More on the Secret Space Program Attendees

Hi folks,

Full disclosure: I just got a half dozen ‘You Received a Payment’ email notices from PayPal (each being a $3.25 ‘gas money’ donation) all lined up in my Inbox and was overcome by enough guilt that — notwithstanding my current state of mind (more in a bit) — I’d either have to write an apology to each donator (around 60 or so in total) or somehow come up with a post…

More full disclosure: I actually have a lot more to say than it seems, based on the lag between posts, which lag is based upon a general state of discouragement regarding the subject matter I’m supposed to be writing about (an analysis of the attendees of the Secret Space Program conference), figuring why they don’t answer simple – though to me extremely relevant – questions regarding subject matters that they say they are consumed by; matters that indeed regard the very survival of our species…

And when I do hear from them, I get bullshit… [imagine by blood pressure rising]… bullshit from the likes of Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, who considers me the lowest form of human for quoting him on a matter of science…

By the way, here’s another beaut from Farrell, repeated over and over in his multifarious books on the origin of civilization, of life itself, and his cosmic war hypothesis: If the ‘giant’ and ‘watery’ planet that once inhabited the orbit of the current asteroid belt exploded in the distant past, the water very wellmight have wound up as the oceans on Mars and Earth – in other words, the water migrated though millions of miles of the vacuum of space to fall on more inner globes; according to Doc F such explosion might even account for the biblical (plus other mythologies) ‘deluge.’

When I first came across this one (in The Cosmic War) I believe I just sighed and moved on – excusing Farrell for this grade-school level physics gaffe based on my interest in his imaginative theories and the voluminous research upon which they are based. But then he repeated it later in the book and then again in another tome (I forget which one), and given that this beaut is always accompanied by (usually in the same paragraph) his backasswards supposition that planets larger than earth would necessarily have stronger gravity — which would therefore account for the ‘giants’ of biblical (and etc.) mention — I can’t help but bring it up, if only in the context of his refusal to deal with NASA’s transparent frauds. (See my post on this. And this one too.)

The idea that that the explosion of a planet could somehow end up the equivalent of your buddy playfully sloshing you with a bucket of water from across the driveway is maybe the best example yet of ‘how could someone that smart be that dumb?’

FFI (For Farrell’s Information): Water will instantly evaporate – technically, ‘boil away’ — in the vacuum of space, then the gas molecules will freeze into a cloud and expand with the momentum of the explosion until the cloud would be dispersed across tens of millions of cubic miles of space before it could possibly reach another planet’s orbit – in the case of earth (its oceans), two planets’ orbits.

What really bothers me is that these Physics 101 errors could be repeated in a book after the first one, if you get my drift. (In other words, why didn’t someone tell him about the dumb-ass mistakes — and if someone did, WHY DID HE REPEAT THEM???) 

If my YELLING is annoying, try reading Joseph P. Farrell! I have never seen anyone misuse the VARIOUS typolographical means of EMPHASIS to the extent Farrell does. I’ve seen him use italics, bold, and CAPS (plus exclamation mark!) in the same block of text! This akin to the apocryphal college roommate who underlines everything in the textbooks (which means that nothing is particularly important).

Goddammit. If, in spite of his dumb-ass shit, Farrell wasn’t worth reading I wouldn’t get so aggravated, and certainly wouldn’t take up your time in pointing out all this crap. Read him, but stay alert!

Okay. All right. Gimme a minute to calm down…

Catherine Austin Fitts. No she didn’t answer my simple NASA-question either, and it still pisses me off. For the record, here’s my email to Ms Fitts (edited strictly for brevity):

Dear Ms Fitts,

(Intro and pleasantries cut)

If there is indeed a SSP which has – possibly for decades – enabled travel within the solar system (and possibly beyond), why would NASA spend tens of billions on any given space program when they can fake it for the price of a feature film? (This also eliminates the possibility of an embarrassing disaster.)

As obvious as this question is, I’ve never heard it dealt with by any SSP researcher.

I’d much appreciate your thoughts on the above matter, especially given the cancellation of the Q & A at the conference. Again, my reason for attending the conference was to ask this question.

Allan Weisbecker

Your time being precious I’ll first send you to a short video you should find of interest. It’s clips of astronauts claiming that one cannot see stars in space and that the sky is ‘black, the most frightening black you can imagine’ – utterly absurd as I’m sure you’ll agree. Why such a ludicrous lie would be perpetrated for over half a century is closely related to the above question (which I really hope you will respond to!).

Ms Fitts replied with a thoughtful and very friendly email, which, again, I’m editing only for space considerations. Problem is, she never dealt with my question:

Allan:

(Three paragraphs cut)

As I said on the panel on the last evening, I don’t know what the truth is of a SSP. I can envision many reasons why NASA would be happening on a different but parallel track – so that does not strike me as odd or unusual. The two parallel models is happening across many sectors – energy sector is the largest example. [I hope you’ll agree that this is an outright dodge of my query.]

I have never tried to figure out the truth of the moon landings. I suspect that Jay Weidner’s DVD on the subject is the logical explanation. It happened but the Joint Chiefs had Kubrick make a film to show. [See my note below…]

 I am not a SSP researcher. [Then what was she doing at a SSP conference?] My focus is money – which touches on everything on and off planet- including SSP. [So I guess she is a SSP researcher.] It is why I try to identify the best in any given field and try to rely on their analysis as I do not have the capacity to repeat the due diligence in any area. [So? This is the essence of any multi-disciplinary research…]

[I cut quite a bit here. Ms Fitts watched Water Time and was very complimentary… very, very, nice of her. But she didn’t even deal with my question, let alone answer it. So skip down to my reply to her reply…]

Keep up the good work….

Best regards,

Catherine

Here’s my reply:

Hi Catherine,

[Several paragraphs cut]

Regarding the Apollo missions fraud, you mention Jay Weidner. I’ve been in touch with him, partially to congratulate him on his Kubrick work. But for him to say that ‘we faked it but we went’ (as you do) is misleading (not purposefully so!). If you are referring to the SSP, fine, I agree, but a SSP to the moon would be unrelated to the supposed NASA Apollo missions. Or are you saying that they actually did go with chem rockets but at a different time? When did they actually go? What evidence is there?

It’s illogical. It really is. Ask yourself what you really mean when you say ‘They faked Apollo but really did go.’

Recently I came across an analysis of the Apollo imagery in Aulis.com, proving that the mountainous backgrounds in the moon pictures (vid and still) are on a screen 100 or so meters from the camera, not miles away as they ‘should be’. Quite a brilliant parallax analysis by a Russian PhD, who hadn’t even heard of Weidner’s front screen theory. Worth a look when you’re in the mood.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

I knew that this was vital info for Weidner, so I sent him the link.

Weidner immediately writes a piece for Veterans Today, pointing out that the Aulis.com piece is ‘spectacular confirmation’ of his front screen theory. Which is absolutely true. Multi-disciplinary and empirically inarguable and so forth. I mention this partly because you should understand that there is now no doubt that front screen was used in Apollo, almost certainly by Kubrick. Kudos for Weidner, but again, the ‘faked it and went’ ‘middle ground’ isn’t logical.

I think I sent you this proof that they’ve been faking the Mars imagery (shades of Apollo).

Catherine, there is a goddamn rodent in one of those NASA ‘Mars’ photos! All five of those photos were taken on earth. Are the rest from Mars? 😉

From your point of view as a financial whiz: What are they doing with the hundreds of billions they claimed they used for the Mars missions (plus Apollo and god knows what)? Keep in mind they know all they need to (science, ET stuff, etc) about Mars via SSP missions. So, one more time, why would they spend the money on a chem rocket ‘mission’?

Spend hundreds of billions or fake it for a few million and ‘keep’ the balance (for use in ‘black’ ops like the SSP!).

So I suppose I’m asking again. (You actually did not answer my question in the previous email — neither did any of the other SSP speakers. The four that responded avoided the issue as well. This is why I went to the conference. Then no Q and A.)

Keep up the great work.

Allan W

I never got an answer to the above. The upsetting aspect to this is that Fitts is truly an authority on black budget ops. Of all the folks on my SSP list, she is at the top as someone who should have responded. (The point of my NASA frauds hypothesis is that it’s done principally for the money. Money being Ms. Fitts’s area of expertise.)

What does this mean? I realize that the long gaps between my posts may make it tough to get my point – and I truly apologize for that – but there is something really wrong here. 

As I say up top, I am getting more and more discouraged with the ‘research community.’ If Ms. Fitts were the only one of the dozen or so (if you include the ‘Dark Journalist,’ who also did not respond) non-responders, I’d shrug it off.

Plus, as you’ll see below, Ms. Fitts also did not respond to my hypothesis that a mind control weapon of some sort was used on us on 9/11 – I alerted Ms. Fitts (in particular) to this data because – based on articles and podcasts she’s done – she is very aware of the government’s use of entrainment (mind control) technology on the masses.

If I ever do finish this series I’ll sum up my view on what this all means – I’m in fact still mulling…

 

The following is a P.S. to my above unanswered email to Ms. Fitts. I’m hoping you’ll find it interesting in its own right, apart from the matter at hand.

P.S. You mention entrainment in your email (plus I’ve heard you discuss it at length in a podcast). I suspect you’d be interested in something I stumbled upon, a research paper by a Richard Shoup. I’ll attach the info in the form of a letter to Shoup and some documents, but to oversimplify for the moment: In a robust study Shoup found that a widely separated (geographically) group of people were affected in their ability to demonstrate ‘precognition’ around the time of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The statistical ‘dip’ in ‘guessing right’ commenced several hours before the onset of the carnage; this of course is key. I’ll quote from page 14 of Shoup’s paper (the graph on that page is important).

 

…it seems that that two weeks before 9/11, subjects participating in the Card Test suddenly became quite poor at guessing cards, selecting incorrect cards far more often than chance would predict. Remarkably, almost immediately following the key date of 9/11, performance vastly improved for a time, and then returned to varying randomly in seeming accordance with expected probabilities. If it is assumed that results during this highly unusual period are somehow related to the tragic events of September 11, 2001 , then they are precognitive by several weeks, and constitute evidence for retrocausal influence on this experimental task completely unintended by anyone.

 

[Back to my email to Ms. Fitts]

Shoup’s assumption that the statistical anomaly is related to ‘retrocausal influence’ does not take into account the possibility that the variance from chance may have been directly related to the attacks themselves – some sort of mind control effect relating to the perpetrators’ desire to affect the (world-wide?) response to the attacks, possibly via the use of HAARP (or a similar device) to carry this out. That the ‘mind effect’ (if any) was ‘negative’ (poor guessing success) may be an ‘artifact’ of the intended effect – say, that people believe what they are told about the provenance of the attacks through a heightened fear response.

I wouldn’t bring this up except my impression is that your are very aware of the entrainment phenomenon and very concerned about it. Me too. (Have you read Nick Begich’s Controlling the Human Mind? Whoa.)

I suspect you understand actuarials/statistical probabilities. That the gross statistical dip started before the attacks means that – to blurt it out — it’s statistically impossible that the effect was unrelated to 9/11 (check the numbers). It really looks like they put a zap on our heads during 9/11. Which means that this method of mind control is likely ongoing. (I wrote Shoup to find out the demographics of the people affected – an important detail – but did not hear back.)

 Anyway, see attached if you’re interested.

By the way, here’s my first drone night flight…

Okay. Obviously, this is a completely separate matter, but I hope you’ll find it of some interest. You should keep in mind that in terms of actuarial science, there is little if any doubt that the statistical dip is somehow related to 9/11 (see note). Shoup’s hypothesis that the anomaly reflected retrocausal factors (cause and effect going ‘backwards’) assumes that a world shaking event directly affects ‘paranormal’ abilities (clairvoyance, etc.) – according to his studies, there is some evidence that this is the case. However, keeping old Occam in mind, it seems more likely that the cause is more ‘direct,’ i.e., via the sort of entrainment that we already know exists and is used by TPTB.

[Note: Shoup’s study has been ongoing for over a decade and has never seen a statistical dip as robust as the one associated with 9/11.]

I did contact Richard Shoup and – in retrospect, unsurprisingly – he never got back.

Here’s my letter to him (pardon the redundancies):

Dear Mister Shoup,

A while back I came across your paper, ‘Empirical Pictures of Time’ and have since read ‘Anomalies and Constraints…’ and I very much enjoyed both — it is an aspect of the former I want to comment upon, specifically the statistical anomalies regarding the events of September 11, 2001 you uncovered.

[shortened here]

I will also assume you are at least vaguely aware of the National Security State’s interest in, and technological progress with, mind control, both on the ‘micro’ level (individual ‘Manchurian Candidates, etc.) and ‘macro’ level – the use of Radio Frequency devices (especially in the ELF range) to alter the mood, behavior and even thoughts of ‘the masses.’ You may be familiar with the HAARP array and its capabilities. If not, I recommend the writings of Doctor Nick Begich, both Angels Don’t Play This Haarp and Controlling the Human Mind; The Technologies of Political Control or Tools for Peak Performance. 

To sum up the point of Doctor Begich’s research: The HAARP array (or other such devices) is – and has been for some time – completely capable of altering the consciousness of large masses of people; possibly even world wide.

Please assume, for our purposes here, that this is true. Please also assume that the connection I will posit is not meant to reflect on the validity of your retrocausal theories; for what it’s worth, I find them fascinating and definitely worth serious research. The following is only meant as a possible explanation for the 9/11 anomalies (although I will only deal with the ‘card guessing’ one; the RNG anomaly is another matter, and less explainable via the possible connection I will outline).

You may be ahead of me here, but to sum up: Your hypothesis that the (card guessing) statistical anomaly is related to retrocausal influence does not take into account the possibility that the variance from chance may have been directly related to the attacks themselves – some sort of mind control effect relating to the perpetrators’ desire to affect the (world-wide?) response to the attacks, possibly via the use of HAARP (or a similar device) to carry this out. That the ‘mind effect’ was ‘negative’ (poor guessing success) may be an ‘artifact’ of the intended effect – say, that people believe what they are told about the provenance of the attacks, possibly via heightened fear. (A general state of confusion might have this effect also.)

If this seems far-fetched, I would ask you to do what I have: put yourself in the place of the perpetrators. (Again, I assume you know it was ‘an inside job’; I also assume you are aware to the mass mind control capabilities of HAARP.) Given the absurdity of the official account, would you not do everything possible to affect the (global?) response to it? Even if only to create more fear and suggestibility? (Again, see Begich’s impeccably sourced work on these matters; there is zero doubt that ‘they’ are capable of creating these emotional states over large geographical areas.)

A related matter: Is it possible to access the general location of test subjects? If so, this might be evidence for or against my hypothesis – if, say, North Americans were especially susceptible to ‘bad guessing’, how would you explain this, other than some outside, ‘physical’ influence (like RF entrainment diddling with the mass’s minds)?

One last thought: as a scientist coming across the statistical anomaly you have, should you not consider any plausible ‘outside’ cause? Is the possibility I posit not plausible? Perhaps it might take some added research on your part to decide this…

I’d most value your thoughts on the above possibility, even if they are of the ‘You have your head up your butt, Allan,’ variety.

Respectfully,

Allan Weisbecker

#

If anyone wants access to Shoup’s paper, contact me via allan@banditobooks.com and I’ll send it. I assume a scientific paper of this sort is in the public domain. (If Mr. Shoup is reading this and would prefer that I keep it private, let me know and I will.)

Okay, folks that’s it for now, except to say that I appreciate it that so few of you have canceled your $3.25 monthly donation. It’s encouraging that you’re hanging in with me – I’m not 100% these days and am not writing the way I used to – waking up in the morning raring to go, etc. Something is not right. I’m hoping I’ll snap out of it.

Allan