TESLA'S WIRELESS BROADCAST POWER SYSTEM VINDICATED?

NASA BEEFS UP SPENDING ON ITS DOOMSDAY ASTEROID DETECTION

August 9, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

Yesterday, you'll recall, I blogged about the untimely death of Major General John Rossi, the USA's newly appointed "space commander", and I indicated that while the story of his death remains bland and non-commital, the context and timing of it seems a little odd, given this year's already strange list of space stories. Indeed, for this year alone, those stories include (1) a private US company being given recent permission by the USA to go to the Moon, (2) an earlier story from this year about how NASA has dramatically beefed up its spending on "doomsday asteroid detection" (subject of today's blog), (3) stories about NASA jets being parked on runways at a little known US base in East Africa, and so on.

Consider this story about NASA beefing up its "doomsday asteroid detection" effort, shared by Mr. M.D., from earlier this year:

http://yournewswire.com/nasa-sets-up-doomsday-alien-and-asteroid-task-force/

Now you'll note two curious things about this article: first NASA has dramatically increased its funding for asteroid detection:

The financing for the Near-Earth Objects (NEO) monitoring program has grown from $4 million to $50 million since 2010, due to what NASA say are increasing asteroid threats in recent years.

That's $46 million in just six years, a drop in the bucket for a run-amok federal government now measuring programs in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But it's not exactly pocket change either.

Secondly, there's this reference:

“Asteroid detection, tracking and defense of our planet is something that NASA, its interagency partners, and the global community take very seriously,” John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington, said in the statement. “While there are no known impact threats at this time, the 2013 Chelyabinsk super-fireball and the recent ‘Halloween Asteroid’ close approach remind us of why we need to remain vigilant and keep our eyes to the sky.”

What I find grist for my high octane speculation mill is the reference to "defense of our planet" and the "Chelyabinsk super-fireball", the meteoric explosion about the large Russian city of Chelyabinsk in 2013. Regular readers of this website may remember my various blogs about that topic, or even my statements on various interviews at the time, where I pointed out that there was much about the Chelyabinsk incident that didn't quite "sit right," not the least of which was then Russian prime minister Dmitri Medvedev's announcement, fully a month before the incident, that Russia should defend itself against asteroids, and called upon the rest of the world to enter into the creation of an international planetary defense grid to do so. But in the meantime, Medvedev said Russia to press ahead to defend itself and its territory against the threat anyway, international cooperation or no. And he offered an unusual list of techniques by which to do so, suggesting that its thermonuclear missiles could do the trick, and that it had "other means" of doing so, a reference that to my mind suggested something more exotic than H-bombs, but equally if not more destructive.

At the time, there were other "odd events" going on in space: China had just launched a ground-based anti-satellite missiles and blew one of its own obsolete weather satellites apart, and two satellites, a Russian one and an American one, had just "accidentally" collided. All of which raised the prospect in my mind that someone might be in possession of a technology capable of colliding satellites or hurling rocks at Chelyabinsk (a home of much Russian nuclear and medical research, incidentally).

So the statements here provoke my high octane speculation: is there an unstated reason that we need to defend the planet from "asteroids" other than the obvious one of an accidental collision of one of those rocks with the planet? Defense, after all, normally conjures the idea of someone on the offense, and that's the rub, for the "plan" they've come up with sounds all-too-uncoincidentally like that proposed by Mr. Medvedev back in 2013:

One immediate planetary defense goal for the newly-formed task force is to create a viable technology that can change the course of an asteroid approaching our planet.

NASA and the Nuclear Security Administration have separately studied potential threats that could obliterate cities or the entire planet. For years, the two agencies examined cosmic fragments, designed rocket interceptors, and conducted simulated tests to see how asteroids could be prevented from entering the Earth’s atmosphere.

The two agencies sealed an agreement in summer 2015, working together to safeguard the planet’s survival in the event of an incoming celestial object. A goal of their collaboration is to develop a plan that involves using nuclear device detonation to intercept asteroids.

The only thing missing here is Mr. Medvedev's reference to "other means" of destroying asteroids than hydrogen fusion "devices."

So allow me to throw all restraint to the winds, and crawl way out on to the end of the twig of high octane speculation, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the twiggy evidence to support it: remember those recent stories about "mining asteroids" and actually converting them into maneuverable space ships to go and mine other asteroids in turn? It's actually a very practical idea: why go to the cost and expense of building a large space ship, when one can simply snag an asteroid, hollow out sections of it for living space, and build things via 3D printing one needs, and attaching some engines to the rock.

I suspect that, behind the scenes, there's more to be seen, and that the thought has occurred that what is asteroid spaceship sauce for the human goose, is asteroid spaceship sauce for the non-human gander...

...So why increase spending on monitoring? Well, beyond the obvious, such monitoring might be able to show if an asteroid was behaving in ways "unusual" for  its mass and density, if it had "hollow chambers" and so on, and radar tomography could provide the answer to that. So perhaps the "defense" angle is meant to imply an "offense" one. And that brings us to the link with the Rosin Affidavit, for recall that one of Wernher von Braun's last professional associates and colleagues, Dr. Carol Rosin, has maintained that the "game plan" for weaponizing space would be first the Communists, then terrorists, then "nations of concern"(think Iran or North Korea folks), then asteroids, and finally, ETs. With the asteroid spaceship idea, the latter two elements are connected at a deep level. And all of this would, incidentally, be tailor-made for that "top-down, space first" approach to creating a global government.

And note one final thing: while there's no mention of "ET" in the article at all, it is nevertheless titled in such a way as to imply it.

See you on the flip side...