Thanks for the reply, but if I may question further:
Mr. Carlson’s claims of falsity do not rest entirely upon his claim that it is impossible to selectively disrupt electronics. Indeed, the bulk of his paper is to discredit Capt. Salas’ claims, and I do not see how that evidence is refuted either in your post now or in anyone’s post ever.
As for the claims of electrical interference, the cases you cited, if even true, are merely examples of what Mr. Carlson is claiming is physically true, that is, that if electronics are disrupted by natural or physically explainable events, then all electronics will be disrupted, not merely one component, or one station, etc.
The only case that may be worthy of further investigation would be the claim that “targeting instructions for individual missiles have been changed”. In such further investigation, one should ask, “was only one missile at the time altered, while others in the same test flight operated normally, or, was only one missile tested at the time of the malfunction?” If the latter case, then that would simply be another case of system wide malfunction, and not targeted malfunction (which would be unexplainable by the laws of physics).
The case of levitation, well, I don’t know what to say about that other than personal testimony alone would be insufficient for corroboration.
You see my FRiend, I think one of the main things that separate you and me in our mutual fascination of UFO reports is that I am not able to accept personal testimony alone, whereas you appear to be satisfied to rely upon personal testimony as the bulk of evidence for extraterrestrial encounters. Personal testimony, no matter how many one can find on the Internet (be it hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands) would not represent even close to a significant percentage of the US population, much less the world’s population. Thus, from statistics alone, it is reasonable to conclude that such people may be suffering from a wide variety of mental defects, or, even if perfectly sane, may honestly believe their encounter to be true but have simply misinterpreted it based on limited knowledge of natural phenomena.
Returning to the issue at hand, with all due respect, because I do genuinely believe you to be an intelligent person, I do not believe your response to me adequately addresses the extensive work Mr. Carlson has done to offer claims of falsity on the part of Capt. Salas, and shoddy “journalism” on the part of Mr. Hastings. You mention objections to Mr. Carlson’s argument about electronic interference being physically impossible in a targeted sense, but your objections do not actually refute his claims (as I explained above). You seem to use this refutation (that again doesn’t address his physical objections at all) to dismiss his claims against Capt. Salas. With all due respect, this is not being objective IMO, it’s being a “naysayer”.
I don’t know that I can lift this out of the ‘naysayer’ level of disagreement. I don’t care to devote that amount of time to Mr Carlson’s objections.
1. I disagree with Mr Carlson’s analysis of the technological capacities. THEY ABSOLUTELY CAN SELECTIVELY WITH GREAT PRECISION AND FINE TUNED SPECIFICITY TURN OFF OR ALTER OR FREEZE VARIOUS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS—WHETHER PART OF A FIGHTER’S ELECTRONICS OR ONE SPECIFIC ELECTRICAL SUBSYSTEM OF A MISSILE’S PROGRAMMING. They are evidently able to change the specific bits and zero’s within a computer chip from a great distance—at least in feet or yards.
2. The business about mental illness and experiencers has been totally well refuted with quality scientific studies. Such experiencers are slightly significantly MORE healthy than the average of the population. IIRC, THEY ARE, AS AN AVERAGED AGGREGATE also slightly significantly smarter than the average of the general population. They do, after their experiences, quite plausibly show some evidence of PTSD! OF COURSE! DOH!
3. I don’t think a great deal of Salas. He may be a brazen opportunist. He may be a new age cultist. He says some things about the phenomena which are true.
4. The testimonials . . . comparing the testimonials with the world population? Based on what logic? Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare their testimonies with testimonines of murder witnesses? Testimonies of sightings of the Loch Ness monster? of Big foot? Of ghosts?
5. Based on THOSE kinds of more rational comparisons, the testimonies of solid reasonably vetted experiencers are head and shoulders above most of the above and quite favorably consistent with the integrity and accuracy of the better witnesses of murders.
6. AT this point, I’m not referring to an amalgamized distillation of a few hundred cases—but of many thousands over my 45 years of study. Themes appear that are quite consistent from experiencers all around the globe from Australia to Timbuktu to Iceland to Norway to Argentina to wherever. Even the secret types of marks on their bodies which most researchers have kept secret as a way to verify authenticity of the experiencel—those are consistent around the world.
I think Mr Carlson’s stuff has a veneer of objectivity without a shred of substantive objectivity. Just my bias from all my study.
Your posts may be mushing together . . . trying to get out the door but not succeeding very well. LOL.
re:
As for the claims of electrical interference, the cases you cited, if even true, are merely examples of what Mr. Carlson is claiming is physically true, that is, that if electronics are disrupted by natural or physically explainable events, then all electronics will be disrupted, not merely one component, or one station, etc.
The only case that may be worthy of further investigation would be the claim that “targeting instructions for individual missiles have been changed”. In such further investigation, one should ask, “was only one missile at the time altered, while others in the same test flight operated normally, or, was only one missile tested at the time of the malfunction?” If the latter case, then that would simply be another case of system wide malfunction, and not targeted malfunction (which would be unexplainable by the laws of physics).
FROM MEMORY . . . not refreshed in great detail for many months if not a few years . . .
1. The missiles were all extremely structurally and physically isolated. I was reportedly virtually impossible if not totally redundantly impossible for one missile’s malfunction to influence another missle.
2. IIRC, even at the control center level, there was so much redundancy built in . . . and so much isolated structure built into the control center wiring and programming, EVEN AT THAT LEVEL, it was still essentially impossible for a system wide failure to occur.
3. NEVERTHELESS, in at least a few such incidents, as many as 10 missiles went kaput instantly at essentially the same time.
4. In other incidents as was verified and discovered afterwards . . . MISSILE TARGETING DATA WERE CHANGED. THAT IS, MISSILES THAT WERE TARGETED FOR SAY MOSCOW OR BEIJING WERE CHANGED TO TARGET INSTEAD ________ THE CHANGES HAVE NEVER BEEN REVEALED—TO WHAT INSTEAD—ONLY THAT SUCH CHANGES DID OCCUR. It is not clear if the missiles were retargeted for the middle of the ocean or for different inhabited areas or even perhaps for our own cities. THAT information has never been disclosed, that I’m aware of. This was done on an individual missile basis. Very incredible technologies involved.
5. BTW, UFO’s have long persistently demonstrated intelligent controlled responsiveness to THOUGHTS of observers from 10’s of miles away. That is, the observer would THINK—go left. The UFO would go left; go up; go right; blink 3 times etc. and the UFO would behave accordingly.
If you reject the story of the failure of the missile groups then you have to believe the guy sent to re-initiate the missiles which went down is also lying, and the guards topside, and ... well, you get the gist. You have chosen to believe Carlson and call several Air Force personnel liars. Hardly an unbiased perspective don’tchaknow.