while I am not willing to abandon the contempt I hold toward some people, I nonetheless regret that you thought I was directing it towards you. Since that regret is due, at least in part, to my own attitudes, I apologize.

James Carlson

reply to post by James Carlson


How do you determine if someone is a "Hastings supporter"?

Can you tell by the questions the ask? or when they point out your poor form, insults, and the other denigrations you have engaged in throughout this thread?

Do you think I am a "Hastings Supporter"?

What about Kandinsky? Is he?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Stephen Greer's Press Club witnesses have mostly been revealed as liars, fantasists and miscreants.

Hi Kandinsky -can you provide some links or references for that?

Some of the witnesses sound very sincere to me.

Link







reply to post by James Carlson



Hi James, you may have missed it but on the previous page there was post about why you weren't interested in UFOs (especialy ones which have been documented over nuclear facilities).

Can I ask you why the subject holds no interest with you?

reply to post by karl 12

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Stephen Greer's Press Club witnesses have mostly been revealed as liars, fantasists and miscreants. Hi Kandinsky -can you provide some links or references for that?

Some of the witnesses sound very sincere to me.

I should really go back and edit that over-stretching, exaggerating piece of rhetoric. I'll put it down to a bad case of bed-head and not thinking whilst typing. Cheers for pointing it out. If you hadn't it would remain there as a testament to my loathing of Greer rather than my fairness. I'll leave it hanging there despite it being a scurrilous statement of falsity...I'm not a huge fan of editing out examples of my own stupidity.

Sgt Karl Wolf was fairly debunked by Zorgon last year or late 08. I think he discovered some holes in the guy's employment history and flaws in the account. The obvious incredible witness was Sgt Stone. His account in the Press Club was dubious and his subsequent accounts have become ludicrous...my favourite is the one when a US soldier prevented ETs from abducting Vietnam villagers by carrying a bible.

Check your u2u in a moment...I've a question.

reply to post by xfiler


It's obviously a fake. Not a single person in the photo is even looking up at the sky. I'd imagine if most people saw something like that, their eyeballs would be popping out of their heads.

photo
www.share-international.org...

[edit on 14-3-2010 by kindred]

reply to post by kindred
From your link...below the image...

The extraordinary object in the sky was not seen by the photographer nor by the people buying and selling wares on the mountain. Nevertheless, it appears on two photographs taken at different spots, higher and lower on the mountain.

Benjamin Creme’s Master has identified the strange object as a spaceship from the planet Jupiter, whose crew projected the image of the ship (which was in etheric matter) onto the film. It carried some 500 people. In the Andes there exists a much-used base for our Space Brother visitors.

WTF!? Nobody sees it and yet it's stated with bland certainty that it's from Jupiter, it's a projection, it's astral and there's 500 people in it. Sure looks like a fun site

Thanks for linking it

JC: Robert Hastings has presented at least one witness who has claimed an event from the vantage of a military command that has never existed, the "vetting" of which would have taken no more than 5 minutes to conduct.

RH: And who would this be?

reply to post by kindred


Hi kindred

The caption under the photo suggests that the image of the craft appeared when the photo was developed, so it's not surprising that no one is looking at it when the photo was taken.

This photograph was taken by a visitor to the Cuzco (ancient Inca city) area of Peru on 16 February 1989 between 9.30 and 10.30 am. The exact location is the Valle Sagrado Urubamba. The extraordinary object in the sky was not seen by the photographer nor by the people buying and selling wares on the mountain. Nevertheless, it appears on two photographs taken at different spots, higher and lower on the mountain.

Fake photo? - who knows, but i've seen a few photos taken by friends of ordinary scenes, that have distinctive light patterns or recognisable images that appeared when the image was developed.

reply to post by Kandinsky


---

Sorry Sir, Bull Pucky. Greer's a devalue anesthesiologist. Steven used his name "md" to provoke people to believe in him and his little alien quests. He was underline: was the big banana.

Certainly in my humble opinion, Camelot grabbed his....2009. The press Club Failure was not of his premise. He was interrupted days later w/...9/11 . Press had other things to do at that point -- yes?
So let's stop the Shxx.

Don't know Hastings, perhaps I'd recognize the man (robert) on tv? I don't claim to be an anexpert on anything, less Customs, but I do recognize my own opinion on EBE stuff. Based on mega-years of real-research.

Decoy