By Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com
1-11-10
www.ufohastings.com
1-11-10
UFO-Nukes Connection researcher Robert Hastings is requesting information about the two cell phone videos which have recently surfaced on YouTube, showing what appears to be a pyramid-shaped UFO hovering over the Kremlin, the Russian seat of government in Moscow. At Hastings' request, video analysis expert Jim Dilattoso has agreed to analyze the two videos, if uncompressed files can be obtained. This is an open request for such files, which should be sent to Dilattoso at toso@cox.net.While the nature of the hovering object remains as yet unproved, in Hastings' opinion, he believes that the incident should be investigated further. To that end, he is seeking the following information:
1) The exact date and duration of the sighting. Contradictory information has been posted online; most reports say that the UFO appeared on December 9, 2009, and was present for "hours" but one report says that it hovered "for minutes at a time."
2) The total number of videos and still photos of the UFO in existence, as best as can be determined. Thus far, only two cell phone videos of the object have surfaced, one taken in daylight, the other at night:
3) The identity of the person or persons who posted the two videos online, together with their contact information.
4) Any related information about police reports, online discussion among persons claiming to be witnesses, follow-up reports in the Russian media, etc.
At present, there are far more questions than facts about this case, and many valid criticisms by skeptics must be addressed:
- For example, in a city as large as Moscow, why have only two videos of the UFO surfaced?
- Why do the identities of the persons who posted the videos remain unknown?
- If the UFO hovered for hours, as claimed, why did the Russian military not scramble jet fighters to intercept it?
Information about the videos in question, witness testimony, and other relevant information, may be sent to Hastings at hastings444@att.net. He is also seeking the assistance of Russian-speaking individuals who have contacts in Moscow, who might assist in this investigation by making inquiries to the local media, the police, and the government.
.png)
Does it really make sense that these videos would be real? Perhaps the real investigation is why there are apparently only 2 cameras (and both of them crappy cell phone cameras) in Moscow?
ReplyDeleteHasting's questions are hilarious. Here are the the answers to all of them:
1. Because it is a hoax.
2. Because it is a hoax.
3. Because it is a hoax.
It is amusing to see the mindset of the best and brightest in this field.
Please no one show Hastings one of George Adamski's movies lest he start another investigation.
Lance
Lance and to all:
ReplyDeletePlease do not be too quick to judge, Lance!
Factually, Mr. Hastings is asking 'all' the right questions!
* A U.K. Research Group I belong has been trying to find out half as much as is mentioned by Mr. Hastings herein, and his questions are sound, which would rule-out a hoax--if it was one, which I VERY seriously doubt.
I've studied the footage, being a former professional in TV-News/Production/editor/director and 40 year Ufologist, and just based on the angle of the object and film with a cell phone: how could that be faked? In addition, did you notice the 'very large and strange' object that flies over the top of the screen? Isn't it a bit odd looking to be 'earthly?' Did you see that one? Check it out if you missed it.
First and Last: Russia doesn't extend the same freedom of the press as we do in the USA, despite what they or you might have heard; they still maintain a high degree of control on what gets out to the rest of the world and what does not, even in the Internet!
There certainly could have been others who saw that object and with camcorder footage as well, but fear still abounds over there, and many Russians still feel the need to be careful, and some, just as over here in the USA, are afraid to speak up (or don't know how) about such a wondrous thing and may not utter a single word to anyone in fear of ridicule, so I trust that others will come forward, and it is this website and Frank Warren's posting of Mr. Hastings' article that just might help, so why not just give this thing some time before we condemn someone who is searching for the truth?
The real 'hoax' would be to condemn Mr. Hastings before all of the facts are in, Sir.
Respectfully,
Jason Greywolf Leigh
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteI have been a film editor for over 30 years, creating FX for high-end TV commercials and such and, from my perspective, this footage would be trivial to fake.
But that is not the important thing.
It is pure folly to once again latch onto some crap YouTube video that springs into life without known provenance. If something huge hung over the Kremlin, there would be A LOT more evidence.
This is not the 1950's. Cameras are so ubiquitous that hundreds of such clips would be available and the world news organizations would take notice. Even on 9/11 2001, which was really before the real proliferation of cell phone cameras, we have multiple videos of
the plane impacts in NY, an event that was much shorter in duration than the one depicted in these forlorn clips. The 9/11 videos were on the air within an hour.
Not understanding how the real world works is certainly a hallmark of UFO research.
Indeed the absolute lack of convincing and collaborated daylight footage is a huge indictment against the UFO myth. Previously these things were appearing everywhere at close proximity but the witnesses could be forgiven for not having video footage since cameras were rare. Now most everyone carries a camera of some sort and we get no increase in clear video. And yet this gives none of the "researchers" pause.
In the same vein, radar "contacts" with UFOs were plentiful when radar technology was more crude. Then the radar at the bigger airports improved and the UFO contacts migrated to the smaller less equipped airports. Finally as new technology was installed everywhere we stopped seeing UFO radar confirmations. And yet this never bothered the true blue believer! Nothing ever does.
At least with the Adamski fake footage, we know where and whom it came from.
Lance
I'm with lance on this one. remember the WTC ufo spots that were done by SciFi Network in 99 or 2000? people on the internet STILL think those were real!
ReplyDeleteIf such an event *really* happened, it would be headlines in major news papers/networks, and analog still photos, digital still photos, and hundreds and hundreds of cell phone, flip, and other digital video sources would be flooding the internets and tv networks by now. basic, common sense!
Hey Lance & Greg:
ReplyDeleteImpressive background, Lance. But tell me, since I don't have a cell phone with video capabilities: how can a cell phone with video 'insert' an object in 'real time' as cars pass the lens, etc. Again, we don't know if there were videos made with camcorders.
Greg: Yes, I recall that SiFi channel trick, and I recall footage of 9/11 that showed an alleged a.k.a. UFO doing a 'fly by' after the planes crashed into the Twin Towers. Was that faked? I do not recall.
* Has anyone even checked the Russian newspapers and or TV news about that event? I don't speak nor understand Russian, but I'm sure we could see pictures of news reports, IF someone could post a story herein? Have you checked that out from Russia with love? I haven not, but will now. ;-)
Also: pity you haven't heard of my broad daylight proved 'flying saucer' from June 11th, 1995, Cleburne, Texas. And to abide by Mr. Warren’s comment rules: I can't post the website link, but if you click on my Google Blog pen-name icon above; my profile has the main link.
Thanks for posting, and Gads, I remember that Adamski goof! 'Pretty scary guy, huh?
Jason
It's the credence given to "sightings" like these that make it increasingly difficult to take ufologists seriously. There's a big difference between being open-minded and empty-headed, and it takes either a jaw-dropping amount of naivette or shameless opportunism to give such tripe the time of day. That goes double when the only source is YouTube, that bastion of credible UFO videos.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick(ish) response to Jason:
ReplyDelete"But tell me, since I don't have a cell phone with video capabilities: how can a cell phone with video 'insert' an object in 'real time' as cars pass the lens, etc. "
Huh? They don't. Obviously it would require post-production. But it is very interesting that you have already ascribed qualities to the video (that it was created all in camera, that it went directly to YouTube without any stops in between) that you could not possibly have confirmed in an anonymous video like this.
I have argued with Frank Warren about how witnesses do this all the time. He seems to believe that witness testimony is almost pristine in its evidentiary value. Here we have someone who claims expertise in the field of television and yet after seeing an unsourced video on YouTube, is willing to give the video qualities that he could not possibly know about.
To Mr. Hastings, Lance, Gregory and to all:
ReplyDeleteWith Mr. Warren's permission, I easily found this People Mag Daily report in one quick search:
http://peoplemagazinedaily.com/?p=3865
It turns out that 'hundreds of people saw the object for hours,' and much more detail I'll leave to the link/report.
BTW: Lance: thanks, but I had already read in my U.K. Forum that I trust, that it was posted on YouTube 'as is' and now comes the above, which may change your mind, I don't know. For those of us who have seen a.k.a. UFOs and videotaped them and then went on to prove that they were not earthly craft; I guess we do put trust in others, perhaps too much in your mind; not enough in mine. * In 20 years of TV News Production, I never did 'post production inserts' apart from vocal dubbing and editing IN production, but 1984 was my last year in TV, and I did not have a computer until 1995, which I bought right after my sighting/videotaping.
Jason
Lance, et al,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
Huh? They don't. Obviously it would require post-production. But it is very interesting that you have already ascribed qualities to the video (that it was created all in camera, that it went directly to YouTube without any stops in between) that you could not possibly have confirmed in an anonymous video like this.
I have argued with Frank Warren about how witnesses do this all the time. He seems to believe that witness testimony is almost pristine in its evidentiary value.
I don't have time (at the moment) to respond properly re Robert's request and post comments; however, let me say that each individual case has its own merits (and faults) and needs to be addressed by those respectively.
I have stated in the past (publicly) that I don't immediately throw anecdotal evidence out just because of it's nature; I operate on the notion that "scientific methodology" begins with the observance of a phenomenon--it literally is the "first step" in the process, which precipitates investigation.
I see Robert's request(s) as part of that process and respect his right to make them.
That said, I have not looked into this matter independently, so I am not in a position to make an authoritative appraisement of this case; in that vein, and off the cuff, I believe the videos in question are CGI, and an investigation will either bear this out decisively, or no further evidence will be obtained in support of something extraordinary.
At the end of the day, a video Per Se without any other corroborative evidence, has the same merit (or more accurately, lack thereof) as lone witness testimony (contrary to what Lance erroneously thinks about my general position about eyewitnesses).
Cheers,
Frank
Robert Hastings said:
ReplyDeleteLance said: "In the same vein, radar 'contacts' with UFOs were plentiful when radar technology was more crude. Then the radar at the bigger airports improved and the UFO contacts migrated to the smaller less equipped airports. Finally as new technology was installed everywhere we stopped seeing UFO radar confirmations."
This is patently false, Lance, but it's clear that your approach to UFO "research" is based on a negative, a priori bias and an inflated sense of self-worth. Consequently, you will not benefit from any information not fitting your preconceived notions.
On the other hand, those having an objective approach to studying the UFO phenomenon might wish to google the November 1987 Alaskan UFO incident, involving a JAL cargo plane, which resulted in multiple radar trackings of the object by civilian and military radars.
Upon retiring, high-ranking FAA administrator John Callahan leaked much of the radar and voice data relating to the incident to the media, despite a direct order he had earlier received from a CIA agent to suppress the truth and to turn over all of the data to the agency, to prevent public panic.
Lance makes a number of other factually-inaccurate statements in his post but I won't waste my time responding. Self-appointed UFO experts a dime-a-dozen and very rarely care about the facts.
BTW, Lance, it's Hastings' not Hasting's
Robert Hastings
Hastings' remarks are certainly true:
ReplyDeleteSelf important and self-appointed UFO experts are a dime-a-dozen and they are more that plentiful here, no?
As for my statements about radar, simply saying something is false may pass muster among the saucer crowd but the truth is that as radar improved, the angel contacts began to dwindle. It was among these false contacts that many of the UFO/Radar connections arose (in my opinion).
In fact almost all paranormal belief centers upon some mechanism which is uncertain: radar prone to false positives, a night sky full of natural and man-made activity, a dark room in a spooky old house.
Your mention of a 1967(!) case ignores the fact that radar and air traffic control systems continued to improve well beyond that date. And it is hard to deny (unless you are willing to do so without factual support, a common stance among believers) a decided drop in radar confirmed UFO's.
You make no mention at all about the gist of my post: that it is idiotic to take an anonymous video on YouTube with NO provenance and call for an investigation.
By the way when you say this:
"despite a direct order he had earlier received from a CIA agent to suppress the truth and to turn over all of the data to the agency, to prevent public panic"
Can you point me the actual CIA document where this order was given? Surely you are aware of such a document when you make a definitive and dogmatic statement like that without qualifying it in any way? Surely the truth is not that this order was simply a claim made by Callahan?
Thanks,
Lance
Robert Hastings says:
ReplyDeleteLance wrote: "Your mention of a 1967(!) case ignores the fact that radar and air traffic control systems continued to improve well beyond that date."
RH: As I noted, the Alaska incident occurred in 1987, not 1967. In addition to being a cheerfully clueless purveyor of lies about the UFO phenomenon, you also seem to be an inattentive reader. No surprise there.
Lance wrote: "Can you point me [to] the actual CIA document where this order [to the FAA] was given?"
RH: The history of CIA lies about the UFO phenomenon is now well-documented. In 1976, after the agency claimed that it had no--zero--documents on UFOs, except for the by-then declassified Robertson Panel Report, researcher Todd Zechel and attorney Peter Gersten began legal action to prove otherwise.
In response, and under pressure, the CIA wrote a letter to Gersten in which it stated that a second search of it's files turned up some 15,000 UFO documents! But the agency pleaded for time to review those, before releasing them to the public domain.
Ultimately, the CIA changed its story yet again and claimed that it had only 900 or so UFO files, 57 of which it withheld, for reasons relating to national security.
Researcher Stanton Friedman has noted that while all of the released CIA files were "Secret" or lower in classification, one declassified National Security Agency document reveals that the CIA had shared "Top Secret" UFO files with NSA on at least one occasion. In other words, the CIA still has highly-classified UFO files in its possession but refuses to publicly acknowledge their existence.
So, Lance, given this duplicitous track record, would you really expect a straight answer from the CIA, regarding the pressure it put on the FAA over the Alaska case, as revealed by one of the FAA's top administrators?
Yeah, come to think of it, you probably would. The agency just loves people like you. Bend over.
Robert Hastings
My apologies on the 1967/87 discrepancy. My eyesight is not what it once was and this yellow on black type is hard to read for me.
ReplyDeleteNone of that negates what I said about radar contacts and UFOs. I am not familiar with the case you half-ass cited. But if I did look into it and found weaknesses, I am sure that you could easily point me to another case. And another.
I notice you continue to ignore the main thrust of my initial post: that someone would have to be pretty stupid to think that an unsourced video that sprang up on YouTube deserves a full-fledged investigation.
There are hundreds more dubious anonymous videos on YouTube. Do they all need investigation? Indeed these particular crappy videos are so much more dubious because of their purported heavily populated location. I know all this is lost on you.
"It's Moscow! Nukes! etc etc."
As I suspected, your claim of CIA orders to suppress UFO info is just a claim by a witness with no other proof. Whenever someone claims something that supports UFO belief, you take it as Gospel, huh? So predictable.
Lance
Don't bother him with facts. The poor bastard's mind was made up long ago.
ReplyDelete*sigh* If only Lance were half as smart as he seems to think he is.
Of course, in this case "facts" means anything that tends to support your UFO religion.
ReplyDeleteLance
Wrong again. Usually when some dingbat attacks me online, it's with the accusation that I am some kind of gubbamint debunker.
ReplyDeleteVitriolic attacks accomplish nothing other than to make the attacker look stupid, especially when they are full of absurd assumptions and twisted "reasoning." I have no idea why Mr. Hastings is spending time on this case, but I am keenly aware of the possibility that he knows something I do not. At any rate, he is an accomplished researcher, which is enough for me to wait and see what comes of this inquiry.