The supernova that just won't fade away

21 July 2005
Scientists have found that a star that exploded in 1979 is as bright today in X-ray light as it was when it was discovered years ago, a surprise finding because such objects usually fade significantly after only a few months.

Using ESA’s XMM-Newton space observatory, a team of astronomers has discovered that this supernova, called SN 1979C, shows no sign of fading. The scientists can document a unique history of the star, both before and after the explosion, by studying rings of light left over from the blast, similar to counting rings in a tree trunk.
“This 25-year-old candle in the night has allowed us to study aspects of a star explosion never before seen in such detail,” said Dr Stefan Immler, leader of the team, from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, USA. “All the important information that usually fades away in a couple of months is still there.”

Among the many unique finds is the history of the star’s stellar wind dating back 16 000 years before the explosion. Such a history is not even known about our Sun. Also, the scientists could measure the density of the material around the star, another first. The lingering mystery, though, is how this star could fade away in visible light yet remain so radiant in X-rays.


XMM-Newton image of X-ray light from the galaxy M100
Stars explode when they run out of fuel to burn. Stars more than 10 times the mass of our Sun will explode in an event called a ‘core-collapse supernova’.

Without fuel and thus energy to support their gravity, such stars first implode. The core reaches a critical density, and much of the collapsing matter gets bounced back out violently into space by powerful shockwaves.

Supernovae can outshine an entire galaxy and are often easily seen in neighbouring galaxies with simple amateur telescopes. Supernovae are typically half as bright after about ten days and fade steadily after that, regardless of the wavelength.

SN 1979C has in fact faded in optical light by a factor of 250 becoming barely visible with a good amateur telescope. In X-rays, however, this supernova is still the brightest object in its host galaxy, M100, in the constellation ‘Coma Berenices’.

In identifying the history of the star that created SN 1979C, the team found that this star, about 18 times more massive than our Sun, produced fierce stellar winds. That material was flung into space for millions of years, creating concentric rings around the star.

The X-rays - produced after the explosion when the supernova shock caught up with the stellar wind and heated it to a temperature of several million degrees - illuminated 16 000 years’ worth of stellar activity.


“We can use the X-ray light from SN 1979C as a ‘time machine’ to study the life of a dead star long before it exploded,” said Immler.

The detailed analysis was only possible because SN 1979C has not yet faded away. Scientists have 25 years’ worth of data in a variety of wavelengths, from radio waves through to optical/ultraviolet and X-rays. They speculate that the abundance of stellar wind has provided ample material to keep SN 1979C glowing so brightly.

The team also captured a rare glimpse of the ultraviolet radiation from the supernova using XMM-Newton. The ultraviolet image independently confirms what the X-ray analysis found: that the circumstellar material – covering a region 25 times larger than our Solar System - has a relatively high density of 10 000 atoms per cubic centimetre, or about 1000 times denser than the wind from our Sun. The ultraviolet image also shows galaxy M100 in detail never seen before.

“XMM-Newton is known among scientists as a superior X-ray observatory, but the study of SN 1979 demonstrates the importance of the satellite's simultaneously observing ultraviolet and optical telescope,” said Dr Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton Project Scientist at ESA's European Space Astronomy Centre (ESAC) in Spain.

For more information:

Norbert Schartel, ESA XMM-Newton Project Scientist
E-mail: norbert.schartel @ sciops.esa.int

Stefan Immler, lead author of the results, NASA GSFC
E-mail: immler @ milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov

The findings will appear in the 10 October issue of Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 10 October 2005, v632 1), "Late-Time X-Ray, UV and Optical Monitoring of Supernova 1979C".

(Authors: Stefan Immler, Robert A. Fesen, Schuyler D. Van Dyk, Kurt W. Weiler, Robert Petre, Walter H. G. Lewin, David Pooley, Wolfgang Pietsch, Bernd Aschenbach, Molly C. Hammell, and Gwen C. Rudie)

Paper available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503678

Freedom Society?

Water ice in crater at Martian north pole

28 July 2005,

The HRSC on ESA's Mars Express obtained this perspective view on 2 February 2005 during orbit 1343 with a ground resolution of approximately 15 metres per pixel.
It shows an unnamed impact crater located on Vastitas Borealis, a broad plain that covers much of Mars's far northern latitudes, at approximately 70.5° North and 103° East.

The crater is 35 kilometres wide and has a maximum depth of approximately 2 kilometres beneath the crater rim. The circular patch of bright material located at the centre of the crater is residual water ice.

The colours are very close to natural, but the vertical relief is exaggerated three times. The view is looking east.


Credits: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)
Source: European Space Agency

Coop Radio Schedule, July-September 2005

Hydrocarbon lake at Titan's south pole?

29 June 2005

The NASA/ESA/ASI Cassini spacecraft has identified an intriguing dark feature that may be the site of a past or present lake of liquid hydrocarbons at Titan's south pole.



This feature, seen here at left of centre, is unique in our exploration of Titan so far. Its perimeter is intriguingly reminiscent of the shorelines of lakes on Earth that are smoothed by water erosion and deposition.
The feature lies in Titan's cloudiest region, where frequent convective storm clouds have been observed by Cassini and Earth-based astronomers. This is presumably the most likely site of recent methane rainfall.

It is possible that some of the storms in this region are strong enough to make methane rain that reaches the surface. Given Titan's cold temperatures, it could take a long time for any liquid methane collecting on the surface to evaporate, so a methane-filled lake could persist for a long time.

Despite earlier predictions, no definitive evidence for open bodies of liquid has been found on Titan. Cassini has not yet been in a favourable position for using its cameras to check for glints of light from possible liquid surfaces in the south polar region.

Eventually, as the seasons change over a few years, the convective clouds may migrate northward to lower latitudes. If so, Cassini's cameras may record changes in the appearance of the surface as well.

Although the true nature of this feature is not yet known, if this interpretation is correct, then other very dark but smaller features seen in the south polar region, some of which are captured in this image, may also be the sites of liquid hydrocarbon reservoirs.

An alternative explanation is that this feature was once a lake, but has since dried up, leaving behind dark deposits. Yet another possibility is that the lake is simply a broad depression filled by dark, solid hydrocarbons falling from the atmosphere onto Titan's surface. In this case, the smoothed outline might be the result of a process unrelated to rainfall, such as a sinkhole or a volcanic caldera.

The Cassini spacecraft took a series of images over several minutes with its narrow-angle camera during a distant fly-by on 6 June 2005. The images were combined to produce this sharper view of Titan's surface.

The suspected lake area measures 234 kilometres long by 73 kilometres wide, about the size of Lake Ontario on the US-Canadian border.

A red cross below centre in the scene marks the south pole. The brightest features seen here are methane clouds.

For more information:

Jean-Pierre Lebreton, ESA Huygens Mission Manager
E-mail: jplebret @ rssd.esa.int

Terror: 911 days after 9/11

AFP March 12, 2004
Madrid - Spanish officials, stunned by co-ordinated bomb blasts in Madrid on Thursday that killed 192 people and wounded more than 1 400, said they were keeping their lines of investigation open after clues emerged possibly implicating Basque or Islamic militants.

The atrocity, which Spanish media and officials described as "our own September 11", came exactly two and a half years after the attacks in New York and Washington, or 911 days, and just three days before general elections that the ruling conservative Popular Party is widely expected to win.

The carnage, carried out in four trains and three railway stations in the southeast of the capital in morning rush-hour, was the worst terror attack in Europe since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people.

Spanish King Juan Carlos said in a televised address to the people after visiting survivors in one of the city's hospitals, "A nightmare has struck showing terrorism's cruel face."

"Your king is suffering with all of you and shares your indignation."

The news of possible al-Qaeda involvement sent stock markets and the US dollar plummeting.

The Dow Jones index in New York slid more than one percent, following European indices down. The dollar weakened against the euro, which went from 1.2222 dollars late on Wednesday to 1.2352 on Thursday.

Source: Infowars.com
Edited by Trisha Shannon

STS-48 Space Shuttle Video

On September 15, 1991, between 20:30 and 20:45 Greenwich Mean Time, the TV camera located at the back of Space Shuttle Discovery's cargo bay was trained on the Earth's horizon while the astronauts were occupied with other tasks. A glowing object suddenly appeared just below the horizon and "slowly" moved from right to left and slightly upward in the picture. Several other glowing objects had been visible before this, and had been moving in various directions. Then a flash of light occurred at what seemed to be the lower left of the screen; and the main object, along with the others, changed direction and accelerated away sharply, as if in response to the flash. Shortly thereafter a streak of light moved through the region vacated by the main object, and then another streak moved through the right of the screen, where two of the other objects had been. Roughly 65 seconds after the main flash, the TV camera rotated down, showing a fuzzy picture of the side of the cargo bay. It then refocused, turned toward the front of the cargo bay, and stopped broadcasting. There have been several scientific analyses supporting the anomalous nature of objects in the STS-48 video.


Examination of Object Trajectories in the STS-48 "UFO" Video

Abstract

A frame overlay method previously applied by Carlotto to the STS-48 video frames revealed that some of the unidentified objects followed curved trajectories, indicating that they experienced prolonged periods of acceleration that cannot be attributed to the relatively brief firing of a shuttle thruster rocket acting on nearby debris particles. The same method was reapplied to the video but over considerably longer periods of elapsed video time than those originally covered by Carlotto. It was found that two of the objects changed their courses from initially linear trajectories to highly curved trajectories. This and other details revealed by the longer time span overlays tend to rule out explanations for the path curvature that would be consistent with the shuttle debris interpretation. Rather, the newly-revealed aspects of the objectsí trajectories strongly support Carlottoís interpretation: that the path curvatures are evidence that some of the objects are large, self-propelled, and closer to the Earthís horizon than to the space shuttle. 

Introduction

In a 1999 paper  [#1] on objects appearing in a video sequence recorded by the Space Shuttle Discovery on September 15, 1991 during the STS-48 mission, Carlotto showed that several of the objects have trajectories with a small but noticeable curvature. This can be seen in Figure 1, an image copied from that paper. Carlotto constructed this image by combining frames taken from the video at regular time intervals of 1/3 second. This curvature suggests that the objects were accelerating in the absence of any external force and therefore may have been self-propelled. Records obtained from NASA show that none of the space shuttleís thrusters were firing during the time period covered by this composite image and so could not have provided the accelerating force necessary to deflect the objects from linear paths.


Figure 1. Carlotto's "time exposure" from reference  [#1 ]. The straight-line segment near the center is the North Star Polaris. 
 
Two possible explanations have been suggested for the curved trajectories that do not require any extraordinary conclusions to be drawn:
1. The curvature is a distortion of the image caused by the camera itself.
2. The curvature is real, but the objects are ice particles accelerated away from the sun by the pressure of ice sublimating into gas from the particles' surfaces heated by exposure to sunlight in the vacuum of space.
To evaluate the validity of these explanations, time exposure composite images were constructed with Carlotto's method but using much larger time intervals between captured frames. Composites using larger time intervals provide a view of the objects' behavior over wider time spans and reveal some remarkable aspects of these objects' behavior not evident over the shorter time spans previously investigated by Carlotto. They also show possible evidence of the shuttle thruster firing that has been suggested as the cause of the objectsí motions by proponents of the hypothesis that the objects are shuttle debris. Both of these subjects are discussed here.
 
A View of Object Trajectories Over Two Minutes

The images shown in Figure 2 used intervals of 5 seconds between video frames rather than Carlotto's 1/3 second. The light flash originating in the upper left of the video occurs about midway through the two-minute period of time represented by this image.


Figure 2. Time exposure of the right-hand section of the STS-48 video. Objects are labeled as in Reference in right-hand image. White arrows indicate directions of motion. Black arrows indicate positions of objects M5 and M6 at the time of the light flash. Path of M6 is delineated in red. 
 
The positions of objects M5 and M6 indicated by the black arrows clearly show that they both responded to the light flash with radical changes in course, but not in a way that would be expected for small debris particles responding to the firing of a shuttle thruster. Object M5 immediately alters its original linear course and can be seen to follow a curved trajectory for more than one minute, until the camera pans down toward the cargo bay. The shuttle's L5D vernier thruster, which has been suggested as the cause of the objectsí motion, fired for only 1.2 seconds. If M5 were a debris particle, the curved segment of its path could exist for only 1.2 seconds, well below the time resolution of the time exposure composite of Figure 2.
At the moment of the light flash, Object M6 alters its course from one linear trajectory (from lower right toward the upper left) to a different but still linear course (moving almost straight up in the image). This course change would be consistent with a debris particle responding to a thruster firing, but there is a second course change that is not. The second change in course puts M6 on a trajectory curving to the left, again indicating some force began accelerating the object about 15 seconds after its initial response to the light flash.
The first object to appear in the STS-48 video sequence, designated M0 by Carlotto, also was found to have a strongly curved path as shown in Figure 3. A second object, designated here as M10, follows a nearly linear path with a slight bend near the time of the light flash.

Figure 3. Time exposure showing the curvature in Object M0ís trajectory. The small white arrow indicates the position at which the object first appears. The black arrow shows its position near the moment of the light flash. Large arrows show directions of motion of M0, city lights, and a second object designated M10 that appeared after M0 and moving in the opposite direction. Time interval between overlaid frames is 5 seconds. 
 
It is the changes from linear to curvilinear motion of Objects M5 and M6 that most strongly suggests that neither "prosaic" explanation for the objects' curved trajectories can be correct, as discussed in more detail below. 
 
Curvatures Introduced by Lens Distortion

If "barrel distortion" of the sort associated with wide-angle lenses were responsible for the curved trajectories, then the most highly curved section of Object M6's path should be the section running straight up toward the top of the image, with the convex side of the curve facing to the right. As shown in the wide-angle photograph [#2] of Figure 4, barrel distortion is most pronounced at the outer edges of the image where M6 follows a straight path. It seems very unlikely that the lens used for the STS-48 video should show any noticeable distortion at all.
"Wide-angle" lenses are those having fields of view greater than about 90 degrees on the diagonal, but the camera used for the STS-48 video had a field of view diagonal of only 50 degrees -- a standard field of view for which no noticeable lens distortions should be expected. Even for photographs taken with a wide-angle lens, the curvature introduced is only detectable in linear features running over a large portion of the photograph, unless the lens angle is extremely wide (e.g., "fish-eye" lenses). The curvature in the column of Figure 4 is unnoticeable over the small section shown in inset on the lower left.

Figure 4 Example of a wide-angle image. Curvature of columns and window frames is "barrel distortion" associated with the wide-angle lens. The inset at lower left demonstrates that the curvature caused by the lens cannot be detected over a small fraction of the image length. Photograph from reference [#2].
A quantitative measure of an arcís curvature is the radius of a circle as a function of the chord length, L, connecting the two end points of the arc and of its maximum height, H, above the chord at its center:
The smaller the radius of curvature, the greater the arc's curvature is considered to be. Expressed as fractions of the respective image diagonals, the radius of curvature of the column in Figure 4 is 1.4 times the length of the photographís diagonal and the radius of curvature of the path of Object M5 is 0.1 times the diagonal of the STS-48 camera's field of view. The curvature of M5's path in the STS-48 video, taken by a camera with a normal field of view, is thus about 14 times greater than the curvature introduced by barrel distortion in the moderately wide-angle photograph. In other words, if the arc of M5's path were continued to complete a circle, it would fill only 20% of the image's diagonal length. A circle similarly drawn to complete the arc of the column would not fit in the photograph; it would require an area more than 2.8 times larger than the photographís diagonal.
Object M0 is very close to M10, whose path shows no sign of curvature. Barrel distortion should affect linear features in proximity to each other about equally. Finally, the convex side of the curvature of M0ís path points in the wrong direction for the curvature to be attributed to barrel distortion. Barrel distortion would cause the convex side of the curve to be on the left because the object is left of the center of the FOV. But the convex side of M0ís path points to the right, as do the paths of M5 and M6 on the right side of the image. 
 
Sublimation as a Propulsive Force

There is nothing substantive to support the lens distortion interpretation of the curvature and conclusive evidence against it. Sublimation of ice from the objects themselves, however, would seem a much more plausible explanation, assuming that the objects are small ice particles.
All of the objectsí path curvatures have their convex sides to the right, so whatever propulsive forces were involved were deflecting the objects toward the left. Water ice sublimates (transforms directly from solid to vapor) in a vacuum at a temperature of -73 degrees C. The equilibrium temperature of ice particles exposed to sunlight is largely dependent on the concentration of heat-absorbing impurities in the ice, a factor that is difficult to estimate. Sunlight was coming from the lower right in the camera field of view. If the objects were ice particles, their sunward surfaces would have been heated to a higher temperature than surfaces facing away from the sun. The pressure generated by the ejection of any sublimated water vapor from the particle surfaces would have been greater on the sunward side, resulting in a net force deflecting the objects toward the left as seen in the video. This much is consistent with the sublimation hypothesis.
However, if the objects were ice particles propelled by sublimation, then it seems likely that all of them would have followed curvilinear paths from the moment they entered the camera's field of view because all were exposed to sunlight the entire time. While M0ís path is, in fact, initially curved and remains so until it reacts to the light flash, the paths of M5 and M6 are initially linear. Object M5 changes from a linear to a curvilinear path at the exact time of the light flash. It would seem a highly unlikely coincidence that an ice particle, initially colder than the temperature at which sublimation occurs, would be heated to the sublimation temperature exactly at the time the light flash occurred. No indication of curvature can be seen in M6ís path until around 30 seconds after it has entered the cameraís field of view. Object M6 changes course at the moment of the light flash, but remains on a linear trajectory until just before reaching the horizon -- another seemingly implausible coincidence.
Carlotto hypothesized that M5, M6, and M7 all followed curvilinear trajectories at the horizon because they were moving around the curvature of the Earth. While M0 was not at the horizon, it, too, may have been following the curvature of the Earth. This would explain why all the observed curvatures have their convex sides pointing to the right, which is also the orientation of the Earthís curvature. If M5 and M6 were really near the horizon, they would have been traveling at velocities considerably greater than orbital velocities. Self-propulsion, in addition to the Earthís acceleration, would have been necessary to maintain these trajectories.
Also of possible significance is that the path of Object M0, which initially curves away from the sun, shows a small deflection toward the sun after the light flash event. As shown in Figure 5, the final position of M0 is to the right and below the position it would have had if it were following a linear trajectory. This sunward curvature in M0's path is inconsistent with the sublimation hypothesis.

Figure 5. Enlargement of time-exposure overlay showing deflection of Object M0 toward the lower right, the direction of the sun, after the light flash. Object M1 shows no detectable deflection from its linear course prior to the light flash event. The object designated M11 also changes course at the moment of the light flash but then resumes its original heading. Arrows indicate direction of object motion.
The object designated M11 in Figure 5 is one of several objects not previously noted, probably due to its faintness relative to other objects. But the track it leaves on the time-exposure overlay is worth comment. Like the better-known M1, M11 makes its first appearance at the horizon, repeating that remarkable spatial coincidence (note that the track of a bright star ends very close to the point where the object appeared). The object veers from its original course at the moment of the light flash. With seeming stubbornness, it resumes its original heading about 30 seconds after the light flash and in opposition to any propulsive force generated by sublimation if it were an ice particle. 
 
A Linearly Accelerating Object

About a minute after the light flash and associated changes in object trajectories, the camera begins panning down to the cargo bay. There are two more instances of objects moving at a high enough angular speed to leave streaks on the image. What is of interest is that one of them is increasing in angular speed as it moves from the bottom to the top of the field of view. A time-exposure composite of this object is shown in Figure 6. Because the camera was moving, the frames used were registered to the position of one of several objects that appeared to be stationary relative to each other and so very probably stationary relative to the shuttle. As can be seen in the inset at the lower right, the object is moving faster just before it exits the field of view than when it entered. The measured increase in angular velocity is 25% to 30%.

Figure 6. Time exposure overlay of an object moving at a high angular rate 1 minute after the light flash event. The object's position is shown at half-second intervals except at the top, which is near its final position before it exited the field of view due to its own motion and the panning of the camera. The elapsed time between that position and its previous position at C is 0.87 seconds. 
 
There are two possible explanations for the apparent increase in speed: either the object is approaching the shuttle or it is accelerating through space. The decrease in brightness with time seems to rule out the possibility that the object is approaching the shuttle. The maximum brightness measured for the object decreases from 164 DN where it first appears in the FOV to 100 DN near the point where it exits the FOV. The background brightness of outer space at this point in the video is about 52. Taking 52 DN as the baseline value for "black," in the image, the object's maximum brightness relative to the background decreases from 112 to 48. That is more than a 50% decrease in brightness. The increased velocity of the object could itself account for some of the decrease in brightness, since the total amount of illumination of a pixel is proportional to how much time it takes for a light source to move across it. But the ~30% increase in speed would account for only about a 25% decrease in brightness, only half of the observed decrease.
Therefore, the brightness decrease seems to be due primarily to the object moving away from the shuttle. If so, then its linear acceleration is greater than the apparent increase in its angular velocity would suggest. An object moving at a constant linear speed away from the camera would appear to slow down rather than accelerate, and a linear acceleration would be necessary just to maintain a constant angular speed relative to the camera.
This object appears approximately one minute after the firing of the shuttleís L5D thrusters and one minute before the next thruster firing. As was the case for objects following curved trajectories, there is no apparent external source of propulsion to account for the increase in speed, suggesting that it, too, may have been self-propelled. 
 
Star Tracks and the Shuttle Thruster Firing
In Figure 2, it can be seen that there are fairly distinct bends in the tracks made by stars, including Polaris. These bend points occur close to the point in time at which the light flash event occurred. Of course, a flash of light cannot affect the paths of stars, so the apparent change in the direction of the stars' motion can only be due to a movement of the camera or the shuttle itself. It is the author's opinion that this course change is due to the firing of the space shuttle's L5D vernier thruster. This may seem at first glance to be good evidence that the flash of light was also caused by the thruster, implying that all of the objects that reacted to the light flash are in fact merely small debris particles, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
But a closer examination reveals that, if anything, the star tracks indicate the light flash may have occurred at a time between 5 and 10 seconds after the thruster firing. As can be seen in the enlargement of the time exposure overlay of Figure 7, the position at the time of the light flash of each star shown does not seem to fall at the intersection of the track it followed prior to the thruster firing and the track it followed afterward. Instead, it appears that the position each star occupied 5 seconds before the light flash is closer to the point in time at which the direction of motion changed.
In a previous article  [#3]  by the author it was proposed that the best estimate for the time of the light flash was 6.5 to 8.5 seconds after the thruster firing. That estimate was derived from data on the shuttle's position and the transit of the star Polaris of the Earth atmosphere's airglow layer and was completely independent of what these star tracks appear to show. 
 

Figure 7. An enlargement of a time exposure overlay using frames at 5-second intervals. Arrows indicate positions of five stars at the time of the light flash event. The positions of the stars at the point just above and 5 seconds prior to the light flash appear to fall closest to the intersection of the tracks before and after the thruster firing. 
 
However, there is probably too much scatter in the data to establish any statistical basis for concluding that the time-exposure images support a time difference of 5 to 10 seconds between the rocket firing and the light flash. The positions of one of the stars shown in Figure 7 (Zeta Octantis) were programmatically reduced to points. The program identified the star image for each time interval as the set of contiguous pixels above a certain threshold brightness value. It then computed the point position of the star as the average of the pixel positions weighted by their brightness above the local background brightness.
As shown in the left-hand part of Figure 8, the result for the time exposure seem to support the subjective impression that the light flash occurred 5 to 8 seconds after the change in the star's course, which would rule out any causal relationship between the two events. But when more points are added by the same procedure applied to two other time-exposure images, it is less clear at what position the change in the star's course occurred as shown by the right-hand part of Figure 8.

Figure 8. Left: Track of the star Zeta Octantis at 5-second intervals with image s of the star reduced to a point. The arrow labeled "0" marks the starís position at the time of the light flash. Other lines indicate position of the star 5 and 10 seconds prior to the light flash. Right: The track of the same star but with additional points offset by 2 and 4 seconds from the light flash added.
Perhaps a better point-identification algorithm or a larger sample of video frames would produce statistically significant results, but this seems doubtful. It appears that the video resolution is simply insufficient to determine the time of the course change within a span of a few seconds. While these results do not positively support the previous estimate of the time elapsed between the rocket firing and the light flash, they also do not contradict it. 
 
Conclusion

All of the objects in the STS-48 video discussed here were near or below the resolution of the camera and they do not differ in appearance from small debris particles near the shuttle. This lack of resolution has been cited as one of the reasons to assume that the objects are, in fact, shuttle debris. But it is obvious that other objects in the video that also "look like" debris particles in a single video frame are actually stars. It is the uniform linear motion of the stars when the video is run that clearly distinguishes the stars from any nearby shuttle debris. Similarly, it is the curvilinear motions of the unidentified objects in the video and the change of some of them from linear to curvilinear trajectories (and back again to linear in the case of M11) that most strongly distinguishes them from drifting shuttle debris. These trajectories are inconsistent with those of debris propelled either by a shuttle thruster or by sublimation. They are, however, consistent with the flight paths of large self-propelled objects moving around the curvature of the Earth.


References

1 Mark Carlotto, "Digital Video Analysis of Anomalous Space Objects" 
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 45-63, 1995 
2. From PCWorld.Com 
URL: http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,80884,00.asp 
3. Lan Fleming, " A New Look at the Evidence Supporting a Prosaic Explanation of the STS-48 "UFO" Video" 
URL: http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n02/a/NFS0202a.shtml

Background of the HAARP Project

Prepared by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH

Military interest in space became intense during and after World War II because of the introduction of rocket science, the companion to nuclear technology. The early versions include the buzz bomb and guided missiles. They were thought of as potential carriers of both nuclear and conventional bombs.

Rocket technology and nuclear weapon technology developed simultaneously between 1945 and 1963. During this time of intensive atmospheric nuclear testing, explosions at various levels above and below the surface of the earth were attempted. Some of the now familiar descriptions of the earth's protective atmosphere, such as the existence of the Van Allen belts, were based on information gained through stratospheric and ionospheric experimentation.

The earth's atmosphere consists of the troposphere, from sea level to about 16 km above the earth's surface; the stratosphere (which contains the ozone level) which extends from about the 16 to 48 km above the earth; and the ionosphere which extends from 48 km to over 50,000 km above the surface of the earth.

The earth's protective atmosphere or "skin" extends beyond 3,200 km above sea level to the large magnetic fields, called the Van Allen Belts, which can capture the charged particles sprayed through the cosmos by the solar and galactic winds. These belts were discovered in 1958 during the first weeks of the operation of America's first satellite, Explorer I. They appear to contain charged particles trapped in the earth's gravity and magnetic fields. Primary galactic cosmic rays enter the solar system from interstellar space, and are made up of protons with energies above 100 MeV, extending up to astronomically high energies. They make up about 100 percent of the high energy rays. Solar rays are generally of lower energy, below 20 MeV (which is still high energy in earth terms). These high energy particles are affected by the earth's magnetic field and by geomagnetic latitude (distance above or below the geomagnetic equator). The flux density of low energy protons at the top of the atmosphere is normally greater at the poles than at the equator. The density also varies with solar activity, being at a minimum when solar flares are at a minimum.

The Van Allen belts capture charged particles (protons, electrons and alpha particles) and these spiral along the magnetic force lines toward the polar regions where the force lines converge. They are reflected back and forth between the magnetic force lines near the poles. The lower Van Allen Belt is about 7700 km above the earth's surface, and the outer Van Allen Belt is about 51,500 km above the surface. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Van Allen belts are most intense along the equator, and effectively absent over the poles. They dip to 400 km over the South Atlantic Ocean, and are about 1,000 km high over the Central Pacific Ocean. In the lower Van Allen Belt, the proton intensity is about 20,000 particles with energy above 30 MeV per second per square centimeter. Electrons reach a maximum energy of 1 MeV, and their intensity has a maximum of 100 million per second per square centimeter. In the outer Belt, proton energy averages only 1 MeV. For compar-ison, most charged particles discharged in a nuclear explosion range between 0.3 and 3 MeV, while diagnostic medical X-ray has peak voltage around 0.5 MeV.

Project Argus (1958)

Between August and September 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth's surface. In addition, two hydrogen bombs were detonated 160 km over Johnston Island in the Pacific. The military called this "the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken." It was designed by the US Department of Defense and the US Atomic Energy Commission, under the code name Project Argus. The purpose appears to be to assess the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmission and radar operations because of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and to increase understanding of the geomagnetic field and the behavior of the charged particles in it.

This gigantic experiment created new (inner) magnetic radiation belts encompassing almost the whole earth, and injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the ionosphere to cause world wide effects. The electrons traveled back and forth along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial "aurora" when striking the atmosphere near the North Pole.

The US Military planned to create a "telecommunications shield" in the ionosphere, reported in 13-20 August 1961, Keesings Historisch Archief (K.H.A.). This shield would be created "in the ionosphere at 3,000 km height, by bringing into orbit 350,000 million copper needles, each 2-4 cm long [total weight 16 kg], forming a belt 10 km thick and 40 km wide, the needles spaced about 100 m apart." This was designed to replace the ionosphere "because telecommunications are impaired by magnetic storms and solar flares." The US planned to add to the number of copper needles if the experiment proved to be successful. This plan was strongly opposed by the Intentional Union of Astronomers.

Project Starfish (1962)

On July 9, 1962, the US began a further series of experiments with the ionosphere. From their description: "one kiloton device, at a height of 60 km and one megaton and one multi-megaton, at several hundred kilometers height" (K.H.A., 29 June 1962). These tests seriously disturbed the lower Van Allen Belt, substantially altering its shape and intensity. "In this experiment the inner Van Allen Belt will be practically destroyed for a period of time; particles from the Belt will be transported to the atmosphere. It is anticipated that the earth's magnetic field will be disturbed over long distances for several hours, preventing radio communication. The explosion in the inner radiation belt will create an artificial dome of polar light that will be visible from Los Angeles" (K.H.A. 11 May 1962). A Fijian Sailor, present at this nuclear explosion, told me that the whole sky was on fire and he thought it would be the end of the world. This was the experiment which called forth the strong protest of the Queen's Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle in the UK.

"The ionosphere [according to the under-standing at that time] that part of the atmosphere between 65 and 80 km and 280- 320 km height, will be disrupted by mechanical forces caused by the pressure wave following the explosion. At the same time, large quantities of ionizing radiation will be released, further ionizing the gaseous components of the atmosphere at this height. This ionization effect is strengthened by the radiation from the fission products... The lower Van Allen Belt, consisting of charged particles that move along the geomagnetic field lines... will similarly be disrupted. As a result of the explosion, this field will be locally destroyed, while countless new electrons will be introduced into the lower belt" (K.H.A. 11 May 1962). "On 19 July... NASA announced that as a consequence of the high altitude nuclear test of July 9, a new radiation belt had been formed, stretching from a height of about 400 km to 1600 km; it can be seen as a temporary extension of the lower Van Allen Belt" (K.H.A. 5 August 1962).

As explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "... Starfish made a much wider belt [than Project Argus] that extends from low altitude out past L=3 [i.e. three earth radiuses or about 13,000 km above the surface of the earth]." Later in 1962, the USSR undertook similar planetary experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km above the earth. According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high- altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state. According to American scientists, it could take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen Belts to destabilize at their normal levels. (Research done by: Nigel Harle, Borderland Archives, Cortenbachstraat 32, 6136 CH Sittard, Netherlands.)

SPS: Solar Power Satellite Project (1968)

In 1968 the US military proposed Solar Powered Satellites in geostationary orbit some 40,000 km above the earth, which would intercept solar radiation using solar cells on satellites and transmit it via a microwave beam to receiving antennas, called rectennas, on earth. The US Congress mandated the Department of Energy and NASA to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment on this project, to be completed by June 1980, and costing $25 Million. This project was designed to construct 60 Solar Powered Satellites over a thirty year period at a cost between $500 and $800 thousand million (in 1968 dollars), providing 100 percent of the US energy needs in the year 2025 at a cost of $3000 per kW. At that time, the project cost was two to three times larger than the whole Department of Energy budget, and the projected cost of the electricity was well above the cost of most conventional energy sources. The rectenna sites on earth were expected to take up to 145 square kilometers of land, and would preclude habitation by any humans, animals or even vegetation. Each Satellite was to be the size of Manhattan Island.

Saturn V Rocket (1975)

Due to a malfunction, the Saturn V Rocket burned unusually high in the atmosphere, above 300 km. This burn produced "a large ionospheric hole" (Mendillo, M. Et al., Science p. 187, 343, 1975). The disturbance reduced the total electron content more than 60% over an area 1,000 km in radius, and lasted for several hours. It prevented all telecommunications over a large area of the Atlantic Ocean. The phenomenon was apparently caused by a reaction between the exhaust gases and ionospheric oxygen ions. The reaction emitted a 6300 A airglow. Between 1975 and 1981 NASA and the US Military began to design ways to test this new phenomena through deliberate experimentation with the ionosphere.

SPS Military Implications (1978)

Early review of the Solar Powered Satellite Project began in around 1978, and I was on the review panel. Although this was proposed as an energy program, it had significant military implications. One of the most significant, first pointed out by Michael J. Ozeroff, was the possibility of developing a satellite-borne beam weapon for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) use. The satellites were to be in geosynchronous orbits, each providing an excellent vantage point from which an entire hemisphere can be surveyed continuously. It was speculated that a high-energy laser beam could function as a thermal weapon to disable or destroy enemy missiles. There was some discussion of electron weapon beams, through the use of a laser beam to preheat a path for the following electron beam.

The SPS was also described as a psychological and anti- personnel weapon, which could be directed toward an enemy. If the main microwave beam was redirected away from its rectenna, toward enemy personnel, it could use an infrared radiation wave- length (invisible) as an anti-personnel weapon. It might also be possible to transmit high enough energy to ignite combustible materials. Laser beam power relays could be made from the SPS satellite to other satellites or platforms, for example aircraft, for military purposes. One application might be a laser powered turbofan engine which would receive the laser beam directly in its combustion chamber, producing the required high temperature gas for its cruising operation. This would allow unlimited on-station cruise time. As a psychological weapon, the SPS was capable of causing general panic

The SPS would be able to transmit power to remote military operations anywhere needed on earth. The manned platform of the SPS would provide surveillance and early warning capability, and ELF linkage to submarines. It would also provide the capability of jamming enemy communications. The potential for jamming and creating communications is significant. The SPS was also capable of causing physical changes in the ionosphere

President Carter approved the SPS Project and gave it a go- ahead, in spite of the reservation which many reviewers, myself included, expressed. Fortunately, it was so expensive, exceeding the entire Department of Energy budget, that funding was denied by the Congress. I approached the United Nations Committee on Disarmament on this project, but was told that as long as the program was called Solar Energy by the United States, it could not be considered a weapons project. The same project resurfaced in the US under President Reagan. He moved it to the much larger budget of the Department of Defense and called it Star Wars. Since this is more recent history, I will not discuss the debate which raged over this phase of the plan.

By 1978, it was apparent to the US Military that communications in a nuclear hostile environment would not be possible using traditional methods of radio and television technology (Jane's Military Communications 1978). By 1982, GTE Sylvania (Needham Heights, Massachusetts) had developed a command control electronic sub-system for the US Air Force's Ground Launch Cruise Missiles (GLCM) that would enable military commanders to monitor and control the missile prior to launch both in hostile and non-hostile environments. The system contains six radio subsystems, created with visible light using a dark beam (not visible) and is resistant to the disruptions experienced by radio and television. Dark beams contribute to the formation of energetic plasma in the atmosphere. This plasma can become visible as smog or fog. Some has a different charge than the sun's energy, and accumulates in places where the sun's energy is absent, like the polar regions in the winter. When the polar spring occurs, the sun appears and repels this plasma, contributing to holes in the ozone layer. This military system is called: Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN). (See The SECOMII Communication System, by Wayne Olsen, SAND 78- 0391,Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 1978.) This innovative emergency radio system was apparently never implemented in Europe, and exists only in North America.

Orbit Maneuvering System (1981)

Part of the plan to build the SPS space platforms was the demand for reusable space shuttles, since they could not afford to keep discarding rockets. The NASA Spacelab 3 Mission of the Space Shuttle made, in 1981, "a series of passes over a network of five ground based observatories" in order to study what happened to the ionosphere when the Shuttle injected gases into it from the Orbit Maneuvering System (OMS). They discovered that they could "induce ionospheric holes" and began to experiment with holes made in the daytime, or at night over Millstone, Connecticut, and Arecibo, Puerto Rico. They experimented with the effects of "artificially induced ionospheric depletions on very low frequency wave lengths, on equatorial plasma instabilities, and on low frequency radio astronomical observations over Roberval, Quebec, Kwajelein, in the Marshall Islands and Hobart, Tasmania" (Advanced Space Research, Vo1.8, No. 1, 1988).

Innovative Shuttle Experiments (1985)

An innovative use of the Space Shuttle to perform space physics experiments in earth orbit was launched, using the OMS injections of gases to "cause a sudden depletion in the local plasma concentration, the creation of a so called ionospheric hole." This artificially induced plasma depletion can then be used to investigate other space phenomena, such as the growth of the plasma instabilities or the modification of radio propagation paths. The 47 second OMS burn of July 29, 1985, produced the largest and most long-lived ionospheric hole to date, dumping some 830 kg of exhaust into the ionosphere at sunset. A 6 second, 68 km OMS release above Connecticut in August 1985, produced an airglow which covered over 400,000 square km.

During the 1980's, rocket launches globally numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. There were many more during the Gulf War. The Shuttle is the largest of the solid fuel rockets, with twin 45 meter boosters. All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust, each Shuttle flight injecting about 75 tons of ozone destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject even more ozone-destroying chlorine, about 187 tons, into the stratosphere (which contains the ozone layer).

Mighty Oaks (1986)

In April 1986, just before the Chernobyl disaster, the US had a failed hydrogen test at the Nevada Test Site called Mighty Oaks. This test, conducted far underground, consisted of a hydrogen bomb explosion in one chamber, with a leaded steel door to the chamber, two meters thick, closing within milliseconds of the blast. The door was to allow only the first radioactive beam to escape into the "control room" in which expensive instrumentation was located. The radiation was to be captured as a weapon beam. The door failed to close as quickly as planned, causing the radioactive gases and debris to fill the control room, destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment. The experiment was part of a program to develop X-ray and particle beam weapons. The radioactive releases from Mighty Oaks were vented, under a "licensed venting" and were likely responsible for many of the North American nuclear fallout reports in May 1986, which were attributed to the Chernobyl disaster.

Desert Storm (1991)

According to Defense News, April 13 - 19, 1992, the US deployed an electromagnetic pulse weapon (EMP) in Desert Storm, designed to mimic the flash of electricity from a nuclear bomb. The Sandia National Laboratory had built a 23,000 square meter laboratory on the Kirkland Air Force Base, 1989, to house the Hermes II electron beam generator capable of producing 20 Trillion Watt pulses lasting 20 billionths to 25 billionths of a second. This X-ray simulator is called a Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator. A stream of electrons hitting a metal plate can produce a pulsed X-ray or gamma ray. Hermes II had produced electron beams since 1974. These devises were apparently tested during the Gulf War, although detailed information on them is sparse.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, HAARP (1993)

The HAARP Program is jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy, and is based in Gakona, Alaska. It is designed to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communication and surveillance systems." The HAARP system intends to beam 3.6 Gigawatts of effective radiated power of high frequency radio energy into the ionosphere in order to:
Generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves for communicating with submerged submarines
Conduct geophysical probes to identify and characterize natural ionospheric processes so that techniques can be developed to mitigate or control them
Generate ionospheric lenses to focus large amounts of high frequency energy, thus providing a means of triggering ionospheric processes that potentially could be exploited for Department of Defense purposes,
Electron acceleration for infrared (IR) and other optical emissions which could be used to control radio wave propagation properties
Generate geomagnetic field aligned ionization to control the reflection/scattering properties of radio waves,
Use oblique heating to produce effects on radio wave propagation, thus broadening the potential military applications of ionospheric enhancement technology.

Poker Flat Rocket Launch (1968 to Present)

The Poker Flat Research Range is located about 50 km North of Fairbanks, Alaska, and it was established in 1968. It is operated by the Geophysical Institute with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, under NASA contract. About 250 major rocket launches have taken place from this site, and in 1994, a 16 meter long rocket was launched to help NASA "understand chemical reactions in the atmosphere associated with global climate change." Similar experiments, but using Chemical Release Modules (CRM), have been launched from Churchill, Manitoba. In 1980, Brian Whelan's "Project Waterhole" disrupted an aurora borealis, bringing it to a temporary halt. In February 1983, the chemical released into the ionosphere caused an aurora borealis over Churchill. In March 1989, two Black Brant X's and two Nike Orion rockets were launched over Canada, releasing barium at high altitudes and creating artificial clouds. These Churchill artificial clouds were observed from as far away as Los Alamos, New Mexico.

The US Navy has also been carrying on High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) research in Alaska. Through a series of wires and a 15 meter antenna, they have beamed high intensity signals into the upper atmosphere, generating a controlled disturbance in the ionosphere. As early as 1992, the Navy talked of creating 10 kilometer long antennas in the sky to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves needed for communicating with submarines. Another purpose of these experiments is to study the Aurora Borealis, called by some an outdoor plasma lab for studying the principles of fusion. Shuttle flights are now able to generate auroras with an electron beam. On November 10, 1991, and aurora borealis appeared in the Texas sky for the first time ever recorded, and it was seen by people as far away as Ohio and Utah, Nebraska and Missouri. The sky contained "Christmas colors" and various scientists were quick to blame it on solar activity. However, when pressed most would admit that the ionosphere must have been weakened at the time, so that the electrically charged particle hitting the earth's atmosphere created the highly visible light called airglow. These charged particles are normally pulled northwards by the earth's magnetic forces, to the magnetic north pole. The Northern Lights, as the aurora borealis is called, normally occurs in the vortex at the pole where the energetic particles, directed by the magnetic force lines, are directed.

Conclusions

It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere.

It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming.

Basic to this project is control of communications, both disruption and reliability in hostile environments. The power wielded by such control is obvious.

The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening.

The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a devise for repairing the ozone layer.

Further References:

C.L. Herzenberg, Physics and Society , April 1994.

R. Williams, Physics and Society , April 1988.

B. Eastlund, Microwave News , May/June 1994.

W. Kofinan and C. Lathuillere, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 14, No. 11, pp 1158-1161, November 1987 (Includes French experiments at EISCAT).

G. Metz and F.W. Perkins. Ionospheric Modification Theory: Past Present and Future, Radio Science, Vo1.9, No. 11, pp 885 -888, November 1974.

This page maintained and copyright ©1996 - 1999 by the Earthpulse Press.

1st Mars Express Science Conference

21 - 25 February 2005

European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC)
Noordwijk, The Netherlands.

Deadline for abstract submission is extended to 29 November 2004!

First Announcement

BACKGROUND

Following a successful launch, Mars orbit insertion and the first year of operations of the Mars Express mission, ESA is organising a Mars Express Science Conference devoted to the presentation and discussion of the scientific results obtained during the first year of the nominal mission.

Mars Express is the first flexible mission of the revised long-term ESA Science Programme Horizons 2000 and was launched towards the red planet from Baikonur (Kazakhstan) on 2 June 2003. Mars Express is a 3-axis stabilized orbiter with a fixed high-gain antenna and body-mounted instruments, dedicated to the orbital and in-situ study of the surface, subsurface, atmosphere and environment of the planet. The broad scientific objectives of the mission are:

• global colour and stereo high-resolution imaging of the surface and its geological interpretation
• global mineralogical mapping of the surface
• radar sounding of the subsurface structure down to the permafrost
• global atmospheric circulation and composition
• interaction of the atmosphere with the surface and with the interplanetary medium
• radio science to infer critical information on the atmosphere, ionosphere, surface and interior.

This conference is the first Mars Express science event that will serve as a focal point for the scientific community involved in Mars Express to review the progress made in the understanding of Mars, and put the results in the wider context of the latest scientific interpretations derived from the current NASA orbiter and lander missions (Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, MER).

The Demonstration, STS-80

By Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, Kennedy Space Center, Florida (1958-1992).



NOVEMBER 19, 1996
Space Shuttle Columbia during STS-80 took a crew of five astronauts into a 17 day, 15 hour and 54 minute mission around the earth, the longest flight in the history of this vehicle. During this lengthy flight a very strange event occurred that even had crewman Dr. Story Musgrave unable to explain what he observed from the shuttle windows.
A large disc shaped object appeared below the Columbia. The shuttle was approximately, 190 Nautical miles high.
The disc was first observed to miraculously appear from out of nowhere, flying through the clouds below and progressing from right to left as the astronauts stared in utter amazement. The outer rim of the craft appeared to be rotating counterclockwise. It was very large (compared to common space junk and breakaway ice), approximately 50 to 150 feet in diameter.
Astronaut Dr. Story Musgrave, a Payload Specialist on the STS-80 Mission, was interviewed following the flight. As he viewed a videotape of the incident which showed lightning flashes in the atmosphere, the city lights of Denver, Colorado and other earthbound sights, he stated: "I don't know what it is. Whether it's a washer, debris, ice particles, I don't know. But it's characteristic of the thousands of things which I've seen. What is not so characteristic is it appears to come from no where. You would think that if it's facing the dark side or facing a side towards you which is not reflecting the sun, you would think that you would see something there. It's really impressive."



During an earlier interview, Dr. Musgrave stated he attempted to communicate with ET lifeforms during each of his six missions. He actually asked them to take him with them. Now that's an astronaut with a lot of courage. Dr. Musgrave retired after this flight from NASA. Since then he's been spreading his considered opinion that alien life exists. When Musgrave speaks of this, it's no great leap for one to assume he's admitting knowledge of alien life. As the final slide of a "Grey" ET was shown during a recent astronomy presentation by Dr. Musgrave, he made this surprising comment: "These guys are real... I guarantee it!"  Dr. Musgrave does know the truth. This author guarantees it!
Consider that carefully. These are world renown scientists making statements almost beyond belief. Dr. von Braun and others of his stature have the courage to disclose "sensitive" information, but obviously the leaders of the USA and the world do not. If billions could find a way of coping with the overwhelming threat of atomic annihilation for half a century, it is reasonable to assume we can cope with the knowledge of these "Other Intelligence's" from the stars. We can cope with the fact they are visiting earth, and have been since the beginning of history. We must. Those still asleep must open their eyes. We Are Not Alone.


Anomalous Phenomena in Space Shuttle Mission STS-80 Video

Mark Carlotto

Analysis of video from Space Shuttle mission STS-80 provides new insight into a number of unusual events captured by a camera aboard the space shuttle Columbia in 1996. Three different phenomena are analyzed: 1) two slow moving circular objects, 2) a number of fast moving objects in space near the shuttle, and 3) a strange luminous apparition near the earth's surface. The two slow moving circular objects have attracted a great deal of popular interest due to their disk-like shape. One seems to appear out of a cloud layer, the other moves into the camera's field of view. It is argued that both are likely to be pieces of shuttle debris emerging from the spacecraft's shadow. The fast moving objects in space near the shuttle appear as bright streaks moving rapidly across the video frame. Analysis of their speeds and directions implies that they are not shuttle debris or meteors. Perhaps the most interesting observation is a rapidly moving burst of light that appears near the earth's surface off the east coast of Puerto Rico. Occurring well before sunrise, away from thunderstorm activity, and moving at an estimated speed of over 500 miles/sec., this is one of the most unusual phenomena observed to date by the shuttle. Its similarity to certain ground-based sightings suggests that it might represent the first observation of a new kind of atmospheric phenomenon from space.

Commentary on the STS-48 Video

A Closer Look, and Second Thoughts,
Thomas. E. Carey, 1993.

Summary: Analysis of the video of a possible UFO taken by Shuttle astronauts during the STS-48 mission.
Note: This commentary assumes familiarity with the STS-48 video sequence in its commercial edition.

On the distance to the "target"

Taking the shuttle's altitude above the surface as 355 miles, and earth's radius as (approximately) 4000 miles, the distance to the horizon works out to about 1700 miles. [(4000+355)*cos(arcsin(4000/4355)) = 1722] The so-called "target" appears to rise over the horizon; that would place it at least that far from the camera (about 1700 mi.) But this is only the minimum range; it could have been further out on the sight line.
But if the scene was staged for the shuttle camera (maybe for live broadcast too ???) the object may have been closer than the horizon. Its apparent rising over the limb could be simulated by appropriate control of timing, luminosity, and positioning, even so far as the observed brightening when the sight line transits the airglow layer. That (Byzantine) scenario aside, the case is well made that the "object" is seen through the airglow layer as it departs. This does not show it to be at the distance of the horizon, only that it is probably not much closer. At (say) twice that distance, the observed departure track (after the "flash") would look much the same; a similar brightening would appear as the line of sight crossed the airglow layer. Naturally the greater its distance from the camera, the more extreme its speeds and accelerations must be; and conversely.
Can anything be found in the video sequence, or inferred from it, to show that when the object first appeared at the limb, and/or during its horizontal traverse, it was within the atmosphere, i.e., below the airglow, rather than beyond it? It was luminous, and its brightness changed as it departed; but the same is true of the other wandering objects that we can see. They also glow, move, change course and speed, vary in brightness. Can it be shown that these objects, or any of them, are in the atmosphere? My own subjective impression is that all these wanderers are above it (some lower, maybe some higher than the shuttle). Their luminosities change, but not in proportion to velocity, as would be caused by frictional heating.
On Brightness, Color and CCD's
Over the years many eyewitness reports of so-called UFO's have stated that the object(s) observed changed brightness and/or color, sometimes coincidentally with apparent changes in speed or direction. The STS-48 sequence carries data on brightness but not on color. The CCD's used in that camera may not be equally responsive to all wavelengths; and if its spectral sensitivity profile were known, a careful densitometric study of the film might support the idea that some of the changes in brightness might be color changes instead. The sequenced "blinking" exhibited by some of the wandering objects might also be changes of color, not of brightness, or both. From the position and orbit of the shuttle, the time of the events, and the orientation of the camera, the stars seen throughout the sequence can be identified. Possibly the camera's response to different wavelengths could be calibrated by comparing the video images of the brighter stars with their (known) spectral signatures and magnitudes.
A wonderful, time-consuming project for a skilled person using first class equipment... someone's graduate assistant, say. I got to thinking about this after noticing that in the high speed run of the "flash" sequence, the two "shot" tracks appear quite different from each other. The first, at left, is of relatively constant brightness (to my eyes, at least). The second one, angling toward the right, is notably slower, and its brightness fluctuates at regular intervals (perhaps 3 or four cycles along its track). This may suggest that the track is not simply an ionization trail.
Another point: conceivably, the difference in speed of these two tracks could be partly or wholly an artifact of perspective. If the left-hand track were skewed at a greater angle to the camera's line of sight than the (slower) right-hand track, the apparent difference in speeds might be illusory.
What are Brilliant Pebbles made of?
I haven't followed the open technical literature on SDI very closely. But I have the impression that essential to the "Brilliant Pebbles" concept was a very dense ballistic projectile accelerated to a very high speed, which would deliver enormous kinetic energy disastrously to anything it impacted. Depleted uranium has been mentioned as the material of choice. One of the applications, supposedly, was to strike an ICBM in its boost phase. A distinctive thermal signature and relatively slow speed make targeting at this stage attractive. Here the "pebble", launched from space, would traverse a certain amount of atmosphere. Its high density (small cross section) would limit deflection by the atmosphere, and most of its mass would survive ablation.
Perhaps the argument was made that results might improve if the missile were targeted outside the atmosphere. With no atmospheric resistance, one could use a swarm of "pebblitos" [if this neologism is new, it's public now...], to be dispersed near the target in a controlled manner. Still, to ensure physical destruction of the targeted missile, very dense material would be preferred to maximize the kinetic energy delivered. In space a few pinto beans moving fast enough can hole a vehicle and disable its crew, but a ballistic missile doesn't need to breathe, and its warhead could be armored.
Comments on the STS-48 video seem to assume that the "target object" was in atmosphere when the railgun was fired. Can this be demonstrated? If it were in atmosphere, reference to the "shot" as a swarm of plastic pellets is puzzling. I doubt that pellets would maintain accuracy while passing through the atmosphere, or deliver sufficient kinetic energy at the target, as a result of ablation, turbulence and atmospheric drag.
On the idea of SDI
Does this video sequence record the test firing of a "Star Wars" device? Simplifying assumptions can lead one astray, but I make one here: that if SDI hardware of terrestrial manufacture is involved, it is under military, not civilian, control. And a military firing range is strictly regulated, for two reasons: safety and security. One doesn't want to lose anyone down range by misadventure; but more especially one doesn't want observant strangers out there taking notes on the performance of classified weapons systems.
Looking at the entire STS-48 sequence, with so many luminous objects wandering around at will, it's not easy to equate what I see with a military firing range. On the other hand - out there in space is the only range there is, and we can't control access to it.
There's another problem. Assume for the moment that the video does show a shot from a space-based railgun of terrestrial construction, under human direction, at a target on a test range. Clearly the capabilities of the target object are truly extraordinary. So extraordinary, in fact, that one wonders why the railgun would be needed. The object called a "target" looks to be agile enough to overtake an ICBM (or anything else) with ease, match its trajectory, and either paint "Kilroy was here" on the hull or stick a 50 kilo limpet mine on it.
Something certainly appears to have been fired at a target. It's not so certain that the target was under the same jurisdiction as the weapon.
In November 1992 some of us saw segments of this STS-48 video which don't appear in this commercial edition. I remember that the shuttle communicator seemed to have foreknowledge of something about to occur (indicating they were following the mission profile); and also that after the event, both voices (shuttle and Houston), expressed extreme surprise at what they had just seen.
I wish these voice exchanges had been included. (I know there was very little room left on the UN tape.) But this colloquy with Houston is vital, in that it almost surely refutes the idea that we're looking at a hostile shot at some intruder, since the mission planners could not have scheduled such an intrusion.
Of course, both shuttle crew and ground control may have been left out of the loop in this instance. This would raise other questions as to who's in charge, and what the real mission is.
But there is a way, after all, to make the SDI scheme fit what we see. Assume that this really was a range test of a railgun weapon in the SDI program. And STS-48 was tasked to photograph it; then NASA crews at both ends would be looking for it. But something surprised them. That surprise may have been the bizarre and unscheduled behavior of the target drone, which did not submit numbly to its fate.
In this speculative scenario, one might speculate that some other agency unexpectedly took control of the target, vividly demonstrating its capabilities to a select audience. For me this notion has a certain charm. But it doesn't account for the second shot track, on the right, or the several other objects which wander throughout the scene, apparently at will. Maybe this "happening" was laid on in the knowledge that the cameras would be rolling during the SDI exercise. Then, by accident or design, the broadcast went public in real time. Here other interesting questions arise. Whose demonstration was it, actually? whose design? and how many cooks were in the kitchen?
I don't think it's conclusively shown here that this video covers an SDI exercise, though it may have done. Nor is it certain that all, or any, of the activities we see in this sequence (aside from shuttle operations) are being conducted by human beings. Yet obviously the crew and the controllers were expecting something just then. We don't know much for sure. Where and when are pretty well established; but who, and what, and why are not. Nor is how, for that matter....
The Sixty Four Billion Dollar Question
The level of technology we see in this video (if it is not an elaborate deceit), is without question orders of magnitude beyond what we currently consider as state of the art. Any outfit with such control of inertia and (or?) gravitation could put a crew on Mars before lunch any day of the week, and bring them back home the same day - with rocks and fossils and soil samples.
Yet NASA openly budgets billions of dollars on space operations based on conventional propulsion systems, and it still depends on elaborate life-support apparatus even for relatively short cis-lunar missions. And it is designing an expensive space station around this conventional technology. Is all this just a shadow-show? Are we crazy, or what?
There is a black budget, and it is large. Over the years it may have been used to develop a limited electro-gravitic technology, even to the point of operating vehicles freely in local space. The ability to launch on opportunity may already have been achieved. The effect of recoil on an orbiting platform could be controlled. But the current level of (black) technology may not yet be compatible with crew survival, allowing use of unmanned vehicles only.
If what the video shows was indeed a railgun shot, the railgun was either already in orbit, having been launched conventionally sometime earlier; or it simply rose to the occasion from its base. Could a conventional launch be concealed? Could an orbiting platform be hidden? It would need occasional maintenance. Are maintenance missions observed? Could they be hidden?
Could some technology enable a platform to keep geographic station at less then synchronous altitude?
What, me worry?
During the war New Guinea natives saw landing strips and control towers being built in their jungles, and then day after day watched the cargo planes come out of the sky to unload the most incredible bounty. When the war was over, the planes stopped coming. So the natives cleared some strips in the jungle, built towers out of tree-trunks and branches, and waited for the planes to come down. That's what they saw the soldiers do, and they knew it worked. But the planes never came.
We call these beliefs, and their efforts, "cargo cults", and we laugh at them. But given the paradigms through which they understood their world, it was all quite logical. The problem was that an enormous and complex world was impinging upon them, the world of twentieth-century technology. A world they knew nothing about. A world for which they had no concepts, a world they had no language to describe. Our society may be in a similar situation.
Of course our cargo cults nowadays will be more sophisticated.
Not many structural conclusions can be drawn from the limited data we've got so far. The tetrahedral geometry Hoagland and others have identified, recognizable now throughout the solar system, has implications which are profound. Who will be pursuing those "implications"? Developing the new technology? Acquiring, controlling and disseminating such information?
The powerful control structures now in place on earth - economic, political, social---are not likely to give way voluntarily. Yet the logical evolution of "tetrahedral geometry" and the technologies which will follow, is certain to threaten many of these structures. Efforts to frustrate exploration and maintain control of any developments have already been made, and will grow stronger. Very likely, when Cydonia is actually explored, a good deal more will be discovered than geometric puzzles. Yet for the foreseeable future, the technical capacity of our civilization to reach Cydonia lies solely in the hands of those whose interests may not favor disclosure.
The "security" measures NASA has now installed, even for the Mars Observer photos, pretty strongly suggest that someone either knows or fears what the high-resolution camera will show on Mars. I can't conceive that anything we see on Mars could impair our "National Security" in the conventional sense. But the comfort of conventional beliefs, and the great power of established hegemonies, may well be at risk. Some people seem to be worrying!
There are indications lately that others may be intervening in some positive fashion. It would be nice to think that somebody else will fix our problems here, but I don't think it's likely to happen. Even if "George" is out there, "George" won't do it. I'm willing to bet we're going to have to do all the work down here.
We'll get some hints, some psychological interventions (as in, I suspect, this STS-48 video, and in the English crop formations). I said interventions. Not messages. These events (and others) had, and are having, consequences for our culture, largely unknown. And I assume that unhelpful interventions are also occurring.
If some real civilization is looking at this planet, they will be seeing Yugoslavia raised to the pi'th power. What's tangled in our society, we have to untangle by ourselves. If we want to, we can; and if we don't want to, it can't be done. Who else would even try?

Postscript, June, 1996

The aforementioned conventional beliefs and established hegemonies face even stronger challenges now, with the discovery of these incredible ruins on the Moon.
We don't have to wait for the government to mount a Moon mission, to investigate what it considers useful, sequester whatever information it chooses, and later disclose only what it deems appropriate. This is not like Mars.
We can get to the Moon from here. And it won't cost a gazillion dollars, either. We can see for ourselves. If all we find up there is barren regolith, craters, moon dust, and Alan Bean's footprints, so be it. At least we could believe it then.
Atlanta, June, 1996

Source: ufoevidence.org

Gordon Cooper, Astronaut, Witnesses UFO Landing at Edwards AFB

Date: 1957
Location: Edwards AFB, California, United States

Summary: "I had a camera crew filming the installation when they spotted a saucer. They filmed it as it flew overhead, then hovered, extended three legs as landing gear, and slowly came down to land on a dry lake bed! It was a classic saucer, shiny silver and smooth, about 30 feet across. It was pretty clear it was an alien craft."

Gordon Cooper, astronaut.








Type of Case/Report: Major Case
Special Features/Characteristics: Military
Hynek Classification:

Source: John Cooke

In 1957, Cooper was one of an elite band of test pilots at Edwards Air Force Base in California, in charge of several advanced projects, including the installation of a precision landing system.

"I had a camera crew filming the installation when they spotted a saucer. They filmed it as it flew overhead, then hovered, extended three legs as landing gear, and slowly came down to land on a dry lake bed!

"These guys were all pro cameramen, so the picture quality was very good.

"The camera crew managed to get within 20 or 30 yards of it, filming all the time. It was a classic saucer, shiny silver and smooth, about 30 feet across. It was pretty clear it was an alien craft.

"As they approached closer it took off."

When his camera crew handed over the film, Cooper followed standard procedure and contacted Washington to report the UFO and "all heck broke loose," he said.

"After a while a high-ranking officer said when the film was developed I was to put it in a pouch and send it to Washington.

"He didn't say anything about me not looking at the film. That's what I did when it came back from the lab and it was all there just like the camera crew reported."

When the Air Force later started Operation Blue Book to collate UFO evidence and reports, Cooper says he mentioned the film evidence.

"But the film was never found supposedly. Blue Book was strictly a cover-up anyway."

Cooper revealed he's convinced an alien craft crashed at Roswell, N. Mex., in 1947 and aliens were discovered in the wreckage.

"I had a good friend at Roswell, a fellow officer. He had to be careful about what he said. But it sure wasn't a weather balloon, like the Air Force cover story. He made it clear to me what crashed was a craft of alien origin, and members of the crew were recovered."

Why has the government kept its UFO secrets for so many years?

"It started in World War 2, when the government didn't want people to know about UFO reports in case they panicked," said Cooper. "They would have been fearful it was superior enemy technology that we had no defense against.

"Then it got worse in the Cold War for the same reason.

"So they told one untruth, they had to tell another to cover that one, then another, then another . . . it just snowballed.

"And right now I'm convinced a lot of very embarrassed government officials are sitting there in Washington trying to figure a way to bring the truth out. They know it's got to come out one day, and I'm sure it will.

"America has a right to know!"

Case ID: 357
Source: ufoevidence.org

Volcano on Titan

This false-color mosaic of Saturn's largest moon Titan, obtained by Cassini's visual and infrared mapping spectrometer, shows what scientists interpret as an icy volcano (see inset). The mosaic was constructed using six medium-resolution infrared images, obtained during Cassini's flyby of the hazy moon on Oct. 26, 2004.

The colors correspond to atmospheric (red) and surface (green and blue) features that are not visible to the human eye. The inset shows a high-resolution image taken using a 2.3 micron filter near the point of Cassini's closest approach to Titan at 1,200 kilometers (746 miles). The resolution in this inset image is 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) per pixel. The image scale of the large image is 25 kilometers (16 miles) per pixel.

The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. The Cassini orbiter and its two onboard cameras were designed, developed and assembled at JPL. The visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team is based at the University of Arizona.

For more information about the Cassini-Huygens mission visit http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov. The visual and infrared mapping spectrometer team homepage is at http://wwwvims.lpl.arizona.edu.

NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Invitation to World Peace Forum 2006

June 23 - 28, 2006
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

"Cities and Communities: Working Together to End War and Build a Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World"

World Peace Forum 2006
#420 - 550 West 6th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1A1
Tel: 604-687-3223/ Fax: 604-687-3277
Email:  admin@worldpeaceforum.ca 
Web: www.worldpeaceforum.ca

An Invitation to the World:
The World Peace Forum Society and the City of Vancouver Peace and Justice Committee invites you to attend the World Peace Forum 2006, June 23 - 28, 2006 in Vancouver, City of Peace.
Vision and Objectives
The World Peace Forum 2006 is a major international gathering in Vancouver on the issues of peace and sustainability. The Forum will be broad in scope. It will provide an umbrella under which movements and organizations working on peace and sustainability issues: including city representatives, indigenous people, women, youth, labour, seniors and all concerned citizens, who will come together, network and demonstrate to the world that there is a growing international commitment to peace, justice and sustainability.
More than 50% of the world's peoples live in cities. Working in our own communities we can build a movement for global change. The groundswell of opposition to the U.S. led war on Iraq say major demonstrations in 600+ cities around the world in 2003.  It was organized city by city by hundreds of thousands of activists linked via the Internet.
Cities and local authorities, acting with community support, can effectively contest global militarism. We can curtail ballooning military budgets which starve local and regional governments of the resources necessary to provide quality housing, health, education and community services. Our challenge is to co-ordinate the networks of civic and social movements to work towards a peaceful, just and sustainable world, city by city, across nations and internationally.
A culture of peace: "a set of values, attitudes, modes of behaviour and ways of live that reject violence and prevent conflicts by tackling their root cause to solve problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups and nations." (UN Resolution, A/RES/52/13)
Vancouver City Embraces World Peace Forum 2006
Vancouver's City Council has unanimously embraced the World Peace Forum 2006, inclusive of financial support, to be held in cooperation with the UN's World Urban Forum June 19 - 23, 2006 also in Vancouver. Coordination of the World Peace Forum 2006 with the World Urban Forum presents a unique opportunity to dialogue and to build effective networks. Already national and international organizations are planning to hold their meetings in Vancouver to dovetail with the Forum, such as:
·    World Peace Council North American Division,
· International Association of Peace Messenger Cities,
·    Mayors for Peace and Cities for Peace,
·    World Federalists of Canada,
·    UN Association (Canada),
·   International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War,
·   International Education Forum - BC Teachers' Federation and
Education International,
·   Canadian PUGWASH AGM,
·    Abolition 2000.
Others are in the planning stage.  Significant overlapping events include:
·    World Youth Congress and
·    The Earth Festival
International Input Critical
The World Peace Forum 2006 will build on existing regional peace and justice networks, with special attention paid to involving people from the global south.
The program of the World Peace Forum 2006 will be established as much as possible by those organizations that participate in the Forum. We want the program to reflect the concerns of the peace and sustainability communities
worldwide.
We invite organizations to propose seminars or workshops with the above themes, or propose new themes for consideration.
To date the following themes have emerged:
Justice; Bridging the Generations - Living and Learning: 
Youth Against War; 
Cities and Peace: Building a Culture of Peace; 
Women against Wars against Women; 
Ending Racism  - Ending War; Indigenous Peoples & Peace; 
Resources 4 People not Militarism;
Sustainability and the Environment; 
Impunity and International Law: Redress  & Reconciliation; 
Faith & Spirituality; 
Preventing the Weaponization of Space;
A U.N. Space Preservation Treaty
Ballistic Missile Defence; 
Nuclear Disarmament; 
Arts and Culture for Peace; 
Human & Ecological Security;
Labour  & Peace; 
Peace Education; 
Peace & Public Health; 
Peace & Public Education;
Water & Peace; 
and Peace & Housing; 
Regional fora on the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe, Micronesia and the Americas are being planned.
Some proposals already received are similar to others received.  As we see potential affinity between organizations' proposals, we will put like minded, complementary organizations in tough with one another.  We will propose they explore what possibilities might exist for broader, more collaborative approaches.  Our intention is that the consultative process leading up the World Peace Forum 2006 is itself a capacity building process locally and internationally.
The Forum will integrate culture and content throughout the program.
Contact:  Jef Keighley, Executive Director- Outreach
jkeighley@worldpeaceforum.ca
Lynn Hainsworth: Executive Director - Operations
lhainsworth@worldpeaceforum.ca
Tania Aquila: Administrative Coordinator
admin@worldpeaceforum.ca 
www.worldpeaceforum.ca
We look forward to welcoming you at the world Peace Forum 2006 June 23rd to June 28th.
Themes identified - we invite additions
* Justice
* Bridging the Generations - Living & Learning
* Youth Against War
* Cities and Peace
* Building a Culture of Peace
* Women Against Wars & Wars against Women
* Ending Racism - Ending War
* Indigenous Peoples and Peace
* Resources for People Not Militarism
* Sustainability and the Environment
  * Impunity and International Law
* Redress and Reconciliation
* Faith and Spirituality
* Preventing the Weaponization of Space;
* A U.N. Space Preservation Treaty
* Ballistic Missile Defence
* Nuclear Disarmament
* Arts & Culture for Peace
* Human and Ecological Security
* Labour and Peace
* Peace Education
* Peace and Public Health
* Peace and Public Education
* Water and Peace
* Peace ad Housing
* Regional Fora on the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Europe, Micronesia
and the Americas.

Right Questions in UFO Research and Exopolitics

Asking the Right Questions in UFO Research and Exopolitics

Classified projects related to extraterrestrial biological entities (EBEs) or extraterrestrial technologies are conducted by range of military services, national security agencies and private corporations. These are without exception highly compartmentalized and classified with severe penalties for those releasing information on these without authorization. Classification levels go beyond the conventional ‘Confidential’, ‘Secret’ and ‘Top Secret’ classification used in the U.S. for those working with sensitive government information; and involve compartmentalized classifications such as MAJIC, COSMIC, UMBRA, and Q clearances which are all strictly awarded on a ‘need to know’ basis.

Project managers of highly classified or ‘deep black’ projects that fall under compartmentalized categories reserved for extraterrestrial related affairs, are responsible for setting security procedures for such projects and these procedures are enforced with no oversight by Congressional/Legislative committees. The Project Manager has great autonomy in setting security procedures that are designed to prevent unauthorized access by all except those with a demonstrable ‘need to know’. Individuals who are employed in such projects perform specific functions according to their training and as a consequence have to agree to security procedures, even if this conflicts with their basic Constitutional rights. Furthermore, whistleblowers who reveal ‘unauthorized’ information may be permitted to do so as long as this is confined to areas and topics that are approved by clandestine authorities responsible for authorizing public disclosure. In such cases of unauthorized release of classified information where the whistleblower/witness is not punished for such disclosures, a policy of discrediting the whistleblower/witness is put in place. The committee system created to oversee and coordinate highly classified projects involving EBEs and ET technologies can be described as the ‘secret government’. 

The ‘secret government’ dates from the creation of the Majestic 12 Committee allegedly created by President Truman, and mentioned for the first time in the famed Truman Memo of September 24, 1947. The growing power and influence of the ‘secret government’ has resulted in the gradual erosion of Presidential executive power in the UFO/extraterrestrial matters. This was confirmed by President Bill Clinton to famed journalist Sarah McClendon who asked him why he doesn’t do more to tell the public the truth about UFO’s, Clinton replied: "Sarah, there's a secret government within the government, and I have no control over it."

The procedures and penalties associated for those involved in the unauthorized release of information from highly classified projects related to EBEs and/or ET technologies is often ignored by UFO researchers who typically ask specific questions of whistleblowers or witnesses about events, documents, entities or technology associated with the classified projects the whistleblower/witness allegedly worked in. These questions are often designed to determine whistleblower/witness ‘credibility’, ‘knowledge’ of the project in question, and their ‘veracity’. However, these kinds of questions may threaten the individual if s/he were to comply since it may reveal more classified information than the individual is ‘permitted’ to reveal. Asking the wrong question can close the door on a promising avenue of information and more importantly get the whistleblower/witness into a great deal of trouble. What follows is a list of ten ‘wrong’ questions to be asked of whistleblowers/witnesses concerning extraterrestrial related ‘deep black’ projects. An explanation for why a question is the wrong one to ask, and a suggestion for the ‘right’ question is offered.

Wrong Questions to Ask Whistleblowers/Witnesses of ‘Deep Black’ Projects.

1. Where’s the hard evidence for your claims?

This question is wrong to ask since it assumes that the whistleblower can provide hard evidence to substantiate his/her claims. This puts the burden of proof on a witness/whistleblower revealing information on classified projects to provide sufficient hard evidence to satisfy whatever criteria imposed by the researcher. It is illegal to posses ‘hard evidence’ on classified projects so demanding this of whistleblowers or demanding sufficient hard evidence to satisfy the researchers criteria does not serve any purpose other than helping to discredit whistleblowers when this cannot be supplied.

Right Question is: Is the hard evidence for your claims classified, and has it been altered or removed from the public arena?

2. Where are documents proving your service record or employment history?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that documents accurately detailing the work history for employees or military service personnel in classified projects are freely available. This is not the case since security procedures set in place by Project Managers require such records to be altered or removed from the public arena as a condition of service, and/or destroyed subsequent to any unauthorized disclosure of information.

Right Question: Are your military service records or employment documents in any way subject to the security procedures enforced by the classified project you worked in?

3. Why should we believe you that you served/worked in a classified project involving EBEs or ET Technologies?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that the whistleblower/witness credibility comes from their ability to prove that s/he worked in a highly classified project. There are severe penalties in place for revealing information concerning classified projects that may constrain a whistleblower/witness from disclosing information to confirm their employment or which threaten corroborating witnesses. Emphasis should be on unique factors or details known by the whistleblower which help establish their credibility. It is necessary for the whistleblower to reveal only that which s/he feels is permitted, rather than pressuring them to reveal information that may prejudice their or others safety.

Right Question: What helps establish your credibility as someone who served/worked in a classified project involving EBEs or ET technologies?
4. Why should we believe you when there are inconsistencies in documents outlining your service record/employment history and the claims you are making?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that documents detailing the assignments or work history for military personnel or corporate employees in highly classified projects accurately reflect the assignments/employment of such individuals. This is not the case since security procedures set in place by Project Managers require that no mention is made of the actual training, service or employment of such individuals for the specific tasks/positions in highly classified projects involving EBEs or ET technologies.

Right Question: Do documents detailing your service record/employment history accurately record the positions, training and duties you undertook in the classified project?

5. Why should we believe you when no public records exist verifying your alleged education at the universities you claim?

This is a wrong question since it ignores the agreements that the ‘secret government’ has with a number of public education institutions over the enrolment of government sponsored students. The question also ignores that the ‘secret government’ has the power to remove or alter public records, and intimidate professors or corroborating witnesses concerning particular students.  Universities that train or educate personal sponsored to work in highly classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies have agreements whereby students completing degrees do not have these recorded in the same public records as occurs with ‘normal students’. Also, those who have completed their higher education in non-government sponsored programs, can still have their records altered or removed from the universities in which they were enrolled in.

Right Question: Was a condition of your service/employment that your education record would be removed from the public arena either prior to your employment or subsequent to any unauthorized release of classified information?

6. Why should we believe anything you have to say since there are no independent witnesses to support your claims?

This is a wrong question because often whistleblowers/witnesses in highly classified projects are willing to risk their careers, reputations and safety in coming forward. This does not imply that colleagues or other witnesses of classified projects will be willing to do the same. Also, independent witnesses can be threatened or intimidated into silence if a whistleblower gets much exposure as occurred in the Bob Lazar case and his former colleagues at the Meson Particle Facility at Los Alamos Research Laboratory who were threatened if they spoke about the Lazar case. The researcher looking for corroborating witness testimony is likely to be frustrated and reach the wrong conclusions about the validity of a whistleblower’s testimony in the absence of corroborating witnesses. It’s best to focus on those aspects of a whistleblower’s employment or background that don’t deal with their work on classified projects, and thus build a case for the whistleblower’s claims in terms of their employment background, education, special abilities, etc.

Right Question. Are there any witnesses who can corroborate those parts of your testimony that does not deal with classified information?

7. Why should we believe in your conspiracy theory that a ‘secret government’ exists that controls all information and projects relating to EBE’s or ET technologies?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that the whistleblower is proposing a conspiracy theory rather than accurately reporting events as s/he has encountered them during his/her military service or employment. Whistleblowers should not be viewed as ‘conspiracy theorists’ but merely witnesses of an institutionalized system secretly created to deal with extraterrestrial affairs in a highly classified and compartmentalized manner. Whistleblowers often have direct experience of the secret committee system created to control deep black projects concerning EBEs and/or ET technologies. The ‘secret government’ is a rubric for a committee system that is opaque and unknown to the general public.

Right question: What information do you have about the role of an alleged ‘secret government’ that controls all information and projects relating to EBEs and/or ET technologies?

8. If you are genuinely a whistleblower/witness of classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies, why hasn’t your alleged ‘secret government’ simply eliminated you?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that if whistleblowers are correct in their claims of a ‘secret government’ with virtually unlimited resources to enforce security in classified EBE and/or ET technology projects, then the logical outcome is that whistleblowers will be eliminated if they come forward. This does not logically follow since whistleblowers form a safety valve in the event of a catastrophic breakdown in secrecy concerning the presence of extraterrestrials and their technology. Allowing whistleblowers to come forth while simultaneously discrediting and threatening them in how much they reveal, allows the ‘secret government’ controlling ‘deep black’ projects to regulate the amount of information released into the general public and its impact. If a catastrophic breakdown in secrecy occurs, the ‘secret government’ could claim it permitted the whistleblowers to come forth in order to prepare the general public for full disclosure. This would help protect the legitimacy of the ‘secret government’ and maintain support for the continuation for most if not all highly classified projects dealing with EBEs and/or ET technologies.

Right question: What threats have been made to silence or intimidate you in what you can reveal in your public disclosures?

9. Why should we believe you when members of the scientific community say your claims are not supported by present scientific knowledge?

This is a wrong question since it assumes that knowledge possessed by the scientific community is an accurate reflection of technologies that are developed or used in highly classified projects involving EBEs and/or ET technologies. Those responsible for controlling highly classified projects involving EBEs and ET technology have only allowed a limited amount of information concerning technologies used in these projects into the scientific community so present scientific knowledge is an unreliable indicator of the technologies and/or knowledge used in deep black projects.

Right question: How much of the information/knowledge used in the classified project you worked/served in is available to the scientific community?

10. Why should we believe that you aren’t just another opportunist seeking fame or fortune for their alleged experiences while serving in the military or working for a private corporation?

This is a wrong question since it implies that whistleblowers are seeking fame or fortune when the truth is that they often risk financial security as a consequence of their disclosures. Whistleblowers also risk credibility with friends and/or colleagues in coming forward with their claims, and typically shun opportunities to profit from their experiences. It is also highly insulting for a whistleblower to be questioned in this way due to the great financial and personal sacrifices they often undergo to come forward with information which is still classified.

Right question: In what way does your coming forward to reveal your testimony threaten your financial livelihood and damage your reputation?



**************** 
© Michael E. Salla, PhD
May 14, 2005
http://www.exopolitics.org
drsalla@exopolitics.org