REVISITING THE ROSIN AFFIDAVIT: THE WHITE HOUSE’S ASTEROID ... ~ hehe I'll go EVEN farther out on the limb .... LOL maybe ,just maybe these "weapons" R also fer the "other" critters "out" there .. who maybe ,just maybe R on "their" way ...back ? ya know our "cou~sins" from Wayyyyyyyyyyy back ??? Oops & fucking Oh yea "neither" of em were very nice to ...us ( that's u& me folks)
Mr.
S.D. shared this story, and it's one worth paying attention to, for
while there was all the ruckus and fuss as last year closed about the
Machiavellian super-criminal-mastermind Vladimir Putin - the Fu Manchu
of Russia - and his evil plots to hack Any and All Elections Everywhere,
another quiet story slipped out and almost no one noticed, though NBC
news did do a nice article on it:
But
the real news was this document released last month(Dec., 2016) by the
Obama Administration, and if one reads between the lines a bit, it's a
real whopper doozie:
Before
we get to exactly what the whopper-doozie consists of, however, it's
worth recalling the affidavit of Dr. Carol Rosin, a former professional
associate of Dr. Wernher von Braun at Fairchild Industries after the
latter resigned from NASA. Rosin is, as many regular readers of this
website are also aware, an advocate for the peaceful uses of outer
space, and has been advocating against the weaponization of
space. And well might Dr. Rosin do so, for she also has gone on record
about a "plan" that Dr. von Braun disclosed to her prior to his death,
and an interesting - and discomfortingly "familiar" - plan it is.
According to Rosin in her "Affidavit" first communicated to Dr. Steven
Greer of "UFO disclosure" fame, Dr. von Braun told her that the plan to
weaponize space would first appeal to the Communist threat, meaning
Russia's thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the USA(Reagan's
Strategic Defense Initiative, anyone?), then the appeal would be to
terrorists, then would come "nations of concern" with emerging nuclear
arsenals and crazy kooky leaders (North Korea, anyone?), then would come
asteroids (notice how asteroid defense is the topic of the day?), and
finally, of course, would come the extraterrestrial threat, and the need
to defend ourselves against it. Of course, at that time and for a long
time afterward, many people thought Dr. Rosin was...well, just a little
bit "out there." Not this author. And she, or rather, Dr. von Braun, has
been proven incredibly accurate...
...
for we're now at the penultimate stage of "the plan to weaponize
space." The real question now, is, weaponize it with what? Defend Earth
from "near Earth objects" with what?
This is where it gets really interesting, for note the first thing about this paper: the title of the paper is not "National Near Earth Asteroids Preparedness Strategy," but rather "National Near Earth Objects
Preparedness Strategy." In other words, the wording itself can be taken
as indicative of the last two phases of Dr. Rosin's Affidavit of what
she maintains Dr. von Braun told her. I've met Dr. Rosin and on occasion
corresponded with her, and I have absolutely no reason to
doubt her or her integrity. If she says von Braun told her about this
plan, then he told her about it. And the proof of this, it would seem to
me, is in the title of this "national preparedness strategy" paper.
Language means things, and has to be parsed very carefully, especially
when coming from officialdom: "near Earth objects" could mean
just about anything that's out there, from asteroids, to asteroids being
"steered" toward us, to objects not natural at all, like UFOs and
spaceships.
So what's the whopper
doozie? Direct your attention to page 8 after reading the rest of the
document, where a great deal of discussion is given to reconnaissance
technologies that can sense the mass and chemical composition of "near
Earth Objects" and be able to be launched from Earth or near Earth orbit
quickly in order to determine the nature of the threat and
therefore the appropriate technological response. I submit that even
though this has obvious applications to asteroid detection and defense,
it's that "quick response" part that suggests that their is a dual
purpose to this technology.
Then, beginning on page 8, one reads:
Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption:
Several
studies over the last two decades have pointed out that technologies
exist that may be capable of preventing a NEO impact, and that true
preparedness may need to include the ability to deflect (turn away) or
disrupt (break into small pieces) a NEO headed towards Earth. The NEO
population is quite diverse, a fact which presents significant unknowns
when considering how to develop technologies capable of deflecting or
disrupting the object. Observations, including optical and planetary
radar (when objects are accessible for observation), over many years may
improve our understanding of the composition, mass, and behavior of any
particular object (see Goal 1, above), which in turn could improve
design of deflection technologies.
Disruption
of the NEO may be required if there is little warning time or if the
object is very large. Technologies to deflect the NEO away from Earth
can be used, but to either disrupt or deflect a very large object,
research and development of high-energy solutions is required.
The following objectives would improve deflection and disruption capabilities:
•Develop capabilities for fast-response focused reconnaissance and characterization.
The
objective of Goal 1 is to provide timely, high -certainty, actionable
warning that a NEO threat exists, but because of the diversity of NEOs
an effective deflection or disruption mission may need more detailed
information on the specific threat. One candidate concept for this
objective would be a capability to rapidly launch, intercept, and
conduct reconnaissance on a NEO, to provide up-close imagery,
composition , and mass measurements (e.g., passive (visible,
thermal,multi/hyperspectral) and active (radar, LIDAR, etc.) imaging
techniques) in order to determine ways to enhance the effectiveness of
any subsequent deflection or disruption missions.
• Research deflection and disruption capabilities for NEOs of varying size, mass, composition, and impact warning times.
With
enough warning time, a NEO impact can be prevented. To address most
impact scenarios, prevention capabilities should include the ability to
achieve timely effects and feedback, for example: to launch a deflector
or disruptor that can rapidly reach the object; conduct rendezvous and
proximity operations when needed; and deploy kinetic impactors or other technologies.
Additionally, deploying an instrumented means to measure the deflection
over time can provide assurance of mission success. Where practical,
real world demonstration
of the deflection or disruption
technique to test effectiveness and reduce uncertainties should be
pursued, particularly when this can be done as a part of a mission to an
asteroid or comet with broader science and exploration objectives. An assessment of the technical, policy, and legal
issues with regard to delivering and triggering a high-energy device to
deflect or disrupt NEO impact threat objects will be required.
• Research technologies required for deflection and disruption concepts.
Given
the potential short time between first detection and potential NEO
impact, precursor reconnaissance of the object may not be possible. To
improve mission success, some key technologies to be developed include:
o Rapid assessment capabilities for ground -based, orbital, and deep-space systems.
o
Fast orbit transfers to maximize momentum transfer for kinetic
impactors or maximize distance from Earth at point of intercept for
deflection missions. High-acceleration maneuvering, near the point of
intercept, is critical for optimized intercept locations and course
corrections immediately before intercept.
o
Algorithms and on-board artificial intelligence for short-notice
disruption missions to self-assess the optimal time and location for
interception or disruption. (Emphases added)
Note
two things here, and they both relate to the high octane speculation
I've been advancing in recent years. That speculation - that hypothesis
- may be very simply stated: with the inevitable commericalization of
space goes its inevitable militarization and weaponization, as
competitors will need to protect themselves not only from each other,
but from "anyone else" out there. Thus, the detection equipment being argued for in this paper could readily serve two purposes: both reconnaissance of objects for their potential commerical value,
for note the idea in the paper of assessing the composition of such
objects, and reconnaissance for their potential threat. And all of this
is for rapid deployment. Thus, commercialization and commerce are clearly implied.
And
that commercialization brings us chin-to-chin with the militarization
aspects of the paper, for note the references to "kinetic impactors,"
which we may take to mean masses shot at an object as such extreme
velocity that even a small inert mass would, through the energy of the
velocity itself transferred to the object, destroy it, according to the
well-known formula we learned in elementary school, F=ma(or if one
prefers the Newtonian, non-relativistic version, E=mv). In other words,
what is euphemistically being described here is an electromagnetic railgun,
scaled up a bit perhaps to lob a big enough mass fast enough to take
out small to medium or medium-large asteroids. Thus, once one has parsed
this little statement to realize that only such a technology would fulfill the requirements of a "kinetic impactor" able to "disrupt" a "near Earth object"
(which, again, could be anything, from a near Earth asteroid, to a
human satellite from Earth, to...well, you know...) then the "other
technologies" being talked about while not-being-talked about in vague
language leaves one wondering just what else is in the classified
version of this document (and trust me, there probably is one).
A hint is supplied later with the reference to "delivering and
triggering a high-energy device to deflect or disrupt NEO impact objects
will be required." High energy "device" is an obvious code, in my
opinion, for a thermonuclear weapon, for "device" is the favored
euphemism for such bombs. But again, the ambiguity of the language could
suggest high energy devices of a very different sort, namely, exotic
energy weapons of a non-nuclear-bomb nature, that have to be "delivered"
to an operational range that makes them effective, and then
"triggered."
To
put all this country simple: the document is talking about the
weaponization of space, folks, and that means that the final stage in
Dr. Rosin's affidavit has taken another step closer.
Posts
