er... what happened to Mr. Hastings? After stirring up this internal controversy he seems to have disappeared... why doesn't that surprise me ?

Let's not jump to conclusions.. he's not obligated to be here every day. Maybe he's working on a comprehensive reply answering all raised questions and points!

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Apolloman,
Robert Hastings said it would take a few days.

Only in the popular usage, which I believe is incorrect.

ETA: On second thought, I normally don't have a problem with words taking on new meanings, as long as everybody knows what is meant. Comment withdrawn.

Mr Hastings, a couple of pieces of friendly advice.
You might want to be careful with the insults, they are not allowed on this board.
And that is not how it works around here. You are making the claim, you have to answer questions about it. It is not up to us to answer your questions.

You might want to review the rules and FAQs of this board and those of the CT section in particular.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

to me, that comes off as "I am glad to find some here who agree with me, and those who don't are obviously wrong".

By the way RH (mind if I call you RH?)...

You have not addressed anything I brough up in my earlier post (#35). How about showing us some of this physical evidence you claim?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Yes. Calling it an error is your error, indeed. Being unable to respond to all of the questions, comments, and criticisms does not absolve you of the requirement to adhere to the rules, which state that you must at least answer the direct questions. Trying to raise a smoke screen by mentioning all other comments and criticisms does not change the fact that there were but 3 or 4 direct questions to be answered, nor does insulting me change that.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Right, but as I understand it, the claimant being obliged to answer questions in respect to his extraordinary claim, does not mean we will not attempt to answer any counter-question to us relevant to his claim he may have. That would not be fair. A dialog is needed.

In this particular case, Jay's cv is not relevant to the claim, but Robert's is, since it lends weight to his eyewitness interviews.

Let's stop hassling on both sides now and see if we can possibly get down to discussing the facts.

So far it's been read my website. WHere is there anything new?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Robert Hastings: Mental masturbation in public is so unattractive. Do your homework.

These type of comments are not going to help your case.

Well, actually in this case IMHO, it is not unreasonable a request in order to set the context for the further discussion.

Let'see:
(bolding mine)

So, where did you explain your training in field investigation?
Or are we supposed to infer from your words and quote that your answer is actually: "None!" ?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

So am I correct in concluding that you are calling George a liar?

Are you going to answer my questions about Big Sur? I have read the articles in question before I asked my questions or are you going to call me a liar as well?

I have no contact with George but you appear to have some. Why not ask him yourself? You state you have all the pertinent documentation. Other than the stories told by Mansmann and Jacobs, what else do you have to present? If you have nothing, then they are simply stories. Who knows? Jacobs and Mansmann could be the liars and you could be just another gullible investigator willing to believe them. At least you got a book out of it and appeared on Larry King.

I am familiar with both of the documents mentioned by Robert Hastings, having read them when we discussed the case originally.

As I stated in an old discussion:

To which astrophotographer responded:

Gee, I thought you were going to come in here and educate us? I asked for your source materials and you provide your opinions and "read my opinions on my website". I didn't see any of the documents that I asked about on your website. Maybe I missed them. Are you incapable of answering questions? If you want to educate, then you need to answer the questions so we can learn. Failing to answer the questions means you are a lousy teacher. Continuously hurling insults also makes you a lousy educator.

This is not UFO Updates or Larry King where people will kiss your big toe because they agree with you. We ask questions to see if you really can support your claims of something extraordinary. So far, all I see is insult after insult being flung at everybody. Excuse me, but that appears to be a cover used to hide the fact that you really have no evidence (other than a story told by two people) to back up your claim.

Robert,

Your introduction in the document shows you are biased to the idea of ufos and nuclear sites. This will make it difficult for you not to apply bias in reviewing the data.

You build up a case in your document by attacking George saying he misinterprets Jacobs statements. You also state on page 7 of your report that Jacobs also admits to factual errors. Discussing old events is a tricky thing, our memories are not perfect. Both sides can make errors.

What if both sides are sincere? Why must either side by deliberately lying? What proof is there to exclude that Mansmann and Jacobs to have been mistaken in what they saw? Jacobs only saw a point of light. Mansmann claims to have seen a classical saucer. He might have been mistaken.

We did read your first post. Here it is again, with nifty little numerals to break it down:

JayUtah (Post#2):
What is your training in field investigation?


Hastings (Post#4):
I.) Nevertheless, in answer to your question, my research primarily involves anecdotal evidence--derived from declassified files and military eyewitness testimony. One can not conduct a field investigation of an event which has only been acknowledged years or decades after-the-fact. Rather than re-inventing the wheel here, I will excerpt a passage from my book, UFOs and Nukes:
II.) Given that information derived from personal narratives is, by definition, subjective in nature, valid criticisms raised by UFO skeptics concerning the limitations of human perception, as well as our propensity for misinterpretation when recounting the observation of unusual or unfamiliar events, must be seriously considered when analyzing sighting reports, including those presented in this book. That said, I consider my sources’ reports to be vetted and credible. While there are, at times, gaps and inconsistencies in the testimony of an individual’s report, collectively, these witnesses point to a remarkable and perhaps disturbing reality which has been successfully kept from public view.

III.) In my opinion, an unbiased review of these personal narratives, as well as the declassified documents, reveals an abundance of persuasive anecdotal and, occasionally, empirical evidence which supports the objective reality of the UFO phenomenon—whose nature is not attributable to natural phenomena, the misidentification of manmade aircraft, or hoaxes.

I.) That does not answer the question posed by Jay. I don't care if you think that his question is a personal attack; it's not. Here, lets move on and point out why it's a valid question.

II.) "I consider my sources to be vetted and credible". Great, that's important. But now that you're presenting your findings to us, it's important for us to consider them to be. Suprisingly, we don't take a random person in a forum's word when deciding if something is credible. If you want your opinion of the accounts to be relevant, we have to know why it should be. By the way, you can't just present an argument against your case, and seque with "however, that's not the case here." That might work in popular media, but that does not help your case under rational review.

III.) Again, you make a call to your opinion; in other words your expertise. Yet you have still failed to establish said expertise. I won't even go into my issues with your use of the word "unbiased".

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

IMO this thread never intended to discuss anything - I never got the impression that the OP (??) actually wanted to inform us of anything, new or not.

I get the feeling these guys like stirring up the you-know-what so they can then sit back and watch the tit-for-tat chatting (no offense !) that sometimes goes on in CT : for example, which is the best way to proceed, correct choice of wording, temper control, cv evaluation, semantics and so on. The OP simply disappears...or does a runner.

These are essential issues for a proper in-depth discussion... which is why IMO the OPs never reply.

It reminds me of another thread here in which the OP is doing something similar. He made a series of claims to which lots of people are trying to answer honestly and impartially while he has conveniently *disappeared*. I have been told to be patient and wait for the OP to return, which is fair enough, but I still think these kind of OPs are not interested at all in proper feedback.
theres my 2c for the day.

Robert,
Astrophotographer posed very relevant questions regarding Big Sur. To remind you:

We are waiting for your answer.

What I hope does not happen is a banning for rules violation, because this can be used as a "they did not want to hear the truth"....

Peruse CT forums a bit.
You will see a pattern emerge.
CT'ists will often slather their theories across the web and then participate where ever it appears that they are getting the most favorable response (i.e. gullible folks). The trouble with them posting on BAUT is that they tend to get held accountable for their claims.
Lacking accountability, it's easier to just stop posting than it is to try to uphold their claims- especially when believers at other forums are giving them what they wanted in the first place.

It's like those cold calling companies, they ring a dozen numbers at once and see which ones pick up.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I looked it up--nothing more humiliating than correcting someone and being wrong, is there?--and it's the legal meaning as well. A moot court is one whose findings do not matter.

At any rate, I see nothing new here. (I think I have an unanswered question on the table, but I'm too lazy to go back looking for it.) "You should trust me because I'm right." Next!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Actually, I looked it up, too. The first entry in my Oxford American Dictionary for moot is 'debatable, undecided', which is my preferred definition and prompted my comment. But I'm willing, as I said, to grant that most people take it differently.

Yes, I'm familiar with moot courts, having participated in them.

So far, all I have seen Hastings do is restate his book/web page. I thought my questions were fair and deserved a response and not the "mental masturbation" comment. I can only think of a two reasons why he does not answer the direct questions, I posed:

1. He does not have an answer because he does not know. This is OK because I do not have the answer either.

2. He refuses to answer because he knows the answer will not reinforce the conclusion that Jacobs/Mansmann are correct.

I am sure there are other possibilities, like he did not read my questions, he is looking up the answers, or something like that but it does not require the response that we are more interested in "mental masturbation" than obtaining information not previously available. The fact that I asked these questions indicates I have some information about the case and did read his article. BTW, the article does not answer any of these questions that I can tell (maybe I missed a tidbit here or there) so "read my article" is not a satisfactory answer IMO.

I had high hopes for this thread in terms of a good discussion, but it seems they have been dashed.

Anyone who wishes to go to the beginning of the thread and read my first response to Jay will find that I answered his first question forthrightly and in detail.

So far no one seems to agree that you have.

However my first question asked what your training and experience was in field investigation. I wrongly believed you had actually visited some of the places where the occurrences you describe took place. You answered
I interpreted this answer to assert that field-investigation techniques were not required for the type of research you did. That's an acceptable answer.

You then gave an excerpt from your book in which you described your sources, likely because my question suggested I was not familiar with the course of your research. In that except is the paragraph to which several people have now directed your attention. I do likewise.
You characterize this segment of your evidence as anecdotal. You identify several of the problems associated with anecdotal evidence. You validate the criticism of that evidence on the basis of the problems you identify. You stipulate that a consideration of those problems is necessary to the validity of conclusions drawn upon the evidence.

Then comes the engimatic, "I consider my sources’ reports to be vetted and credible." In short, you simply beg the question!

This will not do. Your assurance that all the problems associated with your evidence have been solved is not sufficient to allay the suspicion of a prospective reader. Who did the vetting? By what methods?

That prompted my next question: what training and experience have you had in evaluating eyewitness testimony?

I then asked him a couple of questions in response. Rather than answering me, he fired back with a second question.

To be specific, you demanded my credentials, and in doing so you insinuated that I had no training that was pertinent to your research or claims. You immediately went on the attack: a course of action that might be predicted from your previous predilection for trying to discredit your critics rather than address the criticism. As has been laboriously pointed out, my qualifications -- or anyone else's -- are irrelevant to whether you are qualified.

In a post much later, you extended that untoward restriction to the forum at large, asking that anyone who questioned your suitability to write a book on some topic must first demonstrate his own expertise. That baffles me. It seems you are trying to intimidate would-be critics. Or perhaps steer the discussion down a scripted path.

It's no longer a matter of whether Jay is being stubborn. It's a matter of you trying to set a high bar, which any who criticize you must clear before they're considered worth your time. That's now how BAUT works. Your claims are not presumed to be unassailable here.

What was that clause in the rules relating to the timely response to direct questions?
Note that it applies to the claimant. You are the claimant. You may not artificially invoke this rule upon others by trumping up irrelevant hurdles for them to clear. Reading further in the rules:
You came here and invited criticism. It is considered bad form here to lash out simply because the criticism you got isn't what you expected.

Questions are a two-way street.

Not here. You are the claimant. You are citing expertise as part of your support for your claim. As part of a test for the strength of that support, you will be asked questions regarding that expertise. You may not decline to answer them under some manufactured notion that non-claimants have some reciprocal burden of proof.

I have already googled Jay's own well-written bio and so have had my first two questions answered independently.

How gracious of you. So now that your questions have been answered, or so you think, then there is no further impediment to your providing the answers regarding your expertise.

In your bio, I noted no statement of expertise that seemed to relate to evaluating eyewitness testimony. Rather than assume by that silence that you had none, I asked you what your training was. I am giving you the opportunity, if required, to amend your statement of qualifications. In contrast, you insinuated at the outset that I was unqualified and now have tried to reinforce that notion.

You'll notice I have nearly 9,000 posts on this forum. Few of them are fluff, and most contain significant intellectual content, and some of which demonstrate my facility with eyewitness testimony. I'll state here in part that my expertise comes largely from my study of the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who is an eminent researcher in the field and the author of the standard text on the subject, which I own and have read many times. Dr. Loftus herself was the frequent guest lecturer in the specialized class I attended on the subject at Kansas State University many years ago. That is not the limit of my relevant expertise, but that will suffice for now; it is a claim to expertise that the regulars on this forum are already familiar with and have seen me demonstrate over the years.

I expect that you'll now try to transform this line of reasoning into your well-documented exercise of trying to discredit "debunkers" who disagree with you. I'll remind you that while I have stated more of my relevant qualifications, they and those of others are entirely irrelevant to whether you are qualified to address the problems you acknowledge exist in your data.

The line of inquiry that I'm contemplating now naturally is intended to examine the process by which your anecdotal evidence was "vetted." I renew my question to you regarding your training in that relevant science simply so that I may know at what level of knowledge most effectively to address my questions.

I repeat: I have demonstrated my expertise in the factors that affect eyewitness testimony. To the regular readers here, my relevant expertise is not in question. Yours is.

"I have no training or experience in evaluating eyewitness testimony," is an acceptable answer from you, if that is the answer your circumstances compel you to give. It does not forestall an examination claims; it merely informs how that examination will unfold. At any rate, I require an answer.

My new question, Jay, is: What is your favorite color?

Black. What training or experience do you have in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony?

BTW, Jay, all the charges about my insinuating this or that are your own projections.

I'll refresh your memory. You wrote, "What is your expertise or lack thereof in field investigations?" (italics in original, underscoring added)

How is this not an insinuation that I have no such qualifications? Further, the question you put to me was the one you had just argued was irrelevant to the points at hand!

I was just attempting to create an even playing field with a little verbal judo.

I'm not sure what "verbal judo" is supposed to mean, but take care that you do not violate the rules on civility and decorum. They have caught newcomers by surprise more than once.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

jayutah;


i had a funny feeling that was you , i seen your show a while back .
i was having a debate with friends of mine, about apollo and i cited some parts of your show for my answers , they had to think a minute and it was a hard pill for some of them to swallow.

anyways some for reason i had a feeling that was you , this is pretty trippy now that i think about


maybe if u could or wouldn't mind , could you explain to me that whole thing about the back side of the flag . on maybe 1 of the apollo threads
if not ...thats ok

maybe i shouldn't be surprised , but i am

__________________
it shows you how much i know....not much i guess----"sohhfly"

I have done a bit of checking on the article by Fleck mentioned in Robert Hastings post #11.

I found it here:
http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008...ts-record.html

Interesting is the following statement from Fleck:

In his rebuttal of the article, to counter this claim, Hastings says:

This is reforming the question. The article does not say "no documentation for any of the cases", but those alleging missile malfunctions due to ufos. So it appears that he is answering the question, but he is not. Documentation for a sighting in 1975 is not documentary evidence for the Big Sur and Malmstrom cases, which occured in 1964 and 1967, respectively.