Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Hello all,

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Dr. Plait has made no secret of his contempt for my research. This thread will be a test to learn whether he has a sense of fair play and will permit me to address the bloggers who post here.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings I will begin this thread by requesting that the persons who respond to my posts first review some of my articles, especially "UFO Sightings at ICBM Sites and nuclear Weapons Storage Areas", accessible at ufohastings.com. Dr. Haish defines a skeptic as, “One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.”

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Okay, enough for now. Assuming that the powers that be on this website aren't afraid to air the other side of the UFO story, by banning my posts, I look forward to educating and debating those who post here.

This book presents two types of evidence relating to the UFO phenomenon: scientific and anecdotal. Each is valid within its own context, providing valuable insight into this controversial topic. Ultimately, however, scientific evidence must be the final arbiter when evaluating the nature of any unknown phenomenon.

Scientific Evidence

Scientific evidence is empirical by nature, meaning that it is based on verifiable experience or repeated observation. Generally, empirical evidence of the UFO phenomenon cannot be verified by experiment, something that is also true in other, more established fields of scientific inquiry. For example, many of the phenomena observed by astronomers can be measured, analyzed and categorized—but cannot be replicated in a laboratory. Nevertheless, the data relating to these phenomena are considered to be valid, objective information. Similarly, there exist empirical data which, collectively, verify in a convincing manner the physical reality of UFOs.

For example, since the late 1940s, on literally hundreds of occasions, military and civilian radar controllers have tracked unidentified aerial objects traveling at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour, which then instantly stop and hover in mid-air. A moment later, with near instantaneous acceleration, the objects resume their high velocity flight and continue on their way. During other radar trackings, the UFO—again flying at high velocity—suddenly makes a hard-angle, 90-degree turn, or even a 180-degree complete reversal of course, without a turn—with no loss of velocity or damage to the craft. Several such cases of UFOs being tracked on radar will be presented later in this book.

To state the obvious, our own fixed-wing aircraft—whether American, Russian, or that of any other nationality—are simply incapable of achieving these aerodynamically-wrenching feats. In fact, our current knowledge of aerodynamic principles simply cannot even explain them. In ways that have yet to determined, the technology utilized by UFOs apparently neutralizes gravitational and inertial forces, thereby permitting them to travel at velocities and perform maneuvers hitherto undreamed of.

Because radar is based on physical principles involving the emission and reflection of radio waves, in order to detect the presence of a physical object, the data recorded by military and civilian radar operators may be considered to be empirical evidence. It can be quantified and analyzed. The search-radar track of a military jet, or passenger aircraft, is routinely accepted as empirical evidence of its position, speed, and direction of flight; a height-radar track is accepted as empirical evidence of that aircraft’s altitude. If this were not so, modern military and commercial aviation would not be possible, given the thousands of aircraft airborne at any one moment. Similarly, radar has unquestionably been the most empirical of means currently available for establishing the physical presence and extraordinary, often mind-boggling capabilities of UFOs.

Despite efforts by skeptics to dismiss these unambiguous UFO-related radar data as suspect—resulting from weather-related phenomena, equipment malfunctions, or errors in interpretation—the weight of the evidence, in hundreds of cases, confirms the existence of unknown aerial craft operating in our atmosphere which are vastly superior to any commercial or military aircraft. Many of the U.S. Air Force and FAA records relating to these trackings are now available for scientific scrutiny. In some cases, the original radar tapes are available, in addition to the written records.

Other empirical data confirming the physical reality of the UFO phenomenon derive from the aptly-named “landing-trace” cases. Carefully-collected soil samples and other evidence verify, in thousands of incidents from around the globe, the existence of an anomalous physical presence which can be analyzed in the laboratory.

The world’s leading expert on UFO landing trace cases is Ted Phillips. His landmark 1975 catalog, Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings, published by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), is remarkable for its clarity and thoroughness.1 In the forward, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Director of CUFOS, wrote,

Physical trace cases can be defined as those UFO cases in which definite physical changes in the immediate vicinity of a UFO sighting have been recorded: marks and surface changes on the ground, damage to vegetation, residues and/or artifacts found, and surface effects of some duration on buildings and vehicles. These are all included in the broader term ‘Close Encounters of the Second Kind,’ in which a reported UFO has interacted with the immediate environment—animate or inanimate matter.

Phillips himself then notes, “As ground effects do not fly away—leaving only the visual report of the witnesses—but may be measured, photographed and studied, this type of report represents a most important part of the UFO problem. While UFOs are not available for study in the laboratory, physical traces are.” Although a comprehensive examination of physical trace cases is beyond the scope of this book, the interested reader may explore Phillips’ research at his website.

Anecdotal Evidence

The second category of UFO evidence to be presented in this book is anecdotal, but also often official. There are now available for inspection thousands of pages of declassified U.S. government documents, generated as long ago as the mid-1940s, which confirm an extraordinary, ongoing, covert interest in the UFO phenomenon by our military and civilian leaders. This official interest—and sometimes grave concern—has extended to the highest levels of the Pentagon and the intelligence community. At the same time, it has been vigorously concealed from public view through the use of classification procedures, disinformation tactics and other devious ploys.

While this alternate body of evidence is not empirical, it nevertheless confirms—beyond a reasonable doubt—the importance attached to the UFO phenomenon by our government. A review of the declassified files reveals that both the military and intelligence communities have long considered UFOs to be absolutely real—in the physical sense—and a potential threat to national security. Given that a number of the documents refer to provocative UFO activity at highly-sensitive nuclear weapons sites, including missile launch facilities and missile warhead/bomb storage areas, this concern is entirely understandable. Consequently, the official cover-up of the phenomenon, if for no other reason than this, can be explained.

The nukes-related UFO incursions described in the documents have been dramatically brought to life by the testimony of a number of individuals who were actually present during one or more of those incidents. In fact, a large portion of this book is devoted to my interviews with these former USAF missile launch officers, missile targeting team members, missile maintenance personnel, and missile security guards.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Hi Jay, Either you are a very quick reader or you have not complied with my request to first review my article on UFO activity at ICBM sites before posting a response.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Hello, I haven't mastered the quote-box-thingy so some tutoring, from any quarter, would be appreciated. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Frankly, that seems a little paranoid to me.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings I'll wager that 99% of the bloggers here are not familiar with my research, therefore, introducing them to a taste at the outset only makes sense, n'est pas?

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Are you suggesting that those who post here will be unduly or unfairly influenced by my already-published comments? I had assumed that I was dealing with a higher class of critically-thinking intellects on this site. I will allude to my website only when appropriate and will of course tackle comments and criticisms as they come. However, given that I have just completed a 600-page book on this subject, including skeptics' and debunkers' objections to it, I may quote frequently from it, where appropriate, as I just did with Jay. Like Dr. Plait, I too am a busy man and re-stating certain info is not feasible.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Hmmmm... The paranoid thing again, IMHO. Please don't say that I am being disrespectful here when you have just falsely accused me of something right out of the chute.

Okay, enough for now. Assuming that the powers that be on this website aren't afraid to air the other side of the UFO story, by banning my posts, I look forward to educating and debating those who post here.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Well, Neverfly, almost all of your last response was calm, fair and sensible, although we will never agree on some points. As for my supposed paranoia about being censored by debunkers, well, there is a long-precident for that. But that's a side story at this point.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings So, ask me something about UFOs, if you wish, or object to something I have written. I am going to bed now but will respond tomorrow. Thanks to everyone for the tips on the quote box mode.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings When you answer my simple questions, Jay, I will begin responding directly to you on other topics.

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings I also suggest that genuine UFO skeptics (as opposed to knee-jerk UFO debunkers) to review the website hosted by astronomer Dr. Bernard Haisch, ufoskeptic.com. Dr. Haish defines a skeptic as, “One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.”

Originally Posted by astrophotographer Hmmmm... The tried and true UFO proponent "debunker" slander. Maybe you should start with a simple single case presentation. Just stating this is my website read it and believe, is not going to cut it for me.

Originally Posted by Robert Hastings Hello all,

I look forward to educating and debating those who post here.