Much has been written lately about in the press lately such as at how
civilian firms are seeking the rights to launch civilian vehicles.
Uncle Sam ( the US government) won't take that sitting down. Neither will other
countries like the UK that have their satellites up there, too.
They will not be getting space rights anytime soon - and here's why
in just one complex word: surveillance.
Our low earth orbit is bristling with a number of satellites used for electronic
surveillance. These satellites in low orbit must move very fast to sustain the
orbit. In fact, they travel about 14,000 MPH like the shuttle does to stay in
orbit. And this is just about the same height that civilian spacecraft would be
aiming for, too. Something like a "sweet spot" in space. A space vehicle
that is only briefly in space to travel from one continent to another will not
need to fly that high. But if one is to orbit the planet even just one time for
whatever reason this is required. Various spacecraft are assigned to various orbits
to prevent collisions. However, some of the huge antennas can easily be observed
from other orbits. Some are as large as a football field.
BEACONS IN YOUR POCKET
So what is uncle listening for? That key chain transmitter you use to unlock your
car that only works about 50ft. away? An orbiting bird can see that like a blinding
beacon of light, and it tells them exactly where you are on earth. Your cell phone?
You might not get enough bars for it to work if you're too far from a cell tower
- but an NSA spy satellite can easily pick that up, too. Bugs/trackers in homes,
tracking devices in/on cars and on people all act as bright beacons from obit.
Including that innocent looking Northstar in your vehicle - the government has
already admitted they can silently activate the microphone whenever they want.
And any cell phone since the late 90's has tracking already built in. The big
myth is that the phone needs to turned on for it to work. You might recall new,
tighter RF emissions regulations were instituted by the FCC to shield computers,
cables, printers, monitors etc...,even though no one was complaining about computer
interference? Guess who benefited the most from that so surveillance could work
better? One look inside one of the newer computers compared to an older model
even from the 90's, will reveal new metal fingered gaskets, shields and grounding
that older models never had.
So how is surveillance accomplished from 200 miles up? Most basic principles with
radio energy also apply to light. The energy from a key chain transmitter, cordless
phone or cell phone falls off with the square of the distance just as a flashlight
does. So how can tiny, microwatt RF signals be detected from orbit? These satellites
employ giant antennas as mentioned previously. Radio astronomers can pick up tiny,
faint objects millions of light years away with dish antennas hundreds of feet
across. Huge satellite antennas focus as much energy as possible to raise the
signal from your cell phone, cordless phone or key chain transmitter (or any other
RF device) to a level high enough for detection. Any antenna is basically an almost
noise-free amplifier that simply requires size to work instead of electrical power.
The bigger the antenna, the better. These antennas can be an acre or more in size
and unfold after the satellite is in space. When NASA has launches one of these
orbiting listening posts, the launch is classified and absolutely no video on
their contract channel is ever aired.
SMILE FOR UNCLE
But that's not all that's up there. Optical surveillance is also present from
on high. Remember that 800mm telephoto lens on a 35mm camera? Now just imagine
that same lens standing about three stories tall - with a small box attached to
it which is the electronic portion of the satellite. Orwell never imagined this
was possible or most likely it would have been in his book. This is the kind of
magnification required to clearly see someone's face from 200 miles away. Even
Hubble isn't designed to do that. These giant orbiting eyes are being replaced
with far smaller satellites, but they can accomplish the same task.
HOW OLD IS THIS TECHNOLOGY WE ARE JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT?
The technology is far older than most people think, and it PRE-DATES video cameras
by decades by using film. This won't settle well with those who claim that a deadly
belt of radiation surrounds the earth which no astronauts could ever penetrate.
The earth's magnetic field concentrates this lethal radiation at the north and
south poles, but not all around the earth. Neither the shuttle or the space station
will ever pass over the earth's poles for this reason.
A late friend of mine who worked at Kodak back in the 1950's explained to me what
technology they had at the time, and what it could see. In those days, video cameras
were massive and studio-sized and consumed several hundred watts and impractical
to orbit. Film was actually used instead of video. After enough pictures were
taken, the film from the roll was chopped off by a mechanism, loaded into a cassette
and ejected. It slowly fell to earth and a parachute was deployed. A B52 or similar
plane with large fork on the front would grab the cassette in mid-air, preventing
anyone on the ground from intercepting it. The film was examined after developing.
Here is what this man witnessed during some early tests of the first satellite.
He also worked on the Manhattan project (of which he would say nothing about.)
"On the first orbital pass a man was mowing his lawn in the backyard. On
the second pass over this same land, the mower was sitting in his backyard and
he had apparently was inside the house. He left a pack of Lucky Strikes cigarettes
on top of a trash can."
THE JOKE ABOUT SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE
Private surveillance companies today boast of 1 meter resolution, which means
they can detect an object at least 38 inches across. It's a fact that In the 1950s,
the first military satellites could detect an object about 2" across. Just
imagine what images available today more than 50 years later. We were shown satellite
images during the first Gulf War that looked like they were taken by a pocket
camera from a jetliner window at 30,000ft. This was a big joke. The movie "Patriot
Games" wowed the public by barely being able to make out someone's face in
the desert. The real technology is clearly magnitudes far better than portrayed
in the movie. If you go outside when a satellite is overhead looking down at you
and "flip them the bird" - not only will they see that middle finger,
but they will also see the individual hairs on your head, thanks to adaptive optics
technology. (See  for more about that.) What's ridiculous about this entire
lie of showing the public blurry, distant pictures is this: EVERY country in the
world knows about this technology. All of them. So why bother to lie to the public?
Perhaps because John Q. Public will quickly realize that this technology can be
used on HIM, too.
For the reader the overall picture is now very clear - uncle doesn't want ANYONE
to see his orbiting toys. Shuttle and space station video IS ALWAYS CENSORED contrary
to what the public may believe. This is another reason NASA doesn't want "un-cleared"
civilians to ride the shuttle - they will see the huge antenna arrays orbiting
as they fly by at slightly different speeds. I have received considerable hate
mail from people like Oberg that will swear up and down that NASA isn't part of
the DoD. Perhaps not "officially" in the public eye - however they function
that way internally. Complete with various levels of security clearances, too.
They were highly instrumental in helping to develop top-secret NSA surveillance
satellites in the first place, and send them into orbit.
Is it any wonder that NASA doesn't want civilians in orbit? No one is supposed
to know about the special toys uncle has in his sandbox - and no one else can
play with them, either.
NASA has another office few have heard about, which has visited my website several
times since my Mars book came out last fall at www.data4science.net/book. The
office is known as "The Office of the Chief Information Officer." Clearly
my book on Mars has struck a nerve - but they cannot stuff that genie back into
the bottle. It's long past time the public knew we aren't alone here. We are supposed
to believe there is no other race "out there" to help us in the event
the government gets out of control (which it has already.) People that have been
abducted imagine it, and need psychiatric help. What other reasons could exist
to keep lies going, other than to keep certain religious dogma in place?
The censorship I've noticed in rover images from Mars in recent months makes it
clear they won't allow other images of artifacts to escape again. We are supposed
to continue to *think* we are all alone in the solar system, and always have been.
Even though my book provides concrete proof life has been on Mars.