Friday, August 24, 2012

CIA-CSI Connection Finally Laid Bare by Robert Hastings

Often UFO proponents hint that the government, and the CIA in particular, must be behind skeptics' knee-jerk debunking of every major UFO sighting. But nobody has come right out and argued the point as directly as has Robert Hastings, the UFOlogist who is best-known for revealing how UFOs have repeatedly zapped our nuclear missiles, and the government has covered it up.
Robert Hastings

On July 29 with his article CSI Skeptic Robert Sheaffer doubts the U.S. Government Uses the Media to Debunk UFOs , Hastings hinted at the truth but did not fully tie everything together. I replied on August 9 with CSI and CIA: Hastings' Hyperbole, still desperately attempting to hold onto a bit of cover.

But then on August 21 Hastings wrote Robert Sheaffer's Bogus Claims on Nat Geo's "Secret History of UFOs": Incompetence or Disinformation? :
Highly relevant to this discussion is my research into Sheaffer’s affiliation with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) which was previously named The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). As journalist Terry Hansen has argued in The Missing Times, the historical role of CSICOP (now CSI) strongly suggests it has been performing as an intelligence community “front organization”—pumping anti-UFO propaganda into the media without revealing its true source or motivation.
This is actually CSI's secret Logo, given out only on a need-to-know basis
Hastings is most concerned about the biased and misleading information I gave to the public in the recent show The Secret History of UFOs on the National Geographic Channel. For me it was all in a day's work, but he observed:
Well-known “skeptic” Robert Sheaffer’s performance in Secret History of UFOs, the National Geographic network’s latest debunking-disguised-as-documentary, begs the question: At what point does the systematic presentation of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the UFO phenomenon cross the line from incompetent scholarship to intentional disinformation? 
As I noted in my last article, given the extremely biased and propagandistic treatment of the UFO subject one consistently finds on Nat Geo, it might reasonably be argued that the network has been working behind the scenes with the CIA to debunk the phenomenon. 
Hastings' Press Conference: Disclosure, not Debunking!
I am not the only one Hastings singles out. James Oberg, Ken Frazier, and James McGaha are all taken to task for their roles in misinforming the public, and covering up the truth. There is no point in further dissimulation. Hastings has laid it all out in a perfectly logical fashion, the first to do so. Now Roger Marsh, the director of public relations for MUFON, has written Hastings speaks out: Could a TV network be working with the CIA? making it   pointless to continue further denial. Everything Hastings says is true.

Last year I began working on a UFO debunking effort with the National Geographic Channel at the request of CIA director David Petraeus. (Next year we planned to begin similar programs on Animal Planet, and the Playboy Channel.) I came up with the idea of a UFO investigations show that would be so foolish, an obvious insult to everyone's intelligence, that it would discredit the very idea of UFO investigations. The result is Chasing UFOs, and I don't mean to boast, but this was a stroke of genius. Then we realized that we'd also need some more sophisticated debunking programs, so I dictated the outline for The Secret History of UFOs, in which a little bit of debunking is mixed with a little bit of UFO truth, to keep everyone confused.

What did I gain from this, apart from the obvious great wealth and cool jetpack? I believed I was helping my country, by protecting people from panic over the fact that not only are the alien abductors, who we are helpless to stop, aroused by our naked bodies, but that they also eat children. Now that you know this, I hope you can still sleep.

the author flies his CIA-supplied jetpack
I don't mean to imply that I have been doing all this work by myself. In between his spy missions to Russia and North Korea, James Oberg has done splendid work explaining away the many alien spacecraft that have been following NASA space missions. James McGaha, a retired Air Force intelligence officer who is in reality still part of the official debunking squad, has done great work spreading disinformation about the UFO that landed in Rendlesham forest, and deciphering the binary message that it sent out telepathically. Dave Thomas helped keep the lid on New Mexico landings and crashes, and would have done more if he didn't have to spend so much time planting thermite in the World Trade Center. And I shouldn't forget Ben Radford, who Hastings takes to task in this earlier column. Congratulations, Gentlemen, now that Disclosure has arrived you can bask in the recognition you have earned!

Now that I have revealed all this, I know that my CIA handlers will be upset with me. They won't "disappear" me because I am too well-known, and they will not arrest me because the trial would reveal too much dirt about the long-standing UFO Coverup which, I understand, is now set to end a week from Tuesday. Gone for sure will be my $1 million-plus annual Debunker First Class salary from the CIA. But I am not going to give back the jetpack!

18 comments:

  1. Enjoyable read...50-50 probability that Hastings will believe everything you wrote...

    ReplyDelete
  2. You forget to mention that I get paid every month by the US government (under the false pretense of "retirement pay") to write SUNlite, where I can spread more lies and disinformation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim, sorry, I didn't mean to slight you, you're doing outstanding service to the cover-up with your SUNlite. Let's hope that in his next missive, Hastings gives you the recognition you deserve.

      Delete
    2. That makes you a governmental "one percenter" leaching off the honest ufo tax payer to spread your disinformation...

      Shame on you!

      Delete
    3. Hi, this TS4072. I'm not sure I'm setup correctly for adding comments so this a test.

      Delete
  3. Now I’m confused. I thought people like Hastings, Kean and LMH were being paid by the CIA to make UFO believers look so bonkers that no one would take them seriously.
    The pilot project with Friedman worked brilliantly -- who’d have thought that he’d fall for that MJ-12 hoax, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waitaminute... I thought the CIA was trying to convince folks to believe in UFOs and ETH to prevent any public association with the Top Secret weapons development program the nation has been trying to cover-up for the past 70-odd years. OMG, disinformation is such a cruel taskmaster!

      Delete
  4. To be serious (if possible) we shall soon hear from Hastings that Prince Harry's recent activities in Las Vegas were all part of a CIA plot to discredit UFOs. After all, Harry is Prince Philip's grandson and Philip is a known UFO fan, dating from the Adamski days. It all fits, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You sir are an asshat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you, sir, are a coward, hiding behind a veil of anonymity to hurl invective.

      I have finally decided to disallow anonymous postings. I had allowed them because some people did not know how to post otherwise. If somebody does not know, or cannot or will not figure out how to use a name, real or assumed, to post here, then we do not need them. Besides, it is impossible to distinguish the different anonymice. Is it one person making ten postings, ten making one posting each, or some other combination?

      Delete
  6. Disallow anonymous postings? How will you receive messages from High Command?

    'Asshat' is agent double speak; the term of admiration applied when someone has literally turned the world upside down.

    I guess I understand why you must change the rules for commenting. Now that you know that we know...

    Tyler Kokjohn

    ReplyDelete
  7. Love this post! Thanks again Mr. Sheaffer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh right this tactic: Let me spell it out. Pretend top agree whilst the phony agreement is yet still trying to ridicule the subject you are pretending to agree with---and hope people laugh? AND "Dave Thomas helped keep the lid on New Mexico landings and crashes, and would have done more if he didn't have to spend so much time planting thermite in the World Trade Center." why not throw in another "conspiracy theory", and IMPLY hint hint that any of that talk about 9/11 being a staged false flag event is the same ilk as 'UFO crazy snigger snigger stuff'? have I got you right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ridicule is not a rhetorical tactic if the ridicule is earned.

      Delete
  9. Mr. Hastings is like most fringe thinkers: at the first sign of adversity, they abandon their "facts."

    Mr. Hastings believed Mr. Sheaffer got the facts wrong. If so, Hastings could have got right to it and pounded Sheaffer flat. Instead, Hastings went on a long rant not based on facts but speculation, which included irrelevent attacks on James Oberg and several others -- all of this before addressing what Mr. Sheaffer said in the documentary.

    It is unlikely Mr. Hastings' intended audience ever got to the factual discussion -- I skipped big chunks myself (even though I had hoped to find out what Mr. Sheaffer actually said, since I had not seen the show). Only students of rhetoric or conspiracy theory could have maintained interest in such a long-winded and paranoid rant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hastings is predictable...a creature of habit. Brevity is not one of his characteristic trademarks.

      Delete
  10. The secret logo killed me. I don't get it. Accomplishment loses its meaning when it's demonstrably flawed. Why do the UFO proponents not welcome skeptical inquiry? Invite the skeptics in, show them the evidence, and perhaps learn a few things.

    ReplyDelete

Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.