THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO, “HMMMM”: YET ANOTHER METEOR, OVER EKATERINBURG RUSSIA
October 14, 2013 By
While
we’re on the subject of space for the past couple of days, there is
more, it seems, going on with Russia, which appears to be the country
most under bombardment by the most unusual meteors. And again, so many
of you shared this with me, that not to talk about it would be a kind of dereliction.
There was again another unusual meteor over the Russian city of Ekaterinburg, the city near which, in fact, that Tsar Nicholas II and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks. And it is a sign of the times, perhaps, that the city is again known by that name, and not its Sovietized name of Sverdlovsk, just as St. Petersburg is again St Petersburg, and not Leningrad. And, for those who remember, it was Sverdlovsk that Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 flight was targeted to photograph, since the city was also home to secret Soviet nuclear research facilities.
But I digress.
This story comes complete with a short clip of the Russian television reporting of the event, only a few seconds long, so, be sure to watch the video beneath the close up picture of the meteor, then I’ll comment:
New Russian Meteor? or rocket? You be the judge
Now, I suppose that I could, like most of you, concoct a perfectly “reasonable” and even “scientific” explanation that what we’re looking at really is a meteor, and that the sudden …well… “dispersal” (we have to call it a “dispersal” rather than use provocative and suggestive words like “vaporization” or “disintegration”, because then we’d lose “‘scientific’ ‘objectivity’”) has a perfectly natural explanation, for which we could invent all sorts of ingenious ideas, all perfectly “possible” and therefore entirely reasonable.
But I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen a meteor or two (in fact, several) in my lifetime, and none of them ever traveled this slowly, left a contrail that, well, looked like a contrail, and then appeared to encounter some sort of invisible wall, and thence to appear to disintegrate or vaporize sans any fragments leaving their own contrails as they burned through the atmosphere. The latter, for me, is crucial, and to my mind suggests that we’re not looking at any sort of ordinary meteor here. For if it was a meteor, the lack of fragment contrails after the “encounter” is suggestive that it encountered something rather extraordinary.
In fact, it looked to me rather like whatever the object was(and honestly, folks, it looked more like a rocket to me, fired over a nicely populous area like Ekaterinburg where it, and its disintegration, would be sure to be noticed… we’ll get back to that) encountered a giant invisible “bug zapper” and was just “fried.”
Now, interestingly enough, there is a model for that, and in fact, in my books, I have included documents from World War Two of Allied intelligence reports of a Nazi weapon supposedly doing just that to an Allied bomber that encountered some sort of invisible barrier during a test late in the war, and it was allegedly “zapped”…fried into nothingness. Notably, the Allied intelligence officers filing the report filed it under “fantasy,” and placed no value in the testimony of the German prisoner that claimed he had seen it happen.
It’s the underlying philosophy here that intrigues me, and it’s one that one finds at work again in the 9/11 truth community, where the idea of a directed energy explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers is denied, in part because of the energy requirements being so enormous. Granted, frying a rocket into nothingness would take far less energy than “dustifying” two enormous quarter-mile high buildings, along with some of their contents, but it would still be an enormous amount of energy. Indeed, to similarly ”bug zap” one individual human being into dustification would require prodigious amounts of energy.
And thus, the energy requirements alone are a reason for some to argue, like the Allied intelligence officers with the German prisoner, “impossible. Can’t be done. You didn’t see what you saw.” Out comes the “Secret” stamp, and then the “Fantasy” stamp.
I suggest, however, that such a process is precisely backwards. The people in Ekaterinburg clearly are seeing what we’re seeing, a “meteor” that suddenly just dissolves after appearing to hit some sort of barrier (for which, once again, we can invent all sorts of “natural” and “plausible” sounding “scientific” explanations), and we can invent them for that German prisoner too. But before the theoretical physicists are brought in to cover the blackboard with equations to assure us of the complicated but entirely naturalistic explanations in lieu of the discomforting prospects of the bug zapper, I would offer only the advice that Ockham’s razor cuts both ways, and oftentimes the “scientific” explanations of such phenomena do indeed violate the principle of parsimony for the blizzard of equations, which in this case, the principle of parsimony would seem to suggest, that if the “meteor” looks like it was bug zapped, then that’s the simplest explanation, and therefore, the system to do so, along with the system to produce the prodigious energy, exists. And that moves us out of the “what you saw is impossible and therefore you didn’t see what you saw” philosophy, a philosophy ufologists know all to well was practised by the military on early witnesses of the UFO phenomenon.
And that leads us to the disquieting possibility that, like Chelyabinsk, perhaps messages are being sent, both in the lobbing of the meteor or rocket, and in its zapping. (And I prefer the rocket-bug zapping explanation to the meteor bug-zapping explanation because….well, think about it).
As for who is sending messages to whom, I suggested yesterday that NASA’s recent disclosure that it would slam mined out asteroids into the Moon, and its Magnetic ring propulsion system, might be the tip of a much larger hidden technology iceberg, coming as they do in the geopolitical context of recent geopolitical defeats over Syria at Russia’s hands. The timing of the Ekaterinburg meteor is thus equally suggestive: “We heard your your messages, and hear’s our response: lob your asteroids, and we’ll zap ‘em.” This isn’t the only scenario, of course. One could have Russians shooting down something they launched, Russians shooting down something someone else launched, or shooting down something (a meteor) launched by no one(or perhaps, by someone else out there or down here), or, someone else shooting down something the Russians (or someone else) launched, or someone else shooting down something (a meteor), that no one else launched… and on and on we could go.
But the bottom line remains, I think we’re looking, if not at technologies in the object, then at least the possibility of a technology in its “dissipation”. And that means, messages are being sent, by someone, to someone else. And that means, there’s some Covert Wars and psyops of a celestial scale going on, and, apparently, as I argued in Covert Wars and Clash of Civilizations, some celestial “gun boat diplomacy” perhaps as well.
There was again another unusual meteor over the Russian city of Ekaterinburg, the city near which, in fact, that Tsar Nicholas II and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks. And it is a sign of the times, perhaps, that the city is again known by that name, and not its Sovietized name of Sverdlovsk, just as St. Petersburg is again St Petersburg, and not Leningrad. And, for those who remember, it was Sverdlovsk that Francis Gary Powers’ U-2 flight was targeted to photograph, since the city was also home to secret Soviet nuclear research facilities.
But I digress.
This story comes complete with a short clip of the Russian television reporting of the event, only a few seconds long, so, be sure to watch the video beneath the close up picture of the meteor, then I’ll comment:
New Russian Meteor? or rocket? You be the judge
Now, I suppose that I could, like most of you, concoct a perfectly “reasonable” and even “scientific” explanation that what we’re looking at really is a meteor, and that the sudden …well… “dispersal” (we have to call it a “dispersal” rather than use provocative and suggestive words like “vaporization” or “disintegration”, because then we’d lose “‘scientific’ ‘objectivity’”) has a perfectly natural explanation, for which we could invent all sorts of ingenious ideas, all perfectly “possible” and therefore entirely reasonable.
But I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen a meteor or two (in fact, several) in my lifetime, and none of them ever traveled this slowly, left a contrail that, well, looked like a contrail, and then appeared to encounter some sort of invisible wall, and thence to appear to disintegrate or vaporize sans any fragments leaving their own contrails as they burned through the atmosphere. The latter, for me, is crucial, and to my mind suggests that we’re not looking at any sort of ordinary meteor here. For if it was a meteor, the lack of fragment contrails after the “encounter” is suggestive that it encountered something rather extraordinary.
In fact, it looked to me rather like whatever the object was(and honestly, folks, it looked more like a rocket to me, fired over a nicely populous area like Ekaterinburg where it, and its disintegration, would be sure to be noticed… we’ll get back to that) encountered a giant invisible “bug zapper” and was just “fried.”
Now, interestingly enough, there is a model for that, and in fact, in my books, I have included documents from World War Two of Allied intelligence reports of a Nazi weapon supposedly doing just that to an Allied bomber that encountered some sort of invisible barrier during a test late in the war, and it was allegedly “zapped”…fried into nothingness. Notably, the Allied intelligence officers filing the report filed it under “fantasy,” and placed no value in the testimony of the German prisoner that claimed he had seen it happen.
It’s the underlying philosophy here that intrigues me, and it’s one that one finds at work again in the 9/11 truth community, where the idea of a directed energy explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers is denied, in part because of the energy requirements being so enormous. Granted, frying a rocket into nothingness would take far less energy than “dustifying” two enormous quarter-mile high buildings, along with some of their contents, but it would still be an enormous amount of energy. Indeed, to similarly ”bug zap” one individual human being into dustification would require prodigious amounts of energy.
And thus, the energy requirements alone are a reason for some to argue, like the Allied intelligence officers with the German prisoner, “impossible. Can’t be done. You didn’t see what you saw.” Out comes the “Secret” stamp, and then the “Fantasy” stamp.
I suggest, however, that such a process is precisely backwards. The people in Ekaterinburg clearly are seeing what we’re seeing, a “meteor” that suddenly just dissolves after appearing to hit some sort of barrier (for which, once again, we can invent all sorts of “natural” and “plausible” sounding “scientific” explanations), and we can invent them for that German prisoner too. But before the theoretical physicists are brought in to cover the blackboard with equations to assure us of the complicated but entirely naturalistic explanations in lieu of the discomforting prospects of the bug zapper, I would offer only the advice that Ockham’s razor cuts both ways, and oftentimes the “scientific” explanations of such phenomena do indeed violate the principle of parsimony for the blizzard of equations, which in this case, the principle of parsimony would seem to suggest, that if the “meteor” looks like it was bug zapped, then that’s the simplest explanation, and therefore, the system to do so, along with the system to produce the prodigious energy, exists. And that moves us out of the “what you saw is impossible and therefore you didn’t see what you saw” philosophy, a philosophy ufologists know all to well was practised by the military on early witnesses of the UFO phenomenon.
And that leads us to the disquieting possibility that, like Chelyabinsk, perhaps messages are being sent, both in the lobbing of the meteor or rocket, and in its zapping. (And I prefer the rocket-bug zapping explanation to the meteor bug-zapping explanation because….well, think about it).
As for who is sending messages to whom, I suggested yesterday that NASA’s recent disclosure that it would slam mined out asteroids into the Moon, and its Magnetic ring propulsion system, might be the tip of a much larger hidden technology iceberg, coming as they do in the geopolitical context of recent geopolitical defeats over Syria at Russia’s hands. The timing of the Ekaterinburg meteor is thus equally suggestive: “We heard your your messages, and hear’s our response: lob your asteroids, and we’ll zap ‘em.” This isn’t the only scenario, of course. One could have Russians shooting down something they launched, Russians shooting down something someone else launched, or shooting down something (a meteor) launched by no one(or perhaps, by someone else out there or down here), or, someone else shooting down something the Russians (or someone else) launched, or someone else shooting down something (a meteor), that no one else launched… and on and on we could go.
But the bottom line remains, I think we’re looking, if not at technologies in the object, then at least the possibility of a technology in its “dissipation”. And that means, messages are being sent, by someone, to someone else. And that means, there’s some Covert Wars and psyops of a celestial scale going on, and, apparently, as I argued in Covert Wars and Clash of Civilizations, some celestial “gun boat diplomacy” perhaps as well.
Read more: THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO, "HMMMM": YET ANOTHER METEOR, OVER EKATERINBURG RUSSIA
No comments:
Post a Comment