Giza Death Star

A Website of Alternative Thinkers & Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

8 Comments

THAT STRANGE NEW RUSSIAN SATELLITE…

Now, this was was sent to me by so many people it would be impossible to thank you all by initials, so a "general thank you" will have to do. This is one of "those stories" that really gets my trademark high octane speculationTM going. The Russians, apparently (and we'll get back to that "apparently" part of the story in a moment), have put up a satellite, and it's doing strange things, like, (apparently, and again, we'll get back to that "apparently" in a moment) not staying in one orbit:

Mystery Russian satellite's behaviour raises alarm in US

US raises questions over 'abnormal' Russian satellite in row over space arms race

Remarks on Recent Russian Space Activities of Concern

I want to focus on the third of these articles, the remarks of Yleem D. S. Poblete on August 14, 2018, at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, and specifically, on these passages:

Mr. President, in October of last year the Russian Ministry of Defense deployed a space object they claimed was a “space apparatus inspector.” But its behavior on-orbit was inconsistent with anything seen before from on-orbit inspection or space situational awareness capabilities, including other Russian inspection satellite activities. We are concerned with what appears to be very abnormal behavior by a declared “space apparatus inspector.” We don’t know for certain what it is and there is no way to verify it. But Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very troubling development – particularly, when considered in concert with statements by Russia’s Space Force Commander who highlighted that “assimilate[ing] new prototypes of weapons [into] Space Forces’ military units” is a “main task facing the Aerospace Forces Space Troops.”

Now I can tell you that our Russian colleagues will deny that its systems are meant to be hostile. The Russian Ministry of Defense has put out a press release stating these are simply inspector satellites.

So the question before this body is: how do we verify what countries say their spacecraft are doing? What would be enough information to prove what the purpose of an object is? We have pointed out Russian satellite behavior that is inconsistent with what Russia claims it is – a so-called inspector satellite not acting in a manner consistent with a satellite designed to conduct safe and responsible inspection operations.

But it is difficult to determine an object’s true purpose simply by observing it on orbit – unlike inspection for a traditional arms control agreement. Based on the drafting of the treaty language by Russia, there is nothing in the proposed PPWT that would prohibit this sort of activity or the developing, testing, or stockpiling of anti-satellite weapons capabilities, so long as it doesn’t damage another object in space.

The only certainty we have is that this system has been “placed in orbit.” The rest of its demonstrated behavior is unexpected and unclear to us. (Emphasis added)

There's so much uncertainty and ambiguity in these statements that it is difficult to parse these words and indulge in our daily high octane speculation. But there are a few general logical possibilities that immediately emerge:

1) The satellite is not Russian at all, and somebody wishes to make it appear that it is: I suspect we may discount this, since the context of Ms. Poblete's remarks seem to indicate that in this respect, at least, the U.S. government is fairly certain of its origins;

2) The object is Russian, but not necessarily a satellite in the conventional sense: Much of the context of Ms. Poblete's remarks, and the speculations entertained by the other two articles, focus on the possibility that the object is some sort of weapons platform, i.e., a conventional satellite launched into orbit, carrying weapons. But that it may not be a satellite in the conventional sense is evident from the statements that its "demonstrated behavior is unexpected and unclear to us," and this marvelous and glittering generality provokes all sorts of questions: exactly what demonstrated behavior is being referred to? My first guess would be that the object is maneuvering and changing orbits dramatically, from both shape, orbit type, and altitude, and that it has been doing so fairly consistently since its launch. It's that "consistency" factor which may have them worried, for there are satellites that have a limited ability to do this and they've been around for a while, but that capability is limited by the amount of fuel such maneuvering consumes; the more maneuvers, the more fuel is consumed, and the less room and ability to maneuver in the future there is. Consistent and prolonged maneuvering would indicate either a nuclear fuel, or some other more exotic means of propulsion. Nuclear propulsion would be relatively easy for the USA (or anyone else with "stuff" up there, the U.K., France, India, Germany, Japan... all the "usual suspects") to detect.

There is yet another possibility as well: what if this object is not a satellite, but a returnable orbital platform much like the US Air Force's unmanned "space shuttle-drone," which can be launched conventionally, obtain orbit, change orbits, and then land once again? If the USA can do it (and it has), then it's a sure bet that Russia can, and not only that it can, but that it would do so if for no other reason than to send the message "We've got it too."

But again, while that may elicit some concern from the US government, it's unlikely that it would have summoned the degree of concern that seems to be implied here. After all, if the last possibility were the case, then it simply means the Russians have achieved "parity."

Something about this new "Sputnik" has the spooks spooked, and my best guess at the present is precisely that it may be performing maneuvers of a complex, and "fuel consuming" nature, such that it may be indicative of a very different type of propulsion system and one that perhaps may not be nuclear.

If so, then as the expression has it, the defecation may have just hit the rotary oscillating motor with medium-driving blades, and may explain why there's been so much hype lately about "space forces" both from Washington and from Moscow.

See you on the flip side...

 

 

30 Comments

ANOTHER CHELYABINSK INCIDENT, THIS TIME OVER AN EARLY WARNING SITE

Do you remember the Philadelphia experiment lore? Do you remember how 1950s astronomer and Ufo investigator, Dr Morris Jessup's book was annotated by an alleged participant in the experiment, Carlos Allende a.k.a. Carl Allen?

Do you remember fake news? Do you remember Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's penetration of western news media? Do you remember the Chelyabinsk meteor explosion that happened in the same general time frame as the collision of an American and Russian satellite? Do you remember Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev's talk on Russian television about a month before the Chelyabinsk meteor incident? Do you remember how he said that the world should cooperate to build an asteroid warning system, but that if it didn't, Russia should do so anyway, destroying asteroids with thermonuclear weapons, or by "other means" (which "other means" he did not specify)? Do you remember Dr. Carol Rosin's affidavit in Dr Steven Greer's collection called Disclosure, and how she maintained that Wernher von Braun told her that the "plan" to weaponize space was first Communists/Russians, then terrorists, then "nations of concerns", then asteroids, and then finally "ET"?

Do you remember the missile launch, to this day not explained, off the southern coast of Nuttyfornia? (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AMdHBgHtNE) Or how about the fake missile alerts in Hawaii and Japan (which I'm not buying for a moment)? Or how about this missile launch near Seattle-Tacoma-Vancouver (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-3s0es1LRM andhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/12/mystery-object-spotted-over-washington-state-island-military-denies-missile-launch.html ).  I don't know about you, but the latter sure does not look like "lens flare" and some versions of this picture definitely show what is to my mind a missile.

With respect to the Washington missile launch, the US military is - perhaps predictably - denying it had anything to do with it, and is denying that local bases even have the capability to do so. Some have speculated that the launch was from a submarine. Some have speculated that it was the Chinese, others have entertained the idea that defective Chinese-made computer chips and hackers hacked into our military systems and launched the missile. Still others are entertaining the notion that it was a launch by the outraged party of Mr. Globaloney against the Trump administration in some sort of false-flag escalation event!

I don't know, but in the wider context I've outlined above, it definitely seems like "something is up, and it may be big."  American and Russian satellites do not simply collide, meteors do not suddenly explode over a major Russian city which, incidentally, is a center for Russia's nuclear research and weapons, and do so, almost as if on cue, a mere month after the Russian prime minister talks about rogue asteroids on Russian TV and calls for a world asteroid defense system, but if the world is unwilling to do so then Russia should just go ahead with a national system.

Well, meteors have exploded again - supposedly - over an American "early warning site", with a force of about 2 Kt (two kilotons), equivalent to a "small" nuclear weapon. And so many people sent me versions of this story that it would be impossible to mention them all, but to all a big thank you. Here's one version of the lamestream corporate controlled media's version of the story:

Air Force remains silent after huge meteor hits near US military base

There are several ways to interpret and speculate on this story, none of them too pleasant. In an era of missile launches that aren't missile launches but "lens flare", and that we didn't launch anyway (then who did? and how? and why?), or false alarm missile alerts in Hawaii and Japan, and so on, and given Operation Mockingbird and the penetration of media (and yes folks, that includes the "alternative media" too), then one has to wonder if the story is real at all.  How does one "check out" a story involving a missile impact in Greenland, after all? And yes, I'm aware that seismic data and so on has been collected. But then again, that can be manipulated in this era of Mockingbird and computer hacking.

However, if that is the case, then what's the motivation for planting the story? I would have to argue that it's to accelerate and drive the meme into people's minds that "we need an asteroid defense system" or as President Trump put it (and to paraphrase his remarks) another space corps.

But there's another disturbing possibility for high octane speculation, and it takes me back to my book Secrets of the Unified Field and the so-called "Varo edition" of 1950s astronomer and Ufo investigator Dr Morris Jessup. One of Dr. Jessup's books on the UFO phenomenon was annotated by an alleged participant in the Philadelphia experiment, and sent to the US Navy. The Navy took the annotations - which included references to the alleged Philadelphia experiment - seriously, and had special editions of Jessup's book printed, complete with the marginal notes made by the mysterious Mr. Allende. The company which did the printing was the Varo company of Garland, Texas, and hence this version of the book became known as the Varo edition of Jessup's book. Copies were allegedly given to various members of the Navy and the nascent US Space program, including (as I argued in my book) Dr Wernher von Braun.

What's intriguing about those annotations is that in one place they refer to an ancient cosmic war, and to the "great bombardment" using - you guessed it - asteroids hurled at targets. It's the "Varo edition" version of the familiar sci-fi weapon, "Mass drivers." Throwing rocks at planets appears again in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and again in the second season of the scifi television series, Babylon Five. More recent versions of the idea are the "rods of God" kinetic weapons technologies that some assume may have been involved in the Chinese chemical plant explosions a few years ago, and that more recently were the subject of some intriguing questioning by a news reporter to General Mattis, prior to the summit with North Korean leader.

So taking the story as real changes the picture, and it begins to show the possibilities of a pattern: first came that collision of an American and Russian satellite some years ago. Then came Prime Minister Medvedev's strange talk on Russian tv a month before the Chelyabinsk meteor incident, and now after false alarm missile drills and what looks to be a missile launch in the Seattle-Tacoma-Vancouver area (and appropriate denials from the US military with the usual nonsensical explanations), another meteor impacts near a major American military base in Greenland, a base that, moreover, is still an early warning component of the American system of nuclear defense. So we have:

1) the collision of a Russian and American satellite;

2) an exploding meteor over a major Russian nuclear research city; and now,

3) a meteor impact near a major American military base (with no comment from the American military).

Now, real meteor attacks (or as Allende put it in his marginalia to Jessup's book, "great bombardments") can drive the "we-need-an-asteroid-defense" meme just as easily as can false news stories, and do so much more efficiently.  After all, it's hard to argue against that case if, for example, a city or town was erased by an asteroid, and since most people don't believe that the technology exists to throw big rocks at planets, it can all be written off to a "tragic act of nature" and the calls for "an effective asteroid warning and defense system" will skyrocket. Forget about the Russians. The real big money for the military industrial complex is in space wars. And the problem is the technology, for such incidents as the above three, if viewed from this perspective, imply that someone has a technology capable of manipulating gravity and/or magnetism in a specific way, a way that enables celestial bodies to be used as "rods of God." If this wild and bizarre high octane speculation is true, then the real question is, who is doing it, and why? If it's "us", then we're creating a false flag scenario to build out space weapons (and, oh yes, incidentally, hurl rocks at any disobedient regions on the Earth below, and perhaps anywhere else in nearby space). If it's not us, then "someone" is either really angry, or, conversely, "playing ball" with the mandarins "down here" to lock down the planet, or perhaps even getting us to build their weapons, using us as cats' paws against yet someone else. Who knows?

There are of course, other scenarios and speculations too.

My real problem is, I'm seeing the beginning outlines of a pattern here, and I'm not at all liking what I'm seeing.

See you on the flip side...

 

18 Comments

CHINA, PATAGONIA, SPACE, AND THE MOON

Mr. G.K. found this article, and given today's "space emphasis", I wanted to elaborate on my high octane speculations about this one:

Growing US unease with China's new deep space facility in Argentina

There's a key to what China is up to in this article:

China's space base in Argentina's Patagonia is making Washington feel unease amid Beijing's consistent expansion in Latin America, once considered the US' backyard.

"The isolated base is one of the most striking symbols of Beijing's long push to transform Latin America and shape its future for generations to come - often in ways that directly undermine the United States' political, economic and strategic power in the region," remarked Ernesto Londono, an editorial writer for The New York Times.

However, according to Gustavo Cardozo, an analyst at the Argentine Center for International Studies (CAEI), the Chinese endeavor is pursuing far more ambitious goal: Beijing is seeking to become a major space power.

"China has a very serious intention to go into space and compete strategically with the United States," Cardozo told Sputnik Mundo. "This military base allows not only to control outer space, because the Argentine Patagonia and southern Chile are very good regions in terms of visualizing the cosmos."

The construction of the Chinese base for deep space research in Argentina was negotiated between the government of the country's former President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner (2007-2015) and the administration of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The 50-year contract was officially signed in April 2014 and was approved by the Argentinian parliament in February 2015.

The installation started operating in March 2018. According to The New York Times, the station plays a pivotal role in Beijing's bold endeavor to kick off "an expedition to the far side of the moon." (Emphasis added)

This is entirely correct, and adds some "spice" to what is transpiring vis-a-vis the Moon. China, as the italicized portion of the quotation notes, is planning a mission to land a probe on the far side of the Moon. There are any number of anomalous features on the side of the Moon and one primary candidate for such a mission might be Tsiolkovsky Crater, which demonstrates some highly anomalous features, even suggestive of structure and artificiality.  But whatever China's motivations, the landing of a probe on the far side of the Moon will require an elaborate communications relay system, including communications satellites in orbit around the Moon to be able to maintain communications with any such probes. This comes in the same time frame that German companies have announced plans to build out a 4G network on the Moon.

Needless to say, the conjunction of these two things have my mind entertaining all sorts of high octane speculation, namely that these two things - the Chinese base in Patagonia, and the German 4G lunar plan - might be connected in some fashion as yet to be revealed. Those who have read my books, particularly The Nazi International, will recall that I have argued that Patagonia is a region fairly well infested with post-war Nazis and research projects of a bizarre and exotic nature.  Additionally, the Estancia, a large post-war region virtually a "Nazi state within a state" existed in that area for some time, and according to some, still exists. The presence of the Chinese base in this region suggests to my mind that it would not have been allowed without "permission," and that this permission may have come with some covert strings attached.

There's another factor at work in my high octane speculation here as well. In various books, beginning with The SS Brotherhood of the Bell, I've been arguing that the Apollo lunar missions may not have occurred without a covert deal between those "Patagonian veterans" and their fellow countrymen in NASA. Specifically, I've speculated that the "deal" which was worked out may have been the exchange of access to some sort of exotic Nazi technology - a development of the Bell perhaps - to allow us to get to and from the Moon, in return to access to data of whatever we found there. In that respect, I've concentrated upon the presence of Kurt Debus as senior flight director of Project Apollo at Cape Canaveral, and that Debus, far from being a rocket scientist was a plasma physicist, and one moreover with clear connections to the Bell project. And over the years, there certainly has been some suggestive data, implying that "something" anomalous was known about the Moon prior to those missions, and that anomalies may have been documented by Project Apollo. The problem for the "Patagonian veterans" - if my "secret deal" scenario is correct - is that the USA, after Apollo 17, did not go back, and has not been back for decades. If one is wanting access to "anomalous data" this is tantamount to letting a contract lapse, or go into default. Hence, one will look for a new "partner" that intends to go to the Moon, and cut a deal.

China, for example.

Ok... it's wild and woolly speculation to be sure, and with only two dots to connect here, I'm fully confident that I've stepped off the end of the twig. But here as always, time will tell, and perhaps add more confirming information, or information contraindicating my speculation.

See you on the flip side...

 

26 Comments

THE COMING AI WARS

Mr. J.B. sent this article along, and as one might imagine, it sparked some high octane speculation that I want to end this week's blogs with. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been much in focus in recent years, with a number of prominent figures, like Mr. Musk, raising the alarm about its potentialities. More recently, just last week I blogged about Henry Kissinger's own alarm about AI. In that blog, I pointed out that Musk's version of the scenario is that it might actually transduce some entity or being of evil nature into its artificial neurons and circuits, what I called "The Devil Scenario." I also speculated in that blog that perhaps the "elites" like Mr. Kissinger are afraid of the opposite scenario to Musk's, one that does not get discussed very much, and that it the so-called "Angel" scenario, where an AI might "transduce" some entity that determines that the current globaloney crop of misfits, cultural Marxists, Darth Soroses and crony crapitalists are a threat to humanity, and... well, you know. Perhaps, I thought in that blog, the "elites" are seeing certain signs of that or a similar scenario, and they don't like what they see. Either way, I'm still of the opinion some developed form of AI is already here.

So what has this to do with Mr. J.B.'s article? Well, here's the article, and you tell me:

Elon Musk, DeepMind founders, and others sign pledge to not develop lethal AI weapon systems

The open three paragraphs say it all:

Tech leaders, including Elon Musk and the three co-founders of Google’s AI subsidiary DeepMind, have signed a pledge promising to not develop “lethal autonomous weapons.”

It’s the latest move from an unofficial and global coalition of researchers and executives that’s opposed to the propagation of such technology. The pledge warns that weapon systems that use AI to “[select] and [engage] targets without human intervention” pose moral and pragmatic threats. Morally, the signatories argue, the decision to take a human life “should never be delegated to a machine.” On the pragmatic front, they say that the spread of such weaponry would be “dangerously destabilizing for every country and individual.”

The pledge was published today at the 2018 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) in Stockholm, and it was organized by the Future of Life Institute, a research institute that aims to “mitigate existential risk” to humanity. The institute has previously helped issue letters from some of the same individuals, calling on the United Nations to consider new regulations for what are known as lethal autonomous weapons, or LAWS. This, however, is the first time those involved have pledged individually to not develop such technology.

Now, most of you probably know where I stand: do I think a machine should determine when or under what circumstances a human life should be taken? Well, as you might have gathered from yesterday's blog, I have a big problem with "panels of ethics experts" deciding on baby-tinkering, must less juries or judges deciding capital punishment cases. As for the latter, in today's corrupt court system, who would want to make that decision? I wouldn't. As for a machine doing so?

Never!

But the article continues, and this is where it gets interesting, and lays the foundation for my high octane speculation of the day:

Paul Scharre, a military analyst who has written a book on the future of warfare and AI, told The Verge that the pledge was unlikely to have an effect on international policy, and that such documents did not do a good enough job of teasing out the intricacies of this debate. “What seems to be lacking is sustained engagement from AI researchers in explaining to policymakers why they are concerned about autonomous weapons,” said Scharre.

He also added that most governments were in agreement with the pledge’s main promise — that individuals should not develop AI systems that target individuals — and that the “cat is already out of the bag” on military AI used for defensive. “At least 30 nations have supervised autonomous weapons used to defend against rocket and missile attack,” said Scharre. “The real debate is in the middle space, which the press release is somewhat ambiguous on.” (Emphases added)

Now, with all respect to Mr. Scharre, one would have to be a dunce not to know what the concern is about "autonomous weapons." This is just more boilerplate and academic-sounding avoidance. But then comes that very revealing line "that individuals should not develop AI systems that target individuals."

That just put the whole AI debate on a very different playing field and confirms a suspicion I've had about  what is lurking behind all this "concern" about AI from "the elites". Indeed, I have also blogged about this possibility before, namely, when we think of AI development, we tend to think just one all-powerful, globe-encompassing malevolent (or beneficent) machine running it all.  But there is nothing to prevent several AIs being developed, including AI's to defend against other AIs, or to take out Don Corleone's opposition, in some updated version of The Godfather. This line is revealing because it is really suggesting that what the "elite" fears is not even my "Don Corleone" scenario, but rather, that individuals or groups people will defend against AI by developing AI defenders, not one, but many AIs contending for domination.

Or to put it in the starkest and most naked terms: What if this concern about artificial intelligence is really designed to prevent people from developing defenses against it, or developing a "benign" AI that is a threat, not to the bulk of humanity, but to them? And if that is the case, if they are afraid of AIs that defend against AIs, you can bet that their "concern" is crocodile tears, and that they're already at work to protect themselves behind a much more aggressive AI. Funny thing, too, that this whole scenario I'm increasingly sensing may be lurking behind all the "concern" about AI, was actually the basic story line for the series Person of Interest.

The AI wars may be getting very close to reality...

See you on the flip side...

 

16 Comments

BIG BANK STUDIES PREDICT SPACE INDUSTRY IN THE TRILLIONS, BUT…

Mr. B. spotted this intriguing article, and given yesterday's blog about mind control, its apparent growing use globally, and the "missing trillions", I had to blog about this one. The upshot is that some major bank studies by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have concluded that by 2040, the space industry will approach between one and almost three trillion dollars of market value; here's the article:

A trillion-dollar space industry will require new markets

Now, if you read through all that, you might be thinking, "Well, so what? This is more or less old news and we already knew space industry was going to be a 'big thing'. No news here."

I have to admit, that was pretty much my own reaction when I read it. So I went back and read it again, and that's when the big "but..." hit me. It was not what the article was saying, but rather, what it was either not saying, or merely alluding to. Here's the passages that leapt out at me, and which occasion our high octane speculationTM of the day:

Autry, though, cautioned not to be too specific about what markets might emerge to drive the growth of the overall space economy, recounting his experience in the early computer industry, where games played a much larger role than many initially expected.

“I think we haven’t seen yet what that app is on the NewSpace side,” he said. “I’m confident that it’s there, but I think the most important thing we need to do is not try too much to define the roadmap. There’s going to be some really unexpected detours, and it’ll be interesting to see what they are.”

So what is not being said, and what is only being alluded to? For the former, it's the markets themselves. Regular readers here have probably seen and read all those articles about the estimated worth of this or that asteroid's resources, with figures usually being placed in the quadrillions of dollars. The only problem is one has to go out and get them. But in those articles, the point is usually made that such a sudden influx of money and resources could adversely impact the world's economy; think of Spain after the discovery of the New World, with galleons bringing back boatloads of gold. The result of the influx of so much bullion drove up the prices of everything in Spain, and as a result, manufacturing fled to places with lower costs of doing business, like the Spanish Netherlands, whose economy "took off" as a direct result of the crash of Spanish manufacturing. Spain ended up losing its manufacturing base and suffering the consequences until the twentieth century.

But that, of course, was only true because there was no expansion of markets... which raises the question, why then go out and mine all those asteroids? Are all those quadrillions being collateralized to offsets all the quadrillions of derivatives on the books? I've suggested as much in other blogs. I've also suggested, along with Catherine Austin Fitts, that all that missing money might literally be going off planet, into some sort of very hidden market and trade with, or perhaps even tribute to... well, with "whomever."

In other words, the article's reference to not being "too specific about what markets might emerge" might be taken as an indicator that those "emerging markets" are not on this planet at all.

And that brings us to high octane speculation number two. The final statement of the article - "There's going to be some really unexpected detours, and it will be interesting to see what they are."(Emphasis added)  Indeed, one such "really unexpected detours" might indeed be an interplanetary "market" and "trade" with "whomever."

To put it country simple: I suspect a whole lot of discussion took place "off the record" at this conference, and that the real concerns are precisely how to deal with precisely such circumstances, and how to break "the news." Commerce, or tribute, might indeed be the agenda that drives "disclosure."

See you on the flip side...

RT: EARTH NEEDS STRICTER DEFENSES AGAINST EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL BACTERIA

Mr. G. sent along this recent article from RT, and given the timing, I have to wonder just what the heck is going on. But we'll get back to the high octane speculation - including Mr. G.'s own - in a moment. First, the article itself:

Earth must strengthen its defenses against mutant space bacteria – Russian scientists

The article notes an odd series of experiments performed in Russia with "space bacteria":

A Russian experiment called 'Biorisk' has revealed that various microorganisms from Earth were able to survive in the harsh conditions of space on the surface of the International Space Station (ISS). It was carried out starting in January 2005 at the Russian segment of the ISS and saw 68 different organisms, including bacteria, insects, vertebrate animal and higher plants, used as test subjects.

The mutated bacteria showed high aggressiveness and resistance to antibiotics on their return to Earth, the Russian report, prepared for the meeting of the International Committee on Space Research in the US later in July, said.

And it ends with a call for stricter quarantine regimes for objects returning to Earth (think Japan's Hayabusa-2 asteroid probe, for example):

"In addition, the danger is posed by terrestrial microorganisms that returned from space after visiting another planet and transforming in an unknown manner in its atmosphere," it added.

According to the paper, the Russian scientists are going to use the result of their research to develop measures aimed at protecting Earth form this threat.

Note that the Russian experiment is implying the possibility of these organisms mutating, or perhaps even combining with terrestrial bacteria to form new strains. This led Mr. G. to speculate that perhaps this has already been observed, or that perhaps it is already being engineered.

In either case, what is par for the course here is that the Russians have been calling for beefed-up defenses from asteroids ever since Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev's strange remarks about a month prior to the Chelyabinsk meteor incident, about which I've spoken much on this site. Asteroids certainly could be a vehicle for the "seeding" of such bacteria on Earth, unintentionally or perhaps even intentionally. This latest call appears to be part of that pattern.

But it's the timing of this that also intrigues me, for it occurs just a few days before the Putin-Trump summit is supposedly to occur. I cannot help but think that space matters, and planetary defense will be high on the agenda, but perhaps not openly talked about. However, there's another deeper possibility here. Let's recall the famous affidavit of Dr. Carol Rosin once again. Dr. Rosin, as most readers here are aware, was a one-time associate and assistant to Dr. Werner von Braun at Fairchild Industries. She has alleged in her now famous Rosin Affidavit, given to Dr. Steven Greer (MD) for inclusion in his book Disclosure, that von Braun told her that the plan for weaponizing space would proceed along a predetermined pattern of "justifications": first the Communists would be the target, and hence we needed weapons in space to defend against them. Then it would be terrorists, then "nations of concern" (think North Korea or Iran), then it would be asteroids (think Prime Minister Medvedev's pre-Chelyabinsk remarks), and then finally, it would be extra-terrestrials.

Given the accuracy of her prediction, made years before 9/11, and what has happened since, I cannot help but wonder, with this new focus on "extra-terrestrial organisms" (in this case, bacteria), if perhaps we are not witnessing the first slow indicators of a coming "change in the narrative" to get people accustomed to the idea of the need for space weaponization against asteroids that could be carrying more than just helium-3 or quadrillions of dollars of titanium, but also carrying, first "something" else, and then, finally, "someone" else.

See you on the flip side...

OUMUAMUA UPDATE: IT’S A COMET, NO, AN ASTEROID, NO, A COMET, NO, ...

A few days ago I mentioned the comet, or rather, asteroid, Oumuamua in one of my blogs about space matters. (See NASA’S NEW ASTEROID DEFENSE PLAN). Why the hesitation over what the strange object is? Well, in my blog, I referred to it as a comet. Almost as soon as the blog was posted, I began to get articles from well-intentioned readers, stating that it was - no, not a comet - but an asteroid. I was just about to post a "Tidbit" correcting the error, when more articles began to arrive: no, it was not an asteroid, it was a comet all along.

Well, so much for posting a note about the error.

Then, amid the growing pile of emails in my inbox folder about Oumuamua, I found this, shared by Mr. J.T, which "clarified" the issue:

Scientists just changed their mind about that ‘Alien Probe’ asteroid again

So, that's why I was confused; I was confused, because scientists themselves are confused:

The bizarre interstellar visitor that whizzed through our Solar System late last year stunned scientists the world over. The object, named Oumuamua snuck up out of nowhere, cruising around the Sun and then slingshotting back out into space before most astronomers even knew what to make of it. Its strange shape and odd coloring were so strange that some researchers thought it might have been an alien probe checking us out.

Once that was put to rest, one of the more humorous twists to the story was the repeated flip-flopping of scientists who couldn’t decide whether it was a comet or an asteroid. It was initially thought to be a comet, but its lack of an iconic tail suggested otherwise. So, it was an asteroid, at least for a little while, but subsequent rounds of research suggested it was a comet again… then an asteroid, again. Now, yet another study has been published in Nature and, well, it’s definitely a comet. Again.

The new paper, which was led by an astronomer with the European Space Agency (ESA), takes a close look at the strange visitor as it speeds away from our Solar System. The data reveals that the object is speeding up as it exits our neighborhood, which shouldn’t be possible if it were just a rocky asteroid being flung by gravity.

Instead, the researchers say, the object being a comet would explain its acceleration. The idea being that gasses heated during Oumuamua’s close brush with our Sun are actually pushing it faster and faster, matching what we know about comets.

So, because it lacked the typical tail of comets jetting into the solar system, it was a mere asteroid. But because it has gasses jetting out of it as if flies away from the Sun, it's a comet again.

I get it! I understand! Yea, sure! It's a comet! I'm so relieved!

Except, wait a minute... shouldn't those same gasses have been jetting out of the object as it approached the Sun and heated up? And shouldn't the trees grow taller too, in a natural selection response to the giraffes growing longer necks in natural selection to reach the leaves?  Wait a minute, isn't that kind of a circular argument? (Remember that one?)

Well, yes, the lack of a comet tail coming into the solar system, meant it was an asteroid. But the evidence of out-gassing on the way out of the solar system means it's a comet, notwithstanding that the gas was apparently not turned on during the inbound flight of the comet...er... asteroid. Maybe it's an astercometoid.

Now, as you can tell, I'm having a bit of fun with this one, because the article itself mentions the problem that is posed, and where most scientists "don't want to go." In fact, it even mentions the fact that some scientists were trying to communicate with the object, given its other bizarre behavior. They were willing to entertain the "impossible," that it was an interstellar probe of some sort:

Strange tumbling motion of cigar-shaped interstellar 'comet' Oumuamua suggests it’s an alien probe with BROKEN engines, says leading astronomer

Ahhh!  So there we go... they tried listening for signals, but there was nothing. No signals, no out-gassing, just a long cylindrical rocky object tumbling end over end... until it seems to have started out-gassing again... one wonders which of the ends that out-gassing is coming out of, perhaps both?(That would be very un-cometlike, and for that matter, very un-asteroidish. In fact, it's very un-comet-like and un-asteroidish to have no tail coming in, but one going out.).

In fact, that tumbling action, for such a shaped object, might indicate some prior impact that set it tumbling...

So, yea, I'll say it...

...maybe someone turned on the engines again...

(Oh, just in case, they've got a theory for that unusual out-gassing too, and you'll love it too: its dust is simply "bigger":

Interstellar Comet ‘Oumuamua Has a Built-In 'Propulsion' System)

... See you on the flip side...

NASA’S NEW ASTEROID DEFENSE PLAN

Mr. R.M. spotted this article and shared it, and I simply have to comment about it, because the document contains a few statements that just seem deliberately designed to provoke our trademark High Octane SpeculationTM. Even if they weren't designed for that, you know me, and I can't resist. Go get your coffee and cigarettes, let the dog outside, put on your slippers, because this one is an intriguing read:

This Is NASA's New Plan to Detect and Destroy Asteroids Before They Hit Earth

Now, before we get started, let's go back to Dr. Carol Rosin, and the "Rosin Affidavit". Dr. Rosin, as many are aware, has been tireless in her effort to head off the militarization and weaponization of space. The effort is praiseworthy: just imagine how much money is being diverted from needed infrastructure repair and construction, on fixing the airports, schools (we need to fire quite a few administrators and completely reform the system... but I'll resist the temptation to rant about Doctors of Pedagogiblither and Edubabble infesting the certification process)... we need to fix roads, we need to fix... well, pretty much everything, and militarizing space could be viewed as detracting from that.

But I'm also a realist: space is the new sea power; it is essential to financial clearing, to global trade, and eventually of course, to any permanent human and commercial presence, and where commercial interests go, the need to protect those assets also goes. And with protection of assets inevitably comes militarization and weaponization.

But this brings us back to the Rosin Affidavit, which, for our purposes in this blog, I want to review once again for those unfamiliar with its astonishing, and astonishingly accurate, contents. When Dr. Rosin first made these claims, she was denounced, detracted from, and in some cases made fun of and her integrity questioned. Nonetheless, she stuck to her guns and, in my opinion, has been profoundly vindicated over time. In 2001, Steven M. Greer, M.D., published an early release copy of his book Disclosure: Military and Government Witnesses Reveal the Greatest Secrets in Modern History. Greer will be familiar to many readers of this website as a Ufologist and an advocate of "disclosure" of government secrets regarding UFOs and alleged "contact" with extra-terrestrials. The book which he edited is a compilation of affidavits from various people with connections to the government, or the UFO issue, or space, or in Dr. Rosin's case, all of the above. When I received my copy of this book, 9/11 had not yet happened, which makes the statements in Rosin's Affidavit all the more intriguing and thought provoking. So, rather than review that affidavit, I reproduce the central claims of that affidavit here. Rosin, after rehearsing her involvement with Fairchild Industries, indicated her involvement with Dr. Werner von Braun from 1974 until his death. We pick up her Affidavit at this point:

As practically a deathbed speech, he educated me about those concepts and who the players were in this game. He gave me the responsibility, since he was dying, of continuing this effort to prevent the weaponization of outer space. When Werner von Braun was dying of cancer, he asked me to be his spokesperson, to appear on occasions when he was too ill to speak. I did this.

What was most interesting to me was a repetitive sentence that he said to me over and over again during the approximately four years that I had the opportunity to work with him. He said the strategy that was being used to educate the public and decision makers was to use scare tactics... That was how we identify an enemy.

The strategy that Wener Von Braun taught me was that first the Russians are going to be considered the enemy. In fact, in 1974, they were the enemy, the identified enemy. We were told they had 'killer satellites'....

Then terrorists would be identified, and that was soon to follow. We heard a lot about terrorism. They we were going to identify third-world country 'crazies.' We now call them Nations of Concern. But he sad that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons.

The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroid - against asteroid we are going to build space-based weapons.

And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. "And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens and all of it is a lie."

....

"The last card that was being held was the extraterrestrial enemy card. The intensity with which he said that, made me realize that he knew something that he was too afraid to mention. He was too afraid to talk about it. He would not tell me the details. I am not sure that I would have absorbed them if he had told me the details or even believed him in 1974. But there was no question that that man knew and had a need to know, I found out later.(Steven M. Greer, M.D., (Ed.), "Testimony of Carol Rosin, December 2000," Disclosure [Crozer, CA: Crossing Point, Inc.: 2001], pp. 255-256).

In the wake of 9/11, we have definitely moved through the "terrorism" phase, to the "Nations of Concern" phase (Iran, North Korea, Iraq), and, beginning in more recent years, an increased "pushing" of the near Earth asteroid and collision memes, and with the Chelyabinsk meteor, or the mysterious, and perhaps mysteriously diverted, Oumuamua comet being the two most "talked about." Indeed, as I've pointed out often on this website, the Chelyabinsk meteor incident was made the more mysterious by the fact that Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev had one month prior to the event talked about the need for a planetary asteroid defense system of international nature, to divert or if necessary "take out" threatening asteroids. If Russia could not gain international cooperation for such a system, then, said Medvedev, it would just have to go it alone and build one itself.

So we appear, definitely, to be in the "asteroid" phase of Rosin's affidavit, which has proven to be astonishingly accurate in its broad sequencing from "terrorism" to Nations of Concern" to asteroids.

In that context, then, certain things about the NASA statement jumped out at me:

Protecting Earth from incoming asteroids will be a huge job, but don't expect astronauts to do it, NASA said. "That's something relegated to the movies — it makes a good movie, but we do not see in our studies any technique that would require the involvement of astronauts," Johnson said, adding that NASA's proposed asteroid-deflection techniques "would all be done by robotic spacecraft." [7 Awesome Sci-Fi Movies Where Asteroids Threaten Earth]

...

In the third objective, NASA is asked to come up with new ways to deflect an asteroid heading toward Earth. This involves developing new technologies for "rapid-response NEO [near-Earth object] reconnaissance missions," in which a spacecraft could launch toward an Earth-bound asteroid and somehow change the space rock's course so that it no longer posed a threat. NASA had plans to attempt this with the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) in 2021, but the Trump administration scrapped that mission in 2017.

However, ARM was not the only asteroid-deflecting mission NASA had up its sleeve. The agency's Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), expected to launch in 2021, will be "our first technology demonstration of the kinetic impact technique to deflect an asteroid," Johnson said, and it will encounter the asteroid system Didymos in 2022.  (Emphasis added)

Needless to say, the "first technology demonstration of the kinetic impact technique to deflect an asteroid" has me thinking in all sorts of high octane speculation scenarios. For one thing, it has me recalling those strange Chinese chemical plant explosions a couple of years ago. Certainly under the glorious march of socialism into the dustbin of history, a few chemical plants could blow up. But it will be recalled that there was speculation at the time that they may have been "taken out" by space-based "rods of God", i.e., by kinetic weapons. There was something in favor of that hypothesis, in that one chemical plant's explosion left a very deep crater. Then, before that, there was that very strange "sink hole" affair in Guatemala, with the nearly perfectly circular "sink hole" that appeared more as if it had been bored, rather than being a natural geological feature. That is, if the photographs were to be believed.

Those were highly speculative interpretations, but then there was the strange remark made by General Mattis with respect to the military "options" available to deal with North Korea, prior to the love-in in Singapore earlier this month. A reporter asked specifically if these options included "kinetic weapons," and Mattis' response was basically "Yes."

The upshot of all of this is NASA is now, basically, publicly admitting to the fact that it will launch a space-based kinetic "system" and test its effectiveness for diverting, and one can only assume, destroying, an asteroid. Thus, again, Dr. Rosin's basic claims in the affidavit seventeen years ago have proven to be astonishingly accurate.

But then there's this, which made me think of a whole other use of the "kinetic weapon asteroid blaster":

The second goal listed in the document discusses the improvement of "modeling, prediction and information integration" across U.S. agencies to help predict the probability that an asteroid will hit Earth and determine exactly when and where an incoming asteroid could strike. Emergency-management teams like FEMA would use this information to determine the best course of action when preparing for an asteroid strike and dealing with the consequences after an impact occurs.

There is a school of thought, advanced by Catherine Austin Fitts and others, that the recent California fires north of the San Francisco bay area, were not accidental, but we deliberately done to enable cheap property buy outs of the area, and that the fires were the consequence of the use of deadly exotic energy weapons. Indeed, there were some telltale signs of the presence of microwaves, and some unusual fire "signatures": home burned to the ground, while right next to them, trees, untouched, and unburned, an eerie scene reminiscent of Dr. Judy Wood's "toasted cars" on 9/11, and for me, a sure sign of unusual resonance effects. All of this gives the "deliberate burn out for cheap buy out" scenario some traction. The presence of US Military personnel in the area after the fires only make the treads on that traction much deeper. But why bother, I wonder - and herewith the second part of today's high octane speculation - with deliberate burn-outs? Just threaten an asteroid impact, and have everyone evacuated from their homes. Then fake the impact with some nifty kinetic weapons, and voila, a cheap buy out can be effected and populations can be relocated from "sensitive regions" under the guise of natural catastrophe.

Whatever one makes of that second speculation, however, the fact remains that NASA is now, in a backhanded way, confirming the existence of space-based kinetic weapons systems, and plans to test one for an ostensibly "benign" purpose. And in doing so, has once again vindicated Dr. Rosin's predictions.

See you on the flip side...

 

NOW IT’S OFFICIAL: SPACE FORCE ORDERED

Well, now it's official, President Trump has ordered the US military to create a sixth service branch, the Space Force, in addition to the Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Army, according to this story shared by Mr. H.B. and many others:

Trump orders creation of ‘Space Force’ as sixth military branch

In doing so, Mr. Trump is, in one sense, rather late to the game, for Mr. Putin some time ago ordered Russia's air forces to be subsumed under its Space Command:

Russian Military Merges Air Force and Space Command

In March of this year, the President made clear the reasons for why he viewed this step - now taken - as being essential:

On March 13, the President told an audience of service members at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar that he suggested to his administration the addition of a space force offhandedly, but ultimately took the idea more seriously given the importance of national security.

“Space is a war-fighting domain, just like the land, air, and sea,” Trump told the crowd. “I said, ‘Maybe we need a new force, we’ll call it the Space Force,’ and I was not really serious. Then I said, ‘What a great idea,’ maybe we’ll have to do that,” the President said.

“So think of that, Space Force,” Trump continued. “Because we are spending a lot and we have a lot of private money coming in, tremendous. You saw what happened the other day, and tremendous success. From the very beginning, many of our astronauts have been soldiers and Airmen, Coast Guard men and Marines. And our service members will be vital to ensuring America continues to lead the way into the stars.”

I have pointed out many times, and for many years, that in spite of the best intentions of some, the weaponization of space will inevitably come simply due to the vast increase of financial and economic commitment in space on the part of all space powers, China, Russia, Japan, India, the USA and so on. Assets have to be protected, and that is the simple bottom line. It was Lyndon Johnson, when he was Senate Majority leader in the late 1950s, who made the observation that space is the new "high ground," and he who controlled it was in the dominant position. Space is the sea lanes of the present and future.

That much is obvious, so where is the high octane speculation? As one might have guessed by now, this week I have been blogging about some unusual stories, not the least of which was Turkish President Erdogan's strange announcement that Turkey was going to open a base in Antarctica. In doing so, he tweeted that Turkey would be joining a group of "victorious nations" on that continent, and as readers will recall, I took those words as indicative of something more than mere political and rhetorical hyperbole, but as indicative of a real conflict, with a real opposition. The question is, who's the opposition?

In this respect, I want to recall two other strange incidents from recent years, first, the Chelyabinsk meteor incident, and Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev's strange comments made to the Russian media approximately a month before the incident, and the strange case of Comet Ouanamoua. (Incidentally, while writing this blog, searches for Comet Ouanamoua on a variety of search engines turned up virtually no stories about this strange visitor of a few months ago. Indeed, one search on a well-known search engine showed returned no results as of this writing).  In the case of the Chelyabinsk incident, Medvedev called for an international effort to erect an asteroid detection and planetary defense system, and that if Russia could not gain such a system, it would have to build out such a system on its own. When asked how Russia would defend itself against asteroids, Mr. Medvedev indicates that it could be done with rockets and hydrogen bombs, or "other means" at Russia's disposal. He left those "other means" conveniently undefined. A month later, the Chelyabinsk meteor incident occurred, and some video captures did show a suspicious "object" perhaps taking out the meteor. In the case of Ouananoua (Hawaiian for "messenger"), a very elongated object, cylindrical in nature, was approaching the solar system, was all the talk of the space internet community  - including our colleague Richard C. Hoagland - and then the comet appeared to have been deflected, and interest suddenly died, but not before Mr. Hoagland pointed out that some infrared signatures appeared on the surface of the object as the event was taking place, leading him to speculate that perhaps a nuclear weapon had been fired at it, impacted, and diverted the object.

Oh, and let's not forget the strange video of STS 48, the infamous space shuttle mission from several years ago, showing a strange dance of UFOs in space, and something shooting at them.

So what does this mean? Where's the high octane speculation? My speculation is simple: that behind all the arguments being advanced by various people - including this author - that with the increased commercialization of space comes inevitably the increased militarization of it as assets need to be protected from potential enemies, there might be yet a deeper story, one hiding behind, and using the commercialization as a cover story for the need to protect commercial assets, and the planet itself, from something or someone else. And by "someone else" I don't mean the usual suspects: the USA, China, Russia, Japan, India, France, Germany &c....

Mr. Trump has thus, I believe, merely given us a "coming out party" as one regular reader here, Mr. M. L. put it to me - as did Mr. Putin before him - to something already happening and, in my estimation, long under way.

After all, a missing $50,000,000,000,000 will pay for a whole lot of "space force."

See you on the flip side...

CANADIAN ASTRONAUT HADFIELD TELLS IT LIKE IT IS: ROCKETS WON’T ...

Apropos of today's main blog, astronaut Hardfield tells it like it is: rockets, private or otherwise, won't get us there(thanks to Mr. T.M. for this article):

Here's Why Astronaut Chris Hadfield Doesn't Think SpaceX Will Bring Us to Mars

Let's face it, rockets won't do the job to get us to Mars, much less beyond it to mine the asteroid belt; heck, they barely worked to get us to the Moon, and if you follow my hypothesis that some sort of "deal" was struck with those Paperclip Nazis to gain access to their primitive kontrabary (anti-gravity) technology to get us off the Moon (and possibly even to it), then the inadequacy of rockets was known very early on. As I pointed out in Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, even the late 1950s Brookings Report, instrumental in the early days of NASA, so often cited by space afficionados for its concentration on the possibility of contact with extra-terrestrials or their artifacts, mentioned something far more important (to my mind), in its extended treatment and review of exotic propulsion technologies; it even mentions, specifically, "magneto-hydrodynamic drives". That may sound like science fiction, but recall my blog from yesterday about the space-based experiments conference sponsored by Los Alamos, and my suspicion that the experiments being described were, in part, describing plasma drives (the plasma being the "hydro-dynamic" part), and plasma jets controlled by magnetic fields (that's obviously the magneto part), or lasers.

Hadfield lays it all out, but he does so in a fashion that should raise questions about why there is so much hype about the privatization of space and various private efforts to do "lunar space cruises" and Mars missions... with rockets:

Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, known best for performing David Bowie’s “Space Oddity” aboard the International Space Station back in 2013, spoke with Business Insider about the possibility of humans traveling to Mars. He thinks there are multiple issues impeding humans from reaching the red planet, with rockets being one of the key problems.

“Personally, I don’t think any of those three rockets are taking people to Mars,” Hadfield told Business Insider. “I don’t think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because they’re dangerous and it takes too long.”

His reasoning to focus on the rockets is the fuel used to launch them into space. NASA, SpaceX, and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin all use similar fuels that are not powerful or efficient enough to get to Mars. Hadfield also points out how dangerous the mission would be for humans and even suggest robots should be the first to travel to the planet in order to learn more. (Emphases added)

Hadfield is not speaking like an astronaut here, he's speaking like a businessman, for note that his concentration is on (1) the overhead costs, of inefficient fuels, and length of time, and (2) the risk of doing so.

So how to lower overhead, minimize risk, and optimize investment? The answer, which readers here all know, is that one needs an entirely different technology that is both faster, lowers risk, and is capable of efficient and reliable functioning.

Rockets are fine for launching satellites, and that, indeed, is where we've seen an explosion of private corporations with their own launch capability, and that will continue, But for tours to the Moon, or missions to Mars, or worse, to mine asteroids, it simply will not do.

And that raises an important question: why, then, is there so much attention being given to these corporations and their manned mission plans to other planets? As one might have guessed, this is the high octane speculation of the day, for I strongly suspect that part of the agenda is to keep people's minds focused on rocket technology, and not watching the much more significant developments and efforts to create "exotic" technologies, not just of propulsion, but for defense of those assets once they're "up there." The implication of that hypothesis should also not be missed, for most of that research, like it or not, traces back to government programs to do so, even if it is being conducted by private corporations such as Lockheed, Raytheon, or British Aerospace.  Listen to the Hadfields, and not the Muilenbergs and Musks, because Hadfield is right.

Rockets won't do...

See you on the flip side...

THE FUTURE OF SPACE-BASED EXPERIMENTS

Every now and then I receive an article from an individual which, behind its bland rhetoric, might be implying much more sinister or more important things. Sometimes, it implies both. I believe this is one such article implying both important things, and potentially, sinister things, and want to thank Ms. P.H. for passing it along. When she did so, she included her own "high octane speculation" in a remark in her email, which we'll get back to, because I suspect she is on to something. But that something is one possibility among many possible "somethings" as we'll see.

The article itself reviews a recent conference in September of last year sponsored by Los Alamos Laboratories:

Assessing the Future of Space-Based Experiments

The first thing to notice are the actual sponsors of the event:

Last September, growing interest in a new generation of potential space experiments brought together 65 members of the active-experiments community for a workshop. Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Center for Nonlinear Studies and Center for Space and Earth Science sponsored this workshop, with the goal of assessing past accomplishments, reviewing lessons learned, and developing new ideas for future projects that conduct active experiments in space.

What caught my eye here was the conjunction of such specialized fields as non-linear physics and space and earth sciences. It is this conjunction which suggests a connection and correlation between the two. "Non-Linear" is a problem, because it means different things to different people. In its most basic sense, it can mean the simple difference between a straight line and a curve. Other senses can mean something that is non-sequential. For some, it is even akin to the phenomenon of entanglement, where information does not travel in a line, but "appears" in an entangled system. Yet again, for some, it indicates systems that contain geometric, rather than arithmetic, progression (which is, of course, closely aligned with the difference between straight lines and curves). Yet again, it can indicate the strange behavior of open or coupled systems, self-organizing systems, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and the whole field of systems kinetics. Clearly, these more exotic senses of systems, coupled and open systems, complex systems, and perhaps even entanglement, are indicated by the Center for Non-Linear Studies' website reviewing its research emphases:

Current Focus Area

Clearly, the Center is interested in the relationship between information, materials, and complex systems both in and not in equilibrium. Which makes its sponsorship in conjunction with Space and Earth Science even more intriguing, for it would tend to indicate that they are thinking of spatial systems and planets in these terms. And let us remember, this is Los Alamos National Laboratory, and their ultimate purpose is, of course, advanced weaponry.

With that in mind, look at the list of what was discussed (and one must assume, much more was discussed, but this is only what they can say):

Attendees at the workshop discussed a number of important accomplishments from this period:

  • Active experiments stimulated critical work in basic plasma physics (waves, instabilities, structuring, transport) and spacecraft charging.
  • Barium and lithium releases elucidated the physics of plasma cloud dynamics, magnetic field modification, and auroral electric fields.
  • Electron beam experiments demonstrated long-distance beam propagation, beam excitation of plasma waves, and the physics of beam-plasma discharges.
  • Plasma jet experiments demonstrated plasma polarization effects and the propagation of plasma streams across magnetic fields.
  • The Starfish Prime experiment demonstrated the long lifetime (years) of an artificially produced radiation belt.
  • Ionospheric heater experiments stimulated the field of plasma turbulence and parametric instabilities research. (Emphases added)

Ms. P.H. wondered, in her email, "Are they acknowledging here that long-range coupling (low to high altitude, magnetosphere to ionosphere) is an active experiment?"  Well, that's certainly one implication, particularly of the last bullet point concerning ionospheric heater experiments in plasma turbulence and instabilities, for this suggests the deliberate creation within the ionosphere of regions, which by definition would have to be relatively large, which are unstable, and this might have coupling or possible resonance effects with other regions. It is planetary-scaled engineering.

What intrigued me about this list, however, was a very difference set of possibilities, both for deep space travel and thus for exotic propulsion technologies, and for weaponry. Look at that italicized list again, and out of context:

  • basic plasma physics: waves, instabilities, structuring, transport and spacecraft charging
  • magnetic field modification, electric fields
  • electron beams and long distance propagation
  • beam-plasma discharges
  • Plasma jets

Splicing these dots together, it appears to me, in my daily high octane speculation mode, that the focus is on the direction of high energy plasma by a variety of means: magnetic fields, contextual modification of the medium(the ionospheric heater experiments), and most importantly, by electron streams that are, in turn, being used to direct - i.e., to aim and point, or "target" - plasma jets. And note, the basic concepts could serve a dual purpose, both to precisely control plasmas of different sorts, for propulsion and for weaponization purposes. We are looking at an example how varying technologies and applications can emerge from the same underlying basic concepts. I suspect, strongly, that "electron streams" might indicate, for example, that free-electron lasers are being used as a kind of "guide channel" for powerful plasmas. If that makes no sense, then think of the laser as a boring machine, boring its way through rock, and clearing a channel for hot lava to move through the channel at very high velocities. The boring machine - or the laser - are there to steer and target that plasma, and also to keep it narrowly focused, and therefore, of great power. The uses of such conceptions for propulsion, or for that matter, strategic weaponry, are rather obvious. If one has difficulty imagining how this might be used as a weapon, then think of a hydrogen bomb exploding, but rather than have the explosion expanding in all directions, being rather directed through a channel, like our lava in the analogy above. In other words, one is pointing and aiming the explosion like a bullet, not buckshot.  And oh, did I mention, that while we're talking about asteroid mining, such a technology would be a very efficient means of drilling and boring for all those resources they want to mine, as well as a nifty way to get there, and bring those resources back, without the clumsy and expensive inefficiency of chemical rockets. Thinking even more out of the box, it might even be a possible technology to reduce those resources to plasma form, and then simply beam them back to the refining center where it is collected.

But whatever one makes of my high octane speculations about this conference, there are some things I am certain of: it was very important, we're not being told everything, and it was all about space - space propulsion, space security, and an entirely new generation of weapons. And it's this that convinces me, even more, that all the public talk about mining asteroids and going to Mars with chemical rockets is so much smoke and mirrors for public consumption. We need alternative technologies, and this conference tells me they're actively pursuing them.

See you on the flip side...

THE COAST GUARD IN SPACE, SPACE BASED MISSILE DEFENSE

For those of you who have been following Dr. Carol Rosin's efforts to get an international treaty to prohibit the weaponization of space, you'll want to stay abreast of these developments. Frankly, I support her efforts, though I remain pessimistic about the chances of their success. My reasons are rather simple, and they are the same reasons that led the USA and the Soviet Union and Great Britain to sign treaties prohibiting space weaponization at the height of the Cold War. Back then, the fear was orbital bombardment by satellite "dreadnoughts" loaded with hydrogen bombs ready to rain down on an opponent with no warning, little response time, and no possibility of defense against them. Indeed, both the USA and USSR had actual designs for such platforms, and many at the time thought (and some still do think) that treaties notwithstanding, both superpowers in fact launched such platforms. The more modern fear, to be blunt, is about weapons equally destructive - phase conjugated X-ray lasers GRAZERS (gamma ray lasers), kinetic "rod of God" bombardment projectiles fired from rail guns, and so on - that could just as easily point down as up, and which could just as easily be turned from "missile defense" to strategic offense. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have the American Midwest, or for that matter, the southern Urals in Russia, toasted by x-rays and gamma rays or chemical plants in China obliterated by "rods of God". You know, people vaporized, buildings melted, gigantic and deep craters, that sort of thing. If that sounds like the stuff of science fiction, it should be recalled that during the Reagan era of "Star Wars" (The Strategic Defense Initiative), that there were stories of Dr. Edward Teller telephoning Mr. Reagan to inform him that their test of an x-ray laser had been successful.

The only problem was, one had to set off an a-bomb to get the x-ray lasing material to emit a beam. Back then, satellite x-ray lasers would thus have been a one shot affair. That is, until Rudolf Mossbauer came along, and demonstrated that such materials could be - here it comes - sonically stimulated to emit x-rays and gamma rays, rendering the whole concept a "multi-shot" affair if a way could be found to weaponize it. (BTW, Rudolf Mossbauer demonstrated these effects in 1958, thus making the Teller-a bomb-one shot story a bit suspicious.) There was a certain "MADness" about this quest for such weapons, for what was in play was the search for strategic weapons capable of the type of destruction of nuclear weapons, but with no consequence to their users. IN other words, and to put it country simple, they were seeking a way to make nuclear wars obsolete, and to make wars "fightable" and "winnable" again. I suspect that to a certain degree that they were successful, and that to a certain extent, bombers and ICBMs with big hydrogen bombs and MIRVED warheads are, if not obsolete, then perhaps obsolescent.

But now there is talk of the commercialization of space, and mining asteroids and other nearby celestial bodies. I have consistently maintained that this will necessitate two things: (1) chemical rockets will simply not be adequate to this purpose, and (2) that any commercialization of space will require its weaponization and militarization in order to protect those assets from "whomever", be it Earthly, or non-Earthly, competitors and potential threats. And the latter will require a "space military" or "force" and some exotic transportation and weaponry.

With that in mind, consider the following two stories, the first shared by Ms. K.W., and the second by Mr.  B.G.:

The US Needs A ‘Coast Guard’ For Space: Semper Paratus Exteriores Spatium

Congress Directs Immediate Weaponization of Space to Counter Missile Strikes

Normally I would spend a great deal of time pointing out certain interesting points for both articles. But today I want to concentrate only on the first, and only on one thing, and then put this into a wider historical context for today's "high octane speculation"TM.  That one thing is this:

Instead, America would be better served by consolidating all commercial launch-to-orbit-to-landing oversight and regulatory functions within the “prevention” arm of a new “Space Guard.”A Space Guard, initially conceived of by Cynthia McKinley in 2000 and later expounded on by James Bennett in 2011, should optimally mirror the organizational structure of the Coast Guard, which generally separates its mission functions into broad categories of “prevention” and “response.” Prevention authorities are essentially regulatory authorities and response authorities are best categorized as operational authorities.

Yet, despite this separation, Coast Guard prevention and response officers can, and often do, rely on overlapping and mutually supportive sources of authority to execute their respective missions. As noted in the Coast Guard’s foundational document, Publication 1, the Coast Guard’s broad authority to act and “[t]he interrelated nature of the Coast Guard’s missions and culture of adaptability provides the Service with the ability to rapidly shift from one mission to another as national priorities demand” across the entirety of the maritime domain. It excels at protecting those on the sea, protecting the nation against all threats and hazards delivered by the sea, and protecting the sea itself and it is in part the interdependent nature of these authorities that makes the Coast Guard so effective.

Nearly every authority that the United States needs for effective maritime governance is vested within the Coast Guard and the service’s 11 statutory missions cover the full panoply of possible action within the entire maritime domain. This means that the Coast Guard is the lead U.S. federal agency for nearly every matter that takes place within the navigable waters of the United States or that pertains to U.S. vessels or vessels in which the United States may exert jurisdiction. The agency also has wide ranging authority to coordinate and cooperate with other Federal and state agencies and foreign governments, conducts maritime mobility operations like ice-breaking and aid-to-navigation placement and maintenance, and quintessentially can perform any and all acts necessary to rescue and aid persons and protect and save property on and under the high seas and on and under water over with the United States has jurisdiction.All of these authorities translate in the context of space governance.

Implicit in this recommendation is not merely a consolidation all all federal agencies having space-defined missions under a military service branch umbrella, but also something else, and that is an implicit claim to territorial jurisdiction in space. Indeed, I suspect that behind all the talk in recent years for a "space" force and command structure, from pronouncements made during the Obama Administration to the pronouncements of the current president, that what is really being sought is precisely this kind of consolidation and a clear command structure.

Now, why is all of my talk about consolidated command structures, and the possible obsolescence of  nuclear weapons relevant? Indeed, why do I suspect that there are already in existence such covert space forces, and a certain technological exoticness both in propulsion technologies and in weapons technologies, and that they may already have been secretly deployed? Why, in other words, are we seeing the public rollout in the form of these types of discussions? In my second presentation at the 2014 Secret Space Progam conference in San Mateo, California, I pointed out that one of the concerns of the Brookings Report - besides potential contact with extra-terrestrials or their artifacts - was the potential for space-based technologies to (1) engineer the weather and to (2) provide a new form of global communications and hence of financial clearing. (Just for the record, the Brookings Report also mentioned the odd exotic technology or two, things like the "magneto-hydro-dynamic drive" and so on. See my Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations.)

As I pointed out, numerous incidents were recorded of UFO interference against civilian and military aircraft, and later, satellites, in actions that could only have been interpreted by the then-existing national security state as potentially hostile. For Mr. Globaloney, the build-out during the 1960s of the global communications network was crucial to their long-term plans of planetary surveillance, and international financial integration and clearing. Such activity could only have been considered a threat, and they would have responded accordingly. Treaties against the weaponization of space bay be fine for terrestrial nations, but some way would have had to have been found to protect those assets and potential assets. My point wass, space commercialization, and hence the need to militarize space and protect those assets, did not begin in the 21st century with talk of asteroid mining. It was well under way in the 1960s.

And so too, I think, was its militarization. And that means, most likely, was the consolidation of a unified agency and command structure to control it.

Thus, I strongly suspect that what is happening in articles such as the above two, is rather the revelation of something, than its creation.

See you on the flip side...