cosmic war

NASA, SPACE WEATHER, CYCLES, AND THE GEOMETRIZATION OF PHYSICS

June 18, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

One of the sites that I like to subscribe to is Mitch Battros' Earth Changes Media, and this past week, while I was away on my business trip, Mr. Battros reported on an interesting conference on space weather sponsored by NASA:

NASA and Space Weather

The paragraphs that grabbed my attention were these:

"Bolden began his address with the acknowledgement that space weather events (such as solar flares, cmes, coronal holes, filaments, gamma ray burst, and galactic cosmic rays) - which he further emphasized the fact that 'space weather can be as devastating to the planet as serious tornadoes and other natural disasters.'

"This is a great step forward demonstrating a new awareness highlighting a direct causal effect between charged particles generated from various sources and their role on celestial orbs such as planets, comets, and asteroids. This conference showed great interest in bringing together diverse scientific researchers along with targeted policymakers to further identify how our galaxy Milky Way and our Sun produce far reaching consequences right here on Earth." (Italicized emphasis in the original, boldface emphasis added)

Putting all this together, one might say that coronal mass ejecta and coronal holes on the Sun, plasma filaments (an important component in the plasma cosmology of Swedish physicist Hannes Alfven), and in general the idea of an electrically dynamic" solar system and galaxy (with all the vast implications for "electrogravitics" that both imply) having an effect on terrestrial weather is an idea whose time has definitely come, for it is self-evident that these events greatly effect terrestrial weather, and that these phenomena are cyclic in nature in ways that are only beginning to be understood, though such cyclical cosmologies were, of course, a common feature to many ancient systems of cosmology.

To put it briefly, there is a physics behind these cyclic ideas, and where there's a physics, there's a geometry. After all, the two grandest "unification" theories in physics - Maxwell's and Einstein's - were fundamentally geometric theories, Maxwell's with his quaternion geometry, and Einstein's with his tensors.

But there's a hidden implication to Mr. Battros' reportage on this conference, and it is with this that I am chiefly concerned.  Readers of this site will be well aware of the fact that I believe that in addition to a public space program, that there are indicators of a private and secret one, one with far different paradigms and parameters of physics than the public consumption model. One need only reflect again on the well-known comments of Lockheed skunk works director, the late Ben Rich, to appreciate this hypothesis. Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Rich was not participating in some psychological operation when he said that "we have discovered an error in the equations, and now we have the technology to take ET home," and assuming that we may take such statements at face value, it would imply knowledge of principles not generally nor publicly known.

I suspect that Mr. Battros may be hitting very close to the nail, if not hitting it directly on the head, when he suggests that  there is an electrical dynamism, an electrodynamic interrelationship of systems and forces on a galactic scale that is a highly prized secret of Mr. Rich's implied secret space program, and that, if such knowledge is a component of "taking ET home," that knowledge includes the possibility to "tickle" planetary and stellar systems... to manipulate the "space weather," so to speak.

If so, then that means someone on this planet might possess not only the possibility to "take ET home," but, if necessary, to press a button, and blow ET up if need be. Once again, the problem isn't the existence or non-existence of such technologies, but rather, their proliferation and the need to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. It is, if you will, a kind of cosmic "MAD" doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, on a wholly new scale.

NASA's conference, like all such public conferences, needs therefore to be understood in the context that we understand the revelation of stealth fighters and bombers: we're being shown the stuff that's already old news to the technocrats "on the inside."

See you on the flip side.