Saturday, September 03, 2016

My UFOs and Nukes Documentary: The Debunkers Remain Oddly Silent

Bookmark and Share

My UFOs and Nukes Documentary: The Debunkers Remain Oddly Silent

     The reality of UFO incursions at American nuclear weapons facilities has been convincingly established. Hundreds of U.S. military veterans now openly discuss these ominous incidents and thousands of declassified government documents affirm their revelations.

Over the past 43 years, I have sought out and interviewed more than 150 of those veterans, seven of whom participated in my September 27, 2010 UFOs and Nukes press conference in Washington D.C., which CNN streamed live.

By Robert Hastings
The UFO Chronicles
9-1-16

My 48-minute documentary film, UFOs and Nukes: The Secret Link Revealed, is now available at Vimeo On Demand. The evidence presented in it makes clear that humans’ deadliest weapons have been, since their development and use during World War II, under intense scrutiny by still-unidentified observers operating tremendously advanced aerial craft.

Several of the U.S. veterans say that UFOs have repeatedly hovered over American ICBMs, resulting in the missiles malfunctioning. Furthermore, Soviet UFO documents, secured by Western journalists in the 1990s, confirm that the Russians’ nuclear missiles were also monitored and even tampered with during the Cold War era. However, due to ongoing secrecy by both governments, the vast majority of people worldwide are completely unaware of these amazing, historic developments.

The film has been available online since April 12, 2016, and yet—as of this date—not one of the high-profile UFO debunkers has publicly commented on it. Oh, they all were vocal enough over the past two years, after I announced that my four-decade quest to interview U.S. military veterans about UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites would soon culminate in a documentary. Predictably, their comments ranged from dubious-to-scathing—about a film they hadn’t even seen. Now that it is finally available to view, there has not been even one peep from any of those guys. Why?

Given that the film presents several authenticated documents and on-camera interviews with vetted military witnesses, all discussing the reality of the decades-long UFO-Nukes Connection, perhaps the skeptics have finally realized the futility of their unceasing efforts to debunk the UFO-nukes link.

Nah, that can’t be it. This crowd will never admit—even to themselves—that their misguided, weak arguments are now untenable. Maybe they are just lying low, realizing that they have nothing to gain by critiquing the film, in light of the overwhelming evidence it presents. (Now that I have written this article, look for some of them to claim that they didn’t want to pay five bucks to support my “nonsense”, which gives them a convenient excuse not to comment.)

UFOs and Nukes Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites
Regardless, after five months online, the documentary has received near-unanimous praise from persons living all over the planet. And the audience is growing ever larger by the week, now far surpassing the number of readers who tackled my 600-page book. In short, things are moving in the right direction, in terms of public education, which is my overarching goal.



12 comments :

  1. Robert,

    Sorry to disappoint, but unfortunately you provide no compelling evidence that refutes my previous view points concerning your Minuteman ICBM stories.

    It's been some 6 to 7 years since I started out to rebut your Malmstrom and Minot claims, specifically Echo and Oscar Flight, and to this date I seen nothing to change my opinion. Thus the silence on my part.

    That being said, you are to be congratulated on your production and I know that you had worked hard on the project. But please keep in mind that putting lip stick on a pig...

    Kind regards,

    Tim Hebert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mornin' Tim,

      Thanks for taking time to make comment.

      You wrote:

      "...but unfortunately you provide no compelling evidence that refutes my previous view points concerning your Minuteman ICBM stories."

      Robert's article is addressing his documentary, specifically, so the obvious question is: if you haven't seen it–how do you know about any evidence, compelling or otherwise?

      Respectfully,
      Frank

      Delete
  2. Hastings is upset because skeptics can't be bothered to pay to view his stupid movie, so he is pretending that we are left in stunned silence. He has just ignored criticisms of his previous claims, so why should anyone bother with this one? Plenty of critiques of Hastings 'UFOs and nukes' claims are already published:

    http://timhebert3.blogspot.com/

    http://timhebert2.blogspot.com/

    http://badufos.blogspot.com/2014/01/discovery-canadas-close-encounters-mars.html

    http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/08/cia-csi-connection-finally-laid-bare-by.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mornin' Bob,

      Thanks for taking the time to make comment.

      I don't mean to be rude, but labeling Robert's doc as a "stupid movie" is beneath you.

      As to your points, I can assure you that Robert isn't "upset," only baffled, as he expected heavy criticism (from some) re his doc after it was in the public domain, and quite frankly so did I.

      You also wrote:

      "He has just ignored criticisms of his previous claims ..."

      You of all people (should) know that this is simply incorrect, to be polite. I have published the colloquies between you and he specifically, along with others on a number of occasions. (See sample links below).

      You also wrote:

      "Plenty of critiques of Hastings 'UFOs and nukes' claims are already published."

      Of this there's no doubt; however, as I mentioned to Tim–Robert's article addresses his documentary specifically, and as Robert wrote in the article, "they all were vocal enough over the past two years, after I announced that my four-decade quest to interview U.S. military veterans about UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites would soon culminate in a documentary."

      The arguments that both you and Tim are making is akin to anyone condemning your latest book (thanks again for my copy), without reading it–assuming they know what's in it.

      Either example is simply nonsensical.

      Finally, I view Robert's documentary as a breath of fresh air and a top-shelf production, opposed to all the flapdoodle that pays heed to Ufology under the guise of serious documentaries and or docu-dramas; I was most curious as to how a serious review would be presented by you et al.

      Respectfully,
      Frank

      CSI Skeptic Robert Sheaffer Doubts the U.S. Government Uses the Media to Debunk UFOs

      CSICOP, now CSI: UFO Debunkers Kendrick Frazier and James Oberg


      Part II: CSICOP, now CSI: UFO Debunkers Kendrick Frazier and James Oberg


      CSICOP, Now CSI:
      CSI’s “Scientific” Analysis of UFOs: Thanks, but No Thanks!


      REPORTER DUPED BY UFO DEBUNKERS

      “Skeptical” Group CSI Comments on the Recent UFO-Nukes Connection Press Conference at the National Press Club

      CSI and CIA: Hastings’ Hyperbole

      Skeptic Robert Sheaffer Solves Famous “UFO” Sighting Case: Nuclear Missile Guards Were Terrified by the Planet Mars

      Delete
  3. Frank,

    Fair point, but I take the general theme of Robert's article to mean that skeptics have remain silent on the subject matter as depicted in his documentary. True, I've not seen it, but I did view the trailer that Robert had put out some time ago. This appeared to be a rehash of what was covered in his book. Again, you are correct that I have not seen the full documentary. Perhaps Robert took elements from my and others analysis concerning the US ICBM incursions and molded it into his documentary as a way to offset bias? This I doubt.

    So this really boils down to the question if Robert is upset that skeptics are NOT paying to view his project.

    Perhaps Robert can provide me a compelling reason as to why I should personally pay to view his film.

    Again, Robert has every right to put out his product. He has every right to recoup his expenses. I know that this has been a mile stone project for him. But, I remind everyone that there are alternative viewpoints that one should consider...I offer these for free on my blog.

    Kind regards,

    Tim Hebert

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tim,

    You wrote:

    I take the general theme of Robert's article to mean that skeptics have remain silent on the subject matter as depicted in his documentary.

    I'm not sure I understand your statement here. As mentioned to Bob (Sheaffer), Hastings is baffled (me too) by the silence of skeptics, particularly those (including yourself) that have been so vocal in the recent past, generally speaking as well as specific to the documentary.

    You wrote:

    I did view the trailer that Robert had put out some time ago. This appeared to be a rehash of what was covered in his book.

    There have been a few trailers that have been put out prior to the release of the doc; presumptions, assumptions and speculation about what you admittedly don't know (having not watched the film) is your right; however, like judging a book by its cover–opinions based on the a fore mentioned are simply feckless.

    You wrote:

    Perhaps Robert can provide me a compelling reason as to why I should personally pay to view his film.

    In my view–he's provided most cogent, powerful reasons as to someone from your point of view (specifically) to review the film, beginning with "...on-camera interviews with vetted military witnesses, all discussing the reality of the decades-long UFO-Nukes Connection..."

    Tim, you and Bob have both brought up money, in this instance, $4.99 that seems to be the barrier to do proper research, or a review–whether you don't feel you have to pay to see the film, or simply don't care–this is your right; however, as I told Bob a proper review and an informed opinion from someone with opposing views (which can stimulate intelligent debate) is something I personally welcome and is beneficent to sober research, opposed to pushing agendas or ideologies.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  5. Frank, you wrote: "The arguments that both you and Tim are making is akin to anyone condemning your latest book (thanks again for my copy), without reading it–assuming they know what's in it.

    Either example is simply nonsensical."

    What is really nonsensical is that prior to Robert Hastings' article being post on your site, he and is documentary was not on anyone's radar from a skeptic's take. I personally had lost any interest. Look at my blog, I've not posted anything Hastings-wise for well over a year, if not longer.

    The truth for most of us is that his Nukes and UFO meme grew tiresome. And my own rebuttals grew equally tiresome as I was engaging in a circular argument with myself. Robert rarely engages in anything that is polar opposite of his viewpoints.

    Case in point, this dialog on your site is between me, Robert Scheaffer and you. Where is the actual author of the article to answer the comments?

    It's the same old pattern. You answer Hastings mail and he might come down from the Mount to answer, but usually you are the Oracle.

    Simply, as I originally told Robert Scheaffer in his email...who really cares. Most of us are, are have, moving on to other things. Hastings has his audience and his documentary should satisfy the bulk of them.

    And unfortunately I'm helping to promote his film just by engaging in these comments.

    Kind regards,

    Tim Hebert

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,

      You wrote:

      "...prior to Robert Hastings' article being post on your site, he and is documentary was not on anyone's radar from a skeptic's take. I personally had lost any interest. Look at my blog, I've not posted anything Hastings-wise for well over a year, if not longer."

      Bingo! Hence, the reason for his article and this conversation. Tim you wrote an article (7 months ago at your blog) specifically about Robert's documentary and stated therein:

      "After viewing his trailers, I have to commend Robert for his providing of stock footage for his Minuteman ICBM segment. Though I'm in disagreement with Robert's theory, I at the least, applaud his efforts for putting the weapon system in proper context and moving away from the docu-drama products that had been put forth in the past by the likes of Discovery Channel-Canada and others.

      I'm especially looking forward to the Malmstrom segments. My views on Malmstrom is peppered throughout this blog and two others (see blog side bar for both Echo and Oscar flight's blogs). At this point, I'm more interested in Robert's presentation."


      Again, this (and regular critiques) is why Robert (and myself) are perplexed by the silence. Your statements above seem to indicate a surety that you would view (and comment) on the documentary. (no provisos about being "free" [or not] at that time).

      You also wrote about "UFO excursions and ICBMs," citing Robert and his work 73 days ago.

      Back in May (under 4 month ago) you wrote an article entitled, "Minot 1968: The Oscar 07 Intrusion," in the first sentence, you wrote, "This is a continuation of the Minot UFO incident on 24 October 1968." The previous articles are (in part) entwined with Robert's work and your rebuttals.

      You wrote:

      Simply, as I originally told Robert Scheaffer in his email...who really cares. Most of us are, are have, moving on to other things. Hastings has his audience and his documentary should satisfy the bulk of them.

      Given your past service/employment; the fact that you established a web-site as a counter argument to Robert’s work and assertions, along with multiple articles (over six years) as counter arguments to said work, I think most would take for granted—that you care.

      You wrote:

      And unfortunately I'm helping to promote his film just by engaging in these comments.

      True … and your (free) web-site. :^)

      Cheers,
      Frank

      Delete
  6. Has Hastings sent out review copies to the people he wishes would respond to his work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mornin' Terry,

      Thanks for taking time to make comment.

      The short answer is–I don't know.

      I don't pretend to speak for Robert, thus my comments, opinions etc., are my own. His goal as stated in his piece (above) is "public education" to the masses; beyond that, I'm not sure he was seeking any one individual's commentary.

      I think it's safe to say that he was expecting commentary/criticism from those that have been consistently vocal all along, given that this is his magnum opus if you will–I know I certainly did.

      Tim (Hebert) above in part seems to making issue of the fact that it's pay for view @ $4.99 and if he has a problem with that–that's OK; however, any commentary, criticism or opinions re the film without having seen it are obviously null and void.

      As I stated above, I think civil discourse/debate is a good thing, presuming all parties concerned are up-to-date on the subject matter.

      Cheers,
      Frank

      Delete
    2. If he was "expecting commentary" from certain individuals but did not give them review materials, I submit that he got exactly what he should have expected.

      I can imagine these people not wanting to pay for what they see as "the same old thing." (I do buy books by Stan Friedman, the exemplar of repetition, but only because I am a self-loathing masochist.)

      Delete
    3. Terry,

      "Expecting" and or anticipating behavior or an act, based on a pattern of behavior doesn't constitute or necessitate any action on the person making the deduction or assumption.

      Again, I have no problem with anyone not wanting to pay for something ... that's their right; however, as stated above: opinions re the film without having seen it are obviously null and void.

      Cheers,
      Frank

      Delete

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW






LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON