>>... Below is a reprint of an article which appeared in a "science" magazine
>>about the crash recovery investigation being conducted by a retired Air
>>Force Intelligence officer. Although there is *no* hard evidence that the
>>vehicle recovered was an extraterrestrial spacecraft...
>
>Come now. If you're going to reprint stuff from Air&Space, have the decency
>to at least summarize the whole article, rather than taking part of it out
>of context. Much the most interesting thing in that article was the
>observation that a crash of a hush-hush *US* project could easily account
>for the fuss and the secrecy... especially since the location was ideal for
>such a thing to happen. Roswell is in the middle of an area that includes
>White Sands Missile Range, Los Alamos, and an airbase that then housed the
>world's only operational nuclear-bomber force.
>
>It's silly to invoke crashed UFOs when Earthly causes provide quite an
>adequate explanation.
I have to agree most wholeheartedly with Henry. I read UFO Crash at
Roswell a while back, and found it to be a wonder of circular reasoning
and wishful thinking. It also seemed to be padded out by re-stating every
premise and factoid/interview summary 3 times; of course, this may have
been necessary to complete the circles noted above.
I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to UFOs and ETs - I'll admit
the possibility, and would be happy to believe in the face of *REAL*
evidence. (As is NASA - else why SETI?) However, the author has no
justification for making his grandiose claims about UFOs at Roswell
based on the information he presents. At best, he has evidence for
some sort of coverup then and there, but stretching that to "proof"
of a UFO crash is silly.
--
Mike Heney | Senior Systems Analyst and | Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com | Space Activist / Entrepreneur | Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC) | * Will Work for Money * |
------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:42:00 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Roswell
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <140532.2AD87F0D@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
>The recent exchange about Roswell was interesting. Below is a reprint of an article which appeared in a "science" magazine about the crash recovery investigation being conducted by a retired Air Force Intelligence officer. Although there is *no* hard evidence that the vehicle recovered was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, the testimony collected by Randle and Schmitt does provide some compelling circumstance that it was very foreign.
>
>This is only the tip of the iceberg on information that R&S have collected. If you want more, let me know.
>
>This article was taken from Air&Space magazine October/November
>1992.
>Reprinted without permission. Prepared by Michael Keithly.
>
>
>In a response to a letter of authenticity of the Roswell events
>Kevin Randle replied.
>
>The events that took place near Roswell, New Mexico in July 1947
>are well documented. The question is no longer if something
>happened, but what happened, and why it is still being hidden 45
>years later. Colonel (later Brigadier General) Thomas J. Dubose
>was the chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, the parent unit
>of the 509th Bomb Group, at Roswell in July 1947. He has
>repeatedly, on audio and video tape, that the balloon explanation
>was designed to "get the reporters of Ramey's back" (Brigadier
>Roger Ramey, Commanding Officer of the Eighth Air Force). In
>other words, one of the officers who was there has said that the
>balloon explanation was nothing more than a cover story.
If I remember correctly, the 509th was the unit responsible for
carrying and dropping the A bombs that ended WWII. They ran hundreds
and hundreds of practice missions perfecting fuzing mechanisms and
bombing techniques for A bomb delivery. Considering the time, and
the sensitive nature of their payloads, I wouldn't be surprised
if security were very tight in an accident, nor that cover stories
would be released. Any payload they lost could very well glow in
the dark.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:02:39 GMT
From: Gary Williams x3294 <gwilliam@crc.ac.uk>
Subject: SETI functional grammer
Newsgroups: sci.space
Has anyone ever worked on detailed grammer, syntax and vocabulary
of messages that we could send to ETI's?
I know that various plaques etc. have been bolted to spacecraft, but
I'm interested in any work that has been done on defining 'languages'
that we might use to send complex concepts out to 'them'.
The only thing that springs to mind is Carl Sagan's description of the
fictional message sent by his aliens in the book 'Contact'. This
involved lots of pages consisting of pictures and numbers with the
numbers referring to pages which defined the concept on that page etc.
It involved lots of things like simple video sequences to define verbs
etc.
The more I think about it the more difficult it seems to get past simple
verbs and mathematics - so much of our languages assume concepts held in
common and so everything would have to be defined (how rigidly?) even if
it seems obvious. The artificial intelligence people have probably come
across the same sort of problems when attempting to describe the real
world to their programs. Perhaps they have insights on how such a
language might be constructed and what it should involve?
--
GARY WILLIAMS, Computing Services Section, Janet: G.Williams@UK.AC.CRC
MRC-CRC & Human Genome Mapping Centre, Internet: G.Williams@CRC.AC.UK
