UFOs - Generals, Pilots and Government Officials go on the record LIVE - Truthloader

There's a BUG on YouTube that keeps resetting the countdown timer. The event is starting at 22:30 in the UK, 17:30 Eastern Time, 14:30 Pacific Time. Please inform people who ask!

Tonight (or today depending on where you are) Generals, Pilots and Government officials will go on the record live to discuss their experiences with UFOs. Post your questions and get voting now - there will be a 30 minute question and answer session at the end of the panel discussion.
The panel will include Leslie Kean, author of the New York Times best seller on UFOs. She spent 10 years researching the book, which includes officially documented cases and reports by highly credentialed people from around the world.
Joining Leslie Kean on the panel is Jose Lay, international affairs director at CEFAA in Chile, a government agency whose mission is to collect, study and analyze scientifically, all reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in Chile.
Colonel Charles Halt, who in 1980 officially reported a UFO at RAF Woodbridge in England, which later became known as The Rendlesham Forest Incident, which we made a video about - it's there.
Captain Robert Salas, whilst an officer in the US Air Force, witnessed 10 nuclear missiles become non-operational after guards reported UFOs hovering above the facility.
Captain Ray Bowyer, a British pilot who, along with some of his passengers, witnessed an object estimated to be up to a mile long over the English Channel in 2007.
Parviz Jafari is a retired General of the Iranian Air Force. In 1976 he was ordered by the Air Force Command to approach an intense flashing object observed over Tehran.
Subscribe to our channel: http://bit.ly/TRUsub

UFOs - Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record – LIVE! | VIDEO

     Generals, Pilots and Government officials will go on the record live to discuss their experiences with UFOs this Thursday at 10:30pm GMT, 2:30 PDT, 5:30 EDT. A panel of credible witnesses will join the YouTube channel Truthloader via webcam, each speaking for 10 minutes before a 30 minute Q and A session.

The panel will include Leslie Kean, author of the New York Times best seller UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record. She spent 10 years researching the book, which includes officially documented cases and reports by highly credentialed people from around the world.

Joining Leslie Kean on the panel is Jose Lay, international affairs director at CEFAA in Chile, a government agency whose mission is to collect, study and analyze scientifically, all reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in Chile.

Colonel Charles Halt, who in 1980 officially reported a UFO at RAF Woodbridge in England, which later became known as The Rendlesham Forest Incident.

Captain Robert Salas, whilst an officer in the US Air Force, witnessed 10 nuclear missiles become non-operational after guards reported UFOs hovering above the facility.

Captain Ray Bowyer, along with some of his passengers, witnessed an object estimated to be up to a mile long over the English Channel in 2007.

Parviz Jafari is a retired General of the Iranian Air Force. In 1976 he was ordered by the Air Force Command to approach an intense flashing object observed over Tehran. Jafari’s weapons were jammed and communications garbled when he approached the object.

"This online conference will help bring the serious side of the subject to a wide audience. The audience will have the opportunity to interact with the panelists which makes this a unique event." said Leslie Kean.

“With the 30 minutes Q and A at the end of the event, it’s an opportunity to ask some of the most credible UFO witnesses some questions. If people want to take part, leave a comment on the live video on Truthloader, post on our Facebook wall, or tweet us @truthloader” said Truthloader Producer, Phil Harper.

~~BOOK SALE~~

UFO Skeptic, Philip J. Klass' Papers On MJ-12 & Condon Report Released To Public

      I have just placed on my Historical documents page on Debunker.com some newly-scanned "white papers" and correspondence by the influential skeptic Philip J. Klass (1919-2005) concerning the supposed MJ-12 papers, and a pre-publication critique of the Condon report.

In November, 1968, Klass wrote an advance critique of the not-yet-published Condon Report (University of Colorado study of UFOs), and circulated it to only a very few persons (fortunately, I was one). He notes that the persons involved in the study were supposed to be uncommitted on the the question of UFOs, but several were already UFO believers.


Here are Klass' "White Papers" and other correspondence on the supposed MJ-12 papers (first series only. Even Stanton Friedman is reluctant to defend the MJ-12 papers of the second series!). He explains why they are hoaxes. The discussion involves William L. Moore, Stanton Friedman, Peter A. Gersten. (57 pages)

Here is Klass' explanation of the $1,000 wager that he lost to Stanton Friedman.

~~BOOK SALE~~

“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Recent research into the psychology of conspiracy belief has highlighted the importance of belief systems in the acceptance or rejection of conspiracy theories. We examined a large sample of conspiracist (pro-conspiracy-theory) and conventionalist (anti-conspiracy-theory) comments on news websites in order to investigate the relative importance of promoting alternative explanations vs. rejecting conventional explanations for events. In accordance with our hypotheses, we found that conspiracist commenters were more likely to argue against the opposing interpretation and less likely to argue in favor of their own interpretation, while the opposite was true of conventionalist commenters. However, conspiracist comments were more likely to explicitly put forward an account than conventionalist comments were. In addition, conspiracists were more likely to express mistrust and made more positive and fewer negative references to other conspiracy theories. The data also indicate that conspiracists were largely unwilling to apply the “conspiracy theory” label to their own beliefs and objected when others did so, lending support to the long-held suggestion that conspiracy belief carries a social stigma. Finally, conventionalist arguments tended to have a more hostile tone. These tendencies in persuasive communication can be understood as a reflection of an underlying conspiracist worldview in which the details of individual conspiracy theories are less important than a generalized rejection of official explanations.

Conspiracy theories, defined as allegations that powerful people or organizations are plotting together in secret to achieve sinister ends through deception of the public (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999; Wood et al., 2012), have long been an important element of popular discourse. With the advent of the Internet, they have become more visible than ever. Although the psychological literature on conspiracy belief has a relatively short history, with most of the relevant research having been conducted only within the past twenty years, it has revealed a great deal regarding individual differences between those who generally believe conspiracy theories (whom we call “conspiracists”) and those who prefer conventional explanations (whom we call “conventionalists”). Conspiracy beliefs have been shown to be positively correlated with mistrust of other people (Goertzel, 1994) and authorities (Swami et al., 2010); feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999); superstition, beliefs in the paranormal, and schizotypy (Darwin et al., 2011); a perceived lack of control (Hamsher et al., 1968; Whitson and Galinsky, 2008); a Machiavellian approach to social interaction (Douglas and Sutton, 2011); and openness to experience (Swami et al., 2010; but see Swami et al., 2011).

At the present time, questionnaire-based investigations of individual differences make up the bulk of the existing research, although experimental approaches are emerging (e.g., Douglas and Sutton, 2008; Jolley and Douglas, 2013). A fairly recent development in the field has been an acknowledgement that in addition to trait-like variables and transient psychological states, ideologies and broad belief systems play a substantial role in conspiracy theory belief. For example, in an examination of conspiracy theories regarding an alleged cover-up of the divinity of Mary Magdalene and the bloodline of Christ, Newheiser et al. (2011) demonstrated that the plausibility of these theories hinged largely on broader beliefs about the world. People with traditional Christian beliefs were likely to reject such theories out of hand, while those with a more New Age approach were much more receptive. In a similar vein, Lewandowsky et al. (2013b) demonstrated that rejection of climate science (though not explicitly conspiracist) is determined in part by ideological concerns, with libertarian free-market ideology, apparently predisposing people to believe that anthropogenic global warming is an unscientific hoax. It is clear, then, that individual conspiracy theories or related counter-normative explanations can seem more or less likely depending on how they comport with other beliefs held by the audience.

Some researchers have gone further, proposing the existence of a conspiracist worldview—a belief system conducive to conspiracy beliefs in general (e.g., Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2012). This proposal stems primarily from the finding that beliefs in unrelated conspiracy theories tend to intercorrelate: for example, someone who believes that Princess Diana was deliberately assassinated is also more likely to believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Indeed, Wood et al. (2012) demonstrated that even beliefs in directly contradictory conspiracy theories were positively correlated with one another, indicating that conspiracy beliefs may be held together not by direct agreement with one another, but by mutual agreement with higher-order beliefs about the world. One particularly important element of the conspiracist worldview is thought to be a generalized opposition to official or received narratives. In this view, conspiracy belief is not about believing in particular alternative theories, but in disbelieving in whatever the official story is. This tendency has been informally noted by Dean (2002), who described most conspiracy theories as “bits and pieces without a plot… [that] fail to delineate any conspiracy at all. They simply counter conventional narratives with suspicions and allegations that, more often than not, resist coherent emplotment” (p. 92). Likewise, Clarke (2007) observed that conspiracy theories are often extremely vague, particularly in the Internet age.

If this is the case, then for people who hold a conspiracist worldview, the specifics of a conspiracy theory are less important than its identity as a conspiracy and its opposition to the official explanation. The important element is that those in power are lying and cannot be trusted, and that they are covering up something sinister. Opposition to officialdom, in this sense, parallels the generalized prejudice that Adorno et al. (1950) found to be strong enough to overcome contradictions between different anti-Jewish stereotypes. More than being a specific belief that Jews are overly secretive or overly intrusive, anti-Semitism appears to be more of a general belief that Jews are generally unpleasant people. Likewise, conspiracy theory belief appears to be more of a negative belief than a positive one—it is more concerned with saying what the cause of a condition or event was not (i.e., whatever the official explanation is) than with putting forward a specific alternative account.

An opportunity to test this idea presents itself in the form of observation of online discourse. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of mainstream public acceptance for their theories, many conspiracists, both prominent and otherwise, appear to see themselves as having a duty to spread their views to the public at large. They often exhort the unthinking masses to “wake up” (e.g., Crane, 2008; Byers, 2009; Icke, 2012). This is a reasonable reaction: given a belief that people's lives are being manipulated by malevolent forces beyond their control, most would probably agree that trying to spread the word about that fact is a good idea. Outspoken conventionalists, such as those in the “skeptic” movement (e.g., Randi, 1982; Sagan, 1995; Shermer, 1997; Novella, 2009), find most conspiracy theories to be misguided at best and destructive at worst, and so make a point of arguing against them in the public sphere.

This discussion is voluminous and highly visible in many arenas, perhaps none more so than news website comment sections. Articles about topics for which popular conspiracy theories exist, such as 9/11, the moon landing, and vaccines, can have tens of thousands of comments, most of which are devoted to advancing or refuting allegations of conspiracy. These comments are often archived along with the associated articles for months or years afterward, which provides an excellent opportunity for archival research to give some insight into the thoughts and beliefs of those writing them (e.g., Fat et al., 2012; Loke, 2012; Sisask et al., 2012).

The present study consists of an examination of a large number of conspiracy theory-related persuasive comments on news stories. Such analysis of online discourse as a method of examining psychological states has increased in prominence as the Internet has become a more popular place to discuss one's ideas. The subject and pace of online discussion has been shown to be a more or less reliable barometer of public concern over social issues (Roberts et al., 2002; Scharkow and Vogelgesang, 2011), and emotional reactions expressed online can be used to consistently predict political approval ratings (Gonzalez-Bailon et al., 2012). Quantitative analysis of online discussion has also been used to gain insight into the social psychology of groups with fringe views (Douglas et al., 2005), attitudes toward Tourette's Syndrome (Fat et al., 2012), and racial views (Loke, 2012). Qualitative research on online discourse has been more common, including a study demonstrating the evolution of conspiracy theories over time in response to evidence (Lewandowsky et al., 2013a). In the context of conspiracy theories in particular, there are several advantages to content analysis of online commentary. The self-selective nature of online communication allows for the collection of a great deal of data regarding opinions that may be held by only a minority of people; moreover, the degree of anonymity facilitates the honest expression of opinions that might not be held in high social esteem elsewhere (e.g., Douglas et al., 2005; Loke, 2012).

There are some caveats associated with analyzing persuasive comments in particular. While external validity may benefit from observing behavior in a naturalistic setting, there is some degree of uncertainty regarding the internal validity of any conclusions drawn from such methods. Most obviously, there is the issue of to what degree the content of persuasive communications reflects the properties of the author rather than the demands of the situation. Rather than faithful representations of internal psychological processes, commenters' methods of argumentation might instead reflect strategic considerations regarding the audience, the venue, and the subject matter. While self-presentation is very often a concern in psychological research, even in laboratory settings, such demands may be especially salient in a situation where one's goal is implicitly (or even explicitly) to persuade others rather than to provide an honest and straightforward account of one's beliefs. Indeed, some research has shown that people do adapt their persuasive techniques according to their knowledge of the audience and the subject (Friestad and Wright, 1999; Douglas et al., 2010; Vogel et al., 2010).

The question of whether we can expect persuasive communication to accurately reflect inner psychological processes is not easily answerable, as the effect of lay persuasive knowledge on generation of persuasive arguments is fairly sparse. While there is a substantial body of research on lay persuasive knowledge, the vast majority of it focuses instead on how such knowledge affects susceptibility to the persuasive messages of others. However, it is well-established that people tend to rely heavily on projection for predicting others' behavior—that is, they use themselves as a model for prediction. This effect is especially strong when relatively little is known about the target [for a review, see Robbins and Krueger (2005)]. In general, then, it is likely that persuaders use the self as a model for argument generation: in other words, they argue in a way that they would themselves find convincing. This, in turn, suggests that the types of arguments used by persuaders can contain information relevant to understanding how they think about the issue at hand.

The tendency to use social projection is especially relevant in online settings. Much online discussion is either fully anonymous or conducted under pseudonyms, greatly limiting the amount of information available about the other party in a discussion. As such, we assume for the purposes of the present study that people will generally tend to use arguments that they themselves would find most convincing were they the audience rather than the persuader. This, in turn, should reflect the structure of their belief systems—the arguments that people find most convincing are those that match up with how they view the world (Darwin et al., 2011; Newheiser et al., 2011; Wood et al., 2012; Lewandowsky et al., 2013b). To that end, we systematically coded and analyzed conspiracist and conventionalist persuasive comments from four major news websites on articles relating to 9/11 from the period of July 1st through December 31st, 2011, encompassing the months surrounding the tenth anniversary of the attacks.

9/11 conspiracy theories provide an excellent research subject for several reasons. First, the community associated with these theories, known as the 9/11 Truth Movement, is noted for its substantial online presence and focus on Internet proselytizing. Bartlett and Miller (2011) observed that the movement's “mass membership backbone” (p. 45) devotes a substantial amount of time to producing large numbers of online comments, and Clarke (2007) saw the Truth Movement as a paradigmatic example of Internet conspiracy culture. Second, the timing was fortuitous, with the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, sure to herald a number of stories on the subject and therefore many relevant comments, having occurred shortly before data collection commenced. The recency of the materials lowered the probability of comments having been expunged from archives or lost as an unintended consequence of comment software upgrades. Third, just as the Truth Movement has a substantial online presence, so too do its conventionalist opponents in the skeptic movement. We therefore expected that there would be a good deal of debate between the two sides, providing further raw materials for analysis. Finally, the Truth Movement is a well-established community with a substantial intellectual output, including popular books (e.g., Griffin, 2004), conference circuits, several sub-organizations such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and at least one peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. There is substantial debate within the Truth Movement regarding whether 9/11 was a controlled demolition, a deliberate intelligence failure, or even the result of exotic space-based weaponry (Barber, 2008). In short, its body of work is varied, voluminous, and well-developed, and should therefore be able to provide a wide range of different arguments for analysis.

If our reasoning regarding the influence of projection on persuasive tactics holds, we should see systematic differences in the characteristics of conspiracist and conventionalist arguments. Specifically, we should be able to replicate earlier results demonstrating that unrelated conspiracy beliefs are intercorrelated (e.g., Goertzel, 1994; Swami et al., 2010; Wood et al., 2012)—in this case, conspiracist comments should contain more positive (and fewer negative) references to unrelated conspiracy theories compared with conventionalist comments. Examining a long-standing correlate of conspiracy belief, we also investigated the degree to which comments contained explicit expressions of mistrust, predicting that conspiracist comments would be more likely to express mistrust of authorities or other targets than conventionalist comments (e.g., Wright and Arbuthnot, 1974; Simmons and Parsons, 2005). Further, we examined expressions of powerlessness, and predicted that conspiracist comments would express more concerns about power, as feelings of powerlessness have been shown to correlate reliably with conspiracy theory belief (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999). Replicating the previously established relationships between conspiracy beliefs, trust, and power would increase confidence in the present study's methods and help to justify any novel results derived therefrom.

In addition to verifying the utility of this archival approach by replicating previous results, we made several novel predictions. First, if we are correct in our contention that much of the conspiracist worldview is based on a generalized rejection of official explanations rather than on positing particular alternative narratives, conspiracist comments should focus on refuting conventional explanations more than on presenting or supporting specific conspiracy theories. Therefore, conspiracist comments, relative to conventionalist comments, should be more likely to derogate rival explanations and less likely to promote their own. Second, we elected to examine the veracity of the long-held contention that “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” carry an intellectual stigma (e.g., Bratich, 2002, 2008; Coady, 2006). If this is true, people should be unwilling to apply the term to themselves and should object when others do so. As such, we predicted that conspiracists would avoid applying the term “conspiracy theory” to their own beliefs (or “conspiracy theorists” to themselves), and would attempt to dispute others' usage of the term. While this might seem an obvious prediction—and indeed many authors take it as a given that the term is stigmatized—to our knowledge there have not yet been any empirical investigations of this contention.

Finally, another possible avenue by which the spread of conspiracy theories could be fruitfully understood is social influence theory (Latané, 1981). Since 9/11 conspiracy theories are (at least in the West) an opinion held by a vocal minority attempting to effect change, social influence theory (Latané, 1981) would predict that conventionalists, if they are good majority influencers, are more likely to show patterns consistent with normative social influence. In particular, Bratich (2008) has highlighted the hostility of intellectual orthodoxy toward conspiracist explanations for events and the labelling of conspiracists as paranoid or otherwise mentally ill (c.f. Hofstadter, 1964; Kalichman et al., 2010). At the same time, conspiracists are often hostile in a different way, dismissing conventionalists as naïve, gullible, and either unwitting dupes or willing stooges of the conspiracy (Crane, 2008; Byford, 2011). Therefore, we examined the hostility of each persuasive comment, whether characterized by outright insults, threats, dismissive sarcasm, accusations of complicity, or other hostile or insulting content.

Activist Post

Activist Post

When NSA recruiters went to the University of Wisconsin earlier this week to pitch language students on working for the agency, they got more than they bargained for.

The informed students turned the question-and-answer session into a hearing. On trial were the NSA's lies, their legality, and how they define "adversary".

The students recorded audio of the exchange on an iPhone proving that the language-analyst NSA recruiters were left tongue-tied.

"I'm surprised that for language analysts you're incredibly imprecise with your language," grad student Madiha Tahir charged when they failed to define what constitutes an adversary.

"What you're selling us is untrue" she added. "We also know that the NSA took down brochures and fact sheets after the Snowden revelations because those fact sheets had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them -- so how are we supposed to believe what you're saying?"

Another student directly challenged the NSA's morality for using the "globe as their playground" and then partying at the office with co-workers. She then challenges them to become whistleblowers because the truth will ultimately prevail.

"Given the fact that we have been lied to as Americans, given the fact that fact sheets have been pulled down because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper and Alexander lied to Congress...Is being a good liar a qualification to work for the NSA?" Tahir asks.

These young students forced the NSA recruiters to claim, in a seemingly desperate defense, that they were not actually there "representing the NSA as an agency."

Clearly the people have questions that aren't being addressed by their representatives, and a much larger debate is needed.  However, it'd be much more productive if these kids get to question the NSA leadership instead of our blackmailed politicians.
Listen to the whole exchange below:
Read other articles by Activist Post Here

Is it a bird, a plane, a UFO? It's a...red sprite

Is it a bird, is it a plane, is it a UFO? Strange lights in the sky are being closely watched by atmospheric scientists.

Dubbed red sprites by researchers, these dancing fairies-of-the-clouds are sometimes glimpsed as blood-red bursts of light in the shape of jellyfish.

At other times, they appear as trumpet-shaped blue emissions, called blue jets. Like the most elusive of nymphs, however, red sprites and blue jets come out on only one occasion: during severe thunderstorms.

Although sporadically reported for years by airline pilots, only in the past decade or two has there been enough evidence to convince atmospheric scientists to investigate the phenomenon.

What's that in the skies?

Now baffled researchers asking "What in the world is this?" may have found answers.

Above a thunderstorm's black clouds, sprites appear as bursts of red light flashing far into Earth's atmosphere, according to scientist Hans Nielsen of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

The brief flashes look like glowing jellyfish, with red bells and purple tentacles. In a single night, a large thunderstorm system can emit up to one hundred sprites.

Into the wild blue—or red—yonder

Nielsen, Jason Ahrns, also of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Matthew McHarg of the U.S. Air Force Academy and researchers from Fort Lewis College teamed up this summer to study sprites.

They used the National Science Foundation (NSF)/National Center for Atmospheric Research Gulfstream-V aircraft, a high-flying plane capable of reaching altitudes of 50,000 feet, to conduct their research. Their project is funded by NSF.

Sprites are similar to lightning, say Nielsen and McHarg, in that they are electrical discharges from the atmosphere.

But while sprites mimic lightning "in some ways," says McHarg, "they're different in others. Lightning happens below and within clouds, at altitudes of two to five miles. Sprites occur far above the clouds, at about 50 miles up—10 times higher than lightning."

They're also huge, he says, reaching 30 miles high.

"Red sprites don't last very long, though, about one-one thousandth of a second. That's 300 times quicker than the time it takes us to blink!"

Blue jets, which weren't directly part of the scientists' study, stick around longer than red sprites, originate at the tops of storm clouds, and shoot up to an altitude less than half that of red sprites. Blue jets are narrower than red sprites, and fan out like trumpet-shaped flowers in blue or purple hues.

"This field of research is fast evolving, and is important for understanding the global electric circuit," says Anne-Marie Schmoltner, program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which supports the research. "The red sprite airborne field campaign this summer provided observations at unprecedented time resolutions."

What makes thunderstorms' celestial lights

Atmospheric researchers have developed theories to try to explain these celestial lights.

Red sprites may happen at the time of positively charged cloud-to-ground lightning strikes, which make up about ten percent of all lightning and are many times more powerful than more common, negatively charged lightning.

The flashes may be akin to giant electric sparks.

After a powerful ground strike, the electric field above a thunderstorm may become strengthened to the point that it causes an "electrical breakdown," an overload that weakens the atmosphere's resistance to electric current flow. The result is an immense red spark, or sprite, in the atmosphere.

Although still something of a mystery, red sprites have helped solve other long-standing questions.

Scientists have found that red sprites create some of the low-frequency radio bursts picked up for years by instruments around the world, but whose source was unknown.

Large bursts of gamma rays, emanating from Earth rather than space, originate during thunderstorms, although their exact relationship to red sprites remains unclear.

Researchers now wonder whether red sprites (and blue jets) might affect the atmosphere in important ways.

For example, sprites and jets might alter the chemical composition of the upper atmosphere. Though brief, they could set off lasting charges.

Sprites' deep red color is caused by the light emitted from nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, says McHarg. Red sprites may turn out to be important to atmospheric chemistry and global climate by changing concentrations of nitric oxides high in the atmosphere.

The researchers are using a technique called high-speed spectroscopy to study sprites' different colors to determine the amount of energy the sprites carry, and to find out more about their chemical composition.

How to see a sprite

Can thunderstorm-watchers on the ground glimpse red sprites and blue jets with the naked eye? Yes, if they know where to look.

Viewers must be able to see a distant thunderstorm with no clouds in the way, in an area without city lights. Then they must look above the storm, not at the lightning within the clouds.

It's likely, say the scientists, that if watchers wait long enough, they'll see a red sprite. Blue jets are more elusive. The best viewing would probably come from a plane flying very high, and located miles and miles away from a thunderstorm.

With its rubber tires, a car may be the safest vehicle from which to hunt for ephemeral sprites of the thunderclouds.

Explore further: Rare atmospheric phenomenon observed

The Other Side of Truth podcast - Episode 2.9: Kevin Randle

A Different Perspective

Just minutes ago I received some very sad news. Jesse Marcel, Jr. died of a heart attack on August 24. He was alone, at home, apparently reading a UFO book when he died.

I have known Jesse for more than a quarter century. I first met him while we both were in Roswell to film a segment for the old Unsolved Mysteries that aired on NBC. We had gone out to dinner with a number of those in town for the program and since we shared a military background, including that of Army Aviation, we connected immediately. As medical doctor, he was trained as a flight surgeon and I, of course, had been a helicopter pilot.

From that point I met him quite a few times as we both explored the Roswell UFO crash case. He, as a young man, boy really, of eleven was exposed to metallic debris that his father had brought home late that July night. He told the story to all who would listen with little in the way of variation.

I learned of the special bond he’d had with his father. He told me that that one day, he had asked his father what the atomic bomb looked like and Jesse, Sr. had drawn a picture of “Fat Man.” He then shredded it and burned the pieces. Although reluctant to share they story outside a small circle of friends, he did mention it at the Citizen Hearing in Washington this last May.

But what I think of mostly, these days is his military service. He had retired from the Montana National Guard as a colonel but was recalled to active duty for service in Iraq. Before he deployed, he asked me if he should take a personal computer with him and I said it had been the best investment I had made, if only for the DVD player in it.

His service there seems to have affected him more deeply than did mine. He spent a year there treating those who needed his help, but came back suffering from PTSD. The deployment cost him his medical practice because he could no longer trust his hands. Loud, sudden noises caused him to jump. He was more on edge, nervous, than he had been before going to Iraq. It was something that the government failed to recognize in the way they should have. He was a patriot who served without complaint, did what was asked of him and made the sacrifices he had to make.

He did call the International UFO Museum in Roswell this year telling them that this would probably be the last year he could attend. His health, while seeming not all that bad, did limit what he could do and how far he could travel. I suspect that he thought his health would deteriorate making a trip to Roswell extremely difficult if not impossible in the near future.

Jesse was a friend and a fellow warrior. I always believed that he understood more about my service in foreign lands because he shared those experiences. We connected on a level that others could not because of that military experience. Though we were never in the war zones at the same time, we did see many of the same places under similar circumstances. He served when he was needed, helped those who needed it, and contributed to our knowledge. I know that I will miss him, though not as much as his family.

Acknowledgments - Nuclear War Survival Skills

The author takes this opportunity to thank the following persons for their special contributions, without many of which it would have been impossible to have written this book:

L. Joe Deal, James L. Liverman, and W. W. Schroebel for the essential support they made possible over the years, first by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, next by the Energy Research and Development Administration, and then by the Department of Energy. This support was the basis of the laboratory work and field testing that produced most of the survival instructions developed between 1964 and 1979, given in this book. Mr. Schroebel also reviewed early and final drafts and made a number of improvements.

John A. Auxier, Ph.D., health physicist, who for years was Director of the Industrial Safety and Applied Health Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)-for manuscript review and especially for checking statements regarding the effects of radiation on people.

Conrad V. Chester, Ph.D., chemical engineer, civil defense researcher, developer of improved defenses against exotic weapons and unconventional attacks, nuclear strategist, and currently Group Leader, Emergency Planning Group, ORNL-for advice and many contributions, starting with the initial organization of material and continuing through all the drafts of the original and this edition.

William K. Chipman, LLD, Office of Civil Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency-for review in 1979 of the final draft of the original ORNL edition.

George A. Cristy, M.S., who for many years was a chemical engineer and civil defense researcher at ORNL-for contributions to the planning of the original edition and editing of early drafts.

Kay B. Franz, Ph.D., nutritionist, Associate Professor, Food Science and Nutrition Department, Brigham Young University- for information and advice used extensively in the Food chapter.

Samuel Glasstone, Ph.D., physical chemist and the leading authority on the effects of nuclear weapons-for overall review and constructive recommendations, especially regarding simplified explanations of the effects of nuclear weapons.

Carsten M. Haaland, M.S., physicist and civil defense researcher at ORNL-for scientific advice and mathematical computations of complex nuclear phenomena.

Robert H. Kupperman, Ph.D., physicist, in 1979 the Chief Scientist, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Department of State-for review of the final draft of the 1979

David B. Nelson, Ph.D., electrical engineer and mathematician, for years a civil defense and thermonuclear energy researcher at ORNL, an authority on electromagnetic pulse (EMP) problems-for manuscript review and contributions to sections on electromagnetic pulse phenomena, fallout monitoring instruments, and communications.

Lewis V. Spencer, Ph.D., for many years a physicist with the Radiation Physics Division, Center for Radiation Research, National Bureau of Standards-for his calculations and advice regarding needed improvements in the design of blast shelters to assure adequate protection of occupants against excessive exposure to initial nuclear radiation.

Edward Teller, Ph.D., nuclear physicist, leading inventor of offensive and defensive weapons, a strong supporter of' civil defense at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and worldwide-for contributing the Foreword, originally written for the American Security Council 1980 edition, and for his urging which motivated the author to work on this 1987 edition.

Eugene P. Wigner, Ph.D., physicist and mathematician, Nobel laureate, Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics, Princeton University, a principal initiator of the Nuclear Age and a prominent leader of the civil defense movement-for encouraging the writing of the original edition of this book, contributing the About the Author section, and improving drafts, especially of the appendix on expedient blast shelters.

Edwin N. York, M.S., nuclear physicist, Senior Research Engineer, Boeing Aerospace Company, designer of blast-protective structures-for overall review and recommendations, particularly those based on his extensive participation in nuclear and conventional blast tests, and for improving both the original and this edition.

Civil defense officials in Washington and several states for information concerning strengths and weaknesses of official civil defense preparations.

Helen C. Jernigan for editing the 1979 manuscript, and especially for helping to clarify technical details for non-technical readers.

May E. Kearny for her continuing help in editing, and for improving the index.

Ruby N. Thurmer for advice and assistance with editing the original edition.

Marjorie E. Fish for her work on the photographs and drawings.

Janet Sprouse for typing and typesetting the additions in the 1987 edition.

Book Page: 5

SELF-HELP CIVIL DEFENSE

Your best hope of surviving a nuclear war in this century is self-help civil defense - knowing the basic facts about nuclear weapon effects and what you, your family, and small groups can do to protect yourselves. Our Government continues to downgrade war-related survival preparations and spends only a few cents a year to protect each American against possible war dangers. During the 10 years or more before the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) weapons can be invented, developed and deployed, self-help civil defense will continue to be your main hope of surviving if we suffer a nuclear attack.

Most Americans hope that Star Wars will lead to the deployment of new weapons capable of destroying attacking missiles and warheads in flight. However, no defensive system can be made leak-proof. If Star Wars, presently only a research project, leads to a deployed defensive system, then self-help civil defense will be a vital part of our hoped for, truly defensive system to prevent aggressions and to reduce losses if deterrence fails.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS BOOK

This book is written for the majority of Americans who want to improve their chances of surviving a nuclear war, it brings together field-tested instructions that have enabled untrained Americans to make expedient fallout shelters, air pumps to ventilate and cool shelters, fallout meters, and other expedient life- support equipment. ('"Expedient" as used in civil defense work, describes equipment that can be made by untrained citizens in 48 hours or less, while guided solely by field-tested, written instructions and using only widely available materials and tools.) Also described are expedient ways to remove even dissolved radioiodine from water, and to process and cook whole grains and soybeans, our main food reserves. Successive versions of these instructions have been used successfully by families working under simulated crisis conditions, and have been improved repeatedly by Oak Ridge National Laboratory civil defense researchers and others over a period of 14 years. These improved instructions are the heart of this updated 1987 edition of the original Oak Ridge National Laboratory survival book first published in 1979.

The average American has far too little information that would help him and his family and our country survive a nuclear attack, and many of his beliefs about nuclear war are both false and dangerous. Since the A-bomb blasted Hiroshima and hurled mankind into the Nuclear Age, only during a recognized crisis threatening nuclear war have most Americans been seriously interested in improving their chances of surviving a nuclear attack. Both during and following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, millions of Americans built fallout shelters or tried to obtain survival information. At that time most of the available survival information was inadequate, and dangerously faulty in some respects as it still is in 1987. Widespread recognition of these civil defense shortcomings has contributed to the acceptance by most Americans of one or both of two false beliefs:

One of these false beliefs is that nuclear war would be such a terrible catastrophe that it is an unthinkable impossibility. If this were true, there would be no logical reason to worry about nuclear war or to make preparations to survive a nuclear attack.

The second false belief is that, if a nuclear war were to break out, it would be the end of mankind. If this were true, a rational person would not try to improve his chances of surviving the unsurvivable.

This book gives facts that show these beliefs are false. History shows that once a weapon is invented it remains ready for use in the arsenals of some nations and in time will be used. Researchers who have spent much time and effort learning the facts about effects of nuclear weapons now know that all-out nuclear war would not be the end of mankind or of civilization. Even if our country remained unprepared and were to be subjected to an all-out nuclear attack, many millions of Americans would survive and could live through the difficult post-attack years.

Book Page: 6

WHY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND ALMOST ALL OTHER AMERICANS ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED HOSTAGES TO THE SOVIET UNION

Unknown to most Americans, our Government lacks the defense capabilities that would enable the United States to stop being dependent on a uniquely American strategic policy called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD maintains that if both the United States and Russia do not or can not adequately protect their people and essential industries, then neither will attack the other.

An influential minority of Americans still believe that protecting our citizens and our vital industries would accelerate the arms race and increase the risk of war. No wonder that President Reagan's advocacy of the Strategic Defense Initiative, derisively called Star Wars, is subjected to impassioned opposition by those who believe that peace is threatened even by research to develop new weapons designed to destroy weapons launched against us or our allies! No wonder that even a proposed small increase in funding for civil defense to save lives if deterrence fails arouses stronger opposition from MAD supporters than do most much larger expenditures for weapons to kill people!

RUSSIAN, SWISS, AND AMERICAN CIVIL DEFENSE

No nation other than the United States has advocated or adopted a strategy that purposely leaves its citizens unprotected hostages to its enemies. The rulers of the Soviet Union never have adopted a MAD strategy and continue to prepare the Russians to fight, survive, and win all types of wars. Almost all Russians have compulsory instruction to teach them about the effects of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons, and what they can do to improve their chances of surviving. Comprehensive preparations have been made for the crisis evacuation of urban Russians to rural areas, where they and rural Russians would make high-protection- factor expedient fallout shelters. Blast shelters to protect millions have been built in the cities and near factories where essential workers would continue production during a crisis. Wheat reserves and other foods for war survivors have been stored outside target areas. About 100,000 civil defense troops are maintained for control, rescue, and post-attack recovery duties, The annual per capita cost of Russian civil defense preparations, if made at costs equivalent to those in the United States, is variously estimated to be between $8 and $20.

Switzerland has the best civil defense system, one that already includes blast shelters for over 85 percent of all its citizens. Swiss investment in this most effective kind of war-risk insurance has continued steadily for decades. According to Dr. Fritz Sager, the Vice Director of Switzerland's civil defense, in 1984 the cost was the equivalent of $12.60 per capita.

In contrast, our Federal Emergency Management Agency, that includes nuclear attack preparedness among its many responsibilities, will receive only about $126 million in fiscal 1987. This will amount to about 55 cents for each American. And only a small fraction of this pittance will be available for nuclear attack preparedness! Getting out better self-help survival instructions is about all that FEMA could afford to do to improve Americans' chances of surviving a nuclear war, unless FEMA's funding for war-related civil defense is greatly increased.

PRACTICALITY OF MAKING SURVIVAL PREPARATIONS DURING A CRISIS

The emphasis in this book is on survival preparations that can be made in the last few days of a worsening crisis. However, the measures put into effect during such a crisis can be very much more effective if plans and some preparations are completed well in advance. It is hoped that persons who read this book will be motivated at least to make the preparations outlined in Chapter 16, Minimum Pre-Crisis Preparations.

Well-informed persons realize that a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union is unlikely to be a Pearl-Harbor-type of attack, launched without warning. Strategists agree that a nuclear war most likely would begin after a period of days to- months of worsening crisis. The most realistic of the extensive Russian plans and preparations to survive a nuclear war are based on using at least several days during an escalating crisis to get most urban dwellers out of the cities and other high risk areas, to build or improve shelters in all parts of the Soviet Union, and to protect essential machinery and the like. The Russians know that if they are able to complete evacuation and sheltering plans before the outbreak of nuclear war, the number of their people killed would be a small fraction of those who otherwise would die. Our satellites and other sources of intelligence would reveal such massive movements within a day; therefore, under the most likely circumstances Americans would have several days in which to make life-saving preparations.

Book Page: 7

The Russians have learned from the devastating wars they have survived that people are the most important asset to be saved. Russian civil defense publications emphasize Lenin's justly famous statement: 'The primary productive factor of all humanity is the laboring man, the worker. If he survives, we can save everything and restore everything. . . but we shall perish if we are not able to save him." Strategists conclude that those in power in the Soviet Union are very unlikely to launch a nuclear attack until they have protected most of their people.

The reassurance of having at least a few days of pre-attack warning, however, is lessening. The increasing numbers of Soviet blast shelters and of first-strike offensive weapons capable of destroying our undefended retaliatory weapons will reduce the importance of pre-attack city evacuation as a means of saving Russian lives. These ongoing developments will make it less likely that Americans will have a few days' warning before a Soviet attack, and therefore should motivate our Government both to deploy truly defensive Star Wars weapons and to build blast shelters to protect urban Americans.

Nuclear weapons that could strike the United States continue to increase in accuracy as well as numbers; the most modern warheads usually can hit within a few hundred feet of their precise targets. The Soviet Union already has enough warheads to target all militarily important fixed site objectives. These include our fixed-site weapons, command and control centers, military installations, oil refineries and other industrial plants that produce war essentials, long runways, and major electric generating plants. Many of these are either in or near cities. Because most Americans live in cities that contain strategically important targets, urban Americans' best chance of surviving a heavy nuclear attack is to get out of cities during a worsening crisis and into fallout shelters away from probable targets.

Most American civil defense advocates believe that it would be desirable for our Government to build and stock permanent blast shelters. However, such permanent shelters would cost many tens of billions of dollars and are not likely to be undertaken as a national objective. Therefore, field-tested instructions and plans are needed to enable both urban evacuees and rural Americans to build expedient shelters and life-support equipment during a crisis.

SMALLER NUCLEAR ATTACKS ON AMERICA

Many strategists believe that the United States is more likely to suffer a relatively small nuclear attack than an all-out Soviet onslaught. These possible smaller nuclear attacks include:

° A limited Soviet attack that might result if Russia's rulers were to conclude that an American President would be likely to capitulate rather than retaliate if a partially disarming first strike knocked out most of our fixed-site and retaliatory weapons, but spared the great majority of our cities. Then tens of millions of people living away from missile silos and Strategic Air Force bases would need only fallout protection. Even Americans who live in large metropolitan areas and doubt that they could successfully evacuate during a nuclear crisis should realize that in the event of such a limited attack they would have great need for nuclear war survival skills.

° An accidental or unauthorized launching of one or several nuclear weapons that would explode on America. Complex computerized weapon systems and/or their human operators are capable of making lethal errors.

° A small attack on the United States by the fanatical ruler of an unstable country that may acquire small nuclear weapons and a primitive delivery system.

° A terrorist attack, that will be a more likely possibility once nuclear weapons become available in unstable nations. Fallout dangers could extend clear across America. For example, a single small nuclear weapon exploded in a West Coast city would cause lethal fallout hazards to unsheltered persons for several miles downwind from the part of the city devastated by blast and fire. It also would result in deposition of fallout in downwind localities up to hundreds of miles away, with radiation dose rates hundreds of times higher than the normal background. Fallout would be especially heavy in areas of rain- out; pregnant women and small children in those areas, following peacetime standards for radiation protection, might need to stay sheltered for weeks. Furthermore, in localities spotted across the United States, milk would be contaminated by radioiodine.

Surely in future years nuclear survival know-how will become an increasingly important part of every prudent person's education.

Book Page: 8

WHY THIS 1987 EDITION?

This updated and augmented edition is needed to give you:

° Information on how changes since 1979 in the Soviet nuclear arsenal - especially the great reductions in the sizes of Russian warheads and increases in their accuracy and number - both decrease and increase the dangers we all face. You need this information to make logical decisions regarding essentials of your survival planning, including whether you should evacuate during a worsening crisis or build or improvise shelter at or near your home.

° Instructions for making and using self-help survival items that have been rediscovered, invented or improved since 1979. These do-it- yourself items include: (1) Directional Fanning, the simplest way to ventilate shelters through large openings; (2) the Plywood Double-Action Piston Pump, to ventilate shelters through pipes; and (3) the improved KFM, the best homemakeable fallout meter.

° Facts that refute two demoralizing anti- defense myths that have been conceived and propagandized since 1979: the myth of blinding post-attack ultra-violet radiation and the myth of unsurvivable "nuclear winter"

° Current information on advantages and disadvantages, prices, and sources of some manufactured survival items for which there is greatest need.

° Updated facts on low cost survival foods and on expedient means for processing and cooking whole-kernel grains, soybeans, and other over- produced basic foods. Our Government stores no food as a war reserve and has not given even civil defense workers the instructions needed to enable survivors to make good use of America's unplanned, poorly distributed, large stocks of unprocessed foods.

° Updated information on how to obtain and use prophylactic potassium iodide to protect your thyroid against injury both from war fallout, and also from peacetime fallout if the United States suffers its first commercial nuclear power reactor accident releasing life endangering radiation.

° Instructions for building, furnishing, and stocking economical, permanent home fallout shelters designed for dual use-in a new chapter.

° Information on what you can do to prevent sickness if fallout from an overseas nuclear war in which the United States is not a belligerent is blown across the Pacific and deposited on America - in a new chapter.

EXOTIC WEAPONS

Chemical and biological weapons and neutron warheads are called "exotic weapons". Protective measures against these weapons are not emphasized in this book, because its purpose is to help Americans improve their chances of surviving what is by far the most likely type of attack on the United States: a nuclear attack directed against war-related strategic targets.

Chemical Weapons are inefficient killing agents compared to typical nuclear warheads and bombs. Even if exterminating the unprepared population of a specified large area were an enemy's objective, this would require a delivered payload of deadly chemical weapons many hundreds of times heavier than if large nuclear weapons were employed.

Biological Weapons are more effective but less reliable than chemical weapons. They are more dependent on favorable meteorological conditions, and could destroy neither our retaliatory weapons nor our war-supporting installations. They could not kill or incapacitate well protected military personnel manning our retaliatory weapons. And a biological attack could not prevent, but would invite, U.S. nuclear retaliatory strikes.

Neutron Warheads are small, yet extremely expensive. A 1-kiloton neutron warhead costs about as much as a I-megaton ordinary warhead, but the ordinary warhead not only has 1000 times the explosive power but also can be surface-burst to cover a very large area with deadly fallout.

REWARDS

My greatest reward for writing Nuclear War Survival Skills is the realization that the hundreds of thousands of copies of the original edition which have been sold since 1979 already have provided many thousands of people with survival information that may save their lives. Especially rewarding have been the thanks of readers - particularly mothers with small children - for having given them hope of surviving a nuclear war. Rekindled, realistic hope has caused some readers to work to improve their and their families' chances of surviving, ranging from making preparations to evacuate high risk areas during an all too possible worsening crisis, to building and stocking permanent shelters.

Because I wrote the original Nuclear War Survival Skills while working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the American taxpayers

Book Page: 9

expense, I have no proprietary interest either in the original 1979 Government edition or in any of the privately printed reproductions. I have gotten nothing but satisfaction from the reported sales of over 400,000 copies privately printed and sold between 1979 and 1987. Nor will I receive any monetary reward in the future from my efforts to give better survival instructions to people who want to improve their chances of surviving a nuclear attack.

AVAILABILITY

None of the material that appeared in the original Oak Ridge National Laboratory un- copyrighted 1979 edition can be covered by a legitimate copyright; it can be reproduced by anyone, without receiving permission. Much new material, which I have written since my retirement in 1979 from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been added, and is printed in a different type. To assure that this new material also can be made widely available to the public at low cost, without getting permission from or paying anyone, I have copyrighted my new material in the unusual way specified by this 1987 edition's copyright notice.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Work to persuade the President, your Congressmen, your Senators, and other leaders to support improved nuclear war survival preparations, starting with increased funding for war- related civil defense. Urge them to approve and fund the early deployment of truly defensive weapons that tests already have proven capable of destroying some warheads in flight. (Attempts to develop perfect defenses postpone or prevent the attainment of improved defenses.)

Obtain and study the best survival instructions available long before a crisis occurs. Better yet, also make preparations, such as the ones described in this book, to increase your and your family's chances of surviving.

During a crisis threatening nuclear attack, present uncertainties regarding the distribution of reliable survival information seem likely to continue. Thoroughly field-tested survival instructions are not likely to be available to most Americans. Furthermore, even a highly intelligent citizen, if given excellent instructions during a crisis, would not have time to learn basic facts about nuclear dangers and the reasons for various survival preparations. Without this understanding, no one can do his best at following any type of survival instructions.

By following the instructions in this book, you and your family can increase the odds favoring your survival. If such instructions were made widely available from official sources, and if our Government urged all Americans to follow them during a worsening crisis lasting at least several days, additional millions would survive an attack. And the danger of an attack, even the threat of an attack, could be decreased if an enemy nation knew that we had significantly improved our defenses in this way.

Book Page: 11

Marjorie Eleanor Fish Obituary: View Marjorie Fish's Obituary by News Herald

Marjorie Eleanor Fish

OAK RIDGE, TN: Marjorie Eleanor Fish, 80, of Oak Ridge, TN, and formerly of Lakeside & Oak Harbor, OH, passed away Monday, April 08, 2013 at Riverview Healthcare Campus, Oak Harbor, OH.

Marjorie was born on September 19, 1932 in Cleveland, OH, the daughter of Oren and Mary (Underwood) Fish Jr. The Fish family moved to Lakeside, OH, when Marjorie was young. She graduated from Danbury HS in 1950 and Juanita College, Huntington, PA in 1954. Marjorie worked at Gibbs Studio in Lakeside and for a photographer in Toledo for a few years. She attended Bowling Green State University (Ohio), to obtain her teaching certificate. She taught kindergarten at Catawba School and Portage School before taking a position at Benton, Carroll, Salem Schools teaching 1st and 3rd grades. She is fondly remembered by her students for playing "America" on the organ as class started and teaching "My Country 'tis of Thee". As one of her hobbies, Marjorie made an investigation into the Betty Hill map by constructing a 3-D star map in the late 1960's using several databases. She found a pattern that matched Mrs. Hill's drawing well, which generated international interest. Later, after newer data was compiled, she determined that the binary stars within the pattern were too close together to support life; so as a true skeptic, she issued a statement that she now felt that the correlation was unlikely. The History Channel portrayed her in at least one series. She moved to work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. She retired with over 20 years of research service for the U. S. Department of Energy.

Marjorie shared her love of art, learning the out-of-doors, camping, gardening and many other interests with her nieces and nephew: Connie (Jeffrey) Limpert, Helen (Robert) Denney, Joel (Dawn) Lowien, Julia (John) Empcke and Joann (Jeff) Wilber; nine great-nieces and nephews,; four great-great-nephews and a great-great-niece.

Marjorie was preceded in death by her parents and sister: Jean (Bernell) Lowien.

Visitation will be 11-1pm, Thursday, April 11, 2013 in the Gerner-Wolf-Walker Funeral Home & Crematory, Port Clinton, OH, followed by a funeral service conducted by Pastor Bruce-Batchelor-Glader at 1:00pm, in the funeral home. Burial will be in Sackett Cemetery, Marblehead, OH.

Memorial donations in memory of Marjorie may be given to the , 2500 N. Reynolds Rd., Toledo, OH 43615 or the Ottawa County Humane Society, 2424 E. Sand Rd., Port Clinton, OH. Online condolences may be shared with the family at www.walkerfuneralhomes.com.

Georgia Tech welcome speech stuns freshmen, goes viral

Atlanta (CNN) -- Georgia Institute of Technology student Nicholas Selby is a force to be reckoned with.

The sophomore is a Mechanical Engineering major, co-leads Team Solar Jackets -- Georgia Tech's team that built and raced a solar-powered car in the Formula Sun Grand Prix -- and is a president's scholar, representing the top 2% of enrolled students at the university.

It's safe to say he must have a lot of energy -- and it appears to have been unleashed during his welcome speech Sunday to this year's freshman class.

It started out like many other convocations. Faculty, staff and notable guests, including Selby -- dressed in a traditional black robe with his mortarboard perfectly perched upon his head -- addressed the new recruits: "We chose Georgia Tech because we want to do the impossible."

But then, something unexpected started to unfold. Music from "2001: A Space Odyssey" began as Selby quoted Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

As the trumpets from the iconic movie theme song swelled, so did Selby's passion, with the cadence a drill sergeant would envy.

"Crush the shoulders of the giants upon whom we stand. We here are all such innovative people. So I am telling you: If you want to change the world, you're at Georgia Tech! You can do that! If you want to build the Iron Man suit, you're at Georgia Tech! You can do that! And if you want to play theme music during your convocation speech like a bad ass, we're at Georgia Tech, we can do that! I am doing that!"

Selby breathlessly finished the speech with his arms raised in victory, to applause from the roughly 4,000 people in attendance -- some of whom seemed a little shell-shocked from his intensity.

After a brief pause, Selby deadpanned with a smirk: "Congratulations on your acceptance and brace yourselves for a hell of a ride on your way to becoming a hell of an engineer."

That last phrase was a reference to refrain of the school's famous fight song.

Freshmen, wearing their traditional yellow caps slightly askew, appeared stunned; and they weren't the only ones.

Video of the speech is going viral with over 340,000 hits since being posted Monday.

Comments on the video range from poking fun at Selby's appearance -- "Welcome to Hogwarts," a reference to Selby's Harry Potter-like appearance -- to enthusiasm. One person commented, "I am 30 yrs old, I already went to college. I am married, I have a kid, and a full time job in New York... and after watching that, I just applied to Georgia Tech."

Another person felt the speech was so epic that becoming Selby's best friend feels possible "Because I go to Georgia Tech!"

Edward Snowden files: No 10 contacted Guardian

21 August 2013 Last updated at 09:21 GMT

David Cameron ordered Britain's most senior civil servant to contact the Guardian over classified information leaked by the whistle-blower Edward Snowden, it has emerged.

Whitehall sources confirmed Sir Jeremy Heywood approached the newspaper.

It came after the Guardian published details about secret US and British surveillance programmes.

Editor Alan Rusbridger said it was forced to destroy the computer hard drives storing the information in July.

Mr Rusbridger said his conversations with the government prior to that happening on 20 July had been with "a very senior official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister".

But he did not say exactly who he had spoken to.

Meanwhile, the partner of a Guardian journalist held for nine hours at Heathrow airport under anti-terror laws on Sunday has described his "feeling of invasion" after being forced to divulge email and social media account passwords.

David Miranda told the BBC his interrogators threatened that he could go to prison if he did not co-operate.

'Threat to UK'

On Tuesday, the Independent and the Daily Mail reported that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy had made contact with the Guardian.

BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said these reports were accurate.

Whitehall sources emphasised it would have been a "total abdication of their responsibilities" not to talk to the Guardian.

The government feared that if secret data held by the newspaper fell into what it called "the wrong hands" it could have been a threat to the UK, the sources added.

The conversations between Whitehall and the Guardian took place with the explicit approval of Mr Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Following the conversations, Mr Rusbridger agreed to what he has called one of the most bizarre incidents in the newspaper's history.

Two GCHQ security experts oversaw the destruction in a basement of computer files containing information from America's National Security Agency leaked by Mr Snowden.

Files copied

Mr Rusbridger said: "We were quite clear we were not going to hand this material back to the British government so we destroyed it ourselves under advice from a couple of GCHQ intelligence experts, who told us which bits of the hard drive to smash up, in what way."

The editor said he believed handing the hard drives to the government would have been a betrayal of the newspaper's source.

It is understood the files had already been copied and the Guardian is expected to continue pursuing the Snowden story, but from the US.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, told Radio 4's Today programme: "Neither Mr Snowden nor the editor of the Guardian - or the editor of any other newspaper - is in a position to necessarily judge whether the release of top-secret information may have a significant relevance in the battle against terrorism."

He went on: "Sometimes you might genuinely think you can release a document and it's not going to be of any assistance to a terrorist when in fact you might be wrong - and that's simply a question of your inability to judge if you are a newspaper editor or a journalist as opposed to somebody involved in the intelligence work that has to be done."

Former National Security Agency contractor Mr Snowden has been granted asylum in Russia despite requests from the US that he be returned.

Asked about the Independent's story, a spokeswoman for the Guardian told the BBC: "We're not going to comment on this."

Elsewhere, it has emerged that Mr Miranda - the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has covered stories based on leaks by Mr Snowden - is launching legal action over his detainment at Heathrow airport.

He wants his confiscated electronic equipment returned and assurances that his private data will not be distributed on to other parties.

Teleported! Bits Vanish Here, Reappear There

For the first time, researchers have teleported 10,000 bits of information per second from point A to point B across a distance of about six millimeters and inside a solid state circuit, similar to a computer chip.

Although the accomplishment differs from teleporting mass, like a person — such as that seen on science fiction shows like Star Trek — the remarkable feat demonstrates what could be possible with a quantum computer.

The scientists, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, report their findings in this week’s issue of Nature.

In their experiment, the team spaced three micron-sized electronic circuits on a seven-by-seven-millimeter computer chip. Two of the circuits worked as a sending mechanism, while the other served as the receiver. The scientists cooled the chip to near absolute zero and ran a current through the circuits.

At that frigid temperature and small scale, the electrons in the circuit — which are the quantum bits of information, the qubits — started to behave according to the rules of quantum mechanics. The qubits became entangled. This means they become linked, sharing identical quantum states, even if physically separated from one other.

Specifically, the qubits in the sender circuit became entangled with those in the receiving circuit. The ETH team encoded some information into the qubits in the sending circuits and then measured of the state of the qubits in the receiver circuit. Whatever state the qubits had been in the sender was reflected instantly in the receiving circuit. The researchers had teleported the information.

This is different from the way information is sent in ordinary computers, electrons carry information along wires or through the air via radio waves. In this case, no bit of data physically traveled along a route — instead the information disappeared from one location and reappeared at another.

Other experimenters have teleported quantum bits, too, and have done so across a larger distance. But those teams only got the teleportation to work once in a while, perhaps a few percent of the time. The ETH team was also able to teleport up to 10,000 quantum bits every second, and get it to work right consistently. That’s fast enough and accurate enough to build a useful computer. “Basically we can push a button and have this teleportation work every time,” Andreas Wallraff, Professor at the Department of Physics and head of the study, told DNews.

 Credit: iscatel / Fotolia