Re: Faith versus evidence

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 05:31:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Faith versus evidence
From: "James P. Stevenson" 

>>Larry Smith wrote:
>>
>>> But, with all respect, I'm really not sure where you sit with
>>> respect to the following:
>>>
>>> 1. You don't believe in physics.

Jim Stevenson responded:
>>
>>Not true. I do believe in physics.
>>
>>> 2. You don't believe that the theory of stealth technology is valid physics.
>>
>>I believe the THEORY is valid.
>>
>>> 3. You don't believe that the F-117A represents a valid application
>>>    of the theory of stealth technology.
>>
>>This is where the faith comes in. Some on this list have accepted, as a
>>matter of faith (it has to be unless they have run tests themselves that
>>are consistent with good science) that the F-117 works.
>
>
> Which I know some of us have. And I know that there are persons on
> this list who have had exposure to the data that Jim beleives is
> being "hidden behind classification".
> And of those who have seen the data, or the models, all think that
> "stealth works".
>
> Of course, a great deal of the data that Jim seems to think is
> classified is in the open literature where anyone can find it.

The re-publication of a test that does not stand up to the rigors of the
scientific method does not make it valid.
>>
>>I have always reserved the right to say "show me."  Prove to me that it
>>works. The military hides behind classification. Who can argue?
>
> At this point I doubt that there is anything that the AF or anyone
> else can show Jim that will put his argument to rest. Jim's faith is
> in that it doesn't work, that the military is lying to him, etc.
> There does not seem to be anything to sway him in that direction, not
> even good physics.

I don't have faith that it does not work. That is not a matter of faith.
I reserve judgment until I see some evidence. Statements that it works
are not evidence.

> Jim, in short, is much like a die-hard UFO fanatic.

On the contrary, a UFO fanatic is one who asserts that something is true
without proof.  I view asserters that these stealth aircraft will work
as advertised just as I do the UFO fanatic: give me the evidence, not
just your assertions.
>
>>
>>The Air Force had four prototypes, the two YF-22s and the two YF-23s.
>>Neither was even tested for stealth. Now we have the Air Force wanting
>>to go into production on the F-22 before any stealth testing, much less
>>a complete test of stealth, is done.
>
> I don't see how you can make this statement after your bold assertion
> that stealth test data is hidden behind classification. You say that
> neither was "tested for stealth", while there are a few technicians
> at the Helendale, Tejon Ranch, Groom, and Holloman ranges that would
> disagree with you.

I would be most interested in getting the name of ANYONE who can tell me
that the YF-22 and YF-23 were tested for stealth. That would also be a
complete surprise to the ATF program manager.

> In addition there are a number of expenditures in
> the F-22 program that would strongly indicate that it was indeed RCS
> tested in flight during the ATF fly-off.

Again, I am open to change, provided the evidence is there. But the
program manager of the YF-22 and YF-23 said there was no testing of
either of these two airplanes and the current deputy program manager for
the F-22 agreed. But, hey, you may know something they don't. That is
the beauty of evidence.
>
>
>>As far as the F-117, it appears that two were shot up in our latest
>>adventure. One did not make it home. That is a loss rate far in excess
>>of the F-16. Furthermore, the F-117s had jammer escort. So, just exactly
>>how stealthy am I suppose to believe the F-117 is?
>>
>
> 1. Comparing an F-117 to an F-16 is silly. They do not operate in the
> same threat environment, perform similar missions, or sue similar
> tactics. You might as well be comparing the F-117 to a KC-10.
> 2. Appearances can be deceiving. As far as anyone who bothered to
> look into that rumor can tell, there was no other F-117 damaged by
> enemy fire.

They flew in the same environment and at the same altitudes.

Jim Stevenson

Next Message | Previous Message | List Surrounding Messages

This archive of mailing list messages is provided as a free public courtesy. It is maintained automatically. The webmaster has no control over content, does not review these messages and accepts no liability for the accuracy of information contained herein. Responsibility for this material rests solely with the author and mailing list moderator (if any).
Note: This is a temporary archive only; this message will be deleted eventually. See main page for more info.

Mailing lists archived on this server *
***
*****
*******
*********

This site is supported by the Research Center Bookstore.
Please visit our catalog if you appreciate our free web services.

Created: Tue Aug 24 05:52:23 EDT 1999