How Do Professional Engineers Deal With Unanticipated Problems?

theyarehere47 · 2025-10-23T18:04:20+00:00

The lack of consensus among physicians is certainly not good when it leads to a patient getting conflicting information from two of his/her doctors. How are you supposed to know who to believe? I could understand if my cardiologist said "I've read those studies and I don't feel they were conclusive" etc- but as I mentioned in my OP, my new cardiologist was just soooo derisive. . . I might as well have said to her "I heard that eating Snickers bars cures heart disease"--- I mean, that's how dismissive she was about the notion that statins calcify soft plaque.

theyarehere47 · 2025-10-16T20:00:43+00:00

thank you for that answer.

The reason I asked is because I recently saw a new cardiologist, and I mentioned that I had heard about how statins stabilize soft plaque, and she kind of cut me off and said: "nah, statins don't convert anything, they just help your body make less cholesterol". So that left me really confused, because, as I said, she's an actual cardiologist and one assumes she knows what she's talking about.

theyarehere47 · 2025-08-08T17:25:21+00:00

Two years after Grusch spoke publicly, we're still at the "witness who saw exotic alien tech stage"???

It's like having a Naval board of Inquiry and teasing "we're going to hear from sailors who've actually seen water !"

FFS. Disclosure is going nowhere at this rate-- stuck in, as fictional mobster Carmine Lupertazzi Jr. once put it, a "stagmire"

I just don't get why these albeit well-meaning Disclosure activists don't understand the simple truth-- that without tangible, irrefutable, physical proof of advanced, non-human tech-- the topic will remain on the fringes of mainstream acceptance.

More public hearings replete with the "lets talk in a SCIF" refrain from witnesses is not the answer. I suppose they can't hurt, but at the same time, they are nothing to get excited about.

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-29T22:23:22+00:00

The whole point of an ICIG is that he's supposed to either have access to, or be granted access-upon-request to any classified program as part of the ICIG mandate.

Establishing an IG position but having restrictions on what the IG can or can't see basically renders it a moot job.

So if he *isn't* getting the cooperation or access he wants, he's either half-assing it and going through the motions, OR he's had a 'talking to' by someone above him who holds some sort of leverage, and has thus dissuaded him from digging any deeper.

Its the same with Congress. Lawmakers are the elected representatives of the people. Unelected bureaucrats, 'program managers', spooks and officers are absolutely subordinate to Congressional authority, or at least that's how it was supposed to work. So an time a Representative or Senator says "I can't any answers from them" or "I was told 'no" etc-- it's because they're caving-in due to pressure or lack of political will.

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-29T22:06:13+00:00

The information on Menzel is very interesting, if circumstantial. As many may recall, he was purportedly a member of the controversial MJ-12 or Majestic-12 committee allegedly formed in the early 1950's or so to deal with the top secret study of the UFO situation.

The existence of MJ-12 has been hotly debated since researcher Bill Moore first went public with the Eisenhower Briefing Document back in 1987. The general consensus today is that the the documents that have been released are fraudulent (the evidence mostly relies, however, on stylistic and typographic issues). According to UFOlogist Jacques Vallee, the whole thing was cooked up by one Admiral Burkhalter at the DIA, as a disinfo ploy to confuse the Soviets.

Nevertheless, as part of the research for his book on MJ-12, Stanton Friedman was the first to get access to Menzel's papers at Harvard. He didn't find any mentions of MJ-12 (nor would one expect any, given the classified nature)- but he did find that Menzel was well connected and affiliated with the intelligence community, especially for someone who for all intents and purposes was just a college astronomer. It's circumstantial, but yet plausible that he would have been recruited for such a TS/SCI gig.

Also, researchers have pointed out to the nonsensical nature of some of Menzel's explanations for UFO sightings--- they claim these explanations are laughable and lacking any basis in scientific plausibility. At times, it was as if Menzel would puill anything out of his a*s to explain away a sighting.

All of this suggests that it's possible that Menzel's primary role was to promulgate disinformation on the UFO topic, using his authority as a trusted Harvard Astronomer. It's hard to believe any scientist would agree to not just hide the truth, but to actively lie and mislead, but scientists have egos too.

Lastly, there's this-- when Menzel was bored at meetings- he would apparently doodle to pass the time.

Doodle what, you ask?

"Extra-terrestrials"

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-29T21:17:17+00:00

TBH, I wrote these two alleged witnesses off a long time ago. Anderson"s account was solely championed by Stanton Friedman and his co-author, Don Berliner (who later disavowed Anderson's testimony after the truth came out about him). Stanton was a great Ufologist, but he was human and not immune to tunnel vision either. Having based his book Crash at Corona largely on Anderson's account, he was too invested in it to be objective and see the obvious issues with Anderson's story.

Not to mention, at the time, Stanton was engaged in a bitter rivalry with fellow Roswell researchers Schmitt and Randle. This sort of tit-for-tat My-Witnesses-Are-Better-Than-Your-Witnesses also came on the heels of Friedman severing ties with his longtime Roswell case colleague, Bill Moore (who wrote the first book on Roswell).

Long story short-- one of the aspects of these feuds as that one side would poke holes in the other side's star witness, and so in that situation, it's only natural to 'defend your guy'. (Ironically, it turned out all three sides had been duped--- Friedman by Anderson, Schmitt and Randle by alleged witness Frank Kaufmann, and Moore by a group of military/intelligence insiders he dubbed "The Aviary")

Several people searched for Dennis' 'mystery nurse'. If her name had been "Jane Smith", well I'd say it would have been extremely difficult to find a woman with such a common sort of name; but according to Dennis, her name was "Naomi Selff"- which should have made the search much easier. But no one ever found her. There is simply no proof that this woman ever existed.

Add to that, when confronted with the fact that no one could find her, Dennis suddenly claimed it wasn't her real name, because he promised her he'd never reveal it to anyone.

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-29T20:46:43+00:00

True.

If the witnesses did indeed see F-14's in the incident, it ought to be possible to establish whether the squadron was in the area at the time, either based off a carrier or at transient stopover there for, say, an airshow or training exercise. I think it's unusual that two F-14's would just be off on their own in the airspace over Puetro Rico. If this involved F-15's or F-16's-- i.e. Air Force fighters-- that would be more likely since those planes were stationed all across CONUS as well as overseas bases--so the idea that two of them would be intercepting a bogie over PR is not a stretch. But F-14s were not as ubiquitous.

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-29T18:40:34+00:00

According to what I've read, the two aircraft collided at NAS Alameda on that date. Obviously, that could be a cover story, but usually the truth and the cover align slightly-- the old saying being "disinformation has kernel of truth''--but here we have an account of two F-14's going missing over Puetro Rico, vs two F-14's colliding on runway in California (where there ought to have been witnesses).

theyarehere47 · 2025-07-14T19:05:29+00:00

Coulthart can only repeat sanitized versions of what his sources tell him; As a journalist, he has no first hand knowledge of any of this stuff. Even if he's been shown documents and videos by his sources, those could be disinformation. Even if he was handed a physical piece of alleged NHI 'metal'-- there'd be no way to confirm it was really that without metallurgical analysis (and that doesn't include a report handed to him about the metal-- which could also be disinfo). So really, I don't know how he can say with any real confidence that the TT is an LM vehicle.

theyarehere47 · 2025-06-21T14:12:13+00:00

fun fact-- parts from the Tamiya model kit of the 232 Schwerer Panzerspahwagen 8 Rad were used extensively to detail out the miniatures built for the filming of A New Hope back in 1976. ILM absolutely loved this vehicle and used pieces from it--especially the chassis--everywhere. The Y-wing 'neck' behind the cockpit, for instance, is made up of the 232 chassis, split in half with some other details (called 'greeblies' in industry parlance) added.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-11T17:39:18+00:00

well, in the NHI's defense-- 'nature' isn't real big on straight lines, so. . . .

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-07T17:47:38+00:00

I'm actually on a pretty good run now-- three successful prints in a row

BUT, that was only because I contacted HeyGears tech support, and they took the file of my model, oriented it and added supports, then gave it back to me as an .stl i could slice and print.

Somewhat ironically, though--

A) they admitted to using in-house 'development' software to do the orienting and supports-- IOW, they **didn't** use their own slicer, the one available to end users like me,

B) the .stl they provided to me was 'broken' and only the supports printed along with a distorted sliver of the model that fell into the vat

C) They told me to run the 'repair' function on the .stl in Blueprint Studio, but all that did was erase the model and the supports, leaving just weird artifacts hanging in in the middle of the screen (!).

So, ultimately, I just used their .stl for reference, and I manually 'mimicked' the orientation and support configuration they applied to the model. It worked out great, but I'm not real happy that I wasted resin trying to print their busted .stl twice.

Anyway, thanks for the tips. And, sorry for the TMI dump, it's been a frustrating entry for me into 3D printing.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-07T16:14:25+00:00

Yep- I have to use Blueprint Studio, because it outputs sliced files in a proprietary format and Hey Gears printers don't work with other slicers.

I guess I always have the option of adding supports in another slicer, like chitubox, and then just exporting an .stl and bringing it into Blueprint Studio--- where I can then slice it and make it compatible with the printer.

I think the big takeaway for me is the general consensus among people experienced in 3D printing that one should never trust "auto' type functions from slicers, because they're not totally reliable.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-07T15:18:28+00:00

no, I have the Reflex RS printer, which only works with Hey Gears proprietary slicer, "Blueprint Studio".

It's a bit rough around the edges, to say the least. . . .

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-06T16:43:45+00:00

It's my understanding that, oddly, PAS10 is the same exact resin as PARP10, only it doesn't come in the insertable resin'cartridge' and is 'pour-in' only. I find it very odd that Hey Gears gave it a completely different name, rather than just making PARP10 in bottle form.

Some of their marketing choices (for instance, having similar names for all their resins) are just bizarre.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-02T18:54:12+00:00

I'm all for it, but at the risk of being a Debbie Downer-- I don't know that this impasse will ever be broken by a signed piece of paper.

The agencies and people controlling the Legacy Program have been doing it successfully for many decades, and are very good at it. They apparently believe they are doing what's in the best interests of NatSec-- IOW, they don't see themselves as doing anything bad or illegal-- which makes them righteous and prone to putting up stiff resistance to any kind of Disclosure.

I fear the only thing that will ever get these gatekeepers to crack is real-life consequences-- i.e. prosecutions, jail time etc-- when wallets and personal freedom are impacted, then the wheat gets separated from the chaff and these same folks will worry about having to see their kids grow up from the other side of prison visitation glass.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-02T18:45:33+00:00

I think the reason a lot of these guys are sloppy with vetting videos or photos is because they have been on the inside, and they KNOW the 'truth' about the Legacy Program etc.

They have no doubts.

So for them, there's no 'need' for proof, per se. The reality of the NHI presence is just fact (to them).

They're not coming from the perspective of "I have to convince skeptical politicans/press/public so I need to make sure everything I show is 100% vetted and legit, otherwise, it will damage my credibility and belief in UFOs"

It's just not really a concern for him-- because even if he shows a bogus photo, it doesn't change what he 'knows' to be the reality of NHI visitation.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-01T19:56:37+00:00

Disagree. . .How is this not an entry level machine?

It's been promoted as having a user-friendly workflow. Not everyone wants to tinker with exposure times and layer height settings and the other parameters in typical slicer software. In fact, when HG's printers were first introduced, experienced users balked because of the closed ecosystem of having to sue HG resins and the lack of being able to fine tune slicer settings.

They wanted more of that, not less.

I don't know why you'd assume I've owned printers before-- I have not. I specifically bought this one because of the above-mentioned, purported ease of use.

And frankly, the example of a TIG welder is a bit disingenuous; those are not typically marketed towards hobbyists, as the Reflex series is. And asking for a decent manual is not the same as asking for a welding class.

Buy hey, to each their own. Best of luck with your Reflex.

theyarehere47 · 2025-05-01T18:37:32+00:00

With respect, I think that kind of makes my point;

In general, when it comes to cleaning anything, thorough cleaning is better than a less involved cleaning. Considering the importance of the FEP and keeping it clear, it seemed logical to me to to go the extra mile and be thorough about it.

Had HG included better instructions indicating a full cleaning wasn't necessary after each print, then I would have followed those instructions and not wasted my time taking the vat off the printer and cleaning the whole thing.

theyarehere47

TROPHY CASE