We did this occasionally on my old blog. Hopefully it is a little less controversial than the LHC :)
From my friend Michael Haskins:
How many do you remember?
Head lights dimmer switches on the floor.
Ignition switches on the dashboard.
Heaters mounted on the inside of the fire wall.
Real ice boxes.
Pant leg clips for bicycles without chain guards.
Soldering irons you heat on a gas burner.
Using hand signals for cars without turn signals.
Older Than Dirt Quiz: Count all the ones that you remember not the ones you
were told about Ratings at the bottom.
1. Blackjack chewing gum
2. Wax Coke-shaped bottles with colored sugar water
3 Candy cigarettes
4. Soda pop machines that dispensed glass bottles
5 Coffee shops or diners with tableside juke boxes
6 Home milk delivery in glass bottles with cardboard stoppers
7. Party lines
8. Newsreels before the movie
9. P.F. Flyers
10. Butch wax
11. Telephone numbers with a word prefix (OLive-6933)
12. Peashooters
13. Howdy Doody
14. 45 RPM records
15. S&H Green Stamps
16 Hi-fi's
17 Metal ice trays with lever
18 Mimeograph paper
19 Blue flashbulb
20. Packards
21. Roller skate keys
22. Cork popguns
23. Drive-ins
24. Studebakers
25 Wash tub wringers
If you remembered 0-5 = You're still young
If you remembered 6-10 = You are getting older
If you remembered 11-15 = Don't tell your age,
If you remembered 16-25 = You're older than dirt!
I have some more - some more modern, some much less so: How many of these things do you both remember, or better, remember using regularly:
1. 5 1/4 inch floppies (or better yet, 8 inch floppies). Bonus points if you remember the capacities of 5.25 and 8 inch disks. Extra bonus points if you had a computer that loaded the operating system on floppies.
2. The TRS-80
3. Pure-text internet. The idea from this post came from John's reference to Usenet. Bonus points if you used the pure-text internet on a machine with floppy-loaded operating system and a monochrome (green) monitor, connected via a 2400 baud modem. (Bonus points if you thought 2400 baud was impossibly fast.)
4. A modem (probably 1200 or maybe even 300 baud) that involved sticking the phone handset into large rubber cups.
5. Gopher
6. Loading an IP stack into Windows For Workgroups 3.11 to connect to the internet via a modem (maybe 4800 or even 9600 baud).
Moving on to some non-internet stuff:
7. The TV antenna on the roof of your house that had a large dial on top of the TV to rotate and point it (I may have used that one in my old blog).
8. Cable TV with 13 (or fewer) channels.
9. Making coffee with a percolator, or even by putting the grounds directly in a pot of water and boiling them (folks who camp or spend a lot of time in remote areas without electricity (Jim maybe?) probably not only remember that but still do it that way.
10. Those "All in one" stereo systems that combined a turntable, cassette player, and receiver in one, cheap, enclosure. Speakers were usually separate. Double bonus points if you had one of those in quadraphonic.
One of my new favourite TV shows is "Mad Men", because of its very authentic and detailed portrayal of life in the early 1960s. I wish there were a web page accounting all the little details about this show - many of which I know from experience are authentic, and others which I don't personally remember but accordingly couldn't dispute.
I really think the recent past has a lot to teach us about the present and the future. To try to figure out where we are going, it is imperative to understand how we got here. I just hope our immediate future looks more like the 50s or 60s, or even 70s (!) than the 1930s, which is what it looks like right now.
Some follow up: I scored "older than dirt" on Mike's list above, but I'm really not. I'm a Gen-X-er, albeit one of the oldest, and that makes me hardly even middle-aged. The point is that there has been a heck of a lot of change, in society, in technology, in life, just in our lifetimes.
I've written before (maybe here, I'd have to check) that the rate of technological change has been slowing, and in some areas we've gone backwards For example, we can't fly to the moon today, and I bet that had you polled rocket scientists, not to mention ordinary people, in 1969 or 1973, they would have said travel to the moon would be routine by 2008. Had you told the folks on Apollo 17 that they were making possibly the last trip to the moon EVER, they absolutely would not have believed it. They still had hope for the future.
I get the impression that the rate of social change is slowing as well, but this is a much less precise metric. The last generation saw the "liberation" of women (which I, as an apparently very politically incorrect retro chauvinist type guy, still don't understand), and the realization of substantial social equality, which I do understand. The most recent major change seems to involve acceptance of sexual choices and preference, which I think is a very different "revolution" than the others, and I don't think we have a clue what it means.
What's next? What frontiers of inequality or unfairness remain to be conquered? Unfortunately I think the future could involve the pendulum swinging back the other way, rather than continuing on in the direction of progressive change.
I think the fact that I cringed when I wrote the word "progressive" is somehow an indication of so-far dimly appreciated future trends. Who could be against "progressive"? Yet the word has deep, subconscious political baggage.
Anyway, I think appreciation and understanding of the past is going to be increasingly important, because our current historical cycle has just plain run out of steam, so the future is not going to resemble the recent past at all. The question is whether it will resemble anything to which we can relate in any way.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Commenters and Me
This is a collaborative blog, so I am speaking for myself only, although I suspect that CW has a similar comments policy to mine. I am normally polite, even to commenters who do not agree with me. Eric disagrees with me in just about every way imaginable on the mechanics of politics (although not on most of the goals, I must admit), and we debate each other all the time in a private forum as well as our own blogs. I normally enjoy debate with sharp and intelligent opponents. I really enjoy debate with Eric.
If you comment on my posts and are reasonably polite, then you’ll get a reasonably polite response. You can ask Eric and Jim, who disagree with me most on this forum and on their own blogs.
There is one group of people I have no patience for, however: people who believe and espouse ideas that are demonstrably false in the face of proof that those ideas are false. This would include Wiccans who claim that their religion is ancient, rather than dating back to just before the days of Alstair Crowley who took ancient, but moribund ideas and crafted them into something only a New Ager could love. This would especially include Young Earth Creationists, whom I took to task in this post. Most recently, this includes the opponents of the Large Hadron Collider. One of the reasons this groups ticks me off so much is that they hunt down every blog post on the subject and spam it, as you can see in the comments to my posts.
When the anti-LHC crowd happens upon a non-anonymous blog or site of known scientists, those scientists have to be careful in their response, lest they look unprofessional. Measured responses to the anti-LHC crowd, unfortunately, make the layman think that their might be something to this “black hole stuff”, since real, known scientists are engaged in “debate”. The layman doesn’t have the tools to discern when the subtext of the scientist’s response is “go read a couple of hundred articles and take 5 or 6 graduate classes in physics before you come back and argue this nonsense here again, dickhead”.
The misperceptions is closely related to Warnock’s Dilemma on blog and usenet posts:
Warnock's Dilemma, named for its originator Bryan Warnock, is the problem of interpreting a lack of response to a posting on a mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or Web forum.
The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:
1. The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said."
2. The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
3. No one read the post, for whatever reason.
4. No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
5. No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.
In this case, we are dealing with a derivative of #2: the post is utter nonsense, and the respectable scientists don’t want to be caught on the internet with their professional pants down by replying to these quarter-educated nutjobs with their real, profanity laced feelings. Unprofessional conduct can haunt you a long, long time, even if it was justified.
Polite response is also somewhat related to the Geek Social Fallacy #1:
Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil
As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team.
These people in no way have earned a polite response from the legitimate scientific community. They need to be ostracized from legitimate scientific discourse on the ‘Net. The politeness with which they are treated at CERN and at physics blogs where the scientists blog under their own names is due only to the natural degree of civility of those scientists. Unfortunately, that makes the anti-LHC crowd look as if they are carrying on a legitimate debate. If they pulled their rhetorical tricks in meatspace on real topics, someone would drop their ass with a well-aimed right hook, or at the very least tell them directly to shut the fuck up.
This is where I come in. I blog anonymously. This opens me up to accusations of just being “some guy on the net” and lying about my credentials. I don’t give a shit. Real scientists will see the telltale signs of my scientific training in the topics I choose and the way in which I talk about them. Laymen can take my writing to a known expert and see the same thing. Everyone else in the nutjob category can take a running jump. My purpose here is to get, somewhere on the net, a non-polite response to the anti-LHC idiocy. I want to show what the rational people are really thinking when they deal with this mess.
The debate over the LHC is no longer an intellectual game in my view. When a Nobel-winning physicist gets death threats over the idiocy of pseudo-scientists, the gloves come off.
One final note. Our friend from Lower Saxony “debating” the rational people who visit (and run) this blog is trying one of the oldest tricks in the pseudoscientist's book. Eric will immediately recognize the “cover them in paper” gambit of trying to open questions on multiple issues at once. MWT called the dude on it, and he ignored him. It gets to the heart of their rhetorical assault, however, because they are always trying to find something to pick at. The idea is that if they can get a win anywhere then it bolsters their credibility, and they can then wave and shout about an irrelevant victory as if it damaged the premise of the central argument against them. Fortunately for the rational people, these nuts are extremely unlikely to win on anything, given their poor grasp of the physical sciences.
In all these comment threads, I’m going to clearly label the tangents so that those playing at home don’t need a playbook.
If you comment on my posts and are reasonably polite, then you’ll get a reasonably polite response. You can ask Eric and Jim, who disagree with me most on this forum and on their own blogs.
There is one group of people I have no patience for, however: people who believe and espouse ideas that are demonstrably false in the face of proof that those ideas are false. This would include Wiccans who claim that their religion is ancient, rather than dating back to just before the days of Alstair Crowley who took ancient, but moribund ideas and crafted them into something only a New Ager could love. This would especially include Young Earth Creationists, whom I took to task in this post. Most recently, this includes the opponents of the Large Hadron Collider. One of the reasons this groups ticks me off so much is that they hunt down every blog post on the subject and spam it, as you can see in the comments to my posts.
When the anti-LHC crowd happens upon a non-anonymous blog or site of known scientists, those scientists have to be careful in their response, lest they look unprofessional. Measured responses to the anti-LHC crowd, unfortunately, make the layman think that their might be something to this “black hole stuff”, since real, known scientists are engaged in “debate”. The layman doesn’t have the tools to discern when the subtext of the scientist’s response is “go read a couple of hundred articles and take 5 or 6 graduate classes in physics before you come back and argue this nonsense here again, dickhead”.
The misperceptions is closely related to Warnock’s Dilemma on blog and usenet posts:
Warnock's Dilemma, named for its originator Bryan Warnock, is the problem of interpreting a lack of response to a posting on a mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or Web forum.
The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:
1. The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said."
2. The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
3. No one read the post, for whatever reason.
4. No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
5. No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.
In this case, we are dealing with a derivative of #2: the post is utter nonsense, and the respectable scientists don’t want to be caught on the internet with their professional pants down by replying to these quarter-educated nutjobs with their real, profanity laced feelings. Unprofessional conduct can haunt you a long, long time, even if it was justified.
Polite response is also somewhat related to the Geek Social Fallacy #1:
Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers Are Evil
As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team.
These people in no way have earned a polite response from the legitimate scientific community. They need to be ostracized from legitimate scientific discourse on the ‘Net. The politeness with which they are treated at CERN and at physics blogs where the scientists blog under their own names is due only to the natural degree of civility of those scientists. Unfortunately, that makes the anti-LHC crowd look as if they are carrying on a legitimate debate. If they pulled their rhetorical tricks in meatspace on real topics, someone would drop their ass with a well-aimed right hook, or at the very least tell them directly to shut the fuck up.
This is where I come in. I blog anonymously. This opens me up to accusations of just being “some guy on the net” and lying about my credentials. I don’t give a shit. Real scientists will see the telltale signs of my scientific training in the topics I choose and the way in which I talk about them. Laymen can take my writing to a known expert and see the same thing. Everyone else in the nutjob category can take a running jump. My purpose here is to get, somewhere on the net, a non-polite response to the anti-LHC idiocy. I want to show what the rational people are really thinking when they deal with this mess.
The debate over the LHC is no longer an intellectual game in my view. When a Nobel-winning physicist gets death threats over the idiocy of pseudo-scientists, the gloves come off.
One final note. Our friend from Lower Saxony “debating” the rational people who visit (and run) this blog is trying one of the oldest tricks in the pseudoscientist's book. Eric will immediately recognize the “cover them in paper” gambit of trying to open questions on multiple issues at once. MWT called the dude on it, and he ignored him. It gets to the heart of their rhetorical assault, however, because they are always trying to find something to pick at. The idea is that if they can get a win anywhere then it bolsters their credibility, and they can then wave and shout about an irrelevant victory as if it damaged the premise of the central argument against them. Fortunately for the rational people, these nuts are extremely unlikely to win on anything, given their poor grasp of the physical sciences.
In all these comment threads, I’m going to clearly label the tangents so that those playing at home don’t need a playbook.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Fun With Search Engines
Thanks to CW, Refugees is pretty high in Google for things like DH 86 Express and Bristol Brabazon, although he is also the reason we are hit #5 for "pirates with skin lesions". :D
I, on the other hand, am proud to note that we are #1 in Google for "Rainer Plaga idiot" and #6 (ahead of Janiece) for "Walter Wagner retard".
Yes Nathan, we are doing our part to de-crazy the internet. :p
I, on the other hand, am proud to note that we are #1 in Google for "Rainer Plaga idiot" and #6 (ahead of Janiece) for "Walter Wagner retard".
Yes Nathan, we are doing our part to de-crazy the internet. :p
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Live-blogging the debate
The stakes are allegedly high for the Vice Presidential debate, which is interesting because usually they aren't. In most Presidential elections the Vice-Presidential debates are soundly ignored. It is significant from a purely political-science perspective that the VP nominees and debate are such a reputedly important factor.
So far I'm not impressed with either side. Both have fumbled quite a bit, and missed obvious opportunities to score big points. Both seem somewhat over-prepared and somewhat stiff, but both have also managed to avoid any major stumbles or gaffes so far.
Joe Biden has repeatedly employed a typical debating tactic that's particularly popular in the US Senate: vigorously assert things that are patently and provably not true when you know you can't be called on it or contradicted before its too late. (Like "Barak Obama warned of the financial crisis".) Sarah Palin has not made too many clear and unequivocal points, even on issues that should work well for her, like energy policy. Both sides badly fumbled the subprime mortage issue.
There's a lot of really suspect information being put out, but not a lot of serious blows being landed by either side. It's like two half-blind boxers swinging at each other, but mostly connecting with the air. Also they claim to agree on quite a bit of stuff - stuff that Biden and Obama mostly voted against, like tax cuts.
Biden is going on about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - really arcane wonk stuff. Palin is talking about counterinsurgency in Afghanistan - she sounds well prepared here.
Both sides are really lost in the weeds.
Gwen Ifill is calling Biden out on recommending intervention in Darfur. Biden is talking about Bosnia... Unfortunately I doubt Sarah Palin knows the "McCain in Bosnia" story. Biden says he wants a no-fly zone in Darfur - that's really out there. Palin has scored a few points about Biden's previous criticism of Obama and support of McCain.
I think Joe Biden looks younger and Sarah Palin looks older than they actually are - I'm not sure who that benefits. They are of very different generations - actually two generations apart - neither is a baby boomer.
Joe Biden just said it would be a national calamity if he became President. Very modest!
I'm not very inspired by either side. Both Palin and Biden have been excessively focused on tactics and not screwing up, and neither side has appealed effectively (as far as I can tell) directly to the American people.
Biden got choked up talking about worrying about his kids... probably very few Americans know that his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident shortly before he was elected to the Senate. I wonder if the media will point out that incident- - that will be interesting to see. It was for sure the most emotional moment of the debate.
My experience with these things is that sound bites win, and I think Sarah Palin has scored more sound bites. Joe Biden definitely came across as more human and humble. It will be interesting to see how it is spun.
The bar was somewhat high for Sarah Palin - if she stumbles it would probably be the end for John McCain. So far she hasn't made any major mistakes that I've seen.
They're in their closing statements now... Palin going first. I think she should have said more about John McCain in Vietnam... overall the McCain campaign hasn't used that subject perhaps as much as they could have. I don't know what that means.
Joe Biden ended the debate on a high note with a prayer for the troops.
Gwen Ifill did try very hard to be neutral - to the point of leaning the other way. That was pretty widely expected, I think.
Overall, it was a pretty friendly and congenial debate - I don't think either side wanted trouble.
What will it mean? My impression is not that much.
So far I'm not impressed with either side. Both have fumbled quite a bit, and missed obvious opportunities to score big points. Both seem somewhat over-prepared and somewhat stiff, but both have also managed to avoid any major stumbles or gaffes so far.
Joe Biden has repeatedly employed a typical debating tactic that's particularly popular in the US Senate: vigorously assert things that are patently and provably not true when you know you can't be called on it or contradicted before its too late. (Like "Barak Obama warned of the financial crisis".) Sarah Palin has not made too many clear and unequivocal points, even on issues that should work well for her, like energy policy. Both sides badly fumbled the subprime mortage issue.
There's a lot of really suspect information being put out, but not a lot of serious blows being landed by either side. It's like two half-blind boxers swinging at each other, but mostly connecting with the air. Also they claim to agree on quite a bit of stuff - stuff that Biden and Obama mostly voted against, like tax cuts.
Biden is going on about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty - really arcane wonk stuff. Palin is talking about counterinsurgency in Afghanistan - she sounds well prepared here.
Both sides are really lost in the weeds.
Gwen Ifill is calling Biden out on recommending intervention in Darfur. Biden is talking about Bosnia... Unfortunately I doubt Sarah Palin knows the "McCain in Bosnia" story. Biden says he wants a no-fly zone in Darfur - that's really out there. Palin has scored a few points about Biden's previous criticism of Obama and support of McCain.
I think Joe Biden looks younger and Sarah Palin looks older than they actually are - I'm not sure who that benefits. They are of very different generations - actually two generations apart - neither is a baby boomer.
Joe Biden just said it would be a national calamity if he became President. Very modest!
I'm not very inspired by either side. Both Palin and Biden have been excessively focused on tactics and not screwing up, and neither side has appealed effectively (as far as I can tell) directly to the American people.
Biden got choked up talking about worrying about his kids... probably very few Americans know that his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident shortly before he was elected to the Senate. I wonder if the media will point out that incident- - that will be interesting to see. It was for sure the most emotional moment of the debate.
My experience with these things is that sound bites win, and I think Sarah Palin has scored more sound bites. Joe Biden definitely came across as more human and humble. It will be interesting to see how it is spun.
The bar was somewhat high for Sarah Palin - if she stumbles it would probably be the end for John McCain. So far she hasn't made any major mistakes that I've seen.
They're in their closing statements now... Palin going first. I think she should have said more about John McCain in Vietnam... overall the McCain campaign hasn't used that subject perhaps as much as they could have. I don't know what that means.
Joe Biden ended the debate on a high note with a prayer for the troops.
Gwen Ifill did try very hard to be neutral - to the point of leaning the other way. That was pretty widely expected, I think.
Overall, it was a pretty friendly and congenial debate - I don't think either side wanted trouble.
What will it mean? My impression is not that much.
Fossett's Plane Found
My initial pessimism was over-done, and the wreckage of Steve Fossett's Super Decathlon was found near where his ID's were found a couple of days ago.
I hadn't thought it would be this easy, after the massive search conducted for months after his disappearance. The crash site was only 60 miles from where he took off, but apparently hadn't been searched before, which makes me wonder how thorough the search really was.
The mystery is apparently not completely over, however. Despite reports that "remains"were found in or near the wreckage (with no elaboration), there is still question or uncertainty about whether Fossett was killed in the crash. The aircraft flew almost head-on into the mountain at 9700 feet, so Fossett would have been killed instantly. The most likely scenario is that his body was devoured and/or carried off by wild animals.
It looks like this is it, however. Local experts say that animals will remove any evidence of human remains within a very short time, and the NTSB says they have enough for DNA tests, which I imagine will settle the case. Given the conspiracy theories that have surrounded Fossett's disappearance, however, if the resolution is not clear and obvious, speculation that he somehow faked his death are likely to continue.
I hadn't thought it would be this easy, after the massive search conducted for months after his disappearance. The crash site was only 60 miles from where he took off, but apparently hadn't been searched before, which makes me wonder how thorough the search really was.
The mystery is apparently not completely over, however. Despite reports that "remains"were found in or near the wreckage (with no elaboration), there is still question or uncertainty about whether Fossett was killed in the crash. The aircraft flew almost head-on into the mountain at 9700 feet, so Fossett would have been killed instantly. The most likely scenario is that his body was devoured and/or carried off by wild animals.
It looks like this is it, however. Local experts say that animals will remove any evidence of human remains within a very short time, and the NTSB says they have enough for DNA tests, which I imagine will settle the case. Given the conspiracy theories that have surrounded Fossett's disappearance, however, if the resolution is not clear and obvious, speculation that he somehow faked his death are likely to continue.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Iran Deyanat Update
The situation has not yet been resolved, and, in recent days, the pirates seized a Ukrainian ship known to be carrying heavy weapons bound for Sudan.
The US Navy surrounded the pirate-controlled Ukrainian ship, and the pirates had a shootout amongst themselves over what to do next.
Meanwhile Fox News also replayed the story of a mysterious cargo on the Iran Deyanat yesterday.
The Iran Deyanat is still being held, but I have not found any other sources (other than Andrew Mwangura and Hassan Osman) who claim the ship carries a dangerous cargo. Of course, apparently no one else besides the pirates has had access to the ship so far.
Various observers have pointed out (or claimed - I'm not sure how true the stories are) that the notion of China exporting iron ore to Rotterdam is odd and improbable, because China is overwhemingly an importer of iron ore, and the ship seems to be riding very high in the water to be heavily loaded with iron ore.
It's really uncertain what's going on here. It might be that the ship would have been ransomed by now if it weren't carrying something strange - or then again perhaps not. I spoke with a couple of real experts about this sort of thing, and they both expressed scepticism that there was an arms shipment involved, for a variety of reasons.
I have another one of those feelings (I've apparently been having a lot of them lately) that this situation may just fade away and we'll never know what was on the ship.
The US Navy surrounded the pirate-controlled Ukrainian ship, and the pirates had a shootout amongst themselves over what to do next.
Meanwhile Fox News also replayed the story of a mysterious cargo on the Iran Deyanat yesterday.
The Iran Deyanat is still being held, but I have not found any other sources (other than Andrew Mwangura and Hassan Osman) who claim the ship carries a dangerous cargo. Of course, apparently no one else besides the pirates has had access to the ship so far.
Various observers have pointed out (or claimed - I'm not sure how true the stories are) that the notion of China exporting iron ore to Rotterdam is odd and improbable, because China is overwhemingly an importer of iron ore, and the ship seems to be riding very high in the water to be heavily loaded with iron ore.
It's really uncertain what's going on here. It might be that the ship would have been ransomed by now if it weren't carrying something strange - or then again perhaps not. I spoke with a couple of real experts about this sort of thing, and they both expressed scepticism that there was an arms shipment involved, for a variety of reasons.
I have another one of those feelings (I've apparently been having a lot of them lately) that this situation may just fade away and we'll never know what was on the ship.
Strange Developments in Steve Fossett Case
This is weird.
Steve Fossett's pilot's license, along with another ID and $1005 in cash, may have been found "tangled in a bush" near Mammoth Lake, California. A black Nautica fleece pullover, "covered in animal hair", was also found in the area, but it is unknown if it is related.
No trace of Fossett, or his aircraft, have been found as of yet, however.
The possible explanation is that Fossett's Super Decathlon crashed in the area, and his body was removed from the wreckage by a lion or bear, with his ID's and money getting caught in the underbrush as the animal drug his body away.
But if that scenario is correct, the wreckage of the aircraft should be in the vicinity. It is noteworthy that the area where the ID's and money were found is only 60 miles from where Fossett took off, but was not very thoroughly searched - which seems weird.
The forensics should tell the tale on this one, and it could - perhaps hopefully will - result in the resolution of the Steve Fossett mystery. For some reason I have a feeling - perhaps for no legitimate reason - that the aircraft will continue to prove elusive.
Steve Fossett's pilot's license, along with another ID and $1005 in cash, may have been found "tangled in a bush" near Mammoth Lake, California. A black Nautica fleece pullover, "covered in animal hair", was also found in the area, but it is unknown if it is related.
No trace of Fossett, or his aircraft, have been found as of yet, however.
The possible explanation is that Fossett's Super Decathlon crashed in the area, and his body was removed from the wreckage by a lion or bear, with his ID's and money getting caught in the underbrush as the animal drug his body away.
But if that scenario is correct, the wreckage of the aircraft should be in the vicinity. It is noteworthy that the area where the ID's and money were found is only 60 miles from where Fossett took off, but was not very thoroughly searched - which seems weird.
The forensics should tell the tale on this one, and it could - perhaps hopefully will - result in the resolution of the Steve Fossett mystery. For some reason I have a feeling - perhaps for no legitimate reason - that the aircraft will continue to prove elusive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
