>> 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and> Space Technology". This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle> flight in great detail. They go to great lengths to find and report on
>> secret or classified data. You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
>>
>> THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.
>
>Umm -- have you ever read it? If so, you'd know that neither alternative
>makes any sense at all.
>
Yes, I have read it. I see nothing to preclude the above possibilities. You
know, if Av Week were half as good as what some people think they are regarding
revelation of truly sensitive and classified projects, they would be regarded as
security leaks by the Federal Government, and no doubt they would be having a
lot more problems than they are. As it is, the stuff they reveal is child's
play compared to what is really going/has gone on.
>Before I engage in further debate, let me ask just one question: what
>evidence will persuade you that you're wrong? I'm perfectly serious --
>you have a theory, which virtually everyone else here disagrees with.
>Clearly, either you're wrong or we are. But for every objection that's
>been raised here, you say that either people are lying, or covering things
>up. So -- what would it take to convince you?
>
>To be fair, I should answer the same question. I'll find your story credible
>if any of a number of things happen. (a) Someone publicly demonstrates any
>one of the technological miracles you've described (cosmospheres, electro-
>gravitic whatsits, cloned or otherwise-replicated people, etc.) (b) an
>official who was involved in the coverup or the plot admits it publicly,
>and produces some documentary evidence. (c) the release, via the Freedom
>of Information Acts, of substantive documentation of any of this; (d) photos,
>from a lunar orbiter, of (the wreckage of?) military bases on the moon.
>
>You're asking us to prove a negative, a notoriously difficult task,
>especially when you reject any and all evidence. We're asking you to
>prove a positive, which is much easier. Do you have any hard evidence?
>(References to previous issues of the AUDIO LETTER aren't evidence, of
>course.)
I do not make a habit of rejecting real evidence. I am just aware of various
techniques used by cover-up artists to put forth falsified evidence of what
they want the public to believe. They know well that "seeing is believing",
and plausible evidence such as that is usually enough to convince most people,
who will not search deeper and ask questions about what they see.
I can tell you that cosmospheres (floating platforms) were mentioned in Design
for Survival by General Thomas Power, former head of the Strategic Air Command,
published in 1965 by Coward McCann, New York. On pages 243 and 244 he refers
to them as follows:
"An aggressor would make the fullest use of the element of
surprise. This would apply to the timing of the attack as well
as to the employment of some radically new weapon or technique
for which we are not prepared...It is quite possible that the
Soviet surprise weapon would be an offensive space system, but
beyond this assumption we can only speculate. For instance, it is
conceivable that we may wake up one morning and find a number of
Soviet satellites floating in stationary orbits over every part of
the United States...We certainly must anticipate such a contingency
which is by no means farfetched or far in the future, and make sure
that we have operational defensive systems or measures to cope with
it."
As for genetic replicas, you may want to read the old standby Future Shock by
Alvin Toffler (1970, Random House), the Dynamics of Change by Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation (1967, Prentice-Hall), and The Biological Time Bomb
by Gordon R. Taylor (1968, The New American Library).
I personally do not know the right people or have the right connections to be
able to put forth the kind of proof you request. This can only be done in
cooperation with others in positions to do this. But I think there are enough
inconsistencies and things that don't add up put forth by Dr. Beter in Audio
Letter #64 to at least warrant a serious investigation of the matter. I have
yet to hear answers to those on sci.space.shuttle, or from the readers of any
newsgroup. Until I do, I will remain unconvinced.
I will suggest this starting point, though, for an investigation. If any one
of you out there can tell me where to find file films of STS-1, please do so,
because then I can show you the inconsistencies and strange views that Dr.
Beter talked about. Once I have the tape(s), I can give you exact frame
number citations and whatever else you may need to see these things for
