Much as I'd like to blog endlessly about the corruption of central banks and the sorts of suited parasites that work for them, these is other news happening, and this one I think deserves some commentary:
Now, there's a lot here that bothers me. The first is the lack of context. The idea that NASA never employed security clearance or secrecy is just...well...laughable. For example, during the Apollo program and the run-ups to it, much was classified. Much wasn't. But secrecy is nothing new to the space agency.
The article insinuates something else, that there is a new quality and intensity to the security and secrecy obsession at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and specifically, in respect to the Mars rover. I, for one, can believe that. But I suspect there is more to this story than meets the eye as well, and I suspect that this possible "real story" may lie between these lines:
“Everyone who wanted to continue doing space science at JPL was told they had to submit to a security investigation.
"The cost of this idiocy, which was aggressively pursued to a final pyrrhic victory in the High Court by the Obama Department of Justice (sic), has been grievous, as some 100 veteran scientists at JPL have quit or taken early retirement, rather than open their lives to the FBI.”
I submit that these two sentences contain a great deal, perhaps a hidden story receiving very little attention, for what we might be looking at is a twin objective: clearing out an old guard, one perhaps among those at NASA and the perpetually troublesome JPL that were intent upon less secrecy, and opposed to what might be perceived as an increased pressure to "bottle up the goodies," in new efforts at suppression...
... for at one level, the idea that these employees did not have to undergo at least some kind of security vetting, no matter how rudimentary or pro forma it may have been, stretches credulity. So why the resignation over security vetting? Clearly the implication of the article is that this is some kind of re-vetting, for whatever purpose, and one which veterans of the agency, some 100, clearly objected to, and that this vetting applied even to those whose positions were not all that sensitive.
For my part, I cannot avoid the impression that this is an "anticipatory" decision, that it is being taken with respect to the future, and potential future discoveries. There have long been people - this author among them - who suspect that much space data is obfuscated. Indeed, here on this site I have pointed out pictures from NASA that have been posted on its website, without much commentary. Perhaps there are those at NASA who would like to comment, but now, are confronted by an atmosphere where commentary is cleared frowned upon, in the name of some dubious criteria of "suitability."
In short, the veil may be being drawn again...
See you on the flip side.