Sunday, September 12, 2010
Max Power in The Power Dome
I don't claim to have a grand moral vision or stellar philosophy about anything. But my approach to the use of FOIA has been to request official interviews with govt officials first. Often this leads to nowhere. For me, that's generally good enough although sometimes if I feel an agency has something to divulge, which they choose not to divulge, I can occasionally get a little bent out of shape. But, I still respect the work of civil servants and so, if I make use of FOIA material, I still try to keep that in mind. FOIA is a very important tool in our democracy but it's all a real pain in the ass to persons who have to comply with the law. In any case, striving for the golden mean tends to work for most things so that's typically my goal.
Yes, you're right. If you're trying to develop a potential source of information for a future interview, the dumbest thing you can do anger them. In the case of the Air Force Research Lab, I am aware that the EEStor history goes back a number of years. There are stories there to be told and if someone over there thinks a bit about how best to work with the media, they may grant an interview at some point which I believe is the best way to quickly put a story in the rearview mirror.
What do I think the story is with AFRL? I think it's typical of what we've seen elsewhere--meetings have been held, extraordinary claims laid out without 3rd party support and thus the end result is spirited skepticism advanced by scientists in an occasionally amusing way. But why would a group such as the AFRL and researchers of Directed Energy even waste any time on EEStor Inc? To understand, I recommend reading Doug Beason's 2005 book, "The E-Bomb..." The following borrows heavily from his narrative.
To kick things off, here are a couple remotely related email strings:
Email thread #1
Email thread #2
You can discuss these innocuous documents here.