• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFOs and Nukes

Free episodes:

Former Minuteman Launch Officer's UFO Account

Thanks for all your great postings and info, Mr. Hastings!

And regarding the below quote....I heartily agree, I wish more would speak out and not be afraid of ridicule or whatever.

Perhaps they feel gagged and have to wait to speak out, for one reason or another.....
Or they feel since they have no evidence, it'd be better to be silent.

Or they don't want any publicity....



.....I think it is time for all of us that have been silent to talk about what we observed.
 
my family laughed at me. my girlfriend will not talk to anyone about what she saw. she will not even talk to me about what we saw together. she refuses to believe in her own mind what she experienced at fairly close proximity.

i have heard of other people refusing to believe what they saw with their own eyes.

Thats insane. Your family laughed at you? Fuck them. Do they have a reason to laugh at you (you joke a lot or whatever)? If not, fuck them.

Id be pissed if I was you.
 
my family laughed at me. my girlfriend will not talk to anyone about what she saw. she will not even talk to me about what we saw together. she refuses to believe in her own mind what she experienced at fairly close proximity.

i have heard of other people refusing to believe what they saw with their own eyes.
Double-Ditto.
 
i myself have taken what may be an "ostrich option". i still try and rationalise what i saw "with my wide open eyes" as an artifact of some function thats explainable ie SP.

i did mention my event to select workmates who i thought would be open to the concept.......lets just say i wouldnt have done so in hindsight.

i wonder if thats also the ultimate response of the brass here. the ostrich option, that is if i dont see it and acknowledge it, it has no power over me........
 
Mike asked: why do you think the brass want these events to be "non events", this is the core motivation im trying to unearth.

RH: If the accounts provided by my ex-USAF sources are indeed factual, it is understandable why the military would wish to keep the UFO activity at nuclear missile sites secret. At a minimum, we are discussing the existence of vastly superior, saucer-shaped craft, capable of disabling our most formidable weapons in their silos. A confirmation of these events would effectively be an official acknowledgement of our potential strategic vulnerability. For this reason, if no other, the Pentagon will never admit the reality of the incidents.

More to the point, official verification of the missile site incursions would represent an irreversible admission of extraterrestrial visitation—simply because the Soviets experienced such incursions as well, and the technology reportedly involved in all of these cases, on both sides of the ocean, was vastly beyond human achievement to date.

--Robert Hastings
ufohastings.com
 
another question came to mind watching that larry king footage of the missile under fire from a plasma weapon as it was supposed.
if the men in suits, took scissors to the film and gave the rest back. what was shown on larry king ? was that a recreation ?
 
Hello again, Mike,

The dummy warhead shootdown sequence that appeared on Larry King was computer-generated imagry, excerpted from the film Out of the Blue, by filmmaker James Fox. There was a small credit that appeared briefly, for a few seconds, in the upper right (?) corner.

Robert
 
Thanks Mate, i knew that if anyone knew you would,
its a genuine priviledge and pleasure to have access to experts in the field such as yourself to answer these sorts of questions.
 
For those of you who would like to see how Mr Hastings deals with any tricky questions from knowledgeable sceptics check out his record on his own thread at

UFOs and Nukes - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

He tries his hardest to avoid giving a straight answer to questions and threatens people who point out discrepancies with legal action.

But I doubt any of you wish to know that :)
Much easier to carry on living in woo-wooland and posting adulatory comments.
 
For those of you who would like to see how Mr Hastings deals with any tricky questions from knowledgeable sceptics check out his record on his own thread at

UFOs and Nukes - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

He tries his hardest to avoid giving a straight answer to questions and threatens people who point out discrepancies with legal action.

But I doubt any of you wish to know that :)
Much easier to carry on living in woo-wooland and posting adulatory comments.

i can only go on personal experience, but Mr Hastings has always answered my questions promptly, in detail and with respect.

and for that i am naturally grateful
 
Gee Whizz Mike, maybe that's because you say things such as

Originally Posted by mike
Thanks Mate, i knew that if anyone knew you would,
its a genuine priviledge and pleasure to have access to experts in the field such as yourself to answer these sorts of questions.

Mr Hastings behaves a little differently when people disagree or ask him for evidence.
 
The Helix has twisted the facts about my posts on the BAUT forum, pun intended, but given that he lauds the BAUT forum buffoons, that is to be expected. One may read my "UFO and Nukes" thread from the beginning and judge for him or herself the nature of the exchange between myself and that crowd.

From the get-go, without examining my posted material, I was judged to be unworthy and unqualified to ask my many ex-military sources questions about their classified UFO-related experiences. (Of course, none of the other persons posting on the thread ever asked for contact information for those sources, so that they might question them on their own.)

Instead, the chief inquisitor, Jay Utah, proceeded to ask me what added up some 50 pages of questions, printed out, in rapid fire succession, and then whined when I couldn't properly address that volume of charges and accusations in what he considered to be a timely fashion. I was traveling on the lecture circuit at the time and had limited time to joust with him and the others.

And, as I noted in my first post, I was going to answer my critics with excerpts from my book, which more than adequately addressed their questions, rather than inventing the wheel, so to speak, each time I was asked a question. At this, the moderators, egged on by Jay, accused me of spamming my book. For Pete's sake, the thought that any of those close-minded, self-appointed UFO experts would ever buy my book is ludicrous on its face. But that was the rationale--spamming--used to ban me from posting there on an ongoing basis.

As for threatening to sue "those who disagreed with" me well, that's another twisted distortion by the Helix, although he probably believes what he writes. Actually, when Tim Printy ("Astrophotographer") began casting aspersions at my sources, in particular Dr. Bob Jacobs, who was involved in the Big Sur UFO Case (see my Articles page at ufohastings.com) I simply mentioned that Jacobs and I were gathering material for a possible legal action against those persons who publicly defamed Jacobs and another officer, Dr. Florenze Mansmann. That process continues at the present time.

I also mentioned in my posts that among those who have attempted to debunk the Big Sur case--the documented shoot down of a dummy nuclear warhead by a UFO, according to two former USAF officers directly involved in the incident--is the editor of CSICOP/CSI's publication, Skeptical Inquirer, Kendrick Frazier. Frazier, whom the magazine's masthead lists as a "Science Writer" by profession, never told his readers or the outside world that he was also employed as a PR Specialist for Sandia National Laboratories, a U.S. government nuclear weapons lab, during the 20-plus year period that he was debunking UFOs and the idea of an official cover-up of UFOs. He never even mentioned his employment at Sandia in his own, self-published online bio. Hmmmm...

More recently, Frazier duped a gullible reporter for the Albuquerque Journal by misstating the facts about the Big Sur case. My expose on that little slight-of-hand is also at my website, titled, "Reporter Duped by UFO Debunkers."

Tim Printy, one of the BAUT posters, swallowed the debunking of the Big Sur case by CSICOP/CSI hook, line and sinker, and then proceeded to defame Jacobs and Mansmann in the thread I started, hence my forthright notice to him about the potential consequences of such questionable and potentionally actionable behavior. I stand by my statements to him in that regard.

Now, Helix won't benefit from any of this, given his mind is made up about my published material on UFOs, and his obvious acceptance of the utterings of the armchair experts at BAUT, but I do encourage the readers of this thread to review the posts at BAUT. It will be good for a laugh or two, if nothing else. Those guys are so certain that they are capable judges of the UFO phenomenon, even though they have never investigated it, and even though many of them have refused to read my lengthy, detailed responses to their questions and criticisms.

So, babble on, Helix. I won't waste my time or cyberbreath responding. Bend over, CSI just loves people like you...

--Robert Hastings
 
Gee Whizz Mike, maybe that's because you say things such as

Originally Posted by mike
Thanks Mate, i knew that if anyone knew you would,
its a genuine priviledge and pleasure to have access to experts in the field such as yourself to answer these sorts of questions.

Mr Hastings behaves a little differently when people disagree or ask him for evidence.

C'mon look at the timeline.... its as ive described it

i made those comments AFTER i had had my questions answered, not before as you suggest.

they were a reaction to being given respectful detailed answers, not the cause of said treatment.

its very important to get the timeline and context right, otherwise you wont see the reality in the clarity we all strive to see
 
So, babble on, Helix. I won't waste my time or cyberbreath responding. Bend over, CSI just loves people like you...

--Robert Hastings
"Cyberbreath"...that's rich. Did you coin that one?
I appreciate your entries here, at the very least it's good fiction...and I'm not calling you a liar by any stretch. I know from personal experience that UFO's are a real phenomenom and really weird stuff happens in their presence.
Would I be correct in guessing that you have experienced more of this intelligence than you are sharing?
 
Skunkape: Would I be correct in guessing that you have experienced more of this intelligence than you are sharing?

RH: Alas, no. But I frequently get to experience the intelligence of persons such as Helix.
 
Mr Hastings -
So, babble on, Helix. I won't waste my time or cyberbreath responding. Bend over, CSI just loves people like you
So this is your normal debating style? Anyone disagreeing with you gets immature insults hurled at them? Sorry for not grovelling in worship.

Yes, I too recommend that people read the BAUT thread, and then they can judge for themselves the truth and accuracy of your above statements. I think they showed you a lot more patience and politeness over many months than you show in one post.

PS
The Helix has twisted the facts about my posts on the BAUT forum, pun intended

That's not a pun.
 
TheHelix: I think they showed you a lot more patience and politeness over many months than you show in one post.

RH: And your first posts on this thread were so objective and non-accusitory?! Mike, among others, may wish to take issue with your introduction of yourself here.

Debate?! I will hereby take BAUT Jay Utah's approach to debate: What qualifies you to debate me on UFOs? Give me a full-rundown, even if it takes several posts. Then, and only then, will I decide whether you are indeed qualified. (I think that's a rough approximation of Jay's first few responses to my posts on BAUT.)

--RH<!-- / message -->
 
Skunkape: Would I be correct in guessing that you have experienced more of this intelligence than you are sharing?
I've shared a bit here and there on these forums, but there is no good reason I should expect anyone not to think I'm a nut.
The short and honest answer would be "Yeah."
-Strange Lights. Check.
-Ghostly Phenomenon. Check.
-Weird Shit That Doesn't Really Fall Into Any Category. Check.
At least 3 of these events I have been shared with other witnesses. It's comforting to know that at least I'm sharing my delusion with others, if such be the case.
To the debunkers, one has to ask, "If this is all delusion and lies," would not the root cause of such a psycho-social abberation be worthy of intensive study?

...this is totally off-thread, but, here it is for you, Helix.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U_oBjinZQ7k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U_oBjinZQ7k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Back
Top