Robert Hastings

[wwkirk]

Solid interview. But what impressed me the most was Chris's impassioned description of Ray Stanford's research in the beginning.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

From and email that arrived this AM:

I am the former Industrial Hygienist of the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power station located in Lycoming, NY. I was listening to the past weeks Paracast with Robert Hastings and heard you ask him about the UFO and entity Incident at Indian Point nuclear generating station. Indian Point and FitzPatrick are sister plants so to speak and are now owned by Entergy Nuclear Northeast. At the time of the incident, they were both owned and operated by the New York Power Authority.

You were correct that the Book Night Siege by Hynek and Imbrogno contained a description of an entity being seen within the secondary containment area of the Indian Point reactor just after the UFO appearance. This cannot be true.

While I was the Hygienist at FitzPatrick, I reported directly to the Manager of Security Thomas Teifke, now deceased. Mr. Teifke was former ONI, internal affairs and a former Oswego County Sheriff. As a consequence I was intimately familiar with security protocol regarding nuclear generating stations. I can most assuredly tell you that a security breach such as an intruder into the secondary containment of any station would have resulted in the immediate shutdown of all 103 licensed reactors in the nation, a scenario which has never occurred. The description in Night Siege therefore must be sheer fabrication.

Hynek more or less held to the same belief as the Lorenzens of not reporting the high strangeness cases believing that he would lose credibility. Imbrogno on the other hand discusses his own propensity to believe such reports in an archived interview at Binall of America. I suspect this was pure fabrication by Imbrogno.

 

[RU_Insane]

I signed up just so I could comment. I love your show.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I signed up just so I could comment. I love your show.

And now that you're here, why not stay a while and join in? Get involved, it's what it's all about!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Regarding whether an 'entity' was seen and if so, it should have caused a shut-down. Is it possible that something was seen that was so obviously not a human being, and so perhaps anyone seeing it would not initiate a shut-down, fearing that they'd have to explain why they shut down 103 facilities nationwide, interrupted power supplies to countless outlets etc, all because of some ghost no-one can find?

I'm just speculating of course, it's just a possibility I can envisage. If you saw a floating, ethereal headless, legless torso - you might just shit your pants and vow not to work there anymore, do a number of things but certainly not start a shut-down, cos you know there is nobody there?

Anyone know what form this supposed 'entity' took, according to Imbrogno, who's credibility of course is zero now his academic shenanigans have been exposed?

 

[Digital_Archivist]

A dam fine interview Goggs, Chris & Gene with Robert. He is one of my top favourite researchers. Thank you for having him on thr show.

_ Digital_Archivist

 

[LennyfromMaine]

I very much enjoy Robert. Sometimes he seems dry, or maybe too sure of himself, I do really enjoy and value his work. Robert is right. It can be very tough wadding through the disinformation search for the real research. And I got the impression that Robert doesn't care much for it either. But it's important for researchers like Robert to be pushed into the forefront even more. Lord knows we have enough actors/characters already.

 

[Randall]

First, thanks Chris for bringing up the Indian Point case.

Since Lance is absent and nobody is presenting any skeptical counterpoint, let's consider phrases like the one below at 1:35:45 in the show:

Hastings: "This same individual talked about, uh, oh well, made inquiries on my behalf of persons who were active duty missile maintenance personnel at F.E. Warren, uh who told him point blank, that uh the teams that went out over a two day period October 23, 24 to try to ascertain the problem ... "

What we're seeing above breaks down like this: Hastings has no firsthand knowledge of this incident, and neither does his unnamed source ( probably someone he identified elsewhere as Security Policeman TSgt. Anthony W. Keel ) who allegedly interviewed someone else, who allegedly relayed some information about some other people ( and possibly himself but that's not clear ). So not only is it it's unverifiable, it's at least third hand, or fourth-hand information. So let's face it, although it's entertaining it's also 100% hearsay and therefore carries almost zero weight. If this is typical of his source material, no wonder he didn't want to appear at the Citizen's Disclosure Hearings. No responsible judge or jury ( or panel ) would admit it as evidence. Seems to me that his bowing out on credibility reasons is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Let's add that according to the Air Force Times, the review board concluded the fault with the missiles was a poorly seated circuit card. To quote:

"A circuit card in a weapons-system processor knocked out of place by heat and vibration generated by regular operations caused the Oct. 23 disruption, according to an operations review board investigating the incident.

The card had not been essentially locked into place after maintenance work had been done, but the weapons-system processor had worked for more than nine hours before the card came loose, according to a redacted copy of the board’s report, released Wednesday by Global Strike Command ...

Thomas compared the communication to a BlackBerry constantly connected to its server to check for e-mails. The launch control centers are continuously checking and updating data including temperature, alert status and security situation for each missile...

"The system was still up, there were still queries pinging and occurring, but what was happening was like if your cell phone was breaking up; it was not ideal," Thomas said shortly after the incident occurred. "The suspect launch control center was apparently trying to communicate on top of the other launch control centers trying to communicate."

There's more out there that causes one to question the veracity of the stories Hastings relays to us ( e.g. Tim Printy's SUNlite ). Personally, I've seen nothing that shows that Hastings is fabricating anything himself, or that the stories he relays are false. But that's not sufficient to conclude they're true either. We may be getting exactly what Hastings himself is getting, but it's obviously spun in such a way to lead listeners to certain conclusions involving aliens. Before we draw those conclusions perhaps we should ask ourselves how much of Hastings evidence relies on hearsay.

 

[Atticus11]

First, thanks Chris for bringing up the Indian Point case.

Since Lance is absent and nobody is presenting any skeptical counterpoint, let's consider phrases like the one below at 1:35:45 in the show:

What we're seeing above breaks down like this: Hastings has no firsthand knowledge of this incident, and neither does his unnamed source ( probably someone he identified elsewhere as Security Policeman TSgt. Anthony W. Keel ) who allegedly interviewed someone else, who allegedly relayed some information about some other people ( and possibly himself but that's not clear ). So not only is it it's unverifiable, it's at least third hand, or fourth-hand information. So let's face it, although it's entertaining it's also 100% hearsay and therefore carries almost zero weight. If this is typical of his source material, no wonder he didn't want to appear at the Citizen's Disclosure Hearings. No responsible judge or jury ( or panel ) would admit it as evidence. Seems to me that his bowing out on credibility reasons is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Let's add that according to the Air Force Times, the review board concluded the fault with the missiles was a poorly seated circuit card. To quote:

There's more out there that causes one to question the veracity of the stories Hastings relays to us ( e.g. Tim Printy's SUNlite ). Personally, I've seen nothing that shows that Hastings is fabricating anything himself, or that the stories he relays are false. But that's not sufficient to conclude they're true either. We may be getting exactly what Hastings himself is getting, but it's obviously spun in such a way to lead listeners to certain conclusions involving aliens. Before we draw those conclusions perhaps we should ask ourselves how much of Hastings evidence relies on hearsay.

Sitting around the campfire, re-telling spooky stories one heard ...

Many people did it as kids. Some still do it as adults.

 

[Grifynne]

Another interesting episode with Goggs! I love it!

Early in the episode, the issue of information sharing was brought up. As a (freelance/budding novelist) writer, I can understand the need to keep documents tucked away until they are ready to be seen. You don't want someone scrutinizing something that isn't complete. There are many steps to go through that help mold the finished product. Things can change drastically over time and outside influences can have a severe impact if introduced too soon, even if it's just a matter of nay-sayers taking away the steam of the project before they have seen it at its best or interested parties forming opinions when the data isn't presented at its most refined. Once those opinions are out there, they could start swaying others away from the individual or group's work. There may be some valuable tidbits that are missed because opinions were formed before the work was truly done.

I imagine that it is imperative that everything is in order and well polished when it comes to presenting data on the unexplained. A fiction writer is going to have critics who will form opinions about their work, that's a given. But when it comes to UFOs and the paranormal, you are going to have people who have already made up their minds regardless of what the data says. And those people can be loud, and I imagine will bring their opinions down hard on whatever is released. You want to be sure that the material is capable of standing up to that onslaught before you put it out there with your name plastered all over it.

And I'm not saying that researchers keep researching until the facts suit their beliefs or hypothesis. I just mean that you want to be certain that there are no giant holes in your bucket before you let people start taking water from it.

That being said, I'm not really too into the whole hush hush indefinite lock down of data like seems to go on with groups like NIDS (I'm not sure if there are any others quite like them, so maybe this is an isolated situation). If you don't intend on utilizing the data, why keep it stored away? Let those who are actively researching and studying take a look.

What we're seeing above breaks down like this: Hastings has no firsthand knowledge of this incident, and neither does his unnamed source ( probably someone he identified elsewhere as Security Policeman TSgt. Anthony W. Keel ) who allegedly interviewed someone else, who allegedly relayed some information about some other people ( and possibly himself but that's not clear ). So not only is it it's unverifiable, it's at least third hand, or fourth-hand information. So let's face it, although it's entertaining it's also 100% hearsay and therefore carries almost zero weight. If this is typical of his source material, no wonder he didn't want to appear at the Citizen's Disclosure Hearings. No responsible judge or jury ( or panel ) would admit it as evidence. Seems to me that his bowing out on credibility reasons is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

I have to mostly agree, Ufology. It seemed nothing was firsthand, but then again maybe it's different when you're the one involved in the research. You get a feel for who you believe to be truthful and reliable, even if their accounts aren't direct. So maybe in Hasting's eyes, those he deems credible are nothing less than that because he's going with his gut, experience or whatever while those he was referring to at the C.D. hearings maybe brought red flags up in his mind. I'm not saying I agree, but I could understand the thought process there. It sounded like he missed a unique opportunity by choosing to skip the hearings, though.

 

[DaveM]

You are judged by the company you keep. Hastings obviously doesn't want to be mixed up with the Greers and Moulton Howes of the world.

 

[Atticus11]

You are judged by the company you keep. Hastings obviously doesn't want to be mixed up with the Greers and Moulton Howes of the world.

Hmmmm. This was a confusing sentence for me. Isn't it rather like saying "Harold Camping doesn't want to be mixed up with the Sun Myung Moon and L. Ron Hubbards of the world?"

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

 

[ElmoFUD]

Solid interview. But what impressed me the most was Chris's impassioned description of Ray Stanford's research in the beginning.

I am also impressed with Chris' loyalty to Ray Stanford and his impassioned support. This is especially so because Mr. Stanford has not rewarded Chris or anyone else with more than a whiff of the supposedly dazzling data that will be released at the right time. Here is my prediction: There will likely never be a right time. We will likely never see the data. If we do see the data, it will prove to be something quite less dazzling than the teasing suggests.

 

[Randall]

Hmmmm. This was a confusing sentence for me. Isn't it rather like saying "Harold Camping doesn't want to be mixed up with the Sun Myung Moon and L. Ron Hubbards of the world?"

I get your point, but the religious analogy paints the whole field in that light, which is not accurate. Not all ufologists belong to recognized religions, and I know of none who endorse or belong to a UFO cult or religion.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I am also impressed with Chris' loyalty to Ray Stanford and his impassioned support. This is especially so because Mr. Stanford has not rewarded Chris or anyone else with more than a whiff of the supposedly dazzling data that will be released at the right time. Here is my prediction: There will likely never be a right time. We will likely never see the data. If we do see the data, it will prove to be something quite less dazzling than the teasing suggests.

That's the feeling I have, especially with the way Chris described it. It does not sound like he has the smoking gun evidence we were told he has... it sounds like it more of the gravitometer garbage he presented the last time.
This is what I think he'll do: he'll present all this complicated data that makes no sense to the layman, and then when people criticize him, he'll just say we don't know what we're looking at. If you have analog film of "motherships," just show us those pictures - they should speak for themselves.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I am also impressed with Chris' loyalty to Ray Stanford and his impassioned support. This is especially so because Mr. Stanford has not rewarded Chris or anyone else with more than a whiff of the supposedly dazzling data that will be released at the right time. Here is my prediction: There will likely never be a right time. We will likely never see the data. If we do see the data, it will prove to be something quite less dazzling than the teasing suggests.

A wiff?! You call sitting and watching 14 hours of scientific analysis a wiff? What would you call a dollop or a smidge? Less than dazzling? By whose standards? Yours? And who [SNIP—for you Angelo] are you Elmo Fud? (seven posts in two years) A physicist?[SNIP (or a troll?)] You think I'm talking prettier hubcaps here? Bells and whistles, oohs and ahhs? No, I'm talking real diagnostic science. Most people have no clue what these objects look like, why they look like they do or what to look for to determine whether its a genuine photo or film. [SNIP —again, for you Angelo, but I meant what I snipped!]

 

[Angel of Ioren]

A wiff?! You call sitting and watching 14 hours of scientific analysis a wiff? What would you call a dollop or a smidge? Less than dazzling? By whose standards? Yours? And who the f**k are you Elmo Fud? A physicist? A geek in his mom's basement? One of Lance's alter-egos? One of Blake's wanna-believe, but wouldn't know a trufo if it smacked them upside the head bunch? You think I'm talking prettier hubcap here? Bells and whistles, oohs and ahhs? No, I'm talking real diagnostic science. Most people have no clue what these objects look like, why they look like they do or what to look for to determine whether its a genuine photo or film. Stop whining and predicting... put your money where your mouth is.

Wow Chris... can you not react like a douchebag?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

This is what I think he'll do: he'll present all this complicated data that makes no sense to the layman...If you have analog film of "motherships," just show us those pictures - they should speak for themselves.

That's the point [Ray] doesn't give a flying f**k what you or I think. He is doing this for SCIENCE. Science can be extremely complicated. When will you people get it? He doesn't give one second of thought concerning pandering to the masses. He has amassed an amazing amount of analyzed data that the average person wouldn't think had any significance, but to a physicist, it is the motherlode. Stop criticizing and whining already. Obviously, you just don't get it. When he releases this mountain of data and accredited scientists state their opinion, THEN you can criticize away to your heart's content... Until then, I'm sick of the whining, [baiting] insults and complaining and will not discuss this further!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Stay classy Chris. I am not trying to bait you. You really come off sounding defensive and douchey.

 

[DaveM]

I'm confused Atticus11. What does Harold Camping, Rev. Moon and L. Ron Hubbard have to do with the Disclosure event in Washington?? Robert Hastings didn't want to be mixed in with Steven Greer, Linda Moulton Howe or Stephen Bassett, can you blame him? He made that quite clear in the interview. Why be on the same stage as those people? Would you want to follow Greer and his little alien or Howe saying that cattle mutilations are are related to alien interventions? It is hardly six of one half dozen of another, as you put it.