Originally posted by gortex
The problem I have is with the debunk , it's long on words but short on substance .
Kingston A. George seems to be in the same position we are as in it seems he hasn't seen the film either so his debunk comes over as little more than personal attack and opinion , sure he has knowledge of the systems involved , he was even there but if he hasn't seen the footage in question his debunk is based on assumption and belief and that comes in lower than corroborating testimony from actual witnesses in my view .

The difference is -- Kingston George is still alive and you could send your questions to him for his direct answers.

Here's the meta-skeptical issue that helps me accept George's claim. No ripples.

No ripples.

If the event really had had the interplanetary significance that Jacobs alleges, one might PRESUME -- a tricky idea, requiring well-founded cause-and-effect chains -- that US missile warhead development might have abruptly changed course, and at the highest levels of the DoD and White House, major policy revisions would have been studied, even enacted.

In such a 'big splash' model, wouldn't we have heard of other reports, over the ensuing decades, of such activities?

Not certainly, true -- but perhaps, very, very likely.

But as far as I can tell, we haven't.

If it was a boulder entering a lake, you'd expect waves, and shore damage. And other witnesses to collateral effects.

If it was a gnat, not so much.

Sure, any of that MIGHT have been kept super-cosmic-secret. In that case, how did Jacobs' story get out? "Coverups" are tricky to argue for,since they are miraculous and non-reproduceable in nature, and don't have to be consistent.

This story is of that type.


Big splash. Says Jacobs.

No ripples. Says all subsequent research.

Originally posted by JimOberg
... If the event really had had the interplanetary significance that Jacobs alleges, one might PRESUME -- a tricky idea, requiring well-founded cause-and-effect chains -- that US missile warhead development might have abruptly changed course, and at the highest levels of the DoD and White House, major policy revisions would have been studied, even enacted.

In such a 'big splash' model, wouldn't we have heard of other reports, over the ensuing decades, of such activities? ... [A]s far as I can tell, we haven't.

If it was a boulder entering a lake, you'd expect waves, and shore damage. And other witnesses to collateral effects.

If it was a gnat, not so much.

... Big splash. Says Jacobs.

No ripples. Says all subsequent research.

You make some good points, Jim. Interesting.

I've not done sufficient homework on this case to speak confidently on it, but I just wonder what our nuclear development options actually were? Anyone know? You say that "US missile warhead development might have abruptly changed course" ... implying that, as a ripple in the pond (if such a UFO case were true), it obviously should have changed the direction of warhead development.

Are we even privy to warhead development techniques, direction, evolution of theory, etc.?

Regardless, could there actually be any conceivable course of warhead development that would counter or even minimize the effect of any UFO doing what Jacobs described? That there seems to have been no technological turn towards "UFO proof" warheads doesn't really say much, given what that 'UFO' is claimed to have been capable of.... That's how I see it, anyway.