UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, September 21, 2013

A Klass Act?

Phil Klass, even deader than a doornail, still receives opprobrium of a great kind.

Although he could be wretched, his critics insist, he still made sense when it came to UFOs, some UFO sightings/reports anyway.

For instance, David Richie, in his book UFO: The Definitive Guide to Unidentified Flying Objects and Related Phenomena [MJF Books, NY, 1994], in a segment on Klass writes this:

He [Klass] points out that almost half a century after the first reported recovery of UFO debris in the so-called Roswell incident, space technology still depends upon chemical-fueled rocket boosters for launches. Had advanced “alien” technology become available through the crash and subsequent recovery of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, it seem highly unlikely that chemical rockets would still be in such widespread use. [Page 120]

And this:

Another Klass’s principles is that numerous UFO sightings appear baffling and inexplicable merely because investigators have not done an adequate job of investigating. [Op. cit]

Being nasty doesn’t necessarily denote errant thinking. As Paul Johnson notes in his book, Intellectuals, many great thinkers were mean-spirited.

So, Phil Klass may be derogated, but that doesn’t mean he was always wrong.

RR

13 Comments:

  • “So, Phil Klass may be derogated, but that doesn’t mean he was always wrong.”

    No, not always, but when he wrote:

    “….Had advanced “alien” technology become available through the crash and subsequent recovery of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, it seems highly unlikely that chemical rockets would still be in such widespread use….”

    I feel that—as the resident nuclear physicist/rocket scientist—I have to say he was just full of crap. Given that he would have no idea how such technology would have been constructed or functioned, he could have no possible way of estimating how long it would take for that technology to make its way into the mainstream. In other fora, I have pointed out that the so-called “Roswell Memory Foil” for example, is just now becoming understandable (but not yet reproducible) within the field of metamaterials and nanotechnology. At the time he wrote that statement, it had been approximately 50 years since the Roswell incident. The idea that that would have been enough time to replace the rocket as the preferred method for getting off the planet is nothing more than a hunch, an opinion, a gut feeling, or a wild ass guess.

    By Blogger Larry, at Saturday, September 21, 2013  

  • Klass presents a common sensical view, one that CDA might accept but one that you, with your expertise, dismisses, Larry.

    But it is a view that resonates with those who don't see a hint of anything, back-engineered from Roswell, in place today: actually 66 years now.

    A lot of money and time wasted if something were culled from a Roswell ET incident.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, September 21, 2013  

  • And coming closer and closer to 70 years after this purported flying saucer crash, we're still dependent on chemical rockets. Kinda makes one go hmmmmm.

    With each passing decade Klass appears more correct in this evaluation and the back engineering claims seem even more delusional.

    By Blogger purrlgurrl, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • As a retired engineer who worked in the rehabilitation construction, pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields, I see no purpose to a bendable I-Beam as a structural support nor memory foil whatsoever in a interstellar craft that also must navigate various atmospheres where rigidity, not bend-ability is key.

    A craft made of alloys that crumple like tin foil is an absurdity.

    As far as new methodologies, self healing alloys that can recover from a puncture do make sense.

    From an engineering standpoint, this evidence is a joke played by hobbyists not technicians.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • I-beam and memory foil? I don't see that in the posting.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • The post involved theoretical space technology versus contemporaneous aerospace technology.

    Propulsion systems in terms of flight dynamics require a structure.

    The point of my comment in regards to the post addresses your comment that "Had advanced “alien” technology become available through the crash and subsequent recovery of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, it seems highly unlikely that chemical rockets would still be in such widespread use "

    The same would apply to alloys if the technical use of same in aerospace had any real application.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • Your extrapolation, Bruce, takes us into an extended area....almost off topic. Lets not open that door to the Roswell fanatics.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • Agreed.

    Specifically on Phil Klass, and his background as it relates to both avionics and his high profile..while castigated by the materialist nuts and bolts crowd, they were by and large unaware he was providing a service to them.
    This is another example of Ufology being a belief system rather than a study.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • Klass used to boast quite openly about his intelligence community connections, and how he was one of their 'go to' guys if they wanted a problematic leak debunked ( exotic contrails from pulse detonation engines for example).

    By Blogger Ross, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • I think Klass was having a go at Stan Friedman, who had insisted that the USAF kept the crashed saucer top secret so that they could back-engineer its properties and maybe from it produce metals & materials suitable for our own space vehicles.

    Even if they were engaged on such work, despite what Larry says, it is difficult to believe that something would not have either emerged or leaked out by 1994. (I don't mean the actual hardware but information on such). And even more unlikely after a further 20 years.

    Since Klass's death we have had the nitinol 'revelations' from AJB. What chance of these making any progress? Probably none.

    By Blogger cda, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • I highly doubt someone involved in counter intelligence for the CIA would publicly boast about it.
    I had a relation involved in this and while we suspected his "business trips" were an excuse in relation to hotbed situations, we found out by a accidental incident of his own doing.
    The point is that Klass was an egotist, and not beyond making spurious claims of his own.
    I can provide many examples of very intelligent individuals known for their expertise making spurious claims

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • CDA

    I not only agree with you but if some of these imaginative claimants of back engineering via Roswell ( the most spurious being Corso) took the time to research the easily obtained historical records regarding the evolution of the transistor, etc, this lunacy would never have been promulgated. Or maybe not..LOL

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

  • PG, use solid logic in her conclusions. Ponder the following:

    In the late 1950s to early 1960s, our ICBM missile guidance systems had exclusively hard wired circuitry cards.

    We did "advance" to solid propellants as a more safer and stable propulsion fuel, yet I've yet to come across the ET "Rosetta Stone" that propelled us forward technology wise.

    I really don't need Klass to come to my own logical conclusions.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Sunday, September 22, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home