text:
I. Introduction:
Thank you, President Schulz, for that kind introduction, and thanks to all the students and faculty at Kansas State for having me here today. I especially want to acknowledge Dr. Jackie Hartman for all she does to oversee this distinguished series. Thank you Jackie.
I am honored and humbled to speak here from the same podium as many of our nation's most notable public servants, including presidents, military leaders, and members of Congress. The Landon Lecture Series--now in its 49th year--is a wonderful tradition that provides an opportunity for leaders to take some time to reflect on their experiences and the nation's challenges and possibilities.
My first trip to Manhattan was under different circumstances. I came here just about 30 years ago to be in the wedding of my dear friends Dan Bolen and Ellen Stolzer. This was back when Jackie's father was making Kansas State basketball history. It was a great occasion, where I also met Edward Seaton -- the publisher of the Manhattan Mercury. It was early in my career, Edward, but I had already learned the value of spending time with the local media moguls.
And it is fitting that we're gathered to honor the legacy of Governor Alf Landon, who embodied the best traditions of public service here in Kansas and across the nation. He once humbly described himself as "an oilman who never made a million, a lawyer who never had a case, and a politician who carried only Maine and Vermont." Of course, the rest of us remember him for his leadership and advocacy of American engagement in the world. His daughter, Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, and the rest of the Landon family continue that legacy of service today.
It's a special privilege to have the chance to speak with a talented group of young men and women, eager to find your own places in the world.
Young people today are used to hearing a pessimistic story about our country's future. And you are well aware of the real challenges we face. The worst of an economic crisis is behind us, but too many of our fellow citizens are still struggling to find work. We face long-term deficits. Our elementary and high schools have slipped down in the international rankings. Our infrastructure needs rebuilding and there are real concerns about whether our increasingly technologically advanced and globalized economy can produce good jobs for every American.
There's also a broader pessimism we hear about America's place in the world. As National Security Advisor to President Obama, I spent the vast majority of my time in government coordinating the U.S. response to foreign policy crises and challenges – from winding down the war in Iraq to the uprisings in the Arab World, from North Korea's provocations to our constant efforts to protect the nation and defeat al Qaeda. Sometimes it seemed like putting out fires was all we had time for. And during those challenging moments, we would often hear that American influence isn't what it used to be, that our days as the leading superpower are numbered, that the United States is no longer capable or willing to take on the global challenges of the day.
I reject that view. And today I would like to discuss with you why, in my judgment, America is not in decline but will continue to be the world's leading and most powerful nation for a long time to come.
I arrive at this assessment fully aware of the threats our nation faces - I have spent much of the last several years in some very dark places battling those who would do us harm. And I am fully aware of the strengths of our international competitors, embodied in the extraordinary rise of the rest – one of the most consequential trends in world economic history.
But I remain unflinchingly optimistic about America's position. No nation can match our comprehensive, multidimensional set of enduring strengths: bountiful resources—both human and material, our global network of alliances, our unmatched military strength, our entrepreneurship and innovation, our liberal political and economic traditions, and our remarkable capacity for self-assessment and rejuvenation. Frankly, I am more confident today about America's prospects than I was as a 22 year old walking into the White House almost 37 years ago to start my first job in government.
II. Declinism and History
I recently came across the following assessment: "The United States cannot afford another decline like that which has characterized the past decade and a half … Only self-delusion can keep us from admitting our decline to ourselves."
That is a familiar line of argumentation in today's opinion pages. But in fact, those words were written over 50 years ago, in 1961, by a young Harvard professor named Henry Kissinger.
This story shows that for all our optimism, Americans have always worried about our place in the world. It's in our DNA, and it helps drive our renewal. To borrow from the great political scientist Samuel Huntington, "The United States is unlikely to decline so long as its public is periodically convinced that it is about to decline. The declinists play an indispensable role in preventing what they are predicting."
Now, Dr. Kissinger had valid concerns. At the time he wrote those words, the U.S. economy was struggling to grow its way out of a recession. The Soviet Union had launched the world's first artificial satellite, known as Sputnik, into orbit. The nation went into a panic, thinking we had fallen behind in technological innovation and would soon be outspent and outmatched by Moscow.
And yet the decade and a half that was the subject of Dr. Kissinger's fears – the period from the end of World War II until the Kennedy Administration – is now seen by most historians as an era of unparalleled American economic growth and power. The decade that followed was even more prosperous, ending with the United States, not the Soviet Union, making the first lunar landing. And mere thirty years after Dr. Kissinger wrote those words, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist entirely.
None of this is new. Just in my lifetime, every ten years or so, a new bout of profound pessimism has swept the nation. In his fine new book The Myth of America's Decline, the German journalist and author Josef Joffe documents the roughly 5 waves of declinism from the time Sputnik went into orbit to today's gloom and doom.
Declinists in the late 60s asserted that the cost of Vietnam and social and racial tensions would bring about what one prominent historian called "the unraveling of America."
In the 70s, declinists signaled the end by pointing to inflation, oil shocks and unemployment. An ally fell in Iran and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
In the 1980s, we feared Japan's growing economic strength and historians said we would soon become one of history's forgotten empires.
But in each instance, the sky didn't fall, the United States didn't sink into the ocean, and we're still here – the most preeminent nation on earth.
I think this shows not only that there is a tendency to underestimate America's staying power, but also that we need to be humble about our ability to predict the future with certainty.
III. U.S. Enduring Strengths and Strategic Assets
Today, the declinists are back, arguing that China will soon overtake us or that our gridlocked politics, long-term deficits, and decaying infrastructure will prevent us from playing the same global role that we have since World War II.
I take these concerns seriously, and we should not assume that America will retain its primacy simply because declinists in the past have turned out to be wrong. Leadership is not something the United States has by happenstance – it is something we have had to earn, over and over again.
So how do we actually quantify power? A predecessor of mine as national security advisor and one of the country's finest minds on foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his latest book, Strategic Vision, assigned the United States a strategic balance sheet of assets and liabilities, like you would with any business. I think Zbig's framework sets up a useful way of analyzing where we stand today.
We certainly have strategic liabilities that we cannot ignore. But what is sometimes lost in the periodic wringing of hands is just how extraordinary America's assets are – first and foremost our ability to deal with whatever challenges may come our way.
Measuring power in today's globalized world is a complex task. A country's strength and influence goes beyond the old, one-dimensional quantifiers that we used to use, like steel outputs and troop numbers. While our military might is tremendous and essential, power today is more often exercised through economic vitality, the capacity for innovation, a vibrant and stable political system, and a resilient society.
It is not measuring strength in one or two dimensions that captures a country's position but rather the accumulation and the interaction between these assets. And so today, I'd like to examine five of the unique strengths that are the enduring foundation of American leadership in the world: our economy, our military might, our geography, our people, and our leadership.
More than anything else, the American economy is the wellspring of our global leadership.
There are not a lot of iron laws of history, but one of them is that a nation's power is directly related to its economic strength. As President Obama has said, "Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power."
The 2008 financial crisis tested our resilience, and dealt a real blow to our national prestige and authority. And long-term challenges remain. But the fact is that no country comes close to matching our fundamental economic strength. The U.S. economy is built on a sound structural foundation, combining an entrepreneurial orientation, deep and efficient capital markets, highly experienced managers, and strong technological leadership.
By every measure, the United States has the largest national economy in the world today, generating nearly 17 trillion dollars in GDP. Our economy is nearly double the size of the second largest, China's. Our stock market capitalization is five times bigger than China's. We lead the world in attracting foreign direct investment and are also the world's largest single investing economy.
An economy's most important asset, however, is not its sheer size. Indeed, China's enormous population base will put it on a path to become the largest economy in the world at some point in the future.
But history shows that size alone has not been the most important factor in determining the most powerful nation. At the peak of Great Britain's global power, it was China that had the world's largest economy, even though the country was then a middling power in the throes of what the Chinese refer to as their "century of humiliation."
As opposed to size, I'd argue that a far better measure of an economy's health is its quality and sustainability. We have the wealthiest large economy in the world, as well one of the most diversified and technologically advanced. By way of comparison, China has a very large economy but it's still a poor country. The United States' income per person is more than 50 thousand dollars, whereas China's stands at about 6 thousand dollars. That provides an important perspective.
And when we look to our prospects for the future, it's clear that the United States is in a strong position to maintain our leading position. Think about three aspects of our economy: innovation, energy, and higher education.
First, the United States has an innovation edge over the rest of the world. Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter -- all are synonymous with American economic vitality, but only one existed 15 years ago. The largest 8 technology companies in the world by market capitalization are based in the United States. And when it comes to the next frontiers in extraordinary breakout technology, like 3-D manufacturing, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, cloud computing, robotics, big data, and advanced material science, American entrepreneurs and companies are leading the way.
We also lead the world in research and development, with a projected $465 billion in spending this year – that's over 30 percent of all global R&D.
Like so many of our strengths, our innovation advantage didn't happen by accident. It stems from the combination of a risk taking culture, significant investment by the American government in research, the best universities in the world churning out good ideas, and the kind of regulations and easy access to capital that make it possible to turn those ideas into businesses. And all these strengths come together in Silicon Valley, which represents to the world our spirit of creativity.
A second and frankly unexpected U.S. economic asset is our national energy outlook.
For most of the past 40 years, the United States had thought of itself as a nation dependent on oil and energy-related events beyond our shores. Now, as U.S. innovation and technology allow us to tap unconventional resources, nearly every prediction about our energy future has been turned on its back.
Today, the United States is the number one producer of natural gas in the world, and the price of natural gas here is a fraction of what it is elsewhere. The International Energy Agency projects that we will be the world's largest producer of oil by the end of the decade. Unconventional energy will propel our economy and support American jobs – nearly 900,000 by next year will come just from shale gas.
Meanwhile, our new energy security is allowing us to engage the world from a position of strength. It gives us the latitude to support allies and, if need be, punish adversaries. The success of our Iran sanctions, for example, was made possible only because we were confident that increased American supply enabled us to afford removing a million barrels of Iranian oil off the market each day without dramatic increases in gasoline costs to U.S. consumers. And it was the bite of those sanctions that ultimately brought the Iranians to the negotiating table last year.
Like our success in innovation, this energy renaissance did not happen by accident or because of luck -- it is truly an only-in-the-U.S. story. Many other countries have promising shale deposits. The reason that the United States has seen such dramatic and fast-paced energy changes is because decades ago, we made wise, significant investments in key technologies, and we have the right balance of an open investment climate, an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit, environmental safeguards, infrastructure, and property ownership rights.
Today, the wide availability of cheap natural gas in the United States has become a major competitive advantage for our energy intensive manufacturers, particularly compared to Europe and China.
Meanwhile, our reduction of energy imports has brought our trade deficit to a four-year low and allows a greater share of the money Americans spend on energy to remain within America. We also now have the opportunity for the export of both natural gas and crude oil to the world, which will support our allies, stabilize the world's energy supply, and expand our own prosperity.
Next, our higher education system. Our universities are the envy of the world. We are home to 17 of the top 20 research universities. Our scientists publish far more papers in prominent journals than any other country. Despite what you hear, we graduate more engineers per capita than either China or India. Foreign students compete to study at universities like this one, and last year, we enrolled a record 820,000 foreign students at U.S. universities.
But don't take my word for it. There's an Omaha-based investor by the name of Warren Buffett who had the following to say in his latest letter to his shareholders: "I have always considered a bet on ever-rising U.S. prosperity to be very close to a sure thing. Indeed, who has ever benefited during the past 237 years by betting against America? If you compare our country's present condition to that existing in 1776, you have to rub your eyes in wonder. And the dynamism embedded in our market economy will continue to work its magic. America's best days lie ahead."
Military might and alliances
Next, our military. By any measure, our military power is unmatched, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. In terms of sheer size, the U.S. spends more each year on defense than the next 10 nations put together. Our defense budget is more than five times bigger than that of our nearest competitor, China, despite that country's rapid military buildup. Even after 13 years of war – the longest period of continuous conflict our armed forces have ever seen – we remain capable of defeating any adversary.
But even these measurements underestimate our military's true advantages.
Our navy owns 11 of the world's 20 aircraft carriers, making us the only country on earth with a truly global power projection.
With more than a decade of experience fighting terror, our special operations forces have become a unique American asset. The May 2011 raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound in Abottabad, Pakistan – over 7,000 miles away from the United States – was only the most visible example of how our battle-tested special operators successfully execute complex missions in dangerous places across the globe.
And by historical measures, the current U.S. defense burden is not excessive as a share of GDP. With the Iraq war over and the war in Afghanistan winding down, our military now stands on a more sustainable footing, with no signs of the kind of overstretch that some have worried about.
We also possess a network of formal alliances with over fifty nations—the largest in history. For over half a century, on a bipartisan basis, the United States has built a global network of alliances around the world, in Asia and in Europe. No other country can look to anything like this. These enduring partnerships are a unique American strength and we continue to deepen them across the globe today.
Next, our geography and resources are our most natural advantage. These enduring strengths are rarely discussed, but they have provided for the safety and prosperity of the American people from the days since the first settlers arrived.
We are an Atlantic and a Pacific power, an American and an Arctic nation. We are protected by oceans and peaceful borders. We live in a hemisphere of mostly stable democracies, and we enjoy friendly, productive relations with our fellow American states. The bottom-line strategic point is that the United States does not face any real threats in our own hemisphere.
And almost uniquely, the United States is not a dependent power. In addition to our energy resources, we have other diverse and valuable sets of natural resources. The United States has the largest deposits of rare earth minerals at a time when competition for those resources is on the rise, and we are the world's largest food exporter.
Demography and immigration
That brings me to a fourth enduring American strength and one that puts us in a position to lead throughout the 21st century: our people.
And we are blessed to have a bright demographic future. Our workforce is relatively young and still growing. Between now and 2050, the U.S. population is expected to grow by more than 100 million people, expanding our work force by 40 percent. This is not the case elsewhere in the world. The populations of other developed nations in Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea are aging and shrinking. By 2050, the median age in China will be nearly 50; in the United States it will be 40.
A big part of the reason our demographic profile looks better than the rest of the world is that we are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are both younger than the population at large and participate in the workforce in larger numbers. They are also a tremendous source of creativity, and the United States has a distinct advantage over other developed nations when it comes to attracting highly skilled immigrants. Foreign entrepreneurs and scientists choose to make the U.S. their home because it is easier to enter our labor markets and move within them than in any other developed country. Our open society allows for more seamless integration than anywhere else.
That's why I think it's so important for Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Reform is not just a domestic issue – it's a strategic issue – and it's crucial to locking in our global advantage in human capital.
The final asset I'd like to discuss is America's unique global leadership role. For generations, Americans have taken up the mantle of leadership in a world torn by war and scarred by oppression. We have repeatedly put American blood and treasure on the line to defend our values and advance universal rights. And the world still expects us to lead today. People everywhere look to America to protect global commerce, ensure the free flow of energy, and control the spread of dangerous weapons.
Plenty of countries have leverage. But there is a very big difference between leverage and leadership. We bring to bear more than just resources. We have an unmatched ability to convene countries and coordinate international efforts. That's because of the attractiveness of our ideas, our style of leadership, and the fact that we've nurtured such a successful international system.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls America the "indispensible nation"; that's because few global problems could be solved without American involvement. Our allies in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia clamor for active U.S. engagement in their regions. Although American power is occasionally resented, there is everywhere a strong attraction to our values of democracy, free markets, and respect for human rights. It is impossible to imagine any other country assuming the global leadership role we currently play.
IV. Challenges
Now, I told you I was going to give an optimistic speech. But we must also be clear-eyed about the liabilities side of our strategic balance sheet. I see five policy challenges that we must address in the coming decade.
Getting control of our long-term budget deficit is one of the first orders of business. Our fiscal position risks undermining our overall economic foundation. Now despite the general impression out there, the fact is that in the last several years our deficit has dropped precipitously – in fact, faster than in any period since the demobilization after World War II. But in just two years, deficits will begin rising again, driven mainly by mandatory entitlement spending. As a result, will have less flexibility to make useful investments in the future of our country, from science and technology to the national defense.
In taking on our deficits, economic growth should continue to be our priority in both the short and long term. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has estimated that an increase of just one fifth of one percent in annual economic growth would address the projected long-term budget gap.
Second, our infrastructure is falling into disrepair. Just five years ago, the World Economic Forum ranked our infrastructure 7th best in the world – today it's 15th, and U.S. public construction spending as a percentage of GDP has plummeted to its lowest point in 20 years. Our overburdened roads and bridges create a situation that is environmentally, politically, and economically unsustainable.
Third, we can no longer take our advantages in innovation for granted. China and Japan have already surpassed us in the number of patents filed each year, and China is quickly catching up in terms of R&D spending. That's why it's such an important national priority that our government continue to invest in advancing scientific knowledge.
At the same time, our failure to overhaul our immigration system is blunting our natural edge in the global competition for talent. Forty percent of the people receiving advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at American universities are foreign nationals with no legal way to stay here, even if they would choose to do so. American business leaders regularly express frustration that our current immigration laws make it hard for them to hire talented individuals from abroad, limiting their ability to grow their companies. And our competitors are already changing their policies in order to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. That is a cause for national concern. Passing commonsense reform would allow us to meet the needs of the 21st century American economy.
Similarly, we need a wake-up call when it comes to primary and secondary education. Our universities are the best in the world, but we rank 17th on Peterson's well-regarded education index for grade school. This is simply unacceptable. If we are going to prepare Americans for the jobs of the future and restore middle-class security, we have to out-educate the world. That starts with a strong school system that stretches from pre-K through college.
Overcoming these liabilities will take time and difficult choices. But here's the key point: none of these challenges is insurmountable. Every one of them has a policy solution in sight that is feasible and affordable for our nation. Addressing them in each case is a matter of mustering the political will, as we've done for the last 200 years.
V. Conclusion
With the worst of the economic crisis behind us, the war in Iraq over and the war in Afghanistan winding down, now is the time for smart choices and wise investments that will sustain American power and leadership for generations to come. We must continue to build on our assets and squarely take on our liabilities. That means taking all the necessary steps to enhance economic growth, including passing comprehensive immigration reform, ramping up our investment in science and technology, repairing our infrastructure, and undertaking more thoroughgoing political reforms to restore the health of our democracy.
As we continue to renew our nation, our fundamental strengths will propel us forward. Our open society and democratic institutions set us apart. Our military remains the strongest in the world, and we will continue to lead on the international stage. Our institutions will allow us to pursue the kind of just and sustainable growth that our changing society needs. We are younger than our competitors, and our economy will continue to be more vibrant.
I was recently reminded of a conversation I had with Henry Kissinger during my time in the White House. I asked him what he made of all this renewed talk of American decline. And I'll never forget his reply. He said "Well, Tom, would you rather be national security advisor for any other country?" The answer was self-evident – of course not.
Our power goes beyond a snapshot of individual metrics. Above all, it lies in the ability of our society, time and again, to meet problems head on. The next century of American power is within our reach if we challenge ourselves – especially all our young people – to meet it.
Thank you.


text:
Height: | 5-2 |
Year: | Sr. |
Hometown: | Bay Shore, NY |
High School: | Bay Shore |
Position: | D/M |
2010: Served as a backup defender and midfielder in her junior campaign.
2009: Appeared in four games and made one start in her second season as a Pioneer...Started October 16 on the road against Bryant.
2008: Played in 13 games and made three starts in her freshman season…Made her first collegiate start August 28 versus Army…Tallied one shot in 2008.
High School: Played four seasons of soccer and lacrosse at Bay Shore High School…All-League and All-Division soccer selection...Named to All-Division and All-Tournament teams for lacrosse.
Personal: Born: 2/23/90. Parents: Susan and Glen Tamberino. Siblings: Amanda and Sydnie. Favorite Team: New York Yankees. Favorite Athlete: Sidney Crosby. Favorite Movie: Twilight. Favorite TV Shows: True Blood and Entourage. Favorite Food: Pizza

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A confusing concept
View Single Post
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4
Reputation: 10
Originally Posted by
Focus on the 2 things you can control:
1) Getting strong on the basic, compound movements.
2) Forming an eating plan that contains a reasonable amount of protein.
Given your height and weight I would say you could easily lose weight on 2500 calories per day. I would start around there, eating 200-250 grams of protein per day, and breaking up the rest between fats and carbs. Eat mostly healthy, but leave a few calories here or there for those craving moments.
After the third week assess how your eating plan is going, and make calorie adjustments from there.
OK, what should I be doing to build though? I have several workouts that I can do, but my arms are no where near what they used to be. I want to build my arms up, build my chest up, and convert the fat. I'm not necessarily looking to "lose weight" I'm looking to change weight... does that make sense?
I keep hearing if I want the weight gone then I should diet, and that's an easy concept.
I also get the flip side, If you want to build mass quick, EAT (while working out). again simple...
I don't want to "lose weight" I want to get bigger, and convert the bad to good.
Sorry to re-issue the question, but how should I diet if I'm trying to build while cutting fat?
That is where im having the hang up.
View Public Profile
Send a private message to BudBrown
Find More Posts by BudBrown


text:
I'm pretty new to max so there's probably a lot of things I could do to improve the performance, functionality, and simplicity of this patch so if you have any suggestions please let me know. Also if anyone has any ideas as to how i could get closer to the actual sound I'm trying to emulate that would be stellar!
If you search Rodrigo's profile, he has done something rather similar; but different, might be worth worth a look
Log in to reply
Let us tell you about notable Max projects, obscure facts, and creative media artists of all kinds.


text:
90th May Day parade comes to Fort Langley
Residents are invited to come out and celebrate Fort Langley's 90th May Day parade and celebration on Monday, May 21.
Thousands descend on the historic village each year to take in the longest running parade in B.C. It starts at 11 a.m. There will be traditional may pole dancing, rides and vendors.
The Fort will fire its cannons at 1 and 3 p.m., there will be Aboriginal dancing at 2 p.m. and a fur trade wedding at the Fort at 4 p.m.
Also planned are activities at the BC Farm Museum all day and the famous Mary Avenue food court and Lions chicken barbecue. A pancake breakfast at the Lions Hall runs from 8 to 10:30 a.m.
We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.


text:
BarrelhouseBKLYN Presents: The Vintage Collection. A treasure chest full of unreleased footage from the archives that BHBK's Slick Jackson has filmed over the years.
Here we have Joey Bada$$, Capital Steez & CJ Fly doing an impromptu freestyle in December 2011 before Joey dropped his critically acclaimed "1999″ mixtape. RIP Capital Steez, you'll always be missed. #LongLiveSteelo – BHBK


text:
Give Now
WFIU Public Radio
WTIU Public Television
Choose which station to support!
A French expatriate promised her nephews Ohio Valley acreage if they made the voyage, entreating them to bring along apricot cuttings and eau de cologne.
What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Moment of Indiana History:
Moment of Indiana History is a weekly two-minute radio program exploring Indiana History. The series is a production of WFIU Public Radio in partnership with the Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations (IPBS). Learn More »
Follow @WFIU on Twitter »


text:
Great work gents. Though unless there is any other reason to update I might stay on 6.1 since I don't use Exchange for calendars.
Why DFU restore?
Then again, as was said in an earlier thread, this would be easy enough with PKGBackup so maybe I will. Just because.
That was quick
oh better yet
look here for Anthony's explanation:
Doing it, since SBSettings didn't work properly I had to restore my iphone, just came right on time
Thank goodness. This issue was murdering my battery life. Seriously, my phone would die just from being off the charger from 6am to 3pm with minimal use. Terrible for an iP5.
Its awesome how quick they turn around these updates
When I put SBSettings in my notification bit in settings I couldn't make or receive calls/messages as I lost my signal/network and had to restore
Did you manage to solve your issue with it?
If so could you please explain how you did it as I miss the SBSettings


text:
Saturday, February 09, 2013
63 Comments:
The IPU Report discussed in an earlier blog mentions the radar tracking of two "unidentified aircraft" that "dropped off" the scopes on July 3, 1947. One allegedly fell 75 miles northwest of Roswell while the other fell 20 miles Southwest of Socorro (The exact lattitude and longitudes are specified in the Report). Two points of interest here. One, the radar installations that did the tracking were located in East Texas and at White Sands Proving Ground in N.M. (not Roswell). Second, the IPU Report states that the bulk of the debris recovered was at the Socorro site while the (5) bodies were recovered at the Northewest site....which may mesh nicely, Rich, with what you are suggesting today. At least there are (as yet) no obvious conflicts between what the "new" Roswell information might be and what the IPU Report claims (in great detail I might add).
So Randle and his 'dream team' will proffer a Roswell narrative which requires of one a belief that most of the significant witnesses are liars.
Why are field notes from a group of geologists which have strangely only recently surfaced of greater weight than decades of established testimony? -
It's what the geologists provide in the way of evidence. which isn't mine to share.
I see. Then one wonders why Randle et al have not seen fit to share with the world the fruits of their investigative efforts.
My suspicion when Randle announced the 'dream team' reinvestigation was that this would be an initiative light on actual investigation, and would instead focus on the real motivation: reframing the Roswell narrative in a way which accords with the preconceptions held by those in team 'dream'. Recent developments are suggestive of that assessment being entirely accurate. -
If the man in the middle of the photo is the geologist, I recognize him (well, that's what he probably looked like decades ago). Came across him looking for something Bill Jr. had said. It probably was coincidental, but there it is.
In July in the desert, in my experience, if one meets anyone it will be 'mad dogs and Englishman' -- unless they are on the job. So, a state employee, most likely a surveyor, or oil or water geologist. Not archaeologist.
"How the Army was alerted to the crashed disc remains a question."
On that, I will stand pat, and await developments.
DonBy Don, at Saturday, February 09, 2013
My "assessment" here is hypothetical mostly.
Randle's Dream Team should, we hope, provide a full assessment, with facts and new information that shows Roswell buffs what the "incident" really was.
They are working diligently to separate fact from fiction.
I've taken what has appeared over the years, back-tracked to the 1947 time-frame and think what I'm suggesting is right.
New evidence should back me up in part or totally....we'll see.
There is an ET bias among Dream Team members but they could expirtate that bias should facts indicate otherwise.
These are not evil guys hoping to convince UFO devotees and Roswell buffs that extraterrestrial beings crashed in Roswell if the "facts" show otherwise.
But something exotic happened near Roswell, and that something has been muffled by the accretions of UFO investigators with a yen to find ET all over the UFO phenomenon.
Rudiak, among the Dream Team members is stubbornly ET oriented.
But the rest? Not entrenched but inclined to believe that the Roswell event was an ET event.
It might have been, or it might have been something rabidly mistaken as an ET event, initially but found to be something else later on.....shortly after the early dust-up(s) exacerbated by Brazel loopy intervention and much later by Stanton Friedman who slanted Marcel and others away from what really happened to what Mr. Friedman wished had happened.
The verdict is still not in, and I've had to adjust my view based upon further scrutiny of the rumored new "evidence" which doesn't gel in a way that I thought it did from what I had heard.
The photo is metaphorical.
"The photo is metaphorical."
Too bad. Looks like Noel Lamb and maybe it is.
DonBy Don, at Saturday, February 09, 2013
The Man in the middle, Don, is Jack
Can you tell us if this is Bragalia-level research?
And, if so, does he have his imaginary witnesses in place?
LanceBy Lance, at Saturday, February 09, 2013
I don't know what Anthony Bragalia's Dream Team research is, Lance.
I am not exactly privy to the new discovery but got an inkling from checking back through some old Roswell accounts and talking with Nick Redfern.
Imaginary witnesses do not factor into the new "evidence."
That evidence stands on its own.
I am getting lost in all this - is this yet another 'crash' site or is it the one supposedly involving the Roswell fire dept? (Remember Frankie Rowe and her dad?)
Also, what precisely is stopping Kevin's team from bringing forth this evidence right now, (unless, of course, they haven't got it)?
I get the feeling that you are trying to spin this out into a big but unsupported story. Has anyone verified the geologists' diary notes, or is it all going to fizzle out along with Barney Barnett's diary, Anderson's dad's diary and the archaeologists supposedly present at the San Augustin site?
It is becoming too much for reasonably intelligent people to digest. Perhaps you need an exceptionally high IQ (above Mensa level) to understand Roswell!By cda, at Sunday, February 10, 2013
You (and others) have got to forget everything you picked up and ingested about Roswell over the years.
That's confusing you.
Forget San Augustin....it's a fixation that mars your Roswell prowess.
Simplify your resurrection of Roswell information and mythology.
Randle's Dream Team wants to cement its legacy so they placed themselves in a compromised position by agreeing to legal stipulations that prevents them from disclosing a "truth" that goes to the heart of the Roswell event.
They've painted themselves into a corner, so the Roswell truth will come forward from persons or entities not tied to its history or research.
Roswell is, in essence, a simple but potentially profound story.
We'll have to wait to see how it plays out.....after 66 years, a few months shouldn't weigh too heavily
on us, should it?
It looks hard to say exactly how consistent this new information is with the IPU field report. The IPU report mentions two Landing Zones (LZ). LZ-2 is the one discussed at greatest length and is the one for which map coordinates are given as Lat. 33-40-31 and Long. 106-28-29. If you convert this location from degrees-minutes-seconds to GPS coordinates and plug it into Google Maps you will discover it refers to the Trinity test site—the location of the first atomic bomb test in July of 1945. Given that that location lies entirely within the boundary of the White Sands Proving Ground (or WSPG, as it was known then) it is unlikely (but not impossible) to have been the site the geological party happened across (plus it does not correspond to the description "40 miles due north of Roswell).
About LZ-1, the IPU document says only that it was about 75 miles northwest of Roswell, that first reports from investigators, who were from Roswell AAF base, indicated that LZ-1 was the remains of MOGUL balloon train. However, the report goes on to say that "other bodies" that looked as they had "been dissected as you would a frog" were found NOT FAR from LZ-1. Clearly, bodies, whether human or alien would not have been transported by weather balloon. So, the IPU report actually refers to 3 distinct locations of interest.
It sounds as though the Geological team's report COULD fit the description of the location "not far" from LZ-1, if there was also some kind of physical craft and/or debris associated with that site that is not mentioned in the IPU report. LZ-1 is placed about 75 miles northwest of Roswell and the geological team's discovery is described as 40 miles due north of Roswell. Would the approximate 35 mile separation be considered "not far"? I don't know.
Could Mac Brazel have seen both sites? That would seem to explain a lot of the confusion surrounding his testimony. He may have seen BOTH ordinary balloon detritus AND exotic technology and bodies.By Larry, at Sunday, February 10, 2013
Your erudite observations are splendid.
But let me accent that Brazel's observations, debris, and intervention(s) are irrelevant and troublesome -- they confuse the matter.
Forget Brazel, and clear your mind of his "additions" to the story (by others mostly), and you'll go a long way to finding a new, proper view of the real Roswell event.
David Rudiak's often brilliant scrutiny is marred by his fixation on Brazel and the Mogul debris or lack of it.
Others should see Mr. Rudiak's mistakes as endemic to their own.
I love the phrase
This, coupled with "MAJIC ACCESS"
and "TOP SECRET ULTRA" plus the gigantic MAJIC typed diagonally across page 1 give the overall impression that the person who typed it on a dirty old typewriter c. 1995 wanted to show off his great knowledge of US security markings as they existed in 1947.
I assume he got most of his ideas, and some of the names, from the MJ-12 papers of 1987, plus a bit of reading & research.
But his spelling is pretty bad in places and his English too.
I only hope that the geologists' notes that RR talks about, and supposedly made at the scene, are of a higher standard than those of the IPU writer.By cda, at Sunday, February 10, 2013
Going out on a limb here (smirk), but I expect this latest "explanation" will prove to be as tantalizingly insubstantial as all that have gone before, backed up by the usual questionable documents, misinterpreted and taken from context statements, degraded memories, biased analysis, etc., etc. I also predict the Roswell gang will over-heatedly argue it ad nausea and some new online feuds will develop.
Wake me when it's over. I'll be power napping. -
"Randle's Dream Team wants to cement its legacy so they placed themselves in a compromised position by agreeing to legal stipulations that prevents them from disclosing a "truth" that goes to the heart of the Roswell event." Sounds more than a little self contradictory. Translate. To paraphrase this. We wanted to cement our legacy and we cannot reveal what we found because we tied our own hands. Sounds oddly familiar. Much ado about nothing.
Ah....my cynical little Roswellian compatriots:
Randle's Dream Team is striving to get at the Roswell truth by they sometimes falter.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, as Gilles might say.
The new evidence is more substantial than memory or notes.
The legal hamstring was an accoutrement to see the evidence I think.
Those who agreed to it were foolish and not far-thinking.
I am prohibited from revealing as much as I know a few things: my lame reconstruction of the early Roswell tale, Nick Redfern's caution about the legal issues, and a loyalty to Anthony Bragalia whose Roswell discoveries are for him to bring forward. not me.
However, I am not beholden to any stipulations that prevent me from going rogue with what is known by the Dream Team and some outsiders (who are apparently privy to the new discovery also).
Let me say this: the new evidence is being shopped around, it seems.
The person holding the evidence wishes to capitalize upon it by offering disclosure to TV networks and other venues.
That is unforgivable as once the rabble (or public) gets involved, the "evidence" will become tainted by their input, which would be even more disastrous than letting the UFO crowd get their hands on it.
That said, I again encourage you who visit here and are interested to look at Roswell's early reportage and some writings after the fact.
You'll discern information that has been passed over in order to favor, errantly, the Brazel/Marcel nonsense (mogul balloon debris which is involved but only as a distraction).
Some of you have been coerced into thinking Brazel, Mogul, Marcel, the Foster ranch, et cetera are relevant because those things have been hyped and debated, ad infinitum, ad eternum, ad nauseum at Kevin Randle's blog and UFO Updates.
They aren't.
The are inadvertent red-herrings, placed topside by such persons as David Rudiak and Mr. Randle who has allowed them to remain in place and forward in the comment section of his blog.
CDA, a brilliant skeptic, has been flummoxed by the Roswell nonsense at those venues.
Don Ecsedy has been distracted by Roswell minutiae that is so unimportant that it needs the label of "trash."
And Bruce or PG, here, are too quick to overlay their skeptical patina before the new evidence is laid out.
They can't take my hints at face value -- face value -- and look at Roswell with new eyes either.
Roswell's mythology has infected all of us I'm afraid.
And cleaning out that infection will take time and "evidence" that is here now with more to come, so long as keepers of that evidence bring it forward without care for their legacy or fame (or some kind of monetary recompense).
That's it....you skeptical bastards.
Hints are just that. They aren't evidence. New pieces of evidence trumpeted in advance by Ufologists inevitably turn out to be easily refutable or simply a matter of personal (mis)interpretation.
Only hard evidence (something in the public domain that has a chain of indisputable documentation proving it to have been in existence since 1947) will sway me to the side of Roswell holding any significance or even having a non-ET back story.
I'm not now nor have I ever been a skeptic about there being a true phenomenon behind many UFO experiences. Roswell, however, stinks to high heaven, while not being nearly as interesting or compelling as UFO cases that draw far less attention from Ufology.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me consistently, shame on me and the burden of proof is squarely on you. -
Everything you write here is true PG.
But one can't dismiss out of hand what is said to be potentially new Roswell evidence.
It's provenance is being tested even as I type this.
But I agree....Roswell does stink, mostly from the rotten swill that has been presented as the crux of the press release and event itself over the years and even now at certain blogs.
And yes, there are many other UFO sightings and encounters that intrigue, with better core materials and lacking the accretions by faulty witnesses and biased UFO researchers.
But I prefer to keep an open mind about Roswell based on some of Tony Bragalia's legitimate findings and what one can find amongst the extant early Roswell reportage.
Scepticism in the face of yet more Roswell unsubstantiated innuendo and inference without evidence has become a necessity for even considering the remote possibility of anything other than conflated hubris.
You hint at having a card up your sleeve as so many others without substantiation and consequently you have become instrument \ player of circular rumors that falls into a familiar pattern.
It is what it is and is simply not worthy of further loose confabulations based on what you, not we claim to know. -
You, like many others, have had enough about Roswell. You are tired of it, as am I actually.
But if you and others would look at Roswell, with new eyes -- your own -- you'd see that there's something there.
I don't have anything up my sleeve.
I'm privy to what is new and startling to some.
I think it opens the Roswell story to new reflection.
You take a sour look at my suggestion to look at Roswell freshly.
You think I'm creating a new Roswell confabulation, and that may end up being so.
But your aggravation with my hints seems to be based upon something other than a distaste for more Roswell crap.
(I know that that stems from, but others reading here do not.)
Your views are not far removed from reality.
But they seem cynically premised.
I blame Roswell on Stanton Friedman and Larry King. Today, I've reached the point not caring what did or didn't happen there. I've read the last I'm ever going to read about it. No mas.
I find, for example, Shag Harbour much more interesting and possibly fruitful. It even has eyewitnesses to the object's crash, and I believe some military documentation. But, oh yeah, I forgot that took place in Canada, so it's not as important as Roswell.
Xenophobia is alive and well in American Ufology.
PS: I'm not Canadian. -
I am not aggravated as there's nothing said here or in the the miles of verbiage elsewhere on Roswell to get under my skin, compared to more grounded issues ( which do), but I am simply noting what others have not, that that you seem to have moved from the audience to the stage, and I am not casting any sort of dour attitude about it and I regret if I did give that impression inadvertently. Of course, for whatever reason, you chose not to disclose what you are hinting at that you know, and that does not spoil my breakfast or even dinner. However, all this being said, just when you think this entanglement could not get more entangled, it does, yet it sits there as lifelessly as a pile of dried and anomalous poo on a carpet calling for a clean up. If it ever is cleaned up, then what? I think those of us who are interested in the actual root causes of the phenomenon outside of Roswell, do not care whether the poo is picked up because outside of the window, odd things are still occurring and have occurred. In a sense Roswell is a form of navel gazing on a operatic platform that runs from A to Z back to A as a one trick pony.
Its a big world out there.. -
You're right of course, Bruce.
But when I (or anyone) gets pummeled by "news" that a new Roswell discovery tells us what really happened there in 1947, we have to react....after all this is a UFO blog and Roswell is an underpinning tale that supports the UFO meme.
My point in posting about this is twofold: to let readers here know that another Roswell expose is afoot and also to try and out the new information before it gets to the public at large, which will make the discovery an object of scavengery, by the great unwashed.
We can perhaps agree that another chapter of vested exploitation by banging drums and tooting horns about all of this is yet to occur. We are in a sort of languid dead zone, a post-editorial topography of examining what has been examined in order to find where we fell off the map and got snookered by every con and shill in town. Sort of living in the past in search of the political and social foibles of the human condition rather than that of our hunt for what is both inexplicable and incommensurable.
I don't think the two can be separated easily. Looking forward by looking backward while in the present is our lot. I predict when this soap opera expires, it will be a footnote that will lead to further half baked "conclusions" while nothing has been concluded for those of us who still cannot give a cogent explanation for "foo fighters" I think our shared interest in this topic of Roswell is disproportionately large in comparison to other aspects of the phenomenon in terms of paying off as you had alluded to in the sunk cost metaphor. I wish the Dream Team the best of luck, but have no confidence any of this will solve anything. A sort of nice embroidery to hang on the wall. -
As I get more feedback about the new discovery I'm inclined to agree Bruce.
If I can get vagabond Nick Redfern to weigh in, he might provide some clarifying perspective about the new "evidence."
The Dream Team is functioning and on the trail of new Roswell information but when I hear that it is beholden to self-imposed legal restraints, I'm concerned.
Do they want the truth or do they want to play ball with the establishment -- which will dead-end anything related to truth.
"Some members of the geology group surreptitiously documented what was going on."
That's great. Finally, a document written in 1947. I look forward to being able to read it, and hear the story.
But, if that is the evidence to be presented, what could it have to say about your "Brazel Scenario"? What you have presented about it isn't evidence for it directly as there apparently is for the '2nd site'.
Throughout the Roswell story, the Brazel site has commonly been considered not the crash site. It has always been the '1st site', connected to the real crash site or '2nd site' via the hypothesis of a pre-crash explosion or entanglement.
You have presented the "Brazel Scenario" as a logical deduction, on the principle of simplicity or perhaps Occam, not as something found in the new evidence.
Do I have that right?
DonBy Don, at Monday, February 11, 2013
You may not be Canadian, but remember this:
The whole of the MJ-12 junk that pervaded the UFO field in 1987 and is still extant, with lots of extra bits and pieces 'hanging on' stemmed from a certain Wilbert Smith, a Canadian engineer and UFO contactee and kook of the 1950s. He actually wanted to build an actual working UFO in his lab near Ottawa.
Yes all the MJ-12 and 'Majestic' garbage originated from his infamous memorandum (poor fellow) although he could never have realised its effects on ufology that lay far into the future.By cda, at Monday, February 11, 2013
You like to make assumptions by reading into text what isn't there.
Did I mean "writing down something" by noting the geologists documented their observation?
As for Brazel, you keep trying to bring that guy into the dialogue.
You have some inordinate affection for him and his loopy tale?
He's out.....If someone (anyone) mentions Brazel once more, in the context of my current postings about Roswell.....well, you know.
Rich: "Did I mean "writing down something" by noting the geologists documented their observation?"
It is a reasonable assumption. Photos? Even better.
"As for Brazel, you keep trying to bring that guy into the dialogue.
You have some inordinate affection for him and his loopy tale?"
Because you have brought him up, and constantly, in your articles and responses to posts. No one else introduce Brazel in this discussion except you. You have an opinion about him and it seems you believe your opinion about him is supported by this new evidence. All I'm asking is what it could be.
Also, the "loopy tale" wasn't told by Brazel, not originally.
DonBy Don, at Monday, February 11, 2013
My mentions of Brazel were akin to warning signs near thin ice.
But you (mostly) keep testing the ice.
Forget Brazel.
If I mention him, ignore my mention.
I am taken aback by the implied 'UFO True Believer' leanings you have written here!!!
....what's next, you'll claim that the Pope went FIGMO???? -
Don't be alarmed.
I'm merely "reporting" what I've been given information about.
I've always thought something happened near Roswell in 1947 -- something odd or exotic.
As to it being an ET event, that's up for grabs in my mind.
I'm inclined to see Roswell as a quirky episode that has attained mythological status because of the machinations of UFO researchers.
In that, I accept CDA's view about Roswell, and France's Gilles Fernandez.
But there are some sneaky footnotes to Roswell that leave open the ET door, a crack.
I'm still on hold about it, however.
As Don Ecsedy has it -- I may appear to be a pseudo-skeptic -- but I'm still a skeptic, with an open mind though.
Rich: "As Don Ecsedy has it -- I may appear to be a pseudo-skeptic -- but I'm still a skeptic, with an open mind though."
I apologize if what I wrote was confusing. I was referring to dear "Zoam".
DonBy Don, at Monday, February 11, 2013
You don't have to apologize....I think I am a pseudo-skeptic.
(Kurt Peters picked up the vibe.)
Like CDA, deep down I think we both see UFOs as ET oriented.
Now Zoam....that guy is a rabid skeptic....brilliant and loopy both.
.."(Kurt Peters picked up the vibe.)"
I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of The Beach Boys!!! -
Have the dream team found the original to the photo discussed here ? http://aliensthetruth.com/UFO.php?view=1&ID=24
Or give us all another clue!
Dougie -
No, Douglas...
It's new material, totally.
Part 1
CDA wrote:
"I love the phrase
Yes, I know that anything that whiffs of American Exceptionalism really ticks you off. However, the US actually did emerge from WWII at the top of the heap economically, technologically, militarily, and politically. Also, practically everything that the US knew about security and intelligence practices at that time, had just been taught to us by the UK—specifically, Winston Churchill acting through William Stephenson. Nor is the US alone in choosing self-agrandizing security code words; consider that the highest classification code word within NATO is "COSMIC".
"This, coupled with "MAJIC ACCESS" and "TOP SECRET ULTRA" plus the gigantic MAJIC typed diagonally across page 1 give the overall impression that the person who typed it on a dirty old typewriter c. 1995 wanted to show off his great knowledge of US security markings as they existed in 1947."
Ultimately, I don't know if the IPU document is real or not. I can make arguments both ways. I don't automatically assume it's fraudulent just because it describes events which are outside of conventional wisdom. For now, it's in my "grey" basket.
But, if you want to make a fair and intelligent critique of the IPU document, you should at least start by comprehending what the classification markings purport to say. To begin with, there is a cover page preceding the actual text of the report. This is a possible indicator of authenticity because a cover page is an important element in maintaining control of classified material. Among other things, it tells the reader whether he/she is authorized to continue reading what follows. You consistently misrepresent the document as being a "Top Secret Ultra" document. It is not. All the classification markings except "ULTRA" have been lined out. When a classified document goes through re-classification review (as this one purports to have done) it is standard practice to place a line through previous classifications, but leave them readable and in place. This provides a record of the classification history. Classification markings without a line through them are presumed to still be in effect. If someone schooled in the US system of security (or the UK system, for that matter) were to come across that document, they would conclude that the highest level of classification of the document is "ULTRA"
The cover page bears historically correct stamps indicating that the document was received and logged into the files of the Army Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2 (i.e., Intelligence and Counter Intelligence) on July 22, 1947. Note that many of these markings, including the gigantic "MAJIC" one are made by rubber stamps, NOT by typewriter, as you erroneously suggest. This can easily be seen by the facts that they are not aligned along the horizontal and vertical, are somewhat uneven in the application of printing force, and sometimes have cuts and blemishes on the printing surface. One especially interesting example is the time stamp consisting of a day-of-the-month counter connected to a little arrow, pointing to the month abbreviation. In 1947 that was the pinnacle of office automation technology; other examples of the use of that time stamp can be found on other, undisputed War Department documents from that era.By Larry, at Monday, February 11, 2013
Part 2
The original classification of "Top Secret" was purportedly authorized and applied to the document by the Army Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, upon receipt. Again, this is another possible indication of authenticity. Most people don't seem to know it, but only a few individuals at the top of the military/intelligence hierarchy are authorized to classify, re-classify, and de-classify documents at the Top Secret level. I don't think the purported CIC agent could have done so, and for that reason, I suspect that the "Top Secret" markings placed at the top and bottom of each page (SOP) that were subsequently lined through, were typed there by the G-2 office. The document was purportedly created a couple of months BEFORE the National Security Act of 1947 took effect, so the stamp indicating that the Army was still under the War Department (instead of the Department of Defense) is technically correct. Thus, the initial classification level of the document was simply, War Department "Top Secret"—an ordinary military classification which, I trust no one would find incredible.
Be that as it may, after the War Department became the DOD in September 1947, the office of Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.) was created, with organizational authority over the individual military services. The first Joint Chief was named in 1949, so presumably sometime after that date, a copy of the report was given to the J.C.S., and stamped (not typed) "J.C.S. File Copy". Again, this is 100% in accord with military protocol of passing critical information up the chain of command.
In 1960, (exact date unclear) a new paragraph on the cover page was typed (aligned horizontally and vertically) and then signed, and ostensibly countersigned by the head of the NSA (Gen. John Samford) and head of CIA (Allen Dulles) indicating the document was being reclassified, to "ULTRA", a level supposedly above Top Secret. Both Samford and Dulles did, in fact, occupy those positions at that time. The existence of the CIA was known in 1947 as soon as the National Security Act was signed. The predecessor agency to the NSA was the Armed Forces Security Agency created in 1949 by Truman issuing a classified executive order. The existence of the NSA was a highly classified fact for many years, which is why it was sometimes referred to as "No Such Agency". Although its existence was known publicly in 1995, when the IPU memo surfaced, I don't know if the fact that John Samford was its director in 1960 was known at that time; that would be interesting to research. Preexisting paragraphs, probably describing the authority by which the War Dept. classification had been implemented, penalties for disclosure, etc. were obliterated with an opaque marker, since the document then had a new owner.
The reclassification to "ULTRA" level was done by applying a rubber stamp to the cover page and then typing the word "ULTRA" at the top and bottom of each page of the report, in proximity to the lined-out "Top Secret" classification that had been applied by the War Department. The cover page stamp contained two lines, with the words "Top Secret" on the upper line and "ULTRA" on the lower line. By lining out the words "Top Secret", the overall classification remaining is "ULTRA". This would imply that there were at least two, and perhaps three levels of classification that could be applied with one stamp. By leaving the stamp imprint unmodified, the classification would be "Top Secret ULTRA". By lining out the word "Top", one could produce a "Secret ULTRA" classification. By lining out "Top Secret", one could produce a simple "ULTRA" classification.By Larry, at Monday, February 11, 2013
Part 3
Is this type of designation ever seen elsewhere in the US classified world? Yes, in the AEC realm. The secret information that was protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was designated as "Restricted Data" (RD)—a generic descriptor that could be analogous to "ULTRA". Today, RD is further subdivided into at least two subcategories, "Secret RD" and "Top Secret RD". When you get cleared into that world, you get assigned one of those clearances (unless there's a higher one that is not public knowledge). In principle "ULTRA" could even be an undisclosed category of RD, two or three "points" above the H-Bomb classification level (i.e., Top Secret RD).
In any case, the classification level of the document was "ULTRA", not "Top Secret ULTRA", the classification level was stamped, not typed, and it was ostensibly put there in 1960, not 1947.
Once again, you are frequently wrong but never in doubt.By Larry, at Monday, February 11, 2013
Larry, thanks for your very informative discussion of the "classification" designations on the IPU Report document. We are all in your debt on that. You say that the document may well be authentic. Is there anything in it that strikes you as obviously false? I would love your reaction to the statement in the IPU Report that asserts that the FBI "interest in the stored craft at Los Alamos" was "curtailed" and access was denied. This corresponds perfectly with the rather cryptic Hoover handwritten note at the bottom of an FBI memorandum (that researchers have puzzled about for years) where Hoover says almost exactly the same thing. If the IPU Report surfaced BEFORE the Hoover handwritten note,(does anyone know?) this goes a long way toward establishing the authenticity of the IPU document.
The IPU report is rather tangential to the posting topic, but I'm allowing it as you and Larry (and CDA) seem to find it fascinating and pertinent.
Thanks, RR, for allowing this discussion. Tangential? Perhaps. Yet if the IPU Report is authentic, then Roswell (your posting topic) is solved with or without any "dream team" revelations.
Yes. Dominick....you make a point.
Hey R-squared:
I just found the Blog of the self-admitted Wizard of Ozwell, which explains how he/her/it directed the snake-oil-researchers towards the successful over-promotion of the event....
...and, it seems, the blogger is, like yourself, in the Wolverine State, so..... time to come clean, eh?, R-squared? :
http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/2013/01/idle-ufo-musings-jallen-hynek-ripples.html -
You've discovered Michael Swords site.
He's a real UFO researcher.
PG wrote:
> I blame Roswell on Stanton Friedman
Friedman has a lot to answer for. I've recently read all the early reports of the Hill case and find Friedman's retelling is wrong on pretty much every detail. He's a partisan who lets his beliefs trump fact. Marcello Truzzi, Karl Pflock, Kevin Randle, Jenny Randles and James Moseley all have said so in writing (though Friedman tells his readers that only diabolical skeptics disagree with him).
> I'm not Canadian.
I am! So I would like to make a plug for Canada's sensible ufologist, Chris Rutkowski, in the form of a prediction:
The Dream Team will either:
1) never publish a credible full report
2) will publish an incredible full report without Chris Rutkowski's signature on it
You read it here first. -
Although RR permits further debate over the so-called 'IPU Report', I am reluctant to take this much, if any, further.
Dominick writes: "Yet if the IPU Report is authentic, then Roswell (your posting topic) is solved with or without any "dream team" revelations".
Indeed it would be. However, RR need not worry as this IPU Report is as phony as the 747 airliner once 'discovered' in a lunar crater.
There is no such thing as "U.S.MAJESTIC INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY", and never was. There is no such thing as "MAJIC ACCESS" either.
If Dominick or Larry disbelieve me I challenge them to go directly to official records or archivists or anyone else in authority and find that such a designation or group ever existed.
I do not have to be familiar with all the US military procedures and protocols to know that these descriptions are fictitious. They were invented by a forger during the 1990s, someone who wanted to show the UFO fraternity that he could 'improve' on the original MJ-12 forgeries. It is merely one of a series of fakes paraded during that period.
Further, it is inconceivable that any of the top scientists named therein would have kept their knowledge of ETs visiting our planet secret for decade after decade (to their deaths) without informing fellow scientists. The idea that they, or anyone else, would have been forbidden to pass on this knowledge to the scientific world is dotty in the extreme.
No, I am not going to check so-and-so's diary to see if he met Truman or Eisenhower on a certain day. Such research would be useless as there is never any indication of what they were discussing.
The original of the IPU Report will, I guarantee, be non-existent. As will the originals of all the other fake documents.
If you doubt me, please locate the originals. (And please do NOT make excuses for your failure to do so).
The forger had seen FBI director Hoover's hand-written notes at the end of the memo in question (released with a huge batch of FBI papers in about 1976) and had simply copied something similar onto the phony IPU Report he composed during the 1990s.
So get to it: find out all about "U.S.MAJESTIC INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY". It sounds a tremendously exciting organisation.
I await your discoveries.
But this is not really supposed to be the topic under discussion.By cda, at Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Christopher (CDA) has thrown down the gauntlet fellows...
I agree with Chris about IPU, and imo, it is CIC/AFOSI pixie dust, at best a 'tracer'. Pure marketing.
Any IPU story will begin and end with CI.
DonBy Don, at Wednesday, February 13, 2013
CDA claims to know that the IPU Report under discussion was "invented by a forger in the 1990's." Who was the forger and how did you discover this information? Further, what rational incentives would explain the time and research required to create such a document? To dazzle the UFO community? To what end? You can't be serious. If the documents were forged (always a possibility), we need a far better explanation than CDA (or anyone else) has provided for motive.
CDA also claims to know that designations such as MAGIC ACCESS are totally fictitious since, of course, there is no mention of such designations in "official records" or from anyone in "authority." But, CDA, if this project were super-secret, and allegedly hidden away and lied about for decades, why do you think there would be any official records to access? And even if there were, why would those in "authority" provide access to them?
CDA has things quite backward. IF, and I say IF, such a super-secret project existed, and if information about it were leaked, there is absolutely no reason why anyone in "authority" would acknowledge its existence or allow researchers to discover "official" records. They would maintain almost complete silence...which is what they have done. Governments can keep secrets and destroy records and they may (I say may) well have done that here.
So how can we take up CDA's challenge and "prove" that the document is real? We cannot. The best we can do is demonstrate by factual research that the claims and dates and names in the document are incorrect. And that's why the burden of "proof" in this case with respect to an alleged leaked document is REVERSED. The burden of proof is actually on those who maintain that the document is a forgery. Authority will never acknowledge its "real" (if it is) so the burden MUST fall on those who claim it's a fake. Prove it. Demonstrate errors of logic or fact...and then the document falls of its own weight regardless of any official or unoffical records. -
Dominick picks up the gauntlet.
So Dominick is saying that the government may well have destroyed all the original papers relating to the said event. This echoes Orwell's 1984!
Applying this logic we could assume that in the event of the genuine discovery of ET on earth (perhaps the most momentous scientific event in the earth's history) the US authorities may have created many records relating to it and then destroyed them all afterwards to preserve the great secret! Is that how science works? I do not think so.
One wonders what the whole purpose of space research & exploration is.
It is similar to going to the moon (or maybe Mars in the future) but carefully destroying all documents and records to this effect and forcing those astronauts who went there to keep their mouths shut, just in case they found some ET life there.
Boy, this takes some beating. It really does.
And the forger? How about that Tim Cooper and/or his infamous "Cantwheel" informant? Where have they got to lately anyway?
But really, I feel we are getting nowhere with this debate and that further discussion is pointless.By cda, at Wednesday, February 13, 2013
...I received a hint from a correspondent that there was, in the middle 1990's, an expose in Milwaukee Magazine that exposed The Roswell Dream Team Darling, Don Schmidt, as at least, a confabulator!
..the author was said to be one Gillian Sender... Google searches however could not find any transcript...scrubbed perhaps?
...anyway, I found this indirect confirmation from Roswell General Officer Randle:
...perhaps the overly wordy Rudiak, the overly silent Rutkowski, or the overly full of himself Professor Bragalia might deign to comment?? -
" RRRGroup said...
You've discovered Michael Swords site.
He's a real UFO researcher.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013"
....you have apparently never been to his nest...... -
I assume KP that you mean something other than an "informal conversationalist" for Mr. Schmidt.
But since it's your word, I'll take it as the one intended and I don't see it as an epithet.
....my bad.... I also await comment from "Yum..Mashed potatoes" Carey, of course!!!!
As for Michael Swords, he, like Jerry Clark and the gamut of UFO geezers I often excoriate, is a UFO report accumulator.
But Mr. Swords, or The Professor -- something like The Maestro in a few Seinfeld episodes -- has an inclination to present hoary UFO material, and for that he deserves kudos of some kind.
P.S.S. sorry to abuse the daily maximum posting allotment, but this too seems to be relevant:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/klass_files_volume_32/ -
If there was a nuclear bomb test, the geologists would have detected it with seismology equipment? And if there was a nuclear explosion, the EMP it created could have knocked out the electronics on civilian aircraft in the area...


text:
06 Jeep liberty 3.7L ran fine but now dont start
Hi my 06 liberty was running fine no problems, When pulled in to the driveway tonight was running fine than when put into reverse it just died and wont start now. Check for codes nothing found it turns over but wont fire. I can smell fuel so i dont think it is that. Any Help would be very appreciated. Thankyou
Re: 06 Jeep liberty 3.7L ran fine but now dont start
Did you solve this problem in the mean time? There are some faults who won't show up immediately, but at specific conditions. Since you smell fuel, seems that fuel supply and injection are working. Can be a problem with the ignition. A cam sensor for example could be the culprit. Probably a DRBIII scanner can tell more.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 - JeepGarage.Org
The Jeep Grand Cherokee Owners Community


text:
Aug 7, 2012
Russia is going to build bases for the Navy and Border Guard Service along the northern sea route which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, says Security Council chief Nikolay Partushev.
The location of the bases, in some of the most remote areas of the Arctic Sea, has already been drawn up, Patrushev told the council's meeting in Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, on Monday.
However, he says the work on getting them up and running is going slowly.
"It was suggested we set up a patrol group, organize sorties along the northern sea route and develop a respective legal base, however, a lot of that hasn't been done yet," Patrushev said, as cited by RIA-Novosti.
The five Arctic powers – Russia, Norway, the United States, Canada and Denmark – have been at odds over how to divide up the region, which is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves. The dispute has been heating up as rising temperatures make sea ice melt, and provide access to deposits, while record high oil prices make offshore drilling in the Arctic more economic.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an economic zone belonging to a state is limited to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. However, that zone can be extended if a state proves that the continental shelf is a geological extension of the country's territory.
Since 2007, Russia has conducted several expeditions with the goal to prove that an underwater mountain range is part of its own landmass. Moscow has planned to submit its claim to redraw the map of the Arctic by 2013.
By 2020, Russia will deploy a combined-arms force – including military, border and coastal guard units – to protect its economic and political interests in the Arctic.
Earlier in July this year, after overseeing the start of construction of one of Russia's newest generation of submarines, President Vladimir Putin said: "The Navy is an instrument for defending our national economic interests, including in regions like the Arctic, which holds a rich concentration of bio-resources, as well as deposits of hydrocarbons and other natural resources."
This article was posted: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 at 3:02 am
Comments are closed.
© 2017 PrisonPlanet.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved. Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notice.


text:
From the Richmond Enquirer, 10/12/1861, p. 3, c. 6WANTED! WANTED! WANTED! – 100 White Girls to work on Cartridges, at the Laboratory C. S., corner 7th and Arch streets. Good wages will be paid, if immediate application is made. W. N. SMITH, M. S. K., C. S. A. Oct. 5 – tf Page last updated on 07/24/2009 |
Copyright © 2008 Civil War Richmond Inc. |
| |


text:
With 5-inch, 6-inch and even 7-inch variants, high-end smart phones seem to be ballooning out of all proportion. Human evolution is a bit too slow to respond though, meaning we're still left with tiny hands with thumbs that can't stretch across the screen without some kind of invasive surgery.
To help avoid such drastic measures, HTC has shrunk its flagship One smart phone, creating the One Mini. It's gone from 4.7 to a much more manageable 4.3 inches, but still keeps the same luxurious aluminium body. It's a little less high-end, with a 720p display and a dual-core processor, but it does boast 4G connectivity and the same 4-megapixel camera as its big brother.
It'll be going head-to-head with Samsung's Galaxy S4 Mini, which boasts a similar lineup of specs and plastic S4 stylings, and costs about the same.
HTC hasn't yet been able to confirm the price of the phone, but Carphone Warehouse has listed it at £380 SIM-free. Various retailers are offering it for free on deals from £27 per month. It's due to go on sale on 9 August, so expect to hear more detailed pricing nearer the time.
Should I buy the HTC One Mini?
If you've been eyeing up the sleek, metal body of the HTC One but don't fancy stretching your palms out to accommodate its 4.7-inch screen, the One Mini should float your dirigible. Its 4.3-inch size makes it much more comfortable to hold. It still has the gorgeous metal body, making it arguably the closest thing to an Android-powered iPhone you'll get.
Don't think it's just a shrunken HTC One though. Crucially, its processor is dual- rather than quad-core, resulting in much less impressive benchmark results. It also doesn't support many of the more demanding games I tested, though I'm not sure at this point if that's a hardware limitation or a software issue. Even so, if gaming is on your mind, the bigger version is better.
The screen isn't Full HD either, though you'd be hard-pressed to tell. It's much sharper than the Galaxy S4 Mini's display and it handles colours well too. The 4-megapixel camera is identical to the One's -- decent, but not brilliant.
If you're looking for a great all-round Android phone that refuses to toe the 'bigger is better' line, the HTC One Mini is the one to go for. If size (or budget) isn't that important, but you do want sleek style, opt for its £500 big brother. The Galaxy S4 Mini isn't a bad option to consider, but it has a plastic body and a lower screen resolution. The iPhone 5, meanwhile, is considerably more expensive, starting at £529 -- even the 3.5-inch 4S is £449.
At 63mm wide and 132mm long, the One Mini is about 5mm slimmer and shorter than the standard One. That might not seem like much, but it actually makes a significant difference. It's much more comfortable to hold in one hand and I didn't need to stretch my thumbs to tap icons on the far side of the screen. It's 20g lighter than the One as well, which you'll notice if you're holding it up for hours on end trying to earn three stars on every level of Angry Birds.
The family resemblance to the One is immediately noticeable. The Mini has the same aluminium body, which not only looks gorgeous, but feels just as luxurious to hold as the full-sized version did. White plastic inlaid lines break up the back's grey metal at the top and bottom.
The only major difference in the Mini's design -- apart from its size, of course -- is that it now sports a white plastic band wrapping around the edge that gives it a slightly toy-like aesthetic. It's not an unpleasant addition at all and should help give extra protection from knocks.
I found my review model of the One picked up quite a few scuffs and chips on its sharp metal edge over time. The Mini's light grey silver is just as susceptible to dirt and grime as the bigger model, however, so if you want it to keep looking fresh when you're on your way out to a party, give it a quick spit polish.
The Mini will be available in the same black and silver colours as the One. The full sized One is now available in a stunning shade of red too, but HTC wouldn't confirm if the Mini will ever be available in this tintillating hue.
On the front are the same two 'BoomSound' speakers, perched above and below the screen. They honk out a surprisingly loud and full sound for a phone -- they're certainly among the best speakers you'll find on a mobile device. The sound is helped by the fact that they face forwards, directing the sound directly at you when you're watching a video. You'll still want to use headphones or a good speaker when playing music at home, but they're easily good enough to annoy every single person on the bus.
Around the sides is a micro-USB port, a 3.5mm headphone jack and volume and power buttons. The buttons don't sit quite as flush with their surroundings as they do on the One. This makes them much easier to find by feel alone -- the One's volume rocker makes it extremely difficult to quickly turn down your music volume without taking it out of your pocket.
Like the One, there's no slot to pop in a micro-SD card, so you're stuck with the phone's internal storage, and you can't swap out the battery either.
To match its smaller size, the screen's resolution has seen a drop from Full HD down to 720p. In spite of this, the Mini boasts 341 pixels per inch, which is a little more than the iPhone 5's 326ppi and kicks the proverbial of the Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini's 256ppi.
I found it to be satisfyingly sharp, with no fuzziness around text or icons. Against its Full HD brother, you can notice the difference, but you need to get your nose pretty close to the screen to see it. In everyday use, you're unlikely to feel like you're lacking pixels.
Side by side against the S4 Mini, however, it's a different story. I popped on my favourite test video Art of Flight and was actually quite surprised at the difference in quality. The One Mini's screen was considerably more crisp, showing the flurries of snow and detailed mountain ridges with much greater clarity than the S4 Mini's screen.
Colours were also satisfyingly bold and rich, although the S4 Mini probably had a slight edge in this department, thanks to its customisable colour profiles. The extra clarity on the One Mini certainly makes it a more appealing option, particularly given the similar prices. It's more than good enough for YouTube clips or watching a few episodes of Top Gear on Netflix.


text:
The Horse Forum
- Horse Talk
- - Equine Ownership Test
Equine Ownership Test FHOTD recently posted an entry asking for suggestions about what to put on a test for new horse owners if there was one. I don't want to debate whether we should have a test, but let's just assume the government decided to put one in place... As you can see from the comments on the blog, coming up with questions isn't that easy. Many things to do with horses are dependent on location and many other things such as what vaccines to give are up for debate. Some questions are too vague, such as "How much hay does a horse eat?" and others don't affect certain people. So, what do you think a person should know before buying a horse? Here's a sample 10 questions for me: 1) Label the parts of the horse (because you can't really call the vet up and say "my horse has a bump on the back of the sticky outy thing near his foot." ) 2) Describe how to muck out a stall. 3) About how often should a horse be fed a) hay b) grain? 4) How do you find a good horse vet and farrier? 5) Where do you find information on: a) what horse diseases exist in your area? b) what poisonous plants exist in your area? 6) What are the signs of colic? What's the first thing you should do if you suspect your horse has colic? 7) If you were going to board your horse, what questions would you ask a stable owner before deciding to keep your horse there? 8) True of false: - Having a foal will improve a mare's behavior. - If you have a nice mare, it's cheaper to breed a foal than to buy another horse. 9) You see a sale add for a horse that says "15.5H tri-colored pinto." Based on the add, what is your opinion of the seller and why? 10) Name two types of grain horses sometimes eat and two other types of food they shouldn't eat. This is far from a complete list... and strange as it may seem I would also ask one or two questions about color genetics, because in my experience people who love horses enough to learn about that usually care enough to learn the really important stuff. |
I know a lot of people who board their horses who dont know the first thing about picking a stall... which is to bad. I dont really know about colors, I only know the basic colors, lol. Hmmm... i cant really think of any more, You coverd all the basics in my books. |
Honestly, I think it should be mandatory to have an "adult pony club" and have everyone complete a crash course! I would avoid questions about color genetics because it's really amazing how few people know anything. I've met competent breeders that didn't understand all the aspects of color. My friends have gotten curious and always ask me now, but I'd be far beit to call Shay-la an incompetent horse owner because she doesn't know what color her palomino mare could produce if bred to a grullo stud. Maybe names of actual horse colors such as bay, chestnut or black? Those are more relevant, as it doesn't have anything to do with horse ownership but shows a level of commitment and seriousness I think. I think a good "horse ownership" test should cover several scenerios. Describe a scene involving colic or laminitis for example, or a scene that describes a horse behaving badly from ill fitting tack and have them explain why they think it's happening. Detailed descriptive answers are an excellent look into someones psyche - even if it was answered technically wrong, if the effort was there and the logic makes sense, it benefits the evaluator moreso then a simple yes or no or one worded answer. I vote for having this test before being allowed to have children as well. :lol: |
Stuff about how to properly handle a horse, how to be the "leader", what to do when a horse misbehaves...things like that. Posted via Mobile Device |
Don't forget about some grooming stuff! If you can't properly clean your horse, how will you know if something is wrong with it/out of the ordinary? Also there should be something about tack fitting, like if a saddle if ts properly, there should be solid sweat marks on each side of the horse and how to measure for a bit and so on..... And yes! there should be a test for people who are purchasing their first horse. Espically the preteen brats who throw a tantrum and daddy buys them a pretty pony because their daughter is too precious to say no to. They should just let the goverment step in and tell the brat no. |
there should be something about hoof care, like the points of the hoof there should also be pictures of good weight horse and then a skinny horse then an obese horse and they have to pick the healthy one |
At the barn I feed and work at several owners know nothing about what their horses eat, the supplements they get, etc. My BO just tells them what they need to buy and they buy it. I discovered this when I was asking an owner about her horses' food and she told me she didnt know anything about that, we did it. That's happened with another onwer also...lol. And I'm sure they don't know much about cleaning the stalls then either.. Good thread though. I think the owners and everyone else involved should know about everything, not just the BO and us workers. |
I always wanted to know what was happening with my horse, but some people don't care or are too confused about how to go about asking. Instead of making fun of folks like that, maybe offer a class or training session? I think an exam prior to that would be a good idea, since that will tell you their strengths and weaknesses. I know when I brought my boys home for the first time I wasn't exactly scared, but I was fairly clueless about how much I was supposed to feed them. Oh, I knew WHAT they were eating, but the amounts were kind of sketchy in my mind. I've had horses for 32 years. For 27 of those years I boarded. It's completely different when you have them at home, and it can be a trial by fire. Sure, you can be as prepared as humanly possible, but there's still a quantity of unknown. After all, what people who work with horses as their job see as just regular knowledge that anyone should know, isn't necessarily true when it comes to those who board their horses and leave the responsibilities of day to day care up to someone else. |
I wasnt making fun of them, didnt mean for it to come off like that. Its just stuff like that that makes me think this kind of test would be a good idea so they have some clue as to what's going on with their animal. I personally would want to know what my horse eats, and etc. even if I was not the one doing the work, but I am not everyone. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by
vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


text:
> Tools > Clothing and Safety > Workwear
This high visibility traffic vest has 2 microphone loops, 2 pockets on the front and 2 lower pockets with flaps. This vest is highly visible with its orange colour and 2'' reflective tape over a 4'' contrasting yellow tape. Hook and loop fasteners on the front, sides and shoulders allows you to take off the vest quickly in case of an emergency (anti-entanglement). Meets CSA-Z96-09 class 2, level 2 requirements. Size large to extra large.
Prices shown are already reduced according to our current promotions
Toutes les transactions sont certifiées sécuritaires[TOTRANSLATE]
You are about to change your selected store.
Please note that if you change stores, prices and availability shown on the website may vary and your shopping cart will empty.
Keep my store Change store