UFO researcher Robert Hastings recently addressed The Society for Scientific Exploration’s 31st Annual Conference here. His presentation, “Unexplained Aerial Incursions at Nuclear Weapons Sites Demand a Renewed Scientific Interest in the UFO Phenomenon,” examined declassified U.S. government documents confirming ongoing UFO activity at American nukes-related facilities since 1948.
“Among the 130 veterans I have interviewed are nuclear missile launch officers who report UFOs monitoring and even disabling their weapons. To dismiss these accounts as mere fantasies or fabrications is to suggest that those who held the fate of the entire planet in their hands during the Cold War were dangerously demented or otherwise untrustworthy. Surely, this was not the case. Similar incidents have been revealed by Soviet military veterans.”
“While my research material does not qualify as scientific data per se, the information offered by these ex-military sources makes clear the need for a new, unbiased study of UFOs, uncontaminated by existing academic preconceptions and prejudices.
Tip: Google News
Note: this is from a press release. Mr. Hastings is trying to get attention for his ideas – he wants a new study and he wants speaking engagements.
The problem with the study is first, as he admits, his data is NOT scientific. It’s anecdotal and can not be confirmed, I imagine. UFO’s disabling our weapons? A very tall claim. If this were true, then appropriate attention would be paid to it. Some study on the potential danger of UFOs is not going to make a whit of difference at this point. And, studies HAVE been done. They found nothing to go on. Sure, there are the residual cases that will never be solved but that residuum is to be expected, we don’t have and can’t get the appropriate information to answer what may have happened in these incidents. Residuum is NOT justfication for saying that UFOs are a threat to national security.
But, to look at this another way…
It is the military’s job to address national security issues. Substitute “incidents of unknown explanation” or something similar for UFOs because it may not be alien at all but domestic incidents or foreign adversaries. Then, the military ARE doing their job. The premise that they are not and that some study (or petition) focusing on UFOs (as alien technology) will make them is baffling.
Meanwhile, economist Paul Krugman jokingly remarks that preparartion for an alien invasion would be an economic boost.
UPDATE (28-Jun-2012): As you can see below in the comments, Mr. Hastings has commented. Via email, I received a link to this piece from Dr. David Clarke, whom I follow and find reasonable. He writes about a…
widely reported … story that aliens had interfered with US and Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War (published uncritically by the Mail, Express and Telegraph in September). If that claim wasn’t remarkable enough, we were then asked to believe both governments had – despite their massive Cold War differences – collectively and successfully concealed the extraterrestrial threat from the public ever since.
Extraordinary, if true. And anyone who suspected this was either April 1st or a poor re-working of the script from Independence Day should think again, because “upstanding, dry former military chiefs who were trusted with our nuclear security” said so (Daily Mail, 27 September).
But cut through the spin and it becomes clear there was and is no senior credible military source. The story originates from a publicity-hungry American UFOlogist, Robert Hastings. Hastings worked as a lab technician before retirement and now devotes himself full-time to pushing the UFO Disclosure agenda via books and lectures. He appears to have no particular expertise other than an obsession with proving a link between UFOs and nuclear weapons.
In September Hastings hired the Washington Press Club as a platform to reveal his “evidence”. It consisted of testimony from a tiny group of ex-military “credible witnesses” who have joined the ET/disclosure bandwagon.
I did not read this piece prior to stating my opinions on the DN story we cited but it corroborates with what I thought. I thank Mr. Hastings for sharing his opinions here but this is not going to be a friendly audience and, as is our comment policy, we focus on critical thought, not speculation with no credible evidence.
Unless the comments remain short and pithy, I will close them altogether. Thanks for your cooperation.