I came across a screenshot that made me smile, if wistfully, and thought we’d take a quick moment to contemplate it before moving on with my Secret Space Program ‘speakers analysis.’ (Sorry for my tardiness in getting back to you within a week – as an assurance that nothing ‘bad’ happened as a result of my last post. So far so good…)
It’s a page from a book called Off The Grid by a Brit names Nick Rosen, and it actually says a lot while seemingly not saying much.
To fully appreciate Nick’s view of me you should take a look at a radio interview (I added visuals) I did a few years ago and which includes the conversation with Nick referred to in his book. (Go about a minute in for my reference to Rosen’s book.)
What I would ask is that you imagine watching the video with Rosen sitting beside you and reacting to it, explaining why his take on me is ‘right’ — and how his being a ‘big fan of Orwell’ is not ironic in the least. In fact, I’ve changed the title of this post from ‘Spreading Unease’ to ‘A Big Fan Of Orwell’ in order to call attention to this irony.
There is of course some truth in the underlined phrase from Rosen’s book (notwithstanding the misplaced pronoun, ‘they,’ which should be a singular ‘he’ since it refers to ‘one.’) I do indeed ‘spread unease’ (although not wherever I go). But in his denigration perhaps Nick forgets that Orwell, with several of his books but especially with 1984, was/is a spreader of unease par excellence; would that I could even approach him here.
I bring this up to alert you to a phenomenon that over the years I’ve come to see as a law of human behavior, if an inverse one:
The level of insight/ability as a critical thinker is inversely proportional to the level of verbal assurance of being ‘a big fan of Orwell.’
(Simply put, exceptions to Orwell’s Law can be found in those who, due to true self-reflection, are aware of it.)
The best example of this phenomenon can be found in the personage/writings of Christopher Hitchens (RIP), who was such ‘a big fan of Orwell’ that he wrote a book on it, with the supremely ironic title of Why Orwell Matters. As I write regarding Orwell’s last book, 1984, in my essay, ‘Orwell’s Optimism’…
Nowhere in his final masterwork does Orwell in the least bit accept the ruling elite’s stated rationale for waging war. War, he writes, is an ‘imposture.’ As Orwell composed this evaluation of the most important subject of our times, his life was nearing its end, and he knew it. I think it safe to assume: Based on his life experience, this is how George Orwell perceived war – wars are never fought for the reasons given by the ruling class.
Nowhere in Why Orwell Matters does Hitchens deal with his intellectual idol’s virtual deathbed summation of man’s most meaningful if annihilative enterprise. How could this be?
Because Hitchens completely bought the ‘War on Terror’ as advertised, along with the official account of it’s claimed instigation, i.e., 9/11. So he simply… forgot to mention the subject. Erased it from his intellect/system of thought.
Similarly – to get back to the subject of these essays — the speakers at the Secret Space Program (SSP) conference, it appears, have erased from their systems of thought the subjects of NASA frauds and, indeed, the massive fraud that is mainstream/relativistic/big bang physics.
One of those speakers was John Brandenburg, Ph.D., a literal ‘rocket scientist’:
Brandenburg got his BA in Physics from Southern Oregon University in Ashland, Oregon, his MS in Applied Science at University of California at Davis and his Ph.D. in Theoretical Plasma Physics at the UC Davis extension campus at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California. The title of his thesis was A Theoretical Model of a Reversed Field Ion Layer Made of Monoenergetic Ions. Its topic was magnetic confinement of plasmas for controlled nuclear fusion.
Brandenburg held positions in a variety of high-tech companies specializing in plasma physics: Mission Research Corporation, Sandia National Laboratories, Research Support Instruments (RSI), The Aerospace Corporation, Florida Space Institute, and Orbital Technologies in Madison, Wisconsin. His work encompassed studies of the microwave electrothermal plasma thruster for space propulsion, rocket plume-regolith interactions on the Moon and Mars, vortex theory of rocket engine design, and Kaluza-Klein theory of field unification for purposes of space propulsion. As of 2015 he was situated at Morningstar Applied Physics in Vienna.
That thermonuclear war
Analyzing data from the 2001 Mars Odyssey orbiter, which carried a gamma ray spectrometer, Brandenburg observed a local concentration of radioactive uranium, thorium and potassium in two specific areas on Mars. His first idea was that there was at least one natural nuclear reactor on Mars, analogous to the one discovered in Gabon in 1972. At the 2011 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference he published a poster on these findings.
Later, he proposed that the elevated ratio of 129Xenon to 132Xenon in the atmosphere of Mars could only be explained as the aftersignature of a nuclear weapon. He suggests that massive explosions occurred in in Mare Acidalium at approximately 50°N 30°W,near Cydonia Mensa and in Utopia Planum at approximately 50°N 120°W near Galaxias Chaos, claiming they are both locations of possible archaeological artifacts. In December 2014 he also wrote:
Vitrified soil, etched with acid, has been found at the sites of both hypothetical explosions, but nowhere else on Mars. This mineral resembles “trinitite”, the melt glass found at the site of nuclear explosions. So I consider my hypothesis is being supported by new data.
Although the above is from Rational Wiki and is therefore suspect (to say the least), it’s close enough to the reality of Brandenburg and his hypothesis for our purposes.
I’ll paste in our correspondence, which, I hope, will be of interest for its inherent information – plus further evidence that something is amiss with the SSP hypothesis, or at least with some of the speakers. Those of you not interested in the history of mankind and in the current frauds being foisted upon us by the mainstream (plus much of the alt media) will not find this post of much interest.
Feel free to skip down past stuff you already know and/or videos you’ve seen. Sorry for the redundancies but for new folks (or those not paying much attention), much of what follows will bring you up to speed…
[I’ve deleted my intro paragraphs]
I read Death on Mars in the couple days before the conference. What I do when controversial information has a profound effect on me is to immediately see what ‘debunkers’ have to say, especially in matters of science.
Your book caused me a loss of sleep, especially after my ‘debunk check,’ which told me that your thesis is correct, and also the lengths to which mainstream science will go to keep a lid on it (that they would tell you to ‘publish’ and then deny your thesis is evidence that there are conflicting agendas at work).
[You can skip the following two paragraphs, in which I support Brandenburg’s data and conclusions, based on researching debunkers]
FYI (although I suspect you are aware of this), the best the ‘science’ bloggers could do was to ridicule your poster hanging aplomb and continually remind us that you drink beer. You’re likewise probably familiar with the podcaster who claimed, ‘I could not find’ any connection between Xenon 129 and nuclear weapon detonation. (The phraseology here being significant.) This of course is the crux of your thesis, so I did some further googling. I am attaching two of the references I quickly found, for your convenience; I don’t know if you’ve referenced these works; they might come in handy, in a preemptive way (if possible, don’t give them a chance to lie about you).
I have a couple issues that I hope you’ll consider, having to do with NASA. I know I will not change your ingrained views with an email but I hope you’ll see fit to look into these matters, as they have profound implications vis a vis your Mars work.
I would ask you to view the addendum to my 12 minute video, ‘Why Are the Astronauts (still) Lying?’ All you need watch is the first 60 seconds – the rest is a demonstration (not proof) of something you, Doctor Brandenburg, know very well, i.e., that of course you can see stars from above the atmosphere. (That NASA spent tens of billions on the Hubble tells us that not only are stars visible up there, but they are exponentially brighter and clearer. As a professional photographer I would posit that stars are eminently photographable from space.)
The main video (about 12 minutes) is more than a dozen other astronauts repeating the same absurdity as in the addendum, including recent ISS/shuttle astronauts. I would hope your curiosity was aroused by the addendum. [Many of you have already seen this.]
I hope you agree that for these men – presumably with ‘The Right Stuff’ – to tell a lie of this magnitude and of such profound implications and over a time span of a half century can only be a result of severe intimidation/manipulation.
The question of course is Why? Taking into consideration factors not dealt with here, the only answer: In presenting fraudulent space imagery, an accurate star field in the background would be too difficult to pull off. This was known from the very beginning, so the decision was made to claim that stars ‘are too dim’ to register photographically. By misdirection – mixing the subjects of photographs and astronauts’ actual views – they have even gotten away with the absurd and transparent lie demonstrated in my videos. Significantly, popular culture has of late is contributing to the perpetuation of this horrendous deceit, two recent examples being the movies Interstellar and Gravity, both of which display flat black backgrounds (rather than a star field) in their ‘space’ imagery. That top line directors would sacrifice the visual impact of their films to further a NASA lie is a measure of depth of the mind control we are all subject to.
The fact that (I assume) you (literally a ‘rocket scientist’) have not noticed any of this is proof of the effectiveness of this mind control (is there any other term for it?).
I’m pointing this out in the context of your book Death on Mars – which, again, resulted in a sleepless night – because of the implications regarding a possible expedition to discover the underlying facts behind the nuclear genocide that apparently took place so long ago.
But first you have to come to terms with the deception I have exposed in my videos. Absent this, there is no point in going on.
I have thought a lot of this through and would be glad to share with you my observations/deductions. Please let me know.
One more video, this one even more directly applicable to the subject of a Mars expedition. It’s short and I apologize for the rawness of it. I originally posted it for a colleague, mathematician Steve Crothers.
I checked the NASA portfolio and indeed these photos are there (I’ve attached one), the implication being that we have again been subjected to faked NASA images. The obvious question: Why would they fake images of Mars if the missions were genuine?
I realize that I’m in effect asking you to change your whole view of – at the very least – NASA and its ‘missions.’ Actually, I’m only asking that you look into these issues yourself and ‘follow the evidence’ where it leads.
I have other issues that I’d like to discuss, but the above is enough for now (to say the least).
I really hope to hear from you. My experience in this sort of situation has been discouraging, i.e., a deafening silence and never a refutation. Perhaps you’ll be an exception.
[If the above evidence doesn’t get you thinking… something is amiss…]
One more thing and I’ve leave you be. I really enjoyed your THC [The Higherside Chats] talk. Of great interest was the stuff on Interstellar, the movie. A friend of mine, mathematician Steve Crothers was asked by the folks at Electric Universe (thunderbolts.info, which I highly recommend) to do an analyzation of the science in Interstellar.
Rather than send you to that link (which has gotten over 80k hits) I’ll send you to a talk he gave at the 2nd Rational Physics Conference in Austria last year. If you just watch the first couple minutes (an interview w Steve), I’m hoping you’ll watch the rest.
Steve shows that not only is big bang/black hole/general relatively utter bunk and utterly impossible but does so in ways that transcend math (I’m a dunce at it).
Not only bunk, but transparently so. This to me is the staggering aspect of it.
Assume for a moment that the science in Interstellar IS pure bunk. Considering that this ‘science’ is now taken as ‘fact’ and is in the mainstream (bunk in the mainstream, what a concept!), I would think that you’d see the implications, given your expertise re H-wood (etc).
If Steve (and others) is right about this, the implications really are quite staggering, given the gang of gatekeepers and the multitude of mainstream scientists who believe it (remember, I am claiming that the bunkness – bunkality? – of it is utterly transparent, even to a non-scientist. All you need is a modicum of critical thinking.)
If the big bang/black hole/einstein stuff is now part of your worldview, it’s possible, even likely, that you will not change your mind, no matter the power of the proofs. (Since we don’t know each other, please do not take this as an insult.) I mean, given your public support of it (THC, say), etc.
So please do me a favor. In the event that Steve’s presentation (plus other research you might do to verify it) causes you to understand the magnitude of the deception here, shoot me a quick email.
It would be encouraging…. (If I didn’t perceive you as a very smart fellow, I wouldn’t have taken the time…)
Here’s the link (all I’m asking is give it 2 mintues):
Here’s Doctor Brandenburg’s reply. The stuff not in bold is meaningless misdirection, i.e., has nothing to do with my questions or observations…
Glad you liked my talk and book , sorry it made you lose sleep.
Since I have based my whole hypothesis on the idea that we a really receiving data from Mars , I reject the idea that all the Mars data may be faked . Why would the government even bother? Why not just end all Mars research and focus on somewhere else? Europa for instance.
On the other hand if this is all real Mars data then I am sure you agree this is a serious matter. As for the the various critics i have attracted around the web , I have challenged two of them to debate on various radio shows and they have declined. Nuff said.
Xenon 129 is apparently part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation atmospheric monitoring program , that is, the government monitors it to track other governments nuclear activities, therefore they don’t publish its connection to nuclear weapons. The fact that nuclear weapons testing is the biggest open air nuclear energy release since 1945 and that the fact that xenon 129 has risen in our atmosphere by 10% since 1945 makes it obvious that the two are cause-and-effect, other nuclear data also makes this connection clear. I have posted some of it on my websitehttp://lifeonmars.pub/
So I am preparing to publish more nuclear data to reinforce my arguments.
Soory i can’t talk longer, I have a cold.
My view of the emphasized passage above is the following (from my 11/17 email):
…there are more logical fallacies than I care to actually count. Plus, of course, you didn’t deal with anything I presented in my email – keeping in mind that I agreed with your Mars hypothesis and did not claim that any NASA Mars data was false. That they are presenting fraudulent images (plus the absurd ‘can’t see stars’ issue) does not mean they haven’t been to Mars. This was all in clear subtext in my message. [What Brandenburg is saying is this: ‘Your evidence can’t be correct since if it was I would be upset.’]
Here’s my immediate reply to his reply:
Over a decade ago I gave up a successful career as screen and mainstream book writer to research how the world really works (HTWRW), and maybe contribute something along the way. Although I have learned a lot (mostly about human nature), as I related in my email my experiences have been largely discouraging. When I supply evidence counter to someone’s belief system they either ignore it or ‘doublethink’ their way around it. I don’t know why, but I’m always surprised, as I’m sure you have been at fellow researchers’ reaction to your Mars hypothesis. [One has to wonder if Brandenburg sensed my sarcasm…]
But still, we have to press on, right?
Being a plasma physicist you are no doubt familiar with Anthony Peratt’s work. I refer especially to his later work with plasma instabilities and petroglyphs – the world-wide phenomenon of ‘the squatter man’ image and how it implies that the solar system may have gone through a major shakeup within the memory of man; that Mars (maybe plus other planets) may have made a very close ‘pass’ at the earth, resulting in electrical arcing between the two planets, which would have resulted in the sort of doomsday catastrophe that seems to be etched in our very DNA (could Valles Marineris have been created any other way)?
Couldn’t this have been the mechanism by which Mars lost its atmosphere/earth-like climate? (Speaking of Valles Marineris, a detail: How could many separate ancient cultures brand Mars as ‘Scarface’ – obviously referring to that huge, jagged disfigurement – absent a close up view of the planet?)
Perhaps you’re also familiar with Peratt’s NASA colleagues’ extreme reactions to his ‘electric universe’ work, how it may have even contributed to his heart condition. Which begs the question, Why is NASA so bent on keeping the secrets of HTWRW from us ‘useless eaters’? (I mean: you can’t see stars while in space? Pu-lease!)
Doctor Brandenburg did not reply to the above either so I gave it one more try:
I’ll give it one more shot. As I say, one must press on; I haven’t given up on you quite yet.
You were obviously hurried (or harried) in your reply to my first email, given that in your lead…
‘Since I have based my whole hypothesis on the idea that we a really receiving data from Mars , I reject the idea that all the Mars data may be faked . Why would the government even bother? Why not just end all Mars research and focus on somewhere else? Europa for instance….
…there are more logical fallacies than I care to actually count. Plus, of course, you didn’t deal with anything I presented in my email – keeping in mind that I agreed with your Mars hypothesis and did not claim that any NASA Mars data was false. That they are presenting fraudulent images (plus the absurd ‘can’t see stars’ issue) does not mean they haven’t been to Mars. This was all in clear subtext in my message.
But let’s forget NASA’s shenanigans. Never mind.
I assume that you haven’t mentioned the possibility that the perpetrators of the Mars genocide were earthbound creatures because of the ‘history of man’ you are familiar with. This is understandable, but for an ‘out of box’ thinker like yourself (more or less, anyway), you should at least be aware of some of the shortcomings (a major understatement) of that history.
[The following observation has never been dealt with by Brandenburg, who posits that the perpetrators of the Mars holocaust were from some ‘distant’ star system. That my theory is not mentioned in his book or any of his interviews/papers shows how mired his thinking really is (notwithstanding his ‘out of the box’ Mars holocaust thesis.]
A question: Wouldn’t our friend Occam agree that the ‘situation’ that led to Mars’s nuclear holocaust might have been confined to this solar system? Specifically, ‘Earthlings’ as perpetrators? (Given that intelligent life on any ‘Sun’ planet other than Earth or Mars is so highly unlikely.)
What motive for such a crime could (in any stretch) be attributed to some race from a distant star system? Really hard to come up with one, isn’t it? Not to mention the travel problems in even getting ‘here’. Plus, by your own reckoning, the Mars race was way short of radio technology, so how did ‘they’ even know to come ‘here’?
You’re thinking, But a quarter or more billion years ago there was no intelligent life on Earth.
Are you so sure of that?
I’ve studied the history of our species and can assure you of a couple things, mainly that said history is shaky in the extreme. First, all the genetic (DNA) dating of mankind’s chronology (mitochondrial Adam & Eve, etc., etc., aka ‘the molecular clock’) is based on the notion that DNA mutation rate has remained substantially the same throughout our evolution.
I’ll not take the time to show you how incorrect this base assumption is (upon which everything depends), but even in the mainstream this has been shown to be utterly false. (Are you actually surprised that this issue doesn’t come up in the textbooks?) Current genetic mutation rates have been shown to significantly vary with a factor as mundane as latitude – right, UV exposure.
That the mainstream is off in its dating by orders of magnitude over the eons of evolution is not only possible but likely. This quote took about two clicks to find:
‘When you assume that the molecular clock assumption is true and that you know the mutation rate per year, you have a lot of power to use DNA sequences to infer historical dates. This is one reason that my finding of mutation rate change in Europeans is significant [another mundane factor]: To some extent, it contradicts an assumption that human geneticists usually take for granted – and that’s important for applying genetics to anthropology.’ [Now think about ‘cosmic’ factors and assure me that they are not ‘off’ by orders of magnitude]
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The above is from one mainstream paper (as you know better than anyone, mainstream papers are loathe to contradict ‘givens’). The number of simple, mundane mutation-causing variables that put a huge question to any of evolutionary anthropology’s chronological assumptions are… numerous, to say the least. (As I said in my first email, all I’m asking is that you look into my observations.)
More important is the work of Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. Their bookForbidden Archaeology (or the shorter version, The Hidden History of the Human Race) will show you, absolutely, that the present version of mankind’s timeline is utterly unsubstantiated and almost certainly false, by orders of magnitude.
They show – with evidence as robust as any you’ll find in mainstream texts – that evidence of an intelligent species (whether homo sapiens or not) goes back hundreds of millions of years on this planet. One artifact (an undeniable one) has been dated at over one billion years.
It would be a great disappointment if you dismissed the above out of hand, without looking into it – given that your current theory presupposes such an unlikely scenario as interstellar psychopaths somehow showing up in our solar system and randomly nuking an innocent planet.
Please look into it (Michael Cremo has Youtube videos).
I really don’t understand why you haven’t (apparently) looked into the Electric Universe — surely you respect Anthony Peratt’s work. There is no conflict with your Mars hypothesis. Can you show that the nukes would have dissolved Mars’s atmosphere? If not, see E.U.’s ‘The Lightning Scarred Planet’ on Youtube, for example.
So much for Doc Brandenburg. That something is seriously amiss with him is quite clear, but whether he is a formal LH (limited hangout) or a UP (unknowing participant) in the fraud that is mainstream science is not clear. We’ll wait until the summation at the end of this series to make that call. Meanwhile, of the list of speakers at the SSP conference…
Catherine Austin Fitts
Jay Dyer (a complex case, as we will see)
Linda Moulton Howe
…we have covered Farrell, Dyer, and Brandenburg. Hang in for Catherine Austin Fitts…