tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2643397959349103002..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Citizen Hearing and Merrill CookKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7903198365071885322013-05-18T13:59:13.281-07:002013-05-18T13:59:13.281-07:00CDA
Add me to the list. I have about a thousand p...CDA<br />Add me to the list. I have about a thousand pages of various Smith papers, but don't think I have the FSR articles. Smith may have been wrong in his theories, but I don't think he was crazy, even at the end dying of bowel cancer.<br /><br />drudiak@sonic.netDavid Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-14092817466426927192013-05-15T01:28:14.470-07:002013-05-15T01:28:14.470-07:00CDA
Thanks for the offer regarding Smith's wri...CDA<br />Thanks for the offer regarding Smith's writings - that could save me quite a bit of time. The best email to get me on is educationdata.solutions@virgin.net<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />AnthonyAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-23179328962070680042013-05-14T06:04:30.244-07:002013-05-14T06:04:30.244-07:00I have now located every one of W.B. Smith's a...I have now located every one of W.B. Smith's articles in FSR from 1958 to 1963, plus the text of a speech he gave in Vancouver in March 1961 and another at Ottawa in '58. There may well be others published elsewhere.<br /><br />I won't list them here as it is off topic. If anyone is interested, just say so on this blog and I can send it as an email attachment. <br /><br />Someone produced a CD of Smith's speeches, called PROJECT MAGNET. I think it was Wendy Connors.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-261620427253461562013-05-14T04:39:04.953-07:002013-05-14T04:39:04.953-07:00I stand corrected regarding Smith's final illn...I stand corrected regarding Smith's final illness. I shall have to look a bit more carefully at his later comments at some point soonAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-51594454424086308492013-05-13T22:38:15.968-07:002013-05-13T22:38:15.968-07:00Tim Herbert,
There is currently no evidence that ...Tim Herbert,<br /><br />There is currently no evidence that Smith had brain cancer. The family and friend/colleague said he died of colon cancer. That it spread to the liver and maybe to the brain was strictly speculation. So currently no evidence that his liver was compromised, and colon cancer would not cause a glioblastoma in any case--completely different tumors.<br /><br />You seem anxious to conclude that Smith was cognitively impaired by brain cancer toward the end of his life (1962). Do you have any actual evidence of this? <br /><br />Even if he was, what does this have to do with his UFO work and statements through the 1950s? Metastasis to the brain from colon cancer and large brain tumors would have only happened in a very advanced stage of colon cancer, i.e. shortly before he died. It would have nothing to do his cognitive abilities much earlier.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61046773147573679672013-05-13T22:17:55.563-07:002013-05-13T22:17:55.563-07:00Dr. Rudiack,
Regarding whether Smith had brain ca...Dr. Rudiack,<br /><br />Regarding whether Smith had brain cancer, the neurological effects and cognition effects would be dependent on the type of neoplasm and the location of the mass.<br /><br />Frontal temporal damage (glioblastoma)would have caused expressive aphasia resulting in irritable frustration leading to bouts of agitation, not withstanding the labile emotional symptoms. Basically it would have been extremely difficult to perform on a highly intellectual level.<br /><br />Colorectal with invasion to the liver would lead to metabolic instability/liver toxicity which also invariably affect cognition via delirium.<br /><br />Regardless of the type of cancer associated with Smith's death, he would have had difficulty performing cognitive-wise.Tim Heberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04816425882305963295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-50028271640102180262013-05-13T14:45:23.301-07:002013-05-13T14:45:23.301-07:00cda wrote:
Anthony Mugan raises another area of do...cda wrote:<br /><i>Anthony Mugan raises another area of doubt. What did Wilbert Smith die of? I have put this on the Iconoclasts blog as well. Some say it was a brain tumor,</i><br /><br />Phil Klass made an issue of this, and a few at NICAP also, according to Grant Cameron's website.<br /><br /><i>...which may explain his rather dotty writings in his later years. Bur Grant Cameron told me long ago that it was stomach cancer. Which is it? Does anyone know?</i><br /><br />According to the Cameron website, he died of cancer of the lower bowel, not stomach cancer.<br /><br />I just emailed Grant asking his source of information--the family? Grant replied as follows:<br /><br />"I discussed this with son, metallurgist who took him to Montreal for treatments, and wife. Not 100% sure but I recall specifically talking to James Smith and A.W.L. Bridge the metallurgist about this."<br /><br />Grant added he was traveling at the moment and would double-check his notes when he returned home. But I would think this would trump whatever rumors Phil Klass invented to discredit Smith.<br /><br /><i>It does make a bit of difference, his later writings ought not to have been affected by stomach cancer, whereas the situation would be very different if it was indeed a brain tumor.</i><br /><br />Colorectal cancer tends to be locally invasive and not metastatic (spreading elsewhere through the body). Metastasis of colorectal cancer to the brain is unusual and normally follows metastasis to the liver first. This would happen only in a very advanced stage of the cancer and the patient would have only a very limited time to live, perhaps only weeks or months.<br /><br />Even if Smith had brain tumors, they were probably not large and not causing symptoms. I once took a human dissection class and one of the cadavers had dozens of metastatic tumors in the brain, one fairly sizable. According to the case report that accompanied the body, the patient had only minor neurological symptoms at the end, if I recall correctly. <br /><br />Smith died in 1962 and metastatic brain cancer, IF he had it, would not have figured into anything he said prior to this, until maybe the very end. <br /><br />Even brain tumors do not necessarily mean someone will have "dotty" thoughts. Nice try smearing the man's reputation again, though.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-70558425590238528712013-05-13T10:36:42.068-07:002013-05-13T10:36:42.068-07:00Anthony Mugan wrote:
We therefore have a good set ...Anthony Mugan wrote:<br /><i>We therefore have a good set of interconnecting pieces of evidence that demonstrate JRDB /RDB participation in study of the UFO phenomenon, with both Smith and Ruppelt indicating that the phenomenon was considered real. The remit of the RDB was such that they could only have been interested in technological questions.</i><br /><br />To add to this, Gen. Nathan Twining's infamous memo of Sept. 23, 1947, that says the saucers were real and urges investigations, mentions the JRDB as one of the government groups that should be involved, along with the AF, Army, Navy, AEC, NEPA (nuclear propulsion program), AFSAG (Air Force Scientific Advisory Group), NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics--predecessor of NASA ), and RAND corporation. <br /><br />It goes on to say that the groups on the list were to be forwarded essential information, respond with ideas, and then work together. The (J)RDB was not at the head of the pyramid in this memo, but then the memo was primarily about gathering additional intelligence on the saucers. A group like the RDB might be involved in back-engineering (hence about them figuring out the modus operandi of the saucers in the Smith memo), which might be done through delegating responsibility on the problem to any relevant subcommittee such as guided missiles or electronics. This was the way Bush operated the OSRD during WWII and the way he would have operated the RDB when he was director.<br /><br />Another point is that there was a lot of crossover of personnel in these various programs. Bush had been director of NACA and was still on the board, as was Vandenberg in 1950 as AF Chief of Staff. <br /><br />Gen.'s Norstad, Doolittle, and LeMay plus Dr. Edward Bowles of MIT helped establish Project RAND in 1946. The first white paper of RAND was about orbiting a satellite. Both Bowles and LeMay briefed Gen. Vandenberg before that suddenly called JRDB meeting the morning of July 8, 1947. (Bowles also served as a consultant to the Sec. of War, soon to be Forrestal in 1947.) The one known outcome of that meeting was about establishing an orbital satellite facility. <br /><br />Norstad and Doolittle met with Vandenberg, and AAF Sec. Symington the following morning, then the Joint Chiefs, then Truman the following day, allegedly only about AF Day. Doolittle had investigated the European ghost rockets the previous year for Vandenberg when he was director of central intelligence and maybe the foo fighters the year before that for Truman. Norstad's official Pentagon duties in 1947 would have involved collecting saucer reports as potential threats to national security (CIRVIS reports).<br /><br />Dr. Jerome Hunsaker headed NACA and was on the AFSAG, which in a few months after the Twining memo we know was already being briefed on the saucers by Project Sign. Bush, Hunsaker, Vandenberg, and Twining were all alleged MJ-12 members. <br /><br />MJ-12 or no MJ-12, you've got to admit they would have been logical choices for a saucer control committee. And all were thick as thieves in military R&D.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77181414088866500452013-05-13T10:29:27.624-07:002013-05-13T10:29:27.624-07:00"So, absence of public evidence is evidence o..."So, absence of public evidence is evidence of absence...?"<br /><br />Certainly! In logic and probabilty, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not just a general principle, it's a law of probability: The absence of evidence [of "unicorns from outer space"] is evidence of their absence in the world. <br /><br />"You've heard...the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a negative, haven't you?"<br /><br />That is itself completely fallacious "folk" logic. It's a myth--a widely held false belief.<br /><br /><i> The "folk" maxim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" <b> is used by people to hang on to their beliefs even when faced with a lack of evidence for them. </b> However, this is technically an incorrect maxim; if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. </i> <br /><br />"Your statement is a remarkably "naive" and obtuse one, if honest."<br /><br />I think we know who is "naive," "obtuse," and "clueless." Those who attempt to defend absurd positions based in appeals to the negative [Real NOT-identifieds exist] with ignorant "folk" rationalizations ["Can-NOT prove a negative"] without even thinking, so not realizing how fundamentally flawed their false beliefs are.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87962705985590770872013-05-13T02:40:39.273-07:002013-05-13T02:40:39.273-07:00Larry:
Surely you realise that there is a balance...Larry:<br /><br />Surely you realise that there is a balance of probabilities. I certainly did NOT draw my conclusion "out of thin air".<br /><br />Important documents are not destroyed. Even when their scientific usefulness has expired, they are of historical value. The crash of an ET craft on earth would have tremendous scientific value and be of interest to historians for decades, maybe centuries. It would constitute the first known instance of such an event. Such papers would be retained safely. After all, every Roswell ET proponent insists that official papers on it exist somewhere in top secret vaults.<br /><br />Therefore such RAAF documents would NOT be destroyed (except by a gross act of carelessness on someone's part). <br /><br />A rational conclusion is that since the said documents WERE destroyed they contained routine messages of no interest to anyone. They were, in effect, junk paper. <br /><br />Yes I can draw this conclusion, and it is one many others drew at the time. Of course I cannot say what they contained without reading them, but I CAN say, with virtual certainty, that they did not contain references to a crashed ET craft. <br /><br />I repeat: the balance (large balance) of probabilities is that these Roswell papers are, or were, worthless junk.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-7129080762436209612013-05-12T17:59:38.520-07:002013-05-12T17:59:38.520-07:00CDA wrote:
"I am perfectly entitled to draw ...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"I am perfectly entitled to draw conclusions from the fact that these 'precious' documents were destroyed. My conclusion is that they contained nothing of value to science and nothing about an ET craft crashing to earth in NM."<br /><br />But that's the point you're either too dim to understand or are deliberately glossing over. You're NOT drawing your conclusion from the fact that the documents are missing. The fact that the documents are missing does not support EITHER the conclusion that they contained information about an ET craft crashing to earth in NM OR the conclusion that they did not. No one can know what the documents did or did not say without having read them. Not you. Not me. Not anyone.<br /><br />It's a free country and you can state any cockamamie "conclusion" you want. You just can't show that it is supported by the irrelevant fact you cited. You just made your conclusion up out of thin air.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-8250210351246156012013-05-12T11:22:12.061-07:002013-05-12T11:22:12.061-07:00Just to clarify. I wouldn't want to sweepingly...Just to clarify. I wouldn't want to sweepingly dismiss Smith's later comments in this field. There are aspects of ufology that might appear odd at first sight but where the picture gets a lot more puzzling on closer examination, and of course there are aspects that are plain 'dotty' as CDA puts it. I can't say I've studied his later writings in detail but I would apply a case by case assessment. For the purposes of this discussion, however, it is his stature a decade earlier that is relevant and he was clearly well regarded.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61521825433478157752013-05-12T10:16:58.163-07:002013-05-12T10:16:58.163-07:00Anthony Mugan raises another area of doubt. What d...Anthony Mugan raises another area of doubt. What did Wilbert Smith die of?<br /><br />I have put this on the Iconoclasts blog as well. Some say it was a brain tumor, which may explain his rather dotty writings in his later years. Bur Grant Cameron told me long ago that it was stomach cancer.<br /><br />Which is it? Does anyone know? <br /><br />It does make a bit of difference, his later writings ought not to have been affected by stomach cancer, whereas the situation would be very different if it was indeed a brain tumor.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-47401914226722321712013-05-12T05:42:03.816-07:002013-05-12T05:42:03.816-07:00Just to add, in terms of linking this discussion b...Just to add, in terms of linking this discussion back to the original article and, in particular, to evidence in favour of the ETH...<br />It is perfectly possible to construct a scenario in which there was no crash recovery at Roswell. Serious interest in the flying disc began, in this scenario, in the first week of July 1947 due to high credibility military sightings with early studies such as the Twining memo and the Sign estimate causing sober concern much sparking much debate within the military. For the RDB to get involved seems a far more sensible development than a purely Grudge like response immediately after the best air technical intelligence brains advised the top brass they were dealing with extraterrestrial craft.<br />That said the coincidence of timing of the start of serious interest in the disks and the timing of Roswell is quite striking. Factor in the fasification of the Mogul hypothesis, the interesting questions raised by the Ramey memo and the discussion here around the JRDB - RDB engagement and you begin to get the start of a caseAnthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38118572925386679962013-05-12T05:22:29.194-07:002013-05-12T05:22:29.194-07:00It may be of use to add one further data point reg...It may be of use to add one further data point regarding the link of the RDB to the study of UFOs in the early 1950's. Ruppelt describes the attendees at his regular briefings at the Pentagon as being an officer from Air Force Intelligence (writing this from memory, think this was named as Brigadier Garland) and a Major General from Research and Development. This later officer is not named in the book and Ruppelt was somewhat vague about his identity in separate notes on relevant personalities, saying his thought his name was White. <br /><br />Whilst a Google search comes up with a Major General Jerry White as the army link person to the RDB in 1950 I am not at all certain this the same person Ruppelt was meeting two years later. The main points are that here we have a clear split in the reporting chain from Blue Book of intelligence that has gone through an initial filter at Blue Book going both through the normal AF chain of command but also into Research and Development, with a two star general as the 'bag carrier'.<br /><br />We therefore have a good set of interconnecting pieces of evidence that demonstrate JRDB /RDB participation in study of the UFO phenomenon, with both Smith and Ruppelt indicating that the phenomenon was considered real. The remit of the RDB was such that they could only have been interested in technological questions.<br /><br />As an aside I do think it is somewhat unreasonable to use some of Smith's later comments, when he may well have been experiencing the effects of the brain tumor that killed him to cast aspersions on his earlier work. One has only to note Solandt's engagement, including funding, to recognise that Smith was a serious figure at that time. The debate on Smith's presence or otherwise at the meeting with Sarbacher may seem a touch academic but Smith's contemporaneous hand written notes of the meeting, with his initials against the questions and his comment that the note was written from memory and verbatim seems as conclusive as it is possible to be.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-88752364576612342272013-05-12T04:49:04.849-07:002013-05-12T04:49:04.849-07:00DR:
This Smith/Sarbacher affair is getting compli...DR:<br /><br />This Smith/Sarbacher affair is getting complicated, like so much else in UFO history. I'll summarise it as best I can.<br /><br />Sarbacher's letter of November 29, 1983 to William Steinman contains the phrase:<br /><br />"I recall the interview with Dr Bremner at the Canadian Embassy. I think the answers I gave him were the ones you listed [in a letter, one of many that Steinman wrote to Sarbacher beforehand]".<br /><br />In other words, Smith was, most probably, not present. Either that or Sarbacher has simply forgotten. <br /><br />However, in Friedman's interview with Sarbacher soon after the Nov 29 letter, we get, from Friedman's notes:<br /><br />"F: Let's see early fifties now the notes that I sent you from Wilbert Smith, do you remember, you do remember talking to him.<br /><br />S: Ya vaguely<br /><br />F: The Canadian.<br /><br />S: Ya vaguely<br /><br /><br />Therefore Sarbacher does recall Bremner (when answering one letter) but then "vaguely" recalls Smith (when being interviewed soon after by Friedman). But wait a minute: wasn't Bremner also a Canadian? So exactly who is Sarbacher referring to? <br /><br />It is obvious that both Steinman and Friedman had to prompt Sarbacher considerably before he could recall anything or any names at all, and must cast serious doubts on the rest of the information he gave in 1983. <br /><br />A perfect example of NOT relying on distant memories; yet this is precisely what Roswell investigators so often do. <br /><br />So on balance we cannot say for certain whether Smith was present in that 1950 interview. I say he was not, based on his own words in his 1950 memo:<br /><br />"I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in Washington (i.e. Bremner) WHO WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN FOR ME the following information: ...."<br /><br />Note my capitals please. <br /><br />This, plus Smith's own handwritten notes of Sept 1950 where he says the interview was "via Lt Col Bremner", indicate to me that Smith was NOT present. However, I concede that we cannot be 100% certain.<br /><br />Sometime when you have some spare time, read Smith's articles in 'Flying Saucer Review' from 1958-62 and decide for yourself his qualities as a scientist or whether he is a 'basket case'. <br /><br />I now propose we close this debate.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-29395343879055824302013-05-11T23:59:03.843-07:002013-05-11T23:59:03.843-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-26366484667256532202013-05-11T18:28:10.858-07:002013-05-11T18:28:10.858-07:00And it is the height of absurdity to compare any o...<i>And it is the height of absurdity to compare any of these eminent men with Wilbert Smith.</i><br /><br />Ever hear of Jacob Pieter Den Hartog, Eugene Rabinowitch, Joseph Rotblat, Lew Kowarski, Nicholas Kurti? Lesser scientists, not exactly household names.<br /><br />How about my uncle Lester Stark, a chemistry/metallurgical student of Glenn Seaborg at Berkeley, only 21 and just got his bachelor's degree. My aunt was only 20 when they went to Los Alamos. They were total nobody's, both still required the highest clearance to even be at Los Alamos much less work on the bomb. Lot's of MP scientists were unproven youngsters just out of college, including those who later became famous, like Richard Feynman.<br /><br />Wilbert Smith had some novel ideas about how the saucers might work, a problem which was apparently stumping the mighty, "eminent" American scientists (according to Sarbacher in the interview). <br /><br />Nah, the Americans could never possibly view Smith as an asset to work on a problem they couldn't crack--because CDA knows with certainly that this couldn't happen. CDA knows everything.<br /><br />Incidentally, according to Canadian researcher Grant Cameron who has also responded to CDA's numerous mis-characterizations of Smith in the past, Smith already held a top-secret Canadian clearance because he has the chief radio engineer for Canadian government, monitored 50,000 radio frequencies, and ran the top secret "Radio Ottawa" where Canadian spies could radio in to the intelligence services. He wasn't exactly a total nobody in Canada. Remember that Smith's memo says he had just conferred with Dr. Omand Solandt, the Canadian science czar who headed the Defence Research Board (cabinet status in Canada). Solandt approved Smith's proposal to research geomagetics and would have his and the DRB's support. CDA instead tries to portray Smith as nothing but a inept scientist and "saucer nut."David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63728814545833240772013-05-11T18:15:40.502-07:002013-05-11T18:15:40.502-07:00cda cluelessly wrote: (part 1 of 2)
Really? Look a...cda cluelessly wrote: (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>Really? Look at that memo again. It has, as I said, nothing to do with Roswell, nothing at all.</i><br /><br />It confirms the reality of saucers based on the Sarbacher briefing and mentions Scully's book about one being studied that fell into the hand's of Americans, i.e., a saucer crash (unspecified).<br /><br /><i>In fact, Smith mentions Scully's book which Sarbacher told him (through Bremner)</i><br /><br />Again you ignore the FACT that Smith wrote in his notes immediately afterward that the questions (which were noted as being his, not Bremner's) and Sarbacher's answers were written "from memory" and "verbatim" as possible, meaning Smith WAS there in person. Sarbacher's responses were NOT filtered through Bremner, though you continue to play disingenuous debunker games and pretend that they were.<br /><br /><i>is "substantially correct", meaning that Smith's memo is far more likely to have everything to do with Aztec, not Roswell.</i><br /><br />Scully's book was primarily about how the U.S. had retrieved crashed saucers and alien bodies and were studying them. (Scully mentioned more than Aztec.) Smith asked if the saucers were real and if Scully's book was true. Sarbacher said the saucers were quite real and the facts in Scully's book were "substantially correct".<br /><br />Now in the English I understand, this does not mean entirely correct. The "substance" or gist or basic truth was correct, but not necessarily the details. Sarbacher said Scully had it right, that the saucers were real and that there had been at least one retrieved crash. Sarbacher wasn't any more specific about it; he may not have even known. It didn't have to be Aztec, it could still have been Roswell or some other crash and Scully might still be "substantially correct". <br /><br /><i>If you want to link Smith's memo with any crashed saucer tale, then Aztec is the one. As for Roswell, Smith had never heard of it! (Or at least he gives no indication he had).</i><br /><br />What difference does it make? How you can pretend that the first book to seriously consider the truth of crashed saucers and said to be "substantially correct" cannot possibly have anything to do with Roswell is beyond me. More of your deliberate obtuseness and denial based on you clairvoyant abilities to know everything with your absolute certainty.<br /><br /><i>So if DR wants to regurgitate the Smith/Sarbacher connection he should direct himself to Aztec instead of Roswell.</i><br /><br />Yes, oh mighty one with the absolute knowledge of what must be true or not. I must obey. Sarbacher was corroborating the one true saucer crash at Aztec, not Roswell.<br /><br /><i>I believe all the A-bomb/H-bomb scientists DR mentions were naturalised US citizens before getting involved, although I have not checked their credentials on this point.</i><br /><br />Slotin, the Canadian I mentioned, was not. I could name a few more who weren't, such has Klaus Fuchs, born German, naturalized British, never naturalized American, who ultimately turned out to be a spy. Wolfgang Pauli was Austrian, then Swiss, still worked on the Manhattan Project during the war, only becoming a U.S. citizen in 1946. Neils Bohr was Danish, period. Leó Szilárd was Hungarian, becoming a U.S. citizen after the MP was under way in 1943. Emilio Segrè was Italian, not naturalized until 1944. Otto Frisch was Austrian/British. James Chadwick was British, period. <br /><br />In fact, numerous MP scientists were foreign-born, whether naturalized or not at the time. Not being a U.S. citizen was not necessarily an impediment to receiving the highest security clearance possible and working on the A-bomb if you were considered an important asset and not a security risk. <br /><br />On the other hand, I know nuclear physicist George Gamow was not part of the MP even though he became an American citizen in 1940, because he was Russian born, had worked for the Russians, and therefore was considered a security risk even though he had defected a decade earlier.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5909792143177803462013-05-11T15:23:36.539-07:002013-05-11T15:23:36.539-07:00DR:
"However, the subject of crashed saucers...DR:<br /><br />"However, the subject of crashed saucers in Smith's first memo being investigated by Bush and a secret group has everything to do with Roswell".<br /><br />Really? Look at that memo again. It has, as I said, nothing to do with Roswell, nothing at all.<br /><br />In fact, Smith mentions Scully's book which Sarbacher told him (through Bremner) is "substantially correct", meaning that Smith's memo is far more likely to have everything to do with Aztec, not Roswell. If you want to link Smith's memo with any crashed saucer tale, then Aztec is the one. As for Roswell, Smith had never heard of it! (Or at least he gives no indication he had). <br /><br />So if DR wants to regurgitate the Smith/Sarbacher connection he should direct himself to Aztec instead of Roswell. <br /><br />I believe all the A-bomb/H-bomb scientists DR mentions were naturalised US citizens before getting involved, although I have not checked their credentials on this point.<br /><br />And it is the height of absurdity to compare any of these eminent men with Wilbert Smith.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49350339623294059712013-05-11T12:46:21.132-07:002013-05-11T12:46:21.132-07:00Response cda, part 2 of 2
Keyhoe's prospective...Response cda, part 2 of 2<br /><i>Keyhoe's prospective article in TRUE was all to do with Smith's work in trying to build a model of a saucer in his Canadian lab, and had zilch to do with Roswell.</i><br /><br />You do love your debunking red herrings and straw men, don't you? Whoever said Keyhoe's article was about Roswell? However, the subject of crashed saucers in Smith's first memo being investigated by Bush and a secret group has <i>everything</i> to do with Roswell. <br /><br />That memo of Nov. 21, 1950, also has everything to do with the subject of investigating geomagnetic energy as a possible energy and propulsion source of the saucers, with Smith writing he met with Dr. Omand Solandt only the day before to discuss this, Solandt green-lighting the project and promising support of the Canadian DRB in Smith’s research.<br /><br />Only 3 days later (Nov. 24), Smith wrote a memo to Solandt discussing the Keyhoe article about Smith’s geomagnetic ideas and says it needs the clearance of the U.S. RDB. Yet CDA pretends all these subjects have absolutely nothing to do with one another.<br /><br />And note how CDA dodges the question I posed him: Why would Keyhoe's article based on Smith, the "saucer nutcase" (see CDA below) require review and clearance from Bush, the RDB, and the Canadian equivalents of Dr. Solandt and the Defence Research Board? Why does Smith write Gordon Cox of the Canadian embassy that Solandt insisted on maintaining the same level of security as the Americans, and Cox writes back that the Canadian ambassador also insisted on secrecy and that the information was to be closely held by only a small group at the embassy? Obviously, all these people were "saucer nutcases" on the level of Smith.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps DR thinks Smith was trying to reverse-engineer the Roswell saucer, 3 to 4 years after it was all supposedly classified top secret from everyone but the select few.<br /><br />For some reason Smith, a Canadian engineer and a saucer nutcase, was one of those select few. Sure.</i><br /><br />Well, let's see. The Manhattan Project, the most highly classified project of WWII, had all sorts of foreign scientists and engineers involved, nutcases like Fermi, Teller, Rabi. Canadian physicist/chemist Louis Slotin was the first person to die of radiation poisoning at Los Alamos following an experiment gone bad.<br /><br />Surely these disreputable, unreliable foreigners, especially a (gasp!) Canadian, would never get such high security clearances to work on the A-bomb superweapon or the later H-bomb being developed at the same time as the Smith memo. "Saucer nutcases" also claim a Hungarian, Edward Teller, was in charge of that. Can you believe it?<br /><br />According to CDA logic, this never would have happened. But historical reality says differently.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15037276030626424652013-05-11T12:42:10.209-07:002013-05-11T12:42:10.209-07:00cda wrote: (part 1 of 2)
I have all those letters/...cda wrote: (part 1 of 2)<br /><i>I have all those letters/documents you mention. I am far from persuaded that the small group under Bush (i.e. the group Wilbert Smith said was studying the 'modus operandi' of the saucers) is the same group that met with Generals Vandenberg and LeMay on the morning of July 8.</i><br /><br />To repeat, group that met with Vandenberg/LeMay July 8: Joint Research and Development Board chaired by Bush, with "Joint" dropped from the name with passage of the National Security Act 2 weeks later. But SAME organization. First chair of RDB: Bush, 1947-1948, thereafter sat on the oversight committee.<br /><br />Person named by Smith Nov. 1950 as directing a small group looking into the modus operandi of the saucers: Bush.<br /><br />U.S. officials named by Smith and Canadian embassy official Gordon Cox immediately thereafter needed to clear Donald Keyhoe's article for True Magazine on Smith's saucer propulsion ideas: Bush and the RDB.<br /><br />Group 30+ years later that primary source Dr. Robert Sarbacher said met at Wright-Patterson to discuss crashed saucer recoveries: RDB. Persons definitely involved: Bush and mathematician John von Neumann. As a member of the RDB guided missile committee, Sarbacher said he had been invited to these meetings but did not attend.<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Sarbacher_Nov1983.html<br /><br />Another person later named by Sarbacher as being definitely involved: Dr. Eric Walker, Exec. Sec. of the RDB in 1950, President of Penn State Univ. Walker when initially contacted confirmed such meetings on crashed saucers took place at W-P.<br /><br />Despite this, CDA pretends there could be no connection between the group that met with Vandenberg July 8, 1947 (JRDB), and the group headed by Bush within the RDB in 1950 described by Smith. This begs the question, is CDA really this dense, or does he just pretend to be because he is a troll? <br /><br /><i>Smith, I should add, got his information second-hand, i.e. he did not meet Sarbacher direct but through an intermediary.</i><br /><br />Like most of CDA's absolutist pronouncements, this too is very likely false. Smith's handwritten notes can be viewed here:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Smith_9_15_50.html<br /><br />Note that Smith at beginning says "Notes on interview through Lt./C Bremner [military attache at Canadian embassy, Washington] with Dr. Robert Sarbacher." This is no doubt the basis on which CDA claims Smith wasn't there.<br /><br />But also note that the questions to Sarbacher are all initialed WBS, Smith's initials. These are Smith's questions, perhaps asked by Bremner instead of Smith for some sort of protocol reasons, or perhaps "through Bremner" means simply that Bremner was intermediary in arranging the interview. More likely, both Bremner and Smith were there and Smith personally asked the questions.<br /><br />But more importantly, note what Smith writes at the end: "The above is written out <b>from memory</b> following the interview. I have tried to keep it it as nearly <b>verbatim</b> as possible."<br /><br />Now to persons with normal English reading comprehension, this means at the very least Smith was in the room when Sarbacher was answering his questions, but perhaps not allowed to take notes. These he wrote out immediately afterward "from memory" trying to keep it "verbatim". Kind of hard to do that if you aren't there in person at the interview itself.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-24211639933785526642013-05-11T11:51:56.486-07:002013-05-11T11:51:56.486-07:00Larry:
I am perfectly entitled to draw conclusion...Larry:<br /><br />I am perfectly entitled to draw conclusions from the fact that these 'precious' documents were destroyed. My conclusion is that they contained nothing of value to science and nothing about an ET craft crashing to earth in NM.<br /><br />My reasoning is thus: If they HAD contained such important scientific and/or military information they would NOT have been destroyed. They would have been carefully preserved. That is why I am positive about my remarks.<br /><br />One is entitled to assign probabilities to events such as this; I concede that perhaps (with an infinitely low probability) some AF records clerk goofed, and absent-mindedly destroyed EACH AND EVERY ONE of these papers. Is it credible?<br /><br />You evidently seem to think that it is as likely as not that these papers contained the 'smoking gun'.<br /><br />But dont' give up. There are plenty of other such documents still locked up in the archives - as any conspiracist will tell you. So there is still a slight (very slight) chance someone will locate them eventually.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86766068252532848032013-05-11T10:00:12.926-07:002013-05-11T10:00:12.926-07:00CDA wrote:
"..I merely said that the missing...CDA wrote:<br /><br />"..I merely said that the missing documents to and from Roswell in the '47-'49 period did not contain anything of value to ET proponents, and are therefore not the least important. And yes, I am positive of this, despite being labelled as "clueless"."<br /><br />I will keep this simple. The documents are missing. That means that no one in a position to comment knows what's in them. That means you cannot know they did not contain anything of value to ET proponents. For exactly the same reason you cannot know they did contain anything of value to ET proponents. Most people, with the reasoning ability of a 5 year old realize that if the evidence available is not decisive in the direction of either of two conclusions, then the intelligent thing to do is to not decide, unless and until more information is available.<br /><br />In spite of that, you not only decide in one direction, you are "positive" about it. That means that anyone with the reasoning ability of a 5 year old can also see that your statements are not being guided by the normal rules of logic in which conclusions follow from inductive and deductive reasoning. You are just making crap up (again).Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14431818950679813051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20879744114628101442013-05-11T03:25:57.079-07:002013-05-11T03:25:57.079-07:00DR:
A further 'coincidence':
Dr Bush wa...DR:<br /><br />A further 'coincidence': <br /><br />Dr Bush was chairman of the DRB from 1947 to 48. This was the very same period covered by those missing RAAF documents. That's no coincidence, is it?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.com