New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans
for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be
limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI
all over again?
(7617 previous messages)
- 05:36pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7618
The stuff being sold to Congress and the American people is full
of gross overclaims -- false advertising -- and has almost no chance
of working in any meaningful military sense.
In addition, the costs of the program, both in money, and
in diplomatic relations, are already known to be very high - in both
respects, higher than had been anticipated.
Why is the administration spending so much of its credibility
on the program?
The only reason I can see, that makes sense, is to conceal some
longstanding and continuing crimes, and to find a justification for
large expenditures that the public might be talked into buying.
- 05:44pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7619
But there are big stakes in the program, beyond the huge amount
of money that would be spend on it.
Considering the lies and frauds and overclaims that have been
going on for a long time, and continue -- what would it cost
and the United States Air Force in credibility to
have the situation understood?
Maybe the only way to keep the crime from being discoved is to
Take away missile defense, and how much credibility would the
contractors have left?
How many voters care about the F/A-18E Figher, the F22 Figher,
the Joint Strike Fighter, the C-17 transport, The Commanche and
Osprey Helicopters, and the NSNN attack submarines?
Very few. Take away NMD, and the military-industrial complex
is holding a very empty bag.
And NMD is a fraud, in many too many ways to be considered an
- 05:50pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7620
The Disclosure Project Dear Readers,
In your opinion, what is the cause of the NY Times' failure to
report on The Disclosure Project? As a congressional staffer myself,
I was rather surprised. The group held a highly successful press
conference here in DC on May 9th, 2001, and even though I'm pretty
sure the newspaper had reporters present (along with reporters from
all over the world) it made no mention of the conference at all. ABC
News, as well as several other newspapers, did a much better job of
covering the event.
In my view, any organization with over 400 eye-witnesses from
high-ranking positions in government, military, intelligence, and
industry should at least be given a chance to be heard. With all of
Dr. Steven Greer's documented testimony (members of the scientific
community included), we should take an active role in exploring the
possibilities of zero point energy and advanced propulsion research,
vitally important to the world's environment at this time. This
technology could very well be the answer to the perceived "energy
crisis," providing our industry with a totally renewable source of
clean, environment-friendly energy. Those who dismiss this testimony
without at least examining the evidence are the intellectual
equivalents of those who said the Wright brothers would never fly. I
believe true innovation begins with brave ideas like those expressed
by Dr. Steven Greer and his witnesses, and individuals should not be
afraid to investigate the evidence for themselves. We should all
begin writing our representatives. Please visit their web page at
www.disclosureproject.org and at least watch the video of the press
conference (you can stream it for free over Real Player). You can
also FAX your congressional reps. for free through the web page, in
order to give them a public mandate for further investigation.
Consider the possibilities ... There is no logical, scientific
reason why this couldn't be true.
This issue is of vital importance to mankind at this juncture.
Any journalist willing to take up serious coverage of this subject
could very well be researching the most important scientific
phenomena of our time. In the meantime, Dr. Greer has begun a
national campaign and the project has been gaining international
attention. He has been briefing members of Congress and other VIPs,
calling for congressional hearings. As someone who approached this
with a somewhat skeptical, yet still objective mindset, my doubts
were alleviated after closer scrutiny. They really have a compelling
case. As such a "reputable" paper, this omission in the Times'
coverage is rather strange.
Derek Garcia email@example.com
- 06:49pm Jul 30, 2001 EST (#7621
rshowalter wrote ( rshowalter
7/30/01 5:44pm ): And NMD is a fraud, in many too many ways
to be considered an "honest mistake".
Your opinon, Robert; but you've been way slim in the
evidence presentation department...lots of words but with nothing
much to back them up. My opinion is that the BMD will work
just fine for its intended limited scope of performance. There's a
lot more evidence that BMD will work than there is that it
can't; but, don't let little details like the facts get in
your way. :-) Why do you think your opinion should carry any
more weight than my opinion? Perhaps you've had a message
(150 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science