From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #3
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:59:41 GMT

In article <1h6839INNb09@news.cerf.net> eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>Posted by Jon Volkoff, eidetics@cerf.net
>
>Thanks to the people listed in this article for their replies.  Thanks also
>to R.E. McElwaine for his added comments in the last letter.
>
>smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin @ AT&T Bell Laboratories) writes:
>>In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>>> 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and>    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle>    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
>>>    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
>>>
>>>    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.
>>
>>Umm -- have you ever read it?  If so, you'd know that neither alternative
>>makes any sense at all.
>>
>
>Yes, I have read it.  I see nothing to preclude the above possibilities.  You
>know, if Av Week were half as good as what some people think they are regarding
>revelation of truly sensitive and classified projects, they would be regarded as
>security leaks by the Federal Government, and no doubt they would be having a
>lot more problems than they are.  As it is, the stuff they reveal is child's
>play compared to what is really going/has gone on.
>
>>Before I engage in further debate, let me ask just one question:  what
>>evidence will persuade you that you're wrong?  I'm perfectly serious --
>>you have a theory, which virtually everyone else here disagrees with.
>>Clearly, either you're wrong or we are.  But for every objection that's
>>been raised here, you say that either people are lying, or covering things
>>up.  So -- what would it take to convince you?
>>
>>To be fair, I should answer the same question.  I'll find your story credible
>>if any of a number of things happen.  (a) Someone publicly demonstrates any
>>one of the technological miracles you've described (cosmospheres, electro-
>>gravitic whatsits, cloned or otherwise-replicated people, etc.)  (b) an
>>official who was involved in the coverup or the plot admits it publicly,
>>and produces some documentary evidence.  (c) the release, via the Freedom
>>of Information Acts, of substantive documentation of any of this; (d) photos,
>>from a lunar orbiter, of (the wreckage of?) military bases on the moon.
>>
>>You're asking us to prove a negative, a notoriously difficult task,
>>especially when you reject any and all evidence.  We're asking you to
>>prove a positive, which is much easier.  Do you have any hard evidence?
>>(References to previous issues of the AUDIO LETTER aren't evidence, of
>>course.)
>
>I do not make a habit of rejecting real evidence.  I am just aware of various
>techniques used by cover-up artists to put forth falsified evidence of what
>they want the public to believe.  They know well that "seeing is believing",
>and plausible evidence such as that is usually enough to convince most people,
>who will not search deeper and ask questions about what they see.

	I've been following this for a few exchanges and think that it's
	about time that you were reminded of the concept of falsifiability.
	This is a rather awkward term meaning that a theory must be able
	to predict a test that will prove it wrong.  The only thing your
	theory predicts is that people will lie to prove you wrong.  I
	await positive evidence.
>
>I can tell you that cosmospheres (floating platforms) were mentioned in Design
>for Survival by General Thomas Power, former head of the Strategic Air Command,
>published in 1965 by Coward McCann, New York.  On pages 243 and 244 he refers
>to them as follows:
>
>"An aggressor would make the fullest use of the element of
>surprise.  This would apply to the timing of the attack as well
>as to the employment of some radically new weapon or technique
>for which we are not prepared...It is quite possible that the
>Soviet surprise weapon would be an offensive space system, but
>beyond this assumption we can only speculate.  For instance, it is
>conceivable that we may wake up one morning and find a number of
>Soviet satellites floating in stationary orbits over every part of
>the United States...We certainly must anticipate such a contingency
>which is by no means farfetched or far in the future, and make sure
>that we have operational defensive systems or measures to cope with
>it."

	Stationary orbits, yes, well known.  If I remember correctly, this
	is about 22,300 miles up.  This was predicted no later than 1945
	by Arthur C. Clarke and it wouldn't surprise if Euler, who was capable
	of mentally calculating the orbital properties of Uranus, wasn't aware
	of this either.  We therefore have evidence that you don't know what
	you're talking about as far as one of these claims is concerned.

>
>As for genetic replicas, you may want to read the old standby Future Shock by
>Alvin Toffler (1970, Random House), the Dynamics of Change by Kaiser Aluminum
>and Chemical Corporation (1967, Prentice-Hall), and The Biological Time Bomb
>by Gordon R. Taylor (1968, The New American Library).

	Well what about "Brave New World" while you're at it?  If you
	are talking about making clonal replicas of zebra fish that's
	fairly easy, you wait until the fertilized egg has divided a few times
	and then shake the container vigorously.  The eggs break up and
	each cell goes on to generate a fish.  If you're talking about
	cloning people you may care to look at the size of the U.S.
	biomedical research budget and take, say 10-20% of that as the cost
	of trying to generate clonal replicas of humans.  Where does the
	money come from?  Where do the people come from?  If you're going
	to claim that the government has run a secret project in parallel
	to the vast multinational effort in molecular biology that has been
	going on for 40 years, your claims are really reaching into realms
	of absurdity.

>
>I personally do not know the right people or have the right connections to be
>able to put forth the kind of proof you request.  This can only be done in
>cooperation with others in positions to do this.  But I think there are enough
>inconsistencies and things that don't add up put forth by Dr. Beter in Audio
>Letter #64 to at least warrant a serious investigation of the matter.  I have
>yet to hear answers to those on sci.space.shuttle, or from the readers of any
>newsgroup.  Until I do, I will remain unconvinced.

	I think we have another lost in technological overload.  I suggest
	you lie down for a while and then get out a few basic books on
	the fields your gibber about so incoherently and learn a little
	about the real world.

	Alec Chambers
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13625 alt.atheism:24775 talk.religion.misc:24947