[FPSPACE] "Liting the Veil": Author's further comment

[Charles Vick]

Dear All, 

Some of the points about the data is well taken by peter as I am reminded of
the end of year review of the records on the fight with the community Dr.
Charles S. Sheldon II use to have and describe to me with the community in
their "glass Squirrel Cages" over the space launches data and the obvious
errors there in he forced them to correct before publication. 

cpvick

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org
[mailto:fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org] On Behalf Of Peter Pesavento
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:23 AM
To: fpspace at friends-partners.org
Subject: [FPSPACE] "Liting the Veil": Author's further comment

 

I would like to make a further "short" comment in regards to one of the

issues that Sven raised in his preliminary reactions to the Space Chronicle

piece.

 

 

 

The graphs that Sven spent some time on (dealing with when specific missions

failed in their flights) were part and parcel of a report that was

distributed Community-wide (meaning distributed across the US intelligence

community, to all of the organizations).  The report itself was classified

TS Trine, for a ranking and handling protocols that were for the most

sensitive materials.  The graphs themselves were also classified TS Trine,

due to the content of the graphs.

 

 

 

My current personal view is that I do not think that-- when data got to the

TS Trine level--there would have been inaccurate technical conclusions

allowed in the document.  By the time that text and conclusions reach TS

Trine, and were published, the content of such reports was heavily vetted.

It is the standard operating procedure.  So I am disinclined to believe

that--when the US data "clashes" with the currently published Russian

data-the US information should be immediately assumed to be incorrect.  When

the data is coming from such a TS SCI document (Top Secret, Sensitive

Compartmented Information), my view is the odds are against the hypothesis

that inaccurate data is going to appear, in regards to technical information

collection.  The US equipment was quite good, as I so state in the Space

Chronicle text.

 

 

 

But I would suggest to Sven, and the fpspace readership who are of like

mind, to have a change of perception.  Rather than immediately thinking the

US data, when it clashes with published Russian data, is incorrect, perhaps

everyone should take several steps back, and entertain the view that the

published Russian data itself is not correct.  That is my proffered

hypothesis.

 

 

 

Like I have mentioned a number of times to colleagues, both privately and in

print (see the Quest article serialization co-authored with Charles Vick

back in 2004), there are Two Prisms-the American, and the Soviet.  I have

also said that the American data would aid in the "rectification" of the

published Russian materials.

 

 

 

I think the material that Sven has highlighted from the graphs is an example

of such "rectifying" material-whether it is going the one way, or the other.

 

 

 

Let the Great Rectification begin!

 

_______________________________________________

FPSPACE mailing list

FPSPACE at friends-partners.org

http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace