Government Censuring of Alternative Flight Technologies
Dear Jerry, I was just perusing the regulations section of the FAA homepage, and I found something interesting which pertains, I think, to the continued predominance of rocketry for space access. Pay special attention to the last two lines: (c) Preventing launches. The Secretary of Transportation shall establish whether all required licenses, authorizations, and permits required for a payload have been obtained. If no license, authorization, or permit is required, the Secretary may prevent the launch if the Secretary decides the launch would jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, or national security or foreign policy interest of the United States. This is a cut-and-paste direct from their website. Similar language in prior sub-paragraphs applies to cases involving NO payload. They "getcha" either way. Since Townsend Brown's discs were demonstrated to the DOD in 1950---and it was a DOD cameraman who took the films, so I'm told---then it stands to reason that the government has LONG had electro-gravitic propulsion available. I gather they don't want it used in public view.... I have noted some of the things you have to say on this subject. I would point out that it is said that the purpose of "national security" is not to protect the populace from an international threat, but rather to protect the government from the populace. As a corollary, the objective of government secrecy is not to hide information from foreign governments, but rather to keep secrets from the people. If these latter views on "national security" and "government secrecy" are even remotely correct, then their truth (in that case) strongly suggests that the government regards its own people as "the enemy," in which case it is unlikely that the people would ever be granted the freedom to travel to space as easily as hopping in the family car. We therefore can infer an intent on the part of the government, in the form of a vested interest in control over the people, to actively prevent the deployment and use of any technology which would be cheap and widely available for reaching space. It is then no wonder that NASA has no research facilities or projects for anything other than rocketry and jet propulsion. Oh, they do have an informal "Vision 21" group at Nasa/Lewis, headed up by Marc Millis. However, the group gets press through NASA, probably because they are running over the same old tired themes of "tachyons" and "wormholes." That stuff was in my 1959 Weekly Reader back in elementary school. Then there's the Interstellar Propulsion Society. The IPS is a taxpayer- supported 301(c)(3) outfit. Their mainstay is publishing what I call ERSAs, an acronym for "Einstein Rubber-Stamp Articles." An example of an ERSA is as follows:Voila. An ERSA is born. And another. And another. And another and another.... The generic phrase is "spinning your wheels".... The really curious part is how many different subjects there are from which to glean plenty of contra-relativistic data for writing an ERSA in the first place. It makes you wonder.... Perhaps these guys who write this stuff have figured out how to avoid the coming paradigm shift in physics: ERSA the subject to death! Whether it's their plan or not, that's what they're doing. So---the FAA can cut us off at the licensing window, the "scientific community" won't go the route without an ERSA, and the press just follows along, so practically NOBODY knows that the Space Shuttle is REALLY an expensive smoke screen to help the government maintain its chokehold on everything and everybody. Scary stuff. What do you think? Yours truly,
- (a) Begin with some observation which does not square with some aspect of Special or General Relativity.
- (b) Quote Einstein on the subject for a couple of pages or so.
- (c) Conclude that there is "currently no explanation" for the phenomenon.
Mark A. Solis
M-A-SOLIS@worldnet.att.net