Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2007

I am always wary of the media in how they portray stories. I will provide some thought on points the investigation portrays.

The investigative report suggested the banning of Dragon Skin was because some of the procurement officers now work for the companies of the Interceptor vests. Although possible, another equally valid reason (albeit politically incorrect) is the recent 167 million dollar contract. That’s 167 million dollars of tax dollars lost, not including the funds required to purchase the new Dragon Skin armor. Although Congress or the taxpayers might be willing to make such a sacrifice in the military budget -allocating additional dollars to purchase Dragon Skin- the Army would never give up the 167 million dollars of armor without promise for more money replacing them with Dragon Skin.

The idea that the ban took place in March, before the Dragon Skin testing in May also is misleading. In the Marine Corp, a ban was placed on any synthetic shirts outside of camps with the same, “safety of use message.” Especially where body armor is concerned, forcing troops to use the tested Interceptor Vest is better than the allowing untested Dragon Skin. If the Army had any interest in my opinion, I would make such a ban provisional, until Dragon Skin was tested independently of any preconceived answers considering the financial or procurement bias. Desired objectivity might even justify why the Army reportedly didn’t allow the Mechanical Engineer -and Dragon Skin proponent- to the Dragon Skin testing. However, the news special said the Army didn’t give a reason.

I digress. The Army didn’t use such a reason, and according to the Brigadier General Mark Brown’s response to the interview with Lisa Myers, “13 of 48” Dragon Skin tested suffered full penetration in a variety of testing conditions. Thus, they are not claiming it’s because of money, but because of legitimate testing (see Brigadier General’s press release).

I can’t answer if the US Army or Pentagon banned Dragon Skin due to corruption. A more realistic answer is perhaps the Army testing may have purposely produced negative test results (see Pinnacle Armor’s account of testing); the Army testers creating certain testing conditions to produce unfavorable results.

Such questionable testing occurred when the Army tested the AR-15 in Alaska without telling Stoner -with improperly assembled rifles!

Despite this, I’m still on the fence on who to believe, the US Army or Pinnacle Armor? Although I don’t doubt the testing by the media and numerous demonstrations by Pinnacle Armor, I believe Pinnacle Armor and the media have not addressed the accusation of failure at different temperatures (-60, 120, and 140 degrees Fahrenheit). Such a failure makes all the difference, I wouldn’t use the armor in combat knowing the adhesive might fail- regardless of how awesome it is at normal room temperature (however, see ballistic test with Dragon Skin in 170 degrees Fahrenheit). On the other hand, does the Army standards, specify testing armor at multiple temperatures? Or did the Army decide to do so because they wanted to produce instances of Dragon Skin failing like the M16 testing in Alaska? If indeed the Army was not using the test standards as an article from Defense Review states, it discredits many of the soldier’s trustworthiness (see Pinnacle Armor’s response to SOUM for particular instances of vagueness on the verge of lies).

More youtube videos:

PBS Newshour Debate (note the difference between what Col. Maginnis says about the lack of ballistic testing and Defense Review’s findings on ballistic testing)

For more details following this issue see:

Soldiers for the Truth Foundation

Defense Review

History Channel’s Test Lab feature on Dragon Skin

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Have you notice how some of these health and wealth gospel preachers act more like ‘pimps’?

Well, here’s a list of fifteen things on their latest blog entries which has a survey of how “You might be getting pimped if…”

The link is as follows:

http://www.pulpit-pimps.org/archives/2007/06/22/you-might-be-gettin-pimped-the-vote#comments

Read Full Post »

Food for thought from http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/06-14-07.asp

We’re fooling ourselves if we think that passively watching a colorful box of lights for hours every night doesn’t have an effect. Advertisers are just one group that bets big money that it does. When over half of the nation is mindlessly staring at a lighted piece of glass for hours on end each night, how can we be surprised when they start believing what they are watching and hearing? 

Thought that was interesting…

Read Full Post »

Break from blogging…

We are busy with finals…

Read Full Post »

What is wrong with these pictures?

escher-ascending-and-descending-medium.jpg

escher-waterfall-medium.jpg

As our perception may be deceived by a clever picture our thinking may be deceived by a clever argument.

In light of our weekly evangelism, our favorite atheist once again came by with his challenges. With all of his atheistic rhetoric learning he “believes” that his argument are “clever” and therefore has refuted the Christians. How could one be so arrogant that he truly believes his argument to be rational and logical when he doesn’t believe that the laws of logic are not universal? It is interesting to find out (when asked) that he does not even know the basic laws of logic (i.e law of identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction, etc – even inductive and deductive reasoning) and yet appeal to these laws to refute us.

What is ironic is that this atheist would refute the goodness of God but he himself does not believe in an absolute goodness. He would refute the Bible that it is filled with contradictions but believes that contradictions are not illogical.

Amazing is it not?

An atheist who does not believe in an absolute “right” or “wrong” would tell us that we are wrong.

An atheist who does not believe in an absolute morality would tell us that Christians are immoral.

An atheist who does not believe that evil exist would tell us that God is evil.

Or read this book by Alec Fisher, “Critical Thinking: An Introduction.”

ct2

Read Full Post »