I see you rephrased that question, probably a good idea 
I probably misunderstood you. I'll go take a look at the original post and try to get it right, tommorow. My apologies if I miss quoted you, as that
is very unfair.
Hmm… are you sure that’s why he had to wait?
Tiny Comets' Spots Called Artifacts
I was told that thermodynamic laws for upper atmospheric reentry as published in the literature are off by a large amount, and therefore, anything
dealing with entry signatures is classified. It was suggested that microcomet entry is well known to satellite agencies and complicated SDI versus
MIRVs in the late 1980s. Hence the classification. I had heard arguments against the POLAR results, so perhaps his theory is now refuted.
I"m not certain whih piece of that article you quoted, but the theme of the section on micro comets is connected to the fundamental progress of
planetary science. If I am not mistaken, your argument was that fundamental science is largely up to speed with what lies in the classified realms,
perhaps off by a few years and by spefific engineered technology, as withte Manhattan project.
What I have presented is an example where a fundamental theory of planetary science (How water arrives at planets and is accumulated) was delayed for
public discussion for over a decade. And if that one scientist hadn't pushed, it probably would have been delayed far, far longer.
Regarding the Manhattan project...
Actually, it was a “black” project, and it’s a perfect example of how difficult it is to keep a “really big secret” for very long.
That's a good point. So if you wanted to keep a black project secret, you would have to have much better background checks, compartmentalization,
cover companies, leak diffiusino through disinformation and discrediting campaigns. And you would definitely threaten people with infinite prison
time, even after they retire.
I cannot provide any evidence, but I do know from first hand experience that kept secrets exist. I cannot go into detail. Its just one of my life
experiences that makes my perspective different from yours, and leads me to say that the idea that secrets cannot be kept is a reinforced myth.
That’s funny, that doesn’t sound like any of my colleagues 
You work in a place with no people who have not been divorced three times, run failed businesses, and probably seen a prostitute? Thats impressive. I
need to find a new workplace
Maybe I am in the wrong part of the country
You might be able to erase his records but you can’t erase the people he went to school with and the teachers who graded his papers.
I agree, and that is the most substantial evidence. So why the 95% mud slinging in the rest of the report?
I've worked with a very very smart guy who worked for an imaging agency. He didn't get a Masters. He didn't bother. Didn't need it. He didn't
even admit he worked in imaging for several years. He might have come back a few years later to finish his degree, I can't remember. THe point is
that the degree was not critical. His employers wanted him to get training. Otherwise, I would imagine there security measures made sure they knew him
pretty well. The paper degree was't that important.
The same goes for an oceanographer I know, who's PHD advisor actually stole his data and published it without the students name on it after the
student left for military duty. He never got his degree, and yet he invented forms of surface radar still useful to this day.
You’re right, I wouldn’t believe. You see that’s the beauty of science, it’s inherently self-policing… people like that never get away with
it for very long.
Oh my. Self policing is only as good as the police, I would argue. I think we fundamentally disagree about the quality of the policing, a debate that
would probabably be fruitless.
As for faking degrees,
Some people are far more successful
If he didn’t want people trying to verify his education and whereabouts then maybe he shouldn’t have been making such extraordinary claims with no
way to back it up.
I don't think he cares. There is the possibility, how ever remote, that he said what he said because humanity does not desreve to be lied to, even if
he can't back it up with proof.
Then why does it sound like you’re defending him?
That's an excellent question. I suppose I believe that character attacks against Lazar are interely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as I think
such an attack can be produced against anyone.
I'd much rather focus on the nature of 115 production, and I will be looking into the 115 production data you quoted to learn more about it. I very
much appreciate you presenting that data here.
Anyway, its been a fun discussion so far. I'd love to continue it with you. I just want to make it clear that I respect you and your opinion. You
seem like a very, very well informed person of high integrity and values. So that makes you a good person to have a discussion with in my book.
Where we seem to disgree is on the nature of humanity and how our institutions operate within humanity's behaviors. Maybe I've just been unlucky and
seen a lot of corruption. But I think most people bend when the going gets tough. Funding, etc. I don't. Maybe that's why it has always burdened me
to see it happen.
An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I agree. So lets keep talking. Maybe I wll open my mind to your point of view.
But that’s what it sounds like you’re insinuating…
I'm insinuating that I have knowledge of a large-group, multi-university foundation science experiment that covered up some bad data, and failed to
refute theories and papers based on the bad data, in order to improve chances of getting future funding. Not the 115 experiment, sorry for the
confusion.
[edit on 18-7-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]
