OrionWorks wrote: >>From Jed: > >> Interesting quote from article: >> >>> Back in the 1993 after his retirement; the former head of Lockheed's >>> "Skunk Works" (producers of the B-2 "Spirit" Stealth Bomber and SR-71 >>> "Blackbird"), Benjamin Rich, said on the record at an U.C.L.A. School of >>> Engineering Alumni awards dinner (and again three days later at a >>> presentation given at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base): >> "We already have the means to traverse the stars but these technologies >> are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of god to ever >> get them out to benefit humanity.. Any thing you can imagine we already >> know how to do." >> > >> Did Rich really say that?!? The government does not seem good at hiding >> information, so I kind of doubt they have all this stuff under wraps. > > ...and from Steve Lawrence: > > ... > >> None of these things are impossible, but they are very, very improbable. > > FWIW: > > Having attended numerous informal social gatherings of a local UFO > group held in the Milwaukee area since the 1990s I'd have to say that > Rich's comments are, not surprisingly, fertile topics of constant > conjecture. For example, the "true" propulsion of the B-2 has > occasionally been discussed. > > It's become my suspicion that a person could easily spend his entire > lifetime pursuing the Holy Grail of what "really" drives the B-2 > bomber through the air,
Ummm... I gather there's some reason to believe that "Four General Electric F118-GE-100 engines", as it says on the fact sheet, are not actually up to the job? Of course they're buried in the body of the plane to cut the heat signature, contributing to the overall weird look of the plane, but seriously, are you saying that folks (who are presumably not aerospace engineers) have been able to *prove* that these engines couldn't possibly be the real power plant? I've learned some things, too, over the years, starting with this: It's easier to raise objections to a (patently correct) claim than it is to counter them. It's possible to come up with 10 arguments showing, for example, that the Apollo missions could not possibly have gone to the Moon in far less time than it takes to thoroughly debunk any *one* such argument. "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction must make sense" -- what this really means is that figuring out why the truth actually does make sense can be extremely difficult and time consuming. In many cases it's *much* easier to come up with a convenient, and apparently sensible, fiction, and just *deny* the truth. We went to the moon 38 years ago, and then the last mission came home and we never went back. That doesn't make sense! If we could do it then, we *certainly* could do it now! Lots of people want to go, so if we could do it, we certainly would! That's *really* hard to explain! So, it must all be a lie, and a cover-up of the "real" truth. It's *much* easier to make sense of a claim that we never went to the moon at all, and it was all done in Stanley Kubrick's studio..... Oh, and one other thing: Never accept without corroboration an outlandish claim made by a speaker who received an honorarium for talking. Once people start taking money for making their strange claims, they will *never* realize that their claims are, after all, false. (This principle applies to a lot of other things, as well, such as authors who have published a book (and who are hence making money) showing strange things denied by the Establishment. Jack Sarfatti comes to mind here.) > or whether something of an extraterrestrial > nature really did crash in Roswell back in 1947 I like the Roswell story. As far as I know nobody made a dime off those weird photos. If it was a hoax it wasn't done for the money. > , or whether we humans > are actually being abducted by extraterrestrial visitors for who knows > what kinds of various experiments. Right ... recovered memories are a wonderful arena. The folks whose memories were recovered are apparently sincere. As to the researchers who, in many cases, helped those memories surface, that's another story -- and as soon as you get into memories recovered under hypnosis you're also getting into an area where the prime mover (the hypnotist) is making money from the operation. Are you aware of the stories of WWII veterans who apparently remembered being in battles which never took place, outside of movies? If not I'll see if I can dig up more info on it. There is evidence that human memory is *extremely* fallible, but we usually exercise a great deal of conscious or semi-conscious judgment and weed out the bogus stuff before it causes trouble. When you get yourself into a situation where you can no longer easily distinguish bogus from real memories simply by using context, beware. (The WWII vets were in exactly such a situation.) If I wake up remembering an encounter with a six foot tall ant, I immediately conclude it was a dream. However, if, when I awake, I have someone at my shoulder telling me it might really have happened, then I won't immediately conclude it was a dream, eh? And what happens next? Hmmm.... > > If one is into pursuing these kinds of Holy Grails, I would recommend > a website that was first brought to my attention by Thomas Malloy, > "Project Camelot". See: > > http://www.projectcamelot.org/interviews.html > > for the latest interviews with various players. Some of the > interviewees are obscure, and some well known within the UFO field. > This is an excellent smorgasbord of video & audio entrees for those > who want to get an overwhelming dose of conspiratorial views. (Took me > damned well over a month to get through most of the video interviews.) > > Upon reflection, and as I approach the sixth decade of my life on this > planet I've found myself, sometimes uncomfortably, reevaluating a few > of my personal interests within the UFO community and the "Free > Energy" field. In my own defense I really can say without a doubt that > I've experienced numerous adventures over the decades, and some of > those adventures have even been fun - incredibly fun! But what did I > actually learn (of substance) from all of my adventures? That IS the > key question, one that is not easily answered. For example, what have > I personally uncovered - have I actually SEEN the "Holey Grail", > personal proof that there exists a simple free energy device that if > ONLY we could get the contraption past the MIBs and out to the public > it would solve ALL of our planet's dire energy problems. Or, have I > personally met an extraterrestrial, perhaps at a StarBuck's coffee > shop, and he/she/it answered one of my burning questions, like: Was > the Face on Mars really constructed in the likeness of Elvis? ... Ok, > strike that last statement. Me bad. > > As for what I actually have learned... well, I think I've learned not > to pass judgment on what I've heard, at least not so quickly as > perhaps I would have tended to have done earlier in my life. I've > learned that the more I've learned the more ignorant I realize I truly > am about what the hell may actually be going on, particularly beyond > the boundaries of my five senses. I've learned that there is only so > much I, as an individual, can "know" about my surroundings. > > I would like to suggest that if one chooses to make as one of their > Life's Goals the pursuit one of the above Holy Grails (UFOs, Aliens, > Free Energy, etc...), it would be wise to prepare yourself with the > possibility that, as you approach death, you may NOT "know" what is > really going on behind the curtain. There is a real temptation to > manufacture an "explanation" of "truth", just so one can feel like > they accomplished something of value in their all-too-short life span. > > One of the few but profound revelations I have learned so far in this > lifetime is that it is a good thing to know and enjoy what I DO know, > along with what I truly do NOT know. The wisdom is to know the > difference. > > "Small steps, Sparks. Small steps." > > Still working on that one. ;-) > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks >
