As the old journalistic axiom goes, if you want to find the truth, follow the money.
If the question relates to just how important Wilbert Smith's work for the Department of Transport was in 1950, therefore, one should take a look at the Departmental expenditures, and see how much was devoted to Smith's section.
Here are the relevant figures from the Department of Transport (Canada) Annual Report, 1950 - 1951 (for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1951):
Total Department Expenditures - $ 78,901,296.55
Total Air Services Expenditures - $ 33,557,017.95
Total Telecommunications Division Expenditures - $ 10,458,484.61
Total Administration of Radio Act and Regulations Expenditures - $ 867,095.11
So, from the above we can see that the section in which Smith worked (Radio Act and Regulations) received the following:
- 1.10 % of total department expenditures
- 2.58 % of total section expenditures (Telecommunications Division being part of the Air Services Section)
- 8.29 % of total division expenditures (Radio Act and Regulations being a subsection of Telecommunications Division)
Contrast these expenditures with others that were far greater:
- $ 4,248,357.51 for Canal Services, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 4,064,678.03 for Aviation Radio Aids, Operation and Maintenance
- $ 1,216,860.25 for Telegraph and Telephone Service, Administration, Operation & Maintenance
- $ 6,413,037.11 for Airways and Airports, Construction and Improvement
- $ 1,087,573.81 for Departmental Administration
This is not to suggest that the work Smith's section did was unimportant; however, it does show that it was just a very small part of a very big operation. And remember - Smith wasn't even the head of the Radio Act and Regulations subsection.
Just the Canadian to whom I'd reveal the U.S. government's UFO secrets...
Paul Kimball
2 comments:
Paul:
You may be anal retentive, but it's all in the service of truth and historical accuracy.
You, in this instance (and others), have found the nitty-gritty that explains much (maybe all) -- and what you found (and find) is often (usually) overlooked by others because they don't have the skills and pateince required of a real historian and investigator.
You and Brad Sparks are alike in that.
Nicely done.
Rich
Rich:
As much as I'd like to take credit for being some ace historian / investigator, the fact is that it took me six hours research at Dalhousie University library through House of Commons debates records and Department of Transport reports to find this stuff (and much more, most of which is unrelated to the Smith story, and which will appear here shortly).
Sadly, it appears that the pro-Smith ufologists either (a) didn't do this basic work, or (b) did it, but then chose not to discuss the results. The first answer marks them as lazy / incompetent, the second as intellectually dishonest. I leave it up to others to decide which is worse.
Paul
Post a Comment