SPACE FORCE TAKING SHAPE
Yesterday I blogged about some rather important discoveries made by UFO documents researcher John Greenewald Jr, and what thy might portend for the emerging US Space Force, and one might consider today's blog a "revision and extension" of remarks with respect to these two articles shared by T.M. and D.M.:
Officials provide details on building the Space Force, its structure, and operating imperatives
There are two facts in these two articles - one fact from each - that really has my high octane speculation motor running in overdrive because of their implications. Let's take fact number one from article number two, first:
The Senate on June 27 confirmed Air Force Gen. John Raymond as the commander of U.S. Space Command.
U.S. Space Command is being formed with what is now the Joint Force Space Component Command, or JFSCC, that reports to U.S. Strategic Command and is led by Raymond. Once U.S. Space Command is stood up, Strategic Command will no longer be responsible for space operations.
“JFSCC goes away and we end up with two components,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Whiting, deputy commander of the JFSCC and commander of the 14th Air Force, said June 27 in a briefing with defense officials attended by a SpaceNews reporter.
Under the new structure, Whiting will lead the Combined Forces Space Component Command. (Emphasis added)
Now why do I find that full of high octane speculative implications? Consider: the Strategic Command is the very command and control group responsible for oversight of, and operational planning for, the USA's strategic nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, from SLBMs, ICBMs, IRBMs, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. Spinning off space into a separate command therefore carries two potential implications, both mutually contradictory: (1) the Space Command will have no operational oversight over strategic weapons. In other words, the spin-off is designed to send a reassuring message to America's competitors that the creation of a Space Force is not coupled to the deployment of strategic weapons in space, and is purely a defensive move. This, no doubt, will be the public explanation and narrative. But there's a second and very disturbing possibility: (2) that the theater of strategic operations and weapons has already moved to space, and thus the Space Command has become the new "SAC," with operational command over an array of weapons one can only guess at, from "rods of God" to Xray and Gamma ray lasers and so on. In the context of yesterday's blog, this second possibility cannot be discounted. To put a much sharper point on this, SAC is being demoted, because the weapons platforms over which it has had command and control are fast approaching obsolescence.
This requires us to turn to fact number two in article number one:
Senior officials from the Department of Defense and U.S. Space Force provided the most specific details to date Feb. 5 for how the newly born Space Force is constructed, its structure and the philosophy guiding decisions for bringing the first new military service since 1947 into full reality.
In broad terms, the Space Force must ensure the U.S. continues its superiority in space. Getting there, however, demands that the Space Force be "lean and agile" and mission-focused, said Lt. Gen. David Thompson, U.S. Space Force vice commander.
It must be both cost effective and minimize bureaucracy while also infusing "innovation and improvements," said Thompson, who was joined by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Stephen Kitay, Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and Integration Shawn Barnes, and Maj. Gen. Clint Crosier, who leads the Space Force's planning office. (Emphases added)
It's that "infusion of innovation and improvements" that indicates that option number 2 above is in play, particularly when considered in the context of yesterday's blog about Mr. Greenewald's discoveries in the defense budget, for clearly, those items in the defense budget are about research items that ultimately were designed to "infuse innovation and improvements" into the space force. This phrase, in other words, means that those planning and implementing the organization of the space force are already thinking in terms of the research and black projects component.
If these speculations are true, then we can expect to see certain things by way of prediction and corroboration: the creation of liaison offices and officers to DARPA and NASA, and to the various aero-space defense contractors; in other words, we should expect to see a sweeping reorganization of the Department of Defense. I would suspect that one might even see the subsumption of agencies such as DARPA or NASA within an integrated command structure with a commensurate redesign of the bidding and contract placement process. And with FASAB56, this will be easier to implement than it might first appear.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
This has to do w/the history of economies; specifically debt. It goes back into antiquity to Mesopotamia, Sumer, Babylon, etc.
What has this to do w/the Space Force?
Ultimately, it has to do w/ownership, and the guiding hand shaping the future policies in/of/for space.
So the following video is also in print form[my preference]. Still, as George W.F. Hegel wrote/We learn from history that we do not learn from history.
Above didn’t take.
So this will do the job.
Scroll Down To Second article on Equilibrium Theory.
One of those gotcha-algorithm days.
Spelled michael wrong?
above the “h” didn’t take. So inserted it.
Who would have thought/Now, those were the days!
Today, one out of three ain’t bad.
Still looking through past links Doc. You will have to pardon Max Igan for his pronunciation of aluminum. He does do a fair job of collecting evidence from the net. He does well at screening out video scammers due to his movie making FX background.
Australian Fire Series Part 3: Water Deprivation – Incendiary Fueled Fires
Thanks again ZDB for another video link.
Max Igan video is spot-on regarding Australia fires and TPTB Agenda 21. The fire fighters themselves address these unnatural fires; how they’re[TPTB} unnecessarily killing life. There’s no doubt these are part of an agenda[self-actuating fireballs].
This is war!
Sadly, it looks like their own government is at war w/their constituents.
Public order response units w/machine guns.
If you want a vision of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face –
Loxie, Weren’t you mentioning Somerset Belenoff earlier? Seems Max Igan has broken this one down a bit.
Who Is Somerset Belenoff?
It sounds like AI is playing a new game.
Thanks, ZDB!!! Reminds me of what Ronald Bernard said about when he was working with the High Ups……Those at The Top all work with each other & laugh at the rest of us as we toil away at our “causes”!!!!
This begs the question if we are already “at war” with many different AI as Kerry Cassidy seems to propose??? Is it their “game” to just outwit us?! What else would be the point??
By the way when are they going to clean up all the trash they have left in orbit for the last sixty years. Then our elites are behaving like jealous little brats they have always been. They had fifty years to come up with a safe economical way to go into high orbit. SpaceX STARSHIP IS NOT THE WAY TO GO. Who knows what their game really is.
I find it incredibly hard to believe we could not have come up with better, reusable technology for space exploration by now, if we truly desired to do so. Maybe we have, who knows.
“It must be both cost effective and minimize bureaucracy while also infusing ‘innovation and improvements’,” said Lt. Gen. David Thompson, U.S. Space Force vice commander.
Regardless of the overall intent of the Space Force, the above quote seems to be throwing weight behind SpaceX . That quote is almost verbatim for what New Space, and particularly SpaceX, is doing. My thought is that senior commanders have taken a good look at SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and liked what they saw – in cost, reliability, and reusability. Within NASA (and Congress), there has been steady support for Old Space and its cost-plus contracts – spread-out over every state in the Union. Unfortunately, those companies take a decade to deliver and their products are way more expensive than SpaceX’s products.
If the deep-black world has ‘alien’ launch capabilities, the above is moot. Otherwise, we may be seeing the first shots in a war between supporters of Old Space and those of New Space…
First thought: The camera ready Space Force; or,
the hidden one – constructed thru hidden finance sources?
Which country would believe a U.S. mouse space force?
Terrestrial SAC is being retired.
Weaponized space is the operating SAC high-ground.
The hidden; in terms of black projects and finance are now going off world?
Or, they’ve been there and will now become official; like 1913. In which case, 1914 is around the corner?
Parallels throughout society? Public display of a few monsters with theatric prosecutions before taking all monsters and the entire system dark? Then claim such system nonexistant? We used to………….. but now we don’t do that. Insert vice considered – slavery, poverty, war profiteer, pollution, ghettoes, resource raids, falsified science, and on.
Nice that those who take it dark get the distinction of being named reformers. Does this explain q as psyop?
So…the go forward plan is moving the panoptic tower into space and utilizing technocratic innovations to improve surveillance and direction of the actors on the universal stage? And without our knowing anything about the script?
If the USA has space weapons, might this be how the planet Mars died?
Hey, Galaxygirl!! Check out Billy Carson of 4biddenknowledge for some insight on our past. This man has read a great many of the Ancient Texts & pulls the threads together in an interesting way!! It seems Tiamat was exploded & tore the face of Mars….which explains why our Solar System is “off kilter”!! ??? Isn’t it fun trying to get things figured out?!! 😉