Revisiting The Rosin Affidavit: The White House’s Asteroid…

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 20, 2017

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:

NASA’s Bold Plan to Save Earth From Killer Asteroids

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:

National Near Earth Objects Preparedness Strategy

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.

See you on the flip side..

Continue Reading At:

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.


NASA Beefs Up Spending On Its Doomsday Asteroid Detection

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 9, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, there’s this reference:

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

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

Continue Reading At:

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

That Laser Asteroid Mini-Death Star Thing Is Back In The News

“Yes, you caught it: I said weapon, for if a weapon can be constructed to vaporize asteroids, say, of small or medium size, imagine what such a weapon might do to buildings or targets on earth, with appropriate phase conjugation to minimize atmospheric effects. Imagine the use of masers, or (worse) grazers(gamma ray lasers), used with interferometry and phase conjugation. And if you’re keeping score, this is another “hit” for Dr. Carol Rosin, who long ago indicated in her affidavit to Dr. Stephen Greer, that the “plan” she had been told by Dr. von Braun, the plan to weaponize space, would first be communists, then terrorists, then nations of concern, then asteroids, and finally, extraterrestrials. We’re in “asteroid phase,” and that suggests something else, and something profoundly disturbing” [Bold Emphasis Added]

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 8, 2016

Some weeks ago – I don’t even remember how long – I blogged about the latest idea that scientists had come up with for defending Earth from asteroid impacts, with high energy lasers, called the DE-STAR. At the time, of course, this was just an idea.

Well, Mr. B.G. found this article and apparently, it has actually undergone it’s first proof of concept experiment:

Scientists develop mini Death Star to protect us from asteroids

Now, here’s the basic idea of the laser asteroid zapper:

The idea has been around for years but the team at the University of California say laboratory tests show their De-Star – or Directed Energy System for Targeting of Asteroids and exploration – could actually work.

They envisage putting an unmanned De-Star craft in orbit. At the first sign of a impending disaster it would target the asteroid with a high-energy laser, causing part of the rock to vaporize in a process known as sublimation.

That ejection of gas would then create sufficient force to alter the course of the rock.

So far, so good, But now here’s the bad news: the proof of concept experiments actually worked:

Continue Reading At:

Russia To Develop ICBM Modifications To Destroy Asteroids

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
February 22, 2016

Ms. K.F. sent this article to us, and it’s worth pondering in the context of all the spate of space-related issues we’re been looking at on this website, particularly with respect to the impending commercialization of space, and its consequent inevitable weaponization.

Before looking at that, however, I’d like to remind readers once again of the amazing affidavit of Dr. Carol Rosin. Dr. Rosin, if one is unfamiliar with her story, was a professional colleague of the late Dr. Wernher von Braun, the German rocket scientist who with his team of other German (and American) engineers, was instrumental in launching the USA into space, and, of course, for providing the technical know-how that ultimately made America’s ICBM and SLBM nuclear capability possible. After his resignation from NASA, von Braun took a position at Fairchild Industries, where he worked closely with Dr. Rosin, where, shortly before his death, he told Dr. Rosin about “the plan” that would be used to put weapons in space. The move would be cloaked behind a progression of “threats”, first Communism(we need a missile defense against those Godless Russians), then terrorists (!), then “nations of concern” would be the excuse to weaponize space (think “axis of evil” here: North Korea, Iran, etc), then asteroids, and finally, extra-terrestrials.

If you’re familiar with Dr. Rosin’s story, she first shared this years ago with “UFO disclosure” advocate Dr. Steven Greer, who published her statements along with many others, in a collection. Dr. Rosin, unfortunately, was not taken too seriously at the time. But then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, 9/11, and… well, you get the idea. We’re now well into the “Asteroid” stage of the Rosin affidavit, and people are less inclined to scoff. I’m in that :”non-scoffing” crowd,

I’ve also been arguing that with the increased commercialization of space and all the talk about asteroid mining and so on, that inevitably this will mean the not just the militarization of space(we’ve got that already, in spades), but its actual weaponization, as companies will need to protect their assets from rivals or “whomever.”

Continue Reading At: