The Citizens' Hearing on Disclosure is Coming

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.

reply to post by gortex


I think that's a fair assessment. The Mansmann factor definitely makes it hard to dismiss. Still, no smoking gun either.

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.

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.

...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.

Jim I respect you as an old NASA hand. So please don't take this as an attack. Bamford, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe, William Binney, and others reported that the the NSA had an aparatus in place to capture every bit of data flowing over the internet. Big splash right? They've been saying this since early 2000. A reasonable question then is, where are the ripples?* Well, 2013 rolls in and guess what ... www.washingtonpost.com...

The problem is you're not arguing from evidence, you're not even arguing from absence of evidence, you're arguing from "Given abc is true I expect xyz and xyz didn't happen" (ye olde standard logical implication). As an engineer I completely empathize with why you do this. When I make a piece of hardware and I have an expected result. If the expected result doesn't materialize. I know something's buggy. However, when you don't have complete knowledge or control over the system. This counts as an assumption. And assumptions almost always have hidden qualifiers that can make progress nigh on impossible (it's like debugging a system by guessing at what's roughly the problem and come to find out the initial hunch is completely off base so you just spin your wheels).

Basically your underlying argument boils down to this: "If it was some sort of alien technology and it disabled a dummy nuclear warhead. Why then didn't the government do something to address the problem?" Amusingly Jacobs addresses this point rather directly in an interview he gave to the Disclosure Project. In his view, the SDI project was just such a response. Here's the thing though. I can dig through the official bibliographical trail that explains the original impetus behind the project and I can rebut Jacobs point-for-point. So irregardless that he attempted to address the question. There's always a way of dismissing (not falsifying) whatever he says because there are no clear goalposts or an agreed upon foundation. The point? His answer for XYZ is different from your expectations for XYZ.

So what do I walk away with? There's no new data to work with, assumptions abound, and disagreements rule the day. As usual, egos and beliefs become the norm.

With respect,
-X

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Amusingly Jacobs addresses this point rather directly in an interview he gave to the Disclosure Project.

Just for fun I'm curious what Jim thinks an appropriate response would be to a UFO disabling a missile. What sort of technology would we develop to prevent that from happening again?