Robert Hastings Won't Watch 'Chasing UFOs'

Robert Hastings is dissing National Geographic for "breathless hoo-ha passed off as investigation and analysis"? That's a bit rich coming from a man who has not only failed to confirm anything at all that the witnesses he attends to have (allegedly) reported, but has very clearly reached conclusions and established as "facts" a great many points of contention that cannot justifiably be affirmed. This is the same guy who insists that his claims regarding UFOs were "confirmed" by a man who told Hastings outright that he doesn't remember anything at all about any UFOs encountered in his presence EVER, let alone the specific incident Hastings says this man has confirmed! Robert Hastings doesn't understand a damn thing about proper analysis or investigation, so he's hardly the guy I would rely on regarding anything at all looked at by National Geographic, which has been involved in very detailed and confirmed analyses and investigations of all sorts since 1888. What has Hastings accomplished? Well, he reports that over the past 35-years he managed to track down 120-some military witnesses to UFO encounters involving nuclear facilities and military bases -- that's what he claims, anyway. Of course, only seven of these men were willing to go public with those claims, and three of those seven would only discuss one specific case -- a case that has not only been proven to be a collection of paranoid fantasies by men who think they deserve more attention from the world than they have received, but has more importantly failed to produce a single eye-witness willing to say, "yes I saw that UFO we're talking about." So National Geographic produces a show that elects to properly examine the issues placed before it, and Robert Hastings doesn't like it very much because the conclusions they have reached don't match up with the fraudulent details he has placed before the world at large. If that sounds familiar, it should: it's the strategy that Robert Hastings ultimately relies on whenever his version of the stories told don't match up with the stories that he prefers to be told. He attacks those leading the discussion while ignoring almost completely the arguments they have raised against his own. Hastings refuses to recognize that science isn't interested in his wasted and baited metaphors -- far from it! If you can't confirm your claims, and the points of fact you want to discuss are shown to be void of fact, then science considers your cases as "trumped" by common reality. That means your claims, and your interpretation of what's real in comparison to what is not real can safely be ignored as insignificant garbage by the rest of the world. Look, at a ground level, Robert Hastings is merely a researcher -- a poor one. He made a number cases, and was responsible for publicizing those cases. Unfortunately, he is ill-equipped to realistically assess such matters with anything approaching a professional and honest demeanor. If this were not true, those witnesses he has discussed over the years would not come forward and insist that he is lying to the world, and has reached conclusions that cannot and should not be reached on the basis of their testimony. I seriously doubt that National Geographic has a credibility problem that is anywhere near approaching the heightened level of his own. Frankly, his opinions in regard to these issues are worthless, a characteristic they share as well with his research.